The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
No. 4-1179 T I ..J•..., I., • ~ r:.. t ' H E w 0 R s K p R 0 G R A M UN l ,;Jt;, l 9' . - IV - - - - .;. ,, ..,. l r"' - --------Works Progress Administration---------For Release in .Aft e rnoon Newspapers Thuri::-.day, May 23, 1936. Hopkins Reports Sli ght Bi s e in WPA Wa,~e Re.t es . Average wa ge rate s on \Vorks Progress Administration projects throughout the country showe d a sligh t ris e for the first half of A})ril, compared with the same p erio d in March, Administr n tor Harry L. Hopkins announced today. The April wr>.g e rate for all proj e cts averat;ed 43. 8 cents compared with 43 cents an hour for the M~i.rch period. While rates for most projects were slightly higher, no incre a se was gr,oa t e r than one cind a half cents. Hourly rf',tes incrcias ed in 39 States, showed no change in New York City and Delaware, encl de cr eas ,.:, d in eight States. In 2 6 St a tes, the increases were less than a cent an hour, Rnd :in only thr e e Stat e s we r e they more than two cents all hour. cents an hour. Ho wever, Al Rba!'.la I s rate increased by more than four In Iowa and Pens1Sylvr-tnia, the hourly rate was decreased by almost five cent s , while in Utah, Minnesota, and North D:1.kota the decrease WR.S about three cs nts. In genercl, hourly rates on all tyPes of projects are lower in the South and Southwest bec,rnse of the low e r wage ra.tes esta':>lishe d for that section of the cou..T1.tr~r. Two additional factor s are the pr 0dorainance in these s e ctions of r ural a:t eas in which t :ie 8 stablished rates are lowest. Also, projects involving the E:;,nTJ loyment of more than the av erage number of highly paid workers are gene rally concentr nt e d in urban areB.s. Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY No. 4 - 1179 - 2 - Variatio n s in the av e rag e hourly rate by type of p roject a re determine d large l y by the numb e r of skilled workers n e ede d on the various types of projects. Fo r p rojects involving t he use of relatively l a rge numbers of skille d workers, such as public building p r o jects and those classes of highway, ro a d and stree t p r o j e cts wh ich inv olve the constructi.on of stre e ts, a lleys, gutters, curb s a n d sidewalks, the hourly wage is hi gh e r t h an the average . On proj e cts whe r e mos t of the workers are unskilled, as on flood control a..~d othe r conse rvati on proj e cts, the a--.rerage h ourly wage i s be low t he average for all proj e cts • Ave rag e hourly rates of workers employe d on Work s Pro g ress Administration proj e cts for the first half of Ap ril, range d from 37 c e nts for all g oods and sanitation and he alth p rojects to 59. 8 ce nts on housing , 5 3 .8 ce nts on profe ssional and cle rical projects, and 5 8 .4 ce nts for educa ti onal p rojects. The hi ghest ave r age rat es for all proje cts in t he Ap ril p eriod we re 68 . 2 c e nts in New York City, 64.1 c e nts in Jfo vada, and 61. 8 c ents in Montana. Educa tio nal and professional and t e chnical p rojects show t h e hi ghest average hourly rat e s for the country as a whol e ( wit h t he excepti on of housing p rojects, i n ope rat ion in only 16 St a t e s and e mp loy ing only, 6, 500 p ersons), since t he e stablished rat e s for worke rs e mploye d are hi gh an d p ro,j 0 ct s are ge ne rally ope r a t ed in u rban are a s . Public bu il di ng s a nd r e cre ati onal p roj- ects al s o had ave rage hourly rat e s of 50 ce nts or mo r e but the ave rage for all proj e cts is g reatly we ighted by the more than 1,000, 000 worke rs employe d on the relatively low p a id hi g hway, road an d street project s . (Attac he d. are tables showing wage rates by t y2e of p roj e cts and by Stat e s.) Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY WORKS FROGRESS AVERAGE HOURLY EARN I NGS OF WORi<ET BY TYPt: 0 Ft RST HALF 0 HtGHWAYS STATE ALL PROJECTS ROADS ANO STREETS PUBLIC But LOINGS CTHER RECREATIONAL FACIL,1TIES .430 .387 .528 .500 ALABAMA ARIZONA ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA COLORADO .234 .385 .213 ·a25 . 09 •211 .379 .200 .47g .391 .284 .406 .262 .245 .382 .229 .,28 • 22 CONNECTICUT .562 .376 .515 .377 •)Pg · 735 .509 . c:1.J.O ·)10 .269 .233 .377 .535 .385 .~82 .246 .238 :a~~ .409 .340 . 396 .393 .383 .297 •)71 .476 ·a4~ .221 .319 ~391 .375 .561 . 200 .235 MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI MONTANA .447 .506 .225 .362 .597 NEBRASKA NEVADA NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW MEXI co UNITED STATES DELAWARE DISTRICT FLORIDA OF Jg~ COLUMBIA GEORGIA IOAHO I LLI NOi S INOIANA IOWA KANSAS MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN MINNESOTA NEW YORK CITY NEW YORK STATE (ExCL. NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA OHIO N.Y.C.) OKLAHOMA OREGON •} I I • 36 .490 .454 .314 .420 .422 .332 .22~ .404 .420 .446 .769 .278 .358 .39q .374 .532 .412 .457 • 199 .316 .558 .500 .636 .216 .363 .472 .516 .230 .371 .542 .382 .550 .382 . 506 .353 .34~ .660 .362 .484 .338 .399 .86~ .38 .576 .387 -~68 . 82 . 682 .5,l . 23 .4I I .482 .593 .462 .208 )81 .450 .800 .648 .244 .412 .656 .698 .596 .23g .410 .482 .226 .462 .214 .445 . 22a .44 .251 .412 .312 KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MAINE MARYLAND .608 .427 ~"''' .377 r, : • ..,"Z c:o .504 ~f'\A . 656 C.r, rY Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY -a10 . ~4 0 3b3 . ~~(i
@FedFRASER