chart book of labor statistics 2012

8/22/2019 Chart Book Of Labor Statistics 2012

1/52

Charting InternationalLabor ComparisonsU.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Stat ist ics

2 0 1 2 E D I T I O N


2/52


3/52

2 0 1 2 E D I T I O N

Charting International LaborComparisonsU.S. Department of LaborHilda L. Solis, Secretary

U.S. Bureau of Labor StatisticsJohn M. Galvin, Acting Commissioner

September 2012


4/52iv

CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS

|

SEPTEMBER 2012U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

|

www.bls.gov

Contact ILCDivision of International Labor Comparisons

www.bls.gov/ilc | [email protected] | (202) 691-5654

For the latest updates, we invite you to join our email notification serviceby sending an email with subscribe in the subject line to [email protected].

With ever-expanding global markets, international

labor statistics have assumed a greater role

in assessing the relative performance of

individual economies and in influencing both

national and international policy decisions. However,

direct comparisons of statistics across countries canbe misleading because concepts and definitions often

differ. To improve the comparability of international labor

statistics, the International Labor Comparisons (ILC)

program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) adjusts

data to a common conceptual framework.

The 2012 edition of Charting International Labor

Comparisonsfeatures 2010 data, and data trends over

time, for the main indicators published by ILC: gross

domestic product, labor force, manufacturing hourly

compensation costs and productivity, and consumer

prices. Country coverage varies by chart and is based

primarily on data available from the ILC program;however, to increase country and indicator coverage,

this chartbook also uses data from other organizations.

(Notes are provided at the end of each section to detail

sources used and to furnish helpful definitions.)

For the latest ILC key indicators by country, see the

Country at a Glance feature at www.bls.gov/ilc.

PREFACE
http://www.bls.gov/ilcmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.bls.gov/ilc/http://www.bls.gov/ilc/#gdphttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/#gdphttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/#laborforcehttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/#compensationhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/#compensationhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/#productivityhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/#cpihttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/#cpihttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/country.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/http://www.bls.gov/ilc/http://www.bls.gov/ilc/country.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/#cpihttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/#cpihttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/#productivityhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/#compensationhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/#compensationhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/#laborforcehttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/#gdphttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/#gdphttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.bls.gov/ilc


5/52

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

|

www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012|


v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This edition of Charting International Labor

Comparisonswas prepared by the BLS

International Labor Comparisons (ILC) program,

under the coordination of Elizabeth Crofoot

and Jacob Kirchmer and the overall guidance of

Marie-Claire Sodergren and Chris Sparks. ILC team

members are Amy Bixler, Aaron Cobet, Rich Esposito

Mubarka Haq, Christopher Morris, Bradley Nicholson,

and Andrew Petajan. Cover art and layout design

were created by Bruce Boyd, and editorial services

were provided by Maureen Soyars, both of the Office

of Publications and Special Studies.


6/52vi


|


|

www.bls.gov

CONTENTSpage

Preface ...................................................................................................................................................................................iv

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................................................v

Section 1 Gross Domestic Product

Chart 1.1 Gross domestic product, selected countries, in U.S. dollars, 2010 .................................................. 9

Chart 1.2 Share of world gross domestic product, selected economies, 19902010 ..................................10

Chart 1.3 Manufacturing output as a percent of gross domestic product, selected economies,

19702010 ................................................................................................................................................11

Chart 1.4 Gross domestic product per capita and per employed person, selected countries,in U.S. dollars, 2010 ................................................................................................................................12

Notes Sources and definitions..........................................................................................................................13

Section 2 Labor Market

Chart 2.1 Labor force size, gender composition, and participation rates, selected countries, 2010 ......... 15

Chart 2.2 Labor force participation rates by sex, selected countries, 2010 ...................................................16

Chart 2.3 Labor force participation rates by age, selected countries, 2010 ...................................................17

Chart 2.4 Working-age population by labor force status, selected countries, in percent, 2010 ................. 18

Chart 2.5 Employment-population ratios, selected countries, 2007 and 2010 ..............................................19

Chart 2.6 Employment growth, selected countries, average annual rates, 20002007 and 20072010 .........20

Chart 2.7 Part-time employment rates by sex, selected countries, 2010 .......................................................21

Chart 2.8 Share of employment by sector, selected countries, 2010 ..............................................................22

Chart 2.9 Unemployment rates, selected countries, 20002010 .....................................................................23

Chart 2.10 Unemployment rates by age, selected countries, 2010 ...................................................................24

Chart 2.11 Unemployment rates by education, selected countries, 2009 ........................................................25

Chart 2.12 Composition of unemployment by duration, selected countries, 2010 ......................................... 26Notes Sources and definitions..........................................................................................................................27

Section 3 Competitiveness in Manufacturing

Chart 3.1 Hourly compensation costs in manufacturing, selected countries, in U.S. dollars, 2010 ...........30

Chart 3.2 Hourly compensation costs in manufacturing, selected countries and regions,

in U.S. dollars, 2010 ................................................................................................................................31


7/52


|



vi

CONTENTSpage

Chart 3.3 Percent change in hourly compensation costs in manufacturing and exchange rates,

selected countries, 20092010 ..............................................................................................................32

Chart 3.4 Growth in manufacturing hourly compensation costs, selected countries,

average annual rates, 20002007 and 20072010.............................................................................33

Chart 3.5 Hourly compensation costs in manufacturing, selected countries and regions,

annual percent changes, 20062010 ...................................................................................................34

Chart 3.6 Components of hourly compensation costs in manufacturing, selected countries,

in percent, 2010 .......................................................................................................................................35

Chart 3.7 Manufacturing productivity growth, selected countries, average annual rates,20002007 and 20072010 ....................................................................................................................36

Chart 3.8 Manufacturing output growth, selected countries, average annual rates,

20002007 and 20072010 ....................................................................................................................37

Chart 3.9 Growth in manufacturing hours worked, selected countries, average annual rates,

20002007 and 20072010 ....................................................................................................................38

Chart 3.10 Growth in manufacturing unit labor costs in national currency, selected countries,


Chart 3.11 Growth in manufacturing unit labor costs in U.S. dollars, selected countries,


Chart 3.12 Gap between productivity and real hourly compensation in manufacturing,

selected countries, 19702010 .............................................................................................................41


Section 4 Consumer Prices

Chart 4.1 Measures of consumer price inflation, selected countries, average annual growth rates,

20072010 ................................................................................................................................................45

Chart 4.2 Harmonized indexes of consumer prices, selected countries, average annual growth rates,20002007 and 20072010 ....................................................................................................................46

Chart 4.3 Gap between manufacturing compensation and consumer price indexes,

selected countries, average annual growth rates, 20072010 ........................................................47

Chart 4.4 Price of a basket of goods that costs one dollar in the United States,

selected countries, 2010 ........................................................................................................................48



8/528


|


|

www.bls.gov

1

G

ross domestic product (GDP) is a

measure of a countrys economic

output. GDP per capita and GDP

per employed person are relatedindicators that provide a general picture of

a countrys well-being. GDP per capita is

an indicator of overall wealth in a country,

and GDP per employed person is a general

indicator of productivity.

