Department of Labor: chartbook jun07

8/14/2019 Department of Labor: chartbook jun07

1/66

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR JUNE 2007


2/66

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.

This document is updated each January and June and

is available on the Internet at:

http://www.dol.gov/asp/welcome.html.


3/66

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR JUNE 2007


4/66

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 Comparisons

provides 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

ii | Foreword


5/66


6/66

CONTENTS

iv | Contents

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 Mark et Indicators 5

2.1 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 for youth, 2005 92.5 Labor force participation rates for older workers, 2005 102.6 Employment as a percent of the working-age population,

2005 11

2.7 Average annual growth rates for employment, 1995-2005 122.8 Average annual growth rates for full-time and part-time

employment, 1995-2005 13

2.9 Annual hours worked per employed person, 1995 and 2005 142.10 Unemployment rates, 2005 152.11 Unemployment rates for youth, 2005 162.12 Ratio of youth to adult unemployment rates, 2005 172.13 Persons unemployed one year or longer, 2005 182.14 Ratio of unemployment rate of persons without high school

degrees to that of persons with college or university

degrees, 2004 19

2.15 Educational attainment of the adult population, 2004 20

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 labortaxes as a percent 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 andhours worked, 1995-2005 26

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

3.7 Manufacturing output as a percent of world manufacturingoutput, 2005 28

Section 4. Other Economic Indicators 29

4.1 Public expenditures on labor market programs as a percentof GDP, 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 and projections to 2025 334.5 Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2005 34


7/66Contents | v

Section 5. Indicators for Large EmergingEconomies 35

5.1 World population distribution, 2005 365.2 Age composition of the population, 2005 375.3 Dependency ratios, 2005 and projections to 2025 385.4 GDP per capita, 2005 395.5 GDP per employed person, 1995 and 2004 405.6 Labor force participation rates by sex, 2005 415.7 Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2005 425.8 Manufacturing output as a percent of world manufacturing

output, 2005 43

Appendix. Definitions, Sources, and Methods A1


8/66


9/66

GrossDomestic

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 the

most widely used income measure for internationalcomparisons 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 economies

shown 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.


10/66

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

10

20

30

40

50

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Hong

Kon

gSAR

Japa

n

Kore

a,Re

p.of

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 21

economies 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


11/66

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

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Hong

Kon

gSAR

Japa

n

Kore

a,Re

p.of

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.

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 the Republic of Korea registered the greatest increases in real GDP per capita; Italy and Japan had thesmallest increases.

Percent


12/66


13/66

Labor Market

Indicators

Labor Market Indicators | 5

SECTION 2

Charts 2.1 through 2.15 show comparisons of the labor force,

employment, unemployment, and related indicators. The size

of 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 2.3-2.5) express the extent to which different groups are

either working or unemployed. Here comparisons are shown by

sex and for four 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 2.6-2.9 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 2.10-2.15 explore unemployment

rates, long-duration unemployment, and the connectionbetween 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.


14/66

30.1

4.7

20.8

5.52.4

8.3

24.2

2.0

40.8

27.1

2.84.0

181.9

2.22.2

23.7

65.9

10.5

42.5

17.1

149.3

0

40

80

120

160

200

U.S.

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea,Re

p.of

NewZe

aland

Singapore

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

France

Germany

Irelan

dItaly

Netherlan

ds

Norway

Portugal

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.


15/66

0.7

0.5

2.5

1.6

1.0

1.2

0.7

3.3

0.4

0.9

0.3

0.4

0.9

2.7

1.8

1.3

0.0

1.6

2.01.7

1.2

0

1

2

3

4

U.S.

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea,Re

p.of

NewZe

aland

Singapore

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

France

Germany

Irelan

dItaly

Netherlan

ds

Norway

Portugal

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 force

growth 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, and Portugal than in the United States.

NOTE: 1995-2004 for Singapore.



16/66

70.569.367.469.269.471.0

60.6

71.6

65.562.7

70.366.164.7

76.274.371.3

73.173.0

78.9

72.873.3

56.260.655.6

45.5

61.459.3

40.7

58.1

47.750.3

60.154.9

48.751.0

60.3

50.3 51.4

37.9

56.1 59.8

51.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

U.S.

