EMPLOYMENT-UNEMPLOYMENT - Joint Economic Committee

EMPLOYMENT-UNEMPLOYMENT

HEARINGSBEFORE THE

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEECONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

NINETY-SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

PART 15AUGUST 3, SEPTEMBER 7, OCTOBER 5, NOVEMBER 2,

AND DECEMBER 7, 1979

Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee

57-254 0

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1980

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, D.C. 20402

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

(Created pursuant to sec. 5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Cong.)

LLOYD BENTSEN, Texas, ChairmanRICHARD BOLLING, Missouri, Vice Chairman

SENATEWILLIAM PROXMIRE, WisconsinABRAHAM RIBICOFF, ConnecticutEDWARD M. KENNEDY, MassachusettsGEORGE McGOVERN, South DakotaPAUL S. SARBANES, MarylandJACOB K. JAVITS, New YorkWILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., DelawareJAMES A. McCLURE, IdahoROGER W. JEPSEN, Iowa

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HENRY S. REUSS, WisconsinWILLIAM S. MOORHEAD, PennsylvaniaLEE H. HAMILTON, IndianaGILLIS W. LONG, LouisianaPARREN J. MITCHELL, MarylandCLARENCE J. BROWN, OhioMARGARET M. HECKLER, MassachusettsJOHN H. ROUSSELOT, CaliforniaCHALMERS P. WYLIE, Ohio

JOHN M. ALBERTINE, Executive DirectorLouis C. KRAUTHOFF II, Assistant Director-Director, SSECRICHARD F. KAUFMAN, Assistant Director-General Counsel

CHARLES H. BRADFORD, Minority Counsel

(II)

-9

CONTENTS

WITNESSES AND STATEMENTS

FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 1979

Proxmire, Hon. William, member of the Joint Economic Committee, presid- Pageing: Opening statement -1--- --- I

Norwood, Hon. Janet L., Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics, De-partment of Labor, accompanied by W. John Layng, Assistant Com-missioner, Office of Prices and Living Conditions; and Robert L. Stein,Assistant Commissioner, Office of Current Employment Analysis 2

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1979

Bentsen, Hon. Lloyd, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee: Open-ing statement - 221

Norwood, Hon. Janet L., Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics, De-partment of Labor, accompanied by Rober L. Stein, Assistant Com-missioner, Office of Current Employment Analysis; and W. John Layng,Assistant Commissioner, Office of Prices and Living Conditions -222

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1979


Proxmire, Hon. William, member of the Joint Economic Committee: Open-ing statement - 272

Norwood, Hon. Janet L., Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics, De-Fartment of Labor, accompanied by W. John Layng, Assistant Com-missioner, Office of Prices and Living Conditions; and Robert L. Stein,Assistant Commissioner, Office of Current Employment Analysis- 275

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1979


Norwood, Hon. Janet L., Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics,Department of Labor, accompanied by W. John Layng, Assistant Com-missioner, Office of Prices and Living Conditions; and Robert L. Stein,Assistant Commissioner, Office of Current Employment Analysis -316

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1979

Bentsen, Hon. Lloyd, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee: Openingstatement -349

Proxmire, Hon. William, member of the Joint Economic Committee:Opening Statement - 350

Norwood, Hon. Janet L., Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics,Department of Labor, accompanied by W. John Layng, AssistantCommissioner, Office of Prices and Living Conditions; and Robert L.Stein, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Current Employment Analvsis- 360

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD


Norwood, Hon. Janet L., et al.:Table reflecting unemployment rates by alternative seasonal adjusted

methods -_------_--_-- _-Press release No. 79-556 entitled "The Employment Situation:

July 1979," Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor,August 3, 1979 -_- 6

(mi)

IV

Norwood, Hon. Janet L., et al.-ContinuedResponse to Senator Proxmire's query regarding the effect of a PageChrysler bankruptcy on unemployment -31Response to Senator Sarbanes' request to supply the different rela-tionships between gross national product declines and unemploy-ment rate increases exhibited in past recessions - 35Response to Senator Sarbanes' query regarding the employment-population ratio of 20 years ago - 37Tabular response to Senator Sarbanes' query regarding a comparisonof the U.S. unemployment-population ratios with other countries.. 37Bulletin entitled "International Comparisons of Unemployment," to-gether with a supplement - _ 39


Norwood, Hon. Janet L., et al.:Table reflecting unemployment rates by alternative seasonal adjustedmethods - _- - -- _ ------------------------- 225Press release No. 79-640 entitled "The Employment Situation: August1979," Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, Septem-ber 7, 1979 - __ 226Response to Senator Javits' request to correlate the decline in produc-tivity with the increase in inflation - 262

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1979Bentsen, Hon. Lloyd:Chart reflecting teenage unemployment, 16 to 19 years- 272Norwood, Hon. Janet L., et al.:Table reflecting unemployment rates by alternative seasonal adjustedmethods -_--_--- -- -- -- - 279Press release No. 79-694 entitled "The Employment Situation:September 1979," Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor,October 5, 1979 -__ 281Response to Senator Proxmire's query regarding the 3.5-percent decline

in the hourly earnings index during the 12-month period ending inAugust 1979 - _--_-------- _-- 302Response to Senator Proxmire's query regarding the last time employ-ment had an over-the-month increase of 610,000 jobs -303


Norwood, Hon. Janet L., et al.:Table reflecting unemployment rates by alternative seasonal adjustedmethods- - _- ------------------------------------ 320Press release No. 79-765 entitled "The Employment Situation: Octo-ber 1979," Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, No-vember 2, 1979 - 321


Norwood, Hon. Janet L., et al.:Table reflecting unemployment rates by alternative seasonal adjustedmethods ----------------------------------- 353Press release No. 79-860 entitled "The Employment Situation: No-vember 1979," Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor,December 7, 1979 -_ 355Response to written questions posed by Senator Bentsen on themeasurement of the underground economy - 374Study entitled "International Comparisons of Productivity and LaborCosts in the Steel Industry; United States, Japan, France, Germany,United Kingdom; 1964 and 1972 78"-387

Study entitled "Output per Hour, Hourly Compensation, and UnitLabor Costs in Manufacturing, 11 Countries, 1950-78, AverageAnnual Rates of Change" ------ 391



CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE,

Washington, D.C.The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 6226,

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. William Proxmire (member ofthe committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Proxmire and Sarbanes.Also present: John M. Albertine, executive director; Richard F.

Kaufmnan, assistant director-general counsel; Lloyd C. Atkinson,William R. Buechner, Paul B. Manchester, and M. Catherine Miller,professional staff members; Mark Borchelt, administrative assistant;and Mark R. Policinski and Peter Turza, minority professional staffmembers.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PROXMIRE, PREsIDING

Senator PROXMIRE. The committee will come to order. Commissione-Norwood and gentlemen, we are delighted to see you. And I want tocongratulate you, Commissioner Norwood, on that splendid articlein the New York Times about you. I put it in the Congressional Recordand it was very laudatory. I hope you saw it, because it indicated whata remarkably fine job you've done as Commissioner and how much indebt we are to you for the way you've handled our economic statistics.

Commissioner, we seem to have two worlds now. On the one hand,the very gloomy statistics, the administration revising their forecastssaying they are in a recession, the new Secretary of the Treasurysaying the same, new orders are down, productivity is down, GNPdown, retail sales down, construction spending down; and yet on theother hand the statistics you give us, which are probably the deepestand strongest we have on employment and unemployment arereassuring.

Here we have a situation where unemployment has not deteriorated.It remains at about 5.7 and at about the same level it has been at forquite a while. We are still at a record level in the proportion of theAmericans who are at work and the number of people at work, ofcourse, is higher than it has ever been. We had an increase of what-450,000 in jobs last month. Now, most of that was outside the estab-lishment sector and the establishment data indicate that there is nochange, but that no change seems to contradict everything else. So itis a puzzling situation. Maybe you can reconcile this situation in youranswers to our questions.

(1)

2

But it is perplexing and it's difficult for us, who are responsible fortax policies and spending policies and so forth up here on the Hill. Wewould like very much to have your analysis of what situation we reallydo confront.

STATEMENT OF HON. JANET L. NORWOOD, COMMISSIONER, BUREAUOF LABOR STATISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ACCOMPANIEDBY W. JOHN LAYNG, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OFPRICES AND LIVING CONDITIONS; AND ROBERT L. STEIN,ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF CURRENT EMPLOYMENTANALYSIS

Ms. NORWOOD. Thank you very much, Senator. I am certainlyglad to have this opportunity to offer a few brief comments to supple-ment our press release, "The Employment Situation: July 1979,"issued this morning at 9 a.m.

Total employment, as measured by the household survey, rose by450,000 between June and July. The labor force also increased andunemployment was essentially unchanged. Following a sharp drop inApril, the employment-population ratio has now returned to its pre-vious alltime peak recorded in March.

Recent monthly changes in nonfarm payroll employment, as meas-ured by the establishment survey, have followed a somewhat differentpath. Nonf arm payroll employment did not decline in April andadvanced only moderately in recent months. From the perspective ofthe 4 months from March to July, however, nonfarm employment hasrisen by about one-half million, according to both the payroll and thehousehold surveys. This average monthly gain has been considerablysmaller than that which occurred during the job expansion of 1978and early 1979.

When compared with July 1978, both surveys show an over-the-yearincrease of about 2.8 million in nonfarm employment. During the1977-78 period, however, both surveys showed a considerably largerjob expansion.

The unemployment rate was 5.7 percent in July, close to the levelit has maintained since August 1978. The unemployment rate foradult men edged up over the month while that for women declinedslightly. All of the employment growth between June and July wasamong women. Jobless rates for young workers and for black workerscontinued to be comparatively high. However, unemployment ratesfor these groups have shown no tendency to rise in recent months,and, in June and July, were at the lower end of the range that hasprevailed during 1978 and 1979.

Although employment has surpassed its March level, the averageworkweek of production or nonsupervisory workers has remained

3

below the March level. The index of aggregate hours which reflectstrends in both employment and hours in the private nonfarm economy,was unchanged in July, but remained 0.6 point below its previouspeak recorded in March.

In the manufacturing sector there have been small but persistentcutbacks in employment since March. About 130,000 employees havebeen dropped from payrolls and the workweek has been reduced by0.6 hour, mostly in overtime hours. Aggregate hours of factory pro-duction workers have declined by a little more than 2 percent sinceMarch. Much of this decline has been in the transportation equipmentindustry group, primarily automobiles and trucks. Although therewas a slight rebound in July, the cumulative decline in aggregatehours in transportation equipment has been about 6 percent sinceMarch.

National labor market indicators have been emitting mixed signalsin recent months. Total employment from the household survey hasrisen sharply in June and July, in contrast to the much smaller gainsin the payroll employment survey. It appears likely that the house-hold survey data reflect a rebound from the temporarily depressedApril level and not a new surge of employment growth. Unemploy-ment increased slightly in July among adult men and full-time workers,but, so far, this has been only a 1-month development, and therehave been no new adverse trends among women, teenagers, or blacks,or in long-duration unemployment. On the other hand, there has beena significant decline in the employment and hours of factory produc-tion workers since March.

In recent weeks, there has been much speculation in the press aboutrecession, and economists have developed forecasts of the impact ofthe energy problem on the economic health of the country. Insome cases, the standard economic indicators have been difficult tointerpret.

The identification of a recession is based upon a technical definitionwhich involves evaluation of a wide range of data over a period ofmany months. In these circumstances, I would like to provide to thecommittee my view of the facts now available to us.

Because survey data fluctuate from month to month, an assessmentof the employment situation really needs to be made from the per-spective of a longer period. Over the last few months, one of the mostvigorous employment expansions in our history has slowed down, andsome signs of weakening have developed in the economy.

The second quarter's decline in production lowered the already poorproductivity performance for the private business sector still further,as employers adjusted their output before reducing their work forces.Since March, employment in manufacturing has been weak, and hoursof work, one of the best leading indicators of future labor market de-velopments, declined. Increased unemployment in the motor vehicleindustry, if continued, will reduce the demand for the output of in-dustries which supply materials used in automobile production.

4

In spite of these developments, however, the unemployment ratehas remained in the 5.6 to 5.9 percent range for most of the year, asthe phenomenal labor force growth of the last few years has slowedconsiderably. Energy prices have climbed dramatically, contributingstill further to the already high rates of inflation, and real earningshave steadily declined.

THE MEASUREMENT OF HOMEOWNERSHIP IN THE CPI

Over the last few weeks, renewed interest has been expressed in thetreatment of homeownership costs in the Consumer Price Index.Because complex issues of both concept and measurement techniquesare involved, I believe it might be useful for me to review them briefly.

At present, as in the past, changes in the homeownership componentof the CPI reflect changes in the price of houses as well as other costsassociated with their purchase and use. The relative importance-weight-of owned homes in the CPI reflects the purchase and mortgageinterest expenditures for only those houses bought in the base period;expenditures and mortgage interest costs for houses purchased inprevious years are not included.

During the recently completed CPI revision program, the BLS staffproposed the use of a flow of services concept to replace the purchaseprice concept presently used. The principal argument for the changewas that the purchase of a home involves both a consumption and aninvestment decision. The staff proposal was to separate the investmentaspect of the purchase of a home from the consumption aspect and torepresent only the latter in the CPI.

During the revision period, BLS experimented with two approachesto the measurement of a flow of services concept. The first, a rentalequivalency measure, suggests that rents for houses similar to thoselived in by their owners be used to measure the cost of shelter providedby owned homes. The second approach-development of a user costfunction-made use of actual house prices, but contained adjustmentsdesigned to deal with the investment aspects of owning a home.

In accordance with longstanding BLS policy of full public discussionof important and controversial measurement questions, we discussedthe homeownership issue in published articles and reviewed the issuewith our business and labor advisory groups, as well as with repre-sentatives of other Government agencies and of academia.

Although some of those consulted believed that the concept shouldbe changed, few were convinced that the new concept could beeffectively measured in the CPI. Under these circumstances, theBureau decided not to change the treatment of home purchase in therevised CPL We are, of course, continuing our research in this area.

My colleagues and I will now be glad to answer any questions youmay have.

[The table attached to Ms. Norwood's statement, together with theEmployment Situation press release referred to, follows:]

a

UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY ALTERNATIVE SEASONAL ADJUSTED METHODS

Uit

Month and year

(I

1978July -- - - - - -August ------September ----October -- -November ---December ----

Jnad-istedrate

_ _

Standard X-11 method

Con-Official current

(2) (3)

Stable Total Residual

(4) (5) (6)

RangeExtrap- Con- (cols.

olated current 2-8)

(7) (8) (9)

6.3 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.1 0.15.8 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.9 .15.7 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.9 .15.4 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.8 .15.5 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 .15.6 5.9 5.9 6.0 5.8 6.0 5.9 5.9 .2

1979

January. 6.4 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.8 5.8 .3February 6.4 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.5 5.7 5.8 .3March - - 6.1 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.7 .2Anril - - 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 .1My - - 5.2 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.7 .2June- - 6.0 5. 6 5.7 5. 5 5. 7 5.6 5. 6 5.7 .2July------- - 5.8 5. 7 5.7 5. 6 5. 8 5.7 5.7 5.7 .2

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 1979.

NOTES TO TABLE COLUMN NUMBERS

(1) Unadjusted rate-Unemployment rate not seasonally adjusted.(2) Official rate (standard X-11 method)-The published seasonally adjusted rate. Each of the 3 major labor force

components-agricultural employment, nonagricultural employment and unemployment data-for 4 age-sex groups(males and females under and over 20 years of age) are separately adjusted then added to derive seasonally adjustedtotal figures. Teenage unemployment and nonagricultural employment are adjusted by the standard X-11 method'sadditive option, while all other series are adjusted by the multiplicative option. Adult male unemployment is adjustedmultiplicatively using the prior trend adjustment feature of the X-11. The rate is computed by adding the 12 componentsto a civilian labor force total, and dividing and derived civilian labor force into the unemployment total. These series arerevised at the end of each year. Factors for the current year are computed at the beginning of the year for the 12 succeed-ing months, and published in advance.

The current "implicit" factors for the overall unemployment rate, derived by dividing the original unemploymentrate by the seasonally adjusted rate for the months of 1978, are: January (111.1), February (112.0) March (106.7), Agri(94.6), May (89.5), June (105.6), July (102.1) August (98.5), September (97.3), October (93.1), November (95.7) Decemner

(3) Concurrent (standard (X-11 method)-The procedure for computation of the official rate is followed, except thatthe data are re-seasonally adjusted by the standard X-11 method each month as the most recent data become availa.ble,i.e., the rate for January 1979 is based on adjustment of data for the period, January 1967-January 1979. The rates forthe current year are shown as first computed, while data for 1978 are as revised to incorporate experience through Decem -ber 1978.

(4) Stable (standard X-11 method)-The stable seasonal option of the standard X-11 method uses final seasonal fac-tors computed as an unweighted average of all seasonal-irregular ratios for the entire span of the period, January 1967-December 1978. In essence. this procedure assumes that seasonal patterns are relatively constant from year-to-year.The unweighted average is updated and series revised at the end of each year.

(5) Total (standard X-11 method)-This is an alternative aggregation procedure, in which total unemployment andlabor force levels are directly adjusted by the standard X-11 (multiplicative option) to derive the rate. The series are re-vised at the end of each year.

(6) Residual (standard X-11 method)The labor force and employment levels are adjusted directly, with the level ofunemployment derived as a residual. The rate is computed by dividing the residual unemployment level by the directlyadjusted civilian labor force. The series are revised at the end of each year.

(7) Extrapolated (X-11 ARIMA method)-Data for the 12 component groups of the unemployment rate are estimatedusing ARI MA (autoregressive, integrated, moving average) models. The enlarged series is then seasonally adjusted withthe X-11 program, and the rates are computed as in the official procedure. The series are revised at the end of each year.Factors for the current year are extrapolated at the beginning of the year for the 12 succeeding months.

(8) Concurrent (X-11 ARIMA)-The procedure for computation of the X-11 ARIMA rate is followed, except that thedata are re-seasonally adjusted each month as the most recent data become available, i.e., the rate for January 1979 isbased on adjustment of data for the period, January 1967-January 1979. The rates for the current year are shown as firstcomputed, while data for 1978 are revised to reflect experience through December 1978.

Methods of Adjustment-The standard X-11 method was developed by Julius Shiskin at the Bureau of the Census.The method is described in X-11 Variant of the Census Method 11 Seasonal Adjustment Program, by Julius Shiskin, AlanYoung, and John Musgrave (Technical Paper No. 15. Bureau of the Census, 1967).

The X-11 ARIMA method was developed atStatistics Canada by Estela Bee Dagum and is the official method for season-ally adjusting the Canadian labor force series. A general description of the method is contained in "A Comparison andAssessment of Seasonal Adjustment Methods for Employment and Unemployment Statistics," by Estela Bee Dagum(Background Paper No. 5, U.S. National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics. February 1978).

y 11 RM m.nP

6

United States

DepartmentBureau of Labor Statistics Washington, D.C. 20212

Contact: Philip Rones (202) 523-1944 USDL 79-556Rohert Bodnarik 523-1371 TRANSMISSION OF MATERIAL IN THIS RELEASE ISKathryn Boyle (202) 523-1913 EMBARGOED UNTIL 9:00 A.M. (EDT). FRIDAY,

523-1208 AUGUST 3, 1979

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: JULY 1979

Total employnent rose in July and useuploymuest was virtually unchanged, the Bureau of Labor

Statistics of the U.S. Deportoest of Labor reported today. The Nation'u overall unenploysment

rate was 5.7 percent, little different fro= the June rate of 5.6 percent and similar to those

which have prevailed sitae August 1978.

Total enploynent--as seasured by the soothly survey of households--rosa by 450,000 to 97.2

nillion. In contrast, nonfarn payroll naploynent--as seasured by the annthly survey of

establishnentn--was about uschanged over the onuth at 88.8 million. Over the past year and also

since March, however, the two surveys have registered conparable net growth in nonagricultural

enplny.ent.

U.n.plovlen t

Both the useoploynent rate, 5.7 percent, and the nuhber of unemployed, 5.8 million, were

ubout the sane as in June, and have resaised sear these levels since last August. An increase

in the rate of joblessness for adult nen (to 4.1 percent) was about offset by a slight decrease

in the rate for adult women (to 5.5 percent). Married won and wosen who head fanilies both

experienced slight declines in their uneuploy.ent rate, while the rate for -arried nen

increaned. The jobless rate for teenagers, which had declined 1-1/2 percentage points in June

to 15.3 percent, was unchanged in July. Th. overull une-ploy.ent situation for both blachk and

whites wan about unchanged fron June. (See tables A-l and A-2.)

A..ong the uneoployad, the nunber who had lost their last Job rose by 175,000 in July, while

those s.hking their first job declined by over 90,000. The nedias duration of usemployne.t

edged op above 6 weeks, as increases were registered in the number of persons unenplnyed betwano

5 and 14 weeks. (See tables A-4 and A-5.)

Total FEplnyent and the Labor Forno

Total noploynent in July advanced by 450,000 to 97.2 million. This increase, coupled with

gains in May and Jone, raised the numher of employed persons 370,000 above the March level. The

crpluynrvt-populatin ratio returned to its February-March record level of 59.4 percent.

7

The entire Joly increase in employment took plane among adolt women, as both white and black

women posted strong gains. AdMlt males of both races had about the -ame employment levels as

they had in June; teenage employment was also about onchanged.

The civilian labor force grew by 530,000 over the month to 103.1 million, 2.4 million above

ito year-earlier level. Host of this labor force growth occorred before March. At 63.8

percent, the civilian labor force participotion rate was a half point above a year earlier.

AdMlt nomes accounted for most of the over-the-year increase in labor force participation; their

participation rate in July was a record 50.7 percent. (See table A-I.)

Table A. Major indicators of labor market activity, seasonally adjosted

I Quarterly averages I Monthly data

Selected Categories l l l

1978 I 1979 1979

1 II f III I IV I I | II I MacI June I JulyHOUSEHOLD DATA I

I Thousands of perso.sCivilian labor frce .......... 1100.1271100,7531101,5241102,47511,2 102,21471102,5281103,059

Total noplnyneot ......... 1 94,0991 94,7261 95.6161 96,5961 96,4151 96,3181 96,7541 97,210Unenplyno.t .1 6,0281 6,0271 5,9081 5,8781 5,8801 5,9291 5,7741 5,848

Not in labor force. 1 58,4781 58,4821 58,3981 58,0951 58,8861 58,9351 58,8651 58,545Discooraged worker. 1 8511 8531 7601 7241 8261 N.A.l N.A.I N.A.

I Percent of labor forceUne.ploy.est ratos: i I I I I I I I

All workoro ................ 1 6.01 6.01 5.81 5.71 5.71 5.81 5.61 5.7Adolt no.. ................ 1 4.21 4.11 4.01 4.01 3.91 391 3191 4.1Adult women. ................ 1 6.11 6.11 5.81 5.71 5.71 5.81 5.81 5.5Teenagers ................ 1 16.11 16.11 16.31 15.81 16.21 16.81 15.31 15.3Whit ................ 1 5.21 5.21 5.11 5.01 4.91 5s01 4.91 4.9Black and other . ............... 1 12-11 11.71 11.51 11.41 11.61 11.61 11.31 10.8FPll-tine w ke r ................ 1 5.51 5.51 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.11 5.3

ESTABLISHMENT DATA II Thoosands of lobs

Nonfart payroll noploynent ........ 1 85,6771 86,1151 86,9631 8

7,8 6 8

18 8

,49

9pI 88,539188,709pl88,75

3p

Gondo-producing induntriev.....1 25.3761 25,4781 25,8571 26,241126,408pl 26,423126,45lpl26,445pService-producing industries.... 6083021 60,6371 61.1061

61.62

81

62.090pl 6

2,11

61

6 2,

258pl

6 2,

30

8p

Hones of workAverage woekly honrs: II I I I

Total private nonfr ............ 36.01 35.81 35.91 35.81 35.6

p1 35-71 357

p1 35.7p

M.anofactrig.................I1 40.61 40.41 40.61 40.71 39.8

p1 40.21 40.1pl 40.2p

Manofacturing overtie ........... 3.61 3.51 3.71 3.81 3.

2p| 3.41 3-3p| S.3p

p-preli.iniry N.A.-uut available

8

Irdustry Payroll Employnest

Nonfarn payroll employment was essentially unchanged in July at 88.8 million, following

moderate growth over the prior 3 months; this was in marked contrast to the sharp job increases

which occurred in the 6-month period around the turn of the year. In July, job gains took place

in 51 percent of the 172 industries comprising the BLS diffusion indem of nonfarm payroll

employment. (See tables B-I and B-6.)

Employment in the goods-producing sector was unchanged from June, as gains in mining and

construction (including nearly 10,000 returning strikers) were offset by a reduction in

manufacturing. The largest manufacturing declines occurred in nondurable goods, with

reductions of 35,000 in food processing and 20,000 in leather. Within the durable goods

industries, decreases of 15,000 each took place in the fabricated metal and miscellaneous

manufacturing industries, and there was a 10,000 cutback in primary metals. Total factory

employment has dropped by about 130,000 since March.

Employment in the service-producing sector was little changed over the month. Small job

gains were evident in the services industry and in finance, insurance, and real estate, while

the other service-producing industries remained at about June levels.

louts

The average workweek of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural

.a- rolls was 35.7 hours in July. unchanged from both June and May. Manufacturing hours edged up

a tenth of an hour over the month, a return to the May level. Factory overtime, at 3.3 hours,

was unchanged fron June. All three of these indicators were still below March levels. (See

table B-2.)

Reflecting the leveling in both employment and weekly hours over the month, the index of

aggregate weekly hours was unchanged in July. The inden was up 2.9 percent from July 1978,

r.eulting entirely from the strong over-the-year employment growth. (See table B-5.)

--"., -d -eekly Earnings

Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural

oayrolls rose 0.7 percent in July and were 8.1 percent above the July 1978 level (seasonally

9

adjusted). Average weekly earnings also rose 0.7 percent in July and were up 7.5 percent over

the year.

Before adjustnent for seasonality, average hourly earnings rose 4 cents in July to $6.15, 46

cents above July 1978; average weekly earnings were $221.40 in July, $1.44 above June and $14.85

above July 1978. (See table B-3.)

The Hourly Sarniocs Index

The Hourly Earnings Index--earnings adjusted for overtine in Manufacturing, seasonality, and

the effects of changes in the proportion of workers in high-wage and low-wage industries--was

230.3 (1967-100) in July, 0.7 percent higher than in June. The index was 7.6 percent above July

a year ago. During the 12-nonth period ended in June, the Hourly Earnings Index in dollars of

constant purchasing power declined 3.0 percent. (See table B-4.)

10

Explanatory Note

This release presents and analyzes statistics fromtwo major surveys. Data on labor force, total emplov-ment, and unemployment (A tables) are derived fromthe Current Population Survey-a sample survey ofhouseholds which is conducted by the Bureau of theCensus for the Bureau of Labor St atistics. Beginnin' inSeptember 1975, the sample was enlarged by 9,000households in order to provide greater reliability forsmaller States anid thus permit the lublication of annualstatistics for all 50 States and the District of Columbia.These supplementary households were added to the47,000 national household sample in January 1978; thusthe sample now consists of about 56,000 householdsselected to represent the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalpopulation 16 years and over.

Statistics on nonagricultural payroll employment,hours, and earnings (B tables) are collected by theBureau of Labor Statistics, in cooperation with Stateagencies, from payroll records of a sample of approxi-mately 165,000 establishments. Unless otherwise indi-cated, data for both statistical series relate to the weekcontaining the 12th day of the specified month.

Comparability of household and payrollemployment statistics

Employment data from the household and payrollsurveys differ in several basic respects. The householdsurvey provides information on the labor force activityof the entire civilian noninstitutional population, 16years of age and over, without duplication. Each personis classified as either employed, unemployed, or not inthe labor force. The household survey counts employedpersons in both agriculture and nonagriculturalindustries and, in addition to wage and salary workers(including private household workers), counts the self-employed, unpaid family workers, and persons "with ajob but not at work" and not paid for the period absent.

The payroll survey relates only to paid wage andsalary employees (regardless of age) on the payrolls ofnonagricultural establishments. Persons who worked atmore than one job during the survey week or otherwiseappear on more than one payroll are counted more thanonce in the establishment survey. Such persons arecounted only once in the household survey and areclassified in the job at which they worked the greatestnumber of hours.

Unemployment

To be classified in the household survey asunemployed an ildividual must: (I) Have been without a

job during the survey week: (2) have made specificefforts to find employ ment sometime diiring the prior 4weeks; and (3) be presently available for I.. Inaddition, persons on layoff and those wailing to login anew job (within 30 da ys), neither of i'hom mnst meetthe jobseeking requirements, are also classified asunemployed. The anemplosed total iniliudes all perSonswho satisfactorily meet the above criteria. regardlessof their eligibility for unemployment iusiiranee benefitsor any kind of public assistance. The unemployment raterepresents the unemployed as a proportion of thecivilian labor force (the employed and unemployedcombined).

The Bureau regularly publishes a wide variety oflabor market measures. See, for example, the demo-graphic, occupational, and industry detail in tables A-2and A-3 of this release and the comprehensivedata package in Employment and Earnings each month.A special grouping of seven unemployment measures isset forth in table A-7. Identified by the symbols U-tthrough U-7, these measures represent a range ofpossible definitions of unemployment and of the laborforce-from the most restrictive (U-1) to the mosteomprehensive (U-7). The official rate of unemploymentappears as U-5.

Seasonal adjustment

Nearly all economic phenomena are affected tosome degree by seasonal variations. These arerecurring, predictable events which are repeated moreor less regularly each year-changes in weather, openingand closing of schools, major holidays, industry produc-tlion schedules, etc. The cumulative effects of theseevents are often large. For example, on average overthe year, they explain about 95 percent of the month-to-month variance in the unemployment figures. Sinceseasonal variations tend to be large relative to theunderlying cyclical trends, it is necessary to useseasonally-adjusted data to interpret short-termeconomic developments. At the beginning of each year,seasonal adjustment factors for unemployment andother labor force series are calculated for use duringthe entire year, taking into aecount the prior year'sexpericence.

All seasonally-adjusted civilian labor force andunemployment rate statistics, as well as the majoremployment and unemployment estimates, are com-puted by aggregating independently adjusted series.The official unemployment rate for all civilian workersis derived by dividing the estimate for total unem-

11

ployment (the sum of four seasonally-adjusted age-sexcomponents) by the civilian labor force (the sum of 12seasonally-adjustcd age-sex components).

For establishment data, the scasonally-adjustedseries for all employees, production workers, averageweekly hours, and average hourly earnings are adjustedby aggregating the seasonally-adjusted data from therespective component series. These data are alsorevised annually, often in conjunction with benchmark(comprehensive counts of employment) adjustments.(The most recent revision of seasonally-adjusted datawas based on data through May 1978.)

Sampling variability

Both the household and establishment surveystatistics are subject to sampling error, which should betaken into account in evaluating the levels of a series aswell as changes over time. Because the householdsurvey is based upon a probability sample, the resultsmay differ from the figures that would be obtained if itwere possible to take a complete census using the samequestionnaires and procedures. The standard error is themeasure of sampling variability, that is, of the variationthat occurs by chance because a sample.rather than theentire population is surveyed. The chances are about 68out of 100 that an estimate from the survey differsfrom a figure that would be obtained through acomplete census by less than the standard error. TablesA through I in the "Explanatory Notes" of Employmentand Earnings provide approximations of the standarderrors rforunemployment and other labor forcecategories. To obtain a 90-percent level of confidence,the confidence interval generally used by BLS, theerrors should be multiplied by 1.6. The followingexamples provide an indication of the magnitude ofsampling error: For a monthly change in total em-

ployment, the standard error is on the order of plus orminus 182,000. Similarly, the standard error on a chlmgein total unemployment is approximately 115,000. Thestandard error on a change in the national unemploy-ment rate is 0.12 percentage point.

Although the relatively large size of the monthIvestablishment survey assures A high degree of accuracy,the estimates derived from it also may differ from thefigures obtained if a complete census using the sauteschedules and procedures were possible. IHoever. sincethe estimating procedures utilize the previous month'slevel as the base in computing the current month's levelof employment (link-relative technique), sampling andresponse errors may accumulate over several months.To remove this accumulated error, the etploementestimates are adjusted to new benichtiarks(comprehensive counts of employment), iisiial] on anannual basis. In addition to taking account of samplingand response errors, the benchmark revision adjusts theestimates for chaiiges in the industrial classificacton ofindividual establishments. Employment estimates arecurrently projected from March 1977 lcvels

One measure of the reliability of the en ploymentestimates for individual industries is the root-meun-square error (RMSE). The RNSE is the standard devia-tion adjusted for the bias in estimates. If the bias issmall, the chances are about 68 out of 100 that anestimate from the sample would differ from its bench-mark by less than the RNISE. For total nonagriculturalemployment, the RMSE is on the order of plus or minus81,800. Measures of reliability (approximations of theRMSE) for establishment-survey data and actualamounts of revision due to benchmark adjustments areprovided in tables K through P in the "ExplanatoryNotes" of Employment and Earning:.

_ _JllS July-r. Up_ J.|@ Jolt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,, IJ:[~i :81979 19179 1 I978' 1 1 1 7' 197 *97 I I

12

, � -- - - F.- ft- - - O- � - -; �, --- � . . - . - - -- -� - - -. .O- - �.*- -

HOUSEHOLD DATA HOUSEHOLD DATATole A-1. Empbymmnt status of theow _ttmlnal ppdiD_@-m |

=aT-� p . . ........................... 161, 14 a 16 3, 469 16 3,60S 161, 148 162.9 09 163,008 16 3, 260 16 3,.69 16 3, 695

""o ....................................... 2, III 2, 076 2,D82 2, 116 I'm I'm 2 078 2. *76 2, 082

. . .. ....................... 159, 032 1 61 , 393 161.04 15 9,032 1 60,8 19 160, 926 161, Is 2 161, 39 3 161, 60.. . ................................. 702, 639 104. 153 1 04, 995 100,622 102.71. 102, III 13 2, 2.7 102, II R 103, 019ft..p . . ............................ 6..5 64. 5 6 5. 0 6 3. 3 6 1. - 63.S 6 3.4 61. 5 63. 8

E.o- . ...................................... 96, 20 2 97, 91 7 98, 891 9.. 44 6 96.8.2 -6, 17. 96.31 A 96,7S. 97, 210

.................. S9.7 59. 9 II. . SRA 59. . 59. ) SO. a sq. 7 59. -...... . 93

1.2.o 32:19 1 ..I: III I : .1 I .1 91 1. 3. 1 3, 1 R6 I"R.

v.. P-� . ............. ...... ::' 6,..38 6,2'35 6, I'l. 1, oll" ":.919 9 I : 911117 91' :9' 2'9' "" '191: ":9:1U-.o . . ....................... 6. 3 6.0 5.8 6 .61 I 5.71 I S.- 5.a S_ S.,

. . . .................................. 56, 39 3 57,2*0 5 6,609 5 9,4 10 58,105 18,81S 18, 9 3 5 SRR65 S 1, W,11:1,1 1 6 81: : I : .6 'I '2 6 1 : 6 'I 'I 661 :7 1 7 1 .1: 11 IO

I 2 2,;

6 I , 6 7: 7e'I 'I I' '7 7 7 9 6 6I I60 9 6 8 8 3 9 3

. . . ................................. 53, III I Iol 6 .1 I I i .1 0 1, 13;1071 54'... S.,I� 3 S',26 1 5 4, 3 "5"'1� . ............................ I I

e.. 1 71.- 79. 7 79.1 11"" 57,117 $2.2-9 52,1;�

E..- 1� ...................................... " , ;O 52, 8;2 52,94 51,2;- 52,16. 51

I7S.5 75.6 75.7 74.S 75.1 7. 7 I.,;7

'o-

212�1 2,2 ;7 11;,l '71.,2,S99 '."'I ':S" 2,11I

I..3 .9:, 9�

.. ........ 2., I 3 .-,7.1 .9,PR3 ��:3I.....I. ................. : .................. 2.076 O,0OI 1,1143.6 '2:'I'.4 '92:91"O 2,187 2,105 2,011 2,?"R.................................. ';3' I3,3;' , , -1 I. .............. ......... 3.9 4.1 13.0 7 13.218 13.639 13,.;%o 13,% O ll,.;l I

11:111 ;�6,191 1,1:111 71 1,41 771:1,1: '16:141 16,IA2 16,--6 77,Dl... . ................ " S7 .78. 7 ,7 7,:I7 I ' I S" 76:'70 76,:74 7'............ 31,.'. 111,21, III, I'- 37.17I 3e1.2 3-1.1 "0 3S16 39:�"I'o

1� . ............................ �11.7 .1.1 .1.7 .1.7 l..I I..' 10.3 50.1 50.7E..-, . ......................................

34 " ', 36 0.5 3S,16o 36 171 11,111

.31058 36' 36;,11; 11.712" 31,I .6 16;: 16;1 .7-,6 7.27;9 7 5I I3 ;O ;3 59 S;.e. 2:13, 3 I

.................. 33,625 35,316 35,797 3.,567 35,A27 35,111 IS 10 31,:711 36:2766 6 5 5 6 7 5.7 5.8 5

Z .................................... 21 -14 2119. 2,169 2,.13 2,201 2.1 2 2 2 SO38,6;7. . . . ......... 38,7;9 38,5;17 1 37,9;. 37.8';4 .18,187 38,5110 3AIes 17,,I;',

3. 6..I I ":3 I ;1:1

T-- P-- .11:111 1"1:.716 16.71.9 16:371D 16 6�92 117 55 697 9 3 6'.7

. . . .................................. 11,865 Ii.o.1 1" 680 q.6.8 9,62R 9,121 1;7121 9537 1elI-* . . ............................ 72.1 67.. 71.3 58.I 58.7 IA.I .I ;P.2 O.4. I 4I . e

. ...................................... 9 937 qoo7 9,879 8.072 1.11, 7,;II 1.711o9 14111 I.Ol;

";I' 'I' -I' 3;. IiS -1 ;65 3;8 3;.2 3;5;9' 1.................. 91299 9,472 912890 7:6714 7 7,111 1.171 1III 171

I :III :� :IW-0� . .............. .. ................. 1,927 2,034 1,801 I I 110 1;,171 1,11.1 11 ..� I . ......................... 16.2 18.4 15. I6I ".S .S 6.8 ".1 11.3

. . ...... ...... I .................... 4,591 5,34D 4,707 6,807 6,776 6,67. 6,963 6,e.. 6,9DIII' 11:,301 11:3:1 1,:2 20 1,:2 1,:2 ,41 'I 7 '11. 3

3, :7" :III :911"4",:6,:o, 2 6 6 0 0 12 33 2 66,................................. 9D 179 9 1596 9 2"" Be 503 -0,.15 89,923 9 03D 1 78 90;21�9 1%111ft'...p . . ............................ ;..6 ;4.7 6I.1 ;I.. 64.1 63.7 3. 3 .. .................................. :::: lleelO 11;911 11;1.1 .3;.Il .1,938 A5,479 es 515 as,17.1 96 0 93

.............. .. 0 .I I.I ,.3 60.2 59.9 sq.B 0. ;0.1......... 1.7, 39 *,:77 ..171 .,646 .,.,71 . .,503 ..:09 4,..6a............... ...... I I O 0 T 4,,;2

1 SOfi;8 51,2;0 51,S3;30 51,243 51,10.9.4;1 .9.8;7' 49..i5 1,1

P.- . ....... 31 20:3.1,1 1 2 21 "I ll:.21 21,2.2 20,311 2D:"e2............. ..... I I' : I' "I"'I 9 I7, I:"I " 012 19,050 19,90112 272 ;29,364

12;.6D 126551 12,1110 12,01D 12,2SI 12.175 12, ' 7 63 6I'O.7;3 3;81 64 2 fi2 0 62 01 10,9 12;. 10.5;3 10,87'8 "!.' .747 10,8;7 1112jO

E.O� . ......................................

10.7 3 5;I I51 13j2 13 11;12 51;91 13 ;'..,

.6 " ",j: " "3;11. 7 1 1 1 1;33��. . .......................... 13.: 12.. 2.3 11.2 "., "., "., 0.

. . .................................. 6,912 7,344 7.i33 7,361 7.50. 7.621 7.674 7.629 7.579

13

HOUSEHOLD DATA

TobA. A-2. M.jor u AM8 i.Ho, 81.Ily dimd

HOUSEHOLD DATA

.010 0100 J711 laA. APr. 007 -A, 7.17

1978 9979 0970 1979 1979 0979 1979 1979

... . ... .............. ....................... 6,.76 5,9-9 6.1 5.7 5.9 5, 5.6 5.7... _ . .............................. .......... 2,P7 2,2.9 A.1 *.0 ..0 1.9 9.9 8.1

|._ . . .2...................................... .173 2.250 6.8 5.7 5.1 5.0 5.8 5.5.110 . ....................................... 576 1'.50 16.3 95.5 16.5 16.0 A5.] 15.3

W .S .................................................... 6.601 8,.60 S.2 5.0 8.9 5.0 0.9 8.91.719 1.76 3.6 9.8 3.8 3.3 3.8 3.6

A~~970 1.902 5.5 5.0 6.9 5.0 5~~~~~~~~~".0 6.7_20__......................................... .. .... 5 1 3 762 .3 6 ] :9 '3 .3t1&l2 o.1.-150 1 7s9 .1 5i6 17.'6 *23.6g 07.9 8.>37 .53.09 13.9l

@1 .. 9................................ 37 1 3 2. 0 1 2 1 .8 61.6 11 3 10 8

I . . . . ................................... 592 520 1. 9. 13.0 a 9 0I0.8 9.8t8~.t&I t.8.810......99.................................... A *0 I7 36. 1 31.5 3-.5 36.9 30.0 30.9

5 . ..... 1.................................... * 075 0 19 2.7 2 6 2 7 2 5 2 92.............................. * 279 1.160 5 S .1 5 2 5 7 5 2 8 .

.......................... 3...... 75 *00 9.0 8.1 8.8 8.9 9.1 0.0

F_ j.9~*6660.. . 6.090..................................3 0 .;*628 5.7 5. 5.3 5.2 I .1 5 3a1 I.25 8.9 92 8. 9.6 8. 0.

7 , 3 i91................................. 1 .25O 2 1. 3 1 .3 1 .2 1.2 0. I .0.......... __ ................. 6.0 6 . 6 5 6.3 6.3 6.0

. .*. . . ......................................... .9 10 *,629 3.7 3.8 3.3 7.2 3.8 3.2. I 3 7 2 ....................................... 372 191 2.5 ,.1 2.2 2.0 2.5 2 5

A~ .. . ................... 226 207 2. 2 2. 2 2.73 2.7 2.0 1. 9-1.................................. . i 277 222 A. 3 A. 8.0 .0 .5 3

o#n . 9087 809 5.o3 8.9 7 .5 8.26 g 8.6 8.86...................................... 2.259 2.3- 6.7 6 6 6.9 867 6 AS 6.8

* - - ''912 5679 A.0 0 6 * 2 2 0 * 2 .2T. . . ......... ................ 297 987 S .2 7. 7 8. 6 3 7. 7 3

. ........................ 201 1 9A 5. 7 5. 2 6. 0 5. 5. 5 5.2l 6. ........................ ........... 557 970 10.6 10.3 10.5 11.1 10.3 10.9

F .t . ....................................... 0. 1 30 982 I7 7 .2 I 7. 7.2 7.2 7.2

. . . .................... ... 8.6.832....................... *.3 *,302 6.0 5.5 5.7 5.7 9.6 5.71~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ............ 26 1. 329i 9: 6O ,5 S. 15 S. 59 5.67 9571 _ ............................................. 79 6 9 00.2 10. 3 9.6 9.6 9 5

._O'=D~l. .. -............... 6I3.5...S.S1 .7276 19.71 5.5 5.2 5.8 5.. 5.3 5 .-7FF.0 .................. . ............ 8o8.8 5.8 ..... ..4 ..5 5 '2

Fi,_ -. _ ... 68...........................6..... X SS 1 6. 3 6.0 6. 5 7.0 6. 6.2., . . . ............................... 2916 219 A.0 7.0 2. 9 3.5 3.0 3.9

_. -_ . ..................................... _.272 1.89 6.1 6.12 6. 6...8 6.8 6.211n0. . _ ,1.5$ 1.008 5._ ..8 5.0 A.7 8 .8

087 55 . .9 36 953 . .17 191 9. 7. 0. 9. 7.7 10.

* g wa o.. 8AA A ..,,

57-254 0 - 80 - 2

T.bl. A-3. S.J�.d .. piy...,

.......... .

. .. .. .. ....

. . ..........................

.............

................. ......... ........

............. . .......... .

T.bl. A-4. D.,.tio. f -- pl.v-t

...... ....

... .........

a4

HOUSEHOLD DATA HOUSEHOLD DATA

HOUSEHOLD DATAT.bl. A-S. Fro. fog nfn9plo9nnl

997 *.0Y,

197 t99*_,- _ _

2..09I

9369

,900.

9,72

9o.

2I.52 9 .

27

9 2.

2.9-03

17.9

2912*23.0

1...

, 7,3

2: ,

1.7 O

0.5166999

9.970

930.5

0.8

1..-

19.

2.5a

I6

-*-

nor.

2.979

2, ,:O7SS

I.652

9.73

3022

97.921:.

3SO 2*1.9

.8 ,* .7 1 .2:, 7~,2 78 .

Apr.7 J 9un J . Ot7

9639 $999 9979 9979

2.52 1

8-.2

1.6I5

.70

831t

2.369

1.95271..762

39.9

2.758:

.562

797*,562

78.

9. 713. a

7. 3

I .S

2,5 32791

9,73,

*0. I0

63.713.7

'0.0

29.9

2.5.

t.2

T.bI. A-t. Un..ployny.t by ...n d *g. l dpy .t d

11.

tu~~~~~~90 2.0 _~0 forJlr *! r. apr. 999 299, 3191

9970 9979 l970 9979 1979 1978 - 979 1979

T7990_.99..9..... . .. . ... ........ ...... 6.936 9.989 6.9w 5.7 5., 6.p 5.6 5.7- - - ------ ------ ......... 6S ...... . .. 6 0 3' 19566 s 7 S3

2909y . t . . . 9.767 93.650. . ,3 96.. . ....3 95. 96. 96.9 95B. S S23 95. 09909999 ........................ 9126 669q Ž0.0 0. 99.9 99. 96.9 97.9990999........ ......... 9 .............. . 1 9. 1.2 0 . .

0209.99. . 0 8 9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 9. 9 9 0 85 9. .9 9.0

SS~s~e_ ......... ................... '465 . 65 77 3.2 3.9 3.1 9.2 2.9 3.2

_.999.99.9. . ................................. 2,979 2,997 5. 5.0 5.9 *.9 9.7 5.0w ..................................... 78 79 . 196.0 62 6.1 . .9

998999.99378 933 7. 0 193.2 96.2 90. 93s S 9 9........ .. . . . ....................... 398. 0

I.997 9..39 9.3.'I 3. 2 3. 3 3. 1 .19 3.3909 .. 9 '.98 9.03 2a393 3. 0.33 3.8o 3.9 3.9 3.39=0. 9.9 . ..... .. 5 9 39 2 .8 3.'29 .9 3.

.. ... .............................. 3.205 2,852 7.6 6.7 6.9 7.0 6.9 6.69 89.9................................ 79.72...... 9 9.9 9.S8 6 6.0 1 7.7 19. 6 91.8

99099 39~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.6~~20 955 29 .6 97.9 20. 2 99.9 99.7 99.29Is. 99385 39 9.9 9. 9.9 9. 9.8 3899.06 959 99.0..6 9.9 99 9.8 9................................. 3 6 2 0

298-. . . 9.665 9.5.92 5.9 9S-.9.. 6..9. 5. 7 S I.8 09s = _ ............................. 99*0 963 2.9 3.6 3. 9.17 2.7 0.9

15

HOUSEHOLD DATA

o ~ > .............................._ ..................................

.............. ...............

..............................

T ..... . .. . .. . . .. .

eb ..................................... A .......... .......................

.. ... .. ... ... .. . ........ .. .

l ....... .......... ...... |... . . ..

. ....................................

-- f

16


T. A 7 R.lg O. ol1...pk d n__ ba..d on varrino deinition8 of .. flp on- t end the iabor forca.

onali, adjusted

- 1978 1979 1979

_0 00 IT I I - |al J.n.. July

..IAW O8 .. * *.. . . 1.8 1.3 9.2 1.2 9.2 1.2 1.1 1.0

. . . . ........ _D_......................... ............ 2.5 2.. 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.3 2.3 2.5

. . .. .. . . . . . . . 4.1 8.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.9

UA.,40fl h kA8 .1. ........... iD .POP,1 Ta Im~,4IDO .................................. I ........... 5.5 5.5 s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 9.1 5.3

.................................................... .. 6.0 6.0 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.6 5.7

08.t00. h. 6d...............7.6 7.5 7.2 7.2 7.7 3.3 7.2 7.3

8D .P vI.1T 80..D r.0 ou.T .,..s it. to

tw fl~ It. .11083 titl~n d flotls

Sttl.h.l-t~mtt~h90..0 9 .9 0.9 8.0 7.9 9.1 0.. 8.. 8.8..z . .a r.D ................... ..... . ......... 7. . P A I

Tab A-S. Emnpiovemnt status of ths nonirStrdttiofl popuiation by race end HIspanic origin, not saasonaiiy adjusted

JoLy 2.10 JslY Jaly J,,, Jly Jaly Jail

9970 9979 9978 9979 *97S Z999 70 79 1978 97

0.,ta..AT~tA.80.80A.AT 159................. ..... ...... .032 161,604 139.660 141,661 16.659 17,032 7,867 8,021

avl~ O ............. . 102639 109..99 90. 179 92,195 10.630 10,870 5,032 5.978

r.0,3. .A0 69.......6....0. 69.6 65.9l 63;. 63.8 6A0 6.6.om .t.. .w. , 96.282 9 98.01 85,510 i 7.607 9.9 96s;7 4,SiS ,.7j3

.. ... ....... .. 3.997 3.857 3,637 3,525 279 255 2sn 258

------ .. n -... 38 6.109 1 '769 S.. 9.891 9.923 9507 *,

O00..8Ttttt.O 6.3..5.8..5................. 6 . 5.3 5.0 9.0 13.1 10.9 8.6

Tio.bO l loo........... 5. 6.393 56.609 *9,481 49,.75 6.024 6,162 23835 2.03

1119049,. mWaot' ..80 78 - - - - 88880 1=5 811D Al - 080887 6...o.ts PD d *_ W4 .hlm z

17


Table A-9. Employme.nt stt. ofi mald VIatn.m-an ve.,.. s*d no.n.tarn. by age, not s"sonaly adjusted

July July July July July July 2.19 July l JT

.w "7"s '9,9 ,,,,7 3197 17 9 7 7 7 r9. .. . . ......................... 9 93- 8,51 7,87. 8,163 1,530 7,8-9 3- ]re .

2w .. ......................... 5I, s e 97 so, 621 .s: 6 t s s9 .1 1

7sa729 ........................ 233 ,9s 2"7 ,6 ,s7 a711 z: 56 1.2.33? 1.945 6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. 5.1339..............6. 1 39 3 613 3 283 3.509 3, 97 3.399 86 106 3.0

... ......... I 13s 1.592 1538 2.9 2. . . . ........ .............. 717 353 602 731 s- 716 a 1s 3.0 2. 1

t ..2s...... 3. 728 19,609 13, *32 11.924 12.662 77,-06 so 517 3., 3.72s07.lg........................ 6,116 6683 5.97 6.363 5.612 6,098 236 262 I. 4.1

:3. 9 .1 89 3. .00 3.692 I .5s 9 18 1 3. 3.67 S . ..................... 3, 623 3. 739 3. 7. 3.56 3.378 3 .53 96 I II 2.8 3. '

0, 7.. r91 -.o 0,,., |.5h r93.1 Au. 5 t93 41i 3975 1913S.-.4. d r. vs7 ..7. . P~. =s13194.1 r_ 19* *l 5~ 9 , r. M.3 1,4. ron4*a1037. l9 40 r, .4.9. 191 Of01~7 ,17 r4.43,7 7 3.75 .1 619..

18

HOUSEHOLD DATA HOUSEHOLD DATATar.b A-i0. E~lv~tfog f9onnoiuio9pplto o t a apo tt

JulyI - 17 a, I .. r Jul3I I ," I Juy tar. ; -I806. ; 1 '17 1 Jo7 1 1 tg

0,u.,,uuu, 4.,, 14.743 ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~30.97 38197 1 069 8I I0.7 10,755 I I9 3093 1,9,96,0,9,3 9.404 10.239~~~~~~~~~~I .9035 9,91 I409 1297 I 009 9,11 0

974 69 o 632 I99 699 69 52 .29.1. 0~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~.1 5., 6. 2 7.6 6.5I 6.9I 6.2 6.0a 5.9

6,9131 6,106 9.73 9.5II93 1 6,95 6.671 6. 649 6, 706 6 ,7230,9.., .9. 3..,. ~~~~~~~~3,77 3903 3.9 .93 3223 323 323 323 323

6.4.9,4 ~~~~~~ ~~~~~3,530 3,669 3, 631 7 2 9~23I 2 323 323 24.9.339~~~~~~~~~,3 ~~~2591 234 256 323 323 32 23 32 32319,99,39~~~~~9.,..', 3.4~~~ 6a 6. 323 323 9123 2 2 2

6., ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ 4,~~a2 12 4 .274 1 I,8 I9, ol 929 4,26 0II .271 4,270I 6,209

9.,9.,49,.f..,. ~~~~~~~~5,44 5,,19 5,8 .2 5273 5 299 5 235 1 4.329 5.7E- 0~~~~~~,56 5,496 5,u02 4.945 I 9,973 3.962 9.999 5,53 5.II1t4,.09~~~~~~~~~~.4 ~~~344 323 270 393 II 300 I4 291I 276 245

6.9 6I.0 5.1 5. 9 5.7 5.3 9.9 5. 2 9.6I

C,,9..,,,u,,u~~u.,., 99,4499 4.329: 9,l1:372 4,377 9.329 9,363 9.I 3.o5 1 4,39 4.373 I, 377

5. I~~~~~~9~~99,,49~~~~ 2,927 2,947 2-,99 323 2 2 (2 3 2 323 9234.4 2,743 ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ 2,797 2.402 2,0I77 2. 759 2,793 2,724 2.76I 2,730

6 4 .1 5.0 323 323 92) 23 923 323

3,0.,.9 3,929 9,~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~066 4,965 923 323 923 32 23 (123304 337 339 292 25293 365 337 243 42

L9..,0999.99,.,. ~~~~ ~~~~73 7.2 7.7 323 323 923 323 (23 2

5.9.., .999999399909199399999& ~~5,9.56 5,:5 1,2 5,5117 5,,59 5. 497 5,5u 5,506 5,1: ' .1 ,97

6,6,,3619 999. ~~~~~~ ~~~3,77 3,56 3,10 2,, 3.9$29 3,97 3,942 3,595 3,5393,2.92 3,334 ~~~~3,323 I II95 2,24 3271 3, 215 3.349 3,266

v.9.9099.7 ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~275 257 247 253 275 246 267 299I 2636.9999499,9,49,9. ~~~~ ~~~~7.9 7. 1 7,9 7.9I 6.75 5.9 2.7 6. 7.5

S.'~~9~~~999o~9.' 99949499 1~~3,2 "', 13,2~l54 13,2981 3,254 133,202 9 3,29 7 17, 299 1 3294 13,298

59.999499.3.9. ~~~~~~ ~~~7,98 0.6 5 821 777 0.0122 7.936 7,096 7, 931 9,:00119,9,9, 7.~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~377 7,990 7, 604 7, 173 7.935 7,290 7.394 7,3.. 7,90049999499.9 ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~6I17 559 6311 612 907 55 502 563 99334~~~99099999999, ~~~~~~~7.6 6I.9 7.3I 7.7 7. 3 7.0 6. 7. 1 7.5

39709499' 7,0~~~1. 73 7.9I3 7,949 7,4873 7,929 7I3 ,3 .4 7",9

99,3.49,9 ~~~~~~ ~~~~4.775 47673 9.76 9,6357 4,0 11 9.746 4, 740 I,706 9,6544.49499,4 ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~267 299 331 275 5 280 295 2798 34595,9,499.9,9,.4 5~~ ~ ~~~~~.3 5.0a 6,6 5 .6 5y40 5.6 5. 7 5,6 6.9

8,096 0,907 a ,913 9.09 0bI.991 8.696 0.902 1 9.97 0.13 l5.49,39199999. 5,397~~~~~~~II 5,393 5,398 5. 265 5. 295 9.299 5274 5I299 5,3139,499,7 6~~~~ ~~~~~, 98 9,5 ,58 9"9 "I ,600 4, 932 9.899 9.930 9,900 I,013929,499.4 ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~389 399 340 385 363 330 398 349 336I49039999,9999.4 ~~~~ ~~~~~7. 3 7.7 6. 3 7. 3 6, 9 6,3I 6.6 6. 6 6.3

5.,9.4999,9,44~~~~ 994999949,9. 9.199 9,397 9,43~6: 16 9.3194 9.367 9,393 8,390 9, 399 99III6,09 6,I1223 6237 5,9817 6196" 6139 6.081 6.100I 6,193

3,499,4 5,~~~~~~~~~~ ~~779 5,923 5',990 5.693I 5,904 5,895 5.79 5.836 5,9079490949~~~~~~~~39 21~~~~7 3 09 297 296 238 233 293 26 269.4090,9.99,.9. 5.~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~2 9.0 9.7 6. 9 3. 9 9. 6 9.7 9.8 8.5

* II -- Io....- .889 19 -99 t.99, - -o I l.aao - - o- - ..,4 - o. . - - -

19

ESTABUSHMENT DATA ESTABLISHMENT DATA

T* b E .1. i_ pin 6on no.5gricuftal pro lls by Induaty

_ ,tr i 46 ,: |3 ~ tt 1 : | II

" I U . I IE JULY p

NT~~~~~~~A 97j W 9 3979.... ,97 4. 3.7. 3.t §z w's*} ................. sa1"57W 3979l"

TOTAL ................. . 93.43 A6,777 69,69 A,5 P6,633 66,363 P, a6 P.53 As P.

soaillpo . ................... all?: J13: Rlt.|1Ta- ls~ *RIaJstd *Z1t

MINING ..... 96 9W 6 33 93 93 3

rO M Ac M c N ............................. * 1 44*

A_ AA,676 A* A^,93 35,,,.. ., 79..3..69 I s, PA 3,6 35. APP IA,9AP 3AW92v

UrAI *M................. I t-Iit 12-41- 18-711 la,%7- la-138 'a,* :::*S -6*^ SR*}[.}

_. _ ............. ...... A.......9 6,9 9,0ss .,I s.6 4 9 9 ,o WW I

L,6P3 ..3~~~~~~~~ 7~69.3 763.6 763.6 777,7 7A3 766 736 76 5

,___6 ... 763.33................ ,, , 766 7 3 6 7 3 75 7

..... .636.5 3,763.7 3.7036 .66, 3,66 3:1,13 .3 .3 ,6 .9~~~~t ~~~~~.............. a 3 t, ^,4l 4 b | s l &

6,937.3 P.663.3 2.630.6 3 . .339 3,367 3.336 3,33 P.05 P.33

.,6W _ . .......... 9 69..3 ... 4.6 APP 3 .3..

h__*_~~~~~~5,3 9. *l ,679 3,96 5,659 3,675 5.557 ,969 5,967 5,933 5,96

T~NOWDUR 6.6 .9IL 66I 5, 7S 3 7,3 75,3 76 76 72

__.6.6 693, 963.3 930.9 6 939 93............ 3 9 93l.. 1

6T9

f _d.... . . ~twfIlo ,t- " . 1 , , t ...... ............. ........ .21. SI lac Io,ao I. l I.;,,: I.;.:l oX0, 1111

6.097 6 3,333.9 3,3357 3,33P.9 3,393 3.396 3.333 0,366 3.339 3.666~_,,,__ 633,..................... 1 "7 333.3 a37. ali,3 it? 3 3 3

L r ........... ......... 1~ 4#, I E., t- , S} a.. ... Z0 ab t

$11MV3CI.ffOOMP l................ 63.33 6,63 63,733 63,33 66,533 3,653 .3,697 63,336 3.3561 63,336

TRAIIIIORTATIOld AND 9533.30TU U6,5 93 6 ,3 , 7 5,3 .73................................ ,s 02 11 .It , S

RLIULL AN RnTA3L T40t ............ 3 l,669 39,970 30,0sW 39,531 39,MW6 jl,9 3.,59 39,665 9,99 39,953

WHOLEALEL TRAD .... .................. 6,@j0 9,036 ,3123 3.16 S 6901 33 ,3 5.306 9,363 5.I97 5,3WA

RETAITR ...... 36,59 36,939 3.933 366....................... 36,,9 3 7 3 ,431 I. , 36,6

PIP&AN6CS. INBURANCL AND REAL USATE . 6,766 .,673 4,933 6,963 .6,63 .6,69 6.69I W,667 P.669 .,53.

1RVtCU ............. 3.3 3675 3,7 35................6..... 36.113 16. 5,949 36.s3s 36.57s 36,62 6,6684 36.,73

3NMENT 3 ............................... 1 89 3 s,3.7 3s5.336 3I,557 3.5037 3S.57 35,*611 S.637 35,..?

"CltAl .3.635 0,773 3,66 3.653 3,765 3.75 3.56 3,77 3,793 ,*TAT1 A366.66*3.33..33,365 33,936 3.3,3 33 a793S 33,53 33,639 33 ,A,3 ,63,65

20

ESTABLISHMENT DATA

T1b.3 8-2. Aoerage w-okiy hours of production or nonwp-r6iVory work-r. 04 pivNteonogrmiculturol pyroll. by indusoty

ESTABLISHMENT DATA

TOTAL PRIVATE ..

MINING

CONSTRUCTION ........ ......

MANUFACTURING .... .. .........O h. . ..... ......

. ~ m . w ..... ......

..o . .do ...- .. 0 . . ......$t. ..Y ur ... e .o..--.

F. ...m mlv .....

. .rnmlfdux . ........

UTILITESv .Xe , . . ...

71,y ,l.Imlernelp ,

440,wII.,o.30,0,i0,1'1, --

WHOLESALE A6D RETAIL TRADE

RIHOESALE TRADE

RETAIL TRADE. .

FINANCE, INSGURANCEE, ANDSERV ES A ...........

SERVIeo utS n . . .

---

JULY 0379 JUNED

......... 3 ..3 35.5 3..0

* 3.2 02 7 43.4

. . .302 37.3 38.0

0.3. .. 0.... 03 '10.0xO.... 3. 3 3, 4

00. 3 * 008 03.03.7 38. 3.6

'... 91 .... ,9 *0

393 39,6 30,0

. .........

.5 *0 .S 7 03.003..5 407 *32,00.3. .. .*01*0.2 *0,00.3 ' .213. 15 00.0

0..0 30.5 38.0

33*5 33,3 3310

3.2 2.3 3S .30.0 32.6 33.9

00.3 i 30,3 30.6

3 13- 7.2 372400. 03,841 j 00.9

37 4 1 03.7 03.0

. j 0|06 40. '13.7 *

33,0 38 .3. ............... 39.0.32,0 30,4 3.3.................1

36.... *7 36.3 06.0

.... ...33.3 32.5 32.

3111. JULY *f R 606

3373 D 3378 0379 Ii35.9

4.3.

37.3

3.5.

3.,6

3.2

3,83

39.R

03,0

02.2

02.343.7390,

3,28

39,838,6

00.2

35.002.337.003.003.3

37.2

3q73 39179

35,8 35,7

03.3 42.7

35.8 37.2

33.2 8 0.2

2.0 .

2@1 1::!39.2 33,2

01.3 03.643.7 , 3.39.3 40.700,5 42.0

38,0 86.12'10.2 40,037,7 38.5

36.7 39.22.7 3.0

33.7 I }9.037.9 38,930.9 00.030,3 35.2

37.2 37.3

3S.8 486.35.6 36.*2

JUNE

43.31

37.-

3

5

393

I4s,

36.7

'3.5

3@03

33.54364

377

0 23

*0@7

3.0

39.03

36.0

42,3

37.8

40,40

33.3N0 !

38.3,09

00s7

30@5 1

33.2

39.3!

3@1

35:50.0s

33.6

37.3839605.239,8

36,0

33.3

33.4

33,3

37.93.9'a

'3.2

°3.8

I L

I .1 1"63.

92 3

40.3

020

3 II

36.2 1

03.5

I42.1

80.956

02.0

48,9'2

3 6 ,i 7 3 3 .3e

36,.. 6.3

32.4 32.4

Ulot F3179

35.7

92.3

37,0

.00a3.3

30.83.5

39.1

3,033,6

3970

39.3

35.402,837 *7*437*00700.35

39.5

32.6

30.8

36.s

32.0

39.3

32.6

336.5

32.7

39.9

32,0

16.

3a.7

39,8

32,6

30.7

36.3

32.7

1,*1.I *HW,10.0*11014,, 01 30, .. d V 0,- .7- - 7- L v-0 -1 0* 0,,P,.44 V Vi0 I1*i10 Vd41F -P,- -.

---l I { l I | I

21

ESTABLISHMENT DATA ESTABLISHMENT DATA

Uhl. 8-3 A-er rgs h ny and wsh ky earigs of product CiR or 9NO GsTpRiS7y w k r DIR pon RSvt

.gr 5ra IOg I4UTI pp yr.i by idusty

_.I I I T It? 1 T TT O T A L F R IV A T E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I U L 5 37* IJ G O o J U LYt * * I JS *I,5 1 2 5,- 0*7 J S t 7 1 U L

TOTALPR -1I........T........ 55.49 54.55 54.55i £4.55 5554.55 215.53 2319.94 2255.54

............ .. . . ...... 5.73 .,09 .,3 4.17 s T., 257.33 35.53 55,.27

MINING . 7.52 5.53 $,.7 5.53 337.32 359.94 357.45 319,97

CONSTRUCTIGN .. ... ..... ,3 3 9..2 9.5 3a5,47 105.5s 3.4.54 359,5

MANUFACTURING .. 4.7 . ... 4.44 4 71 555,45 245,4. 249.04 It4.-3

MGASlLE GANGS .. . .. 4*57 7I,7 7.11 7.313 245.71 2$.94. 293 .53 55a 4

5.7 5.97 * T*. 27.51 234.3 a... 2 2 2 I

o . 7 54. . . 5.17 4.77 4.83 4 24490552.99 . ............ .... 54 2 94,03 a, 24*777 31 '0ST 51£ 5.5 5.9 9.7 355 .1 34.4 3* Z9- 7355 344,73

F.~.43 311 4.32az 4o7 4.5 4.2- 2559 57.5 279.23 *274.232

53147P7 .,MM.37 . .~~~.. ..... .. 46.73 .9 7,3 7 279.730 I93 30.54 555.03034,.7314.477.7..31,477 . 5.53 9.23 4 53 25 0.5 5 5529 237.35

7.55 5.55 5.53 5.55 330.04 350.53 35~~~2.33 3554.37174-47,1M037U

5.75 4.3 4.3 4.3 5 229.73 23.5 23.2 24 *9.49

5043054353.5.. . 5.571 5.91 5.9 4.01 220.02 2513,5 234.05 51.9S

F735..U A7~d31U ...... . 5.87 4.221 0,22 4, 3 235:.5 234.31 2451.3 253.24

7Tol15012407 ... . . 4.55 0.93 I7 7.50 535.52 54.I 235.3 254.35

TS.I.4477t..U.31 7 3.92 *2 0,39 5,53 5.501 350.71 537.57 39.52 59,143P.23 7wo 4.43 4.9 71 7 7.3 25,0 *9~5 303 *4 74 555.31s 1 4-

F 125.75073347774 0.9 T4f51 0.040.9232.4 253.31} 254.54 257.7

0917.35*lad~ 5411434 7.5 7.44 7.53 7.59 293,9 353.53 33592 335,75

F .7.I. .......... ... . . 5. 9.4 5 .30 9.3 35 G0.3 303,05 6 422.37

Rwo., .s e . . . .. . 5, * 5.85 5.9 5.9. 22.73 237,55 239.75 23. 4.

L.3177IG 3147317 . 3.59 4.3 3.3 5.1 25 335,55 552.52 155 -5 05 4.4

TRANSPORTATION AMD 7UB.IC UTILITIES . 7. 53 7 7,93 7.95 5.04 103.50 335.52 339.20 325.59

MOIGLESALEAND RETAIL TRADE . .4, 5,50 5.32 5.0 357§.G 342.53 135.44 135.35

MOISLESALETRADE. 5.931 *43 4 ,34 4.49 530.4 251 5.07247J.5 549.53

RETAIL TRADE .*...3 4.. . 5 3,5 3 3 9 L339.9*S 352,5

FINANCE. INSURANCE. AND REAL ESTATE . . .. 593 S, 2 5.25 5.30 50.93I 4 3585 35 93.45

SERVICES . 4..9 S, 5.27 5,.30 30.55 373.43 373.338 374,

I ofnI.W.12

22

ESTABLISHMENT DATA

Table B-4 HourIy eamsigs i.dex for prdoctios or nonbupprvisory workers on p-atenonagricoltrl payrolls by indostry diision. sewooally adiuxt d

ESTABLISHMENT DATA

9783 IlL9 197. oj7 al 39779 J].

TOTAL PRIVATE N0ONFARM: I"s 17 99 17 39 17 99 J~ 98 0897

21. 2.9 2~25.3 227.0 227.4 2286 23. 76 07E,9,11798819,4.,. .909.1 10~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I7.9 007.3 007.0 106. 10. 0 A.0 (2 (3

.9..........9.... 3.253.3 256.0 266.2 262.6 266.6 266.5 5 1 .7007WT9101108 207.9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N 29. 216.5 210.0 220.7 220.3 2~2.2.3I .5, .6OA808AEIS9I9O ... ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~21. 2271 228.8 231.1 2.32.3 233.6 255 87 .79A00908R1S009S98PS8LIEI79LI881 . . 230~~.9 29. 9.7 219 29. 9. 255. 7

T-L9AEICO8TAILTR8- 2307.6 218. 1.0 210 2. 222.3722 37 67.0I

7I9-40.179556EA109ALE081 196.9 203.9 289. 207. 207. 207.7 219 -74 .9095......... 213.2 22.2 223.5, 225.3 2249.0 225.3 1226.8 6.4 .7

2P09585 A540888 -3I.0 I0 3090.. 1979 10 385019719, 1.00 LATE1 90918 *001168L8.£ 08 IN.848 AS5 -.5 1809 SA1 1919 TO 3858 I979 79 60T05T 80919 69ILA8L8.

Tlabl B-B. Indexesofaggregate weklyhboorsofproduction.or.-onoprnv-so wokers, on privet.nonagishuall payrolls by industry, seasonally adjuredN

JULY 806. SEPT. ~~~OCT. N0V. 0CC. JAN. FEB. 04N, APR. MAY J09! JULY

TOTAL PRIVATE . 928.9...(08...018.9 ( 20. 0 Ala. (02.8 (00.9 (22.6 (23.0 (89.12920.9 903.9 (08.9 (84.9

GOODS-PRODUCINGo............. (86O.9 889.8 (89.9 (06,5 (080. (09.8 (88.7 909.4. (19.8 (08.3 (99.3 (09.3 (89.0

MINING (90................. I.5 199.? 189.4 (e9.2 998.8 189.1 (49.2 949.%15(9.0 19491 14883 (t *0. (96,6

CONSTRUCTION ...... ........ (29.2 (22.1 120.6 (23.0 929.3 906.9 (08.6 922.9 (31.95 929.6 (32.3 (33.9 (33.9

MANUFPACTURN .. ........... (@8t.6 181. 1 09.8 988.1 (03.7 (11.6 (89.2 905,4(60(16 (38(39Il

OSOOILE 00043 (09.8 (83.9 880.9 (89.0 (87.1 (98,3 (88.8 (99,6 910.0 (89.9 (01.3 (87.8 (86.8::6 9:' 7:(02.3 (10. ((,I8t9993(9. . 195.51 ((9.9 (98. ((221 992.2999I

NP,y-,oo.o4"2018 80, 0789, 9. 97 0. 9.6 99.0 97.3 97.81 95,90,. ..7xo. .d.. (08 3. 951 0.0(8. 9098, (07.9 908.9 (95. 0 9894! 08.9

T -ooooo ,w. ........... 96.8 9*, 9 91.1 (80.9 902.6 (8.880. (098 (6, 90.3! 99,6 96,9 9.9..............050, 123, 823.9 803.9 089.5 (85.7 02ll 12 I: 9391: 8 3( .3 02 1.0 (t : is* (''A~

I-, .........SI&49 99,0 (89,6 (88,3 (00.0 9019. 995(:90T23(28 709, 939,0

0..dNoU o.p. .............. 93.6 98.41 90.3 92.'9,7 699. 539.'9. 939

.i9.

Op~~s. ,..oO..Ioo~~~~~~o, 78,6 78.9 79.9 73.51 ~~~~~~~73. 17,676 73979I 7.182.01 79.170s. ...... ..... 998598, 98 9 99,692. 92,2 93, 9 9 92,31 5g I 90, 98,2 0,

.~,.,~o.o,~~s 90..8... 8.90. 0.8 94.7 90,9 e9.e a9.s 89,2 0.0.98. .I08,57W.,.,2.II,,0O1.250, . (~~~~~~~~09.9 99.8 99,0 98.2 (00.5 (80.7 908.7 882,9 (0,5I 9229 929 0,

rb~~ors..dpos.Uo~~~~~e 99.8 95X:,3 976,0 0. 00. 880 lo' U.9 (0. 810. 10: 0: 0.91 903.8M.S.,II. I.. 0, 0. 0. 8. 907, 80. 876(87.5 097.3 (07. 99.7 0(0 1 23,2 922.7 (23,8 824.7 ba? 2.382:(2. 926,2 (24.:. IlA~2 '2a 02.9

-~~ 8=nc. ... 94~~~16. 9149.9 94. 078996 09, 9, 99999597.6 (90.0 84.7 4,60590211I04A . ~~~~~~~~~~67.0 69.8 6966, 73 6,51 AN,7 64.21 637 62.9 63,7639 I5,

VERVICE PROUCOICIG .............. 934,7 130.6 131,8 932.9 032.3 032.9 9)2.3:932,9 193.8 135,7 009,9 159,9 834.6

TRANSPORTTIO N 2 PUBLIC

UITILITIES ................ 906.5 907.7 908,2 989.9 (98.0 998.3 99(.2198. 9, 9,'0, 9, (.

WHOLESALE AND RETAILI

TRADE ........... ........ (27,6 127,2 9817,5 128. 2 820, ($98.7 927.6 (80G,4(2, o2.e I10:9,2 929 (9.

e9IOLEOALE TRADE 925,7...2..l..927.9 827,4 076(.928e209(,83,030.6 (38.79,RETAIL TOADE . (20,0.....27,.......27,12 828, 906, (299 273 92, 2. 098(86 2, 2.

FI5AO9CE. INSURANCE, AND0REAL. ESTATE 039.0........),6............48,9 98,7 92. (9, 4 .6 (2,3 193,8.0 ,

SERVICES ............... 99.] 91t 09 ,0 (50 ;4 9 (6 I 8 0 9 9 A..... ...L..

23


Tabl. O.G.- In.d-. o difftouon: Per.ent of industrie, in which .mploy.Vmntl incrcemd

I -- [ 8 7. I 8-_ I * - -

... b 78.2 85.6 87.2 a5.2rebr^ry.........................72.6 8 6.9 85.6 66.6................... 6 8.6 82.0 5........................

718.3sy ~~~~~~~~~5 .6.. ... .. ... .. ....1. 6 7 .2 6 8 .5 8 2 .6Ju*.............57.s 665.1 71 79. 9

7 ............................. 58.6 57.8 63.6 78.569gut .*.............................. 49.1 66.7 65.6 77.6

Setesb. ...................... . .......66.6 55.8 66.5 80.60eobr.6............... 7.6 61.6 73.5 80.8

0 c r ~~~~ ~~~~66.6 8'.6 86. 8 2.6

1977 ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 .J~uay ......................... 76.6 83.6 88.6 78.87.r=r 67.7................66.0 66.5 87.8 80.8

......................... 74.7 81.1 85.2 80.200tl.6.68...............s.0 79.6 78.6 86.8......................... . 6.2 5 8.0

7 6 .2 68.0 72.I 63.6

J4l2 ................................ 59.6 65.6 69.6 66.66,gv.c.5................ I.7 58.7y 76.6I 83.7w

.tbr ... ................. 60.8 62.5 72.1 82.6076,er.6.5...............s~ 73.8 . 77.9 86.6*obr.75...............2.8 75.5 82.0 66.66........................ 72.1 79.7 83.1 80.8

Jary .68.8 80.2 85.5 80.7570.3 80.2 79.9 79.6.......................... 70.1 75.9 77.9 77.6

......................... 62.8 67.4 68.8 78.5957.56.6 63.7 67.7 80.5J=69 ......................... 67.6 62. . 5:.6 66.6

J46 ........................... 56.9 57.0 61.3 82.066=5................. 56.7 69.7 76.6 77.68.88*a6er ................................ 57.6 58.W 72.6 77.8

Otobr .........7...................... 7 5. 6 85.6 72.68., b 80.2 6..........................85.54 60.6 75.0

Jr~~~~~b. 6 ,~~79 7 7.686 276 54nuy.6.........7....... 76.6 62.5 86.7 76.877.6.y*9 t.................. 6 6. 6 77.9 68.2.......................... 62.5 56.4 66.3p

6......................... 4.2 53.2 53.278~y.,.6...............8.0 50.77J4o ....... ......................... 60.07 53.37

4607.~ ~ ~~ ~~~~30.6 7

Oc ~ e......................

......................

I ,*OO.7.8.6.76. ov.97Il..o,.ua,6,

24

Chart 1. Civilian labor force and employment(Seasonally adjusted)

Chart 2. Unemployment rote--all civilian workers

2.0 - . . . ., . .. ...... - -. . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .6,,1968 19S9 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 197I 1979

PERCENT

Chart 3. Civilian labor force participation roteand total employment-population ratio(Seasonally adjusted)

PERCENT

P.UPor .cpoo rote 70.0Empl*y.-ent-p opultion rotio

65.0

60.0

55.0

19N8 19N9 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 IN75 1976 1977 197I 1979Note: The chded are s depict t he biness c yc Ie peaks nd trc gheas designoted by the National Bureao of Econonic Researct.

THOUSANDS115000

105000

95000

75000

65000

PERCENT10.0

8.0

6.0

PERCENT70.0

65.0

60.0

55.0

--w -

25

Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you very much. I'm going to ask thestaff to time my questions so I don't go over 10 minutes.

Madam Commissioner, in past hearings, you've indicated, as Iunderstand it, that the establishment survey seems more accuratethan the household survey in portraying changes in the economy. I'mnot sure that I understand that, because the household survey is soenormously comprehensive, it is probably the most comprehensivesurvey we have. The number of households surveyed is such a verylarge number compared with the usual polls, it would seem to me tobe very accurate, but somehow it doesn't portray the changes as well,in your judgment.

What picture of the employment situation do you get if you justlook, then, at the establishment survey, which, as I understand it, isthe questioning of the employers as to how many people they've hired,layed off, and so forth, and how many people they employ.

MS. Nouwoon. The establishment survey, as you correctly suggest,is a survey of employees on establishment payrolls. It is based uponthe payroll records. And the establishment survey shows a clearslowdown in employment growth. Over a period of months, however,from March, for example, until July, both the household survey andthe establishment survey showed a slowdown in the very vigorousemployment growth we have had. There was some slight increase,500,000 increase in employment over a period of 4 months, a verymuch slower increase than we have had in recent years.

Senator PROXMIRE. Now, a 500,000 increase over 4 months wouldbe a 1.5 million increase over a year, which is an increase that shouldaccommodate to normal growth in the work force; should it not?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, I'm not sure what a normal growth in thework force is.

Senator PROXMIRE. The growth in population has been somethinglike that; hasn't it? That would be 1V percent with a 100 millionwork force?

Ms. NORWOOD. Mr. Stein suggests that the labor force increasewould be somewhat more.

Mr. STEIN. I think, Senator, that if we had only a 1.5 milliongrowth over the course of a year, it probably wouldn't be enough toaccommodate the labor force growth that we might expect at thisperiod.

Senator PROXMIRE. It probably wouldn't be. It is fairly close, butthere would be at least a creep-up in unemployment?

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes, sir.Senator PROXMIRE. On the other hand, it may be we've had such a

tremendous increase in the work force over the past few years thatthere might be a tendency for the work force to just naturally notgrow quite as rapidly; isn't that right?

Mr. STEIN. That is possible.Senator PROXMIRE. Now, there were increases in the unemployment

rate for adult men, married men, and full-time workers. How signifi-cant would you term those increases?

Ms. NORWOOD. They are statistically significant, but they representa fairly small change. These increases, however, were 1-month move-ments and were not the continuation of a trend, We did have, also,an increase in the unemployment of workers in manufacturing in-dustries.

26

Senator PROXMIRE. The unemployment rate for blacks droppedfrom 11.3 to 10.8 percent. When was the last time the unemploymentrate for blacks was that low?

Ms. NORWOOD. We can supply that for the record. I don't have itoffhand.

Senator PROXMIRE. Off the top of your head, was it several yearsago?

Mr. STEIN. Yes; it was in 1974.Senator PROXMIRE. There is a rollcall, and Senator Sarbanes is

going to vote and come back. And then I will probably have to leavebefore he gets back, but he will chair the hearings until I return.

And that occurred although the unemployment rate for black menactually increased but the unemployment rate for women and teen-agers dropped very sharply. Do you think job programs have hadany effect on that?

Ms. NORWOOD. I hope so.Senator PROXMIRE. Well, we all hope so, but do you have any

statistical analysis that would indicate that they have been sufficientto have an effect?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, our data do not relate the employment situa-tion to those job programs, but the Department of Labor has evalua-tions of their programs that show that they have created a numberof jobs-I don't know exactly how many.

Senator PROXMIRE. Let me ask you a question about inflation. AsI understand it, the Producer Price Index does not come out untilnext week.

Ms. NORWOOD. That's right.Senator PROXMIRE. But the spot prices for raw industrials has fallen

a little bit although prices for foodstuffs continue to go up. Howclosely do spot prices correspond to the crude materials component inproducers' prices?

Ms. NORWOOD. To the crude materials, were you saying? It wouldbe closer to the crude materials than to the finished goods component.

Senator PROXMIRE. Is this a sign that food price increases will bemoderate?

Ms. NORWOOD. That is rather hard to determine. I don't think theSpot Price Index is sufficient to make a complete judgment about that.

Senator PROXMIRE. Any indication, or can there be any indication,on the basis of recent statistics of what's going to happen to energyprices? They played such a big part in inflation and they have been soserious in the first 4 or 5 months of this year. They've gone up sorapidly, at an annual rate of over 50 percent.

Is there any indication that is beginning to ease up or ease off, orslacken?

Ms. NORWOOD. No.Senator PROXMIRE. Is this just unpredictable, based upon develop-

ments that are beyond statistical indicators?Ms. NORWOOD. The statistical indicators only measure what is

happening. The policy that the President and the Congress togetherdevelop for the pricing of energy will be what determines what happensto the prices of energy in the future.

Senator PROXMIRE. Now, yesterday an administration forecast hada much deeper recession in 1979, a weaker recovery in 1980 than earlierforecasters. For example, the unemployment rate was predicted to be

27

8.2 percent instead of the 6.9 percent, by the fall of 1980. The bottomof the 1973-75 recession, the unemployment rate reached over 9 per-cent, 9.1.

Excluding that recession, what comparable drop in economic activ-ity have we had with an unemployment rate over 8 percent? Can yougive us an estimate?

Ms. NORWOOD. If we take as the trough the period that the NationalBureau officially identified as the trough, the highest was in 1975,which was 8% percent. Now, the series themselves troughed at asomewhat higher rate, that was but only in that one recession.

Senator PROXMIRE. That was only in the 1973-75 recession?Ms. NORWOOD. Yes, sir.Senator PROXMIRE. So we have not had that experience?Ms. NORWOOD. No, sir, we have not.Senator PROXMIRE. Now, the administration's new forecast also

calls for an inflation rate in 1979 of 11.8 percent instead of the pre-viously published 10.6. What is the rate of price increase in theConsumer Price Index so far this year? Is it 13.4?

Ms. NORWOOD. For the first 6 months of this year, the CPI in-creased at an annual rate of 13.2 percent.

Senator PROXMIRE. So that even though you have adjusted it, youstill may be being optimistic assuming it may be as low as 11.8 per-cent, which is a pretty shocking figure. How much would the Indexneed to climb to reach both the new and the previous forecast forinflation? Can you give us any calculation?

Ms. NORWOOD. We can provide you with that for the record.' Thatis a calculation we can easily make.

Senator PROXMIRE. I know you do not engage in forecasting ormaking policy recommendations, but on the basis of current data,which forecast would be the most reasonable, or what would you saywould be a reasonable forecast for inflation in the present year?

Ms. NORWOOD. That's really very hard to answer, because, as youknow, unemployment is really one of the late movers in a recession.

Senator PROXMIRE. I am asking now about the inflationexpectations.

Ms. NORWOOD. That depends too, oficourse, on a number of things,but, in particular, on what happens to energy prices and what willhappen to food. There is some indication that there may be someproblems arising with grain which could have an effect on food prices.

Senator PROXMIRE. But you cannot give us any feel for whetherabout a 12-percent rate inflation for the year or a 10Y2 percent is morereasonable?

Ms. NORWOOD. No, sir.Senator PROXMIRE. Can you list for us an array of other economic

factors beyond the employment situation that would indicate therecession will be a severe one?

Ms. NORWOOD. No, I cannot. I think that at this stage, really,what we know is that there are some indicators such as manufacturinghours, factory accession rates, layoff rates-which are indicatingweakness.

Senator PROXMIRE. Why isn't that reflected in the unemploymentfigures? Here we have an unemployment figure which, as you pointout, is 5.7 percent. We have had a big growth in overall jobs. It is

I For the Information referred to, see Mr. Layng's response on p. .88.

28

beyond me to understand why this generally gloomy element thatyou refer to here, layoffs and so forth, big layoffs in the automobileindustry, isn't reflected. Why not?

MS. NORwoon. Well, you will recall, Senator Proximre, that in thelast difficult period, in the last recession period, employment growthcontinued for quite a long time.

Senator rOXMIRE. Is this fairly typical, the lag involved here?Does employment stay up, and unemployment stay down as we movethis far along toward the indications of recession from other figures?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, unemployment always is very late in moving.It does tend to lag. Employment usually does not.

Senator PROXMIRE. I am going to have to run. I will be back in avery few minutes, and Senator Sarbanes will be chairing until I return.

Senator SARBANES [presiding]. Commissioner, I think we can resume.The Senator will be coming back shortly. I hope you will excuse meif I should repeat a question which he has previously asked, but Ithink this system of going to vote is probably the best way to do it.

I would like to pursue the point of whether the other economicindicators which people are pointing to, which have led, for instance,to the new internal Carter administration forecast with respect towhat's going to happen to the economy. These revised projectionswhich were described in yesterday's paper in a rather lengthy article,pessimistically predicting a much deeper downturn, anticipate theunemployment rate will go to 8.2 percent by the end of 1980.

Is there some anomaly between the figures you keep bringing us onthe unemployment rate and these other figures that people keeppointing to to show that the economy is slowing down and is indifficulty?

Chairman Miller says we are already in a recession.Ms. NORWOOD. A lot of people have said we are already in a reces-

sion. I think that soon-to-be-Chairman Volcker has said that there is afluttering occurring. As an economist, I must admit that forecasting isprobably one of the most difficult things that economists do, and thereis room for a lot of disagreement about it. It is hard to look at whatmight be the particular depth of a recession, and many of the fore-casters are in considerable disagreement. Some are predicting rathera mild recession, and others are predicting a much deeper recession.

What I am trying to say is that when one looks at the labor forcedata, the labor market data, in total, one has to recognize that some ofthe indicators that tend to lead during a period of downturn areweakening, and those are, in particular, manufacturing hours, manu-facturing employment, layoff rates, factory accession rates. Thoseclearly are weakening, and they are signs, clear signs, of difficulty.

The unemployment rates tend to be very late movers, and thetiming of a decline in employment itself is hard to predict. In the lastrecession, employment remained high for a considerable period oftime. There are a lot of unusual factors that are present now that havenot been present in the past, and they are hard to interpret.

There is a lot of focus on energy, for example. There is a lot ofinterest in the whole question of the labor force changes, whetherpeople will continue to come into the labor force, whether the dual-earner family, which is now very much more with us than it has beenin past recessions, will have an effect.

Senator SARBANES. Well, I note that this internal administrationforecast apparently is now predicting that the unemployment rate

29

will go to 8.2 percent by the end of 1980. Now, this morning you havebrought us a 5.7-percent figure.

When was the last time that the unemployment rate increased atthat pace over that period of time? In other words, we are talkingabout a year and a half, about 18 months, and the administration istalking about unemployment going from 5.6 percent or 5.7 percent to8.2 percent.

Ms. NORWOOD. In 1974, in August, the unemployment rate was5.4 percent. By May, the following May, May 1975, it had risen to 9.1percent. So, that is 9 months.

Senator SARBANES. So, in 9 months, from August 1974 to May 1975,it went from 5.4 percent to 9.1 percent?

Ms. NORWOOD. That's right.Senator SARBANES. Now, apparently, the administration in its last

official forecast published July 12, predicted that the unemploymentrate would go to 6.9 percent by the end of 1980. Now, approximately3 weeks later, they predict instead of going to 6.9 percent it's goingto go to 8.2 percent.

What economic figures are there that would warrant that verysubstantial increase in the projected unemployment?

Ms. NORWOOD. Senator, I don't know how the group arrived at theestimates. I have read about them in the newspapers, as I am sure youhave. However, I think it is certainly obvious that the changed energysituation was probably not factored into the previous estimates tothe extent that they probably have factored them into the estimatesnow.

In addition, available information for the month of June shows adrop in industrial production, a drop in factory orders, a drop in retailsales, as well as a quarter-at least a preliminary figure-for the grossnational product of a fairly sizable negative change.

And I would suppose that the working group, looking at the fore-cast, would have factored in all of those changes.

Senator SARBANES. Would you quickly go through the movementin the unemployment figures over that 1974-75 period that took itfrom 5.4 to 9.1 in 9 months?

Ms. NORWOOD. Starting with August 1974, it was 5.4, and thengoing from that, 5.9, 5.9, 6.6, 7.1, 8.0, 8.1, 8.5, 8.8, 9.1.

Senator SARBANES. Do you regard that as an extraordinary in-crease in the unemployment rate over a short period of time, or assort of a normal pattern as we move into a recessionary period? Whatlessons do we draw?

I must say to you that I was not fully aware of that. My anxietyand concern are greatly deepened by the fact that in the 9-monthperiod the unemployment rate jumped at such a significant pace.

Ms. NORWOOD. I think that was an extraordinary development.The 1973-75 recession, as you know, was really a very serious one,more serious than some of the previous ones in the 1960's and 1950's.

Senator SARBANES. Well, really, the most serious we've had sincethe 1930's.

Ms. NORWOOD. That's right. That is certainly so.Senator SARBANES. Well, are there any factors now present, as you

see the structure of the labor market and the figures, that would leadyou to think that either we are susceptible to a similar rapid increasein the unemployment rate or, to the contrary, that there are factorspresent that would mitigate against that, that we wouldn't get sucha fast escalation in unemployment?

57-254 0 - 80 - 3

30

Ms. NORWOOD. There are a number of factors.Senator SARBANES. These figures for 1974-75 show that in 9 months

we went from a situation, at least on the unemployment side, of beingrelatively sanguine about how the economy was functioning, tohaving the worst recession on our hands since the 1930's.

Ms. NORWOOD. There are a number of factors thatwere some whatdifferent in the 1973-75 recession, and that may even be different nowfrom that period. We have a very high rate of inflation. Inflationaryexpectations are rather difficult to evaluate.

If you look at the housing market now, for example, one would haveexpected that with such high rates of mortgage interest, housing startswould have been reduced long ago. But inflationary expectations havehad an important effect there.

It is difficult to know exactly how consumers will react to the rates ofinflation or to the energy issue. In 1973 we had-or the beginning of1974-we had problems with energy when OPEC started the bigprice increases. Consumers did not seem to react quite in the way theyare reacting now in terms of purchases of large cars. They are movingclearly to the purchases of small cars; they did a little of that beforebut not to this extent. Whether that is going to continue is somethingthat one can only speculate about. But if it does, it will have an impor-tant effect on the automobile industry. In the 1973-75 recession, theautomobile industry was a very important element.

So, that is another factor. There are a large number of very impor-tant industries in manufacturing which are suppliers to the automo-bile industry and whose employment or unemployment would be verymuch affected by what happens.

In addition, of course, we have had in the last decade rather phe-nomenal labor force growth, and we have had, in particular, a largenumber of women entering the labor force. We therefore have a lotmore two-earner households. How that would affect reactions of peo-ple is difficult to determine, but I think that is a factor that we have totake into account.

Senator SARBANES. All those factors in a sense only heighten myconcern. The inflation is more serious now than it was then. I thinkthe consumer debt situation, as I recall, is more serious now than itwas then.

Well, my time is up. I will come back in the next round.Senator PROXMIRE [presiding]. I want to follow up on what Senator

Sarbanes said.Incidentally, I wanted to present Senator Sarbanes, who is a new

member on the committee. He is very valuable, as you all know. He isa Rhodes scholar, a brilliant student at Princeton, a very fine lawcareer, and a very fine career in the House, but more pertinently forthis committee, he served on the Council of Economic Advisers as aneconomist, and he obviously is a professional and an expert in thisarea. So he is a great addition.

Senator SARBANES. I am glad I asked my questions before I wasdisqualified from asking them by that introduction. [Laughter.]

Senator PROXMIRE. Let me ask you what effect a series of prospec-tive developments might have on unemployment, whether it be sig-nificant or not, and the direction.

First, supposing Chrysler should have to go through bankruptcy.What effect might that have? Can you give us any idea? Some people

31

argue if they did, the other firms would simply pick up the demandthrough producing more Fords and General Motors cars and so forth.

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, certainly, whatever were to happen, therewould be an initial important large layoff of people. I really don'tknow what the capacity of other companies would be to pick it up.But there is an important work force employed by the Chrysler Corp.,and there are, as indicated before, a large number of importantindustries

Senator PROXMIRE. What would this be-150,000? Can you give usany notion?

Ms. NORWOOD. I don't know. We could try to check.Senator PROXMIRE. Would you do that?Ms. NORWOOD. Sure.[The following information was subsequently supplied for the

record:]This information cannot be supplied by BLS because of confidentiality restric-

tions relating to the provision of data for individual firms.

Senator PROXMIRE. How about a UAW strike. We've had experiencewith that. We had a strike, what, 3 years ago?

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes.Senator PROXMIRE. Can you give us, on the basis of that experience,

how serious that might be?Ms. NORWOOD. I don't have the specific figures, but I can give you

a list of the industries that might be affected, which is quite large.Metal stampings, iron and steel foundries, blast furnace, basic steel,wholesale trade, automobile repair, handtools, fabricated metal prod-ucts, tires and tubes, machine shop products, engines, turbines, andgenerators.

It becomes widespread. Those are the industries which tend tosupply the automobile industry. I am not suggesting that there wouldbe immediate reaction. If there were a strike, it would depend uponthe length of the strike, obviously.

Senator PROXMIRE. How about the Soviet grain situation? I under-stand we may sell 8 million tons of wheat to the Soviet Union. They'vehad a very bad year that could have various effects, of course, uponfood prices in this country. Can you give us some idea of what thedimensions of that might be?

Ms. NORWOOD. No; I can't. I really don't know much more thanwhat I have read in the newspaper. The Agriculture Department hasbeen saying that, and I have not seen any real estimates.

Senator PROXMIRE. Let me ask just two others, along that line.No. 1: Suppose we have another sharp OPEC price increase, for what-ever reason it may be-because of a disruption in Saudi Arabia orsome other country, for whatever reason-can you give us some notionof the effect that would have on employment and unemployment?

Ms. NORWOOD. I think that would depend, to a large extent, onhow consumers and producers reacted to the increased costs. Therehas been a lot of work done on price elasticities of energy, in general.Certainly, it would have to raise costs; it would probably affectproduction and therefore would inevitably result in increasedunemployment.

32

The tourist industries apparently, though we don't have any harddata, seem to have been affected already by the increased cost ofgasoline and the lack of availability of it.

Senator PROXMIRE. But that effect could be more severe?Ms. NORWOOD. Yes; certainly.Senator PROXMIRE. Now, how about the effect of the kind of tax

reduction that has been advocated by many Members of Congress,a $20 or a $30 billion tax cut. In the first place, how prompt wouldthat be likely to be? Is there about a year's lag before that would havea stimulative effect on the economy, or would it be more prompt?

Ms. NORWOOD. I really can't answer that, Senator Proxmire.I think it would depend to a very large extent on exactly how thelegislation was put together, and it would be pure speculation on mypart to attempt to answer a question like that.

Senator PROXMIRE. Now, to follow up on some of the inquiries thatSenator Sarbanes was making. The composite index of leading eco-nomic indicators for June fell only one-tenth of 1 percent. Thatfollowed a very sharp drop in April of 2.1 percent and a slight rise inMay. But the index now stands below the level of April a year ago.

Many economists, as you know, have said that we are in the midstof a recession, including Treasury Secretary Miller, heralded by the3.3-percent drop in real GNP.

Are the economic indicators still giving us fairly reliable and firmsignals, or do you think that they are not as useful as they have been?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, you know, Senator Proxmire, we have dis-cussed this in recent hearings. And certainly, if you look back overmost of the earlier recessions, there was very good predictive valuefrom the leading indicators index. In the last recession, the situationwasn't quite so clear in terms of the numbei of months following theindicators.

Also, of course, the leading indicators index has been revised severaltimes, and it is hard to tell. But, clearly, a drop in the leading indi-cators is a worrying sign.

Senator SARBANES. It is very important for us, I think, to under-stand. When you look at the indicators, what goes through your mindin terms of what to anticipate in the unemployment rate? One daythere is a story in the paper that says the economic indicators areoff, that GNP is down, and the Secretary of the Treasury says we'rein a recession. A few days later, you come in and you give us anunemployment figure just like the unemployment figure for the pre-vious month.

We have to have some sort of chart that gives us some idea. Iknow you don't want to make predictions; you abjure them rigorously,and I respect that premise that you work from. But let's look backand maybe we can do it that way.

There must be some soit of chart you can show which says, generallyspeaking, that in the past, given these indicators, we got this kind ofmovement in the unemployment figures at a certain period thereafter.

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, Senator, the definition of a recession reallydepends upon a recurring period of decline in a lot of different indi-cators, and that, in general, has to last over a long period of time.Now, that is a technical approach, and that is why it takes so long forpeople to be willing to set the peak or the trough of the economy.

33

But if you look at the whole body of data that are currently avail-able to us, most of them go through the month of June-the employ-ment situation data that we put out are the first ones for July-if youlook at the whole series of data for the last quarter, and, in particular,for June, you find a very large number of indicators that are showingdeclines. And many of those are indicators which tend to lead at thebeginning of a period of recession.

The unemployment rate, as such, is affected, of course, by whathappens not Just to employment in the economy, but also to the laborforce, whether people continue to go into the labor force. Someeconomists maintain that a lot of people are coming into the laborforce because jobs are available, and if there are fewer jobs available,fewer of them may come into the labor force.

In general, the unemployment rate, after several months of cleardecline in employment, would be expected to show a considerableincrease.

If you look at the last recession, it was several months before theunemployment rate really rose steeply. There is a chart at the end ofthe release which shows this, with the shaded area for the 1973-75recession. The unemployment rate went up and then went up sharplysome months later. But there was a tendency for it to lag.

That has happened in other periods as well.Senator PROXMIRE. I understand John Layng has had an oppor-

tunity to calculate how much inflation would have to decline in orderto meet the administration's first forecast and second forecast oninflation, whether it was 10.6 and 11.8.

Mr. LAYNG. That is what I used to make the calculations. Let mesay that these are rough and in rather simple terms. But as you indi-cated, for the first 6 months of this year we've had a rate of increaseof 13.2 percent. In order to achieve 11.8 for the year, it would have todrop to about a 10.4-percent rate, or about eight-tenths or nine-tenthsof 1 percent per month.

To make 10.6 percent, by comparison, we would have to have aboutan 8-percent rate in the second half of this year, or an average monthlyincrease of six-tenths to seven-tenths of 1 percent.

Senator PROXMIRE. Very good. Thank you very much.Now, Madam Commissioner, I remember very well in April, when

you were very emphatic in saying that the drop in employment hadnot signaled a turnaround in the economy, that the economy was stillstrong. Would you agree now that April was that turning point?Were you wrong then or were you right then?

Ms. NORWOOD. Let me say that I think that what I said then wasthat the drop in April was a statistical aberration. And I think thatwhat I have said today is that the increase of 400,000, almost 460,000,is not a turnaround upward.

I think there has been a slowdown, a clear slowdown, I believe thatperhaps March is a time to look at, particularly because of the peculiarsituation in April.

Senator PROXMIRE. Well, are we in a recession, in your judgment?Ms. NORWOOD. As I have indicated, Senator, I think that that is

something that, in terms of a technical definition of a recession, wehave got to wait for a longer time to decide. It will probably be 6 or8 months before we know whether the technical definition of a reces-sion has been met.

34

What I do think is happening is serious signs of slowdown, serioussigns of weakening, particularly in the manufacturing sector of theeconomy.

Senator PROXMIRE. Well, you are the top expert in the Governmenton statistics. It seems to me we have to look to you to give us yourjudgment on whether we are or are likely to be in recession. We havethe top political people, who are very able people, who make theirjudgment. But they obviously don't have the professional competencethat you have.

Ms. NORWOOD. As I have indicated, the definition of a recession is atechnical issue, and that is something the National Bureau ofEconomic Research has always waited months and months andmonths for, to look at all of the recurring data over a period of time.

What I have said, and I believe very firmly, is that there areserious signs of weakening in the economy.

Senator PROXMIRE. Well, in past recessions, what was the usualtimelag between a fall off in employment and a rise in the unem-ployment rate?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, before a business cycle peaks, the householdsurvey usually has shown a drop for sometimes 1 or 2 months-alarge drop, 4 to 5 months before a peak. And the establishment surveyhas usually been quite flat, that is, with relatively little change orslight increases.

What is happening now is certainly not inconsistent with that.Senator PROXMIRE. Can you tell us about-I missed in your

statement, if you covered it, the dispersion rate. As I recall, in recentmonths it has been pretty encouraging. A majority of industries arestill hiring. That has been an encouraging element in the economicpicture.

Ms. NORWOOD. You missed it in my statement, Senator, because Idid not put it in, and the reason I didn't put it in the statement is itis 50.6. I find it very difficult to interpret.

Senator PROXMIRE. Why, isn't that pretty good? After all, we havehad, as you say, a rise in employment for a long, long time. And if westill have half of the firms still continuing to increase employment,it seems to me that is a pretty encouraging indicator.

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, it is not particularly discouraging. But Ithink one of the difficulties is that it has-

Senator PROXMIRE. Well, encouraging in the context of everythingelse we have heard, that we are slowing down and so forth.

Ms. NORWOOD. It was down as low as 44 in April and it has beenup as high as 75 and 80 at the beginning of the year. So 50 percent iscertainly much lower than it was at the beginning of the year.

But T think that the April-May fluctuations is very difficult tointerpret.

35

Senator PROXMIRE. My time is up again. Senator Sarbanes.Senator SARBANES. Commissioner, the indicators show a 3.3-percent

drop in real GNP in the second quarter. What happened to the un-employment rate in the past when we were confronted with comparabletrends in the indicators and when did it happen? When and over whatperiod of time did it reflect itself in the unemployment rate?

Ms. NORWOOD. I can tell you that this time the second quarter un-employment rate was about the same as the first quarter. So as of nowin this period, we have not had much of an effect. And I will supply forthe record-I don't have offhand the specifics of the number ofmonths following the GNP drop, but I can provide that.

Senator SARBANES. I think it would be helpful if you could providesome analysis that runs along the following lines, that say: over thelast 10 or 20 years, when the indicators showed something comparableto what they are showing now, this is what happened subsequentlywith respect to the unemployment rate. That is not saying that it willin fact happen this time, but that at least will tell us what happened inthe past when we started to get an economy that looked like theeconomy looks now.

And we also have to factor in the additional elements that are nowpresent. Could one say that in the past we never had a drop of this sortthat was not subsequently reflected in a significant increase in the un-employment rate? Would that be an accurate statement to make?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, we will supply a review of that for the record.[The following information was subsequently supplied for therecord:]

REAL GNP AND UNEMPLOYMENT

During the last recession, November 1973 to March 1975, the unemploymentrate rose modestly at first in response to a declining GNP; eventually the raterose sharply. Real GNP declined 3.9 percent between the fourth quarter of 1973and the first quarter of 1974. During the entire recession, the real GNP declinesaveraged 4.5 percent per quarter. The unemployment rate rose 0.3 percentagepoint between the fourth quarter of 1973 and first quarter of 1974; and averaged0.8 percentage point per quarter rise through the first quarter of 1975, the cycletrough. The unemployment rate rose an additional 0.7 percentage point betweenthe first and second quarters of 1975.The magnitude of the decline in real GNP in 1973-75 was exceptional, however.This recession was much deeper than the other post-war recessions. During the1969-70 recession, real GNP declined an average of 0.8 percent per quarter.Between the third quarter of 1969 and the fourth quarter of 1970, the unem-ployment rate rose an average of 0.4 percentage point per quarter. In contrastto 1973-75, the 1969-70 recession's real GNP declines were quite modest whilethe unemployment rate changes were nearly as great. The different relationshipsbetween GNP decline and unemployment rate increases exhibited in the last tworecessions indicate the difficulty of relating changes in the unemployment rate tochanges in real GNP.

36

THE BUSINESS CYCLE, REAL GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

Unemployment rateGross national (seasonally adjusted)

productl(1972ollurs) change Change from

from preceding preceding quar-quarter (annual ter2 (percentage

Business cycle (calendar year quarter) rate, percent) Level (percent) points)

I. 1973-75 period (peak, November 1973; Through, March 1975):1973: IV - - 2.0 4.8 0.01974:

------ -------------- -------------------------- - 3.9 5.1 . 3II- - -1. 8 5. 2 I.1III - -- 2.4 5.6 -4IV - -- 5. 5 6.6 -1. 0

1975:I-------------------------------------------- - _- 9.1 8.2 -1 .6I I-.-- 6. 4 8.9 -. 7

11. 1969-70 period (peak, December 1969; Through, November1970):

1969:Ill------------------------- 1.4 3.6 -.2IV -- - -2.2 3.6 .0

1970:I- - -1. 4 4.2 -. 6I I - - .2 4.7 -. 5III - -3.0 5. 2 -. 5IV 63.8 5.8 _.6

Ill. 196041 period (peak. April 1960; Through. February 1961)1960:

------------------------------------------------ 8.2 5.2 .4II- - 1. 0 5.2 .0Ill - - -1.7 5.6 -. 4IV - -2.0 6.3 -. 7

1961:---------------------------------------------- 2.6 6.8 - .5

I I - - 6.9 7.0 -. 2IV. 1957-58 period (peak, August 1957; Through. April 1958):

1957Ill - 2.8 4.2 -.1IV - 5.1 4.9 -. 7

1958:---------------------------------------------- -7.6 6. 3 - 1. 4

I I- 2.9 7. 4 -1. I

I Real GNP's peak preceded the business cycle's peak during 196041 and 1969-70 period; real GNP's and cycle's peakcoincided during 1957-58 and 1973-75 period.

I Because the unemployment rate rises during a recession and falls during a recovery, the series is inverted * * * arise in the rate is given a negative value; a fall in rate is given a positive value.

Source: Office of Economic Growth. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Aug. 9. 1979.

Senator SARBANES. I want to ask a couple of questions on theemployment-population ratio. First, just a technical question. Whatis the definition of "population" on the basis of which the ratio iscalculated?

Mr. STEIN. The population used there is 16 years of age and over,noninstitutional population, including the Armed Forces.

Senator SARBANES. So that's everyone in the country over 16 notinstitutionalized?

Mr. STEIN. That's right.Senator SARBANES. And I take it the 59.4 percent figure, almost 60

percent, is a record?Mr. STEIN. Yes, it is. It is equal to March and February, but those

3 months are a record.Senator SARBANES. For our whole history or as long as you have

been keeping statistics, is that right?Mr. STEIN. That's right.Ms. NORWOOD. It is largely due to women.Senator SARBANES. How does that compare, looking back to the

past? What was the normal figure in the past?

37

Mr. STEIN. That figure has been rising over a period of time, as thelabor force has been growing as well. So I don't think we could reallysay there was a norm.

Senator SARBANES. What was the figure 10 years ago?Mr. STEIN. It was 56.5 percent.Senator SARBANES. What about 20 years ago?Mr. STEIN. We would have to check the record for that.Senator SARBANES. I would be interested in that.[The following information was subsequently supplied for the

record :1The employment-population ratio in 1959 was 54.8 percent. Fully comparable

data do not exist before 1948.

Senator SARBANES. And that steady trend rise is almost entirelyattributable to women?

Ms. NORWOOD. To a large extent, yes.Senator SARBANES. How does that figure compare with other

countries?Ms. NORWOOD. That too we can supply for the record, because it

differs. The Scandinavian countries have very high participation andsome of the other countries, like Italy, have much lower. But we cansupply that for the record.

[The following information was subsequently supplied for therecord:]

EMPLOYMENT-POPULATION RATIOSI APPROXIMATING U.S. CONCEPTS, 1960-78

United Ausl UnitedYear States Canada tralia Japan France Germany Italy Sweden Kingdom 3

1960 -56.1 3 52.6 (4) 66.7 58.6 59.4 55.8 (4) 59. 4

1961 -55.4 3 52. 4 () 66.8 58.1 59.6 55.6 62.2 59.71962 -55.5 52.9 (4) 66.0 51.1 59.3 54.7 63.0 59.21963 -57. 55.4 .53.1 (4) 66.3 56.2 59.2 53.4 63.4 59.01964 - 55.7 53.8 57.9 64.1 56.4 58.8 52.5 62.0 59.41965 -56.2 54.5 50.3 63.6 55.7 58.6 50.9 62.1 59.61966 -56.9 55.4 58.8 63.7 55.6 58.0 49.2 62.1 59.61967-57.3 55.4 59.2 64.0 55.4 56.3 49.5 60.9 58.51968-------- 57.5 55.0 59.3 64.1 55.1 56.2 48.8 61.0 58.21969- 58.0 55.3 59.5 63.9 55.4 56.6 48.4 61.1 58.01970-------- 57.4 54.5 60.9 63.8 55.3 56.6 48.0 61.9 57.51971 --- -- 56.6 54.5 60.2 63.4 55.0 56.1 47.7 61.6 56.91972-------- 57.0 54.9 59.9 62.8 54.9 55.3 46.4 61.4 56.91973-------- 57.8 56.4 60.4 63.2 55.1 54.9 46.2 61.4 58.81974-------- 57.8 57.3 60.4 62.2 55.0 53.5 46.6 62.6 58.71975-------- 56.0 56.9 59.2 61.2 53.5 51.6 46.4 63.8 58.11976 -56.8 56.7 59.0 61.1 53.3 50.9 46.3 63.9 58.01977 -57.9 56.6 58.5 61.2 53. 2 ' 51. 0 46.3 63.9 ' 57.91978 -59.4 57.4 57.3 61.3 53. 1 51. 0 46.3 64.0 57. 8

I Civilian employment adjusted to U.S. concepts as a percent of the civilian working age population. The data relateto persons 16 and over in the United States, France, Sweden, and beginning in 1973, Great Britain; 15 and over in Canada.Austrela, Japan, Germany, and prior to 1973, Great Britain; and 14 and over,, Italy.

?Gra Bianonly.3Estimates by BLS based on new survey definitions. Statistics Canada revised the data for 1966 onward on the new surevy

4 Not available.' Preliminary.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Office of Productivity and Technology, Division of ForeignLabor Statistics and Trade, August 1979.

Senator SARBANES. I have just been pointed to the tables in thisyear's economic report, which show employment as a percent of popu-lation. It begins in 1948 at 55.8 percent, and then brings it forwardyear by year, obviously, and month by month in the most recent 2years; 59.1 percent in December 1978; and we are at 59.4. Just looking

38

at this very quickly, with only a couple of exceptions, it seems to havebeen from 55 to 59 percent over that period of time.

So, to get a much lower figure, which you referred to earlier, wewould have to go back really very far, wouldn't we? Before WorldWar II?

Ms. NORWOOD. Probably so.Senator SARBANES. I know you are going to provide us these other

country figures. But is it your impression that our figure is muchhigher?

Ms. NORWOOD. I think our participation figures are in generalhigher than some of the other countries, particularly Italy, for example,but are lower than some of the Scandinavian countries. There are somedifferences in the way in which these figures are developed in othercountries. They are not exactly comparable, either.

Senator SARBANES. Well, the 16 years of age may not be a standard.Is it?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, the definition of employment, too, may besomewhat different. We have done some work in that area. In fact wehave a bulletin which includes a discussion of this, and I would beglad to provide that for the record.

Senator SARBANES. Fine.[The bulletin referred to, together with a supplement, follows:]

39

International Comparisonsof UnemploymentU.S. Department of LaborRay Marshall, Secretary

Bureau of Labor StatisticsJulius Shiskin, CommissionerAugust 1978

Bulletin 1979

Prace

In 1961, the President's Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics(Gordon Committee) requested that the Bureau of Labor Statistics investigate the mitemationalcomparability of unemployment statistics. The resulting study described the definitions and con-cepts used in seven foreign countries and presented unemployment rates adjusted to U.S. conceptsfor 1960. Subsequent to the Gordon Committee study, the Bureau initiated a continuing programof interational labor force comparisons. To date, eight articles on unemployment comparisons havebeen published. Comparisons are presently made for eight foreign countries and are done on a quar-terly and monthly basis as well as on the annual basis of the original study. The primary purposes ofthis bulletin are to bring together all of the Bureau's work on intemational unemployment compari-sons and to describe in detail the methods of adjusting foreign unemployment rates to U.S. concepts.

Continuing contacts have been maintained with each of the countries covered, and there hasalso been correspondence and cooperation with intemational organizations such as the StatisticalOffice of the European Communites, the Inteinational Labour Office (ILO), and the Organiza-tion for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).A preliminary version of chapter I andappendix B of this bulletin was prepared for the OECD us 1975 and was subsequently circulatedto all member countries of the Organization. In June 1976, the paper was presented by the author,Constance Sorrentino, to the fust meeting of the OECD Working Party on Employment and Un-employment Statistics. Many helpful comments were received from the member countries.

The bulletin was prepared in the Bureau's Office of Productivity and Technology by Con-stance Sorrentino under the direcuon of Arthur Neef and John H. Chandler, Chief, Division ofForeign Labor Statistics and Trade. Joyanna Moy assisted in the research, tabulations, and writingof the bulletin. The data presented were those available as of December 1977.

Material in this publication is in the publc domain and may be reproduced without per-mission. Please credit the Bureau of Labor Statistics and cite the name and number of the pubis.cation.

iiI

40

ContentsPage

Introduction ...................................................................... I

Chapters:

1. The international measurement of unemployment. 4Development of international standards. ...................................... 4The U.S. definition .......................... , ., 5Sources of unemployment statistics .5Concepts and definitions....................................... 6Adjustment to U.S. concepts .IILimitations .14

2. Unemployment and employment, 1959.77 ............................... , . , .16Unemployment .............................. 16Employment ................. , , .. 22Country developments ................ , .. 26

3. Unemployment by age and sex . 35Teenage unemployment ...................... , . , . , . , .36Unemployment of older workers .39Unemployment by sex ...................... 40

4. Participation rates and employment-population ratios .41Comparative levels and trends .41Age structure of participation rates .45Cyclical trends in participation .46

5. Factors contributing to differences in unemployment levels .4Labor force growth .. , .. 48Labor force composition . 49Labor migration .......................... , . , . , ., 51Seasonality .. 54Income maintenance arrangements .. 55Labor market programs .. 60Factors affecting youth unemployment ............................................. 62Legal and social factors ........................................................ 65Conclusion ........................................................ 67

Charts:

1. Unemployment rates, selected years, 1959-76 ......... ............................... 22. Unemployment rates, 1959-76 .................................................. 163. Annual percent changes in civilian employment, 1960.76 ....... .......................... 234. United States: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 ..... ............. 265. Canada: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 ..... ................. 276. Australia: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1964.76 ..... ................ 287. Japan: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 ..... .................. 298. France: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 ..... .................. 299. Gemnany: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 ..... ................ 30

10. Great Britain: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 .................. 31

41

Contenti-twnnued:

Chmrts-Continued: Page11. Italy: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 ......................... 3212. Sweden: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1961-76 ..... .................. 3313. Youth unemployment rates, 1968 and 1976 .......................................... 3814. Ratio of teenage to adult unemployment rates, 1968 and 1976 ....... ....................... 3915. Age structure of labor force partitcpation rates, 1973 .................................... 45

Tables:I . Official unemployment rates and rates adjusted to US.

definitions, 1960 and 1976 ................................................... I2. Synopsis of unemployment statistics: Definitions recommended

by the Intemational Labour Office and definitions used in9 countries ............... ............................ . 7

3. Labor force, employment, and unemployment, 1959-76 . ................................... 174. Average unemployment rates, selected periods, 1959-76 ................................... 205. Highest and lowest unemployment rates, 1959.76 ....................................... 206. Quarterly unemployment rates, 1970.77 ............................ , . , .. 217. Employment growth rates, selected periods, 1959-76 ..................................... 22

8a. Employment by economic sector, selected years, 1960-76 .. 248b. Percent distribution of employment by economic sector,

elected years. 1960-76 ........................................ 259. Sweden: Effect of labor market programs on unemployment,

selected years, 1961-76 ............................................ ,,.,.3310. Unemploymentratesbyage and sex, 1968, 1970,and1974-76 .............................. 35II. Ratios of teenage to adult unemployment rates, 1968, 1970, and

1974-76 .................................... 3712. Labor force participation rates by sex, 1960-76 .................................... 4213. Employment-population ratios, 1960-76 .................................... 4314. Labor force participation rates by age and sex, 1973 .................................... 4415. Growth rates of population, labor force, and employment,

1960-76 .................................... 4916. Women and teenagers in the labor force, 1960, 1971,

1975, and 1976 .................................... 5017. Foreign workers in Germany, 1960 and 1965-76 ........................................ 5218. Estimated number of foreign workers by country of immigration

and emigration, 1975 ............................................... 5319. Construction industry: Range of indexes of employment, 1965

and 1975 .5420. Unemployment insurance systems, mid-1975 .......................................... 5621. Unemployment benefits as a percent of average eamings,

manufacturing workers, mid-1975 ......... ........................ 85822. Percent of 16- to 19-year-olds in educational institutions,

all levels, 1966-72 ......................................... : 64

Appendixes:A. International Labour Office definitions ......................................... 69B. Sources of data and methods of adjustment: Nine countries ................................. 70

United States ......................................... 70Canada ......................................... 73Australia ......................................... 77Japan ......................................... 80France ......................................... 86

vi

42

Contents-Continued:

Appendixes-Continued: Ae

Germany ............................................ 100Great Britain ............................................ 108Italy ............................................ 124Sweden ............................................ 137

C. Methods of adjustment by age and sx ............................................ 147D. Adjustment of participation rates and employment-population

ratios ............................................ 153E. European Community labor force surveys .......................................... 154F. Unemployment rates on a total labor force basis . ..................................... 157

Appendix tables:

B-I. Japan: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959-76 ............................ 86B-2. France: Unemployment as recorded by labor force surveys,

1960-76 ... 93B-3. France: Adjustment of unemployment data from October surveys

to U.S. concepts, 196066 ... 94B-4. France: Adjustment of unemployment data from Muach surveys to

U.S. concepts, 1963-76 .... 95B-5. France: Adjustment of labor force data from October surveys

to U.S. concepts, 196066 ... 97B-6. France: Adjustment of labor force data from March surveys

to U.S. concepts, 1963-76 ............................................... 98B-7. France: Labor force and unemployment data before and after

adjustment to U.S. concepts, 1959-76 ........................................ 99B-8. Genvany: Statistics on the registered unemployed, 1959-76 ....... ................... 100B-9. Germany: Unemployment according to the Microcensus, 1959-76 ...................... 104

B-10. Geanany: Adjustment of Microcensus unemployment from early-in-monthto end-of-month estimate, 1959-62 ......................................... 104

B-I l. Germany: Adjustment ratios using alternative methods .............................. 105B-12. Germany: Estimated annual average Microcensus unemployed

and unemployment rates based on alternative methods ............................ 106B-13. Germany: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959-76 ........................ 1078-14. Great Britain: Derivation of adjustment factors from the

1961 census. ....................................................... 112B-15. Great Britain: Derivation of adjustment factors from the

1966 census . ............................................... 113B-16. Great Britain: Derivation of adjustment factors from the

1971 General Household Survey ........................................... 113B-17. Great Brtain: Calculation of the unregistered unemployed,

1959-71 ............................................... 122B-18. Great Britain: Adjustment of labor force data to U.S. concepts, 1959-76 ....... . ... 124B-19. Italy: Selected results from special labor force surveys,

April 1973 and April 1975 .............................................. 132B-20. Italy: Major results of the January 1977 labor force survey ........................... 132B-21. Italy: Calculation of unreported employment, 1959-76 ........ ..................... 135B-22. Italy: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959-76 ....... .................... 136B-23. Sweden: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1961-76 ....... .................. 139

C-I. Japan: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts,by age and sex, 1968 ............................................... 148

C-2. France: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts,by age and sex, March 1968 .............................................. 149

vii

43

Contents-Continued:

Appendix tables-Continued: Page

C-3. Genrmny: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to US. concepts,by age and sex, April 1968 . 150

C4. Great Britain: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S.concepts by age and sex, 1971 .151

C-S. Sweden: Labor force and unemploymtnet adjusted to U.S. concepts.byag andsex, 1968 . 152

E-1. Population of the European Community by type of activity,spring 1973 .156

F-I. Total labor force (including Armed Forces) and unemployment ratesadjusted to US. concepts, 1959-76 .157

Bibliography .158

viii

44

Introduction

Unemployment, like most phenomenea in the socialsciences, can be defrned in various ways. No single defini-

tion could posibly tisdfy all analytical and ideologicalinterests. For example, Julius Shiskin has identified anarray of seven unemployment rates for the United States,going from a very narrow to a very broad view.' The nar-rowest definition covered only persons unemployed 15weeks or longer; the broadest included all unemployed per-sons seeking full-time work and half of those seeking part-time work, half of the total number of persons workingpart time for economic reasons, and all discouraged workers.

The current official definition of unemployment in

the United States represents the total number of personsnot woriing but available for and actively seeking work.

This definition has had widespread support from variousstudy groups and was recommended by the Committee toAppraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics(Gordon Committee) established by President Kennedy in1961.0 The definition will be reviewed again by the Nation-al Commission on Employment and Unemployment Sta-tistics.

3The Commision has broad responsibility to ex-

amine the concepts, methods, and procedures involved in

collecting, analyzing, and presenting the employment dataand to recommend ways to improve the current system.

This bulletin presents adjustments of foreign unem-ployment rates to the US. concept of unemployment. TheU.S. concept was chosen as the basis for comparison be-caese it wouid furrish comparisons on temis most familiarto American users. Also, U.S. concepts follow closely theintemational standards recommended by the Intemational

Labour Office (iLO)' Most foreign countries have attempt-ed to follow the ILO definitions, but have made adapta-tions and interpretations to suit national needs.

The basic labor force and unemployment statistics ofthe foreign countries studied, with the exceptions of Aus-tralia and Canada, require adjustments to bring them intocloser comparability with US. data. Adjustments are madefor all known major definitional differences. The accuracyof the adjustments depends on the availability of relevantinformation; in some instances, it is necessary to make esti-mates based on incomplete data. Therefore, it is possible toachieve only approximate comparability among countries.Nevertheless, the adjusted figures provide a better basis forinternational comparisons than the figures regularly pub-lished by each country.

The adjustments made to the national data do not

have a very large effect in most cases. Only negligible

changes, or none at all, have been made In the unemploy-ment figures for Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, andSweden (table I)' In the cae of Germany, the adjustmentto U.S. definitions has resulted in a moderate reduction ofthe official figures on unemployment. Upward revisions ofthe unemployment figures for Great Britain and Francehave been substantial, in Britain's cawe mounting to over40 percent in years of low unemployment and about 14percent in recent years of hWih unemployment. French fig-ures adjusted to US. definitions were 50 percent higherthan the official French figures in the early 1960's, but theofficial and the adjusted figures have moved closer to eachother over the years and, in 1976, were almost identical.

The adjustments to US. conceptr do not make agreat deal of difference in the ranking of countries accord-

ing to unemployment rates. The countries at the top andthe bottom of the rankling are usually not affected. How-ever, the railtings in the middle of the array are oftenchanged after adjustments are made.

The purpose of the original BLS study for the GordonCommittee was to evaluate the widespread impression thatthe high rate of unemployment in the United States, ascompared to most other industrial countries, was largelydue to differences in methods of measurement. The majorconclosion drawn from the Bureau's study was that differ-ences in collection procedures and definitions were only a

minor factor in accounting for the higher Level of unemploy-

'Julrhs Shiskia, "Employmeat snd Us.mplymset: The Doagh-ass or she Hate," Mor-thly Lobeo- Res, February 1976, pp. 3-10.

Preaideat'a Commkite to Appraise Esployreet tnd Unemploy-oest Sttittrst Mrsssngr Employ tr -d U.,esptoy-ter (wha-ntoason, U.S. Govenrnent Printing Offioe, 1962).

'The Coosrssio a established onder she Emeersesry JobsPrograms Estension AMt of 1976, PL 94-444. See John E. 1roMan."Etablibaemt of a New Emrpboymoat Statlatirs ReView Codssaion,"MoMrthly Lsbo, Res4,. Marsh 1977, pp. 14-20.

4inoterotionda Labo.r Offi.. Eighth Interntoontl Coafereace ofLaboar Statisticians, Employmcnr end U-employ.atr Seatinrr,Rcprrr IV (Gea-va, IL, 1954).

5staly made a meor revirin murey method. In 1977. The

coeparetsvs data shown in this atdy ame based mn a plemitsnisyadyr. of the new tslian data. F.o a disosasion of the problems

involved, see appendi. B.

45

Chart 1. UnW=Vmnt Ras Setd YVos, 19ie-76

_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 910 076Percen

012345678910 0

Pece t?^ :'

; '.'S~~a, a~~l~a,;od z |

57-254 0 - 80 - 4

d .s8 1960

r.7~~~~~7.

.14

7 . 7~~~~17

2.1

446e 1,6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910

Percent

46

Tabl 1. Official unemployment rates aVd rats adjustedto US. definitiom, 1960 and 1976

1li% 1976Adjnmd to Adjuntd to

C-ontry ofid1iaI US. off0-.1 US.a1t dfinitionr nu deflfition.

Unoitd Stat. 5.5 5.5 7.7 7.7Cneda. ... 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.1Astr.i. . . (t) 1. 4A 4.6Japan ... . 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.0F.nn .... 1.3 1.8 4.5 46Ga---ny . . 1.3 1.1 4.6 35Gr Bt 8rii 1.5 2.2 5.6 6.4Isv .... 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.5Swatn . ., 3 1A 31 1.4 1.6 U

'Not eilal..' Prel-inrnV enimste.3196l.

ment in the United States.' After adjustment of suchdifferences to U.S. concepts, the rate of unemployment intsis country in 1960 was comiderubly higher than that forany of the other seven countries studied except Canada.

Chart I shows how the nine countries compared dur-ing 3 selected years and on the average for 1959-76. The1976 unemployment rate was unusually high for the UnitedStates and the year 1969 was one of relatively low US.unemployment. In both years, the United States rankednear the top in the array of countries.

Chapter I of this bulletin presenta a discussion of theinternational measurement of unemployment and a generaldescription of the methods used to adjust foreign unemploy-ment rates to US. concepts. The description of methodsprecedes the presentation of results (chapter 2) in the be-lief that some knowledge of the procedures involved willlead to greater understanding of the results. Breakdowns ofthe aggregate unemployment rates into their age and sexcomponents are described in chapter 3. Two other signifi-cant labor market indicators-participation rates and em-ployment-population ratios-are analyzed in chapter 4.

Although the unemployment data for foreign coun-tries have been adjusted for statistical comparability, inter-country differences in unemployment rates reflect sub-stantial differences in social attitudes and institutional at-rangernents, as well as to economic performance. Differ-ences in the demographic and sectoral composition of thelabor force also affect the unemployment sates. Such non-definitional differences are investigated in chapter 5. Ap-pendix B presents detailed descriptions of each country'sdata and the methods of adjustment to U.S. concepts.

It should be kept in mind that unemployment isonly one measure of underutilization of the labor force.Underutilization may also take the form of underemploy-ment. The term underemployment is usually used to referto persons in the labor force who involuntarily work parttime ("visible" underemployment) or who are underutilizedin terms of some efficiency or income standard ("invisible"underemployment).' :Because of difficulties in quantify-ing invisible underemployment, statistical measures ateusually confined to measuring the nusber of persons work-ing part time for economic reasons. It would be very usefulto develop broader measures of underutilization, but themost that has been attempted here is to mention otherrelevant variables which are available for each country.Comprehensive and comparable data on tabor underutiiza-tion have not 'yet been developed. The Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development is doing someexperimental work in the area of setting up a standardizedsystem for monitoring all facets of the labor market. How-ever, much more data must become available before such asystem can come into being.

"Co-paretive Levels of Unemployment a lndusriol Countne,'" by Robert . MyJrs A ad John H. Cbsuedle, appendii A ofMenSacig Employmetr and Uesemploymenr Pesddent' Conmitteeto Appraise Employment and Unemployment Sttistics (Washng.ton, Govement Priting Office, 1962). Th. report wa a1ls pub-tithed in a sborte verion in fet August rod September 1962 iaesof the Monthly LoborReries.

For a detailed description of the cancept of underemploy-mert, ee M-snseemmt of Uode mploymm-r: Concept and Meth-Od, (Geneva, lotematiomna Labour OMn., 1966).

47

Chapter 1. The International Measurement of Unemployment

The earliest unemployment statistics were compiledby trade unions in order to determine how many of theirmembees were temporarily unemployed. Although recordsof unemployment among their members have generallybeen kept by trade unions since their earliest days, it wasonly in the early 1900's that governments began to collectand publish such statistics. In some countries data were alsogathered from unemployment funds paid out by the govem-ment to unemployed persons. At the beginning of WorldWar I the usefulness of the unemployment statistics pub-lished regularly by about a dozen countries was limited,since the data were neither nationally representative norinternationally comparable.'

With the development of mass unemployment in the1930's, the need for better unemployment statistics becameapparent. At that time, although countries were still pub-lishing unemployment funds data and trade union statis-tics, the majority of "Official" unemployment statisticswere derived from information collected by employmentoffices on the registered unemployed. Apart from attemptsin some decennial censuses, there were no direct measure-ment of the number of jobless persons at the beginningof the 1930's.

In the mid-1930's, in the United States, experimentswith direct surveys of the population occurred for the firsttime. The unemployed were then defined as those whowere not working but who were "willing and able to work."As this criterion appeared too dependent upon the inter-pretation and attitudes of the persons being interviewed, aset of concepts was developed in the late 1930's accordingto which an individual was classified as unemployed if hisactual activity within a reference period was "not workingand looking for work." Thtis criterion constitutes the basisof the modem definition of unemployment.

Dfvslopment of ineational standards

In view of the different needs of countries and thedifferences in their facilities for producing statistics, ithas never been senously proposed that all countries shouldadopt the same system for measuring unemployment. Agood deal of work has been done, however, toward develop-ing uniform international standards and definitions in em-ployment and unemployment statistics. The major role in

developing uniform standards has been played by the Inter-national Conference of Labour Statisticians, sponsored bythe International Labour Office (ILO).

As early as 1925 the ILO prepared a report on meth-ods of measuring unemployment for the Second Intema-tional Conference of Labour Statisticians. The Conferencerecommended that, where no satisfactory data could be ob-tained from other sources, "an attempt should be made toobtain information on the extent of unemployment throughgeneral population censuses or that special inquiries relatingto the whole population or to an adequate sample of thepopulation be made from time to time."'

The Sixth International Conference of Labour Sta-tisticians adopted a resolution in 1947 deeming unemploy-ment, employment, and the labor force mainly on the basisof the activity of each individual during a specified period.This "actual status" concept was a departure from the"gainfully occupied" concept commonly used by mostcountries in the past, according to which the classificationof a person was not related strictly to activity during anyspecified time period, but more to a "usual activity."

The "actual status" approach was first used in a na-tional census in the 1940 Census of the United States. Thisapproach is now the worldwide standard, with variousmodifications.

The Eighth International Conference of Labour Sta-isticcians meeting in 1954, approved definitions of em-ployment, unemployment, and the labor force which arenow widely acknowledged, though by no means generallyobserved.3

In statinary, the ILO definitions (given in detail inappendix A) include as unemployed all persons who, dur-ing a specified time period, were without a job, availablefor work, and seeking work. Also included are persons whohad made arrangements to start a new job at a later dateand persons on temporary or indefinite layoff without pay.Persons in these two categories did not have to be seekingwork The labor force is defined as the sum of the unem-ployed and the employed. The employed consist of allpersons who, during a specified time period, performed

'Thte InAetnsuti-d Srandrdtafion of L.bo-r Statiasbe (Geeva.Int-etional Labour Offie. 19S9).

3------- n~ -----------hh ntrn tnn l nfrec'Fnr futher information, -ti "Sttisis of Unemplty-ent or Labs lrsuticdns, op. ot. See as The, nreoatnd1 Standrd.

among Workers' OWsrizatioss," Intenrarfiond Labun, Reiew. u-rto. of LAbou Stiatuar. Sludies and Repor.s, ew. Series. No.Jsnuay 1921, pp. 115-20. 53 (G.n.va, ILO, 19S9).

48

some work for pay or profit, including the telf-employed.Unpaid family workers are included if they worked for atleast one-third of the nomnal working time during thespecified period. Persons with a job but not at work be-cause of illness, industrial dispute, vacation, etc. are re-garded as employed. The Anmed Forces may be included orexcluded from the labor force.

The ILO concepts are still officially recognized, andthe 12th Conference of Labour Statisticians in 1973 didnot fund any need to modify them. However, the defini-Utons leave much room for interpretation. For example, thedefinition of unemployment indicates that a person shouldbe seeking work to be counted as unemployed (unless wait-ing to begin a new job or on temporary layoff). However,no mention is made of how actively a person must be seek-ing work or within what period of time in the past a personmust have tested the job market. The definitions state thatan unemployed person should be available for work, butthey do not require a test of current availability. TheArmed Forces may be either included or excluded from thelabor force. Also, the ILO definitions recommend a lowerage limit for the statistics, but do not specify how that ageiemit should be determined. Further, the ILO definitions

do not specify the reference period for the statistics, allow-ing it to be either I day or I week.

The theory behind the ILO's standard definitions isthat countries having different types of statistical systemscan produce unemployment statistics that are reasonablycomparable from country to country. In fact, however,relatively few countries strictly observe the internationaldefinitons, and, even among those that do, there is roomfor some divergence, since the ILO definitions are not al-together rigid on certain points. It i for these reasons thatadjustments in the figures for various countries are neces-sary if comparisons of unemployment levels are to be made.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and De-velopment (OECD) has accepted the ILO definitions andhas attempted to promote their use among its 24 membercountries. Building upon the work done by BLS, the OECDhas attempted to estimate unemployment rates on a sta-Itistically consistent basis.' The OECD has made estimatesfor Finland, Norway, and Spain as well as the countriesstudied by BLS. The OECD figures are based on the totallabor force rather than the civilian labor force. BLS est-mates on a total labor force basis are shown in appendix F.

The Statistical Office of the European Communitieshas also been working to achieve comparability of employ-ment and unemployment statistics among its nine members.Labor force surveys using common definitions were con-ducted in the member countries in October 1960, in thespring of 1968 through 1971, and thenceforth, every 2years. A description of these surveys appears in appendix E.

'rtganization fur Economir Cuoperatie and Devetopreent,£Econoic Ostlook, July 1976, pp. 32 Asd 106-10.

The U.S. definition

The definitions used in the US. labor force suveyfollow the general outline of the ILO definitions, but aremore specific. The U.S. definitions, described in detail inappendix B, require unemployed persons to take active job-seeking steps within the 4-week period including the ref-erenoce week. Only persons on layoff who were waiting tobe called back to their job and persons waiting to start anew job within 30 days do not have to actively test the jobmarket to be classified as unemployed. Also, unemployedpersons must be available to begin work immediately, ex-cept for temporary illness, and there is a survey question totest current availability.

The minimum age limit for the U.S. survey is 16, apoint left undecided in the ILO definition. Also left unde-cided by the ILO was whether labor force status should bemeasured on a particular day or throughout a paticularweek. The US. survey uses a week as its basic referenceperiod.

US. labor force survey data are collected for thecivilian noninsUtitutional population only. Persons in theArmed Forces are excluded from the employment andlabor force totals.

Sources of unemployment statistics

To obtain their official unemployment data, thecountries studied use one of two systems for measuming an-employment: employment office registrations and laborforce sample surveys. Employment office data generallyrelate to the number of persons on the register as of oneday during a month. The figures may include persons al-ready employed who are seeking more work or a change ofjobs. The number of job applicants registered depends onthe way the system is organized, the extent to which per-sons are accustomed to register, and the inducements forthem to do so. Changes in legislation and administrativeregulations can affect the continuity of the registrationsseries.

Labor force sample surveys record the labor forcestatus of a person as of a reference week. Sample surveysusually yield the most comprehensive statistics on unem-ployment since they include groups of persons who are notcovered in unemployment statistics obtained by othermethods. New entrants and reentrants into the labor force,for example, would be enumerated as unemployed in laborforce surveys if they are looking for work, whereas theymay not register as unemployed because they are ineligibleto collect unemployment benefits.

Labor force sample surveys provide a better basis forinternational unemployment comparisons than statistics onregistrations at employment offices. Such surveys have beendeveloped specifically to measure the employment statusand characteristics of the population above a certain age.They are not dependent upon changes in legislation and

49

regulations. Because their central purpose is the same, thesesurveys have many features in common, although inevitablythere are special features of the work in each country whichreflect national circumstances and needs. In contrast, thecoverage of registrations statistics vanes widely from countryto country. In some countries, for example, married womenmay accept the option of not joining the unemploymentinsurance system, and, hence, are not able to collect unem-ployment benefits if they lose their jobs. Other uninsuredgroups, such as first-time jobseekers, also have no financialincentive to register.

Sample surveys often collect a wealth of informationwhich can be utilized to make adjustments to a commonconceptual framework. Moreover, such surveys are betterequipped than registrations data to solve some of the follow-ing problems of measurement:

I. Determination of the reasons why some peoplehave jobs but are nor working (vacation, illness,layoff).

2. Identification of persons currently seeking workto start at a future time (e.g., students looking inearly spring for a summer job) who arm not readlycarrently available to begin work.

3. Identification of persnes who have ceased theirjobseeking activities because they have found a jobto which they expect to report at a future date,but for which they are immediately available.

4. Identification of "discouraged workers" who donot seek work because they believe that there isno work available.

All the above problems conceraing unemploymentmeasurement are more readily solved through labor formcsurveys than through data on placements or unemploymentinsurance registrants. In practice, statistics based on registra-tions, by not including the nonregistered unemployed, havea downward bias; on the other hand, they tend to generateinflated figures because of the temporary inclusion of per-sons who have found work and are actually working and ofpeople not seriously interested in finding work but whoregister for social benefits or to maintain eligibility for apension. Persons who are working would be classified asemployed in a labor force sample survey and those notreally "looking for work" would most likely be recorded as"not in the labor force."

Of the countries studied here, all currently conductlabor force sample surveys. Surveys provide the "official"statistics on the unemployed in Australia, Canada, Italy,Japan, Sweden, and the United States.

5In France, Ger-

many, and Great Britain, the regularly published unem-ployment figures refer to the registered unemployed. Inaddition, France and Germany have conducted labor force

5Ausudlsa sad Italy also give wide distributioa to their stered

rnemployed utnaisr doer such sa tibtca are availabe ronthlywbile the tubor fors. rasey atadltira are aviable oaly quatedy.Sweden alno uses regisration date widely even tbohab ronthlysrsvey dat- re ilble.

surveys since the 1950's, and Great Britain initiated amonthly household sample survey in 1971. However, theregistered unemployed senes remains the "official" un-employment series in all three countries partly becauseregisration results ae available more frequencly and ona much more timely basis than the survey results.

Concepts and definitions

Definitions of unemployment and the labor forcediffer from country to country, even when the same typeof data collection method is used. Appendix B to this studypresents detailed descriptions of the unemployment con-cepts used in the nine countries. Table 2 provides a synopsisof the major areas of difference among the countries. ForFrance, Germany, and Great Britain, two columns areshown, one covering the "official" employment officeseries and the other covering the labor force survey. Theentries in table 2 represent the current status of the oatis-tics. It should be pointed out that changes have been madeover the years in all the countries so that different entries mnsome areas would have been required an earlier years. Thefollowing discussion focuses upon the items shown in table2. Unless otherwise specified, labor force survey data ratherthan employment office data are described here for France,Germany, and Great Britain.

Age limitr. The ILO recommends that countries establish alower age limit for labor force statiatics, but does not specifywhat that limit should be or how it should be detersinned.The lower age limit in the U.S. survey is 16, and for theother countries it ranges from 14 to 16. Only Sweden hasan upper age limit as well as a lower one.

Reference period. The ILO definition recommends that thereference period for labor force statistics be a specified dayor week. In all of the labor force surveys studied here, thegeneral reference period is a week. Registration statistics,however, use a reference period of I day.

For jobseeking activities by unemployed persons, thereference period has been expanded beyond I week in thesample surveys of some countries. In the United States,Canada, and Australia, a person is counted as unemployedif he sought work within the 4 weeks including the refer-ence week. In Sweden, a 60-day period for jobseeking isallowed.

In several of the labor force surveys, the allowableperiod for jobseeking activities is ambiguous.' In France,Germany, Great Britain, and Italy the survey questionnairedoes not clearly specify the jobseeking period. Thus, somepersons may interpret it to be the reference week of the

6Prior to 1967, the U.S. survey qoesorna..ire a1s did not specifya thoe period for jobkeekig. It was probably interpreted by meobueekers to refer only to the surrey week itnt.

6

50

Table 2 Synopsis of unenploymentstatistics Definitions recommended by tie International Labour Officemnd definitions used in 9 countrie

It1em______ L j Unte|d C i 1................ IUnm-cifi d

Uospecif ledUnspeifitd

I day orI -ek

I day orI week

Unspnified

Exduded ifworked lesthan a-third of nor-nti workingtidr

Included

ExclWded, butno tart ofworkeking

lrclud~dUnseraitied

Inlduded

Excluded,but no tetef mailebility

Frequency ..................Ago lirira.

RFefaranc period.

RNerfn.no pned for jib n eeking.

Whether iroluded in labor orte:Carenr militery pernonnel.Unpaid family morker working

less thn 15 hpun.

Whether included in unemployed:2Perons un layoff.Pe-not who ho.. not actively

sootght ark..

Te-pararily ill iobseeker..Stedont, -anking work.Perons waiting to report to

anew job ate later date.obseeken not currnnvly ann abie

fIr work.

Persora who did same work anedalso leaked for mark E.. I d d

Special1 .. l.smns . -

Elsa f-or snamplo.yent rate. Un neifled

LaorcCate

Munthly16le ln

and naryI wnegc

4 weeks

LaburCarte-naY

Monthly15 yearn

and pnerI meek

4 marko

Ltoorfoceeartev

Quartefly15 pearand oer

I week

4 weeks

Laborfore

Monthly15 Years

end -er1 week

1 wnnk

cuded Enloudd I Ecludd ded

Eunluded IInluded Eacloded Included

Included Included3

Included7

Encluded Encloded Excluded

IxUluddIncluded

IncluWe

Eacladed

InclduddIncluded'

Included

Excluded

IncluddIncluded

Included

Excluded

EXcaUded I Ecluded I Ecluded

CiOWlian CivOWinlaebr laborfor- fume

Excluded

Excluded,but notent of

ak-ueking

Included

Encldad,but notest ofaEail-ability

Excluded

Cloiviab Totallabor labofame foma

Employ-

office qwimtrations

MonthlyNone

I d3V

I dav

Excluded Excluded

Included Included

IncludedEacluded

Excluded

Excluderd

Included3Pewone

enner 60years oldand neanloinglncamegun-tee' Pay'mnts6pasonssrbeingpart-timeNne;wwk

N-lcelcubred

a ___________ L _______ � ________ I ________ I ________ I

Sta footnotenat end nf rable.

7

Source Labor

Annual

and ane-1 wenk

Un pecifled I

Included

Included

IncludedIncluded

Excluded

Included

Inclododa

Totaillaborfume

.

51

Tale 2. Synosi of un ment stics Definitions eonoonded by te inStenalonal Labour Officeenwd definit i ud in 9 cUnContinued

It m | Gon y I - Greet Bdtain [ It'it I Sweden

S our. ...................

Fr qur .'V ...Age Undo ...i ...

ROfe pdeoo dRefdeoc perod for jobekirng

Whther iruded din leor forteCer m.ltairy parsnn iUrelid fmily worken working

lee th h.. .IS.bo

WIfeth. inlude din unrployd:2

Persons on ay of ..Perons h.il hare not actlviy

-oh ".. work' .Teoponrnily ill jobsk On, r.Studen n kisg ... wo r..

EPoplmentoffice gtions

Monthly14 Vers snd ovr

tdVyIdy

Excluded

ExcludedIndluded

P ersons m ting no reo ort noO n job italw =re .. .. . Excuded

Jobsk s not currendlye bfor work ..IE uded

Pesons WtO did -mo work andflo looked for wok k.

Speoula ecod~om ...........

Bose for unmp.oyOmeor rise .

I-rludef'Connrucoon

worker remit-Ing "sd wethormonay" betweenNov mc r I endMarch 31

Wage and dlrvlbor ltoo

'Aithoug the jdnkeeekng Perod 1s unsecfied, the I a e-don on kdeking mltolles during the Imonoh period indudingthe refoerce m lk

'For etnintina ued on playwent ofice r tgbrtrnone, hetem "included" eppi only to the uePnyed h.o - rigleed.

Autosnmetflly included if no tstxpa.rv lyoff of 28 wak orlesn moat be tiely aking work If on lngthi laynif.t

Autontically included if on otnmonry laoff of 4 mkeb orIlinws be outioly aking work if on lngthier layoff.

Euspt perons on t oriry aynif or wl ooIg to tn e nOnjnb tho e not raquird oo ask work in he counynim th Whav

re dlasifi d rutsnPoved.'Includd if illnen Iso mInor that We perso I cumndy wel-

ble for work.

Laborform

Annu"14 y-s

end sun

I week

fed

Induded

EIqudedEcnlsded

In cludedrloduded

Iclduded

Empiarom officerigiasraone

MonthiV16 Ve end mn-

Iday

ExscludedI dudedEdcudedEucluded

Laborform

16 yV-snd wr

I wekUnapecri'

Exclude

Irdluded

Excluded

InludedIncluded

Wooed

Ercloded Ecludd Incluwdd

Ircluded EccIuded Induded

Excluded

Tgtdboorforme

IncludedStud.nn ge 18

or men*, rgiretend for n-son employm a ts; e e te ly

disbled peP

Wagep and slervlabor f1m

Excluded

CiVillatlIaorfor,

=aborforme

CiuerttdVy14vyeas

end omer

I wekendt-

iredud

Irclude

IncludedInduded

IncludedIncluded

:W luded

Excludedbut notsas of

ailitl

Excluded

Totlaburf ormt

Labor

Monthly16to74yen,old

I weetk6E davs

Induded

Enduded

Includeid

ExcludedIrdludadEndud'

ed'2

lorcluded

loclud-ed

13

Excluded

Ifaborlonc

tFull.lme esodOss etking full-im work during the hodlanrm - edudad.

OPasons must he withot work on tsh day of toh rngltreUoncons but eoe way ht done work sor er or lter Iin W week.

1Peron who coe d dry woe - king work but who Soo didcrcn margin.i work during tde reforece wek.

'OAMthxoh doe urv v e conodutad mondoly, only ann.si Or-

Aithogh tdoe jonbsking peiod bs unpinoed drew Is aO qumdon on Job king actiee during th.e rtfre wak.

itFoll.wme eoden em irdisuded In the unemPloyed onlV wheneking work duinng rhool vtionr.

' -Epotntudeotr, hwa rroonwollh-iitvsy pirked.

I . I I i

52

survey and others may consider it to be a longer period.France, Italy, and Great Britain do have supplementaryquestions which clearly specify a jobseeking period, but theresponses to these questions do not affect the classificationof a person as unemployed if he has already stated elsewherethat he is unemployed or "looking for work."

In Japan, the reference period for jobseeking is clear-ly specified as the reference week. However, according tothe instructions given on the survey form, which is finedout by the respondent rather than the enumerator, personsawaiting the results of previous job applications are to hastthemselves as unemployed. This practice, in effect, widensthe allowable jobseeking period to a time in the recent pastwhich can be longer than the reference week.

Military personnel. The ILO definitions relate to both totallabor force and civilian labor force, and no recommoenda-tion is made regarding treatment of the Armed Forces.Among the nine countries studied, draftees or conscriptsare excluded from the labor force definition except in caseswhere they are temporarily absent from work because ofmilitary duty. In such cases, these persons are generally in-cluded in the employed category-i.e., "with a job but notat work." Treatment of career military personnel vanes;they are excluded from the labor force in the United States,Canada, Australia, and Great Britain, but included in theother countries.

Unpaid family workers. According to ILO definitions, un-paid family workers ae included in the labor force if theyworked for at least one-third of the normal working timeduring the reference period. In the United States, Australia,and Sweden unpaid family workers are included in thelabor force if they worked 15 hours or more in the refer-ence period. In Great Britain all unpaid family workerswere excluded from the household survey until 1976 whenwives working 15 hours or more in their husbands' busi-nesses were treated as employed whether they were paid ornot. In all the other countries, unpaid family workers amclassified as in the labor force with no lower limit on thenumber of hours worked.

In the United States, unpaid family workers whoworked less than 15 hours and looked for other jobs wouldbe classified as unemployed. In the countries without the15-hour limit, such persons would not be classified as un-employed (except in France).

Persons on layoff. ILO definitions include persons ontemporary or indefinite layoff without pay in the unem-ployed count. This is also the practice in the United States,Canada, Australia, and Sweden. Such persons do not haveto be actively seeking work to be classified as unemployed,except that after a specified period in Canada (26 weeks)and Australia (4 weeks) they do have to be taking steps tofind work.

In Japan and the Western European countries (ex-

cept Sweden) persona on temporary or indefinite layoff aeclassified as employed in labor force surveys. They are re-garded as "with ajob, but not at work."

7In these countries,

there is generally no such thing as an unpaid layoff. Personson layoff in most European countries and Japan receivepayments from employer funds which are sometimes sub-sidized by the government. Also, layoffs in Europe andJapan most frequently take the form of working shorterhours during the week rather than not working at all.Such persons would also be classified as employed underUS. concepts since they have done some work during thereference week.

Persons who have not actively sought work. Under ILO andU.S. definitions, personas should be actively seeking work tobe classified as unemployed unless they are on temporarylayoff or are waiting to start a new job. These latter twogroups do not have to be taking active steps to find work tobe classified as unemployed. However, the ILO makes nomention of testing a person's jobseeking activities. In theU.S. survey, there us a test of jobseeking activities, and per-sons who have not taken active steps to find work in thepast 4 weeks are not classified as unemployed (with the ex-ceptions noted above). Active jobseeking and a test of suchare also required in the Canadian, Australian, and Swedishsurveys for classification as unemployed. In Japan, inactiveworkseekers are by definition excluded from the unem-ployed, but there is no question on jobseeking activities. InFrance, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy, inactive job-seekers are included as the unemployed figures derivedfrom labor force surveys. However, most of these countriesdo have supplementary questions on workseeking activities.The answers to these questions indicate that a certain per-centage of persons will respond that they are unemployedor seeking work although they have not actually taken anysteps to find work.

"Discouraged workers" constitute one group of in-active jobseekers. These are persons who ae not lookingfor work but would be doing so if they believed work wasavailable. Such persona were included in the U.S. unemploy-ment figures until 1967; however, there was no specificquestion on discouraged workers. The fact that a workerwas discouraged had to be volunteered by the respondent.This left a large area of uncertainty and imprecision in thedefmitions, as there was no assurance that discouragedworkers were being uniformly reported by all enumerators.in 1967, it was decided to exclude discouraged workersfrom the unemployed in the United Statet unless theperson had looked for work within the past 4 weeks. Can-adian and Australian statisticians made the same decisionwith regard to the treatment of discouraged workers as1976. In Sweden, discouraged workers have always been

,pm. o temnporary tayoff in the United States were ta1.teased .a employed prier so changes is definition odopted in1957.

53

excluded from the unemployed, but information is col-lected on the number of such persons.

The ILO definitions make no mention of discour-aged workers. Since jobseeking activity is mentioned as arequirement for classification as unemployed, the intentof the ILO standards appears to be to exclude discouragedworkers from the unemployed.

In the countries which make no mention of discour-aged workers in their survey definitions or questionnaires,the labor force classification of such persons depends uponthe wording of the survey questions and the way that re-spondents interpret them. When the specified referenceperiod for jobseeking is longer than I week, recently dis-couraged workers would be included in the unemployed.For example, a Swedish worker who actively sought work2 months ago but soon became discouraged and stoppedseeking work would currently be classified as unemployed.However, next month, if he continues to be discouraged,he would move into the economically inactive category.

Temporarily iat jobseekers. LO definitions specify that un-employed persons should be available for work, except forminor illness. Those countries, such as the United States,which have a eursent availability requirement make an ex-ception for persons who are temporarily ill. Thus, such per-sons are counted in the unemployed. In the labor force sur-veys of countries without a current availability require-ment, temporarily ill jobseekers are also generally countedas unemployed. In Japan, however, temporarily m job-seekers are instructed to list themselves as unemployed onlyif their illness is so mrnor that they are currently availableto begin work. Thus, the Japanese practice is more restric-tive than the other countries.

Prior to the revisions in the U.S. definitions adopted in1967, persons who would have been looking for work ex-cept for temporary illness were classified as unemployed ifthis information was volunteered. There was no specificquestion on this point. In the new definitions adopted in1967, there was no need to address this point because theallowable period for jobseeking activities was extended to4 weeks. Thus, persons too ill to seek work during the ref-erence week were classified as unemployed if they soughtwork during the 4-week period including the referenceweek. In countries where the reference period for job-seeking is ambiguous and is taken by some respondentsto include only the reference week, temporarily ill personswho would have been seeking work except for their ill-ness may be excluded from the unemployed. In GreatBrstain, however, such persons are included in the un-employed because a specific question is asked: 'Wouldyou have looked for work but for temporary Illness orinjury?" Britain is the only country which asks a directquestion on this point.

the ILO definitions i probably to treat students as anyother member of the population, regarding them as employ-ed if they worked and unemployed if they were seekingwork and available to begin work.

Most countries, in their labor force surveys, followthe implied ILO definition with regard to students. Some ofthem apply tests of current availability before classifying stu-dent warkseekers as unemployed. This is a point not immed-iately apparent from a reading of some survey definitionsand questionnaires. For example, the Swedish survey ques-tionnaire has no test of current availability, yet interviewersare instructed to probe into the current availability of stu-dents. In practice, full-time students arm classified as unem-ployed in Sweden only if seeking work daring school vaca-tions. In this attempt to insure canent availability, theSwedish practice may, in effect, result in an undercount ofstudents looking for and available for part-time work duringthe school tem. In the British General Household Survey,all full-time students are classified as not in the labor force,even if they are working or seeking work.

In Canada, full-time students seeking full-time workare automatically excluded from the unemployed duringschool term on the grounds that they are not currentlyavailable to begin work. Those seeking part-time work areincluded in the unemployed if currently available to beginwork.

The pattern of working or seeking work during theschool week, which is widespread in the United States, doesnot occur frequently in the Westem European countriesand Japan. Thus, the question of how to treat students withregard to labor force status has not been rigorously investi-gated in most other countries.

Persons waiting to report to a new job at a later date. Ac-cording to ILO definitions, persons waiting to report to anew job at a later date should be classified as unemployed ifnot currently employed and if available to begin wirk im-mediately. This is the practice followed in the United Slates'and several of the other countries. The reasoning beiindthis classification is that in many cases the anticipated jobdoes not materialize, and the waiting period actually repre-sents the beginning of a longer period of unemployment.

In the French survey, persons waiting to start a newjob are classified as employed. The German survey doesnot specify the classification of such persons; according toGerman statisticians, they are most likely enumerated aseconomically inactive. This was also the case in Italy untilJanuary 1977 when the survey was revised; persons waitingto start a new job are now classified as unemployed. e

Jobseekes not currently availablefor work. ILO defuntionsclearly specify that unemployed persons should be current-ly available to begin work (except for minor illness). Per-

Students seeking work. The IL definitions make no men- 'PM.r to 1957, pe-soor .iing to report toae. job were cla-

ton of special treatment of students. Thus, the intent of rned as employed in the U.S. .roy.

10

54

sons not currently available for work (e g., students seekingwork in April but not able to accept work until the end ofthe school ternm in June) should be classified as economic-ally inactive under ILO concepts. However, the ILO defissitions do not recommend a test of current availability, andmost countries do not ask a question in their surveys to as-certain the availability of unemployed persons to beginwork immediately. The United States, Canada, and Austral-ia require current availability for classification as unem-ployed and incorporate a question on availability in theirsurvey questionnaires. In principle, Japan and Italy requirecurrent availability, but do not have a specific question onthe point in the survey. The Japanese survey questionnaireinstructions indicate that persons who enumerate themselvesas "looking for work" should be currently available forwork. In Sweden, only the current availability of studentsis probed.

Persons who did some work and also looked for work. ILOdefinitions state that unemployed persons must be "with-out a job." This is also the practice in the U.S. survey wherethe categorres of employed and unemployed are mutuallyexclusive and employment (even I hour) takes precedenceover unemployment for classification purposes. In theFrench labor force survey, some unemployed persons mayalso have done some work during the reference week. Thatis, they regard their major status as that of an unemployedperson, even though they did work a few hours at somemarginal activity. The labor force surveys conducted in theother countries do not appear to count persons who didsome work as unemployed. Their work activity takes pre-cedence over their workseeking, and they are classified asemployed, as in the U.S. survey.

Base for the unemployment rate. The ILO definitions donot recommend whether the unemployment rate should becalculated on the basis of the total labor force or the civil.ian labor force. In the United States, Canada, Australia, andGreat Britain, unemployment rates from the labor force sur-vey ae calculated on a civilian labor force basis. In the laborforce surveys conducted in Japan, France, Germany, Italy,and Sweden, the labor force includes career military person-nel. For Germany and Great Britain, where registration sta-tistics are the basis for the "official" unemployment rate,the wage and salary labor force, which excludes self-employed and unpaid family workers, is used as the basisfor the calcilation of the unemployment rate. Careermilitary personnel are considered as part of the wage andsalary labor force. France does not officially publish an un-employment rate; the official monthly unemploymentfigure relates to the number of persons registered as un-employed.

