Department of Labor: chartbook jan07

8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07

1/65

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR JANUARY 2007


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 AASIASIA--PPACIFICACIFIC EUROPEROPE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR JANUARY 2007


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, 2005 21. 2 Average annual growth rates for real GDP per capita, 1995-2005 3

Section 2. Labor Market Indicators 52. 1 Size of the labor force, 2005 62. 2 Average annual growth rates for the labor force, 1995-2005 72. 3 Labor force participation rates by sex, 2005 82. 4 Labor force participation rates by age, 2005 92. 5 Employment as a percent of the working-age population, 2005 102. 6 Average annual growth rates for employment, 1995-2005 112. 7 Average annual growth rates for full-time and part-time

employment, 1995-2005 12

2. 8 Annual hours worked per employed person, 1995 and 2005 132. 9 Unemployment rates, 2005 142.10 Youth unemployment rates, 2005 152.11 Ratio of youth to adult unemployment rates, 2005 162.12 Persons unemployed one year or longer, 2005 172.13 Ratio of unemployment rate of persons without high school

degrees to that of persons with college or university degrees, 2004 18

2.14 Educational attainment of the adult population, 2004 19

Section 3. Competitiveness Indicators forManufacturing 21

3. 1 Hourly compensation costs, 2005 223. 2 Average annual growth rates for hourly compensation costs,

1995-2005 23

3.3 Employer social insurance expenditures and other labor taxes as apercent of hourly compensation costs, 2005 24

3.4 Average annual growth rates for manufacturing productivity,1995-2005 25

3.5 Average annual growth rates for manufacturing output and hoursworked, 1995-2005 26

3.6 Average annual growth rates for manufacturing unit labor costs,1995-2005 27

Section 4. Other Economic Indicators 29

4.1 Public expenditures on labor market programs as a percent ofGDP, 2004-05 30

4.2 Measures of regulation on labor and product markets, 2003 314.3 Share of labor costs taken by tax and social security contributions,

2005 32

4.4 Dependency ratios, 2005 334.5 Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2004 34

Section 5. Indicators for Large Emerging Economies 35

5.1 World population distribution, 2005 365.2 Age composition of the population, 2004 375.3 Dependency ratios, 2004 385.4 GDP per capita, 2005 395.5 GDP per employed person, 1995 and 2004 405.6 Labor force participation rates by sex, 2004 415.7 Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2004 42

Appendix. Definitions, 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 United States. 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 2005

and the trend from 1995 to 2005 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

32.2

42.1

34.0

10.2

32.030.9 31.0

21.9 22.5

29.9 29.7

33.8 34.4

30.2 29.8

40.9

25.5

34.1

43.2

20.1

26.1

32.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

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 United States.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics and World Bank.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, 2005converted at PPP rates

2 | Gross Domestic Product Per Capita

Thousands of U.S. dollars

Norway, the United States, and Ireland were the countries with the highest GDP per capita among the 21economies compared.

The other economies showed levels of GDP per capita between 82 percent (Denmark) and 24 percent (Mexico) ofthe 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 2.22.5

2.8

1.1

3.7

1.9

2.9

1.8 1.9 1.7 1.61.3

6.3

0.9

1.7

2.2

1.6

2.72.5 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 for real GDP per capita, 1995-2005

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 1.6 to 2.8 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; Italy and Japan had the smallestincreases.

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

149.3

17.1

42.5

10.5

65.9

23.7

2.2 2.2

181.9

4.0 2.8

27.0

40.8

2.0

24.2

8.52.4 5.5

20.8

4.7

30.1

0

40

80

120

160

200

U.S.

Cana

da

Mexico

Austr

alia

Japan

Korea

NewZe

aland

Sing

apore

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norway

Portu

gal

Spain

Sweden U.

K.

Millions

Size of the labor force, 2005

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 United States.

NOTE: 2004 for Singapore.

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


17/65

0.7

0.5

2.5

1.6

1.0

1.6

0.7

3.3

0.4

0.9

0.30.4

0.9

2.7

1.8

1.3

0.0

1.6

2.01.7

1.2

0

1

2

3

4

U.S.

Cana

da

Mexico

Austr

alia

Japan

Korea

NewZe

aland

Sing

apore

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norway

Portu

gal

Spain

Sweden U.

K.

Percent

Average annual grow th rates for the labor force, 1995-2005


CHART 2.2

The other North American countries and the Asian-Pacific countries, except for Japan, recorded higher labor forcegrowth rates than the United States.

