Youth U nemployment: ^

An International Perspective

U.S. Department of Labor

Bureau of Labor Statistics

September 1981

Bulletin 2098

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Sorrentinoj Constance.

Youth unemployment5 an international

perspective.

(Bulletin ; 2098)

Bibliography: p.

Supto of Docs, no.: L 2.3:2098

1. Youth--Employment. 2. Unemployed.

I. Title. II. Series: Bulletin (United States.

Bureau of Labor Statistics) ; 2098.

HD6270.S66 . 331.3*^137 81-607979

AACR2

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Youth Unemployment

An International Perspective

U.S. Department of Labor

Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner

September 1981

Bulletin 2098

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Preface

This bulletin examines the labor market experience 

of youth in the United States and eight other industrial 

countries from the early 1960’s to the late 1970’s. The 

analysis focuses upon unemployment, the most visible 

and measurable form of labor underutilization. The report highlights the size of the youth unemployment 

problem and discusses some of the underlying reasons 

for the large international differences in youth unemployment. To facilitate international comparisons, the

data have been adjusted to U.S. concepts.

The bulletin was prepared in the Bureau’s Office of 

Productivity and Technology by Constance Sorrentino 

under the direction of Arthur Neef, Chief, Division of 

Foreign Labor Statistics and Trade. Joyanna Moy assisted in the research and analysis.

Material in this publication is in the public domain 

and may, with appropriate credit, be reproduced without permission.

iii

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents

Page

Chapters:

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1

Measurement of youth unemployment........................................................................... 1

Adjustment to U.S. concepts.................................................................................. 2

2. International comparisons of youth unemployment.......................................................... 4

Long-term trends............................................................................................................. 4

Youth share of unemployment........................................................................................ 8

Youth-adult ratios .......................................................................................................... 8

3. Factors affecting youth unemployment............................. 13

Trends in labor supply.......................... .......................................................................... 13

Demand factors............................................................................................................... 17

The student labor force........................................................................................ 18

Apprenticeship and formal training................................................................................. 22

Guidance and counseling ................................................................................................ 24

Youth minimum wage...................................................................................................... 25

Minority group unemployment...................................................................................... 26

Other factors ........................................................................................ 27

Conclusion....................................................................................................................... 28

Charts:

1. Youth unemployment rates, 1979 ....................................................................................... 2

2. Teenage unemployment rates, selected years, 1960-79 ...................................................... 6

3. Unemployment rates for young adults, selected years, 1960-79 ......................................... 7

4. Ratios of youth and teenage to adult unemployment rates, 1960 and 1979....................... 12

5. Trends in the labor force, 1960-79................................ 14

Tables:

1. Unemployment rates by age, adjusted to U.S. concepts, selected years, 1960-79 .............. 5

2. Percent distribution of the unemployed and the labor force by age, selected

years, 1960-79 ................................................................................................................... 9

3. Ratios of youth to adult unemployment rates, selected years, 1960-79 ............................. 11

4. Youth labor force, selected years, 1960-79 ......................................................................... 15

5. Trends in the youth labor force, selected periods, 1960-79................................................ 15

6. Civilian labor force participation rates by age, selected years, 1960-78............................. 16

7. Full-time school enrollment rates, 1960,1970, and 1975.................................................... 17

8. Percent of teenagers in educational institutions, all levels, selected years, 1966-72 .......... 22

9. Number of apprentices and percent of total civilian employment, 1974 and 1977 ............ 23

Technical appendix:

Source of d a ta ........................................................................................................................... 30

Lower age lim it......................................................................................................................... 31

Students.................................................................................................................................... 31

Unrecorded employment.......................................................................................................... 33

v

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents— Continued

Page

Technical appendix—Continued

Current availability................................................................................................................... 34

Reference periods..................................................................................................................... 35

Discontinuities in the d a ta ........................................................................................................ 36

Data for Italy...................................................................................................................... 37

Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 37

Bibliography................................................................................................................................. 39

vi

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter 1. Introduction

The 1974-75 recession and subsequent slow recovery 

have been accompanied by very high levels of unemployment for young people in the industrial nations. 

Many countries which had low youth unemployment 

rates and low ratios of youth to adult unemployment 

during the 1960’s have encountered serious youth unemployment problems since the mid-1970’s.1 By 1979, 

persons under 25 years of age in six of nine countries 

studied experienced unemployment rates of about 12 

percent or higher (chart 1). In contrast, jobless rates 

for adults ranged from 2 to 6 percent in the six countries. Even in the three countries with still relatively 

low youth unemployment (Germany, Sweden, Japan), 

recent teenage jobless rates were 2 to 5 times the adult 

levels.

Several factors help to explain the international disparities in youth unemployment. Characteristics often 

associated with low youth unemployment include a declining trend in the youth labor force, little labor force 

activity by students, wide use of apprenticeship training, and relatively less emphasis on open career options 

and job mobility. For the countries with high youth 

unemployment, particularly the United States and Canada, certain common factors can also be singled out: 

Rapid increases in the youth labor force, a sizable student labor force, and an emphasis on general education 

and extended schooling rather than on the structuring 

of the early work years by such devices as 

apprenticeship.

This bulletin examines these disparities in detail. However, some important qualifications must be expressed 

regarding the measurement of youth unemployment and 

the comparability of the data.

Measurement of youth unemployment

Some of the current problems involved in measuring 

and interpreting youth unemployment in the United 

States were addressed at the February 1978 Conference 

on Employment Statistics and Youth sponsored by the 

U.S. Department of Labor. The conference report 

points out that the U.S. statistical system was not developed for use in understanding and measuring youth 

employment problems. Labor force concepts were 

largely derived from U.S. experience during the Great 

Depression, when the primary issue was joblessness 

among adult breadwinners.2

The meaning of employment, unemployment, and labor force status becomes somewhat clouded when applied to young people. Such persons often have more 

marginal and fluctuating attachments to the world of 

work than their older counterparts. For youth even 

more than for adults, the point-in-time measures of labor force status can mask an enormous flux as young 

people move into and out of jobs and the labor force. 

In all countries studied, there are substantial flows of 

students into the labor force during school vacations 

and holidays. In a few countries, there is also significant part-time labor force activity during the school 

term.

Questions have arisen both in the United States and 

abroad regarding the statistical treatment of part-time 

and part-year workers, many of whom are young people. A frequent criticism of the labor force as presently defined is that the measure gives equal weight to the 

Saturday night babysitter, the after-school lawnmower, 

and the full-time worker. It also lumps together all the 

unemployed; an individual is counted as unemployed if 

seeking paid employment of any duration—even of 1 

hour a week.3

Further, the unemployment rate does not capture the 

full range of labor market difficulties experienced by 

young people. A more comprehensive analysis would 

include data, presently sketchy or lacking in most countries, on involuntary part-time work, discouraged workers, skill mismatches, and other forms of underutilization. Indications are that young people have sustained 

a heavy impact in many of these areas. For instance, 

both the Swedish and American labor force surveys 

show a large number of discouraged workers who are 

teenagers or young adults. These are persons who indicate that they would be seeking work if they believed

1 For this study, the terms “youth” and “young people” refer to the

broad category of persons under 25 years of age. This group is divided between “young adults”—the 20- to 24-year-old age group—

and “teenagers”—those under 20 years of age. (The lower age limit

for teenagers varies from 14 to 16 among the countries studied. See

appendix for explanation.) “Adults” describes persons 25 years old

and over.

1 Conference Report on Youth Unemployment: Its Measurement and

Meaning (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1978), pp. 1-2.

3 The U.S. National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics recently reviewed this issue and decided against recommending any changes in the current practice. The Commission

felt that any change would represent a fundamental departure from

the criterion which underlies the employment concept, i.e., work for

pay or profit. See National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Counting the Labor Force (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1979), p. 51.

1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
they could find a job. American youth under 25 accounted for close to 30 percent of all discouraged workers in 1977-79; in Sweden, the proportion was 24 percent. German estimates of the “silent reserve” or pool 

of discouraged workers include a significant number of 

young people. Reportedly, many German girls age 15 

to 17 who cannot find work simply decide to stay at 

home and help in the household.4

In addition, there is evidence in several countries that 

a considerable number of would-be school leavers have 

postponed their entry into the labor market in recent 

years.5 Their extra schooling is a thinly disguised form 

of unemployment; these young people would prefer to 

be in the labor market. Finally, unemployment rates do 

not measure the recession-induced homeward flow of 

foreign workers from such countries as France and Germany; a large proportion of migrants are in the younger 

age groups.

Thus, it should be recognized that the statistics presented here have their limitations in that they measure 

only unemployment. Other elements of labor underutilization are not examined. Furthermore, the statistics do 

not distinguish between the different situations of young 

people. Youth who combine work and school are treated the same as young persons in the full-time labor 

force.

Adjustment to U.S. concepts

Labor force survey data have been adjusted to conform as closely as possible to the U.S. definition of the 

unemployed—that is, persons not at work who have 

taken active steps within the prior 4-week period to 

find work and are currently available to begin work. 

Persons waiting to begin a job within 30 days and persons awaiting recall to jobs from which they are on 

layoff are also included in the unemployed. Such persons do not have to be actively seeking work. It was 

not possible, in all cases, to adjust the foreign data precisely to this definition of unemployment—on some

4 Margaret S. Gordon, Youth Education and Unemployment Problems: An International Perspective (Berkeley, Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, 1979), p. 55.

5 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Australia: Transition from School to Work or Further Study, OECD Reviews of National Policies for Education, (Paris, OECD, 1977), p.

47; International Labour Office, Some Growing Employment Problems

in Europe (Geneva, ILO, 1974), p. 48; Klaus von Dohnanyi, Education and Youth Employment in the Federal Republic of Germany (Berkeley, Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, 1978),

p. 38; and “Considering Employment: Unemployed (Part Two),”

Mainichi (Japanese newspaper), Dec. 3, 1977, p. 7.

Chart 1 Youth unemployment rates, 1979

Percent

1 1978.

2 Not adjusted to U.S. concepts.

2

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
points, data were simply not available for adjustment 

purposes.6

Some of the important issues relating to international comparability of unemployment statistics are discussed briefly below. The technical appendix to this 

bulletin discusses these and other issues in more detail.

Lower age limit. Youths in several countries typically 

leave school and enter the full-time work force at 

younger ages than in the United States. Therefore, it 

was decided not to strictly apply the U.S. lower age 

limit of 16 to the statistics of all countries. Instead, foreign lower age limits have been adjusted to the age at 

which compulsory schooling ends. This age varies from 

14 to 16 in the countries studied.

Exclusions from labor force. Adjustments have also 

been made, where necessary, to exclude from the labor 

force career military personnel and unpaid family workers working less than 15 hours, for greater conformity 

with U.S. definitions. Where possible, those persons 

who are not currently available for work have been 

excluded from the unemployed.

Students. The American concern with employment 

and unemployment of in-school youth is unmatched 

elsewhere. No other country has so great a proportion 

of its students in the labor force or counts them so meticulously, even if they work a few hours a week. Most 

European countries and Japan do not probe very deeply into student labor force activity in their surveys; 

therefore, some student employment and unemployment 

are not reported. Yet, differences in the statistical treatment of students have only a small impact on data comparability since European and Japanese students do not 

tend to seek employment while in school.

Reference periods. Differences in reference periods are 

a more significant cause of noncomparability. Annual 

average data on unemployment by age were available 

for most countries. However, French and German data 

were generally available only for one month in the 

spring of each year. It is likely that the spring figures 

are understated in relation to the annual average. October survey data for France, for example, are available 

for the past few years and they indicate higher youth 

unemployment than the March surveys. Therefore, 

comparisons of French and German data with the annual average data for other countries should be made 

with caution.

Data for Great Britain. Labor force survey data for 

Great Britain are available from 1971 onward. These 

data, along with the 1961 population census, form the 

basis of the data adjusted to U.S. concepts. They show 

unemployment rates for persons under 25 years of age. 

However, they do not permit a breakdown for teenagers and young adults (ages 20 to 24). Therefore, British statistics on registrations at employment offices have 

also been used. The registration statistics generally understate unemployment because they do not include unregistered jobseekers. Young persons who are looking 

for work often do not register as unemployed because 

they are usually not eligible for unemployment benefits, having worked only intermittently or not at all. On 

the other hand, British registration statistics are available by age only for the month of July through 1975. 

July is a peak month for youth unemployment in Great 

Britain; annual average registered unemployment for 

youth would be somewhat lower. Since 1975, data by 

age for months other than July have been published by 

Great Britain, and these have been shown in chapter 2. 

They indicate youth unemployment rates several percentage points lower than the July figures.

Although not internationally comparable, the British 

registration data do give some idea of the relative levels of teenage and young adult unemployment in Great 

Britain. Also, in years of high unemployment such as 

the recent past, young persons have a higher propensity to register as unemployed, so that the recent British 

registration figures (i.e., post-1975) do not understate 

youth unemployment to any great extent. For example, 

1978 registrations data by age for three time periods 

indicate a youth unemployment rate of about 12 percent. The British household survey data for 1978, adjusted to U.S. concepts, yield an annual average rate of 

about 14 percent for youth.

The adjusted British unemployment rates shown in 

this bulletin differ slightly from previously published 

estimates.7 The revisions arise mainly from a new method of inflating the household survey results to universe 

levels. Further revisions may be made as additional information becomes available from surveys sponsored 

by the European Community. Therefore, the adjusted 

British figures should be regarded as preliminary 

estimates.

Data for Italy. The data for Italy present a special 

problem because the necessary statistics were not available to adjust them to U.S. concepts. Because Italy has 

had a severe and unique youth unemployment problem, 

Italy was included in this analysis. The unadjusted data 

should be viewed with caution, but they are roughly 

suggestive of the dimensions of Italian youth unemployment. Youth unemployment rates for Italy would probably be a few percentage points lower if it were possible to adjust them fully to a U.S. basis, but they would 

still be extremely high by international standards.

6 The chief differences in the ways in which countries measure and

define unemployment and the methods of adjusting foreign data to

U.S. concepts are described in detail in International Comparisons of

Unemployment, Bulletin 1979 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1978). The

bulletin also describes the methods of adjustment of data by age.

1 Ibid., chap. 3.

3

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter 2. International

Comparisons of Youth

Unemployment

In most industrial countries, unemployment rates for 

young people historically have been higher than those 

for their elders. However, the extent of unemployment 

for youth has varied widely, both among the countries 

and over time within countries. Relatively high levels 

have occurred in the United States and Canada throughout the post-World War II period. For most of the other countries, the problems of youth in the labor market 

are a much more recent phenomenon. In Germany and 

Japan, the recent increase in youth joblessness marks a 

significant departure from the past. A deteriorating job 

situation for young persons began in the mid- or late 

1960’s in Great Britain, France, and Sweden, and even 

earlier in Italy. Thus, although cyclical factors are largely responsible for the very high levels of youth unemployment from 1974 onward, the roots of the problem 

go back further than the most recent economic 

downturn.

Table 1 presents unemployment data by age group 

for selected years of the 1960-79 period. Except for 

Italy, the data have been adjusted so that they approximate U.S. concepts. British data are also shown on an 

unadjusted (registered unemployed) basis because these 

are much more current and detailed than the adjusted 

data. For recent years, at least, the British registrations 

data are fairly good indicators of youth unemployment.

Long-term trends

In the early 1960’s, youth unemployment rates as well 

as overall jobless rates were low in Australia, Japan, 

France, Germany, Great Britain, and Sweden. For example, teenage unemployment rates ranged from 0.3 

percent in Germany to 4 percent in France (chart 2). 

Young adults’ rates varied less widely, from 0.4 percent 

in Germany to 2.7 percent in Great Britain (chart 3). 

The statistics for the United States, Canada, and Italy 

were in marked contrast: The North American countries had teenage unemployment rates in the 13 to 15 

percent range, and Italy’s teenage rate was over 9 percent. Italy’s moderate overall unemployment rate 

masked a severe youth unemployment problem. Jobless 

rates for young adults were also relatively high in these 

three countries.

In the latter years of the 1960’s, youth unemployment 

rates began to climb in France, Germany, and Great 

Britain and, to a much lesser degree, in Sweden and 

Australia. By 1970, French and German teenagers had 

much higher jobless rates than in the early 1960’s, although the German rate was only 1.4 percent. Young 

adult rates in France had also climbed upward, but they 

remained very low in Germany. Data adjusted separately for teenagers and young adults were not available for Great Britain in the 1970’s. Registrations data, 

however, indicate a sizable increase in unemployment 

for both groups. In all three countries, overall unemployment in 1970 was somewhat higher than in the early 1960’s. In contrast, the United States and Canada actually had lower national jobless rates in 1970 than in 

1960, but slightly, higher teenage rates. Youth unemployment in North America remained much higher than 

in Western Europe, Australia, and Japan. Italian youth 

unemployment rose to a level close to that of the United States and Canada. Japan was the only country which 

did not record a rise in teenage unemployment between 

1960 and 1970.

Unemployment rates for young adults did not necessarily follow the teenage pattern. In the United States 

and Canada, jobless rates for 20- to 24-year-olds declined between 1960 to 1970. In the other countries 

where teenage unemployment rose, the rates for young 

adults also rose, but only France and Italy had sharper 

increases for young adults than for teenagers.

The 1974-75 recession brought sharp increases in unemployment in all countries studied except Sweden, 

where a high level of employment was maintained 

through considerable expansion of such programs as labor market training and public works. Youth jobless 

rates in the other countries rose rapidly and by 1975 

U.S. teenage unemployment was at a postwar peak of 

almost 20 percent, the highest rate among the nations 

studied. Italian and Canadian teenage rates were next 

highest, in the 15-17 percent range. Australian, French, 

and British teenagers had rates of unemployment above 

10 percent for the first time in the postwar period. German teenagers reached a jobless high of 4.7 percent in 

1975, two and one-half times the level in the previous 

year. Japanese teenage unemployment also moved up4

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 1. Unemployment rates by age, adjusted to U.S. concepts, selected years, 1960-79

(Percent)

Country 

and date

All

working

ages

Under age 25

25

and

over

Country 

and date

All

working

ages

Under age 25

25

and

over

Total Teenagers1 Age

20 to 24 Total Teenagers1 Age

20 to 24

United States: Germany:4

1960 ........................ 5.5 11.2 14.7 8.7 4.4 April 1963 .............. 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3

1970 ........................ 4.9 11.0 15.2 8.2 3.3 April 1970 .......... .5 1.0 1.4 .6 .4

1974 ........................ 5.6 11.8 16.0 9.0 3.6 April 1974 .............. 1.2 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.1

1975 ........................ 8.5 16.1 19.9 13.6 6.0 May 1975 ................ 2.9 4.5 4.7 4.4 2.5

1976 ........................ 7.7 14.7 19.0 12.0 5.5 May 1976 ................ 3.1 4.9 5.1 4.7 2.6

1977 ...................... 7.0 13.6 17.7 10.9 4.9 April 1977 .............. 3.2 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.7

1978 ........................ 6.0 12.2 16.3 9.5 4.0 April 1978 .............. 3.0 4.5 4.6 4.4 2.6

1979 ...................... 5.8 11.7 16.1 9.0 3.9 April 1979 .............. 2.7 3.9 4.1 3.7 2.5

Canada: Great Britain:

1960 ...................... 7.0 11.1 13.5 9.3 5.8 Adjusted data

1970 ...................... 5.7 10.0 13.9 7.5 4.2 April 1961 .......... 1.9 2.4 2.1 2.7 1.7

1974 ...................... 5.3 9.3 11.6 7.6 3.9 1971...................... 3.9 6.1 (5) (5) 3.3

1975 ...................... 6.9 12.0 14.9 9.9 5.0 1974 ...................... 3.1 5.7 (5) (5) 2.5

1976 ...................... 7.1 12.7 15.7 10.5 5.1 1975 ...................... 4.6 9.3 (5) (5) 3.6

1977 ...................... 8.1 14.4 17.5 12.2 5.8 1976 ...................... 6.0 12.7 (5) (5) 4.5

1978 ....................... 8.4 14.5 17.9 12.2 6.1 1977 ...................... 6.4 13.5 (5) (5) 4.8

1979 ...................... 7.5 13.0 16.1 10,8 5.4 1978 ...................... 6.3 13.7 (5) (5) 4.6

Registered

Australia:1 2 unemployed6

1964 ...................... 1.4 2.7 3.7 1.6 .9 July 1971.............. 3.0 4.5 5.3 4.0 2.6

1967 ...................... 1.9 3.0 3.6 2.5 1.5 July 1974 .............. 2.3 3.8 4.5 3.3 2.0

1970 ...................... 1.7 2.7 3.8 1.8 1.3 July 1975 .............. 4.1 9.2 12.0 7.3 2.9

1974 ...................... 2.7 4.9 6.6 3.6 1.9 January 19767 . . . . 4.9 9.6 11.6 8.2 3.9

