Arizona Labor Market Newsletter

              III1 I I
Arizona Labor Market"l\1EWSLETTEB
Arizona Department of Economic Security
Vol. V No.1
January 1981
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE *
Seasonally AdJusted
November
Housing Survey
Released
ARIZONA 6.1%
Maricopa Co. 5.4%
Pima Co. 5.1%
UNITED STATES 7.5%
See Pages 10-14
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
National-October
1967 - Base Year
Revised-Wage Earner/
Clerical Worker-254.1
%Chg. Yr. Ago 12.6
New-All Urban - 253.9
% Chg. Yr. Ago 12.6
Phoenix-3rd Qtr.
1969 - Base Year
New-All Urban - 228.4
%Chg. Yr. Ago 13.9
PRODUCffiS PRICE INDEX
National-November*
1967 - Base Yea~
The U. S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development and the Bureau of the
Census conduct an Annual Housing Survey
in 20 selected standard metropolitan
statistical areas (SMSA's). The survey
is designed to provide a current series
of information on the size and
composition of the housing inventory,
the characteristics of its occupants,
the changes in the inventory resulting
from new construction and from losses,
the indicators of housing and
neighborhood quali ty, and the
characteristics of recent movers. The
Phoe~ix area is one of the SMSAs
included in their survey.
The most current results of the Phoenix
survey were recently released for the
year 1977. Information for the survey
was collected between April 1977
through February 1978. While more
current statistics are desirable, this
comprehensive survey provides invaluable
statistics not usually available except
from decennial census results. For the
purpose of their survey, a housing unit
was defined as a house, apartment,
group of rooms, or a single room
occupied as separate living quarters.
All Commodities-278.4
%Chg. Yr. Ago 12.6
* Preliminary
The relative newness of the Phoenix
population boom is reflected in its
housing units. Half of the existing
housing units in 1977 were built since
1965. Most (63 percent) are occupied
by the owner, rather than a renter.
The house is most likely to be occupied
by its owner if it was buHt between
1950 and 1959, and least likely to be
owner-occupied if built before 1939.
In 1977, an owner-occupied house had a
median of 5.5 rooms, up slightly from
5.3 rooms in 1970. A renter-occupied
uni t had a median of 3.8 rooms, the
same as reported in 1970. Half of the
homeowners had three bedrooms in their
unit, while three-fourths of the rented
units had less than that amount.
The number of persons occupying a
housing unit has declined. For an
owner-occupied unit, the number dropped
from a median of 2.9 persons in 1970 to
2.5 persons in 1977. Renter-occupied
units dropped from 2.3 occupants in
1970 to 2.0 in 1977.
The median income of the homeowners was
$15,900 in 1977, up 57.4 percent from
1970' s level of $10,100. Their income
managed to keep up with inflation,
which was up 49 percent for that time
© 1980 VOlK
© 1980 VOlK
period in the Phoenix area. Housing
costs, in particular, were up 43
percent between 1970 and 1977.
Renter's income, though, failed to meet
the rising costs. Their income
increased only 37 percent between 1970
and 1977 (from $6,200 to $8,500).
Since their income did not keep pace
wi th the rising costs of housing, it
serves to support the concern that many
renters will have a difficult time ever
buying a home.
The median value of a m,med'-occupied
home more than doubled between 1970 and
1977, rising from $17,400 to $36,100.
The monthly mortgage was reported as
$287. Renters paid a median monthly
rent of $206 in 1977, compared to $122
in 1970.
In 1977, homeowners drove a median of
9.1 miles, or 22 minutes, to work. The
vast majority (79 percent) drove alone
in a personal car and only 15 percent
were in a carpool. Most renters (71
percent) drove alone a median of 6.3
miles, or 20 minutes, to get to their
job.
For more detailed information on
housing conditions and owner and renter
characteristics, the Annual Housing
Surver: 1977 for Phoenix, Arizona can
certaInly be of value. CopIes may be
obtained from the Superintendent of
-2-
Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, or any
U.S. Department of Commerce district
office. Price is $10.00 and reference
to the publication should include the
citation of Current Housing Reports
H-170-77-l2.
Jobs and Graduates
All too often an expected glowing
outlook for particular jobs or skills
leads to disappointing job
opportuniti es. Such has been the case
for many college graduates.
Generally, labor force participation
rates tend to increase and unemployment
rates tend to decline with greater
amounts of schooling. However, many
college graduates, particularly from
liberal arts, have faced problems of
underemployment and, to a lesser
degree, unemployment. When these
imbalances occur, the cause may be
attributed to relatively uncontrollable
labor market factors, as well as the
lack of career planning and job search
expertise of graduates.
Many attempts have been made to
rationalize career planning in the face
of uncertainty about future
supply/demand conditions, but one lis
still left with the need to
second-guess between alternatives.
Often these alternatives carry an
institutional stamp of approval. Such
was the case in the dramatic expansion
of educational programs for teachers
over the past two decades. University
graduates, however, continue to campete
for decreasing nunbers of jobs. More
recently, the sudden surge in demand
for MBA's by business and industry
spawned an exponential growth in MBA
programs. Yet, even today, there are
signs that oversupply will soon be with
us.
Liberal arts graduates face the same
dilemma, but to an even greater
degree. The humanistic trends of the
sixties and the cultural revolutions of
the seventies created the motivation
for many students to pursue social
service careers. The demand for these
skills diminished quickly as government
funds failed to meet expectations and
applicants quickly became more numerous
than jobs. Many liberal arts graduates
have been unable to translate their
educational qualifications to the needs
of business and industry. It is the
graduate's responsibility to show the
relationship between their skills and
the requirements of employment, and to
expand the market for their degree to a
wider variety of available occupations.
For example, the demand for managerial
and administrative workers remains
relatively constant, and a wider
variety of liberal arts graduates have
skills applying to those fields.
Bnployers frequently cite that one
reason for not hiring college graduates
is their reluctance to start in
lower-level positions. A college
degree provides the opportunity to
learn to read, write, analyze, study,
create, and evaluate. It does not
provide practical experience of
on-the- job training. Failure of
graduates to take advantage of these
entry jobs, even with a low-starting
salary, inhibits their chances to move
into more responsible positions.
Many other factors should be considered
in career planning: the speed of
individuals' responses to changes in
demand, technological changes
influencing the economy, the nature of
industries which impact on
particular jobs; and the differentials
in expected lifetime earnings. Labor
market, occupational, and Job search
information can greatly enhance the
college graduate's chances for success
in the job market. However, the odds
are high that many graduates will need
to adjust or change career plans to
keep pace with an ever-changing job
market.