Adjustment to U.S. concepts

The noncomparability of national figures on unem-

ployment is attributable to two chief causes: differences inthe system for collecting data and differences in conceptsor definitions. It has been pointed out above that laborforce sample surveys provide data on unemployment whichare far more comparable intemationally than statistics onthe registered unemployed. Three of the countries studied,however, rely on registration statistics for their official un-employment data. Fortunately, France, Germany, andGreat Britain also conduct periodic labor force surveyswhich have been indispensable in adjusting and interpretingthe official data.

AU of the other countries studied rely on labor forcesurveys for their official unemployment rates. However,defunitions of unemployment and labor force differ fromcountry to country, even when the same type of data col-lection method is used. It has been seen that definitionsvary with regard to treatment of persons on layoff, unpaidfamily workers, military personnel, students, and othergroups. Furthermore, there are differences in reference peri-ods, age limits, and criteria for seeking work.

Adjustments have been made for many, but not all,of these differences. In some areas, data are simply notavailable for adjustment purposes. Where adjustments havenot been made, the remaining differences are believed to beminor, although the exact extent of these differences can-not be precisely known. In otier areas, adjustments werenot made because institutional differences were taken intoaccount. For example, instead of adjusting the data of allcountries to the US. lower age limit of 16, the foreign agelimits have been adapted to conform to the age at whichcompulsory schooling normally ends in each country. Thiswas done because youths in most other countries completetheir education and enter the labor force on a full-timebasis at an earlier age than in the United States. Thus, Ger-man data are adjusted to cover 15-year-olds and over; theregularly published German data relate to 14-year-olds andover, but compulsory schooling ends at 15.

The methods of adjusting foreign country data toU.S. concepts are described in detail in appendix B. Thefollowing descriptions present a highly condensed accountof the adjustments made in the various national statistics.

Canada and Ausrmlia. Canada and Australia both have laborforce surveys which are closely comparable to the US. sur-vey. Although there are some small conceptual differences,they are not regarded as significant enough to require ad-justment.

Japan. The Japanese labor force survey was patterned afterthe US. survey, but makes use of a number of differentdefinitions designed to serve Japanese needs. In excludingworkers on layoff from the unemployed, the Japanese aresomewhat more restrictive than the United States, but thenumber of workers laid off for a full week is believed to bevery small and no adjustment has been made. The "lifetime

1 1

55

employment system" is a basic pattern of labor-manage-ment relations in Japan. The regular worker is granted per-manent tenure, and when the activity of the establishmentis reduced, the employer retains the worker, either trans-ferring him to another job or reducing hours. Workersplaced on shorter hours for economic reasons are compen-sated for the house not worked under a system partially fi-nanced by the government. In having no test of workseek-ing activities or current availability, the Japanese survey isless restrictive than the US. survey. However, the instruc-tons given on the survey questionnaire-which is filled inby the respondent rather than an enumerator-clearly statethat unemployed persons must be actively seeking work.

Adjustments are made to the Japanese labor force toexclude career military personnel and unpaid family work-ers who worked less than 15 hours per week. These adjust-ments are so small that the published and adjusted unem-ployment rmtes are identical in most years.

France. The "official" monthly unemployment figures forFrance are based on the number of registrations at employ-ment offices. Persons seeking part-time work are excludedas are other jobseekers who fail to register. On the otherhand, persons who did some work during the week of thecount, but were out of work on the day of the count and reg-istered, are included. No unemployment rate is published.In addition, since 1974 the French authonties have madeannual estimates of the unemployed under ILO defini-tions. These annual estimates are based upon the resultsof labor force surveys conducted in March of each year.Prior to 1974, the annual estimates were based on Frenchcensus definitions, which are more restrictive than the ILOdefinitions.

For adjustment to US. concepts, BIS utilizes theresults of the annual French labor force surveys. The BLSmethod of adjusting survey unemployment is quite similarto the method used by French authorities in adapting thelabor force survey to ILO definitions. The French laborforce survey provides detailed information on the numberand characteristics of those unemployed; by subtractingthose persons excluded under the US. definition (e.g.,persons who classify themselves as unemployed but whodid some work in the reference week; persons not currentlyavailable for work) and adding those who should be includ-ed (e.g., persons on layoff; persons waiting to start a newjob), BLS obtains estimates of unemployment in dose con-formtity with US. concepts. Some adjustments ace madeto the reported labor force figures, such as exclusion ofcareer military personnel and unpaid family workers whowere not at work or worked less than 15 hours.

Coefficients of adjustment are obtained from theMarch surveys, and interpolations are made between sur-veys to obtain annual average adjustment factors which aceapplied to the registered unemployed figures and the Frenchannual estimates of the labor force. The figures on unem-

ployment adjusted to US. concepra are considerably higherthan the flgures from the registered unemployed series butquite close to the annual estimates under [LO defuintions.

Gerrnany. The principal and official unemployment sta-tistacs for Germany are administrative statistics represent-ing the monthly count of unemployed registered at the em-ployment offices. The unemployment rate is calculated onthe basis of the wage and salary labor force. The registra-tion series has certain limitations as a precise measure of un-employment. Some unemployed persons may choose notto register if they are ineligible to collect jobless benefits.Also, unemployed persons who do not want to work atleast 20 hours a week are excluded. On the other hand,some persons who are working a few houn or a few days aweek may be registered as unemployed. The registrationfigures cover all persons who at some time in the past haveregistered as unemployed and whose job application hasnot yet been settled at the time of the coant. Consequently,there may be persons on the register who have found a jobbut have failed to report it to the employment service.

Gersiany also conducts a labor force survey, theMicrocensus, every April or May. The Microcensus also hasia lismitations as a measure of unemployment, but pro-vides a better basis for estimating unemployment underUS. concepts than the registration series. The Microcensuswas designed to produce labor force and related statisticsconsistent with ILO definitions.

In the Microcensus the unemployed exclude per-sons on layoff who are waiting to retuan to theis job andpersons waiting to begin a new job, categories which shouldbe included under U.S. concepts. Also, the reference periodfor jobseeking is ambiguous, and may be interpreted bysome persons to be strictly the survey week. On the otherhand, some inactive workseekers and persons who are notcurrently available to begin work may be included in theMicrocensus figures. The Microcensus does not provide dataan any of these groups of persons, but these upward anddownward biases may tend to cancel each other out. TheMicrocensus figures have usually been lower than the fig-aces from the registered unemployed senes.

The Microcensus unemployment figures, whichusually relate to a week in April, are compared with the reg-istered unemployed figures for the month nearest the sur-vey date. This comparison yields an adjustment factorwhich is then interpolated between surveys to obtain annu-al average factors to apply to the registered unemployedseries.

Germany makes annual estimates of the labor forcewhich are obtained by adding employment from the Micro-census (adjusted to an annual average) and the registeredunemployed. BLS modifies this annual estimate by exclud-ing from the employed military personnel and unpaid fam-fly workers who worked less than 15 hours. Also, the esti-mated annual Microcensus unemployed rather than theregistered unemployed are added to the employed to obtain

li

56

the civilian labor force under US. concepts. The unemploy-ment rate derived from the adjusted data is usually lowerthan the official German rate based on the registered series.

Great Brsrain. The official unemployment statistics forGreat Britain are obtained from a count of registrations atemployment offices (now caned "Jolicenters") and theseparate "career offices" for young people. The unemploy-ment rate is calculated on the basis of the wage and salarylabor force. The completeness of coverage of these statis-tics depends upon the extent to which persons looking forwork register as such. Figures from the 1961 populationcensus, the 1966 "sample census," and General HouseholdSurveys (available beginning in 1971) indicate that theregistration figures significantly understate unemploymentunder U.S. concepts.

The General Household Survey (GHS) indicates thatthe number of adult males registered is slightly in excess ofthe number to be obtained under U.S. definitions, but thenumber of women is very much lower and the number ofyouths, male and female, is moderately lower. The registra-tion figures have been adjusted to take the GHS findingsinto account, but first the GHS figures themselves requiredsome revision. No adjustment could be made to excludepersons not currently available for work. Adjustmentswere made to exclude persons who reported themselves aslooking for work but who were taking no active steps tofind a job. Also, the number of persons on temporary lay-off the entire week was estimated and added to the un-employed. Persons on temporary layoff are regarded asemployed in the GHS. Further, estimates of studentsseeking work were added. All these adjustments had theeffect of raising the number of unemployed from theofficial 1,305,000 to 1,610,000 in 1976. The adjustedfigures for 1975 and 1976 were estimated on the basis offactors derived from the 1972 GHS results. Although GHSdata have been published through 1974, the 1972 factorshave been used for adjustment purposes in recent years be-cause 1972 was a year of relatively high unemploymentcompared with 1973-74, and unemployment has beenhigh in recent years. For the years prior to the first GHS,comparative estimates have been made by adjusting the1961 and 1966 census data to U.S. concepts and inter-polating between the years until 1971.

In order to convert the adjusted figures to an unem-ployment rate, it was necessary to develop a revised esti-mate of the civilian labor force. The chief adjustments tothe official labor force figure consist of adding the unregis-tered unemployed and subtracting an estimated number ofduplications in the count of the employed. (The numberemployed is derived from an establishment census and,hence, includes multple jobholders more than once.) TheBritish unemployment rate adjusted to U.S. concepts is sig-nificantly higher than the reported rate-6.4 percent versus5.6 percent in 1976.

Data for the United Kingdom (Great Britain andNorthern Ireland) could not be prepared because the Gen-eral Household Survey relates only to Great Britain. Un-employment rates, based on registration statistics, are usual-ly higher in Northem Ireland than as Great Britain. For ex-ample, in 1975, Great Britain had a published unemploy-ment rate of 4.1 percent, while Northern Ireland's rate was8.1 percent. Since the labor force in Northern Ireland issmall, the rate for the United Kingdom (4.2 percent) wasonly slightly higher than the rate for Great Britain.

Italy. In 1963, a quarterly labor force survey replaced theregistration statistics as the official source of unemploymentdata in Italy. The results of the quarterly survey foem thebasis of the adjustment of Italian data to U.S. concepts.

A major revision in survey methods was made as Jan-uary 1977. A more probing style of questioning was intro-duced, resulting in significant increases in the number ofpersons enumerated as unemployed. The revised Italian sur-vey represents an important step toward providing the datanecessary for making adjustments to U.S. concepts. For ex-ample, the new survey asks a specific question on jobseek-ing activities, whereas the old survey simply inquired abouta person's "status" during the reference week. In the oldsurvey, many persons who were seeking work did not re-spond that their status was "unemployed." Furthermore,a question is now asked on when the last active step to findwork was taken. Persons who have not taken any activesteps to find work in the past 4 weeks should be excludedfrom the unemployed under U.S. concepts.

From January 1977 onward, the only adjustmentmade to the reported number of unemployed is the ex-clusion of those who have not taken any active steps tofind work in the past 30 days. Survey results for 1977indicate that over half of the persons enumerated as un-employed responded that their last attempt to find workwas made more than 30 days ago. BLS is not certain thatan such persons should be excluded. The large number ofpersons in this category indicates a massive number of "dis-couraged workers" in Italy or an interpretation by manyregistered unemployed persons that their presence on theunemployment register does not constitute an active stepto find work in the past 30 days. This adjustment, there-fore, may be modified downward when more detailedresults, including cross-classiflcations from 1977 surveys,become available.

There are some remaining conceptual differences re-garding unemployment for which no adjustments have beenmade. For instance, persons on layoff who are waiting toreturn to their jobs are counted as employed in Italy. How-ever, legal restraints and the existence of the Wage Supple-ment Fund promote the use of reduced hours rather thanoutright layoffs when plant activity declines. Therefore, thenumber of persons on layoff for an entire week is probablyvery small. Also, survey definitions state that unemployed

13

57

persons should be currently available to begin work, butthere is no test of current availability in the survey ques-tionnaire.

The Italian Central Bureau of Statistics (ISTAT) doesnot plan to make a reconciliation between the old and newsurveys until some time in 1978. BLS has decided to awaitthe ISTAT reconciliation rather than make any preliminaryadjustments for the 1959-76 period. Than, the reported un-employment figures have beer, used with only a smal adjust-ment to the data for 1959-63 toexcludepersonsenumeratedas unemployed who also did some work in the referenceweek. The differences between the old and new unemploy-ment series tend to cancel each other. The old series ex-cluded jobseekers who did not respond that their status wasunemployed; also excluded were persons waiting to begina new job. Such persons are now included in the unemployed.On the other hand, the old series included as unemployedthose persons who took no active steps to fuid work in thepast 30 days. The results from the 1977 surveys indicatethat the old series may have overstated unemploymentsomewhat because the number of persons who did not re-cendy take active steps to find work is greater than thenumber of workseekers who did not mitially may they wereunemployed. However, there are no data on the number ofpersons in these categories prior to 1977.

Several adjustments were made to the Italian laborforce figures. Career military personnel and unpaid familyworkers who worked less than 16 hours in the survey weekwere subtracted. The Italian data do not provide a break atthe less-than-15-hour level. The 1977 surveys indicate thatemployment was previously undercounted by about 5 per-cent. Adjustment factors were derived by sex and by econ-omic sector and applied to Italian employment data for the1959-76 period.

The adjusted unemployment rates for 1959 through1963 are about two-tenths of a percentage point lowerthan the reported rates. For 1964-76 the adjustedrates are one-enth of a percentage point lower thanthe published rates. Beginning in January 1977, unemploy-ment rates adjusted to U.S. concepts are much lower thanthe reported rates because of the adjustment to exclude alarge number of inactive jobseekers.

Sweden. In July 1974, the monthly labor force sample sur-vey was established as the official source for Swedish unem-ployment figures. At that time the data on employmentoffice registrations were supplanted by new statistics show-ing the total volume of employment applications passingthrough the employment offices each month. Data are stillpublished on the number of insured unemployed who areregistered to collect benefits.

The labor force survey results are quite close in con-cept to the U.S. figures, and only minor adjustments havebeen made. No adjustment has been made for full-time stu-

dents who were seeking work during the school tem. Dataon persons not in the labor force who would have liked tohave a job indicate that the number of student workseekersis very small. Also, no adjustment was made to exclude per-sons who were not currently available for work. Adjust-ments were made to the labor force figures to include per-sons age 75 and over and to exclude career military person-nel. These small modifications rarely affect the unemploy-ment rate.

Limitations

The adjustments of national data briefly describedabove yield unemployment estimates that are reasonablycomparable from one country to another and that indicatethe level of joblessness according to U.S. definitions. Theaccuracy of the adjustments depends upon the availabilityof relevant information; in some instances, it is possible toachieve only approximate statistical comparability amongcountries. Nevertheless the adjusted figures provide a betterbasis for international comparisons than the figures regularlypublished by each country.

There are certain differences for which it was notpossible to make adjustments. For several countries no ad-justment could be made for the differences in the amountof time allowed for jobseeking activities. No information isavailable on this point in the other countries, but the effectis believed to be minor. Prior to US. changes in definitionsadopted in 1967, the U.S. time period was vague and wasprobably interpreted by some jobseekers, primarily women,to refer only to the survey week. Special studies indicatedthat the effect of the changes in definitions in 1967 result-ed in only a small increase m the number of women enum-erated as unemployed.' In addition, for some countries ad-justments could not be made for the lack of a test of cur-rent availability for work, the lack of an active jobseekingrequirement, and for differences in treatment of personson layoff and persons waiting to start a new job.

The data for more recent years for several countriesare much better than the data in earlier years in terms ofstatistical comparability. The 1976 revisions made by Can-adian and Australian statisticians have brought these surveysinto closer conformity with U.S. definitions and methods.The inception of the British General Household Survey in1971 was a major step inmaking available British data closely

9See Robert L. Stein, New Definitions for Emplaymess and Us.mplayment," Rphrym-es and Eeeigrs, Fearebay 1967, pp. 9-13.

On biuanre, the sew denaitons yielded a lvel ao a unployme-tt00,000 lower thn the efficial 1966 annual ave-age his was beeaues most f the ctages ia deftnities wine mere ret rictive-sheqntairemet of active jobeheing, the tet ef aaess avulability,

snd the sn.. in the defainit ao pef F s- absent fCrm their jobsaho uought othea weak

14

58

comparable to US. concepts. The earlier estUsates for Bri-tain, based on population censuses in 191 and 1966, aresubject to a wider margin of error because the census datawere ambiguous on a number of points; for example, theenumeration of temporasily ill persons. (See appendixB) The new questions in the French labor force surveytince 1975 and in the Italian survey since 1977 have allow-ed for much more precise identification of certain groupsfor adjustment purposes. Furthermore, for several coun-tries, data from surveys were published irregularly in the1960's, and for some years, no data were available. In-terpolations had to be made to fill in the missing data.

For several countries, a problem remains in maltingadjustments because the data needed for such adjustmentsare not current. For both France and Genmany, issuanceof data from surveys ligs by a year or more from the ref-erence period. Thus current estimates often must be re-vised when results of more recent surveys are obtained.For Great Britain, the latest available General HouseholdSurvey is for 1974. Labor market conditions have deteri-orated considerably since that time, and the estimatesbased on adjustment factors for years when unemploy-ment levels were quite different are subject to an un-known margin of error.

15

59

Chapter 2. Unemployment and Employment, 1959-77

Although unemployment in the United States has gen-erniy been high In comparison with other countries, Cna-di had the highest unemployment rates, on the average, forthe 1959-76 period. These two countries have also expen-enced the moet rapid growth In employment. In contrast,the Western European countries, with much lower averagelevels of unemployment than the United States and Canada,had very slow growth or declines In employment.

Table 3 presents data for nine countries on the clvii-ia labor force, employment, end unemployment adjustedto US. concepts for the pertod 1959 to 1976. The follow-ing section describes the comparative levels and trends inunemployment end employment. Separate discussons ofImportant labor market developments in each country arethen tsken up.

Chart 2. Unemploymnent Rate 1t960-7

Pe,, -.

Unsimploymont

Despite the disrupting influence of worldwide cyclicalmovements and the particular economic ills that haveplagued individual countries, the relative positions of thenine countries with regard to unemployment rates haveshown little change over the years. From 1959 to 1976, un-employment rates in Cpada and the United States wereususlly much higher than in the seven other countriesstudied (chart 2). In 10 of the 18 years, Canada had thehighest unemployment rate in the industrialized world. In1963 through 1965, and 1974 through 1976, the UnitedStates had the highest rate; in 196667 the United Stateswas tied with another country for the highest rate.

r$ I 97 rp i- "I I I - -9 'p b19sq 9 6 Xsi 96,2 *964 19656 1916q 1970 19-2 1974 176 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

16

60

Table 3. Labor force, employment. and unemployment, 195976

Ur ni] I | 21 I | I Great I JulyYear I Slates I Canada A.Ustlula .tpsss I Fratto I G.--asr BtItain I I S.d.

Ctdllbn Idor te loIthO-su.0

Adjnted to U.S. con-oPU

68.369 6.214 (2 43.320 AS060 25.860 23,230 21,730 l2f69.28 6382 (2 44,120 19.080 26.890 22.470 21.520 (3I70M4A9 6,491 ( 44.610 19.090 26,160 23,720 21,450 3,59870o14 6.584 ( 45.040 19. 60 26.210 24.070 21,290 3.68271 ,s33 6.715 (2 45,430 19.340 26.390 24.290 20,830 3.75373.091 62998 4.899 46.040 19.690 26.270 24.420 20.760 3.7511174.455 7.1059 495 48,780 19,750 236390 24.960 20,430 3.73975,770 7,495 4,833 47V50 20.000 26,290 24,.50 20.090 3,79477.347 7,748 4958 46.810 20,100 26,730 24.800 20,220 3.77178.737 7952 6.070 49260 20.380 25,780 24,460 20,130 3,82280 734 .1s95 6.213 50.140 20.660 20.030 24,400 19920 3,83882.715 s 9 5, 681 50.730 20.80 20,290 24.270 19.950 3.90984.113 8,644 5.486 51.120 21.210 20,380 24.030 19,870 3.95586542 8920 5.58 51320 21,430 20,280 24,240 19210 3.96388,714 9.322 5,723 52,590 21 40 26.360 24,530 19,750 3.97191.011 9.706 5.869 52.440 21g20 26.060 24,510 20,060 4.03792,613 1060 5891 52,30 22,040 25680 24.820 20.270 4,12394.773 10,306 6.075 53.100 22,190 25,400 125,100 20.460 4,149

A. publihd

68.369 6.242 (( 44.330 18,825 26.337 23,229 21,289669,22 6,411 (t 45.110 18,851 26,518 23,523 20.972 I70,459 6.521 (Z 45.620 19819 26.772 23,799 20.882 3.59270.91 4 62619 (2 A 486140 19,060 3,944 24,063 20,.29 3,676710833 6,745 (19 48520 19395 26.930 24219 20,137 3,74973091 6.933 4s5s5 47.100 19,638 26.922 24.408 20.026 3.71074,455 7.141 4,689 47.870 19,813 27,019 24,577 19,717 3.73875,770 7,495 4,833 48,910 19,964 26,962 24,.663 19,396 3,79277347 7.746 4,958 49,830 20.118 26.409 24,540 19.525 3,77478.737 7.952 5,070 50210 20.1 76 26,291 24.462 19.484 3.82280 734 8.195 5.213 50260 20.434 262535 24.464 19,266 3,84082,715 8399 5.381 51,530 20.750 26,817 24.388 19.302 3,91384.113 6.644 5.486 51,880 20.968 26.910 24,154 19.254 3,96196.542 ;920 5S89 51,90 21,155 26,901 24,405 19.028 3.96988.714 9.322 5.723 53.260 21,368 26,855 24.676 19.169 3,97791,011 9,706 5.869 83,.10 21.715 20,797 24.754 19,458 4.04392.613 10.060 5,991 53,230 21.733 26.397 24.040 19650 4,12994,773 10,308 6,075 53,760 21,883 26.136 25,135 19,858 4,166

E.ployrent (thout-nd-)

Adjustd to U.S. conco.r

64,630 5.843 j2j 42.340 16B69 25340 22.980 20,650 (1)65,778 5,837 () 43,370 16,730 25.710 22,950 20,710 I2,65,746 6.026 (2) 43,950 16,750 26,000 23,250 20,260 3,54666.702 6.1994 I 44,450 18,880 26,080 23.390 20.700 3,62867.762 6.343 Sj 44,840 19,080 26,170 23,460 206340 3.69069,305 6s74 4499 45.00 19,390 26.1 70 23,810 20.210 3265471 ,09 6,826 4,628 46210 19.440 26,310 24,030 19.720 3,69572,895 7.242 4.761 47,200 192620 26.210 24,090 19,330 3,73574,372 7,451 4.879 48,180 19,700 25,390 23,770 19,540 3269275,20 7.593 4,892 49,080 19,850 25,410 23,660 19,450 3,73777,902 7832 5,133 49.570 20 170 25.790 23,660 19 280 3.76478,627 7,919 5.306 50,140 20.440 26.090 23.520 19340 ,385079.120 .107 5398 50,460 20220 26,170 23.090 19,260 3,85481,702 A363 5,464 50W90 20.820 26,060 23.230 18,920 3,8984,409 ,802. 5215 51.810 21,060 26.140 23.750 19.00 3,87369,836 9.185 5.726 51,710 21,320 25S30 23,820 19.500 3,95784,783 9A63 5.725 512530 21.100 24,740 3232650 19,820 425887.485 9,572 5,807 52,020 21,170 24,460 123,490 19,760 4.06a

Se footnote at eed of table.

17

1959.1960.1981.190219531964196519681967196919691970.1971.1972.1973 ....1974.1975.1976.

1959.

1961196219531964195519651957 ....196819691970.1971.1972.19731974.1975.1976.

1959.1960196119621963196419651966.....19671968196919701971

1972.1973.1974.1975.1976.

61

Tadb 3. Labor forc, employment, and unemployment, 1969-76-Contimed

I C 6.J FI I. 1 G I _ I Y I 8

Enmptowmnt l .od.--Continund

54S3065,77868.74666.70287.76269.30571 ,8-72,89574,37276,92077.9027862779.12081.70284,409

94.79387.435

5,87051658.056

8.375

68.627,2427,451

7,832

8,1067.637,802

9,18593639,72

()

('2

4,4964*264S6284,7614,879

5,1335.3065,3995,4645,6155.7385.7255,807

43,35044,36044.98045,56045.95046,55047,30048,27049,20060,02050.4005014051,21051,26052.56052,37052.23052,700

A. Pbnihh.

186718,:7,12

18,12019 "2619.42219.54419,68419.619,75319,74920.09320.39420.52120,6320,3-21 .20020,84420,870

25,79726,24726.5902669026,74426.75326,887261,012659602MM6626,36626,68826.72026 65626.71226.21525.32225p076

22,76523217723.48723S63123S9824,03624.26024,33224A02123.91623.92423,81123,40223S57024,06624.15624.04423 30

20.16920123620.17220,01829.8i6329.4779.003

18.637198,4618.J1018121

18,45

18S800

28,9969,127

35403,622

3,636

3.6943,7333,6953,7373.7683.8543.8603,86231793.9634,0624.039

UonPIoYem n(m (4.oond5)

Adjfntd to U.S. conepn

3.740 371 (22 960 380 510 670 1,.60 (23652 445 (2( 750 350 280 520 820 (2)4.714 465 (2) 660 300 160 470 690 523M611 390 (2 5 960 280 150 660 590 644,070 372 (1 590 260 120 630 490 633,786 324 63 540 290 100 610 s50 673.366 279 61 570 310 70 530 710 442,675 252 72 650 360 70 560 760 592*975 297 79 630 400 340 830 680 792,617 359 78 560 530 370 o0o 680 852.832 364 80 570 490 240 740 660 724.066 460 75 690 540 200 750 610 64.993 638 87 640 590 220 930 610 1014B40 557 125 730 610 220 1,010 700 1074.304 520 105 680 680 220 780 670 965,076 521 133 730 650 450 600 560 807,630 697 266 1.000 930 940 331,170 650 677.28- 736 268 .00 1.020 926 O1*610 730 66

A. poblishad5

959 . 3.7401960 ....... 3,8521961 .... 4,7141962 .. . 39111963 ... 4P701964 .. . 3.78619685 ..... I 3.366966 ........ 2,875

1967 ...... 2.9752968 . 2'S171969 ........ 2,8322970 ........ 4*1971 ........ 4,9932972 ........ 4.8402973 ........ 4,3041974 ........ 5,0761975 1. 78301976 ......... 7,28-

8ae footno.. Mn end oft 2.

372446466390374324280253

2973593654480638567520621637736

:2

(2

6361727978B07587

125108133266268

99075066059059054067065063056905705690640730690730

1AD01,000

18

57-254 0 - 80 - S

1960

I962 ....19631964.1985....2968.....

2967.....2966.....2969.....970. -

1972.196 ....1973.19741....1972.1974.

1975.2976.

29592960

19621963..19842994

2966.29671968

197019721973.2973.....2974.2975 .....976.

294239203230273216269280365427340356446492450615889993

54027128129418686947

1614569323279149185246273562

2.074,A0G

444346312432521372317331519546540577752835588565936

1.305

1.22783671061150464971476967963465560960a697668560654732

525463574459798572

5910220798806766

l

-|, . r-

1I

62

I Table 3. Labor force, employmmnt, and unemployment, 1865976-Continued

Ye.,

1965.

1961.19621963

1964196519681967196819691970.1971.1972.1973.1974.1975.1976.

199..196019611962196319641966196819671968

197019711972.19731974.197..1976.

tnIp G.--tmv Gret I Italy I 5Sretes I Canad I A ur.a .tra Ia J.. .a I F rance I G a y rItain t l S e e

Un.mployment rare (percent)

Adjunoe to U.S. eocpt

5B 6.0 62.1 23 2.0 2.0 2.9 .0G.5 7.0 Ib 1.7 18 1.1 2.2 3.66.7 7.1 63.0 1b 1A .8 2.0 3.2 1.45B 5Sb 2A 1.3 1.5 .8 2.8 2. 1.65.7 5B 62.3 1.3 1.3 .5 3A 2.4 1.75.2 4.7 14A 1.2 1.5 A 2.5 2.8 l54J 3.8 1.3 1.2 lB .3 2.2 3.6 1.238 3A IS 1A lB .3 2.3 3.8 1.B3.8 3.8 I' 1.3 2.D 1.3 3A 3A 2.13J 4. I S 1.2 2.8 IA 3.3 3.4 2.23.5 4A lb 1.1 2A .9 3.0 3.3 1.849 5.7 IA 1.2 2.8 .8 3.1 3.1 1.559 6.2 lB 1.3 2.8 B 3.9 3.1 2.85B. 8.2 2.2 1A 2.8 .8 4.2 3B 2.74a 5.8 Ia8 1.3 2.7 .8 3. 3A 2.55B SA 2.3 1A 3.0 1.7 2. 2.8 2.08b5 6S 4A lb 4.2 3.7 34.7 3.2 I.B7.7 7.1 4A 2.0 4.8 3B 36A 3B lB

A. pbilhnod7

556556.75.55.75.2453.83B3B354.8Sb5B4S5B8.57.7

607D07.2S5.54.73S

3AB3b8454A5.76.26.2S5A

7.1

62.161B863D

62A62.3

1A1.3151B151.5IA1.4

2.21S92.34A4A

2.21.71A1.31.31.11.21.31.31.21.11.11.21A1.31A

2.0

1.31.31.11.21A1.1IAIA1.4

2.11.71.72.12.32.12.84.14.5

2.81.3.8.7

B.8

.7

.72.11b.8.7.8

1.11.22.84.74.6

2.01.5IA1.4

231.61A1.42.22.42.4

2.53A3.72.6264.15.B

5.2403.43.02.62.73.83S3B3.53A3.23.23.735293.33.7

I2

1A

I .71.7

1.2

lb1.62.12.2lbIb2.52.72.2.0IBIB

'Pobtiahed end adjuned dwa for the Unlind Stat. nd Aortalia unmrpIoYet Mnn., thrn. I e the uaIlty PWblithed unarpfoymnttna Menniel rr for each ountry. Publihed rte. hown ton Gnrn ny nd

Not oilabie Great 64i00 ctnnot be crooputed fIrn dera contained in OrE. able.1Prelieminary urimaree ben~d on incoerplere data.ncloding milittrv pnrnonnel for Japan, Grnoany, Italy, and NOTE: ata for the Unierd Statie. .fate to rhe popultio-

S"T ". 16 vy.. of ep and non Prblidhld dare for Fnce. Gemr.nV, and5For the Unired Sre, Caned, Autrlia., Jan. reily, and Italy neate to trhe populrlort 14 Ver of ap ad one for S-dn.e

Seeden, unntmpofymnet n reondad by t.npif Iabor force -rev.. to Ohe popultion agd 16 to 74; -d for Canbda, AuoreIl, Jepen.,for F.ne., ann.-l eatiate of unnryloywent; and for Germtnv and Gret- BroIrin, to rhe popultion 15 Vne. of p and o-rend6Great ritain. Ore rertnnert onmotoed. Bginning In 1973. poblithed dwta for Gret Brlain rlati to Ohe

The Auotrlian labor force wmoney n - itietod i. 1964. Un. popolbion 16 vee. of agp end -on The edjoated etatin hanenPioyweet .tn for 1959 1963 a n antimn by en Autralian bSen dapted, itootr e- poraible. to Ohe aP at ehidh .tonpurolryrea~nnher. inholing and. in teh oonrtc. Therefor., tdjound atmitine for

For FrP nce, ..nroloyment tn a pnerent of the oilian Itbor F -ne rlat. to the popoitron 16 year of We and oner and forforet; for Japn. Italy. and Swdn., unrpolVment a .perent of Gnrtay, to the popultian 15 Vea. of t and owr- Tha apgOhe nioflian labor fore PI.o etrear militry Pf-onnel fo G.nnnv llinrt of odjutd matienic for Canada. Swan. Great Bdeie., andand Great .nton. reiantd unanployed fecIuding adult midont.) lealy eInlde wrth rhe aP limit. of the publIthtd atatlier. State-t a prte-nt of employed wagp nd ealarv work. nPIa. the unen.- trie or Sweden anrin en th lowe r age llmit of 16, but htae benpof yd. Wait the eonption of F.n-,. hich doe not pubIth an edjuotad to indude pr.Mon 75 yea. of age and -ar

19

63

The Canadian unemployment rate has averaged 5.5percent since 1959; the US. unemployment rste, 5A per-cent (table 4). Italian unemployment was between 3 and4 percent during most years, avetaging 3.3 percent for theentire period. British joblessness also averaged 33 percent,and French unemployment averaged 2A percent. Sweden,Australia, Japan, and Germany all had unemployment ratesaveraging around 2 percent or less. Germany had the bestlabor market performance, with unemployment averagingjust over I percent since 1959.

During the period since 1959, unemployment rateshave been the most stable in Sweden and Japan (table 5).The difference between the wont and the best unemploy-ment rate was just 1.2 percentage points in Japan and 1.5percentage points in Sweden. The widest varistion occurredin the United States, where 5 percentage points separatedthe highest rate from the lowest. Unemployment rates werealso relatively volatile in Germany. Great Britain, and Cana-da. In Germany, unemployment rates usually varied withina narrow range, except for the sharp increases in 1967-68and 1974-76. The German unemployment rate of 3.7 per-cent in 1975 was over 12 times the rate prevailing in 1965-66.

In the 1960's, unemployment rates in Westem Eu-rope and Japan were normally far lower than those in theUnited States and Canada. The labor market in most of theother countries was very tight, as reflected in the unemploy-ment rate lows for the decade in Germany (03 percent in1965-66) and Japan (1.1 percent in 1969). Australia, France,and Sweden also had unemployment rates under 2 percentfor much of the decade. Achieving "full employment" re-quired little struggle in these countries; indeed, in manyyears there was a scarcity of labor. Some European coun-tries had to import large numbers of "guest workers" fromthe poorer nations of the Mediterranean region to maintainthe rapid expansion of their economies. Australia encouragedpermanent immigration. While the United States achieveda 16-year-low unemployment rate of 3.5 percent in 1969, itwas still significantly higher than the rate in most of theother countries.

Conditions in the Italian labor market contrastedwith those in the other European countries. Unemploymentwas signifscantiy higher in Italy during the 1960's, and thatcountry exported hundreds of thousands of worken to thelabor-short countries of the North. However, in the 1970's,unemployment rates in the rest of Westem Europe movedahead of Italy's.

In the United States and Canada, unemployment inthe second half of the 1960}s was much lower than in thefirst half (table 4). US. Sunemployment averaged 5.7 percentfrom 1960 to 1964 and 3.8 percent from 1965 to 1969.Australia and Japan also had somewhat lower jobless ratesin the latter half of the decade. In contrast, most WestemEuropean nations entered a period of recession around

1965, although the impact of the slowdown in growthgenerally did not make itself felt on the labor market nn-til hate 1966 and early 1967 when jobless rates began ris-ing in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden.

Changes in the unemployment picture since 1974have been striking. Recessionary trends gathered momen-tum in the industrial countries following the Arab oil em-bargo in late 1973. During 1975-76, postwar highs in un-employment were reached in the United States, Australia,France, and Great Britain; German unemployment rateswere the highest since the mid-1950's; and Japanese job-lessness reached the levels of 1959. In contrast, Swedishunemployment decreased in 1975 and held steady in1976.

Not only have most countries registered significant in-creases in joblessness since 1974, but the relative positionsof some countries with respect to unemployment rates havechanged. Canada and the United States continued to havethe highest unemployment rates but the increase in the job-less rate got underway earlier and went farther in the UnitedStates (table 6). Consequently, the US. rate, which hadbeen below Canada's from 1968 through 1973, exceededthe Canadian rate in late 1974 and remained higher until

Table 4. Average unemployment rates, selected perioda,1959-76

(Perent)

Country 1959.9 196064 196Sss9 1970-74 1975-76

United tass 5.4 5.7 3s2 A 8u.C aada. 5.5 6 4.0 5.8 7.0Austvraia. 2.1 2.) 1.5 1.9 44Japn . 1 4 1.4 12 1.3 2.0Frame . 24 1.5 2.1 2.8 44Gerw.nv 1.2 A .9 1.0 3.7Great sritain 3.3 2.6 2 3A 56Italy . 33 3.0 3.5 3.2 3.4Sweden .. 1.9 ,1 .5 1 S 23 156Ratio: highteat

sninwest . . . 44 tOO I5.0 5Ss 5.

t1591 i, die earlier veer ued.

Table5. Highea anda lowes unemployment ans, 1959-76

(Percentl

Difterenoe(in

Cnnntry Highr nwt pe-"tapointa)

United St. .85 (1975) 3.5 119699 5.0Canada.. 1 191 1976) 3.4 196) 3.7Australia 44 (t975 1976) 1 .3(1995) 3.1Japan .. 23 1959) 1.11199) 1.2Frame 44( 1976) 1t3 1963) 33Germy ... 3.7 119751) (1965,19561 3.4Great Britain 4119761 23D (1991) 4.4Italy .5.0 (1959) 2.4 9t63( 256Sweden. 217 972) 1.2 11965) 1.5

'1991 to 1975.NOTE: Yea in patnsnthw

20

64

Table 6. Quarterly unemployment rates, 1970-77

Piod I Canada I A Ittrn Jan [ Fr.nn I German.y I 1..7 ] SIdn

1970.

IV.

1971.

IV.

1972.

IV....

1973.

IV....

1974.

IV.1171... .

III.

IV....

1976.

IV.

1977.

It.....II .....

4.94.2S4.5.25.8

6.95.95.96.06.0

5.65.95.75.653

4.94.94.94.94.9

5.9'.0

5.15.66.6

8.911

8.6

7.77.67.47.97.9

7.47.07.0

1.41.41A1.41.4

1.6IA1.51.61.8

2.22.02.12.623

1.92.11.91.71.7

231.71.82A3.3

4.44.045.4.4.

4A4.34.34.94.3

4.6S5A5.7

0.3

.79

.7

.7

.7

9.9

.9a

.9

.9

.91.9.9

.71.0.8

1.0

1.7

.3

.9

1.01.3

1.02.5

3.73.93.94.12.9

3.

3.5

3.43.53.9

3.13.03.13.13.2

3.93.33.74.14.3

4.24.54.34.13.9

3.23.73.33.02.7

2B2.72.72.83.1

4.73.74.25.15.7

6.48.26.56.66.6

6.87.07.2

3.13.02S3.22.8

3.13.03.03.03.1

3.63.43.43.73.6

3.43.64.03.12.9

2.92.92.52.83.0

3.22.93A3.23A

3.93.33.53.93.7

3.23.13.6

1.51.6

1.51.8

2.42.22.42.92.9

2.72.72.72.92.7

2.52.62.52.5

2.03.21.92.01.7

1.71.61.7

1.6

1.9

1.7

3.0

21

tPreliminrvy tor Franne nfd Gemerny ftr 1977, and tar Greet Great Britin are. Iuculeted by PPlying arrrual edju-tm-et ft.

B6rltr frat 1975 onw rd. to naret publithed dete, and htretfare *ould be viewed e onyIDrA tor 1977 am ano strkty comperbke with date Iar erier pprr-imate indi-aton af -nerplyment under U.S. .ncetpn

v--n. S-ee ppeydia B., Publihed dat toy Au-talia., C.n.d., Jnpn, aend Sweden requirelittle o an edjoetment.

NOTE: Ournteriy agure- tar Frene, Germany, Italy, *nd

. . . . . . . . .ll

65

1977. Increases in unemployment were even more pro-nounced in other countries; sharp increases in Australianand German unemployment caused those countries to moveup in ranking. At the same time, since unemployment de-clined in Sweden, that country displaced Germany as thecountry with the lowest unemployment rate. Italy, whichhad ranked no lower than founh throughout 1959-74,moved down to sixth position in 1975-76.

The increases in unemployment in the 1970's havebeen attributed to structural change as well as cyclical fac-tors. Even before the Arab oil embargo, a number of coun-tries had high rates of unemployment in relation to previousexperience. In all but three countries (Japan, Italy, andGermany), unemployment rates in the early 1970's weresignificantly higher than in the latter half of the 1960's. Ac-cording to calculations by the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD), unemploymentrates at the end of 1972 in the United States, Canada,France, and Great Britain were about I percentage pointabove the rate prevailing at a similar stage of the previousbusiness cycle.' The OECD has noted a tendency for un-employment levels in major industrial countries to in-crease from cyclical peak to cyclical peak since the endof World War I.

In Canada and the United States, the faster growth ofthe labor supply in the 1970's has been an element behindthe rise of unemployment. In both countries, high blthrates after 1945 and social factors-higher female partici-pation rates and the slowdown in the spread of higher edu-cation-have led to a pronounced acceleration of laborforce growth. In most of Westem Europe, birth rates, fol-lowing the early postwar baby boom, fell back in the early1950's. Female labor force participauon has declined or in-creased slowly in the European countries (chapter 4),and higher education has not yet reached as large a propor-tion of the population as in the United States. In WestemEurope, unlike the United States, the spread of higher edu-

Table 7. Employment growth rates, selected periods, 1959-76

(Pew-ent par val

Cnintrv 1959-76' t960.652 1965-70 t70.74 t974.75 1975.76

United Orates 1.9 1 5 2.1 2 .13 3 .2Canada ..,. . 2.9 3.2 1 a 2.2A-ust .. . 2.2 tat 2.7 2.0 - .2 .4Jn ..... 13 1.2 1.7 5 - .3 a .oFrite... s a 1.0 1.1 .1.0 3Genany. .1 .A - .3 - -3.5 .1.1Great slian .1 a .5 .5 - .7 -.7tatly ..... .5 to - .3 .t £ .7

-de.n. . . . 2 .9 .7 .6 2.5 .7

t1964-76 fnr A-srr.1a; 1961-76 s.n Saeden.t196t.5 fn, Swdan.Nor ava.ilable.

NOTE: Pernant uhanges n-Pntnsed frto the earst revres treedof th. Iowrith.so.f thSr indeo numbers.

cation has brought about a decline in the labor force par-ticipation rate of teenagers.

Supply-demand imbalances have consituted an impor-tant source of difficulty in labor markets in the 1970's. Il-lustrating this is the fact that several European countries ex-perienced simultaneous increases in the number of job va-cancies and the number of persons unemployed, reflectinggrowing supply-demasd disequilibrium at the occupational,industrial, or regional level. Existing statistics do not gen-erally allow a comprehensive analysis of these imbalances,but such fragmentary evidence as is available suggesta thatimbalances are increasing in a number of countries.

t

Employment

Canada had, by far, the highest rate of employmentgrowth durng the persod 1959 to 1976 (table 7). Employ-ment rose at a rate of over 3 percent a year, and in 1976there were about 3.7 million (64 percent) more persons em-ployed in Canada than there were in 1959. Canada was theonly country studied which experienced continuous em-ployment expansion throughout the period (chart 3).

Employment growth m the United States and Aus-tralia was also strong. In the United States, annual employ-ment increases averaged 1.9 percent, and alniost 23 million(35 percent) more persons held jobs in 1976 than is 1959.The United States experienced only 2 years of decliningemployment, a slight decrease dunag the 1960-61 recession,and a more dramatic drop in the 1974-75 economic down-turn. Japan was the only other country with employmentgrowth of over I percent a year, and 1974 and 1975 werethe only years of declining employnient there.

In the Westem European countries, in contrast, em-ployment has grown slowly or actually declined since 1959.In France and Sweden, employment grew by about 0.8 per-cent a year; in Great Briasm, the growth rate was negligible.Germany and Italy had declining employment trends. InGermany, there were 860,000 fewer persons employed in1976 than there were is 1959.

In the United States, Canada, Japan, and France, em-ployment growth accelerated in the second half of the1960's. In Canada, employment growth was particularlyrapid in 1965-68 (3.5 percent annually), but it then fell offto 2.1 percent per year from 1968 to 1970. In the UnitedStates and Canada, the acceleration which began aroundthe mid-1960's was attributed to rapid economic growthcombined with a large increase in young persons and wom-en coming onto the labor market and finding jobs. In Ger-many and Great Britain, employment began to decline inthe latter half of the 1960's after rising in the first half of

'Orgonin.tion for Economic Cooperation and Devetoptens.Eronomno lurt-ok. December t973, pp.

32-3 3.

'Ibid.

22

66

the decade. Swedish employment growth also tapered off.Italian employment continued to decline, but at a reducedrate.

In the early 1970's, the rate of employment growthaccelerated again m the United States and Canada. Canadianemployment growth continued to outpace the other coun-tries. Employment growth was regained in Great Britain,and Italy's employment began to increase after many yearsof decline.

The recessionary period of 1974-75 had a strong im-pact on employment, which fell in six of the nine coun-tries studied. The sharpest decline-3.5 percent-was re-corded in Germany. Only Canada, Italy, and Sweden main-tained employment growth in 1975. The nse in Italian em-ployment continued into the recessionary period. Evenwith these recent increases, I million fewer Italians were atwork in 1976 than in 1961, the peak year for employmentin Italy.

In 1976, employment continued to fall in Germanyand Great Britain, but rebounded in the United States,Australia, France, and Japan. Canada's employment growthslowed somewhat in 1976, and the United States had themost rapid increase.

Chart 3. A..at P.fern.nt Chow" in CM11rr Employrrwrt, 1fN-7S

Sectoml employment. Generally, with a nation's eco-nomic development and its progress in industrialization,the distribution of the employed population shifts fromagricultural to industrial activities, particularly manufac-turing, and then from these sectors to service activities.

3

Tables 8a and 8b present comparative data on civilian em-ployment by sector in nine countries for selected years ofthe 1960 to 1976 period. During that time, vast long-termsectoral reallocations of employment continued to takeplace in Japan, France, and Italy, with more moderateshifts occurring in the other countries.

Sectoral employment is significant to the discus-sion of unemployment because certain sectors are moreprone to unemployment than others. Also, sectoral shiftscan create unemployment by displacing workers in dechn-ing sectors. Chapter 5 goes into these factors in more de-tail.

'For a mom detailed aounat soctonf trends incer 1950, secConstance Sorrentino, 'Complarn Employment Shifts i t0 In-dusuialired Counines" Monthly Labor Revie,. October 1971,

pp. 3-11.

�,?wA� A� �40.s� vs

minor � *g� SoC 1975 19.0 "04 �006 '97� 197� t'itc ,56.i '�,v mc 15

Ncr, or. yr r.s. a., .n ocular vrkoc Oirl or boor 0.0cr 0

23

13,

I I

0 i � 1,

I I .1

I I

_3

67

Table BA. Employment by ecanomic sector, sleced yea;n. 1960.76

IThoosand)

Unitd I IGretY Ir Stares CaOrda Autnlnia TJapan Franr Geornany |Britain' Igtaly Senden

Total citilian employment

1970.1971.1972.19731974.1975.1976.

8960.965.

1970.1971.1972.19733.1974.1975.1976.

1960.1965.1970.1971 .......1972....19731974.1975.1976.

1960.1965 .......1970.1971.1972.1973 .1974.1975.1976.

1960....1965.1970.1971.1972.19730.1974.1975.1976.

65.778 5.965 NA 43.370 18,712 25,954 24,257 19.877 3.51371 088 6.862 4,614 468200 19.544 26,418 25,327 18,721 3.673785627 7.819 5.326 50.140 20.393 268169 24,748 18,460 3,3679,120 8.107 5,422 50.470 20,511 268225 24.376 18.376 3B.4281.702 8.363 5,490 50.580 20363 26,125 242376 18,075 3.84584,409 8.902 5sB15 51 s90 20.938 23,201 24.948 18,239 3 I6185.936 9,195 5,736 51.710 21.100 25,688 25.63 18.844 3,94484.783 9363 5,726 51.530 20244 24,798 24.979 18,765 4,04487.485 9.572 5.08 52.020 20p870 24.544 NA 18.900 4.070

Agrkultum

5.572 795 NA 12200 4,189 3.526 I1O5 8,470 5444.477 694 448 10500 3,468 2.876 846 4.826 4213.566 605 431 8.490 2.907 2,282 899 3.574 3143.503 608 423 7.840 2,791 2,144 674 3,530 3003.585 576 429 7.310 23673 2P38 871 3.255 2873,554 574 401 6.810 2.559 1.954 681 3,141 2763588 583 392 6.540 2,452 10882 662 3,072 2643,476 579 385 6.380 2355 1.823 646 2,934 2613.417 566 374 6.210 2266 1,714 NA 23902 254

21,995 1 .00 NA 12380 7,136 12,400 11,466 7,267 1,42024311 2.233 12653 15.510 7.538 12,761 11,755 7,650 1,55328.066 2.359 1,843 1720 7.800 12.452 11.114 8,112 1,45625.117 2.383 100 18.140 73928 12.384 10.728 8.150. 1.42425.709 2,446 13855 18.290 7.859 12,214 10.470 8.030 1.39627,086 2202 1.890 19210 8.070 12,225 10.592 8,047 1,401286.88 2.710 1.816 19P20 8,093 11.532 100568 8,251 1,43425p22 2.29 *1,834 18.370 7250 *11,170 10,170 8.300 1,44925.876 2,733 *1825 18.520 7,778 * 10837 NA 8.225 1,416

M_.. acnvrrg

17,14919.198020.73719.5641958820594220p8791927520P044

1.4711,6361 ,7681 ,767

1037

1 B945

1.781.787

NA1.20713081336

1,3351210

.1255

9,430I '.45013.75013,42013 1014.42p1325013,43013,440

5.2405,405565705.7336,782539252385,7895,735

987210,1059,7569,7119.55095419,410

*8B90*8525

9.0989.2569p228,7248.4468.4988.408,157NA

53445,4275B16459105B265.8946,1006,1286,143

1 ,1201,206,064

1.0541,046

1,1201,1381,100

.SerM.eS6

38.212423014829450,50052,40853 .77055.36056.285508M2

3.26435344,9555.1165341522658928,15568273

NA2.5143.05231 193,2063.3253A427

*3506*3308

18,19020B69023 ,7702451024B802580026,14026,77027290

73878.538

957961

10.0311030910.55510.391032B

10,02810.78111,4551 1 6971187312p022II_9

*11505*11593

1278612,72612.9351237513,236132761383614,163

NA

8,14182446,7726,6956,7907p0497,3217,5317,773

1,550126992,0562,1 182.1622,1 852246

2,400

Indud6t NoIltue Irend.2Deba for Itly hane not b6an adjoeted for the ondarcocot

nf .. plny.ent whinh mh re-e-1ld by the revised Itluian labor foinssurvey Ia oppindlo 81.

3From 1873 ontord. JaPan inculd Okinea.Agriculture for6 try. hnting, *nd fishina.tMan-fetnuring, mining, and con-tr-in.n6Transpor... l- .communicadon, public tilitia. tndt, finane-,

public adminltttion., private household servic6, and miacellaneons-r-ical

NA - Not evailable..Prelimiuary.

NOTE: Civillan employment toals may not coincide With thoain table 3 bectat sane employment cauld nut be datribared bytconomict olr.

24

_ _ _ _

68

Table 8B. Percent distribution of employment by economic sector, selected years, 1960-76

Unir d| GroatY., Sutna Canda Aatralia Jian France Germany Britain InaV

2S n

Toutl civilian mployment

Each Yer ...... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1000 1 100. 00.0 100.0 100.0

Agriculnur'

1960 ....... .5 13.3 NA 29.5 22.4 13.0 4.1 329 15.51965 ....... 0. .3 10.1 9.7 22.7 17.7 10.9 33 259 11.II1970 ....... 4.5 7.6 8.1 16.9 14.2 4.6 22 19.4 8.21971. 4.4 7.5 7.8 1.5 13.6 6.2 2B 19.2 7.91972. 4A 69 7.8 14A 12.9 7.8 2.8 18.0 7.51973 ....... 4.2 .5 7.1 13.1 12.2 75 2.7 17.1 7.11974 ....... 4.2 63 12fi 11f 7.3 2.6 16.5 6.71975 .4.1 6.2 9.7 12. 1t3 7A 2.6 156 6.51976 ....... 3.9 5.9 6.2 11.9 10.9 7.0 NA 15.4 6.2

Industry'

1960 ....... 33A 32.0 NA 28.5 38.1 47.9 47.3 36.6 40A1965 ...... 4. 3.2 32.5 35.8 325 389. 483 46A 40.9 42.31970 ....... 33.2 29.9 34.6 35.7 38.7 47.6 44.9 43.9 38.01971 ....... 31.9 29.4 34.7 35.9 38.6 47.2 44.0 44. 37.11972 . .... 31.5 29A 33.8 36.2 382 48.8 43.0 44.4 36.319734 . 32.1 29.S 33.7 37.0 38.5 46.7 42.5 44.4 36831974 ...... 31.4 29.5 33.4 36.9 39A 46A 42.2 44.3 36A1975 . ... 29. 2.1 32.0 35.9 37.7 45.0 40.7 44.2 35.61976 ....... 29.7 28.6 *31.4 35fi 373 *44.2 NA 43.5 34.9

Manutecturing

1960 ....... 26.1 24.7 NA 21.7 29.0 3 37.5 26.9 31.91965 ....... 27.0 23.8 29.2 24. 27.7 39.2 36.5 29.0 32.91970 ....... 29A 22.3 24.6 27A 27.3 374 36.5 31.9 27.7197 . .... .7 21.9 24.6 29.9 25.0 37.0 35.8 32.2 27.41972.24.3 31.9 22. 27.3 28.0 36.9 34.8 32.2 37.21973. 24.9 22.0 23.8 27.9 2B.1 39A 34.1 323 27.61974 ....... 24.3 21.7 23.4 25f 29.1 32.6 34.1 32.7 2BA1975 .......... 22.7 20.2 21.8 2fi.1 27. *35. 32.7 32 7 29.11976 ..... 22.9 20.3 21.6 25.9 27.5 *35.1 NA 32.5 27.0

1960 .... 59.1 54.7 NA 41.9 39.5 389f 48.6 30.9 44.1I965 .... 59.5 573 54.5 44.9 43.7 40.9 50.2 33.4 48.31970 . 623 62.9 57.3 47A4 47.0 43.9 52.3 36.7 53.91971 . 3. 63.1 57.5 48.9 47.7 44.6 53.2 38A 5S.11972 ....... 64.1 639 59A. 49.4 48.9 45.4 54.3 37.9 56.21973 .......... 63.7 63.9 59.2 49.9 49.2 45.9 54.9 38.6 59.61974 ...... 64.4 64.1 59.7 0 50.0 46 .3 55.2 393 56.91975 ....... 6A 65.7 61.2 52.0 51.0 *47.6 56.7 40.1 57.71976 ...... 65.4 65.5 *2.1 52.5 51.9 | 9*48 NA 41.1 59.0

25

I Includ. Northenn Ireland. 5Mrnuautring, mining, and construction.2D.. for Italy have not bae adjusted for the unde-ntn of Trrnsp.rtati-n. coMm lction, public, utilities. arada. finance.

employment hhlx - reneld by the oisud falen labor Io public dministretion, private household serices, and mislanecussun lae pnfdic aI srvices

Agrtcol urtforstry hooting. and fihing. NA -Not nliable.'Frm 1973 onwrds, Japan include Okinwa. . Prslwlinsry.

69

Employment in agriculture declined to all countries,usually quite rapidly. In conjunction with the growth oftotal employment in most countries, this resulted in a sig-nificant fall in agriculture's share of employment. GreatBritain had the lowest proportion of esmployment in ag-culture, and the United States ranked second. Large dif-ferences among countries in the proportion of employmentin agriculture have narrowed considerably since 1960. In1960 the agricultural sector in Japan was larger, in termsof employment, than the industrial sector. By 1965, theindustrial sector was larger. In most countries, the rate ofdecline in agricultural employment accelerated in the1960's over the 1950's.

Movement out of agriculture generally increases thelabor supply available for industry and services. However,rural to urban migration in Italy and Japan actually tendedto curb the total labor supply. Many women and childrenwho formnerly worked as unpaid farm laborers withdrewfrom the labor form entirely when thei families left agri-culture. Thus, the female participation rate declined toboth countries. (See chapter 4.) In most other countries,this effect was outweighed by the increasing number ofmarried women entering the labor force when their childrenreached school age.

Employment in the industrial sector-mining, manu-facturing, and construction-rose as all countries exceptGermany, Great Bntain, and Sweden. However, the in-creases in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Francedid not keep pace with overall employment expansion; con-sequently, the proportion in industry actually declined.Japan and Italy were the only countries in which the in-dustrial sector increased itt share of total employment.

In the recessionary period of 1974-75, Italy andSweden were the only countries with employment increasesin the industrial sector. In Canada, overall employmentrose, but industrial employment declined.

The United States emerged as the world's first serviceeconomy-over 50 percent of employment in service indus-tries-shortly after World War II. With some lag, the otherindustrial nations appear to be following that pattern. Cana-da crossed the 50-percent level in 1958, and Australia andGreat Brtain joined the United States and Canada in the1960's. In the first half of the 1970's, Japan and Francealso became service economies. Only Germany and Italycontinue to have more workers engaged is the productionof goods than of services.

Country developments

Unemployment rates are useful indicators of laborutilization and of economic health. These statistics becomeeven more meaningful when used in conjunction with otherlabor market data. Hours of work, for example, are com-monly reduced in economic downtums as an alternative tolaying off workers. Some countries, particularly Frmce andGermany, employ large migrant work forces whose nurn-

bees can be increased or decreased in conformity with de-mand. Some workers withdraw from the labor force in badtimes, in discouragement over the prospects of obtaininga job. Sweden has a highly developed system which pro-vider training and employment to persons unable to findjobs. These factors and others are considered in the follow-isg brief cuntry-by-country analyses of unemploymenttrends. Charts 4 through 12 show the trends in workingage population, labor force, and employment for each ofthe countries.

United Stares. Following post-World War 11 highs of 6.8percent in 1958 and 6. percent in 1961, joblessness in theUnited States moved downward slowly to a 16-year low of3.5 percent in 1969. In 1970 unemployment increasedsharply to 4.9 percent, and in 1971 it rose further to 5.9percent. The low point since that time was 4.7 percent inOctober 1973. In late 1974 and 1975, the United States

Chart 4. United States: Working-AgePopulation, Labor Force, andEmployment, 1960-76

Milions

200

Ratio scale175

150 Wo ng-age population

125

100

Labor force75 - a' -

Ensploymont

501960 1964 1968 t972 1976

26

70

suffered from its worst economic downturn since the de-pression of the 1930's. The average 1975 unemploymentrate of 8.5 percent was the highest recorded since 1941. In1976, unemployment still averaged 7.7 percent of the civil-ian labor force. In May 1977, the rate fell below 7 percentfor the first time in 21i years.

The rate of growth of the US. labor force has beenmuch higher than that for Europe and Japan. From 1960to 1976, the labor force grew at an annual rate of 2.0 per-cent. Since 1969 the rate of growth has been at least 2.5percent a year except in the recession yeacs of 1971 and1975. Despite the severity of the recessions, the labor forcecontinued to expand, although at a cyclically induced slowerpace. During the 1975-76 expansionary period, the laborforce grew at a much faster rate than in other recoveryperiods. The strong labor force growth in 1976 kept un-employment higher than it might otherwise have been.'The growth in the labor force in 1976 reflected mainly theunusually large increase in labor force participation byadult women. Unlike previous recessions, labor force par-ticipation rates increased in 1974, remained high in 1975,and rose to a record 61.6 percent in 1976.

U.S. labor force growth rates and participation rateswould have been higher than those recorded in the reces-sion years of 1971 and 1975 if increasing numbers of per-sons had not withdrawn from the labor market when facedwith bleak job prospects. The trend for these discouragedworkers-persons who would have been looking for workexcept that they believed they could not find a job-hasgenerally paralleled the cyclical changes in the number ofjobless. The number of discouraged workers reached an all-time high of 1.2 million persons in the third quarter of1975. As economic conditions improved, many of thesepersons entered or reentered the labor force. In 1976, thenumber of discouraged workers declined to 916,000. How-ever, in the second quarter of 1977, the number of dis-couraged workers rose to nearly 1.1 million, the highestlevel since the third quarter of 1975.

Employment in the United States rose throughoutthe 1960-76 period, except for 1961 and 1975. In 1961,the decline was negligible; in 1975 employment fell by 13percent. However, the 1975 decline in employment wasmuch less than the increase in joblessness because of thelarge numbers of labor force reentrants and first-time job-seekers. Employment growth, which resumed in the secondquarter of 1975, accelerated to 3.2 percent in 1976. ByMay 1977, the number of employed persons had increasedby 6.3 million from the recession low of 84.1 million inMuch 1975. More than 40 percent of the increase tookplace after October 1976, an average of 380,000 new jobsper month.

Canada. Canadian joblessness has been significantly higher

eoRbert w. Bednuank ad Stephen St. Marie, "Employment andU-emptuyment m 1976," Monthly Lbo, Reren. Febraaay 1977,p. 10.

than in the other industrial nations, with the exception ofthe United States. Only in 1965, 1966, and 1967 was un-employment below 4 percent. Unemployment was below 5percent in 1968.69, rose to over 6 percent in 1971-72, andthen fell to 5.A percent in 1974. In the following year, an-employment began rising rapidly and by December 1976the jobless rate had climbed to 7.5 percent, the highest in15 years. The unemployment rate continued upward inearly 1977, reaching 8.3 percent in April.

Regional differences in economic structure, employ-ment, and incomes have remained an obstacle in achievinglower unemployment in Canada. Jobless rates are highest inthe Atlantic provinces and Quebec, wheae the rates in 1976were 11.0 percent and 8.7 percent, respectively. In themost industrialized province, Ontario, the unemploymentrate was 6.2 percent. The Prairie provinces, at 5.9 percent,recorded the lowest regional rates.

Chart 5. Canada: Working-Age Population,Labor Force, and Employment,Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1960-76

Millions

20 , A - , : t -; 4

5 =1960 1964 1968 1972 1976

27

71

Growth in the Canadian labor force has been veryrapid, outpacing all other nations studied in the period1959-76. Much of the increase resulted from the entry ofyoung persons and women into the work force. After reach.ing 5.5 percent in 1966, the labor force growth rate fluc-ttated within a range of 2.6 to 3.4 percent a year. In 1973and 1974, the pace of labor force growth accelerated toabove 4 percent a year, but in late 1974 growth began totaper off. The labor force increased by 3.6 percent in 1975and by 2.5 percent in 1976. Contributing to these lowerrates of growth was the new immigration law of 1974 thattied immigration more closely to labor market needs. Inthe period 1965 through 1974, the number of new immi-grants entering the country to work was equal to one-thirdof the total increase in the labor force; in 1967 and 1968,the number was equal to nearly half of the increase. In1975 and 1976, when the labor force grew more slowly,new immigrants were equal to 23 percent and 20 percent,respectively, of the increase in the work force.

Australia. Unemployment in Australia fluctuated within thelow and narrow range of 1.3 to 1.6 percent from 1964, thefirst year for which labor force survey data are available, to1971. Joblessness increased in 1972 to a 9-year high of 2.2percent of the labor force and remained near 2 percent un-til late 1974. Between 1974 and 1975, unemploymentdoubled. The jobless rate in the third and fourth quartersof 1975, at 4.6 percent, was a record high for the postwarperiod. Employment rose in 1976, after falling marginallyin 1975, but unemployment remained close to 1975 levelssince the rise in employment was not sufficient to absorbthe growth of the labor force. Joblessness increased steadilyin 1977, reaching a new postwar high of 5.7 percent in thethird quarter. In response to the slack in the labor market,Australia, traditionally a country encouraging immigration,tightened its immigration laws. Since 1972, persons bornoutside the country have accounted for 27 percent of thelabor force.

Japat. Unemployment in Japan has remained lower andmore stable than in the other major industrial nations.From 1960 through 1974, joblessness averaged 1.3 percentand never rose above 1.7 percent. However, beginning in1974, the trend toward labor shortage was reversed. Em-ployment declined, and in late 1974 unemployment beganmoving upward steadily, reaching a peak in the fourth quar-ter of 1975 of 2.1 percent-the highest unemployment raterecorded in Japan since 1959. Unemployment remained ataround the 2-percent level throughout 1976 and the firsthalf of 1977.

As these low rates indicate, joblessness is not highlysensitive to the demand for labor in Japan. Employers, withtheir tradition of lifetime employment policies, prefer to re-duce working hours, terminate contracts with part-time,seasonal, and temporary workers, reduce new hires ofschool leavers, and encourage "voluntary retirement." Dur-

Chart 6. Australia: Wokleng-Age Population,Labor Force, and Employment,Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1964-76

lcns

12

10etd-C e We

_ ~ ~~~~~~ -A4,:I

66 o I Ic

Lao t force .0,I

5 K

4Employmrenl

1 95r 1% 94 1968 1972 1976

ing the 1974-75 recession, Japanese employers also steppedup the practice of transferring employees from one job toanother within the same company and setting up specialeducation and training programs to avoid layoffs of perma-nent employees. ln 1975, employment of regular workersincreased by 0.5 percent, but employment of temporaryworkers and day laborers fell by over 5 percent. New hiresof school leavers were reduced sharply as more than one-third of Japan's major businesses cancelled plans to hirecollege and university graduates.

Most ftrms employing over 1,000 permanent workerssolicited "voluntary retirements" by offering larger thannormal lump-sum retirement allowances. These programswere aimed specifically at younger women who tend toresign before their marriage and older workers with about 5years left before'mandatory retirement. The firms offeredjob placement guidance to those "voluntary retirees" whowished to continue working. Those not placed in new jobs

28

-

72

Chart 7. Japan: Working-Age Population, tractual and temporary employees. Many of these workers,Labor Force, and Employment, mainly women, apparently preferred to withdraw from theAdjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1960-76 labor force rather than look for anotherjob. Thus, thelabor

force participation rate varies with the Japanese businesscycle, and recorded unemployment does not appear to bea highly sensitive indication of the number of persons whowould seek work if jobs were available.

10.0 ; e ~w France. In the early 1960's, unemployment in France re-mained below 2 percent of the civilian labor force, with alow of 1.3 percent in 1963. In 1967, the economy sloweddown and the French jobless rate moved upward to 2.0percent. Joblessness continued to move toward the "warn.ing point" set forth in the government's economic plan-260,000 persons registered as unemployed-which wouldamount to an unemployment level of nearly 3 percent (ad.jasted to U.S. concepts) and in May 1968 a crisis develop.ed. Student riots and workers' strikes itumobilized the na-

Chart 8. France: Working-Age Population,S A If i -i~v S5D- D> g i; 5 ;DL5 ID ,,dLabor Force, and Employment,

Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1960-76

40

35 ij

30

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976

t - , _ _ 35 '~~~~ ;_ _3

were eligible to collect unemployment insurance benefits S 0while jobseeking. Persons 55 years of age and over are eli-gible to collect benefits for up to 300 days.

Under the Employment insurance Law of 1975, the 25Japanese government subsidized enterprises which keptemployees on the payroll rather than laying them off. Thisemployment adjustment grant enabled enterprises in in-dustries designated by the Minustry of Labor as economicallyimpacted to pay up to 90 percent of the worker's basic 20wage for 6 months with a 3-month additional extension. Insmall and medium-size firms, the government subsidyamounted to two-thirds of the worker's wage; in large-sizefirms, one-half of wage costs were covered. Approximatelyone-third of all Japanese workers were eligible for such 15compensation during 1975. 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976

The Japanese labor force declined in 1974 for thefirst time in the postwar era This decline was attributed torecession-induced labor force withdrawals of laid-off con-

29

73

tion. After the spring strikes, economic activity picked upas industry filled back orders and attempted to meet theincreased consumer demand created by the sharp wage in-creases of the strike settlement. Unemployment declinedin 1969, but then rose to around 2.8 percent in late 1970.It remained at this level until the end of 1974, when job-lessness rose sharply in response to strikes in public enter-prises and agencies and progressively tightening anti-in-lation policies. In 1975, unemployment rose by almost 40percent. This was equal to the rise in 1968, but the 1975increase came on top of an unemployment level that al-ready exceeded the 1968 rate. Joblessness continued toexpand in 1976 and 1977. A postwar high of 5.8 percentwas recorded in the third quarter of 1977.

In response to the higher levels of unemployment, theFrench government halted immigration from outside theEuropean Community in June 1974 and tightened controlson illegal immigration. Employment of foreigners with orwithout work permits became more strictly monitored. In1973, foreign workers had constituted about 10 percent ofemployment in FPmnce.

Another response to rising unemployment was the en-actment of a new unemployment compensation programfinanced jointly by employers and employees, with initialfunding provided by the government, whereby workers laidoff for economic reasons are paid 90 percent of their form-er gross wage for up to I year unless they are reemployed:This program became effective January I, 1975. By mid-1976, approximately one of every eight persons regis-tered as unemployed was receiving this high benefit rate.The amount and duration of official assistance for workerson short-time schedules was also increased. The governmentsubsidized 90 percent of employer-paid supplementary as-sistance for workers on short time. The number of workerspartially unemployed peaked at 385,000 in November1975, and more than 1.4 million days were compensatedfor by unemployment assistance. In 1976, the situationshowed a marked improvement. The number of persons onshort time declined from 300,000 in 1975 to 132,000, and7 million days were paid for compared to 15 million days in1975.

Other measures to promote employment were govem-ment subsidies and financial iscentives. The subsidies wereaimed at encouraging the training of unemployed 16- to 25-year-olas. Subsidies for training programs of at least 6months provided up to 100 percent of training costs plusthe minimum wage. The fsancial incentives were madeavailable to firms hiring, for at least I year, young personsin search of their first job or persons unemployed morethan 6 months.

Gerrmany. During Gemiany's labor shortage of 1960.66,even normally inactive handicapped and older workerswere integrated into the labor force. Unemployment was

below I percent from 1961 through 1966, falling to theextremely low level of 0.3 percent in 1965466. After theseyears of sustained growth, the Germany economy began toslow down in mid-1966. In 1967, for the first time in thehistory of the Federal Republic, real output fell short ofthe level of the preceding year. The unemployment atemore than quadrupled, rising to 1.3 percent in 1967. Em-ployment of German nationals dropped by over 500,000in 1967, and almost 300,000 foreign workers left Germanybetween mid-1966 and mid-1967.

Recovery from the recession was rapid. Labor short-ages soon reappeared and the labor market became increas-ingly tight. By October 1969, over seven vacancies were re-ported for every one person registered as jobless. Foreignworkers returned to Germany as the economic picture bright-ened. Unemployment again fell below the I-percent level in1969-73.

Chart 9. Germany: Working-Age Population,Labor Force, and Employment,Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1960-76

F _~~~~~~~~~~~~

Millions

60Rrao scale

55

50Worlang-agês Dopullationi

45 ___

tso

35

30

Labor force

25 00= -MA MEmptoiyment

20 .1960 1-J64 If.368 I'a 'j i s i

30

74

Growth in industrial output leveled off in 1973, andthe labor market began to show signs of easing. The Araboil embargo in November accelerated the deterioration,causing an interruption in German industrial production.Many firms curtailed production and introduced short-timeworkweeks. The number of workers receiving compensationfor short-time work rose sharply to more than 300,000 inFebruary 1974. By February 19

75, a new high of almost I

million workers were on short time. Despite an average ofmore than 770,000 workers on short time, employment fellby 890,000 in 1975-which exceeded the increase in unem-ployment by 400,000. The average number of unemployedpersons in Germany more than quadrupled between 1973and 1975, and averaged 3.7 percent of the labor force inthe latter year. In 1976 and 1977, joblessness leveled off at3.6 percent.

Since the late 1950's, the German work force hasbeen supplemented by an influx of foreign workers who, atthe peak of the inflow in 1973, constituted 10 percent ofemployment. Labor shortages and highei wages in Germanyand lack of job opportunities in Southem Europe made theGerman labor market increasingly attractive to migrants.During periods of recession, foreign workers add an elementof flexibility to the German labor market. (See "Labor mi-gration" in chapter 5.) In November 1973, a ban was pass-ed on recruiting foreign workers from outside the EuropeanCommunity. Foreign workers were reluctant to leave Ger-many bemuse they believed that they would not be able toretum .

In late 1974 and early 1975, the German governmentintroduced measures to reduce the number of registered un-employed foreigners by requiring them to accept jobswhichpaid less than their former wages or unemployment com-pensation. If two such offers were refused, these workerscould no longer collect unemployment benefita. Otherefforts to linit employment of migrants included the pre-ferential hiring of German nationals, denial of work permitsto dependents of migiants, stiffer penalties for illegally em-ploying aliens, and restrictions on the right of immigrantsto settle in areas where foreigners constitute more than 12percent of the population. In response to these restrictions,the number of foreign workers continued to decline in1976, while employment of German nationals began to rise.By mid-1976, the number of migrants in Germany had fall-en to 1.9 million, which was about the number of migrantsin 1970.

Great Britain. The jobless rate in Great Britain was below 3percent during 1959-66 except in 1963, when slackness inthe economy was aggravated by a particularly severe winterwhich disrupted outdoor work. However, in 1967 the un-employment rate rose above 3 percent as measures to al-leviate serious deficits in the balance of payments tookpriority over the full-employment goal. A wage and pricefreeze in July 1966 was followed by even more stringentmeasares, including devaluation of the pound in 1967. Un-

31

Chart 10. Great Britain: Working-Age Popula-latnon, Labor Force, and Employ-ment, Adjusted to U.S. Concepts,1960-76

employment was in the 3- to 3.A-percent range until 1971when it jumped to 3.9 percent as British firms engaged inthe biggest work force cutbacks since the depression.

5The

drastic "shake-out" of labor was in response to sharply ris-ing labor costs and slackening demand. Some of the cut-backs were viewed as a delayed reaction to the slow growthof the late 1960's.'

Unemployment rose throughout 1971 and into 1972.In February, millions of workers were laid offas a coal strikecaused the Government to decree emergency power cuts forfactories. The 1972 unemployment rate of 4.2 percent was

tSee "Heatt Tghtmening Unemployment." The Wabif-ert Pao.

December 6, t971, p. D) 12, and "B'itain' Jobles A Rapid Rise,"tU.S. Newaad World Rpar, May 24, 1971, pp. 84-85.

Bmitisth Ceteal Staustioa Ottire, Eaoomsic Te-ds, May 1971,P. ii.

Millions

Rato giaMe45

40

Wovking-age populaton35

30

Labor force25 = = =-

Employment

20

1 51960 1964 1968 1972 1976

75

the highest yet in the postwar era. Economic growth accel-erated in 1973 and unemployment moved back down to3.2 percent. However, unemployment began to rise againwith the beginning of the oil crisis in the autumn of 1973.The Arab oil embargo, combined with labor disputes in thecoal and electricity industries, brought about the imposi-tion by the Government of a 3-day workweek inearly 1974.In January 1974, the number of workers temporarily laidoff and receiving unemployment compensation was over900,000, up from only 8,000 in December. Most of theseworkers were not counted as unemployed since they didtome work during the week. The number of persons ontemporary layoff fell back to more normal levels in Apriland May as industry returned to full workweeks.

In 1974 and 1975 British output declined and in1976 it rose only slightly. The situation deteriorated mark-edly from the spring of 1976 onwards, and the second halfof the year saw slow growth, accelerating inflation, and agrowing foreign deficit. Faced with such developments.economic policy was tightened increasingly from spring on-wards, and unemployment responded by reaching a post-war high of 6.4 percent, up from 4.7 percent in 1975. In1977. unemployment rose further, averaging 7 percent forthe first three quarters.

After rising slowly in the 1960's through 1966, theBritish labor force began to decline in number. By 1971,it was more than 600,000 below the 1966 high. British pro-jections for the period, assuming the demand for labor toremain at the 1964-66 level, had indicated continued slowincreases in the work force. Therefore, the decline ap-parently reflected withdrawals from or nonappearanoe inthe labor market of persons discouraged by the bleak jobsituation. Since 1971, the labor force has been increasingby up to 0.5 percent a year as a result of increased partici-pation by married women. However, employment has notgrown since 1974.

Italy. After reaching 5 percent in 1959, the Italian unem-ployment rate fell to a low point of 2A percent in 1963,but the decline was accompanied by a sharp increase in theconsumer price index.' Stringent anti-inflationary measureswere taken beginning in the summer of 1963, but unem-ployment did not begin to increase until the spriang of 1964.It continued to increase, reaching 3.8 percent in 1966, thehighest rate since 1960. Economic growth picked up strong-ly in 1967 and joblessness ranged between 3.1 and 3.4 per-cent until 1972, when it rose to 3.6 percent in lagged re-sponse to the lengthy recession which began in 1970.

By the second quarter of 1974, unemployment hadfallen to 2.5 percent. However, in mid-1974, the Arab oil

'Estimates of tie evet of uae-pltymeat fcem 1959 to 1972asedeied less reliable than thorn for 1973 onward bemuse they

ae based partly on adjustment factors derived fras aveyrs for bttryears (See appendix B.) Howver, this probably does not harelarge effct on the yea-toiye-r trend in uneseployment.

embargo, spiraling inflation, and the instability of the gov-ermnent all combined to create a crisis. Industrial outputfell and the jobless rate rose, reaching 3.4 percent in thesecond quarter of 1975. The drop in output in 1975. asmeasured by gross domestic product, was the sharpestamong the nine countries studied. Unemployment rose to3.8 percent in the third quarter of 1976, and averaged 3.6percent for the year. Unemployment declined in the firsthalf of 1977, but rose sharply back to 3.6 percent in thethird quarter.

Unemployment does not fully reflect the degree oflabor undeutilization in Italy. Agreements reached betweenmanagement and labor have helped to share the burden ofrecession by encouraging partial rather than full unemploy-ment. The employer-financed Wage Supplement Fundallows employers to reduce production while maintainingemployment by placing workers on shorter hours and pay-ing supplements amounting to 80 percent of loit gross earn-

Chanr 11. Italy: Working-Age Population,Labor Force, and Employment,Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1960-76

Millons

45 Ratio scae

Working-age populaiton40

35

30

25!

Labor force

Employment

l 1 9t 0 1964 1968 1 9 2 ,'e

32

76

hll. In 1975, over 350 million hours, more thin doublethe 1974 level and approximately II percent of total hoursworked, were compensated for by the fund. Consequently,the deterdontion in the demand for labor in induotry isinItially reflected by a decline in working hours and a dsein the number of persona involuntarily working part time,

Employment increased for the fourth consecutiveyear an 1976, a reversal of the general decline of the 1960's.The recent rising trend in employment can be attributedpartly to the extensive use of shortened workweeks and therapid growth of the service sector,'

The Italian labor force has also been on the rise since1972, after declining by 9 percent since 1960. The laborforce participation rate, however, continued to decline en-til 1974 when an upturn in the female rate compensated fora continuing decline in the male rate. Wsth less than half ofthe working-age population in the labor force, Italy has thelowest participation rate among the major industrial nations.(See chapter 4.)

Chaet 12. Sweden: Working-Age Population,Labor Force, and Employmrent.AdJusted to U.S. Concepts, 1961-76

B

6

S

4

. w , c ': .£ F' '.t ',`

196C 1964 1968 1972 1976

Table 9. Sweden: Effect of lebor market programs onunemployment. electedyeo. 1961-76

(Nonttbrr in thtou raodl

U-MotmettUom~itovant piUs Parsons in

adjusted to Number of labor marketUS. rooapts panons in lbor PrOtrasc

Yer market progrri paroont ofNumbetr Rats cthilien labor

Ipercentl) torc

1961 62 14 15 1.91965 44 1t2 33 2.11967 79 2.1 48 3.41968 as 2.2 63 3.91969 72 1 9 6b 4.11970 99 1.9 70 3.31971 101 2. 83 4.61972 107 2.7 103 s.31973 s9 2.5 112 5.31974 o0 2.0 102 4.51975 67 1 9S 3.9976. 66 16 1t2 4,3

'Monthly aer.ag of pareon. in training f.r labor market r..sone,mork training programs., pubilo rliit mok.- rhive mark and relietwork to. mueieian.. and hte.trad end semi-hltered workahop.

SOURCE: National Labour Market Badrd. Anbam tkadro-ictik (Labor MIrknt Stafstti.),arloue (ouae end BLSslimione

Sweden. Throughout the period since the Swedish laborforce survey was begun in1961, unemployment has averagedabout 2 percent, ranging from 1.2 percent (1965) to 2.7percent (1972). Labor market developments in Sweden dif-fered markedly from the trend in other industrial countriesduring the recent international recession. While most otherindustrial countries were deep in the throes of recession,Sweden's unemployment rate fell from 2 percent m 1974to 1.6 percent in 1975 and 1976. Swedish output grewslowly during the 1974-75 period, while output was fall-ing sharply in the other countries. A tendency of Swedishenterprises to hoard labor in anticipation of an uptum inthe world economy helped to maintain employment.' Inaddition, the number of persons in relief works and train-ing programs was kept at a very high level.

In Sweden, "active labor market" policies are highlydeveloped and provide a comprehensive system of institu-tions for retraining and relief works. Sweden's training pro-gram is the largest in the world relative to the size of thelabor force; Sweden is the only country which debberatelyuses adult training programs for countercycDical purposes.The Swedish Labor Market Board acted quickly in the1967-68 and 1971-72 recessions to meet the unemploy-ment problem, and its program kept the jobless rate from

e'Te high icid-co af wotk done at home in ltray, which gao:vot-uIy uorecorded, is another etement to contidrr when intorprptIng employment statistics Putly as a resut of trgislutioo patssed in1973, home worke. hve been increasingly thking up recorded em-playm.et. S. Economic Surreys: /Idy (Pari, Org nizuron forEcooomic Cooperation snd Dtevopment, Jtnuony 1976), p. 14.

'The Swedibh Economy, Pnllre.oay Nariand Badget (Stock-holm, Economii Deparunmt, ttudstry of Fionao., 1976), p.

97.

33

77

moving higher. Table 9 shows the effect of the Swedish

labor market progses on unemployment rates In selected

years of the 1961-76 period. This table shows that Sweden's

unemployment rate was about 1.5 percent in both 1961

and 1976. However, the great expansion In the number of

persons in labor market programs, from 15 DM to 112W,0,

indicates the potential for a large impact on the unemploy-

ment rite. Without the extensive traininr and relief pro-

grarns, the unemployment rite might have been slightly

higher in 1961 and considerably higher in 1976.

Although there has been little organized recruitmentof foreign workers, they constitute about 6 perrent of the

Swedish labor force. The majority of these workers come

from the nearby Scandinavian countries-Finland, Denmark,and Norway. The predominance of Nordic workers is due

to the Convention on a Common Labor Market which allows

free movement of labor among the Scandinavian countries.Since a cyclically related outflow of migrants in 1973, the

number of aliens employed in Sweden has risen slowly.

34

57-254 0 - 80 - 6

78

Chapter 3. Unemployment by Age and Sex

In the United States, unemployment rates vary widely can men. The pattern of unemployment by age and sex inby age and sex. Teenagers characteristically have the high- the other major developed countries often parallels the U.S.est unemployment rate of any age group in the labor force; experience; however, there are some significant differencesworkers age 55 and over have relatively low jobless rates: which are pointed out in this chapter.and, throughout the post-World War If period, American Table 10 presents unemployment rates by age and sexwomen have had higher unemployment rates than Amen- adjusted to U.S. concepts for the nine countres covered in

Table 10. Unemployment rates by age and sex, 1968, 1970, and 1974-76

(Pernen s at niivlian latbor Iamel)

S.. ..d W I Unied S-. k _e s C ..d.'R A.,.isex and f23e _ _ _ _ _ Former basis |_ Revised basis utai..and . 1968 970 1974 1975 1976 1968 1970 |1974| 968| 19i074|19751976 1968|1970|1974|1975 |1976

- I I I ~~~.5. .77 48 9 54 5 6.9 .4 . .

4.915.38.2342.8

4415.0

232.9

5915.17.94.522

566.0

332.9

4215.58.73.12.7

6.7165

9.54.93.3

Bath .oes

All working ags ............Teenag

2...............

20 to 24 vears20 Yo.54 year .............55 years and ovrr ....

Male

All working age ............Tenn.agers

1 ........

20to24yes.

55 y asand o eAilo5 va . ............

5 e.p ..do~ .............Female

Ott working ages......Te~neagr

2 ........

20 10 24 v ars.............25o4 vers ...... ......55 rs nd e....... .....

Sen looMotes at end of mble.

5.4

7;.6

94 49'4.0

4,82.27.93.23.6

6.4

7.3~

. 5.1

12 11. 42 51 7*.3 92 21 38 62

4.10.46634141

4.41316.22.82.0

37

11861I2.32.1

5 746

6.338il'

1968 1970 1974 1975 1976 1968 1970 1974 1975 1976 1968 1970 1974 11975 11976

12 1. 1 14 9 2.0 2s 25 2. 38 4.1 .6 1:4 3.4 3 62.3 20 2.6 3.7 4 1 7.3 7.0 9.7 161 38 20 27 66 6 721.8 2.0 2.2 30 3.0 3.5 3.7 48 66 15 14 .7 19 50 54VSo .9 11 1.6 1.6 18 18 19 26 33 1 .5 133.0 3.01.2 9 S 2.0 24 2.1 26 2.5 23 - 16 .5 10 2.1 2.6

1.2 1.2 V:4 25o 22 tO9 1.7 1.7 3.0 3 32 5 1.3 13.2 3.226 2.7 32 5i 21 6.4 4 7 141 37 16 2.7 66 163i8 V9 21 32 3.1 29 30 34 64 13 6 19 57 5 2.o 9 11 1.6 1.2 .9 vs I.9 9 4 1 .1 29 1 27VS 1.4 2.0 2.8 3.3 22 1 25 21 22 24 .6 .5 1.0 2.3 2.5

12 1 1.3 10 17 36 3 4.50 0 661 0 1636 4220 1.3 21 24 27 8s 91 136 17 40 2.4 2 66 118 22 22 2.7 28 4.1 4.5 63 60 137 16 7 1t 42 55

.9 13 17 17 3 3.3 3.6 38 4 14 1 2 3 66 l~~t 7 ii 7 21 27 21 241~~~ Vs4 5 6 19 2

35

4.57.7

3.4

4.68.7

)3.s

4.4

6.5

)3.s

5.7

)10.1

4.2

5.7)I1 .3

4.1

5.8

)8.6

S4.5

7.11S81065 33.9

6416.411.2

433.7

8.41501997.04.4

1.542

1.9i.e

36I1.5

2.64282 62.1tot

Both sexes

All -orkin agesTe.ngers . ..20 1* 24 vears25 In 54 Vears55 years and me,

Mate

All working geTeenager' .20 10 24 years25 to 54 years55 years end over

Female

All mom king agesTeA nagena ..20 to 24 vears2s to s4 years.bS years ted 0mmr

3612.7

582.32.2

221165.11:72.1

42140

6.73.423_ _ _ _ _ _

8.5I.'913 .615.44.7

7.9

20I'4:35.7

4.5

9 319:712.7

7.65.1

7.7

19.0I2.05.74.

7.:

19 212:042

4.4

1. 71 1.96.84.9

4I I13

13�3

4.26

5 513�5

7.74.15.0

3.58.64�2

2 211)

6.915.09.95 14.4

6 215:410 54.24.2

"N'92

684.7

2.3

3:'1.51.8

1 86I2.9I.;I.

3 27:73.82.1

(1)

4.212.7

S. 92.72.2

3 5II �2

5 62. 2

2 3

5 714�36 23.7(1)

J... n F-,nc I _ 1- -ls

1:4391.6

1:'7

3 712.6ill

2 2C22 114 .81)

5.91..38 3

434.9

1:_610�2

4255.5

4 511:75 129(4)

5.4

3.83.9

5.713.5944.0

79

Tame 10. Unemployment rates by age nd ax, 1968,1970, en 1974-76-Continued

(Per-.nt of MiRilian i.1s, treld

Salt end G-r., sitein Iti l | Sweden -

1971 1973 1974 1968 1970 7974 1975 1968 1970 1974 1975 1976

god0 see

Ilwet kin~ge s.3. ................... .3s3.2 2.8 3S 3-2 29 3.3 2.2 1.5 2.0 1.6 7 6T.so

t .... 7.0 .1 46 12.4 119 14.3 16. 5.6 43 6.8 56 5.5

20 o .4 v.an48 9.3 8.9 9.7 10.3 3.0 232 3.2 28 2.825 . 54 V .............. 3.3 2.7 2.4 2.0 775 1.3 8 7 17 171 1.3 II 71v.e.n ed ova ....................... 5 3.54.1 2.7 1.2 I8 . .6 2.1 1.7 2.0 1.7 1,5

Male

workngag ........................ 39 35 2.8 3.3 2. 2.5 28 2.3 14 1.7 1.3 1.3T own' , . .. 7*4 4 4 12.5 12.2 14.3 16.2 5.5 34 5 6 4.2 4.220 o 24 ydvn .......................... 47 * 9.2 97 970 103 3.1 2.0 26 2.2 2225 to .4 Ve . . .3. 1 2 25 2.0 7.6 1.2 1.4 7.9 .9 1 .6 8

san ande5 ........................... 4. 4.9 2.6 175 .0 .5 .7 2.6 1.7 2.1 1.9 1 4

Fenesal

Al i rkng s.................... 3.8 2.7 2.9 47 3.9 325 4.5 2 7.7 2.4 2.0 20Tn.nar..

....... 6.6 4 179a9 1 1.5 14.1 17.5 675 5.4 860 7 0 7 0

20 o24y.".28.4.4 97 0 9.3 10.3 2.9 2.4 40 35I3 4

24 to 4 v- .......... 35 2. 2.4 2.0 16 16 27 1.6 7.3 16 14 .4S5 veaen ndoner ....... 2.0 1.9 2_5 .3 _ () .2 1 .2 7.6 22 0 7 3 s6

'S. eppnndi 6 to, declptin of th tanoer end reni d

214. to 19-verorde in taly; 75- to 19.verd- 1in Astraia.C ne.. Genv. Grast Britain (19711, and Jpan; 16-ta9-y er-olda in United Stat., Frncn, Gret Britain 11973.74. and S-nd.

3 Enlitated by adS.'Not -tdie i.11 *ignifi ..t

this report. Data are shown for selected years of the 1968-76 period. British statistics on unemployment by age andsex could only be shown for years when the General House-hold Survey was available. For Italy, data could not be ad-justed to U.S. concepts by age and sex. To provide somebasis for comparison, figures from the unrevised Italianlabor force survey have been shown in table 10. It is notpossible to indicate how well these figures approximate un-employment by age and sex under US. concepts. The dataexclude many persons who were seeking work but who didnot respond that they were unemployed; on the other hand,the data include a large number of persons who took noactive steps to find work in the past 30 days. (See appendixB.) It should also be noted that the data for France andGermany relate to one month in each year and are notseasonally adjusted.

The year 1968 was one of relatively low unemploy-mend in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Japan,but one of relatively high unemployment, for the 1960's,in the European countries. Of the years covered, 1975 and1976 were the ones of highest unemployment in all coun-tries except Italy and Sweden.

Four age groups are shown-teenagers, 20 to 24 years,25 to 54 years, and 55 years and over. However, for GreatBritain, a breakdown of teenagers and 20- to 24-year-oldscould not be made in 1973 and 1974; for France, this break-

' Frnoh data er tor Man h of ersh year.oGrrnan data ar ta, April of t968. 1970. end 1974, end tor

May of 1975 and 1976.1tlien dat. are not adia.tad to u.s.-eoenept.

NOTE: See wpav5di C tar , -thuds of edjstnetnt to U.s.e.pe.te by asa and Mn.

down could not be made for 1976. The lower age limit forteenagers has been adapted to the age at which compulsoryschooling ends. Appendix C discusses the methods of adjust-ing each country's unemployment rates by age and sex.

Teenage unemployment

In the United States, young workers have had sub-stantially higher rates of unemployment than adults. Infact, in every year since the end of World War 11, in re-cession and prosperity alike, teenagers have had the high-est unemployment rates of any age group in the laborforce. The casual methods teenagers use to find jobs, theirfrequent entrances and exits from the labor market, and thelimited horizon of theii job search activities are major con-tributing factors.' Amercan teenagers change jobs morefrequently than adults and often experience unemploy-ment between jobs. Also, the large proportion of in-schoolteenagers who seek part-time or part-year work contrib.utes to high youth unemployment in the United States.Some of the major factors affecting youth unemploymentrates in the United States and abroad are discussed in chap-ter 5.

ryourh V.n-mpiny. andMMiiun WFaces, Bt.S Buntin t657,(Burasu of Labor Sutisum, 1970), p. 4.

36

80

Table 11. Ratios of teenags to adult uneimiploymant retes', 1968, 1970. sid 1974-76

Balh Isen Metl FoaleComrv 9NS 19701197. 1976 975 1988 .9701.97. 1976 1970 199811970 1974 19751976

Unitad Stain .............. 5.5 4.5 4.2 3.1 3.3 9.8 .4 5 .0 3.5 3.9 4.1 3.4 3.4 2.8 2.8C .. deFeor- ea ........... 3.1 3.3 3.2 (2) (2) 3.3 3A 3A (2) ')S 3.9 4.0 3.1 t)I 21)Renvied bai ........... ( ) ( ) 3.0 292 3.0 2) is) 38 3.7 3.8 (2) (5) (') 2.1 2.2Austria .................. 4.2 3s 4.8 47 4.7 5.1 6.2 5.5 5.1 5.1- 2.3 2.3 3.7 3.9 3.8n. 2.3 2.2 2A 2.3 2. 2. 3.0 293.2 3.1 2.2 1 A 1.8 IA 1SFrane . 4.1 3.9 5.1 6.2 2) 53 93.0 .7 7A (2) 2.7 2.8 3.6 4.9 (2)Germany ................. .5 40 2.1 2.2 2.4 4.1 4.0 2A 2.3 2.3 2.9 3A 1.9 2.1 2.2Greet 9riltin .... v . (') '2.1 is ) is (2) )X.3 (2) is) '21 I 1.9 (2) l'( (1(Iftly4 .................. 6.2 7.4 11.0 10.5 (2 6.2 7.9 11.9 I1.9 (21 69.0 7.2 8.9 9.3 (2)

Sweden ................. 33 39 5.2 5.1 5.0 3.1 3.9 5.1 5.2 5.2 4.1 4.2 5.0 5.0 5.0

'R.tio of tlnnes unemplovrent rte to unPlwnonm t tefor P rso.. 25 to 54 Vyn. of ae.2

N., available.'1971.

In comparison with most other countries, teenage un-employment rates in the United States are relatively high(table 10 and chart 13). In the United States, Italy, andCanada, teenage unemployment rates were higher than 10percent in all years studied. Unemployment of Australianand French teenagers exceeded 10 percent for the first timein 1975. Japan, Germany, and Sweden had the lowestlevels of teenage unemployment during the period studied.These countries also had the lowest overall unemploymentrates.

Germany's teenage unemployment rate of 3.8 percentin April 1968 was high by the standards of earlier years ofthe decade, when teenage unemployment was I percent orless. The German recession of 1967 hit teenagers the hard-est. According to a report from the American Embassy inBonn, a wave of cyclical dismissals largely affected youthswith a low level of education working at unskilled jobswhich had offered relatively high pay during the boom peri-od. The need for employers to economize during the reces-sion led to the cancellation of many odd jobs filled by theunskilled youths. By 1969, Germany was again experienc-ing labor shortages, and in April 1970, teenagers had anunemployment rate of only 2 percent. By 1974, the teen-age jobless rate was still under 3 percent. However, a sharpincrease occurred in 1975, and teenage unemployment rosefurther to over 7 percent in 1976, the highest teenage rateever recorded by the German Microcensus, which began in1957.

Youth unemployment m Japan was under 3 percentthroughout 1968-74, but moved upward sharply in 1975.76. The 1976 rate of 4.1 percent, however, was still thelowest of any country studied. There is a strong preferenceby employers for hiring new high school graduates in Japan,as shown by the iiormally highly favorable job vacancysituation for graduates. Lifetime employment contractsinsure that youth wages are low relative to those pf adultsand that youth tumover is low. Also, teenagers account fora very small and declining proportion of the labor force inJapan.

46aa on date shieCh hane .n been adjustld so U.S. coea:ptr.

SOURCE: Table 10.

Teenage unemployment rates are, of course, affectedby the overall job Situation in each country. Therefore,comparative ratios of teenage unemployment rates to un-employment rates for 25- to 54-year-old adults are shownin table 11 and chart 14. Such ratios may be affected by thegeneral level of unemployment, but they more accuratelyreflect the relative problems ofyouth unemployment amongcountries. In all years studied, Italy had the widest teenage-adult differential.' In 1968, teenage unemployment was 6times as high as adult joblessness. Teenage unemploymentin Italy was down slightly in 1970, but the differentialwidened so that youth unemployment was 7 times theadult rate. By 1974.75, the differential had grown to over10. In 1975, Italian teenagers constituted 6 percent of thelabor force and 32 percent of the unemployed. Problems ofteenagers in the Italian labor market are intensified by ahigh dropout rate from school. Over half of Italian youthsentering the labor market have not completed high school.

The United States also ranked high in terms of theteenage to adult ratio in 1968 and 1970, with teenagers ex-periencing 4.5 to 5.5 times the unemployment rate ofadults. However, in 1974, Australia, France, and Swedenmoved above the United States. In US. recessionary peri-ods, the gap between youth and adult unemployment ratesusually narrows. Thus, the ratio declined from 4.5 in 1970,to 4.2 in 1974, and to 3.1 in 1975. In contrast, between1970 and 1975, the ratio of teenage to adult unemploymentrose sharply in Australia, France, Italy, and Sweden.

Canada had relatively high youth unemploymentrates, but a relatively low ratio of youth to adult unemploy-ment. The ratio was about 3 to I so each year and was lowerthan in Australia, France, Germany, and Sweden where theoverall level of unemployment and teenage unemploymentrates were much lower.

Great Britain and Japan are the countries with thelowest ratios of teenage to adult unemployment. Data from

2The Iblliaa data aere not adjusted to U.S. conmept.

37

81

Chart 13. Youth Unemployment Rates, 1968 and 1976

_ _ ls e s~~~~~ieUnited States '1212.7

190

Canada 197615.8

Australia 1 9976

131

Jaa | j19764.1

France 7t3

16.1

Germany 1976

16370~~~7.2

I n

Great Britain 77fi9 n

Italy

S1961e5Swederv 5.6

0

19765.

19751 6 . 8~~~~6.

10 15 20 25Percent

38

82

the 1975 European Community labor force survey indicatethat the youth-adult differential remained at about 2 forthe United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland).The differential has been in the 2.2-2.6 range in Japan. Theability of the British to keep youth unemployment relativelylow, even during a recession period for the economy, isrelated to the special efforts made to help bridge the transi-tion from school to work. British teenagers are assisted bywidespread counseling, guidance, and job orientation pro-grams in the schools, and a separate employment servicefor oat-of-school youth. The 1,500 officers of the YouthEmployment Service in Great Britain provide individualcounseling to the great majority of school leavers and helpplace a significant number of them in their first job. (Seechapter 5.)

Unemployment of older workers

In the late 1940's and early 1950's, the unemploy-ment rate for U.S. workers age 55 and over was somewhathigher than the rate for workers in the primary workingages of 25 to 54. Beginningwith 1957, however, the unem-ployment rate for older workers has been either at the samelevel or lower than the rate for 25- to 54-year-olds. In 1970,for example, older workers had a 2.8-percent unemploymentrate; workers age 25 to 54, a 3A-percent unemploymentrate. The figures shown in table 10 for the eight foreigncountries are based on only a few years' data, but they in-dicate some similarities and some dissimilarities with theU.S. older worker pattern.

Older workers in Italy have much lower unemploy-ment rates than workers in the primary working ages. Inthe years studied, the unemployment rate for Italian work-ers 55 and over was only about half the rate for persons age25 to 54. The very low unemployment rates for older work-ers in Italy are related to the fact that very few persons over55 remain economically active. The labor force participa-tion rate for older Italians was only about 25 percent in1968 and it has since declined. Italians over age 55 have thelowest participation rate among the major developed coun-tries.

Similar to the U.S. pattern, unemployment rates forolder workers in Australia appear to be at about the same lev-el as or somewhat lower than the rates for workers in the pri-mary working ages. Japanese unemployment rates for old-er workers were about the same as or slightly higher than therates for 25- to 54-year-olds in 1968 and 1970. However,in 1974-76 the differential widened. In Germany, workers55 and over had a higher unemployment rate than workersin the primary working ages in April 1968, a persod ofrelatively high unemployment for Germany. However, withthe reappiarance of labor shortages, older workers wereeasily absorbed. By April 1970, theft unemployment ratewas as low as that of persons aged 25 to 54; since April1974 it has been lower. In contrast to the other countries,

Chart 14. Ratio of Teenage to AdultUnemployment Rates, 1968and 1976

UnitedStates .97

Canada

Australia

Japan

France

Germany

z 1975

Groat 17Britain

Italy9 197 7 5

Sweden

0 2 4 6 8 10 12Ratio

older workers in France, Great Britain, and Sweden appearto have unemployment rates significantly higher than thoseof workers in the primary working ages. This was also truefor Canada in 1968 and 1970, but in 1974 the unemploy-ment rate for older workers was about the same as the rate

39

83

for 25- to 54-year-olds. In 1975-76, the jobless rate for old-er workers moved well below the rate for 25- to 54-year-olds.

The preceding analysis based on data for all workers55 and over obscures a sharp difference in the unemploy-ment experience of older men and older women relative topersous in the primary working ages. Prior to the 1974-75recession, men 55 and over usally had higher unemploy-ment rates than men aged 25 to 54. Women 55 and over,on the other hand, generally have unemployment rates atabout the same level as or lower than women aged 25 to 54.The only exception is Sweden, where older women usuallyhave had higher unemployment rates than women in theprimary working ages.

Differences among the countries in the unemploy-ment experience of all older workets are partly explainedby this contrast between men and women 55 and over. Therelatively high unemployment rates for older workers inCanada (1968 and 1970), France, and Greai Britain-com-pared with workers aged 25 to 54-stem from relativelyhigh unemployment rates for older male workers.

Unemployment by sex

In the United States, Australia, France, Gernany,Sweden,

3and Italy, women are more likely to be unem-

ployed than men. There do not appear to be any signifi-cant differences between male and female unemploymentrates in Japan, except among teenagers. Teenage girls havelower unemployment rates than teenage boys in Japan.

In Great Britain, unemployment was higher for menthan for women in 1973, but the rates were about equival-

a1loe Sweden, the higher male unemployment ltte m 1968 win anexception. From 196t through 1967 and 1970 thrugh 1976, femaleunemployment rates were higher than the male rate,

ent in 1971 and 1974. The higher male rates in 1973 arelargely attributable to the high unemployment rate for men55 years of age and over. The 1975 European Comunuitylabor force survey indicated that the unemployment ratefor women (5.2 percent) was I percentage point higherthan the rate for men (4.2 percent) in the United Kingdom(Great Britain and Northem Ireland).'

In Canada, the former labor force survey consistentlyrecorded significantly higher unemployment rates for menthan for women. However, the revised survey, which con-tains more probing into labor force status, found that fe-male unemployment was much higher than male unemploy-ment in 1976. Revisions on the new basis for earlier yearsindicate that unemployment rates for women were slightlylower than for men in 1968 and slightly higher in 1970. ACanadian researcher attributed the lower unemploymentrates for women recorded in the 1960's to the fact thatCanadian women were less fully committed to labor forceactivity than were women in other industrial countries.'Thus, Canadian women tended to bypass unemploymentwhen both entering and leaving employment.

Women in the United States have higher unemploy-ment rates than men largely because of higher rates forwomen in the prime working ages of 25 to 54. Since 1964,teenage girls have also had a somewhat higher incidence ofunemployment than teenage boys, except during 1975-76.The pattern in Australia, France, Germany, and Swedenappears to be similar, with women 25-54 and teenage girlshaving higher unemployment rates than men in these agegroups.

'The EC survey re.tt shoald be domly omparable to the nmesshown in table s for Great Britain. The 1973 EC muey indiatedin unemployment rate of 3.6 perrent for Briish men and 2.6 pee-rest for British women. Sm appendix E for a description of the EC-sisey.

SSylvsi Osoy. U-lemploymet i Canada (Ottaw., DomiionBme uof Statisti, 1968), pp. 5-7.

40

84

Chapter 4. Participation Rates and Employment-Population Ratios

The labor force participation rate is she proportion ofthe population of working age that is in the labor force. Forexample, the 1975 civilian population age 16 and over inthe United States was 151,269,000 and the number of per-sons in the civilian labor force was 92,613,000;consequentdy,the civilian labor force participation rate was 61.2 percent.'The main economic interest in participation rates lies intheir usefulness in explaining fluctuations in the labor force.

The employment-population ratio is derived bydividing civilian employment by the civilian working.agepopulation. Thus, the employment-population ratio is themajor component of tUe labor force participation rate, theonly difference being that the numerator of the employ-ment ratio excludes unemployment.

For certain purposes the employment-populationratio may be a better indicator of the labor market than thetraditional measure, the unemployment rate.

2Employment

is a more precisely measurable condition than unemploy-ment and, since it is much larger, it is subject to smallerrelative statistical error. Seasonal adjustment is more accu-rate since seasonal changes are relatively small. Also, thelabor force itself may fluctuate seasonally, in contrast tothe population, which incorporates no seasonal movements.While the unemployment rate is potentially subject to widevariations as a result of special developments leading togrowth or contraction in the labor force, the employment-population ratio mcludes a more stable base for a measureof labor market activity.

Since participation rates and employment-popula-tion ratios ae closely related by defsiition, they are in-fluenced by similar factors and show similar long-termtrends. Over the long term, both measures are chiefly in-fluenced by structural factors of a social and economiccharacter: Trends toward longer years of schooling, earlyretirement, and changing attitudes toward the role ofwomen. In the short term, changes in these rates largelyreflect fluctuations in business activity. The rate of par-ticipation of some segments of the population-young

'The U.S. hboe form partinpation rate a asuaili pubhshed interms of the total popaition end labor force over se 16, includingthe Armed Forms. tn 1975, the puaticipaion rate including theArmed Frmes was 61.8 percent. Civilian prtiiption rates iraua-yaed in this mection for purpwses of usternational msprbitysa-.

'J... E. McCarthy, "Empilyment and Itatasltn in Maier in-dustria Counuies," The Conferene, Berrd Wkaidbaai-,se Perrper-riesr Na. 28, (August 1975), p. 4. See tim Jauius ShisAin, "Employ-ment and Unemplymest: The Doughnut or the Hoai?' MonthlyLaobo Reri~e, February 1976, pp. 3-ill.

people, women, the elderly-may vary considerably depend-ing on the labor market situation, usually tending to risein periods of high demand and fall in penods of slack. Inperiods of economic downtum, there is normally a nega-tive impact on participation rates due to discouragementof marginal workers. Working in the opposite direction,however, unemployment affecting the prnecipal incomeearners of households may encourage previously nonactinemembers to seek employment. (See section below on cy-clical trends.)

Unlike the long-term trends, short-term movements mparticipation rates and employment-population ratios maydiverge. Thus, an expansion in the labor force may causethe participation rate to rise, while the employment ratioholds steady or falls because the number of persons seekingwork increases even faster than the number actually findingjobs.

Table 12 presents civilian labor force participationrates by sex adjusted to U.S. concepts for nine countries.Data are shown by sex because the overall rate masks markeddifferences in the trends for men and women. All participa-tion rates are annual averages except those for France,which are for March or October as indicated on the table.Employment-population ratios for nine countries areshown in table 13. These figures have not been shown sep-arately by sex, but the long-term trends would be quitesimilar to the participation rate trends by sex.

Comparative levels and trends

The overall labor force participation rate in 1976 wasover 60 percent in the United States and five other countries.Sweden had the highest activity rate at 65 percent. Italy,with 48 percent of the working-age population economicallyactive, had the lowest activity rate in the industrializedworld. The rankings by employment-population ratioswere about the same as those by participation rates.

Australia and Japan had the highest male activityrates-81 percent-and Sweden had, by far, the highest fe-male rate at 55 percent. Italy and Germany had the low-est rates for men and Italy had the lowest rate for women.The female activity rate in Italy was only about one-halfof the rate in Sweden.

Only the United States, Canada, and Sweden hadhigher overall activity rates in 1976 than in the early 1960's.Based on data since 1964, the trend in Australia has alsobeen upward. For these countries, sharp increases in femaleactivity rates more than offset falling male rates.

41

85

Table 12. Labor fore paf icpatiom rame by mx, 1960.76

Un Ied _ I I , GrI =Y_ SU1 Cnd Au~Sah i a J Fran r Germany Bnilain j hae Smedent

1960 ........1961 ........1962 ........19631964 ....1967 .....

196B ........

19691970(9711972

19731974.1975.1976

Mmn

1960 ....

1963 ....

196s9....1966 ....

1969 ....

1970.....1971.....

`92.

1973.1974.1975.1976

1960

1961.....1962.....

19631965 ........1961 ........112:: .......

1969, ......1970......

1965 .. .....1966 .......1967 ........

156419605

I970 ........1971i ........

1972.19 73.....19721975.

1976.....

59459.358B58.758.758.559.259.559.60.160.460.260460.561.261.2619

83.383.262061.481060.760A560.480.179.76.779.179078573.777.577.5

37.738.137.

38.739.340341.141942.743.343343.544.745.546.347.3

56256.1

56.256.557.357.557.57S57.558.158.559.7W0.S61.161.1

82.2813W60680979.779.479.579.378.7783

77.77.477.578.278.778.477.7

,30.231.0

131.332.032.533.35A36.537.138.038.339.440.241.42S44.245.0

(32

(I)(3)

(3)

58.759.159.559B

5.2So

6.7

61.161.4

619614

(3)

(3)(3)(3.)

64.264.064.183.783383383282.682562.1

1B661.0

096

(3)()(3)()33434A35.336.336S37.638S.39.239.540.41fi42.5429

67967.66.565.764.64.464B64.64964.564.564.263B64.063062.4623

84.284.383982.581581.181.181.081.7815781561 .5

81.581B61BS15

81960B

52.752.451.350.049.343.43.249.649.248949.347.746.47.345.744B45.0

'61.5

(20)~61.4360.

60.4

359 .5

58.958.658.358D557.757257.58.058.758.7

3843

83.683.7862581.5

381.379B78.477.577.176.5760375.575.275B.75.2

343.0

42.5340.541.5

340641A440.5

41.241 .441.240.541.742.142.643.143B

60.0598959659A59.058.758251.057.167.1

5705655SB55454.453.553.2

62.782.782.281B61.4802

60.579379.179.178B.77.776.A

75.2736

2.172.1

41.2410

40.740.740340.0394

38.4389B38.7365

38.13833.:337.537.537.7

60.7615

61.060.560.5

60.560S

60.259.5

59.159.460.

461.0461.5

66.065584.984.64.183.583.162481.7

80.B796.79.176.5W0.1

476..73S73.0

38.739.239.539.5

40.240.741 .140.540B.41.041.141.341943.5445

445.245.

58.057.458.354.7

53.352.B51.251.250.550.1

49.549248.047.47.47.48.0

84.783B82480.980.379.277.577.576.375.574.574.172.671.771.3

71.0705

33.533.533.031.230.128S27.427.427.227.126.826.625.726 .1

26B26927.6

(3)

63.263.964.463.0

62.863.162.262.462.362.963.2

63.163.063B.64.565.3

(3)83.383.082B.81.280.760.279.178.577.577.276.76.175.775.776.075.8

(2)43.445.5

45.8456

45.460.47.649.050.0

0.550.52.454.255.2

'E.m .m by BLS an n- m - nay dnini-t. Canada ho h m NOTE: Dt rWla. the oMlian Idor (ens. f -1mrkina W .a

mantle. bok I. 1966 an thn n- b-Wa. * p-oat of tha eMi-. pmpoatie. 01 mnktdn n. Wrk).. qwa dafind . 16-.-rd. and aWn in the Uniad Steom, F.a-a,

'Nnt lat. nd Smdan; I5 -r-d. and an, ln A ,ali., Canad. G- .an3

Da fto Oennbar of 190. 1962. 1964, ad 1968. Data f dl and pn,; and 14y-rndt and aWn, in Ital. Fon Goa Briain.

nnhe, samoa- fnor M..h. San loa q t 1imi. _ an.d frat- 15 na 16 in 1973.4

PmiimiarV m6ma.

42

. __

_ _

86

Table 13. Employment-population ratios,t

1960-76

United GreatYea, Staten Cnda Australi Japan Frenn Grmany rit Italy Sweden

1960 ........ 56.1 52.6 3 see 59A 59.4 soS (3)tO~~~~t .~~ . 252.4 tt 66.6 56.1 59.6 59.7 55.6 6.

1962 ........ 55 22 () 660 57.1 59.3 59.2 54.7 63.t963. 55 4 3) 6603 56.2 59.2 59.0 2A4 63.04t964 ........ 55.7 53.8 57.9 64.1 56.4 58. 09.4 52.5 62.0965 ........ 56.2 2545 58.3 63.6 55.7 S5.6 59.6 50.9 62.1

1966 ........ 56.9 5504 58.7 63.7 55.6 06.0 59.6 49.2 62.1too7 57.3 55.4 58.9 64.0 554 56.3 56.5 49.5 60.9

toe . ~~~~~57.5 55 0 59.0 64.1 55.t 56.2 56.2 48.8 6t.0960 . 58.0 55s3 59.3 63.9 56 4 56.6 560 48.4 61.1

(970 ....... 57A 54.5 60.0 63.8 55.5 56.6 57.0 64.0 61.91971........ 56.6 54.5 59.8 624 55.4 56.1 968 47.7 61.61972 ........ 57.0 54.9 59.4 62.8 55.3 55.3 96.9 46.4 61.41973. 578 506.4 60.0 63.2 5 .4 5439 69. 46.2 61A41974..... 57.6 67.3 60.0 6212 551.6 53.5 s.a. 466 62.6075 ....... 9.0 . 5.9 612 54.5 51, 58 .2 46A4 6328

1076 . se.a. .. .06.7 56.7 61.1 54.4 51.35 57.5 4.3 64.2

Civil employment, adjusted to U.S. conceptsa p*erent 2Enimete by BLS on newo urvey definitions. Canada ho made

at the civilian morkingagn p.Pulation. The date late to persons renieona back to 196t on the new baeis.16 and over for the United Staten, Franc., Sweden. and, beginning 3Not avnilable.in 1973. Greet artan:; (s and aver ftr Canada, Japn., Ge-many,

0Prelrminary.

and Pniar to 1973. Great Bntain; and 14 and ovmr tar Italy.

A downward trend in male participation rates has A major factor in the long-term trends for Italy and Japanoccurred in all countries and is attributable to earlier re- has been the sharp postwar decline in agricultural employ-tirement and longer years of schooling. The age structure of ment in both countries.

4As countries develop industrialy,

the population also has some effect. Although declining, the initial response of female activity is to fall, along withmale activity rates were still considerably higher than fe- the decline in importance of agriculture in the economy.male rates in 1976. However, the gap between male and fe- Women who were economically active as unpald familymale rates has narrowed significantly since 1960 in most workers on the farm generally withdraw from the laborcountries. For example, Canada's male activity rate was force when the family moves to the city. In most instances,2.7 times the female participation rate in 1960; by 1976, their family responsibilities, low skill qualifications, andit was only 1.7 times the female rate. insufficient demand for their services discourage them from

Since 1960, female activity rates have fallen in Japan, looking for a job. In Italy, about I million unpaid femaleGermany, and Italy. The trend in France is difficult to ana- family workers have left the agricultural sector since 1960;lyze because the data for 1960, 1962, 1964, and 1966 rein Japan, about 3 million unpaid female workers have movedlate to October while figures for 1967 onward are for out of agriculture.March. The available data indicate falling female participa- Surveys were made in Italy beginning in 1971 on theion in the labor force between 1960 and 1966 and a rising masons for nonparticipation in the labor force.

tIn 1971,

trend since 1972. women made up 80 percent of the nonparticipants, andIn Germany, female participation rates rose in Use family duties were held responsible for nonparticipation

1950's, but began to fall in the 1960's, intensifying the in more than half the cases. These figures indicated a like-labor shortage in that country. Adult female activity has lihood that an improvement in the Italian preschoolingbeen rising in Germany, but it has not been sufficient to structures could nigmficantly increase the rate of femalemake up for a sharp drop in participation by teenage girls economic activity.

6

brought about by the extension of schooling. The activityrate for teenage girls has dropped about 20 percentage IeS footnote 3.points since 1960. The relatively low level of female labor lsdituto Centrele di Sutistice, "l'ndait psciatie mule personforce participation in Germany may also be related to the nun apparteonti age forme di tato," Supplement to the M-irthlytelatively small share of total employment which i mn the BAcdLa of Stistics. No. It, Novemncni 1971; A.nHno di Stais-service sector.

3riche de rL,. 1975, pp. 109-16, and 1976, pp. t03-15.

In Italy and Japan, female participation rates have 6DtIta' mpned by the Organization for Eouomic Conpettianfallen since 1960 for anl age groups. In Italy, the declining sod Development indieste that in Italy 62 percent of child.rn be-trend ended in 1972, but female activity rates have con- twen the ages of 3 and 6 erm emo..ed in school in 1970. This ..tinued to fall in Japan, except for a slight increase in 1976. a stalee paonprtian than im Belgium (96 percent) and Frace (88

peecent), but larger than in dhe Umnted Kingdom (60 percent) andthe United States (57 percent). Sm OECD, Edocetionat Statotica

3 Se thy section cn -etoral employment i ch. 2. Yarbook, Volume I, Itemooatnn table, p. 27.

43

87

Along with falling participation rates for women, curred, but Britain already had a relatively high level inGermany and Italy also had absolute decltnes in the fe- 1960. France has had only a slight rise in female parti-male labor force. Japan, on the other hand, had a rising cipation since 1965.female labor force, but it did not rise as fast as the work- Underlying the rise in female participation rates ining-age population, so the participation rate declined. many countries have been the following factors: Lessen-

In Italy, female participation rates began to rise in ing of job discrimination against women, increased avail-1973, after many years of decline. This increase may be ability of part-time work, declines in fertility rates, a highpartly becamuse home workers progressively are taking up rate of increase m jobs in the service sector, and changingrecorded employment as a result of legislation passed in attitudes towards women's role in society.1973.7 According to projections by the ILO, a moderate Sweden's high and rapidly rising female participa-rise in female labor force participation is foreseen for tion rate indicates a more active involvement of marriedJapan, Italy, and Germany in the later 1970's, reversing women in economic hfe compared with other nations. Inthe former long-tesm trend.n Sweden, 53 percent of married women work, compared

After the initial fall in female activity rates which with roughly 46 percent in Japan, 41 percent in the Unitedcomes with the decline of agriculture, a second stage of States and Great Britain, 38 percent in France, and only 33development witnesses a rise in women's activity rates. percent in Germany. Several factors are responsible for theThis second stage can be seen most recently in France. high Swedish rate. In Sweden many married women haveFemale activity rates declined until the mid-1960's and no children or only one child. Furthermore, over 60 per-then began to rise. In the Umted States, female partici- cent of women with preschool-age children work inpation rates rose during most of the post-World War 11 Sweden, compared with about 30 percent in the Unitedperiod, increasing from about 32 percent just after the States. Government-financed day care centers provide forwar to 38 percent in 1960 and 47 percent in 1976. Signifi- infant care, beginning with children 6 months of age, whencant increases also occurred in Canada, Australia, and maternity leave expires.

9The introduction of separate tax-

Sweden. In Great Britain, a more moderate increase oc- ation for married women in 1971, parenthood insurance

'Oegaication for Economic Cooperation and D-velapmnnt, 9

E-nnerSsreey oflrtsy, (Paris,OECD, January l976), p. 14. Th. Swedish fcifitics for day cae, although etesie .. p-dwith oahenr auitries, stid fall short of meeting atimaued needs. S.

tnt-erntional Labo.- Offie., LabnaF-re 1950 2000. VLi. IV Alien H. Cook, TU WnckintMether, A Seey of hobkmaan dP-

and V (Geneva, ILA, 1977). gr-am in vine C rtsiee (Ithara, Cameu Umnn-sity, 1975), p. 31L

Table 14. Labor force participation rates by age and sex, 1973'

UnitedSea and age Seas Aus-aMio Canada Frane tGnan leae Jpanan Sweden

Man

Tners ........ 61t 59.8 49.7 31.1 62.1 35.8 25.2 53.720-24 ........ 69s 91.1 853 839 83h 6 6.2 79.5 7843520.99. ) 97.4 196.4 916.6 93.0 93.5 969 9 3.730_34 ..... 99.1 99.1 98.3 9.35-39 . 96.3 17.4 17 9. 98.7 99.1 98.1 95.0404 . ..... 9. 98.3 9.4 97.2 9

45-49 ...... 905 97.3 96.7 9532 197.23.50-54 ....... 93I 949 194 942 93.9 90.7 I

559 ........ 962 99.1 as813 3. 986.2 4 3 18}6.8 82.760.64 ... ... 69.1 76.0 6 4.1 689. 4.65 and on ..... 22 214 183 159 15.0 104 46.7 2339

War

Tenagers ....... 479 s5.7 398 24B 604 26.1 27.9 49820-24 ........ 61.2 612 625 69.7 67.0 42.0 67.0 67.625-20 ...... h 43.6 1452 6 53 53A 4 34°°0 444A 6.0350'734} 533 ...... }50.4 3.7 s35962 49.1 30.3 46.35-394.....85 240.44 ...... 3 I50 t3

75. 50.0 20.3 513 7.

45-49 I ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~534h 507 .3 6.45-494 ........ 53.7 e45.2 )422 543 5 2955 61.3 171.050-54 ....... 534 46.5 25h85559 . 47.4 30.5 ' 31 ° 45.2 36.0 1 65 144.5 46.36D-64 .. ... 34.2 16.4 34.1 17.7 '65 and nn ..... 89 3.4 44 7.0 5.7 2 1 16.9 '7A

'1972 date fon Iulyv and Gonnony. NOTE: Deare not adimsed an U.S. ennepnt.'A.s 69-74.

44

88

Chart 15. Age Structure of Labor Force Panicepetion Rat, 197

in 1974, and greater flexibility in working time have alsoprovided incentives for Swedish women to seek gainfulemployment. Parenthood insurance provides that either amother or father may stay home up to 7 months after achild's birth and be reimbursed for 90 percent of his or herpay.

Age utructure of participation rates

The age structure of participation rates differs greatlybetween the sexes (table 14). Male participation ratesplotted by age groups display a bell shape in all countries,with high rates during the prime working ages and then tap-ering off after age 50 as males enter retirement. Chart 15shows the age structure of participation rates for three ofthe countries, illustrating the bell shape. The growing im-portance of schooling and the increasing frequency of earlyretirement, voluntary or otherwise, have resulted in a trendtoward lower participation rates at both ends of the agespectrum.

In the case of women, the above phenomena are ac-companied by conditions relating to women's traditionalrole in society. Generally speaking, after a first maximumwhich occurs between 20 and 25 years of age, a fall ineconomic activity rates occurs which is attributable to

marriage and the birth and raising of children. Subse-quently, a number of women return to work. Sometimein the 30's the female activity rate begins to rise again andreaches a second maximum in the 40's which is, except inSweden, lower than the first maximum. In Sweden, about68 percent of women in the 20-24 age group are economic-ally active; this tapers offgradually to 65 percent in the 25-34 age group, then rises to a second maximum of 71.5 per-cent in the 35-44 age bracket. Projections indicate thatSweden is approaching a pattern of female participation byage similar to that of men, with no drop in activity con-nected with the birth and bringing up of children. Chart 15shows the characteristic M-shaped curve for female partici-pation rates in two of the three countries shown. Sin,1973, the U.S. curve has changed from the M-shape shownin the chart. The differential in participation rates betweenthe age groups 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 gradually narrowed,and by 1976, participation rates were about the same forboth age groups.

Table. 14 indicates a very high rate of participationfor older Japanese workers. Almost half of the men inJapan 65 years old and over are still working. In the UnitedStates, only about I in 5 men over 65 are working, and inGermany about I out of every 6. A comparatively high pro-portion of older Japanese women are also working. The

45

Percent of Poapntucin Laior Force100 100

Sworn / Men n~~~~~ FO'na Wawni

I/ "5 8

601 so6

40 40

20 20

o 0Tear- 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55- 60-64 80 nod Toon- 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 0-64 80 andaen' Aar agem AaO,

89

prevalence of the work ethic in Japan pardy accounts forthese high participation rates of older workers. Also, social

security benefits are very smaDl and pensions are low ornonexistent. Fifty-five is still the common retirement agein Japan, but social security payments begin at age 60 andlump-sum retirement payments are not enough to allow forself-sufficiency until age 60. As a result, most workers whoare retired from their regular jobs at 55 continue at lowerpaid jobs or go into self-employment out of financial ne-cesaity.

Cydical rends in participation

In the short term, changes in participation rates canincorporate a significant cyclical component. It is generallyassumed that the interaction between demand for and sup-

ply of labor may take two opposite forms: In the course ofa recession, dismissed workers or potential labor force en-trants may either be inhibited from even seeking a new job

("discouraged worker hypothesis") or be stimulated bysheer need to try harder for new sources of income ("addi-tional worker hypothesis"). Econometric investigationshave usually found confirmation at the aggregate level of

the "discouraged worker hypothesis," even though this mayonly imply that the alteraative hypothesis has lessweight. i n

According to research by Dernburg and Strand, thedegree to which the two effects govern labor force partici-pation depends upon the stage of the business cycle.' I Aninitial decline in employment from a cyclical peak resultsin large-scale discouragement and withdrawal from thelabor force. Subsequent declines in employment are met bya smaller decline in labor force participation. As the periodof economic slack grows longer, pressure on additionalworkers to enter the labor force builds up and this tends topartially offset the discouragement effect. Because thedominant effect is withdrawal from the labor force, the of-ficial unemployment statistics understate the magnitude ofthe economic loss during periods of economic dack. I

2

The United States and Sweden are the only countriesstudied which regularly collect data on discouraged workers.In the United States, changes in the number of such work-era have been consistent with cyclical changes in the de-mand for labor. Both the unemployment rate and the num-ber of discouraged workers moved downward, though indiffering degrees, from 1967 to 1969, when unemploymentdeclined 5 percent and discouraged workers declined 22percent; both series rose substantially from 1969 to 1971,

t'S.e Jacob Mince, "Labor Form Psiticipation and Unempioy-

meat: a Review of Reeent eodence,- in R. A. Gordon and M6. S.Gordon eds, Fboqefty od Employsess (New Yolk, Wiley andSuns, 1966).

IThomas Demburg and Kennth Strand, ItHidden Unemply-ment 195 3-62: A Quastitative Ansaysis by Age and Sex," Amee

E-wostsdcReiew. t, blre 1966, pp. 71-95.

when job prospects were poor; and both moved downwardagain durtng 1972 and 1973 as the job market improved.The drop in the US. labor force participation rate in 1971,after a rise since 1964, was related to the sharp increase inwithdrawals from the labor force of discouraged workers.The number of discouraged workers reached a recessionhigh of 1.2 million in the third quarter of 1975-one quarterlater than the muemployment peak-and the 1975 partici-pation rate held steady at the 1974 level after nsing in 1972and 1973. After the peak, the number of discouragedworkers began moving downward fairly steadily throughthe third quarter of 1976. However, as unemployment be-gan to rise again, there was also an increase in the numberof discouraged workers to I million in the final quarter of

1976.In Sweden, economic activity slowed down in 1967-

68, and both unemployment and the number of discouragedworkers reached decade highs. The labor force participationrate dipped sharply in 1967, one of the few years in whichfemale economic activity declined. In 1968, the participa-tion rate rose, possibly evidencing the "additional workerhypothesis." In 1970-71, when unemployment moved up-ward sharply, the number of discouraged workers actuallyfell slightly and continued downward in 1972; participationrates continued to nse. This trend may have been relatedto the rapid expansion in govemment training and job crea-tion programs in the early 1970's which probably absorbedmany discouraged workers. During the international re-cession of 1974-75, Swedish unemployment remained low,and participation rates for women rose sharply, whde the

rates for men held steady. In contrast, male participationrares declined in all the other countries during the recession.

The long-term trend in Italy is one of slowly declin-ing overall participation rates. Cyclical trends,superimposedupon this long-term trend, have occasionally caused sharperthan usual declines in participation. In 1963-66, when theItalian economy tuined downward and unemploymentrose, participationratesdipped sharply. Aseconomic activitymoved upward, activity rates held steady in 1967 and de-dined only slightly until 1972 when another sharp dropoccurred. The latter drop was a lagged reaction to thelengthy recession which began in early 1970. Whereas inprevious cycles the easing of the labor market was accom-panied by a rapid decline in participation rates, the rates re-mained stable in the recession which began in 1974.

"lbid. oeniburg and Stuand mesncted a 'potentia loboeforcae ries fm the Umied Stases whirh they usd to reraimlate theuarpitoymet rate induding set yrlicit withdeawats from thelabob for. Thua, for November 1962, when the oftfcial eist onayadjusted unemployment rate was 5.8 perrent, they catmiated a"manpowe nap" anerplyment rate of between 9.5 and 10.3 peeceat. rofessor Alfred Teas of Gussnetowa Univerity h.at sia do.woek in this ares. Se "rhe Rettt'o of Labes Pouee to Emply-mcot," fIltesi nd Labor Reltiont, Revi-w. Apri t974. pp. 454-69.

46

90

The data for Germany and Great Britain also sug-gest that participation rates tend to react, with certainlags, to changes in the demand for labor. Participationrates declined throughout most of the 1960-76 period inGermany, but the sharpest drops occurred in 1967 and1974, both years of recession for the economy. In GreatBritain, participation rates for 1960-66 held quite steadilyat about 61 percent, but then fell off to 59 percent by1971 as unemployment rose. One noncyclical influencewhich should be mentioned was the raising of the Britishschool-leaving age from 15 to 16 in 1973. Removal of the15-year-olds from the 1973 data explains some of the in-

crease in participation rates in 1973 since 15-year-olds hada lower than average level of labor force activity.

Employment-population ratios also were sensitive tocyclical fluctuataons, but did not always move in the samedirection as participation rates. For example, in 1975, US.,Canadian, Australian, Italian, and British participation ratesheld steady or rose whale employment-population ratiosdeclined. According to one hypothesis, this behavior in theUnited States was attributable to the combination of infla-tion and unemployment which put severe financial pressureon many families and induced an unusually large number offamily members to seek jobs.

47

91

Chapter 5. Factors Contributing to Differences in Unemployment Levels

Unemployment rates in the United States have tendedto be appreciably higher than in most other industrial coun-tries, even after adjustments are made to account for differ-ences in definitions and survey methods. Although US. un-employment reached a 16-year low of 3.5 percent in 1969,it was still well above the rates in Western Europe andJapan. Explanations for the differences may be sought indemographic, economic, legal, and social factors.

This chapter examines some of the factors which maycontribute to differences in unemployment levels amongthe major industrial countries. Emphasis is placed on thosefactors which help to explain the relatively high unemploy-ment rates in the United States. The discussion updates andexpands upon the pioneering 1962 study by Myers andChandler prepared for the President's Committee to Ap-praise Employment and Unemployment Statistics.' It wilbe noted that, in many ways, the countries studied aremore alike today than they were in the early 1960's. Never-theless, significant differences do remain which help to ex-plain international differences in unemployment rates.

Consideration is given first to demographic factorssuch as the growth and composition of the labor forc. At-tention is also given to cyclical labor migrations, to season-ality, to income maintenance arrangements, to labor marketprograms, and to differences in the employment situationfor young people. Finally, noneconomic factors such aslegal and social restraints against layoffs are considered.

The chapter is by no means a complete survey of allthe factors that influence comparative levels of unemploy-ment rates. Such complex questions as the form of economicorganization (i.e., free enterprise, socialism, etc.) and thelevel of wages in relation to the supply of, and demand for,labor have been deliberately excluded. Similarly, the fiscaland monetary policies chosen by the various governmentsare not taken into consideration. Differences in occupa-tional, industrial, and regional supply-demand imbalances(i.e., structural unemployment) have also been excluded.Treatment of such topics is beyond the scope of this report.However, it should be noted that some of these excludedtopics could be very significant factors in explaining differ-ences in unemployment levels.

It is fairly easy to identify many of the principalcauses contributing to differences in unemployment rates,but it is much more difficult to appraise their relative im-

portance. To present such a quantitative appraisal wouldrequire a study in considerable depth. Comparatively lowunemployment rates in Western Europe and Japan cannotbe attributed solely to any one of the topics discussed be-low. They are rather the cumulative effect of a number offactors which in combination have gradually enabled somenational economies to provide jobs for almost all personsseeking work.

Labor force growth

It is commonly suggested that the rapid growth of thelabor form in the United States has greatly increased thedifficulty of maintaining full employment. Growth of theU.S. civilian labor force alone called for about 25 millionnew jobs between 1959 and 1976 if the unemployment ratewere not to rise above the 1959 level of 5.5 percent. Theeconomy generated 23 million new jobs, however, and theunemployment rate rose to 7.7 percent in 1976. Of course,some of this shortfall is attributable to cyclical factors.

2

The lower unemployment rates of the European countriesand Japan from 1960 onward were achieved under condi-tions of slow growth or decline of the labor force. Indeed,it is often overlooked that these countries created relativelyfewer net new jobs than did the countries with high un-employment rates-the United States and Canada.

The Canadian labor force grew at an annual rate of3.2 percent, higher than the rate of increase in any other

country (table 15). Australian work force growth, at 2.4percent annually since 1964, was also rapid. The rate ofgrowth of the U.S. labor force, at 2 percent, was muchhigher than that for the European countries and Japan. Thelabor force grew at annual rates of I percent or less inFrance, Great Britain, and Sweden. In Germany, the laborforce decreased slowly but would have declined faster ifnot for the rapid influx of foreign workers since 1960.The labor force excluding foreign workers in Germanydeclined by 7 percent between 1960 and 1975, while thenumber of foreign workers rose about sevenfold. Italy'swork force declined by 0.4 percent a year. These very lowrates of labor force increase in European countries mayhave aided in maintaining low levels of unemployment. Infact, labor shortages developed during the 1960's in several

'Res gross natisnon product rose by 6 pessent u-es me preMn=-'hesiden's C-mdttee, to Appraise Employment nd U-mply. in year in 1959 so d by 6.1 peerent in 1976; botth years wine pre-

ment statitica, Meisg Eabymwl dee end Unerpoy-nt, appen- sded by eranumic dawntums. Huwevet, the 1974-75 rressin was

din A (Washington, U.S. Gnversent Printing Offrce, 1962). noeperso-d Imtpe tting tha the 19579 8 downtum.

48

92

Table 15. Growth rates of population, labor force, andemployment, 1960-76

Citlin ChvilianCountry workiogaw labor Employment

population fome

United Stat. 1.7 2.0 1 9C .. d2........ 3.2 3.1Austlia ....... 2.0 2.4 2.2Japan ....... 1.7 1.3 t.2Frn ....... 1.2 1.1 .9Germany ..... .7 -.1 -.2Great Briain .3 .2 .1Italy ....... 3 -4 -ASeden ........ .7 3 S

' 1964 76 .21961-76.

NOTE: Penent chaiges computed from the Isest cqusi trendof the logarithms of the in dex numbers.

countries-notably Germany and Japan-as the supply oflabor could not keep up with demand.

Population growth and trends in participation ratesare factors which underlie the different trends in the Laborforce among the major industrial countries. Since 1960, thecivilian population of working age has grown fastest inCanada, followed by Australia, the United States, Japan,and France (table 15). Population growth was under I per.cent a year in Genmany, Great Britain, Italy, and Sweden.Labor force participation rates have been rising in theUnited States, Australia, Canada, and Sweden, while re-maining steady in Great Britain and declining in the othercountries. (See chapter 4.)

The relatively rapid growth in working-age populationand rising participation rates led to the relatively high ratesof labor force growth in the United States, Australia, andCanada. Germany, Great Britain, and Italy had low rates ofpopulation growth and declining or steady participationrates; in these countries, the labor force grew very slowly ordeclined. For Japan, population growth was fairly strongbut labor force growth was held down by a sharp drop inparticipation rates.

A major reason for the rapid increase in the US.working-age population and labor force compared to manyEuropean countries was this country's unusually high birthrate in the early postwar years. These children began enter-ing the labor force in the latter 1960's. Thus, in 1967, some3.8 million Americans turned 21, nearly I million morethan a year earlier. The number reaching 21 remained closeto 3.8 million until 1975 and then began to push above 4million. In most other industrial countries, in contrast, theravages of World War 11 precluded any prompt postwar re-tura to normal family life. Consequently, there were nocomparable postwar baby booms, and there was no com-parable stream of young persons pouring into the workforce.

Underlying long-term trends in participation rates are

such factors as trends toward longer years of schooling,early retirement, and changing attitudes toward the roleof women. In the United States, a dramatic increase in par-ticipation rates for women occurred in the 1960-76 period.In contrast, Japan, Germany, and Italy had declining femaleactivity rates. (See chapter 4.)

Labor force composition

Differences in the composition of the labor forcemong the major industrial countries are important in aninvestigation of why international unemployment ratesdiffer, since certain groups have been more prone to unem-ployment than others. Hence, if a country has a higher pro-portion of its labor force in such groups, its overall unem-ployment rate should tend to be higher. Differences in com-position by sex, age, economic sector, and economic status(i.e., self-employed, wage earner, or unpaid family worker)are examined here.

Age and sex compositon. In general, women enter andleave the work force more frequently than adult men andwomen and younger workers change jobs more frequently,encountering more spells of unemployment in the course ofthese transitions than workers with more permanent jobattachments. Another factor that tends to increase the un-employment rate of married women is the migration offamilies who generally move where the husband's jobopportunities are better.

3Also, women and younger workers

are more vulnerable to layoffs than adult men, because onaverage they do not have as many years of work experience.On the other hand, women and teenagers tend to work inoccupations and industries which are not subject to sharpcyclical fluctuations. Women, for example, are morelikely to be employed in white-collar jobs and in serviceindustries where unemployment fluctuates less over thebusiness cycle. In addition, the slower rate of entry ofwomen and teenagers into the labor force during a recessionnarrows the age and sex differential in the U.S. unemploy-ment rate.

In chapter 3 comparative data were presented onunemployment by age and sex. These figures indicated thatwomen in most countries have higher unemployment ratesthan men. Female rates are about the same as male ratesonly in Great Britain and Japan. Teenagers have relativelyhigh jobless rates in all countries. Thus, it is relevant to con-sider the trends in the proportion of the labor forceaccounted for by women and teenagers.

A significant increase in the proportion of womenand teenagers in the labor force has been singled out as oneof the reasons for the worsening unemployment situation

'In the United Statee mn t970, mesided women ag 25 to 34 whohad moved to a diffrrent uounty within the year had an tmemploy-ment rate of 11 pe-roat, upared to 5 pesoest for oonmifasou.Among married meu of the snie age group, the roten were 4.8 per-cent and 2.1 percent, .ecpeetinely.

49

93

Table 16. Women nd Weenage in thestabr force 1960,1971,1975, and 1976

women1' Teenagers

2

Coj-otry As prn of Lebo, fo Lbor fAorce A pe bor force Lbor fog-omtfr rats growh rate

19o0 1971 1975 1976 1900-1 1 1971 1975 1976 1960-76

Unitad Stte 33 38 40 41 3.1 7 9 tO 10 3.9Ca .... . '3237 34 37 37 52 39 l. 12 11 4AtAaatralia . ... ....29 32 3 35 44.1 414 12 12 12 .7Jpan ...... 40 39 37 37 I 10 5 3 3 -6.7F ranc ..... '36 38 38 39 'I .7 08 6 5 6 _.I6Gerrn.n .V 38 36 38 38 - .1 11 8 9 9 -1.2Great'ntein' 34 37 38 39 1.3 711 9 a '-2.7taly.31. i n 3 81 30 30 -A 2 8 7 1 6) ff -4.

Sweden 1...... .'39 49 43 43 '2.2 9 6 6 6 7_1

All working aw.t16 to 19year-dde it h. United Statest, Frace., ad Sie

dee. 15- to 19-yaar-dd in A-naria, Qnaeb. Geenyand Japan;14- to l9-yer-olds in Itay. Data for Gr ritain ar for 15- to9-yero-ads in 1960 and 1971 ond 16- to 19-yea-ofda in 1975

end 1976.3Enimm-.

in the United States in the 1970's. Women grew from one-third of the US. labor force in 1960 to 41 percent in 1976,while 16- to 19-year-olds increased their share from 7 to 10percent. The US. economy has not fully absorbed thesegroups, and unemployment rates for women and teenagerahave worsened compared with the national average. For ex-ample, the overall unemployment rate was about 5.6 per-cent in both 1960 and 1974; female unemployment was5.9 percent in 1960 and 6.7 percent in 1974; teenage un-employment was 14.7 percent and 18.2 percent, respec-tively. In contrast, the jobless rate for males 20 years ofage and over dropped from 4.7 percent to 3.8 percent overthe same period.

Table 16 shows that the United States has had acomparatively large increase in the female work force dur-ing the period since 1960. Only Canada and Australia(1965-76) have had more rapid increases. In all of thesecountries, the strong expansion of the service sector, withjobs traditionally held by women, had an importantteffect.Other underlying factors are noted in chapter 4. In 1976,Sweden, which has done much to encourage women towork, had the highest proportion of women in its laborforce. The United States ranked second, followed closelyby France, Germany, and Great Britain. Italy had, by far,the lowest proportion of women. These rankings differedmarkedly from the situation in 1960, when five of the ninecountries had higher proportions of women in the workforce than the United States. At that time, Japan rankedfint, and Germany was second. Canada ranked last, withwomen constituting only about one-quarter of the laborforce.

Thus, the United States has had a relatively high andgrowing proportion of women in the labor force. Swedenhas maintained low overall unemployment rates even witha large and growing female component. Female unemploy-ment rates in Sweden, although higher tham male rates, are

1965 for prportion; 1965-76 f org rown rt-e1963 for prowprtion; 1963-75 or -76 foe growt rat.0Not ailabte.

'1961 for proportion; 1961-76 tn, growth ra-..t19 6 0 7s5.

NOTE: Data hae been adijotd to US. -orenpt. Growthnea Ipewent Pee vinci beed en compoond ate of ohrnge.

quite low when compared with most of the other countries.Italy has had both a low level and a declining trend in thefemale labor force. This has probably helped to keep unem-ployment down, since female unemployment rates havebeen 50 to 60 percent higher than the male rates in recentyears. France and Geemany had significantly higher propor-tions of women in their labor forces in 1960 than the UnitedStates, but had much lower levels of unemployment com-pared with the United States.

Between 1960 and 1970, the United States had thefaseete growth in the teenage labor force; for the entire1960-76 period, Canada had the sharpest increase becauseof extremely rapid growth in the 1970s. In all of theEuropean countries and Japan, the teenage labor force de-clined between 1960 and 1976 (table 16).

In 1976, teenagees constituted 10 percent of the laborforce in the United Stales; this proportion was exceededonly in Australia and Canada (table 16).4 Japan, France,and Sweden have very low proportions of teenagers in thelabor force (3 to 6 percent) and this has helped to keepoverall unemployment down in those countries. However,in 1960 all the other countries had higher propohtions ofteenagers in their labor force than the United States andwere able to maintain much lower overall levels of unem-ployment, except for Canada.

Canada and the United States were the only coun-tries where the proportion of teenagers in the labor force

41t abood be noted that the poportio of fteo in the bbto

foer easy be affected by the Iwer age niht cosed in dering teec-aged (footnote 2, table 16). Thn ae biftb h.ae been adpted tothe sge at whict esmpolsoey aholenig ends, which nrieg from age14 to 16. If IS-yea-oIda were -nxclded from the Astralian andCanadian labor foro, fore maple, the proportion of teronagwoald probbly be towered doaer to the level in the Unted Sates,wh-e teecagenne oenerp permo.a age 16 to 19.

50

57-254 0 - 80 - 7

94

rose between 1960 and 1975. Basically, there are tworeasons for the increases in the teenage labor forces in bothcountries. As mentioned earlier, the sharp increase in birthrates in the 1950's resulted in rapid growth of the teenagepopulation beginning in the second half of the 1960's.Second, participation rates of young persons have risen sig-nificantly. In most of the other countries studied, birthrates did not rise significantly in the 1950's and participa-tion rates have generally fallen for teenagers with the spreadof higher education.

On balance, the overall effect of the demographiccomposition of the U.S. labor force may be to marginallyincrease its aggregate unemployment rate compared withsome other countries. The high and growing proportion ofboth women and teenagers in the US. labor force has hadan upward influence on unemployment rates. This has alsobeen the case in Canada. In most of the other countries thefemale and teenage components of the work force are notas large and have either declined or increased less rapidly.

Industry and economic stains. The industrial compositionof the labor force and the economic status of workers (i.e.,as self-employed, wage eamer, or unpaid family worker) arefactors of interest since workers in certain sectors of theeconomy and workers of wage earner status are more oftenunemployed than others.

In many foreign countries-Japan and Italy are thebest examples-small, family-owned businesses are foundmore frequently than in this country. The farms, smaDlfactories, and commercial establishments owned and oper-ated by family members have provided jobs and a substan.tial measure of protection from unemployment for a largesegment of the labor force. In such enterprises unemploy-ment is virtually nonexistent, though substantial under-employment and shrinkage of income may occur from timeto time. Furthermore, in countries where this form ofbusiness organization plays a significant role, there is morechance that a family member who loses his wage or salaryjob will return to working in the family business and thusnot be counted as unemployed. In the United States, onthe other hand, the economies of scale that can be realizedin a large and fairly homogeneous sales market have beenfactors encouraging a consolidation of business enterprises,so that self-employment and family operations occur lessfrequently and the risk of unemployment is increased.

Unemployment is much less frequently associatedwith agriculture than with industry, partly because agricul-ture is less susceptible to cyclical change, but chiefly be-cause a high proportion of workers in agriculture are self-employed or unpaid family workers. The following tabula-tion shows the proportion of the employed population en.gaged in agriculture in 1960 and 1976:

1960 1976United states. 8.5 3.9Cand . 13.3 5.9Aunral.a.n.. 6.2

tne. 295F. n.e. 22.4Ganmanv .13.8Grse ta . .i.n. 4.1lal .32 8Sw..n. I 5

55.910.67,23

l1A6.2

These figures indicate that Italy, Japan, and Francehad the highest proportions of workers generally not sus-ceptible to being counted as unemployed. Great Britain andthe United States had the lowest proportions. However, itshould be noted that the countries with the highest propor-tions experienced a high rate of displacement from the agri-cultural sector in the period under review andhave thereforeIad the added problem of providing other jobs for the dis-placed farm workers.

The following tabulation shows the 1974 proportionof employment made up by wage and salary eamers in thenine countries:

United Stses.. 90ACanada .. 7Australia.. 85Jpn .6. 93Fra.ee o0.6GO,..an.6 3.6Great anisain .92.0ltly .71.sSwedn. 91.0

The United States has a higher proportion of wageand salary workers than all the other countries except GreatBritain and Sweden. The small proportion of agriculturalworkers discussed above helps to explain this, but otherfactors such as the prevalence of large-scale operations inthe United States play a role. Japan, Italy, and France hadmuch lower proportions of wage and salary workers thanthe other countries and, therefore, had a significant groupof workers who might be underemployed but who are sel-dom totally unemployed. Some industrial countries, not-ably Sweden, have been able to maintain very low rates ofunemployment despite a realtively high proportion of wageand salary workers.

Labor miyation

The volume of migration in the Westere Europeancountries has tended to fluctuate with the economic situa-tion. Foreign nationals have flowed into the NorthernEuropean countries when demand is high and have leftwhen it is low, without seriously affecting unemploymentlevels in the host country. This flexibility of labor supply,particularly in France, Germany, and Switzerland, has actedas a cyclical shock absorber, helping to keep unemploymentrates low during recessions, although in 1974-75 the out-flow was not as great as in past recessions. These cyclicalflows of 'guestworkers" have no precise colnterpart in theUnited States and are one of the factors explaining why un-employment rates in some Westem European countrieshave been lower than in this country.

5I

95

Massive migratory movements of workers withinEurope have occurred within the past two decades. In con-trast to the involuntary and permanent migration whichmarked the immediate postwar decade, European migrationsince 1955 has been mostly voluntasy and temporary. Thefirst impetus to uch migrations was the formation of theEuropean Community (EC) in 1957 and its rules permittingthe free movement of labor across the bordets of memberstates. Subsequently, rapid economic growth in the NorthemEuropean countries attracted many migrant workers fromoutside the EC, mainly from the poorer Mediterraneancountries such as Turkey, Greece, and Spain. In the early1960's, the influx of migrants became very large as North-em Europe's demand for labor far outstnpped the domesticsupply.

Workers migrating from one EC country to anotherare assured equal social protection with nationals, receptionfacilities covering training and bnguistic studies, and hous-ing, as well as an increasing participation in the political andsocioeconomic life of the host country. Migrants from out-side the EC, having no official status under Communitylaw, enter the Community under conditions set forth in bi-lateral agreements between member states and the countriesof origin. These agreements guarantee legal migrants somesocial security protection in the Community, but usuallyless than local citizens receive.

The flow of migrant labor from Mediterranean coun-tries to the north increased steadily until the 1966-67 re-cession, when many foreign workers were obliged to returnhome because of growing unemployment in Northern Eu-rope. After the recession, the movement of foreign workersto the north resumed.

Measures to limit considerably, or stop, the influx ofmigrants by the labor-rereiving countries led to a diminution

Table 17. Foreign workers in Germany, 1960 and 1965-76

ECpled Unemptoyedlog worker foreign wnrkerswk

Year Number Pemcent of Number Pwer.. ofirnousnd.) labor Core sIrtuh-ndOl foreign

labor farce

160 ...... 281 1.1 (0I 4sf1965 . 1..... 1 119 43 2 .2166 ...... 1243 4.7 4 3-1967 ..... . 1,014 3.0 I s 1.51968 .0.-..0. . A19 4.0 5 .51969 .... 6 5.3 3 .21970 . 5...0. . ,807 6.0 4 .21971 . -..... 2,120 8.1 I1 .51972 ...... 2,285 8.7 16 .71973 ...... 265 09. 1 .7174.... .. 2,446 9.3 69 2.71975 ...... 2,034 7-9 Ibi 6.91976 (June) .. 137 7.6 90 4.4

'Resi0rerd on-efpov d.'Not anail.ble.

SOURCE: NaPro . de, A6r6eio..nd Soeihraik(Bonne. DOr Bndes-Witnbr fur Arbeit and Soatalordsna., nvrarit ro).

of the cyclical outflow of migrants in the 1974-75 recession.Many foreign workers remained in the host countries be-cause they feared they would not be able to reenter underthe newly restrictive immigration policies. Another factorwas that increased unemployment benefits in industrial-ized countries exceeded any wage the migrants could hopeto receive at home. This growing tendency for unemployedforeign workers to remain in the Northem European coun-tries contributed to the sharp rise in unemployment ratesrecorded in most of these countries during the recent re-cession. This contrasts with the situation in the Europeanrecession of 1966.67, when there was a sharp outflow offoreign workers.

5Table 17 shows the number of foreign

workers employed and unemployed in Germany over theperiod since 1960. Unemployment of foreign workers rosefrom 0.3 to 1.5 percent from 1966 to 1967, but was muchhigher in the 1974-75 recession, reaching a peak of 6.9 per-cent in 1975. The annual figures in the table conceal thefact that between mid-1966 and early 1968, over 30 per-cent of the foreign labor force left the country. Betweenmid-1973 and mid-1974 the drop was only 12 percent, butas the recession continued foreign workers left in increasingnumbers.

Italy was a major labor-exporting country during the1960's and early 1970's. However, the 1974-75 recessioncaused many Italians to return home, and Italy had a posi-tive migratory balance. For example, in 1974 some 85,000workers left Italy for Germany, while 120,000 returnedhome from that country. Even with this return flow, therewere still about I million Italians working abroad in 1975,most of them in Germany, Switzerland, and France.

Almost all Northern European countries have placedbans on new immigration. These restrictions were related tothe social and political problems caused by migration aswell as the 1973 energy crisis and subsequent recession.With rules of the European Community providing for a freeflow of workers from one member country to another, ef-forts to hold down the flow of migrants ae aimed at coun-tries that do not belong to the group of nine nations. Aboutthree-quarters of the foreign workers in European Com-munity countries are from outside the Community. Ger-many bained recruitment of foreign labor from outside theCommon Market in November 1973: Belgium and Francefollowed with bans in 1974. In the Scandinavian countries,there is a partial ban against migratory flows from outsidethe free Nordic market. In Switzerland, a policy of increas-ing restnction on the entry of foreign workers began wellbefore the recent recession.

Uniform statistics on migrant workers in WesternEurope are not available, chiefly because nearly all coun-tries use different methods of classifying foreign workers.Some countries include seasonal workers in theu report-ing, while others do not. Also, it is difficult to obtain

'aS '-Erffrts of Recesi on en temadrant Labor," OECD Ob-*sewr, aune 1972, pp. 15-18.

52

96

Table 18. Estimated number of foreign workern by country of immigration and emigration 1975

Catourryat;a 4t1t Aunria Belgiumt

i Frn.e G5

rnavny Nether- Sen wite,. Uited"*.it- I 1-f~ ~ ~~~~~~~ted I.led

4Kingdoin

Algâ ........... _ 3000 420,0tt 2,000 200 - 500Austria ............. 78 - 21000 _Fintad . ......... _ 03.000 _Gram . ........... _ 000 5aO0 212,0 2,000 0.800 0 2.500truly ............ I 2000 8S000 210,000 318t0 10.000 2,500 28 000 560000Morocco ... .......... 00 165000 1181000 28.000 500 - 1 000Portugal . .2,000 420,00 _ 0,000 5.000 I 000 4,000 4.000Spin ............ 30,000 250,000 132,000 108,OO 2000 722000 15 500Tunisi....... .-. 900,000 10,00 1.000 200Turkey 20.200 10,000 300 582.000 38.000 4 000 16 000 1 50oYugoslavia ........... 13000 3.000 600000 4360000 10,oOO 23 000 24.000 3.500Oier ........... 21 70000 2350,00 320,000 104,000 60000 135000 690 000

Total . .. 10,000 270.000 1 000000 2.171.000 210.000 204000 553000 725000

Pernt of tbtort ora .. 1 7.1 8.7 08 42 50. 100 2t

E tEimats tor 1974.2E.Oludes 124.000 sesna1 worke.-'Da. taor September 1975. voludm unamptayed torign

warkats.aEntlodes 86.000 -seaonl workers avd 850000 foreign workers

whio careuw daily .rr- international border,.

figures on the number of daily international commuterswho work in France, for example, but actually live inSpain or Belgium. The free movement of Common Marketmigrants into member states makes it difficult to get anaccurate count of border crossings. Further problems inmeaouring the number of foreign workers in WestewEuropean countries are created by illegal immigrationand by tourists who enter a country and stay to taketemporary employment.

Thus, the number of migrant workers currently inthe Western European countries is not accurately known.However, an idea of the magnitude involved cam be gainedfrom statistics from a continuous reporting system set upby the Organization for Economic Cooperation and De-velopment (OECD) in 1973.6 Table 18 presents data fromthe OECD system by country of immigration and emigra-tion in 1975. The table shows that foreign workers rep-resent about 19 percent of the Swiss labor force; 8 to 9 per-cent of the German and French work forces; about 6 to 7percent in Austria and Belgium, 4 to 5 percent in theNetherlands and Sweden; and 3 percent in the United King-dom. Prior to the recession, foreign workers made upgreater proportions of the labor force-25 percent inSwitzerland and around 10 percent in Germany and France.The figures in table 18 include participants in the freemovement of labor within the European Commusty coun-tries.

As the term "guestworker" implies, the host coun-tries of Western Europe have tended to regard the foreignworkers as transient. Legal frameworks discourage migrants

65e "Up-To-Dtate Informocion 00 Migdigmn tItroughiSOPEMI,'"OECD Observer. FEbruary 1974, pp. 3940.

SOURCE. Organrisiun for Economic Cuopersion end Dacal.upmevt SOPEMI (Continu.s Reporting System on Mi-retoel1970 report

from permanently settling in these countries.' Also, withsome exceptions the migrants are not looking for a newhome. They want jobs and money which they can sendhome or take with them when they leave after a few years.The "guestworker" phenomenon of these countries has noexact counterpart in the United States, Australia, Canada,Sweden, and Great Britain. These inmtmigrant-receivingcountries have traditionally taken the position that thosewho arrive from abroad to work may also become citizens;the legally arriving foreign worker, in short, has usuallybeen granted immigrant status. These countries do not de-fine their foreign populations as "migrants" or "guest-workers" but as "immigrants."

There has been a growing influx of illegal migrantsin Western European countries since the virtual halt in"guestworker" hiring instituted during the 1974-75 reces-sion. Such persons either cross international borders il-legally or enter legally as visitors or students and remainto work without a permit. The European Community hasestimated that there are about 600.000 illegal aliens work-ing in member countries.

tGerman government authorities

estimate that about 200,000 illegal foreign nationals areworking in that country In 1976, Germany passed a lawproviding for prison terms and larger fines for the illegal

7F. eampis, in masy counties there oe totk Penmit tyiig

wrk-ess to cortain jobs, other restnctions on job maobity, rtequi-wrots for reorewa of wok; cnd residenor permits, and rtles inhibit-ing th reunion of frndie.

"largt1 tImignt," The Economist, Nov 13. 1976, p. 68.

'Ebuasy of the Federal Republic of Germoy (Waohington.D.C.), Whftr Ne- ba Labor and Social Polcy' JSnuuy/Fbusory1976, pp. 12-14.

53

97

recruitment and employment of foreign workers. In addi-tion, the Communission of the European Communitie hasbefore it a proposal for a harmonized policy on illegalimmigration.

In the United States, Illegal aliens have also becomea growing problem. Immigration officials place the numberof illegals at between 7 and 12 million persona (includingfamily members)." A Cabinet4evel Presidential committeereported an 1976 that illegal aliens have become so numer-ous that those apprehended annually are almost double thenumber of foreign citizens entering the United Stateslegally!

Seasonality

Unemployment statistics, like many other economicseries, reflect in part o regularly recurring seasonal move-ment which can be estimated on the basis of past experience.Seasonal adjustment procedures make allowances forchanges in average climatic conditions and institutionalarrangements during the year such as the influx of youngpersons into the labor market at the end of the school term.

Seasonality plays a more important role in somecountries than in others. For istance, the unusually longana severe winters in Canada cause higher average levels ofunemployment. One would also expect very large seasonalswings related to the winter in Sweden, but this has beenmitigated as a result of massive government programs tostimulate winter employment. In the United States;seasonalvariations explain about 90 percent of the month-to-monthvariance in the unemployment figures, on average, over theyear. In construction alone, one study estimated thatseasonal layoffs represented about 38 percent of all unem-ployment.t l

From its low point in February or March to its peakin August, the U.S. contract construction industry charac-teristically has a massive upswing in employment. The mag-nitude of these seasonal swings is compared with othercountries in table 19. This table indicates that the UnitedStates and Canada have the sharpest seasonal changes inconstruction employment. Seasonal fluctuations were themildest in Italy and were also quite small in France, GreatBritain, and Australia Germany and Sweden were in themiddle range.