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 United States.

NOTE: 1995-2004 for Singapore.



18/65

70.569.367.469.269.4

73.7

60.5

71.6

65.562.6

70.366.1

64.7

76.274.371.3

73.173.0

78.9

72.773.3

56.260.6

55.6

45.5

61.4

59.3

40.7

58.1

47.750.3

60.1

54.9

48.7 51.0

60.3

50.3 51.4

37.8

57.4 59.8

50.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

U.S.

Cana

da

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea

NewZe

aland

Sing

apore

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norway

Portu

gal

Spain

Sweden U.

K.

Men Women

Labor force participation rates by sex, 2005

Across countries, womens labor force participation rates varied more than mens rates. In Canada, the Scandinaviancountries, New Zealand, and Australia, 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 12 out of 21 countries; the lowest rates were found in Italy andFrance.


Percent

CHART 2.3




19/65

60.8 65.9

46.8

71.3

44.633.3

62.847.6

59.267.2

33.7

50.2 50.5

33.5

68.560.2

43.052.1 54.7

65.9

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, 2005for youth and older workers


CHART 2.4

Youth in Canada and the United States participated in the labor market to a much greater extent than youth inKorea, 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 American and Asian-Pacific countries.

62.9 57.9 53.6 55.566.6 60.2

71.0

46.733.0

62.9

43.652.1 53.2

32.647.0

68.8

53.845.9

72.858.4

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

60.059.9

51.0

57.361.562.3

44.9

58.8

51.251.0

61.9

55.251.7

61.864.6

58.557.362.1

56.6

63.462.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

U.S.

Cana

da

Mexico

Austr

alia

Japan

Korea

NewZe

aland

Sing

apore

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norway

Portu

galSp

ain

Sweden U.

K.

NOTE: 2004 for Singapore. The working-age population is defined as persons ages 15 or 16 and over.


Employment as a percent of the working-age population, 2005


Percent

CHART 2.5

New Zealand, Canada, the United States, and the Netherlands had the highest percentages of the working-agepopulation employed.

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


21/65

1.3

2.02.2

1.9

-0.2

1.1

2.0

2.4

1.2

0.2

0.5

1.1

0.1

4.2

1.1

1.8

1.1

1.5

4.2

0.7

1.1

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

U.S.

Cana

da

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea

NewZe

aland

Sing

apore

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norway

Portu

gal

Spain

Sweden U.

K.

Percent

Average annual grow th rates for employm ent, 1995-2005


CHART 2.6

Ireland and Spain had the highest growth rates in employment. Employment declined only in Japan.

U.S. employment growth outpaced that of 8 of the 12 European countries; the remaining countries recorded higheremployment growth than the United States, except for Japan and Korea.

NOTE: 1995-2004 for Singapore.



22/65

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


0.9

9.5

-0.5

1.31.5

2.0

2.8

1.6

-1.0

0.6

1.9

0.8

-0.4

0.41.0

-0.8

3.8

0.7 0.9 1.11.3

3.7

0.6

1.7

0.5

2.8

1.5

2.3

8.7

2.43.1

4.1

1.1

0.5

4.5

7.1

4.6

3.8

0.7

2.7

-3

-1

1

3

5

7

9

11

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

Average annual grow th rates for full-time and part-timeemployment, 1995-2005


Percent

CHART 2.7

Full-time employment grew faster than part-time employment in six countries, including the United States. In themajority of countries, part-time employment was the main or sole source of employment growth.

Full-time employment growth was strongest in Ireland and Spain, both of which also had rapid growth in part-timeemployment.


23/65

NOTE: 1995 and 2004 for Korea.


Annual hours worked per employed person, 1995 and 2005

1849

1775 18

631872

1884

2658

1842

1646

1499 16

51

152

91823 18

76

1344 141

4

1799

1815

1626 17

39

1435

1638 1

791

1367 1360

1685 17

69

1587 16

72

1535

1

55116

36180919

09

1811

1775

173718

04

2394

0

1000

2000

3000

U.S.

Cana

da

Mexico

Austr

alia

Japan

Korea

NewZe

aland

Austria

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norway

Portu

gal

Spain

Sweden U.

K.

1995 2005


Hours

CHART 2.8

In 2005, annual hours worked per employed person in European countries, except Italy and Spain, were lower thanin the North American and Asian-Pacific countries. Koreans worked the highest number of annual hours, by far.