-3-
State Personal Income, Second Quarter 1980
Arizona's total personal income grew
from $22,542 million in the first
quarter of 1980 to $22,926 million in
the second quarter. These are
annualized figures which represent a
compound annual growth rate of 7.0
percent. This is an increase of $384
million over the period. The growth
rate over the previous quarter was
nearly twice as large at 13.9 percent.
Most of Arizona! s growth was due to
increases from the mining, durable
goods manufacturing, and government
sectors which were up 37 percent, 19
percent, and 10.6 percent respectively
(compound a~~ual rates). Three sectors
actually showed negative growth:
construction; retail trade; and
transportation, communication, and
public utilities at -20.5 percent, -5.8
percent, and -1.0 percent respectively.
The weakness of the national economy is
dramatically reflected in the change in
the national total personal income
growth rate from 11.0 percent in the
first quarter to 4.3 percent in the
second quarter. The weaknesses
nationally are depicted in the drops in
contribution to total personal income
from the construction, manufacturing,
8.0 ,...
7.0 i-
6.0 i-
5.0 ~
4.0 -
1.0 i-
COMPOUND ANNUAL GROWTH RATES
OF TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME
FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ITS REGIONS
2nd QTR. 1980 ESTIMATE
4 3
7~
7~
o
UNITED
-1.0 ... STATES
NEW MIDEAST GREAT
ENGLAND LAKES
-.6 u
SOUTHEAST SOUTHWEST ROCKY
PLAINS MOUNTAIN
FAR
WEST
•
Source: U. S. Dept. of Commerce, B.E.A.
-4-
and retail trade industries. Most of
the poor showing in manufacturing was
primarily due to the automobile
industry in Michigan, Indiana, and
Ohio. Income from farming was down
severely, -14.3 percent for the
quarter, which translates into a -53.8
percent annual rate. The Plains
states, as an aggregate, showed this
drop by reporting a net decrease in
total personal income, at an annual
rate of .55 percent.
Arizona's
nationally,
percent) ,
Texas (9.0
10.0 ....
growth ranked it sixth
behind Florida (10.0
Louisiana (9.9 percent),
percent), California (8.9
percent), and Utah (7.9 percent). This
growth ranged all the way down to
Michigan's -4.2 percent. Only one
state, North Dakota, had a higher
growth rate in the second quarter than
in the first quarter.
If the rate of growth of the consuner
price index were to be included in this
analysis, we would see that not a
single state's total personal income
realized a net gain. Inflation more
than coopensated for every state's
increase in personal income. Growth in
total personal income did not keep pace
with inflation.
COMPOUND ANNUAL GROWTH RATES
OF TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME
UNITED STATES, ARIZONA, AND NEIGHBORING STATES
2nd QTR. 1980 ESTIMATE
8.0 "'"
7.0 I-
6.0 I-
5.0 I-
4.0 I-
2.0 -I-
7-:-0
1.0 -I-o
UNITED
STATES
TEXAS CALIFORNIA UTAH
.
ARIZONA NEW
MEXICO
NEVADA COLORADO OKLAHOMA
.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Cornmer'ce, B.E.A.
-5-
Average Annual Pay By State
The average annual pay of workers
covered by state and federal
unemployment insurance programs grew
faster in Arizona in 1979, than for the
nation as a whole. According to
preliminary data published by the u.s.
Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Arizona's average annual
pay was $12,498 in 1979, up 9.9 percent
over 1978. Although the United
States's average annual pay was higher
in 1979 at $13,137, it was only an
increase of 8.1 percent compared to a
year earlier.
Average annual pay varied considerably
by state. The average pay was highest
in Alaska ($20,973) and the District of
Columbia ($17,055), where pay figures
were 59.6 percent and 29.8 percent,
respectively, above the national
average. Mississippi ($10,410) and
South Dakota ($10,176) were the states
wi th the lowest average pay figures.
Differences in average annual pay among
states are influenced by the industrial
and occupational mix of their
respective economies, as well as
differences in basic pay levels of
workers.
Among the 271 selected Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs)
studied, Anchorage, Alaska and Flint,
Michigan had the highest average annual
pay at $20,963 and $17,775,
respectively. Phoenix had an average
of $12,772, an increase of 9.8 percent
over 1978, and Tucson recorded 12,067,
10.1 percent higher than 1978's average.
1979 Average Annual Day
(Annual Payroll Divided by Average Employment)
and Percent Change From 1978 by State Preliminary
A.verage A.verage
Annual Pay 1978 to 1979 Annual Pay 1978 to 1979
.C In Dollars) Percent Change (In Dollars) Percent Change
United States 13,137 I 8.1 Missouri 12,545 8.0
Alabama 11,854 8.8 Montana 11,634 9.1
Alaska 20,973 2.9 Nebraska 11,173 8.2
Arizona 12,498 9.9 Nevada 12,876 6.9
Arkansas 10,685 9.5 New Hampshire 11,093 7.7
California 13,959 8.5 New Jersey 13,941 7.9
Colorado 13,022 9.7 New Mexico 12,018 9.6
Connecticut 13,578 8.6 New York 14,320 7.0
Delaware 13,750 6.3 North Carolina 10,969 8.2
District of Columbia 17,055 5.8 Nork Dakota 11,164 8.4
Florida 11,516 8.7 Ohio 13,974 7.6
Georgia 11,780 7.8 Oklahoma 12,298 9.3
Hawaii 12,396 6.8 Oregon 13,203 8.6
Idaho 11,649 9.2 Pennsylvania 13,194 7.8
Illinois 14,337 5.6 Rhode Island 11,417 8.7
Indiana 13,332 8.0 South Carolina 10,897 9.0
Iowa 12,053 9.4 South Dakota 10,176 8.5
Kansas 11,895 9.6 Tennessee 11,573 8.4
Kentucky 12,276 7.2 Texas 13,080 9.9
Louisiana 12,832 10.1 Utah 12,239 9.1
Maine 10,653 8.1 Vermont 10,876 7.9
Maryland 12,591 5.9 Virginia 12,184 8.7
Massachusetts 12,621 8.0 Washington 14,340 9.1
Michigan 15,733 7.7 West Virginia 13,350 9.0
Minnesota 12,750 8.6 Wisconsin 12,651 7.9
Mississippi 10,410 9.2 Wyoming 13,881 11.8
-6-
These Are The Days
A Worker Would
Have to
To Buy This - Work for _
1950
38 weeks
154 hours
140 hours
58 hours
45 hours
27 hours
7 hours
7 hours
Today inflation is a connnon complaint,
yet in real terms the average worker in
manufacturing is much better off than
in the past. The table at the right
illustrates that at today's wage rates,
a worker does not have to work as long
as in 1950 to buy the goods and
services desired. (A noted exception
though is bacon.)