European efforts to better utilize manpower during

"'Vemon M arrigs, r., Mesican Workers in the United StatesLabor Mauket: A Cooternporuy DOemma, snremannaen l LabotrReview, Navembee 1975, p. 352.

tCmmlennrtan: Need to Reassess U.S. Policy Deporutsnts of

Jostice and State: tepet to the Conneess, t976. Alo, see ietgaAbeo Study Urges Rethinbtn no Immigration, The Washirgt-nPate, San. 9,1977, p. 1.

t5Employ.et and Tlfeinn Report af the Preaidet, 1976. p.

62. Sm also Robert J. My.ss ad Sol Smedloff, Smeanalty andCoosrunction,Monly Labor Review,. September 1967, p. 1.

Table 19. Contruction indusrby: Range of indexes ofanployment, 1965 and 1975

(Avera mployment for each Yer - aoo)

1905 1975

Country oardy Monthly Quanerly Monthly

UInitd States 87-109 05-111 94-108 92-107Auntralia 98-101 I1) 97-103 11)Canada . 83-114 81-110 00111 86-112Fr.n... 98-101 1 1) 97 102 It)Germny -.... 94-104 92 104 96-102 93-103GC-t Britein . 98102 97-103 09-101 00-101Italy. 99101 III 00-101 it)Swaden . ....- 91 -107 91 -107 98-102 95-107

'Not anoiloble.NOTE: Quartedy data ar 3-month averagps nocopt for Aus-

trHi (February. Mao, Auguta, and Novnmbrl., France (March.Juns, Sptarnbar, and Darber), and Italy (Jnuary. April, July,and rtoberl-

the winter months have helped to hold down seasonal un-employment in construction, and Canada has waged anaggressive campaign to reduce seasonality in construction.Similar goals were an objective of the National Commissionon Construction Labor, created in the United States in1969. The commission has explored ways to stabilize laborsupplies, partly by encouraging the continuance of con-struction projects duoing the winter months.

Low temperatures, frozen ground, mow, coin, andmud impede outdoor construction during the winter. Overthe years, continuing technological advances have made itpossible to overcome many of these obstacles. Americanscientists and engineers have developed materials and tech-niques to permit winter construction. Such methods, al-though widely known, are not widely used Canada, withwinter temperatures well below freezing, has made greatstrides in all types of construction work through theyear.

ta During the past decade, Canada has made wide use

of polyethylene wind barriers, interior heating units, cold-resistant concrete, and other materials which allow foryear-round building. Experience throughout Europe-par-ticularly in Scandinavia-confirms the technical feasibilityof construction in extreme cold."

4

An impediment to increased winter construction inthe United States is the additional cost Special protectiveshelter and protective clothing for workers may have to beprovided. But when the difficulties and costs of winteroperation are weighed against the costs of halting opera-tions, the balance is often in favor of winter construction.

"S.3

Economic Coon.il of Canda., Manpowe in Caovsucri.n(Ottasu, t975) and Toward M-cc Stable Gmweth i Ccnceruotias(Ottom, 1974).

tTettiony of Jamoe J. Reynolds, Under Secretay of Lobes, en

"Se-onat Unemployment in the Constructaon Industryf Hearintsbefore the Setect Subhmmittee on Labor of the Committee on Ed-oation and Labor, Ho.ot of Repceemtatives, 90th Conests. SecondSeasson, on HR 15990, Juty 15, 1968, p.5

54

98

The cost savings to the economy become particularly not-able when the direct and indirect ravings in reduced un-employment are considered. The Department of Labor hasestimated that up to a 7-percent increase in winter con-struction costs will be offset by a decrease in unemploy-ment insurance outlays."

Experience in other countries. Other industrialized coun-tries began working on the diminution of seasonality ofconstruction employment sooner than the United States.These steps have been particularly pronounced since theend of World Wu 11. Two major weapons against winterunemployment have been used by foreign policy makers:compensatory employment and compensatory incomepolicies." Compensatory income policies will be dis-cussed in the section on income maintenance measures.

Compensatory employment policies attempt to re-duce seasonal unemployment in construction through pro-gramming of regular public works projects, adoption ofemergency public works programs, stimulation of the pri-vate construction sector, and scheduling of private proj-ects.

Several Western European countries require all pub-lic construction to take place either on a year-round basisor to be concentrated during the winter months. In Ger-many, for example, a government directive earmarks 30percent of all Federal construction appropriations for usebetween November and March. In Canada and Great Bri-tain, administrative budget review is required to assurethat the maximum amount of winter employment is ob-tained, and in many countries there are subsidies for winterhousing construction.

Sweden has a direct and comprehensive approach tothe full utilization of the construction labor force. Con-struction scheduling, carried out through the issuance ofpermits, is based upon detailed appraisals of local require-ments and resources which are integrated into a nationalprogram. Seasonal demand is leveled off in the peak seasonby issuing building permits which require work to begin inNovember, and often to be completed by April.

In the United States, public facilities account forroughly one-third of total construction spending, but theratio is approximately one-half in Great Britain and Frsnce.In Sweden, over 90 percent of all housing is built with stateloans. In addition, publicly owned and controlled industriesoccupy an important role in the industrial structure ofmany Western European countries and thereby introduce

5t'bid., P. 6.

"For a more detailed description of these paogesu see E. JayHo-iertitne., UPrarams for Proviting Wiste. Jobs in Corstructios,"Mntbhly Labor Review, February 1971, pp. 24-32,-d Conpenr.-toy Employment Pheernme-: An Intrnthntd Compaison ofTheb Rot, In Economic Stbiiaion and G-rrth (Pris. OECD,1969); ata Jan Wittrock, Rddgri Seamonat Usrmplyoynent in theConhtrsctn Indaatvy (Pai. OECD, 1967).

an Important atabilization potential in the industrial con-rtruction sector. Thus, the govemments of these countriescatn exercise a great deal of control over seasonal fluctua-tions through the timing of construction projects.

The results of seasonal stabilization measures havebeen fairly Impressive. In Sweden, fluctuations in employ-ment in the controfled building sector have narrowed con-siderably. Seasonal stabilization programs in Germany havevirtually abolished mas dismissais by medium- and large-sized firms. Subsidies for winter housing construction inCanada have virtually eliminated seasonality in homebuild-ing.

The presence of a hlrge number of foreign workers inthe construction labor force of many European countriesoffers another solution to seasonality in the host countsy.In Austria, France, and Switzerland, such workers areissued temporary work permits which require them to re-turn home before the Christmas season. New temporarypermits ame then issued the following spring. This policyexports the problem of seasonal unemployment to theworkers' country of origin.

Incomve maintenanee arrangemetits

Unemployment insurance and such income main-tenance programs as short-time payments, "bad weather"compensation, and early retirement benefits may have animportant impact on unemployment. Unemployment bene-fits may encourage workers to remain unemployed longer,while the other income maintenance measures may serveto reduce unemployment.

High levels of unemployment benefits payable forlong periods of time allow worker to remain unemployedlonger while they seek work with skill requirements andpay similar to those of their previous jobs. A major questionhas been whether high levels of unemployment benefitsdiscourage efforts to frnd work quickly, thereby prolong-ing unemployment. Several research studies during thelast few years have addressed this question.'

7

'7

tephen T. Marstos, 'the Impact of Utwempiyment I.s.m-.on Job Search," Brookbtc Papers an Eonamzk Actiety, Na. I1975 (The Brookings Ianittfisa, Washtinto, D.C.), Martia S. Fetd-stmi, "Lowering the Permanen Ratm of Unemployment," a studyprepaed for the Joint Eronaami Committee, Conereg of theUnited States, Sept. 18, 1973, ad "Unemployment Intranr.Time for Reform," Hamvard Baainch- Rere., sarch-Apri 1975, pp.5161; H.G. Grabel, D. Mki, sad S. St, "Real and tnar1anre4n-dared Unempblyment i Canada," Canadian Jmsrm1 ofEtonomlre,May 1975, p. 174-9 1; C. Gmem and .M. Co-inea, Unretpoy-ntm Cawnd The tpar of Uaempiyecet Inarooc- (Ottawa,Ecnomic Counril of Cadsa, 1976); N. Swan, P. Mar Rae, and C.Steinberg, Inreme Maintenante Puaragme Thr Effert on LaboarSapply and Anewet, Dem-ad in the Maritines (Orta.a, Eunom i,Coanil of Canada, 1976); P. A. Cook, G. V. Jump, C. D. Hodgln,and C. J. Sebo, Econmir Impact of Setected Goren.t Pro,

ama Direted Toward the LUbr Mart (Ottaw, Economic Coon-cdl of Canada, 1976); J. S. Cabbia and K. Foley, "Tre Ent.at ofeenefit-InduAed Unemployment in G-et Btrti. Some New Evi-

den.e,"O ford.EJnomirPaper-, Matrch 1977,pp. 128-40.

55

99

For example, three reports recensly released underthe auspices of the Economic Council of Canada investi-gale various aspects of the impact of unemployment insur-ance benefits on the rate of unemployment in Canada."In 1971, a new unemployment insurance (Ul) act tookeffect in Canada, extending coverage, increasing the maxi-mum weekly benefit and the ratio of payments to formerearnings, and establishing more liberal eligibility require-ments. Subsequently, seasonally adjusted unemploymentrose despite an increasing number of vacancies. While theauthors of the studies generally agree that these events werecaused by the 1971 revisions, each study focuses on a par-ticular dimension of the relationship. Green and Cousineauwere primarily concerned with the impact on the unem-ployed segment of the labor supply. They found that themore generous Ul benefits strengthened the incentive toremain or become unemployed, increasing the unemploy-ment rate from I to 1.5 percentage points on this accountalone. Higher Ul benefits were found to facilitate a moreselective job search than would have been possible prior to1971. However, other factors may have also been operating,as noted in the study by Swan, MacRae, and Steinberg.They confined their research to one region-the MaritimeProvinces-and concentrated on the effects of Ul on em-ployment rather than unemployment They observed in-creasing participation rates and employment levels forwomen and young people as a result of the 1971 act.Finally, Cook, Jump, Hodgins, and Szabo omited theirstudy to the macroeconomic impact of the revised at.They found the new act was clearly expansionary, sincethe unemployed were assured of greater purchasing powertham they could otherwise have expected.

Some countries have instituted mechanisms to counterthe incentive to stay idle and live offunemployment checks.Japan's approach is to pay workers a bonus when they goback to work, with the size of the bonus determined bythe amount of time the worker could have continued tocollect benefits. France and Great Britain try a differentapproach. They scale down the size of the unemploymentbenefit the longer it is paid.

In some countries, the systems of benefit paymentsto workers placed on reduced workweeks provide a mech-anism for employers to keep workers partially employedrather than laying them off outright when economic ac-tivity declines. Such workers continue to be classified asemployed rather than unemployed. Construction workersreceiving "bad weather' compensation are also not regardedas unemployed. Finally, financial inducements toward earlyretirement may keep a number of persons out of the laborforce who might otherwise have been looking for work.

Unemployment insurance. An international comparison ofunemployment insurance systems indicates that most coun-tries now have fairly broad coverage of the labor force, long

'XIbid.

Tabe 20. Urunployment insuranea spastars. mid-1975

R qpirdParcent of min Waltg brmu .nan

Country lab fo. employd pWd4 dunnrionseemed' praseding (days) of benfit.

u.n ploynnt iweka

Unitad Stute . 62 () 7 65Canada 89 out o 52 14 51JAN...... 45 26 out of 52 7 4 15550Fran ... 60 13 out of 52 0 '52-104Gemanvy 77 20 out of 1 62o s 2Gant arit in so 26 out o 52 53 52

ay.. 51 s52 out of1 04 7 28Smede

0.100 20 0ut of 52 5 'b6090

tCoraep in 1974.

2Eligibility requirementaarY widely by Stte.3Fur minimum bene.fit; 20 na of emplovment in the Pre-

uedin= ye er ronoinmd Om maximum benefit.'Mdaximum duration fo, earnio-elarad benefitsn depnda upon

ase of claimant with durati.o risig with a.'Figuren shon relate to fnlet. benefit. For .arnin-re.iatod

upplemeonr, waiting period is 14 days end maximum duration ofbeneta is m2t eeks.5

Th. trade union system -on about twodtiedt of the laborforce and the labor market spport progom co.na the r-maind.r,ncluding now entnts; other figunr mr tor "rda union atm.

maximum durations of benefits, and benefits which typi-cally replace at least half of former earnings of the averageworkerc." In the United States, each of the States, theDistrict of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have separate unem-ployment insurance laws subject to broad Federal guide-lines. Because no uniform system exists, the most frequentlyapplicable regulations must be used for comparisons withother countries. Australia is not covered here since unem-ployment relief payments are made in that country only topersons with low income.

Table 20 indicates that Sweden leads all countries incoverage of the labor force, with virtually all persons coveredwho complete the specified waiting period. About two-thirds of the labor force is covered by a govemment-subsi-diced system run by the trade unions. In addition, in 1974Sweden established a "labor market srpport" system ex-tending coverage to persons not in a trade union and tothose whose benefits with the fund have been exhausted;also covered are all workers 16 and over who have recentlyentered the labor market as well as persons reentering thelabor market.

Canada. the United States, and Great Britain all hadcoverage of at least four-fifths of the labor force in 1974.'°The relatively low coverage in France, Italy, and Japan re-flects, in part, large numbers of self-employed and unpaidfamily workers, persons generally not covered by unemploy-ment insurance.

"some additional iafonnanio. on unemployment compe-sationis pneoted ii Coonroum Sorrentio, "unemploymnt Compensa-tion mt Eigtht Industriat Notions," Monthly Labor Reruci. July1976, pp. 18-24.

20In 1975, coverange in thb United Suts was icrased toubout90 percnt of the work form under Emeigency Jobs and Unemploy-meot Assisttens Act pasoed in Deember 1974.

56

100

To become entitled to unemployment benefits, aworker must have worked a certain number of weeks, bewilling to return to work or to undertake training, have suf-fered loss of employment, and, in some cases, have met aminimum level of earnings while employed.

AU countries except Sweden require a set length ofprevious work to ensure that the unemployed person hassuffered a wage loss. In the United States, most States re-quire a minimum amount of earnings in the preceding baseyear rather than a minimum number of weeks of employ-ment. In the other countnes, ebgibiity requirements rangefrom 8 weeks of employment out of the preceding 52weeks in Canada (for minimum benefits) to 52 weeks ofemployment out of the preceding 104 weeks in Italy.

In Sweden, new entrants and reentrants to the laborforce may become eligible for benefits after a 3-monthperiod of unemployment during which they are activelyseeking work. The ebgibdity requirement under the tradeunion system is 20 weeks of employment in the precedingyear.

A waiting period must usually be served before un-employment benefits become payable. Canada requires thelongest waiting pertod-2 weeks. The United States, Italy,and Japan require I week. Less than a week is required inSweden (trade union system) and Great Britain (for flat-rate benefits), and no waiting period is imposed in Franceand Germany. Except for Japan and Sweden, a wasting per-iod is required for each new spell of unemployment. InJapan, a waiting period of any 7 days during the precedingyear satisfies the requirement. Technically, Sweden has onewaiting period of 5 days during the year, but a 1964labor-management agreement provides for employer-paidlayoff benefits during this period.

In the United States, the maximum duration of bene-fits tends to be adjusted according to the degree of unem-ployment that prevails in the economy. In times of low un-employment, American workers do not fare as well asworkers in most of the other countries studied, but in timesof high unemployment, benefits are extended under Federalprograms; during the 1974-75 recession, extensions to 65weeks of benefits were enacted.t A similar mechanismexists in Canada where the normal 26-week benefit periodis doubled when the national unemployment rate exceeds4 percent, a condition met since 1967. In Japan, 1975 legis-lation also contains provisions for extended benefit periods.

A maximum benefit period of I year is allowed inGermany and Great Britain. In Italy, benefits are payablefor 26 weeks. Japan, France, and Sweden vary the maxi-mum duration of benefits according to the age of theclaimant.

Uniquely, Japan provides a lump-sum bonus worth 30to 70 days of unemployment benefits as an incentive for

tThe Iuormat U.S. btnefit period vasies fiom 26 to 36 weeks

acurdie to State.

quick reemployment. The payment is determined by theumused portion of insurance rights.

Weekly benefits are expressed under most unemploy-ment insurance benefit formulas as a percentage of theworker's recent average wages. In the United States,Canada,France, and Germany, a benefit ceding is imposed. InFrance, the benefit is scaled down to a lower level after 3months of unemployment. Under its regular system, Franceprovides flat amounts of unemployment assistance in com-bination with the eamings-related insurance compensationfor the first 3 months of unemployment without a meanstest.

22Thereafter, the assistance payments are subject to a

means test. Japan and Sweden use systems of wage classesthat produce a scale of percentages which vary inversely toprevious earnings levels. The Swedish labor market supportsystem provides a flat rate benefit, using a means test.

In Italy, there is an earnings-related scheme for agri-culture, industry, and construction; only flat amounts are.payable to all other unemployed workers. Prior to 1966,flat amounts were also paid in Great Britain, but graduatedsupplements based on previous earnings have been added toflat benefits for the first 6 months of unemployment.

Supplementary allowances for a nonemployed spouseand children are added ia the form of flat amounts to thebasic benefit in France, Great Britain, and Japan. In France,the supplements are provided under the unemploymentassistance program, subject to a means test. The Frenchworker previously earning the average manufacturing wagewould be eligible for the supplemental assistance if thehousehold had no other income than the worker's unem-ployment benefits and a family allowance. In the UnitedStates, only 10 States and the District of Columbia providedependents' supplements. In Canada, these supplements areprovided to workers whose income is below a certain levelor whose unemployment is prolonged.

Unemployment benefits may vary by level of formerincome and mantal status. In addition, in all of the countriesexcept the United States, allowances are payable to familieswith children and are paid whether or not a worker is un-employed."

Table 21 presents a comparison of unemploymentbenefits as a percent of a manufacturing worker's averag.earnings in mid-1975.

2 4In the United States, an unmarried

unemployed worker generally receives unemployment bene-fits equal to approximately 50 percent of former gross earn-

"MeamFtlstd progaoms estbabish eligibily for benefits bymeasuring ludividunt or fmily peioures aaaisst a stuaderd, umatlybased on subsistence needs.

"Famnlty.tu.w ces -e pharity tegul rant pa,_-"..awde byite government to famnies with children. In sums vousties, thbepremrams sat incude educationat g- sts, birth grants., ate- andcbid heasth servire, and s-metimes allowances for adult dpen-dents. Family allowances ate payable to faniiies that run-a Iehbld or more (Canada, Gesamy, Italy, and Sweden), 2 chid-enor mum (Franc and Great Brtain), or 3 bhildmen or muoe (Japan).

57

101

ings, although not in excess of a State-established maximum.The maximum benefit in the majority of States is 50 per-cent of the average State wage in insured employment.

In contrast, all of the foreign countries studied ex-cept Great Britain provide more than 50 percent of thesverage manufacturing worker's previous earnings. Franceprovides the highest level of benefits, replacing 90 percentof former earnings to workers laid off for cyclical or struc-tural reasons, subject to official authorization. In mid-1976, about I out of every 8 persons registered as unem-ployed was receiving this high rate of benefit. Workers noteligible for this system receive a much lower level ofbenefits.

Canada, Japan, Germany, Sweden, and Italy replaceup to 60 percent or more of former earnings of the averagemanufacturing worker. In Italy, the highest benefits go toindustrial workers, who receive two-thirds of former earn-ings. Italian construction workers can obtain one-third oftheir former wage (plus flat-rate benefits) and agriculturalworkers 60 percent; persons who lose their jobs outsideagriculture, industry, and construction or who did notsatisfy eligibility requirements are entitled to very smallflat-rate benefits.

Both France (regular system) and Great Britain scaledown the benefit amount after an intial period of unem-ployment. In France, regular benefits amount to 56 percentof the unmarried manufacturing worker's former wage dur-ing the first 3 months of unemployment; thereafter, thebenefit falls to 50 percent. In Great Britain, a flat rate ispaid for the full year in addition to an earnings-eelated sup-plement paid only for the first half-year; thus the 38-percentreplacement rate for the first 6 months falls to 19 percentin the next 6 months of unemployment. Public assistancepayments, including compensation for mortgage interestand rent subsidies, can substantially increase these ratios.

The payment of supplements for dependents in severalcountries, and of family allowances in all countries exceptthe Umted States and Japan, causes the level of income sup-port for an unemployed married person with two childrento rise relative to the US. level (table 21). The addition of

"m

F.e -ospad.i.n it is uonowed that averap Aneea and Co-adim w-rkee recese no dependents sippleents and that theworkee h.a bee ez oigshe avetoe wan Im wsnofortoring prior toaaemtploymet. Eartnm re-taed uneosptoyont beaefits an basedon a person's emigs in a pert period of time. This past period("banm perid') vaaies Ctom country to country. Foe esobpl,re the majority of States in the United States, thi base period a thehighen quorter of woges during ti year preceding anemploymentIn Japan, benefits ate band upon the oreage day wage in the6 mooshs peeceding uoemployomt. ronce uses a base period ofthe 3 mowats preceding unermpltyment. ho Gnat Britain, thebase period is tho tax yeer (Aprit-haleh) peecediag the earodatyear in which the claim to bnefnt is made. These srying boerperiods were not taken ito cacunt hr the crhoati.ot wade intable 21. Those crati.ne simply state rhe evel of bh ftlt snail-able in wid-1975 as a percent of nage wuoanfarturing eaningain rid-1975.

Table 21. Unemployment benefit as a perent of averageearnings, rnmufaesturing worker, mid-1975

Married workerwith 2 etildror

Corty jSingle Uttetiloy-Country -oker m ploy- .- t bene

benefits anity

United Stats' . ...... 50 60 50C r t ............ 63 63 68twin ............ 60 62 62

Regula ystemFit3months ...... 56 63 '69-77Subaguent anths . 50 57 '63-71

Sagglereentaryb nefit syem3 ....

90 90o 2

6 -104

Genv ..y........ 60 60 66Great Britain .

Fin 6 months ...... 32 60 63Net 6 months' ..... 19 41 44

Italy.Flate benefiu ..... 9 22 22Earnznspsertelsd

shreme .... .

..... 67 60 60Sweden6 ...

. ....... 62-72 62-72 67-79

tFigne shown ar reprsnttie of the majority of States.2Lwer fiestu relate to torely atlowee payable to trily

with mwo than 1 wan sner, higher figres includes single waneaster allowanon.

3Fo, worker under an 60 lid off for cyolial nr str.titaral0

Me-nstested public osaistana paymrent an isb tillyrsise thes ratl ..

tientstdra sector eploy at the a-e enterprise for 3 moeths.0Trde uno system. Nareeni. ten.e due to trade anion

dependents' supplements in Great Britain increases the levelof earnings replacement above the US. level for the first 6months of unemployment. In France, the addition of sup-plements under the regular system keeps the replacementratio higher than the US. level even after it is scaled downfollowing the first 3 months of unemployment. Under thesupplementary program, there are no dependents' supple-ments, but family allowances continue to be received.

All the countries studied except the United Statesprovided for higher wage replacement rates forpersonseam-ing relatively low wages. In Canada, a benefit rate of 75percent applies to claimants with dependents and withearnings below one-third of maximum weekly insurableearnings. Similarly, Japanese workers at the low end of thewage scale receive 80 percent of their former wage. Franceallows a maximum payment of combined regular insuranceand assistance of 90 percent of the former earnings of thehousehold. This maximum is raised to 95 percent if there,are dependents.

In Great Britain, the maximum of the flat rate plusearnings-related supplements equals 85 percent of formerearnings. Germany allows unemployment insurance plusfamily allowances to amount to 80 percent of former net

58

102

earnings (about 70 percent of gross earnings). Sweden'strade union system allows a maximum benefit of about 90percent of gross earnings. In Italy, flat-rate benefits willreplace a higher proportion of the earnings of a low incomethan of a middle- or high-wage earner. However, there is nomaximum percentage applied. In contrast to the foreignpractices, the United States does not provide higher replace-ment rates to lower income workers. But such workers areeligtble for such welfare programs as food stamps.

In the United States, unemployment benefits aretreated as tax-free income. This is also the case in Japan,Germany, Great Britain, and Italy. In Canada and Sweden,however, unemployment benefits are taxable; in France, allunemployment benefits except the flat-rate assistance pay-ments are taxable. Canadian unemployment benefits typi-cally amount to 63 percent of former gross earnings, but,after taxes, the worker actually receives less. Therefore,Canadian benefits received by the worker are only slightlyhigher than U.S. payments. Similarly, "after-tax" replace-ment ratios in France and Sweden would be somewhatnearer the U.S. level.

Short-time payments. In some countries, special paymentsare available for workers placed on short workweeks. During1974-75, the introduction or improvement of compensationfor partial unemployment permitted a fairly widespreadresort to part-time work in several countries as a means ofspreading a reduced volume of employment among thework force.

For many years, statutory unemployment insuranceor assistance schemes in France, Gesmany, Great Britain,and Sweden have contained provisions covering paymentsfor partial unemployment." Japan introduced such pay-ments in 1975. In Italy, partial-unemployment compensa-tion is provided by a special institution, the Wage Supple-ment Fund. The United States and Canada do not havesystems for short-time payments.

Short-time payments replace 70 to 90 percent of fore-gone gross earnings in Japan, 80 percent in Italy, 60 percentin Germany, and about 50 percent in France. Generally, fi-nancing is partly out of publc funds and partly by the firmsconcented.

Almost 3 minlion Japanese workers (5 to 6 percent ofthe labor force) received short-time compensation at sometime dunng 1975. In Germany, the number of such workerspeaked at 4 percent of the labor force in early 1975. Therewere also large numbers of workers receiving short-timecompensation in France and Italy during 1974-75. Withoutthe special benefit programs, many of the workers on shortworkweeks would have been unemployed. Short-time pay-ments have undoubtedly played an important role in pro-

"Fr further info-mution see aSs A. Levits and Riehard S.etous, 'work sbsring Initiatives at Home and Abroad,` M-they

Labor Rrs5,,. September 1977, pp. 16-20: and Peter Henle, WorkSharing a. an Aleerneuaie io Layoffa (Washingtun, CurgesswinalRteearch Srvioe, July 19,1976).

tecting many workers threatened by dismissal in thesecountries.

Some countries, such as the United States, have tra-ditionally rejected the idea of compensation for short-timework because it can encourage rigidity in the labor market,with employers receiving public funds to keep workers em-ployed while not adopting necessary technological and or-gansational changes. While this argument is recognized asvalid, defenders of the short-time compensation system areprepared to pay the price. They are convinced that, as soonas temporary difficulties are overcome, it will prove to bemuch more efficient and cheaper to have maintained trainedpersonnel.

t5Also they consider that layoffs are viewed

most unfavorably by the public (see section on legal andsocial factors).

"Bud weather" compensation. Most European countriesprovide special compensation for construction workers wholose work time on account of bad weather. These schemestake three major forms: Statutory systems; collective agree-ments; and collective agreements given the force of law.

To qualify for bad-weather benefit payments, workersare generally required to report for duty at the usual timeand to remain available for any other reasonable alternativework which may be assigned to them by the employer. Themount of compensation ranges between 60 and 75 per-cent of the basic wage, but in some cases is as high as 90 per-cent. In some countnes, such as Austria, Norway, Sweden,and Great Britain, a limit is placed on the number of hoursor days for which bad weather is compensated. In othercountries, such as Germany and Ireland, no time limit hasbeen instituted. In most countries, these schemes are fi-nanced only through contributions from employers. In afew countries, workers also pay contributions in additionto their unemployment insurance contributions. In general,government financing has been confined to occasions whenfunds prove inadequate.

The system in Germany provides a good example of acompensatory income program. Since 1959, constructionworkers in Germany have been kept on the employer's pay-roll during the waster months (November I to March 31)and receive compensation-termed "bad weather money"-for any days not worked because of inclement weather. Theemployer pays the bad weather compensation along withthe workers' regular earnings and is reimbursed for the badweather pay by the Federal Employment Office. The Ger-man construction worker does not sever his employmentrelationship in order to collect benefits and he is notcounted as unemployed. Prior to the institution of badweather money, the German construction worker had toeither depend on unemployment insurance or find otherwork during bad weather. The employment relationship

'6National Comissian eus Manpawer Pobly, Ree-aMinsgEaropien Manpo.er Po1iier, Special Report Nu. 55 (Washington,August 1976), p. 31.

59

N

103

was severed and he was counted as unemployed in theGerman statistics.

As a result of the bad weather money system,Germanunemployment rates in the construction industry are notappreciably higher than the overall unemployment rate.Before the institution of the system, construction industryunemployment was about 314 times the overall unemploy-ment rate.

Another practice with a similar effect occurs mn GreatBritain. There, construction workers receive a guaranteedminimum wage; this encourages their employers to utilizework forces as fully as possible. The scheme provides forthe worker to receive the normal wage for half the time lostduing a normal workweek, with a guarantee that he willreceive his usual pay for a minimum of 36 hours in a week.He is also entitled to 36 hours of pay during the followingweek. Thereafter, if the bad weather continues, he is re-quired to register as unemployed under the unemploymentcompensation system. This scheme places the cost of idle-ness directly on the employer, thus creating an incentive forhim to stabilize production at the highest possible level.

Early retirement beenefirts. Payment of early retirementbenefits can reduce recorded unemployment in two ways.First, the early retiree may withdraw from the labor force;therefore, he would not be regarded as unemployed. Second,his early retirement may free a job for an unemployed per-son. Whether a retired person wishes to continue to workdepends in part on the amount of his pension. The higherit is, the less likely he will be to continue working.

Various schemes for early retirement have been offeredto workers in several countries, usually for cyclical or stmc-tural reasons. In France, for workers over 60 years of age attime of dismissal or who become 60 while receiving unem-ployment benefits, a 1972 income guarantee scheme re-placed the former payments made to workers until theyreached retirement age- "waiting allowances"-under theunemployment insurance programas 2 Recipients of the in-come guarantee, unlike recipients of "wasting allowances,"are not included in the registered unemployed. The schemeguarantees that workers dismissed after reaching age 60 willreceive benefits up until their retirement at age 65. Thesebenefits are more generous than the normal unemploymentbenefits, replacing up to 85 percent of former earnings.

As of July 1975, French manual workers who havebeen engaged in more arduous kinds of labor, and also allwomen workers who have borne at least three children, be-came eligible for early retirement at 60 on the same pensionas is normally given at age 65 at The measure was enactedpartly in response to a union campaign for early retirementas a means of combating rapidly rising unemployment. It

"7Oinaniatinn tor Ecnonmic Cspeontion and Dtvetnpm-nt,

Economic Suwey nJ Frnce (PaIris, OECD, Peblimuy 1973), p. 22.5t

lncnmrs Data Services, 'Early Retirment for Seow MmmidWorkekin FrancelIDlnSeenaionialReport, July 1976, pp. 2-3.

was estimated that initially about 75,00 persons were af-fected by the new scheme.

In Great Britain, an early retirement scheme began inJanuary 1977,"9 It provided £23 a week tax-free to em-ployed or unemployed persons who opted to retire a yearearly. If such early-retirement volunteers were employed,their employers had to replace them with someone on theunemployment register. The initial trial scheme expiredat the end of June 1977, and 10,600 persons were involved.A second phase of the scheme began July I, 1977, and wasexpected to cover about 13,000 more persons,

Sweden instituted a national partial retirement schemein mid-1976.3° If the msured worker transfers to part-tumework, he can receive a partial pension between ages 60 and65. The pension replaces 65 percent of the income lost be-cause of the transfer. The scheme is financed by employersthrough a social insurance fee. The law also makes it poshibleto receive a reduced pension as early as age 60, while theusual pensionable age was lowered from 67 to 65. For per-sons who opt for early retirement, benefits are reduced by0.5 percent per month below the age of 65.

Labor market programs

Labor market policies constitute the measures usedby government to upgrade the skills of workers, to createjobs, and to match people and jobs. The general techniquesof labor market policy have been developed and used inboth Western Europe and North America. However, differ-ences in economic environment, social attitudes, and insti-tutional arrangements have had an impact on the mix oflabor market measures and on the way in which they havebeen applied in different countries.' '

The following sections present a brief discussion ofsome of the instruments of labor market policy used in themajor industrial countries. Government-sponsored adulttraining seeks to upgrade the quality of the work force.Public works projects have been used to create jobs in timesof cyclical or seasonal employment downturns. In the areaof matching people and jobs, relocation incentives forworkers and industries and the work of the national employ-ment services are significant instruments of labor marketpolicy.

Tirining programs. The United States first embarked upona large-scale government program of retraining for adults

"Sre "Jap Swap," Incomni Datm Servies, IDS Inrerananal-Reporn, Octobler 976, p. 2; sod "Job Reease Takes Off," De.pan rnl of ofEmployment N-en, January 1977, p. 1.

s"u"edble Retirenmt PNoisions in Swede: A Novel System,"Eumpeap Jndutrial Relamton, R-win, Marsh 1977, pp. It-i 2.

3 For a study of hee different strategies taken with muard to themu between uremplnyimit compen-ation and oth employmentpolicie, see Oepnization fot Economic COopeStijn and Devop-meat, Unemplyment Cormpeseweon and Refaced EmplayneaePol1cy Memerun (Paris, OECD, forthconinhi).

60

104

under the 1962 Manpower Development and Training Act.The MDTA expired at the end of fiscal year 1973. Govem-ment training programs are now authorized under theComprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) of1973. Western European countries have been operating re-training programs throughout the postwar period, and insome cases, as far back as the 1920's and 1930's."

The European training programs offer adult traineesa variety of benefits to enable them to undertake training.These benefits include compensation for loss of earnings,social insurance premiums, lodging and food, special cloth-bng and tools, travel, and dual household maintenance.

3 3

Unlike the situation in the United States, where 85percent of all training program enrollees were disadvantagedin 1974,3 European training programis are not concentratedon the disadvantaged. The European programs are availableto persons seeking advancement or preparation for short.age occupations as well as to the unemployed and unskilled.

Public systems of continuous training of adults, some-times called lifetime learning, are coming to the fore inWestern Europe." The need for a mome qualified workforce is judged to be so urgent and the right to training foradvancement so fundamental that France (1967 and 1971)and Germany (1969) have made outright commitments tothe principle of universal eligibility to continuing lifetimetraining. The existence of a vast amount of adult training inthe United States, including prsvate and public vocationaltraining, and the long period of general education comparedwith other countries probably lessen the need for "perma-nent education."

New enrollments in government-sponsored trainingprograms were 2.4 percent of the Swedish labor force in1976 compared with 1.5 percent in the United States infiscal 1976.36 Recent rapid expansion in Canadian training

325See Magaret S. Cordon, The Comparerir Experience with

)treain~g fegrmms in the United Statea a. d Euoepe (Berkeley,Univerdty of Caifonsia, 1966).

33U.S. epartment of Labor, Manpower Adminotsrtion, Manpower Poliy and Programms i Fire Werev- Eseope.s Corar-,c.(Manpower Research Blletin Nlmber I, July 166).

"Under CETA, the componsot ofpardtipantain U.S. prngramshas hetnd somewhat. In fisal 1976, 76 percent of alt trainresander Tide I of CETA were clasified as disadvaot-ad.

35

Beatrdl Re-t.r., "Manpower Policy in western Earop,"Manpowee, November 1972, pp. 16-22.

36U S. im-ues comprtie rut-tioe enrollmenrs under Tides t01f, and IV of the Comprehensive Employment and Trainin Act.Tide I anthories a eaticowide progeam of cnmprehensive emypoy-ment and trainins -eawces. Trtc 01 provides fir nationulty spor,eared and superasd trainmn and job placement piograms, forwh speci groops as youth, offenders, older wokers, and otherswith a paismiar tabo market diadvatgc. Tide IV prnvides theasthorastron for the Job CorMs, s peogram of wrensitc edocauot.,

acwoang, and uaining for diwdvatged youth.

programs has put that country close to Sweden in the ex-tent of adult training. German legislation in 1969 and 1971had laid the basis for an explosive expansion of adult train-img under public sponsorship, and France's 1971 law onadult twaining sets a goal of keeping over 2 percent of thelabor force constantly in twining.

3'

Sweden is unique in that it has deliberately employedits adult training programs as an economic instrument forcountercyclical purposes, expanding them rapidly when-ever demand slackens. Thus, the training courses in Swedenare used as a form of public works for the unemployed aswell as a means of upgrading the skills of the labor force.They have been an important factor in holding Swedish un-employment rates low during economic downturns.

Job crartion. Public works projects are used in most coun-tries to offset cyclical or seasonal declines in employment.In Genmany, unemployment insurance funds may be usedto provide jobs on public works projects in lieu of makingunemployment insurance payments. The relief work pro-grams include road construction, reforestation, and re-covery of wastelands. Preference is given to projects likelyto lead to permanent jobs.

Projects similar to those in Germany are utilized inSweden. In 1976, almost I percent of the Swedish workforce was employed in relief works. The Swedish LaborMarket Board also has unique powers for stimulating the in-vestment of private capital to create jobs and mitigatecyclical fluctuations.

3" This requires close coordination of

monetary and fiscal policy with employment policy. Em-ployers may set aside as much as 40 percent of their profitsfor capital investment, depositing a fixed proportion of thisin the Swedish central bank, without paying income taxeson the amount set aside. When it is determined that capitalinvestment would be appropriate to combat a recession, thefunds may be released with additional tax incentives to em-ployers who use them for new plant and equipment.

In the United States, the first large-scale public worksemployment program since the 1930's was enacted in 1971.Under this Public Employment Program (PEP), funds weremade available nationally for public service employmentwhen the national unemployment rate equaled or exceeded4.5 percent for 3 consecutive months. As a result, 226,000persons, or about 0.3 percent of the labor force, obtainedemployment during fiscal 1972. PEP was terminated at theend of fiscal 1973, and public works jobs are now fundedunder CETA. In fiscal 1976, first-time enrollments an public

"tIn 1973, about 3.7 percent of the French tabor force receivedtraining in whole or in part with gumonrom- funds. Since manyrenews are of brief duration, a wittker proportin of the Labseform wa, m govemmenrt-fnded training ar any one time.

38Sm Hans Hares, "Swedish Fire Taning," ChatleMe, March-April 1976, pp. 39-42; and "Anti-Recsoon Pouncei m Sweden,"OECD Obhsere, March-Apot 1976, pp. 3t-32.

61

105

service jobs under CETA totalled 487,00, or 05 percentof the US. labor force.

39

Matching people and jobs. AU Western European countriesand Canada include relocation assistance as an importantpart of their labor market programs. There are allowancesfor travel expenses, payments to cover the cost of movinghousehold goods, and in some countries a rsettlementallowance to help defray the expenses of selling one homeand buying another and allowances to cover the added ex-pense of maintainig two households if the worker cannotmove his family right away. In the United States, relocationwith government assistance is not extensive."

0

The United States has had some experience withfostering economic development in lagging regions beginningwith programs under the Area Redevelopment Act of 1961.In the mid-1960's, further steps were taken with the enact-ment of the Appalachian Regional Development Act andthe programs of the Economic Development Administra-tion. There provided for business loans, grants and loansfor public works and development facilities, technicalassistance, and research assistance i areas with relativelyhigh unemployment.

European countries have had considerable experiencein the use of programs to attract industry to areas whereunemployment is high. In Germany and Great Bnstain, thereare programs to encourage investment and industrial growthin areas where surplus labor is available. France uses a sys-tem of loans, interest subsidies, and tax incentives to guideindustrial location. In Sweden, the Labor Market Board caninfluence the location of industrial enterprises through itsauthorty to approve loans.

Measures to improve information about availableworkers and job vacancies concern both the demand andsupply side of the labor market. Employment services inalmost all countries studied have been modernized, althoughthe scope and quality of the services offered vary fromcountry to country.

It should be noted that only in the English-speakingcountries-the United States, Canada, Australia, and Great

"Ecuoimentsnunde, Tides II and VI nf CETA. Tite It uthorizestransitionai public servie emplsyment and othee muopower servicsas feas with 6.5 petemi or higher mcemptorrerent for 3 nonsm-tive mont.i. Title VI authorues a temporary emesgescy peogram ofpublic service jobs to help ease the impact of high unemployment.Public works jobs have also been areated by the Public Works Eoanomic Development Act. By June 30, 19773 stOn th6it-teen jobs,smooonetig to 19,900 labor months of work, had been created bythis act.

4 0Relncgtioo assistance peojectsroe workn weee ondeetaken

under the MDTA, which aided the ehication of about 14,000workehs and thei fuinnies between 1965 aod 1969. Congressdid not appopeiute any funds for theu projects titer 1969. Themhi mlocatiin anrthanoe avslable undes the Trade Act of 1974 towoekees whb osu their jobs because of inpnets.

Brttain-is there extensive activity by private employmentagencies. In most countries such agencies are forbidden, re-stricted to certain occupations, or regulated. In GreatBritain, regulatory legislation was passed in 1973 whichestablished licensing requirements for private employmentagencies.

Data-processing techniques have frequently been in-troduced as employment service agencies to match job va-cancies and applcaits with a minimum of delay. Japanhas pioneered in the development of a computerized em-ployment service linking the 700 offices of the service witha Labor Market Center. Only in Japan and France does itappear that computers do the work of matching job requare-ments and candidate qualifications." In the United States,for example, job banks in most States have eliminatedtedious searching through files, but searching on supplyand demand sides is carried on separately.lnJapan,Sweden,and Germany, mterregional placements have grown whereasin the United States local market clearance predominates.

Factors affeeting youth unemployment

The business cycle has a pronounced effect on youthunemployment. Thus international differences in youth un-employment rates are partly the result of cyclical factorssuch as the timing and severity of recessions. However, intimes of both prospenty and recession, she United Stateshas had youth unemployment rates which rank among thehighest as the industrial world. The United States has alsohad a rather wide differential between youth and adult un-employment rates, although some countries have caught upwith or surpassed the United States in recent years in termsof the youth-adult differential. (See chapter 3.)

Some of the factors which may affect intemationaldifferences in youth unemployment rates are discussed be-low. Supply and demand trends in the youth labor marketare discussed first. Other aspects considered are the studentlabor force, apprenticeship, counseling and placement serv-ices, and ise youth minimum wage.

Supply and dentand. As indicated in an earlier section, theUnited States and Canada have had rapid increases in theteenage labor force during the period since 1960, while theEuropean countries and Japan have had declining teenagework forces. Thus the United States and Canada were underpressure from a fast-growing teenage labor force which con-tributed to higher rates of both overall and teenage unem-ployment. However, some counirtes in which the teenage

aDprgauiaoon for Economnic C.npetfion and Devehipaent,Jsflaets the Psea-se Prooble (Pta, OECD, December 1970),p. 10l; and M.anpowe Policy in Jpan," OECD Observr, April1973, p. 34. Computer peeusnig of job opentuds and job eppy-mass a fEnmas began in 1977. Thi system milutty operates ona gioUi bases and them me plans ao eveoiiany estiblish hh.between the gagana comnpute systems.

62

106

labor force has actually declined-e.g., France and Italy-also have substantial youth unemployment.

During the 1960's, a tight labor market in many Eu-ropean countries and Japan fostered a high demand foryoung workers. Labor shortages gave many young peopleopportunities to choose among jobs and to enter the occu-pational hierarchy at higher levels than would have beenpossible in less favorable times. The favorable expertence ofthe 1960's has been changing, and several countries haveobserved a deterioration in the relative position of youth inrecent years as structural problems have been intensified bydeep recession."

In some nations, new entrants are eagerly sought byemployers who are willing to take youngsters withoutoccupational skills or previous work experience. Japan,Great Britain, and Getmany are among the countries wherethe transition is eased because employers recruit youngpeople straight from school and provide training for manyof them. While this acceptance of youth is less common inFrance, it is even less visble in the United States whereemployers exhibit little active interest in hiring teenagers.

43

According to one study, employers are reluctant to hireAmerican teenagers because of restrictions on employingthem in hazardous work, the cumbersome machinery ofwork certificates, union restrictions, and problems of trans-portation."4 Also, dissatisfaction with teenager absenteeism,unreliability, and job performance is common.

The snarunt labor force. The labor market activity of stu-dents in the United States differs markedly from the patternabroad. The frequent entries and exits of students in theAmerican labor market do not occur to any significantextent in Westem European countries and Japan. The work.ing student is very much an American phenomenon. Theyoung persons who work or seek work in other countriesare mainly out-of-school youth.

asn respona. to the rnse in yoath unemploymest duringf the1970u. the OECD has carded out research on the probleme fCaed byyoung people m tir theonition from sbhool to murk. So The Entryof Youneg Peep into Working Life (Paris, OECD, 1977). In addi-ien, the OECD convened a 'tHigh Loves Cnlerenoe on Yunth Un-emptoyment" in December 1977 to weak et a diaenois of theproblem nd to xchange ndtinna eaperitene concemring themeism-- token to deal mith yiush knempteysent. The Coancit ofMinister of Sedal Affair of the Eraroprmn Communities (EC) aloheld a eanfenre. on yosth unemployment in hen 1977 to identify

where commn ntion might be -mnosety.45

Beatrice C. Renbens, "Foreign and American Eapetience withthe Youth Transition," in Frm School to Work- Imprnovlr theDnrutinors, a ceecidon of policy paper pmpared for the NationCommisdon for ilmopewe Polcy (wasaington, U.S. GovemmentPrinting COfr, 1976). p. 274. S. s Beatoce G Rebens, Brdeen Workt: l1rersaeicea Cemparireer of T.anIseic Servicer (NewYork, Utnbere Ronks, 1977).

44 Ymrt Uemptoyerer and Miniea Wager (LS Bultetin1657, 1970), p. 69.

In the United States, unemployment rates for stu-dents have been higher than for nonstudents under age 25since 1965, reversing the ustution of the early 1960's andpreviously, when the rates were higher for those out ofschool. The higher rate among students may reflect -themuch larger numbers seeking employment and their limitedavailability with respect to hours of work."

t

Separate figures for employment and unemploymentof students are not available for most countries. No countryhas a survey as comprehensive as the October special laborforce survey questions on students for the United States.' 6However, some information on student labor force activityis available for Canada, Great Britain, and Japan.

According to the October 1975 survey for the UnitedStates, 31 percent of all employed persons age 16 to 24were enrolled in school. If part-time college students areexaluded, the proportion declines to 26 percent. Personsenrolled in school accounted for 14 percent of total US.unemployment. If they had not been included, the October1975 unemployment rate (not seasonally adjusted) wouldhave been 6.7 percent rather than 7.8 percent.

A recent special study on labor force activities ofCanadian students presented some data which can be com-pared with the US. October surveys." The figures indicatethat student labor force activity in Canada, although sub-stantial, is not as widespread as in the United States. InOctober 1975, 24 percent of all employed persons age 15to 24 were enrolled in school. If part-time Canadian stu-dents are excluded, the proportion falls to 19 percent. Per-sons enrolled in school accounted for II percent of totalCanadian unemployment in October 1975.

British full-time students who also worked accountedfor only 9 percent of total employment of 15- to 24-year-olds in 1972. Thi figure is an annual average; a figure forstudents working during the school term (as reflected inthe U.S. figures for October ) would be considerably lower.However, even on an annual bauss, the figure is well belowthe U.S. and Canadian proportions for October.

In Japan, only about 50,000 persons are normallyengaged in both work and schoohng. This represents lessthan I peccent of employment in the 15- to 24-year-oldage group.

The United States has much higher proportions of 16-to 19-year-olds in school. (See table 22.) For example, about94 percent of all 16-year-olds are in school in the UnitedStates, 80 percent in Japan, 40 percent in Great Britain,and 30 percent in Germany. For 19-year-olds, the contrast

'S Anre M. Yonng, "Employment of Schoot Age Yooth," Month4y Lubo, Review, September 1970, p. 9.

4'FEr enarph, me Anne M.. Young, "Students, Graduates, ndDOposts in the Labor Maket, October 1975,' Mosthly LaborRenier, Jane 1976, pp. 37-41.

47

Leontl Plan, Ltou, Force Arnbie/e end Clsrraeeererwic ofSatdetsStstistica Csntda Rmearh Paper No. 14,Joty 1977.

63

107

Table 22. Percent of 16- to 19-year-olds in educationalinstitutions, all levels, 1966-72

Caantrv r r~rAge__________ _1_ 16 17 1 S 19

United Sat.es 1970 94.1 a65 58.1 45.4A raia ...... 1972 54.9 36.3 1s9 10.7Caada...... 1970 87.1 69.0 45. 30.3Franc ........ 1970 626 455 306 21.8Gnerany 9.... 3969 31.3 19.2 12.9 96Great 6riain .. 1970 41.8 25 17.4 13.7Italy ....... 1966 33.8 274 19.7 11.0Ja an ...... 1970 80.0 743 29.5 225Se.id ....... 1 972 73.7 60.7 40.7 24.0

SOURCE: Org-nimaion for Economic Cooperation and Del.optent. Eduuerion l Seanitk, Yearbook, Vot 11. Country Tablet(Pans, OECD, 19751 ims taboloed by Beatrice Reob-ns in FrotSchool to aWrk: Improig the Tran-itjon, a collection of poliypapers Prered r the Notional Cotmisaion Itr Manpower Policy(Wvashigton., U.S. Gnnernnans Printing Ofice, 1976), p. 260.

is even greater. Thus, other countries have a much higherproportion of teenagers who ate out of school and workingat or seeking full-time year-round jobs. Furthermore, thoseyoung persons still in school in Europe and Japan usuallydo not also participate in the labor force. This has been at-tributed to the academic demands of school combined withgovernment funanctal support to young persons, especiallythose in low incoane families, who continue their educationbeyond the legal minimum age.

Apprenticeship and formal trainingprograms. In the UnitedStates, a small proportion of high school graduates enroll Inapprenticeship or vocational training courses. A study ofthe high school class of 1972 indicated that only 1.9 per-cent planned to enroll in apprenticeship or on-thejob train-ing programs and 10.8 percent planned to take vocationalor technical training at specialized schools or junior col-leges.

4 8The total number of apprenticeships completed

annually in the United States is roughly 50,000, with292,000 persons enrolled in such programs as of January I,1975. In contrast, Germany, with a much smaller popula-tion than the United States, had 1,400,000 persons in ap-prenticeship programs dunog 1975. The contrast was evengreater in 1960 when the United States had 166,000 andGermany had 1,224,000 apprentices in training. In thatyear, France had about 140,000 enrolled apprentices andGreat Britain had 123,000.

In most foreign countries, apprenticeship and voca-tional education are widespread. Vocational education pro-grams are predominant in France and Sweden; apprentice-ship training is the principal type of industrial training foryouths in Great Britain and Germany, and is widely usedelsewhere. In Japan, training within enterprises usually

4aNOtiOn Cante foc Edacatio Statlntas, Nonlol ongtsdfralStsdy of the HRih School Cksh of 1972, Data File Uses Manual(Washbinton, Depomnemt of Htaith, Educatmo., and Welfae,July 1976).

marks the beginning of life4ong employment. Where ap-prenticeship programs are sigsificant, they provtde employ-ment security for a good proportion of the young people inthe labor force. Apprentices are not immune to unemploy-ment but they have shown greater stability during trainingthan other youth. c sistorically, countries with extensiveapprenticeship programs have had low youth unemploy-ment.

Apprenticeship in America never acquired the scopeor prestige that it enjoyed in Europe bemuse the economicand social development of the United States did not encour-age this form of craft training. Neither employers norworkers were eager to enter agreements that would be bind-ing on them for a period of years. US. unions obtain thebulk of thenr membership through channels other than ap-prenticeship.

5 0

In recent years, apprenticeship has been decliningrelative to other activities of young people in those coun-tries where apprenticeship fonmerly was well estabhlshed.The number of apprenticeship plares has been decliningin Germany, Great Britain, and Australia, for instance.Employers are increasingly reluctant to undertake ap-prenticeship because of the rising cost of training, the trendtoward longer schooling which deprives the employer ofthe preferred age group, and technological changes whichrequire a broader, general educational background andwider, less specialized training."

1

Counseling and placement services. Several countries, in-cluding Germany, Great Brtain, and Japan, engage in ex-tensive counseling and placement activities for youth.

5"

In Germany, for instance, the Federal employment serv-ice and its local agencies provide nearly all students withcomprehensive vocational orientation before graduation.If training in the chosen occupation is not available locally,the vocational guidance service can provide youth with fi-nancial assistance to go where training is given. In GreatBritain, staff members of the Careers Offices of the Youth

4 09strice G. Reubens, "Forgn Experiene," im Repit of Cos-

tressinbl Badget Offce Conference on The Teenage Usopby.muen Prnbler: Whit Are the Opa-rb? C-onges f the UnitedStates, Ccngressional Budget Of fim (Washington. U.S. GovemmentPrinting oM., Octobet 14, 1976), p. 56.

"0Thoma H. Part-n, J., Manpower Planning and the D-tvop-

menr of Roman Rmrsct (New York, Joho Wiley and Soot. 19711,pp. 294, 300.

"Beattice G. Reubens, Policleo foiApp-mticeshap, Unpublishedstudy prepared for she Oagaoition for Eccnomic Cooperationand Develtpment, 1977.

tORItbens, Bridgen to Work p. ict.; Tmnsinon from Srhooloc Work in Selected Coanlrdeo. B -rea- of tLber Statistics, August1969); David Bauer, Factoia Moderartg Unempyment A brod(New Yorb, Tho Conference Boasd, 1970), pp. 8-9: and Maop-enrReporeofthePl.e.ideat, 1968,p. 118.

64

108

Employment Service interview almost all school leavers.During the 1960's, they placed approximately one-thirdof all youths in their first jobs. The public employmentservice in Japan conducts guidance programs and providesinformation to the education authorities, who in turn givevocational orientation in the schools. Partly as a result ofthe deliberate efforts of the official guidance and place-ment services to prearrange jobs, a large portion of theyouths of these countries are able to obtain their first jobafter leaving school without experiencing an initial periodof unemployment.

Youth minimum wages. Wage differentials based on theworker's youth alone are used on a very limited basos in theUnited States. The Fair Labor Standards Act contains pro-visions for subminimum wages for students and learners,but these provisions have not been used to any significantextent partly because employers generally regard the re-quired recordkeeping as too burdensome. Also, employersfeel that students are not willing to work at submimmimumwages.

In contrast, differentials between youth and adultwages are common in Western Europe and Japan. Somecountries have minimum wage laws that provide for lowerminimum wages for teenagers. Some have collective bargain-ing procedures that can result in differentially lower wagesfor young workers. Still other countries use both mech-anistins.i

5

Under collective bargaining agreements in GreatBritain, youth enter employment at about 30 percent ofadult earnings and, by steps, reach adult wages normally atage 21 for men and 18 for women. In France, with both astatutory minimum and minimum rates set under collectivebargaining, there is a system of reduced rates wherebyyouth enter employment at about 70 percent of the adultminimum at age 16 and reach the adult rate at age 18. Youthwage rate schemes are also used in Canada, Germany, andJapan. In Japan, where wages are based in large part on ageor seniority throughout working life, young workers startat about one-third the adult rate.

It has been argued that relatively low wages for teen-agers compared to adult wages tend to facilitate the employ-ment of youth. One study concluded the following:

The evidence from abroad indicates that low wagesfor youth are an inducement to employers to seekyoung workers eagerly. The relatively low youthunemployment rates abroad ...are partially a re-flection of the fact of low wages for youth.

54

53Youth Unespy.sent and Miecnmm Wages, pp. 107-12,135-79.

This study pointed out that low wages for youth inEurope cannot be separated from the extensive apprentice-ship programs in such countries as Germany and Great Bri-tain and from the lifetime employment system in Japanunder which high wages in later years with the firm offsetthe low wages paid young workers. Also, experience inforeign countries having institutions different from thosein the United States has a limited application to Americanteenagers who are much more likely to be looking for apart-time job rather than a permanent job.

The situation in France and Canada demonstratesthat more is involved in achieving full employment amongteenagers than provisions for lower wage levels. Both ofthese countries provide youth minimum wages, yet bothhave high youth unemployment. Furthermore, in spite oflegislation and agreements for youth differentials, the actualearnings of youth havd risen faster than those of adults in anumber of foreign countries." Thus, several Europeancountries report a growing reluctance on the part of em-ployers to hire young people because of relatively highwage rates and fringe benefits for entry-level jobs which re-sult in a cost disadvantage if training and induction costsare included. Apprentice wages have also risen considerablyin Westem European countries.

Legal and social factor

Legal and social factors play an. important role inholding down unemployment in Western Europe and Japan.Unemployment in several European countries has beencurbed by legislation or labor-management agreements thatshield workers from layoffs. U.S. job security measures, bycontrast, are much weaker. Where they exist, they are basedon seniority and umally specify severance pay related tothe length of service.

6

In Germany, under a 1951 law, a legally valid dis-charge may be declared ineffective by the Labor Court if itis "socially unjustified," that is, if it cannot be based on thecharacteristics or conduct of the employee or on importantneeds of the enterprise. Even if important business needswarrant the discharge, it is nevertheless "socially unjusti-fied" if the employer selected the worker for dischargewithout giving sufficient attention to the social factors in-

,volved.'7 The procedures required under the 1951 lawwere made even stronger by the Works Constitution Act of1972. Under certain collective bargaining agreements, Ger-man employers are prohibited from dismissing workers be-

SsReubens, "Puoeign Espedeace," pp. 28748.

6Davld Jenkins, "Job Secuety Measures Growan ThrougnhoutEurope," World of Wotb Repirt, July 1976, p. 3.

547Thmns W. Gavett, "Yoith Un.aplnyment and Mininum n 7Kunt Brman, "Enenpean nimitations on Employme Dimnedlm,"Wag.s,"M-nthly Lab.,t Revkiw, Matrb 1970, p.9. Maethly LabeRevte, January 1965, p.67.

65

109

tween a given age (ages 45 to 55, depending on the indus-try) and the age of pensionable retirement.

5 8

As a good example of how the German systemworks, one of the companies of the Thyssen group carriedout a massive reorganization, involving the loss of about6,000 jobs. The head of the fimn's works council, which isan employee-run unit financed by the company, discussedproblems with the employees, found jobs for many in otherunits of the company, and negotiated numerous problemswith management. Not a single day was lost through laborconflict and no one suffered exceptional hardship. 9

Stnct legislation also exists in Italy. Courts have ap-plied tough standards to judge whether adequate justifica-tion exists for a dismissal; if not, a dismissed employee isentitled to reinstatement or an indemnity of 5 months'wages. In case a layoff is eventually made, the employer isrequired to take account of a number of factors, includingthe family responsibilities and economic situation of theworkers. In many firms, labor agreements also provide pro-tection. At Fiat, where worker protection has been increas-ingly strengthened by labor contracts durihg the past fewyears, no reduction in the work force is permitted.6

0

The French Ministry of Labor can require an employerto postpone separations for economic masons to allow theMinistry time to determine that every precaution has beentaken to minimize the hardship on workers. The employeris expected to make strong efforts at the firm's expense tofind another job for workers about to be separated.

A national agreement on security of employment wassigned in February 1969 by French employers and all thetrade union federations. This agreement, like the individualindustry agreements which followed it, recognizes the re-sponsibility of the parties towards security of employment.In the case of prospective dismissals, the firm must consultwith the plant employment committee and give due notice,endeavor to minimize dismissals, and utilize intraplant orintracompany transfers. Reductions of staff must beachieved as far as possible by attrition. The employer mustgive a dismissed worker priority reemployment rights for ayear, guarantee seniority rights with the fun, and assist himin obtaining all unemployment benefits to which he is en-titled. The employer "must search for possiblities of re-deployment likely to suit the wage-earners who are dismissedas well as training facilities from which these workers mightbenefit.""

s Ed4ward Yemin, "Job Secasity Inluear. af ILO Standardi ndRecent Trends," fnrreneionf LAbc Rvie, annnry-Fbersy1976, p. 3.

5"Jenkins, p. rt.,p. 3.

m`Jenkim, op. da., p. 4.

6Oiwimtion for Economic Coopertion nd Devdepmeat,Ma-npo'rRPof&y in Face (Paw OED, 1973), p. 63.

An employer's ability to lay off workers is also con-siderably restricted by Swedish law. Existing protection ofemployees was improved when the Security of EmploymentAct went snto effect in 1974.62 According to this law, anemployee can only be dismissed on "reasonable" grounds.The law virtually prohibits the dismissal of any employeeexcept for the most serious misbehavior. The law is sostringent that it is beginning to show some counterproduc-tive effects. It has had a negative effect on the employmentof workers who find it more difficult to prove themselves-e.g., the young, the old, and the handicapped.

6" The Pro-

motion of Employment Act of 1974 contains rules designedto help older employees and disabled workers. Accordingto these rules, labor market autherities are to negotiatewith the employer and appropriate trade union in an effortto alow such workers to retain their jobs.

Laws or labor-management agreements requiring ad-vance notice of layoff give workers time to look for anotherjob prior to dismissal. Where advance notification provisionsare in effect, they allow for the placing of at least someworkers in new jobs without a period of unemploymentassociated with the job search.

In the United States, most collective bargaining agree-ments do not contain clauses prescribing advance.notice oflayoff. Moreover, those provisions that deal generally withadvance notice of layoff (43 percent of the major agree-ments) normally specifly only a very bmited time period-in most cases less than 30 days.

0"

Advance notfication has been required by variouslaws regarding the dismissal of workers in Westem Europeancountries. One type of law obliges the employer to notifythe employment service of the impending dismissal. Suchlaws exist in France, Germany, and Great Britain. In Sweden,the Employers' Federation has an agreement with theLabor Market Board which requires a minimum of 30 days'notice to the employment service by employers precedingcollective dismissals. Also, the Promotion of EmploymentAct (1974) contains rules concerning periods of notice totrade unions before production cutbacks can involve dis-missals.

Another type of law calls for advance notice to em-ployees prior to dismissal. France, Germany, Great Britain,and Sweden have such legislation. For example, the Swedishlaw on Security of Employment requires a minimum of Imonth's notice, with longer notice (up to 6 months) as anemployee gets older.

Besides laws, social custom and tradition play animportant part in diminishing the threat of layoff in Europeand Japan. Employers avoid dismissals if at all possible be-

2Ln~nEart Foeback, lnduatsnsl R ioo. and Enpinysent hiSweden (St.dchheh, The S.edish -istimte, 1976), p. 99.

.3,e,,insop pet.,p.4.

640-tri-aice of MaO.r Co.Hcrtie B. irdg Agreemret.Jdyl,1975 (BLS Baltetin 1957, Bureau of Lahor Statitics, 1977),p. 89.

66

57-254 0 - 80 - 8

110

cause they feel a high degree of responsibility for theirregular employees and continue to provide employment,perhaps at reduced hours, when production declines. Inaddition, the employer may be somewhat afraid of loss ofprestige among his fellow employers, because layoffs mightbe interpreted as proof of his failure as businessman. InSweden, for example, companies reportedly try greatly toavoid the weakening of their reputation for job stability,especially since most major employers are located in smaltowns or cities, where company practices are commonknowledge."

5

Recognized "regular" employees in Japan benefitfrom a paternalistic attitude on the part of employers thatis unmatched by other industrial nations. In large Japaneseenterprises, appointment to a regular job virtually assuresemployment until retirement, and the employer takes re-sponsibitity for maintaining the worker during periods ofeconomic adversity.

In most foreign industrial countries, legal and socialrestrictions against layoff are reinforced by the reluctanceof workers to change jobs in search of improved wages orworking conditions. In the United States and Canada, laborturnover rates in manufacturing are significantly higherthan in Western Europe and Japan. The United States andCanada have approximately 50 to 60 separations (quits,layoffs, and other job terminations) annually per 100 oc-cupied jobs. European separation rates, in contrast, gen-erally range from 30 to 40 per 100 jobs, and Japaneseseparation rates are even lower, under 30 per 100 jobsannually. Quit rates, where available, show a similar dis-panty among the United States, Canada, and other in-dustrial nations.

Data on the duration of unemployment indicate thata larger proportion of U.S. and Australian unemploymentis of the short-term job-changing variety compared withother countries. However, it is not known to what extentdifferences in the proportion of those unemployed forlong periods can be attributed to differences is the dura-tion and level of unemployment benefits.

In the United States, mobility is often considereda desirable attribute of a worker even though the searchfor a new job may entail some unemployment. In contrast,the job attachment of European and Japanese workers ismuch stronger than in the United States, partly because ofthe belief that a change of jobs i likely to reflect unfavor-ably on a worker's dependability.

Conclusion

Why there has been more unemployment in theUnited States than in most Western European countriesand Japan is a question to which there is no simple or uni-versally accepted answer. The foregoing analysis has re-

6 5enki.s, p.de, p.4.

wealed several reasons for differences in unemploymentrates. The relatively rapid increase in the US. labor forcehas contributed to higher unemployment here. The laborforce in most other countries has grown quite slowly or de-clined. Teenagers make up a relatively high and growing pro-portion of the labor force in the United States. This is sig-nificant because teenage unemployment is higher than theoverall average in all countries. The teenage labor force hasgrown rapidly in the United States while declining in allcountries except Canada and Australia. This decline hashelped keep Western European and Japanese unemploy-ment rates down, but, in the early 1960's, when teenagersconstituted a larger proportion of the labor force than inthe United States, these countries had substantially lowerunemployment rates than the United States. The smallproportion of the U.S. labor force engaged in agricultureand the large wage and salary component have also con-tributed to our higher unemployment rates compared withmost industrial countries.

Cyclical flows of foreign workers to and from certainEuropean countries help to dampen unemployment in-creases during recessions. The United States does not havesignificant cyclical movements m its foreign labor supply.

In many European countries, strong efforts have beenmade to achieve a better distribution of work throughoutthe year by reducing seasonal fluctuations in hirings anddismissals. Goversment directives and financial incentiveshave helped to lower seasonal fluctuations, particulariy inthe construction sector. The United States does not exert asmuch control over construction scheduling as some othercountries.

Income maintenance arrangements may have animportant impact on unemployment statistics. A com-parison of unemployment insurance systems reveals thatmost countries now have a faidy' broad coverage of thelabor force, a lengthy maximum duration of benefit pay-ments, and benefits which typically replace at least half offormer earnings of the average manufacturing worker. Mostforeign countries provide higher levels of income replace-ment to the unemployed than the United States, especiallywhen dependents' supplements and family allowances aretaken mto account. On the other hand, the United Statesprovides a comparatively long duration of benefits duringtimes of recession. In some countries, bonuses for quick re-employment and the practice of scaling down benefitsafter a certain length of time may provide incentives to findnew jobs more quickly than would otherwise occur. Short-time payments, "bad weather" compensation, and early re-tirement arrangements may also seine to avoid statisticalincreases in the number of unemployed persons. The under-employment of many workers receiving short-time pay-ments abroad does not show up in the unemployed count.

Some countries have experienced much lower levelsof youth unemployment than the United States. Onereason has been the great deal of student labor force activity

67

ill

in the United States compared to abroad. Also, Europeaneducational and labor market institutions have tended toput the masses of youth into training for narrow vocationalspecialties while American youth are still continuing generaleducation. The European system's emphasis on apprentice-ship and vocational training tends to put young people intostable work-training relationships that discourage mobility.The prevalence of "lifetime" employment arrangements inJapan also discourages worker mobility.

Thus, joblessness among youth abroad has beenchecked partly because of vocational guidance and indus-trial training which reduce the frequent job changes andspells of unemployment characteristic of young persons inthe United States. However, vocational education in Europereflects a heavily structured status system for entry intojobs-the kind of system that has been traditionally rejectedin the United States.

t6 A firm decision regarding a career at

the age of 15 to 17 is common in Europe. These countriesseem to prefer to structure the early years of work by suchdevices as apprenticeship systems, severance pay regulations,or lifetime contracts, as in Japan. While these devices re-duce the level of frictional unemployment, they also reducemobility and possibilities for career changes m later life Anthe United States, youth counselors have stressed the im-portance of extended schooling rather than early career de-ision because of the wider range of jobs open to persons

with high school diplomas and college degrees.The threat of layoffs in Europe and Japan is consider-

ably diminished by legal restraints and management's reluc-tance to let workers go. Moreover, the worker's attachmentto the job is firmer abroad than in the United States. Labormobility is low, and shor-term transitional unemploymentis much less prevalent than in the United States. It is appar-ent that unemployment in Japan, and to some extent incertain other industrial suntries, is not a threat to the en-tire body of wage and salary workers, as -in the UnitedStates. Rather, it tends to be more concentrated among arestricted group of temporary or seasonal workers, newentrants, or others in the process of entering or leavingthe labor force.

tMaopowerRepir of thePeaidmi, 1968,p. 117.

The widespread use of short-time benefits in Europeand Japan and their absence in the United States reflectdifferent social and cultural patterns. In most Europeancountries and Japan, there is a traditional preference forjob security as against job mobility; layoffs have ordinarilymeant dismissal and a break in the employer-employeerelationship. In the United States, layoffs are much morecommon. When American firms in Europe have attemptedto lay off workers in the postwar years, they have facedstrong adverse reactions because of these differences insocial patterns.

It is evident that the different institutions, attitudes,and practices of other countries help many of them tomaintain lower average unemployment rates than appear tobe feasible at present in the United States. It can be argued,however, that at least some of the reasons for the lower un-employment rates in Europe and Japan arise from featureswhich inhibit efficiency as well as lower unemployment.For example, while higher labor turnover rates and greaterworker mobility in the United States increase the averagelevel of unemployment, the job security of the regularworker in Europe and Japan also involves an appreciablecost. Unemployment may be less cyclically volatile becauseof hoarding of labor during downturns of economic activity,but the result may be disguised unemployment rather thanovert unemployment. Although foreign employment prac-tices bring advantages in the foem of income maintenanceand job security, some of these benefits are probably paidfor by a lower aggregate productivity of labor.

Furthermore, many foreign countries still have alarge proportion of small, family-owned busnesses whichshield self-employed and unpaid family workers from thethreat of unemployment. During slack periods, suchworkers tend to work part time or withdraw from the laborforce rather than seek another job with pay. In the UnitedStates, the economies of scale that can be realized in alarge, homogeneous market have encouraged business con-solidations, so that selfemploysnent and unpaid familywork occur lems frequently and the risk of unemploymentis increased. Where small, family-owned businesses are stillpredominant, workers may be underemployed a good partof the time, impairing the efficiency and productivity ofthe countries involved.

68

112

Appendix A. International Labour Office Definitions

In 1954, the Eighth International Conference of LabourStatisticians adopted the following definitions of laborforce, employment, and unemployment:

Labor force

The civilian labor force consists of all civilians who ful-fill the requirements for inclusion among the employed orthe unemployed, as defined below.

The total labor force is the sum of the civilian laborforce and the Armed Forces.

Employment

1. Persons in employment consist of all persons abovea specified age in the following categories:

a. At work; persons who performed some work forpay or profit during a specified brief period,either one week or one day;

b. with a job but not at work; persons who, havingalready worked in their present job, were tempor-arily absent during the specified period because ofillness or injury, industrial dispute, vacation orother leave of absence, absence without leave, ortemporary disorganiration of work due to suchreasons as bad weather or mechanical breakdown.

2. Employers and workers on own account should beincluded among the employed and may be classifiedas "at work" or "not at work" on the same basis asother employed persons.

3. Unpaid family workers currently assisting in theoperation of a business or farm are considered asemployed if they worked for at least one-third of thenormal working time during the specified period.

4. The following categories of persons are not consid-ered as employed:a. Workers who during the specified period were on

temporary or indefinite layoff without pay;b. persons without jobs or business or farms who had

arranged to start a new job or business or farm ata date subsequent to the perod of reference;

c. unpaid members of the family who worked forless than one-third of the normal working timeduring the specified period in a family business orfarm.

Unemployment

I. Persons in unemployment consust of all persons abovea specified age who, on the specified day or for a specifiedweek, were in the following categories:

a. Workers available for employment whose contractof employment had been terminated or temporarily suspended and who were without a job andseeking work for pay or profit;

b. persons who were available for work (except forminor illness) during the specified period and wereseeking work for pay or profit, who were neverpreviously employed or whose most recent statuswas other than that of employee (i.e. formeremployers, etc.), or who had been in retirement;

c. persons without a job and currently available forwork who had made arrangements to start a newjob at a date subsequent to the specified period;

d. persons on temporary or indefinite layoff withoutpay.

2. The following categories of persons are not consid-ered to be unemployed:

a. Persons intending to establish their own businessor farm, but who had not yet arranged to do so,who are nor seeking work for pay or profit;

b. former unpaid family workers not at work andnot seeking work for pay or profit.

69

113

Appendix B. Sources of Data and Methods of Adjustment: Nine Countries

United States

The United States has three sources of unemploymentttatastics. Data based on the number of persons registeringto collect unemployment insurance are available on a weeklybasis. The number of persons served by the US. Employ-ment Service is available monthly. Statistics from themonthly labor force survey have been available since 1940and are regarded as the "official" unemployment statistics.Before the 1930's, no direct measurements were made ofthe number of jobless perons. In response to the increasedneed for unemployment statistics during the depression ofthe 1930's, direct surveys of the population were initiatedbut the definitions of unemployment-those who were notworking but were willing and able to work-did not meetthe standards of objectivity that many technicians feltwere necessary to measure the level of joblessness at a pointin time or changes overaperiodof time. In 1940,aset of pre-cise concepts was adopted for the national sample surveys ofhouseholds conducted by the Works Progress Administra-tion. Classification of one's labor force status dependedprincipally on whether one was working, looking for work,or engaged in other activities within a designated timeperiod. In 1943, responsibility for the survey was trans-ferred to the Bureau of the Census. In 1959, responsibilityfor the analysis and publication of labor force survey datawas shifted to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, with theBureau of the Census retaining the responsibility for thecollection and tabulation of the statistics.

Unemployment

Registered unemployment. The United States has tworegistered unemployed series: Irsured unemployment andpersons registered with the US. Employment Service. In-sured unemployment represents the number of personsreporting a week of unemployment under an unemploymentimsursnce program. It includes some persons who are work-ing part time who would be counted as employed in thelabor force survey. Excluded are persons who have ex-hausted their benefit rights and workers who have notearned rights to unemployment insurance. In general, ex-cluded from coverage are those persons engaged in agri-culture, domestic service, unpaid family work, selected non-profit organizations, some State and local government,and self-employment.

The rate of insured unemployment is the number ofinsured unemployed expressed as a percent of averagecovered employment. Because of differences in State lawsand procedures under which unemployment insurance pro.grams are operated, State unemployment rates generally in-dicate, but do not precisely measure, differences in unem-ployment among the individual States. Figures on unem-ployment insurance claims are published by the Employ-ment and Training Administration of the Department ofLabor in Unemploymenr Insurance Claims Weekly Report.

In nonrecessionary periods, unemployed persons re-ceiving benefits under the various State and other unem-ployment insurance programs typically account for lessthan half of total US. joblessness. (This ratio has swelledduring downturns to as much as 75 percent.) For thisreason, and as a consequence of administrative changes andvariations from State to State, statistics from unemploy-ment insurance programs are not directly comparable withdata on total unemployment from the Current PoputationSurvey. However, the unemployment insurance datr areextremely useful as indicators of current change, especiallybecause they ore timely and available on a weekly bais.

The second and less widely used series counts indi-viduals served by the US. Employment Service. Monthlydata are available on persons counseled, tested, and/orplaced by the Employment Service. These monthly sta-tistics are published by the Employment and TrainingAdministration of the Department of Labor in SelectedServices Provided by the United States Employment Serv-are.

Labor force survey unemployment. The monthly house-hold survey-the Current Population Survey (CPS)-pro-vides statistics on the civilian noninstitutionalized popula-tion 16 years of age and over. Persons under 16 years of ageare excluded from coverage because of child labor lawsand compulsory school attendance. However, separate sta-tistics are collected and published for 14- and 15-year-olds.The results of the CPS are published monthly by BLS mEmployment and Earnings.

The CPS is currently collected from a probabilitysample of approximately 56,000 households. Since July1955, the reference week of the CPS a the calendar weekincluding the 12th day of the month. The actual survey isconducted during the following week, which is the weekcontaining the 19th day of the month. Prior to July 1955,the reference week was the calendar week containing the

70

114

U5 Comm P.pqWon 9TM Qunabno.*. (EorplW

IL _.... d.....7

( o

*1000.O/ OK?OOCO)srC P ?331..N.. W 0

K - d n 7 i ........... -O

G .n ........ ..... ... 3

Rcnd.00.0. R o

010010. ....).- VT 0

23C OIoT.o.. LCULL 0e2

Yo~. 0,1 0h .._

No1a,. O 0hE~_C.

0i, -tj .......VT--00.- -

To. 0 ba..oo .

Idol= - f-V_ _u.

01101.0011141121101%vk _ 3h~

LAST WEE!. OrE 0aN

_ -v Ve 0

a 22

S_-A 0 )O.7

Tas 0 /I.. Na Na

04003 .o00a.,D

OPD. Da .O ...0ml?

Ta E*.T.oLobn

WEE.113? br0.o'.Io.eb-o C !ao

.001.0

1300.3O

U330 00

3 3 D O

S 5 IF O

?? 0 0 o

2 0 3 K 0

Dd. .11 1. NAe 0 (

oa2 .Eo.1 -O 12

Ta o Na 0 h- 020

RA. Wb _.a. .dS~.l

0_ h_. .QO

Lon.... 0

T.PRO.O.T INO AWO

11011.1 ON 1 -

WR 0 M of 0 77CI

TOO1s.. 20.0 001.001.0~1.Ih000)

9 13 0 N o

2 2 2 0 03 3 3 R O

5 5 5 T O

? ? V oaa 8 W O9 9 0

Tar 0 No 0 (000301

oRAOWi.0_ ..0. aMOdikhRa*W _h 0.dba ? 10.00

.a/ot. .A.0O-0

aV - f d12,01 .0.0..... V

mRnd..212110000,0J} ..

nlLWOEOIOda0.RN 0.1.01s

AoP pbl.TE. .., N.. O

Na.. 0a .. .. .00.2 0 .1.. ..

WIalkh..CO 2 2

.oo..00 0

DR OtNwoao.w -W _ -?

To0. 0....11_ 3Vsa.IVO

23E. W1aOA d_ i~anOI-, EO,

oT01 00 01loU 10. ..0 o O

0 0.3 0.6.1 00 00110l.O0 I1 I Koa 2RI

5wrn 1*2 aee

Sofnc _..OPOTOEaIIOP. .O 1,3

13!l KCry o~o 0 .

4 * KdNw0 a2i0 0w

2W. W? A.,u lao000

Oa1,o .*ooC! 0

SOona A non }04.

004 II -o )O o100.oiVO1.ljo.)ko 0

0 10001 Ed k.3.001

001.0 O Okh2*iCOiOOKho 0

11. F orio.jlgi. .o .0 0

*EDon.,I ..o.CIw 0

240 00a . .A 212a.b.0h,0o12!

h_3h d 01.12 w2o.V.OO

00.1., :.. 0

LlA Po1Do.AI~ON OF .* OD o~1a~. ORoo EUSINESSo~o. 23.A

F00)011.. .P.......rrIVATE Co.

iDO.Wh ll ....... 'laOO RcOANRold 4 ? j .o...0 EV.A0AA12t0.0000000. OOOA~t AEEDRRL.0 0.0.. ..... -..... . 0

L0.a -} Lo1A NeReIwDR~eD .WN .... .AONeEvro....oO .*oo00m~a~o..A 0 o..)

71

I-- - - - --.- _... - __ -a. LINE NDN Ed l:I

.

,

0

115

8th day of the month. AU interviewing, either by personalvisit or telephone call, is done by trained Interviewers.

In the CPS, unemployed persons include those whodid not work at all during the survey week, were lookingfor work, and were available for working during the refer-ence period except for temporary Illness. Those who hadmade specific efforts to find work within the preceding 4-week period, such as by registering at a public or privateemployment agency, writing letters of application, canvas-ring for work, being on a union or professional register,etc.,are considered to be looking for work. Also included asunemployed are those who did not work at all during thesurvey week, were available for work, and (a) were wait-ing to be called back to a job from which they had beenlaid off, or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage orsalary job scheduled to start within the following 30 days.Fuol-time students looking for part-time work are countedas unemployed if they meet the above criteria.

Although there have been improvements in measure-ment techniques, the concepts of employment and un-employment have remained essentially the same since theinitiation of the national sample survey in 1940. Two minorchanges have been made in the concepts and definitionsused in detenmining labor force status. The first change oc-cuared in 1957. As a result of a comprehensive interagencyreview of the employment and unemployment data, twogroups which had been previously classified as "employed,with a job but not at work,' were reclassified as unem-ployed. These two groups were (I) persons who were laidoff for a definite period of less than 30 days (persons onlayoff for 30 days or longer were already classified as un-employed), (2) persons waiting to report to a new wage orsalary job scheduled to begin within 30 days, except forthose attending school during the survey week, who areclassified as not in the labor force. When these two groupswere reclassified, data for all major labor force componentswere adjusted to the new definition for every month backto January 1947.

The second change in the definitions of employmentand unemployment occurred in 1967, following the rec-omniendations of the President's Committee to AppraiseEmployment and Unemployment Statistics (the GordonCommittee). The Gordon Committee recommended thatmore information be gathered and published on partici-pants in the labor force and that labor force concepts beclarified. After more than a year of testing the new defi-nitions clarifying labor force survey concepts, the laborforce survey questionnaire was revised in January 1967.The principal changes in the survey were:

I The lower age limit on employment, unemployment,and other labor force concepts was raised from 14 to16 years. This change reflects the fact that most l4-and 15-year-olds are barred from most occupationsby child labor laws. Historical data were revised as faras possible to provide a consistent series based on thepopulation 16 years of age and over.

2. To be counted as unemployed, a person must becurrently available for work (except for temporaryillness). In the put, there was no test of currentavailability. The revision primarily affected the canssi-ficatien of students who began seeking work duringthe school year, but wer not available to begin workuntil the end of the tem. Previously, they were in-cluded in the unemployed; now they are classified asnot in the labor force.

3. To be counted as unemployed, a person must have re-ported a specific jobseeking activity (applying to anemployer, going to a private or public employmentagency, answering a want ad) within the past 4 weeks.(An exception is made for persons waiting to start anew job in 30 days or waiting to be recalled from lay-off.) Foemerly, the labor force survey questionnairewas ambiguous as to the time period for jobseeking,and there was no specific question regarding methodsof looking for cork. Persons who would have loakedfor work except for the belief that no work was avail-able-discouraged workers-were previously theoreti-cally included in the unemployed but are now classi-fied as not in the labor force.

4. Persons with a job are classified as employed, even ifthey were absent from their jobs during the surveyweek and looking for other jobs. Before, personsabsent from work because of strikes, bad weather,etc., but looking for other jobs were counted as un-employed.

The removal of 14- and 15-year-olds from the laborforce survey reduced employment by I million and unem-ployment by 60,000, but had no measurable effect on theunemployment rate. Except for raising the lower age limitof the CPS coverage, the historical data were not revised totake into account the other changes in the survey since thedifferences between the old and new series were on theborderline of statistical significance. In only a few, detailedseries were there significant differences between the twosurveys. However, it was not considered technically feasibleto revise any of the historical statistics on the basis of asingle year of data.

Labor force

According to CPS definitions, the civilian labor forcecomprises all civilians 16 years of age and over classified aseither unemployed or employed. The total labor force in-cludes, in addition, members of the Armed Forces stationedeither in the United States or abroad. Information on thesize of the Armed Forces is obtained from official recordsof the Department of Defense.

The definition of the unemployed was discussedabove. The employed comprise (I) all those who, duringthe survey week, did any work at all as paid employees, orin their own business, profession, or on their own farm, orwho worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in a fam-ily-operated enterprise and (2) all those who did not workbut had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarilyabsent due to illness, bad weather, vacation, labor-manage-ment dispute, or various personal reasons-whether or notthey were seeking other jobs.

72

116

Unemployment rate

The unemployment rate represents the number of un-employed as a percent of the civilian labor force. This mea-sure is also computed for various worker groups by sex,age, race, industry, occupation, etc., and for combinationsof these characteristics.

Quarterly and monthly estimates

tions for unemployment insurance benefits, registrationsfor employment at Canadian Manpower Centies, and laborforce surveys are all available on a monthly basis. Followingthe report of a ministerial committee on unemploymentstatistics in August 1960, the results of the labor force sur-vey have been regarded as the "official" Canadian unem-ployment series. No adjustments have been made in theofficial Canadian data since they are very close in conceptto the US. figures.

For the United States, the seasonally adjusted quar. Unemploymentterly and monthly unemployment rates are those publishedby the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its monthly publication, Registered unem,Employment and Earningr. At the beginning of each calen- unemployed statdar year, the BLS revises the seasonal adjustment factors of unemploymerfor unemployment and other labor force series from the The second, andCPS to take into account data from the previous year. Until trations for emp.full-year data are available, the seasonal adjustment factors (CMC). Most peiare based on data through the prior year. aurance benefits

Since 1973, the Census Bureau's X-l I method' has receives noticesbeen used to seasonally adjust the labor force data. For country and triemost series, the computation is based upon the most recent unemployment rI0-year period. Prior to 1975, BLS assumed that the magni- strative data.tude of the seasonal increase or decrease was proportional Data on uto the level of the series and, therefore, used the multi- are published mcplicative version of the X-l I program exclusively in adjust- Coa Report on rting the employment and unemployment series. It was ance Act. Data cfound that this procedure did not adequately allow for Centres are pub]changes in seasonal patterns during periods of sharply powerReview.changing unemployment. This problem was highlighted inMay-June 1975 when large numbers of teenagers left school Labor force murvsand entered the labor force. Since this flow tends to be Statistics Canadafairly constant and relatively independent of the level of 1945 and convertjoblessness in any year, the additive option of the X-l I was Statistics are pub]better suited to seasonally adjust the teenage unemploy- In 1972, ament series. Consequently, BLS revised its seasonal adjust- vey to embracement procedures. Currently, seasonality for teenage un- ments, to collectemployment and for other unemployment series of which tions on labor fcteenagers are the primary components are adjusted using and revised surve,the additive procedure of the X-l 1 method. All other analysis of the diseries are adjusted using the multiplicative procedure. 12-month period

After the components of a series we seasonally ad- After the Decemnjusted, the values are aggregated to provide seasonally ad- continued. The njusted values for other series. For example, the unemploy- cepts to the Unitement rate for all civilian workers is derived by dividing the are required for ccestimate of total unemployment (the sum of 4 seasonally The refereeadjusted age-sex components) by the civilian labor force survey is usually d(the sum of 12 seasonally adjusted age-sex components). AUl interviewing,

Canada

Canada has three sources of unemployment statistics,only one of which is widely used. Data based on registra-

'For a detailed dssiptiun of the X-tt maethbd, see TrbhnicalPaper No. 15, The X.-I Varf-nt af the C-as Method I1 ScanoselAdist-et Nagr-ov, by Jobas Shi"km, Atan Yoan&, aad JobnMasa.w-, 1967 revision (tureac of the Censs, 1967).

takes place the Ibased on a sampThe sample was dof age and over nthe Yukon and Ndian Reserves, imbers of the Artmedamounts to apprc

ployed. Canada has two series of regiateredstics. The first consits of monthly countsat insurance claimants and beneficiaries.less widely used series, is a count of regis-loyment at the Canada Manpower Centresrsons filing a claim for unemployment in-are requested to register with CMC. CMC

of vacanries from employers all across thei to match registrants with vacancies. Noates are published based on these admini-

nemployment claimants and beneficiariesonthly by Statistics Cuaada in the Sratisti-te Opertion of the Unemployment Inur-on registrations at the Canada Manpowerbished in Statistics Canada's Canada Man-

vys. The labor force survey, conducted bywas introduced as a quarterly survey in

ed to a monthly survey in November 1952.lished monthly in The Labour Force.major project was begun to revise the sur-a number of substantial statistical refine-new data, and to ask more specific ques-

irce status. Throughout 1975, the formerys were conducted in parallel to enable anfferences between the two surveys over aand to develop a revised historical series.

ber 1975 survey, the old survey was dis-new Canadian survey is very close in con-td States survey; therefore, no adjustmentscmparability with US. definitions.tce period for the monthly labor forcehe week containing the 15th of the month.either by telephone call or personal visit,ollowing week. The survey is currently,le of approximately 55,000 households.lesigned to represent anl persons 14 yearsesiding in Canada, except for residents oforthwest Territories, persons living on in-smates of institutions, and full-time mans-I Forces. The number of persons excludedrximately 2 percent of the population 14

73

117

C.dei SU- Ok.r.W Usd Mu. to 1970

= FF-1I m1.__ " 2 __- ;z,_ e _

tOFI1 U- FON _,-- UN.t -r - S n. lv C

:=:= : =4:= =4= =5= == :7= =0 =V=

S = so -1 4w :T :+ : 4 = :t -_ w: ___ __ __ ___ __ __ ____rdb _ _z ___

0:= m=1 :2= :4 =0= :$: =4= =-: 7 -

o 0= : : 0 2 = 4T 4- .4 :=0== T-= =4= FO O1URS 11 3O r It1 I 1 ASKtA 0O= =4 2= 0~ =S :=4- :== =0= =4= =4= l ~ n w ~ ~ ts ~ o

-0 Vb #1. :2: = :4- =0-- =4= :*: := 4=: _ _ -n~

:-0- -,-I:'-2= -, :-:

:Ws: z-: :2= ,a= X,-

-Ir :=4= :=0 :=4- =

=0 :,= :7== =4F

7. S. _ 7 SOC

I - .I. NO d H- & e

=0= qt = =:= RF F =:= 0= -: =

I -,I= :2- = :;i = - r : = = q:=

_1* awF i. :lr- : IF XF- . F = I.1 4-_: - - - - -

o 1- Y Y Rrnvl,- :.

- I =

FOR W- IN I1 OR 12 ASK

-1= =4= -t- S ==

_ .

0 q = 2: 5.= 4= 0=4= 4= u

FOM -L- IN 11 OR 12 ASK54. F. b_. aiv c. f. tk .non b 1S 5 ti ,

i1 iI *4I-i 30 N. i.it1

22 IF YES- INR2 A.0 Rn ,i . at., .5.-

- -! l. -= - ?

IF 'YES' IN 20 OR -r IN 11 OR 12 ASK

0145at. wit. .a "It.. 1w =

- -~ = -I -_ - . -, ,., !!n !!! T-_ = _-

74

Tt

w

RI

e ACTIVITY LAST MONTH24 MAJR ACIIVITY

W. t I i - Vi .n - dq_.7

5. J~ 4-- 1 4= r = i

25~" -Yt!oDtR FCTveMid n Sn0 m afIhn_

-R I ,, sEnv vensl v � ��'

.. _ . _ ...-

I

118

Canadian Survey uestionnaire Used from 1978 Onward

2j11J -il - 3Li47J -. "~~~zzzzmn~~~~~~ -- i z110 a.. - t

12 y iSSSL CMSS

-'0 - -0 . C

13

15

16 -rn,,

7j fl L Y.^ S I 1* 0............

.- -'0m a a l- u -.. .. ~ 5

- ; .a0...51 a .... lAST n Cr* a

S2 Ma a mv

1 Y StE .. .* a Su L 1.. t 2i _ ,,,... a

35 a. . . wM ffn a...

36a 1os . la. .

37 50 M O N . . MS. UF l

17 38_La 3- 11 MM O 0 w 1 -

Is _ 39__ v-la-Ia

-- E_ -- :1 *-- -- 5' Q-

'-'05'0-b.', ____ -___20 o_= i 41 0.3068. Sli P~ttE4

F 0 El =-.1 _E _ D:70 51YY14 * 0

* - ' O-- -- --- i- a

7 f N . . D_1t

nn_>un W..

72 a . _ -_

El. I i

I' IE 1=

. ............ ......... 0 C

...-...0....0 _

=0::, =,O

- 0

.,_._ .. '0_--

53 IS TO 10LST SunoS S uns . .

SOHS..aIOL S'O A S Ata.L

a7 L AsT ao TO

74 SIrL a.Of .SStSSO fd lAfldt MsS 5w - 3 4 A*(_ MAt SO . aw0 S!Yt,

_ . w

.-D - 30c -- - - - °t._ I 1 a~m~a Ott 0 a0.

751S m a. .. a, - moml ...El=. ...0 n'0A ~__^__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

DE 1' .D _ _ _ __r_ __ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Yis'Q m am

75

.

119

yearn of age and over. Although the revised labor force sur-vey collects data on persons 14 years of age and over, theofficial labor force and unemployment dati refer to persons15 years of age and over.

Since compulsory education ends at age 15 or 16 inCanada, no adjustment is necessary. In the former laborforce survey, the official lower age limit was 14. Under theformer survey, Canadian statistics were adjusted by BLS toexclude the 14-year-olds.

The unemployed incdude all persons who, during thereference week, were in any of the following categories:(I) Without work and bad actively looked for work in thepast 4 weeks and available for work; (2) been on layoff for6 months or less and were available for work; or (3) had notactively looked for work in the past 4 weeks but had a newjob to start in 4 weeks or len and were available for work.

In order to determine labor force status, the iter-viewer asks a series of specific, direct questions designed toprovide precise and comprehensive information about laborforce activities and characteristics. The interviewer asks,"Did .. .do any work at ill last week, not counting workaround the house?"; "Last week, did . . .have a job atwhich he/she did not work?"; "In the past four weeks whathas . . .done to find work?"; "Was there any reason why... could not take a job last week?" In the former survey,more general questions were asked: "What did ... do mostlylast week?"; "Did ... do anything else last week?" Whilethese questions led to a straightforward distinction amongpersons who are employed, unemployed, or not in the laborforce, they were not suited for detailed probing, particu-larly on the characteristics of persons near the margins ofthe three basic labor force categories.

Specific questions regarding availability for work inthe reference week are now asked and some persons whowere unemployed under the old survey would not have metthe availability requirements of the revised survey. For ex-ample, full-time students looking for full-time work areautomatically considered not available for work in the ref-erence week according to the revised labor force survey.However, full-time students seeking part-time work are re-garded as available (unless they report otherwise) and, ifthe other criteria are met, are included among the unem-ployed.

Persons on layoff with instructions to return to workwithin 30 days of the layoff-the temporarily laid off-wereclassilled as unemployed in the former survey. Al otherson layoff were classified as unemployed if they stated thatthey would have looked for work in the reference week ex-cept that they expected to be recalled to their former jobs.However, no questions on this point were asked of thesepersons and, unless they had volunteered the informationthat they expected to be recalled, they were classified asnot in the labor force.

In the revised survey, persons on layoff for less than26 weeks ae classified as unemployed. Those who havebeen laid off for more than 26 weeks are classified as un-

76

employed if they looked for work in the previous 4 weeks.Otherwise, they are classified as not in the labor force. Inboth surveys then, persons on layoff expecting to return towork ae classified as unemployed. The distinguishing fea-ture is that the revised survey is able to identify persons onlayoff with greater precision due to direct questioning, andto record additional information about such persons, suchus the duration of the layoff. In the United States, there isno time limit after which laid-off workers waiting to be re-called to work must look for another job to be counted asunemployed.

Canadians waiting to start a new job were not iden-tified separately in the former survey, and, as a result, gen-erally were classified as unemployed or not in the laborforce, depending on whether or not they reported that theywere looking for work. A small number could also havebeen classified as employed and included among the "had ajob but not at work" category. In the revised survey, theyare unemployed if their new job is to start within 4 weeksof the end of the reference period. If the job is to start inmore than 4 weeks from the end of the reference period,they are classified as unemployed only if they also lookedfor work. This is similar to the US. practice.

Persons without jobs who stated they would havelooked for work except for certain conditions-discoumgedworkers-were formerly classified us unemployed. However,there was no specific question on this point, and the infor-mation on discouragement had to be volunteered. In the re-vised survey and in the United States survey, discouragedworkers are considered as not in the labor force.

On the basis of these more detailed questions, aggre-gate unemployment rates were revised downward slightly.In 1975, the jobless rate was revised from 7.0 percent to6.9 percent. While the total difference was stight, therewere substantial differences in the estimates by sex andregion. In the revised survey, unemployment was signifi-cantly higher for women and lower for men. In 1975, theunemployment rate for women was 64 percent accordingto the old survey and 8.1 percent according to the new sur-vey. Female joblessness was formerly understated sincewomen tended to respond to the question,"What did .. .do mostly last week?" in terms of household or other non-labor force activities. The more specific wording of the re-vised questionnaire revealed that many of these womenwere unemployed.

Lower unemployment estimates for men (6.2 percentversus 7.4 percent in 1975, with differences concentratedin winter and spring), result mainly from differences in themanner in which the new survey identifies and classifiespersons who have not actively sought work.

Labor fore.

The labor force is composed of all persons who, dur-ing the reference week, were employed or unemployed. The

120

employed in Canada include all persons who, during thereference week, were in any of the following categories:(1) Did any work for pay or profit; (2) did any unpaid fam-ily work which contributed directly to the operation of afarm, business, or professional practice owned or operatedby a related member of the household; or (3) had a job butwere not at work due to illness, disability, personal or fam-lly responsibilities. bad weather, labor dispute, or vacation.

With the introduction of the current labor force sur-vey, the methods used to measure employment and un-employment were revised, although the concepts remainedessentially the same. These revisions have brought the Can-adian questionnaire closer to that of the United States.There were a few differences between the former Canadiansurvey and the United States survey, but most have dis-appeared with the introduction of the revised Canadiansurvey. Under the old survey, to be counted as employed,Canadian farm housewives had to work more than 20hours in the survey week, but there was no minimum ofhours worked for other unpaid family workers. The revisedsurvey, using more specific questions to identify work ac-tivities, contains no restrictions on farm housewives orother unpaid family workers. In the United States, unpaidfamily workers must work 15 hours or more during thesurvey week to be counted as employed. However, thedifference in treatment of unpaid family workers workingless than 15 hours is probably insignificant.

In the former Canadian survey, a small number ofpersons with a job but who were not at work and also lookedfor work in the reference week were classified as unem-ployed. In the revised survey, as in the U.S. sunrvey, workingtakes precedence over looking for work. Thus, these per-sons are now classified as employed.

The revisions of the survey resulted in slightly higheremployment estimates for women of all age groups (4.4percent) and men 15 to 24 years (2.8 percent) due to moreprecise identification of employment activities. No changeswere made to employment estimates for men 25 years ofage and over.

Unemployment rate

Annual unemployment rates for Canada are calcu-lated by averaging the results of the monthly labor forcesurveys. From 1966 onward, unemployment rates based onthe revised definitions of unemployment and employmenthave been estimated by Statistics Canada. The rates for1959-65, however, have not been revised. Labor marketconditions were believed to be too different in this earlierperiod to make estimates based on 1975 relationships.


For Canada, no adjustments are necessary to thelabor force survey data for comparability with US. defini-

tions. The seasonally adjusted jobless rates are those pub-lished by Statistics Canada in its monthly publication, sheLabour Force.

Statistics Canada uses the X-l I Variant of the U.S.Bureau of the Census Method II seasonal adjustment pro-gram to seasonally adjust the labor force survey data. Themultiplicative version is used for some series, the additiveversion for other series. Statistics Canada has also experi-mented with a modification of the X-l 1, known as Statis-tics Canada X-l I -ARIMA (auto-regressive integrated mov-ing average). Seasonally adjusted estimates of the laborforce, employed, and unemployed are derived by the sum-mation of the appropriate series.

Seasonally adjusted figures have been calculated on acurrent bauls since January 1975; the seasonal adjustmentprogram is run each month using data up to and includingthe most recent month. At the end of the calendar year,the seasonally adjusted figures are revised.

Australia

Australia has two sources of unemployment sta-tistics, both of which are widely used. Data based uponregistrations at employment offices are available on amonthly basis. A quarterly labor force survey, begun in1964, provides unemployment data in dose conformitywith U.S. concepts. Since about 1970, the statistics fromthe quarterly survey have been regarded as the "official"Australian unemployment series by the InternationalLabour Office. Registrations statistics are released about2 weeks before publication of the survey data. In addi-tion, bemuse the registrations statistics are on a monthlybasis, they are still used as current labor market indicatorsin Australia.

Unemployment

Registered unemployed. These statistics comprise allpersons who were still registered with the CommonwealthEmployment Service (CES) on the Friday nearest the endof the month, who claimed when registering that they werenot employed, and who were seeking full-time employment,i.e., 35 hours or more per week. They include persons re-ferred to employers but whose employment was still un-confirmed, and persons who had recently obtained employment without notifying the CEL. The statistics are pub-lished by the Department of Employment and IndustrialRelations in the Monthly Review of the Employment Situa-tion.

Separate figures are published for recipients of un-employment benefits. Such benefits are payable only topersons of limited means. All recipients of benefits mustcomplete a weekly statement of income, and benefits arereduced by other income over a specified low level. Re-cipients of unemployment benefits must also have at leastI year. of residence in Australia immediately before un-

77

121

AuNBRH PorNrptiR SIOy kRIfbrI.W. (o.-pl)

I MOST OF LASTEEK DIDWORK AT A JOB OR BUSINESSOR DO SOMETIONG ELSE?

1406d G1 1 . lo b . ... S1

KopTbn ... . Ar

W.WotlobOOd . -

RO-kid I.S t 0 B

ftttontr dy U03bb1 HIo ook

°~ (5,-fy .. 0 fld 3r

SD oly: I-ftloto ed

9. DID M.. DANY PAID WORK ATALL LAST WEEK OR WORK WITH.OUT PAY IN A FAMILY BUSINESS?

No (Go to 0 I" -

I. HOW MANY HOURS DIDWORK LAST WEEK AT ALLJONS, INCLUDING OVtRTIMEAND EXCLUDING TIME OFF?

N.: HOURS

If 0.34IH-DO0012.12

ro023 E111. Of "mid flob &u 17t

MtQ, . Al 0 1 2)

EVEN THOUGH DID NOTWORK LAST WEEK, DIDHAVE ANY JOB. BUSINESSIOR FARM)?

YNo C] uQ. 12)

No(ulQ 13) .. ..

12. DOES .USUALLY WORKLESS THAN 35 HOURS AT

P?. RESENT IOBISI?0E 0131 .. [ 2

In3IS. WoULD . X TpQrlK

33 HOURS ORKR 7S /

13. Q IA*QIo

14. HY DOESN'T WOR. ?LONGER?

AlOHIdR-dbRQ1No ork ....tol .... 2

IS. WHY WAS AWAY FROMWORK LAST WEEK?

LoBStot , .S . .... I

Br .eb 1t. Bomkloow.... CD SBMdIoto. br kdo.- 5

EONbOrt roWO ... 6E

IoM -WrnaI dN ol NPE 7

L7d-unn dnyr. PE . A0

Or. 60 .tnke . . .. b H9

r10 D23SottoRd~ AboT5.. H,7Hm NtHO.bpo t .20 224:

.ot*rtvsAoA100u23

N.0,16.-fI7

IN VIP-LkAdfI -eRMOQ8.o kQ IA3

IDAS BEEN LOOKING FORWORK AT ANY TIME DURINGTHE PAST FOUR WEEKS?

Vnt Q U k Q IDI

19 HAS.. SEEN LOOKING OIFULL TIME OR PART-TIMEWORK DURING THE PASTFOUR WEEKS?

Fud tttttootk 12

rHD-Do...,rk 13

20. WHEN LOOKING FOR WORKDURING THE PAST FOURWEEKS -

WAS . REGISTERED WITTHE COMMONWEALTHEMPLOYMENT SERVICEOR OTHER EMPLOYMENTAGENCY? I

DID .APPLY TOPROSPECTIVEMPLOYERSINFERSON? 2

DID... APPLY BY POSTOR TELEPHONE? 3

DID DO ANYTHINGELSE'

Aot. . . ]

Vr~dfy 0s dd qt

f-) - - O -

21. IF __ AFOUNDWORKISTHERE ANY REASON WHYCOULD NOT HAVE STARTEDLAST WEEK'

Y ms' -- o3e Y

.- Y .ttopomt

i2xrK 01fl IsI r

-h

t otoet .0 0 c . 3

-,d. IN..1

DID .GO .O b:I I

DI. COO TRIKlE' 2*S

WI EKS AGO,

.04 ftsoo5A~lsoQIrode OAItptkA flok ld log

pgod I oostos k

NoAfA'i . Q....Q23 .Q.30

23. WHAT WAS ... OCCUPATIONLAST WEEK?

12. .IIN ..S....... O IIW E

2 DI ED WHOM DID WORK LASTWEEK'?I~gtttCIEAII KSdd- O

..6 LAYWEE D. D. WORK....

WAGdES SALARtY.IND

2 I. WHAT BIS ...DOFIUS-NE

LAST WEEK?

i''.'.. ... ... .... ...

I2*. LASTWHOUKDID .. WORK LS

BUS INEASS' KINDEOR IS DID .... WORKB S N S ? .. .. .. '.'. ' ..-[I

..LS EKDID...WR

78

122

employment or must intend to reside permanently inAustralia. Seasonal workers are not eligible for unesmploy-ment benefits.

Labor force suveys. The Australian labor force survey,conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, issimilar in concepts and definitions to the US. labor forcesurvey. Revisions in definitions in May 1976 have broughtthe Australian survey closely in line with US. concepts.Although there were some differences prior to these re-visions, they are not believed to be important enough torequire adjustment. The Australian survey is conductedquarterly, by means of personal interviews, in February,May, August, and November. Until 1972, a I-percentsample of about 40,000 private dwellings and a sample ofother dwellings (hotels, motels, etc.) were taken. In 1972,the sample was redesigned based on data from the 1971Census of Population. The revised sample consists of about30,000 private dwellings and a sample of nonprivatedwellings which together represent a sample of two-thirdsof I percent of the population of Australia. Results of thesurveys are published by the Australian Bureau of Statis-tics in The Labou Force.

Interviews are carried out during a period of 4 weeks,so that there are 4 survey weeks in each of the months towhich the survey relates. These 4 weeks are chosen so as tofall within the limits of the calendar month or with mini-muon encroachment into the adjacent months.

As of May 1976, unemployment estimates have beenbased on the revised definition below. Unemployed personsare now defined as all civilians aged 15 years and over whoeither:

a. During the survey week did not work and did nothave a job, but could have taken one had it beenavailable, and had been looking for full-time or part-time work in the 4 weeks up to and including the sur-vey week (including persons who would have beenprevented from taking a job in the survey week bytheir own temporary illness or injury, or by theirhaving made arrangements to start in a new job afterthe survey week which they would have preferred tostart in the survey week); or

b. were waiting to be called back to a job from whichthey had been temporarily laid off without pay for4 weeks or less (including the survey week).

The definition of unemployment prior to May 1976differed in several respects from the above definition. First,persons who would have been looking for work but had notbecause they believed no work was available-"discounragedworkers"'-were included in the unemployed prior to May1976. However, the Australian survey did not contain aspecific question on discouraged workers; such infoamationhad to be volunteered by the respondent. Discouragedworkers are now excluded from the labor force. Second,some persons classified as unemployed were not actually

'Called "dtasaragedjobhekers" ie Aussasia.

able to take a job in the survey week. There is now a testfor current availability of jobseekers. Third, the period forjobseeking activities for unemployed persons was limited tothe survey week. Now, a period of 4 weeks (including thesurvey week) is allowed for jobseeking in order to classifypersons as unemployed.

Students actively seeking work are classified as un-employed both in the old and revised surveys. Under theold survey, special probing into the current availability ofstudents was made in the November survey (that is, atthe end of the school year).

Beginning in February 1975, questions were addedto the survey to ascertain the number of persons seekingwork during a 4-week period who could have taken ajob inthe survey week. Evaluation of the results of these newquestions led to the May 1976 revisions in definitions. Al-though unemployment officially remained on the old defi-nition from February 1975 through February 1976, datawere also published on the new basis for this period. There-fore, BLS has made adjustments to the data going back toFeburary 1975. The Australian Bureau of Statistics doesnot intend to make historical revisions for the period priorto February 1975. BLS has not made historical revisionseither. On an annual basis, the difference between the oldand new definitions in 1975 was very small-the old defi-nitions produced an average unemployment rate of 43percent; the new definitions raised the rate to 4.4 percent.In several survey months, however, the difference waswider, as indicated by the following tabulation:

taIaemlyosert reinOlddeftald- New deflirkor

1975:Febarv ......-...Ntsv .............

Augus ............Numbe ...........

1976:

4.63S

3.4.5

4.94.24.14.5

Feb-vr .......... 4.7 5.0

The unemployment rate for women was also sgnifi-candy different: 5.7 percent on the old basis and 6 2 per-cent on the new basis for 1975. The male rate was increasedonly marginally, from 3j5 to 3.6 percent.

Labor fore.

The labor force, under survey definitions, comprisesall civilians 15 years of age or over who, during the surveyweek, were employed or unemployed. Unemployment defi-nitions were discussed above. Employed persons compriseall who, during the survey week, (a) did any work for pay,profit, commission, or payment in kind in a job or busi-ness or on a farm (including employees, employers, andself-employed persons); or (b) worked 15 hours or morewithout pay in a family business or farm; or (c) had a job,business, or farm but were not at work because of illness,accident, leave, holiday, production holdup due to bad

79

123

weather, plant breakdown, etc., or because they were onstrike. These defrnitions are identical to US. definitions,and no adjustments ar required for comparability withUS. concepts.

In the 1971 population census, trainee teachers(enrolled at government teachers' colleges and in somecases enrolled also at other institutions) were for the firsttime classified as not in the labor force; tince then theyhave also been excluded from labor force estimates derivedfrom the Australisn sarvey. Exclusion of there persons con-stitutes a break in the series between May and August 1971;the number of trainee teachers excluded from the laborforce in August amounted to 24,000. This makes no differ-ence in the unemployment rate for Australia.

Unemfploymnent rate

Annual unemployment rates for Australia have beencalculated by averaging the published data for February,May, August, and November of each year. For 1975 on-ward, as mentioned above, data based on the new definitionof unemployment have been used.

The Australiasn labor force survey was initiated in1964. Unemployment rates for 1959 through 1963 are esti-mates made by an Australian researcher based on linkingof the survey and registration statistics.3

Ouff tnly and monthly estimates

For Australia, no adjustments are necessary for com-parability with US. definitions. The reasonally adjusted un-employment rates are those published by the AustralianBureau of Statistics (ABS) in their publication, 7he LabourForce Survey. Since the Australian labor force survey isconducted quarterly, no monthly estimates of joblessnessou the labor force survey basis are made.

Every year, the seasonally adjusted statistics are re-vised to take into account the previous year's data. TheABS has adopted for its standard method of seasonal ad-justment, the X-I IQ (quarterly) Variant of the CensusMethod 11 seasonal adjustment program of the US Bureauof the Census. Until 1974, a standard multiplicative adjust-ment was used. This method assumes that the amplitude ofseasonal change is proportional to the level of the series.Following the rapid rise in the level of unemployment in1974, this proportional relationship apparently changedsubstantially and the X-1IQ method was unable to adaptsufficiently. ABS made an estimate of the effect of thechange in the proportional relationship and applied prioradjustment factors to the data before seasonally adjusting.Therefore, the seasonal factors reflect one proportional re-lationship up to 1974 and another relationship since then.

3Barry Htghems 'Supply Cuastnbita and Stsort-ten- Emplay-meat Functlo-s A Coumment," The Romte d Econmicr oadStrtirde., Number 4, 1971. p. 394.

80

Japan

The principal system of labor force statistics in Japanwas pattemed after the American system and was installedwith the aid of American experts. Japanese statisticianshave subsequently introduced a number of modifications toadapt the system better to Japanese needs.

The Japanese labor force survey has been conductedmonthly by the Bureau of Statistics, Office of the PrimeMinister, since September 1946, and currently comprisesa ssample of about 76,000 persons residing in 33,000households. This represents a sampling ratio of about Iout of every 1,000 persons 15 years old and over. Resultsare published by the Bareau of Statistics in the MonthlyReporr on the Labour Force Survey.

Adjustment of Japanese labor force data to US. con-oepts is based mainiy on the monthly labor force survey. InSeptember 1967, the survey design was revised and theenumeration method changed from "self enumeration andinterview" to "self enumeration'"-ie., the labor force sur-vey schedule is now filled in by the respondent rather thanthe enumerator. The major data items have been revisedback to 1953 by Japanese authorities based on the new sur-vey design.

Unenmployment

The unemployed in the Japanese labor force surveyconsist of all persons 15 yean of age or over without jobswho did not work at all during the survey week (the weekending on the last day of each month) and who:

1. State that they actually sougtht work during the sur-vey week; or

2. Were awaiting the results of previous employmentapplications.

In the Japanese questionnaire, the question "Was thisperson engaged in work at all during the survey week?" haseight possible answers. One of the following is checked bythe respondent:

I Engaged mainly in work2. Engaged partly in work besides attending school3. Engaged partly in work besides home duties, etc.4. Had a job but did not work5. Had no job but seeking one6. Attending school7. Engaged in home dutiesB. Others

Persons checking response number 5-"had no jobbut seeking one"-are classified as unemployed. This re-sponse is defmed in the explanatory notes accompanyingthe survey schedule as follows: "Refers to the person whohad no job but was actually seeking work by answering ad-vertisements in the newspaper, applying at the Public Em-ployment Security Office, etc. Also refers so the personwho is waiting for an answer to an application and is able totake up a job immediately after he finds one."

124

Japan

Labour Force Survey ScheduleCarofi&oonie

Moocth__ Yevr __IDeowtgted tatit.i al. Bota of S-tia .No. 30 (F.., Finmp ... th) off.c of the PtiMe

The statotoia Ue, 00 hich ehb arey a ha-d, prhibit. the ote of the ifootaionspplied by you for purpos othor tha cody aototir. 1t to ao foebhideo thtettators aod my other ofr.iaa who may he ergd im the earey dwda., whatb mported it the shedala. Ymm ore the-forr, kihdly m9qoeted to poiede iarf-aoiooftaoly md -Watrly.

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING NOTES BEFORE FILLING OUT

All .mber. who aoaly me it your h-oho.idthooId he ioldrd ar thb chedulr.Pee-. who -maly lito m your houcohold refee

to ehow who hbo bher Ivoog o are gtiog toyav m y_ hoomhold far three moothe or mor

nr of the rod of the moch.Prtrtomtoh btoeloded* Foimdy memharc

* Livmgi- e-ployre.* Per..t lirmg r the family without payig

fo room ord fm torahPer"o.o who ore temparily chant feem yo.tho.-'hold fo t.atrlliog or wokimg rltereht-thA he rpor-d at thei hoot. if theei ahortp.rtid io rIo that thrr mooths. If they ha.Ito, or ore going or ha. ahot. from home forthrer mortha or mor, they hadl he enmaratedat cheir droittmraroIn pati-rs i* a hoepial hdll hr rportrd at rhhoepiol if hry hae heeo hoopitaoiod for threm..ch. or mae If not, they thad1be orporirdat thee homac.Special ireorion shoud ha paid o the fol.o1ig

Lodgers

* Ldgers uch ac rmtreatd bI oa.der whopay ro-om reot shohd bh erpor-ud mditidoallycc a sparace broarholilLdgera lioiog together with th6 re eelaoethould bh reprted with their mltoc atnor hrurhod.

Peroo iotog hi d-miteteit.Peene h1Mg mo ch-ool do itooro, dormitriee for uootarod employers, eta. hoadhe npotend todidoaly a# a operte. howbold.

ColuIm to fil oat

For prrso 15 ye. od ad orer of theend of the .o.th (26t6 o December) fil oatthe dsignated eoluom rrtey page on t6e

sidr.

* The howthold heed h-Id he ooerd hi he-eolmm No. 1.

Us aother twhedoe, if the oombhr of ho.thold mtmbht a si or more

For ptnom14 yea. old sd o .oder, Id Motthe otuamot halme.

Whro eetry b oer, hetk if the tn-y to oomtWmte the name of the hedt m ht dtedeatedcolumn, od gire thb sohedlti .o the etomera.

1o eha i y aired maco. daog tht surry_ehk rodiog the lti day (26th far rchetbr)

of th m-th thoad hee ecor.For ioooao, fa the p-tn who happened towork temporaiy doiog the nrrey wtthk thertey ohoold ha to'd at rrgaods the work doteroro if hr wuoly dors tot ath.k Foe thep.omo who b -.aly worhmg to o offiet hatwho wat ahaot from work md iaated ha farmwoth doig the sRrey week, the eotey hodhdhe made at tegd the frm work

-Fr prne 14 ye.- old nd ur1 c For lde baby who o not yeta. of the Aed of th mooch (26th fo Deot-bet) coared, t-ot. "oat yet totd"

Hootehold No. 51 52 53 54 55

1. Nente

2. Relatiosotip sobonthold head

I Malt I MalI M Mle Ma I Maei3. tSe 2 Female 2 Femae 2 FP ale 2 Female 2 Femal

Yet Ye Yt,, Ye iY

4. Date of botlh Mtotb Mooth Math M-rth M htr0 D., D., D., N,

81

Japan

tb3C.

-L

ok. .... lre _vwre -_Sw .................................................... 4.~.... ..re

-- a -. 4 m4r ~ ~.,i, .~fg{ ~t-1{ii~t]^~g>ttt $

~ o k 7 IF. ,.... = 44_ n

* .,2 wt. .4. . a .b. .42.. 4....,. � � 4. U..44,,p..,4 4

1,4...p.4.d. .42.9. -.

1.4,4�4pw ..1a 1. c.p..� 4 0.44.. 22..,.., 10,2.. tc.,.., 2.4,44., 2.C..p.., 4 04.�. � 4 04)�*

- qp..p.4.. ...* 2..� 4.p�...

22 1440 w4 .p..14..d, * ha a 6s...- - - - .444..

4.,�.,y,

-9

4. .p..444.2, 20. 6.4 a -II 64402 -.

444 26.4.pww..w .42.4

- - .ffi... 4w��..�

1141 .2.,..0t..,.. 42.149.2439 423426769 4.22.496.7 22 4232927., 422269929

..a.. a ,... , - -� � ..�28iIf �..,22gR9I .... ,;2812I

I ��1I � I I � I �! Ii I �ii!I I_____ ____________________ ffiii� luili IIUB hull ihhiB ____44 .. 6 r.,.p..... P..p.... F...p....,,,,. p..... r..p..... F...p..4, F..p..... F... pw... r...s.... F..P.6.p..... .0. * .,4. ...h..� .i. a....& a..- .4,4.2. .24.2.42 .4,,,.0 a...,.4 .0, b. .44..a.. a,.. a..a

--.4 b4.4�6... ..g..h... 432426�56 2.54444.. t�..h..g. .232402.

2 4�44 �'�44 4.4� *24.4� 4* .442422420. .,4202.441. �L'� 4 Z.�,.P. * p.." .20.4 .U.. * 6.. ..U... p.o..4 4 4

6..,.,4 4

m4...4 422.2144 442. 4 144942 249. 42 42 p2 f j V .4.4 V 2 4 .4 w .4 r p 4.4 V.4 VT .40202...9 .� 1. *1 � D *2 �4 4 �3 2.12 * 2.fll .12111� D1

6 r_____________ I I I � I �i' �i I �i �i

Japan

i11iff

[.ll

:i*AtR

irl

Dre

I II

127

Japan

Notes for entry (Question 6-13)

6. W. this pr enwind n wok dmrete t'he seY Iweek?"Work' means any work for py or prof-it whether it be in the from of wages.salary. bhsiness profits, etl Familymembers who worked fsr the family ha-siness sack ass farm. store etc. areregarded as those "warking" even thoaghthey did ot receive any wages. Thework 0l1o ineludes any home handicraft ortemporary work for pay or profit.H1 En idd iy is work' refers tia person who woo engaged maily in 8work ona farm or in as offie. etc.-4 Had a jb bit did sot .rok refersti:a the employee oe the worker who

had bhen away from his work he-cause of ickness. holidays. eto.bht who .s expected to receivewages sr salary.thke self employed person or em- 11ployer who had hoes away fromhis work for lets than 30 days 12because of sicknes. holidays. etc.

.Had so job bht reekis one refers tothe person who had 00 job but wasactually seeking work by answering theadvertisements io the newspaper apply-ing at the Public Employment Security 13Office, etc. Also refers to ihe personohs is waiting for Ihe answer of theapplication and in able to take op a jobimmediately after he finds a job.

7 Has worked dtsro the orney week

Include the hours worked on a -.amJob side job assistig is the familyenterprise. tempdrary renuterali-ework, preparing for and clearingwork. overtime work. etc.

Do not include the hours spent ftrhousekeeping voluotary work withoutpay, meats. breas. transporthig toaod from an office. et.

8 gff enplayed oekee itclades ashop keeper, a factory owner afarmer, doctor, solicitor, writer ortravelling marchaut etc. who carrieson hin ow- buainess on account.

. See example o separate sheet.

Nambef of p-mor empeed is the tepire55 * tiale

Self employed worker ahould be count-nd if the orgas-aation is"oischrparatedV

13. Dorfoeaer vk"Wishing to change jobs" roftrs to theemployee who wished t1 he a self em-plyed worker. to change the enterprisewhere he had heen working t1 another,the self employed worker who wishedto ho an employee. etc. Bt doos nutrefer to the person who winhed to changethe type of work is the name enterprise.

Mtrt-d-m for q-rstios 7 on tiHe resewr

Names

Day Hours.Minutes Htour s.Minute .o Minutes Hours.Minuted Hours.MMinutes

° | Day

Page 4

84

128

Students who are actively seeking work would beenumerated as unemployed if they check "had no job butseeking one." Employed students would be counted as suchsince they would check "engaged partly in work besides at-tending school." It should be noted that very few studentsare also engaged in work in Japan-only about 5O,000 rep-resenting less than I percent of the 15- to 24-year-oldlabor force.

The Japanese method appears to be more restrictivethan the U.S. method. Excluded from the unemployedcount in Japan, but included in the US. count, are:

I Persons on layoff who were waiting to return to theirjobs and not seeking other work.

2 Temporarily ill jobseekers who were not in a condi-tion to begin work immediately. Such persons, if ina condition to work and seeking work, would beclassified as unemployed.

3. Some persons who had recently been looking for jobs(i.e., within the past 4 weeks), but who took no ac-tive steps in the survey week and were not waiting foran answer from a previous job application. The ques-tionnaire appear to relate 'Job seeking" to the sur-vey week.

4. Persons without a job and waiting to report to a newjob at a later date. Such persons are considered, as arule, neither to be seeking a job nor to be waiting forthe results of previous job applications. Therefore,they are classified as economically inactive.

Method of adiustment. There are no data available to esti-mate accurately the number of additional persons whowould be counted as unemployed in Japan if US. surveymethods and definitions were used. However, the totalnumber who would be added is probably small. The "life-time employment" system (in which a worker remains withthe same employer until retirement) is a basic pattern oflabor-management relations in Japan. In most plants, theworker is, in effect, granted permanence of tenure. Whenthe activity of the establishment is reduced, the employerholds the worker on, either transferring him to another jobor reducing hours.

In the downturn of economic activity which beganin 1974, a growing number of persons became "temporarilylaid off" in Japan. This was partly because of the employ-ment adjustment grant system, through which the centralgovernment provides a portion of the allowances paid tolaid-off workers. (See chapter 2.) In the labor force survey,persons receiving these subsidies are regarded as employed.In the unlikely event that a person was laid off withoutpay, he would be classified as unemployed.

A Japanese "layoff" is quite different from an Ameri-can one. Persons on temporary layoff in Japan ae not dis-charged, and they are still paid by their fiums. They areunder a continuing employment contract and usually worka reduced number of days or hours during the week ratherthan being totally without work. Under US. concepts,persons who work at all duaing the reference week are class-ified as employed, as are the Japanese on "temporary lay-off."

85

No information is available on the number of personsin Japsn not dassified as unemployed because of temporaryillness or the number of persons recently looking for work,but taking no concrete steps in the survey week. The factthat persons awaiting the results of previous job applica-tions are counted as unemployed results in the widening ofthe jobseeking period beyond the survey week. However,there is no specified period allowed for jobseeking activities,such as the 4-week period used in the US. survey. There isalso no information on the number of persons waiting toreport to a new job at a later date. The number of suchpersons not classifying themselves as unemployed results ina aight understatement of Japanese unemployment underU.S. concepts.

Labor force

In Japan, the labor force consists of all persons 15years of age and over who: (I) Worked I hoar or more forpay or profit or as unpaid family workers in the surveyweek; (2) were employed; or (3) were self-employed per-sons or paid employees with jobs but temporarily absentfrom work provided that: (a) If selfemployed, their ab-sence from work did not exceed 30 days; (b) if paid em-ployees, they received pay for part of the survey week.

Four differences between US. and Japanese con-cepts of the labor force are noted. First, Japan includes andthe US. excludes inmates of institutions in the survey uni-verse (both countries include staff members of institutionsas employed persons). Japan probably classifies all, ornearly all, inmates of institutions as not in the labor force-therefore, no adjustment is necessary.

Japan includes and the US. excludes unpaid familyworkers who worked I but less than 15 hours in the surveyweek (460,OO0 in 1975). Japan includes career militarypersonnel (the "self defense force") in the labor force.Finally, persons with a paid job but not at work during thesurvey week are in the US. labor force whether or not they

-receive pay for the time off; in Japan, such workers musthave received pay for part of the survey week to be con-sidered as in the labor force No adjustment seems necessaryfor this since Japanese employees under a continuing em-ployment contract normally receive wages or salaries whenabsent from work.

Method of adpstment. The number of unpaid familyworkers who worked less than I5 hours in the survey weekis reported in the survey results each month. Such personsare subtracted from the labor force. Japan does not publishfigures on the self-defense force in the survey; such figureswere obtained from the Japanese Embassy in Washington.

Unemployment rate

Japan computet Its unemployment rate by dividingthe unemployed by the total labor force. Adjustment to

129

US. concepts is accomplished by dividing the reported un- Labor force. An adjustment for comparability to US. con-

employed by the labor force adjusted to exclude family cepts is made to EPA's seasonally adjusted labor force data.

workers working less than 15 hours and the self-defense The ratio of the labor force adjusted to US. definitions to

forc. The adjustments result in either no change or a slight the "as published" labor force, based on annual average

increase in the reported unemployment rates (table B-i). estimates, is applied to the monthly seasonally adjusted

labor force data to estimate the labor force adjusted to US.

Osuarteely and monthly estimates concepts. The seasonaily adjusted labor force figures are

prepared by the EPA in the same manner as unemploy-The Bureau of Labor Statistics prepares quarterly and ment figures.

monthly estimates of Japanese unemployment rates, ad-

juoted to US. definitions and seasonally adjusted. The

method used in making these estimates is as follows: France

Unemployment No adjustment is necessary to estimate un- The official monthly unemployment figures for

employment on a basis comparable to US. definitions. BIS France relate to the number of registered unemployed per-

uses the Economic Planning Agency's (EPA) seasonally ad- onm. No unemployment rate is published. In addition to

justed number of unemployed. These figures are published the monthly counts of the registered unemployed, the

in the EPA's monthly report, Japanese Economic Indica- French National Institute of Statistics and Economic

ton. The EPA method for seasonal adjustment was de- Studies (INSEE) makes annual estimates of the labor force

veloped by the EPA and is an adaptation of the X-10 Vari- and unemployment which, prior to 1974,were intended to

ant of the U.S. Bureau of the Census seasonal adjustment he comparable with the results of the French population

program. The X-10 was modified by the EPA to take ac- censuses. Since 1974, the annual estimates have been based

count of the rapid growth and structural changes expen- on the number of unemployed under ILO definitions, as

enced in Japan. Each year, the seasonal adjustment pro- determined from the results of annual labor force surveys.

gram is rerun to incorporate the experience of the previous Unemployment under ILO definitions represents a broader

year and to estimate the seasonal factors for the current concept than that under French census definitions. The

year. annual unemployment estimates are currently obtained by

Table B-1. Japan: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959-76

lNamher In thousands)

Item tn9 1so stat 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967

Reported lebor foar.e. . 44,330 45,110 45,620 46,140 46.520 47,100 47,870 46,910 49,830

Les Unpaid family workersw ho maorked Ions thor 151 5

hours .½ono t 17 SO '990 1aso I'84 0870 o30 790

Lee: Caeer militaryPesonnel. 210 210 210 220 210 220 220 230 230

Adjusnedoivilian labor fran .. 432320 44,120 44,910 45,940 45,430 46.060 46.780 47.850 46,910

Unemployed.980 750 680 590 590 540 570 650 230

Publiebed onemptoYment ateIp .r... . 22 1.7 1 A 13 1.3 1.1 1 2 1.3 1.3

Adjoted anemploytent rate(pernn..2.3 1.7 1,5 1 3 1 3 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.3

1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

Rported labto for .50,610 96,980 512530 51,960 51,990 53260 t3,100 63.230 53,780

Loes: Unpaid familyv rkerwho worked n-s than 15hro.. . 690 600 580 510 440 440 420 460 440

Leas: crer mliteryprns nnel. 240 240 240 230 230 230 240 240 240

Adjustd nivilien labor toe .. 46,680 0140 6 50,730 51,120 51.320 52,990 52,440 52,530 53,100

UnomploYd .590 570 n90 640 730 680 730 1,000 1,080

Published um-ploymnre rateIp .n.. ., 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.4 1I9 2.0

Adjuned unemployment rsat(pero.nt. . 12 1.1 1.2 1.3 1 A 1.3 1.4 1.8 2.0

trntmete hesed on reletionhip of new series to old ories In

1967.

86

130

increuing the unemployed job registrant merits to Includethe unregistered unemployed urrder ILO definitions-about6 percent greater In 1975. The extent to widch the registeredseries undercounts unemployment has declined sharplydose the adoption of a compulsory national insnuance sys-tern in 1967.

In October 1960, a regular meries of labor force rur-veya wau initiated, complementing the general populationcenutses. Thene sarveys indicate that the annual French un-employment and labor force estimates based on popula-tion cemans concepts need to be adjusted considerably toconfomm more closely to U.S. concepts. The annual un-employment estimates bated on iLO concepts, however,need to be adjusted only slightly to ronform to US. con-capts.

In March 1975, INSEE published an article in whichFrench unemployment from the March 1974 survey was ad-justed to "international definitiom.":`The internationaldefinitions used were the definitions adopted by the iLOin 1954. INSEE's method of adjusting survey unemploy.ment was the same as that being used by BIS, except thatpersons seeking a non-wage or -telary job were excluded byINSEE but are included by BIS. INSEE did not adapt thelabor force to "international definitions" in the article.

INSEE has continued its work on adapting Frenchunemployment to international concepts. In the lastchapter of the results of the 1975 end 1976 labor force sur-veys, INSEE presented estimates of employment and un-employment according to international definitions.'Additional questions initially incorporated in the 1975 sur-vey questionnaire made it possible to obtain more preciseestimates under international definitions. For example,questions are now being asked on current availability forwork and on jobseeking activity within the previousmonth. Prior to 1975, there were no such questions inthe survey.

Unmployment and labor forte

Registered anemployed. Official monthly unemploymentstatistics in Frence refer to the registered unempioyed, con-sisting of all persons registered with the employment officesat the end of each month. The figures are published by theMinistu of Labor in the Bullertn mensue des sratisrquesdt terail. The reductions in the INSEE coefficient bywhich the registered unemployed are inflated to obtainannual estimates of French unemployment partially reflecta substantial increase in the proportion of unemployedworkers claiming unemployment status following the adop-

taerntar Grasi "Methode et snarces ustrf poer i anoese do

chornvc, 6Eemonue etS srwapee, arch i97, pp. 6369.

'rtdosl S." and Piesne Lanalh, Enqute Sur LKnrk. de1975. Readier prashis Lea Cofeeeiois de L'INSE, Se-a D,Number 42X D-eobeer 1973. pp. 71-76; adEEquaertSWuLT'6pblodc 1976, Reardate p urleofr, L.s Coietdoas de LINSEE, Sest.D, N-uber 48, Novenbnt 1976. pp. 59-68.

87

tion of a compulsoey unemployment insurance system in1967. Prior to that, France had a nonstatutory inauranceplan established by coliective bargaining agreements. TheNational Employment Agency was established in July 1967to carry out employment exchange and other labor marketmanagement tasiks. The new system provider coverage forover half the French labor force, whereas the earlier plancovered only about one-quarter of the work force. Also af-fecting registration statistics was the 1975 enactment of anew program whereby workers laid off for economic reasonsreceive 90 percent of their former wages.

Like most registration counts, the French series islimited largely to recently employed wage and saLiry work-erm who have lost their jobs. Wage and salary workers makeup about three-quarters of the French labor force. Personsseeking a job for the first tioe rarely register, and womenworkers eppear to depend on the placement offices rela-tively less than men. Furthermore, the registration statis-tics do not include recipients of the "income guarantee,"a form of early retirement pension paid under certain con-ditions to older workers who lose their job. Despite theestablishment of the National Employment Agency, a sub-stantial number of unemployed still do not register as such,as ia clear from the results of the labor force survey.

Labor force taovey. INSEE conducted experimental laborforce surveys irregularly during the 1950's, using samplesof 5,000-10,0C0 households. In the series of surveys begunin October 1960, a sample of over 25,000 households wasused-a sampling ratio of I in 600. The surveys were con-ducted in October and March of alternate years, except in1961 when no survey was conducted. The survey of March1967 terminated this series.

Beginning in March 1968, INSEE inaugurated a newseries of labor force sunrveys, using a different samplingmethod than that used in the 1960-67 surveys. INSEE hadfound that the 1962-67 surveys underestimated the totalpopulation, particularly for age groups with the highestactivity rate. It was mainly to remedy this bias that the newsampling method was introduced. The sample for the newseries is made up of areas rather than households. Thegreater geographic concentration of interviews under thenew method permits savings in time and cost of intenview-tng. In addition, the new method permits better enumera-tion of persons in "marginal" lodgings, such as youngpeople living in individual rooms. Surveys in the new seriesare conducted annually each March,

6using samples of

55,000-60,000 households-a sampling ratio of I in 300.Detailed results of these surveys have been published through

'The auveys ar taken aver pestod of 7 wks. anay beels-inea the tast wk of Fbeouay nd ending the -acoad week of Apri.

Maso inientews (ie., sees 90 pererst) are ouadoeted during thefirtd 4 weeks of tehi period. The 1968 aussey, howevr, was delayedand sed 0ev e fairly lor period, and the 1975 aurvey wa son-dused to April and May teeten the popniatios oerses was takentn March.

131

March 1972. Summary results for 1973 through 1976 arealso available and have been utilized in this study to pre-pare preliTminary estimates for those years. From 1977 on-wards the survey is conducted twice a year, in March andOctober. No results for 1977 have been published yet.

Foreign workers are counted on the same basis as na-tional workers in the labor force surveys. Some separatedata on foreign workers are published in the survey results.

The French labor force surveys are limited to residentsof private households. Collective households such as mili-tary camps, hotels, hospitals, homes for the aged, and re-ligious communities are not surveyed. Also excluded areresidents of mobile homes. INSEE has made estimates ofthe civilian labor force excluded from the survey, and thesefigures have been added to the reported labor force.' In re-cent years, there have been about 500,000 such persons. AUlsuch persons are assumed to be employed; INSEE statesthat they are persons who are engaged in an activity.

Both the old and the new surveys employ the samebasic definitions and wording of questionnaires. The ques-tionnaire used in the surveys is so constructed that the pop-ulation 15 years of age and over (14 and over prior to1968) can be dassifled according to two different defini-tions of employment status-one corresponding to thatused in the population censuses, and therefore also com-parable to INSEE's annual labor force and unemploymentestimates, and the second corresponding more closely toU.S. labor force concepts.

Census definitions. In the population census, persons areasked to indicate their principal activity at the time of thecensus. Persons stating that they are employed or unem-ployed constitute the labor force. No further questions areasked regarding employment status. In the labor force sur-veys, people are asked their principal activity at the time ofthe survey and the interviewer records their spontaneous re-sponses. Those responding that they have a job or ae un-employed are comparable to the labor force under thecensus definition.

Labor force survey deftnitions. The labor force surveys at-tempt to probe deeper into the economic activity andstatus of those who do not initially respond that they havea job or that they are unemployed-the "inactive" popula-tion by census definitions. These are persons who respondthat their principal activity is that of housewife or student,or that they are retired from the work force. These personsare asked two additional questions. The fust question con-cents whether any professional activities were carried outduring the reference week. Persons who answer that theyworked 1 hour or more are classified as "marginally em-ployed." The second additional question concemsjobseek-ing activities. Persons without a job who did not work atall in the survey week are asked whether they sought work.

7The INSEE fig-ses were not derived from direct observation,and should be regarded only au estian tetd order of mgdtsde.

Those answering "yes" are classified as "marginally unem-ployed."

Under labor force survey definitions, the employedcomprise all persons responding "employed" as their prin-cipal activity plas the "'marginally employed" as definedabove. The unemployed comprise all persons responding"unemployed" as their principal activity plus the "mar-ginally unemployed." Thus, the labor force surveys arriveat a concept of the labor force broader than that of thepopulation censuses.

Under French survey concepts, persons do not haveto be actively seeking work or currently available for workto be counted as unemployed. Also, persons who worked afew hours during the survey week are counted as unem-ployed if they responded that their principal activity was"unemployed." On the other hand, persons on layoff andpersons waiting to begin a new job are counted as employedif they responded that their principal activity was "em-ployed."

Comparability of surveys. As mentioned earlier, France ini-tiated a new series of labor force surveys in 1968, utilizing asomewhat different sampling technique than used in the1960-67 surveys. Concepts and definitions remained thesame. INSEE statisticians assert that a gap between the oldand new series has undoubtedly arisen from the differencesin sampling methods. They have stated that the change insampling method had little, if any, effect on unemploymentunder census definitions, but fed that there may have beena significant impact on the "marginally unemployed" fig-ures. INSEE has made no link between the two series ofsurveys.

In analyzrig the survey results, BLS has noted a sharpincrease in the number of "marginally unemployed" personsbetween 1967 and 1968, from 132,000 to 306,000 (tableB-2). Some of the increase was undoubtedly due to deteri-orating economic conditions in 1968, but an unknown pro-portion may also be attributed to the better enumeration ofpersons in "marginal" lodgings under the new sampledesign.

Labor force participation rates provide another indi-cator of the break in the comparability of the surveys be-tween 1967 and 1968. The figures for teenagers are diffi-cult to interpret because the age of compulsory schoolingwas increased from '4 to 16 in 1968. Economic activityrates for both boys and girls declined slowly from March1963 to March 1967, then dropped sharply in March 1968.However, activity rates for several other age groups appearto reflect the effects of the change in surveying method m1968. Thus, between 1963 and 1967 activity rates of 20-to 24-year-old women held steady around 61 and 62 per-cent, then rose to 66.5 percent in 1968. Both men andwomen in the 55 to 64 age group also had an abnormal in-crease in economic activity, based on the previous trend.It may well be that women in their early twenties and menand women over age 55 who lived alone in rooming houses

88

132

French Labor Forc SUry I .eentnatrQUESTIONNAIRE INDIVIDUEL

Pour toma p n an , 7 96t a vant (at -rfant MOB ddftinct do 9)

P'61 n

alz~ -, : a c~e eR P - - - 1 2 0 d . ManeTC N -I Eou . nelmea nu h_ _ Selel ta ot | C ant N at na t Eeot In ot

HLL L W I i W LJ UL W 1sI L W Li& P 1 ( 3 r R E P r e nc e , h a c a ne cr 2 ._ ̂ O c a p _ e p i a m m A_ I. a n a r ' q a 'r n . h m I

IA2 cecn n e o~t e.n dancer acle -crim e S ± 9 Ž 2!)., rov9. PF ear a SEMAINE DEO RttENCE da an 1975

(d midc _minen do liodi o d mnnohn prcWnt / dare dannod te.M_ e a pa at e - n pne i e O i . [.I. i u d er.

d nce on. acmr~t non rn ond a en sidan.. n unmand d. . fancia. d-na Nun . JP-SM pMO eP.ron pa wa lenrpe

N a nrlc-ce u uno on. o n. in. (Jcrc cc noo raaic noc anonmnat ov enneptrinnn tIS. M_ e- a sdi~ in d unn ae p r _ m P aN-n - oceP pieI Our [T

euiee u r1 n. b frtu arr ? Ef otorun te a otiotdn oc ren ente 0coasonnattaa. Non -° S c ±o!fi f!I..P ~e r

11. (Si oui o 1 enr nocDdodan J:* D a t e r r d _ a e a n t Ife n q r a i7 l_ _ _ _ _ _ --& _ r. *ec ~ t Ced mcm tn -r non nnm mertnr cnt euenln tibh ole _ T

en ardent on mn mbn dae ataniile de nell d - t 1nro_nornre enlace.3

,numb. de sAlende Pconnoan a _ _o n t o c id n a n e e P dr fn n r t /p to a o i bf/AtWM}.

d A qCeda dae M._ a4 d a ame ta 7 A rtRJ . -Ž A-W

(Si en 1971 o pu l M oin L. . .. . 1 I I I

PARTIE 1. - ACTIVITE PROFESSIONNELLE PRINCIPALEr aro M | e c a n .. dc r i e e a t a a s a oDdR l t tn ( . e r re7r~n o n n o{i D rare a /d f t e a rA t e n .O da u n a n o r a c o n d t n c a n n n d aW

12. PRORESSION PUrN P . _ _ _ .__ _______9,no n u c , o f ~r a e n a o " 0 a _e e a a n n

13 M_. M -. nea 4n. _ r n M. , an an an rr -fe da ea p d 7 Our

Nnn

14. /Sir. nunl a die nisocon p~erdoddanr B. M_ naa- o4CAnd pn rlaa in nancn .

civrtutanr egncule cropncnetd . tflermie,. m~ceVer ... . ..................................t Membre d une prutbr ion tibdtele .................................. ............

|tEmorlcneor no neneillaur inddandant: an-eon, nummat~entiindoernat. arcT -veilleot A Ol-icrle Wor 1a co-rno done no pclume ieu7 . ..n.e . .

Idcpnenti enou tanner.|Su7end doun pnm cr anrill. C eon comnte.

S|aIn6 plone rat lrnrtm d nite d on .en cn.nJe de c in ait ...m .. .....M ... an w ruia-e. . . . . .ea. . . ..e 7 .. . .. .. .. ..t.n o.2 set.n d..

M_ Moe c ra 4" o r - 2en da 1 . . . . . .2ana teAn- 3

ooitore. con-ta, atotrulnan te aoes swmsDarn-a

necrnnr coed. et n . . . .15. S M.. nA ac , qe fea da Pryd .a _:

Mennuvnn P e v u66ii .................................................n.

Ou-ner .irulie lOSt .0S 2, arc. ......... .................. ..........Ou ncr oqalfIe no h- tnment u l it (Pt 1. P 2. P 3. et. ............................

1-

_ 2_

5123R.

& a M... - gan a rtn nO dre und wt bb, fa un due put EDF, SNCr, namh a naee.. Gede. _- - - nare r nn

_ __RfAn i . D.R.

__ _ __ _ II

89

133

F-d Lob F- SfW OL.4ig0-1,

IL tTA9I -. - _ - -. EEMMATAOT A.

,OL m. a M- d S - P-. M --

. N g a f

R- I- r_-.d : _:_

Cf-i.: 0: _

* P 0a A a

Ian sOc fafa *c

I . .1 a | I I. U

.I,, I, II, . .LL I

IL A A M- .5. - -s 6 & O_ d- M mfn (A -_P - _

A .........................

M6 . 1971 a ed. Mm.

IL. A.Aftf .ftll~

-Pfi n ., m n a-- P -W I .......

R:*_was~~~~lm~~v . .................... :.........................

5~ rdcsh e 1^_. a6 . .................................. ,._

P*. .... 1.. ..

19. M d- dt - d. .M sH f t O -n M f SE AfDftf if.

h-, I nn ' : I -I I

ng O m d. d n - in fS . iWa h- a nm . af l dfaOSgg

20 UA b d. do_ _ : . OCA a dA 4 5a. d gA. C r P ... .A .. (P .d 0............

Md .Y1: ................... 0 o _{

(M g ,. IV a f s k n f a f l f * S 0 2 L n i S a a a a s a f

Cage tw a f .......... 03 at . )

rgggfcn. a3g~cawaf m m i 04 H n g.g d - r6* - a- r - -.

M avafaw aS. fl o n n r .anam ndgc S i0 6 Mm. ................ .......................... I

Calg a|. b ..l ~. 06 a...a.............. 06 N a W Pfaf k u ae .. 11 W

r& p W 4 (fa Ia 07 d ..) .................................

E - a g i n f a kg f f a g Wn . T a m i . A a n p .. ;2

r4 _ a Tcl lp ............................ .. . . .)

P m f - a ::n : . a fn c m a, d eA . ac- . O9

I Y I

PARTIE 11. - RECHERCHE DUN EMPLOIr S un -v IaN pinaa Isat .. A, faav

21. _. dfdJm~f fal ie (a a3 e g - - 7

Ni a m _f~ai O ai4

fl. g _.. inma - ..ge.4 MABNOJSAIT. .cal -.J W ._ ...mm.....

T..a~~~~~~~~zu.. _ acd

T_ ~~~~~~~~... ...... .... .... ............

AEn a4iqu lmsar ..cnafafaif........... 3

22. MI&--- ~ mOS m.P.cm

a.. d~~~~~~~-f-I -Sf f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -.. rgrsm........................_1

Azn _ Pd%_ .......................... _

A finff af1 laA ..PW .... . ..............................................................A f ,and I. W. 441 . - 3.f I f -n .. .

A p.,bM W A4

r.o aim A, .-PI .f ................................

134

FP t Ltbor Poroo y SGasy Xtnnols

2I1 M7 dSdmA4 -t -OM s�oid pae s, d. ?ou1 ...................... ...N.n: d.d - oW i _1 , : ~ ................... ..,....... ,E, E

25. M d -4 tio kf550 -ln. sAft lo Ag- ftdod pCo M (mWE

bos-n OwtS Jon,.. trots rN... nA iERM UN MOSt Mi s-s C dk. S a p. sam -d W..... .

K notfl- . Mpio X., N on. M

A fort un mo dotm on otumlou 00 SoW tUso d diottsp , , IIA tipondo das dEt. Idsnctla pDotigs p monuondorm on osur on -on* d~n Ofdlp .iA d -tt p m o a s alk ................................ o,, ., ,,

A untrod d Suto motindo sdtstW. (Prhoiooo.t...................,, ,, !ji

It DVps dstS a dadw4 un _mdmOhonA dlld4 - .1 6 -d m 11 . ................... _..

A~~~ ~~~~ .0.6 min d.. = ....... ................... ,,...,,_2

t 3 mois^m .. .................. .,st3

I Mansms din non.tnonshnonnsdolnos ... _

mom moim do n ................... ,,,.,._.

3rlonooplos H....,,.otoram Ao n .ombo d on. ................... -

V nt de tnrm~~~~~3 . . i_ (o..mi- z u ............................. ...... ... .. ... ... .. _ 7

Vunt d setminorP,6 - 1 t n sr m.ilbo ., ............................ ...........

to mo ~t o do 1aW

Oou 1 1 .il 6. C U n ri . ..............................................................qui *titi un md o o l...............................................................

21.lwen~wl (ymSade -n- los pstsond-s oonoosIt. nmon jC. NLOW dt t.5a s ats1.(.

25. mFssu on e.s r/ ru~~ .FLZE t- o _t

1 1e d no onmint. boo tonn t atild fbls nltmd CW ................................... _

Mont dio oto.r un smtt tttu ti in nc-eir o

doti dtn onon on ttrl. (hsolo o rononol* toonffmon1 wgtd pr n canm do min~i( o il ................................. _-~~~~M c n baild. stl. usnon duo donnoem l rt telemo .Au~~~~~~wt cirtn ~~~~~~~~~~~~............. ...........................

poo moo Cov Vt. pdn _rt l dWts d

AidB ~~~~~~~~~Wilk N - d idl- .......... .................................. . ..........

pooAs t SSDIC . .................... .........................*.petsa.moat _a2

26. (P-/..s pronn otsdot I A to qosno B. FILTRE) Patina M. Sod-tJonas sspS

Aldo s uralo, to rs untan o m p. AS I . ...................... 3

Aids p.ion..................

A Lsrc-otno. A ISUP iWlb .. .d- ,.P-tdO ......AId.padins sob tm.S inoos ASE i. 1 -I -i ..........

N on. . ... .. .I .. . .. .. .. . .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. . .. ..

91

135

France: English transation of labor force survey questions relating to labor force status

S. Respondent is asked to classify himself in one offollowing categories listed on card 2:

1. Practicing a profession; employed;working in a relative's business as anunpaid family worker (go to Pan I)

2. Without work and looking for work3. Housewife (keeping own home)4. Student or pupil5. Milioary conscript (performing com-

pulsory service) (go to Part Ill)6. Retired7. Others without a professional position

9. During the reference week did ... practice a pro-fessional activity? (If yes,go to Part I)

Parn I-Employed Peemass

(To be completed for all persons classified under numberI to question 8 or replying yes to question 9)

12 to 16. Occupation. class of worker, industry, etc.17. Is.. a regular, seasonal, or occasional worker?18. Is the principal activity full or pan time?19. State the number of hourn actually worked duoing

the reference week in the principal profession- including overtime- excluding boor paid for but not worked;

travel between home and work site; boorlost due to sickness, holiday, or unemploy-ment

20. If the number of hours worked is less than 45,give reason:

A. Short-term reasons.- Start or cessation of job- Illness (including long-term dl-

ness)- Maternity leave (under national

insurance)- Annual or personal leave

Bad weather, reduction of sea-sonal activity

- Labor dispute (strike or lock-out)- Partial unemployment (or slack

work)Performing an occasional job atpresent

-- Participation in training courseOther (specify)

B. Long-term reasons (only if no short-tem reason is given):

- Normal working hours in estah-lishment

- Nature of work (tiring, danger-ons, etc.)

- Part-time job- Other(specify)

Paul iB-Seekig Employment

(To be completed for all pemons except militaryconscripts, whether employed or not)

21. Did ... seek a job (or another job)?- Yes -sought wage employment- Yn-sought self-employment (skip to fol-

lowing Part)- No (skip to following Pars)

22. If... found a job NOW, could he begin workimmediately?

- Yes- No, why?

- Finishing his studies- Has a job and is not able to quit

immediately- Temporarily ill-Other (specify)

23. Did ... look for:- A full-time job-A part-time job, but would accept a

full-time job-A parst-ime job only

24. Did ... seek a temporary job for a limited dur-ation?

- Yes-No permanent job only

25A. Is... registered at the Agence Nationale pourl'Emploi (ANPE) or a local employment bureau?

B. In the past month, did ... make any other at-tempts to find a job?

If yes:-Registered at private employment agency

or an agency for temporary work-Advertised in a newspaper or other public

place- Answered newspaper ads or other job

announcements-Asked personal friends-Other (specify)

26. How long has ... looked for work?-Not yet commenced job search- Les than I month-1-3 months- 3-6 months-6 mos-I year-1-2 years-2-3 years- 3 or more years

92

136

Table B-2. France: Unemployment as recorded by laborforce surveys, 1960-76

(Thousande)

__T_ _ Underresus MargiullyDate men"tt i n6n .n mobed

October .urVs:1960 . 450 202 2481962 . 47 264 2031984 . 420 254 1661966 6 . 06 371 135

Mrnih srv.:1963. 343 223 1201965. 30 236 1241967. 437 305 1321968 . 656 350 3061969 . 687 362 3251970 684 330 353

1 . 767 423 3441972 . 794 451 3431973. 734 394 3401974. 72 441 3421975. 1 ,185 737 4481976 1,350 911 439

'This suV ws edurtd in Asll.

were much better represented in the series of surveys be-ginning in 1968.

In the following method of adjustment, the possiblegap between the two series ofsurveys has not been taken intoaccount because of the absence of any data with which tomake an adjustment for the impact of change in surveyingtechnique. However, it should be kept in mind that theFrench unemployment rates adjusted to US. concepts arelikely to be somewhat understated for the period prior to1968 because of underenumeration of the "marginally"unemployed.

Method of adjustment

The detailed information provided by the labor forcesurveys can be used to estimate French labor force and un-employment according to US. concepts of measuring theseitems. In summary, annual estimates of France's labor forceand unemployment, adjusted to US. concepts, are dersvedas follows: (1) The total civilian labor force and unemploy-ment figures from the labor force surveys are adjusted toU.S. concepts; (2) ratios are computed comparing (a) theadjusted labor force with the civilian labor force figures(from the labor force surveys) that are comparable withFrench population census definitioms, and (b) the adjustedunemployed with the registered figure for the survey month;(3) annual adjustment factors are dersved and applied tothe published French figures. Detailed descriptions ofthese three steps follow.

Adjustment of labor force survey results to U.S. concepts.The adjustments of the reported unemployment figures toUS. concepts are shown in tables B-3 (October surveys)and B4 (March surveys). Total reported unemployment,including the marginally unemployed, is adjusted to:

93

I Exclude those who state that their prncipal activitywas unemployed but who did some work in the se-vey week The number of such persons is reportedin the labor force survey. (If those who worked lessthan 15 hours were unpaid family workers, theywould be classified as unemployed in the UnitedStates if they were seeking paid employment, butsufficient detail for making this distinction is notavailable from the French surveys.)

2. Exclude unemployed persons (both the "active" andthe "marginal") who stated that they had not yetcommenced seeking work Such persons vrould beclassified as outside the labor force m the UnitedStates. Some of the unemployed (census definition)who have not yet commenced seeking work may beamong those (already subtracted from the unemployedtotal) who stated they were unemployed but who didsome work in the survey week.

The number of unemployed persons who had notcommenced seeking work is reported in the laborforce survey. In the 1975 and subsequent surveys,persons were asked specifically whether they hadmade any attempts at jobseeking in the previousmonth Those who responded that they had not doneso have been excluded from the unemployed for com-parabiity with U.S. concepts. In the surveys prsor to1975, persons were asked how long they had beenlooking for work, but there was no specific questionas to whether active steps were taken in the previousmonth. Persons who responded that they had not be-gun to look for work were excluded from the unem-ployed in the years prsor to 1975 for adjustment toU.S. concepts. Thus, there may well be some personswho have not been excluded prior to 1975 who didnot take active steps within the previous month. Thisis indicated by the higher proportion of marginallyactive persons who did not commence seeking workin 1975 and 1976 compared with previous years-40percent in 1975 and 1976; 20-25 percent in 1968-74

3 Exclude unemployed persons (both "active" and "mar-ginal") who were not currently available for work ex-cept for reasons of temporary illness. Data on thenumber of such persons were not regularly collectedin the surveys until 1975 Results for that year indi-cated that 4.7 percent of the unemployed undercensus definitions and 40.2 percent of the margin-ally unemployed were not cunently avadable forwork (except for temporary illness). These propor-tions have been applied each year through 1974 toobtain estimates of the camber of persons not cur-really available for work. Beginning in 1975, a reg-ular question on current availabdity (within 15 days)was added to the survey, and data were published onthis point Again, there is a possibility of overlapwith items I and 2 above

4. Exclude the number of persons who fall into morethan one of the first three categories above, to avoidd-ublecounting. In the results of the 1975 labor forcesurvey, information on this point was provides forthe first time. The data indicated that II percent ofthe sum of persons in the first three categories, undercensus definitions, should be excluded because ofdouble counting Similarly, 23 percent of these per-sons in the "marginally active" category should beexcluded. For 1968 onward, the adjustment for over-count has been based on estimates supplied by

137

INSEE. For the years prior to 1968, BLS has madeestimates of the overcount based on 1968 relotjon-ships. The number of such persons has been addedback into the unemployed count.

5. Include persons who stated they were employed butwho did not work at all in their prinrtpal activity dur-ing the survey week because of partial unemploymentor slack work (i.e., temporary layoff) or because theyeither were waiting to start work or left their previousemployment. The number of persons in these twocategories is reported in the survey remits. Some ofthese persons may have worked in secondary jobsduring the survey week, but no data are available onthis point.

6. Include other jobseekers who said they had a job inthe "censos" sense but were looking for work in the"international" sense. This group comprises a smallnumber of workers identified by INSEE for the tusttime in the 1975 survey. They ore probably suchpersons as unpaid family workers who worked fewerthan 15 hours acd were seeking paid jobs. Theyshould be included under U.S. concepts. The 1975data indicated that they represented a small numberof persons, about 11,000. INSEE has used this figureas a constant in making estimates of unemploymentunder ILO concepts back to 1968. BLS has also

followed this procedure. For the years.prior to 1968,the number of persons in this category wus estimatedbased on 1968 relationships.

7. Exclude persons under 16 years of age from the un-employed count. The lower age limit for the Frenchlabor force surveys was 14 until 1968 when it wasraised to 15. Since compulsory schooling now endsat age 16 in France, 14- and 15-year-olds have beenexcluded from the unemployed in 1960 through1967, and 15-year-olds have been omitted from datafor 1968 and following years. The numbers of unem-ployed 14- and 15-year-olds was not separately re-ported in the labor force surveys. Their numbers wereestimated by assuming they had the same unemploy-ment rate as all teenagers.

The adjustments to the labor force figures reported inthe French surveys are shown in tables B-5 and B-6. Thetotal civilian labor force (including the "marginally" em-ployed cod unemployed) is adjusted to exclude unpaidfamily workers not at work, unpaid family workers whoworked I but less than 15 hours, and persons reportingthemselves as employed but who were not at work becauseof "durable reasons," that is, personal convenience or thenature of the job. Figures on all the above categones are

Table B-3. France: Adjustmriet of unemployment data from October sunveys to U.S. concepts, 1960-66

(Numbers in thousands)1960 1962 1964 1966

Irtam Total Male F-tle Total Male F-anr Total Mee Female Total Mabe Female

R.poried unemployed .450 190 2i0 465 183 282 420 175 245 506 204 302Less: Pernons s work I hour

or mor. 22 16 5 17 7 10 12 5 7 16 10 6Lest UnamploYad who have

not -ommenead seekingwork

1T .77 17 60 85 33 52 67 20 47 58 18 40

Less: Parsns not curretlyilahle fori work R

.i9 24 85 94 36 58 79 43 36 71 22 49

flou Adjustment for doublecount ........ 48 13 35 45 17 28 36 15 21 33 1 1 22

Plus. Employid persons not ntwork due toSturlurnocation o blj . 29 14 15 20 10 10 27 13 14 22 16 7Pertbil unmploymant

lseeckwork) .

46 20 26 41 19 23 33 13 20 29 14 15PlusI Other jnhsekss

.4 1 3 4 2 2 4 2 2 5 2 3

Adjusted nmpolve. mge 14end oer .369 151 219 379 154 225 362 150 212 450 198 264

Leta: 14-a nd 15-Vyn.-olds6 .. 21 10 11 21 10 11 19 10 9 16 8 10

Adjusted unemployed. ega 16and over .348 141 208 358 144 214 343 140 203 432 188 244

Rgi nerad unmpluyed lOtoberl. 116 69 47 163 94 69 119 71 46 154 93 61Adjusted unemployed age 16

and over m Perrent o0nrgistered unemployd . 300.0 204.3 4428 2198 1532 310.1 288.2 197.2 4229 280 .5 2022 4000

' Numb, of parsons reported st "nknwn" distributed poper- 4Th dusnMent allows for she fact that person mey have beentionelly. scuded more than once bhy pearing in more then one o the

s d on data repurned in the rvsys no rsons who ha not tbov ceeorim. Double count was timated as 23 Pement ol thecomm- ned skinsg jobt. No data wre evilable on the number 01 sbove thr cateeories.Pesona who had not actively wwght work in the precding mondth.

