The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
MONTHLY LABOh hb'v
U.S. D e p a rtm e n t of L ab o r
B u re a u o f L ab o r S ta tis tic s
S e p te m b e r 1984
In t h i s i s s u e :
L a b o r o r g a n iz a tio n m e r g e r s
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary
Regional Commissioners
for Bureau of Labor Statistics
R egion I— B oston: A n th o n y j . F e rra r a
1 6 0 3 J o h n F K e n n e d y F e d e ra l B u ild in g , G o v e rn m e n t C e n te r
B o s to n , M a s s . 0 2 2 0 3
P h o n e : (6 1 7 ) 2 2 3 - 6 7 6 1
C o n n e c tic u t
M a in e
M a s s a c h u s e tts
N e w H a m p s h ire
R h o d e Is la n d
V e rm o n t
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
J a n e t L. N o rw o o d , Commissioner
T h e M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w is p u b lis h e d b y th e
B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s o f th e U .S . D e p a rtm e n t
o f L a b o r. C o m m u n ic a tio n s o n e d ito ria l m a tte rs
s h o u ld b e a d d re s s e d to th e E d ito r-in -C h ie f,
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s ,
W a s h in g to n , D .C . 2 0 2 1 2 .
P h o n e : (2 0 2 ) 5 2 3 - 1 3 2 7 .
S u b s c rip tio n p ric e p e r y e a r — $ 2 4 d o m e s tic ; $ 3 0 fo re ig n .
S in g le c o p y $ 4 , d o m e s tic : $5 fo re ig n .
S u b s c rip tio n p ric e s a n d d is trib u tio n p o lic ie s fo r th e
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w (IS S N 0 0 9 8 -1 8 1 8 ) a n d o th e r G o v e rn m e n t
p u b lic a tio n s a re s e t b y th e G o v e rn m e n t P rin tin g O ffic e ,
a n a g e n c y o f th e U .S . C o n g re s s . S e n d c o rre s p o n d e n c e
o n c irc u la tio n a n d s u b s c rip tio n m a tte rs (in c lu d in g
a d d re s s c h a n g e s ) to :
S u p e rin te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts .
G o v e rn m e n t P rin tin g O ffic e ,
W a s h in g to n , D .C . 2 0 4 0 2
M a k e c h e c k s p a y a b le to S u p e rin te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts .
T h e S e c re ta ry o f L a b o r h a s d e te rm in e d th a t th e
p u b lic a tio n o f th is p e rio d ic a l is n e c e s s a ry In th e
tra n s a c tio n o f th e p u b lic b u s in e s s -e q u ire d by
la w o f th is D e p a rtm e n t. U s e o f fu n d s fo r p rin tin g
th is p e rio d ic a l h a s b e e n a p p ro v e d b y th e D ire c to r
o f th e O ffic e o f M a n a g e m e n t a n d B u d g e t
th ro u g h A p ril 3 0 , 1987 . S e c o n d -c la s s
p o s ta g e p a id a t W a s h in g to n , D .C . a n d at
a d d itio n a l m a ilin g a d d re s s e s .
R egion 18— N ew Y ork: S a m u e l M . E h re n h a lt
1 5 1 5 B ro a d w a y , S u ite 3 4 0 0 , N e w Y o ik , N .Y . 1 0 0 3 6
P h o n e : (2 1 2 ) 9 4 4 - 3 1 2 1
N e w J e rs e y
N e w Y o rk
P u e rto R ico
V irg in Is la n d s
R egion III— P hiladelp hia: A lv in I M a r g u lis
3 5 3 5 M a rk e t S tre e t
P .O . B o x 1 3 3 0 9 , P h ila d e lp h ia P a. 19101
P h o n e : (2 1 5 ) 5 9 6 - 1 1 5 4
D e la w a re
D is tric t o f C o lu n b ia
M a ry la n d
P e n n s y lv a n ia
V irg in ia
W e s t V irg in ia
R egion IV— A tlanta: D o n a ld M . C ru s e
1371 P e a c h tre e S tre e t, N .E ., A tla n ta , G a . 3 0 3 6 7
P h o n e : (4 0 4 ) 8 8 1 - 4 4 1 8
A la b a m a
F lo rid a
G e o rg ia
K e n tu c k y
M is s is s ip p i
N o rth C a ro lin a
S o u th C a ro lin a
Tennessee
R egion V — C hicago: W illia m E. R ic e
9th F lo o r, F e d e ra l O ffic e B u ild in g , 2 3 0 3 . D e a rb o rn S tre e t
C h ic a g o . III. 6 0 6 0 4
Dh o n e : (3 1 2 ) 3 5 3 - 1 3 8 0
Illinois
In d ia n a
M ic h ig a n
M in n e s o ta
O h io
W is c o n s in
R egion V:— D allas: B ry a n R ic h e y
S e c o n d F lo o r, 5 5 5 G riffin S q u a re B u ild in g , D a lla s , T e x . 7 5 2 0 2
A rk a n s a s
L o u is ia n a
N e w M e x ic o
O k la h o m a
Texas
R egions VII and Villi— K ansas C ity: E llio tt A . B r o w a r
911 W a ln u t S tre e t, K a n s a s C ity , M e . 6 4 1 0 6
P h o n e : (8 1 6 ) 3 7 4 - 2 4 8 1
VII
Io w a
Kansas
M is s o u ri
N e b ra s k a
VIII
C o lo ra d o
M o n ta n a
N o rth D a k o ta
S o u th D a k o ta
U ta h
W y o m in g
September cover:
R egions IX and X— San Francisco: S a m M . H ira b a y a s h i
4 5 0 G o ld e n G a te A v e n u e , B o x 3 6 0 1 7 ,
S a n F ra n c s c o , C a lif. 9 4 1 0 2
P h o n e : (4 1 5 ) 5 5 6 - 4 6 7 8
IX
D e ta il fro m th e A m e ric a n F e d e ra tio n o f L a b o r
an d C o n g re s s o f In d u s tria l O rg a n iz a tio n s seal.
Cover design by Richard L. Mathews.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A m e ric a n S a m o a
A riz o n a
C a lifo rn ia
G uam
H a w a ii
N evada
T ru s t T e rrito ry o f th e P a c ific Is la n d s
X
A la s k a
Id a h o
O re g o n
W a s h in g to n
M O N TH LY LABO R R EVIEW
S EP TEM B E R 1984
V O LU M E 107, N UM BER 9
Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief
Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor
D o n a ld G. S c h m itt
3
P ostretirem ent increases under private pension plans
F o rty p e rc e n t o f p e n s io n p a rtic ip a n ts w e re in p la n s p ro v id in g b e n e fit in c re a s e s
d u rin g 1 9 7 8 -8 1 ; b o o s ts w e re u s u a lly le ss th a n h a lf th e rise in c o n s u m e r p ric e s
G e o rg e D. S ta m as
9
State and regional em ploym ent and u nem p loym ent in 1983
U n e m p lo y m e n t d e c lin e d m o st in th o s e S ta te s w h ic h h a d th e la rg e s t in c re a s e s
in jo b le s s n e s s p re v io u s ly a n d le a s t In th o s e S ta te s d e p e n d e n t o n th e oil m a rke t
G. R u d n e y, M. W e itzm a n
16
Trends in em ploym ent and earnings in the philan th ro p ic sector
E m p lo y m e n t o u tp a c e d g e n e ra l la b o r fo rc e g ro w th b e tw e e n 1 9 72 a n d 1982;
o rg a n iz a tio n s d is p la y e d a m a z in g re s ilie n c y d u rin g th e tro u b le d 1 9 8 0 -8 2 p e rio d
L a rry T. A d a m s
21
Labor organization m ergers, 1 9 7 9 -8 4 : adapting to change
T h e m e rg e r p a c e a c c e le ra te s as u n io n s a n d e m p lo y e e a s s o c ia tio n s u n ite
in an e ffo rt to c o p e w ith s h rin k in g m e m b e rs h ip a n d d u e s in c o m e
S.A. L evita n, D. W e rne ke
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
28
W ork participation and produ ctivity change
A n a s s e s s m e n t o f a v a ila b le e v id e n c e c a s ts d o u b t on v ia b ility o f g ra ftin g
in d u s tria l re la tio n s p ra c tic e s fro m a b ro a d o n to th e U.S. s c e n e
M artin N e m iro w
34
W ork-sharing approaches: past and present
S ho rt w o rk w e e k s tie d to u n e m p lo y m e n t b e n e fits c a n b e an a lte rn a tiv e to la yo ffs,
a lth o u g h th e c o n c e p t a n d c irc u m s ta n c e s to d a y d iffe r m a rk e d ly fro m th o s e o f th e 1 9 3 0 ’s
DEPARTM ENTS
2
40
44
45
48
53
L a b o r m on th in re vie w
R e se arch s u m m a rie s
M a jo r a g re e m e n ts e x p irin g n ext m on th
D e v e lo p m e n ts in in d u stria l re la tio n s
B o ok re vie w s
C u rre n t la b o r s ta tis tic s
Labor Month
In Review
CENTENNIAL. The 144th annual
meeting of the American Statistical
A sso cia tio n , A ugust 13-16 in
Philadelphia, helped mark the b l s
Centennial with a session that explored
the contribution of outside review com
mittees to the development of labor
force and price statistics. The session
was chaired by Commissioner Janet L.
Norwood and featured papers by b l s
Associate Commissioners Thomas L.
Plewes and Kenneth V. Dalton and com
ments by Margaret E. Martin, a past
president of the a s a ; Morris H. Hansen,
senior vice president, Westat, Inc.; and
David A. Worton of Statistics Canada.
Here are excerpts from the comments:
Margaret E. Martin. It is gracious of the
to commemorate its centennial by
concentrating on the contributions of
outside review committees rather than
by beating its own collective breast on
the glories of staff accomplishments.
The Bureau can view with pride its long
history of producing relevant and effec
tive research reports and of developing
and maintaining singularly important
and current economic time series. It is an
enviable record.
The major function of review commit
tees is to stand off from a set of
statistics, to look at both the uses of the
data and at the techniques employed in
producing them in relation to fun
damental principles and considerations.
The review committee is likely to ask
more searching questions than staff con
cerned with daily operating pressures, to
bring in new viewpoints regarding
substance and method, and possibly will
reflect new uses. The review should
either provide guidelines for new direc
tions or reinforce the old.
Let me relate this to the b l s 790
series—the cooperative program with
the States in which employment, hours,
and earnings data are collected from
employers.
bls
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A number of proposals to improve the
790 series concern the sample design and
the estimation procedures. Admittedly,
the present system does not fully employ
currently accepted probability sampling
procedures and does not use the latest in
estimating techniques. Before b l s
hastens to adopt without question ac
cepted statistical procedures I would
urge, at the risk of being accused of
heresy, that b l s balance prospective ad
vantages and costs and seek to develop
new statistical methods and principles in
the process.
Morris H. Hansen. I have personally
had the opportunity to consult with the
b l s on some of the developments of the
Consumer Price Index program ,
especially in connection with the c p i
revision during the 1970’s, and am great
ly impressed with what b l s has ac
complished. My special interaction was
in extending probability sampling
beyond the selection of primary sampl
ing units and item specifications to be
priced.
My reaction in working with the b l s
staff in this area was one of great respect
for their willingness to consider and
adopt new methods and procedures; in
deed, I was concerned sometimes that
they might be moving too fast in adop
ting methods that had not been ade
quately tested under the practical cir
cumstances of data collection and pro
cessing. However, they demonstrated
that they could experiment, evaluate,
and adapt under difficult conditions of
time schedule and resources. They rapid
ly proceeded to incorporate proposed
methods into the price index as a part of
the revision, and shortly thereafter into
the Producer Price Index and other price
programs. I can only commend them
and express my admiration for the in
sight they have had and for their success
in achieving major advances under dif
ficult time and cost restraints.
David A. Worton. Both Tom Plewes
and Ken Dalton have pointed out the
very intense official interest which
centers upon measures of unemploy
ment and price change by virtue of their
uses in such areas as the determination
of transfer payments, and in the for
mulation of public policy.
These statistics strike home to the or
dinary citizen as perhaps no others do,
for they constitute regular progress
reports on two very fundamental issues,
namely the ability of society to provide
jobs, and the extent to which levels of
living are being enhanced or eroded.
That is why public confidence is so
important to a statistical agency. And
public confidence turns on two kinds of
questions, the first being concerned with
whether one is ‘doing the right things,’
and the second with whether one is ‘do
ing them right.’ Some issues straddle
both sides of this division.
I think the first of these questions is
the more fundamental, and I would fur
ther argue that public understanding is
the critical factor. If, for instance,
statisticians are agreed among
themselves that such-and-such concept is
sound, internally consistent, and so on,
but persistently encounter problems in
explaining it to the lay public, then
maybe they ought to shift gears and
suboptimize with a concept more
capable of com m anding public
understanding. This is a good illustra
tion, I think, of the old saw about war
being too important to be left to the
generals.
As to the subsequent question of how
to implement a chosen concept, it seems
to me that the public is much less in
clined to challenge technical judgments,
provided, of course, that there exists
some basic confidence in the profes
sional integrity of the statisticians, and
evidence that they are willing to—and do
in fact from time to time—subject
themselves to independent peer review. □
Postretirement increases
under private pension plans
Forty percent o f pension participants had plans
providing benefit increases for retirees
during 1978-81; increases were usually
less than half the rise in the Consumer Price Index
D onald
G.
S c h m it t
Rapid inflation over a short time span can substantially
reduce the purchasing power of fixed retirement incomes.
For example, over the 1978-81 period, when consumer
prices rose 51 percent,1 retirees with fixed private pensions
experienced a one-third decline in the buying power of these
annuities.
A lower rate of inflation— but continuing over a longer
period— may have still greater effects on today’s retirees,
who often will receive pension benefits for 15 years or
more.2 An inflation rate of 5 percent a year would, after 15
years, cut in half the purchasing power of the original pen
sion benefit, and a 7.5-percent annual rate of price increase
would result in a two-thirds reduction. Thus, even without
“ double-digit” inflation, the value of a fixed pension can
be seriously eroded during retirement. To offset part of this
loss, many employers grant pension increases to retirees or
their beneficiaries.3
Information on the extent of these postretirement pension
increases is available from the Bureau’s annual survey of
the incidence and provisions of employee benefit plans.4
This survey is conducted in the United States— excluding
Alaska and Hawaii— in private sector establishments em
ploying at least 50, 100, or 250 workers, depending on the
industry. Industrial coverage includes mining; construction;
manufacturing; transportation, communications, electric, gas,
Donald G. Schmitt is an economist in the Office of Wages and Industrial
Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
and sanitary services; wholesale trade; retail trade; finance,
insurance, real estate; and selected services. The 1982 sur
vey sample comprised 1,516 establishments, designed to
represent 21 million employees in 44,288 establishments.
Excluded from the survey were executive management em
ployees (those whose decisions have direct and substantial
effects on an organization’s policymaking) and part-time,
temporary, seasonal, and traveling operating employees,
such as airline flight crews and long-distance truckdrivers.
Data for the survey were obtained on the number of full
time active employees covered by pension plans, but not
the number of retirees or beneficiaries actually receiving
annuities. Consequently, it cannot yield direct information
on either the proportion of annuitants receiving postretire
ment pension increases or the average amount of their benefit
improvements. However, the magnitude of both can be
roughly indicated by weighting the information collected on
postretirement increases by the number of active workers
participating in plans that granted such increases. This ap
proach was followed to develop the data for this article.
Survey parameters
In 1982, 17.6 million full-time workers participated in
private pension plans of medium and large firms; 40 percent
were covered by plans which gave annuitants at least one
postretirement increase during 1978 through 1981. Three
percent of the participants were in plans providing these
increases automatically. The remainder were under plans
with formulas that determined initial pension levels— for
3
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Postretirement Increases in Private Pensions
example, years of service times a flat dollar amount or a
percent of average earnings— but were silent as to postre
tirement adjustments. In these situations, increases, when
made, were on an ad hoc, or discretionary, basis.
This information comes from the Bureau’s 1982 survey,
the first since the program began in 1979 to include questions
on ad hoc postretirement adjustments. Firms were asked to
provide information on all such adjustments made during
the 1978-81 period. This article examines the extent, value,
and methods of determining the adjustments.
Survey respondents supplied information on the effective
dates of postretirement pension adjustments, formulas used
to determine the amounts of increase, and provisions relating
to minimum or maximum increases. Many of the formulas
varied the size of the increase according to the pension
amount or the date of retirement. Thus, for this analysis,
adjustments were determined for four monthly pension val
ues ($250, $500, $750, and $1,000) and three retirement
dates (December 31, 1967, 1972, and 1977). The four pen
sion values represent the benefit payable as of December
31, 1977, the day before the period studied for postretire
ment increases. The three retirement dates are for persons
who had retired 10 years, 5 years, and immediately prior
to the period studied. The pension adjustments for individual
plans were then averaged using the number of active worker
participants as weights to provide surveywide estimates for
each example.
The analysis showed that automatic adjustments between
1978 and 1981 averaged 13.4 to 15.2 percent among the
four pension values studied. Ad hoc adjustments averaged
8.8 to 24.3 percent, depending on the pension value in 1977
and the employee’s retirement date. The largest percentage
increases under both methods went to retirees with the small
est pensions. This resulted from a variety of factors, such
as the use of flat dollar increases, specified minimum and
maximum increases, and restriction of percentage increases
to a portion of the original pension. Ad hoc adjustments
also commonly provided greater increases to those retired
the longest.
Despite these increases, the purchasing power of the an
nuities rarely was maintained. For all but one of the group
ings studied, average postretirement increases were less than
half the rise in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage
Earners and Clerical Workers ( c p i - w ) during the 4 years
under examination.
T able 1. P ercent of full-tim e participants in pension plans
grantin g postretirem ent annuity increases, m edium and
large firm s, 1 9 7 8 -8 1
Characteristic
Professional
Technical
All
and
and
Production
participants administrative
clerical
participants
participants participants
Total..................
100
100
100
100
Participants in plans with
one or more postretire
ment increases1 ..........
40
43
38
40
Automatic only2 ..........
Ad hoc only3 ...............
Automatic and ad h oc. .
2
37
1
3
39
1
2
34
1
2
38
(4)
Participants in plans
without postretirement
increases.......................
60
57
62
60
Participants are active workers covered by pension plans granting annuity increases
to retirees during the period studied.
Automatic adjustments usually are geared to changes in a designated statistical series,
most commonly the Consumer Price Index. Provisions for adjustments are included in
the pension plan.
3Ad hoc adjustments are given at the discretion of the employer (and union if collectively
bargained)— both as to timing and amount— and are not required by the pension plan.
4Less than 0.5 percent.
Note : Data exclude supplemental and defined contribution pension plans. Because
of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
during the 1950’s and 1960’s, but became more prevalent
during the 1970’s.6 The 1978-81 period studied by the
Bureau probably experienced a higher-than-normal inci
dence of such adjustments, as accelerating inflation focused
attention on the adequacy of fixed retirement income. Nearly
two-fifths of the pension plan participants covered by the
Bureau’s 1982 survey were in plans that gave at least one
ad hoc increase to retirees during the 1978-81 period. Of
the participants in pension plans granting discretionary in
creases, nearly half were in plans paying more than one
increase during the 4 years (table 2). Although there was
no sharp difference in the incidence of ad hoc increases
among the three occupational groups presented, production
workers were the most likely to be in plans with multiple
increases.
Ad hoc increases were more widespread during 1980 and
1981 than in the previous two years. This is illustrated in
the following tabulation, which provides a percentage dis
tribution of participants in plans granting discretionary in
creases by year of adjustment. Half or more were in plans
paying increases in 1980 and 1981, compared with about
one-third in 1978 and 1979:7
Ad hoc adjustments
Postretirement annuity adjustments typically are made on
a nonautomatic (discretionary or ad hoc) basis (table 1).
Such increases may be granted at irregular intervals and
their size is at the discretion of the employer (and union),5
based on such factors as pension fund investment perfor
mance, the firm’s financial position, and general economic
conditions.
Ad hoc adjustments were granted by some employers
4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
All participants.........................
Professional and administrative
participants...................................
Technical and clerical participants..
Production participants...................
1978
1979
1980
1981
32.8
34.3
49.2
60.7
30.9
26.5
36.8
30.2
22.8
42.1
44.1
55.4
52.6
49.0
70.5
41.9
As described later in this article, nearly all pension plans
with automatic adjustment provisions gave annual increases;
however, relatively few plans provided discretionary in
creases in each of the 4 years studied.8
Funds needed to finance these ad hoc annuity improve
ments come either from assets of a pension (or related wel
fare) fund or wholly or partly from general assets of a
business firm.9 A 1981 study of pension increases indicates
that some large corporations elect the latter approach.10
Methods o f calculating increases. Table 2, which sum
marizes information on benefit formulas for the most recent
ad hoc increase, shows the variety of techniques used to
determine the adjustments. Forty-one percent of the partic
ipants in pension plans granting discretionary increases were
under plans which provided specified increases per year of
retirement. Such plans, more common among white- than
blue-collar workers, provided percentage increases per year
of service that ranged from less than 2 percent to more than
5 percent; frequently, however, there was a ceiling placed
on the total amount provided.
A second approach, in plans covering 36 percent of the
participants, called for flat increases, either in dollars or,
more commonly, percentage. The incidence of this type of
formula was fairly consistent across the three occupational
groups shown in table 2. White-collar employees, however,
were more likely to receive percentage increases, while flatdollar increases were more likely for blue-collar workers.
These plans often recognized length of retirement by varying
the flat amount or percentage depending on the employee’s
date of retirement. For example, ad hoc increases might be
based on the following formula:
Y ea r o f re tire m e n t
Prior
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
to
or
or
or
or
or
1970
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
P e rc e n t in cre a se
in ben efits
.......................................................
......................................................
.......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
30
25
20
15
10
5
The third basic approach, covering 20 percent of the
participants, tied the pension increase to the retiree’s length
of service. For example, monthly pension checks might be
increased by 75 cents per year of service. Such adjustments
were common among production workers, who, more often
than white-collar employees, have their initial pension de
termined as a specified dollar amount multiplied by years
of service;11 many of these adjustments were collectively
bargained, and increases for retirees were related to im
provements in pension accruals of active employees.
Ad hoc adjustment formulas occasionally specify mini
mum or maximum annuity improvements. Eighteen percent
of the participants were under plans whose adjustment for
mulas provided minimum benefit increases (table 3). Minimums typically were small, usually between $5 and $15 a
month among the plans analyzed. Maximums on benefit
improvements were twice as common as minimums. These
caps typically were specified in percentage terms, and most
iften were less than 10 percent of current annuities.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T able 2. P ercent of full-tim e participants in pension plans
grantin g ad hoc postretirem ent annuity increases by
ad ju stm en t form u las, m edium and large firm s, 1 9 78-81
Characteristic
Technical
Professional
and
and
Ail
clerical
participants administrative
participants participants
Production
participants
Number of increases
granted, 1978-19811
T o ta l....................
100
100
100
100
One....................................
Two....................................
Three.................................
Four....................................
52
23
10
15
57
27
9
6
67
20
8
5
43
22
11
24
100
100
100
100
41
(2)
49
—
49
—
33
1
41
2
6
3
7
3
20
49
3
7
3
11
4
22
49
2
8
2
9
4
23
32
1
5
3
3
3
17
33
2
39
1
0
0
0
0
0
35
11
1
7
3
Benefit formula for most
recent increase
T o ta l....................
Increase per year of
retirem ent.......................
Monthly dollar amount..
Percent of present
benefit.......................
Less than 2.0 ..........
2 .0 ............................
2 .1 -2 .5 ....................
3 .0 ............................
4 .0 -4 .9 .....................
More than 5 .0 ..........
Flat increase....................
Monthly dollar amount..
Less than $ 1 0 ..........
$10............................
More than $10..........
Varies by date of
retirement.............
Percent of present
benefit.......................
Less than 5...............
5 ...............................
5 .1 -9 .9 ....................
10...............................
More than 1 0 ..........
Varies by date of
retirement.............
Increase per year of
service..........................
Monthly dollar amount..
$.50 or less .............
$.51— $ . 9 9 .............
$1 or more...............
Varies by date of
retirement.............
36
6
(2)
3
1
1
1
1
1
29
2
1
3
3
2
31
3
1
5
3
2
38
5
1
4
5
1
24
1
2
2
2
1
18
16
21
17
20
19
3
12
3
12
11
2
7
2
9
8
2
5
2
30
29
5
18
3
1
0
0
2
0
2
0
1
Percent of present
benefit.......................
1
Other types of formulas3 . .
1
Combination of two or
more benefit formulas. .
2
4
2
Data not available.............
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1A few plans granted two increases in a single year. Such increases were consolidated
and treated as a single increase in preparing this table.
2Less than 0.5 percent.
includes plans which specified a minimum level of benefits, raising all annuities below
that level.
N ote : Data exclude supplemental and defined contribution pension plans. Because
of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. Dash indicates no participants
in this category.
Average increases. The amount of ad hoc adjustments
generally depends on one or both of the following factors:
the size of the annuity prior to the adjustment and the date
of retirement. Table 4 presents data on the average 1978—
81 increases developed from the survey, given varying as
sumptions regarding these two factors. (When formulas took
5
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Postretirement Increases in Private Pensions
length of service into account, 25 years’ service was as
sumed.)
For the particular combinations of annuity size and length
of retirement studied, average increases over the 4-year
period ranged from $35 to $161 a month, or from 8.8 to
24.3 percent. On average, the greatest dollar increases went
to retirees with the highest pensions. In percentage terms,
however, the reverse was true, reflecting the influence of
flat dollar adjustment formulas and limits on the size of
increases.
Three-fifths of the participants in pension plans with ad
hoc increases were under plans varying adjustments by length
of retirement. The effect of these plans is evident in table
Tab le 3. P ercent of full-tim e participants in pension plans
grantin g ad hoc postretirem ent annuity increases by
p rovision s fo r m inim um and m axim um increases, m edium
and large firm s, 1 9 7 8 -8 1
Characteristic
Professional
Technical
All
and
and
Production
participants administrative
clerical
participants
participants participants
Provision for minimum
increase in most
recent adjustment
T o ta l....................
100
100
100
100
No m inim um ....................
With minimum..................
Monthly dollar amount..
Less than $5.............
$5...............................
$6—$ 9 .......................
$10............................
S 11 -S 1 4 ..................
$15............................
$20............................
$25............................
More than $25..........
Varies by date of
retirement.............
82
18
16
(1)
2
(1)
6
2
4
(1)
1
(1)
78
22
19
(1)
3
(1)
8
1
5
(1)
1
(1)
79
21
18
1
2
1
8
1
4
l 1)
1
(1)
85
14
13
—
2
(1)
4
2
3
(1)
1
1
1
2
1
(1)
2
1
3
(1)
3
1
1
(1)
100
100
100
100
62
•37
6
2
1
(1)
3
54
45
9
3
1
1
5
55
45
7
3
(1)
(1)
3
70
30
4
(1)
2
(1)
1
31
18
10
1
(1)
2
35
16
13
1
(1)
4
37
22
8
2
(1)
3
26
16
9
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
1
1
1
1
1
Percent of present
benefit.......................
Data not available.............
Provision for maximum
increase in most re
cent adjustment
T o ta l....................
No maximum....................
With maximum..................
Monthly dollar amount..
$100 or le ss.............
$101 —$150...............
$151—$200...............
More than $ 2 0 0 . . . .
Percent of present
benefit.......................
Less than 10. . . . . .
10-14 .......................
15-19 .......................
25-29 .......................
30 or more...............
Varies by date of
retirement.............
Greater of a monthly
dollar amount or a
percent of present
benefit.......................
Data not available.............
_
(1)
1Less than 0.5 percent.
N ote: Data exclude supplemental and defined contribution pension plans. Because
of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. Dash indicates no participants
in this category.
6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
table 4. During the 1978-81 period, employees who retired
in 1967 received increases averaging nearly twice as much
as those who retired in 1977. By granting larger increases
to those who retired earlier, employers recognized that their
initial pensions had lost the most purchasing power to in
flation. In addition, the earlier the retirement date, the greater
the likelihood of a relatively small, initial pension.
Frequency of individual adjustments also influenced the
size of increases. Thus, plans providing two or more in
creases yielded smaller gains, on average, in each of the
individual adjustments, but a higher total improvement over
the 1978-81 period (table 5).12
Automatic adjustments
As noted, 3 percent of the pension plan participants in
1982 could expect automatic benefit adjustments after re
tirement. Of those, 2 percent were under plans that granted
only automatic adjustments to retirees in the 1978-81 pe
riod, while plans covering the other 1 percent gave ad hoc
increases in addition to the automatic adjustments (table
l ).13
Automatic adjustment formulas usually tie into changes
in designated statistical series, most often the c p i . Of the
880 defined benefit pension plans14 examined in the 1982
survey, 23 included provisions for automatic adjustments,
and all but one of these plans tied into the c p i . The exception
gave automatic 2-percent pension increases each year, in
dependent of price changes. Automatic pension adjustment
provisions linked to wage rather than price indexes do exist,
but none appeared in the survey sample.15
Eleven of the 23 plans called for an annual increase equal
to the percentage rise in the c p i , up to a maximum of 3
percent. Other plans in the sample gave pension increases
that were less than the full c p i increase, but often had caps
higher than 3 percent. In some instances, adjustment pro
visions were not triggered until the c p i had risen a specified
percent, such as 3 percent. Some of the plans restricted the
percentage adjustments to the first $500 or other initial level
of the pension.
Three-fifths of the plans with automatic adjustment pro
visions allowed for decreases in the c p i . Most of these,
however, prevented annuities from being reduced below the
initial pensions.
Among the four pension values analyzed, automatic ad
justments averaged between 13.4 and 15.2 percent over the
1978-81 period (table 6). The most common increase was
12.6 percent— the result of compounding annual increases
of 3 percent over the 4 years. The average increases, how
ever, were raised largely by one plan, which granted un
capped increases equal to 100 percent of the rise in the price
index.16
The infrequency of automatic adjustment provisions can
be attributed mainly to cost considerations. When a firm
ties pension benefits to a price index without limitations, it
assumes a potentially large and indeterminate future obli-
Tab le 4. A verage ad hoc postretirem ent annuity increases at selected pension levels by em ployee group and retirem ent
dates, m edium and large firm s, 1 9 7 8 -8 1
_____________________________________________________________________________
Monthly pension on December 31, 19771
Employee group and date of retirement
$1,000
$750
$500
$250
Average monthly
pension on
Dec. 31, 19812
Percent
increase,
1978-81
Average monthly
pension on
Dec. 31, 19812
Percent
increase,
1978-81
Average monthly
pension on
Dec. 31, 19812
Percent
increase,
1978-81
Average monthly
pension on
Dec. 31, 19812
Percent
increase,
1978-81
$311
300
285
24.3
19.9
14.0
$596
581
553
19.1
16.2
10.6
$879
860
820
17.2
14.6
9.4
$1,162
1,136
1,088
16.2
13.6
8.8
319
303
284
27.5
21.3
13.4
614
594
557
22.8
18.9
11.4
908
880
830
21.0
17.3
10.7
1,200
1,165
1,103
20.0
16.5
10.3
306
295
278
22.6
17.9
11.4
596
582
550
19.3
16.3
9.9
886
864
820
18.1
15.2
9.4
1,174
1,147
1,092
17.4
14.7
9.2
311
300
285
24.3
19.9
14.0
586
574
552
17.2
14.9
10.4
861
846
815
14.8
12.8
8.7
1,136
1,117
1,078
13.6
11.7
7.8
All full-time participants3
Professional and administrative participants
December 31, 1972 ..............................................
Technical and clerical participants
Production participants
December 31, 1967 ..............................................
December 31, 1977 ..............................................
1The monthly pension immediately prior to the period in which ad hoc increases were
Participants are active workers covered by pension plans granting ad hoc annuity increases
studied.
to retirees during the period studied,
increased pension benefit payable on December 31, 1981, as a result of ad hoc increases
during 1978-81. Pension increases for individual plans were averaged using the number of
N ote: Data exclude supplemental and defined contribution pension plans. For plans varyactlve worker participants as weights to provide surveywide estimates for each example.
ing Increases by a retiree’s length of service, 25 years of service was assumed.
gation. Thus, most plans with automatic adjustments curb
costs by restricting the size of the annual increases. In their
book, Employee Benefit Planning, Jerry S. Rosenbloom and
G. Victor Hallman provide a rule of thumb that says,
. .
pension costs can increase by about 10 percent for each 1
percent increase in benefits provided to pensioners.” 17 Em
ployers generally avoid signing a “ blank check” for pension
increases by providing ad hoc improvements, rather than
adopting a formula for automatic benefit adjustments.
Benefit adjustments and inflation
The c p i - w rose 51 percent between December 1977 and
1981. Although this index may not be an accurate gauge of
changes in retirees’ purchasing power (retirees may not have
the same spending patterns as active workers) it provides
statistical evidence that the real value of retirees’ private
annuities generally declined over the 4 years. Even for the
retiree group associated with the largest percentage increase
in annuities during this period, professional and adminis
trative workers retiring in 1967 and having a $250 monthly
pension in 1977, the rate of increase was not much more
than half the rise in the price index (table 4 ).18 Total pur
chasing power of retirees, however, did not necessarily fall
to the degree that the comparison would suggest; most of
those with private pension benefits also received social se
curity payments, which are adjusted to take account of changes
in the c p i - w . 19
Which method of adjustment— automatic or ad hoc—
provided retirees with the greater degree of protection against
inflation? Comparison of table 4 and 6 shows that employees
who retired in December 1977, just prior to the 4-year period
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
studied, fared better with automatic increases. The average
annuity increase under plans providing automatic adjust
ments varied between 13.4 and 15.2 percent, while the
average ad hoc increase ranged from 8.8 to 14.0 percent.
Although individual ad hoc increases were generally larger
than individual automatic increases, the latter were granted
annually, whereas most plans providing discretionary ad
justments gave only one such increase during the entire 4year period.
A contrary picture emerges when we focus on 1967 and
1972 retirees. For these individuals, comparisons of tables
4 and 6 favor retirees receiving discretionary increases. Do
Tab le 5. A verage of total ad hoc postretirem ent
adjustm ents, 1 9 7 8 -8 1 , by num ber of increases and
retirem ent date, m edium and large firm s
Monthly pension on
December 31, 1977
and retirement date
Number of increases
1
2
3
4
$250:
December 31, 1967 .........................
December 31, 1972 .........................
December 31, 1977 .........................
$47
37
21
$72
57
32
$93
69
41
$72
72
66
$500:
December 31, 1967 .........................
December 31, 1972 .........................
December 31, 1977 .............; . . . .
78
58
29
125
101
55
145
117
63
96
96
86
$750:
December 31, 1967 .........................
December 31, 1972 .........................
December 31, 1977 .........................
124
95
52
183
146
70
188
160
86
119
119
106
$1,000:
December 31, 1967 .........................
December 31, 1972 .........................
December 31, 1977 .........................
160
123
66
243
191
90
220
190
111
143
143
125
7
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Postretirement Increases in Private Pensions
Tab le 6. A verage autom atic postretirem ent annuity in creases at selected pension levels, by em ployee group, m edium and
large firm s, 1 9 7 8 -8 1
Monthly pension on December 31, 19771
$250
Employee group
All full-time participants3 ......................................
Professional and administrative participants . . . .
Technical and clerical participants.......................
Production participants.........................................
$500
$750
$1,000
Average monthly
pension on
Dec. 31, 19812
Percent
increase,
1978-81
Average monthly
pension on
Dec. 31, 19812
Percent
increase,
1978-81
Average monthly
pension on
Dec. 31, 19812
Percent
increase,
1978-81
Average monthly
pension on
Dec. 31, 19812
Percent
increase,
1978-81
$288
286
288
290
15.2
14.4
15.2
15.9
$571
568
572
572
14.1
13.6
14.4
14.4
$853
850
855
853
13.7
13.3
14.0
13.7
$1,134
1,131
1,139
1,134
13.4
13.1
13.9
13.4
1The monthly pension immediately prior to the period in which automatic increases were active worker participants as weights to provide surveywide estimates for each example.
studiedParticipants are active workers covered by pension plans granting automatic annuity
increased pension benefit payable on December 31,1981 as a result of automatic increases increases to retirees during the period studied,
during 1978-81. Pension increases for individual plans were averaged using the number of
N ote: Data exclude supplemental and defined contribution pension plans.
those contrasting results come about because ad hoc in
creases tend to favor those who retired earlier or because
possibly fewer discretionary increases were granted before
1978, encouraging larger catch-up payments? An answer to
this question is not possible from the data collected in this
study.
In a n y e v e n t , a minority of pension plan participants were
under plans providing for either automatic or ad hoc ad
justment. Three-fifths of all participants within scope of the
Bureau’s employee benefit study were under plans that did
not make postretirement pension adjustments in the 1978—
81 period.20
Q
■FOOTNOTES
I The Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Work
ers (C P l-w ) rose from 186.1 in December 1977 to 281.1 four years
later (1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 ).
56 provided 2 increases, 19 provided 3, and 9 provided 4. The averages
are the unweighted dollar amounts that these plans would yield given the
pension and retirement date assumptions indicated.
2The average 65-year-old man can now expect to live until age 80, and
the average 65-year-old woman’s life expectancy extends beyond age 83..
Vital Statistics o f the United States: 1980 (National Center for Health
Statistics, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1984).
13Automatic adjustment procedures are more common in the public
sector, which is excluded from this study. Both the Federal Civil Service
Retirement System and the Military Retirement System provide automatic
cost of living adjustments, as does the Social Security System.
3 Such postretirement increases also reduce the growing spread between
fixed pensions and rising earnings of current workers.
14Defined benefit plans contain a formula for calculating retirement
benefits and obligate the employer to provide the benefits so determined.
Employer contributions are not fixed, but are whatever is needed, together
with earnings of pension fund investments, to finance the required benefits.
The Bureau’s 1982 study of employee benefit plans reviewed 921 pen
sion plans. Forty-one were money purchase or supplemental plans, which
were excluded from this analysis.
4 Major findings of the 1982 survey are reported in Employee Benefits
in Medium and Large Firms, 1982, Bulletin 2176 (Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics, 1983). For information on the background and conduct of the
survey, see Robert Frumkin and William Wiatrowski, “ Bureau of Labor
Statistics takes a new look at employee benefits,’’ Monthly Labor Review,
August 1982, pp. 4 1 -4 5 .
5Employer and union, if collectively bargained.
6 Ad hoc increases offered by a selected group of large firms since the
early 1970’s are listed in Top 5 0 -A Survey o f Retirement, Thrift, and Profit
Sharing Plans Covering Salaried Employees o f 50 Large U.S. Industrial
Companies as o f January 1 , 1982( New York, The Wyatt Company, 1982),
pp. 4 8 -5 4 .
7 In this tabulation, the total of the percentages for 1978 through 1981
exceeds 100 because many participants were in plans that granted multiple
increases.
8 Fifteen percent o f the participants in plans that gave discretionary in
creases were under plans providing this benefit in each of the 4 years.
9In 1980, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( e r i s a ) was
amended to allow employers to treat supplemental benefits paid to retirees
as if they were paid under a welfare plan. This made it easier for employers
to supplement the annuities of retirees because welfare plans are subject
to less stringent requirements under e r is a than pension plans. For example,
welfare plans are not subject to vesting or funding standards.
15 Similarly, no variable annuity plan appeared in the sample of defined
benefit plans. Variable annuity arrangements, by tying pensions to earnings
of investments in common stock, are designed to achieve results similar
to those under plans indexing benefits to c p i movements.
16As of October 1980, this plan applied the annual automatic cost-ofliving adjustment only to that portion of pension benefits accrued prior to
October 1980.
17Jerry S. Rosenbloom and G. Victor Hallman, Employee Benefit Plan
ning (Englewood Cliffs, N .J., Prentice-Hall, 1981), p. 290.
18Accepting the c p i - w as an appropriate index for retirees, it is possible
to determine the combined effect of price and annuity increases on retirees’
purchasing power. For the professional-administrative employees retired
in 1967 and with $250 annuities in 1977, on the average, pensions by the
end of 1981 had lost 16 percent of their purchasing power 4 years earlier.
For other retiree groups shown in table 4, the loss was greater.
19For a comparison of changes in combined private pension and social
security income and the inflation rate, see Pension Increases fo r Retired
Em ployees, p. 7.
20Preliminary data from the 1983 BLS survey of employee benefits in
10
Pension Increases fo r Retired Employees (New York, Towers, Perrin,
dicate that about half of the pension plan participants had plans which
Forster, and Crosby, 198.1), p. 3.
provided at least one postretirement increase for retirees during the 5-year
II Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, p. 40 (table 35).
period 1978-82. Survey results will appear in the b l s bulletin, Employee
12 Of the 239 plans analyzed for this tabulation, 155 provided 1 increase,
Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1983.
8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
State and regional employment
and unemployment in 1983
In 1983, unemployment declined most in those States
which had the largest increases in joblessness previously,
and least in States dependent on the oil market;
regionally, the most rapid job expansion occurred
in the South and the West where the majority of new jobs
came from the services and trade industries
G eorge
D.
Stam as
During 1983, the United States recovered from one of the
longest and deepest recessions since World War II. At the
end of 1982, employment had reached its recession low and
the civilian worker unemployment rate had climbed 2.2
percentage points over the year. In marked contrast, data
for 1983 document one of the most dramatic recoveries since
employment and unemployment statistics have been col
lected, as the national civilian unemployment rate fell 2.5
percentage points during the year to 8.0 percent in December
(not seasonally adjusted).1
This brightening economic situation at the national level
was also apparent in most States. Between the fourth quarter
of 1982 and that of 1983, only seven States reported overthe-year declines in nonagricultural employment. Many of
those decreases were small, and all States reported either
improvements or no change in unemployment. However,
just as all industries and occupations have not participated
equally in the current recovery, some States also have been
slow to benefit from the upturn.
This article concentrates on employment and unemploy
ment2 for States between the fourth quarters of 1982 and
1983. Unlike national data, State and area data are not
George D. Stamas is an economist in the Office of Employment and
Unemployment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
adjusted for seasonality. Because month-to-month changes
are subject to seasonal influences that can obscure cyclical
developments and the underlying economic trends, the pre
sentation is limited to changes from the same quarter a year
earlier, because they are not affected by seasonal move
ments.3
National recovery
Propelled by a recovery led by consumer expenditures,
U.S. nonagricultural payroll employment rose by 3.0 mil
lion persons from the fourth quarter of 1982 to the fourth
quarter of 1983. Total employment (as measured by the
Current Population Survey) rose 3.9 million.
More than 90 percent of the jobs lost during the recession
resulted from employment cutbacks in goods-producing in
dustries. By contrast, this sector contributed a third of the
job growth in the recovery. Within the goods-producing
sector, manufacturing regained about half of the jobs it had
lost with durable goods employment growing at a rate of
6.5 percent between the fourth quarters of 1982 and 1983.
Employment in mining, including oil and gas extraction
activities, declined over the year as energy prices remained
below previous highs. National employment in construction
continued to drop during the first quarter of 1983, reaching
a cyclical low in March. This decrease was followed by
strong recovery, with employment in general contracting
9
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • State /Regional Employment and Unemployment
and special trades climbing sharply, while employment in
heavy construction was stable.
Service-producing industries added more jobs to the econ
omy over the year than goods-producing industries, but grew
at a slower rate. Employment growth in this sector was
greatest in industries of the services division, such as busi
ness services. Trade and finance, insurance, and real estate
also experienced over-the-year job gains. Conversely, trans
portation and public utilities and government showed little
or no growth.
An analysis by State
Among the States with the largest decreases in unem
ployment over 1983 were many of those that had the largest
increases in joblessness over the previous year or the longer
1979-82 period. They encompass the industrial heart of the
Nation, including six East Central States— Alabama, Illi
nois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. The key to
the recovery in most of these States was a cyclical upswing
in manufacturing. This upswing usually was accompanied
by recovery in the construction, trade, and services indus
tries. The following tabulation shows the percentage point
changes in the unemployment rate by State:
Michigan.........
Alabama...........
Indiana............
Arizona............
New Hampshire
Tennessee .......
South Carolina
Rhode Island...
Illinois............
O h io ................
F o u r th
q u a r te r ,
F o u r th
q u a r te r ,
1 9 8 2 -8 3
1 9 8 1 -8 2
a vera g es,
1 9 7 9 -8 2
- 4 .2
-4 .1
- 3 .7
- 3 .6
- 3 .5
- 3 .4
- 3 .2
- 3 .2
-3 .1
- 3 .0
3.5
4.5
2.1
4.3
2.3
3.1
2.5
2.3
3.9
2.8
7.7
7.3
5.5
4.8
4.3
6.0
5.8
3.6
5.8
6.6
A nnual
States which produce oil predominated in the 13 States
with small declines in unemployment (1 percent or less over
the year). The small improvements seen in their labor mar
kets are associated with the continued shortfall of demand
in the oil market. Though increasing over the year, non
communist country daily petroleum consumption in 1983
remained below the already depressed levels of 1982.4
With the exceptions of Alaska and New Hampshire, the
States with the fastest employment growth were in the coun
try’s Southern half. However, large employment increases
did not always coincide with large declines in unemploy
ment rates. Only three States with rapidly growing em
ployment were also included in the list of the 10 States
having the largest reductions in their rate of joblessness.
Labor force expansion in these States outpaced the Nation
by 2 to 1 or more in all but North and South Carolina and
Arkansas. The following tabulation gives the over-the-year
employment change and the change in the unemployment
rate between the fourth quarters of 1982 and 1983, by State:
10
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
P ercen t
Arizona.......................
Florida.......................
New Hampshire.........
Nevada.......................
Alaska.........................
Arkansas ...................
Georgia.......................
North Carolina..........
South Carolina..........
Virginia.....................
P e r c e n ta g e p o in t
c h a n g e in
c h a n g e in
e m p lo y m e n t
u n e m p lo y m e n t r a te
6.2
6.1
6.1
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.0
4.6
4.4
3.9
-3 .6
-1 .3
-3 .5
-2 .6
-
0.1
-2 .2
-1 .5
-2 .5
-3 .2
-2 .6
Most of these “ fastest growing” States have underlying
trends of rapid growth and did not suffer the same increase
in unemployment incurred by other States during the reces
sion. This relates directly to their industrial composition.
The labor market performance of these rapidly expanding
States was characterized, in general, by growth in all in
dustry divisions. Growth in construction employment ranged
from two to six times the national average in all States except
Alaska and New Hampshire. All 10 States had serviceproducing sectors that grew faster than the national average
and all but Alaska reported the same for manufacturing.
Recovery by region
As is apparent from the rankings of States by improve
ment in unemployment and employment growth, no one
region of the country dominated the economic recovery.
The nature of the recovery in each region depended on its
economic base. The major geographic regions designated
by the Bureau of Census are used to present a regional
picture of the recovery.5 (See chart 1.)
North Central States. The North Central States, with their
concentration of durable goods employment, experienced
the steepest rise in unemployment of any of the four Census
regions over the year ending in the fourth quarter of 1982.
However, with a 2.9-percentage-point drop in unemploy
ment, the region also experienced the largest over-the-year
decline in joblessness between the fourth quarter of 1982
and that of 1983. (See table 1.) The largest improvements
in the unemployment rate were made in its Eastern States
(East North Central division). Each of these States had greater
declines than the average 2.1-percentage-point reduction
recorded for the Nation. Michigan had one of the largest
reductions in joblessness in the Nation (4.2 points). How
ever, declining numbers of workers in the labor force, partly
because of outmigration but also because of withdrawal from
the labor force perhaps caused by discouragement and other
factors, contributed to the reduction in unemployment in all
East North Central States except Ohio.6 The North Central
region was the only Census region to report an overall de
cline in labor force size.
In the northern States west of the Mississippi (West North
Central States), the unemployment rate fell less than half
C hart 1. P ercen tag e point decrease in u n em p loym ent by region and S tate betw een
fo u rth -q u arter 1982 and fo u rth -q u arter 1983
Northeastern States
North
Washington
D.C.
Western States
Legend:
L
]
1 1.1% to 2.0%
as many points as in the Eastern half of the region. At the
same time the labor force grew slightly. In these West North
Central States, proportionally fewer jobs depend on cycli
cally sensitive manufacturing industries.
The North Central State’s nonagricultural payroll em
ployment rose by about 1.5 percent over the year, the slow
est rate of growth for any of the four Census regions. (See
table 2.) Minnesota recovered fastest (3.5 percent), followed
by Michigan (2.9 percent), while Illinois and Iowa regis
tered declines. Ohio and Michigan added the most jobs in
this region. Employment growth in durable goods outpaced
that in nondurable goods in every North Central State. In
creased production of transportation equipment was the key
to the recovery. In most States, related employment gains
took the form of recalls or hiring of workers for motor
vehicles and parts production, resulting from increased au
tomobile sales. Kansas, where the aircraft industry ac
counted for most of the transportation gain, was the exception.
While Michigan was the major benefactor of increased au
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2.1% to 3.0%
More than 3.0%
I
H
Up to 1.0%
tomobile sales, other States— particularly those in the East
Central division— also benefited either because of their own
automobile production or because of their production of
parts for automobiles. In Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and, to
a lesser extent, Illinois and Wisconsin, employment levels
in primary and fabricated metals rose more rapidly than in
other regions. Like automobile production, employment in
the Nation’s primary and fabricated metals and nonelectrical
machinery industries is concentrated in the North Central
States. Though these industries did recover over the year,
the performance was not as dramatic as that in transportation
equipment. Despite the strong recovery in durable goods
production, at the close of 1983, manufacturing employment
levels in nearly every North Central State were from 10 to
20 percent below fourth-quarter 1979, prerecession levels.
When compared with the rest of the Nation, over-theyear performance in construction employment among States
in the region was more modest than that in manufacturing.
Only in Minnesota and North Dakota did the gain surpass
11
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • State!Regional Employment and Unemployment
the national growth rate. Five of the twelve States had overthe-year declines. The North Central was the only region
with a net over-the-year loss in construction employment.
Employment in the service-producing sector in this region
grew over the year by only half a percent. Gains in trade
and in finance, insurance, and real estate were nearly offset
by losses in transportation and public utilities and in gov
ernment. While losses in transportation and public utilities
were widespread, government cutbacks were concentrated
in Illinois (29,000), Michigan (11,000), and Indiana (3,000).
Northeastern States. Unemployment fell 1.9 percentage
points and nonagricultural payroll employment rose 2.1 per
cent over the year in the Northeast, putting this region in
third place among the four regions in both of these measures
of economic performance. The largest improvements in un
employment were in New Hampshire (3.5 percentage points)
bringing its rate down to the lowest in the country (3.8
percent) and in Rhode Island (3.2 percentage points). Maine
registered the smallest improvement in the region (0.5 per
centage points).
New Hampshire also had the largest increase in non
agricultural employment (6.1 percent), followed by New
Jersey (3.5 percent). Employment in all of the New England
Tab le 1.
States expanded at rates of 2 percent or more while Penn
sylvania grew at 1.1 percent and New York at 1.6 percent.
In contrast to the North Central States, recovery in the
Northeast was concentrated in the service-producing sector.
Every State gained in trade; finance, insurance, and real
estate; and services. The rate of expansion for the region
approached the national average increase in these industries.
Trade and services provided most of the additional jobs.
Each State also had higher levels of construction employ
ment than a year earlier, showing percentage gains about
equal to the national average for that industry.
Employment in manufacturing averaged a gain of less
than 1 percent. Manufacturing registered little change in
Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania. Counter to the
national trend, durable goods employment fell over the year
in Connecticut and New York. The strength of the region’s
electronic equipment industry— especially in New Jersey
and New England— accounted for most of the job gains in
manufacturing. Textiles and apparel, though slow-growing
among manufacturing industries nationwide, also added jobs
in the Northeast.
In the Northeast, primary and fabricated metals manu
facturing and nonelectrical machinery manufacturing in
dustries, which provided about one-fourth of this region’s
C ivilian labor force, fourth quarter, 1983
[In thousands]
Unemployment
Region and State
Labor
force
Number
Rate
Unemployment
Percentagepoint
change
198283
198182
North Central............................................
East North Central...............................
Illinois..............................................
Indiana..............................................
M ichigan.........................................
O h io .................................................
Wisconsin.........................................
28,370.6
19,847.1
5,532.8
2,562.4
4,213.2
5,115.2
2,423.4
2,564.0
2,004.8
517.2
229.3
506.7
546.8
204.8
9.0
10.1
9.3
8.9
12.0
10.7
8.5
-2 .9
-3 .4
-3 .1
-3 .7
-4 .2
-3 .0
-2 .8
2.9
3.3
3.9
2.1
3.5
2.8
3.4
West North C entral............................
Io w a .................................................
Kansas..............................................
Minnesota.........................................
Missouri...........................................
Nebraska.........................................
North Dakota....................................
South D akota.................................
8,523.5
1,404.9
1,181.6
2,178.0
2,337.1
785.2
307.0
329.6
559.1
88.8
58.9
149.7
193.5
38.0
14.3
15.8
6.6
6.3
5.0
6.9
8.3
4.8
4.7
4.8
-1 .5
-2 .2
-1 .9
-1 .5
-1 .3
-1 4
-0 .9
-0 .9
2.1
1.8
2.7
2.7
1.9
19
0.9
0.5
Northeast.................................................
Middle-Atlantic....................................
New Jersey.......................................
New Y ork.........................................
Pennsylvania....................................
23,705.3
17,266.0
3,699.5
7,996.3
5,570.1
1,730.5
1,367.4
235.6
583.7
548.2
7.3
7.9
6.4
7.3
9.8
-1 .9
-2 .0
-2 .4
-1 .7
-2 .0
19
2.2
1.9
1.8
2.9
New E ngland......................................
Connecticut......................................
M ain e..............................................
Massachusetts.................................
New Hampshire...............................
Rhode Island....................................
Vermont............................................
6,439.3
1,620.6
532.3
3,030.0
511.7
476.8
267.9
363.0
78.8
39.8
179.8
19.5
30.5
14.7
5.6
4.9
7.5
5.9
3.8
6.4
5.5
-1 .6
-1 .9
-0 .5
-1 .0
-3 .5
-3 .2
-1 .3
0.8
0.9
11
0.3
2.3
2.3
1.5
South.........................................................
East South Central...............................
Alabama............................................
Kentucky .........................................
Mississippi.......... ............................
Tennessee ......................................
37,390.0
6,701.6
1,752.6
1,695.2
1,056.7
2,197.1
2,953.3
671.8
202.2
158.3
108.6
202.7
7.9
10.0
11.5
9.3
10.3
9.2
-1 .8
-3 .0
-4 .1
-2 .2
-1 .8
-3 .4
2.6
3.5
4.5
3.0
3.7
3.1
12
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Region and State
Labor
force
Number
Rate
Percentagepoint
change
198283
198182
South Atlantic..................................
Delaware....................................
District of Colum bia..................
Florida.........................................
Georgia.......................................
Maryland .....................................
North Carolina............................
South Carolina............................
V irg in ia .......................................
West Virginia...............................
18,541.0
298.5
321.9
5,046.4
2,732.6
2,218.3
2,948.2
1,470.5
2,748.4
756.3
1,345.6
20.5
34.9
406.6
176.5
128.1
206.5
118.5
140.9
113.0
7.3
6.9
10.8
8.1
6.5
5.8
7.0
8.1
5.1
14.9
-2 .0
-1 .2
-0 .4
-3 .1
-1 .5
-2 .3
-2 .5
-3 .2
-2 .6
-1 .7
2.0
0.1
2.2
1.8
1.3
0.6
3.0
2.5
1.4
7.2
West South Central.......................
Arkansas ....................................
12,147.4
1,028.4
1 906 2
1,527.2
7,685.7
936.0
86.6
7.7
8.4
-0 8
-2 .2
115.2
533.7
7.5
6.9
-0 3
-0 .6
29
19
0.0
41
2.6
1 813 3
427 3
100.5
93.6
37.0
30.4
41.1
55.3
51 8
17.6
7.2
5.6
8.1
7.8
8.4
9.1
-3 .6
-2 5
-1 .6
-0 .8
-2 6
-0 .9
43
25
1.9
1.8
34
28
W yoming....................................
22 471 3
S Q7fi ft
1Í398.9
1,678.4
456.7
389.3
491.8
610.2
694 6
256.9
6.9
-0 .3
3.3
Pacific...............................................
Alaska..........................................
California....................................
Hawaii..........................................
Oregon..........................................
Washington..................................
16,494.5
228.7
12,400.3
471.1
1,332.8
2,061.6
1,386.0
22.8
1,004.4
28.9
123.9
206.0
8.4
10.0
8.1
6.1
9.3
io.o
- 2 .5
-0 .1
-2 .7
-0 8
-2 .2
-2 .5
2.4
0.6
2.8
11
0.7
2.0
Oklahoma....................................
Texas............................................
Mountain
A rizona.......................................
C olorado....................................
Idaho............................................
Montana.......................................
Nevada..........................................
New M exico...............................
manufacturing employment, either registered no significant
change or declined during the period.
Southern States. The Southern States displayed an im
provement in unemployment over the period that was similar
to that shown by the Northeast. Unemployment fell 1.8
percentage points over the year to a fourth-quarter 1983
average of 7.9 percent. Over the same period, however, the
South’s labor force expanded faster than in any other Census
region (1.5 percent). The rate of growth in nonagricultural
employment was nearly 1 percent faster than that of the
Northeast.
The three Southern States with the largest declines in
joblessness were Alabama (4.1 percentage points), South
Carolina (3.2 percentage points), and Tennessee (3.4 per
centage points). The smallest unemployment declines were
in the District of Columbia (0.4 percentage points) and the
oil-producing States of the West South Central— Louisiana
(0.9 points), Oklahoma (0.3 points), and Texas (0.6 points).
While the South’s overall labor force expanded, Ken
tucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and West Virginia had
fewer labor force participants in the fourth quarter of 1983
than they had a year earlier.
Over the year, nonagricultural payroll employment rose
2.9 percent with increases about evenly split between the
goods-producing and the service-producing sectors. Al
though 6 of the 10 fastest growing States were in the South,
the region also had 3 of the 7 States with net job losses.
Employment changes ranged from a 6.1-percent increase in
Florida to a decline of 1.4 percent in Oklahoma, with the
fastest growing States being those along the South Atlantic
Coast.
Most additional jobs (61 percent) came from the trade or
services industries which— along with finance, insurance,
and real estate— had employment levels of 4 percent above
those of fourth-quarter 1982. Construction grew faster (5
percent) than other industries, accounting for about 10 per
cent of the region’s net employment gain. Half of the Na
tion’s 1983 construction job gains were in this region. The
South Atlantic States, particularly Florida, accounted for
most of these increases.
Manufacturing accounted for one-fifth of the region’s net
gain in jobs, with about seven-tenths of those in durable
goods industries. Durable goods employment outperformed
nondurable goods in every State but Louisiana and Texas.
Durable goods added more jobs than nondurables even in
those States where durables was a smaller proportion of
employment. This occurred despite significant employment
increases in textiles and apparel. The recovery in construc
tion across the country, and particularly in the South, fueled
an expansion in the lumber industries throughout the region.
In addition, metal products and machinery, major industry
classes that showed little improvement throughout the North
Central and the Northeast, and electrical equipment showed
some recovery in the East Central and South Atlantic seg
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ments of the Southern region.
The worldwide decline in demand for energy resources,
the result of worldwide recession and, to some extent, en
ergy conservation efforts, cut deep into mining employment
in the coal-producing States of Kentucky and West Virginia
and the oil-producing States of Louisiana, Oklahoma, and
Texas. Louisiana, Oklahoma, and West Virginia were the
only Southern States with over-the-year declines in total
nonagricultural employment.
This decline in demand not only brought down employ
ment in mining but also employment in production of mining
equipment and in services used for locating and extracting
energy resources. The biggest declines in the oil States of
the West South Central came in the fourth quarter of 1982,
the starting point for comparisons here. While employment
levels were down over the year at that time, looking back
to fourth-quarter 1981 gives a better picture of where fourthquarter 1983 employment levels were. Over the 2 years,
employment in the manufacture of oil field machinery was
cut in half in Texas and by more than a third in Oklahoma.
Compared with 1981, manufacturing employment was about
15 percent lower in Texas and Oklahoma and 20 percent
lower in Louisiana. The devaluation of the Mexican peso,
also related to the slack in world oil markets, had an impact
on labor markets on the Texas side of the Mexican border.
At yearend 1983, retail trade employment in border areas
remained well below its year-earlier level. Unemployment
rates in these metropolitan areas were among the highest in
the United States.
Western States. As one of the faster growing regions over
the last decade, the West appears to have taken the fast
track again in 1983. Unemployment retreated an average
2.4 percentage points while the labor force expanded. Non
agricultural payroll employment rose faster in the West than
in any of the other Census regions.
Between the fourth quarters of 1982 and 1983, Arizona
had the largest decline in unemployment of the Western
States (3.6 percentage points). However, between the fourth
quarter of 1981 and that of 1982, it had the largest increase
in unemployment—4.3 percentage points. Improvement in
unemployment between the fourth quarters of 1982 and 1983
among five other Western States matched or exceeded the
national change over this period. The smallest changes in
jobless rates were registered in Alaska and Wyoming, each
essentially unchanged.
With the exception of Montana and Wyoming, every State
in the West reported higher employment levels at the close
of 1983 than they did a year earlier. As in the South, both
the goods- and the service-producing sectors grew at ap
proximately the same rate (3 percent). The most rapid ex
pansion took place in Arizona (6.2 percent), Nevada (5.6
percent), and Alaska (5.5 percent). In each of these States
and in the region overall, construction posted the most rapid
gains of the major industries. Construction gains in the
13
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • State/Regional Employment and Unemployment
West, with about two-thirds concentrated in California, ac
counted for more than one-third of the national increase in
construction employment. (Except for California, it should
be noted that these States have relatively small populations.)
Services; trade; and finance, insurance, and real estate were
T ab le 2.
the next fastest growing.
The nationwide resurgence in construction activity brought
recovery to the lumber industry of the Pacific Coastal States
and those Mountain States engaged in lumber production.
In another major source of employment for the region, air-
O ver-th e-year change in nonagricultural payroll em ploym ent, fourth quarter, 1983
[In percent]
Goods-produclng sector
Service-producing sector
Trans
porta
tion
and
public
utilities
Finance,
insurance,
and real Services
estate
Mining
Con
struc
tion
Manu
factur
ing
4.2
4.5
1.0
3.8
9.6
4.8
3.4
3.3
1.4
4.7
4.8
3.1
-1 .0
2.1
8.2
-3 .6
-4 .3
-6 .0
-6 .3
-3 .3
-5 .0
33.3
-2 .3
1.9
-0 .4
10.6
-6 .6
-1 3 .6
-1 3 .0
2.6
-0 .9
-2 .2
-4 .9
-8 .7
-1 .1
2.0
2.1
1.6
-2 .7
0.2
7.7
2.3
-1 0 .3
7.3
1.1
5.2
5.6
2.1
5.7
11.0
5.5
3.5
3.9
2.2
6.3
4.2
3.5
-2 .0
4.5
11.3
6.9
7.2
3.1
6.8
13.1
6.5
4.3
5.6
2.0
9.5
5.5
5.4
5.3
6.8
17.6
2.2
2.4
0.7
2.9
3.6
3.4
2.2
1.7
2.6
1.9
2.3
1.1
-1 .2
3.0
5.4
0.5
0.2
-0 .9
0.1
0.1
1.3
0.9
1.1
-0 .5
0.2
3.0
0.6
1.4
1.1
1.3
-1 .1
-1 .5
-1 .8
-0 .7
-2 .4
-1 .2
-1 .2
-0 .4
-5 .2
2.0
1.5
-0 .5
-1 .2
-0 .6
-0 .8
0.4
0.5
0.0
-0 .1
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.4
-1 .7
-0 .4
2.8
0.1
-0 .6
-0 .3
0.2
07
0.1
-1 .8
-0 .7
0.4
2.6
1.6
1.9
1.8
0.1
4.3
0.6
0.6
1.4
6.4
19
18
1.0
1.6
1.8
2.8
1.6
2.1
-0 .6
09
4.8
12
22
27
2.9
0-6
-1 6
-4 1
-1 0
-1 8
02
0.3
13
16
-0 1
12
11
40
16
0.3
2.1
1.8
3.5
1.6
1.1
2.8
2.4
2.4
2.6
6.1
2.7
2.1
1.3
0.8
2.5
0.5
0.2
2.3
0.9
1.6
2.3
6.3
3.3
3.0
-2 .9
-2 .6
-7 .7
9.5
-4 .3
-5 .8
-1 0 .2
100.0
3.1
0.0
-5 0 .0
-1 5 .0
4.4
3.9
8.6
3.5
1.3
6.0
8.0
3.0
4.3
3.4
13.0
12.3
0.8
0.4
1.6
-0 .1
0.2
1.8
0.0
1.3
2.1
7.0
2.4
1.1
0.8
0.2
2.4
-0 .8
0.2
1.8
-0 .9
1.5
2.8
7.1
2.7
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.4
1.8
2.7
1.1
0.7
6.9
1.9
1.2
2.4
2.2
3.8
1.9
1.5
3.0
3.1
2.7
2.8
5.9
2.5
1.7
0.3
0.1
3.1
-1 .0
-0 .5
1.2
2.1
1.1
0.2
5.6
1.3
1.9
3.5
3.0
4.7
2.3
2.8
4.8
2.6
5.5
5.5
8.7
4.6
1.5
2.6
2.6
3.4
2.8
1.6
2.6
4.7
3.1
1.2
4.0
0.5
4.7
3.4
33
4.9
3.2
2.4
3.9
4.7
30
32
9.3
3.4
2.6
00
01
16
0i
-1 .1
-0 5
07
-0 3
-1 0
-2 2
-1 0
0.3
S o u th ........................................................