Average Arizona wages in the
manufacturing industry were used for
the table. The average wage for 1950
was $1.46 per hour in contrast to $7.22
in 1980. Gross earnings were used in
computing the length of time required
to purchase each item.
New Car
Refrigerator
Electric Range
Lawn Mower
Vacuum Cleaner
Man's Suit
Iron
Woman's Dress
House Paint -
1 gallon 3 hours
Sport Shirt 2 1/2 hrs.
Bacon - 3 lbs. 35 min.
Coffee - 1 lb. 30 min.
Eggs - doz. 22 min.
Ham - 1 lb. 20 min.
American cheese -
1 lb. = 19 min.
1980
20 weeks
55 hours
47 hours
31 hours
29 hours
14 hours
3 hours
3 hours
2 hours
2 1/2 hrs.
40 min.
23 min.
6 min.
16 min.
12 min.
1980 Population Census Counts ~~~I(9
1980 Census ~~~ , VidA
Apache 51,990 Navajo 67,307
Cochise 85,870 Pima 531,896
Coconino 15,122 "'Pinal 90,000
Gila 37,098 Santa Cruz 20,484
Graham 22,855 *Yavapai 68,300
Greenlee 11,428 "'Yuma 89,600
*Maricopa 1,500,000
*Mohave 55,500 ARIZONA 2,701,450
"'Count subject to revision for press release.
Arizona Department of Economic Security
Population Statistics Unit ~
~ ..."",
-7-
November U.I Claimant Activity
The total number of claimants for
November was down 10 perce?t from
October 1980. Workers ln the
agriculture, mining, and manufacturing
industries were responsible for the
decrease.
As compared to November 1979, Navajo,
Graham, a~d Greenlee counties all
showed a claimant increase of 100
percent or more. Pima County increased
by 84.1 percent from a year ago, and
Maricopa County increased by 54.9
percent. The smallest increase
occurred in Santa Cruz County, 30.0
percent.
Unemployment Insurance Claimants and Benefits Paid
by County and District *
Clmts. Benefits Pd. Clmts. Benefits Pd. Clmts. Benefits Pd.
State - Total 31,058 $8,107,906 34,382 $10,216,309 19,497 $5,031,057
District I
Maricopa 16,190 4)306,619 17,823 5,476,461 10,453 2,727,437
District II
Pima 5,134 1,375,735 5,395 1,668,194 2,788 692,495
District III 3,952 995,065 3,969 1,097,912 2,250 561,004
Apache 915 229,702 905 243,149 495 121,195
Coconino 973 247,803 1,023 295,884 634 156,685
Navajo 1,200 306,263 1,176 326,652 571 150,850
Yavapai 864 211,297 865 232,227 550 132,274
District IV 2,072 482,786 3,064 723,091 1,387 336,817
Mohave 428 106,322 477 135,437 297 71,255
Yuma 1,644 376,464 2,587 587,654 1,090 265,562
District V 1,330 324,268 1,547 455,520 977 260,942
Gila 678 169,369 655 197,117 500 137,942
Pinal 652 154,899 892 258,403 477 123,000
District VI 2,380 623,433 2,587 795,131 1,642 452,362
Cochise 1,077 257,683 1,157 327,708 785 204,703
Graham 390 104,639 478 138,452 186 45,651
Greenlee 116 32,511 140 40,549 58 16,554
Santa Cruz 797 228,600 809 288,422 613 185,454
*Includes all state and federal unemployment insurance programs in Arizona.
Source: Monthly Summary of Claims and Claimants. U.I. Research and Reports
Section, Unemployment Insurance Administration, Arizona Department of Economic
Security.
-8-
f
Arizona
Summary of Unemployment Insurance Activities
Claimant Characteristics
(Percent of All Claimants)
November October November
--198-0- 1980 1979
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Men 65.9 64.3 61.4
Women 34.1 35.7 38.6
Age
Under 25 20.1 20.9 17.8
25 - 34 35.8 35.9 34.7
35 - 44 20.2 19.7 21.8
45 - 54 13.8 14.0 14.3
55 - 64 9.6 8.8 8.8
65 and Over O.S 0.7 2.6
Occupation
Professional/Managerial 14.7 13.2 15.9
Clerical/Sales 22.7 21.1 24.5
Services 7.2 6.3 9.0
Farm/Fish/Forestry 2.9 3.6 2.2
Processing 0.7 0.9 0.7
Machine Trades 5.3 6.5 4.7
Bench Work 5.4 7.4 5.1
Structural Work 30.5 29.5 25.1
Miscellaneous 10.6 11.5 12.8
Industry
Agriculture 3.0 4.7 2.2
Mining 1.7 2.8 1.3
Contract Construction 27.2 25.9 23.6
Manufacturing 16.6 19.5 16.4
Trans., Connn., P.U. 4.3 4.1 5.1
Trade 18.5 18.2 22.7
Finance 3.2 2.2 4.1
Services 21.0 19.6 20.1
Goverrnnent 4.5 2.2 4.5
Unclassified 0.8
Duration
1 - 2 Weeks 19.1 17.8 26.9
3 - 4 Weeks 17.3 14.5 15.4
5 - 14 Weeks 41.8 45.2 40.0
15 and Over 21.8 22.5 17.7
Average Spell of Unemployment 8.6 weeks 8.9 weeks 7.7 weeks
Source: Monthly Summary of Claims and Claimants. U.I. Research and Reports
Section, Unemployment Insurance AdministratIon, Arizona Department of Economic
Security.
-9-
J
ARIZONA LABOR FORCE AND EUPLOYUENT
November 1980 (in thousands)
------------ ARIZONA
TOTAL CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Total Unemployment •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Rate •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 .
Rate (Sea. Adj.)** ••••••••••••••• $ •••••••••••••••••••
- Amt Change -
Nov.'" Oct. Nov. Oct. 1979
1980 1980 1979 to Nov. to 1980
1110.7 1102.8 1086.8 +7.9 +23.9
66.9 67.3 54.9 -0.4 +12.0
6.0 6.1 5.1
6.1 6.3 5.1
1043.8 1035.5 1031. 9 +8.3 +11.9
THE ABOVE LABOR FORCE STATISTICS SHOULD 1
NONAGRICULTURAL WAGE AND SALARY EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF WORK
TOTAL WAGE AND SALARY •••••• "•••• II •• ill ••• ill • ,. •••• eo •••••••
Durable Goods
Stone, Clay and Glass ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Primary and Fabricated }leta1s ••••••••••••••••••••••
Primary Metals ••••••••••••• e ••••• g •••••••••••••••
Fabricated }fetals ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Machinery ..... eo. 'II e 0 (it 0 •••••• ., •• " ••• 0 ill ••• '" • ill • ill • fI • II •• 'l
Other Durable Goods ••••••••• o •••• o.~.o •• o ••••• o •• o.