Gross

DomesticProduct

SECTION


9/52


|



9

Gross domesticproduct (GDP)was morethan 14 trilliondollars in theUnited Statesand exceeded

4 trilliondollars in onlythree othercountries:China, Japan,and India.

In addition to China

and India, other largeemerging economies,

such as Brazil and

Mexico, were among the

10 largest countries in

terms of GDP.

The GDP of the United

States was roughly 5

times larger than that ofGermany, 10 times larger

than that of South Korea,

and 40 times larger than

that of the Philippines.

1.1CHARTGross domestic product, selected countries, in

U.S. dollars, 2010

United States

China

Japan

India

Germany

United Kingdom

France

Brazil

Italy

Mexico

Spain

South Korea

Canada

AustraliaPoland

Netherlands

Argentina

Belgium

Sweden

Philippines

Switzerland

Austria

Greece

Singapore

Czech Republic

Norway

Portugal

Israel

Denmark

Hungary

Finland

Ireland

New ZealandSlovakia

Estonia

Trillions of 2010 U.S. dollars

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

NOTE: GDP is converted to U.S. dollars using purchasing power parities (PPP). See section notes.

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and The World Bank.


10/5210


|


|

www.bls.gov

Chinas shareof world grossdomesticproduct (GDP)increasedsteadily duringthe past two

decades, fromapproximately5 percent in1990 to 15percent in2010. By 2001,Chinas GDPhad surpassed

Japans.

As a percent of total

world GDP, the United

States, Europe, and Japan

each declined slightly over

the last two decades,

largely because of Chinas

growth.

The rest of the worlds

share of world GDP

changed little throughout

the 1990s, but grew

steadily from 2000 to 2010.

1.2CHART Share of world gross domestic product,

selected economies, 19902010

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Percent

Rest of world

Europe

United States

China

Japan

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

NOTE: Europe includes Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

SOURCE: The Conference Board.


11/52


|



11

Between 1970and 2010, themanufacturingsectorsshare of grossdomesticproduct (GDP)

declined atabout the samerate in Japan,the EuropeanUnion, and theUnited States.

From 2009 to 2010,

after several yearsof overall decline,

manufacturing output

increased as a share

of GDP in Japan, the

European Union, and the

United States.

In China, manufacturing

output as a share of GDPdecreased from a peak

of more than 40 percent

in the late 1970s to less

than 30 percent in 2010.

1.3CHARTManufacturing output as a percent of gross

domestic product, selected economies,19702010

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Percent

China

Japan

European Union

United States

1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010



12/5212


|


|

www.bls.gov

Gross domesticproduct (GDP)per capita inthe UnitedStates wasapproximatelysix times larger

than the GDPper capita inChina.

Norway had the highest

GDP per capita and per

employed person.

Countries with the

lowest employment-

population ratios (see

chart 2.5), such as

Belgium, Hungary, and

Italy, had relatively larger

gaps between GDP per

capita and per employed

person.

1.4CHART Gross domestic product per capita and per

employed person, selected countries,in U.S. dollars, 2010

Norway

United States

Ireland

Belgium

France

Austria

Italy

Netherlands

Sweden

Australia

Finland

Canada

United Kingdom

Spain

Denmark

Germany

Japan

Slovakia

South Korea

Czech Republic

Hungary

Poland

Mexico

Brazil

China

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,00


2010 U.S. dollars

GDP per employed person

GDP per capita


13/52


|



13

SourcesGross domestic product (GDP) data for most

countries are based on the BLS report International

Comparisons of GDP per Capita and per Hour,

19602010. GDP data for the remaining countries

and all purchasing power parities (PPP) are based on

data in the World Bank database World Development

Indicators. A country or regions share of world GDP

(chart 1.2) is based on data in The Conference Board

Total Economy Database.

Each country prepares GDP measures in accordancewith national accounts principles. To make

international comparisons of levels of GDP, GDP

per capita, and GDP per employed person, it is

necessary to express GDP in a common currency

unit. BLS converts GDP from national currency units

to U.S. dollars through the use of PPP.

DefinitionsGross domestic product (GDP) is the market value of

all goods and services produced in a country. GDP

per capita is GDP divided by population and is a

rough measure of a countrys overall wealth. GDP

per employed person is GDP divided by the number

of employed persons and is a rough measure of a

countrys productivity. Purchasing power parities (PPP)

are currency conversion rates that allow output

in different currency units to be expressed in a

common unit of value. A PPP is the ratio between

the number of units of a countrys currency and

the number of U.S. dollars required to purchase an

equivalent basket of goods and services within each

respective country.

Section 1 Notes GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT
http://www.bls.gov/ilc/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.htmhttp://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicatorshttp://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicatorshttp://www.conference-board.org/data/economydatabase/http://www.conference-board.org/data/economydatabase/http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicatorshttp://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicatorshttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.htm


14/5214


|


|

www.bls.gov

2

Labor force statistics, such as

employment and unemployment, are

key indicators of how labor

markets are functioning within and

across countries. Labor force levels and

participation rates provide information

on the supply of labor in an economy.

Employment levels and employment-

population ratios measure the extentto which people are engaged in

productive labor market activities, while

unemployment levels and rates provide

information on an economys unused

labor supply.

LaborMarket

SECTION


15/52


|



15

China and Indiahad the largestworkforces;China hadthe highestlabor forceparticipation

rate, whileIndia had thelowest.

Women made up less

than half of the labor force

in all selected countries

and Europe. India had

the lowest proportionof women in the labor

market, by far.

2.1CHARTLabor force size, gender composition, and

participation rates, selected countries, 2010Women's share of the labor force (percent)

50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Total labor force participation rate (percent)

NOTE: Each bubble represents the size of the labor force for that country. Europe includes Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic,Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia,

Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and International Labour Office.

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

Canada

Australia

Argentina

South Korea

Japan

Philippines

Mexico

Brazil

India

China

Europe

UnitedStates


16/5216


|


|

www.bls.gov

Womensparticipationrates in Indiaand Mexicowere amongthe lowest, andthese countries

had the largestgender gaps.

Labor force

participation rates were

higher for men than

women in all selected

countries, although the

size of the male-female

gap varied considerably.

The largest differences

between men and women

were in Asian and Latin

American countries.

The highest

participation rates for

men were in large

emerging economies:

Brazil, India, Mexico, and

China. China also had the

highest participation rate

for women and, thus, a

relatively low gender gap.