1975 ...................... 4.9 9.7 13.9 6.4 3.2 July 1976 .............. 5.5 13.0 20.1 8.0 3.8

1976 ........................ 4.8 10.0 14.4 6.6 2.9 January 1977 .... 5.4 10.6 12.9 9.0 4.2

1977 ...................... 5.6 12.0 17.4 7.5 3.3 July 1977 ................ 6.0 14.7 23.2 8.9 4.0

1978 ....................... 6.3 12.6 17.3 8.8 3.9 January 1978 ........ 5.8 11.4 13.9 9.6 4.4

1979 ...................... 6.2 13.0 18.1 8.8 3.7 July 1978 .............. 5.8 13.9 22.1 8.2 4.0

October 1978 .... 5.3 10.6 13.8 8.4 4.0

Japan: January 1979 .... 5.3 10.1 11.9 8.9 4.2

1960 ...................... 1.7 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.5 April 1979 .............. 4.9 8.6 9.4 8.1 4.0

1970 ......................... 1.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 .9 July 1979 .............. 5.3 12.3 19.1 7.6 3.7

1974 . . ..................... 1.4 2.5 2.6 2.3 1.2

1975 ...................... 1.9 3.1 3.7 2.9 1.6 Italy:

1976 ...................... 2.0 3.2 4.1 3.0 1.8 Unadjusted8

1977 ......................... 2.0 3.7 4.8 3.5 1.8 1964 ......................... 2.8 7.3 9.1 5.4 1.5

1978 .................... 2.3 3.8 4.7 3.6 2.0 1970 ........................ 3.2 10.2 12.3 8.8 1.5

1979 ......................... 2.1 3.6 4.9 3.3 1.9 1974 ......................... 2.9 11.2 14.3 9.1 1.2

1975 ......................... 3.4 12.9 16.8 10.4 1.5

France:3 1976 ......................... 3.7 14.6 19.2 11.7 1.6

March 1963 ............ 1.4 2.8 4.0 1.8 1.1 19779 ...................... 4.6 17.7 22.9 14.3 1.9

March 1970 ............ 2.5 4.8 7.0 3.7 2.0 19789 .................... 5.0 19.4 25.2 15.8 2.0

March 1974 ............ 2.8 6.2 9.8 4.8 2.1

April 1975 .............. 3.8 8.4 12.7 6.9 2.8 Sweden:

March 1976 ............ 4.5 10.8 17.0 8.6 3.3 1962 ......................... 1.5 2.7 3.3 2.0 1.2

March 1977 ............ 4.9 11.9 18.7 9.6 3.5 1970 ...................... 1.5 2.9 4.3 2.2 1.3

October 1977 ........ 5.1 13.1 21.8 9.1 3.3 1974 ......................... 2.0 4.5 6.8 3.2 1.5

March 1978 .......... 4.9 11.8 19.0 9.6 3.6 1975 ......................... 1.6 3.8 5.6 2.8 1.2

October 1978 . . . 6.1 15.3 25.8 10.8 4.0 1976 ......................... 1.6 3.8 5.5 2.8 1.2

March 1979 ............ 5.7 14.2 22.7 11.4 4.1 1977 ......................... 1.8 4.4 6.7 3.2 1.3

1978 ......................... 2.2 5.6 8.2 4.3 1.6

1979 ......................... 2.1 5.1 7-5 3.8 1.5

116- to 19-year-olds in United States, France, Great Britain (1974 onward), and Sweden; 15- to 19-year-olds in Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, and Great Britain (prior to 1974); and 14- to 19-year-olds in Italy.

2There is a discontinuity between the 1964 figures and those for later 

years and between the 1977 figures and those for later years. The impact on data continuity is small.

3French unemployment rates for March or April are usually slightly 

below the annual average; October figures are generally slightly above 

the annual average. Unemployment rates for 1963 are understated in 

relation to later data.

4German unemployment rates for April are usually slightly lower than 

the annual average.

5Not available.

s ta tistics on the registered unemployed are shown because data adjusted to U.S. concepts for 1979 onward are not available. Unemployment rates based on the registered unemployed were calculated using 

the civilian labor force as the denominator (official British figures use 

the wage and salary labor force as the denominator).

7From 1976 onward, data exclude adult students (i.e., students age 18 

and over) registered as unemployed during school vacations.

8Data for Italy could not be adjusted to U.S. concepts by age (see 

Technical Appendix). The adjusted overall rates for 1976 and prior years 

were very close to the unadjusted rates (for example, the rate of 3.7 percent in 1976 is adjusted to 3.6 percent on a U.S. basis). However, the 

rates for 1977 onward diverge to a greater extent (in 1978, the unadjusted rate was 5 percent, the adjusted rate, 3.7 percent).

9Based on data from revised Italian survey not entirely comparable 

with previous survey.

5

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chart 2 Teenage unemployment rates, selected years,

1960-79

United States

Canada

Australia

Japan

France

Germany

Great Britain

Italy

Sweden

Year

L lLl I ... 1

1960 ___________ _____________ 1

1970

.................... ............ :.......................i

1975

........................... ................................ ,....T.............. i

1979 J

^ r . ...........j............. .

1960

......:...■... 1

1970 ...;.......... ......._ ................. ....... . 1

1975 1

1979

' ..........._ .

1964 ............I

1970 :........ i

1975 ........................_L _

1979 ................................. '... _ i

1960

1970

i

1975 i

1979 ...................1

1963

.............. i

1970 1

1975

.................................................. 1____

1979 ___ ■................ . ..... ........................ iJ

1963

1970 h

1975

............... J

1979 ...............!

1961 _ J _____ ,

19711 ___________ l_________

19751 :...................................... ■..1______

19791 ________________ :_________________^

19641 i

19701 • ......................... •• l_____

19751 ................................................... ............... i______

19781

1962 _ .........I

1970 i

1975 |

1979 .........................:"1 __________i__________

0 5 10 15 20 25

Percent

1 Not adjusted to U.S. concepts.

6

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chart 3

United'States

Canada

Australia

Japan

France

Germany

Great Britain

Italy

Sweden

1 Not adjusted to

Unemployment rates for young adults, selected years,

1960-79

Year

Percent

U.S. concepts.

7

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ward but, at 3.7 percent, was still the lowest among the 

industrial countries.

Unemployment rates for young adults also surged 

upward during the recession, but the United States, 

Canada, and Italy were the only countries where they 

approached or exceeded 10 percent. The sharpest increases in unemployment rates for 20- to 24-year-olds 

between 1970 and 1975 were recorded in Australia and 

Germany, but the rates in both countries remained well 

below those in the United States, Canada, and Italy.

In 1976-79, youth unemployment rates declined 

somewhat in the United States but continued rising in 

the other countries, except that in Germany and Great 

Britain the increases leveled off. By 1977 or 1978, youth 

unemployment rates and teenage rates were higher in 

Canada, Australia, France, Great Britain, and Italy than 

in the United States. Rates for young adults were also 

higher, except in Australia. The more recent developments marked a dramatic change from 1975 and most 

previous years when the U.S. youth unemployment rate 

was by far the highest among the countries compared. 

Swedish youth unemployment rates began to rise in

1977, and by 1978 the teenage rate reached a peak of 

8.2 percent. The rate moved down to 7.5 percent in 

1979, but was still extremely high by Swedish standards.

Youth share of unemployment

There are wide international variations in the share 

of total unemployment borne by youth. Table 2 shows 

the percent distribution of the unemployed and the labor force by age for selected years since 1960. Throughout the period, Italy has had the highest proportion of 

the unemployed in the youthful age groups, yet one of 

the lowest proportions of youth in the labor force. In

1978, for example, two-thirds of the Italian unemployed 

were under 25, while only about one-sixth of the labor 

force was under 25. Australia was the only other country where more than half of the unemployed were under 25. In most years, Australia’s youth share of the 

labor force was less than half the proportion of youth 

among the unemployed.

The proportion of youth among the unemployed was 

also relatively high in North America in the late 1970’s— 

close to half—where they were only about a quarter of 

the labor force. In France, Great Britain, and Sweden, 

two-fifths of the unemployment but less than one-fifth 

of the labor force were youth.

Japan had, by far, the lowest component of youth 

among the unemployed at the end of the 1970’s. Persons under 25 made up only slightly over one-fifth of 

the Japanese unemployed and about one-eighth of the 

work force. The proportion of German youth among 

the unemployed was also relatively low, 28 percent in

1979, German youth were 20 percent of the labor force. 

Germany and Japan were the countries where the youth 

share of unemployment most closely approximated their 

share of the labor force. In almost all the other countries, the proportion of youth among the unemployed 

was at least double their proportion in the labor force.

With the exception of Japan, youth have borne an 

increasing share of unemployment since 1960. Canada, 

the United States, and Great Britain had the sharpest 

increases. In North America, the biggest increase came 

between 1960 and 1970. In Great Britain, the largest 

increase occurred after 1970. The proportion of North 

American youth in the labor force has also risen significantly since 1960, although not as rapidly as youth unemployment. In Great Britain, however, the rise in the 

youth component of unemployment has occurred despite a decline in the proportion of youth in the labor 

force.

The proportion of youth among the unemployed 

dropped in Australia from 52 percent in 1964 to 44 percent in 1970. However, it rose sharply during the recession, peaking at 57 percent in 1977. Throughout the 

period, the youth share of the labor force has held 

steady around 27 percent. France, Germany, and Italy 

had rising proportions of unemployment borne by youth 

between the early 1960’s and 1970. The French and 

Italian youth proportions have continued to rise slowly, but the German youth share, after a sharp increase 

in 1975, has since levelled off. Germany has had a virtually stable youth component in the labor force, about 

20 percent, throughout the period. France and Italy 

have had slowly declining trends in the proportion of 

youth in the labor force.

In several countries, there were differences in trends 

for teenagers compared with young adults. In Australia, France, and Italy, the proportion of unemployment 

borne by teenagers moved down, while the proportion 

for young adults rose. Sweden had a relatively steady 

unemployment share for teenagers, but an increase in 

the proportion for young adults. In Japan, the teenage 

share has dropped sharply, while the young adult proportion rose rapidly between 1960 and 1970, but then 

declined to below the 1960 level by 1979.

Youth-adult ratios

Youth unemployment rates are, of course, affected 

by the overall job situation in each country. Therefore, 

comparative ratios of youth to adult unemployment 

rates are shown in table 3 and chart 4. Such ratios may 

also be affected by the general level of unemployment, 

but they more accurately reflect the relative problems 

of youth. In all years studied, Italy had the widest 

youth-adult differential. The United States also ranked 

relatively high until recent years. The narrowest gaps 

between youth and adult unemployment were found in 

Germany, Japan, and, until 1975, Great Britain.

In most of Western Europe and Australia, the 

youth-to-adult unemployment rate differential has been 

widening recently. Between 1970 and 1979, the differential grew from 2.4 to 3.5 in France, and from 2.2 to 

3.4 in Sweden, for example. For France and Sweden,

8

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 2. Percent distribution of the unemployed and the labor force by age, selected years, 1960-79

Unemployed Labor force

Country 

and date

Under age 25

25

and

over

Under age 25

25

and

Total Teenagers1 over

Age

20 to 24 Total Teenagers1

Age

20 to 24

United States:

1960 ..................................................... 34 18 15 66 17 7 10 83

1970 ..................................................... 48 27 21 52 22 9 13 78

1974 ..................................................... 51 28 23 49 24 10 14 76

1975 ..................................................... 46 22 23 54 24 10 15 76

1976 ..................................................... 46 23 23 54 24 9 15 76

1977 ..................................................... 47 24 23 53 24 9 15 76

1978 .................................................... 49 26 24 51 24 10 15 76

1979 ..................................................... 49 26 23 51 24 9 15 76

Canada:

1960 ..................................................... 35 18 16 65 22 9 12 78

1970 ..................................................... 45 25 20 55 25 10 15 75

1974 ..................................................... 47 25 22 53 27 12 15 73

1975 ..................................................... 47 25 22 53 27 12 16 73

1976 ..................................................... 48 25 23 52 27 11 16 73

1977 ..................................................... 48 24 24 52 27 11 16 73

1978 ..................................................... 46 24 23 53 27 11 16 73

1979 ..................................................... 47 24 23 53 27 11 16 73

Australia:2

1964 ............................................... 52 38 14 49 27 14 13 73

1967 ..................................................... 43 25 18 57 27 13 14 73

1970 ................................................... 44 27 17 57 27 12 15 73

1974 ..................................................... 47 28 20 53 26 11 15 74

1975 ..................................................... 52 33 19 48 26 12 15 74

1976 ..................................................... 55 35 20 45 26 11 15 74

1977 ..................................................... 57 37 20 43 27 12 15 73

1978 . . ................................................. 54 33 21 46 27 12 15 73

1979 ................................................... 56 35 21 44 27 12 15 73

Japan:

1960 ..................................................... 29 13 16 69 23 10 13 77

1970 ..................................................... 37 10 27 63 22 6 16 78

1974 ............................................... 30 7 22 70 17 4 13 83

1975 ..................................................... 25 6 19 73 15 3 12 85

1976 ................................................... 22 6 17 75 14 3 11 86

1977 ..................................................... 25 6 18 76 13 3 11 87

1978 ...................... , ......................... 22 6 16 78 13 3 10 87

1979 ..................................................... 21 6 15 79 13 3 10 87

France:

March 1963 ....................................... 34 22 13 66 18 8 10 82

March 1970 ....................................... 37 17 20 63 20 6 13 80

March 1974 ......................................... 39 17 22 61 18 5 13 82

March 1975 ......................................... 39 16 23 61 17 5 13 83

March 1976 ......................................... 41 16 24 59 17 4 13 83

March 1977 ........ ............................. 41 16 25 59 17 4 13 83

March 1978 ......................................... 39 15 24 61 16 4 12 84

March 1979 ......................................... 40 15 24 60 16 4 12 84

Germany:

April 1963 ........................................... 22 7 15 78 21 9 12 79

April 1970 ............................................. 34 22 12 67 19 8 10 81

April 1974 ............................................. 26 12 14 74 18 8 11 82

May 1975 ............................................. 30 15 16 70 20 9 11 80

May 1976 ............................................. 31 15 16 69 20 9 11 80

April 1977 ........................................... 31 13 17 69 19 9 11 81

April 1978 ........................................... 30 13 16 70 20 9 11 80

April 1979 ............................................. 28 13 15 72 20 9 11 80

Great Britain:

Adjusted data

April 1961............................................. 28 13 15 72 21 11 10 79

1971 ................................................... 32 (3) (3) 68 21 (3) (3) 79

1974 ................................................... 32 (3) (3) 68 17 (3) (3) 83

1975 ................................................... 35 (3) (3) 65 17 (3) (3) 83

1976 ................................................... 38 (3) (3) 62 18 (3) (3) 82

1977 ..................................................... 38 (3) (3) 62 18 (3) (3) 82

1978 ..................................................... 41 (3) (3) 59 19 (3) (3) 81

See footnotes at end of table.

g

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 2. Continued— Percent distribution of the unemployed and the labor force by age, selected years, 1960-79

Unemployed Labor force

Country 

and date

Under age 25

25

and

over

Under age 25

25

and

Total Teenagers1 over

Age

20 to 24 Total Teenagers1

Age

20 to 24

Great Britain-Continued

Registered unemployed:4

July 1971 ......................................... 31 15 16 69 21 8 12 79

July 1974 ......................................... 30 14 16 70 18 7 11 81

July 1975 ......................................... 42 22 19 58 19 8 11 81

July 19765 ......................................... 44 28 16 56 19 8 11 81

July 1977 ......................................... 46 29 16 54 19 8 11 81

July 1978 ......................................... 45 29 16 55 19 8 11 81

July 1979 ......................................... 44 28 16 56 19 8 11 81

Italy:

Unadjusted

1964 ................................................. 56 36 21 44 21 11 10 79

1970 ................................................. 61 30 31 39 19 8 11 81

1974 ................................................. 65 33 32 35 17 7 10 83

1975 ................................................. 64 32 31 36 17 6 10 83

1976 ................................................. 64 32 32 36 16 6 10 84

19776 ................................................. 66 34 32 34 17 7 10 83

19786 ................................................. 66 33 33 34 17 7 10 83

Sweden:

1962 ................................................. 33 20 13 69 18 9 9 82

1970 ................................................. 34 17 17 69 18 6 12 82

1974 ................................................. 38 20 18 62 17 6 11 83

1975 ................................................. 39 21 18 61 17 6 11 83

1976 ................................................. 39 21 18 61 17 6 11 83

1977 ................................................. 40 21 19 60 16 6 11 84

1978 ................................................. 40 20 20 60 16 6 11 84

1979 ................................................. 40 20 19 60 16 6 11 84

116- to 19-year-olds in United States, France, Great Britain (1974 onward), and Sweden; 15- to 19-year-olds in Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, and Great Britain (prior to 1974); and 14- to 19-year-olds in Italy.

2There is a discontinuity between the 1964 figures and those for later 

years and between the 1977 figures and those for later years. The impact on data continuity is small.

3Not available.

4Statistics on the registered unemployed are shown because data adjusted to U.S. concepts for 1979 onward are not available.

5From 1976 onward, data exclude adult students (i.e., students age 18 

and over) registered as unemployed during school vacations.

6Based on data from revised Italian survey not entirely comparable 

with previous survey.

the teenage-to-adult ratio widened from about 3.5 to 5. 

Italy had the highest youth-adult ratio throughout this 

period, and it rose even higher to 9.7 by 1978, over 

three times the U.S. level. Teenage unemployment rates 

in Italy were over 12 times the rates for adults in 1978, 

up from 8 in 1970. Great Britain had very low differentials between youths and adults prior to 1975. In 1975, 

the ratio rose to 2.6 on a survey basis (U.S. concepts) 

and to over 3 on a registration basis. By 1978, the ratio 

on the survey basis was up to 3. Canadian, German, 

and Japanese youth-adult ratios have remained relatively low and stable in the 1970’s, but are higher than they 

were in the 1960’s. Canadian youth had jobless rates 

almost twice those of adults in 1960; in the 1970’s, youth 

rates were around two and one-half times those for 

adults. German data for April 1963 indicate no difference between youth and adult unemployment rates, and 

this was true throughout the 1960’s in Germany, except 

in the 1967-68 recession. By 1970, however, German 

youth rates were over twice as high as adult jobless 

rates. The German youth-adult ratio subsequently fell 

back to under 2 in 1974-79.

Although the overall youth-adult differential has held 

fairly steady in Japan, the teenage-to-adult ratio has

been edging upward. In 1977, it peaked at 2.7 compared 

with just 1.5 in 1960 and 2.2 in 1970.

Australian youth had a jobless rate three times that 

of adults in 1964 and twice that of adults in 1970. In 

1974-76 the differential widened and in 1977 moved 

higher still. The teenage differential was around 4 in 

1964, but rose to about 5 in 1976-77. The differential 

narrowed somewhat in 1978, but edged upward again 

in 1979.

In the United States, in contrast to Western Europe, 

Canada, and Australia, the gap between youth and adult 

unemployment narrowed between 1970 and 1977. 

Americans under 25 had unemployment rates 3.3 times 

those for adults in 1970 and 1974. In 1975-77, the differential narrowed but rose in 1978-79 to about 3, still 

lower than in the early 1970’s. The same general pattern was also true for ratios of teenage to adult unemployment. In the United States, the youth-adult differential tends to fluctuate in a countercyclical manner— 

in recessions, adult unemployment rates rise more sharply than youth rates, but adult rates also fall more rapidly in economic recoveries. Teenagers are more likely than adult men to enter the labor force during upswings and to withdraw from or fail to join the labor

10

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 3. Ratios of youth to adult unemployment rates, selected years, 1960-79

Country 1960 1970 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

Youth-to-adult ratio1

United S ta te s......................................... 2.5 3.3 3.3 2.7 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.0

Canada ................................................... 1.9 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4

A u stra lia ................................................. 23.0 2.1 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.2 3.5

Japan ..................................................... 1.4 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 2.1 1.9 1.9

France3 ................................................. “2.5 2.4 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.5

Germany5 ............................................ 61.0 2.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.6

Great Britain:

U.S. concepts............................... 71.4 81.8 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.0 (9)

Registrations10............................. 0 81.7 1.9 3.2 3.4 3.7 3.5 3.3

Italy10..................................................... 114.9 6.8 9.3 8.6 9.1 9.3 9.7 (9)

Sweden ............................................... 122.3 2.2 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.4

Teenage-to-adult ratio13

United S ta te s....................................... 3.3 4.6 4.4 3.3 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.1

Canada ................................................. 2.3 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 2.9 3.0

A u stra lia ............................................... 24.1 2.9 3.5 4.3 5.0 5.3 4.4 4.9

Japan ................................................... 1.5 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.4 2.6

France3 ................................................. 43.6 3.5 4.7 4.5 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.5

Germany5 ......................................... 61.0 3.5 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6

Great Britain:

U.S. concepts ............................. 71.2 H 0 (9) (9) H 0 H

Registrations10............................ (9) 82.0 2.3 4.1 5.3 5.8 5.5 5.2

Italy10..................................................... 116.1 8.2 11.9 11.2 12.0 12.1 12.6 (9)

S w eden................................................... 122.8 3.3 4.5 4.7 4.6 5.2 5.1 5.0

’Ratio of unemployment rate for persons under 25 to rate for persons 

25 and over.

