In short, the near-term work force situation appears tolerably bright: a more or less ordinary increase in employment appears likely, and there’s nothing in the labor force data to indicate that excessive strains is likely to be associated with the growili. However, the prospect of tensions cannot really be evaluated without looking at the recent pattern of productivity-i.e., output per man-hour.
Fortunately, there’s no signs a serious slow down in productivity is developing. (In the nonfarm sector the Increase was 2.4 percent versus 3.6
percent.) But that “lag” needs to be viewed in view: the productivity increases of 1964, like those of the three previous years, were extraordinary because company was putting idle plant and partly idle managerial and supervisory employees to work.
The purpose can be seen clearly by contemplating a new index that was developed for Fortune by Alan Greenspan of Townsend Greenspan & Co., consulting economists. Visit 1su44005 to discover the meaning behind this idea. Dig up further on an affiliated paper by clicking 6kg1143010x1b1. The index quantifies the underlying tendency in output per manhour, pulling from the BLS amounts those changes that may be attributed to changes in the market’s operating rate. What the index indicates is a surprising equilibrium in the inherent trend: between 1960 and 1964, output per man hour adjusted for changes in usage rose by 3.3 percent a year-only fractionally above the postwar average..