2.9
East South Central............................
2.6
Alabama.........................................
2.7
Kentucky ......................................
1.3
Mississippi....................................
2.1
Tennessee......................................
3.6
South Atlantic....................................
4.3
Delaware......................................
3.4
District of Colum bia....................
0.8
Florida...........................................
6.1
G eorgia.........................................
5.0
M aryland......................................
2.5
North Carolina...............................
4.6
South Carolina...............................
4.4
Virginia .........................................
3.9
West Virginia................................. -0 .8
West South C entral.........................
0.9
Arkansas ......................................
5.4
L o u i s i a n a ...................................................... -0 .5
Oklahoma...................................... -1 .4
Texas............... ; ...........................
1.2
2.7
4.2
5.8
0.0
3.1
6.0
5.6
1.7
3.1
9.5
7.1
3.1
5.3
4.8
5.4
-5 .6
-2 .3
5.9
-5 .4
-6 .1
-1 .9
-9 .4
-1 2 .7
-7 .6
-16.1
-1 2 .4
-3 .1
-6 .4
0.0
0.0
5.3
3.7
-2 5 .0
-0 .8
2.0
-5 .0
-1 0 .2
-9 .4
-5 .4
-9 .8
-19.1
-6 .2
5.2
2.7
10.8
-4 .9
-8 .1
7.5
11.5
2.4
3.8
13.6
14.3
8.2
10.6
11.9
13.9
-6 .8
-1 .6
-2 .9
-0 .7
-6 .7
-1 .2
3.3
5.6
5.6
4.4
6.0
6.0
4.4
1.5
2.6
7.4
5.7
1.2
4.6
3.5
3.6
-2 .6
-0 .4
7.6
-6 .3
1.1
-1 .0
(1)
9.6
7.2
10.2
8.5
11.8
(1)
10.7
(1)
8.6
8.3
1.6
7.1
7.8
6.7
-1 .9
-0 .8
11.9
-9 .1
1.4
-2 .1
(1)
2.0
4.2
-1 .6
3.3
1.6
(1)
-1 .7
(1)
5.7
4.3
0.7
3.0
1.6
1.1
-3 .3
0.1
3.0
-4 .0
0.8
0.3
3.0
1.9
1.3
1.8
1.6
2.5
3.9
4.3
0.7
5.4
4.2
2.4
4.1
4.1
3.5
1.1
2.1
5.1
1.1
0.3
2.4
0.6
0.9
1.5
0.1
-1 .7
2.3
2.5
3.1
1.3
1.1
3.0
2.0
6.7
3.8
2.3
-3 .1
-1 .9
3.4
-6 .9
-3 .7
-0 .6
4.1
3.7
3.4
3.3
2.4
4.6
5.6
4.4
0.1
7.7
6.6
3.5
5.9
5.6
4.1
-0 .1
2.1
5.9
2.3
0.6
1.9
4.2
2.1
1.5
2.0
3.7
1.9
4.4
94
-0 .8
6.9
3.6
1.3
3.6
5.4
37
0.5
46
4.6
3.7
1.2
5.4
4.4
2.5
2.0
2.5
21
3.1
5.3
78
0.2
7.7
66
41
28
55
50
2.7
38
84
16
1.4
4.3
07
-0 5
-1 4
-0 3
08
-0 .4
07
13
14
-0 8
00
-0 -2
2-6
15
17
2^5
11
17
-0 2
1.2
W est......................................................
3.1
Mountain...........................................
3.2
Arizona...........................................
6.2
Colorado.........................................
2.2
Idaho..............................................
3.4
Montana......................................... -0 .9
Nevada...........................................
5.6
New M éxico .................................
2.3
U ta h ..............................................
3.8
W yom ing...................................... -3 .6
Pacific.................................................
3.0
Alaska...........................................
5.5
California......................................
3.2
Hawaii.........................................
1.4
Oregon...........................................
2.6
Washington....................................
2.5
3.3
3.8
11.4
1.2
3.9
-8 .5
10.3
-0 .3
7.4
-1 0 .0
3.2
6.0
3.9
2.2
3.4
-1 .6
-5 .2
-7 .1
-2 .1
-4 .9
21.1
-2 3 .3
8.0
-1 0 .6
-8 .7
-1 0 .3
-0 .9
0.9
-1 .7
(1)
-2 .0
8.8
8.2
7.4
25.0
0.7
-4 .3
-1 1 .9
12.0
5.5
14.3
-1 2 .0
8.6
16.4
11.6
5.7
1.2
-3 .8
2.7
4.8
6.8
2.8
4.9
-0 .3
9.3
1.4
8.2
-5 .2
2.2
-8 .6
2.7
-0 .5
3.8
-1 .2
(1)
6.1
7.8
2.6
12.2
1.9
8.9
1.1
10.2
-1 .7
(1)
(1)
3.3
-5 .3
5.0
-2 .7
(1)
2.1
3.4
3.1
-1 .7
-3 .9
9.9
2.1
4.1
-8 .4
(1)
(1)
1.3
0.6
0.8
2.3
3.0
3.1
4.7
2.5
3.3
0.5
5.0
2.9
2.8
-1 .0
3.0
5.4
3.0
1.3
2.4
3.8
0.4
-0 .5
1.1
0.0
0.0
-6 .9
0.7
-2 .8
2.8
-4 .8
0.7
0.7
1.0
-1 .4
-1 .2
0.9
4.1
3.0
4.2
2.5
4.3
-0 .0
5.7
4.5
2.6
-5 .3
4.5
13.2
4.5
2.3
4.2
4.8
3.7
4.8
6.4
3.2
3.1
1.3
8.6
6.8
6.8
-2 .6
3.3
9.4
3.4
0.4
3.0
3.6
4.4
5.4
87
4.3
5.5
29
67
5.0
35
-2 .8
4.1
1.6
4.3
2.9
34
3.4
06
14
16
10
14
14
01
07
16
5.9
03
34
-0 4
-0 2
01
3.8
Región and State
Total
North Central...........................................
1.5
East North Central............................
1.4
Illin o is........................................... -0 .4
Indiana...........................................
1.3
M ichigan......................................
2.9
O h io ..............................................
2.4
Wisconsin......................................
1.6
West North Central............................
1.6
lo w a .............................................. -0 .1
Kansas............................................
1.3
Minnesota......................................
3.5
Missouri.........................................
1.2
Nebraska......................................
0.9
North Dakota.................................
1.3
South Dakota.................................
2.3
Northeast...................................................
Middle A tla n tic.................................
New Jersey....................................
New Y ork......................................
Pennsylvania.................................
New England ....................................
Connecticut....................................
M a in e ...........................................
Massachusetts...............................
New Hampshire............................
Rhode Island.................................
Vermont.........................................
1Data not available.
14
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Total
Durable
Non
durable
Total
Trade
Govern
ment
L
'
l
craft and parts production has been curtailed and job losses
have been severe. Particularly hard-hit was Washington,
where the aircraft industry employed about 4 percent of the
nonagricultural work force in fourth-quarter 1983. Cutbacks
in the industry amount to about 10,000 jobs over the year.
Manufacturing employment in Washington fell by more than
3,000. However, because of strong growth in its serviceproducing sector and despite net job losses in construction,
Washington had a 2.5-percent rate of employment growth.
As in several Southern States with appreciable mining
employment, depressed market conditions both for metals
and energy resources took a toll on employment in nearly
every Western State. The largest losses in mining jobs, both
in terms of number and rate of decline, occurred in Wyo
ming, Montana, and New Mexico. Wyoming, which has
more of its employment concentrated in mining than any
other State, had cutbacks that amounted to about two-fifths
of the State’s net job loss. Wyoming lost jobs over the year
at a rate of 3.6 percent, with government the only industry
division reporting increased employment.
l a r g e s t r e d u c t i o n s in unemployment occurred in
the North Central States. However, the reductions appear
to be in part the result of declines in their labor forces.
Employment growth was generally below average, with the
great majority of added jobs occurring in manufacturing.
With one exception, fourth-quarter 1983, employment in
these States remained below their previous economic peaks.
Generally, the most rapid job expansion occurred in the
South and the West. While construction and manufacturing
recoveries were fast paced in these regions, most new jobs
came from services and trade. Still, the recovery in many
of the “ Sunbelt” States of these regions was dampened by
their dependence on income from oil.
□
The
■FOOTNOTES
1For a review o f the national employment situation in 1983, see Eugene
Becker and Norman Bowers, “ Employment and unemployment gains
widespread in 1983,“ Monthly Labor Review, February 1984, pp. 3 -1 5 .
For a review o f regional developments over the 1970’s, see Richard J.
Rosen, “ Regional variations in employment and unemployment during
1 9 7 0 -8 2 ” in the same issue, pp. 3 8 -4 5 .
2 State and area payroll employment and labor force estimates are a
product o f two Federal-State cooperative programs: Current Employment
Statistics ( c e s ) and Local Area Unemployment Statistics ( l a u s ) estimates
are produced by State Employment Security Agencies following Bureau
o f Labor Statistics ( b l s ) guidelines. CES estimates of nonagricultural em
ployment have been benchmarked to March 1983 levels in all States except
Wisconsin. Wisconsin estimates are benchmarked to December 1982. An
nual averages for 1982 and 1983 are published in the monthly b l s pub
lication, Employment and Earnings, May 1984. l a u s estimates are
benchmarked to the 1983 Current Population Survey. Annual averages are
published in Geographic Profile o f Employment and Unemployment, 1983
(Bureau o f Labor Statistics, forthcoming bulletin). Other c e s and l a u s
estimates are available on l a b s t a t or on request from the Office of Em
ployment and Unemployment Statistics. Because of differences in sources
o f benchmark data and differences in estimating techniques, State estimates
will not necessarily add to national totals. Regional estimates are based
on sums o f State estimates. When regions or States are compared with the
Nation, estimates for the United States are based on the sum of State
estimates.
3This abrupt cyclical change is almost totally masked, both for em
ployment changes and unemployment rates, if annual averages are used
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
for analysis. On average, the U.S. economy was not much better over
1983 than 1982, with the major difference being that 1983 was on the
upswing for the Nation and most States. Rather than concentrate on annual
average levels it will be more illustrative to observe over-the-year changes
in employment and unemployment for each State or region.
4Short-Term Energy Outlook, May 1984 (Energy Information Admin
istration), pp. 17-18.
5The North Central region includes the East North Central division
(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) and the West North
Central division (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North
Dakota, and South Dakota). The Northeast includes the Middle Atlantic
(New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania) and New England (Connect
icut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont).
The South is made up of the East South Central division (Alabama, Ken
tucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee) the South Atlantic (Delaware, District
of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Virginia, and West Virginia) and the West South Central (Arkansas, Lou
isiana, Oklahoma, and Texas). The West is made up of the Mountain
States (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah,
and Wyoming) and the Pacific States (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon,
and Washington).
6 Migration estimates are from the Bureau of the Census and are estimated
as a residual remaining in estimated population change after accounting
for vital statistics. Nationally, the number of discouraged workers, those
not looking for work because they believe it is not available, fell from
1,735,000 in fourth-quarter 1982 to 1,387,000 in fourth-quarter 1983.
Regional and State estimates are not available.
15
Trends in employment and earnings
in the philanthropic sector
Employment in philanthropic organizations
outpaced general labor force growth
between 1972 and 1982; in particular,
these organizations displayed amazing resiliency
during the troubled 1980-82 period
G a b r ie l R u d n e y
and
M
urray
W
e it z m a n
While small, the philanthropic portion of the nonprofit sector
is an important and rapidly growing component of the U.S.
economy. Philanthropic organizations are those privately
controlled, tax-exempt nonprofit institutions to which donor
contributions are tax deductible. The classification includes
religious, educational, health, scientific, cultural, and social
service organizations.1
There has been a tendency on the part of analysts and the
media to slight the role of philanthropic activities in the
employment of human resources and the creation of personal
income in the form of wages and salaries. In part, this is
because official sources of economic data are dominated by
the for-profit and government sectors. This article attempts
to fill the knowledge gap by presenting the results of a
systematized estimation and analysis of philanthropic em
ployment and earnings for the period 1972-82.2 The study,
based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and from
the Bureau of Census special 1977 Census of Services for
Tax-Exempt Service Organizations, yielded point estimates
and trend information for both the sector and many of its
subsectors. It thus allows one to gauge the relative impor
tance of specific philanthropic activities and to make com
parisons among them. And because the structure and
classification system of the data base are consistent with
Gabriel Rudney is senior research associate at Yale University’s Institution
for Social and Policy Studies, Program on Non-Profit Organizations. Mur
ray Weitzman was a consultant for the Yale study.
16
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
those used in other Federal employment and earnings series,
it was possible to make comparisons with the for-profit and
government sectors. The study covered both full- and parttime employees.
An overview
Philanthropic employment was about 93 percent (6.5 mil
lion) of 1982 total private nonprofit employment (7.0 mil
lion). (See table 1.) This was about 7 percent of the total
U.S. labor force. (See table 2.) The sector paid wages and
salaries of $81.7 billion that year, or 5.4 percent of total
U.S. payroll.
Like all service industries, philanthropic organizations
tend to be labor intensive. Productivity depends heavily on
competence, skills, and motivation of employees and vol
unteers. Labor costs thus account for a substantial portion
of the total expenditures of philanthropic organizations: Wages
and salaries and supplements ($75 billion) were 58 percent
of 1980 total costs in the philanthropic sector, with cost of
goods and services bought from other sectors and the cost
of capital resources used by the sector accounting for the
rest.3 Labor input was 84 percent of value added by the
sector. (Value added excludes goods and services purchased
from others, such as energy, materials, and so forth.)
Between 1972 and 1982, the philanthropic labor force
grew by 43 percent, outpacing the 35-percent increase in
for-profit service industries. (See table 2.) Both increases
are rather large compared to those for other industry groups,
tutions employed 15 percent and 14 percent, respectively.
The remaining 19 percent was distributed widely among the
other philanthropic services. (See table 3.)
The relative importance of these services in terms of
payroll also varied considerably. Hospitals accounted for
49 percent of total 1982 philanthropic payroll, colleges and
universities contributed 13 percent, religious institutions,
11 percent, and social services, 10 percent. The relatively
higher hospital payroll reflects not only more jobs in that
area, but also higher average 1982 wages and salaries than
for the philanthropic sector as a whole. The reverse was
true in the social service area.
Hospital employment understandably dominates the health
sector. A similar dominance occurs in the area of education;
employment in private universities and colleges was 2.3
times greater than in private elementary and secondary schools,
but payroll in higher education was 3.2 times that of ele
mentary and secondary schools, reflecting higher average
wages and salaries in higher education.
Tab le 1. E m ploym ent in philanthrop ic organizations and
in th e parent nonp rofit sector, 1982
Employment
(in thousands)
Percent
of total
Total nonprofit1 .........................................
7,032
100
Philanthropic........................................................
H ospitals...........................................................
Colleges and universities.................................
Social service oganizations...............................
Religious organizations....................................
All others...........................................................
6,523
2,593
753
959
897
1,321
93
37
11
14
13
19
Other nonprofit......................................................
Membership organizations...............................
Business associations.................................
Professional associations............................
Labor unions.................................................
Political and other.........................................
Sports and recreation.................................
509
444
84
36
145
65
114
7
6
1
(2)
2
1
2
Hotels and other lodging places.......................
Sporting and recreation...............................
Membership-based organizational hotels . .
16
3
13
0
Business services..............................................
Commercial research and development
laboratories..............................................
Commercial testing laboratories..................
49
(2)
44
5
0
0
Type of organization
(2)
T ull- and part-time employment.
2Less than 0.5 percent.
Relationship with for-profits
What is the relative importance of for-profit and philan
thropic organizations in the activities in which both operate?
A comparison of philanthropic employment with total pri
vate employment of sectors in which these nonprofits op
erate yields some interesting differences from sector to sector.
(See table 4.) Many service industries, such as private higher
education and elementary and secondary schools, operate
overwhelmingly as nonprofit organizations. (In this study,
the representation was 100 percent.) On the other hand,
correspondence schools and vocational schools had rela
tively few nonprofit employees. Nonprofit employment ac
counted for 86 percent of total hospital employment. There
was considerable variation within cultural activities, where
philanthropic employment in theatre, orchestras, and other
performing arts (exclusive of television and radio) was 26
percent of employment. Only 5 percent of employment in
radio and television, compared to almost 100 percent of
employment in the visual arts, was nonprofit. The study
also revealed that philanthropic employees earned substan-
reflecting the rapid relative growth of the service economy
after World War II in both the profit and nonprofit segments.
By comparison, there was virtually no growth in for-profit
goods-producing activities.4 The importance of the philan
thropic sector as a job creator is evident in that the 1.9
million new jobs it generated over the study period was
greater than the total number of 1982 jobs in such important
industries as mining, railroad transportation, trucking, ap
parel manufacturing, banking, and insurance.
The activities of four subsectors— hospitals, colleges and
universities, social service organizations, and religious in
stitutions— accounted for 81 percent (5.2 million) of 1982
philanthropic service jobs, and 82 percent ($66.8 billion)
of philanthropic payroll. The average 1982 wage over the
four subsectors was $12,841. Employment in nonprofit hos
pitals was the major share— 40 percent— of philanthropic
employment. Colleges and universities employed 12 per
cent, while social service organizations and religious insti
T ab le 2.
U.S. em ploym ent by sector, selected years, and change, 1 9 7 2 -8 2 and 1 9 8 0 -8 2
[Numbers in thousands]
Sector
Employment change—
1982
1980
1972
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
1972-82
Total1.........................................
73,675
100
90,406
100
89,596
100
15,921
Private for-profit....................................
Goods-producing...............................
Services-producing..........................
Private nonprofit....................................
Philanthropic....................................
Other .................................................
Governments.........................................
Federal..............................................
State...................................................
L o c a l.................................................
55,375
23,668
31,707
4,966
4,576
390
13,334
2,684
2,859
7,790
75
32
43
7
6
1
18
4
4
10
67,488
25,658
41,830
6,677
6,162
515
16,241
2,866
3,610
9,765
75
28
47
8
7
1
18
3
4
11
66,761
23,907
42,854
7,032
6,523
509
15,803
2,739
3,632
9,432
75
27
48
8
7
1
18
3
4
11
11,386
219
11,147
2,066
1,947
119
2,469
55
773
1,642
1Full- and part-time employment.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Percent change—
1972-82
1980-82
-8 1 0
22
-1
-7 2 7
-1,751
1,024
355
361
-6
-4 3 8
-1 2 7
22
-3 3 3
21
1
35
42
43
31
19
2
27
21
-1
-7
2
5
6
-1
-3
-4
1
-3
1980-82
N ote: Dashes indicate data not available.
17
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Employment and Earnings in Philanthropic Sector
Tab le 3.
S elected em ploym ent and earnings estim ates for m ajor philanthropic activities, 1 9 7 2 -8 2
Employment1
1972
Activity
Number
(thousands)
Share of
total
T o t a l p h i l a n t h r o p i c ........................
4,576
Hospitals...................................................
Colleges and universities.......................
Social service organizations..................
Religious organizations..........................
All o th e rs.................................................
1,704
637
455
869
911
Percentage change
Number
(thousands)
Share of
total
100
6,523
100
37
14
10
19
20
2,593
753
959
897
1,321
40
12
15
14
19
1Full- and part-time employment.
tially less on average than the rest of the U.S. labor force.
The average sector wage, $12,525 in 1982, was less than
three-fourths the average for all employees, $16,797.
Comparison with government
Because philanthropic services are public goods provided
by private organizations, it is useful to compare employment
in government— the major provider of public goods— with
that of the philanthropic sector, the private provider. Over
all, governments employ 2.4 times as many workers as the
philanthropic sector. Philanthropic employment, at 6.5 mil
lion in 1982, substantially exceeded the numbers of Federal
workers (2.7 million) and State employees (3.6 million).
Employment in local governments, however, at 9.4 million,
was much greater than total philanthropic employment. In
1982, all levels of government had combined payrolls of
$266 billion, or more than 3 times that of the philanthropic
sector. But the philanthropic payroll (excluding religious
organizations) of $73 billion more than matched the $69
billion Federal outlay.
Comparative growth analysis
Philanthropy versus the total economy. Between 1972 and
1982, philanthropic employment grew at a 3.6-percent an
nual rate, compared with increases of 2 percent for all wage
and salary workers in the economy; 0.1 percent for goodsproducing industries; 3.1 percent in for-profit service in
dustries; and 1,7 percent in government. Accordingly, the
philanthropic sector’s share of employment increased from
nearly 20 percent of that of the goods-producing sector in
1972 to slightly more than 27 percent by 1982. The differ
ential growth rate between the philanthropic sector and its
parent service-producing sector (private and government)
over the same period translated into a moderate increase in
the employment representation of the philanthropic sector
among service industries from 9.2 percent in 1972 to 9.9
percent by 1982. Similarly, the philanthropic sector's annual
rate of employment growth was higher than that recorded
for government over the decade.
Looking at recent experience, philanthropic employment
18
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Earnings2
1982
1972
Annual
rate
Total
(billions)
42.6
3.6
$25.3
52.2
18.2
110.8
3.2
45.0
4.3
1.7
7.7
0.3
3.8
9.4
5.3
2.1
3.9
4.6
1972-82
1982
Average
$5,529
5,516
8,320
4,615
4,488
5,049
Total
(billions)
Average
$81.7
$12,525
39.8
10.3
8.0
8.7
14.9
15,349
13,679
8,342
9,699
11,734
2Wages and salaries.
has fared better than employment generally, despite the
severe 1980-82 recessionary period and Federal budget cuts
in social programs. A reasonable explanation is that phi
lanthropic activities, like other service industries, are not
prone to the swings in output that result from changes in
the rate at which businesses and consumers add to or di
minish their inventories of goods. Although its rate of em
ployment growth declined, the philanthropic sector actually
expanded its labor force by some 350,000, or 6 percent,
between 1980 and 1982, so that its share of total nonfarm
wage and salary workers increased from 6.8 percent to 7.3
percent. And the decline in the rate of change in employ
ment, 1980-82, was about four times as great for the total
economy than among philanthropic organizations.
Much less fortunate was the goods-producing sector, which
experienced a 7-percent drop (1.8 million) in employment
from 1980 to 1982. The back-to-back 1980 and 1981-82
recessions speeded up the already declining trend in the
sector’s employment, which fell from 28 percent of the labor
force in 1980 to 27 percent in 1982. The precipitous drop
in the goods-producing sector could not be offset by the
2-percent employment increase in the for-profit serviceproducing industries. Consequently, total U.S. employ
ment declined from 90.4 million in 1980 to 89.6 million in
1982.
Within-sector comparisons. The philanthropic sector ex
perienced differential growth among its four major com
ponent industries between 1972 and 1982. Together, hospitals,
colleges and universities, social services, and religious or
ganizations accounted for about 80 percent of total sector
employment growth. Over the period, however, hospitals
and social services increased their employment shares, while
those of colleges and universities and religious organizations
declined. (See table 3.)
An aging population, increased availability of private health
insurance, and Federal financial support for the medicaid
and medicare programs bolstered demand for hospital ser
vices between 1972 and 1982. This, in turn, stimulated the
expansion of employment in hospitals. In 1972, hospital
employment was 1.7 million, 37 percent of the philanthropic
ing operating costs, are apparent in employment trends. The
labor force. By 1982, employment had reached 2.6 million, ' labor force in these institutions grew very modestly from
some 640,000 in 1972 to about 755,000 in 1982, or by only
and accounted for 40 percent of the sector total. This rep
around 1.7 percent per year.
resents an increase of 52.2 percent over 1972, or average
Religious organizations constitute the other major group
annual growth of 4.3 percent.
with
a declining relative employment position over the study
Between 1972 and 1982, employment in social services
period.
All told, employment increased from just under
more than doubled from 455,000 to about 935,000, reflect
870,000
in 1972 to nearly 900,000 in 1982. This translates
ing growth of 9.4 percent per year. This trend slowed con
into
a
growth
rate of only 0.3 percent per annum.
siderably from 1980 to 1982, with employment increasing
only slightly to around 960,000. Despite the recent slow
Earnings growth
down, significant 1972-82 increases were recorded among
all components of social services.
Total earnings, or the “ wage bill,” for the philanthropic
The problems faced by colleges and universities over the
sector more than tripled, from an estimated $25.3 billion in
study period, which included declining enrollments and ris1972 to $81.7 billion in 1982. This increase of 222.9 percent
(41.2 percent in constant 1972 dollars) is related to changes
in both employment and average annual wages. However,
while the 1.9 million new jobs in the sector accounted for
Tab le 4. P hilanth ropic em ploym ent as a percent of total
part of the change, much of the growth in total payroll
p rivate em p lo ym en t in service-prod ucing activities, 1982
resulted from the rising average earnings of philanthropic
[Employment in thousands]
workers.
Philanthropic employment
Service-producing
Average annual wages and salaries in the sector rose from
Total
As a
activities
employment1
Number
percent of
$5,529
in 1972 to $12,525 in 1982. (See table 3.) This
total
increase was 10.4 percent greater than that for all nonfarm
49,886.0
6,523.1
13
T o ta l.................................
wage and salary workers, with the result that the average
philanthropic wage grew from 67.9 percent to 74.6 percent
Activities with a philanthropic
component.................................
8,974.6
6,523.1
73
of the nonfarm average over the study period. (However,
4,411.8
3,052.5
69
Health services..........................
it should be noted that when this 126.3 percent current24
1,064.4
255.5
Nursing and personal care . .
Hospitals...............................
3,013.9
2,593.2
86
dollar increase in average wages is stated in constant 1972
203.6
Other health services.............
333.5
61
dollars, it amounts to no real gain at all.)
1,274.9
95
Education and research.............
1,212.5
Elementary and secondary
As one would expect, hospitals were a major factor in
education..........................
322.1
322.1
100
752.6
752.6
100
Colleges and universities . . .
the increase in total philanthropic payroll. While hospital
Libraries and information
employment grew faster than the average for the sector,
12.4
12.4
100
centers...............................
Correspondence and
average relative wages and salaries rose even faster. Con
vocational schools.............
50.7
13.0
26
Other educational, scientific,
versely, both employment and earnings in private higher
and research
education grew more slowly than the sector averages.
112.4
organizations......................
137.1
82
Social services..........................
Individual and family
services..............................
Job training and related
services............................
Child day care services . . . .
Residential care....................
Other social services.............
1,166.6
Culture, entertainment,
recreation...............................
Theater, orchestra, and other
performing a r t s ...............
Radio and television
broadcasting.....................
Visual arts (museums and
botanical and zoological
gardens)............................
959.2
230.4
220.7
191.4
289.0
237.1
218.7
183.0
163.2
181.6
210.7
82
96
96
56
77
96
338.1
79.7
24
86.0
22.4
26
216.4
11.6
5
35.7
35.7
100
Membership organizations. . . .
Civic, social, and fraternal
associations.......................
Religious organizations . . . .
1,198.7
1,198.7
100
301.6
897.1
301.6
897.1
100
100
Legal services............................
565.4
12.4
2
Educational, religious, and
charitable trusts....................
18.3
18.3
100
11ncludes full- and part-time employment.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of employment and earnings data for
significant segments of the economy is indisputable. The
need for such information on the philanthropic sector will
increase if the sector continues to grow in line with predic
ations by Victor Fuchs in his seminal study of the service
economy.5 According to Fuchs, the outcome of the growth
of nonprofit enterprise and government is indeterminate, as
such growth will give rise to costs as well as benefits. Unless
we prepare for the future with measurement systems and
methods of analysis, which will require the support of both
the private and government organizations, some of these
costs and benefits may not be identifiable, much less quan
tifiable. We believe our study represents a major step for
ward in the derivation and presentation of such information
on the philanthropic labor force.
Q
t h e e s s e n t ia l v a l u e
19
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Employment and Earnings in Philanthropic Sector
■FOOTNOTES
A c k n o w l e d g m e n t : The authors are indebted to the many technicians
o f the U .S. Departments of Labor and Commerce who provided data,
assistance, and advice. Financial support was provided by the Equitable
Life Assurance Society of the United States, the Ford Foundation, and the
Yale University Program on Non-Profit Organizations. Independent Sector,
Inc., contributed facilities and services.
2The terms “ philanthropic employment,” “ philanthropic labor force,”
and “ philanthropic jobs” have the same definition and are used inter
changeably. Included are all persons employed for pay by philanthropic
organizations, either on a full- or part-time basis. (This is consistent with
b l s and Bureau o f Census definitions.) Excluded are self-employed work
ers, farmworkers, private household workers, and the military, including
the Coast Guard. The terms “ payroll,” “ earnings,” and “ wages and
1
This summary is excerpted from our monograph entitled Significance salaries” are also used interchangeably. Compensation in the form of
pensions or other deferred payments or in the form of fringe benefits is
o f E m ploym en t a n d E arnings in the P hilanthropic Sector, 1 9 7 2 - 8 2 , is p s
not included.
Working Paper 2077 (New Haven, Conn., Yale University, Institution for
Social and Policy Studies, Program on Non-Profit Organizations, Novem
3 See Gabriel Rudney, A Q uan titative P rofile o f the N onprofit S ector,
ber 1983). The monograph presents additional employment and earnings
Working Paper 40 (New Haven, Conn., Yale University, Institution for
estimates, along with a description of the data structure and classification
Social and Policy Studies, Program on Nonprofit Organizations, November
system used, and a disscussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the
1981), p. 7, t. 2.
estimating procedures.
In addition to philanthropic organizations, the nonprofit sector includes
private nonprofit commercial enterprises and membership groups (social
4 It is noteworthy that 1982 was a recession year. But the choice of
clubs, fraternal organizations, labor unions, chambers of commerce, trade
initial and terminal years is not of critical importance for long-run growth
associations, and business leagues) that are organized largely to provide
comparisons.
mutual benefits to their members. Although nonprofit commercial enter
prises and membership groups are tax-exempt under Federal law, donations
5 Victor Fuchs, The S ervice E conom y (Cambridge, M ass., National Bu
to such organizations are not tax deductible.
reau of Economic Research, 1968).
Satisfaction is not an absolute
Not only . . . is job satisfaction part of an unbounded continuum, it is
also a personal state, as opposed to a group state, and its goals will vary
from person to person, from circumstance to circumstance and from time
to time in the same person. Furthermore, it is at least as much a-function
of the individual as of the job, with connotations of positive well-being
which are barely consistent with reality and probably attainable at best by
only a few. The majority of people, the majority of the time, are neither
particularly satisfied nor particularly dissatisfied. They occupy some shift
ing range in between, satisfied about some things, dissatisfied about others,
dynamically adjusting to each change in their individual homeostatic equi
libria. Thus, data pertaining to the level of job satisfaction of groups have
to be interpreted with caution. At best, they are statistical indices which
have often little or no application to the individual.
— T. M . F r a s e r
Human Stress, Work and Job Satisfaction:
A Critical Approach (Washington, International
Labor Office, 1983), p. 56.
20
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Labor organization mergers
1979-84: adapting to change
The merger pace accelerates
as unions, employee associations
unite in the face o f shrinking
membership and dues income
L
ar r y
T.
A
dam s
More labor organizations merged between January 1979 and
June 1984 than in any similar period since the American
Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Orga
nizations joined to form the a f l - c i o in December 1955.
Since that time, there have been 86 mergers with approx
imately 35 percent taking place in the last
years.1
Although the constitution of the a f l - c i o strongly en
dorses the “ elimination of conflicting and duplicating or
ganizations and jurisdictions through the process of . . .
voluntary mergers,” only 20 mergers took place between
1955 and 1965. Disappointed at the slow rate of amalga
mation, George Meany declared in December 1965, “ I . . .
strongly suggest that the responsible officers of many unions,
who by all logic and commonsense should merge, might
well take a broader look at the union as an instrument of
progress for working people rather than an institution de
voted to its own perpetuation for the sake of sentiment and
tradition.” 2 The pace of mergers remained slow for the next
2 years, but became brisk between 1968 and 1972, with 19
mergers occurring. Six years of modest merger activity fol
lowed. However, the pace picked up again in 1979 and
continued through April 1984. Furthermore, merger nego
tiations are currently taking place among a number of unions
and some may end successfully.
Although unity has always been a philosophical goal of
Larry T. Adams is an economist in the Division of Developments in LaborManagement Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Evelyn Traylor, an
economic assistant in the same division, assisted in gathering data for this
article.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
organized labor, practical considerations usually provide the
impetus for merger. Some labor organizations merge be
cause of costly jurisdictional disputes or the need to gain a
strong and united voice in collective bargaining. Others
choose merger because they cannot survive in the face of
dwindling membership and dues income stemming from
employment loss resulting from import competition, reces
sion, technological change, or employer relocation.
A few mergers involve relatively equal organizations join
ing to form a new entity, but most are the result of an
absorption of a small labor organization by a much larger
one. But regardless of the type of merger, an agreement of
affiliation must be reached regarding organizational struc
ture, election and terms of office, bylaws, and union dues
that will accommodate the individual functions and philo
sophies of the organizations. An acceptable means of shar
ing authority and control by officers of both organizations
must be determined. For organizations with strong craft
traditions, the issues of craft identify and jurisdiction must
be dealt with. When these and other issues are not resolved,
potential mergers fail. Merger is a difficult process requiring
delicate negotiations, patience, and sensitivity to personal
and institutional sensibilities. Although mergers may be good
for the labor movement in general, they usually occur when
the economic and institutional problems that create the need
to merge outweigh the problems of satisfying that need.
Mergers involving employee associations occur, in part,
for reasons similar to those influencing mergers by tradi
tional labor unions, but there are significant historical and
21
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Labor Organization Mergers
legal differences. Between 1960 and mid-1984, when State
and local government employment more than doubled, many
States passed laws granting public employees the right to
organize and bargain collectively. Expanding their functions
beyond the traditional lobbying and merit system activities,
many national professional groups and State employee as
sociations3 began to organize workers, petition for repre
sentation elections, and engage in collective bargaining. The
blessings of these changes were mixed. Even where the
legal right to organize and negotiate collective bargaining
agreements had been conferred, many State labor laws did
not provide for or proscribed requirements that workers
represented by an association for bargaining join and pay
dues or a service charge. As a result, many associations
were required to represent all workers in a bargaining unit
while operating on a limited budget. Other associations,
covered by stronger security provisions, were able to secure
adequate financial resources only to be confronted with costly
jurisdictional challenges from stronger national labor or
ganizations. For many of these public employee associa
tions, merger with a national labor organization is the most
effective way to increase their strength and ensure their
future.
Mergers of labor organizations (both unions and em
ployee associations) are, in general, precipitated and molded
by a broad set of economic, institutional, legal, and social
factors. The blend of these issues is unique to each merger
situation, and the resulting amalgamation is also unique.
The following discussion highlights the significant aspects
of almost all mergers that occurred between January 1979
and April 1984. Organizations are ranked first by the number
of mergers they were involved in, and then by the number
of members they gained through amalgamation. (See table
1 for a complete list of all mergers which occurred between
January 1979 and April 1984.)
Organizations involved in more than one merger
The United Food and Commercial Workers. The largest
merger in the history of the American labor movement oc
curred on June 7, 1979, when the Amalgamated Meat Cut
ters and Butcher Workmen of North America joined with
the Retail Clerks International Union to become the United
Food and Commercial Workers International Union. Cul
minating 14 years of sporadic merger discussions and 6 years
of final negotiations, the joining of 500,000 Meat Cutters
and 735,000 Retail Clerks established the Food and Com
mercial Workers as one of the largest labor organizations
in the United States.
Membership of the two unions moved in opposite direc
tions with the Meat Cutters losing 25,000 members and the
Retail Clerks gaining 85,000 between 1974 and 1978. In
addition to providing a unified voice in bargaining with
common employers, the merger ended a long history of
jurisdictional disputes in retail and wholesale trade and the
meat products industries.
22
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
In the 4 years following its consolidation, the Food and
Commercial Workers absorbed three other labor organiza
tions. In September 1980, the Barbers, Beauticians and
Allied Industries International Association merged with the
Food and Commercial Workers to become the Barbers and
Cosmetologists Division. With the advent of “ the ‘chain
store’ operation of barber-stylists and beautician-hairdress
ers,’’4 the Barbers and Beauticians suffered severe mem
bership losses during the 1970’s. With rapidly dwindling
financial resources, the union was “ unable to cope with the
problem” of organizing “ people who are unaware of the
necessity to organize.” 5
The United Retail Workers Union, a 22,000-member or
ganization (95 percent in Illinois and 5 percent in Indiana),
joined the Food and Commercial Workers in November
1981. Encountering difficulties as a small, geographically
concentrated labor organization dealing with national food
chains, the rank and file voted to become Local 881, the
Food and Commercial Workers fifth largest local.
The Insurance Workers International Union, following
two attempts to merge with the United Steelworkers of
America (in 1980 and 1982), joined the Food and Com
mercial Workers in October 1983 as the Professional In
surance and Finance Division. With membership down to
15,000 in 1983 from 24,000 in 1970, the Insurance Workers
entered the merger as a first step towards “ a full scale
organizing effort in the insurance and finance industry.” 6
Service Employees International Union. One of the largest
a f l - c i o affiliates, the Service Employees International Union
absorbed four labor organizations beginning in 1980. Com
menting on the union’s mergers, Service Employees Union
President George Hardy declared, “ . . . In the past 10 years
our ‘reach out’ program has resulted in 22 affiliations by
independent and other a f l - c i o unions . . . Each affiliation
has fully protected the autonomy and the contracts of the
[incoming] group.” 7
The International Jewelry Workers Union joined the Ser
vice Employees in July 1980. Chartered by the a f l in 1912
with locals dating back to 1882, it was one of the oldest
labor organizations in the United States. The Jewelry Work
ers locals became separate chartered local unions in the
newly created Service Employees Jewelry Division. While
the Jewelry Workers maintained membership at about 10,000
in the 1970’s, it had “ been finding it increasingly difficult
to protect . . . members against the conglomerates who are
buying up America’s century old jewelry and watch com
panies. [The Jewelry Workers need] the size and strength
of a union like [Service Employees] to get on equal footing
with these industrial giants.” 8
The Oregon Service Employee Association chose to merge
with the Service Employees in December 1980 after con
sidering merger with the Communications Workers of America
and the American Federation of State, County and Munic
ipal Employees. In the 2 years prior to the merger, Oregon
T a b le 1.
C h r o n o lo g y o f la b o r o r g a n iz a t io n m e r g e r s , J a n u a r y 1 9 7 9 t o A pril 1 9 8 4
M em b ersh ip
O rgan ization and a ffilia tio n 1
D ate
at tim e o f
m erger
1979:
January
International T y p o g ra p h ica l U n ion ( afl - cio ) ......................................................................................................................................
International M a ilers Union (Ind.)
March
............................................................................................................................................................
3 ,1 0 0
.................................................................................................
4 7 5 ,0 0 0
......................................................................................................................................
2 5 ,0 0 0
R eta il C lerk s International Union ( afl - cio ) ........................................................................................................................................
7 3 5 .0 0 0
Am algam ated M ea t C u tters and Butcher W orkmen o f North A m erica ( afl - cio) ..............................................................
5 0 0 .0 0 0
Am algam ated C lo th in g a nd T ex tile W o rk ers U nion ( afl - cio )
U n ited S h o e W o rk ers o f Am erica ( afl - cio)
June
8 1 ,3 0 0
Formed the United F ood an d C o m m ercial W ork ers International Union ( afl - cio )
August
International U nion, U nited A u to m o b ile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement W o rk ers o f A m erica ( afl - cio )
1 ,4 9 9 ,0 0 0
D istrib u tiv e W o rk ers o f Am erica (Ind.) ................................................................................................................................................
3 5 ,0 0 0
International Brotherhood o f C arp en ters and Joiners o f Am erica ( afl - cio ) ...........................................................................
7 5 0 ,0 0 0
The W ood, Wire and Metal L a th ers International Union ( afl - cio )
..........................................................................................
11,000
1980:
January
June
July
Septem ber
October
T ile , M a rb le and T erra zzo F in ish ers and Shopm en International Union ( afl - cio ) .........................................................
7 ,0 0 0
The G ra n ite C u tters International A ssociation o f Am erica ( afl - cio) .......................................................................................
2 ,3 0 0
Brotherhood o f R ailw ay, Airline and Steamship C lerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em ployees ( afl- cio)
170,000
The Am erican R a ilw a y a nd A irw a y S u p ervisors A ssociation ( afl - cio ) ................................................................................
8 ,0 0 0
............................................................................................................................
6 2 5 ,5 0 0
International J ew elry W o r k e r s’ Union ( afl - cio) ..............................................................................................................................
10,000
United F o o d and C o m m ercia l W o rk ers International Union ( afl - cio ) ..................................................................................
1 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0
Serv ice E m p lo y ees International U nion ( afl - cio )
B a rb er s, Beauticians and A llied Industries International A ssociation ( afl - cio ) ...................................................................
2 7 ,0 0 0
International L o n g sh o r em en ’s and W a r eh o u sem en ’s Union (Ind.)
..........................................................................................
6 4 ,0 0 0
Inland B o a tm e n ’s U n io n o f the Pacific (Ind.) ......................................................................................................................................
4 ,0 0 0
............................................................................................................................
6 3 5 ,5 0 0
O reg o n Sta te E m p lo y ees A ssociation ( age ) 2 ......................................................................................................................................
14,500
January
International Organization o f M a ster s, M ates an d P ilots (Marine D ivision — ila 3 ( afl - cio ) ) ......................... ..
Am erican R a d io A sso cia tio n ( afl - cio ) ..................................................................................................................................................
9 ,0 0 0
473
September
Alum inum W orkers International Union ( a f l - c i o ) ...............................................................................................................
The United Brick and Clay W orkers of America(AFL-cio) ...............................................................................................
Formed the Alum inum , Brick and Clay W orkers International Union ( a f l - c i o )
2 7 .0 0 0
United Food and Com mercial W orkers International Union ( a f l - c i o ) .................................................................................................
United Retail W orkers Union (Ind.) ..........................................................................................................................................
1 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0
Glass Bottle Blowers of the United States and Canada ( a f l - c i o ) ................................................................................................................
International Brotherhood of Pottery and Allied W orkers ( a f l - c i o ) .......................................................................................................
8 0 ,000
Alum inum , Brick and Clay W orkers International Union ( a f l - c i o ) ....................................................................................................
United Glass and Ceramic W orkers of North America ( a f l - c i o ) .............................................................................................................
Formed the Alum inum , Brick and Glass W orkers International Union ( a f l - c i o )
4 0 .0 0 0
October
American Federation of State, County and M unicipal Em ployees ( a f l - c i o ) ...................................................................................
Arizona Public Em ployees Association ( a g e ) ...........................................................................................................................
1 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0
7 ,5 0 0
November
Hotel Em ployees and Restaurant Em ployees International Union ( a f l - c i o ) ................................................................
International Production, Service and Sales Union ( I n d .) ....................................................................................................
4 0 0 ,0 0 0
Service Em ployees International Union ( a f l - c i o ) ...................................................................................................................................................
National Association of Governm ent Employees ( I n d .) ........................................................................................................
6 5 0 .0 0 0
Amalgamated Clothing and Textile W orkers Union ( a f l - c i o ) .........................................................................................
United H atters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union ( a f l - c i o ) .........................................................................................
4 1 0 ,0 0 0
American Federation of State, County and M unicipal Em ployees ( a f l - c i o ) ..................! .............................................................
Ohio Civil Service Em ployees Association, Inc. ( a g e ) .......................................................................................................................................
1 ,1 3 0 ,0 0 0
N ovem ber
S erv ice E m p lo y ees International Union ( afl - cio )
1981:
November
1982:
July
September
December
1983:
May
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
15.000
2 2 ,0 0 0
11,000
2 8 .0 0 0
18,000
100.000
8 ,0 0 0
17,000
23
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Labor Organization Mergers
Tab le 1.
C o n tin u ed — C hronology of labor organization m ergers, January 1979 to A pril 1984
Date
July:
M em bership
at time o f
m erger
O rganization and affiliation1
International Printing and Graphic Communications Union ( a f l - c i o ) .......................................
Graphic Arts International Union ( a f l - c i o ) ..................................................................................
Formed the Graphic Com m unications International Union
112,000
8 2 ,5 0 0
August
Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees ( a f l W estern Railway Supervisors Association ( I n d .) .........................................................
October
United Food and Com mercial W orkers International Union ( a f l - c i o ) ..........................................
Insurance W orkers International Union ( a f l - c i o ) ..................................................................................
December
American Federation of Governm ent Em ployees ( a f l - c i o ) ....................................................................
National Association of Governm ent Inspectors and Quality Assurance Personnel (Ind.) ..............
2 5 5 ,0 0 0
Service Em ployees International Union ( a f l - c i o ) ..................................................................................
California State Employees Association ( a g e ) ...........................................................................................
7 5 0 ,0 0 0
c io )
178,000
325
1 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0
15,000
800
1984:
February
5 0 ,0 0 0
American Federation of State, County and M unicipal Em ployees ( a f l - c i o ) ......................................
Ohio Association of Public School Em ployees (Ind.) ..................................................
March
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ( a f l Brewery W orkers Local 9 (A directly affiliated local of the a f l - c i o ) ...........................................................
April
International Brotherhood of Boilerm akers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers
1 ,1 3 0 ,0 0 0
2 5 ,0 0 0
c io )
1 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0
2 ,4 0 0
134,000
(A F L -C IO )
United Cem ent, Lime and Gypsum W orkers International Union ( a f l -
c io
) ....................................
Com m unications W orkers of America ( a f l - c i o ) ...........................................................
W est Virginia Public Em ployees Association (Ind.) ..................................................................
2 9 ,0 0 0
5 5 0 ,5 0 0
1,500
'Affiliations are designated as (AFL-CIO); Ind. (independent); and AGE (Assembly of Government Employees).
2These organizations disaffiliated with the AGE just prior to, or at the time of, merging.
3International Longshoremen’s Association.
N ote : This table reflects all mergers known to the Bureau as of June 30, 1984.
Service Employee membership had declined 16 percent to
14,500, in part, the result of State budget restrictions that
reduced employment and jurisdictional disputes with the
Teamsters. The granting of complete local autonomy—
including a guarantee never to be placed in trusteeship—
was cited by Oregon Service Employees as the major reason
for choosing to join the Service Employees.
On December 1, 1982, the National Association of Gov
ernment Employees— a public sector labor organization with
70 percent of its membership in the Federal Government
and 30 percent in State government— merged with the Ser
vice Employees. Membership of Government Employees
dropped from its peak of 200,000 in 1978 to 100,000 in
December 1982.
The California State Employees Association, following
merger talks with four other unions, joined the Service
Workers in February 1984.9 The California Employees faced
intense raiding after the January 1983 enactment of a State
labor law allowing agency shop provisions in public sector
collective bargaining agreements.10 Rather than expend a
large portion of its resources defending against the raids,
the California Employees chose to merge with an a f l - c i o
affiliate, thereby securing the protection of article 20 of the
a f l - c i o constitution prohibiting raids among member unions.
24
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
In announcing the decision to merge his unions’s 50,000
members with the Service Workers 750,000 membership,
the president of the California Employees Association stated
that “ because [the California State Employees Association]
will come under the no-raiding provision of the a f l - c i o
constitution, [it] will no longer have to divert precious re
sources to fight off other unions.” 11
The American Federation o f State, County and Municipal
Employees. Three State employee associations were ab
sorbed by the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees ( a f s c m e ) : The Arizona Public Em
ployee Association, the Ohio Civil Service Employee As
sociation, and the Ohio Association of Public School
Employees. The Arizona Association, struggling with a 38percent membership decrease in the 8 years prior to the
merger, the lack of a State labor law conferring the right
of collective bargaining to public employees, and the ex
istence of a State right-to-work law, joined with existing
State, County and Municipal Employees locals in October
1982 to form Arizona Public Employee Association/Council
97, the largest public sector labor organization local in Ar
izona.
The Ohio Civil Service Employees, suffering a 50-percent
membership loss of 17,000 members between 1976 and
1983, merged with the State, County and Municipal Em
ployees on May 25, 1983, after a raiding dispute between
the State, County and Municipal Employees and the Com
munication Workers of America. The Ohio Public School
Employees, representing 25,000 nonprofessional public school
employees, joined the State, County and Municipal Em
ployees on February 11, 1984. These two affiliates will
operate under Ohio’s new State labor law, which became
effective in April 1984, and provides State and local gov
ernment workers with the right to negotiate wages, hours,
working conditions, and agency shop.
The Aluminum, Brick and Glass Workers International
Union. The first step in what would become a three-party
merger among labor organizations of comparable size took
place on September 1, 1981, when the Aluminum Workers
International Union merged with the United Brick and Clay
Workers of America to become the Aluminum, Brick and
Clay Workers International Union. Both organizations in
curred significant membership losses in the years preceding
the merger. Membership of the Aluminum Workers de
creased from 32,000 in 1974 to 27,000 in 1981. The de
crease was generally caused by cutbacks in domestic
automobile production and building construction— indus
tries which consume a large proportion of domestic alu
minum production. In 1981, the Brick and Clay Workers
membership, 18 percent lower than in 1970, reflected the
slowdown in building construction as well as a shift from
brick and clay to less expensive construction materials.
On September 1, 1982, the newly formed Aluminum,
Brick and Clay Workers merged with the United Glass and
Ceramic Workers of North America to form the Aluminum,
Brick and Glass Workers International Union. With mem
bership having declined to 15,000 from 43,000 in 1972, the
Glass and Ceramic Workers’ president declared, “ Mem
bership is the foundation and you cannot continue to funnel
money in forever if . . . membership continues to decline.
We have not been successful in organizing . . . [and] that
is the key to survival . . . We will reach a point where we
will not be able to function as we have in the past if we do
not merge.” 12 Earlier in the year, the Glass and Ceramic
Workers terminated negotiations with the International
Brotherhood of Pottery and Allied Workers and the Glass
Bottle Blowers of the United States and Canada in disa
greement over dues structure. The Pottery Workers and the
Glass Bottle Blowers subsequently merged.
The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers o f America. The In
ternational Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Ag
ricultural Implement Workers of America absorbed the
Distributive Workers of America in 1979. The Distributive
Workers union was organized in 1933 and comprised mainly
immigrant workers in wholesale trade. The Distributive
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Workers and the Automobile Workers have a history of
mutual support on social and economic issues. While both
organizations lost a significant proportion of their member
ship in the years preceding the June 1979 merger, the Dis
tributive Workers, with 35,000 members, had been successful
in expanding their jurisdiction to represent clerical workers
in universities, professional and nonprofessional law office
employees, and retail store employees. In March 1984, the
Automobile Workers also absorbed Brewery Workers Local
9, a directly affiliated local of the a f l - c i o .
The Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union. In
a further consolidation of labor organizations representing
workers in the apparel and textile industries, the United
Shoe Workers of America and the United Hatters, Cap and
Millinery Workers International Union were absorbed by
the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union in
1979 and 1982, respectively. Membership in each of these
organizations had declined sharply in the 1970’s. Employ
ment in the apparel and textile industries has been declining,
in large measure the result of import competition, recession,
and laborsaving changes in technology. In addition, the
general demand for apparel and textiles has been diminished
by less frequent style changes and more durable fabrics.
Prior to joining the Clothing and Textile Workers, the
United Shoe Workers held merger discussions with the
Brotherhood of Shoe and Allied Craftsmen (BSAC-Ind.). The
organization resulting from the proposed merger was slated
to merge with the Retail Clerks International Union as the
RCiu/Shoe Division. However, there was disagreement over
the division of power within the proposed shoe division.
Negotiations became more difficult when, in 1978, the Shoe
and Craftsmen unilaterally merged with the Retail Clerks.
Believing it was no longer possible to gain parity with the
Shoe and Craftsmen within the Retail Clerks Shoe Division,
the United Shoe Workers sought merger talks with, and
ultimately merged into, the Clothing and Textile Workers.
The Brotherhood o f Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees. Citing
the need for additional collective bargaining efforts, the
American Railway and Airway Supervisors Association
merged with the Railway Clerks on August 6, 1980. While
membership in the Railway-Airway Supervisors Association
rose from 6,200 to 8,000 during the 1970’s, the Railway
Clerks’ membership fell from 275,000 to 170,000 between
1970-80. In August 1983, the Western Railway Supervisors
Association, with fewer than 500 members, joined the Rail
way Clerks as a member of the Professional Employees
Department.
Other selected mergers
On July 1, 1983, in one of the largest printing union
mergers in the history of the industry, the International
Printing and Graphic Communication Union and the Graphic
25
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Labor Organization Mergers
Arts International Union joined to become the Graphic Com
munication International Union. Both organizations had siz
able membership decreases in the 10 years prior to the
merger, but they remained the two largest printing industry
labor organizations. As changes in printing technology have
continued to blur or eliminate craft distinctions and erode
employment, the Printing and Graphic union and the Graphic
Arts union, both products of previous mergers, affiliated to
end costly jurisdictional disputes and to gain a large, single
voice in collective bargaining.
Encouraging the membership to ratify the merger, a Print
ing and Graphic union leader reminded the rank and file
that “ we have seen industry merge from the individual
owner to the corporation, to the conglomerate, to the mul
tinational corporation.” He further stated that “ each union
has squandered untold thousands of dollars in contested
organizing drives, in raids on each other’s shops, in crossing
each others picket lines, even performing each others struck
work . . . Such . . . acts would cease under merger.” 13
On April 1, 1984, the International Brotherhood of Boil
ermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and
Helpers absorbed the United Cement, Lime and Gypsum
Workers International Union. Both organizations had mem
bership decreases in the 6 years prior to the merger. While
the Boilermakers and the Cement Workers did not negotiate
with the same employers or represent workers in related
occupations, the organizational structure and operation of
the two unions were similar. As a result, the Cement Work
ers joined the Boilermakers as the Cement, Lime and Gyp
sum Allied Workers Division with only minor modification
to the Boilermakers constitution.
In 1982, the Glass Bottle Blowers Association of the
United States and Canada absorbed the 11,000 member
International Brotherhood of Pottery and Allied Workers to
form the Glass, Pottery, Plastics and Allied Workers Union.
Both the Pottery and Allied Workers and the Glass Bottle
Blowers had been actively seeking merger since 1970. In
1976, the Pottery Workers, following a substantial mem
bership loss, affiliated with the Seafarers International Union
of North America expecting that the benefits of merger
would include increased membership. When the Pottery
Workers membership failed to increase after 18 months, the
merger was dissolved. From 1978 to 1981, the Pottery
Workers conducted unsuccessful merger talks with both the
Brick and Clay Workers and the Glass and Ceramic Work
ers. Commenting on the necessity of a merger, the president
of the Pottery Workers declared, “ It is nearly impossible
for small unions to survive today, and it is inevitable [that]
the small labor unions spread over the country must unite
for strength . . . ” 14
With changes in construction methods making the lath
and plaster crafts virtually obsolete, membership in the In
ternational Union of Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers de
clined from 14,600 in 1970 to 11,000 in 1979. To maintain
employment, the lathers used substitute construction meth
26
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ods which replaced the lath craft. However, the new meth
ods were as closely related to other construction crafts as
to lathing, and jurisdictional disputes ensued. Consequently,
in 1979, the Lathers affiliated with the Carpenters, with
each craft having priority for available work within its his
torical jurisdictions.
The current merger environment
Merger is perhaps the most efficient method for a labor
organization to increase membership and financial re
sources. Many organizations that have traditionally repre
sented workers in industries and occupations now adversely
affected by recession, imports, plant relocation, technolog
ical change, and other disruptions are actively seeking to
absorb small related organizations. They also seek to expand
their jurisdictions to the growing or stable areas of the econ
omy such as service industries and the public sector. How
ever, these unions may experience conflict with organizations
that already represent workers in these areas and are eager
to maintain and expand their own jurisdictions. With many
large labor organizations representing both public and pri
vate sector workers actively courting a limited number of
merger partners, rivalries have developed.
Merger negotiations are frequently kept secret. When ne
gotiations fail, the fact that they took place may never be
come known. When they lead to initial agreement by the
leadership, they may be rejected by the rank and file. Fol
lowing are brief descriptions of some of the merger talks
now taking place.
Following the rejection of a merger between the Inter
national Typographical Union and The Newspaper Guild by
delegates attending the International Typographical con
vention, the International Typographical Union undertook
merger discussions with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and the Graphic Communications International
Union. Teamsters President Jackie Presser and a f l - c i o
President Lane Kirkland have questioned the merits of join
ing the largest independent union in the United States or
merging with the smaller a f l - c i o affiliate. There has been
considerable debate on this issue within the Typographical
union. Discussions have been intensified by a contested
presidential election in which the incumbent has favored
joining the Teamsters and the challenger has endorsed merg
ing with the Graphic Communications union.
In February 1984, the Telecommunications International
Union, an independent labor organization with 50,000 mem
bers in seven States (the majority in New York and Con
necticut), reviewed merger proposals by the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
( a f s c m e ) , the Communications Workers of America ( c w a ) ,
and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
( i b e w ) . Earlier in the month, the Telecommunications union
had convened a special convention to vote on a possible
merger with the State, County and Municipal Employees.
However, a Federal judge, holding that the delegates had
insufficient information regarding merger proposals, or
dered the vote postponed until the membership could receive
adequate information to choose among the merger candi
dates. As a result, the Telecommunications union plans to
distribute merger information to its membership that will be
provided by State, County and Municipal Employees, Com
munications Workers, and the Electrical Workers. The Te
lecommunications union plans to conduct a membership
referendum to select a merger partner; the leadership has
formally endorsed the State, County and Municipal Em
ployees.
In March 1984, the membership of the Screen Actors
Guild rejected a merger with the Screen Extras Guild, as
they had done 2 years earlier. As a result, the Screen Actors
Guild leadership reopened suspended merger discussions
with the American Federation of Television and Radio Art
ists.
Two of the a f l —c io ’s largest white-collar labor organi
zations, the Office and Professional Employees International
Union and the International Federation of Professional and
Technical Engineers are engaged in merger talks. The Office
and Professional Employees and the Professional and Tech
nical Engineers, both with moderate membership gains in
recent years, cite the increased organizing ability of a single,
larger white-collar labor organization and “ the overwhelm
ing need to organize the unorganized white-collar sector” 15
as principal reasons for the proposed merger.
The process of labor organizations striving to adapt, sur
vive, and prosper within the changing configuration of the
U.S. economy is likely to keep merger activity fast-paced
and highly competitive.
-FOOTNOTES'The Bureau o f Labor Statistics reported on this subject in “ Union
mergers in the 1980’s: a look at the reasons and results,” Monthly Labor
Review, October 1978, pp. 13-23 and “ Union merger pace quickens,”
Monthly Labor Review, June 1971, pp. 6 3 -7 0 .
11White Collar Report (Washington, The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc., 1984), Vol. 55, p. 73.
2Proceedings o f the Sixth Constitutional Convention o f the a f l -C IO , Dec.
9, 1965, p. 21.
12Aluminum Light, Aluminum Brick and Clay Workers International
Union, May-June 1982, p. 3.
3The American Nurses Association and the Arizona Public Employees
Association are examples of national professional and State employee
associations.
i3New s and Views, International Printing and Graphic Communications
Union, May 1983, p. 7.
4Journeyman Barber and Beauty Culture, Barbers, Beauticians and Al
lied Industries International Association, June 1980, p. 2.
5Ibid, December 1980, p. 5.
6
a f l -C IO News, American Federation o f Labor and Congress o f Industrial
Organizations, Sept. 10, 1983, p. 1.
7Service E m ployee, Service Employees International Union, June 1980,
p. 3.
8Ibid.
9The other unions were: the American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees; the Communications Workers of America; the
International Union o f Operating Engineers; and the International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America.
10An agency shop requires all employees in the bargaining unit who do
not join the union to pay a fixed amount monthly, usually the equivalent
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of union dues, as a condition of employment, to help defray the union’s
expenses in acting as a bargaining agent.
14Potters H erald, International Brotherhood o f Pottery and Allied Work
ers, August 1982, p. 2.
15Government Employee Relations Report (Washington, The Bureau of
National Affairs, Inc., 1984), Vol. 22, p. 340.
N ote;
The requirement for inclusion in this and the previous
studies was affiliation with the a f l - c i o or, for unaffiliated unions,
the existence of collective bargaining agreements with different
employers in more than one State (except those meeting require
ments for exclusive recognition). Professional or State employee
associations were included if they reported that they engaged in
collective bargaining or representational activities and claimed
membership in more than one State or, if claiming membership
in only one State, they represented employees in two counties or
more within the State. Every effort was made to include all unions
and associations meeting these standards.
27
Worker participation
and productivity change
A careful assessment
o f the available evidence
casts doubt on the viability o f grafting
industrial relations practices from abroad
onto the U.S. scene
Sar A . L
e v it a n a n d
D
ia n e
W
erneke
In the past several years, there has been increasing specu
lation that the decisionmaking patterns of foreign business
firms hold the key to improving U.S. productivity perfor
mance, reflecting greater recognition of institutional and
cultural influences on productivity. In particular, the in
dustrial practices found in West Germany and Japan, the
United States’ strongest competitors, have been cited as
models to be emulated to achieve optimal productivity.
Pointing to the traditional relationship between U.S. man
agement and labor as well as the failure of many business
leaders to properly manage and motivate their employees,
proponents of reforming the workplace have stressed the
potential of raising productivity through better labormanagement communications and the establishment of pro
grams of greater worker participation.1
Rejecting the prevailing U.S. economic doctrine, which
tends to view the firm as a machine that maximizes shortrun profits, students of organizational behavior regard an
enterprise as a social system with gaps between actual and
optimum performance. An organization may be resistant or
unresponsive to management goals. Jobs may be incom-
Sar A. Levitan is research professor of economics and director of the
Center for Social Policy Studies, The George Washington University.
Diane Werneke is an economist on the staff of U .S. Senator Paul Tsongas.
This article is adapted from chapter 3 of their book, Productivity: Problems,
Prospects, and Policies (Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1984).
28
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
patibly designed, given the existing skills of employees, or
they may be inappropriately meshed. Information may be
lacking, thereby forestalling smooth and coordinated work
processes. The consequence is deficient control over the
quality and quantity of production. Management can set its
goals in broad terms, but at the lower levels there is con
siderable room for variation both in the interpretation of
goals and in the effort made to meet them. To achieve greater
productivity, according to this view, management needs to
share authority with workers by giving the employees a
greater voice in determining production processes.
Job satisfaction may also play a major role in worker
productivity. One of the principal arguments advanced in
favor of worker participation is that giving employees a
greater share in decisionmaking can reduce alienation and,
with it, nonproductive practices such as absenteeism, turn
over, and poor-quality work. Workers are viewed as being
less willing to accept authoritarian decisions just because
they have stepped within the factory, office, or shop.
The evidence that workers’ participation plans result in
greater productivity is far from conclusive, however. Gen
eralizing on the basis of case studies is unwarranted because
it is difficult to identify the nature and extent of worker
participation and because it is hard to isolate the impact of
workers’ participation from other organizational and tech
nological changes affecting productivity. Moreover, what
ever the merits of the practices are in foreign countries, they
may prove unsuitable for the American environment. Sys-
terns of industrial relations are specific to each country,
reflecting the customs, attitudes, and traditions of the so
ciety, and they are not easily transferable across continents.
Experiences from abroad
The West German and Japanese systems of worker par
ticipation have been touted as models for achieving orga
nizational efficiency.
West Germany. In West Germany, participatory mecha
nisms have been established at two levels within the com
pany: at the top and on the shop floor.2 By law, workers
have equal representation with shareholders on the super
visory boards of companies employing 2,000 or more work
ers. These boards approve major decisions about investments,
loans, and other activities affecting the company’s balance
sheet. In addition, they select managers responsible for dayto-day decisionmaking. Thus, in principle, West German
workers’ representatives share with owners the power to set
policy. Also, through their right to select a labor director
to sit on the management board, workers share in the dayto-day implementation of these policies. However, in prac
tical terms, in the majority of companies, workers’ repre
sentatives play little more than an advisory role, as the
chairman of the board is elected by the stockholders and
retains control of the board and the real authority to run the
company.
On the shop floor, workers’ councils are elected by all
employees. These councils have a voice in virtually all
aspects of performance on the job, and they have, in con
sequence, greater authority than American shop stewards
or business agents. Although worker representation on com
pany boards has received the most attention in the United
States, workers’ councils are the key element of the West
German work force’s participation in company operations.