21964.

3March or April for each year.

“March 1963.

5April or May for each year.

6April 1963.

7April 1961.

81971.

9Not available.

10Not adjusted to U.S. concepts. British data are for July.

111964.

121962.

nRatio of teenage unemployment rate to rate for persons 25 and over.

force during downswings, thus reducing cyclical variations in the teenage unemployment rate. Teenage labor force participation rates tend to level off during 

recessions and to resume their long-term upward trend 

during recoveries. Teenagers may decide to prolong 

their schooling when job opportunities are poor. When

opportunities increase, a sizable group of 16- and 17- 

year-olds leave school in response.8

8Marcia Freedman, “The Youth Labor Market,” in From School

to Work: Improving the Transition, a collection of policy papers

prepared for the National Commission for Manpower Policy

(Washington, Government Printing Office, 1976), p. 24.

11

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ratios of youth and teenage to adult

unemployment rates, 1960 and 1979

Chart 4

United

States

Canada

Australia

Japan

France

Germany

Great

Britain

Italy1

Sweden

Youth-to-adult ratio

1 Not adjusted to U.S. concepts.

Teenage-to-adult ratio

12

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter 3. Factors Affecting

Youth Unemployment

International differences in youth jobless rates are 

partly the result of differences in the timing and severity of recessions. However, in times of both prosperity 

and recession, the United States has had youth unemployment rates which rank among the highest in the 

industrial world. The United States has also had a rather wide differential between youth and adult unemployment rates, although some countries have caught up 

with or surpassed the United States in recent years, as 

discussed previously.

Some of the factors which underlie international differences in youth unemployment rates are discussed in 

this chapter. Supply and demand trends in the youth 

labor market are discussed first. Other aspects considered are the student labor force, apprenticeship, counseling and placement services, and the youth minimum 

wage. Differences in minority group unemployment are 

also taken up. Finally, there is an attempt to identify 

those factors responsible for the recent emergence of 

high youth unemployment abroad and the changing 

comparative picture.

Trends in labor supply

The United States and Canada have had rapid increases in the youth labor force—both teenagers and 

young adults—since the early 1960’s. The European 

countries and Japan, in contrast, have had a declining 

teenage work force and a decline or little growth for 

youth 20 to 24 years of age.

Tables 4 and 5 present levels and growth rates of the 

teenage and young adult labor force for the period 1960 

to 1979. The number of teenagers in the U.S. and Canadian work force grew at an annual rate of 3.6 to 4 

percent. Australian teenagers were the only others with 

a rising trend over this period. A very sharp decline 

occurred for teenagers in Japan, Italy, and France, with 

lesser rates of decrease in Great Britain and Sweden, 

and virtually no change in Germany. The young adult 

work force increased more rapidly or declined more 

slowly than the teenage labor force in all countries studied except Germany. In three countries with a declining teenage labor force, the young adult labor force 

had an upward trend (France, Great Britain, and Sweden). Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan had 

overall declines in the labor force under age 25 during 

the 1960-79 period (see chart 5).

There were some dramatic changes in labor force 

trends in the 1970’s. The growth rates of the youth labor force in North American countries moderated in 

the latter part of the 1970’s. For instance, the U.S. teenage labor force grew at an annual rate of 4 percent 

during the 1960-75 period, but growth then tapered off, 

and in 1979 the teenage labor force declined. There was 

also a moderation in the growth of the young adult labor force in North America.

In Great Britain and Italy, the youth labor force rose 

during 1975-79 after many years of decline. Growth in 

the Australian teenage labor force accelerated during 

the same period. The declining trend for teenagers was 

halted in Germany and Sweden in the first half of the 

1970’s, but resumed in the latter half. In Japan, the teenage decline became even more pronounced in the first 

half of the 1970’s through 1976.

Germany and Italy have had recent turnarounds in 

the trend of the young adult labor force. For both countries the earlier declining trend has been supplanted by 

a rising trend since around 1975. In Japan, the young 

adult labor force rose in the 1960’s, but declined in the 

1970’s.

There are also large differences in the relative size 

of the youth labor force. The following tabulation shows 

the percent of the labor force accounted for by youth 

in 1979. Canada and Australia had the highest proportions of young people in their work force, with the 

United States ranking next. Japan, France, and Sweden 

had substantially lower proportions. The international 

differences were particularly wide for teenagers, who 

have much higher unemployment rates than young 

adults.

All

youth Teenagers Young

adults

United States............ 24 9 15

Canada ...................... 27 11 16

Australia.................... 27 12 15

Japan ......................... 13 3 10

France....................... 16 4 12

Germany.................... 20 9 11

Great Britain .............. 19 8 11

Italy (1978)................ 17 7 10

Sweden ..................... 16 6 11

The United States and Canada, then, were under 

unusual pressure from a relatively large and fast-growing teenage and young adult labor force which helped 

contribute to higher rates of both overall and youth

13

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chart 5 Trends in the youth labor force,

1960-79

United States

Canada

Australia

Japan

France

Germany

Great Britain

Italy

Sweden

Under age 25

_ 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 4 5

United States

Canada

Australia

Japan

France

Germany

Great Britain

Italy1

Sweden

- 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Average annual percent change

Age 20 to 24

United States

Canada

Australia

Japan

France

Germany

Great Britain

Italy1

Sweden

- 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 4 5

1 Not adjusted to U.S. concepts. Avera9e annual Percent chan9e

Teenagers Average annual percent change

Z3

1

L .

r

r' —

I

i

14

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 4. Youth labor force, selected years, 1960-79

(Thousands)

Country

Under age 25 Teenagers Age 20 to 24

1960 1970 1975 1979 1960 1970 1975 1979 1960 1970 1975 1979

United S tates................ 11,544 17,830 22,265 24,780 4,841 7.247 8,798 9,512 6,703 10,583 13,467 15,268

Canada .......................... 1,375 2,131 2,701 3,025 598 851 1,153 1,259 777 1,279 1,548 1,766

Australia ...................... ’ 1,223 1,474 1,618 1,755 ’641 647 714 787 ’581 828 904 967

Japan ............................ 10,340 10,950 8,080 6,960 4,450 2,970 1,630 1,440 5,890 7,980 6,450 5,520

France2 .......................... 33,437 4,159 3,786 3,621 31,511 1,317 1,027 877 31,926 2,842 2,759 2,744

Germany4 ...................... 35,630 4,939 5,128 5,316 32,341 2,206 2,378 2,352 33,289 2,732 2,750 2,965

Great Britain5 ................ 65,110 75,121 4,731 4,994 62,616 72,110 1,937 2,039 62,494 73,011 2,794 2,956

Italy8 .............................. 4,779 3,649 3,241 93,432 2,474 1,497 1,251 91,326 2,305 2,152 1,990 92,106

Sweden ........................ 10678 693 683 691 10331 230 246 241 10347 463 436 450

11964.

2Data for March or April each year. 

31963.

4Data for April or May each year. 

5Mid-year estimates.

61961.

71971.

8Not adjusted to U.S. concepts and not adjusted for break in series 

related to new labor force survey instituted in 1977.

9New series not entirely compatible with previous years. Data for 

1978.

101962.

unemployment. Although labor force growth rates in 

North America have not been as rapid since 1975 as 

previously, they are still high in comparison with the 

other industrial countries. The other countries, for the 

most part, did not have to deal with increasing numbers of young people coming onto the labor market until recently, if at all. The accelerating rate of entry of 

teenagers into the Australian labor market since 1975 

has certainly been a contributing factor to higher youth 

unemployment. This has also undoubtedly been a factor in Great Britain and Italy where more teenagers 

were coming onto the labor market at a time of slackening economic activity. Diminishing rates of decline 

in teenagers entering the labor market in Japan also coincided with a period of sluggish economic growth.

Trends in birth rates, population, and participation 

rates underlie the differing trends in the youth labor 

force of the industrial countries. A bulge in the youth 

population occurred in many Western European countries, Australia, and Japan as a result of high birth rates 

following World War II.9 However, there were important differences in degree and timing. The birth rate 

rose sharply and remained high in the United States,

Canada, and Australia until the latter part of the 1950’s, 

resulting in a bulge in the population age 15 or 16 to 

24 that lasted from the early 1960’s to the mid- or late 

1970’s. In most of Western Europe and in Japan, on the 

other hand, the postwar increases in birth rates were 

not as large as in North America and they soon fell 

back to more normal levels. Italy and Great Britain had 

short-lived postwar baby booms, while German birth 

rates in the early postwar years hardly increased at all. 

In Sweden, birth rates declined from 1945 to around 

the mid-1950’s. France, unlike the rest of Europe, had 

a sharp postwar increase in birth rates which was sustained until about 1950. Japanese birth rates, after a 

rapid but short postwar rise, fell very sharply to levels 

far below those of the prewar period.

During the 1960’s, the United States, Canada, and 

Australia experienced declines in birth rates. In con9 For further discussion and charts on birth rate trends, see Margaret

S. Gordon, Youth Education and Unemployment Problems: An International Perspective (Berkeley, Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in

Higher Education, 1979), pp. 17-20. See also Beatrice G. Reubens

and others, The Youth Labor Force 1945-1995: A Cross-national Analysis (Montclair, N. J., Allanheld, Osmun and Co., 1981), chap. 2.

Table 5. Trends in the youth labor force, selected periods, 1960-79

(Average annual percent change)

Country

Under age 25 Teenagers Age 20 to 24

1960-79 1960-70 1970-75 1975-79 1960-79 1960-70 1970-75 1975-79 1960-79 1960-70 1970-75 1975-79

United S tates................ 4.1 4.4 4.5 2.7 3.6 4.1 4.0 2.0 4.4 4.7 4.9 3.2

Canada .......................... 4.2 4.4 4.9 2.9 4.0 3.6 6.3 2.2 4.4 5.1 3.9 3.3

Australia .................... ’2.4 ’3.2 1.9 2.1 ’1.4 ’.1 2.0 2.5 ’3.5 ’6.3 1.8 1.7

Japan .......................... -2.1 .6 -5.9 -3.7 -5.8 -3.9 -13.0 -3.0 -.3 3.1 -4.1 -3.8

France ........................ 2.3 22.8 -1.9 -1.1 2-3.4 2-2.0 -4.9 -3.8 22.2 25.7 -.6 -.1

Germany .................... 2-.4 *-1.9 .8 .9 20 *- .9 1.5 -.3 2-.7 2-2.6 .1 2.1

Great B rita in .............. 3-.1 40 5-2.0 1.4 3-1.4 4-2.2 s-2.2 1.3 3.9 41.9 *-1.9 1.4

Italy6 ............................ 7 -1.8 -2.6 -2.3 81.9 -3.4 -4.9 -3.6 82.0 -.5 -.7 -1.6 *1.9

Sweden ...................... 8.1 9.3 -.3 .3 9-1.9 9-4.5 1.4 -.5 81.5 93.7 -1.2 .8

’Initial year 1964. 

in itia l year 1963. 

in itia l year 1961. 

41961 -71. 

51971-75.

6Not adjusted to U.S. concepts and not adjusted for break in series 

related to new labor force survey instituted in 1977 

71960-78.

81975-78. 

in itia l year 1962.

15

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
trast, Germany, Great Britain, Sweden, and Italy had 

rising birth rates in the early to mid-1960’s and Japan 

had a modest rise in the latter part of the 1960’s.

The result of these trends in birth rates was that the 

United States, Canada, Australia, and France had very 

rapid increases in the teenage population of working 

age during the 1960’s. In the 1970’s, the growth rates 

dropped off considerably, and, in fact, the teenage population in the United States has been declining since 

1977. By contrast, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and 

Sweden had fairly slow growth or even declines in the 

teenage population during the 1960’s, but an upswing 

in growth in the 1970’s. Japan had a low rate of increase in the teenage population during the 1960’s, a 

sharp downward trend in the first half of the 1970’s, 

and an upward trend in the second half of the decade.

Population growth patterns for young adults were 

similar to those for teenagers, with a few exceptions. 

Japan and Sweden joined North America, France, and 

Australia in a high population growth rate for young 

adults in the 1960’s, although teenage population growth 

was very slight for Japan and teenagers actually declined in Sweden during the same period. Like the trend 

for their teenagers, population growth for young adults 

was relatively slow during the 1960’s in Germany, Great 

Britain, and Italy. Population growth accelerated for 

German young adults in the first half of the 1970’s, and 

in Great Britain and Italy an acceleration occurred in 

the second half of the decade.

Upward population trends were translated into rapid 

labor force growth for young people in the United 

States, Canada, and, to a lesser extent, in Australia. 

However, this was not the case in all countries. In 

France, for example, where the teenage population of 

working age grew at a rapid rate in the 1960’s, this did 

not result in any increase in the number of teenagers 

coming onto the labor market because labor force participation rates for these young people fell sharply. Table 6 shows youth labor force participation rates for 

two years, one in the early 1960’s and one in the late 

1970’s. Between these two periods, teenage activity rates 

declined in all countries except the United States and 

Canada. The sharpest drop occurred in Japan, where 

teenage participation rates fell from 50 percent in 1960 

to under 19 percent in 1978. Very large declines also 

occurred in Italy, France, and Germany. Great Britain, 

Australia, and Sweden recorded more moderate decreases. There was also a tendency for participation 

rates of young adults to decline outside North America, although not as precipitously as for teenagers.

The declining trends in youth labor force activity 

outside North America have resulted from the rapid 

expansion of school attendance. In the United States 

and Canada, school attendance has also increased, but 

in these two countries many youngsters combine school 

with work so that the expansion of educational enrollTable 6. Civilian labor force participation rates by age, selected

years, 1960-78__________________ _________________________

Country and date

Under age 25

Total Teenagers Age 20 to 24 25 and over

United States:

1960 ................ 56.4 47.5 65.2 60.0

1978 ................ 68.2 58.0 76.9 61.7

Canada:

I9601 ............ 50.4 47.5 69.4 55.7

1978 ................ 64.4 51.5 78.1 62.0

Australia:

19641 ............ 71.9 68.7 75.8 56.7

1978 ................ 70.2 61.1 80.0 59.4

Japan:

1960 ................ 62.8 50.1 77.7 69.0

1978 ................ 44.2 18.8 69.4 66.9

France:

March 1963 . . . 63.1 52.5 75.0 56.6

March 1978 .... 50.3 27.0 68.9 58.0

Germany:

April 1963 ........ 74.5 67.8 80.1 55.9

April 1978 ........ 59.1 47.1 74.3 53.0

Great Britain:

April 1961........ 75.0 72.5 77.9 57.1

1978 .................. 68.4 59.5 76.3 61.5

Italy:2

1960 .................. 60.7 57.8 64.2 53.9

1978 .................. 38.2 26.2 58.2 48.4

Sweden:

1962 .................. 70.6 64.8 77.1 62.4

1978 .................. 70.8 55.2 83.2 65.0

1BLS estimates roughly comparable with 1978 data.

2Data not adjusted to U.S. concepts and not adjusted for break in 

series related to new labor force survey instituted in 1977.

NOTE: Data for the United States, Canada, and Italy refer to the 

civilian noninstitutional population. For the other countries, the population data include persons residing in institutions. Therefore, the participation rates for these other countries are slightly understated in comparison with the rates for the United States, Canada, and Itajy.

ments has not lowered work activity. In the other countries where few students are in the labor force, increases 

in school enrollment rates caused youth participation 

rates to decline. Table 7 shows trends in full-time enrollment rates for teenagers and young adults. Foreign 

enrollment rates were well below the U.S. rates in 1960 

(except for young adults in Sweden). Since 1960, there 

have been very large increases in enrollment rates 

abroad, but smaller increases in the United States where 

rates were already high in 1960.

In some countries, recent reversals in participation 

rate trends have occurred which are not evident from 

table 6, since it shows only two years. Participation 

rates for both teenagers and young adults in Australia, 

Sweden, and Italy declined in the 1960’s, but have 

moved upward from about the mid-1970’s onward. In 

other countries, the rate of decline is decelerating. One 

Swedish labor market analyst believes that the recent 

uptrend indicates that Swedish students have begun to

16

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 7. Fuli-time school enrollment rates, 1960, 1970, and 1975

(Percent)

Country

Age 15 to 19 Age 20 to 24

1960 1970 1975 1960 1970 1975

United S tates.......................... 64 74 72 12 20 22

Canada ..................................... 49 65 66 7 14 15

Australia ............................ 37 39 44 1 3 5

Japan .................................... 45 64 76 4 12 14

France ..................................... 32 45 53 7 10 12

Germany ................................ 35 47 48 7 10 12

Great B rita in .......................... 17 34 45 5 6 8

Italy ......................................... 19 32 43 5 9 17

Sweden .................................. 37 56 57 15 16 14

Source: Beatrice G. Reubens and others, The Youth Labor Force

1945-1995: A Cross-national Analysis (Montclair, N.J., Allanheld, 

Osmun and Co., 1981).

adopt the North American pattern of seeking part-time 

jobs.10 A further factor is that school enrollment rates 

are tending to rise more slowly after the rapid expansion of the 1960’s (table 7).

In summary, rapid growth of the youth population 

combined with sharply rising participation rates to bring 

about large increases in the teenage and young adult 

labor force in North America. Australia’s rapid youth 

population growth, in contrast, was not fully translated 

into labor force growth because teenage participation 

rates declined. In France, the decline in activity rates 

for teenagers was so large that it completely overrode 

the rapid growth of the youth population in the 1960’s. 

The decline in participation rates for teenagers in the 

other countries, combined with slower population 

growth for this age group, resulted in a pronounced 

decline in the teenage labor force from 1960 to at least 

the mid-1970’s. Declines in activity rates for young 

adults were not nearly as great as they were for teenagers; therefore, the young adult labor force did not 

decline as fast or in some cases (France, Great Britain, 

Sweden) it increased while the teenage work force was 

declining.

Demand factors

During the 1960’s, a tight labor market and strong 

economic growth in most of Europe, Australia, and Japan fostered a high demand for young workers. Labor 

shortages gave many young people opportunities to 

choose among jobs and to enter the occupational hierarchy at higher levels than would have been possible 

in less favorable times. Japan, Great Britain, and Germany were countries where employers recruited young 

people straight from school and provided training for 

many of them. New entrants were eagerly sought and 

employers were willing to take youngsters without occupational skills or previous work experience. This favorable outlook for youth abroad during the 1960’s 

changed during the 1970’s as structural problems were 

intensified by deep recession.

Even during the 1960’s, however, the acceptance of 

youth as discussed above was less common in France

and Italy, and even less visible in the United States 

where employers exhibited little active interest in hiring 

teenagers.11 Indeed, recent studies show that two-thirds 

to four-fifths of U.S. employers are reluctant to hire 

youth under age 21 for regular, full-time jobs.12 Particularly where substantial on-the-job training costs are 

involved, employers may calculate that their investment 

would be better spent on workers over age 21, rather 

than on teenagers. Employers often cite legal restrictions on hours and working conditions for teenagers as 

additional impediments to employing them.

Long-run structural changes in the labor market have 

adversely affected the demand for young people in most 

of these countries. The shift out of agriculture and the 

decline of self-employment or small family businesses 

have greatly reduced family employment opportunities 

for youth. The decline in agricultural employment has 

been going on for decades. The United States and Great 

Britain have the smallest proportion of the labor force 

engaged in agriculture among the countries studied; Japan and Italy have the largest.13 Family employment 

opportunities in agriculture and small business did not 

always provide steady employment for young people 

but did give them some work experience.

Further affecting the demand for young workers has 

been the changing demand for skills in the industrial 

economies. A decline in the relative importance of unskilled jobs, in which many youth find their first employment, has taken place in the course of industrialization. There are many low-skilled jobs in the rapidly 

growing service sector that may tend to replace diminishing unskilled openings in the industrial sector, but 

service industries are also affected to some extent by 

changes which reduce demand for the unskilled. A 1974 

British study pointed out that it was becoming more 

difficult to help those unqualified, untrained young people who normally entered jobs below craft level.14 Job 

opportunities for such young persons were getting few10Gosta Rehn and K. Helveg Petersen, Education and Youth Employment in Sweden and Denmark (Berkeley, Carnegie Council on

Policy Studies in Higher Education, 1980).