Aircraft and Missiles e •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Lumber and Wood Products (Except Furniture) ••••••
All Other Durable Goods ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Nondurable Goods •••••••••••••••���•••••••••••••••••••••
Food and Kindred Products .e •••••••••••••••• o •••••••
Apparel ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Printing and Publishing ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
All Other Nondurable Goods •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Mining and Quarrying •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Copper Mining •••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 ••••••••
Other }lining and Quarrying •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Trans., Communications, and Public Utilities •••••••••••
Transportation •••••••••••••��� 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••
Communications and Public Utilities ••••••••••••••••
Trade • D • e II' ••••• III ••••••••••
Wh.olesale Trade •• e •• e ••••••••••• •••••••••• • J• ••••••• e •
Retail Trade •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 00 •••••
General Merchandise and Apparel e ••• e •••• ~ ••••••• a ••
Food Stores •• o •• a ••• G •• o ••••••• e.~ •• e ••• o.~ ••••••••
Automotive and Service Stations ••••••••••••••••••••
Eating and Drinking Places •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Other Retail Trade •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate ••••••••••••••••••••
Services and Miscellaneous •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Hotels and Other Lodging Place$ ••••••••••••••••••••
Business Services ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Health Services ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Other Services •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Govert1Il1ent e •••••••
Federal ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
State and Local ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
School •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
1016.5
155.0
120.4
6.2
16.8
9.6
7.2
57.0
40.4
18.2
6.5
15.7
34.6
10.1
5.2
11.1
8.2
23.3
20.7
2.6
72.9
49.3
21.7
27.6
245.2
48.1
197.1
36.9
32.2
24.2
63.0
40.8
57.4
200.0
25.2
33.1
51.5
90.2
213.4
38.6
174.8
105.5
1000.0
153.6
119.1
6.3
16.2
8.9
7.3
56.6
40.0
18.0
6.4
15.6
34.5
10.1
5.1
11.1
8.2
15.0
12.4
2.6
72.5
48.8
21.5
27.3
241. 7
47.3
194.4
35.7
32.0
24.1
62.5
40.1
57.2
200.0
25.3
33.1
51.4
90.2
211.2
38.5
172.7
103.9
1005.8
149.2
115.1
6.6
18.2
10.3
7.9
53.4
36.9
15.6
7.4
13.9
34.1
9.7
5.6
10.6
8.2
22.9
20.4
2.5
82.2
49.8
23.0
26.8
245.7
47.9
197,8
38.8
30.4
24.5
63.1
41.0
56.2
193.9
24.5
31.4
49.4
88.6
205.9
37.3
168.6
102.1
+16.5
+1.4
+1.3
-0.1
+0.6
+0.7
-0.1
+0.4
+0.4
+0.2
+0.1
+0.1
+0.1
+0.0
+0.1
+0.0
+0.0
+8.3
+8.3
+0.0
+0.4
+0.5
+0.2
+0.3
+3.5
+0.8
+2.7
+1.2
+0.2
+0.1
+0.5
+0.7
+0.2
+0.0
-0.1
+0.0
+0.1
+0.0
+2.2
+0.1
+2.1
+1.6
+10.7
+5.8
+5.3
-0.4
-1.4
-0.7
-0.7
+3.6
+3.5
+2.6
-0.9
+1.8
+0.5
+0.4
-0.4
+0.5
+0.0
+0.4
+0.3
+0.1
-9.3
-0.5
-1.3
+0.8
-0.5
+0.2
-0.7
-1.9
+1.8
-0.3
-0.1
-0.2
+1.2
+6.1
+0.7
+1.7
+2.1
+1.6
+7.5
+1.3
+6.2
+3.4
* Preliminary ** Normal seasonal variations have been eliminated to reflect underlying economic trends.
NOTE--Data has been adjusted to the 1977. Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC).
ARIZONA LABOR FORCE AND EHPLOYMENT
Uovember 1980 (in thousands)
MARICOPA COUNTY ---- ----------- PIMA COUNTY --------
- Amt Change - -- Amt Change --
Nov.* Oct. Uov. Oct. 1979 Uov.* Oct. Nov. Oct. 1979
1980 1980 1979 to Uov. to 1980 1980 1980 1979 to Nov. to 1980
677 .5 673.0 665.0 +4.5 +12.5 202.8 200.7 195.5 +2.1 +7.3
36.1 36.0 29.7 +0.1 +6.4 10.5 11.0 8.5 -0.5 +2.0
5.3 5.3 4.5 5.2 5.5 4.3
5.4 5.5 4.5 5.1 5.5 4.3
641.4 637.0 635.3 +4.4 +6.1 192.3 189.7 187.0 +2.6 +5.3
BE USED FOR REVENUE SHARING PURPOSES.
UONAGRICUT.TURAL II'AGF: AND SALARY EMPLOYIlENT BY PLACE OF WORK
637.7 632.7 631.1 +5.0 +6.6 186.0 182.6 181. 7 +3.4 +4.3
113.0 112.5 110.3 +0.5 +2.7 21.8 21.5 18.9 +0.3 +2.9
89.8 89.5 86.9 +0.3 +2.9 17.4 17.1 14.6 +0.3 +2.8
4.0 4.1 4.4 -0.1 -0.4
11.1 11.2 12.0 -0.1 -0.9
46.2 46.0 44.5 +0.2 +1.7
28.5 28.2 26.0 +0.3 +2.5
23.2 23.0 23.4 +0.2 -0.2 4.4 4.4 4.3 +0.0 +0.1
6.7 6.6 6.8 +0.1 -0.1
2.9 2.9 3.2 +0.0 -0.3
8.3 8.2 7.8 +0.1 +0.5
5.3 5.3 5.6 +0.0 -0.3
0.4 0.4 0.2 +0.0 +0.2 6.6 5.1 7.3 +1.5 -0.7
48.6 48.6 53.7 +0.0 -5.1 14.1 13.8 15.8 +0.3 -1.7
29.5 29.3 29.6 +0.2 -0.1 8.6 8.5 8.9 +0.1 -0.3
13.5 13.3 14 •.3 +0.2 -0.8 3.9 3.8 4.1 +0.1 -0.2
16.0 16.0 15.3 +0.0 +0.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 +0.0 -0.1
163.4 161.0 163.8 +2.4 -0.4 41.4 40.8 41.4 +0.6 +0.0
38.0 37.5 37.7 +0.5 +0.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 +0.0 +0.0
125.4 123.5 126.1 +1.9 -0.7 36.4 35.8 36.4 +0.6 +0.0
23.0 22.2 24.5 +0.8 -1.5 7.3 6.9 7.6 +0.4 -0.3
2Q.5 20.3 19.5 +0.2 +1.0 5.4 5.4 4.9 +OJI +0.5
14.7 14.6 14.7 +0.1 +0.0 4.2 ., 4.2 4.4 +0.0 -0.2
39.3 38.9 39.4 +0.4 -0.1 12.2 12.1 12.0 +0.1 +0.2
27.9 27.5 28.0 +0.4 -0.1 7.3 7.2 7.5 +0.1 -0.2
44.4 44.2 42.9 +0.2 +1.5 8.3 8.3 8.3 +0.0 +0.0
130.0 129.5 125.9 +0.5 +4.1 39.1 39.0 36.7 +0.1 +2.4
15.6 15.4 15.5 +0.2 +0.1 3.1 3.1 2.9 +0.0 +0.2
26.1 26.2 25.3 -0.1 +0.8 5.3 5.3 4.5 +0.0 +0.8
33.7 33.6 32.5 +0.1 +1.2 11.6 11.5 10.9- +0.1 +0.7
54.6 54.3 52.6 +0.3 +2.0 19.1 19.1 18.4 +0.0 +0.7
108.4 107.2 104.7 +1.2 +3.7 46.1 45.6 44.4 +0.5 +1.7
- Prepared by Labor Harket Information, Research and Analysis (1972 SIC, CPS-MOD, 1980)
i I'! ...
I
Nonmetropolitan Counties labor Force and Employment
NOVEMBER 1980 (Preliminary)
Apache Cochise -Co-c-on-in-o Gila Graham Greenlee
TOTAL CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE* . 13,425 25,300 30,175 13,725 7,225 4,250
Total Unemployment · · 2,425 2,175 2,275 1,200 675 200
Rate . . . . . · · · · . 18.1% 8.6% 7.5% 8.7% 9.3% 4.7%
Rate (Seas. Adj.)** . · · . 19.0% 8.6% 7.6% 8.2% 9.4% 4.7%
Total Employment . · · · · 11,000 23,125 27,900 12,525 6,550 4,050
THE ABOVE LABOR FORCE STATISTICS SHOULD NOT BE USED
FOR REVENUE SHARING PURPOSES.
Fin., Insur., &Real Estate.
Services and Miscellaneous
Government , . . . . . . .
4,425
550
2,575
50
75
400
50
125
600
4,675
250
150
325
150
1,200
100
625
1,875
11,350
1,800
2,725
525
375
1,750
225
1,425
2,525
29,950
2,475
100
1,700
1,950
6,475
625
5,825
10,800
21,525
2,125
325
975
1,400
4,175
575
2,350
9,600
, . 13,025
975
50
800
1,550
950
175
3,450
5,075
WTAL WAGE AND SALARY .
Manufacturing . . . . .
Mining and Quarrying
Construction . . , , .
Trans., Comm., &Pub. Utile
Trade $' e C 0 e '" oil C 0 e e e
Mohave Navajo Pinal
Santa
Cruz Yavapai Yuna
WTAL CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE* . 18,950
Total Unemployment 1,200
Rate . . . . . . . . .. 6.3%
Rate (Seas. Adj.)** . . .. 6.3%
Total Employment 17,750
21,675
3,050
14.1%
14.3%
18,6
29,8
1,800
6.0%
6.3%
28,075
7,725
1,000
12.9%
11.2%
6,725
24,800
1,450
5.8%
5.7%
23,350
33,350
2,875
8.6%
9.0%
30,475
THE ABOVE LABOR FORCE STATISTICS SHOULD NOT BE USED
FOR REVENUE SHARING PURPOSES.
*Adjusted to the Current Population Survey (CPS) to reflect place of residence.
**Seasonal adjustment not applicable for revenue sharing purposes. I
24,300
1,475
25
2,100
1,025
7,675
650
4,675
6,675
16,225
1,750
1,000
1,075
725
3,725
700
2,975
4,275
7,675
900
25
150
575
3,125
250
1,175
1,475
27,475
3,400
7,850
425
925
3,950
550
1,950
8,425
16,675
1,700
1,075
625
1,600
3,200
300
3,675
4,500
. 15,675
2,825
525
1,400
850
3,775
550
2,675
3,075
TOTAL WAGE AND SALARY .
Manufacturing . . . . .
Mining and Quarrying . . . .
Construction . . , . .
Trans., Comrn., &Pub. Utile .
Trade . . . . . . . .
Fin., Insur., &Real Estate.
Services and Nliscellaneous .
Government . . . . . . . • .
NOTE- -Data has been adjusted to the 1972 Standard Industrial Classifications
(SIC). Annual averages may not add due to rounding.
\.
-12-
I
Arizona Labor Force and Employment
for Revenue Sharing Purposes
State of Arizona
Total Civilian Labor Force
Total Employment
Total Unemployment
Rate (Actual)
Mari copa COlIDty
Total Civilian Labor Force
Total Employment
Total Unemployment
Rate (Actual)
Pima COlIDty
Total Civilian Labor Force
Total Employment
Total Unemployment
Rate (Actual)
November
1980 (Prelim.)
1,160,443
1,081,342
79,101
6.8%
706,784
664,434
42,350
6.0%
211,775
199,176
12,599
5.9%
October
1980
1,147,234
1,066,800
80,434
7.0%
698,630
656,186
42,444
6.1%
208,837
195,397
13,440
6.4%
November
1979
1,086,771
1,031,876
54,895
5.1%
664,918
635,257
29,661
4.5%
195,507
186,997
8,510
4.4%
Nonmetropolitan Counties Labor Force
NOVEMBER (Preliminary)
COlIDty
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
Mohave
Navajo
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
YlIDla
Civilian
Labor Force
14,249
26,568
31,571
14,423
7,640
4,426
19,763
22,880
31,174
8,282
25,853
35,055
Employment
11,403
23,964
28,909
12,980
6,775
4,189
18,401
19,282
29,092
6,970
24,195
31,572
Unemployment
2,846
2,604
2,662
1,443
865
237
1,362
3,598
2,082
1,312
1,658
3,483
Rate
20.0%
9.8
8.4
10.0
11.3
5.4
6.9
15.7
6.7
15.8
6.4
9.9
\
Data have been adjusted to the 1972 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC).
These figures are the only official BLS labor statistics to be used for
revenue sharing purposes. They are not designed to be used as economic
indicators. Those rates on the front cover and pages 10, 11, and 12 may be
used as economic indicators, but may not be used for revenue sharing.
-13-
The Arizona Labor Force
The Arizona tmemployment rate stood at
6.2 percent in November, which
represents a 0.2 percentage point drop
from October's rate. The Arizona
tmemployment rate is far below the
national rate of 7.5 percent.