Korea and Ireland experienced the largest reductions in annual hours worked per employed person.


24/65

9.2

7.7

4.8

7.6

4.64.7

7.8

4.4

11.2

4.8

9.7

5.2

7.9

4.8

3.73.7

4.55.1

3.5

6.0

5.1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

U.S.

Cana

da

Mexico

Austr

alia

Japan

Korea

NewZe

aland

Sing

apore

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norway

Portu

gal

Spain

Sweden U.

K.



Percent

Unemployment rates, 2005


CHART 2.9

Half of the European countries had much higher unemployment rates than the United States.

All but one of the Asian-Pacific countries had lower unemployment rates than the United States.


25/65

Youth unemployment rates, 2005

15.8

34.0

29.1

21.5

17.4

10.5

36.8

11.0

14.8

27.9

7.6

13.5

19.120.0

12.912.510.4

15.2

7.0

15.416.6

9.28.8 9.0

6.37.7 8.4

9.9

6.6

15.6

8.7

6.38.1

21.4

15.9

7.4

21.1

6.5

9.1

14.817.0 17.4

0

10

20

30

40

U.S.

Cana

daM

exico

Australia

Japan

Korea

NewZe

aland

Sing

apore

EU-15

Austria

Denm

arkFr

ance

Germ

anyIre

land Italy

Neth

erlan

ds

Norway

Portu

galSp

ain

Sweden U.K.

Teenagers 20- to 24-year-oldsPercent


CHART 2.10

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

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

NOTE: 2004 for Singapore. Teenagers are defined as persons under age 20 and over age 14 or 15.



26/65

NOTE: 2004 for Singapore. 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, 2005

2.8

2.3

2.5

2.9

2.2

3.3

3.8

2.02.3

2.4

1.8

2.8

1.5

2.4

3.9

2.0

3.4

2.4 2.5

3.9 3.9

0

1

2

3

4

5

U.S.

Cana

da

Mexico

Austr

aliaJapan

Korea

NewZe

aland

Sing

apore

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

anyIre

land Italy

Neth

erlan

ds

Norway

Portu

galSp

ain

Sweden U.

K.

Ratio


CHART 2.11

Unemployment rates were higher for youth than for adults. The ratios of youth to adult unemployment rates werehighest in Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

The smallest differences in the unemployment rates for youth versus those of adults were in Denmark and Germany.


27/65

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

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

Persons unemployed one year or longer, 2005as a percent of total unemployment

22.4

18.9

32.6

48.6

9.5

40.1

52.2

34.3

54.0

42.5

25.925.3

44.3

9.4

0.8

33.3

17.7

2.4

9.611.8

0

20

40

60

U.S

.

Canad

a

Mexico

Austral

ia

Japan

Korea

NewZe

alan

d

EU-15

Austria

Denmar

k

France

German

y

Ireland

Italy

Neth

erlands

Norwa

y

Portug

al

Spain

Swede

nU.K

.

Percent


CHART 2.12

NOTE: 2004 for Sweden.



28/65

Ratio of unemployment rate of persons w ithout high school degrees tothat of persons w ith college or university degrees, 2004

2.6

1.3

1.71.9

1.51.2

2.4

3.7

3.2

1.51.51.5

2.0

4.7

1.7

3.2

2.5

0.6

2.1

3.1

1.9

4.2

2.0 1.9

2.9

2.6

1.61.7

1.3

2.2

1.9

2.8

2.4

1.7

0.8

1.4

1.9

0.6

0

2

4

6

U.S.

Cana

da

Mexico

Austr

alia

Japan

Korea

NewZe

aland

Austria

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norway

Portu

gal

Spain

Sweden

U.K.

Men WomenRatio

NOTE: 2003 for Japan. 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 for men and women in Mexicoand for women in 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 Germany, Ireland, Austria, and the United Kingdom, and for both men andwomen in the United States.



29/65

55

17 15

48 39

7

33

47

44 5362

51

41

59

35

38

4257

12

19

48 56

3945

16

3137

30 2518

3224 25 28

11

29 32

13

2635

29

75

11

29

51

37

16

35

17202226

16

36

77

13 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: 2003 for Japan. The adult population is defined as persons ages 25 to 64. Below upper secondary education is equivalent to less than high school.Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education is equivalent to high school and also includes trade school. Tertiary education is equivalent tohigher education provided by a college or university.