1Pena who were d-iaid us employed but who were seeking

Etimeat besed on data reported in 1979 which Indkatd 4.7 work and mould be coucted as unemployed under U.S cocepts.percent of the unemplovyd under MWus definitions end 402 par Etimasm bnsed on d a from INSEE which Indicate that thiu arspcmt of th marginally unempoyd wers not currently anellabl for is ejalvaent to 2 pearsnt of the rported unemployd.work. Number of 14 nd 1-vear-oidt reporsed in the srvey divided

by rntio of reported to adjusted unemployed eg 14 and over

94

138

Table -4. France: Adjustment of unemployment data from March surveys to U.S. concepts, 1963-76

(Numbers in thout.ant)

Item 1r e1963 1 19f 5 1967 1 1968

Item T.Wl I M.I. |F-.. Tt1 I M4 10 IF6 .. I To9i I M6 3 Fem1.| TnIl I MI I lF-.1

Reponed unemployed.L-ss Persons at work 1 hour

or . .3 .............Le Unemployed who rav not

omommoed seeking worklLa Persons not nurrotvly

enailble (or work2 .

Pins Adjustment for dooblecount

3 .

Plus Employed porsons not atwork due toStWr or netioa of job0l.Partial unemployment

(dank work)'.Plus: Othne j.olWmken

t4

.

Adjusted unemployed, ge 14and aver.Lss: 14-and 15-Vynr-oldst

Adjusted unemployed. ae 16and no. r

Registened onemployed (Mach) ...Adjusted unemploved ag 16

and onar as pewent of rg-istered unemployed.

Repr ted unemployed.Lass: Pero-,s at work 1 hour

Lass Unemployed who have notcssmsnned coking work'

Lss. P.nons not currendywoileble for monk

2 .

Plus: Adjustment ton doublecount

3 .

Pus: Emploed powons not atwork dut to:Start or canetion of job'Partial onemploytant

(dank work'..Pins Other jobseekers

4 .

Adjusted onemployed, oP 14and aver .LeS: 14 tnd 5yearoldo ...

Adjusted unemplvd, age 16and o ..r .

Registerd onemployed (MomSh)Adjusted unemployed op 16

and over s percent ot ruq-isterd unemployed.

Reported unemployed.Loss Perons 0t work 1 hor

Lss: Unemployed who hay. notconmmnced snaking monks

Less: Parsons not nurvtndyvailable for work

0 .

Pus: Adju tent oedoublenount

3.

343

8

56

31

18

317

29516

279

178

156.7

137

35

19

2FI

11

23

38

20

15

II I

2504

245168

655

1 1

105

139

61

28

36

5307

523

264

115.5 j 2339 1198.0 1512fi 2724 1200.5 156S 1281.8 1198.1 11484

10

153

1426

134

116

164

153

145

62

16

387

32219

303

153

10

153

1549

145

95

46

168

10

156

56

9

41

40223

379

169

214

20512

193

123

2

260

197

186

68

387

76

l4ot41

13

1 7

I632850

277

96

288.5

1969 1970 1971 1972687 278 409 684 249 435 767 273 494 794 287 506

19 12 7 19 12 7 21 13 8 24 15 9

102 27 75 109 25 84 123 30 93 117 24 92

148 39 109 158 36 122 158 39 119 159 33 126

70 23 47 78 23 55 77 21 56 79 19 60

26 14 12 22 12 10 26 15 11 18 9 9

29 13 16 26 11 15 23 12 11 20 9 1111 4 7 11 4 7 11 4 7 11 4 7

554 254 300 535 226 309 602 243 359 622 256 3664 2 2 4 2 2 2 I 1 2 1 1

550 252 298 531 224 307 600 242 358 620 255 365

246 148 99 250 145 105 335 190 145 389 221 167

233.8 170.3 301.0 212A4 154.5 292A4 179.1 127A 246.9 159.4 115A4 218.6

1973 1974 19756 1976

734 251 483 782 259 524 1,185 486 699 1.350 511 839

21 13 8 22 14 8 29 18 11 34 22 12

110 25 85 120 28 92 257 60 197 238 56 182

156 35 121 158 37 121 215 49 166 192 44 148

81 21 60 72 19 53 99 25 74 82 22 60

S. flootnote at end of tble.

95

1 564

27

1232

36010

57

61

29

14

16

2041 437

9

67

28

60

6:

237

3

34

50

20

139

Table B.4 France: Adjustment of unemployment data from March surneys to US. concepts, 1963-76-Continued

(Numnte in thtotendef

1973 1974 19756 1976It"m…… ……

Total Male Female Total Male Femle Tot M oble Female Total Mule FemaePus Emdloynd parson not at

work due toStarnorn neation of job

t 19 9i t8

9 9 168

6 26

13 13

Partial unempovyontIernkwonkP .. 20 9 11 20 9 11 35 16 19 16 8 10

Plus Other pb .....en ..

1t 4 7 11 4 7 1 5 6 5 2 3Adjusted unemployed, p 14

and over. 77 221 356 603 221 323 645 413 432 1.017 434 683Les 14- and I-vYsrold s .... 2 1 1 2 I 1 2 1 1 2 1 t

Adjused unemployed, p 16dov r. 575 220 355 6OI 220 392 843 412 431 1.015 433 582

Rqginmd unemployed IMrh) . . . 376 192 19 439 207 232 755 391 364 938 465 474Adjused unemployed eag 16

and ovr- newest of retistered nemploed 152.1 1146 190 136. 106.3 164.7 111.7 105.4 118.4 108.2 93.1 122.8

'Number of perons rePorted as unknown ditnributad propor-lonaily.

'Thlgh 1974 einrated m- 4.7 percent of unemployed undercensus definitions and 40.2 porcent of the narginally unemployed.BHginni g 1975. based on -injta of the sure.

3Thl, adjustment a Iows for the fact that preons may hate beene..luded demo than ons by appearlng In wore than Mea of theabove anegori. Frem 1966. the adjustment was ma on the basisof data spplied by INSEE. tlobi.e uount for priorynrs etnimatedae 23 pawent of the above threecatorI

reported in the survey results. The unemployed who havenot commenced seeking work or who were not currently

available for work should also be excluded from the laborforce. The method of estimating these categories waoexplained above. Also, the adjustment to eliminate doublecounting in these unemployed categories must also be madehere.

8

Finally, the number of persons in the reported labor

force who are under the age of 16 should be excluded. Thenumber of 14-year-olds in the labor force was separatelyreported in the surveys conducted from 1960 through1967. In 1968, the lower age limit was raised to IS. The

number of 15-year-olds in the labor force has been esti-

mated by applying the reported labor force participationmate for 15-year-olds to the estimated 15-yerold popula-tion from demographic data reported to the OECD.

9

1The doubl-count udjunmeot wu moddifed slighdy to apply onlyto double ounting of persons who had sot commesned mtkintgwork and were a1so not corntly avaiabte fmm work. Thus, the ad-justment did not apply to persons who stated that thei principalactiity was 'unemployed" but who did some work ln the surveyweek. Such persons wert eucuded from the unemployed, butshouU sot be stcluded from the labo forme becmuse they would beclassifid a employed by U.S. concepts.

9Orpanisation for Economic Coopeotin acd Denslepreot,

Dfemojrphic Treodc Suppleme-t Country Reporti (Paus, OECD,1966) and Demoycphtic .rends, 197)&198.5 l OECD MemberConorides (Pazs. OECO, 1974).

Pewove who we- dnsitid as employed. but who woe, seekingwork end .-old be .Mcoted as unemployed under U.S. co...pte.g., unpaid family worker who worked fewer than IS hours andw seeking paid jobBl. The figurmn for 1968 unword wore suppliedb INSEE. For prior Vrs., estimated as 2 Pe..., of the oumber ofreported uneptoved.

sNumber of 14. nd IS 1-erolds reported in the -rVey dividedbe ratio of reported to adjused noemploved oe, 14 andover

't.. for April

Detailed results of the French surveys through March1972 have been published. For the later surveys, onlysummary results have been pubhshed, and these have beenused to make interim estimates until the detailed resultsbecome available. Therefore, some minor revisions maybe made in the future in tables B4, B4, snd B-7.

Adjustnrent rmtios. (See tables B-3 through B4.) Ratios of(a) labor force figures adjusted to US. concepts to (b) un-adjusted figures based on census definitions were computedfor each labor force survey. Ratios of adjusted unemployedto registered unemployed for men and women were alsocomputed. The unemployment ratios were computed sep-arately for men cod women because of the large differ-

ence in the degree to which unemployed men and womenregister. In March 1976, the adjusted civilian labor force age16 and over was 1.5 percent greater than the civilian laborforce by French census definitions. Adjusted unemploy-ment was 8 percent greater than unemployment recordedin the registered unemployed seties. Male unemploymentaccording to U.S. concepts wat 7 percent rmaller thanregistered male unemployment; female unemploymentunder U.S. concepts was 23 percent higher than registeredfemale unemployment. The March 1976 survey was thefirst one to show an overstatement of male unemploymentby the registered ceries; all previnos surveys had indicatedthat the registration series understated male unemploymentby U.S. definitions.

96

140

Table B-5. France: Adjustment of labor force dats fromOctober survey to U.S. concepts, 1960-66

(Numbrn in thous.n.s)Item 1960 1962 1964 1966

Repoted civiian labor ot .. 20,025 20.542 20,62 20,346Less: Unpaid family workers

Not at work .27 46 36 35

At work l- than 1b hous.. 178 168 177 136Lan: Employad parsont not at

wink for dumnbin reasons23. lb 13 32 33Lea: Employed who hod not

nommand making worka. . 77 85 67 58Les: Pesona not ourrntlyavaiable for works

0 .109 94 79 71

Plus: Adjuttmtnt for doublevaunt

t .21 24 23 21

Adjusaed ivilion labor forte, ag14andon r.19240 20,254 20.494 20.636Last 14 and 1-Yar old

t. 8ls1 442 360 300

Adjusted otuilian labor tofueage 16 and ovr.. 19,059 19,112 20,126 20,328

Reported oilian labor forte(tems dtfinition. . 186929 19.672 20,055 20.239

Adjusted uiian labor forceage 16 and outran pernent ofrepornod ivilian labor lora7 1 00.7 100.7 100.4 100A4

XL.bor fuce surveyed including marginally etive plus erimatedlabor forca not vovarad by the .umay Ian arsar military pasonnesi

'Numbar of parsons reported m unknown ditributad propor-siovelly.5

"fMoable reasons" aners to natuan of the job and pamn.al von

48 red on dat reported In tea srvey- on parona who hed otnammenoed staking jobl. No date went avilable on the number ofparsons who had non antlualy sought work in the panceding month.t

Essiatad an 4.7 paroent of unemployed under neosus dfini-tianr and 40.2 panoet of the marginally unemployed.6

This edjuasment allors fo the ft that parsons may hatebeen nooludad morn than ante above sinus they could hane neitheroomsnnad eking work nor been narnatly available for work.

Numrber of 14- and "I ynoruIds stimated in the survey dividedby nrtin of reported vivilian labor fume to adjusted labor fumeae 14 and oer.

'nEtimate.

The adjustment factor for men has been decliningrapidly in recent years. In March 1969, male unemploy-ment adjusted to U.S. concepts was 70 percent higher thanregistered male unemployment. By 1970, this factor hadfallen to 55 percent, and by 1975, to 5 percent. Part ofthis decline was brought about by the spread of the NewEmployment Agency throughout the country. The declinewas also related to higher unemployment benefits in Francewhich induced more persons to register. Periods of reces-sion, such as 1974-76, also tend to cause more unemployedpersons to register at employment offices, thus reducingthe adjustment factor which u applied to the registrationsseries.

Female adjustment factors have also been declining(except in 1976 when the factor rose slightly) for the samereasons stated above. However, the adjustment factors forwomen remain much higher than those for men since manyunemployed women are new entrants or reentrants to thelabor force and are not eligible for jobless benefits.

97

Annual estimates ofisbor force anddunemploymentardjusredto U.S. concepts. The adjustment factors developed fromthe labor force surveys for October and March of alternateyears 1960 through 1966 and March of each year beginningin 1967 were prorated by month to obtain annual averageadjustment factors (shown on table B-7). For the years1959 and 1960, the adjustment factor for 1961 wasassutmedto apply. The March 1976 adjustment factor was assumedto apply in 1976 in order to make preliminary estimatesfor that year. When the March 1977 survey results areavailable, some revisions to the 1976 unemployment esti-mates may be necessary because of the prorating technique.

The October surveys taken at 2-year intervals between1960 and 1966 indicated much higher unemployment ad-justment factors than the March surveys. This may indi-cate a large seasonal variation in adjustment factors; how-ever, it is difficult to determine the extent of seasonalvariation in the factors unce no two surveys were taken inthe same year. A comparison of age distributions of theunemployed in October and March reveals some significantdifferences. The following tabulation shows the average agedistribution for the 1962466 October surveys versus thedistribution for the 196347 March surveys:

Total under anosus definitions,4 to 19 Ye .. .. .. .20to24Y e .25 to b4 yaan.59 and mar.

Total marginally seta...14to19yes .20 to 24 yse.25 to 54 y.. .55 and ov r.

Oceobar Maw,,(Pe1renn)

100.0 100.0346 31313.5 s aI.362 41313.3 1223

100.0222Its47.019.0

1000279129412173

These figures indicate that, under census definitions,teenage unemployment was a higher proportion of totalunemployment in October than in March. The reverse wastrue for marginally active teenagers.

According to census definitions, teenagers seekingtheir first job had a much higher representation in the Oc-tober surveys. For the marginally active teenagers, however,representation was highest in March, as shown in the follow-ing tabulation:

Under mon.s definitionsMarginally setive.

Ocsaber M-amh/Peneund

24.1 16.3192 24.5

These differences probably reflect the fact that in-school teenagers ("marginally active") are more likely toseek work in March for the coming sunmmer vacation. Ac-cording to INSEE officials, out ofaschool teenagers ("censusdefinitions") who completed their schooling in the previousJune tend to look seriously for their fust job around Sep-tember and October, after a sumrmer vacation. Thus, there

141

are some important differences between March and October (except in 1963). In 1959, the adjusted French unemploy-survey results. ment rate was 2.0 percent, whereas the rate based on un-

In 1977, INSEE began to conduct two surveys each adjusted data was 1.3 percent (table B-7). By 1976, the ad-year-in March and October. When results of these suxveys justed and unadjusted figures were much doser-4,6 andbecome available, the extent of the seasonal variation be- 4.5 percent, respectively.tween the Mooch and October adjustment factors will bebetter known. uarterly and monthly estimates

The annual adjustment factor for the labor force hasfluctuated within a narrow range of 9917 to 101.5. The ad- BLS estimates seasonally adjusted jobless rates ad-justed labor force was occasionally below the labor force juoted to US. definitions for France. The method used inunder census definitions because the addition of the "mar- making these estimates is as follows:ginal" labor force was more th cancelled out by the sub-traction of 14- and 15-yeat-olds, unpaid family workers Unemployment. Quarterly and monthly adjustment factorsnot at work or working less than 15 hours, and other ele- (to adjust to US. concepts) are derived from the annualments not induded in the US. labor force, as discused French labor force surveys by prorating between surveys, aseahlier. described above. These adjustment factors are applied to

the INSEE seasonally adjusted number of registered unem-Uetemployment rate ployed to arrive at seasonally adjusted estimates of jobless-

nes adjusted to US. definitions. The seasonally adjustedAdjusted unemployment rates are obtained by divid- registered unemployed series is published in INSEE's

ing the adjusted unemployed figures by the adjusted labor monthly bulletin, Bulletin Menaune de Strastiriue. INSEEforce figures. These adjusted rates are higher than the un- utilizes the additive version of the X-l I Variant of the US.employment rates calculated from published French data Ceoluis Bureau's Method 11 seasonal adjustment program.

Table B-6. France: Adjustment of labtr force data from Mahs srunrveys US. concepts, 1963-76

(Numb. in Thousan)

ten, 1963 1965 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975k 1976

Repoted ivilibn labor fo.e . 20,179 2650 20.63 21,304 21,417 21,621 21.658 212818 21 2914 22,154 222902 23027Las Unpaid family worker:

Notst ..ork. 4 6 6 7

31 4

8 4 5 51 4

8 3

5 41n l e t

2 4 30 2 8

Atworkl enhdnlIs h-s3 ... 139 162 141 86 111 135 117 124w j6 2

123 125Less: Employd p.erons sot as

work foodurable rn sons3.5 22 9

20 24 1 1 14 19 19 .

19 i 19 o

17 617Le Userployed wiho had notcomrneoed eki.nowork ' .. 69 67 46 105 102 109 123 117 116 120 257 230

Les: Peson. not cunt ttly 6eail letor work

8s 08 61 67 139 148 9 SO 158 159 156 158 215 192

Plus Adjustment for double ount' 29 27 26 56 58 72 70 72 74 67 94 77Adjused civilian lbor fore, age 14

end oer. 19 s74 20,172 20,251 20,968 21 s58 21,212 21,262 21,435 21,542 21,762 222356 22,504Les 14eand 15-yearwolds' .'.. 468 435 420 97 56 55 29 29 035 025 025 620

Adjusted omioltan labor form., eP16o ..do r. 19,46 19.738 19,831 20,861 21202 21,171 21,234 21,406 21.516 21,727 22,331 22,484

Reported olilet lbor loom(cm nusdfniitioes. 19,518 19,864 19,.22 20.609 20,764 20,940 202994 21.119 21,252 21,487 22,048 22.152

Adjusted irWilrd obor form ae16 eed ore, pret of reportediodvili Mbor foe. . 99A I 94 951 101.2 10111 101 1 1.1 0104 6101.2 6101.21;101.3 6 1013 5

Datn for April2Lebor tome rasYd iouluting marginally ein plus i..

mated Iabor forte not .oered by the wrnv laes cner milbtervKr-onel.

3Nunber ot persons rported a "unkeuws" distributd prpor-tionally.4

Through 1974. teimatd as 0.7 pmrnt of rnportd labor farc(date not yet published). Beinnina 1975 the number at work IessThen 15 hour was publidred. Number not at mrk w estimadromt 1972 proporion.

5"'r e reasons" inhfer to natun of The iob and penal l5

Pralimisory.Th-rusih 1974. bnad on date Ported In the eaners on p-

men hasbo had not ommemcd _kng work. Beinninslg 1975,baed on enult of aific question in asmey on somber of penent

who hbd not autctey egought work in ehe pnedin monTh.8Throtgh 1974. intomated m 4 .7 perent of uronployed onder

mes. definioons and 40.2 pemont of the msrglially unemployd.Besieniog 1975, based on muleb of the r0ev.

em is djusmoent elton, for the faCt that pernom mayv hb benIuldd .-mom thee oncs done irme hY o-ould h neithr om-

me d -akine work nor boo oundrnny D-lble for mrk. From1968. The djustment was made on The basic of dote suppld byINSEE. DUble ront for pror yeanr otimated as 23 pnt ofThe aboe two categ s.

l ewinning en 1968, The lbor fort dats rlate to l5-yeerndsand _r. Thest m, only 1 ar-olds are omitted in 1968 aedfollowing yen The somber of perons undr 16 mer c8t-

mantd trom Thn wny ed " w dn idad by dhs rdo of rnpontedclnilian labor fame to adjuted civilian labor fonse ae 14 for 151end ov-r

99

57-254 0 - 80 - 10

142

Labor force. BLS estimates quarterly civilian moor force adjusted unemployment (adjusted to US. definitions) byfigutes based on INSEE estisates of end-of-year civilian the seasonally adjusted (adjusted to US. definitions) laboremployment and end-of-quarter data on the number of force. Monthly unemployment rates are calculated in aemployees in nonagricultural industries and other avail- similar way. Since estimates of the labor force are onlyable data. The BLS estimates are then seasona'ly adjusted available quarterly, the labor force is held constant for eachusing the U.S. Bureau of the Census X-l I seasonal adjust- of the 3 months which make up that quarter. Additionally,ment program, multiplicative version. the latest available labor force figure is used until enoughUnemployment nrte. Quarterly unemployment rates are data are available to make a more current estimate. At thatcomputed by dividing the 3-month average of seasonally time, quarterly and monthly jobless rates are recalculated.

Table B-7. France: Labor force and employment data bafore and after adjustment to U.S. concepts, 1959-76

-Nurrin 0 tu...anftl

Itanm 1 1959 | 190 | 1961 | 1962 | 1963 | 1964|1965 |966| 1967

PUBLISHED FIGURES

Rninrdareunrplavad ....................... 141 130 1I1 123 140 114 142 148 196Mle-* ............................... 8 82 67 72 86 71 86 92 123Fel ............................... 55 49 45 01 54 43 55 55 73

CAvilian lbor r .......... ,92 18.,951 18.919 19,050 19.399 19,o38 19.813 19.964 20.118Totala l -PI.yd ..............n...a....- v254 239 203 230 273 216 269 280 365

Phrt f rsgind ...... -1................. IO 184 183 187 1905 189 189 189 186Utnplavma .a. ......................... 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.8

ADJUSTED FIGUREa

iNli l tora Irund) ..... -.............. 19,060 19,080 19os050 19.160 19,340 19.88 19,750 20.000 20.100Prertns of pusblihad figur ....... ............. 100.7 100.7 100.7 1006 99.7 100.2 99.7 100.2 99.9

Unvmpiovad (rndadi. ....................... 380 350 300 280 260 290 310 380 408

Matle . ....... 160 153 125 115 110 127 142 175 192Prent of ralstnrd ..................... 196.2 186.2 191.2 19.3 1335 1789 1846 14 90 1858

Female ............... ................. 218 194 178 167 149 163 68 203 212Pereent of ritrad ...... ............... 385.7 395.7 395.7 327.0 270.0 378.1 305.1 369.0 289.8

UnemPIevnt smt n. ......................... 2.0 1.9 5 1. 15.s 1.3 1.5 18 1.9 2.0

1968 1969 1 1970 [ 197 | 1972 1 1973 1 1974 1 1975 | 1976

PUsLgS14ED FIGURES

Regimard u plvd ...... .................. 254 223 232 338 383 394 498 840 934Mae .1................................ 156 129 146 188 208 193 238 4238 444FPtan ........ ,. ............ 98 94 116 150 176 201 260 412 490

Caslien tr I . .......................... 20,176 20,434 20.750 20908 21.165 21U388 21715 21,733 21U863Total aeplavd

t........... , . , . 427 340 350 446 492 450 615 889 993

Pereat of reinered ....................... 168 152 138 132 138 114 123 106 106UnempiYm t n . ......................... ra2.1 1.7 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.1 2A 4.1 4.5

ADJUSTED FIGURES

a0 -f (-n1dadc .....larfare............... 20,380 20,660 209680 21.210 21U430 21.640 21,980 22,040 22.190Phm of putliahed fir ................... 101.0 181.1 101.1 101.2 181.3 101.2 101.2 101.4 101.5

Unempioed ra dd) ....................... 530 49 540 590 610 580 650 930 1320

Mal . -.............. ... 246 213 214 233 340 216 253 430 413P ataof riteral.nd ... ' .' .. 154.1 164.9 146.A 124.2 115A 112.0 100.2 101.6 93.1

Panda ................ 285 380 323 359 370 368 392 497 603P.em- of rtnaad .................... 232.2 298.0 278A. 23988 210.5 183.3 150.9 120.7 122.8

Uaplayvnnt s . 264......... , 2.61 2.82 2.8 2.7 3.0 4.2 4.6

tUntl 1971 btasd on terwa detfnitiona; ther-forth. bd on

LO dtfinitiona

99

143

Germany

The official unemployment statistics for Germany areadministrative statistics representing the number of personsregistered as unemployed at the offices of the employmentservice. Since 1957, the registered unemployed series hasbeen supplemented by data on unemployment obtainedfrom a household labor force survey, the Microcensus. TheMicrocensus definitions and concepts are similar to US.labor force survey concepts and the Microcensus is usedas the basis for adapting German unemployment statisticsto U.S. concepts.

Unemnployment

Regrtered unemployed. The German registered unemployedcount is taken on a specified day at the end of each monthand covers those who at some previous time registered usunemployed and whose job application has not yet beensettled. Persons IS years of age and over without a job oremployed for less than 20 hours per week are counted asunemployed if they are available for work, not ill, and seek-ing paid employment of 20 hours per week or more. Regis-tration is not compulsory, but it is an essential conditionfor receiving unemployment benefits. The data on registra-tions are published monthly by the Federal Labor Officein Amrliche Narchrichren.

The registration statistics distinguish between un-employed jobseeken and jobseekers who are not unem-ployed (table B-8). All jobseekers are referred to as "ar-beitsuchende." Unemployed jobseeker are designated as"arbeitslose," the official German unemployment concept.The difference between th, jobseekers and the unemployedcomprises the "michtarbeitslose arbeitsuchende," that is,jobseekers who are not unemployed. These are mainly per-sons who have a job, but are looking for a new job or a sup-plementary job. Also included in the "tichtarbeitslosearbeitsuchende" are persons who are not employed andwho are seeking "insignificant" employment of less than20 houn per week.

In 1976,the total number ofjobseekers was 1,296,000,of whom 1,060,000 were unemployed and 236,000 werenot unemployed. Of the unemployed, 84 percent wereseeking full-time work ("volkzeitarbeitslose") and the re-mainder were seeking 20 hours or more, but not full-timework ("teilzeitarbeitslose"). Statistics are not published onthe number of persons working less than 20 hours per weekwho are classified as unemployed.

Beginning with December 1959, persons m the con-struction industry who receive unemployment insurancebenefits known as "bad weather money" (payable duringthe period of November I to March 31) are excluded fromthe unemployment count. This makes a substantial differ-ence in the registered unemployed total since constructionunemployment in Germany i generally very heavy in thewinter months; peak unemployment in January was 3 to 5

Table B-8. Germany: Statistics on the regsteredunemployed, 1959-76

(Thoundo

TotalYear r., of unePonvd Othle

iobsek-n jobr-ker iobr-k-3

19593 659 540 1191960 395 271 1241961 302 181 1211962 272 155 1181963 303 186 1181964 282 169 1131965 252 147 1051966 277 161 1is1967 579 459 1201968 442 323 1201969 301 179 1231970 281 149 1321971 ...... 325 185 1401972 403 246 1561973 . 42 273 1781974 ...... 77 582 196115 .... 1274 1.074 2001976 1.296 1.060 236

'The are rhe ofkial Gen unevelo nnsenl veg-. Som.Perons with negidg eoovitent are inOldad.

Conp=ri lobseeke who hve a lob but .re looking la anew ,ob or a wppl-meetary Job and person who are not mployedand who akig work of Iass dran 20 hoon per we k.

DMU for 1959 e onrin the nonannaudrr indusrMy whor eeie o onsmpl e btervlit known as "bad weather moeyv.'For 1960 and lste vain, -ch persons auidd fron theuneoploVed.

SOURCE: Awdkhe Nahroihr - IN-bergbs, Gan-ee FederalLebor Offioe.

times the September level in the late 1950's.Separate figuresare available on the number of recipients of "bad weathermoney." Persons outside the construction industry whoregister to receive short-time benefits have always been ex-cluded from the registered unemployed count. Separatefigures are also collected on the number of such persons.

The yearly average of registered unemployed is com-puted by dividing by 12 the sum of one-half the total forthe previous December plus the monthly totals for Januarythrough November of the current year plus one-half thetotal for December of the current year. This method isused because the counts of registered unemployed aretaken at the end of each month.

The German registered unemployed series has certainlimitations as a precise measure of unemployment. Regis-trants are drawn predominantly from the wage, and salarylabor force. There are indications that certain unemployedpersons, particularly women and teenagers, choose not toregister. Also, unemployed persons who do not want towork at least 20 hours a week are excluded. They wouldbe considered as unemployed in the US. and German laborforce surveys. On the other hand, registrations include anumber of part-time workers with negligible employment(i.e., working less than 20 hours per week) who want morework. Under U.S. and German labor force survey defini-tions, such persons would be regarded as employed. The

100

144

fact that the count is made as of a single day instead of alonger period tends to produce a higher figure than woulda count of persons who have not worked at all during anentire week. as in the United States. Also, the figurescould include persons who found jobs and started work-ing after the date on which they initially registered orrenewed their registration.

Microcensus. Since 1957 the monthly count of the regis-tered unemployed has been supplemented by the Micro.census, a sample survey of households conducted by theFederal Statistical Office. The survey, first taken in October1957, was generally conducted in January, April, July, andOctober until 1975. At that time, the quarterly surveyswere discontinued, and only one survey is now conductedeach year, in the last week of April or the Ist week of May,depending on which week contains no public holiday.

Household samples of 1.0 percent (about 180000households in 1960 and 230.000 households currently)were surveyed in October 1957-62 and April or May of thefollowing years. Surveys for the other three quarters useda 0.1-percent sample. Summary survey results are publishedperiodically in the monthly Wirtschaft und Statistik. Thedetailed survey results are published in Series 6 of Bevolke-rung and Kultur.

The reference period for the Microcensus is the weekprior to the survey interviews. There is no specified periodfor jobseeking activities related to the definition of unem-ployment.

The unemployed in the Microcensus are defined aspersons 14 years of age and over who are not at work in thesurvey week and who state that they are unemployed orthat they are looking for work. Unemployment status is de-termined by the answers to two questions. The first asks'Is this person unemployed?" The term unemployed is de-fined to include persons who normally have a job but aretemporarily out of work as well as persons coming out ofschool and looking for an apprenticeship. Persons whonormally do not have an occupation, such as housewivesand pensioners who were not recently working, are not tobe classified as unemployed under this question.

The second question asks 'Vas this person lookingfor work?" An affirmative answer to this question also re-sults in classification of a person as unemployed if he didnot work in the reference week. This question is designedto find out how many nomnally inactive persons are seekingwork.

The total number of unemployed persons-"eewerb-sdose"-consists of those classified as either unemployed inthe first question or as looking for work in the second.Those enumerated as unemployed in the first question areclassified as unemployed whether or not they state thatthey are looking for work in the second question. Thus,there may be some inactive worksrekers in the Microcensusunemployment total.

There is also no probing into the unemployed person'scurrent availability to begin work. Thus a person seekingwork in April but only able to accept it in June is enumer-ated as unemployed in the April Microcensus. A sudden in-crease in youth unemployment in April 1968 is partly ex-plained by the change in the school-leaving date fromMarch to July that year. The large youth unemploymentrecorded in April 1968 includes students who reportedthemselves as unemployed but who were looking for workbeginning in July. The 1977 Microcensus (for the laborforce survey of the European Community) asks for the firsttime whether persons who claim to be seeking a job awe im-mediately available for employment. The results from the1977 Microcensus are not yet available.

There is no question concerming layoffs mn the Micro-census. German statisticians believe that persons on tempor-ary layoff are most likely classified as employed in theMicrocensus. They would probably be regarded as "with ajob but not at work." According to German statisticians,persons waiting to report to a new job at a later date areprobably classified as economically inactive, and tempor-arily ill jobseekers would be counted as unemployed.

Foreign workers in Germany are included within thescope of the Microcensus, and unemployment data havebeen shown separately for such workers in recent years.For example, in May 1975, 134,000 unemployed foreignworkers were reported in the Microcensus. This compareswith 167,000 registered unemployed foreign workers in thesame month.

The following differences between the Microcensusconcepts and U.S. unemployment concepts have beennoted: (I) Current availability to begin work is not re-quired in the German survey, but is required in the U.S.definition of unemployment; (2) active jobseeking is notrequired in the German survey, but in the United States aperson must have engaged in some specific jobseekingactivity within the past 4 weeks;iu (3) persons on layoffare probably classified as employed in Germany (unlessthey state they are looking for work) and as unemployed inthe United States; (4) persons waiting to report to a newjob at a later date are classified as not in the labor force inGermany and as unemployed in the United States.

Method ofeadiustmtent. No adjustment is made to the Micro-census unemployment figures to account for the definitionaldifferences noted above. The data needed for such an ad-justment are not available since these categories are notenumerated in the Microcensus. The overall effect of thesedifferences is believed to be small. The lack of a test of cur-rent availability and inclusion of some inactive jobseekerstend to bias the unemployment figures in an upward direc-tion for comparison with US. concepts; on the other hand,

10Unless awiitmg reus from laynff oru uiting to satt a new jobwithin 30 dayr In these csus, the peron wouat alga be aulted aunemployed even though not aetivly reeking wurk.

101

G-nmn Mi-1omnbs OabI-o1.nr. (EO0po)

__M_ ___ Ablb_____ D. i@D UDN 2 J- _ VI. FRAGEN AN DlE HAUSHALTSMIGLIlDER2

I,2. .2 7702 lf7 -2 0120 2D202 I72 ;g1_ 22rX~q*O .27U02 0222 D Vergossen Se nicht, nach der * n 3. I OmU

S_ - -_DD. ID N 22, * o. 0 ZWEITEN Ervverbstitigkeit zu fragen .I N

2 -2

222 2 jZ 222*D ; Ir c 2a2. EUS hSX 3 s r 37, Klartext etintragen . aW . 7 _ Cn

E-~Jflgkti- ud -fsig Utr. tqeln ~ ~ /ili

22 23 f. _ 2 33 2,720. 22.. 12 o7 12 2. I77.22~~.27 ~ ~ ~ l2272 4 0.0. 5*7.0.27, A- - - S ,.G.hif

222.0.2 0~aW [0n02rteo ............................... A2rb 22N- 0G d. T. ...

_7 Al 4. _r14.

2220.2 2222.2 ~~~0.1 I~, 2 G7222 ~ 0

= -072. = -. 2=.70 _ 20 1 2._ 222

= ._ _ _ . _ = D1 2 ==

__ _ =-, __-_0, 2

__ =___ =_ __ L14 _ I 3

__ = __ __ =___ =- ____ __ __ e - -

I

146

Gemay: Enlish trdnslation of labor force survey quelstiors rlating to labor force status

Columns 22-34. To be completed for employed and all other persons:

Column 22. Is ... normally employed in an occasional, or full-time job, or as sn unpaid family worker?

Column 25. Is ... unemployed? If yes, does ... receive unemployment benefits?

Column 32. What is . chief means of lvelihood?-Employment-Rent, personal fortune, pension, old-age benefits, relief benefits-Unemployment insurance or unemployment welfare assistance-Assistance from parents or husband-Soldier

Column 33. Was ... seeking work by:-Applying at labor exchange-Applying at private employment agencies-Newspapers-Personal friends or trade union-Participating in competitive exam-Other

Column 34. For jobseekers without a job. If job ended within last 2 years, list the precise date at whichthe job ended.

Columns 35-44. To be completed for employed persons:

Columns 35-39. Name of employer, location, industry, occupation, and class of worker.

Column 43. Hours worked in survey week.

Column 44. If . worked less than 42 hours, give reason.

103

147

exdusion of persons on layoff and persons waiting to starta new job biases the figures in a downward direction. Thesetwo opposite effects tend to cancel cuah other to some ex-tent. If a bias remains, it is likely to be that the hdirrocensusunemployment figures are somewhat overstated in compatpi-son with US. data. This is because the number of personson layoff in moet years was probably virtually nil, whereasthe numbers not currently available and not actively seek-ing work were probably more nunmerous. Figures on thenumber of short-time workers indicate that only in 1967and 1974-76 could the number laid off the entire surveyweek have affected the unemployment rate.

It wardercided to discard the 0.1 percent survey resultsand utilize only the lpercent (dicrocensus in making theadjustments to US. concepts. Before 1975, the survey wasconducted quarterly, as mentioned earlier, with a large (I-percent) sample in the second quarter (usually) and verySmall samples in the other quarters of the year. Data forthe small-sample quarters from 1971 through 1975 havenot been published. The data from the small-sample sur-veys, even when available, arc of questionable reliabilitysoncerning measurement of unemployment because Ger-man unemployment has been so low in most years thatsampling effors are very high. Furthermore, It was neces-sary to develop a method which would not depend uponquarterly data in the future, since such data are no longercollected. Unemployment data from the large and thearailable smull-sample surveys are shown in table B-9.

Some adjustments in Microcensus data, discussed be-low, have been made in order to: (1) Convert the surveydata to approximately the same time of the month as theregistration count; (2) exclude 14-yars-olds; and (3) pro-duce annual averages based on data for only I month ofeach year.

I. Adjustmentofsurvey data toendofmonth. Beginningwith 1963, oll large-sample surveys have been con-ducted in the last full week of April or in eorlyMay.'' During 1959-62, however, most of the Sur-veys were conducted near the beginning ofOctober."'In order to simplilfy the prorating of adjustment fac-tors, the reported unemployment figures for 1959-62were roughly adjusted to end of-month estimates onthe basis of the registered unemployed series (tableB-10).

2. Exchasion of 14-yer-olds. Since compulsory school-ing is required until age 15 in Germany, 14-year-oldsshould be excluded from the unemployed count. Un-employment data by age er reported in the resultsof the I -percent Microcensus each year. The propor-tion of the unemployed who are 14-year-olds is applied

'In 1965, 1973, and 1976 the urvey was condcted durhSb thefest wink of May; kn 1975. ddran tbe recond week of May.

"5

Th. Octokee 1960 .urvy was conducted daring the 1ue workof the month.

Table B-9. Germany: Unemployment according to theMicrocensus, 1959-76

(Thou-M_..b., N. _,_

Nomber NumbarDatine n DNte un-n

ploved ploved

1957: Octobr'. 2431 1966: Ja.nua .. 1031958: Octoberl 2 342 Apil' ... 491908: October' .. 214 July 681960: October' .. 152 Octbr .. 681961: April. 3 81 1967: Jnuary .. 352

July .. 61 Aprl... 290Octoberl ... 91 July 212

1962: Jnuy .... 1199 Octobr .. 191April 3 89 1968: Jaurv .. 352juy . 3 45 Aprill ... 412October' 102 July 306

1963: January 3238 Octobetr 232Ap iP' 86 1969 Jotuery 300Jdly . 78 April' .... 214October .. . 3 58 July 210

1904: Januy ... 139 October ... 223April' 97 1970: Januay 242July 63 AprDil .'.. 167October 1 July 62

1965: JVnuary ... 118My

.6. 7 1971: Aprill ... 206

July 72 1972: April .. 208October 61 1973: My 190

1974: April' 311975: May 9181976: May 944

'Lar. mpl. Ill-prcentl uray. Other entvey. . the b mi-ir.tme (0.1lrmn-l .ureves.

E6suiu Seer.

Edede Wert Bertin.

SOURCE: Wvnhafr vnd S edtk eila.bd.n Stitinitht8undeanct), ,Ieous uea.

Table B-0. Germany: Adjustment of Miceocensus unem-ployment' from early-In-month to end-of-month estimate,1959-62

(Unemployed In thouaandsl

RatIo of.ntt f- Untpmoyd

month to convertdDae Mioro- eady4n to

reneus month un- edfot.nepoeyd employed month

October 4-10,1959 ... 214 103 220October 23-29, 1960... 152 (3i 152October 1-7,1961 .... 91 1.02 93October 7113 1962 ... 102 106 10

'Figumr (or these rMne r reported both inctlding andaucduding Wmt Berin. Th. cunrrhon he. Inelude West Ba-lIn.

11aeed on resltierd unerrployd. SI--- msterrd unemployeddae refr to the Ite day of ech month. end.-.month uner-ploymrnt toaken n the retred unrmploymrnt tiure for the.ormnt month aed ear4n-month unemployment - tkn a thewnre of the Krietd unetmpoyment in thie rretm month adthe preding month. Thue. the rdo for October ceoPuted. the rdntrnd unePiovyd In OctOber deldd by the more.of reieaed unemployd in Septmber and October.

'Serny conductod in It week of month.

104

148

to the estimated annual average unemployed eachyear. The renulting number is negligible except in1968, when an estimated 24,OO 14-yearolds wereunemployed.

3. Estibmation of afmnual ergrs. Annua'l average adjust-ment factors for unemployment were derived by cal.culating the ratio of Microcensus unemploymentfrom the I-percent surveys (adjusted to end of monthwhen necessary) to registered unemployment andprorating these ratios from year to year. Thus, thefigiures for October 1959 through October 1962 andApril 1963 through the latest available survey datewere prorated to obtain annual averages.

Table B-l I shows the adjustment factors used as well asadjustment factors resulting from using alternative methods.The method described above is "Method I" which utilizesthe results of the 1-percent surveys, disregarding the 0.1-percent surveys. Method 2 incorporates the 0.1-percent sur-veys as well as the 1-percent surveys,with proratingbetweensurveys. Method 3 also incorporates all surveys, but uses theaverage of the four quarters (when available) of the Micro-census unemployed as an approximation of the annual av-erage. Method 4 uses only the I-percent surveys and annual-izes the results based on the ratio of registered unemploy-ment in the Microcensus month to registered unemploymentfor the entire year. These four methods produce unemploy.ment rates which are quite close to each other, with themost significant deviations occurring in 1967 and 1970(table B-12)."

The adjustment factors indicate that the registered un-employed series normally overcounts unemployment undersurvey concepts. In most years, the adjustment factor tobe applied to the registration count is less than 100. Onlyin 1960 and 1968-71 was the adjustment factor over 100(Method 1).

Labor force

Germany makes annual average estimates of the laborforce which represent the sum of the employed underMicrocensus concepts and the registered unemployed. The1-percent Microcensus employment data were adjusted forseasonality on the basis of the 0.1-percent surveys, whenavailable. Since these small-sample surveys are no longerconducted, the Microcensus employment data are now ad-justed to annual averages on the basis of statistics on per-sons employed derived from notifications by employersto the statutory social insurance scheme and to the FederalInstitute for Employment.

is Although the differences In the adjustment facton oes ratherioser, the unemployment rates usalv the ultunativ methods did sntvary much bectua unemptoyment was at such low level in Gcr-many. Thus, adjustment fort..s of 124.8 tfdethod 1) and 100.9(ttethod 3) yielded 1968 unemployment moss of 1.6 and 1.3 percent, retpectively.

Table 8-11. Germany: Adjustment ration IMierocensusunemployed as percent of registered unemployed) usingalternative methods

Y.,r Method 1 Mothod 2 Method 3 Method 4

I95, .. . 93.7 89.0 885 93.71960 ... 102A 100.8

672.7 107.0

1961, ... 903 70.2 '67.4 82.31962' ... 965 72.2 708 9 tOOS1963' .. 5. 8.3 66.7 71.0 47231964 .... 60b5 53.2 82.1 66,3196b .... 44.6 53.o 52. 44.2196 .... 44.7 489 44.1 40A1967 .... 73s 5s 56S9 568.1968 .... 124.8 12163 1005 124b1969 .... 137A 149.8 128.8 138.01970 .... 135.7 905 96.0 138.31971 .... 119.6' 112.3 - 22851972 .... 90.2 90.21973 .... 823 _ _ 8321974 .... 78.1 - _ 73.71975 .... 68.2 9 0s.12976 (May) 86.7 9863

'AdJustMnnt retina derved from 1-nment Miaro.anasa andprorted to obtain annual ars...

'Adluatntnt rtos derIv d from 0.1sarent and IPemantMirneensusa and Pnorated to obtoin annual asnases.

'AntraW of quartely Mi-rmnons diided by annual usvtoprsgistered unmrnployVd.4

Un.rplyovd from tfsproent Mioroeonaus snnu-lized by divId-ing by ratIo 02 rotgstered unsrployad In Mlronenos mondh toannual nernsfirentsterod unsrnployed.t

Adlustmants made in Microesnus data tonormee -nd-f-onthfgour, and to include West b rn.6

Ratio for 1960 and 1961 stimated WMirocensus not-tonductad in 11 four quanes).

Employed persons, according to the Microcensus, com-prise (a) all those, including unpaid funnily workers, whoworked as much as 1 hour during the survey week and (b)all those who had jobs or businesses at which they hadpreviously worked, but from which they were temporarilyabsent during the survey week becouse of illness or injury,industrial dispute, vacation or other leave of absence, ortemporary disorganization of work for reasons such as badweather or tempornry breakdown. Persons on temporarylayoff and career military personnel are also considered tobe employed.

There are four differences between the US. and Germanconcepts of the labor force. First, the United States excludesand Germany includes career military personnel. Second,the United States excludes and Germany includes unpaidfunnily workers who work less than 15 hours per week.Third, the registered unemployed rather than the Micro-census unemployed are included. Finally, Germany in-cludes 14-year olds in the labor force, whereas the age atwhich compulsory schooling ends is 15.

Method of edftstnent. The German annual employmentestimates are adjusted by subtracting career military person-nel, unpaid family workers who worked less than 15 hoursper week, and persons 14 yeus of age. The number of

105

149

T" BA 12 GUrman E Estimatd annual mrag Mlceocensus unanployed and unemployment ratmahedr on ien-tiv '

I endloayd (&.xnda.l Wenplevm rm lieret)

Yr Z Rq Sid Estieted Mioea unemrployed Regiastred Eeased Mkl nse, ualosn m nrltesnpelived ethod I Metod 2 Mehod 3 Mdd 4 MeVr td I Method 2 Wehod 3 MUthod 4

199 ..... 640 06 481 478 606 2.5 20 1.9 Ie 201960 ..... 271 278 273 197 290 1.3 1.1 1.1 .8 1.119til 11 163 127 122 149 a A .5 .A A1962 194 149 111 1l0 164 .7 A A A A519e3 I a's 121 124 132 68 A .b . .5 5 .31954 ..... 109 102 90 68 112 a A .3 .3 .41968 ..... 147 68 95 77 66 .7 .2 .3 .3 .21966 ..... 161 72 78 71 65 .7 .3 .3 .3 .21967 4..... 339 255 251 2r6 2.1 1.3 ID 10 ID01968 ..... 323 403 376 32e 402 1A I5 I5 1.3 IA199 .... 19 246 28 232 247 A a I D 3 1.01970 ..... 149 202 136 143 206 .7 .5 5 A

91 1.... 5 221 213 - 238 A a a - .91972.. . 246 2 2 - 222 1.1 A - -1973 . 273 226 5 - 229 132 A _ _1974 9..... 682 455 _ 429 2A 1.7 i ' Is1975 .... 1.074 947 _ _ 968 4.7 3.7 _ _ 381976 ..... 060 2919 _ - 915 4A 3A _ _ 35

5ntoW. 6-1I for elneet. nthot. NOTE: Foe edlaunet to U.S. cannon. f.riheer odun-Myng Mv 1976 fector oly. nenm Ito nalde 14-..old.) 1. eno d o uth dm 6,- 05 (tr

UtSb 8-13).career military personnel can be obtained from annual ed- the 1963 estimate of wage and salary iners. Beginningmates of the labor force excluding military personnel re- with 1966. the official unemployment rate has been com-ported to the Statistical Office of the European Communi- puted by dividing the registered unemployed by the sumties. The proportion of unpaid family workers who usually of the registered unemployed and wage and salary employ-work 15 hours or less was reported in the Microcensus ment based on the Microcensus.through 1971. Since that time, only the number who ac- For comparison with the United States, estimated un-tually worked 15 hours or lss in the survey week has been employment based on the Microcensus concepts is dividedreported. Figures on those who usually worked 15 hours or by the annual civilian labor force adjusted to US. conceptsesis are more desirable here in order to discount the seasonal to obtain the estimated unemployment rate for Germanyfactor in the Microcensis. Therefore, for 1972 and later (table B-13).years the reported figures on unpaid family workers work-ing 15 houn or Lass hve been adjusted to a "usbal status" Guartarly and monthly entimatesfigure based on data for 1967-71, which indicate that 45percent of the reported number of family workers working BLS estimates seasonally adjusted unemployment15 hours or less usually do so. The number of 14-year-olds rates adjusted to US. concepts for Germany. The methodis obtained from the I-percent Microcensus resalta. instead used is as follows:of the registered unemployed, the Microcensus unemployed(adjusted to an annual aveeage as described above) are Unemployment. Data on the number of persons registeredadded to the adjusted employed to arrive at the German as unemployed require adjustment to correspond to US.labor force adjusted to US. concepts. definitions of unemployment. Annual adjustment factors

are derived from the Microcensus and are applied on a pro-rated basis to the seasonally adjusted monthly number of

Unemploysment rate registered jobless. The Deutche Bundesbank seasonallyadjusts registered unemployment each month, including

Until 1965, the official German unemployment rete data up to and including the most recent month, usingwas computed by the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare the multipricative version of the US. Census Bureau'sby dividing the registered unemployed by the estimated Method 11. X-l1 Variant, seasonal adjustment program.wage and salary labor force. The Ministry's estimates of The data are published in the Statittische Befiheftr zu denwage and salary employment were based on notifications Monatsberichten der Deutsche Bundesbank, Reihe 4,which employers are required to submit to the employment Saisonbereinete Wfrrtshafirzahlen.exclangas shawing all job hires and terminations. TheMinistry has not made such estimates srice 1963; therefore, Labor force. The Deutsche Bundesbank seasonally ad-1964 and 1965 unemployment rates were computed using justs Statistisches Bundesamt's quarterly estimates of em-

106

150

ployed wage and salary workers, using the same n.etnod as by dividing the quarterly seasonally adjusted unemployed,for the registered jobless. To make current quarterly esti- adjusted to U.S. concepts, by the quarterly seasonallymates of employment adjusted to US. definitions, BLS adjusted labor force, also adjusted to U.S. concepts.applies the prior year's ratio of employment (adjusted to Monthly rates are calculated by dividing monthly season-US. concepts) to the quarterly employed wage and salary ally adjusted (adjusted to U.S. definitions) joblessness byworker figures. BLS then adds the seasonally adjusted the quarterly adjusted labor force. Since estimates of thequarterly number of unemployed (adjuated to US. con- labor force are only available quarterly, the labor force iscepts) to arrive at the seasonally adjusted quarterly wage held constant for each of the months which comprise thatand salary labor force. Revisions are made when Stasis- quarter. Additionally, the latest available labor force figuretisches Bundesamt publishes its current year estimate of is used until a more current estimate is published. At thatthe total labor force. time, the affected quarterly and monthly jobless rates areUnemployment rate. Quarterly jobless rates are computed recalculated.

Table B-13. Germany: Lbor forte det adjastsed to U.S. conespts, 1969-76

INu.nsr in thoussnds)

Ilen

Ensalavnens.Les Career militsrv p r..nneL.Less: Unpid familv marker -arking

Iess thn 15 h .ar. .Lass: 14-yer-ad ........................Plus: Adjusted Micr..en.us

unemplaved.Adjusted civilian isb., fs. .

Reandsd.

Rsitssered anemplerld.Mihrmnensas unsmplia3 d

.

Lass: 14-ve .r ..tis4 .

Adjusted uaasmplsyd.Raunded.

Unsmplavmsnt mess tpr easi:As published

5.

Adjusted.

Emplayment.Less: C.m-r militry persa.nnel.Lass: Unpid fannily marker -wrking

le than 1s hcs.Lass: 14-year-aids

..

Plus: Adjusted Miaracenusun.-mplaysd.

Adjusetd auvilia laba, f .ar..R-.ndad.

Reistered unesnplayvd.Micr-eneus uneseplyed3.

Lass: 14Wyear-a.d.Adjiatd unampl.a.e..

Racaded.

Uaanrplavsent rete (paentl:As publihedAdjustd ..............................

1959 I 19O I sAsI 9I 19 2 t9I 1964 I ls - 169 I 1sa+ - . . ... Z . .ZZ 1 lZ.. I. . Z .

25,797228

81143

50625 85125290O

94050

510

2620

26247293

9915B

27825.99525990

271279

279280

1231.1

343

84163

162

291 I026,126,1

189

163o1930

.9

26,690401

68160

1452620626,210

1541494

145iso

15.7A9

26,744425

7776

12126,28726,290

121

121120

26.7b2

45645

26,27

169102

10

lo'A

26887454

9089

26,380

14766o

6670

.723

26,601481

5353

7226,28626,290

161

72

7270

3

25,950499

9113

33925,72625,730

459339

330

340

2.1123

1968 | 1969 1970 | 1971 t 1972 | 1973 1 1974 | 1975 | 1976

25,96477

68

37425,77925,760

323403

29374370

154

26,356485

6510

23826903426,030

1792468

238240

.9

2669,E

20

I(

197

29290

140202

19220C~

.7

269725500s~o

21726 384

26 3810

1852214

217220

A89

269655529

5713

22126 27726.280

246222

221220

1.1.8

26,712510

22C

273225

220

220

1.2a9

26.21f529~

459

26,07726,013C

4592

45445t

2.9'.7

25322524

5210

94525A681253680

1,0749472

945940

4.73.7

25,076532

5210

91725.39925,400

1 I60919

2

917920

4.6326

IRanti fm I.prcnt Miaceasus af unpaid fnmily vmrkers (sea sable 8-12. Mthad 11.uasaly -arkiag Iess, tan 15 5ou. ta toaal npaid family marker

4P .centsag af parsans unernplayd under s 15 ftram I cant

marking Iess than 15 haur pplied In rsaegd sn-us rap. Micnxaans pplisd ta reponad snual rynps unsnplavsen.tPe..ns.ge oa p.ars. aplayed under pe 15 rase 1sennt

tRsginsed unasplyaed a . percent 1 she sa p and 4saary

Micrc-asa.s twpliid to nsparld annual aesg mplaynent. laoar far

'Microrneus unsnplaosnent dasued tI an annual estimate

107

i i

151

Grati Britain

British unemployment statiicas are the result of col-lection procedures, concepts, and definitions that differsubstantially from those used in the United States. TheBritbsh data are based on a count of registrants at employ-ment offices (now called "Jobcenters") or the separatecareers offices for young people. Adjustment to US. con-cepts is particularly difficult because, unlike all other coun-troes studied here, Britain did not conduct a regular house-hold survey until 1971. Adjustments for earlier years arebaed primarily on the results of the April 1961 populationcensus and the April 1966 "sample census" of Britain, inwhich questions were asked similar to those of the US.labor force survey.

The introduction of the General Household Survey in1971 fills significant gaps in our knowledge of British laborforce clusracteristic. For Instance, it provides annual averageunemployment rates under definitions quite close to US.definitions. Figures from the censuses require many adjust-mena to adapt them to US. concepts and they relate toonly one point in time-a week in April. The HouseholdSurvey also provides the first indication of the number ofpeople classified as 'looking for work" who were not ac-tively doing so. Finally, the government has decided not tohold a mid-decade partial census as in 1966. Therefore, theyearly figures on population structure from the GeneralHousehold Survey will become more and more importantin filling the statistical gap between 1971 and the nextdecennial census. The results of the 1971 through 1974surveys have been published and are analyzed here. Whenresults of dhe later surveys become available, some re-visions may have to be made in the adjusted data for 1975onward.

Prior to the publication of the 1971 General House-hold Survey, British unemployment rates were adjusted toUS. concepts based upon the 1961 census and 1966 samplecensus. For the yean after 1966, adjustments based uponthe 1966 sample census were applied. The use ofadjustmentfactors from a year when unemployment was low to adjustdata for years when unemployment was high is subject to asubstantial murgin of error. In view of the results of the1971 household survey, the previously published adjustedunemployment rates for the period 1967-72 were signifi-candy overstated. The 1971 survey indicates that the pro-portion of unemployed persons who register increasessubstantially as unemployment increases. The inverse ofthis relationship was confumed in the 1973 survey results:The proportion of unemployed persons who registered de-creased as unemployment declined.

Unesmployment

Registered unremployed. The regularly published British un-employment statistics are based on a count of registrants atemployment offices or youth employment service careers of-

fices as of the second Thursday in the month." Registrantsmust be seeking foll-time work and be available to beginwork currently. The count includes claimants to unempbyment benefits and persons who are not daiming benefits,but It excludes persons temporarily laid off and severelydisabled people who are unlikely to obtain work other thanunder special conditions. Separate figures are compiled forpersons temporarily laid off.

The total registrations count includes unemployed'school leavers," defined as persons under 18 years of agewho have not entered employment since terminating fufi-time education. However, adult students were excludedfrom the unemployed beginning in March 1976. Adultstudents are defined as persons age 18 or over who areregistered for temporary employment during a school va-cation, at the end of which they intend to continue in fu'd-time education. Separate figures are still published on thenumber of adult students registered.

Until the mid-1970's, very few adult students regis-tered as unemployed. However, beginning in about 1973,the British National Union of Students has been publi-cizing among college students the advantages of register-ing as unemployed during vacation periods. Althoughstudents are usually not eligible for unemployment bene-fits, they can claim supplementary benefits of approxi-mately 7 per week. A record number of 121,00 ndultstudents were registered as of January 8, 1976, consti-tuting 9 percent of all those registering as unemployedand prompting British officials to examine their statis-tical treatment of such students. The Department of Em-ployment subsequently decided to excude adult studentsfrom the unemployed count, with the rationale that, un-like school leavers, students are not looking for permanentwork but only for a vacation job or a passport to supple-mentary benefits. A change in administrative regulationswas made for the 1976-77 school year under which thefinancial incentive to register during the short vacationbreaks at Christmas and Easer was taken away. Duringsummer vacations, students will still be eligible for supple-mentary benefits.

Registration is not compulsory but is required for re-ceipt of unemployment benefits under the National in ur-asoe Scheme or, for persons of working age and capable ofwork, allowances under the Supplementary Benefits (form-erly termed "national assistance") programs. Supplementarybenefits are payable to those unemployed persons who donot qualify for unemployment benefits or whose income,including unemployment benefits, falls short of theirassessed needs and resources. In addition, employed per-sons not eligible for benefits may register to take advantageof the free services. In the past, the unemployment servicemade about 20 percent of all adult placements."

t 4pdio to Octob.e 1975. the nemploysent count was take a

or the Monday set tOe rsiddte or the month.

'Marpo Servires CODDDdlssioD, A-dr Repofl 1974-75 (Ltardo.. Hes Majesty's Strionery Otnre. 1974), p. 19.

108

152

Persons who register as unemployed receive creditstoward thefr national insurance contributions. These creditsare received even if persons have exhausted their benefitsand, under 1975 legislation, even if they have been disquali-fied from receiving benefits. These credits provide a furtherincentive to register since they count toward a person's eli-gibility for retirement pension.

The completeness of coverage of the British unem-ployment statistics is a function of the extent to which per-sons looking for work register at the employment offices.Failure to register can occur for several reasons. Some per-sons looking for work sod eligible for benefits may decidenot to register immediately in order to avert the possibilityof having to accept an undesirable job,if offered,on penaltyof being disqualified from benefits.

Persons who are out of work and sick will be registeredas such and not as unemployed. They are not entitled toregister as unemployed and claim benefits since they cannotsatisfy the condition of being available for work. Personsregistered as unemployed who fall sick are transferred tothe sickness register maintained by the Department of Healthand Social Security. However, some persons may register asnonclaimants to benefits when they are nearly recoveredfrom their illness in order to find a job quickly.

Persons also may not register because they are in-eligible to receive unemployment benefits. Such personsinclude: (I) Married women asd workers over retirementage (65 for men; 60 for women) who may accept the op-tion of not joining the National Insurance System;r" (2)teenagers seeking their first job sod other new entrantssod reentrants to the labor forcer (persons must have atleast 26 weeks of employment covered by the unemploy-ment insurance system before they are eligible for bene-fits); (3) persons who have voluntarily quit their previousjob or who were discharged for cause (such persons are in-eligible for benefits for a maximum of 6 weeks); and (4)previously self-employed persons and unpaid family workers.Of course, some members of the above groups may registerin order to obtain supplementary benefits, credits towardnational insurance contributions, or help in finding a job.Married women are rarely eligible for supplementary bene-fits, but members of the other groups listed above may beeligible.

55A.ooedinn to . repone in the Britishpupblition Labe, Re.

acvh, 75 peecent of aeitish reame women "opt out" of theNational t.ssIn. e Scheme. (Se "Unemployment Stilt Rindiw"Lobonv Resacerh, October 1970, p. 155). This presents u is-e-ease frem 60 percent estimated by the Department of Employ-meat in 1960.

5 7Young persons undoa 18eekng their vt employment who

resistor foe job ploerment with the youth employment -vriceroee s o.eire a -inendedf in the sritih gestered unemployment

ount. However, there i no compulsion to register sd. m 1971,only about 15,000 school races who had as yet beeo in inmredemployment were meladed is the soutih registered unemployedtotal. By 1975, this frumre had isen to 45,000 as taboe market con,ditmn7 worsened consideably.

It should be noted that, under the Social Security Actof 1975, women who marry after Apri1 6, 1977, will nolonger have the option of not joining the National Inur-ance System. The Department of Employment expects thatremoval of this option will result in a large increase in fernaleunemployment registrations. Preliminary forecasts suggestthat about 580000 women will have lost the opportunityto "opt out" of the system by April 1978 and that thisnumber will increase to about 2.2 million by 1988.

In two respects, British registered unemploymentdata are more inclusive tham US. unemployment statistics.First, the British data include those out of work on the dayof the count who worked during the rest of the week. Suchpersons would be counted as employed in the United States.Second, workers may continue to register as unemployedeven though they have really given up hope of findingwork. Such persons would be considered as discouragedworkers in the US. labor force survey, and hence, would beenumerated as not in the labor force. In most other respects,however, British unemployment ststistics are less compre-hensive than those obtained from the US. labor force sur-vey. The extent of undircount car be estimated by analy-sis of statistics from population censuses and the GeneralHousehold Surveys.

Census startistis. Unemployment statistics, differing in con-cepts from the registered unemployed series, are availablefrom the decennial population census of Great Britain. Themost recent censuses were conducted in April 1961 asdApril 1971. Results of the 1971 population census are notanalyzed here, however, because of the availability of theGeneral Household Survey (GHS) for that year. Definitionsused in the GHS are more closely comparable with U.S.concepts than the census statistics.

In addition, British statistical authorities conductedwhat they termed a "sample census" in April 1966, whichalso yielded detailed statistics on unemployment. Data werenot collected in exactly the same way in 1961 and 1966,however, sod certain adjustments must be made to put thetwo sources on sn equivalent basis.

Although the population censuses are the major sourcefor evaluating the British unemployment figures for the1960's, they have important limitations. A major limitationof the decennial censuses is that persons reported as unem-ployed were not asked whether they were registered at theemployment office. In the 1966 sample census and thtGeneral Household Surveys, this question was asked. In ad-dition, the decennial censuses and the 1966 sample censusare self-enumerations-ie., the respondent fills in the formshimself. The Household Survey utilizes experienced inter-viewers, trained to interpret the questions carefully. Also,the more probing questions asked in the Household Surveyallow for more precise counts of the unemployed. Finally,the Household Survey relates to the full year whereas thecensuses relate to only I week in April.

In the 1966 sample census, persons were classified as"out of employment" if they were: (I) Registered as unem-

109

153

ployed; (2) not registered but otherwise looking for work;(3) unable to seek work because of temponruy sickness orInjury; or (4) had found a job and were waiting to starwork at a future date.

In the 1961 cenaus, the definition of "out of employ-ment" simply stated "Economically active persons out ofemployment during the whole of the week before thecensus, or ceasing to be employed during that weekbut expecting to work again." Also included were personswho wne unable to seek work because of sickness or in-jury In both the 1961 and 1966 censuses, persons s school(including university) were classified u economically in-active even if they were seeking work or did paid work dut-ing holidays, weekends, or other free time.

The 1961 rensus provided data on the number of per-sons "out of employment" according to two categories:sdck and ad other. In 1966, additional detail wu obtainedas to whether persons "out of employment" were registeredat employment or careen offices. In 1961, only data withreference to the week preceding census day, April 23, werecollected. Registered unemployed counts were token onApril 10 and May 15, 1961; therefore, there is no directcorrespondence between registation and census dates for1961. The 1966 census provided infonmation as of the cen-sus day as well as the census week. The Monday of censusweek in 1966, April 18, corresponded to the date of theregistered unemployed count for April.

Data from these censuses indicate that the registra-don statistics undercount unemployment in Great Britainto a large extent. The concept "out of employment" usedin the British censuses is fairly dose in definition to theU.S. concept of "unemployed." However, there ate someimportant differences between the British census and US.survey definitions which shound be accounted for beforeany conclusions are drawn.

A post-enumeration survey of the 1961 census in-dicated that the number of married women who reportedthemselves as economically active needed to be increasedby 5 percent; for single, widowed, and divorced women, thecorresponding fisure was I percent. Furthermore, the Ministry of Labor (now Department of Employment) statedthat these may well be underestimates of the census under-count."S The 1966 sample census involved as underenum-eration of 1.5 percent for all categories of persons.'"

In the 1961 census, anyone who had a job but be-came unemployed during the census week was counted as"out of employment." The 1966 census data, as of censusday, also include as "out of employment" persons whoworked later in the week, but, in addition, the data provideinformation on the number of pemons out of work the

55Mbrfryof obsr Garte. Novenebe 1960, p. 479.

U-evptoyoavr Sttistis: Rept of m Ian .Deprflep ntalWekowni Pary (London. He Maisey's Sutarnery Offre-, November1972), p. 33.

entire week. Perosnis who do any work at all during thesmurey week are cluffied as employed bi the United States.

Some persons who were enumernted as "out of em-ployment, zick" in the censses would probably not becounted as unemployed under US. definitions. This mayhave resulted from misinterpretation of the census qres-tdonnafre by persons permanently disabled or sufferingillnesses of more than a temporary nature.

5Also, pens

collecting sickness or Injury benefits would be likebl tocldasfy themselves as "out of employment, sick" even Ifthey were not Interested In obtaining a job when able towork again.

Persons on temporary layoff were classified aemployed in the censuws. They would be counted asunemployed in US. statistics.

In the United States, a person must have taken activeateps to find work in the post 4 weeks to be cldasaied as un-employed (unless on layoff or waiting to sasrt a new job).Neither the 1961 nor the 1966 census provided informationon whether persons who sold they were seeking workhad actually taken steps to find work. Some Informationon this point was obtained from the household surveys.

Method of adurstment based on census statistics. Coeffi-dents of adjunument were derived from the 1961 snd 1966census results and applied to the regularly published Britishstatistics on the registered unemployed. Adjustment factorsfor 1962 through 1965 were interpolated from the 1961results. Factors for 1959 and 1960 were assumed to bethe same as for 1961. Because the degree of undercountvaries considersbly by age and sex, four separate adjust-ment factors were derived-for adult men, adult women,teenage boys, and teenage girls. Teenagers ate defined aspersons 15 to 19 years of age.

Derivation of adjustment factors from the 1961 and1966 censuses required several modifications in the pub-lished census results in order to account for the differencesnoted above between the British censuses and the US.labor force survey (tables B-14 and B-15). Four adjustmentswere made:

1. Increasing the sumber of unemployed adaur etromenin the 1961 census to account for those improperly enum-erated as economically inactive. Based on the post-enumera-tion survey of the 1961 census, economically active marriedwomen should be increased by 195,000 and economicallyactive single, widowed, and divorced women by 39,000.These uncounted women were persons who regarded theirprincipal occupation as that of housewife or home dutiesand failed to enumerate themselves as employed, eventhough they were working at a part-time job, or as unem-ployed, even though they were looking for work.

20A foio.-sp srecy o thre 1966 eeanple -en3 rapports tis

edcusion. See Offeoe of Population Cmsue sand Surveys, SodadSurvey Diviesn, A Quality uchk -o the 1966 10 PFereet SsmptcCauus of Eg-d and Wales (tondon. Her sinsty's SiaonteyOffire, 1972), p. ii.

110

154

It is a safe assumption that a high proportion of theseomitted women were unemployed at the time of the census.In the absence of any information on this point, for thisstudy it was arbitrarily assumed that 75 percent of theundercount represents part-time workers and 25 percentrepresents unemployed workers. This yields an upward ad-justment of 59,000 to the adult women "out of employ-ment" in the 1961 census. No similar adjustment was neededfor the 1966 census results, since underenumeration wasapparently proportionally the same for all groups (15 per-cent). A 1 5-percent increase in all categories, then, wouldnot change the ultimate adjustment factors.

2. Excluding persons classified as unemployed whoworked at any time during census week. The 1966 censusindicated that 4 to 7 percent of those reported as "out ofemployment" on census day actually did some work duringthe week (proportions varied by the four age/sex categoriesfor which adjustments were determined and also bywhether persons were registered or not registered as unem-ployed). No data were collected on the number of personsclassified as "out of employment" who worked during thecensus week in 1961; therefore, the 1966 proportions wereassumed applicable to the 1961 data for adjustment pur-poses.

3. Adjusting downward the number of persons re-ported as "out of employment, sick. " A very large numberof persons were enumerated as "out of employment, sick"inboth the 1961 and 1966 censuses. In 1966,31 percent ofthe total number of persons "out of employment" on cen-sus day were listed assick, down from 44 percent in 1961.

According to the 1966 census, only 10 percent of allpersons registered as unemployed were also reported as sick;however, 45 percent of the unregistered persons "out ofemployment" were reported as sick. The 1961 census pro-vided no data according to whether a person "out of em-ployment" was registered or not registered.

It is assumed that the registered unemployed whowere also sick in the 1966 census would be classified as un-employed under US. defi'itions (given above adjustmentfor those who worked sometime during the week). How-ever, the unregistered unemployed who were sick probablyincluded a substantial number of persons who would not becounted as unemployed in the United States. In order toarrive at a reasonable estimate, it was assumed that the pro-portion of persons registered as unemployed and also suckis the same as the proportion of unregistered persons whowere sick.

Using this method of estimation, only 24,400 of the185,100 unregistered, sick (adjusted to exclude those whoworked during the week) in 1966 are assumed to be un-employed by US. definitions. In light of the results of the1971 Household Surrey, this appears to be a reasonableestimate. Again, 1966 relationships had to be assumed for1961.

4. Subtracting persons nor acrirely seeking work.The censuses do not provide amy information on this point.However, the 1971 General Household Surrey indicatesthat 22 3 percent of the number of persons seeking workbut not registered as such had not actually taken any stepsto find work in the surrey week. No details were given byage or sex. Allowing for the possibility that some may havesought work in the previous 4 weeks, this percentage wasscaled down to 15 percent for adjustment purposes. Thus,15 percent of the "not registered, other" category-adjustedto exclude persons waiting to start a new job-was sub-tracted for each age/sex group.

No adjustment is included above for persons ontemporary layoff. Since figures are available each year onwhich to base an estimate of the number of such persons,an adjustment is made on table B-18 rather than on tablesB-14 through -16 to include them in the unemployed count.There is also no adjustment made to account for the factthat all full-time students are classified as economically in-active in the censuses. There is no information available asto the degree to which such persons register as unemployed.The Department of Employment began to separately iden-tify registered unemployed adult (age 18 and over) studentsin July 1971 and has made annual estimates back to 1967.Further information on adult students appears in the sec-tion on the General Household Surrey.

In summary, the numbers of registered and unregis-tered unemployed persons in the 1961 and 1966 cen-hses were adjusted to exclude those who did some workduring the census week; further adjustments were madeto the unregistered unemployed to exclude persons whowere not actually seeking work. These adjustments de-flate considerably the number of persons reported as un-employed for comparability with U.S. concepts. For ex-ample, 61 percent of the persons reported as "out ofemployment" in the 1961 census and 70 percent in the1966 census are considered to be unemployed umderU.S. concepts.

The adjusted unemployed totals were compared withthe registered unemployed count for each of the four age/sex groups. The census day registration count was availablefrom the results of the 1966 census; in the 1961 census,however, such data were not collected. For 1961, the ad-justment factors were calculated based on interpolationsof registered unemployed data made by the Deparnmentof Employment. The resultant adjustment factors to beapplied to the regularly published unemployment statisticswere as follows:

1961 1966

Adals en...........22 38Adult ..unn9 93 182T..nago .. ...... 123 65Teenage .a.. ..... 152 . 101

The method of applying these factors is described later inthe section titled "Combining the census and survey analy-ses."

Ill

155

These figures indicate that the propensity for uaem- Another element in the explanation is the Redundancyployed adults to register declined between 1961 and 1966, Paymnmts Act of 1965 which Pave workers the right towhereas the teenage propensity to register increased. These claim severance pay from their employers based on age andchanges in the propensity to register were unrelated to cy- ih Yooth Employmet Svie w reviewd by a Workingclical factors since recorded unemployment was I A percent Pasny of the National Youoh Epltoyarnat Counil which puboihhedin both 1961 and 1966. The increased propensity to register its r t in Derember 1965. The roPoer maode a nhber of roon-on the port of teenagers is probably related to a more active dasedtians for Irmprovin the woek of the saske: (I) Youth emeffort by the Youth Employment Service. During the early ploymient offlees thourd eriablish eaier contict with young people1960's much criticism was leveled at the service, perhp d it cweool tnh twice o teir p rest; (2) itn thoer beptory alagtdisrlp bet.ven the -tsce .di thle schools in the prp-tory sta~tesparring it to greater efforts to register young people." of ceaer gsrteno; (3) the tafliSnsg of the rerwie shotrld provide

A partial explanation for the large increase in under- foe ato qreeliaLedation in dealing with the Ieda of paticutarregistration or decline in the propensity to register of adults protp. of young people; nd (4) the ewrice shoutd pepsimfet withmay have been the growing number of worker receivig mnore Intendv methods of followina op the proposes, of young

kesrciig People at work. Actian -a takes to promo~te the furtherpayments in lieu of notice of dismissl. Such persona are devopasert of the sreir along the linen reammendd in theineligible to draw unemployment benefits simultaneously repons.and, hence, would probably delay registration. Notice of 2fThis law inrpoees upon employers the obligation of givios, adismissal (with length of notice based on length of service) onfimoum peiod of notice to s.' employre continuously omployedbecame compulsory under the "Controcts of Employment for over 26 weeks, aS foltow: I weok' untice fos those ritb up to 2Act" of 1963.1' Yeas' rewir; 2 works fol 2-5 years' rrvie; and 4 welks foa rervce

of ) years or mom.

Table B-14. Great Britan: Der vation of adiustment faetors from the 1961 esenus

(Nubeks in etheosmnt)

rtsen Total Adolrn Tese,....Mete FPamel Mete Fe-mai

ReOievred unernpyrind on Mrrsiv of mns esek5

. 3000 201.0 75.0 14.0 l0oOUt otf u erlorn

5t ...... ............. 7348o 44683 0217.7 37.7 32.9

ReaerentI .......m

................m

300i 201.0 75.0 14.0 10.0sok

5......... ................ 294 19.3 85 .6 1.0

Othrs5 ......... 270J 181.7 665 13.4 9.0Nov mritared ........... 4346 248.3 142.7 23.7 223

Slok .......................... 2f 8.t 192.2 65.4 4.1 CIAOt.er ......................... 166.5 53.1 4773 19B 16.5

Peruses uonaropIved on Cerus MondepwAh did -ou mark In msoms mekRealuered 0........................ _ 6.0 932 938 92.9Not releresd ...................... _ 93.2 93.2 93.4 94.3

Cosi uunemiovyed udiuned eo otludatehou mo mrked In netsna m-kRotoenrd ........................ 285B 1930 70A 13.1 93Nor tord ....... ................ 4053 2286 1330 22.1 218

Skik ......... ................. 2498 179.1 61.o 38 680Otre .r. ................ S....... 155A 498 72.0 18.3 15.6

Unerploymert dlound to US. ornepsa:Resired ........ ................ 28SB 1930 704 13.1 9.3NM: rlnd ........ .............. 172A 54B 81.2 19.1 17.3

Sink .

.......................... 170 5.3 9.2 8 1.7Other . .. A...... S 49.5 720 183 15.6

LePereoI ot usetysknsi . .ork9 .

...... 11.7 2.7 b.6 18 1AToul edjiuned mrepoy.d ...... ........... 446.5 245.1 145.0 31.2 25.2

Preress of regsvied unproved .... ....... 149 122 193 223 252Adjun . ..r...obr. 49 22 93 123 152

115-sto 19-ee-aw. SPicd fm 1969 evSo r mre-oa ttesed Is1961.Thtws mere en queoesdt akd on whenhr pruner m mere gi

1Etimeed by apying bovt Prrpotus of pesons mho did

eard - unemplovyd in the 1961 mews Thr drir down em In- not work In mts meek to figure rePortd to meats mboh In-erpoltons tireby dhe perre of Empiest from the resn- durdt Seoto puowho woukei duorie -s mk.rtetiouounsof ApriI 10W d lbvy IS. ecaistead bv arming thtt nnts of "not rglised, iek" to1

Dtsa Ie ... t leor the regisred omeepivyfd) refte to pr- "nso rgiseres d. other" is the sae s redo of "giored, sk tosne "out of e oym ts the entire motuws week ae wmlt sto "regiored, ashen."prnsois who hd e Iob be: brea uns rnevieoyd dorieg the meek. Ertidmaed n I S p-tet of the "nst registered, ouher" asegory,4

l1duds lOOO reme eot nPoansd ese pployd In the duedi u to e tdep Pens- meiegtostarte n w inob. (Aaording1961 osiest Thia prens en adjunment for the undree- to the 1971 GOerel Hooseahld Snsy, 63 PeMens of mWis nd 39ian of conomeielty tie wormen. Pernt S'f fieee Iin the "not rnisred, other strgry mer0

f8n kdwn of regisred tioempluod Into "sik" and "nIthse' wting to strt notw jobn)esnirentd by wing 1966 prprnei .

112

156

Table B-t5. Great Britain: Derivation of adjuntment factors from the 1966 cnemus

(Number In thousands)Adults Teenagers

Item Total M FmFen ubMat Fentels Male F-enel

Reginsretd unemployed on Monday of censs week0 29 6

?3 19 4 .2 5 7.3

2BS

2 18 .6

Cot of etnolymnnt3 .

731.2 3935 238B 605 48.5Registered .296.3 194.2 57.3 26.2 18.6

Sick. 28.0 18.7 6.5 1.1 1.7Other .2683 1755 50B 25.1 165

Nut regItered .4345 1934 181.3 24.3 292Slck. 18.6 110.1 69.5 4.1 8e.Other .236.3 83.3 1115 20.2 21.0

Percet unemPloyed on consu Mondrywho did not work in censs week_Registsred ........ ..... - 90.0 93.9 93.9 92.6Not roeglertd .- 93.2 93.2 93.4 94.3

Census unemployed adiuntd to noctudethoss who worked in censs weak:

4

RGt ..erd. 26212 186A 635 24.7 17.3Not registered. 40.6 1865 169.0 22.7 28.1

Sick.............. 165.1 196.2 6458 3.8 6.3Other .220.5 775 104.2 18.9 19B

Unemployment edJuted to U.S. concepsRgi.etered. 22.2 186A4 535 24.7 17.3Not reginered .244.9 8695 117. 19.7 2315

Sick1 .

........... .. 24A 6.3 13.3 58 2.0Other .220. 77.6 104.2 18B 19B

1p: Pernons not sotively seeking work .

16.7 4.3 9.5 1.1 15Total edjused unemployed.n 510A 2B80 1615 43.3 37.3

Percent of registered .173 138 282 165 201Adjusment fctor .73 32 182 65 101

15- to 198Yeor-olds. Ettimated -s 15 prcent of the "not registered other" cu'tgory2 Oata on regitrations mew colleted in the 1966 cens. edjoted to encluda Penton waiting to star a new iob (According3Ap oding to natus of prsons on Monday of cens week to the 1971 General Heunahold SurnY. 63 percnt of maIm end 39sEtimoted by applying beove proponiorn of persons who did percent of females in the "not regineed, other" category were

not work in ceras rak to figures ee of censu Monday. witing to snt a.new lob.)5Clcubated by muoing that ratio of "not glstnerd, skk" to

"not regitered, other" is the came e nctio of "ra.gered, ick" to",agierad, other."

Table 8-16. Great Britain: Derivation of adjustment factors from the 1971 General Household Survey (GHS)

Total Adultr Teenage.t

Male Ftemrrt Moe | ems e Male Fewale

GHS drta Infltwed to univenelev1l:

2

T oot..... ........ 5682000 357000 493,000 2656000 89,000 72,000Lonking for work.. ... 44600 224/20 - -

Register. 412000 104OO _ _ _Not registeed.. 34000 120A.lt - _ _

Persons in "Inking for work"caegry not ectiutly -nking

work .t.............. 56000 1800 4D000 14/000 1000 4/000

Adjuste unemployed4

...... 577/000 339/000 489.000 271/000 68,000 68,000Rtgisted untmploydt .....d 640/00 119/000 562/000 83100 78,000 326P0

Adjusted unemployed e pewentof registered unemploved. 90 25 87 327 113 189

Adjustnment ft. . . . -10 185 -13 227 13 69

15. to 19yesraolde. In the GHS, data ere not shown sePrtatly oro untwployment In the following elaintnship: U + IE + U) -Rfor the g group 15-19. Figures r shown for 1I- to 17-Vysrroida (where U - unemployment; R -unmplotyment tate; E - mployend 18- to 24-'yarolda. The numhr of 18- to 19Vyesr-oidr in the mmdt).18-24 age group -m esti-atad hsed on the nmnlts of the 1971 pup' Estimaed *s lb parcnt of penons iooking for work, hot notueolon census. gised. 8roken down into edult and ttenag components ecord

ULnn unmployment enimean were not publIshed in the ing to earn proporrlonr e tored unemployment.GHS. The figurn shown were dinloed by estimating ..s. end IJ

4Total unemployment Im perons not etivfyV seking work.

m.In clolilen mployment troen other toun end utilloing the 'A. prtd by Department of Employment.male and fewmle unmpIoment rant reported In the GHS to solve

113

157

length of service. At the maximum, the redundancy pay-meats can provide 30 weeks' pay. Where redundancy pay-ments are made, the ititial effect is that the newly unem-ployed person will not be forced to register at the employ-ment office because of an immediate need for money. Sucha person can take the time to look for suitable work andnot be obliged to be available at all times to answer the em-ployment office's summons when a vacancy occurs.

The General Household Stuvey. A new type of survey, theGeneral Household Survey, was conducted in Great Britainfor the first time in 1971. It is a continuous multipurposesample survey covering a total of about 12,000 private(noninatitutional) households containing about 35,000people over the year. Although conducted monthly, thesurvey is designed so that the minimum penod over whichit is representative of Great Britain is a quarter-year; suc-cessive quarters are added together to provide annual figures.Results of the first year's interviews were published in1973; the 1972 through 1974 surveys were published in1975 through: 977.1

3'

The survey collects information about employment,unemployment, housing, education, health, mobility, andhousehold makeup in such a way that each subject can berelated to the others. It provides much information onsocial structure and trends.

A comparison between midyear estimates based onthe 1971 census and GHS annual results indicates that theGHS gives a good representation of the population in privatehouseholds. However, young people aged 15 to 24 may beunderrepresented to some degree in the GHS; marriedwomen are probably slightly overrepresented.

The first two surveys covered the population 15 yearsof age and over. In 1973, when the school-leaving age wasraised to 16, the survey also began to cover 16-year-oldsand over. The Armed Forces are not excluded from thelabor force by definition; they would be included if theyreside in private households. However, most military per-sonnel reside in military establishments which are not cov-ered by the sample.

Employed persons, by GHS definition, are personswho had a job for pay or profit in the reference week, evenif it wan only for a few hours. Casual or seasonal workersare counted us employed only if they were working duringthe specified week. Persons absent from work because ofholiday, strike, illness, or temporary layoff are regarded asemployed. Unpaid family workers were classified as eco-nomically inactive in the 1971 through 1975 surveys. Be-gimning in 1976, wives working 15 hours or more in theirhusbands' businesses have been treated u employed whether

230fTre of Papatalon Censue and Sanveys, Social Suvy DI-vision, The G-seol Household Suny: rannduorory Report (tan-don, Her Majesty's Statioyrey Oflm, 1973); The GeeaJ Houe-hMi Sueeey 1972 (Loaudn, HMSO, t975); The .e-eWrl Huaao-horld Surey 1973 (London, HMSO, 1976); and The Ge-al Haue-halIdSuavey 1974 (Lond.., HMSO, 1977).

they were paid or not. Since the great majority of familyworkers are pald in Great Britain, this change will have avery small effect.

Full-time students who worked part time were countedus employed in the 1971 survey, unlike the practice in thecensuses where full-time students are regarded as economi-cally inactive. In 1972 and subsequent household surveys,however, working full-time students were placed in theeconomically inactive category. In 1972, data both indud-ing and excluding the working students were published.These data indicate that the annual average number ofworking students is so small that their exclusion does notaffect the unemployment rate.

Persons taking courses in government training centersare normally classified us economically inactive in the GHSsince the stipend they receive is not considered a wage pay-ment. However, if an employer pays an employee to attenda course at a government training center, the person wouldbe classified us employed.

Unemployed persons, by GHS definitions, consistof those who, in the reference week, were looking for work,would have looked for work if they had not been temporar-ily sick, or were waiting to take up a job they had alreadyobtained. Because the Household Survey is conducted byexperienced interviewers rather than by selfenumeration(as the census), the category of persons who would havebeen looking for work but for temporary illness is moreprecisely determined. Interviewers are given a definition of"temporary" for this question in the Household Survey-i.e., an illness lasting 28 days or less. No such definitionappeared in the census questionnaires or instructions.

As noted earlier, persons on temporary layoff are re-garded as employed rather than unemployed. Full-timestudents who were looking for work would be counted asunemployed in 1971 and not in the labor force in 1972 andfollowing years. The number of students looking for workwas apparently almost nil us 1972. It should be noted thatstudents in boarding schools are not surveyed in the GHS,which relates to private households only. Thus, studentsare most likely underrepresented in the GHS.

Persons who said they were looking for work in theGHS were asked, additionally, what steps they took to findwork in the survey week. In 1971, this question elicited thefact that 22.3 percent of the people looking for work butnot registered us unemployed did nothing more than lookat job vacancies in the newspapers or simply wait for"something to turn up."

In 1971, the GHS did not divide those waiting to takeup jobs and those temporarily sick by whether or not theywere registered. Data on the unregistered unemployed wererestricted to persons who said they were looking for workin the sunrvey week. In the 1972 and 1973 surveys, questionson registration as unemployed were asked of persons look-ing for work and persons waiting to start a new job. In1974 and following surveys, all categories of unemployedpersons were asked whether they were registered an unem-

114

57-254 0 - 80 - 11

158

British General Household Survey Quetuonnaire (Excerpt)

GENERAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY SS 457/3BIN CONFIDENCE INDIVIDUAL SCHEllLE

DAY IMONTH YEARi

Date of Interview O r= l I IRS.|SE.|HD

Timne Individual Schedule started .......

TO ALL EMPLOYMENT (DDE

1. Were you working for pay or profitat any tioe last week - that is the Yes.I GO TO Q.27 days ending last Sunday? No----1X ASK (a)

IF NO(a) Even though you weren't

working did you have ajob which you were away Yes.. GO TO Q.2from last week? No - r ASK (1)

IF NO(1) Last week were you

PROMPT AND waiting to take up a job which you hadRING FIRST already obtained? .3THAT out of employment but looking for work? .. 4 GO TO Q.2APPLIES or would you have looked for work but for

temporary sickness or injury' . S

NONE OF THESE . ......... 6 GO TO Q.23ON PAGE 9

IF CODED 1 OR 3-5 AT Q.1

2. Do you consider yourself to be a part-time Part-tine ..... Iworker or a full-time worker? Full-time . 2

3. Do you consider yourself to be a seasonalworker - that is, someone who reckons to Yes ........... Iwork part of the year onlry? No ............ 2

MAIN 1OB LAST WEEK (MOST RECENT IF (ODDE 3. 4 OR S AT 9.1)

NEVER WORKED, RING X

4. Occupation .....................................

................................................ USE

................................................ ......................

industry ....................................... II

................................................ ...................... I

employee .self-employed. 2

IF MANAGER, SUPERINTENDENT OR SELF-EMPLOYED

IF NOT MANAGER EMC, DNA .... ........... I

(a) Number of employees in 25 or more .... ........ Ithe establishment 1-24 .... .............. 2

Nil .... ............... 0

115

NOW REFER RACK TO Q.1If coded I go to Q.5 on page 2If coded 3 go to Q.17 on page 7If coded 4 go to Q.16 on page 7If coded 5 go to Q.19 on page 8

159

British General Household Suryey Guestionnaire (Excerpt)CODE

TO 7HOSE WIbKINCE LAST WEEK (CODED I AT Q.t)

5. LosEt wok did you h.e- any other job or businessto addition to the ooo you have j.ot told re bout? Ye. I ASK Cs)

IF YES No 2 ASK Q.6

(a) Oteopatio. o... USE

............................................. ..............ISodustry .1

.............................................e:ploye .Ioelf-employd .2

6. Hov uy hours a Week do you usually vork (lo your outs job)cloding most bhr..s ood overtime?7 .

7. Were you ova, fro- ork h t a11 oast oehkfor r.usoos other tha bh.io..s.?

Y.. I ASK (a)No. 2 SEe Q.8

SF YES

(a) Why were you say from work?

Own Cllmes. or reident .I ASK (b)

Holidoay .2

Strike ot owo plate of work. 3

Short-tioo/lsy off. 4 ASK (r)&

Begae or lost Job in eek. 5 (d)Other (SPECIFY). 6

.......................................

(k) Worm you paid. or vill you be paid. anyNotiouxi Ioorurnce Siknoem S.nefitfor lost week?

Yo. I ASK (bl)No. . 2 ASK Ei)&

(I) Did thia iselude or were you.1.0 paid soy suppleoentsrysllowante?

ALiTENATIVE WORDING WHERE APPROPRIATE Na. ASK (dl4 Nes.. I2 S (dliWill this include or vill you also bepsid ny *uppl-=ent-ry ollovanee?

(n) When did this period sway fro work

.tsrt? DATE.

(d) When did it fioish? DATE SEE n.8

IF DID NOT FINISH DURING LAST WEEK, ItNG I

116

160

British General Household Survey Questionnaire (Excerpt)

CODE

TO EMPLOTEES ONLY IF SELF-EMPLOYED, DNA .I C............... X CO TOQ.10

8. Do.. your employer pay you anythingvh.n you ure off nick?

No. 2

9. Do you rpert to r ecive a p .n.iofro your employer whn. you retire?

Ten .............. NNOW ASK

DK 3 [.50

TO ALL ENPWYEES AND SELF-EWpWYED

10. Have you retained any p..ni.. right.fro a pr-vioun job which you areeither drawing now or will be *bleto draw in the future?

No.2

11. Nave you eben ith yonr pr eentemploynr/eelf-erployed (in yourain job)

RIIRNING for I... thou 6 month.? .I I ASK In)-pROMPT for 6 _othn but Sen. than 12 month.? 2 2 (W)

for 12 outh. or orn? ..................... 3 CQ TOQ.12

(a) ow m.y h-ang. of employer haveyea mde In the lent 12 moutha? . .

IF MD PREVIOUS EMPWYNENT IN LAST 12 ONTHDS, ENTER "O

(h) How long had you bern aetively lookingfor vork before you fond your prenent

Day. .......................................

Week$ ......................................

Month..(STAT! CALENDAR. 6 WtEeNY ETC.)

(o) How did you first hear *bout your prea.nt job -wa, It through

an eployment rochange? .................... I

RUNNIN private e ployent agency?. 2

PROMPT an adv-rtiem nt?. 3Bur C aDE relati"e or friend? ...................... A

ONE direct application to n eplsoyer?. 5ONLY or In e- other qy? (SPECIFY) .6

............................................

............................................

117

161

British General Household Survey Questionnaire (Excerpt)

TO TdOSE WORKING LAST WEEK (CODED I AT Q.l)

bAND INFORIfWIT CARD A.

12. Which of the sLate-ents oo thiscard rose nearest. en the eholeto what you think abhut yourpreseot (main) job?

Very satisfied.

Fairly satisfied.

Neither "t"sried nor

dissatisfied.

lather dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied.

(a) Is there ny re aon why you.re not ronyletely .atisfiedwith your jobh

(b) Why are you dissatisfied?

13. Ar. you seriously thinking of changingor levin.g your job?

IF TES

(a) (MNy I check) why is this?

Yes .......No.

For reasons .Iredy giee at 12(a) or (b)For other reasons.

(SPECIFY BELOW)

14. bow long does it usually takeYou to et from bh to tork? sr .. s. H.

Work at hes..

No usuaI plact of work.

118

CODE

32

5A

XY

1X

S

ASK Q. Il

ASK (0)

ASK (h)

ASK (a)ASK Q 14

NOW CO TOTRAVELPACE 8

162

British General Household Survey Questionnaire (Exerpt)CODP

TO ThOSE LOOKING FOR WORE LAST WEEK (CODED 4 AT Q.1)

15. when Iookiog for wrk last work

were you registered with an eployment echoangre I ASK QI16INDIVIDUAL were yo- registered with a private e ploye-t agency? 2PROMPT. did you do-rtice or reply to dverti-en en . 1. 3CODE ALL did you make a direct pproach to a pro.peAKiveThAT emplnyo? 4 ASK Q? 1APPLY were you awiting the result. of application.. 5

or did you do *omething Iee to find wrk? (SPECIFY) 6

' ............................................................................................................

10 THOSE REGISTERED WITH AN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE (CODED I AT Q.15)OR WAITING TO START A NEW JOB (LODED 3 AT Q.l)

16. Did you drew, or will you draw, r T. .une ployment benefit for lest week? Nn.

(a) Did this inlude, or were you alsopaid any apple-entary allownce?

ALTERNATIVE WORDING WOREN APPLICANLE No

Will thi. Include or will yon lno bepaid any ..pplemontary allowance?

TO TIOSD WAITING TO START A NEW JOB. LOOKING POR WORK. OR WOULD hAVELOOKED FOR WORK BUT PFO TEMPORARY SICKNESS (CODED 1-5 AT Q.1)

17. when did you last work?

Le.. than a week ago .Doe Week but loa thao I montb.One onth but ieee than 3 mnth ..Three onths but le. than 6 -nth..

sin onth. but Ie.. than I year.On year or gore a...

NEVER WORKED BEFORE.

I. Nave you retained any pansion rightsfrom a pre-ous job whiok you areeither drwing now or mill ak*nbl Te..to draw in the fattr? N .o.

19. Why did you *top work?

2 ASK Q. IyI ASK (7)

2 ASK Q. 17

5 {ASK Q 18S6

0 COTTRAVELPACE 8

2

HOW CO TOTRAVELPACE 8

119

163

ployed, so that these surveys indicate overall proportionsfor registration and non-registration.

Results of the 1971 GHS indicate that between one-fifth and one-quarter of all those who described themselvesas looking for work were not registered with the Departmentof Employment. Roughly, 7.5 percent of men looking forwork were unregistered; for women, 53.7 percent were un-registered.

The results of the 1971 GHS indicate an average un-employment raie for Great Britain of 3.9 percent of thecivilian labor force. The rate for men was 3.9 percent andfor women, 3.9 percent. The Department of Employmentfigures on registered unemployment for 1971 yield an over-all figure of 3.1 percent-4.1 percent for men and 13 per-cent for women. (These rates from the registered unem-ployed series, normally published as a percent of the wageand salary labor force, are based on the wage and salaryplus self-employed labor force in order to make meaning-ful comparisons with the GHS.)

The above figures indicate that the registered unem-ployed figures slightly overstated male unemploymentrates in 1971, but that female rates were substantiallyunderstated. The overstatement of male unemployment issurprising in view of the results of the 1961 and 1966censuses. Also, the GHS itself indicates that 7.5 percentof unemployed men seeking work were unregistered. Thereare two reasons for the higher unemployment of men in theregistered series. Firat, male registrants who did some workin the reference week of the GHS would be counted as em-ployed rather than unemployed in the GHS. The 1966sample census results indicate that about 4 percent ofregistered unemployed men did some work in the censusweek. Second, "occupational pensioners," who are notin fact seeking work, are required to stay on the registeruntil age 65 in order to maintain eligibility for a pensionwithout making national insurance contributioass." Suchpersons would probably declare themselves as retired inthe GHS. A special survey conducted in October 1973found that 12 percent of the persons registered as unem-ployed that month regarded themselves as not really beingin the labor market. Apart from occupational pensioners,those with littie interest in working were largely womenand older, disadvantaged workers who had become re-signed to their lot-i.e., "discouraged workers."

Unfortunately, data reported in the GHS are not in.flated to a universe level, and published inforsation onsampling characteristics is not complete enough to allowcalculation of sampling ratios to apply to the actual figuresreported. Therefore, BLS has made an estimate of aggregateunemployment for 1971 by first detennining the level ofemployment compatible with GHS concepts and then deriv-

24Soch pers-o ses inetudod in the ,egiste-ed unemployed -

sisds sa a result of parlimentary delhion. In emodance witt theSara Senrity Ars of 1973, the ules etse ehonud in Apail 1975s tsat nouptional pensioners see so lanes required to registera unemployed.

ing unemployment by applying the GHS unemploymentrate of 3.9 percent (table B-16). Civilian employment com-pautble with GHS concepts was taken to be the 4-quarteremployment average from the establishment census plus anestimate of self-employed persons and domestics who arenot covered by the establishment census, less an estimate ofmultiple jobholders. (See section on labor force adjustmentsfor further explanation.) This employment figure includeswage and salary workers and self-employed persons, butexcludes unpaid family workers. Its coverage is, therefore,the same as the GHS. The 1971 civilian employment figure,thus determined, is 23,106,000. This figure and the GHSunemployment rate are compatible with a total unemploy-ment level of 938,000."1

Figures for 15- to 19-year-olds were not separatelyreported in the GHS. Instead, data for 15- to 17-year-oldsand 18- to 24-year-olds were shown. In order to determinean adjustment factor for teenagers, an estimate was made,based on 1971 census proportions, of the number of 18-and 19-year-olds in the 18-24 age group.

Besides adding persons on temporary layoff (done intable B-18), only one adjustment must be made in GHS un-employment data for comparability with U.S. concepts.Persons enumerated as seeking work who have not takenany recent actions to do so should be excluded. The 1971GHS indicates that 22.3 percent of the number of personsseeking work but not registered as such had not actuallytaken steps to fl'd work sn the reference week. Allowingfor the possibility that some may have taken active stepsin the previous 4 weeks, thsl percentage was scaled downto 15 percent for adjustment purposes. Thus, 15 percentof the unregistered unemployed seeking work is subtractedfrom aggregate unemployment under GHS definitions. Thisamounts to 5,000 men and 18,000 women.

GHS unemployment, adjusted as described above,was then related back to the registered unemployed seriesto obtain adjustment factors (table B-16).

The following tabulation shows the 1971 adjustmentfactors in relation to those derived from the 1961 and 1966censuses:

tsar 1966 f97rAdultme ..... 22 38 -13Adult moen ... .. 93 182 227Toansa boys .123 65 t3T.nssgil ..15.... 162 101 e9

"Thee..Its of the 1971 poputotion ceams con n be ompaed Miththe aboue estiante. The oen reported 1,298,800 persons 'out ofemployment" durig the e.tie wek of the rensus. April and Maywee retalety low unemployment months rompsued witSh heannual average for 1971-repoesntin about 95 prcent of the an-nua eage, (The noerans of She Aped and May aunis i takes tootprooinaae the timiug of She 1971 -eams which -wumdaed persons acMcdina to their status as of Aprd 25. Realatered unemployedcounts were takea on Aped 5 and May 9). Dividing the cemas outof employment" by 95 percent yields 1.367,000. Annua unemploy-meat from the GHS, as timated above, is 69 percent of tkis fire.This confis She results of the soatYis of She 1961 and 1966renaMs, in that Ste "out of empioymeos" category signaficotlyovertates unempoymeot by U.S. concepts.

120

164

Shifts in the propensity to register between 1961 and1966 have already been discussed. Between 1966 and 1971the adult female propensity to register continued its decline.This finding is supported by the fact that, as reported un-employment rates rose from I1A to 3.4 percent and femaleunemployment rates from 0S to 1.4 percent, those formarried women rose only slightly from 0.6 to 0.7 percent,based on the registered unemployed series. Rather thanbeing a true reflection of labor market conditions, thissmall increase in registered unemployment for marriedwomen probably resulted from a further decline in thepropensity to register."

While the adult female propensity to register de-clined between 1966 and 1971, the adult male propensityto register rose sharply-to the point where there was "over-registration" of males age 20 and over. Thus the tendencyof unemployed men not to register as unemployed was out-weighed by the tendency of registered unemployed malesto do some work during the week of registration and forpensioners, not actually seeking work, to register as un-employed.

The rise in the propensity of adult males to register isundoubtedly related to the deterioration of economic con-ditions between 1966 and 1971. Reported unemploymentrates more than doubled between these 2 years, rising from1.4 to 3.4 percent. There are reasons for supposing that,in periods of exceptionally high unemployment, the pro-pensity to register increases. The more serious the problem,the more people are aware of the problem and of theirrights to unemployment compensation. Furthermore, per-sons who would normally search for jobs on their own dur-ing times when jobs are easy to find would increasingly turnto the Employment Service for help in obtaining employ-ment.

A further incentive to register was the introduction ofearnings-related unemployment benefits in October 1966.Previously, unemployment compemation consisted of a flatbenefit unrelated to prior eamnings. Eamings-related benefitsamount to one-third of a person's former earnings betweencertain specified amounts. Also, increases in flat-rate bene-fits were large, amounting to a 20-percent increase in 1971alone.

The propensity to register on the part of teenagerscontinued to increase between 1966 and 1971. There was asharp increase for teenage boys and a slight Increase forteenage girls. Continued development and improvement ofthe Youth Employment Service played a role in this trend.

Combining the census and survey analyses. Coefficients ofadjustment were derived from the 1961 and 1966 censusesand the General Household Surveys to be applied to theregularly published British statistics on the registered un-employed. Adjustment factors for 1962 through 1965 wereInterpolated from the 1961 and 1966 results; factors for

6Fo r soe esplasutiens of tsds tneed see Guy Standing, "HiddenWonktes," New Sristy. Otobee 14, t1971, pp. 716-19.

1959 and 1960 were assumed to be the same as for 1961.For 1967-70, factors were interpolated from the 1966 and1971 results; factors for 1972 through 1974 were derivedfrom the surveys conducted in those years. Aggregate un-employment levels were derived from these surveys by thesame method used for the 1971 survey-i.e., determinationof a universe-level employment and derivation of unem-ployment by applying the GHS unemployment rate for thatyear. Since linking with earlier years was not required, itwas not necessary to calculate adjustment factors for differ-ent age and sex categories after 1971. The aggregate unem-ployment levels for 1972 through 1974 were adjusted toexclude persons not actively seeking work. From 1972 on.ward, the proportion of persons who had not activelysought work was not published. Unpublished tabulationsobtained from The Office of Population Censuses and Sur-veys indicate that a smaller proportion of persons were notactively seeking work in 1972 through 1974, comparedwith 1971. Therefore, 10 percent of the "not registered,other" category was subtracted (compared with 15 percentin 1971).

Persons on temporary layoff are not included ineither the census or the GHS unemployed. Since theyshould be included for comparability with US. concepts,the number of persons on temporary layoff has been esti-mated from figures published on the number of workers inmanufacturing who were laid off the entire week. Thesefigures were inflated to include nonmanufacturing by usingthe ratio of manufacturing workers to all workers temporar-ily laid off and receiving benefits (normally a ratio of 85 to90 percent).

Table B-17 shows the annual adjustment factors for1959-71, the registered unemployed, and the estimate ofunregistered unemployed derived by applying the adjust-ment factors. The unregistered unemployed are added tothe registered unemployed and persons on temporary layoffin table B-18 to obtain total British unemployment adjustedto U.S. concepts. For example, registered unemploymentof 752,000 in 1971 is adjusted upward to 930000 forcomparability with US. concepts.

A small adjustment for a few years had to be madein the data for adult students to regularize the date of theunemployment count. The counts of adult student registra-tions were not always taken at the same time in themonth-eg., sometimes they were taken in early Januaryand sometimes in late January. This had a large effect onthe data since school vacations were over by late January.The adjustments, although signlficant in some months, werevery sanl on an annual basis.

For 1975 and 1976, in lieu of survey results, the pro-portion of unregistered to registered unemployed in 1972was applied (19 percent). This was done because 1972, like1975 and 1976, was a year of relativelyhigh unemployment.As results from General Household Surveys for 1975 andlater years are analyzed, the estimates of adjusted unem-ployment since 1974 will probably require some revision.

121

165

Tabhe B-17. Gretl Britabin Calculation of th. unregisered unemployed, 1959-71

99 1960 1 19611 1962 j 46 1965 1n66 1967 1 1969 196 11970 1971

.123 123 123 ill 100 88 77 65 5! 44 34 3 131525 2 2 152 142 131 121 110 101 99 90 94 91 69

22 22 25 28 32 35 38 28 18 2 -2 -1393 93 93 11 129 146 164 182 191 200 20 218 27

Thou

445392415

406299107

219533023

16666

100

346281711

31923187

170382117

13251Al

312251411

26721275

151341717

11747

432ss3322

37728988

238683731

1707298

724329

3s198

305814338

22498

126

I1961 facton drblvd Iron pop.lllo, -rar; 1966 fctronfro- e..PI. mp m;" 1971 fahos from G.end Houa hodSuv-V. 1959 and 1960 facto. .e.d -. a 1961; 196265rmd 1967-70 fo, i.ntnrpdatd.

Labor force

British civilian labor force estimates are obtained byadding civilian wage and salary workers (employed and un-employed) and estimates of the selfemployed and employ-ers. Unpaid family workers, a small category, are excluded.Estimates of the self-employed and employers are interpo-lated by British statistical authorities from results of popu-lation censuses. The number of unemployed wage and salaryworkers is obtained from the registered unemployed figutresreported by the Department of Employment. The numberof employed wage and salary workers was based solelyupon quarterly counts of National Insuarnce cards untillune 1971 when an annual employment mensus was insti-rtued. Quarterly estimates of employed wage and salaryworkers are now derived from the annual census andquarterly sample surveys of establishments. To provide alink between the old and new systems, both the card countand a census were taken in June 1971 and the card countsystem was continued through 1972. Estimates on theoensus basis were made for earlier years by the British sta-

tistical authorities.British statistics on the civilian working population

(labor force) differ from US. concepts in three respects:

(1) The establishment census overcounts wage andsalary employment under US. concepts. Because it is anestablishment inquiry, a penon who had two regular jobswith different employers in the census or suvey weekwould be counted twice. Thus, it is a measure of the

372482919

324291

74

a37492623

188so

,08

317432617

274215

ss

211392019

1727597

422616

28923455

22233117168989

1100

921674423

454377

77

30047

2423

206106147

549

4119

489420

70

25236

21676

140

544674621

477416

61

192361620

15629

127

568276

52323

44264

160331221

127-13140

758114

7836

644562

83

157421032

1is-731,8

'5An.. W r dale bY .. dviddd eM sW aros. .nrditg

Wo reidvar pmportion- of the rgsearud whbeV unemplord.'Cop.ted by eshvion da.m t fct.n r.de0rtmd un.-

played dals.

number of jobs ather than the number of workers in GreatBritain. The US. labor force survey measures the numberof workers. In another respect, the esutablishment censusundercounts employment: Persons in private domesticservice are excluded. There were 90p00 suhd persons in the1971 National Inurance card count.

(2) Unpaid family workers are also excluded from theestablishment cemsus, which coven only wage and salaryworkers. Such persons are included in the US. labor forceif they worked 15 or more hours during the survey week.

(3) The unregistered unemployed are not included inthe British labor force statistica. Unemployed persons donot appear in the British count of the working populationunless they have registered as such. Persons on temporarylayoff are included in the British statistics on employment.

Method of aditstment. The British statistica on the laborforce were adjusted to US. concepts based on informationfrom the population census and the General HouseholdSurveys.

I- Adiurtment for orercowtr of eznployment. Accord-ing to the remults of the 1971 GHS, 3.3 percent of the maleworkers and 2.8 percent of the female workers were multiplejobholders. About 57 percent of the multiple jobholdenheld more than one wage or salay job (a male-female break-down was not available on this point). It was assumed that57 percent of the 33 percent of male worker were mul-tiple jobholder in the establishment census. Thus, 1.9 per-cent of all men reported as working in the establishment

122

T

Adiuemn fmclnn:'

Mel..F.r.I.......

AdultdsMal ...........

Ragina-d un mplovad'T".ne.....,

M. .F.. l...

AdutsM.h.F. al..

Unnrw.gia d unnmplo.d3T.eg .n.

MM..Fo1 ... .

Ad, h..M...F ..ah.

. .

. . . . . . .. . , ,

166

census were multiple jobholders. Similarly 1.6 percentof the women held more than one wage or salary job. Thesepercentages were applied to the reported number of maleand female employees in the establishment census to arrivea'an estimate of the overcount due to multiple jobholding.For 1971. using this method, there were 385000 multiplejobholders In the establishment census figures.1 7 Domestics,who were not covered in the establishment census, shouldbe added. They numbered about 90O000 in 1971. Thus anet overcount of 295,000 (385,000 - 90,000) was esti-mated for 1971.

In 1972, using the same method discussed above, itwas estimated that 2.2 percent of the men and 1.6 percentof the women in the establishment census were multiplejobholders. Data on multiple jobholding was not availablefrom the 1973 and 1974 surveys. Therefore, for yearsafter 1972. the 1972 relationships have been used. Thenumber of domestics was assumed to be 0.4 percent ofcivilian employment each year, based on the 1971 census.

The proportion of multiple jobholders in the 1966sample census was somewhat les than in 1971-2.5 percentversus 3.1 percent for both sexes. The adjustment for mul-tiple jobholders was scaled down to 15 percent for menand IA percent for women in 1966 and prorated through1971.

2. Unpaid family wtirkers. There are very few unpaidfamily workers in Great Britain because British tax laws aresuch that the majority of family workers are paid. Data onthe number of family workers are available from the popu-lation censuses, but there is no indication as to how manyare unpaid and how many work fewer than 15 hours dur-ing the week. It was decided that the number of unpaidfamily workers is probably too umall to warrant an adjust-ment to indude them. This assumption can be tested whenresults of the 1976 General Household Survey becomeavailable, since this survey will enumerate wives who workin their husband's business without pay.

3. nTe numtber of unregisrered unemployed, as de-termined above, was added to the reported labor force.

Unemployment rate

The published British unemployment rate iscomputed by dividing the number of registeredunemployed (including school leavers but excluding adultstudents) by the total wage and salary labor force (em.ployed and unemployed). The unemployment rate ad-justed to U.S. concepts is computed by dividing the sum ofthe registered (including adult students) and estimated

27This Bgure may be soeewat overe nsatde bemus in theGHS a person may be coded as having mare than one job when thedifferent jobs a l l5 with the same employer; such a person couldbe mooted only or-e in the Census Of Employment. Howeer,thre Is an infosmaon aon the amoust by which the 385,000should be reduced.

unregistered unemployed and persons on temporary layoffby the civilian labor force adjusted for overcount and reg-istered unemployed. (See table B-IS .)


The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates seasonallyadjusted unemployment rates adjusted to US. definitionsfor Great Britain. The method used in making these adjust-ments is as follows:

Unemployment. To arrive at the number of unemployed,adjusted to U.S. concepts, BLS adds together the whollyunemployed (which excludes school leavers and adult stu-dents), school leavers, persons temporarily laid off, theunregistered unemployed, and adult students.

The number of wholly unemployed excluding schoolleavers and adult students is the seasonally adjusted seriespublished by the Department of Employment. Since 1972,the series has been adjusted using the additive version ofthe X-l I Variant of the U.S. Bureau of the Census Method11 seasonal adjustment program. Prior to 1972, a multipli-cative seasonal adjustment program devised by the CentralStatistical Office was used. School leavers and the tempor-arily laid off are seasonally adjusted by BLS using the mul-tiplicative option of the X-l I .The number of unregisteredunemployed is calculated by multiplying the sum of thewholly unemployed and school leavers, both of which areseasonally adjusted, by annual factors, derived from theGeneral Household Survey.

The number of adult students added to the unem-ployed for adjustment to U.S. concepts is a constant basedon the annual average number of adult students registeredas unemployed. As noted above, an increasing number ofadult students in the period 1970-76 registered as unem-ployed during their holidays in order to collect supplemen-tary benefits. The registration of these persons caused dis-tortions in BLS's seasonal adjustment of this series. There-fore, a constant number of adult students is added to thequarterly and monthly estimates of the unemployed. In1977, fewer adult students registered during the shortschool holidays, because regulations were changed so thatthey were no longer entitled to benefits.

Labor force. Monthly estimates of the labor force cannotbe made because employment statistics are published onlyquarterly. Quarterly estimates of the labor force adjustedto U.S. definitions are derived by adding reported employ-ment (employees in employment plus the self-employed),seasonally adjusted by the Department of Employment, tothe seasonally adjusted number of unemployed adjustedto U.S. concepts. Estimates of the number of personstemporarily laid off the entire week and multiple job-holders are subtracted. The figure used for multiple job-holders is a constant derived from the latest available Gen-eral Household Survey.

123

167

Table B-18. Ghsat Britairc Adjustment of lbfor force dat to U.S. roncepts, 1959-76lNumbarsln tcooussnra

Iem 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 | 1966 1 1967

Reportd civilins oploymn .... ............... 22.785 23.177 23.487 23.631 23,698 24.036 2426 24,332 24,021Plus: Reoqiterd unemploved .... .............. 444 346 312 432 521 372 31 331 519

Reported iviln labor fo .... ................ 23229 23.523 23,799 24.063 24,219 24,408 24.57 24.663 24.540Less Net orco . ....................... 219 225 230 232 233 228 23 232 241Plus: Adult nude.nts ....... .. .. ... .. . .. . .. . _ _ _ _ _ _ 2Plus: U-gnre -lrd!unseipyed 2

............... 219 170 151 238 305 237 211 222 300

Adjusted cinili.en labo lnf e. . 23,229 23.468 23.720 242069 24.291 24.417 24.556 24.653 24.601Ronded ...... ........................ 23.230 23.470 23.720 24.070 24,390 24.420 24 560 24.650 24.600

Reogitard umpIoyed ...... .................. 444 346 312 432 521 372 317 331 519Plus. Adull stud nt

t. .................

. .- - _ _ _ _ 2

Plus: Temporaily laid off3 .... ............... 7 6 9 7 1 4 7Plus: Unregistenrd un.plod2 ..... ....... 219 170 151 238 305 237 211 222 300Adjusted umployd .................... 670 517 469 679 833 610 53 557 828

Roundd ...... ........................ 670 520 470 680 830 610 53 560 830Uneploytnent rule (Perceos:

Aspublihed . .......................... 2.0 1.5 14 19 2.3 1.6 1. 1.4 2.2Adjusted to .S. concepU ..................... 2.9 2.2 2.0 28 3.4 2.5 2 2.3 3.4

1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976Reported civilian -pI., . ..................... 23.916 23.924 23,811 23.402 23.570 24.058 24,106 24,004 23.830

Plus Registered unemploed .................. t 5 540 577 752 835 588 55 936 1.305Repor1d uNtili.n ubrcoun .. 24.,462 24.464 24.388 24,154 24.405 24.676 24,754 24.940 25.135

Le-o Net .. ...er...ou..t.. 291 260 279 295 337 336 337 0 333 0 330Plus Adul stden .. ..................... 3 4 5 6 9 9 1 35 44Plus: Unregised. .............. 252 192 160 157 160 176 0 0195 251

Adjuoted civilian lb . .... ................ 24,456 24.460 24.274 24.022 24,237 24.525 24,51 024322 25 19WRounded ......... .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . 24.460 24.400 24,270 24.020 24.240 24.530 24.51 242820 25,100

Registered unemployed ....... ... ... . .. . .. . .. . 546 540 577 752 835 588 585 936 1.305Plus. Adolt studentst ....... . .. . .. .. . .. .. . . 3 4 S 6 9 9 1i1 35 44Plus Temporalylidoft

3 .... . 2 15 s 11 10 6197 6 6

Plus: Unemgisered unemployed .25 2 192 160 157 160 178 9 0 0251Adlosted unemployed .9.6..... . . . .. .. . . ... .. . . . 803 741 747 926 1,014 779 69 01.16 s 1.606

Roneded .0....... .. . .. .. . . .. . . ... ... . . . 800 740 750 930 1,010 780 690| 0170 s 1.610UnemPloyment rate (enrent:

At published ...... .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 2.4 24 2.5 3.4 3.7 2.6 2. 41 5.6Adlusted to U.S. c-cept .................... 3.3 3.0 3 .39 4.2 3.2 208 047 s645Adolt Mtudeyn regisiered as unemployed edjusted slightly to

regulurian dote of count.2 For 1959-71 ta table 8- 7 for method of estimaion. For 1972

through 1974, unemployment from houshold sur-eys inflated touniverse leme and adjusted to U.S. concepts Surnoyt for 1975 0-wards bane not been pubfished;unmngistered unempluyed figures Io1975 and 1976 ear aetimated us described in Ieo.-

Unemployment urer. Quarterly unemployment rates areestimated by dividing the 3-month seasonally adjusted av-erage of unemployment (adjusted to U.S. definitions) bythe ceasonally adjusted (adjusted to U.S. concepts) laborforce. Since labor force data are only available quarterly,the labor force is held constant for each of the 3 monthswhich make up that quarter. Additionacly, the latestavailable labor force figure n used until the next quarterlyfigure is published. At that time the unemployment rates

are recalculated. The labor force figures generally lug by4 months.

3 Mnufuntoring workers laid oft the entire wmok inflated to in-clude nonmanutacorino basd on duta on repssrations for tempo-am layoft benefit.

4 Reginered unemployed us u peryent of the civilian mogo endsalary lutbor force

Preliminary esti~mte

Italy

Prior to 1963. the Intemational Labour Office (ILO)published the number of registered unemployed persons asrepresentative Italian unemployment figures. The unemploy-ment rate was computed by dividing the number of regis-tered unemployed by the economically active population(excluding persons seeking first employment) reported inthe 1951 population census. Beginning in 1963, however,the ILO began publishing the results of a quarterly samplesurvey as the more representative unemployment figures.

124

168

Italian Survey Ouestionnaire Used Prior to 1977

La settimana di riferimento e quella che comprende il glorno di riferimento.N~ H.. . I -us~ld11- rl --- ---- . .r . . . . .

_ e NO Ti DLL! ANpICLI 00 COMIER! SoLMnIERPR LIh PeRS~hOI IN E TA 01 11 ANNI 0 PlO

. ... . ..,. _ O....a....

1111.. i . _ _ lf..... .... ....... ...... .. .. .. ... ........ ..... --t- ..._..... ... .. . ...... _t----- -- --- ----- I-1-- -

,.......... ....... ........ . .. ...... . .. !. . ... .......................... ...... -.-1-.1- ..

, .... . . .. .. ...... .. ......... .....

. .... ......... ... ... .. _ . .._ ._ ..

r00 .--- ... --- --. ... ... .- 1 ..

- --......... . .... ..... - ------- -- ---- - ----- -1-- --- ----- ............. > 1 1 -- -----.-.1.--1-.1----1----1

- , CCI e0.CC~... - .. . 0.... ......0... .. ...... .... .... - - - --i-- ............

.. ......... . ...... ......... .......... ... . .. . .. ...... ..... . i I

P0AIICCI000~.p~o.o00.0.I

1.0

C(LCI0. ............

.-, , _ , . _ , , so _ 12-.J' 16 I as I 1s I 17 1 1..1,.]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ..........

N .. . ...... ..... IOR

FlrcX~~~~~~~~~~ I i Fl O~n>COoefl D*i.IA RILEA-nt2w ,AC DRZ |IOI ¢EE|

............ - a ....... ...... -......Ig ~ ..p ~ e.. ... ... ............ Io 'o ............... , o e. ..,*.t.... ............I ... .... ,l .l.... ...... ......dII ....... ,..~ ft ~ l I'ST T .*~ 0

diI_ I- 1 DI | .O .E..o.qoDol d-l ... ... ,it./

Nz . _ | w @ ~H 1- |OW .................... IrMc~ . ... .. . .. .. q.1. d i b

125

Itiian Survy Ovastionnair Usd from 1977 Onward

LD seltimnDn di riforreento & que.P nch conprrode il gioino di rifevinneto

_~~~~~~~~~~~~0 Cvii _o.~io rem Lrv mmi iv 00 u ii v*li o mr __

.be: .,io,,ir, .a.,, r..0j.O o.a i.i.ra ,,, . .^.,* v10 vi....... rvf^lvv .r'- .,

000.0.0, earvol alEl _ii,' _ . vSv. eIvaI . aivilve .14 1 u 16 7 I

i1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 14 1 _ 16 71

ia..vaav. ig , _,'- -i -l -___

a _ 10 __ _ 7 1F TR -Z:1 N _ 21~~~~~T 1,,1,,7

_-_ _ ! i I I 2 34 S __ 7 _1_ _ _

_ _ _1 _ I1,. . I23 4 S17 8 i _

taO 10, lvii _ ~ oiviv~ aiL. v3 al.4 _''5 7 . r - =i-

ii. | . WA10 rJ. 1 rr~c v.1. 13 . _ < l. 1a . rAIII A .win -J l vI. ..l ... .. . ....( l10_ ~|., 0 .,j0 aI r .1. j_.Z ........................................ .... ........

v. ' .i - ...i. - I ;- l ; ; iw *, o I_10> .......... .' -T ti---- -, -................ . ........ ...... .. .

v= i .30. vii v..0. 3.w--° ni ' j,;r i l.. ;,w .33 *uCr>

vc_ | r ng_ 5 >-*-- _ jZU; jjj; j __ii. .,. i i- i-er . . . ............

; |0-D ~~~~~- -l z ls! U"@ 2Cu $ A 0 W-t23 5 7 _ 1_ -

r -| iZ D~_*, _ W 1 .a1 ̂rFvc I , .i iin __35 , X _._,, ........ ..........i......._ .. ..... ,......___ I 12345679 a

.io b~a . w1r_ n .X.a iz: i

_ v ZFD | iv__ viola 1r_ -i n . er W. rW.-r -n-- -F . -s~ _paiv. vii..vvllvavlvii... 'viv 0W.U .;9v_ jui .3 , .vaavi 1.lia iC ' a . 2 in _ -i v.. 1 a1 1a ___r

A1; g jj jDS j~i; Illj~l .11,_ j£,, a..eiv.ale. ISDii~i iava na~viv at - .aai

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~v dvosa l o.,. 1_ u, * 1._ av .. 0 avIvidlivr. _iinvi_ -aa.

0-

Co

170

Italy: English translation of labor force survey questions relating to labor force status:Questionnaire used prior to 1977

Columns 8-19. To be completed only for persons 14 years of age and over:

Column 10. Status:Professional

EmployedSeeking a new job

NonprofessionalIn search of first jobMilitary conscriptHousewifeStudentUnable to workRetiredOther (financially independent, old age, prisoner, vagabond, etc.)

Columns 11-16. To be completed for all employed persons and persons seeking a new job and for peresons whose status is nonprofessional if they worked during the reference week:

Column I1. Hours worked during the reference week

Columns 12-13. If less than 40 hours, indicate:

Column 12. Reason:Sickness or maternityLabor disputeVacation or holidayBad weatherStart or termination of job during the reference weekWork contract or terms of employmentUnderemployed

-seasonal reasons-other reasons

Not convenient or interested in working longer hoursOther (specify)

Column 13. Are you taking advantage of the Wage Supplement Fund?

Column 14. Industry

Column 15. Class of worker (self-employed, wage or salary worker, unpaid family worker)

Column 16. Occupation

Column 17. Duration of seeking employment (to be completed for persons whose status is seeking anew job or in search of first job)

127

171

Italy: English trasation of labor forces urvey questions relating to labor force sttus:Questionnaire used from 1977 onward

Columns 8-24. To be completed only for persons 14 years of age and over:

Column 10. Status:1 Employed2. Seeking a new job3. In search of first job4. Military conscriptS. Housewife6. Student7. Unable to work8. Retired9. Other (financially independent, old age, etc.)

Column 1. Whatever the status declared, did you do any work at all in the reference week? If yes.indicate the number of hours worked in all the activities in which the individual or the family madeearnings or profits.

Columns 12-19. To be completed for all employed persons and persons seeking a new job. For all otherpersons, complete only if I hour or more of work has been done in the reference week.

Column 12. Profession

Column 13. Position in the profession

Column 14. Branch of economic activity

Column 15. Hours worked during the reference week

Column 16. If less than 40 hours, indicate the reason:

I. Sickness or maternity2. Labor dispute3. Vacation or holiday4. Bad weather5. Start or termination of job during reference week6. Work contract or terms of employment7. Seasonal cause8. Reduced business activity9. Have not found opportunity for more work

10. Not convenient or interested in working longer hours00. Other

Column 17. Place of work

Column 18. Regularity of activity (regular, seasonal, occasional, etc.)

128

172

Italy: English translation of labor force survey questions relating to labor force status:Questionnaire used from 1977 onward-Continued

Column 19. Aside from your principal activity, do you do other work at another time of the year?

Column 20. To be completed by all persons age 14 or over, whatever the status reported in column 10.Are you actively seeking work?

I. Yes, seeking a wage or salary job2. Will soon begin a wage or salary job3. Will begin, subsequent to reference week, self-employment and already have the necessary

means4. Intend to become self-employed, but do not yet have the necessary means to do so5. No, would seek work only under certain conditions6. No, do not have the possibility or the interest in seeking work7. No, have a job and not seeking another

Columns 21 to 23. To be completed by all who responded according to number I or number 2 in col-umn 20.

Column 21. How long have you been looking for work? (If the search has not begun, enter zero.)

Column 22. What definite actions have you taken to find work?

I. Registered at public employment office2. Registered at private employment agency3. Visited employers4. Brought to attention of an employer by friends or acquaintances5. Sent a resume to an employer or took a competitive exam6. Placed an ad in a newspaper7. Responded to an ad in a newspaper8. Have not yet taken active steps to find work

Column 23. When did you last take definite action to find work?

1. In the last 30 days2. One to six months ago3. Over 6 months ago4. Have not begun job search

Column 24. To be completed by those who responded according to number 5 or 6 in column 20.

Column 24. Why are you not actively seeking work? (The interviewer does not read the causes listed,but records response of the person interviewed.)

I. Family reasons2. Studies3. Retired4. Health, invalidity, or other physical impediment5. Absence of need6. Searched in vain in the past7. Insufficient professional preparation8. Too young or too old9. Military duty

10. Don't know

129

173

The results of the sample survey form the basis of the ad-justment to US. concepts.

A major revision an survey methods was made inJanuary 1977. The definition of unemployment remainedessentially the same, but more probing questions were in-corporated in the sunrvey questionnaire. The more prob-ing style of questioning resulted in significant increases inthe number of persons enumerated as employed and un-employed. In addition, questions are now asked on work-seeking activities, and it is possible to determine the num-ber of persons who have not taken active steps to ford workin the past 30 days. The results indicate that there are alarge number of such persons, who would probably be classi-fied as "discouraged workers" rather than as unemployedunder U.S. concepts. However, many may be registered un-employed persons who do not consider the listing of one'sname on the unemployment register to be an active jobsearch step in the last 30 days.

At the time this section was prepared, BIS had thesummary results of the January and April 1977 surveysand the new survey definitions and questionnaire. BtSmay revise its adjusted estimates of Italian labor force dataafter the complete results of the new surveys are obtainedand certain remaining points have been clarified.

Unemployment

Registered unemployed. Italy tabulates the number of job-seekers 15 years of age and over registered at the local em-ployment offices of the Ministry of Labor on the last dayof each month. They are divided into five classes: (1) Un-employed formerly employed persons seeking work; (2)youths under age 21 and others seeking their first job artdjobseekers released from military service; (3) housewivesseeking work for the first time; (4) pensioners seeking em-ployment; and (5) employed persons seeking other jobs.Usually classes (I) and (2), representing over 90 percentof the total in recent years,. are used as a measure of un-employment.

Until the recent modifications in the Italian laborforce survey, the registrations series was commonly ac-knowledged to overstate the level of unemployment be-cause of failure of registrants to cancel their registra-tions promptly after obtaining jobs. The registrationfigures formerly were considerably higher than the un-employment data derived from the labor force survey.For example, in 1975 an average of 1,202,000 persons

5 8

were registered as unemployed; according to the labor forcesurvey, 654,000 were unemployed. However, in January1977, when more probing questions were incorporated anthe survey, the survey enumerated 1,459000 unemployedpersons, while the registrations series counted 1,314,000.

Labor force surveys. Beginning with January 1959, theItalian Central Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) has con-ducted quarterly labor force surveys, tsually in January,

26Ctse, I and 2 of egisted unemplnyed permos.

April, July, and October and with reference to the cal-endar week which includes the 20th of the month. Earliersurveys were conducted in September 1952, May 1954,May 1955, April 1956, May and November 1957, andOctober 1958. The surveys currenily cover about 83,000households distributed among some 1,400 communitiesrepresentative of the whole country. They are carried outby personal interview.

Until 1972 the surveys covered the noninstitutionalresident population, including persons temporarly workingabroad and accompanying family members Separate re-

sults were also published for the presens in area population,which excludes persons temporarily abroad. Beginning in1972, only the present-in-area population has been sar-veyed. Surmary survey results are published by ISTAT inthe Bollettino Mensile di Statistica and the NotiziarioISTAT (foglio 34). More detailed results are published an-nually in the Annuario di Statisrtiche de Lavoro.

Modifications as the survey were made in January1964 and January 1977. Beginning in January 1964, un-employed persons were defined as all those 14 years of ageand over who did not work at all m the survey week andwere actively seeking work. Prior to 1964, unemployedpersons were defined as all those 14 years of age and overwho actively sought work during the surey week and (a)did not work at all or (b) stated they did not have jobs(even though they may have done some work in the surveyweek).

In the surveys prior to January 1977, one questiondetermined a person's labor force status. This questioninquired as to the respondent's "condition" during thereference week. The possible answers on the survey formwere as follows:

Professional:EmployedSeeking a new job

Nonprofessional:Seeking first jobMilitary conscriptHousewifeStudentUnable to work (handicapped)PensionerOther (independent means, aged, etc.)

According to the definitions appearing on the suveyform, persons enumerated as "seeking a new job" werethose who had lost their job, were looking for another job,and were in a condition to accept a job if it was offered.This group of persons is referred to as the unemployed-dis-occupati-in the survey results. Persons enumerated as"seeking first job" were those who had never been employedand were actively seeking work. The sum of the unemployedand the first-time jobseekers is referred to as those in searchof work-in cerra di occupazione-in the survey results.

According to ISTAT, persons on layoff who werewaiting to retumn to their jobs would most likely respondthat they were employed. Persons not looking for work in

30

57-254 0 - 80 - 12

174

the survey week because of temporary illness and personswaiting to start a new job would most likely be classifiedas not In the labor force since they were not actively seek-ing work. However, no specific questions were asked on anyof these categories.

Although the survey definitions stated that persons"seeking a new job" or "seeking first job" should be ac-tively seeking work, there was no test or time periodspecified for workseeking activities. Al persons enumer-ated as seeking work were asked the duration of their jobsearch, and all persons responded according to some dura-tion. Thus, there was no category of persons who had notbegun looking for work. However, persons who had takenactive steps to look for work more than I month ago,but had not done anything to find work during the monthincluding the reference week, were counted as unemployed.Also, current availability for work was noted in the defini-tion of persons "seeking a new job" but not in the def-inition of persons "seeking first job." There was no test ofcurrent availability in the survey questionnaire.

Special surveys of persons "not in the labor force"conducted in April 1973 and April 1975 indicated thatmany people were looking for work but not stating thatthey were unemployed or seeking a first job in the regularItalian surveys." These surveys, unlike the regular Italiansurvey described above, contained more probing questions.They attempted to elicit information on the Italian popu-lation's attitude toward the labor market and reasons fornonparticipation in the labor force. Persons age 14 through70 were interviewed.

The April 1973 and 1975 surveys were coordinatedwith the regular April labor force surveys. They classifiedthe population in Italy into four categories according todegree of economic activity (table B-19): (I) Persons age 14or over who are employed, unemployed, or looking fortheir first job. This represents the labor force in its moststrict sense, and comprises those persons who respond thatthey are economically active in the above senses (employed,unemployed, etc.) when asked their current "condition."In April 1973, there were 19 million such persons. (2) Per-sons who say they are looking for a job who did not termthemselves as unemployed or seeking their first job in thequestion concerning current "condition." There were660,000 such persons in Aproi 1973. (3) Persons who saythey are not looking for work but who would accept itunder certain conditions. In April 1973, there were 1.1million persons in this category. (4) Persons who, althoughthey are of working age (14-70), say that they are notworking, are not looking for work, and are not disposedto accept work. In April 1973, there were 17.5 million per-sons in this category.

"A spracia srvey of persons "not in the tIbet mere" win stsoconducted in Febsuiay 1971. However, it is of liited useruness tiecu it did not nontain questiuon on w-rk-eeking a cotitis. Also, itwa, not conducted in inisunntion with the regular quartesly survey.

In January 1977, more probing questions were in-corporated into the regular Italian labor force surveyquestionnaire and the definition of unemployment wasmade more precise. In addition to asking about a person'scondition during the survey week, specific questions con-ceming workseeking activities are now asked. The currentdefinition of unemployment-persone in cerca di occupaz-.ione-refers to all persons looking for work, including: (I)Those previously employed, namely persons age 14 andover who have lost previously held paid employment, havenot performed any work during the reference week, andstated (a) that they were seeking paid employment and wereable to accept it if offered to them; or (b) that they wouldbegin, subsequent to the survey period, paid employmentand had already found such employment; or (c) that theywould become, subsequent to the survey period, self-em-ployed and already had the necessary means.

3a (2) Those

seeking frse job, namely, persons age 14 and over who hadnever worked, or have been self-employed, or who havevoluntarily discontinued working for a period of time notless than I year and fall within one of the three categories("a," "b," or "c") noted under the previously employedabove. (3) Those persons in occupations not classified asemployment, namely, persons age 14 and over who statedinitially that they were housewives, students, ex-workers,etc., but in answer to a second question in the course ofthe interview affirmed that they were looking for employ-ment. Included in this group are the persons who describedthemselves as previously employed or seeking their fistjob (I and 2 above) and intended to become self-employedbut did not yet hane the necessary means to do so.

The questions asked in the Italian survey concerningworkseeking activities are as follows: (I) Are you activelyseeking work? (2) How long have you been looking forwork? (3) What defmnite actions have you taken to findwork? and (4) When did you last take definite action tofind work? Only an affirmative answer to the first questionor an answer expressing intent to begin a new job or self-employment at a later date is required for enumeration ofa person as unemployed. If the later questions elicit thatthe person has not actually begun his job search or has nottaken any recent steps to find work, he is still classified asunemployed.

Question (4) noted above is unique to the Italiansurvey as a test of workseeking activity. For example, theU.S. survey asks "What have you been doing to look forwork in the past 4 weeks?" The difference here is that theU.S. question specifically mentions a time period-4weeks-while the Italian question asks when the person lastactively sought work. One of the answers to the Italianquestion on the survey form is "in the last 30 days."

tutu past ruieys, persons who were seeking work who have beenretfeinpluyed were inatudet in the "previusly emeplyed" cate-gory. They are nowtialuded in the "eehkig russ job" atgeunry.Alo, group, "b" asd a" were not identfied in Previous interviews.

131

175

Table B-i9. Italy: Selected reaIlts from special labor force uaneys, April 1973 and April 1975

April 1973 April 1975Item Total Men Women Total Men Worme

Labor forca .1899 1304 5,195 19.436 13,84 5s452Empoyed. 18264 132357 4.907 18.769 13985 5.184

Seeking another jb . 1 P) lf 1.055 783 272UnemploVed en kin fir.t jaob 735 447 288 667 399 268

NSain the Lbor f1nr lagm 14-701 19,265 4699 14,376 19,710 5.132 14,578Looksd for work but did rat

decle thnensnes as unemi-ploved in a preioaus iqumin 658 153 50b 496 140 356

Did not lok for work buht woidainp, work coder cartfinconditloos . 121 190 931 908 158 750

Neither seking work norinreren d in wink inyeoruin ro7ditioW . 7,486 4.546 12.940 1 8,306 4B34 1 3,472

'Not evailhbln. SOURCE: Iniloi Central de Statirn. Anoaid di Stati-tire. der La-am, 1975 for Aprl 1973 enwl. pp. 109-16. and1976 (for April 1975 seyl. pP. 103-15.

BiLS is not cerrain that all persons who do not res-pond "in the last 30 days" should be excluded from theItalian unemployment figures for comparability with U.S.concepts, which require active jobseeking within the past4 weeks. In the Italian sunrvey, there could be a numberof persons registered as unemployed who do not considertheir act of registration to be their last definite actionto find work, especially if reregistration is not required eachmonth in order to obtain unemployment benefits. A cros-classification between jobseeking activities and time of lastactive job search would help to resolve this point.

Results from the January and April 1977 sunrveys,like the results of the special April 1973 and 1975 sur-veys, indicate that a large number of persons classified as"not in the labor force" in former surveys were actuallyactively seeking work by registering at official or privateemployment agencies, answering or placing advertisementsin the newspapers, sending letters, or meeting with prospec-tive employers. As noted above, the 1977 surveys also m-dicated that a significant proportion of persons previouslyenumerated as unemployed did not take amy recent-ie.,within the past 30 days-active steps to f[nd workal Themajor results of the January 1977 survey are shown in tableB-20.

Beginning in January 1977, persons who are waitingto begin new jobs are enumerated as unemployed. There isno specific question on this point, but it is one of the re-sponses listed to the question "Are you actively seekingwork?" Such persons were most likely classified as not in

n"The Junoary 1977 resultt indicate that 65 perncet of tre pr-vioudy employed nemployed took eirse steps to find work in dhe

pat 30 days. for the r-t-tine jobseekens, the pmportion wa 53peronet; far those oho r-t did not dentae themftnes as employedthe proportion ma 32 perceno In the April 1977 satey, the norns-ponding proporinos were 63, 53, and 33 percet.

the labor force in earlier surveys. The category of personsseeking their fi[t job was defined more broadly in January1977 to include persons who had voluntarily discontinuedworking for a period of time nor lesr than I year. Under theprevious definition, such reentrants to the labor force werenot included amnong the finst-tirme jobseekers. They wereclasrified as "seeking a new job."

Table B-20. Italy: Major re ults of the January 1977labor force surney

ITh.us.ndelItem Toral Men Womee

Labor foree . 212357 1455f 6206Employed .19298 13904 5.994

Pernos faring they ha ejob .1 1891 13,499 5,492

Permos fic satfing theywere aeemployed, ht. thenadrirrirn In rmie rpe ofwork in refereene week ... 907 406 502

Uenemployed....... 1,459 841 812Praoiouiy employed . .. 253 159 94Seeking firt i.b , 619 308 311Permons who first sated

thoy were innira bhtbraraeetlyf affirmed

they wre looking forwork. 587 180 407

Nanworkingppulati.n . 9,34132 12517 21AI5Pereonsof working age' , 18220 4,784 13,436

Noat sking employtmne butoulId wept work under

.emiincondition . 1,122 233 889Per.os not of working ae

5... 152912 7,733 8.179

TrIal prpulaio .

5 6S ,489 27708 36.421

Ags. 14 throdh 70.Uoder age 14 and ovr aP 70.

3Sum of labor l .e. *nd nonworking pooPularn.

SOURCE. Isirato Canele di Starisrira.

132

176

Method of adjustment. From January 1977 onward, theonly adjustment made to the reported number of unem-ployed is the exclusion of those who had not taken unyactive steps to find jobs in the past 30 days. As notedabove, BLS is not certain that all persons should be ex-cluded who reported no active steps in the past 30 days.The large number of persons in this category indicates amassive number of "discouraged workers" in Italy or aninterpretation by many registered unemployed personsthat their presence on the unemployment register does notconstitute an active step to find work in the past 30 days.In the adjustments shown here, BLS has excluded all per-sons who reported no active steps to find work in the past30 days. This adjustment may be modified when more in-formation on the 1977 survey, and more detailed results,become available. In January 1977, 52.6 percent of thereported unemployment has been subtracted; in April,the proportion subtracted was 54.4 percent.

No adjustment has been made to exclude personson layoff from the unemployed count. For many yearsItaly has had a Wage Supplement Fund (Ca=sa IntegrazioneGuadagns) maintained by employer contributions, whichprovides payments to compensate workers put on part timefor economic reasons of a temporary nature. Also, legalrestraints make it very difficult for firms to lay off workers.For these reasons, the term layoff has a somewhat different,more structured meaning in Italy than in the United States.Thus, when the activity of a plant declines, workers are puton short-time schedules, if at all possible, rather than laidoff. According to a 1969 report from the U.S. Embassy inRome, the number on part time who did no work at all dur-ing the reference week could not be accurately reportedby ISTAT because there were so few workers in that cate-gory.

ISTAT will not make a reconciliation between the oldand new surveys until some time in 1978. It is not yetknown what the nature of this reconciliation will be andwhether historical adjustments will be made. BLS has de-cided to await the ISTAT reconciliation rather than makeany preliminary adjustments for the period 1959-76. Thus,the reported unemployment figures from the old Italiansurvey are used here, with only a small adjustment to thedata for 1959-63 (discussed later). The differences betweenthe old series and the adjusted new series may tend to can-cel each other out. The old series excluded the workseekerswho did not initially declare themselves as unemployed;also excluded were persons waiting to begin a new job. Onthe other hand, the old series included as unemployedthose persons who took no active steps to find work in thepast 30 days. The results from January and April 1977 in-dicate that the old series may have overstated unemploy-ment somewhat because the number of persons who didnot actively seek work in the past 30 days is greater thanthe number of workseekers who did not initially say theywere unemployed.

The results of the special April 1973 and 1975 laborforce surveys provided information on the number of job-seekers who did not initially declare they were unemployed.However, these surveys were not used to adjust the unem-ployment data because they did not provide any informationon the time period in which active jobseeking last occurred.Thus, no adjustment could be made to exclude the inactiveworkseekers.

One other mnnor adjustment has been made to thedata for 1959 to 1963. According to the report of the Sta-tistical Office of the European Communities on the resultsof the October 1960 labor force survey conducted in thesix member countrtes. 4.4 percent of those reported as un-employed un Italy in October 1960 were engaged in somework during the survey week. However, this would prob-ably include some unpasd family workers who worked lessthan 15 hours an the survey week and who would be classi-fled as unemployed according to U.S. definitions if theywere seeking paid employment. To roughly adjust theItalian unemployment figures for 1959.63 to exclude per-sons who worked during the survey week, the publishedfigures have been reduced by 3 percent. No adjustmentsare needed after 1963 since such persons were excludedfrom the reported unemployed after that date.

Labor forte

The labor force consists of all employed and unem-ployed persons 14 years of age and over, career militarypersonnel are included. Prior to 1964, the labor force con-sisted of all "regularly" employed persons 10 years of ageand over and unemployed persons 14 years of age and over.Unpaid family workers are included an the labor force re-gardless of the number of hours worked.

The employed consist of persons age 14 and over whoworked for pay or profit during the survey week or whowere temporarily absent from work as a result of sickness,holidays, or temporary layoff. Prior to 1964, employed per-sonsconsisted of all those 10 years of age or over who statedthey had jobs, regardless of the number of hours theyworked. Persons 10 years of age and over who did somework in the survey week but who stated they did not havejobs were classified as either (a) occasional workers and"not in the labor force" or (b) unemployed, if 14 yearsof age or over and actively seeking a job. Beginning in1964, the occasional worker category was dropped infavor of underemployed persons-defined as persons whoworked less than 33 hours in the reference week because ofeconomic reasons, i.e., lack of work, and not because ofthei own preference." Underemployed persons are classi-fied as a subcategory of employed persons and therefore as"in the labor force." ISTAT revised data for 1963 by (1)

321Reninning in January 1977, -nde-nptoyed persons are deoCased as those who worked tess then 26 houu for ecnonumi reI-n

133

177

adding all persons formerly classified as occasional workersto the employed category and (2) reclassifying part of thenew total employed category into the underemployed sub-category. (The new definitions were apparently introducedin 1963 so that 1963 survey results could be classified ac-cording to both the old and new labor force status defini-tions.) For years prior to 1963, ISTAT added the total "oc-casional worker" category to the employed total.

The January and April 1977 labor force sureys in-dicated that employment as well as unemployment wasunderstated by prior surveys. Approximately I million persons who did not initially respond that they were employedstated, under further questioning, that they had done somework during the reference week.

3' Unfortunately, no infor-

mation on this point was obtained in the special surveysconducted in April 1973 and 1975.

Method of adjustment. Data on career military persoanelin Italy can be obtained from figures reported to the Sta-tistical Office of the European Communities. The careermilitary are subtracted from the reported labor force toarrive at the civilian labor force.

Employed youths under the age of 14 are subtracted,including those classified as occasional workers in 195962,no adjustment is needed on this point after 1965.

Unpaid family workers not at work in the surveyweek are subtracted. These figures are reported in the sur-vey. "Regularly employed" unpaid family workers at workI but less than 16 hours in the survey week are also sub-tracted. U.S. definitions would exclude unpaid family work-ers at work less than 15 hours in the survey week; however,the Italian data do not provide a break at the less-than-15-hours level.

For the years 1959-63, the number of "occasionalworkers" at work less than 16 hours in the survey week asunpaid family workers is subtracted. In 1963, 75,000 "oc-casional workers" worked as unpaid family workers, ofwhom 25,000 worked less than 16 hours. Prior to 1963, thenumber of unpaid family "occasional workers" was notclassified by number of hours worked. Since one-third ofthe unpaid family occaional workers worked less than 16

"Thsr. is als lage ector of itlegat amepori unemploymentin Italy kaesw as ii beamnr1, or the labor black market. Us of thelabor blck market atlows fums to pay lours wages and -void pay-nests iti soci a security and simiila funds, which ar very high inItaly reative to wages. Alo, Puns sang black market lahbo ce by-pas laws thit make it cietuale unposule to lay ff worken instack penois. Becuse the jobs ace uoneorted, theie ae also notao or social secrity deductiom fion the wages snioed by theworkers. No astempt h.s been made hers to detemme the effect ofthe labor black muket c the labor form inwvy remlit. S.ms ii-es'aly employed workers may report their emplymect in sheinevey, but it in Eaely that many will vspoed that they ae either

sot in the labor farme o uemplayed. Foe a discussion of hiddenemploymet in Italy me CENSIS, L'tOepairnee Oeealaa, CENSISRiec3 No. 2 (Rome, CENSIS, 1976).

hours in 1963, it is roughly estimated that one-third of un-paid family occasional workers worked 1cs than 16 hoursin prior years, and they have been subtracted from thelabor force.

Results of the January and April 1977 labor forcesurveys indicate that employed Italian men were under-counted by 3 percent and women by 9 percent. These fig-ares were also reported by economic sector. To make ad-justments for the unreported employed for the entire 1959-76 period, adjustment factors were applied for four sep-arate categories of the employed: (1) Men in agriculture;(2) men in nionageicultural activities; (3) women in agricul-ture; and (4) women in nonagricultural activities. Factorsrelating to sectors as well as sex were used because therehas been a massive shift out of the agricultural sector inItaly since 1959. The figures for January mid April 1977indicate that unreported employment is predominantlyin the agricultural sector.

The adjustment factors used were averages calculatedfrom the January and April 1977 data. The factors, relatingto unreported as a percent of reported employment, wereas follows: For men in agriculture-10.1 percent; for men innonagricultural activities-2 percent; for women in agricul-ture-21.7 percent; for women in nonagricultural activities-6.7 percent. A further adjustment was made to excludepersons in the unreported employed category who wereunpaid family workers who worked 15 hours or leas in thereference week. Data ae not yet available on this pointfrom the 1977 surveys. However, these surveys indicatedthat about 60 percent of the previously unreported em-ployed were either self-employed or unpaid family workers.It is believed that a significant proportion of the unreportedemployed could be unpaid family workers who workedonly a few hours a week. Persons in this category should beexcluded for comparability with U.S. concepts. Personswith such a marginal attachment to the labor force wouldmost likely initially respond that their status was otherthan employed-e.g., housewife, student, etc. In the ab-sence of exact data on this point, 10 percent of the "un-reported employed," as calculated above for the years1959-76, was subtracted to account for unpaid familyworkers who worked less than 15 hours. BLS is attemptingto get precise figures on this point from ISTAT, perhapsfrom unpublished tabulations. Table B-21 shows themethod of obtaining unreported employment for 1959-76. The labor force therefore has been adjusted to U.S.concepts by adding estimates of unreported employmentand subtracting career military personnel, employedyouths under age 14, and unpaid family workers whoworked lss than 16 hours in the survey week. There maybe some duplication between the latter two categories-that is, unpaid family workers under age 14 who workedless than 16 hours in the survey week. However, after1965 there have been no employed youths under age14 reported and duplication in prior years could not havebeen large.

134

178

Table _-21. Italy: Calculation of unreported employment, 1959-76ITIhooundrl

Reported r mploymanT Etimated anrepornd rplovmeno' AdjustedYear Agvuloral Nonarioultural To Agrioultural Nhonagrocorol unmrported

_ _ _ Men W Men Woe Men Woe Mn men mployment1959. 34,449 032,301 39315 33,822' 12390 449 499 186 256 1,2511960 . 34,353 32,124 39,596, 33 792I 1347 440 461 192 254 1.2121961 . . 34,060 32,072 39_90O 33,9s4 j 12320 410 450 198 262 1,1881962 .

33,7831 3 , 3 190 33,679 1,277 382 431 204 260 1,149

1963 . 3300 31,765 31t406 33,8681 1204 354 383 208 259 1,0841964...... 332,307 ' ¾,621 310,715 33.6071 1,155 334 352 214 255 1,0391965 . 33349 31.544 310,398 13,693' 1,128 338 335 208 247 1,0151966 . . 3192 1397 10,428 3,620 1,077 322 303 209 243 9691967.... 3.122 12356 10,697 3,669 1.070 319 295 214 246 9631968. 2869 1,304 10,980 3,747 1.942 290 283 218 251 9381969. 2,706 1,245 10,879 32781 1,020 273 270 218 259 9181970. 2.499 1,114 1 1,170 3.910 979 252 242 223 262 So11971 ...... 2,453 1 ,135 11194 3.893 978 248 246 223 261 9801972 ... 2.274 1.024 11.1 76 3,657 934 220 222 224 258 9411973. 2,176 1,616 11,306 4.002 934 220 220 226 268 8411974 ...... 22,106 1. 006 11571 4,216 944 213 218 231 282 8501975 . 1,999 965 11,717 4,315 934 202 209 234 289 8411979. 1950 970 11,742 4,455 941 198 210 235 298 847

lAdjoenmenna b-ad n figma from the Janoarv end April 1977 Tonal onnponed mployment Isno 10 percent to .o.nnt folabor for rarnes. Fo, man in Wialto-10.1 percet ofte- unpaid family -orkam who worked I-s thfan 15 hoot in th. refpored mPioyment; for women in ngriooltm-21 .7 pemnt; f*o, ann week.men in nonagncultuml aneivitio-2 Pnwent; for women in non- Adiusted to nooloda employed p rsona order age 14.eotdctual activinis-6.7 p-rant.

Unemployment rate rates adjusted to US. concepts for Italy. Since the ItalianThe figure for the unemployed (adjusted to exclude labor force surney is conducted quarterly, no monthly esti-

those who worked in 1959-63) is divided by the adjusted mates of joblessness on the labor force survey basis arelabor force figure to arrive at Italian unemployment rates made.compatible with U.S. concepts. The resulting rates for 1959througha 1963 are about two-tenths of a percentage pointlower than the reported Italian unemployment rate (table UnemPloyment. Italy does not publish seasonally adjustedB-22). For 1964-76, the adjusted unemployment rates are labor force data. For 1970 through 1976, B1S seasonallyone-tenth of a percentage point lower than the published adjusted the reported Italian unemployment figures; norates. Beginning in January 1977, however, the published adjustments for comparabilty with U.S. concepts haveItalian unemployment data are on the revised basis and are been made to these figures. Seasonal adjustment is by themuch higher than previously reported, The adjusted figures multiplicative version of the US. Bureau of the Censusare much lower thas the reported unemployment rates be- X-l I Variant, Method 11, seasonal adjustment program.cause of the exclusion of a large number of inactive work- The unemployment data begioning in 1977 do re-seekers. quire adjustment for comparability with U.S. concepts.

Annual average unemployment rates are calculated by After adjustment, the data have been seasonally adjustedISTAT as the average of the relevant data for January based on the previous year's seasonal factors. This assumesAprIl, July, and October. The average for these four dates i' that seasonal factors based on the pre-1977 suvey resultsnot exactly representative of the calendar year; however, are applicable to the new, adjusted, survey results.BLS has not adjusted these data to a calendar-year basis.

Qutaetly estimates Labor force. BLS seasonally adjusts the reported quarterlyItalian labor force data and then applies factors to adjust

BLS estimates seasonally adjusted unemployment the figures for comparability with US. defiaitions.

135

179

Table B-22. Italy: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. oncepts. 1959-76

(Numben in rhouurd-)

Inm 1199] 1960 [ 1961 | 1962 196]3 1964 | 965 1966 1 1967

R ed Ibor fordcu abor. om.o 21 2-6 20.972 20992 20.629 20.137 20.026 19,717 192396 19.525Li Cr mirv ..i....penre..tl 182 134 154 160 155 192 198 176 105La: Employed pa

under p 14 262 271 236 1960 94 27 19 0 01-: Upaid ftitv worken

ot an work . 76 70 62 ' 38 58 21 19 237 231Lat: Unpid f mily workon

t ,ork In than 16 hon . . 60 5I 41 27 62 66 76 60 49Law: Unpaid fanito -otiorni

wke" at work Itea dra16 on.. p206 3139 3130 3f 325 ('1 (1) (41 l4)

Pl: Uer.pnleidatp ...rrtont .

I.... ,I 12512 12189 1,149 1 064 1 9 1,015 969 963Adjutd dcivili n la or for . .21,732 21.515 21.447 21.297 20.827 20.759 20.430 20,092 20,223

Roundd . .21.730 21.520 21,450 21,290 20630 20,760 20,430 20.090 20.220

Reported onorployrmet6 ,.

. 1,117 936 710 611 504 549 714 759 679a: Reportod un.mployedwho worked it rhe wontwek .34 25 21 19 15 (4) n1- I-) (4)

Adod prd ...n.......1,063 911 689 593 489 549 714 759 679Rounrdtd .1 .29i 910 690 5990 496 550 710 760 630

Urnwploywent rote IpecntdA.poblijhd .6.2 4.0 3.4 3.0 2.5 2.7 36 3.9 35AdlutaedtoU.S cotpm t.. 5.0 3.8 3.2 28 24 2.8 325 3.8 324

1969 1 1963 i 1970 1 1971 1 1972 1 1973 1 1974 j 1975 j 1976

Reportd labor f.oe. 19,484 19,266 19,302 19.254 19,026 19,169 19,458 19.650 193858La: C.r armllirvpe .norl. . 195 196 192 190 191 191 183 169 169La: Employvd p ton-

uderage4..0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0L: Unpaid fawito wonkon

not at w.k .. 23 217i 2

19 218 221 232 217 u1 4 212La: Urnpid fImilV worken

t lork 1 thaan 16 hour .60 51 35 61 44 50 46 39 36La: Unpaid fInilyv "oionol

workere" a work 1e than16 ho. .. (4 ) 1..) 1. ) (4( (4). (4) 14 14( () (4) (4)

Plot: Unrported np.ovmen.. 938 918 981 6SW 641 641 950 641 847Adjuttd civilon labor f wo.r 2 f132 19,919 19,347 19565 1 9613 19.747 20.,062 20.269 29,436

Roondod. 20130 19.920 19,950 19870 19610 19.75 20,060 20.270 20.490

Reported unemployment' ,694 655 609 609 697 668 560 654 732La: Reported un-mployed

who worked in thd rveyweek . (4) (0) (4) (0) (4( (41 (4) (4) (10

Adjound un-mplovd .684 655 609 609 697 666 560 654 732Rourd d. 60 660 610 610 700 670 560 650 730

Unemplovmen rat (porent:Au publihied .35 3 4 3 2 3 2 3 7 3 5 29 3 2 3.7Adjutmd to U.S. ore pt.2 34 33 21 31 326 324 2.9 22 36

136

EtEniwaned bated or 1960 mtiot. 4

Not eppibble eter 1963.2

In.lud unkwr. 'S. table 6-21.Ertimaltd s one.third o0 11 "norotiona. workert who worked Su.m ol rported unemployd and lrti-tim- iobte.ke.

a floily wnrker

180

Sweden

Sweden depended for many years on uoemploy-ment statistics maintained by trade unions. From 1956to mid-1974, however, the Swedish Labor Market Bonedused monthly statistics on registrations of the unemployedat local unemployment offices. In July 1974, thesemonthly counts were replaced by new statistics showing thetotal volume of employment applications passing throughthe employment offices. At the same time, the monthlylabor force sample survey, begun on a regular quarterlybasis in 1962 and on a monthly basis in 1970, was estab-lished as the official source for Swedish unemploymentfigures.

Unemployment

About 12,000 persons were interviewed in the quar-terly surveys. The sample size of the monthly surveys iscurrently 23,000 persons.

The unemployed consist of all persons (excludinginvalids and institutionalized persons) between the ages of16 and 74 who were not at work in the survey week (un-paid family workers who worked less than 15 hours in thesuvey week are considered not at work) who:

I. State they were looking for work (including per-sons awaiting the results of previous applications)within the past 60 days (counted from the lastday of the survey week), or

2. Were waiting to be sailed back to a job fromwhich they were laid off without pay; or

3. Were waiting to start a new job within 30 days; or4. Would have looked for work except for being

temporarily ill.

Prior to 1970, all persons 14 years of age and overRegis ereal aeeenployed. Prior to July 1974, registration s- were covered by the labor force surveys. However, data fortistics comprised all persons registered as unemployed with these years were collected in such a way that revision to thethe employment of fies on the Monday in the week includ- new age limits of 16 to 74, instituted in 1970, could being the 15th of the month. The new employment applica- ade b edish aution statistics, introduced in July 1974, represent the first Tmhe b1967 revis onut of the US, definiti b uhtphase of a coordinated statistical inform ation system cover- them closer to the Swedish definitions. Under the reviseding employment applications, job vacancies, and labor U.S. definitions, a person must have engaged in some speci-market policy measures. This system s intended to form fic jobseeking activity within the past 4 weeks to be countedthe basis for planning activities at ali levels of the employ- as unemployed. Poor to the revisions, there had been noment service organization. specific question concemnig methods of seeking work. In

The new statistics cover all persons who file employ- the Swedish su vey there is a specific question-"In whatment applications at the employment offices, whether un- way did you seek work?"-which is partially a check onemployed or not. They show for each month the total the earlier question- "Were you looking for work?" This isinflow and outflow of applicants, the number of individuals quite similar to the cuarent U.S. procedure. However, thetransferring to retraining programs or public works projects, tise limit in the Swedish suvey is 60 days rather than theand the number of applicants remaining on the registers at 4-week period specified in the U.S. survey.the end of each month. Statistics on registered insured un-employment are also available. These figures comprise As so the United States, discouraged workers areregistrants for unemployment benefits by members of classified as not in the labor force in Sweden.

3' Until 1976,unemployment insurance funds established by trade Sweden collected data on discouraged workers by askingunions. About two-thirds of the labor force belong to these the question: "Would you have looked for work if youfunds. Statistics on applications at employment offices and believed suitable work was available so your area?" In 1976,on insured unemployment are published monthly by the the phrasing of the question was changed, and the follow-National Labor Market Board in Arbetsmarknssasstatistik in g three questions are now asked of persons not in the(Labor Market Statstics). labor force: "Would you have liked to have worked last

week?" "Were you prevented from working last week?"Labor force surreys. Since 1959, the Swedish Central and "Why were you prevented from working last week?"Bureau of Statistics has made sample surveys of the labor In the United States, the questioning procedure relating toforce which are closely comparable in concepts and defini- discouraged workers is similar to that now used in Sweden.tions to the U.S. survey. The 1959 surveys, conducted In the Swedish survey, students seeking work andin May and November, were experimental. Two more were currently available for work ar e supposed so be classifiedmade in 1960 and tsree more in 1961. Prom 1962 through as unemployed, i~e., the classification used in the U.S. sur-1969, quarterly surveys were conducted in February, May, vey for sash persons. However, a problem in enumeratingAugust, sad November. Beginning in 1970, murveys have * unemployed students arises from the fact that there is nobeen made on a monthly basis. The surveys are conducted specific test of cunaen availability for work in the Swedishby telephone interview sod relate to the week including questiounaire. In practice, therefore, the interviewers arethe 15th of the month. Results are published monthly bythe Central Bureau of Statistics in Arbetrakafauesder- 5

14In Sweden, di-sansae n fessed tn so the histse

soknsbgen (The Labor Force Survey). aneplaysd.

137

181

instructed to consider full-time students as unavailable forwork except during school vacations in order that a studentseeking work during the school term, but available for workonly during school vacation, would be excluded from theunemployed count-the same practice as in the UnitedStates. This practice, however, results in the classificationof Swedish students seeking past-time work after schoolhours as not in the labor force. In the United States, theywould be regarded as unemployed.

In Sweden, "active labor market" policies are highlydeveloped and provide a comprehensive system of institu-tions for training and retraining. Persons who are given awage or salary payment while receiving on-thejob trainingor attending courses at the request of the employer areclassified as employed in the Swedish labor force survey.This is the practice followed in the United States. Unlikethe United States, however, Sweden classifies as "not inthe labor force" persons receiving government-sponsoredvocational training or retraining without wage or salarypayment. Such persons generally would be regarded asunemployed in the United States.

Method of adjustment. No adjustments have been made inthe Swedish unemployed count as measured by the laborforce surveys. It is not necessary to add figures for unem-ployed persons age 75 and over since unemploymentamong such persons is negligible.

No adjustment has been made for students seekingwork during the school term. Data derived from the newquestions on discouraged workers indicate that the numberof such students is small. The number of students whowould have liked a job and who were currently available forwork during the survey week averaged about 4,000 in 1976.However, this represents an upper Emnit of the possiblenumber of unemployed students who should be added be-cause not all of these students were actively seeking work.Even at the upper limit, the resulting increase in the un-employment rate would be only about one-tenth of I per-cent.

No adjustment could be made for the more lengthyperiod allowed for jobseeking activities in Sweden-60 daysas opposed to the 4-week period specified in the U.S. sur-vey. The longer period allowed in Sweden undoubtedlyresults in some upward bias in the Swedish unemploymentdata when compared with U.S. figures.

No adjustment could be made for the classificationof persons in govemment-sponsored institutional trainingprograms as outside the labor force rather than unemployed.The monthly average number of persons in training forlabor market reasons rose continuously from 8,100 in 1961to 46,000 in 1973. then moved downward to 36,000 in1975. However, anl such persons would not be regarded asunemployed under U.S. concepts. For example, someSwedish training programs for youth are similar to the U.S.Job Corps program. Participants in the Job Corps are cnn-sidered as not in the labor force. Also, an unknown number

of persons in the Swedish training programs receive a wageor salary in connection with on-thejob training. Thesepersons are counted as employed in both Sweden and theUnited States.

Inclusion of all persons in Swedish training and re-training programs in the unemployed count would raise thecomparative Swedish rate by two-tenths of a percentagepoint in 1961 (from 1.5 to 1.7) and by 1.1 percentagepoints in 1973 (from 2.5 to 3.6). These figures, of course,represent the outer limits of the probable effect of reclassi-fying these persons according to the US. method. The ef-fect is much smaller if we focus only upon special retrain-ing programs for persons previously unemployed. Therewere 4,700 persons in such courses in 1961 and 17,100in 1973. Addition of these persons to the unemployedcount would raise the Swedish rate by one-tenth of a per-centage point in 1961 and four-tenths of a percentage pointin 1973.

Labor force

The labor force figures used in Sweden include careermilitary personnel. The civilian labor force is used in US.calculations of unemployment rates. Therefore, adjust-ments are made to the reported Swedish labor force toeliminate the career military (about 18000 persons). Dataon career military personnel are obtained from Swedishpopulation censuses. A small adjustment is also made to in-dude in the labor force persons age 75 and older. Data onthese persons were available from the quarterly surveysconducted in the 1961.69 period. From 1970 onward,these data are derived from special tabulations.

Unemployment eate

The published Swedish unemployment rate is calcu-lated by dividing the unemployed by the total labor forceaged 16 to 74. The adjusted rate is computed by dividingthe unemployed by the civilian labor force, adjusted toinclude those 75 years old and over and to exclude careermilitary personnel. The effects of the adjustments are sosmall that the reported and adjusted rates are identicalin most years (table B-23).

Quarterly and monthly estimanes

The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates seasonallyadjusted unemployment rates adjusted to US. conceptsfor Sweden. The method used to make these estimates isas follows:

Unemployment. Since the Swedish labor force survey con-oept of unemployment is quite similar to that of the US.,no adjustment is made for comparability. BIS uses theCentral Bureau of Statistics' (SCB) seasonally adjusted un-employment series. The SCB seasonally adjusts using the

138

182

Table B-23. Sweden: Labor force daea adjusted to U.S. contepns, 1961-76

(Numbers in thousnds)

I.. m| 1961 | 1962 | 1963 ] 1964] |965 | 1966 | 18ii7 1 19

Registerd unemployed ..........................Ragisnasd insured unemployed .....................

Percent of total insurd .......................

Labor force sumey data:

Reported labor force:'Age 14 and abooe ..........................Age 16 Io 74 .............................Age 14 end lb ............................Age 75 and er ...........................

L.bor foce age IS and over .......................Le#: Career militery ponnel ...................Adjuned ioiian tabor force ....................

Repored unemployed:Ag3 16to 74 .............................

Reported umneploymen-t tte(Percent)Ap 16to.74 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...

Adjusted unemployment ratepcentl

0...............................

Regnstnred unemployed ..........................Reristered inwred unemployed .....................

Percent of total inred .......................

Labor torue suetv dart:

Reported labor forceAge 14 and ebote ..........................Age 16 Ito 74 .............................Age 14 nd 15 ............................Age 75 and -r3 ...........................

Labor force ege 16 and o ..er ... ............Len: Carter miitary pernonnel ...................Adjusted oivlion labor force ... ............

Reported unemployed:Age 16 to74 .............................

Reported unemployment eatepercent)Age 16to 74 ............................

Adjusted unemployment rate(penentl

4..............................

'Beginning January 1970. the ag lieits of the Swedish laborforce surny inert rinised to -cer persono age 16to 74. Pre-ioudIypersons age 14 and abone were onoered. A renised sorie f dta brckto 1962 basd on the new age limies has been published by Swedishauthoritie s

'Only thre- someys onre conducted in 1961. The..foe, theanenge fig-res fun the three su-eys hees been adrosted slightIly(baed on ratios obtained frem the 1962 sumeys) to nemwpertefor the misting Febs-er date.

21.016.6

1.2

23 6702.6902

5424

3251618

3.596

52s

1.A

23.3 24.5185 20.11.3 1A

3.676

4624

3.70018

3.682

54

1.5

1.5

2,S123.749

4222

3277118

3.753

63

1.7

1.7

21.217.0

1.1

3.7793.710

4920

3,73015

23711

57

16

Is

20.016.6

1.1

3.7963.78

20

3,758

3.739

44

1.2

1.2

26.71 35.922-2 298.

1.4 '-.7

3,847 3.8173,192 3,774

34 2721 16

32813 3.79019 19

3.794 3,771

59 79

1.6

1.6

2.1

2.1

40.133.4

2.0

3556732522

2718

3M84018

32822

85

2.2

2.2

1969 1 1970 1 1971 1 1972 1 1973 1 1974 1 1975 11976

360 .5 59.5 69.0 65.220.9 20.5 4523 48.2 460 39.0

1.7 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.5

32877

3'840123

3,854

31836

72

1.9

1.9

3,912

14

3292718

3.909

59

1.5

1.5

3.961

12

3.97318

3.955

101

2.5

2.6

3.969

12

3'98118

3.963

107

2.7

2.7

3.977

12

3.989

31872

98

2.5

2.5

4.043

12

4.05518

4.037

80

2.0

2.0

6.7 32.71.4 1.2

4.129

12

4,141

4.123

67

1.6

1.6

4,155

12

4,16719

4.149

66

1.6

1.6

3Labor force age 14 and above minus labor forI age 16 to 74end labor force age 14 and 15 for 196169. figoret on p-arsns75 year old and aver were published in pepie1 tabolations tor 1970and 1971. The 1971 figure is being used fon 1972 end later yearuntil spiniel tabulations for those yeur become anailable.

Reported pnemponment ag9 16 to 74 es peroent of adjusted

niuilion lebon force. The number of unemployed peons ge 75 andifr isnesigible.

multiplicative version of the SA-4 program of the SwedishInstitute of Economic Research. This series is published inthe SCB monthly, Arbetskraftsundersoknirgen. The SCBrevises its seasonally adjusted series when full-year data areavailable.

Laborforce. Swedish labor force data require a small ad-justment for comparabidity to U.S. definitions. The ratioof aonuat average labor force adjusted to US. concepts toannual aveeage "as published" labor force is applied toseasonally adjusted monthly labor force data. The SCB does

139

183

not publish a seasonally adjusted labor force series; there- The previous year's seasonal factors are applied to currentfore, BLS seasonally adjusts the Swedish labor force using data until the full year's experience can be incorporatedthe multiplicative version of the US. Bureau of the Census into the seasonal adjustment program.X-l1 Variant, Method nI, seasonal adjustment program.

140

184

English Tranststlh5vf Swedish Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

1. Did you .do any paid work last week?

(week . i. e . . ) ?

2. We will include paid work and work in your own business (farmers

included) or freelance work. even if it did not take more than an hour.

Did you do any work of this kind last week (................. ) ?

3. How did you spend most of last week? Were you running your own

home (studying) or doing something else?

AH = Running your own home

ST =Studying

i = Miscellaneous

FR =Temporarily absent from work

So = Looking for work

VPL = Military service

IA = Admitted for institutional treatment

LS = Chronically ill or an invalid

4. Has any member of your family (Has your husband or any other

member of your family) whom you live with a business of his/her

own (including a farm) or a freelance type of Job?

5. Did you do any work in his/her business last week ( .............

without being paid money for it?

141

185

English Trasltain of Swedish Labor Force Sxvry Onnionneii

6. How many hours did you work last week (.................... ) ?

Include any overtime. as well as extra work or an extra job.

7. Are you employed even though you did not do any paid work last week?

Or are you self-employed (including farmers) or a freelance?

8. Were you looking for work last week (.

.............. ......)

9. Why were you away from work last week (.................... )?

1 = ill

2 = on holiday

3 = on military service

4 = industrial dispute

5 = leave of absence or some other reason

6 = temporarily laid off without pay

7 = waiting to start a new job within 30 days

10. In what way did you look for work?

Af = Employment Service

Ag = employer

An = advertisement (s)

O = some other way (s)

11. How many weeks have you been looking for work (or laid off)?

12. Do you belong to an approved unemployment benefit society?

13A. Who was your main employer last week

(when you were last employed)?

13B. Is the firm a limited company?

142

186

English Translation of Swedish Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

14. What is the main line of business (production) of the firm (work-place)?

15A. What was your main work last week (when you were last employed)?

15B. In what occupation would you class this work?

16. Last week (when you were last employed), did you work as ...

1. a self-employed person

2. an employee

3. a member of the family, helping without being paid money

17. Did you have any employees?

18. Were you employed by

3. state/national authorities

4. municipal/local authorities or

5. a private employer?

19. Last week, then, you worked for ..... ..... hours.

Would you have liked more work?

20. Could you have taken on more work last week?

21. How many hours would you have liked to have worked altogether

last week (. )?

22. How many hours do you normally put in every week at your job

(IF MORE THAN ONE/OM FLERA: at your jobs)?

23. Why did you work less than 35 hours last week?

24. Why do you usually work less than 35 hours per week?

143

187

Englih Translation of Swedish Labor Force Surey Questionnaire

25. Why did you work less than 35 hours last week and not any other week?

01 Not enough work to be had, factory/machinery being repaired,

shortage of materials, production reduced

02 Busy looking after the home and family

03 III myself

04 Studying

05 Full working week less than 35 hours

06 Leave of absence or some other reason

07 Do not want to work full time

08 Left a job or started a new one during the week

09 On holiday

10 Bad weather

11 Industrial dispute

26. How many hours do you normally put in every week at your job

(IF MORE THAN ONE/OM FLERA: at your jobs)?

27. Why do you usually work less than 35 hours per week?

1. Not enough work to be had, factory/machinery being repaired,

shortage of materials, production reduced

2. Busy looking after the home and family

3. III myself

4. Studying

5. Full working week less than 35 hours

6. Other reason(s)

7. Do not want to work full time

28. Would you have liked to have had work last week (............... ?

29. Could you have taken on work last week. or were you prevented

from doing so?

144

188

English Translation of Swedish Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

30. What was your main reason for not being gainfully employed last

week or for not applying for gainful employment?

1 No suitable job opportunities in the area

2 Person interviewed rates his/her chances of obtaining

employment as small

3 Other reason(s)

31. What was your main reason for being unable to take on work last week?

4 Nobody to look after the children

S Too busy with housework and/or with nursing in the family

6 Busy studying

7 ni or temporarily admitted for institutional care

8 Other reason(s)

32. How many hours would you have liked to have worked last week?

33. Have you ever applied for work, and if so, when?

34. When did you last apply for work?

35. How many hours would you have liked to have worked last week?

37. One can start looking for a job immediately after leaving another job,

or one may wish to start working again after a period without work.

- How did you start to look for work? "Immediately" here means

not more than one month?

145

189

Engish Trandation of Soudid Labor Force Surey Ouustliona

38. Did you leave your job in connection with personnel or production

cuts, because the work you were engaged for was completed or for

some other reason?

1 Personnel or production cut

2 Work completed

3 Reasons of health (Including early retirement)

4 Child care, housework

5 Studies

6 Retirement

7 Removal to another area

S Other reason(s)

39. What is your marital status?

I Married

2 Unmarried

3 Formerly married (widow. widower, divorced)

40. Have you any children living at home who are under 17?

a. How many?

b. How old are they?

A. We shall be coming back for an interview in ....... (month). Can we then

a. get In touch with you via the same telephone number?

(IF YOUR PHONE NUMBER WILL BE DIFFERENT/OM NYTTTELEFON NUMMER):

- Will you also be changing your address?

- What will your new address be?

b. get in touch with you by phone?

(IF SO/OM JA):

- What will your phone number be?

- Will you still have the same address in ...... (month)?

(IF NOT/OM NEJ):

- What will your new address be?

B. When do you think We will be likeliest to find you at home?

146

57-254 0 - 80 - 13

190

Appendix C. Methods of Adjustment by Age and Sex

The adjusted unemployment rates by age and sex(chapter 3) are less reliable than the overall adjusted unem-ployment rates. Whereas adjustments made to the overallunemployment rates were based on published statistics gen-erally available each year, adjustments by age and sex wereoften partially estimated on the basis of data for yearsother than those studied. For example, career military per.sonnel and unpaid family workers working less than 15hours a week had to be excluded from the labor form inmost countries for comparability with US. data. Such ad-justments by age group for France and Italy were based onage distributions from the 1960 labor force survey coordi-nated by the Statistical Office of the European Communi-ties. (See appendix E.) For Japan, age distributions of careermilitary personnel were taken from the 1965 census.

The following sections present descriptions of themethods of deriving comparative data by age and sex in thenine countries studied.' Since the methods used in 1968,1970, and 1974-76 were identical, tables are shown onlyfor the 1968 adjustments (1971 for Great Britain).

Canada

Prior to the 1976 revision in the Canadian survey,data were published with a lower age limit of 14. Separatedata were published on 14-year-olds, however, and theyhave been excluded. The figures for 1968 and 1970 fromthe old Canadian survey significantly understated femaleunemployment and overstated male unemployment. Sta-tistics Canada prepared a revised series for 1968 and 1970,but did not show all detailed age breakdowns. For 1974,figures for all age groups adjusted to the new survey con-cepts, which are comparable with US. statistics, wereavailable. For comparison, 1968, 1970, and 1974 figuresbased on both the old and new surveys are shown.

Australia

No adjustments were made for Australia, since theregularly published data are regarded as comparable withUS. statistics.

ISee appendix B for detailed desciptions of the methods unedto adjut ealh -otry's ovests ieemptoymet rate to U.S. on-septs. This appeudi. relates to additior estimatesat thave beenmade to derive momploynent rMtes by age and s.

Japan

The reported Japanese labor force includes careermilitary personnel and unpaid famidy workers working lessthan 15 hours. The age distribution of the career militarylabor force was based on the 1965 census age distributionof protective service workers, of which the national defenseforce is a part. The age and sex distribution of unpaid familyworkers working less than 15 hours was based on the ratiosfor all unpaid family workers. The published unemployedfigures do not require adjustment. The adjusted unemploy-ment rates by age and sex for Japan are virtually the sameus the rates based on published data (table C-I).

France

Both the labor force and the number unemployedrequire adjustment to U.S. concepts (table C-2). The re-ported labor force in the French labor force surveys in-eludes career military and military contingents. Separatetotals for these groups are shown by sex in the survey butare not broken down by age. Age distributions, therefore,were assumed to be the same us in the 1960 survey coordi-nated by the Statistical Office of the European Communi-ties. A further adjustment needs to be made to include per-sons living in collective households, such us hotels. whichare not within the scope of the survey. (See appendix B.)Such persons are assumed to be employed and to have thesame age distribution as the surveyed labor force. After sub-tracting career military and military contingents and addingan estimate of the civilian labor force not covered by thesurveys, the resulting civilian labor force is not entirelycompatible with US. concepts because it include unpaidfamily workers not at work or working less than 15 hoursduring the week, persons reporting themselves us employedbut who were not at work because of "durable reasons"(spersonal convenience or the nature of the job), unemployedpersons who had not commenced seeking work or are notcurrently available for work, and 15-year-olds. Data areavailable by sex for all of the above Items except personsnot currently available for work. Such persons were dis-tributed by sex according to the same proportions as un-employed persons who had not commenced seeking work.Data by age are not separately available for any of theseitems except 15-year-olds. Therefore, adjustment by agefor the other items is made by dividing each age-sex groupof the reported civilian labor force by the overall male and

147

191

Table C-. Jap Laborforerend MO unPlYent adjustdo U.S. concepts, byage ndsax,198i I.j

fanm s in -- thoua__

Total

Eosm snnn 15 Yrn IS to 19 20 to 24 25 to 54 55 Ysend o-, va.n Yar ver- and over

LA fino

Both ane .50t01 3950 71230 32.060 7.360Loss, Ctnermilivy pnonnel ' 240 20 40 t1O 20Le: Ursod fenoily worken

ortingstth.ln Ii Shoon 690 40 60 450 130AMustad oMli- Wnor *ore 496B80 3.900 7.130 31.450 7.210

Male. 30,s50 1200 3.910 19.90o 4.790Loss: C 1are orlly tensonnslW 240 20 40 160 20Less: Unwed lfami lworekn

oorking es thes 15 hou2

120 20 20 60 10Adinted otlin r t on f. . 30-20 t g40 35so 29B80 4,760

F..oe 20,030 2390 3,320 12.140 2.580Len: Urptid 4sn ily workr n

working le then Is hoonts 560 20 40 390 110Adjuotodoicili b . 1 .. 29.470 1970 3.280 11.750 2,470

Bosh ee.. . 590 90 130 30o 90M ................... . 370 50 70 190 70Fesie.. 230 40 60 110 20

UWepret ateesnt)

Adjusted to US. -000r.:Both W ..es .. 12 2.3 1 s 1.0 1.2Male .... ............ 1.2 2.6 12 a 10 IF" na .1.2 20 1a .9 8

As publishOdBoth . . 1.2 2.3 1.3 s 1.2M.le. 1. 2 13 10 1.5F .ale.1 1 20 1o I9 8

1Ag. distribution of coresr riilitery penonnh bhsed en 1965

ronoos age dirbution of pnotectn soe worken.2Bad on age dinlis.ton0 of eI untid lnily workn.

NOTE: Bessose of rooding, nobtotls .oY not odd to hotels.

female ratios of reported to adjusted civilian labor force 16years of age and over.

The reported unemployment figures for France includepersons who did some work but were looking for other jobsIn the survey week, persons who had not began to seekwork or were not currently available for work, and I5-year-olds. These persons should be excluded for comparabilitywith U.S. concepts. On the other hand, the French unem-ployed count does not include persons who stated theywere employed but who did no work at all during the sur-vey week because of partial unemployment or slack workor because they were either waiting to stiat a new job orleft their previos employment. Such persons should beincluded for comparability with US. concepts. Breakdownsby age are not available for the above items; however, sexbreakdowns are available except for those persons notcurrently available for work, discussed bove. The numberof unemployed 15-year-olds is estimated by assuming theybave the same unemployment aet as all teenagers 15 to19 years of age. Adjustments by age for the other differ-ences are then made by dividing the reported number un-

SOURCE: A .n.Ia Reporp on the Labo-r FonY Surry, 1975ITokVo. Offoe of the Priws Minine, .Basss f Of Ssetirs) ndBLS adijunnonts.

employed in each age-sex group by the overall male andfemale ratios of reported to adjusted unemployed 16 yearsof age and over.

The resulting adjusted unemployment rates for malesare only slightly lower than the figures based on the re-ported survey data. For females, however, the downwardadjustment is considerable. This is because reported femaleunemployment contains a high proportion of the numberof persons who had not yet commenced seeking work orwere not currently available for work (table C-2).

Germany

The Gemman labor force as reported in the AprilMicrocensus includes career military personnel, unpaidfamily workers working less than 15 hours, and 14-year-olds. These groups must be excluded for comparabilitywith US. statistics. All career military personnel in Ger-many are males and their age distribution can be deter-mined from published age distributions of the labor forceincluding and excluding the career military. The number of

148

192

Table C-2. France: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts, by age and Sex, March 1968(Nurb.e in thousa-dl

Employment atnt. 15 years 16 vears 16 to 19 2i to 24 25 to 54 55 var.Md over sod over yer. Vyr veers ad oter

Labor folcs

Bothor seu .. 21 20.972 1559 2.516 12845 4,052Lna: Crrr militay ptsnouol. 2 265 1 20 231 13Plus: Labor fotes eot arnoeyd 5500 0 0 3 0 67 3 1 2 9 0

Ciilian laberforoe 21204 21207 1 S6S 2863 129296 4.129Adjusted o U.S.o e . .. 20.958 20.561 1 560 2S513 12.728 4.061Mie. 13.133 13.064 687 1.279 8.433 2.496L: Care.ermiltary pernoosl

2 28

2 28 Iis

20 1 10

Piod: Labor fobe not 'rvoytd2. 310 310 17 34 203 55af llise ltbor fo.e. 13216 13,146 883 1.297 8.435 2.531Adjusted to U5S cooorpa' .. . 13,137 13068 878 1.2P9 8BPS 2.516Famel ... . ............... 7.937 7,909 692 1,237 4.413 1,566Les: Carnm retltv apsrsoneel

t. 37 37 - 4 30 3Pl.: Lebor foton not uroaevd. 190 190 13 33 109 35

Callitn labor ores. . 800 B.062 705 1b266 4.492 16598Adjusted to U.S. coeept 73822 7.794 682 1224 4343 16545Ueteoveytrd

Buth uex .656 648 141 II 294 103Adjusted to UV.S. oouep's4

530 523 114 69 233 66Ma.. 269 265 60 41 105 58Adjuned to U.S. uoo.ept

4. 250 246 56 32 97 54

Fe.mae.0 387 325 el 70 189 45Adjusted to U.S. roriept4. 280 277 56 50 136 32

Unamployoeet t ta (perosnt)

Adjusted to U.S. roncepts:Both .... . 25 25 7,3 3.5 15 2.1Male . . 1.9 1 9 6.4 2.9 1.2 2.1Femae. . 3.6 36 8.5 4.1 3.1 2.1

A. published:Both tt... .............. 3.1 3.1 60 4.4 2.3 2.5Mae.. . 2.1 20 6S5 3.2 1.2 2.3Ftet . 4 495.7 4.3 2.9

AG. distribution bSed on figus frmo 1960 EEC labor fore- worked durlng the wrvey wek. hbad not eomeneed sking workwrv. vor were Mot ameondy neliable for work, ted to irmludd peraaAen distribtuon based on propotions hrm srveyed labor force dolsifid as empioYd who wore o ats work owing to tha stan orby age cnesation of s lob or sack work. Figures for thtae djusmeer areAdjusted to .-dude unpeld femily worker not t work or available lo total ind by -s but not by a. Therefo, ths edjuntdworking lan the. 15 hars; nrployed pansot. not a work for "duro figures by agp group en derld by diidding the reported enubable reo; sd u.onsloVed persot who haoe nout ummenoed uettployvd In eoh ag-o group by the overall male d fses-eking work or eM na outrady eveailIal for mrk. Figrunr on atls of rpnted to adjuted unemptoved ag 16 amd over irea:thsn eurlusiom orel aiable In total end by eo, but not by a.e 107.72; fnrw: 138.99).Thltemore. the adjusted figures by age group sre donved by dividinogneoh ag-too group of oilyIen oboe forno by the overall maie cnd SOURCE: Eoquera Su, L 'EmPlol de 196 , 1968c Ro, ltetalfemale retas of reported toedusti edcivilian labor foCe for 1-year- deaorteh Pt, isl otltut National de 1 Srtisftqos W de Etadesold. and over (de: 100.60; female: 103M4). Econ-hlomnl amd BLS admj nao.

4Adjusted to. e.lude pernso dasifid as uenpmoyed who

unpaid family workers workiug less than IS hours is pub- clude 14-year-olds. The distribution of unemployed by agelished by sex. No age distributions are pubbshed, however. wai not published as such by Germany in 1968, but canTherefore, it was assumed that the age distribution of un- be derived by subtracting data on the employed by agepaid family worker. who worked less than 15 hours wma the and seX from data on the labor force by age sod mx. Thesome as that for all unpaid family workers. Separate data number of 14-year-olds in the unemployed count Is ob-on 14-year-olds by sex are avaiable from the Microcensus tained in this manner. Unemployment has been reportedresults. by age in more recent years.

Microcensus unemployment is adjusted only to ex-

149

193

The resulting adjusted unemployment rates for Ger-many by age and sex are identical to or only one-tenth ofa percentage point higher than the rares based on the pub-lished data (table C-3).

Great Britain

Adjusted figures by age and sex for Great Britaincould be reliably prepared for 1971, the year of the firstGeneral Household Surrey, and later years. The regularlypublished British data ae from registered unemploymentstatistics rather than a labor force sutrey. Data on registeredunemployed persons are particularly weak for comparisonsof youth unemployment, since a high proportion of unem-ployed youths are new entrants to the labor force. Suchpersons we generally not eligible to collect unemploymentbenefits and are, therefore, much less likely to register withemployment offices than the experienced unemployed.Many unemployed women also do not register in Great

Britain. The method of adjustment of the British data byage and sex is based, therefore, on the General HouseholdSurveys (GHS) which cover the labor force groups generallyexcluded from registration statistics.

Figures on the labor force cnd unemployed were re-ported by age and sex in the 1971 GHS, but were not in-flated to universe levels-ie., levels representing the entirecountry. In table C4, all data shown we representative ofthe entire country. Reported figures on employees, self-employed, and registered unemployed have been aug-mented by adding the estimated number of unregistered un-employed. An estimate of the overcount in the reportedfigures on employees has been subtracted. (See appendix Bfor details.) The resulting adjusted civilian labor force,broken down snto its male and female components, wasthen distributed by age according to the age-sex distribu-tdon of the civitran labor force (unadjusted to U.S. con-cepts) from the 1971 GHS. The GHS did not report datafor the age groups 15-19 and 20-24;aistead,firgures forage

Table C-3. Germany: Labor force and unemployment adnusted to U.S. concepts, by age and ses, April 1968

~Mb.-- in .ou.-nr.

Total

EmPlo-ncnn status 14 year- 15 Year 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 o 54 55 Vea.sand over and oer yars Year, Years and acer

Latbr fame

Roth s.eas 26,766 26,719 2,487 2,705 16.343 5.186Les Car-r miliarv peonel

t. 485 485 32 169 282 2

Las Unreid fmily workersw..king las than 15 hour2 68 68 4 3 40 22

Adjusad ciciltan labor orc . 26,213 26.166 2,451 2,533 16,021 5.162

Mob . 7 1757 17,131 1.309 1.556 105795 3.472Les: Car-er military peroell. 485 485 32 169 282 2Less UnPaid family workers

workin les the 5lhou .2 . 1 11 2 1 4 4Adued civilian labor orte .. 16.661 16.635 1.275 12386 10.509 3.466

Female .9809 9.588 1,178 1,149 5s48 1,715Less anpaid family workers

working less shoe 15 hours' 57 57 2 2 36 1iAdiusted civilian labor fae. 9s552 9,531 1.176 1,147 5,512 1,697

Un.m-ipoyd

Bath roo.. 412 382 94 36 171 81Male .................... 229 213 47 18 92 56F.male 183 169 47 18 79 25

Uterioy0mat t e(Pesslt)

Adjusted to U.S ancepsBa0h se.e. , 1.6 1 5 358 1 4 1.1 1.6Male ................... IA 123 3.7 1.3 9 1.6Female 1.9 1a 4.0 1.6 1.4 1.5

As publishedBath seo.s. 1.5 I4 3s 1.3 1.0 1.6Male. 1.3 1.2 3fi 1.2 .9 16Female. 19 15 4.6 1.6 14 1.5

IAg disribrsin danced frm age dinributIons of Iabor forceincluding and uecluding career military paronel.

'Br4ad on .a distribution of all unprid ftily mortkr InAPrd 1968.

NOTE: B.e.a. of aunding, ubttals may not add to ttals.

8OURCE: Haprfeebni- do, Aadaaite-ed Sulatlealrltk 1B68IBonn, Cer BundeminiotIr Fur Atbait und Salalordnunal. Srleo-rdlr tAbhrouch fD, Die Duchbnd 1969 (Wib-bader, Satiache Bandesmt July 1889), nd 6LS edjuinmeens.

150

194

Table C4. Great Britain: Labor force and enurnplwMynent adusted to U.S. concept, by ap and sex, 1971lNuibon in Itou-tndt)

Total r ltt 19 20 to 24 25 to 4 65 V a nEmploymeot status F 1dvee I , Yand 25 o I4_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ± s d owen _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Bosh seXes:Employeesi ao -ployisst 21.554 _ _

Plus Self otmloytd 1B.49 - - - -

Plus Reginstd unomploydl 758 _ _ -Less: Nat o-tero ..t 295 _ _Plus: Unreginerasd u-eroyod. 157 _ -_

Adjusted citiliutn Itot foe ... 24.022 2.27S 2.731 14,477 4.539

Round.d 24,020 2280 2,730 14,490 4,540

Male:Employees in oploypnet 132376 - - _

Plus: Self em.ploytd 1,477 _ - -

Plus Registed onodployedl, 640

_ _ _Less: Net ovount 254 _ -_Pl- Utrgiad unt-ployed. -63 - - -

Adjusted dvilia hbor fot.1

... 15,176 1,214 1669 9.257 3,035Rotndod .15,180 1210 1.670 9,260 3,040

FPrroale:Employeet In tploymet 8,178 - - -

Plus: Self employed 271 - _ _. 3Plus: Registeredu- mployed

t 119_

Less: Not ovroont.. . 41 _ _ _Plus: Utretiste-d unetployed. 220 _- -

Adjusted oiviliet Ibo, florce.... 8B847 1,062 1,062 5.220 1,5(4Roodd 9B..8,50 1B60 10560 5,220 1 500

Umtmploytd

Both Noes

Registered unmployedl 758 _- -Plus: Tempoorily bid off . 1 _ _Plus: Ungistd nuntployed .. 157 - - _

Adjusd unto mployed 9.

26 156 133 478 160Rordtd .82930 160 130 480 160

Registered uot-ployedl 640 _ - -Plus: Tmpornily laid off... 10 _Plus: Urretistaed uneoploped -63 - - _

Adjusted unomployeId. 587 88 82 288 129Rondtd d..90 90 60 290 130

Registered uoop.doyed. 119 - - _Pbs: Tempoerily lid off .. .. IPlus: Unntgiseed unoployed. 220 - - -

Adjusted uomployed ..... 2 340 68 51 190 31Round d. 340 70 60 190 30

Usesoplepattst rate, (Intl

Adjusted to U.S. col- pts:Both zso.a. 39 7i0 4.8 3.3 3.5

' Mle. . 9 7A 4B 3.1 4.3

FP.ti.28 3B 6.6 4.7 3.6 2.0

'Inciudes tdull stodoonn SOURCE. The Geretl HouWhold S-/e: Introductory Aseon

'Distributtd by agp zoording to he 1971 Geral HouehoId (London, Office of Populttion Ceus snd Sumays, Soocal SurvY

Suaty. Det for IS- to 1yearsldo and 20- to 24-yesr-old re DiOil end 5BLS edjustntt.

setimated by otilizaio the 1971 Population C-o Th. GHS r-

perted dafr IS to- t17-yrolds end IS- to 24-year-old.

'SI

195

groups 15-17 and 18-24 were reported. The number of 18-and 19-year-olds in the 18-24 category was estimated byutilizing proportions of the labor force by age and sexfrom the 1971 population census. For 1973 sad 1974, nobreakdown of the 16-24 age group was made because of thelack of relevant data. It should be noted that the lower agelimit for British statistics was raised ftom 15 to 16 in 1973.

The registered unemployed figures were adjusted toU.S. concepts by sex by adding the unregistered unemployedand persons on temporary layoff. The resulting figures, bysex, were then distributed by age according to the age-sexdistribution of the unemployed (unadjusted to US. con-cepts) from the 1971 GHS, supplemented by the 1971population census. Data on unemployment by age and sexas measured by the population census (persons "out ofemployment") were used to estimate the number of un-employed 18- and 19-year-olds in the 18-24 age group(table C-4).

Italy

Italian labor force data by age and sex could not bereliably adjusted io US. concepts. Therefore, only published

age and sex breakdowns were shown for Italy in chapter 3.It is not known how well these published breakdownsapproximate US. concepts. The figures exclude personswho were sctively seeking work but who did not reportthemselves as unemployed. On the other hand, they includea large number of persons who took no active steps to findwork in the past 30 days.

Sweden

The reported Swedish labor force includes careermilitary personnel. In addition, in 1968 the labor forceincluded 14. and 15-year-olds; in 1970 and subsequentyears 14- and 15-year-olds were excluded but persons 75years old and over were also excluded. The age distributionof the career militaty was based on a special survey con-ducted in Sweden in February 1964. Data on 14- and15-year-olds for 1968 were provided by the National Cen-tral Bureau of Statistics in unpublished tabulations. Forthose 75 years old and over, figures are published once ayear in the labor force survey. The Swedish unemployedfigures require only the age adjustments discussed above.The resulting adjusted unemployment rates by age and sexare virtually the mame as the published rates (table C-5).

Table C-S. Sweden: Labor force and unemployment adjusd to U.S. Coept by ae and sex, 186

(Numb.r. In thouendsl

TotalEtplymier aatu 14Ves. 16 years 16 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 64 6 years

and w and o veYra Ves. ves and over

Labor fare

othxas ae .......on. 3.868 3,840 251 469 2,330 791Les: Career military Parsonnal' 16 16 2 6 1o 0Adjusted Cvllen labor to- . . 3.850 3,822 249 463 2.320 791

Male ................. 2399 2,382 130 264 1,446 542Less: Career milItary Ps-rnl ta 16 2 6 10 0Adiusted ellan lbor form . 2.281 2.363 128 288 1,426 542

F mt .. ............... 1,469 1,458 121 206 884 249

Ussessplayad

otsu ...e.............. 86 68 14 14 40 17Mle .................. 54 84 7 8 26 14Fmale ................ 32 31 8 6 14 3

Uosmplsym. rete (pa rsl)

Adjusted to US. econtsp:Both ...e.2.2 2.2 66 3.0 1.7 2.1Mal ................... 2.3 2.3 5.6 2.1 1 6 2.6Fwesala . .... 2.2 2.1 6.6 2.8 Is 1.2

As pubijhrd.:Both as.O......... 2.3 2.2 586 3.0 1.7 2.1Male. . 23 2.2 5E4 3.0 1.7 2.6Female ................. 2.2 2.1 6es 2.9 1.6 1.2

Ago diletbutan basd an sacleg sle1 coodueted In Febroery1964.

SOURCE: Th. Labour Farm Sorosvy. 196149 (Stakl.m. Na.doeal Central Bura of StWtiasles snd B LS djumentn.

152

196

Appendix D. Calculation of Labor Force Participation Ratesand Employment-Population Ratios

Participation rates

Labor force participation rates as shown in chap-ter 4 of this bulletin are defined as the proportion of thecivilian population of working age that is in the labor force.The labor force used in these calculations is the civilianlabor force adjusted to U.S. concepts. Sinre participationrates by sex were also needed, the adjusted labor force hadto be broken down into its male and female components.This was done according to the procedures described inappendix C on methods of adjustment by age and sex, ex-cept for Germany and Great Britain.

For Germany, age-sex adjustments, as described inappendix C, were made to the April or May Microcensusfigures. The 1960-76 participation rate data, however, areannual averages derived from annual estimates of the laborforce by sex. These figures are adjusted to U.S. conceptson the basis of the Microcensus.

In the age-sex adjustment section for Great Britain,only data from the British General Household Surveywhich began in 1971 were considered. However, since par-ticipation rates were required for the entire 1960-76 period,the 1971 survey was inadequate. Instead, figures on thelabor forme by sex were adjusted to US. concepts by firstobtaining the published British figures, subtracting an esti-mated overcount, and adding the unregistered unemployed.These adjustments are described hi detail in the methodssection for Great Britain (appendix B). The overcount fac-tor and the unregistered unemployed are originally derivedby sex, as explained in the methods section.

The population base for the participation rate calcu-lations is defined as the civilian population of working age.Such data are usually reported in labor force surveys. Formost countries, the Armed Forces had to be excluded fromthe regularly published population figures. Working age wasdefined so as to cover the same ages as the adjusted laborforce figures-eg., persons age 16 and over in the UnitedStates; age 15 and over in Germany, ear. Where populationfigures were not available on this basis, estimates of workingage population had to be made. For Italy, working agepopulation data were not reported in the labor force survey.Therefore, estimates of mid-year population as reportedto the OECD were used. The Armed Forces were subtractedfrom these figures so that they would relate to the civilianpopulation. OECD population estimates were also used forGermany, since annual rather than April data were used forthe labor force.

Employment-population ratios

The employment-population ratios shown in chap-ter 4 were obtained by dividing civilian employment bythe civilian population of working age. Civilian employmentadjusted to US. concepts was obtained by subtracting theadjusted unemployed from the adjusted labor force foreach year. The civilian population of working age was ob-tained in the same way as for the participation rates de-scribed above. No breakdowns of employment ratios bysex were made.

153

197

Appendix E. European Community Labor Force Surveys

The Statistical Office of the European Conmmunitieshas been working to promote comparability of employmentand unemployment statistics among member countries. InOctober 1960, labor force surveys using common defini-tions were conducted in each of the six member countries-Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and theNetherlands.' The surveys were repeated annually from1968 to 1971, but not all Community countries partici-pated; Luxembourg did not take part in the 1968 survey,and the Netherlands did not participate in the three follow-ing surveys. The 1968 to 1971 surveys were conducted inthe spring.

The survey was conducted again in the spring of 1973in the six original member countries and in the UnitedKingdom. In 1975, all member countries took part, inchud-ing Ireland and Denmark. The survey was again conductedin 1977 and will henceforth be conducted every two years.

Collection of data

For the 1960 and each subsequent survey, a standardquestionnaire and rules to be followed in collecting the datawere drawn up by the Statistical Office of the EuropeanCommunities. The sampling and visits to households werecarried out by the national statistical institutes who werealso responsible for sending the results to the StatisticalOffice. The Statistical Office handled all the processing of

data.

Scope of survey

The survey covers all persons whose place of resi-dence is in one of the member states of the Communityduring the reference week. For technical reasons, it was not

'Survey results way be foumd in the foaowine publieftions ofthe Stafiad OM.ic of the Europema Coaounotie l/er aeaccpfer asenqc rur lafarred, rt.afdaeo kpyadc Ic CEE cn 1960,

lafo-tioas Statisitques 1963, Nvmber 2; Poptrion er fora drravrl e 1968, Statitiqes Sociato 1969, Numbe 6, Popuktroaforrcdc reeteilc 1969, Statitlques Saciasl 1970, Nombe. 4;Eneqoc pa, roodac a, r ea f-rcate travail cn 1970, StatsotquoSoaieas 1971, NXabor 2; Erqacre par aodace rur teafcesa de tot..ee e 1971, Statifiqoes Socialla 1972, Nambe 3:;Pobpaitkra andEesptoymec;, 1968-1972, Soca Statistic 1973, Number 2;LaboouForce Sospk Smoecy 1973, Snod tatisties 1975, Numba 1: cdLnabur Farre Sacple Sarvey 1975, Eurosat, 1977. Beginnile withthe pblicutin ftPrpbrtcn anod E6pbymcn. 1968-72 the deserip-loan rod table beadigs apeapr bn Enlish as wedl ai the otherb _aM of the Cosmrsnity.

possible to indude collective households such as hostels,boarding schools, hospitals, or workers' lodgisfg in all coun-tries. Therefore, the survey has been limited to privatehouseholds. Members of private households make up about97 percent of the total population of the Community.

The 1960 survey was based on a sample of I percent;for the subsequent surveys, the sample size varied each yearaccording to country (for example, 1968, 05 percent in theNetherlands and Belgium; I percent in Germany).

Comparability of historical series

According to the EC Statistical Office, a comparisonof the results of the 1960, 1968-71, 1973, and 1975 sur-veys must be made with caution. Random errors are a fea-ture of all sample surveys and can, in certain cases, exceedthe magnitude of the variations from one year to another.Also, although these surreys were synchronized in thatthey all took place in the spring of each year (except in1960), they were carried out over different periods inthe different countries and were spread over several weeksin some countries. Finally, it has been necessary to revisefrgures for various reasons after publication of the first re-sufts. Thus, the final French results for 1968 have beenpublished along with the 1969 results and the 1969 figuresfor Belgium have been revised in the 1970 publication.

The results of the 1960 survey, as published in 1963,cannot be considered comparable with those of the sub-sequent surveys. Nevertheless, the Statistical Office hasattempted to bring the different surveys into hne as far aspossible by using unpublished working documents in Num-ber 2/1973 of the Social Sraristics series.

Following certain improvemens introduced in the1973 survey, notably concerning the distinction betweenthe "usual" situation with regard to economic activity andthe actual situation in the reference week, stnct compari-sons between the 1973 and 1975 results and those of pre-vious surveys are not always possible.

Definidons of the labor force

The definitions used in the European Community sur-veys ae essentially based on ILO definitions. However, arigorous application of the inermational defmitions was notpossible because of the necessity of avoidiag too detailed asurvey requiring complicated computer calculations.

154

198

The use of definitions common to all the Communitycountries means that the results may not be the same asthose used nationally. As the Statistical Office tries toachieve comparable results, these results do not alwaysagree with data from the same surveys processed accordingto national definitions.

The labor force in the Commutity surveys is definedas all persons age 14 and over whose normal residence isin a ptivate household in one of the Community countriesparticipating in the survey and who, during the referenceweek, was employed or unemployed according to the fol-lowing defictions.

Employed. Employed persons comprise all persons age 14or over who

I. Have carried out remunerative work as thefr main oc-cupation dunog the reference week;

2. are normally employed, but who, during the courseof the reference week, were not at work because ofillnem, accident, holiday, strike, or other circum-stances. People who have not worked because of tech-nical breakdowns ar bad weather ame also included inthis group.

3. carry out unpaid work assisting in a family businessor farm as long as this work occupies more than 14hours per week.

Specifically excluded from the employed are:

1. Persons who temporarily or for an unlimited periodhave no work and are not paid during the referenceweek;

2. persons without paid employment and who haveneither a farm nor any other business, but who havetaken steps to start a new job, farm, or busineso at alater date;

3. unpaid family workers who have worked lem than IShours in the reference week;

4. military conscripts (career military personnel are in-cluded in the employed).

Unemployed. Unemployed persons comprise all those whohave declared themselves to he unemployed and who faninto one of the following categories;

I. Employable workers who were unemployed and seek-ing paid work during the reference week because thefremployment contract had come to an end or hadbeen temponarily suspended;

2. persons with no previous employment, or whom lastemployment was not that of a paid worker (formeremployers, etc.), or who had ceased working for aperiod of time, and who, during the reference week,were capable of working and seeking paid employ-ment;

3. persons without work and capable of working im-mediately who had made arrangements to start a newjob at a later date;

4. people laid off temporarily or for an indefinite periodwithout pay.

Inactive population. This covers all persons who were under14 years of age or who were 14 years old or older but couldnot be considered either employed or unemployed underthe above definitions. The inactive population includes per-sons who declare themselves to be unemployed, but whoare not seeking paid employment-for example, personsmaking arrangements to set themselves up in business.

Family workers who have declared that they are em-ployed but have only worked between I and 14 hours dur-ing the reference week are also part of the inactive popula-tion. Also, inactive persons can be in the process of seek-ing employment (students looking for a fust job, for ex-ample) or have a part-time job (a housewife working forother households, for example).

Differences between European Community andU.S. definitions

The European Community surveys differ from theU.S. labor force survey with respect to age limits, clasti-fication of military personnel, and with regard to the"inactive population" as defiaed by the European Com-munity. The EC anrveys use a lower age limis of 14,whereas the U.S. surveys use age 16 as the lower limit.Career military personnel are included in the labor forceas defaced by the EC asd excluded in the United States.Some persons in the EC's "inactive population" wouldbe regarded as in the U.S. labor force, either as employedor unemployed. Thus, persons who do not declare in theEC survey that they have a "main occupation" or thatthey are "unemployed" are not classified in the labor forceeven if they are performing some part-time work or are seek-ing work. This is similar to the procedure in the Frenchlabor force survey in which work seekers are classifiedas "unemployed" or "marginally unemployed." The con-cept of "marginaily unemployed" in the French surveycorresponds closely to the category "inactive workseekers"in the EC survey.

European Community survey results

The EC surreys provide a wealth of comparativedata, including data on labor force, employment, and un-employment by age and sex. Data on activity rates, part-time workers, sectoral employment, professional and terri-torial mobility, hours of work, and methods and durotionof workeeking are included. There is also a great deal ofinformation broken down by region in each country. TableE-l shows some of the data obtained from the 1973 laborforce survey.

155

199

Table E-1. Population of the Eunofpn Conmunity by type of actioity, spring 1973

/Ttroueorrdtt

Type of tivity diu Franca Ge y Italy L mbourg N.etheaod, Kigdom

1. Pnns ith * .tha .. 3516 20.194 25.54 17,019 134 4,306 23.683With 2 r mo jofn 85 (I) 617 461 5 106 442Looking for another jtob 82 539 (I) 817 1 137 790

2 Persue who have declaredthemsdv o be petepoved. 59 374 133 717 1 82 515Lookil fIrf r itjob .. .. 12 64 26 451 V ) 10 26

3 Total tbor force (112) .. 23575 20.568 25,717 17,736 135 4,388 24,198

4 Inactive petr.2. 3,884 17.921 22.418 23.849 146 5,340 18.209With nn oci.rioal .oh . 39 629 731 1,149 3 315 384Lookiogfora job 17 368 (P) 841 I 65 394

5. Per-o- le#th.. 14 yeas old. 2.087 10878 12,442 11,866 66 2,802 11.610

6 Too-l popolati.e 13+4v5i .. 9.546 49,366 60,577 53,451 347 12.530 54.017

IN01 vibl-e SOURCE: Statiical OffIe of the Eurote Co.veniln.SoC/a Smtitin., Number 1 ,1975.

156

200

Appendix F. Unemployment Rates on a Total Labor Force Basis

Table F-1. Totul labor forcm (including Armed Forces) and unemployment rates, adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1969-76

United I Ir GretY.r Starts Cunu I Auseraiu Jaoun Frace |Genmrnv 8ritain Ituiy S-odn

Tot L i azorForc. (Tho-sandl

1959 .... 70,921 6,334 43.530 t9,90 26.080 23,780 22,160 (')1660 .... 72.142 6,501 / 44,330 19,.920 26,260 23,920 21,90 ('I1961 .... 73,031 6.612 (I 44.820 19,890 2630 24,190 21.,50 3,0441962 .... 731442 6.710 ( 26 45.260 19960 26,620 24.510 21.690 3,7281963 .... 74.571 6.838 (I) 45.640 20,030 26,720 24.720 21,230 3.7991964 .... 75,830 7,017 4,611 46,260 202300 26.730 24,840 21,170 3,7591965 .... 77. 179 7.217 4.745 47,000 20,320 26,850 24,980 20.820 3,7871966 .... 78,893 7.601 4,901 48.080 20.560 26,770 25,070 20,480 3.8411967 .... 80.793 7,854 5.035 49.040 20.60 26.220 257020 206620 3,8181968 .... 82,272 8,052 5 151 49.920 20,960 26.260 24.860 20.560 3,8671969 ... . 84,239 8.292 5.297 06380 21,220 26,520 24.780 20.350 3.8801970 ... . 5.903 8,491 5,465 50.970 21 540 26,790 24,640 20,330 3,9531971 ... . 868929 86732 5.569 51,350 21 .770 26.890 24.390 20,260 4.0001972 ... :. 88,991 9.004 5.970 515,0 21 890 26,810 24,610 20 000 4.0081973 . ... 91,040 9,404 5,796 52.820 22.210 26,870 24,890 20,140 4.0121974 ... . 93,240 9.797 5,937 52.680 22.550 26.610 24,860 20.410 4,0781975 ... . 94,793 10.139 6.055 52,770 22,620 26,160 225,160 20.600 4,1611976 9.... 917 10,388 6,140 53,340 22.760 25,930 225,440 20.820 4.185

Unemployment Rate (Percent.

1959 ... . 03 5.9 2 3.3 1.9 2.0 2.8 49 I|)1960 .... 53 6. () 1.7 1.8 1.1 2.2 3.7 ('1901 .... 6.4 7.0 (I) 1.5 1(5 .6 1.9 3.2 1.419f2 .... 5.3 5.8 ) 1.3 1A .6 2B 2.7 1.41963 ... . 5.5 5.4 ('I 13 13 4 34 2.3 1.71964 ... . 5.0 4.6 1.4 1.2 1A .4 2.5 2.6 1.51965 .... 4.4 39 13 1.3 1.5 3 2.1 3A 1.21966 .... 3i 3.3 1.5 1A4 I, 3 2.2 3.7 1.51907 .... 3.7 3B6 1i 1.3 19 1.3 3.3 3.3 2.11968 ... . 3 4 4.5 1.5 1.2 2.5 1.4 3.2 3.3 2.21969 . . . 3 4 4A I.5 1.1 23 At 3.0 3.2 1,91970 .... 4.8 56 IA 1.2 2.5 .8 3.0 3.0 151971 ... . 5.7 6.2 1.6 1.2 2.7 . 3B 30 2.51972 .... 5A 6.2 2.2 1 A 2.8 .8 4.1 3.5 2.71973 .... 4.7 5.5 19 1.3 2f6 8 3. 3.3 241974 .... 5.4 53 2.2 1.4 2.9 17 2B 2.7 2.01975 .... 8.3 69 44 19 4.1 3f6 14.6 3.2 1.61976 .... 7.5 7.1 4A 2.0 4.5 3.5 263 3.5 1.6

I Not ..aflnbb.0

Pr1liminory . timate bSeed on incomplete det.

'S7

201

Bibliography

Gam

Barkin, Solomon. Changing Profile of European ManpowerPolicrie Amherst, University of Massachusetts, 1973.

Bauer, David. Factors Moderating Unemployment Abroad.Studies in Business Economics, No. 113. New York, Na-tional Industrial Conference Board, 1970.

Bohling, W. R. "Immigration Policies of Western EuropeanCountries," International Migration Review, Summer1974, pp. 155-63.

Bohning, W.R., and Maillat, D. The Effects of the Employ-ment of Foreign Workers. Paris, Organization for Eco-nomuic Cooperation and Development, 1974.

Bouscaren, Anthony T. European Economic CommunityMigrations The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1969.

Braun, Kurt. "European Limitations on Employee Dismis-sal," Monthly Labor Review, January 1965, pp. 67468.

Chapman, Jane R. Employment Related Programs with Im-pact on Women in Selected Watem Countries. Washing-ton, American Political Science Association, 1973.

Congressional Budget Office. Report of Congressional Bud-, get Office Conference on the Teenage Unemployment

Problem: What are the Options? Washington, Govem.ment Printing Office, October 14, 1976.

Cook, Alice H. The Working Mother, A Survey of Problemsand Programs in Nine Countries. Ithaca, Comell Univer-sity, 1975.

Darling, Martha. The Role of Women in the Economy.Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, 1977.

"Effects of Recession on Immnigrant Labour," OECD Ob-server, June 1972, pp. 15-18.

European Economic Community. Les Problems de Maind'oeumre danm la Communaute 1971. Luxembourg, EEC,1971.

Flaa.:ean, Robert J. A Study of International Differencesin Phillips Clrmes. Berkeley, University of CaliforniaPress, 1970.

."The US. Phillips Curve and Intemra-tional Unemployment Rate Differentials:' AmericanEconomicReview, March 1973, pp. 114-31.

Galenson, Marjorie. Women and Work: An InternationalComparison. Ithaca, Comell University, 1973.

Gavett, Thomas W. "Youth Unemployment and MinimumWages," Monthly Labor Reiew, March 1970, pp. 3-12.

Gordon, Margaret S. The Comparative Experience with Re-training Prognrams in the United States and Europe.Berkeley, University of California, 1966.

Hansen, Gary B., and others. "Manpower Policies: Lessonsfor U.S. From Foreign Experience," Labor Law Journal,August 1970, pp. 523-57.

Henle, Peter. Work Sharing as an Alternative to Layoffs.Washington, Library of Congress, Congressional Re-search Service, July 19, 1976.

Howenstine, E. Jay. Compensatory Employment Pro-gravnmes: A n International Comparison of Their Role inEconomic Stabilization and Growth. Paris, Organizationfor Economic Cooperation and Development, 1969.

". Programs for Providing Winter Jobs inConstruction," Monthly Labor Renvew, February 1971,pp. 24-32.

Hughes, Barry. "Supply Constraints and Short-Term Em-ployment Functions: A Comment," The Review of Eco-nomics and Statistics, No.4, 1971,pp.393-97.

Hume, Ian M. "Migrant Workers in Europe," Finance andDevelopment, March 1973, pp. 24.

"Illegal Itnigrants," The Economist, November 13,1976,p. 68.

International Labour Office. Employment and Unemploy-ment Statinstics, Report IV. Geneva, [LO, 1954.

. The Intemational Standardization ofLabour Statistics, Studies and Reports. New Series No.53, Geneva, ILO, 1959.

___________. Labour Force 1950-2000, Volumes IVand V. Geneva, ILO, 1977.

. Manpower Aspect ofRecentEconomicDevelopments In Europe. Geneva, ILO, 1969.

__________. Measurement of Underemployment:Concepts and Methods. Geneva, ILO, 1966.

. Social and Labour Bulletin. Quarterly.

158

202

_________ . Social Secutry for the Unempbsyed.Geneva, iLO, 1976.

________ *. Unemployment Protection Under SocialSecurity-An Appraisil of the Present Situation and theRole of the ILO. Geneva, il0, 1975.

_________*. Womenpower. Geneva, iLO, 1975.

"International Unemployment Statistics," Department ofEmployment Gazette (Great Britain), July 1976, pp.710-14.

Jenkins, David. "Job Security Measures Growing Through-out Europe," World of Work Report. July 1976, p. 3.

Kayser, Bernard. Cyclcally Determined Homeward Flowsof Morant Workers. Paris, Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development, 1972.

Lal, Deepak. Unemployment and Wage Inflation in Indus-trial Economies. Paris, Organization for Economic Coop-eraton and Development, 1977.

Levitan, Sar A., and Belous, Richard S. "Work-sharing Ini-tiatives at Home and Abroad:' Monthly Labor Review,September 1977, pp. 16-20.

Lyon-Caen, Gerard. "Les Travailleurs Etrangers-EtudeComparative," Droit Social, Janvier 1975, pp. 1-16.

Maddison, Angus. Economic Growth in the West. London,George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1964. Appendixes C, D,E, and F.

McCarthy, James E. "Employment and Inflation in MajorIndustrial Countries," The Conference Board World-business Perspectives, August 1975.

"Migrants: Unemployed, They Stay On," ILO Information,No. 1,1976, p. 11.

Mincer, Jacob. "Labor Force Participation and Unemploy-ment: A Review of Recent Evidence," in R. A. Gordonand M. S. Gordon, ed., Prospersiy and Employment.New York, Wiley and Sons, 1966.

Mittelstadt, Axel. "Unemployment Benefits and RelatedPayments in Seven Major Countries," OECD EconomicOutlook, July 1975, pp. 3-22.

Moy, Joyanna, and Sorrentino, Constance. "An Analysis ofUnemployment in Nine Industrial Countries," MonthiyLabor Review. April 1977, pp. 12-24.

__________. "Unemployment in Nine Industrial Na-tonm, 1973-75," Monthly Labor Review, June 1975,pp. 9-18.

Myers, Robert J. "International Comparisons of Unem-ployment," The Banker, November 1975, pp. 1257-62.

Myers, Robert J., and Chandler, John H. "IntemationalComparisons of Unemployment," Monthly LaborReview, August 1962, pp. 857-64.

National Commission for Manpower Policy. ReexaminingEuropean Manpower Policies, Special Report No. 10.Washington, August 1976.

___________ .School to Work: Improving the Tnrnd-tion. Washington, 1976.

Neef, Arthur F. "International Unemployment Rates,1960-64 ," Monthly Labor Review, March 1965, pp. 256-

59.

Neef, Arthur F., and Holland, Rosa A. "Comparative Un-employment Rates 1964-66," Monthly Labor Review,April 1967, pp. 18-20.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Demogruphc Tfennds, 1970-1985 in OECD MemberCountries. Paris, OECD, 1974.

. Demognrphic Trends, Supplement CountryReponrs. Paris, OECD, 1976.

.Economic Outlook. Semiannually.

. Educational Statistics Yearbook, Vol-umes I and 11. Paris, OECD, 1975.

. Inflation: The Present Problem. Paris,OECD, 1970.

__________. International Migration of Manpower-A Bibliography. Paris, OECD, 1969.

La. Lbour Force Statistics. Yearbooks andquarterly supplements.

.Main Economic Indicators. Monthly.

.Manpower Problems. Pans, OECD, 1974.

.Proposals for the Future Developmentof Manpower Statistics. Paris, OECD, 1971.

159

203

.Rdsut of an Inqurdy on DemaoraphicTrasds. Pads, OECD, May 1973.

_Rerenue Statistics of OECD MemberCountries 1965-1972. Pars, OECD, 1975.

.SOPEM-Contihtous Reporting Systemon Migration, 1976 Report. Paw, OECD, 1976.

.7he Entry of Young People into Work-brgLife. Paris, OECD, 1977.

. TheImpactofthe 1974-75 Recession onthe Employment of Women. Pads, OECD, 1977.

.Unemployment Compensatlon mnd Re-lated Employment Policy Meanures. Pards, OECM, forth-coming.

Perlmutter, James. "Minrnt Workers in Western Europe,"Labor Developments Abroad, April.May 1971, pp. 1-10.

President's Cornmlttee to Apprie Employment and Un-employment Statistics. Meanring Employment andUnemployment. Washington, Government Printing Of-flce, 1962. Appendix A.

Reder, Melvin W. Internaaionai pifferences in Unemploy-ment Rates of New Entrants to the Labor Force. Stan-ford, Stanford University, 1970.

Reubens, Beatrice G. Bridges to Work: International Com-pernton of Transition Services. New York, UniverseBooks, 1977.

. "Foreign Experience," in Report ofCongressional Budget Office Conference on the TeenageUnemploymeni Problem: What afe the Options? Wash-ington, U.S. Government Printing Office, October 14,1976.

_________. "Manpower Policy in Western Europe,"Manpower, November 1972, pp. 16-23.

.Policies for Apprenticeship. Study pre-pared for tlhe Organization for Eoenormic Cooperationand Development, 1977, unpublished.

.The rHard-to-Employ: European Pho-grams. New York, Columbia University Press, 1970.

Sinfield, Adrian. The Long-Term Unemployed. Paria,OECD, 1968.

"Slamming the Door on Europe's Guest Workers," TheEconomist, August 9,1975, p. 24.

Soxrentino, Constance. "Comparing Employment Shifts in10 Industrialized Countries," Monthly Labo, Review,October 1971, pp. 3-1 1.

."Unemployment Compensation in 8 Na-tions," Monthly Labor Revnew, July 1976,pp. 18-24.

."Unemployment in Nine IndustrializedCountries," Monthly Labor Reniew, June 1972, pp.29-33.

_____________. "Unemployment in the United Statesand Seven Foreign Countries," Monthly Labor Review,September 1970, pp. 12-23.

Sorrentino, Constance, and Moy, Joyanua. "Unemploy-ment in the United States and Eight Foreign Countries."Monthly Labor Review, January 1974, pp. 47-52.

Spitrller, Erich. "Prices and Unemployment in Selected In-dustrial Countries," Internatlonal Monetary Fund StaffPapers, November 1971, pp. 528-69.

Statistical Office of the European Communities. EnquetePar Sondage Sur Les Forces de Travail en 1970. Staits-tiques Sociales 1971, No. 2.

___________. Enquete Par Sondage Sur Les Forces deTravail en 1971. Stasistiques Sociales 1972, No. 3.

.Population et Forces de Travail en 1968.Statistiques Sociales 1969, No. 6.

.Population et Forces de Travail en 1969.Sratistiques Sociales 1970, No. 4.

___________. Ulne Enquete Par Sondage Sur LesForces de Travail Dans Les Pays de la CEE en 1960. In-formation Sartistiques 1963, No. 2.

"Statintics of Unemployment Among Workers' Organiza-tions," International Labour Review, January 1921,pp. 115-20.

Ulman, Uoyd. "Wage-Price Polities-Lessons FromAbroad," IndustrialRelations, May 1969, pp. 195-213.

"Up-To-Date Information on Migration through 'SOPEMI',"OECD Observer, February 1974, pp. 39-40.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, SocialSecurity Administration. Social Security ProgranmThrpughout the World, 1975, Research Report No. 48,1976.

160

204

U.S. Department of Labor and Japanese Ministry of Labor.The Role and Status of Women Workers In the UnitedStates and Japan. A Joint United States-Japan Study.Washington, Government Printing Office, 1976.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.Transition From School to Work in Selected Countries.Washington, Government Printing Office, 1969.

_________ Youth Unemployment and MinimumWages. BLS Bulletin 1657, 1970.

US. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration.Manpower Policy and Programs in Five Western Euro-pean Countries: France, Great Britain, the Netherlands,Sweden, and West Germany. Manpower Research Bulle.tin No. IlJuly 1966.

Werner, Heinz. "Freizugigkeit der Arbeitskrafte und cdeWanderungsbewegungen in den Landem der Europais-chen Gemeinschaft," Mitteilungen aus der Arbeits-markit-und Beruffforschung, No. 4/1973, pp. 326-71.

"When Enough Will be Enough," The Economist, August25, 1973, pp.

4 9-5 0

.

Wittrock, Jan. Reducing Seasonal Unemployment in theConstruaction Industry. Paris, Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development, 1967.

Yemin, Edward. "Job Security: Influence of ILO Standardsand Recent Trends," International Labour Review,February 1976, pp. 17-33.

Zeisel, Joseph S. "Comparison of British and U.S. Unem-ployment Rates," Monthly Labor Review, May 1962,pp. 489-501.

_________ The Structure of Unemployment at FullEmployment in Great Britain and the United States.Ann Arbor, University Microfilms.

United States

Bednuazik, Robert W. "The Plunge of Employment Duringthe Recent Recession," Monthly Labor Review, Decem-ber 1975, pp. 3-10.

Bednurzik, Robert W., and St. Marie, Stephen. "Employ-ment and Unemployment in 1976," Monthly Labor Re-view, Februsary 1977, pp. 3-13.

Btadshaw, Thomas F., and School, Janet L. "Workers onLayoff: A Comparison of Two Data Series," MonthlyLabor Review, November 1976, pp. 29-33.

Bregger, John E. "Establulnment of a New EmploymentStatistics Review Commnission," Monthly Labor Review,March 1977, pp. 14-20.

."Unemployment Statistics and WhatThey Mean," Monthly Labor Review, November 1971,pp. 22-29.

Briggs, Vernon M., Jr. "Mexican Workers in the UnitedStates Labor Market: A Contemporary Dilemma,"International Labour Review, November 1975, pp. 351-

68.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Characteristics of Major Col-kective Bargaining Agreements, July 1, 19 75. BLS Bulle-tin 1957, 1977.

C..Concepts and Methods Used in Man-power Statistics from the Current Populatlon Survey.BLS Report 313, 1967.

Concepts and Methods Used in LaborForce Statistics Derived from the Current PopulationSurvey. BLS Report 463,1976.

Directory of Labor Force Studies Basedon the COrrent Population Survey. BLS Report 456,1976.

Employment and Earnings. Monthly.

How the Government Measures Unem-ployment. BLS Report 505, 1977.

. ._______ .Labor Force and Unemployment. BLSReport 486, 1976.

__________ .Some SocialAspecrs of Unemployment.BLS Report 469,1975.

.Unemployment: Measurement Problemsand Recent Prends. BLS Report 445, 1975.

Bureau of the Census. The Current Population Surs'ey-AReport on Methodology. Bureau of the Census TechnicalPaper No. 7, 1963.

_____________ * The X-11 Variant of the Census Method11 Seasonal Adjustment Program. Bureau of the CensusTechnical Paper No. 15 (1967 revision), 1967.

Congressional Budget Office. Temporary Measures to Stim-ulate Employment: An Evaluation of Some Alternatives,September 2, 1975 (Revised September 26, 1975).

161

205

Demburg, Thomas, and Strand, Kenneth. 'Hidden Unan-ployment 1953462: A Quantitative Analysis by Age andSex," Amerioan Economic Resiew, March 1966, pp. 71.95.

Early, John F. "Effects of the Energy Crisis on Employ'ment," Monthly LaborReview, August 1974, pp. 8-16.

Feldstein, Martin S. Lowesing the Permanent Ratce of Un-employment. Washington, DC., Government PrintingOffice, 1973.

_________ '"lrhe Economics of the New Unemploy-ment, "Public Interest. FPal 1973,pp. 342.

. "Unemployment Insusance: Time forReform," Harvard Business Review. March-April 1975,pp. 5 1461.

Flaim, Paul 0. "Employment and Unemployment Duringthe First Half of 1974," Monthly Labor Review, August1974, pp. 3-7.

Flaim, Paul O., and Schwab, P. M. "Changes In Employ-ment and Unemployment in 1970," Monthly Labor Re-view, February 1971,pp. 12-19.

Fullerton, Howard N., and Flaim, Paul 0. "New LaborForce Projections to 1990,'Monthly Labor Review, De-cember 1976, pp. 3-13.

Garfinkle, Stuart H. 'The Outcome of a SpeDl of Unem-ployment," Monthly Labor Review, January 1977, pp.54-57.

Geilner, Christopher G. "A 25-year Look at Employment asMeasured by Two Surveys," Monthly Labor Review,July 1973,pp. 14-23.

Grubel, H. G., and Maki, D. R. "The Effects of Unemploy-ment Benefits on U.S. Unemployment Rates," Canada,Simon Fraser University, mnmeo, August 1974.

"Illegal Alien Study Urges Rethinking on Inmigration,"The Washington Post. January 9,1977, p.A-I.

Katz, Arnold. "Schooling, Age, and Length of Unemploy-ment," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, July1974, pp. 5974605.

Killingsworth, Charles C. 'Manpower Evaluations: Vul-nerable but Useful," Monthly Labor Review, April1975, pp. 48-5 1.

Levitan, Sar A., and Taggart, Robert. 'The Emergency fm-ployment Act: An Interim Assessment," Monthly LaborReirew. June 1972, pp. 3-1l .

Lovati, Jean M. "The Unemployment Rate as an EconomicIndicator," Federal Reserve Bant ofSt. Louis, September1976, pp. 2-9.

Magnum, Garth L., and Walsh, John. "A Decade of Man-power Traming," Manpower, April 1973, pp. 20-26.

Marston, Stephen T. "Impact of Unemployment Insuranceon Job Search,"Brookings Papers on Economic Acrivity,No. 1, 1975,pp. 13-60.

Myers, Robert J., and Swerdloff, Sol. "Seasonality and Con-atruction:' Monthly Labor Review, September 1967,pp. 1-8.

National Center for Education Statistics. National Longi-tudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972 DataFile Users Manual. Washington, Department of Health,Education, and Welfare, July 1976.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Manpower Policy and Progrnunes in the United States.Paris, OECD, 1964.

Patten, Thomas H., Jr. Manpower Planning and theDevelop-ment of Hunan Resources. New York, John Wiley andSons, 1971.

Perry, George L. "Changing Labor Markets and Inflation:'Brookings Papers on Economic Actitity, No. 3, 1970,pp.411-48.

Phelps, Edmund S. "Economic Policy and Unemploymentin the 1960's," The Public Interest, Winter 1974, pp.30-46.

President of the United States. Employment and TrainingReport ofthe President. Annually from 1976.

..Manpower Report of the President.Annually until 1975.

President's Committee to Appraise Employment and Un-employment Statistics. Measuring Employment and Un-employment. Washington, Government Printing Office,1962.

162

57-254 0 - 80 - 14

206

Reynolds, James J. "Sesooin Unemployment in the Con-atruction Industry," Hearings before the Select Sub-committee on Labor of the Committee on Educationand Labor, House of Representatives, 90th Congress,Second Session, on HR 15990, July 15, 1968.

Schweitzer, Stuart O., and Smith, Ralph E. "The Per-aistence of the Discouraged Worker Effect," Industrialand Labor Relations Review, Januasy 1974, pp. 249-60.

Seidman, Laurence S. The Design of Federal EmploymentPrograms: An Economic Analysis. Berkeley, Universityof California, 1974.

Shiskin, Julius. "Employment and Unemployment: TheDoughnut or the Hole?" Monthly Labor Review, Feb-ruary 1976, pp. 3-10.

Shiskin, Julius, and Stein, Robert L. "Problems in Measur-ing Unemployment,' Monthly Labor Review, August1975, pp. 3-10.

Smith, Ralph E., and Vanski, Jean E. "Recent Performanceof Unemployment as an Indicator of Labor Market Con.ditions," Journal of Economics and Business, Fall 1976,pp. 78-81.

St. Marie, Stephen M., and Bednaraik, Robert W. "Employ-ment and Unemployment Dunag 1975," Monthly LaborReview, February 1976, pp. 11-20.

Stein, Robert L. "New Defsnitions for Employment andUnemployment," Employment and Earnings, February1967, pp. 9-13.

."Work History, Attitudes, and Incomeof the Unemployed," Monthly Labor Review, December1963, pp. 1405.13.

Tella, Alfred. "The Relation of Labor Force to Employ-ment," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, April1974, pp. 454469.

Thurow, Lester C. "The Role of Manpower Policy inAchieving Aggregative Goals," in R. A. Gordon, ed.,Toward A Manpower Policy. New York, Wiley and Sons,1967, Chapter 4.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and PublicWelfare. Unemnployment and the Energy Cisis, 1974.Joint Hearings, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, February14, 1974.

Werneke, Diane. "Job Creation Programmes: The UnitedStates Experience," Internatlonal Labour Review,August 1976, pp. 43-59.

Young, Anne M. "Employment of School Age Youth,"Monthly Labor Review, September 1970, pp. 4-1 1.

_____________-. "Students, Graduates, and Dropouts inthe Labor Market, October 1975," Monthly Labor Re-view, June 1976, pp.

3 7 4 1.

Canada

Bureau of Statistics. Facts About the Unemployed, 1960-71. Ottawa, Information Canada, 1971.

Cook, P.A., and others. Economic Impact of Selected Gov-ernment Programs Directed Toward the Labour Market.Ottawa, Economic Council of Canada, 1976.

Denton, Frank T. The Growth of Manpower in CanadaOttawa, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1970.

__________ .The Short-Run Dynamics of the Cana-dian Labor Market. Ottawa, Economic Council ofCanada, 1976.

Denton, Frank, and Ostry, Sylvia. An Analysis of Post-WarUnemployment. Economic Council of Canada, StaffStudy No. 3, Ottawa, Queen's Printer, 1964.

Department of Labour. Changing Patterns in Women 's Em-ployment. Ottawa, Women's Bureau, 1966.

. Unemployment Insurance in the70's. Ottawa,Queen'sPrinter, 1970.

. Women at Work in Canada. Ot-tawa, Queen's Printer, 1964.

. Women in the LabourForce 1970,Facts and Figures. Ottawa, Department of Labour,1971.

Department of Manpower and Immigration. Notes on Em-ployment and Unemployment. Ottawa, Department ofManpower and Inmigration, 1971.

Economic Council of Canada. Manpower in Construction.Ottawa, Information Canada, 1975.

..Peopk and Jobs-A Study of the Canad-ian Labour Market. Ottawa, Information Canada, 1976.

163

207

_________ Toward More Stable Growth In Con-

sruction. Ottawa, Information Canada. 1974.

Green, C., and Cousneau, 1. M. Unemployment in Canada:

The Impact of Unemployment Inunnce. Ottawa, Eco-nomic Council of Canada, 1976.

Grubel, H. G., Maki, D. R., and Sax, S. "Real and Inrur-

ance-Induced Unemployment in Canada:' CanadianJournal of Economics, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 174-9 1.

Kalfaki, S. F. "Structural Unemployment in Canada:

Towards a Definition of Geographic Dimension,"

Canadian Journal of Economics, August 1968, pp.

551.65.

Lando, Mordeduai E. The Sex Differential in Canadian

Unemployment Data. Center for Naval Analyses, Pro-fessional Paper No. 2, January 9, 1970.

Newton, Keith. "Interpreting National Unemployment

Rates," Industrial Relations Joumral, Winter 1974,

pp. 46-58.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Manpower Policy and Programmes in Canada. Paris,

OECD, 1966.

Ostry, Sylvia. The Fenale Worker in Canada. Ottawa, Do-

minion Bureau of Statistics, 1968.

Dominion . 0 . Unemployment in Canada. Ottawa,

Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1968.

Plasse, Leonel. Labour Force Activities and Characteristics

of Students. Statistics Canada Research Paper Number

14, JUly 1977.

Spencer, Byron G., and Featherstone, Dennis C. Married

Female Labour Force Parricipation: A Micro Study.

Special Labour Force Studies, Set. B, No. 4, Ottawa,

Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1970.

Statistics Canada. Historical Labour Force Statistics-

Actual Data, Seasonal Factors, Seasonally Adjusted

Data. Annually.

I Incomes of Unemployed Individuah and

Their Families, 1971. Ottawa, Information Canada,

1972.

________. The Labour Force. Monthly.

.i-bour Force Siy Dtidoon. Reawr*

Swan, N., MacRae, P., and Stetilaif, C. Income M.h,-

tenance Proigrm: Their Effect on Lbtow Supply

and A eate Demand In the .Mwitimes. Ottawa,Economic CounCil of Canada, 1976.

Vandercamp, John. Mobility Behavior In re CanadianLabour Force. Economic Council of Canada, Special

Study, No. 16, Ottawa, Information Canada, 1973.

Austraia

Advisory Committee on Comnonwealth Employment Selr-ie Statistica. Report of the Advisory Comnmittee on

Commonwealth Employment Service Stattstlc. Mel-

bourne, November 1973.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Lab orFo0We. Qualrtetlyand annually.

.Seasonally Adjusted Indlcaton. Annually.

Department of Labour. An Analysis of Full Employment in

Australia. Labor Market Studies No. 2, 1970.

_____ .- Female Unemployment in Four Urban

Centers. Labour Market Studies No. 3, 1970.

_______ .Manpower Policy in Austmlia. 1974.

"The Employment Situation." Personnel Practice Bulle-

tin, March 1971,pp.8 6

-89.

The Flinders University, Institute of Labour Studies.

Australian Bulletin of Labour. Quarterly.

Gregory, R. G., and Sheehan, P. J. Hidden and Other

Measures of Unemployment in Australia 1964-1972.

The Flinders University, Institute of Labour Studies,

Working Paper Serirs No. 7, February 1974.

Hancock, Keith, and Hughes, Barry. Relative Wages, Insti-

tutions and Australian Labour Markets. The FlindersUniversity, Institute of Labour Studies,Working Paper

Series No. I, May 1975.

Keating, M. The Australian Workforce 1910-11 to 1960-61.

Canberra. Progress Press, 1973.

164

208

Khoo, Edmond. Estimates of the Full-Term Duration ofUnemployment in Australia 1962 to 1975. The FlindersUniversity, Institute of Labour Studies, Working PaperSeries No. 15,February 1976.

MacDonald, John. Wages and Prices in Australia:; On theShort and Long-Run Trade-Offs Between Inflation andUnemployment. The Flinders University, Institute ofLabour Studies, Working Paper Series No. 13, December1974.

Merrilees, Bill. "Hidden Unemployment of Women inAustralia: Frictional, Cyclical, and Structural Dimen-sions," Journal of Industrial Relations, March 1977, pp.50-64.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Economic Surveys: Australia. Annually.

Parkin, Michael. "The Short-Run and Long-Run TradeOffsBetween Inflation and Unemployment in Australia,"Australian Economic Papers, December 1973, pp. 127-44.

Japan

Abegglen, James C. Management and Worker: The JapaneseSolution. Tokyo, Sophia University, 1973.

Akaoka, Isao. "Control of Amount of Employment in Jap-,anese Companies Under the Life-Time Employment,"Kyoto University Economic Review, AprilOctober1974, pp. 59-78.

Awanohara, Susumu. "Japan Faces Labour Dilemma," FarEastern Economic Review, March 12, 1976, pp. 37-38.

Braun, Kurt. Labor Law and Practice in Japan. BLS Report376, 1970.

Bureau of Statistics. Annual Report on the Labour ForceSurvey.

____________ .Monthly Report on the Labour ForceSurvey.

Cole, Robert E. "Functional Alternatives and EconomicDevelopment: An Empirical Example of Permanent Em-ployment in Japan," American Sociological Review,August 1973, pp. 424-38.

Japanese Blue Collar The Changing Tra-dition. Berkeley, University of Califomia Press, 1971.

_____ _ .- "Permanent Employment in Japan:Facts and Fantasies," Industrial and Labor RelationsReview, October 1972, pp. 615-30.

Cole, Robert E., and Umetani, Shuarchiro. "ManpowerTraining and Lifetime Employment in Japan," MonthlyLabor Review, November 1974, pp. 43-45.

Dahareng, Marcelle. "Japanese Women at Work," FreeLabour World, December 1971,pp. 8-10.

Diebold, John. "Management Can Learn from Japan,"Business Week, September 29, 19

73, pp. 14 and 19.

Economic Planning Agency. Japanese Economic Indicators.Monthly.

Emi, Koichi. "The Structure and its Movements of the Ter-tiary Industry in Japan," Hitotsubashi Journal of Eco-nomics, June 197 1, pp. 23-32.

"Employment Situation Still Serious," Mainichi DailyNews, March 8,1977.

"Hidden Unemployment Rapidly Growing," The OrientalEconomist, Aprl 1975,p. 44.

Japan Times, Ltd. Economic Survey of Japan, 1970/71.Tokyo, Japan Times, Ltd., 1971.

"The Japanese Labor Market After the Oil Crisis," JapanLabor Bulletin, June 19

77,pp. 4-8.

"The Labor Market for College Graduates in Postwar Jap-an," Japan labor Bulletin, March 19

7 7,pp. 5-12.

"Layoff with Guaranteed Income," Japanese Labour Bulle-tin, December 1971, pp. 2-3.

"Manpower Policy in Japan," OECD Observer, April 1973,pp. 33-35.

Marsh, Robert M., and Mannari, Hiroshi. "A New Look at'Lifetime Commitment' in Japanese Industry," Econom-ic Development and Cultural Change, July 1972, pp.611-30.

Oberdorfer, Don. "Japanese Soft Touch on Layoffs," TheWashington Post, March 9,1975, pp. GI and G8.

Okada, Yasuiko. "Textile Industry Hit by Serious Reces-sion," The Japan Economic Review, February 15,1975,p.3.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Manpower Policy in Japan. Paris, OECD, 1973.

165

209

"Repercussions of Oi Crisis," Japan Labor Bulletin, Jan-uary 1974,p. 1.

Reubens, Beatrice. "Manpower Training in Japan,"MonthlyLaborReview, September 1973,pp. 16-24.

Taira, Koji. Economic Development and the Labor Marketin Japan. New York, Columbia University Press, 1970.

"The 1973 Labor White Paper," Japan Labor Bulletin, Sep-tember 1974, pp. 5-8.

France

Castellan, Michel. "Comptes Sociodemographiques: L'Ex-emple des Emplois et de la Mobilite Intersectorielle,'Economie et Statistique, Fevrier 1976, pp. 27-38.

"Early Retirement for Some Manual Workers in France,"Incomes Data Services International Report, July 1976,pp. 2-3.

Grais, Bernard. "Methodes et Sources Utilisees Pour laMesure du Chomage," Economic et Statistique, March1975, pp. 63-69.

Guilbert, Madeleine, and others. Le Travail Temporaire.Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Travaux etDocuments, No. 2. Paris, Societe des Anis du Centred'Etudes Sociologiques, 1970.

Institute National de la Statistique et des Etudes Econum-iques. Enquetes sur L Emploi, Series D. Annually.

. .__________.Structures de la Population Active.

Resultats des Enquetes sur L'Emploi 1962-196Z Lescollections de l'INSEE Series D. Paris, INSEE, 1970.

Michon, Francois. Chomeurs et Chomage. Paris, Universitede Paris, Seminaire d'Economie du Travail, 1974.

Ministere du Travail. Bulletin Mensuel des Statistiques duTravait Monthly.

Organization for Economnic Cooperation and Development.Manpower Policy in France. Paris, OECD, 1973.

"Que deviennent les demandeurs d'emploi au sortir de I'ANPE?" Economiz et Starsstique, Mai 1977, pp. 57-62.

"Retire the Old, Recruit the Young," The Economist,

April 30, 1977, pp. 96-99.

Vacher, Jacques. "Las Sources Stati.tiques sat L'Emploi,"Econonmieet Statistique, Mal 1976, pp. 13-27.

Germany

"Bonn Curbs Foreign Laborers," The Wvashington Post,November 24,1973, p. A-I.

Bremer, Hermann W. "Job Placement in Germany, " In-ternational Labour Review, September/October 1970,pp. 12-15.

Bundeminister fur Atbeit und Sozialordnung. Haupter-gebnlisse der Arbeirs und Sozivlstatistik. Annually.

Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit. Amtliche Nachrichten der Bund-esanstadt far Arbdit-Arbeitsstatistik. Annually andmonthly.

Deutsche Bundesbank. Statistiche Beihefte zu den Monats-berichten der Deutschen Bundesbank, Reihe 4 Saison-bereinigte Wirtschaftszahlen. Monthly.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Manpower Policy in Germany. Paris, OECD, 1974.

Ross-Skinner, lean. "How Gemmany Beat Inflation,"Dun's,November 1974, pp. 80-82.

Statistisches Bundesamt. Entuwicklung der Erwerbstatigkeit,Reihe 6, Fachserie A, Bevolkerung und Kultur. Annually.

.Wirtschaft und Statistik. Monthly.

"Training by Stages," Tmainingfor Progress, 1970, pp. 8-15.

"Uriemployment Problems in the Federal Republic of Ger-many," Department of Employment Gazette (GreatBritain), April 1977, p.

3 4 4.

Voss, Joachim H., ed. "Whtat's New in Labor and SocialPollcy?" New York, German Information Center,Monthly 1975-76.

Great Britain

"A Recession With Full Employment?" The Economot,January 24, 1970, pp. 49-50.

500

Baxter, J. L. "Long-Term Unemployment in Great Britain,1953-1971," Bullefin of the Institute of Economics and'Statistics, November 1972, pp. 329-44.

"Britain's Jobless: A Rapid Rise," U.S. News and World Re-port, May 24,197 1, pp. 84-85.

210

"Characteristics of the Unemployed: Sample Survey," De-partnment of Employment Gazette, June 1973, pp. 211-19.

"Comparisons Between Census of Population and Ministryof Labour Estimates of Working Population," Ministryof Labour Gazette, November 1965, pp. 478-79.

Cubbin, J. S., and Foley, K. "The Extent of Benefit-inducedUnemployment in Great Britain: Some New Evidence,"Oxford Economic Papers, March 1977, pp. 128.40.

Daniel, W. W. "A National Survey of the Unemployed,"PEP Broadsheet No. 546, October 1974.

Department of Employment. Department of EmptoymentGazette. Monthly.

"Economic Situation," Economic Trends, May 1971, pp.iu-vii.

General Federation of Trade Unions. The Present Unem-ployment-An Analysis and Policy Proposals. Leicester,Leicester Printers Ltd., 1972.

"Govemment Measures to Alleviate Unemployment,"Department of Employment Gazette, April 1977,p. 374.

"Govermoent Plans for Employment and Training," De-,partment of Employment Gazette, March 1973, pp.23941.

"Heath Tightening Unemployment," The Washington Post,December 6, 1971, p. D 12.

Hill, M. J. Men Out of Work: A Study of Unemployment in3 English Towns. Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress, 1973.

Hunt, Audrey. A Survey of Women 'sEmp1oyment. London,Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1968.

Interdepartmental Working Party on Unemployment Sta-tistics. Unemployment Statistics: Report of an Inter-departmental Working Party. London, Her Majesty'sStationery Office, 1972.

"Job Release Takes Off," Department of EmploymentGazette, January 1977,p. 1.

"Job Swap," Income Data Services International Report,October 1976, p. 2.

Manpower Services Commission. Annual Report 1974-75.London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1974.

"MSC Evaluates Job Creation," Department of Employ-ment Gazette, March 1

977, pp. 211-17.

Mukherjee, Santosh. There's Work to be Done. London,Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1976.

Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. A QualityCheck on the 1966 10 Percent Sample Census of Eng-land and Wales. London, Her Majesty's StationeryOffice, 1972.

.The Genemal Household Survey. Lon.don, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, annually from1971.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Economic Surveys: United Kingdom. Annually.

Manpower Policy in the United King&dom. Paris, OECD, 1970.

Parker, S. R., and others. Effects of the Redundancy Pay-ments Act. London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office,1971.

Pettman, Barne 0. "Government Vocational TrainingSchemes in Great Britain," International Journal ofSocial Economics, pp. 184-96.

"Industrial Training in Great Britain,"International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. I, No.1, pp. 63.83.

Phillips, A. W. "The Relation Between Unemployment andthe Rate of Change of Money Wage Rates in the UnitedKingdom, 1861-1

9 5 7," Economica, November 1958, pp.

283-99.

Plan for Modern Employment Service," Department ofEmployment Gazette, December 1972, p. 1095-98.

Reid, Graham L. "The Role of the Employment Service inRedeployment in Great Britain," British Journal of In-dustrial Relations, July 1971, pp. 160.84.

ShowIer, Brian. The Employment Service and Management.Institute of Scientific Business No. 6. Yorkshire, Insti-trte of Scientific Business, 1972.

Joseph, Keith. "Measuring Unemployment," Long Range Standing, Guy. "Hidden Workless," New Socity, OctoberPlanning, June 1976, pp. 12-IS. 14,

19 7,PP.1716-19.

167

211

"Trends in the Composition of the Unemployed," Depart-mewt of Employment Gazette. March 1973, pp. 246-55.

"Unemployment and Notified Vacancies-Flow Statistics,"Department of Employment Gazette, September 1976,pp. 976-81.

"The Unemployment Statistics and Their Interpretation,"Department of Employment Gazette, March 1975, pp.179-83.

"Unemployment Stilt Rising," Labour Research, October1970, pp. 155-56.

"The Unregistered Unemployed in Great Britain,' Depart-ment of Employment Gazette, December 1976, pp.1331-36.

Watson, J. Jordan. "Manpower Policy in Great Britain,"International LabourReview, May/June 1970, pp. 17-19.

Wedderburn, Dorothy. White Collar Redundancy. Univer-sity of Cambridge, Department of Applied Economics,Occasional Paper No. I.Cambridge, Cambridge Univers-ity Press, 1963.

Zeisel, Joseph S. "Comparison of British and US. Unem-ployment Rates," Monthly Labor Review, May 1962,pp.489-501.

___________ The Structure of Unemployment at FaleEmployment in Great Britain and the United States.Ann Arbor, University Microfilms.

Italy

Birtig, Guido. "Employment Problems and the EducationalSystem in Italy," International Labour Review, July-Au-gust 1976, pp. 11-25.

CENSIS. LOccupazione Occulta. CENSIS Ricerca No. 2.Rome, CENSIS, 1976.

Gilbert, Sari. "Italy's Universities: Preparation for the Job-less Rolls," The Washington Post, Match 5, 1977, p.A-10.

"Incentives to Help Young Workers," Income Data SersvcesInternational Report, December 1976, p. 7.

"Indagine Speciale Sulle Persone Non Appartenenti AileForze Di Lavoro," Supplement to the Monthly Bulle-tin of Statistics, No. I l, November 1971.

eta. sastwesn dewna 55r_ m. C r57*r: 5s73.i5s- I-7

Istituto Centrale di Statistica. Annuario di Statistiche deLavorm. Annually.

______ . Boaletina Mensile di Statistica. Monthly

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Economic Surveys: Italy. Annually.

"Si Alarga L'area del Malessere," II Sole, May 28, 1977,pp. 1-2.

Sweden

"Anti-Recession Policies in Sweden," OECD Observer,Match-April 1976, pp. 31-32.

Brehmer, Ekhard, and Bradford, Maxwell R. "Incomes andLabor Market Policies in Sweden, 1945-1970," Interna-tional Monetary Fund Staff Papers, March 1974, pp.101-26.

Brems, Hans. "Swedish Fine Tuning," Challenge, March-April 1976, pp. 3942.

"Flexible Retirement Provisions in Sweden: A Novel Sys-tem," European Industrial Relations Review, March1977, pp. 11-12.

Forseback, Lennart. Industrial Relations and Employmentin Sweden Stockholm, The Swedish Institute, 1976.

Ginzberg, Eli. "Sweden's Manpower Policies: A Look at theLeader,"Manpower, November 1970, p. 26.

Meltz, Noah M. Observations on Sweden's EmploymentService. Toronto, Toronto University, 1970.

Ministry of Finance. The Swedish Budget. Annually.

National Labour Market Board. Labour Market Statistics.Monthly.

"Rising Absenteeism in Sweden Attributed to GenerousSick Pay,' World of Work Report, January 1977, p. 12.

Statistiaka Centralbyran. Arbetskraftsundersokningen. An-nually.

_________ .The Labour Force Surveys. Monthly.

Swerdloff, Sol. "Sweden's Manpower Programs," MonthlyLaborReview, January 1966, pp. 146.

68

212

SUPPLEMENT TO BULLETIN 1979, INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS OFUNEMPLOYMENT '

General Note

This supplement updates selected international labor market statistics whichwere published in Bulletin 1979, International Comparisons of Unemployment(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1978). The tables are keyed to those publishedin the Bulletin. Data for 1977 and 1978 are included wherever possible.

Revisions of the estimates published in Bulletin 1979 are indicated by theletter "R". The revisions for France, Germany, and Great Britain arise fromthe incorporation of more current labor force survey results. The revisions forCanada and Australia are based on revised population estimates. The revisions ofseasonally adjusted quarterly unemployment rates reflect the incorporation of full-year data into the seasonal adjustment programs for all nine nations.

The revisions of the French data are based on published detailed results fromthe 1973-77 labor force surveys and preliminary results from the March andOctober 1978 surveys. The estimates in Bulletin 1979 had been based on pre-liminary results from the 1973-76 surveys. Beginning in 1977, the survey wasconverted from an annual survey (generally March) to a semi-annual survey(March and October), and detailed results are available from both 1977 surveys.Revisions of the German data are based on published results of the 1976-78annual labor force surveys. The effects of the revisions for both France andGermany are very small-a change in unemployment rates of two-tenths of apercent or less.

The 1975 and 1976 General Household Surveys for Great Britain, however,indicated that the previous estimates of unemployment based on surveys through1974 should be revised downward significantly. For example, the previouslypublished rate of 4.7 percent for 1975 has been lowered to 4.1 percent and the ratefor 1976 has been lowered from 6.4 to 5.5 percent.

The Canadian labor force results for 1975 to 1977 have been revised based onrevised population estimates derived from the 1971 and 1976 Population Censusresults. The impact of these revisions was to lower labor force, employment, andunemployment estimates by about 1 percent. The jobless rates remained the same.

Australian labor force survey results for 1970 to 1977 have been revised, basedon revised population estimates derived from the 1966, 1971, and 1976 PopulationCensus results adjusted for underenumeration. The revised jobless rates have beenraised by an average of four-tenths of a percent for 1970 through 1977.

Beginning in February 1978, the quarterly Australian labor force survey be-came a monthly survey. At the same time, a new questionnaire and sample wereintroduced. In the revised questionnaire, the definitions of employment andunemployment were reworded for clarity but were not changed in substance. Theformer and revised surveys were both carried out in November 1977, but data arenot'yet available for analyzing the impact, if any, of the revised questionnaires.

I Prepared by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 1979.

213

SUPPLEMENT TO TABLE 3.-LABOR FORCE, EMPLOYMENT, AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN 9 COUNTRIES, 1970-78

[Number in thousands: rate in percentl

United Austra- Ger- GreatYear States ' Canada' lia Japan France many Britain Italy Sweden

CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE

Approximating U.S. concepts:1970------------82, 715 8,399 '5, 525 50, 730 '20, 880 26, 290 24, 270 19, 950 3, 9091971------------84, 113 8, 644 '5, 621 51, 120 '21, 070 26, 380 '23, 980 19, 810 3, 9551972------------86, 542 8,920 '5, 752 51, 320 '21, 250 26, 280 '24, 230 19,618 3,9631973 -88,714 9,322 '5, 901 52, 590 '21, 510 26, 360 '24, 450 19, 750 3,9711974 -91,011 9, 706 '6,053 52, 440 '21, 730 26, 080 '24, 490 20, 060 4, 0371975 -92,613 '9, 974 '6,169 52, 530 '21, 620 '25, 710 '24, 610 20, 270 4, 1231976 -94, 773 '10, 206 *6,244 53, 100 *21, 820 '25, 440 '25, 050 20, 490 4,1491977 -97, 401 10, 498 6, 358 53, 820 22, 050 25, 370 225, 300 20, 500 4,1681978 -100, 420 10 882 6, 384 54, 600 222,160 2 25, 320 2 25, 370 20, 620 4, 203

As publinhed: 31970 -- 82, 715 8, 399 *5, 525 51, 530 *20, 854 26, 817 24, 388 19, 302 3,9131971 -84, 113 8,644 *5, 621 51, 860 '21,007 26, 910 24, 154 19, 254 3,9611972 -86,542 8,920 *5, 752 51, 990 *21, 147 26,901 24, 405 19, 028 3,9691973 -88, 714 9,322 *5,901 53,260 *21, 391 26, 985 24, 676 19,169 3,9771974 -91,011 9,706 *6,053 53,100 '21,573 26,797 24,754 19,458 4,0431975------------92,613 '*9, 974 '6, 169 53, 230 '21, 595 26, 397 '24, 946 19, 650 4,1291976 -94 773 '10,206 '6,244 53, 780 '21, 783 *26, 148 '25, 198 19, 858 4,1551977------------97, 401 10,498 6,358 54, 520 22, 021 25, 074 25,402 21,68 4,1741978 -100,420 10,882 6,384 55, 320 22,090 26, 202 25, 482 21, 731 4,209

EMPLOYMENT

Approximating U.S. concepts:1970------------78, 627 7,919 *5, 437 50,140 '20, 340 26, 090 23, 520 19,340 3, 8501971 -79,120 8,107 *5,518 50,480 '20 480 26, 170 '23,100 19 260 3,8541972 ----------- 81,702 8,363 '5, 601 50,590 '20,640 26, 060 23, 230 18, 920 3,8561973 -8,409 8,802 *5,765 51, 910 '20,920 26, 140 *23, 730 19,080 3, 8731974 -85,936 9,185 '5,891 51,710 *21,080 25,630 '23,780 19,500 3,9571975 -84,783 '9,284 '5,866 51, 530 '20, 680 '24, 780 *23, 610 19, 620 4, 0561976 -87, 485 '9,479 *5, 946 52, 020 *20, 800 '24, 510 *23, 660 19,760 4, 0831977 -90 546 9,648 6,000 52, 720 20 940 24, 460 2 23, 740 19,800 4,0931978 -94,373 9,972 5,975 53,300 20 960 224,450 2 23, 830 19,890 4,109

EMPLOYMENT

An published:1970 --publishe 78,627 7,919 '5, 437 50,900 *20, 344 26,668 23, 811 18,693 3, 8541971 -79, 120 8,106 *5, 518 51, 210 '20, 438 26, 725 23, 402 18, 645 3, 8601972 -81,702 8, 363 *5, 601 51, 260 '20, 552 26, 655 23, 570 18, 331 3, 8621973------------84, 409 8,802 '5, 765 52, 590 '20, 815 26, 712 24,088 18, 500 3, 8791974 -85, 936 9,185 *5, 891 52, 370 '20, 958 26, 215 24, 169 18,89a 3,9631975------------84,783 '9,284 '5, 866 52, 230 '20, 693 25, 322 '24, 010 18,996 4, 0621976 -87, 485 '9,479 *5, 946 52, 700 *20, 790 *25, 088 '23, 893 19, 127 4, 0891977 -90,546 9, 648 6, 000 53, 420 20, 922 25, 044 23, 980 20,062 4, 0991978 -94, 373 9,972 5 975 54, 080 20, 921 25, 209 24, 072 20, 160 4,115

UNEMPLOYMENT

Approximating U.S. concepts:1970 -4, 088 480 '88 590 540 200 750 610 591971- 4993 538 *103 640 590 220 *880 610 1011972 -- 4840 557 '150 730 610 220 '1,000 700 1071973-------------------- 4, 304 520 *136 680 '590 220 '720 670 981974 -5,076 521 *162 730 650 450 *710 560 801975 - 7,830 *690 *302 1, 000 '940 *930 '1,000 650 6719767 ,288 *727 *298 1, 080 , 020 '930 1 390 730 661977_---------- 6,855 850 358 1,0100 1,:110 9000 '1,560 700 751978 -6,047 911 410 1, 240 2 1, 200 2 870 2 1, 540 730 94

As published:'41970 -------- - 4,088 480 *88 590 '510 149 577 609 591971 -4,993 538 '103 640 '569 185 752 609 1011972 - 4,840 557 *150 730 *595 246 835 697 1071973------------ 4,304 520 '136 680 '576 273 588 668 981974 -5,076 521 *162 730 615 582 585 560 801975------------ 7, 830 '690 '302 1,000 '902 1,074 936 654 671976 -7,288 '727 '298 1,080 993 1,060 1,305 732 661977 - 6,855 850 358 1,100 1,105 1,030 1,422 1,545 751978- 6,047 911 410 1,240 1.169 993 1.410 1.571 94

See footnotes at end of table.

214

SUPPLEMENT TO TABLE 3.-LABOR FORCE, EMPLOYMENT, AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN 9 COUNTRIES, 1970-78--Con.

{Number in thousands; rate in percent]

United Austra- Ger- GreatYear StatesI Canada] Hea Japan France many Britain Italy Sweden

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

Approximating U.S. concepts:1970 -4.9 5.7 1.6 1.2 2.6 0.8 3.1 3.1 1.51971------------ 5.9 6. 2 11.8 1.3 2.8 .8 13.7 3.1 2.61972- ---- - 5.6 6.2 2.6 1.4 2.9 .8 1.1 3.6 2.71973- 4.9 5.6 2. 3 1.3 2.7 8 *2.9 3.4 2.51974- 5.6 5.4 2.7 1. 4 3.0 1.7 2.9 2.8 2.01975 -8.5 6.9 *4.9 1.9 *4.3 '3.6 '4.1 3.2 1.61976 -7.7 7.1 *4.8 2.0 '4.7 3.6 '5.5 3.6 1.61977 -7.0 8.1 5.6 2.0 5. 0 23.6 26.2 3.4 1.81978 -6.0 8.4 6.4 2.3 2 54 23,4 26.1 3.5 2.2

As published:1970------------ 4.9 5.7 *1.6 1. 1 12.4 .7 2. 5 3.2 1. 51971- 5.9 6.2 1.8 1.2 *2.7 8 3.4 3. 2 2. 51972 -5.6 6.2 '2.6 1.4 '2.8 1.1 3.7 3.7 2. 71973 -4.9 5.6 '2.3 1.3 *2.7 1.2 2.6 3.5 2. 51974 -5.6 5.4 '2.7 1.4 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.01975------------ 8.5 6.9 M4.9 1.9 *4.2 4.7 4.1 3. 3 1.61976 -7.7 7.1 4.8 2.0 4.6 4.6 5.6 3. 7 1.61977------------ 7. 0 8.1 5.6 2.0 5.0 4. 5 6.2 7. 2 1. 81978 ------- 6.0 8.4 6.4 2.2 5. 3 4.3 6.0 7. 2 2. 2

'Revisions of the estimates published in Bulletin 1979.' Published and adjusted data for the United States, Canada, and Austraiia are identical.2Preliminary estimates based on incomplete data.IIncluding military personnel for Japan, Germany, Italy, and Sweden.4 For the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, Italy, and Sweden, unemployment as recorded by sample labor force

surveys;for France, annual estimates of unemployment; and for Germany and Great Britain, the registered unemployed.For France, unemploymeet as a percent of the civilian labor force; for Japan, Italy, and Sweden, unemployment as a

percent of the civilian labor force plus career military personnel; for Germany and Great Britain, registered unemployed(excluding adult students) as a percent of employed wage and salary workers plus the unemployed. With the exception ofFrance, which does not publish as unemployment rate, these are the usually published unemployment rates for eachcountry. Published rates shown for Germany and Great Britain cannot be computed from data contained in this table.

Note: Data for the United States relate to the population 16 yr of age and over. Published data for France, Germany, andItaly relate to the population 14 yr of age and over; for Sweden, to the population aged 16 to 74; and for Canada, Australia,Japan, and Great Britain, to the population 15 yr of age and over. Beginning in 1973, published data for Great Britainrelate to the population 16 yr of age and over. The adjusted statistics have been adapted, insofar as possible, to the age atwhich compulsory schooling ends in each country. Therefore, adjusted statistics for France relate to the pupulation 16 yrof age and over and for Germany, to the population 15 yr of age and over. The age limits of adjusted statistics for Canada,Australia, Japan, Great Britain, and Italy coincide with the age limits of the published statistics. Statistics for Swedenremain at the lower age limit of 16, but have been adjusted to include persons 75 yr of age and over.

SUPPLEMENT TO TABLE 6.-QUARTERLY UNEMPLOYMENT RATES, SEASONALLY ADJUSTED, 1976-78

United GreatPeriod States Canada Australii Japan France' Germanyi Britain I Italy 2 Sweden

1976-------- 7. 7 7. 1 4.8 2. 0 *4.7 3. 6 5.5 3.6 1. 61------------ 7. 7 6. 7 4. 7 2.0 4. 7 3. 8 5 3 *3 5 1. 611 - 7.5 *7.0 '4.6 2.1 '4.6 3.6 5.5 3.6 1.6III---------- 7.7 7.2 4.9 2. 1 4.76 3.6 5. 6 3. 6 1 5IV------- 7. 8 *7. 5 *4.9 1. 9 *4. 7 3. 5 5. 7 3. 6 1. 6

1977 -7.0 8.1 5.6 2.0 5.0 3.6 6.2 3.4 1.8- - 7.5 7. 9 5.1 1.9 4. 9 3.6 6.0 3.4 1.7

I ------- 7. 2 8. 0 *5. 8 2. 1 *5. 1 as 6s.o 3. 4 1. 7III -6. 9 8.2 2 5.8 2.1 5. 2 3. 6 6. 3 3 5 1. 9IV -6.6 8.4 5.9 2.1 4.8 3.5 6.4 3.4 2.0

1978 -6.0 8.4 6.4 2.3 5. 4 3. 4 6.1 3.S 2.2I---------- 6.2 8. 4 6. 7 2. 2 4. 9 3.S5 6. 3 3.S5 2. 1

1I------ 6.0 8. 5 6.4 2. 3 5. 4 as 6. 1 3.S5 2. 3IIIl------ 6.80 8. 4 6. 4 2. 3 5.8 3. 4 6. 1 3.6 2.S5IV------- 5.8 8.2 6.3 2.3 5. 6 3.3 5. 9 3.6 2. 0

'Revisions of the estimates published in Bulletin 1979.' Preliminary for France from 1978 onward and for Germany and Great Britain from 1977 onward.

Data for 1977 onward are not strictly comparable with data for earlier years (see app. X B).

Note: Quarterly figures for France, Germany, Italy, and Great Britain are calculated by applying annual adjustmentfactors to current published data, and therefore should be viewed as less precise indicators of unemployment under U.S.concepts than the annual figures. Published data for Australia, Canada, Japan, and Sweden require little or no adjustment.

215

SUPPLEMENT TO TABLE 8A.-EMPLOYMENT BY ECONOMIC SECTOR, 1970-78

fin thousandsl

United Austra- Ger- GreatStates Canada lia Japan France many Britain' Italy' Sweden

Total civilian employment:1970------------78,6271971 -1----------9,1201972------------81, 702197323--8--------4,4091974------------85,9361975 ------------ 4,7831976 ----------- 87,4851977------------90, 5461978------------94,373

Agricultu re:'41970------------3, 5661971------------3,5031972------------3, 58519733-----------3,5541974------------3,5881975------------3, 4761976------------3, 4171977----------- 3, 3831978 ----------- 3, 501

Industry:'1970------------26, 0661971 -- - - - - - - - -- 25,1171972------------25,70919733-----------27,0861974------------26,9881975------------25,0221976------------25,9761977------------26,9551978------------28, 368

Manufacturing:1970 ----------- 20,7371971 ----------- 19,5641972 ----------- 19,866197323-----------20,9421974 ----------- 20,8791975 ----------- 19,2751976 ----------- 20,0441977 ----------- 20,6371978 ----------- 21,497

Services:'81970 ----------- 48,9941971 ----------- 50,5001972 ----------- 52,40819733-----------53,7701974 ----------- 55,3601975 ----------- 56,2851976 ----------- 58,0921977 ----------- 60,2081978 ----------- 62,504

7,9198, 1078,3638,802'9284

'9, 4799,9 6489, 972

605608576574583

'564'561553573

2,3592. 3832,4462,6022,710'2,613'2, 7612,6732,746

1,: 7681767I,828

1, 9371, 994'18714,921

1, 888,956

4,9555,1165, 3415, 6265,892

'6, 107'6,2176,4226,653

'5, 437 50, 140 '20, 344 26, 169 24, 748 184605, 518 50, 470 '20,438 26, 225 24, 376 18376:5, 602 50, 580 '20, 552 26, 125 24, 376 18,0755,765 51, 900 '20,815 26,201 24~,948 18239'5,891 51, 710 '20,958 25, 688 '25 056 18644

'5,867 51, 530 '20,693 24, 798 '24, 4 18765'5,946 52, 020 '2,79 24, 556 '2,772 '88826,800 52, 720 20, 922 24, 511 24, 89719 7995, 975 53, 360 20,921 24, 679 24, 949 19880

'432 8,490 '2,835 2,262 699 3, 574'424 7, 848 '2, 683 2,144 674 3,530

'440 7, 310 '2,529 2,038 671 3,255'422 6, 810 '2,379 1,954 681 3, 141

'408 6,540 '2236 1882 '661 3,072'405 6,380 '2, 10 1 823 '639 2,934'390 6, 21 2, 037 '1,743 '633 2,902398 6110 1974 1,655 632 3,122383 6,100 1,907 1,608 625 3,063

'1868 1,880 '7,908 '2, 711 11, 114 8, 112'1 893 18, 140 '7,940 '2, 642 10,728 8,150

',873 18, 290 '7,973 12, 214 10470 8,030'19719, 210 '8,088 12, 225 10 52 8,4

'1902 18,902 '8115 11,932 '10,563 8,251'1,871 18,370 '7,853 '11,169 '10,161 8,300'1,866 18, 520 '7, 775 '10,975 '9, 910 8,2251,845 18, 510 7, 730 *10,876 9,976 7,6611,781 18, 550 7, 588 S 10,807 9, 9226 7,628

'1, 326 13, 750 '5, 677 '10,309 9, 022 5,864'1345 13, 420 '5, 742 '10,220 8,724 5,918'1323 13, 810 '5, 794 9, 550 8, 446 5,826

'1,"354 14, 420 '5, 907 9,541 8,498 5,894'1,:380 '14, 325 '5, 957 9,410 '8, 539 6,100

'1275 13,430 '5, 780 8,890 '8, 154 6, 128'1,289 13, 440 '5, 721 8,794 '7, 912 6,143'1281 13, 350 5,690 8,757 8, 018 5,473

(1) 13,220 (7) (7) 7,967 5,421

'3, 012 23, 770 '9,601 '11,1906 2 935 6, 772'3, 077 24, 510 '9,815 '11,439 1,975 6,695'3, 165 24, 980 '10, 050 11873 13,236 6, 790'3, 381 25,880 '10, 348 12022 13,676 7,049'3,519 26, 140 '10,607 '11974 '13,32 7,321'3,592 26, 770 '10,733 '11806 '14,141 7,531'3690 27,290 '10,978 '11,838 '14 229 '7, 7553,757 28, 100 11, 218 '11,983 14,289 9,0163,811 28, 720 11, 426 '12 177 14,402 9, 196

'Revisions of the estimates pablished in Bulletin 1979.' Includes Northern Ireland.2 Data for Italy prior to 1977 have not been adjusted for the undercount of employment which was revealed by the re -

vi sed Italian labor force survey (see app. B). Data are not available on the estent of undercount by economic sector.3From 1973 onwards. Japan includes Okinawa.

4 Agriculture, forestry, hunting, and fishing.o Manufacturing, mining, and construction.o Preliminary.INot available.ITransportation, communication, public utilities, trade, finance, public administration, private household services,

and miscellaneous services.

Note: Civilian emp loyment totals may not coincide with those in table 3 because the data can not be fully adjusted forcom parabilit with U.S. definitions. Also, some employment could not be distributed by economic sector. Because ofrounding, subtotals may not add to totals.

Year

38363,8423,8453y,8613,944

4,0444,0704,0814,097

314308287276264261254248250

1,241,3961,4011,4341,4491,4161,3751 328

1,0641,0541,0461,0661, 1201, 1381, 1001,0601,023

2,0662, 1182, 1622, 1852,2462, 3342, 4002,4392, 519

216

SUPPLEMENT TO TABLE 8B.-PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT BY ECONOMIC SECTOR, 1970-78

United Aus- Ger- GreatStates Canada tralia Japan France many Britain' taly2 Sweden

Total civilian employment: Each year- 100.0Agriculture: 3

1970 -4.51971- 4. 41972 -4.41973- 4.21974- 4.21975 -------------------------- 4.11976 -3. 91977 -3.71978 -3.7

Industry:970- 33.2

1971 -------------------------- 31.91972 -31. 51973 -32.11974 -31. 41975 -29.51976 -29.71977-2 9.81978 -30.1

Manufacturing:1970 -26. 41971 -24.71972 -24.31973 -24. 81974 -24.31975 -22. 71976 -22.91977 -22.81978- 22.8

Services: H1970 -63. 21971 -63. 81972 - 64. 11973 4-63.71974 -64.41975 -66.41976 -66. 41977 -66.51978 -66. 2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

7.6 '7.9 16.9 '13.9 8.6 2.8 19.4 8.27.5 '7.7 15.5 '13.1 8.2 2.8 19.2 7.86.9 7.8 14.4 '12.3 7.8 2.8 18.0 7. 56.5 '7. 3 13.1 '11.4 7. 5 2.7 17.1 7.16.3 '6.9 12.6 '10.7 7.3 2.6 16.5 6.76.1 '6.9 12.4 '10.2 '7.3 2.6 15.6 6.55.9 '6.6 11.9 '9.8 7.1 2.6 15.4 6.25.7 6.6 11.6 9.4 6.7 2.5 15.8 6.15.7 6.4 11.4 9.1 6. 5 2. 5 15.4 6.1

29.8 '34. 429. 4 '34.329.4 '33.429.6 '33.229.5 '33.328.1 '31.928.5 '31. 427.7 30.727.5 29.8

22.3 '24. 421.8 '24.421.9 '23.622.0 '23. 521.7 *23.420.2 '21. 720.3 *21.719.6 21.319.6 (7)

62.6 '57.763.1 '58. 063.9 '58. 763.9 '59.464.1 '59.7

'65.8 '61.2'65.6 '62.166.6 62.666.7 63.8

35.7 '38.9 '48.635.9 '38.8 '48.236.2 '38.8 46.837.0 '38.9 46.736.8 '38.7 46.435.6 '38.0 45.035.6 '37.4 '44. 735.1 36.9 644.434.8 36.3 644.2

27.4 '27.9 '39.426.6 28. 1 39. 027.3 '28.2 36.627.8 '28.4 36.425.6 '28.4 36.626.1 '27.9 35. 825.8 27.5 '34. 825.3 27.2 35.724.8 (7) (7)

47.4 '47.2 '42. 848.6 '48.0 '43.649.4 '48.9 45. 449.9 '49.7 45. 950.6 '50.6 '46.252.0 '51.9 47.652.5 52.8 '48.253.3 53.6 48.95.38 54.6 49. 3

44.944.043.042. 542.240.740.040.139.8

36. 535. 834.634.134.132.7

'31. 932.231.9

52. 353.254.354. 855.256. 7

'57. 457.457.7

43.944. 444. 444.444. 344. 243. 638. 738. 4

31. 832.232.232.332.732.732. 527.627. 3

36.736.437.638.639. 340.1

'41.045. 546. 2

38.037.136. 336.336. 435. 834. 833. 732. 4

27.727.427. 227.628. 428.127.026.026.0

53.955.156.256.656. 957. 759.060.261. 5

* Revisions of the estimates published in Bulletin 1979.includes Northern Ireland.Data for I taly prior to 1977 have ot been adjusted for the uandercount of employment which was revealed by the re-

vised Italian labor force survey (see app. B). Data are not available on the cutest of undercoant by economic sector.3 Agriculture, forestry, hunting, anod fishing.4 From 1973 onwards, Japan includes Okinawa.5 Manufacturing, mining, and construction.* Preliminary.7 Not available.*Transportation, communication, public utilities, trade, finance, public administration, private household services,

and miscellaneous services.

Year I

217

SUPPLEMENT TO TABLE 10.-UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY AGE AND SEX, 1977

1977 1976

United Austra- Ger- Great 1977Sex and age States Canada Iia Japan France, many 2 Britain Italy' Sweden

Both sexes:All working ages 7.0 8.1 5.2 2.0 4.8 3.7 5.5 3. 7 1.8Teenagers - -------- 17.7 17.5 16.1 4.8 11.8 6.9 11.4 19.2 6.720 to 24 yr -10.9 12.4 7.2 3.5 3.5 5.7 4.3 11.6 3.225 to 54 yr -5.1 6.0 3.2 1.7 3.2 17 1.355 yr and over --- 4.1 4.7 2.2 2.5 2.6 5 1.2

Male:All workingages 6.2 7.3 4.3 2.1 3.3 3.1 5.5 3.1 1.5Teenagers 4 17.3 18.2 14.7 5.7 8.7 6.0 12.1 17.8 5. 820 to 24 yr 10.7 12.8 7.1 3.6 2.4 5.1 4.2 11.6 3.025to54yr -4.3 5.0 2.6 1.6 2.6 1.6 1.155 yr and over -3.9 4.5 2.3 3.3 2.4 .6 1.I

Female:All working ages -8.2 9. 5 6.8 1.9 7.2 4.6 5.6 5.2 2.2Teenagers' - 18.3 16.8 17.7 2.6 15.1 8.0 10.4 21.1 7. 820 to 24 yr -12 11.8 7.4 3.2 5.2 6.2 4.4 11.7 3.325 to S4yr -- 6.4 7.8 4.3 1.8 4.0 2.2 1.655 yr and over -4.5 5.0 (a) 1.0 3.0 .2 1.4

I Data are for March 1977.2 Data are for May 1977.3 Data are not adjusted to U.S. concepts.4 14- to 19-yr-olds in Italy; 15- to 19-yr-olds in Australia, Canada, Germany, and Japan; 16- to 19-yr-olds in the United

States, France, Great Britain, and Sweden.6Not statistically significant.

Note: Australian data have not been adjusted to reflect the recently revised population estimates.

SUPPLEMENT TO TABLE 10.-UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY AGE, 1978

1978 1978

United 1977States Canada Australia Japan France' Italy 2 Sweden

All working ages: 6.0 8.4 6. 3 2.3 5.1 4. 9 2.2Teenagers3 -16.3 17.9 17. 3 4. 7 23.2 25. 2 8. 220-24 yr- -9.5 12.2 8.8 3.6 11.7 15.7 4.325 yr and over -4.0 6.1 3.9 2.0 3.3 2.0 1.6

1 Data are for October.2 Data could not be adjusted to U.S. concepts by age. The figures shown are as published by the Italian Central Statistical

Office.316- to 19-yr-olds in the United States and Sweden; 16-and 17- yr-olds in France; 15-to 19-yr-olds in Canada, Australia,

and Japan, and 14- to 19-yr-olds in Italy.4 18- to a4-yr-olds in France.

218

SUPPLEMENT TO TABLE 12. LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES BY SEX, 1970-78

United GreatYear States Canada Australia Japan France I Germany Britain Italy Sweden

Both sexes:1970 -60.4 57. 8 '61. 4 64.5 *56. 2 57. 0 59.4 49. 5 62. 91971------ 60.2 58. 1 *61. 4 64. 2 *55* 9 56. 5 '59. 0 49.2 63. 21972 -60.4 58.6 61. 5 63.8 '56. 1 55.8 59. 4 48.0 63. 11973 60.8 - 59. 7 *61. 8 64. 0 *56. 0 55.4 *60. 6 47. 9 63. 01974 -61. 2 60. 5 *62. 1 63.0 *56. 2 54.4 60. 5 47.9 63. 81975 -61. 2 61. 1 *62. 3 62.4 '56. 9 53.5 *60. 5 47.9 64. 91976 -61.6 61.1 *61.9 *62.4 *56.9 *52. 8 *61.4 *48. 1 *65. 01977 -62.3 61.5 61.9 62.5 57. 2 252.8 261. 7 47. 9 65. 11978 63.2 62.6 61. 1 62.8 (3) 2 52. 8 2 61. 6 48. 0 65. 4

Male:1970 -79.7 77.8 83.2 81.5 *74. 6 78.8 79.8 74.5 77. 21971 -79. 1 77. 4 *82. 8 81. 9 *74. 2 77. 7 79. 1 74. 1 76. 81972 -79.0 77.5 *82.7 *81. 9 *73.8 76.4 78.8 72.6 76. 11973 -78.8 78.2 *82. 3 *81. 9 '73. 1 75.2 *79. 7 71.7 75. 71974 -78. 7 78. 7 *81. 7 *81. 6 *72. 7 73. 6 *78. 1 71. 3 75. 71975------ 77. 9 78.4 '81. 2 *81. 2 *73.0 72. 1 '77. 8 71. 0 76. 01976 77. 5 77. 6 80.6 '81.0 '72.4 '71. 1 '78. 5 70. 5 '75. 41977 -77. 7 77.6 80.1 80.4 71.4 2 70.8 2 78.1 (3) 74. 61978 -77.9 77. 9 78.9 80.1 (3) 2 70.8 (2) (3) 74.3

Female:1970 -43.3 38. 3 *39. 8 49.3 '40.0 38.6 41. 1 26.8 49.01971 -43.3 39.4 *40. 4 47. 7 *39. 7 38.4 41.3 26. 6 50. 01972 -43. 9 40. 2 *40.6 46.8 *40 4 38. 1 41.9 25. 7 50. 51973 -44. 7 41.8 *41.8 47. 3 *40 9 38. 3 43.6 26. 1 50. 81974 -45.6 42.9 *42.8 45. 7 *41. 5 37.9 *44. 6 26.6 52. 41975 -46.3 *44. 4 *43. 7 44.8 *42. 4 37.5 *45. 0 26.9 54. 21976 -47.3 *45. 2 *43. 6 *44. 8 *42.9 *37. 2 *46. 0 27.6 *54. 91977 -48.4 46.0 44.2 45.7 44.1 2 37.4 2 46.8 (3) 55.91978 -50.0 47.8 43.8 46.4 (3) 2 37, 6 (3) (3) 56.9

* Revisions of the estimates published in Bulletin 1979.2 Data are for March of each year.2 Preliminaiy estimate.3 Not available.

Note: Data relate to the civilian labor force approximating U.S. concepts as a percent of the civilian working age pop-ulation. Working age is defined as 16-yr-olds and over in the United States, France, and Sweden; 15-yr-oads and over inAustralia, Canada, Germany, and Japan; and 14-yr-olds and over in Italy. For Great Britain, the lower age limit was raisedfrom 15 to 16 in 1973.

SUPPLEMENT TO TABLE 13.-EMPLOYMENT-POPULATION RATIOS,' 1970-78

United GreatYear States Canada Australia Japan France Germany Britain Italy Sweden

1970 -57.4 54.5 *60.9 63.8 *55. 3 56. 6 57.5 48.0 61. 91971 -56.6 54. 5 *60. 2 63.4 *55. 0 56. 1 *56. 9 47.7 61. 61972 -57. 0 54.9 *59. 9 62.8 '54. 9 55. 3 56.9 46. 4 61. 41973 -57.8 56. 4 *60.4 63.2 *55. 1 54.9 *58. 8 46. 2 61. 41974 -.---- 57.8 57. 3 *60.4 62. 2 *55.0 53. 5 *58.7 46.6 62. 61975 - 56.0 *56. 9 *59. 2 61. 2 *53. 5 *51. 6 *58. 1 46. 4 63. 81976 -56.8 56. 7 *59.0 61. 1 *53. 3 *50 9 *58. 0 46. 3 *63. 91977-------- 57. 9 56.6 58.5 61. 2 53. 2 2 51. 0 2 57.9 46. 3 63. 91978 - 59.4 57. 4 57.3 61. 3 2 53 1 2 510 0 2 57.8 46. 3 64. 0

'Revisions of the estimates published in Bulletin 1979.l Civilian employment approximating U.S. concepts as a percent of the civilian working age population. The data relate

to persons 16 and over in the United States, France, and Sweden; 15 and over in Canada, Australia, Japan, and Germany;and 14 and over in Italy. For Great Britain, the lower age limit was raised from 15 to 16 in 1973.

2 Preliminary estimate.

Senator SARBANES. Is there a study here-do you have a bulletinwhich sets out what new, young entrants into the labor force cananticipate in terms of the chances of getting a job?

Ms. NORWOOD. We have a program of occupational outlook whichlooks at various occupations and tries to explain them-the conditionsof employment and some of the outlook for those occupations overthe next 10 or 15 years. We also do some work involving specificoccupations. And then we have a quarterly publication which looks at

219

special kinds of issues. It is oriented toward young people. These ma-terials are used to a large extent by guidance people and high schoolsand traditional educators.

Senator SARBANES. I want to go back to the deterioration in theunemployment rate in 1974 and 1975 at that rapid pace. Is it yourexperience in the past that, as unemployment worsens, it does sogradually, or in these real leaps? In other words, it was going at one-half percent to 1 percent a month, month to month, at certain timesin the period which you have just outlined for us.

Ms. NORWOOD. Obviously, once the economy turns into a clearrecession and begins going down, generally in the past the unemploy-ment rate has gone up. But that increase has edged up and then ithas gone up more sharply. But that, too, is something we can lookat in terms of the number of months it took to really take off andchange.

Senator SARBANES. Thank you, Senator Proxmire.Senator PROXMIRE. Would the 8.2-percent unemployment be the

worst that we have had in any recession since the Great Depression,with the exception of 1973-75?

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes, sir.Senator PROXMIRE. What would be the next level, the next highest

level we have had?Mr. STEIN. In 1958 we went as high as 7.5 percent.Senator PROXMIRE. This would be, by a considerable margin, the

worst recession we've had since the depression, with the exceptionof the 1973-75.

How about the inflation rate that was predicted? What was it;11.8? How would that compare with any year we have had in thepast? Have we had worst years than that?

Mr. LAYNG. 1973-74 was worse.Senator PROXMIRE. How high was the inflation rate in 1973-74?Mr. LAYNG. It got up to 15 percent.Senator PROXMIRE. I mean for any one year. I'm just talking about

for the whole year. I don't mean the peak.Mr. LAYNG. I think it was about the same.Senator PROXMIRE. About 11.8?Mr. LAYNG. It was 12.2 percent in December 1974.Senator PROXMIRE. So on that basis, for a year this would be the

worst inflation, the worst we've ever had, and the second worst unem-ployment level we've ever had, for 1979.

Now let me ask you about an ingredient of that figure, the mortgageinterest rate. We have gotten a lot of criticism-in fact, I got it fromthe Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, from Mr. Kahn-saying that the Consumer Price Index is just very inaccurate and dis-torted badly by the fact that when the mortgage interest rate goes up,it is reflected as an increased cost for everybody who has a mortgagein the whole country, although, of course, only a tiny proportion ofthose people have to pay the high rate. Most people would, of course,pay the same mortgage rate they've paid for years.

In my case, I've had a mortgage on my house for a number of years,and most Americans have had.

So, what is the justification for that distortion, and why can't wedo something about it?

220

Ms. NORWOOD. The issue is one of concept. And you will recall thatI did discuss that in my statement. I know that you wrote me aboutthat and Senator Bentsen also. We are replying to those letters. Butthe basic issue is the question of what it is we are measuring. Thecurrent approach to the measurement of house prices in the indexassumes that a consumer buys a house and that that is what is repre-sented, the price of that house and the mortgage interest that hecontracts for at the time he enters into that purchase.

The issue that Mr. Kahn and Mr. Schultze have raised is an issuethat the Bureau of Labor Statistics staff raised in 1972, and that iswhether, rather than measuring the purchase price of a house, sincethe house is a durable good that is used over a very long period oftime-it is not quite like buying oranges or apples, which are con-sumed very rapidly-it would be wiser to include in the index aconcept which measures the cost of the shelter or the flow of the serv-ices provided to a consumer from the house.

The basic issue, I believe, is that consumers, particularly in a periodof increasing rates of inflation, have two elements entering into thepurchase of a house: One is that it is usually a good investment; andthe other is that they want to live in their own home. The flow ofservices approach would be directed toward separating out the con-sumption aspect, which should be represented in the index, from theinvestment aspect, which should not, in our view, be reflected in theindex.

The difficulty that we had was that there is some disagreementabout the concept itself, but there is even more disagreement aboutthe procedure for implementing such a concept in terms of the actualmeasurement of it. And we ourselves saw some problems with theestimation procedure.

Senator PROXMIRE. I hope you are still working on it.I have to go, unfortunately, because that is the last 5 minutes of

the buzzer.I thank you once again for a fine job. Thank you very much.The committee will stand adjourned.[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the committee adjourned, subject to

the call of the Chair.]




Washington, D.C.The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 1202,

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lloyd Bentsen (chairman of thecommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Bentsen and Javits; and Representative Wylie.Also present: John M. Albertine, executive director; William R.

Buechner and M. Catherine Miller, professional staff members:Katie McArthur, press assistant; and Mark R. Policinski and CarolA. Corcoran, minority professional staff members.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENTSEN, CHAIRMIAN

Senator BENTSEN. The committee will come to order. I have saidit before and I will say it again, particularly with the unemploymentfigures that will be reported this morning, we need a tax cut and con-tinued delay in facing up to that need will only throw more people outof work.

Unemployment in this country last month rose dramatically from5.7 percent to 6 percent. The number of jobs decreased by 310,000.Over the past 2 months the unemployment rate shot up by four-tenthsof a percent. We are starting to feel the effects of the recession and un-fortunately it vill get worse before it gets better.

Since June I have been calling for a tax cut of about $20 billion,half of it going to individuals and half to the supply side to modernizethe productive capacity of this country. The latter will keep fromhaving our jobs exported overseas and help fight inflation.

I realize that many of my colleagues have been hesitant to supporta tax cut because we face not only unemployment but inflation aswell. And inflation indeed is a serious problem. The finished goodsindex of the Producer Price Index released today shows prices goingup 15.4 percent annually.

But I am not calling for the traditional response to this recession.We shouldn't try to spend our way out of it. The solution is notmore spending on new government programs. And I am not talkingabout the traditional tax cut but a new approach to help fight thisrecession. I am talking about a tax cut that not only will not add toinflation but will help curb inflation.

(221)

57-254 0 - 80 - 15

222

I am talking about the supply side tax cuts that will help combatthe current recession and also help moderate inflation by increasingproductivity in this country. Sooner or later, as the unemploymentincreases of the past 2 months continue, sooner or later Congress isgoing to enact a tax cut. And it should be done sooner.

We must not repeat the mistake of the 1974 recession. In thatcase a tax cut was enacted later, after much foot-dragging and inde-cision. It didn't contribute to the solution. It just added to theproblem. By the time that tax cut went into effect on May 1, 1975,the recession had already ended.

Late timing on that tax cut unnecessarily cost a lot of Americanstheir jobs. Late timing on that tax cut boosted the rate of inflationbecause it kicked in when the economy was already moving upward.

Today, as in 1974, we are confronted by a classic case of stagflation.Both unemployment and inflation are on the increase. And we cannotrely on the tired old solutions to fight this problem. We need a differentapproach, a fresh approach and supply side tax cuts are the key.

Commissioner Norwood, we are pleased to have you this morningand we certainly await with interest your report.

STATEMENT OF HON. JANET L. NORWOOD, COMMISSIONER, BUREAUOF LABOR STATISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ACCOMPANIEDBY ROBERT L. STEIN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF CUR-RENT EMPLOYMENT ANALYSIS; AND W. JOHN LAYNG, ASSIST-ANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF PRICES AND LIVING CONDITIONS

Ms. NORWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to have thisopportunity to offer the Joint Economic Committee a few brief com-ments to supplement our Employment Situation and the ProducerPrice Index press releases, issued this morning.

The employment situation showed signs of weakening between Julyand August as changes in the major labor market indicators weremore clearcut than in previously months. Total employment as meas-ured by the household survey fell by about 300,000 and the unemploy-ment rate moved up from 5.7 percent in July to 6 percent in August.

The civilian labor force was unchanged over the month, confirmingthe prior evidence of the slowdown in labor force growth. Although thetotal number of employees on payrolls of nonf arm establishmentsremained at the July level, there was a further decline in factoryemployment and in the factory workweek.

Aggregate hours of manufacturing production workers have declinedby nearly 4 percent since March. Small job cutbacks occurred inseveral manufacturing industries but the reductions were substantialin the automobile industry.

Because seasonal adjustment of data for the automobile industryis especially difficult in the summer months when model changeoversusually take place, the seasonally adjusted employment totals re-ported today for the transportation equipment industry may be some-what overstated.

223

Payroll jobs in the automobile industry have declined by nearly200,000 and on a not-seasonal adjusted basis since May, partlybecause of model changeovers but also because of weakening sales andschedule production cutbacks at some plants.

The jobless rate for auto workers rose from 4 percent in May tonearly 14 percent in August as the rate for workers in manufacturingrose from 5.4 to 6.2 percent over the same period. In addition to thedecline in factory jobs, employment in construction fell in Augustfollowing a 3-month uptrend from April to July.

The cutbacks in goods-producing industries were offset by gainsof about 150,000 jobs in the service-producing industries. The Augustdata showed that first statistically significant increase in overallunemployment since July 1978, when the rate recorded a 1-monthrise of three-tenths of a point to 6.1 percent; during the entire followingyear the rate remained in a narrow range close to 5.8 percent.

Over the past 2 months, there has been an increase of nearly 400,000in the number of unemployed persons, mostly adult men. Since thesewere primarily job losers rather than labor force entrants, the increasewas reflected in the addition of more than 300,000 workers to theState unemployment rolls. Thus far the increase in unemploymenthas been essentially limited to white workers.

The civilian labor force remained steady in August. Its growth rateduring recent months has been moderate, compared to rapid expansionwhich took place over the past several years.

Since March of this year, the labor force increased by only 335,000,compared with an unusually rapid 1.6 million growth in the previous5 months. We don't yet have enough information to know to whatextent this slowdown may reflect economic developments, a change inthe secular growth patterns or merly a temporary pause.

When we look separately at adult men, adult women, and teen-agers, the three major demographic groups, we see the participationrate for adult women continued to rise since March, reaching a recordhigh of 51 percent in August. The labor force participation for adultmen, which had risen six-tenths of a point in the 5-month periodending in March, dropped four-tenths of a point in the followup 5months. Teenage participation, which had been slowing down overthe past year, fell further in August.

PRICES

The Producer Price Index released today indicates that prices offinished goods at the producer level continued to increase sharply inAugust. The 1.2-percent rise was the second large rise following abrief slowdown in May and June.

Food prices at the producer level turned around in August, in-creasing 1.2 percent as fruit and vegetable prices increased sharplyand prices accelerated in several other product areas.

224

Energy products continued to increase sharply with prices of gaso-line and home heating oil each moving up about 6 percent. Prices ofpassenger cars, however, declined with larger than usual yearend dis-counting. Discounting was expanded into September and shouldlead to further reductions in prices of automobiles.

Prices of capital equipment also moved up more slowly in August.The one-tenth-percent rise was the smallest since January 1973. Atthe intermediate or semifinished stage of production, prices continuedto increase, though at a more moderate pace, but prices of fuelscontinued to rise sharply.

Both residual fuel oil and commercial jet fuel increased more than12 percent, and diesel fuel prices increased more than 8 percent. Pricesfor most other semifinished goods increased at a somewhat moremoderate rate in August. Overall prices of intermediate materialsother than food and energy increased nine-tenths percent in August,compared with a 1.3-percent rise in July.

The slowdown was in products such as steelmill products and othermetals, industrial chemicals, plastic materials, and synthetic rubber.Construction material prices continued to increase moderately. Pricesof crude materials also moderated in August. The increase of one-tenthpercent was much less than July's rise of 1.8 percent.

The deceleration occurred both in crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs,and in other crude material. At the retail level, prices continued toincrease sharply in July. Prices of energy and housing items led therise.

August consumer pricing data will not be released until later thismonth. The producer price data released today suggests that nosubstantial improvement in prices of consumer goods occurred inAugust. Food prices increased at the producer level after recording noincrease in July, and prices of energy goods continued to rise sharply.

Consumer prices of passenger cars should reflect the decline at theproducer level. Most of the other improvements in producer pricesoccurred at earlier stages of production, which if sustained will takeseveral moths before they are reflected in the Consumer Price Index.

In summary, the labor market data released by BLS today reinforcesthe signals of weakening economic performance for many otherstatistical series.

Unemployment rose as the number of workers on layoff increased.Factory employment declined in August, and aggregate hours droppedin a large number of goods-producing industries.

Productivity performance has been poor. Recent data suggest thatemployers reduced working hours and are showing signs of paringemployment.

Prices continue to escalate in the double-digit range, and real wagesdeclined.

We will now be glad to answer any questions you may have.[The table attached to Ms. Norwood's statement, together with the

Employment Situation and the Producer Price Index press releasesreferred to, follows:]

225


Standard X-11 method X-11 ARIMA methodUnad- Rangejusted Concur- Extrap- Concur- (cols.

rate Official rent Stable Total Residual olated rent 2-8)

Month and year (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

1978

August __--___- 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.9 0.1September 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.9 .1October 5.4 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.8 .1November 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 .1December -- 5.6 5.9 5.9 6.0 5.8 6.0 5.9 5.9 .2

1979

January 6.4 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.8 5.8 .2February 6.4 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.5 5.7 5.8 .3March - - 6.1 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.7 .3April -- - 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 . IMay 5.2 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.7 .2June 6.0 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.7 .2July - - 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 .2August 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.0 5.9 .2

Source: U.S. Departmentof Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, August 1979.


(1) Unadjusted rate-Unemployment rate not seasonally adjusted.(2) Official rate (standard X-11 method>-The published seasonally adjusted rate. Each of the 3 major labor force corn-

ponents-agricultural employment, nonagricultural employment and unemployment data-for 4 age-sex groups (malesand females under and over 20 years of age) are separately adjusted then added to derive seasonally adjusted total figures.Teenage unemployment and nonagricultural employment are adjusted by the standard X-11 method's additive option,while all other series are adjusted by the multiplicative option. Adult male unemployment is adjusted multiplicativelyusing the prior trend adjustment feature of the X-11. The rate is computed by adding the 12 components to a civilian laborforce total, and dividing and derived civilian labor force into the unemployment total. These series are revised at the endof each year. Factors for the current year are computed at the beginning of the year for the 12 succeeding months, andpublished in advance.

The current "implicit" factors for the overall unemployment rate, derived by dividing the original unemployment rateby the seasonally adjusted rate for the months of 1978, are: January (111.1), Feburary 112.0, March 106.7, April 94.6, May9.5, June (105.6), July (102.1) August 98.5, September 97.3, October 93.1, November 95.7, December 95.5.(3) Concurrent (standard X-il method)-The procedure for computation of the official rate is followed, except that the

data are re-seasonally adjusted by the standard X-11 method each month as the most recent data become available, i.e..the rate for January 1979 is based on adjustment of data for the period January 1967-January 1979. The rates for thecurrent year are shown as first computed, while data for 1978 are as revised to incorporate experience through December1978.

(4) Stable (standard X-l1 method)-The stable seasonal option of the standard X-11 method uses final seasonal factorscomputed as a unweighted average of all seasonal-irregular ratios for the entire span of the period, January 1967-De-cember 1978. In essence, this procedure assumes that seasonal patterms are relatively constant from year-to-year. Theunweighted average is updated and series revised at the end of each year.

(5) Total (standard X-11 method)-This is an alternative aggregation procedure, in which total unemployment and laborforce levels are directly adjusted by the standard X-11 (multiplicative option) to derive the rate. The series are revised atthe end of each year.

(6) Residual (standard X-11 method)-The labor force and employment levels are adjusted directly, with the level ofunemployment derived as a residual. The rate is computed by dividing the residual unemployment level by the directlyadjusted civilian labor force. The series are revised at the end of each year.

(7) Extrapolated (X-11 ARI MA method)-Data for the 12 component groups of the unemployment rate are estimatedusing ARIMA (autoregressive, integrated, moving average) models. The enlarged series is then seasonally adjusted withthe X-11 program, and the rates are computed as in the official procedure. The series are revised at the end of each year.Factors for the current year are extrapolated at the beginning of the year for the 12 succeeding months.

(8) Concurrent (X-11 ARIMA)-The procedure for computation of the X-11 ARIMA rate is followed, except that thedata are re-seasonally adjusted each month as the most recent data become available, i.e., the rate for January 1979 isbased on adjustment of data for the period, January 1967-lanuary 1979. The rates for the current year are shown as firstcomputed, while data for 1918 are revised to reflect experience through December 1978.

Methods of Adjustment-The standard X-11 method was developed by Julius Shishin at the Bureau of the Census.The method is described ie X-11 Variant of the Census Method 11 seasonal Adjustment Program, by Julius Shishin, AlanYoung, and John Musgrave, (Technical Paper No. 15, Bureau of the Census, 1967).

The X-11 ARIMA method was developed atStatistic Canada by Estela Bee Dagum and is the official method for seasonallyadjusting the Canadian labor force series. A general description of the method is contained in A Comparison and Assess-ment of Seasonal Adjustment Methods, for Employment and Unemployment Statistics, by Estela Bee Dagum (BackgroundPaper No. 5, U.S. National Commission on Employment and UnemploymentStatistics, February 1978).

226

United StatesN rews;> Departmentof Labor

Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, D.C. 20212Contact: John Stinson (202) 523-1944 USDL 79-640

Barbara Job 523-1371 TRANSMISSION OF MATERIAL IN THIS RELEXSE ISKathryn Hoyle (202) 523-1913 EMBARGOED UNTIL 9:00 A.M. (EDT), FRIDAY,

523-1208 SEPTEMBER 7, 1979

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: AUGUST 1979

Unemployment rose in August and total employment declined, the bureau of Labor Statistics of

the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. The Nation's overall unemployment rate was 6.0

percent, op from 5.7 percent in July.

Total employment--as measured by the monthly survey of households--fell by 310,000 in Agout

to 96.9 million. Employment has shown no growth over the March-August period, and the

proportion of the population with jobs declined three-tenths of a percentage point to 39.1

percent over the same span.

Nonfarn payroll employment--as measured by the monthly survey of establishments--held at the

Jaly level of 88.8 million, as declines in the manufacturing and construction industries were

offset by increases in the service-producing sector.

Unenoloyment

The uneoploymemt rate rose from 5.7 to 6.0 percent is August; daring the prior 12-moeth

period, the rate had fluctusted sarrowly around 5.8 percent. The nmber of persons unemployed

also increased over the month, from 5.8 to 6.1 million. Much of this increase was due to a

sharp joup in the nunber of persona on layoff. (See tables A-I and A-S.)

July-August increases in joblessness among the major demographic groups were use-no. The

unemployment rate for adult men (4.2 percent) was little changed over the month, though it wes

op three-tenths of a percentage point fro. June. The jobless rate for adult uoman rose from 5.3

percent in July to 3.9 percent in August, and the teenage rate increased from 15.3 to 16.5

percent. Whereas there wee virtually no change in the rate for black amd other werkers (11.0

percent), the rate for whits workers rose from 4.9 to 5.3 percent. (SeeBtable A-2.)

The median duration of unemployment fell by more then a full week to 4.9 weeks, reflecting a

siceable increase in the nunber of the newly unemployed (persoss who have been seeking jobs for

less then 5 weeks). There -as also an increase in long-term joblessness (15 weeks and longer)

over the month. (See table A-4.)

227

Total Epilovment and the Labor Force

Total eploysent declined by 310,000 in AUgSUt to 96.9 sillio; this reduction uao

concentrated anOng teenagers. Despite substantial fluctuations in the 5 .nths since March,

esployaent in August -as at about the level prevailing in March. Because of the steady upward

trend prior to March, esplnynet shoved strong growth over the past year (2.1 nillion), with

all najor denagraphic groups sharing in the advance.

The civilian labor force, at 103.0 nlllion, van uochanged over the sooth, but it was 2.3

olilion higher than its year-ago level. While the overall labor force participation rate, at

Table A. Major indicators of labor srket activity, seasonally adjusted

I Qoarterly averages M 8tnthly data

Selected categories 1 1 11978 I 1979 I 1979

' II I I I III I I11II1 IV I I I II IJune I July l Ae.

HOUSEHOLD DATA| Thousands of nersons

Civilian labor force ........... 100,1271100.7531101,5241102,4751102,2951102.5281103,0591103,049Total aoploylnant ......... . 94,0991 94,7261 95,6161 96,5961 96,4151 96,7541 97,2101 96,900Uneploy t... . 1 6,0281 6.0271 5,9081 5,8781 5,8801 5,7741 5,8481 6,149

Not in labor fare ................. 1 58,4781 58,4821 58,3981 58,0951 58,8861 58,8651 58,5451 58,752Discouraged snrkers . 8511 8531 7601 7241 8261 N.A.1 N.A.1 N.A.

I Percent of labor force

Uneiploynant rates: II I I I I

All workers ............... 1 6.01 6.01 5.81 5.71 5.71 5.61 5.71 6.0MAlt nn. . ....... 1 4.21 4.11 4.01 4.01 3.91 3.91 4 11 4.2Molte ................ 6.11 6.11 5.81 5.71 5.71 5.81 5.51 5.9Teenagers ................ 1 16.11 16.11 16.31 15.81 16.21 15.31 15.31 16.5

Whita ............... 1 5.21 5.21 5.11 5.01 4.91 4.91 4.91 5.3

Black and other ............... 1 12.11 11.71 11.51 11.41 11.61 11.31 10.81 11.0FHll-tine workers .............. 5.51 5.51 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.11 5.31 5.4

NSTABLI8HMllT DATA II Thousands of Jobs

Nonfar= payroll naploynent ........ 1 85,6771 86,1151 86,9631 87,8681 88,5171 88,764188,813pl88,815p

Goods-producing industries ...... 25.3761 25.4781 25,8571 26,2411 26.4021 26,433126,

441pl

2 6,2 8 6

pService-producing industries. ...l 60,3021 60.6371 61.1061 61.6281 62.1151 62,331162,372p162,529p

I HourE of workAverage weakly hoors: II I I I

Total private nonf .r........... I 36.01 35.81 35.91 35.81 35.61 35.71 35.6pl 35.

6p

Manulacturig .................. I 40.61 40.41 40.61 40.71 39.81 40.11 40.2pl 4

O.Op

Manufacturig overtie .......... .61 3.51 3.71 3.81 3.11 3.21 3

.3pl 3.3p

p-prelininary N.A.-not available

228

63.7 percent, was little changed from the July level, participation anong adult men and

teenagers declined, whereas the rate for adult women rose to 51.0 percent, a record high.

Industry Payroll fpnlovyent

Nonfan payroll employment wea unchanged in August at 88.8 million, marking the third

straight month that the total han been at this level. Payroll employment had been on a

relatively steady upward course prior to March, such that the over-the-year growth (Auguct

1978-79) was a strong 2.6 million. Over-the-month job, gains took place in 52 percent of the 172

industries comprising the BLS diffusion index of nonfarm payroll employment. (See tables B-I

and B-6.2

Employment in the goods-producing sector was down by 155.000 from July, as declines of

50,000 in construction and 125,000 In manufacturing overshadowed a gain in mining. Within the

durable goods induntries, employment reductions of 30,000 in electrical equipment and 10,000 in

machinery both ware principally the result of strikes; there were also declines of 15,000 in

primary metals and 10,000 In the fabricated metals industry. There is also substantial evidence

that employment dropped in the automobile industry; however, difficulties in the seasonal

adjustment of the employment totals in the transportation equipment industry relating to model

changeover make it hard to identify the eatent of this drop at this time. Among the nondurable

goods industries, deCreases of about 20,000 each were registered in the food processing,

apparel, and rubber and plastic products industries. Total factory employment has dropped by

about 225,000 since March; this weakness in factory employment was also reflected in sn increase

in the unemployment rate for workers in this industry since March, from 5.2 to 6.2 percent.

Employment in the service-producing sector rose by 155,000 in August, led by a 75,000

increase in services. Job gains also took place in trade, State and local gevernment. and

finance, insurance, and real estate.

Hours

Hours of work remained below March levels. The everage workweek of production or

noneupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls was 35.6 houro in August, unchanged

from July. The manufacturing workweek declined 0.2 hour over the month to a level of 40.0

hours, while factory overtime, at 3.3 hours, was anchange4 from July. (See table 8-2.)

229

The inde of aggregate weekly hours declined by 0.3 percent in August. Although the index

asn up 2.7 percent f:oo August 1978, it has dropped by 0.8 percent since March. (See, table

B-5.)

Hourly and Weekly Earnings

Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers no private onnagricultutal

payrolls ruse 0.2 percent in August and were 8.0 perceot above the August 1978 level (.ea.onally

adjusted). Average weekly earnings aIso ruse 0.2 percent io August and were up 7.4 percent avnr

the year.

Before adjustoent for seasonality, average hourly earnings edged up 1 cent iron July to

$6.16, 45 cents above August 1978; average weekly earnings were $221.76 in August, up 36 cents

fron July and $15.06 over the year. (See table B-3.)

The Hourly Earnings Inden

The Hourly Earnings Index--earnings adjusted for overtine in nanufacturiog, seasonality, and

the effectn of changes in the proportion of sorkers in high-wage and low-wage industries--was

231.0 (1967-100) in Asgust, 0.2 percent higher thae in July. The inden was 7.6 percent above

Auiust a year ago. During the 12-onth period ended in July, the Hourly Earningo Index in

dollars of constant purchasing power decreased 3.4 percent. (See table B-4.)

230

Explanatory Note

This release presents and analyzes statistics fromtwo major surveys. Data on labor force, total employ-ment, and unemployment (A tables) are derived fromthe Current Population Survey-a sample survey ofhouseholds which is conducted bv the Bureau of theCensus for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Beginning inSeptember 1975, the sample was enlarged bV 9,000households in order to provide greater reliability forsmaller States and thus permit the publication of annualstatistics for all 50 States and the District of Columbia.These supplementary households were added to the47,000 national household sample in Januarv 1

978, thus

the sample now consists of about 56,000 householdsselected to represent the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalpopulation 16 years and over.


Comparability of household and payrollemployment statistics

Employment data from the household and payrollsurvevs differ in several basic respects. The householdsurvey provides information on the labor force activityof the entire civilian noninstitutional population, 16years of age and over, without duplication. Each personis classified as either employed, unemployed, or not inthe labor force. The household survey counts employedpersons in both agriculture and nonagriculturalindustries and, in addition to wage and salary workers(including private household workers), counts the self-employed, unpaid family workers, and persons 'with ajob but not at work" and not paid for the period absent.


Unemployment

To be classified in the household survey asunemployed an individual must: (I) Have been without a

job during the survey week: (2) have nmade specificefforts to find empioyvient sometime during the pier 4weeks; and (3) be presently available for woik. Inaddition, persons on invoff and those wuaitiig to be-in anew job (within 30 days), neither of ihem nuvst meetthe jobseeking requirements. are also classified asunemployed. The Unmotloved total iclIevdcv all pcrSOeiiwho satisfactorily meet the above criteria, regardlessof their eligibility for uneniploynient insurance benefitsor any kind of public assistance. The unemployment raterepresents the unemployed as a proportion of thecivilian labor force (the employed and unemployedcombined).

The Bureau regularly publishes a wide variety oflabor market measures. See, for example, the demo-graphic, occupational, and industry detail in tables A-2and A-3 of this release and the comprehensivedata package in Employment and Earnings each month.A special grouping of seven unemployment measures isset forth in table A-7. Identified bv the symbols U-1through U-7, these measures represent a range ofpossible definitions of unemployment and of the laborforce-from the most restrictive (U-l1 to the mostcomprehensive (U-7). The official rate of unemploymentappears as U-5.

Seasonal adjustment

Nearly all economic phenomena are affected tosome degree by seasonal variations. These arerecurring, predictable events which are repeated moreor less regularly each year-changes in weather, openingand closing of schools, major holidays, industry produc-tion schedules, etc. The cumulative effects of theseevents are often large. For example, on average overthe year, they explain about 95 percent of the month-to-month variance in the unemployment figures. Sinceseasonal variations tend to be large relative to theunderlying cyclical trends, it is necessary to useseasonally-adjusted data to interpret short-termeconomic developments. At the beginning of each year,seasonal adjustment factors for unemployment andother labor force series are calculated for use duringthe entire year, taking into account the prior year'sexperience.

All seasonally-adjusted civilian labor force andunemployment rate statistics, as well as the maJoremployment and unemployment estimates, are com-puted by aggregating independently adjusted series.The official unemployment rate for all civilian workersis derived by dividing the estimate for total unem-

231

ployment (the sum of four seasonally-adjusted age-sexcomponents) by the civilian labor force (the sum of 12seosonally-adjusted age-scx components).

For establishment data, the seasonally-adjustedseries for all employees, production workers, averageweekly hours, and average hourly earnings are adjustedby aggregating the seasonally-adjusted data from therespective component series. These data are alsorevised annustly, often in conjunction with benchmark(comprehensive counts of employment) adjustments.(The most recent revision of seasonally-adjusted datawas based on data through May 1978.)


Both the household and establishment surveystatistics are subject to sampling error, which should betaken into accqunt in evaluating the levels of a series aswell as changes over tOne. Because the householdsurvey is based upon a probability sample, the resultsmay differ from the figures that would be obtained if itwere possible to take a complete census using the samequestionnaires and proeedures. The standard error is themeascre of sampling variability, that is, of the variationthat occurs by chance because a sample rather than theentire population is surveyed. The chances are about 68out of 100 that an estimate from the survey differsfrom a figure that would be obtained through acomplete census by less than the standard error. TablesA through I in the "Explanatory Notes" of Emptoymentand Earnings provide approximations of th standarderrors for unemployment and other labor forcecategories. To obtain a 90-percent level of confidence,the confidence interval generally used by BLS, theerrors should be multiplied by 1.6. The followingexamples provide an indication of the magnitude ofsampling error: For a monthly change in total em-

ployment, the standard error is on the order of plus orminus 182,000. Similarly, the standard error on n changein total unemployment is approximately 115,000. Thestandard error on a change in the national unemploy-ment rate is 0.12 percentage point.

Although the relatively large size of the monthlyestablishment survey assures a high degree of accuracy,the estimates derived from it. also may differ from thefigures obtained if a complete census using the sameschedules and procedures were possible. Ilowever, sincethe estimating procedures utilize the previous month'slevel as the base in computing the current mouth's levelof employment (link-relative technique), sampling andresponse errors may accumulate over several months.To remove this accumulated error, the employmentestimates arc adjusted to new benchmarks(comprehensive counts of employment), usually on anannual basis. In addition to taking account of samplingand response errors, the benchmark revision adjusts theestimates for changes in the industrial classification ofindividual establishments. Employment estimates arecurrently projected from March 19771evels.

One measure of the reliability of the employmentestimates for individual industries is the root-mean-square error (RMSE). The RMSE is the standard devia-tion adjusted for the bias in estimates. If the bias is

.small, the chances are about 68 out of 100 that anestimate from the sample would differ from its bench-mark by less than the RMSE. For total nonagriculturalemployment, the RMSE is on the order of plus or minus81,000. Measures of reliability (approximations of theRMSE) for establishment-survey data and actualamounts of revision due to benchmark adjustments areprovided in tables K through P in the "ExplanatoryNotes" of Employment and Earnings.

232

Chart 1. Civilian labor force and employment(Seasonally adjusted)

1565 i156 1I7cDor 97 172 7 1 . i _

19ff8 196i9 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 19i75 . . 9. . . . . .,75 1976 1977 137e 1579

Chart 2. Unemployment rate--all civilian workers

1959 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 175 15976 1977

Chart 3. Civilian labor force participation roteand total employment-populatlon ratio(Seasonall y ad justed)

9503 1965 157D 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979Note: Th. s!oed ore.. depit the busines Cycle p..k cnd trough.os desigoted by the Notlonol 8urwu of Econmic Reseor.d

THOUSANDSI15000

105000

95000

65000

75000

-----

se

,815 -10o000

55000

85000

75000

PERCENt10.0

PERCENT70.0

65.0

50.0

55.0

s5.o

PERCENT

70.0

60.0

55. 0

f"' '"~ ' g: ^,_ ,.,....^.S-- -' >s ,,,,,, ,,,_..

......, I IbWE

I on-65000 '

T-11SAN-

233


Tb). A-1. Empiym.-t sta f It. ..ns329019,al I pabtal-

:,g,7 I - I_ _9'_I II_ -I__ Art.Ul,43. M~.*90

0. Loa. 1Japr.uli* ^'9. T. 4 la .

910 ] 919 }979 979 19 7 9979 1919 4 9919 4 179 9197

. ................. 69", 398 961.685 961,999 969,39 963,009 9613,260 961,4.69 96 3,695 963.899102,122 2,0925 I.9 92 202 2,019 ,01 2,6 2,090,

a i 902.041 906,995 900, 163 900~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~.0~63 902 .99 902,207 902, 529 9109 0,664.9......... 6. 5.0 66.5 613.2 631. 63.9 61.5 16 6.

96.996 99, 999.1~ 90 , 2261 90.121 9 9916 96,19 96,158 91, 290 96,90059.6 60.0 59.9 56.0 59~~~~~~~;.0 5. 59.2 59.4 59.9

032... ........ 1,956 1,957 3,195 1,5 .9 199 320 ,6 ,2................... 92,269 95.019 9963 9917 92",99 :13:31 9193 3,9 93,989 93,51092r ........... . ...... 5,933 6.909 6,937 5".90 5.931 5,929 5,118 5,899 6,.99

5.9 9.8 5.9 5.9~~~~~~~_ 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.7 6.051,91;9 56,6089 57.93 59,56' 695 5,1 58,865 58,595 58, 152

taM 0400,08,piaoW 69~~~~~~~~~~~I.021 69.995 10, 099 69,92 6, 69 69,181. 69,00 "9 69,95 70999671, 29 68,99 6,1 671,21 60,917 69,9232 99,221 68,3199 68,91704614,9.214., 51,901 55,909~~~~~~~~sl 1. 1 55,20 51, 196 529,23 5,69 59,395 59,51, 5'6.521124 90.3 9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0.1 90.0 719.5 19.98 19.9 19.1 199 19.141.049,0 59, 091 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~52,996 52, 995 59,295 52,05 92, 957 52, 299 52,399 52,221

01,94.4-w.91

.01.' . 15.6 35.1~~~~~~~'j 755 I6. 18.1 19.7 16. 74.3 19.092... ............ 2.525 2,520 2,55 2,357 2,219 2,278 2,906 213 2,305................. 99, 162 50,66 50,199 89,059I *9',.15 99,981a' 9 9,991 89,9196 99,99.32..4.................... 2,0915 2,193 2,9125 2,909' 2,9081 295 0,9 2,29 0,30004.0449,243,24 1.1 1.9 3.9 9.9 3.0 3.9 3.9 9.9 9.2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'i5 a 3; L

96,914a 91~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, 22 11,3290 93, 31 91,119I 90,759 93,86 2 913, 81 93,152 93,990

t Z~~~~~Z~~~. .. 15~~~~~~~~155 1109 177923 75.353 3669 79II 76,99 77,090 1797I

6. 69. 1 50I.2 9.6. 50. 503 5.3 50.1 59.08..0.,2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~19, 566 16,0"5 3,16, 91 15,192 31605 1,2 36,I'I" 313 6, 81 ,691 36.969,0.73.,.4q~~~d.O. .094' . 65.6 06.0 90.9 46.6 01.2 81.3 61.3~~~~ 91.70.9

002... .. ........ ;69 190 1912 59 90 593 592 906 596........... 13, 852 35,91 15,662 30,7319 3 15,50 35,789 39,309 36, 216 39,17399,..0................... 2,171 299 ,71 3 2,21 2,80 2,31 2, 223 2,950 I2,12

6 .9 . . .5.7 5 .8 5.9 55 5 .......... 3 a78,126 39,693 1 8,35;9 30,9012 39,99 7 39,990I 39.9998 31,001; 3 1,1;90

14-) ..r~~~~~~a=6k400,*206W 96,769I : ~1 90,61 1 9666 96,16 96 100II s 96,692 9668 36,611177 9,6

O. 21900.00 *2606, 96,055 90,191 96, 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.77 6 5 96 191 9, 7 19 6,109 96,38 96,31193,226 99,690 90,6361 9,729 9,521 9,926 9,1;371 9,69 9 1,210

69.2 19.13 65.1 591 5. 7.5 5. 579 9.6811.9......9,69... 1 1 9,91,9 9;1,95 8,9916 7,9513 1,93 9,0.,39 1,710

Aq0 601 599 529 4913 3 3 36 162 155 39999,04,99,09 ~~~~~.. ... 9, 066 9,290 0,24 1,791. 7,63 197 7,3 720 7,636 71,16

904.39631,4,3,,u 93.1 95~~~~~~~~~~~~1.9 "I 99.4 95.7 96.5I 96.9 95. 95.1 96.5..-...... .......... 5, 22 9 0,707 9,909 6,713 6,879 6,963 6,894. 6, 906 1,9610

99,7123 92,5995 99,762 08,655 99,92 90,0991 90,;279 90j,559 90,992E"49 . 95, 256 91,901~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ 96, 39 0606 85,79 8599 95,879 96 09 3 95,2

...........3 0,5972 8,5701 819,78 ;6. 11 7495959,9A S9,5039.409 6,990 8s,I93

5.0 5.0 5.2 5.2 9..9 5.0 0.9 9.9 5.3.02 ................... 50,096 0995 50, 090 59,3160 59,2 00 59,333 59,293 591,907 59,903I

laM 4*l64~~~~~~M 9490J4.~~~~ 99~,8:128 2010'12 20,909 9982 20,23 20,282 " 20,339' 20,392 20,9331a~~4.*a94M.~~~~s949j9 . 99,00~~~9 9993 9,39 9,09 9990 99,89 9990 99,93 99,790.U..,914 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~2,275 92,990 92,6091 99,998 92,31 75 9 2, 9 76 92,272 32, 394 92,34

63.2 6.2 I63. 2 69.9 69.9 69,3 9.1. 62. 0 63.8.90,960 9929 99, 239 90,66 90,736 40,763 90,893 I 99,025 90,993~~9'09.t09a3994' . 59~~ ~~~~~~.4 59.4 55.0 53.5 53.0 53.9 535 5. 93.9

99.5 99.9 49.0 9.5 II3,9 996 1 99.3 30,8 39.59a,. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~7.335I 1,913 1,359l 7,6951 7,927 7,679 7,629 7,579 I7,639

234


Tabl A-2. Meje, wwoPleyMSM iodIcs"M,. .a-.o.Ily adi.stod

. . . ....................... Ar. 99 209 2 09 03

. . . . .......... 30....0.....3.....0.. . . .......................... 2.230 2. 320 S.9 S .7 5.P . . .~~~~~~ . 9.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I,529 9.,525 39. 7 961.I 90.9 99I.3 99. 3 90. 5

999 1,769 5. 2 .9 9.9 9.0 0. 92. ...................:.......... 99g 9. 226 93.7 I 09 9. 93.0 93.0 0.