11 Beatrice G. Reubens, “Foreign and American Experience with

the Youth Transition,’’ in From School to Work: Improving the Transition, a collection of policy papers prepared for the National Commission for Manpower Policy (Washington, Government Printing

Office, 1976), p. 274.

12 Employment and Training Report of the President (Washington,

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978), p. 75. See also Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wages, Bulletin 1657 (Bureau of Labor

Statistics, 1970), pp. 128-31 and 183, and Norman Bowers, “Young

and Marginal: an Overview of Youth Unemployment,’’ Monthly Labor Review, October 1979, pp. 4-5.

13 For further data and discussion, see International Comparisons of

Unemployment, Bulletin 1979 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1978), pp.

23-26.

14 Unqualified, Untrained, and Unemployed, Report of a Working

Party set up by the National Youth Employment Council (London,

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1974), p. 1.

17

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
er, a trend that could be largely masked in Great Britain in times of high growth, but which became apparent in the more recent high unemployment years. Thus, 

young persons who used to be able to find jobs as delivery boys, lorry drivers’ mates and messengers could 

no longer obtain such jobs because employers were discontinuing them. These positions came to be regarded 

by employers as “surplus jobs” in the stringent economic climate in Great Britain beginning in 1968. Also, 

the position of junior operative, formerly open to 15- 

year-olds and leading to skilled status, is disappearing 

or is reserved for 18-year-olds. As continuous processes, shift work, weekend work, and heavy capital investment have become common in manufacturing, British 

employers have raised the minimum age for recruitment 

and are asking for higher academic credentials.

Sweden, like Great Britain, has a problem with 16- 

and 17-year-olds who leave school after basic compulsory education, find only short-term, dead-end jobs, and 

become unemployed shortly thereafter. Shops and offices have registered a much-reduced demand for unskilled labor.15 Australian analysts have also reported 

that technological and organizational changes are reducing employment opportunities for the young.16

Growing rigidities in the labor market have also adversely affected employment prospects for young people. Formal seniority provisions in collective bargaining agreements prevent the employer from laying off 

older workers in recessions, and this typically results 

in greater instability of employment for young people, 

who have little seniority and are the first to be laid off. 

During the 1970’s, there was considerable strengthening in job security provisions for adult workers in Western Europe and Japan. An OECD study of job security arrangements in France, Germany, and Great Britain indicates that management prerogatives in dismissing labor have been curtailed substantially.17 This trend 

started in the late 1960’s, but was considerably accelerated during the 1974-75 recession. The OECD study 

notes that the increased job security of those already 

employed may reduce considerably the job opportunities for new labor market entrants, particularly youth. 

Employers have become extremely reluctant to take on 

new, untried workers because they feel they will not 

be able to dismiss them if they do not work out.

A 1976 study by the German Federal Labor Institute corroborated the OECD study, attributing higher 

youth unemployment in Germany partly to regulations 

protecting older, longer term employees.18 The Institute 

noted that such regulations have been expanded significantly in legal, wage, and industrial agreements and 

have contributed to a redistribution of the unemployment risk toward young people in Germany. The 1976 

revisions to the Youth Protection Labor Law also contributed to the reluctance of German employers to hire 

the young. These revisions, applying to persons under

18 years of age, lengthened minimum annual vacations, 

limited weekly hours of work to 40 (44 previously), and 

provided that shifts could not exceed 10 hours. During 

the 1960’s in Germany, there was widespread evasion 

of existing youth protection laws because of the labor 

shortage. The 1976 law strengthened the enforcement 

machinery for these provisions.

Swedish and Italian labor market experts have also 

spoken of the adverse effects of protective legislation

on new entrants.19 The problem is viewed as particularly acute in Italy where employers reportedly try to 

avoid the hiring of new workers to the maximum extent possible, because it is virtually impossible to discharge a worker once hired. Both law No. 300 of May 

1970—the “Workers’ Statute”—and law No. 604 of July 

1966 on “dismissal for cause” contain provisions which 

are very restrictive for employers. These laws establish 

a series of rights for workers and virtually no recourse 

for employers. As an example, article 5 of law No. 300 

prescribes that the employer may conduct investigations into the abuse of sick leave “solely through the 

inspection services of the competent social insurance 

agency.” By the time the inspection services get around 

to checking on the legitimacy of the claimed absence, 

the worker has long since been back on the job.

The student labor force

The working student is very much an American phenomenon. No other country has so large a proportion 

of those in school also in the labor force during the 

school year. The frequent entries and exits of students 

characteristic of the U.S. labor market do not occur to 

any significant extent in Western Europe and Japan. 

Canada also has substantial student labor force activity. There is growing student participation in the work 

force in Australia, but it is still small compared with 

the United States and Canada.

Information on the school enrollment and labor force 

status of the population age 16 to 34 in the United States 

is collected annually in the October supplement to the 

labor force survey.20 Data for October, which is close

15 Ibid., p. 79.

16 G. W. Ford, “The General Problems of Youth Unemployment,”

in Youth Unemployment, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, Second Academy Symposium, Proceedings, Nov. 7-8, 1977, p.

A-3.

17 John Gennard, Job Security and Industrial Relations (Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1979).

18 Study quoted in Klaus von Dohnanyi, Education and Youth Employment in the Federal Republic of Germany (Berkeley, Carnegie

Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, 1978), p. 34.

19 Reubens, “Foreign and American Experience,” p. 287; and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Review of

the Labor Market Situation in Less Industrialized Member Countries

(Paris, OECD, Nov. 7, 1978, unpublished).

20 For example, see Anne M. Young, “School and Work Among

Youth During the 1970’s,” Monthly Labor Review, September 1980,

pp. 44-47.

18

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
to the beginning of a new school year, may not be fully 

representative of all the school months. Students are 

not explicitly identified in the U.S. survey during the 

rest of the year, although young people 16 to 21 years 

old reporting school as their major activity are tabulated by labor force status each month. For students in 

the labor force, these monthly data substantially underreport school enrollment because many part-time students may report work as their major activity. The October 1979 supplementary survey recorded 1.6 million 

more 16- to 21-year-olds both in school and in the labor force than the total derived from the major activity question in the monthly survey. Because of the shortcomings of U.S. data with regard to measuring student 

labor force activity, the National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics has recommended that youth enrollment status be determined each 

month in the U.S. surveys, rather than only annually 

in October.21

The monthly data on young persons age 16 to 21 indicate much higher unemployment rates for those whose 

major activity is school. In 1979, such persons had an 

unemployment rate of 18.1 percent. For others in the 

same age group, the jobless rate was 12.7 percent. The 

unemployment rate for both groups combined was 13.9 

percent, indicating that the in-school unemployed added 

over 1 percentage point to the unemployment rate for 

the 16- to 21-year-old age group. The higher rate for 

students may reflect their limited availability with respect to hours of work and the time limitations on their 

job-hunting efforts because of the constraints of classroom schedules.22 Those whose major activity was 

school constituted 22 percent of the labor force and 28 

percent of the unemployed in this age group. Excluding the summer vacation months of June through August, when most of the persons who had formerly reported school as their major activity drop out of this 

category, this “in school” group constitutes 29 percent 

of the labor force and 38 percent of the unemployed 

age 16 to 21.

The October surveys indicate a paradoxical impact 

of student labor force activity on U.S. youth unemployment rates: Student unemployment tends to increase 

overall youth unemployment rates but to decrease the 

separate rates for teenagers and young adults. The following tabulation of unemployment rates for October 

1979 illustrates this point.

All youth Enrolled in

school

Not enrolled

school

16 to 24 years :............. 11.4 13.0 10.8

16 to 19 years ........ 15.9 15.2 16.7

16 to 17 years.... 17.4 16.3 24.1

18 to 19 years.... 14.8 12.9 15.7

20 to 24 years......... 8.8 8.6 8.8

20 to 21 years.... 10.1 9.3 10.3

22 to 24 years.... 8.0 7.8 8.0

Although unemployment rates for persons 16 to 24 

years of age are higher for those enrolled in school, all 

the component age groupings show lower rates for students than for nonstudents. The reason that the overall 

unemployment rate is higher for students is simply the 

difference in age composition of the student and nonstudent groups. Those in school tend to be younger 

than those out of school, and for that reason have higher unemployment rates on average. Teenagers make up 

two-thirds of the in-school labor force, but only onequarter of the out-of-school labor force under 25. Since 

teenagers have much higher unemployment rates than 

young adults, their larger representation in the in-school 

work force causes the aggregate unemployment rate 

for students age 16 to 24 to be higher than the rate for 

nonstudents in that age aggregate.

Neither the October surveys nor the monthly “major activity” data record the effect of student unemployment during summer vacations. An unemployment 

rate for students encompassing the summer vacation 

period would probably be higher than the rate during 

school term. During the summer, the job market becomes flooded with youthful applicants.

When their vacation period unemployment and inschool unemployment are combined, students in the 

U.S. labor force do pull the yearly youth unemployment rate upward somewhat. In other countries, where 

there are not as many young people in school and also 

a lesser seasonal influx of students into the labor force 

during vacations, youth unemployment rates are not 

subject to as much upward pressure by the student work 

force. In addition, as mentioned earlier, school vacation 

workseeking is not even recorded in a few of the other countries because of the timing of their surveys 

(France, Germany). The high degree of student labor 

force activity in the United States also exaggerates the 

proportion of youth in the unemployment total relative 

to countries with little student participation in the labor force. If all American in-school teeriagers who were 

in the labor force in October 1979 were removed, the 

U.S. teenage labor force would drop by 46 percent. 

The teenage labor force participation rate would fall 

from 56 to 26 percent—almost the same as in France 

and Italy.

Labor force participation rates for U.S. students have 

been rising rapidly. Between 1967 and 1977, for example, the increase was about 5 percentage points for males 

and 13 points for females. About 45 percent of teenage 

students were economically active at the time of the 

October 1979 survey, and about 57 percent of young 

adult students (both full- and part-time) were also eco21 National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Counting the Labor Force (Washington, Government Printing

Office, 1979), p. 90.

22 Anne M. Young, “Employment of School Age Youth,” Monthly

Labor Review, September 1970, p. 9.

19

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
nomically active. The rise of student participation in 

the U.S. labor force has been attributed to several factors including need for (or preference for) earnings to 

supplement support received from family or other 

sources, increased participation in work-study programs, and increases in the proportion of college students enrolled in 2-year colleges, whose students have 

higher activity rates than those in 4-year colleges.23

In the United States in recent years, 30 percent of all 

employed persons age 16 to 24 are enrolled in school. 

Similar data are also available for Canada, where student labor force activity, although substantial, is not as 

widespread as in the United States. In October 1976, 

24 percent of all employed Canadians age 15 to 24 were 

enrolled in school. Students accounted for 7 percent of 

the total U.S. civilian labor force and 6 percent of the 

Canadian work force.

Unlike the situation in the United States, the unemployment rate for Canadian students is substantially 

lower than the unemployment rate for all young people, on average. For example, the October 1976 student 

unemployment rate for Canada was 6.5 percent, while 

the rate for all 15- to 24-year-olds was 11.9 percent, 

and the rate for persons of all working ages was 6.6 

percent. Full-time students had a jobless rate of 10.6 

percent, while part-time students had a much lower 

rate—3.9 percent. For the United States the October 

1978 survey indicated a student unemployment rate of 

12.5 percent, while the rate for all 16- to 24-year-olds 

was 10.8 percent, and the national unemployment rate, 

5.8 percent.

Canadian students, like U.S. students, have a higher 

unemployment rate during summer vacation than during school term. In May 1979, Canadians under age 25 

who attended school in March and were planning to 

return to school in the autumn had a jobless rate of 13.3 

percent. This was just above the 13.1-percent rate for 

all other youth, but well above the national unemployment rate of 7.5 percent.

Australia also publishes some data on the student 

work force. Although nominally covering all teenagers 

from 15 to 19, the data effectively concern 15- to 17- 

year-olds only, since the definition of students relates 

only to those enrolled full time at regular secondary 

schools, which few 18- or 19-year-olds attend. Excluded from the student work force figures are persons enrolled at colleges, universities, and trade and business 

schools. Because of these exclusions, as well as the exclusion of part-time students, the proportion of the teenage labor force enrolled in school is understated compared to measures used in the United States and Canada. In July 1979, a month when school is in session in 

Australia, 12 percent of all employed teenagers were 

attending school (as defined above). The figure from 

the U.S. October 1979 survey was 55 percent (ages 16 

to 19). Australian teenage students have above-average

unemployment rates compared with nonstudents. In 

July 1979, the teenage student rate was 20 percent, 

while the rate for teenage nonstudents was 16 percent. 

In the United States, the rates for teenage students tend 

to be a few percentage points lower than the rates for 

nonstudents. Canadian teenagers who are also students 

have much lower jobless rates than their nonstudent 

counterparts.

The Japanese labor force survey regularly reports 

the number of persons who are engaged partly in work 

besides attending school. In recent years, such persons 

have accounted for less than 1 percent of Japan’s employed population. In the United States, a comparable 

figure is 9 percent. Assuming that all Japanese working 

students were under the age of 25, this would mean 

that 6.7 percent of employed 15- to 24-year-olds combined work and school in 1979, up from 3.6 percent in 

1970. According to a Ministry of Education survey, 

about one-fifth of Japanese college and university students have part-time jobs during the school term, mostly as tutors to younger children for 30 to 50 hours a 

month. Thus, Japanese college students who work participate in the regular labor market to a small extent. 

No data are collected on student unemployment in 

Japan.

Separate figures for employment and unemployment 

of students are not regularly collected in the labor force 

surveys for the other countries. There has been no impetus toward collecting such information because student labor force participation has been so low. Recently, there have been indications in several countries that 

this situation may be changing, but data collection has 

not yet caught up with the increasing propensity of 

young people to combine education and work.24 Furthermore, European young people and especially students frequently take unrecorded work25 so as to retain 

the advantages of student status for themselves or their 

parents. This type of activity usually goes unreported 

in labor force surveys.

There are also some data for Great Britain, Sweden, 

and Germany which are suggestive of the level of student labor force activity. British full-time students who 

also worked accounted for only 9 percent of total employment of 15- to 24-year-olds in 1972. This figure is 

an annual average; a figure for students working during the school term only (as reflected in the U.S. figures for October) would be considerably lower. Even

23 Anne M. Young, “ Students, Graduates, and Dropouts in the

Labor Market, October 1977,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1978,

pp.44-45.

24 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Trends

m Labour Supply: Analytical Report (Paris, OECD, Oct. 29, 1979, unpublished). See also Reubens, The Youth Labor Force, chap. 5.

25 Unrecorded work refers to employment in jobs which are not reported to avoid taxes and other kinds of regulation or to employment

in illegal activities. See appendix.

20

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
on an annual basis, the figure is well below the U.S. 

and Canadian proportions for students working in October. However, a 1974 national survey of 16-year-olds 

indicated a much higher degree of student work force 

activity. About half of the pupils in the final year of 

compulsory school reported that they had worked during the school term. Many of these jobs were delivery 

or babysitting jobs with brief hours.

Recent Swedish surveys show that in the last year 

of compulsory school about 20 percent of the students 

who did not proceed to the next level of education had 

worked at some time during the school year. A survey 

of Swedish students age 18 and 19 indicated that only 

about one-third had worked at any time during their 

upper secondary school years. Most of them worked 

only on weekends rather than during the school week.

German university students have increased their labor force participation greatly since the 1960’s, but it 

is still far below the level of U.S. college students. In 

the mid-1970’s, 20 to 25 percent of German university 

students worked consistently or frequently during the 

school year. In the United States, well over half of all 

college students participate in the labor force while in 

school. The October 1979 survey reveals that about 45 

percent of full-time college students were in the labor 

force. Among part-time college students, the activity 

rate was about 90 percent.

There are several reasons why relatively few European and Japanese students work while in school. One 

factor concerns the academic demands of school which 

discourage part-time work. The rigors and pressures of 

the school years in Japan are well known. In that country, all educational institutions have social prestige rankings and the quality of the job and firm entered by 

young workers is highly dependent on the particular 

schools attended. Thus, good academic records are very 

important and their pursuit leaves little time to work at 

part-time jobs. Studies in several countries have shown 

that part-time jobs during the school week have an unfavorable effect on school work; thus student Work activity is generally discouraged.26 In France, Germany, 

and Great Britain, students tend to look for casual employment rather than a regular part-time job. This is 

because only at certain times of the year do academic 

obligations allow some leisure; during the examination 

period students must devote themselves entirely to their 

studies. Given the fact that the German labor force surveys are taken only in April of each year and the French 

surveys only in April and October, the full extent of 

seeking such casual employment most likely does not 

show up in the unemployment figures for these countries. Enrollment in an American or Canadian college 

or university, on the other hand, is much more compatible with part-time employment, so a larger proportion of students enrolled in colleges and universities are 

in the labor market.

Financial factors are also significant in the international differences in student labor force behavior. In 

European countries, student bodies are drawn very disproportionately from the upper income classes. Furthermore, governments abroad often provide financial 

stipends to a large proportion of students which make 

it less necessary for them to work while in school. In 

Sweden, a system of scholarships and loans is available 

for the benefit of some 70 percent of the 60,000 students 

attending the various universities. To be eligible, a student must not have any gainful employment, or at least 

the remuneration must not exceed a certain limit beyond which the amount of the loan granted will be reduced. The same policy is followed in the United Kingdom. Grants are awarded to 300,000-350,000 students 

and in principle allow them to do without gainful employment; working part time is not allowed. On the 

other hand, students in both countries are not discouraged from seeking casual jobs during the long school 

vacations.

Every country provides some form of financial aid 

to students to help them meet the costs of higher education. The extent to which students receive aid from 

public funds or are dependent upon their own part-time 

earnings or on contributions from their parents varies 

considerably from country to country, according to an 

OECD study.27 In 1974-75, the number of students receiving financial aid ranged from 70 to 90 percent in 

Sweden and the United Kingdom to about 50 percent 

in Germany and Australia and 25 percent or less in 

Canada, Japan, and the United States.

Fees in universities and other institutions have been 

largely abolished in Australia, France, Germany, and 

Sweden; in the United States, Canada, Japan, and Great 

Britain fees are still charged, although the level varies 

considerably. Tuition charges in Japan and the United 

States are an important source of income for private 

universities and colleges.

A straightforward comparison of the value of student 

grants or loans would be misleading since the costs of 

education vary so much among countries and among 

different universities. However, there is a striking difference between Sweden, where tuition is free and students receive a combined loan and grant of $2,000 to 

$3,000 a year toward their living expenses, and the 

United States, where students receive loans which must 

cover tuition as well as living costs, and which average 

under $1,000 a year.

Also, all industrial countries except the United States 

have “family allowance” systems which provide continued payments for students enrolled in school or college to age 21 or more. In the United States, tax de26 Reubens, The Youth Labor Force, chap. 5.

27 “Financial Aid for Students,” OECD Observer, November/December 1976, pp. 30-32.

21

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ductions for the families of dependent students provide 

a form of “family allowance.” In addition, welfare payments are available for young people continuing in 

school, but they are often limited to those from broken 

homes.

Another factor in the degree of student workseeking 

from country to country is the supply of part-time jobs. 

Canada and the United States have a larger part-time 

employment sector than most other countries. Almost 

1 out of 3 employed American youths (under age 25) 

holds a part-time job; in Canada, the proportion is 1 

out of 4. In Europe, the figures are much lower. For 

example, only about 1 in 20 French youths has a parttime job. In 1975, 14.3 percent of total U.S. employment was in voluntary part-time jobs. In Canada, the 

proportion was 10.6 percent. Unpublished data from 

the 1975 European Community labor force survey indicate that only 4.5 percent of total employment in Italy 

was in regular part-time jobs.28 For France, the proportion was 6.5 percent, and Germany, 8.9 percent. The 

United Kingdom had a larger proportion than any of 

the other countries, with 16.6 percent of its workers in 

part-time jobs. However, such jobs are predominantly 

taken by British women rather than youth. The Commission of the European Communities has noted that 

an unfulfilled demand for part-time work exists in the 

European countries among various groups of workers, 

particularly women.29

A further reason why the United States and Canada 

have a proportionately larger student labor force is that 

these countries have systems of mass higher education; 

thus there are many more young people who stay in 

post-compulsory schooling. The other countries have 

much smaller higher educational systems, and entry into 

secondary schools is generally restricted. In Sweden, for 

example, of the students who applied for admission to 

secondary school in the autumn of 1976, 78 percent 

were admitted. This contrasts with the unrestricted entry into secondary schools in North America. In 1970 

(or the nearest year available), about 94 percent of all 

16-year-olds were in school in the United States, 87 percent in Canada, 80 percent in Japan, 74 percent in 

Sweden, 42 percent in Great Britain, and only slightly 

over 30 percent in Italy and Germany (table 8). For 

19-year-olds, the contrast was even greater. Thus, outside North America, a much higher proportion of 

teenagers are out of school and seeking or working at 

full-time, year-round jobs.

