Department of Labor: chartbook jun06

8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06

1/65

A CHARTBOOK OFARTBOOK OFINTERNATIONALTERNATIONALLABORBOR COMPARISONS:MPARISONS:THEHE AMERICASERICAS ASIAIA EUROPEROPE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR JUNE 2006


2/65

Material contained in this document is in the public

domain and may be reproduced, fully or partially,

without permission of the Federal Government. Source

credit is requested.


3/65

A CHARTBOOK OFARTBOOK OFINTERNATIONALTERNATIONALLABORBOR COMPARISONS:MPARISONS:THEHE AMERICASERICAS ASIAIA EUROPEROPE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR JUNE 2006


4/65


5/65

FOREWORD

All countries are unique and their cultures, histories,

economies, and the challenges they face can be very

different. Yet despite these differences, the economies of the

world are becoming increasingly interrelated as technology

and world trade grow. As a result, local economies are

increasingly affected by changes in worldwide markets.

For the United States to continue to succeed in the global

economy and create more jobs at home, it is important to

understand the economic relationships that are transforming

the world. U.S. workers have long enjoyed one of the highest

standards of living in the worldthanks to technology, the

flexibility of our workforce, and the remarkable productivity of

our workers. To preserve these advantages, it is critical that

U.S. workers have the skills necessary to compete in the

worldwide economy of the 21st century.

By understanding how the United States compares with other

advanced and emerging economies, our nation will be better

prepared to take the steps necessary to ensure that our

workforce and our economy continue to thrive and prosper.

Therefore, this Chartbook of International Labor Comparisonsprovides a comparative labor market perspectiveincluding

employment levels, jobless rates, hours worked, labor costs,

and productivity trends.

As the charts reveal, the United States leads in some areas.

In other cases, our trading partners have made great progress.

This information provides a snapshot of where the United

States stands today in relation to key economies of the rest of

the world. It can assist policy and decision makers in charting

a course that will help prepare our nations workforce for the

challenges of tomorrow. I hope you find this Chartbook bothrelevant and informative.

Elaine L. Chao

Secretary of Labor

Foreword | iii


6/65


7/65


8/65


9/65

CONTENTS

Contents| vii

Section 1. Gross Domestic Product Per Capita 1

1.1 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, 2004 21.2 Average annual growth rates in real GDP per capita, 1994-2004 3

Section 2. Labor Market Indicators 52.1 Size of the labor force, 2004 62.2 Average annual growth rates in the labor force, 1994-2004 72.3 Labor force participation rates by sex, 2004 82.4 Labor force participation rates by age, 2004 92.5 Employment as a percent of the working-age population, 2004 102.6 Average annual growth rates in employment, 1994-2004 112.7 Average annual growth rates in full-time and part-time employment,

1994-2004 12

2.8 Annual hours worked per employed person, 1994 and 2004 132.9 Unemployment rates, 2004 142.10 Youth unemployment rates, 2004 152.11 Ratio of youth to adult unemployment rates, 2004 162.12 Persons unemployed one year or longer, 2004 172.13 Ratio of unemployment rate of persons without high school

degrees to that of persons with college or university degrees, 2003 18

2.14 Educational attainment of the adult population, 2003 19

Section 3. Competitiveness Indicators forManufacturing 21

3.1 Hourly compensation costs, 2004 223.2 Average annual growth rates in hourly compensation costs,

1994-2004 23

3.3 Employer social insurance expenditures and other labor taxes as apercent of hourly compensation costs, 2004 24

3.4 Average annual growth rates in manufacturing productivity,1994-2004 25

3.5 Average annual growth rates in manufacturing output and hoursworked, 1994-2004 26

3.6 Average annual growth rates in manufacturing unit labor costs,1994-2004 27

Section 4. Other Economic Indicators 29

4.1 Public expenditures on labor market programs as a percent ofGDP, 2003-04 30

4.2 Measures of regulation on labor and product markets 314.3 Share of labor costs taken by tax and social security contributions,

2004 32

4.4 Dependency ratios, 2004 334.5 Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2003 34

Section 5. Indicators for Large Emerging Economies 35

5.1 World population distribution, 2004 365.2 Age composition of the population, 2003 375.3 Dependency ratios, 2003 385.4 GDP per capita, 2004 395.5 GDP per employed person, 1994 and 2003 405.6 Labor force participation rates by sex, 2003 415.7 Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2003 42

Appendix. Definition s, Sources, and Methods A1


10/65


11/65

Gross

Domestic

ProductPer Capita

Gross Domestic Product Per Capita | 1

SECTION 1

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, when converted to

U.S. dollars using Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs), is themost widely used income measure for international

comparisons of living standards. It should be recognized that

income measures do not capture a number of variables

affecting economic well-being, such as leisure time, health,

safety, and cultural resources.

