BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1997 __Nonfarm productivity rose at a seasonaly adjusted annual rate of 2 percent in the first quarter of 1997, almost twice the 1.1 percent annual rate of growth in the last three months of 1996, BLS reports. Surprising many labor market analysts, annual unit labor costs rose a larger-than-expected 2.7 percent for the first three months of 1997. Unit labor costs gained 2.5 percent in the fourth quarter and 3.3 percent in the third quarter of 1996 ....(Daily Labor Report, page D-1). __The Washington Post included nonfarm productivity figures in several articles, saying (page E3) the report indicated that employers' costs per hour of pay and benefits for their workers rose at a sharp 4.7 percent annual rate in the first three months of this year, but that productivity gains offset nearly half the increase. That suggested to some analysts that rising wages haven't been putting upward pressure on prices so far .... __Productivity of American businesses -- ultimately the main factor determining the nation's standard of living -- grew at an annual pace of 2 percent in the first quarter, the best performance in more than three years. The rise was less than most analysts expected after last week's report of a sizzling pace of economic activity during the winter. Still, such a solid productivity gain for an economy in its seventh year of expansion is clearly "good news", said Edwin S. Dean, association commissioner for productivity and technology. On the worrisome side, the report contained some unsettling evidence of wage pressures ....(New York Times, page D4). The U.S. economy advanced at a moderate pace in late April, buoyed by continued strength in housing and construction markets, as well as by an upswing in manufacturing activity, the Federal Reserve reports. Details of the Fed's latest "beige book," or summary of current economic conditions, also revealed ongoing shortages of skilled labor and scattered wage pressures, but little evidence of inflation ....(Daily Labor Report, page D-11; Washington Post, page E3; New York Times, page D4; Wall Street Journal, page A2). Senate Republicans backed away from a controversial spending provision that would have prohibited the federal government from preparing to use statistical sampling in its 2000 census ....The provision in the supplemental spending bill would have prohibited the use of 1997 census funds to test and otherwise plan for the use of sampling, a technique designed to improve the accuracy of the head count. Census officials and many Democrats had fought the ban, saying it would make the head count less accurate, particularly for poor and minority Americans who are most likely to be missed in the census. Republicans agreed to remove the ban, saying the Census Bureau could plan for sampling but should not make any "irreversible" plans because Congress could still prohibit the practice before 2000 ....The Senate fight was part of a long-standing controversy over the best way to conduct the massive head count, which is used to distribute federal funding and draw political boundaries ....(Washington Post, page A25). Job layoffs in April fell nearly 70 percent from a month earlier to the lowest levels in four years, said outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas ....Challenger said the job market is improving for many workers as the labor market tightens (Washington Post, page E1). Texas labor is feeling the effect of NAFTA, according to The New York Times (page D1). Job losses to Mexico are accelerating, especially among workers already at the bottom in pay and skills, according to economists and government statistics. Since the North American Free Trade Agreement took effect at the beginning of 1994, the losses, mostly to Mexico but some to Canada, have grown by more than a third each year. The Labor Department total of 124,000 includes a record 7,600 jobs lost in April alone. Administration officials say that lower trade barriers with Mexico and higher American exports still leave Americans with far more new jobs than they are losing. They say the layoffs are more the result of the peso's crash in late 1994 and the lowered cost of Mexican labor than of the trade agreement, which they say kept Mexico's market open .... DUE OUT TOMORROW: Extended Mass Layoffs in the Fourth Quarter of 1996