Italy has had special labor market problems associated with new university graduates. The number of students in Italian universities rose by over 50 percent in 

the years 1969 to 1972 alone, while the university-age 

population grew by only 3 percent. The rise in the entry rate was facilitated by the university reform of 1969 

which opened all university departments to any successful secondary school graduate. The claim has been

Table 8. Percent of teenagers in educational institutions, all

levels, selected years, 1966-72

Country Year

Age

16 17 18 19

United States . 1970 94.1 86.9 58.1 45.4

Australia . 1972 54.9 36.3 18.0 10.7

Canada . 1970 87.1 69.0 45.5 30.3

France 1970 62.6 45.5 30.6 21.8

Germany . . . 1969 31.3 19.2 12.9 9.6

Great Britain 1970 41.6 25.9 17.4 13.7

Italy . 1966 33.6 27.4 19.7 11.0

Japan 1970 80.0 74.8 29.5 22.0

Sweden ............................................ 1972 73.7 60.7 40.7 24.0

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 

Educational Statistics Yearbook, Vol. II, Country Tables (Paris, OECD, 

1975).

made in Italy that during recent years one important 

function of the university has been to provide a form 

of “parking” for the young in search of employment. 

Thus unemployment of secondary school leavers is temporarily delayed, only to be faced later on. The Italian 

educational system is reportedly overcrowded and antiquated, producing graduates prepared for careers for 

which there is no demand, and underproducing in the 

areas where demand exists.30 Many youthful unemployed Italians are graduates from the terribly overcrowded universities which have failed to cope with 

the large influx of students since 1969. Many college 

students face a lengthy period of unemployment upon 

graduation.

Apprenticeship and formal training

European educational institutions have tended to put 

the masses of youth into training for narrow vocational 

specialties while American youth are still continuing 

general education. The European system’s emphasis on 

apprenticeship and vocational training tends to put 

young people into stable work-training relationships 

that discourage mobility. The frequent job changes and 

spells of unemployment characteristic of young persons 

in the United States are not found to as great an extent 

abroad.31

In most European countries, apprenticeship and vocational eduation are widespread. Vocational education 

programs predominate in France and Sweden; apprenticeship training is the principal type of industrial train28 The European Community data relate to persons in regular parttime full-year jobs and do not correspond exactly to the U.S. data

on voluntary part-time work. The EC figures exclude persons working at intermittent part-time jobs whereas such persons are included

in the U.S. figures.

29 “EEC Major Initiative on Work-Sharing,” European Industrial

Relations Review, March 1978, p. 24.

30 International Labour Office, Some Growing Employment Problems

in Europe (Geneva, ILO, 1974), pp. 46-48.

31 Beatrice G. Reubens, “Foreign Experience,” in Report of Congressional Budget Office Conference on the Teenage Unemployment Problem: What Are the Options'? (Washington, Government Printing Office, Oct. 14, 1976), p. 55.

22

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ing for youths in Great Britain and Germany, and is 

widely used elsewhere. In Japan, training within enterprises usually marks the beginning of lifelong employment. Apprenticeship programs provide both a smooth 

transition from school to work and employment security for young workers. Apprentices are not immune to 

unemployment, but they have shown greater employment stability than other youth.32 The key to the German performance in keeping youth unemployment comparatively low has been that country’s strong apprenticeship system. For a large proportion of German 

young people (about 45 percent of those age 15 to 18), 

this training constitutes the upper secondary level of 

school. The youths receive compensation from the firm, 

and the apprenticeship period usually lasts for 3 years. 

Italy, on the other hand, does not have a well-developed system of vocational training institutions which 

serve as an alternative to universities. Governmentsponsored training programs in Italy do not prove attractive to the young, as there is doubt that they will 

lead to a job.33

Table 9 shows an international comparison of the extent of apprenticeship in 1974 and 1977. Germany led 

by far, both in absolute number of apprentices and in 

the ratio of apprentices to civilian employment—over 

5 percent. Italy ranked second, with about 3.5 percent 

of civilian employment in apprenticeships, but this high 

ratio should be discounted both because training in many 

cases is unsatisfactory or nonexistent and because dropout rates are extremely high.34 Australia and Great Britain had about 2 percent of civilian employment in apprenticeships, and France and Canada had under 1 percent. The United States, with 0.3 percent, had a lower 

ratio than any other country except Sweden. Sweden 

has a small, legally recognized apprenticeship sector, 

subsidized by the government. An unknown number of 

unsubsidized apprentices are trained through company 

programs, and these are not included in the data on table 9.

A study of the high school class of 1972 in the United States indicated that only 1.9 percent planned to enroll in apprenticeship or on-the-job training programs 

and that 10.8 percent planned to take vocational or 

technical training at specialized schools or junior colleges.35 In Germany, about 70 percent of secondary 

school leavers enter industrial training, usually apprenticeship.36 Almost one-quarter of the British school leavers entering employment in 1972 went into apprenticeships.37 Apprenticeship in North America has never acquired the scope that it has in Europe.38 A young person in North America can attain skilled status without 

completing apprenticeship training. This is not the case 

in Europe. Furthermore, apprentices in North America tend to be older than their European counterparts. 

The average age of a Canadian apprentice is 23 and an 

American, 25. By these ages many Europeans are already fully qualified journeymen, having begun their 

apprenticeships at age 16 or 17. The use of veterans’ 

benefits to fund apprenticeships in the United States has 

been a significant factor in the higher average age of 

apprentices.

In response to rapid increases in youth unemployment, several foreign countries instituted government 

subsidies to firms who took on new apprentices. Much 

of the governmental financial aid to apprenticeship dates

32 Ibid., p. 56.

33 “Young on the Dole,” The Economist, June 11, 1977, p. 89.

34 Beatrice G. Reubens, Apprenticeship in Foreign Countries, R and

D Monograph 77 (U. S. Department of Labor, Employment *md

Training Administation, 1980), p. 11.

35 National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972. Data

File Users Manual (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,

National Center for Education Statistics, July 1976).

36 Herman Satedag and Hermine Kraft, “Educational and Occupational Outlook of Youths Toward the End of the Ninth School Year,”

(English summary) Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt-und Berufsforschung, No. 2, 1979, p. 241.

37 Unqualified, Untrained, and Unemployed, p. 26.

38 Reubens, Apprenticeship, pp. 8-10.

Table 9. Number of apprentices and percent of total civilian employment, 1974 and 1977

(Numbers In thousands)

Country

1974 1977

Number of 

apprentices

Civilian

employment

Apprentices 

as percent 

of civilian 

employment

Number of 

apprentices

Civilian

employment

Apprentices 

as percent 

of civilian 

employment

United S ta te s................................................... 291.0 85,936 0.34 262.6 90,549 0.29

Canada ............................................................. 69.4 9,137 .76 96.8 9,754 .99

A u stra lia ........................................................... 131.4 5,736 2.29 123.2 .6,000 2.05

France ............................................................... 153.9 21,096 .73 194.4 20,962 .93

Germ any........................................................... 1,330.8 25,689 5.18 1,397.4 24,511 5.70

Great B rita in ..................................................... 462.9 24,767 1.87 0 24,550 (1)

Ita ly ................................................................... 674.4 18,715 3.60 678.5 19,847 3.42

Sweden ............................................................. 20.9 3,962 .02 21.2 4,099 .03

1Not available. Source: Apprenticeship in Foreign Countries, R & D Monograph 77

2Number designated to receive government subsidies under 1959 law (U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 

on apprentices. Unknown number of unsubsidized apprentices would 1980), p. 12. 

raise Swedish total.

23

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
from 19.75 or later. Germany offered tax cuts and other subsidies to employers to increase their hiring of apprentices and also introduced a financial penalty for not 

doing so. A law passed in September 1976 contained 

the threat of a payroll tax of up to 0.25 percent which 

would be levied on employers in any year that the total supply of apprenticeship places was not at least 12.5 

percent above the total number of young people seeking places.39 The tax has not yet been applied because 

the employer response has been judged satisfactory, although regional and occupational imbalances persist. 

New apprenticeship contracts in Germany rose markedly from 1976 through 1979, following several years 

of little change. However, there were still a number of 

unsatisfied applicants for apprenticeship places—20,200 

in 1979.

Great Britain has made use of several financial incentives to increase the number of apprentices both 

over the business cycle and in the longer term. For instance, the British government offers grants to firms 

which agree to complete the training of an apprentice 

who has been laid off before the final 6 months of training.40 Since January 1977, the Australian government 

has underwritten a portion of the costs of apprenticeship programs. In France, almost 104,000 apprentices 

were subsidized between July 1978 and April 1979, with 

the subsidy period to end in December 1979. In addition, employers were permitted to exclude apprentices 

from employment in calculating certain tax liabilities.

Guidance and counseling

The apprenticeship system is one institution which 

helps smooth the transition from school to work. In 

addition, several European countries and Japan have 

developed strong systems of services for youth which 

help ease their movement into the labor market after 

completing school. These services include extensive information, guidance, placement, induction, and followup activities. According to one expert, the countries 

that seem to have the most effective transition services 

are Germany, Japan, and Sweden.41 These countries offer a comprehensive set of services which are conducive to the prearrangement of jobs, so that there is little initial unemployment for a majority of school leavers. Of course, a favorable economic climate also encourages prearrangement. Without jobs, the best guidance and counseling programs would be futile.

The public employment service in Japan reportedly 

has an extensive role in the youth labor market.42 It 

conducts guidance programs and provides information 

to the education authorities, who in turn give vocational 

orientation in the schools. The employment service 

makes estimates of the number of school leavers who 

will be seeking jobs each March. It then informs employers of the numbers from various educational levels 

likely to apply for jobs, collects job offers from employers, and escorts students in groups to recruiting 

employers. In normal economic conditions, most Japanese school leavers have prearranged jobs before school 

ends. There is also an extensive post-employment guidance and vocational adjustment system conducted by 

the employment service. Several unusual factors allow 

the Japanese system to work as well as it does: The 

chronic shortage of young workers, the high value 

placed on young workers by hiring firms, and a tradition of conformity among employers. All have allowed 

the public employment service to acquire a high degree 

of control over the placement of youths in their first 

jobs. Further, the timing of the end of the school year 

in Japan—school term ends in the spring—permits jobs 

to be started at once, with no long summer break as in 

continental Europe, where the closing down of large 

portions of the economy during July and August induces many young people to delay their permanent jobsearch for several months, relying on temporary vacation jobs even after they have left school for good.

Germany’s highly centralized guidance program is 

directed by the chief labor market agency, the Federal 

Employment Institute. The Institute possesses full powers over occupational guidance and placement; German 

law bans private employment agencies, and schools are 

forbidden to make job placements. The Institute’s personnel can enter schools, obtain pupil records, interview students, and conduct guidance activities in classrooms. Under this system, prearrangement of jobs or 

apprenticeship is common.

Both Sweden’s school system and its labor market 

authorities have long emphasized vocational counseling 

and guidance. In recent years, such services have expanded and a new transition system was introduced in 

1973—the SYO system (Education and Work Orientation System). The SYO provides for coordination and 

cooperation between the education and labor market 

authorities. Full-time vocational counselors are employed in all educational institutions. Counseling begins 

at about age 13 and is supplemented by practical work 

orientation. In the eighth grade, a week is allocated for 

group visits to factories and offices, while in the ninth 

(the last grade of compulsory school), pupils spend 2 

weeks in various work places. Beginning in 1977, pupils 

in ninth grade started to do much more actual work in 

firms—from 6 to 10 weeks. One of the distinctive features of the SYO system is the emphasis on the needs 

of disadvantaged youth and special provision for followup of such persons throughout their years of schooling.

39 Ibid., p. 58.

40 Ibid., p. 57.

41 Beatrice G. Reubens, From Learning to Earning: A Transnational

Comparison of Transition Services, R and D Monograph 63 (U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administation, 1979),

pp. 11-14; also see “Foreign and American Experience,” p. 291.

42 Reubens, From Learning to Earning, p. 13.

24

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The Swedish system is predicated on good relations 

between a strong central government and local education authorities who accept direction and are responsive to suggestions.

Great Britain, unlike the three countries discussed 

above which integrate youth and adult services, has a 

separate, nationwide transition service for youth. Special juvenile employment bureaus, called Careers Offices, operate independently from the adult placement 

and guidance services. Staff members of the Careers 

Offices interview and give guidance to almost all school 

leavers. During the 1960’s, they placed about one-third 

of all youths in their first jobs. Local studies in Great 

Britain in the 1960’s and 1970’s, under varying economic conditions, have shown that 40 to 50 percent of early school leavers (that is, 15- or 16-year-olds) had prearranged first jobs.43

The United States, Canada, and Italy rely on their 

educational institutions as the principal agency for transition services. Because of this, these countries have had 

difficulty in providing a comprehensive, integrated transition program.44 One researcher has concluded that an 

array of countries according to the difficulty of the 

transition from school to work might place the United 

States and Italy at the top.45 There are fewer prearranged jobs and more unemployment among new entrants in Italy and the United States than in the European countries discussed above and in Japan. It has been 

said that few American students are exposed to occupational or labor market information and that many 

counselors and teachers suffer from the same lack of 

knowledge.46 A 1975 study of 32,000 students in 32 

States concluded: “The breadth of evidence suggests 

that a substantial number of students have had little involvement with career planning activities at a time when 

major career-related decisions are becoming imminent.’’47

The value of transitional services to teenagers has 

been documented in the United States by the National 

Longitudinal Surveys. Male teenagers who received 

above-average labor market information through their 

high schools, plus work experience, had markedly higher earnings and occupational status when they became 

young adults than did those without such school-towork transitional experiences. A high level of labor 

market knowledge alone was also positively correlated 

with earnings and occupational status.48

The goals and organizational patterns of the transition services in the various countries are influenced by 

the philosophy and tradition of each nation’s educational establishment. Countries which have sharp class divisions and limited numbers in education beyond compulsory school have a greater tendency to establish 

comprehensive transition services than countries which 

stress access to education and upward mobility such as 

the United States and Canada. European countries seem

to prefer to structure the early years of work by such 

devices as apprenticeship systems; Japan accomplishes 

a similar effect through lifetime contracts. While these 

devices reduce the level of frictional unemployment, 

they also reduce mobility and possibilities for career 

changes in later life.

Youth minimum wage

Legislated wage differentials based on the worker’s 

youth alone are used on a very limited basis in the United States. The Fair Labor Standards Act contains provisions for subminimum wages for students and learners, but these provisions have not been used to any significant extent.

In contrast, differentials between youth and adult 

wages are common in Western Europe, Canada, and 

Japan. Some countries have minimum wage laws that 

provide for lower minimums for teenagers. Others have 

collective bargaining procedures that can result in differentially lower wages for young workers. Still other 

countries use both mechanisms.49

Under collective bargaining agreements in Great Britain, youth enter employment at about 30 percent of 

adult earnings and, by steps, reach adult wages normally at age 21 for men and 18 for women. In France, with 

both a statutory minimum and minimum rates set under 

collective bargaining, youth enter employment at about 

70 percent of the adult minimum at age 16 and reach 

the adult rate at age 18. Youth wage rate schemes are 

also used in Canada, Germany, and Japan. In Japan, 

where wages are based largely on age or seniority 

throughout working life, young workers start at about 

one-third the adult rate.

Canadian youth minimum wages have an upper age 

limit of 17 or 18 since adult rates begin at 18. The major effect of the youth differential appears to be on student workers because most 17- or 18-year-olds are still 

in school in Canada. The differential between youth 

and adult minimum wages is small, ranging from 5 to

* Ibid., p. 78.

Ibid., p. 9.

45 Reubens, “Foreign and American Experience,’’ p. 283.

46 Ben Burdetsky, “Troubled Transition: From School to Work,’’

Worklife, November 1976, p. 2. See also Seymour L. Wolfbein, “Informational and Counselor Needs in the Transition Process,’’ in From

School to Work, p. 193.

47 R. J. Noeth, J. D. Roth, and D. J. Prediger, “Student Career Development: Where Do We Stand?”, Vocational Guidance Quarterly,

March 1975, p. 213.

48 Andrew I. Kohen and others, Career Thresholds: A Longitudinal

Study of the Educational and Labor Market Experience of Young Men,

Vol. 6, R and D Monograph 16 (U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 1977), pp. 192-93. See also

Herbert S. Parnes and Andrew I. Kohen, “Labor Market Experience

of Noncollege Youth: A Longitudinal Analysis,” in From School to

Work, pp. 75-78.

49 Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wages, Bulletin 1657 (Bureau

of Labor Statistics, 1970), chap. 6.

25

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
13 percent, depending on the province. When British 

Columbia widened the youth differential, making young 

people more attractive to employers, an increase in employment of those under 18 occurred.50 However, it is 

not known whether the increase was at the expense of 

older workers. Surveys among provincial officials at 

the end of the 1960’s brought out two opposing views: 

Some officials suggested that the youth minimum wage 

was a positive factor in introducing young people to 

working life; others believed that the differential displaced older workers and that some youth were laid 

off once they attained the adult rate.51

It has been argued that, abroad, the relatively low 

wage for teenagers compared to adults tends to facilitate the employment of youth. One 1970 study concluded: “The evidence from abroad indicates that low 

wages for youth are an inducement to employers to

seek young workers eagerly. The relatively low youth 

unemployment rates abroad . . . are partially a reflection of the fact of low wages for youth.”52

This study pointed out that low wages for youth 

abroad cannot be separated from the extensive apprenticeship programs in such countries as Germany and 

Great Britain and from the lifetime employment system 

in Japan under which high wages in later years with 

the firm offset the low youth wages. Also, experience 

in foreign countries having institutions different from 

those in the United States has a limited application to 

American teenagers, who are much more likely to be 

looking for a part-time job than a permanent job.

Recent evidence indicates that the relative costs of 

employing young workers have changed abroad. Despite youth minimums, the actual postwar trend in earnings has been more in favor of youth than other age 

groups. Thus, there has been a narrowing of the actual 

wage differential between youth and adult workers. For 

instance, a recent British study reveals that pay for 

young people has risen considerably in relation to that 

of adults. Average hourly earnings of male manual 

workers under 21 as a percent of adult male earnings 

were 45 percent in 1948; 48 percent in 1960; 52 percent 

in 1970; and 62 percent in 1977.53 This increase in relative pay reflects a number of influences, including a 

trend toward payment of adult wage rates at ages below 21 and the 1972 raising of the school-leaving age 

which removed 15-year-olds from the labor market. 

Japanese data also indicate a rise in youth wages relative to adults. Between 1965 and 1975, nominal cash 

earnings (excluding bonuses and overtime allowances) 

for persons under age 25 rose 463 percent, while earnings for persons 25 or over increased 408 percent.54 An 

Australian study also suggests that increased youth 

wages since the early 1970*s have increased the relative 

costs of hiring the young.55 Sweden reports a growing 

reluctance on the part of employers to hire young workers because they are already at a cost disadvantage if

training and induction costs are included.56 German 

compensation for apprentices has risen more sharply 

than overall average wages.

A detailed comparison of changes in the earnings of 

manual workers in the original member countries of the 

European Economic Community showed that youth 

wages increased relative to adult wages in all countries 

between 1966 and 1972.57 The smallest changes occurred 

in Italy and Germany where youth-adult wage differentials were lowest in 1966. The greatest changes occurred in Belgium and France. No comparable data are 

as yet available to show whether this trend has persisted since 1972.

In the United States, on the other hand, there has 

been a decline in youth wages relative to those of adults. 

Data on median weekly earnings for out-of-school white 

males age 18 to 24 relative to all white males age 25 

and over show a decline over the period 1967 to 1977 

on the order of 10 percentage points. Several studies 

attribute much of the decline in relative earnings of the 

young to the enormous influx of the baby-boom generation onto the U.S. labor market.58 Because of the intense competition for jobs, relative wages of youths had 

to decline in order to generate the large increase in 

teenage employment which occurred.

Minority group unemployment

The United States has had exceptionally high levels 

of unemployment for black youths compared with white 

youths. In 1978, black teenagers had an unemployment 

rate about two and one-half times that for white teenagers. Furthermore, the disparity between the unemployment experience of black and white youth has been

50Beatrice G. Reubens, “ Review of Foreign Experience,” in Isabel

V. Sawhill and Bernard E. Anderson, eds., Youth Employment and

Public Policy (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1980),

pp. 122-23.

51 Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wages, pp. 145-46.

52 Thomas W. Gavett, “Youth Unemployment and Minimum

Wages,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1970, p. 9.

53 “The Young and Out of Work,” Department of Employment Gazette, August 1978, p. 908.

^Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Youth

Unemployment: A Report on the High Level Conference 15-16 December, 1977, Vol. 1 (Paris, OECD, 1978), p. 115.

55 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Australia: Transition from School to Work or Further Study, OECD Reviews of National Policies for Education (Paris, OECD, 1977), p.