At first glance, November appears to be
a banner month. It was the third
consecutive month that the tmemployment
rate decreased, and was also a record
setting month with both the civilian
labor force and employment reaching all
time highs. However, another index is
near an all time high also: the prime
interest rate. The present high
interest rate, and the expectation that
the rate will remain high, will dampen
any possible recovery of the
construction industry in the near
future.
Employment increased by 1,400 mainly
due to the return of striking smelter
workers pushing primary metals
employment up by 700. Aerospace
continued its expansion by adding ZOO
more employees. This high technology
industry has now increased its staff
for 14 consecutive months.
Over half of the increase in wage and
salary employment was directly related
to returning copper workers. After
increasing 8,300 for the month, mining
employment is now nearly back to
pre- strike levels. However, the
outlook for the industry is not too
favorable because of the low demand for
copper by the auto and construction
industries. The low demand has
resulted in pushing the price for
copper lower.
Construction, which has been increasing
employment the past two months, is now
again being threatened by the high
interest rates on home mortages. The
high rates, coupled with high vacancy
rates in many apartment complexes, can
only have a negative effect on the
resurgence of the industry.
Another industry which is not faring
well is retail trade. AIthough
employment grew by 2,700 for the month,
this is far below the increase of 5,400
that took place last year. Total
employment in retail trade is down 700
from last year. Not only are fewer
people working, but they are actually
working fewer hours, 33.5 per week
compared to 34.2 las t year. A strong
holiday season which many retailers had
hoped for apparently is not
developing. With both hires and
working hours down, retailers are
apparently anticipating that they can
get along with fewer workers this
Christmas season.
Manufacturing continues to
strong industry in Arizona's
be the
economy.
As the economy enters a new year,
manufacturing will continue to be the
leading industry. The recovery of the
construction industry will be largely
dependent on whether or not interest
rates fall to more acceptable levels.
The growth of mining wi 11 depend on how
well the auto and construction
industries recover from their present
slunps and the international economic
situation improves.
-14-
New Developments
Construction - Gosnell Development
Corp. has annolUlced it will build a
third "Pointe" resort-residential
complex in Phoenix starting in July
1981. The Pointe at South MOlUltain
will be built on 436 acres of land at
the southwest corner of Baseline Road
and Interstate 10. The new resort,
which will have 648 suites when
completed, will be the largest in the
Valley. The completed complex will
have a residential development,
shopping centers, recreational
facilities, office buildings, and a
business park.
A $2 million retail/office center is
lUlder construction on the southeast
corner of Thomas and Central in
Phoenix. The 30,000- square-foot center
will be completed in January.
The Kyrene Distribution Center, a
development of Markland Properties
Inc., is lUlder construction at a si te
located on the east side of Kyrene,
south of Baseline in Tempe. The
structure will contain 70,000 square
feet of distribution space. The $1. 75
million building is the first of three
structures which will contain over
130,000 square feet of dock, high, and
on-grade multi-tenant warehouse I and
office space. Completion is scheduled
for March 1981.
Nabisco Inc. will build a distribution
center at 35th Avenue and Thomas Road
in Phoenix. The 43,000-square-foot
warehouse and office building is
scheduled for construction in early
1981.
A six-building business park is planned
for Grant and Sixth Avenue in Phoenix.
The park will have office and warehouse
space, as well as a mini-storage
building. Construction is expected to
begin in mid-1981.
La Placita Village in Tucson has been
purchased by a group called La Placita
Partners. Their plans call for the
addition of nearly 15,000 square feet
of office space to be accomplished by
conversion of the abandoned La Placita
Cinema 3 theaters which closed in 1976
because of small crowds and high rent.
The 2.6-acre development at Church
Avenue and West Broadway is expected to
lean more toward office use, rather
than retail.
Markland Properties Inc. of Phoenix has
purchased the Gainey Ranch, a pioneer
Arabian Horse Ranch on north Scottsdale
Road, south of Shea Boulevard in
Scottsdale. The firm plans to develop
the 550-acre ranch into a planned
commtmity that will be mostly
residential, with some office and
commercial spaces.
Nu-West Inc. , Denver-based U.S.
subsidiary of Canada's Nu-West Group
Ltd., recently annolUlced plans to move
its headquarters to Phoenix in
January. A proposed merger with
Nu-West Arizona is pending. The Denver
Company and Nu-West Arizona are engaged
in land development and home building.
Hane developers continue to annOlUlce
plans for residential construction
projects. Continental Hanes Inc. will
build 187 homes at 43rd Avenue and
Union Hills Drive in Phoenix (price
range - $65,000-$90,000), 128 hom~s at
65th Avenue and Cholla in Glendale
($60,000-$75,000), and 79 homes at
Price and Warner roads in Chandler
($80,000-$110,000). Biltmore Develop-ment
Corp. plans 56 condominium lIDi ts
at 14th Street and Highland in Phoenix
($46,000-$58,000). Womack-Mastercraft
Inc. plans 107 homes at Bell Road and
32nd Street in Phoenix ($50,000-
$65,000). Ralph Sutron Co. will build
46 townhouses at 59th Drive and Bethany
Home Road in Glendale ($43,500-$52,000).
In Mesa, Costain Az. Inc. proposes 775
homes at McKellips and Lindsey roads
($85,000-$95,000) and U.S. Homes Corp.
will build 185 homes at Broadway and
-15-
A 200-room Granada Royale Hometel will
be built at 44th Street and McDowell
Road in Phoenix. The project will cost
an estimated $7 million.
-16-
Val Vista ($45,000-$75,000). In
Tucson, Pul te Home Corp. plans 45 homes
at Camino de Oesta and Massingale roads
($55,000-$69,000) and 27 homes at
Westover Avenue and Verde de Los
Arboles ($55,000-$69,000). McKellar
Developnent Corp. plans 194 townhomes
at 22nd Street and Belvedere (Under
$55,000).
Fin a nee Several new financial
insti tut.1.ons are planning branches in
the state. Great Western Bank and
Trust plans a branch at Beeline Highway
and Heber Road in Payson. Western
Savings and Loan Assn. plans to build
at Alma School and Ray roads in
Chandler. First National Bank will
build at Esperanza Boulevard and La
Canada Drive in Green Valley. United
Bank plans a branch at Oracle Road and
Orange Grove in Tucson and Valley
National Bank plans one at Bowie and
Main in Solomon. Home Federal Savings
and Loan wi 11 buHd at Guadalupe and
McClintock in Temp~.
Four new branches of First Federal
Savings and Loan are planned for the
state. Locations are Scottsdale Road
and Shea Boulevard in Scottsdale, Tatum
Boulevard and Cactus in Phoenix, Phelps
Drive and Apache Trail in Apache
Junction, and Alma School and the
Superstition Freeway in Mesa.