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea,Re

p.of

NewZe

aland

Singapore

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

France

Germany

Irelan

dItaly

Netherlan

ds

Norway

Portugal

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 Scandinavian

countries, 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 at least 70 percent in 12 out of 21 countries; the lowest rates for men were found inItaly and France.


Percent

CHART 2.3




17/66

43.753.4

35.5

60.6

16.39.1

54.4

28.742.3

58.5

12.2

30.2 25.412.8

57.045.8

17.828.9

36.7

56.5

0

25

50

75

100

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Korea,

Rep.

of

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

enU.

K.

Participation rates for teenagersPercent

NOTE: Teenagers are defined as persons ages 15 to 19 or ages 16 to 19.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Labor force participation rates for youth, 2005


CHART 2.4

Labor force participation rates varied far more for teenagers than for persons ages 20 to 24, ranging from 9.1

percent (the Republic of Korea) to 60.6 percent (Australia). Persons ages 20 to 24 participated in the labor market to a much greater extent than teenagers.

74.660.4

69.257.2

71.864.9

74.8 76.6

55.170.3 72.2

52.1

72.563.3 67.0

70.6 73.780.181.678.0

0

25

50

75

100

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a,Re

p.of

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

enU.

K.

Participation rates for persons ages 20 to 24Percent

b f f ld k


18/66

62.9 57.9 53.6 55.5

66.6

60.2

71.0

47.6

33.0

62.943.6

52.1 53.2

32.6

47.0

68.8

53.845.9

72.8

58.4

0

25

50

75

100

U.S.

C

anada

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea,

Rep.

of

NewZ

ealan

d

EU-15

Austria

Denmark

France

Germany

Irelan

dItaly

Netherlan

ds

Norway

Portugal

Spain

S

weden

U.K.

Participation rates for persons ages 55 to 64Percent


Labor force participation rates for older workers, 2005


CHART 2.5

Persons ages 55 to 64 participated in the labor market far less in Italy and Austria than in the remaining countries.

Participation rates for persons ages 65 and over varied widely from 1.3 percent (France) to 30.0 percent (theRepublic of Korea); the U.S. rate of 15.1 percent was four times higher than the EU-15 average.

15.18.1

29.2

7.619.8

30.0

11.73.8 3.0 5.4 1.3 3.4

8.3 3.1 4.314.3 18.0

2.010.1 6.4

0

25

50

75

100

U.S.

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea

,Rep

.of

NewZe

aland

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

France

Germany

Irelan

dItaly

Netherlan

ds

Norway

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

U.K.

Participation rates for persons ages 65 and overPercent

E l t t f th ki l ti 2005


19/66

60.059.9

51.0

57.361.560.1

44.9

58.8

51.251.0

61.955.2

51.7

61.864.6

58.557.362.1

56.663.462.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a,Re

p.of

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

en 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 w orking-age population, 2005


Percent

CHART 2.6

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

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

A l th t f l t 1995 2005CHART 2 7


20/66

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

1.4

1.1

1.5

4.2

0.7

1.1

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

U.S.

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea,Re

p.of

NewZe

aland

Singapore

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

France

Germany

Irelan

dItaly

Netherlan

ds

Norway

Portugal

Spain

Sweden U.

K.

Percent

Average annual growth rates for employment, 1995-2005


CHART 2.7

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 the Republic of Korea.

NOTE: 1995-2004 for Singapore.


Average annual grow th rates for full-time and part-timeCHART 2 8


21/66

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 and

salary 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

2.02.8

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.

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea,Re

p.of

NewZe

aland

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

France

Germany

Irelan

dItaly

Netherlan

ds

Norway

Portugal

Spain

Sweden U.

K.

Full-time Part-time

g g pemployment, 1995-2005


Percent

CHART 2.8

Full-time employment grew faster than part-time employment in six countries, including the United States. In the

majority 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-time

employment.

Annual hours w orked per employed person 1995 and 2005CHART 2 9


22/66

NOTE: 1995 and 2004 for the Republic of Korea.


Annual hours w orked per employed person, 1995 and 2005

1849

1775 18

631872

1884

2658

1842

1646

1499

1651

1529

1823 18

76

1344 1414

1799 18

15

1626 17

39

1435 1

638 17

91

1367 13

601685 17

69

1587 16

72

153

5

1551

163618

091909

1811

1775

173718

04

2394

0

1000

2000

3000

U.S.