. . ....................... 9.979.9.75 99.5I 99.9 3.9. 99.3 90. 9.

- . ............................. 137 o 30 72.91 90.9 9.9 93.0 90.9 9 0.7I

~~.6.069 .,'7'o 9.0 5.9 5.' 5.9 .. ..... 9.3 -9.0"

........ .. ....... .... .... 9. 290 9. 66 . . . . . ..~~9 .* . . ........... 5.......... 9

..... 2~~~~~9? 65~ 2.0 2. 3 2.20 2.9 . 2.0. ..S2 l.................... .. 9 5 . . . . . .

................ 35.20 0..0. 0..0..3..0.

90999 ................. ... 592 30 77 9. 9 9. 09 9.

........................... :: ........ 905 3.6 7.0 9.0 3.9 4.95 3 .9

90.wb. . ., . . . . .0........... 279 0.9. .9 .7 59 5.91 5.7 0.9..................................... 3 977 9. 9 . 90 6. 9.5 9.

. 9. ....................... . .2 30 9.26 5.0 6 9.0 5.9 I.7 5.81 .2

990 '77~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 0091 3.08 29 6 . 96 3. .

- ha. - 099w .,w4 0.4 9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.0. 0.909 fr~~~~~~~~~~fl -. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~993Ap3M7 7 o

235

HOUSEHOLD DATAHOUSEHOLD DATA

Taboo A 3. Sol5 otd aooo tloy n o indi aooro

11a7_1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M . 11. 17

.q. 097. 62. 0.. Oay J. July 009.

I.97 I Q7 5 0 0 1971 I 3 39 90 31,11 0 197I6 .0,5 197

.. . ... ....... I2,116 99I226 90,023 96.126 96.16 96,753 93,200 96.600................................... ''...... . ......... 5 I56595 56.61. . ............... I6. 39.925 o 0,099 39.0.3 09,907 39.966 0 *0, w6 *0625 00.55~~in~m F + 1e 017 ]9 9.020 00,57- 00,507 30,900 39,055 09,063 35,006

21.060 22 07I 20 730 22 355 22, 90 22, 500 22 90 22,777

53 .............. 09.07 07,025 I9.160 69,0 9,065 9,573 09,6059 C31 .0,e.v o- 10,750 00,670 00,206 05,226 05,220 05,0 560 05063 02.903_n6m.wu.,2,* *0.... .............. 00,206 02,000 00,000 0O,*029 00070 00I,565 02,9675 00,302n ............................... 5,960 6,052 5,092 6I009 6.090 6,065 62060 6.005

01 375^3353 377,02.,6300,022 30506 370,552 30,026f 370,050 30,1939 30.70760.a3tk.0030o 0........................... 2.5999 09.200 02.557 02.097 02I,790 3.300 02,072 02,755

30.................- ,030 .00 I,0 1,02 1,0,65 0,666 0,75 9 3 057 00,000

*3w__3_6 * 3,00 5 3,570 3,*29 0,550 3,667 3,596 0,600 3,500m.oI ............................. 5 ,000 5.693 0,779 0.606 0,706 0 600 0,052 , 560

Fm .................... 17'.22177 77 12. z 0 7 6 6 12,f925 276 C I7'66 . 7 52717'7060l3'0600027 0.006 70, 73003 0, 60033 0,521 0,09399 0,5275 0,552 0,6026IoM6026,,..6........ .......... 0012 6-00 009 2702 '270 '293 '790 '300

wrM 05_ .........................,500 97,262 00,500 06, 095 06,129 05,6309 00,277 06,22700,300 00,726 05,205 05,356 05,635 05,257 05,302 15,260

Pt- ..........0........ 730,70 32,536 69,203 30, 039 70,696 70,050 30, 095 70,967000,0003000 0,0.. ....... ...... ...... ...... *06 0,239 0,360 0,06 10,177 0,236 21 07 , 205~~~~~~~690 .................6955 70,297 60,065 69,679 09,303 69,006 09,000 69.760

rv.. ......... I 36,296 6,929 6,209 6,009 6,925 6,600 0,353 0,6906626o2a0mg. .. . 9 026 000 009 071 666 092 539 003

10,0i0i_ ~ ............. ....... ....... .....390 03,970 06,750 06,305 37,727 00,003 09,330 000 89

P,77,-00=....................,......00 ,753 3.799 3,200 3,302 32,0 7 3,006 0,30 3,35506.05 um 65200 ................ . 0,090 0,536 0.350 0,265 0,206 0,606 0,390 0,000Mon k

6oom0 ................. 2,056 2,269 0,900 2.009 2,060 3,000 0,906 0,377

POmf 6o 0n ........... ........ 0.502 9,006 00,007 00,039 00,903 02. 099 02,593 02,577

T.bl. A.4. Duraion of ooo.oooOoyt

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I h 7 a.1 1 1 2,e31 12 1. 1_Xsa1_ teg~~00. 609. 009. 020. Pay 2000 JoXp 009.

0979 0909 0970 009 0919 10979 10979 197

6,u5_s..... .... .., . ...... 7,000 3,006 2.795 2,909 2,989 2,927 2,700 3,22610014,,,o 2,0......... ...... .57 0,....1906 0,035 0,076 0,935 0,702 0,070 0,703

-0 70-O0 .:::::::: 000 77 5-20b 6 3 125 09 02053 6016 '6500 662

7. .. ............. ....... ... 595 500 609 503 50R 000 051 529

_ m_1- .................. . 00.0 00.7 00.0 00.0 0.0 0l0.0 00,0 00.5if4.-s..6 ....... I .. 6.0 0.9 6.0 5. 5,2 5 .6 6.0 .9

030 ....... . ...... -00.0 2.0. .1003.9 0 03.0 000.0 1000,0 1000,0 1000,0 000.01_6_s6 _s .. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..5.5 50.0 67.2 80.6 I7 .0 50.5 00.0 02.6

50 0 ...... .......... . 36.6 .3 32.3 30, 30.6 30.0 03. 9 29.3

00,6.0020 .. 0 9.0 9 22. 0 5 9 20.6 20.0 B9.,3 00.0 09.300~~m_.003. . ... 0... .3.3 P.6 00.3 9.0 0.6 80 3.0 8.80.

236

HOUSEHOLD DATATable A-.. R-e one foe unempleY.ent

-EeN 09 999474

r b ....................................

................................. ................................

...ll ..............................

....l ... ..........................

on..............................

.. ....................................._n...................................44WL099 4tDA*9860 AC 909UTD T

_. .....................................

...................................

HOUSEHOLD DATA

I r

6 6I. 4. 4 6

1978 99'S _ _7

1,652

]8.7 99.9

2...

95.790.8

,6. 7

2.2I

I- 7*.0

2.539D7I

9.660

71.71

190.0

13.6

2.45970021, IS9

9801, 747

29,119.199.5

29.714.2

2.4

AF,.

* 97 9

8461.,6759.7X ,7'0

23.111:.2

13 .6

2 .5

1979 1979 1979 I 1779

2,369792

9,76269I

900.029.9l2.0

27.)96.979.894.2

2. 3

_ _ _ _ _ 3 _ _ _ _ _ 9. 9. 1

Table A.d. Une.ploy.ent bY son and age. aannalty aduantd

9i. .. 9---r

_ _ . . ........... .*39. ;. . Apr. J n a A g.

1970 *979 1978 19,9 1979 9s979 1979 9979

T .. ... 9 ....................... 6.149 5.9 5.6 5.S 5.6 5.7 6.4...... ............... . 7272 670 10.6 19. 1 99.2 16.7 17.9 10.1

75 849 9.5 9.9 15.2 94.1 9............... 8 15.5U249.1,341 1.422 9.2 8.5 8.9 8~~J"'I .9 9.0 S.3

95 .n.2........... .... .... .... .................... 1.088 * 220 R.9 *.0 1 .8 1 . 9.9 R. 12 1U4_y ................................. . 2.660 2.750 6.2 6.2 * .. * O .0 *.3

AO6 9.0 3.9 3.2 2 9 3. 2 3.2

. . . . ................... ................. 2,937 3,091 5.0 5.1 .9 R4.7 5.0 5.2989AA.756................................ ... 789 1.8 16.0 16.9 1 94. 1. 9 16.0

9. ; i67 39 5 940 17. 7 16.0 t9.0 195.9 95.2 97. 3. . .. 767..49 1 2. 4 94.02 94.9 I 99.5 94.9 95.329 . . . ........... s 708.... 727 8.8 7 .8 .80 8.0 8.8 8.9

9.50............&6 9.07 3.1 3. 13. 3.9 3. 7.5UM4rs .9.......................................... 7 5 26.306 9.5 3.I 3. 9. 1 3.3 .6

"_1_ ........ 2 , 57fi 291 2.9 3.0 2.9 .1 9.9 .2

. . ................................. 1 9009 3 068 7.1 6. 9 7. 6. 9 6.6 7.09An989 ....... 772 749 9. 8 16 6 17.7 16'6 19 71

9A 919w.393 830 99.7 20. 2 99.3 73 4. 99.2 8.9

3.4............4825 615 9.2 9I4 9.9 9.9 9.3 9.9............ 9,61.................. 3 5.2 49 5.0 .8.4. 5. 0

N-3.424 ....................... 9. ,404 1,427 5.6 5.2 5. 2 5.1 S.0 5._ ................................ 9 189 3.2 3. 1 .7 2. 7 2.9 1 3

l - -- -l

2,158 2, ']2 2.72494 7198 900

1.56262 X,739 765867 990 950

782 690 '720

27.295.130.2*3. 7

2: R

49.7 4 -4.13.7 15.6

90 .9 28.694.4 94.6

29.9 29.212.8 19.7

2. 2.6

.8 77 . 7799.I2 I 9.7

l l l l - -- -

2: 1

237


Table A-7. Rang of unetmployment mea.ure. basd on vying definitions of unemployment *nd te labo, fern..

seceone ly edjuntad

__5 0____

t574 | 919 1979

-9 I _ I I t J..e J340 A.q.

u6-. .n003d 35.. 0. e4If -a lD

................................................ .............. . 1. 3.3 .2 .2 1.2 . .0 3.2

. . .. . . . . . .............................. ........ ........ 2.5 2.4 2.4 2. t 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.4

U4~4. ons- .25 3.. s .nwm9 ef 0. 020. . . . . . ....... 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.3 3.9 .3

UA-9.d.04 iD _ m.. ..d 301t44,. s.. ......... ............................................................................. 5.5 5.5 5.2 .2 5.2 S.3 5.3 5.4

tU-o ...~ T 5U._ ml.90.i...................................................... . . . .......... 6 a 6.0 s., 1. 5.7 5.6 5.7 6.2

3 an lin 3- hm.. ..m." .05 03 e4 0.2i...3....14.30..0....m44'0 .7.. 7.5 3.2 7.2 7.3 1.2 7.3 7.5

7. 029,, 444. a...r00m .040 1.45

.3 . . ................ . . .................................... 9 9.3 A.A. e.A. I.4.

Te A.8. Enpoyqm enetetun of the nonaimfuone1pepuetion by rce nd Hlfp.ni origin, not oesonsffy adjusted

~~~l,~~~ _ - _ _ _i _

6 f. AC~~~~~~49. 4AC9. 4C9. 59g. AC9 45. *59. faq.397 13979 379 3979

3t

7j 3979 1973 3979

43110.0.0 . ....... ... 3. 159,226 161,300 1 339,0817 1422 6,670 37.9,3 7,67 u,173

4.. .. ..... . . . . 3..97 30.72 5.035 5,699~~zofiw . .. 6Z~~~~~4.3 99.5 49.2 44.7 62.4 42.4 44.0 49.3........... .. .. . . 96,136 90. 2246 3, 254 e869.5 9. 75 9.374 4.' 2 5.7.7

399049,3 ..... 5..9 6,337 4.57 4.77 3.259 3.299 459 452.2 1 1 2 . o5.9 44.33.... . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~51,5179 57,.093 50.05.. 50.030 6,'270 4.39 ,.032 2.93

* 0. 0~ n.. 003 90.0. 00. 030 45.04On m~p.3~ 3m -. 05 055 - 9,5040~. - 9u09 0059. .40.0 WO o..ma

57-2S4 0 - 80 - 16

238


Table A.. Employment status of male V1itnam-or& vetersans and no.v.tersnh by age, not osasonally adjusted

..-

flog. flog. 009. flg,. fog, Asog, Aeg, Asog. Agg. flog.

197 1979 1978 0979 978 9197 976 979 0078 1979

7..19_0, do., ................................ 8,352 8.551 7,923 9%665 7,540 7,826 383 339 4.8 * 201 .. . ............................. 716 530 680 006 598 655 06 33 a2.6 6.8

38ga S......... ...... .... 6.892 7.151 6,635 6,930 6,356 6,650 2 79 280 *.2 0.038,038_w . . 2........... ...... ...... . 2297 1.916 2.177 0.839 2.030 1.737 013 002 6.6 5.5

00.0. .4 . ....................... 3,.28 3,62- 3.381 3,512 3,236 3.367 105 005 3.1 .0

31i.g A38n ... 6...................06 9, Xb7 0.607 6 1,117 0,583 1,006 0,506 31 37 2.8 2.3*73_81c_ ... . .... 70 ,,,6, , 72U 8600 763 58 6 721 is 22 3.0 3.0

0 ... ..................... , 3.801 0..603 037159 13.965 102.696 03,02 0l63 533 3.5 3.838.00000.0 . 6,072 0.. 6 779 5.888 6,396 5.626 60,22 262 27- 9.0 0 338.. 02~u . 3~s .990. 0.206 3,708 2.990 7.680 3.8'a53 100 1 2.7 3.50X0." . ... ... . .679 3,706 3.003 3.575 3.306 7.053 97 108 2.8 3.3

__A0..o.,. , ho~ 6ul loI d.2 0~ 0 Wo3 _ ~oO, q070. 00600 0210 8 m - 0izN9o.08000 ...... 0.......2 8.M2Fw. 160,. a.. 602.0 .0 0,. VIo.,. ... oof~o. a... 802670 .00 ,I0 I-00.0804 _84. ~0 0, 0 . 00,.0...0*.bt0.2000,

239

H4OUSEHOLD DATA HOUSEHOLD DATAT~b A-10. Ej mby iw st 8oun o the 990*wd6.aios vP

0.Ptin. foe the taI lees -sm.

- ---_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ II - -I.

O- I~~ 1339 ., 70. 6., 171 16 90 1.997 1.66 9.76 1.0 6 70-83~~~~9..9 .. 00.~~~~~~7622 a7.07 99.119 Z 9.69 075 1.79 0.3 .99 931E~~~~~ 1.02 2 785 10,.41 9. 929 10.6071 10.9093 1019 0.390~ II0.368e~~~~~~~~~e3 ~~~~~7 50 661, 705 766 698 .689 652 62 9 7211

7.0 6. I.3 7.2 6. 6.32 6.0a 5..3 6

6.531 0. 723 6.790 8.979 8. 671 o.669 6.706 6. 723 6. 1676.8..609.3e. . .. 3~~~~~~~~.66 7.893 7.639 94 939 039 929 929 9283.3*3.3 . 7~~~~~~~~~.800 7.6137 3.601 929 92 39 999) 2

966e~~~~~~~e1.8....... 297 256 233 929 93 29 9922 2.63,e.e.e ........ 6.6 .6 6. 1 929 939 929 939 929 2

0,,8....669,.0 pee7.6..~~~~~~ 9.297 8..209 9.225 8.3117 9.265 8. 271 8.378 0.2164226 8.683393e~~~~~~~le.9 5.899 ~~~~~~ 5.660 S.,9 J.52 5269 5.235 5.7329 5.6 .4

93896193 6.6~~~~~~~~~,96 5.I0 9.21653 9.09 0.II~ 9623 .6.93 5.093 S.13I1 5. 19296...e..6 3~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~25 2 7, 25 39 307 29 37 35 277

.. ....... ...... 6. 0 5.1I 1 6. 5.8 9.6 9.6 5.2 8. .

63..6...e9.3,6,.6e363.ee~~~~~e.62: 3.33 337~7 6:.21 ...377 8.765 .7369 9.7 73 8..377 3.72

.... . .... 2.729I 2 .80, 276 3.667I" 2.7 63 2. 726 2. 796' 2. 7398 2.757.......e......... 19 5 - 139a 929 929 929 929 929 929

... . .. ..... . ..... 6.7 9.0 2. 929 929 929 929 929 2

I6.65 6.,736 6.706 6.69,6 6, 7 1)6 6,2396173 6.778 I. 744

6.39,64,3668 9.~~~~~~~~~291 6.66 6.1 92 2 929 929 23 2E - ................ 3.67 3 0.06 3. 996 929 929 929 I29 929 2....... I I7 . 330 339 3 29 395 765 337 301 3233I6 ,9338

48e..3..33 3 ~ . .. ... 6.0a 7.7 7.95 929 929 929 929 929 9

39.66 5.93 .2 9.6 5.902 5.20 1 957 .26.349.3.6.3. . 3.699 3.~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~60 7.9 3.6 .977 3.9 3.56 3570 3 ~

* . 7.25~~~~~~~I9 7..2 3.3 7 7. 196 3.271 3,1 3.30 3. 266 7,.26333.3389.33.3 . . 276~~~~~1 .297 299 297 206 267 266 269 -6U3.6.36~~~~~333.3.33. ~~~6. 7 7. 9 7. 2 7. 1 5.9 7.7 9. 9 7. 5 7.95

13,255 13. 2 9 13 3'00 93.251 5 13. :29~ 7 13. 269 13,296 19,296I 1 3 .3III043.36. 666 33.3~~~~~~ .. ~7. 976 8.219 6,123 7.83 7.93 7.096 7.971. 900 7977, 394 7.60I3 7.926 7 .293 7.0 739 736 7.0 727

483.3,.6e,.e . ~~~~ ~~~~~58 61 55I1 556 582 *567 601 6267. 3 7.8 7.73 7.6 7.0 6.6 7. 1 7.5 7.

4.36. ..... ,.4....3 3.6.636,' ~~7'.60 7.9619 7.955 7.000I 7.9131 7.576~ 7.963 7.96 9 7.9993.3. . 5,0a~~~~~~~~~~ 9.107 5.195 0.337~~~~~~~~~2 1 5.76 5.1 029 .9..9 .6

83330433.3 4.~~~~~~~~~~76 9 6,769 6,900 .69I .7II . 60 .7066I65I' .607...3*...3262 336 354 267 280 265 278 389 798

393.4,,..9.33.9 9~~ ~ ~~~~~.2 I 6.6 6.9 5.6 I.6 S. 7 9.6 6.9 7.1I

6..3.93,.,.,.3,63....I 3.e363,83 6.6~5a 1 8.917 01.916 0.6211 6.09 6.90 I.0 6,1 3 9..9164.66363. 5.306 5.~~~~~~~9, 5.796 5.336~~~~ 5.I ,19 278.46 .1 .6

6..e6,.3 6.999 5.090~~~~~~ 6977 S..890 6.8819 6.930 8.900 3 8.60 5890383.3.04.96 ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~386 366 37 3 356 770 348 369 336 789333.33693.33'63398 ~~~~~~~. 65 6.I 7.0 6.6 6.3 6.6 6.6 6.3 7.71

~~ 36.3.3*343.383 ,ee..63e.' . 9.31 6 9,I 18 9..33 9 I.217 9.363 9.7801 I9 I.1 6 9.833

4~~3*~~~33936~~~ 363. 6.~I0'3 6.267 I.180 5. 1 .36 601 6.90 6.163 6,9769'03..3 ~~~~~~ ~~~~~5.725 119.99 9.69 9.690 5.85 9.79 5,.679 9D97 9.66'

23.333636e.3 ~~~~ ~~~ ~~309 297 269 296I 281 838 266 276 37I

483.3366,336633.9. ~~~~ ~~~5.91 4. .6 . .6 4. 7 6. . 66

99. Ic3- .- - - .a2 I. 3..66. 669. 66693 Iae6. -. .6 9*2 - 96.9-99.86,3909.6. .8 3 .944.8 9.86999637 9439. .69. 6 9 06 6,66 9.99-9 96.816933 6636 *33 696.19 - 533

240


Thbl. B-1. Empiomm a. noai.ss ..s.I pyo1l. by indoo.ty

1[4 m.l

5,34 3,4.4 333L80 4 *34.D UG. 696 s68 J34 1.0099 0970 0976 698 6978 698 3800 0989 897 6

TOTAL .... 3. 00..03 98,789 96,7Io 66.209 09,-* 9.,5 0.7.. .. ,9 -60.92.

GOODS-PRODUCING 25... . 26..' 7 26,60 26, 7325Is.*- 26.355 Z.,02 26.45I 26*3 26.286

MNING . . . .. 907 952 966 981 *22 923 930 93s *S2

CONSTRUCTION . . .. . 4.3 0.80 .3 .. . . 52 6200 0.547 4,56 9. 0.61 . 4.... 0,59

MANUFACTURING ..... l.2 26...2 23,75 2.0..5 70.... 20,922 20,986 20,069 78,83 28.84

*420, 1 . 2,73 65.66 0490 I 4.9 0.532 35.035 6.006 33,960 4 .25 6I.82

oUOAocooooos 62.362 52T773 62,685 8 52.50 62.646 32.665 62.605 62,409 62.659 62.600ria9A4049O60 ^ x 9,069 0957| 6,837 6.66 s9.080 4,659 6,0*0 9.032 6

3F4,9.6, nfain 873.5 060, 87. TT 7 TT2 73 7 55 756 854 T4 766

dd_> 762.5 828.2 8*26, 0t29 692 766 702 73s 700 7900 * . I80N 3 26 0.2523 0,23, . 0,256 3,207 , 3 3.232

mi~~we~~is¢I ~2,3 ,6 2,523.5 2,566.2 2,495,. 2.8j56 2,00 4 2,099 2,0 2,52 2.5360460k~o .5006009430,,, . 69729 2.095,8 2,065,6 2,65-5, 3,075s 2,062 2.064 2,090 2,086 2.857090,008,03,6 l~ ,,j,,, 0,0, 2.029, 3,903,5 6.803, 6.906 2.030 2,806 2,003 2.038 2.020

Mi,6,6036300603 26, 055, i 435.20TD0 445 5,6X 40 450 445 0|

I D00646 p56 9,3609,0999,370 -6,305 9,06b2 0,297 82* 0,6 9,6 80, 7204 0,6089,09,n0. .. 5,69 5,945 5,940 5,962 5,699 5.955 5,947 '5,6 595 5,635^

Fw6X~~kssfo | *t8~74,9 66,-2 66. 73,6 5 9tt1q t l73 t0Z 74 76 66S1*

0..00.0,8,420,, 960.5 903,6 995,5 903,7 900 990 988 966 90 08 95

p,,,,.ooroeo w,2,TOS 705. 725,9D "7Zo, "725,2 695 709 i 764 77 5; 06 2700

80,660,,2844,.01600 0,61, 3,22. 0,228,* 1.228,5 1,086 0,269 0.222 6,226 3.262 5,234cN,,4sl60,64,29A4 I 0,0995 0,056, 5,62, 10,09, 6,069V 10.50 6,60 5,560 6,536 5.6966F I ,,ol .,,1300260 . . . 265.6 237, 1 259,2 209, 2 09 204 204 232 202 20384,.,20,,,00450i,60,62460 750. 80, 76 o *08 74,X4 744 *77 779 749 770 7553.0,,o,2 .,8,2460 25-,2 246,8 205,9 245,4 256 236 200 289 220 203

SERVICE.PRODUCIN4G 40,037 6,766 42,042 40,979 60* 666700 386*1s 2 2,3066*2.5j72 42,529

TRANS70RTATIONO AND PUBLICUTILITIES.4,870 5.324 5,605 5,093 3,605 4,935 5,036 5,595 5,075 5,646

W19OLESALEANDRETAILTRAOE . w~l . 09,5 20076 69.960 69,993 0952 S29,5 20,991w5 39,990 1995 09.996

dMO0LESALETRADE . . ,90 5,526 S,353 5,325 4,985 5,602 5,600 5,097 5,009 5,670RETAILTRADE 1- 00505 2095 55.60 04,931 4 04,1-b68 54,9 04.9"05 04,083 3-,073 1 65,09

FINANCE. IN4SURANSCE. ANDREAL ESTATE 4,754 5.0364.9664,006 5,707 4,650 4,967 4,602 4,907 0,919

SERVICES 06,235 66,690 60.00 166,972 06,074 3X5,55 64,422 04,70. 66,730 56,680

GOVERNMUENT 50,859 05,760 155,88 54,968 05.536 25.59506,406 55,664 65,802 65,924

P906644 2.793 2,024 2,838 2.953 2,765 2,754 6,770 2,793 2,790 2,79568*8666646044 06,066 62.939 52,22 62,524 02,770 32.039 62,06 02,975 62,903 02.939

241

ESTABLISHMENT DATA

Table 5-2. Ameco wackly hoars of psodftiw. 07 onqpWM" waIler. -pbata"RRo08Ic3u 84 polf

38 by it nduStry

ESTABLISHMENT DATA

-~~~~~~~~~~..e -f

I~~rn tIC113, JoUE *.333931p13 330 088. flY JUbt .319 1*18,p

TOTALPRIVATE ..... ... 38.3 3S,9 38.0 3.8. 35,6 Is.. SS., 3 t.7 8,8 09.

MINING 3 ,z....................s............... - o *3 .2.C .2z2 -I.. &23., Q. 7 ' 0 £ *35 a.

CONSTRSCTION 37 38............................ | .C 3 0 37,7 38.3 37,1 £5.8 37.3 37.3 3,9 37.3

MANUFACTURING . 80 ........ . * 3 3 2 *. *. 2. 2 *

- - .......................... 3. 3.3 31.83*35

0UOLE. .,, 33.I0 0 .0 39 0,007 . 1

3. .8 3,8 3.5 , .8 38 39 . ,

L0079793 - .139 .9°, 07. 39. 83. 3* . 393 380 £9.8 0 09. £9.8Ino lnrll~e ... 3................. .;0 0 *9 1 3,7 88 33 138 39 8. 53

0.1.8079931900789 ~~~~~~~~ 33,. 0,73 3, 3. 9 38 ,3£0 .7 7. 80.nr3 w _ nr.7, ..9. ...1.0I ...................... 3.0 , 3. 0F w00n,11.I.070 1 .......................... 838 0 0 803 88 80S0 ;0.3

Tn l . . ....... ........ ....... *2 3,3 38 82 j , 38, T'2 . 2, 23. 23I.90008008039137.3073070 .0~~~0 .0,7 80.3 03, 783,730:330,88 .0.£8.. f.

3873710,008.7079073,73 . 38,0 390 307 3.8 3,0 3 7 is's 38. 33 ..

5090090*10005W 39~3 87,3, 3S, 9 9, S043, 18 3 59,0 1: 3 ?1 33 91

. . .....*. .. . .. ................... 3 30 3 57,8 7 3 8 3 , 37,3 37,

.h1 F .........8... 3, 3 8 3, 3- - -388 35.3 3.3 1 v *

811701o,,700 O AND09 .ULI 370 37, 37, 37, 37. 37, 37. }@ 87, 37,9st 1

SL997sT3I93 9. ... .. ............. 5 43,9 83.8 . 03.9 4, 80. 3,7

WIIOLEDALANDRETAILRADE 009. .... . ............ 03,0 03.8 88,7 83,3 80,3 38,3 3,783},3 , ^8,0 R

E..RETAILTRAD E . ....... 53,0 5 9 3 3. . 3, 3 3. 3. 530 5

R EA L ESTAT E 33.9.33 33 333 385 385 38............. *, *3 8 38,3 *3 38

SERVICES ....... ............. 5.8 ..3 . .3.7 9 . z 31 .. _ _

* 0.0 99ALEM97.RETA ,oITRAD.- g.U7...7713. Si..71'o . 3 1' o0,.9,7 ..1 S ,.8S,oo,700 .8,31,1 71,...18 J91 .- Si3.7 .988058

0911,- ~.390t~79 0,089,.7.. 90.3~77.9*18771 0,9~7780791~ 0-.3307,9.2

242


Table -3 Average hourly and weakly aer.ings of production or nokupervisory worlkers on privatenonagricultural payrolls by industry

_ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~Aw_ soy An_4

IUG. Jvsp hOLY I UG UG Ju-l JULY AUG1910 I~7 Ii?. 179' 197 197' 1979 197

TOTAL POIVATE 05,73 £011 00,15 gu,I 3* 200,70 5219.35 1221.40 5220.7GSOT PRIVAT5 ....... .......... 0 0 ...... 1 220,3

MINING .......... .. . . ........ .......... 7.7. a,7 0 s , . 330,09 1 ,75 3S9,10 Ju0.39

CONSTRUCTION .. . . . . 0.72 -12 9,23 .,29 330.,9 340650 57,97 s53,q5

MANUFACTURING 0.10 06, .. ?I ...0 20.0 0, 00a Au.41 207,20

uU.I ... ... . . 0..S 7,11 7?10 7,10 2.6,71 291,51 289.17 200,04

Fwmu e and fi s * T2 s .71 505 5.0 9, s12T 100.0 19.0 192.7 190.0122 7

Pri,,nO n D0~ ^4~* 0,1 ,0 0.1 9,09 347,3 371,02- 371.21 309.90abp~py, napw 0,70 7,33 7T33 7,20 21 , T 307,0 302,73 299,90°

Tmpanc~~~~~~~~~~~ 70 0.56 2 275 0,0 310,20 351D'2 350,55 339.0louuad aaed~~~~red_7-~5.73 0.10 0.15 0,10 233,70 aoe8o 200,03 251,53

o..,llp,,,t,,,,p 0,70 049 5,0- 5,00 102.03 194,01 19S,05 170,54

D5hJU5L0 GOtD 9,50 9.93 0,02 0,00 221,Ie 233,00 230,59 237,00

Yo~UU 0pndonpxbo 9,00 0,22 0,20 0.31 233,10 247,50 253,71 257,05T,,t.',U'vU 0370 050 2,s 07 177.042 190,732 2105.5 192,21*Uwoonuno.h t..U, nov0 393 0.20 0.22 4,23 0 1.00- 109,52 150,21 191 * IrPpUUUUlnUwv 0,5 7,70 7,17 7.22 200.71 302,17 300.73 300,13P i4.nOyndUIpo vioovv ^7, 01 752 7597 7,0 294.40 2314, s 315.@72 2317.00r.,U.,ofedpv.IvpU-, 0,5 0,*29 9,17 9,3 7 37,9 *03,19 01022 000,70

auai~9 5,00 ......................... 5,3 5.81 220,5 23972 237,7 231.24ndleherpodins ~~~~3,07 0.19 0,19 0,22 100,35 155 ,0 154.01 194013

TRANSF(7RTATIONOAND PUBLICUTILITIES 7S0 001 0.11 0,1 3 40 321 20 329.20 320,03

DIHO0LESAL.EAND RETAILTRADE 0,07 5.02 5,14 5,05 190.05 105.10 007,03 107,00

ItHOLESALETllADE.592 0,5 040 00 3I 23 T7 2 7 75 250,0 250 1

OOAITOD . ....... ............ 0.19 0,3 0:,50 05 3,2 3,0 10,5 11

FlNANCE, INSUR0ANCE,AND0REAL ESTATE . 9,§0 5, 22 5,29 5,@20 179,*71 lee,, 102.R50 19°,9

SERVICES . . 0,90 5.27 5,29 5,30 104a061 073,30 (,171 170.49

5_ 0,twv~vo .00,5 B rp v llin S

243


Tblat 0.4 Hourfly nogu ind. for prdUtion or nonup-rnory work.,. on ProImh

E -n grsoo300roi P .rOIIo by ind.tvry d.iion, _Inly odis-td

I :I0. "0; I' M I Is " , JUL- *C;

EC. a it. .. E..:,' 'a ~ 1,0.377 OA.307

TOTAL PRIVATE .3007*00

c___~~~~~~3.0 02 ,a5. 02. 027.0 000a,0 s 130. *003.0 7,0 0.2co ItO I_001. 300.7 307. 307.0 , 30. 30,1 15.0 305. 0.0 0;, 333

000OLnUO100 | 0. 030.21*5 030.0| 000.7 023.7 1 0 1~ 022. *. Sa *

TOOYOUlOO ' OAPOL00YU10 00. 002.7 003.5 000,7 000,3 007~,5 000.0 0.0 I

YIoU01,0,OIi0.5C01 0777. 35 i0,0 000, 037.0 207. 00. 03. 00. ' i.i 't o

0mrUICO0 23.0 22.5 225. I 200,0 a~ t2055 I ~~, a220. 00. 7.0, 0§

2 -P0,C0 * 00 .00 -0. 7 Jut- 3770 70 JULY 3575. 770 ta lor 0007 0R33L30uE3 *3rrEo7 1,0001, 030 .,i Fr0. 4000 3575 10 JULY 35?5r 703 to1ls

7"00073 Iw~tO|tE.

M00 0U0,0r A .t 3 .0 ... ... ... . ..I.l d0 00 . .3 0 ,,o*Ao0 0 ~o , 0.

TOlMn BS. IndW.- OD ggrg.. wonkly tro- of plodotion Or , onorsy woer3 O. on Pm5O

Ono~grCtUi &I POyroIl by induntryV, sno- lfl dj,,td

tlW7.1Vt~~~~~~~~~11

Ed_ S UC~~~~~~~~~~~~. IC T. OCT. OV DC J... FU., aR |t|$s

TOITAL M-VTE ... ''' "so te ~"a8|I 8'It*I 3 l' .......... la'|a..I ta..l 12X't

000*01,000000 ... 303.7 330.0 335,5 307.3 300,0 3000, 3T00l 3 .030 307.03 30.7 133,0 3105.

0,INING .1,U 0 , , 307,0 333.3 330| 0 330.0 330.0 033 1 ,.5 3.2,1 33.3$ 330. 32,0 30.0 330.0& 3SO'0

CON5~~~~~~~~~~~I.. .. Tas clo ..... ..... E. . ..... ..... ... I1X t,|1$^1^ t, t, t,11%1-*1t 3~ s~ 5..

....TU IN .. 1 .... .. ... j§t010 1.. ICW |s. I.S.2 los, 1 s o.. lot.. 1§1* I, ..} ..... 1.,

........... .e, 05 0o' I 7s.5 50,5 55,0 75.0 .o 300. 55, 77.5 57,, 70,7

I~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C .::S .t 1 0 O|t tO101 : 7tt1 O 0

i.: 30. 3003 052 30, 3000 300. 307, 33X 30. 00. 30,0 330.0 tai tt° stzztr lI

. A~~ t : $0; [°°l jl l°S l~~lE | l° l°% j 1° l° l°R l° 1 o ° t° .8°

0*r~o..t0A.00, 330,0 33,5 330.0 330.5 330.5 337.0 S30.2 335000030. 0. 3, 3.30~

:.03. 0 3 3 0 0 3 .30, 37 300.t T.5 30. 0 .5. 300.0

C.l_- :: 9| 9| . t^ 5*||.S C.I lo l,TRASO'...owAwoONN- |0, 57.. 7 330.0 | 0, 33| 30. 30| |0, 50.0 |50 50| 77| |

I1O.ESAEAApRETAI. 1 300;, 320.7 300.5305.71 000.5 300.0 300.0 303.0 307.0T 0.2.0350200 300.0

5RVICESiO. oA~~ 1,--. |0,-,, 5005. 0 53.3* -. '57.3~',|' .55.0 8 57, 5.01 50,0. 50.0 50.0§,

73,5 7s_5 70.5 75.5 7 77,2 *00 753 7r.80.0OAU '532 53,0,7.. 00 00 5, 70.0. ... 7,.53.0 53. 70.0 ..

320, 32.710 0 .. 203030...To

lE 1E.oUSO0 C10 10000 . 35035 3 30.0 :300.7 300 2 .00, 300.0 II.. Io::::~ 1 005,0.. 30000 II0.6

TR*25PRTATIO. 1,50 MBJL.C :7716at. . I. 1. t &. 75als11912011

LUTILITIES30. 33, 30, 30, 30, 33233. 33, 30533500. 330330

rIS~~~tOCO. I5SIJROOCE. 0230. . SO IS

REAL ESTATE30. 13. 33. 30, 30,31730. 0030. 30. 30030030,

SE-VCES 00,3 305T3 3.L.,0 30...,035030 0 .... 0 055330

244


Table 8-6. lodoso of diffusion: Porcoot of indstorioo in which employmnot' incroasod

8.64..I I _8ac [ 0.o -.f_ I 88_6. -

I.47 9. 7. 78 85.8 f7.2 N5.2Pnbr...ry.***w@ 72.4 84.9 85.8 8.0

8..-......................... 69.5 86.8 82.0 85.2

Apr61 ........................ 71 775.8 78*7 .................. 58.2I 67.2 8.78.4',e ..... . .... . .... . ................... 57.8 65.1 72.2 79.9

4427.......... . .... ... 5f.6 57.8 63.1 78.5August ................................... 48 .1 64.0 65.6 77.6

Septe~ber ....... .... *.......... 64.8 53.8 66.3 80.2

0684ber .6... . .... . .... . ................... 47.1 85.6 73.3 80.8........ 6 64.2 78.8 .

Deceaber ........................ 66.6 81.4 61.4 82.6

197 7

4.44.67. *********** 76.2 83.2 88.2 78. 8

Pnbr,..rp.8*ee*>>wwww~w~e 66.0 86.6 87.8 80.5r......................... 74.7 81.1 85.2 80.2

Ar......................... 68. 79.4 79.4 84.6Y.y.66.. . .... . .... . ................ 48 76.2 75.9 84.044ae ..... . .... . .... . ................... 71.2 68.0 72.6 83.2

4417 ..... . .... . .... . ...................59.3 63.4 88.8 82.66484st .6..... . .... . .... . ..................52.7 58.7 74.6 63.7. ..................... 60.8 60.5 72.1 62.6

Ot............... 73. 77.8 86.18ove~b e r ..... . .... . .... . ................... 73.8 75.3 82.0 86.1

Ocbr ............ 72.6 79.7 83.2 80.8

197 8

46.y................... 69.8 60.2 85.5 80.9

p..rugryz+9*9*@@***@@*@@ 70.3 80.2 78.8 78.2

......................... 70.6 75.9 77.9 77.6

Apr....................... 6 8.9 78.58.y ..... . .... . ...... .................56.4 * 3.7 87.7 1 86.544ne ..... . .... . .... . ................... 67.2 62.5 59.6 86.6

448y ..... . .... . .... . ................... 54.8 57.2 81.3 8 6.656.7 49.7 74.4 , 7 7.4

. .ptb .... 57.6 58.7 77.9 75.3

06646 .70.6..............................7. 70.6 63.8 72.88446wber .6..... . .... . .... . ..................80.2 85.9 84.6 75.0. ...................... 79.7 87.2 86.0 76.8

1979

4.44.67....... . .... . .... . ................. 74.1 82.3 87.7 O70lpPnbp'.py ................................... 63.8 77.9 69. 68.4,

......................... 62.5 58.4 85.4

40668 .4.6..... . ........... A 53.7 53.ZrYN . ................

3p.. . 0 5 03:2

J444 ..... . .........................60.5 52.9p

448468.52.7p~~~~~~~~~~,,:l'520Juy............................5ZO5.0

A.. - b - ............................. 17

I 6 .t ',..N66n, .64 .70. .3 p'.w*6 6 677 6*4.- 64.664-66.1'3-

245

m I S United States| Mews ~~~Department 4N ~~~~~~~fLabor 3Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, D.C. 20212

FOR CURRENT DATA ONLY: USDL 79-641(202) 523-1222 523-1239 TRANSMISSION OF MATERIAL IN THIS RELEASE IS(202) 523-1913 523-1208 EMBARGOED UNTIL 9:00 A.M. (E.D.T.), FRIDAY,

FOR TECHNICAL INFORMATION: SEPTEMBER 7, 1979William Thomas (202) 523-1204

(202) 523-1715

PRODUCER PRICE INDEXES--AUGUST 1979

The Producer Price Index for Finished Goods moved up 1.2 percent from July to Auguston a seasonally adjusted basis, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department ofLabor reported today. The August advance was about the same as in July. Prices forintermediate (semifinished) goods also rose 1.2 percent, following an even larger increasein the preceding month. After increasing sharply in July, crude material prices edged uponly slightly. (See table A.)

Among finished goods, prices for finished consumer goods advanced 1.6 percentfollowing a 1.2 percent upward movement in July. but capital equipment prices rose muchless in August (0.1 percent) than in the preceding month (0.8 percent). Much of theacceleration in consumer goods was caused by food prices, which rose 1.2 percent aftershowing no change in July. (See table B.) Prices for finished energy goods climbed

Table A: Percen; changes from preceding month in selected stage-of-processingprice indexes, seasonally adjusted*

I I I ~ ~~~~ II

I I Finished goods I Intermediate goods I Crude goods

I I I I I I Foods I I I Foodstuffsl I

I I Total IConsumerl Other I Total I and I Other I Total I and 1Other II Month I I foods I I I feedsI/I I I feedstuffsl I

I I I I I I I I I I I

1Aug. 19781 0.3 1 -0.4 1 0.5 1 0.6 1 -0.6 1 0.7 1 0 1 0 1 0.1I

ISept.....I .81 1.5 1 .61 .6 1 1.6 1 .6 1 1.7 1 1.8 1 1.61loct. .... I .81 1.6 1 .51 1.2 1 2.8 1 1.1 1 2.8 1 3.7 1 1.71

INov.. . .1 .71 .8 1 .71 .8 1 -.9 1 .9 1 1.1 1 .9 1 1.71lDec. .... I 1.0 1 1.2 1 1.0 1 .7 1 1.6 1 .7 1 .7 1 .3 1 1.21

Jan. 19791 1.3 1 1.8 | 1.1 I 1.1 1 .2 1 1.2 1 2.3 1 2.8 1 1.61

IFeb.....I 1.1 1 1.8 1 .91 1.1 1 3.01 1.0 1 3.3 1 3.8 1 2.71IMar. ... I 1.0 1 1.2 1 .9 I 1.1 I -.1 I 1.1 I 1.0 1 .3 | 2.21Apr .. I .9rl -. 4 1 1.3r1 1.5r1 -.5 1 1.6r[ -.4 1 -.4 1 -.5I

Imay ... .1 .3rl -1.4r1 .9rl .8rl .7 1 .8ri .8 1 -.2r 1 2.31IJune .... I .5 1 -1.2 1 1.1 1 .9 1 -.6 1 1.0 1 .7 1 -1.2 1 3.31IJuly .... I 1.1 1 0 1 1.4 1 1.9 1 6.7 1 1.6 1 1.8 1 2.1 1 1.411Aug .. I 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.2 1 -2.6 1 1.4 1 . 1 -.2 1 .51

_________I __________ 1 I I I....... _ I I I

1i Intermediate materials for food manufacturing asd manufactured animal feeds.0 Data for April 1979 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports

and corrections by respondents. For this reason, some of the figures ihown aboveand elsewhere in this release may differ from those previously reporter..

r- revised.

246

5.8 percent, only slightly less than the 6.2 percent advance in the previous month. Pricesfor finished consumer goods other then food and energy rose 0.9 percent, about the same asthe 0.8 percent increase in July.

Before seasonal adjustment, the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods moved up0.7 percent to 217.3 (1967-100). Over the year, the Finished Goods Price Index increased11.1 percent. The finished energy goods index was up 47.4 percent from August 1978 toAugust 1979, the finished consumer foods index rose 8.4 percent, the index for finished con-sumer goods other than food and energy was 8.2 percent higher than a year ago, and capitalequipment prices were up 8.6 percent. The Producer Price Index for intermediate goodsincreased 13.7 percent over the year, and prices for crude materials advanced 17.3 percent.

Finished Goods

Finished consumer goods. The Producer Price Index for finished consumer goods(those eventually sold to retailers) advanced 1.6 percent in August, more than in anyother sooth since November 1974. The finished consumer foods index increased 1.2 percent,after registering no change in July and decreasing for 3 consecutive months before that.Price increases accelerated sharply for fresh and dried fruits and vegetables. Pricesalso rose for milled rice, whole black pepper, flour base mixes and doughs, roastedcoffee, bakery products, dairy products, vegetable oil end products, and refined sugar inconsumer sie packages. Prices turned up for pork and poultry after declining for several

Table B. Percent changes in finished goods price indexes, selected periods*

|_ I Changes from preceding month, seasonally adjusted lChange in II l|I finished )

l l I l IFinished consumer goods excluding foods goods from II I |Capital IFinishedi | 12 months II Month IFinishedl equip- 1consumer) I I I ago II I goods I ment I goods I Total I Durables I Nondurables I (unadj.)

jAug. 19781 0.3 I 0 I 0.2 1 0.5 1 0.8 1 0.4 1 7.9 ISept. .8 1 .5 | .9) .51 .7 | .5 | 8.4 )

loct ... I .8 1 .6 1 .8 1 .4 1 -.8 1 1.1 1 8.5 1INo v. 1 .7 | .8 ) .6 ) .6 ) .1 | .9 | 8.5 1IDec .. I 1.01 .6 | 1.2 ) 1.2 1 1.4 | 1.0 1 9.2 l

|Jan. 1979) 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.2 1 9.8 lIFeb .. I 1.1 I .9 | 1.2 | .9 I .9 1 .9 | 10.2 lIMar. .... I 1.0 | .6 | 1.1 I 1.1 | .5 1 1.4 | 10.6 lIApr. .... I -.9r I 1.2r 1 .7 1 1.3 1 .9r 1 1.6 1 10.4r IIMay *.. I .3r I .5r | .3 | 1.

2r I .6r 1 1.6 | 10.0 I

|Juen ... I .5 .5 1 .5 1.4 ) .4 1 2.0 | 9.7)IJulY .... 1.1 1 .8 1 1.2 1 1.9 1 1.0 1 2.3 1 10.1 I|Aug .. I 1.2 ) .1 1 1.6 1 1.8 ) .5 | 2.6 1 11.1 I

I_ ______I I I i 1' 1 I

* Data for April 1979 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reportsand corrections by respondents. For this reason, some of the figures shown aboveand elsewhere in this release may differ from those previously reported.

r revised.

247

months. Beef and veal prices, however, declined for the fourth consecutive month, and eggprices fell even more than in July.

The index for consumer nondurables other than foods rose 2.6 percent, after rising

2.0 percent and 2.3 percent in June and July, respectively. As in July, the largest

increases were registered for energy items: Gasoline prices rose 6.1 percent, comparedwith 3.9 percent last month, while prices for home heating oil rose less (6.0 percent)than in July (9.0 percent). Prices for sanitary papers and health products, soaps andsynthetic detergents, tobacco products, and tires and tubes increased considerably morethan in the preceding month.

The index for consumer durables rose only half as much in August (0.5 percent) as in

July (1.0 percent). The slowdown was mainly due to a 0.4 percent decline for passenger

car prices, which had advanced 1.3 percent in July. Cutlery prices also decreased. On

the other hand, large increases were registered for household flatware, lawneowers, andjewelry.

Capital equipeent. The index for capital equipment edged up 0.1 percent, thesmallest rise in more than 6 years. Motor truck prices decreased even more than in July,

and prices for office and store equipment and commercial furniture also moved down.Prices rose less than in the previous month for many other kinds of capital equipment,such as railroad equipment, machine tools, construction machinery, and special industrymachinery.

Intermadiate Materials

The Producer Price Index for intermediate materials, supplies, and components rose1.2 percent in August on a seasonally adjusted basis, following a 1.9 percent increase in

the previous month. Prices for processed fuels advanced even more than in recent mnnths,but food and feed prices turne4 down and increases for most other intermediate goodsslowed somewhat.

The index for processed fuels and lubricants moved up 5.2 percent, sore than in any

other month so far this year. Prices for both residual fuel and commercial jet fuel

increased more than 12 percent, and diesel fuel prices also continued to rise sharply. On

the other hand, prices for liquefied petroleum gas rose much less than in July, andelectric power continued to move up moderately.

The intermediate foods and feeds index decreased 2.6 percent, after a 6.7 percentincrease in July. Prices fell after rising in the previous nonth for manufactured animal

feeds, flour, and refined vegetable oils. Prices for animal fats and oils dropped evenmore sharply than in the 3 preceding months. Confectionery moterials prices continued torise but considerably less than in July.

The index for intermediate materials less food and energy rose 0.9 percent,

following a 1.3 percent increase in July. This slowdown was most noticeable in the

durable manufacturing materials category, as prices declined for steel mill products,

zinc, lead, and tin. Aluminum prices rose less than in July, but copper prices turned up

markedly after falling for 3 consecutive months.

The nondurable manufacturing materials index moved up 1.2 percent, after advancing2.0 percent in July. Prices continued to rise, although less than in the previous .. nth,for synthetic rubber, industrial chemicals, and plastic resins and nateriols. Leather

prices declined for the third consecutive month. Price increases accelerated, however,for paperboard and inedible fats and oils.

248

Construction material prices continued to advance moderately (0.5 percent). Pricesrose more then in July for softwood lumber, plumbing fimtures and brass fittings, andbeating equipment. Following 3 months of declines, prices increased for building paperand board. In contrast, asphalt roofing turned down.

Prices for components for manufacturing were up 0.8 percent, following a 1.1 percentrise in July. Higher prices were registered for electronic components and accessories,internal combustion engines, and switchgear and switchboards; however, prices for motorvehicle parts declined. Other intermediate nonfood nonenergy items which rose in priceincluded paper boxes and containers, mixed fertilizers, farm machinery parts, plasticpackaging and shipping products, electric lamps and bulbs, and cutting tools andaccessories.

Crude Materials

The Producer Price Index for crude materials for further processing edged up0.1 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis, following a 1.8 percent advance in the previousmonth. Much of the deceleration was due to a 0.2 percent decrease in prices for crudefoodstuffs and feedstuffs, which had climbed 2.1 percent in July. Corn and green coffeeprices turned down in August after increasing substantially for several months. Cattleprices declined for the fourth consecutive month, and cocoa beans fell almost as sharplyas in July. On the other hand, hog and live poultry prices increased after severalmonths of decreases, and prices for wheat, soybeans, and raw cane sugar advanced more thanin the preceding month.

Prices for crude energy materials moved up 2.7 percent over the month, about thesame as in July, an crude petroleum and natural gas prices continued to rise rapidly.Prices for crude materials other than food and energy, however, decreased 2.6 percent,even mare than the 1.9 percent drop in July. Nonferrous scrap prices declined sharplyafter rising in most other months so far this year, and hide and skins decreased more than9 percent for the second consecutive month. Prices for iron and steel scrap alsofell, although not as much as in the previous month. Higher prices were registered forpotash and sand, gravel, and crushed stone.

249

Brief Explanation ofProducer Price Indexes

Producer Price Indexes measure average changes inprices received in primaty markets of the United Statesby producers of commodities in all stages of processing.These data were previously presented as the Wholesale PriceIndex The name "Producer Price Indexes" is now beingumed to reflect more accurately the coverage of the data.The sample umed for calculating these indexes continues tocontain nearly 2,800 commouities and about 10,000quotxtions selected to represent the movement of pricesof all commodities produced in the manufacturing, agricul-twre, forestry, fishing, mining, gas and electricity, andpublic utilities sectors. TI' universe includes all eom-moditles produced or imported for sale in commercialtansarctions in primary marketa in the United States.

Producer Price Indexes can be organized by stage ofprocessing or by commodity. The stage of processingstructure organizes products by degree of fabrication(i.e., finished goods, intermediate or semifinished goods,sod crude materials). The commodity structure organizesproducts by similarity of end-ume or material composition.

Finished goods are commodities that will not undergofurther processing snd are ready for sale to the ultimateuser, eithqr an individual consumer or a business firm.Capital equipment (fotmerly called producer finished

goods) includes commodities such as motor trucks, farmequipment, and machine tools, Finished consumer goodsinclude foods and other types of goods eventually put-chased by retallers snd used by consumers. Consumer foodsinclude unprocessed foods such as eggs arnd fresh vegetables,as well us processed foods such as bakery products sndmeats. Other finished consumer goods include durablessuch as automobiles, household furniture, and jewelry,and nondurables such as apparel and gasoline.

Intermediate rmterialr, jupplier, and components arecommodities that have been processed but require furtherprocessing before they become finished goods. Examplesof such semifinished goods include flour, cotton yarns,steel mill products, belts and belting, lumber, liquefiedpetroleum gas, paper boxes, and motor vehicle parts.

Chude nsaterials for flurther processrtng include products

entering the market for the first time which have not beenmanufactuted or fabricated but will be processed beforebecoming finished goods. Scrap materials are also included.Crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs include items such asgrains and livestock. Examples of crude nonfood materialsinclude raw cotton, crude petroleum, natural gas, hidesand skins, and iron and steel scrap.

I RIEDIED GOODS INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS. CAis - -KRIAISUPPLIES AND COMPONENTS

I AUTnoUCot \ /N, rog /o NAW

250

For analysis of general price trends, stage of processingindexes are more useful than commodity grouping indexes.This is because commodity grouping indexes sometimesproduce exaggerated or misleading signals of price changesby reflecting the same price movement through variousstages of processing. For example, suppose that a pricerise for steel scrap results in an increase in the price ofsteel sheet and ther1 an advance in prices of automo-biles produced from that steel. The All CommoditiesPrice Index and the Industrial Commodities Price Indexwould reflect the same price movement three times-oncefor the steel scrap, once for the steel sheet, and once forthe automobiles. This multiple counting occurs because theweighting structure for the All Commodities Index usesthe total shipment values for all commodities at all stagesof processing. On the other hand, the Finished GoodsPrice Index would reflect the change in automobile prices,the Intermediate Materials Prie Index would reflect thesteel sheet price change, and the Crude Materials PriceIndex would reflect the rise in the price of steel scrap.(See illustration.)

To the extent possible, prices used in calculatingProducer Price Indexes apply to toe first significant com-mercial transaction in the Usited States, from the produc-tion or central marketing point. Price data are generallycollected monthly, primarily by mail questionanire. Re-

spondents are asked to provide net prices or to provideall applicable discounts. BLS attempts to base ProducerPrice Indexes on actual transaction prices; however, listor bcok prices are used if transaction prices are notavailable. Most prices are obtained directly from pro-ducing companies on a voluntary and confidential basis,but some prices are taken from trade publications orfrom other Govermtent agencies. Prices generally arereported for the Tuesday of the week containing the 13thday of the month.

In calculating Producer Price Indexes, price changes forthe various commodities are averaged together with weightsrepresenting their importance in the total net selling valueof all commodities as of 1972. The detailed data areaggregated to obtain indexes for stage of processinggroupings, commodity groupings, durability of productgroupings, and a number of special composite groupings.Each index measares price changes from a referenceperiod which equals 100.0 (usually 1967, as designated bythe Office of Management and Budget). An increase of 85percent from the reference period in the Finished GoodsPrice Index, for example, is shown as 185.0. This changecan also be expressed in dollars, as follows: "The priceof a representative sample of finished goods sold inprimary markets in the United States has risen from $100in 1967 to $1855"

A Note about CalculatingIndex Changes

Movements of price indexes from one month to anotherare usually expressed as percent changes rather than changesin index points because index point changes are affectedby the level of the index in relation to its base period,while percent changes are not. The box below shows thecomputation of index point and percent changes.

Percent changes for 3-month and 6-month periods areexpressed as annual rates that are computed according tothe standard formula for compound growth rates. Thesedata indicate what the percent change would be if thecurrent rate were maintained for a 12-month period.

Indea Pubs: CheeFisshed Guaods Pise lAdes 185.5lesspeviousindec 1 4.5equals index point choheg 1.0

indes sx r-ert T s

ade Point p iauoae 1.0divided by the previous indes 184.5equal O.oosresult muntiplied by o00 0.005 a 100equals jdes pearcnt chese 0.5

A Note on SeasonallyAdjusted Data

Because price data are used for different purposes bydifferent groups, the Bureau of labor Statistics publishesseasonally adjusted as well as unadjusted changes eachmonth.

For analyzing general price trends in the economy,seasonally adjusted data usually are preferred becausethey.etiminate the effect of changes that normally occurat about the same time and in about the same magnitudeevery year-such as price movements resulting fromnormal weather patterns, regular production and marketingcycles, model changeovers, seasonal discounts, and holidays.For this reason, seasonally adjusted data more clearly revealthe underlying cyclical trends. Seasonally adjusted data aresubject to revision when seasonal factors are revised eachyear.

The unadjusted data are of primary interest to userswho need information which can be related to the actualdollar values of transactions. Individuals requiring thisinformation include marketing specialists, purchasing agents,budget and cost analysts, contract specialists, and com-modity traders. Unadjusted data generally are used inescalating contracts such as purchase agreements or realeatate leases.

25 1

Table I. hreudse prics Indexes sand patcent changes by stage of processing

....... . .7. 277 2 4 4 5 7 4 4 97 4........ 98..777....7 2797 ~ 7 0 ' ~ 77 77

77777.4.7 a7.70.78880 277.9 775.7 27.3 77 ...... 2.7 7

7077. 25~~~~~~~~~~1 .98 227.0 227.6 227.2: 74 -.

':'P~~~~~~~~~~280 4. 224.9. 277 2. 7911,74.0~.77%.23........... 70l 2742., 6 272.5 220. 8.51 .

I I d-o774.b i 7.2..70.73.7 2247.23.0 78..2..7..2.

7 ..7.7.777.77.28.75.27.8 270927 70 .

7,.,.2 .9 .7.,..... *7470.07 70707. 7800 7 9. 5.7 7. .

77,777.770 777~~..7747.774,7777 . .. ..... 81' 277. 287.81 288.7 7.7 .7: 'd 77- .7 77 2.77777. 7,77I4-4'I,7 77 I 247. 29.9 77.A.7 .

4774.770, .. . 3.870 237.7 275.2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 27.2 78. 2.............. .79.727...2728: 277. 27. 77.7N. 7

907777 d777749'0 1' . . .777 777.9 287 7 528.7 7772.2l . 7 0 A' 22

97742........7... 7 ......7. . . 7.7744 777.9 247 0.-. 212.1. 79.7 -8774 ...,it 0477.0- .. .0 207 278 22 .- 7 2 27 7

7 I77 I.7,7 o 79 770:d7_ 0077 . 8.8 287 277 7. 73i.t92977. 7 7.02775.307 79.9 29 i293.0 79.71 -7

977777 07,d.797.77 777d37.8 75.9 7 3 7d877.7 .07.777 .7.777.7 . 077 293 257 207 7.

t777097 ..... .27....... . 877 28.8 299.8 27.5 89 .

72 70,047870 07777 lp7,77 7400004077

2 21 D at o 7 7 , 7 7 7 7 7 7 b o o .0 0 0 7 7 7 0 7 7. . t , .4 .c 7 7 4 2 7 7 7 7 0 4 7 7 7 9 7 -

7. 0 7 ..7.8 ....9 4 o .7 7 , . P.. 7 7 7 7 7 7

II1:1 Idj~~~777290,4.77t 77 77.9 ,:I.20.0.7-00I2 I0-07 7 70 77277,707

252

Ttb. 2. Produce pice hiidmes uw w ant changdo icr -Mecta ccnuncdky grapig anga of Ircuu

Co. .11, I IC IC I'll-~~~~~~~~~~~II

NHE. C. S.E UI- S G ........ I.AU...90..I.........___--T_____

M-11~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I I I EL ORG"EtS. UG IAUGTGTS..AT..UL

IFINANIEGG GO.G............205.....T....AG...0.0...0.2

I P2NONONI -E30R GATOS.G ......... O TAN S0. 0. 02. S I.EFOGGEORO CONG.. N .000 . .. .00 0. 2. . .

TA GS.I ....... 0.E..0.0.9.5.-00.0.0.

'-O IS M EtDo S-ErE.IS- - I .00.... 00.. 00.0 N.L4.-0.

C00-0 .NR OTGO 0001.ID. E.OGT 000.0': 03.N GN5 .T 0

E00 1MOCtEESE.I .NO OT1. 0 10.9 -00. IN. 0.N

00-T- -I ENONE NUER 'NOSSUEE OZEI E020.I .SOT. G~ 30 . 0 .GN OG.T 0. . 3 0 3 .

0-60 I -GIGAOO REVONOS.-0.040 000. 100..... N.A 3 1.0 0 .

T,- 50 Ir GOO EL..00 0000-000-. 3.0..3..

-0I-TI o-I00301. ....... ... E.N 0.0

-SO 0SNEIT LNE 00505~l 3....00....A...4.0.0...00.3.3.

O OOOEE-TOF-000010000.I;;..... .00 00.0 02N 90 00 .

301.0I...... ... 00 29..00. 0.0 2..

TO-OS 0 LANGURE. 000 CONOECOL" PLNOTOCS.-O ELNSOEN II CI000JEOOO ClOSE 0900.0000 300.34 S0. 00......0....N .0 3 I .0 30

OTOIAUI 0 .0300001 03033 OO OAI30 0000100 30 . 0 1.AO 005.9 005.9 2.0 30 4. 0 .

L~zt 3 TCU300J.O OUNOTOE 0.I..04.050.000..0 30 .030 .00- I LOA C0lEM- .. .0 000.0N 14.t9, 5.0 .0 .000-4 LO0000TOLOOO0LTO ..........NCNS.. . ..... 0..00 0. 0. . .

005 I OM ELONTENIC E- T 94 0I.0 00 00 -. 0 03 3

04-1-3 100. 00000000 .... 000 .... ................. I 0.13' 009 0. .5 00 .

04A3. T ' L..3G!TCJ............. I.04-15 GNS. 00. .4 00 .

05 EOA1 0I GLECTEN-C NEAEOO00000229 1900101 3..... -'O 00. 0. 39 3 . I0 .

O ENf.Ft.LTM GS00T'00 .00 02.0 10.4. 0 3 01 3 .10-4 1. SOSTIINj 000E'.A0.103 . 40 000 030 9 0 05 3 .

GA-O I DN TOOLS.....00...240.0..008.0..0...0.9...0

.U~L.. CG.5100t10'0 SCTONION 00 OGUI .L......o... .. .5 9. 5. 00 3 . 0 .

G0-0 I IPOE HEOIE HAD000I.0.0 7. 0. T. 30 0. 32 .0CU-U 0T00110$LOL 000000 0 E050 0C 0009 . .~ ' OLI0. 0. 8.0 0.I0-O I MOTEL CO-N lG T.ICOO TNLLL 30...49.00..300.4..0 .030 .

IGL001039313t23 .001100 00001.--------------

253

Table I Producer pr Indexes and percan chnges tor selected commodity groupings by age of processing-Con'jiouad '010.131 O UESS A'AAAIOSEC 1503I3T 13

I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~I I I IDul tSsLwFJSE

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~I OIAITAOr IA130J30LA OltS 3N. PEsEIAIT I E'ACE3N 001.3

3-W 01 3 I I 'T3rcl ' 3 IOC~t.F3' 33. I Uc. 310 .7 FCI-

CIE I C'A33I O' IJI.. I. tJ . ICC~. 157d1 Pr I Jl

________|___________________~~~~ 03_ . J olSCtl 1.4. 3 IL. 57 I 1575 j 3740

I 1'7' LOIISIS 2/3 IOTA ZOO 357P13- 3,

I CAPITOL AAOI'AAS0-CrSl3s ~c~ IS I ..A..............I PATES- SS. -tCE015UASE . ........... . .410I 3Y~s'0STTAL A 131111 tASOLltSA 'AUI"Y 3301I .1........................ .F30I SCALES 033 E.ALISCES ~ l ' O .3'3....................... t

I F~s tr b3wERSFws .................... TP"AfE......... T 5^

I IO; ;il303 1-. I J GI ...... .II3

3-l330 10CSI SACS At?. 111M10C 2 . .

ISES'13 1133''ICAISAw 313 750CiC 0 3 5u-~~sl.3.....................lI L 13 INC LA 11................................AT S S 2 .I 0AS1'0"'SA AL 0 TEs A u-l- ,. ..............I 133433L 145l 'ErASCTSlol *.3 4031 . 1................... .47'

I OETIE 13 TO?'ISCISES1St0031335 - .1 'SM'llo.l.:~i ... alPr ............. lls

owslL tlit;....................................... .gI I C33:13314 03313303' C . 3~~~ T.'

A C . . ...................... 2I 3.0 , T .. . ...............

IF. IY lL. rCRs C c.ls ................................ .n

If.- '. TlT Icr Oc.'e c ............................................. l.5.

I R~l~o^7 IDJ17S~s.. ... ... ......................... X

I -31120 A13 . .A..... 43A0 I' .ILO I'...

I Prn~r~avle EUIA!CI lE.......... .. ..................... 5C

IrltAqo -rAILL, AI34OOAICLO's 30CC. 133013.3 .07?

3 0040'.-0I A.I '-I

I .0T 1 ....... II C0S0'CU7'IA'T33TEAI" EA . 3A37 ET00 . 3.. .3''

L V3 A 0133 AIL S.............................. .

I 33UJ~sEA A3PU'5053304EA3S I EC s5.I -Il...........'A..............l.s

I 505A' I ACE 01 CS C. CSTS.'C1 .3........................ l.70'I 34513355C'YI0.A IS IOAEIL ALs7 . IS^v......................... I l.13'

I . A-HZ ............................. I

:II DIE.ELI' sIl-L . 11

0A. ICAI ..................... I .v

U;IAI 430331 1334 SCATIQAL C wl.3 .004

I PAINO wS .I\131......................I .. 7,3

I 031.S'. 3ILIt'SwS.....................I .. .t1

3I4*3 3015P1 115 1331.334.I................... 1 .' .

13 59 050l 003113. . I...... .011I40l:335CC41.C.1040C3E4000 S. I .'00

3 3415333 3013.3CT030733DU17 DE50C5Ot. ISAS'lC0'I .......................... I .332

I I3'C. 3S0'.SI'.33. . .... . ..I sI 4133313'S OtISIlO 301E3., OILC 00E313303 II ISEC. 3'7I.I1*3:. . . 3......................1 .1'-

I 041'33C A-7C\ 0304333 1 SIIIEAO00 30444473S II 3/AlE 4105.133 . 1 / . 1 . '"

333.3 5.3 3/113.4 3.3 3/

111.3 7.0 1/

213.1 3.1 30

Z'13.7 13.3 1/

333.1 0.0 3

13. 3*.3 l

110.4 3.13 3

110.3 01.0

001.3 li.C

32t.C3 33.0 1

1:.3. 7 .3 20

I13.7 3.3 30

134.2 30.§ i211s.0 t.0 3

33,.S5 22.1

.1;, 3.7 32.?:

0.4 ..0

530 5.

2.3 2/ .3

'13 2 l/ .1

0.0 20 ..

10.1 4.0

1.3 : -.7

-. 3 _.3

4.E 3 2.3

57-254 0 - 80 - 17

TI

3-!. 1

T

II 7 .1

5, T

T

3'E F.-- FY. * ElD 'F T.11E.

254

Tablet Producer pric Wndxe end Wen chengee for uaeeted oommnodh grousbig by ease of proeen-CnaiiI 1lIT13. .AtM T0TE9W91 IOICATaCI

I I I WI.IJAT9SSEISTIOLC AOJAST9O1~ISTAITTOS 12N904A90 MU10 4 PE.T9 I P990997 0099G9

11-CEITI T.-~~~~~~~~~~~I I PCM I 90I-I I

EC00. SLT I Al. I00 10 A I SLTI ITOS 1 `1190 Vt 1976 201 I 199 I .

IMTITESTEAE 91009ILS. ETC -C-INCO ........A01 50 UTC PA-9T .ISO I CTPTSTC0SEOAIt.

T I- -I I L.............. I.... . 22

09-0.I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2.110TJ- I OTOS TT T ...............T.....I.2

A-l I OOTlOT .I.ES.7021T-I

13 IST I_ AE 90' TAOCTTTSIIESTS 3.I.......... 0.910

IT-IT-O I II! SOOT...E...0..00 . ..........A-Il I ONE )0P IE102PCAO . .)

1-1 ISCOOT 009 NOTSSOU TOA N LO ANOSITI .ITOS J OTEPTN IL NAEN . I 1.909..

1-1 I NSNEC SON 199 IIICALE .IL C S.T

122-'G 4 I. EASINS (-uN 190 ISA.::. 0..........I .1701-3 I ItECOSS -HTIES .I.....JIloit _J OASOAEL .E.CA --9 .7-

+T TEITINGI SAIPTENT3.I 19VTo I PASCATE NSUT- JPNL T.TAL......OII 1.91

- 10S 9TCOALLIT9EOJIS LPLAO-OTS..I......... 3.0

IHoIiz i ?sL TIA..T..E..... I......If -I PSS O 05 29- E1 T..01093 I .00I1-29 --- -T9PSSP5NNIT015.I ......A9TT-T I ISO EL..Il..L....O.NI _AO

Il-T 1 0001'TALS93SCDESAL.ET...I...2Il-OS _IASSASIV 0EOUS .. -. I-.2

13 -I FLTS 709 EIULATMOTIO.I .3T0C

ETLI PTD 11 9402504 TTO000POETAS..I........... .1,10

II. (lEA.I 99T.199) 10 C.l. ...... I .T1T II.AOE .71L0 OOTTS I.IT .T- ........... -

"90 ISLL AND, TOLS E TTO.I .260

IT3 I 1E PLAT PITSIS0.............09 IL117 I7921099 S...............I-.53

01IJ10L L.0100131LO ~ ................. . I.6205 NITCOOI-AS. N170910 T. EA9TT I .

90 I ITl'SIAL00-5-010 TS ITES . I S-.935IA I 49 SLITS EUPE. ..... I .2I.02Lr1t-311-P0 I -El.........E..T ... I.1

131 I -ATTSITESOP)S9 ...... I...........

19- I 072 .POON.I......... .01

1It I IO1MTO 0050045 PASi.I....... 1

15 INT.ION 30.IE.LC-- ........... .1-9

.tA. OL 0 VE251TTJ SP.PLTS ................. .600

JI,-lUl I 1SFIOTO0T POOITOTI 01ECALIITOTIT VIE 1T09C.0O1101 ..131 1-2 I ESEA1IOT CEOSTTT)E TIUIETIT

_________L J2l31212013) .........-........... I.02

- .OIS IT E

19. 1 292.0

21.5 21.

00.2 20.

.. 11.4

10. 0.1:

200.2 2T2.

20.9 21.

23.1 - 23.

25.9 2I .

91.1 30.

19.2 13.

019 A. 2.

9. 97 -T

1.42 I 3.2 10

9.1 9.

T.5 32 1. 30

095 2 .A 10

IAT I.'

19.3 3 .9 .019. v 2. .919 J -.2 J903 .2 .

255

Tale Iroducar price krdexm snd percn change for selected commniodity groupings by stage of processing

-mizsaed '3900.37: /10&A34 A'A'P.A00 A02PC*P~N

| , ~~~~~~~~~~~~l ---T--~~~~~~~---------i---

c~~~~~~~r9 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ OOAA 0sJ ~ IC42/0. ILC I______ PU:.4' I C577'. ('

-.U . IC. I I 0

I O . - 001 . 32./l.7. 1 0 - I. 144 1435 1

Ill P111T~~~~~~~~l I AS....A......410.......1 I 37I 45/190 N00'71A40 570 03/1031 P.~4P40IA.4 1150.t 252.9 261.7 17.0 2.0

,.a , FP6sN ASS 37 340 FAulls 342 00400A5LC0 .I*@<> 2.'45 225.0 703.A 12.2 24.? AS.

-? I 1 /............................. . 55C 2.7.. 2 .A 2.0 5. / -I

0?-7 1 I 7 s302 . . . . . ............. 0

- I tic . .A -12.................._ 2. 7 . A 7. - . -2.2 2.

73-N 1 PLANOO NA4 ............ 1 / .... ....... 20 00.0 227.0 9.0 3/ .3 3/ .

13-0 I 247.0 254.0 33.'* * 1..................................7

73-S 1 033. NA7N3C7S .3073 3 2 . 6 0 .' 201.0 A&.N 37 4.7 37 -0.2

IA-NI-IA A 4''10 I S F 3 .. . ............................ 5

33-3l3.2 I1 .c ..A SPANS ........... 7. 5.7 133.3 -3.7 -... .3..31-02--' 4'-A 1 .A'N .. . . . .................. 1-

2-A-13CAN:007 A.................... A.l20 21.4 2A.2 1... 37 ... e 3/ 0.7

74-A 3 9lassD510034 S0.S......3 , *77A N03A 533.0 77.7 20.0 09.0

15-l 3 CoAL.L . . . . L^l .7ed *52.6 r~i5 2.' 1.0 .035_ sN TUA 31S I/ 03070 43 3.334. 5'-03 57C 002.7 0.0 32 7.3/, 3/ 2.7

73-X NP 0s7 P . ..................... l .1. 107.3 .00.5 2..2 1.0 1.0

37.3.7 3 4I/100 5 33.3 .047 U 33'e 010.4 20.3 '.2.................. .4

34--2 3 3640. .3 ---. 24---------- .- 13. - -.

AO-01 3 RN r 357 0.I.... *19 230.'1 227. 2A3.537.430 3/ .0

20-32 3 OAC.'~s 5 ^6l3 0.AA 0643.3 32.7Z2 523 5.7s -0.3

13-27 3 000000 0.3~ ocu;e ~eE6***>* 2.707 207.0 203.0 32.0 0.5 5.5

13-21 I o 0I. 40___ 730 Cu_ 75 I. 2.0 23 2 1 31 1 .3

12 0575002074 700030 397P'3C4 PA4440 00 4450730'40 -935076 ICO064271 7437'I00 0043 _ 0SCI/5'7 7'30 39IV 00439906. 0A70R 0l3C404 FI APP0 AsPE 40477E 4440710 004W 0143 44.2~qL 7/7.447U3 44040 0044041

'75000354 534/130 5040 044703 504 354/17 9oPtE7s 77053 22344 33~73 5 445200V~7 7. 104 ?500

sT07 3'A/1E 930053340. 770 04C70 sT4533737 3/0003 32 973 00304344 30220760SE.

CF 706 73000000 42000 360 0/1373 15 03414700 70 54731507731 SOUIP3'N7 359 73070309 4404/1330 40000 453400344 42 N07 373343540.00'30. 03705437 300 IMPCOSASJ! 734300 07409005104C700019570E 40320 044003530 90 TESOP 007 GIUP 354E 07107 05409 35 470060. 7003900 937PLE 501910 3EAIElP0790040 P3420

256

Table 3. Prodwer plse In xes for e t ommodity groupings'(1967-1 301

I UADJUSTEC TNCEX

GROUPING IAPRIL 1979 2/I AUG. 197S 2/1

ALL COYMMODIIES ................... 230I 238.1 1ALI. CCYYICD!TIES (1957-55-1101 .......... ;;..;...... 244.3 1 252.61

MAJCR CnEMODITY GPOUPS I I I

FR I P-IOUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS AND FEEDS .I 231.2 1 227.3 IF8RM P I0UUCS.I 246.0 1 238.5 1,rCSCE) FOCDS END FE .. I 222.3 1 220.3 3

IN)U'TF.16 !GM40,3I T!NT'T 7,-I.L CSMD..ITIES .. I 229.0 1 243.3 1

-ATI L OUCTS END APPAPEL .I 166.4 170.4 11JEE, -KINS, LEATHER, AND RELATED PRODUCTS. I 258.S I 258.C 1

FU-CLS UN3, ELATE0 P'cDIICTS AND POWER / l. . 361.5 1 432.5CHEMICAl 5 AND ALL IED PRODUC7TS / . .I 219.1 I1 27.- IPJ"'R A 'DPLASTIC P'COUCTS . .I 18.R I 197.4 1LIN -R AN3 WC^D PRrUCUTCS . I 334.9 1 334.4 1-'ILP, P'A'R, AND ALLIEJ PRODUCTS .I 215.3 1 221.S IM-TALS A!1 METAL PR0OU.TS . . 256.0 I 261.6 1MACHINERY AND E3UIPMEN1 ................ ......... I 209.8 I 215.7 1FJRTItUlE 49N HCUSEHOLD 3URA8LES . ................ 168.7 1 170.7"CJM TALLIC MINFRAL PR CTU 7 I 243.4 1 249.6 1'ANRPS-rTaTIEN EQUIPMENT (DEC 1968 I O D I e6.8 i 187.12 I1 SC-LLAME0IIS -R' DUCTS . ......... ...........I 201.4 1 2C8.2 2

-1111ST'ISL CCMMODITIES LESS FU_LS AND RELATED I I I'PCnjOS 1NZ3 PWER . .I 214.7 I 220.1 I

OTHEF COMMODITY GROUPINGS I I I

31-' CTHER FARM PR0.UCTS . 255.1 I 310.9 I37-S C1REAL AND RkKEPY PRODUCTS .I 23.20 215.1 12-7 "A75S. POULTRY, AND FISH .I 253.0 1 225.5 1

!2-5 SUTr AND CCNFECTICNERY .I 208.7 1 218.3 1;7-6 R9V-RAGES AND REVERATE MT ERIALS .I 2C1.5 1 215.9 112-6' ACKAYGD 8EV-RAGOD MATERIALS.E I 29. I 3535.022-7 F1 A END 0 1S . 1 246.2 1 251.C I24-9 4 7MT L EATHL E AND RELATEO PRDUCTS .I 2L0.9 1 211.0 I15-3 G45 "IIELS 1/.I 477.4 1 569.C I'5-7 REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS 3/. 378.6 I 492.9 1'6-3 573uS AND PHARMACEUTICALS ........... I 17.5 1 159.6 66-5 AGPICULTURAL CHEMICALS AND PRODUCTS.. . I 209.8 1 213.5 I76-7 'THER CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS .. I e16.9 1 193.9 137-1 1q99FR AND RU3RER PRDDUCTS .I 2CI.2 1 212.4 177-11 CRUDF R88ER .I 211.6 I 232.2 I17-13 MISC-LLANEOUS RU398R PRODUCTS .I 201.3 206.1 11Q-? NONFERROUS METALS .I 259.6 262.3 I10-4 HARDWAPC I 215.8 1 220.3 I11-3 Y TALWORKING MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT . I 235.3 1 243.2 111-4 GENER4C PURPOSE MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENETI 232.6 1 237.8 111-7 EL-CTRICAL MACHINERY AND EOUIPPENT .I 175.0 1 181.C I11-9 M1'C-LLANE3US MAHINERY AND EaUIPMENT .I 25.4 1 209.8 I13-2 CONCRETE INGREDIENTS ......... ,I 242.0 1 244.7 I14-1 MZTOR VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT .I 19.4 1 189.2 I15-4 'HOTIGFAPHIC DQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES .............. I 150.1 I 152.0 I1-' CTHER AISCELLANEDUS PRorUCTS .I 246.1 1 260.1 1

…_- ______________________________________ I_ _...~. _ _ _______ I _

1/ INREXES FOR THESE COYMMDITY GROUPINGS ARE NOT INCLUDEDIN TA31E 2 PECAUSE THEIR COMPONENTS ARE DIVIDED AMCNG DIFFERENT'TAGES 'F PR0CESSING.

2/ DATA FPD APRIL 1979 HAVE REEN REVISED TC REFLECT THESVAILARILITY OF LATE REPORTS AND CDRRECTICNS BYFFS-'NDENTS. ALL DATA ARE SU3JECT TO REVISION FOUR,PNTHS SFTER ORIGINAL PUSLICATION.

2/ PFICES CF SOME ITEMS IN THIS GROUPING APE LAGGED I MONTH.

257

Chart 1Finished Goods Price Index and its components

1969 - 793-month annual rates of change

(Seasonally adjusted)

I I ' ~~~~ ~~~~AUG Pucqst

F n i dzd goods i s i , 11.6 sa

% 4 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~20

* I. , , ; -10

Finlatiod conaauner loodacuig od tRAG 1

AUG

300

-170

I , I I , 0 .0

I ll I l I

I4 I 1:';,',. i3

1989 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 105 19V8 197 1978 1979

SOLRCE: Bureau of Labor Stazot) cs

258

Chart 2Intermediate Materials Price Index and Its components


(Seasonally adjusted)Intermediate materials A I

Intermediaet material les foods wid feeds* --10

l , ~~~~~17 70 _ 60

Intermediate foods and faeds | sA --O

-10o-70

- 30-20-0

-640I I I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~-730

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1978 1977SOURCE. aurem of Labor Statistics

1978 1979

259

Chart 3Crude Materials Price Index and Its components


(Seasonally ad { us ted)

q 120-00

- BA

- 40

- 20-0

-- 20

60

- 40- 20

m -201 -40

n190

140

-1 120j100

i So-so

i04

' a-i20

-40

_ e

Is IWO SlV Iw2 iW ' Ii4 I1S 1iW 1a7 IV$ WSSOURcE: Oarea of Loor Statletce

260

Senator BENTSEN. When you talk about real wages declining, pricescontinuing to escalate, unemployment increasing, in 1974 they coineda new word for that and called it stagflation. Isn't that what we havenow?

Ms. NORWOOD. I think it is too early to characterize in technicalterms what we have now, Senator Bentsen, but a downturn in theeconomy has been reported by many of the indicators and now we havethe first month of labor market change. We don't know what thefollowing months will show.

Senator BENTSEN. What concerns me, in the numbers for 1974 andfor this month, is the fact that one of the great dissimilarities with1974 was this time business learned to control and hold down inven-tory. But now I am seeing new numbers that make it appear that theearly estimates that inventories were being held down were wrong,and that inventories are moving up, and this situation gives us a greatdeal of concern as sales are dropping.

That is what we went through in 1974-75.Ms. NORWOOD. There has been a good deal of discussion in the last

couple of months, particularly, as I recall, by Alan Greenspan, aboutthe problems of measurement of inventories. There have always beendifficulties in deflating inventory information, and it may be that wewill find that they have been underestimated, but I don't think thereis any evidence in the data as yet to show that inventory buildups areat anywhere near the rate that they were in the 1973 time period.

Senator BENTSEN. Isn't it correct that the early estimates, the lastreports we had, were underestimating the inventory buildup and arebeing corrected now in the other direction with their estimate?

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes; that is right.Senator BENTSEN. Let me understand this. In your statement you

say thus far the increase in unemployment has been essentially limitedto white workers. What has happened to women and teenagers?Typically they are the last hired and first fired, and we had some recentprogress in unemployment in those two groups.

Are you saying we have held back that progress?Ms. NORWOOD. I think it is important to remember, Senator Bentsen,

that any kind of unemployment, of course, is a serious problem. Blacks,teenagers, and women traditionally have higher unemployment ratesthan white males in good times as well as bad. When the economybegins to turn down, whether it be slightly, or more fully, the questionis where that reduction in employment is coming about.

The establishment survey has been showing a reduction for sometime in the manufacturing industries. So then we have to look at whatthe labor force of those industries is. This was certainly shown in the1973-75 recession which tended to hit the durable goods manufacturingindustries. If, for example, we had a big downturn-if we were to havea big downturn in, say, the apparel manufacturing industry, wherewe know there are a large number of women employed, we wouldexpect to see an increase in unemployment for women.

So I think we have to take all of these factors into account, andyou have to separate the structural from the cyclical as well.

Senator BENTSEN. I know you said that car prices were down four-tenths of 1 percent. Does that reflect these large rebates to the dealersthat supposedly go on to the consumer that Chrysler has announced?

Have those been factored in yet or not?

261'

Ms. NORWOOD. It reflects some of the rebates-to dealers from theother companies, but the

Senator BENTSEN. Ford said they are making the biggest rebatesin history. I assume Chrysler is trying to top that.

Ms. NORWOOD. The Chrysler rebate is directly to the consumer andwould show up in the Consumer Price Index and the Producer PriceIndex.

Senator BENTSEN. How closely did they relate?Ms. NORWOOD. It will show up in the Producer Price Index, but

later.Mr. LAYNG. It was announced in the press August 20 to be effective

after that time. It will show up in September.Senator BENTSEN. That is what I wanted to know. And domestic

car sales are down, but aren't foreign car sales substantially up?Ms. NORWOOD. They are up some. We can supply that information

for the record if you wish.Senator BENTSEN. If wholesale gasoline prices went up 6.1 percent

in July, how much will that affect the price at the pump, the price Ihave to pay when I drive up there?

I went up to the pump the other day and-they couldn't go over adollar so they put it-they doubled the price for me at the end.Instead of thinking I had bought $10 worth of gas, as it showed onthe meter, they told me I bought $20 worth of gas.

The pump couldn't reflect more than $10. It took me a while toaccept that. Will you tell me what I will have to accept next time Idrive up if wholesale prices of gas had gone up 6.1 percent in July?What will happen to the pump price?

Ms. NORwoon. I had the same experience, except I realized thatthe gas station attendant forgot to double the price and I had topoint that out to him. [Laughter.]

Senator BENTSEN. You are exceptional. [Laughter.]Ms. NORWOOD. I think it is clear that there will be an effect but I

think there will be some lag in that effect passing through retail. Mr.Layng can give you a rough calculation of what that might be if itwere passed through.

Mr. LAYNG. At a dollar a gallon, you are talking essentially 6 centsor a nickel. Roughly a nickel a gallon.

Senator BENTSEN. Six-tenths of 1 percent.Mr. LAYNG. The Producer Price Index data reported for August

for gasoline reflects July data. In a sense we have already seen whathappened at the retail level. This data comes directly from refinerswith a 1-month lag. You have to look at the July Consumer PriceIndex and the August Producer Price Index to line them up; 6 percentis roughly 6 cents a gallon at the retail level.

Senator BENTSEN. Senator Javits.Senator JAVITS. Thank you. First, it occurred to me as I looked

over your statement to ask you whether any effort will be made tochart the course of productivity and its relation to inflation. I noticedat the very end of your statement you obviously had figures you areworking with. You say productivity performance has been poor, andthen you say prices continue to escalate in the double-digit range.

NOW, has any effort been made to correlate the decline in produc-tivity which seems to me catastrophic with the increase in inflation?

262

Ms. NORWOOD. There are a number of studies. We are continuallylooking at these relationships. One would, of course, expect that adownturn in productivity performance would be associated with anincrease in prices.

Senator JAVITS. The reason I asked that is because there is a greatrenewed interest in productivity and something that I and SenatorBentsen and others have been beating the drum for for a long time. Ithink it would be very interesting if we had anything authoritativeon the subject.

We all feel, of course, there is a very relevant effect, but to have itverified by the correlation of the figures I think would be very helpful.

Ms. NORWOOD. We can certainly supply a statement for the record.Of course, the issue gets at the relationship of productivity to increasesin unit labor costs and the passthrough of that through the producerand retail level prices.

Senator JAVITS. If you would be kind enough to do that I wouldask unanimous consent it be incorporated in the record.

Senator BENTSEN. By all means.Senator JAVITS. Thank you.[The following information was subsequently supplied for the

record:]Productivity changes are an important factor in cost and price changes. This

stems from the fact that productivity growth directly offsets wage gains in de-termining increases in unit labor costs. Trends in unit labor costs are usuallyassociated with price changes. The accompanying chart 1 for the entire privatebusiness sector shows that in years when productivity growth fell, such as 1974,unit labor costs rose. The relationship between unit labor cost and prices can alsobe seen in chart 2.

Chart 3 shows the relationship between productivity and prices by individualindustries.

263

Chart L Productivity and Unit Labor Costs in the PrivateBusiness Sector, 1950-78

Percent change

14.0 I i

10.01 0 n L Unit labor costs A

8.0 16.0

_ A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~zo .

~~,W2~~LwJ W-LLW

ace: U&p~ Df tp 1f .1 L.W. 2 L-b. St.91IM&¢

264

QChrt 2. Composition of Price Changes, Privatc Business Sector, 1950-77

Prcntchange

Prices

2 _ _ _ __-~

Point contribution to pric eriange_

Unitllabor cots

4.

2

5: __

? . . . ___ Ote w.A .ohbcot

0

2 nit profJWL

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 . 1975 10

'UnS p.M.t. Indod.. -orpor-t. p~foit .nd th. moi^.t.d pfi.. - .oniroorport .nfopdO...

W ..II ..no .Ios. 11lod d#po e .bo. hltroot, I ftdieol W.&.S

O.,00 ItS poraonI1 L.fo. &. - (, St.St"l.

265

Chaert 3. Output per Employee-Hour and Price Changesfor Selected Industries, 1960-76Prices (percent change) (Average Annual Rates)

(Sugar (Petroleum ref ining)

* * (Primary copper, lead, and zinc)

(Footwear) ,_ _ __ _ ___8__e

4

(Autos) \ (Malt liquoi

(Telephones) \

0 -

(Man-made liber (Hosier

-(Rado and television scts)-2

Output per employee-hour(Percent change)

Soa.: 6w.8. of L.bo, Stfistka. U.S. D.,,ment of Lebo,.

266

Senator JAVITS. The other thing I wanted to ask about is this:Obviously, the pattern of this recession is almost as clear as HurricaneDavid. You can see it coming on at a certain speed. Like they tellyou on the radio, this storm is traveling at z miles per hour. Here weare. We are in it. There are estimates as to shallow or deep. Mr.Volcker is of one school. Others are of another school. Is there anyway in your judgment that you could help us with that? Perhaps itsrelationship to previous recessions. Perhaps some other standards.

I think it would be very helpful to the country, standing on theedge of what we know is coming, to wit, tax cuts, even if they may bevery unwise, and other remedial measures, to have some indication,if we can, from the statistical side, as to what we are looking towardin the way of a span of a recession.

Is it 1973-74? Is it some other variable? If you could. I would notbe a bit insistent on that, because you are very honest, and you knowfor what your figures can help us with and what they can't. Weknow the caveats you would have to insert. But I think it might behelpful if there is, i your judgment, anything to be gleaned from thejuxtaposition of the figures.

Ms. NORWOOD. I am afraid I can't provide much help in that area,Senator Javits. Many of the economic indicators have showed a down-turn, including, as you know, a downturn in building permits, housingstarts, industrial production, capacity utilization, and new orders.Now we have some increase in unemployment, and we have had forsome months some decreases in employment in manufacturing. Never-theless, I do think it is important to emphasize that 1 month's labormarket data doesn't really tell us enough and that we do need to lookat several months before we can be sure.

The statistics we now have tell us nothing about the duration ofthis trend, if there is one, and they don't tell us anything about thedepth.

Senator JAVITS. So you would not even say this signals the recessionis on.

Ms. NORWOOD. I would suggest that these data are in line with theother statistical data which show that parts of the economy have beenturning down, but we have had downturns before. That does not meanwe are going way down.

We really just have no information on that at this point, and ifthere is any point that I would like to emphasize, it is that you can'ttake 1 month's unemployment figures and decide what is going tohappen.

Senator JAVITS. Would you say the third quarter would be anadequate indicator?

Ms. NORWOOD. We would know a lot more, yes. We also have aproblem because the second quarter was a very unusual one. We hadparticular difficulties in the months of April and May when we hadthe teamster strike, which had a big effect on the economy. In Maywe had a recovery from that. So we have to look at the data beforethat. That is one of the reasons we think there is evidence of a slow-down since March. There is no question about that. There is a down-turn since March. The question really is: How long will that endure,and how steep will it become?

Senator JAVITS. Thank you.Senator BENTSEN. Congressman Wylie.

267

Representative WYLIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Ms. Norwood, the GAO recently released a study that says that

unemployment compensation benefits are so high that they reducethe incentive for the unemployed to take work.

Are you familiar with that report?Ms. NORWOOD. I have heard about it. but I have not actually

seen it.Representative WYLIE. What is your view of that thesis?Ms. NORWOOD. First, let me say that I understand that others in

the Department of Labor who have looked at that study are in theprocess of reviewing it, and have found some considerable fault with]t. I, myself, have no direct knowledge of it, so I can't speak to that.

I think that there has been a great deal of discussion, as you know,about the definition of the unemployment rate; and about whethermany of the transfer payments and social benefits affect the un-employment rate by making it go up or go down. That is a very bigissue, and I don't think we really know the extent to which theseprograms may have any effect.

Representative WYLIE. You are studying it, though, and willhave some statement forthcoming on this?

Ms. NORWOOD. I believe the Department of Labor will be replyingto the GAO study.

Representative WYLIE. I think your view of it as a statistician,and the view of the Secretary of Labor, might be very important inthe overall employment situation; don't you?

Ms. NORWOOD. We certainly all think our view is important.We would like other people to think that, too.

Representative WYLIE. Well, I would say, Commissioner, that I amnot a statistician and I know that you are a very good one-at least,your reputation precedes you as being a very good one-and it'smy understanding the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses computerprograms to seasonally adjust the unemployment rates which youreported Monday.

It's also my understanding that unusual occurrences can result inchanges in a computer seasonally adjusted factor.

How likely is it that the gas lines of last month, and the resultingconsumer avoidance of large cars in the automobile industry, con-tributed to seasonal unemployment in ways which could distortestimates of the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate?

In short, what are the chances that the seasonally adjusted un-employment rate reported for next month might fall back below the6 percent level, since we don't have the gas lines and since thereapparently is more activity as far as the sale of cars is concernedand more employment, therefore, in the automobile industry?

Ms. NORWOOD. As I indicated in my statement, I think that theseasonal adjustment process in the automobile industry, in particularfor employment in the manufacturing of automobiles, is particularlydifficult and there may be problems there.

In terms of the service industries that supply gasoline, we don'thave any specific information but certainly that may be true. Thatis why I emphasize the fact that I month does not really tell us whatwill happen in the future.

268

I would also like to point out that there is a table attached to mystatement at the end, on seasonal adjustment. That table has severalalternative methods.

If you look at it, you will note that unemployment went up accord-ing to every method that is listed there. However, in the two columns,Nos. 3 and 8, which are labeled "concurrent," which means essentiallythat you use all of the data that you have currently available, thereis a smaller increase in August-5.7 to 5.9 percent-than the officialfigures which are based on factors announced a year in advance.

Representative WYLIE. OK.This is a question that I asked of business groups from my district

(uring the August recess.Would you favor a tax cut of $20 billion now, this year, or would

ou prefer the Republican position which calls for a tax cut of $36licon?I might add that I am not, at the present time, a cosponsor of that

$36 billion tax-cut bill. I am searching for answers. I would like youropinion on it.

Ms. NORWOOD. As Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Congress-man, I really feel it is inappropriate for me to comment on a policyissue; except to say that I think that whatever policy responses aretaken to deal with the economy at any time, should be carefullyrespnsive to the overall situation that the data present.

End, as I indicated, a rise in unemployment in a single month doesnot permit a conclusion about any change in the state of the economy.That has nothing to do with whether we should or should not have aa tax cut. It's a question you gentlemen have to decide.

Senator JAVITS. Would the Congressman yield?Just to refer him to the fact that the Senate Republicans unani-

mously have authorized an economic program which includes theirview as to the tax cut, and it differs from that of the House and fromthat of-

Representative WYLIE. I will look at that third package, too.What you are saying is that you are not going to answer that ques-

tion this morning?Ms. NORWOOD. That's right. [Laughter.]Representative WYLIE. Do you expect food prices to continue to

increase from now until the end of the year?Ms. NORWOOD. I try not to expect or to forecast what is going to

happen.Representative WYLIE. You are in the business of forecasting,

aren't you?Ms. NORWOOD. We don't engage in forecasting. Sometimes there

are factual developments which lead us to expect that something willhappen, but we don't have any special information on food prices inthe coming months.

Representative WYLIE. So you would like to duck on that one, too?Ms. NORWOOD. I would like to be as responsive as I can to the

questions you ask, and I think I can be most useful if I provide factualresponses and tell you what I don't know. That is one that I justdon't know.

Representative WYLIE. I didn't mean to seem like I was beingcritical of your answer. I was trying to make a fair statement as towhat I felt I got from the question I asked.

269

The reason I asked that is that I really wanted to know, if I amasked, whether food prices were supposed to be a moderating influenceon inflation and for the Producer Price Index. During August, theyhave been.

But do you expect the Producer Price Index to rise rapidly nowthat food has ceased to be a moderating factor, apparently? Is thatreferred to in the projections you make?

Ms. NORWOOD. I think we have to look a little bit beyond the data.Certainly food prices turned around last month. That wvas largelybecause of fruits and vegetable prices.

Now, when you remember that food prices are highly volatile, andthat the reference date for prices in the Producer Price Index is asingle day in the month. I think that we have to be a bit careful aboutmaking too many assumptions about what that might mean in termsof fruits and vegetable prices, for example, for the future.

We now have underway in the Bureau of Labor Statistics a programfor revision of the Producer Price Index, which will permit us to col-lect prices covering the entire period of the month. And the ConsumerPrice Index-we now do that in all areas, including food; so I wouldjust urge a little bit of caution in such things as fruits and vegetables,which are highly affected by weather and other problems.

Representative WYLIE. So you don't think food prices are neces-sarily a moderating factor in inflation?

Ms. NORWOOD. Food prices are really very difficult to predict.Sometimes you know about shortages. You recall, there was discussionabout grain, for a while, being in short supply because the SovietUnion was in short supply, and so on. But I don't think we have anyinformation that could tell us what is going to be happening in thenext couple of months.

Representative WYLIE. As far as inflation is concerned.Thank you very much.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Senator BENTSEN. Congressman Wylie, on the point you made about

the tax cut, obviously I think we ought to have one starting January 1,1980. The problem is that those that fail to learn from the mistakes ofthe past are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past. That is true.

Our problem is that is takes a while for Congress to react. It takesmonths for that to be done. We have to do some anticipating. I don'tgo along with the $36 billion tax cut but I think a $20 billion tax cut is amoderate one that will help ease inflation's impact on people. Itcertainiy can't contribute to it.

You had over $50 billion taken out of the pockets of the Americanconsumers by the increase in the price of oil and by people beingbumped up into another tax bracket. Let me show you traditionallywhat happens.

Here is what happened in 1974. Here went the recession 1973-74.Here was the tax cut just as the economy was turning around. It takesa while for a tax cut to take effect. There is the tax cut, May 1975,when we had the worst recession this country has seen since the GreatDepression. That is how late it was.

When you had a tax cut at that time, the thing was turning aroundand all the cut did was contribute to the problem. That is why I thinkwe ought to be working on one this fall to take effect in January 1980.I think the down side risk is minimal when you talk about a $20 billion

57-254 0 - 80 - 18

270

tax cut and you have taken $50 billion out of the economy. To talkabout it being inflationary makes no sense.

There ought to be a tax cut. It is not the crisis to crisis type thing butbut the cut deals with productivity and tries to increase it on a long-term basis.

Representative WYLIE. I understand your position and respect it.The problem I have is that we have a $23 billion deficit this year whichmayf go up to $29 or $30 billion and are we adding another $20 billiondeficit on top of that in the short term. Will we have problems manag-ing that additional public debt in the short term? That is what I haveto sort out m my own mind. I would like to be able to say to everybody,sure, we will give you all a tax cut this year. But I have to feel per-sonally that may not be a responsible position to take.

Senator BENTSEN. You know, I read over and over in the press thata tax cut is really to get a big political return. I don't believe that.When I go home, I don't have a lot of people coming to me saying, Iwant a tax cut. I really don't. When I vote one, I sure don't have any-body thanking me for it. But I am concerned about what will happento the economy overall and what will happen to our Nation. I am con-cerned about this-no one can tell me it won't be a serious recession.All of us think and hope it won't but I think one of the the considera-tions to insure against that is a moderate tax cut taking effect, startingnext year.

Senator JAVITS. May I make one observation? That is that a lot ofpeople now seem to believe that the downturn is a good thing and thatit is the only way to head off inflation and the only way to bring usback to some better attitude toward productivity and that,therefore,the consideration respecting the continuance of a large deficit is a soundone.

For myself, I am committed to a tax cut provided that the greatbulk of it-and I think your figure of around $20 billion is right-goesinto increasing productivity in the country, more than icing the Ameri-can industrial machine. But that is not the way it gets done on thefloor, and that is not the way it is generally defined.

Increasing consumption is what we need least in my judgment.Senator BENTSEN. That's right.Senator JAVITS. That is, the consumer consumption. Well, thank

you. It was a very useful area to be viewed.Senator BENTSEN. Is there anything further? If not, we will proceed

to close.Commissioner, we were very pleased to have you here this morning.

Thank you.The committee stands adjourned.[Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the committee adjourned, subject to the

call of the Chair.]


FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1979



Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lloyd Bentsen (chairman ofthe committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Bentsen, Proxmire, and Javits.Also present: John M. Albertine, executive director; M. Catherine

Miller, professional staff member; Mark Borchelt, administrativeassistant; and Carol A. Corcoran, minority professional staff member.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENTSEX, CHATRMAN

Senator BENTSEN. Good morning. Commissioner, I said that I hopenext time you come before us you would have some Pleasant news andobviously you have it. We all like surprises, especially when they arepleasant, and that's what awaits us at this hearing on the employmentsituation for September.

I might add, though, that while today's news is pleasant, its unpre-dictability must be giving some of the economic forecasters heartburn.

In August, unemployment rose to 6 percent. It was the secondconsecutive monthly increase and it looked as though we were aboutto plunge to recession levels of unemployment. The number of jobsfell sharply, by 310,000.

In September, though, all bets were off. The number of jobs rosetwice as sharply as they had fallen the previous month, 610,000, andthe unemployment rate fell to 5.8 percent.

So the news on the jobs front is unquestionably good.When you look at the figures over the past year you have to say

that our economy has shown incredible strength in the field of jobcreation; 2.5 million jobs have been created during that period. Whenyou compare that to the other economic numbers, it is nothing shortof amazing.

The job situation in this country, in fact, has been good for thelast 2 years. I really don't know of any other nation in the world thathas added that many people to the job rolls in that period of time.But as the chart this morning shows, the prospects have remainedbleak for teenagers looking for work, and that's especially true forblack teenagers. In September, the unemployment rate among blackteenagers was 31.5 percent and that's a disgrace. Jobs appear to bebountiful for everybody else, but for almost a third of this group ofpeople, people just starting out in life, the doors to productive workhave been closed in their face.

(271)

272

Another cause for concern this morning is the rate of inflation.Prices keep going up faster than before.

The Producer Price Index, released yesterday, showed wholesaleprices in September rose 1.4 percent, for an annual rate of 18.5 percent.

Commissioner Norwood, we are happy to see you this morning.Let me show you this chart just a moment and what it means. Tome, if you can see these things graphically sometimes they're a littlemore understandable than all of the percentages and figures you lookat. But in watching what's happened here in 1978 and 1979, we showblack teenagers and this figure includes Hispanics, at 31.5 percent,and that's really pretty terrible. If you compare that to total teen-age workers the ratio remains fairly constant. Then we show the whiteteenage worker. This line-total teenage unemployment-is the aver-age of these two, but you can see the rate remains very high andunacceptably so and one that we just have to find better answersfor than we have found in the past.

[The chart referred to in Senator Bentsen's opening statementfollows:]

Teenage Unemployment 16-19 Years

Percent

45_

40_

35_ nd4hWI n /k.r

25_

20_

TOIJT..-g.W.,k..

15_- o re

Wi.ok.~.

10_

5_

lii l l l iiil ili ' l~i l l

1978 1979

Senator BENTSEN. I'd like now to yield to my distinguished col-league, Senator Proxmire.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PROXMIRE

Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Madam Commissioner, what I'm about to say in no way is a reflec-

tion on you. You're a professional and a very good one and I'm veryproud, as I think other members of this committee who know of yourskill, of the fine work you have done in the Government. Nevertheless,

273

the employment figures this month epitomize more than almost anyrecent event the present low state of the economic profession.

The chairman has just referred to the heartburn the forecastersmust be getting. Well, they deserve more than a heartburn. Formonths we have been fed a mass array of computer projections, predic-tions, forecasts, and just plain guesswork. We have been told repeatedlythat we are in a recession. Furthermore, and more alarming, manyeconomists have been proposing policy actions based on mere predic-tion or forecast which just don't fit the facts.

At the height of a roaring inflation, the worst inflation perhapsever in our history-there may have been a few months during WorldWar I or right after World War I when they were almost as bad, butsetting all records as far as inflation is concerned-we have been urgednot to cut spending, not to be alarmed at a massive deficit, and not totighten our belts because of a recession which has no basis in factbut merely in fiction-forecasts, predictions, and projections. It mayhappen. It has not happened yet.

Senator Paul Douglas, who was formerly chairman of this committeeand formerly president of the American Economic Association anda brilliant economist and a trail blazer in economic thought, cautionedtime and again against making policy on the basis of predictions andprojections. His rule was to wait for the facts and to act on the facts.

A recession is two quarters of decline in the real GNP, not 1 month'sprojections based on the leading indicators. A recession involves arise in unemployment over a number of months, not an unemploymentrate which is either steady or gradually falling, interrupted only byan occasional monthly abberation.

Policies to fight unemployment and inflation and to keep theeconomy going should be based on fact, not on some computer pro-jection of the inflation rate projected a year into the future which inalmost every year in recent times has turned out to be wrong-in somecases stupidly wrong.

The time is now long overdue for the Council of Economic Advisers,the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Bud-get, and the professional economic community to base proposed policieson the actual facts and not some future projections which at best havesome mechanistic basis.

Economics is not engineering or science. Economics is a socialscience, an art, and an imperfect discipline. The economy is made upof impetuous and not merely mechanistic forces.

When we face double-digit inflation we should act to correct it.When we have sustained rising unemployment, we should move tocorrect it. When we are in a recession we should put into play thosecountercyclical measures which can reduce its severity and limit itsharshness.

But we should not promote or condone a massive deficit or vastlyincreased spending at a time of double-digit inflation based on somecomputer projection that inflation will be down in the third quarterof next year.

We should not pull out the stops and promote tax cuts, publicworks, or business bailouts on the basis of projected rising unemploy-ment at a time when unemployment is stable or falling.

It's time to base policy on facts and not projections. It's longoverdue for the economics profession to forgo proposing policies

274

based on computer projections and base them on the facts of the realworld when those facts have been shown and sustained.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Senator BENTSEN. I may not be able to stay the full time because

at the present time we have a Senate Finance Committee meeting.I just left a meeting there to come here.

One of the things that we are trying to determine is how to sendthe money out to people who are paying more for energy and par-ticularly the poor, and trying to use some statistics to determine justwho they are and if there's any basis on which we can adjust withsome assurance for regional differences.

Now we have arrived at some numbers as to the use of energy fora residence or household, but we are having difficulty in acceptingBLS's numbers insofar as levels of poverty. I know that HEW madea massive study, about 2 years ago, trying to measure poverty levelsand arrive at regional differences, and I think they finally backedaway from trying to make a regional determination on which to baseformulas.

So, since I do have to leave, that's one of the questions that weare trying to determine. Although I know that I didn't forewarn youon this, but if you have any numbers that you can give me somecomfort on or tell me that you don't think that the numbers aresufficiently definitive or reliable, I'd like to know. As Senator Prox-mire said, we are getting so many contradictory numbers and suchchanges in a period of time that it's difficult for us to feel that some-times we're exercising the proper judgment on these numbers.

Ms. NORWOOD. Senator Bentsen, let me just say very rapidly, inresponse to your question, first of all, poverty numbers are not BLSnumbers. They are not put out by the Bureau. The family budgetnumbers, which you may be referring to, are BLS numbers.

Senator BENTSEN. That's right.Ms. NORWOOD. We are in the process of trying to get some of the

best help we can. We have a committee now made up of some of thebest experts in the country, headed by Harold Watts, of Columbia,to try to assist us on that, but there are many judgments that involvevalues about wvhat adequacy actually is that get involved in it, andthat's one of the basic problems. I'd be glad at some later time toperhaps come back and talk to you informally about some of theseissues.

Senator BENTSEN. Well, I'd like that. I think we'll probably domore than that. I think we'll probably have you over at the SenateFinance Committee testifying on the family budget. I appreciate youcorrecting my term of the family budgets. I knew that about thepoverty level, but I did not know the term. But I was told that youwere having difficulties in the regional determination on those num-bers and apparently you are. You're saying you're trying to get thembuttressed by some additional counsel. Thank you.

275


Ms. N ORWOOD. Thank you.Mr. Chairman and Senator Proxmire, I am glad to have this oppor-

tunity to offer the Joint Economic Committee a few brief commentsto supplement our Employment Situation press release, issued thismorning at 9 a.m., and our Producer Price Index press release, issuedyesterday morning.

The employment situation strengthened in September. Total em-ployment, as measured by the household survey, more than reboundedfrom its decline in August. The 610,000 employment increase wasaccompanied by a sizable expansion in the civilian labor force and amodest reduction in unemployment. The unemployment rate was 5.8percent in September, down from the 6 percent of August, and backto the rate near which it had remained for the last 12 months.

The number of employees on nonfarm payrolls advanced by about135,000 over the month, with virtually all of the gain recorded in theservice-producing industries. Both the household and the establish-ment surveys have shown increasing employment over the past 6months, but at a much slower rate than previously. The householdsurvey's employment increase of 670,000 since March contrasts witha gain of 3.6 million in the previous year, from March 1978 to 1979.Similarly, the payroll survey rose by 815,000 from March to Septem-ber, whereas it had grown by 3.8 million during the preceding 12-month period-March 1978 to March 1979.

All of the growth in payroll employment since March has occurredin the service-producing industries. In the goods-producing industries,employment has been on a virtual plateau since March, as smallgains in mining and construction were about offset by cutbacks infactory jobs. The factory workweek, at 40 hours in September, re-mained well below its first quarter level. The index of aggregate weeklyhours for factory production workers-which reflects trends both inemployment and the workweek-was 103.3 in September, down 2.5percent from March. For the total private nonfarm economy, on theother hand, September was at about the same level as March.

Labor force growth has also slowed considerably in recent months.Although the labor force did increase in September, nearly two-thirdsof the change came from teenagers whose participation had declinedconsiderably in August. The overall participation rate of 63.9 percentin September was equal to the previous highs in February and March,but it should be noted that the participation rate had risen a fullpercentage point between early 1978 and 1979.

276

After a 1-month rise, the unemployment rate returned to 5.8 percent.There have been no pronounced trends in unemployment during thepast year among major demographic groups, although in September1979, the adult male rate was slightly higher than in the earlier part ofthe year. The jobless rate for black workers averaged just under 11percent in the third quarter, still more than twice that of whiteworkers, but at its lowest level in 5 years.

The BLS released today, as is usual practice each year, revisedestablishment survey data to reflect a new benchmark and updatedseasonal factors. These changes resulted in an upward revision fortotal nonfarm employment of more than 900,000 in August. During1979, however, the revised series confirms the marked slowdown inemployment growth, and downtrend in factory employment and hoursof work since March.

PRODUCER PRICES

Yesterday, the Bureau also released the Producer Price Index forSeptember. The index for finished goods rose 1.4 percent on a seasonallyadjusted basis. For the third quarter ending in September, this indexincreased at an annual rate of 15.7 percent. This followed a rate of only6.8 percent in the previous 3 months and a 14.3 percent rate in thefirst quarter of the year. The price increases during the first and thirdquarters of this year are the largest since 1974.

Food prices have been a major factor in these developments. During1977, producer prices for consumer food were up 6.6 percent; theyincreased nearly twice as fast in 1978-11.9 percent. By the firstquarter of 1979, food prices were rising at an annual rate of 21 percent.Although prices for most food items rose rapidly during this period,beef and pork rises were especially significant. During the secondquarter, however, meat prices turned down quite sharply and werethe largest contributors to the 11.1 percent annual rate of decline infood prices. It was this decline in food prices which brought the sharpreduction in the increase of the overall finished goods price index forthe second quarter.

In September, food prices rose 1.4 percent, bringing the thirdquarter annual rate of change to 12.9 percent. Renewed rises in beefand pork prices were a major factor in returning the food price in-creases to the general levels that prevailed last year.

To say that energy prices have been a major cause of our currentlevel of inflation is to state the obvious. But the fact is that theeffects are quite substantial. During the first half of 1978 finishedenergy goods prices rose at an annual rate of only 1.1 percent. Sincethen, there has been a steady and dramatic acceleration. Duringthe last five calendar quarters, the price index for finished energygoods has risen at annual rates of 8 percent, 22.7 percent, 31.4 percent,76.8 percent, and in the third quarter of this year at an annual rate of107.5 percent. During September alone, the fininished energy priceindex rose by 6.8 percent. Beyond these direct energy price increases,we can, of course, expect that prices for almost every other productare being affected to some extent as the energy costs associated withtheir production and distribution rise.

For finished goods other than food and energy, the story has beensomewhat different. During 1977 prices for these items rose 6.3 per-cent; they rose 8.2 percent during 1978 and then accelerated to an

277

annual rate of 10.3 percent in the first quarter of this year. Since then,however, price increases for finished nonfood, nonenergy goods havereturned to their 1978 levels. They rose at annual rates of 8 percentin the second quarter and 7.7 percent in the third quarter. A numberof product areas have contributed to this slowdown. During the last2 months passenger car prices have declined, and light truck priceshave declined for 3 consecutive months. Capital equipment pricesin general have slowed to their lowest rate of increase for any calendarquarter since 1973. On the other hand, rapid increases occurred inSeptember for such diverse products as jewelry, household flatware,tires, and plastic dinnerware.

At the earlier stages of processing, there is only slim evidencethat cost pressures may be abating. Both intermediate and crudeenergy prices have accelerated rapidly since the fourth quarter oflast year. Prices for intermediate fuels slowed somewhat in September,rising 4.4 percent. A sharp 9.4 percent rise in domestic crude petroleumprices contributed heavily to the 4.7 percent rise in crude energygoods for September.

Prices for intermediate goods other than food and energy have beenrising at annual rates in the general range of 9 to 14 percent since thefall of last year, and the September increase continued that trend. Thismonth major increases occurred for such items as precious metals,copper, tin, aluminum, construction materials, synthetic fibers, andrubber products.

Finally, prices for crude materials other than agricultural productsand energy have generally been falling in recent months. This couldrelieve some cost pressures in the future. Prices for these materials fellat an annual rate of 15.8 percent during the third quarter, although asharp rise in copper scrap prices was largely responsible for the small0.3-percent rise in this index in September.

For some time now, the economic indicators signaling the health ofthe economy have been difficult to read and, in fact, in many cases,have put out mixed signals. The consumer and producer price measureshave clearly indicated continuing high rates of inflation, especially inenergy, food, and housing. But the labor market data have not beenso clear cut. The September unemployment rate was lower than inAugust, and the business survey continues to show that growth inemployment and hours have slowed considerably from the phenome-nally high increases of last year. But both the household and the businesssurveys registered increased employment from August to September,and neither survey yet shows any unmistakable signs of labor marketrecession.

Over the past few months, I have, as Commissioner of LaborStatistics, discussed with this committee the meaning and importanceof changes in the BLS indicators. I would like this morning to take afew moments to review a few longer range factual developments whichI believe should be kept in mind in evaluating current economic data.

For many years now, the industrial composition of employment inthis country has shifted away from the goods-producing- sectors towardthe service sector. In September, for example, only 23 percent of thetotal nonfarm employed were working in manufacturing. This is severalpercentage points below 1974 and considerably less than the 31 percentprevailing in 1959. As you know, traditionally, in a period of cyclicaldownturn, manufacturing and other goods-producing industries havebeen affected earlier and more severely than the service industries.

278

Second, the labor force in this country today is very different fromthe work force of a decade ago. The phenomenal increase in laborforce participation of women, especially in the 25-34-year age grouphas resulted in social developments which cannot be overlooked.Today a majority of the 48 million husband-wife families in this coun-try are two-or more-earner families. Although, on average, workingwives contribute only about one-quarter of the total family income,the fact that the two-earner family is so prevalent may well affect theway in which some families react to the temporary unemployment of aparticular family member. This situation may also have an importanteffect on the manner in which families plan their expenditures andsavings habits.

Senator PROXMIRE. Let me interrupt and go back to that. That's astartling statistic, that on average, working wives contribute onlyabout one-quarter of the total family income. I have seen statisticscomparing the income of women with men which indicate that womenmake substantially less, maybe 20 percent less, but that statisticwould suggest that women make about half as much as men or lessthan half as much as men. You're talking about the wives that work,not the average contribution of wives working and nonworking; isthat right?

Ms. NORWOOD. This is just the working wives.Senator PROXMIRE. What's the explanation for that? Of course, this

wouldn't include the income by other members other than the husbandperhaps. Maybe there are children working too. Is that part of theestimation?

Ms. NORWOOD. This figure is a figure of working wives. I think theother figure you may have in mind is the one which says that themedian earnings of women are roughly 60 percent the earnings ofmen, but that's a median.

Senator PROXMIRE. Is this because many working wives will workpart time, work maybe 20 hours a week or 25 hours a week so they canspend more time with their families?

Ms. NORWOOD. Some of them do work part time and part year, ofcourse, but three out of four of all women who work are either workingfull time or looking for full-time work.

Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you.Ms. NORWOOD. To continue, third, as we all know, inflation is in

the double-digit range, and real earnings have declined. Methods usedto control inflation are now far more difficult than they were in the pastbecause so many social and economic changes, both domestic andinternational, have taken place. As a result, our economy may nolonger respond in the same way as it previously did to traditionalpolicy approaches. Food prices, of course, are affected by weatherchanges, by shifts in demand by other countries for grains and otherproducts, as well as by many other factors. Even more important, ourexperiences this year with OPEC decisions emphasize that policiesaffecting the price of oil may well be effected by steps taken outside the

279

United States as well as by decisions made within the scope of ournational economic policy.

And finally, I would like to emphasize a development that I believeis becoming increasingly important in the United States: a wide-spread psychology of inflationary expectations that is more and morebecoming a part of consumer behavior today. While a number ofsteps have been taken by the Federal Reserve Board, the administra-tion, and the Congress to reduce these expectations, they persist.Their continued existence is, perhaps, best illustrated by the relativelystrong performance of the private housing sector in spite of unprece-dented mortgage interest rates.

Although none of these issues is new, I believe that they should bekept in mind in interpreting economic data.

The labor market data released this morning do not provide evidenceof any sharp declines in labor market activity. The price indexescontinue the upward spiral that has been with us since early in theyear. Some of the social, economic, and international developmentswhich have occurred during this decade have made the economy moredifficult to understand than ever before. This is certainly confirmedby the changing signals emitted from the country's major economicindicators over the past few months.

My colleagues and I will now be glad to answer any question youmay have.

[The table attached to Ms. Norwood's statement, together with theEmployment Situation press release referred to, follows:]


Standard X-11 method X-11 ARIMA methodUnad- Rangejusted Con- Extrapo- Con- (cols.

Month and year rate Official current Stable Total Residual lated current 2-8)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

1978

September 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.9 0.1October- 5.4 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.8 .1November 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 .1December - 5.6 5.9 5.9 6.0 5.8 6.0 5.9 5.9 .2

1979

January- 6.4 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.8 5.8 .3February 6.4 5.7 5. 7 5.7 5. 7 5.5 5.7 5.8 .2March- 6.1 5.7 5.7 5.8 5. 7 5.6 5.7 5.7 .2April 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 .1May-------- 5.2 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.7 .2June -6.0 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.7 .2July- 5 8 5.7 5 7 5.6 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 .2August- 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.0 5.9 .2September 5.6 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.8 .1

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, October 1979.

280


(1) Unadjusted rate-Unemployment rate not seasonally adjusted.(2) Official rate (standard X-11 method>-The published seasonally adjusted rate. Each of the 3 major labor force

components-agricultural employment, nonagricultural employment, and unemployment data-for 4 age-sex groups(males and females under and over 20 years of age) are separately adjusted then added to derive seasonally adjustedtotal figures. Teenage unemployment and nonagricultural employment are adjusted by the standard X-11 method'sadditive option, while all other series are adjusted by the multiplicative option. Adult male unemployment is adjustedmultiplicatively using the prior trend adjustment feature of the X-11. The rate is computed by adding the 12 componentsto a civilian labor force total, and dividing and derived civilian labor force into the unemployment total. These seriesare revised at the end of each year. Factors for the current year are computed at the beginning of the year for the 12succeeding months, and published in advance.

The current "implicit' factors for the overall unemployment rate, derived by dividing the original unemployment rateby the seasonally adjusted rate for the months of 1978, are: January (111.1), February 112.0, March 106.7, April 94.6,May 89.5, June 105.6, July (102.1), August 98.5, September 97.3, October 93.1, November 95.7, December 95.5.

(3) Concurrent (standard X-11 method)-The procedure for computation of the official rate is followed, except that thedata are re-seasonally adjusted by the standard X-11 method each month as the most recent data become available, i.e.,the rate for January 1979 is based on adjustment of data for the period, January 1967-January 1979. The rates for the cur -rent year are shown as first computed, while data for 1978 are as revised to incorporate experience through December 1978 .

(4) Stable (standard X-11 method)-The stable seasonal option of the standard X-11 method uses final seasonal factor scomputed as an unweighted average of all seasonal-irregular ratios for the entire span of the period, January 1967-December 1978. In essence, this procedure assumes that seasonal patterns are relatively constant from year to year. Theunweighted average is updated and series revised at the end of each year.

(5) Total (standard X-11 method)This is an alternative aggregation procedure, in which total unemployment and laborforce levels are directly adjusted by the standard X-11 (multiplicative option) to derive the rate. The series are revised a tthe end of each year.

(6) Residual (standard X-11 method)-The labor force and employment levels are adjusted directly, with the level o Iunemployment derived as a residual. The rate is computed by dividing the residual unemployment level by the directl yadjusted civilian labor force. The series are revised at the end of each year.

(7) Extrapolated (X-11 ARIMA niethod)-Data for the 12 component groups of the unemployment rate are estimatedusing ARIMA (autoregressive, integrated, moving average) models. The enlarged series is then seasonally adusted withthe X-11 program, and the rates are computed as in the official procedure. The series are revised at the end of each year.Factors for the current year are extrapolated at the beginning of the year for the 12 succeeding months.

(8) Concurrent (X-11 ARIMA)-The procedure for computation of the X-11 ARIMA rate is followed, except that thedata are re-seasonally adjusted each month as the most recent data become available, i.e., the rate for January 1979 isbased on adjustmentof data for the period, January 1967-January 1979.The ratesfor thecurrent yearare shown as firstcomputed while data for 1978 are revised to reflect experience through December 1978.

Methods of Adjustment-The standard X-11 method was developed by Julius Shiskin at the Bureau of the Census.The method is described in "X-11 Variant of the Census Method 11 Seasonal Adjustment Program," by Julius Shiskin,Alan Young, and John Musgrave, (Technical Paper No. 15, Bureau of the Census, 1967).

The X-11 ARIMA method was developed at Statistics Canada by Estela Bee Dagum and is the official method forseasonally adjusting the Canadian labor force series. A general description of the method is contained in "A Comparisonand Assessment of Seasonal Adjustment Methods for Employment and Unemployment Statistics," by Estela Bee Dagum(Background Paper No. 5, U.S. National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, February 1978).

281

e V J S United States, news ~~~Department 4N ~~~~~~~~~~~fLabor 4Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, D.C. 20212

Cotact: Phil Roses (202) 523-1944 USDL 79-694Diane Weutcott 523-1371 TRANSMISSION OF MATERIAL IN THIS RELEASE ISKathrye Hoyle (202) 523-1913 EMBARGOED UNTIL 9:00 A.M. (EDT), FRIDAY,

523-1208 OCTOBER 5. 1979

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: SEPTEMBER 1979

Etployrnet rose in Septenher asd unesploymeot declined, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of

the U0S. Department of Labor reported today. The Nation's overall unemploymeot rate was 5.8

percent, down slightly from 6.0 percent in August but little different from the rates which have

prevailrd ocer the post year.

Total employment--an .easnred by the monthly survey of houaeholds--adva..ced by 610,000 in

Soptenher to 97.5 nillios. Over the past year, total employment grew by 2.5 millioo, with

nearly three-fourths of the increase occurring in the 6 months from Septeuber to March.

Nonfarm payroll employment--as masured by the monthly survey of establisheonta--ro.e by

135,000 in Septenber to 89.9 nillion Payroll employment has advanced by 2.8 millios over the

year; 2 million of that increase occurred prior to April.

The Septeobor uneoploymeot rate, 5.8 percent, and the number of usemployed persos., 6.0

nillios, edged down fros the levels of the previous month. Since August 1978, the jobless rate

ha. fluctuated within the range of 5.6 to 6.0 percent.

Virtually all of the ov-r-the-mosth reduction in unemployment took place among adult

and, more specifically, earied women, reversing the increases of the prior month. The rate for

adult women wan 5.5 percent in September, compared with 5.9 percent in Augest. The unemployment

rate for part-tine workers also dropped slightly. Little or no change occurred in September for

............................................................................. ****................o In accordance with usual practice, BLS has revised establisho.e.t survey data to reflect a *

* sew beocheark and updated eeanoeal adjpstment factors. Because of these revisie data ino thin release are not comparable to data published earlier. For example, the revised data in-

a crease the level of total .oeagricultural esployment by more than 900,000 for Augost 1979.o See page 5 for addirio.al oifermatis..

o 0................................................ ...... ...................

282

most other wrker categories including adult men, teenagers, and full-time workers. (See tables

A-I and A-2.)

The median duration of unemployment was up 1 week to 5.9 weeks in September, returning to

about the July level. This movement reflected an over-the-month drop in short-term joblessness

and an increase in those seeking jobs from 1 to 3 months. (See table A-4.)

Total Eoployment and the Labor Force

Total employment rose by 610,000 in September, after registering a decline of about half

that amount in August. The advance took place primarily among teenagers and adult women.

Teehage employment returned to the July level, following a dip of comparable magnitude in

August; employment of adult oxmn rose in both months.

Table A. Major indicators of labor market activity, seasonally adjusted

I Quarterly averages M onthly data

Selected categories I I II 1978 I 1979 I 1979

III 1 IV I I I 111I III I July I Au. D Sept.HOUSEHOLD DATA

I Thouseands of saromsCivilian labor force ......... 1100,7531101,5241102,4751102,2951103,2021103,0591103,0491103,498

Total employment . ....... 194,7261 95,6161 96,5961 96,4151 97,2081 97,2101 96,9001 97,513Unemployment. 1 6,0271 5,9081 5,8781 5,8801 5,9941 5.8481 6,1491 5,985

Not in labor forc. 158,4821 58,3981 58,0951 58,8861 58,6041 58,5451 58,7521 58,515Discouraged wrkers. 1 8531 7601 7241 8261 7391 N8A.1 N.A.1 N.A.

I Percent of labor forceUnemployment rates: 1I I I I I

All workers ............... 1 6.01 5.81 5.71 5.71 5.81 5.71 6.01 5.8Adult men ............... 1 4.11 4.01 4.01 3.91 4.21 4.11 4.21 4.2Adult women ............... 1 6.11 5.81 5.71 5-71 5.61 5.51 5.91 5.5Teenagers ............... 1 16.11 16.31 15.81 16.21 16-11 15.31 16.51 16.4Whits ... 5.21 5.11 5.01 4.91 5.11 4.91 5.31 5.1Black and other ............... 1 11.71 11.51 11.41 11.61 10.81 10.81 11.01 10.6Full-time wrkers .............. 1 5.51 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.41 5.31 5.41 5.4

ESTABLISHI0ENT DATA II Thousands of lobs

Nonfarr payroll employment ........ 186,8661 87,7991 88.7241 89,3531

89,

7 6Ip1 89,713189,718p189,85

3p

Goods-producing industries ..... 125,7311 26,1111 26,4861 2 6

,6

3012 6

,6 4 4

p1 26,723126,595p126,615pService-producing industries .. I. 61,1351 61,6881 62,2381 62,7231

63,117pI 62,990163,123p1

63,

2 38P

I I I I I I

I Hours of workAverage weekly hours: II I I I

Total private nonfarm .......... I 35.81 35.81 35.81 35.51 ' 35.6pl 35.61 35.6pl 35-6p

Manufactuting .................. 1 40.51 40.61 40.61 39.81 40.1pI 40.21 40.1pl 40.Op

Manufacturing overtime ......... 1 3.51 3.71 3.71 3.21 3.2pl 3.31 3.2pI 3.2P

I I I I I I I Ip-preliminary N.A.-not available

283

Over the past year. employment has risen by 2.5 million. The bulk of this increase occurred

during the first half of the 12-month period as eployment has risen by 670,000 since March.

Adult won accounted for aoet of the gains throughout the year.

The civilian labor force was 103.5 million in September. up 450,000 from August and 2.5

million higher than September a year ago. The overall civilian labor force participation rate

wan 63.9 percent in Septenber, the s=ae as the all-time high attained in February and March.

Discouraged Workers

Discouraged workers are persons who report that they want work but are not looking for jobs

because they believe they cannot find any. Because they do not meet the labor market teat--that

is, they are not engaged in active job search--they are classified as not in the labor force

rather than unemployed. These data are published on a quarterly basis.

The number of discouraged workers declined by 90,000 in the third quarter to 740,000,

returning to the first quarter level. Close to three-fourths of this number cited job-market

factors as the reason for their discouragement. (See table A-10.)

Industry Payroll Employ.ent

Nonfarm payroll employm.ent rose 135,000 in September to 89.9 million, as job gains took

place in 56 percent of the 172 industries comprising the BLS diffusion index. Payroll

employment increased 2.8 million over the past year: 225,000 of these jobs were added during the

third quarter of 1979 and 815,000 since March. (See tables B-I and B-6.)

lost of the September employment gain occurred in the service-producing industries. The

service industry accounted for moat of the increase, adding almost 100,000 jobs. While

employment in wholesale and retail trade rose 50,000, transportation and public utilities and

State and local government had reductions of 20,000 and 25,000, respectively

In the goods-producing sector, employment in mining continued its long-term advance, while

construction edged down for the second straight month. Host of the specific industries in

manufacturing showed little or no change.

Hours

The average workweek of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural

payrolls was 35.6 hours in September, unchanged from the levels of the previous 3 months.

Manufacturing hours edged down a tenth of an hour to 40.0, while factory overtime woo unchanged

284

at 3.2 hours. In contrast. the coontruction workweek rose 0.4 hour for the second straight

-nth to 37.6 hours. (See table B-2.)

The index of aggregate weekly hours rose 0.3 percent in Septoober asa r.s. It of the rise in

payroll e.plyn.ent. The iden was up 2.9 percent over the year, also doe estir-ly to enplnyneot

gains. (See table B-5.)

Hourly and Weekly Earninos

Average hourly earnings of production or noosupervisory workers en private nosfaro payrolls

rose 0.5 percent in Septenher (seasonally sdjueted) to a level 8.1 percent higher than that of

Septenher 1978. Average weekly earnings also rose half a percent over the oneth aend were up 7.5

percent fron September 1978.

Before adjustnent for seasonality, average hourly earnings rose 10 cents free Angost to

$6.29, 47 cents higher than Septeeber 1978. Average weekly earnings were $222.50 in Septeoher,

up $1.07 free August and $15.61 over the year. (See table B-3.)

The Hourly Earnings loden

The Hourly Earnings Inde.--earningu adjasted for overtiee in nanufacturig, .easonality, and

the effects of changes in the proportion of workers in high-wage and law-wage indostries--wos

233.7 (1967-100) in Septeeber, 0.7 percent higher then in August. The iden was 7.9 percent

above Septenber a year ago. Doring the 12-eo.th period ended in August, the HNerly Etrnings

Inden in dollars of constant purchasing power decreased 3.5 percent. (See table B-4.)

285

Benchmark and Seasonal Adjuetment Revisions in theEstablishment Survey Data

The establish ent survey data have been revised to March 1978 benchmark levels. The following

table cowpares the eployment estilmates for June 1979 (the last final estinate projected from the

previous-March 1977-benchmrk) on the new and old benchmark.

For a discussion of the effect of the benchnark revision, see "BLS Establishment Estimates

Revised to March 1978 Beochnark Levels" hich will appear in the October itsue of Employment and

Earnino. NMew easonal adjuostent factora for use in current seanonal adjustment also will be

included in this report. The revi.ed seasonally adjusted series from January 1974 through June

1979 will be published in a special eupplent to Eaploy ent and Earnings in early Novenber

Revised detailed industry series from April 1977 forward, not seasonally adjusted, also will be

included in the suppleent. This supplement, when combined with the recently published historical

volome, Employment and Earnings. United States. 1909-78, bLS Bulletio 1312-10, will comprise the

full historical series on the establisheent eurey.

Table B. Coparison of June 1979 establishment survey ewploymant estimates, before and afterrevision to Marnh 1978 benchmark level.

(In thousadsa)

June 1979 ewploymentI projected from:

I IIndustry I I I Difference

I March 1977 I March 1978I be.ch.-rke I bencheark

Total nonfar .. 89,603 I 90,541 I 938Private nonf.r. .. . 73,840 74.778 I 938

Mining . . 947 968 21Conatrurtion . 4,808 I 4,881 I 73Manufacturing . 21,062 | 21,234 | 172Transportation and public I I Iutilities . 5,126 5 5,231 105

Trade . 20,071 I 20,222 I 151Finance, inourence, and real I I Iestate . 4,936 1 5,003 I 67

Service .. 16,890 I 17,239 1 349Governr.ent. 15,763 I 15,763 I

1 Adequate source data were not available to adjust the goveronent series.

57-254 0 - 80 - 19

286

Explanatory Note

This release presents and analyzes statistics fromtwo major surveys. Data on labor force, total employ-ment, and unemployment (A tables) are derived fromthe Current Population Survey-a sample survey ofhouseholds which is conducted by the Bureau of theCensus for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Beginning inSeptember 1975, the sample was enlarged by 9,000households in order to provide greater reliability forsmaller States and thus permit the publication of annualstatistics for all 50 States and the District of Columbia.These supplementary households were added to the47,000 national household sample in January 1978; thusthe sample now consists of about 56,000 householdsselected to represent the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalpopulation 16 years and over.


Compaeability of household and payrollemployment statistics



Unemployment

To be classified in the household survey asunemployed an individual must: (1) Have been without a

job during the survey week; (2) have made specificefforts to find employment sometime during the prior 4weeks; and (3) be presently available for work. Inaddition, persons on layoff and those waiting to begin anew job (within 30 days), neither of whom must meetthe jobseeking requirements, are also classified asunemployed. The unemployed total includes all personswho satisfactorily meet the above criteria, regardlessof their eligibility for unemployment insurance benefitsor any kind of public assistance. The unemployment raterepresents the unemployed as a proportion of thecivilian labor force (the employed and unemployedcombined).

The Bureau regularly publishes a wide variety oflabor market measures. See, for example, the demo-graphic, occupational, and industry detail in tables A-2and A-3 of this release and the comprehensivedata package in Emptoymen and Earnings each month.A special apin newloyment measures isset forth in table A-7. Identified by the symbols U-1through U-7, these measures represent a range ofpossible definitions of unemployment and of the laborforce-from the most restrictive (U-1) to the mostcomprehensive (U-7). The official rate of unemploymentappears as U-5.

Seanonal adjustment

Nearly all economic phenomena are affected tosome degree by seasonal variations. These arerecurring, predictable events which are repeated moreor less regularly each year-changes in weather, openingand closing of schools, major holidays, industry produc-tion schedules, etc. The cumulative effects of theseevents are often large. For example, on average overthe year, they explain about 95 percent of the month-to-month variance in the unemployment figures. Sinceseasonal variations tend to be large relative to theunderlying cyclical trends, it is necessary to useseasonally-adjusted data to interpret short-termeconomic developments. At the beginning of each year,seasonal adjustment factors for unemployment andother labor force series are calculated for use duringthe entire year, taking into account the prior year'sexpenence.


287

ployment (the sum of four seasonally-adjusted age-sexcomponents) by the civilian labor force (the sum of 12seasonally-adjusted age-sen components).

For establishment data, the seasonally-adjustedseries for all employees, production workers, averageweekly hours, and average hourly earnings are adjustedby aggregating the seasonally-adjusted data from therespective component series. These data are alsorevised annually, often in conjunction with benchmark(comprehensive counts of employment) adjustments.(The most recent revision of seasonally-adjusted datawas based on data through June 1979.)


Both the household and establishment surveystatistics ore subject to sampling error, which should betaken into account in evaluating the levels of a series aswell as changes over time. Because the householdsurvey is based upon a probability sample, the resultsmay differ from the figures that would be obtained if itwere possible to take a complete census using the samequestionnaires and procedures. The standard error is themeasure of sampling variability, that is, of the variationthat occurs by chance because a sample rather than theentire population is surveyed. The chances are about 68out of 100 that an estimate from the survey differsfrom a figure that would be obtained through acomplete census by less than the standard error. TablesA through I in the "Explanatory Notes" of Em loInentand Earnings provide approximations of the standarderrors for unemployment and other labor forcecategories. To obtain a 90-percent level of confidence,the confidence interval generally used by BLS, theerrors should be multiplied by 1.6. The followingexamples provide an indication of the magnitude ofsampling error: For a monthly change in total em-

ployment, the standard error is on the order of plus orminus 182,000. Similarly, the standard error on a changein total unemployment is approximately 115,000. Thestandard error on a change in the national unemploy-ment rate is 0.12 percentage point.

Although the relatively large size of the monthlyestablishment survey assures a high degree of accuracy,the estimates derived from it also may differ from thefigures obtained if a complete census using the sameschedules and procedures were possible. However, sincethe estimating procedures utilize the previous month'slevel as the base in computing the current month's levelof employment (link-relative technique), sampling andresponse errors may accumulate over several months.To remove this accumulated error, the employmentestimates ore adjusted to new benchmarks(comprehensive counts of employment), usually on anannual basis. In addition to taking account of samplingand response errors, the benchmark revision adjusts theestimates for changes in the industrial classification ofindividual establishments. Employment estimates arecurrently projected from March 1978 teens.

One measure of the reliability of the employmentestimates for individual industries is the root-mean-square error (RMSE). The RMSE is the standard devia-tion adjusted for the bias in estimates. If the bias issmall, the chances are about 68 out of 100 that anestimate from the sample would differ from its bench-mark by less than the RMSE. For total nonagriculturalemployment, the RMSE is on the order of plus or minus83,000. Measures of reliability (approximations of theRMSE) for establishment-survey data and actualamounts of revision due to benchmark adjustments areprovided in tables K through P in the 'ExplanatoryNotes" of Employment and Earnings.

THOUSANOS115000

105000

95000

SS O I

PERCEN;10.0

6.0

6.0

4.0

288

Chart 1. Civilian labor force and employment(Seasonall y adjusted)

__ __ - - .- - . .111

t7131'j97513Om03 _

THOUSANDS

1050J

95000

85000

75000

196S9 199 1970 1971 1972 1973 1571 1975 1976 1977 1970 1979


2.0 . . . . . . , , . ..196 1909 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1979 1979

Chart 3. Civilian labor force participation rateand total employment-popula tion ra tio(Seasonally adjusted)

- - 9 - . ¶~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.1(-….ruc

65.0 _KZNZJ,

60SC __ _I_ - . OO

55.0 ,, ,,.. I -. -,,.._.v'" s ___H~ 55.0

50.0 , . , I , I'W. K .III.I I4i ..I...I I I5 .

. I

PERCENT10.0 .

PERCENT0.0

S.0

1969 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 3974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979Nolt Th. *,odd r. dplct th. buI. cycl. p.ok. ooo tr.4.o dooIgnOt d by thc N. ti oI r ru oS f Eco-1onIc R..aoorcsr

------ Totol .. rloy.d- Norrogriculturol poyrob mpIoymont

- <-NNZS

N.~_

-- > -

I . . . . .I . I . I . . .:

PERCENT70.0

< - l_ Pnotiesl

Fy

S'

SW

.4 1 ., , I .. &- -W__~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~t^9 SIt o" Jug.i e

197 :1'97 1197,91 1917. 1797 117~ *979 *97 *97:M

289

........................... 1.1, 570 1.3,.91 I.- 11. 1.1,�70 l� 3, 2.� i .3, ..� 1. 3,..b 163, 891 I.., 10�................. :::: 152:�121 �2: .1.11 1: 11, I :.1 �1 I I I 'I 11 1 2 0 1:1119 47

. . . .............. .................. "',"d 10., 363 113, 3 73 1�0,17. '0z's's i03,059 103,()�� '03'.98............................ , .3.3 �3.� 3.11 3� 97'� 1."5. 97"l;!. ............... 98:12'25 17'5 . �5,01� 16,31. 7 95- 59;9 ;9.-, I... 59.. 59- ;9.. $9.1 ;9.,i................. 3.S'9 3,7 5 3,5�5 3"D. �"6, 3".0 , 3'..o. ........................ 91,192 9�,.31 11,11, I ':, 11 9,1,"11 �,l:21,-,q � 3 " 35 I 'I 91"1.1,3.................................... 5,797 .,137 5.7 5 '.. 5 77� ." ,9 ,. .......................... 5.7 5.1 5 5.1 5.8 5.. 5. 7 6.. S. 5. .. . .................................. 5d,�09 57,.38 9 1 5 58,d.5 lb,5�5 5a,7�2 5.,515

11 3.1 1.1:119 71.1,1,1 17 1:71�1 1'a' 11 '995 '91 71 ..

, . 7 :1J .,5 :IJ. a �17 aI,9 1. .17 �.: 512. .. . ................................. 53 58� 55,020 51,711 53 9 5�5,111 115115 11�111 1�;111 5.�9111- . ............................ �9.7 Bo.. -- �9, 7 7 1;7 a. . ...................................... 51 09 52,895 12,8,5 5,,1;7 52.3;� 5'.2 7 52,3�1�',.o 75.5 75.1 7- 7..7 7- 7..7 7..5 7� 62 SU 2, 5" 2'.- 2:�11 �,111 1,11, -321 1.15 1..1;59',197 11 17 I 11,113 11,11: 9. .;.,a .7:I 2 0 ?:'2�9 'i...... .. ............... .................. 1,171 2:31'1'5 '1� 2,23 � 9 I- .1 3.9 J.,.................................. : 13,6;2 13,397 13,727 13,777 13,8.2 13,832 11,751 13,8 0

71:173 7 77: .1 2 67 77,11�1 7,1:171 71,74,I 7.,.1. 17 " 77:11�7 71.,2 'I

I 7 ",75 6. 7 0 7 7.. 7�,670 76,78� Ia17 77 77,2.. . . . .............................. - 3. "' 38 6.7 39,5.3 7,�11 3l, 5.0 389 3S.29, -11,331;. 3 ;I. .................. . ..... 3., 'j3 �.,3;' -7 .5�1;1...................................... 35,7al 36,01;1 3752 7 3 �.". 1 3 I7'�;'�.7.1 .- Z.- �7.0 .7-3 .7.3' '1769 .7.' 48.1

632 712 17. 5�7 5.3 59' 58. 596 6.0............. 35,09, 35:1132 31 11 3,,,,I, 35,760 35,781 3i,,�7. 31,371 36,53.0 :5,7 2�0.................................... 2" , 2 7 3 2,237 1.123 15. 2,32� 2.153. ......................... �.3 6.4 5 , 5;9.................................. 37,.2. 38,359 37.5.' 'Z' 37,Z 1 �7,. 1 3a, ilo 3al;'a 17,6187 7 . �7,1;33

11:16 11:�165 11 1�15 :.7�1�1 1:�11.2 1:111 16:171 11,111 11,1116 7 .:3 7 16 3., 11 III 16.111. . . .......................... ....... 9,115 10.69 :,3.:79;,13,1 1,511 .2. 1,537 , 9:,30 96 ';I 5 1..1 57.91� ................... 55.. 65.3 3-.0- l ...................................... 7,10. 9. 5 7,51� �,'12 7,839 �,0.2 i,,031 7.7;' 7,a;37 0 5.5.. 5�.9 .5.1 0.9 �7.1 .8.. .6.2 �6.2 '7;7

.. . ...... ........ 29 1.2 3�1 1�, 3.- O- - .... : .................. 7,�19059 8,6528 1,3��5 7,�32 7, ! '7 'I 7,720 7,76 7,3.. I.................................... I,512 1,539 " 5" 1,562 i,5.7 1,155 i 150 1,525. ......................... 16.1 I... 16.1 1:;1 1% 1 1.1�3 ; I I,5,681 7,33

2 .9 3 ';.

....... ................... ...... 7,331 ,g 7.1;'

611 113::21�1 1.13:911� 12:3171 141:.1,37 11:103 11 1 21 1.13:121go131 0 1 1a 9 13 1 2 1 6.

D" . . . ......... ....................... 88'803 9117.2 911oil .8,162 9.Iole 90 279 90155, 90 .62 911Dal. ............................ 63.. 6..7 I.5 .3.7 ;3.8 63., ;3.9 6..2............... S4;325 86;195 S. a. as 515 8%fl S.,093 85,829 ll.;�3 59.5 o.fi ; 92 5 05 ;9.8 .0 .0.1 59.9 '2.......... 1.1,708 ..747 .,53�1 4.6 1 2 .,503 .1.09 .,.60 ..5632 .,51i75.2 5. 5.2 5.0 .9 ..9 .3 .1................................. 51,187 50,080 50,9.9 51,128 51,313 51.213 51,107 51,16, $0,900

1,1:.1�71 21:.3i 20,111. 1�,.71 2,1:112 20:,1.3,1 11:93.1�1 20:1191 11:111I 7 79 21,112 11 II' . . I 7 2D D�2(3- - - 3. 2:. "76 12,272 1'2,3.. 12,3.. 1212;035 12,621 12,2I- 13-2 11-7 12.1 .3 l.7 62.0 .8il� ............... .,7,: ";231 11,09. '0,721 10;7 1 11,3111 11;12,1 10;�1.7 ll..11

53.9 5;.O 5'-' '3;9 3;11;318 1,3 1.7 1, 1, 1,3;5 1,3i6 ,;l3 3 - 911.3 11. 3 11.6 11.3 10.8 11.0'i2 1.3 7..71 7,373 7.67. 7,129 7,579 7,639 7,6

.............. 7,. a:I by _ d. -0 ro _w -d "IW- re.t.


Table A-1. E.PWYnt status of the .0.1.nitxtioa .. IpopulationlVn- a-

290


T.bi. A-2. Maj., os.nsployss..n indisoto,.. -...os.IIV odjo.std

7978 1797 117, 1797 1579 1979 151 1979

7.7 v.. . ..... ......... ......... 5 .964 5. 905 5.5 4 S.. 5.7 6. 0 5.4

wt 7 . . . ...................... 2. 172 2.2 I ..I J.9 3.9 I .1 4.2 9..24. . ............................ 2.230 .1 5, S. 1 5.8 I.4 5. 5 5. 9 5. 5

0.76 0.1. . ...... ................. 15.52 1.501 44. 1 .. 79., 95.3 16.5 56.4

. .. ............................. ...... ..12 4.-7 7. .0 4.9 4.9 5.3 5.166 9 9 ...7 .................... 1,7106 .54 .. 3.3 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.7

79 . . . .................... d4..690 7.-25 5.4 S.1 5. '.7 5.2 0.9I4~ ., .7&ty.. .................... 1.20. 1.2,5 4..7 7.3 1.0 73.3 14.9 14...

S.4.2.t. . ...................... 1.363 1.39 17.3 11. 7.4 I 2.8 59.0 90.6. . .. .......................... 13 475 0.. .4 7.9 B... S.J 7.9

-- - - --------- .. ..v . -.. 528 577 72.- 9.9 7.4. 9.4 70.3 9.6I4~~.79, ..................... 362 .9.-9 3-. 3-. 30. 30.7 31.5

444.d. .. 5 7 .................... 455 7.747 4.. .5 2., 0.9 3. 0 2.0

I'll-, "ll. '1309 4 ,.4 ,l 6.5 2 " 912 0.I1 7., 9 17 -.

1.64.4, .4..................... 652 0,7137 5. 5-, 5.9 5. 3 5.4 5.47.377 5,257 .4.4 5.9 9.6~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ 0.'2 0.0 I.

. ...57 ..01 ,0 . .... ....................... 7.7 .0 7. 1.

. . .......... ..................... 3062 397.4 .. 2. 25 2 .5 .9 3.5M~~g~~4*d.44fln .~~. .4. .. 2..4..22 .2 ,.0 7.9 2.3 12.

94.446... ~~~~~~~~~~::::....... 242. 5 . 6.4 4.5 3.5 4.2 3.90.7-t... .. 473 439 4.7 9............0.4 ,0.4 5.0 4.

................................ 2.339. 2.4 9 , 67 9.5 7.6 7.4 7.1~~*17dkI4Od.~~~~.................. 7..7 5 55 .7 4..0 0.2 4.2 4. 9 4.10 - 1- ................ 967.....,...1.6.3.7.796.3 9.3 9.2

r -,........................ 95 242 4.2 5.0 5.5 5 .? 6.4 6.2771.49., ....................... 552 558 76.5 77.7 74.3 7I..9 77.5 10.9

... . ..... ........ ... .7.073 , 1 91.. 7.6, 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7. . .................................... 777 721 I4. 3.5 3.7 4.5 3.8 9.

- -2 4 ~74 -.d04 - -----------.-- 4708 2 5.S. .. 5.7 6.7 5.0

................... 630.7...4...4...4.8.5.5.5.775.3

9...- ..................... 555 .7. ..I 7.0 4.2 6.2 6.9 7.394.4 .04t..7............. 91 227 3.4 .4.5 3.0 3.9 3.9 I .

94,..e~~~~~~~~r..ams. 7.~~~~~~~~~~233 1 .207 4.7 .6 6.9 6.2 4.6 6.7.23 7.4 . 54 47 4.7. .

. ..2. . ....6

.V . ..... . .... 159....93.7..90..9. 03

. ............3.. ...14 0 4........ 4.. .. 5s7 - - -:~ - o '. u:

291


Tobl. A.3. Selootd .mplylO -mo indi..W .~r

1 07. 1979 197. 7,, 17 99 17 17,

9O0O~~~.Ol.4lCW .............. 95.1 9l54 4.43 ,,l 475. 97,7 4.40. 97.513

94... .39a~~~~~~~~~JI

53 .347 39. I. 4.4 914 .,4) .. 44.

14,.)) 15.108 14.484 15.4., 15,,.., 1.4.44,~~~~~~~1 44.443 15.478

10.177 1. 757I 13,462I 14,374 1 4,44 :1473 :10772 104

O.44. . 17.47. 17.43. 17.40) 17..1 17,441 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~17.47 17.774 17.947............... 3, 9 3.44 149 A.. 31 5, 3.4 3177 72.20

.................. 3.15 12.40 1,.744 13,444l l..437 13.:755 1"7. 7. ..... 144 1.29 1.91 1)44 4079 .. 3 ado0 0.8

7.04 3.655 3.573 3.447 3.544, ..,1 I 3.71 I3.432l4O8O..I~~~~~........ .77 34.0447)94.7_14CI 3 .4. 1,.51 4.421

1.9. ...... ....... 12,.4 72.70 12.75). 1 2.74 14 1 4.497 13,55 12,794. ................4.. 2,4085 2.0854 2.4515 4.43 4.403 .. 7 2 37'03' .73,

11 .. o. . ......... ... .0 970 1.4 .30 140 .5 442 91,47. . ............, ...... 315 3 35 30 7 27 0 293 094 10 737

. ........ I4.454 8 04955 474.7) "1. 44~9 2447I 407 .4,.94. . ...... . 15.59 15.3753 15334 1 I43 15. .5 d32 15 .30 I 500

49.5 95 7 1,583 69 5 1.9 7 1.051 1045 70.47 71.441IP.9440400 ~~~~~~~~1,477. 134114 117 13 1.247 1. 045 1.432

. .4......... 322 7 0.27 4.3 4 44, .1 7 44,6I1, 4944701 %901 70, I .1)91141 = w w I . . .1 75 4.4629 4.23.4 .4 .0 .5 . .)

4441.UI,.0004 44~ ~~~~~ ~~~3 44 474 046 4 524 44 53

4..0,0,400,7.O )~~ wm w : 7.,2 44. 563 04.4 77. 7 47.044 09.784 0914 I8 204344T0.420 . 7~~~~ ~~2.03 74, 24 7145 4.7 12,02 70.30 3.2 I .52

49409 9441411 4.4 ~~~~2.454 2.4173 3.293 43.7 3,014 3.30 3.355 I3.1~111.2 17 1.9a 1.43 1,344 1. 1 1644 .00 1I5

4440494410fl040 4.741 1.40~~~~~~~~3 1.423 .4 .0 ,) 4.77 . I5.*0944..I04..94.4444.KO49 . 1~2,.067 12, 44 12 .09I 11.943 I..198 1 3. 397 'I12.47 12'.041

Table A-4. Duration Of uolpmn

V ... .......... .. . ... 9.. .. 9004. 7.3 3440 37 2 3492 2.4.7

100 . ....... . ...... .. 314 304 273 .. 4 2.927 , 2.74 33 I 7.7 .544 14 . . . 1,404~~~~~~La. 9.769 1.441 1 .945 o .1.78 197 I17I 2.0503lS.444..,04.0. . . L407~ ~~~~~ 28 71 1.6 7.13 1. .052 1,19 1617

8 . 0 . ...... ........ 550 47 475 520 470 051 5I9 507

178 10. 115 a1 04 47 459 10.

............ . 100.0...... 1400 1)4.7 . 130.4 7. 100.00 100. 0 140.0

144 . 10.~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 16.0 71. 23. 18. 7 is.1I 19.3 1 8.6116001 9.1 0.7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 11. 1. 61 10.3 10. 104

9.4 .1 a42 8. . 7.4 8.8.

HOUSEHOLD DATA

Toble A-5. Reeson. for uoemployment

- - -

1977 1979 j 1 7.

1. 75

3. ,o. :77

l. .70

25.4

2. '40

1,,61969

37.4

26.9

2,.4.

I ,L7S

30726.2

I.7J3S. 711.57

2,3,1

711

I,742

I 7: 1

Iowl

In,.2

2.2 I 2.1 I i.3 2.I1.0 .9 .0 .9

d ad I I ' .'

Table A-J. Unemployment by so. and ge. soetnaly djeed

_ w sept. Sep94t. 6b5,4. 3./ 2490 Jbiy 669. 54pt.

1978 1979 191a 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979

...... ......... .. 5,966 5.985 5.9: 5. 5. D 5.7 0 5.8ello lb. 1 t52 1,561 1. D 6.U 15.3 15.3 16.5 5 96.I. 17 .. . .7t3 67' 19.2 19.2 16.7 17.1 18.1 16.8

. . ..Ot y. . 3 .773 885 1.0 15. 1 16 . 15.5 14.01418l0.1,~~~~~~~~~~.. 399 1.620 9.3 8.9 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.2

my . . . . ... 3,025 3,025 9.0 3.8 3.0 3.9 4.1 3.80018fi1,.w .2.553 2,0600 . 4.0 9.0 4.0 9.3 C.114l. s_ .. 478 732 3.3 3.2 2.9 3.2 3.2 2.9

4 .1 .. '. 2,945 3.096 5.1 9.9 2.7 5.0 5.2 5.2...... .793 825 15.5 16.1 14.1 18.9 16_0 16.2

19,190.61. 3 19.7 * 1t 19.0 15.8 15.2 17 3 158.

14o89y.89~~~~~~~~~~~~~~16 733 8.97 80 60 8.8 8. 8.8a3 '1.495 73257 32 3 2.1 31 3. 3 33. 3.So y . . . .. . 1,228 1,298 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.5SO . . . .................................. 245 243 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.9 3.2 2.9

. . ......................... 2,999 2,889 7.1 7.0 6.9 .4 7.0 6.6leolal.~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~769 736 17. 177 4. 15. 171 1.leol~~~~~~~~~~~n.~~~~345 305 19.4 19.3 17.7 19.2 18.9 17.0

Ibm~ v_ Ic,.806 833 15.6 16.9 I.8 13.8 15.8 14.54.. .... 703 608 10.1 9.9 9.9 9.3 9.9 9.7

Sl..,d,... . 1.53~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 167 49 5.0 9.6 1.7 9.0 96006 0.1.325° 1,302 .2 5.2 5.3 5.0 5.0 4.9

C . . . .................................. 213 169 3.8 3.7 2.7 2.9 3.3 3.0

292

HOUSEHOLD DATA

*--s, a*0

Ilb...................................

OA101..................................

OlI..I_> ..............................

.h a ................................... ...........................

. .a ... .............. ..................

. ... .............................

.~ ..............................OnIvr................................

. ...~l............................ .....................................

. . .......................... .........

ra . i . ..................... .............

.......................................

... .E =-fl y+ ̂

-I- ...................980 or6*

" .75 1979 1979 I :1 7~~ 1 M9 :8'I

4, 728

1 .74$

1,79872.0

in I

29. 311. 7

2,408836

1.771

618

I00.021.75

803.

13.029.5

13. 6

2,3597 e

1.730

1,:,'

"1..34.2

'3.7

2.3

1 7.oa

532'9.

1 747

43.731..

2.5

I.. 7

.7

.7

- 1. -

I,7'.

1.7 I.,7.7 .7

293


Tablo A-7. Range of .no.ploymet measurs based on v-rying definition. of uismployrens and the labor force.seasonally edjosted

:1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~0

_t o it 70 Jol 2 *1tu. nast.

..-~dovrn.. .. 7.s .2 rJ. 7. rT rI r.2 r.rc.. .n . . ....... . .. . .... .............. I _ . '. 1- I I 1.2 II.

u .2 -Jtn m ..n.,..de............ 2.t 2I. . .4 2.5 2.6 2.5

end.,nen25o....t.e .... r 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 .9 t., 3.0

I. . .............. ..... .................................. 55 .. 5.2 5., 5 . 5.3 S.0 9 .-to-73 a n ...t~ ts .,o .b r Z . .

.. . ............................................... .7 5.. 5.7 5.7 5.3 5.7 b.0 5.0

1.7nnnl_35fi76 _7. 5 ..tn n.. . . 7.S 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.5 7.2

u r _Tomt.II nw .en dcn w.Or.td/_tsnd 5 otolnrtwt wr ii.t 900 tm riot ctttO .000 d O

r .. ... ....n7t .r.r .. I. ... .. .. . . . .. . . ... .. .. .. a .t . S .srOsrb;#i.,nnboli=.. , o o, 7.9 0.1 r 6.0 0.0. 0.7. 0.0.

Table A-d. Empboyant starse of the rositnorral popsdtie by rec and Hspanic ogign., not seasonally adjasted

Isr no. Sto' noo ret

7net . Sl70

t.. ery dr - . SeS 79 Sdept. Ses ; a9isp.

0.,sr. , .,,r., a..' 7teOt .. 759.507 ru2o. 03 r1]9,970 14 r 972 Ib,710 17,097 7,753 7.975

0.Od._no. In 00.030 10D3373 nc ,0O] 9 1rDr2 10 231 10,747 *,w.7 5S029Ponrnntnn4is..r 63.2 43.c 4.. 5 1. 2 6 1.1 62.8 *3.IE~rplt ....n nS. 99.0r1 17:57.b 4,325 Ba, cr 9,207 9772 00,00 4.669

A,- ... ... 335.9 55 3. 3 73.2 r 221 2 8 227 27357rv~v~fal otth7..Isrdm , 9r1 092 9-. 0Jo .r o, 42 03. 02 d,776 9.0t*. 237 ,04

0raerriry-rn, 5 , 9.797 79 .. 737 4., 531 1,170 1, I b. 007 3S00,.nonr'.et. .- Sd 5.57 Sd. 5;06.2 5.,137 r5.0, 9b 9 6, 7 9 71.2 0.4 7.7 2, 3

l~~~to 1.Ot. sri. ~~~~~~~~~58.609 57. 440 St. 707 52.979' 4.779 005 2 n .7

- -_9 mouwe0,er wbt D 707 0 -D .rr_ -| _ e_ noo - tort 07* az _4o ine.* .90 _e o _Or m U. to& rlanrie .s.uno.- t. -- uc. arn l 6_ nen-nl eo t e arn Craa' ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~errrN~s.repna..rs

294


Table A-9. Employm.nt staus of mIal VIetnam-.ra vatens *nd nonvstsnns by age. not seasonally adjusted

m U_

V_ __ _..l Ta Ee.Itd 3SePt. SA e . &.. 5,8 .,. 5, S.' St Sep7t. Se'p79.

1978 1979 97i8' 879 197o 1e97' 193$ 979 1978

T.,=3 _ 8..,e.3...,..3 ,37 I 8,559 7.874 8,139 7,577 7,080 302 259 3.8 3.273t 2 r .............................. 722 512 623 552 596 -11 57 41 9.1 9.1

231>2 ............................ 8..o,917 7 373 o.635 8,92, 8,412 .739 223 1U5 3.9 2.7881o89_n .............................. 2.25o 1.83b 2.136 1.7I 3.010 1,737 128 61 5.8 3.8

............. 3,462 3,635 3,348 3,536 32.20 ,855 69 78 1.9 2.251t4S8,~s .............................. 1,199 1.052 1.157 1,592 11I2 1.547 35 85 3.0 2.8_. oh .. .......... 735 74 21 783 599 730 22 33 3.5 8.3

T ..8 .....w... 13,873 1-.760 13,268 195 08 12,70 13,599 390 490 3.0 3.58933t129n0n .............................. . 8.6,227 6,777 5,938 6.58 5 ,725 6.202 213 258 3.6 8.03108 e . °.001 *.229 3.078838 8.000 3,725 39 11 I9 3 128 2 9 3.2

3s 3.I 3s .888 3......61. 32 Iwl4.50 d . V6 _ 5 88 108 1.9 2.9

9 86. 3-80 l_ 090.9_. Ue.8 - 1_3 d0.ll _3. 108e 63001 p.. ol ?.00v..

Tab. A-lO Pam not in t89 labor fe.- by _eIeced chsrterfltics. quondy *I8er

1 1978 1 1979

1978 1979 11 111 TT 0 11 000

......................... 57,398 57,562 58,478 58,802 58.398 58.095 5Is888 58.609oe e . 5227 52.8.2.7....................... 55 53.110 53,892 53,753 523711WeT.,0e.................................. 5,118 5.199 5.280 5.88t 5,239 5,262 5189 5.0688036e...... . .. ,,,. 906 7 81 851 853 760 728 826 739

J.6 ............ 594 581 820 485 493 517 588. .............. 278 237 310 232 275 281 309 899

-.... . .... .... .... .... ... . ... . . ,,.319 312 305 291 275 299 268 29.wee , . 587 969 506 561 *85 830 582 809.0,1 ............. 599 588 586 591 531 553 585 596elmepe ............................. 307 233 253 277 232 210 220 206

* ... .W het8 -Z n38 09 - _ .,.. p T - - ole W- SC T w if -.

f1^.1 ~ ~ ~ ~ -~~~

295

HOUSEHOLD DATA HOUSEHOLD DATAT~lsA-Il 1 fyoo9..8.Eo.f poob*" -o.(ppo -o 0180. (pg.ol80

- - I~ [-1978I j . 99 [ 196 11 1979 19 11

0.0.8010.1661 ~~~~~~~~~~10.90 1.1 19 035 1.79 1.0 093 1.1 01 71 ,3

1o8.n3 1~~~~~~~~~~~0.019 10..9I. 10.329 10.020 10 93 1.191 10. 920 .ISOI I.10,1060600.68 603~~~~~~~~~~" 705 671 725 66 652 629 7121 11

0..906.166661.00602616.2.60.' 6.569 6.960 6~~~~~.758 6. " 669 6.706 6.721 610 6116301.668006.0 ~~~~~~ ~~~3.1,79 3.03'I 91 3.813 3'23' (23 323 (2 (23 343

80686000 ~~~~~~ ~~~~3,.88 I 3.60 3I597 323 (23 (2I III 322 1287 233 28~6 323 32 323 323 2

66.0866.606,0. ~~~~ ~~~~~7.I 6.1 6. 32 323 323 323 323 (23

0..o~~~lo101lp~~~~p..' 8.223 9.069~~~25 8.29 0223 ..271 8.270 0,.28 8.2 8 9 .9

0.9.0104.1060 5~~~~~ ~~~.327 515 5.72 5:.55 9.235 5.329 5.376 5.399~ 3.1070686618 5.~~~~~~~~~~~055 5.363 5.,6a 505 6.994 I.053 5.3I .5. 5.01.911066668 4~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~72 25. 309 299 291 276 265 237 341300.*10.0.100 ~~~~ ~~~~~5.1 S.6 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.2 8.6 6.9I .

0.9.0 ..66061910..l l0.100966~~~ 6.37 6.397 9.30 6.3027 6.3699.13330.1774361 .35

0o900940 f06~~~~~~~~ 2.80~S7 I.3 .1 2 2 2 2 2 '8681002.66 2.798 2.725 2.670 I2.72 2.7691 2.130 2.-5 1,7(2

86.160611 762 ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~136 187 323 (23 323 323 32800860.601,.4 .. 9.8 6.7 6.6 (23 (~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~23 (23 323 323 323

0,80,16860801610.990 ~~~~ ~~6.6696.799 6712 6.609 6.7236.,730 6.738 6.160 6,.154C611...1660 6.60 6.195~~~~I " 6319I 8.327 323I32 I23 32 323 32

800061.3 3~~~~ ~~~~~~~.992 3.916 6.017 323 (2 (23 323 32 32386.30. .. 3...23 325 310 281 337 301 3023 302 336

3066.8610610100 5~~ ~ ~~~~~.S 7.5 7.2 I23 (23 (23 323 323 10

0..600.6.661110.0.00 616.26.116~~~~~ 5.666 5. 522 5.527 5.66 5.506 5,512 .517 5.522 5.5.0.60.060060 ~~~~~~ ~~~3.519 3. 596 3.589 3.9I .02 355 3.3 S.2 10.59

8.1910000 3~~~~~ ~~~~~.368 3.337 3. 365 3.252 3.2 IS 3.30 1.266 3.202 I,3.793,0180610 ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~255 259 226 266 267 29I 269 266 1936616861.61..l,.0. ~~~~ ~~~7.1 7.2 6.2 7.0 7.7 6.9 7.5 7.5 0.,

501066000001101602166.1066,66' 13:259 13.3008 13.30I 33.259 73.289 13. 296 *3.28 I 30 173.101.0111011.800060 ~~~~~~ ~~~7.398 a.123 7.937 7,851 7.89.6 7.17 800 7973 1.99

06011,01 ~~~~~~ ~~~~~7.198 7.528 1. 33 7.9 1. 3997I 7.366 7.600 7,3.37 1.1260.01*18 ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~599 595 516 604 502 567 601 626 9106068616101000 ~~~~ ~~~~7.7 7.3 7.5 7.7 6.9 7.1 7.5 7.8 7.5

0..66..0006.080.261l.9066~~~~ 7:.886 :1 7155 3.961 7.86 76 7- 7.363 7.969 3.955 7:.510,6.66980*060 ~~~~~~ ~~~5.05 515'5 5.82 5.93 5025 I.98 6915 5O.0, S.6

86866.0 6~~~~ ~~~~~~~.777 6.,00 6.,8. 6.756 6.760 6.70 9.60 I.607 973866.86106 2~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~76 359 278 297 28 2781 395 35- 93,66810.610,04 ~~~~ ~~~~~5.6 6. 55 5.7 I. . .9 7.1 5.7

061006660.1116.11662616.2.0o 8.8581 .16 8.92 985 8.902 8.907 :I.913 O'36 0.231501,.00046. 6.60 5.~~~~~~25 II35 5.0 5.23 5S278 52.29 536 2.2( 527

801610 6885 6.7 6.996 6.9 I.930 6.900 9.960 6.903 1.05101.1160610 372~~~~~~~~II 333 357 392 36 769 336 305 3701010681116.0006.0 ~~~~ ~~~7.1 7.0 6.7 7.. 6.6 6. 6.3 7.3 7.

01.1069800960 5.~~~~~~92 5 6.190 '.231 5'935 I.8 610 613 616 6.636686108 5.691 5.095 5~~~~~~~~~~~~':.9 563 5.798 S..3. 5.907 5.866 5.99

86686108 ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~28 295 267 262 263 266 236 270 20S

* 100..90906610866080 1.306..066. 0.0.61 9600d -- 6.2 8066 6t 06980068043

15 -1088 8'. 8 13. 90- .06. . 18 6 00 .6.10U 06216i6806

606

296


Tabtl 9 1. EmployI.. on non.g.icolt.. nl payrolls by industry

7TAL.

GOODS-FRODUCING

MINING

TD.NSTRUCTIONAN'U"

MANUFACTUAN.RING ITRD

.E.U RAODEGOS

Fm.A.CE INUANE=9= EA STT

L--mS dO rh

FGO-lu.-Td

I.. I '- --r- I -.,-T-

60 77,| JULY 000,F

09 l70 09'79 00170

:3::00*0 970 093

30l,83 a00,9l 20,00

7" '01 770:0 77":7

""3'I.1 2085,0 "",40,

I 00 .0 0,0110

1,005. 0,7017, ,187041

75~a,7,.111,7 07,0t1,9a094,,Z0 075.1 0,7;e

| 700, 7' , 733 "°I

270 304.7 303.0

1*00,70 3012,000 00,03

9b,00 5,2001 5*,30

0072' "71 0090 "0,0

0,1*740j 3,050~ X0.918

I00.300 3.02 00,404;1

89870,353 . I.00 0..... 4,080 I.00 .

30.131110.911 20.031 0.0 .00 00O I..0007,

M lo.

Is 0,30 1,73 1 03.70 0,7. 0.7700 I0.7509'.1. 0,909 9.109 9,1 9.0 allOI, n 0:.0

770.7 7 a 0; 77 9 5 0

730,9 098 705 70s Ill 7 00 711

0.999 ,30 .00 3.090 0.000,000.0

a,8, ,00I300 3,0, ,00 a.0 .0

I I3,0097 3,000 3.077 '.9 3** ,073 3.000 0.08

:1a :.1 3051 I| f * 212§ Z1e' *t1 -A 7n I :1

099, 0jlZ*71* 000 11 10805935@090 I 0-l 5 o97la

0.009 0,303 8,330 I.303 .,' 395.040 0

7"1 7 " 7"7 1..2 7" ' I 71 .. I

"0,075 5,90 0,0 3.07 3.00 "' 5.005,0

29, 709 70' 09 71 o0 11

0,27.01@ 1,90l 0.330; 0.302 0,9 0.00 1 1,208040,002,8 0,0 I 0,000X 0,00 1 70,00 I 0.00 0.000

3.018,' 39011 Re007 3704 2a2 fisa00 Be0,

03,009 R00.30 02 787 R03,99 R03,00 ,040 01.000

9.230 0.90 9.00 5,090 5.00 9.001 9.01

07504 t O,'05 , ° 00,73 0093 0,0 0 5,907,0.

5.0330. 177o010400 1999 0,0707 1,075 9.000

07,79 0000 ,w 005 07.09 0700 o7.o 07,005

0.*471 70 375 0770 3700 3705 2,700 0.70

______0,0 03.700 03.05 0s0 .IE41 10.59 0 0007 0 500

00lE0 d- I-own i, 0 - IW I , , 0 0'. .I 0,,,00I1000.E,010'0

0000000blsfd1Q F 000000 00, .0,0,00 01,0.,Oo 40c Ooo,, E. _OemLS 00,0.0n00,0,, 0,-~ .0,0,04., 100 0.0~'80 L~0~ 0000040, 00000004To,,0' 00 0I

297

ESTABLISHMENT DATA

T.bl. B-2. A.eroe weekly hours of produolion or oeooiperpioory7 WOOkII9. 00 pvroel

.oeagriooltur.3 poy roll by iodoory

ESTABLISHMENT DATA

TOTAL PRIATE ....

M I IN . ....... .... . ..... . .

CONSTRUTION

N-AUFACTURING ... .

hU. ..... ..

TURAL VATCDS ANi UBI

oTL T E .. .. . .... .. . .

R 1E _YI TR D .... . . .. . .

'EAL ESTAT

0E C E . h ........

0077. JULY 000. 0FFw.

03.9 30.0 *... 35.7

18.-0 *0 S&.T00.5 03.7 03. 03.7

39, 3.0 3I3 9.0

0.1 3.0 30.0 ;0I.

3 S 3,**. - *.-.2

59 5 00. 30. g0 0 0.3

00.0 013 00 00.03.a 0 00. 40.5 00.700.3 01.0 913. o3 S

30.0 . 30.0.a 39.3

39.7 39.0 39.0 39.5

3.0 3.0,1 30.: I0.530.5 30.0 37.0 39.5

0.7 39.9 90.31 00.7

30. 37.0 37.9 30.0

0"" 0".0 03.0I ""~

*3. 00. 3991

37- 90' 9 30.5 00I 0

_ fP6 1 ls ull

35.0 39.7 33.0

03 .3 0 0. 0 0 0. 0

7.0 17.31 319.

0 . 3 .5 0 .

43.0 so.: 00.7

3 .1 3 01 4.

3 9 0 3 9 0 3 0 .

1 @.8 I s.a: 35*.?

39' ' 30' 30.503.0, j.,7 03.0.

03* .0 30 .0 00.0

39. 30.0 }+ I 00.93 95 00 ,0 I 30.0

39* .7 39* .oI 39.0

5 9A. 5 00* .0 00* .3

3 55 39 * .0: 0 5.0

4 3.9 03. 00 .7

07 01, 3 0.3 30,0

:::: :::: I s,Oo.9 31. 1 '.'

.0.7 00.0 i,3.5 I X, .

0.0,. 0., I .1.

*-:, I :3, 11.7,

00.. 1.7,.j ,...

30.5 i ,

35. 05.01 05Y

37.5 7*

71 37,

39.7

3a.5

0..s

12.7

39.0

32.6

39.0Fs. a00.1

00.3

3*0.

39.9

30..

0.o

o0.0

30.7

30.0

30.0

00.3

09.0

0,730.7I

00S

, .,1

3..0

3e..

39.7

I.. L

12.o00 ,.

298


Table B 3 Average houry and weekly earnings of production or .o. sup rvis-ry werkers on privatenonagricultural p.yretle by industry.

i.O~~~ ~ ~~~~~~Aovr O? lon aG SE~*kt. 67. J na . enr

rOTALFFIVATE - 5.50 be1 56.06 Su l 460 5R0509 3007 *011 0.n C 522u SSc..vvy.no 3.t 0.00 6.00 6,05 bS20Xna t 00.1 011.0 oo i.bo

MINING 7.5s 0.50 I.0* 5.59 0.03 355.Ot 355.05 Jb uns UCONSTRUCTION 0.50 ..a0 5.2 .'3u 330.11 use 5S 35u21| anuOuMANUFACTUFING .6..0 0.13 6.60 0.73 055... 007.73 007Ws a Zt1,

DuunsiroDs *z6.71 T.15 7.13 7,03 07ttdt ass.. Oet-s5 enobu

0ririio.e~clas3vnd~upeods ,0i 08 stn .*05 s@0 0a.01 25. ,a 0. I 400:27

Fab'=ted -'Eodl'=' 0 7 # 6.5 0.0 j0 0.00j 0.90 005.o70 070.ac3 ats.0l1 O~ei 0Elqrl C :Se*=1on~~qulm~ot 5.53 0.07 6.6 .4 auo. It|1 OuO4oO 051 .scs 5@TqmF rtatonequiP~~~~nt 95.25 055 0.03 6.0 3s.3 45.75 -7001.01 oot.957m cun nnvetdnodv 5.77 6.06 6.00 6.00 037.25 008.05 000.0 2 53. lbM~~meliamannunulooog 4aTs.7 5.03 3.04 9.08 205.4 054.60 2b5555 191.05

E5IN0UROLi GGDDS 5.33 b0.2 620- '.20 0035e1 055.3t 031.30 2-7.75

Fobivormndnu~nv 5, b 03 6*5 6.l2 10 stSJ 0.3 00.5 05.0 01 .03Textilelmil~~rodticts 4 4l0.0 4.65 0,77 4.02 279.09 20S55 250.03 19w5.71ripilrndiiono ovi a C5s 7,I27 , 7.0 7.O 0079 30.7 307.05 370,s3rov,,o.,cnvwuiNnn *~s - 6.0 6.35 7.23 05 ASuo 05&0.0 0.3.00 07w05

c~~sahaodalled~~~obxts 7.23 7.02 7.65 7.69 esa. 326.50 320.77 320.01Fr nioniiminuf~ vionvi 0,70 .sn 5.36 0.52 306.00 420.0 4ot on I000.Ouiou blndv piiiipmoi nnii 5 ,0Au Z 5.3 5.5 6.02 052 .6 0520 007.2 000.20

TRANSFORnTATIONi ANy FUDLIC UTILITIES 7.75 0.0 8.4^@7 0.05 307.68 }e"0 305.00 30.0 377.1

000OOEALO cnuRTAIL TnAor 0.75 5.05 5.05 5.22 050.00 209.27 2.7.6. | ss-.-oioLcuALO TOAOE 6.22 6.3 0.30 6.37 034.35 009.02 000.0 251 .94RETAIL TRADE 0.05 0.52 0o50 3,50 030.33 260.07 is1 ovntj 10.1

S~~~~ilVICES ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 5.05 5.0 5.7 0050 itO.55el 7L 10 1.51- 103.30Oco|icrO 5.ns 5.29 5.30 5.0 3 065.03 Its..0 t.5

299


Table B-4 Hourly earnings sodex for prodsotioo or .o.s.pervisory workers os priveoe

noogr.ioelooral payIolls by modootry dii io. ReR ..on.I.fly odjted

1440,n 80?. PR. st n Just JULY .08. I C PTP

1978 INT; 1.7. 1979 I.T7 1.79 1 er 0979 879?, ...9

TOTAL PRIVATE NONFARM

- -T.orO.r21. 228 271 220.0 1200. , 232.2 13. 7 :: '. 0 ,7Coobn ilr tiDb 008.9 Io. lOor I 0.7 100. 11S.1 h.8. 021 131

NsoCLo 288. 2 284 * 0~ 282. 2804. |288. 285.0 285.8 7.7 I *Z

00040'O904TIO0 84070511 ornUro,0oI 2384- 20 *7 203.7 205@0 250s * 3 25. 5.8 90"OnôÊOrr 450 nroo8o~rnao T10.1 220.,4 223.0 5.3AS 228.S 7.0 .5

FlroororlNSURANCE 015.2AL/ TATI ilS iit 22.0 228.3 225.7 227 0 2.2 230 7 7, *

2 0840007 crosuE ro -3. *aO. eLIGOO l975 7TA ,*01002TU~7 79,tnEtii 0.7007 0057n V080L051

I.70 00 on., .,C S r 1 IT. 40T e ei

Tabe B-5 Indoe..s of aggrgast weekly hours of produonto Or o. poneorvboy workers. 00 priVefs

.ooagnrouoloral pavIolls by industry. seasono.ly djustod

0974 097.

ISEPT. OCT. 800. TIC. J ,, TE. roe. . so JUio 201.n 0C8. OEP

7.r

TOTAL FRIVTE 0R2.2 123,d 123.7 122 24. 020..77, 025.7 023.8 025,4 012.71 129.7 I25t4 1029.

GOOO&PRODUCICG 007.2 007.4 004.5 1009,0 110.3 11000.21 000, 008 1003 110.10 00910 009.3 009.5

MINING 1-7*3 0-00- . S090.8 050.1 152.0 052.S 152.S 09a.0 1510. 03.5 040.0 098.3. 057.

CONSTRUCTION 120.3 025S. l0..01 127.49 128.94 033.<035.0 109 .4i 135.1

OAAUFACTURING 102.8 0..- to04... 05.1 105.8 105. 8 108.01043 104.4 1003.3 103.3

DURst04E000 105.8 $ 008. 107.9 00.* 109.2 1009.9

100o0 0 105 0 10 3 0075,007.9 1008. 100DUn0o4n~oni 112.a 19 00. 0 15. 005.85 oO. 005§ 4. 008. ^4 00. 1 o. 00211 .1R7 019 0 B112.3 1e.

nivnio. .nn I.., 0088 009.2 00 t 109e 10002 1009. 0090 0. 105.0 005S. 105.3 105.9 104. 03.0

Onon..0100.nm/91VOd~n 000.2 1 0 I12.8 1o13.4 003.0 002.0 000.9 000. 103. 0 00310 0005 I0 0.9 100.3

FPmr nnon~ oiitrn 955 97.9 40.0 498 1000.0 000. 1000.2 9.7 07.4 97|1 47.0 43. 90.no, onoonis~n 000.8 009.0 008.5 007.4 007.8 008.7 000.81002.7 008.0 007.0 110.7 108. 009.2

oooin .n~n.,nrr.riod .. i 010.8 Ilo 003.5 009.3IT, 115.0 007.X0 IIT.9 003.0s 007. 07.8lo".0 1.082 7I..

T--nn. i rinri 002.7 lo03.7 008. s 80510. 007.6 . 00.5 100.0 100.211008. 00.9 ,0087 005Tim~nutncnFnn-mnr 101. 00. 105z049 0 05. 0 05. 089 10* 05.9 90. 002. 598 000.3 102.9 8000.7

$rmem~em~dripm~ml 12o.2 020.4 025.7 12. 3 128,2 120. 0 I29 7 020.2 ole. 0 020. 02. 027.2 027.01tsu0000,nrcdlKn nnnononoino 100.4 10001 102101 000.0 10023 I00. 7% 000.7 ;. 98.I 1000.3 IO.7 00. 0 3

.nsOUROALEGoo. 0.0 800 40. 45 9 000. 4 I00. 470 49. 99.0 9500 98. 4e.

town rFMnn~nnni~ni~no 73.8 71.7 72:: IU T 70,e 70,0 73.4 73.4 78.5 72.8 75,0 08'7 80T

wO¢ 10 o | o 900 40.8 40 90t0 90.4 90X3 40.0 08,7 045 098 69.Z9 0. 0 6Ocora .n.,odul~s onn 5 38.0000.4 20007 8000 * 000.6 003.0 000.8 002.3 002.01003o2 103.0. :030

Praino~wA~i. 96.0. 49.0 000.0 100.S 102.5 100.1 1003.8 007 1003. i003. 004.8 f047 004.0Cv~inmnilnt. 40nrsl 007.0 007,S 1000.0007 0 e. 7 1 1 000.4 0000t 00. 100.I3 f1 . 000.8 10l8.2 I0070

7nn, e ,nonno np~ 47.T2 107.0 1089.9 10520 0S3.5 0s.0 059,4 10.07 053.0 I00.0 190.5 05 .0 04.3imt400n0 4e040_ 040-nil 70.3 7D.? 90 e, 0 7.5 0.8. 0.01 83.5 6S,4 08.0 00.3 0.4 .0 5.0

SERVICE.PROOUCING 032.7 0S3.S1 034,0,100.2! 03.2l 038.81035. 035.3 033.9' 130,5 035.7 000.8 137.0

TRAN 09TATION 0ND PUBLICUTILITIES 10

9.2 001.7 002.0 l0a.5 112t. 113.3 003.7 109.2 1o3.e 015.0 004.2 018.4 000.8

VLESALE AND ORETAILTOADE 020.2 029.0 029.2 029.5 029.0 029.3 030.2 030.8 030.2 000.0 029.9 o29.5.103.0

WROLESALETRADE 0129.1 9 09:o. 030.1 030.5 0 032.3 0 303 02 0320 0327 32. 0l3

RETAIL 701000008.R2.A2DE28900719330309000902. 2. 2.

FINAPCE. INS RANCE.010 ANDREAL ESTATE 100,3 141.0 182.0 002.7 0.3,3 084.0 044.8 i45.5 086.9 08.7 008.5 008.S 1.7.3

SERVICES 107.2 T.08,3 883 14 . .0 911.9 1152.6055,0 ss. 050 *. s51152.

NEnc0na.1..B io.82..... rfrd.nn-

300

ESTABLISHMENT DA-A ESTABLISHMENT DATA

lable B-6 Indexes of diffusion: Percent of industries in which employment' increased

3..,...d .t5 *..8 .rI s8 I 0-,. -.Hh I~ [ 0_ Ad Va, J 0._, Nile

19 7677.0 85.8 S6.9 84.9

. 8 .............. 7la.lo ..................... 69.2 02.3 79.4 85.2

70.6 73.8 78.4 77 6

51.7 62.5 71.5 8 7.2

2aj1 y ..... . .... . .... . ...................... 58.0 36.4 60.8 78.2

Aub st .................................. 54.4 68.3 68.9 77.3Sep I trhd r ...................................... 68 .9 55 .8 68 .6 78.8

v~rSlhe ............................. 47.4 64.9 73.S 78.4

63.1 62.2 77.8 80.8

7, . .mhpr ................... . 66.0 78.8 78.2 82.6

1877

Y h r p.a r; 7 3.0 8 0.2 8 4 6 201.4

rch ......................... 72.4 82.6 84.0 82.8

Apr.. ................... 71 i.72.3 76.3 78.1 3.2

7.1=ne .... . .... . ........................63. 1 72.7 77.6 86.6

J..ly ..... . .... . .... . ......................70.3 72.3 73.3 84 .

A.lSt57.8 .... . .... . ...... 70.9 76.7 83.2

5Pp388be .. . .... . ........................ 67.2 67.7 79.7 83.1

0etobe .6..... . .... . .... . ............64.2 76.2 80.3 82.873.3 79.7 84.3 81.1

ceb ........................ 75.3 79.4 82.3 82.0

197S

Jan-ry. 68.3 80.2 83.2 82.4Febroary ..... . . y 68.2 75.6 79.2 83.1

t..rh......................... 69.5 77.3 77.6 82.2

April.6. 0 69.8 73.5 : 2.na..................... 57. 67.2 72.7 .7

66.6 66.6 71.2 82.3

Joly ... ++.64.5 68.. . .... . ..S.5 73.2 82.4August .... > 60.5 ...................... 46 67.27. 78.2

Seeabert.6.r.8... . ......... . .............. 2.5 72.2 79.7 77.9

0, 1,be ...... . . .........73.0 78.2 82.3 88.5Novsbe ............................. 75.9 82.2 1 82.2 76.2

fbcen ...................... 74.4 82.3 80.5 71.8

19 79

Jac.,ary ..... . .... . .... . ... 70.3 76.3 74.2 72.8

Yeb ... 1 67.1 67.4 69.5 p

March ....................... . 60.5 57.8 61.9 687.7

Apr82+e.+@e* + +§@e.44.8 53.2 58.2Ha ............................. 5 44 5 1 5.9

Ocy.~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~54.:7' 55 5.Ap3.. 7.0 58.4 50O~p

J3ly ..2y..... . .............................61.6 55.2pAug6st ...... . ............................... 48.37 54.7pS t.b ...................... 55.p

NO-eb er..........

-.. eb- . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

I Numi.mSrwke e-Ooi-tl-roIlls f osl72D72 p.,irirulralimlultr.-Jlmnr

301

Senator PROXMIRE [presiding]. Well, thank you, Ms. Norwood.You end on a proper note, that we are puzzled as to what happened,but maybe you can tell us now on the basis of what we have before uswhat did happen in September. Here in August we had a reduction inemployment as well as an increase in inflation. We had an increase,according to the household survey data, of reduction in jobs and ageneral feeling on the part of economists that we were definitely mov-ing into a recession. Now we have what seems to be a reversal of thatand it may be that August was simply a reflection of an unusual timebecause of gasoline lines that had people slowing down on travel andso forth.

Can you give us any professional opinion on what did happen onthe basis of our hindsight now?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, when we look at the data in the householdsurvey. I think we can see clearly that in the month of August anumber of teenagers were not there. They were out of the labor forceand they were back in the labor force in September. That has a lot todo with the difference between August and September household sur-vey figures.

But I think the important thing to note-Senator PROXMIRE. Now on that particular note, why were the

teenagers out in August? Was there a drop in Federal summer jobsthat were made available, for example? Could that have been a factor?

Ms. NORWOOD. I really don't know. That's just something thatone can speculate on. There has been a lot of speculation all over aboutit, whether it was affected by gasoline shortages, tourist industries,or something else. I really have nothing that I can give you in afactual way, but I can tell you that there is a difference in the teenagecomponent in August and September and I think that had somethingto do with the difference in the numbers.

But I think the important thing to point out is the fact that boththe establishment survey and the household survey clearly show overa period now of many months-we go back to March, primarily becauseof the problems of special circumstances that occurred during thespring when we had the Teamsters strike and ups and downs resultingfrom that. Since then, clearly employment has increased but at farslower rates. So there has been a clear slowdown.

Senator PROXMIRE. Well, I think you make that point clear, thatthis doesn't mean we're in a period of vigorous expansion and pros-perity. We slowed down and there's no question about that and thisdata confirms that.

On the other hand, it does seem to indicate, as I think you said, thatnone of the statistics show any mark of labor force recession; is thatright?

Ms. NORWOOD. That's right.Senator PROXMIRE. Now the discouraged workers data indicate

that that figure also has dropped by 90,000.Ms. NORWOOD. That's right.Senator PROXMIRE. Is that statistically significant? Is that a big

enough drop to really mean something?Ms. NORWOOD. Yes; it is.

57-254 0 - 80 - 20

302

Senator PROXMIRE. And then I notice that under unemploymentthere's a general improvement, as you say, but there's a particularimprovement in black and other unemployment. It's still shamefullyhigh, but it's dropped from 11 percent to 10.6 percent and it's thelowest level-a lower level than it was in July, a lower level thanit was in any quarter here. Is that figure statistically significant? Irealize that's a smaller sample.

Mr. STEIN. Yes; on a quarterly basis, Senator Proxmire, it is.Senator PROXMIRE. And then I notice at the very end of the release

from your Department it says during the 12-month period endingin August the hourly earnings index in dollars of constant purchasingpower decreased 3.5 percent. Now that really is a shocking figure-real income, real earnings, real hourly earnings dropped 3.5 percent.Is that the largest drop? It seems to me it may be the largest dropI have ever heard. Maybe not, but I tried to find a period when wehad a larger drop. Of course, this is almost entirely because of infla-tion. Inflation is so seriously surpassing money income.

Ms. NORWOOD. I really don't know whether it is a record, but Icertainly can check that and put it in the record.

Senator PROXMIRE. None of you can recall off the top of your headany period when it was as severe as this during a 12-month period.All right.

[The following information was subsequently supplied for the record:]The 3.5 percent decline in the Hourly Earnings Index (in dollars of constant

purchasing power) between August 1978 and August 1979 was the largest 12-month decline since the series began in 1964.

Senator PROXMIRE. Your August press release stated that the pay-roll employment in the goods-producing sector was down by 55,000from July. Because of seasonal adjustment problems due to modelchangeovers in the automobile industry it was difficult to identifythe extent of the drop in employment. With another month's data,can you give a clearer idea of how many auto workers have beenlaid off due to output declines and how many were seasonal?

Ms. NORWOOD. The model changeover certainly has some effect onthis and I think we'll have a better fix on that in October, Senator.

Senator PROXMIRE. Can you give me any notion now? In Augustyou said you couldn't and in September you couldn't, and here it'sOctober, and on the basis of September data, can you give me anyclearer picture for the drop in employment in the automobile industry?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, employment is still below last year in the auto-mobile industry. We know that. All that I was trying to suggest wasthat we have some seasonal adjustment.problems during the modelchangeover period. This year we have perhaps stronger reasons formodel changeovers and it is very hard for us to separate these out,so that I think we have to wait until we are through that period,through October, in order to make any definitive judgments.

Senator PROXMIRE. Have you been called on to make any study ofthe effect of a Chrysler bankruptcy on general employment and theeconomy as a whole?

Ms. NORWOOD. No, sir, we have not. As I'm sure you're probablyaware, Chase Econometrics and Data, Inc., have made estimates.They seem to range in the 200,000 to 300,000 range, depending uponthe assumptions, and also depending upon the question of the indirecteffect.

303

Senator PROXMIRE. Well, my question was different. They madetheir studies based on assumptions that were handed to them. Theysaid what happens if Chrysler shuts down. Now, in my judgment,there's no way Chrysler is going to shut down and any bankruptcyjudge would be out of his head if he shut down a profitable operationfor Chrysler. It's a huge conglomerate. He's not going to shut downthe Omni or the Horizon operations. He's probably not going to shutdown a great deal of their operations.

I just wondered if you had made any study of this, and the assump-tions it seems to me would vary all over the place, including an assump-tion that I would make that if we have a bailout we are going to haveto provide tough conditions that means they are going to shut downtheir losers anyway, and it wouldn't make much difference whetherwe have a bankruptcy or have a government guarantee with toughconditions. At any rate, you haven't made a study on that?

Ms. NORWOOD. No, sir.Senator PROXMIRE. Is there any evidence that increases in employ-

ment are taking place in those sectors which are accumulating in-ventories very rapidly?

Ms. NORWOOD. I think I have to say no to that because we reallyfind it rather difficult to look at some of the inventory data. As youknow, there have been some questions raised about the inventorydata, in particular, the way in which they are valued; hence, thereare some economists who argue that they have been understated. I'mnot sure whether that is so or not, but we have no way really of lookingat that.

Senator PROXMIRE. This big spurt we have in employment of 610,000increase in jobs is a very large increase even in a period of strongeconomic growth in a month. When was the last time we had anincrease that big? March?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, we can supply that for the record.[The following information was subsequently supplied for the

record :]The last time employment had an over-the-month increase of at least this

magnitude was in June 1978, when employment advanced by 687,000.Senator PROXMIRE. Can you tell me where the increases took

place?Ms. NORWOOD. Women and teenagers. The increase in the labor

force was largely in theSenator PROXMIRE. I'm talking about the increase in employment.Ms. NORWOOD. Women and teenagers.Senator PROXMIRE. And in what sectors of the economy? Appar-

ently not in manufacturing.Ms. NORWOOD. The services producing sector.Senator PROXMIRE. Because of that, did you consider a correction

in last month's data? It was suggested to me by the staff that there'sbeen a change in many schools in the beginning of the school year.They moved the school year up. That might have had an effect, morechildren going back to school in August.

Ms. NORWOOD. If that were true, it would suggest that there wouldperhaps be a problem in the seasonal adjustment of those data andfor that reason we did look back some 7, 8, or 9 years at the last 4months or so of data for teenagers, and we found nothing to support

304

the fact that there was anything different except the month of August.August for teenagers did seem different than any of the others. Sowe do not believe that it was a seasonal adjustment problem.

Senator PROXMIRE. My time is up. I will be back. Senator Javits.Senator JAVITS. Thank you, Senator Proxmire. I will just be a few

minutes.Ms. Norwood, first let me thank you for myself, my constituents,

and I think for the country. You have been appearing before us fora little while now in lieu of others and I'm very impressed with yourprofessionalism, expertise, and the appropriateness with which youtestify to what you know about. That's very refreshing.

Ms. NORWOOD. Thank you, Senator.Senator JAVITS. It occurred to me as I looked over the chart on

unemployment for the last 10 years that we may have to revise ourbase as to what we consider full employment. I notice that the 4-per-cent figure was generally considered full employment, but that thechart shows the range now consistently higher than that, and thateven at 6 million unemployed, we can take comfort from it insteadof viewing it with dismay. Six million is a lot of people even in a 100-odd million working force.

Do you believe that we have as yet come to the point where somenew standard should be a base rather than simply carrying over thefact that because for years we thought that 3 or 4 percent was areasonable float that that figure still is true today?

Ms. NORWOOD. That's a question, Senator Javits, that is extremelycomplex and I think it depends upon one's judgments about where onewants the economy to be heading as well as to the particular policyissue involved. We certainly know that we have a lot more teenagersnow and that teenagers are in and out of the labor force in a differentway than people who are prime age workers. We know that thenumber of teenagers is going to be leveling off in the future. We knowthat we've got more than half of the women in the labor force and inmy view they are going to stay there, and we know that we needjobs for them and I think that one has to look at this in terms of theparticular issue on which you as a policymaker are making that judg-ment. There are some who have said that-I note that Otto Ecksteinhas said we are near full employment. The Council of EconomicAdvisers has changed its view. As you know, Secretary Marshall hasa different view. I think that that is a way of perhaps analyzing wherewe are.

The big question is about these people who want jobs. We have toprovide jobs for them in some way.

Senator JAVITS. Well, I don't think that's an adequate answer andI'll tell you why. We have a law called the Humphrey-Hawkins whichis on the books that strives through indicative planning and othermethods to arrive at a state of "full employment." We have to havea reasonable idea of what we're talking about. Not straining at theniceties of a one-tenth of 1 percent or something like that, but someapproximation.

One of the worst things that you can do in business or Governmentis to be straining after a goal already attained, and so I believe, if youwould, I would like you to consider it in your shop. I'd like to put it upto the Secretary of Labor, to the Council of Economic Advisers, and

305

to the Secretary of Commerce. I think we ought to have a consensusin Government as to what is our objective; what is full employment;can it be determined in percentages at all. If not, is there any otherstandard? If there's no way of determining it, why are we playing withthe idea and misleading people?

MS. NORWOOD. I think, though, Senator Javits, that is really whatwe are getting at-it's in a way fairly close to the kinds of questionsthat Senator Bentsen asked before he left-that these are in a sensevalue judgments that relate to how wvell off people are, how well offthe economy is, that can only be made by the policymakers.

Senator JAVITS. Well, you and I don't agree on that point becauseunemployment is a component of our policymaking and we have tohave some judgment as to what is a proper figure, whether it shouldgo down or whether we should not be too worried if it goes up a bit.That has a lot to do with the antirecession actions we are taking too,which may very well increase unemployment. This is a matter ofgreat public alarm, unless the unemployment rate is actually reallylow right now, which you can't tell me. But I'm going to make therequest of you formally and of the others. I think we have to beginto think about it.

Ms. NORWOOD. Fine.Senator JAVITs. The other thing I wanted to ask you is this: It's

significant to me that the credit for what's kept unemployment, atleast based on the previous month's loxw-in the areas of teenagers,women, and blacks-is that in each of these, there's a major programgoing. For women, in terms of business equality and pay equality-for blacks, to wit, the issue of minority employment-there is affirma-tive action and so on, and this has now been on the whole pretty wellsustained, even by the courts. For teenagers, there's the work-educa-tion connection for which we have put up considerable money. There'sthe $400 million in CETA private enterprise jobs and training.

Now, how can you tell us whether these figures reflect that theseprograms are beginning to have an effect and if that's the reason whyyou show a better employment record now than before?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, I really can't tell you because our data do notseparate out those people who are in these programs and those peoplewho are not. I would certainly think the prograns have helped. I don'tthink it's quite true that these are the only groups who have shownany change. We certainly, in the last few months, have had somedifference in the male unemployment rate. Do you have anythingfurther you want to respond to?

Mr. STEIN. Senator Javits, the figures for the white adult malesshow a slight increase only in the last quarter, the third quarter, butprior to that they had been quite low for some time.

Senator JAVITS. Well, that would tend to bear out-all I'm tryingto do is get information, because I'm a party to not only the advocacybut to the design of a number of these programs. I'd like to knowwhether we have any indication here that they are working. Theanswer is that you can't tell me, except that the end figures are betterthan they are for the other groups; is that correct?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, I can tell you that as I understand it-andthis is not our figure but it's a Department of Labor figure-that infiscal 1979 the average number of CETA public service employmentjobs was about 550,000.

306

Senator JAVITS. The last question I have, if I may just have 1more minute, is this: It is my belief and that of many others that theU.S. industrial machine is tending to become obsolescent because ofthe failure to adequately maintain it, and that we are losing out ininternational competition for very valid reasons; that the Germansand Japanese and even the French, and to some extent the Britishand the Italians, have more modern plants than ours.

To what extent are more people being hired because of the inade-quacy of modern technology being introduced into the Americanindustrial system?

Ms. NORWOOD. Senator Javits, you always come up with questionsthat are quite fascinating but somewhat difficult to answer. Let mejust say in that case that the big question and the big issue is, whereis this country headed regarding the improvement that is needed inproductivity? And that involves, of course, our use of technology, ofnew approaches to the way in which we do many things. That issomething which I know many people in this country, both insideand outside of Government, are giving a great deal of attention to.You're quite right that it is important.

Senator JAVITS. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. But lookedat statistically, these would be matters which should be of great im-portance to you, are they not, in terms of your analyses of where westand?

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes, sir.Senator JAVITS. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you very much,

Senator Proxmire.Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you, Senator Javits.Commissioner Norwood, September marked the biggest increase,

I understand, in finished good producer prices since 1974 in any onemonth; is that right?

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes.Senator PROXMIRE. We also had a very, very sharp increase in the

third quarter; that is, in July, August, and September in producerprices. Do you know when the last quarter was when we had thatkind of increase? I think it was over 15 percent in the third quarterof this year.

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, sometime during 1974.Senator PROXMIRE. And the first three quarters of this year the

increase in producer prices is at a 12.8 percent annual rate. How doesthat compare to 1974? Was 1974 worse or was it about the same?

Mr. LAYNG. I think in terms of producer prices, 1974 was worse.We exceeded or we reached rates of increase on a 3-month basis in1974 in excess of 20 percent.

Senator PROXMIRE. And how long did that 1974-75 inflation, thatsharp pace, endure?

Mr. LAYNG. About 4 or 5 months.Senator PROXMIRE. I'm not talking about 20 percent. I'm talking

about the rate in the area of, say, 15 percent.Mr. LAYNG. Most of 1973 and 1974.Senator PROXMIRE. If we take 1978 and 1979 to date, is that com-

parable roughly with the degree of inflation we suffered in 1973-74, ornot quite as bad?

307

Mr. LAYNG. I've looked at the Consumer Price Index in that regard.I have not looked comprehensively at the Producer Price Index. Inconsumer prices, I think it's similar. For example, in the 1972-75period, prices started to rise in 1972 and accelerated through thefirst quarter of 1974 to a 14-percent rate on a 3-month basis. It stayedat that rate through most of 1974. So we reached a rate of 14 and weheld at about that rate through most of 1974 and then we started todrop, and by the first quarter of 1976 we had reached a rate of 2.9.

Senator PROXMIRE. Now that drop at the start of 1974 was accom-panied by a tremendous drop in employment and a big increase inunemployment. As I recall, you testified to that last time, how therate of unemployment increased from less than 6-I think it was alittle over 5 percent-up to 9 percent in 14 months and it was thatcoincidence of a sharply rising unemployment with a drop in inflation;is that right? So in the event the employment figures you gave us thismorning persisted for some time now, sluggish growth but neverthelesssome continuation in growth and jobs, it would appear unlikely thatwe'd get much surcease from the present level of inflation. Is thereany other element that would be inclined to suggest easing of inflationother than this grim and painful remedy of unemployment?

Mr. LAYNG. I think I said before the oil situation improved con-siderably.

Senator PROXMIRE. The oil situation improved in 1974?Ms. NORWOOD. In 1974; yes.Senator PROXMIRE. Let me skip to that. You gave us some startling

statistics about the increase in the price of gasoline and oil generally,and energy. This is obviously one of the elements that's making thisinflation as serious as it was in 1974. How does that particular partof the inflation situation compare between 1974 and 1979?

Ms. NORWOOD. It's worse now than it was in 1974.Senator PROXMIRE. It's worse now?Ms. NORWOOD. Yes.Senator PROXMIRE. How much worse?Ms. NORWOOD. We can give that for the record, but it is somewhat

worse.Mr. LAYNG. For example, in the transportation component of the

Consumer Price Index in which the gasoline price increase would berecorded, during the 1974-75 period, the highest rate of increase intransportation overall was 19 to 20 percent. We have already exceededthat and we're hitting 24 at retail level now in transportation overall.I think gasoline in particular is already up to a higher rate of increasethan it was in 1974 and I'm sure that's true with respect to heatingoil as well.

Senator PROXMIRE. But now we have a situation where we arescheduling a gradual increase in the price of old oil, which means theprice of gasoline is almost certain to continue to escalate as time goeson. Was there a stabilizing of the price of energy in the 1974-75 periodor did that continue to go up?

Mr. LAYNG. It stabilized.Senator PROXMIRE. And that was a big element in bringing down

the inflation level?Mr. LAYNG. In 1974, 1975, and 1976.

308

Senator PROXMIRE. All right. Would you give us your-Ms. NORWOOD. Prices of energy and gasoline declined at that time

relative to the changes in other prices in the Consumer Price Index.Senator PROXMIRE. Would you give us your experience as to the

effect of producer prices on consumer prices? I realize that theretends to be a lag. If we have an increase in the producer prices, asyou pointed out so well, we have had now for 9 months a very severerate, particularly in the last 3 months; there's not a one-for-onecorrelation obviously, but what is the connection? What can we expectin consumer prices, in other words, in the next 6 months, on the basisof these producer prices we now have in front of us?

Ms. NORWOOD. If the changes in food prices we see this month inthe Producer Price Index continue, we certainly could expect thatthey would eventually find their way into the supermarkets. Thecrude and intermediates are not as directly related, but certainly wecould expect to find them there.

Senator PROXMIRE. But right along the line we have sharp in-creases. In other words, in finished goods, I think you have a 1.4-per-cent increase; in intermediate goods you have 1.5, in crude, some-thing like 2.1-all very, very high increases. So it looks as if it'shard to find any relief in the producer price area; is that correct?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, I think that's true. Of course, a lot of that isenergy and we don't know quite what's going to happen there.

Senator PROXMIRE. Of course we don't. We can't predict that.There's one thing we can't predict the rate of price increases, but onthe other hand, it would not suggest that we're going to get a modera-tion in energy prices. If anything, we're going to get a continuedescalation, maybe not at the same rate of increase, but nevertheless,they hardly can be expected to go down.

Ms. NORWOOD. We don't know really, of course, as you said,although some of the large increases in energy may have come through.As you know, and as I didn't read in my statement but is there,the energy prices in the Producer Price Index really have alreadyhad some effect on the CPI we have already released because thereis a lag. But I think one issue is that we really don't know yet, interms of things like gasoline, what effect the high prices will have onconsumption; if there is much of an effect on consumption we couldexpect some reduction in prices.

Senator PROXMIRE. Reduction?Ms. NORWOOD. Well, if there is a reduction in consumption that is

large enough, we could expect that to have some effect on prices.Senator PROXMIRE. But it's hard to expect that, short of a reces-

sion; isn't that right? I mean, a really serious recession. All our patternhas been that people use more and more as long as they can get it,even with higher prices. It doesn't seem to be a very elastic demandfor-let me ask you-has the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculatedthe effect of the compensation per hour on the recent Federal payraise?

Ms. NORWOOD. No, sir.Senator PROXMIRE. I'm wondering about whether you have ever

noticed a correlation between salary increases in the annual Federalpay raise and increases in the prices of consumer goods and servicesm areas where a large number of Government workers are located.

309

It's a common complaint made by workers that whenever their payincreases, rents and other services seem to rise. Have you ever triedto verify that?

Ms. NORWOOD. No, sir, we have not.Senator PROXMIRE. How costly would it be to do that if I should

ask you to make a study, to do that to see if there has been anycorrelation between the increase in the price level here in Washingtonand in other areas where you have Government workers with payraises?

Ms. NORWOOD. We could certainly, if you would like us to, lookinto the Washington index and the time period at which Federal payraises took place, but I don't think that would tell us very much be-cause we wouldn't be able to do it at a very detailed level and I thinkthat's what would be needed.

Senator PROXMIRE. Supposing you did this: Supposing you simplytried to get a correlation between the increase in salaries for anyparticular quarter and the increase in the price level in that majorcity in the following period.

Ms. NORWOOD. We certainly could provide a correlation, but I'mnot sure that it would mean very much because there are a lot of otherfactors that are also taking place during that period and I don'tthink that we could ascribe a causal relationship to it.

Senator PROXMIRE. Now you said that both the inflation of 1973-74 and the present inflation are to some extent energy inflation butnot entirely by any means. I notice, for instance, th is time goodsother than energy increased at a rate of about 8.4 percent. That's avery, very sharp inflation rate on the basis of any experience in thiscountry.

Can you tell us what components of the Producer Price Index,with the exception of energy, have contributed significantly to thesharp rise in prices? What other elements have been up over 10percent?

Ms. NORWOOD. Food.Senator PROXMIRE. What else?Ms. NORWOOD. Food, and then in a number of things thatSenator PROXMIRE. How about housing?Ms. NORWOOD. Well, the Producer Price Index doesn't have hous-

ing in it. Some of the nonferrous metals. If you looked at over theyear change-September 1978 to September 1979-wood pulp forexample, went up 23 percent. Many of the nonferrous metals were upin the 30-percent range and then we have a number of 10-percentranges in cutting tools and fans, mechanical power transmission equip-ment and so on.

Senator PROXMIRE. Now in the hearing on August consumer pricesyou were able to show the direct effects of energy by calculating theindex without crude oil, natural gas, electricity, and gasoline. Canyou calculate the direct effect of energy on the Producer Price Indexby using the same method?

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes.Senator PROXMIRE. Can you do that and give us that?Ms. NORWOOD. This month, Mr. Layng tells me it was nine-tenths

of 1 percent without energy.Senator PROXMIRE. Let me see if we can get some notion

310

Ms. NORWOOD. The Producer Price Index on finished goods with-out energy is nine-tenths of 1 percent.

Senator PROXMIRE. That's an annual rate of 10.8.Ms. NORWOOD. If you analyze 1 month on an annual rate.Senator PROXMIRE. Now I said that-let me see if I can get some

notion of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the administration'santi-inflation program, such as it is. You said the price of consumeritems which were covered by the guidelines have risen much less thanoverall consumer prices. Can you tell us the performance of producerprices which are covered by the guidelines versus the price of itemswhich are excluded?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, first of all, Senator Proxmire, I was extremelycareful at that hearing to say that we had calculated an index whichexcluded food, energy, and housing, which tended to be among thosethings that are not covered by the guidelines, but we were not in-terpreting what the guidelines were. I'd like that to be clearly under-stood because it's a very complex situation.

Now we do have an index for the Producer Price Index excludingfood and energy, and that went up five-tenths of a percent this monthand that would be comparable to what we were talking about in theConsumer Price Index.

Senator PROXMIRE. Six percent annual rate?Ms. NORWOOD. It's 7.7 percent at an annual rate and it compares,

if you go backSenator PROXMIRE. How much did it go up during this year, since

the beginning of the year?Ms. NORWOOD. Well, for example, if you take the 3-month rate

which is now 7.7 percent, in June the 3-month rate was 8 percent, inMarch it was 10.3 percent. So it has gone down. On the other hand, ifyou go back to 1978 it was in the 7.5 range in December of 1978, andin the ninth month, September, we were at 7.8 percent.

Senator PROXMIRE. Can you give me the average rise since thebeginning of the year or the annual rate rise since the beginning ofthe year in the producer prices covered by the guidelines?

Ms. NORWOOD. We could calculate for you a producer price finishedgoods index without food and energy since the beginning of the year,but it is close to 8 percent.

Senator PROXMIRE. Well, looked at another way, it shows the im-portant inflationary areas are not covered by the guidelines. One wayto make the guidelines work is to pick the things that are not likelyto go up, the items that are pretty stable. If you look at it it lookspretty good, but if you exclude food and energy and some of the otherthings

Ms. NORWOOD. Of course, these are the items that are affected verymuch by things that are hard for the Government to control.

Senator PROXMIRE. That's true. Now although the spot marketprice indexes are independent of the monthly Producer Price Index,the spot index often indicates the direction of several components ofproducer prices in the near future. Since last March there has been asteadily widening gap between the index for foodstuffs and the rawindustrials index. Usually those two components move in tandem.Do you have any explanation for this difference in price behavior oram I wrong that there is a big gap?

311

Mr. LAYNG. It was before March. It was between December andthe end of April that that gap was created. For example, from De-cember 1978 to the end of March, the all commodities spot marketindex increased 10.9 percent. The major components of that beingfoodstuffs and raw industrials. Foodstuffs increased 3.3, whereas rawindustrials increased 16.6. Since that time all three have increased atsubstantially lower rates.

Senator PROXMIRE. Maybe I framed my question improperly. WhatI'd like to ask is why that gap has persisted, a gap developed in thefirst 3 months of the year, when the raw industrials went up verysharply over foodstuffs. Since then they have paralleled but the gaphas persisted. In the past they have been right together.

Mr. LAYNG. I think there are essentially three factors, two involvingraw industrials, one being lead scrap and the other being copper scrapwhich increased dramatically between the December and Marchperiod. Since that time lead scrap has held up whereas copper hastailed off. The other factor is cocoa beans which declined 32 percentduring that period and held down the foodstuff index from Decemberto March.

The other factor which I think is a technical factor you should keepin mind is that this index is a weighted geometric mean of the pricechanges. That means the size of the price changes the weight of anitem in the index. Something very small in importance just becauseit has a very large price change can influence the overall behavior ofthe index substantially. That's what happened with things like cocoabeans going down 32 percent or things like lead scrap going up 40percent. The size of those percent changes influence the weight of thatcomponent, that item in the index. That's very different from the waythe Producer Price Index is constructed, which is a fixed weight priceindex where each item has a specific fixed weight from month to monthand the behavior of that index is quite a bit different from the behaviorof the spot market index during that period.

Ms. NORWOOD. It explains, Senator Proxmire, one of the reasonsthat the BLS in general prefers to use our other indexes for analysis.

Senator PROXMIRE. Now, have you seen or do you know of anydirect impact on food prices from the transportation problem of graincarriers; for example, the strike of the Rock Island Railroad and thegrain carriers up in Duluth? It's a big thing up in that part of thecountry and it seems to me it could have a big effect on food prices.

Ms. NORWOOD. No, and we would have no way of knowing what theeffect may have been.

Senator PROXMIRE. Well, if there's a big increase in the price ofbread and other food that's produced by grain, it might give someindication. That hasn't been out of line?

Ms. NORWOOD. We do have a system in which we ask our pricedata collectors to provide us with any information that they pick upand this might give us some indication, but we wouldn't have it yetbecause it's too early.

Senator PROXMIRE. Now, all the major car companies have an-nounced fairly hefty price increases for the new models and those priceincreases are difficult because they don't come in with one big annualincrease; they do it about every month or two or three. They willhike the price up 4 or 5 percent and it adds up to a lot over the year.

312

Based on previous experience, has the BLS calculated the impact ofthe automobile index of the new prices?

Ms. NORWOOD. Pardon me.Senator PROXMIRE. Calculated the impact on the automotive index

of the price increases that we have just had?Ms. NORWOOD. Are you referring to the new automobiles?Senator PROXMIRE. I'm going to ask the staff to ask the question.Ms. NORWOOD. The change in the new automobile prices?STAFF. The big three have just announced major price increases.

Do you know how much?Ms. NORWOOD. I see. No, we won't know that until next month's

index.Senator PROXMIRE. I'm sorry. That shorthand missed me. Do you

know how much what? How much will it affect the index. All right.The press is almost all gone so I can be stupid and get away with it.

You commented before that the household survey is not as accurateas the establishment survey in depicting turning points in the Em-ployment Situation. If you look at both surveys over the third quarter,which survey gives a better indication of the turning point in theEmployment Situation, the household or the establishment survey?

Ms. NORWOOD. Over the third quarter we are quite lucky in beingable to answer that question; they are fairly close.

Senator PROXMIRE. They were quite far apart last month.Ms. NORWOOD. Yes, but you must remember that they may look far

apart and then when you begin to take out of the household surveythose things that are not in the payroll-that are nonpayroll, like theself-employed and others-and you come down to the same conceptualgroup, you come up with a different figure and we never expect thesesurveys to be exactly the same. But over the last few months it seemsto me they have been fairly close.

Senator PROXMIRE. Which one gives a better indication of thetrend-that was my question-over the years which one has beenmore accurate, the household survey or the establishment survey?

Ms. NORWOOD. The household survey is a sample survey and anysample survey tends basically, because of its size, to be more erratic.The establishment survey includes a much, much larger number ofestablishments. It's a much larger survey and would tend therefore Ithink probably to be smoother. Now we have, as I announced today,just completed a new benchmark of the establishment survey andthough it has not affected the trend in any way, it certainly has af-fected the size of the increases considerably-800,000 or slightly morethan 800,000 is quite a big jump in a benchmark. It's one of the largestones that we have had and we are taking a much more careful look atthat. As I indicated incidentally when I took over as Commissionerone of the things that I would like to see that we do within the nextfew years is to have a comprehensive revision of the establishmentsurvey because I think it is long overdue.

Senator PROXMIRE. Now does the survey reflect any additional lay-offs in the industries in September? Were workers laid off last monthand rehired in September?

Ms. NORWOOD. Perhaps some of the auto workers are back. Therewas no real difference in the

313

Senator PROXMIRE. One of the clues there seems to be the drop inthe number of persons who were unemployed less than 5 weeks, aswell as the layoff figures themselves-they seem to indicate they wererehired.

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, we do know from the newspapers as well asfrom our surveys that some of the auto workers are back.

Senator PROXMIRE. Finally, with this increase in employment andthe work force relatively unchanged in the third quarter, what doesthis mean for productivity in the third quarter?

Ms. NORWOOD. It certainly doesn't look good.Senator PROXMIRE. Do you think the productivity is at best

stationary rather thanMs. NORWOOD. I think the real question when we look at produc-

tivity is not just the labor side but also the production side, and Ithink it will depend to a large extent on what kind or revisions we getin the output figures.

Senator PROXMIRE. I want to thank you very much for your testi-mony, you and your colleagues. It's been very helpful.

Ms. NORWOOD. Thank you, sir.Senator PROXMIRE. The committee will stand adjourned.[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the committee adjourned, subject to the

call of the Chair.]



CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,JOINT ECONOMIC CO.MMITTEE,


Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lloyd Bentsen (chairman of thecommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Bentsen, Sarbanes, and Javits; and Representa-tive Wylie.

Also present: John M. Albertine, executive director; M. CatherineMiller, professional staff member; Katie MacArthur, press assistant;Mark Borchelt, administrative assistant; and Peter Turza, minorityprofessional staff member.

OPENING SmTAT'rEENT OF SENATOR BENTSENX. CHAMIrNAN

Senator BENTSEN. This hearing will come to order.Well, the numbers that seem to be coming out of this economy

continue to be puzzling and I think that's an understatement, frankly.In August, unemployment increased sharply from 5.7 to 6 percent.

However, in September, I guess to the surprise of virtually everyone,the unemployment rate fell. Then in October we find the rate hasincreased from 5.8 percent to 6 percent.

To make matters even more baffling, total employment measuredby the household survey declined by 220,000 in October, but measuredby the establishment survey, total employment increased by 300,000.

If you look at the chart behind me, you will see that employmentgrowth measured by the establishment survey has declined fairlyconsistently from midyear. So the pattern is a difficult one to under-stand and I'm sure we're looking forward to your shedding some lighton that this morning, Commissioner. Last month you told us thatthere was no sign of a recession in the labor market. Is that still thecase?

While your monthly employment releases are giving some problemsof interpretation for the economic policymakers, I am sure that theNation's economic forecasters look forward to the return of the daywhen economic trends are decipherable. Can you hasten that day byexplaining this month's statistics?

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to apologize to Com-missioner Norwood. I will be leaving in a few minutes because I'vegot to go to the Foreign Relations Committee markup, but I camethis morning to get the latest unemployment figures.

Thank you, Senator Bentsen.(315)

316


Ms. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Iam glad to have this opportunity to offer the Joint Economic Com-mittee a few brief comments to supplement our Employment Situ-ation press release, issued this morning at 9 a.m., and our ProducerPrice Index press release, issued yesterday morning.

The unemployment rate edged up from 5.8 to 6 percent in October,returning to its August level. Total employment, as measured bythe household survey, dipped slightly in October, whereas nonfarmpayroll employment rose by 300,000. The gain in payroll jobs, however,was concentrated in the service-producing industries, especiallyin wholesale and retail trade. The index of aggregate weekly hours ofproduction or nonsupervisory workers in the private nonfarm economywas unchanged over the month.

Although month-to-month changes since March have been some-what erratic in both the household and the establishment surveys,both series reflect a clear slowdown in the rate of employment growth.

In the manufacturing sector, both employment and weekly hourshave declined since March. Although precise seasonal adjustmentof employment for the automobile industry during the summermonths is always difficult, by October employment in transportationequipment had been reduced by about 60,000.

The unemployment rate was 6 percent in October. The rate hasranged between 5.6 and 6 percent for the past 14 months. The joblessrate for adult men, now at 4.3 percent, has been edging up in recentmonths, but the rates for women and teenagers have shown noconsistent trend. The unemployment rate for black male workersrose between September and October, while that for white workerswas virtually unchanged.

PRODUCER PRICES

The Bureau released the producer price indexes for October yester-day. Prices for finished goods rose 1 percent, somewhat slower thanthe increases of the previous 2 months-1.4 and 1.2 percent, re-spectively. This deceleration was, in large part, the result of a declinein consumer food prices, following 2 months of large advances. Afterrising at an annual rate of 21 percent during the first quarter of thisyear, prices for consumer foods at the producer level have risen atan annual rate of less than 1 percent over the last 6 months.

Prices for finished energy goods, although continuing to rise rapidly,rose at a somewhat slower pace in October than in the previous 5months and, therefore, also contributed to the overall slowdown.

317

In October, capital equipment prices rose 1.2 percent following anincrease of only 1.1 percent during the entire third quarter. Much ofthis acceleration can be traced to a 4-percent rise in prices for motortrucks, which had dropped about 3 percent during the third quarter.Continued strong demand also contributed to substantial price in-creases in a large number of other capital goods.

Among intermediate or semifinished materials, energy prices con-tinued to advance rapidly, but not so much as in recent months. Onthe other hand, widespread price increases for other materials, par-ticularly those used in nonfood manufacturing and construction,caused the intermediate materials index to rise more rapidly than inany other month during the past 5 years.

A similar story prevails among crude materials. Prices of crudeenergy goods rose more slowly than last month. Prices for crudenonagricultural materials other than energy, however, jumped sharplyafter generally declining during the previous 6 months.

While the picture of producer price changes is somewhat complex,there are a number of major factors that can be summarized.

One, food prices have moderated as the combined result of con-sumer resistance to high prices for some products and improvedsupplies for others.

Two, the bulge in energy prices as the result of general OPECprice increases has begun to subside. Energy prices continue to riserapidly, however, as the result of (a) the remnants of the generalOPEC increases, (b) the actions of individual oil producing nations,and (c) price increases in domestic energy sources.

Three, the second-stage effects of the petroleum price rises arebecoming quite prominent.

Four, international commodity markets are experiencing very activebuying, with consequent price jumps for a variety of intermediateand crude materials.

The BLS also issued releases this week concerning productivityand major collective bargaining settlements, which I'd like veryrapidly to review with you.

PRODUCTIVITY

Productivity in the third quarter was essentially unchanged, rising0.1 percent in the private business sector and 0.2 percent in the non-farm business sector at compound annual rates. These results followtwo consecutive quarters of decline.

Unit labor costs in the third quarter increased 8.3 percent at anannual rate in the private business sector, as hourly compensationrose 8.5 percent. This follows a rise of almost 13 percent in unit laborcosts during the first half of 1979. Because the rise in consumer pricesoutstripped compensation gains, real compensation per hour de-creased about 4 percent at an annual rate in all major sectors.

There is little that can be inferred on a quarterly basis about thecauses of productivity movements. Sluggish capital formation since

57-254 0 - 80 - 21

318

1973 and the absolute decline in the ratio of capital to labor un-doubtedly have contributed to the low trend rate of productivitygrowth. The primary determinant of productivity performance in thecoming months, however, is likely to be the level of business activity.Productivity typically falls rapidly in the contraction phase of thebusiness cycle and grows rapidly during the recovery phase.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SETTLEMENTS

First-year wage adjustments negotiated in the first 9 months of1979 averaged 7.5 percent, and the annual rate of wage adjustmentover the life of the contract averaged 6.1 percent.

In the larger bargaining units, where data include supplementarybenefits as well as wages, settlements in the first 9 months of 1979averaged 9.1 percent in the first contract year and 6.7 percent annuallyover the life of the agreement.

These averages do not include estimates of potential wage in-creases under cost-of-living escalator [COLA] clauses. As would beexpected, the increases in agreements with COLA clauses were smallerthan those without them. COLA clauses cover about 59 percent of the9.4 million workers in major bargaining units. In the first 9 monthsof 1979, wage increases resulting from COLA clauses in major agree-ments returned workers an average of 56 percent of the rise in the CPIduring this same period.

Mr. Chairman, at a hearing that was held at this committee onthe Consumer Price Index, there were some comments made on themortgage interest component of the CPI and I think it would beuseful if you would allow me to take a moment to clarify some of theissues.

CPI MORTGAGE INTEREST

In light of the recent interest in mortgage interest rates, it is naturalthat there be renewed interest in how they affect the CPI. The currentdefinition of homeownership in the CPI is based on a purchase-priceconcept. The weights for the major elements of homeownership costsrefer only to those consumers who actually purchased homes in thebase period. Expenditures of those persons who lived in homes pur-chased in previous years are not included. For mortgage interest,the weight in the CPI is the total amount of interest estimated to bepaid over the life of the mortgage-assumed to be one-half the term-by persons buying homes in the base period.

The CPI represents the cost, at prices prevailing in the currentmonth, of the basket of good and services consumed during the baseperiod. Therefore, the mortgage interest component measures thechange in the interest required each month to buy houses of the same

31)9

quality, at the same ratio of downpayment-or mortgage loan-tosales price, and the same term of mortgage as in the base period. Thechange in these mortgage interest costs is measured by multiplyingthe change in current interest rates by the change in house prices.

During the last 12 months, mortgage interest rates have increased12.4 percent and have accounted for about 0.85 of the 12.1 percentrise in the CPI all items. From a more abstract point of view, a 10-percent rise in mortgage interest rates would raise the CPI 0.8 percent.Both of these calculations assume that house prices-an integral partof the mortgage interest component-remained unchanged.

Some have argued that the mortgage component of the CPI shouldcontain the mortgage rates actually paid by the entire index population.Under this proposal, if you, for example, bought your house 10 yearsago with a mortgage rate of perhaps 7 percent and I bought one 3years ago with a mortgage rate of 9 percent, those rates, they argue,should in some way be used in the current index.

Introduction of a hybrid system of weighted past mortgage interestrates into the CPI would represent a basic change in the CPI-itwould no longer be a measure of current price change.

In addition, there is a very important pragmatic point. It is truethat in the present situation, when interest rates are rising, use of aweighted average would make the CPI go up more slowly. However,when interest rates begin to fall, use of such a weighted treatmentwould result in a rising mortgage interest rate measure in the CPI.This anomaly would be difficult to explain to the public. Furthermore,the CPI would be higher than it would be under the current treatment.

Finally, in evaluating the treatment of mortgage interest, I believethat it is extremely important to emphasize that it is an integral partof the general issue concerning the measurement of owner-occupiedhousing costs. As I have earlier testified before this committee, home-ownership costs present some of the most complex conceptual andoperational problems encountered in compiling the CPI. The BLSaddressed these problems during the course of the CPI revisionprogram and suggested that there be a change in the treatment ofowner-occupied housing costs. While some of those consulted on thesequestions agreed that a change in approach was desirable, few wereconvinced at that time that the proposed alternatives could be success-fully implemented in the CPI. Further research in this area is sorelyneeded and I can assure you that the Bureau of Labor Statistics willdo all that it can to continue its own work, stimulate research byothers and to engage in frank and open discussion of the issue.

My colleagues and I will now be glad to answer any questions youmay have.

[The table attached to Ms. Norwcod's statement, together with theEmployment Situation press release referred to, follows:]

320


Standard X-11 method

Con-Official current Stable Total

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

X-11 ARIMA method

Resid- Extrapo- Con-ual fated current

Rang(cols.

2-8)

(7) (8) (9)

5.4 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.8 0.15.5 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5. 8 5. 8 5.8 15.6 5.9 5.9 6.0 5.8 6. 0 5. 9 5.9 2

6.4 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.8 5.8 .26.4 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.5 5.7 5.8 .16.1 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.7 .25.5 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 .25. 2 5.8 5.8 5. 8 5. 8 5. 9 5.8a 5. 7 .26.0 5. 6 5. 7 5.5 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.7 .25.8 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 .15.9 6.0 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.0 5.9 .25.6 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.8 .35.6 6.0 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.1 6.0 6.0 .3

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 1979.


(1) Unadjusted rate-Unemployment rate not seasonally adjusted.(2) Official rate (standard X-11 method)-The published seasonally adusnted rate. Each of the 3 major labor forceco 'onents-agricultural employment, nonagricultural employment and unemployment data-for 4 age-sen groups(males and femalen under and over 20 years of age) are separately adjusted then added to derive seasonally adjusted

total figures. Teenage unemployment and nonagricultural employment are adjasted by the standard X-11 method'sadditive option, while all other series are adjusted by the multiplicative option. Adult male unemployment is adjustedmultiplicatively using the prior trend adjustment feature of tbe X-11. The rate is computed by adding the 12 componentsto a civilian labor force total, and dividing and derived civilian labor force into the unemplnyment total. These series arerevised at the end of each year. Factors for the current year are computed at the beginning of the year for the 12 succeed-

ihe monthand published in advance.T c nt "implicit" factors for the overall unemployment rate, derived by dividing the original unemployment ratebythe seasonally adjusted rate for the months of 1978, are: January (111.1), February (112.0), March (106.7). April (94.6),May (89.5), June (105.6), Jaly (102.) August (98.5), September (97.3), October (93.1), November (95.7), December

(95.5).(3) Concurrent (standard X-11 method>-The procedure for computation of the official rate is followed, escept thatthe data are re-seasonally adjusted by the standard X-11 method each month us the most recent data become available,

i e., the rate for January 1979 is based on adjustment of data for the period, January 1967-January 1979. The rates forthecurrent year are shown as first computed, while data for 1978 are as revised to incorporate experience through De-ce mbe r 1978.(4) Stable (standard X-11 method)-.The stable seasonal option of the standard X-11 method uses final seasonal factorscomputed as an unweighted average of all seasonal-irregular ratios for the entire span of the period, January 1967-December 1978. In essence, this procedure assumes that seasonal patterns a re relati vely constant from year-to-year. The

unwei ghted average is updated and series revised at the end of each year.(5) Total (standard X-11 method)-This is alternative aggregation procedure, in which total unemployment and laborforce levels are directly adjusted by the standard X-11 (multiplicative option) to derive the rate. The series are revised

at the end of each year.(6) Residual (standard X-11 method)-The labor force sod employment levels are adjusted directly, with the level of

unemployment derived as a residual. The rate in computed by dividing the residual unemployment level by the directlyadjusted civilian labor force. The series are revised at the end of each year.

(7) Extrapolated (X-11 ARIMA method)-Data for the 12 component groups of the unemployment rate are estimatedus Ing ARIMA (autoregressive, integrated, moving average) models. The e~iarged series is then seasonally adjusted withthe X-11 program, and the rates are computed as in the official procedure. The series are revised at the end of each year.Factors for thes current year are extrapolated at the beginning of the year for the 12 succeeding months.

(8) oncrren (X1 1 RIM )-Th prcedre for computation of the X-11 ARIMA rate is followed, except that thedata are re-eas naly adustd ech ont asthe most receit data become available, i.e.. the rate for January 1979 isbase on adjstm nt f dta or he erid, anuary 1967-January 1979. The rates for the current year are shown asfirt c mpued, whie d ta or 978 are revsedto reflect experience through December 1978.

Meth ds f Adust ent- he tandrd -11 method was developed by Julius Slriskin at the Bureau of the Census.The eth d i decried ~ " -11 Varantof he Census Method 11 Seasonal Adjustment Program,' by Julius Shiskin,

Alan Youn, and Jnn Musgrave, (Technical Paper No 15, Bureau of the Census, 1967).The X1 ARIM method was developed at Statistics Canada by Estela Bee Dagum and is the official method for sea-sonally adjusting the Canadian labor force series. A general description of the method is contained in "A Cornp arisen andAssessment of Seasonal Adjustment Methods for Employment and Unemplo) ment Statistics,' by Estella Bee Dagu m(Background Paper No. 5, U.S. National Commission on Employment and Ulemployment Statistics, February 1978).

Unad-justed

rateMonth and year

1978

October.November .December .

1979

JanuaryFebruary .March -------AprilMayJune ----------JulyAugustSeptember .October

321

K | ~~~~~~United States, Mews ~~~Departmnent 4N e W S ~~~~ofLabor0Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, D.C. 20212

Contact: Norm Bowers (202) 523-1944 USDL 79-765

Diane Weotcott 523-1371 TRANSMISSION OF MATERIAL IN THIS RELEASE IS

Kathryn Hoyle (202) 523-1913 EMBARGOED UNTIL 9:00 A.M. (EST), FRIDAY,523-1208 NOVEMBER 2, 1979

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: OCTOBER 1979

The overall employment situation was characterized by mixed developments in October, the

Bureau of Labor StatIstits of the U. S. Depurtneot of Labor reported today. Enenployment

rose, and the two aample surveys shoved different movements is employment. Th. Nation's

onmoployarot rate increased from 5.8 percent in Septmbner to 6.0 percent in October, the none us

it wan iS August. The rate thos remained at the top of the 5.6 to 6.0 range that has prevailed

for the past 14 months.

Total employment--as neasured by the nonthly survey of households--edged down by 220,000 is

October to 97.3 illion. Eploy.ent had expanded substontially in Septe-ber and wos Op by 2.1

million over the year. In contrast, nonfarm payroll enployment--an measured by the soothly

survey of estoblishnents--rose by oboot 300.000 to 90.2 million is October, following 2 .ooths

of little grouth. The number of payroll jobs ban advanced by 2.8 million since October 1978.

Unemploymeot

The nonber of uneuploynd persons rose by nearly 200,000 in October to 6.2 nillion, with most

of the increase occurring .. o.g persons who had lost their jobs. The overa11 .enployveot rate

ceved up fros 5.8 percent in Septenber to 6.0 percent, the sano as the August rato and clone to

the rates prevailing since August of 1978. (See tables A-l and A-5.)

Over-the-month iocreases is onemployment occurred among adult women and blotks, as their

jobless rates rose to 5.8 aod 11.7 perceit, renpectively. The increane amn0g woneo reversed a

decline of comparable nogoitude in Septenber. So contract, the ooneploy.eot rate for adolt uen,

at 4.3 percent, was little changed froc September, though it wan up foor-tenibs of a percetrage

point from the May-June levol. Likewioe, jobless rates for coot other major worker categories,

including teenagers., white, and Etll-time workers, were about the none on i4 the previous

month. (See table A-2.)

Total Epnlovyent and the Labor Force

Total employneot edged down by 220,000 it October to 97.3 sillion. Movements in employment

have been momewbat erratic in recent months: the October level was not much different than July.

322

The enplyment-popalation ratio was 59.2 percent in October, down 0.2 percentage point frsa

September. Over the past year, total eoploynent has advanced by 2.1 million; all of this

increase took place among adolts.

The civilian labor force held at 103.5 million in October, as the over-the-onth increase in

onemploymeo. was offset by the decline of aboot equal magnitade in employment. Since October

1978, the civilian labor force has risen by 2.4 million, bht growth has slowed considerably

since March, totaling only 760,000.

The civilian labor force participation rate, at 63.7 percent, returned to its August level

after hitting an all-time high of 63.9 percent in Septesber. Over the year, labor force

Table A. Major indicators of labor market activity, seassnally adjusted

Ij OQuarterly averages I Monthly data

Selected categories I I Ii 1978 i 1979 i 1979

I III I IV 1 I I II III IA.R. I Sept. I Oct.HOUSEHOLD DATA I

I Thousands of personsCivilian labor force ............... 1100,7531101,5241102,4751102,2951103,2021103,0491103,4981103.474

Total oployment ............... 1 94,7261 95,6161 96,5961 96,4151 97,2081 96,9001 97,5131 97,293Unemploynent .................. 1 6,0271 5,9081 5,8781 5,8801 5,9941 6,1491 5,9851 6,182