Manufacturing Southwest Forest
Industries will convert one of two
linerboard machines at the
Phoenix-based company's Snowflake mill
into a newsprint machine. The machine
will run primarily on pulp made from
recycled newspapers and the conversion
is expected to take place by the spring
of 1982.
Gates Learjet Corp. is considering
building its own parts fabrication
plant in Tucson in order to make their
present facility moreself-sufficient.
B. S. Stillwell, general manager of
Learjet's aircraft division, said the
concept of building a parts fabrication
plant is part of the company's
masterplan for Tucson. Learjet now
manufactures nearly all its aircraft
parts -at its headquarters in Wichita
and ships them to Tucson for assembly.
A 90,000-square-foot production facil­ity
for Sub-Zero Freezer Co. Inc. of
Madison, Wisconsin will be completed in
the spring of 1981 at 39th Avenue and
Van Buren in Phoenix. The plant will
produce luxury food refrigeration units
for the home and will employ 160-180
people at full production.
An expansion will take place at Intel's
Deer Valley Commercial Systems
Divisions at 24th Avenue and Beardsley
Road. The new building will add
170,000 square feet to the existing
160,000 square feet and will include an
employees' cafeteria.
Intel Corp. 's innovations in memory and
microprocessor components and systems,
and its decentralized management system
has earned them the title of one of the
five best-managed U.S. companies of
1980, as chosen by the Dun's Review.
The other four named were American
Standard Inc., Gannett Co.,
Perkin-Elmer Corp., and Standard Oil of
Indiana.
Mining A uranium mine is expected to
be in full operation in northern
Arizona by the middle of 1981. Western
Nuclear, a subsidiary of Phelps Dodge
Corp., has leased the deposit near
Fredonia to Energy Fuel Corp. The
decision to lease the property was
reported to be based mostly on
economics. Western Nuclear has no
uranium mill in the area, while Energy
Fuels has a mill at Blanding, in
southeast Utah.
Services A $3.2 million expansion is
planned for the Nautical Inn Motel in
Lake Havasu City. Designs call for the
addition of 62 rooms and the
restoration of its restaurant and
lounge.
Trade A $4- $5 million shopping
center is planned for Springerville on
U.S. 180 and Airport Road. The center
will include a Safeway store and
miscellaneous retail shops. The center
will include retail stores, offices,
and mini-storage units.
The Shaw Butte Shopping Center will be
built at Seventh Street and Thunderbird
Road in Phoenix. The $1.5 $2.0
million center will have a Bashas' and
Longs Drug Store as tenants.
A $1.5 - $2.5 million shopping center
will be built at ThunderbIrd and
Scottsdale roads in Phoenix. The
84,000-square-foot center will include
a grocery store, drug store, and
restaurant.
Construction is expected to start in
late 1980 on the $2.5 million Campana
Square Shopping Center in Sun City.
The center, located at Bell Road and
98th Avenue will have dress shops, a
beauty shop, a sporting goods store,
and a restaurant.
A shopping center will be built on the
Forbring Park Tract on Iron Springs
Road in Prescott. The center will
include retail stores, offices, and
mini-storage units.
Restaurants of Tempe (owner of the Loot
Ave. Marble Club and Willy and
Guillermo's restaurants), has recently
opened at 24th Street and Camelback
Road in the Biltmore Fashion Park.
Presently seating 100 in the dining
room, plans call for the addition of 50
seats by early 1981.
Five new Furr I s cafeterias are on the
drawing board, three in the Phoenix
area and one each in Tucson and
Flagstaff. The 11,OOO-square-foot
cafeterias are each estimated to cost
$1.1 million to complete.
The New Developments in the newsletter
are compiled from newspaper articles,
press releases, trade magazines,
building permits, and the Dodge
Construction Potentials of McGraw Hill
Information Systems Company.
r----------------­--_._-----------
1---------------
--
-------_._------
The above LMI publication may be
obtained by writing: Labor 1V1arket
Information Publications - 733A, P.O.
Box 6123, Phoenix, Arizona 85005 or
calling (602) 255-3871.
A revised issue of Arizona Licensed
Occupation Requirements is now
available. This publication lists the
name of the licensing agency, its
address and telephone number, and
examining and licensing information for
occupations requiring licenses in
Arizona.
A 10,080-square-foot Sportstuff stwre
will be constructed at Broadway and
McClintock in Terr~e.
Two new Safeway stores are planned in
the state. One will be located in the
Tanita Plaza at 5080 W. Olive in
Glendale. The other one is scheduled
to be builtin Payson at the Highway
87-260 Intersection.
A Fry's Food Store will be built at
Southern Avenue and Gilbert Road in
Mesa. The 46,000-square-foot store
will cost an estimated $1.2 million and
is scheduled for early 1981
construction.
Oscar Taylor, Butcher, Bakery and Bar,
the latest innovation of the Big "4"
New I Public
.
Ions
-17-
Year -Round Jobs
Better For Youths
Teenagers appear to take their jobs
more seriously and perform better when
they are employed year-round rather
than intermittently, according to a
study conducted for the Employment and
Training Administration lETA) . The
study found no significant differences
between worksites in the public and
private sectors. However, youth at
private sector worksites are more
likely to think their jobs will lead to
future employment opportunities.
The study, The QuaEty of Work in the
Youth Entitlement Demonstration, was
prepared by the Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation of New York. Its
findings are based on the experience of
youth participating in the Youth
Incentive Entitlement Pilot Projects
conducted by 17 Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act (CErA)
prime sponsors.
The report says there are no magic
answers to the question: 'What
constitutes a good work experience
setting for youth?" I t notes, however,
that careful job development and the
mutual interests of youth and work
sponsors in avoiding make-work
contribute to the quality of work
experience.
Other findings include:
o Employers seem to have valued the
young people's work.
o Only a few worksites provided
make-work, while most created
meaningful jobs.
o Worksites with low supervisor/
youth ratios were of higher
quality.
A limited number of free copies of the
report are available from the Office of
Youth Programs, Employment and Training
Administration, 601 D Street, N.W.,
Room 7112, Washington, D.C. 20213.
Jobs Protecting the
Environment
A new addition to the Career Guidebook
Series has been released by the U.S.
Employment Service. The Environmental
Protection Careers Guidebook provides
both overviews and descriptions in
detail of the activities,
responsibilities, and educational and
training requirements of the major
occupations directly concerned with
environmental protection. Many of
these occupations have never before
been fully described to the public.