288. See also P. Strieker and P. Sheehan, “Youth Unemployment in

Australia: A Survey,” Australian Economic Review, First Quarter 1978,

p. 24.

56 Reubens, “Foreign and American Experience,” p. 288.

57 David Marsden, A Study of Changes in the Wage Structure of Manual Workers in Industry in Six Community Countries Since 1966 (University of Sussex, Sussex European Research Centre, July 1979).

58 Richard B. Freeman, “Why is There a Youth Labor Market Problem?,” and Michael L. Wachter, “The Dimensions and Complexities

of the Youth Unemployment Problem,” in Youth Employment and

Public Policy, pp. 25 and 45-46, respectively.

26

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
worsening since the mid-1960’s.59 The special problems 

of American black and other minority youths in the labor market are unmatched in Europe, Australia, or Japan, and are a factor helping to explain the higher youth 

unemployment in the United States compared with other countries.

Other countries have had minority youth employment problems, though religious and cultural rather 

than racial differences may be the main cause. Countries which admitted large numbers of foreign workers 

on a temporary basis during the labor-short 1960’s, expecting that they would soon return home, found instead that many settled in the host country, married locally, or brought wives and children from home. This 

generation of children remained in the new country and 

faced a less favorable economic climate than their parents. They also brought more educational and social 

disadvantages to the labor market than the children of 

native-born parents.60

Unemployment rates among minority youth abroad 

are much higher than the rates for the youth age group 

as a whole. However, the relative size of the minority 

groups in other countries is not as large as in the United States.

A comparison of statistics for Sweden and the United States provides some insight into the differences in 

the extent of minority unemployment. Children of foreign workers in Sweden, who frequently are more poorly educated, and non-Swedish speaking, have an unemployment rate much higher than native Swedish youth. 

In the second quarter of 1979, immigrant teenagers had 

an unemployment rate of 12.1 percent while Swedish 

teenagers had a rate of 7.5 percent. There was also a 

wide difference between the unemployment rates for 

young adults, with foreign-born 20- to 24-year- olds 

having a jobless rate of 6.4 percent and native-born 

Swedes having a 3.1-percent rate. Certain neighborhoods in Stockholm which have large concentrations 

of immigrants report teenage unemployment rates in 

the 30 to 40 percent range. Sweden’s social welfare system requires that employers allow non-Swedish-speaking workers to receive 240 hours of Swedish language 

training on company time, making employers reluctant 

to hire non-native labor.

Foreign-born teenagers accounted for 8.8 percent of 

total teenage unemployment and 5.7 percent of the teenage labor force in Sweden during the second quarter 

of 1979. In the United States, blacks and other minorities accounted for 24 percent of total teenage unemployment and 11 percent of the labor force in 1978. 

The contrast between the two nations is also marked 

for young adults. Immigrants made up 8.3 percent of 

the young adults unemployed in Sweden and 6.4 percent of the labor force. The corresponding figures for 

U.S. blacks were 29 percent and 14 percent, 

respectively.

Higher general levels of unemployment in Great Britain during the 1970’s have had an adverse impact on 

young people from West Indian and Asian minorities. 

While 8.1 percent of all male teenagers were unemployed in Great Britain according to the 1971 census, 

16.2 percent of those of West Indian origin were unemployed. Unemployment among 16- and 17-year-old 

minority youth trebled between 1973 and 1977, a rise 

greatly out of proportion to the number of minority 

youth.61 A special survey conducted in 1977-78 indicated unemployment rates of over 11 percent for those 

of minority ethnic origin bom in the United Kingdom 

and over 7 percent for those minorities bom abroad 

compared to 4 to 6 percent for those of white ethnic 

origin.62 This survey took into account both the registered and unregistered unemployed. It was found that 

young persons of minority origin were less likely to 

register as unemployed than older persons in minority 

groups. Even in periods of relatively low unemployment, school leavers from minority communities have 

found it difficult to get the jobs to which they aspired. 

The problem had become so acute that the British passed 

the Race Relations Act of 1976, making discrimination 

on the grounds of race, color, or nationality unlawful 

in employment, education, and other areas of life.63 Yet, 

in terms of total unemployment, the problem of minorities in Great Britain is much smaller than in the United 

States. Unemployment of persons born in, or whose 

parents were born in, the Asian countries of the Commonwealth and the West Indies accounted for 4.4 percent of total unemployment in 1977-78.64 No separate 

data were available for youth. In the United States, minority group unemployment amounts to almost onefourth of total unemployment.

Other factors

Other influences on youth unemployment trends include the impact of increased competition from married women and illegal aliens for the jobs which youths 

normally seek. The OECD has suggested that competition from adult women has been important in decreas59 See Norman Bowers, “Young and Marginal: An Overview of

Youth Employment,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1979, pages

5-7; and Curtis L. Gilroy, “Black and White Unemployment: The

Dynamics of the Differential,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1974,

pp. 38-47.

60 Reubens, “Review of Foreign Experience,” p. 118-19.

61 Alan Pike, “The Painful Path from Youth to Adulthood,” The

Financial Times, July 29, 1977.

62 Ann Barber, “Ethnic Origin and the Labor Force,” Department

of Employment Gazette, August 1980, p. 841.

“ “ Racial Discrimination at Work,” Department o f Employment

Gazette, October 1978, pp. 1185-87.

64 Barber, “Ethnic Origin,” p. 843, table 4.

27

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ing job opportunities for youth.65 In recent years, the 

number of women coming into the labor market has 

risen substantially in a number of countries (United 

States, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, Sweden). British surveys of employers who had recently hired teenagers indicate that, in about 40 percent of the jobs, 

women were considered in competition with young 

people. If applicants of similar qualifications were available, 42 percent of the employers had no preference 

between women and teenagers, but 40 percent did prefer women.66 Similar indications that mature women 

may be taking jobs that might otherwise have gone to 

young people, especially girls, have been noted in the 

other countries with rising female labor force 

participation.67

Thorough analysis of the competition of illegal aliens 

for jobs in the United States is impossible because of 

the lack of data, but it is generally assumed that they 

are employed largely in the same types of unskilled and 

service occupations which provide part-time jobs for 

youth. As for foreign workers in Europe, they were 

initially hired during a period when there was a shortage of native-born workers, including youth, but there 

is little doubt that many who have not returned to their 

country of origin now hold jobs that might otherwise 

be taken by young people.

Conclusion

Certain countries, such as Japan and Germany 

throughout the past two decades and Great Britain in 

the 1960’s, have experienced relatively low youth unemployment both in terms of absolute levels and in narrow differentials with adult rates. Others, such as the 

United States, Canada, and Italy for many years, and 

France and Australia more recently, have had very high 

rates of youth unemployment. Sweden’s youth unemployment rates have risen sharply, but they remain moderate by international standards.

Cross-country differences in youth unemployment reflect differences in economic growth, demographic factors, systems of education and training, and various other institutional arrangements. Economic growth is certainly a crucial factor. High growth rates during the 

1960’s in Western Europe and Japan created tight labor market conditions—if not outright labor shortages— 

and youthful jobseekers benefited. Growth was not as 

rapid in the United States, and youth unemployment 

remained high. The 1974-75 recession had a large impact on youth. Young people are particularly vulnerable during downturns: Employers do not hire new entrants as freely as in upswings and young workers, the 

most recently hired, are the first to be dismissed.

Several systematic differences among the countries 

have emerged from this study which help to explain 

the wide international differences in youth unemployment. Characteristics often associated with low youth

unemployment include a declining trend in the youth 

work force, no sizable student work force, stress on 

apprenticeship and prearrangement of first jobs, and 

relatively less emphasis on open options and job mobility. In Japan, the conditions supporting low youth unemployment are especially strong. Labor markets have 

been unusually tight and youth have been in short supply. Students rarely work while in school and tend to 

prearrange their jobs before leaving school; they enter 

lifelong employment with one firm. Young people are 

looked on favorably by employers who are willing to 

train them because of the tight labor market, low wages 

of new entrants, and the low rate of jobchanging among 

workers in Japan. If firms could not count on the long 

tenure of workers, they would probably be less willing 

to invest in the training of youth. Further, if Japanese 

youth could not count on job security, they might be 

less willing to accept low initial wages. In Germany, 

the forces for low youth unemployment have been similar to those in Japan, although less strong. A key element in Germany has certainly been the apprenticeship 

system which channels a large proportion of young 

people into their first job.

Certain common characteristics can also be singled 

out for the high youth unemployment countries, particularly the United States and Canada. Both had a large 

bulge in the youth population and labor force in the 

1960’s through the mid-1970’s which has contributed 

to high youth unemployment. Both countries have a 

large proportion of their youth both in school and in 

the labor force. When school vacation unemployment 

as well as in-school unemployment is considered, students in the U.S. labor force exert upward pressure on 

the annual youth jobless rate. Canadian in-school students have much lower unemployment rates than nonstudents, but the large seasonal influx of students into 

the labor force during the summer vacation period also 

contributes to high youth unemployment. Neither North 

American country has had a smooth system of transition from school to work. Both emphasize general education and extended schooling rather than early career decisions and early entry into full-time, year-round 

jobs. The early years of work in North America are 

not structured by such devices as apprenticeship systems or lifetime work contracts.

65 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, High

Level Conference on Youth Unemployment, Item 4, Diagnosis (Paris,

OECD, Nov. 9, 1977, unpublished), p. 4. For a British analysis on

this point, see David Freud, “A New Era for Women,” Financial

Times, June 28, 1978, p. 27.

66 Reubens, ‘‘Review of Foreign Experience,” p. 121.

67 For a study of U.S. data, see James H. Grant and Daniel S. Hamermesh, “Do Employers Substitute Workers of Different Ages, Races

and Sexes, and What Does this Imply for Labor Market Policy?”

Paper prepared for National Commission for Employment Policy,

October 1979.

28

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Except for very high youth unemployment rates 

which have persisted for many years, Italy does not 

appear to have much in common with the United States 

and Canada. The Italian youth labor force has been declining and is a much smaller proportion of the total 

work force than in North America. But these factors 

have not been much help in Italy where youth jobless 

rates have been high and are rising still higher. Italy is 

a country where two-thirds of the unemployed are looking for their first job. The labor market has not been 

able to adjust to the greater equality of higher educational opportunities which came with university reform. 

Employment opportunities for college graduates have 

not kept pace with expanding educational opportunities. The lack of a well-developed apprenticeship and 

vocational training system also helps explain the high 

levels of unemployment for the younger age groups, as 

prearrangement of first jobs, noted in other countries, 

does not occur in Italy. Furthermore, the rigidity of 

Italian labor laws operates against the hiring of young 

peaple. Of course, the prevalence of illegal or unreported employment should be considered in any analysis of the Italian youth labor market (see appendix).

While certain countries have been able to keep youth 

unemployment rates relatively low, such rates have been

rising in all countries in the 1970’s. Some of the underlying conditions conducive to low youth unemployment 

began to erode in the 1970’s. Economic growth dropped 

precipitously in 1974 and 1975 and moved upward slowly thereafter. At the same time, demographic factors 

were changing in several countries, and the number of 

young persons in the labor force began to increase after many years of decline. The turnaround in demographic trends during a period of slow growth contributed to higher youth unemployment. Another factor in 

a number of countries has been the strengthening of 

employment protection legislation to the point where 

it reportedly adversely affects youth job opportunities. 

Minority group unemployment, long a problem in the 

United States, began to increase elsewhere, especially 

in the young age groups. Indications are that students 

in Sweden and perhaps other countries as well were 

beginning to adopt the North American pattern of working at or seeking part-time jobs. Finally, the narrowing 

of actual wage differentials between youths and adults 

has put youth at a cost disadvantage. In short, during 

the 1970’s, the conditions in other countries which had 

contributed to low youth unemployment in the past had 

begun to change in a way adverse to youth employment opportunities.

29

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Technical Appendix

This appendix presents a discussion of some of the 

problems encountered in deriving comparative unemployment data by* age group for the nine countries studied. A country-by-country description of the adjustments made, along with tables showing these adjustments, appears in a BLS bulletin.1

Six issues emerged as areas of particular concern with 

regard to international comparisons of youth unemployment: (1) the source of the data—that is, whether they 

are from labor force surveys or employment office registrations; (2) the lower age limit for the statistics; (3) 

the classification of students; (4) unrecorded labor force 

activity; (5) current availability for <vork; (6) the reference period for the statistics; and (/) data discontinuities. A separate statement concerning the Italian data, 

which could not be adjusted to U.S. concepts, appears 

at the end of this appendix.

Source of data

Of the nine countries studied, six, including the United States, obtain their official unemployment statistics 

from sample surveys of the population. The remaining 

countries—France, Germany, Great Britain—derive 

their official unemployment data from registrations at 

employment offices. However, the latter three countries also conduct periodic labor force surveys.

Labor force surveys generally provide a better basis 

for international unemployment comparisons than statistics on registrations. The use of survey data is even 

more crucial for international comparisons of youth unemployment. New entrants and reentrants into the labor market are enumerated as unemployed in labor force 

surveys if they are looking for work; however, they 

are underrepresented in registration statistics because 

they usually have no financial inducement to register. 

Generally, only persons who have been working and 

making social insurance payments for a specified period are eligible to collect unemployment benefits. Since 

young persons are often new entrants or reentrants, 

they have no insurance credits.

German data present a good example of the different 

results obtained from registration statistics and labor 

force surveys. In September 1970, German registration 

data indicated a teenage unemployment rate of 0.4 per1 International Comparisons of Unemployment, Bulletin 1979 (Bureau

of Labor Statistics, 1978), pp. 147-52.

cent; teenagers constituted only 8 percent of total registered unemployment. German survey data for April 

1970, a month similar to September 1970 in terms of 

overall unemployment, yielded a teenage unemployment rate of 1.4 percent, with teenagers accounting for 

22 percent of total survey unemployment (adjusted to 

U.S. concepts). An important factor affecting the German data is that only the sample survey classifies persons looking for an apprenticeship as unemployed. Since 

employment offices do not register apprentices, they 

do not appear in the registration figures.

Trends can also vary greatly depending on whether 

registration or survey statistics are used. German registration statistics show a huge increase in teenage unemployment between September 1970 and September 

1976—almost 1500 percent. Survey statistics indicate 

an increase of 281 percent. The reason for this is that 

during boom periods (e.g., 1970), young people may be 

unemployed for such short periods that they do not 

bother to register as unemployed. During a recessionary period, however, an increase in the duration of unemployment may induce young people to register as 

unemployed, with a consequent disproportionate increase in the unemployment figures for teenagers. Survey data, which depend on whether persons are actually seeking work rather than on their being registered, 

can be considered to show a more “real” trend in youth 

unemployment.

Regression analysis of British labor market statistics 

also indicates that registered youth unemployment 

moves with the economic cycle, but with greater amplitude.2 As overall unemployment rises, relative youth 

unemployment worsens in the registration statistics. The 

British statistics were also affected by the relaxation of 

rules governing the time of leaving school made in 1976; 

those pupils who were eligible to leave school were allowed to do so beginning at the end of May and were 

thus able to register as unemployed in June and July, 

whereas they formerly left school in July and registered 

in August. This change considerably increased the number of school leavers covered in the July count of the 

registered unemployed. Counts of the British registered 

unemployed by age were made only in July up until

2 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, High

Level Conference on Youth Unemployment—Country Position Papers,

United Kingdom (Paris, OECD, Nov. 29, 1977, unpublished), p. 2.

30

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1976, when counts were also made in January. Currently, the data by age have been extended to 4 months 

each year—January, April, July, and October.

Unfortunately, Great Britain’s General Household 

Survey, instituted in 1971, is based on a very small sample which does not provide very reliable data on unemployment by age and does not show data separately 

for teenagers. The General Household Survey data are 

analyzed here along with registrations data for Great 

Britain. Both series of data leave something to be desired, but together they present some useful information on the extent of youth unemployment in Great 

Britain.

For all other countries, only labor force survey data 

are shown because they present the best internationally 

comparable data. In most instances, some adjustments 

have been made in the survey data for greater comparability with U.S. concepts. For example, military personnel have been excluded wherever they appear, since 

U.S. data relate to the civilian labor force. Adjustments 

have also been made to exclude unpaid family workers 

who worked less than 15 hours during the survey week.3 

As indicated below, some adjustments have also been 

made to exclude from the unemployed persons not currently available for work.

Lower age limit

The lower age limit for labor force statistics varies 

from country to country. The U.S. lower limit is 16; 

for the other countries it ranges from 14 to 16. Most 

countries begin to count young people in their labor 

force statistics at the age when compulsory schooling 

ends and the law allows full-time work to begin. In 

most countries, these ages are the same. However, in 

Italy the minimum school-leaving age is 14 and the legal age to start work is 15, but enforcement of the law 

is lax.

It should be noted that considerable differences can 

exist between statutory and actual school leaving ages. 

Although American youth can leave school at 16, most 

do stay on until age 17 or 18 when they complete high 

school. In Japan, although compulsory schooling ends 

at 15, over 85 percent of Japanese graduates from lower secondary school proceed to an upper secondary 

school which concludes at 18. On the other hand, British compulsory schooling ends at 16 and most youth 

still enter the work force at that age. Similarly, most 

youth in Germany enter the work force at age 15.

3 Unpaid family workers working less than 15 hours should be classified as unemployed if they are actively seeking work (under U.S.

concepts). However, it was not possible to ascertain how many persons were in this category in the countries where unpaid family workers working less than 15 hours were excluded for comparability with

U.S. concepts. Since the total numbers excluded were small, this

problem would not have a significant impact on the. comparability

of the data.

Instead of adjusting all the foreign data to the U.S. 

lower age limit of 16, the foreign age limits have been 

adapted to conform to the age at which compulsory 

schooling ends in each country. This was done because 

youths in several other countries typically leave school 

and enter the full-time work force at lower ages than 

in the United States. Adjustments to the lower age limits were necessary only for France and Germany. 

French data were adjusted to exclude 15-year-olds for 

all years shown, and to exclude 14-year-olds as well in 

1963. The German data were adjusted to exclude 14- 

year-olds in all years. Both of these adjustments have 

a negligible impact on the data, except in the early 

1960’s when more of these very young people were in 

the labor force.

For the other countries, no adjustments were needed 

because labor force statistics already conformed to the 

age at which compulsory schooling ends. Thus, the data 

for Sweden cover 16-year-olds and over; for Canada, 

Australia, and Japan, 15-year-olds and over; and for 

Italy, 14-year-olds and over. Great Britain raised its 

school-leaving age from 15 to 16 in 1972, and British 

survey and registration data reflect this change.4

Italian data are available separately for 14-year-olds 

so that the effect of using a different age limit can be 

ascertained. Very few 14-year-olds were economically 

active in the 1970’s in Italy. Only 5 percent of all 14- 

year-olds were in the labor force in 1975, compared 

with about 30 percent of all 15- to 19-year-olds. However, a rather large proportion of the 14-year-olds in 

the labor force were unemployed—39 percent. Including the 11-year-olds, the Italian teenage unemployment 

rate in 1975 was 16.8 percent; excluding them the teen 

rate was 16 percent. In 1970, the impact of excluding 

the 14-year-olds was greater. Including them, the jobless rate for teenagers was 12.3 percent; excluding them, 

the rate was 10.9 percent.

Students

The measurement of the labor market experience of 

young persons is complicated by the schooling option. 

American youth who combine school and work are 

treated the same as young persons in the full-time labor 

market. The U.S. National Commission on Employment 

and Unemployment Statistics debated whether the student and nonstudent labor forces should be given equal 

weight in labor force statistics. The Commission con4 This change had an immediate effect on unemployment of school

leavers in 1973 by reducing the number of young people leaving

school. It has also had a longer term effect on registration statistics

because 16-year-olds are eligible to claim means-tested supplementary benefits immediately after leaving school, whereas 15-year-olds

were not eligible for these benefits. Thus, 15-year-old school leavers

often did not register as unemployed and looked for jobs on their

own. Now that young people must wait until age 16 to leave school,

they are much more likely to register as unemployed since they are

eligible to claim these supplementary benefits.

31

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
eluded that they should be treated equally, but that students should be explicity identified in the U.S. statistics 

each month rather than only in October, which is the 

current practice.'

In general, students who work in the reference week 

are classified as employed and those who are seeking 

work are classified as unemployed in the labor force 

surveys conducted by the countries covered here. Fulltime students are explicitly excluded from the labor 

force only in the British survey. In surveys where detailed probing is not made into labor force status (Germany, Japan and, until recently, Canada and Italy), it 

is probable that a certain amount of student labor force 

activity has gone unreported. Students may simply have 

been identified as “going to school” with no probing 

into their employment or jobseeking activities. There 

is also some evidence that student employment is unreported for other reasons—see next section on unrecorded employment.