In addition to the labor-management system, the govern
ment has promoted a number of programs to improve work
ing conditions by reorganizing jobs to expand worker
discretion in, and responsibility for, daily work and quality
control. In such cases, the organization of work has been
reoriented around autonomous work groups, each of which
is responsible for part of the production process; this ar
rangement gives every worker a voice in the performance
of their work.
Have worker participation efforts in West Germany im
proved that nation’s productivity performance? The Biedenkopf Commission, established to review the system of
worker participation, found that worker participation had
served industry well and had not reduced the competitive
ness of companies as some employers had feared.3 The
commission concluded that board representation had pro
vided both employees and management with information
that facilitated change within the company. Management
found it useful to have a mechanism for informing em
ployees of the company’s situation and for encouraging
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
cooperation. Employees believed that communication had
been increased.
The chief contribution of worker participation in West
German productivity seems to be that it has promoted in
dustrial peace and acceptance of change. Workers’ councils
have provided a mechanism for handling grievances and
disputes and have helped to prevent management decisions
that could cause employee dissatisfaction. With respect to
shop floor experiments, however, little hard evidence is
available on contributions to productivity.
Japan. In Japan, worker participation is less institution
alized and instead is derived from the unique system of
industrial relations that characterizes many large Japanese
companies.4 Lifetime employment is reinforced by a sen
iority-based system that establishes a steady progression for
workers in status and pay, a system that is based on the age
of the employee rather than on the precise work done, The
result is a flexible work force that is willing to perform a
variety of tasks and to accept technological change.
The organization of unions on a company basis rather
than by occupation or industry, as is the case in most other
countries, tends to stimulate cooperation between the unions
and management. It is in the interest of both labor and
management for the company to perform well. This com
monality of interests is underpinned by a bonus system
whereby as much as 6 months of wages are paid to em
ployees on the basis of the company’s performance.
In many Japanese companies, before any decision is made,
consensus is sought at all levels of the company, a procedure
known as ringi. Although time-consuming, the process
stimulates an exchange of information and fosters cohesion,
ultimately resulting in decisions being implemented with
speed and broad support within the enterprise. This is rein
forced in many companies by an extensive labor-manage
ment consultation system. Employee representatives have
no formal veto power, but in practice many exercise con
siderable informal influence in company decisionmaking.
Shop-floor participation takes a concrete form in Japan.
Adapted from the ideas of an American scientist, William
Deming, quality control circles have proliferated in Japan,
currently involving more than one worker in every eight.
Part of the reason they have caught on is that as a concept,
quality control corresponds well to the attitudes fostered by
the system of industrial relations: cooperation for the com
mon purpose of achieving company goals.
The Japanese system of industrial relations has nourished
industrial harmony. Damaging strikes are rare. However,
the most persuasive evidence of the positive relationship
between productivity and employee participation comes from
the quality control circles. With the establishment of these
circles, responsibility for quality control shifted from en
gineers with limited shop-floor experience to employees
working in teams with engineers. Numerous examples have
been cited of employee suggestions that, when imple29
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Worker Participation and Productivity Change
merited, improved productivity.5
It has also been suggested that because of the quality
control circles, Japanese workers accept changes in the pro
duction process more willingly than workers in environ
ments where solutions are handed down by management.
This is particularly important in consumer durable indus
tries, where changes in models require frequent alterations
in the production process. Quality control circles also have
an impact on the efficiency of production. Because far fewer
inspectors are needed, one layer of bureaucracy is substan
tially reduced. For example, Japanese auto assembly plants
have one inspector for every twenty employees; in the United
States the ratio is one in seven. Moreover, because there is
greater confidence that components are not defective (sup
pliers, too, are required to achieve rigorous quality stan
dards), many companies can keep minimal inventories. As
a result, the need for stock rooms and warehousing is re
duced, production costs are lower, and the efficiency of
assembly-line operations is increased.
The Japanese system reportedly promoies productivity in
other ways. Lifetime employment, although it covers only
employees of large firms, or about one-third of the work
force, has been credited with reducing employee resistance
to the introduction of new technology; workers have co
operated with management in seeking ways to increase pro
ductivity without fear of being displaced by machines or
robots. Lifetime employment has also encouraged employ
ers to invest heavily in the training and retraining of their
employees, which has been reported to enhance the overall
technical ability of the nation’s work force.
The role of management
Much of the literature on linking worker participation with
productivity growth has focused on harnessing workers’
ideas and efforts to perform more effectively. The standard
underlying assumption for many American productivity
models has been that managers are inadequately motivated
and need no advice to improve their performance. More
recently, however, students of organizational behavior have
shifted their attention to examining how employer actions
promote or retard productivity growth.
Using West Germany and Japan as models, analysts have
found that employers in the United States do not provide
as much training for their employees. In West Germany,
about half the youth leave school at age 15 or 16. Most are
admitted to a 3-year apprenticeship system provided by em
ployers. This practice reportedly produces a work force with
a high level of technical competency and resulted, until the
1982 recession, in low unemployment among young people.
German employers are also willing to provide necessary
retraining because they have found that apprentices tend to
adapt well to different work environments.6
In Japan, employer investments in training are substan
tial. Many workers are recruited directly from high school
before they have had a chance to acquire specific job skills.
30
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Once in the company, they undergo training not only to
perform particular tasks but also to prepare them for other
jobs in the company.7 The Japanese approach has two im
plications for productivity: flexible employment of the work
force and acceptance by employees of technological change.
Because the employee is trained for the company rather than
for the job, narrow occupational lines are obliterated. Also,
due to job security in large firms, resistance on the part of
employees to technological changes and burdensome work
rules are not as pronounced as in the United States.
In the United States, employers do provide considerable
resources for employee training, estimated by the American
Society for Training and Development at $7 billion in 1983.8
However, in contrast to the West German and Japanese
systems, the bulk of the training effort has focused on man
agement and technical personnel; programs for manual
workers are much rarer.
Some observers fault American employers for their short
term perspective as evidenced by the relative lack of training
for production workers, claiming that it adversely affects
the long-term performance of companies.9 This perspective
is said to be a function of the high rate of turnover among
managers and of management’s preoccupation with short
term profits. Because managers are often rewarded with
bonuses or other forms of compensation largely based on
short-term profits, it is argued that they fail to plan and
develop strategies for the long run. For example, capital
invested in the upgrading of plants and equipment may
reduce paper profits in the short run, while acquisition of
established companies may result in immediate gains re
gardless of the long-run effects. Others fault U.S. managers
who often have financial and legal backgrounds for their
limited grasp of the production process and for their con
sequent misallocation of the investments that are needed to
improve productivity over the longer term.
American managers tend to approach sales through mar
ket research and responding to customer complaints, but
too much attention devoted to the current demands of cus
tomers in an effort to increase sales may frequently result
in sacrificing product quality. This affects productivity in
subtle but direct ways: by wasting materials and increasing
the frequency of recalls to fix defective parts.10
American managers have also been criticized for failing
to motivate production workers. By establishing layers of
bureauracy between workers and managers, the latter do
not work as closely as their Japanese or West German coun
terparts do with those on the shop floor or in the office.
This separation is reinforced by the wide salary disparity
between American managers and blue-collar workers, a dif
ferential which far exceeds comparable pay differences abroad.
And, as proponents of workers’ participation would argue,
American managers are less likely to provide channels for
meaningful communication and involvement. Conse
quently, American workers are much less likely to identify
with company goals than are employees abroad.
Models from abroad?
Even if American labor-management relations have se
rious deficiencies and the problems are compounded by
inappropriate management incentives and objectives, it does
not follow that a system that is effective in a foreign country
would necessarily prove effective if imported to the United
States. Industrial relations are most often shaped by the
broader cultural forces that mold a society. The style of
American management and the tenor of U.S. industrial re
lations are deeply embedded in the values and traditions of
our society.
Despite the success attributed to the Japanese and West
German systems of worker participation and the advocacy
of these systems by observers in this country, these systems
are unlikely to proliferate here. In West Germany, as else
where in Europe, worker participation is viewed in political
terms as an extension of democracy which grants workers
the right to participate in the organization that employs them.
Such motivation is largely absent from the American labor
movement, which is less doctrinaire and tends to focus more
on bread-and-butter issues of pay, benefits, and working
conditions.
West Germans’ acceptance of the notion of workers’ rights
to participate in management decisions has been fostered
by the relatively high unionization rates across the economy
together with the strong political affiliations of the unions.
Collective bargaining in European countries tends to be
highly centralized, and it is often carried out on an industry
wide basis. Consequently, until workers’ councils were es
tablished, there was little scope for worker participation at
the company level. In contrast, bargaining at the plant level
is characteristic of American industrial relations.
The idea of direct participation by labor representatives
in corporate management has not been well received by
either American management or labor. It has been rejected
by managers concerned with their loss of control and by
many union leaders who fear losing bargaining effectiveness
through shared responsibility. Glenn E. Watts, president of
the Communication Workers of America, put the union
position succinctly: “ I don’t want to sit on the board and
be responsible for managing the business. I want to be free
as a unionist to criticize management.” 11
Although most of U.S. organized labor also appear to
prefer this adversarial relationship, the one prominent ex
ample of worker representation on a corporate board of
directors in the United States also reflects the trade union
dilemma. In response to their dire economic circumstances
and the union “ give-backs,” the Chrysler Corporation in
vited the president of the United Auto Workers, Douglas
Fraser, to serve on its board of directors so as to improve
labor-management relations during a difficult restructuring
period. This arrangement came to an end abruptly when
Chrysler workers failed to agree on a new contract. Fraser
resigned from the board before renegotiation of the contract
began, citing conflict of interest (though he later returned
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
after the contract had been signed). This would not happen
in the West German context because bargaining is central
ized and labor representatives seated on company boards
are proscribed by law from participating in collective bar
gaining. Apart from these legal and organizational distinc
tions, it is clear that the leaders of American labor unions
are wary of being co-opted by management in matters they
perceive to be of doubtful advantage to themselves or to
their members.
It is equally unlikely that the Japanese model of worker
participation would be readily accepted in the United States,
despite the outpouring of articles from business schools and
assorted experts praising the advantages of Japanese labormanagement relations. Again, management seems to be op
posed to diluting its authority. Perceiving the process to be
slow and cumbersome, American management tends to re
gard these practices as inimical to efficiency. More fun
damentally, Japanese practices are foreign to American culture
and traditions. Consensus decisionmaking in Japan derives
from a system of hierarchical relations governed by a pa
ternalism in which the leader is responsible for all members
of the group. Worker participation in Japan is integral to
that country’s unique system of industrial relations: Lifetime
employment, seniority wages, and enterprise unions interact
to harmonize individual and company goals, thereby laying
the foundation on which meaningful communication and
participation can be built.
Whatever the merits of the much-publicized Japanese sys
tem of industrial relations, it applies only to large compa
nies, which employ about one-third of the work force.12
This leaves a sizable secondary labor market of women and
temporary part-time workers who have little or no say about
the terms and conditions of their work or in the management
decisions that affect them.
Borrowing from other industrial countries might remove
some impediments to productivity growth. Adoption of de
sired reforms must be preceded, however, by a change in
attitudes. Large-scale borrowing from successful practices
abroad does not seem likely, nor could these practices be
easily adopted. Traditions, norms, and legal arrangements
differ too much among countries for such practices to be
imported, as the limited success of experimental U.S. pro
grams tends to demonstrate.
U.S. experiments
Major portions of foreign industrial relations models may
not be transferable to the American context, but experiments
have been undertaken to implement some salient features
from the foreign models. Quality-of-worklife programs be
came a growth industry in the United States during the
1970’s. These experiments fit better with U.S. traditions
than the more legalistic West German or culturally different
Japanese approaches. Advocates have asserted that work
reform— either through job enrichment or participatory
management— would make jobs more satisfying and would
31
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Worker Participation and Productivity Change
usher in a new era of labor-management cooperation. This,
in turn, would lead to increased productivity. In the infla
tionary, high-interest environment of the late 1970’s, the
idea of investing in participatory management as a means
to improve productivity proved attractive.
The results of these experiments are far from conclusive.
Several studies have reported on the experiences of some
200 American corporations experimenting with quality-ofworklife programs. These ranged from changes in individual
job design (enlargement, rotation, or enrichment) to more
sophisticated meshings of technology and group-work de
sign (the socio-technical approach). On the basis of these
experiments, proponents were quick to claim that the quality-of-worklife movement was gaining momentum. The hope,
expressed or implied, was that encouraging employees to
participate in decisions that affect their day-to-day work
patterns would lead to an increase in their productivity.
Drawing upon their creativity and expertise in helping to
redesign jobs and improve the efficiency of the work process
also would enhance productivity.
Despite all the claims surrounding the establishment of
these programs there is little persuasive evidence that changes
in the work environment improve productivity. According
to a Work in America Institute report summarizing the lit
erature on productivity and quality-of-worklife programs in
the 1970’s, “ In isolated situations improved quality of work
life can result in increases in productivity. We cannot, how
ever, surmise that this is a direct cause-effect relation
ship.” 13
A New York Stock Exchange study was equally incon
clusive. It reported that corporations which had established
worker participation or related programs used them spar
ingly and that the programs involved only a fraction of the
corporations’ employees.14 Expressing hope for the future,
the researchers suggested that human-resource programs might
eventually be effective in raising productivity, but they noted
that most of the efforts covered by their study had been in
place for no more than 2 years, and thus many may have
been producing a short-run improvement that would be dif
ficult to sustain— the familiar “ Hawthorne effect.” Al
though some U.S. companies have recently been highly
successful in this area, a reliable and adequate sample of
corporate experience is hard to come by. Firms are not prone
to report failures, and researchers are dependent upon com
pany-released data that generally put experiments in the best
possible light.
The idea of increasing productivity by means of greater
participation at the workplace is deceptively simple. Evi
dently, workers have productive potential that is not being
tapped. “ Turning on” their creative energies would no doubt
improve the performance of many companies. Worker par
ticipation could also provide the basis for a new spirit of
cooperation, which would make it easier for management
and labor to set goals and work toward them collectively.
As a practical matter, however, the hoped-for reforms run
32
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
counter to deeply embedded authoritarian norms and Amer
ican cultural values of individualism and competitive strug
gle. These values translate into adversarial and hierarchical
relations at the workplace.
The real problem with establishing meaningful worker
participation programs that contribute to greater productivity
is that they require a redistribution of power within the
workplace.15 The traditional management perspective is that
the retention of control and final decisionmaking authority
is essential to profit maximization. Although some employ
ers may seek the advice of their employees in order to solve
production problems, management in general is more likely
to want workers to “ feel” involved rather than actually to
help make policy.
It is also not clear that American workers want far-reach
ing changes in their worklife or that management wants to
encourage such changes. To workers, greater productivity
may represent a threat to jobs. Conversely, management
sees improving productivity as a process of gaining from
labor greater flexibility in job assignment, production stan
dards, crew sizes, and other elements over which labor has
gained control.16
Organized labor has been wary of work-reform proposals.
Skeptical unionists believe that many experiments at the
workplace are designed to raise production standards, thereby
eliciting greater work effort and circumventing seniority
systems. Unions fear that these initiatives will become a
means of avoiding fair compensation and will leave workers
no real ability to influence key corporate decisions or to
exercise greater control over their work lives.
Even the limited cooperation and consultation associated
with quality control circles, a concept originally developed
in the United States, is viewed with suspicion by American
management and unions. Proposals by employees are not
readily accepted by supervisors, who are concerned about
their loss of authority, or by production engineers, who may
have little direct contact with the workers making the sug
gestions. Consequently, many of the existing American cir
cles tend to provide a more narrow scope for participation
and for potential productivity gains. There are, of course,
a number of exceptions and a number of reports of successful
experiments, but the limited adoption of quality control
techniques reflects continued union and management am
bivalence toward these programs.17
It is therefore unrealistic to assume that in assessing ex
isting relationships, labor and management are going to
focus on cooperation and productivity considerations at the
expense of traditional interests and motivations. This state
ment applies not only to situations where relations are gov
erned by collective bargaining agreements but also in the
nonunion sector, where management’s power is often greater.
Consequently, any effort to encourage greater cooperation
will have to focus on working within the traditional system,
rather than on building parallel but often ephemeral struc
tures.
□
■FOOTNOTES
'John F. Tomer, “ Worker Motivation: A Neglected Element in MicroMicro Theory,” Journal o f Economic Issues, June 1981, pp. 351-62;
Richard D. Rosenberg and Eliezer Rosenstein, “ Participation and Pro
ductivity: An Empirical Study,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
April 1980, pp. 3 5 5-67; and Kenneth Walker, “ Workers’ Participation
in Management,” International Institute for Labour Studies Bulletin, no.
12, 1974.
2Johannes Schregle, “ Codetermination in the Federal Republic of Ger
many: A Comparative V iew ,” International Labour Review, JanuaryFebruary 1978, pp. 8 1 -9 0 .
3 Benjamin C. Roberts and others, Collective Bargaining and Employee
Participation in Western Europe, North America, and Japan (New York,
Trilateral Commission, 1979), pp. 41 ff.
4 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, The D e
velopment o f Industrial Relations Systems: Some Implications o f Japanese
Experience (Paris, 1977).
5Robert E. Cole, Work, Mobility, and Participation (Berkeley, Uni
versity o f California Press, 1979), p. 166.
9Robert H. Hayes and William J. Abernathy, “ Managing Our Way to
Economic D ecline,” H arvard Business Review, July-August 1980. A
contrary view is presented by Richard R. West and Dennis E. Logue in
“ The False Doctrine of Productivity,” The New York Times, Jan. 9, 1983.
10Committee for Economic Development, Productivity Policy: Key to
the Nation’s Economic Future (Washington, D .C ., 1983), pp. 42 ff.
11Business Week, May 11, 1981, p. 86.
12Robert Cole, Work, M obility, and Participation, p. 166.
13Steven Pames, Productivity and the Quality o f Working Life (Scarsdale, NY, Work in America Institute, 1978), p. 4.
l4New York Stock Exchange, Office of Economic Research, People
and Productivity: A Challenge to Corporate America (New York, New
York Stock Exchange, 1982).
15Sar A. Levitan and Clifford M. Johnson, Second Thoughts on Work
(Kalamazoo, M ich., W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research,
1982), pp. 173-199.
7 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, The D e
velopment o f Industrial Relations Systems, p. 17.
16Archie Kleingärtner and Ross E. Azevedo, “ Productivity Bargaining
and Organizational Behavior,” in Collective Bargaining and Productivity
(M adison, W is., Industrial Relations Research A ssociation, 1975),
pp. 119-39.
8 Anthony P. Camevale and Harold Goldstein, Employee Training: Its
Changing Role and an Analysis o f New Data (Washington, D .C ., American
Society for Training and Development, 1983), pp. 4 4 -6 0 .
17Irving H. Siegel and Edgar Weinberg, Labor-Management Cooper
ation: The American Experience (Kalamazoo, M ich., W. E. Upjohn In
stitute for Employment Research, 1982).
6 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Youth Without
Work (Paris, 1981), pp. 88-1 9 0 .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A note on communications
The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supplement,
challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be considered
for publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not po
lemical in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-inChief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department
of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212.
33
Work-sharing approaches:
past and present
Short workweeks tied to jobless aid
can be an alternative to layoffs,
although the concept and circumstances today
differ markedly .from those o f the 1930’s
M
a r t in
N
e m ir o w
Short-time compensation ( s t c ) is a program voluntarily en
tered into by an employer (and by the union, where present)
whereby, in lieu of extensive layoffs due to economic con
ditions, some or all employees work a partial workweek
(usually 4 days), and receive a partial, prorated unemploy
ment benefit (usually for 1 day). For example, an employer
would adopt a 4-day workweek for 6 months, rather than
laying off 20 percent of the workers for that period. Because
the unemployment benefit would replace about one-half of
the lost wages, workers would get about 90 percent of their
regular income. Few added costs are involved because about
the same total amount of benefits is used as for layoffs, but
they are spread among more people. The program is tem
porary— usually lasting 6 months, although in California,
it can last up to a year if high unemployment prevails. Six
States— California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Florida,
Maryland— have amended their unemployment insurance
benefits to permit short-time compensation for reduced
workweeks.1A seventh State, Illinois, has a short-time com
pensation plan, but it is not part of the regular unemployment
insurance trust fund. Canada has a similar program, and
Martin Nemirow is a social science adviser in the Office of State Liaison
and Legislative Analysis, Employment Standards Administration, U.S.
Department o f Labor. An earlier discussion of this subject by the author
appears in Ramelle MaCoy and Martin J. Morand, eds., Short-Time Com
pensation: A Formula fo r Worksharing (Pergamon Press/Work in America
Institute, copyright 1984). The views expressed in this article are those of
the author and do not represent the official views of the U.S. Department
o f Labor or any government agency.
34
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
most of Western Europe and Japan have some form of shorttime compensation program.
Initial policy development on the concept in the United
States began in 1974, in the Office of the Secretary of Labor,
as the recession of that year worsened. However, work
sharing, or reduced hours of work without the short time
benefit, is not new— there was extensive experience with it
in the Great Depression. Although work sharing in the Great
Depression involved a much different set of economic cir
cumstances than modern-day recessions, it is useful to un
derstand the Nation’s early experience with work sharing
because it has left an emotional legacy of ambivalence that
affects even today’s perceptions of short-time compensa
tion.
A comparative view
For example, one feeling expressed is that work sharing
was tried by President Herbert Hoover and is no better an
idea now as short-time compensation than it was then as
work sharing. The comparison is instructive. Critics felt that
work sharing under Hoover represented an attempt to avoid
fiscal or monetary Federal intervention as well as to avoid
public assistance. Instead, voluntary employer action was
encouraged in the form of work sharing, not only to spread
the work but to do so without cutting hourly wages. (Hoover
felt wage cutting would compound the problem.)
Such work sharing (usually imposed by the employer)
subsequently came to be seen by labor as a poor alternative
to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s later New Deal meas-
ures. Short-time compensation, the current form of work
sharing, is a supplement, not a replacement, for macroec
onomic policy, transfer payments, and social insurance.
There are other differences. President Hoover’s work shar
ing, sometimes used through the early New Deal years,
often involved working half time simply because output was
so low. Short-time compensation does not permit employees
to work fewer than 3 days a week and has typically involved
4 days. Work sharing was often at poverty-level weekly
earnings: there was no minimum wage. Industrial wages are
incomparably higher today. Work sharing was often in un
organized plants: the National Labor Relations Act had not
yet been enacted, so unions had minimal power. Today,
roughly half of all manufacturing sites, where work sharing
has its greatest potential, are organized, and unions would
have to agree to short-time compensation. And, of course,
the Hoover approach did not include partial unemployment
insurance, as does the current concept of short-time com
pensation.2
Despite these differences, work sharing under President
Hoover did save jobs. It seems certain that manufacturing
employment might have dropped more than it did in the
short term if the workweek had not been sharply reduced
from 44.2 to 38.3 hours during 1929-32.3 This was a 13percent drop, accompanying a 33-percent drop in employ
ment. Because total production decreased by 48 percent, it
seems evident that a larger downward adjustment of labor
than 33 percent was needed in one form or another. In his
memoirs, President Hoover said 2 million workers had been
helped by either work sharing or private relief by em
ployers.4 Of course, weekly hours would have dropped re
gardless of President Hoover’s efforts. However, it is unlikely
that hours would have dropped so sharply. The lower fixed
costs of that period facilitated work sharing, of course.
The fact that Federal-State unemployment insurance did
not exist at that time not only had dire human consequences
but also precluded the countercyclical use of unemployment
insurance to offset part of the purchasing power lost by both
the fully and partially unemployed.
Second depression effort
The second big work-sharing effort came in mid-1933,
6 months into President Roosevelt’s New Deal. The success
of voluntary, private work sharing in providing some visible
relief had led to demands for more of the same but without
weekly pay reductions.
Where President Hoover had tried to prevent the loss of
some jobs by persuading industry leaders to cut hours, Pres
ident Roosevelt tried, with some success, to reemploy many
of those who had lost jobs by cutting hours still further and
establishing minimum wages. His goal was to increase pur
chasing power while spreading the increased work— in a
deflationary, not inflationary, economy.
The National Industrial Recovery Act, enacted in 1933,
was an attempt to increase production, prices, and employ
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ment by increasing labor protection and reducing pricecutting competition. The act created the National Recovery
Administration and the Public Works Administration. The
act lasted only 2 years, because it was ruled unconstitutional
in 1935. Under the National Recovery Administration ( n r a ) ,
which administered part of the law, business adopted vol
untary codes, including minimum wages and maximum hours.
These foreshadowed the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The n r a helped decrease the workweek to 34.6 hours in
1934— it was now 22 percent below pre-1929 levels. This
figure reflected a reduction in hours in many low-wage,
soft-goods firms from 50 to 60 hours to 40 to 48 hours, and
even fewer in some higher-wage, durable goods industries.
Higher hourly productivity from less fatigued workers, more
efficient use of workers, and increased plant utilization (for
example, two 8-hour shifts, rather than one 10-hour shift
as output expanded) accompanied these hours cuts.
The ratio of jobs to production was increased in part
because of n r a workweek reductions, which took effect in
mid-1933. The ratio of employment to production was quite
low in the pre-NRA upturn of March through June 1933 and
much higher in a similar upturn in early 1934.
Thus, in May 1933, 2 months after a sharp upturn in
production, the ratio of jobs to output was about .78. In
February 1934, 2 months after an upturn in production, this
ratio was about .93. This 19-percent increase in the number
of jobs created per unit of output was due in good part to
the 12-percent decrease in average weekly hours during this
period.5 (The output levels were also about the same in
February 1934 and May 1933.)
Although it is a subject of debate, some economic his
torians credit the n r a with significant job creation due to
work sharing, even while faulting it on other economic and
constitutional grounds.6
Work sharing phased out
However, the work-sharing effect faded as recovery con
tinued. Because of weak enforcement of the n r a , its many
exemptions, and finally its demise in 1935, average weekly
hours had moved back up to 38.6 by 1937, reflecting hours
well above 40 in some firms and much lower in others.
Partly as a result, the accelerating increases in output be
tween 1934 and 1937 were accompanied by decelerating
increases in employment. While rapid increases in wages
may have been one reason behind this increasing gap be
tween output growth and employment growth, longer hours
also seem to have contributed.7
By 1937, output was back up to its 1929 level, and em
ployment was almost so; however, because of the steady
growth of the labor force, about 21 percent of the nonfarm
labor force were still unemployed in 1937. In the 1937-38
“ Roosevelt” depression, weekly hours again dropped sharply.
This occurred once again in 1945-46, as the United States
demobilized. Since 1945, work sharing on such a national
scale has not been used.
35
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Short-Time Compensation
The Fair Labor Standards Act was not passed until 1938;
like the n r a , it contained a work sharing measure in the
form of an overtime penalty for weekly hours more than
40. The original 1938 ceiling was 44 hours; the 40-hour
week was not phased in until 1940. The effect of work
sharing was submerged by the oncoming full employment
of World War II.
If work sharing had some beneficial effects during the
Depression, why are there some negative memories of it,
even under President Roosevelt? One reason is that neither
the Hoover nor Roosevelt administrations used modern-day
fiscal and monetary measures in a consistent way to deal
with the massive unemployment they faced; as a result, work
sharing in the 1930’s was given a role it could not fulfill.
To some, President Hoover’s work sharing attempts also
symbolized cuts in earnings and the failure of voluntary,
private sector-oriented policies to deal with the Great
Depression; under the the early New Deal, work sharing
symbolized to some the unconstitutional and big-business
oriented approach of the n r a codes. Moreover, most of the
early major experiments in work sharing occurred before
passage of the Social Security Act of 1935, which brought
with it mandatory unemployment insurance, and the 1935
Wagner Act (the National Labor Relations Act), which gave
unions a legal framework for organization (although the n r a
also provided the right to organize). With strong unions
came strong seniority systems, not only to protect workers
against arbitrary dismissal by employers, but to protect them
against unilaterally imposed work sharing, for it was the
practice of many employers not to guarantee a steady amount
of work from 1 week to the next. Employees often showed
up at their jobs only to be told there was no work that day.
With unemployment insurance came the assurance that lowseniority workers would not starve if they were laid off,
and that work sharing, which only “ spread the misery,”
would no longer be needed.
The current use of work sharing, on a micro rather than
a macro scale, is taking place within a framework of basic
protections for workers, unlike earlier efforts. However, the
full economic effects of short-time compensation, which is
a preventive rather than a reemployment measure, in a com
pletely different economy, more than 50 years later, have
yet to be determined.
The revival of work sharing
With the relatively low unemployment rates of the postWorld War II era, work sharing was rarely discussed or
used. It was not until the 1974-75 recession, at the time of
the steepest downturn since the Depression, that work shar
ing began to be considered again.
In a paper in 1976, I wrote:
Two major conclusions can be drawn from a comparison of 197475 European with U.S. experience: (1) The portion of unem
ployment that takes the form of part-time unemployment is higher
than in the United States. The result would seem to be decreased
36
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
social costs, increased purchasing power and greater equity, com
pared to the United States. (2) The number of U.S. workers who
were put on part-time unemployment even in the absence of
partial [unemployment insurance] benefits is nevertheless not triv
ial. This suggests that the potential for more work sharing is
significant if European-type incentives were instituted.
These conclusions had been reinforced by the New York
City Conference on “ Alternatives to Layoffs” held in April
1975: representatives of labor, management, and acade
mia reviewed alternatives besides work sharing and found
them wanting.8 Some firms reported mandatory cuts in pay,
but there was resistance by labor. Cutting health and welfare
benefits was ruled out. Voluntary furloughs were found
effective by some firms, but they appealed mainly to youn
ger, education-minded workers; older workers nearing re
tirement; and some working mothers. There was also
disillusionment about early retirement, due to inflation.
Work sharing was found to be more effective than these
other alternatives. However, the case studies presented at
the conference showed that work sharing without govern
ment incentives was usually atypical.
In fact, an underlying crisis for the firm— whereby its
very existence was threatened— was a common theme in
bringing about work sharing. This was true of Pan Am and
the Washington Star (the Star did go out to business even
tually). Union leadership also had to be unusually good in
terms of communication with rank and .file. (Once unions
were convinced the crisis was real, there were often unusual
efforts by union leaders to get the rank and file to discuss
alternatives to layoffs in meetings and votes.)
The firms were often marked by an unusual degree of
labor-management cooperation, with management often
opening its books. Pan Am went “ beyond union contract
requirements to develop worker involvement in difficult de
cisions.”
Nor were the firms especially typical of the average work
force. Highly skilled workers were often involved, such as
Pan Am flight crews or Newspaper Guild members. It was
in the company’s interest that young, highly trained people
not be lost. There was a team spirit— born of the flight cabin
or city room— among the workers. Large numbers of women,
many of them the family’s second earners, may have also
facilitated work sharing in firms such as the New York
Telephone Company.
The question was how to create incentives to encourage
work sharing in more typical layoff situations as well as in
those with the unique chemistry described above.
The New York conference found that work sharing in the
form of “ a shorter workweek, or rotating and staggered
shifts, or any other method by which average work hours
are reduced” emerged as the “ alternative to layoffs with
the widest potential application to recession-based economic
problems and to almost all types of business and industry.”
It also found, however, that work sharing is “ not a panacea.
Its use is limited by the necessity of providing a living
wage.” Thus, the conference found that anything more than
a 20-percent reduction in hours would create too much hard
ship. Nor would it work when an entire shift must be elim
inated, or conversely, only m arginal reductions are
contemplated— for example, work sharing would not suc
ceed for 20 of 1,000 employees.9
Short-time compensation in the 1980’s
The early 1980’s have been a period of anti-inflationary
restraint, in which planned use of macroeconomic “ finetuning” through countercyclical monetary and fiscal policy
has been more limited than in the past. Even those who
favor micro job-creation tools, such as public jobs programs,
usually advocate targeting them to the structurally unem
ployed— the disadvantaged and long-term unemployed. The
disillusion with countercyclical public policies may argue
for at least experimenting with policies for the cyclically
unemployed that are rooted in the private sector and based
to some extent on redistribution of employment rather than
solely on countercyclical economic stimuli and public
spending.
Moreover, while past efforts to deal with cyclical un
employment have included large public jobs programs, ex
panded budgets, tax cuts, or new investment, these solutions
have not usually had an early impact on recessions or acted
as preventatives. To the extent that they have been suc
cessful, it has often not been until after, rather than before,
layoffs occurred. Job saving has not been a feature of such
policies, as it is of short-time compensation.
Equity is the major benefit of short-time compensation.
The economic and social costs of full-time unemployment
are distributed more evenly across all workers in a plant (or
plant unit) rather than among a small minority of workers.
Some economists have argued that it is the total decline
of hours of employment that counts, not its distribution.
They see work sharing as a “ diversion,” a waste of time
and resources that could be spent on other countercyclical
measures.
However, they may be ignoring the social costs of full
time unemployment, which increases the costs of public
assistance, food stamps, and other transfer programs during
a recession. Many studies suggest that full-time unemploy
ment also increases the incidence of alcoholism, drug abuse,
child abuse, and other social problems, which translate into
additional public costs, human costs, and suffering. Dis
tributing the same total hours of unemployment among many
people on a 4-day workweek may decrease the social costs.
It might also help public policy deal in a more rational way
with the problem of health insurance for the unemployed,
because workers now often lose their health insurance soon
after layoff. And, if it were ever adopted on a wide scale,
it might also redistribute work and income in a way that
bolsters confidence and slows down the decline in con
sumption during a downturn.
Short-time compensation might also help provide a frame
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
work for developing constructive activities, such as edu
cation and training, during a downturn. It is unrealistic to
think that all workers in a work-sharing program would
meaningfully enroll in education or training. However, it
would be productive for some. The broad distribution of
downtime among the work force would also enable em
ployers to provide training on a part-time basis to any work
ers they feel need it, not just those laid off. (Such training
would have to be voluntary on the part of workers, of course.)
Public-private mechanisms under the Job Training Partner
ship Act might conceivably be used for potentially dislo
cated workers.
In general, the meshing of short-time compensation with
retraining and education is an area deserving further thought.
With hundreds of community colleges and technical schools
now operating throughout the Nation, it is possible to imag
ine large numbers of workers who are put on 4-day weeks
or 6-hour days for a 2- to 6-month period, using that time
to attend classes.10
Work sharing in Germany versus the U.S.
Some economists have expressed fear that use of work
sharing will lead to a hoarding of underutilized labor and
thus lower productivity. The following discussion suggests
that short-time compensation may not only decrease layoffs
but also may improve cyclical productivity. These examples
are illustrative; more in-depth research is needed on these
and other issues. The following tabulation shows percent
changes in economic indicators for manufacturing and for
the mechanical engineering sector in Germany, 1981-82:11
M a n u fa ctu rin g
Average h o urs...........................
Employment..............................
Total hours................................
Output.........................................
Output per hour.........................
■ —1.0
—4.5
—5.1
—2.4
2.0
M e ch a n ic a l
en g in eerin g
—2.0
—3.3
—4.9
-2 .3
2.0
Because the mechanical engineering sector used short-time
compensation more heavily than did manufacturing indus
tries as a whole, we would expect mechanical engineering
to show a much heavier use of short weeks and, thus, less
decline in employment. Indeed, while mechanical engi
neering reduced total hours about the same percentage as
did manufacturing, it reduced employment much less than
manufacturing. Average hours declined twice as much in
mechanical engineering, and mainly reflect changes in weekly
hours.
Output per hour (productivity) increased by the same
percent in both cases because total hours were cut back
faster than output. In mechanical engineering, this produc
tivity increase was partly because of work sharing aug
menting layoffs.
Is the job-saving effect as dramatic as it seems at first
glance? Mechanical engineering has more skilled workers
than the average manufacturing industry, and is less labor
37
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Short- Time Compensation
intensive. Cost savings from layoffs might be less feasible,
making layoffs less likely. Moreover, employers face a greater
risk of permanently losing skilled workers. So it is not clear
that the mechanical engineering sector would have lost 2.0
percent more jobs in the absence of a 2.0-percent workweek
reduction. Without short-time compensation, there might
have been more hoarding of labor.
Nevertheless, the figures suggest significant job-saving
effects from work sharing, without the productivity loss that
hoarding of full-time, underutilized workers brings in the
United States. The following tabulation shows percent changes
in economic indicators for the mechanical engineering in
dustry in Germany and its counterpart industry in the United
States, nonelectrical machinery, 1974--75:12
U n ite d
S ta te s
Weekly hours..............................................
Employment................................................
Total hours.................................................
Output........................................................
Output per hour..........................................
Ratio of total hours to output...................
. -1 .9
. -7 .5
. -9 .3
.-13.8
. -4 .9
.
0.66
G erm an y
-5 .3
-4 .5
-9 .5
-5 .7
4.3
1.67
The U.S. industry did hoard more labor relative to Ger
many in the absence of short-time compensation.13 Total
hours did not decline as fast as output in the United States,
whereas it decreased faster than output in Germany. Part of
the reason was that average weekly hours decreased by 5.3
percent in Germany, compared with a 1.8-percent decline
in the United States; when combined with the reduction in
full-time employment, the totals were 9.3 percent for the
United States and 9.5 percent for Germany. Thus Germany
reduced total hours relatively more, even though it reduced
the number of employees relatively less. Because output
declined approximately 4.9 percent more than total hours
in the United States, but 4.3 percent less than total hours
in Germany, the change in output per hour was negative
( - 4 .9 ) percent for the United States and positive (4.3 per
cent) in Germany during the 1974-75 period.
That this United States-Germany productivity gap is
“ artificially” widened during a downturn is evident from
the fact that the U.S. rate of productivity increase was ac
tually higher (4.0) in the overall growth period, 1969-77,
than the German rate (3.3) in an essentially comparable
period, 1970-78.14 These are the rates that measure the real
differences in technology and other efficiencies between the
same industry in the two countries. The 1974-75 gap, there
fore, was partly because of the added flexibility in hours
cuts afforded by heavy use of short weeks. (Comparative
data for the 1982 downturn is not available.)
These data suggest that work sharing may bring with it
more total hours of unemployment in Germany, even while
decreasing layoffs, because employers can not only elimi
nate some jobs but also work some of the remaining em
ployees on a part-time basis. However, some of Germany’s
decrease in employees should be discounted because it re
flects continuation of a longer-term trend of sharply shrink
ing employment in manufacturing, unlike in the United States.
Also, Germany’s lack of experience-rated tax contributions
by employers (different from that in the United States) may
induce some added hours of unemployment because em
ployers do not bear the added cost. All these factors may
contribute to a “ surplus” or induced unemployment effect,
whereby not all hours of work sharing are substituted for
jobs saved, but instead may be in addition to layoffs. Never
theless, as long as there is some appreciable effect on lay
offs, the social costs of such “ surplus” work sharing may
be small when compared with the benefits of fewer layoffs
and higher cyclical productivity. The latter brings with it
less increase in unit labor costs, and thus less increase in
prices, which stimulates demand, speeding economic re
covery.
This may even have implications in terms of international
competition. The mechanical engineering industry is exportoriented. Short-time compensation probably helped German
manufacturers in the mechanical engineering industry to
compete with U.S. manufacturers in the nonelectrical ma
chinery industry during the 1974-75 period. As demand
declined, the Germans could muster both heavy work shar
ing and some reduction in force to maintain productivity,
allowing them to retain skilled personnel without adding to
the unemployment insurance taxes. U.S. manufacturers not
only faced higher unemployment taxes for whatever layoffs
occurred, but also had less flexibility to maintain produc
tivity through work sharing as a supplemental labor ad
justment tool.15
■FOOTNOTES
1See Fred Best and James Mattesich, “ Short-time compensation systems
in California and Europe,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1980, pp. 1322. The Department o f Labor’s evaluation of existing State programs is
scheduled for completion in 1985, pursuant to the Tax Equity and Fiscal
Responsibility Act o f 1982 (P.L. 9 7 -2 4 8 , Part III, Subtitle 6) which also
requires the Department to give technical assistance to States with shorttime compensation programs.
2 Irving Bernstein, The Lean Years: A History o f the American Worker,
1 9 2 0 -3 3 (Boston, M ass., Houghton Mifflin, 1960), pp. 3 0 6-07 and 4 7 6 84, provides a detailed account o f Herbert Hoover’s President’s Emergency
Committee on Employment, which urged voluntary work sharing efforts.
38
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3 All historical data in this section are from the Bicentennial Edition of
H istoric Statistics o f the United States, Parts I and 11 (Washington, U .S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, September 1975). Pro
duction data ( f r b ) is found on p. 667; labor force and unemployment data,
pp. 126-27; manufacturing employment data, p. 137; earnings and hours
data, p. 170; productivity data (National Bureau of Economic Research),p. 162; and Consumer Price Index data, p. 210. Data in these volumes
are from the Current Population Survey and the Bureau of Labor Statistics
unless otherwise noted.
4 Herbert Hoover, The Memoirs o f H erbert Hoover: The Great D epres
sion, 1929-41 (New York, MacMillan, 1952), p. 45.
5
Data based on graph (p. 1020) in “ Employment, hours, earnings and
production under n r a , ” Monthly Labor Review, May 1934, pp. 1013—
36. The article notes that “ from July 1933 to March 1934 the production
index declined 12 percent and yet the employment index increased 13
percent.”
6 “ The President’s ‘Re-Employment Agreement’ gave jobs to about
2,462,000 persons between June and October 1933 through reducing weekly
hours o f work. Industrial activity in this period declined, hence, the increase
in employment was the result of shorter hours. However, the National
Recovery Administration codes, after they substantially superseded the
President’s Re-Employment Agreement, added very little to the number
o f jobs between October 1933 and the first 5 months of 1935, in spite of
a gain in manufacturing production of 14 percent . . . due to tolerances,
exceptions and exemptions. In 64 percent of the codes, covering 61 percent
o f employees in codified industries, provisions permitted a workweek of
48 hours or longer for many of these workers. The abuse in the application
o f loosely drawn provisions reduced the reemployment.” From Broadus
Mitchell, Depression D ecade, Vol. IX of The Economic History o f the
U.S. (New York, Rinehart, 1947), pp. 283 -8 4 .
7The ratio o f the increase in manufacturing jobs to the increase in output
was .79 in the 1933-35 NRA period; the ratio decreased to .68 in the 1935—
37 post-NRA period. In both periods, output growth was about 28 percent,
but in 1 933-35, weekly hours decreased 3.9 percent, while in 1935-37,
they increased 5.5 percent. (See footnote 3 for data sources.)
8Edith Lynton, “ Alternatives to Layoffs,” a paper prepared for a con
ference convened by the New York City Commission on Human Rights,
April 3 - 4 , 1975.
9 See Robert Bednarzik, “ Short workweeks during economic down
turns,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1983, pp. 3 -1 1 .
10Affirmative action, labor-management relations, and other potential
benefits o f short-time compensation are discussed in more detail in the
book from which part of this article is excerpted, as are unanswered ques
tions about possible costs or adverse effects of short-time compensation.
Further research is needed on such benefits and costs. For example, the
potential role of work sharing as a solution to preserving the affirmative
action gains o f minorities and women was enlarged as a result of the recent
Supreme Court ruling that affirmative action could not be used as the basis
for not laying off by seniority. Employers wishing to prevent layoffs from
having a disparate impact on recently hired minority groups may have to
use short-time compensation. But the question arises as to whether em
ployers sometimes lay off lower seniority or less-skilled workers— perhaps
disproportionately minority group members— before implementing shorttime com pensation. Suggestions have been made to prohibit such practices.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
These and other issues are discussed in the chapter on which this article
is based: replacement rates, effect on wage bill, use o f countercyclical
triggers, windfall effect, and the effect of the incentive to work. The book
was supported in part by the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
11
German data are based on published and unpublished data of Deutsche
Bundesbank, transmitted to the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Apr. 14,
1983. Percentages apply to wage earners. Output per hour and average
hours are the author’s estimates. Change in average hours in a short period
(that is, 1 year) are almost totally the result of shortened weekly hours.
l2In the United States, the industry is sic 35; in Germany, the industry
is Maschinebau, m a b , d i w 32— Mechanical Engineering. Percentages ap
ply to wage and salary earners. German data are from Deutsches Institut
for Wirtsschaft Forschung, Berlin, May 1980. U .S. data are unpublished
b l s data.
13Research by John Duke and Horst Brand shows that productivity
growth in the machine tool industry (part of the nonelectrical machinery
sector) was slow in 1958-80 in good part because during downturns skilled
workers were hoarded. For example, in 1974-76, output declined almost
10 percent faster than hours of work, resulting in a 10-percent decline in
productivity. (See John Duke and Horst Brand, “ Cyclical behavior of
productivity in the machine tool industry,” Monthly Labor Review, No
vember 1981, pp. 2 7 -3 4 .) Employers in Germany can hoard skilled work
ers without using them full-time if output does not warrant it; that is, they
hoard workers but not total hours of labor. This contributes to their better
productivity. Also, Duke and Brand found cyclical declines probably ag
gravated the industry’s perennial skill shortages because, despite hoarding,
it took time to bring back laid-off workers or find replacements for those
no longer available. This problem, too, is minimized by short-time com
pensation’s effect in keeping more workers attached to the payroll, ready
to move to full-time work in an upswing. In both the downturns o f 1973—
75 and the overall downturn period of 1979-82, two-fifths o f Germany’s
decrease in total hours in manufacturing was composed o f decreases in
average weekly hours (the rest was decreases in employment), whereas in
the United States, only one-fifth of the total decrease in hours in manu
facturing was composed of the decline in average weekly hours. (See
“ International Comparisons of Manufacturing and Labor Cost Trends:
Preliminary Measures for 1983,” u s d l News Release 8 4 -2 4 5 , May 31,
1984. )
14See footnote 12 for sources. Because accurate measurement of long
term productivity trends requires that the first and last years not be recession
years, the time frames for the two countries slightly differ.
15See footnote 13.
39
Research
Summaries
Pay in data processing services
by occupation and urban area
Top level systems analysts and systems programmers were
usually the highest paid workers in the computer and data
processing services industries, according to a Bureau of
Labor Statistics survey conducted in October 1982. The
survey, limited to 18 metropolitan areas, found these work
ers frequently averaging more than $700 a week.1
The survey included establishments primarily engaged in
providing computer and data processing services. Computer
services include systems analysis and design, program or
system development, programming services, and systems
engineering. Data processing services firms offer complete
processing and preparation of reports from data supplied by
the customer, or specialized services, such as key entry or
provision of data processing equipment to others on an hourly
or time-sharing basis. The survey also included establish
ments that manage or operate computer facilities for others
on a continuing basis. Companies primarily providing ac
counting, auditing, and bookkeeping services, and those
repairing or maintaining computer and data processing
equipment were excluded.
Eight occupations, accounting for just under one-half of
the 86,736 professional, technical, and clerical workers in
the survey, were selected to represent the pay structure of
office workers in the computer and data processing services
industries. Six of the occupations were subdivided by work
level based on duties and responsibilities— six levels of
computer operators, five of programmer/programmer ana
lysts, four of systems programmers, three each of systems
analysts and electronics technicians, and two levels of key
entry operators. Two occupations— data librarians and pe
ripheral equipment operators— were limited to one level.
Systems programmers develop and modify programs
making up the system software (such as operating systems)
which provides basic services for computer installations.
Average earnings for level IV systems programmers— the
highest level surveyed for this occupation— ranged from
$591 per week in Newark to $846 in San Francisco-Oakland.
40
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Most commonly, the programmers averaged between $700
and $800 a week for the nine areas providing publishable
data.
Level III systems analysts— the highest level surveyed
for this occupation— examine complex computer systems
with minimal supervision. Their average weekly earnings
ranged from $516.50 in Kansas City to $783 in Dallas-Fort
Worth. In the other nine areas for which averages for this
job could be published, earnings were usually in the $700
to $750 range.
Programmer/programmer analysts, the largest occupa
tional group studied with more than 14,000 employees,
provide programming services to customers. Weekly pay
averages for level I, consisting of trainees whose assign
ments are designed to develop their skills, were lowest in
Chicago ($273) and highest in San Francisco-Oakland
($372.50) and Houston ($373). Level V, typically super
visors, team leaders, or staff specialists performing both
analysis and programming, had averages ranging from $593
a week in Kansas City and $595 in Detroit to $735 in
Houston. In general, these workers averaged about twice
the earnings of level I.2 Level III workers, the fully expe
rienced and most numerous of the five levels, averaged
between $445 and $486 in 12 of the 18 areas.
Average wages for level I key entry operators, the lowest
paid occupation in 11 areas, ranged from $182 a week in
Boston to $249.50 in Houston. Data librarians and level I
computer operators also were at the low end of the pay
scale, typically within the $200 to $250 range.
Where comparisons were possible, occupational pay lev
els were generally highest in Dallas-Fort Worth or Los
Angeles-Long Beach. The lowest occupational pay levels
were often found in Boston, Cleveland, Kansas City, New
ark, and Philadelphia. Area pay relationships among oc
cupations, however, varied substantially. For example, the
Boston averages for both levels of key entry operators were
about 75 percent of the corresponding averages in Houston;
for the five levels of programmer/programmer analysts, Bos
ton averages were between 94 and 100 percent of those in
Houston; and for level III systems analysts, the Boston
average was 125 percent of Houston’s average.
All of the professional, technical, and clerical workers
were in establishments providing paid holidays (typically 9
to 11 days annually) and paid vacations. Vacation payments
varied according to length of service; most common were
2 weeks after 1 year of service, 3 weeks after 5 years, and
4 weeks after 15 or 20 years. With relatively few exceptions,
office workers were also provided at least part of the cost
of life insurance and of hospitalization, surgical, and basic
and major medical insurance. Income protection against
short-term disabilities (sick leave or sickness and accident
insurance, or both) covered three-fourths of the workers or
more in each area. Long-term disability insurance was not
as prevalent, usually applying to one-half to three-fourths.
Retirement pension plans applied to between one-half and
four-fifths of the office workers in all but Detroit, Phoenix,
and San Jose. In these areas, fewer than half of the workers
were covered. Typically, health, insurance, and pension
plans were financed entirely by the employer.
The 1,732 computer services and data processing estab
lishments within the scope of the survey employed a total
of 114,653 workers in October 1982. Executives and man
agers were excluded from the 86,736 workers covered by
the survey. Employment was highest in Washington (17,703),
Dallas-Fort Worth (10,071), and Los Angeles-Long Beach
(8,401). Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia also recorded
more than 5,000 office employees, while fewer than 1,500
were found in Cleveland and Phoenix. Relatively few of
the workers were in establishments operating under labormanagement agreements.
The survey provided earnings distributions for the oc
cupations studied and percent distributions of office workers
by type of service offered and by the primary source of
revenue (type of customer) for the establishment, such as
banks, private schools and hospitals, and government. A
comprehensive report on the survey findings, Industry Wage
Survey: Computer and Data Processing Services, October
1982 (Bulletin 2184), is for sale at $4.50 a copy from the
Government Printing Office, or from any of the Bureau’s
regional offices.
□
---------- FOOTNOTES---------'Earnings data exclude premium pay for overtime and for work on
weekends, holidays, and late shifts. Average weekly earnings relate to
salaries paid for normal (standard) workweeks, and average weekly hours
correspond to these earnings. The survey excluded establishments em
ploying fewer than eight workers.
Areas studied are Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas as defined by
the U .S. Department of Commerce through October 1979. The 18 areas:
Northeast— Boston, Newark, New York, Philadelphia; South— Atlanta,
Dallas-Forth Worth, Houston, Washington; North Central— Chicago,
Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and St. Louis; and
West— Los A ngeles-L ong Beach, Phoenix, San Francisco-Oakland, and
San Jose.
2The programmer/programmer analyst group, as defined for this survey,
includes both business and scientific applications programmers. Only a
few o f the establishments employed both business and scientific program
mers or systems analysts in October 1982, and none had pay differentials
based on this distinction.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Future; of collective bargaining
probed in il o report
Throughout the industrialized world, labor organizations
are facing difficult choices between lower pay and fewer
jobs, and many are asking if “ concession bargaining” has
come to stay. Are we entering a new era of industrial re
lations, or do negotiated short workweeks, jobsharing pro
visions, and other forms of concession bargaining represent
only a temporary, pragmatic union response to the economic
uncertainties of the past decade? In a recent report, analysts
with the International Labour Organization attempted to an
swer these questions on the basis of a study of more than
400 key labor contracts in industrial nations.
The “stagflation” dilemma. The economic position of most
major market economies has declined markedly over the
last 10 to 15 years. Accelerating rates of inflation caused
by supply shocks, inappropriately timed economic policies,
and disorder in the foreign exchange markets have proved
alarmingly impervious to an array of monetary and fiscal
strategies. At the same time, unemployment rates in many
nations have reached highs not witnessed since the 1930’s.
Worsening stagflation has presented the large market
economies with enormous challenges. Employers and unions
face stark realities of adjustment and lower expectations,
armed, for the most part, with industrial relations tools
appropriate to earlier decades of relative growth and pros
perity. The complexities of the new economic environment
and the magnitude of the adjustments needed imply that
considerable tensions will continue to arise, and appear to
call for painful sacrifices by all parties concerned. Stagfla
tion is a stiff test of the ability of developed economies to
devise more sophisticated and mature industrial relations
systems, to which those economies have begun to respond
in a number of ways.
Tripartite approaches. Given the magnitude of the crisis,
an increasing number of countries have tried or stepped up
the use of tripartite approaches, which combine the efforts
of government, business, and labor. Underlying such ap
proaches is the realization that no one of the parties by itself
may have the capacity to resolve the problem, including the
eliciting of cooperation from the other two.
Tripartite approaches combine industrial relations and nonindustrial relations elements to alleviate or diminish the
crisis. As a rule, fiscal measures, social security benefits,
and increased public investment are offered to workers and
employers in order to secure wage moderation. The package
of tradeoffs is intended to lower the level of unemployment
and average price increases.
Some industrialized nations have a tradition of tripartite
response to economic problems. These countries— among
them Austria, Japan, and Switzerland— have tended to react
to the recent troubles by accentuating the use of existing
41
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Research Summaries
formal and informal machinery. More important are devel
opments in such countries as Ireland, Spain, and Italy, where
tripartite agreements were concluded during the 1980-81
period. In these countries, neither idiosyncratic factors, the
structure of collective bargaining, nor the orientation of the
trade union movement seemed to favor the implementation
of a tripartite approach. Yet, faced with a critical unem
ployment and inflationary situation, governments, employ
ers, and unions saw fit to agree on a series of tradeoffs to
help weather the crisis.
Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom has
been able to articulate a tripartite response to stagflation. In
the United States, a 1979 attempt by President Carter to
conclude a National Accord among government and em
ployers’ and workers’ organizations failed. In the United
Kingdom, political circumstances have precluded a repeti
tion of the Social Pact operation of 1973. It should also be
noted that a longstanding tradition of tripartite cooperation
and industrial peace has not prevented the economies of
Denmark and Sweden from showing the strain imposed by
stagflation.
Government policies. In some cases, national govern
ments have acted unilaterally to create jobs and contain
inflation, with varying degrees of success. Most proble
matical has been the task of balancing the two conflicting
objectives. Austerity measures implemented by some gov
ernments provide a glaring example of the difficulties in
volved, for while curbs on spending by the central government
may dampen inflation, they impair the government’s ability
to function as a short-term buffer against rising unemploy
ment. Such measures also caused massive public-sector la
bor unrest in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, and the
United Kingdom during 1983.
In a number of countries, the government has coupled
austerity programs with direct intervention in the labor re
lations scene, aimed at adapting collective bargaining to the
new economic reality. Incomes policies have been adopted
in a few cases. General economic policies have also been
geared to influence certain aspects of industrial relations.
An important exception to this pattern is the United States,
where the current administration has, for the most part,
elected a policy of nonintervention.
During 1980-82, nations such as Denmark, Belgium,
Canada, and France legislated anti-inflationary wage or wage
and price controls for one or more sectors of their econ
omies. At the same time, other government decisions, par
ticularly in European countries, focused attention on the
need to promote employment by cutting hours of work through
reduced legal workweeks, extended paid annual leave, and
incentives for early retirement. “ Worksharing” is not a new
idea, but recent measures adopted in this respect have for
mally and drastically changed well-entrenched standards,
and implicitly subordinated collective bargaining to gov
ernment dicta. The most visible and elaborate programs to
42
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
“ spread the work” currently are found in Belgium and
France. However, other nations (the Federal Republic of
Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom,
Japan, and Australia) either already have similar, but less
comprehensive, job generation plans or are considering im
plementing them.
Collective bargaining. A question of interest for the future
is how stagflation is affecting the structure and process of
collective bargaining. With regard to structure, it is fre
quently stated that in times of crisis, unions prefer to move
the level of bargaining up to whole branches of the economy
so as to find protection in class solidarity, while employers
have a corresponding desire for decentralization. The out
come of the current clash between these conflicting interests
will probably be determined by the consistency of previous
bargaining structures and the balance of power between the
parties.
Recent evidence on changes in bargaining structures shows
a mixed picture. It appears that high levels of unemployment
have served to further decentralize bargaining in countries
where this was already the prevailing pattern (United States)
or where structures had been edging toward decentralization
over the past two decades (United Kingdom). In some Eu
ropean countries, private-sector bargaining currently takes
place at all levels (Spain), while in others, it occurs at the
industry level (Belgium and Ireland). Recent history also
suggests that it is unwise to generalize about employers’
vested interest in bargaining at the lowest possible level, as
illustrated by Nordic employers’ opposition to decentrali
zation of negotiations.
In some countries, stagflation has affected the process of
collective bargaining. Specifically, employers have been
forced to accept certain forms of worker participation in the
enterprise while unions have forgone some of their more
militant activities as protest organizations. However, labormanagement cooperation to keep companies alive is likely
to be temporary, lasting only until economic recovery sets
in.
Some of the most interesting effects of the current eco
nomic conditions are found in the contents of labor agree
ments. For example, both parties have felt the need to
contractually specify certain changes in working conditions
and in the rules governing their relations. And as the prior
ities of the parties have changed, emphasis has been shifted
from economic benefits to workers’ job or income security
and their right to participate in decisions about the operations
of the firm.
There is, however, an important difference between the
United States and other nations in the way in which labor
and management have tried to save jobs. In the United
States, the parties have negotiated reductions in compen
sation, while those in other countries have shown a pref
erence for contractual reductions in hours of work
(worksharing). Experts have linked the extent of compen-
sation concessions in the United States to a variety of factors
favoring employers, including the pattern of enterprise-level
negotiations in that country, the relatively high initial level
of wages, and the availability of an alternative nonunion
labor force which does not exist in most of the other nations
studied.
Agreements negotiated in recent years also reflect the
need for greater flexibility in the organization of work. Some
agreements include plans for the rationalization of troubled
enterprises or industrial sectors. And some individual pro
visions have been altered to accommodate changes in work
loads, work assignments, and production patterns.
Finally, there has been no substantial increase in worker
representation on company boards in recent years. In several
European countries, employers seeking reductions in labor
costs have consented to furnish more of their financial in
formation to unions and to consult with labor before im
portant decisions are made. But there have been few changes
in the arrangements for minority or quasi-parity worker rep
resentation on company boards that predate the current eco
nomic crisis. Likewise, there has been little change in the
U.S. industrial climate regarding this form of worker par
ticipation, with managers preferring quality circles and other
forms of worker participation in the organization of work.
Employer responses. Over the past few years, major ini
tiatives for industrial relations change have come from em
ployers, rather than from unions. One analyst notes that it
is typical for management to become more assertive under
special economic and political conditions, and then to revert
to a more passive or reactive mode when the environment
changes again.
During economic downturns, enterprises— particularly
those employing highly paid personnel— have an incentive
to cut labor costs through work force reductions. But when
business picks up, such enterprises often find that the cost
of hiring and training new workers offsets much of the
financial advantage gained from the earlier layoffs. As part
of the recent spate of management activism, employers have
increasingly elected to transfer the production process from
high-wage areas to those in which a relatively stable work
force may be maintained on a much lower total payroll.
Where such “ restructuring” takes place between coun
tries, as is often the case in Europe, there is little that labor
unions or individual governments can do to intervene. How
ever, in the United States, which is not hampered by internal
boundaries, transfer of work among regions has given rise
to new legal problems. One issue before the courts is whether
employers can terminate a labor contract in a high-wage
area before it is due to expire, simply by relocating oper
ations to a low-wage site.
To date, the approach of the courts has been that work
transfers undertaken solely to avoid the provisions of a valid
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
agreement are illegal. But “ mixed motive” situations are
the much more difficult— and typical— case. The position
taken by the courts in such cases could have a profound
influence on future collective bargaining agreements, insofar
as the agreements specify which transfers are management
prerogatives and which must be negotiated with the union.
Provisions along these lines already appear in a few U.S.
agreements.
Another recent form of restructuring in the United States
involves employers’ use of the provisions of Chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code to terminate their unionized work forces
and then rehire some or all of the workers at lower rates of
pay. In these controversial cases, workers essentially must
choose between having a job without a union agreement or
having a union agreement without a job.
The status o f unions. Official statistics show that there has
been a significant drop in membership in the major U.S.
industrial unions. Although unemployment is obviously the
major cause, one could also assume that various crisis-linked
readjustments have contributed to the drop. And, while there
is no evidence that concession bargaining alone has been a
critical factor in the decline, such bargaining may have
reduced the appeal of unions to their rank and file.
The drop in union membership has been less steep in
other industrialized market economies. Trade unions in these
countries have traditional formal links with recognized po
litical parties which give them access to machinery other
than the collective bargaining process to achieve their goals.
This probably makes their membership levels less sensitive
to the economic gains or losses resulting from periodic con
tract renegotiations.
W h i l e i n f l a t i o n h a s s l o w e d in most industrialized mar
ket economies over the last year, growth and employment
generally have not yet reached satisfactory levels. It is thus
too early to determine whether recent patterns of industrial
relations can be expected to continue. However, with signs
of economic recovery high in the United States, it is likely
that the answer to this question will soon be reflected in
collective bargaining.
The full i l o report, entitled Collective bargaining: A re
sponse to the recession in industrialised market economy
countries, presents a detailed analysis of collective bar
gaining agreements by selected characteristics, and a series
of articles on various bargaining issues by noted industrial
relations experts. The foregoing summary is based on the
introduction by Efren Cordova and David Dror of the i l o ’ s
Labour Law and Labour Relations Branch. Copies of the
1984 report may be obtained from i l o local offices, or
directly from i l o Publications, International Labour Office,
c h - 1 2 1 1 Geneva, Switzerland. Price: $11.40.
□
43
Major Agreements
Expiring Next Month
This list o f selected collective bargaining agreem ents expiring in October is based on contracts on file
in the B ureau’s Office o f W ages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreem ents covering
1,000 workers or more.
Number of
workers
Employer and location
Industry
Labor organization1
Southeastern States Boilermakers Employers (Interstate)2 .............................
Bendix Corp., Kansas City Division (M issouri).............................................
Washable Suits, Novelties and Sportswear Association (New York, NY) . . .
Infant and Juvenile Manufacturers Association, Inc. (Interstate) ..................
Union Carbide Corp., Nuclear Division (Oak Ridge, TN) ...........................
Construction .............................
Ordnance....................................
Apparel......................................
Apparel......................................
Chemicals ..................................
Boilermakers..............................
Machinists..................................
Clothing and Textile Workers. . .
Clothing and Textile Workers . .
Oil, Chemicals and Atomic
Workers
Molders.......................................
Auto Workers ...........................
Machinists..................................
Auto Workers ...........................
Auto Workers ...........................
Electronic Workers (iue) .........
3,050
3,600
2,500
3,000
1,900
Transportation equipment .........
Transportation equipment .........
Transportation equipment .........
Plant Guard Workers (Ind.) . . . .
Auto Workers ...........................
Machinists..................................
U tilities......................................
Wholesale tr a d e .........................
Electrical Workers (ibew) .........
Distillery Workers; and
Teamsters (Ind.)
2,600
4,200
1,700
1,000
2,300
2,000
Acme Markets, Inc., Division #7 (Whippany, NJ) ......................................
Kroger Co., Charleston Division (West Virginia)...........................................
Kroger Co., Cincinnati-Dayton Marketing Area (Ohio) ................................
Restaurant League of New York, Inc. (New York) ......................................
Retail trade
Retail trade
Retail trade
Restaurants
Building Operators Labor Relations, Inc. (Pennsylvania) .............................
Elevator Industries Association, Inc. (New York) ........................................
Washington Hospital Center (Washington, D C ) .............................................
Services ....................................
Services ....................................
Hospitals....................................
Food and Commercial Workers
Food and Commercial Workers
Food and Commercial Workers
Hotel Employees and Restaurant
Employees
Service Employees....................
Electrical Workers (ibew) .........
Service Employees.....................
Government activity
Labor organization1
Number of
workers
Education ..................................
Education ..................................
Teachers ....................................
3,500
State, County and Municipal
Employees
1,050
University of Cincinnati, University Hospital and Holmes Division. . . . Services ....................................