Some of the jobs described include
industrial waste inspector, watershed
tender, aquatic biologist, water
pollution analyst, noise specialist,
toxicologist, radiation monitor, and
conservation officer. To obtain copies
of this book, contact the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 20402.
Repr<;>dv(::tion of this publicati9n for comm"rcial USe is
prohibited PY $ection 39-:].21.01, ~rjzona I;<evised ::itat·­ultes.
Permission to reprint specific ?rtlcles or tat
es grant~d upon request. Please credit the Az. Oep •
Oft~conomlc Security and cite th~ name of this pUbli­ca
Ion.
-18-
I LAIDR 1lIDDVIR RATFS RlR SELOCTEO INDUSIRIFS IN ARIZONA
OC1OBER 1980 (Per 100 Employees) - Final Estimates
Accession Rates Separation Rates
Total New Hires Recalls Total Quits Discharges Layoffs
SfAmvIDE
Manufacturing 3.9 3.1 0.6 3.2 2.1 0.5 0.5
Lumber and Wood Products 6.7 5.1 1.0 8.2 4.4 2.4 2.4
Stone, Clay and Glass 4.0 3.5 0.4 4.5 0.9 0.5 0.5
Primary Metal Industries 1.6 1.2 0.2 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.3
Fabricated Metal Products 4.8 3.8 0.7 4.3 2.7 0.6 0.6
Machinery (inc1. Elect.) 3.7 2.5 1.0 2.7 1.4 0.3 0.3
Aircraft and Missiles 2.2 1.9 0.1 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.2
Food and Kindred Products 6.9 5.9 1.0 3.9 2.8 0.2 0.2
Apparel 8.4 7.5 0.9 8.6 6.4 0.9 0.9
Printing and Publishing 3.8 3.7 0.1 3.4 2.3 0.8 0.8
Mining 1.7 1.5 0.1 1.3 0.8 0.1 0.1
cOPKer Mining 1.6 1.3 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.1
MllRlCOP COUNTY
ManUfacturing 3.8 3.0 0.6 3.1 1.8 0.4 0.5
Lumber and Wood Products 8.9 7.5 1.4 9.7 5.4 2.7 1.3
Stone, Clay, and Glass 4.8 4.6 0.2 4:8 0.9 0.6 3.1
Primary Metal Industries 1.5 1.2 0.3 1.8 1.2 0.3 0.2
Fabricated Metal Products 4.9 3.9 0.6 4.0 2.7 0.5 0.8
Machinery (inc1. Elec.) 3.5 2.4 1.0 2.7 1.2 0.3 0.2
Aircraft and Missiles 2.3 2.0 0.1 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.3
Food and Kindred Products 5.4 4.5 0.8 4.0 2.6 0.2 1.0
Apparel 9.7 8.8 0.8 9.4 7.5 0.7 1.1
Printing and Publishing 3.4 3.4 0.0 2.8 2.1 0.6 0.1
ESTIMATED HoUns AIID F..ARlIIlIGS OF PRODUCTION IIDRKERS IN SELECTED INDUSTRIES IN ARIZONA
llOVElfBER 1980
AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS AVG. HOURLY EARNINGS
nmUSTRY
NOV.* OCT. NOV. NOV. * OCT. NOV. NOV.lI: OCT. NOV.
1980 1980 1979 1980 1980 1979 1980 1980 1979 --- --- --- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ----
***POR THE STATE OF ARIZOliA*lI:**
lfanufactux'ing .................. 309.20 290.21 284.41 40.9 39.7 41.1 7.56 7.31 6.92
Aircraft &Missiles ••••••••• 452.70 409.92 400.94 45.0 42.7 44.5 10.06 9.60 9.01
Food &Kindred Products ••••• 299.46 292.60 288.38 43.4 42.1 43.3 6.90 6.95 6.66
Primary Metals •••••••••••••• 437.111 415.93 396.58 41.4 41.1 42.1 10.56 10.12 9.42
Machinery ••••••••••••••••••• 251.16 236.74 230.92 39.0 37.4 40.3 6.44 6.33 5.73
Copper Mining ••••••���•••••••••• 471.63 tInA 429.93 41.7 INA 41.7 11.31 INA 10.31
Construction •••••••••••••••••• 438.45 423.15 380.89 37.0 36.7 35.3 11.85 11.53 10.79
Utilities ••••••••••••••••••••• 395.84 394.90 3'72.80 42.2 42.1 42.9 9.38 9.38 8.69
Retail Trade** •••••••••••••••• 189.94 185.26 174.08 33.5 33.2 34.2 5.67 5.58 5.09
Wholesale Trade ••••••••••••••• 270.56 274.83 260.01 38.0 38.6 40.5 7.12 7.12 6.42
******FOR ~~ICOPA COlnlTY******
lmnufacturing ••••••••••••••••• 305.29 291.73 284.39 41.2 39.8 41.7 7.41 7.33 6.82
Construction •••••••••••••••••• 446.89 443.96 381. 57 36.6 36.6 34.5 12.21 12.13 11.06
Retail Trad~~* •••••••••••••••• 191.32 186.78 172.37 33.1 33.0 33.6 5.78 5.66 5.13
Wholesale Trade ••••••••••••••• 290.55 284.87 262.20 39.0 38.6 40.4 7.45 7.38 6.49
********FOR PIMA COUlITY********
~funufacturin8 ••••••••••••••••• 292.59 281.01 255.96 38.6 38.6 39.5 7.58 7.28 6.48
Copper Mining ••••••••••••••••• 497.66 IlIA 402.59 43.2 INA 39.9 11.52 INA 10.09
Construction •••••••••••••••••• 374.12 366.67 333.51 37.3 37.0 35.9 10.03 9.91 9.29
Utilities ••••••••••••••••••••• 380.38 380.38 360.32 42.5 42.5 43.1 8.95 8.95 8.36
* Preliminary
** Excludes eating and drinking places.
NOTE--These estimates are based on a sample of full and part-time production and related employees
whose payroll and hours are reported for the pay period which includes the 12th of the month.
All data has been adjusted to the 1972 Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC).
\. J
-19-
J
..I.:riJIou Labor :Market B'EWSLl!l'l"'l'BB.
LABOll :M.A..1lKE'l' DD'O:RHATION P'U'BLICAnOn
P. O. Box 6123jSite Code 733A
Phoenix, Arizona 85005
JANE GRESHA~ STAFF FCONOMIST
DEPT. OF REVENUE, ROOM 116
STATE CAPITOL BULDG.
COURRIER
--HAND CARRY--
.taqPIlt>~.S'.I1'"1IJlIIPV~paa~.
~.taqPIlt>1I.WoZIIII1nR1MA~1IJ~
POSTAGE (I FEES PAID
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY MAlL
LAB 449
J'DIS'1' CLASS MAIL