department of labor: chartbook jan07
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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 jan07
3/65
A CHARTBOOK OFARTBOOK OFINTERNATIONALTERNATIONALLABORBOR COMPARISONS:MPARISONS:THEHE AMERICASERICAS AASIASIA--PPACIFICACIFIC EUROPEROPE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR JANUARY 2007
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
4/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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 jan07
6/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
7/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
8/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
10/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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.
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
14/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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 jan07
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.
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
Labor Market Indicators | 7
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.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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.
8 | Labor Market Indicators
Percent
CHART 2.3
NOTE: 2004 for Singapore.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
Labor Market Indicators | 9
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
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
Employment as a percent of the working-age population, 2005
10 | Labor Market Indicators
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.
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
Labor Market Indicators | 11
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.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
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
12 | Labor Market Indicators
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.
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
23/65
NOTE: 1995 and 2004 for Korea.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
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
Labor Market Indicators | 13
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.
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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.
NOTE: 2004 for Singapore.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
Percent
Unemployment rates, 2005
14 | Labor Market Indicators
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.
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
Labor Market Indicators | 15
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.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
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
16 | Labor Market Indicators
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.
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
Labor Market Indicators | 17
CHART 2.12
NOTE: 2004 for Sweden.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
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.
18 | Labor Market Indicators
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
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
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
30/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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.
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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.
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 jan07
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
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
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
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
24 | Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing
Employer social insurance expenditures and other labor taxes as a percentof hourly compensation costs, 2005for 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 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
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing | 25
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.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Average annual grow th rates for manufacturing output and hours
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Percent
26 | Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing
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
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Percent
Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing | 27
Average annual grow th rates for manufacturing unit labor costs, 1995-2005in U.S. dollars
CHART 3.6
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
38/65
SECTION 4
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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 jan07
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.
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 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
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
Other Economic Indicators | 31
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
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Share of labor costs taken by tax and social security contributions,CHART 4 3
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Percent
32 | Other Economic Indicators
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
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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).
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
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.
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 2004CHART 4 5
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
34 | Other Economic Indicators
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
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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.
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 persons under age 15, comprising almost one-third of its total population.
Dependency ratios, 2004CHART 5.3
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia Russian Federation
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.
38 | Indicators for Large Emerging Economies
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
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
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 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
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia Russian Federation
1995 2004Thousands of 1990 U.S. dollars
40 | Indicators for Large Emerging Economies
Labor force participation rates by sex, 2004CHART 5.6
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
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 rate for women was lowest in India.
Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2004CHART 5.7
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
52/65
20.0
26.9
59.8
25.0
49.448.1
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 Indonesia and the Russian Federation; the UnitedStates had the lowest proportion.
Appendix
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
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
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
54/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
55/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
56/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
57/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
58/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
59/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
60/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
61/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
62/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
63/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
64/65
-
8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jan07
65/65