2.2CHART Labor force participation rates by sex, selected

countries, 2010

China

Canada

Norway

New ZealandSweden

Switzerland

Australia

Denmark

Brazil

Netherlands

United States

United Kingdom

SingaporeEstonia

Portugal

Finland

Austria

Israel

Ireland

Germany

France

Spain

Slovakia

Philippines

Czech Republic

South Korea

Japan

Poland

Belgium

Argentina

Greece

Mexico

Hungary

Italy

India

0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90


Percent

Women's participation rate

Men's participation rate

Male-female gap


17/52


|



17

2.3CHART

India

Mexico

South Korea

Philippines

Italy

Israel

Argentina

Ireland

Hungary

United States

Brazil

Australia

Greece

Japan

Poland

New Zealand

United Kingdom

Singapore

Spain

Belgium

Canada

Slovakia

Germany

Norway

Czech Republic

Finland

Austria

Netherlands

Estonia

Portugal

France

DenmarkSwitzerland

Sweden

China

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

SOURCE: International Labour Office.

Percent

Ages 1524

Ages 2554

Ages 5564

Ages 65 andolder Participationrates werelowest forthose ages 65and older inall selectedcountries

except SouthKorea.

In the Philippines, more

than one-third of people

ages 65 and older were

still in the labor force. In

contrast, many European

countries had rates below 5

percent for this age group.

Participation rates

among youth (ages

1524) varied most across

countries. The Netherlands

and Australia had the

highest participation rates,

and Hungary, South Korea,

and Italy had the lowest

rates.

Labor force participation rates by age, selectedcountries, 2010


18/5218


|


|

www.bls.gov

The working-age populationis composedof those in thelabor forcethe employedand the

unemployedand those notin the laborforce.

Italy was the only

country with less than

half of its working-age

population in the laborforce.

High unemployment in

Spain and Estonia led to

employment rates similar

to countries with lower

labor force participation,

such as Italy and Hungary.

2.4CHART Working-age population by labor force status,

selected countries, in percent, 2010

China

Brazil

Switzerland

New Zealand

Canada

Singapore

Australia

Norway

United States

Sweden

Denmark

Philippines

NetherlandsUnited Kingdom

Portugal

Mexico

Estonia

Austria

Argentina

Ireland

South Korea

Finland

Spain

Slovakia

Japan

Czech Republic

Germany

Israel

France

Poland

India

Greece

Belgium

Hungary

Italy

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10


Percent

Employed Unemployed Not in the labor force


19/52


|



19

In 2010,China andSwitzerlandhad the highestproportionsof employedpersons, while

Italy andHungary hadthe lowest.

Employment-population

ratios decreased between

2007 and 2010 in 30 out

of 36 selected countries,

with the steepest declinesin Ireland, Estonia, Spain,

and the United States.

2.5CHARTEmployment-population ratios,selected

countries, 2007 and 2010

China

Switzerland

Brazil

Norway

New Zealand

Singapore

Australia

Canada

Netherlands

Denmark

Philippines

Sweden

United States

MexicoUnited Kingdom

South Korea

Austria

Japan

Argentina

Portugal

Finland

Taiwan

Czech Republic

Germany

India

Israel

Ireland

France

Estonia

Slovakia

Poland

Belgium

GreeceSpain

Hungary

Italy

0 20 40 60 80


Percent

20102007


20/5220


|


|

www.bls.gov

Between 2007and 2010,the sharpestdeclines inemploymentwere in Estoniaand Ireland,

followed bySpain and theUnited States.

Employment grew

from 2000 to 2007 in all

selected countries except

Japan, but it decreased

in almost half of theselected countries from

2007 to 2010, a period of

global recession.

The largest gains in

employment between

2007 and 2010 were in

Singapore, Israel, and

the Philippines. Thesecountries and Poland were

the only countries that

had more employment

growth between 2007

and 2010 than between

2000 and 2007.

2.6CHART Employment growth, selected countries, average

annual rates, 20002007 and 20072010

Estonia

Ireland

Spain

United States

Denmark

Hungary

Portugal

Greece

Japan

Finland

Italy

Slovakia

Czech Republic

United KingdomNetherlands

Sweden

New Zealand

France

India

Belgium

South Korea

Germany

Canada

Taiwan

China

Switzerland

Austria

Norway

Argentina

Mexico

Poland

Brazil

AustraliaPhilippines

Israel

Singapore

5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4


Percent

20072010

20002007


21/52


|



21

Part-timework for menand womenwas mostprevalent in theNetherlands;it was much

less commonin EasternEuropeancountries.

A larger share of

employed women worked

part time (fewer than

30 hours per week) thandid employed men in all

selected countries. The

part-time employment

rate for women was

roughly two to five times

higher than the mens rate

in all selected countries.

2.7CHARTPart-time employment rates by sex, selected

countries, 2010

Netherlands

Switzerland

United Kingdom

Australia

Ireland

Germany

Japan

New Zealand

Austria

Belgium

Italy

Norway

Mexico

Canada

Denmark

France

Israel

Spain

Sweden

United States

Finland

South Korea

Greece

Portugal

Poland

Estonia

Czech Republic

Hungary

Slovakia

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

SOURCE: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Percent

Men

Women


22/5222


|


|

www.bls.gov

More than halfof employmentwas in theservice sectorin all selectedcountries.

The United States,

the Netherlands, and the

United Kingdom had the

largest shares of service

employment (more than

80 percent).

The largest shares of

industry employment

(near or more than30 percent) were in

five Eastern European

countries: the Czech

Republic, Hungary,

Estonia, Slovakia, and

Poland. These countries,

plus Portugal and Mexico,

also had the lowest

shares of employment in

services.

Mexico, Poland,

Greece, and Portugal had

the largest agricultural

sectors.

2.8CHART Share of employment by sector, selected

countries, 2010

Netherlands

United States

United Kingdom

Denmark

Canada

Sweden

Norway

Australia

Greece

Israel

Ireland

France

New Zealand

Switzerland

Spain

Finland

Belgium

Mexico

Austria

South Korea

Japan

Italy

Portugal

Germany

Poland

Slovakia

Estonia

Hungary

Czech Republic

0 20 40 60 80 10

Percent

NOTE: 2009 data for the Czech Republic and Switzerland. Agriculture includes hunting, forestry, and fishing. Industry iscomposed of mining and quarrying, manufacturing, construction, and for some countries, public utilities (electricity, gas,

and water). Public utilities represent less than 3 percent of industry in all countries shown.

