BLS News Release: Productivity and Costs - 1Q04 (Productivity/Wages UP substantially)
Bureau of Labor Statistics ^ | 6/3/04 | BLS



Productivity and Costs, First Quarter 2004, Revised

USDL 04-995
TRANSMISSION OF THIS
MATERIAL IS EMBARGOED
UNTIL 8:30 A.M. EDT,
THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 2004

Internet address: http://www.bls.gov/lpc/ Historical, technical information: (202) 691-5606 dprweb@bls.gov Current data: (202) 691-5200 blsdata_staff@bls.gov Media contact: (202) 691-5290 hoyle_k@bls.gov

PRODUCTIVITY AND COSTS First Quarter 2004

The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor today reported revised productivity data--as measured by output per hour of all persons--for the first quarter of 2004. The revised seasonally adjusted annual rates of productivity change in the first quarter were:

4.6 percent in the business sector and 3.8 percent in the nonfarm business sector.

In both sectors, the first-quarter productivity gains were somewhat higher than those reported initially on May 6.

In manufacturing, the revised productivity changes in the first quarter were:

2.9 percent in manufacturing, 5.9 percent in durable goods manufacturing, and -0.7 percent in nondurable goods manufacturing.

Manufacturing productivity growth was revised down from the figure reported on May 6, reflecting a downward revision to productivity growth in nondurable goods manufacturing--which comprises less than forty percent of employment in the sector. Productivity in durable goods manufacturing was unchanged from the figure released last month. Output and hours in manufacturing, which includes about 13 percent of U.S. business-sector employment, tend to vary more from quarter to quarter than data for the aggregate business and nonfarm business sectors. First-quarter measures are summarized in table A and appear in detail in tables 1 through 5.

The data sources and methods used in the preparation of the manufacturing series differ from those used in preparing the business and nonfarm business series, and these measures are not directly comparable. Output measures for business and nonfarm business are based on measures of gross domestic product prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Quarterly output measures for manufacturing reflect indexes of industrial production independently prepared by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. See Technical Notes for further information on data sources.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table A. Productivity and costs: Revised first-quarter 2004 measures (Seasonally adjusted annual rates) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Real Hourly hourly Unit Produc- compen- compen- labor Sector tivity Output Hours sation sation costs ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent change from preceding quarter

Business 4.6 5.2 0.5 5.9 2.2 1.2 Nonfarm business 3.8 5.4 1.5 4.6 0.9 0.8 Manufacturing 2.9 5.8 2.8 6.2 2.5 3.1 Durable 5.9 9.3 3.2 5.5 1.8 -0.4 Nondurable -0.7 1.4 2.1 7.3 3.6 8.1

Percent change from same quarter a year ago ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Business 5.6 5.9 0.3 4.8 2.8 -0.8 Nonfarm business 5.5 5.9 0.4 4.6 2.7 -0.8 Manufacturing 5.2 3.1 -2.0 6.1 4.2 0.9 Durable 7.4 5.7 -1.6 6.3 4.4 -1.0 Nondurable 2.8 0.1 -2.6 5.6 3.7 2.8 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Business

Productivity increased 4.6 percent in the business sector (seasonally adjusted annual rate) from the fourth quarter of 2003 to the first quarter of 2004, as output increased 5.2 percent and hours worked by all persons grew 0.5 percent (table 1).

Hourly compensation increased 5.9 percent during the first quarter of 2004, up from 3.8 percent in the previous quarter, as revised. The first quarter increase was the largest in the sector since an 8.5-percent increase in the third quarter of 2000. This measure of compensation includes wages and salaries, supplements, employer contributions to employee benefit plans, and taxes. Real hourly compensation, which takes into account changes in consumer prices, rose by 2.2 percent in the first quarter of 2004, down from a 3.0-percent rise in the previous quarter.

Unit labor costs rose 1.2 percent during the first quarter of 2004. In the fourth quarter of 2003, unit labor costs had risen 1.9 percent. The change in unit labor costs approximates the change in hourly compensation less the change in productivity. The implicit price deflator for business output, which reflects changes in both unit labor costs and unit nonlabor payments, grew by 2.2 percent in the first quarter of 2004.

Nonfarm business

Productivity rose 3.8 percent in the nonfarm business sector during the first quarter of 2004, reflecting a 5.4-percent rise in output and a 1.5- percent increase in working hours of all persons (table 2).