PPPs are the number of foreign currency units required to buy

goods and services in a foreign country equivalent to what canbe bought with one dollar in the U.S. These are used to

equalize the purchasing power of different currencies. PPPs

are used instead of exchange rates because market exchange

rates do not necessarily reflect the relative purchasing power of

different currencies.

Charts 1.1 and 1.2 compare the level of GDP per capita in 2004

and the trend from 1994 to 2004 in 21 of the 22 economiesshown on various charts in this chartbook. Data for the EU-15

are also included. Data were not available for charting GDP per

capita for Taiwan.


12/65

31.5

39.9

31.9

9.8

29.630.8

29.8

21.0 22.9

27.328.6

31.8 31.629.6

28.4

40.1

27.7

31.1

38.8

19.7

25.3

30.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Hong

Kon

gSAR

Japa

n

Kore

a

New

Zeala

nd

Sing

apor

e

EU-1

5

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

gal

Spain

Swed

enU.

K.

NOTE: Hong Kong SAR stands for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China. Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is the number of foreign currency unitsrequired to buy goods and services in a foreign country equivalent to what can be bought with one dollar in the U.S.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics and World Bank.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, 2004converted at PPP rates

2 | Gross Domestic Product Per Capita

Thousands of U.S. dollars

Ireland, the U.S., and Norway were the countries with the highest GDP per capita among the 21 economiescompared.

The other economies showed levels of GDP per capita between 80 percent (Canada and Austria) and 25 percent(Mexico) of the U.S. level.

CHART 1.1


13/65

NOTE: Hong Kong SAR stands for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, including special tabulations using data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, World Bank,

and national sources.

2.2 2.3

1.2

2.62.2

1.1

4.2

2.32.6

2.0 1.9 1.7 1.8

1.3

6.6

1.41.8

2.2 2.32.6 2.6 2.5

0

2

4

6

8

U.S.

Cana

daM

exico

Austr

alia

Hong

Kon

gSAR

Japan

Korea

New

Zeala

nd

Sing

apore

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

anyIre

land Italy

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

galSp

ain

Swed

en U.K.

Average annual grow th rates in real GDP per capita, 1994-2004

Gross Domestic Product Per Capita | 3

CHART 1.2

In most of the 21 economies, real GDP per capita grew during the decade at a rate of 1.7 to 2.6 percent per year;the U.S. growth rate was in the middle of the range.

Ireland and Korea registered the greatest increases in real GDP per capita; Japans increase was the smallest.

Percent


14/65


15/65

Labor Market

Indicators

Labor Market Indicators | 5

SECTION 2

Charts 2.1 through 2.14 show comparisons of the labor force,

employment, unemployment, and related indicators. The sizeof the labor force is shown in chart 2.1. Labor force growth

(chart 2.2) sums up changes in both employment and

unemployment over the period. Labor force participation rates

(charts 2.3 and 2.4) express the extent to which different groups

are either working or unemployed. Here comparisons are

shown by sex and for two selected age groups relating to youth

and older workers.

Employment and unemployment are key indicators of the

functioning of labor markets both within and among countries.

Charts 2.5-2.8 compare the proportion of the working-age

population employed, employment growth rates, trends in full-

time and part-time employment, and annual hours worked per

employed person. Charts 2.9-2.14 explore unemployment

rates, long-duration unemployment, and the connection

between unemployment rates and levels of education.

All charts cover 19 or 20 countries. In addition, the EU-15 is

shown on all but three of the charts. Comparative labor market

indicators were not available for Taiwan or Hong Kong SAR,

and some indicators were not available for Singapore.


16/65

147.4

17.0

42.6

10.2

65.8

23.4

2.1 2.2

179.5

3.9 2.9

26.9

39.8

1.9

24.1

8.52.4 5.5

20.1

4.6

29.7

0

40

80

120

160

200

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a

New

Zeala

nd

Sing

apor

e

EU-15

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

gal

Spain

Swed

en U.K.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.

Millions

Size of the labor force, 2004

6 | Labor Market Indicators

CHART 2.1

The U.S. labor force was the largest by far among the 20 countries compared.

The EU-15 countries combined had a larger labor force than the U.S.


17/65

0.6

0.4

2.3

1.4

1.1

1.7

0.6

3.0

0.2

0.9

0.40.2

0.8

2.8

1.7

1.4

0.0

1.6

2.4

1.7

1.2

0

1

2

3

4

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a

New

Zeala

nd

Sing

apor

e

EU-15

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

gal

Spain

Swed

en U.K.


Percent

Average annual grow th rates in the labor force, 1994-2004


CHART 2.2

The other North American countries and the Asian countries, except for Japan, recorded higher labor force growthrates than the U.S.

U.S. labor force growth outpaced that of the EU-15 average; in Europe, labor force growth was stronger in Ireland,Spain, the Netherlands, and Portugal than in the U.S.


18/65

70.567.866.6

69.569.5

74.2

61.1

70.8

63.963.3

70.9

65.565.5

76.273.8

71.273.272.7

81.9

73.273.3

55.959.754.8

44.3

61.7

59.2

40.3

57.0

47.649.8

59.154.9

48.8 50.0

60.4

49.6 49.4

38.2

57.0 59.8

51.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Aust

ralia

Japa

n

Kore

a

New

Zeala

nd

Sing

apor

e

EU-15

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

gal

Spain

Swed

en U.K.

Men Women

Labor force participation rates by sex, 2004

Across countries, womens labor force participation rates varied more than mens rates. In Canada, New Zealand,and the Scandinavian countries, women participated in the labor force at about the same high rate as U.S. women.Italian and Mexican women had the lowest participation rates.

Participation rates for men were 70 percent or higher in most countries; the lowest rates were found in Italy, France,and Germany.



Percent

CHART 2.3


19/65

61.1 67.0

48.3

67.2

44.234.7

62.648.2

56.166.4

37.547.5 48.8

35.6

72.061.6

43.6 49.251.5

67.4

0

25

50

75

100

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a

New

Zea

land

EU-1

5

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

gal

Spain

Swed

en

U.K.

Youth participation ratesPercent

NOTE: Youth are defined as persons under age 25 and over age 14 or 15. Older workers are defined as persons ages 55 to 64.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Labor force participation rates by age, 2004for youth and older workers


CHART 2.4

Youth in Canada and the U.S. participated in the labor market to a much greater extent than youth in Korea, Japan,Mexico, and most of Europe.

Older persons in non-Scandinavian European countries were less likely to remain in the labor force than theircounterparts in North America and Asia.

62.3 57.4 55.7 53.866.0

59.768.9

44.628.7

65.5

39.6 44.250.7

31.846.3

68.8

53.244.4

73.158.0

0

25

50

75

100

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a

New

Zeala

nd

EU-1

5

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

gal

Spain

Swed

en

U.K.

Older workers participation ratesPercent


20/65

60.059.5

49.1

57.661.662.4

45.1

57.3

50.951.3

61.8

54.652.1

61.863.758.357.1

61.258.1

63.462.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a

New

Zeala

nd

Sing

apore

EU-15

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

galSp

ain

Swed

en U.K.

NOTE: The working-age population is defined as persons ages 15 or 16 and above.


Employment as a percent of the working-age population, 2004


Percent

CHART 2.5

New Zealand, Canada, the Netherlands, and the U.S. had the highest percentages of the working-age populationemployed.

In Italy and Spain, less than half of the working-age population was employed.


21/65

1.2

2.0

2.4

2.0

-0.2

1.3

2.2

2.5

1.1

0.1

0.7

1.1

0.0

4.2

0.9

1.9

1.21.4

3.9

0.7

1.0

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a

New

Zeala

nd

Sing

apor

e

EU-15

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

gal

Spain

Swed

en U.K.


Percent

Average annual growth rates in employment, 1994-2004


CHART 2.6

Ireland and Spain had the highest growth rates in employment.

U.S. employment growth outpaced that of 7 of the 12 European countries; the remaining countries, except forJapan, recorded higher employment growth than the U.S.


22/65

0.9

6.1

-0.2

1.6

0.6

3.2

1.31.21.00.5

3.6

-0.9

1.00.8

-0.9

0.9

2.1

0.8

-0.8

1.5

2.8

2.11.5 1.4

0.9

3.9

5.1

7.8

3.9

0.60.9

3.43.1

2.7

7.7

1.51.5

2.9

0.7

1.8

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a

New

Zeala

nd

EU-1

5

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

gal

Spain

Swed

en U.K.

Full-time Part-time

NOTE: 1995-2004 for Mexico and Austria. Full-time employment is defined as persons usually working over 30 hours per week in their main job. U.S. data referto employees only. Data for other countries refer to total employment, which includes employees, self-employed persons, and unpaid family workers.


Average annual grow th rates in full-time and part-timeemployment, 1994-2004


Percent

CHART 2.7

Six countries, including the U.S., saw full-time job growth surpass part-time job growth. In the majority of countries,part-time jobs were the main or sole source of job growth.

Full-time job growth was strongest in Ireland, followed by Spain and Mexico, but Ireland and Spain had even morerapid growth in part-time jobs.


23/65

NOTE: 1995 for Mexico and Austria. 2003 for Austria. Korean data refer to employees only. Data are per job for some countries.


Annual hours worked per employed person, 1994 and 2004

1864

174 9 1

863

1875 18

98

2471

1851

1587

1495 15

8215

361824

1607

1362

143

217

44 1816

1621 17

36

14

431642

1585

1357

136

316

94 1799

1585 16

69

144

1

14

541550

1826

1848

1816

1789

175118

24

2380

0

1000

2000

3000

U.S.

Cana

daM

exico

Austr

aliaJa

panKo

rea

New

Zeala

ndAu

stria

Denm

arkFr

ance

Germ

anyIre

land Italy

Neth

erlan

dsNo

rway

Portu

galSp

ain

Swed

en U.K.

1994 2004


Hours

CHART 2.8

In 2004, annual hours worked per employed person in European countries, except Spain, were lower than in theNorth American and Asian countries. Koreans worked the highest number of annual hours, by far.

Ireland and France experienced the largest reductions in annual hours worked per employed person; recent laws inFrance have reduced the normal work week to 35 hours for businesses with more than 20 employees.


24/65

10.9

6.6

4.8

6.7

4.44.7

8.1

4.5

9.9

5.4

9.8

4.8

8.1

4.8

3.93.7

4.85.5

3.0

6.4

5.5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a

New

Zeala

nd

Sing

apor

e

EU-1

5

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

gal

Spain

Swed

enU.

K.

NOTE: The rate for Mexico is understated in relation to U.S. concepts.


Percent

Unemployment rates, 2004


CHART 2.9

Half of the European countries had much higher unemployment rates than the U.S., while some of the smallerEuropean countries Ireland and Norway had unemployment rates well below the U.S. rate.

All but one of the Asian countries had lower unemployment rates than the U.S.


25/65

NOTE: The rates for Mexico are understated in relation to U.S. concepts. Teenagers are defined as persons under age 20 and over age 14 or 15.


Youth unemployment rates, 2004

15.5

22.8

30.6

21.8

16.7

10.9

34.4

12.1

8.7

26.5

7.0

13.4

18.420.0

12.613.412.0

15.8

7.0

17.117.0

7.99.4 9.6

5.9

8.5 9.19.5

6.9

15.8

7.86.3

8.5

20.4

13.3

6.9

21.0

6.9

9.0

13.5

19.9

14.9

0

10

20

30

40

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

aliaJa

pan

Korea

New

Zeala

nd

Sing

apore

EU-15

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

galSp

ain

Swed

en U.K.

Teenagers 20- to 24-year-oldsPercent


CHART 2.10

Italian teenagers had the highest unemployment rate, followed by their counterparts in Spain and France.

Unemployment rates of teenagers were higher than those of 20- to 24-year-olds in all countries except Denmarkand Germany.


26/65

NOTE: Youth are defined as persons under age 25 and over age 14 or 15. Adults are defined as persons ages 25 and over.


Ratio of youth to adult unemployment rates, 2004

2.7

2.3

3.1

2.8

2.3

3.63.4

2.02.2

2.3

1.6

2.6

1.3

2.2

3.6

2.1

3.6

2.7

2.3

3.2

3.7

0

1

2

3

4

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

aliaJa

panKo

rea

New

Zeala

nd

Sing

apore

EU-15

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

anyIre

land Italy

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

galSp

ain

Swed

en U.K.

Ratio


CHART 2.11

Unemployment rates were higher for youth than for adults. The ratio of youth to adult unemployment rates washighest in the U.K., Korea, Italy, and Norway.

There were relatively small differences in the unemployment rates for youth versus adults in Denmark and Germany.


27/65

Long-duration unemployment was least prevalent in Mexico and Korea.

The EU-15 countries combined had a relatively high percentage of persons unemployed one year or longer. Abouthalf of the unemployed were without work for at least one year in Germany and Italy.

Persons unemployed one year or longer, 2004as a percent of total unemployment

21.418.9

37.7

43.2

9.2

32.5

49.7

34.3

51.8

41.6

22.624.5

42.4

11.7

1.1

33.7

20.7

1.1

9.5

12.7

0

20

40

60

U.S.Ca

nadaM

exicoAu

stralia Japan Korea

New

Zealand EU

-15Au

stria

Denm

arkFr

ance

Germ

anyIre

land Italy

Neth

erlands

Norway

Portugal Spain

Sweden U.K.


Percent


CHART 2.12


28/65

Ratio of unemployment rate of persons w ithout high school degrees tothat of persons w ith college or university degrees, 2003

2.6

1.0

1.4

1.9

3.8

2.2

1.8 1.9

2.6

1.5

2.83.1

1.21.4

1.61.6

4.7

1.6

4.7

2.6

0.6

2.0

3.02.8

2.5

3.2

1.21.5

1.91.9

2.3

1.81.5

0.6

1.4

3.0

0.6

0

2

4

6

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a

New

Zeala

nd

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

gal

Spain

Swed

en

U.K.

Men WomenRatio

NOTE: NA = not available. 2002 for Italy and the Netherlands. The unemployment rates used to calculate these ratios are for men and women ages 25 to 64.


CHART 2.13

Unemployment rates were higher for persons without high school degrees, except in Mexico and Korea.

The unemployment rates of persons without high school degrees were at least three times that of persons withcollege or university degrees for men in Austria, Germany, the U.K., and the U.S. and for women in the U.S.,Austria, and Australia.


NA


29/65

57

18 16

49 40

6

31

47

44 47

64

50

41

59

35

36

42

56

12

18

49 56

3844

15

3137

29 31

15

3223 24 26

10

2431

11

2533

28

77

13

34

54

38

17

35

18212227

16

38

79

12 16

0

20

40

60

80

100

U.S.Ca

nadaM

exico

Austr

aliaJa

panKo

rea

New

Zealand

Austria

Denm

arkFr

ance

Germ

anyIre

land Italy

Neth

erlands

Norway

Portu

galSp

ain

Sweden U.K.

Below upper secondary Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary Tertiary

NOTE: 2002 for Italy and the Netherlands. The adult population are persons ages 25 to 64. Below upper secondary education is equivalent to less than highschool. Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education is equivalent to high school and also includes trade school. Tertiary education is equivalentto higher education provided by a college or university.


Educational attainment of the adult population, 2003by highest level of education attained

Labor Market Indicators| 19

CHART 2.14

More than one-third of the adult population have tertiary (university) education in Canada, the U.S., Japan, andSweden.

In Mexico, Portugal, Spain, and Italy, more than half of the adult population have less than upper secondaryeducation.

Percent


30/65


31/65

Competitiveness

Indicators for

Manufacturing

Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing | 21

SECTION 3Relative levels and changes in manufacturing hourly

compensation costs and relative changes in manufacturinglabor productivity (output per hour) and unit labor costs can be

used to partially assess international competitiveness. These

data are available on a comparative basis only for the

manufacturing sector. Charts 3.1 and 3.2 compare the level

and trends of hourly compensation costs for production workers

in manufacturing. The data are adjusted to U.S. dollars at

market exchange rates. Changes over time in compensation

costs denominated in U.S. dollars reflect the underlying

national wage and benefit trends measured in national

currencies, as well as frequent and sometimes sharp changes

in currency exchange rates. The hourly compensation figures

in U.S. dollars provide comparative measures of employer labor

costs; they do not provide inter-country comparisons of the

purchasing power of worker incomes. Chart 3.3 depicts

employer social insurance expenditures and other labor taxes

as a percent of hourly compensation costs.

Charts 3.4-3.6 provide comparisons of manufacturing

productivity growth rates, the composition of productivity growth

in terms of changes in output and hours worked, and trends in

unit labor costs. Unit labor costs are defined as the cost of

labor compensation per unit of output. Changes in unit labor

costs reflect the net effect of changes in hourly worker

compensation and in labor productivity. Unit labor costs risewhen compensation per hour rises faster than labor

productivity. Conversely, if labor productivity rises faster than

hourly compensation, unit labor costs decline.

The compensation costs indicators provide the most extensive

country coverage in this chartbook. Twenty-two economies

and the EU-15 are shown on those charts. For productivity, the

coverage is limited to 14 economies.


32/65

Eight countries, all of which are in Europe, had higher hourly compensation costs than the U.S.

Hourly compensation costs were well under $10 in Mexico, Hong Kong SAR, Taiwan, Portugal, and Singapore.

Hourly compensation costs, 2004for production workers in manufacturing in U.S. dollars

24.71

28.42

17.10

7.02

34.64

30.76

20.4821.94

32.53

23.89

33.75

28.2927.17

5.977.45

12.8911.52

21.90

5.51

23.09

2.50

21.4223.17

0

10

20

30

40

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

HongK

ongS

AJa

pan

Kore

a

NewZea

land

Sing

apor

e

Taiw

an

EU-1

5

Austr

ia

D

enm

ark

Fran

ce

G

erm

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Nethe

rland

s

Norw

ay

Portu

gal

Spain

Swed

en U.K.


SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

U.S. Dollars

22 | Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing

CHART 3.1


33/65

4.14.3

6.7

2.8

3.3

5.0

0.4

1.8

0.4

1.9

1.0

3.8

2.8

4.8

3.4

2.5

5.8

2.9

4.0

4.9 4.9

6.1

4.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

U.S.Ca

nadaM

exicoAu

stralia

Hong

Kon

gSAR

Japan

Korea

New

Zealand

Sing

apore Taiwan EU

-15Au

stria

Denm

arkFr

ance

Germ

anyIre

land Italy

Neth

erlands

Norway

Portugal Spain

Sweden U.K.

Average annual grow th rates in hourly compensation costs, 1994-2004for production workers in manufacturing in U.S. dollars


Percent



CHART 3.2

Hourly compensation costs in U.S. dollars grew faster than in the U.S. in all but three of the European countries,with the highest growth in the U.K.

Growth in compensation costs was slowest in Mexico and Japan.

Employer social insurance expenditures and other labor taxes as a percent


34/65

28.3

18.5

22.9

18.1

10.8

19.4

8.5

17.0

24.1

4.5

15.2

12.0

23.6

27.1

10.6

31.2

22.8

12.7

30.9

21.5

17.319.7

24.9

0

10

20

30

40

U.S.

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Hong

Kon

gSAR Japan Korea

New

Zealand

Sing

aporeTaiwan EU-15 Au

stria

Denm

arkFr

ance

GermanyIre

land Italy

Neth

erlands

Norway

Portuga

l

SpainSw

eden U.K.

Percent


Employer social insurance expenditures and other labor taxes as a percentof hourly compensation costs, 2004for production w orkers in manufacturing



CHART 3.3

Employer social insurance costs as a percent of hourly compensation costs were about the same for the U.S. andthe EU-15 as a whole, but U.S. costs were higher than in all but one of the non-European countries.

In Europe, social insurance costs ranged widely: France and Italy had higher costs than the U.S., while Denmarkand Ireland had much lower costs.


35/65

Average annual grow th rates in manufacturing output and hours


36/65

3.5 3.6

1.82.3

7.7

4.9

0.9

2.6

1.5

0.7

1.51.2

6.6

0.5

-2.0

1.1

-1.1

-2.4

-1.2-0.7 -0.8

-1.5 -1.6-1.0 -1.1

-2.1

0.00.2

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

U.S.

Cana

da

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a

Taiw

an

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Italy

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Swed

enU.

K.

Output Hours worked


Percent


Average annual grow th rates in manufacturing output and hoursworked, 1994-2004

CHART 3.5

Manufacturing output increases were highest in Korea and Sweden; the lowest were in the U.K., Italy, and Denmark.

The U.S. showed the third largest decline in hours worked; hours worked increased only in Canada and Italy.

Average annual grow th rates in manufacturing unit labor costs 1994 2004


37/65

Unit labor costs (ULC) are a component of total production costs and product prices. Declines in ULC indicate thata country is becoming more cost-competitive.

ULC declined in the U.S. and three Asian economies while increasing in most European countries.

-4.1

-3.5

-4.7

-0.7

0.0

2.8

1.4

2.9

-1.0

3.5

2.42.0

0.5

-1.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

U.S.

Cana

da

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a

Taiw

an

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Italy

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Swed

enU.

K.


Percent


Average annual grow th rates in manufacturing unit labor costs, 1994-2004in U.S. dollars

CHART 3.6


38/65

SECTION 4


39/65

SECTION 4

Other

Economic

Indicators

Other Economic Indicators | 29

Charts 4.1 through 4.5 show indicators of broader labor market

and population issues, some of these in the policy field. Charts

4.1-4.3 compare the following policy issues: expenditures onlabor market programs, the extent of labor and product market

regulations, and the level of taxation on labor.

Chart 4.4 compares dependency ratios. The dependency ratio

is an overall measure of the dependence that children and the

elderly have on people of working age. However, dependency

ratios show the age composition of a population, not necessarily

economic dependency. Some children and elderly people are

part of the labor force and some working-age people are not.

Chart 4.5 presents data on trade in goods as a percent of GDP.

This indicator shows an economys degree of openness.

The number of countries covered in this section varies from 17

to 20. EU-15 data were available only for the chart showingdependency ratios.

Pub lic expenditures on labor market programs as a percent of


40/65

0.9

2.52.3

2.01.7

3.9

2.1

3.5

2.9

4.4

2.0

1.3

0.4

0.8

1.1

0.5

1.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

U.S.

Cana

da

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a

New

Zeala

nd

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

d

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

gal

Spain

Swed

enU.

K.

Percent

Pub lic expenditures on labor market programs as a percent ofGDP, 2003-04

30 | Other Economic Indicators

NOTE: 2003 for Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, and Sweden. 2004 for Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, and Spain. Fiscal year 2004 forthe remaining countries.


CHART 4.1

Expenditures on labor market programs were less than 1 percent of GDP in Korea, the U.S., Japan, and the U.K.

The highest relative expenditures were by Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany.

Meas es of eg lation on labo and p od ct ma ketsCHART 4 2


41/65

NOTE: NA = not available. 2003 for labor market. 1998 for product market.


Measures of regulation on labor and product markets


3.1

1.1

2.6

1.1

3.2

1.5

1.82.0

1.3

2.2

1.8

2.9

2.5

1.3

2.4 2.3

2.6

3.5

0.71.0

2.2

3.2

1.6

4.1

2.5

3.0

4.3

4.0

2.4

3.9

2.9

3.2

1.4

2.9

2.4

1.4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a

New

Zeala

nd

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

gal

Spain

Swed

enU.

K.

Labor market Product market

NA NA

CHART 4.2

Regulations on market activity were least restrictive in the U.S. and the U.K.

Portugal and Mexico were characterized by more restrictive labor markets, followed by Spain and France; restrictiveproduct markets were most pronounced in Italy, Portugal, Ireland, and France.

Scale 0-6 from least to most restrictive

Share of labor costs taken by tax and social security contributions,CHART 4 3


42/65

43.645.747.444.9

20.7

31.2

48.0

38.0

32.6

36.9

23.8

50.7

41.5

16.6

26.628.6

15.4

32.329.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

U.S.Ca

nadaM

exicoAu

stralia Japan Korea

New

Zealan

d

Austria

Denmark Fr

ance

Germany Ire

land Italy

Neth

erland

s

Norway

Portuga

l

SpainSw

eden

U.K.

NOTE: Data refer to a single worker who earns the income of the average production worker.


Percent


y y ,2004

CHART 4.3

For a single production worker, the combined employer-employee tax burden was lower in the U.S. than in all butone of the European countries.

The combined employer-employee tax burden was higher in the U.S. than in all non-European countries exceptCanada.

Dependency ratios 2004CHART 4 4


43/65

NOTE: The dependency ratio is the ratio of dependents (persons under age 15 or above age 64) to the working-age population (persons ages 15 to 64).


Dependency ratios, 2004

0.520.54

0.460.48

0.53

0.480.50

0.470.51

0.540.51

0.470.500.51

0.39

0.500.49

0.60

0.45

0.49

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

U.S

.

Canada

Mexico

Austra

lia

Japan

Korea

New

Zealand

EU-15

Austria

Denma

rk

France

Germa

ny

Ireland

Ita

ly

Neth

erlands

Norway

Portug

al

Spain

Sweden

U.K

.


Ratio

CHART 4.4

Korea had a significantly lower dependency ratio than the other countries compared.

Mexico had the highest dependency ratio, mainly because it had a larger proportion of persons under age 15 thanall other countries compared.

Trade in goods as a percent of GDP 2003CHART 4 5


44/65

SOURCE: World Bank.

Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2003

19

60 55

3120

6244

298

7759

4456

95

40

109

48 52 4261

39

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a

New

Zeala

nd

Sing

apor

e

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

gal

Spain

Swed

en U.K.

Percent


CHART 4.5

This indicator shows the relative importance of trade in goods to an economy; the U.S. and Japan had the lowestratios, at about 20 percent of GDP.

The relatively high figures for Singapore and the Netherlands reflect their status as platforms for re-exports andtrans-shipments.

SECTION 5


45/65

Indicators for

Large Emerging

Economies

Indicators for Large Emerging Economies | 35

SECTION 5

Charts 5.1 through 5.7 provide a broad overview of basic

economic indicators for large emerging economies.

Charts 5.1-5.3 show population data in three varying ways:

world population distribution, age composition of the population,

and dependency ratios. Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

comparisons are shown in charts 5.4 (GDP per capita) andchart 5.5 (GDP per employed person). Chart 5.6 presents labor

force participation rates by sex. Chart 5.7 compares trade in

goods as a percent of GDP.

All of these charts include the U.S., which is used as a

reference point, and five large emerging economies: Brazil,

China, India, Indonesia, and the Russian Federation.

World popu lation distribution, 2004CHART 5.1


46/65

India

17%

Rest of the World

50%

Indonesia

3%

Russian Federation

2%

China

20%

Brazil

3%

U.S.

5%

World popu lation distribution, 2004

SOURCE: World Bank.

36 | Indicators for Large Emerging Economies

CHART 5.1

The five large emerging economiesBrazil, China, India, Indonesia, and the Russian Federationmade up 45percent of the worlds population.

China and India together comprised well over one-third of the worlds population.

Age composition of the population, 2003CHART 5.2


47/65

g p p p ,

66.6

67.1 69.1

62.5 65.4

70.4

12.45.4 7.3 5.1 4.9

13.2

21.027.5 23.6

32.4 29.7

16.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia Russian Federation

Under age 15 Ages 15 to 64 Over age 64

SOURCE: World Bank.


Percent

C 5

The Russian Federation had the highest proportion of persons over age 64 and the lowest proportion under age 15.

India had the largest proportion of children under age 15, comprising almost one-third of their total population.

Dependency ratios, 2003CHART 5.3


48/65

p y ,

0.50 0.49

0.45

0.60

0.53

0.42

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7


NOTE: The dependency ratio is the ratio of dependents (persons under age 15 or above age 64) to the working-age population (persons ages 15 to 64).

SOURCE: World Bank.


Ratio

India had a much higher dependency ratio than the U.S. and the other large emerging economies.

The Russian Federation had the lowest dependency ratio.

GDP per capita, 2004converted at PPP rates

CHART 5.4


49/65

NOTE: Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is the number of foreign currency units required to buy goods and services in a foreign country equivalent to what can bebought with one dollar in the U.S.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics and World Bank.

converted at PPP rates

9.9

3.63.1

5.5

8.3

39.9

0

10

20

30

40

50


Thousands of U.S. dollars


Among the five large emerging economies, the Russian Federation and Brazil had the highest GDP per capita, one-quarter to one-fifth of the U.S. level; India and Indonesia had the lowest, at less than one-tenth of the U.S. level.

China was in the middle of the group, with a GDP per capita at 14 percent of the U.S. level.

GDP per employed person, 1994 and 2003in 1990 U S dollars converted at PPP rates

CHART 5.5


50/65

Among the five large emerging economies, GDP per employed person was highest in Brazil and the RussianFederation.

China had the largest increase in GDP per employed person from 1994 to 2003, with an average annual growth rateof 6.3 percent.

NOTE: Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is the number of foreign currency units required to buy goods and services in a foreign country equivalent to what can bebought with one dollar in the U.S.

SOURCE: International Labor Office.

in 1990 U.S. dollars converted at PPP rates

51.7

13.9

4.8 4.0

7.4

10.9

14.0

8.45.8

8.4

14.5

61.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


1994 2003Thousands of 1990 U.S. dollars


Labor force participation rates by sex, 2003CHART 5.6


51/65

80.7

87.188.8

86.6 84.7

79.8

72.3

59.5

45.2

79.2

46.9

70.2

0

20

40

60

80

100


Men Women

NOTE: Participation rates are for the working-age population (persons ages 15 to 64).

SOURCE: World Bank.

Percent


China had the highest labor force participation rates for both men and women.

The participation rates for women were below 50 percent in Brazil and India.

Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2003CHART 5.7


52/65

18.5

25.1

60.1

21.1

44.9

48.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


SOURCE: World Bank.

Percent


This indicator shows the relative importance of trade in goods to an economy.

China had the highest percentage of trade in goods, followed by the Russian Federation and Indonesia; the U.S.had the lowest proportion.

Appendix A


53/65

Definitions,

Sources, and

Methods

Definitions, Sources, and Methods | A1

pp

IntroductionThis chartbook is based partially upon the output of the Bureau of

Labor Statistics (BLS) program of international comparisons of labor

force, compensation, and productivity. In order to increase country

and indicator coverage, BLS data are supplemented by data from the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

and other organizations.

BLS adjusts foreign statistics to a common conceptual framework,

thereby aiding users in making meaningful international

comparisons. Comparability issues arise due to, for example,

differences in definitions, time periods, and population and worker

coverage. Summary descriptions of the BLS comparative series are

provided below. More detailed information can be found in the

source documents listed, which are available on the BLS foreign

labor statistics Website at http://www.bls.gov/fls/. BLS publications

and releases also are available free of charge by contacting the

Division of Foreign Labor Statistics, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE,

Room 2150, Washington, D.C. 20212-0001, phone (202) 691-5654,

FAX (202) 691-5679.

To increase country coverage for some of the GDP per capita and

labor market indicators charts (sections 1 and 2), BLS data aresupplemented by data mainly from OECD, but also from the

International Labor Organizations International Labor Office (ILO),

World Bank, and national sources. The data from these alternative

sources are judged reasonably comparable with the BLS series

unless otherwise noted. The charts on hourly compensation and

productivity (charts in section 3) have not been supplemented by

other sources. All the data charted are from the BLS series for these


54/65


55/65


56/65


57/65


58/65


59/65


60/65


61/65


62/65


63/65


64/65


65/65

Documents

Department of Labor: chartbook jun06