In registration statistics, jobseeking students would 

normally be even more underreported than other youths 

because seekers of part-time jobs are generally not 

counted in registration data, by definition. In labor force 

surveys, persons seeking part-time jobs are counted as 

unemployed if they meet the other criteria of the 

definition.

In Great Britain, the inclusion of students in the registration statistics became a controversial topic in the 

mid-1970’s. Until that time, very few students were registered. Then, the British National Union of Students 

began to publicize among college students the advantages of registering as unemployed during school vacation periods. The Student Union pointed out that, although students are usually not eligible for unemployment benefits, they can claim supplementary benefits of 

approximately 7 pounds a week. A record number of

121,000 adult (age 18 and over) students were registered as of January 1976, 9 percent of total registered 

unemployment; this prompted British officials to examine their statistical treatment of students. The Department of Employment subsequently decided to exclude 

adult students from the official unemployment count on 

the grounds that they were not looking for permanent 

work but only for vacation jobs or a passport to supplementary benefits. In addition, a change in administrative regulations was made for the 1976-77 school 

year under which the financial incentive to register during the short vacation breaks at Christmas and Easter 

was taken away. Data are still collected and published 

on registered adult students, but they are not included 

in the official unemployment count for Great Britain.

5 National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Counting the Labor Force (Washington, Government Printing

Office, 1979), pp. 89-90.

In the British General Household Surveys, the basis 

for the British data adjusted to U.S. concepts, all fulltime students are automatically classified as economically inactive. They are not asked whether they are 

working or seeking work. BLS has adjusted the survey 

data by adding the annual average number of registered 

adult students. These figures are quite small on an annual basis, and have diminished considerably in recent 

years because of the change in the incentive to register.

Beginning in December 1976, the Australian government decided to withhold unemployment benefits from 

school leavers for the duration of the summer vacation 

season. This policy has discouraged prompt unemployment registration by school leavers, thereby depressing 

the December, January, and February totals of registered unemployment. The comparative Australian data 

used in this article are from the labor force survey rather than registration statistics, and school leavers are included as unemployed in the survey if they are actively seeking work.

In the Canadian survey, full-time students seeking 

full-time work are automatically excluded from the unemployed during school term on the grounds that they 

are not currently available for work. Full-time students 

seeking part-time work are regarded as unemployed. 

During vacation periods, any student seeking work is 

counted as unemployed if the other criteria of the definition are met. The Canadian exclusion of full-time students seeking full-time work probably has no impact on 

the comparative unemployment rates.

In Sweden, full-time students are counted as unemployed only when seeking work during school holidays. 

During the school term, such students are automatically considered as not currently available for work. Parttime students seeking work would be counted as unemployed at any time, providing they meet the other specifications of the unemployment definition. Full-time students do not normally seek work during the school term 

in Sweden, although there are recent indications that 

this may be changing. At present, any student unemployment which does not show up in the Swedish figures is likely to be very small.

The measurement problems associated with students 

have only a small impact at present on the strict comparability of international youth unemployment rates. 

The pattern of working while in school which is widespread in the United States and Canada, and smaller 

but still significant in Australia, does not occur to any 

large extent in the Western European countries and Japan where students may seek work during school vacations, but rarely while in school.5 6

An OECD Working Party on Employment and Unemployment Statistics recently issued recommendations

6 Margaret S. Gordon, Youth Education and Unemployment Problems: An International Prespective (Berkeley, Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, 1979), p. 20.

32

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
for the amplification of existing ILO guidelines7 for the 

compilation of labor force statistics. In view of the increasing tendency of students to seek part-time work, 

the Working Party recommended that OECD member 

countries collect data on such persons as a regular part 

of their labor force statistics programs.8 Thus, better 

data may be forthcoming on this subject.

Unrecorded employment

In all societies, there is some degree of illegal or unrecorded labor force activity. This hidden economy includes people working in legal jobs which are not reported so that taxes or other kinds of regulations can 

be avoided. Also included are criminal activities such 

as the drug trade and illicit gambling. One estimate indicates that 5 percent of the Common Market’s gross 

product moves through the hidden economy, outside 

the constraints of union contracts, minimum wages, and 

government regulations; an Internal Revenue Service 

preliminary estimate for the United States indicates a 

similar order of magnitude for the subterranean 

economy.9

Although labor statistics are obviously difficult to 

obtain on such unreported activities, a conclusion can 

be drawn that both types of unrecorded employment 

probably contain a disproportionate number of young 

people. Some recent studies on unrecorded employment 

in Italy 10 *indicate that young people and especially students take unrecorded or illegal work so as to retain 

the advantages of student status for themselves or their 

families (for example, financial assistance, tax concessions, family allowances, entitlement to special benefits). One study by the Italian Center for Economic and 

Social Research estimated that there were 1.4 million 

clandestine workers aged between 14 and 29 in 1977, 

in addition to a recorded labor force in that age group 

of 6.6 million." About 45 percent of the 1.4 million unrecorded workers were also students. This would 

amount to 16 percent of all Italian pupils and students, 

but this figure would be substantially less in any one

7 International Labour Office, Eighth International Conference of

Labour Statisticians, Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Report IV (Geneva, ILO, 1954).

8 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Measuring Employment and Unemployment (Paris, OECD, 1979).

9 Both the Common Market and the IRS estimate are quoted in

Martin Trow, “Reflections on Youth Problems and Policies in the

United States,’’ in Gordon, Youth Education and Unemployment Problems, pp. 139-40.

10P. Pettanati, Illegal and Unrecorded Employment in Italy (Paris,

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Feb. 16,

1979, unpublished) and G. Arangio-Ruiz, The Experience of the Italian Central Bureau of Statistics in Investigating Non-Institutional Work

(Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,

Dec. 29, 1978, unpublished).

n L. Frey, “II Lavoro Nero in Italia nel 1977,’’ in Tendenze delT

Occupazione (Rome, Center for Economic and Social Research, June

1978).

month because it records the number of students who 

did any work during the year. Other studies for Italy 

have also arrived at large orders of magnitude for the 

hidden or unrecorded labor force.12

One youth labor market expert concludes that unrecorded employment “constitutes a somewhat larger 

segment of American and Italian youth than in most 

other countries, but it is probably not large enough except perhaps in Italy to invalidate the acceptance of the 

officially recorded youth labor force for comparative 

analysis.”13 Italy’s highly restrictive labor legislation 

which practically bans dismissals, and its relatively high 

nonsalary labor costs, provide strong inducements for 

employers to conceal the employment of as many workers as possible. Italian workers, especially young persons and students, also have strong incentives to accept 

unofficial employment so as not to lose financial stipends 

and so as to be able to obtain informal work with flexible working hours rather than regular work contracts 

involving more rigid obligations.

One observer reports that, in Northern Europe, the 

hidden economy is more a craftsman’s domain. In this 

way, painters, plumbers, dressmakers, and other kinds 

of service workers can add to their income and provide 

services otherwise hard to obtain quickly.14 In the United States, studies have shown that the illegal economy 

is substantial, especially in inner-city areas.15 Youths living with their parents and participating in illegal activities are unlikely to report them, if only to maintain eligibility for food stamps and other forms of welfare.

It is a good assumption that persons working in unrecorded or illegal jobs would be very reluctant to report them when interviewed for a labor force survey. 

Such persons would more likely respond that they are 

unemployed, not in the labor force, or simply going to 

school or keeping house. In cases of illegal employment, 

such as in U.S. inner-city areas, these persons often 

would not participate in labor force survey samples as 

they may not have an official address. Because of the 

large degree of unrecorded employment in Italy, there 

is likely to be a significant but unknown amount of 

overstatement in the Italian unemployment figures, particularly for young persons. The new Italian labor force 

survey, discussed later, has partially solved this problem. Italian statistical authorities sought to make interviewers keenly aware of the problem and asked them 

to act with considerable tact, but to persist in their 

questioning. A more probing style of questioning was

12For example, see CENSIS, L'Occupazione Occulta, CENSIS Ricerca No. 2 (Rome, CENSIS, 1976).

13 Beatrice G. Reubens, The Youth Labor Force 1945-1995: A Crossnational Analysis (Montclair, N. J., Allanheld, Osmun and Co., 1981),

chap. 1.

Ibid.

15 For example, see S. L. Friedlander, Unemployment in the Urban

Core: An Analysis of Thirty Cities with Policy Recommendations (New

York, Praeger, 1972).

33

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
introduced, making it more likely that previously unrecorded employment and unemployment would be 

reported.

It should be noted that many unreported jobs are 

second jobs held by persons who have a reported, formal first job. In such cases, there would be no impact 

on the unemployment rate. However, in the case of 

young people, unreported jobs would often be the only 

job held. If these youth report in a labor force survey 

that they are without work and seeking a job, the survey would report artificially high unemployment rates 

for youth.

Current availability

In the United States, unemployed persons must be 

currently available to begin work (except for minor illness), and there is a test of availability in the survey 

questionnaire. Thus, students attending school in April 

and seeking work to begin in June when the school 

term ends would not be counted as unemployed in April 

because they are not available to begin work at that 

time. If students are still seeking work in June, they 

would be counted in that month’s unemployed.16 In the 

U.S. survey, the probing into current availability eliminates relatively more teenage students than other jobseekers from the unemployed count.

Canada and Australia follow the U.S. practice. In effect, Sweden does too. There is no question on current 

availability in the Swedish survey, but interviewers are 

instructed to probe into the availability of students and 

to exclude them from the unemployed during the school 

term. In principle, Japan and Italy require current availability in their definitions but do not have a specific 

question on this point in their surveys. The British survey does not require current availability; however, it 

regards all full-time students as economically inactive, 

so that current availability is not a problem. The average number of adult (age 18 or over) students who are 

registered for temporary employment during a vacation 

period has been added to the British unemployment figures in order to include student unemployment which 

is not covered by the survey. By definition, these students are currently available for work.

France and Germany recently instituted questions on 

current availability in their labor force surveys. France 

now publishes unemployment results on the basis of 

both national and international definitions. The data on 

the latter basis exclude from the unemployed persons 

who are not currently available for work.17 Germany,

16 Prior to 1967, the U.S. survey did not contain a test of current

availability. Such a test was instituted in 1967 following the recommendations of the President’s Committee to Appraise Employment

and Unemployment Statistics. Teenage unemployment averaged 11.7

percent under the new survey questionnaire and 12.7 percent under

the old questionnaire in 1967. This was mainly because of the availability test which eliminated many students from the unemployed in

March, April, May, and June.

however, does not use the replies to the current availability question to exclude anyone from the unemployed 

count. BLS has obtained unpublished data for Germany 

from their 1977 survey which indicate that those not 

currently available made up 15 percent of the unemployed overall, and 30 percent of the unemployed under the age of 20. Since the German labor force survey 

is taken only once a year, in April or May, and the end 

of the school year is in July, there are a large number 

of young people searching for work in the spring in 

anticipation of the end of the school term. BLS has 

used the 1977 data to make estimates for earlier years 

in order to exclude from the unemployed those not currently available to begin work. No adjustment was 

needed for the German data for the early 1960’s because the survey was taken in April and the end of the 

school year was in March at that time.

Even though Japan and Italy do not have an explicit 

test of current availability, it seems unlikely that many 

persons who are not currently available for work are 

classified as unemployed in either country. The Japanese questionnaire is a self-enumeration—i.e., the labor 

force survey schedule is filled out by the respondent 

rather than by an interviewer. The instructions printed 

on the survey form clearly specify that a person classifying himself as unemployed must be “able to take up 

a job immediately after he finds a job.” The Japanese 

school year ends in March, and youth unemployment 

characteristically reaches a peak during that month. For 

example, in 1979 teenage unemployment rose from

50.000 in February to 120,000 in March, then fell to

80.000 in April and remained in the 70,000-80,000 range 

the rest of the year. It is unlikely that many of the

120.000 unemployed teenagers in March were not currently available to begin work because the survey’s reference period is the week ending on the last day of 

the month and most youth would be out of school by 

that time. Even if some of the 120,000 were not currently available and a more “normal” level of 80,000 

unemployed were taken as an unemployment count for 

March, the annual average figure would be almost the 

same.

In Italy, the situation is somewhat less clear. The survey form is filled out by an enumerator. The form does 

contain a definition indicating that an unemployed person must be available for work if a job is offered. Whether this definition is followed explicitly depends upon 

the diligence of the enumerator in carrying out the definition. Here again, the timing of the survey militates 

against the inclusion of students as unemployed who 

are not available for work. The Italian school year ends 

in June, and the quarterly surveys are taken in January,

17 In March 1977, 14.5 percent of the reported French unemployed

were not currently available for work; in October 1977, the proportion was 6.4 percent. The higher March figure reflects the fact that

students seeking summer jobs were included.

34

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
April, July, and October. The April survey conceivably could include some students who are not available 

until June, but the July survey would entail no such 

problem since all the students would be out of school 

by then.

Reference periods

The inherent instability of labor market behavior of 

young people makes data reference periods an important factor when making international comparisons. All 

countries generally have a sharp seasonal upswing in 

youth unemployment following the addition of school 

graduates and other students to the labor market at the 

end of the school year. If school holiday and vacation 

periods do not coincide with survey dates, much studentjobseeking will not be recorded. On the other hand, 

when holidays do coincide or come shortly after the 

survey, the results will give an artificially high level of 

unemployment for students which is not an accurate 

measure on an annual average basis.

For the United States, Australia (since 1978), Canada, Japan, Sweden (since 1970), and Great Britain (since 

1971), the annual labor force survey data used here are 

averages derived from monthly surveys. Australian data 

prior to 1978 and Swedish statistics prior to 1970 were 

collected on a quarterly basis. Annual averages for both 

countries represented the average of the 4 months, February, May, August, and November. December marks 

the end of the school year in Australia, and youth unemployment reaches a peak in the February survey. 

For 1978 and 1979, the average for the 4 months (February, May, August, and November) closely approximates the annual average. For example, the unemployment rate in 1978 for persons under 25 was 12.8 percent for the 4 months and 12.7 percent for the 12 months 

of the year.

Sweden’s school year ends in June and youth unemployment is generally higher over the summer months 

than at other times. Unemployment rates for youth, 

whether calculated as 4-month or 12-month averages, 

are virtually the same.

Italian data for all years are collected quarterly, and 

annual averages represent the average for the months 

January, April, July, and October. Since Italy has never 

had a monthly survey, it is not possible to tell how well 

the data for these 4 months approximate the annual 

average.

The data for France and Germany are not annual or 

even quarterly averages. For France, data through 1976 

are for March or April of each year. Beginning with 

1977, data are also available for October.18 The German 

data analyzed here relate to April or May of each year.

18 From 1960 through 1966, October surveys were conducted in the

even-numbered years and March surveys in the odd-numbered years,

but in no year were surveys conducted both in March and October

until 1977.

Since school years end in July in both countries, workseeking during summer vacation is not covered in the 

March-May surveys.19 Thus, the data relating to a spring 

month most likely understate youth unemployment for 

France or Germany when comparing them with annual data for other countries. For example, U.S. teenage 

unemployment rates for April are generally slightly 

lower than the annual average rate for teenagers. In 

1979, teenage unemployment was 15.3 percent (not seasonally adjusted) in April and 16.1 percent for the year. 

Unemployment for all age groups was 5.8 percent both 

in April and on an annual basis. The October 1977 data 

for France indicate higher unemployment for persons 

under 25 than the March figures. Typically, French 

youth who graduate from high school in the summer 

do not start to look for work until September or October, so that higher October figures are the norm.

British statistics for 1961 are from the April population census. Survey statistics, available from 1971 onward, are annual averages. Registered unemployed data 

by age are available only for July in most years; since 

1976, data for January have also been available and, 

since 1978, October data are also published. The figures 

indicate that July is a high month for teenage unemployment, but a relatively low month for unemployment of 20- to 24-year-olds. Students may graduate from 

school in Great Britain after the autumn, spring, or 

summer terms. Most now leave in July, however.

No adjustments could be made for the differences in 

reference periods discussed above. Where less than annual average data must be used, this point should be 

kept in mind when analyzing the youth unemployment 

data across countries.

In all of the labor force surveys studied here, the 

general reference period is a week. For jobseeking activities by unemployed persons, however, the reference 

period has been expanded beyond 1 week in the surveys of some countries. In the United States, Canada, 

and Australia, a person is counted as unemployed if he 

sought work within the 4 weeks including the reference 

week. In Sweden, a 60-day period for jobseeking is 

allowed.

In several of the surveys, the allowable period for 

jobseeking activities is ambiguous.20 In France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy the survey questionnaire 

does not specify a jobseeking period. Thus, some respondents may interpret it to be the reference week of

19 Some summer vacation workseeking is included in the French

and German surveys, prior to adjustment to U.S. concepts, because

both surveys include students seeking work in the spring (who are

not currently available for work until the vacation period) in the unemployment count. These persons are eliminated when the data are

adjusted to U.S. concepts. To leave them in would overstate French

and German youth unemployment because many of them do find

work by the time they become available to begin work.

20Prior to 1967, the U.S. survey questionnaire also did not specify

a time period for jobseeking.

35

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the survey and others may consider it to be a longer 

period. France, Italy, and Great Britain do have supplementary questions which clearly specify a jobseeking 

period, but the responses to these questions do not affect the classification of a person as unemployed. The 

data for these three countries have been adjusted to the 

4-week period used in the United States. The German 

data could not be adjusted as no information is collected 

on time of last job search. Also, no adjustment could 

be made for the more lengthy period allowed for jobseeking activities in Sweden. The longer period undoubtedly results in some upward bias in the Swedish 

unemployment data when compared with U.S. figures. 

Thus, there could be some “discouraged workers” in 

the unemployment figures for Sweden and Germany.

In Japan, the reference period for jobseeking is clearly specified as the reference week. However, according to the instructions on the survey form, persons 

awaiting the results of previous job applications are to 

list themselves as unemployed. This practice, in effect, 

widens the allowable jobseeking period to a time in the 

recent past which can be longer than the reference 

week.

Discontinuities in the data

All of the countries covered here have made revisions in their surveys at one or more times during the 

1960-79 period. Often revisions have not had much impact overall, but may have had a more significant impact on the data for young people. For example, in 

1967, following the recommendations of the President’s 

Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics, U.S. definitions were changed in several ways. The lower age limit was raised from 14 to 16, 

a test of current availability was added to the survey, 

and a 4-week jobseeking period for unemployed persons was specified. As a result, unemployment of teenagers averaged 1 full percentage point less in the new 

survey, mainly because of the availability test. No attempt was made by BLS to adjust the data for prior 

years, except that 14- and 15-year-olds were excluded 

from the earlier data. Therefore, the data shown in this 

article for 1960 may overstate U.S. youth unemployment slightly in comparison with the data for later years.

Changes similar to those made in the United States 

in 1967 were made in Canada and Australia in 1976. 

Both countries added availability tests and 4-week jobseeking periods to their surveys. In addition, Canada 

raised its lower age limit from 14 to 15. As in the United States, the Canadian changes had little effect on aggregate unemployment rates but lowered the teenage 

unemployment rate, by less than 1 percentage point, 

however. In Australia, the effect was negligible both 

for overall and youth jobless rates.

Canadian statistical authorities have revised their data 

back to 1966 on the new basis. For 1960, BLS has adjusted the data to exclude 14-year-olds. However, adjustments for the other changes have not been made. 

Therefore, the Canadian data for 1960 may also overstate youth unemployment to a small degree compared 

with the post-1975 data.

Recently, Australia has revised data from the 1967 

through 1977 surveys based on revised population estimates derived from the 1971 and 1976 population censuses. At the same time, revisions were also made to 

take into account the aforementioned changes in the 

survey questionnaire. The revisions resulted in higher 

unemployment rates. For example, the 1977 overall rate 

of 5.2 percent was revised to 5.6 percent. The teenage 

rate was increased from 16.0 to 17.4 percent; the young 

adult’s rate was raised from 7.3 to 7.5 percent. Similar 

revisions have not been made to the 1964 data in this 

article. Therefore, they probably understate Australian 

youth unemployment somewhat.

A further source of discontinuity in the Australian 

data was the institution of a monthly survey in February 1978. In the “Reference Periods” section, it was 

shown that the effect of the conversion from a quarterly to a monthly survey was very small.

France has made a number of changes in its labor 

force surveys over the years which have resulted in serious problems for time series analysis. The most significant break occurred in March 1968 when a new 

sampling method was adopted, permitting a more complete enumeration of persons living in “marginal” lodgings such as rooming houses. It was found that the surveys taken prior to 1968 underestimated the total population, labor force, and unemployment. Youth employment and unemployment were especially underenumerated. French statisticians have not provided a link 

between the old and new series of surveys, and BLS 

has not made an attempt to link them because of the 

lack of relevant data. Therefore, the French data for 

the early 1960’s on youth unemployment are understated in relation to the post-1967 data.