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea,Re

p.of

NewZe

aland

Austria

Denm

ark

France

Germany

Irelan

dItaly

Netherlan

ds

Norway

Portugal

Spain

Sweden U.

K.

1995 2005


Hours

CHART 2.9

In 2005, annual hours worked per employed person in European countries, except Italy and Spain, were lower than

in the North American and Asian-Pacific countries. Koreans worked the highest number of annual hours, by far. The Republic of Korea and Ireland experienced the largest reductions in annual hours worked per employed person.

Unemployment rates 2005CHART 2 10


23/66

9.2

7.7

4.8

7.6

4.6

5.2

7.8

4.3

11.2

4.8

9.9

5.2

7.9

4.8

3.73.7

4.5

5.1

3.6

6.0

5.1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

U.S.

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea,Re

p.of

NewZe

aland

Singapore

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

France

Germany

Irelan

dItaly

Netherlan

ds

Norway

Portugal

Spain

Sweden U.

K.



Percent

Unemployment rates, 2005


CHART 2.10

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

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

Unemployment rates for youth 2005CHART 2 11


24/66

Unemployment rates for youth, 2005

18.0

34.0

29.1

21.5

17.4

11.5

37.0

11.0

14.8

28.4

7.6

13.5

19.120.0

12.912.510.4

15.2

7.0

15.416.6

9.68.8 8.9

6.37.7 8.4

9.9

6.6

15.6

8.7

6.38.1

21.8

15.9

7.4

21.4

7.2

9.1

14.8

17.0 17.4

0

10

20

30

40

U.S.

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea,Re

p.of

NewZe

aland

Singapore

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

France

Germany

Irelan

dItaly

Netherlan

ds

Norway

Portugal

Spain

Sweden U.

K.

Teenagers 20- to 24-year-olds

Percent


CHART 2.11

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

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

NOTE: 2004 for Singapore. Teenagers are defined as persons ages 15 to 19 or ages 16 to 19.


Ratio of youth to adult unemployment rates 2005CHART 2 12


25/66

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

2.32.5

2.9

2.2

3.3

3.8

2.02.3

2.4

1.8

2.8

1.5

2.4

3.8

2.0

3.4

2.4 2.5

3.9 3.8

0

1

2

3

4

5

U.S.

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea,Re

p.of

NewZe

aland

Singapore

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

France

Germany

Irelan

dItaly

Netherlan

ds

Norway

Portugal

Spain

Sweden U.

K.

Ratio


CHART 2.12

Unemployment rates were higher for youth than for adults. The ratios of youth to adult unemployment rates were

highest in Sweden, New Zealand, Italy, and the United Kingdom. The smallest differences in the unemployment rates for youth versus those for adults were in Germany and

Denmark.

Persons unemployed one year or longer, 2005f l l

CHART 2.13


26/66

Long-duration unemployment was least prevalent in the Republic of 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.

as 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.

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea,Re

p.of

NewZe

aland

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

France

Germany

Irelan

dItaly

Netherlan

ds

Norway

Portugal

Spain

Sweden U.

K.

Percent


CHART 2.13

NOTE: 2004 for Sweden.


Ratio of unemployment rate of persons w ithout high school degrees tothat of pe sons ith college o ni e sit deg ees 2004

CHART 2.14


27/66

that of persons w ith college or university degrees, 2004

2.6

1.3

1.71.9

1.5

1.2

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.

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea,Re

p.of

NewZe

aland

Austria

Denm

ark

France

Germany

Irelan

dItaly

Netherlan

ds

Norway

Portugal

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 2.14

Unemployment rates were higher for persons without high school degrees, except for men and women in Mexico

and for women in the Republic of Korea. The unemployment rates of persons without high school degrees were at least three times that of persons with

college or university degrees for men in Germany, Ireland, Austria, and the United Kingdom, and for both men andwomen in the United States.

Labor Market Indicators| 19

Educational attainment of the adult population, 2004by highest level of education attained

CHART 2.15


28/66

55

17 15

48 39

7

33

47

44 53 6251

41

59

35

38

42

57

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.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a,Re

p.of

New

Zeala

nd

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

gal

Spain

Swed

en

U.K.

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.


by highest level of education attained


More than one-third of the adult population has tertiary (university) education in Canada, the United States, Japan,

and Sweden. In Mexico, Portugal, Spain, and Italy, more than half of the adult population has less than upper secondary

education.

Percent

SECTION 3


29/66

Competitiveness

Indicators forManufacturing

Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing | 21

SECTION 3Relative levels and changes in manufacturing hourly

compensation costs and relative changes in manufacturing

labor productivity (output per hour) and unit labor costs can be

used to partially assess international competitiveness. Thesedata are available on a comparative basis only for themanufacturing sector. Charts 3.1 and 3.2 compare the leveland 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 3.7 provide comparisons of manufacturing

productivity growth rates, the composition of productivity growth

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

labor costs, and shares of world manufacturing output. 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 laborproductivity. Unit labor costs rise when 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 economiesand the EU-15 are shown on those charts. For productivity, the

coverage is limited to 15 economies.

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

CHART 3.1


30/66

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.

for production workers in manufacturing in U.S. dollars

25.66

28.73

17.78

7.33

39.14

31.81

21.05

22.76

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.Ca

nadaMexico

Australia

Hong

KongS

ARJapan

Korea,Re

p.of

NewZe

aland

Singapore

Taiwan EU

-15Austria

Denm

arkFrance

Germany

Ireland Italy

Netherlan

dsNo

rway

Portugal

Spain

Sweden U.K.


SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

U.S. Dollars

22 | Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing

Average annual grow th rates for hourly compensation costs, 1995-2005for production workers in manufacturing in U.S. dollars

CHART 3.2


31/66

3.33.7

4.54.9

1.6

-0.8

6.4

3.8

0.1

0.6

3.1

1.5

3.4

2.5

0.9

5.2

3.02.8

4.7

3.73.4

2.9

6.4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Hong

Kon

gSAR

Japa

n

Kore

a,Re

p.of

New

Zeala

nd

Sing

apor

e

Taiw

an

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.

for production workers in manufacturing in U.S. dollars


Percent



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 percentof hourly compensation costs, 2005f d ti k i f t i

CHART 3.3


32/66

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

KongS

ARJapan

Korea,Re

p.of

NewZe

aland

Singapore

Taiwan

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

France

Germany

Irelan

dItaly

Netherlan

ds

Norway

Portugal

Spain

Sweden U.

K.

Percent


for production w orkers in manufacturing



Employer social insurance costs as a percent of hourly compensation costs were similar for the United States and

the 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 Italy

had higher costs than the United States, while Denmark and Ireland had much lower costs.

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

CHART 3.4


33/66

3.2

6.8

1.1

3.03.2

0.1

3.5

4.3

2.3

5.5

8.9

3.33.0

1.9

5.6

0

2

4

6

8

10

U.S.

Cana

da

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a,Re

p.of

Taiw

an

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Italy

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Spain

Swed

enU.

K.

Percent


1995 2005

The Republic of Korea had, by far, the largest increase in manufacturing labor productivity, followed by Sweden, the

United States, and Taiwan. Italy recorded the lowest gains in manufacturing labor productivity, followed by Spain and Canada.

NOTE: Productivity is defined as output per hour worked.


Average annual grow th rates for manufacturing output and hoursworked, 1995-2005

CHART 3.5


34/66

3.32.8

1.8

0.9

4.9

2.5

1.8

-0.3

1.7 1.7

2.9

5.8

0.3

-2.2

0.9

-1.2

-2.3

-1.5

-0.6

-1.5 -1.7 -1.6-1.4 -1.3

-0.9

-2.7

0.8

7.3

1.8

-0.4

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

U.S.

Cana

da

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a,Re

p.of

Taiw

an

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Italy

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Spain

Swed

enU.

K.

Output Hours worked


Percent


o d, 995 005

Manufacturing output increases were highest in the Republic of Korea and Sweden; output slightly decreased in Italy.

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

Average annual grow th rates for manufacturing unit labor costs, 1995 -2005in U.S. dollars

CHART 3.6


35/66

Unit labor costs (ULC) are a component of total production costs and product prices. Declines in ULC indicate that

a country is becoming more cost-competitive. ULC declined in over half of the economies shown, including the United States.

-4.0-3.7

-5.2

-1.8 -1.8

3.3

-0.3

1.7

0.7

-2.5

3.0

0.5

1.82.1

-0.9

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

U.S.

Cana

da

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a,Re

p.of

Taiw

an

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Italy

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Spain

Swed

en U.K.


Percent


Manufacturing output as a percent of world manufacturing output,2005

CHART 3.7


36/66

20.6

2.71.7 1.1

13.3

2.7

0.2 0.7 0.4

3.5

8.2

0.7

4.0

1.1 0.4 0.3

2.20.9

3.9

27.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

U.S.

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea,Re

p.of

NewZe

aland

EU-15

Austria

Denm

ark

France

Germany

Irelan

dItaly

Netherlan

ds

Norway

Portugal

Spain

Sweden U.

K.


Percent

The United States is, by far, the worlds leading producer of manufactured goods. Of the countries shown, Japan

and Germany are the next largest producers. The EU-15 countries combined share of world manufacturing output surpassed that of the United States.

NOTE: 2004 for the United Kingdom.

SOURCE: United Nations.

SECTION 4


37/66

Other

Economic

Indicators

Other Economic Indicators | 29

Charts 4.1 through 4.5 show indicators of broad labor market

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

4.1-4.3 compare the following policy issues: expenditures on

labor market programs, the extent of labor and product market

regulations, and the level of taxation on labor.

Chart 4.4 shows dependency ratios. The dependency ratio is

an overall measure of the dependence of children and the

elderly on people of working age. However, dependency ratios

show the age composition of a population, not necessarilyeconomic dependency. Some children and elderly people are

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

Chart 4.5 compares 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 18to 20. EU-15 data were available only for two charts.

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

CHART 4.1


38/66

2.6

0.8

2.22.0

1.6

3.7

1.41.5

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,Re

p.of

New

Zeala

nd

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

gal

Spain

Swed

enU.

K.

Percent

30 | Other Economic Indicators

NOTE: 2004 for Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden. 2005 for the Republic of Korea.Fiscal year 2004 for the United States and the United Kingdom. Fiscal year 2005 for Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand.


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

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

Measures of regulation on labor and product markets, 2003CHART 4.2


39/66

1.11.3

2.4

1.1

0.7

1.8

2.3

1.51.3

1.8

2.6

2.0

2.5

2.2

2.9

2.6

3.1

3.5

3.2

1.0 0.91.2

1.61.61.51.4

1.9

1.11.21.4

1.7

1.1

1.4

1.1

1.51.3

0.9

2.2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a,Re

p.of

New

Zeala

nd

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

galSp

ain

Swed

enU.

K.

Labor market Product market


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,2005

CHART 4.3


40/66

45.4

23.5

41.142.2

20.4

33.7

48.1

38.936.337.2

38.9

52.450.1

47.9

17.3

27.728.3

14.7

31.928.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

U.S.

Cana

da

Mex

ico

Austr

alia

Japa

n

Kore

a,Re

p.of

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

enU.

K.

NOTE: Data refer to single persons without children at the income of the average worker.


Percent


For the average single 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, 2005 and projections to 2025CHART 4.4


41/66

In 2005, Mexico had the highest dependency ratio, while the Republic of Korea had the lowest.

By 2025, only Mexicos dependency ratio is expected to decrease; Japan is expected to have the highestdependency ratio.

0.58 0.570.59

0.68

0.47

0.570.59

0.56

0.600.62

0.60

0.51

0.59 0.60 0.59

0.55 0.55

0.64

0.59

0.49

0.44

0.58

0.48

0.51

0.39

0.51 0.50

0.47

0.510.53

0.50

0.47

0.51

0.48

0.52

0.480.45

0.53 0.52

0.47

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

U.S

Cana

da

Mexic

o

Austr

aliaJa

pan

Kore

a,Re

p.of

New

Zeala

nd

EU-15

Austr

ia

Denm

ark

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Irelan

dIta

ly

Neth

erlan

ds

Norw

ay

Portu

galSp

ain

Swed

enU.

K.

2005 2025


Ratio

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).


Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2005CHART 4.5


42/66

SOURCE: World Bank.

21

61 58

3325

69

44

8164

4563

90

43

128

56 5741

68

40

368

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

U.S.

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea,Re

p.of

NewZe

aland

Singapore

Austria

Denm

ark

France

Germany

Irelan

dItaly

Netherlan

ds

Norway

Portugal

Spain

Sweden U.

K.

Percent


This indicator shows the relative importance of trade in goods to an economy; the United States and Japan had thelowest ratios.

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

SECTION 5


43/66

Indicators for

Large Emerging

Economies

Indicators for Large Emerging Economies | 35

Charts 5.1 through 5.8 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. Chart 5.8 shows manufacturing output as

a percent of world manufacturing output.

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 population distribution, 2005CHART 5.1


44/66

India

17%

Rest of the World

50%

Indonesia

3%

Russian Federation

2%

China

20%

Brazil3%

U.S.

5%


36 | Indicators for Large Emerging Economies

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

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

Age composition of the population, 2005CHART 5.2


45/66

66.9

66.070.7

62.0

66.1

71.1

12.3 6.1 7.7 5.0 5.5 13.8

20.827.8

21.6

33.028.4

15.1

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



Percent

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, accounting for about one-third of the countrys totalpopulation.

Dependency ratios, 2005 and projections to 2025CHART 5.3


46/66

In 2005 India had the highest dependency ratio; however, between 2005 and 2025, Indias ratio is expected toexperience the largest decline.

By 2025, it is expected that the United States will have the highest dependency ratio and Indonesia will have thelowest.

0.490.51

0.41

0.61

0.51

0.41

0.58

0.490.46

0.48

0.43

0.48

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7


2005 2025

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).



Ratio

GDP per capita, 2005converted at PPP rates

CHART 5.4


47/66

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 be

bought with one dollar in the United States.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics and World Bank.

10.9

3.83.5

6.6

8.7

42.1

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


48/66

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 be

bought with one dollar in the United States.

SOURCE: International Labor Office.

51.8

14.1

5.1 4.3

8.210.8

14.9

8.76.2

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, 2005CHART 5.6


49/66

81.583.6

87.884.3

87.1

75.3

67.1

53.0

36.0

75.8

61.0

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, 2005CHART 5.7


50/66

21.2

24.7

63.8

28.2

54.0

48.5

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 to GDP, followed by Indonesia and the Russian Federation; theUnited States had the lowest proportion.

Manufacturing output as a percent of world manufacturing output,2005

CHART 5.8


51/66

U.S.

21%Brazil

2%

China

12%

Russian Federation

2%

Indonesia

1%

Rest of the World

60%

India

2%


The U.S. share of world manufacturing output was larger than the combined share of the large emergingeconomies.

Among the large emerging economies, China had the largest share of world manufacturing output, by far.



52/66

Appendix


53/66

Definitions,

Sources, and

Methods

Definitions, Sources, and Methods | A1

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) and

other organizations.

BLS adjusts foreign statistics to a common conceptual framework,

thereby aiding users in making meaningful international comparisons.

Comparability issues arise due to, for example, differences in

definitions, time periods, and population coverage. Summary

descriptions of the BLS comparative series are provided below. Moredetailed information can be found in the source documents listed,

which are available on the BLS foreign labor statistics Website at

http://www.bls.gov/fls/. BLS publications and releases also are

available free of charge by contacting the Division of Foreign Labor

Statistics, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Room 2150, Washington,

D.C. 20212-0001, phone (202) 691-5654, FAX (202) 691-5679.

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

labor market indicators charts (sections 1 and 2), BLS data 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 productivityin manufacturing (charts 3.1-3.6) have not been supplemented by other


54/66


55/66


56/66


57/66


58/66


59/66


60/66


61/66


62/66


63/66


64/66


65/66

The age composition of the population (chart 5.2) refers to thepercentage of the total population that comprises the specific age

group. Three age groups are presented in chart 5.2: persons under

age 15 persons ages 15 to 64 (often referred to as the working age


66/66

age 15, persons ages 15 to 64 (often referred to as the working-age

population), and persons over age 64.

Source: United Nations, World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision

Population Database, .

Trade in goods as a percent of GDP(charts 4.5 and 5.7)

Trade in goods as a percent of GDP is the sum of merchandise exportsand imports divided by GDP, all of which are valued in current U.S.

dollars. The value taken by the indicator does not give the share of

GDP generated by imports and exports; rather, it indicates that the

value of imports and exports is equivalent to the resulting percentage ofGDP. GDP has been defined previously (see Gross Domestic Product

section).

Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators Database,

.

A14 | Definitions, Sources, and Methods

Department of Labor: chartbook jun07

Documents

Transcript of Department of Labor: chartbook jun07