Doug Henwood wrote:
> Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> >Interesting. You said that employment as not decreased all that much,
> >so then value added per manufacturing worker has not been increasing
> >much. Is that correct?
>
> Flattish employment plus a 32% increase in real value-added seems a
> bit more than "not much."
>
> Here are some more numbers.
>
> value- full-time VA/
> added equiv wkrs FTE
> 1992$mill (thous) 1992$
> 1987 1,041,675 18,594 56,022
> 1988 1,111,013 18,943 58,650
> 1989 1,105,992 18,992 58,235
> 1990 1,089,974 18,615 58,554
> 1991 1,050,216 18,004 58,332
> 1992 1,063,628 17,671 60,191
> 1993 1,100,823 17,662 62,327
> 1994 1,193,167 18,013 66,239
> 1995 1,271,556 18,188 69,912
> 1996 1,293,847 18,164 71,231
> 1997 1,369,889 18,339 74,698
>
> 1987-92 -4.3% -6.7% +2.6%
> 1992-97 +28.8% +3.8% +24.1%
>
> The Bush-era recession is visible in the first half of the stats, but
> the expansion in output between 1992 and 1997 is pretty strong, as is
> the VA/worker.
>
> Fresh numbers are due in early June.
>
> Doug