State, County and Municipal
Employees
Amalgamated Transit ................
1,800
n r Grinnell Corp.. Columbia Plant (Pennsylvania) ...................................... Fabricated metal products.........
Massey-Ferguson, Inc. (Interstate) .................................................................. M achinery..................................
Manitowoc Co., Inc., Manitowoc Engineering Co. Division (Wisconsin)
Machinery..................................
Borg-Wamer Corp. (York, PA) ...................................................................... M achinery..................................
Atlas Crankshaft Corp. (Fostoria, OF!) ........................................................... Machinery..................................
The Stackpole Corp. (Pennsylvania)............................................................... Electrical products ....................
General Motors Corp., Plant protection employees (Interstate) ....................
Mack Trucks, Inc., Master Shop agreement (Interstate) ................................
Hughes Aircraft Co., Tucson Manufacturing Division (Arizona)..................
Hawaiian Electric Co., Inc. (Honolulu, HI) .....................................................
Southwestern Public Service Co. (Interstate)..................................................
Associated Liquor Wholesalers of Metropolitan New York, Inc., two
agreements (New York and New Jersey)
Pennsylvania:
Ohio:
Washington:
Pittsburgh Board of Education, Teachers .............................
Pittsburgh Board of Education .............................................
Seattle Metropolitan Transit Division......................................
'Affiliated with
afl - cio
except where noted as independent (Ind.).
industry area (group of companies signing same contract).
44
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
................................
................................
................................
................................
Transportation ...........................
1,000
1,100
1,050
1,600
1,250
1,100
2,300
3,400
3,150
3,800
2,600
1,500
1,650
2,650
Developments in
Industrial Relations
Federal Bankruptcy Code modified
Organized labor, which had been disappointed by the
Supreme Court’s ruling liberalizing the right of employers
entering bankruptcy to abrogate union contracts, got some
relief from recent legislation which modified the Federal
Bankruptcy Code. Under the new approach, a firm or bank
ruptcy trustee must attempt “ to reach mutually satisfactory
[contract] modifications” before coming to the court. If the
bargainers are unable to agree on modifications, the judge
may put the employer’s proposal into effect only if the union
has rejected it “ without good cause” and “ the balance of
the equities [among the union, management, and other vested
parties] clearly favors” the proposal.
Earlier, the Supreme Court held that an employer filing
for reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code could tem
porarily void or alter a contract even before the case was
heard by a bankruptcy judge and that the judge could make
the action permanent if the employer proved that the contract
“ burdens” chances of recovery. (See Monthly Labor Re
view, April 1984, p. 48.)
a f l - c io President Lane Kirkland said the legislated changes
in the Bankruptcy Code “ takes collective bargaining out of
the courts and returns it to the negotiating table where these
issues should be handled . . . ” and “ closes the door on the
use of bankruptcy laws by unscrupulous employers.”
Two of the cases leading to the changes in the Bankruptcy
Code involved Continental Airlines and Wilson Foods Corp.
(See Monthly Labor Review November 1983, p. 73, and
September 1983, p. 40.)
Aerospace accord
The round of settlements in the aerospace industry con
tinued, as the Auto Workers agreed with Rockwell Inter
national Corp. on a 3-year contract that included two
provisions designed to moderate labor cost increases. One
provides that new employees will have to wait longer before
attaining the maximum pay progression step for their job
grade. The other provides that new workers will not receive
“ Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben of
the Division o f Developments in Labor-Management Relations, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from secondary sources.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
quarterly cost-of-living pay adjustments during their first
year on the job. Thereafter, they will receive the full ad
justment, but will not receive retroactive payment of any
lost amount. Both provisions were apparently less detri
mental to workers than those in some earlier aerospace ac
cords, which called for new employees to be paid less than
incumbents in all steps of the progression schedule for their
grade and for current employees in lower grades to receive
smaller wage increases that current employees in other grades.
Two such settlements involved the Boeing Co. and the Ma
chinists and McDonnell Douglas Corp.’s Long Beach, c a ,
operations and the Auto Workers. (See Monthly Labor Re
view, December 1983, p. 55, and April 1984, p. 49.)
Other terms of the agreement, which covered 16,000
workers in California, Oklahoma, and Ohio called for an
nual lump-sum payments in August of 1984 and 1985 equal
to 3 percent of earnings during the preceding 12 months; a
3-percent pay increase in July 1986; and a pension rate of
$17 a month for each year of credited service effective
October 1, 1984, and a $19 rate 2 years later (the prior rate
was $15); three $200 lump-sum payments to current retirees
over the contract terms; and revision of the health program
to give employees a choice among health maintenance or
ganizations, preferred provider organizations, and “ tradi
tional” coverage, with each plan now covering 90 percent
of costs (was 100 percent), and to require second medical
opinions for surgery.
Airline update
In the airline industry, Air Florida ceased operations, filed
for protection from its creditors under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code, and began negotiations with its employ
ees on cost-reducing changes in their contracts as part of
an effort to resume flying. Initially, Air Florida flight at
tendants had agreed to a 25-percent pay cut and its pilots
to a 50-percent cut.
At the cessation of operations, the air carrier had 1,200
employees, down from a peak of 2,700 in 1981. It also
reported debts of $221.4 million and assets of $145.2 mil
lion. The 12 year-old airline’s difficulties have been attrib
uted to rapid expansion and to fare wars, as well as to the
deregulation and economic difficulties that have affected the
entire industry.
45
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Developments in Industrial Relations
United Airlines and the Machinists negotiated a 3-year
contract for 14,500 mechanics and related employees. It
provides for pay increases of 3.7 percent retroactive to No
vember 1, 1983 (the date the prior agreement was subject
to modification), 0.9 percent in July and 2.1 percent in
November of 1984, 2.9 percent in November 1985, and 2.9
percent in September 1986. The final increase will bring
the top mechanic pay rate to $18 an hour, from $15.91.
The contract featured a two-tier pay system under which
new employees will have to wait 5 years before attaining
pay equality with employees already on the payroll. New
mechanics will start at $12 an hour, compared with $15.62
for those in the first step of the progression schedule for
workers already on the payroll. New food service workers
will be consolidated into a single job category paying $5.40
an hour and they will have to wait 10 years before attaining
pay equality with incumbent employees.
At Republic Airlines, 6,500 members of the Air Line
Employees Association joined 6,000 members of five other
unions in accepting an extension of a 15-percent pay cut
that had been instituted in November 1983. The cut had
been scheduled to end in May 1984 but was extended on a
day-to-day basis pending completion of the round of bar
gaining with the unions. Under the settlements, the cut will
extend through 1986. The unions also agreed to increase
productivity by 8 percent, with details be worked out by
the company and the individual unions. In return, Republic
agreed to establish employee stock ownership and profitsharing plans.
The other unions that settled earlier were the Air Line
Pilots Association, the American Airway Supervisors As
sociation, the International Association of Machinists, the
Association of Flight Attendants, and the Transport Work
ers.
At Frontier Airlines, members of the Association of Flight
Attendants agreed to a 2-year contract that called for an 11 percent pay cut. A company representative said this was
part of an overall “ 20 percent cost reduction through . . .
savings, wages, work rules” and a two-tier pay system
cutting the earnings of new employees. Frontier claimed the
moves were needed to improve its ability to compete with
United Airlines and Continental Airlines, its main rivals
operating out of Denver.
The 11 -percent pay cut resulted in pay progression rates
for current employees ranging from $14.36 for each flight
hour during the first 6 months of service to $25.11 after 11
years of service. Under the new two-tier system, employees
hired after April 30, 1983, will progress to the $17.94 per
flight hour rate that applies to all employees at the start of
their third year of service. Beginning with the fourth year,
the new employees will receive $17.94 or 65 percent of the
progression rate for current employees, whichever is larger.
Other terms for the 800 employees included a new early
retirement provision permitting 13-year employees to re
ceive a lump-sum payment equal to the actuarial value of
46
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
their accrued benefits and to continue group health insurance
at their own expense but at group rates; extension of per
manent employment status to temporary employees; a profitsharing plan; and a pending employee stock ownership plan.
at&t
freezes pay of nonunion workers
In the latest of several cost containment moves, American
Telephone & Telegraph Co. froze the salary structure for
114,000 nonunion employees. The company’s efforts, which
earlier included closing of some facilities and offering early
retirement to employees, were part of its plan for adapting
to the more competitive business climate resulting from the
court-ordered divestiture of its operating companies.
The freeze, scheduled to last through 1985, was expected
to save the company $184 million, or 4 percent, in salary
expenses in that year. Actually, the employees will continue
to be eligible for annual increases, but they will not be as
large as usual. The salary system consists of about five
informal yearly “ steps” within each of 10 salary grades.
In the April 1985 salary review, deserving employees will
move up one step, an increase of about 4 percent. Previ
ously, such employees also benefitted from annual increases
in the level of each step.
Employees will continue to be eligible for promotions,
which means that they move up one grade or more. Incentive
bonus programs, which cover more than half of the 114,000
workers, also were continued.
Chrysler completes 4-year stock plan
Chrysler Corp. completed its 4-year employee stock own
ership plan by distributing 1,661,691 shares of common
stock to more than 80,000 employees, including 63,000
members of the United Auto Workers union. The distri
bution amounted to 19 shares per worker at an average
market value of $24.45 per share.
Chrysler has contributed $162.5 million worth of stock,
or 15,251,891 shares, to the plan since its inception in 1980.
Eligible employees who received shares during all of the
plan years now hold $4,500 worth of company stock, or
179 shares each, including shares purchased with dividends
paid in April 1984. The shares will continue to earn divi
dends and will be kept in trust for employees until they
retire or otherwise terminate employment.
The employee stock ownership plan was mandated in the
Chrysler Corp. Loan Guarantee Act of 1979 in return for a
Government guarantee of repayment of up to $1.5 billion
of loans Chrysler could obtain from private lenders. Chrysler
actually borrowed $1.2 billion and completed repayment in
1983.
Relocation loans available for Ford workers
At Ford Motor Co., laid-off workers who relocate to
another company plant will be eligible for low cost loans
to help meet moving and living expenses. Ford and the Auto
Workers union said that the loan plan was established be
cause many employees lacked the resources to take advan
tage of the preferential placement program negotiated in
1982.
The loans range from $500 to $1,000, repayable in 12 to
18 months, for eligible workers who transfer to other Ford
facilities at least 50 miles away. Since adoption of the pref
erential placement program, more than 3,500 laid-off Ford
workers with dim recall prospects at their home plants have
been hired at other Ford plants.
Job security featured in nurses’ contract
The results of widespread efforts to moderate or reduce
medical care costs were particularly apparent in the Minneapolis-St. Paul, m n , area, where 6,000 registered nurses
struck 15 hospitals for 5 weeks to enforce their demands
for increased job security in the face of a continuing decline
in hospital utilization. Reportedly, only about 30 percent of
the nurses were working full time prior to the work stoppage,
the largest recorded strike by nurses in the Nation’s history.
Much of the drop in utilization rates of hospitals through
out the Nation has resulted from cuts in Federal medicare
payments to hospitals, adoption of Health Maintenance Or
ganizations ( h m o ’ s ) and other alternatives to “ traditional”
insurance plans, and revisions in insurance plans requiring
individuals to pay a larger percentage of costs and to seek
second medical opinions before certain procedures are un
dertaken.
One provision of the new contract protects nurses’ jobs
by providing that cuts in work time be distributed among
all nurses in a department on a seniority basis before any
jobs can be eliminated. This will be accomplished by re
ducing biweekly work hours to 32 for the least senior nurse
in a department, then applying the same reduction to other
nurses in seniority order.
In another move to increase job security, nurses will be
permitted to use $250 of the existing $500 a year tuition
reimbursement fund for retraining offered by a variety of
institutions. The remaining money will be available only
for training offered by the previously specified types of
institutions.
Another provision specifies that displaced nurses in any
other department for which they are qualified will be given
a 3-week orientation. Previously, they were given a 2-week
orientation.
Other contract terms negotiated by Health Employers,
Inc., the hospitals’ bargaining organization, and the Min
nesota affiliate of the American Nurses Association included
4 percent salary increases on July 9, 1984, and June 1,
1985; a provision for reopening wage negotiations in the
third year; 80-cent-an-hour premium pay for weekend work
(formerly 65 cents); 72 days maximum accumulation of sick
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
leave (formerly 65 days); and $80-a-month employer pay
ment for dependents health insurance coverage (formerly
$65).
One reason the Minneapolis-St. Paul hospitals have been
particularly hard hit by reductions in hospital use is because
a third of the area’s population belong to h m o ’ s , which seek
to moderate costs by holding hospital stays to a minimum
and having hospitals compete for business.
Insurance agents contract provides for pay raise
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. and the Food
and Commercial Workers negotiated a 3-year nationwide
contract for 5,000 agents. A union official valued the pack
age at $214.62 a week, including an earnings increase of
$124.39.
The earnings increase included a new provision for annual
lump-sum payments ranging from 1 week of pay for agents
with 1 to 5 years of service to 3 weeks of pay for those
with 10 years of service or more. The commission that
agents receive during the first year of new policies was raised
to 55 percent of the premiums, from 52.5 percent. The fee
paid to agents for servicing policies sold by others now
begins when a policy is 1 year old, instead of the previous
5-year requirement.
Annual pensions were raised from 1 to 1.25 percent of
average annual earnings during the highest six of the last 8
years prior to retirement. A supplemental pension plan also
was established, financed by a company obligation equal to
5.5 percent of the agent’s earnings on casualty policies.
All agents were brought under John Hancock’s compre
hensive and dental plan effective January 1, 1985, and the
annual out-of-pocket expense per family was raised to $2,000,
from $1,000. Previously, some agents were covered by the
company plan and the others were covered by a “ basic”
plan. The major medical limit for retirees was raised to
$150,000, from $100,000.
Power company workers get new contract
In New York State, 8,000 employees of Niagara Mohawk
Power Corp. negotiated a 2-year contract. Hourly pay, which
averaged $13,331, was increased 5.25 percent retroactive
to June 1 and 5.5 percent on June 1, 1985. Benefit revisions
included a change in the pension calculation method that
will result in increased benefits, and a $100,000 increase
(to $400,000) in lifetime major medical coverage for em
ployees. In an unusual provision, employees will receive
payments equal to half of any erroneous overcharges they
discover in their medical bills.
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers rep
resents virtually all of the workers, with 11 other unions
representing the balance.
Q
47
Book Reviews
Perspective on a current issue
White Collar Productivity. Edited by Robert N. Lehrer.
New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1983. 362 pp.
Concern with the productivity of the white-collar work
force has intensified over recent decades. Industries staffed
principally by white-collar employees have expanded more
rapidly than others. Between 1973 and 1983, employment
in commercial banking gained 41 percent; in finance, in
surance, and real estate exclusive of banking, 32 percent;
in State and local administration, and legislative and judicial
branches, 29 percent, in contrast to a 17-percent rise in total
payroll employment. In manufacturing, the number of pro
duction workers declined 14 percent over the decade, but
that of nonproduction workers— mostly white-collar s t a f f increased 12 percent. The expansion of white-collar work
has insistently raised questions of how productively whitecollar workers are employed. In turn, such questions have
generated efforts to measure the productivity of white-collar
workers.
The book, White Collar Productivity, features essays on
a wide range of topics bearing on white-collar productivity.
The authors address the problems and practices of measuring
office productivity and office work, as well as management
by objectives, control of overhead, human resource plan
ning, paperwork reduction, and work unit analysis. They
are concerned, then, primarily with the organizational and
managerial foundations upon which efforts to improve pro
ductivity must build. They leave aside larger questions, such
as the economic significance of growth in the white-collar
work force, and the possible employment impacts of office
technology. The relation of office productivity to office tech
nology receives but cursory treatment. This review will
focus upon some productivity issues raised by the book.
One of the chapters, written by Carl G. Thor of the
American Productivity Center, deals with productivity mea
surement in white-collar groups. Two basic problems are
addressed— the definition of output, and the acceptance of
measuring productivity by “ knowledge” workers (that is,
professional and technical personnel). Output here is not
construed as the final production or service of a firm. In
stead, it is an intermediate activity. It relates to the work
process or activity in which the white-collar employee is
engaged. The relation between input processes and this in
48
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
termediate output must be homogeneous, writes Thor. The
work of typists in a steel mill cannot or should not be
measured in terms of the steel tonnage the mill fabricates.
Measurement of the typists’ work must be linked to the
process of typing by which a certain quantity of documents
is produced.
Determining the productivity of an establishment’s in
termediate activities is akin to the measurement of the pro
ductivity of higher economic aggregates in that it may reflect
changes in underlying factors— for example, a switch from
manual to electric typewriters or word processors. Yet, read
ing Thor, the measurement of white-collar productivity seems
basically to prepare for the formulation of work standards.
This is implied by his discussion of task analysis of “ knowl
edge” work, as well as of performance measures in a com
puter center. Task analysis requires the breakdown of given
jobs, which may then be simplified and standardized for
work measurement. Performance (or work) measures as
sume standards linked with a given technology; they are
changed when the technology changes. Thor’s productivity
concept comes close to, although it is not identical with,
work measurement. The book includes a chapter on work
measurement, and more will be said about it further on.
A broader question might be raised here. Productivity
measurement has traditionally had a variety of purposes,
but these have differed in importance. Central to government
and academic measurement efforts of the post-World War
II era has been “ to learn something of the process by which
production is raised,” as Solomon Fabricant put it in
“ Meaning and Measurement of Productivity.” (John T.
Dunlop and Vasilii P. Diatchenko, e d s Labor Productivity
New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1964, p. 20.)
This means that the host of factors that underlie produc
tivity growth must be analyzed. A productivity measure may
be based on one or more inputs— for example, labor, cap
ital, materials. But also it is bound to reflect factors which
affect input use, such as the way resources are combined,
organizational changes, advances in knowledge, and know
how. For such factors to be properly evaluated, output must
be defined at a reasonably aggregative level, such as an
industry, or even an establishment, producing a group of
cognate products or services. Otherwise, the processes by
which productivity— or “ the power to produce” — is raised
(or retarded) do not fully come into play. This also means
that homogeneity of input processes with output is not a
prerequisite for productivity measurement. Such homo
geneity has only technical meaning, in the sense that workers
in a given field depend upon specific tools and materials to
produce an output. Their productivity hinges to a large ex
tent upon nontechnical factors, such as the ones mentioned,
and on developments in unrelated fields.
When such broader questions are addressed, output de
fined at highly disaggregated levels cannot yield productiv
ity measures that are economically meaningful (although for
purposes of work measurement such definitions may be
serviceable). Let us again look at the example of typists at
a steel mill. Does their work have meaning without the steel
that the mill produces? No. Can the steel be made and
marketed without the overhead represented in part by the
typists? No. Overhead embodies the social nexus of pro
duction-payroll, marketing, purchasing, and accounting.
Production cannot be carried on without the overhead ac
tivities, and overhead activities are meaningless without the
production with which they are linked. The output of an
economic unit results from combining the resources and
operations of the two entities.
Thor briefly addresses the “ sensitivity” of professional
and technical workers to productivity measurement at the
intermediate level. He recognizes that blue-collar workers
may be equally sensitive. But blue-collar workers’ output,
Thor says, unlike white-collar workers’, is “ tangible,” eas
ily countable. Moreover, blue-collar workers have long ex
perienced productivity measurement, they are accustomed
to it. Thor does not tell us why blue-collar workers have
indeed been so sensitive to productivity measurement, and
why white-collar workers may be equally or even more
sensitive to it. The reasons have been discussed in the in
dustrial relations literature; they relate to fear of job loss if
the standards which productivity measurement generates are
not met; the frequent downgrading of jobs where jobs have
been simplified; and the pressure to perform beyond spec
ified standards. Productivity measurement and the task anal
ysis to which, according to Thor, it gives rise, thus promotes
the industrialization of white-collar work. “ In countless
banks and insurance companies a traditional clerical job with
some variety— typing, correspondence, scheduling, filing,
phoning— is broken down into its smallest component parts.
One person then performs one small task over and over,
often at a pace set by the computer and monitored elec
tronically,” writes Karen Nussbaum of the National As
sociation of Working Women {In These Times, May 2430, 1983). Similarly, A. B. Cherns, writing in the Inter
national Labour Review (December 1980) on the social
effects of microelectronic technology, states that “ Banks,
insurance companies, and government offices, and many
other organizations have . . . used [the computer] in such
a way as to fragment jobs and reduce the employee’s au
tonomy.” It is not surprising then that white-collar em
ployees may be quite as “ sensitive” to productivity
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
measurement of disaggregated activities as blue-collar
workers.
Some writers see diseconomies in the office organized
along industrial lines. Workers are dissatisfied, they become
bored and tire easily; absenteeism and quit rates rise. In
“ Mechanization of Office Work” (Scientific American,
September 1982), V. Giuliana urges that the “ information
office,” with work stations where workers handle all aspects
of accounts, replace the “ industrialized” office. He would
measure productivity in terms of worker effectiveness in
satisfying customers. This approach does not seem to be
the prevailing trend in the work organization of offices. But
in the chapter on work measurement in White Collar Pro
ductivity, Robert E. Nolan appears to suggest this approach.
It seems puzzling why, when technology changes rapidly
and chiefly in the direction of saving labor, work measure
ment remains so prominent a tool of productivity improve
ment. However, work measurement conceptually abstracts
from changes in technology and other factors underlying
productivity change. These changes engender new work
standards, and work measurement is the means by which
these standards may be implemented. The spread of work
measurement to white-collar work has been spurred by the
diffusion of data processing by computer. The computer can
be keyed to generate performance data and to monitor ad
herence to performance standards. Nolan claims that the
state of the art of white-collar work measurement is now
such as to make it possible “ to establish a form of account
ability for virtually every job in the office,” including jobs
at technical and professional levels.
Does work measurement improve white-collar productiv
ity? We cannot be sure. Office efficiency has been estimated
to be as low as 50 percent by some industrial engineers
(Delmar Karger and Franklin Bayha, Engineered Work
Measurement, 3d ed., New York, Industrial Press, 1977,
p. 739), hence even if work standards are not fully met,
productivity gains result as performance approaches stan
dards. (Nolan claims that costs may be reduced “ to the tune
of 20-40 percent of payroll costs.” ) However, efficiency
gains from the elimination of slack cannot be repeated.
Furthermore, problems associated with work measurement
assert themselves. Nolan writes, “ There are negative con
notations . . not the least of which is getting people to
work harder, [or] getting more work out of fewer people.
Positive aspects are that work measurement is essential to
high performance and high productivity.”
Thus, there is a disjunction between the interest of em
ployees and the interest of management. Nolan would over
come this disjunction by involving employees in setting
standards. He is emphatic about this in discussing standards
for the work of technicians and professionals who, he sug
gests, should set their own standards rather than have them
set by specialists. However, work measurement inherently
contributes to the routinization of work; and routinization
is like a railroad tract, tolerating no deviation from gauge.
49
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Book Reviews
This tendency is reinforced by Nolan’s advocacy of the
Methods-Time-Measurement System— a procedure which,
as defined by its originator, “ analyzes any manual operation
or method into the basic motions required to perform it, and
assigns to each motion a predetermined time standard, which
is determined by the nature of the motion and the conditions
under which it is made.” Such a system leaves little dis
cretion to the worker whose output is thus paced.
Work measurement systems have since their inception
aroused the resistance of organized labor. In significant in
stances, unions have declined to recognize management pre
rogatives in this area, and insisted upon the cooperative
setting of work standards and methods. The setting of work
standards has been implicitly if conditionally accepted by
labor, but work measurement has almost invariably re
mained a controversial practice, whose scientific value, where
claimed, has been persistently questioned. Nolan deals with
this problem quite gingerly, pointing to first-line supervisors
rather than to rank-and-file workers as displaying “ poor
attitudes” in respect to work measurement, and presenting
obstacles to installing work measurement systems. He writes
that these supervisors do not wish to be burdened with the
recordkeeping tasks such systems require. It seems likely,
however, that supervisors are less concerned with the pa
perwork than with employee resentment and the deterio
ration in the ambiance of the workplace which work
measurement systems may bring on. Quantity of whitecollar output may rise at the expense of quality of service
and of a spirit of teamwork and cooperation. To paraphrase
Chems, work measurement fragments tasks to a degree that
any imbecile can perform them; it should then not be sur
prising that only an imbecile will be happy performing such
tasks.
The book is a valuable practical guide to current man
agement thinking about how to deal with problems of whitecollar output and productivity. But its approach is narrow
in that it fails to deal with the broader meaning of produc
tivity. It does not examine the effect of changes in whitecollar technology on employment and productivity. Most
important in terms of its frame of reference, it fails in point
ing to ways of involving white-collar workers in structuring
their own work and in initiating their own paths to higher
productivity.
— H o r st B r a n d
Office of Productivity and Technology
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Publications received
Great Britain, Department of Employment, “ Agricultural Workers
in Great Britain: Earnings and Hours in 1983,” E m p lo y m e n t
G a z e t t e , June 1984, pp. 265-68.
Economic and social statistics
Carson, Carol S., “ The Underground Economy: An Introduc
tion,” S u r v e y o f C u r r e n t B u s in e s s , May 1984, pp. 21-37.
Debreu, Gerard, “ Economic Theory in the Mathematical Mode,”
T h e A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R e v i e w , June 1984, pp. 267-78.
Ehrenberg, Ronald G. and Daniel Sherman, O p tim a l F in a n c ia l
A i d P o li c i e s f o r a S e le c tiv e U n iv e r s ity . Reprinted from the
J o u r n a l o f H u m a n R e s o u r c e s , Vol. 19, No. 2, 1984, pp. 20230. Cambridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Research,
Inc., 1984. ( n b e r Reprint, 483.) $1.50, paper.
Griliches, Zvi and Jerry A. Hausman, E r r o r s in V a r ia b le s in P a n e l
D a t a . Cambridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Re
search, Inc., 1984, 32 pp. ( n b e r Technical Paper Series, 37.)
$1.50, paper.
Gustman, Alan L., M o d e lin g I n d iv id u a ls ’ B e h a v io r : E v a lu a tio n
o f a P o lic y m a k e r s T o o l. Reprinted from the J o u r n a l o f P o lic y
A n a ly s is a n d M a n a g e m e n t, Winter 1984, pp. 191-205. Cam
bridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.,
1984. ( n
b e r
R e p r in t, 4 8 4 . ) $ 1 . 5 0 , p ap er.
Howland, Marie, “ Age of Capital and Regional Business Cycles,”
G r o w th a n d C h a n g e , April 1984, pp. 29-37.
Robey, Bryant, “ The 1990 Census: A View from 1984,” A m e r
ic a n D e m o g r a p h ic s , July 1984, beginning on p. 24.
Economic growth and development
Aziz, Sartaj, “ Rural Development—Some Essential Prerequi
sites,” I n te r n a tio n a l L a b o u r R e v ie w , May-June 1984, pp. 27785.
Cooter, Robert and Peter Rappoport, “ Were the Ordinalists Wrong
About Welfare Economics?” T h e J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m ic L it
e r a tu r e , June 1984, pp. 507-30.
Davidson, Paul, “ Reviving Keynes’s Revolution,” J o u r n a l o f
P o s t K e y n e s ia n E c o n o m ic s , Summer 1984, pp. 561-75.
Dembinski, Pawel H., Economic Policy—Social Policy: A Di
lemma?” L a b o u r a n d S o c ie ty , April-June 1984, pp. 193—
209.
Mellor, John W. and Bruce F. Johnston, “ The World Food Equa
tion: Interrelations Among Development, Employment, and
Food Consumption,” T h e J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m ic L ite r a tu r e ,
June 1984, pp. 531-74.
“ Special Issue on Development and the Rural-Urban Divide,”
T h e J o u r n a l'o f D e v e lo p m e n t S tu d ie s , April 1984, pp. 1-166.
Steinnes, Donald N., “ Business Climate, Tax Incentives, and
Regional Economic Development,” G r o w th a n d C h a n g e , April
1984, pp. 38-47.
Weitzman, Martin L., T h e S h a r e E c o n o m y : C o n q u e r in g S ta g f la
tio n . Cambridge, m a , Harvard University Press, 1984, 167 pp.
$15.
Agriculture and natural resources
Education
Buttel, Frederick H., Charles C. Geisler, Irving W. Wiswall,
comps., L a b o r a n d th e E n v ir o n m e n t: A n A n a ly s is o f a n d
Dean, Edwin, ed., E d u c a tio n a n d E c o n o m ic P r o d u c tiv ity . Cam
bridge, m a , Ballinger Publishing Co., 1984, 223 pp. $29.95.
Polzin, Paul E., “ The Impact of Economic Trends on Higher
Education Enrollment,” G r o w th a n d C h a n g e , April 1984,
pp. 18-22.
A n n o ta te d B ib lio g r a p h y o n W o r k p la c e E n v ir o n m e n ta l Q u a lity
in th e U n ite d S ta te s .
155 pp. $29.95.
50
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Westport, ct, Greenwood Press, 1984,
Tucker, Jan L. and Eugene Gilliom, “ Education in China Today:
Social and Moral Preparation for the Year 2000,” S o c ia l
E d u c a tio n , May 1984, pp. 312-23.
Health and safety
Engler, Rick, A J o b S a fe ty a n d H e a lth B ill o f R ig h ts . Philadelphia,
p a , Philadelphia Area Project on Occupational Safety and
Health ( ph il a po s h ), 1984, 32 pp. $3, prepaid.
Great Britain, Department of Employment, “ The Control of Major
Hazards,” by Mike Peters, E m p lo y m e n t G a z e tte , June 1984,
pp. 269-72.
Hodgson, Thomas A. and Andrea N. Kopstein, “ Health Care
Expenditures for Major Diseases in 1980,” H e a lth C a r e F i
n a n c in g R e v i e w , Summer 1984, pp. 1-12.
Jarmul, David, “ Taking Primary Health Care to the Local Com
munity,” N e w s R e p o r t, National Academy of Sciences, July
1984, pp. 4-8.
Levi, L., S tr e s s in I n d u s tr y : C a u s e s , E ffe c ts a n d P r e v e n tio n . Ge
neva, International Labour Office, 1984,70 pp. $7.15. Avail
able in the United States from the Washington Branch o f il o .
Rohan, Paul C. and Bernard Brody, “ Frequency and Costs of
Work Accidents in North America, 1971-80,” L a b o u r a n d
S o c i e t y , April-June 1984, pp. 165-76.
Walsh, Diana Chapman, “ Is There a Doctor In-House?” H a r v a r d
B u s in e s s R e v i e w , July-August 1984, pp. 84-94.
Industrial relations
“ A Labor Perspective on q w l , ” q w l F o c u s , Spring 1984, entire
issue.
Bogue, Bonnie G., “ State Merit Vs. Bargaining: First Bout Goes
to Bargaining,” C a lif o r n ia P u b lic E m p lo y e e R e la tio n s , June
1984, pp. 21-26.
Brody, Michael, “ The Labor Showdown of the Decade,” F o r tu n e ,
Apr. 16, 1984, pp. 128-33.
Dickens, Linda and others, “ The British Experience Under a Stat
ute Prohibiting Unfair Dismissal,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e
la tio n s R e v i e w , July 1984, pp. 497-514.
Flax, Steven, “ Pay Cuts Before the Job Even Starts,” F o r tu n e ,
Jan. 9, 1984, pp. 75-77.
Hill, Herbert, T h e C r i p p l e d G ia n t: O r g a n iz e d L a b o r in D e c lin e .
Madison, University of Wisconsin, Industrial Relations Re
search Institute, 1984. (Reprint 253.) Reprinted from C r itic a l
P e r s p e c t i v e s o f T h ir d W o r ld A m e r ic a , Vol. 1, No. 1, Fall
1983.
Hunt, James W., T h e L a w o f th e W o r k p la c e : R ig h ts o f E m p lo y e r s
a n d E m p lo y e e s . Washington, The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc., 1984, 159 pp. $15, paper.
McKenzie, Richard B., F u g itiv e I n d u s tr y : T h e E c o n o m ic s a n d
P o li t i c s o f D e in d u s tr ia liz a tio n . San Francisco, c a , Pacific
Institute for Public Policy Research, 1984, 279 pp. $29.95,
cloth; $11.95, paper.
“ Recent Trends in Collective Bargaining: In the United King
dom,” by B. C. Roberts; “ In Japan,” by Taishiro Shirai;
“ In Belgium,” by R. Blanpain, I n te r n a tio n a l L a b o u r R e v ie w ,
May-June 1984, pp. 287-332.
Industry and government organization
Cifelli, Anna, “ Rolling Back the Freedom to Manage,”
Jan. 9, 1984, pp. 90-94.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
F o r tu n e ,
Gagnon, Jean-Marie and Benoit Papillon,
F in a n c ia l R is k , R a te o f
R e tu r n o f C a n a d ia n F ir m s , a n d I m p lic a tio n s f o r G o v e r n m e n t
Ottawa, Ontario, Economic Council of Canada,
1984, 105 pp., bibliography. $8.95, Canada; $10.75, other
countries. Available from Canadian Government Publishing
Center, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa.
I n te r v e n tio n .
International economics
Berlew, F. Kington, “ The Joint Venture—a Way Into Foreign
Markets,” H a r v a r d B u s in e s s R e v ie w , July-August 1984, be
ginning on p. 48.
Chamovitz, Steve, T r a d e A d ju s tm e n t A s s is ta n c e : W h a t W e n t W ro n g ?
Reprinted from T h e J o u r n a l of the Institute for Socioeconomic
Studies, Spring 1984, pp. 26-39.
“ Developing Countries’ Debt in 1983 and Beyond,” T h e O E C D
O b s e r v e r , May 1984, pp. 7-10.
Fairlamb, David, “ Comback in East-West Trade,” D u n ’s B u s i
n e s s M o n th , July 1984, beginning on p. 38.
Huntington, Samuel P., “ Will More Countries Become Demo
cratic?” P o li t i c a l S c ie n c e Q u a r te r ly , Summer 1984, pp. 193—
218.
Lennep, Emile van, “ North-South Interdependence and Economic
Reform,” T h e O E C D O b s e r v e r , May 1984, pp. 3-6.
Marris, Stephen, “ East-West Economic Relations: A Longer-Term
Perspective,” T h e O E C D O b s e r v e r , May 1984, pp. 11-17.
“ Obstacles to International Trade Services; Banking,” T h e O E C D
O b s e r v e r , May 1984, pp. 21-24.
Schumacher, Dieter, North-South Trade and Shifts in Employ
ment: A Comparative Analysis of Six European Community
Countries,” I n te r n a tio n a l L a b o u r R e v ie w , May-June 1984,
pp. 333-48.
Windmuller, John P. and Alan Gladstone, eds., E m p lo y e r s Ass o c ia tio n s a n d I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s : A C o m p a r a tiv e S tu d y .
New York, The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press,
1984, 370 pp. $39.95.
Labor and economic history
Jensen, Joan M. and Sue Davidson, eds.,
A N e e d le , A B o b b in , A
Philadelphia, p a ,
Temple University Press, 1984, 304 pp. $29.95.
Steffen, Charles G., T h e M e c h a n ic s o f B a ltim o r e : W o r k e r s a n d
P o li t i c s in th e A g e o f R e v o lu tio n , 1 7 6 3 - 1 8 1 2 . Urbana, Uni
versity of Illinois Press, 1984, 296 pp. $24.95.
S tr ik e : W o m e n N e e d le w o r k e r s in A m e r ic a .
Labor force
Great Britain, Department of Employment, “ Non-working Women:
Evidence from the 1980 Women and Employment Survey,”
by Jean Martin and Ceridwen Roberts, E m p lo y m e n t G a z e tte ,
June 1984, pp. 273-78.
Jacobson, Louis, “ A Tale of Employment Decline in Two Cities:
How Bad Was the Worst of Times?” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r
R e la tio n s R e v ie w , July 1984, pp. 557-69.
Kahn, Lawrence M. and Stuart A. Low, “ An Empirical Model
of Employed Search, Unemployed Search, and Nonsearch,”
T h e J o u r n a l o f H u m a n R e s o u r c e s , Winter 1984, pp. 104-17.
Leonard, Jonathan S., W h a t P r o m is e s A r e W o r th : T h e I m p a c t o f
A ffir m a tiv e A c tio n G o a ls . Cambridge, m a , 1984, 29 pp. ( nber
Working Paper Series, 1346.) $1.50, paper.
Maillat, Denis, “ Mobility Channels: An Instrument for Analyzing
and Regulating the Local Labour Market,” I n te r n a tio n a l L a
b o u r R e v ie w , May-June 1984, pp. 349-62.
51
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Book Reviews
Paukert, Liba,
T h e E m p lo y m e n t a n d U n e m p lo y m e n t o f W o m e n in
Paris, France, The Organization for Eco
nomic Co-Operation and Development, 1984, 88 pp. $11,
paper. Available in the United States from the Washington
Branch of o e c d Publications and Information Center.
Rima, Ingrid H., “ Involuntary Unemployment and the Respecified
Labor Supply Curve, ’’ J o u r n a l o f P o s t K e y n e s ia n E c o n o m ic s ,
Summer 1984, pp. 540-50.
O E C D
C o u n tr ie s .
P e r s is te n t I n e f f ic ie n c y in S a fe ty E x p e n d itu r e s
a n d P r o d u c tiv ity
(32 pp.);
R u lin g O u t P r o d u c tiv ity ? L a b o r
(18 pp.). Cambridge,
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1984, ( nber
Working Paper Series, 1365-68.) $1.50 each, paper.
Van Patten, James J., “ Future of Science, Technology and So
ciety,” R e v is ta I n te r n a c io n a l d e S o c io lo g ia , October-December 1983, pp. 665-69.
m a,
Social institutions and social change
------ W o r k e r s , J o b s , a n d S ta tis tic s . Prepared by Diane M. Nilsen.
Washington, 1984, 39 pp. (Report 698,)
“ Baby Boomers Push for Power,”
pp. 52-62.
Bolton, Robert and Dorothy Grover Bolton,
S o c ia l S ty le IM a n
a g e m e n t S ty le : D e v e lo p in g P r o d u c tiv e W o r k R e la tio n s h ip s .
New York, a m a c o m , American Management Associations,
1984, 171 pp. $19.95.
Fraker, Susan, “ Why Women Aren’t Getting to the Top,” F o r
tu n e , Apr. 16, 1984, pp. 40-45.
Weiss, Andrew, “ Simple Truths of Japanese Manufacturing,”
H a r v a r d B u s in e s s R e v ie w , July-August 1984, pp. 119-25.
Monetary and fiscal policy
Chand, Sheetal K., “ A Keynesian Fiscal Policy and the New
Classical Macroeconomics,” J o u r n a l o f P o s t K e y n e s ia n E c o
n o m ic s , Summer 1984, pp. 509-22.
Jeffrey, Robert H., “ The Folly of Stock Market Timing,” H a r v a r d
B u s in e s s R e v ie w , July-August 1984, pp. 102-10.
Pindyck, Robert S., “ Risk, Inflation, and the Stock Market,” T h e
A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R e v ie w , June 1984, pp. 335-51.
Salisbury, Dallas L., ed., W h y T a x E m p lo y e e B e n e fits ? Washing
ton, Employee Benefit Research Institute, 1984, 105 pp. $14.
Prices and living conditions
Minsky, Hyman P. and Piero Ferri, “ Prices, Employment, and
Profits,” J o u r n a l o f P o s t K e y n e s ia n E c o n o m ic s , Summer 1984,
pp. 489-99.
Sellekaerts, Willy and Brigitte Sellekaerts, “ Both Anticipated and
Unanticipated Inflation Determine Relative Price Variabil
ity,” J o u r n a l o f P o s t K e y n e s ia n E c o n o m ic s , Summer 1984,
pp. 500-08.
Productivity and technological change
“ Artificial Intelligence Is Here,”
pp. 54-62.
B u s in e s s W e e k ,
July 9, 1984
Blanchard, Francis, “ Technology, Work and Society: Some Point
ers from ilo Research,” I n te r n a tio n a l L a b o u r R e v i e w , May—
June 1984, pp. 267-76.
Darby, Michael R., “ The U.S. Productivity Slowdown: A Case
of Statistical Myopia,” T h e A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R e v i e w , June
1984, pp. 301-22.
Hyer, Nancy L. and Urban Wemmerlov, “ Group Technology and
Productivity,” H a r v a r d B u s in e s s R e v i e w , July-August 1984,
pp. 140-49.
Ichniowski, Casey,
M ic r o - P r o d u c tio n F u n c tio n s A r e n ’t P r e tty :
F ir m - L e v e l a n d I n d u s tr y - L e v e l S p e c if ic a tio n f o r I n p u ts a n d
O u tp u ts
52
(34 pp); F u z z y
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
F r o n tie r s o f P r o d u c tio n : E v id e n c e o f
In
C o n tr a c t P a g e s a n d P la n t P e r f o r m a n c e
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, L in k in g E m p lo y m e n t P r o b le m s
to E c o n o m ic S ta tu s. Washington, 1984,46 pp. (Bulletin 2201.)
Stock No. 029-001-02811-3. $2, Superintendent of Doc
uments, Washington 20402.
Management and organization theory
(25 pp.);
d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s a n d E c o n o m ic P e r f o r m a n c e G r ie v a n c e s
B u s in e s s W e e k ,
July 2, 1984,
Fricker, Yves, “ The Working Class in the Nineteen Eighties,”
L a b o u r a n d S o c i e t y , October-December 1983, pp. 403-15.
Wilson, Barbara Foley, “ Marriage’s Melting Pot,” A m e r ic a n D e
m o g r a p h ic s , July 1984, beginning on p. 34.
Wages and compensation
Berkowitz, Edward and Monroe Berkowitz, “ The Survival of
Workers’ Compensation,” S o c ia l S e r v ic e R e v ie w , June 1984,
pp. 259-80.
Bianchi, Suzanne M., “ Wives Who Earn More Than Their Hus
bands,” A m e r ic a n D e m o g r a p h ic s , July 1984, beginning on
p. 18.
Grenier, Gilles, “ The Effects of Language Charcteristics on the
Wages of Hispanic-American Males,” T h e J o u r n a l o f H u m a n
R e s o u r c e s , Winter 1984, pp. 35-52.
Johnson, William G. and Edward Heler, “ Compensation for Death
from Asbestos, ” / n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R e v ie w , July
1984, pp. 529-40.
Kaufman, Roger T. and Geoffrey Woglom, “ The Effects of Ex
pectations on Union Wages,” T h e A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R e
v ie w , June 1984, pp. 418-32.
Shapiro, David, “ Wage Differentials Among Black, Hispanic, and
White Young Men,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R e v ie w ,
July 1984, pp. 570-81.
Siegers, Jacques, “ Equality of the Sexes in the Distribution of
Labour: Is the Goal in Sight? The Case of the Netherlands,”
L a b o u r a n d S o c ie ty , April-June 1984, pp. 151-63.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, I n d u s tr y W a g e S u r v e y : O il a n d
G a s E x tr a c tio n , J u n e 1 9 8 2 . Prepared by Kathleen Mac
Donald. Washington, 1984, 67 pp. (Bulletin 2193.) Stock
No. 029-001-02810-5. $3, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.
Williams, Robert E. and'Lorence L. Kessler, A C l o s e r L o o k a t
C o m p a r a b le W o r th : A S tu d y o f th e B a s ic Q u e s tio n s to b e
Washington, National
Foundation for the Study of Equal Employment Policy, 1984,
84 pp. $15, paper.
A d d r e s s e d in A p p r o a c h in g P a y E q u ity .
Welfare programs and social insurance
Brown, J. Douglas, T h e G e n e s is o f S o c ia l S e c u r ity in A m e r ic a .
Princeton, n j , Princeton University, Industrial Relations Sec
tion, Department of Economics, 1969, 18 pp. (Reprinted in
1984.)
Danielson, William F., “ Up and Down the Staircase: Multi-Tier
Retirement Systems,” C a lif o r n ia P u b lic E m p lo y e e R e la tio n s ,
June 1984, pp. 2-20.
Current
Labor Statistics
Notes on Current Labor Statistics ......................................................................................................................................................
54
Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series ...........................................................................................
54
Employment data from household survey. Definitions and notes .........................................................................
55
55
56
57
58
58
59
59
59
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-83 ................................
Employment status of the population, including Armed Forces in the United States, by sex, seasonally adjusted . . . .
Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, seasonally adjusted ..................
Selected employment indicators, seasonally ad ju sted .......................................................................................................................
Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally ad ju sted ..................................................................................................................
Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted ...........................................................................................................
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally ad ju sted ..................................................................................
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted...............................................................................................................................
Employment, hours, and earnings data from establishment surveys. Definitions and notes
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Employment, by industry, selected years, 1950-83 ........................................................................................................................
Employment, by State ............................................................................................................................................................................
Employment, by industry, seasonally a d ju sted ..................................................................................................................................
Average hours and earnings, by industry, 1968-83 ........................................................................................................................
Average weekly hours, by industry, seasonally adjusted ...............................................................................................................
Average hourly earnings, by industry .................................................................................................................................................
Hourly Earnings Index, by industry......................................................................................................................................................
Average weekly earnings, by industry.................................................................................................................................................
Indexes of diffusion: industries in which employment increased, seasonally a d ju sted .................................. .........................
Unemployment insurance data. Definitions...............................................................................................................................
18. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations
....................................................................................................
Price data. Definitions and notes
........................................................................................................................................................
Consumer Price Index, 1967-83 ..........................................................................................................................................................
Consumer Price Index, U .S. city average, general summary and selected i t e m s .....................................................................
Consumer Price Index, cross-classification of region and population size c l a s s .......................................................................
Consumer Price Index, selected areas .................................................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing ...............................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings ...........................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by special commodity groupings .............................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product .............................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
Productivity data. Definitions and notes
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
......................................................................................................................................
Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years, 1948-82 .................................................
Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs,and prices, selected years, 1950-83 ...........................
Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1973-83 ....................................................
Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted ..............................
Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs,and p r ic e s................
Wage and compensation data. Definitions and notes
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
......................................................................................................
Employment Cost Index, by occupation and industry group ......................................................................
Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group ..................................................................
Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size .......................................
Wage and compensation change, major collective bargaining settlements, 1978 to d a te .......................................................
Effective wage adjustments in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 workers or more, 1978to date .......................
Work stoppage data. Definition ....................................
38.
67
67
68
69
69
75
76
77
78
80
80
81
.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
60
61
61
62
63
64
65
65
66
66
W ork stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more, 1947 to date
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
82
83
83
84
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
90
91
91
NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
This section of the Review presents the principal statistical series
collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A brief
introduction to each group of tables provides definitions, notes on
the data, sources, and other material usually found in footnotes.
Readers who need additional information are invited to consult
the BLS regional offices listed on the inside front cover of this
issue of the Review. Some general notes applicable to several series
are given below.
quarter to quarter are published for numerous Consumer and Producer
Price Index series. However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published
for the U .S. average. All Items CPI. Only seasonally adjusted percent
changes are available for this series. Adjustments for price changes. Some
data are adjusted to eliminate the effect of changes in price. These ad
justments are made by dividing current dollar values by the Consumer
Price Index or the appropriate component of the index, then multiplying
by 100. For example, given a current hourly wage rate of $3 and a current
price index number of 150, where 1967 = 100, the hourly rate expressed
in 1967 dollars is $2 ($3/150 X 100 = $2). The resulting values are
described as “ real,” “ constant,” or “ 1967” dollars.
Seasonal adjustm ent. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted to
eliminate the effect o f such factors as climatic conditions, industry pro
duction schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying periods,
and vacation practices, which might otherwise mask short-term movements
o f the statistical series. Tables containing these data are identified as “ sea
sonally adjusted.” Seasonal effects are estimated on the basis of past
experience. When new seasonal factors are computed each year, revisions
may affect seasonally adjusted data for several preceding years.
Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 3 - 8 were revised in the
February 1984 issue o f the Review, to reflect experience through 1983.
Beginning in January 1980, the BLS introduced two major modifications
in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data. First, the
data are being seasonally adjusted with a new procedure called X -11/
ARIMA, which was developed at Statistics Canada as an extension of the
standard X -11 method. A detailed description of the procedure appears in
The X - l I ARIMA Seasonal Adjustment M ethod by Estela Bee Dagum
(Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 12-564E, February 1980). The second
change is that seasonal factors are now being calculated for use during the
first 6 months o f the year, rather than for the entire year, and then are
calculated at mid-year for the July-December period. Revisions of historical
data continue to be made only at the end of each calendar year.
Annual revision o f the seasonally adjusted payroll data shown in tables
11, 13, and 15 were made in July 1984 using the X -11 ARIMA seasonal
adjustment methodology. New seasonal factors for productivity data in
tables 29 and 30 are usually introduced in the September issue. Seasonally
adjusted indexes and percent changes from month to month and from
Availability of inform ation. Data that supplement the tables in this section
are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a variety of sources.
Press releases provide the latest statistical information published by the
Bureau; the major recurring releases are published according to the schedule
given below. More information from household and establishment surveys
is provided in Employment and Earnings, a monthly publication o f the
Bureau. Comparable household information is published in a two-volume
data book-L a b o r Force Statistics D erived From the Current Population
Survey, Bulletin 2096. Comparable establishment information appears in
two data b ook s-Employment and Earnings, United States, and Employ
ment and Earnings, States and Areas, and their annual supplements. More
detailed information on wages and other aspects of collective bargaining
appears in the monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. More
detailed price information is published each month in the periodicals, the
CPI D etailed Report and Producer Prices and Price Indexes.
Symbols
p -
preliminary. To improve the timeliness o f some series, pre
liminary figures are issued based on representative but in
complete returns.
r = revised. Generally, this revision reflects the availability of
later data but may also reflect other adjustments,
n .e.c. = not elsewhere classified.
S ch ed u le of release dates for BLS statistical series
S e rie
R e le a s e
date
P erio d
R ele a s e
P erio d
M L R ta b le
date
covered
R e le a s e
date
P erio d
covered
covered
num ber
Employment situation ...................................
September 7
August
October 5
September
November 2
October
1 -1 1
Producer Price Index
...................................
September 14
August
October 12
September
November 9
October
23-27
Consumer Price Ind ex...................................
September 21
August
October 24
September
November 21
October
19-22
Real earnings..................................................
September 21
August
October 24
September
November 21
October
12-16
Productivity and costs:
3rd quarter
29-32
3rd quarter
Major collective bargaining settlements . . . .
Employment Cost In d ex ................................
3rd quarter
33-35
1983
54
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
29 32
36-37
EMPLOYMENT DATA FROM THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
m p l o y m e n t d a t a in this section are obtained from the Current
Population Survey, a program of personal interviews conducted
monthly by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. The sample consists of about 60,000 households selected
to represent the U.S population 16 years of age and older. House
holds are interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths of
the sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months.
E
Definitions
Em ployed persons include (1) all civilians who worked for pay any
time during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or who
worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise and
(2) those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs because of
illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. Members of the
Armed Forces stationed in the United States are also included in the em
ployed total. A person working at more than one job is counted only in
the job at which he or she worked the greatest number of hours.
Unem ployed persons are those who did not work during the survey
week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and had
looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did not look
for work because they were on layolf or waiting to start new jobs within
the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed. The overall
unem ploym ent rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of
the labor force, including the resident Armed Forces. The unemployment
1.
rate for all civilian workers represents the number unemployed as a percent
o f the civilian labor force.
The labor force consists of all employed or unemployed civilians plus
members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. Persons not
in the labor force are those not classified as employed or unemployed;
this group includes persons who are retired, those engaged in their own
housework, those not working while attending school, those unable to
work because of long-term illness, those discouraged from seeking work
because of personal or job market factors, and those who are voluntarily
idle. The noninstitutional population comprises all persons 16 years of
age and older who are not inmates of penal or mental institutions, sani
tariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy, and members o f the
Armed Forces stationed in the United States. The labor force participation
rate is the proportion of the noninstitutional population that is in the labor
force. The em ploym ent-population ratio is total employment (including
the resident Armed Forces) as a percent of the noninstitutional population.
Notes on the data
From time to time, and especially after a decennial census, adjustments
are made in the Current Population Survey figures to correct for estimating
errors during the preceding years. These adjustments aifect the compara
bility of historical data presented in table 1. A description o f these ad
justments and their effect on the various data series appear in the Explanatory
Notes of Employment and Earnings.
Data in tables 2 - 8 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal ex
perience through December 1983.
E m ploym ent status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1 9 5 0 -8 3
[Numbers in thousands]
L abor force
E m ployed
U n em p lo y e d
N o n in s ti
Year
tu tio n al
pop u latio n
N u m b er
popu latio n
Not in
C iv ilia n
P ercent of
Total
P ercen t of
pop u latio n
R esid en t
P erc e n t of
N o n a g ri-
A rm ed
Forces
Total
A g ricu ltu re
N u m b er
cu ltu ral
la b o r force
la b o r
torce
in d u stries
1,169
2,064
1,861
58,918
62,170
65,778
7,160
6,450
5,458
51,758
55,722
60,318
3,288
2,852
3,852
5.2
4.3
5.4
42,787
44,660
46,617
1,946
2,218
2,253
2,238
71,088
72,895
74,372
75,920
77,902
4,361
3,979
3,844
3,817
3,606
66,726
68,915
70,527
72,103
74,296
3,366
2,875
2,975
2,817
2,832
4.4
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.4
52,058
52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602
58.0
57.2
57.5
58.3
58.3
2,118
1,973
1,813
1,774
1,721
78,678
79,367
82,153
85,064
86,794
3,463
3,394
3,484
3,470
3,515
75,215
75,972
78,669
81,594
83,279
4,093
5,016
4,882
4,355
5,156
4.8
5.8
5.5
4.8
5.5
54,315
55,834
57,091
57,667
58,171
87,524
90,420
93,673
97,679
100,421
56.5
57.3
58.3
59.7
60.3
1,678
1,656
1,631
1,597
85,845
88,752
92,017
96,048
98,824
3,408
3,331
3,283
3,387
3,347
82,438
85,421
88,734
92,661
95,477
7,929
7,406
6,991
8.3
7.6
6.9
6 ,202
6.0
6,137
5.8
59,377
59,991
60,025
59,659
59,900
100,907
102,042
101,194
102,510
59.6
59.4
58.2
58.3
99,303
100,397
99,526
100,834
3,364
3,368
3,401
3,383
95,938
97,030
96,125
97,450
7,637
8,273
10,578
10,717
7.0
7.5
9.5
9.5
60,806
61,460
62,067
62,665
1950 ...............
1955 ...............
1960 ...............
106,164
111,747
119,106
63,377
67,087
71,489
59.7
60.0
60.0
60,087
64,234
67,639
56.6
57.5
56.8
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
128,459
130,180
132,092
134,281
136,573
76,401
77,892
79,565
80,990
82,972
59.5
59.8
60.2
60.3
60.8
73,034
75,017
76,590
78,173
80,140
56.9
57.6
58.0
58.2
58.7
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
139,203
142,189
145,939
148,870
151,841
84,889
86,355
88,847
91,203
93,670
61.0
60.7
60.9
61.3
61.7
80,796
81,340
83,966
86,838
88,515
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
154,831
157,818
160,689
153,541
166,460
95,453
97,826
100,665
103,882
106,559
61.6
62.0
62.6
63.5
64.0
1980
1981
1982
1983
...............
...............
...............
...............
169,349
171,775
173,939
175,891
108,544
110,315
111,872
113,226
64.1
65.2
64.3
64.4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2,122
1,668
1,604
1,645
1,668
1,676
55
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
2.
E m ploym ent status of the population, including A rm ed Forces in the U nited S tates, by sex, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
A nnu al averag e
1 983
198 4
E m p lo y m e n t status and sex
1 982
1 983
173,939
111,872
64.3
101,194
58.2
175,465
112,646
64.2
101,277
57.7
1,671
99,606
3,392
96,214
11,369
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
D ec.
Jan .
Feb.
M a r.
Apr.
M ay
June
July
TOTAL
Noninstitutional population1 ' 2 .......................
Labor force2 ...............................................
Participation rate3 ..........................
Total employed2
Employment-population rate4 . . . .
Resident Armed Forces1 ....................
Civilian employed................................
Agriculture ......................................
Nonagricultural industries...............
Unemployed............................................
Unemployment rate5 ........................
Not in labor force ......................................
176,122
113,799
64.6
103,166
58.6
1,682
101,484
3,449
98,035
10,633
9.3
62,323
176,297
113,924
64.6
103,571
58.7
1,695
101,876
3,308
98,568
10,353
9.1
62,373
176,474
113,561
64.3
103,665
58.7
1,695
101,970
3,240
98,730
9,896
8.7
62,913
176,636
113,720
64.4
104,291
59.0
1,685
102,606
3,257
99,349
9,429
8.3
62,916
176,809
113,824
64.4
104,629
59.2
62,819
175,970
113,489
64.5
102,889
58.5
1,664
101,225
3,499
97,726
10,600
9.3
62,481
83,052
63,979
77.0
57,800
69.6
1,527
56,271
6,179
9.7
84,064
64,580
76.8
58,320
69.4
1,533
56,787
6,260
9.7
84,099
64,840
77.1
58,592
69.7
1,521
57,071
6,248
9.6
84,173
64,807
77.0
58,607
69.6
1,538
57,069
84,261
64,877
77.0
58,828
69.8
1,549
57,279
6,049
9.3
84,344
64,709
76.7
58,950
69.9
1,543
57,407
5,759
8.9
84,423
64,846
76.8
59,389
70.3
1,534
57,855
5,457
8.4
84,506
64,838
76.7
59,580
70.5
1,537
58,043
5,258
90,887
47,894
52.7
43,395
47.7
139
43,256
4,499
9.4
91,827
48,646
53.0
44,190
48.1
143
44,047
4,457
9.2
91,871
48,649
53.0
44,297
48.2
143
44,154
4,352
8.9
91,949
48,992
53.3
44,559
48.5
144
44,415
4,433
9.0
92,036
49,047
53.3
44,743
48.6
146
44,597
4,304
92,129
48,852
53.0
44,715
48.5
152
44,563
4,137
8.5
92,214
48,874
53.0
44,902
48.7
151
44,751
3,972
92,302
48,986
53.1
45,049
48.8
151
44,898
3,937
8.1
8.0
1,668
99,526
3,401
96,125
10,678
9.5
62,067
10.1
177,219
113,901
64.3
104,876
59.2
1,688
1,686
102,941
3,356
99,585
9,195
103,190
3,271
99,918
9,026
7.9
63,318
177,363
114,377
64.5
105,576
59.5
1,684
103,892
3,395
100,496
8,801
7.7
62,986
84,745
64,930
76.6
59,781
70.5
1,542
58,239
5,149
7.9
84,811
65,093
76.8
60,147
70.9
1,540
58,607
4,946
7.6
84,880
65,156
76.8
60,290
71.0
1,542
58,748
4,867
7.5
84,953
65,212
76.8
60,293
71.0
1,548
58,745
4,919
7.5
85,024
65,307
76.8
60,629
71.3
1,545
59,084
4,678
7.2
85,101
65,452
76.9
60,923
71.6
1,545
59,378
4,529
6.9
85,179
65,362
76.7
60,607
71.2
1,551
59,056
4,756
7.3
92,474
48,971
53.0
45,094
48.8
144
44,950
3,876
7.9
92,552
49,283
53.2
45,429
49.1
144
45,285
3,855
7.8
92,630
49,442
53.4
45,536
49.2
144
45,392
3.905
7.9
92,709
49,725
53.6
45,802
49.4
145
45,657
3,924
7.9
92,789
50,186
54.1
46,350
50.0
145
46,205
3,836
7.6
92,873
50,115
54.0
46,515
50.1
145
46,370
3,600
7.2
92,958
50,273
54.1
46,486
50.0
147
46,339
3,787
7.5
8.1
62,985
104,140
3,281
100,859
8,772
7.7
62,912
177,662
114,938
64.7
106,095
59.7
1.693
104,402
3,393
101,009
8,843
7.7
62,724
177,813
115,493
65.0
106,978
60.2
1,690
105,288
3,389
101,899
8,514
7.4
62,320
177,974
115,567
64.9
107,438
60.4
1,690
105,748
3,403
102,344
8,130
7.0
62,407
178,138
115,636
64.9
107,093
60.1
1,698
105,395
3,345
102,050
8,543
7.4
62,503
177,510
114,598
64.6
105,826
59.6
1,686
M e n , 1 6 y e a rs and over
Noninstitutional population1 ' 2 ........................
Labor force2 ...............................................
Participation rate3 ..........................
Total employed2 ......................................
Employment-population rate4 . . . .
Resident Armed Forces1 ....................
Civilian employed .................................
Unemployed............................................
Unemployment rate5 .......................
6 ,200
9.6
8.1
W o m e n , 1 6 y e a rs and over
Noninstitutional population1 -2 ........................
Labor force2 ...............................................
Participation rate3 ..........................
Total employed2 ......................................
Employment-population rate4 . . . .
Resident Armed Forces1 ....................
Civilian employed................................
Unemployed............................................
Unemployment rate5 .......................
1 The population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation.
includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States.
3 Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population.
56
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8.8
4Total employed as a percent of the noninstitutional population.
Unemployment as a percent of the labor force (including the resident Armed Forces).
3.
E m ploym ent status of th e civilian population by sex, age, race, and H ispanic origin, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
198 2
1984
1983
Annu al a verag e
E m p lo y m e n t status
1983
S ep t.
Aug.
July
Nov.
Oct.
D ec.
Jan.
Feb.
M a r.
Apr.
M ay
July
June
TO TAL
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ...............
Civilian labor fo rc e ......................................
Participation ra te .............................
Employed ...............................................
Employment-population ratio2 . . . .
Unemployed............................................
Unemployment rate ........................
Not in labor force ......................................