Hourly compensation increased 4.6 percent in the first quarter of 2004, slightly more rapidly than in the previous quarter when it grew by 4.2 percent. However, when the rise in consumer prices is taken into account, real hourly compensation in the first quarter, which rose 0.9 percent, grew more slowly than in the fourth quarter, when it increased by 3.4 percent.

Unit labor costs grew 0.8 percent during the first quarter of 2004, less than the 1.7-percent increase of the fourth quarter. The implicit price deflator for nonfarm business output rose by 2.1 percent in the first quarter of 2004.

Manufacturing

Productivity rose 2.9 percent in manufacturing in the first quarter of 2004, as output grew 5.8 percent and working hours of all persons increased 2.8 percent (seasonally adjusted annual rates). In durable goods industries, productivity grew 5.9 percent, as output expanded 9.3 percent and hours rose 3.2 percent. In nondurable goods industries, productivity fell 0.7 percent, as output grew 1.4 percent and hours grew faster, 2.1 percent (tables 3, 4, and 5).

Hourly compensation in manufacturing rose 6.2 percent during the first quarter. This increase reflects a rise of 5.5 percent in the hourly compensation of persons in durable goods industries and a larger increase, 7.3 percent, in the hourly compensation of workers in nondurable goods industries. Real hourly compensation, which takes account of changes in consumer prices, rose 2.5 percent for all manufacturing workers.

Unit labor costs rose 3.1 percent in manufacturing during the first quarter. In durable goods industries, rapid productivity growth enabled producers to more than offset the increase in hourly compensation and unit labor costs declined by 0.4 percent. In nondurable goods industries, however, where productivity dropped in the first quarter, unit labor costs rose substantially, 8.1 percent.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm


The non-partisan BLS has now confirmed that the Bush Boom is helping everybody!

Good News!

Have you has a chance to read this thread yet? (second post)

Yep.


Please stop spamming, and stick to the topic.

Speaking of Spamming..... that is four links today Lawson.... we only allow 1-3 a day..... 3 at most.... do not post more than three in a 24 hour period or I will be forced to give you a warning please.....

I only did two the other day, so you owed me one.

By the way.... whats gonna happen in 2006 when and if Bush is still in office??? I hear he has dropped about 510Million into a vets fund but when 2006 rolls around he is gonna yank 950Mil from it..... that is if he is still around(((Doubtful)))--- that sounds more traitorous than calling vets babykillers.....

Post a link.


Bush has increased Veterans funding by 37%.

Bush To Cut Funds for Veterans by $910,000,000.00
Thursday, May 27, 2004

That's right: while George W. Bush runs around the country telling everyone who will listen that his 2005 budget increases funding for Veterans' benefits by $519 Million, the Bush Administration's 2006 budget cuts those same funds for Veterans by $910 Million.

Don't get me wrong: I like small government. I think our national budget deserves cuts in a lot of places. But one place we damned sure shouldn't be cutting the budget is in services to our nation's military veterans who have put their lives on the line for George W. Bush's sorry ass.

Our soldiers who have been giving their all in a hellhole overseas should not have to come back home to face this kind of disrespect from the same man who sent them there.


Posted by Jim Cook

Link please.

Republicans Seek To Slash VA Budget!



With our military poised to attack Iraq,the Republican Party is poised to devastate the budget of American veterans.
By Kate McLaughlin


Today the House of Representatives will vote on a resolution that if passed will devastate the Veterans Administration's budget and severely reduce its medical, disability, and benefit programs. On the verge of war in Iraq, the Republican Paty has placed in its cross-hairs American veterans from earlier wars.

The Republican majority of the House Budget Committee is reducing President Bush's proposed budget by about $844 million in health care and an additional $463 million in benefit programs including disability compensation, vocational rehabilitation, education survivor's benefits, and pension programs from next year's budget. In addition to these cuts, the GOP is planning to cut $15 billion from the veteran programs over the next 10 years. The soldiers and sailors that are currently in harms way in the the Middle East, are about to have their future veterans' benefits and health care slashed. If, that is, the Republicans get their way.

According to the Veterans Administration, 28 million veterans are currently using VA benefits and another 70 million Americans are potentially eligible for such programs, a quarter of the county's population. With the economy in a downward spiral and unemployment rising quickly, an increased number of veterans will be turning to the Veterans Administration for assistance. Yet, the VA budget is about to shrink.

"As the nation expresses support for our soldiers and sailors on the verge of war in the Middle East, even from us who are deeply opposed to this unnecessary war," says Stewart Nusbaumer of Veterans Against Iraq War" (www.vaiw.org), the Republicans are expressing contempt by cutting the veterans budget."