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Industry Services Agriculture


23/52


|



23

2.9CHART


Percent

United States

Mexico

Canada

North America

20

15

10

5

0

Poland

Slovakia

Estonia

Czech Republic

Hungary

Percent Eastern Europe

20

15

10

5

0

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Percent

New Zealand

South KoreaJapan

Australia

Asia and Oceania

20

15

10

5

0

Percent

GermanyIreland

France

Austria

United Kingdom

Switzerland

Western Europe

20

15

10

5

0

Finland

Sweden

Denmark

NorwayNetherlands

Percent Northern Europe

20

15

10

5

0

Spain

Greece

Portugal

Italy

Percent Southern Europe

20

15

10

5

0

Unemployment rates, selected countries,20002010

In a majorityof the selectedcountries,unemploymentrates werehigher in 2010than they were

in 2000, inpart becauseof the effectsof the globalrecession atthe end of thedecade.

The global recession had

the most profound effect

on unemployment rates

in Southern and Eastern

Europe; unemployment

rates increased sharply in

those countries between

2008 and 2010.

Ireland and Spain had

the largest increases in

the unemployment rate

between 2000 and 2010.


24/5224


|


|

www.bls.gov

Unemploymentrates for youth(teenagers andyoung adults)are generallyhigher thanthose for

adults, partlybecause youthlack skillsand workexperience.They aretherefore morevulnerable

to economicdownturns.

Unemployment rates

for youth are highest in

Eastern and Southern

Europe. For countries

in these regions, youth

unemployment ratestopped 30 percent for

teenagers, and exceeded

15 percent for young

adults.

2.10CHART

Switzerland

Japan

Mexico

Austria

Germany

Netherlands

South Korea

Norway

Denmark

Australia

Canada

Israel

New Zealand

United States

Finland

France

United Kingdom

Poland

Portugal

Belgium

Sweden

Greece

Czech Republic

Ireland

Italy

Hungary

Estonia

Spain

Slovakia

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7

Percent

NOTE: For Canada, France, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States,teenagers are ages 16 to 19.


Unemployment rates by age, selected countries, 2010

Teenagers (1519)

Young adults (2024)

Adults (25 and older)


25/52


|



25

In 26 out of30 selectedcountries,collegegraduates hadthe lowestunemployment

rates, followedby high schoolgraduates;those withless than ahigh schooleducation hadthe highest

rates.

The unemployment

rate gap between

persons with less than

a high school education

and those with a high

school diploma was

generally larger than thegap between college

graduates and high school

graduates, reflecting the

value of a high school

education in seeking

employment.

2.11CHARTUnemployment rates by education, selected

countries, 2009

Norway

Netherlands

Switzerland

Austria

South Korea

New Zealand

Australia

Mexico

Denmark

Czech Republic

Italy

United Kingdom

Japan

Sweden

Belgium

France

Brazil

Poland

Germany

Finland

Israel

Canada

Hungary

Portugal

Greece

United States

Slovakia

Ireland

Estonia

Spain

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Percent

NOTE: Data refer to persons ages 25 to 64. Data for those who have less than a high school educationare not available for Japan.


Less than high school

High school or trade school

College or university


26/5226


|


|

www.bls.gov

Long-termunemployment(1 year ormore) madeup the largestshare of totalunemployment

in 13 out of28 selectedcountries; the12 countrieswith thelargest sharesof long-termunemployment

were all inEurope.

Slovakia had the

highest composition of

long-term unemployment,

with nearly 60 percent

of the unemployed out of

work for 1 year or more.

In Mexico, more

than two-thirds of the

unemployed were out

of work for less than 3

months.

2.12CHART Composition of unemployment by duration,

selected countries, 2010

Slovakia

Portugal

Hungary

Ireland

Belgium

Italy

Germany

Estonia

Spain

GreeceCzech Republic

France

Japan

Switzerland

United Kingdom

United States

Netherlands

Poland

Austria

Finland

Israel

Denmark

Australia

Sweden

Canada

Norway

New Zealand

Mexico

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent


1 year or more 3 months to less than 1 year Less than 3 months


27/52


|



27

SourcesData for 10 countries for most indicators are based

on the BLS report International Comparisons of

Annual Labor Force Statistics, Adjusted to U.S.

Concepts, 10 Countries, 19702010. The 10

countries are the United States, Canada, Australia,

Japan, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands,

Sweden, and the United Kingdom. To facilitate

international comparisons, BLS adjusts data for

these countries to U.S. concepts. For specific

adjustments and breaks in series, see the country

notes associated with the BLS report.

Data for the remaining countries and for some

indicators in their entiretylabor force participation

rates by age (chart 2.3), part-time employment rates

(chart 2.7), and unemployment by education (chart

2.11) and by duration (chart 2.12)are based on

data from the International Labour Office (ILO) or

the Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD).

Country coverage for labor force levels and

participation rates, employment-population

ratios, and employment growth (charts 2.12.6) is

supplemented with data from the ILO database Key

Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM). The KILM

harmonizes data using econometric models to

account for differences in national data and scope ofcoverage, collection and tabulation methodologies,

and other country-specific factors, such as military

service requirements. Although some differences

remain between the KILM and ILC series, they do

not materially affect comparisons across countries.

Country coverage for part-time employment

rates, employment by sector, and unemployment

data (charts 2.72.12) is supplemented with datafrom the OECD database OECD.Stat. The OECD

generally uses labor force surveys and captures

labor force statistics according to ILO guidelines,

which facilitate cross-country comparisons, because

these guidelines create a common conceptual

framework for countries. However, except for total

unemployment rates (chart 2.9), the OECD does

not adjust data for differences that remain across

countries in coverage and definitions that can

affect international comparisons. See Labor Force

Statistics in OECD Countries: Sources, Coverage and

Definitions. For total unemployment rates, the OECD

series used is the harmonized unemployment rates

(HURs), which are adjusted to conform to the ILO

guidelines in countries where deviations occur. For

a full discussion of comparability issues, see the

BLS article, International unemployment rates:how comparable are they? at www.bls.gov/opub/

mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdf.

Using multiple sources for an indicator to extend

country coverage can introduce additional

comparability issues, because each organization

employs different methods for harmonizing data,

if adjustments are made at all. Users should use

caution when making international comparisonsand are encouraged to review the methodological

documents associated with each source.

In chart 2.6, the periods 20002007 and 20072010

are selected to compare a time of global recession

(20072010) against a prerecessionary time (2000

Section 2 Notes LABOR MARKET
http://www.bls.gov/ilc/flscomparelf.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/flscomparelf.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/flscomparelf.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/fls/flscomparelf/country_notes.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/fls/flscomparelf/country_notes.htmhttp://kilm.ilo.org/KILMnetBeta/default2.asphttp://kilm.ilo.org/KILMnetBeta/default2.asphttp://stats.oecd.org/http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/download/res/ecacpop.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/57/43103377.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/57/43103377.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/57/43103377.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/57/43103377.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/57/43103377.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/57/43103377.pdfhttp://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/download/res/ecacpop.pdfhttp://stats.oecd.org/http://kilm.ilo.org/KILMnetBeta/default2.asphttp://kilm.ilo.org/KILMnetBeta/default2.asphttp://www.bls.gov/fls/flscomparelf/country_notes.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/fls/flscomparelf/country_notes.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/flscomparelf.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/flscomparelf.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/flscomparelf.htm


28/5228


|


|

www.bls.gov

2007). The chart shows the average annual growth

rate during each period. Although 2007 is included

in both, it represents two different annual changesthat do not overlap: 20062007 in the first period and

20072008 in the second period.