Educational attainment of the adult population, 2004by 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 United States, Japan,and Sweden.

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 through 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

Canada, Australia, and eight European countries had higher hourly compensation costs than the United States.

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

Hourly compensation costs, 2005for production workers in manufacturing in U.S. dollars

25.6628.73

17.78

7.33

39.14

31.81

21.0522.76

33.00

24.63

35.47

29.4227.52

6.387.66

14.9713.56

21.76

5.65

24.91

2.63

23.8223.65

0

10

20

30

40

50

U.S.

C

anad

a

Mex

ico

Aus

tralia

Hong

Kon

gSA

Japa

n

Kore

a

NewZ

ealan

Singa

pore

Taiw

an

EU-1

5

Austr

ia

De

nmar

k

Fran

ce

Ge

rman

y

Irelan

dIta

ly

Nether

lands

N

orwa

y

Por

tuga

l

Spain

Swe

den

U.K.


SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

U.S. Dollars

22 | Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing

CHART 3.1


33/65

3.42.9

6.4

3.73.3

4.94.5

1.6

-0.8

0.10.6

3.1

1.5

3.4

2.5

0.9

5.2

3.0 2.8

4.7

3.7

6.4

3.8

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

U.S.Ca

nadaM

exicoAu

stralia

Hong

Kon

gSAR

Japan

Korea

NewZe

aland

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 for hourly compensation costs, 1995-2005for production workers in manufacturing in U.S. dollars


Percent



CHART 3.2

Growth in hourly compensation costs in U.S. dollars was similar for the United States and the EU-15 as a whole.

Only Japan had a decrease in hourly compensation costs.

Employer social insurance expenditures and other labor taxes as a percent


34/65

28.1

18.5

22.5

19.4

10.9

20.3

8.5

17.0

21.7

4.5

14.012.1

23.5

27.1

10.3

31.2

22.6

12.7

30.9

21.520.0 19.7

25.2

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, 2005for production w orkers in manufacturing



CHART 3.3

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

In Europe, social insurance costs as a percent of total hourly compensation costs ranged widely: France and Italyhad higher costs than the United States, while Denmark and Ireland had much lower costs.

Average annual grow th rates for manufacturing productivity


35/65

3.1

6.5

2.8

3.2

0.1

3.6

4.3

1.1

5.4

8.9

3.33.0

2.5

5.7

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.

Percent


Average annual grow th rates for manufacturing productivity,1995-2005

CHART 3.4

Korea had, by far, the largest increase in manufacturing labor productivity, followed by Sweden, the United States,and Taiwan.

Italy and Denmark recorded the lowest gains in manufacturing labor productivity.

NOTE: Productivity is defined as output per hour worked.


Average annual grow th rates for manufacturing output and hours


36/65

3.4 3.3

1.8

0.9

4.8

2.5 1.9

-0.3

1.7 1.5

5.6

0.3

-2.2

0.8

-1.2

-2.3

-1.5

-0.6

-1.2-1.7 -1.6

-1.4 -1.3

-2.7

-0.1

7.3

-0.8-0.4

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

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 for manufacturing output and hoursworked, 1995-2005

CHART 3.5

Manufacturing output increases were highest in Korea and Sweden; output slightly decreased in Italy and Denmark.

The United States showed the third largest decline in hours worked; hours worked increased only in Canada.

Average annual grow th rates for manufacturing unit labor costs 1995 2005


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 over half of the economies shown, including the United States.

-4.0-3.7

-4.9

-1.8 -1.9

3.3

-0.3

1.7

-2.2

3.0

1.51.9

1.4

-1.0

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

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

en U.K.


Percent


Average annual grow th rates for manufacturing unit labor costs, 1995-2005in 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

0.8

2.6

2.2

2.0

1.7

3.7

1.5

3.5

2.7

4.5

2.0

1.0

0.3

0.7

1.0

0.5

1.0

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, 2004-05

30 | Other Economic Indicators

NOTE: Fiscal year 2004 for the United States and the United Kingdom. Fiscal year 2005 for Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. 2005 for Korea. 2004for the remaining countries.


CHART 4.1

Expenditures on labor market programs were less than 1 percent of GDP in Korea, the United States, Japan, andthe United Kingdom.