63,318
175,679
112,693
64.1
103,892
59.1
8,801
7.8
62,986
175,824
112,912
64.2
104,140
59.2
8,772
7.8
62,912
175,969
113,245
64.4
104,402
59.3
8,843
7.8
62,724
176,123
113,803
64.6
105,288
59 8
8,514
7.5
62,320
176,284
113,877
64.6
105,748
60.0
8,130
7.1
62,407
176,440
113,938
64.6
105,395
59.7
8,543
7.5
62,502
75,433
59,050
78.3
54,658
72.5
2,374
52,284
4,392
7.4
75,692
59,299
78.3
54,999
72.7
2,356
52,643
4,300
7.3
75,786
59,394
78.4
55,266
72.9
2,409
52,857
4,128
7.0
75,880
59,388
78.3
55,368
73.0
2,364
53,004
4,020
6.8
75,973
59,480
78.3
55,385
72.9
2,453
52,932
4,095
6.9
76,073
59,546
78.3
55,685
73.2
2,451
53,234
3,861
6.5
76,176
59,726
78.4
55,970
73.5
2,469
53,501
3,755
6.3
76,269
59,694
78.3
55,789
73.1
2,455
53,334
3,906
6.5
84,553
44,953
53.2
41,738
49.4
638
41,100
3,215
7.2
84,666
45,024
53.2
41,843
49.4
653
41,190
3,181
7.1
84,860
44,981
53.0
41,798
49.3
625
41,174
3,182
7.1
84,962
45,258
53.3
42,138
49.6
640
41,498
3,120
6.9
85,064
45,459
53.4
42,315
49.7
574
41,741
3,144
6.9
85,168
45,703
53.7
42,517
49.9
619
41,898
3,186
7.0
85,272
46,222
54.2
43,098
50.5
610
42,487
3,124
6.8
85,380
46,101
54.0
43,146
50.5
623
42,523
2,955
6.4
85,488
46,261
54.1
43,088
50.4
573
42,515
3,173
6.9
15,120
7,981
52.8
6,260
41.4
267
5,993
1,721
15,072
8,029
53.3
6,411
42.5
283
6,128
1,618
15,022
8,062
53.7
6,440
42.9
329
14,981
7,935
53.0
6,392
42.7
290
6 ,1 0 2
1,622
2 1.8
2 1.6
20.2
20.1
1,543
19.4
14,880
8,065
54.2
6,457
43.4
343
6,114
1,608
19.9
14,828
8,062
54.4
6,500
43.8
321
6,179
1,562
19.4
14,778
8,034
54.4
6,505
44.0
327
6,178
1,529
19.0
14,728
8,050
54.7
6,631
45.0
311
6,320
1,419
17.6
14,683
7,982
54.4
6,518
44.4
317
6,111
14,931
8,041
53.9
6,488
43.5
346
6,142
1,553
19.3
151,003
97,498
64.6
89,503
59.3
7,995
151,021
97,507
64.6
89,693
59.4
7,814
8.2
8.0
151,324
97,559
64.5
90,430
59.8
7,129
73
151,484
97,724
64.5
90,779
59.9
6,945
7.1
151,939
97,813
64.4
91,044
59 9
6,768
6.9
152,079
98,167
64.6
91,544
60.2
6,623
6.7
152,285
98,424
64.6
91,845
60.3
6,580
6.7
152,178
98,495
64.7
91,933
60.4
6,562
6.7
152,229
98,853
64.9
92,505
60.8
6,348
6.4
152,295
98,770
64.9
92,697
60.9
6,072
8.2
151,175
97,339
64.4
89,851
59.4
7,488
7.7
152,286
98,710
64.8
92,430
60.7
6,280
6.4
18,925
11,647
61.5
9,375
49.5
2,272
19.5
18,942
11,741
62.0
9,443
49.9
2,298
19.6
18,966
11,724
61.8
9,408
49.6
2,316
19.8
18,994
11,720
61.7
9,504
50.0
2,216
18.9
19,026
11,565
60.8
9,449
49.7
2,116
18.3
19,057
11,623
61.0
9,563
50.2
2,060
17.7
19,086
11,650
61.0
9,582
50.2
2,068
17.8
19,196
11,660
60.7
9,707
50.6
1,953
16.7
19,222
11,881
61.8
9,958
51.8
1,923
16.2
19,248
11,867
61.7
9,896
51.4
1,972
16.6
19,274
11,934
61.9
9,923
51.5
19,302
12,008
62.5
10,105
52.4
1,903
15.8
19,330
11,962
61.9
10,168
52.6
1,795
15.0
19,360
12,076
62.4
10,041
51.9
2,035
16.9
12,771
8,119
63.6
6,995
54.8
1,124
13.8
9,640
6,090
63.2
5,339
55.4
751
12.3
9,690
6,145
63.4
5,350
55.2
795
12.9
9,700
9,745
6,165
63.3
5,398
55.4
767
12.4
9,677
6,232
64.4
5,463
56.5
769
12.3
9,735
6,267
64.4
5,540
56.9
727
9,778
6,336
64.8
5,627
57.6
708
9,906
6,292
63.5
5,652
57.1
639
666
9,824
6,298
64.1
5,669
57.7
629
9,738
6,293
64.6
5,626
57.8
667
11.2
10.2
10,072
6,378
63.3
5,643
56.0
735
11.5
10,026
6,332
63.2
5,666
56.5
11.6
10,080
6,484
64.3
5,751
57.1
733
11.3
10.5
1 0.0
1 0.6
174,951
112,035
64.0
102,606
58.6
9,429
8.4
62,916
175,121
112,136
64.0
102,941
58.8
9,195
8.2
8.0
62,985
8.2
75,327
59,053
78.4
54,457
72.3
2,336
52,121
4,596
7.8
8.0
84,333
45,062
53.4
41,550
49.3
581
40,969
3,512
7.8
84,443
44,936
53.2
41,570
49.2
597
40,973
3,366
7.5
15,257
8,196
53.7
6,337
41.5
365
5,972
1,859
22.7
15,204
8,267
54.4
6,382
42.0
347
6,035
1,885
15,154
8,155
53.8
6,379
42.1
296
6,083
1,776
2 2.8
150,959
97,255
64.4
89,260
59.1
7,995
8.6
150,805
97,021
64.3
88,893
58.9
8,128
8.4
18,584
11,331
61.0
9,189
49.4
2,142
18.9
9,400
5,983
63.6
5,158
54.9
825
13.8
174,779
172,271
110,204
64.0
99,526
57.8
10,678
9.7
62,067
174,215
111,550
64.0
100,834
57.9
10,717
9.6
62,665
174,306
111,825
64.2
101,225
58.1
10,600
9.5
62,481
174,440
112,117
64.3
101,484
58.2
10,633
9.5
62,323
174,602
112,229
64.3
101,876
58.3
10,353
9.2
62,373
73,644
57,980
78.7
52,891
71.8
2,422
50,469
5,089
74,872
58,744
78.5
53,4897
71.4
2,429
51,058
5,257
8.9
74,927
58,982
78.7
53,765
71.8
2,521
51,244
5,217
75,012
58,954
78.6
53,804
71.7
2,475
51,329
5,150
8.7
75,115
59,012
78.6
53,947
71.8
2,431
51,516
5,065
75,216
58,949
78.4
54,140
72.0
2,376
51,764
4,809
8.6
82,864
43,699
52.7
40,086
48.4
601
39,485
3,613
8.3
84,069
44,636
53.1
41,004
48.8
620
40,384
3,632
84,122
44,647
53.1
41,123
48.9
613
40,510
3,524
7.9
84,224
44,896
53.3
41,298
49.0
627
40,671
3,598
15,763
8,526
54.1
6,549
41.5
378
6,171
1,977
23.2
15,274
8,171
53.5
6,342
41.5
334
6,008
1,829
22.4
149,441
96,143
64.3
87,903
58.8
8,241
111,866
64.0
101,970
58.3
9,896
8.8
62,913
175,533
112,215
63.9
103,190
58.8
9,026
M e n , 2 0 y e a rs a nd over
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ...............
Civilian labor fo rc e ......................................
Participation ra te .............................
Employed ...............................................
Employment-population ratio2 . . . .
Agriculture............................................
Nonagricultural industries ..................
Unemployed............................................
Unemployment rate ........................
8.8
8.8
W o m e n , 2 0 y e a rs and over
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ...............
Civilian labor fo rc e ......................................
Participation ra te .............................
Employed ...............................................
Employment-population ratio2 . . . .
Agriculture............................................
Nonagricultural industries .................
Unemployed............................................
Unemployment rate ........................
8.1
Both s e x e s , 1 6 to 1 9 yea rs
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ...............
Civilian labor fo rc e ......................................
Participation ra te .............................
Employed ...............................................
Employment-population ratio2 . . . .
Agriculture............................................
Nonagricultural industries ..................
Unemployed............................................
Unemployment rate .......................
6,201
1,464
18.3
W h ite
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ...............
Civilian labor fo rc e ......................................
Participation ra te .............................
Employed ...............................................
Employment-population ratio2 . . . .
Unemployed............................................
Unemployment rate .......................
6.1
Black
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ...............
Civilian labor fo rc e ......................................
Participation ra te .............................
Employed ...............................................
Employment-population ratio2 . . . .
Unemployed............................................
Unemployment rate .......................
2,011
16.8
H is p a n ic orig in
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ...............
Civilian labor fo rc e ......................................
Participation ra te .............................
Employed ...............................................
Employment-population ratio2 . . . .
Unemployed............................................
Unemployment rate ........................
1The population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6,202
63.9
5,392
55.6
810
13.1
NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals because data for
the "other races” groups are not presented and Hispanics are included in both the white and black
population groups.
57
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
4.
S elected em ploym ent indicators, seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]
1983
Annual a verag e
S e le c te d c a te g o ries
1984
1982
1983
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
D ec.
Jan .
Feb.
M a r.
Apr.
M ay
99,526
56,271
43,256
38,074
24,053
5,099
100,834
56,787
44,047
37,967
24,603
5,091
101,225
57,071
44,154
38,254
24,618
5,071
101,484
57,069
44,415
38,281
24,905
5,096
101,876
57,279
44,597
38,232
24,921
5,124
101,970
57,407
44,563
38,240
24,953
5,172
102,606
57,855
44,751
38,388
25,057
5,236
102,941
58,043
44,898
38,494
25,140
5,254
103,190
58,239
44,950
38,682
24,947
5,293
103,892
58,607
45,285
38,911
25,212
5,346
104,140
58,748
45,392
38,927
25,239
5,444
104,402
58,745
45,657
39,062
25,457
5,491
105,288
59,084
46,205
39,159
25,722
5,668
Agriculture:
Wage and salary workers ................................
Self-employed workers ...................................
Unpaid family workers......................................
1,505
1,636
261
1,579
1,565
240
1,631
1,573
252
1,628
1,564
240
1,572
1,515
236
1,505
1,527
227
1,481
1,556
224
1,512
1,572
265
1,443
1,613
233
1,560
1,609
232
1,515
1,580
198
1,661
1,534
207
1,610
1,537
246
1,604
1,570
212
1,513
1,559
230
Nonagricultural industries:
Wage and salary w orkers................................
Government...............................................
Private industries......................................
Private households ..........................
Other ......................................
Self-employed workers ...................................
Unpaid family workers......................................
88,462
15,562
72,945
1,207
71,738
7,262
401
89,500
15,537
73,963
1,247
72,716
7,575
376
89,687
15,593
74,094
1,276
72,818
7,595
322
90,032
15,671
74,361
1,270
73,091
7,641
375
90,743
15,560
75,183
1,279
73 ,'904
7,656
380
90,617
15,578
75,039
1,278
73,761
7,695
405
91,094
15,585
75,509
1,216
74,293
7,800
474
91,422
15,481
75,941
1,241
74,700
7,734
450
91,641
15,535
76,106
1,197
74,909
7,936
364
92,379
15,822
76,557
1,219
75,339
7,849
330
92,819
15,813
77,006
1,155
75,851
7,755
326
92,931
15,784
77,147
1,296
75,851
7,834
338
93,928
15,761
78,167
1,347
76,820
7,707
311
94,040
15,685
78,355
1,329
77,026
7,828
348
93,841
15,604
78,236
1,239
76,997
7,717
306
90,552
72,245
5,852
2,169
3,683
12,455
92,038
73,624
5,997
1,826
4,171
12,417
92,126
73,844
5,700
1,781
3,919
12,582
91,953
73,499
5,866
1,742
4,124
12,588
93,322
74,666
6,027
1,771
4,256
12,629
93,273
75,047
5,724
1,617
4,107
12,502
93,834
75,398
5,848
1,719
4,129
12,588
94,173
75,802
5,712
1,672
4,040
12,659
94,707
76,237
5,943
1,771
4,172
12,527
95,067
76,715
5,808
1,611
4,197
12,545
94,982
77.004
5,463
1,472
3,991
12,515
96,918
78,276
5,593
1,530
4,063
13,049
96,523
78,280
5,353
1,549
3,804
12,889
96,500
78,496
5,491
1,654
3,837
12,514
96,848
78,659
5,300
1,589
3,711
12,889
Nov.
D ec.
Jan.
Feb.
M a r.
Apr.
M ay
June
July
7.8
19.3
7.0
6.9
7.8
19.9
7.8
19.4
6.9
7.0
7.5
19.0
6.5
6.8
7.1
17.6
6 3
6.4
75
18 3
6 5
6.9
6.7
16.2
16.6
15.7
5.9
6.1
15.5
16.5
14 5
53
5.6
6 4
15 3
17 8
12 6
6.0
6.4
16.2
16.8
15.5
5.6
5.8
June
July
CH AR A C TER ISTIC
Civilian employed, 16 years and over ....................
M e n ......................................
W om en..............................................................
Married men, spouse present..........................
Married women, spouse present ....................
Women who maintain families .......................
105,748 105,395
59,378 59,056
46,370 46,339
39,072 39,121
25,786 25,716
5,688
5,662
M A JOR IN D U S T R Y AND CLASS OF W ORKER
PER SO N S AT W O R K 1
Nonagricultural industries.........................................
Full-time schedules .........................................
Part time for economic reasons.......................
Usually work full time .............................
Usually work part tim e .............................
Part time for noneconomic reasons..................
1 Excludes persons "with a job but not at work" during the survey period for such reasons as
vacation, illness, or Industrial disputes.
5.
S elected unem ploym ent indicators, seasonally adjusted
[Unemployment rates]
1983
Annu al a verag e
S e le c te d c a te g o rie s
1984
1982
1983
July
Aug.
Total, all civilian workers...................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a rs .............................
Men, 20 years and o v e r................................
Women, 20 years and o v e r..........................
9.7
23.2
9.5
22.7
9.5
9.2
8.8
8.4
8.2
8.0
2 2.8
21.8
2 1.6
20.2
20.1
8.8
9.6
22.4
8.9
8.8
8.7
8.6
8.2
8.3
8.1
7.9
8.0
7.8
7.5
7.8
7.2
7.4
7.1
19,4
7.3
7.1
White, to tal...................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ....................
Men, 16 to 19 years .......................
Women, 16 to 19 years .................
Men, 20 years and o v e r ..........................
Women, 20 years and over ..................
8.6
8.2
8.2
8.0
20.4
21.7
19.0
7.8
7.3
8.4
19.3
19.4
20.3
18.4
7.7
18.2
18.9
17.4
7.7
7.3
17.2
17.6
16.6
6.9
6.7
16.5
16.4
16.7
6.6
6.0
7.1
17.0
17.5
16.5
6.7
5.9
6.9
16.2
17.8
14.5
6.3
6.8
19.5
20.7
18.2
7.7
6.7
7.7
18.5
19.8
16.9
7.3
6.3
6.0
5.8
6.7
17.1
17.3
16.8
5.8
5.9
Black, to ta l...............................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ..................
Men, 16 to 19 years .......................
Women, 16 to 19 y e a r s ..............
Men, 20 years and o v e r .......................
Women, 20 years and over ....................
18.9
48.0
48.9
47.1
17.8
15.4
19.5
48.5
48.8
48.2
18.1
16.5
19.6
48.4
48.3
48.4
18.6
16.2
19.8
51.4
53.7
48.8
18.2
16.4
18.9
51.1
52.7
49.2
16.9
16.1
18.3
48.7
45.6
52.2
16.3
15.9
17.7
47.3
44.9
50.0
15.6
15.6
17.8
49.0
46.4
51.9
15.1
15.9
16.7
47.9
47.1
48.8
14.8
14.3
16.2
43.5
46.7
39.9
14.1
14.4
16.6
46.7
44.4
49.6
15.4
13.5
16.8
44.8
42.8
47.1
16.0
13.4
15.8
44.1
40.9
48.2
14.1
13.6
15 0
34.3
35 3
33 1
14 8
12.4
16 9
42 4
42 6
42 1
15 7
14.0
1 0.6
Sept.
Oct.
C H A R A C TER ISTIC
2 0.2
18.3
7.9
6.9
6.1
6.8
6.9
Hispanic origin, total..........................
13.8
13.8
12.3
12.9
13.1
12.4
12.3
1 1.6
11.2
10.2
11.3
11.5
10.5
1 0.0
Married men, spouse present...............
Married women, spouse present . . . .
Women who maintain families ..............
6.5
7.4
11.7
6.5
7.0
6.2
6.1
5.2
5.0
6.8
6.0
6.1
6.0
4.9
5.9
4.7
5.8
12.2
11.8
11.8
12.0
5.7
6.3
11.4
5.5
7.0
6.3
6.9
10.5
10.9
10.7
11.0
11.0
4.7
5.8
10.5
45
58
9.8
45
56
9.6
Full-time workers................................
Part-time workers .......................
Unemployed 15 weeks and over ............
Labor force time lost1 ................................
9.6
10.5
3.2
7.8
9.2
2.9
9.2
7.5
9.3
2.6
7.5
9.2
2.5
8.9
8.8
7.6
9.1
25
8.9
7.2
93
25
8.5
6 7
10 3
C2J3
8.3
7.7
10.3
14.3
7.7
7.5
7.2
8.9
14.8
7.1
7.0
71
55
7.9
55
4.7
13.9
70
71
14 8
72
72
73
5.2
72
54
41
11.0
9.5
10.4
3.8
10.9
9.4
9.3
9.1
8.7
8.2
8.0
10.2
10.2
10.1
10.0
3.9
10.7
3.6
10.7
3.5
10.5
3.3
9.8
3.1
9.7
9.8
3.0
9.4
9.7
16.6
18.0
10.7
11.4
9.7
7.3
9.8
7.3
5.4
15.0
9.8
14.9
17.9
9.4
16.9
18.1
11 .2
10.2
7.9
10.9
15.0
8.4
11.7
10.5
7.7
9.8
7.2
5.1
15.1
10.9
9.3
7.4
9.5
7.0
5.0
16.5
8.3
12.4
16.3
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.9
5.1
8.4
6.3
5.0
15.5
10.0
55
5.9
46
5Q
9.6
'Ll
96
8.7
IN D U S T R Y
Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers . .
Mining ..................................................
Construction ..................................................
Manufacturing ......................................
Durable goods ................................
Nondurable goods ..........................
Transportation and public utilities.................
Wholesale and retail trade................................
Finance and service industries .......................
Government workers ............................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers ....................
10.1
13.4
20.0
9.9
17.0
18.4
12.3
13.3
11.2
10.8
10.0
6.8
7.4
10.0
10.0
6.9
4.9
14.7
7.2
5.3
16.0
12.1
1 Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a percent
of potentially available labor force hours.
58
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
9.0
8.6
12.1
12.8
15.8
9.6
15.6
8.9
9.0
8.7
6.7
9.1
6.7
4.9
15.7
10.2
8.7
7.2
9.8
6.9
5.1
16.2
c = corrected.
6.5
8.8
6.6
5.0
15.6
8.0
7.8
7.6
12.2
1 1.2
15.1
7.5
7.3
7.8
5.9
8.3
6.3
4.5
14.0
13.3
7.5
7.8
7.2
5.0
8.3
6.4
4.4
14.6
8.0
5.4
8.7
6.1
4.4
12.2
11.8
74
75
14 7
75
6 7
8 6
6J
78
5 .9
45
14.6
6.
U nem p loym ent rates by sex and age, seasonally adjusted
[Civilian workers]
1983
A nnu al a verag e
S e x and age
1982
1983
July
9.7
17.8
23.2
24.9
9.6
17.2
22.4
24 5
9.5
16.8
22.7
25.1
22.1
21.1
20 8
2 1.6
14.9
7.4
7.9
5.0
14.5
7.5
5.3
13.9
7.4
7.9
5.3
14.4
7.3
7.8
5.1
Men, 16 years and o v e r...................................
16 to 24 years...............................................
16 to 19 years .........................................
16 to 17 y ea rs ......................................
18 to 19 y ears......................................
20 to 24 years .........................................
25 years and over .........................................
25 to 54 y ears......................................
55 years and over ................................
9.9
19.1
24.4
26.4
23.1
16.4
7.5
9.9
18.4
23.3
25.2
9.9
18 4
23.8
27.3
2 2.2
2 1.2
15.9
7.8
15.8
7.6
9.8
18.6
24.3
26.0
23.2
15.7
7.5
8.0
8.2
8.1
8.0
8.0
5.1
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.6
Women, 16 years and o v e r.............................
16 to 24 years ...............................................
16 to 19 years .........................................
16 to 17 y ears......................................
18 to 19 y ears......................................
20 to 24 years .........................................
25 years and over .........................................
25 to 54 y ears......................................
55 years and over ................................
9.4
16.2
21.9
23.2
9.2
15.8
21.3
23.7
19.9
12.9
7.2
7.7
4.7
9.0
15.0
21.5
9.1
15.7
8.8
15.2
21.1
2 0.6
23.4
19.9
24.0
18.5
12.5
6.9
7.3
4.5
Total, 16 years and over .........................................
16 to 24 years .....................................................
16 to 19 y e a rs ..................................................
16 to 17 years...............................................
18 to 19 years...............................................
20 to 24 y e a rs ............................................
25 years and over ...............................................
25 to 54 years...............................................
55 years and over .........................................
7.
21.0
13.2
7.3
7.7
4.8
8.0
2 2.6
20.5
11.7
7.1
7.6
5.1
Aug.
Sept.
1984
Oct.
Nov.
D ec.
Jan .
Feb.
M a r.
Apr.
May
June
July
8.2
8.0
14.9
7.8
14.2
19.3
17.5
7.8
14.6
19.4
22.3
17.5
7.5
14.0
19.0
22.1
7.8
14.4
19.9
23.1
18.1
12.2
14.8
19.4
21.9
17.6
12.5
11.6
11.6
12.2
6.4
6.2
6.1
6.0
6.5
4.7
6.4
4.3
5.9
6.3
4.3
7.5
13.6
18.3
20.5
16.7
11.3
5.9
6.8
6.3
4.2
6.0
4.4
7.1
13.0
17.6
19.7
16.3
10.7
5.6
5.7
4.6
7.8
14.6
19.7
7.7
14.6
2 0.0
23.0
18.2
11.9
5.9
7.7
15.0
19.7
23.7
17.3
12.7
5.9
6.2
7.3
14.0
19.4
21.3
18.3
11.5
5.7
5.9
4.5
7.1
13.7
18.5
22.7
16.1
11.4
5.4
5.6
4.3
9.5
17.2
9.2
16.5
16.3
8.4
15.4
22.8
21.8
2 1.6
2 0.2
20.1
24.8
24.0
20.5
13.8
7.2
7.7
5.2
24 0
20.3
13.6
21.9
19.3
13.0
6.5
6.9
4.9
22.9
18.8
9.6
17.6
8.6
23 9
9.1
17.3
22.5
24.3
22.2
21.6
15.0
7.5
14.7
7.0
7.4
5.4
7.1
5.4
8.3
15.6
20.4
23.3
18.9
13.3
6.5
6.7
5.4
8.2
8.1
14.7
19.0
14.0
19.8
22.5
18.7
12.0
6.2
6.6
4.1
12.8
7.0
7.5
4.7
8.8
6.8
7.2
5.0
22.8
8.5
15.1
20.5
23.6
18.8
12.3
6.5
7.0
4.4
15.9
2 0.2
2 2.0
19.6
13.8
6.8
20.1
2 1.8
4.9
8.1
15.6
2 0 .8
'
20.2
18.2
11.5
5.7
2 1.6
21.6
19.6
13.1
18.1
6.2
6.1
6.6
6.4
4.5
6.1
4.8
4.6
4.4
7.9
13.9
18.0
7.8
13.7
18.9
7.9
14.1
19.0
22.2
2 2.6
16.9
11.0
15.4
11.7
7.9
14.2
19.8
23.1
18.1
11.3
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.0
6.0
5.8
6.8
6.5
4.0
6.5
3.9
6.4
3.9
6.1
4.3
6.5
4.5
12.1
11.0
17.8
7.7
14.0
18.6
19.0
18.1
11.6
11.6
20.8
7.2
12.2
4.3
16.7
16.4
16.5
9.9
5.8
5.8
5.0
6.2
4.4
7.5
14.6
2 0 .6
23.0
18.8
11.7
5.7
5.9
4.6
7.6
12.5
15.9
17.9
14.4
1 0.8
6.1
6.5
4.2
U nem p loyed persons by reason for unem ploym ent, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
1983
A nnu al av e ra g e
R e a s o n fo r u n e m p lo y m e n t
Job losers .................................................................
On layoff ...........................................................
Other job losers ...............................................
Job leavers.................................................................
Reentrants.................................................................
New entrants..............................................................
1984
1982
1983
July
A ug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
D ec.
Jan .
Feb.
M a r.
Apr.
M ay
June
July
6,258
2,127
4,141
840
2,384
1,185
6,258
1,780
4,478
830
2,412
1,216
6,235
1,735
4,500
752
2,415
1,229
6,133
1,660
4,473
799
2,479
1,214
5,938
1,562
4,376
858
2,362
1,234
5,601
1,392
4,209
5,226
1,321
3,905
866
868
2,322
1,127
2,250
1,154
5,017
1,283
3,734
855
2,246
1,150
4,825
1,238
3,588
809
2,192
1,175
4,737
1,272
3,465
772
2,153
1,092
4,614
1,254
3,360
756
2,208
1,213
4,527
1,108
3,419
781
2,308
1,216
4,327
1,192
3,134
804
2,178
1,186
4,220
1,166
3,055
800
1,968
1,136
4,511
1,164
3,346
865
2,091
1,092
100.0
100.0
1 00.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1 00.0
100.0
1 00.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1 0 0.0
58.7
19.9
38.8
7.9
22.3
58.4
16.6
41.8
7.7
22.5
11.3
58.6
16.3
42.3
7.1
22.7
57.7
15.6
42.1
7.5
23.3
11.4
57.1
15.0
42.1
8.3
22.7
11.9
56.5
14.0
42.4
8.7
23.4
11.4
55.0
13.9
41.1
9.1
23.7
54.1
13.8
40.3
9.2
24.2
12.4
53.6
13.7
39.9
9.0
24.4
13.1
54.1
14.5
39.6
52.5
14.3
38.2
51.3
12.5
38.7
50.9
14.0
36.9
9.5
25.6
14.0
51.9
14.4
37.6
9.8
24.2
14.0
52.7
13.6
39.1
3.7
.7
1.7
4.0
PER C EN T D IS T R IB U T IO N
Total unemployed .....................................................
Job losers .................................................................
On ayoff ...........................................................
Other job losers ...............................................
Job leavers.................................................................
Reentrants.................................................................
New entrants..............................................................
11.1
11.6
12.1
8.8
8.6
8.8
24 6
12.5
25.1
13.8
26.1
13.8
10.1
24.4
1 2.8
PER CENT OF
C IV IL IA N LABOR FORCE
Job losers .................................................................
Job leavers.................................................................
Reentrants.................................................................
New entrants..............................................................
8.
5.7
5.6
.7
5.6
,7
5.5
.7
5.3
8
.8
.8
.8
.8
4.3
.7
4.0
.7
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.2
.7
1.9
4.1
.7
2.2
2.0
2.0
3.8
.7
1.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
4.7
4.5
.8
1.8
D uration of unem ploym ent, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
1983
Annu al a verag e
W e e k s of u n e m p lo y m e n t
Less than 5 weeks.....................................................
5 to 14 w eeks...........................................................
15 weeks and over ..................................................
15 to 26 weeks..................................................
27 weeks and over............................................
Mean duration in weeks............................................
Median duration in weeks.........................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1984
1982
1983
July
Aug.
S ep t.
Oct.
Nov.
D ec.
Jan.
Feb.
M a r.
Apr.
M ay
June
July
3,883
3,311
3,485
1,708
1,776
15.6
8.7
3,570
2,937
4,210
1,652
2,559
3,529
2,841
4,398
1,794
2,604
21.3
3,633
2,951
4,078
1,597
2,481
19.9
9.4
3,740
2,784
3,889
1,383
2,506
3,504
2,725
3,655
1,372
2,283
3,328
2,616
3,527
1,337
2,190
20.1
2 0.2
9.5
9.4
3,359
2,484
2,984
1,173
1,810
18.8
8.3
3,386
2,539
2,873
1,114
1,759
18.8
8.3
3,238
2,433
2,851
1,186
1,664
18.4
8.7
3,174
2,294
2,619
1,008
1,611
18.6
7.2
3,462
2,490
2,689
9.4
3,233
2,556
3,201
1,166
2,035
20.5
9.2
3,438
2,493
2,855
2 0.2
3,382
2,504
3,369
1,284
2,085
19.6
9.0
2 0.0
10.1
10.1
1,111
1,744
18.5
8.1
1 ,100
1,589
18.1
7.6
59
EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHMENT SURVEYS
e a r n in g s d a t a in this section are com
piled from payroll records reported monthly on a voluntary basis
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies
by 195,000 establishments representing all industries except ag
riculture. In most industries, the sampling probabilities are based
on the size of the establishment; most large establishments are
therefore in the sample. (An establishment is not necessarily a
firm; it may be a branch plant, for example, or warehouse.) Selfemployed persons and others not on a regular civilian payroll are
outside the scope of the survey because they are excluded from
establishment records. This largely accounts for the difference in
employment figures between the household and establishment sur
veys.
E m plo ym ent, h o u r s, a n d
Definitions
Em ployed persons are all persons who received pay (including holiday
and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the 12th of the
month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 percent of all persons
in the labor force) are counted in each establishment which reports them.
Production workers in manufacturing include blue-collar worker su
pervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with produc
tion operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 12-16 include production
workers in manufacturing and mining; construction workers in construc
tion; and nonsupervisory workers in transportation and public utilities; in
wholesale and retail trade; in finance, insurance, and real estate; and in
services industries. These groups account for about four-fifths of the total
employment on private nonagricultural payrolls.
Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers re
ceive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime or
late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special payments.
Real earnings are earnings adjusted to reflect the effects of changes in
consumer prices. The deflator for this series is derived from the Consumer
Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). The
Hourly Earnings Index is calculated from average hourly earnings data
adjusted to exclude the effects of two types of changes that are unrelated
to underlying wage-rate developments: fluctuations in overtime premiums
60
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
in manufacturing (the only sector for which overtime data are available)
and the effects of changes and seasonal factors in the proportion of workers
in high-wage and low-wage industries.
H ours represent the average weekly hours of production or nonsuper
visory workers for which pay was received and are different from standard
or scheduled hours. O vertim e hours represent the portion of gross average
weekly hours which were in excess of regular hours and for which overtime
premiums were paid.
The Diffusion Index, introduced in table 17 of the May 1983 issue,
represents the percent of 185 nonagricultural industries in which employ
ment was rising over the indicated period. One-half of the industries with
unchanged employment are counted as rising. In line with Bureau practice,
data for the 3-, 6-, and 9-month spans are seasonally adjusted, while that
for the 12-month span is unadjusted. The diffusion index is useful for
measuring the dispersion of economic gains or losses and is also an eco
nomic indicator.
Notes on the data
Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are pe
riodically adjusted to com prehensive counts o f em ploym ent (called
“ benchmarks” ). The latest complete adjustment was made with the release
of May 1984 data, published in the July 1984 issue of the Review. Con
sequently, data published in the Review prior to that issue are not necessarily
comparable to current data. Unadjusted data have been revised back to
April 1982; seasonally adjusted data have been revised back to January
1979. Unadjusted data from April 1983 forward, and seasonally adjusted
data from January 1980 forward are subject to revision in future bench
marks. Earlier comparable unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are
published in a Supplement to Employment and Earnings (unadjusted data
from April 1977 through February 1984 and seasonally adjusted data from
January 1974 through February 1984) and in Employment and Earnings,
United States, 1909-78, BLS Bulletin 1312-11 (for prior periods).
A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household and
establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green, “ Com
paring employment estimates from household and payroll surveys,” Monthly
Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9 -2 0 . See also BLS Handbook o f
M ethods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982).
9.
E m ploym ent, by industry, selected years, 1 9 5 0 -8 3
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
G o ods-producing
S erv ic e -p ro d u c in g
T ra n s p o r
Year
Total
P riva te
sector
Total
M in in g
C onstruc
M a n u fa c
tion
turing
T otal
tatio n
Vifhole-
and
sale
public
trade
G o vern m en t
F in an ce,
R e ta il
in su ra n c e ,
tra d e
and real
S erv ic e s
To tal
Fe d e ra l
S tate
Local
estate
u tilitie s
1950 ................................
1955 .................................
I9602 .............................
1964 ................................
1965 .................................
45,197
50,641
54,189
58,283
60,765
39,170
43,727
45,836
48,686
50,689
18,506
20,513
20,434
21,005
21,926
901
792
712
634
632
2,364
2,839
2,926
3,097
3,232
15,241
16,882
16,796
17,274
18,062
26,691
30,128
33,755
37,278
38,839
4,034
4,141
4,004
3,951
4,036
2,635
2,926
3,143
3,337
3,466
6,751
7,610
8,248
8,823
9,250
2,298
2,629
2,911
2,977
5,357
6,240
7,378
8,660
9,036
6,026
6,914
8,353
9,596
10,074
1,928
2,187
2,270
2,348
2,378
(1)
1,168
1,536
1,856
1,996
(1)
3,558
4,547
5,392
5,700
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
63,901
65,803
67,897
70,384
70,880
53,116
54,413
56,058
58,189
58,325
23,158
23,308
23,737
24,361
23,578
627
613
606
619
623
3,317
3,248
3,350
3,575
3,588
19,214
19,447
19,781
20,167
19,367
40,743
42,495
44,160
46,023
47,302
4,158
4,268
4,318
4,442
4,515
3,597
3,689
3,779
3,907
3,993
9,648
9,917
10,320
10,798
11,047
3,058
3,185
3,337
3,512
3,645
9,498
10,045
10,567
11,169
11,548
10,784
11,391
11,839
12,195
12,554
2,564
2,719
2,737
2,758
2,731
2,141
2,302
2,442
2,533
2,664
6,080
6,371
6,660
6,904
7,158
1 9 7 1 ................................
1972 ................................
1973 ................................
1974 ................................
1975 ................................
71,214
73,675
76,790
78,265
76,945
58,331
60,341
63,058
64,095
62,259
22,935
23,668
24,893
24,794
22,600
609
628
642
697
752
3,704
3,889
4,097
4,020
3,525
18,623
19,151
20,154
20,077
18,323
48,278
50,007
51,897
53,471
54,345
4,476
4,541
4,656
4,725
4,542
4,001
4,113
4,277
4,433
4,415
11,351
11,836
12,329
12,554
12,645
3,772
3,908
4,046
4,148
4,165
11,797
12,276
12,857
13,441
13,892
12,881
13,334
13,732
14,170
14,686
2,696
2,684
2,663
2,724
2,748
2,747
2,859
2,923
3,039
3,179
7,437
7,790
8,146
8,407
8,758
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
79,382
82,471
86,697
89,823
90,406
64,511
67,344
71,026
73,876
74,166
23,352
24,346
25,585
26,461
25,658
779
813
851
958
1,027
3,576
3,851
4,229
4,463
4,346
18,997
19,682
20,505
21,040
20,285
56,030
58,125
61,113
63,363
64,748
4,582
4,713
4,923
5,136
5,146
4,546
4,708
4,969
5,204
5,275
13,209
13,808
14,573
14,989
15,035
4,271
4,467
4,724
4,975
5,160
14,551
15,303
16,252
17,112
17,890
14,871
15,127
15,672
15,947
16,241
2,733
2,727
2,753
2,773
2 ,8 6 6
3,273
3,377
3,474
3,541
3,610
8,865
9,023
9,446
9,633
9,765
1 9 8 1 .................................
1982 ................................
1983 .................................
91,156
89,566
90,138
75,126
73,729
74,288
25,497
23,813
23,394
1,139
1,128
957
4,188
3,905
3,940
20,170
18,781
18,497
65,659
65,753
66,744
5,165
5,082
4,958
5,358
5,278
5,259
15,189
15,179
15,545
5,298
5,341
5,467
18,619
19,036
19,665
16,031
15,837
15,851
2,772
2,739
2,752
3,640
3,640
3,660
9,619
9,458
9,439
available.
2Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.
1,888
1 Not
10.
NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
E m ploym ent, by State
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
S ta te
June 1 9 8 3
M ay 1984
June 1984P
S tate
Ju n e 1 9 8 3
May 1984
June 1984P
Alabama........................................................
Alaska ...........................................................
Arizona ........................................................
Arkansas .....................................................
California .....................................................
1,331.6
224.6
1,053.1
738.7
9,993.6
1,348.8
218.5
1,140.9
774.2
10,301.3
1,361.2
227.0
1,124.5
767.2
10,387.7
Montana........................................................
Nebraska .....................................................
Nevada ........................................................
New Hampshire............................................
New Jersey..................................................
276.1
611.8
407.5
416.9
3,200.1
274.2
627.9
416.8
418.9
3,260.4
275.9
630.2
421.8
431.8
3,315.6
Colorado .....................................................
Connecticut..................................................
Delaware .....................................................
District of Columbia ...................................
Florida...........................................................
1,334.9
1,459.4
270.0
599.8
3,886.8
1,358.0
1,486.1
274.2
595.6
4,119.3
1,369.4
1,499.0
273.7
601.3
4,122.6
New Mexico..................................................
New Y o rk .....................................................
North Carolina ............................................
North D akota...............................................
O hio.............................................................
481.6
7,369.0
2,421.6
254.4
4,116.8
496.3
7,476.8
2,485.7
253.3
4,200.0
500.6
7,545.2
2,499.3
254.1
4,216.9
Georgia ........................................................
Hawaii...........................................................
Idaho ...........................................................
Illinois...........................................................
Indiana ........................................................
2,287.6
403.9
322.2
4,528.7
2,009.9
2,386.9
406.8
325.8
4,568.5
2,069.6
2,410.3
406.9
328.7
4,592.6
2,064.1
Oklahoma.....................................................
Oregon ........................................................
Pennsylvania ...............................................
Rhode Is la n d ...............................................
South Carolina ............................................
1,174.0
988.9
4,562.2
399.8
1,193.7
1,183.8
993.9
4,633.8
404.5
1,234.6
1,184.8
1,006.4
4,666.6
407.0
1,239.9
Io w a ..............................................................
1,023.3
922.0
1,166.6
1,567.7
430.6
1,041.9
946.3
1,189.2
1,574.4
427.6
1,036.3
944.6
1,202.6
1,575.6
440.8
South Dakota...............................................
Kentucky ......................................................
Louisiana .....................................................
M a in e ...........................................................
Texas ...........................................................
U tah .............................................................
Vermont........................................................
240.1
1,723.1
6,176.8
564.3
205.1
243.2
1,811.9
6,337.6
592.6
206.5
250.3
1,827.3
6,347.9
598.5
207.6
Maryland .....................................................
Massachusetts ............................................
Michigan .....................................................
Minnesota.....................................................
Mississippi ..................................................
Missouri........................................................
1,716.3
2,711.8
3,190.4
1,735.6
795.3
1,933.3
1,750.8
2,741.5
3,292.7
1,814.6
805.6
1,962.8
1,770.4
2,762.7
3,302.7
1,832.1
799.8
1,966.4
Virginia ........................................................
Washington..................................................
West Virginia...............................................
Wisconsin.....................................................
Wyoming .....................................................
2,232.1
1,611.9
581.9
1,866.8
208.5
2,286.1
1,635.0
593.8
1,902.9
204.0
2,315.5
1,653.5
594.4
1,929.7
209.2
Virgin Islands...............................................
36.0
34.7
34.5
p = preliminary.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
61
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
11.
E m ploym ent, by industry, seasonally adjusted
[Nonagricultural payroll data, In thousands]
1983
Annu al a verag e
1984
1982
1983
July
A ug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
D ec.
Jan .
Feb.
M a r.
Apr.
M ay
JuneP
JulyP
89,566
90,138
90,274
89,918
91,018
91,345
91,688
92,026
92,391
92,846
93,058
93,449
93,768
94,076
94,378
73,729
74,288
74,452
74,110
75,083
75,481
75,814
76,157
76,533
76,971
77,185
77,546
77,864
78,203
78,448
...............................................................
23,813
23,394
23,414
23,532
23,669
23,895
24,058
24,198
24,383
24,577
24,595
24,760
24,851
24,989
25,126
...........................................................................................
1,128
708
957
600
946
590
950
590
952
594
965
600
967
603
969
607
975
608
978
607
978
607
984
612
995
619
1,002
1 ,002
623
625
3,905
991
3,940
1,015
3,947
1,024
3,985
1,037
4,019
1,043
4,044
1,053
4,073
1,064
4,086
1,077
4,154
4,226
4,246
1,100
1,111
4,151
1,099
1 ,110
4,286
1,126
4,348
1,138
4,380
1,137
18,781
12,742
18,497
12,581
18,521
12,612
18,597
12,679
18,698
12,759
18,886
12,928
19,018
13,048
19,143
13,145
19,254
13,234
19,373
13,326
19,466
13,388
19,530
13,443
19,570
13,465
19,639
13,504
19,744
13,600
Production workers .........................................
11,039
7,311
10,774
7,151
10,781
7,165
10,846
7,224
10,923
7,289
11,071
7,421
11,170
7,511
11,266
7,585
11,343
7,643
11,440
7,718
11,513
7,769
11,551
7,799
11,598
7,826
11,661
7,866
11,730
7,933
Lumber and wood products .............................
Furniture and fixtures.........................................
Stone, clay, and glass products .......................
Primary metal industries ...................................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products . . . .
Fabricated metal products...................................
598
432
577
922
396
1,427
658
447
573
838
343
1,374
665
454
573
838
344
1,369
675
453
578
840
344
1,384
680
456
581
849
346
1,389
690
462
587
863
351
1,408
695
467
589
869
351
1,420
698
470
592
877
352
1,431
702
475
595
871
347
1,440
706
480
604
877
348
1,447
712
483
606
877
347
1,456
714
482
604
879
345
1,459
711
482
605
887
347
1,469
714
484
606
885
345
1,479
709
487
608
343
1,489
Machinery, except electrical .............................
Electrical and electronic equipment....................
Transportation equipment...................................
Motor vehicles and equipment .......................
Instruments and related products ....................
Miscellaneous manufacturing.............................
2,244
2,008
1,735
699
716
382
2,038
2,024
1,756
758
695
371
2,039
2,024
1,757
756
690
372
2,051
2,077
2,086
1,820
810
702
376
2,106
2,109
1,832
823
705
378
2,122
1,776
779
694
373
2,058
2,062
1,780
783
698
370
2,132
1,855
843
707
382
2,137
2,152
1,876
858
711
384
2,151
2,175
1,898
865
715
387
Production workers .........................................
7,741
5,431
7,724
5,430
7,740
5,447
7,751
5,455
7,775
5,470
7,815
5,507
7,848
5,537
7,877
5,560
7,911
5,591
Food and kindred products................................
Tobacco manufactures ......................................
Textile mill products............................................
Apparel and other textile products....................
Paper and allied products...................................
1,636
69
749
1,161
662
1,622
69
744
1,164
662
1,626
69
745
1,171
661
1,621
1,624
1,624
1,629
68
68
66
751
1,170
663
753
1,174
758
1,186
669
760
1,195
671
1,631
67
762
1,638
66
Printing and publishing......................................
Chemicals and allied products ..........................
Petroleum and coal products.............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products . .
Leather and leather products.............................
1,272
1,075
697
219
1,296
1,047
195
718
208
1,297
1,046
195
723
207
1,302
1,046
194
730
208
1,305
1,047
194
735
209
1,311
1,049
192
748
1,317
1,050
192
758
210
210
210
210
S E R V IC E -P R O D U C IN G ...............................................................
65,753
66,744
66,860
66,386
67,349
67,450
67,630
67,828
68,008
T ra n s p o rta tio n and p u b lic u t i l i t i e s ...............................
5,082
2,789
2,293
4,958
2,739
2,219
5,001
2,751
2,250
4,369
2,751
1,618
5,046
2,768
2,278
5,053
2,776
2,277
5,043
2,763
2,280
5,055
2,776
2,279
5,278
11,039
7,741
5,259
10,774
7,724
5,256
10,781
7,740
5,277
10,846
7,751
5,301
10,923
7,775
5,322
11,071
7,815
5,344
11,170
7,848
15,179
2,184
2,478
1,632
4,831
15,545
2,161
2,560
1,667
5,007
15,580
2,164
2,558
1,673
5,025
15,626
2,169
2,563
1,679
5,043
15,671
2,171
2,568
1,685
5,058
15,737
2,179
2,587
1,695
5,071
5,341
2,646
1,714
981
5,467
2,740
1,721
1,005
5,478
2,749
1,719
1,010
5,498
2,749
1,724
1,025
5,503
2,763
1,725
1,015
19,036
3,286
5,812
19,665
3,539
5,973
19,723
3,577
5,981
19,808
3,599
5,988
15,837
2,739
3,640
9,458
15,851
2,752
3,660
9,439
15,822
2,744
3,662
9,416
15,808
2,747
3,668
9,393
TO TAL
...............................................................................
P R IVA T E S E C T O R ...........................................................
G O O D S -P R O D U C IN G
M in in g
Oil and gas extraction......................................
C onstruction
...............................................................................
General building contractors.............................
M a n u f a c t u r in g ...........................................................................
Production workers .........................................
D u ra b le goods
.......................................................................
N o n d u ra b le goods
...............................................................
Transportation.....................................................
Communication and public utilities....................
W h o le s a le t r a d e .......................................................................
Durable goods.....................................................
Nondurable goods...............................................
R e ta il tra d e
...............................................................................
General merchandise stores .............................
Food stores ........................................................
Automotive dealers and service stations............
Eating and drinking places ................................
F in a n c e , in s u ra n c e , and re a l e s t a t e ...........................
Finance.................................................................
Insurance ...........................................................
Real estate...........................................................
S e rv ic e s
.......................................................................................
Business services...............................................
Health services ..................................................
G o v e rn m e n t
...........................................................
Federal................................................................
State ...................................................................
Local...................................................................
p - preliminary.
62
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
201
2 ,022
888
2,166
2,189
2 ,202
2 ,212
1,905
863
718
388
1,905
857
719
388
2,203
2,228
1,906
848
722
385
2,227
2,239
1,919
855
723
385
2,246
2,261
1,926
857
729
387
7,933
5,608
7,953
5,619
7,979
5,644
7,972
5,639
7,978
5,638
8,014
5,667
1,638
675
1,643
67
762
1,217
681
1,649
769
1,218
680
1,648
67
766
1,226
680
1,646
768
1,207
676
1,637
65
767
1,213
680
686
689
1,321
1,052
191
766
1,328
1,053
191
774
1,333
1,054
190
784
210
1,339
1,054
190
790
209
1,348
1,057
189
790
208
1,356
1,057
188
795
206
1,361
1,063
188
796
204
1,365
1,063
187
805
209
68,269
68,463
68,689
68,917
69,087
69,252
5,095
2,816
2,279
5,105
2,828
2,276
5,112
2,839
2,273
5,129
2,862
2,267
5,144
2,871
2,273
5,151
2,882
2,269
5,179
2,912
2,267
5,371
11,266
7,877
5,406
11,343
7,911
5,438
11,440
7,933
5,457
11,513
7,953
5,473
11,551
7,979
5,492
11,598
7,972
5,501
11,661
7,978
5,511
11,730
8,014
15,805
2,195
2,594
1,703
5,082
15,857
2,189
2,600
1,710
5,095
15,914
15,980
2,210
2,211
2,618
1,725
5,111
2,626
1,740
5,121
16,030
2,230
2,626
1,748
5,136
16,095
2,251
2,635
1,743
5,154
16,166
2,273
2,630
1,751
5,183
16,234
2,291
2,639
1,751
5,199
16,264
2,290
2,644
1,760
5,213
5,512
2,769
1,725
1,018
5,530
2,777
1,728
1,025
5,546
2,789
1,730
1,027
5,573
2,797
1,737
1,039
5,593
2,812
1,741
1,040
5,613
2,831
1,742
1,041
5,640
2,851
1,742
1,047
5,662
2,863
1,746
1,053
5,676
2,860
1,752
1,064
5,677
2,860
1,755
1,062
19,893
3,636
6,003
19,962
3,672
6,007
20,034
3,703
6,016
20,130
3,758
6,026
20,162
3,798
6,030
20,278
3,845
6,040
20,378
3,875
6,052
20,449
3,912
6,062
20,549
3,979
6,073
20,652
4,013
6,065
20,692
4,036
6,088
15,935
2,774
3,672
9,489
15,864
2,760
3,667
9,437
15,874
2,759
3,669
9,446
15,869
2,762
3,668
9,439
15,858
2,760
3,670
9,428
15,875
2,763
3,682
9,430
15,873
2,770
3,686
9,417
15,903
2,771
3,693
9,439
15,904
2,767
3,699
9,438
15,873
2,765
3,680
9,428
15,931
2,767
3,695
9,469
666
1,202
66
66
66
66
760
1,208
759
NOTE: See “Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
1 ,222
12.
A verage hours and earnings, by industry 1 9 6 8 -8 3
[Production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls]
A verage
A verage
A verag e
A verag e
w e e k ly
hourly
w ee kly
w e e k ly
hourly
w e e k ly
w e e k ly
hourly
w e e k ly
hours
earn in g s
e arn in g s
hours
earn in g s
e arn in g s
hours
ea rn in g s
e a rn in g s
A verag e
Year
A verage
A verag e
M in in g
P riva te sector
A verag e
A v e ra g e
Construction
1968 ....................................................................
1969 ....................................................................
1970 ....................................................................
37.8
37.7
37.1
$2.85
3.04
3.23
$107.73
114.61
119.83
42.6
43.0
42.7
$3.35
3.60
3.85
$142.71
154.80
164.40
37.3
37.9
37.3
$4.41
4.79
5.24
$164.49
181.54
195.45
1 9 7 1 ....................................................................
1972 ....................................................................
1973 ....................................................................
1974 ....................................................................
1975 ....................................................................
36.9
37.0
36.9
36.5
36.1
3.45
3.70
3.94
4.24
4.53
127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53
42.4
42.6
42.4
41.9
41.9
4.06
4.44
4.75
5.23
5.95
172.14
189.14
201.40
219.14
249.31
37.2
36.5
36.8
36.6
36.4
5.69
6.06
6.41
6.81
7.31
211.67
221.19
235.89
249.25
266.08
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
36.1
36.0
35.8
35.7
35.3
4.86
5.25
5.69
6.16
175.45
189.00
203.70
219.91
235.10
42.4
43.4
43.4
43.0
43.3
6.46
6.94
7.67
8.49
9.17
273.90
301.20
332.88
365.07
397.06
36.8
36.5
36.8
37.0
37.0
7.71
8 .66
9.27
9.94
283.73
295.65
318.69
342.99
367.78
1 9 8 1 ....................................................................
1982 ....................................................................
1983 ....................................................................
35.2
34.8
35.0
255.20
267.26
280.70
43.7
42.7
42.5
10.04
10.77
11.27
438.75
459.88
478.98
36.9
36.7
37.2
10.82
11.63
11.92
399.26
426.82
443.42
6 .66
7.25
7.68
8.02
T ran sp o rtatio n and p u b lic u tilitie s
M a n u factu rin g
8 .10
W h o le s a le tra d e
1968 ....................................................................
1969 ....................................................................
1970 ....................................................................
40.7
40.6
39.8
$3.01
3.19
3.35
$122.51
129.51
133.33
40.6
40.7
40.5
$3.42
3.63
3.85
$138.85
147.74
155.93
40.1
40.2
39.9
$3.05
3.23
3.44
$122.31
129.85
137.26
1 9 7 1 ....................................................................
1972 ....................................................................
1973 ....................................................................
1974 ....................................................................
1975 ....................................................................
39.9
40.5
40.7
40.0
39.5
3.57
3.82
4.09
4.42
4.83
142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79
40.1
40.4
40.5
40.2
39.7
4.21
4.65
5.02
5.41
5.88
168.82
187.86
203.31
217.48
233.44
39.5
39.4
39.3
38.8
38.7
3.65
3.85
4.08
4.39
4.73
129.85
144.18
151.69
160.34
183.05
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
40.1
40.3
40.4
40.2
39.7
5.22
5.68
6.17
6.70
7.27
209.32
228.90
249.27
269.34
288.62
39.8
39.9
40.0
39.9
39.6
6.45
6.99
7.57
8.16
8.87
256.71
278.90
302.80
325.58
351.25
38.7
38.8
38.8
38.8
38.5
5.03
5.39
5.88
6.39
6.96
194.66
209.13
228.14
247.93
267.96
1 9 8 1 ....................................................................
1982 ....................................................................
1983 ....................................................................
39.8
38.9
40.1
7.99
8.49
• 8.83
318.00
330.26
354.08
39.4
39.0
39.0
9.70
10.32
10.80
382.18
402.48
421.20
38.5
38.3
38.5
7.56
8.09
8.54
291.06
309.85
328.79
F in a n c e , in su ran ce, and re a l esta te
R e ta il tra d e
S ervices
1968 ....................................................................
1969 ....................................................................
1970 ....................................................................
34.7
34.2
33.8
$2.16
2.30
2.44
$74.95
78.66
82.47
37.0
37.1
36.7
$2.75
2.93
3.07
$101.75
108.70
112.67
34.7
34.7
34.4
$2.42
2.61
2.81
$83.97
90.57
96.66
1 9 7 1 ....................................................................
1972 ...................................................................
1973 ....................................................................
1974 ...................................................................
1975 ....................................................................
33.7
33.4
33.1
32.7
32.4
2.60
2.75
2.91
3.14
3.36
87.62
91.85
96.32
108.86
36.6
36.6
36.6
36.5
36.5
3.22
3.36
3.53
3.77
4.06
117.85
122.98
129.20
137.61
148.19
33.9
33.9
33.8
33.6
33.5
3.04
3.27
3.47
3.75
4.02
103.06
110.85
117.29
126.00
134.67
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
32.1
31.6
31.0
30.6
30.2
3.57
3.85
4.20
4.53
4.88
130.20
138.62
147.38
36.4
36.4
36.4
36.2
36.2
4.27
4.54
4.89
5.27
5.79
155.43
165.26
178.00
190.77
209.60
33.3
33.0
32.8
32.7
32.6
4.31
4.65
4.99
5.36
5.85
143.52
153.45
163.67
175.27
190.71
1 9 8 1 ....................................................................
1982 ....................................................................
1983 ....................................................................
30.1
29.9
29.8
5.25
5.48
5.74
158.03
163.85
171.05
36.3
36.2
36.2
6.31
6.78
7.29
229.05
245.44
263.90
32.6
32.6
32.7
6.41
6.92
7.30
208.97
225.59
238.71
102.68
114.60
121.66
NOTE: See “Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
63
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
13.
A verage w eekly hours, by industry, seasonally adjusted
[Production or nonsupervlsory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Annu al a verag e
1983
1984
Industry
198 2
1983
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
D ec.
Jan .
F eb.
M a r.
Apr.
M ay
JuneP
JulyP
...........................................................
34.8
35.0
35.0
35.0 *
35.2
35.2
35.2
35.2
35.4
35.3
35.3
35.4
35.3
35.3
35.3
M A N U F A C T U R IN G .......................................................................
38.9
2.3
40.1
3.0
40.2
3.0
40.3
3.0
40.7
3.2
40.6
3.3
40.6
3.3
40.6
3.4
40.9
3.5
40.9
3.5
40.7
3.5
41.1
3.7
40.6
3.3
40.5
3.3
40.6
3.4
39.3
40.7
3.0
40.8
3.0
40.8
3.0
41.4
3.3
41.2
3.4
41.3
3.5
41.3
3.5
41.6
3.7
41.7
3.8
41.4
3.7
41.8
4.0
41.3
3.5
41.2
3.5
41.4
3.6
Lumber and wood products.............................
Furniture and fixtures ......................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ....................
Primary metal industries...................................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products . . . .
Fabricated metal products................................
38.0
37.2
40.1
38.6
37.9
39.2
40.1
39.4
41.5
40.5
39.5
40.6
40.0
39.7
41.6
40.7
39.9
40.7
40.2
39.7
41.7
40.9
40.1
40.8
40.4
40.0
42.0
41.2
40.5
41.4
40.5
39.8
41.8
41.6
40.8
41.2
40.0
39.8
41.8
41.7
40.8
41.4
40.0
40.1
41.9
41.8
41.2
41.4
40.6
40.0
42.1
41.9
41.0
41.6
40.4
39.9
42.5
42.0
41.3
41.8
40.1
39.6
41.9
41.8
41.2
41.3
40.4
39.7
42.3
42.2
41.0
41.8
39.6
39.7
42.1
42.1
41.6
41.4
39.4
39.1
41.7
41.8
41.3
41.3
39.4
39.7
41.9
41.8
40.7
41.3
Machinery, except electrical.............................
Electrical and electronic equipment.................
Transportation equipment................................
Motor vehicles and equipment.......................
Instruments and related products....................
39.7
39.3
40.5
40.5
39.8
40.5
40.5
42.1
43.3
40.4
40.6
40.7
42.0
42.9
40.5
40.6
40.7
41.9
43.1
40.4
41.1
41.2
43.3
45.1
40.8
41.2
41.1
42.5
44.1
40.7
41.3
41.1
42.6
44.1
40.7
41.5
41.0
42.4
43.9
40.8
41.8
41.2
43.2
44.8
41.3
41.9
41.2
43.1
44.3
41.2
41.9
41.0
42.9
44.4
41.1
42.3
41.3
43.5
44.8
41.4
41.9
41.0
42.4
42.9
40.7
42.0
40.8
42.3
43.1
41.2
41.9
41.1
42.6
43.1
41.1
...............................................................
Overtime hours.........................................
38.4
2.5
39.4
3.0
39.5
3.0
39.6
3.1
39.9
3.1
39.7
3.1
39.8
3.1
39.7
3.2
39.9
3.3
39.9
3.3
39.8
3.3
40.2
3.4
39.6
3.1
39.6
3.1
39.5
3.1
Food and kindred products .............................
Textile mill products.........................................
Apparel and other textile products ..................
Paper and allied products................................
39.4
37.5
34.7
41.8
39.5
40.5
36.2
42.6
39.4
40.8
35.9
42.9
39.6
40.9
36.3
42.9
39.8
41.3
36.7
43.2
39.6
40.8
36.6
43.2
39.6
40.6
36.7
43.1
39.5
40.7
36.6
43.1
39.7
40.6
36.6
43.2
39.7
40.8
36.9
43.2
39.8
40.6
36.7
43.0
40.1
41.2
37.4
43.2
39.7
40.0
36.5
43.1
39.8
39.9
36.4
42.9
39.7
39.6
36.0
43.2
Printing and publishing ...................................
Chemicals and allied products..........................
Petroleum and coal products ..........................
Leather and leather products ..........................
37.1
40.9
43.9
35.6
37.6
41.6
43.9
36.8
37.6
41.8
43.8
37.2
37.6
41.7
43.5
37.1
37.8
41.7
43.2
37.8
37.9
41.7
43.6
37.3
37.9
41.9
43.7
37.2
37.7
41.9
44.6
37.1
37.9
42.1
44.8
37.3
37.9
42.1
44.5
37.2
37.9
42.0
44.7
36.7
38.2
42.0
43.7
37.5
38.0
41.8
43.5
36.5
37.7
42.0
43.1
36.5
37.8
41.8
43.0
36.4
T R A N S P O R T A T IO N AN D P U B LIC U T I L IT IE S ................
39.0
39.0
39.0
39.2
39.3
39.4
39.2
39.4
39.5
39.3
39.2
39.5
39.4
39.5
39.6
W H O LE SA LE TRA DE
...............................................................
38.3
38.5
38.4
38.5
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.5
38.5
38.7
38.6
38.6
38.6
RETA IL T R A D E ...............................................................................
29.9
29.8
29.8
29.8
29.8
30.0
30.0
30.3
30.1
30.0
30.1
30.0
30.1
30.2
30.0
SER V IC E S
32.6
32.7
32.7
32.6
32.7
32.8
32.7
32.6
32.8
32.7
32.8
32.8
32.7
32.7
32.8
P R IVA T E SECTOR
Overtime hours.........................................
D u ra b le goods
........................................................................
Overtime hours.........................................
N o n d u ra b le goods
.......................................................................................
p = preliminary.
64
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2.2
NOTE: See “Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
14.
A verage hourly earnings, by industry
[Production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
P R IV A T E SEC TOR
...........................................................
Seasonally adjusted...................................
M IN IN G
C O N S T R U C T IO N ...........................................................................
M A N U F A C T U R IN G
D u ra b le g o o d s ...................................................................
Lumber and wood products.....................
Furniture and fixtures................................
Stone, clay, and glass products...............
Primary metal industries..........................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products
Fabricated metal products.......................
Machinery, except electrical....................
Electrical and electronic equipment . . . .
Transportation equipment ........................
Motor vehicles and equipment...............
Instruments and related products............
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..................
1984
1983
Annu al ave ra g e
Industry
1982
1983
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
D ec.
Jan.
F eb.
M a r.
Apr.
May
JuneP
JulyP
$7.68
<1)
$8 .02
(1)
$8.01
8.04
$7.95
$8.12
8.09
$8.16
8.13
$8.16
8.14
$8.16
8.17
$8.26
8.00
8.21
$8.24
8.23
$8.24
8.25
$8.29
8.31
$8.28
8.29
$8.30
8.33
$8.34
8.37
10.77
11.27
11.27
11.25
11.33
11.33
11.40
11.41
11.54
11.49
11.60
11.62
11.56
11.58
11.62
11.97
11.63
11.92
11.80
11.86
12.04
12.06
11.91
12.02
12.08
11.99
11.97
11.95
11.99
11.94
8.49
8.83
8.84
8.78
8.89
8.90
8.97
9.04
9.08
9.06
9.09
9.11
9.11
9.14
9.17
9.04
7.43
6.31
8.87
11.33
13.35
8.77
9.38
7.79
6.62
9.27
11.34
12.89
9.11
9.38
7.82
6.65
9.33
11.37
12.81
9.07
9.32
7.82
6.67
9.30
11.29
12.74
9.09
9.46
7.87
6.74
9.42
11.34
12.79
9.18
9.47
7.86
6.71
9.38
11.28
9.53
7.79
6.73
9.41
11.32
12.71
9.24
9.60
7.80
6.78
9.41
11.35
12.71
9.35
9.64
7.88
6.76
9.42
11.38
12.76
9.31
9.63
7.88
6.75
9.38
11.49
13.10
9.31
9.66
7.87
6.76
9.40
11.44
12.97
9.31
9.67
7.89
6.76
9.51
11.51
13.12
9.34
9.66
7.92
6.80
9.54
11.49
13.09
9.33
9.69
9.70
8 .0 2
8.01
6.85
9.57
11.47
13.03
9.32
6 .8 6
9.63
11.46
12.99
9.35
9.57
8.67
11.60
12.05
8.49
6.80
9.54
8.62
11.52
11.92
8.45
6.79
9.63
8.73
11.80
12.31
8.54
6.83
9.74
8.77
9.85
8.84
12.04
12.47
8.65
6.95
9.90
8.88
8.86
8 .88
12.06
12.53
1 2.00
12.12
12.41
12.62
8.71
6.97
9.91
8.89
12.06
12.56
8.73
6.97
9.90
8.89
12.04
12.51
8.71
6.99
9.94
8.91
12.13
12.67
8.77
6.98
9.92
8.94
12.13
12.67
8.79
7.01
8.12
8.29
8.43
11.43
6.43
5.49
10.29
8.30
8.43
11.55
6.42
5.48
10.34
8.33
8.44
11.93
6.44
5.51
10.42
6.43
5.51
10.53
9.31
11.02
9.29
11.05
13.33
9.35
11.14
13.49
8.21
9.55
8.65
11.11
9.26
11.66
11.62
8.06
6.42
12.12
8.46
6.80
12.68
9.18
9.66
8.71
11.87
12.38
8.54
6.84
12.01
12.49
8.56
6.84
9.87
9.85
8 .68
8 .66
7.00
6.97
8.24
8.36
10.19
6.31
5.44
10.24
8.27
8.41
10.77
6.39
5.50
10.23
8.24
8.37
11.13
6.40
5.46
10.22
8.27
8.39
11.29
6.41
5.48
10.25
9.26
10.91
13.47
9.30
10.90
13.43
9.29
10.95
13.44
9.29
10.97
13.44
13.32
8 .2 0
5.68
8.24
5.68
8.31
5.71
8.41
8.45
7.74
7.92
9.79
5.83
5.20
9.32
8 .12
8.20
10.35
6.18
5.37
9.94
10.90
6.17
5.35
10.07
8.06
8.15
10.26
6.19
5.35
10.03
8.11
8 .20
8.17
9.90
6.23
5.39
8.16
9.65
6.24
5.40
8.18
8.26
10.77
6.26
5.43
10.11
10.11
10.20
8.74
9.96
12.46
9.11
10.59
13.29
9.09
10.59
13.22
9.12
10.62
13.17
9.23
10.70
13.38
9.23
10.79
13.38
9.26
13.45
9.29
10.90
13.54
7.64
5.33
7.99
5.54
8.02
8.00
5.53.
5.52
8.05
5.57
8.08
5.56
8.07
5.57
8.16
5.61
8.17
5.68
8.16
5.67
5.68
8.25
5.68
10.32
10.80
10.84
10.69
10.88
10.94
11.01
11.00
11.08
11.01
1 1.02
11.07
11.03
11.08
11.23
W H O LE S A LE TRA DE
8.09
8.54
8.56
8.54
8.62
8.69
8 .68
8.74
8.82
8.79
8.79
8.89
8 .86
8.89
8.98
RETAIL T R A D E ...............................................................................
5.48
5.74
5.73
5.73
5.78
5.79
5.82
5.78
5.89
5.89
5.89
5.90
5.88
5.87
5.87
FIN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D REAL E S T A T E ................
6.78
7.29
7.29
7.24
7.33
7.45
7.39
7.43
7.55
7.54
7.54
7.62
7.55
7.57
7.63
SER V IC E S
6.92
7.30
7.24
7.24
7.37
7.43
7.44
7.47
7.57
7.55
7.54
7.60
7.55
7.54
7.59
N o n d u ra b le g o o d s ...........................................................
Food and kindred products ....................
Tobacco manufactures.............................
Textile mill products ................................
Apparel and other textile products............
Paper and allied products .......................
Printing and publishing.............................
Chemicals and allied products..................
Petroleum and coal products ..................
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products...................................
Leather and leather products ..................
T R A N S P O R T A T IO N AN D P U B LIC U T IL IT IE S
1 Not
.......................................................................................
8.08
8 .2 0
available.
p = preliminary.
15.
10.86
1 1 .68
NOTE: See “Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
The H ourly Earnings Index, by industry
[Production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls; 1977 = 100]
S e a s o n a lly a d ju sted
Not s e a s o n a lly adju sted
P e rcent
P ercent
change
change
Industry
July
M ay
June
July
from :
July
M a r.
Apr.
M ay
June
July
from :
1983
1984
1984
1984P
July 1 9 8 3
1983
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984P
June 1 9 8 4
to
to
July 1 9 8 4
July 1 9 8 4
155.3
159.6
159.9
160.7
3.5
155.6
159.1
159.9
159.6
160.3
161.1
Mining ........................................................
Construction...............................................
Manufacturing...............
.....................
Transportation and public utilities . ' . . . .
Wholesale tra d e .........................................
Retail trade..................................................
Finance, Insurance, and real estate............
Services .....................................................
167.3
144.4
157.9
156.9
158.6
150.5
158.9
155.3
172.5
146.3
161.8
160.2
164.1
154.0
164.2
161.6
173.7
146.2
162.2
160.8
164.5
153.9
164.7
161.7
174.9
146.4
162.6
162.7
166.0
153.9
166.2
163.0
4.6
1.4
3.0
3.7
4.7
2.2
4.6
5.0
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
144.5
157.9
157.9
146.3
161.2
160.9
146.6
161.6
161.3
147.0
162.0
160.9
147.2
162.3
162.3
146.6
162.6
163.7
P R IV A T E SEC TOR (in c o nstant d o l l a r s ) ................
94.5
94.8
94.8
(2)
(2)
P R IVA T E SEC TO R (in c u rre n t d o lla rs )
1This series is not seasonally adjusted because the seasonal component is small relative to the trendcycle, irregular components, or both, and consequently cannot be separated with sufficient precision.
2Not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
0.5
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
150.7
156.4
153.2
(1)
160.8
153.7
(1)
162.3
153.4
(1)
161.4
153.8
(1)
162.6
154.0
(1)
164.2
-.4
.2
.9
(1)
.2
(1)
.9
94.9
95.1
95.4
94.9
95.2
(2)
(2)
(1)
p = preliminary,
NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
65
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
16.
A verage w eekly earnings, by industry
[Production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Annual a verag e
1983
Industry
1984
1 982
1983
Current dollars..................................................
Seasonally adjusted......................................
Constant (1977) dollars...................................
$267.26
(1)
168.09
$280.70
(1)
171.37
M I N I N G ...........................................................................................
459.88
478.98
474.47
479.25
488.32
489.46
489.06
495.19
499.68
492.92
496.48
499.66
499.39
503.73
501.98
C O N STR U C TIO N
426.82
443.42
450.76
450.68
456.32
449.84
432.33
442.34
438.50
443.63
439.30
448.13
458.02
462.08
463.24
330.26
207.71
354.08
216.17
353.60
215.22
352.96
213.92
362.71
218.90
362.23
218.08
365.98
220.34
372.45
224.23
368.65
221.01
368.74
220.67
369 96
221.40
372.60
222.45
369.87
219.77
372.91
221.05
370.47
(1)
Lumber and wood products .............................
Furniture and fixtures.........................................
Stone, clay, and glass products .......................
Primary metal industries ...................................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products............
Fabricated metal products...................................
355.27
282.34
234.73
355.69
437.34
505.97
343.78
381.77
312.38
260.83
384.71
459.27
509.16
369.87
378.95
314.36
259.35
390.93
460.49
514.96
364.61
378.39
319.06
267.47
391.53
458.37
507.05
369.96
390.70
320.31
270.95
399.41
469.48
521.83
379.13
391.11
319.12
271.08
394.90
464.74
508.47
379.13
395.50
309.26
269.87
395.22
470.91
513.48
384.38
403.20
311.22
277.98
394.28
478.97
526.19
395.51
398.13
311.26
263.64
386.22
476.82
521.88
385.43
398.68
313.62
263.93
389.27
482.58
539.72
386.37
399.92
314.01
267.02
389.16
480.48
534.36
384.50
402.27
317.18
267.02
401.32
488.02
549.73
387.61
399.92
317.59
268.60
404.50
481.43
540.62
386.26
402.14
323.21
271.26
405.77
481.74
539.44
387.71
397.70
317.20
268.23
406.39
476.74
533.89
381.48
Machinery except electrical................................
Electrical and electronic equipment....................
Transportation equipment...................................
Motor vehicles and equipment.......................
Instruments and related products ....................
Miscellaneous manufacturing.............................
367.62
322.65
449.96
470.61
320.79
246.53
386.78
350.33
490.89
524.80
341.78
265.88
383.76
349.40
483.72
518.15
340.45
263.16
383.51
349.11
474.62
503.02
340.54
264.81
395.79
358.80
505.04
546.56
349.29
269.10
396.06
357.98
505.66
545.96
346.72
272.23
405.18
363.08
515.23
550.81
350.96
272.23
418.63 ' 411.73
369.51
364.97
521.33 517.37
556.16 555.08
357.25 356.75
278.00 272.30
413.55
364.15
514.80
544.80
356.79
276.01
415.80
364.08
521.16
560.33
358.85
276.01
417.21
364.49
523.40
563.94
358.80
275.32
413.82
363.60
514.11
546.69
354.50
274.71
417.48
365.31
519.16
557.48
361.32
272.92
410.69
363.86
513.10
548.61
357.75
274.09
297.22
312.05
370.06
218.63
180.44
389.58
318.35
323.90
387.09
250.29
194.39
423.44
319.93
323.90
401.12
248.03
193.14
429.99
319.98
326.00
385.78
254.41
195.81
429.28
325.21
330.07
380.16
258.55
198.35
439.79
323.99
324.77
370.56
256.46
198.72
437.76
327.20
329.57
431.88
256.66
199.82
440.64
330.42
333.56
385.18
258.71
199.65
448.51
326.67
331.35
410.34
257.52
198.55
440.91
326.30
327.27
405.13
259.84
200.38
438.44
327.49
329.73
416.60
258.96
328.68
333.83
457.38
257.44
437.68
329.94
332.99
451.49
260.42
202.03
442.47
443.59
331.53
337.60
489.13
259.53
202.77
449.10
331.35
336.31
454.35
251.41
199.46
453.84
324.25
407.36
546.99
342.54
440.54
583.43
340.88
440.54
585.65
343.82
439.67
572.90
350.74
448.33
592.73
350.74
449.94
586.04
352.81
457.21
590.46
356.74
462.16
603.88
347.25
458.22
594.03
349.68
457.80
584.21
353.02
458.81
585.98
353.02
460.74
590.02
351.92
460.64
580.75
349.30
465.21
579.86
352.50
463.42
586.82
302.54
189.75
329.19
203.87
328.02
206.82
329.60
207.00
337.30
209.43
338.55
206.83
338.94
207.76
345.98
209.25
343.14
208.46
342.72
208.66
341.94
205.05
347.33
210.16
341.94
209.59
344.43
213.00
342.37
209.56
July
A ug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
D ec.
Jan .
Feb.
M a r.
Apr.
M ay
JuneP
JulyP
P R IVA T E SECTOR
$282.75 $280.64 $286.64 $288.05 $286.42 $289.68
281.40 280.00 284.77 286.18 286.53 287.58
172.09 170.08 172.99 173.42 172.44
174.40
$289.10 $288.40
290.63
290.52
173.32
172.59
$288.40 $292.64 $291.46 $294.65 $297.74
291.23 294.17 292.64 294.05 295.46
172.59
174.71
173.18 174.66
(1)
M A N U F A C T U R IN G
Current dollars..................................................
Constant (1977) dollars...................................
D u ra b le goods
N o n d u ra b le goods
...............................................................
Food and kindred products................................
Tobacco manufactures ......................................
Textile mill products............................................
Apparel and other textile products....................
Paper and allied products...................................
Printing and publishing......................................
Chemicals and allied products ..........................
Petroleum and coat products.............................
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products............................................
Leather and leather products.............................
201.12
200.02
T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D PU B LIC U T ILIT IE S
402.48
421.20
424.93
422.26
428.67
432.13
432.69
436.70
434.34
429.39
429.78
435.05
432.38
439.88
446.95
W H O LE SA LE T R A D E ...............................................................
309.85
328.79
330.42
329.64
333.59
336.30
335.92
339.99
338.69
335.78
336.66
342.27
342.00
344.04
348.42
RETAIL TRA DE
163.85
171.05
175.34
174.77
172.82
173.12
173.44
178.02
173.17
173.17
174.34
175.82
176.40
178.45
180.80
245.44
263.90
264.63
261.36
264 61
271.18
266.78
268.97
275.58
274.46
273.70
278.13
274.07
274.79
279.26
225.59
238.71
239.64
238.92
241.00
242.96
242.54
243.52
246.78
246.13
245.80
248.52
246.13
248.07
251.99
FIN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D REAL ESTATE
. .
S E R V IC E S .......................................................................................
1 Not
available.
p - preliminary.
17.
NOTE: See “Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
in dexes of diffusion: industries in w hich em ploym ent increased, seasonally adjusted
[In percent]
p - preliminary.
NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with employment rising. (Halfofthe unchanged components
66
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
are counted as rising.) Data are centered within the spans. See the “Definitions” in this section.
See “Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DATA
N
a t i o n a l u n e m p l o y m e n t i n s u r a n c e d a t a are compiled monthly
by the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. De
partment of Labor from monthly reports of unemployment insur
ance activity prepared by State agencies. Railroad unemployment
insurance data are prepared by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board.
work and wish to begin receiving compensation. A claimant who continued
to be unemployed a full week is then counted in the insured unemployment
figure. The rate of insured unemploym ent expresses the number of in
sured unemployed as a percent of the average insured employment in a
12-month period.
Definitions
Average weekly seasonally adjusted insured unemployment data are
computed by BLS’ Week’ ■Seasonal Adjustment program. This procedure
incorporated the X -l 1 Variant of the Census Method II Seasonal Adjust
ment program.
Data for ail programs represent an unduplicated count of insured un
employment under State programs, Unemployment Compensation for ExServicemen, and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees,
and the Railroad Insurance Act.
An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the beginning
of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no application is
required for subsequent periods in the same year. Num ber o f payments
are payments made in 14-day registration periods. The average amount
of benefit payment is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted
for recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments. However,
total benefits paid have been adjusted.
Under both State and Federal unemployment insurance programs for
civilian employees, insured workers must report the completion of at least
1 week o f unemployment before they are defined as unemployed. Persons
not covered by unemployment insurance (about 10 percent of the labor
force) and those who have exhausted or not yet earned benefit rights are
excluded from the scope of the survey. Initial claims are notices filed by
persons in unemployment insurance programs to indicate they are out of
18.
U nem ploym ent insurance and em ploym ent service operations
[All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands]
1984
1983
Ite m
All programs:
Insured unemployment..........................
State unemployment insurance program:1
Initial claims2 .........................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)...................................
Rate of insured unemployment..............
Weeks of unemployment compensated .
Average weekly benefit amount
for total unemployment ....................
Total benefits paid ................................
State unemployment insurance program:'
(Seasonally adjusted data)
Initial claims2 .........................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)...................................
Rate of insured unemployment..............
Aug.
July
June
3.481
3,275
Sept.
2,917
Nov.
Oct.
2,580
2,478
D ec.
2.620
Jan.
Feb.
2,915
3,374
M a r.
3,174
Apr.
2.958
M ay
2,613
JuneP
2,290
2,166
1.740
1,804
1,668
1,381
1,522
1,757
2,105
2,356
1,529
1,433
1,465
1,386
1,388
3.063
3.5
12.819
3,049
3.5
10,957
2,766
3.2
11.581
2,449
2,358
2.7
8,417
2,508
2.9
9,301
2,805
3.3
10.168
3,249
3.8
12,232
3,056
3.6
11,622
2,843
3.3
11,339
2,515
2.9
9,969
2,215
2,111
2.6
9,948
2.5
8,228
$123.44
$121.14
$123.00
$122.19
$122.61
$123.60
$124.67
$121.53
$121.32
$124.30
$126.15
$124.20
$1,537,372 $1,297,164 $1,367,186 $1,104,404 $1,002,141 $1,099,862 $1,203,605 $1,457,983 $1,400,458 $1,369,536 $1,215,728 $1,131,347
$122.69
$975,000
2.8
9,383
1.836
1,723
1,841
1,664
1,656
1.717
1.620
1,606
1,568
1,554
1,619
1,692
1,574
3.301
3.8
3.303
3.8
3,026
3.5
3.088
3.6
2,617
3.1
2.677
3.1
2.721
3.2
2,486
2.9
2,416
2,505
2.9
2,612
3.0
2,324
2.7
2,432
2.8
2 .8
Unemployment compensation for exservicemen:3
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume).............. ....................
Weeks of unemployment compensated .
Total benefits paid
................................
Unemployment compensation for
Federal civilian employees:4
Initial claims............................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)...................................
Weeks of unemployment compensated .
16
16
19
17
16
15
14
15
13
13
12
12
12
25
107
25
95
26
28
107
28
116
27
113
27
20
112
24
96
22
110
27
106
89
79
18
80
18
72
$13,588
$12,134
$14,082
$13,531
$14,074
$15,121
$14,815
$14,532
$12,540
$11,813
$10,486
$10,702
$9,633
13
12
11
11
15
13
13
16
10
9
13
9
11
21
22
22
25
27
83
88
110
32
133
31
129
122
23
98
20
96
29
119
28
90
23
84
89
19
76
S10.272
$9,646
$10,982
$9,535
$10,144
$12,415
$13,888
$15,588
$15,003
$14,778
$11,892
$10,535
$9,032
9
7
8
8
10
4
3
2
2
11
41
103
$214.77
$20,239
48
92
$211.41
$19,531
40
92
$212.36
$19,536
43
95
$213.71
$19,870
51
49
104
$209.56
$23,228
41
99
$208.96
$2 0,112
27
70
$196.32
$13,356
19
54
$188.45
$10,233
16
38
$187.37
$7,039
Total benefits paid ................................
Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications............................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)...................................
Number of payments.............................
Average amount of benefit payment . .
Total benefits paid ................................
31
55
14
49
123
$203.54
$14,984
49
92
$199.87
517.551
46
107
$214.21
$21,789
Employment service:5
New applications and renewals..............
Nonfarm placements .............................
11.987
1.921
15.595
3,012
'initial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program for Puerto Rican
sugarcane workers.
Excludes transition claims under State programs.
Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.
4 Excludes data or claims and payments made jointly with State programs
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4,297
782
121
$210.73
$23,866
8,231
1,469
9,517
1,810
5Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1—September 30). Data computed quarterly,
NOTE: Data for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands included. Dashes indicate data not available.
p preliminary.
67
PRICE DATA
P rice d a t a are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from
retail and primary markets in the United States. Price indexes are
given in relation to a base period (1967 = 100, unless otherwise
noted).
Definitions
The Consumer Price Index is a monthly statistical measure of the average
change in prices in a fixed market basket of goods and services. Effective
with the January 1978 index, the Bureau of Labor Statistics began pub
lishing CPI’s for two groups of the population. It introduced a CPI for All
Urban Consumers, covering 80 percent of the total noninstitutional pop
ulation, and revised the CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers,
covering about half the new index population. The All Urban Consumers
index covers in addition to wage earners and clerical workers, professional,
managerial, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers,
the unemployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs,
transportation fares, doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods and ser
vices that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quality of
these items is kept essentially unchanged between major revisions so that
only price changes will be measured. Data are collected from more than
24,000 retail establishments and 24,000 tenants in 85 urban areas across
the country. All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of
items are included in the index. Because the CPI’s are based on the ex
penditures o f two population groups in 1972-73, they may not accurately
reflect the experience of individual families and single persons with dif
ferent buying habits.
Though the CPI is often called the “ Cost-of-Living Index,” it measures
only price change, which is just one of several important factors alfecting
living costs. Area indexes do not measure differences in the level of prices
among cities. They only measure the average change in prices for each
area since the base period.
Producer Price Indexes measure average changes in prices received in
primary markets o f the United States by producers of commodities in all
stages o f processing. The sample used for calculating these indexes contains
about 2,800 commodities and about 10,000 quotations per month selected
to represent the movement of prices of all commodities produced in the
manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, gas and electricity,
and public utilities sectors. The universe includes all commodities produced
or imported for sale in commercial transactions in primary markets in the
United States.
Producer Price Indexes can be organized by stage of processing or by
commodity. The stage of processing structure organizes products by degree
o f fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate or semifinished goods,
and crude materials). The commodity structure organizes products by sim
ilarity o f end-use or material composition.
68
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price Indexes
apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the United States,
from the production or central marketing point. Price data are generally
collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire. Most prices are ob
tained directly from producing companies on a voluntary and confidential
basis. Prices generally are reported for the Tuesday of the week containing
the 13th day of the month.
In calculating Producer Price Indexes, price changes for the various
commodities are averaged together with implicit quantity weights repre
senting their importance in the total net selling value of all commodities
as of 1972. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain indexes for stage
of processing groupings, commodity groupings, durability of product
groupings, and a number of special composite groupings.
Price indexes for the output of selected SIC industries measure av
erage price changes in commodities produced by particular industries, as
defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1972 (Washing
ton, U .S. Office of Management and Budget, 1972). These indexes are
derived from several price series, combined to match the economic activity
of the specified industry and weighted by the value of shipments in the
industry. They use data from comprehensive industrial censuses conducted
by the U .S. Bureau of the Census and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notes on the data
Regional CPI’s cross classified by population size were introduced in
the May 1978 Review. These indexes enable users in local areas for which
an index is not published to get a better approximation of the CPI for their
area by using the appropriate population size class measure for their region.
The cross-classified indexes are published bimonthly. (See table 20.)
For details concerning the 1978 revision of the CPI, see The Consumer
Price Index: Concepts and Content Over the Years, Report 517, revised
edition (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1978).
As of January 1976, the Producer Price Index incorporated a revised
weighting structure reflecting 1972 values of shipments.
Additional data and analyses of price changes are provided in the CPI
D etailed Report and Producer Prices and Price Indexes, both monthly
publications of the Bureau.
For a discussion o f the general method of computing producer, and
industry price indexes, see BLS Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2134-1
(Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 7. For consumer prices, see
BLS Handbook o f Methods fo r Surveys and Studies (1976), chapter 13.
See also John F. Early, ‘‘Improving the measurement of producer price
change,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1978. For industry prices, see also
Bennett R. Moss, ‘‘Industry and Sector Price Indexes,” Monthly Labor
Review, August 1965.
19.
C onsum er P rice Index fo r Urban W age Earners and C lerical W orkers, annual averages and changes, 1 9 6 7 -8 3
[1967 = 100]
Food and
All item s
P ercent
In d ex
change
Index
A p p arel and
H ousing
b everag es
Year
P ercen t
change
index
Percent
..................
..................
..................
..................
1 0 0.0
104.2
109.8
116.3
4.2
5.4
5.9
103.6
108.8
114.7
3.6
5.0
5.4
104.0
110.4
118.2
4.0
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
121.3
125.3
133.1
147.7
161.2
4.3
3.3
3.1
4.1
13.2
13.8
8.4
123.4
128.1
133.7
148.8
164.5
4.4
3.8
4.4
11.3
9.1
118.3
123.2
139.5
158.7
172.1
10.6
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
170.5
181.5
195.3
217.7
247.0
5.8
6.5
7.6
11.5
13.5
177.4
188.0
206.2
228.7
248.7
3.1
174.6
186.5
6.8
1981 ..................
1982 ..................
1983 ..................
272.3
288.6
297.4
10.2
267.8
278.5
284.7
6.2
11.0
6.0
3.0
P ercent
Index
change
1967
1968
1969
1970
change
6.2
7.1
Index
change
12.0
7.5
8.9
184.7
202.4
219.4
240.1
287.2
9.5
9.6
8.4
9.4
11.3
159.8
167.7
176.2
187.6
203.7
5.0
4.9
5.1
6.5
8.5
162.7
172.2
183.2
196.3
213.6
5.7
5.8
6.4
7.2
295.1
326.9
355.1
10.4
219.0
232.4
242.4
7.5
10.8
233.3
257.0
286.3
9.4
128.4
132.5
137.7
150.5
168.6
3.7
4.5
3.4
4.3
212.8
6.6
250.5
9.9
7.1
4.9
14.5
17.7
5.2
2.3
2.5
281.3
293.1
300.0
12.3
4.2
2.4
202.6
8.6
227.5
263.2
12.3
15.7
7.7
4.0
293.2
314.7
322.0
11.4
7.3
2.3
186.6
190.9
195.6
100.0
100.0
4.8
4.2
3.9
7.2
8.4
5.2
165.5
177.2
185.8
change
122.4
127.5
132.5
142.0
153.9
118.6
119.9
123.8
137.7
150.6
6.1
P e rc e nt
5.3
2.9
3.3
11.2
In d ex
change
122.9
126.5
130.0
139.8
152.2
119.8
122.3
126.8
136.2
142.3
120.6
1.1
P ercen t
5.2
4.9
5.8
106.1
113.4
3.3
Index
and s e rv ic e s
105.2
110.4
115.8
3.2
3.9
5.1
3.7
7.4
4.5
change
O ther goods
E n te rta in m e n t
5.7
5.0
5.1
103.2
107.2
112.7
2.1
P ercent
1 00.0
5.4
5.8
4.1
9.7
10.9
8.7
2.2
P ercent
105.4
111.5
116.1
147.6
154.2
159.5
166.4
177.4
8.0
In d ex
M e d ic a l care
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
T ran sp o rtatio n
upkeep
6.1
105.7
6.9
6.3
1 11.0
6.5
3.2
3.9
9.3
8.6
116.7
2.8
6.1
4.3
8.8
9.2
10 .2
11.4
20. C o nsum er Price Index fo r All Urban C onsum ers and revised CPI for Urban W age E arners and C lerical W orkers,
U.S. city averag e — general sum m ary and groups, subgroups, and selected item s
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
U rban W a g e E arners and C le ric a l W o rk e rs
All U rban Consu m ers
G en eral s u m m ary
1984
1983
1984
198 3
M ay
June
June
Jan.
Feb.
M a r.
A pr.
M ay
June
8
309.7
310.7
297.2
302.7
303.3
303.3
304.1
305.4
306.2
294.5
333.2
199.2
309.6
375.7
253.8
302.8
293.6
334.6
198.9
312.2
376.8
253.5
303.2
294.3
336.2
197.4
313.1
378.0
254.5
304.4
285.0
322.3
194.7
299.6
353.3
241.9
282.8
291.9
324.7
195.3
307.9
367.5
246.2
298.1
294.4
324.2
195.4
307.7
371.3
247.7
299.2
294.5
322.9
198.0
308.9
372.6
248.0
299.7
294.7
322.7
198.2
311.9
373.9
249.8
300.4
293.7
325.2
197.7
314.6
375.0
249.6
300.8
294.3
326.2
196.1
315.5
376.3
250.7
302.1
280.1
268.7
275.7
265.2
280.4
269.7
276.1
267.0
280.6
269.6
275.4
267.8
273.3
263.7
274.4
253.7
277.3
266.4
274.2
258.4
278.0
266.2
276.0
256.9
278.1
266.4
276.1
257.1
279.2
267.8
277.5
258.5
279.5
268.7
277.9
259.8
279.7
268.7
277.2
260.3
356.5
244.8
105.8
315.4
405.3
290.4
358.1
246.4
106.2
315.8
406.3
291.3
359.9
247.2
107.4
317.7
407.1
292.3
361.9
248.4
108.5
319.6
408.4
293.6
341.4
235.3
349.8
242.3
350.1
242.9
349.9
244.1
350.1
245.7
353.4
246.5
355.2
247.7
297.5
381.7
273.5
310.3
397.5
285.0
310.6
401.8
286.1
311.6
402.7
287.6
312.1
403.9
288.3
313.9
404.7
289.4
315.7
406.1
290.9
305.9
104.8
306.8
105.1
308 6
105.5
310.0
105.9
311.0
106.2
297.2
302.3
302.4
302.4
303.3
305.2
306.0
263.0
267.4
308.6
283.2
105.7
346.6
277.2
274.6
416.7
409.9
297.0
294.6
248.3
348.1
263.8
269.1
311.2
285.3
106.3
347.8
280.7
280.8
420.2
414.5
298.2
295.5
248.5
349.5
264.4
269.3
310.3
285.5
106.5
349.0
279.9
279.7
418.1
410.7
299.2
296.7
249.9
350.7
266.5
270.7
312.1
286.3
106.8
350.6
279.4
280.6
421.3
414.2
300.5
298.3
251.8
352.2
267.4
271.1
313.0
286.1
107.5
352.5
277.4
278.1
426.1
416.3
301.1
299.3
252.5
353.3
267.4
270.5
312.9
286.0
108.3
354.5
278.0
273.7
428.5
414.4
301.9
300.2
252.8
354.7
284.3
261.6
269.3
309.9
280.8
290.0
264.2
269.4
310.0
284.1
290.9
264.1
271.1
312.4
286.3
291.3
264.3
271.3
311.6
286.4
292.4
265.7
272.6
313.5
287.2
293.2
266.6
273.0
314.3
286.9
294.0
266.6
272.4
314.3
286.9
334.9
268.7
279.8
428.1
421.7
286.5
283.8
242.9
333.2
342.6
276.0
275.8
417.0
410.7
293.5
290.7
247.2
343.4
342.4
279.4
282.1
420.2
414.7
293.8
290.4
246.6
343.6
342.1
278.6
281.3
418.2
411.3
294.0
290.7
247.2
343.3
342.2
278.1
282.3
421.5
414.8
294.6
291.3
248.4
343.3
345.8
276.0
279.3
426.0
416.9
295.7
293.0
249.1
346.1
347.6
276.4
274.9
428.2
415.0
296.3
293.6
249.3
347.2
$0,328
$0,326
$0,325
$0,324
$0,323
$0,322
$0,336
$0,330
$0,330
$0,330
$0,329
$0,327
$0,327
June
Jan.
Feb.
M a r.
Apr
All i t e m s ...........................................................................................................
298.1
305.2
306.6
307.3
308
Food and beverages ..............................................................
Housing ...............................................................................
Apparel and upkeep..............................................................
Transportation......................................................................
Medical care
Entertainment ......................................................................
Other goods and services.....................................................
284.7
323.1
195.6
298.3
355.4
245.4
284.5
291.6
329.2
196.4
306.0
369.5
249.9
300.5
294.2
331.0
196.2
305.8
373.2
251.5
301.5
294.3
331.5
198.8
306.9
374.5
251.7
302.1
Commodities.........................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages.......................
Nondurables less food and beverages....................
Durables....................................................................
271.6
260.9
272.3
251.2
276.8
265.2
272.3
261.4
278.3
266.0
274.0
260.9
278.7
266.6
274.2
262.2
Services ...............................................................................
Rent, residential ...........................................................
Household services less rent of shelter (12/82 = 100)
Transportation services ...............................................
Medical care services ..................................................
Other services ..............................................................
344.0
235.9
104.2
301.4
384.6
275.6
353.9
242.9
105.1
314.1
400.2
288.0
355.3
243.6
105.7
314.4
404.4
289.1
All items less food.....................................................
All items less homeowners' costs .......................
All items less mortgage interest c o s ts ....................
Commodities less food ............................................
Nondurables less food ............................................
Nondurables less food and apparel
....................
Nondurables...............................................
Services less rent of shelter (12/82 = 1 0 0 )............
Services less medical care ......................................
Domestically produced farm foods..........................
Selected beef c u ts .....................................................
Energy .......................................................................
Energy commodities ............................................
All items less energy ............................................
All items less food and energy.............................
Commodities less food and energy..................
Services less energy..................................................
297.8
101.9
304.8
104.3
258.9
267.3
308.4
279.7
102.7
337.4
269.6
278.5
427.3
420.7
288.2
285.5
241.5
336.4
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 = $1
$0,337
Special indexes:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
69
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
20.
C o n tin u ed — C onsum er Price In dex— U.S . city average
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
All U rban Consu m ers
G e n e ral su m m a ry
1983
June
FO OD AN D BEVERAG ES
....................
U rban W a g e E arners and C le ric a l W o rke rs
1984
Jan.
Feb.
M a r.
1983
Apr.
May
198 4
June
June
Jan.
Feb.
M a r.
Apr.
M ay
June
294.3
284.7
291.6
294.2
294.3
294.5
293.6
294.3
285.0
291.9
294.4
294.5
294.7
293.7
F o o d ...................................
292.0
299.4
302.1
302.2
302.3
301.4
302.0
292.2
299.4
302.1
302.1
302.3
301.2
301.8
Food at home .............................
Cereals and bakery products . . . .
Cereals and cereal products (12/77 = 100) . . . .
Flour and prepared flour mixes (12/77 = 100) .
Cereal (12/77 = 100) .......................
Rice, pasta, and cornmeal (12/77 = 100) . . . .
Bakery products (12/77 = 1 0 0 ).......................
White bread ................................
Other breads (12/77 = TOO).......................
Fresh biscuits, rolls, and muffins (12/77 = 100) .
Fresh cakes and cupcakes (12/77 = 100) ............
Cookies (12/77 = 100) .................
Crackers, bread, and cracker products (12/77 = 100) . . .
Fresh sweetrolls, coffeecake, and donuts 912/77 = 100)
Frozen and refrigerated bakery products and
fresh pies, tarts, and turnovers (12/77 = 100) .
283.0
292.4
157.9
142.2
176.4
146.2
153.7
253.1
149.8
151.7
154.6
155.7
149.5
153.7
290.2
299.8
159.3
143.0
178.6
146.7
158.4
259.1
153.7
157.9
161.5
161.1
151.2
159.7
293.6
300.3
160.3
143.4
180.4
147.2
158.5
257.3
153.9
158.7
160.4
162.6
152.3
160.4
293.1
301.5
161.9
144.6
182.3
148.8
158.8
258.9
153.0
158.8
160.0
162.9
153.9
160.5
292.8
302.8
162.5
143.8
183.9
149.2
159.4
258.2
154.7
159.2
161.2
163.8
156.6
160.1
290.7
303.5
163.4
144.6
185.1
150.0
159.6
260.4
154.3
158.5
160.6
163.9
155.4
161.5
291.4
304.9
164.2
146.2
185.7
150.1
160.4
260.2
154.8
158.7
161.3
165.8
157.9
162.1
282.1
291.0
158.7
142.7
178.5
147.3
152.4
248.8
151.8
148.0
152.9
156.4
151.0
156.6
289.1
298.3
160.0
143.3
180.8
147.9
157.1
254.8
155.8
153.9
159.5
161.9
152.6
162.4
292.4
298.9
161.0
143.8
182.5
148.4
157.2
253.0
156.0
154.7
158.6
163.4
153.6
163.2
291.9
300.0
162.6
145.1
184.4
150.0
157.5
254.6
155.2
154.9
158.1
163 7
155.2
163.3
291 6
301 3
163 1
144.1
186.1
150.4
158.2
254.0
156 8
155 1
159.2
164 8
158 1
163.1
289 4
301 9
164 1
144 8
187 3
151 1
158.4
256 1
156 6
154 3
158 7
164 7
156 6
164.2
290 0
303 4
164 8
146 5
188 0
151 2
159 1
256 0
157 0
154 5
159 3
166 7
159 2
164.9
158.8
163.3
163.9
163.8
166.0
164.9
166.6
152.0
156.5
157.1
157.0
159.1
158.1
159.8
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs .................
Meats, poultry, and f is h ....................
Meats ......................................
Beef and veal 1
Ground beef other than canned............
Chuck roast .............................
Round ro a s t.........................................
Round ste a k ....................
Sirloin s te a k ..........................
Other beef and veal (12/77 = 100) .
P ork...................................
Bacon ................................
Chops ............................................
Ham other than canned (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............
Sausage ................................
Canned ham .............................
Other pork (12/77 = 100) ............
Other meats .......................
Frankfurters .............................
Bologna, liverwurst, and salami (12/77 = 100) . . . .
Other lunchmeats (12/77 = 100 ) ............
Lamb and organ meats (12/77 = 100) .
Poultry...................................
Fresh whole chicken.............................
Fresh and frozen chicken parts (12/77 = 100)
Other poultry (12/77 = 1 0 0 )............
Fish and seafood .......................
Canned fish and seafood . . . .
Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 = 100) . . .
Eggs.................................................................................................
261.5
268.7
270.2
278.6
264,5
277.4
245.6
262.1
286.1
170.5
254.1
267.4
234.3
110.3
326.5
260.9
141.7
267.4
265.8
155.6
136.6
139.3
193.6
192.1
126.3
125.3
371.2
138.6
143.0
173.8
268.9
269.8
266.4
274.9
256.9
282.8
246.2
256.2
265.7
169.7
250.8
259.0
236.5
113.0
311.0
252.4
139.7
262.5
260.0
150.6
135.2
137.6
217.5
228.7
144.7
125.4
383.4
133.1
153.7
266.5
273.0
273.9
270.0
280.9
261.1
293.1
253.5
264.5
274.6
172.3
250.6
267.9
230.7
109.8
320.0
251.1
139.3
265.0
263.5
152.4
136.2
138.2
225.5
235.9
152.2
128.5
386.2
132.9
155.5
270.3
269.6
272.6
268.8
279.9
260.9
286.6
251.2
261.6
278.7
172.2
248.6
258.9
229.6
266.7
270.9
267.9
278.3
259.7
281.0
246.5
261.3
280.0
172.0
248.0
262.5
227.3
318.7
249.7
137.1
265.7
264.8
153.6
135.9
138.5
218.0
223.2
145.9
130.3
380.8
132.3
152.6
218.9
263.9
270.3
266.8
274.2
255.1
272.1
238.3
254.2
284.6
170.9
250.5
262.8
234.4
110.7
319.3
248.3
139.1
267.5
265.8
155.0
138.2
137.1
219.6
223.7
147.6
131.6
382.3
133.0
153.1
185.8
261.3
268.3
269.7
279.2
265.7
285.7
249.1
260.5
287.5
169.1
253.9
271.9
232.5
107.5
327.3
266.4
141.1
266.9
264.9
155.6
134.6
142.3
191.8
190.4
124.7
124.7
369.8
138.1
142.5
174.8
268.3
269.1
265.8
275.4
257.7
291.6
250.0
253.0
266.0
168.5
250.1
262.4
234.5
315.2
251.5
137.8
265.1
264.2
153.1
136.3
137.2
223.2
232.6
150.7
127.9
385.3
132.1
155.4
237.2
270.5
272.7
268.9
280.8
262.7
286.8
250.9
262.4
284.3
172.1
247,7
258.8
232.9
109.2
314.8
246.9
137.3
264.6
262.5
152.9
135.3
138.9
222.3
231.2
150.1
128.0
387.3
132.7
156.3
249.6
312.2
257.5
138.9
262.0
258.9
150.4
133.2
140.9
215.4
226.1
142.5
124.9
382.4
132.6
153.7
268.1
272.4
273.2
269.4
281.6
261.9
302.0
257.3
264.0
276.5
170.8
250.1
271.6
228.7
107.0
321.1
255.7
138.7
264.4
262.0
152.3
134.2
141.6
223.5
233.4
150.2
127.9
384.6
132.4
155.2
271.8
269.0
272.0
268.3
280.8
262.1
295.8
254.5
261.3
280.9
171.0
248.0
262.7
227.8
109.1
315.6
256.3
137.1
264.6
263.0
152.9
134.3
140.5
266 1
270.1
267.2
278 8
260.6
289.5
250.2
258.7
281 7
170.7
247.4
266.3
225 2
107.4
319.2
254 8
136.4
265.1
263 4
153 4
134 0
141.7
216 0
229.8
148.7
127.6
383.9
131.7
155.2
238.7
270.0
272.1
268.4
281.7
264.0
295.8
254.7
261.4
286.4
171.0
247.2
262.6
231.1
106.3
315.3
252.1
136.8
263.9
261.1
152.6
133.4
142.1
220.4
228.7
148.3
127.3
385.9
132 2
156.1
251.0
2 2 0 .0
263 3
269.6
266 1
274 6
256 3
280 9
242 6
251 3
285 9
169.3
249.9
266.7
232 4
107.6
319 8
253 3
138.3
267 1
264 4
154 7
136 4
140.3
217 7
221 5
145 7
131 0
380 9
132 5
152.9
186.7
Dairy products.............................
Fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100) . . . .
Fresh whole milk ......................................
Other fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100) .
Processed dairy products ....................
Butter .............................
Cheese (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............
Ice cream and related products (12/77 = 100)
Other dairy products (12/77 = 100 ) . . . .
249.8
136.3
222.9
136.8
148.1
252.7
146.0
154.0
143.1
250.8
136.4
222.7
137.3
149.3
254.7
147.0
154.8
146.1
250.9
136.5
223.3
137.0
149.3
253.4
146.8
155.6
146.2
250.8
136.5
222.9
137.3
149.2
254.4
146.3
155.3
146.9
251.5
136.8
223.7
137.3
149.6
252.4
146.6
156.4
148.2
251.0
136.5
223.0
137.3
149.4
254.2
146.2
156.6
146.8
251.7
136.6
223.2
137.3
150.2
254.1
147.4
156.6
148.5
250.1
136.0
222.3
136.4
149.5
255.9
147.1
154.4
146.7
249.8
135.8
221.9
136.7
149.4
256.9
146.6
154.3
147.4
250 5
136.2
250 1
135 9
250 6
135 9
222 6
222 0
222 1
136.3
148.3
255.4
146.3
153.0
143.7
249.8
135.8
221.7
136.7
149.6
257.1
147.3
153.8
146.7
136 6
149.8
254.9
146 9
155 3
148.7
136 6
149.7
256 8
146 5
155 5
147.3
136 6
150.5
256 7
147 8
155 5
148.8
Fruits and vegetables .......................
Fresh fruits and vegetables ..................
298.2
310.9
310.5
281.9
318.1
309.1
166.3
311.3
304.7
363.5
262.3
169.4
311.0
327.8
289.6
277.0
244.3
301.3
156.9
363.6
342.3
328.3
285.6
226.1
321.0
342.8
296.0
287.9
263.2
303.0
158.2
386.6
359.6
278.5
332.8
252.1
323.2
344.3
300.5
298.6
264.1
309.6
159.1
385.4
363.5
290.5
318.5
249.4
315.3
326.5
304.2
299.3
275.2
309.5
161.5
347.4
367.3
244.4
280.4
218.9
310.2
316.0
315.2
298.8
251.1
344.8
169.9
316.8
372.1
234.1
252.8
187.4
318.1
329.7
343.3
315.5
277.9
452.5
169.6
317.1
391.4
262.6
262.3
174.6
294.5
305.4
299.7
283.4
316.7
280.1
160.0
310.8
301.3
360.8
267.1
169.5
307.3
322.5
279.5
277.6
242.4
275.1
151.1
361.4
337.5
329.8
290.4
224.0
317.2
337.4
286.2
289.3
260.7
276.2
152.6
383.8
353.2
280.2
337.6
249.7
319.4
339.0
290.8
298.7
262.2
284.2
153.4
382.7
357.7
292.6
322.7
247.0
311 2
321.0
294.0
300.4
273.1
283 4
155.1
345.4
360.1
247.1
286 6
217.2
305 6
309.5
303.2
299.5
248.8
313 9
163 2
315.4
366.0
236.4
257 6
186.3
313 1
322.5
328 8
315 2
275.5
413 0
162 6
316 8
387 6
264 6
267 4
174.1
286.9
149.7
140.0
155.1
152.0
295.1
152.3
144.7
155.7
155.0
299.9
156.8
154.9
158.4
156.8
302.8
159.5
159.4
160.8
158.3
305.7
161.7
163.2
163.2
158.8
306.5
162.1
163.8
164.1
158.6
308.0
163.2
164.8
165.2
159.6
284.7
149.3
139.0
154.0
152.6
292.9
151.9
143.9
154.7
155.3
297.4
156.3
154.0
157.3
157.1
300.2
159.0
158.6
159.7
158.5
302 9
161 2
162 4
162 2
159.0
303 8
161 6
163 1
163 1
158.7
305 3
162 7
164 1
164 3
159.9
Apples ......................................
Other fresh fruits (12/77 = 100) . .
Fresh vegetables ..........................
Tomatoes ................................
Other fresh vegetables (12/77 = 100)
.
Processed fruits and vegetables . . . .
Processed fruits (12/77 = 100) . .
Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 = 100)
Fruit juices other than frozen (12/77 = 100)
Canned and dried fruits (12/77 = 100)
70
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
112.2
110.2
249.1
135.9
222.1
110.0
2 2 1 .2
221 0
143 9
129.6
380 0
131 9
152.7
20.
C o n tin u ed — C onsum er Price In dex— U.S. city average
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
U rb an W a g e E arners and C le ric a l W o rk e rs
All U rban Consu m ers
G en e ra l s u m m ary
June
Jan.
Feb.
M a r.
1984
1983
1984
1983
Apr.
M ay
June
June
Jan .
Feb.
M a r.
Apr.
M ay
June
146.5
155.6
150.7
139.8
352.1
391.2
160.5
172.4
158.3
285.4
285.6
152.3
149.1
442.3
317.1
150.1
372.8
363.5
146.2
285.3
144.6
160.4
165.1
163.8
158.4
156.0
152.1
137.5
153.1
138.1
129.8
339.5
374.1
151.2
169.8
150.2
258.0
257.5
147.7
130.7
432.6
309.7
143.9
354.3
351.6
140.7
277.7
143.4
153.1
161.1
157.6
157.2
151.5
147.6
143.0
154.9
143.3
137.1
374.4
379.7
153.9
172.0
151.8
279.5
276.4
150.4
145.9
441.1
317.2
147.0
353.9
353.1
144.2
281.5
144.4
156.5
161.6
160.5
158.4
154.5
150.4
143.3
155.8
143.7
137.1
349.1
380.7
154.3
173.0
151.7
280.9
278.8
151.9
146.1
443.5
315.8
150.3
358.9
356.5
144.8
283.0
145.2
156.1
164.9
161.4
158.4
154.8
150.9
143.6
155.2
145.5
137.1
350.2
384.5
155.9
173.7
154.2
280.2
278.1
151.8
145.6
444.9
316.1
150.7
362.0
359.1
145.2
283.7
145.5
155.1
165.4
161.9
158.4
155.1
152.8
144.3
157.7
145.8
137.2
351.6
387.3
158.4
173.0
154.7
281.9
278.5
152.2
147.1
445.2
318.0
149.0
363.0
361.6
144.9
285.4
246.5
258.4
165.2
162.4
159.4
156.0
153.0
144.8
157.1
146.6
138.0
351.3
389.4
159.2
173.6
156.2
282.4
280.3
151.5
147.3
443.1
313.5
148.5
363.4
362.1
146.4
285.4
146.5
157.3
166.9
161.7
159.6
156.0
152.4
145.3
157.2
148.0
138.1
362.5
390.5
160.3
173.6
155.8
284.9
283.2
150.5
149.4
443.7
314.5
147.6
367.1
362.9
146.4
286.9
146.4
159.6
167.4
163.0
160.2
156.2
153.2
330.4
159.5
159.3
162.5
331.7
160.1
159.9
163.4
333.0
160.6
160.8
163.9
334.1
161.2
161.3
164.2
335.9
162.0
162.0
165.3
336.3
162.3
162.0
165.8
Sugar and sweets .........................................................................
Candy and chewing gum (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) .............................
Sugar and artificial sweeteners (12/77 = 1 0 0 )....................
Other sweets (12/77 - 1 0 0 )..................................................
Fats and oils (12/77 = 100) ........................................................
Margarine...............................................................................
Nondairy substitutes and peanut butter (12/77 = 100) . . .
Other fats, oils, and salad dressings (12/77 = 1 0 0 )............
Nonalcoholic beverages ................................................................
Cola drinks, excluding diet cola ............................................
Carbonated drinks, including diet cola (12/77 = 100) . . . .
Roasted coffee ......................................................................
Freeze dried and instant coffee...............................................
Other noncarbonated drinks (12/77 = 100) .......................
Other prepared foods......................................................................
Canned and packaged soup (12/77 - 1 0 0 )..........................
Frozen prepared foods (12/77 = 100) ................................
Snacks (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ...........................................................
Seasonings, olives, pickles, and relish (12/77 = 100) . . .
Other condiments (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) .........................................
Miscellaneous prepared foods (12/77 = 100) ....................
Other canned and packaged prepared foods (12/77 = 100) . .
138.7
151.4
140.5
131.2
338.8
374.5
151.3
168.5
152.5
258.3
259.3
149.4
130.1
431.0
312.3
146.3
359.3
352.2
140.5
276.1
141.6
153.8
159.0
158.6
155.4
151.2
146.2
144.2
153.3
145.9
138.7
346.6
380.0
154.0
170.9
153.9
279.7
278.2
152.2
145.4
439.1
319.9
149.1
359.2
353.7
143.8
279.9
142.6
157.2
159.5
161.6
156.6
154.3
149.1
144.6
154.2
146.2
138.8
348.4
381.2
154.5
171.8
154.0
281.1
280.5
153.9
145.5
441.8
318.3
152.6
364.3
357.2
144.5
281.4
143.2
156.8
162.8
162.3
156.6
154.6
149.7
144.9
153.5
148.2
138.8
349.7
384.8
156.0
172.5
156.5
280.7
280.1
153.7
145.2
443.5
319.1
153.2
367.6
359.8
144.9
282.1
143.6
156.0
163.3
162.9
156.6
155.0
151.6
145.6
156.0
148.5
138.9
351.0
387.7
158.6
171.8
156.9
282.4
280.5
154.3
146.7
443.6
320.8
151.3
368.6
362.2
144.7
283.8
144.6
159.3
163.0
163.5
157.5
155.8
151.7
•
146.0
155.4
149.3
139.6
350.8
390.0
159.4
172.4
158.5
282.9
282.7
153.3
146 9
441.7
316.2
150.9
368.9
362.8
146.0
283.9
144.6
158.3
164.7
162.7
157.8
156.0
151.3
Food away from home ..................................................................................
Lunch (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ............................................................................
Dinner (12/77 - 1 0 0 )............................................................................
Other meals and snacks (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...............................................
319.3
154.9
153.1
158.2
327.2
158.0
157.6
162.0
328.5
158.5
158.1
162.9
329.8
159.0
158.9
163.4
330 9
159 6
159 6
163 7
332.6
160.5
160.2
164.8
333.1
160.7
160.3
165.3
322.5
156.5
154.8
158.7
A lc o h o lic b e v e ra g e s
...................................................................................................................
217.0
219.0
219.9
220.7
221 3
221.5
222.4
219.6
2 2 .0
223.0
223.8
224.6
224.8
225.6
Alcoholic beverages at home (12/77 = 100) ...............................................
140.3
224.1
151.6
236.3
140.8
225.7
153.5
233.2
121.7
151.6
141.5
227.7
153.2
232.4
142.0
228.7
153.6
233.6
142.3
229.9
153.1
233.4
152.1
244.1
142.8
224.9
153.7
241.0
143.6
226.8
153.5
239.8
122.8
122.8
122.0
121.6
1 22.6
152.0
152.6
153.6
142.8
231.2
153.8
234.0
122.5
154.8
142.0
122.8
142.3
230.6
153.3
231.4
122.3
154.2
148.3
153.0
153.2
144.1 ■ 144.5
228.9
227.8
153.8
153.7
241.7
241.5
122.7
122.8
154.8
153.9
144.6
229.7
153.7
239.3
122.3
155.3
145.0
230.2
154.1
241.8
122.4
155.9
334.6
336.2
322.3
324.7
324.2
322.9
322.7
325.2
326.2
343.3
346.1
343.7
342.0
341.3
344.2
344.6
Fruits and vegetables— Continued
Processed vegetables (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................
Frozen vegetables (12/77 = 100) ................................
Cut corn and canned beans except lima (12/77 = 100)
Other canned and dried vegetables (12/77 = 100) . . . .
Other alcoholic beverages (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................
Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77 = 100) ................................
122.1
147.1
H O U S IN G ...............................................................................................................................................
323.1
329.2
331.0
331.5
333.2
S h e lte r (C P I U ) ...............................................................................................................................
343.6
353.2
354.0
355.5
357.8
358.9
360.2
105.7
242.9
361.7
104.9
104.8
106.6
356.7
402.4
264.6
106.0
243.6
362.5
105.1
105.1
107.1
353.5
400.9
260.4
106.5
244.8
364.5
105.6
105.5
107.1
355.3
405.9
259.3
107.4
246.4
371.2
106.2
106.2
106.1
356.3
408.1
259.2
107.8
247.2
371.3
106.5
106.3
160.6
357.3
409.6
259.7
108.2
248.4
371.5
106.8
106.8
106.6
358.9
409.8
262.2
Renters’ c osts.................................................................................................
Rent, residential .....................................................................................
Other renters’ costs ...............................................................................
Homeowners’ c osts........................................................................................
Owners' equivalent r e n t .........................................................................
Household insurance...............................................................................
Maintenance and repairs ...............................................................................
Maintenance and repair services ...........................................................
Maintenance and repair commodities.....................................................
102.5
235.9
347.9
102.2
102.2
102.4
345.1
381.6
262.3
S h e lte r (C P I W ) ...............................................................................................................................
2 22.8
Rent, residential..............................................................................................
235.3
242.3
242.9
244.1
245.7
246.5
247.7
Lodging while out of town......................................................................
Tenants' Insurance (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ........................................................
345.8
363.5
153.5
359.1
374.0
160.4
360.9
377.9
161.1
363.0
381.3
161.1
370.7
393.8
159.8
370.5
393.5
159.8
370.8
393.9
160.1
Homeownershlp..............................................................................................
Home purchase .....................................................................................
Financing, taxes, and insurance.............................................................
Property Insurance.........................................................................
Property taxes ...............................................................................
Contracted mortgage interest c o s ts ...............................................
Mortgage interest rates..........................................................
Maintenance and repairs.........................................................................
Maintenance and repair services.....................................................
381.9
303.5
490.0
430.6
234.6
620.8
203.0
341.0
380.0
382.9
298.0
494.8
438.3
242.7
624.1
207.6
353.0
397.6
379.4
294.4
490.5
439.3
243.2
617.2
207.7
351.9
396.8
376.6
292.5
484.8
439.9
244.1
607.9
205.4
353.8
400.3
374.9
291.7
480.8
440.3
244.8
601.6
203.9
354.2
401.0
378.5
291.9
490.1
441.0
245.6
615.5
208.4
355.0
402.6
378.8
291.7
490.6
441.5
245.9
616.0
209.3
356.0
403.1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
. . . .
71
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
20.
[1967
C o n tin u ed — C onsum er Price In d ex— U.S city average
= 100 unless otherwise specified]
All U rban Consu m ers
G e n e ra l su m m ary
1983
June
U rb an W a g e E arners and C le ric a l W o rke rs
1984
Jan .
Feb.
M a r.
1983
Apr.
May
June
Homeownership— Continued
Maintenance and repair commodities.................
Paint and wallpaper, supplies, tools, and
equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 )...................................
Lumber, awnings, glass, and masonry (12/77 = 100) . . .
Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling
supplies (12/77 = 100) ...................................
Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100) . .
1984
June
Jan .
Feb.
M a r.
Apr.
M ay
257.5
259.0
257.4
256.3
255.9
255
6
257 2
149.4
124.2
150.8
125.2
147.6
125.6
147.3
124.3
147.3
124.5
146.2
124 2
148 0
124 1
138.8
144.1
139.9
143.1
139.4
144.3
138.6
144.0
140.2
141.7
141.9
142.4
142 5
143.0
June
Fuel and o th e r u t i l i t i e s ........................................
373.6
376.0
383.0
380.1
380.9
385.5
390.0
375.5
377.3
384.2
381.3
382.0
386.6
391.4
Fuels.....................................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas......................................
Fuel oil ...............................................
Other fuels (6/78 = 100) ........................
Gas (piped) and electricity............................................
Electricity..................................................
Utility (piped) gas ...................................
Other utilities and public services ..................
Telephone services...................................
Local charges (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) .............................
Interstate toll calls (12/77 = 100) .......................
Intrastate toll calls (12/77 = 100) .................
Water and sewerage maintenance..........................
475.2
620.0
628.5
188.6
437.4
337.4
591.8
213.2
173.4
141.8
470.4
642.8
652.7
193.6
427.3
332.8
571.1
224.6
183.3
154.3
121.4
479.6
705.0
197.4
429.0
334.2
573.6
228.0
186.8
159.0
122.4
475.2
660.0
671.6
196.4
429.5
335.8
571.4
227.4
185.9
157.7
122.4
483.5
649.2
659.9
194.4
441.4
343.0
591.7
228.8
186.7
158.3
479.1
691.4
707.6
198.1
427.9
333.3
570.1
229.2
187.5
159.6
474.7
662.4
673.9
197.1
428.4
335.1
567.9
228.5
186.6
158.4
122.2
469.9
645.1
654.9
194.4
426.2
331.9
568.1
225.7
183.9
154.8
121.9
122.1
122.1
122.0
122.0
369.5
117.4
352.6
122.1
369.0
123.1
373.9
122.2
367.4
490.7
646.0
656.2
194.1
450.6
358.6
585.9
229.4
187.1
160.1
118.5
124.8
374.6
475.6
622.4
630.7
189.5
437.4
337.9
588.8
214.1
173.9
142.2
117.4
348.9
476.0
650.7
660.9
195.6
432.3
338.9
573.2
228.2
186.4
157.8
122.3
123.7
371.4
371.7
373.2
373.9
475.4
652.9
663.1
196.3
431.1
338.0
569.8
229.2
187.0
158.4
122.7
123.6
375.7
482.6
651.5
662.1
195.1
439.9
342.2
587.2
229.9
187.4
159.0
123.0
122.9
378.2
490 4
648.4
658.6
194 8
449.7
358.7
581.6
230.4
187.6
160 8
118 9
124.6
378.9
H o u s e h o ld fu rn is h in g s and o p e ra tio n s
238.6
240.4
240.4
241.2
242.3
242.4
242.3
235.5
237.3
237.4
238.0
238.9
239.1
238.9
197.8
226.8
135.4
197.9
227.6
133.0
197.6
232.0
137.4
198.3
236.1
140.1
199.9
235.2
139.0
199.8
236.6
140.8
199.1
234.7
138.2
195.9
230.5
136.4
196.3
230.9
134.1
196.0
235.5
138.5
196.7
240.0
141.2
197.7
238.6
139.9
197.7
239.9
141 6
196.9
238 4
139 4
147.7
151.3
219.5
154.4
119.4
124.8
139.2
151.0
104.9
98.8
111.3
189.5
196.5
145.7
125.2
152.3
216.7
148.7
118.5
124.5
139.7
151.1
104.5
98.1
154.7
154.6
223.8
154.3
121.2
121.1
125.5
144.6
150.1
103.4
96.7
110.3
190.4
195.8
146.7
126.1
128.2
144.7
149.8
102.9
96.5
109.5
190.6
196.2
146.7
126.2
154.9
223.3
154.1
121.3
126.8
144.8
148.8
95.9
108.4
189.7
196.8
145.0
125.4
152.1
216.5
148.9
118.3
124.9
139.0
151.9
105.0
99.6
110.5
189.5
155.5
216.7
151.1
119.2
125.9
135.4
151.9
104.0
97.5
110.5
190.7
156.6
213.7
145.3
118.3
125.7
135.9
152.2
103.5
96.7
159.2
218.9
149.6
121.3
126.3
140.2
151.4
102.4
95.3
109.3
192.0
2 0 0 .2
202.1
145.2
123.2
146.6
123.6
192.1
201.9
147.1
125.3
159.5
215.3
145.9
119.7
125.7
137.9
151.9
102.5'
96.5
108.6
192.8
203.1
148.6
125.2
158.9
154.2
190.7
196.2
145.9
126.4
154.6
218.4
149.1
119.8
124.5
142.1
150.5
103.6
97.9
109.7
191.0
197.2
147.4
126.2
....................
Housefurnishings ............................................
Textile housefurnishings......................................
Household linens (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................. .
Curtains, drapes, slipcovers, and sewing
materials (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................
Furniture and bedding..................................................
Bedroom furniture (12/77 = 100) .......................
Sofas (12/77 = 100) ............................................
Living room chairs and tables (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...............
Other furniture (12/77 = 100) ................................
Appliances including TV and sound equipment .......................
Television and sound equipment ..........................
Television ..................................................
Sound equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ....................
Household appliances ...................................
Refrigerators and home freezers.........................................
Laundry equipment............................................
Other household appliances (12/77 = 100) ..................
Stoves, dishwashers, vacuums, and sewing
machines (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ........................
Office machines, small electric appliances, and
air conditioners (12/77 = 100) .......................
Other household equipment (12/77 = 100 ) ..................
Floor and window coverings, infants’, laundry,
cleaning, and outdoor equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ....................
Clocks, lamps, and decor items (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...............
Tableware, serving pieces, and nonelectric
kitchenware (12/77 = 1 0 0 )......................................
Lawn equipment, power tools, and other
hardware (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) .........................................
121.8
2 20.0
152.3
118.0
124.2
143.8
151.4
105.9
100.8
111.6
188.4
194.0
144.6
124.7
688.6
111.2
2 22.8
122.6
102.0
122.8
110.2
122.8
150.2
159.5
219.5
149.6
121.1
1 2 1.6
127.6
140 4
150.1
147.6
124.9
129.0
140.4
151.3
101.9
95.1
108.5
192.3
202.5
147.6
125.2
94.5
107.4
191.0
202.5
145.8
124.2
202.2
220.1
1 0 1.0
123.9
123.3
127.2
127.1
126.3
126.9
127.0
122.8
122.3
126.4
126.4
125.4
126.2
125
125.7
141.2
127.2
142.1
126.1
141.7
125.8
141.6
126.2
143.2
125.7
142.1
124.4
142.2
123.7
139.0
125.2
140.0
124.0
139.5
123.8
139.2
124.2
140.7
124.1
139 4
122 4
139 6
142.2
133.0
145.5
130.9
145.9
132.0
145.4
132.8
147.6
137.4
147.5
136.1
147.8
134.3
134.3
128.8
137.5
126.6
137.6
128.1
137.0
128.5
139.0
132.9
138.8
131.5
138 8
129 7
149.2
149.6
148.2
148.2
149.2
147.2
147.9
145.0
145.5
144.1
144.2
145.1
143.0
143 9
135.0
136.9
136.1
135.3
134.9
134.1
134.6
139.9
142.2
141.0
140.1
140.5
139.5
140.0
Housekeeping supplies ...................................
Soaps and detergents................................
Other laundry and cleaning products (12/77 = 100) ............
Cleansing and toilet tissue, paper towels and napkins (12/77 = 100)
Stationery, stationery supplies, and gift wrap (12/77 = 100) . . . .
Miscellaneous household products (12/77 = 100)
Lawn and garden supplies (12/77 = 1 0 0 ).....................
296.3
294.9
151.5
147.3
139.9
154.0
145.8
299.4
296.3
153.6
149.2
141.7
157.4
145.0
300.0
296.5
154.5
148.8
141.7
158.3
145.2
300.6
296.1
153.7
149.3
141.7
159.5
146.6
301.8
297.1
153.8
151.6
142.0
159.2
147.5
301.5
298.2
153.4
151.7
142.5
159.8
144.8
303.0
299.3
155.1
152.9
143.5
160.1
144.7
293.2
290.9
150.4
147.4
142.8
148.7
139.4
296.3
292.2
152.3
149.4
144.8
152.0
138.0
296.9
292.3
153.2
149.0
145.0
152.8
138.3
297.1
291.7
152.4
149.4
144.7
154.0
138.9
298.5
292.8
152.5
151.6
145 1
153.7
140.5
298.5
293.7
152.0
151 7
145 7
154 4
138.7
300.1
294.8
153 8
152 9
146 7
154 7
138.7
Housekeeping services ............................................
Postage............................................
Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and
drycleaning services (12/77 = 1 0 0 )....................
Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............
318.5
337.5
324.1
337.5
324.8
337.5
326.1
337.5
325.7
337.5
326.5
337.5
327.0
337.5
318.0
337.5
324.4
337.5
325.3
337.5
326.0
337.5
326.0
337.5
326.9
337.5
327.5
337 5
162.3
143.3
171.0
147.5
171.7
148.3
171.7
148.8
171.8
149.4
172.9
150.1
173.7
150.2
162.3
141.6
171.1
145.6
171.9
146.5
172.0
146.9
172.1
147.5
173 2
148.1
174 1
148.2
8
A PP A R EL AN D U P K E E P ...........................................
195.6
196.4
196.2
198.8
199.2
198.9
197.4
194.7
195.3
195.4
198.0
198.2
197.7
196.1
A p p a re l c o m m o d it ie s ........................................
183.6
183.6
183.2
185.9
186.3
185.8
184.0
183.2
183.1
183.0
185.8
185.9
185.1
183.3
179.7
189.1
118.8
179.8
189.7
119.3
179.3
187.9
118.1
107.6
98.1
145.2
182.3
189.9
119.4
182.6
190.6
179.8
190.3
181.9
190.5
181.9
191.2
180.7
191.1
121.0
121.1
112.0
99.0
146.0
178.9
190.2
119.8
104.0
104.3
141.9
120.1
98.1
146.1
179.2
189.0
119.2
103.9
103.3
140.3
178.9
188.7
118.9
110.6
181.7
190.7
120.4
111.9
98.2
147.6
104.1
101.4
142.1
105.4
102.4
142.1
143.5
178.7
190.3
120.3
105.8
99.4
143.8
Apparel commodities less footwear...............
Men’s and b o y s '.........................................
Men's (12/77 = 100) ................................
Suits, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) . . . .
Coats and jackets.....................................................
Furnishings and special clothing (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ..................
72
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
111.2
110.8
100.7
144.3
101.7
145.9
120.2
120.0
113.0
96.2
148.0
101.2
101.3
141.2
105.2
101.2
20.
[1967
C o n tin u ed — C onsum er Price In dex— U.S. city average
= 100 unless otherwise specified]
U rb an W a g e E arn ers and C le ric a l W o rk e rs
All U rban Consu m ers
G en e ra l s u m m ary
198 4
1983
1984
1983
Feb.
M a r.
Apr.
M ay
June
June
Jan .
Feb.
M a r.
Apr.
May
June
125.7
128.9
117.1
122.7
130.1
119.9
130.1
119.9
129.2
117.5
1 22.8
1 21.8
121.1
12 1 .6
122.0
1 22.0
1 2 1 .8
159.0
105.6
162.9
166.5
93.0
135.5
75.2
106.4
98.9
163.3
108.7
167.2
175.9
92.5
136.8
85.0
108.0
100.6
100.6
102.6
102.2
103.9
104.3
128.8
117.8
121.7
120.7
131.9
119.0
160.7
107.2
166.9
153.7
93.3
135.2
95.0
105.6
96.6
102.7
130.0
118.3
122.1
127.6
113.5
122.5
119.4
136.6
119.3
161.8
107.7
159.7
176.1
93.4
137.5
77.3
107.2
98.3
102.7
126.9
111.4
123.0
118.2
137.1
121.6
127.3
113.6
123.2
119.7
137.2
120.3
163.2
108.6
164.9
175.0
92.8
136.9
85.1
108.2
125.8
118.6
123.1
118.4
136.2
127.0
112.4
124.1
119.7
137.9
133.4
119.6
165.3
110.5
172.8
162.9
93.0
136.5
106.4
107.4
98.3
104.6
132.7
117.6
164.5
109.9
170.1
160.6
93.5
136.6
104.2
107.6
98.1
105.2
132.2
116.6
162.7
108.6
164.7
162.9
93.9
137.1
92.7
106.4
96.0
103.7
120.4
132.7
118.4
159.2
106.2
159.1
160.5
91.4
136.6
85.8
104.3
93.7
100.7
128.5
283.0
214.0
122.4
145.1
128.0
283.6
215.5
119.8
147.6
126.3
286.2
216.1
122.4
147.0
128.0
288.0
217.2
128.1
289.2
217.6
126.9
299.7
205.5
120.8
122.6
148.8
148.3
138.4
128.2
293.0
205.0
121.5
137.6
127.8
289.2
205.7
120.9
138.5
Footwear..........................................................................................................
Men’s (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ............................................................................
Boys’ and girls’ (12/77 - 1 0 0 ).............................................................
Women’s (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ......................................................................
206.8
133.7
130.7
125.6
206.7
134.4
132.6
123.7
206.4
135.0
131.4
123.5
207.7
135.2
131.2
125.5
A p p a re l s e rv ic e s
...........................................................................................................................
290.9
298.3
299.7
Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 = 100) ............
Other apparel services (12/77 = 1 0 0 )..........................................................
173.5
152.4
179.0
154.2
T R A N S P O R T A T IO N
298.3
P r i v a t e ...................................................................................................................................................
New cars..........................................................................................................
Used cars .......................................................................................................
Gasoline ..........................................................................................................
Automobile maintenance and repair ..............................................................
Body work (12/77 - 100) ...................................................................
Automobile drive train, brake, and miscellaneous
mechanical repair (12/77 = 100) .....................................................
Maintenance and servicing (12/77 - 1 0 0 )............................................
Power plant repair (12/77 = 100) ........................................................
Other private transportation............................................................................
Other private transportation commodities ............................................
Motor oil, coolant, and other products (12/77 = 100) ...............
Automobile parts and equipment (12/77 = 100) .......................
T ire s ........................................................................................
Other parts and equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ..........................
Other private transportation services.....................................................
Automobile insurance ...................................................................
Automobile finance charges (12/77 = 100) ................................
Automobile rental, registration, and other fees (12/77 = 100) . .
State registration ...................................................................
Drivers’ licenses (12/77 = 1 0 0 )............................................
Vehicle inspection (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) .........................................
Other vehicle-related fees (12/77 = 1 0 0 ).............................
Men's— Continued
Shirts (12/77 - 1 0 0 )..............................................................
Dungarees, jeans, and trousers (12/77 = 100) ..................
Boys' (12/77 - 100) ...................................................................
Coats, jackets, sweaters, and shirts (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............