Not in labor force ................ 1 58,4821 58,3981 58.0951 58,8861 58,6041 58,7521 58,5151 58,901Disco-raged workers............ 1 8531 7601 7241 8261 7391 N.A.1 N.A.1 N.A.

I I I I I I I

Unemployment rates:All workers....................Adolt men......................Adult woen....................Teenagers ......................White ..........................Black and other................Foil-time workers..............

ESTABLISHMENT DATA

Nonfaro payroll employment........Gcods-prodocing indostrien.Service-prodocing indontriem...

Percent of labor force

I 6.01 5.8I 5.71 5.71 5.81 6.01 5.81 6.0I 4.11 4.01 4.01 3.91 4.21 4.21 4.21 4.3I 6.11 5.81 5.71 5.71 5.61 5.91 5.51 5.8I 16.11 16.31 15.81 16.21 16.11 16.51 16.41 16.6I 5.21 5.11 5.01 4.91 5.11 5.31 5.11 5.2I 11.71 11.51 11.41 11.61 10.81 11.01 10.61 11.7

5.51 5.21 5.21 5.2! 541 5.4j 5.41 5.5I I I I I I I I

I-

Average weekly hoors: ITotal private nonfrm..Ma.fcring... .. IManufacturing overtie ...........

Ip-pr.1i~i..ry

Thousands of lobs86,8661 87,7991 88,7241 89,353189,773p1 89,762189,845pI90,151p25,7311 26,1111 26,4861

2 6,

6 3012

6,638pl 26.599126,591p[26,623p

61,1351 61,6881 62,2381 6 2

,723163,136pi 6 3

,16316

3,254pl63,528pI I I I I I I

I I 1 - I I I I35.81 35.81 35.8i 35.51

35.6p 35.61 35.7pI 355p

40.51 40.61 40.61 39.81 40.lpI 40.11 4 0

.1pI 40.1p

3.51 37 3.7 3I 32p 3.21 32p 3.

2p

I I I I I I I bN.A-emt available

auur! ox wore-

323

participation has increased by 0.4 percentage point, due entirely to continued gains in adult

female participation.

Industrv Payroll Eonlovuant

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 305,000 in October to 90.2 million, following negligible

increasee in each of the prior 2 months. Payroll employment has advanced by 2.8 million over

the past year. (See table 1-1.)

Service-producing industries accounted for virtually alt of the employment gain, with

wholesale and retail trade and cervices registering the largest ebsolute increaeee.

Transportation and public utilities and finance, insurance, and real aestte also poeted gains

while government employment was about unchanged.

Employment in the goode-producing eactor was little changed from September. Jobs in

construction increased 30,000, while employment in mining wee unchanged. Overall manufacturing

employment wee essentially the esm as in September. as declines in durable goods about offset

gains in nondurable goods. Within the durable goods industries, transportation equipment jobs

fell by 55,000 in October. Most of this decline probably occurred in the summer months but was

not apparent at that time because of problems of seasonally adjusting auto nodel changeover.

Strike activity wae responsible for a drop of 40,000 in machinery. Among the nondurable goods

industries, job gaein were scattered, with the largest taking place in food processing and

printing and publishing.

Hours

The average workweek of production or nonsuperviaory workers on private nonagricultural

payrolls was 35.5 hours in October, down 0.2 hour from September. Declines took place in every

industry division eacept manufacturing. Manufacturing hours, at 40.1, have shown little change

.ince May but were down 0.4 hour over the past year. Factory overtime, at 3.2 hours, was also

unchanged fron September. (Se. table e-2.)

The index of aggregate weekly hours wan unchanged in October at 125.9 (1967-100). The inden

woo up 2.4 percent over the year, due entirely to employment gains. The nanufcrturing inden wan

little changed both over the month and from a year earlier. (See table B-s.)

324

Ho..y and Weekly Earnings

Average hbrly earnings of productise or no.n.pervniary wsrkers on private seefaro payrolls

edged op 0.3 percent is October (seasonally adjunted) and were 7.5 percent above ftoober 1978.

Average weekly earnings declined 0.2 percent over the eonth bat were op 6.6 percent fron October

197y.

before adjontne.t for seasnallity, average hourly earnings rose I nest fron Septenbor to

$6.31, 44 oasts above October 1978. Average weekly earnings were $224.64 is October, down 90

cents fron Septenker bot op $13.91 over the year. (See trble B-3.)

The -oorly E-arigos Iden

The H-orly Earnings Inden--earnings adjusted for overtine In nansfactorig .neas.allity, sod

the effects of changen in the proportisn of workern is high-age. and low-wage indostrias--was

234.9 (1967-100) in Ociober, 0.3 percent higher thba is Septenber. The iodan was 7.7 percent

above October a year ago. During the 12-no.bth period ended in Septenber, Eke hourly Enroigo

loden in dollars of .osnstat purchasing power decreased 3.7 percent. (See table B-4.).

325

Explanatory Note

,t-leans presents and analyzes statistics fromis. - sior surveys. Data on labor force, total employ-. l, and unemployment (A tables) are derived from

the i ,rent Population Survey-a sample survey ofl.,-'cholds which is conducted by the Bureau of the(eisits for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Beginning inSepteimber 1975, the sample was enlarged by 9,000hous-holds in order to provide greater reliability forwnafiler States and thus permit the publicalion of annual

statioties for all 50 States and the District of Columbia.I hese soupplemealary households were added to the47.iitll intional household sample in January 1978, thusthe sample now consists of about 56,000 householdsseleeted to represent the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalpoputotion 16 years and over.

Statistics on nonagricultural payroll employment,II or.. iind earnings (B tables) are collected by thelircou of Labor Statistics, in cooperation with Stateigencics, from payroll records of a sample of approxi-nm.utely 1h2,000 establishments. Unless otherwise indi-rled. data for both statistical series relate to the weekceuotailung the 12th day of the specified month.

Comparability of houiehold and payrollemployment statistiuc

Employment data from the household and payrollurveys differ in several basic respects. The household

si rvu y provides information on the labor force activityof the entire civilian noninstitutional population, 16yesr. of age and over, without duplication. Each personis cIlssified as either employed, unemployed, or not intie labor force. The household survey counts employedpersons in both agriculture and nonagriculturaliiidsstrics and, in addition to wage and salary workers(including private household workers), counts the self-employed, unpaid family workers, and persons "with ajob but not at work" and not paid for the period absent.

The payroll survey relates only to paid wage andsalary employees (regardless of age) on the payrolls ofnonagricultural establishments. Persons who worked atmore than one job during the survey week or otherwiseappear on more than one payroll are counted more thanonce in the establishment survey. Such persons arecounted only once in the household survey and areelassified in the job at which they worked the greatestnther of hours.

Unemployment

To be classified in the household survey asmncmployed an individual must: (I) Have been without a

job during the survey week; (2) have mode specificefforts to find employment sometime during the prior 4weeks; and (3) be presently available for work. Inaddition, persons on layoff and those waiting to begin anew job (within 30 days), neither of whom most meetthe jobseeking requirements, are also classified asunemployed. The unemployed total iieludes all personswho satisfactorily meet the above criteria, regardlessof their eligibility for unemployment insurance benefitsor any kind of public assistance. The unemployment raterepresents the unemployed as a proportion of thecivilian labor force (the employed end unemployedcombined).

The Bureau regularly publishes a wide variety oflabor market measures. See, for example, the demo-graphic, occupational, and industry detail in tables A-2and A-3 of this release and the comprehensivedata package in Em ploment and Earnings each month.A special grouping o seven unemployment measures isset forth in table A-7. Identified by the symbols U-Ithrough U-7, these measures represent a range ofpossible definitions of unemployment and of the laborforce-from the most restrictive (U-Il to the mostcomprehensive (U-7). The official rate Or unemploymentappears as U-5.

Seanonal adjustment

Nearly all economic phenomena are affected tosome degree by seasonal variations. These arerecurring, predictable events which are repeated moreor less regularly each year-changes in weather, openingand closing of schools, major holidays, industry produc-tion schedules, etc. The cumulative effects of theseevents are often large. For example, on average overthe year, they explain about 95 percent of the month-to-month variance in the unemployment figures. Sinceseasonal variations tend to be large relative to theunderlying cyclical trends, it is necessary to useseasonally-adjusted data to interpret short-termeconomic developments. At the beginning of each year,seasonal adjustment factors for unemployment andother labor force series are calculated for use duringthe entire year, taking into account the prior year'se-perience.

All seasonally-adjusted civilian labor force andunemployment rate statistics, as well as the major'employment and unemployment estimates, are com-puted by aggregating independently adjusted series.The official unemployment rate for all civilian workersis derived by dividing the estimate for total unem-

326

ployment (the sum of four seasonally-adjusted age-sexvomponents) by the civilian labor force (the sum of 12.ea.onatly-adjusted age-sex components).

I or cstablis.hment data, the seasonatly-adjustedseriec for all employees, production workers, averagewrr-klV hours, and average hourly earnings are adjustedh5 aggregating the seasonally-adjusted data from the

tictive rcmponent series. These data are alsorviood annually, often in conjunction with bench ,ark(,olrelrnsive counts of employment) adjustments.( I he imost recent revision of seasonally-adjusted data-a, tissed on data through June 1979.1


Both the household and establishment survey1t1Uistis are subject to sampling error, which should be

kran into account in evaluating the levels of a series aswell us changes over time. Because the householdsurvey is based upon a probability sample, the resultsmay differ from the figures that would be obtained if itwcre possible to take a complete census using the samepiestionnaires and procedures. The standard error is thevii sure of sampling variability, that is, of the variationthat occurs by chance because a sample rather than thee ntire population is surveyed. The chances are about 68out of 100 that an estimate from the survey differs1row al figure that would be obtained through aenhiplete census by less than the standard error. TablesA through I in the "Explanatory Notes" of EmIn wentnd tarnisgs provide approximations of the standrd

errorT -or unemployment and other labor forceintegories. To obtain a 90-percent level of confidence,the confidence interval generally used by BLS, theerrors should be multiplied by 1.6. The followingesamples provide an indication of the magnitude ofsapiiipng error: For a monthly change in total em-

ployment, the standard error is on the order of plus orminus 182,000. Similarly, the standard error on a changein total unemployment is approximately 115,000. Thestandard error on a change in the national unemploy-ment rate is 0.12 percentage point.

Although the relatively large size of the monthlyestablishment survey assures a high degree of accuracy,the estimates derived from it also may differ from thefigures obtained if a complete census using the sameschedules and procedures were possible. However, sincethe estimating procedures utilize the previous month'slevel as the base in computing the current month's levelof employment (link-relative technique), sampling andresponse errors may accumulate over several months.To remove this accumulated error, the employmentestimates are adjusted to new benchmarks(comprehensive counts of employment), usually on anannual basis. In addition to taking account of samplingand response errors, the benchmark revision adjusts theestimates for changes in the industrial classification ofindividual establishments. Employment estimates arecurrently projected from March 1978 levels.

One measure of the reliability of the employmentestimates for individual industries is the root-mean-square error (RMSE). The RMSE is the standard devia-tion adjusted for the bias in estimates. If the bias issmall, the chances are about 68 out of 100 that anestimate from the sample would differ from its bench-mark by less than the RMSE. For total nonagriculturalemployment, the RMSE is on the order of plus or minus83,000. Measures of reliability (approximations of theRMSE) for establishment-survey data and actualamounts of revision due to benchmark adjustments areprovided in tables K through P in the "ExplanatoryNotes" of Employment and Earnings.

327

HOUSEHOLD DATA . HOUSEHOLD DATA

Tobi. A-1. Emply.m.t 88998. 08 t. noniof nilu iottial popsol.2n

I r~~~~~~~I I - F-r : I L; -.__ _ ___ O:t. sps. TOct. | oct.er97 r 1.90 9 . f ept. ] " .1 978 j 1919 ±1973 4 17 97 1978 1979 I L 1979 ] 1979

61,061761,3666,,j861,2,6,,~~~~~~ 159.707I 962, 013 162.375 959.707 961.96 '61,600 1680 16.0932 6,7~. ..................... 101,555 D 10 I7 10,0 39 10987 2.52 1 07,IU.059 107,09 107,898 10787. .................. 63. 63.6 63..0 67.7. 63.5 67.8 63.7 6.93 63.

.............. ........ 96.095 975,576 9,9'50 95,;2091 96.750. 97.210 96,900 97,513 97, 29738~~88,1,616,992261661~~~~~~1 . 5I9.6 59. 5. 509 59.2 59.0D 59.1 59.6 59.2

............... 5,660....5,1792 5',78 5,87 5,770 ,6 6,1.9 5,985 6.182366161616661,6,61, 5.3 ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~5.6 5. 5.0 5.6 5.7 6,.0 5.8 6.0

166.66266661 53.95~~~~~~~~~~~8112 58,-o .58,oO 58,630 58,865 53, 585 58, 752 58,515 58'g,90

1612761..0666628,8,261.61,' 69,00~~~~sl1~' I 70,205 70,786 3:2 69,081 09,000 60995 10,099' 70.,20 70.300o:

0,3.6161,66666,2868,22061' .61.322 66,522 oO~o67 67,782 60, 22~ 60,319 68,697 68,522 68, 6961.2.c666'. 53,~~~~~~~~~~~l167 56,791 53,010 17,593 50,795 58,567 56,52, 50,057 56,69

9.0,8.0.,,, 73.1 80.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D 9.9 79.5 79.7 79.9 79.9 19.8 5 99.06,6161,2 .. 51,203 5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2i,635 52,216 51,0 52299 52,719 52,227 52,02 52.766

8,89.8686,688366., '.~~~~~~~6 75.1. 753 150 7.5 73.B 7. 7.5 36. 7.836,6126 2,662~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ 2,616 2,472 2,367 2,7306 9:,2,72 2,385 2.95 2.37

8.616126662662,6, 69,0~~~~~~~~23 50,D 77 50,726 60, 085 9.907 0999 9,03 61983 9,9626,6........1......... 96. B 1,960o 2,062 2,985 2, 090 2,281 2, 300 2,219 2, 370

. ..........1 3. 3.~6 o.6B 6. 7. 6.0 9.2 62 8............... ...... 115993 99137 11,09 199289 97,807 113,752 17,890 19,86 16,001I

5612 61,.6.0666 p~~p ..... .~.......... 7 5, 3909 77, 0 77,629 75,900 06,896 77,01 77, 127 77, 205 77, 6,290,.6..~~~,6,.06,o.,28.o2,6o,' 75,08~~~~~9 77120 27,32 75,0 7678 6,897 77,806 77,31 20 7.70061.6212. l,,~~~~~~~~~~~ 30,50I D3 09, 56739 950B 30,6 6 596 79, 010 79,292. 0,31I 0 1

'61618.661.12 52.7 51.7 51.0 69~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.9 507 5.1 5. 59 .0 50.9866871,2 76~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~, 31 2 I 3 320 1.68 35. 126 76, 317 76,86 i1 36, 960 71, 178 3 1, 079

................... 47.9 0. 2 08. 7 07.067.36 . 0.9 7.6 08.1 .67.08926 . 990 670~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l .56 58 592 50 596 660 556

166..q.6212,6.1261,9 ~~~~~~3 5 ,00:2D 76,53 37,076 D 35, 979 35, 7 1 76e,276 16,77 7657 6,83. 1. .......2 ,1311 2,027 2,27 2,170 2,22 2, 150 2,7326 2, 153 2, 279

0061..89,9,97,6, ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~5. 5 5. 9 5.07 5.6 5.0 5.51 5.09 5.5 5.8. ..................... 77,737 77,539 371,792 30,029 36,180 377,081 371,70 37,9793 71,99

0.62 .6161616616562 o~~~~~~~o2,3o..... 10,7 50 16, 65 9' 6,659 96,3.75 0 96, 60 1 6,677 16,665I 1'6,6556 16,650,8.,6,..,616.6666.61 .................. 96,636 16, 167 9,10 l 9687 16301 96,76 1039 1676 16770

.......... ....... .. 9,I 266 6.035 0,19 3,2 ,77 901 9,7 ,1 9 ,66l~~61661,66666661, 56.6 55.~~~~~~~~~12 56.6 56.6 50.2 57.9 56.8 51.9 9.

8,76,7.3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7,976 7, 526 7, 658 80,67 0,02 0301 7,70 7.953 7,88661061661.71,6121,6661,,l . 60~~~~- 65.2 362 B02 688 6. 06.2 87.7 6.3

86,612666 43~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~2 709 369 026 762 75 ;5 70 765 3601666196121226206661 7~~~~~~~~I,27 7,15 8716 7,667 0722 3,6716 7,7366 7,506 7,28D

L6,6~~~61.912 1.671 1,oll 9,665~~~"3 1,57 1,8551 I. 1,65 1,529 I 1,691 1,513

86..66. 6. ............. 7,07~2 7,7332 7, 267 6,012 6,066 6906 7, 167 6,057 6.98'9

.61............ .....2, .. I'161,0B70 13, 621 967,937 161,077 167, 177 107, 707 1673,661 167,6 21 103,91 77066266161616666161' 617.161 160.......... , 170 I 10 9,91 162, 29 12~0,170 141,692 131,66 101,8222 I181,91 162 29

.8....1..... . 35,259 36,669 V 3G,22 36,365 85,07 1 06,007 05,826 86,7395 86,267306186,6,,.7-610261,.,,,6 60.~~~~~~~1 60. 2 60. 5 59.6 60.0D 6..1 59.8B 60.2 59.9

.......... 6,70 6,571 6,395 6, 50261,600 6,6609,072 8,689 .1,955666161861,661616161 4.7~ ~ 5.0 .6B 5,I . 69 53I. .

18,666666116161 ~~~~~~~~~~~~50,6196 50,969 30,36~1 51 , 107 61,217 5 I1.87 51 , 161 50.900 5 1, 299

162616661m6.666 95,955 23. 686 20,.531 19,955 20,7381 20,382 28,831 20,680~1 00, 5391611266161.6161,666618.8261~~~~~ .. 99,5036 20,072 20, 009 16,576 19g,91 9,6 19,979 2003 20,79

......................... 92,0 9o1%2,76 12,5 58 12,9122o 02,272 12,700. 12, 380 12,608 12, 586...................... 61,.0 17 6. 2. .8 1. 62.0 61,8 01_ 6.5

. .....161.61661616 10,790 1109 90;.937 10,769 10,833 11,02 5 10,981 19,095 11,087356:: ::~ .1I 56. 5. 2 53,91 57 5 56..1 53. 8 58,2 50.0

....................... 0,l201 1. 268 .9,76 ,7713 1,300 1,I338 1,753 1,313 1,863901661. 66.9........... 0. 6 10. 3 90,4 91.3 I. D110B 19,0 10,6 81,7

....................... 7.056 7,6s79 7.53 7,I316I 7.629 7,-571 7,639 7,620 7. 533

' 6 36 21 1 As...6 F6ar 66-6 ,.,0.t6 *d 61

1.86w.6.. 6161 89_1. _6..021 P6.80. I00. 8n,V 0_ - _,1 ,Ft

328


lobe. A-2. Major .rnmploym.-I Indlntor.. anly djua9d

-.I . . ........... O....t...o t~ 96. 80. tt

................ 2,906~ 2,20 5.6 9.8 5.5 5.09 5.5 5.8. .............. -.... 9,50 1 9503 9I..2 5.1 9 5. 3 19.5 16.0 96.6

6,0 .056 5.9 .0 I .9 5. 5.1 5.

.. ............................ 9,206 9, 29 96.. 93.0 93.3 90.9 96.., 6.

. . ........................... 534 55 0. 10.8II. 09: 90. 3 9.6~ 190.9S8" .9 99.0 .................... 358 29 06.5 36.6 0 0.9 0 0.7 39.5 3 5.7

9.... 103 3 9.96 26 2.6I 2.9 3.01 2.8, 2.9

......................-.- : 3265 6.23 3.5 9.9 8..I 3.9 7.6 .

6,0 689 5. . . . . .

............................ 9,3901 9, 223 9.3 9.I 9.0 9. 2 1.9I 1.3I. ......... ..... ........... ..... ..... 6. 2 69.3 6. 6.5 6 2 6.6

9. 10. 2.02 69........ 2 337 2. 2.5 2. 2. 2. 28969 268 9.6 2.6 9.9 2. 3 2.2 2.33o..... 53 27 6.9 6. ..5 2.2 3.9 3.

999966,99999, 779 230 9.2 6.6..6...5.0.8.5I8.799~~~~~9I.9.6998 2,329~~~~~~~~~~~~'.I 2,562 6.3 6.5 6.8 7.6 7. .

659 969 6.9 6.~~~~~~~~~2 6.2l 4.9 9. 66...... ....... 93 9,99.3.6.77 80 93 8.2 9.2

9,999t9978 ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~500 550 9. 03 9.9 9. 00 9.9.o~~~~~~~6..t 985 336 3.9 3.2 7.2 7.0 9.7 7.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~71 7.

939 923 2 .6 3. 1 65 3.8 ...

9..bclo.09,6',.n ,o0.2n ,.o6.,~~ ... 0,986 ~ 0,567 9.6 5.6 5.7 9. .6. 0099.9,906, 553~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. "520 1 99.2 9. 6 9 :.5 9.5 8.I9.

.. 69 72 6.6.8 55 2. 5.3 5.

548 66 9 60 6.2 6.2 6.9 7.3 57.608,.0.0.9.98928.8069201 . 93~~~~~.... 13 29 3.6 3:.0 ' 3. 3.9 6.9 3.8:

......................... 9,238 9, 298 6. 9.6 .2 6 66. 65I..0 995. 9,099. 9,9.... I... 1 03 6. 6 6.7 69 5.6 8.37 .

...................... .605 65 3.9 36 93. 3.9 3. .02.i. . . ................. I95 969 6.5 7. 7 90. 9. 0. 3 98

* k99,9ft9,....9969 99 6,5 99~ c979~"

329


. . .d . ............ .. 9635 .9. 158 95.289 96.3~5 93. 0I 96.1900 93.58- 7.956. 005 56. 80 5.5o 56.638 56.595 56.396 56.65 56.539

........,069 ... j9.i3 3..40 38. 096 39.055 3916 39. 366 9 5 3.

.......... ~22.- 23. 518 22. 199 . 500. 22.690 22. 333 22,95 23.2

.o3...ema~~o 18.569 15.193 16.327 15.053" 15I9 09035071.92609..O~~cat-0.fl1..-6, ....... 1o.-3 0 91 9.360 30.565 39.635 30.732 10.600 10.6

* 5.931 6.229 5~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~.M0 9.965 6.31 .05 818 6.26'O6Oc~~~~~966 13.598 93~~~~~~~~".030 33,.02 931. 41 13.63 1. 336 9.96 83,825. . .... 2..65.3...6.399.6 31.90.3 .93 39.367 32.2331 32.9

Q~13Oc6~~006 . 32.695 33.039 12. 556113.00 12.632 I 12.5 303 1.7006~~~0~.6068.060661 . . 3.2~~~65 16 03 133 0.5 30.03 0.0 1 13,919 I89,90

l~~~0o32p3~~~~3j 3.626 0.603,:" 3.503 3.5'I96 3.61 3I531 3.622 3.54I............. .,658 9.653 9.33 6.0 6.62 0.569 0.1962 1 9,67

32.832 ~2.9,537 32.:953 02.9 12.6I 9259 32,36 2.9'7106,60063 3.559 2.633 2.329 2.603~2 2.53 2.3103 . 2,36 2.702

. . ........... I.0 3.8 3.92311 I 1.44 3.6932 1.323 1,31 13

. .................. 353 3691 323 29 290 3310 3 23 3312

0.09.03.2.906,6... . . 95.955:,II 1 7 683.562 05.I~ 1 363 6.30 80233 06223 36.893 93,032

16. 53615.633 35.323 15,~~~~~~~25 35.382 35.260 509 3.061.0O............730.3 3 1.05 6~9.96 1..05. 0.695 30.9631 3.983 33:.60

1.39 9290 .3 1 236 3233 3.25 1.332 3. 27969.006 7059 6.6 69.106 6,9.637 69,3611 30.90 30 6.213

....... 6.258 6,35 6.16660 .5 6.69 6.602 6.398w03~~~~62y~~~.0 ~ ....... 626 39 5 02 59 0 5 023

1206.93009..000..096 00~~~~~~~~.639 5 0.93 12 961.53 2703 0906 0919 0 .029 8868

P6301t63..09090..O7.o . ~~~~~2.913 2.939 339 38 333.3493 3.5 3..99 323034...81.60 9.933 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .20 3.363' 8.89 3,961 3,3 .255 0,9

.. ........... :13.930 3.73 . 2.00 1.6 3.93 '.06 9389.. . . .........0 ... 33.33 13.05 2. 029 92.39 32. 597 32, 533 32,663 82093

Tabl. A0.4. Dura.tion of .un..n p900m009

406~~~0.4.l~~~~.3 oc2t:. 20663 20906. 1 20990 39 1 6,.2 2:pS. 00",

193 3939 39: 17 13 98 99 13

.030 . ....... .. 2.00.2993 7.39 2,23 2.9,0 0.2 2,8 .6...3.. .... 1.689 .3,033 3.309 3.-92 3.933 ' 1.363 2.05 1.965

363.084, 63~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~2 593 332 6361 60 662 6 2' '03....... ............ 5 35 35 505 030 951 529 503 520

A- 6 ...... ... ... . I13.4 lo 10.2 130 10. 10.0 10. 90. 3050t300. . . . 5.3 5.0 5,9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~" 5. 0. 09 5. 56

9200603.0 300.0 100,0 300,0 390.0 300.0 300.0 300.9 100.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~co 00.

L3 .6..........9. .... 0.9 093.9 96.3 507.5. 9. 52.6 63 8.

36066696~~~~~t.06 .. . . 23,0 11,9 ~~~~~~~~~~ 22,6 19, 10 93 39. 1 19.9

930. . .......... ...... 9.9 9.82 30, 0 9.3 7 ,6 0, 8,

330

HOUSEHOLD DATAHOUSEHOLD DATATWOm A-.. R."....* 6.0 ""[email protected]

.. ... . .. .. .. .. .. . OF...I~

1F S* ....................................0 ..................................

.. win ............... ................

h o..............................._ _hs ............... ......

e .m- b ............... ...

. I C I . .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .

. ...................................

. ............................ ....OA .IO .......... .......................

0 .l ................................. ..

.....n..................................................................

r 9

0 0 1 O t Ct . 0 C 4. 2 64 9 2 0 6

1978 1979 197 197 9 197

0.179

1.s49

3.791

3. 9

3.3~

tC.I

2, 3 80

I ,808

2.00

91.35

3. 011

12. 3

2, 35

1. 312

1,73

1.21

31 .2

1. I

3711.662

787

2 C. 3

'1.9

28.213.3

2.532

1.339

,,737*9.

100. 0

*3 .7

30. 9

12.3

990.

2.92

9609

720

2, 79100.0

15.6

29.3

2 .5 2.6.9 .9

1.7 1.7.7 .7

1"9

Sopo.

06'0735

803

13.9

29.7

2.52.

I:6'

2.93?

*1.9

82:5

21788793

, 0.019.8

29.0

02.e

2.7

I.'

Tabl. A-8. Un..ploynDnt by o.. .nd 898. -. 0n80ly djotod

__ Cct. OCt. Ott. J0300 301 909. Sept. OC.

1972 1979 1973 1979 *979 1979 1979 1979

-9.0. . . - --.. .. .. . .. ............ .... .. .36 4.182 5 .9 5. 5.7 6.0 5.8 6.016116600.a ~ .3............ .... ... .... ........S........... }7 1.573 16.2 15.3 Is.] 16.5 16.6 16.6

301031.98. 706 739 19.2 16.8 17.1 18.1 16.8 18..18tv .. . .......... . "g775 91 10.0 14.1 10.6 *5.5 16.0 75.3

001.93w.,, , ,,,,,,,,, 1.298 1.460 0.6 0.9 9.0 9.3 9.2 9.5391010 . 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I.015,"~ 3e.1 I.91 3.0 3.90 6.9 3.8 8.0

0110031.9 .2. 569 23741 9. 0.0 3 .36. 3 '.9 9.3o. . 678 636 3.0 2.9 8.0 3.2 2.9 2.9

6. .. .. . ............ 2971 3.10 S. . 5.0 5.2 . 5.21010101. ... . 9....... .... 626 779 16.1 16.1 13.9 16.0 16.2 95.7

101.3 1.034 362 19 15 .8 15.2 17. 3 16. 71111. . ............... 390 636 1 3.2 13.5 1..9 1s.3 15.6 19.76

23

.. . ............. . 693 791 0.5 8.0 38.0 S. 8.9 9.501.sto.. ....... ......... 1.506 1.397 3.3 3. 1 3.3 3.5 3.9 3.8

011001_..1.237. ..... ... .... . ... 1. 31 3 3 3.1 6 3.5 3.6................... .......... Z 53 21 2.8 3.1 3.9 3.2 2.9 2.7

0,,0.,_.1_0.0. . . 2.Ott. ..| ,6 3.073 6.8 6.9 6.6 7.0 6.6 3.0Io.oI_ ............... .... . 333 794 16.3 16.6 15.8 17.1 26.7 17.6

181 1.350............................... . . 35 332 18.0 136. 19 .2 18.9 17.0 20.0............... .......... 2......... I " 13 16 13.0 . 6.5 16.0

0110043...,.609 669 0.7 9. 9 9.7 9.6AN_5"S_ ................... .... ... 1.510 3.582 6.9 . 9.7 5.0 6 9

0110508 ..... .... ........ 1.332 1.390 5.2 5.3 5.0 59 .9 25 3. . . ................................ ls 193 3.3 2.7 .9 3.3 3.6 3.0

- -

l l l l

': �' I :. 'I

'.7 :7.7 .1

331


T.bl. A7. Rang. of un.mp. W-ft ...aSul.. b---d on va-ying d.finition- of .n...plfoyna *nd th1 Iabnr for..,noanonafly adjusted

'_7 _ 979 I'lo

_0 In 1 _ _ II 89. 0026. oct.

......................................... .. 1.._ .. . ,..............2 0.1 1.2 I.l 0.2

u2023-6 ............................ 7.......... 2.. 2.5 .7

1I21y. . . . . ..... 4 *.0 .9 3.9 3.9 2.9 0.) 3.1 0.0

............. ....... .......................................................... s..2 5.2 5.2 S . 50. S.0 5.5

_ . .. d611 a_- , ,, ,,,,, .0 5.0 5.s 5.7 s.. 6 .0 5.8 6.0

-Ta 1 -. =o -=. 9.o0 * 510.. _ d6_ .. ... ................................ 7..............7.5 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.5 7.2 7.0

I_0 800200 0.1 . ItO ..a.o rs _ .

. .. ,, .. .... 8.. 7.9 8.1 0.0 *.0. 8.0. 5.8.

T8 A.8. Empbynt natn. nf the noninnoioflional population by .a.. and HMpani odgin. not sa..onallly adjsted

TOTAL ~ ~ ~ ~ T100 1979 1978 '1979 197 '1979 90 17

0.800 ,.sz 059.707 162,385 t0,170 1.2.296 16.70" 07.150 7,626 7,903

c0.W2.07. 101555 103.930 a8,.75 91.35 10.5302 00.596 1.950 5,092It.07.ll00M,0, 03.0 60.0 63.8 60.3 6.1. 61.1 65.0 60.8

z6,09s 91.150 85.297 07.020 9,108 9.,39 0sso *,6s580.t20. 3.553 3, 067 3,296 3,156 290 205 200 230

-fn~~~~~ll,> s~~~~2.501 90.691 82.101 03.060 0.850 9.000 *.377 0*0502.boboo,., 5.060 5.781 0.170 0.815 1.050 0.2.7 .315 307

I2 5.0 9.6 I .7 9.0 1.21. ;1. 2 7. 6 7.8*z~~~~~~~~~lE ~ ~ ~ 0 15s~2 50.030 50.606 50.800 n.062 6.550 2.t

12 2.197

S., 602W 20.20001 0 01 .01

332


Table A-F. Employment statu of male Vlbtnm-ea veterans and nonv.t.es hby ag, not seasonally adjuoted

V~~na Wb7 o~~~4434 T_4 as'41'd .4o--_ 5- 4_

4..t. 49 nv.. ~ . 8.405 I, 565 3,952 2I Ib2 7I65 8, 474 707 294 3 9 3.5404.244 . .. b75.... 7 69 596 450 546 395 50 51 8.4 11.3

49,,44y.... 9,918 7,.199 6.314 6.949 6.468 6.439 243 296 3.6 3.0494,444444' . 2.203 1.855 2.089 1,684 49,41 I4,99 13 62 5.6 3.532944 , 3.5.2 2.647 3.3.2 3,552 3,724 3.45. 94 .4 2 7 2.6

39toD~n 1.263 4.606 1,230 1,632 1,194 1,542 39 54 3.2 3.1487,.3424 . 751 tOc 6-5 760 631 749 14 27 2.2 7.S

49403V70906'

7.T 45494y... 17.e937 10.855 73,292 44,209 42.824 13. 692 468 549 3. 9.3704,344"' ,,, 6.295 6.924 5,980 6,695 5@337 6,215 043 280 4. 1 4.7290o244844,4 . 7,990 q =6, 3,48 8,089 3, 693 37953 I5 " 132 2.9 3.2..43.4,- ............ .7,66 3,773 37.509 3,625 3.414 7.518 94 187 2.7 '3.0

_ _745 1.445.y. 444 447 Sm442n34.90249*4.44443000443444330.4440.0.404 .4 44-74.4

4zbmm+&wwn ns n No-.I . .. o.2b4 c..1nlA.37 1764 .OT2 6.2 ... 4p. ic Vo, l .. 2 9, Cy.4f7 .444744 25v h hn _ 3o y-. Fo=44 44.l _d4~ 404 .444 444.5 ol44~0 49 V .8n.Iio itoss18174 044044.4noli2 nW 7

333


tale A-IC. Eo~ploro3t nmon o3 the .w) 3(fiee popolstio73 for tOItI terr SttTbA-10

7 e sept. sOst Oct. Joco 2.6. 879. tops. Oct.

1908 1979 9979 7376 7979 1919 1979 1979 1979

0.3.o-bc t r 79,907667 70.9951 77.069a4 0'73.92 70,093 09 75,0t9,9].083

70.7.9.7 10~~~~~~~.9.70 10 327 73.- 837 73.2 70.791 76., 23 .7,330 10. 305 90, 39l.O...oO ~~~~ ~~~~679 677 636 629 752 629 .27.. 688

979,..97.o 5.9 6.7s 5.7 6.7 6-0 5.0 6.v5 6.95 6. 7

3..6o 6.5 -69 6-367 ,27 j2)61 6,20) 6.2723 6960 63 6. 2 (3026 26 632 2 2 (27 70 7277.0 6.9 6.3 727 (27 72) (27 727 (27

6,o,.o4

.o~oooI 0,9.6.6' 0 230 0 295 30.709 S 20 aol 0,278 0. 277 8 299 8295 8 3090.7.o.7.lrc, 5,B78 5.392 9,876 5,932 5,329 5,376 5.369 5,689 5,677

69,979,2 5,978 5.060 5.118 5.702 ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~5.053 5,73 5,772 5,06 5.700

16.0.77.9. 2.80 096 2908 30I2 276 285 239 337 377

t6.9068909'91 5.3 5.7 55 56 5.2 6.6 9.9 6.7 5.

6,,6,9..,0..77,77927707 ' | ,7t7 9,385 9.393 7,777 9, 397 6,3796 .30 7 .325 7.7970,,k.,6la~a xc0 2.990 2,912 2,59 (2) (2 (2 (27 728 (27

E6cb , 2 678 2,925 0.727 2,699 2,969 2,930 2,957 2.950 2.90610.3 6 9 16 72 (72) (2)7 72 (2 7

16,62 6,752 6,965 7bla 6.930 6,938 6,966 7 7,52 6,965

Ih.l.,,6O c 0 c 3 9,79 327 03 7,929 9 7 (29 (2) (2) (2) 727 (276o7*,0 3,963 6.0~~~~~~~~'l79 7,2 (27 (27 737 (27 27 (27

I0.69077..2 220 317 77~~~~~~~~~~~35 23 307 327 392 399 370

L6.c.769o.977.~~~~~~. 5.5 9. 2 7. (27 (27 (27 727 (27 (27

6,7....oo..,coo,.,Inr.9co.' 5,032 5,532 5,577 5,677 ,5712 5,579 5,522 9,529 5,5379.9eOnibc~rw c 3.530 3.589 3,563 3.536 7,595 7,530 3528 3.568 ,3570

80.709,7 3,373 3,365 3, 379 3,371 3,266 3,262 3639 3.722

36.,.9709,7 ~~~~ ~~~279 227 1 226 26 267. 27 266 2139 278.3.,,.oecmc.,',c 6.2 62 6.3 6.9 69. 7.5 7.5 6.3 6.9

6.I.,9c..9,7,,67.277.67.7.' 71,266 77309 13.3c 77,a6 73,9 7 ,296 73,3 7,09 332

67 7993 56 67,9 56 63 62 9 59

39.7707.9 ~~~~ ~~~7.9 7.5 7.71 3. 7.7 9.5 77 7.5 7.

0,.3.,oecto,9eo.I 7.*e co. 7 9,993 19,97 , 79 95 7 9,9 7 3 9,919 9,95 9,867 7, 975

Sc.5 n3,;9lut roe 5.7(53 5,792 5.7*22 5,087 0,989 6,995 5.96355 5,0887 5.e 790

Ulem~owa 277 278 702 261 298 365 358 291 322Qo0,.00779097,o. 47 5.5 5.9 5.1 5.6 6.9 7.1 5.7 6.3

0.3.. .ooom .02 .90.67w.0l.' 6,866 8,929 7,937 ,8 69 8,99 8,919 0,916 8,923 8,9370oe7.ol.*clamce 5,325 53013 5 537 ,299 5,376 5,289 5,327 5339

89,r*..9 9,955 7,960 3,972 9,9 39 , 908 7,980 6,903 8.9571 9899369 357 336 739 379 336 385 376 65

17.,..37em..oc,. 6.9 67. 7.9 .73 6.6 6.3 7.3 971 8.8

076.,970..07707.2ee7.60' m 9,256 9,951 9,670 9,259 9,398 9,716 9,733 9,759 9,698

O.0.t6OcaW dcc 6,969 6, 277 6,I288 6,06 8 6,700 6, 783 636 6, 29 6, 26569907,9 5,8(8 5.960 6,720 5,369 5,839 5,997 5.966 5,996 5,9893.emo37*. 260 299 236 280 266 276 278 275 256Vhem~esS 7. 4*3 6.7 3.8 6.6 4.9 w.5 9 3.9 ...A...I

00 79 6.c5.0 .,ooecla0.O 0 oo. 6,too oe , 0.2- ,770 o320 do h.o oS7 -=

17o n~ 0petd - -Lo779'06..,,6- .70,c . o8079 31.2 007. 30 lO o

57-254 0 - 80 - 22

334


Table B-1. Employ... on nonagrlcol.orel payrolls by industry

TOTAL . ..

GOOIDS PRODUCING ....... ......

M INING .. . . .. . . .. .. . .. . ..

CONST RUC T ION . .. ...

MANUFACTURING

10, O. . .0 ........ 2 ....7.7 m77 . n ..7 7~ . ........

h777 .20 1 , ............ -

Ito d77 am ,7 r 70d07I

F bi,, Z p ........

TRAN FI0TATIO9 AND PUBLIC

0001i004 000 RETAIL TRA10

NDNOLEUALE T E000

FINANCE, INSUnANCE, AND 0001 ESTATE

SE RVICE .. .. . .. . . .. . .. .

'T T ...nga -L.ih .... .... .... ..

RjCT 0T. J ti Oct. 7 T tt.

li 0 97 IW9 0'C9701 nt - j-I-T; 1979 1979l-- 1-^9" IqL- t0Xts

26, not 27, 030 a7,l9. 27,e '07 29,61 26.070 26,723 26,999 2991 2662

9J3 .ea t.. 079 910 909 6 n nra

0,602' 9,ooe tsr.e 0.75 ,tne 0,ssa teen 0,670 0,669 4,690

2t,rte 20.9no 21,11S 21.1St 20.633 821.06) 23079 20,957 20.9 25 0,998195003 1"'-'1 oota1j 19,lta 1',' 15,06 '5,0" '. ,' 1",9"3

12.510 12.990 o2,aoa hi[2|ts51 12,319 12,760 lairs 1I.710 |at02 12,67,090 0,007 12,2 9,1 *10 *,Ooe! n'l 9,329| T I. I0 Il tO 0,oan

7.3,0 180,7 tte@o tto|t 792 i 9 n5 J sa ts*0~ *.090.02 083,9 90, 089,0 tnt3:00 ass tt 081 063- " *

715.3 5i3e3 72539 709,6 701 709 a °' ! t r' °. , ' , 2 '9 2 , 0 2 1 9 0 9 0 0 0 3 11707,2 07161 l.t39 0,I , ..69 0,73 0,73 0,00I 1,71 ,32.3.2, 2 09 *I * '0, 209, 2,36 2"0' 2,900 '"' 0 F8" ''''0 b2.0

0o,002. 2,60, 1 1 3 2,14 t .1 2,02 I 208 2,131 2 ,09 2'0 0I 9 202

b9SeO TF]*3 716vX 7177$~~~~ To. Wao'1 }81'1 '711 "IS

I669. 0 699, d12'3 00. 69, 66 69 |0 69 691 0090 IZ|212iZ

876.9 060,0 0 067,3 *-sew I Tss t75 T9 * I 091 9oX8,380 8,56 Jet 0,387 8.3821 0.200 8.303 8,090 8,203 * j 8,2726|*9 ,0t0 6,00 8,99 09 99 9.toe 9,973 , 9,9lbs6 5,12 9,9e9 9.990*^

1|110 1,914:0 R0,1709,91,9708 I 0,7Xb20 0,70 10.169Z - 0,0|61

55050713 SI 60 1 6 68 60 * 7.. .601 6 6.8

9 |61t.0 53 0900 5}0691 09,8~o 0,79^ | 4,956 | 4,7 I 800 892.. 8 88. I89.0,300.3 1,3}19. 1,81t-1,710.3222 0,330* 0,32T, 0,3o20 1 ,302- ' 0,0990 1,31N0

099,0.3 723.3 700, 70a,31 69 79 1iI 0 7.10 11,201.2 0,0a9.a 1,009.3 1,296,2 1,190 0,202 0,290 3,207~~~~~1. 9- o.a 0.290

,117.0 1s121,2 0,1503, 1,109"' o'on''' 0,009 1,110' 01 " "' ,109Q'T "",00

211,7 2010,3 230,2 220,8 20|0 .T~ 202 | 212 20 2§15 ale

7,6,60 169,8 760047 * 3"" 759,7 79°" 779 777 766 7'91' " "' " 1 70 "

61636, 0 3 tn 9,7s0.836,96,90 6316 6384 3,2

2n77070277 72 0. 07770,7 -9,- 70,97777 7,779 I

0777797 7070, I 777 20,"017-70

335


Table B 2. Average weakly hbos of production or noesup-rvi-ory workers.eon private

nosgrlcslto1-el payrolls by industry

I7 C. 6w177. OCT. OCt.; JUE JULt , CUC. 61 77. ttCr._ _ 9I 7- | Cq7t otter;

197Dw 197" It7T 191" $a I 04099 1970

TOTAL PIIVATE . . .. t.... .. 39.8 39.6 39.8 39.5 t. 6 39 * ,7 33 .9

MIlNING . . ...... I..... .I . *s, .51 , *S.$ - J.$ *j.1 I I..; *. , *, 2

MNSTRucvIoN . ...... .......... 37,9 6,0 | .9 * .1s ..9 t7.3 35.0 37.3 37.9 38.9

tAANUJFACTUCRsN st.. *5~C i 54.3 *~.3 'e~gt..0......1;.. . | a l ;

otUnowoso .'t~ ,5. *e. Cl. Ct7. t ?t ^ 40. 44 'T,. 7 7't 05.7

3,.9 3. 3 .9. :: 3,, i: 31.3 . . .F . . ...... . . 39.8 39.8 , 9 0 39.4 391 | 39 36.4 36.3 5 3. 36.9

57w..-.r e.0.C .. .,,. ..,, 1.7 519 a.., CI.. *... CI.3 t1.. II*

*t:tti.:. I :):: R:3 OE 3t:7 ,..I 3; 51S;CJa.3.a0.,eV," s5z. 39* tt.5 s

1nec 55"3 *C.3^71 @ 3t7o s4.3° I*s,

vRANSPoooATIo'. ... *0a.0 .0.9 .01 3I.C C3.1 se.! CI.3 CC.? I 0 C1 C0.C

tF.o31.e..00. . 39.1 38.9 39.3 39.3 3. 3. 39.3 1 , }T ,

R3TAILTRAOE *0.& 31 -1:'l h't,7 0 131 30.1 39.139~9 3~C 3~5 5t. , 39~5 .3 393 393! 3,3! 39.3

UTILTIES.- ........... . 300 30.3 30.9 39.3 3.3. 3 3.0 Ce 39.5 3.1 34.1

FOLESAL MOD RTAL RAE....... 39.9 30.3 4. 3 9. I.9 39. a63.6 3 1 4C40 39.6

MOLESALE TR .... 37. s I 6.8 371 37.61 36.9 36.3' 36.9 36..

RETAIL ToRADE .... 4.3.....4. 303 3 .i.tI :S 7;:: .I

FINANce INSURANCE, AMoREAL esTATE .. ... , , 36.2 993 39.8 3.3 33.3 39.3 39.3

SERVICES ....... .. . .. . a.. 43.' 3.7 C3.9 32.7 0.37 l3.9 33.C' 03 l '

' D,9..e~uo, 37. 37. 37. 37.c If ea C?.? r1 37. 37. 37. 37.9 37.

07. tn.n."333d 0307 .. .Tt aip e tisn.l0.t 33*3 C3.to th.7 L=. t3. 41.6 o.p3.5xd

7eOr.du - ..... 038 47 3i 3. e. *.s ..7 Ce C

336


Tabo B.3. Averago hourIy and Wankly arming. of production or non.up-rvisory nork-ro on privatenonagricultural payTrollS by industr

TOTAl VRIVATE

CONSTRUCTION

MAUFACTURIN

700.rO-00. 00.000,

LEUL ..d.W RETALTRD

0OL.0, LE. TAD . .. . .. .....

rmOOOOo .00md Ouo aa

RETAIL0 0 TRA, .. 0.

S M ICESA ~ 0 O T I 0 0

Ocoeo maceeP1900cc O- casy oi o gol uly

' 0. 0 0 .

OCt. -C, EPI. Ult I Ul.,OuIa tofu 0,9? I tor any.

o.07 0.0 O.3aI 000 000

ra 00 .so 0:s53 a0":7

0.00 9.00 .50 5.51 000.55

0.00 0.5 ona 05 1537.0

0s. r.t ,^ Sn 7.I 0t.a

5.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 a03.aao.7n 5.00 51. 5.0a 000.00.09 0.0 0.nt .10o 070.000.00 b 5.0 5.01 5.00 05.00

0.05 7.05 7.50 7.50 051..55 0.50 *.aO 0.50 lao..

0.70 5.00 5.07 5.00 000.00

5.0 0.05 0.0 0.0 000 .00

0.00 0.77 0.I 0.0 070.00^

0.70 5.09 5.50 5,10 505.40

9.0 1.00 0.00 0.0 000.00

5.00 5., 5.00 5.07 000.70

5.00 0.00 0.05 5.07 007.00

.UC. 0. . 07.

00.75 370.00 0710.0007.0 070.0 070.97w

la"... 05.0 0.77?

007.70 050.05 09..00

0 0 _

00.0 .0..00 05.75

037.50 050.90 000.50

050.00 057.00 050.50

00.0 0.0 0.00

000.00 050.0 jtS7.0000.00 050.00 00.50007.57 500.0 000.70

000.00 007.0 000.07005.77 000.09 000.00007.00 005.00 005.00007.0 000.00 000.005.5 07.0 050.05§,100.00 000.00 000.0007.55 007.00 00.50005.0 050.05 050.50

000.50 000s.00 0004.0050.0 [email protected] 055.07079.50 070g.00 077.70

1

337

ESTABLISHMENT DATA

TAbiA B-4. Houlh -.ninmg ind.. for prodUction Or wnwsp-rui-orV orkerI on pridet.

9o9TiEUltUOAI TpFyOI1. by induStry divySioc., sISO0AlhJ Odjoutnd

ESTABLISHMENT DATA

l vo; OC1 1-1 ~~0 jIJ JuW IC ld-oCl-

I C I . 0i. I I 9

TOTAL PdIVATE NONFARI I I

.440JSEDTT43 a: 0.s 221.* 2*9,A 222. 22o .a 2 I S.

IC229.A 232.1 233.9 1 439.3 f9 23.7 100 as

--L - ?36.. 9.3: 23. J A. 2 2.

a~~laTFLI~~~~~mYa II a8. 2s, 28, 22s 1 at}1 'I ~ , e^s *r 1 .

UOcURN 1E ROT2T 0, T@bL A-i. a} !a* jX1ao, ,

S IE"CE-T CEANGE fl9 %3 TVAn A lUGUST 0 TE 2tl.O ...9. T.E -tTS 0147; ACA ILAGLO.

T~bl. B-5. Ind.... of .9ggregA wkly h..9,. of production oIr non4p-i.. ooy -~kor. 0 priy~t.

Nonogrrcuturelpayofl. by industry ........ lIt 4di.td

I0973

* a~~a r [* T 14. ICC

TOTAL PRIVATE......

GOOSPVOOUCINC

MlNING . .

MUANUFACTURING

LAMVIAT AND PUBLIUT LI IE . .. .... .

TR=.E .. d. .. .......

ANOESALE: TRADEV ...

RETAIL RABLE ...... .............. .

T..ALEST1ATE.R -

SE..CE olSz. . v

.l444 I OS

123.0712.7.0.2I.2

03. 0 . 2.19 G 0. 3

1,3.5, 114.ol1IS-j

1 129. 1 2 .0' 027.9103.3 002.2 039..

|100.4lI 002.0, 003

l i... . .

0 3.,7 009. 01 001 .91°:3.'90'.0l 005.0114-.0 029.,7 02G.)

i: I :~ Tl T| | T00. 003 .X1 047.3

I 4 . 0ts° 1 9 9,4 1 92.9

. 3 . 0047 - 1 i9.0 1 32 .21

129.3109.-1 030.91

-31"' '1"' 14"'.7

1247.3j 033,3 033.0

aIr.l fit.

12.. 4 La..?

1s52,.0 915.1

020.0 124.7

Los, 149.3

105.2 999.90 0 . 0.9 5

IOG.21 107.0109.1 000.5

I70.31 70.0

|:51.5 50.. 0000.0 900.3

I42,9 903.0024.7049.9

I10l2a.1It.s'

12S 51424.7

I:::-4

I.. .I

__2.9 192.0 090.0 9 .9 I .. G.T

032.7 024.9 :33.0 939.4 933.5033.9

I::: . 221' 4 IT''. '.1'.

11:2.11 1134.7 9T 0 103.3to:.': l '009.9 90 "'3 "7. 7.9 '1 0 9.3

o 9 b .02: 1 :9:03so

049111.3 9133.1 9.11.',.

290.259.7,2 97.3 97a.9 97.3l n97,l:3.G :027, 94.7 101.1 1o0G.7 1:04.8

0017 .9':.: Il7*4 Its.G '13.1 119G.2

102. OOA 949. l R4.GbI44. 9 90i .

,.,.,1 9., 142.3 . 040. ....I49.1 97iJ 91S.7 ':0. 7 :0:..93:3! " :71 09. ' .j 9. " 3'i 9.'"

:,. :0|:0T :13.0 :93. :1. :04.7

:40.: 197.7 lAS 3.:. 0.}100 3 1:3.2

:29. 039.57 12922) *1230 :23.2lZ

00. ''''' GG.0 'G.0 GI.90 G4.9s

:03.71:05.2 :03. 09. 990' 009.2""

.03.2 1.0 1004 194. 1se0129.5 029..

032.3 131.3 :02.9 132.8 :32.7 :32.9:29.3 ° '3. 0291 :23.9 120.9 923.9

t*1330 399 40. 09"' ""'~ 09G.3''

79*1.09.T *90.7 92'.' 93'.9 l3.'

:09.G1 119.5

0A7. l00.G4

003.9 114.1004.O j 140.299.3. 93$.9

009. IIG.

197.7, 11.3

nl0.0- 138.00.31 0.370. 134.493X411 39

,,,.,1 73.9

:0.11 003.8

:4z7.1 :49:2

13.9' 1':::

107.3 037.9

130.-1 130.A

92.9 129 ...

: .

b'1'.'..1 .....I -

338


Tabl. 6.6. Ind... of diofloion Peroont of iodostri.. n wchish .mploymln8' i.or..s.d

I _8319 -|01 6 _ | 0I 8-6 . j 0.I P_ b I o __b

Jnus ......................... * 03.0 85.8 06.9 84.0Fohreary~~~~~~ 3... . .... . .... . ...0.3 00.3 * 5 .8 03.0

6 . . .....................6

6. 30.0 00.8..... . .................... 7 0.6 73.b.3 77.6s . ....................... .6 6 . 6 . .6

J~ne ...................... 3 60.6 00.6 30.0

J . . . ........... . 66.0 36.4 60.9 08.0Ausu¢ ........................... 54.4 68.6 66.6 30.3

sew~eabr6. .... 6........8.6 08.3

0606er ... . .............. 6.4 6.. . ................... 8 61 670

Oecerber6..........3 3.b 83.6

9 Q b r = ^ r; 7 3 ~~600 863023b3b 00.6......................... . 6.0 .

Oprlli.06.5. .... . .... . .. 80.5 3 1 .7 80.3 96.630763................ . ....... 0.5 9

Joz^ ............................... 65.1 00.3 33.6 96.6

Jul .................................. 70. 30.3 36.3 83.65 . ........................... 567.6b7 6 .397 3 .37 83.0I

5peb . ... .... ...... .. .. ... ........6727779731

0636~r..... . .... . .... . .64.6 36.0 80.3 80.80oebr.3.3. .7 38.3 8.0 7 9.73.0 b~

.6.03.3 33.6 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~688. 8.

Deceber .......................... 67.3 80.8 835.2 80.6

rebr~~ary ...... . ~~63.0 35.6 39.0 83.03.660 .3.3. .... . .... . ... 33.3 33. 7.6 80.0

6868.68.0b 63. 733.5 30.37

June............................66.6 66.8 31.6 86.3

Jol ........................... 664.3 69.9 33.0 80.67 66. ... . .... . ....6 0 .5 6. 6 33. 2 77.3 09b.2

36.5 31.6 03.0 00.3

3666 . . . . ................. 5

9........................ 3. 6.3 .

60666e.6................ 4.8 32.3 58.6 86.06

Moory.3.0. .... . .......... 30.6 56.9 .176Feb =or7 ~~~~~~~5.3..... . .......... 68. 7.16 7 7 06.6

3se ................. 60.6 36.3 69.963.7

Superb ......................... 3.Oo 6 0.5p

0636er..3.36...............7.

' -o "I 447_ 0 0108. 6J g 000,.7172 66v,6,0mh

339

Chart 1. Civilian labor force and employment(Seasonac!y adjusted)


10.0 - Sly s dci Ict. 10.0.. 1~~ 18.0 _ NK - N..', 8.

5.0 - i- .!,- ' A.

A,.....'

I 2.t9w8 1965 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1978 1977 1978 1979

Chart 3. Clviltan labor force participation roteand total employment-population ratio(Seasonally adjus ed)

-… EIT plpocoti .. rote N1 - . . 7rtttpplct r o, , .7t

-N..'i _60.0 __ - __ . - SX 8. b.

55. 0 ,.__'- -* ____.-^" __ _' 5 5.0

so.0 a , , I . . . I 1. . . I , . , 1I , . . _. ' - I .' .' . .I . I_ _ '_'_ . ._ .50.0i9w 19t9 1970 1971 1972 1973 1979 1975 t197s 977 1978 1979

Note Th. roded oe, depict the bioc cycle pek md togh-d esig ated by the NtoI -o i B or c. of E co cric R -e cdi

HOUS11580'Ionso

PERCENT

4.0

2.0

PERCENT70.0

65.0

4.0

2.0

PERCENT1.0

65.0

I . . . L. ., . 1, ., I . . . I .II

F

O 7

S 9 2

. . k

I ,

340

Senator BENTSEN. Commissioner, I am very pleased you broughtthat up because comments were made and frankly they give me someconcern. I recall reading in the Wall Street Journal on October 29where the President said that the Consumer Price Index measurescosts as though every month every homeowner in the country had torenegotiate a home loan on the basis of higher interest rates but thatgreatly exaggerates in the Consumer Price Index the effect of higherinterest rates on home loans.

Does it?Ms. NORWOOD. The Consumer Price Index measures the price of

the fixed market basket and, as I explained in my statement, itmeasures the price at which somecnie entering the marketplace wouldenter into a mortgage. That's the concept.

I think there is some confusion in that people look at the ConsumerPrice Index sometimes as though it is a cost-of-living measure andthe CPI as it is now constructed is not a true cost-of-living measure.

Senator BENTSEN. I guess, then, that's the same problem we runinto. I see Mr. Kahn made his statement about home purchases andwas talking about that, as I recall, adding 2 points to the CPI rate,if I remember right. Obviously, a home purchase is an infrequent thingto happen.

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, let me explain it this way, sir.The CPI as it is officially developed includes, as I explained in my

statement, the current price-Senator BENTSEN. I understand. I want to know if he's correct that

it raised it 2 points.Ms. NORWOOD. What he was saying, I think, was that if one were

to substitute for the mortgage interest cost component something likethe rent component of the CPI as a rental equivalency kind of ap-proach but using the CPI rent, you would get perhaps 2 percent less.

Senator BENTSEN. I guess my problem is now these things are per-ceived. That's the concern too. You say that this is not a cost-of-livingmeasure, but it gets perceived that way, doesn't it?

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes. That is certainly true, and I think the basicpoint that I would like to make and to be sure is understood is thatmortgage interest is only one component of a purchase of a home.There are many others. There's the price of the house that goes intothe index. There are property taxes. There are home repairs and financeand insurance. NoW one cannot look just at mortgage interest.

As I have discussed with you before, one could look at the flow ofservices of the cost of shelter to the consumer and remove the invest-ment potential that is in a house and the depreciation-the apprecia-tion and depreciation. That is a different concept, but it's not just aproblem of mortgage interest. The issue is the treatment of homepurchase.

Senator BENTSEN. Well, let's look at the other infrequent purchase.Let's take an automobile or the durables component-suppose we'retalking about refrigerators-how do you work that in? How do youhandle the infrequent purchases?

Ms. NORWOOD. The way it is handled in the CPI is that the baseperiod market basket includes the expenditures of those people whopurchased a refrigerator, a washing machine, an automobile. That is

341

the weight. It represents the number of people who made the purchasesduring the base period. The price is the current market price to buythis basic market basket.

Senator BENTSEN. Well, let me ask you, then, do we have a realisticindicator to use in labor contracts for an adjustment when we get intothe cost-of-living question? Now, you may have a 3-month lag there,as I recall, before it's utilized, but is the CPI increase a true evaluationof the cost that should be factored in their labor contracts?

Ms. NORWOOD. Let me say two things to that, sir. One, as I said inmy statement, in collective bargaining agreements, at least for thefirst 9 months of 1979, the cost-of-living escalators recovered 56 per-cent of the increases in CPI, not 100 percent of it. That's because ofthe way in which their agreements work. I think that's an importantpoint.

I think that it is true certainly that there are many different pointsof view about how a consumer price index should be put together. Wehave at the moment a consumer price index which is basically onewhich calculates the cost in today's prices of purchasing the marketbasket that was purchased by the particular index family group in thebase period. There are differences of opinion about the treatment ofdurable goods and about whether a durable good which is used for alonger period of time for many years should be handled differently.There's room for much difference of opinion about that. There hasbeen a lot of discussion about it.

I think that the Bureau of Labor Statistics during the period of therevision program focused primarily on the housing component ratherthan on all durable goods because housing is the largest in the index.The weight for housing is quite large in the index. We suggested alter-native approaches. There were many, many different points of viewexpressed and I think today there is room for difference in point ofview. However, the CPI as it is presently calculated treats home pur-chase as an item purchased by the index family in the base period andthe price at which it would be repurchased today, just as we do withoranges and apples.

Senator BENTSEN. What do you do about figuring in, or do you,where a family changes buying habits because of high prices? Let's saythe price of beef is way up and they say, OK, we'll go to chicken, andso they are not buying beef any more. That's really not part of theirmarket basket. Do you still interpret it as though they were buyingbeef?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, the answer to that in one sense is, yes, becausethe market basket is a base period market basket. As you are aware,the implicit price deflator produced by the Department of Commercehas shifting weights. We have done some work in the Bureau of LaborStatistics looking at the effect of possible shifts in response to relativeprice changes in food and other items. We intend to do a lot more workin this area. But what we have is I think clearly what we describe it tobe, and in that sense it is a measure which says if I want to protect theincome to buy the market basket, that I purchased or that the indexfamily purchased during the base period, the CPI measures currentjrices for it-the difference between the base period and the currentprices of today is the measure which protects that basic market basket.

342

I think the problem is, Senator Bentsen, that the index is used formany, many, many purposes, and it may well be that for some purposesyou want to look at different weights and for other purposes you maywant to look at a fixed weight index.

If you look at the implicit deflator, they do once a year produce afixed weight deflator and they produce a deflator which has weightsmoving every month in terms of what people are buying. But it shouldbe understood that the CPI does not do that.

Senator BENTSEN. All right. Let me get to another one then. Lastmonth we were talking about the problems of unemployment and Iasked you if you saw any really definitive sign of expansion or con-traction in the labor market-as I recall, both surveys were going up-and as I recall your comment then, you did not see anything thatshowed a strong sign of contraction in the labor market at that time.Now you have these two surveys going in divergent directions. Wouldyou make the same statement now or would you modify it?

Ms. NORWOOD. I think that we now still have an economy which isshowing a slowdown in the rate of employment growth, which isshowing some strength in the service sector in particular, and I thinkthat it is too soon to say where we are moving.

The two surveys do show different trends, but I think you have tolook at them over a longer period of time. The Current PopulationSurvey [CPS] has a much larger variance because it's a samplesurvey. Last month, for example, the CPI showed an increase, a ratherlarger increase. This month the CPS has declined, employment hasdeclined, and I think that that may well be partly a correction. Theestablishment survey is showing increases, as your chart shows, afterseveral months of rather negligible increases. There is very littleevidence of growth in the goods-producing sector over the past severalmonths. There is still employment growth in the service sectors Ibelieve. I think that these findings are consistent with other data-that is, data that are not produced by the Bureau of Labor Statisticsthings like growth in output, growth in factory orders, and growth inretail sales.

Senator BENTSEN. My time has expired. Congressman Wylie.Representative WYLIE. Thank you very much, Senator Bentsen.Ms. Norwood, the unemployment rate is essentially unchanged

from the 5.8 percent to 6 percent, right?Ms. NORWOOD. It is a statistically significant change, but it is very

small, yes. I think perhaps the correct thing to say is that over a longperiod of time we have been within a very narrow band of 5.6 to 6percent.

Representative WYLIE. Well, over an annual period, that's essen-tially not a very large change, and the Consumer Price Index isrelatively unchanged for the same period-12 percent to 13 percentI think you said in your statement. Industrial production is largelyunchanged, and real disposable income for workers, as you have in-dicated, is definitely declining.

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes.Representative WYLIE. This indicates that something is going to

have to give before long. Is that a fair statement?Ms. NORwOOD. I can comment only on the (lata. I think your

assessment of the data is certainly correct.

343

Representative WYLIE. Are we about to enter the second recessionof 1979?

Ms. NORWOOD. I don't know whether there has been a recessionor whether there will be a recession. As you know, we don't forecast;but quite apart from that, I was very interested in an article in theWall Street Journal which said, and I quote:

That the arbitrator of when recessions begin and end, the National Bureau ofEconomic Research, has just canceled a news conference in which its analystshad planned to tell reporters where the economy stands. After meeting privatelya few days ago, the National Bureau of Economic Research explained, "we con-cluded that the data are so contradictory that it's hard to say where we do stand.'

I think that the issue of recession-yes, recession-no, has becomerather a semantic one and that what we really should do is look atwhere we are in the employment, unemployment, and price areas. Itis clear that we are having very high rates of inflation. I think theProducer Price Index we released yesterday showed that even outsideof the energy and food area there are widespread increases occurring.The employment situation shows, in my view, a clear slowdown inrecent months, but there is still some growth going on, I believe, inthe service industries.

Representative WYLIE. Well, the Washington Post this morninghad an article about the fact that food and energy prices increasedslower than usual, and that the inflation rate apparently now is morebroadbased than it has ever been before.

When I first came on this committee we looked at food prices andfuel prices, and there generally was a relationship between them andthe inflation rate. That's not true any longer; is it?

Mr. LAYNG. I think the nature of the increase in the Producer PriceIndex now has become more broadbased. It has spilled over intoareas like chemicals and pharmaceutical preparations, areas which useenergy, and you're getting some secondary effects. You're also gettingsome effects of fairly large increases in metals and the secondaryimpacts of metals. We have had a series of large increases in metals,both ferrous and nonferrous, so far this year and those are spillingover into products which use or contain a large percentage of metals,such as capital equipment, a lot of machinery, and automobiles. Butit's characteristic of an inflationary period that this is essentially howit usually unfolds. It was very similar in 1973, 1974, and 1975 whenwe started out with food first, then energy, and then we spilled overinto nonfood and nonenergy and that is now happening to us in thissituation.

Representative WYLIE. You're John Layng?Mr. LAYNG. Yes.Representative WYLIE. You're the person quoted in the Washington

Post as saying that.Mr. LAYNG. I never spoke to that fellow.Representative WYLIE. Pardon me?Mr. LAYNG. I never did speak to that fellow, so I don't know where

he got that quotation, but I wouldn't essentially disagree with it.Ms. NORWOOD. That frequently happens to us.Representative WYLIE. That does frequently happen?Ms. NORWOOD. Yes, it does. But he was right.

344

Representative WYLIE. He is right. He says that you said that "thefood and energy prices increases that, month after month, have hitAmerican consumers and businesses are slowing, only to be replacedby more broad-based increases on everything from new cars to machinetools." Then it says the Labor Department's John Layng had a muchharsher analysis. Did you see this article?

Mr. LAYNG. It was read to me.Representative WYLIE. "The new report shows inflation is now much

more broad-based throughout the economy than in previous monthswhen energy and food prices were the main problems." What does thatmean for the economy?

Mr. LAYNG. It means a lot more products are increasing at verysharp rates. If you just look at some of the other intermediate materialsoutside of energy and food, you see some very large increases thismonth and some very large increases above a year ago, increases thatare far in excess of 15 percent, and they focus primarily in metals andin the secondary products depending on energy, such as chemicalsand pharmaceuticals. If you look at the Producer Price Index releaseyou will see a number of categories which run in excess of 20 percentabove a year ago and it's spread over a number of sectors.

Another way to characterize that might be if you look at the non-food and nonenergy products of either finished goods or intermediatematerials or crude materials, there has been an acceleration outsideof food and energy in recent months of fairly sizable magnitude.

Ms. NORWOOD. I think we are both quoted as saying that in theWall Street Journal today.

Representative WYLIE. It is something we should be concernedabout?

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes, absolutely.Representative WYLIE. Do you have any suggestions as to what we

should do about this? That's an invitation. That's not trying to putyou on the spot.

Ms. NORWOOD. No, I think you are well aware certainly of stepsthat have been taken and I certainly will not comment on them. Wetry to measure what the effects of some of these things are as they occurin the economy.

Representative WYLIE. You're a statistician, not a politician?Ms. NORWOOD. We are statisticians and economists. We are not

politicians and we believe this is an extremely important point, sir,because there's been, as you know, a lot of discussion about confidencein statistics. There was an article in this morning's New York Timesabout the money supply problem. It is extremely important that thepeople of this country understand the objective nature of the mannerin which the data of this country are put together and we all try inall of the statisitical agencies to do the best possible job that wecan and to be as open as we can about what we do, even when mistakesare found.

Representative WYLIE. I received a letter this week from Mr. BillPapier. Is that a familiar name to you?

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes.Representative WYLIE. He's in the Bureau of Labor Statistics in

Ohio, and he says we count the unemployment rate all wrong. It'sbased on heads of households in other countries, and therefore West

346

Germany and Japan and some of the other nations have a far lowerunemployment rate than the United States, whereas they mighthave just as high an unemployment rate if they used our approach.Would you care to comment on that?

Ms. NORWOOD. I certainly would.Representative WYLIE. All right.Ms. NORWOOD. First, let me say that we have had a report issued

on Labor Day from the Levitan Commission which has reviewed thewhole question of the definition of employment and unemployment.Secretary Marshall under the law will be reporting to the Congresswithin 6 months on that. So these issues are being looked at.

We have in this country now a very large proportion, something like60 percent, of the husband and wife households in this country whichhave more than one earner during the course of the year, and I thinkfor us to look merely at the so-called head of household, whoever thatmay be, whether husband or wife, is just a mistake.

Now we do some work in the Bureau of Labor Statistics to try tolook at how we compare to other countries. What we do in roughlyeight countries is we try to take the data which they have and changethem to the extent that it is possible to our concept. It's just a statisti-cal manipulation that is made. And it shows different patterns. Itshows the United States with a rate lower than in Canada, for example,but considerably higher than in Japan, and we can submit that forthe record should you be interested. But I would like to say that Ithink Mr. Papier is wrong about using only heads of household in thecount.

Representative WYLIE. You think he's wrong in his analysis? Oneof the bases of his determination that your figures are wrong is thatwe shouldn't count part-time students who aie unemployed when theyleave and go back to school, for example. I want to apologize for apersonal reference here, but our son is a college student who workedin a store and was only working part time. When he left to go back toschool, his name was submitted to somebody. He got an application forunemployment compensation which he didn't fill out, but any way hewas carried as a statistic as being unemployed.

Ms. NORWOOD. That is an issue certainly. By the way, when I saidhe was wrong, I meant about looking only at heads of households.There are many issues that can be raised and the Bureau of LaborStatistics for that reason publishes a great deal of data. We in factemphasize to people that we think it is extremely important not tolook at a single number but to look in all areas at some of the com-ponents of those numbers.

Representative WYLIE. Well, apparently everyone who ever had ajob and now doesn't have a job is counted as unemployed. Is that cor-rect or not?

Ms. NORWOOD. In the survey the respondent is asked whether heis employed and, if not, whether he is looking for work and availablefor work. Those are two requirements. Hence, a student who returnsto school and is not looking for a job is not considered unemployed.Now it is true that part-time and full-time work are counted and thatpeople who are seeking part-time work are counted among the un-employed. That was one of the issues that was looked at by the LevitanCommission. I would call your attention to table A-7 of the Bureau

346

of Statistics release which has seven unemployment rate definitions.One of them makes an adjustment for part-time work.

Representative WYLIE. My time has expired, but may I send youMr. Papier's letter and ask you to comment on it for me? I was reallyinterested in this. It's not just an academic process for me.

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes. I'd just like to point out to you, CongressmanWylie, that all of these issues are issues which were considered by theNational Commission on Employment and Unemployment. We arein the process now of reviewing their recommendations. I'm chairinga committee within the Department of Labor, since the Secretary isrequired under the law to ascertain the views of other agencies andthen to make a report to the Congress. We are now in the process ofgetting the views of all interested people and we will be responding.

Representative WYLIE. I will give you the views of another inter-ested person. Thank you.

Ms. NORWOOD. Fine.Senator BENTSEN. Thank you, Congressman.Commissioner, apparently we are about to be requested for $1% billion

in the way of a bailout to Chrysler, with a total of $3 billion to beraised, and that will be the largest sum that the Federal Governmenthas ever been called on to come up with to help a private concern asI can recall. I noticed that DRI did a study and I want to carefullysay that study was done for Chrysler, as I understand it. I want youto know where these numbers come from. But they say the short-termimpact would be 500,000 to 600,000 people being put out of work ifChrysler would go bankrupt.What kind of effect-I'm not asking you to comment on the merits

of that kind of a bailout-would that have on the economy and onthe unemployment numbers? What kind of a relationship would youanticipate in that kind of situation?

Ms. NORWOOD. I think that's an extremely difficult question toanswer. As I understand it from the newspapers, there are roughly110,000 to 120,000 people employed directly by the Chrysler Corp.DRI and Chase Econometrics both made some estimates. Their es-timates ranged from 100,000 to 300,000 for the long-range effect, butbut you know the issues that are involved-

Senator BENTSEN. I was given a number of 500,000 to 600,000;long term, 200,000 to 300,000.

Ms. NORWOOD. I was talking about the longer term.Senator BENTSEN. All right.Ms. NORWOOD. Part of all of that depends upon the assumptions

they made and I'm not at all familiar with their assumptions and Iknow of no way really to do that in an effective manner.

Senator BENTSEN. Well, Commissioner, I understand that. I'm try-ing to get to this point because it's going to be a very difficult decisionfor this Congress deciding whether it wants to do something like that,but if you accepted their numbers, if you assumed that their assump-tions were correct-I'm not asking you to evaluate what their assump-tions are-if you assumed their numbers are correct, what would theeffect be on the rest of the numbers in our economy?

Ms. NORWOOD. As I remember the studies, the estimates includethe direct effect in the auto sector and the indirect effect on all supply-ing industries, as well as the indirect effect on consumption due to

347

loss of wages and salaries. We have a labor force of 100 million, so100,000 would be about 0.1 of a percentage point increase in the un-employment rate, if you were to look at it that way. But I would liketo emphasize that I don't know anything about those numbers andI'm not sure

Senator BENTSEN. I qualified that very carefully for you.Ms. NORWOOD. And I wouldn't want to make that kind of estimate,

but if there were-100,000 more people unemployed would add one-tenth of a point to the unemployment rate. That's just a mathematicalcalculation.

Senator BENTSEN. But you really haven't answered the question.If you would accept the numbers they gave of 500,000 to 600,000short term in the DRI study, and the 200,000 to 300,000 long term,what further effect is there on the economy?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, I think 500,000 would be five-tenths, but Idon't think that-

Senator BENTSEN. Would you stop there? Is that it, or what othereffect do you see on the rest of your numbers?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, that's the whole problem really. I think that'sthe problem with their numbers because it is difficult to estimate thetotal effect. Would somebody take up this slack? Would there be someunemployment that would be created and more employment createdin some of the other companies? Would there be more imports andtherefore would there be more employment in the importing sector?These are all issues that get involved in the determination of thenumbers. So, all I can give you is a straight mathematical calculationwhich is not terribly useful. One can always be concerned about theassumptions used in deriving these estimates.

Senator BENTSEN. Well, I think you have helped point out the prob-lem in trying to say what the overall impact really would be and howit finally correlates to the rest of the economy, what the reflex actionsare, where the jobs are that would be filled by someone else, whichparts and segments would be picked up, and which lines would con-tinue to run under somebody else. Those are the problems in tryingto evaluate this concern.

Let me ask you this one final question. Do you find that yournumbers normally are more challenged as we get into elections, par-ticularly when they are not good numbers?

Ms. NORWOOD. Our numbers are always challenged. I think thatwhat I could say is that in a period of high inflation, in a period ofhigh unemployment, or in a period when people are worried about theeconomy, as well as in a period of election, there is a great deal ofattention paid to the numbers that BLS puts out.

Senator BENTSEN. You're a great diplomat, Commissioner. Thankyou very much.

Representative WYLIE. I would just like to ask one more question onthe Chrysler matter. I have been listening to some testimony on theChrysler situation, and I have come to the conclusion that I willfavor some sort of a loan guarantee because I think that's probably theleast of the evils. But when you use these figures that Senator Bentsenreferred to, you're talking in terms of a bankruptcy where all thepeople would be out of work, and there would be a considerable amount

348

of ripple effect which I don't think you could really tell how serious itmight be.

For instance, Buckeye Steel Castings, which is in my district, is asupplier for Chrysler. They called and said that if Chrysler goes bank-rupt, we have a little problem down here in Ohio. We don't makeChrysler cars, but wve supply products that go into the Chrysler cars.

1 talked to the head of a company a week and a half ago, and he saidthey are definitely interested in buying some parts of Chrysler, so thatwould have an effect on whether there would be unemployment ornot. There are a lot of intangibles here, it seems to me, but Ijust wanted to say that because we have been holding hearings onChrysler in the House Banking Committee, and I think, as I say, thebottom line for me probably is the loan guarantee arrangement.

Do you have any suggestions on what your opinion might be as towhat you might do?

Ms. NORWOOD. No, sir.Representative WYLIE. That's another political question.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Senator BENTSEN. Thank you very much. The committee stands

adjourned.[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the committee adjourned, subject to

the call of the Chair.]




Washington, D.C.The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room

5110, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lloyd Bentsen (chairmanof the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Bentsen and Proxmire.Also present: John M. Albertine, executive director; M. Catherine

Miller, professional staff member; Betty Maddox, administrativeassistant; Katie MacArthur, press assistant; and Carol A. Corcoran,minority professional staff member.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENTSEN, CHAIRMAN

Senator BENTSEN. This hearing will come to order.For 4 months now, we have seen our Nation's unemployment

rate flopping up and down as if it were a "yo-yo" on a short string,bouncing back and forth from 5.8 to 6 percent. In November, therate went down to 5.8 percent. Total employment for the monthrose 350,000 over October.

Now, it's ironic and it's a little puzzling that with this reportingon unemployment-"baffling" might be a better word-we keepgetting signals from various economic measurers that the Nation iseither on the verge of a recession or it's in the middle of one.

Day after day we read in the newspapers of cutbacks and layoffs.Just the other day, 13,000 workers have lost their jobs at UnitedStates Steel. General Motors, Ford, Chrysler-there have been100,000 people laid off indefinitely, and yet 40,000 more on short-term layoffs, but in the Nation as a whole the unemployment ratewent down last month.

Amid all of that continuing uncertainty about the jobless rate,however, there remains one economic factor that isn't at all ambiguous.Inflation, after rising for months at a double-digit rate, is still goingthrough the roof, is still the top economic problem this Nation facestoday. The Producer Price Index for finished goods, in November,was up 1.3 percent. We learned that yesterday. That's a 16.8 percentannual rate, and we don't see any change. We don't see any reliefin sight.

Commissioner Norwood, we're here today confused by either themeaning or lack of meaning in the November employment figures. Wehope you'll be able to provide us with an explanation that will makeeverything perfectly clear.

Senator Proxmire.(349)

57-254 0 - 80 - 23

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PROXMIIRE

Senator PROXMIRE. I just have a brief statement, Mr. Chairman.The unemployment figures for November once again should give

the economists and the policymakers a warning that policy should bemade on the basis of facts and not on the basis of predictions.

Our failure to do so has cost us heavily. If we had acted on the factsinstead of on predictions, there would have been a balanced budgetthis fiscal year. I opposed a balanced budget last April when the firstbudget resolution was up. It was overwhelmingly defeated in theSenate.

But on the basis of what's happened since then and what thechairman has just talked about, with respect to inflation, it seemsvery clear that that would have been the right policy. Instead, on thebasis of predictions, and prognostications and forecasts, we have a$30 billion deficit at a time of roaring inflation, the worst in ourpeacetime history, and steady or declining unemployment.

Statements made month by month by month over the past year thatwe are in a recession, or will be next month, could cost us dearly.They've prevented us from coming to grips with our No. 1 problem-rampaging inflation, on the specious grounds that we dare not act inthe face of an oncoming recession.

If and when a recession is here, as shown by figures and not bycomputer estimates, we can and should act. Until then, inflation is ourNo. 1 problem, a problem of very great size which we have failed tocome to grips with because of the present confused state of economicsand economists, the status of which merits Carlyle's description ofeconomics as "the dismal science."

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Senator BENTSEN. Commissioner, if you would proceed with your

testimony, and we're pleased to have you back in this country.


Ms. NORWOOD. Thank you, Senator Bentsen and Senator Proxmire.Total employment as measured by the household survey rose by

350,000 in November, following a modest decline in October. Theunemployment rate was 5.8 percent in November, as compared with 6percent in October. The rate has been at or close to the 5.8-percentlevel for the past 16 months.

The number of employees on. nonfarm payrolls, as reported bybusiness establishments, rose by 220,000 over the month; since Marchof this year, payroll employment has advanced by 1.1 million, anaverage gain of about 140,000 a month. This comparatively slowgrowth is less than half of the brisk monthly gains from March 1978 toMarch 1979.

Wo

351

A slowdown in employment growth is also evidenced in employmentfigures from the household survey. Total employment grew by 3.6million from March 1978 to March 1979, but gains since that time havebeen limited to about 800,000. Both the employment-population ratioand the civilian labor force participation rate climbed to alltime peaksin February 1979-59.4 and 63.9, respectively-but have not movedany higher since that time. Both measures continue to reflect long timeincreases in employment among adult women and declines amongadult men.

The unemployment rate edged down to 5.8 percent in November;over the past 16 months the rate has averaged 5.8 percent, and hasshown no persistent upward or downward trend. In addition, un-employment rates for most worker groups have shown no dramaticchange in recent months.

The jobless rate for adult men was the same in November as inOctober, but was a little higher than in most of 1979. The rate foradult women continued to fluctuate, showing a slight decline inNovember. The teenage rate remained well within the range of theseries during the past 16 months.

Unemployment among black workers, which had shown a temporaryrise in Qctober, returned to about its September level. The Novem-ber jobless rate bor black workers was 10.8 percent, about twice therate for white workers. Of the 1 million black teenagers in the laborforce, one-third were seeking but were unable to find work.

The job growth in nonfarm industries continued to occur largely inthe service-producing industries. In the goods-producing sector, asmall gain was reported in construction, as building contractors soughtto complete many projects that were already underway. Manu-facturing employment was unchanged; many of the layoffs announcedin the steel and auto industry were scheduled to take place after theestablishment survey reporting period-the payroll period includingthe 12th day.

Nevertheless, employment in transportation equipment, which in-cludes autos, was down by 30,000 over the month, and 100,000 fromthe levels of February and March 1979.

The factory workweek moved down two-tenths of 1 hour inNovember, as hours were reduced sharply in primary metals andtransportation equipment. The factory workweek was 0.6 of 1 hourbelow early 1979 levels.

PRICES

The Producer Price Index that we released yesterday can be de-scribed as containing some bad news and some good news.

The bad news was that food prices at the producer level jumped 2.6percent in November, as meat prices rose sharply. As a result, theProducer Price Index for all finished goods rose 1.3 percent, up some-what from October's 1-percent rise.

The good news was that the increase in prices of finished goodsother than food was the smallest so far this year. The increase of 0.8percent was substantially less than the 1.4-percent increase reportedin October as prices of gasoline, heating oil, and capital equipmentslowed.

The November increase of 0.9 percent in the prices of intermediateor semifinished materials was also considerably less than the 1.8-percent rise reported in October. Price increases were smaller for abroad range of materials used in manufacturing and construction, aswell as for energy goods. Crude material prices, on the other hand,continued to increase in November; crude foodstuffs and feedstuffsincreased, primarily as a result of a rise in poultry, hog, and cattleprices.

Prices of crude materials other than food continued to rise rapidlyin November. Ferrous and nonferrous scrap prices continued to rise,as well as several other basic materials. Crude energy materials movedup 1.7 percent following a 2.5-percent rise in October as domesticcrude petroleum prices registered their smallest increase since last May.

In summary, although employment has continued to grow in recentmonths, the increase has been much slower than in 1978 or early 1979.

Unemployment has been essentially unchanged for the past 16months. This fall, however, there were sizable cutbacks in automobileemployment and in November there were reductions in hours both intransportation equipment and primary metals.

The Producer Price Index this month reflected large increases infood prices, especially for pork and chicken, at both the crude andfinished stages of processing. These increases do not appear to berelated to supply shortages, and may, therefore, not continue upward.

The considerable moderation in inflation rates in the nonfood areas,at intermediate and finished stages of processing, is indeed an en-couraging sign.

REVISION IN SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURES FOR 1980

I'd like to inform you this mornn of two changes we plan to makein the seasonal adjustment methods to the labor force data. Bothchanges have been reviewed with the Interagency Subcommittee onEconomic Statistics, chaired by Lyle Gramley, and are consistentwith the recommendations of the National Commission on Employ-ment and Unemployment Statistics.

As you know, seasonal adjustment factors are usually revised atthe end of each year. The changes will affect next month's release ofDecember 1979 data, the annual revision of recent historical seasonallyadjusted data, and the monthly data in 1980 and subsequent years.

First, we will introduce X-1 1 ARIMA models in place of the currentpractice of using X-11 alone; X-11 ARIMA is an extension of X-11which is currently used in Canada, and we've been studying it for

35M

353

some time. Our tests have shown that use of X-1 1 ARIMA, whichessentially places more adjustment emphasis on recent data, providesbetter seasonal adjustment results.

Second, also beginning next month, BLS will calculate-and we willpublish in advance in accordance with our standard practice-seasonaladjustment factors, but for the first 6 months of the calendar year,rather than for all 12 months.

In July we will publish, for use during the second half of the year,again in advance, a new set of seasonal factors based on data whichinclude the experience through June, and official historical revisionswill continue to be made at the end of -each calendar year.

I believe that the new approach will provide important improve-ments; in particular, use of the 6-month updating cycle will improvethe accuracy of the seasonally adjusted unemployment rates publishedfor the second half of the year.

I would also like to submit, Mr. Chairman, for the record a set ofanswers to questions that you wrote to me about on the undergroundeconomy. We're prepared to answer those orally, if you like but I willsubmit written answers for the record.

[The table attached to Ms. Norwood's statement, together withthe Employment Situation press release and the response to writtenquestions on the underground economy, follows:1


Standard X-1l method X-11 ARIMA methodUnad- Rangejusted Con- Extrapo- Con- (cols.

Month and year rate Official current Stable Total Residual lated current 2-8)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

1978

November 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 0.1December 5.6 5.9 5.9 6.0 5.8 6.0 5.9 5.9 .2

1979

January -6.4 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.8 5.8 .3February -6.4 5. 7 5. 7 5. 7 5.7 5.5 5.7 5.8 .3March -6.1 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.7 .2April- 5. 5 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 .1May -5.2 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.7 .2June -6.0 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.7 .2July -5.8 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 .2August----------- 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.0 5.9 .2September - 5.6 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.8 . IOctober -5. 6 6.0 5.9 6. 0 6.0 6.1 6.0 6.0 .2November -5.6 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 .8

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 1979.


(I) Unadjusted rate-Unemployment rate not seasonally adjusted.(2) Official rate (standard X-11 method)-The published seasonally adjusted rate. Each of the 3 major labor force

components-agricultural employment, nonagricultural employment and unemployment data-for 4 age-sex groups(males and females under and over 20 yr of age) are separately adjusted then added to derive seasonally adjusted totalfigures. Teenage unemployment and nonagricultural employment are adjusted by the standard X-11 method's additiveoption, while all other series are adjusted by the multiplicative option. Adult male unemployment is adjustedmultiplicatively using the prior trend adjustment feature of the X-11. The rate is computed by adding the 12 com-ponents to a civilian labor force total, and dividing and derived civilian labor force into the unemployment total. Theseseries are revised at the end of each year. Factors for the current year are computed at the beginning of the year for the12 succeeding months, and published in advance.

The current "implicit" factors for the overall unemployment rate, derived by dividing the original unemployment rateby the seasonally adjusted rate for the months of 1978, are: January, 111.1; February, 112.0; March, 106.7; April, 95.5;May, 89.5; June, 105.6; July, 102.1; August, 98.5; September, 97.3; October, 93.1; November, 95.7; December, 95.5.

(3) Concurrent (standard X-11 method)-The procedure for computation of the official rate is followed, except that thedata are re-seasonally adjusted by the standard X-l1I method each month as the most recent data become available, i.e.,

the rate for January 1979 is based on adjustment of data for the period, January 1967 to January 1979. The rates for thecurrent year are shown as first computed, while data for 1978 are as revised to incorporate experience through December1978.

(4) Stable (stasdard X-11 method)-The stable seasonal optios of the stasdard X-11 method uses final seasosal factorscomputed as an unweighted average of all seasonal-irregular ratios for the entire span of the period, January 1967 toDecember 1978. Is essence, this procedsre assumes that seasonal patterns are relatively constant from year-to-year. Theenweighted average is updated and serios revised at the end of each year.

(5) Total (standard X-11 method)-This is an alternative aggregation procedure, in which total unemployment andlabor force levels are directly adjusted by the standard X-11 (multiplicative option) to derive the rate. The series are re-vised at the end of each year.

(6) Residual (standard X-11 method)-The labor force and employment levels are adjusted directly, with the level ofunemployment derived as a residual. The rate is computed by dividing the residual unemployment level by the directlyadjusted civilian labor force. The series are revised at the end of each year.

(7) Extrapolated (X-11 ARIMA method)-Data for the 12 component groups of the unemployment rate are estimatedusing ARIMA (autoregressive, integrated, moving average) models. The enlarged series is then seasonally adjusted withthe X-11 program, and the rates are computed as in the official procedure. The series are revised at the end of each year.Factors for the current year are extrapolated in 6-mo intervals, January to June at the beginning of year, July to December

(8)a Concure seasnt lly aduse A eache moprccdure for computation of the X-11 ARIMA rate is fcllowed, except that thedataarere~easnaly adustd ech ont asthe moat recent data become availatle, i.e., the rate for January 1979 isbased on adjustment of data for the period, January 1967 to January 1979. The rates for the current year are shown asfirst computed, while data for 1978 are revised to reflect experience through December 1978.

Methods of adjustment-The standard X 11 method was developed by Julius Shiskin at the Bureau of the Census.The method is described in 'X-11 Variant of the Census Method Ir Seasonal Adjustment Program," by Julius Shiskin,Alan Young, and John Musgrove, (technical paper No. 15, Bureau of the Census, 1967).

The X-11 ARI MA method was developed at Statistics Canada by Eatela Bee Dagum and is the official method for seassnallyadjusting the Canadian labor force series. A general description of the method is contained in "A Comparison and Assess-ment of Seasonal Adjustment Methods for Employment and Unemployment Statistics," ty Estela Bee Dagum (backgroundpaper No. 5, U.S. National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, February 1978).

355

United StatesNew~s Departmentof Labor *

Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, D.C. 20212

Contact: Norn Bowers (202) 523-1944 USDL 79-860

Beth G.lin 523-1371 TRANSMISSION OF MATERIAL IN THIS RELEASE IS

Kathryn Hoyle (202) 523-1913 EMBARGOED UNTIL 9:00 A.M. (EST), FRIDAY,523-1208 DECEMBER 7, 1979

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: NOVEMBER 1979

Employment rose in November and unemployment edged down, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the

U. S. Department of Labor reported today. The Natio's overall unemployment rate wan 5.8

percent, compared with 6.0 percent in October. The jobless rate has fluctuated between 5.6 and

6.0 percent for more than a year.

Total employment-ma measured by the monthly survey of households-rose 350,000 in November to

97.6 million. Total employment has grown by 1.9 million since November 1978, with more than half

of the increase occurring between last November and March.

Nonfarn payroll employment-as measured by the monthly survey of establish.ents--advanced by

220,000 in November to 90.2 million. Over the year, payroll jobs increased by 2.4 million; again,

much of the growth took place in the 4 months prior to April.

Unemployment

The member of unemployed persons edged down by 140,000 in November to 6.0 million. The

overall unemployment rate moved from 6.0 percent in October to 5.8 percent, the saue as the

September rate and within the relatively marrow range in which unemployment has remained since

August 1978. (See table A-l.)

Over-the-month declines in unemployment occurred among adult women and blacks, whose jobless

rates declined to 5.5 and 10.8 percent, respectively, reversing increases of comparable magnitude

in October. The unemployment rate for adult men (4.3 percent) and white workers (5.2 percent), on

the other hand, were unchanged. In other worker categories, jobless rates fell among part-time

and white-collar workers, while the rate for blue-collar workers was about unchanged from the

previosa month. Blue-collar unemplsymest was up markedly over the year, however, in contrast to

movements among most other major worker groups. (See table A-2.)

Total Employment and the Labor Force

Total employment increased by 350,000 in November to 97.6 million. This increase took place

primarily easng adult -ammn and white workers. Employment in white-collar jobs rose by 220,000 in

356

Noveaber, with most of the increase occurring among sales workers. Although movements in

e ployient have tended to be erratic in recent onths, employment has increased by 1.9 million

over the past year. AdMlt women accounted for three-fourths of the year-to-year growth. (See

table A-i.)

The civilian labor force, at 103.7 aillion, edged op by 210,000 in Noveaher. Over-the-month

increases in the labor force occurred entirely among white workers, as the sbaher of blacks in the

labor force declined. Since Nove-ber 1978, the overall labor force has advanced by 2.1 million.

The labor force participation rate was 63.8 percent in Noveaber. Over the year, participation

has increased by 0.2 percentage point, due entirely to increased labor force activity among adult

women. AdMlt male and teenage participation rates wore both down from a year earlier.

Table A. Major indicators of labor market activity, seasonally adjusted

T Quarterly averages I Monthly data

Selected categories r i I Oct.-j 1978 I 1979 j 1979 I Nov.i I Ti i 1 1 I| change! III _ II j III Sept. Oct.INov.-

bOUSEHOLD DATA TI Thousands of nersons

Civilian labor force . ......... . 1 ,7531102,2951103,2021103,49881o3 4741103.6851 211Total employ.ant..I...... 1 94.7261 96,4151 97,2081 97,5131 97,2931 97,6461 353Unaploy.ent . 6,0271 5,8801 5,9941 5,9851 6,1821 6,0391 -143

Not in labor force . 58,4821 58,8861 58,6041 58,5151 58,9011 58,9041 3Discouraged workers . 8531 8261 7391 N.A.l N.A.l N.A.l N.A.

I I I i I I

i Percent of labor forceUneuployment rates: 1 1 1 I I 1

All workers ......................... i 6.01 5.71 5.81 5.81 6.01 5.81 -0.2Adult men .......................... i 4.11 3.91 4.21 4.21 4.31 4.31 0Adult Waen ......................... I 6.11 5.71 5.61 5.51 5.81 5.51 -.3Teenagers ........................... 16.11 16.21 16.11 16.41 16.61 15.91 -.7White .......................... I 5.21 4.91 5.11 5.11 5.21 5.21 0Black snd other ..................... I1 11.71 11.61 10.81 10.61 11.71 10.81 -.9Full-time orkters .................... 5.51 5.21 5.41 5.41 5.51 5.41 -.1

ESTABLISHMENT DATA iI ~~~~~~~~Thousand of Jobs

Nonfarm payroll eployment ............. I -8-6,8661 895.31 89.7159 8 9

,8971

8 9.

9 6 7p1

9 0.l18S5p

21p

Goods-producing industries .......... i 25,7311 26,6301 26,638i 26,593126,559pI26,604pI 4

5pService-producing industries ......... 61,1351 62,7231 63 1211 63.210163,408pi63,581pl 1

7 3p

I I I i I I

b'oors of workAverage weekly hours: i 1 I I I I I

Total private nonfar ............... I 35.81 35.51 35.61 35.71 35.6pl 35.6pl OpManufacturing .................... 1 40.51 39.81 40.21 40.21 40.2pl 40.0pI -0.

2p

Manufacturing overtime .............. I 3.51 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.2pI 3.2pl OpI I I I - I I

rprpelimina~ry N.A.mnot availahle

357

Industry Payroll Etploy ent

No.farm payroll employment to.. to 90.2 million in November, up 220,000 from the revised

October level. Payroll employment increased 2.4 million over the past year. (See table B-l.)

Most of the November gain occurred in the service-prodociog sector. With the -eceptio. of

g-vec.oent, eaployment growth took place throughout the sector. The services industry recorded

the largest increase. 75,000, whIle trade *ad finance each advanced by about 40,000.

Employment in the good-prodocing sector grew by 45,000, with nearly .11 of the increase

occurring in conotruction. Employment in manufacturing was unchanged, ae sail1 gains in

nondurable goods vere offset by declines in durable goods. Within the durable goods industries,

tranaportation equip ent accounted for sost of the decrease, due primarily to layoffs in

automobile and truck production.

Hours

The average vorkveek of production or nomsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural

payrolls vas 35.6 in November, unchanged from October. Manufacturing hours fell by 0.2 to 40.0

hours and were 0.6 hour below the first quarter level. Sharp over-the-sonth declines occurred in

both the primary metals and transportation equipment workseka. Factory overtime remained at 3.2

hours for the third straight ooth. (See table B-2.)

The indes of aggregate weekly hours rome 0.4 percent in November to 126.3 (1967-100), as a

result of the over-the-onth rise in employment. The index was up 2.1 percent over the year.

(See table b-S.)

Hourly and Weekly Earning.

Average hourly earnings of production or u.nsupervisory workers on private oonagricultural

payrolls rose 0. percent in November ad were 7.7 percent above November 1978 (seasonally

adjusted). Average weekly earnings rose 1.0 percent in November and were up 7.1 percent over

the year.

Before adjustment for seasonality, average hourly earnings rose 2 ceoto in November to 96.34,

46 cents above November 1978; average weakly earnings were $225.07 in November, down 55 cents from

October but up 914.57 over the yesar. (S.. table B-3.)

358

The Sourly Earnings India

The Bourly Eatnlong Indace rnoiga edjsted for .o.rtiee In anofactoring, seesonelity, and

the effects of chaoges in the proportion of workers in high-wage and lowage indostri.e--ws

236.9 (1967-100) In Noveber, 0.8 percent higher than in October. The Ind.. we 8.1 percent above

Noveaber a year ago. In dollars of constant purchasing power, the Index decreased 4.1 percent

during the 12-eontb period ended in October. (See table 8-4.)

359

Explanatory Note

This release presents and analyzes statistics fromtwo major surveys. Data on labor force, total employ-ment, and unemployment (A tables) are derived fromthe Current Population Survey-a sample survey ofhouseholds which is conducted by the Bureau of theCensus for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Beginning inSeptember 1975, the sample was enlarged by 9,000households in order to provide greater reliability forsmaller States and thus permit the publication of annualstatistics for all 50 States and the District of Columbia.These supplementary households were added to the47,000 national household sample in January 1978; thusthe sample now consists of about 56,000 householdsselected to represent the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalpopulation 16 years and over.


Comparability of household atnd payrollenplomoynnt stesistita


The payroll survey relates only to paid wage andsalary employees (regardless of age) on the payrolls ofnonagricultural establishments. Persons who worked atmore than one job during the survey week or otherwseappear on more than one payroll are counted more thanonce in the establishment survey. Such persons arecounted onIv once in the household survey and areclassified in the job at which they worked the greatestnumber of hours.

Unemploynment

To be classified in the household survey asunemployed an individual must: (I) Have been without a

job during the survey week; (2) have made specificefforts to find employment sometime during the prior 4weeks; and (3) be presently available for work. Inaddition, persons on layoff and those waiting to begin anew job (within 30 days), neither of whom must meetthe jobseeking requirements, are also classified asunemployed. The unemployed total includes all personswho satisfactorily meet the above criteria, regardlessof their eligibility for unemployment insurance benefitsor any kind of public assistance. The unemployment raterepresents the unemployed as a proportion of thecivilian labor force (the employed and unemployedcombined).

The Bureau regularly publishes a wide variety oflabor market measures. See, for example, the demo-graphic, occupational, and industry detail in tables A-2and A-3 of this release and the comprehensivedata package in Employment and Earnings each month.A special grouping of seven unemployment measures isset forth in table A-7. Identified by the symbols U-Ithrough U-7, these measures represent a range ofpossible definitions of unemployment and of the laborforce-from the most restrictive (U-l) to the mostcomprehensive (U-7). The official rate of unemploymentappears as U-5.

Seasonal adjusnnent

Nearly all economic phenomena are affected tosome degree by seasonal variations. These arerecurring, predictable events which are repeated moreor less regularly each year-changes in weather, openingand closing of schools, major holidays, industry produc-tion schedules, etc. The cumulative effects of theseevents are often large. For example, on average overthe year, they explain about 95 percent of the month-to-month variance in the unemployment figures. Sinceseasonal variations tend to be large relative to theunderlying cyclical trends, it is necessary to useseasonally-adjusted data to interpret short-termeconomic developments. At the beginning of each year,seasonal adjustment factors for unemployment andother labor force series are calculated for use duringthe entire year, taking into account the prior year'sexperience.


360

ploy.nit (the sum of four seasonatly-adjusted age-sexeomponents) by the civilian labor force (the sum of 12.seouonlly-adjusted age-sen comnponeots).

or establisthment data, the sensooally-adjustedseries for ail employees, production workers, averageweekly hours, and average hourly earnings are adjustedby aggregating the seasonally-adjusted data from therespective component series. These data are alsorevised vrnually, often in conjunction with benchmarkIromprehensive counts of employment) adjustments.(The most recent revision of seasonally-adjusted datawa' bused on data ibnubgh Jane 1979.1Sampling variability

Both the household and establishment surveystatistics are subject to sampling error, which should betlken into account in evaluating the levels of a series aswell as changes over time. Because the householdsurvey is based upon a probability sample, the resultsmay differ from the figures that would be obtained if itwere possible to take a complete census using the same,ilestionnaires and procedures. The standard error is themeasure of sampling variability, that is, of the variationthat occurs by chance because a sample rather than theentire population is surveyed. The chances are about 68out of t00 that an estimate from the survey differsfrom a figure that would be obtained through acomplete census by less than the standard error. TablesA through I in the "Explanatory Notes" of EmtIonmeatund larning provide approximations of the stanard

rr o unemployment and other labor forcecategories. To obtain a 90-percent level of confidence,the confidence interval generally used by BLS, theerrors should be multiplied by 1.6. The followingexamples provide an indication of the magnitude ofsampling error: For a monthly change in total em-

ployment, the standard error is on the order of plus orminus 182,000. Similarly, the standard error on a changein total unemployment is approximately nIhnoO. Thestandard error on a change in the national unemploy-ment rate is 0.12 percentage point.

Although the relatively large size of the monthlyestablishment survey assures a high degree of accuracy,the estimates derived from it also may differ from thefigures obtained if a complete census using the sameschedules and procedures were possible. Howcver, sincethe estimating procedures utilize the previous month'slevel as the base in computing the current month's levelof employment (link-relative technique). sampling andresponse errors may accumulate over several months.To remove this accumulated error, the employmentestimates are adjusted to new bcnchmark-(comprehensive counts of employment), usually on anannual basis. In addition to taking account of sampingand response errors, the benchmark revision adjusts theestimates for changes in the industrial classification ofindividual establishments. Employment estimates arecurrently projected from March 1978 level,

One measure of the reltability of the employmentestimates for individual industries is the root-mean-square error (RMSE). The RMSE is the standard devia-tion adjusted for the bias in estimates. If the bias issmall, the chances are about 68 out of t00 that anestimate from the sample would differ from its bench-mark by less than the RMSE. For total nonugriculturalemployment, the RMSE is on the order of plus or minus83,000. Measures of reliability (approximations of theRMSE) for establishment-survey data and actualamounts of revision due to benchmark adjustments areprovided in tables K through P in the "ExplanatoryNotes" of Employment and Earnings.

361


Tabl. A-I. EmpbNmtatus of ths ooo.nht pOpaIlatoiD-.h

I .- - -I-.- ''. _ 00w. 0 o. 1i 11 sp. r lt. It. } 00.Iw.

197 199 19s 1970 j979 19 197 1 1979 j1979

5.6 o . o d .............. 162,033 16,060 160.,62 10 2,033 163,605 163,091 1 6, 10 6 160, 0606 160,682....... 2,117 2,093 2, 092 2, 177 2,00 2 2.010 2,092 2.693 2,092

o-,os~~~~~~~~n .,.j ~ ~ ....... . 159,916 162,375 16 2,509 159,9 16 161,609 161, 061 162,013 162,375 162.589. .. ~~~~ .. .. ... .. .... . ... .. 1.69-9 703,931 103,37 9 101,629n 103. 059 1 03,069 1 633,098 1 03,079 103,6I5O o. n ............... 63. 6 66.0 63.06 63.6 63.08 63.7 639 6. 7 63. 0

................ 96,039 90, 150 97.963 05,751I 97,2 10 96.9I 0 97.5 1 3 97,293 97 .6659.13 59.7 59. 5 59.1 59.0 59.1 59.6 51.2 59.33 ,02 3 0 7 .5 71 32 .7 5 3 . 6 5. 2 2 3 0 0 3 . 8 , 2

..... ..... . 5.629 5,701 5. , 77 5 0 0 6,169 5.905 6,7102 6,0395.5 5.6 5.6 5.0 ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~5. 7 6. 5 .0 6 . 5.8

.. . .. .0.. . S ,2 70 I 5 ,03;6 51,17 50 S .2 00 5 0,505 5 8.7 52 58.515 5 0,901 5 0.900

69,1082 7 0,360 7.0,087 69,1612 69,995 30,09 7 01,005 7 0:,3810 70,607l

0 . 0 l.,, o t o , 8 o o~~~~~~~~~~ s i * 6~~7 , 0 6 6 6 ,6 9 7 6 8 0 0 87, 0 6 6 1 3 1 6 , 1 7 6 0, 5 22 6 0 ,6 9 6 8 . 000,.00 . ... 53,920. 56,078 50.662 53.930 50,567 50,I5n 50.653 56,696 50,60.3

0.00110, ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~79.9 79.9 79.6 79.9 79.9 79.7 79.08 79. 6 795. 0. .0 .... ,955... 52,036 52. 605 51.035 52 3 9 52, 227 52,380 52,366 52,.397

0 0 0 0.0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 6' . 7 5.1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~75. 7 6 7 7 . 7 6.7 7 8. 5 7 0. 6 6 6 7 ...i. .. 2,2..7 2 0 2 2 0 3 . 37 2,3 23 2,385 2,3965 2,372 2,OoS5

6 9 6 8 5 . 0 50, 002 09 .0 0 0 09 ,99 6 89 , 80 3 0 :9, 187 0 5, 99 0 09 ,0 0 2.. . . ... ... . .. . ..... ,69 2.062 2,177 2,113 2,261 ,7 6 2.271 2.330 2,336

. ................... 3. 7 3.8 0.0 3.9 6.1 0.2. 2 2 .3 9.3.................... 10.563 13.079 16, 103 73, 5 8 13, 75 20 1 3 ,609 J3.869 10.,001 10, 021

7 6,:1.10 77,629 7 7,59 7 76,:110 77,010 177,127 77,205 77,029 177,5070 .b ., o~~~~ t~~ o o o~~~ o i o 6 ,~~~ 7 6 , 0 0 1 ~~~ 7 7 , 3 0 0 7 7 , 2 6 7 6 , 0 0 1 7 6 , 09 7 7 7 0 6 7 7 , 1 0 7 7 , 3 0 3 7 , 0 2O . . ................... 30,503 71,950 39,963 38,0l95 39,0170 39,252 39,331 35,317 39,516h oj in . . ...., 50... . ... . .7 51.7 51.6 5 .1 50 7 5 .0 51.0 5 0.9 51.06.o0 30..362 37,60 37,799 35,807 36,8667 36,968 37,178 37,039 37,325stuo,-o.-,op-206. 06.' 07.8 00~~~~~~~; .'7 66 7 47.2 07.9 97.9 60.1 07.0 08.1

... .. .. ... .. .. .. 530 65 S9 571 5 0 596 600 556 632;4"126006.61 ......... ... 35,0 7 37,030 37, 207 35, 316 36, 276 36,3777 36,530 36,003 76,69.3L~~~~o~~~o~~~d 2,061~~~~~~:I 2,270 2,164 2,208 2, 2, 2,11 320 2,103 2.279 2,90

t036.o.0,fl 5.~~~~~~~~~~~' 7, 5.7' 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.9 5.5 9.0 5.5........................ 37,650 37,350 37,663 37,906 37,801 37,716 37,793 37,991 37,900

0 . 0 , 0 100201.,' 16,0~~~~~~~~~~'. 29' : 36,370 1 636 0 16,429 1 6,307 1 6, 77 16 3676 1 : l 16,370 '1 6,3669,192 9,103 9.095 9,595 9,001, 9230 9,510 9,860 9, 8

. ..... 55.9 05.6 55.6 58.6 57.9 956.0 50.1 57.8 8.O o . ........... .. ..... 7,702 7,658 7,660 0.07 8,031 7,705 7,953 7,08 0 7,970E000,o.0..p M.]., .36' . 06.1 66.0 60.0 98~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~. 0 602 06.2 67.7 07.3 67.9

Oqlo~~~~~~~~~~~~~o ~~~~209 341 262 367 355 301 365 360 329.................. 7,02 4 7,.3.1 6 7 ,397 7,672 7 ,6 6 7 ,366 7,50 7,5203 7,6 0510.13006,2 1,0~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~7 9 , 0 1 ,03 5 1 5 6 1Ss 0 1 525 1 5 1 1 ,5 7 1,I

.... ... ... .... ... ... 16 . 15.9 15. 16 2 15.3 1 6. 16.0 16. 15.9- .. ... ... .. .. ... ... .. 7,2 37 7,267 7 ,2 65 6,030 6,9 06 7,4 7 6,0 3 6,909 6,070

021.0.36.61 oi.6o, ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~102.037 1 63,937 1 00,101 102.031 143.303 1 93,461 1 63, 2 10 ,9 7 16 1 10 1 0 , 2 020IoW 70~~~~~~~~~~~~.0:,332 102, 296 162.061 100, 332 161.66 181 ,822 14198 762,296 102,061

0 .lt. 1 o 8~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~9.521 91, 35 01,351 09,.G06 90. 550 9 0,662 91,001 90,997 91,2600,11201b~~~~~~~~~~ls ~~6 7.0a 6 9.0 6 8.1 63.0 63.9 63.9 6 0.2 63 .9 60. 1

..... 8 5. 0 6 ,0 2 0 06 .o 0 23 85,010i 06,0 93 05, 02 6. 9 86 ,2 03 86 ,5 7 6

.. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... 6,.. . 2 6 0 0, 6 15 0,0 9 0 6, 0 55 6,0 6 0 0,0 32 0,6 7 90 7 55 6. 7 0 2360101010 0.8~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ 0. . 5.0 0.9o 5.3 5.1 5.2 5.2

11006000 50.011~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ 50 66 5 ,1 0 0, o 51,707 51.161 50,900 51,299 51.101

0,I100020.001' ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~20,002 20,O 531 20, 580 20,002 20,382 20,831 20,060 20,531 20,5800,0b1.1.160..10o2..J0, 19,~~~~ ~~~~ ~~505 2 , 7 0 2 9 851 , 9 3 19 9 1 20,032 2 0.079 20,1200,01.01.10.06., 12,137~ ~~~ ~~~~12 2.50 12 ,3 602 72 16 2, 6 12 ,700 02.000 12 ,5 66 12 ,39 2'511480.0, 6~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~2.0 62.3 60.6 62.0 62. 61.8 61. 9 62.5 61.6

.......... lo~10 768 11,1 7 11,081 10 706 11,0 5 10 9 7 11, 95 11.0 3 11,057O~~ o ,, 8 - o d~~~~i,., 0 .l 0~~~~ . 5 3 .8 5 0. 2 5 3. 8 53 , 7 5 0 .1 5 3 .6 9 9 , 2 5 .0 5 3 .7

1 6 6 2 ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~1,36 0 366 1,207 1, 17 0,330 1,353 0,303 1;.063 1,335

h,06. ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~7,807 7 575 7,760 7,022 7,579 7.639 7.620 7.533 7,736

* 10.p..o ,. -.l,.--4 0 ~ , .too, 00000., 01 0 0 o0.~O 0 4A

362


Tabe A-2. M1e. -4__ hl.0m. wm flb adjstod

Py. 109. 809. J.1y Z89. "p-. 0t0. 809.

997$ 9979 I9w7 1979 1979 1979 1979 979

.. . ....a. . 5,877 6,039 5.8 5.7 6.e 5.8 6.0 5.6.... . .2...... 2,113 2.336 3.9 ..1 8.2 6.2 *.3 *.3

2.208 2,190 5.8 5.5 5.9 5.5 5. S S.9d,556 1,5*3 16.2 15.3 16.5 16.4 196.6 5.9

1 .. ............................................ ,55 *.702 5.0 8.9 9.3 5.9 5.2 9.2. . . . ............................... . *,1626 .68.2 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.8. . . . .................................. I_,.68 1.664 9.0 4.7 9.2 6.8 S. 4.6

b b. .....y. . ....... 1, 81 1 , 996 13.0 93.3 6..9 1..6 4.:4 94.0

.1.17 1.33 99.7 '0.8 19.0 10.6 99.7 10.8

_ A8 893 0.3 8.3 8.3 7.9 9.0 .3. . ................... 543 510 90.3 9 .3 9.4 190.9 1.3

... 19.. . 390 332 36.5 30. 9 30.7 319.5 35.7 33.9

................................... ,961 91.72 2.4 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.99,299 9.62 9.5 6.8 9.8 8.7 5.3 4.8

yy.19...2._ 377 826 7.7 8. 9 7.9 7.6 8. 6.3

yFdI .. . . . . . .891 8,769 5.2 5.3 9.8 9.8 5.9 5.SP~ly_ A y*..y~ 9,350 ,243 8.6 8.2 8.8 8.3 9.0 8.2l dy yW~yy.3I Al . 9.996 9.990 9 .2 1.0 9 .2 .9 9. 1 1.2 9 .9

- . 6.2 6. I 6.9 6.2 6.6 6.8

. . .. . . ...................................... ,.60 1,6191 3.2 3. 2 3.6 3.3 3.5 3.9Py.9...6 . . .......... 398 365 2.0 2.9 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.4

__A S dvi g 2 22 201 2.2 .9 2. 3 2.2 2.3 9.95 .............. ................. A.... 209 231 3.1 3.5 6.2 3.9 23. 8 3.9 5

Ol~l~l _*A 827 913 4:.5 6. 5.0 4.9 . 6. 3U.5y _I.A . 2, 2.99 2, 07 6.6 6.8 7.6 7. 7.3 7.9

O.9y._k,.0.6,. . 27 679 6. 0 8.2 6. 9 *.9 8 .8 4.9.. 3 .... ........................ 597 I 7.9 .3 9.3 9.2 9.2 8.9

T, . .... .... .... . . . .............. 9....... 907 183 7 2 5 2 9.I 6 .2 5. l.S~b l . .628 ......................... 6 99.6 10.9 .1 90.8 10.6 1 2.7

........ ._. . ...... . ,9035 99 "2 7. 7 .2 7.0 6.7 7.0 6.6. . .A .. 92 927 3.2 .95 3.8 4.2 6.3 8.6

6.y1j0.26 _..._1 6... .... 8,98 I, 60 5. 6 5.7 6.9 5.8 .0 9. 91 1 ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~530 560 90.8 9.5 9.9 8.8 90.9 90.9

. .... ............ . ... l:::: ,:: : 1,154 19355 5. 9. S 6.2 6.9 6.2 5.9................................. . , 621 788 4.6 5.5 5.7 9.3 5.6 5.7

.................................. 533 567 5.8 6. 2 6 .9 7.3 7.0 6.99,..yy 3. .kaI .. ' 9 170 237 3.3 3.9 3.8 .9 3.8 6.3

. . . .................................. 1.98 9228 6.5 6.2 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.5......................... :,096, - 9032 5.0 6.9 5.6 6.7 4.9 6.6

0__<6916 1 570 3.9 3.5 3.0 3.3 8. 3163j0,d.~~~~~~~~~~.4.yk.. 9~~~~~~~~~~I22 939 7. 90. 9.9 O 903 98 9.

yld.I..8 *& 9.. 49 6 y_ A_ d

363


T.6b9 A.3. Se9 ctd 9 n t indi688oc0

- _ *0*. 999. 80.. 2*7 699. 5pt. 0rt. w

1978 1979 1978 1979 I979 919 I 979 9919

92.9.i. 9.. . . .. 960,m29 91,9.3 95.759 97210 96.900 917,513 17,293 97.696. .... 6...33 56096 5S S9 56.316 56.65 56.539 56,.55

_*0.059 .1,510 39.655 .. .0 69 o0585 50.0600 90759 *51.10'. 890 39. 936 39.003 38.9*9 39 II3 39.9*6 39,175 39.135 3.809

.. 2... . 23 533 72. 27I 22.890 22.77 22.965 22,922 22.937

_ _ *8.355 50.352 *708*3 99.573 99,615 99,779 *9,648 *9,869,, _j .980 .99.6 52 95,300 17,297 15.063 9.993 15,078 99.929 98.999

90. 9*18 90.656 90.030 90.975 90.772 90.6*0 90.6a8 90.5306.979 6.932 6.992 1 6.969 6.095 699 27 .9259 172 27

0. *. ... . 97.79~~~~~~~~2 97.965 97.369 17.673 97.779 99.98 97.825 7................ 3299 32,.008 32.202 319.99 31.767 2.27 7 72 .9 02.9.69

0*0 9. .......... .. 2650 82.992 126.66 92.832 92.755 13.057 92. 979 12.992-r - ------- ".206 199.09 99.677 10.853 90 990 10.987 90.989 191.0

..... ::: : _3.969 3.677 7.690 3.690 3.519 I 3.622 3I569 3.6989Oc60.- .............. 9.585 9.995 9.739 9.652 .599 9.629 8.67 56

h12 978 92,9006 3.709 92.697 92.099 92.7936 12,977 9 2.9352,18 2 0 2 ~~2.57 2.0 273 .72 2.60

W __ul2 .009-609 9.29* 9.370 9.92* 99103 19363 1,391 1,373 195049 561 9.629 9.590 99552 9.632 9,67* 1,617 9.630

OlS.. ... .. 2*9 257 293 29* 390 327 312 313

990.0*9.0.,09 . .8 6,.6 197,582 8 5.578 86.277 86.227 86,899 *7. 032 6' 963..9930...95.09 61.62 95.7 95.92 95.2 60 95.950 5.59 95393

_ 5,62 ....... 70.5066 71995 70.05 70.89 70967 79.999 79.873 7.5590M _.56 9.369 9.235 1'335 2.297 9.,05 9.332 1.270 1.212O Q9_ 69 203 70.723 68 870 69.678 69.769 70. 9 70.297 70,378

6.391 6.726 .370 6.753 6.99 6.682 6,9.0 6.760t0~~7.02

9909 ... 999~~~~. 377 955 509 093 953 *29 909

. . ............... 89.170 90.99* 86.653 89.07 9 09.959 8.82* 8 *8.97 89.3720.2.380M. a 72.797 79.291 79. 399 73. 93* 13.222 73 252 73.169 72.785

d n q _ 2.977 7.995 3.939 0390 3.355 3393 .3.230 3,358.0926 ..66 6 9.2*9 1.378 ,279 1,39 .7*8 9.255 9.293 9."89

. .... ... 1 736 19817 19,52 1.97 19,877 9,956 9.937 1,939Q _ _ * _ 1~~~~3. 396 93.592 12.928 92.597 92.577 10.969 92.093 92.328

* ~ ~ s0, .60 *99 - - -. -3 39 39.29cm5 2 2

| a b - dm bd"

Tabl. A-4. DOu.tio* 0o 0*8999pl".8t

go. . 08. 808. 2*. 7 609. 8806. Oct. -0*.

1978 1979 1978 1979 1979 1979 9979 9979

* I . ........................... 27057 2.8290 2833 27*9 3.2:26 2.793 . 2.963 2.970............... 9.800..9.820.9.779.9I90 97.73 2.050 1.965 9.795

9.072 9.067 1.1996 9.052 91 1,99 9.30 9.223 9.999*08 ~ ~ ........... .. ' 1#6092 530 695 600 662 627 703 66582 S '.... 472 989 511 *59 529 507 520 524

......................... "0.9 90.8 99.0 00 9 10.5 90 90.5 90 5............ 3250 53.0 . 0.9 9. 9 5 9 5.6 5.2

9a.:. 900.0 900.0 900.0 . 00.0 900.0 900.0 900.0 100.0_, *~~~~~~~9.0 90.0 90.8 98.0 52.8 96.3 98.2 *9.9

990"X ~~ .t3s2.0 t39.55 30.9 33 9 28.3 39.6 39.9 30 999t71 __ .087 98.5, 00.6 989 98°7.3 99. 99.9 20

* 9. ................. .. .8.9 0.4 8.8 7.8 8.76 8.5 8.9 .

HOUSEHOLD DATATabl A-. Re sons for ane mPloy meet

*t'. j e . j .

1974 1979 1:99

2.276660236633

1, 770802

100:039 .8116328.5

3*1.6

- .2

2. 2

.68

2, 53992.569

8551, 7380

667

10. a

21-.3

2.372746

6.626I25

872

*.7

27.9

M14.

15.0

Jely Let. 1 n79 Oct. 1 o.91979J 1979 1579 694 97

2,532793

I ,73

6 737693

100.0

13:7

12.0

I 5 1 2i 3 1 :. S

2,724

, ,765

720.

28.84.:6

29.311.7

2. 608

1,775

*003.

1.3

29.5

13. .

2:6 2.S

s 7e

, 7 .D

1,7ess

793

4...

30. 013. .

12.e

2. 7

1. 7

1,:7.5087

737

la. 0

,6.8

214.

12.3

2,:

1: 6.7

Table A-6. Unemployment by see end age. u inl dj.e d

no.. Pt.. wo.. July 269. Sept. Out. Jot.

1978 1979 197$ 1979 1979 6979 1979 '979

-ou. -l - .-.-.-w------------------------- 58. w ee77 6,039 5.8 5.7 6.0 5.6 6.0 5.6l"n 9C' . . 1,556 1.513 16. 2 15. 3 16.5 It.6 166 15 .6. ............................. .. 781 695 1.3 17.1 1.1 16.a 1 5 27.Io 'eon.. .776 el 14.0 16.9 15.5 .. 6.... ..... 0..3.1.......9 , s., "..^ . ................. 1 -, 9.3 9. :: a61 6 1 9.2 6.8a__ ............................... 1:911 3 7,7.9 37 1 3.t 4.5 . .. .. 02272 560 t.3 0.1 6. 3 6.n -.s, . ............................ 2 12 2.9 3.2 3.2 2.9 2.0 2.9

..... . ............................. 23 3.10 5.0 5.0 5.2 5.2 .2 5. 2-te_ 6 ........... 1 79 5. 9 16.9 16.0 16.2 15.7 65.9''' to. 36 391 20.6 15.2 17.3 16.6 17.1 18.73leo ,~~~~~~~~~ne .. 7~~~~~~71 359 62.7 '6.9 15. 3 15. 6 -66 63. 9

e.s.t.e ......... .6 99 689 6.5 6.8 9.9 6.9 9.5 8.8. 1_.67 3. 1 7. 3 3.5 3.6 3.0 3. 5.......... .1.........166 .n' 3.2 3.3 3.6 7.51 3.6 3.66n9..dein . .~~............. 230 235 2.5 3.0 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.6

2.959 2.969 6.9 6.6 70 6.6 7.0 6.6....................... 766 719 16. 5 15.1 9 7.1 16.1 17.6 16.0I~~~~~e..78~~~~~~~~~35 388 16.3 69.2 16.9 17.8 20.0 16.3

leo~~~~~~e9

.e. 907 6~~~~~~~~~~20 15.5 13.6 15.9 16.5 16.0 159.......o .............. . 6'62 653 9.6 9.7 9. 9.7 9.6 9315379 5.38 6. . . . . .7no se

1, .. 6~~~~~ ~~~~~~~.326 13,36 5.2 5. 0 5.0 ... .

................ ........ 996 177 7. 5 2.9 3.3 3.0 3.0 .

364

HOUSEHOLD DATA

_sl....................................

0 ............ ........ .............0,-..............................

pX ...................... ..... ... . ........ .. .... ....... ....

.it Zm .......... ....................

..lUr l.............................ba ................ ................

.,. .................................

. . al ............................... . . .

1_^ ........ ........ . ...... ........"_ ................ .... .........._ _ ................................

0.OyE LYD ARKTO eav69 se m F. C

SkOI 1. .....................

_40 ......................

09f....................

- - - -

365


Tebl. A-7. R ng. of eplOynoI m8o b--ed on r rying dofinhiooe of .... plo0.nt *nd *h. lobo' foo..... 0n-lify dj.sted

__ 8~~~~939 I 9979 1974

_. . 0. . . . 1.. .Sept. 0ct. oSt.

9J9-P 6 _ _. . .................................0.. .. .. .. ..

c_3 . . ........................................................... .. 1. 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 * .2 a ..U7 _..S............................. , . .......... 5.5 2.6 2.6 2.2 2. 5 2 .5 2.7 2.r

U~~s 1A_*_l . 25 s_} _ _ n s s af0 m 390 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 4. O.

12sr . .o3.9 ..ee. .. a. 4.e

6................................................................... 0. S 5.9 5.3 .7 5.2 5.8 6. 0 5.8

1S__e1 ................................................................. 6.0 S.2 7.2 7.3 5.8 5.2 6.0 7.8

00000e006060.001 0...... ........ .7.5 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.- 7.0

6el oe e o . 8.6...7.9.06.0.0 .. . 0.0...................................................... 9 .. 7.9 e 1 9.0

Tt. A-d. En9~nt4 ous0 of ti. ne l popoton by 8600 *ed Hi p..i] origin. not u oonity didjosted

90.00.~~ e _ 0 &.Tm-

61970 6979 970 69179 6197e 9979 90 97

IS90916 162.589 100,332 602."66 6.795 63.687 3,.50 7.030

boo . 6~~~~~~~~~~~~0,6569 903.769 09.9291993S6 60.3,38 60.47.6 0.3961 .979eooteI~~~~~~oj..oo . ~~~~~~63.65 63. 8 63.0 60.6 61.6 660 6. 63.

OE- 96.021 97.031 050 6186,f 2 9 .09 936 30.4d = 90 . Gb3.r6 _ *- _ _ _ _ I d00 3 257 2.8 2.905 230 229 683 223

_o92.929 96.6 020 83.673 9.033 0.230 0,36mooo~~~~~~~~~o9 9~~~~~~.629 9.736 6.260 .,.90 61.27 660 38 002

96....*oeo, ,.~~~~~~~~~~.~5.5 5. 4.6 9.9" 929 692 0. .0.9060. 000~~~~~~~~ . . 9~~~8.25 a 5so670 5009 5690 645 677 269 05

366

HOUSEHOLD DATA -HOUSEHOLD DATA

Table A-9. Employment ttus of mlt Vistnam-ar veteans *nd nonvstsrunh by age, not *tas-nally adjusted

.o.. 00I . 593. 4o.. 529 3on. tot. eon. at. 3ot 973 0979 697t 9979 0978 1969 1 979 1939 1970 0979

yo.29sX~ao_ ~ .9...........................9... w28 8.553 7.990 9.536 7.655 7.792 329 310 2. t .99o94m........ .... ....... 66s * 77 593 930 529 itS 65 59 00.8 92.3

950o300................ . 6.9998 9,85 6.739 6.903 6.095 6.665 2t3 239 3.9 3.529507 s. ................. 2.*75 9.867 2.079 0.739 0.956 1.699 023 90 5.9 5.299.004, .... . , 3.526 .3.630 3. sot 3.536 3.3D to 43.5 90 100 2.7 2.9

0.299 9.697 1.250 9.628 1.229 9.590 29 I0 2.3 2.97.o. . ....................... . 762 992 653 765 630 799 22 21 3.I 2.7

..9 ........... .............. 049011 10916 03. 353 Is. 217 12.992 13.609 961 613 3.5 9.399290909 9............................. 6:33 9 6.99 9.o001 6.970 5.799 6.152 252 326 I.2 5.0o300 a w 9........... ............ .... 4009 6.303 3.957 IS.06 3 737 3937 120 169 3.1 0.009 .. . .......................f.... 3.659 3.799 37.95 3.633 3,.06 3.515 89 908 2.5 3.2

u09 9939 0.wo a,O 50. Ot -n09 00_ o 0 9k of 0. 020o

367


TI.b A-10. Event - I of to. no- I i poWonir fw tin. Ato St..,

land--- I 19 --

__~~~~~~0;. 909 *0~ W~g;. 89. 27 S1S 0i9|5.7 7 380. 1i~

C9. 9O02_,,a' 09 . 9,77 09.9090*6 9u32 i9.77 99.w708 i6,737 06.7603 9080 04.977 62

109.09 .0. 31 00., 920 0 .095 100.250 00.339 00.325 " 0.95 0.C0 6 36 370 935 629 729 -73 6386 67~~~~~~~~.0 _ 5.0 5. 9.9 5. 6.5 .5 6.2 5.7

n X . .. .. ~~~~~~~~~~6. 0 S ., 7 6 . . d. b 6. 2

0.7......O.,s9.J P ' 9..W. 6, 505 9. 9791 .7 7 .57 6,727 6 7ii) 3 67 U 6,756 .78i I .7,99C9099. g~f n .................................. ,790 3.580 2.506 ) 02) (20 12) 920 213

E ., ,, .| 279 06.03 209 922 929 929 (i)23 (92)9 ii ii 2I. ...9 6. ....... 2 9.73 5., 929 923 92) 32) (29 923

0.,.09,.09...., 3699& . 8.236 0.009 9.095 8.236 9.~~~~~~~~6206 8. 289 A. 295 8.309 8. 305C 8iN___5 a' . | 5,909 5.60°6 5. 328 89.J670 9.3276 5.39 S 5.'005 5. 37°i 589 973

15. 13 5.i6 5.30 5. 020 5. 13 5.232 5.099 9.9 5 .07

..0 290 096 300 299 237 330 390 327.............. 5.2 5.5 5.5 5.7 6.6 . 6.9 5.7 6.0

0.6..96 090. .. . 2.839 2.957 2.939 909 92) 929~~~~~~~~.,~ 29 .1923 92)7Csi_ _1 a' ........ ..... | 4, 346 2' 63 2 6 i ' 3 (26 .1' i2)' 4 3 I2)i' 3 6S 'i32) 3 (32i

2.988 2 727 2.605 2.905 2.736 2.757 2,050 2,706 2,673

8.99..........0..0 029 07 (2 22 ) ) 9) 92) (9.............. 3 5. 2 6.6 (29 922) 2 (2) (2) 929

C.0......9099..92 .99.3.9..' | 9.96679 6,765 9.773 6.679 6.7238 6.769 752 6,7926,5 6.773. .......... 6.29 937 I 9.399~ 929 92 2 2 2) 2 20

3 'O796 9026 9.02 320 92) 323 (2) 92) 92)

50.oa.. 2.0 395..... 365 299 323 302 360 378 3696 0 .9.. . 6.6. 7.2 7. 9 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

9.3..,9...993.9i ..92.968 . 5.97~~~~7 5.537 5'.92 5.5.77 .507 5. 522 5.5271 5.930 1'S~ 552C0 _ _ n ' ' '. ' ' 3 3'.i'3 3533'' 533 5 3 26333 3.35 3.597 3, 63 3570 7 528 3'.58 3.570

6w6~~~~~r7 7.365 3.339 3.305 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, .3 3. 266 3.2912 3.399 3.32.2 3.078.9099.8 209 ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~226 272 233 2 69 26 2019 208 26

. ..of9. .... . 401 6. 6.6 65 5 7.5 6 .1 6.9 7.0

0..60.9.9990.9I 9.9. ..8....... 03.268 03. 320 07J. 329 13. 260 93.28 13. 000 03.309 03.320 13.31299.3...690.9* .. 7~~~~~~~~~:1.90 7 .992 8.099 7.1965 8.0900 7.971 7.969 8:.008 8.05 ,3

emv 3,nnlaa_ . | .32630 7.392 7.5302 "7.05 71000 7.307 7.393 77.62 7.59766.9.0.990 7 .3 59 56 1 56 90 I60 620 596 593 556600.909.99.99,9. .. 57.2 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.9 7.8 7.5 7.9 6.8

C0...9999.. W..2o..,' 7.900 7. 935 7.9803 7.900 79 5 5II I 5i 7.969 7.939 7.980

9~~~0099899099.8 .~~~~~~5.90 7 5.9122 5:.998 509 095 5.005 5.8093 7.00 .09iaf .9.9.8....... ' ' 8. '''] 38°S6 9.909 430294 9.635 9.650 6.6857~23 .9353 9.778 9.67 08C 29.90.0.8 a ............. 8 0259 302 269 276 305 356 290 322 292

.. 9. ......... .9 5.9 5.3 5.9 6.9 7.7 57 6.3 S 75

0.6.,....90390. ..36~~~~~~~~~I: ~ 7.070 0,937 0.902 8.70 8.,993 8I90 6I93 8.I3 I 0920.002.6. 0 5.7~~~~~~~~ ~~32 5360 5375 5.50 536 5.a I.77 5.33 5.9

............. 0.990 93.98 5.026 9.960 9.980 9.903 9.950 0.89I .86.09 ..... ......... 392 929 29 72 336 385 376 .9S 906

; .. . ...................... 6.6 7.9 6.9 7.3 6.3 7.3 .9 0.3 7.5

C nr09.066a99.909.93690.' 9.272 9g.;8 9I996 9.272 9.,16 9'.33 9785 1 9.07 696

C 96a 9.9 ..... 6.7 .. ..... .. ... . .290 6 .. 2 60 6, 272 690 99 6.81 69.39 6.09 1.29*5 6.266

560 6.02 6.093 5. 797 9.07 5.66 5.996 5.989 5.090210. 99......... 292 23 269 29 27 20 28 25 29

909.90.99..99 .9 . . 8.8 3.8 - 9.3 8~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~.9 26. 20. 3.2 905.

I 70 -- f- o.903=. - 0 0.~4 *.8 - - -

368


TobI ft-1. Employs - rcuh l payrolln by ntro.y

L i r- * - .69I

I,,; , i,,.1 i"t; ip l I9,,7 7. 7679

0706. 577"67. *''.l.o

O T OTAL .... ...... ... ................. : .2 ..... I5 # E ,

G0(XSFR 0D,`D10 G ...... ......... a07 27 ,1 .. 2.Il a.1? J 6.-3§ *, 0 x e v v *,>v bs

87771770 .. . . . . . . . . 9. 063 9. , I t. 0973

0006 R66T7 -... .. . .. . ... . . . .. .. .. 6 7. 1

M0 0UF MCTUlF G ...... 27,792...0 2 7....0 7 D7 T 00.12....0 1 .9570 27, 770 07. 7 6 0, 00'7 7 ' 7 .7 ..... 7 5 .0 5 6 . 0 9."76 7 5 , 0 0 7 0, 9 7 .0 7 .,0 7I' 7 7 , 7 7 7 .7 7 7

007*0 . 70,535 12.905 70.705 70.601 72.577 70.776 72.777 70.7 7 0.6 17 70.

S 7 _ .l 9 .6 57 9 * 7 7 6 , 0 5 6 . 6 7 .7 6 0 .9 7 3 7 , 7 0 0 7. 0 .7 7 .0 0 0 7 , 7 9 9 , 7 0 0

* v N 7.0 7 2..v 7 57.2 7 10.3 17 7. 7 96 7 97~ b 75 5 7'? 173 790 750F v i ~ ~ ~d f l x w _ e r ̂ , 0 4 }'a : S , ': -S 1 " ̂ Z, I I- 6 7 1 452 l i 1 4- 0 ^

7.91777a7,7 097.6 775~~~~~~3 777sa 66

.07 6703 63 07 7 .0

S3 m a 3 -0 7 7.7 02 .8 7.7 * 76 77 2 .' 7 2 . 7 0 7 . 7 7 . 7 7 7 1 7 '1 7 ' 0 7 1 7 7 7Dr

T n l-7777777777)*7e737 Z 0 .23. 7 7.0.1.0 7X .2 27.C II,02 7. 072 " 7. 5 7.0 05 7.0 , .S

7n60707077flvde *72,07 79,739.3 .730. ''"b b7.7 l.97773.7 7.70 .707*0 7 ...7 ...7000 72 .3.. .. . .. . .. .31 . 3 6 . .e5 77 0. 7 7 2 2 .9 7 0 .o 6 0 0 .7 6 7 0 . 0 ,.

2:001: :,03. 1,8 *0 5 , ,l ^ ; Sas s6

T = 1,74e ~~~2.97. .70z Z ,74772 ,77.. 0.3 2.111 7d 0. ' 07 .700^ 0,2

7,7.7967-o.w.7 D2737 0.5 .7 .7.7.1 .777,5 0.o5 0736 0.07 0. '76 0.077,7

776737,77i8~0.67. 7 12.7 600-.1 R .9.0 60.9dIa2| s .610, ..9 69.9.69I 5

077u_>7'0766'7 vv.n 2730 T6. 766. 60. 77 ,0 052l7 757 2T7 046 T7 T

L~~~~~~~~~~~~7. 3.' .:bvnRS, ev

v. 2s} s ~ d} ds #} t

SE V C 7R D C N ........ *:,05 . 1,33. ..2.217 > r ,9 0 b ,I } b~ ~o * oh b

uTI~~~~~~~m ~6.70 6.796 6.710 6.670 9, .957 5.7.6 S I72.S7l 5,275 5.709

7 6 7 0 .. 7 0 0 0 .0 7 .6 6 7 ,7~ ..07 s , 7 ~ 1 6 ~ . 3 . 5 .9 a s s .1 3 7 7 7 9 7 7 7 , 7 l7

RET~~~lLTRAO77, S a 70. 9b52 679 76 , 65 95; 50T lSIS s 0t

T. ...................6 .6.7 9 7.0 9 6 7 . 0 0 ... 8. . 77 9

P..0 . 1 7 17 785 17 75 731.5 907s 4 77 092 '771 l 7771 t F s7.. .

07770727.*6 . 5.2eN 7,770^,6 .776.7 l700 7.772 0.776 7.77 S ?be. 7S.770 7.770II-n707. 0 7I. 9 2 277.7 a7R.7 Z7 27 27 073 26 29 07

UT IL IT IE S .. ... 06... ... .. . .. . .. 5. 2 32 5. 0 03 5 2.2 9 .5.7 7 5. 7 6 9 5,7 6 0 5, 7 9 0 5. 0 7 7 5. 0 0 0

IRIRILE0A 03JA R RETA IL TRA DE .. .. 0. . ,795 20.267 27. 375 2 0.957 79,90 26.701 0 7 6 9 7 7 0 ,2 7 0 , 7

IRR ID .E SA L E T R A D E .. . .. . .. ... s5 ,7 6 6 9,2 0 6 5, 0 0 5 .0 5 . 9a. 8 2 5 7 5 9 7 0 . 0 . 3R E T A IL T O A D 9 7 5 .66.7 9 0 50.5 .70.7 5 3 03.0.7 7.7 0 , 00.. ..7 I7 6 .6 7 7 7 5 ." 3 6 7

770007C E 6700700870 .AM D REA L ES A TE 4,8 77 5.0o2 5 .0 70 5,7.6 3,8 27 0 9 S .076 ". 7 7 5. 7- . , 5

S E R V I C E 7 6.. ... ... . 5 3 1 7 1. 0 0 5 7 7. 0 9 5 77 , 3 7 7 7 6.5 9 6 7 . 9 7 .7 7 7 '-n 7 .7

G O V E IR E WO 5 7 5 7 .2 7.. .. ... ..7.. .. . .6.' 7 9 , 0 0 7 7 5 .1 7 9. 6 9 5 , 3 7 5. 6 7 3 I S.6 9 7 5 7 1

07000*6 0,176~~~~~~~~~` 2,51 , 56 2 1 0 0 75 .0 0 0 6 2 7 2 0 7 7 .75 9 7 9 3 7 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 7~~ ~ ~~2. 0 5 7 7 0 , 5 7 5 7 , 7 5 0 0 1 5 7 .5 2 0 6 0 7 7 2 6 9 0 9 ,

IF7. a.X , l. 0707 7367.) 7*37-77..5 _7 .70.. 6,t7

-~~~~A77t.0 0.7o7..0. 7770 ,0m 77.. 07*.... .7 to .9.0077777776.7..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

369


Tabl. B2. At.. meeky . ofpd-otIo.4 .n .o0o -- k-. pdmwrno~agriulolto ply. by hWdty

- ~ -0 I --

.. I; I| | | OCT. ;

TITALPRIVATE .. 0...3............ 5. 35. 3s... 3 , 3.7 35.8 33.8

NINING .............. . ...... *3 3.0 43.6 0 33 -I. .8 30 .3.0 43.0 3.0 3*4

COW TR TO .34.......7............ . .4 3. . . 36. . .7 37.s 3.8 3..

IWIM FAC7URING |.. . 00.3 -0.3 40.8 40.8 . 8 .0 .I 40.8 49.4. . ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. 3.0 3.8 3*4 3.3 3.7 3.3 3 8 .8 3.8 3.1

. 0 3 .0 3 3 . 4 0 3 33 .3 3 .3 3. 3 3

................ ... 0 3, 3.:: 7 ,:: 3 4 o : 0 4 3 :: 3, .3 3:: 7 3 4 3 .: 7. . ......... 3 5. 0 4 3 3 5 . 3 5. 3I 3 .4 3 8.3 3 0.4 3 0.4 3 4.

.4 .4 4 4 0. 7 _ 7 43 . 4 . 3. 3 3. 03.................3 0 -.

3_5 - 8n~..... ....... 4.

40 .7 4 315 0 0 .3 4 0 . 4 0. 0 3 . 3 3. 0 0. 4 0 3 4 0.4

._ sao xoJ 4 .0 j 4 . l . 0 . 8 0 . 0 . 0 . 4 0. 4 .0 0. !i 0.3

4 . ... .. , a a I a. . . .0.. ..

......ALETRADE . . ....... 33.7 33.8 34 333 3. 3. 34.8 0 30 3 33.3 3 3.3

FI^N EE T" S"ER " ' ....................... *40.0 ,5 * |0. 00. 40. 49.. 30.4} 35.7I 403 40.0 33. 5

34VC5...................... I7 .. 3 . 30.5 34.0 3. 37.8

3 3.3 33.3 35.3 3 3.3 3 3.. 35.3 3 3~ ~ ~ ~~~.3: 3 :.3 3 3 3 .4 3 0 4. 7: " : I4 . 3 0 8 3 0 . 8 . 8 7 4 .

p 4 3.4 a 2 0 0 0 . 03.5 44~~~~~~~~~I 304.0 00. 30.4 M3. 43 7 4. 3. 0 .035 4 ~ 0 ~ 0 . 0 . 3 . 0 . 0 4 .3 3 0 . 53 .0

L~~~e50.a 37.0~~~~~~~ 3. 3.3 3.8 83 3.4 3. 70 43 3.

TRA 04II`)TATIW A7005009

UIJLITIES .... .......... . 3 5 3 3 ... 33.3 33.7 3340 33.7 343, 35.3 35.8 33.7

W4 ES4ALE AO 0RETAIL TRADE ....... 32.3 0t.7 30.5 30.- 38.4 32.4 04.3 38.4 32.7 38.7

4R ETA IL TRAD E 30.4... .. .. 3....7.. .. 3 0. 3 30 4 3S 0 4 3 .5 3 . 0 7 3 .

F180A 04E4 1 30. 8 E40 AND0

REAL. ESATE .. .. ... ..8... . .. 3 .3 34.3 34. 3 3 0.3 3 43. 33. 3 0 36.1 34 4 38 0 .5

44W MI ES 38.4.. .. ... . ... .. 3 0. 5 .7 3 0.4 3 8.4 58.7 3 0.4 3 2.7 387 30. 3 .7

* 05. .1... o.308., o..t�o o*..s�00.o...f.ot.0. ,0 04414 ..ht.,.I0 .nooI... . 04�4 y.,.4.

4i.o.,.p.0M44..dpMk.�3I04 433-)..03

443 1o...n ..�a 444.0.000044 75.3. p44403 t� .p...l.otto #44 0#00.W*.4y 44 44.4440 ,..4�40T43 wIt..

o.a044,

370


TbO B-3. Av.r.go hourly ond WoktFy ..omi of production or no-ouporvisory workor9 on pri7-tnonogriouorl payroll by indutry

_w n~~~~~'r., 00r70 007 r7. p ~ v F~v ot SOT 22 Y01977 2575 2079 1079 1570 2579' 1970 29179

TOTAL MIVATE 05.00 06.31 9032 96.3 Ollo.50 0125.90 019.?-225.070o9o 5,07 6.26 0.27 6.32 220.23 223.00 123.42 *25.99

MINING .. .0 0..ST 0.5T 6.71 0s8.9 075.00 370.oo 301.50CoNTRUCTIO0N .. 00 9.1 5.09 99.3.... . 3. 00.03 350 . .0? .39

hIANUFACTULI.G ,. 0.0 .0 . 6.01 *.85 56o0.50 279.00 57..os 275.17

-r..LE O. . ....... 0.02 7,20 7.25 7.20 203.71 29S.30 595.-0 2-9.30

tf .n~~va. ,,,,,,,,, ,,,, 5.75 0.3 0.25 6.29 529.03 259.09 500.23 200.00Fwo sfsat Z~~~~~~~~.00 5.20 920 5.2? 100.12 102.0?200.-3o zoo, 20S Iap . o .. - ..._ao. ... *,90 0.99. 7.03 275.33 201.07 502.07 203.25

1 -........... I....................... 7..2.2 9 .11 9..20 35 .5- 370.321 372.60 372.00r.~AOo.a ..I vv .... . . .5. o93 0.57 7.u0 270.7- 20.70 205 .7 200.3706pTn...1.? .Iopon v . . 7.02 7,0S 7. 07 7.52 297.93 323.91 320.75 310.39

=71. ................ ......... 0.601 6A09 0.52 00.290$ 20.03 502.55S 2.60.7

OoTo.po .,?.a2....p0 6:22 6.32 6.02 202.10 552.7% 257.Oo 2073 0.......-........................... 1,.07 S.22 5.13 100.73 109.25 291l.3 200.27

oNouRtAoL ..o .. . 5.72 0.21 0.20 0.20 820.29 222.0. 201.9? 200.90

ki- .....D .............. . ., p, . 5397 0.33 3 6.05 130.0, 2 S7.00 .0, 259,00Ta ~~~~dan *,F2 *~~~~~.00 9.04 7.02 292,97 255,72 200,20 272.50

.l n ign~ase . ....... ..................... ..... ...... .....-....... ...S ...a ...I ...S 6 .67 I 7,C Il.l 7.§ 2 3.15 "-.2 -.'52-.I. .I.............., . . ...... .. 0.20, 0.2 03 0 505.52 t50I. .. M . . I .Oo 253.72

...... FWS22 7.03 7.23 0.22 5301.0 322.2? 3I..5 805.32--->@ .............. ........ r.. 7.0.5 .,O. , 7. 9b I251 1$ 0 a...) a..o.............v~a ........ 5.71 *.CJ I..? 3.0 .11 Ill R4i2 a8 z 3 : 11

La.7 ., r0.25 0.....03.0......07.50 1.7. #*1 .. 14 .97 157.32 259.39

TRANSPORTATIONAMD PUBLIC UTILITIES . 7.70 7.05 0.40 9.09 310.02 397.1. 330.71 337.05

MOLESALEAMDRETAILTRAOE .. . .. .7 S.23 Sl, 5.15 0I5.00 1-7.7s 207.05 0.7.03

IIHOLESALETRADE .. 0..7 *,51 0.52 t.90 235.52 952.53 253.20 256 .2RETAIL TRADE . . ... .5 0,5 0.02 232.09 IOe.oI I00,00 I200.0

FINANCE.INSRANCE0 AND0REALESTATE 53 , S. 5.00 9.,3 S.39 002.59 105.29 295.25 190.2

SERVICES 5.......23 .. 05 0.00 5.52 167.00 178.22 270."5 179.15

. . ; 1 ; ~~~~~~~~~~~~191, I. In o7 r o9 ; _.-o . sn-OSol. .e,9 ..,. 1919

TOTAL PRIVATE MNrfitRUD:

cw_ . . .. ............ X.2 z....w.. 2.2-.. 5z.0 23i.q 8 .1 I a 5)c.7) IO M. . . .............- I 1 0".6 sO 139 A, ". z o. S Im I S.A. (23 (

r.c .NO ...... .. SX............. ?2a.9. 1 O 1. Sx1 266." 9 76.z .6 26 .s a 6 . ' :Urf~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~~ S1. ? .1;. SZ. 'A, .- . ZA.9a7.

TrT^TSO ne~~~~llrl~~. .l 2 1^ 3 22.1. 1. 252 6 255.6 2506.6 250. 2 9. 3.N-AAURn 1 r n AND A- 227s .2 ~ S~" S 0 217:.3 221:3 I. ̂

rllU-AQ.7rrA~~~~~rS^Sr So.: 7 Xc>Z2O' Sa S'2. S.6 Ss33..wloE .................... 21;.7 27-. 1 1.4 17s, ,231.5 S2'. 2 Sa

Tsl.. IFNI -lSO, O IA Spl.9m r ko y hoos.rE of SO ti- D, -p7..- -il k -7E ' Doin pd.0trL

INFIrcuue1PTroll bY irdIoRa l asoY, djsed

mPa 1.79

-0O. OtEC. IJR.. FES. IN R. Pi. I It JURE IJULY US. HP. OCT. I13w. P

TOTALRIIIATE .a .......... 1.7 la..A ll.. 12-.7 | RS.? 121.4 IRS.- 185.7 Ma.? INS.S 12S. 92S.8 116.1

COODSODUCINIG ................ Ioa. I... *10.1 ,l..| 111.3 106.6 l 10.3 10.1 0'.. I'*.- 109.7 1o.6. 105.

MINIMC ..... ............................. ISO.. lSI.j 152.0 Isz.s M| 152 1%.0 111.6 1sl@. Ia.$. IS&.? 17.. 17.9 Isq.1

CONSTRLKCTION ................................ AIR.0 B. 121., 12O.. |?. 132.? O... I3.? IS*.. ISS.. II-. Is.* 132.1 1-.-

MlANUFACTURING .............................. 10-.- IOS.I1,,§.6 15 . | 106.0 101.0 JO..? (0..} IO... 103.5 103.. 103.0 101.6

OUASO. .. ....................... o. o.l*sla 1#tlsol. o.l7 o.l7ll*8l~#. a . . . ........................... 1fII.1. 1. 1.-1. *. l.7a lt l. a o.

_ ... V .................. .... 1,111 . I1:oI12tIl 1 s Il III 3 '1 II 1 lo. II' 81.a I o I II .

.. .~.= .............. AL it. 1 10.. II7 . 11.*l.| o.S 113.: lo*.- lo7.. l*.4 1°^.9 1 o.7 1".2 II..)E. ........... t... R. I.... .. . .S. I.. .8... to- o.. IO *l o.so.S lo. l. ls o.T ow. l7*l~-fl,,"................... O.1f 10.10:. : O% *. A10a**. 1:1 I~ *10*.1 t.11 *:A.

NI . .. .... ,.. 10J.1 t.10.1. 101.7 101. ?. 10(.T T7 100.. IO..T 100.. "If~ 1.0.8 IV...

Td_" ..........~~~~~1 1. I.$ 70.0 73. T. 71. 1 7,.S 7X7.TR.. 73.0 *.6. 70.5 VS.. 60.7

.-- 2 . . . . ........ -............. l.o -*.3 :1 .~ |otss.a.r_~~~~~~~~~~~~19 I.Q....... i l.1 -o%. 10.0.e.: .... 11 1081 I o ol §las o I: o.lio. :0. 13:~

rX~~gap- ................... IlOl 11........ 0 s 0- 101. Id. 103.1 10O$10.- 1.-.7 103.1 10.3 0.3

P~~~~~~~t~~~~~~u~~~~~~dg_~~~~~~~1 .3.... 11t. -: M2.. 1a. ISO.% I 1t.- 18.3 t. 8.1 1R.0 3.88.F It. 8.

._w ..... -I. -. ,,6.1 AS-1 ". ' .1. .... ... A 65s"''- '-°"'"' *l.%.

SERMiEP~ImoN .................... |sZ..@IS 13.8I.4' 13S.6 ISS-. 135.1 13RS- 13..? l>-5|.6- 131.||8- ISE.. 13A-.

TRANSPOTATO AN17PUBIMILTTIES ...................... AI. '1. AI. 11' t13.- "-10"''9'-1 "'-' '°'-' 1"'-' "-1"'-' "-1"'- "'- "'-'IS.

011OLES.L AN17 RETAIL

f~OTAADEnU 1........ 18.* N.1 }. ....... ....... 18.8195 *Xt.9 *ta.3 *s6 V.6 I.& 3.0 .. 10.6 . .. 1 1.91t. *13.18}.ss.s .l

VRPOETAlLLERAE .......... 189.6 120.01 13,S ISO..7 1f . 110.3 112-([.&2. |.1a.10110.

ItAERU -''''1"- '' '- '' '-L TRA.s"-|'' ''"- ....................E....................................... J..O t..0 a IA .? A1 .3 3 . 2 .1 IN 3",:. I :

ftR M i s M AU -- ---- ^. ............................... .1*l..... s .s , s. ...

"ENO E .....I . .....

371

EBTABLISHIIVEH DATA

Table 81-4. a i M RS1" Ip I Id fc, p i 01-tm O, RPA;eW v-K' dPowiuWi 11. IRogV I I nr'I dMW O.. _INMOR dlb ae =

ESTABUSHMENT DATA

372


T.b. B.6. Index.. of diffusion: P.rcent Of industrios in whack .mploym.n8' nor..s.d

Janury ..... 83. ..................... 7 86.8 84.08463.4.3,.70.3 84.3 83.8 83.78.336.69.Z 82.8 78.4 83.8

A7344.70.6 73.8 78.4 77.671.7.33.6 . 64.8 67.7 82.6a.53 Sl.7 6Z.5 71.3 80.734

1y.38.0 S6.4 886.8 78.8Z

A u g e s t S~~ ~ ~ ~~~4.4 68.3 66.8 77.3.................... . 68. 5S.8 6 .6 78. 8

334. e 47.4 66.8 73.8 78.48.8ab r 3.1 64.2 77.9 37.8

D e e e a b o r 66~~~~~~8.0 78.8 70.2 82.6

1977 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1

3.34437.73.0 80.Z 86.3 80.53,633.37.67.2 84.3 84.8 81.4

n~~~~ r c h ~~~~~72.4 82.8 84.0 88.8

47334.71.3 84.7 82.3 88.68.....7.3 76.3 79.1 83.8

. . . .83 .4I 72.7 77.8 88.6

J u 1 7 ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~70.8 70.3 76.3 834.8464.6.67.; S7 6 S7.7 78. 7 8 3.4

0 ....... 4.2 76.2 87.3 82.8sN.a e r 73.3 79.7 44.7 84.1

D ecze b er ~~~ ~ ~~73.3 73.4 82.3 87.0

3443437.64.3 80.7 83.7 84.434634.37.68.Z 73.8 79.1 83.1.... . 68.S 77.3 77.6 84.4

43344.88.0 68.8 73.5 82.084.3 7. 8 67. 2 7.2. 84.7Je. :........................ :6. 66., 1Z6.

74.~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~66. 66.6 74. 82.3

744.864.3 69.5 73.0 84.3A u s u s ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~60.5 67.2 77.3 74.2S eptesber ~~~ ~ ~~62.5 71.2 78.7 77.9

0744. er 73.0 78.8 82.3 73.S8.te m b e 75.9 84.4 82.3 77.2

D eee m ber ~~~ ~ ~ ~~74.4 82.3 80.5 74.8

197

J3......70.3 76.5 74.7 74.8V.634.37 *S.I 72.4 67.4 70.6346.8 60.5 37.8 64.9 63.7

07341.84.8 35.4 38.4 *3.7pY s y 5-~~~~~~~~3.7 31.3 30.3 61.3p

............................. 537.0 38.4 46.8

3 uly.64.6 36.7 56.7p....... . 4.8 32.0 38.77

* e~~~te w b er ~~~~46.8 34.27

4364.e r 67.7p 66.37N.vmbr 63.47

7 403 743434 44.3.-.3W8.

838b34.34442,.m0.

I I ---- I I

373

Chart 1. Civilian labor force.and employment,Seasoral'y adjusted)

1999 1999 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1979 1977 1978 1979

THaUSAIDS

10osCO

950so

ES000

75000

. r0so

Chart 2. Unemploymerft rate--all civilian workers

PERCENT

Chart 3. Civilian labor force participation roteand total employment-population ratio(Seasonally adjusted)

PERCENT- Por~ctia lln rot. ... 7.0.0

----- ErrplIoymen t-ppu I cbon r bot.i,, "., O

70.0

55.0

w~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~ . ..,,

196 19ti9 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979Not.: The d d or. d.plot tbe buo.l yol. p a ond trou4gae delgnota by th. NatIonal ur. af E .orala R..rah.

57-254 0 - 80 - 24

THOJSANDS; 15000

:0500

85000

75000

ES000

-Caim lcbr farce----- Totl plo

- X-g1_:PW I,-

- a.ctr P t rlaot-

=~~w __ __

PERCENT70.0

rs.o

55. O

s0.0

., ., ..h

1�W901es

374

RESPONSE OF HON. JANET L. NORWOOD TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS POSED BYSENATOR BENTSEN ON THE MEASUREMENT OF THE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY

Question 1. Does the BLS consider Professor Guttman's methodology statis-tically sound in arriving at his estimates for unemployment and the labor force?

Answer. Professor Guttman's unemployment and labor force estimates ad-justed to take account of the "subterranean economy" presented in his testimonywere based on his methodology described in "Are the Unemployed, Unemployed?,"Financial Analysts Journal, September/October 1978. The methodology used byProfessor Guttman is described briefly below. He first estimates the total numberof persons who draw their income exclusively from the subterranean sector ofthe economy, subdivided into two components-permanent and temporary par-ticipants. The estimate of permanent participants is based on the unsubstantiatedassumption that the 2 percentage point drop that occurred in the labor force par-ticipation rate among 35 to 44-year-old males between 1961 and 1977 was a resultof all persons moving from the regular economy into the subterranean economy.The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has no way to assess the validity of thisassumption. Changes in labor force participation are the result of many factors.Moreover, the 2 percentage point drop is applied to the total labor force.

His estimate of the temporary participants is even more precarious, as it is theaverage monthly seasonal adjustment component of the unemployment figuresin 1977, regardless of sign. That is, each month the unemployment level is ad-justed upward or downward to take out the usual, recurring movements in timeseries that are related to seasonal factors such as opening and closing of schools,weather patterns, industry production schedules, and the like. Professor Guttmanuses the average adjustment figure as a measure of persons temporarily employedin the subterranean economy. It should be noted that seasonal adjustment onlyaffects changes within the year and nets out over the entire year. The fact thatunemployment varies month to month for reasons other than the general stateof the economy has no relationship whatsoever to the number of unemployedworkers who might have unreported sources of income.

Based on his estimate of the total number working in the subterranean economy,he assumes a certain percentage are presently tabulated as unemployed and acertain percentage are not presently tabulated as labor force members. In thecase of the unemployed, he arbitrarily selects 15 percent as a "conservativeestimate" of the total number in the subterranean economy that are probablycounted as unemployed. His method for calculating the number of persons de-riving all of their income from the subterranean economy and excluded frompresent counts of the labor force is unclear, and the BLS has no informationwhich would permit us to validate the estimates.

In sum, Guttman's estimates for unemployment and the labor force, adjustedfor the subterranean economy, are based on a series of arbitrary and unsupportedassumptions.

Question 2. Does the BLS have any reason to believe-through tests or outsideagency checks-that a substantial number of persons are counting themselvesas unemployed when, in fact, they are engaging in some form of economic activity?

Answer. Generally, we have no reason to believe it, but, on the other hand,we also cannot disprove it. The Current Population Survey (CPS) is voluntary,with responses held as confidential. Persons do not specifically classify them-selves as unemployed, nor do they usually know their ultimate labor force classi-fication. Jobless status is determined through a series of questions in which theword "unemployment" is never actually mentioned. We also do not make anyexplicit distinction between legal and illegal work activities. We record and reportwhatever the respondent tells us. In general, we believe that the estimates ofemployment and unemployment from the CPS are considerably more accuratethan are the data on income.

Question S. Would the BLS support the statement in Professor Guttman'stestimony that "the extent of poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated byofficial statistics, since these do not take into account the subterranean income oflow income households"?

Answer. The official definition of poverty was developed some years ago byan interagency committee based on pioneering work in this field by MollyOrshansky. The poverty level is updated each year to reflect price changes and isofficially issued by the Office of Management and Budget. The number of families

in poverty is determined by income data reported in the Current PopulationSurvey (CPS).

As you know, the CPS is not designed primarily to develop income data andboth the BLS and Census Bureau agree that there is some underreporting ofincome on a survey of this kind. To the extent that low income households receiveincome from the subterranean economy and do not report it, their income isunderstated and this would affect the number of households in poverty, as pres-ently defined. We have no information, however, which permits us to quantifythe extent to which income from subterranean sources is underreported. Nor dowe have information which would identify the pattern of income distribution ofthe income from the subterranean economy.

Question 4. Would the BLS agree with Professor Guttman's statement that"productivity is greater than official statistics indicate, since these official govern-ment statistics do not include subterranean income. . . . Business sectors whichhandle a great deal of currency, such as retailing and services, are importantexamples"?

Answer. To the extent to which there is a substantial subterranean economywhich is not included in the official government statistics, as Professor Guttmanalleges, productivity could be either higher or lower than officially reported. Theimpact of the nonreporting of the subterranean economy on productivity measureswould depend on several factors; in particular, on whether the nonreportingaffected both the output and the input data for the measures as well as the efficiencyof the offbook work and its relative importance in the economy.

However, it is important to note that the official government statistics onproductivity are indexes of change. The question on the effect of the exclusion ofthe subterranean economy depends not only on whether average productivitylevels of the measured and the subterranean sectors are different but whethertheir productivity growth rates are different. It is also dependent on whether or notthe relative importance of the two sectors is changing. We know of no way todevelop the data required to prove or to disprove Professor Guttman's hypothesis.

Question 5. Mr. Fogel and Professor Guttman both comment on the relativelyhigh number of persons in the low-income categories and certain socio-economicclassifications who were nonfilers of income tax returns. These persons apparentlyalso exhibited high unemployment rates. Can BLS provide unemployment rates onan income stratified basis and for those occupational categories mentioned in thestatements?

Answer. (See attachments-table A-23 and table 51.) Indeed, joblessnessamong some of the occupational categories specified by Fogel and Guttman arerelatively high-particularly nonfarm laborers and service workers-but this is notthe case for farmers and farm laborers. The inverse relationship between incomeand unemployment is well established. For example, computation of the unem-ployment rates for persons with annual incomes of less than $5,000 and those withincomes of $5,000 or more from the data in table 51 yields jobless rates of 14.1 per-cent and 4 percent, respectively.

Question 6. Mr. Henry argues a different point of view than Professor Guttmanconcerning the measurement of unemployment. Would BLS comment on Mr.Henry's theories regarding the impact of the underground economy onunemployment?

Answer. We would tend to agree with Mr. Henry that Professor Guttman hasplaced too much emphasis on the subterranean economy as a possible reason fora now higher average unemployment rate. Mr. Henry points out several incon-sistencies in Professor Guttman's arguments, some of which are the same asthose that we outlined in our answer to your first question. Jr. Henry providesa number of more plausible explanations for higher average unemployment thanthe growth of the subterranean economy, such as the changing composition of thelabor force-an explanation that has received wide play in the current literature.Also, Mr. Henry points out that, besides arguing that some persons may be in-correctly classified as unemployed, one can also argue that some persons notpresently counted as unemployed should be so counted. This is an age-old argu-ment. This diverse body of opinion about the meaning and measurement of un-employment was the primary reason that the BLS initiated publication of theunemployment indicators symbolized by U-1 through U-7, which range from avery narrow to a very broad view.

TABLE A-23.-UNEMPLOYMENT RATES OF PERSONS 16 YRS. AND OVER AND PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF THE UNEMPLOYED, BY OCCUPATION GROUP: ANNUAL AVERAGES, 1959-78

Experienced workers

White-collar workers

Man-Profes- agerssional and Cler-

Total and ad- Sales icalunem- tech- minis- work- work-

Year ployed Total nical trators ers ers

Blue-collar workers Service workers Per-sons

Craft Operatives Pri- Farm- withand note ers no pre-kin- Trans- Non- house- Other and viousdred Except port farm hold service farm work

work- trans- equip- labor- work- work- labor- experi-Total ers Total port ment ers Total ers ers ers ence I

... ,.. ._ . . . .

Unemployment rate

1959 5.5 2.6 1.7 1.3 3.8 3.7 7.6 5.3 7.6 () (2) 12.6 6.1 5.2 6.4 2.61960 5.5 2.7 1.7 1.4 3.8 3.8 7.8 5.3 8.0 (2) (2) 12.6 5.8 5.3 6.0 2.71961 6.7 3.3 2.0 1.8 4.9 4.6 9.2 6.3 9.6 (2) (2) 14.7 7.2 6.4 7.4 2.81962 5.5 2.8 1.7 1.5 4.3 4.0 7.4 5.1 7.5 (2) (2) 12.5 6.2 5.5 6.5 2.3 .1963 5.7 2.9 1.8 1.5 4.3 4.0 7.3 4.8 7.5 (2) (2) 12.4 6.1 5.8 6.3 3.01964 5.2 2.6 1.7 1.4 3.5 3.7 6.3 4.1 6.6 (2) (2) 10.8 6.0 5.4 6.1 3.1 .1965 4.5 2.3 1.5 1.1 3.4 3.3 5.3 3.6 5. 5 (2) (2) 8.6 5.3 4.7 5.5 2.61966 3.8 2.0 1.3 1.0 2.8 2.9 4.2 2.8 4.4 (2) (2) 7.4 4.6 4.1 4.8 2.21967 3.8 2.2 1.3 .9 3.2 3.1 4.4 2.5 5.0 (2) (2) 7.6 4.5 4.1 4.6 2.3 .1968 3.6 2.0 1.2 1.0 2.8 3.0 4.1 2.4 4. 5 (2) (2) 7. 2 4.4 3.9 4.6 2.11969 3.5 2.1 1.3 .9 2.9 3.0 3.9 2.2 4.4 (2) (2) 6. 7 4.2 3.6 4.3 1.91970 4.9 2.8 2.0 1.3 3.9 4.0 6.2 3.8 7.1 (2) (2) 9.5 5.3 4.2 5.5 2.61971 5.9 3.5 2.9 1.6 4.3 4.8 7.4 4.7 8.3 (2) (2) 10.8 6.3 4.5 6.6 2.61972 5.6 3.4 2.4 1.8 4.3 4.7 6.5 4.3 0.9 7.6 4.7 10.3 6.3 4.0 6.6 2.6 .1973 4.9 2.9 2.2 1.4 3.7 4.2 5.3 3.7 5.7 6.1 4.1 8.4 5.7 4.4 5.9 2.5-1974 5.6 3.3 2.3 1.8 4.2 4.6 6.7 4.4 7.5 8.2 5.1 10.1 6.3 4.4 6.5 2.5-1975 8.5 4.7 3.2 3.0 5.8 6.6 11.7 8.3 13.2 14.7 8.5 15.6 8.6 5.4 8.9 3.5-1976 7.7 4.6 3.2 3.1 5.4 6.4 9.4 6.9 10.1 10.8 7.7 13.7 8.7 5.7 9.1 4.5-1977 7.0 4.3 3.0 2.8 5.3 5.9 8.1 5.6 8.8 9.5 6.6 12.0 8.2 5.0 8.5 4.61978 6.0 3.5 2.6 2.1 4.1 4.9 6.9 4.6 7.4 8.1 5.2 10.7 7.4 5.1 7.6 3.8

Percent distribution5

1959- 100.0 19. 3.3 2. 4 4.5 9.5 52.6 12. 7 26. 0 (2) (() 14.0 13. 4 2.9 10.5 3. 8 10.41960----- 100.0 20.2 3.4 2.5 4.3 10. 0 52.8 12. 3 27. 1 (2) (2) 13. 3 12. 9 2.9 10. 0 3. 7 10. 31961----- 100.0 21. 0 3.4 2. 8 4. 6 10. 1 51. 1 12. 4 26. 5 (2 (2) 12. 3 13. 6 3.0 10. 6 3. 1 11.1962 - 100.0 21.7 3.6 2.8 4.7 10.6 49.2 11.8 24.9 (2) (2) 12. 4 14. 2 3.0 11.2 2.7 12.11963 ---- 100.0 21. 7 3. 8 2.7 4.6 10.6 47. 7 11. 2 24. 7 (2) (2) 11.9 13.9 3. 0 10. 9 3.3 13. 41964 100.0 21.6 3.9 2.7 4.1 10.8 45.8 10. 3 23.9 (2) II .1 14.9 3.1 11.8 3.6 14.71965 - 100.0 22. 3 4.0 2.5 4.8 1.1 43.4 10. 2 22.9 (2 ) 10. 3 14.9 2.9 12.0 3.3 16.11966----- 100.0 23.6 4.3 2.6 4.6 12. 1 41. 5 9.7 21. 9 (2) () 9.9 15. 5 2.9 12. 7 2.8 16. 61967 ---- 100.0 25.3 4.5 2.3 5. 1 13. 4 42.6 8.4 24.5 (2) (2) 9.7 14. 8 2. 5 12. 3 2.9 14. 51968----- 100. 0 25. 7 4.5 2. 7 4.7 13.9 41. 7 8. 7 23. 2 (2) (2) 9.8 15. 5 2. 5 13. 0 2.6 14. 51969----- 100.0 27. 6 5. 1 2. 7 4.9 14.8 40.8 8. 0 23. 4 (2) (2) 9.4 14. 8 2.2 12. 7 2. 2 14. 61970----- 100.0 27. 2 5. 6 2. 7 4.8 14. 2 45. 1 9.7 25. 8 (2) (2) 9.6 13.2 1. 7 11. 5 2. 0 12. 41971----- 100.0 27. 8 6. 7 2.9 4.5 13. 7 43.6 10.2 23.7 (2) (2 ) 9.8 14. 4 1. 4 13.0 1. 6 12. 61972----- 100.0 28. 3 5. 8 3.0 4.9 14. 5 40.8 10.0 20. 8 17. 6 3.3 10.0 15. 2 1. 2 14. 0 1. 7 14. 01973----- 100.0 28.3 6.0 2.9 4.8 14.6 30. 2 10. 1 19.9 16. 7 3.3 9.2 15. 7 1. 4 14.2 1. 8 15. 01974 - 100.0 28.0 5.6 3.3 4.7 14.3 42.1 10.3 22. 1 18. 7 3.5 9.7 15.1 1. 1 13.9 1.6 13.31975 - 100.0 26.8 5.4 3.5 4.3 13.6 47.4 12.7 25.0 21.2 3.8 9.8 13.9 .9 13.1 1.4 10.41976----- 100.0 29.0 6.0 4.1 4.3 14.6 41.3 11.4 20.5 16.7 3.7 9.4 15.8 .9 14.9 1.8 12.41977----- 100.0 29.5 6.2 4.0 4.6 14.6 38.7 10. 8 19.4 15.9 3.6 9.0 10.1 .9 15.2 1.9 13.71978----- 100.0 28.4 6.3 3.5 4.2 14.3 38.4 10.0 19.1 15.9 3.2 9.4 17.0 1.0 16.0 1.8 14.4

Unemployed persons who never held a full-time civilian job. survey in December 1971. However, the new classification system dee affect the comp arability of the2 Nat available. percent distribution of onemployment. For further explanation, one the note on hiotoric comparobilityNote: Unemployment rates by occupation group are not considered significantly affected by the of labor force statistics at the beginning of the statistical appendix.

changes ii the occupational classification system for the 1970 Census of Population that wore intro- Source: Employment and Training Report of the President, 1979.duce into the Current Population Survey in January 1 971, and the question that was added to the

TABLE 51.-CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND OCCUPATION-PERSONS 14 YRS. OLD AND OVER BY TOTAL MONEY INCOME IN 1976, BY SEX

[Numbers in thousands; persons 14 yrs. old and over as of March 19771

In labor force

Employed


Professional, technical, Managers and administrators,and kindred workers except farm Clerical

andTotal money income ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Self- Self- Sales kindredTotal money income Total ' Total Total Total Total Salaried employed 2 Total Salaried employed' workers workers

BOTH SEXES

Total- - ------- 164, 935 97,129 89, 385 44, 677 13, 650 12, 585 1, 065 9, 502 7, 966 1, 596 5, 781 15, 083Without income - 16, 989 3, 269 2,1 07 854 109 109 74-------- 74 74 ------ i-- 173 49With income -1------------ 35, 946 93, 860 87, 278 44, 023 13, 540 12, 475 1, 065 9, 488 7, 893 1, 596 5, 608 15, 3687

$1 to $999 or less -15, 400 7,110 5,912 2,301 469 369 101 293 83 210 671 860$1,000 to $1,499----------- 6, 413 2, 778 2, 330 932 177 166 11 73 51 23 193 486$1,500 to $1,999 --- ---- --- 6, 205 2, 473 2,119 866 183 160 22 72 46 26 171 4412,000 to $2,499- 7,159 2,936 2, 534 959 211 192 19 110 74 36 185 453$2,500 to $2,999 -5,401 2, 346 2, 023 859 174 150 24 78 01 17 179 420$3OOto $3499----------- 5, 936 2, 854 2, 509 1, 090 236 210 26 103 99 45 198 532$3,500 to $3,999 ----------------- 4, 622 2, 264 1, 972 864 206 185 21 86 59 27 169 403$4,00 to $4999----------- 8, 651 5, 278 4, 696 1, 902 406 377 29 185 120 65 357 954$5,000 to $5,999---- ------- 8,174 5, 886 5, 366 2, 381 497 477 20 268 218 69 293 1, 303$6,000 to 6,999 -7, 395 5, 697 5, 293 2, 569 457 436 21 314. 254 59 287 1, 511$7,000 to $7,999 -6, 692 5, 413 5, 087 2, 486 474 462 12 365 282 83 267 1, 380$8,000 to S8,999 -6, 231 5, 242 4, 944 2, 584 598 563 35 422 344 78 233 1, 331$9,000 to $9,999 -5, 269 4, 524 4, 327 2, 245 687 651 36 353 287 66 186 1, 019$10, o $11,999 - l9, 577 8, 489 8, 160 4,244 1,474 1,427 47 686 733 131 380 1 506$200to $14,999 ----- ---- 11,074 10, 230 9, 958 5, 120 2, 036 1, 951 85 1, 260 1, 066 194 477 1, 340$500to $19,999 --------- 1,592 10, 873 10, 654 5, 691 2, 342 2, 249 92 1741 1, 565 176 572 1,036$2000to $24,999---------- 4,921 4, 622 4, 556 2,893 1,192 1, 106 86 1, 130 1, 023 1105 341 230$25,000 and over -5,236 4,648 4,810 4,033 1 722 1,344 378 1,729 1, 354 185 444 140Median income (dollars) 6,002 8,362 6,762 9, 988 12, 622 12, 504 16, 068 14, 560 15, 427 9,904 7,364 7,214Standard error (dollars) 29 36 37 55 92 89 967 171 130 355 174 56Mean income (dollars)-------- 8,242 10,131 10, 509 12, 317 14, 952 14, 238 23, 322 17, 088 17, 987 12, 643 10,334 7,777Standard error (dollars) - - 30 39 41 69 139 128 884 176 107 466 200 33

Year-round full-time workers:Percent of civilian income recipients. 41.7 59.0 62.5Median income (dollars) -11, 723 11, 781 11, 846

Standard error (dollars) 49 50 50Mean income (dollars) -13, 531 13, 581 13, 642

Standard error (dollars) 52 53 53

MALETotal -786, 782 597,120 52, 788

Without income -6, 006 1, 016 536With income -------- ------ 72, 775 56, 104 52, 252

68.0 70.7 71.9 57.6 84.1 85.4 77.6 53.7 60.812, 707 14, 951 14, 667. 24, 889 15, 898 16, 598 11, 042 12, 616 9, 106

61 120 127 1, 129 135 153 430 231 6615, 407 17, 900 16, 983 31, 309 18, 661 19, 530 13, 925 15, 264 10,129

85 164 147 1.207 190 199 543 291 67

22, 011 7, 783 8, 993

92 16 1621, 919 7, 767 6, 977 789

789 7, 483 8,187 1,295

9 8-7,475 6,179 1,295

$1 to $999 or lesa ---------- 5, 346 2, 822 2, 245 658 108 73 35 152 33 119$1,000 to $1,499----------- 1, 758 1, 020 827 197 39 36 4 34 21 13$1,500 to $1,999----------- 1, 898 1, 022 848 216 74 68 6 31 18 13

$2,000 to $2,499----------- 2, 386 1, 155 964 206 67 62 5 45 31 13$2,500 to $2,999----------- 1, 820 914 756 197 45 38 7 40 26 13$3,000 tn $3,499----------- 2,136 1, 004 648 230 77 67 10 46 18 28

$3500 to $3,999 ----------- 1, 867 656 714 208 72 61 11 43 27 16$,000 to $4,999----------- 3,761 2, 080 1, 765 426 141 133 7 91 50 41

$5,000 to $5,999----------- 3, 726 2, 494 2, 204 579 184 175 10 152 93 59$6,600 to $6,999----------- 3, 551 2, 508 2, 251 598 169 158 11 177 127 50$7,000 to $7,999----------- 3, 457 2, 690 2, 467 695 165 155 9 210 148 62$8,000 to $8,999----------- 3, 345 2, 727 2,524 777 216 193 23 244 178 63$9,000 to $9,999----------- 3, 137 2, 618 2, 460 801 243 217 26 235 172 63$10,000 to $11,999---------- 6,432 5, 703 5, 435 1, 991 610 573 36 658 536 122$12,000 to $14,999 --------- 8,539 7, 928 7, 690 3, 148 1,155 1090 65 1,014 836 178$15,000 to $19,999---------- 10, 094 9, 585 9, 378 4, 522 1, 726 1,: 643 83 1, 559 1, 399 159$20,000 to 924,999---------- 4,578 4, 334 4,271 2, 627 1,050 975 75 1,065 969 97$25,000 and over ---------- 4,944 4, 643 4,605 3, 846 1, 625 1, 259 366 1, 680 1, 498 182

Median income (dollars) -9, 426 11, 374 11, 920Standard error (dollars) 53 56 62

Mean income (dollars) -11, 165 12, 820 13, 300Standard error (dollars) 48 57 60

15, 026 18, 125 15, 850 22, 852 16,417 17, 313 11,41482 131 123 1,217 150 175 397

17, 258 19, 072 17,957 28,933 19,237 20,245 14,432118 212 197 1,049 207 220 541

3, 38533 36

3, 353

293524134404561

104101113164161141316397515331433

12, 00124114, 190

298

3, 361

363, 325

10572706065613289141

138156155181408582 §722180108

11, 589199

11,661154

Year-round fall-time workers:Percent of civilian income recipients. 51. 2 67. 3 71. 2 79. 9 80. 2 81. 1 71. 9 87. 9 58. 9 83. 2 68. 3 73. 1Median income (dollars)- 13, 659 13, 882 13, 945 16, 366 17, 431 17, 073 26, 192 17, 351 10, 271 12, 091 15, 198 13, 323

Standard error (dollars) --5,--- 8 59 60 54 159 149 1,239 172 198 368 221 167Mean income (dollars)-------- 15, 701 15, 728 15, 799 19, 323 2 , 011 19, 839 32, 688 20, 319 24, 347 15, 084 17, 590 13, 943

Standard error (dollars)…----- 70 70 71 128 229 209 1, 254 217 228 599 356 164

==-

TABLE 51.-CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND OCCUPATION-PERSONS 14 YRS. OLD AND OVER BY TOTAL MONEY INCOME IN 1976, BY SEX-Continued

[Numbers in thousands; persons 14 yrs. old and over as of March 19771

In labor force

Employed

Blue-collar workers Service workers Farm workers

Operatives, including transport

Trans- ServiceOpera- port workers, Farmers Farm

tives, equip- Private except and laborersCraft and except ment Laborers, house- private farm and Not in

kindred trans- opera- except hold house- man- super- Unem- laborTotal money income Total workers Total port tives farm Total workers hold Total agers visors ployed force

BOTH SEXESTotal -28, 945 11, 287 13, 603 10,194 3, 047 4, 063 13, 034 1, 516 11, 518 2, 529 1, 372 1,157 7, 745 66, 852

Without income -414 61 211 184 27 141 670 194 476 169 7 163 1,162 25, 718With income -28, 531 11,217 13, 392 10, 012 3,380 3,922 12, 364 1,322 11,042 2,359 1,366 994 6,582 41, 133

$1 to $999 or less -1,106 194 473 368 84 439 2, 065 654 1, 411 441 248 194 1,198 8, 265 5$1,000 to $1,499 -540 103 280 217 63 157 758 88 669 100 25 75 448 3, 629$1,500 t9 $1,999 -541 109 264 196 68 169 609 105 504 103 40 63 354 3, 733$,000 to $2499------------- 665 152 333 253 80 180 813 92 721 96 53 43 402 4, 218

$2,500 to $2,999- 517 102 264 214 50 151 562 100 462 85 40 45 323 3, 050$3,000 to $3,999 -647 149 378 317 61 121 695 68 627 76 37 39 344 3, 081$3,500 to $3 999 -524 120 324 259 65 80 499 53 446 85 39 46 292 2, 354$4,000 to $4,999 -1, 521 345 930 758 172 245 1, 103 83 1, 019 171 86 84 582 3, 317$5,000 to $5,999 -1, 827 447 1, 129 923 206 251 1, 003 31 972 186 95 91 490 2, 186$6,000 to $6,999 -1, 780 499 1, 036 886 150 244 783 11 771 162 76 86 403 1, 5817,000 to $7,999 -1, 863 538 1, 014 817 197 311 629 8 621 109 56 53 326 1, 163

$9,000 to $8,999 1, 761 574 977 742 236 211 490 14 476 108 52 57 298 903$9,000 to $9 999- - 1, 581 623 758 580 179 200 422 6 416 79 45 34 197 688S10,000 to 11,999 -3, 129 1, 361 1, 415 1,016 399 353 648 5 642 137 97 40 328 972$12,000 to $14,999 - 4,154 2,006 1, 716 1,166 550 432 566 - -566 115 91 24 274 782$15,000 to $19,999- 4 362 2,481 1,566 1,028 538 315 479 - -479 122 115 7 219 613$20,000 to $24,999 -1,459 1,003 393 178 214 43 164 2 162 61 55 5 65 246$25,000 and over -575 413 145 74 69 19 77 -77 123 115 8 38 332

Median income (dollars) -9,616 12, 334 8,278 7,728 10,335 6,686 4,165 1,039 4,668 5,123 6,261 3,915 3,880 2,615Standard error (dollars) -66 78 73 74 157 159 62 95 64 163 298 218 86 21

Mean income (dollars) -10, 201 12, 567 9,089 8,499 10,835 7,233 5,377 1,752 5,811 7,398 9,391 4,660 5,123 3,866Standard error (dollars) -67 76 63 65 151 111 57 70 62 267 429 182 77 30

Year-round full-time workers:Percent of civilian income recipients 63.6 72.2 61.5 60.6 64. 1 46.3 39.6 10.5 43. 1 66.2 79.1 48.5 12.6 2.3Median income (dollars) - 11,939 13, 689 10,356 9, 722 12, 302 10,072 7,932 3,112 8,064 6, 505 6,956 6,034 8,299 8,632

Standard error (dollars) -78 106 86 112 144 164 96 271 112 198 390 241 210 300Mean income (dollars) -12, 369 14, 151 11, 050 10, 393 12, 889 10, 404 9, 083 3, 454 9, 247 8, 938 10, 028 6, 494 9, 577 10, 563

Standard error (dollars) -55 83 77 79 183 131 98 255 99 365 506 290 254 348

MALETotal -23, 737 10, 600 9, 384 6, 222 3,161 3, 673 4, 869 68 4, 802 2,170 1, 288 882 4, 333 20, 708

Without income--------------- 245 35 93 74 18 118 138 20 118 60 1 59 480 4,989With income-- 23, 491 10, 646 9,291 6,148 3,143 3,555 4,732 48 4,684 2,110 1,287 823 3,852 5, 719

$1 to $999 or less -788 153 245 176 69 391 475 30 444 324 201 123 577 2,519$1,000 to $1,499 379 83 152 109 43 143 167 1 166 84 24 60 193 732$1,500 to $1,999 -- 390 95 141 97 44 154 155 2 153 86 37 51 174 876$2,000 to $2,499- - .. 478 136 179 119 60 163 196 - - 196 85 50 35 190 1,2262,500 to 32,999 -- - - 352 81 139 101 38 132 137 137 70 36 34 157 902$,000 to $3499 ------- ----- 402 126 187 139 48 89 154 - - 152 61 33 28 157 1,1303,500 to $3,999------------- 332 101 162 108 55 69 94 ------ 94 79 39 40 142 1,008$,000 to $4,999- ~----------- 883 302 367 239 128 214 296 - - 291 160 85 76 315 1,625

$5,000 to $5,999 1,112 386 516 337 179 210 338 3 335 175 94 82 291 1, 130$6,000 to $6,999 -1,195 445 532 391 140 216 307 307 154 72 82 257 926$7,000 to $7,999 -1,374 480 613 426 187 281 299 2 297 99 54 45 223 651$6,000 to $8-999 1,392 537 669 444 225 187 252 4 249 103 50 53 203 531$9000to -9-999 - 1 315 575 555 378 177 185 271 - -271 73 42 31 158 461 W$l,000 to $11,999 - 2,851 1,310 1,206 815 391 335 457 1 456 137 97 40 268 612 rz$12,000 to -14,999- . 3,960 1,962 1,581 1,035 547 417 468 - -468 115 91 24 238 549$1500to $1,9------------ 4,296 2,462 1,525 991 534 308 440 ----- 440 121 114 7 207 403$20000 to $2,9------------ 1,428 1,000 386 176 210 42 155--- ----- S1 61 55 5 63 190$25,000 an over- -- 567 413 135 66 69 19 71----71 122 114 8 38 24S

Median income (dollars) -10,846 12, 618 10, 256 10, 081 10, 810 6, 984 7,157 (3) 7,219 5,594 6,638 4,532 5,069 3,735Standard error (dollars) -65 82 84 108 173 153 143 3) 143 162 309 234 130 39

Mean income (dollars) -11, 129 12, 882 10, 533 10,139 11,306 7,438 8,117 3) 8,178 7,987 9,831 5,102 6,302 5,265Standard error (dollars) -53 78 79 87 156 119 115 3 115 292 450 206 115 59

Year-round full-time workers:Percent of civilian income recipients 66.1 72.9 65.7 64.7 67.8 47.0 56.0 (3) 56.5 70.6 82.4 52.1 14.4 2.8Median income (dollars) -12,716 13.962 12,036 11,807 12,361 10,310 10,547 ( 10, 560 6,682 7,052 6,310 9,689 11,478

Standard error (dollars) -60 112 90 146 146 174 148 (J) 149 200 423 220 348 576Mean income (dollars) -13,194 14,404 12,369 12,042 12,980 10, 591 11,477 (3) 11,485 9,214 10,157 6,857 10,985 13,440

Standard error (dollars) -59 84 91 97 185 138 144 (3 144 379 514 305 343 597

TABLE 51.-CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND OCCUPATION-PERSONS 14 YRS. OLD AND OVER BY TOTAL MONEY INCOME IN 1976, BY SEX-Continued

[Numbers in thousands; person 14 yrs. old ad over as of March 19771

In labor force

Employed


Professional, technical, and kindred Managers and administrators,workers except farm

Self- Self- Sales kindredTotal money income Total Total Total Total Total Salaried employed2

Total Salaried employed2 workers workersFEMALE

Total -86,153 40,009 36,597 22,866 5,867 5,591 276 2,079 1,779 300 2,395 12, 524

Without income ---------- 22, 983 2, 253 1, 571 762 93 93 - -66 65 - -141 462With income ------- --- 63,170 37,756 35, 026 22,104 5,774 5,498 276 2,013 1,714 300 2,255 12,062

$1 to $99 9 or less-10,054 4,287 3,667 1,642 362 296 66 140 50 91 378 762$1,000 to $1,499 ---------- 4,654 1,758 1,503 735 138 131 7 40 30 10 143 414 _$1,509 to $1,999----------- 4,307 1,451 1,271 651 109 92 16 41 28 13 130 371$2,000 to $2499----------- 4,773 1, 781 1,569 754 144 130 14 66 43 22 152 393$2,500 to $2,999 -3, 581 1,333 1,266 662 129 112 17 39 35 4 131 363$3,000 to $3,499 -3, 800 1,849 1,662 860 159 143 16 57 41 16 153 491$3500 to $3,999 -- -- - 2, 755 1,408 1,258 656 134 124 10 44 33 11 108 371$4,000 to $4,999- 4,890 3,198 2,931 1,476 265 243 22 93 70 23 252 865$5,000 to $5,999----------- 4,448 3,391 3,192 1,602 312 302 10 136 126 10 192 1162$6,000 to $6,999- ~~~~~3,84 3,188 3,042 1,971 288 278 10 137 128 9 173 1,7$7,000 to $7,999 -3,-244354 2,723 2,620 1,791 309 307 2 155 134 22 103 1,224$8,000 to $8,999 2, 886 2,515 2,420 1,807 381 370 12 170 165 13 72 1,176$9,0 to 9,999---------------- 2, 132 1,906 1,867 1,444 443 434 9 110 115 4 45 836

10,000 to ,999------- - 3 146 2,785 2,725 2,255 864 853 11 220 219 9 64 1,098$12,000 to $14,999- 2,534 2,302 2,266 1,972 861 861 20 246 230 16 79 766$15,000 to $9,999- 1 498 1, 288 1, 275 1,169 616 606 10 182 166 17 56 313$20,000 to $24,999- 343 287 285 266 142 131 11 64 56 6 10 50$25,000---and--over-292 205 205 190 97 8S 12 50 47 3 11 32

Median income (dollars) -3,576 5,505 5,747 6,420 9,353 9,510 3,571 8,336 8,851 3,316 3,684 6,611Standard error (dollars) 28 35 36 47 106 106 431 156 156 394 136 50Mean income (dollars) -4,875 6,136 6,345 7,417 9,410 9,518 7,260 9,111 9,845 4,923 4,602 6,707Standard error (dollars) 24 32 33 46 104 101 845 198 204 551 113 49Year-round full-time workers:

Percent of civilian income recipients 26.7 46.7 49.5 56.1 58.1 60.2 16.5 69.8 72.8 53.1 32.0 57.4Median income (dollars) -8,312 8,340 8,378 9,144 11,365 11,373 (3) 10,069 10,446 4,201 6,701 8,369

Standard error (dollars) 41 42 42 56 113 113 (3) 198 190 492 158 50Mean income (dollars) -8,956 8,984 9,019 9,880 12,123 12, 096 (3) 10,913 11, 531 6,081 7,895 8,791Standard error (dollars) 45 45 46 57 121 116 (3) 229 227 826 223 57

In labor force

Employed

Blue-collar workers Service workers Farm workers

Operatives, including transportService

Trans- workers, Farmers FarmCraft Opera- port Labor- Private except and laborers

and oives, equip- ers, house- private farn, and Not inkindred except ment except hold house- man- super- Unem- labor

Total money income Total workers Total transport operatives farm Total workers hold Total agers visors ployed force

FEMALETotal -5, 208 598 4, 220 3, 974 246 390 8,164 1, 448 6, 716 358 84 274 3, 412 46,144

Without income -168 26 119 110 8 23 532 174 358 109 6 103 682 20, 729With income -5,040 571 4,101 3,864 237 367 7,632 1,274 6,358 250 78 171 2,730 25, 415

Si to $999 or less- 317 41 228 212 15 49 1, 590 624 966 117 47 70 620 5, 767$1,000 to $1,499 -161 19 128 108 20 13 591 88 503 16 16 255 2, 896$1,500 to $1.999 -152 14 123 99 24 15 454 104 350 15 3 12 180 2, 856$2,000 to $2,499 -186 17 153 134 20 17 617 92 525 11 3 8 211 2, 992$2 500 to $2,999 -165 21 125 112 12 20 425 100 325 15 4 11 166 2, 148$3,000 to $3,499 -245 23 191 178 13 31 541 66 475 15 4 11 187 1 951$3,500 to $3,999 -192 19 161 151 10 12 404 53 351 6 6 150 1,346$4,000 to $4,999 -638 43 563 519 44 31 807 79 728 10 2 9 267 1, 691$5,000 to $5,999 -715 61 613 586 27 41 665 28 637 11 2 9 199 1,056$6,000 to $6,999 -587 55 505 494 10 28 476 11 465 8 4 4 146 655$7 000 to $7,999 ---------------- - 489 58 401 392 9 30 330 6 324 10 2 8 103 512$8,000 to $8,999 -369 37 308 297 11 24 238 10 228 6 2 4 95 372$9,000 to $9,999----------------------- 266 47 203 202 2 15 151 6 145 6 3 3 38 227$10,000 to $11,999 - 279 51 209 201 8 18 191 5 187 - - - -60 360$12,000 to $14,999 -194 44 135 132 3 16 99 -99 1 1- 36 232$15,000 to $19,999 -66 19 40 37 4 7 39 39 1 1- 12 210$20,000 to $24,999 - 10 3 6 2 5 1 9 2 7- 2 56$25,000 and over -8 8 8- 6 6 2 1 1 87

Median income (dollars) -5,648 6,522 5,616 5,713 4,090 4,853 3,129 1,076 3,549 1,226 833 1,485 2,795 2,199Standard error (dollars) -62 271 65 66 291 351 50 108 67 276 116 298 97 16

Mean income (dollars) -5,875 6,702 5,816 5,891 4,604 5,249 3,678 1,736 4,067 2,420 2,182 2,530 3,461 3,002Standard error (dollars) -64 214 70 71 314 249 45 69 50 284 619 301 73 30

Year-round full-time workers:Percent of civilian income recipients 51.9 59.8 52.0 54.1 16.3 39.4 29.5 10.5 33.3 29.0 24.7 31.0 10.2 1.9Median income (dollars) -7,043 8,026 6,864 4,865 (3) 7,728 5,945 3, 005 6,111 (3) (3) (3) 6,404 7,071

Standard error (dollars) -86 345 82 81 (5) 331 84 256 100 (3) (3) (3) 202 318Mean income (dollars) 7,471 8,400 7,270 7,258 (3) 8,246 6,262 3,284 6,450 (3) (3) (3) 6,758 7,935

Standard error (dollars) -82 244 86 88 (3) 352 84 247 86 (3) (5) (3) 212 316

' Includes members of the armed forces, not shown separately. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Money Income in 1976 of2 Includes a very small number of unpaid family workers. Families and Persons in the U.S.," No. 114, July 1978.3 Not available.

384

Ms. NORWOOD. Now we would all be glad to answer any questionsyou may have.

Senator BENTSEN. Thank you very much, Commissioner, for thecontinuing bad news on the consumer front, and the continuing stablenews on the employment side.

Would you agree that far and away the No. 1 problem this countryhas is inflation?

Ms. NORWOOD. Absolutely.Senator BENTSEN. Do you see anything in the background of the

inflation factor that shows any sign of improvement?Ms. NORWOOD. I think that there has been a slowing in the rates of

increase in some of the energy items, and, as I indicated, capitalequipment prices this past month certainly seemed to be going up at aslower rate, so there are some encouraging signs. But that is just 1month of data.

Senator BENTSEN. What do you think the increases OPEC countrieshave foisted on us-have they now fed through the system and are weseeing them at the retail level; for example, the last series of increases?

MS. NORWOOD. Many of them have. I guess most of them havereached the retail level.

Senator BENTSEN. The only trouble with that, OPEC is about tohave another meeting to decide whether to increase prices again.

We had a question arise in the Senate Finance Committee yester-day when we were trying to decide on whether we continued to use theunemployment rate figure of 4% percent as a national trigger, orwhether we went to what unemployment in individual States wasdoing, but we were talking about the insured unemployed. What is thedifferential, roughly? Can you give it to me, between that percentageof insured unemployment and the total percentage of unemployed inthe country?* Ms. NORWOOD. The insured unemployed rate is 2.9 percent, and as

we indicated, the overall rate is 5.8. So there is almost 3 pointsdifference; that's primarily, of course, because the insured unemployedonly cover those people who are eligible for unemployment benefits,and all of the reentrants and new entrants are not covered, and thecoverage varies from one State to another.

Senator BENTSEN. You say 2.9 as opposed to the 5.8?Ms. NORWOOD. Yes.Senator BENTSEN. Then you're talking about more than half. That's

half?Ms. NORWOOD. That was for the week of the 17th, but in general,

over this year, the insured unemployment rate has varied from about2.8 to 3.3.

Senator BENTSEN. Now, to get to Professor Guttman's methodology,he was talking about the underground barterage system, undergroundtrade, underground employment; he was saying that the numbersthat are published exaggerate the unemployment rate. A lot of peopleare really employed but they're not reporting it, and they're beingpaid under the table or otherwise.

I asked you in a series of questions to comment on that. Do youthink that his figures are statistically sound or not?

Ms. NORWOOD. No, sir, I do not. I believe they're based on arbitraryand unrealistic assumptions.

Senator BENTSEN. Well, that's saying it pretty plain. [Laughter.]Ms. NORWOOD. I'd be glad to expound on that if you would like.

3S5

Senator BENTSEN. Why don't you give us a little background onwhy you think that?

Ms. NORWOOD. He used basically two components. First, he talkedabout permanent workers versus temporary workers.

The permanent workers in the subterranean economy, he measuredby assuming that between 1961 and 1977 there was-and thereactually was-a 2-percent drop in labor force participation of workers,35 to 44 years-male workers 35 to 44 years old. He just made anassumption that that drop, those 2 percent could be applied to theentire labor force, not just to males; and be assumed that they had allmoved to the subterranean economy. I find no reason to expect thatthat happened.

The estimates for temporary workers are even more precariousbecause what he did there was to take the seasonal adjustment move-ment every month, regardless of sign, whether they went up or down,and used those as an estimate.

Now, as you know, the purpose of seasonal adjustments is to takeaccount of special things that happen each month, like bad weather,or school closings or openings, and so on. Over the year they averageout. And yet he used that as an estimate of the temporary workers.

I don't understand how one can find any relationship there.Senator BENTSEN. Well, he was talking about a substantial number

of people who list themselves as unemployed, who are actually em-ployed. Do you have any check through other agencies? Does BLScheck to verify or disprove that kind of allegation?

Ms. NORWOOD. No. What I would like to be sure to emphasize isthat I think his estimates are rather arbitrary, and I believe they'reunrealistic. That is not to say that I have any evidence to prove thatthe data that we are producing include all of these people.

However, I think it is important to recognize that the householdsurvey does not ask people specifically whether they are unemployed;it asks a series of questions, and we may well pick up many of thepeople who are "off the book." In fact, I've been told that we pickup a number of people who list their occupations as being prostitutes,in the household survey.

Senator BENTSEN. You (do what? [Laughter.]Ms. NORWOOD. We pick up a lot of people in the household survey

who list their occupations as being prostitutes. That's the sort ofoccupation one would expect would not be reported.

I cannot say to you, however, that the household survey picksup everyone, because I have no way of assessing that.

Senator BENTSEN. Let's talk about what I saw in the paper theother day-today or yesterday, about the sect down in Guyana, JimJones' group. I read a report that very substantial number of thosepeople were receiving welfare checks.

Now, how would they be carried on welfare roles? Would they belisted as unemployed, I assume, while they were living down inGuyana, participating in that particular sect?

Ms. NORWOOD. I'm pleased to be able to answer that questionby saying that that's an issue, really, for the people who administerthe welfare system. We don't cover people outside the United Statesin our survey; we would have no way of picking them up.

Senator BENTSEN. There ought to be a way. Well, how aboutProfessor Guttman's statement that productivity is greater than theofficial statistics indicate; would you agree with that or not?

386

Ms. NORWOOD. I think that that's a more difficult question toanswer. Professor Guttman alleges, of course, that there is a largesubterranean economy, and to the extent that that allegation couldbe true, the productivity figures could be either higher or lower.And that would depend on several things.It would depend, first of all, on whether the people who were notcounted, the unreported people, were excluded both from the outputside and the input side, or whether one part was in-that is, say,the receipts-but not the workers, or vice versa, or whether theywere both excluded from the total.The other issue is that it would depend on whether they were moreefficient or less efficient than the average.And the third issue, which I think is quite important to recognize,is that our productivity measurements are basically measurements

of the rate of change and not the level, so that unless there were asubstantial change in the rate of growth of productivity of the off-book or subterranean workers, it would not affect the productivityindex.So it depends on a lot of issues. But I certainly would not say thatit could not affect them: It certainly could affect them. I just don'tknow how strongly.Senator BENTSEN. Commissioner, I'm deeply concerned aboutwhat's happening in the steel industry, because I see it in the processof liquidation in this country. And if that happens, the ripple effectcan be horrendous for us.Ms. NORWOOD. Yes.

Senator BENTSEN. The automobile industry is already in trouble.The defense industry obviously would have serious problems if we hadto depend on imported steel. Of course, my State has a very modernplant and doesn't share the problem to that extent. But I keep gettingthese numbers thrown at me about the Japanese worker and about theGerman worker. And on the one side, I'm told that the U.S. worker,on the question of productivity, still today is more productive, due tothe tools he uses and the equipment that he uses, than the Japaneseworker.The trend is very bad for us. They're catching up very quickly.But then I'm told that if you isolate the steel industry, that in thatkind of a situation, that you're finding that the Japanese worker ispaid less and that we have some real problems there; that the produc-tivity of the American workers is not as much as the Japanese worker.Do you have numbers that can tell us that? That's one of the argu-ments that's thrown to us on the Senate Finance Committee whenwe're talking about tariffs and we're talking about triggers on pricesand subsidies, that type of thing.Ms. NORWOOD. I think that there are several points that can bemade there. First of all, our data do show that the average annualrate of change in productivity shows that in general for all manu-facturing, the Japanese are doing better than we are.Senator BENTSEN. Yes.Ms. NORWOOD. Yes, double.Senator BENTSEN. More than that. The increase last year wasabout three-tenths of 1 percent and the Japanese about 8 percent.I've seen some variance in those numbers.Ms. NORWOOD. I would be glad to submit that for the record.

387

[The following information was subsequently supplied for therecord:]

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS OF PRODUCTIVITY AND LABOR COSTS IN THESTEEL INDUSTRY; UNITED STATES, JAPAN, FRANCE, GERMANY, UNITEDKINGDOM; 1964 AND 1972-78*

INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has been comparing trends and leveLs of pro-ductivity, as measured by output per hour worked, hourly labor costs, and unitlabor costs in the steel industry of the United States, Japan, France, Germany,and the United Kingdom since the late 1960's. The accompanying tables showthe comparisons for 1964, the first year for which such comparisons have beenmade, and for 1972 to 1978. The level comparisons for the four foreign countriesare presented in ranges, showing minimum and maximum estimates for each coun-try relative to the United States. These comparisons are subject to certain tech-nical as well as data limitations, discussed in the technical note following thetables, but the Bureau feels reasonably confident that the relative levels of pro-ductivity and labor costs for the foreign countries fall within the given ranges.

The productivity and unit labor cost comparisons are affected not only by therelative efficiency of the average steel plant in each country, but by differencesin the utilization of steel capacity. Therefore, in interpreting the data for anyspecific year, the level of steel activity should be taken into account.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY: OUTPUT PER HOUR, HOURLY LABOR COST, UNIT LABOR COST,ALL EMPLOYEES, 5 COUNTRIES, 1964 AND 1972-78

A. RELATIVE LEVELS (UNITED STATES=100)

Output per hour Hourly labor cost ' Unit labor cost I

Year Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

United States: Each year -100 100 100 100 100 100Japan:

1964 -46 53 16 16 30 351972 -85 101 33 34 32 401973 -94 112 41 42 37 451974 -95 113 44 46 39 481975 -103 123 44 46 36 441976 -108 128 44 45 34 421977 -104 123 49 51 40 491978 2_ _ ._. _ -104 124 58 60 47 58

France:1964 -48 52 34 35 66 721972 -62 69 44 44 64 711973--------------- 59 66 54 54 03 911974 -61 68 55 55 82 901975 -61 68 65 65 97 1071976--------------- 63 70 63 63 92 1011977 ---- 64 72 64 64 90 991978 - ------------------- 68 76 73 73 97 107

Germany:1964 -53 60 35 35 59 671972 -76 84 58 58 68 751973--------------- 73 80 71 71 88 971974--------------- 80 88 78 78 88 971975---------------- - 82 91 76 76 83 921976--------------- 82 91 72 72 79 871977 -81 89 78 78 88 971978 ' -87 95 86 86 90 99

United Kingdom:1964 -48 51 29 30 57 611972 51 54 33 34 62 671973 -------------- 48 51 33 34 66 711974 -- 43 46 35 36 75 811975--------------- 43 46 37 38 so 871976 ---- 48 51 33 34 65 701977 -43 46 33 34 72 771978 ' 42 44 38 39 87 94

' Data in national currency converted to U.S. dollars at the annual average exchange rate for the listed year.Data for 1978 are preliminary and tased on partial year data.

Prepared by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statlstics, Office ofProductivity and Technology, November 1979.

38

B. INDEXES (1964=100)

Unit labor costOutput Hourly Total

per labor National U.S. Total labor ExchangeYear hour cost currency dollars Output hours cost rate'

United States:1964 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.01972 . . 119.8 160.9 134.3 134.3 105.6 88.2 141.8 100.01973 . . 133.8 175.7 131.3 131.3 128.5 96.0 168.7 100.01974 . . 135. 7 202.3 149. 1 149. 1 129. 1 95. 2 192.6 100.01975 . . 116.9 239.3 204.7 204. 7 94.4 80.8 193.3 100.01976 . ..--------------- 123.4 257.3 208.6 208.6 103.1 83.6 215.0 100.01977 - -127. 3 277. 6 218. 1 218. 1 107.4 84.4 234.2 100.019782 - - 133.3 311.7 233.9 233.9 115. 8 86.9 270.8 100.0

Japan:1964 . . 100. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.01972 . . 222.4 277.1 124.6 148.9 254.4 114.4 317.1 119.41973 . . 276.4 341.2 123.4 164.9 314.1 113.6 387.7 133.61974 . . 281.9 454.8 161.3 200.3 310.3 110.1 500.6 124.11975 ------------ 265.3 548.9 206.9 252.5 271.0 101.8 558.8 122.01976 . ..--------- 291.5 584.5 200.5 244.8 296.8 101.8 595.2 122.11977 289. 3 638.2 220. 6 298. 2 289.8 100.2 639. 4 135.11978 3 - 304. 4 666. 1 218.9 378. 2 290.2 95. 3 635.1 172.8

France:1964 -- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.01972 159.2 231.6 145.5 141. 4 130.0 81.7 189. 1 97.21973 .. 169.1 272.3 161. 1 177.9 137.7 81.4 221.8 110.41974 ---------- 175.9 346. 2 196. 8 200. 7 149.3 84.9 293.8 102.01975 ---------- 151. 5 432. 3 285. 4 326.6 118. 4 78.2 337.9 114.51976 - -- - -- 164. 9 503. 8 30. 58 313.6 128.7 78.0 393. 1 102. 61977 . . 174.6 562.9 322.3 321.4 124.8 71.5 402.3 99.719782 --------...... 193.6 674.7 348.5 373.1 129.8 67.0 452.3 107.1

Germany1904 . .--- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.01972 -- - - - 170.2 210. 8 123.9 154. 4 143. 2 84.1 177.3 124.71973 ---------- 181.2 235.4 129.9 195.0 163.6 90.3 212.5 150.11974 ---------- - 202.0 290.0 143.6 221. 0 172.3 85. 3 247.4 153.91975 2 179.2 317.6 177.2 286.9 134. 5 75.0 238. 4 161.91976 189.2 333.1 176.1 278.1 141.5 74.8 249.1 158.01977 191.4 359.8 187. 9 321. 8 135.1 70.6 253.8 171.219782 --------- - ------- 214. 5 382.3 178.2 353.0 147.4 68.7 262.7 198. 1

United Kingdom:1964 ---------- - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. 01972 K ------- 126. 4 206.8 163.6 146. 5 94. 4 74.7 154.5 89. 61973 ---------- 134. 1 232.7 173. 5 152. 3 105. 1 78. 4 182.4 87. 81974 . ..--------- 123. 1 290.0 235. 6 197. 5 93. 6 76.0 220. 5 83. 81975 105.8 384.5 363. 6 289.3 78.6 74.3 285.7 79.61976----------- - -- - 123.4 455.9 369.4 238. 8 86.8 70.4 320.8 64. 61977 114.9 504.4 439.1 274.4 81.2 70.7 356.7 62.519780- - - 116.3 601.5 517.2 356.4 78.9 67.9 408.1 68. 9

' Value of foreign currency relative to the U.S. dollar.2 Data for 1978 are preliminary and based on partial year data.

389

C. ABSOLUTE LEVELS

Japan FranceUnited

Year States Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Germany United Kingdom

Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Output (in shorttons per 1,000

1964 76. 25 35. 341972 - 91.32 77. 28

Total hours pershort ton: '

1964- - 1t3. 12 24. 671972 -10.95 10. 88

Hourly labor cost(in U.S. dol-lars): 2

1964 -4.63 0. 741972 -7.44 2. 43

Unit labor cost(in U.S. dol-larn,5 per shortton): '

1964 ----- 60.69 18. 371972 - 81.51 26. 45

Output (inthousands ofshort tons): l

1964--- - 86, 252. 4 33, 010. 81972 - 91, 061. 3 83, 994. 3

Hours worked (inthousands):

1964 - 1,131,224 872,4691972 - 997, 127 973, 880

Employment:1964 - 562,127 368, 1611972 - 507,826 451,713

Average annualhours worked:

1964 - 2, 012. 4 2, 369. 81972-..------ 1, 963.5 2,156. 0

Total labor cost(in thousandsof U.S. dol-lars): 2

1964 - 5, 234, 687 649, 7321972 --- - 7, 422, 786 2, 361, 791

40. 54 36. 39 39.6091.91 56.77 63.33

28.30 25.26 27.4812.94 15.79 17.61

0.75 1.57 1.602.50 3.31 3.31

45.94 36. 59 38.7776.88 46. 16 49. 10

21.77 24.87 25. 79 27. 3313.01 14.34 20.37 21.66

1.63 1.63 1.33 1.374.29 4.29 2.47 2.54

21.09 40.02 43.61 35. 57 40.64 34. 54 37. 2332.32 52.25 58.28 55.75 61.45 50.55 54.64

36,381.3 16,563.0 18 023.6 29,603.6 33,829.8 20,408.9 21, 483.592, 557.8 21, 248.9 23 704.3 43 204.4 47, 621. 8 19, 232. 0 20, 328. 3

960. 8951, 123, 831

405, 152512, 021

455, 187374, 277

206, 890195, 469

455, 187 736, 330 736,330 548,462 563, 518374, 277 619, 427 619,427 409,756 420,998

206,890 372,354 372, 354 259, 007 259,007195,469 335,551 335, 551 213, 059 213,059

2 371.7 2,200.1 2,200.1 1,977.5 1,977.5 2,117.6 2,175.72 157.0 1,914.8 1,914.8 1,846.0 1,846.0 1,923.2 1,976.0

716, 441 716, 426 727, 161 1, 203, 197 1, 203,197 730, 674 771, 6632, 814, 011 1, 274, 606 1, 274, 606 2, 655, 066 2,655, 066 1, 011, 109 1, 067, 830

I Weighted output (see technical note), deflated so that U.S. weighted output in the weight base year, 1967, equalsunweighted output.

Exchange rates: 1964, U.S. dollar equals 362 yen, 4.902 francs, 3.975 deutsche marks, and 0.3582 pounds. 1972; U.S.dollar equats 303 yen, 5.044 francs, 3.188 deutsche marks, and 0.3999 pounds.

57-254 0 - 80 - 25

M9O

TECHNICAL NOTE

With the exception of a few products-wire products are excluded for Japan,wheels and axles for Germany, and wire and wire products for the United King-dom-the Bureau's 1964 and 1972 estimates of comparative productivity andlabor costs in the iron and steel industry are based on the U.S. definition of theindustry, which covers blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling and finishing mills(SIC 331). In addition, each country's output has been measured using a commonset of weights, and the labor input data have been carefully matched with the out-put figures. The estimates for 1973 to 1977 were obtained by applying trend in-dexes to the 1972 benchmarks. Except for the United States, these trend indexesare based on different output weights and data sources than the 1964 and 1972figures.

While the Bureau has attempted to adjust the 1964 and 1972 figures for com-parability of coverage among countries, some differences remain. Where the datafor a foreign country are known to differ significantly in product coverage, e.g., bythe exclusion of wire and wire products from the data for the United Kingdom,comparability has been maintained between the output and labor input figures andthe effect on inter-country comparisons of steel productivity and labor costs isbelieved to be small. There are other possible differences among the countries inthe extent of vertical integration for which no adjustments have been made, suchas differences in the proportions of own-produced versus purchased coke, but suchdifferences also appear to have only a small effect upon the comparisons.

For the 1964 and 1972 benchmark years, each country's output has beenadjusted for differences in product mix among countries and over time by weight-ing the component products according to 1967 U.S. labor requirements (hours oflabor required per ton of each product).' Ideally, for balanced internationalcomparisons, both U.S. and second-country weights should be used. Howeverweights are not available for any other country. The weights used are cumulative,that is, for each end product, they reflect all stages of production within theindustry from coke through the end products. They were derived from incrementalweights compiled for the use of the Bureau through arrangements made by theAmerican Iron and Steel Institute. Incremental weights reflect only the hours oflabor required at each stage of processing. For example, the incremental weightfor wire rods reflects only the labor required to make wire rods from semi-finishedsteel, whereas the cumulative weight for wire rods includes the labor requirementsembodied in the production of the coke, pig iron, crude steel, and semi-finishedsteel used to make the wire rods. Cumulative weights have been used for thecountry-to-country comparisons because of possible country differences in tonnageyields from one stage of production to another. Incremental weights would notreflect inter-country differences in yields or changes in tonnage yields over time.The use of cumulative weights has a disadvantage, however, in that it assumesthat all stages of production (or equivalent production) take place in the sameyear that the final product is produced and therefore no account is taken ofyear-to-year changes in inventories.

While the 1964 and 1972 output figures for each country have been adjustedfor inter-country differences in product mix, no adjustments have been made forpossible differences among countries in the quality of steel produced. Reportedly,the Japanese steel industry, and, to a lesser extent, European producers, ship someseconds which would be recycled as scrap in the United States and ship higherproportions of less finely finished products, for example, untrimmed steel platesthan the U.S. steel industry. To the extent that this is true, the output figures forthe foreign countries would be somewhat overstated relative to the United States.The comparative productivity and labor cost results for the foreign countrieshave been presented in ranges rather than as single best estimates because ofgaps in the available data. 2 For the European countries, the principal data gaps

'In the original comparisons for 1964, the component products were weighted aceord-ing to 1961 U.S. labor requirements. The change from 1961 to 1967 weights has very littleeffect on the relative levels of productivity and labor costs.2 In the tables, minimum and maximum estimates are shown only for the level com-parlsons. The trend indexes for the four foreign countries, 1964=100, are based on themidpoint of minimum and maximum estimates for each year.

391

relate to the absence of some product detail. For example, the European data onipe and tubing are reported in two categories, welded and seamless, whereas the

U.S. data system covers seven categories of pipe and tubing, some with sharplydifferent labor requirement weights. In such cases, two output distributions havebeen estimated, one emphasizing low-weight product categories and the otheremphasizing high-weight product categories. For Japan, the principal data gaprelates to labor input. There is substantial employment of contract labor in Jap-anese steelmaking activities, and the use of contract labor is said to vary fromperiod to period. The Bureau has not been able to obtain adequate data on howmany contract workers are employed or the number of hours or rates of pay forthese workers. Therefore, it has been necessary to make minimum and maximumestimates based largely on financial data reported by Japanese steel companies.

In making minimum and maximum estimates for the ratios of output per hourand unit labor cost, it has been assumed that (1) the numerator (e.g., output) anddenominator (e.g., hours) of the ratio (output per hour) are each normally dis-tributed, and (2) the values of numerator and denominator bounded by theirminimum and maximum estimates have a specific level of confidence. The ratiomay be approximated as a range by using the minimum and maximum valuesestablished for the numerator and denominator, which are independently estimated.Applying a formula devised by Geary,3 it is possible to calculate the minimum andmaximum boundaries of the ratio (e.g., output per hour) so that the range willhave the same level of confidence as the specific level of confidence of numeratorand denominator. Originally, minimum and maximum values of output per hourand unit labor cost were estimated by combining minimum and maximum valuesof the component series. This led to ranges of estimates that were wider thanwarranted. The above method was not followed for calculating hourly labor costratios since, in those cases where a range of estimates is shown, the componenthours and labor cost series are not independently estimated.

OUTPUT PER HOUR, HOURLY COMPENSATION, AND UNIT LABOR COSTS IN MAN-UFACTURING, 11 COUNTRIES, 1950-78, AVERAGE ANNUAL RATES OF CHANGE*

(Note.-Data for the foreign countries are consistent with the July 10, 1979,press release, International Comparisions of Manufacturing Productivity andLabor Costs, Preliminary Measures for 1978. The U.S. data reflect subsequent re-visions. Rates of change computed from the least squares trend of the logarithmsof the index numbers.)

OUTPUT PER HOUR

Country 1950-781 1960-78' 1960-65 1965-70 1970-75 1970-78 1 1976 1977 1978

UnitedStates -2.6 2.6 4.9 .1.4 2.0 2.3 4.4 3.1 .6Canada -- 4.1 4.0 4.5 4.5 3.2 3.1 4.6 4.8 4.2Japan -8.7 8.5 8.5 13.4 4.5 4.5 8.1 5.6 8.3Belgium -NA 7.4 4.8 8.2 8.1 7.8 9.7 6.2 NADenmark -5.7 6.9 5.4 8.7 6.4 5.8 7.5 2.1 2.8France -5.3 5.6 5.2 6.7 4.6 5.0 8.5 5.0 4.9Germany 5.8 5.5 6.0 5.5 5.6 5.4 5.9 5.4 3.7Italy 6.2 6.2 7.2 6.7 5.8 4.6 8.5 1.1 2.9Netherlands 6.3 7.4 5.3 9.1 7.0 6.4 9.9 3.5 NASweden 5.3 5.6 6.8 7.3 4.7 2.9 .7 -.6 5.5United Kingdom 3.2 3.2 4.1 3.7 3.1 1.8 3.0 -1.0 1.6

NA=Not available.I For Belgium and the Netherlands, data relate to period ending 1977 only.NOTE.-Data relate to all employed persons in the United States and Canada; all employees in the other countries.

3 Geary, R. C., "The Frequency Distribution of the Quotient of Two Normal Variates,"Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 93 (1930), pp. 442-446.

'Prepared by the '.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office ofProductivity and Technology, Oct. 30. 1979.

3O92

HOURLY COMPENSATION

Country 1950-78 l 1960-78 1 1960465 1965-70 1970-75 1970-78 1 1976 1977 1978

United States- 5.4 6.3 3.5 6.1 8.0 8.6 8.3 8.6 8.3Canada- - 6.5 8.2 3.6 7.5 11.0 11.7 14. 0 10.7 7.0Japan - -12.8 15.6 13.2 15.3 20.6 16.6 8.2 9.2 6. 3Belgium --- NA 12. 2 9. 6 9. 3 17. 4 16. 4 11.1 11. 2 NADenmark - - 10.2 12. 6 9. 6 12. 5 15. 2 14. 3 11. 4 10. 2 9.9France2 -

10.0 11.3 9.2 8.8 15.4 15.7 14.5 14.9 13.0Germany -- 9.7 10.4 9.4 8.5 13.5 11.7 7.3 9.7 7.2Italy 11.9 15.4 14.0 10.9 22.0 21.6 19.8 18.8 13.9Netherlands 11.1 13.6 11.5 12.4 16.7 15.3 12.0 8.2 NASweden - -9.9 11. 8 10.3 9. 5 14.2 15. 3 19.4 11.7 13. 0United Kingdom 8.9 11.4 6.4 7.4 17.3 17.9 18. 1 10.2 16. 9

NA= Not available.I For Belgium and the Netherlands, data relate to period ending 1977 only.I Compensation includes adjustments for payroll and employment taxes that are not compensation to employees, but

are labor costs to employers.NOTE.-Data relate to all employed persons in the United States and Canada; all employees in the other countries.

UNIT LABOR COSTS: NATIONAL CURRENCY BASIS

Country 1950-78, 1960-781 196045 1965-70 1970-75 1970-78' 1976 1977 1978

United States 2.7 3.6 -1.3 4.6 5.8 6. 1 3.8 5.3 7.7Canada - -2.4 4.0 -.9 2.9 7.5 8.4 9.0 5.6 2.7Japan --- 3.7 6.5 4.3 1.7 15.4 11.5 .0 3.4 -1.8Belgium -- - NA 4.5 4.6 1.0 8.5 7.9 1.3 4.7 NADenmark - - 4.2 5.3 4.0 3.5 8.3 8.1 3.6 7.9 7.0France----------- 4.4 5.4 3.8 1.9 10.4 10.2 5. 5 9.5 7.7Germany - - 3.7 4.7 3. 2 2.9 7. 4 5.9 1.3 4.1 3.4Italy -- 5.4 8.7 6.3 3.8 15.3 16.3 10.4 17.5 10.6Netherlands 4.5 5.7 5.9 3.1 9.1 8.3 1.9 4.5 NASweden 4.4 5.8 3.2 2.1 9.1 12.0 18.6 12.4 7.1United Kingdom 5.5 7.9 2.3 3.6 13.8 15.8 14.7 11.3 15.1

NA = Not available.I For Belgium and the Netherlands, data relate to period ending 1977 only.NOTE.-Data relate to all employed persons in the United States and Canada; all employees in the other countries.

UNIT LABOR COSTS: U.S. DOLLAR BASIS

Country 1950-78' 1960-781 1960465 1965-70 1970-75 1970-78' 1976 1977 1978

United States 2.7 3.6 -1.3 4.6 5.8 6. 1 3.8 5.3 7.7Canada 2.2 4.1 -2.9 3.4 8.2 7.5 12.5 -2.0 -4.3Japan -- 4.8 8.9 4.2 1.9 20.8 17.1 .2 14.4 26.2Belgium -------- NA 6. 6 4.7 .9 15.9 13.2 -3. 7 12.7 NADenmark 4.7 6.5 3. 9 1.4 14.9 12. 1 -1. 7 8.6 16.6France 3.1 5.7 3.8 -. , 16.3 12.6 -5.4 6.3 17.6Germany 6.0 8.8 4.0 4.4 17.2 13.5 -1. 2 12.8 19.7Italy 4.7 7.2 6.2 3.8 14.1 10.4 -13.3 10.5 15.1Netherlands 6.0 8.3 6.7 3.0 18.0 14.8 -2.7 12.6 NASweden 5.0 7.0 3.3 2.0 14.3 14.2 12. 8 9.6 6.0United Kingdon n4.1 5.4 2.2 -.4 12.1 10.8 -6.8 7.6 26.5

NA = Not available.I For Belgium and the Netherlands, data relate to period ending 1977 only.NOTE.-Data relate to all employed persons in the United States and Canada; all employees in the other countries.

Ms. NORWOOD. I think when you get to the steel industry, whatyou're talking about is something different, and that is the question ofthe level of productivity rather than the rate of change.

Senator BENTSEN. That's right exactly. That's what I'm interestedin.

Ms. NORWOOD. Now, that's a very difficult question to answer. Wehave done some work on the steel industry and on trying to comparethe levels of productivity and the labor costs in Japan and in European

countries. And I would be glad to submit for the record whateverupdating we have of that. I can tell you, however, that those estimatesare very difficult to make.

Senator BENTSEN. I get a lot of them thrown to me as though they'regospel. I really want the best numbers that you think you can give meon the steel industry here, the productivity of the employee, not therate of increase or decrease, but what the productivity is of theemployee in this country, as compared to the Japanese and as com-pared to the Germans, some of our principal competitors.

Ms. NORWOOD. Mr. Mark, an Assistant Commissioner with BLS,is just telling me that our latest estimates in 1978 show the Japaneseat about 105 to 120 percent of the U.S. level, and Germany at about90 percent.

Senator BENTSEN. Was that total for all industry?Ms. NORWOOD. For the steel industry.Senator BENTSEN. OK.Ms. NORWOOD. That's the only industry, by the way, that we've

done level estimates for. And I would like to emphasize that there is agreat deal of difficulty in getting at really valid level data for particularindustries in other countries. Some years ago, when I entered theBureau, I was responsible for the beginning of that steel study, and Iknow the problems that we had with it. But those are our latestestimates.

Senator BENTSEN. Thank you.Senator Proxmire.Senator PROXMIRE. Madam Commissioner, this report is puzzling,

but in the context of what we've been told everywhere else, it's veryencouraging, it seems to me. For one thing, when we look at therelease from the BLS, we find that employment, seasonally adjusted,seems to be the highest it's ever been. It's 97,646,000; is that correct?

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes, sir.Senator PROXMIRE. Also, the participation rate is a little bit below

its peak, but it's close to the highest it's ever been and far higher thanit was in previous decades; is that correct, close to 60 percent, still?

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes.Senator PROXMIRE. Which means that it's 60 percent of all people

16 years old or older, not institutionalized, are working.Ms. NORWOOD. Close to it.Senator PROXMIRE. So when we look at the donut instead of the

hole, the statistics are most encouraging in this area. Then when welook at the breakdown in unemployment rates, we find a drop in adultwomen unemployment from 5.8 to 5.5 percent. I take it that's sta-tistically significant and there's no way that an error would be ac-countable for that; is that right?

Ms. NORWOOD. It's statistically significant, certainly. But rememberthat it was up last month. It's down this month.

Senator PROXM[RE. It's down to the level that it was in Septem-ber; is that right?

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes.Senator PROXMIRE. Then we take a look at the black unemploy-

ment. That also is down close to the level it was in September andabout the level it was in the third quarter, and a very, very sharpimprovement, from 11.7 percent down to 10.8 percent.

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes, the November rate dropped down to its thirdquarter level.

394

Senator PROXMIRE. The chairman properly pointed to all the dis-turbing figures we have on layoffs in the steel industry, the automo-bile industry, and so forth. How do you account for this?

Ms. NORWOOD. I think there are two points. One is that our datashow that in manufacturing, in the entire goods producing sector,there has been a flatness and even a slight, perhaps, decline.

The second point is that the service industries are largely responsiblefoi whatever growth there is. And, of course, we have very littlegrowth. A couple hundred thousand increase over the month is rela-tively small. So there has been a real slowdown. The steel figuies arenot in these data. Those announcements occurred after the surveyweek.

Senator PROXMIRE. Now, we also have the unfortunate reflection ofinflation in a drop in dollars of constant purchasing power. At the endof the release, the text part, it says-

In dollars of constant purchasing power, the index decreased 4.1 percentduring the 12-month period ended in October.

I've seen othei figures that indicate an even sharper drop in weeklyearnings, real weekly earnings. I realize there are more people working,but is it accurate or inaccurate to say that the standard of living of theAmerican people seems to have decreased because of inflation in thelast year already, inasmuch as real income, allowing for inflation, hasdeclined? Is that right or not?

Ms. NORWOOD. I think by any of the wage or compensationmeasures, real compensation or wages have declined; yes, absolutely.

Senator PROXMIRE. Now, when we take a look at Professor Gutt-man's position and your answers with respect to his findings, whatyou really say is, you can't tell, is that right; that this is an areawhere you challenge Professor Guttman's assumptions, but youjust can't tell us what the level of employment in the so-called under-ground economy is?

Ms. NORWOOD. I think his numbers cannot. I don't believe hisnumbers. But you're quite right, we have no way of ascertainingwhether or not there is a large omission.

Senator PROXMJRE. They could be higher, they could be lower,and so forth.

Ms. NORWOOD. It's possible.Senator PROXMIRE. You talked about-it's very interesting, the

first time I've heard about this. But you have a count to someextent on people working as prostitutes, and you have some number.Can you tell us how many that is? [Laughter.]

Ms. NORWOOD. I don't have it here. In looking at our discussionof the Guttman questions, I was asking what kind of evidence wedo have that we pick up the kinds of occupations and the kinds ofemployment that people would not be likely to report.

Senator PROXMIRE. The reason I ask this is that I think that thereare some people involved in so-called illegal enterprise, whether it'sprostitution or gambling or drug dealing and so forth, who do someof it on book. Credit cards are used with respect to prostitution, forexample, and people gamble with credit cards.

So that there's some-I don't know the extent to which it's traced,but there's some way to trace it and some taxes are paid on gamblingearnings, and I presume some, perhaps, even on prostitution earnings.

315

But the reason I raise that point is because it would stand to reasonthat the overwhelming proportion of people employed in those ac-tivities that are illegal would, at least at the level where their incomeswouldn't be very great, would probably not admit that they were en-gaged in illegal activities. Isn't that right? Isn't that logical, whether wehave any statstical confirmation of that? Doesn't that seem logicalor not?

Ms. NORWOOD. I think that it is true that they would not admitthat they were engaged in illegal activities. But the point that I wastrying to make is that we don't ask them that. We ask them abouttheir economic activity, and we don't ask them whether it's legalor not legal. We ask them if they're working or if they're looking forwork.

Senator PROXMIIRE. Let me give you an example which is a kindof a heartbreaking example, but one that I think suggests the sizeof this. A recent survey of students at Grosse Point High Schoolfound that they spent $4,000 as teenagers, and they spent more ondrugs than they did on food, more on drugs than they did on clothing.They admitted that privately.

Now, that kind of drug dealing, where one teenager buys fromanother, is an aspect of the economy which, when you consider thenumber of teenagers there are in this country and the fact that it'sa very sad fact that this goes on, is likely to be very substantial andinvolves hundreds of thousands of people who are counted as un-employed. I imagine most of those young people, when asked, ifthey're 16 years or over and they're asked whether they're at work,would say no, or their parents would, in answering the door to a personinquiring in the household survey. Is that right?

Ms. NORWOOD. I would agree with you that certainly we would notcatch the income in any sense that transpires in those sorts of trans-actions. The unemployment figures might not necessarily be affected,because they would be asked, really, whether they were looking forwork or not. That's the question.

Senator PROXMIRE. I think in many cases they might well be look-ing for work that's more respectable and less risky and so forth.

Ms. NORWOOD. It's possible. I certainly cannot say to you that weare positive that we are covering all of this. This is a serious problem.

Senator PROXIMIRE. The reason I raise this for statistical purposesis what I talk about now is what almost all of us think of when wethink about underground; that is, illegal activity of one sort or another.I think that is by far the smallest part. The big part is the off-the-bookeconomic activity, the fellow who is either employed with a modestincome or he is unemployed, and he agrees to do all kinds of odd jobs,and he's paid and there's no reporting of it. He may well be employedeven though he says he's unemployed and looking for better work.But meanwhile he's going to be doing any number of things thatpeople do-paint up a house, fix a house, do all sorts of constructionactivity, all kinds of janitorial activity, and that kind of thing. Andit's to the interest of both parties that they not report it and that itbe done on a cash basis.

Isn't that likely to be very large? The "Wall Street Journal" madean estimate that this could involve several million people. Is thereany reason to challenge that?

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, you know, everyone is making estimates ofthis. We had a number of reporters and magazine writers in, discussingthe issue, and we certainly have no data to prove it or disprove it. ButI think it is, nevertheless, important to know that if people do notclassify themselves in any survey, they never know in fact what theirultimate classification is. They are never asked specifically. The word" unemployment" is not used in the questionnaire and people are notgiven the opportunity to directly classify themselves as unemployed.

If, on the other hand, people are moonlighting by having anotherjob, they may well be counted. But I am sure that some of them areprobably not.

Senator PROXMIRE. Could you do this for us in the next month or so.See if there are any suggestions as to how we can get at this. I thinkProfessor Guttman deserves a great deal of credit for trying. I wouldagree with you that his findings are not likely to be accurate. He doestry to do something that can be very important to us. And if you comeup with any kind of suggestions that we can do this in a reasonableand economical way, it would seem we'd have a far better understand-ing of whether this would affect unemployment figures by reducingthem by half a percent, by 1 percent, a tenth of a percent, or it wouldn'thave any effect. And I hope that we could do that.

Ms. NORWOOD. We certainly would look into it, Senator Proxmire.It's a subject that I happen to be very much interested in. In fact, inthe OECD working party on unemployment statistics that I chair,they have raised this as a basic issue for all kinds of reasons. And weare working on it, although it is very difficult.

Senator PROXMIRE. Now let me ask about the price situation. As Iunderstand it, the big increase was because of consumer foods, in theProducer Price Index press release that came out yesterday.

Ms. NORWOOD. True. Crude, too, at the crude level.Senator PROXMIRE. But it was the finished price of food in the final

producer price statistics that was up.Ms. NORWOOD. Yes.Senator PROXMIRE. Is there any reason to suspect that that's just a

1-month aberration and that it may increase?Ms. NORWOOD. I think there were some very big increases. Poultry,

as I recall, was 21 percent, for example, and pork was quite high. Andthose had not had increases before. So there were some cases wherethere may be just kind of a catching up, that may not continue.

On the other hand, there were other areas in the food area wherethere were increases.

Senator PROXMIRE. Is there any basis for expecting that food pricesmay increase, what, at a level or rate of about 12 percent annually inthe coming year, anything of that kind, any estimate?

Ms. NORWOOD. I don't know what the Agriculture Department hasbeen estimating. I think for the commodities which had large increases,there was a kind of catchup. The pork index, I believe, is below thelevel of 1 year ago, for example. There appears to be no indication thatthere are shortages of supply.

Senator PROXMIRE. But these producer prices reflected in food aregoing to be translated, likely to some extent, at least, into higher CPIfigures in the coming months; is that right?

Ms. NORWOOD. Not necessarily.

397

Senator PROXMIRE. Not one for one. But that would be the tendency.Ms. NORWOOD. There is another element that I think is very

important. In the CPI, since the latest revision, we cover food pricesthrough the whole month. In the Producer Price Index, which is in theprocess of revision, we are currently pricing a single day in the month.

Now, some of the increases in food prices may well have occurredbefore the 12th, which is the day on which the food prices werecollected lor the Producer Price Index. If that occurred, they mayhave already shown up in it.

Senator PROXMIRE. Now the energy figures were better, much better,one of the best improvements we've had. Is that right?

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes, sir.Senator PROXMIRE. And that's one of the reasons why the index,

aside and apart irom food, was improved. Is that right? If you leaveenergy and food aside, the rest ot the index was about the same as ithas been for some time, increasing at what, about an eight-tenths of1 percent rate per month?

Ms. NORWOOD. Six-tenths. Finished good, excluding energy andfood, was about six-tenths. Capital equipment was much lower.

Senator PROXMIRE. How about housing costs?Ms. NORWOOD. That's not in the Producer Price Index. Construction

materials, however, are.Senator PROXMIRE. Let me ask you one final question about hous-

ing. I've asked Mr. Russell about this. Somebody's got to do somethingabout that. We all throw our hands up. The New York Times had afine editorial the other day on what a recession it was, but here we'retold that the Consumer Price Index goes up at an annual rate of about14 percent. Wrong, according to Mr. Russell, whose the expert in theGovernment on it.

That doesn't reflect the increasing cost of labor. What it reflects issomething else, because we've included in that the increase in housingprices for that month, the increase in interest rates, mortgage rates forthat month, and only one person in a hundred will buy a house or havean increase in their housing costs in that particular month. Yet it'sreflected as if everybody bougoht housing, and they didn't.

He agrees it's wrong. And when Fred Kahn speaks about it, healmost foams at the mouth. He says that this is absolutely wrong.It's a distortion. It's unfair. It's unwise.

Now it's not so bad from the standpoint of people on social securitywho are getting an adjustment because of that and people who are onCOLA's, as many Americans are, but when this turns around andinterest rates begin to fall and maybe housing prices begin to moderate,you're going to get a reverse situation in which the inflation rate isunderstated.

At any rate, why can't we as a government seem to get a grip on thisand get a Consumer Price Index that reflects the increasing cost ofliving. That's what everybody expects to to do, and that's what it'srequired to do. In the COLA's which are so important, we have asituation now where we have a false inflation statistic which is actuallyvery inflationary in our economy because it's driving up wages whichin turn drives up prices.

Ms. NORWOOD. Senator Proxmire, I think you raised an issue thatis extremely complex. I would not agree that it is simply a questionof mortgage interest rates. I also would not agree that the CPIassumes-

3OB

Senator PROXMIRE. Mortgage interest rates and housing prices andthe price of housing go up 3 percent in a month, and that's a bigfactor in calculating the cost of housing.

Ms. NORWOOD. I would not agree that those are the only issues.There are many ways of calculating consumer price indexes. As youknow, I discussed with you and I discussed with the committee someof the various proposals that the Bureau of Labor Statistics made totry to remove the appreciation, the investment potential, from thehousing component of the index.

I do not believe that the mortgage interest issue, which is the onethat is now being focused on, because, of course, mortgage interestrates are rising-I do not believe that is the basic issue.

Senator PROXMIRE. Let me just interrupt for just a minute. Theytell us that the mortgage interest rates and the increasing housingprices were very largely responsible for the increase in the housingpart of the CPI. They have further told us that two-thirds of the in-crease in the CPI-I guess it was October-was because of housingcost increases.

Mr. LAYNG. Housing total, correct?Senator PROXMIRE. That's right.Mr. LAYNG. It's more comprehensive than homeownership.Senator PROXMIRE. I'm sure it is, but these are two of the big

elements, right?Mr. LAYNG. About half of that was due to it.Senator PROXMIRE. Half of two-thirds. You still get a big-if you

can ignore that part of it, you obviously would get a much lesserincrease in the cost of living in that month.

Ms. NORWOOD. Certainly. If you eliminate housing---Senator PROXMIRE. I wouldn't eliminate it, but apply it to those

who are affected and calculate the percentage.Ms. NORWOOD. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has been running

some experimental indexes, and I think that you should understandthe wav in which some of the people who have been focusing onmortgage interest have been determining the extent of so-calledoverstatement. They have been using the weight of housing in theCPI and for prices, they have been using the rent index of the CPI. Iwould say that would have a downward bias if you did that.

I happen to have figures here for September. You would have gottenover the 12-month period about a 10.5, 10.4 percent increase. How-ever, we have also run a user-cost approach which is what the BLSstaff originally proposed.

The user-cost approach for the month of September would haveproduced a rate of 11.8 percent, which is only three-tenths of a percentlower, so it depends entirely-

Senatoi PROXMIRE. What's the user cost?Ms. NORWOOD. The user-cost approach tries to look at the various

elements in homeownership that are actually paid out and to actuallytake account of the appreciation and depreciation of the house, and ittakes account of the entire stock of houses, rather than as we now do onthe index just the expenditures by those people who actually purchasea house in the survey year. That is the year of the expenditure surveywhich serves as the weight base.

There are many ways of calculating indexes, and I think that it isuseful to focus on the housing component. I think it's incorrect tofocus only on the issue of mortgage interest.

Senator PROXMIRE. I think that's right.Ms. NORWOOD. And I would add, in fact, that what Mr. Kahn has

suggested would provide us with an index that had a 15-year movingaverage and which on the up side of mortgage interest would take 15years to move up. On the down side, it wvould have the mortgage in-terest component going up when mortgage interest rates were goingdown, and I think that would be even harder to explain.

So I think it's a much broader issue. We have discussed this. As amatter of fact, we are the ones who brought it up some 10 years ago.We've published a great deal on it. We will be publishing more in theMonthly Labor Review in the next several months, and we are de-veloping some alternative experimental indexes.

But I don't think it's a very simple matter. You cannot say thatwhat is there now is absolutely wrong. There is a theory behind it.There are other theories that could be applied. In fact, I think forpurposes of escalation, what one really wants is a cost of living indexthat I would define as a constant utility market basket index, and I'mnot at all sure that some of the people like Mr. Kahn and others woulddefine it that way.

I think they would define it more in terms of current outlays.I would not agree with that, but there are many ways of calculatingindexes. We have always welcomed public discussion, and we continueto do so.

Senator PROXMIRE. Well, it was very helpful.Mr. Chairman, I apologize for taking so long. Let me just suggest

that maybe sometime in the future you might have Mr. Kahn comeup. As you know, he's an extraordinarily able man and a fine econo-mist, and he has to deal with this thing; and let him give us his viewon it. I think it might be very helpful to have that before the committeebecause of its significance.

Ms. NORWOOD. Yes, I think that would be fine. And I have haddiscussions with Mr. Kahn, and we do understand our disagreements.You may also be interested in knowing that I am testifying nextFriday before Mr. Simon's task force on inflation, and he is apparentlygoing to have Mr. Kahn and some people from CBO as well as fromthe AFL-CIO on this issue.

Senator BENTSEN. Thank you very much. It was a good hearing.We enjoyed your testimony.

Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the committee adjourned, subject to thecall of the Chair.]

0

Date post:	31-Jan-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times