Nearly a third of the Gulf War veterans have submitted claims to the Veterans Administration for disability, this is about 209,000 veterans. Gulf War II may have as many or more requesting VA assistance, but with a Veterans Administration that will be smaller and with less resources.

“This could mean the loss of 19,000 nurses, equating to the loss of 6.6 million outpatient visits or more than three-quarters of a million hospital bed days,” says Edward Heath, National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans. “But that is not all of the devastation that will
be caused by the proposed cuts. Congress will be reaching into the pockets of our nation’s service-connected veterans, including combat disabled veterans, and robbing them and their survivors of a portion of their compensation. Ninety percent of VA’s mandatory spending is from cash payments to service-connected disabled veterans, low-income wartime veterans, and their
survivors.”

“Is there no shame?” Commander Heath asked.

According to Congressman Lane Evens (D-IL), the ranking Democratic Member of the House Veteran's Affairs Committee, these cuts are picking up the slack for the controversial tax cuts, he stated. "These cuts must be made, so that our government can afford to provide a tax cut which will benefit only the wealthiest Americans, many of who never served in the military."

“This is utterly humiliating to every veteran and every active duty service person. On the verge of war, the Republicans are stabbing veterans of earlier wars in the back.”


* * *


Veterans and Family Members: Go to VAIW's Homepage , there is a Homepage button at the top of this page on the right. When on the Homepage, scroll down past the Operation Dire Distress announcemnts to the Statement of Purpose. Read the Statement, if you agree with its content, then Endorse VAIW by filling out the form just below the Statement. There is one form for Veterans and one for Family Members.

Note: Kate McLaughlin served in the US Air Force and the Force Reserve. She is currently a full time student and is studing nursing.

You should read this too.... everyopne should---

D.R.: I read that Senator Cleland and General Wesley Clark were speaking in Alabama this week in support of Senator Kerry, and particularly about his military record. How much difficulty have you had with the attacks on John Kerry’s military record, and how surprised have you been that the Republican camp has leveled such attacks?

J.H.: I am surprised that the Republicans are doing this, that they’re smearing John Kerry’s service. I shouldn’t be surprised, because they did the same thing to John McCain in South Carolina in 2000, they did the same thing to Max Cleland in Georgia in 2002, and now they’re trying to do the same thing with John Kerry.

D.R.: Are you ready for it this time?

J.H.: I think we are ready. John’s military record is unsurpassed. It is hard to imagine where they think they’re going with this. They obviously can’t talk about jobs, because they’ve lost too many; they can’t talk about the environment, because they’ve ignored it; they can’t talk about health care, because they have no health care plan. The only thing that Bush can do is to try to tear down John Kerry’s service to his country. And it’s ludicrous.

I know that those [anti-Kerry] swift boat officers had their press conference a week ago here in Washington. One of those in attendance was a gentleman by the name of George Elliot. He is now saying that John Kerry is unfit to be president of the United States. But I am looking, right now as you and I speak, at a fitness report on John Kerry, written by the same George Elliot, dated 18 December 1969, and the opening sentence is, “In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lt. J.G. Kerry was unsurpassed. Lt. J.G. Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group.” There’s a part of the Navy fitness report in which they check boxes. There are 16 different categories in which these officers are rated, everything from professional knowledge to moral courage to loyalty, force, initiative, and imagination. And the top category is a box labeled “Is Not Exceeded.” In 11 out of 16 instances, George Elliot rated Kerry “Is Not Exceeded,” and in the other five he rated him “One of the Top Few.” It’s just a glowing, over-the-top fitness report, in real time when John was serving in Vietnam. And now, these same people are coming back and saying he’s not fit to be president. It’s ridiculous! It’s a Republican smear campaign. John’s military record and his involvement in Vietnam Veterans Against the War has been part of the public record for over 30 years, and it’s never been an issue until he ran for president.

So yes, I am very surprised that they would take on John on that issue. John will clean his clock. I mean, if you want to compare John Kerry’s service in Vietnam to a guy who cannot even establish that he showed up for National Guard duty in Alabama, we’ll take that any time.

From here-----

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/m...rticle&sid=741

That's not the link to your previous statement.

Nevertheless, the 2006 budget has not been done yet, so how is it that these people seem to say something two years out, when the 2005 budget isn't even done yet?

Ridiculous.

Hurley is a Kerry operative. No wonder he's lying. He wasn't even there with Kerry.

Wow.. really???

Kerry was in the mekong delta in 1968---- hurley was in the--- wow--- you guessed it mekong delta in wow... again.... 1968---