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

Meas es of eg lation on labo and p od ct ma kets 2003CHART 4 2


41/65

1.11.3

2.4

1.1

0.7

1.8

2.3

1.51.3

1.8

2.6

2.0

2.52.2

2.92.6

3.1

3.5

3.2

1.0 0.91.2

1.61.61.51.4

1.9

1.11.2

1.4

1.7

1.1

1.4

1.1

1.51.3

0.9

2.2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

U.S.

Canada

Mexico

Australia Japan Korea

New

Zealan

d

Austria

Denmark Fr

anceGe

rmany

Ireland Italy

Neth

erland

s

Norwa

y

Portuga

l

SpainSw

eden U.K.

Labor market Product market

Measures of regulation on labor and product markets, 2003


CHART 4.2

Regulations on market activity were least restrictive in the United States and the United Kingdom.

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

38.6

45.4

50.147.4

20.5

33.5

47.9

39.036.237.3

25.7

51.8

41.4

17.3

27.728.3

18.2

31.629.1

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 ,2005

CHART 4.3

For a single production worker, the combined employer-employee tax burden was lower in the United States than inall but one of the European countries.

The combined employer-employee tax burden was higher in the United States than in all non-European countriesexcept Canada.

Dependency ratios 2005CHART 4 4


43/65

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


Dependency ratios, 2005

0.49

0.44

0.59

0.49 0.51

0.39

0.51 0.500.48

0.510.54

0.500.47

0.500.48

0.520.48

0.45

0.53 0.52 0.52

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

U

.S.

Canad

a

Mexic

o

Australia

Japan

Korea

NewZeal

and

EU-15

Austria

Denmark

France

Germany

Ireland

Italy

Netherla

nds

Norw

ay

Portugal

Spain

Swed

en

U

.K.

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 2004CHART 4 5


44/65

SOURCE: World Bank.

Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2004

20

61 59

31 22

70

44

322

8160

4559

91

42

117

52 5441

64

38

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

U.S.

Cana

da

Mexico

Austr

alia

Japan

Korea

NewZe

aland

Sing

apore

Austria

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norway

Portu

gal

Spain

Sweden U.

K.

Percent


CHART 4.5

This indicator shows the relative importance of trade in goods to an economy; the United States and Japan had thelowest ratios, 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 chart 5.4 (GDP per capita) and chart5.5 (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 United States, which is used as a

reference point, and five large emerging economies: Brazil,

China, India, Indonesia, and the Russian Federation.

World popu lation distribution, 2005CHART 5.1


46/65

India

17%

Rest of the World

50%

U.S.

5%

Brazil

3%

China

20%

Russian Federation

2%

Indonesia

3%

World popu lation distribution, 2005

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, 2004CHART 5.2


47/65

g p p p ,

66.8

65.9 70.5

62.3

66.0

70.7

12.36.0 7.5 5.2 5.4

13.6

20.928.1

22.0

32.528.6

15.7

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 persons under age 15, comprising almost one-third of its total population.

Dependency ratios, 2004CHART 5.3


48/65

p y ,

0.500.52

0.42

0.61

0.52

0.41

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 over 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 United States and the other large emerging economies.

The Russian Federation and China had the lowest dependency ratios.

GDP per capita, 2005converted 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 United States.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics and World Bank.

converted at PPP rates

10.9

3.83.5

6.6

8.7

41.9

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 nearly 16 percent of the U.S. level.

GDP per employed person, 1995 and 2004in 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 1995 to 2004, with an average annual growth rateof 5.5 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 United States.

SOURCE: International Labor Office.

in 1990 U.S. dollars converted at PPP rates

51.8

14.1

5.1 4.3

8.210.8

14.9

8.7

6.2

8.2

15.4

62.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


1995 2004Thousands of 1990 U.S. dollars


Labor force participation rates by sex, 2004CHART 5.6


51/65

81.784.1

88.084.4

87.0

75.2

66.9

52.8

36.1

76.2

60.6

70.1

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 rate for women was lowest in India.

Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2004CHART 5.7


52/65

20.0

26.9

59.8

25.0

49.448.1

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 Indonesia and the Russian Federation; the UnitedStates had the lowest proportion.

Appendix


53/65

Definitions,

Sources, and

Methods

Definitions, Sources, and Methods | A1

pp

Introduction

This 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) andother 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 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 andlabor market indicators charts (sections 1 and 2), BLS data are

supplemented 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


54/65


55/65


56/65


57/65


58/65


59/65


60/65


61/65


62/65


63/65


64/65


65/65

Department of Labor: chartbook jan07

Documents

Transcript of Department of Labor: chartbook jan07