DefinitionsLabor market data cover only civilians (i.e., members

of the Armed Forces are not included). The labor force

participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the

working-age population. The labor force is the sum of

all persons classified as employed and unemployed.The working-age population is either ages 15 and

older or ages 16 and older, with the lower age limits

varying by country. (See BLS and ILO documents

from above sources.)

The employed are persons who, during the

reference week, did work for at least 1 hour as

paid employees; worked in their own business,

profession, or on their own farm; or did work asunpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a family

member (for at least 1 hour according to the ILO

guidelines but for at least 15 hours according to

U.S. concepts). Definitions of the employed vary by

country. (See BLS, ILO, and OECD documents from

above sources.) The employment-population ratio is

employment as a percentage of the working-age

population. Part-time employment refers to employed

persons who usually work less than 30 hours per

week in their main job; in some countries, actual

rather than usual hours are used. The part-time

employment rate is the share of total employment that

is part time and is also referred to as the incidence

of part-time employment.

The unemployed are persons without work, who were

actively seeking employment and currently available

to start work. Definitions of the unemployed vary by

country. (See BLS and OECD documents from above

sources.) The unemployment rate is unemployment as

a percentage of the labor force; it is the most widely

used measure of an economys unused labor supply.

For unemployment rates by education (chart 2.11),the levels of educational attainment accord with

the 1997 International Standard Classification for

Education (ISCED). Less than high school corresponds

to less than upper secondary education and includes

ISCED levels 02 and 3C. High school or trade school

corresponds to upper secondary and post-secondary

education and includes levels 3A, 3B, and 4. College

or university corresponds to tertiary non-university

and university and includes levels 56.


29/52


|



29

3

Three indicators of international competitiveness

in the manufactured goods sector are hourly

compensation costs, labor productivity, and unit

labor costs.

Hourly compensation measures employers average

hourly labor costs in the manufacturing sector.

Labor productivity (output per hour worked) measures

how effectively hours worked are converted into

output. Unit labor costs measure the cost of labor

compensation required to produce one unit of output.

Increases in labor productivity indicate that a countrys

workforce is becoming more efficient, and declines in

unit labor costs indicate that an economy is becoming

more cost competitive.

SECTION

Competitivenessin Manufacturing


30/5230


|


|

www.bls.gov

The ninecountries withthe highestmanufacturinghourlycompensationcosts were all

in Europe.

Compensation costs in

Norway were 1.7 times

larger than compensation

costs in the United States

and more than 50 times

larger than those in China.

Compensation costsin China and India have

been growing faster than

those in the United States

in recent years, but were

still less than 4 percent of

the U.S. level.

3.1CHART

China

India

Philippines

Mexico

Poland

Taiwan

Hungary

Estonia

Brazil

Slovakia

Czech Republic

Portugal

Argentina

South Korea

Singapore

Israel

New Zealand

Greece

Spain

United Kingdom

Japan

Italy

United States

Canada

Ireland

France

Australia

Netherlands

Austria

Finland

Germany

Sweden

Denmark

BelgiumSwitzerland

Norway

0 10 20 30 40 50 6

U.S. dollars

NOTE: Data for China and India refer to 2007 and are not directly comparable with each other or with data for othercountries. See section notes.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Hourly compensation costs in manufacturing,selected countries, in U.S. dollars, 2010


31/52


|



31

Compensationcosts inNorthernEurope were,on average,$12 higher thancompensation

costs in theUnited States,while those inLatin Americawere $28lower than theU.S. level.

Eastern European

countries, on average,

had the lowest hourly

compensation costs in

Europe, at $38 below the

Northern European level.

Compensation costs in

China were only 5 percent

of compensation costs in

other Asian countries.

3.2CHART

China

India

Latin America

Eastern Europe

Asia

Southern Europe

United States

Western Europe

Northern Europe

0 10 20 30 40 50

U.S. dollars

NOTE: Data for China and India refer to 2007 and are not directly comparable with each other or with data for othercountries. Latin America refers to Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico; Western Europe to Austria, Belgium, France, Germany,

Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom; Northern Europe to Denmark, Finland, Norway, andSweden; Southern Europe to Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain; Eastern Europe to the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,

Poland, and Slovakia; and Asia to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Singapore, and Taiwan. Data are trade weighted

averages for the regions; see section notes.


Hourly compensation costs in manufacturing,selected countries and regions, in U.S.dollars, 2010


32/5232


|


|

www.bls.gov

From 2009 to2010, manyEuropeancurrencies lostvalue againstthe U.S.dollar, causing

widespreaddeclinesin dollar-denominatedcompensationcosts inEurope.

Austria and Estonia

experienced currency

depreciation along with

declining compensation

costs in national currency,

leading to even larger

drops in U.S.-dollar costs.

U.S.-dollar hourly

compensation costs for all

selected countries outside

Europe increased much

faster than those costs in

the United States.

3.3CHART

30 20 10 0 10 20 30 30 20 10 0 10 20 30

Percent

NOTE: Changes in compensation costs in U.S. dollars roughly equal the change in compensation costs in national currencyplus the change in the value of the currency relative to the U.S. dollar.


Percentage change in hourly compensation costsin manufacturing and exchange rates, selectedcountries, 20092010

Argentina

Brazil

Australia

Canada

New Zealand

South Korea

Philippines

Mexico

Israel

Singapore

Norway

Sweden

Taiwan

Poland

Japan

United States

Switzerland

Czech Republic

United Kingdom

Greece

Italy

Denmark

Hungary

France

Portugal

Belgium

Finland

Netherlands

Spain

Ireland

Slovakia

Germany

Estonia

Austria

Percentchangein hourlycompensationcosts in U.S.dollars

Percentchangein hourlycompensationcosts innationalcurrencyunits

Percent

change inexchangerate


33/52


|



33

Most countriesexperiencedhighergrowth incompensationcosts, onaverage, over

the first 7years of thelast decadethan they didover the 20072010 period.

Argentina, Estonia,

Hungary, and SouthKorea had the

largest differences in

compensation cost

growth between the two

periods 20002007 and

20072010.

In Taiwan and Japan,

compensation costsdeclined during the

20072010 period.

3.4CHART

Percent

NOTE: Growth rates are based on national currency-denominated compensation costs.


Growth in manufacturing hourly compensationcosts, selected countries, average annual rates,20002007 and 20072010

Taiwan

Japan

Germany

South Korea

Switzerland

France

Canada

Austria

United Kingdom

United States

Australia

Netherlands

Italy

Denmark

Portugal

Belgium

Hungary

New Zealand

Singapore

Sweden

Ireland

Czech Republic

Spain

Finland

Estonia

Israel

Norway

Slovakia

Philippines

Mexico

Greece

Poland

Brazil

Argentina

5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20072010

20002007


34/5234


|


|

www.bls.gov

Manufacturingcompensationcosts in Chinagrew thefastest, whilethose costs inthe rest of Asia

and WesternEurope grewat the slowestpace.

Eastern Europe and

Latin America also

experienced rapid

increases in compensation,although cost growth in

Eastern Europe slowed

substantially from 2008 to

2010.

In 2010, the increase

in compensation costs

in each region of Europe

was the lowest it hadbeen in 5 years.

3.5CHART

10 0 10 20 3

Percent

NOTE: Annual percent change from previous year. Percent changes are based on national currency-denominatedcompensation costs. The latest available data for China and India refer to 2008 and 2007, respectively. Latin Americarefers to Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico; Western Europe to Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands,

Switzerland, and the United Kingdom; Northern Europe to Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden; Southern Europe to

Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain; Eastern Europe to the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia; and Asiato Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Singapore, and Taiwan. Data are trade weighted averages for the regions; see

section notes.


Hourly compensation costs in manufacturing,selected countries and regions, annual percentchanges, 20062010

20062007200820092010

20062007200820092010

20062007200820092010

20062007

200820092010

20062007200820092010

20062007200820092010

20062007200820092010

20062007

200620072008

Asia

Western Europe

United States

Southern Europe

Northern Europe

Latin America

Eastern Europe

India

China


35/52


|



35

3.6CHART

NOTE: For Mexico, South Korea, Norway, and Taiwan, pay for time worked and directly paid benefits are combined intototal direct pay. See section notes.


Total benefits(socialinsuranceand directlypaid benefits)surpassed 40percent of

compensationcosts in 15 outof 34 selectedcountries.

Total benefits as a

percentage of total costs

were highest in Belgium,

at 53 percent of costs,and lowest in New

Zealand, at 16 percent.

For manufacturers

in Sweden, Belgium,

Brazil, and France, social

insurance costs made up

approximately 33 percent

of total compensationcosts in 2010. Social

insurance in New Zealand,

however, accounted for

only 3 percent of total

costs.

Components of hourly compensation costs inmanufacturing, selected countries,in percent, 2010

New Zealand

DenmarkPhilippines

Ireland

Taiwan

United Kingdom

Switzerland

Poland

Singapore

Israel

Norway

ArgentinaJapan

South Korea

Portugal

Australia

Netherlands

Finland

Germany

Canada

Greece

HungaryUnited States

Austria

Spain

Estonia

Czech Republic

Slovakia

Italy

Mexico

France

Brazil

Belgium

Sweden

0 20 40 60 80 100Percent

Social insurance Directly paid benefits Pay for time worked (wages and salaries) Total direct pay


36/5236


|


|

www.bls.gov

Manufacturingproductivitygrew for mostcountries from2007 to 2010,but at a muchslower rate

than duringthe 20002007period.

Germany, Finland, Italy,

Sweden, and Slovakia

experienced productivity

declines in manufacturing

during the 20072010period.

Singapore and

Denmark were the only

countries that had faster

productivity growth from

2007 to 2010 than from

2000 to 2007.

3.7CHART

Germany

Finland

Italy

Sweden

Slovakia

Austria

United Kingdom

Netherlands

France

Spain

Canada

Australia

Hungary

Belgium

Norway

Japan

United States

South Korea

Denmark

Estonia

Czech Republic

Singapore

Taiwan

5 0 5 10 1

Percent


Manufacturing productivity growth, selectedcountries, average annual rates, 20002007 and20072010

20072010

20002007


37/52


|



37

When outputgrows fasterthan hoursworked,productivity(output perhour) rises.

Manufacturing output

decreased in 18 out of

23 selected countries

between 2007 and 2010,

causing relatively slow

growth in manufacturing

labor productivity for

most countries during this

period.

In contrast to the 2007

to 2010 period, output

increased in 21 out of 23

selected countries from

2000 to 2007.

3.8CHART

Finland

Italy

Spain

Estonia

Germany

Canada

Slovakia

Sweden

United Kingdom

France

United States

Japan

Denmark

Hungary

Belgium

Austria

Netherlands

Norway

Australia

Czech Republic

South Korea

Singapore

Taiwan

10 5 0 5 10 15

Percent


Manufacturing output growth, selected countries,average annual rates, 20002007 and 20072010

20072010

20002007


38/5238


|


|

www.bls.gov

Between2007 and2010, hoursworked inmanufacturingdeclined inall selected

countriesexceptSouth Korea.In severalcountries,hours fell bymore than 5percent.

Hours worked also

decreased in almost all

selected countries from

2000 to 2007, but not to

the extent seen during the

20072010 period.

3.9CHART

10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4

Percent


Growth in manufacturing hours worked, selectedcountries, average annual rates, 20002007 and20072010

20072010

20002007

Estonia

Spain

United States

Finland

Denmark

Canada

Italy

Japan

Slovakia

France

United Kingdom

Belgium

Hungary

Sweden

Czech Republic

Norway

Germany

Austria

Netherlands

Australia

Singapore

Taiwan

South Korea


39/52


|



39

Manufacturingunit labor costs(compensationper unit ofoutput) innationalcurrency grew

between 2007and 2010in 16 out of23 selectedcountries.Germany,Slovakia, Italy,and Finland

experiencedthe largestgrowth.

Of the countries that

experienced increases in

unit labor costs from 2000

to 2007, only Canada,

Denmark, and Estoniahad declines in unit labor

costs from 2007 to 2010.

3.10CHART

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6

Percent


Growth in manufacturing unit labor costs innational currency, selected countries, averageannual rates, 20002007 and 20072010

20072010

20002007

Taiwan

Singapore

Czech Republic

Japan

Canada

Denmark

Estonia

United States

Hungary

South Korea

Belgium

Australia

Spain

Sweden

France

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Norway

Austria

Finland

Italy

Slovakia

Germany


40/5240


|


|

www.bls.gov

Converting unitlabor costs(compensationper unit ofoutput) to U.S.dollars enablescomparisons

of internationalcompetitiveness.Competitivenessincreases asunit labor costsdecrease.

Growth in manufacturing

unit labor costs was fasterfrom 2000 to 2007 than

the growth between 2007

and 2010 in most countries.

Japan and Slovakia had the

sharpest increases in unit

labor costs during the latter

period.

3.11CHART Growth in manufacturing unit labor costs in U.S.

dollars, selected countries, average annual rates,20002007 and 20072010

10 5 0 5 10 1

Percent


20072010

20002007

South Korea

United Kingdom

Taiwan

Hungary

Denmark

Estonia

Sweden

Czech Republic

United States

Belgium

Singapore

Canada

Spain

France

Netherlands

Austria

Norway

Finland

Italy

Germany

Australia

Slovakia

Japan


41/52


|



41

In all selectedcountries,the growth ofproductivityoutpaced thegrowth ofreal hourly

compensation inmanufacturingbetween 1970and 2010,creating acompensation-productivitygap.

By 2010, the gap was

largest in the United

States, Finland, and

Sweden. The gap was

smallest in Germany, the

United Kingdom, and

Denmark.

3.12CHART

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Gap between productivity and real hourlycompensation in manufacturing, selectedcountries, 19702010

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

Year

Year

Year

Year

Natural logarithm of indexes Natural logarithm of indexes

United States

Japan

France

Denmark

Finland

Belgium

Canada

United Kingdom

Sweden

Netherlands

Italy

Germany

Productivity Real hourly compensation


42/5242


|


|

www.bls.gov

SourcesHourly compensation costs (charts 3.13.6)

measure employers average hourly labor costs in

the manufacturing sector. Average costs refer to all

employees, are based on national establishment

surveys, and are prepared for level comparisons. To

permit meaningful level comparisons of employer

labor costs across countries, earnings data from

national surveys are adjusted to the BLS concept of

hourly compensation. (See definition that follows.)

Data for all countries are based on the BLS news

release International Comparisons of Hourly

Compensation Costs in Manufacturing, 2010and the

related time series tables. Also, see the technical

notes and country notes associated with this release.

Because of various data gaps and methodological

issues, compensation costs for China and India are

not directly comparable with each other or with data

for other countries. For further information, see the

Country at a Glance pages for China and India at

www.bls.gov/ilc/country.htm.

Average compensation costs for selected regions

(charts 3.2 and 3.5) are calculated by weighting each

countrys compensation cost value by its relative

importance to U.S. trade. The weights are calculated

using the dollar value of U.S. trade (exports plus

imports) in manufactured commodities with each

country in 2010.

Data on productivity, output, hours, unit labor costs,

and real hourly compensation (charts 3.73.12) refer

to all employed persons (employees and the self-

employed) in the manufacturing sector. These data

are based on national accounts and are prepared

for trend (rather than level) comparisons. Data

for most countries are based on the BLS newsrelease International Comparisons of Manufacturing

Productivity and Unit Labor Cost Trendsand the

related time series tables. See the technical notes

associated with the news release.

Data for the remaining countries are based on data

from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development (OECD) database OECD.Stat.

In charts 3.4 and 3.73.11, the periods 2000

2007 and 20072010 are selected to compare a

time of global recession (20072010) against a

prerecessionary time (20002007). The charts show

the average annual growth rate during each period.

Although 2007 is included in both, it represents

two different annual changes that do not overlap:

20062007 in the first period and 20072008 in the

second period.

DefinitionsHourly compensation (labor cost) is the average cost

to employers of using one hour of employee labor in

the manufacturing sector. Compensation includes (1)

pay for time worked, (2) directly paid benefits, and (3

Section 3 Notes COMPETITIVENESS IN MANUFACTURING
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ichcc.toc.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/ichcc.toc.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/web/ichcc.supp.toc.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/ichcctn.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/ichcctn.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/ichccsources.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/china.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/india.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/country.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod4.toc.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod4.toc.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/web/prod4.supp.toc.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/intl_prod_tn.pdfhttp://stats.oecd.org/http://stats.oecd.org/http://www.bls.gov/ilc/intl_prod_tn.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/web/prod4.supp.toc.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod4.toc.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod4.toc.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/country.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/india.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/china.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/ichccsources.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/ichcctn.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/ichcctn.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/web/ichcc.supp.toc.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/ichcc.toc.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/ichcc.toc.htm


43/52


|



43

employer social insurance expenditures and labor-

related taxes. Pay for time worked refers to wages

and salaries for time actually worked, including basicwages, overtime pay, shift and holiday premiums,

and regular bonuses. Directly paid benefits primarily

include pay for vacations and other leave, irregular

bonuses, and pay in kind. Social insurance expenditures

are employer contributions to social benefit funds

on behalf of workers, such as for unemployment

insurance, workers compensation, health insurance,

and pension funds. Labor-related taxes are taxes on

payrolls or employment, net of subsidies. Total hourly

direct pay includes all payments made directly to the

worker consisting of pay for time worked and directly

paid benefits.

Productivity is real output per hour worked. Output is

the market value in constant dollars of goods and

services produced in a country. For international

comparisons, output refers to gross output minus

intermediate inputs, or real value added. Hours refer

to the hours worked by all persons engaged in the

manufacturing process. Unit labor costs are nominalcompensation costs divided by real value-added

output. Unit labor costs can be expressed in national

currency and in U.S. dollars. Real hourly compensation

refers to the hourly labor cost for employed persons

(employees and the self-employed), adjusted for

inflation. It includes all payments made in cash or

in kind directly to employees and employer social

insurance expenditures. It includes labor-related

taxes and excludes labor-related subsidies.


44/5244


|


|

www.bls.gov

4

Consumer price indexes (CPI) and

harmonized indexes of consumer

prices (HICP) measure the change

over time in the prices paid by

consumers for a fixed selection, or

market basket, of goods and services.

Price indexes are used primarily to adjust

income payments for changes in the cost

of living and to compute inflation-adjustedmeasures of other economic series.

ConsumerPrices

SECTION


45/52


|



45

The twoinflationrates wereidentical in 5countries, andthe differencebetween the

two rateswas greaterthan half apercentagepoint in just3 out of 23selectedcountries.

The greatest

differences between the

two inflation rates were

in Sweden and Finland.

The differing trends reflect

differences in the way

owner-occupied housing

is treated by the HICP andCPI for these countries.

4.1CHART

Japan

Ireland

Switzerland

Portugal

Germany

Netherlands

France

Austria

Slovakia

United States

Spain

Italy

Belgium

Denmark

Sweden

Finland

Norway

Czech Republic

United Kingdom

Greece

Poland

Estonia

Hungary

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Percent

NOTE: HICP and CPI are two measures of consumer price changes. HICP are adjusted for comparability across countries,whereas CPI are not adjusted.

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Eurostat, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Measures of consumer price inflation, selectedcountries, average annual growth rates,20072010

Harmonized index of consumer prices (HICP)

Consumer price index (CPI)


46/5246


|


|

www.bls.gov

Harmonizedindexes ofconsumerprices (HICP)are aninternationallycomparable

measure ofconsumer priceinflation.

For half the countries

shownparticularly

Ireland, Slovakia, and

Portugalinflation was

slower during the 2007to 2010 period, when

economies worldwide

experienced recessionary

pressures.

Eastern European

countries generally

had the highest rates

of inflation during bothperiods, while prices

decreased slightly in

Japan.

4.2CHART

Japan

Ireland

Portugal

Germany

Netherlands

France

Austria

Slovakia

United States

Spain

Italy

Belgium

Denmark

Sweden

Finland

Norway

Czech Republic

United Kingdom

Greece

Poland

Estonia

Hungary

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Percent

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Eurostat.

Harmonized indexes of consumer prices, selectedcountries, average annual growth rates, 20002007 and 20072010

20072010

20002007


47/52


|



47

The gapbetween thegrowth ratesfor hourlycompensationcosts and theconsumer

price indexes(CPI) indicatesthe degreeto whichmanufacturingworkercompensationhas kept up

with inflation.

Compensation growth

outpaced inflation in

most countries between

2007 and 2010. The

compensation-inflation

gap was largest in Ireland,

Brazil, and Slovakia.

Compensation growth

rates lagged inflation

most notably in Hungary,

Taiwan, and South Korea.

4.3CHART

Brazil

Poland

GreeceMexico

Philippines

Slovakia

Israel

Norway

Estonia

Finland

Spain

Czech Republic

Ireland

Singapore

New Zealand

Sweden

Hungary

Portugal

Belgium

Denmark

Italy

Netherlands

Australia

United States

United Kingdom

Austria

Canada

France

Switzerland

South Korea

GermanyJapan

Taiwan

2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Percent

NOTE: Hourly compensation growth rates are based on national currency-denominated costs.

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the nationalstatistical offices of the Philippines, Singapore, and Taiwan.

Consumer price indexes

Hourly compensation costs

Compensation-inflation gap

Gap between manufacturing compensation andconsumer price indexes, selected countries,average annual growth rates, 20072010


48/5248


|


|

www.bls.gov

4.4CHART

Norway

Denmark

Australia

Japan

Sweden

Finland

Canada

France

Belgium

Ireland

Austria

Netherlands

Germany

Italy

United Kingdom

United States

Brazil

Spain

Greece

Portugal

Singapore

Czech Republic

South Korea

Estonia

Slovakia

Mexico

Hungary

Poland

China

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1

U.S. dollars

SOURCES: International Monetary Fund, U.S. Federal Reserve, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development, and The World Bank.

Price of a basket of goods that costs one dollar inthe United States, selected countries, 2010

Low pricesrelative to theUnited Stateswere found inSouthern andEastern Europe,Latin America,

and East Asia.The cheapestbasket ofgoods was inChina.

The price of foreign

goods and services

compared with their pricein the United States is

known as the relative

price. Values less (higher)

than 1 indicate that

prices in that country

are relatively low (high),

compared with the United

States.

Countries with high

relative prices included

those in Northern Europe

and Western Europe, as

well as Australia, Japan,

and Canada.


49/52


|



49

SourcesConsumer price indexes (CPI) and harmonized indexes

of consumer prices (HICP) for most countries are from

the BLS report International Indexes of Consumer

Prices, 18 countries and areas. Data for the remaining

countries are based on data from the Organisation

for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

database OECD.Stat, the European Commission

database Eurostat, and national statistical offices (for

the Philippines, Singapore, and Taiwan).

Each country produces its own consumer price index

using unique methods and concepts. For this reason,

CPI data are not fully comparable across countries.

Differences exist mainly in population coverage,

frequency of market basket weight changes, and

treatment of homeowner costs.

The HICP is an internationally comparable measure

of consumer price inflation. The HICP is the standard

price index that European Union member states

must produce for comparisons across countries.

HICP data for the United States are experimental.

Although the HICP series for the United Statesbroadly follows the European Union definitions,

some differences remain in the frequency of market

basket weight changes, aggregation methods, and

quality adjustments.

Relative prices are based on PPP from OECD.Stat

and the World Bank database World Development

Indicators, and on market exchange rates from the

U.S. Federal Reserve, the International MonetaryFunds International Financial Statisticspublication,

and OECD.Stat.

The relationship between purchasing power parities

(PPP) and market exchange rates can be used to

estimate comparative, or relative, prices of goods

and services in different countries. (See chart

Section 4 Notes CONSUMER PRICES
http://www.bls.gov/ilc/home.htm#cpihttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/home.htm#cpihttp://stats.oecd.org/index.aspxhttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_databasehttp://stats.oecd.org/index.aspxhttp://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicatorshttp://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicatorshttp://stats.oecd.org/index.aspxhttp://stats.oecd.org/index.aspxhttp://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicatorshttp://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicatorshttp://stats.oecd.org/index.aspxhttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_databasehttp://stats.oecd.org/index.aspxhttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/home.htm#cpihttp://www.bls.gov/ilc/home.htm#cpi


50/5250


|


|

www.bls.gov

4.4.) Relative prices are calculated by dividing PPP

by market exchange rates. The resulting values

indicate the domestic price, expressed in U.S.dollars, of a basket of goods that would cost exactly

one dollar in the United States. Consequently,

values less than 1 indicate that prices in that

country are relatively low, compared with the United

States. Values greater than 1 indicate that prices in

a particular country are relatively high, compared

with the United States.

In chart 4.2, the periods 20002007 and 20072010are selected to compare a time of global recession

(20072010) against a prerecessionary time (2000

2007). The chart shows the average annual growth

rate during each period. Although 2007 is included

in both, it represents two different annual changes

that do not overlap: 20062007 in the first period and

20072008 in the second period.

DefinitionsConsumer price indexes (CPI) are a measure of the

average change over time in the prices paid by

consumers for a market basket of consumer goods

and services. CPI and annual percent changes are

based on national CPI as published by each country.

They have not been adjusted for comparability.Harmonized indexes of consumer prices (HICP) are an

internationally comparable measure of consumer

price inflation based on European Union definitions.

The index represents urban and rural households

in each country and excludes the component for

owner-occupied housing costs. Purchasing power

parities (PPP) are currency conversion rates that

allow output in different currency units to be

expressed in a common unit of value. A PPP is theratio between the number of units of a countrys

currency and the number of U.S. dollars required

to purchase an equivalent market basket of goods

and services within that country. Compensation costs

refer to average hourly compensation costs for all

employees in manufacturing. See section 3 notes.

The price of a basket of goods that costs one

dollar in the United States is known as the relative

price. Relative prices are calculated by dividing PPPby market exchange rates. See the discussion of

relative prices in Sources above.


51/52


52/52

chart book of labor statistics 2012

Documents