Posted on 06/23/2013 8:24:29 AM PDT by lbryce
Economic News Release
SHARE ON: share on facebook share on twitter share on linkedin First Quarter 2013, Revised
Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until USDL 13-1101 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Technical information: (202) 691-5606 dprweb@bls.gov www.bls.gov/lpc Media contact (202) 691-5902 PressOffice@bls.gov
PRODUCTIVITY AND COSTS First Quarter 2013, Revised
Nonfarm business sector labor productivity increased at a 0.5 percent annual rate during the first quarter of 2013, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The increase in productivity reflects increases of 2.1 percent in output and 1.6 percent in hours worked. (All quarterly percent changes in this release are seasonally adjusted annual rates.) From the first quarter of 2012 to the first quarter of 2013, productivity increased 0.9 percent as output and hours worked increased 2.4 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively. (See table A.)
Labor productivity, or output per hour, is calculated by dividing an index of real output by an index of hours worked of all persons, including employees, proprietors, and unpaid family workers.
Unit labor costs in nonfarm businesses fell 4.3 percent in the first quarter of 2013, the combined effect of a 3.8 percent decrease in hourly compensation and the 0.5 percent increase in productivity. The decline in hourly compensation is the largest in the series, which begins in 1947. However, over the last four quarters hourly compensation increased 2.0 percent and unit labor costs rose 1.1 percent. (See table A.)
BLS defines unit labor costs as the ratio of hourly compensation to labor productivity; increases in hourly compensation tend to increase unit labor costs and increases in output per hour tend to reduce them.
Manufacturing sector productivity increased 3.5 percent in the first quarter of 2013, as output rose 5.3 percent and hours worked increased 1.8 percent. In the durable and nondurable manufacturing sectors, productivity increased 3.5 percent and 3.9 percent, respectively. From the first quarter of 2012 to the first quarter of 2013, manufacturing sector productivity rose 1.6 percent as output grew 2.5 percent and hours rose 0.9 percent. Unit labor costs in manufacturing decreased 10.0 percent in the first quarter of 2013, due to both the 3.5 percent increase in productivity and a 6.9 percent decrease in hourly compensation. Over the last four quarters, hourly compensation increased 4.5 percent and unit labor costs increased 2.8 percent. (See tables A and 3.)
Preliminary first-quarter 2013 measures were announced today for the nonfinancial corporate sector. Productivity increased 0.3 percent in the first quarter as output and hours increased 3.3 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively. Output per hour rose 0.6 percent over the last four quarters. (See tables C and 6.)
The concepts, sources, and methods underlying manufacturing output and nonfinancial corporate output measures differ from those used in the business and nonfarm business output series; these output measures are not directly comparable. See Technical Notes for a more detailed explanation.
The measures released today are based on more recent source data than were available for the preliminary report. Revisions were also based on corrections to hours worked and related measures for the business and nonfarm business sectors for the first quarter of 2013. (See text box.)
Revised Measures
Tables B and C present previous and revised productivity and related measures for the major sectors: business, nonfarm business, and manufacturing sectors, as well as the nonfinancial corporate sector.
In the first quarter of 2013, nonfarm business productivity growth increased 0.5 percent, down slightly from the preliminary estimate, as output was revised downward more than hours worked. Unit labor costs were revised downward due solely to the large downward revision to hourly compensation. In the business sector, output per hour was revised upward for the first quarter of 2013, due primarily to correction of an hours calculation error. The error principally affected the farm sector, which is part of the business sector. In the manufacturing sector, productivity increased 3.5 percent in first-quarter 2013, slightly less than reported May 2. Manufacturing unit labor costs fell much more than previously reported due to a large downward revision to hourly compensation.
In the fourth quarter of 2012, nonfarm business and business sector productivity were unrevised from the preliminary release May 2. Productivity was revised upward slightly in the manufacturing sector. In contrast to the first-quarter 2013 revisions, large upward revisions to hourly compensation in fourth-quarter 2012 drove large upward revisions to unit labor costs in all sectors.
In the nonfinancial corporate sector, fourth-quarter productivity growth was revised upwards due solely to an upward revision in output; hours were unrevised. (See table C.) ____________
The preliminary Productivity and Costs press release for second-quarter 2013 is scheduled to be released on Friday, August 16, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. (EDT)
============================================================================== Productivity and Costs Data Corrections
The Productivity and Costs data released on May 2 contained incorrect hours worked and related measures, including labor productivity, for the business and nonfarm business sectors for the first quarter of 2013. Today’s news release incorporates corrected hours data in addition to other source data that have been revised. Preliminary measures will not be re-released. ==============================================================================
====================================================================================================== Table A. Revised first-quarter 2013 measures: percent change from previous quarter at annual rate (Q to Q) and from same quarter a year ago (Y to Y)
Sector Nonfarm Durable Nondurable Business Business Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Q to Q Y to Y Q to Q Y to Y Q to Q Y to Y Q to Q Y to Y Q to Q Y to Y ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Productivity 0.5 0.9 2.0 1.2 3.5 1.6 3.5 2.7 3.9 0.5 Output 2.1 2.4 3.1 2.4 5.3 2.5 6.4 3.8 4.2 1.2 Hours 1.6 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.8 0.9 2.8 1.0 0.2 0.7 Hourly compensation -3.8 2.0 -3.1 2.3 -6.9 4.5 -8.1 5.4 -4.9 2.7 Real hourly compensation -5.2 0.3 -4.6 0.6 -8.3 2.8 -9.4 3.6 -6.4 1.0 Unit labor costs -4.3 1.1 -5.0 1.1 -10.0 2.8 -11.2 2.6 -8.5 2.3 ====================================================================================================== Table B. Revised and previous measures: first quarter 2013 and fourth quarter 2012
Sector Nonfarm Durable Nondurable Business Business Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Revised Previous Revised Previous Revised Previous Revised Previous Revised Previous ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent change, annual rate, first quarter 2013
Productivity 0.5 0.7 2.0 1.2 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.6 Output 2.1 2.5 3.1 3.3 5.3 5.6 6.4 6.5 4.2 4.7 Hours 1.6 1.8 1.1 2.1 1.8 1.7 2.8 2.7 0.2 0.1 Hourly compensation -3.8 1.2 -3.1 0.9 -6.9 3.3 -8.1 3.0 -4.9 3.7 Real hourly compensation -5.2 -0.3 -4.6 -0.6 -8.3 1.8 -9.4 1.4 -6.4 2.2 Unit labor costs -4.3 0.5 -5.0 -0.3 -10.0 -0.5 -11.2 -0.6 -8.5 -0.8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent change, annual rate, fourth quarter 2012
Productivity -1.7 -1.7 -1.6 -1.6 2.4 2.2 3.3 3.3 1.4 1.0 Output 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 2.7 2.6 3.8 3.8 1.5 1.2 Hours 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.1 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 Hourly compensation 9.9 2.7 10.2 3.0 16.7 0.4 19.0 0.2 12.4 0.6 Real hourly compensation 7.5 0.4 7.8 0.8 14.2 -1.8 16.4 -2.0 10.0 -1.6 Unit labor costs 11.8 4.4 12.0 4.7 14.0 -1.8 15.2 -3.0 10.9 -0.4 ====================================================================================================== Table C. Nonfinancial corporations: preliminary first-quarter 2013 and revised fourth-quarter 2012 productivity and cost measures
Real Hourly hourly Unit Implicit Produc- compen- compen- labor Unit price tivity Output Hours sation sation costs profits deflator ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent change, annual rate, first quarter 2013
Q to Q 0.3 3.3 3.0 -1.2 -2.7 -1.5 -6.3 -0.2 Y to Y 0.6 2.2 1.6 2.5 0.8 1.9 0.5 1.4
Percent change, annual rate, fourth quarter 2012
Revised 5.6 7.5 1.8 7.1 4.7 1.4 1.8 -0.6 Previous 2.3 4.1 1.8 1.5 -0.7 -0.7 5.2 -0.6
======================================================================================================
Technical notes Table 1. Business sector: Productivity, hourly compensation, unit labor costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted Table 2. Nonfarm business sector: Productivity, hourly compensation, unit labor costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted Table 3. Manufacturing sector: Productivity, hourly compensation, and unit labor costs, seasonally adjusted Table 4. Durable manufacturing sector: Productivity, hourly compensation, and unit labor costs, seasonally adjusted Table 5. Nondurable manufacturing sector: Productivity, hourly compensation, and unit labor costs, seasonally adjusted Table 6. Nonfinancial corporate sector: Productivity, hourly compensation, unit labor costs, unit profits, and prices, seasonally adjusted Sources and footnotes for tables HTML version of the entire news release
The PDF version of the news release Table of Contents
As Karl Denninger noted with great fury a few weeks ago, this kind of nationwide reduction in average hourly wages is itself equivalent to an increase in unemployment.
We’re entering a deflationary period and this is the first sign.
Obama continues to get everything he hoped for.
unexpectedly...
So just how much economic devastation has to occur in the U.S. economy before you open your eyes to what unrestricted trade causes.
I suppose now you’ll suggest that they should import more to raise the employment numbers. Or maybe you’ll suggest that since total household wealth didn’t fall, that falling wages don’t matter. Wake up!!!
Us boomers are typically better educated, have higher wages, pay more taxes and will be replaced with third world immigrants.
“When prices rise, that is a sign that the economy is strengthening” - Ben Bernanke
OR, it’s a sign that too much liquidity is being pumped into the economy to prop it up.
Summer of recovery #4! Yea!
When I see Shadowstats.com unemployment falling, then I'll believe the economy is recovering. But even that wouldn't necessarily be a good recovery. Real wages are falling, eventually labor supply will equal labor demand again. The question is at what wage.
Osama Obama’s turned us into a nation of the “disabled” and part-timers.
It’s known that being a teacher doesn’t mean you’re smart or even educated. This guy is neither.
Price rises will not stick or even be attempted if real wages are actually dropping.
"...how much economic devastation has to occur in the U.S. economy before you open your eyes..."
Weekends are a great time for hyperventilating --enjoy!
When everyone gets finished running around circles I'd be grateful if someone could tell me where that headline came from. I mean, the post didn't mention wages, the link didn't, and the BLS numbers have--
-- private hourly wages at an all time high.
First people didn't care because it wasn't them. Then they didn't care because cheap foreign goods compensated for declines in wages.
Now most people are in denial, as they adjust their lives to something far different than the original promise and potential of the US.
It’s deferred unemployment in a way. When people have there pay cut, they only buy the necessary things.
Do that to large amount of people and unemployment rises.
Simple really.
Or and Government tax revenues take a big hit.
"Unit labor costs in nonfarm businesses fell 4.3 percent in the first quarter of 2013, the combined effect of a 3.8 percent decrease in hourly compensation and the 0.5 percent increase in productivity. The decline in hourly compensation is the largest in the series, which begins in 1947." - article
Your graph doesn't show a 3.8% quarter to quarter decline so your series is either year to year changes or not what the BLS was referring to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.