Furnishings (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Suits, trousers, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) . .
Women’s and girls’ ...............................................................................
Women’s (12/77 - 100) ..............................................................
Coats and jackets...................................................................
Dresses ..................................................................................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Underwear, nightwear, and hosiery (12/77 = 100) ............
Suits (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ..............................................................
Girls’ (12/77 - 1 0 0 )......................................................................
Coats, jackets, dresses, and suits (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ..............
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and
accessories (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ...............................................
Infants' and toddlers’ ............................................................................
Other apparel commodities ....................................................................
Sewing materials and notions (12/77 = 100) .............................
Jewelry and luggage (12/77 = 100) ............................................
June
Jan.
122.6
125.7
111.4
124.0
118.8
136.2
123.3
158.8
105.4
162.8
164.1
94.5
134.8
75.2
106.6
98.1
113.0
123.7
116.3
135.8
124.7
159.7
106.1
164.7
164.3
97.7
132.8
77.2
106.5
96.3
103.5
112.1
121.6
121.1
157.9
105.2
154.6
172.1
91.1
137.0
71.3
104.3
95.0
99.0
116.6
131.2
121.9
161.5
107.4
171.8
148.8
98.4
132.4
93.9
107.4
96.5
106.1
129.7
283.9
216.8
123.1
147.4
129.3
278.3
217.7
122.4
148.5
127.5
293.4
203.0
120.5
136.2
126.5
292.4
203.7
117.7
138.1
125.2
297.0
204.4
137.2
126.9
298.6
205.3
119.7
138.7
208.9
135.8
131.4
126.7
2 10.2
209.6
136.7
132.1
126.7
206.6
135.5
133.1
121.3
207.3
136.4
135.0
120.3
207.0
136.9
133.9
120.3
208.3
137.1
133.8
122.3
209.4
137.9
133.9
123.4
210.7
139.2
134.7
123.7
2 1 0 .0
137.1
132.4
127.1
300.8
301.5
303.7
304.4
289.2
296.1
297.6
298.8
299.4
301.6
302.4
180.2
154.4
180.7
155.3
181.0
155.7
182.6
156.5
182.9
157.0
171.9
153.7
177.3
155.4
178.5
155.5
179.1
156.5
179.4
156.9
180.9
157.7
181.2
158.3
306.0
305.8
306.9
309.6
312.2
313.1
299.6
307.9
307.7
308.9
311.9
314.6
315.5
293.8
300.9
300.8
301.9
304.8
307.4
308.1
296.3
304.1
303.9
305.2
308.3
311.0
311.7
201.6
207.2
357.2
368.8
337.4
170.3
207.2
362.2
368.6
338.3
170.7
207.4
370.0
374.0
338.9
171.4
207.6
378.0
376.7
340.2
172.3
207.7
382.0
374.9
340.7
172.6
2 01.2
322.7
386.1
329.5
166.4
207.2
357.3
370.3
336.1
170.2
322.7
387.4
330.2
165.3
206.7
357.3
372.1
336.6
168.9
206.7
357.2
370.7
338.1
169.0
206.7
362.2
370.5
339.0
169.3
206.9
370.0
375.7
339.6
170.1
207.1
378.0
378.2
340.8
170.9
207.1
382.0
376.4
341.5
171.3
157.7
152.2
157.0
258.1
210.4
156.0
133.2
184.3
132.7
273.3
301.1
152.2
144.7
192.3
150.3
131.2
159.0
163.8
152.9
160.9
267.6
203.3
153.3
128.3
175.7
132.1
287.2
318.8
160.1
148.9
195.1
158.0
139.2
163.5
164.4
153.5
161.8
267.7
165.1
154.2
162.4
269.0
202.4
152.7
127.7
172.9
134.0
289.3
321.8
160.9
149.5
195.7
158.0
139.8
164.3
165.8
154.8
162.6
270.4
201.7
152.7
127.2
172.2
133.5
291.2
323.7
162.4
150.3
197.1
158.0
139.9
165.2
166.2
154.6
163.4
271.5
153.8
127.8
174.2
132.0
287.5
319.8
159.3
149.1
195.1
158.0
139.2
163.9
165.1
153.9
162.1
268.3
201.3
152.5
126.9
171.8
133.2
288.7
322.3
159.2
149.1
195.5
158.0
139.2
163.5
154.1
127.3
172.0
134.1
292.5
324.2
164.1
151.1
199.4
157.8
139.9
165.1
161.7
151.5
156.4
258.9
212.9
154.8
135.0
187.9
132.5
273.6
300.5
151.4
146.0
192.1
150.6
132.5
167.0
167.6
152.0
160.4
268.4
205.6
152.2
130.0
178.5
131.9
287.6
318.0
159.6
149.8
195.0
158.3
139.9
170.4
168.4
152.8
161.2
268.5
205.2
152.7
129.6
177.9
131.8
287.7
318.9
158.7
150.1
195.0
158.3
139.9
171.1
169.1
153.1
161.6
269.1
203.5
152.3
128.5
175.1
132.7
289.0
321.5
158.7
150.1
195.4
158.3
139.9
170.7
169.2
153.4
161.9
269.9
204.8
151.9
129.4
176.5
133.6
289.7
321.0
160.4
150.4
195.6
158.3
140.3
171.5
169.8
154.0
162.2
271.3
204.2
152.5
128.9
175.7
133.3
291.6
322.7
161.9
151.3
197.1
158.3
140.4
172.7
170.2
153.8
163.1
272.4
204.5
153.5
129.0
175.5
133.9
293.0
323.1
163.5
152.4
199.6
158.1
140.4
172.6
...................................................................................................................................................
361.2
378.2
377.4
377.4
377.1
379.8
385.2
352.7
371.1
370.1
370.2
370.0
372.2
377.4
Airline fa r e .......................................................................................................
Intercity bus fare ...........................................................................................
Intracity mass tra n s it.....................................................................................
Taxi fare ..........................................................................................................
Intercity train f a r e ...........................................................................................
415.4
403.9
321.7
301.0
353.2
430.3
425.3
342.8
308.2
373.7
429.5
428.2
341.4
308.3
373.5
429.0
427.6
342.0
308.5
373.4
427.7
428.7
342.3
308.8
373.4
433.8
429.9
342.3
309.2
373.5
442.0
426.2
346.5
309.7
381.5
410.9
405.2
320.6
311.0
353.6
426.4
423.9
342.8
317.2
374.0
425.5
427.1
341.3
317.5
373.8
424.9
426.8
341.8
317.7
373.7
423.5
427.6
342.1
317.9
373.7
430.0
429.3
347.1
318.3
373.8
438.2
425.8
346.5
319.0
381.9
P u b lic
.......................................................................................................................
202.8
121.2
2 02.0
132.1
120.6
160.0
106.8
166.9
150.5
94.7
134.4
93.9
104.8
95.1
101.4
121.1
120.8
138.7
134.5
123.2
M E D IC A L CARE
355.4
369.5
373.2
374.5
375.7
376.8
378.0
353.3
367.5
371.3
372.6
373.9
375.0
376.3
M e d ic a l c a re c o m m o d itie s ........................................................................................................
223.2
231.2
232.9
235.0
236.9
238.7
239.4
223.6
231.5
233.2
235.3
237.1
238.7
239.5
Prescription drugs...........................................................................................
Anti-infective drugs (12/77 = 1 0 0 )........................................................
Tranquilizers and sedatives (12/77 = 100) .........................................
Circulatories and diuretics (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................
Hormones, diabetic drugs, biologicals, and
prescription medical supplies (12/77 = 1 0 0 )...................................
213.7
156.6
177.0
153.3
223.7
161.4
190.1
161.5
226.4
163.4
193.0
164.7
228.2
163.9
195.5
164.7
230.7
164.8
198.4
166.1
233.1
165.8
167.4
233.5
164.9
204.0
169.0
214.8
158.8
176.7
153.2
225.0
164.2
190.0
161.1
227.9
165.8
192.9
164.4
229.7
166.3
195.4
164.3
232.2
167.3
198.3
165.5
234.5
168.3
202.7
167.3
234.9
167.3
204.0
168.3
198.1
205.8
207.2
209.7
212.5
214.1
214.7
199.9
207.9
209.4
211.9
214.7
216.3
217.0
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 02.8
73
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
20.
C o n tin u ed — C onsum er Price Index — U.S. city average
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
A ll U rban C onsu m ers
G e n e ral s u m m ary
1983
U rb an W a g e E arners and C le ric a l W o rke rs
1984
1983
1984
June
Jan .
Feb.
M a r.
Apr.
M ay
June
June
Jan .
Feb.
Prescription drugs— Continued
Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ....................
Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and
respiratory agents (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) .........................................
173.3
182.1
183.8
185.5
187.7
188.7
188.3
175.1
184.2
185.9
161.8
167.1
169.8
171.4
173.2
174.6
174.5
162.0
167.4
170.4
Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies (12/77 = 1 0 0 )............
Eyeglasses (12/77 = 100) ........................................................
Internal and respiratory over-the-counter d ru g s .......................
Nonprescription medical equipment and supplies (12/77 = 100)
155.2
135.0
251.9
150.4
159.2
137.9
259.4
153.4
159.6
138.0
260.1
154.6
161.2
138.4
263.1
155.8
162.1
138.9
264.9
156.5
162.8
139.3
266.6
156.5
163.5
140.0
268.2
156.4
156.0
133.9
253.3
151.4
160.1
136.8
260.6
155.0
160.6
137.0
261.4
155.7
M a r.
Apr.
M ay
187.7
190.0
191.0
190.3
172.0
173.9
175.3
176.1
162.1
137.3
264.4
157.5
163.0
137.8
266.1
158.0
163.7
138.2
267.7
158.0
164.4
138.8
269.3
157.9
June
Medical care services ......................................................................
384.6
400.0
404.4
405.3
406.3
407.1
408.4
381.7
397.5
401.8
402.7
403.9
404.7
406.1
Professional services ............................................................................
Physicians' services...............; ....................................................
Dental services...............................................................................
Other professional services (12/77 = 100) ................................
322.0
351.7
301.2
152.3
335.9
366.0
316.0
157.4
339.8
370.4
319.8
158.7
341.1
372.2
321.1
158.8
342.5
373.5
322.5
159.5
343.8
375.2
323.6
159.7
345.8
377.1
326.2
159.9
322.2
355.3
298.9
148.7
336.3
369.9
313.9
153.8
340.3
374.4
317.8
155.0
341.6
376.1
319.0
155.0
343.0
377.5
320.5
155.8
344.2
379.0
321.6
156.0
346.2
381.1
324.0
156.1
Other medical care services...................................................................
Hospital and other medical services (12/77 = 1 00 )....................
Hospital ro o m ............................................................................
Other hospital and medical care services (12/77 = 100) . . .
460.4
191.5
609.6
188.3
477.9
204.3
650.2
200.9
482.5
206.4
657.9
202.7
482.8
207.0
659.4
203.3
483.4
207.5
660.3
204.2
483.6
207.9
660.7
204.8
484.1
208.4
662.0
205.2
456.4
189.6
602.2
186.3
474.1
479.0
204.4
650.4
480.0
205.6
652.9
202.4
480.3
205.9
653.3
203.0
480.9
206.3
654.4
203.4
ENTERTAINMENT..................................................................................
245.4
249.9
251.5
251.7
253.8
253.5
254.5
Entertainment commodities ................................................................
246.3
248.9
250.7
250.6
253.4
252.2
Reading materials (12/77 = 100) ........................................................
Newspapers ..................................................................................
Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 = 100).......................
158.5
302.0
164.2
160.7
308.6
165.0
164.1
310.2
171.2
162.4
311.8
166.6
164.5
312.6
170.7
Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................
Sport vehicles (12/77 = 100) .....................................................
Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 = 100) . . . .
Bicycles ...........................................................................................
Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) .................
134.0
136.7
119.9
199.2
132.2
136.1
139.8
117.8
135.2
135.9
139.5
117.4
201.5
134.6
136.1
139.9
117.1
201.5
134.0
Toys, hobbies, and other entertainment (12/77 = 100) ....................
Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 )..................
Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100) ..............
Pet supplies and expenses (12/77 = 1 0 0 )...................................
138.6
137.4
131.4
145.9
139.3
137.0
130.1
150.1
139.8
137.3
131.9
149.9
Entertainment services.........................................................................
244.7
251.8
Fees for participant sports (12/77 = 1 00)............................................
Admissions (12/77 = 1 0 0 )...................................................................
Other entertainment services (12/77 = 100) ......................................
151.3
144.7
131.8
157.8
147.3
132.9
200.1
641.9
199.1
2 01.0
479.3
204.9
651.7
201.5
241.9
246.2
247.7
248.0
249.8
249.6
250.7
252.4
240.7
243.6
245.3
245.3
247.7
246.8
246.9
163.1
313.0
167.5
163.7
313.3
168.7
158.0
302.0
164.2
160.3
308.6
164.9
163.4
310.4
171.3
161.9
312.0
166.5
164.0
312.9
170.8
162.6
313.1
167.3
163.3
313.4
168.7
139.1
144.6
117.5
138.0
143.0
117.3
137.5
142.2
117.7
127.7
126.8
117.6
2 00.8
201.1
2 00.2
134.6
134.2
132.2
130.0
130.4
115.1
202.5
133.8
135.3
131.7
133.0
115.5
201.7
134.3
131.2
132.2
116.0
135.6
130.3
130.7
115.3
202.4
134.2
132.6
134.1
115.6
201.1
130.1
130.5
115.8
200.9
134.6
140.5
138.6
132.6
149.7
141.0
139.3
132.9
149.9
141.0
139.2
133.2
149.8
141.1
138.8
133.7
150.5
137.3
133.6
132.4
146.9
138.2
133.4
131.2
151.1
138.7
133.8
133.0
150.9
139.5
135.2
133.8
150.8
140.0
135.8
134.2
151.0
140.0
135.8
134.4
150.9
140.1
135.5
135.0
151.6
253.1
253.8
254.9
255.4
258.1
245.1
252.1
253.2
253.9
254.7
255.8
258.5
158.6
148.3
133.4
158.5
148.9
134.5
159.5
149.4
134.8
159.6
151.3
134.9
159.7
155.3
135.1
152.5
143.7
132.6
158.8
146.2
133.9
159.2
147.2
134.4
159.2
147.8
135.7
160.1
148.3
135.7
160.3
150.2
132.5
160.7
154.3
135.7
202.1
2 02.2
2 0 2 .0
134.0
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES
284.5
300.5
301.5
302.1
302.8
303.2
304.4
282.8
298.1
299.2
299.7
300.4
300.8
302.1
Tobacco products ..................................................................................
285.9
304.3
305.4
305.6
305.9
305.9
308.1
285.4
304.0
305.1
305.2
305.6
305.6
307.8
Cigarettes ..............................................................................................
Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 = 100) . . .
293.1
149.9
312.8
154.9
313.8
156.1
313.8
157.0
314.1
157.6
314.0
157.9
316.3
158.9
292.0
149.8
311.8
154.9
312.7
156.0
312.8
157.0
313.1
157.6
313.1
157.9
315.3
159.0
Personal care ........................................................................................
260.9
266.9
267.9
267.8
268.9
269.5
270.6
259.0
265.0
266.1
265.7
266.9
267.5
268.5
Toilet goods and personal care appliances............................................
Products for the hair, hairpieces, and wigs (12/77 = 100) . . .
Dental and shaving products (12/77 = 100) .............................
Cosmetics, bath and nail preparations, manicure and
eye makeup implements (12/77 = •1 00)...................................
Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 = 100)
261.4
151.7
162.5
266.8
154.3
167.8
267.9
154.7
168.1
265.9
154.1
164.6
267.3
154.9
165.1
267.4
154.1
166.8
268.5
154.8
166.5
262.1
150.9
160.8
267.5
153.2
166.0
268.7
153.8
166.3
266.6
153.3
162.9
268.1
154.1
163.3
268.3
153.4
164.9
269.3
154.1
164.7
148.5
147.1
150.0
151.0
150.6
152.4
150.0
151.8
151.8
151.6
151.5
151.7
153.0
151.7
149.2
150.7
151.1
154.8
151.7
156.2
150.8
155.4
152.7
155.2
152.7
155.3
154.0
155.5
Personal care services .........................................................................
Beauty parlor services-for women ...............................................
Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77 = 100)
261.6
265.0
144.4
268.1
271.2
148.4
269.0
272.3
148.7
270.4
273.4
149.9
271.4
274.4
150.4
272.3
275.0
151.4
273.4
276.4
151.7
256.3
258.0
143.2
263.0
264.5
147.2
264.0
265.7
147.5
265.3
266.6
148.6
266.1
267.5
149.2
267.1
268.0
150.2
268.2
269.3
150.5
Personal and educational expenses....................................................
326.0
353.5
354.4
356.4
356.9
357.4
357.9
328.1
355.4
356.4
359.2
359.7
360.3
360.7
Schoolbooks and supplies ....................................................................
Personal and educational services........................................................
Tuition and other school fe e s ........................................................
College tuition (12/77 = 1 0 0 )...............................................
Elementary and high school tuition (12/77 = 100) ............
Personal expenses (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...............................................
293.6
333.8
167.6
167.3
168.9
186.1
314.4
362.7
183.0
182.9
183.9
198.6
317.2
363.3
183.2
183.0
183.9
199.6
317.1
365.7
184.3
184.5
183.9
317.6
366.1
184.4
184.7
183.9
297.1
335.8
168.2
167.4
169.9
186.2
318.8
364.5
183.4
182.7
184.9
199.1
321.6
368.6
185.2
185.4
184.9
322.2
369.0
185.3
185.5
184.9
2 02.0
318.5
367.1
184.5
184.8
183.9
204.2
321.7
365.2
183.5
182.9
184.9
201.2
317.8
366.7
184.4
184.7
183.9
188.0
2 00.2
202.1
2 0 2 .8
322.4
369.7
185.3
185.5
185.6
204.3
323.1
370.1
185.4
185.7
185.0
204.8
382.4
410.2
346.1
360.8
367.9
418.4
343.6
373.9
366.0
415.7
345.5
373.8
366.5
412.6
345.5
376.1
371.4
410.3
347.0
376.6
373.8
416.9
351.6
377.8
372.2
417.7
357.1
378.4
Special indexes:
Gasoline, motor oil, coolant, and other products................................
Insurance and finance............................................................................
Utilities and public transportation...........................................................
Housekeeping and home maintenance services...................................
74
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
381.2
366.3
365.1
364.7
369.8
372.4
370.7
341.5
358.6
344.6
366.4
346.6
366.9
346.5
368.7
348.0
368.6
352.8
369.5
358.0
370.0
21. C onsum er Price Index for All Urban C onsum ers: Cross classification of region and population size class by expenditure
category and com m o dity and service group
[December 1977 = 100]
S ize class A
S ize class B
S ize c lass C
S ize c la s s 0
( 1 .2 5 m illio n or m o re)
( 3 8 5 ,0 0 0 - 1 .2 5 0 m illio n )
( 7 5 ,0 0 0 - 3 8 5 ,0 0 0 )
(7 5 ,0 0 0 or less)
C ategory and group
June
F eb.
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ........................................................................................
Food and beverages ..............................................................
Housing..................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep .............................................................
Transportation ......................................................................
Medical care .........................................................................
Entertainment.........................................................................
Other goods and services ..................................................
161.2
153.0
165.9
168.4
171.8
146.6
169.1
160.7
152.7
165.3
123.8
170.1
173.2
148.1
170.6
171.4
174.0
146.6
171.1
165.9
151.8
176.9
124.0
172.6
175.1
140.3
168.7
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities...............................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages .............................
Services........................................................................................
153.6
154.0
166.9
154.1
154.7
168.8
154.2
154.6
169.8
159.3'
162.5
175.8
159.5
152.4
164.3
121.1
|
Apr.
|
122.2
|
June
F eb.
166.3
151.5
175.7
128.5
174.1
177.6
143.8
169.1
167.2
151.0
177.3
125.5
176.2
179.2
143.8
170.0
170.5
155.0
183.7
128.7
173.2
176.5
149.9
173.5
159.9
163.5
176.1
159.8
163.7
178.2
159.1
160.7
188.6
A pr.
1984
1984
198 4
1984
F eb.
|
|
June
F eb .
170.9
155.2
183.0
131.8
174.3
176.9
152.8
174.5
171.7
156.0
184.0
131.1
175.5
177.7
152.3
172.5
164.9
152.4
170.1
132.6
172.2
181.1
152.4
173.6
166.3
152.4
172.9
133.6
173.4
182.5
152.3
173.9
167.2
152.6
173.4
136.4
175.1
183.0
153.6
174.6
159.2
160.8
189.6
159.8
161.5
190.4
158.6
161.1
174.4
158.2
160.4
178.4
159.1
160.8
179.1
A pr.
|
|
A pr.
|
June
North C en tral R egion
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items .....................................................................................
Food and beverages ...........................................................
Housing...............................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ...........................................................
Transportation ....................................................................
Medical care ......................................................................
Entertainment......................................................................
Other goods and services ..................................................
168.7
149.4
186.2
116.7
168.6
176.2
144.6
165.9
169.9
149.4
187.7
118.2
170.5
177.4
145.1
165.9
171.3
149.0
190.7
117.8
172.3
178.5
145.7
166.8
165.2
148.0
173.4
126.6
170.9
176.9
135.7
177.4
166.8
148.6
175.2
132.8
172.9
177.2
140.6
178.6
167.7
148.5
176.7
130.8
174.1
179.4
140.7
180.5
162.5
148.6
169.9
129.0
171.1
170.2
148.3
163.0
163.4
148.8
169.1
132.6
173.8
172.7
151.0
163.6
164.7
149.1
171.6
128.3
176.2
172.7
152.9
164.3
163.7
155.9
167.0
123.0
170.0
183.2
144.2
175.0
164.5
156.9
167.3
126.1
172.2
182.9
141.3
176.1
164.8
156.9
166.4
124.6
-174.7
184.0
140.5
177.4
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities...............................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages .............................
Services........................................................................................
156.8
160.0
186.3
158.1
162.1
187.2
158.0
162.2
190.7
155.7
158.6
180.4
157.3
160.9
182.1
157.5
161.1
184.1
153.6
155.7
176.8
155.1
157.9
176.8
155.4
158.3
179.6
153.8
152.7
179.3
154.8
153.8
179.8
155.6
155.0
179.2
South
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items .....................................................................................
Food and beverages ...........................................................
Housing...............................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ...........................................................
Transportation ...................................................................
Medical care ......................................................................
Entertainment......................................................................
Other goods and services ..................................................
165.7
156.3
172.4
129.9
171.0
176.2
142.9
169.6
166.3
156.3
172.3
131.3
172.6
177.1
145.2
170.0
167.6
152.6
174.5
132.2
173.9
179.1
144.7
170.8
166.9
154.8
172.0
129.6
174.1
177.0
157.7
171.5
168.2
155.6
173.7
128.1
176.2
178.5
159.6
172.4
169.1
155.3
174.7
128.3
178.0
180.4
160.0
173.0
165.3
153.2
170.7
124.8
171.8
186.7
151.4
169.5
166.9
153.0
173.2
127.5
174.0
187.5
153.2
170.2
167.1
152.5
172.6
126.4
176.0
188.0
152.8
172.1
166.6
157.5
174.2
110.9
170.2
193.3
148.5
167.9
168.1
156.6
176.4
114.7
172.3
193.7
150.5
169.2
168.4
156.1
176.4
113.6
174.3
193.4
150.7
169.9
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities...............................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages .............................
Services........................................................................................
157.9
158.1
176.5
158.6
159.4
176.8
159.1
160.2
179.1
159.2
160.7
178.4
160.2
161.8
180.1
160.6
162.7
181.6
156.5
157.7
178.4
157.7
159.7
181.2
158.0
160.5
181.2
159.9
156.1
181.2
152.9
158.1
183.4
158.2
159.0
183.5
W est
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items .....................................................................................
Food and beverages ...........................................................
Housing...............................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ...........................................................
Transportation ...................................................................
Medical care ....................................................................Entertainment......................................................................
Other goods and services ..................................................
165.7
155.8
171.7
123.8
172.9
181.2
144.3
171.1
167.2
155.3
173.7
124.3
176.4
182.6
144.1
171.5
168.6
154.6
176.3
121.4
179.5
183.3
194.9
171.5
165.3
158.4
168.4
124.9
175.0
178.2
148.1
171.3
166.8
158.6
170.4
126.9
177.5
179.8
148.9
171.3
169.1
158.8
174.3
127.2
180.5
181.5
148.9
173.0
157.6
153.7
154.6
123.8
170.5
184.5
151.8
166.8
159.1
155.0
155.8
123.9
173.5
185.9
154.4
166.5
160.9
154.5
158.7
122.7
176.3
187.5
154.8
169.4
164.8
160.3
165.2
141.2
168.6
183.8
161.4
175.3
166.5
160.3
168.0
142.9
171.1
184.6
160.6
175.1
167.2
161.6
167.3
142.9
173.5
186.6
162.0
175.3
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities...............................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages .............................
Services........................................................................................
154.1
152.9
180.6
155.9
156.1
181.9
155.7
156.3
185.0
157.3
156.2
176.2
158.7
158.4
178.0
159.7
159.9
181.8
155.3
155.3
160.4
157.1
157.4
161.7
157.6
158.8
164.6
154.6
151.5
179.9
155.6
153.2
182.3
157.0
154.6
182.2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
75
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
22.
C onsum er Price Index— U.S. city average, and selected areas
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
A ll U rb an Consu m ers
A re a 1
U.S. city average2 ..........................
Anchorage, Alaska (10/67 = 100) . . .
Atlanta, Ga..............................
Baltimore, Md............................
Boston, Mass....................
Buffalo, N.Y...............................
Chicago, III. -Northwestern Ind........................
Cincinnati, Ohio—Ky.—Ind. . . .
Cleveland, O hio..............................
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex.........................
Denver-Boulder, Colo.........................
198 3
Feb.
M a r.
Apr.
M ay
June
June
Jan .
Feb.
M a r.
Apr.
298.1
305.2
306.6
307.3
308.8
309.7
310.7
297.2
302.7
303.3
303.3
304.1
302.3
271.5
307.3
314.0
302.0
264.0
309.7
298.6
274.4
309.3
307.6
296.6
290.5
284.3
305.2
318.4
324.4
314.0
305.0
296.6
301.3
303.1
299.1
280.7
323.6
306.4
300.2
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J...........................
Pittsburgh, Pa.................................
Portland, Oreg.-Wash.................
St. Louis, Mo.-Ill.................................
San Diego, Calif.............................................
286.1
305.4
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif.........................
Seattle-Everett, Wash...............................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va..................
303.0
297.3
291.0
294.4
310.4
302.0
293.0
311.3
303.1
306.7
306.9
321.9
332.8
323.9
319.6
299.0
304.1
305.6
300.7
283.2
325.7
309.1
302.8
296.4
315.5
299.9
293.0
296.7
1The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire portion of the Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area, as defined for the 1970 Census of Population, except that the Standard Consolidated Area is
310.0
295.8
336.7
325.7
316.6
306.3
322.0
300.9
306.3
300.7
305.4
284.7
330.5
310.8
305.6
273.4
319.7
298.3
292.1
298.2
318.6
300.8
294.7
298.7
?fi5 q
309.6
303.8
294.4
285.9
298.3
313.4
296.9
307.9
304.7
297.9
284.3
323.5
296.6
299.0
311 8
285.9
300.0
319.7
288.7
299.5
301.9
305.4
353.5
318.7
used for New York and Chicago.
2Average of 85 cities.
296.3
312.3
287.3
298.6
297.9
296.7
298.5
299.6
298.8
321.9
318.7
298.3
297.0
303.1
290.9
329.5
299.9
303.4
167.2
338.2
321.1
291.2
299.0
301.5
292.2
297.3
326.6
308.7
291.6
295.5
300.5
328.9
293.0
302.7
301.4
297.5
297.3
328.2
310.8
299.9 '
308.2
298.3
340.8
289.0
324.9
299.7
298.9
289.9
294.0
299.4
308.1
296.3
302.9
290.5
298.6
313.0
305.7
310.9
309.4
300.6
320.7
316.5
290.2
293.2
306.2
265.7
166.3
335.3
289.5
296.8
329.6
305.4
307.2
298.2
286.6
341.7
165.9
327.5
324.1
301.6
296.0
313.8
318.2
317.7
336.0
305.7
315.9
310.2
305.1
283.3
166.4
320.5
298.0
302.7
349.8
311.7
292.5
346.1
165.6
316.8
295.1
300.9
346.6
311.1
303.4
275.3
344.7
165.0
314.0
312.6
288.1
305.4
320.0
331.1
322.7
343.0
271.4
321.3
297.5
293.6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1984
Jan .
Detroit, Mich.................................
76
1983
June
Honolulu, Haw aii................................
Houston, Tex.......................
Kansas City, M o.-Kansas....................
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif. . .
Miami, Fla. (11/77 = 100) . . .
Milwaukee, Wls...............................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-Wis.......................
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J. . .
Northeast, Pa. (Scranton).............................
U rb an W a g e E arners and C le ric a l W o rke rs
1 )8 4
315.1
302.7
308.9
23.
P roducer P rice Indexes, by stage of processing
[1967 = 100]
1984
1983
A nnual
C o m m o d ity g rouping
a verag e
1983
July
Aug.
285.2
285.7
286.1
Sept.
Nov.
Oct.
D ec.
Jan .
F eb.
M a r .1
Apr.
M ay
June
July
F IN IS H E D GO ODS
Finished g o ods............................................................................
Finished consumer goods ..................................................
Finished consumer foods ...............................................
Nondurable goods less fo o d s .........................................
Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy . .
Capital equipment.................................................................
284.6
261.8
258.7
260.0
335.3
233.1
231.5
287.2
285.1
287.6
286.8
287.2
289.5
290.6
r291.4
291.4
291.5
291.2
292.6
285.9
261.9
270.4
259.0
336.8
235.4
234.1
r290.0
286.3
264.3
266.0
262.0
335.2
235.9
234.0
290.4
288.9
272.2
306.9
266.9
335.0
235.9
236.0
291.6
290.1
274.7
313.6
269.0
336.1
236.1
236.5
292.3
r291.1
r276.6
r323.7
r270.2
r336.7
236.6
r237.1
r292.3
290.6
275.0
307.9
269.9
336.7
236.7
237.6
294.1
290.7
272.3
279.7
269.4
339.3
236.6
238.6
294.3
290.3
270.8
282.6
269.3
339.6
236.5
238.5
294.2
292.0
275.6
275.1
273.4
339.8
236.6
240.2
294.8
285.2
260.7
247.1
259.8
337.7
233.4
232.0
287.2
285.7
260.7
259.9
258.7
338.6
233.8
232.7
287.7
285.1
263.0
267.4
260.5
338.6
229.2
233.0
285.1
287.0
263.7
287.3
259.5
338.1
235.3
233.6
289.9
IN TE R M E D IA T E M A TER IA LS
Intermediate materials, supplies, and components....................
312.3
312.8
314.0
315.5
315.6
315.5
315.7
316.3
317.6
r319.7
320.2
320.8
321.6
321.7
Materials and components for manufacturing....................
293.4
294.1
294.7
296.7
296.4
296.5
297.6
298.9
299.8
r301.8
302.6
303.0
303.1
303.0
Materials for food manufacturing...................................
Materials for nondurable manufacturing .......................
Materials for durable manufacturing .............................
Components for manufacturing......................................
258.4
280.0
319.4
280.4
257.4
279.7
320.9
281.6
260.5
281.1
320.9
281.5
269.4
282.7
323.1
281.8
263.5
283.3
322.3
282.6
260.0
284.6
321.6
283.0
262.9
285.7
322.8
283.5
268.6
286.6
323.4
284.5
268.3
287.0
325.6
285.2
r269.6
r290.3
r328.2
r285.6
271.3
291.4
329.0
285.9
275.6
292.5
326.8
286.6
274.7
292.6
327.1
286.9
276.6
293.0
325.3
287.2
Materials and components for construction.......................
301.8
302.9
303.7
303.1
303.6
303.9
304.9
305.5
307.8
r309.6
310.1
309.6
310.2
310.7
Processed fuels and lubricants............................................
Manufacturing Industries..................................................
Nonmanufacturing Industries .........................................
564.8
479.0
640.0
567.9
480.9
644.1
572.0
485.1
648.0
573.4
487.2
648.8
574.2
490.5
647.2
568.1
484.9
640.6
561.7
478.8
634.0
556.4
474.2
628.0
561.3
477.9
634.1
r567.8
r483.4
r641.4
564.2
482.7
635.1
569.2
488.1
639.5
577.2
493.5
650.1
578.9
494.5
652.3
Containers............................................................................
286.6
286.1
286.3
287.1
288.1
289.3
289.9
292.3
294.8
r297.3
298.4
301.3
302.2
303.0
282.2
276.0
285.7
227.7
298.0
r283.0
r276.4
r286.7
r232.2
r298.4
284.1
277.7
287.7
233.5
299.3
284.2
278.3
287.6
229.5
300.0
283.8
278.9
286.7
221.5
300.4
283.0
279.1
285.4
211.3
300.8
r338.8
340.1
338.5
333.2
334.5
277.1
269.9
281.1
225.9
292.8
276.2
270.1
279.6
216.2
291.9
277.9
270.5
282.0
230.7
293.0
280.2
270.8
285.3
249.6
293.4
280.6
271.8
285.3
246.7
294.0
281 6
272 2
286 7
251.0
294.8
281.6
273.3
286.1
243.9
295.5
282.6
274.5
287.0
243.7
296.6
Crude materials for further processing ......................................
323.6
320.6
327.1
328.5
324.8
324.0
327.5
333.5
332.6
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs.....................................................
252.2
248.4
256.4
257.2
253.7
251.8
256.0
264.0
260.5
r269.9
270.4
267.2
260.7
264.0
488.1
r487.5
490.4
492.2
489.5
486.6
385.5
395.5
280.3
r387.8
r398.8
r276.5
389.0
399.8
278.2
389.7
400.2
281.1
385.9
395.7
281.7
381.1
390.3
281.9
r910.6
926.6
1,086.3 r1,064.8
814.2
r802.6
922.2
1,081.1
810.3
929.2
1,089.3
816.6
933.2
1,095.5
818.6
940.6
1,104.4
825.0
Supplies...............................................................................
Manufacturing industries..................................................
Nonmanufacturing industries .........................................
Other supplies..............................................................
CR U D E M A TE R IA LS
Nonfood materials.................................................................
477.4
476.2
479.6
482.5
478.2
479.4
481.6
483.4
Nonfood materials except fu e l.........................................
Manufacturing Industries ............................................
Construction.................................................................
372.2
381.9
270.6
371.6
381.6
270.9
375.6
385.7
271.0
378.1
388.3
272.5
377.1
387.4
270.5
377.7
387.9
272.1
379.1
389.4
272.7
380.1
390.4
273.7
Crude fu e l.........................................................................
Manufacturing industries ............................................
Nonmanufacturing industries......................................
931.5
1,094.5
816.3
927.8
1,090.4
813.0
926.9
1,088.9
812.5
931.0
1,093.9
816.1
910.9
1,067.1
801.1
915.3
1,071.8
805.3
921.1
1,079.0
810.1
926.1
1,086.5
813.2
Finished goods excluding foods..................................................
Finished consumer goods excluding foods .......................
Finished consumer goods less energy................................
290.8
291.4
249.9
291.8
292.6
249.9
292.5
293.5
250.2
290.3
291.4
249.7
293.4
293.9
252.1
293.0
293.2
251.7
292.6
292.5
252.6
292.9
292.5
256.1
293.6
293.1
257.2
r294.0
r293.6
r258.2
294.6
293.7
257.9
295.7
295.1
257.3
295.7
295.3
256.7
296.0
295.4
259.0
Intermediate materials less foods and feeds .............................
Intermediate materials less energy......................................
317.1
295.2
318.0
295.6
318.7
296.5
319.5
298.1
320.0
298.2
319.9
298.5
320.2
299.4
320.6
300.5
322.3
301.5
r324.4
r303.3
324.8
304.1
325.4
304.4
326.5
304.6
326.7
304.5
Intermediate foods and feeds .....................................................
247.9
244.0
250.9
263.2
258.2
257.4
256.9
260.7
255.1
r257.5
259.1
260.6
257.4
255.3
Crude materials less agricultural products ................................
Crude materials less energy ...............................................
538.6
246.5
536.8
243.9
540.0
251.2
542.9
252.5
538.8
249.6
540.3
248.3
543.2
252.0
546.3
258.3
552.0
257.3
r550.0
r265.1
553.3
266.0
554.0
263.8
552.3
257.7
550.0
258.7
SPE C IA L G R O U P IN G S
1Data for March 1984 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by
respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
r = revised.
77
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
24.
[1967 =
P roducer Price Indexes, by com m o dity groupings
100
unless otherwise specified]
Annual
Code
C o m m o d ity group and subgroup
1983
198 4
a verag e
1983
July
Aug.
303.1
321.5
303.2
321.7
304.7
323.3
253.9
315.7
251.5
316.5
Farm products...........................................................
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables.................
Grains.....................................................
Livestock..................................................
Live poultry.....................................................
Plant and animal fibers ..........................
Fluid m ilk ............................................
Eggs..............................................................................................
Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds ..........................
Other farm products...............................................
248.2
262.1
240.4
243.1
206.5
227.0
282.0
(2)
246.8
282.1
02-9
Processed foods and feeds...................................
Cereal and bakery products.............................
Meats, poultry, and fis h ............................................
Dairy products .....................................................
Processed fruits and vegetables................................
Sugar and confectionery.........................................
Beverages and beverage materials .........................................
Fats and oils ...............................................
Miscellaneous processed fo o d s ..........................
Prepared animal fee d s ................................
255.9
261.0
249.0
250.6
277.4
292.8
263.6
238.8
254.8
228.8
03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-4
03-81
03-82
Textile products and apparel.............................
Synthetic fibers (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ..........................
Processed yarns and threads (12/75 = 100) . .
Gray fabrics (12/75 = 1 0 0 )......................................
Finished fabrics (12/75 = 1 0 0 ).......................
Apparel ................................................................
Textile housefurnishings......................................
04
04-2
04-3
04-4
Hides, skins, leather, and related products...............
Leather ...........................................................
Footwear ............................................
Other leather and related products .......................
05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7
Fuels and related products and power....................
C o a l...........................................................
Coke..................................................
Gas fuels3 ...............................................
Electric power .........................................
Crude petroleum4 ............................................
Petroleum products, refined5 ..........................
06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7
Chemicals and allied products..........................
Industrial chemicals6 .........................................
Prepared paint
Paint materials...................................
Drugs and pharmaceuticals .......................
Fats and oils, inedible....................
Agricultural chemicals and chemical products...............
Plastic resins and materials.......................
Other chemicals and allied products ............
293.0
342.9
264.7
305.8
226.1
285.6
280.5
291.5
273.6
293.7
347.0
265.2
300.5
227.6
260.9
278.1
291.3
274.2
294.4
347.6
265.4
305.7
227.3
278.1
277.1
293.7
274.2
295.9
345.6
264.5
316.2
227.4
329.0
276.0
302.6
274.3
295.5
344.9
264.2
316.9
229.3
318.6
276.4
299.1
274.4
296.4
346.2
264.5
316.5
231.0
321.6
280.4
297.9
273.8
297.7
349.2
264.9
315.5
230.9
318.8
281.9
301.5
273.6
298.1
347.4
265.6
316.6
232.9
334.2
278.5
305.2
274.9
296.5
337.6
267.3
314.2
234.4
349.0
285.9
305.0
273.3
r300.1
r344.7
r267.3
r317.9
r237.6
r366.7
r288.1
r306.2
r275.2
301.8
345.1
267.3
327.6
239.9
382.1
288.3
308.6
277.1
302.5
344.8
268.0
337.2
240.2
398.8
286.6
311.1
277.2
302.5
345.5
270.8
337.1
238 7
414.2
286.4
310.8
276.3
302 6
345.7
274.1
335 4
240 0
378 4
285 5
309 9
277.5
07
07-1
07-11
07-12
07-13
07-2
Rubber plastic broducts ..........................
Rubber and rubber products..................
Crude rubber .........................................
Tires and tubes...................................
Miscellaneous rubber products ...............
Plastic products (6/78 = 100) ..........................
243.2
266.0
280.8
245.3
284.8
135.3
243.4
265.2
283.2
242.4
285.7
136.0
243.7
265.1
284.6
242.8
284.5
136.4
243.2
263.9
284.4
242.5
281.6
136.6
244.4
264.8
284.3
242.6
283.8
137.4
243.6
264.3
282.7
242.4
283.5
136.7
243.8
264.6
282.2
242.3
284.6
136.8
244.8
266.6
282.9
244.1
287.1
136.9
246.2
266.8
282.8
243.7
288.4
138.4
r246.4
r265.5
r283.0
r241.7
r287.4
r139.4
246.5
266.7
282.5
243.2
288.8
138.8
247.4
267.2
277.5
244.5
290.0
139.6
247.3
266.3
277.1
243 5
289.1
140.1
247 5
266 9
275.9
244 1
290 3
139.9
08
08-1
08-2
08-3
08-4
Lumber and wood products ..........................
Lum ber.....................................................
Millwork...................................
Plywood.........................................
Other wood products..................................................
307.1
352.6
302.3
244.1
230.6
314.6
373.1
296.3
252.5
229.7
313.9
366.6
306.6
246.2
229.3
305.6
346.6
305.9
242.2
229.4
305.6
344.7
307.4
246.6
229.6
304.9
342.8
307.9
244.6
229.8
308.7
351.3
308.5
247.2
230.6
309.1
352.6
308.6
248.2
230.0
315.7
364.9
308.8
249.5
230.8
r316.8
r370.5
r309.9
r248.6
r231.8
315.4
369.6
307.7
244.0
233.3
308.8
355.8
305.4
235.4
234.3
307.1
351.5
305.2
236,3
234.9
304.3
343.3
305.7
237.1
235.2
All c o m m o d itie s
...............................................
All c o m m o d itie s ( 1 9 5 7 - 5 9 = 1 0 0 ) . . . .
F a rm products a nd processed foods and feed s
In d u s tria l c o m m o d it ie s ...................................................
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
D ec.
Jan .
Feb.
M a r .1
Apr.
M ay
June
July
305.3
323.9
306.0
324.7
305.5
324.1
306.1
324.8
308.0
326.8
308.9
327.7
r31 .0
r330.0
311.4
330.4
311.7
330.7
311.4
330.4
312.0
331.0
255.5
317.3
259.1
317.1
257.5
318.5
256.0
318.3
257.9
318.4
264.4
319.1
263.4
320.6
r267.9
321.9
267.9
322.5
266.3
323.3
262.7
323.9
265 2
324.0
244.3
258.2
236.7
240.7
214.5
230.4
278.7
177.2
227.3
282.5
253.5
270.4
251.8
242.2
221.4
240.7
281.7
189.5
262.8
285.7
256.4
276.0
258.0
231.5
242.2
238.7
284.4
251.0
275.2
257.5
220.5
238.5
243.6
283.2
(2)
287.6
283.5
254.0
276.1
243.6
238.2
241.2
244.1
281.4
(2)
282.2
276.9
263.4
291.2
245.5
250.7
252.6
229.3
279.1
282.4
287.3
280.2
261.6
312.2
235.3
251.9
251.3
232.7
275.7
280.7
265.4
278.9
267.4
r308.0
250.9
260.8
258.4
250.3
274.2
(2)
281.4
r277.7
265.4
262.8
262.1
260.8
240.8
252.3
272.7
264.4
282.1
281.0
260.8
251.1
256.2
254.8
240.6
259.1
271.7
297.8
287.3
255.2
308.1
253.7
229.4
208.5
234.5
284.1
(2)
288.8
283.7
297.0
288.0
257.1
272.9
257.8
250.0
227.7
252.7
271.8
177.9
272.4
279.0
258.6
281.2
248.9
260.1
259 2
235.8
273.9
184.9
245.8
277.4
254.4
261.4
247.3
250.4
277.1
296.4
263.7
2 20.0
255.5
262.8
243.2
250.4
278.3
298.9
263.9
245.6
252.7
233.0
259.6
263.6
242.9
250.6
278.6
300.2
264.3
303.5
258.4
249.3
257.8
264.6
237.0
251.3
281.1
298.0
265.2
281.7
262.1
248.6
257.6
265.2
234.7
251.4
280.9
297.7
266.3
274.5
264.8
252.1
259.0
265.1
242.3
248.9
282.9
297.5
266.5
271.7
266 2
245.6
263.8
266.6
255.8
248.4
287.7
299.9
268.7
278.3
266.8
245.2
263.4
267.1
254.6
248.4
292.8
300.5
270.2
273.3
275.4
231.1
r267.1
r267.4
r264.4
r248.8
r295.4
r301.1
r269.9
r286.2
r275.2
235.3
268.2
268.2
265.3
249.2
295.6
301.8
271.6
290.9
276.0
236.3
268.3
268.6
260.6
248.9
297.4
303.6
273.6
325.8
275.5
232.6
264.8
271.5
248.5
249.4
298.2
304.0
271.7
326.5
278.4
225.5
267.7
272 2
260.6
251.4
296.5
305 3
273.8
312.7
280.4
216.3
205.1
156.7
138.5
147.0
123.1
197.4
235.1
205.3
158.3
138.5
146.1
122.4
198.4
234.8
206.0
157.5
140.2
146.7
123.6
198.7
234.5
206.2
158.0
140.3
147.3
123.4
198.7
235.3
207.0
160.5
141.3
149.4
123.8
198.8
234.5
207.7
159.3
141.7
151.4
124.4
199.4
234.4
207.8
158.1
142.9
152.0
124.8
199.0
235.3
208.2
159.2
142.3
151.1
124.8
209.9
r160.7
r144.0
r153.2
r127.0
200.7
r237.6
209.6
166.6
143.7
153.0
126.6
200.3
238.0
210.5
160.8
144.3
153.6
127.4
239.4
210.3
160.5
143.8
154.3
127.2
200.7
239.3
2 1 0 .8
236.0
209.6
161.4
144.0
152.8
126.3
200.5
236.6
160 1
143.7
154 1
127.7
201 9
239.2
271.1
330.7
250.1
252.7
272.3
337.9
249.9
253.5
274.7
343.4
250.9
253.7
274.4
339.4
251.6
253.5
273.7
336.6
251.3
253.5
277.0
340.5
257.3
255.8
277.3
344.1
250.3
255.6
279.1
346.2
250.9
257.2
283.3
362.0
252.5
257.3
r286.7
r378.0
r253.5
r257.3
287.4
381.7
251.8
261.6
289.2
387.2
251.8
263.1
290.3
383.5
250.3
271.2
290.2
384.7
250.1
271.2
672.3
669.5
537.9
538.2
453.9
453.1
1,147.0 1,128.4
427.9
423.6
675.7
675.7
695.3
695.3
663.7
542.3
453.8
658.0
652.1
656.0 r658.7
656.5
662.7
543.9
541.4
544.7 r546.2
543.0
546.9
415.4
418.3
437.9 r438.9
434.4
428.7
1 , 122.0 1,120.4 1,123.0 1,107.8 r1,091.0 1,115.2 1,116.8
418.7
417.3
420.5
424.4 r426.7
431.9
433.5
675.8
674.4
675.6
675.6 r675.6
674.3
674.3
6 88.2
678.3
663.2
669.8 r680.2
667.3
678.9
667.9
543.3
441.9
FA R M P R O D U C TS A N D PRO CESSED FO ODS
AN D FEEDS
01
0 1 -1
0 1 -2
01-3
01-4
01-5
0 1 -6
01-7
0 1 -8
01-9
02
0 2 -1
0 2 -2
02-3
02-4
02-5
0 2 -6
02-7
0 2 -8
2 22.2
255.0
200.1
2 0 1 .0
IN D U S T R IA L C O M M O D IT IE S
See footnotes at end of table.
78
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
664.7
537.4
444.6
1,146.9
417.9
681.4
684.3
668.7
671.7
534.8
536.6
431.6
453.9
1,148.9 1,145.9
426.4
427.2
675.7
675.1
688.7
694.9
200.1
2 0 1 .2
667.2
546.8
441.9
1 , 122.1 1,123.5
446.5
453 9
673 7
673 1
681.1
674.6
24.
C o n tin u ed — P roducer Price Indexes, by com m odity groupings
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
C o m m o d ity group and subgroup
1984
1983
Annual
Code
a verag e
1983
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
D ec.
Jan .
Feb.
M a r .1
Apr.
May
June
July
297.8
270.2
345.8
183.3
279.2
249.7
264.1
256.2
298.8
271.1
346.4
(2)
280.9
250.1
264.7
252.1
299.9
273.1
34.4
194.4
286.0
254.0
265.0
252.8
302.2
275.2
347.4
216.2
287.2
257.3
266.5
254.7
303.6
277.4
356.7
215.0
288.5
259.4
267.9
254.7
304.0
277.4
355.5
211.5
289.3
260.9
268.0
250.4
309.1
280.8
366.2
211.5
294.2
262.2
270.6
251.9
312.0
285.0
374.2
229.3
296.6
271.8
273.7
255.1
r314.0
r288.3
r378.6
242.9
r299.8
r275.6
r276.5
r258.6
315.3
290.1
392.5
258.8
300.6
275.4
277.7
264.1
317.0
292.7
405.1
259.3
301.3
276.9
280.6
265.2
317.6
293.3
407.6
257.3
301.4
279.1
280.8
265.1
319.2
295.6
410.6
254.7
307.9
279.1
281.9
262.9
IN D U S T R IA L C O M M O D IT IE S — 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
Wooodu p .....................................................................................
Paperboard ..................................................................................
Converted paper and paperboard products................................
Building paper and board ...........................................................
298.1
271.4
346.9
(2)
282.0
250.9
265.3
250.0
10
Metals and metal products.............................................................
Iron and steel...............................................................................
Steel mill products......................................................................
Nonferrous m etals........................' .............................................
Metal containers .........................................................................
Hardware.....................................................................................
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings .........................................
Heating equipment......................................................................
Fabricated structural metal products .........................................
Miscellaneous metal products.....................................................
307.2
343.4
352.8
276.1
335.4
290.7
289.3
243.6
303.5
283.6
307.3
342.1
350.8
278.4
336.5
292.1
290.4
244.9
302.2
283.7
308.2
343.2
351.7
279.8
336.6
292.2
290.2
245.1
303.0
284.0
310.7
348.1
358.1
282.0
338.5
292.5
292.4
246.6
304.3
284.3
310.9
348.5
358.7
279.3
338.3
292.7
292.7
245.3
304.2
289.0
310.9
349.5
359.5
276.6
338.2
293.1
294.1
245.5
305.3
289.5
311.9
350.9
360.0
278.2
340.3
293.5
294.0
245.7
306.0
289.6
312.9
353.8
362.5
276.8
344.1
293.3
293.9
247.3
306.5
290.3
314.8
356.2
363.6
280.2
344.8
294.0
296.4
248.1
307.0
291.1
r316.8
r356.5
363.6
286.1
r345.4
r294.4
299.9
r248.5
r308.3
r292.1
317.8
356.5
364.3
289.0
345.5
293.6
301.4
250.3
309.3
292.7
317.1
357.1
364.9
283.6
348.1
294.1
301.8
252.5
310.6
293.1
317.2
356.8
365.4
282.9
348.2
295.0
302.0
251.3
311.1
294.5
315.9
357.2
367.8
276.8
348.4
295.8
302.5
254.7
311.6
294.1
Machinery and equipment .............................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment ......................................
Construction machinery and equipment......................................
Metalworking machinery and equipment...................................
General purpose machinery and equipment .............................
Special industry machinery and equipment................................
Electrical machinery and equipment............................................
Miscellaneous machinery ...........................................................
286.4
326.3
351.9
326.5
308.2
337.1
240.1
274.1
287.4
327.1
352.8
326.6
308.5
338.0
241.7
275.2
287.4
327.3
352.9
326.5
307.9
339.0
241.7
275.3
287.9
328.5
353.5
326.6
308.1
339.8
242.9
274.5
287.6
328.0
353.6
327.0
307.8
340.6
242.6
273.3
288.0
328.6
353.9
327.3
308.6
341.0
242.8
273.7
288.8
330.1
353.6
328.7
309.8
342.0
243.8
273.9
289.7
331.0
354.2
329.2
310.7
342.0
244.7
275.5
290.2
331.4
355.9
330.2
310.9
343.2
245.7
274.3
r291.0
r332 9
r355.3
r330.6
311.7
r344.6
r246.7
r274.5
292.4
335.5
357.6
332.4
313.1
347.1
247.3
276.2
292.8
337.1
357.8
332.9
313.3
348.2
247.5
277.2
293.1
336.8
358.1
333.3
313.6
348.8
248.4
275.7
293.7
337.2
358.2
334.1
314.9
351.0
248.5
275.6
214.0
234.7
286.3
185.4
206.9
313.1
214.8
235.4
287.5
186.6
207.8
85.9
314.8
214.9
236.3
286.5
188.9
207.7
85.5
313.9
215.4
236.6
287.3
189.5
208.0
85.8
314.5
215.3
236.9
287.4
189.5
207.6
85.8
314.0
215.7
237.4
289.9
189.3
208.0
85.1
315.1
215.7
237.2
289.5
189.4
208.5
84.5
315.2
216.8
237.9
293.4
188.2
209.8
84.4
318.0
217.2
239.1
294.7
188.4
210.7
84.1
316.8
217.4
240.0
r294.7
r188.3
r210.9
r84.0
r316.7
217.9
240.7
297.5
187.4
210.7
84.1
317.9 •
218.9
241.5
297.6
191.1
210.9
84.1
321.0
219.2
242.3
297.0
191.6
1 2 -6
Furniture and household durables..................................................
Household furniture ...................................................................
Commercial furniture...................................................................
Floor coverings............................................................................
Household appliances ................................................................
Home electronic equipment.......................................................
Other household durable goods..................................................
83.7
322.1
218.7
241.8
297.9
191.4
211.4
82.4
320.4
13
13-11
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
13-7
13-8
13-9
Nonmetallic mineral products ........................................................
Flat g la s s .....................................................................................
Concrete ingredients...................................................................
Concrete products ......................................................................
Structural clay products, excluding refractories .......................
Refractories..................................................................................
Asphalt roofing............................................................................
Gypsum products ......................................................................
Glass containers .........................................................................
Other nonmetallic minerals ........................................................
325.2
229.7
313.3
302.0
277.8
341.3
384.0
286.0
352.4
480.2
325.1
229.8
314.0
302.3
282.4
338.2
385.3
276.0
351.6
479.7
326.3
229.7
316.4
302.7
282.4
339.4
383.4
289.3
351.3
481.9
327.2
229.5
317.2
303.5
282.4
340.2
387.2
297.8
351.1
482.5
328.0
229.6
316.7
303.3
283.5
344.7
387.9
312.8
350.2
483.2
328.9
230.1
314.8
304.1
284.1
353.3
387.8
315.1
350.4
487.4
328.9
229.9
314.6
304.2
284.2
353.3
384.2
322.6
350.4
486.8
330.1
229.5
315.6
304.9
284.3
353.9
385.0
328.6
350.6
486.4
332.2
229.9
319.9
305.9
283.7
356.0
392.3
339.4
350.6
488.1
r333.4
r229.1
r324.2
r306.3
r284.3
r361.1
r385.6
r339.6
r351.6
r490.8
335.6
229.5
323.8
308.8
284.3
362.9
394.2
353.1
358.4
490.8
337.3
226.4
326.9
309.6
285.0
362.9
396.8
360.9
361.2
495.0
338.4
227.3
326.3
310.0
285.6
362.9
392.3
360.3
366.0
499.7
339.3
227.4
327.2
310.6
285.7
362.9
392.6
360.6
367.1
507.1
14
14-1
14-4
Transportation equipment (12/68 = 1 0 0 )......................................
Motor vehicles and equipment.....................................................
Railroad equipment......................................................................
256.7
256.8
350.2
256.2
256.6
351.3
256.8
256.8
351.0
250.4
249.1
350.7
260.6
260.6
348.6
260.5
260.5
348.6
260.7
260.6
350.5
261.5
261.1
351.5
262.2
261.2
351.5
262.4
r261.5
r352.0
262.9
261.8
361.2
262.7
261.5
361.2
262.6
261.4
361.2
262.8
261.5
363.4
15
15-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-5
15-9
Miscellaneous products...................................................................
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammunition.......................
Tobacco products ......................................................................
Notions........................................................................................
Photographic equipment and supplies ......................................
Mobile homes (12/74 = 1 0 0 ).....................................................
Other miscellaneous products.....................................................
289.6
225.2
365.4
280.1
215.7
163.4
351.8
291.5
224.3
373.4
280.3
216.5
163.5
353.7
292.0
224.5
376.7
279.7
216.6
163.7
352.9
291.4
224.8
376.9
279.7
216.6
164.3
349.6
291.7
225.9
376.8
279.7
216.8
164.8
349.2
291.7
225.2
377.0
279.6
216.8
165.0
349.3
292.8
225.3
377.1
280.1
216.8
165.1
353.2
294.5
227.4
389.4
281.4
(2)
162.2
350.8
294.9
227.8
390.3
282.2
217.9
162.4
350.5
r294.9
r227.6
r390.4
282.2
r212.7
r162.5
r354.2
294.5
226.6
390.4
283.0
213.9
164.0
351.5
294.3
226.7
390.6
283.9
213.5
163.9
350.0
295.6
226.4
400.2
283.9
213.5
163.9
349.6
297.1
226.4
407.9
283.9
213.7
164.1
349.8
1 0 -1
10-17
1 0 -2
10-3
10-4
10-5
1 0 -6
10-7
1 0 -8
11
1 1 -1
1 1 -2
11-3
11 4
1 1 -6
11-7
11-9
12
1 2 -1
1 2 -2
12-3
12-4
12-5
86.1
1Data for March 1984 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by
respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
2Not available.
3Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
211.1
4lncludes only domestic production,
5Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month.
6Some prices for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month.
r = revised.
79
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
25.
P roducer Price Indexes, for special com m o dity groupings
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
A nnual
1983
1984
C o m m o d ity grouping
1983
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
D ec.
Jan.
Feb.
M a r .1
Apr.
M ay
June
July
306.6
257.5
258.7
307.1
256.2
257.7
308.0
257.1
257.6
308.3
260.7
260.9
309.2
260.5
258.6
309.1
258.0
258.0
309.4
260.2
260.4
310.7
268.3
266.2
311.9
270.2
267.0
r313.6
r272.9
r271.2
314.2
271.6
272.1
314.9
269.8
272.4
314.9
267.6
269.2
315.4
272.1
273.4
Industrial commodities less fu e ls ...................................
Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 = 100) . . . .
Hos ery .......................................................................
Underwear and nightwear .....................................................
Ghemlcals and allied products, Including synthetic rubber
and fibers and yarns..................................................
279.3
138.2
144.7
223.8
279.8
143.0
144.5
223.3
280.4
139.0
145.6
223.5
280.0
139.1
145.6
224.5
281.8
139.4
145.6
224.7
282.2
139.8
145.6
224.6
282.9
140.1
145.6
225.4
284.3
140.0
145.8
228.6
285.5
141.3
147.3
229.8
r286.7
r141.7
147.4
r229.8
287.5
141.3
147.4
229.8
287.8
142.7
147.4
229.9
287.9
142.6
147.4
229.0
288.1
142.9
147.8
229.5
283.5
284.6
285.0
285.6
285.6
286.3
287.4
287.6
286.2
r289.1
290.6
290.9
290.7
291.2
Pharmaceutical preparations........................................................
Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork........................
Steel mill products, Including fabricated wire products ...........
Finished steel mill products, excluding fabricated wire
products ..................................................................................
Finished steel mill products, including fabricated wire
products ....................................................................
224.8
321.2
351.2
226.3
338.1
349.3
226.0
331.5
350.1
227.1
316.5
355.9
229.4
316.7
356.4
231.3
314.7
357.4
231.8
321.4
357.8
233.9
322.6
360.1
235.9
331.4
361.1
r238.8
r334.9
361.2
241.6
332.8
361.8
242.1
320.6
362.5
242.3
317.9
363.1
244.0
312 6
365.3
351.5
349.4
350.3
357.1
357.8
358.6
359.2
361.7
363.2
r363.1
363.5
364.2
364.8
367.0
349.9
347.9
348.7
354.8
355.4
356.4
356.9
359.2
360.5
r360.5
360.9
361.6
362.3
364.4
Special metals and metal products ........................
Fabricated metal products...................................
Copper and copper products..................................................
Machinery and motive products......................................
Machinery and equipment, except electrical .................
292.6
294.3
196.6
279.8
313.6
292.6
294.2
293.5
294.7
2 01.6
2 01.2
280.1
314.2
280.4
314.2
291.5
295.5
198.2
277.7
314.3
296.4
297.2
190.7
282.2
314.1
296.3
297.9
182.6
282.4
314.6
297.0
298.4
185.0
283.0
315.3
297.8
299.3
182.1
283.9
316.3
299.0
300.0
185.1
284.5
316.5
r300.3
r301.1
r192.9
r285.0
r317.1
301.0
301.7
199.8
286.0
318.9
300.6
302.7
190.4
286.2
319.6
300.6
303.5
189.3
286.3
319.4
300.0
303.8
183.5
286.7
320.3
Agricultural machinery, including tractors ....................
Metalworking machinery...............................................
Total tractors........................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment less parts.......................
341.5
357.1
r369.7
330.0
342.7
357.8
370.7
331.0
342.8
357.8
370.0
331.2
344.0
357.5
372.5
332.6
343.6
357.1
372.6
331.8
344.0
357.6
373.1
332.2
346.4
358.2
373.8
334.2
347.1
359.3
374.0
335.2
347.5
362.1
374.5
335.7
r349.3
r361.6
376.1
r337.4
352.9
363.0
384.3
340.4
355.0
363.2
384.5
342.2
354.6
363.2
384.8
341.7
355.4
364.7
384.9
342.3
Farm and garden tractors less parts .........................................
Agricultural machinery, excluding tractors less parts ...............
Construction materials.....................................................
347.2
337.1
297.7
348.8
338.0
310.6
347.5
339.2
299.8
350.6
338.9
299.9
350.7
338.2
300.4
350.9
338.7
300.4
352.0
342.2
301.3
352.2
343.3
302.3
352.9
343.4
305.0
r355.1
r344.9
r306.6
362.1
345.7
306.8
362.4
349.3
306.0
362.8
348.2
306.3
362.9
349.6
306.6
A ll c o m m o d itie s — le s s fa rm p r o d u c t s ....................................
All foods
P ro c e s s e d foods
1Data for March 1984 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by
respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
26.
r = revised.
P roducer Price Indexes, by durability of product
[1967 = 100]
Annual
C o m m o d ity grouping
1 983
1984
a verag e
1983
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
D ec.
Jan .
Feb.
M a r .1
A pr.
M ay
June
July
Total durable goods ............................................
Total nondurable goods .......................
286.7
315.7
287.4
315.4
287.8
317.8
286.8
319.7
289.2
319.1
289.3
318.1
290.1
318.4
291.0
321.2
292.2
321.9
293.2
r324.8
294.0
324.9
293.7
325.6
293.8
325.1
293 7
326.3
Total manufactures...................................
Durable ..................................................
Nondurable ......................................
295.7
287.3
304.4
296.1
288.0
304.5
296.9
288.3
305.9
297.2
287.2
307.8
298.5
289.6
307.7
298.4
289.8
307.4
298.8
290.5
307.5
300.0
291.3
309.1
301.2
292.4
310.4
r302.8
293.3
r312.7
303.0
294.1
312.3
303.7
293.9
314.0
303.8
294.1
314.1
304.2
294 1
314.9
Total raw or slightly processed goods . . . .
Durable ............................................
Nondurable .................... ...............
339.8
249.3
345.4
338.3
249.9
343.7
343.8
256.8
349.1
345.9
260.7
351.0
343.6
259.8
348.6
340.6
258.5
345.6
341.8
263.3
346.5
348.4
267.4353.3
347.6 ■ r352.4
275.2
r278.7
351.8
r356.7
354.1
280.2
358.4
351.7
277.2
356.1
349.0
273.0
353.5
350 8
264.8
356.0
1Data for March 1984 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
80
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
r= revised.
27.
P roducer P rice Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Industry descrip tio n
SIC
code
1984
198 3
Annual
1972
a verag e
1983
July
Aug.
S ep t.
Oct.
Nov.
D ec.
Jan .
Feb.
M a r .1
Apr.
M ay
June
July
177.1
269.7
921.4
177.1
237.5
916.6
177.1
231.2
915.8
177.1
243.3
920.0
177.1
283.3
907.2
177.1
287.5
909.4
177.1
277.0
909.4
177.1
275.8
914.3
177.1
245.4
913.0
177.1
r250.0
r902.7
177.1
267.9
910.1
177.1
273.7
914.9
177.1
271.6
919.2
177.1
264.6
922.2
327.3
253.5
232.6
170.2
258.6
327.5
233.1
241.6
169.2
261.9
327.5
223.3
241.6
169.7
261.9
328.0
229.2
241.6
169.0
261.9
328.1
201.7
241.6
168.8
261.9
r328.7
r212.7
241.6
r168.6
261.9
328.8
222.4
241.6
166.7
261.9
329.0
244.1
241.6
169.4
261.9
329.0
242.9
241.6
168.9
261.9
329.1
223.2
241.6
167.8
261.9
M IN IN G
1011
1092
1311
Iron ores (12/75 = 1 0 0 )............................................
Mercury ores (12/75 = 100) ...................................
Crude petroleum and natural gas .............................
M A N U FA C TU R IN G
2067
2074
2083
2091
2098
Chewing g u m ..............................................................
Cottonseed oil m ills.....................................................
Malt ............................................................................
Canned and cured seafoods (12/73 = 100) ............
Macaroni and spaghetti...............................................
326.8
204.1
234.1
174.1
256.8
327.2
192.4
232.6
173.7
255.5
327.3
232.6
169.4
255.5
327.3
262.9
232.6
169.8
255.5
2298
2361
2381
2394
2448
Cordage and twine (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Children's dresses and blouses (12/77 = 100) . . . .
Fabric dress and work gloves ...................................
Canvas and related products (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............
Wood pallets and skids (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ....................
139.3
116.6
293.3
147.0
149.2
137.6
117.0
296.3
146.2
150.9
137.6
117.0
296.3
146.2
151.3
139.0
117.0
296.3
146.2
151.0
139.0
117.0
296.3
147.8
151.5
138.9
117.0
296.3
147.8
151.9
139.0
117.0
297.6
147.8
153.6
139.0
118.2
295.2
150.6
154.0
139.2
117.8
299.1
150.6
156.0
M39.2
117.8
r302.3
r150.6
r157.9
139.3
118.5
304.8
151.3
161.6
139.4
118.5
315.6
151.3
165.0
139.4
118.5
315.6
151.3
165.4
137.4
118.6
315.6
151.3
166.3
2521
2654
2655
2911
3251
Wood office furniture..................................................
Sanitary food containers ............................................
Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100)
Petroleum refining (6/76 = 100) .............................
Brick and structural clay t i l e ......................................
281.3
266.1
186.5
253.8
332.3
283.5
267.1
187.7
255.4
336.4
283.6
267.1
187.7
257.2
336.4
283.6
267.8
187.7
256.8
336.4
283.6
269.0
187.8
257.1
338.4
283.6
269.0
189.5
253.5
339.7
283.6
269.0
189.6
249.7
339.9
285.1
269.1
189.6
244.4
340.2
289.1
273.4
189.7
246.7
339.9
r289.1
r278.4
r191.4
r249.8
r341.1
290.3
282.2
193.1
245.5
343.7
290.3
282.3
193.1
248.7
344.9
290.3
282.3
193.1
249.6
346.1
290.3
282.3
194.7
247.2
346.5
3253
3255
3259
3261
3263
Ceramic wall and floor tile (12/75 = 100) ...............
Clay refractories...........................................................
Structural clay products, n.e.c.....................................
Vitreous plumbing fixtures.........................................
Fine earthenware food utensils...................................
146.0
355.6
230.2
278.1
366.5
149.6
352.1
234.8
277.0
366.5
149.6
354.4
234.9
277.0
366.5
149.6
355.9
234.9
281.3
366.5
149.6
364.3
235.1
283.7
366.5
149.6
366.6
235.0
284.5
368.5
149.6
366.5
235.0
285.4
368.5
149.6
367.2
235.0
285.6
383.6
149.6
367.7
232.1
287.0
384.0
r149.6
r369.3
r232.4
r290.1
r375.9
146.8
373.5
232.8
290.4
375.4
146.8
373.5
232.8
290.8
378.8
146.8
373.7
232.9
292.5
375.5
146.8
373.7
233.0
293.1
372.1
3269
3274
3297
3482
3623
Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ..................
Lime (12/75 = 100) ..................................................
Nonclay refractories (12/74 = 1 0 0 )..........................
Small arms ammunition (12/75 = 1 0 0 )....................
Welding apparatus, electric (12/72 = 1 0 0 )...............
187.1
185.7
205.2
180.5
243.6
186.6
187.1
203.7
181.6
243.5
186.6
187.6
203.8
181.6
243.5
186.6
186.3
203.8
181.6
243.6
186.6
185.9
203.9
181.6
243.9
189.9
182.4
189.9
182.5
192.2
183.4
192.1
180.4
212.8
2 2 0 .2
2 20.2
220.1
2 2 0 .0
181.6
244.7
r191.9
r183.9
r2 20.6
r190.3
r247.2
192.3
184.2
2 12.8
192.2
184.4
215.4
190.3
246.7
189.1
184.2
181.6
243.9
191.9
182.8
213.1
190.3
246.0
196.6
243.7
196.6
243.7
196.6
245.2
196.6
245.3
3648
3671
3942
3944
3955
Lighting equipment, n.e.c. (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ...............
Electron tubes, receiving type ...................................
Dolls (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ..................................................
Games, toys, and children's vehicles .......................
Carbon paper and inked ribbons (12/75 = 100) . . .
172.8
435.4
137.5
238.7
139.2
173.4
432.5
137.7
236.1
139.2
173.4
432.5
137.7
236.2
139.2
173.5
432.8
137.7
236.3
139.2
173.7
432.9
137.7
236.4
139.3
173.9
432.9
137.7
236.2
139.3
172.6
469.8
137.7
236.2
139.3
173.5
490.6
137.6
239.3
144.3
173.5
490.8
137.8
240.6
149.0
r184.9
r490.8
r137.7
r240.1
149.0
184.9
490.8
131.3
235.5
149.1
185.6
490.8
133.1
234.6
149.1
185.7
490.9
133.3
234.7
149.1
186.4
491.1
133.3
234.7
146.7
3995
3996
Burial caskets (6/76 = 1 0 0 ) ......................................
Hard surface floor coverings (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ............
153.5
161.5
155.4
162.2
155.4
163.4
155.4
163.5
156.0
165.5
156.0
163.5
156.0
163.5
156.0
165.2
157.2
165.2
r157.3
165.2
158.8
166.3
158.8
166.4
158.8
166.4
158.8
168.7
220.6
1Data for March 1984 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: Indexes which were deleted in the September issue may now be found in Table 4 of the BLS
monthly report, Producer Prices and Price Indexes.
r = revised.
81
PR O D U C T IV ITY DATA
d a t a are compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
from establishment data and from measures of compensation and
output supplied by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the
Federal Reserve Board.
P r o d u c t iv it y
Definitions
Output is the constant dollar gross product produced by the particular
sector. O utput per hour of all persons (labor productivity) measures the
value o f goods and services in constant prices produced per hour of labor.
O utput per unit o f capital services (capital productivity) measures the
value o f goods and services in constant dollars per unit of capital services
input.
M ultifactor productivity measures the output per unit of combined
labor and capital input. The traditional measure of output per hour reflects
changes in capital per hour and a combination of other factors— such as,
changes in technology, shifts in the composition of the labor force, changes
in capacity utilization, research and development, skill and efforts of the
work force, management, and so forth. The multifactor productivity meas
ure differs from the familiar BLS measure of output per hour of all persons
in that it excludes the effects of the substitution of capital for labor.
Com pensation per hour includes wages and salaries of employees plus
employers’ contributions for social insurance and private benefit plans.
The data also include an estimate of wages, salaries, and supplementary
payments for the self-employed, except for nonfinancial corporations, in
which there are no self-employed. Real compensation per hour is com
pensation per hour adjusted by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers.
Unit labor costs measure the labor compensation costs required to
produce a unit o f output and is derived by dividing compensation by output.
Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, interest, and in
direct taxes per unit o f output. They are computed by subtracting com
pensation of all persons from current dollar gross product and dividing by
output. Unit nonlabor costs contain all the components of unit nonlabor
payments except unit profits. Unit profits include corporate profits and
the value o f inventory adjustments per unit of output.
The im plicit price deflator is the price index for the gross product of
the sector reported. It is derived by dividing the current dollar gross product
by the constant dollar figures.
H ours o f all persons measures the labor input of payroll workers, selfemployed persons, and unpaid family workers. Output per all em ployee
hour describes labor productivity in nonfinancial corporations where there
are no self-employed. The capital services input index used in the mul
tifactor productivity computation is developed by b l s from measures of
the net stock of physical assets— equipment, structures, land, and inven
tories— weighted by rental prices for each type of asset. Combined units
of labor and capital input are computed by combining changes in labor
and capital inputs with weights which represent each component’s share
of total output. The indexes for capital services and combined units of
labor and capital are based on changing weights which are averages of the
shares in the current and preceding year (the Tomquist index-number
formula).
Notes on the data
In the business sector and the nonfarm business sector, the output meas
ure employed in the computation of output per hour is constructed from
Gross Domestic Product rather than Gross National Product. Multifactor
productivity measures (table 28) for the private business and private non
farm business sectors differ from the business and nonfarm business sector
measures used in the traditional labor productivity indexes (tables 2 9 -3 2 )
in that they exclude the activities of government enterprises. There is no
difference in the sector definition for manufacturing.
Output measures for the business sectors are derived from data supplied
by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U .S. Department of Commerce, and
the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly manufacturing output indexes are
adjusted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to annual estimates o f output
(gross product originating) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Com
pensation and hours data are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the
Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The productivity and associated cost measures in the tables describe the
relationship between output in real terms and the labor time and capital
services involved in its production. They show the changes from period
to period in the amount of goods and services produced per unit o f input.
Although these measures relate output to hours and capital services, they
do not measure the contributions of labor, capital, or any other specific
factor of production. Rather, they reflect the joint effect of many influences,
including changes in technology; capital investment; level of output; uti
lization o f capacity, energy, and materials; the organization of production;
managerial skill; and the characteristics and efforts of the work force. For
a more complete description of the methodology underlying the multifactor
productivity measures, see Bulletin 2178, “ Trends in Multifactor Produc
tivity, 1 9 4 8 -8 1 ” (September 1983).
Beginning with the September issue of the R e v ie w , all of the productivity and cost measures in tables 29-32 incorporate
revised output and compensation measures reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of
Commerce. In addition, revised values for seasonally adjusting measures of employment and average weekly hours were
introduced, data for employees of nonagricultural establishments were rebenchmarked to the most recent levels from
unemployment insurance data, and improved estimates of employment levels in agricultural services were incorporated.
82
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
28.
A nnual in dexes of m ultifactor productivity and related m easures, selected years, 1 9 4 8 -8 2
[1977 = 100]
Ite m
194 8
1950
1 960
1970
197 3
197 4
1975
1976
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
45.3
99.0
60.0
36.8
49.7
98.6
63.6
39.5
64.8
98.5
75.4
53.3
86.1
94.7
103.0
97.5
91.8
92.4
96.5
93.8
89.9
94.5
92.0
93.6
98.8
95.5
97.7
106.4
101.1
105.5
99.3
100.3
99.7
107.9
1 01.2
88.0
97.6
96.1
97.1
93.7
100.6
98.5
90.2
78.3
95.8
99.3
109.8
90.9
97.5
106.6
81.3
37.2
61.3
45.7
79.5
40.1
62.1
50.4
82.2
54.1
70.7
65.8
97.2
93.1
95.8
95.8
93.1
95.7
94.0
95.9
97.5
96.5
87.4
96.9
89.1
94.1
92.0
102.8
101.6
104.9
103.6
104.4
98.8
108.6
107.5
108.2
99.0
107.7
111.4
108.9
103.4
108.4
114.6
110.5
105.7
105.4
117.3
109.4
111.3
51.2
97.9
64.6
35.6
55.6
98.2
92.9
96.5
94.1
89.7
94.7
91.7
93.6
87.6
97.8
96.1
97.2
93.6
1 0 0.2
98.6
90.6
77.8
95.3
103.2
97.9
91.7
100.2
38.3
67.9
98.4
77.6
52.3
95.0
98.4
109.3
90.1
96.6
106.2
69.6
36.4
55.2
52.3
69.0
39.0
56.3
56,6
77.0
53.2
67.4
69.0
89.7
78.9
85.9
96.2
96.6
93.0
95.4
96.3
92.5
95.6
93.6
103.4
95.7
97.4
96.3
8 8.0
93.6
92.3
101.8
45.1
93.9
56.1
35.8
49.4
94.5
59.9
38.6
60.0
67.0
50.7
79.1
91.8
82.3
77.0
93.0
108.2
96.8
95.9
90.8
99.6
93.0
91.9
93.4
89.4
92.2
85.4
97.5
96.1
97.1
93.6
101.0
101.0
105.3
108.2
79.4
38.1
63.8
48.0
78.2
40.9
64.6
52.3
84.4
57.5
75.6
97.3
83.9
93.6
103.2
101.2
106.6
108.8
107.2
114.1
104.8
6 8.2
8 6.2
104.5
103.8
104.3
99.3
101.2
92.2
98.8
91.1
95.9
97.4
96.4
101.5
101.8
88.6
91.4
95.5
92.6
104.4
102.1
112.1
118.0
105.2
116.7
93.0
119.9
99.2
128.8
P R IV A T E B U S IN E S S SECTOR
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons..........................
Output per unit of capital services....................
Multifactor productivity......................................
Output.......................................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons............................................
Capital services ..................................................
Combined units of labor and capital input . . . .
Capital per hour of all persons .............................
90.9
79.4
86.8
101.8
101.0
P R IVA T E N O N F A R M B U S IN E S S SECTOR
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons..........................
Output per unit of capital services....................
Multifactor productivity......................................
Output.......................................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons............................................
Capital services . . . ..........................................
Combined units of labor and capital input . . . .
Capital per hour of all persons .............................
68.1
86.8
88.8
100.6
99.0
101.9
100.1
101.1
105.7
99.4
108.0
98.3
95.2
97.3
106.4
105.1
103.7
104.6
98.7
109.0
107.9
108.6
99.0
108.2
111.7
109.4
103.2
109.0
115.1
106.0
118.0
1 11.0
110.0
105.5
111.2
100.8
101.5
99.5
101.7
90.7
98.7
103.5
105.3
90.2
106.5
82.7
99.9
99.1
M A N U F A C T U R IN G
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons..........................
Output per unit of capital services....................
Multifactor productivity......................................
Output.......................................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons............................................
Capital services ..................................................
Combined units of labor and capital input . . . .
Capital per hour of all persons .............................
29.
88.0
99.1
85.9
101.5
1 01.2
106.5
A nnual indexes of productivity, hourly com pensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years, 1 9 5 0 -8 3
[1977 = 100]
Item
Business sector:
Output per hour of all persons..........................
Compensation per h o u r......................................
Real compensation per hour .............................
Unit labor c o s ts ..................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator.........................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons..........................
Compensation per h o u r......................................
Real compensation per hour .............................
Unit labor c o s ts ..................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator.........................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all persons..........................
Compensation per h o u r......................................
Real compensation per hour .............................
Unit labor c o s ts ..................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator.........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons..........................
Compensation per h o u r......................................
Real compensation per hour .............................
Unit labor c o s ts ..................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator.........................................
1 Not
available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1950
1955
196 0
1965
50.4
50.5
39.8
43.4
41.0
58.3
26.4
r59.7
45.2
47.6
46.0
65.2
33.9
69.5
52.1
50.6
51.6
78.3
41.7
80.1
53.3
57.6
54.7
56.3
r21.9
r55.1
38.8
42.7
40.1
r62.8
28.3
64.0
45.1
47.8
46.0
68.3
35.7
73.1
52.3
50.4
51.6
80.5
42.8
r82.3
53.2
58.0
54.8
(1)
(1)
<1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1>
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
49.4
21.5
54.0
r43.4
r54.3
r46.6
56.4
28.8
65.1
51.0
r58.6
53.2
20.0
68.0
197 0
1975
1976
1978
1979
1980
1981r
19 8 2 r
1983r
86.2
r94.6
r85.6
r96.4
90.5
90.4
90.4
97.6
92.9
98.9
95.1
94.0
94.7
r100.5
r108.5
r100.8
108.0
106.7
107.5
99.3
118.7
99.1
119.5
117.2
r 98.8
M31.1
r 96.4
r132.6
r119.3
128.1
100.7
143.4
95.5
142.4
136.7
140.4
100.9
155.0
97.3
153.6
136.8
147.9
103.7
161.7
98.4
156.0
145.5
152.4
r94.8
r86.1
r96.9
90.8
88.5
90.0
97.8
93.0
99.0
95.1
93.5
94.6
99.0
118.4
98.8
119.5
110.4
116.5
r 98.3
r130.6
r 96.0
132.8
r118.6
128.1
99.8
143.1
95.3
143.5
135.0
140.6
100.0
108.6
r100.8
108.0
105.3
107.1
154.5
97.0
154.5
136.9
148.6
103.4
162.0
98.6
156.6
147.0
153.4
95.5
r100.8
r108.4
100.7
107.5
104.2
106.4
100.6
r 99.7
r130.8
r 96.2
131.2
117.4
126.4
101.6
102.6
143.1
95.3
140.9
135.1
138.9
154.6
97.0
150.6
138.1
146.3
r100.9
108.3
104.9
145.2
96.8
138.4
107.1
158.0
99.2
147.6
110.5
136.7
58.2
90.8
67.5
63.2
66.0
86.8
58.7
91.5
67.6
63.8
66.3
37.0
75.8
54.4
54.6
54.5
r82.0
43.9
84.3
53.5
60.8
56.1
68.0
63.1
66.3
r97.0
90.2
90.8
90.4
98.2
92.9
98.9
94.6
95.0
94.7
60.0
36.7
75.1
61.1
61.1
61.1
74.6
42.8
82.3
57.5
r69.4
61.0
79.2
57.6
89.8
72.7
65.1
70.5
93.4
r85.5
96.2
91.5
87.3
90.3
97.6
92.3
98.3
94.6
93.9
94.4
87.4
59.4
92.7
86.1
100.6
100.6
r107.3
r102.7
106.0
112.8
118.6
99.0
117.8
106.9
114.1
101.6
118.8
99.2
117.0
99.9
112.0
101.7
132.7
97.6
130.5
r 97.9
120.9
111.6
130.6
106.1
161.0
97.9
151.8
149.1
150.9
111.6
163.4
99.4
146.4
128.8
141.2
r= revised.
83
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity
30.
A nnual changes in productivity, hourly com pensation, unit costs, and prices, 1 9 7 3 -8 3
A nnu al rate
Year
Item
ot change
1973
Business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ...............
Compensation per h o u r ..........................
Real compensation per hour .................
Unit labor costs ......................................
Unit nonlabor payments..........................
Implicit price deflator .............................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ...............
Compensation per h o u r ..........................
Real compensation per hour ..................
Unit labor costs ......................................
Unit nonlabor payments..........................
Implicit price deflator .............................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees............
Compensation per h o u r ..........................
Real compensation per hour ..................
Unit labor costs ......................................
Unit nonlabor payments..........................
Implicit price deflator .............................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ...............
Compensation per hour ...........................
Real compensation per hour ..................
Unit labor costs ......................................
Unit nonlabor payments..........................
Implicit price deflator .............................
1 Not
31.
1974
1975
-2 .4
9.4
- 1 .4
2.6
8.0
1.6
5.3
5.9
5.5
12.1
2.4
7.6
1.3
5.0
1.3
3.8
- 2 .5
9.4
-1 .4
2.4
7.5
- 3 .7
9.4
- 1 .5
13.6
7.1
11.4
12.2
5.9
4.9
1.5
3.8
5.4
7.2
0.9
1.7
-3 .3
0.3
1.2
5.1
6.4
5.6
-
1.2
9.4
- 1 .7
10.7
5.8
9.0
8.0
6.7
7.5
2.2
7.5
8.6
1.0
r0.8
r4.7
5.7
5.1
5.2
6.9
5.7
8.0
2.9
7.9
1.8
1.1
4.9
4.6
4.8
5.7
5.3
5.6
' 0.8
r8.4
0.7
7.5
4.2
6.4
-
2.0
2.9
11.9
2.5
r4.5
8.0
2.5
8.3
r0.9
8.3
2.1
1.8
0.6
8.8
3.4
r7.5
4.6
5.7
r6.5
7 .3
r2.7
6.0
6.0
0.7
9.7
-1 .4
9.0
- 2.6
5.7
10.9
10.6
2.6
5.1
4.0
4.7
r0.5
r8.5
r0.8
3.2
20.1
- 0 .3
13.3
- 1.8
9.0
2.4
7.7
1979
8.1
2.9
9.6
0.4
6.5
- 2 .4
1978
2.2
2.0
9.6
0.4
7.5
16.7
10.3
10.2
1977
3.3
r8.5
2.2
9.6
0.5
7.3
15.1
9.8
4.4
9.5
1.2
1976
25.9
13.1
-
5.3
7.1
available.
1981r
1982'
-0 .5
r10.4
r -2 .7
r1 1.0
r5.7
'9.3
1.9
9.4
-0 .9
7.3
14.6
9.6
-
-0 .7
r10.3
- 2.8
1.9
9.6
-0 .7
- 1 .5
9.0
0.6
7.6
1980
2.0
10.7
4.8
11.1
8.0
7.4
8.8
10.0
13.8
9.8
0.2
2.6
-0 .9
10.3
- 2.8
11.3
9.8
7.2
10.8
9.4
- 1 .7
9.6
r-
1.6
11.5
6.1
2.1
14.1
7.9
8.0
1.1
6.5
1.9
7.9
1.1
2.0
1.6
0.1
6.3
3.0
4.2
3.7
4.1
'8.5
' 0 .2
'7.3
'6.7
'7.1
3.5
4.9
1.9
6.3
1.6
1.8
1.4
7.4
3.2
4.3
3.8
'4.1
3.3
4.2
0.9
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
0.2
8.0
1.7
7.7
1.4
5.7
1.0
8.0
1.8
6.9
2.3
5.3
0.8
2.1
4.3
3.4
7.9
3.1
8.8
2.5
1.0
4.7
1.0
'8.4
' 0 .2
7.4
6.9
'7.2
1.1
8.4
0 .2
7.2
7.1
7.2
0.8
2.5
'6.3
1.9
3.8
16.5
3.3
2.6
' 2 .2
' 8 .8
' 0 :6
'6.5
'5.3
3.4
6 .2
0.2
-
6.6
-
1 9 7 2 -8 3
2.2
5.3
3.1
9.4
-0 .9
0.2
1 9 5 0 -8 3
2.7
4.3
0.2
8.1
1.9
9.4
-0 .9
7.4
15.1
9.8
11.7
1983'
r = revised.
Q uarterly indexes of productivity, hourly com pensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted
[1977 = 100]
Ite m
1982'
Business sector:
Output per hour of all persons .......................
Compensation per hour ...................................
Real compensation per hour.............................
Unit labor costs..................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ...................................
Implicit price deflator.........................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons .......................
Compensation per hour ...................................
Real compensation per hour.............................
Unit labor costs..................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ...................................
Implicit price deflator.........................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees....................
Compensation per hour ...................................
Real compensation per hour.............................
Total unit costs..................................................
Unit labor costs.........................................
Unit nonlabor costs...................................
Unit profits ........................................................
Implicit price deflator.........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons .......................
Compensation per hour ...................................
Real compensation per hour.............................
Unit labor costs..................................................
1 Not
available.
84
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Q u a rte rly In d exes
Annu al
a verag e
1981'
1983'
IV
1982'
1
II
1983'
III
IV
I
100.9
155.0
97.3
153.6
136.8
147.9
103.7
161.7
98.4
156.0
145.5
152.4
100.3
147.6
95.4
147.1
139.6
144.6
100.9
151.4
96.9
150.0
138.0
145.9
100.3
153.9
97.2
153.4
137.0
147.9
100.9
156.7
97.3
155.3
135.8
148.7
101.6
102.2
158.4
98.0
155.9
136.5
149.3
160.2
99.0
156.8
139.8
151.0
100.0
103.4
162.0
98.6
156.6
147.0
153.4
99.2
147.3
95.2
148.5
138.5
145.1
99.8
151.0
96.7
151.4
136.9
146.5
99.4
153.2
96.8
154.2
137.5
148.6
100.3
156.0
96.9
155.6
136.8
149.3
100.5
157.9
97.7
157.1
136.4
150.2
160.1
99.0
157.6
140.6
151.9
106.1
161.0
97.9
155.2
151.8
164.9
117.2
150.9
101.3
147.1
95.1
148.7
145.2
158.5
102.2
102.1
153.5
97.0
154.0
150.3
164.3
103.3
156.2
97.0
154.7
151.3
164.4
8 6.8
86.6
143.1
151.1
96.7
151.5
147.9
161.6
89.4
144.3
146.3
146.9
103.2
157.7
97.5
157.0
152.9
168.8
75.6
147.7
104.0
159.2
98.4
156.7
153.1
167.0
92.5
149.4
104.0
149.8
96.8
144.0
105.5
154.3
98.8
146.2
106.3
157.2
99.4
148.0
108.8
159.8
99.2
146.9
107.8
161.0
99.6
149.3
109.1
162.7
154.5
97.0
154.5
136.9
148.6
102.6
154.6
97.0
154.3
150.6
164.8
84.6
146.3
107.1
158.0
99.2
147.6
111.6
163.4
99.4
146.4
100.2
p = preliminary.
101.6
1 00.6
149.1
II
1984
III
IV
I'
I II1
103.6
161.0
98.5
155.4
144.6
151.7
104.3
161.8
98.0
155.1
147.9
152.7
104.7
164.2
98.4
156.8
149.1
154.2
105.7
166.7
98.6
157.7
151.6
155.6
106.5
167.5
98.2
157.3
155.4
156.7
103.6
161.5
98.8
155.9
146.4
152.7
104.1
162.4
98.3
155.9
149.4
153.8
104.4
164.0
98.2
157.1
151.4
155.2
105.2
166.5
98.5
158.3
152.2
156.3
106.0
167.9
98.5
158.4
154.5
157.1
105.8
160.6
98.2
155.2
151.7
165.1
107.2
161.8
98.0
154.4
150.9
164.4
126.6
151.2
107.2
162.6
97.4
154.7
151.7
163.3
135.9
152.6
108.1
164.8
97.5
155.0
152.5
162.0
143.2
153.6
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
113.4
163.5
99.0
144.1
113.1
164.6
98.6
145.5
114.2
169.0
115.1
170.3
99.9
148.0
111.8
150.2
110.8
163.0
99.7
147.0
1 00.0
148.0
32. P ercent change from preceding q uarter and year in productivity, hourly c om pensation, unit costs, and prices,
seaso n ally adjusted at annual rate
Q u arterly p ercen t change at an n u a l rate
Item
IV 1 9 8 2
11983
I1 1983
III 1 9 8 2
IV 1 9 8 3
P erc e n t ch an g e fro m s a m e q u a rte r a y e a r ago
11984
11982
II 1 9 8 2
III 1 9 8 2
IV 1 9 8 2
1 1983
I1 1983
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
11983r
II 1 9 8 3 r
III 1 9 8 3 r
IV 1 9 8 3 '
1 1984'
I1 1984
11983'
I1 1 9 8 3 '
III 1 9 8 3 '
IV 1 9 8 3 '
11984'
I1 1984
Business sector:
Compensation per hour........................
Real compensation per h o u r...............
Unit labor costs....................................
Unit nonlabor payments ....................
Implicit price deflator..........................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons............
Compensation per hour........................
Real compensation per h o u r...............
Unit labor costs...................................
Unit nonlabor payments ....................
Implicit price deflator..........................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees . . .
Compensation per hour........................
Total units costs ................................
Unit labor costs ..............................
Unit nonlabor costs ........................
Unit profits .........................................
Implicit price deflator..........................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons............
Compensation per hour........................
Real compensation per h o u r...............
Unit labor costs...................................
1Not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2.1
59
2 8
14
40
4.4
4.1
2.2
2.0
6.1
6.2
2.1
1.6
1.2
0 .8
4.6
3.1
4.1
7.0
3.7
2.2
10.2
4.6
4.4
5.7
5.4
1.3
12.7
4.6
3.2
3.9
3.5
- 0 .7
0.7
-4 .1
124.6
4.7
4.8
4.2
3.9
- 0 .5
- 2.1
- 3 .5
14.5
1.9
8.1
3.5
- 0.8
- 4 .2
17.8
2.2
7.5
3.5
- 0.8
- 3 .9
- 3 .7
- 4 .5
-
9.5
2.5
2.1
1.0
2.9
2.2
4.1
- 0 .3
3.0
5.3
3.7
6.1
-
-2 .4
3.6
5.7
07
0.8
0.6
2.1
2.0
- 3 .2
23.4
2.7
- 1 .9
0.1
8.4
2.7
112.8
5.3
3.1
- 1.0
- 2.0
- 2.1
- 1 .7
64.8
2.3
2.8
- 2.6
32.6
3.6
6.4
9.7
1.3
- 2.8
- 7 .7
- 1.0
2.9
- 1 .5
3.9
0.6
- 3 .5
- 5 .5
2.1
0.2
2.0
1.0
3.1
2.3
2.8
3.7
11.0
5.8
7.0
P2 8
P1.8
P - 1.8
P -1 .0
P10.4
P2.7
P3.3
P3.6
P - 0.1
P0.3
P6.1
P2.2
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
<!>
(1)
P3.2
P3.1
P -0 .6
P - 0.1
33
4.6
1.3
1.3
5.5
1 2
5.8
2.1
4.5
1.3
3.5
4.3
5.4
1.8
6.0
2.4
4.1
2.7
3.7
2.0
1.8
3.7
4.6
13
0.6
0.6
8.9
2.7
9.2
3.3
8.4
3.0
3.9
4.1
1.5
3.9
3.9
3.5
4.0
- 0 .5
0.4
8.3
2.9
P2.3
P4.0
P -0 .3
Pi .6
P5.5
P2.9
4.0
3.6
0*5
(1)
(1)
( 1)
- 1.1
- 0 .4
- 3 .0
54.8
2.8
(1)
(1)
(1)
<1)
(1)
4.7
3.9
- 0 .6
- 0 .7
P3.9
P4.5
P0.2
PO.6
0.6
0.2
0.0
10.9
3.3
3.8
3.6
3.9
3.1
n?
- 1 .5
- 0.8
- 3 .2
79.8
3.3
4.3
3.6
0.3
-
0.1
P4.0
P -0 .3
P1.2
P7.5
P3.2
9.2
3.0
0.8
1.8
4.1
- 0 .4
1.1
0.9
0.5
28.7
2.7
3.4
5.5
31
3.7
0.3
6.5
2.8
5.4
1 7
3.5
3.5
3.3
3.5
3.5
2.0
-
2.6
34
3.3
0.7
0 .6
1 0
-
0.2
0.2
0.0
46.3
3.0
4.3
2.3
- 0 .3
- 1 .9
4.9
2.2
-
1.0
2 .6
r = revised.
p = preliminary.
85
WAGE AND COMPENSATION DATA
D a t a for t h e e m p l o y m e n t co st in d e x are reported to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics by a sample of 2,000 private nonfarm estab
lishments and 750 State and local government units selected to
represent total employment in those sectors. On average, each
reporting unit provides wage and compensation information on
five well-specified occupations.
Data on negotiated wage and benefit changes are obtained from
contracts on file at the Bureau, direct contact with the parties, and
secondary sources.
Definitions
The Em ploym ent Cost Index (ECI) is a quarterly measure of the average
change in the cost o f employing labor. The rate of total compensation,
which comprises wages, salaries, and employer costs for employee ben
efits, is collected for workers performing specified tasks. Employment in
each occupation is held constant over time for all series produced in the
ECI, except those by region, bargaining status, and area. As a consequence,
only changes in compensation are measured. Industry and occupational
employment data from the 1970 Census of Population are used in deriving
constant weights for the ECI. While holding total industry and occupational
employment fixed, in the estimation of indexes by region, bargaining
status, and area, the employment in those measures is allowed to vary over
time in accord with changes in the sample. The rate of change (in percent)
is available for wages and salaries, as well as for total compensation. Data
are collected for the pay period including the 12th day of the survey months
o f March, June, September, and December. The statistics are neither an
nualized nor adjusted for seasonal influence.
W ages and salaries consist of earnings before payroll deductions, ex
cluding premium pay for overtime, work on weekends and holidays, and
shift differentials. Production bonuses, incentive earnings, commissions,
and cost-of-living adjustments are included; nonproduction bonuses are
included with other supplemental pay items in the benefits category; and
payments-in-kind, free room and board, and tips are excluded. Benefits
include supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and savings plans, and
hours-related and legally required benefits.
Data on negotiated wage changes apply to private nonfarm industry
collective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more. Data
on compensation changes apply only to those agreements covering 5,000
workers or more. First-year wage or compensation changes refer to average
negotiated changes for workers covered by settlements reached in the period
86
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
and implemented within the first 12 months after the effective date of the
agreement. Changes over the life o f the agreement refer to all adjustments
specified in the contract, expressed as an average annual rate. These meas
ures exclude wage changes that may occur under cost-of-living adjustment
clauses, that are triggered by movements in the Consumer Price Index.
Wage-rate changes are expressed as a percent of straight-time hourly earn
ings; compensation changes are expressed as a percent of total wages and
benefits.
Effective wage adjustm ents reflect all negotiated changes implemented
in the reference period, regardless of the settlement date. They include
changes from settlements reached during the period, changes deferred from
contracts negotiated in an earlier period, and cost-of-living adjustments.
The data also reflect contracts providing for no wage adjustment in the
period. Effective adjustments and each of their components are prorated
over all workers in bargaining units with at least 1,000 workers.
Notes on the data
The Employment Cost Index data series began in the fourth quarter of
1975, with the quarterly percent change in wages and salaries in the private
nonfarm sector. Data on employer costs for employee benefits were in
cluded in 1980, to produce a measure of the percent change in employers’
cost for em ployees’ total compensation. State and local government units
were added to the ECI coverage in 1981, providing a measure o f total
compensation change in the civilian nonfarm economy.
Data for the broad white-collar, blue-collar, and service worker groups,
and the manufacturing, nonmanufacturing, and service industry groups are
presented in the ECI. Additional occupation and industry detail are pro
vided for the wages and salaries component of total compensation in the
private nonfarm sector. For State and local government units, additional
industry detail is shown for both total compensation and its wages and
salaries component.
Historical indexes (June 1981 = 100) of the quarterly rates o f changes
presented in the ECI are also available.
For a more detailed discussion of the ECI, see chapter 11, “ The Em
ployment Cost Index,” of the BLS Handbook o f Methods (Bulletin 2134—
1), and the Monthly Labor Review articles: “ Employment Cost Index: a
measure of change in the ‘price of labor,’ ” July 1975; “ How benefits will
be incorporated into the Employment Cost Index,” January 1978; and
“ The Employment Cost Index: recent trends and expansion,” May 1982.
Additional data for the ECI and other measures of wage and compen
sation changes appear in Current Wage Developments, a monthly publi
cation o f the Bureau.
33.
E m ploym ent C ost Index, by occupation and industry group
[June 1981 =1 0 0 ]
P erc e n t change
1982
S e rie s
C iv ilia n w o rk e r s 1 ...................................................................................................................
1983
1984
3 m onths
1 2 m onths
end ed
ended
June
Sept.
D ec.
M a rch
June
S ep t.
D ec.
M a rch
June
107.5
110.1
111.4
113.2
114.5
116.5
117.8
119.8
1 20.8
0.8
107.7
107.1
108.3
110.7
109.2
111.9
110.5
112.4
113.7
112.3
114.3
114.9
113.6
115.1
117.6
114.8
116.7
118.9
115.8
119.1
120.9
117.7
122.1
1.0
118.6
.8
6.3
4.4
122.0
122.1
.1
6.1
110.4
112.5
113.5
116.6
116.2
113.5
114.9
117.1
117.0
115.0
117.2
116.0
118.6
119.1
1.0
122.6
119.8
121.4
117.9
120.7
125.0
122.9
1 21.6
121.1
125.5
123.7
.7
.4
.7
4.9
5.8
7.2
5.7
112.6
113.9
115.6
117.0
119.0
120.1
.9
5.4
114.2
113.5
114.6
116.5
114.6
115.1
117.9
115.7
117.9
119.9
117.5
121.5
121.4
118.4
1.3
1 21.2
- .2
6.3
4.3
5.8
113.5
114.2
115.0
116.0
116.0
117.5
117.9
119.6
119.1
120.7
1.0
.9
4.9
5.7
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers.........................................................................
Blue-collar workers .........................................................................
Service workers ...............................................................................
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing ..................................................................................
Nonmanufacturing............................................................................
Services ........................................................................................
Public administration2 ................................................................
107.2
107.7
109.2
109.1
109.3
110.5
113.5
112.8
115.0
113.6
P riv a te indus try w o r k e r s ...............................................................................................
107.2
109.3
110.7
110.8
111.8
Ju n e 1 9 8 4
5.5
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ...................................................................
Blue-collar w orkers......................................................................
Service workers............................................................................
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing...............................................................................
Nonmanufacturing.........................................................................
107.2
107.0
107.9
109.5
109.0
109.6
110.8
112.8
110.3
112.1
111.8
113.8
107.2
107.1
109.3
109.3
110.4
112.5
110.8
112.6
S ta te an d lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t w o r k e r s ...................................................................
109.3
114.3
115.1
116.5
117.1
120.8
1 22.0
123.9
124.4
.4
6 .2
109.5
108.9
114.9
112.7
115.8
113.0
117.0
114.9
117.5
115.8
121.5
118.0
1 22.6
119.2
124.5
121.9
125.0
122.3
.4
.3
6.4
5.6
109.4
109.1
109.5
110.3
109.1
114.9
114.8
115.6
115.3
115.9
115.8
116.6
116.0
113.6
116.8
116.6
117.2
117.5
116.2
117.4
116.9
117.4
118.8
117.0
121.7
121.9
123.3
124.5
124.5
125.4
124.4
122.9
125.0
124.7
125.7
125.7
123.7
.4
6.5
6.7
7.1
5.8
5.7
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ...................................................................
Blue-collar w orkers......................................................................
Workers, by industry division
Services ........................................................................................
Schools.....................................................................................
Elementary and secondary ..................................................
Hospitals and other services3 ..................................................
Public administration2 ................................................................
'Excludes farm, household, and Federal workers.
Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
112.8
1 22.6
1 22.6
123.9
121.1
1 22.6
119.8
121.4
.8
.2
.2
1.0
.7
includes, for example, library, social, and health services.
87
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Wage and Compensation Data
34.
E m ploym ent C ost Index, w ages and salaries, by occupation and industry group
[June 1981 =1 0 0 ]
P erc e n t change
1982
S e rie s
1984
June
Sept.
D ec.
M a rch
June
S ept.
D ec.
M a rch
June
3 m onths
1 2 m onths
end ed
end e d
June 1 9 8 4
. . . . : ......................................................................
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers.........................................................................
Blue-collar workers .........................................................................
Service workers ...............................................................................
107.3
109.7
110.9
112.2
113.4
115.3
116.5
117.9
118.8
0.8
4.8
107.6
106.7
107.9
110.4
108.6
111.4
109.8
113.0
114.2
110.8
112.0
113.2
113.9
120.0
120.4
116.1
119.8
.9
.7
111.8
117.9
114.0
117.4
119.3
115.3
110.1
116.7
113.1
115.1
5.4
3.7
5.2
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing ..................................................................................
Nonmanufacturing............................................................................
Services........................................................................................
Public administration2 ................................................................
107.0
107.5
109.5
108.4
108.8
109.8
111.3
114.4
111.0
1 12.0
114.0
116.3
115.4
113.3
116.1
112.6
112.7
115.8
114,6
118.2
114.5
117.4
121.3
119.4
115.7
118.9
123.3
120.4
116.8
119.7
123.8
121.3
P riv a te in d u s try w o r k e r s ...............................................................................................
107.1
109.0
110.3
111.6
112.9
114.5
115.8
117.2
107.3
109.4
107.2
109.4
110.6
112.2
112.9
109.3
106.2
114.8
115.9
119.9
114.8
108.4
116.7
112.9
114.3
112.3
110.7
117.2
120.4
115.7
118.5
111.8
113.6
115.9
114.0
107.1
114.6
111.9
113.4
1 11.2
110.2
118.3
113.9
115.4
113.6
Civilian workers1
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ...................................................................
Professional and technical w orkers.........................................
Managers and administrators ..................................................
Salesworkers............................................................................
Clerical workers.........................................................................
Blue-collar w orkers......................................................................
Craft and kindred workers........................................................
Operatives, except transport.....................................................
Transport equipment operatives...............................................
Nonfarm laborers......................................................................
Service workers............................................................................
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing...............................................................................
Durables.....................................................................................
Nondurables ............................................................................
Nonmanufacturing.........................................................................
Construction ............................................................................
Transportation and public utilities............................................
Wholesale and retail tra d e ........................................................
Wholesale trade ...................................................................
Retail trade............................................................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate.........................................
Services.....................................................................................
S ta te an d lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t w o r k e r s ...................................................................
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ...................................................................
Blue-collar w orkers..............................................................
Workers, by industry division
Services ........................................................................................
Schools.....................................................................................
Elementary and secondary ..................................................
Hospitals and other services3 ..................................................
Public administration2 .................................................................
1 Excludes
farm, household, and Federal workers.
Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.
88
1983
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
101.8
108.3
106.6
107.6
106.6
104.1
105.1
107.9
107.0
107.4
106.3
107.1
107.3
106.9
105.8
108.9
104.5
102.4
110.1
113.2
111.9
108.5
104.5
110.3
108.5
109.6
108.3
106.0
106.5
109.3
111.6
109.7
112.0
105.7
113.4
110.7
111.2
112.2
109.3
106.9
107.8
111.4
110.0
111.1
108.0
109.0
112.9
110.3
109.8
113.5
111.0
112.0
120.1
122.2
118.0
.7
.4
.7
4.3
5.0
6.4
5.1
118.2
.9
4.7
119.9
123.8
119.2
111.9
120.7
115.9
117.3
115.8
112.7
114.1
119.3
1.2
5.5
110.8
112.1
113.7
116.5
119.8
115.1
116.5
114.9
111.7
112.9
119.8
114.5
114.4
114.6
116.5
112.9
116.8
112.3
116.5
115.7
115.7
115.8
118.0
113.3
118.5
114.3
118.2
116.8
116.6
117.1
119.0
114.0
119.3
116.0
110.6
112.8
116.9
121.9
116.1
124.2
114.4
110.9
124.7
110.2
- .2
1.0
1.3
6 .8
1.0
4.6
4.5
5.3
3.6
3.4
4.2
1.5
.8
.7
.7
.8
.9
2.2
1.1
3.9
5.1
-.4
108.8
109.0
108.5
109.1
109.1
109.5
106.5
109.0
105.5
106.1
112.5
107.2
109.8
106.1
109.0
114.3
108.7
113.5
114.0
115.1
115.7
119.2
120.0
1 21.6
1 22.0
.3
5.4
108.9
107.9
114.2
111.5
114.6
115.6
113.3
116.1
114.3
119.8
116.4
1 20.6
122.2
.2
116.9
119.1
122.5
119.6
5.5
4.6
108.8
108.5
108.8
109.5
108.4
114.2
114.2
114.9
114.3
111.9
115.5
115.2
115.6
116.5
114.6
115.9
115.4
115.8
117.7
115.4
119.8
119.9
1 20.6
122.2
121.1
121.7
119.7
118.2
119.4
122.9
121.9
120.4
110.0
109.8
110.3
109.1
110.5
109.7
111.1
112.0
114.6
114.5
115.1
114.9
112.6
111.1
111.8
110.9
112.3
113.4
113.3
112.9
113.9
115.2
112.1
112.2
114.7
115.7
111.5
115.7
109.9
113.5
120.4
112.0
110.4
112.9
108.5
111.8
107.2
110.8
114.1
109.4
110.6
111.1
116.0
116.6
120.6
1 20.6
122.2
includes, for example, library, social, and health services.
1 20.0
122.5
122.3
123.0
123.1
121.3
1.0
.8
1.1
.8
.6
.7
1.5
1.5
1.4
.7
.4
.4
.2
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.9
1.7
4.0
■ 4.7
5.2
4.6
5.2
6.9
5.7
.1
6 .0
.1
6 .2
1.0
4.6
5.1
.7
35.
E m ploym ent Cost Index, private industry w orkers, by bargaining status, region, and area size
[June 1981 = 100]
P erc e n t change
198 2
S e rie s
1983
1984
June
Sept.
D ec.
M arch
June
Sept.
D ec.
M a rch
June
Workers, by bargaining status1
Union ....................................................................................................
Manufacturing ..................................................................................
Nonmanufacturing............................................................................
108.4
108.0
108.7
110.6
112.3
111.8
112.8
116.0
114.8
117.1
117.8
116.3
119.2
118.8
117.2
120.4
121.7
120.5
111.0
114.5
114.0
114.9
120.6
110.3
Nonunion ..............................................................................................
Manufacturing ..................................................................................
Nonmanufacturing............................................................................
106.5
106.6
106.4
108.5
108.4
108.6
109.7
109.2
109.9
111.5
112.8
111.2
112.3
113.0
114.4
113.8
114.7
115.9
114.9
116.4
118.0
116.6
118.6
114 3
113 5
112 5
116 6
116 0
115 6
113 9
118.0
117 5
117 1
114 7
11fi 9
11 Q 7
117 ?
120.0
3 m onths
1 2 m onths
end ed
ended
June 1 9 8 4
C O M P E N S A TIO N
111.6
119.3
121.9
0.9
1.0
1 22.8
.7
119.2
117.9
119.8
1.0
1 21.0
.9
.5
4.9
5.0
4.9
1.1
5.7
5.0
1.0
6 .0
122.2
1.0
4.8'
120.6
1.0
117.4
.6
5.6
4.5
Workers, by region1
Workers, by area size1
Metropolitan areas ...............................................................................
Other areas ...........................................................................................
111 7
112 6
110 6
108 6
112 9
112 5
110 9
115 4
110.9
109.1
110.8
114.2
112.3
116.0
113.4
117.4
114.5
119.4
116.7
107.2
107.0
109.4
108.6
Workers, by bargaining status1
Union ....................................................................................................
Manufacturing ..................................................................................
Nonmanufacturing............................................................................
108.1
107.3
108.8
110.3
109.5
110.8
111.1
112.7
112.9
111.4
114.3
114.2
112.3
116.0
116.0
113.7
118.3
116.9
114.8
118.9
120.1
119.0
117.1
120.7
Nonunion ..............................................................................................
Manufacturing ..................................................................................
Nonmanufacturing............................................................................
106.5
106.7
106.4
108.3
108.2
108.3
109.5
109.1
109.6
110.9
110.7
112.2
111.8
112.4
113.7
113.0
114.0
115.2
114.2
115.6
116.7
115.4
117.2
117.8
116.5
118.3
1.0
111.0
.9
5.0
4.2
5.2
Workers, by region1
Northeast ..............................................................................................
South ....................................................................................................
North Central ........................................................................................
W est.......................................................................................................
106.7
107.4
106.1
108.6
109.7
108.8
107.6
110.7
111.5
109.8
108.6
112.0
111.4
115.3
114.3
112.0
114.1
113.6
112.5
111.5
114.9
116.5
116.6
115.7
113.6
118.5
117.4
117.9
115.5
118.8
118.9
119.0
116.0
119.6
1.3
.9
.4
.7
4.7
5.8
4.0
4.1
Workers by area size1
Metropolitan areas ...............................................................................
Other areas ...........................................................................................
107.1
106.8
109.1
108.3
110.5
108.8
111.9
113.2
111.4
114.9
112.3
116.2
113.4
117.6
115.1
118.6
116.0
.9
4.8
4.1
112.9
W AG E S AN D SALARIES
111.8
110.1
110.1
112.8
118.1
116.1
.8
.9
•
.8
4.2
4.3
4.1
1The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and industry groups. For a
detailed description of the index calculation, see BLS Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 1910.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
89
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Wage and Compensation Data
36.
W age and com pensation change, m ajor collective bargaining settlem ents, 1979 to date
[In percent]
Q u arterly a v e ra g e
M e a s u re
1 982
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
9.0
10.4
7.1
10.2
3.2
8.3
2.8
6.0
9.5
7.1
9.8
7.9
3.8
3.6
Manufacturing:
First year of contract ....................
Annual rate over life of contract. . .
6.9
5.4
7.4
5.4
7.2
2.8
6.1
2.6
Nonmanufacturing (excluding
construction):
First year of contract ....................
Annual rate over life of contract. . .
7.6
9.5
6.2
6.6
9.8
7.3
4.3
4.1
5.0
3.7
6.1
8.8
13.6
11.5
13.5
11.3
6.5
6.3
1.5
2.4
6.3
1983
II
III
IV
3.4
3.0
2.6
6.2
4.7
3.3
4.8
-
2.1
2.6
3.4
3.2
5.4
4.5
3.8
4.8
-
0.4
1.8
2.1
1.7
5.1
3.9
1984P
I
II
III
IV
1
II
1.6
1.4
4.4
3.6
5.0
4.3
4.9
3.1
5.2
4.8
3.6
3.1
1.2
2.7
2.8
3.7
3.6
4.2
2.2
2.8
3.1
3.4
2.3
2.3
4.1
4.5
- 3 .4
.9
1.3
1.7
3.4
3.5
2.9
3.1
2.9
2.7
1.9
1.4
5.5
4.8
3.6
5.2
3.3
5.3
5.9
5.2
5.8
4.3
4.8
2.7
4.4
4.8
4.1
4.0
6.3
5.9
3.4
2.9
.7
2.4
1.7
1.5
2.9
1.1
2.1
2.6
- 3 .7
- 3 .0
1.1
Total compensation changes, covering
5,000 workers or more, all
industries:
First year of contract ....................
Annual rate over life of contract. . .
6.6
Wage rate changes covering at least
1 ,0 0 0 workers, all industries:
First year of contract ....................
Annual rate over life of contract. . .
Construction:
First year of contract ....................
Annual rate over life of contract. . .
7.4
8.3
2.8
6.6
6.2
.7
p = preliminary.
37.
E ffective w age adjustm ents in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 w orkers or m ore, 1979 to date
Y e a r and q u a rte r
Year
1982
M e a s u re
1979
1980
Average percent adjustment (including no change):
All industries......................................................................
Manufacturing .............................................................
Nonmanufacturing ........................................................
9.1
9.6
10.2
8.8
9.7
From settlements reached In perio d................................
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period . . . .
From cost-of-living clauses...............................................
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.6
3.5
Total number of workers receiving wage change
(in thousands) 1 . ...........................................................
—
From settlements reached
in period ......................................................................
Deferred from settlements
reached in earlier period...............................................
From cost-of-living clauses...............................................
Number of workers receiving no adjustments
(in thousands) ..............................................................
1981
9.9
1982
III
4.0
2.7
4.8
2.0
2.7
2.4
1.7
2.9
.8
.5
1.3
9.5
9.4
9.5
5.2
7.9
1.7
3.6
1.4
2.5
.4
1.4
2.8
2.5
3.8
3.2
.6
.2
—
8,648
7,852
6,530
2,270
1,907
6,267
4,593
145
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
•
6.8
1.0
1983
IV
I
1.3
1.5
1.2
II
0.3
-.5
.9
1984P
III
IV
I
II
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.2
.9
1.2
1 .0
1.5
1.2
1.2
.7
.9
.3
.2
.6
.1
.1
.6
- .2
.4
.3
.4
1.0
.8
.3
.6
.1
.1
.2
.2
.4
.4
.2
3,423
3,760
3,441
2,875
3,061
3,025
2,887
2,906
2,651
2,327
511
620
825
448
561
599
996
291
316
4,846
3,830
3,260
2,327
1,594
1,568
2,400
2,251
860
1,970
812
1,938
1,405
1,299
1,317
1,218
669
1,290
1,043
1,613
1,231
1,267
483
1,187
4,912
4,575
4,895
4,842
4,656
4,693
4,830
4,735
4,990
1 The total number of workers who received adjustments does not equal the sum of workers that received
each type of adjustment, because some workers received more than one type of adjustment during the
period.
90
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
II
1983
p = preliminary.
.7
WORK STOPPAGE DATA
W o rk
1 ,0 0 0
st o p pa g e s
in clu d e all k n ow n strikes or lock ou ts in volvin g
E stim ates o f d ays id le as a percent o f estim ated w orking tim e
w orkers or m ore and lasting a full shift or lon ger. D ata are
b ased la rg ely on n ew spap er accou n ts and co v er all w orkers idle
m easure o n ly the im pact o f larger strikes (1 ,0 0 0 w orkers or m ore).
F orm erly, these estim ates m easured the im pact o f strikes in v o lv in g
o n e sh ift or m ore in estab lish m en ts directly in v o lv ed in a stoppage.
6 w orkers or m ore; that is, the im pact o f virtually a ll strikes. D ue
T h ey d o not m easure the indirect or secondary effect on other
to b u d get strin gen cies, co llectio n o f data on strikes in volv in g few er
esta b lish m en ts w h o se e m p lo y ees are idle o w in g to m aterial or
than 1 ,0 0 0 w orkers w as d iscon tin ued w ith the D ecem b er 1981
serv ice sh ortages.
data.
38.
W ork stoppages involving 1,000 w orkers or m ore, 1947 to date
N u m b e r of stoppages
M o nth and y e a r
1947
1948
1949
1950
W o rke rs in volved
B eginning in
In effect
m onth or ye a r
during m onth
B eg in n in g in
D ays id le
In effect
m onth or y ear
d u ring m onth
(in th ousands)
(in th ousands)
N u m b er
th ousands)
P e rc e n t of
e s tim a te d
w o rk in g tim e
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
270
245
262
424
1 629
1 435
2 537
1 698
25,720
26,127
43,420
30,390
195 1 .................................................................................................
1952 .................................................................................................
1953 .................................................................................................
1954 .................................................................................................
1955 .................................................................................................
415
470
437
265
363
1 462
2 746
1 623
1 075
2 055
15,070
48,820
18,130
16,630
21,180
.12
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
287
279
332
245
1 370
887
1 587
1 381
896
26,840
10,340
17,900
60,850
13,260
.20
10,140
11,760
.07
.08
.07
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
222
.22
.38
.26
.38
.14
.13
.16
.07
.13
.43
.09
1 96 1 .................................................................................................
1962 .................................................................................................
1963 .................................................................................................
1964 .................................................................................................
1965 .................................................................................................
181
246
268
1 031
793
512
1 183
999
10,020
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
321
381
392
412
381
1 300
2 192
1 855
1 576
2 468
16,000
31,320
35,567
29,397
52,761
1 97 1 .................................................................................................
1972 .................................................................................................
1973 .................................................................................................
1974 .................................................................................................
1975 .................................................................................................
298
250
317
424
235
2 516
975
1 400
1 796
965
35,538
16,764
16,260
31,809
17,563
.19
.09
.08
.16
.09
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
231
298
219
235
187
1 519
.12
.10
.11
795
23,962
21,258
23,774
20,409
20,844
.09
.09
1981.................................................................................................
1982 .................................................................................................
1983 .................................................................................................
145
96
81
729
656
909
16,908
9,061
17,461
.07
.04
.08
794.8
844.4
1,131.5
789.5
488.5
689.1
1,270.1
.04
.05
.05
.04
.03
.03
.07
507.3
365.5
284.2
651.0
r581.2
754.8
1,211.3
.03
1983
1984P
January ......................................................................
February ......................................................................
M a rc h ..........................................................................
A p ril............................................................................
May ............................................................................
J u n e ............................................................................
July ............................................................................
January ......................................................................
February......................................................................
M a rc h .........................................................................
A p ril............................................................................
May ............................................................................
J u n e ............................................................................
July ............................................................................
p = preliminary.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
195
211
16,220
15,140
1 212
1
006
1 021
3
7
10
14.0
10.5
10
9
17
25
23
24.9
63.3
64.5
38.0
50.4
54.9
52.4
34.2
81.2
99.8
6
12
2
12
2
9
13
r15
r14
19
28.9
8.7
3.0
28.5
r8.1
23.7
65.0
43.0
37.2
14.6
38.1
r39.2
r45.7
100.7
1
5
5
2
12
16
7
r5
5
7
1.6
2.8
r= revised.
.11
.10
.10
.18
.20
.16
.29
.02
.01
.03
.03
.04
.06
Published by BLS in July
S A LE S P U B L IC A T IO N S
BLS B ulletins
Em ployee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1983. Bulletin
2213, 69 pp., $3 GPO Stock N o . (029-001-02816-4). Presents
results o f a 1983 BLS survey o f the incidence and provisions o f
em ployee benefits in medium and large firms. This survey— fifth
in an annual series— provides representative data for 20 m illion
full-tim e em ployees in a cross-section o f the N ation ’s private
industries.
Injuries in the Logging Industry. Bulletin 2203, 23 p p ., $1.75 (GPO
Stock N o . 029-001-02815-6). Results o f a survey o f workers w ho
were injured while perform ing logging activities. Conducted
during April through July 1982, the survey will assist the Oc
cupational Safety and Health Adm inistration in developing
safety standards, com pliance strategy, and training programs
for reducing work-related injuries.
Injuries Resulting From Falls From Elevations. Bulletin 2195, 20
p p ., $1.75 (GPO Stock N o . 029-001-02813-0). Results o f a survey
o f workers who were injured as a result o f falling from eleva
tions during the period from December 1981 through June 1982.
The findings o f this survey will assist the O ccupational Safety
and H ealth Adm inistration in its program to reduce workrelated injuries.
O ccupational O utlook H andbook, 1984-85 Edition. Bulletin 2205,
387 p p ., $ 8 .5 0 , so ft-c o v e r e d itio n , (GPO S tock N o .
029-001-02765-6); $10, hard-cover edition (GPO Stock N o.
029-001-02766-4). An encyclopedia o f careers covering more
than 200 occupations. For each o f these occupations, infor
m ation is included on what the work is like, job prospects
through the m id-1990’s, level and places o f em ploym ent,
e d u c a tio n a l an d tra in in g r eq u irem en ts, a d v a n cem en t
possibilities, related occupations, and where to find additional
inform ation.
Relative Importance o f Com ponents in the Consum er Price In
dexes, 1983. Bulletin 2210. 36 p p ., $2.25 (GPO Stock N o.
0 2 9 -0 0 1 -0 2 8 1 4 -8 ). P resen ts d a ta on th e re la tiv e im
portance (value weights) o f com ponents in the Consum er Price
Indexes. The data can be used in conjunction with the CPI
Detailed Report, issued m onthly by the Bureau o f Labor
Statistics.
A rea W ag e Survey B ulletins
These bulletins cover office, professional, technical, m aintenance,
custodial, and material m ovem ent occupations in major
m etropolitan areas. The annual series o f 70 is available by
subscription for $88 per year. Individual area bulletins are also
available separately. The follow ing were published in July:
A tlanta, G eorgia, M etropolitan Area, M ay 1984. Bulletin 3025-18,
52 p p ., $4 (GPO Stock N o. 029-001-90285-9).
H ou ston , Texas, M etropolitan Area, M ay 1984. Bulletin 3025-17,
42 p p ., $3.75 (GPO Stock N o . 029-001-90284-1).
Greenville— Spartanburg, South Carolina, M etropolitan Area,
June 1984. Bulletin 3025-19, 28 p p ., $3.25 (GPO Stock N o.
029-001-90286-7).
N o r f o lk — V irg in ia B e a c h — P o r ts m o u th , V ir g in ia — N o rth
Carolina, M etropolitan Area, May 1984. Bulletin 3025-14, 28
pp., $3.25 (GPO Stock N o . 029-001-90281-6).
San A n tonio, Texas, M etropolitan Area, M ay 1984. Bulletin
3025-20, 29 p p ., $3.50 (GPO Stock N o . 029-001-90287-5).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
San Francisco— O akland, California, M etropolitan Area, March
1984. B u lletin 3025-16, 52 p p ., $4 (GPO Stock N o .
029-001-90283-2).
San Jose, California, M etropolitan Area, March 1984. Bulletin
3025-15, 49 p p ., $4 (GPO Stock N o. 029-001-90282-4).
P eriodicals
NOTE: Periodical prices reduced.
CPI Detailed Report. M ay issue provides a com prehensive report
on price m ovem ents for the m onth, inform ation on changes in
the frequency o f publication for local area CPI’s which is to
begin in 1987, plus statistical tables, charts, and technical notes.
77 p p ., $4 ($25 per year).
Current W age Developm ents. June issue includes selected wage
and benefit changes; work stoppages in May; major agreements
expiring in July; the Em ploym ent Cost Index for March 1984,
and com pensation changes. 43 p p ., $2 ($21 per year).
E m p lo y m e n t and E arn in gs. July issu e covers em p lo y
ment and unem ploym ent developm ents in June, new seasonal
adjustm ent factors for the household data series, plus regular
statistical tables on national, State, and area em ploym ent,
unem ploym ent, hours, and earnings. 174 p p ., $4.50 ($31 per
year).
O ccupational O utlook Quarterly. Summer issue features articles
on the job outlook for college graduates through the
m id-1990’s, the class o f 1980 one year after graduation, and
education for the noncollegiate labor force. 40 p p ., $3 ($11 per
year).
P r o d u c e r P r ic e s an d P r ic e I n d e x e s . M ay is s u e i n
cludes a comprehensive report on price movements for the
m onth, an explanation o f removal o f redundant indexes from
publication, plus regular tables and technical notes. 150 pp.,
$4.25 ($29 per year).
FR EE P U B L IC A T IO N S
A rea W a g e Survey S um m aries
Baton Rouge, L a., June 1984. 3 pp.
Battle Creek, M ich., May 1984. 6 pp.
Brunswick, G a., June 1984. 3 pp.
Colum bus, M iss., June 1984. 3 pp.
Des M oines, Iow a, May 1984. 6 pp.
Duluth— Superior, M inn.-W is., June 1984. 3 pp.
Fort W ayne, Ind., June 1984. 3 pp.
P ortsm outh—C hillicothe— G allipolis, O hio, June 1984. 6 pp.
Tulsa* O kla., June 1984. 3 pp.
To order:
Sale pu blication s— Order from BLS regional offices (see inside
front cover), or the Superintendent o f D ocum ents, U .S . G overn
ment Printing O ffice, W ashington, D .C . 20402. Order by title and
GPO stock number. Subscriptions available on ly from the
Superintendent o f D ocum ents. Orders can be charged to a deposit
account number or checks can be m ade payable to the Superinten
dent o f D ocum ents. Visa and MasterCard are also accepted. In
clude card number and expiration date.
Free p u blication s— Available from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics,
U .S . Department o f Labor, W ashington, D .C . 20212 or from any
BLS regional office. Request regional office publications from the
issuing office. Free publications are available while supplies last.
Productivity and
the Economy:
A Chartbook
C)
U
Productivity. Everybody talks about it.
What does it mean?
How does it affect wages and costs?
What does it have to do with employment?
BLS regional offices
O rder form
□
This new chartbook,
produced by the staff
of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, answ ers
questions in under
standable— yet
technically a c c u r a te charts and captions.
The chartbook explains
what productivity is,
how it has changed
over the years, and
what factors have
contributed to that
change.
The 80 page chartbook, p riced at $5.00,
is available from the
Superintendent of
D ocum ents, U.S.
G overnm ent Printing
Office, W ashington,
D.C. 20402, or you
m ay send your order
to the BLS regional
office nearest you.
1603 JFK Federal Bldg.
Boston, Mass. 02203
P.O. Box 13309
Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
911 W alnut St.
Kansas City , Mo. 64106
Suite 3400
1515 B roadw ay
N ew York, N.Y. 10036
1371 P eachtree St., N.E.
Atlanta, Ga. 30367
9th Floor
Federal O ffice Bldg.
230 South D earborn St.
C hicago, III. 60604
2nd Floor
555 G riffin S quare Bldg.
Dallas, Tex. 75202
Please send _____copies of P ro d u c tiv ity a n d th e E c o n o m y : A C ha rtb o o k, B u lle tin 2172,
G P O S to ck No. 0 2 9 -0 0 1 -0 2 7 5 2 -4 , at $ 5 .0 0 pe r copy.
CD
CD
C h a rg e to m y G P O A c c o u n t n o . ________________________________________
□
C h a rg e to m y M a s te rc a rd * A c c o u n t n o . _________________________________E x p ira tio n da te
□
C h a rg e to m y V IS A * A c c o u n t n o . ________________________________________E x p ira tio n date
E n c lo se d is c h e c k or m o n e y o rd e r p a ya b le to th e S u p e rin te n d e n t of D o c u m e n ts.
* A v a ila b le only on o rd e rs se n t d ire c tly to th e S u p e rin te n d e n t of D o c u m e n ts.
Nam e
O rg a n iz a tio n
(if a p p lic a b le )
S tre e t a d d re ss
C ity, State,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
450 G olden G ate Ave.
Box 36017
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
U.S. D e p artm e n t of L ab o r
B ureau of L a b o r S tatistics
W a shin gton D .C. 2 0 2 1 2
O fficia l B usiness
P en alty fo r p riva te use, $ 3 0 0
R ETU R N PO S TA G E G U A R A N T E E D
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER