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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
3/65
A CHARTBOOK OFARTBOOK OFINTERNATIONALTERNATIONALLABORBOR COMPARISONS:MPARISONS:THEHE AMERICASERICAS ASIAIA EUROPEROPE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR JUNE 2006
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
4/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
6/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
7/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
8/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
10/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
14/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
Percent
Average annual grow th rates in the labor force, 1994-2004
Labor Market Indicators | 7
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.
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
8 | Labor Market Indicators
Percent
CHART 2.3
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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
Labor Market Indicators | 9
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
Employment as a percent of the working-age population, 2004
10 | Labor Market Indicators
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.
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
Percent
Average annual growth rates in employment, 1994-2004
Labor Market Indicators | 11
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.
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Average annual grow th rates in full-time and part-timeemployment, 1994-2004
12 | Labor Market Indicators
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.
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
23/65
NOTE: 1995 for Mexico and Austria. 2003 for Austria. Korean data refer to employees only. Data are per job for some countries.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
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
Labor Market Indicators | 13
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.
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
Percent
Unemployment rates, 2004
14 | Labor Market Indicators
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.
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
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
Labor Market Indicators | 15
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.
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
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
16 | Labor Market Indicators
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.
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Percent
Labor Market Indicators | 17
CHART 2.12
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
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.
18 | Labor Market Indicators
NA
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
30/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
NOTE: Hong Kong SAR stands for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
U.S. Dollars
22 | Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing
CHART 3.1
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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
Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing | 23
Percent
NOTE: Hong Kong SAR stands for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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
24 | Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing
Employer social insurance expenditures and other labor taxes as a percentof hourly compensation costs, 2004for production w orkers in manufacturing
NOTE: Hong Kong SAR stands for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
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.
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
35/65
Average annual grow th rates in manufacturing output and hours
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Percent
26 | Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Percent
Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing | 27
Average annual grow th rates in manufacturing unit labor costs, 1994-2004in U.S. dollars
CHART 3.6
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
38/65
SECTION 4
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
41/65
NOTE: NA = not available. 2003 for labor market. 1998 for product market.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Measures of regulation on labor and product markets
Other Economic Indicators | 31
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Percent
32 | Other Economic Indicators
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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).
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
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
.
Other Economic Indicators | 33
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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
34 | Other Economic Indicators
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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.
Indicators for Large Emerging Economies | 37
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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
U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia Russian Federation
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.
38 | Indicators for Large Emerging Economies
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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
U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia Russian Federation
Thousands of U.S. dollars
Indicators for Large Emerging Economies | 39
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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
U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia Russian Federation
1994 2003Thousands of 1990 U.S. dollars
40 | Indicators for Large Emerging Economies
Labor force participation rates by sex, 2003CHART 5.6
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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
U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia Russian Federation
Men Women
NOTE: Participation rates are for the working-age population (persons ages 15 to 64).
SOURCE: World Bank.
Percent
Indicators for Large Emerging Economies | 41
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
52/65
18.5
25.1
60.1
21.1
44.9
48.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia Russian Federation
SOURCE: World Bank.
Percent
42 | Indicators for Large Emerging Economies
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
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
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
54/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
55/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
56/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
57/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
58/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
59/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
60/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
61/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
62/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
63/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
64/65
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun06
65/65