Further, French data since 1975 have been published 

on the basis of ILO definitions. Prior to 1975, BLS had 

to make many adjustments to the French data in order 

to arrive at U.S. definitions. Therefore, there may be 

some discontinuity between the pre-1975 and 1975-onward French data.

Germany has also made changes over the years in 

survey questionnaires and enumerator instructions, although not in definitions.21 Most of these changes were 

made in the 1960’s and early 1970’s when German unemployment rates, even for youth, were extremely low.

21 For a detailed description of many of these changes, see Carol

Jusenius and Burkhard von Rabenau, International Comparisons of

Unemployment and Underutilized Labor: The Case of the United States

and the Federal Republic of Germany (Washington, German Marshall

Fund, 1978).

36

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Any time series discrepancies resulting from these 

changes would not alter this fact.

British General Household Surveys (GHS) which 

provide labor force data have been available since 1971. 

They are conducted monthly, but published only on an 

annual basis because the monthly sample is very small. 

The only data prior to 1971 shown in this article are 

derived from the 1961 population census, taken in April. 

Figures from the census were adjusted to U.S. concepts, 

as were the GHS data. However, since two different 

sources were used and the timing is different (annual 

versus April), there is likely to be some discontinuity 

between the census and survey data.

The only discontinuity in the Swedish survey is related to the fact that it was converted from a quarterly 

to a monthly basis in January 1970. As shown in the 

section on “Reference Periods,” this does not constitute a significant break in the series. No adjustments 

have been made on this account.

Japan revised its survey design and enumeration 

method in September 1967. The major data items, including unemployment and labor forcefrby age and sex, 

have been revised back to 1953 by Japanese authorities. 

Thus, there is apparently no problem of data 

discontinuity.

The Italian data, as mentioned earlier, could not be 

adjusted to U.S. concepts. One of the problems involved 

is the fact that a major revision was made in the survey 

in 1977. A more detailed description of the Italian data 

problems follows.

Data for Italy

Because Italy has had a severe and unique youth unemployment problem for many years, it was decided 

that data for this country should be discussed in this 

article, even though the data could not be adjusted to 

U.S. concepts. The unadjusted statistics are roughly 

suggestive of the dimensions of Italy’s youth unemployment problem, but they need to be interpreted with 

some caution.

In January 1977, a more probing style of questioning 

was incorporated into the Italian labor force survey. 

The results indicated that (1) many persons who were 

looking for work were previously enumerated as not 

in the labor force; and (2) many of these persons, as 

well as some people previously classified as unemployed, had not taken any active steps to find work in 

the past 30 days. Italian statistical authorities have made 

estimates on the new basis for the years before 1977, 

but breakdowns are not available by age. Futhermore, 

there are no data by age on the persons who did not 

seek work in the past 30 days.22 Such persons should be 

excluded from the Italian unemployed for comparability with U.S. concepts. The Italian data shown here re22 For more on this problem, see International Comparisons of Unemployment, pp. 124-36.

late solely to persons who initially respond in the survey that they are unemployed. Thus, all other persons 

who respond to a later probing question that they were 

also seeking work, are excluded. Based on data from 

the 1977-79 surveys, a large percentage (about twothirds) of those unemployed persons who did not initially respond as such should be excluded because they 

took no recent active steps to find work. A much smaller proportion (around one-third) of those initially responding that they were unemployed did not take active steps to find work in the last 30 days.23

In the aggregate, the problems with the Italian data 

tend to cancel each other to some extent. The number 

of inactive jobseekers who should be excluded amounts 

to somewhat more than the number of persons seeking 

work who should be included. However, since these 

data are not available by age, it is impossible to determine the exact impact on youth unemployment rates. 

The Italian data for 1977 and 1978 overestimate total 

unemployment by about 200,000. In 1978, the overall 

rate adjusted to U.S. concepts is 3.7 percent, whereas 

the rate shown on table 1 is 5 percent. Youth unemployment rates for Italy would probably be a few percentage points lower if it were possible to adjust them 

fully to a U.S. basis, but they would still be extremely 

high by international standards.

Conclusion

BLS believes that the adjusted data described in this 

bulletin, although not perfectly comparable, provide a 

reasonable basis for international comparisons. They are 

all based on labor force surveys (except for some supplemental registration data shown for Great Britain). 

Thus, there is a common base in statistical method. 

Lower age limits have been adjusted to the age at which 

compulsory schooling ends so that the data for all countries relate to persons who are free to enter the labor 

market on a full-time basis, although these ages may 

vary from country to country. Adjustments have been 

made, where necessary, to exclude from the labor force 

career military personnel and unpaid family workers 

working less than 15 hours, for greater conformity with 

U.S. definitions. Adjustments have also been made, 

where possible, to exclude persons from the unemployed 

who are not currently available to begin work, an important point in youth unemployment comparisons.

Although variations in national traditions for combining work and education have an impact on the resulting levels of comparative youth jobless rates, differences in the statistical treatment of students have

23 A number of these “inactive” workseekers could be persons who

are registered as unemployed but who do not regard their presence

on the register as an active step to find work in the past 30 days.

BLS is now awaiting some cross-tabulations from the Italian survey

which should illuminate this point. If these persons truly are inactive

workseekers, they would probably be classified as “discouraged workers” rather than unemployed under U.S. concepts.

37

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
only a small impact on strict data comparability. Differences in reference periods for the data remain and 

should be kept in mind when making intercountry comparisons, particularly with regard to France, Germany, 

and Great Britain (registrations only) where data do 

not relate to the full year. It is likely that the spring 

data for France and Germany are understated in comparisons with the annual average data for the other 

countries. It is difficult to draw a firm conclusion about 

the British registrations data for July, which have been 

shown because they are more up-to-date than Btlcish 

survey data. British registration data generally understate unemployment because they do not include unregistered jobseekers. On the other hand, the July figures are not representative of annual averages for Great

Britain because July is a peak month for youth 

unemployment.

All the countries studied have made revisions in survey methods and/or definitions over the period studied. In several cases, these revisions have not been carried back to all the years shown. In particular, the 

French data suffer from several data discontinuities, and 

the data on youth unemployment in France for the early 1960’s are understated in relation to later figures.

The Italian data presented some unique problems, and 

they could not be adjusted to U.S. concepts. On balance, the Italian data tend to overstate youth unemployment by, at most, a few percentage points. Even 

so, youth unemployment rates in Italy are extremely 

high compared with most other countries.

Digitized for FRASER 

38

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Bibliography

Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia. Youth

Unemployment. Second Academy Symposium, 

Proceedings, Nov. 7-8, 1977.

Arangio-Ruiz, G. The Experience o f the Italian Central

Bureau o f Statistics in Investigating Non-Institutional Work. Paris, Organization for Economic 

Cooperation and Development, Dec. 29, 1978, 

unpublished.

Barber, Ann. “ Ethnic Origin and the Labor Force,” 

Department o f Employment Gazette (Great Britain), August 1980, pp. 841-48.

Birtig, Guido. “Employment Problems and the Educational System in Italy,” International Labour

Review (Geneva), July-August 1976, pp. 11-25.

Bowers, Norman. “ Young and Marginal: An Overview 

of Youth Unemployment,” Monthly Labor

Review, October 1979, pp. 4-18.

Burdetsky, Ben. “Troubled Transition: From School to 

Work,” Worklife, November 1976, pp. 2-8.

Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher E d u ­

cation. Education and Youth Employment in Contemporary Societies. A series of volumes on 

selected countries. Berkeley, Carnegie Council, 

1978, 1979, and 1980.

Cassel, Dieter. “Youth Unemployment in the Federal 

Republic of G erm any,” Intereconom ics

(Germany), January/February 1979, pp. 37-43.

CENSIS. L ’Occupazione Occulta, CENSIS Ricerca No. 

2. Rome, CENSIS, 1976.

Congressional Budget Office. Policy Options for the

Teenage Unemployment Problem. Washington, 

Government Printing Office, Sept. 21, 1976.

Congressional Budget Office. Report o f Congressional

Budget Office Conference on the Teenage Unemployment Problem: What Are the Options?

Washington, Government Printing Office, Oct. 14, 

1976.

“ Considering Employment: Unemployed (Part Two),” 

Mainichi (Japanese newspaper), Dec. 3, 1977, p. 7.

Dean, A. J. “Unemployment Among School Leavers: 

An Analysis of the Problem,” National Institute

Economic Review (Great Britain), 1976, pp. 63-68.

de Montlibert, Christian, and others. Youth and

Employment in Europe. Strasbourg, Council of 

Europe, 1979.

“ EEC Major Initiative on Work-Sharing,” European Industrial Relations Review (Great Britain), 

March 1978, pp. 23-24.

Employment and Training Report o f the President.

Washington, Government Printing Office, 1978.

“Europe’s Jobless: No End in Sight?” Dun's Review,

July 1977, pp. 54-56.

“ Europe’s Young—Pursuing Jobs, Not Politics,” The

Economist, Dec. 3, 1977, pp. 68-70.

“ Financial Aid for Students,” OECD Observer, November/December 1976, pp. 30-32.

Freud, David. “A New Era for Women,” The Financial Times (Great Britain), June 28, 1978, p. 27.

Frey, L. “ II Lavoro Nero in Italia nel 1977,” in 

Tendenze delT Occupazione. Rome, Center for 

Economic and Social Research, June 1978.

Friedlander, S. L. Unemployment in the Urban Core:

An Analysis o f Thirty Cities with Policy Recommendations. New York, Praeger, 1972.

From School to Work: Improving the Transition. A collection of policy papers prepared for the National 

Commission for Manpower Policy. Washington, 

Government Printing Office, 1976.

Gavett, Thomas W. “ Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wages,” Monthly Labor Review, March 

1970, pp. 3-12.

Gennard, John. Job Security and Industrial Relations.

Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation 

and Development, 1979.

Gilbert, Sari. “ Italy’s Universities: Preparation for the 

Jobless Rolls,” The Washington Post, Mar. 5, 

1977, p. A-10.

Gilroy, Curtis L. “ Black and White Unemployment: 

The Dynamics of the Differential,’’ Monthly Labor

Review, February 1974, pp. 38-47.

Gordon, Margaret S. Youth Education and Unemployment Problems: An International Perspective. Berkeley, Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in 

Higher Education, 1979.

Grant, James H., and Daniel S. Hamermesh. Do Employers Substitute Workers o f Different Ages,

Races, and Sexes, and What Does This Imply for

Labor Market Policy? Washington, National Commission for Employment Policy, October 1979.

Hansen, James. “ Europe’s Young—Jobless and 

Angry,” Industry Week, July 23, 1979, pp. 61-63.

International Labour Office, Eighth International Conference of Labour Statisticians. Employment and

Unemployment Statistics, Report IV. Geneva, 

ILO, 1954.

International Labour Office. Problems o f Statistical

39

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Definition o f the Labour Force, Employment, and

Unemployment in ECE Member Countries. Paper 

prepared for the Joint Economic Commission for 

Europe/International Labour Organization 

Meeting on Manpower Statistics. Geneva, ILO, 

May 31, 1979.

International Labour Office. Some Growing Employment Problems in Europe. Geneva, ILO, 1974.

Jusenius, Carol, and Burkhard von Rabenau. International Comparisons o f Unemployment and Underutilized Labor: The Case o f the United States

and the Federal Republic o f Germany. Washington, German Marshall Fund, 1978.

Kato, Hidetoshi. Education and Youth Employment in

Japan. Berkeley, Carnegie Council on Policy 

Studies in Higher Education, 1978.

Kohen, Andrew I., and others. Career Thresholds: A

Longitudinal Study o f the Educational and Labor

Market Experience o f Young Men. Vol. 6, R and D 

Monograph 16. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 1977.

La Berge, Roy. “Youth Unemployment: An Explosive Situation,” The Labour Gazette (Canada), 

May 1977, pp. 199-204.

MacLure, Stuart. Education and Youth Employment in

Great Britain. Berkeley, Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, 1979.

Magnussen, Olav. Education and Employment: The

Problem o f Early School Leavers. Amsterdam, 

European Cultural Foundation, 1977.

Makeham, Peter. Youth Unemployment: An Examination o f Evidence Using National Statistics.

Research Paper No. 10. London, Department of 

Employment, March 1980.

Manpower Services Commission. Young People and

Work. London, Manpower Services Commission, 

May 1977.

Marsden, David. A Study o f Changes in the Wage

Structure o f Manual Workers in Industry in Six

Community Countries Since 1966. Great Britain, 

University of Sussex, Sussex European Research 

Centre, July 1979.

Melvyn, Peter. “ Youth Unemployment in Industrialized Market Economies,” International Labour

Review (Geneva), July-August 1977, pp. 23-38.

Melvyn, Peter, and David H. Freedman. “Youth Unemployment: A Worsening Situation,” in Employment Outlook and Insights. Geneva, International 

Labour Office, 1979.

Merrilees, William. “An Economic Framework for Explaining Teenage Unemployment,” Australian Bulletin o f Labour, December 1980, pp. 18-30.

National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics. Counting the Labor Force. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1979.

National Youth Employment Council. Unqualified,

Untrained, and Unemployed. Report of a Working 

Party. London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 

1974.

Noeth, R. J., and others. “ Student Career Development: Where Do We Stand?” Vocational Guidance

Quarterly, March 1975, pp. 212-15.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Australia: Transition from School to Work

or Further Study. OECD Reviews of National Policies for Education. Paris, OECD, 1977.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Demographic Trends: Their Labour Market

and Social Implications. Paris, OECD, Apr. 21, 

1978, unpublished.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Education and Working Life. Paris, OECD, 

1977.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Entry o f Young People into Working Life.

Paris, OECD, 1977.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. High Level Conference on Youth Unemployment: Country Position Papers. Various member 

countries. Paris, OECD, Nov. 29, 1977, unpublished.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. High Level Conference on Youth Unemployment. Item 4, Diagnosis. Paris, OECD, Nov. 9, 

1977, unpublished.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Measuring Employment and Unemployment. Paris, OECD, 1979.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Review o f the Labour Market Situation in

Less Industrialized Member Countries. Paris, 

OECD, Nov. 7, 1978, unpublished.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Trends in Labour Supply: Analytical Report.

Paris, OECD, Oct. 29, 1979, unpublished.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Youth Employment and Unemployment: A

Revised Diagnosis. Paris, OECD, Mar. 18, 1980, 

unpublished.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Youth Unemployment. Paris, OECD, 1978, 

2 volumes.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Youth Unemployment: A Report o f the High

Level Conference 15-16 December, 1977. Vol. I. 

Paris, OECD, 1978.

Pettanati, P. Illegal and Unrecorded Employment in

Italy. Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Feb. 16, 1979, unpublished.

Pike, Alan. “ The Painful Path from Youth to Adulthood,” The Financial Times (Great Britain), 

July 29, 1977.

40

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
“ Racial Discrimination at Work,” Department o f Employment Gazette (Great Britain), October 1978, 

pp. 1185-187.

Rehn, Gosta, and K. Helveg Petersen. Education and

Youth Employment in Sweden and Denmark. Berkeley, Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in 

Higher Education, 1980.

Reubens, Beatrice G. Apprenticeship in Foreign Countries, R and D Monograph 77. U.S. Department of 

Labor, Employment and Training Administration. 

Washington, Government Printing Office, 1980.

Reubens, Beatrice G. Bridges to Work: International

Comparison o f Transition Services. Montclair, 

N. J., Allanheld, Osmun and Co., 1977.

Reubens, Beatrice G. From Learning to Earning: A

Transnational Comparison o f Transition Services.

R and D Monograph 63. U.S. Department of 

Labor, Employment and Training Administration. 

Washington, Government Printing Office, 1979.

Reubens, Beatrice G. Policies for Apprenticeship.

Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation 

and Development, 1979.

Reubens, Beatrice G., and others. The Youth Labor

Force 1945-1995: A Cross-national Analysis,

Montclair, N.J., Allanheld, Osmun and Co., 1981.

Satedag, Herman, and Hermine Kraft, “Educational 

and Occupational Outlook of Youths Toward the 

End of the Ninth School Year” (English 

Summary), Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt-und

Berufsforschung (Germany), No. 2, 1979, p. 241.

Sawhill, Isabel V., and Bernard E. Anderson, eds. 

Youth Employment and Public Policy, Englewood 

Cliffs, N. J., Prentice Hall, 1980.

Strieker, P., and P. Sheehan. “Youth Unemployment 

in Australia: A Survey,” Australian Economic

Review, First Quarter 1978, pp. 20-30.

“The Labor Market for College Graduates in Postwar 

Japan,” Japan Labor Bulletin, Mar. 1, 1979, pp. 

5-12.

“ The Young and Out of Work,” Department o f Employment Gazette (Great Britain), August 1978, 

pp. 908-16.

Trow, Martin. “ Reflections on Youth Problems and 

Policies in the United States,” in Margaret S. 

Gordon, Youth Education and Unemployment

Problems: An International Perspective, Berkeley, 

Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, 1979, pp. 127-64.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 

National Center for Education Statistics. National

Longitudinal Study o f the High School Class of

1972, Data File Users Manual. Washington, Government Printing Office, July 1976.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

International Comparisons o f Unemployment.

Bulletin 1979. Washington, Government Printing 

Office, August 1978.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wages.

Bulletin 1657. Washington, Government Printing 

Office, 1970.

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration. Apprenticeship: Past and Present.

Washington, Government Printing Office, 1977.

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration. A Review o f Youth Employment

Problems, Programs and Policies. Report of Vice 

President’s Task Force on Youth Employment. 

Washington, Government Printing Office, January 

1980, 3 volumes.

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration. Conference Report on Youth Unemployment: Its Measurement and Meaning. Selected papers from a conference held at the Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California, Los Angeles. Washington, Government 

Printing Office, 1978.

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration. Knowledge Development Under

the Youth Initiatives. Proceedings of an 

Overview Conference, Oct. 5-6, 1978. Washington, 

Government Printing Office, 1978.

von Dohnanyi, Klaus. Education and Youth Employment in the Federal Republic o f Germany.

Berkeley, Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in 

Higher Education, 1978.

Young, Anne M. “ Employment of School Age Youth,” 

Monthly Labor Review, September 1970, pp. 4-11.

Young, Anne M. “ School and Work Among Youth 

During the 1970’s,” Monthly Labor Review,

September 1980, pp-44-47.

Young, Anne M. “ Students, Graduates, and Dropouts 

in the Labor Market, October 1977,” Monthly

Labor Review, June 1978, pp. 44-45.

Young, Anne M. “The Differences a Year Makes in the 

Nation’s Youth Work Force,” Monthly Labor

Review, October 1979, pp. 34-38.

“ Young on the Dole,” The Economist, June 11, 1977, 

p. 89.

“ Youth Unemployment,” OECD Observer, January 

1978, pp. 3-8.

“ Youth Unemployment: Some Dimensions of the Problem,” The Labour Gazette (Canada), May 1978, 

pp. 172-73.

41

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
During the 1970’s,

dramatic changes took place in women’s participation in the labor market. At the beginning of the decade, about 31 million women, or 43 percent of all United States women 16 years of age or older, were in

the labor force. By mid- 1980, over 44 million, or more than half of all women, were working or looking for work.

This revolution in the role of women in the labor market is documented in

P erspectives on

W orking W omen:

A D atabook.

One hundred tables are included in the D atabook under the following headings:

I. Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment II. Work Experience III. Marital and Family Status IV. School Enrollment and Education V. Earnings and Income VI. Race and Flispanic Origin VII. Additional Characteristics (absence, moon­ lighting, occupa­ tional mobility, etc.) VIII. The 1980’s

Order Form Please send________copies of P erspectives on W orking W omen: A D atabook,

BLS Bulletin 2080, GPO Stock No. 029-001-02527-1, Price: $4.50.

□ Remittance is enclosed.

□ Charge to my GPO deposit account no.

Fill out and mail this

coupon to any BLS regional office, or Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D.C.

20402. Make checks

payable to Superintendent of

Documents.

Name

Organization (if appropriate)

Address

City, State, and Zip Code

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Regional Offices

Region I

1603 JFK Federal Building

Government Center

Boston, Mass. 02203

Phone: (617) 223-6761

Region II

Suite 3400

1515 Broadway

New York, N.Y. 10036

Phone: (212) 944-3121

Region III

3535 Market Street

P.O. Box 13309

Philadelphia, Pa. 19101

Phone: (215) 596-1154

Region IV

1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, Ga. 30367

Phone: (404) 881-4418

Region V

9th Floor

Federal Office Building

230 S. Dearborn Street

Chicago, III. 60604

Phone: (312) 353-1880

Region VI

Second Floor

'555 Griffin Square Building

Dallas, Tex. 75202

Phone: (214) 767-6971

Regions VII and VIII

911 Walnut Street

Kansas City, Mo. 64106

Phone: (816) 374-2481

Regions IX and X

450 Golden Gate Avenue

Box 36017

San Francisco, Calif. 94102

Phone: (415) 556-4678

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis