THE LONG-RANGE ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS 

FOR THE 2012 TRUSTEES REPORT 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ACTUARY 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

April 23, 2012 

 

 
Page 2 

PRINCIPAL ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS 

Overview ................................................................................................................

Sections 

1 Productivity ................................................................................................. 

2 Price Inflation .............................................................................................. 

3 Average Real Wage Differential ................................................................ 

4 Unemployment Rate ................................................................................... 

5 Annual Trust Fund Real Interest Rate .....................................................
Overview, Page 1 

OVERVIEW 

Each year, the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and 

Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds provides an annual report to the Congress on the financial 

and actuarial status of the program. For this report, the Office of the Chief Actuary (OCACT), on 

behalf of the Board of Trustees, projects future cost and income based on three separate sets of 

long-range (75-year) assumptions for key economic variables. The intermediate (alternative II) 

set of assumptions represents the Trustees’ best estimate for future experience, while the low 

cost (alternative I) and high cost (alternative III) sets of assumptions represent more and less 

favorable scenarios, respectively, from the perspective of program cost. The intermediate 

assumptions are also used as the central tendency for the stochastic projections presented in the 

OASDI Trustees Report. This memorandum presents the ultimate economic assumptions to be 

used in the 2012 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees. These are unchanged from the ones 

assumed for the 2011 Trustees Report, except for the annual trust fund real interest rate in 

alternatives I and III1. 

The key economic variables include the average annual growth rates in total-economy 

productivity, the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), 

the gross domestic product (GDP) deflator, the average OASDI real wage differential, the 

unemployment rate, and the annual trust fund real interest rate. Total-economy productivity is 

the ratio of real GDP to total hours worked. The real wage differential is the percent change in 

the average OASDI covered wage less the percent change in the CPI-W. Table A, below, lists 

the assumed ultimate (i.e., long-range future) values for these key economic variables in the 

2012 Trustees Report alternatives I, II, and III, respectively. 

Table A. Ultimate Values for Key Economic Assumptions for the Long-Range (75-year) Projection Period 

 

 2012 Trustees Report 

Alternative 

2011 Trustees Report 

Alternative 

2012 Trustees Report Less 

2011 Trustees Report 

Ultimate Assumptions I II III I II III I II III

Average Percentage Change In: 

Productivity 

(Total-Economy) 

2.0 1.7 1.4 2.0 1.7 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Prices (CPI-W) 1.8 2.8 3.8 1.8 2.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Prices (GDP Deflator) 1.5 2.4 3.3 1.5 2.4 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Real Wage Differential 

(Percent) 

1.8 1.2 0.6 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Unemployment Rate (Percent) 4.5 5.5 6.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Annual Trust Fund Real 

Interest Rate (Percent) 

3.4 2.9 2.4 3.6 2.9 2.1 -0.2 0.0 0.3 

 

1

 The ultimate long-range real interest rates for alternatives I and III are changed so that the projected levels of trust 

fund assets for alternatives I and III will be closer to the limits of the 95-percent confidence interval determined by 

OCACT’s stochastic model. 
Overview, Page 2 

The remainder of this section provides brief descriptions and summary information for the key 

economic variables, as well as assumed values for alternative II. 

Productivity - The growth rate in total-economy productivity is the largest component in the 

growth rate of the real wage. The historical growth rate in total-economy productivity has varied 

over economic cycles and longer periods. The annual growth rate in total-economy productivity 

averaged 1.9 percent over the 50-year period from 1960 to 2010, and 1.7 percent over the last 

five complete economic cycles, a 41-year period from 1966 to 2007. The Trustees have retained 

an ultimate growth rate assumption of 1.7 percent. 

The growth rate in total-economy productivity can be viewed as a weighted average of the 

growth rates in economic sectors, where the weights are the shares of each sector in total GDP. 

The historical growth rate in total-economy productivity was boosted by a shift from the farm 

sector to the nonfarm sector, which has a higher level of productivity. Hence, it seems reasonable 

to evaluate historical growth rates in productivity by sector over longer periods. 

The annual growth rate in nonfarm business productivity averaged about 2.1 percent over the 

50-year period from 1960 to 2010, and about 1.9 percent over the last five complete economic 

cycles. The Trustees assume an ultimate long-range average annual growth rate in nonfarm 

business productivity of 2.0 percent. 

The annual growth rate in farm productivity averaged about 5.1 percent over the 50-year period 

from 1960 to 2010, and 4.7 percent over the last five complete economic cycles. However, 

OCACT believes that the growth rate in farm productivity was greatly influenced by a shift in 

workers and output from relatively small and inefficient sole proprietor farms to relatively large, 

more efficient corporate farms. OCACT assumes no such shift in the future and the Trustees 

assume an ultimate long-range growth rate in farm productivity of 2.0 percent, equal to the 

assumed ultimate long-range growth rate in nonfarm productivity. 

The growth rates in productivity in the remaining sectors of the economy (i.e., households, 

nonprofit institutions, and general government) have been close to zero over the historical 

period, and are expected to be zero in the future. The weighted average of the assumed sector 

growth rates is equal to the Trustees’ assumed ultimate long-range average annual growth rate in 

total-economy productivity of 1.7 percent. 

Price Inflation - The growth rate in the CPI-W is used to set the annual increase in OASDI 

benefit payments. The average annual growth rate in the CPI-W was about 3.7 percent over the 

50-year period from 1960 to 2010, about 4.2 percent over the last five complete economic cycles 

from 1966 to 2007, and about 2.6 percent over the last two complete economic cycles from 1989 

to 2007. The lower growth rate over the more recent period reflects, among other things, the 

stronger implementation of anti-inflationary monetary policy and the effects of additional 

competition from emerging markets. However, the more recent period does not reflect the kind 

of inflationary shocks that may occur in the future. OCACT expects that monetary policy will 

continue to target relatively low inflation, but may not be able to fully avoid occasional bursts of 
Overview, Page 3 

inflation caused by demand and supply shocks. Thus, OCACT expects the future average growth 

rate in the CPI-W to be slightly higher than the more recent historical period. Accordingly, the 

Trustees have set the ultimate long-range average annual growth rate in the CPI-W to 2.8 

percent. 

The GDP deflator is another measure of price inflation. It is used in determining the level of 

wages and, therefore, OASDI tax revenues. OCACT believes that the CPI-W and the GDP 

deflator will grow at different rates in the future due to inherent differences in their 

computational methods and coverage. The principal difference in computational methods is the 

way that groups of goods and services are weighted in computing the overall price increases. For 

the CPI-W, broad groups of goods and services use constant weights over 2-year periods, 

reflecting the distribution of purchases at the beginning of the period. For the GDP deflator, 

changes in the distribution of purchases from one quarter to the next are reflected in the 

computation of quarterly increase in price levels. When the price for one group of goods rises 

relative to the price of a second group, consumers tend to shift purchases from the first to the 

second group. The GDP deflator formula accounts for such shifts as they happen, while the 

CPI-W does not. Because of this computational difference, the CPI-W tends to result in a higher 

measured increase in the average price compared to the GDP deflator. The Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) estimates data for the 1990s, and publishes actual values for the 2000 to 2009 

period. These data indicate that this computational difference alone contributed 0.3 percentage 

point to the average annual growth rate in the CPI-W between 1990 and 2009. OCACT expects 

future average annual growth rate in the GDP deflator to be 0.3 percentage point below the 

average annual growth rate in the CPI-W due to the difference in computational methods. 

The second important difference between the two price indices is coverage. The CPI-W 

measures the annual growth rate in prices covered by consumer expenditures, while the GDP 

deflator measures the annual growth rate in prices covered by all consumption, investment, and 

government expenditures. Investment expenditures include growing amounts for computers and 

software, two goods whose prices have fallen over the last twenty-five years and are likely to 

continue falling. We expect that the overall price of investment goods will grow more slowly 

than the overall price of consumer goods. On the other hand, government expenditures include 

employee compensation as a significant component. As the real wage for government employees 

increases, we expect that the overall price of government goods will grow faster than the overall 

price of consumer goods. OCACT believes the net effect of difference in coverage is that the 

average annual growth rate in the GDP deflator will be about 0.1 percentage point lower than the 

average annual growth rate in the CPI-W. 

Thus, the Trustees set the ultimate long-range average annual growth rate in the GDP deflator to 

2.4 percent, or 0.4 percentage point below the 2.8 percent ultimate long-range average annual 

growth rate in the CPI-W. The price differential of 0.4 percentage point is the sum of 0.3 

percentage point for computational difference and 0.1 percentage point for coverage difference. 

Average Real Wage Differential - The Trustees set a pattern of assumed annual real wage 

differentials over the last 65 years of the 75-year projection horizon (i.e., 2021 to 2086) 

averaging 1.2 percent. We expect the future growth rate in the average real OASDI covered 
Overview, Page 4 

wage to equal approximately the future growth rate in (1) average real U.S. wage and (2) average 

real U.S. earnings (which include the self-employed). Hence, the Trustees also set the average 

annual growth rate in average real U.S. earnings to 1.2 percent over the 65-year period. 

The growth rate in average real U.S. earnings can be defined as the sum of the growth rates in 

total-economy productivity, average hours worked per week, compensation ratio, earnings ratio, 

and the price differential (the percent change in the GDP deflator less the percent change in the 

CPI-W). Equation 1 expresses this relationship: 

(1)     Differential

Price

Ratio

Earnings

Ratio

Compensation

Worked

Hours

Average

Productivity

Economy

Total

Earnings

Real

Average 





































































where X



 = percent change in x. 

Equation 2 expresses the same relationship using specific definitions for each term: 

(2)             CPI

GDP Deflator

Compensation

Earnings

GDP Deflator Real GDP

Compensation

Employment

Hours

Hours

Real GDP

Employment CPI

Earnings 





 











 



The average annual change in average hours worked per week was about -0.23 percent over the 

50-year period from 1960 to 2010, but only about -0.04 percent over the last two complete 

economic cycles, from 1989 to 2007. Some of this slowdown in the rate of decline is due to 

changes in the age-sex and educational distributions of the workforce. However, even after 

adjusting for distributional effects, the trend growth rate in average hours worked per week is 

now close to zero. For the future, the Trustees set the ultimate long-range average annual growth 

rate in average hours worked per week to 0.0 percent. 

The compensation ratio is defined as the ratio of total labor compensation (i.e., total labor 

earnings plus employee benefits and wage-related employer taxes) to GDP and can be viewed as 

the “return to labor”. The Trustees expect that the return to labor (and capital) will be constant in 

the future and therefore set the ultimate long-range average annual growth rate in the 

compensation ratio to zero. 

The earnings ratio is the ratio of total labor earnings (i.e., the sum of wages and self-employment 

income) to total labor compensation. The average annual percent change in the earnings ratio 

was about -0.24 percent over the 50-year period from 1960 to 2010 and about -0.17 percent over 

the last four complete economic cycles from 1973 to 2007. 

We expect contributions to employer-sponsored group health insurance (ESI) in the future to be 

significantly affected by the health care legislation enacted in 2010. This expectation led to a 

significant change in the assumed future path of the ratio of earnings to compensation between 

the 2009 and 2010 Trustees Reports. For the 2009 Trustees Report, the ratio of wage and salary 
Overview, Page 5 

disbursements (WSD) to employee compensation (WSS) was assumed to decline at fixed 

“ultimate” annual rate in each of the last 65 years of the 75-year projection horizon. The assumed 

ultimate annual rate of change in the ratio of WSD to WSS was set to -0.2 percent. For the 2010 

Trustees Report, the actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 

projected components of national health care expenditures, including ESI, using “new law” 

assumptions (i.e., including the effect of the new health care reform legislation enacted in 2010). 

The more detailed CMS data enabled the projection of annual growth rates in the ratio of WSD 

to WSS. The resulting average annual rate of change in the ratio of wages to employee 

compensation (and for the earnings ratio) over the last 65 years of the projection horizon (2020 

to 2085) was -0.1 percent for the 2010 Trustees Report. 

For the 2012 Trustees Report, the Trustees set a path for the annual rates of change in the ratio of 

WSD to WSS over the last 65 years of the projection horizon (2021 to 2086) consistent with the 

annual rates of change over the same period from the 2011 Trustees Report. This results in an 

average annual rate of decline in the ratio of WSD to WSS of about -0.1 percent over the last 65 

years of the 75-year projection period. 

Thus, the Trustees set an average annual rate of increase in average real US earnings of about 1.2 

percent over the last 65 years of the 75-year projection period. This represents the sum of growth 

rates of 1.7 percent for total-economy productivity, -0.4 percent for the price differential, -0.1 

percent for the average earnings ratio, and 0.0 percent for both the compensation ratio and 

average hours worked per week (i.e., 1.2 = 1.7 – 0.4 – 0.1 + 0.0 + 0.0). 

Unemployment Rate – The aggregate civilian unemployment rate, adjusted for changes in the 

age-sex distribution of the labor force, averaged about 5.5 percent over the last four complete 

economic cycles from 1973 to 2007. In the future, OCACT believes that the projected decline in 

the overall growth rate in the labor force will put some downward pressure on the aggregate 

unemployment rate. Consequently, the Trustees set the ultimate long-range civilian age-sex 

adjusted unemployment rate to 5.5 percent. 

Annual Trust Fund Real Interest Rate – The real interest rate (real effective annual yield) on the 

special public debt obligations issuable to the trust funds for a given year is defined as the 

nominal effective annual yield less the increase in the CPI-W for the first year after issue. Future 

real interest rates on long-term Treasury securities will likely depend on the market view of the 

stability and solidity of the domestic financial markets and the domestic economy. Real ex-post 

(actual) interest rates on long-term Treasury securities averaged 3.17 percent over the last five 

economic cycles (from 1966 to 2007). 

The Trustees set the assumed ultimate long-range real interest rate to 2.9 percent, the same 

ultimate real interest rate in the 2011 Report. The Trustees believe that this assumption is 

appropriate, in spite of the Federal government’s expected increase in debt over the short-range 

period, as the government will have to restore fiscal sustainability over the remainder of the 

long-range period. 

 
Productivity, Page 1 

1. PRODUCTIVITY 

THE 2012 TRUSTEES REPORT 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ACTUARY, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 

1.1 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................2

1.2 BEA AND BLS REVISIONS TO PRODUCTIVITY SINCE THE 

 2011 REPORT ..............................................................................................................2 

1.3 PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH RATES BY MAJOR SECTORS AND OVER 

 LONG TIME PERIODS AND ECONOMIC CYCLES...........................................3 

1.3.1 SECTOR PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH RATES ............................................................................... 5 

1.3.1.1 Nonfarm Business ................................................................................................................................... 5 

1.3.1.2 Farm ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 

1.3.1.3 Nonprofit Institutions............................................................................................................................. 6 

1.3.1.4 General Government .............................................................................................................................. 7 

1.3.1.5 Households .............................................................................................................................................. 7 

1.3.2 TOTAL-ECONOMY PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH RATE ............................................................. 9 

1.4 PROJECTIONS FROM OTHER FORECASTERS ..............................................10 

LIST OF TABLES 

1.1 ASSUMED ULTIMATE ANNUAL RATES OF INCREASE IN TOTAL-ECONOMY 

PRODUCTIVITY ................................................................................................................................... 2 

1.2 HISTORICAL AVERAGE ANNUAL RATES OF INCREASE IN TOTAL-ECONOMY 

PRODUCTIVITY AND ITS COMPONENTS .................................................................................... 3 

1.3 ULTIMATE AVERAGE ANNUAL RATES OF INCREASE 

 IN TOTAL-ECONOMY PRODUCTIVITY AND ITS COMPONENTS FOR THE 2011 

 TRUSTEES REPORT ........................................................................................................................... 3 

1.4 TOTAL-ECONOMY PRODUCTIVITY: COMPOUND ANNUAL RATES OF 

 GROWTH ............................................................................................................................................. 11 

1.5 PRODUCTIVITY IN THE NONFARM BUSINESS SECTOR: COMPOUND 

 ANNUAL RATES OF GROWTH ...................................................................................................... 13 

APPENDIX 1 ..........................................................................................................................15 
Productivity, Page 2 

1 Productivity 

1.1 Summary 

For the 2012 Trustees Report, the Trustees set the assumed ultimate annual rates of increase in 

total-economy productivity2 to 1.98 percent, 1.68 percent, and 1.38 percent for alternatives I, II, 

and III, respectively,3 as shown in Table 1.1. These rates of increase are the same as those used 

in the 2011 Trustees Report. It is important to note that the assumed rates of increase for totaleconomy productivity for the 2012 Trustees Report are consistent with assumed ultimate annual 

rates of increase in nonfarm business productivity of 2.39 percent, 2.03 percent, and 1.67 percent 

for alternatives I, II, and III, respectively. 

Table 1.1. Assumed Ultimate Annual Rates of Increase in Total-Economy Productivity 

 

 2012 Trustees Report 

Alternative 

2011 Trustees Report 

Alternative 

2012 Trustees Report Less 

2011 Trustees Report 

I II III I II III I II III

 Total-Economy Productivity 1.98 1.68 1.38 1.98 1.68 1.38 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total-economy productivity is defined as the ratio of real gross domestic product (GDP) to total 

hours worked by all workers in the U.S. economy. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) 

estimates historical values for real GDP in its NIPA. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

provides total hours worked in an unpublished series based mostly on data from its Current 

Employment Statistics (CES) Survey. 

This section is divided into three subsections. The first reviews BEA and BLS revisions to the 

real GDP and total hours worked since the 2011 Report. The second decomposes total-economy 

productivity by major sector and analyzes differences in sector productivity growth over several 

periods. A final subsection provides alternative long-run assumptions from private forecasters.

1.2 BEA and BLS Revisions to Productivity since the 2011 Report 

On July 29, 2011, BEA revised real GDP back to 2008 as part of its annual revision to the 

NIPA.4

 Compared to the unrevised data, BEA lowered the average annual growth rate in the real 

GDP by about 0.2 percent in 2008 and 0.9 percent in 2009. These reductions were due in part to 

downward revisions in personal consumption expenditures, non-residential fixed investment, and 

 2

 Total-economy productivity is defined as the ratio of total real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to total 

hours worked by all workers. 

 3

 The precise values of the productivity assumptions are rounded to more than one decimal place to allow 

them to be fully consistent with rounded growth rate assumptions for the real-wage differential and certain linkages 

between these variables. 

 4

 “Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter of 2011” BEA, News Release, July 29, 2011. 

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2011/gdp2q11_adv.htm. 
Productivity, Page 3 

state and local government spending. BLS made no substantive changes to the level of total 

hours worked for 2008 and earlier. For 2009, BLS lowered the annual level of total hours worked 

by about 0.1 percent. Thus, these BEA and BLS revisions lowered the annual growth rate in 

total-economy productivity by about 0.2 percent for 2008 and 0.8 percent for 2009. 

1.3 Productivity Growth Rates by Major Sectors and Over Long Time Periods and 

Economic Cycles 

Table 1.2. Historical Average Annual Rates of Increase in Total-Economy Productivity and its Components 

(%) 

Total 

Economy 

Nonfarm 

Business 

Farm Households Nonprofit 

Institutions 

General 

Government 

1960-2010 (50 years) 1.87 2.13 5.05 4.93 0.50 0.03 

 1960-1985 (25 years) 1.98 2.10 5.86 5.24 0.97 0.00 

 1985-2010 (25 years) 1.77 2.15 4.25 4.62 0.04 0.06 

Economic Cycles 

 Last One - 2000-2007 (7 years) 2.06 2.55 3.53 0.88 -0.41 0.18 

 Last Two - 1989-2007 (18 years) 1.87 2.27 4.52 4.19 -0.11 -0.12 

 Last Three - 1978-2007 (29 years) 1.62 1.87 4.93 4.16 0.05 0.10 

 Last Four - 1973-2007 (34 years) 1.56 1.81 4.61 3.96 0.07 0.00 

 Last Five - 1966-2007 (41 years) 1.68 1.92 4.68 4.31 0.33 0.03 

Table 1.3 Ultimate Average Annual Rates of Increase in Total-Economy Productivity and its Components for the 

2012 Trustees Report 

I 1.98 2.39 2.39 1.98 0.00 0.00 

II 1.68 2.03 2.03 1.68 0.00 0.00 

III 1.38 1.67 1.67 1.38 0.00 0.00 

Table 1.2 lists the average annual rates of increase in productivity for the total economy and its 

major sectors over the last one, two, three, four, and five complete economic cycles, and over the 

last 50 years from 1960 to 2010. The major sectors include nonfarm business, farm, households, 

nonprofit institutions, and general government. Listed in Table 1.3 are the assumed ultimate 

average annual rates of increase in productivity for the total economy and its major sectors. For 

the ultimate assumptions, OCACT assumes that the relative size of employment by sector will 

stabilize. 

The annual growth rate in productivity can vary from its trend growth rate over an economic 

cycle, assuming employers are slow to adjust labor to changes in output. Going into a recession, 

the growth rate in productivity may drop below trend, as employers reduce output faster than 

labor. During an economic recovery, the growth rate in productivity may rise above trend, as 
Productivity, Page 4 

employers increase output using their existing stock of labor. Productivity growth rates also vary 

over longer periods that may span multiple cycles. For example, the growth rate in productivity 

was 2.7 percent over the 25-year period from 1948 to 1973, 1.2 percent over the 22-year period 

from 1973 to 1995, and 2.1 percent over the 14-year period from 1995 to 2010. Hence, it seems 

reasonable to analyze productivity growth rates over several economic cycles and long time 

spans, such as the latest 50-year period from 1960 to 2010, or even longer periods. 5 

However, setting the ultimate long-range assumption for the annual rate of increase in 

productivity to its average value over some long-range historical period has its limitations. First, 

the NIPA data are less reliable in earlier periods.6 BEA began measuring income in the mid1930s, and output in the early to mid-1940s.7

 It then “backcasted” both measures to 1929. Based 

on conversations with BEA analysts, the agency did not introduce the more modern methods of 

sampling, collecting, and processing of data until 1948, and did not simultaneously collect and 

balance income and output data until the early 1950s. Consequently, it seems reasonable to limit 

the use of historical data to the last forty to fifty years. Compound annual rates of growth for 

total-economy labor productivity for approximately the past five decades are shown in Table 1.4. 

A second important limitation derives from the fact that a significant portion of the total 

historical average annual rate of increase in total-economy productivity is due to shifts in 

workers from relatively low- to high-productivity jobs. For example, over the 50-year period 

from 1960 to 2010, the ratio of agricultural to total-economy hours worked declined from about 

0.076 to 0.016, and the ratio of agricultural to total nominal GDP declined from about 0.035 to 

0.009. Meanwhile, the average level of productivity for agricultural workers in 2010 was about 

50 percent of the average level of productivity for all other workers. 

This shift complicates the consideration of historical experience. The assumed ultimate longrange value for the annual rate of increase in total-economy productivity should be consistent 

with the average value over a long-range historical period with adjustment for differences 

between conditions of the past and conditions expected for the future. The average long-range 

historical value is inflated due to sectoral shifts in employment that are not expected to continue 

into the future.8

 This problem can be resolved by removing the effects of sectoral shifts in 

employment from the historical record or, more simply, by setting the ultimate long-range value 

for the annual rate of increase in total-economy productivity to a weighted average of the 

 

 5 Ferguson, Roger W. and William L. Wascher. “Distinguished Lecture on Economics in Government: 

Lessons from Past Productivity Booms,” Journal of Economic Perspectives. Volume 18, Number 2 (Spring 2004), 

pp. 3-28. 

 6

 The reliability of NIPA data for the most recent years is also questionable, since they are subject to the 

greatest number of revisions. 

 7

 BEA, “GDP: One of the Great Inventions of the 20th Century,” Survey of Current Business, January 

2000, p. 7. 

 8

 For example, the 0.06 decline (i.e., from 0.076 to 0.016) in the ratio of agriculture to total-economy hours 

worked over the last fifty years can’t be repeated in the future since the level of the ratio in 2010 is 0.016. 
Productivity, Page 5 

expected ultimate long-range values for the annual rate of increase in productivity for each 

sector. 

1.3.1 Sector Productivity Growth Rates 

1.3.1.1 Nonfarm Business (NFB) 

The average annual growth rate in NFB productivity was 2.55 percent over the last economic 

cycle (i.e., a 7-year period from 2000 to 2007), and 2.27 percent over the last two economic 

cycles (18-year period from 1989 to 2007). These relatively high growth rates reflect the heavy 

influence of the post-1995 “new economy” characterized by rapid improvements in computers 

and their assimilation into the economy. 

Looking at longer periods, the average annual growth rate in NFB productivity was 1.87 percent 

over the last three economic cycles (29-year period from 1978 to 2007), 1.81 percent over the 

last four economic cycles (34-year period from 1973 to 2007), and 1.92 percent over the last five 

economic cycles (41-year period from 1966 to 2007). These productivity growth rates include 

the effects of a relatively low growth rate period from 1973 to 1995. This slowdown has been 

attributed to a shift in employment from relatively high-productivity manufacturing jobs to 

low-productivity service jobs, and to the influx of new unskilled baby-boomers into the 

workforce. Historical compound annual rates of growth in labor productivity for the nonfarm 

business sector are shown in Table 1.5. 

On balance, OCACT believes that the 1.92 percent average annual growth rate for NFB 

productivity over the last five economic cycles (1966 to 2007) is somewhat below the most 

reasonable assumption for the ultimate growth rate. Although the evidence for faster productivity 

growth from the last two economic cycles is still unclear (for example, the average annual 

growth rate in NFB productivity was only 1.68 percent over the 4-year period from 2003 to 

2007), OCACT believes that somewhat greater weight should be placed on more recent 

experience to the degree that it better reflects the conditions expected generally for the future. 

Thus, OCACT believes it is reasonable to assume an ultimate rate of increase in NFB 

productivity of 2.03 percent.9

1.3.1.2 Farm 

The average annual growth rate in farm productivity was about 5.05 percent from 1960 to 2010. 

OCACT believes that a significant portion of the relatively high growth rate in farm productivity 

was due to a shift in farm operation and ownership from smaller farms run by the self-employed 

to more efficient larger farms run by corporations. For example, based on BLS’ Current 

Population Survey (CPS) data, the ratio of self-employed to all workers in the agricultural sector 

fell from about 0.51 in 1960 to 0.37 in 2010. For the long-range future, this shift is expected to 

 

 9

 This average annual growth rate of 2.03 percent includes a 0.03 percentage point adjustment to recognize 

that the productivity growth rate in the pre-1978 period would have been higher had the CPI been constructed using 

today’s definition (see Appendix 1). 
Productivity, Page 6 

slow and the difference in the productivity growth rates between the farm and nonfarm sectors is 

expected to decline to zero. Thus, OCACT believes it reasonable to set the assumed ultimate 

average annual growth rate in farm productivity to 2.03 percent, or equal to the assumed ultimate 

average annual growth rate in NFB productivity. 

1.3.1.3 Nonprofit Institutions (NI) 

The average annual rate of increase in NI productivity was 0.97 percent over the 25-year period 

from 1960 to 1985, 0.04 percent over the 25-year period from 1985 to 2010, and 0.50 percent 

over the combined 50-year period from 1960 to 2010. OCACT believes that these positive values 

in the growth rates in NI productivity, and the declining values over time, are due to shifts in 

employment within the NI sector. 

In the NIPA, NI labor compensation accounts for about 86 percent of NI nominal GDP. NI 

compensation is summed from five subsectors including education, health, social, religious, and 

business services. For each subsector, the level of real output is defined as the product of the 

level of average compensation per hour in a base year (presently 2005) and the level of hours 

worked. This means that the level of productivity in each subsector is a constant (i.e., the average 

compensation per hour in a base year), and that the growth rate in productivity in each sector is 

zero. However, this also means that the level of productivity for the total NI sector is a weighted 

average of the levels of productivity in the subsectors, and that the growth rate in total NI 

productivity may be positive (or negative), due to shifts in employment from sectors with 

relatively low (high) average compensation to sectors with relatively high (low) compensation. 

In fact, BEA data indicate that the average annual compensation in health services in 2010 is 

higher than the average annual compensation in other service sectors, and that the growth in 

employment in health services over the 25-year period from 1960 to 1985 is higher than the 

growth in employment in other service sectors. The NIPA include data on compensation and 

full-time equivalent employment in health care, educational services, and social assistance.10

These three sectors are mostly composed of NI workers.11 The data show that the level of 

average annual compensation for full-time equivalent employment in 2010 was $64,200, 

$49,300, and $32,900 in health care, educational services, and social assistance, respectively. 

The data also show that the ratio of full-time equivalent employment in the health sector to the 

total for all three sectors rose from about 0.45 in 1960 to 0.61 in 1985, and remained relatively 

constant thereafter. 

Thus, the data indicate that the relative increase in employment in health services significantly 

contributed to the average annual rate of increase in NI productivity of 0.97 percent over the 25-

 

 10 BEA, NIPA, Tables 6.2B through 6.2D and Tables 6.5B through 6.5D. 

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N#S6 

 11 BEA, “Income and Outlays of Households and of Nonprofit Institutions Serving Households,” Survey of 

Current Business, April 2003, p. 14. 

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2003/04april/0403household.pdf 
Productivity, Page 7 

year period from 1960 to 1985. The data also indicate that the subsequent relative stability in the 

growth rates in employment across NI subsectors significantly contributed to the decline in the 

NI productivity growth rate to 0.04 percent over the 25-year period from 1985 to 2010. In the 

future, it seems reasonable to assume that this historical trend in employment will continue, and 

that the ultimate long-range growth rates in employment in the NI subsectors will be roughly 

equal.12 Thus, OCACT believes it reasonable to set the assumed ultimate long-range growth rate 

in NI productivity to zero. 

1.3.1.4 General Government (GOV) 

The average annual rate of increase in GOV productivity was approximately zero over the 25-

year period from 1960 to 1985 and 0.06 percent over the 25-year period from 1985 to 2010. 

OCACT believes that these relatively small growth rates in GOV productivity are due to shifts in 

employment within the GOV sector. 

GOV labor compensation accounts for about 85 percent of GOV nominal GDP. GOV 

compensation is summed from three primary subsectors: federal civilian, federal military, and 

state and local government. As with the NI subsector, the level of productivity in each subsector 

is a constant (i.e., the average compensation per hour in a base year), and the growth rate in 

productivity in each sector is zero. However, this also means that the level of productivity for the 

total GOV sector is a weighted average of the levels of productivity in the subsectors, and that 

the growth rate in total GOV productivity may be positive (negative), due to shifts in 

employment from sectors with relatively low (high) average compensation to sectors with 

relatively high (low) compensation.13 

OCACT believes that the relatively small, positive growth rate in GOV productivity is due to 

shifts in employment among and within the subsectors. For example, it may be due to a changing 

distribution of employment by grade level related to the aging of the federal civilian workforce, 

or to a shift from a draft to a volunteer army. If so, in the future, the growth rate in GOV 

productivity could be negative, reflecting a reversal of historical trends. For the future, however, 

it seems reasonable to assume that the ultimate long-range growth rates in employment in the 

GOV subsectors will be about equal and that the ultimate long-range growth rate in GOV 

productivity will be zero. 

1.3.1.5 Households 

In the NIPA, nominal GDP in the household sector is the sum of the nominal compensation of 

private household workers and the nominal imputed output of owner-occupied housing (IOH). In 

2010, the nominal compensation of private household workers made up only about 2.0 percent of 

 

 12Given that the overall assumptions reflect a continued growth in the health sector as a percent of GDP, 

this faster growth is assumed to occur in the for-profit sector of the economy. 

 13 BEA, “Government Transactions, Methodology Papers: U.S. National Income and Product Accounts,” 

September 2005, http://www.bea.gov/national/pdf/mp5.pdf 
Productivity, Page 8 

the total nominal GDP in the household sector. Though this component is relatively small, it is 

useful to analyze each component of GDP in the household sector. 

Compensation of Household Workers - As with NI and GOV compensation sectors, BEA sets 

the growth rate in real GDP equal to the growth rate in hours worked. Hence, the growth rate in 

productivity is, by definition, zero. 

Imputed Output of Owner-Occupied Housing (IOH) - Renters of apartments and homes pay rent 

and receive streams of housing services. BEA includes these business transactions in the NIPA. 

Though the owners of homes pay no rent and have no business transactions, they receive similar 

streams of housing services. Hence, for consistency, BEA estimates the real and nominal values 

of housing services received by those who own their own homes (i.e., real and nominal IOH) and 

includes these amounts in the NIPA. 

BEA’s inclusion of real IOH creates a problem. Since real IOH has no associated measure of 

labor hours worked, how is it included when estimating historical and projecting future growth 

rates in sector and total-economy productivity? There are two approaches in handling real IOH in 

projections of total-economy productivity for the long-range. 

First, total real GDP could be projected as the sum of projections for real IOH and real GDP less 

IOH. Real GDP less IOH would be the product of the total-economy-less-IOH productivity and 

total hours worked. The ultimate average annual growth rate in total-economy-less-IOH 

productivity could be set to the weighted average of the assumed ultimate average annual growth 

rates in sector productivity.14 Real IOH could be projected as a fixed ratio to total real GDP less 

IOH. 15 Total-economy productivity could then be constructed as the ratio of the sum of real IOH 

and real GDP less IOH to total hours worked. 

As a second and equivalent approach, household productivity could be defined as the sum of real 

IOH and real output of private household workers to the total hours worked of private household 

workers (as in Table 1.2). Using this definition, the average annual rate of increase in 

productivity for private household workers over the 50-year period from 1960 to 2010 was about 

4.93 percent. In the future, however, the average annual growth rate in productivity for private 

household workers is expected to be much lower. In fact, it is expected to equal the average 

annual growth rate of total-economy-less-IOH productivity, as described in the first approach.16

 14 Sector weights would be defined as the ratio of sector to total nominal GDP less IOH. 

15 Over the 30-year period from 1980 to 2010, the ratio of real IOH to real GDP less IOH has been mostly 

constant and averaged 0.07. 

16 If, 

Pph = Real IOH / Hph 

Pxph = Real GDP less IOH / Hxph 

 Then, 

 . . . 

 Pph = Real IOH – Hph 
Productivity, Page 9 

The ultimate average annual growth rate in total-economy productivity could be set to the 

weighted average of the assumed ultimate average annual growth rates in sector productivity.17

Finally, total real GDP would be the product of total-economy productivity and hours worked.

1.3.2 Total-Economy Productivity Growth Rate 

The assumed ultimate growth rate in total-economy productivity is equal to a weighted average 

of the growth rates in sector productivity and employment (see Appendix 1). This relationship is 

simplified by assuming that the ultimate long-range growth rate in employment in all sectors of 

the economy will be about equal, and that the ultimate long-range growth rates in productivity 

for the nonprofit institution, and general government sectors will be zero. Given these 

assumptions, the ultimate long-range growth rate in total-economy productivity is equal to the 

weighted average of the ultimate long-range growth rates in productivity in the farm, nonfarm 

business, and household sectors of the economy. 

Sector weights are defined as the ratio of sector to total nominal GDP. This “nominal output” 

weight for the farm sector declined from about 0.035 in 1960 to 0.009 in 2010, and has averaged 

about 0.008 over the last business cycle from 2000 to 2007. The nominal output weight for the 

nonfarm business sector was much more stable. It averaged 0.759 over the 25-year period from 

1961 to 1985, 0.756 over the 25-year period from 1986 to 2010, and 0.757 over the last business 

cycle. For the future, OCACT believes the ultimate long-range values for the nominal output 

weights will remain at 0.76 for the nonfarm business sector and 0.01 for the farm sector. 

The nominal weight for the household sector rose from about 0.053 in 1978 to 0.071 in 2010. As 

mentioned, the increase in the weight occurred because the GDP deflator for IOH grew faster 

than the GDP deflator for all other goods over the period. In the future, OCACT expects the 

GDP deflator for IOH will grow at about the same rate as the GDP deflator for all other goods 

and that therefore the nominal weight for the household sector should stabilize at its recent 

historical value of 0.07. 

 . . . 

 Pxph = Real GDP less IOH – Hxph 

Assuming, 

 . . 

 Real IOH = Real GDP less IOH 

 . . 

 Hph = Hxph 

Then, 

 . . 

 Pph = Pxph 

Where, 

 Pph = Productivity, private household 

 Pxph = Productivity, total economy less private household 

 Hph = Hours worked, private household 

 Hxph = Hours worked, total economy less private household 

 .

 Y = Percent Change in Y 

17 In this second approach, sector weights would be defined as the ratio of sector to total nominal GDP.
Productivity, Page 10 

Sector weights can also be defined as the ratio of sector to total nominal GDP excluding IOH. In 

this case, the ultimate long-range values for the nominal output weights will be 0.0108 (i.e., 0.01 

/ (1.0 – 0.07)) for the farm sector, and 0.8172 (i.e., 0.76 / (1.0 – 0.07)) for the nonfarm sector. 

This analysis suggests that the long-range future growth rate in productivity for the total 

economy excluding IOH will be about 1.68 percent (i.e., 2.03*(0.8172+0.0108)). It also suggests 

that the long-range future growth rate in productivity for the total economy including IOH will 

be about 1.68 percent (i.e., 2.03 * (0.76 + 0.01) + 1.68 * 0.07). Thus, for the 2012 Trustees 

Report, the Trustees set the ultimate annual rates of increase in total-economy productivity to 

1.98 percent, 1.68 percent, and 1.38 percent for alternatives I, II, and III, respectively. These 

rates of increase are the same as those used in the 2011 Trustees Report.

1.4 Projections from Other Forecasters 

Global Insight, Inc. includes projections through 2041 in its latest long-run trend forecast (see

August 2011 30-year Baseline Annual Forecast). Over the 20-year period from 2021 to 2041, 

Global Insight, Inc. projects that the average annual rate of increase in productivity will be about 

2.1 percent for the nonfarm business sector and 1.9 percent for the total economy. 

Macroeconomic Advisers latest published long-run forecast (Long-Term Economic Outlook, 

Third Quarter, 2011) through 2021. For 2020 and 2021, it projects average annual growth rates 

in productivity of about 2.1 percent for the nonfarm business sector and 1.8 percent for the total 

economy. Moody’s Analytics’ September 2011 forecast extends to 2041. For the 20-year period 

from 2021 to 2041, Moody’s Analytics projects the average annual growth rate in productivity 

will be about 1.6 percent for the nonfarm business sector and 1.3 percent for the total economy. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Mid-Session Review of the Fiscal Year 2012 

Budget includes projections through 2021. The OMB annual growth rate for the total-economy 

productivity was 1.8 percent for 2019, 2020, and 2021. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 

MAD Forecast, August 2011, includes projections through 2021. CBO’s annual growth rate for 

total-economy productivity was 1.7 percent for 2020 and 2021. The Social Security Advisory 

Board’s 2011 Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods recommended assuming an ultimate 

(i.e., long-range average) annual rate of increase in total-economy productivity of 1.7 percent for 

alternative II. 
Productivity, Page 11 

Table 1.4. Total-Economy Productivity: Compound Annual Rates of Growth (%) (Index of Output per Hour in the Total Economy, base year = 2005

From

To Variable 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 

1951 33.941952 34.89 2.801953 36.08 3.12 3.441954 36.94 2.87 2.90 2.371955 38.33 3.09 3.19 3.07 3.781956 38.45 2.53 2.46 2.14 2.03 0.311957 39.58 2.60 2.56 2.34 2.33 1.62 2.941958 40.65 2.61 2.58 2.41 2.42 1.97 2.82 2.691959 42.03 2.71 2.70 2.57 2.62 2.33 3.01 3.04 3.401960 42.76 2.60 2.58 2.46 2.47 2.21 2.69 2.61 2.57 1.751961 44.06 2.65 2.63 2.53 2.55 2.35 2.76 2.71 2.72 2.39 3.031962 45.58 2.72 2.71 2.63 2.66 2.51 2.88 2.86 2.91 2.74 3.24 3.461963 47.20 2.79 2.79 2.72 2.76 2.63 2.97 2.98 3.03 2.94 3.35 3.50 3.551964 48.67 2.81 2.81 2.76 2.80 2.69 2.99 3.00 3.05 2.98 3.29 3.37 3.33 3.111965 50.07 2.82 2.82 2.77 2.80 2.71 2.98 2.98 3.02 2.96 3.21 3.25 3.18 3.00 2.881966 51.53 2.82 2.83 2.78 2.81 2.73 2.97 2.97 3.01 2.95 3.16 3.18 3.11 2.97 2.90 2.921967 52.26 2.73 2.73 2.68 2.70 2.62 2.83 2.82 2.83 2.76 2.91 2.88 2.77 2.58 2.40 2.16 1968 53.81 2.75 2.75 2.70 2.72 2.64 2.84 2.83 2.85 2.78 2.91 2.90 2.80 2.66 2.54 2.43 1969 54.17 2.63 2.62 2.57 2.58 2.50 2.67 2.65 2.64 2.57 2.66 2.62 2.49 2.32 2.16 1.99 1970 55.24 2.60 2.59 2.54 2.55 2.47 2.62 2.60 2.59 2.52 2.59 2.54 2.43 2.27 2.13 1.98 1971 57.34 2.66 2.65 2.61 2.62 2.55 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.62 2.70 2.67 2.58 2.46 2.37 2.29 1972 58.77 2.65 2.64 2.60 2.61 2.55 2.69 2.67 2.67 2.61 2.68 2.65 2.57 2.47 2.39 2.31 1973 60.25 2.64 2.64 2.60 2.61 2.54 2.68 2.66 2.66 2.61 2.67 2.64 2.57 2.47 2.40 2.34 1974 59.70 2.49 2.47 2.43 2.43 2.36 2.47 2.45 2.43 2.37 2.41 2.36 2.27 2.16 2.06 1.97 1975 61.33 2.50 2.48 2.44 2.44 2.38 2.49 2.46 2.45 2.39 2.43 2.39 2.31 2.21 2.12 2.05 1976 62.80 2.49 2.48 2.44 2.44 2.38 2.48 2.46 2.45 2.39 2.43 2.39 2.31 2.22 2.15 2.08 1977 63.45 2.44 2.42 2.38 2.38 2.32 2.41 2.39 2.37 2.31 2.35 2.31 2.23 2.14 2.06 1.99 1978 63.98 2.38 2.36 2.32 2.32 2.25 2.34 2.31 2.29 2.24 2.26 2.22 2.14 2.05 1.97 1.90 1979 64.24 2.31 2.29 2.24 2.24 2.17 2.26 2.23 2.20 2.14 2.17 2.12 2.04 1.95 1.87 1.80 1980 64.25 2.23 2.20 2.16 2.15 2.09 2.16 2.13 2.10 2.04 2.06 2.01 1.92 1.83 1.75 1.68 1981 65.74 2.23 2.21 2.17 2.16 2.10 2.17 2.14 2.11 2.05 2.07 2.02 1.95 1.86 1.78 1.72 1982 65.44 2.14 2.12 2.07 2.06 2.00 2.07 2.03 2.00 1.94 1.95 1.90 1.82 1.73 1.66 1.59 1983 67.19 2.16 2.14 2.09 2.08 2.02 2.09 2.06 2.03 1.97 1.98 1.94 1.86 1.78 1.71 1.65 1984 68.56 2.15 2.13 2.09 2.08 2.02 2.09 2.06 2.03 1.98 1.99 1.94 1.87 1.79 1.73 1.67 1985 69.80 2.14 2.12 2.08 2.07 2.02 2.08 2.05 2.02 1.97 1.98 1.94 1.87 1.79 1.73 1.67 1986 71.38 2.15 2.13 2.09 2.08 2.03 2.08 2.05 2.03 1.98 1.99 1.95 1.89 1.81 1.76 1.70 1987 71.72 2.10 2.08 2.04 2.03 1.98 2.03 2.00 1.98 1.93 1.93 1.89 1.83 1.76 1.70 1.65 1988 72.50 2.07 2.05 2.01 2.00 1.95 2.00 1.97 1.95 1.90 1.90 1.86 1.80 1.73 1.67 1.62 1989 73.07 2.04 2.02 1.98 1.97 1.92 1.96 1.93 1.91 1.86 1.86 1.82 1.76 1.70 1.64 1.59 1990 74.32 2.03 2.01 1.97 1.96 1.91 1.96 1.93 1.90 1.86 1.86 1.82 1.76 1.70 1.64 1.59 1991 75.21 2.01 1.99 1.95 1.94 1.89 1.94 1.91 1.88 1.84 1.84 1.80 1.74 1.68 1.63 1.58 1992 77.70 2.04 2.02 1.99 1.98 1.93 1.97 1.95 1.92 1.88 1.88 1.85 1.79 1.73 1.68 1.64 1993 78.09 2.00 1.98 1.95 1.94 1.89 1.93 1.91 1.88 1.84 1.84 1.80 1.75 1.69 1.64 1.60 1994 78.80 1.98 1.96 1.92 1.91 1.86 1.91 1.88 1.86 1.81 1.81 1.78 1.73 1.67 1.62 1.58 1995 78.84 1.93 1.91 1.88 1.87 1.82 1.86 1.83 1.81 1.76 1.76 1.73 1.67 1.62 1.57 1.52 1996 80.78 1.95 1.93 1.89 1.88 1.83 1.87 1.85 1.82 1.78 1.78 1.75 1.70 1.64 1.60 1.55 1997 81.98 1.94 1.92 1.88 1.87 1.83 1.86 1.84 1.82 1.77 1.77 1.74 1.69 1.64 1.59 1.55 1998 83.75 1.94 1.92 1.89 1.88 1.83 1.87 1.84 1.82 1.78 1.78 1.75 1.70 1.65 1.61 1.57 1999 86.10 1.96 1.94 1.91 1.90 1.86 1.89 1.87 1.85 1.81 1.81 1.78 1.73 1.68 1.64 1.61 2000 88.49 1.98 1.96 1.93 1.92 1.88 1.91 1.89 1.87 1.83 1.83 1.80 1.76 1.71 1.67 1.64 2001 90.55 1.98 1.97 1.94 1.93 1.89 1.92 1.90 1.88 1.84 1.85 1.82 1.78 1.73 1.69 1.66 2002 93.41 2.01 1.99 1.96 1.95 1.91 1.95 1.93 1.91 1.87 1.88 1.85 1.81 1.77 1.73 1.70 2003 96.28 2.03 2.01 1.98 1.97 1.94 1.97 1.95 1.93 1.90 1.91 1.88 1.84 1.80 1.76 1.74 2004 98.51 2.03 2.02 1.99 1.98 1.94 1.98 1.96 1.94 1.91 1.91 1.89 1.85 1.81 1.78 1.75 2005 100.00 2.02 2.01 1.98 1.97 1.94 1.97 1.95 1.93 1.90 1.91 1.88 1.84 1.80 1.77 1.74 2006 100.82 2.00 1.98 1.96 1.95 1.91 1.95 1.93 1.91 1.88 1.88 1.86 1.82 1.78 1.75 1.72 2007 102.04 1.99 1.97 1.94 1.94 1.90 1.93 1.91 1.90 1.86 1.87 1.84 1.81 1.77 1.74 1.71 2008 102.80 1.96 1.95 1.92 1.91 1.88 1.91 1.89 1.87 1.84 1.84 1.82 1.78 1.74 1.71 1.69 2009 105.00 1.97 1.95 1.93 1.92 1.88 1.91 1.89 1.88 1.85 1.85 1.83 1.79 1.75 1.72 1.70 2010 108.22 1.99 1.97 1.95 1.94 1.90 1.93 1.92 1.90 1.87 1.87 1.85 1.82 1.78 1.75 1.73 
Productivity, Page 12 

Table 1.4. Total-Economy Productivity: Compound Annual Rates of Growth (%) (continued)

From

To Variable 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 

1970 55.241971 57.34 3.811972 58.77 3.15 2.491973 60.25 2.94 2.50 2.521974 59.70 1.96 1.35 0.79 -0.911975 61.33 2.11 1.69 1.43 0.89 2.731976 62.80 2.16 1.83 1.67 1.39 2.57 2.401977 63.45 2.00 1.70 1.55 1.30 2.06 1.72 1.041978 63.98 1.85 1.58 1.43 1.21 1.75 1.42 0.94 0.831979 64.24 1.69 1.43 1.28 1.08 1.48 1.17 0.76 0.62 0.411980 64.25 1.52 1.27 1.12 0.92 1.23 0.93 0.57 0.41 0.21 0.001981 65.74 1.60 1.38 1.25 1.10 1.39 1.16 0.92 0.89 0.91 1.16 2.321982 65.44 1.42 1.21 1.08 0.92 1.15 0.93 0.69 0.62 0.56 0.62 0.92 -0.461983 67.19 1.52 1.33 1.22 1.10 1.32 1.15 0.97 0.96 0.98 1.13 1.50 1.10 2.671984 68.56 1.56 1.38 1.29 1.18 1.39 1.25 1.10 1.11 1.16 1.31 1.64 1.41 2.36 2.041985 69.80 1.57 1.41 1.33 1.23 1.43 1.30 1.18 1.20 1.25 1.39 1.67 1.51 2.17 1.92 1.811986 71.38 1.62 1.47 1.40 1.31 1.50 1.39 1.29 1.32 1.38 1.52 1.77 1.66 2.20 2.04 2.04 2.271987 71.72 1.55 1.41 1.34 1.25 1.42 1.31 1.21 1.23 1.28 1.39 1.58 1.46 1.85 1.65 1.51 1.37 1988 72.50 1.52 1.39 1.32 1.24 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.22 1.26 1.35 1.52 1.41 1.72 1.53 1.41 1.28 1989 73.07 1.48 1.36 1.29 1.21 1.36 1.26 1.17 1.18 1.22 1.30 1.44 1.33 1.59 1.41 1.28 1.15 1990 74.32 1.49 1.37 1.31 1.24 1.38 1.29 1.21 1.22 1.26 1.33 1.47 1.37 1.60 1.45 1.35 1.26 1991 75.21 1.48 1.37 1.31 1.24 1.37 1.28 1.21 1.22 1.25 1.32 1.44 1.35 1.56 1.42 1.33 1.25 1992 77.70 1.56 1.46 1.41 1.35 1.47 1.40 1.34 1.36 1.40 1.47 1.60 1.53 1.73 1.63 1.58 1.54 1993 78.09 1.52 1.41 1.36 1.31 1.42 1.35 1.29 1.31 1.34 1.40 1.51 1.44 1.62 1.51 1.46 1.41 1994 78.80 1.49 1.39 1.34 1.29 1.40 1.33 1.27 1.28 1.31 1.37 1.47 1.40 1.56 1.46 1.40 1.36 1995 78.84 1.43 1.34 1.29 1.23 1.33 1.26 1.20 1.21 1.24 1.29 1.37 1.31 1.44 1.34 1.28 1.23 1996 80.78 1.47 1.38 1.33 1.28 1.38 1.32 1.27 1.28 1.30 1.36 1.44 1.38 1.52 1.43 1.38 1.34 1997 81.98 1.47 1.38 1.34 1.29 1.39 1.33 1.28 1.29 1.31 1.36 1.44 1.39 1.51 1.43 1.38 1.35 1998 83.75 1.50 1.41 1.37 1.33 1.42 1.36 1.32 1.33 1.36 1.41 1.48 1.43 1.55 1.48 1.44 1.41 1999 86.10 1.54 1.46 1.42 1.38 1.48 1.42 1.38 1.40 1.42 1.48 1.55 1.51 1.63 1.56 1.53 1.51 2000 88.49 1.58 1.51 1.47 1.43 1.53 1.48 1.44 1.46 1.48 1.54 1.61 1.58 1.69 1.63 1.61 1.59 2001 90.55 1.61 1.53 1.50 1.47 1.56 1.51 1.47 1.49 1.52 1.57 1.65 1.61 1.72 1.67 1.65 1.64 2002 93.41 1.66 1.59 1.56 1.52 1.61 1.57 1.54 1.56 1.59 1.64 1.72 1.69 1.80 1.75 1.73 1.73 2003 96.28 1.70 1.63 1.61 1.58 1.66 1.62 1.60 1.62 1.65 1.70 1.77 1.75 1.86 1.82 1.80 1.80 2004 98.51 1.72 1.65 1.63 1.60 1.68 1.65 1.62 1.64 1.67 1.72 1.80 1.77 1.88 1.84 1.83 1.83 2005 100.00 1.71 1.65 1.62 1.60 1.68 1.64 1.62 1.64 1.67 1.72 1.79 1.76 1.86 1.82 1.81 1.81 2006 100.82 1.69 1.63 1.60 1.57 1.65 1.62 1.59 1.61 1.64 1.68 1.75 1.73 1.82 1.78 1.77 1.77 2007 102.04 1.67 1.61 1.59 1.56 1.64 1.60 1.58 1.60 1.62 1.67 1.73 1.71 1.79 1.76 1.74 1.74 2008 102.80 1.65 1.59 1.57 1.54 1.61 1.58 1.55 1.57 1.59 1.63 1.69 1.67 1.75 1.72 1.70 1.70 2009 105.00 1.66 1.60 1.58 1.56 1.63 1.59 1.57 1.59 1.61 1.65 1.71 1.69 1.77 1.73 1.72 1.72 2010 108.22 1.70 1.64 1.62 1.60 1.67 1.64 1.61 1.63 1.66 1.70 1.75 1.73 1.81 1.78 1.77 1.77 

From

To Variable 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

1989 73.071990 74.32 1.701991 75.21 1.45 1.201992 77.70 2.07 2.25 3.311993 78.09 1.67 1.66 1.90 0.501994 78.80 1.52 1.47 1.57 0.71 0.921995 78.84 1.27 1.19 1.19 0.49 0.48 0.051996 80.78 1.44 1.40 1.44 0.98 1.14 1.25 2.461997 81.98 1.45 1.41 1.45 1.08 1.22 1.33 1.97 1.481998 83.75 1.53 1.50 1.55 1.26 1.41 1.53 2.03 1.82 2.161999 86.10 1.65 1.65 1.71 1.48 1.64 1.79 2.23 2.15 2.49 2.822000 88.49 1.76 1.76 1.82 1.64 1.80 1.95 2.34 2.30 2.58 2.79 2.772001 90.55 1.80 1.81 1.87 1.72 1.87 2.01 2.33 2.31 2.52 2.64 2.55 2.332002 93.41 1.91 1.92 1.99 1.86 2.01 2.15 2.45 2.45 2.64 2.77 2.75 2.74 3.162003 96.28 1.99 2.01 2.08 1.97 2.12 2.25 2.53 2.54 2.72 2.83 2.83 2.85 3.12 3.082004 98.51 2.01 2.03 2.10 2.00 2.14 2.26 2.51 2.51 2.66 2.74 2.73 2.72 2.85 2.70 2.322005 100.00 1.98 2.00 2.06 1.96 2.08 2.19 2.41 2.40 2.51 2.57 2.52 2.48 2.51 2.30 1.91 1.512006 100.82 1.91 1.92 1.97 1.88 1.98 2.07 2.26 2.24 2.32 2.35 2.28 2.20 2.17 1.93 1.55 1.16 2007 102.04 1.87 1.88 1.92 1.83 1.93 2.01 2.17 2.15 2.21 2.22 2.14 2.06 2.01 1.78 1.46 1.18 2008 102.80 1.81 1.82 1.86 1.77 1.85 1.92 2.06 2.03 2.08 2.07 1.99 1.89 1.83 1.61 1.32 1.07 2009 105.00 1.83 1.84 1.87 1.79 1.87 1.93 2.07 2.04 2.08 2.08 2.00 1.92 1.87 1.68 1.46 1.28 2010 108.22 1.89 1.90 1.93 1.86 1.94 2.00 2.13 2.11 2.16 2.16 2.10 2.03 2.00 1.86 1.68 1.58 
Productivity, Page 13 

Table 1.5. Productivity in the Nonfarm Business Sector: Compound Annual Rates of Growth (%) (Index of Output per Hour in the Nonfarm Busines

From

To Variable 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 

1951 31.681952 32.24 1.791953 32.98 2.04 2.281954 33.62 2.00 2.10 1.931955 35.04 2.56 2.81 3.08 4.241956 34.78 1.89 1.91 1.79 1.72 -0.741957 35.67 2.00 2.04 1.98 2.00 0.90 2.561958 36.47 2.03 2.07 2.03 2.06 1.34 2.40 2.231959 37.87 2.26 2.32 2.33 2.41 1.96 2.88 3.03 3.841960 38.31 2.14 2.18 2.16 2.20 1.80 2.45 2.41 2.50 1.171961 39.50 2.23 2.28 2.28 2.33 2.02 2.58 2.58 2.70 2.13 3.101962 41.29 2.44 2.50 2.53 2.60 2.37 2.90 2.97 3.15 2.92 3.81 4.531963 42.74 2.53 2.59 2.63 2.70 2.51 2.99 3.06 3.22 3.07 3.71 4.02 3.511964 43.99 2.56 2.62 2.65 2.73 2.56 2.98 3.04 3.18 3.04 3.52 3.65 3.22 2.931965 45.35 2.60 2.66 2.69 2.76 2.61 2.99 3.05 3.16 3.05 3.43 3.51 3.18 3.01 3.091966 46.97 2.66 2.72 2.76 2.83 2.70 3.05 3.10 3.21 3.12 3.45 3.52 3.27 3.20 3.33 3.571967 47.79 2.60 2.66 2.68 2.74 2.62 2.93 2.97 3.05 2.95 3.21 3.23 2.97 2.83 2.80 2.65 1968 49.42 2.65 2.71 2.73 2.79 2.68 2.97 3.01 3.09 3.00 3.23 3.25 3.04 2.95 2.95 2.91 1969 49.51 2.51 2.55 2.57 2.61 2.50 2.75 2.77 2.82 2.72 2.89 2.86 2.63 2.48 2.39 2.21 1970 50.25 2.46 2.50 2.51 2.54 2.43 2.66 2.67 2.71 2.60 2.75 2.71 2.48 2.34 2.24 2.07 1971 52.25 2.53 2.57 2.59 2.63 2.53 2.75 2.76 2.80 2.72 2.86 2.84 2.65 2.54 2.49 2.39 1972 53.99 2.57 2.61 2.63 2.67 2.57 2.79 2.80 2.84 2.76 2.90 2.88 2.72 2.63 2.59 2.52 1973 55.68 2.60 2.64 2.65 2.69 2.61 2.81 2.82 2.86 2.79 2.92 2.90 2.76 2.68 2.65 2.60 1974 54.79 2.41 2.44 2.45 2.47 2.38 2.56 2.56 2.58 2.49 2.59 2.55 2.39 2.28 2.22 2.12 1975 56.30 2.42 2.45 2.46 2.49 2.40 2.57 2.57 2.59 2.51 2.60 2.56 2.41 2.32 2.27 2.18 1976 58.17 2.46 2.49 2.50 2.52 2.44 2.61 2.61 2.63 2.56 2.64 2.61 2.48 2.40 2.36 2.29 1977 59.08 2.43 2.45 2.46 2.48 2.40 2.56 2.55 2.57 2.50 2.58 2.55 2.42 2.34 2.29 2.23 1978 59.86 2.38 2.41 2.41 2.43 2.36 2.50 2.50 2.51 2.44 2.51 2.48 2.35 2.27 2.22 2.16 1979 59.62 2.28 2.30 2.30 2.32 2.24 2.37 2.36 2.37 2.29 2.35 2.31 2.18 2.10 2.05 1.97 1980 59.46 2.20 2.21 2.21 2.22 2.14 2.26 2.25 2.25 2.17 2.22 2.18 2.05 1.96 1.90 1.82 1981 60.30 2.17 2.18 2.18 2.19 2.11 2.23 2.21 2.21 2.14 2.18 2.14 2.01 1.93 1.87 1.80 1982 59.66 2.06 2.07 2.06 2.07 1.99 2.10 2.08 2.07 2.00 2.03 1.98 1.86 1.77 1.71 1.63 1983 62.28 2.14 2.15 2.14 2.15 2.08 2.18 2.17 2.16 2.09 2.13 2.09 1.98 1.90 1.85 1.78 1984 63.53 2.13 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.07 2.18 2.16 2.16 2.09 2.13 2.09 1.98 1.91 1.85 1.79 1985 64.57 2.12 2.13 2.12 2.13 2.06 2.16 2.14 2.14 2.07 2.11 2.07 1.96 1.89 1.84 1.78 1986 66.56 2.14 2.15 2.15 2.16 2.09 2.19 2.17 2.17 2.11 2.15 2.11 2.01 1.94 1.90 1.84 1987 66.75 2.09 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.03 2.13 2.11 2.11 2.05 2.08 2.04 1.94 1.88 1.83 1.77 1988 67.85 2.08 2.09 2.08 2.09 2.02 2.11 2.10 2.09 2.03 2.06 2.02 1.93 1.87 1.82 1.77 1989 68.37 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 1.99 2.07 2.05 2.05 1.99 2.02 1.98 1.89 1.82 1.78 1.73 1990 69.63 2.04 2.05 2.04 2.04 1.98 2.06 2.05 2.04 1.98 2.01 1.97 1.88 1.82 1.78 1.73 1991 70.70 2.03 2.03 2.03 2.03 1.97 2.05 2.03 2.03 1.97 2.00 1.96 1.87 1.81 1.77 1.72 1992 73.53 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.02 2.10 2.09 2.08 2.03 2.06 2.02 1.94 1.89 1.85 1.81 1993 73.94 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 1.98 2.06 2.05 2.04 1.99 2.01 1.98 1.90 1.84 1.81 1.76 1994 74.70 2.01 2.02 2.01 2.02 1.96 2.03 2.02 2.01 1.96 1.98 1.95 1.87 1.82 1.78 1.74 1995 75.00 1.98 1.98 1.98 1.98 1.92 1.99 1.97 1.97 1.92 1.94 1.90 1.83 1.77 1.74 1.69 1996 76.94 1.99 2.00 1.99 1.99 1.94 2.00 1.99 1.98 1.93 1.96 1.92 1.85 1.80 1.76 1.72 1997 78.12 1.98 1.99 1.98 1.98 1.93 1.99 1.98 1.97 1.92 1.94 1.91 1.84 1.79 1.76 1.71 1998 80.41 2.00 2.01 2.00 2.00 1.95 2.02 2.00 2.00 1.95 1.97 1.94 1.87 1.82 1.79 1.75 1999 83.08 2.03 2.03 2.03 2.03 1.98 2.05 2.03 2.03 1.98 2.00 1.98 1.91 1.86 1.83 1.80 2000 85.90 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.01 2.08 2.06 2.06 2.02 2.04 2.01 1.95 1.90 1.88 1.84 2001 88.41 2.07 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.03 2.09 2.08 2.08 2.04 2.06 2.03 1.97 1.93 1.90 1.87 2002 92.45 2.12 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.09 2.15 2.14 2.14 2.10 2.12 2.10 2.04 2.00 1.97 1.94 2003 95.85 2.15 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.12 2.18 2.17 2.17 2.13 2.16 2.13 2.08 2.04 2.02 1.99 2004 98.39 2.16 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.13 2.19 2.18 2.18 2.14 2.17 2.14 2.09 2.05 2.03 2.01 2005 100.00 2.15 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.12 2.18 2.17 2.17 2.13 2.15 2.13 2.08 2.04 2.02 2.00 2006 100.89 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.14 2.10 2.15 2.14 2.14 2.11 2.13 2.11 2.05 2.02 2.00 1.97 2007 102.45 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.08 2.14 2.13 2.13 2.09 2.11 2.09 2.04 2.01 1.99 1.96 2008 103.11 2.09 2.10 2.09 2.10 2.06 2.11 2.10 2.10 2.07 2.08 2.06 2.01 1.98 1.95 1.93 2009 105.50 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.06 2.12 2.11 2.10 2.07 2.09 2.07 2.02 1.98 1.96 1.94 2010 109.85 2.13 2.14 2.13 2.14 2.10 2.15 2.14 2.14 2.11 2.13 2.11 2.06 2.03 2.01 1.99 
Productivity, Page 14 

Table 1.5. Productivity in the Nonfarm Business Sector: Compound Annual Rates of Growth (%) (continued) base year = 2005 

From

To Variable 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 

1970 50.251971 52.25 3.991972 53.99 3.65 3.321973 55.68 3.48 3.23 3.141974 54.79 2.19 1.59 0.74 -1.611975 56.30 2.30 1.88 1.41 0.55 2.751976 58.17 2.47 2.17 1.88 1.47 3.04 3.341977 59.08 2.34 2.07 1.82 1.49 2.55 2.45 1.561978 59.86 2.21 1.96 1.74 1.46 2.24 2.07 1.44 1.311979 59.62 1.92 1.66 1.43 1.14 1.70 1.44 0.82 0.45 -0.401980 59.46 1.70 1.45 1.21 0.94 1.37 1.10 0.55 0.21 -0.33 -0.271981 60.30 1.67 1.44 1.24 1.00 1.38 1.15 0.72 0.51 0.24 0.57 1.411982 59.66 1.44 1.21 1.00 0.77 1.07 0.83 0.42 0.19 -0.08 0.02 0.16 -1.061983 62.28 1.67 1.47 1.31 1.13 1.43 1.27 0.98 0.88 0.80 1.10 1.56 1.63 4.401984 63.53 1.69 1.52 1.37 1.21 1.49 1.35 1.11 1.04 1.00 1.28 1.67 1.76 3.20 2.011985 64.57 1.69 1.52 1.39 1.24 1.50 1.38 1.17 1.12 1.09 1.34 1.66 1.73 2.67 1.82 1.631986 66.56 1.77 1.63 1.51 1.38 1.63 1.53 1.36 1.33 1.34 1.59 1.90 2.00 2.78 2.24 2.35 3.081987 66.75 1.69 1.54 1.43 1.30 1.53 1.43 1.26 1.23 1.22 1.42 1.67 1.71 2.27 1.75 1.66 1.68 1988 67.85 1.68 1.55 1.44 1.33 1.54 1.45 1.29 1.27 1.26 1.45 1.66 1.70 2.17 1.73 1.66 1.67 1989 68.37 1.63 1.51 1.40 1.29 1.49 1.40 1.25 1.22 1.22 1.38 1.56 1.58 1.97 1.57 1.48 1.44 1990 69.63 1.64 1.52 1.42 1.32 1.51 1.43 1.29 1.27 1.27 1.42 1.59 1.61 1.95 1.61 1.54 1.52 1991 70.70 1.64 1.52 1.43 1.34 1.51 1.43 1.31 1.29 1.29 1.43 1.59 1.61 1.91 1.60 1.54 1.52 1992 73.53 1.75 1.64 1.56 1.47 1.65 1.58 1.47 1.47 1.48 1.63 1.79 1.82 2.11 1.86 1.84 1.87 1993 73.94 1.69 1.59 1.51 1.43 1.59 1.53 1.42 1.41 1.42 1.55 1.69 1.71 1.97 1.73 1.70 1.71 1994 74.70 1.67 1.57 1.49 1.41 1.56 1.50 1.40 1.39 1.39 1.51 1.64 1.66 1.89 1.67 1.63 1.63 1995 75.00 1.62 1.52 1.44 1.36 1.51 1.44 1.35 1.33 1.34 1.45 1.56 1.57 1.78 1.56 1.52 1.51 1996 76.94 1.65 1.56 1.49 1.42 1.56 1.50 1.41 1.40 1.40 1.51 1.62 1.64 1.83 1.64 1.61 1.61 1997 78.12 1.65 1.56 1.49 1.42 1.55 1.50 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.51 1.62 1.63 1.81 1.63 1.60 1.60 1998 80.41 1.69 1.61 1.54 1.48 1.61 1.56 1.48 1.48 1.49 1.59 1.69 1.71 1.88 1.72 1.70 1.70 1999 83.08 1.75 1.67 1.61 1.55 1.68 1.63 1.56 1.56 1.57 1.67 1.78 1.80 1.97 1.82 1.80 1.82 2000 85.90 1.80 1.73 1.67 1.62 1.74 1.70 1.64 1.64 1.66 1.75 1.86 1.88 2.05 1.91 1.90 1.92 2001 88.41 1.84 1.77 1.72 1.66 1.79 1.75 1.69 1.69 1.71 1.81 1.91 1.93 2.09 1.97 1.96 1.98 2002 92.45 1.92 1.86 1.81 1.76 1.89 1.85 1.80 1.81 1.83 1.93 2.03 2.06 2.21 2.10 2.11 2.13 2003 95.85 1.98 1.91 1.87 1.83 1.95 1.92 1.87 1.88 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.13 2.28 2.18 2.19 2.22 2004 98.39 2.00 1.94 1.89 1.85 1.97 1.94 1.89 1.91 1.93 2.02 2.12 2.15 2.30 2.20 2.21 2.24 2005 100.00 1.99 1.93 1.89 1.85 1.96 1.93 1.89 1.90 1.92 2.01 2.10 2.13 2.27 2.18 2.18 2.21 2006 100.89 1.96 1.90 1.86 1.82 1.93 1.90 1.85 1.86 1.88 1.97 2.05 2.08 2.21 2.12 2.12 2.15 2007 102.45 1.94 1.89 1.85 1.81 1.91 1.89 1.84 1.85 1.87 1.95 2.04 2.06 2.19 2.10 2.10 2.12 2008 103.11 1.91 1.85 1.81 1.78 1.88 1.85 1.80 1.81 1.83 1.91 1.99 2.01 2.13 2.04 2.04 2.06 2009 105.50 1.92 1.87 1.83 1.79 1.89 1.86 1.82 1.83 1.85 1.92 2.00 2.02 2.13 2.05 2.05 2.07 2010 109.85 1.97 1.92 1.89 1.85 1.95 1.93 1.89 1.90 1.92 1.99 2.07 2.09 2.20 2.12 2.13 2.15 

From

To Variable 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

1989 68.371990 69.63 1.841991 70.70 1.69 1.541992 73.53 2.45 2.76 4.001993 73.94 1.98 2.02 2.26 0.551994 74.70 1.78 1.77 1.85 0.79 1.031995 75.00 1.55 1.50 1.49 0.66 0.72 0.411996 76.94 1.70 1.68 1.70 1.14 1.34 1.49 2.581997 78.12 1.68 1.66 1.68 1.22 1.38 1.50 2.06 1.531998 80.41 1.82 1.82 1.86 1.50 1.69 1.86 2.35 2.23 2.941999 83.08 1.97 1.98 2.04 1.76 1.96 2.15 2.59 2.59 3.13 3.322000 85.90 2.10 2.12 2.19 1.96 2.17 2.36 2.75 2.79 3.22 3.36 3.402001 88.41 2.17 2.19 2.26 2.07 2.26 2.44 2.78 2.82 3.14 3.21 3.16 2.922002 92.45 2.35 2.39 2.47 2.32 2.51 2.70 3.03 3.11 3.43 3.55 3.62 3.74 4.562003 95.85 2.44 2.49 2.57 2.44 2.63 2.81 3.11 3.19 3.47 3.57 3.64 3.72 4.12 3.682004 98.39 2.46 2.50 2.57 2.46 2.63 2.79 3.06 3.12 3.35 3.42 3.44 3.45 3.63 3.16 2.652005 100.00 2.40 2.44 2.51 2.39 2.55 2.69 2.92 2.96 3.14 3.16 3.14 3.09 3.13 2.65 2.14 1.642006 100.89 2.32 2.35 2.40 2.29 2.42 2.54 2.73 2.75 2.88 2.88 2.81 2.72 2.68 2.21 1.72 1.27 2007 102.45 2.27 2.30 2.34 2.24 2.36 2.46 2.63 2.64 2.75 2.73 2.65 2.55 2.49 2.08 1.68 1.36 2008 103.11 2.19 2.21 2.24 2.14 2.24 2.33 2.48 2.47 2.56 2.52 2.43 2.31 2.22 1.84 1.47 1.18 2009 105.50 2.19 2.21 2.25 2.15 2.25 2.33 2.47 2.46 2.54 2.50 2.42 2.31 2.23 1.91 1.61 1.41 2010 109.85 2.28 2.31 2.35 2.26 2.36 2.44 2.58 2.58 2.66 2.63 2.57 2.49 2.44 2.18 1.97 1.85 
Productivity, Page 15 

Appendix 1 

Nordhaus demonstrates how the growth rates in productivity in n sectors of the economy can be 

aggregated to the growth rate in total-economy productivity.18 Monaco adopts the formulation to 

aggregate the growth rates in productivity in the nonfarm business, farm, and “all other” 

sectors.19 Equation A1 is a similar adaptation to five sectors: nonfarm business (n), farm (f), 

households (h), nonprofit institutions (i), and general government (g). 

H (wt wt ) H (wt wt )

H (wt wt ) H (wt wt ) H (wt wt )

(A1) P P wt P wt P wt P wt P wt

H

g

Q

g g

H

i

Q

i i

H

h

Q

h h

H

f

Q

f f

H

n

Q

n n

Q

g g

Q

i i

Q

h h

Q

f f

Q

t n n

  

     

     

 

  

     

 Where, 

 ▪

 X = percent change in x 

 P = productivity 

 H = hours worked 

 wtQ

f = nominal output weight for farm sector defined as the ratio of nominal GDP 

in the farm sector to nominal GDP for the total economy 

 wtH

f = hours worked weight for farm sector defined as the ratio of hours worked 

in the farm sector to hours worked in the total economy 

 t = total economy 

In the long-range, it is reasonable to assume that the growth rate in hours worked in all sectors 

will be equal. Thus, Equation A1 can be simplified to A2. 

Q

g g

Q

i i

Q

h h

Q

f f

Q (A2) Pt Pn wtn P wt P wt P wt P wt      

    

Furthermore, if the ultimate long-range growth rates in productivity in the household, nonprofits, 

and general government sectors are zero, Equation A2 can be further simplified to A3. 

Q

f f

Q (A3) Pt Pn wt n P wt   

 

 

18 Nordhaus, William D., “Productivity Growth and the New Economy.” Brookings Papers on Economic 

Activity, (Volume 2, 2002). pp.211-265 

19 Monaco, Ralph, “Issues in Projecting Productivity in the Very Long Term.” Sept. 28, 2005. Treasury Office 

of Economic Policy. Unpublished. 
Price Inflation, Page 1 

2. PRICE INFLATION 

THE 2012 TRUSTEES REPORT 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ACTUARY, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 

2.1 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................2

2.2 CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS AND 

CLERICAL WORKERS (CPI-W) .............................................................................2 

2.2.1 HISTORICAL GROWTH IN THE ADJUSTED CPI-W ................................................................... 2 

2.2.2 FUTURE GROWTH IN THE CPI-W .................................................................................................. 3 

2.2.3 RECENT AND EXPECTED BLS CHANGES TO THE CPI ............................................................ 4 

2.2.4 OCACT ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PUBLISHED CPI-W ................................................................ 4 

2.3 PRICE DIFFERENTIAL ............................................................................................5 

2.3.1 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PRICE MEASURES .......................................................... 5 

2.3.2 COVERAGE DIFFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 7 

2.3.3 FUTURE EXPECTATIONS FOR THE PRICE DIFFERENTIAL .................................................. 9 

2.4 GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT CHAIN-TYPE PRICE INDEX (PGDP) ..........9

2.4.1 HISTORICAL BEHAVIOR OF THE ADJUSTED PGDP ................................................................ 9 

2.4.1.1 Adjusted Chain-Weighted Price Index for Personal Consumption Expenditures (PGDP_C) ........ 9 

2.4.1.2 Chain-Type Price Index for Investment Expenditures (PGDP_I) ................................................... 11 

2.4.1.3 Chain-Type Price Index for Government Expenditures (PGDP_G) ............................................... 14 

2.4.2 FUTURE EXPECTATIONS FOR AGGREGATE PGDP GROWTH RATE AND PRICE 

DIFFERENTIAL (PGDP GROWTH RATE LESS CPI-W GROWTH RATE) ............................ 15 

2.4.3 RECENT BEA CHANGES TO PGDP ............................................................................................... 16 

2.4.4 OCACT ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PUBLISHED PGDP ............................................................... 16 

2.5 PROJECTIONS FROM OTHER FORECASTERS ..............................................16 

LIST OF TABLES 

2.1 ASSUMED ULTIMATE ANNUAL RATES OF INCREASE IN PRICE MEASURES .................. 2 

2.2 ESTIMATED CONTRIBUTION TO THE PRICE DIFFERENTIAL ............................................. 8 

2.3 ADJUSTED CPI-W: COMPOUND ANNUAL RATES OF GROWTH ......................................... 17 

2.4 ADJUSTED GDP PRICE INDEX: COMPOUND ANNUAL RATES OF GROWTH .................. 19 

APPENDIX 2 ..........................................................................................................................21 
Price Inflation, Page 2 

2 Price Inflation 

2.1 Summary 

For the 2012 Trustees Report, the Trustees set the assumed ultimate annual rates of increase in 

the CPI-W to 1.8 percent, 2.8 percent, and 3.8 percent for alternatives I, II, and III, respectively, 

as shown in Table 2.1. The Trustees also set the ultimate annual rates of increase in the Gross 

Domestic Product Chain-Type Price Index (PGDP) to 1.5 percent, 2.4 percent, and 3.3 percent 

for alternatives I, II, and III, respectively. Thus, the Trustees set the ultimate price differential, 

defined as the PGDP less CPI-W average annual rates of increase, to -0.3, -0.4, -0.5 percentage 

point for alternatives I, II, and III, respectively.20 These values are unchanged from the ones 

assumed by the Trustees for the 2011 Report. 

Table 2.1: Assumed Ultimate Annual Rates of Increase in Price Measures 

 

2012 Trustees Report 

Alternative 

2011 Trustees Report 

Alternative 

2012 Trustees Report Less 

2011 Trustees Report 

I II III I II III I II III

 CPI-W 1.8 2.8 3.8 1.8 2.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 PGDP 1.5 2.4 3.3 1.5 2.4 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Price Differential 

 (PGDP less CPI-W) 

-0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

2.2 Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) 

2.2.1 Historical Growth in the Adjusted CPI-W21

Over the last fifty years (1960 to 2010), the adjusted CPI-W grew at an average annual rate of 

3.7 percent, or about 0.9 percentage point higher than the assumed ultimate rate of increase of 

2.8 percent in the 2011 Trustees Report alternative II. Splitting this period into five decades, the 

CPI-W grew at average annual rates of 2.3, 7.0, 4.4, 2.4, and 2.4 percent over the 1960-70, 

1970-80, 1980-90, 1990-2000, and 2000-10 periods, respectively. The relatively higher inflation 

rates experienced from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s can be reasonably attributed to high 

capacity utilization associated with the Vietnam War, the two oil price shocks in the early and 

late 1970s, and the fiscal and monetary policy responses to those events. 

After 1981, various factors contributed to the slowdown in the inflation rate. Oil prices were 

 

20 The projected price differential is important because it affects the rate of increase in the average real 

OASDI covered wage (see Section 3.2.2) and, therefore, the long-range actuarial balance. Holding other factors 

constant, if the ultimate price differential is moved from -0.4 to -0.5 percentage point, then the long-range rate of 

increase in the average real OASDI covered wage will decrease by 0.1 percentage point, which in turn, based on the 

2011 Trustees Report sensitivity analysis, will lower the long-range actuarial balance by about 0.14 percentage 

point. 21 See section 2.2.4 for a description of the adjusted CPI-W. 
Price Inflation, Page 3 

mostly stable between 1980 and 2001, and the dependence of the US economy on oil has 

decreased since the 1970s. Economic output of developing nations with relatively low labor costs 

(for example, China and India) increased substantially, as did the share of US imports from those 

countries. The dollar increased relative to the trade-weighted average of other currencies 

between 1980 and 1985 and again between 1995 and 2002, further contributing to decreases in 

prices of imported goods. Although some of those factors have reversed in the last decades (in 

particular, the price of oil and other commodities has increased sharply and the exchange rate of 

the dollar has plummeted since 2002), there has been no corresponding increase in the inflation 

rate. This fact may point to the importance of monetary policy as the key factor of price inflation. 

Since 1979, the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve has been explicitly and consistently 

geared toward price stability.

2.2.2 Future Growth in the CPI-W 

If only past inflation rates were used to determine the assumed ultimate rate for the future, then 

only the period (e.g., the most recent 50 or 25 years) and method (e.g., a simple, weighted or 

geometric average) would need to be chosen. The best historical period would be the one that is 

most representative of the conditions that are expected to prevail over the upcoming 75-year 

projection period. The 50-year historical record is filled with inflation-related events, some of 

which occurred in unique circumstances and have limited relevance for projecting the future. 

These may include the Vietnam War, oil price shocks, and periods of price controls. 

Furthermore, after a historically unusual departure in the 1970s, monetary policy has returned to 

a strong emphasis on price stability. 

While these specific historical events will not recur in the future (at least not exactly as they have 

in the past), other inflation-related events may take their place. OCACT believes the average 

annual rate of increase in the CPI for medical services will continue to grow faster than the CPI 

for other consumer goods and services. OCACT also believes the effect of this trend on the 

overall CPI growth rate will be more pronounced in the future because the ratio of health 

expenditures to total consumer expenditures will rise.22 It is also reasonable to expect some 

additional upward pressure on the future growth rate in the CPI due to changes in international 

trade. The ratio of net exports (i.e., exports less imports) to GDP averaged about -4.5 percent 

over the 10-year period from 2001 to 2010. Part of this imbalance is due to imports of relatively 

low-priced consumer goods from emerging markets, such as China. However, as these 

developing economies mature, their average wage and consumption are expected to rise relative 

to their output, and their currencies and price levels are expected to rise relative to those of the 

U.S. OCACT believes this will likely put further upward pressure on the prices of basic 

commodities and, therefore, the CPI. These trends are also expected to ultimately return the ratio 

of net exports to GDP to zero in the future. 

 22 The Boards of Trustees for the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance 

Trust Funds assume that the average annual rate of increase in total health expenditures over the next 75 years will 

be about 1.0 percent greater than the growth rate in GDP. See 

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2011.pdf, p. 12-13. 
Price Inflation, Page 4 

OCACT believes that the 3.7 percent average annual growth rate for the adjusted CPI-W for the 

50-year period from 1960 to 2010 is somewhat above the most reasonable assumption for the 

ultimate CPI-W annual rate of increase. OCACT also believes that the 2.6 percent average 

annual growth rate for the adjusted CPI-W over the last two complete economic cycles (as 

measured over an 18-year period from 1989 to 2007) will not be sustainable indefinitely.23

Though this period reflects the current domestic monetary policy environment expected to exist 

in the future, it does not reflect other factors such as the effects from maturing emerging markets 

like China. Nonetheless, somewhat greater weight is placed on more recent experience. Thus, the 

Trustees set the assumed ultimate rate of increase in the CPI-W to 2.8 percent for the 2012 

Trustees Report alternative II, and to 1.8 and 3.8 percent for alternatives I and III, respectively. 

These values are the same as the ones set by the Trustees for the 2011 Report. 

2.2.3 Recent and Expected BLS Changes to the CPI 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) collects and publishes data on the CPI. BLS updated the 

consumption-expenditure weights in the CPI-W and in the CPI for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) 

from the 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 period, effective January 2010.24 BLS plans to introduce 

future updates every two years, instead of the pre-2000 historical average of about once per 

decade. BLS believes that more frequent updates of the consumption-expenditure weights will 

have little or no effect on the average future growth rate in the CPI over long periods.25 Recent 

data support this view for relatively short periods. When BLS switched from using 1999-2000 to 

2001-2002 weights beginning in January 2004, it published monthly values for the CPI-W (and 

CPI-U) for January through June 2004 based on the 1999-2000 expenditure weights.26 The 

values in June 2004 for the CPI-W (and CPI-U) based on the old and new weights were identical. 

However, the data may also vary over short periods. When BLS switched from using 2001-2002 

to 2003-2004 weights beginning in January 2006, it published monthly values for the CPI-W 

(and CPI-U) for January through June 2006 based on the 2001-2002 expenditure weights.27 The 

data indicate that the growth rate in the CPI-W (and CPI-U) over this period was about 0.2 

percentage point lower using the newer weights. 28

 

 23 Peaks (or troughs) in economic cycles are measured using the ratio of the real to potential GDP. Real 

GDP is from the BEA’s NIPA as of July 2011, while potential GDP is from the Congressional Budget Office’s “The 

Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update” August 2011. 

24 News Release for Consumer Price Index, January 2006, BLS, p. 8 

http://stats.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#noticehttp://stats.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cpi_02192010.pdf 

25 Future Schedule for Expenditure Weight Updates in the Consumer Price Index, BLS, 

http://stats.bls.gov/cpi/cpiupdt.htm 

26 News Release for Consumer Price Index, January through June 2004, BLS, Table 1(OW) and Table 

2(OW), http://stats.bls.gov/schedule/archives/cpi_nr.htm 

27 News Release for Consumer Price Index, January through June 2006, BLS, Table 1(OW) and Table 

2(OW), http://stats.bls.gov/schedule/archives/cpi_nr.htm 

28 This was partly due to the fact that, compared to the old 2001-2002 weight, the new 2003-2004 weight 

for gasoline fell by about 0.2 percentage point while the price of gasoline rose by about 25.0 percent from January to 
Price Inflation, Page 5 

2.2.4 OCACT Adjustments to the Published CPI-W 

Over the years, BLS has introduced numerous improvements to the CPI-W. For example, 

beginning in January 1995 and July 1996, BLS introduced changes to correct methodological 

errors introduced into the index in January 1978 and January 1987. And, beginning in January 

1999, BLS introduced a new geometric mean formula that assumes some lower-level substitution 

among items purchased by consumers within broad categories of goods and services due to 

changes in relative prices. 

Since BLS has no plans to revise the historical CPI, these improvements present a comparability 

problem. The goal is to project future growth rates in the CPI, based, in part, on an analysis of 

historical growth rates. Any projected growth rate in the CPI will be affected by the BLS 

corrections mentioned above. Thus, OCACT adjusted the historical CPI to reflect the estimated 

effects of these corrections, effectively reducing the measured growth rate in the CPI-W over the 

historical period. This adjustment is the same as in last year’s Trustees Report. Table 2.3 lists the 

adjusted CPI-W. (See Appendix 2 for details on OCACT’s adjustments to the actual published 

CPI-W annual growth rates.)

2.3 Price Differential 

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) publishes values for the PGDP in its National Income 

and Product Accounts (NIPA). The price differential is defined as the annual growth rate in the 

PGDP less the annual growth rate in the CPI-W. The price differential is mostly due to 

differences in computational methods and, to a lesser degree, coverage differences between the 

CPI-W and the PGDP. The Trustees set the ultimate price differential to -0.4 percentage point, 

which is equal to the sum of -0.3 percentage point due to the difference in computational 

methods and -0.1 percentage point due to coverage differences. 

Over the 11-year complete economic cycle from 1978 to 1989, the average annual growth rates 

in the PGDP and the adjusted CPI-W were 5.06 and 5.43 percent, respectively, resulting in a 

price differential of -0.38 percentage point (i.e., approximately 5.06 less 5.43). Over the next 

complete economic cycle, an 11-year period from 1989 to 2000, the average annual growth rates 

in the PGDP and the adjusted CPI-W were 2.23 and 2.63 percent, respectively, resulting in a 

price differential of -0.39 percentage point (i.e., approximately 2.23 less 2.63). 

Over the latest economic cycle, a 7-year period from 2000 to 2007, the price differential 

averaged only -0.02 percentage point. It is reasonable to believe this experience was an 

aberration due to highly unusual price changes in areas where coverage is different between the 

CPI-W and the PGDP. As explained below, the causes for this peculiar circumstance are not 

sustainable and have already begun to reverse. For example, the average annual price differential 

over the 3-year period from 2007 to 2010 was -0.35 percentage point.

 

June 2006. 
Price Inflation, Page 6 

2.3.1 Computational Methods for Price Measures29

Prior to August 2002, BLS announced that it would produce an additional monthly price index 

based on the CPI-U using an alternative chained formula for combining prices across broad 

categories of goods and services.30 This measure (C-CPI-U) is designed to reflect changes in the 

distribution of consumer expenditures across these broad groups as they occur during each 

month. The CPI-U (as well as the CPI-W) reflects a static distribution of consumer expenditures 

on a monthly basis, adjusting the static distribution every 2 years. BLS simulated a C-CPI-U for 

the 1990 to 1995 period and estimated that the average annual growth rate in the C-CPI-U would 

have been 0.15 percentage point lower than the actual published CPI-U for the period. Based in 

part on this value, the Trustees assumed a 0.2 percentage point difference in the future ultimate 

average annual growth rates for the PGDP and CPI-W (i.e., a -0.2 price differential) in the 2000, 

2001, and 2002 Trustees Reports. 

In August 2002, BLS began publishing monthly values for the C-CPI-U. BLS also improved and 

extended its simulation of the C-CPI-U and estimated that the average annual growth rate in the 

C-CPI-U would have been lower by 0.22 (instead of 0.15) percentage point over the 1990 to 

1995 period, 0.43 percentage point over the 1996 to 1999 period, and 0.30 percentage point over 

the combined 1990 to 1999 period.31 Based in part on these higher values, the Trustees increased 

the assumed difference in the future ultimate average annual growth rates for the PGDP and 

CPI-W from 0.2 to 0.3 percentage point (i.e., a change from a -0.2 to -0.3 price differential) for 

the 2003, 2004, and 2005 Trustees Reports. 

Actual final monthly values for the C-CPI-U are now available back to December 1999.32 One 

can directly calculate the difference between the static and chained computational methods for 

the latest periods as the CPI-U less C-CPI-U annual growth rates. The difference was 0.8, 0.3, 

0.4, 0.2, 0.1, 0.5, 0.3, 0.4, -0.1, and 0.3 percentage point for the 12-month periods ending in 

December 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively. The 

average annual difference over the period from December 1999 to December 2009 was 0.31. 

It is reasonable to believe that some of the difference between these computational methods in 

the more recent period may have been due to unique circumstances associated with price 

volatility in particular items such as energy, and thus that the difference between these two 

 

29 By convention, the computational effect and price differential are expressed in positive and negative 

terms, respectively. For example, a computational effect of 0.3 percentage point will, by itself, contribute -0.3 

percentage point to the price differential. 

30 Note on a New, Supplemental Index of Consumer Price Change, BLS, 

 http://stats.bls.gov/cpi/cpisuptn.htm 

31Simulated CPI-U compared to simulated C-CPI-U: U.S. city average, All-items, December indexes 

relative to previous December, BLS, http://stats.bls.gov/cpi/superchart2.htm 

32 Because the C-CPI-U is dependent upon expenditure data that lag the CPI release date, BLS publishes 

initial, interim, and final monthly values for each calendar year. As of October 2011, final values were only 

available through December 2009. 
Price Inflation, Page 7 

computational methods may be lower in the future. However, for the post-1999 period, the 

average annual difference using the all items less food and energy expenditure category for the 

C-CPI-U and CPI-U was 0.34 percent, or approximately equal to the value for the all items

category.33

Summarizing the BLS data, the difference in growth in the CPI-U and the C-CPI-U was about 

0.3 percentage point over the 1990 to 1999 period and about 0.31 percentage point over the 

period from December 1999 to December 2009. This suggests that the difference in measured 

growth in prices in the CPI-U and the C-CPI-U is likely to average no less than 0.3 percentage 

point.

2.3.2 Coverage Differences 

The CPI-W covers the consumption pattern for roughly 32 percent of the U.S. population.34 The 

PGDP covers the consumption expenditures for the entire population, along with investment and 

government expenditures.35 In fact, the PGDP can be viewed as a weighted average of chain-type 

price indices for its principal components: personal consumption expenditures (PGDP_C), gross 

private domestic investment (PGDP_I), and government consumption expenditures and gross 

investment (PGDP_G). 

Table 2.2, below, shows the contribution to the price differential over varying historical periods 

due to including the PGDP_I and the PGDP_G in the PGDP. The contribution of the PGDP_I to 

the price differential is defined as the product of its growth rate differential (defined as PGDP_I 

less PGDP_C) and its GDP weight (defined as the ratio of nominal investment expenditures to 

nominal GDP). The contribution of the PGDP_G to the price differential is defined similarly. 

Columns (a) and (b) list the growth rate differentials for PGDP_I and PGDP_G, while columns 

(c) and (d) list the separate contributions to the price differential due to PGDP_I and PGDP_G. 

Column (e) lists the sum of the contributions to the price differential due to the PGDP_I and 

PGDP_G. Finally, the table includes the Trustees’ assumed ultimate values for the growth rate 

differentials, the weighted differentials, and the sum of the weighted differentials. (See section 

2.3.3 for a detailed development of these assumptions.) 

The growth rate differentials for PGDP_I were -1.53 and -1.92 percent over the 1978 to 1989 and 

1989 to 2000 economic cycles, respectively. When weighted, these growth rate differentials 

contributed -0.26 and -0.30 percentage point to the overall price differential for the periods. The 

 

33 Using the all items less food and energy expenditure category for the C-CPI-U and CPI-U, the difference 

between the static and the chained computational methods was 0.7 percentage point in 2000 (compared to 0.8 using 

the all items category). For subsequent years, the difference was 0.6 (0.3), 0.3 (0.4), 0.4 (0.2), -0.1 (0.1), 0.3 (0.5), 

0.4 (0.3), 0.5 (0.4), 0.0 (-0.1), and 0.3 (0.3) percentage point for 12-month periods ending in December 2001, 2002, 

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively. 

34 Overview of the CPI, BLS. http://stats.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm#Question_1 

35 The PGDP also incorporates the effect of price changes in exports less the effect of price changes in 

imports. The net effect of these price changes over the historical period has been relatively small. For the long-range 

future, we assume net exports (i.e., exports minus imports) will be zero along with their effect on the total PGDP. 
Price Inflation, Page 8 

Trustees set the future assumed growth rate differential for PGDP_I to -1.29. When weighted, 

this will contribute about -0.20 to the overall price differential. The assumed future contribution 

to the price differential is about 70 percent (i.e., -0.20 / -0.28) of its historical contribution over 

the 1978 to 2000 period, due mostly to OCACT’s assumption that the price of computers and 

software will not fall as steeply in the long-range future compared to the post-1978 historical 

period. The 7-year period from 2000 to 2007 was discounted on the belief that the behavior of 

the PGDP_I during this period was an aberration. The growth rate differential for PGDP_I turned 

positive during this period due to the relatively rapid growth in the investment deflators for 

residential and nonresidential structures. OCACT believes this behavior is not sustainable into 

the near future. In fact, the growth rate differential for PGDP_I turned back to an average annual 

value of -2.19 percent for the 3-year period from 2007 to 2010, reflecting, in part, actual declines 

in the price of new housing in most markets during the period.

Table 2.2: Estimated Contribution to the Price Differential 

Range 

Differences in Deflator Growth Rates 

Unweighted Weighted 

(Contribution to the Price Differential) 

 PGDP_I PGDP_G PGDP_I PGDP_G PGDP_I 

 less less And 

 PGDP_C PGDP_C PGDP_G 

 (a) * weight (b) * weight (c + d) 

 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 

Econ. Cycles 

1978-1989 -1.53 -0.14 -0.26 -0.03 -0.29 

1989-2000 -1.92 0.37 -0.30 0.07 -0.23 

 2000-2007 0.06 1.83 0.01 0.34 0.35 

Latest 

2007 - 2010 -2.19 0.53 -0.30 0.11 -0.19 

 Assumed 

Values -1.29 0.67 -0.20 0.12 -0.08 

The growth rate differentials for PGDP_G were -0.14 and 0.37 percent over the 1978 to 1989 

and 1989 to 2000 economic cycles, respectively. When weighted, these growth rate differentials 

contributed -0.03 and 0.07 percentage point to the overall price differential for those periods. The 

Trustees set the future assumed growth rate differential for PGDP_G to 0.67, which when 

weighted will contribute about 0.12 to the overall price differential. The assumed future 

contribution to the price differential is about 0.10 higher (i.e., 0.12 – 0.02) than its historical 

contribution over the 1978 to 2000 period. OCACT believes the PGDP_G contribution to the 

price differential during this historical period was temporarily depressed due to a relative 

increase in lower-paid state and local government workers. OCACT also believes the PGDP_G 

contribution to the price differential during the 7-year period from 2000 to 2007 was high 

because the growth rate in average military compensation averaged 9.2 percent over the period. 

OCACT believes this relatively high growth rate was due to temporary factors. Federal payments 

for basic military pay, reenlistment bonuses, and other types of incentive pay increased sharply 

after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Furthermore, beginning in 2002, the BEA re-defined military 
Price Inflation, Page 9 

compensation to include federal payments to the Uniformed Services Retiree Healthcare Fund. 

In the future, OCACT believes that the annual rate of growth rate in average military 

compensation will slow and follow the assumed ultimate 4.1 percent average annual growth rate 

in compensation for all workers. 

Thus, the Trustees set the future contribution to the price differential due to the PGDP_I and the 

PGDP_G to -0.1 percentage point. This is approximately equal to the sum of a -0.20 percentage 

point price differential due to the PGDP_I and 0.12 percentage point due to the PGDP_G. The 

assumed future combined contribution of -0.1 percentage point is smaller (less negative) than the 

actual historical combined contribution to the price differential of -0.26 percentage point over the 

1978 to 2000 period. 

2.3.3 Future Expectations for the Price Differential 

For the 2012 Trustees Report, the Trustees set the assumed ultimate price differential to -0.3, -

0.4, and -0.5 percentage point for alternative I, II, and III, respectively. For the alternative II, the 

ultimate price differential of -0.4 percentage point is the sum of -0.3 percentage point due to the 

difference in computational methods and -0.1 percentage point due to coverage differences 

between the PGDP and CPI-W. These values are unchanged from the ones assumed by the 

Trustees for the 2011 Report. 

2.4 Gross Domestic Product Chain-Type Price Index (PGDP) 

2.4.1 Historical Behavior of the Adjusted PGDP 

As mentioned in section 2.2.2, for the future, the PGDP can be viewed as a weighted average of 

the PGDP_C, PGDP_I, and PGDP_G. The weights are the ratios of the components’ nominal 

expenditures to total nominal GDP. In 2010, the weights for personal consumption, investment, 

and government expenditures were about 0.71, 0.12, and 0.21, respectively. These weights 

summed to 1.04 because net exports were negative. However, over the 50-year period from 1960 

to 2010, the weights for personal consumption, investment, and government expenditures were 

approximately 0.65, 0.16, and 0.20, respectively, and summed to about 1.0. The long-run 

assumption is that net exports will be zero and the weights will sum to 1.0. 

Because these weights have been relatively stable over the last four decades (and have summed 

to about 1.0), the long-run historical growth rate in PGDP is mostly explained by the separate 

historical growth rates in PGDP_C, PGDP_I, and PGDP_G. The historical and expected future 

growth rates for each component price index are examined below. 

It should be noted that the PGDP (and each of its major components - PGDP_C, PGDP_I, and 

PGDP_G) are combined using a chain-weighted computational method. Thus, when computing a 

price differential between the PGDP (or any of its major components) and the CPI-W, the 

historical and expected future difference between the CPI-U and the chain-weighted C-CPI-U 

of -0.30 percentage point applies similarly to the expected price differential between the PGDP 

and the CPI-W for the future. 
Price Inflation, Page 10 

2.4.1.1 Adjusted Chain-Weighted Price Index for Personal Consumption Expenditures 

(PGDP_C) 

Given all of the changes to the CPI and PGDP over time, it seems reasonable to expect that the 

more recent decades best depict the future relationship between the two price measures; more 

specifically, only the post-1977 period when the adjusted CPI-W incorporates most of the 

improvements in the CPI as presently defined. Over the 32-year period from 1978 to 2010, the 

average annual growth rates for the adjusted PGDP_C and adjusted CPI-W were 3.35 and 3.51 

percent, respectively. Hence, the difference between these average annual growth rates over this 

period was about -0.16 percentage point (i.e., 3.35 - 3.51). 

This -0.16 percentage point observed difference over the 1978 to 2010 period is smaller than 

the -0.30 percentage point expected future difference (consistent with the estimated 0.30 

percentage point difference due to the computational methods used for weighting broad groups 

of goods and services), in part, because the populations covered by the two price measures are 

different. As mentioned in Section 2.3.2, the CPI-W covers the consumption pattern for roughly 

32 percent of the population, while the PGDP_C covers personal consumption expenditures for 

the total population. The CPI-U, on the other hand, covers about 87 percent of the population. 

Over the 1978 to 2010 period, the CPI-U grew faster than the CPI-W by about 0.08 percentage 

point per year, mostly because the former had relatively larger weights for medical and college 

expenditures – two areas where prices had been rising faster than for other goods. If the CPI-W 

had the same expenditure weights as the CPI-U, then the adjusted CPI-W would have grown at 

an annual rate of roughly 0.08 percentage point faster than it did. This would have resulted in an 

observed difference (adjusted PGDP_C less adjusted CPI-W growth rates) of -0.24 

(i.e., -0.16 -0.08) percentage point, and much closer to the -0.30 percentage point expected 

difference due to computational methods alone. 

The most recently revised BLS and BEA data for 2000 and later also support a 0.30 percentage 

point effect for the different computational methods (adjusted PGDP_C less adjusted CPI-W 

growth rates). As mentioned in Section 2.2.1, BLS has published initial, interim, and final 

monthly values for the C-CPI-U for each year beginning January 2000. Final values are now 

available for 2009. The average annual growth rate in the C-CPI-U from the first quarter of 2000 

to the fourth quarter of 2009 was 2.19 percent. Over the same period, the average annual growth 

rates in the PGDP_C, CPI-U, and CPI-W were approximately 2.21, 2.50, and 2.49 percent, 

respectively. The data suggest that over this period, the contribution of the difference in 

computational methods was about 0.31 percentage point (i.e., 2.50– 2.19), and that the PGDP_C 

price differential was -0.28 percentage point (i.e., 2.21 – 2.49).36

 

Over the long-range period, it is reasonable to assume that the average annual growth rates in the 

CPI-W and CPI-U will be roughly equal. It also seems reasonable to assume that the difference 

 36 The data also suggest that over the period the average annual growth rate in the C-CPI-U (2.19 percent) 

was a reasonable approximation of the average annual growth rate in the PGDP_C (2.21 percent), and that the 

difference between the average annual growth rates in the CPI-U (2.50 percent) and CPI-W (2.49 percent) narrowed 

to 0.01 percentage point (2.50 – 2.49) over the period, compared to the 0.08 average annual percentage point 

differential over the 1978-2010 period. 
Price Inflation, Page 11 

in the long-range average annual growth rates (PGDP_C less CPI-W) will be -0.30 percentage 

point, and that this difference will be only due to the expected 0.30 percentage point effect from 

the different computational weighting methods. Stated differently, the expected future personal 

consumption price-index growth-rate differential (PGDP_C less CPI-W) due to factors other 

than from the computational weighting methods is assumed to be zero. Thus, the Trustees set the 

assumed ultimate annual growth rate for PGDP_C to 2.5 percent, or equal to the assumed 

ultimate annual growth rate for CPI-W (i.e., 2.8 percent) less the 0.30 percentage point effect of 

the different computational weighting methods.

2.4.1.2 Chain-Type Price Index for Investment Expenditures (PGDP_I) 

The PGDP_I can be viewed as a weighted average of chain-type price indices for its principal 

components: investment in nonresidential equipment and software (PGDP_INE), residential 

investment (PGDP_IR), and investment in nonresidential structures (PGDP_INS).37

Deflator for Equipment and Software (PGDP_INE) – Over the 32-year period from 1978 to 

2010, the average annual growth rate was about 0.23 percent for the PGDP_INE and 3.35 

percent for the PGDP_C. The PGDP_INE growth rate has been depressed by two 

well-documented trends: the sharp decline in quality-adjusted prices for computers and software 

and the rapid rise in nominal investment expenditures for those two products. Over this period, 

the chain-type price indexes for computers and software fell at an average annual rate of about 

14.1 and 1.0 percent, respectively. Also over this period, the ratio of nominal investment 

expenditures for computers to all investment expenditures for equipment and software rose from 

about 4 percent to about 9 percent, while the ratio of nominal investment expenditures for 

software rose from about 3 percent to 25 percent. 

It seems reasonable to assume that quality-adjusted computer prices will continue to decline into 

the future, but at a somewhat slower rate. The average annual rate of decline was about 13.0 

percent over the 1982 to 1994 period, 22.0 percent over the 1994 to 1999 period, and 10.8 

percent over the 1999 to 2010 period. At least part of the larger rate of decline over the 1994 to 

1999 period was due to computer chip manufacturers shifting from a 3-year to a 2-year product 

cycle.38 This shift may have been associated with the “tech bubble” of the latter half of the 

1990s, when business invested heavily in computer and internet technology. Thus, it seems more 

reasonable to believe that, in the future, computer manufacturers will be on a 3-year product 

cycle and that computer prices will decline at a rate of about 11.9 percent, which equals the 

average annual rate over the 1982 to 1994 and the 1999 to 2010 periods. Furthermore, it is 

expected that the ratio of nominal investment expenditures for computers to all investment 

expenditures for equipment and software will stabilize at the approximate average value of the 

ratio over the 1982 to 2010 period (i.e., 10.0 percent). 

 

37 This decomposition excludes the change in business inventories, which has averaged roughly 2.0 percent 

of total investment expenditures over the 32-year period from 1978 to 2010. 

38 American Economic Growth In The Information Age, Dale Jorgenson. 

http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop9.12econgrowth.pdf 
Price Inflation, Page 12 

It also seems reasonable to assume that the rate of average decline in software prices will slow to 

a stop in the future. The relatively mild deflation in software prices in the recent past has been 

due in part to companies shifting some jobs to lower-paid workers overseas.39 This trend, 

however, is expected to slow in the future, as the remaining number of “in-house” programming 

jobs shrinks. It is also expected that the ratio of nominal investment expenditures for software to 

all investment expenditures for equipment and software will stabilize at about 25.0 percent, or 

slightly below its latest value of 25.4 percent for 2010. 

Besides computers and software, equipment and software expenditures include a residual 

component for other equipment. Over the last two decades from 1990 to 2010, the average 

annual growth rate was 0.78 percent for the deflator for other equipment and 2.18 percent for the 

PGDP_C. The ratio of the two growth rates was about 0.36 (i.e., 0.78 / 2.18), indicating that, on 

average, the annual growth rate in the deflator for other equipment was about one-half of the 

growth rate in the PGDP_C over the period. OCACT believes that the growth rate in the price 

deflator for other equipment will continue to be depressed relative to the PGDP_C, since the 

prices for at least some items in other equipment (e.g., printers, calculators, fax machines, etc.) 

will be driven down by the same types of future technological advancements expected for 

computers. Thus, OCACT believes that it is reasonable to expect that, in the future, the average 

annual growth rate in other equipment will be about 1.25 percent, or one-half of the 2.5 percent 

assumed ultimate average annual growth rate in the PGDP_C. 

Using these average annual growth rates and weights, OCACT believes that it is reasonable to 

set the assumed ultimate average annual rate of increase in PGDP_INE in the future to 

about -0.38 percent (i.e., -11.9 * 0.10 + 0.0 * 0.25 + 1.25 * 0.65). 

Deflator for Residential Investment (PGDP_IR) – Residential investment is almost entirely 

composed of investment in fixed structures which, in turn, is composed of single-family, 

multifamily, and other structures (e.g., manufactured homes, dormitories, etc.). Over the 22-year 

period from 1978 to 2000, the average annual growth rate was about 4.06 percent for the 

PGDP_IR and 3.90 percent for the PGDP_C. Thus, the average annual growth rate for the 

PGDP_IR was about 0.16 percentage point (4.06 - 3.90) higher than the average annual growth 

rate in the PGDP_C over the period. However, over the next 7-year period, this differential 

increased substantially. From 2000 to 2007, the average annual growth rate was about 4.82 

percent for the PGDP_IR and 2.34 percent for the PGDP_C. Thus, the average annual growth 

rate for the PGDP_IR was about 2.48 percentage points (4.82 – 2.34) higher than the average 

annual growth rate in the PGDP_C over the period.

OCACT believes that the 2.48 percent growth rate differential between the PGDP_IR and the 

PGDP_C over the last business-cycle was a temporary market phenomenon characterized by 

over-heated demand for housing, house “flipping,” sub-prime mortgage lending, and unusually 

high profits and gains in stock prices for the builders of new homes. Since 2007, there has been a 

market correction: the sub-prime mortgage market has collapsed, new and existing home sales 

 

39 Export Of Core Tech Jobs Could Imperil The American Programmer, Rachel Konrad. 

http://www.crn.com/it-channel/18839547 
Price Inflation, Page 13 

have dropped nationally, actual prices of new homes in most markets have declined, and the 

profits and stock prices of new homebuilders have plummeted. For the 2007 to 2010 period, the 

average annual growth in PGDP_IR and PGDP_C was -1.7 and 1.7 percent, respectively, 

indicating a -3.4 percent (-1.7 – 1.7) differential between the two deflators. 

OCACT believes it is reasonable to disregard the post-2000 period and set the assumed ultimate 

average annual rate of increase in the PGDP_IR to 2.8 percent, or about 0.3 percentage point 

higher than the 2.5 percent assumed ultimate average annual rate of increase in the PGDP_C. 40

Deflator for Investment in Nonresidential Structures (PGDP_INS) – Investment in nonresidential 

structures includes amounts for drilling for petroleum and natural gas. Over the 22-year period 

from 1978 to 2000, the average annual growth rate for PGDP_INS and PGDP_IR was 3.97 and 

4.06 percent, respectively, or approximately equal. However, over the 7-year period from 2000 

to 2007, the average annual growth rate for PGDP_INS and PGDP_IR was 7.48 and 4.82 

percent, respectively. The relatively faster average annual growth rate for PGDP_INS occurred 

because the average annual growth rate in the deflator for investment in petroleum and natural 

gas was about 20.9 percent. Excluding the effects of petroleum and natural gas, the average 

annual growth rate for PGDP_INS was about 6.0 percent, and much closer to the 4.8 percent 

average annual growth rate in PGDP_IR over the period. 

OCACT believes the relatively rapid growth rate in the deflator for investment in petroleum and 

natural gas is another temporary market phenomenon associated with a run-up in oil prices. The 

price of a barrel of oil rose from about $26 in 2001 to $72 in 2007, or at an average annual rate 

of about 19.0 percent. As the market price for oil rose, previously expensive investment 

technologies became economically profitable. Though the price of oil rose sharply to about $150 

per barrel in July 2008, the longer run historical growth rate in the price of oil has been closer to 

the growth rate in PGDP_C. For example, over the 30-year period from 1980 to 2010, the 

average annual growth rate in the price of a barrel of oil and the PGDP_C was about 3.0 and 3.6 

percent, respectively. 

OCACT believes that in the future the average annual growth rates in the price of a barrel of oil 

and the PGDP_C will be approximately equal and that the average annual growth rates in the 

PGDP_INS and PGDP_IR will be approximately equal. Thus, the Trustees set the assumed 

ultimate average annual rate of increase in PGDP_INS to 2.8 percent, or 0.3 percentage point 

higher than the 2.5 percent assumed ultimate average annual growth rate in the PGDP_C, and 

equal to the assumed ultimate average annual rate of increase in the PGDP_IR. 

Using rough averages over the last 40 years, OCACT assumes the future ratio of nonresidential 

investment for equipment and software to total investment expenditures will be 50.0 percent, and 

the investment expenditure weights for nonresidential investment for structures and residential 

investment will be 20 and 30 percent, respectively. Thus, the Trustees set the assumed ultimate 

average annual rate of increase for PGDP_I to 1.21 percent (i.e., -0.38 * 0.5 + 2.8 * (0.2 + 0.3)). 

 40 In the future, the PGDP_IR may grow faster than the PGDP_C due to more rapid increases in the prices 

of scarce land and basic building commodities such as copper, lumber, and cement. 
Price Inflation, Page 14 

Given the assumed ultimate average annual growth rate for the CPI-W of 2.8 percent, the 

expected future investment price differential is -1.59 percent (i.e., 1.21 – 2.8), which can be 

viewed as the sum of -0.3 percentage point for the computational weighting method and -1.29 

percentage points (i.e., -1.59 – (-0.3)) for the compositional effects of factors such as computers 

and software. With a weighting of about 16.0 percent in the overall PGDP, a -1.29 percentage 

point price differential in PGDP_I (beyond that for computational method) contributes 

about -0.20 percentage point (0.16 * -1.29) to the overall price differential for PGDP. 

2.4.1.3 Chain-Type Price Index for Government Expenditures (PGDP_G) 

The PGDP_G can be viewed as a weighted average of chain-type price indices for government 

consumption expenditures (PGDP_GC) and government investment (PGDP_GI). The historical 

proportions of government consumption and investment expenditures have been relatively stable 

over the 30-year period from 1980 to 2010, averaging about 83 and 17 percent of total 

government expenditures, respectively. 

Deflator for Government Consumption Expenditures (PGDP_GC) – Government consumption 

expenditures can be separated into employee compensation and other (residual) government 

consumption expenditures. In the NIPA, the deflator for government consumption expenditures 

on employee compensation is defined as average employee compensation. From 1978 to 2000, a 

22-year period covering two complete economic cycles, the average annual growth rate in the 

deflator for employee compensation and the adjusted CPI-W was about 5.3 and 4.0 percent, 

respectively. This indicates that over the period, the real annual growth rate in average employee 

compensation was 1.3 percent (i.e., 5.3 – 4.0) and equal to the assumed ultimate real annual 

growth rate in average compensation in the 2011 Trustees Report.41 

From 2000 to 2007, a 7-year period covering the latest economic cycle, the average annual 

growth rate in the deflator for employee compensation and the adjusted CPI-W was about 5.1 

and 2.6 percent, respectively. This indicates that over the period, the real annual growth rate in 

average government compensation was 2.5 percent (i.e., 5.1 – 2.6), or almost twice the 1.3 

percent ultimate real annual growth rate in average compensation assumed in the 2011 Trustees 

Report. 

OCACT believes that the relatively high growth rate in the deflator for employee compensation 

over the 2000 to 2010 period is a temporary phenomenon mostly associated with military pay 

incentives for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over this period, the average annual growth 

rate in the average compensation of state and local, federal civilian, and federal military 

employees was 3.9, 5.2, and 8.0 percent, respectively. It is reasonable to assume that in the future 

the average annual growth rate in the average compensation for all government employees will 

be 4.1 percent. Therefore, OCACT believes that the average annual growth rate in the deflator 

for government consumption expenditures on employee compensation will be 4.1 percent. 

 41 For the 2011 Trustees Report alternative II, the Trustees assumed that the ultimate average annual rate of 

increase in the average compensation for all employees and in the CPI was 4.1 and 2.8 percent, respectively. 
Price Inflation, Page 15 

It is also reasonable and consistent to assume that the average annual growth rate in the deflator 

for other government consumption will be equal to the assumed ultimate average annual growth 

rate in the PGDP_C. Hence, OCACT assumes that the average annual growth rate in the deflator 

for other government consumption will be 2.5 percent, or equal to the assumed ultimate average 

annual growth rate in the PGDP_C. 

Using rough averages over the 1978 to 2010 period, OCACT assumes that future government 

consumption expenditures for employee compensation will be about 63.0 percent of total 

government consumption expenditures. Thus, the Trustees set the assumed ultimate average 

annual growth rate for PGDP_GC to 3.51 percent (i.e., 4.1 * 0.63 + 2.5 * 0.37). 

Deflator for Government Investment (PGDP_GI) – Government investment can be separated 

into 1) structures and 2) equipment and software. It is reasonable to assume that the future 

average annual growth rate in the deflator for government investment for structures will be 2.8 

percent, or equal to the expected future average annual growth rate in private investment in 

nonresidential structures (PGDP_INS). Similarly, OCACT also assumes the future average 

annual growth rate in the deflator for government investment in equipment and software will be 

equal to -0.38 percent (i.e., the expected future average annual growth rate in PGDP_INE). 

Using rough averages over the 1978 to 2010 period, OCACT assumes the future ratio of 

government investment for structures to total government investment will be about 0.60. Thus, 

the Trustees set the assumed ultimate average annual growth rate for PGDP_GI to 1.53 percent 

(i.e., 2.8 * 0.60 -0.38 * 0.40). 

The Trustees also set the assumed ultimate average annual rate of increase in the PGDP_G to 

3.17 percent (i.e., 3.51 * 0.83 + 1.53 * 0.17). Given the assumed ultimate average annual growth 

rate for the CPI-W of 2.8 percent, the expected future government price differential is 0.37 

percent (i.e., 3.17 – 2.8), which can be viewed as the sum of -0.3 for the CPI computational 

method and 0.67 (i.e., 0.37 – (-0.3)) for the compositional effects of factors such as 

compensation, computers, and software. With a weighting of about 18.0 percent in the overall 

PGDP, a 0.67 percentage point price differential in PGDP_I (beyond that for computational 

method) contributes about 0.12 percentage point (0.18 * 0.67) to the overall price differential for 

PGDP. 

2.4.2 Future Expectations for Aggregate PGDP Growth Rate and Price Differential (PGDP 

Growth Rate Less the CPI-W Growth Rate) 

OCACT believes it is reasonable to set the assumed ultimate aggregate price differential to -0.4 

percentage point. This aggregate value is the sum of the -0.3 percentage point for the difference 

in computational weighting methods and an additional -0.1 percentage point coverage 

differential which, in turn, is the sum of a -0.20 percentage point coverage differential due to the 

PGDP_I and a 0.12 percentage point coverage differential due to the PGDP_G. Thus, for 

alternative II, the Trustees set the assumed ultimate average annual rate of increase in the PGDP 

to 2.4 percent, or equal to the assumed ultimate annual rate of increase in the CPI-W of 2.8 

percent less the assumed ultimate price differential of -0.4 percentage point. For alternative I, the 

Trustees set the assumed ultimate average annual rate of increase in the PGDP to 1.5, or equal to 
Price Inflation, Page 16 

the ultimate annual rate of increase in the CPI-W of 1.8 percent less the assumed ultimate price 

differential of -0.3 percentage point. For alternative III, the Trustees set the assumed ultimate 

average annual rate of increase in the PGDP to 3.3, or equal to the ultimate annual rate of 

increase in the CPI-W of 3.8 percent less the assumed ultimate price differential of -0.5 

percentage point. 

2.4.3 Recent BEA Changes to PGDP 

On July 29, 2011, BEA released an annual revision to the NIPA back to 2008.42 Compared to the 

unrevised data, BEA increased the average annual growth rate in the real PGDP by about 0.2 

percentage point over the 3-year period from 2008 to 2010. 

2.4.4 OCACT Adjustments to the Published PGDP 

BEA’s estimate of the PGDP is based, in part, on BLS’s estimate of the CPI. BLS has introduced 

numerous improvements to the CPI that have lowered its post-1995 growth rate. BEA 

“backcasted” these improvements in the NIPA, lowering the growth rate in the PGDP (and 

raising the growth rate in real GDP). However, because BEA only backcasted these effects to 

1978, OCACT has lowered the pre-1978 growth rate in the PGDP for consistency (see Appendix 

2 for further details on the adjustments to the actual published PGDP and real GDP annual 

growth rates). The adjusted PGDP is shown in Table 2.4. 

2.5 Projections from Other Forecasters 

Global Insight, Inc. includes projections through 2041 in its latest long-run trend forecast (see

August 2011 30-year Baseline Annual Forecast). Over the 20-year period from 2021to 2041, 

Global Insight, Inc. projects an average annual rate of increase of 2.02 percent for the CPI and 

1.77 percent for the PGDP, with a resulting price differential of -0.25 percentage point 

(1.77-2.02). Macroeconomic Advisers publishes its latest long-run projections (Long-Term 

Economic Outlook, Third Quarter, 2011) through 2021. Over the 5-year period from 2016 to 

2021, it projects an average annual rate of increase of 2.04 percent for the CPI and 1.95 percent 

for the PGDP, for a price differential of -0.09 percentage point (1.95 - 2.04). The Moody’s 

Analytics September 2011 forecast extends to 2041. Over the 20-year period from 2021 to 2041, 

Moody’s Analytics projects an average annual growth rate of 1.89 percent for the CPI and 1.43 

percent for the PGDP, for a price differential of -0.46 percentage point (1.43 – 1.89). 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Mid-Session Review of the Fiscal Year 2012 

Budget includes projections through 2021. OMB’s annual growth rates for the PGDP and CPI-W 

(and CPI-U) for the 2016-2021 period were 1.8 and 2.1 percent, respectively. Thus, OMB 

projects a price differential of -0.3 percentage point (i.e., 1.8 – 2.1). The Congressional Budget 

Office (CBO) MAD Forecast, August 2011, includes projections through 2021. CBO’s annual 

growth rates for the PGDP and CPI-W (and CPI-U) for the 2017-2021 period were 2.0 and 2.3 

percent, respectively. Thus, CBO projects an average annual price differential of -0.3 percentage 

 

 42 “Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter of 2011” BEA, News Release, July 29, 2011. 

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2011/gdp2q11_adv.htm. 
Price Inflation, Page 17 

point (i.e., 2.0 – 2.3). The Social Security Advisory Board’s 2011 Technical Panel on 

Assumptions and Methods recommended assuming an ultimate (i.e., long-range average) annual 

rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 

(CPI-W) of 2.8 percent for alternative II, and a price differential of -0.2 percentage point. 
Price Inflation, Page 18 

Table 2.3. Adjusted CPI-W: Compound Annual Rates of Growth (%) Base Year = 1982-1984 

From

To Variable 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 

1951 31.311952 31.97 2.101953 32.15 1.32 0.551954 32.20 0.94 0.36 0.171955 32.02 0.56 0.05 -0.20 -0.571956 32.43 0.70 0.36 0.29 0.35 1.291957 33.55 1.16 0.97 1.08 1.38 2.37 3.461958 34.43 1.37 1.24 1.38 1.69 2.46 3.04 2.631959 34.60 1.26 1.14 1.23 1.45 1.96 2.18 1.55 0.491960 35.12 1.28 1.18 1.27 1.46 1.87 2.01 1.54 1.00 1.511961 35.41 1.24 1.14 1.21 1.36 1.69 1.77 1.35 0.93 1.16 0.811962 35.69 1.20 1.11 1.17 1.29 1.56 1.61 1.24 0.90 1.04 0.80 0.801963 36.09 1.19 1.11 1.16 1.27 1.51 1.54 1.22 0.94 1.06 0.91 0.96 1.121964 36.48 1.18 1.11 1.16 1.26 1.46 1.48 1.20 0.97 1.06 0.95 1.00 1.11 1.101965 36.99 1.20 1.13 1.18 1.27 1.46 1.47 1.23 1.03 1.12 1.04 1.10 1.21 1.25 1.401966 37.97 1.29 1.24 1.29 1.38 1.56 1.59 1.38 1.23 1.34 1.31 1.41 1.56 1.71 2.02 2.641967 39.06 1.39 1.34 1.40 1.50 1.67 1.71 1.53 1.41 1.53 1.53 1.65 1.82 2.00 2.30 2.75 1968 40.42 1.51 1.48 1.54 1.64 1.81 1.85 1.71 1.62 1.74 1.77 1.91 2.10 2.29 2.59 2.99 1969 42.13 1.66 1.64 1.71 1.81 1.98 2.03 1.92 1.85 1.99 2.04 2.20 2.40 2.61 2.92 3.30 1970 44.07 1.82 1.80 1.87 1.98 2.15 2.22 2.12 2.08 2.22 2.30 2.46 2.67 2.90 3.20 3.56 1971 45.87 1.93 1.92 1.99 2.10 2.27 2.34 2.26 2.23 2.38 2.46 2.62 2.83 3.04 3.33 3.65 1972 47.31 1.98 1.98 2.05 2.16 2.32 2.39 2.32 2.29 2.44 2.51 2.67 2.86 3.05 3.30 3.58 1973 50.13 2.16 2.17 2.25 2.36 2.52 2.60 2.54 2.54 2.68 2.78 2.94 3.14 3.34 3.59 3.87 1974 55.08 2.49 2.50 2.60 2.72 2.90 2.99 2.96 2.98 3.15 3.27 3.46 3.68 3.92 4.21 4.52 1975 59.44 2.71 2.73 2.83 2.96 3.14 3.24 3.23 3.26 3.44 3.57 3.77 4.00 4.25 4.54 4.86 1976 62.71 2.82 2.85 2.95 3.08 3.25 3.35 3.35 3.39 3.56 3.69 3.88 4.11 4.34 4.62 4.91 1977 66.55 2.94 2.98 3.08 3.21 3.38 3.48 3.48 3.53 3.70 3.83 4.02 4.24 4.47 4.73 5.02 1978 70.97 3.08 3.11 3.22 3.35 3.52 3.62 3.63 3.68 3.85 3.98 4.18 4.39 4.61 4.87 5.14 1979 77.82 3.30 3.35 3.46 3.59 3.77 3.88 3.90 3.96 4.14 4.28 4.47 4.69 4.92 5.18 5.46 1980 86.39 3.56 3.61 3.73 3.87 4.05 4.17 4.20 4.27 4.45 4.60 4.81 5.03 5.27 5.54 5.82 1981 94.56 3.75 3.81 3.93 4.07 4.25 4.37 4.41 4.49 4.68 4.83 5.03 5.26 5.50 5.76 6.04 1982 100.13 3.82 3.88 4.00 4.14 4.31 4.43 4.47 4.55 4.73 4.88 5.08 5.29 5.52 5.77 6.03 1983 104.31 3.83 3.89 4.00 4.14 4.31 4.42 4.46 4.53 4.71 4.85 5.03 5.24 5.45 5.68 5.93 1984 108.47 3.84 3.89 4.00 4.13 4.30 4.41 4.44 4.51 4.68 4.81 4.99 5.18 5.38 5.60 5.83 1985 112.11 3.82 3.88 3.98 4.11 4.27 4.37 4.40 4.47 4.63 4.75 4.92 5.10 5.29 5.49 5.70 1986 113.84 3.76 3.81 3.91 4.03 4.18 4.27 4.30 4.36 4.51 4.63 4.78 4.95 5.12 5.31 5.50 1987 117.62 3.74 3.79 3.89 4.00 4.15 4.24 4.27 4.33 4.47 4.58 4.73 4.89 5.05 5.22 5.40 1988 121.78 3.74 3.78 3.88 3.99 4.13 4.22 4.25 4.30 4.43 4.54 4.68 4.83 4.99 5.15 5.32 1989 126.99 3.75 3.80 3.89 4.00 4.14 4.22 4.25 4.30 4.43 4.53 4.67 4.81 4.96 5.12 5.27 1990 133.09 3.78 3.82 3.91 4.02 4.15 4.24 4.26 4.32 4.44 4.54 4.67 4.81 4.95 5.10 5.25 1991 137.73 3.77 3.82 3.90 4.01 4.14 4.22 4.24 4.29 4.41 4.51 4.63 4.77 4.90 5.04 5.19 1992 141.07 3.74 3.78 3.87 3.96 4.09 4.17 4.19 4.24 4.35 4.44 4.56 4.69 4.81 4.95 5.08 1993 144.32 3.71 3.74 3.83 3.92 4.04 4.12 4.14 4.18 4.29 4.38 4.49 4.61 4.73 4.86 4.98 1994 147.26 3.67 3.70 3.78 3.87 3.99 4.06 4.08 4.12 4.22 4.31 4.41 4.53 4.64 4.76 4.88 1995 150.88 3.64 3.67 3.75 3.84 3.95 4.02 4.04 4.07 4.18 4.25 4.36 4.47 4.57 4.69 4.80 1996 154.77 3.61 3.65 3.72 3.81 3.92 3.98 4.00 4.03 4.13 4.21 4.30 4.41 4.51 4.62 4.73 1997 158.08 3.58 3.62 3.69 3.77 3.88 3.94 3.95 3.99 4.08 4.15 4.24 4.34 4.44 4.54 4.64 1998 159.93 3.53 3.56 3.63 3.71 3.81 3.87 3.88 3.91 4.00 4.07 4.16 4.25 4.35 4.44 4.54 1999 163.24 3.50 3.53 3.60 3.67 3.77 3.83 3.84 3.87 3.95 4.02 4.10 4.19 4.28 4.37 4.46 2000 168.92 3.50 3.53 3.59 3.67 3.77 3.82 3.83 3.86 3.94 4.00 4.09 4.18 4.26 4.35 4.43 2001 173.46 3.48 3.51 3.57 3.65 3.74 3.80 3.80 3.83 3.91 3.97 4.05 4.14 4.22 4.30 4.39 2002 175.92 3.44 3.47 3.53 3.60 3.69 3.74 3.75 3.78 3.85 3.91 3.99 4.07 4.15 4.23 4.30 2003 179.74 3.42 3.44 3.50 3.57 3.66 3.71 3.72 3.74 3.82 3.87 3.94 4.02 4.10 4.17 4.25 2004 184.51 3.40 3.43 3.49 3.55 3.64 3.69 3.69 3.72 3.79 3.84 3.91 3.99 4.06 4.14 4.21 2005 190.94 3.40 3.43 3.49 3.55 3.64 3.68 3.69 3.71 3.78 3.83 3.90 3.98 4.05 4.12 4.19 2006 197.14 3.40 3.43 3.48 3.55 3.63 3.68 3.68 3.70 3.77 3.82 3.89 3.96 4.03 4.10 4.17 2007 202.79 3.39 3.42 3.47 3.53 3.61 3.66 3.66 3.68 3.75 3.80 3.87 3.94 4.00 4.07 4.13 2008 211.08 3.40 3.43 3.48 3.54 3.62 3.67 3.67 3.69 3.76 3.81 3.87 3.94 4.00 4.07 4.13 2009 209.61 3.33 3.35 3.40 3.46 3.54 3.58 3.59 3.61 3.67 3.71 3.77 3.84 3.90 3.96 4.02 2010 213.97 3.31 3.33 3.38 3.44 3.51 3.56 3.56 3.58 3.64 3.68 3.74 3.80 3.86 3.92 3.98 
Price Inflation, Page 19 

Table 2.3 (continued). Adjusted CPI-W: Compound Annual Rates of Growth (%) Base Year = 1982-1984

From

To Variable 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 

1970 44.071971 45.87 4.081972 47.31 3.60 3.131973 50.13 4.39 4.54 5.981974 55.08 5.73 6.29 7.91 9.871975 59.44 6.16 6.69 7.91 8.88 7.901976 62.71 6.05 6.45 7.30 7.75 6.70 5.511977 66.55 6.06 6.40 7.07 7.34 6.51 5.82 6.131978 70.97 6.14 6.43 6.99 7.20 6.54 6.09 6.38 6.631979 77.82 6.52 6.83 7.37 7.60 7.16 6.97 7.46 8.14 9.661980 86.39 6.96 7.29 7.82 8.08 7.79 7.77 8.34 9.09 10.33 11.011981 94.56 7.19 7.50 8.00 8.25 8.03 8.05 8.56 9.18 10.04 10.23 9.461982 100.13 7.08 7.35 7.79 7.99 7.76 7.74 8.11 8.51 8.99 8.76 7.66 5.891983 104.31 6.85 7.09 7.45 7.60 7.35 7.28 7.54 7.78 8.01 7.60 6.48 5.03 4.171984 108.47 6.64 6.84 7.16 7.27 7.01 6.91 7.09 7.23 7.33 6.87 5.86 4.68 4.08 3.991985 112.11 6.42 6.59 6.86 6.94 6.67 6.55 6.67 6.74 6.75 6.27 5.35 4.35 3.84 3.67 3.361986 113.84 6.11 6.25 6.47 6.51 6.24 6.09 6.14 6.15 6.09 5.58 4.71 3.78 3.26 2.96 2.45 1.541987 117.62 5.94 6.06 6.26 6.28 6.01 5.85 5.88 5.86 5.77 5.30 4.51 3.70 3.27 3.05 2.74 2.43 1988 121.78 5.81 5.91 6.09 6.10 5.83 5.67 5.69 5.65 5.55 5.10 4.38 3.68 3.32 3.15 2.93 2.79 1989 126.99 5.73 5.82 5.98 5.98 5.73 5.57 5.58 5.53 5.43 5.02 4.37 3.75 3.45 3.33 3.20 3.16 1990 133.09 5.68 5.77 5.91 5.91 5.67 5.52 5.52 5.48 5.38 5.00 4.42 3.87 3.62 3.54 3.47 3.49 1991 137.73 5.58 5.65 5.79 5.77 5.54 5.39 5.39 5.33 5.23 4.87 4.33 3.83 3.61 3.54 3.47 3.49 1992 141.07 5.43 5.50 5.62 5.60 5.36 5.22 5.20 5.14 5.03 4.68 4.17 3.70 3.49 3.41 3.34 3.34 1993 144.32 5.29 5.35 5.45 5.43 5.20 5.05 5.03 4.96 4.85 4.51 4.03 3.59 3.38 3.30 3.22 3.21 1994 147.26 5.15 5.20 5.30 5.26 5.04 4.89 4.86 4.78 4.67 4.34 3.88 3.47 3.27 3.18 3.10 3.08 1995 150.88 5.05 5.09 5.17 5.14 4.92 4.77 4.73 4.65 4.54 4.22 3.79 3.39 3.20 3.12 3.05 3.01 1996 154.77 4.95 4.98 5.06 5.02 4.81 4.66 4.62 4.54 4.43 4.13 3.71 3.34 3.16 3.08 3.01 2.97 1997 158.08 4.84 4.87 4.94 4.90 4.69 4.55 4.50 4.42 4.31 4.02 3.62 3.26 3.09 3.01 2.94 2.90 1998 159.93 4.71 4.73 4.80 4.75 4.54 4.40 4.35 4.26 4.15 3.86 3.48 3.14 2.97 2.89 2.81 2.77 1999 163.24 4.62 4.64 4.69 4.65 4.44 4.30 4.25 4.16 4.05 3.77 3.41 3.08 2.92 2.84 2.76 2.72 2000 168.92 4.58 4.60 4.65 4.60 4.40 4.27 4.22 4.13 4.02 3.76 3.41 3.10 2.95 2.88 2.81 2.77 2001 173.46 4.52 4.53 4.58 4.53 4.34 4.21 4.15 4.07 3.96 3.71 3.38 3.08 2.93 2.87 2.80 2.77 2002 175.92 4.42 4.43 4.48 4.42 4.23 4.10 4.05 3.96 3.86 3.61 3.29 3.00 2.86 2.79 2.72 2.69 2003 179.74 4.35 4.36 4.40 4.35 4.16 4.03 3.98 3.90 3.79 3.55 3.24 2.96 2.82 2.76 2.69 2.66 2004 184.51 4.30 4.31 4.35 4.29 4.11 3.98 3.93 3.85 3.74 3.51 3.21 2.95 2.82 2.75 2.69 2.66 2005 190.94 4.28 4.28 4.32 4.27 4.09 3.97 3.91 3.84 3.73 3.51 3.22 2.97 2.85 2.79 2.73 2.70 2006 197.14 4.25 4.25 4.29 4.24 4.07 3.94 3.89 3.82 3.72 3.50 3.22 2.98 2.86 2.81 2.75 2.72 2007 202.79 4.21 4.22 4.25 4.20 4.03 3.91 3.86 3.78 3.69 3.48 3.21 2.98 2.86 2.81 2.76 2.73 2008 211.08 4.21 4.21 4.24 4.19 4.03 3.92 3.87 3.79 3.70 3.50 3.24 3.02 2.91 2.86 2.81 2.79 2009 209.61 4.08 4.08 4.11 4.05 3.89 3.78 3.72 3.65 3.56 3.36 3.10 2.88 2.77 2.72 2.67 2.64 2010 213.97 4.03 4.03 4.05 4.00 3.84 3.73 3.68 3.60 3.51 3.32 3.07 2.86 2.75 2.70 2.65 2.62 

From

To Variable 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

1989 126.991990 133.09 4.801991 137.73 4.14 3.491992 141.07 3.57 2.96 2.431993 144.32 3.25 2.74 2.37 2.301994 147.26 3.01 2.56 2.26 2.17 2.041995 150.88 2.91 2.54 2.31 2.27 2.25 2.461996 154.77 2.87 2.55 2.36 2.34 2.36 2.52 2.581997 158.08 2.78 2.49 2.32 2.30 2.30 2.39 2.36 2.141998 159.93 2.60 2.32 2.16 2.11 2.08 2.09 1.96 1.65 1.171999 163.24 2.54 2.29 2.15 2.11 2.07 2.08 1.99 1.79 1.62 2.072000 168.92 2.63 2.41 2.29 2.28 2.27 2.31 2.29 2.21 2.24 2.77 3.482001 173.46 2.63 2.44 2.33 2.32 2.33 2.37 2.35 2.31 2.35 2.74 3.08 2.692002 175.92 2.54 2.35 2.25 2.23 2.22 2.25 2.22 2.16 2.16 2.41 2.52 2.05 1.422003 179.74 2.51 2.34 2.24 2.23 2.22 2.24 2.21 2.16 2.16 2.36 2.44 2.09 1.79 2.172004 184.51 2.52 2.36 2.27 2.26 2.26 2.28 2.26 2.22 2.23 2.41 2.48 2.23 2.08 2.41 2.652005 190.94 2.58 2.44 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.39 2.38 2.36 2.39 2.56 2.65 2.48 2.43 2.77 3.07 3.492006 197.14 2.62 2.49 2.42 2.42 2.43 2.46 2.46 2.45 2.48 2.65 2.73 2.61 2.59 2.89 3.13 3.37 2007 202.79 2.63 2.51 2.45 2.45 2.46 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.52 2.67 2.75 2.64 2.64 2.88 3.06 3.20 2008 211.08 2.71 2.60 2.54 2.55 2.57 2.61 2.62 2.62 2.66 2.81 2.90 2.82 2.84 3.08 3.27 3.42 2009 209.61 2.54 2.42 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.38 2.38 2.36 2.38 2.49 2.53 2.43 2.39 2.53 2.60 2.58 2010 213.97 2.52 2.40 2.35 2.34 2.34 2.36 2.36 2.34 2.36 2.46 2.49 2.39 2.36 2.48 2.52 2.50 
Price Inflation, Page 20 

Table 2.4. Adjusted GDP Price Index: Compound Annual Rates of Growth (%) Base Year = 1982-1984

From

To Variable 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 

1951 16.061952 16.39 2.071953 16.58 1.61 1.151954 16.74 1.39 1.05 0.951955 16.95 1.37 1.13 1.12 1.301956 17.52 1.76 1.68 1.86 2.31 3.341957 18.11 2.03 2.02 2.24 2.67 3.37 3.401958 18.51 2.05 2.05 2.23 2.56 2.98 2.80 2.211959 18.71 1.93 1.91 2.03 2.25 2.49 2.21 1.63 1.051960 18.94 1.85 1.83 1.92 2.09 2.24 1.97 1.50 1.15 1.261961 19.14 1.77 1.74 1.81 1.93 2.04 1.78 1.38 1.11 1.14 1.021962 19.38 1.72 1.69 1.75 1.85 1.93 1.70 1.36 1.15 1.18 1.15 1.281963 19.56 1.66 1.62 1.67 1.75 1.81 1.59 1.29 1.11 1.12 1.08 1.11 0.941964 19.85 1.64 1.61 1.65 1.72 1.77 1.57 1.31 1.17 1.19 1.17 1.22 1.20 1.451965 20.19 1.65 1.62 1.66 1.72 1.76 1.59 1.37 1.25 1.28 1.28 1.35 1.37 1.59 1.731966 20.74 1.72 1.69 1.74 1.80 1.85 1.70 1.51 1.43 1.48 1.52 1.62 1.71 1.96 2.22 2.701967 21.35 1.80 1.78 1.82 1.89 1.94 1.82 1.66 1.60 1.67 1.73 1.84 1.96 2.21 2.47 2.84 1968 22.24 1.93 1.93 1.98 2.05 2.11 2.01 1.88 1.85 1.94 2.03 2.17 2.32 2.60 2.89 3.27 1969 23.32 2.09 2.10 2.15 2.24 2.30 2.22 2.13 2.12 2.23 2.34 2.50 2.68 2.97 3.28 3.66 1970 24.52 2.25 2.26 2.33 2.42 2.49 2.43 2.36 2.37 2.49 2.62 2.79 2.99 3.28 3.59 3.96 1971 25.73 2.38 2.40 2.47 2.56 2.64 2.59 2.54 2.56 2.69 2.82 3.00 3.20 3.48 3.78 4.12 1972 26.81 2.47 2.49 2.56 2.65 2.73 2.69 2.65 2.68 2.81 2.94 3.11 3.30 3.56 3.83 4.13 1973 28.26 2.60 2.63 2.70 2.80 2.88 2.85 2.82 2.86 2.99 3.12 3.30 3.49 3.75 4.00 4.29 1974 30.79 2.87 2.91 2.99 3.10 3.19 3.18 3.17 3.23 3.38 3.53 3.73 3.93 4.21 4.49 4.80 1975 33.68 3.13 3.18 3.27 3.39 3.49 3.50 3.51 3.58 3.74 3.91 4.12 4.34 4.63 4.92 5.25 1976 35.58 3.23 3.28 3.38 3.49 3.59 3.61 3.62 3.70 3.85 4.02 4.22 4.43 4.71 4.98 5.28 1977 37.80 3.35 3.40 3.49 3.61 3.71 3.73 3.75 3.83 3.98 4.15 4.35 4.55 4.82 5.08 5.36 1978 40.41 3.48 3.53 3.63 3.74 3.85 3.87 3.89 3.98 4.14 4.30 4.49 4.70 4.95 5.21 5.48 1979 43.77 3.65 3.70 3.80 3.92 4.03 4.06 4.09 4.18 4.34 4.51 4.70 4.91 5.16 5.41 5.68 1980 47.78 3.83 3.89 4.00 4.12 4.23 4.27 4.31 4.40 4.57 4.73 4.93 5.14 5.39 5.64 5.91 1981 52.28 4.01 4.08 4.19 4.31 4.43 4.47 4.52 4.62 4.78 4.95 5.15 5.36 5.61 5.86 6.13 1982 55.47 4.08 4.15 4.25 4.37 4.49 4.53 4.58 4.68 4.84 5.00 5.20 5.40 5.64 5.88 6.12 1983 57.66 4.08 4.14 4.24 4.36 4.47 4.51 4.55 4.65 4.80 4.96 5.14 5.33 5.55 5.77 6.00 1984 59.82 4.07 4.13 4.23 4.34 4.44 4.48 4.52 4.61 4.76 4.91 5.08 5.26 5.47 5.67 5.88 1985 61.63 4.03 4.09 4.19 4.29 4.40 4.43 4.47 4.55 4.69 4.83 4.99 5.16 5.35 5.54 5.74 1986 63.00 3.98 4.04 4.13 4.23 4.33 4.36 4.39 4.47 4.60 4.73 4.88 5.03 5.22 5.39 5.57 1987 64.76 3.95 4.00 4.09 4.19 4.28 4.31 4.34 4.41 4.53 4.66 4.80 4.94 5.11 5.28 5.44 1988 66.99 3.94 3.99 4.07 4.16 4.25 4.28 4.31 4.38 4.50 4.61 4.75 4.89 5.05 5.20 5.35 1989 69.52 3.93 3.98 4.06 4.15 4.24 4.27 4.29 4.36 4.47 4.59 4.71 4.84 5.00 5.14 5.29 1990 72.21 3.93 3.98 4.06 4.14 4.23 4.25 4.28 4.34 4.45 4.56 4.69 4.81 4.96 5.09 5.23 1991 74.76 3.92 3.97 4.04 4.13 4.21 4.23 4.26 4.32 4.42 4.53 4.65 4.76 4.90 5.03 5.16 1992 76.54 3.88 3.93 4.00 4.08 4.16 4.18 4.20 4.26 4.36 4.46 4.57 4.68 4.82 4.94 5.06 1993 78.22 3.84 3.89 3.95 4.03 4.11 4.13 4.15 4.20 4.30 4.39 4.50 4.60 4.73 4.84 4.96 1994 79.87 3.80 3.84 3.91 3.98 4.05 4.07 4.09 4.14 4.23 4.32 4.42 4.52 4.64 4.75 4.86 1995 81.53 3.76 3.80 3.87 3.94 4.00 4.02 4.04 4.09 4.17 4.26 4.35 4.45 4.56 4.66 4.76 1996 83.08 3.72 3.76 3.82 3.89 3.95 3.97 3.98 4.03 4.11 4.19 4.28 4.37 4.48 4.58 4.67 1997 84.55 3.68 3.71 3.77 3.84 3.90 3.91 3.93 3.97 4.05 4.13 4.21 4.30 4.40 4.49 4.58 1998 85.51 3.62 3.66 3.71 3.78 3.83 3.85 3.86 3.90 3.97 4.05 4.13 4.21 4.30 4.39 4.47 1999 86.77 3.58 3.61 3.66 3.72 3.78 3.79 3.80 3.84 3.91 3.98 4.06 4.13 4.22 4.30 4.38 2000 88.65 3.55 3.58 3.63 3.69 3.74 3.75 3.76 3.80 3.87 3.93 4.01 4.08 4.17 4.24 4.32 2001 90.65 3.52 3.55 3.60 3.66 3.71 3.72 3.73 3.76 3.83 3.89 3.96 4.03 4.12 4.19 4.26 2002 92.11 3.48 3.51 3.56 3.62 3.67 3.67 3.68 3.71 3.78 3.84 3.91 3.97 4.05 4.12 4.19 2003 94.10 3.46 3.49 3.53 3.59 3.64 3.64 3.65 3.68 3.74 3.80 3.86 3.93 4.00 4.07 4.13 2004 96.77 3.45 3.47 3.52 3.57 3.62 3.62 3.63 3.66 3.72 3.78 3.84 3.90 3.98 4.04 4.10 2005 100.00 3.44 3.47 3.52 3.57 3.61 3.62 3.62 3.65 3.71 3.77 3.83 3.89 3.96 4.02 4.08 2006 103.26 3.44 3.47 3.51 3.56 3.61 3.61 3.62 3.65 3.70 3.76 3.82 3.88 3.94 4.00 4.06 2007 106.30 3.43 3.46 3.50 3.55 3.59 3.60 3.60 3.63 3.69 3.74 3.80 3.85 3.92 3.98 4.03 2008 108.57 3.41 3.43 3.48 3.52 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.60 3.65 3.70 3.76 3.82 3.88 3.94 3.99 2009 109.73 3.37 3.39 3.43 3.48 3.52 3.52 3.52 3.55 3.60 3.65 3.71 3.76 3.82 3.87 3.92 2010 111.00 3.33 3.35 3.39 3.44 3.48 3.48 3.48 3.50 3.55 3.60 3.65 3.70 3.76 3.81 3.86 
Price Inflation, Page 21 

Table 2.4 (continued). Adjusted GDP Price Index: Compound Annual Rates of Growth (%) Base Year = 1982-1984 

From

To Variable 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 

1970 24.521971 25.73 4.911972 26.81 4.55 4.201973 28.26 4.84 4.80 5.411974 30.79 5.85 6.17 7.17 8.961975 33.68 6.55 6.96 7.90 9.17 9.381976 35.58 6.40 6.70 7.33 7.98 7.50 5.641977 37.80 6.37 6.62 7.11 7.54 7.07 5.94 6.231978 40.41 6.44 6.66 7.08 7.42 7.03 6.26 6.57 6.911979 43.77 6.65 6.87 7.25 7.56 7.29 6.77 7.15 7.61 8.311980 47.78 6.90 7.12 7.49 7.79 7.60 7.24 7.65 8.13 8.74 9.161981 52.28 7.12 7.35 7.70 7.99 7.86 7.60 8.00 8.45 8.96 9.29 9.421982 55.47 7.04 7.23 7.54 7.78 7.63 7.39 7.68 7.97 8.24 8.22 7.75 6.101983 57.66 6.80 6.96 7.21 7.39 7.22 6.95 7.14 7.29 7.37 7.13 6.47 5.02 3.951984 59.82 6.58 6.71 6.92 7.06 6.87 6.59 6.71 6.78 6.76 6.45 5.78 4.59 3.85 3.751985 61.63 6.34 6.44 6.61 6.71 6.51 6.23 6.29 6.30 6.22 5.87 5.22 4.20 3.57 3.39 3.031986 63.00 6.07 6.15 6.29 6.36 6.15 5.86 5.88 5.84 5.71 5.34 4.72 3.80 3.23 3.00 2.62 2.221987 64.76 5.88 5.94 6.06 6.10 5.89 5.60 5.60 5.53 5.38 5.02 4.44 3.63 3.15 2.95 2.68 2.51 1988 66.99 5.74 5.79 5.89 5.92 5.71 5.43 5.41 5.34 5.18 4.84 4.31 3.61 3.19 3.05 2.87 2.82 1989 69.52 5.64 5.68 5.77 5.79 5.58 5.31 5.29 5.21 5.06 4.74 4.25 3.63 3.28 3.17 3.05 3.06 1990 72.21 5.55 5.58 5.66 5.67 5.47 5.22 5.19 5.11 4.96 4.66 4.22 3.65 3.35 3.27 3.19 3.22 1991 74.76 5.45 5.48 5.55 5.55 5.36 5.11 5.07 4.99 4.85 4.56 4.15 3.64 3.37 3.30 3.24 3.27 1992 76.54 5.31 5.33 5.39 5.38 5.19 4.95 4.90 4.82 4.67 4.39 4.00 3.53 3.27 3.20 3.13 3.14 1993 78.22 5.17 5.18 5.23 5.22 5.03 4.79 4.74 4.65 4.50 4.23 3.86 3.41 3.17 3.10 3.02 3.02 1994 79.87 5.04 5.05 5.09 5.07 4.88 4.65 4.59 4.50 4.35 4.09 3.74 3.31 3.08 3.01 2.93 2.92 1995 81.53 4.92 4.92 4.95 4.93 4.75 4.52 4.46 4.36 4.22 3.96 3.63 3.22 3.01 2.93 2.85 2.84 1996 83.08 4.80 4.80 4.83 4.80 4.61 4.39 4.33 4.23 4.09 3.84 3.52 3.14 2.93 2.85 2.78 2.75 1997 84.55 4.69 4.68 4.70 4.67 4.49 4.27 4.21 4.11 3.96 3.73 3.41 3.05 2.85 2.77 2.70 2.67 1998 85.51 4.56 4.55 4.56 4.53 4.35 4.13 4.07 3.96 3.82 3.59 3.29 2.94 2.74 2.66 2.58 2.55 1999 86.77 4.45 4.44 4.45 4.41 4.23 4.02 3.95 3.85 3.71 3.48 3.19 2.85 2.67 2.59 2.51 2.47 2000 88.65 4.38 4.36 4.36 4.33 4.15 3.95 3.88 3.78 3.64 3.42 3.14 2.82 2.64 2.56 2.49 2.45 2001 90.65 4.31 4.29 4.29 4.25 4.08 3.88 3.81 3.71 3.58 3.36 3.10 2.79 2.62 2.55 2.48 2.44 2002 92.11 4.22 4.20 4.20 4.16 3.99 3.80 3.73 3.63 3.49 3.29 3.03 2.73 2.57 2.50 2.43 2.39 2003 94.10 4.16 4.14 4.13 4.09 3.93 3.74 3.67 3.57 3.44 3.24 2.99 2.71 2.55 2.48 2.41 2.38 2004 96.77 4.12 4.10 4.09 4.05 3.89 3.71 3.64 3.54 3.42 3.22 2.98 2.71 2.56 2.50 2.43 2.40 2005 100.00 4.10 4.07 4.07 4.03 3.87 3.69 3.63 3.54 3.41 3.23 3.00 2.74 2.60 2.53 2.48 2.45 2006 103.26 4.07 4.05 4.05 4.00 3.85 3.68 3.62 3.53 3.41 3.23 3.01 2.76 2.62 2.57 2.51 2.49 2007 106.30 4.04 4.02 4.01 3.97 3.83 3.66 3.59 3.51 3.39 3.22 3.01 2.77 2.64 2.58 2.53 2.51 2008 108.57 3.99 3.97 3.96 3.92 3.78 3.61 3.55 3.46 3.35 3.18 2.97 2.74 2.62 2.56 2.51 2.49 2009 109.73 3.92 3.89 3.88 3.84 3.70 3.53 3.47 3.39 3.27 3.11 2.91 2.68 2.56 2.51 2.46 2.43 2010 111.00 3.85 3.82 3.81 3.77 3.63 3.47 3.40 3.32 3.21 3.05 2.85 2.63 2.51 2.46 2.41 2.38 

From

To Variable 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

1989 69.521990 72.21 3.871991 74.76 3.70 3.531992 76.54 3.26 2.95 2.381993 78.22 2.99 2.70 2.29 2.191994 79.87 2.81 2.55 2.23 2.15 2.111995 81.53 2.69 2.46 2.19 2.13 2.09 2.081996 83.08 2.58 2.36 2.13 2.07 2.03 1.99 1.901997 84.55 2.48 2.28 2.07 2.01 1.96 1.92 1.84 1.771998 85.51 2.33 2.14 1.94 1.86 1.80 1.72 1.60 1.45 1.141999 86.77 2.24 2.06 1.88 1.81 1.74 1.67 1.57 1.46 1.30 1.472000 88.65 2.23 2.07 1.91 1.85 1.80 1.75 1.69 1.64 1.59 1.82 2.172001 90.65 2.24 2.09 1.95 1.90 1.86 1.83 1.78 1.76 1.76 1.96 2.21 2.262002 92.11 2.19 2.05 1.92 1.87 1.83 1.80 1.76 1.73 1.73 1.88 2.01 1.93 1.612003 94.10 2.19 2.06 1.94 1.90 1.87 1.84 1.81 1.80 1.80 1.93 2.05 2.01 1.89 2.162004 96.77 2.23 2.11 2.00 1.97 1.95 1.94 1.92 1.92 1.95 2.08 2.21 2.22 2.20 2.50 2.842005 100.00 2.30 2.19 2.10 2.08 2.07 2.06 2.06 2.08 2.12 2.26 2.39 2.44 2.48 2.78 3.09 3.342006 103.26 2.35 2.26 2.18 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.17 2.20 2.25 2.39 2.52 2.58 2.64 2.90 3.14 3.30 2007 106.30 2.39 2.30 2.22 2.21 2.22 2.22 2.24 2.27 2.32 2.45 2.57 2.63 2.69 2.91 3.09 3.18 2008 108.57 2.37 2.29 2.22 2.21 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.25 2.30 2.42 2.52 2.57 2.61 2.78 2.90 2.92 2009 109.73 2.31 2.23 2.15 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.16 2.20 2.29 2.38 2.40 2.42 2.53 2.59 2.55 2010 111.00 2.25 2.17 2.10 2.09 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.09 2.12 2.20 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.36 2.39 2.31 
Price Inflation, Page 22 

Appendix 2 

OCACT adjustments to the actual published CPI-W annual growth rates - Between 1978 and 

2010, OCACT set the annual growth rate in the adjusted CPI-W to the growth rate in the actual 

published CPI-W plus an annual growth rate differential, defined as the growth rate in the CPI-U 

“Research Series” (CPI-U-RS) less the growth rate in the actual published CPI-U. BLS 

constructs the CPI-U-RS by recalculating the CPI-U back to 1978 using present methodology 

(see http://stats.bls.gov/cpi/cpirsdc.htm). An exception to this specification was made because 

BLS introduced an improvement for “rental equivalence” in 1983 for the CPI-U, but not until 

1985 for the CPI-W. Thus, for 1983 and 1984, the annual percent change in the adjusted CPI-W 

is defined as the percent change in the CPI-U-RS less 0.1 percentage point. This adjustment 

reflects the belief that, had the introductions been simultaneous in 1983, the observed differences 

in growth between the two inflation measures would have been equal to their published 

compound average annual difference (0.1 percentage point) over the post-1985 period. 

Between 1967 and 1977, the annual growth rate in the adjusted CPI-W was set to the growth rate 

in the actual published CPI-W less 0.2 percentage point plus an annual growth rate differential, 

defined as the growth rate in the CPI-U-X1 (a BLS “experimental series” that incorporates the 

improvement for rental equivalence into the historical CPI-U) less the growth rate in the actual 

published CPI-U. The 0.2 percentage point adjustment reflects a BLS estimate of the effect of 

introducing an improved geometric weighting formula into the CPI-W beginning in January 

1999. Finally, for 1966 and earlier, the annual growth rate in the adjusted CPI-W was set to the 

growth rate in the actual published CPI-W less the 0.2 percentage point adjustment for the 

improved geometric formula. 

OCACT adjustments to the actual published PGDP and real GDP (and therefore productivity) 

annual growth rates - As mentioned above, starting in January 1999, BLS introduced a new 

geometric weighting formula to the CPI, estimating that it would lower the future annual growth 

rate in the CPI by about 0.2 percentage point. BEA estimates that this change would have had a 

50.0 percent “feed-through” effect on the aggregate annual PGDP growth rate in the past. Thus, 

due to BLS’ introduction of an improved geometric weighting formula to the CPI, BEA lowered 

the annual growth rate in the aggregate PGDP by about 0.1 percentage point (0.2 * 50.0%). And, 

since the BLS improvement to the CPI does not alter the historical path of nominal GDP, BEA 

raised the annual growth rate in the real GDP by about 0.1 percentage point. However, BEA 

made these adjustments only back to 1978. Thus, to improve consistency, OCACT added the 

effect of this BLS improvement to the earlier data. That is, for 1978 and each earlier year, 

OCACT lowered the annual growth rate in the CPI by 0.2 percentage point, lowered the annual 

growth rate in the aggregate PGDP index by 0.1 percentage point, and raised the annual growth 

rate in real GDP, and therefore productivity, by 0.1 percentage point. Furthermore, a change in 

the CPI growth rate affects the PGDP through about 85.0% of the prices used to determine one 

of the components of the PGDP, that is, the GDP price index for consumption (PGDP_C). 

Hence, the annual growth rate for the PGDP_C in 1978 and earlier was lowered by about 0.17 

percent (0.2 * 0.85). 
Average Real Wage Differential, Page 1 

3. AVERAGE REAL WAGE DIFFERENTIAL 

THE 2012 TRUSTEES REPORT 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ACTUARY, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 

3.1 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................2

3.2 DEFINITION OF AVERAGE REAL WAGE DIFFERENTIAL ...........................3 

3.3 AVERAGE REAL ECONOMY-WIDE EARNINGS GROWTH ...........................3 

3.3.1 PRODUCTIVITY ................................................................................................................................... 5 

3.3.2 OTHER COMPONENTS: LINKS BETWEEN REAL EARNINGS AND 

PRODUCTIVITY ................................................................................................................................... 5 

3.3.2.1 RATIO OF COMPENSATION TO NOMINAL GDP ........................................................................ 6 

3.3.2.2 RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMPENSATION ................................................................................ 7 

3.3.2.3 AVERAGE HOURS WORKED ........................................................................................................... 9 

3.3.2.4 PRICE DIFFERENTIAL (EXPRESSED AS RATIO OF PGDP TO CPI-W) ............................... 10 

3.3.2.5 TOTAL LINKS .................................................................................................................................... 11 

3.4 PROJECTIONS FROM OTHER FORECASTERS ..............................................11 

LIST OF TABLES 

3.1 ASSUMED ULTIMATE AVERAGE REAL WAGE DIFFERENTIAL .......................................... 2 

3.2 AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN AVERAGE REAL EARNINGS: 

COMPARISON OF THE U.S. ECONOMY TO OASDI COVERED ............................................... 4 

3.3 AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN AVERAGE REAL EARNINGS: 

TOTAL U.S. ECONOMY AND ITS COMPONENTS ....................................................................... 6 

3.4 AVERAGE HOURS WORKED PER WEEK, TOTAL U.S.: COMPOUND ANNUAL 

GROWTH RATES ............................................................................................................................... 12 

APPENDIX 3 ..........................................................................................................................14 
Average Real Wage Differential, Page 2 

3 Average Real Wage Differential 

3.1 Summary 

For the 2012 Trustees Report, over the 65-year period from 2021 to 2086, the Trustees set the 

average annual growth rate in the OASDI covered wage to 3.6 percent, 4.0 percent, and 4.4 

percent for alternatives I, II, and III, respectively (Table 3.1). 43,44 Also for the 2011 Trustees 

Report, the Trustees set the assumed ultimate annual rates of increase in the CPI-W to 1.8 

percent, 2.8 percent, and 3.8 percent for alternatives I, II, and III, respectively (Table 2.1). Thus, 

for the 2012 Trustees Report, the Trustees set the average real wage differential, over the 65-year 

period from 2021 to 2086, to 1.8 percent (3.6 less 1.8), 1.2 percent (4.0 less 2.8), and 0.6 percent 

(4.4 less 3.8) for alternatives I, II, and III, respectively.45 These average real wage differentials 

for alternatives I, II, and III are the same as those used in the 2011 Trustees Report.

Table 3.1: Assumed Average Real Wage Differential 

 

Average Annual Percent Change 

(2021 to 2086) 

2012 Trustees Report 

Alternative 

2011 Trustees Report 

Alternative 

2012 Trustees Report Less 

2011 Trustees Report 

I II III I II III I II III

Average Nominal Wage 3.6 4.0 4.4 3.6 4.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Less: CPI-W 1.8 2.8 3.8 1.8 2.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Equals: 

Average Real Wage Differential 1.8 1.2 0.6 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 

 43 The 65-year period begins with the last year of the 10-year (2011 to 2021) “short-range” projection 

period and ends with the last year of the 75-year (2011 to 2086) “long-range” projection period. 

 44 For the 2009 Trustees Report, the annual growth rate in the average OASDI covered wage was assumed 

to have a constant “ultimate” value over the last 65 years of the projection period. This was due, in part, to the 

assumption that the ratio of wages to compensation would decline at a fixed “ultimate” rate per year (e.g., -0.2 

percent for alternative II) over the period. Starting with the 2010 Trustees Report, the annual growth rate in the 

average OASDI covered wage was assumed to vary over the last 65 years of the projection. This was due to the 

assumption that the ratio of wages to compensation would decline at a varying rate over the period due, in turn, to 

the assumed effect of the 2010 health care legislation on employer contributions to employee group health 

insurance. 

 45 The real wage differential is defined as the annual percent change in the average OASDI covered wage 

minus the annual percent change in the CPI. 
Average Real Wage Differential, Page 3 

3.2 Definition of Average Real Wage Differential 

The average OASDI covered wage is defined as the ratio of OASDI covered wages to 

employment. The annual real wage differential is defined as the annual percentage change in the 

average OASDI covered wage minus the annual percentage change in the CPI. The average real 

wage differential over the 65-year period from 2021 to 2086 is the average of annual real wage 

differentials over the period. 

Both the income to the Social Security program and the benefits paid are related to total covered 

earnings (i.e., the combination of covered wages and covered net earnings from selfemployment). For this reason, the growth in average earnings, not average wages, is the subject 

of the balance of this section. 

3.3 Average Real Economy-Wide Earnings Growth 

Average real earnings in the total U.S. economy are defined as the ratio of total nominal earnings 

(wage and salary disbursements and net proprietors’ income) to total adjusted civilian 

employment (see Appendix 3) and U.S. Armed Forces, divided by the adjusted CPI-W. BEA 

estimates historical values for nominal earnings as part of its broader responsibility of 

maintaining the NIPA for the U.S. economy. BLS estimates the CPI-W and the civilian 

employment from its monthly CPS data. Because CPS data for the U.S. represent average 

weekly employment, the average earnings for the total U.S. economy represent average weekly 

earnings for those employed. 

Average real weekly earnings in the total U.S. economy increased at an average annual rate of 

0.89 percent over the last 40 years (1970-2010), at 1.15 percent over the last 30 years (1980-

2010), at 1.29 percent over the last 20 years (1990-2010), and at 0.26 percent over the last 10 

years (2000-2010). The average real earnings of OASDI covered workers (which differs from 

average real weekly earnings in the total economy partly because of changes in the number and 

kind of workers covered by the OASDI program) increased at an average annual rate of 0.92 

percent over the last 40 years, 1.06 percent over the last 30 years, 1.05 percent over the last 20 

years, and 0.18 percent over the last 10 years (see Table 3.2 below). Note that these periods do 

not cover complete economic cycles and thus may not be the best indicators of true trend growth 

rates. 

Federal civilian government employees will become completely covered under OASDI around 

2030 (all employees hired after 1983 are covered). As a result, the composition of OASDI 

covered employment, which has varied since 1940, will stabilize around 2030. This suggests that 

it is reasonable to evaluate the 1.2 percent average rate of increase for real covered earnings for 

alternative II in relation to the historical growth rate in real earnings for all workers in the total 

economy. Therefore, the balance of this section focuses on the past trends for average earnings in 

the U.S. economy. 

Considering complete economic cycles, the average growth rate in real earnings for all workers 

in the total U.S. economy was 2.09 percent from 1966 to 1973 (7 years), -0.32 percent from 1973 
Average Real Wage Differential, Page 4 

to 1978 (5 years), 0.34 percent from 1978 to 1989 (11 years), 2.15 percent from 1989 to 2000 (11 

years), and 0.68 percent from 2000 to 2007 (7 years). These periods were chosen because they 

begin and end with years in which the economy peaked relative to its potential output. Thus, 

each period represents a complete peak-to-peak economic cycle. The 1.2 percent assumed 

average future annual real growth rate in average economy-wide earnings is significantly higher 

than the 0.90 percent historical average annual real growth rate over the last four complete 

economic cycles (the 34-year period from 1973 to 2007), but reasonably close to the 1.10 percent 

historical average annual real growth rate over the last five complete cycles (41-year period from 

1966 to 2007).

Table 3.2. Average Annual Percentage Change in Average Real Earnings: Comparison of the U.S. Economy to 

OASDI Covered 

The real growth rate in average earnings of all workers in the economy was depressed for the 

1973-1978 and 1978-1989 cycles in a way not expected to be repeated in the future. During this 

period, the baby boom generation reached working age and the proportion of women in the labor 

Average Real Ratio of Employed Ratio of Average Real

Earnings for Total Labor Force to Covered Earnings Earnings for

Period U.S. Economy Linkages Covered Workers to U.S. Earnings OASDI Covered

Historical: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

 By Decade:

 1960-1970 2.58 -0.38 -0.65 0.27 2.19

 1970-1980 0.10 0.41 0.25 0.16 0.51

 1980-1990 0.89 0.20 0.10 0.10 1.09

 1990-2000 2.32 -0.39 -0.20 -0.19 1.92

 2000-2010 0.26 -0.08 0.00 -0.08 0.18

 1960-2010 1.23 -0.05 -0.10 0.05 1.17

 1970-2010 0.89 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.92

 1980-2010 1.15 -0.09 -0.03 -0.06 1.06

 1990-2010 1.29 -0.24 -0.10 -0.14 1.05

 By Complete Economic Cycle (Peak-to-Peak):

 Individual Cycle

 1966-1973 2.09 -0.26 -0.35 0.09 1.82

 1973-1978 -0.32 1.13 0.49 0.64 0.81

 1978-1989 0.34 0.21 0.14 0.07 0.55

 1989-2000 2.15 -0.44 -0.20 -0.24 1.70

 2000-2007 0.68 -0.08 0.04 -0.12 0.60

 Last Two Cycles

 1989-2007 1.58 -0.30 -0.11 -0.20 1.27

 Last Three Cycles

 1978-2007 1.11 -0.11 -0.01 -0.10 1.00

 Last Four Cycles

 1973-2007 0.90 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.97

 Last Five Cycles

 1966-2007 1.10 0.02 -0.01 0.02 1.11
Average Real Wage Differential, Page 5 

force increased dramatically. As a result, the economy accommodated an extraordinary number 

of relatively low-paid (inexperienced and young) workers, thus depressing the real growth in the 

overall average earnings. However, the inclusion of baby boomers in the labor force ended in the 

mid-1980s, and the increasing percentage of women under age 60 in the labor force stabilized 

more recently. 

The rapid increase in average earnings during the complete economic cycle from 1989 to 2000 

may reflect maturation of the baby boomers and women in the labor force. The large number of 

baby boomers and women in the labor force have been reaching prime working ages and thus 

boosted growth since 1989. This kind of swing in demographic trends is not projected to occur in 

the future, so consideration of the longer period of the last five complete economic cycles seems 

appropriate. This approach allows us to average out the first depressing and later boosting effects 

on average earnings of past demographic trends. 

Additional circumstances contributing to potential future growth are discussed in the next two 

sections on productivity growth and earnings links to productivity. 

3.3.1 Productivity 

Total-economy productivity is defined as the ratio of real GDP to total hours worked in the U.S. 

economy. For the 2012 Trustees Report, the Trustees set the assumed ultimate annual rates of 

increase in total-economy productivity to 1.98 percent, 1.68 percent, and 1.38 percent for 

alternatives I, II, and III, respectively. OCACT believes that these ultimate rates of increase for 

total-economy productivity are approximately consistent with ultimate annual rates of increase in 

nonfarm business productivity of 2.39 percent, 2.03 percent, and 1.67 percent for alternatives I, 

II, and III, respectively (see Section 1). 

3.3.2 Other Components: Links between Real Earnings and Productivity 

Analysis of the links between productivity and average real earnings gains shows that not all of 

the historical gains in productivity have resulted in proportional increases in average real 

earnings. For example, over the last four economic cycles (1973-2007), average real earnings 

increased at an average annual rate of only 0.90 percent per year, while productivity for the total 

U.S. economy increased at 1.57 percent per year. The approximate difference of -0.67 percent 

per year (1.0090 / 1.0157) was due to changes in the links, that is, those factors that connect 

productivity to average real earnings in a multiplicative fashion. Table 3.3 summarizes the U.S. 

experience over the last five decades for each of these factors. 46 They include the ratio of 

compensation to nominal GDP, the ratio of earnings to compensation, the ratio of total hours 

 

 46 For consistency, Section 3 calculates values for productivity, hours per week, price differential, and 

average real earnings using adjusted data for the CPI, PGDP, real GDP, and employment (weeks worked). Hence, 

Table 3.3 contains adjusted productivity values which may not equal the unadjusted productivity values on Table 1.4 

in Section 1. Adjustments to the CPI, PGDP and real GDP are described in Appendix 2. Adjustments to employment 

are described in Appendix 3. 
Average Real Wage Differential, Page 6 

worked to total average (weekly) employment, and the ratio of the Gross Domestic Product 

Chain-Type Price Index (PGDP) to the CPI-W. Each is discussed separately below. 

Table 3.3. Average Annual Percentage Change in Average Real Earnings: Total U.S. Economy and Its Components

 I 1.98 -0.23 0.00 -0.03 0.10 -0.29 0.00 1.75

 II 1.68 -0.50 0.00 -0.12 0.00 -0.39 0.00 1.17

 III 1.38 -0.78 0.00 -0.20 -0.10 -0.48 0.00 0.59

Assumed Future Average Annual Rates of Increase for the 2012 Trustees Report (2021-2086)

3.3.2.1 Ratio of Compensation to Nominal GDP 

The first link is the ratio of total compensation to nominal GDP, or the total compensation ratio 

(CR). Total compensation is the sum of employee compensation and self-employed 

(proprietors’) income to nominal GDP. For the 2012 Trustees Report, the Trustees set the 

assumed ultimate annual growth rate in the CR to 0.0 percent in alternatives I, II, and III. This is 

consistent with the relatively small average annual growth rate of -0.04 percent experienced over 

the last five economic cycles (the 41-year period from 1966 to 2007). 

Total Compensation Earnings to Hours per Price Average

Period Productivity Linkages to GDP Compensation Week Differential Residual Real Earnings

Historical: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

 By Decade:

 1960-1970 2.70 -0.11 0.16 -0.29 -0.29 0.31 0.00 2.58

 1970-1980 1.60 -1.48 -0.25 -0.64 -0.53 -0.06 0.00 0.10

 1980-1990 1.47 -0.58 -0.26 -0.09 -0.03 -0.19 0.00 0.89

 1990-2000 1.76 0.55 0.42 0.15 0.31 -0.33 0.00 2.32

 2000-2010 2.03 -1.73 -0.68 -0.33 -0.61 -0.12 0.00 0.26

 1960-2010 1.91 -0.67 -0.12 -0.24 -0.23 -0.08 0.00 1.23

 1970-2010 1.72 -0.81 -0.19 -0.23 -0.22 -0.18 0.00 0.89

 1980-2010 1.75 -0.59 -0.17 -0.09 -0.11 -0.21 0.00 1.15

 1990-2010 1.90 -0.59 -0.13 -0.09 -0.15 -0.22 0.00 1.29

 By Complete Economic Cycle (Peak-to-Peak):

 Individual Cycle

 1966-1973 2.36 -0.26 0.45 -0.44 -0.72 0.45 0.00 2.09

 1973-1978 1.30 -1.61 -0.42 -0.74 -0.66 0.20 0.00 -0.32

 1978-1989 1.22 -0.86 -0.28 -0.15 -0.08 -0.36 0.00 0.34

 1989-2000 1.76 0.39 0.40 0.13 0.25 -0.38 0.00 2.15

 2000-2007 2.06 -1.33 -0.57 -0.25 -0.50 -0.02 0.00 0.68

 Last Two Cycles

 1989-2007 1.87 -0.28 0.02 -0.02 -0.04 -0.24 0.00 1.58

 Last Three Cycles

 1978-2007 1.62 -0.50 -0.09 -0.07 -0.05 -0.29 0.00 1.11

 Last Four Cycles

 1973-2007 1.57 -0.67 -0.14 -0.17 -0.14 -0.21 0.00 0.90

 Last Five Cycles

 1966-2007 1.71 -0.60 -0.04 -0.21 -0.24 -0.10 0.00 1.10
Average Real Wage Differential, Page 7 

The CR is labor’s share of total output. Most economists believe that the shares of total output 

going to the various factors of production will be stable in the long run. Therefore, OCACT 

believes that it is reasonable to assume the CR will be a constant in the long-range future. 

3.3.2.2 Ratio of Earnings to Compensation 

The second link is the ratio of total worker earnings to compensation. Using NIPA definitions, 

total worker earnings are the sum of total wage and salary disbursements and total proprietors’ 

income. Total compensation is the sum of employee compensation and total proprietors’ income. 

Total employee compensation is the sum of total wage and salary disbursements, employer 

contributions for employee pension and insurance funds, and employer contributions to 

government social insurance. Employer contributions to government social insurance include 

payments for public insurance and publicly mandated insurance such as for unemployment, 

workers’ compensation, Medicare, and Social Security. 

The average annual growth rate for the ratio was -0.21 percent from 1966 to 2007, a 41-year 

period that covers the last five peak-to-peak economic cycles. The historical decline in the ratio 

has been due primarily to the relatively faster growth in employer contributions to employee 

pensions and health insurance. 

Most employer contributions to pensions are for employees in the private sector and are 

composed of contributions to defined-benefit and defined-contribution plans. Since 2000, 

employer contributions to employee defined-benefit plans have risen sharply due to the decline 

in the stock market and relatively low interest rates. It is plausible to expect these contributions 

to decline in the near future if interest rates and the stock market rebound. OCACT also expects a 

relative increase in employer contributions to employee pension funds due to increased life 

expectancy, and a relative decrease due to a continued shift from defined-benefit to 

defined-contribution plans. 

Contributions to employer-sponsored group health insurance (ESI) in the future are expected to 

be significantly affected by the health care legislation enacted in 2010. This expectation led to a 

significant change in the assumed future path of the ratio of earnings to compensation between 

the 2009 and 2010 Trustees Reports. 

For the 2009 Trustees Report, the ratio of wages and salaries disbursements (WSD) to employee 

compensation (WSS) was assumed to decline at a fixed “ultimate” annual rate in each of the last 

65 years of the 75-year projection horizon. The assumed ultimate annual rate of decline in the 

ratio of WSD to WSS was set to -0.1, -0.2, and -0.3 percentage point for alternative I, II, and III, 

respectively. The assumed average annual rate of decline of 0.20 percent for alternative II was 

roughly consistent with the historical record over the last 50 years and the assumed average 

annual rate of increase in the ratio of ESI to WSS over the next 75 years. In turn, the assumed 

average annual rate of increase in the ratio of ESI to WSS was mostly based on the Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) assumption that the average annual growth rate in 

national health care expenditures will be about 1.0 percentage point higher than the average 

annual growth rate in GDP (and in WSS). 
Average Real Wage Differential, Page 8 

For the 2010 Trustees Report, CMS projected components of national health care expenditures, 

including ESI, under pre-new-law assumptions and new-law assumptions (i.e., before and after 

the new health care reform legislation enacted in 2010). The more detailed CMS data enabled 

projection of annual growth rates for the ratio of WSD to WSS. 

For alternative II pre-new-law assumptions, the projected annual rate of change in the ratio of 

WSD to WSS averaged: 

• -0.01 percentage point over the first 10 years (i.e., from 2009 to 2019), 

• -0.27 percentage point over the next 30 years (from 2019 to 2049), 

• -0.20 percentage point over the last 35 years (from 2049 to 2084), and 

• -0.20 percentage point over the total 75-year projection horizon (from 2009 to 

2084). 

Although the projected 75-year average rate of change in the ratio of WSD to WSS was 

approximately 0.20 percent per year for alternative II in both the 2009 Trustees Report and in the 

2010 Trustees Report pre-new-law assumptions, the annual growth rates for each year were 

different. For alternative II, the projected average annual rate of change in the ratio for the 2010 

Trustees Report pre-new-law assumptions, compared to that for the 2009 Trustees Report, was: 

• Higher by 0.19 percentage point (-0.01 less -0.20) over the first 10 years of the 

75-year projection horizon, 

• Lower by 0.07 percentage point (-0.27 less -0.20) over the next 30 years, and 

• About equal at -0.20 percentage point over the last 35 years.

For the alternative II new-law assumptions, CMS incorporated the effects of the new health care 

legislation and updated its projection of ESI, which gave a corresponding change in projected 

annual rates of change for the ratio of WSD to WSS. For the alternative II new-law assumptions, 

the projected annual rate of change in the ratio of WSD to WSS averaged: 

• +0.02 percentage point over the first 10 years (i.e., from 2009 to 2019), 

• -0.11 percentage point over the next 30 years (from 2019 to 2049), 

• -0.15 percentage point over the last 35 years (from 2049 to 2084), and 

• -0.13 percentage point over the total 75-year projection horizon (from 2009 to 

2084). 

The projected average annual growth rate in the ratio of WSD to WSS was higher than in the 

pre-new-law assumptions by: 

• 0.03 percentage point (+0.02 less -0.01) over the first 10 years of the 75-year 

projection horizon, 

• 0.16 percentage point (-0.11 less -0.27) over the next 30 years, 

• 0.05 percentage point (-0.15 less -0.20) over the last 35 years, and 

• 0.07 percentage point (-0.13 less -0.20) over the total 75-year projection horizon. 
Average Real Wage Differential, Page 9 

For the 2012 Trustees Report, the Trustees seta path for the annual rates of change in the ratio of 

WSD to WSS over the last 65 years of the projection horizon (2021 to 2086) consistent with the 

annual rates of change over the same period from the 2011 Trustees Report. This will result in an 

average annual rate of decline in the ratio of WSD to WSS of about -0.1 percent over the last 65 

years of the 75-year projection period. 

Hence, for the 2012 Trustees Report, the Trustees set the average annual rate of change in the 

ratio of wages to employee compensation over the last 65 years of the projection horizon (2021 

to 2086) to -0.04, -0.14, and -0.24 percentage point for alternatives I, II, and III, respectively. 

Consistent with this, the Trustees set the average annual rate of change in the ratio of earnings to 

total compensation over the last 65 years of the projection horizon (2021 to 2086) to -0.03, -0.12, 

and -0.20 percentage point for alternatives I, II, and III, respectively. 

3.3.2.3 Average Hours Worked 

The third link is average hours worked per week (AHW), defined as the ratio of total hours 

worked to total employment in the U.S. economy. Its compounded annual growth rate is shown 

in Table 3.4. Total hours worked in the U.S. economy is an unpublished series provided by BLS, 

based mostly on the CES. Total employment, computed on an average weekly basis, is the sum 

of civilian employment and the U.S. Armed Forces. BLS publishes total civilian employment 

from the CPS. The Census Bureau provides estimates for the U.S. Armed Forces. For the 2012 

Trustees Report, the Trustees set the assumed ultimate annual rate of increase in average hours 

worked to +0.1 percent, 0.0 percent and -0.1 percent in alternatives I, II, and III, respectively. 

The average annual growth rate for AHW was -0.24 percent from 1966 to 2007, a 41-year period 

that covers the last five peak-to-peak economic cycles. In the 2011 Trustees Report intermediate 

case, the assumed long-range average annual growth rate for the AHW was 0.0 percent. 

Compared to the average over the 41-year period covering the last five economic cycles, the 

assumed long-range average annual growth rate of 0.0 percent for the AHW is higher, reflecting, 

in part, the shift from a negative to a positive growth rate between 1982 and 1999. For example, 

if the 41-year period ending in 2007 is split into individual economic cycles for the 1966-1973, 

1973-1978, 1978-1989, 1989-2000, and 2000-2007 periods, the average annual growth rates in 

the AHW are -0.72 percent, -0.66 percent, -0.08 percent, 0.25 percent, and -0.50 percent, 

respectively. 

At least some of the reversal in the historical decline in AHW between 1982 and 1999 is due to 

changes in the education and age-sex distributions of the workforce. Workers with higher 

education tend to work more hours than their less-educated counterparts, males tend to work 

more hours than females, and prime-age workers more than the very young and the very old. In 

analyses for the 2001 Trustees Reports (see memorandum dated October 6, 2000 on AHW for 

more details), OCACT estimated that, due to changes in the education and age-sex distributions 

of the workforce alone, the average annual growth rate in AHW increased by about 0.18 percent 

per year over the 1979-1989 period, and by 0.06 percent over the 1989-1998 period. Thus, as a 

rough approximation, the underlying “trend” growth rate in the AHW was estimated to be about 

-0.26 percent (-0.08 - 0.18) over the 1978-1989 economic cycle, and about 0.19 percent (0.25 - 
Average Real Wage Differential, Page 10 

0.06) over the 1989-2000 economic cycle. However, even after adjusting for the effects of 

changes in education and age-sex distributions of the workforce, the decline in AHW in the pre1982 period is reversed over the 1982 to 1989 period. 

Other data from the CPS also suggest that the trend movement in the average annual growth rate 

in AHW is now close to 0.0 percent. BLS publishes a CPS-based measure of average hours 

worked per week for the total labor force (AHW_CPS). The average annual growth rate in the 

AHW_CPS was about 0.02 percent over the 1989 to 2000 period. If the effect of changes in the 

education and age-sex distributions of the workforce is removed from this measure, the residual 

average annual growth rate in the AHW_CPS would have been about -0.04 percent (0.02-0.06) 

over the period. 

Over the most recent economic cycle, AHW has declined sharply at an average annual growth 

rate of -0.50 percent. However, this drop should be viewed with some uncertainty because the 

underlying data are subject to potentially large population-related revisions. Furthermore, the 

average annual growth rate in AHW_CPS suggests a much more moderate decline of about 0.22 

percent over the period. Regardless, the brief, but substantial, return to declines in AHW since 

2000 tells us that this link bears watching.

For the future, OCACT still believes that there are factors that, by themselves, suggest that the 

annual rate of change in average hours worked will be negative. As in the past, the assumed 

steady increases in productivity will allow workers to gradually increase leisure time while still 

maintaining increases in weekly and annual earnings. Furthermore, the average projected 

changes in the education and age-sex distributions of the workforce are not expected to 

significantly affect the average annual growth rate in the AHW in the future. However, OCACT 

also believes that the assumed future increases in life expectancy will raise labor force 

participation rates for older workers and may also raise AHW, holding other factors constant. 

3.3.2.4 Price Differential (Expressed as Ratio of PGDP to CPI-W) 

The final link is the ratio of the PGDP to the CPI-W. Including this ratio is necessary because 

nominal earnings depend on nominal GDP (i.e., the product of real GDP and the PGDP), but are 

converted to real earnings using the CPI-W. For the 2011 Trustees Report, the Trustees set the 

assumed ultimate price differential (expressed as the PGDP less CPI-W average annual rates of 

increase) to -0.3, -0.4, and -0.5 percentage point for alternative I, II, and III, respectively. For 

alternative II, the 0.4 percentage point price differential is the sum of a 0.3 percentage point 

computational difference and a 0.1 percentage point coverage difference (see Section 2.3). These 

values are unchanged from the ones assumed in the 2011 Trustees Report. 

3.3.2.5 Total Links 

The average annual change in the total links was -0.52 percent over the last three economic 

cycles and -0.67 percent over the last four cycles. For the 2012 Trustees Report, the Trustees set 

the assumed average annual changes in the total links to approximately -0.23 percentage 
Average Real Wage Differential, Page 11 

point, -0.50 percentage point, and -0.78 percentage point for alternatives I, II, and III, 

respectively. 

3.4 Projections from Other Forecasters 

Global Insight, Inc. includes projections through 2041 in its latest long-run trend forecast (see

August 2011 30-year Baseline Annual Forecast). Over the 20-year period from 2021 to 2041, 

Global Insight, Inc. projects an average annual growth rate for average real U.S. earnings of 

about 1.6 percent. Macroeconomic Advisers publishes its latest long-run projections (Long-Term 

Economic Outlook, Third Quarter, 2011) through 2021. For 2020 and 2021, it projects an 

average annual growth rate for average real U.S. earnings of about 2.0 percent. The Moody’s 

Analytics September 2011 forecast extends to 2041. Over the 20-year period from 2021 to 2041, 

Moody’s Analytics projects that the annual growth rate for average real U.S. earnings will 

average 1.0 percent. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Mid-Session Review of the Fiscal Year 2012 

Budget includes projections through 2021. OMB projects the annual growth rate for average real 

U.S. earnings will average about 1.9 percent for the 3-year period from 2018 to 2021. The 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) MAD Forecast, August 2011, includes projections through 

2021. CBO projects that the annual growth rate for average real U.S. earnings will average 1.64 

percent for 2020 and 2021. The Social Security Advisory Board’s 20011 Technical Panel on 

Assumptions and Methods recommended assuming an ultimate (i.e., long-range average) annual 

rate of increase in the average real wage of 1.5 percent for alternative II. 
Differential, Page 12 

Average Real Wage 

Table 3.4. Average Hours Worked per Week, Total U.S.: Compound Annual Growth Rates (%) 

From

To Variable 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 

1951 39.321952 39.21 -0.271953 39.11 -0.26 -0.261954 38.74 -0.49 -0.60 -0.951955 38.96 -0.23 -0.21 -0.19 0.571956 38.74 -0.30 -0.30 -0.32 -0.01 -0.581957 38.26 -0.45 -0.49 -0.55 -0.41 -0.90 -1.221958 37.59 -0.64 -0.70 -0.79 -0.75 -1.19 -1.49 -1.751959 38.09 -0.39 -0.41 -0.44 -0.34 -0.56 -0.56 -0.22 1.331960 37.74 -0.45 -0.48 -0.51 -0.44 -0.64 -0.65 -0.46 0.20 -0.931961 37.47 -0.48 -0.50 -0.53 -0.47 -0.65 -0.66 -0.52 -0.11 -0.82 -0.711962 37.74 -0.37 -0.38 -0.39 -0.33 -0.45 -0.43 -0.27 0.10 -0.31 0.01 0.731963 37.52 -0.39 -0.40 -0.41 -0.35 -0.47 -0.45 -0.32 -0.04 -0.38 -0.19 0.07 -0.591964 37.67 -0.33 -0.33 -0.34 -0.28 -0.37 -0.35 -0.22 0.04 -0.22 -0.04 0.18 -0.09 0.401965 37.93 -0.26 -0.26 -0.26 -0.19 -0.27 -0.23 -0.11 0.13 -0.07 0.10 0.30 0.16 0.54 0.681966 38.11 -0.21 -0.20 -0.20 -0.14 -0.20 -0.16 -0.04 0.17 0.01 0.16 0.34 0.24 0.52 0.58 0.481967 37.63 -0.27 -0.27 -0.28 -0.22 -0.29 -0.26 -0.17 0.01 -0.15 -0.04 0.07 -0.06 0.07 -0.04 -0.40 1968 37.52 -0.27 -0.28 -0.28 -0.23 -0.29 -0.27 -0.18 -0.02 -0.17 -0.07 0.02 -0.10 0.00 -0.10 -0.36 1969 37.52 -0.26 -0.26 -0.26 -0.21 -0.27 -0.25 -0.16 -0.02 -0.15 -0.07 0.01 -0.09 0.00 -0.08 -0.27 1970 36.64 -0.37 -0.38 -0.38 -0.35 -0.41 -0.40 -0.33 -0.21 -0.35 -0.29 -0.25 -0.37 -0.34 -0.46 -0.69 1971 36.34 -0.39 -0.40 -0.41 -0.38 -0.43 -0.43 -0.37 -0.26 -0.39 -0.34 -0.31 -0.42 -0.40 -0.51 -0.71 1972 36.27 -0.38 -0.39 -0.40 -0.36 -0.42 -0.41 -0.36 -0.25 -0.38 -0.33 -0.30 -0.40 -0.38 -0.47 -0.64 1973 36.23 -0.37 -0.38 -0.38 -0.35 -0.40 -0.39 -0.34 -0.24 -0.36 -0.31 -0.28 -0.37 -0.35 -0.43 -0.57 1974 35.69 -0.42 -0.43 -0.44 -0.41 -0.46 -0.45 -0.41 -0.32 -0.43 -0.40 -0.37 -0.47 -0.45 -0.54 -0.67 1975 35.06 -0.48 -0.49 -0.50 -0.47 -0.53 -0.52 -0.48 -0.41 -0.52 -0.49 -0.47 -0.57 -0.56 -0.65 -0.78 1976 34.93 -0.47 -0.48 -0.49 -0.47 -0.52 -0.52 -0.48 -0.41 -0.51 -0.48 -0.47 -0.55 -0.55 -0.63 -0.75 1977 34.91 -0.46 -0.46 -0.47 -0.45 -0.50 -0.49 -0.46 -0.39 -0.48 -0.46 -0.44 -0.52 -0.52 -0.59 -0.69 1978 35.05 -0.42 -0.43 -0.44 -0.42 -0.46 -0.45 -0.42 -0.35 -0.44 -0.41 -0.39 -0.46 -0.45 -0.51 -0.61 1979 35.01 -0.41 -0.42 -0.42 -0.40 -0.44 -0.44 -0.40 -0.34 -0.42 -0.39 -0.38 -0.44 -0.43 -0.49 -0.57 1980 34.74 -0.43 -0.43 -0.44 -0.42 -0.46 -0.45 -0.42 -0.36 -0.44 -0.41 -0.40 -0.46 -0.45 -0.51 -0.58 1981 34.41 -0.44 -0.45 -0.46 -0.44 -0.48 -0.47 -0.44 -0.38 -0.46 -0.44 -0.43 -0.49 -0.48 -0.53 -0.61 1982 34.14 -0.45 -0.46 -0.47 -0.45 -0.49 -0.48 -0.46 -0.40 -0.48 -0.45 -0.44 -0.50 -0.50 -0.55 -0.62 1983 34.28 -0.43 -0.43 -0.44 -0.42 -0.46 -0.45 -0.42 -0.37 -0.44 -0.42 -0.40 -0.46 -0.45 -0.50 -0.56 1984 34.57 -0.39 -0.39 -0.40 -0.38 -0.41 -0.41 -0.37 -0.32 -0.39 -0.36 -0.35 -0.40 -0.39 -0.43 -0.49 1985 34.64 -0.37 -0.38 -0.38 -0.36 -0.39 -0.38 -0.35 -0.30 -0.37 -0.34 -0.33 -0.37 -0.36 -0.40 -0.45 1986 34.25 -0.39 -0.40 -0.40 -0.38 -0.42 -0.41 -0.38 -0.33 -0.39 -0.37 -0.36 -0.40 -0.40 -0.43 -0.49 1987 34.27 -0.38 -0.38 -0.39 -0.37 -0.40 -0.39 -0.37 -0.32 -0.38 -0.36 -0.34 -0.39 -0.38 -0.41 -0.46 1988 34.52 -0.35 -0.35 -0.36 -0.34 -0.37 -0.36 -0.33 -0.28 -0.34 -0.32 -0.30 -0.34 -0.33 -0.36 -0.41 1989 34.76 -0.32 -0.33 -0.33 -0.31 -0.34 -0.33 -0.30 -0.25 -0.30 -0.28 -0.27 -0.30 -0.29 -0.32 -0.36 1990 34.63 -0.32 -0.33 -0.33 -0.31 -0.34 -0.33 -0.30 -0.26 -0.31 -0.29 -0.27 -0.31 -0.30 -0.32 -0.36 1991 34.41 -0.33 -0.33 -0.34 -0.32 -0.34 -0.34 -0.31 -0.27 -0.32 -0.30 -0.28 -0.32 -0.31 -0.33 -0.37 1992 34.22 -0.34 -0.34 -0.34 -0.33 -0.35 -0.34 -0.32 -0.28 -0.32 -0.31 -0.29 -0.33 -0.32 -0.34 -0.38 1993 34.51 -0.31 -0.31 -0.31 -0.30 -0.32 -0.31 -0.29 -0.24 -0.29 -0.27 -0.26 -0.29 -0.28 -0.30 -0.34 1994 34.95 -0.27 -0.27 -0.27 -0.26 -0.28 -0.27 -0.24 -0.20 -0.25 -0.23 -0.21 -0.24 -0.23 -0.25 -0.28 1995 35.27 -0.25 -0.25 -0.25 -0.23 -0.25 -0.24 -0.21 -0.17 -0.21 -0.19 -0.18 -0.21 -0.19 -0.21 -0.24 1996 35.18 -0.25 -0.25 -0.25 -0.23 -0.25 -0.24 -0.21 -0.17 -0.21 -0.19 -0.18 -0.21 -0.19 -0.21 -0.24 1997 35.39 -0.23 -0.23 -0.23 -0.21 -0.23 -0.22 -0.19 -0.15 -0.19 -0.17 -0.16 -0.18 -0.17 -0.19 -0.22 1998 35.60 -0.21 -0.21 -0.21 -0.19 -0.21 -0.20 -0.18 -0.14 -0.17 -0.15 -0.14 -0.16 -0.15 -0.17 -0.19 1999 35.72 -0.20 -0.20 -0.20 -0.18 -0.20 -0.19 -0.16 -0.12 -0.16 -0.14 -0.13 -0.15 -0.14 -0.15 -0.18 2000 35.72 -0.20 -0.19 -0.19 -0.18 -0.19 -0.18 -0.16 -0.12 -0.16 -0.14 -0.12 -0.15 -0.13 -0.15 -0.17 2001 35.29 -0.22 -0.21 -0.21 -0.20 -0.21 -0.21 -0.18 -0.15 -0.18 -0.16 -0.15 -0.17 -0.16 -0.18 -0.20 2002 34.95 -0.23 -0.23 -0.23 -0.21 -0.23 -0.22 -0.20 -0.17 -0.20 -0.18 -0.17 -0.19 -0.18 -0.20 -0.22 2003 34.62 -0.24 -0.24 -0.24 -0.23 -0.25 -0.24 -0.22 -0.18 -0.22 -0.20 -0.19 -0.21 -0.20 -0.22 -0.24 2004 34.59 -0.24 -0.24 -0.24 -0.23 -0.24 -0.24 -0.21 -0.18 -0.21 -0.20 -0.19 -0.21 -0.20 -0.21 -0.24 2005 34.56 -0.24 -0.24 -0.24 -0.22 -0.24 -0.23 -0.21 -0.18 -0.21 -0.20 -0.18 -0.20 -0.20 -0.21 -0.23 2006 34.56 -0.23 -0.23 -0.23 -0.22 -0.23 -0.23 -0.21 -0.17 -0.21 -0.19 -0.18 -0.20 -0.19 -0.20 -0.23 2007 34.50 -0.23 -0.23 -0.23 -0.22 -0.23 -0.23 -0.21 -0.18 -0.21 -0.19 -0.18 -0.20 -0.19 -0.20 -0.23 2008 34.17 -0.25 -0.25 -0.25 -0.23 -0.25 -0.24 -0.22 -0.19 -0.22 -0.21 -0.20 -0.22 -0.21 -0.22 -0.24 2009 33.46 -0.28 -0.28 -0.28 -0.27 -0.28 -0.28 -0.26 -0.23 -0.26 -0.25 -0.24 -0.26 -0.25 -0.26 -0.28 2010 33.60 -0.27 -0.27 -0.27 -0.25 -0.27 -0.26 -0.25 -0.22 -0.25 -0.23 -0.22 -0.24 -0.23 -0.25 -0.27 
Differential, Page 13 

Average Real Wage 

Table 3.4. Average Hours Worked per Week, Total U.S. (continued): Compound Annual Growth Rates (%) 

From

To Variable 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 

1970 36.641971 36.34 -0.821972 36.27 -0.50 -0.181973 36.23 -0.37 -0.15 -0.111974 35.69 -0.66 -0.60 -0.81 -1.511975 35.06 -0.88 -0.89 -1.13 -1.63 -1.751976 34.93 -0.79 -0.79 -0.94 -1.22 -1.07 -0.381977 34.91 -0.69 -0.67 -0.77 -0.93 -0.74 -0.22 -0.071978 35.05 -0.55 -0.51 -0.57 -0.66 -0.45 -0.01 0.17 0.411979 35.01 -0.50 -0.46 -0.50 -0.57 -0.38 -0.04 0.08 0.15 -0.101980 34.74 -0.53 -0.50 -0.54 -0.60 -0.45 -0.18 -0.13 -0.16 -0.44 -0.781981 34.41 -0.57 -0.54 -0.59 -0.64 -0.52 -0.31 -0.30 -0.36 -0.62 -0.87 -0.961982 34.14 -0.59 -0.57 -0.60 -0.66 -0.55 -0.38 -0.38 -0.44 -0.66 -0.84 -0.87 -0.781983 34.28 -0.51 -0.49 -0.51 -0.55 -0.45 -0.28 -0.27 -0.30 -0.44 -0.53 -0.45 -0.19 0.411984 34.57 -0.41 -0.38 -0.40 -0.43 -0.32 -0.16 -0.13 -0.14 -0.23 -0.25 -0.12 0.16 0.63 0.861985 34.64 -0.37 -0.34 -0.35 -0.37 -0.27 -0.12 -0.09 -0.10 -0.17 -0.18 -0.06 0.17 0.48 0.52 0.191986 34.25 -0.42 -0.39 -0.41 -0.43 -0.34 -0.21 -0.20 -0.21 -0.29 -0.32 -0.24 -0.09 0.08 -0.03 -0.47 -1.131987 34.27 -0.39 -0.37 -0.38 -0.40 -0.31 -0.19 -0.17 -0.18 -0.25 -0.27 -0.19 -0.06 0.08 0.00 -0.29 -0.53 1988 34.52 -0.33 -0.30 -0.31 -0.32 -0.24 -0.12 -0.10 -0.10 -0.15 -0.16 -0.08 0.05 0.19 0.14 -0.04 -0.11 1989 34.76 -0.28 -0.25 -0.25 -0.26 -0.18 -0.06 -0.04 -0.03 -0.08 -0.07 0.01 0.13 0.26 0.23 0.11 0.09 1990 34.63 -0.28 -0.25 -0.26 -0.27 -0.19 -0.08 -0.06 -0.06 -0.10 -0.10 -0.03 0.07 0.18 0.15 0.03 0.00 1991 34.41 -0.30 -0.27 -0.28 -0.29 -0.21 -0.12 -0.10 -0.10 -0.14 -0.14 -0.09 0.00 0.09 0.05 -0.07 -0.11 1992 34.22 -0.31 -0.29 -0.29 -0.30 -0.23 -0.14 -0.13 -0.13 -0.17 -0.18 -0.13 -0.05 0.02 -0.02 -0.13 -0.17 1993 34.51 -0.26 -0.23 -0.24 -0.24 -0.18 -0.09 -0.07 -0.07 -0.10 -0.10 -0.05 0.03 0.10 0.07 -0.02 -0.05 1994 34.95 -0.20 -0.17 -0.17 -0.17 -0.10 -0.02 0.00 0.01 -0.02 -0.01 0.04 0.12 0.20 0.18 0.11 0.10 1995 35.27 -0.15 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 -0.06 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.18 0.25 0.24 0.18 0.18 1996 35.18 -0.16 -0.13 -0.13 -0.13 -0.06 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.15 0.22 0.20 0.15 0.14 1997 35.39 -0.13 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.04 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.18 0.24 0.23 0.18 0.18 1998 35.60 -0.10 -0.08 -0.07 -0.07 -0.01 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.14 0.20 0.26 0.25 0.21 0.21 1999 35.72 -0.09 -0.06 -0.06 -0.05 0.00 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.15 0.21 0.27 0.26 0.22 0.22 2000 35.72 -0.09 -0.06 -0.06 -0.05 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.20 0.25 0.24 0.20 0.20 2001 35.29 -0.12 -0.10 -0.09 -0.09 -0.04 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.13 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.12 2002 34.95 -0.15 -0.13 -0.12 -0.12 -0.07 -0.01 0.00 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.03 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.06 0.05 2003 34.62 -0.17 -0.15 -0.15 -0.15 -0.10 -0.04 -0.03 -0.03 -0.05 -0.05 -0.01 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.00 2004 34.59 -0.17 -0.15 -0.15 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 -0.03 -0.03 -0.05 -0.05 -0.02 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.00 -0.01 2005 34.56 -0.17 -0.15 -0.15 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 -0.05 -0.02 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.00 -0.01 2006 34.56 -0.16 -0.14 -0.14 -0.14 -0.10 -0.05 -0.03 -0.03 -0.05 -0.05 -0.02 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.00 -0.01 2007 34.50 -0.16 -0.14 -0.14 -0.14 -0.10 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 -0.05 -0.03 0.01 0.04 0.03 -0.01 -0.02 2008 34.17 -0.18 -0.17 -0.17 -0.17 -0.13 -0.08 -0.07 -0.07 -0.08 -0.08 -0.06 -0.03 0.00 -0.01 -0.05 -0.06 2009 33.46 -0.23 -0.22 -0.22 -0.22 -0.18 -0.14 -0.13 -0.13 -0.15 -0.15 -0.13 -0.10 -0.07 -0.09 -0.13 -0.14 2010 33.60 -0.22 -0.20 -0.20 -0.20 -0.17 -0.12 -0.11 -0.12 -0.13 -0.13 -0.11 -0.08 -0.06 -0.07 -0.11 -0.12 

From

To Variable 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

1989 34.761990 34.63 -0.371991 34.41 -0.50 -0.631992 34.22 -0.52 -0.60 -0.571993 34.51 -0.18 -0.12 0.14 0.861994 34.95 0.11 0.23 0.51 1.06 1.261995 35.27 0.24 0.37 0.62 1.01 1.09 0.931996 35.18 0.17 0.26 0.44 0.70 0.64 0.34 -0.251997 35.39 0.23 0.31 0.47 0.68 0.63 0.42 0.17 0.601998 35.60 0.27 0.35 0.49 0.66 0.62 0.47 0.31 0.60 0.591999 35.72 0.27 0.35 0.47 0.62 0.58 0.44 0.32 0.51 0.47 0.342000 35.72 0.25 0.31 0.41 0.54 0.49 0.36 0.25 0.38 0.30 0.16 -0.022001 35.29 0.13 0.17 0.25 0.34 0.28 0.14 0.01 0.06 -0.07 -0.29 -0.61 -1.192002 34.95 0.04 0.08 0.14 0.21 0.14 0.00 -0.13 -0.11 -0.25 -0.46 -0.72 -1.07 -0.962003 34.62 -0.03 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.03 -0.10 -0.23 -0.23 -0.36 -0.56 -0.78 -1.03 -0.95 -0.942004 34.59 -0.03 -0.01 0.04 0.09 0.02 -0.10 -0.22 -0.21 -0.33 -0.48 -0.64 -0.80 -0.67 -0.52 -0.092005 34.56 -0.04 -0.01 0.03 0.08 0.01 -0.10 -0.20 -0.20 -0.30 -0.42 -0.55 -0.66 -0.52 -0.38 -0.09 -0.092006 34.56 -0.03 -0.01 0.03 0.07 0.01 -0.09 -0.18 -0.18 -0.26 -0.37 -0.47 -0.55 -0.42 -0.28 -0.06 -0.04 2007 34.50 -0.04 -0.02 0.01 0.05 0.00 -0.10 -0.18 -0.18 -0.26 -0.35 -0.44 -0.50 -0.38 -0.26 -0.09 -0.09 2008 34.17 -0.09 -0.07 -0.04 -0.01 -0.07 -0.16 -0.24 -0.24 -0.32 -0.41 -0.49 -0.55 -0.46 -0.38 -0.26 -0.30 2009 33.46 -0.19 -0.18 -0.16 -0.13 -0.19 -0.29 -0.38 -0.38 -0.47 -0.56 -0.65 -0.72 -0.66 -0.62 -0.57 -0.66 2010 33.60 -0.16 -0.15 -0.13 -0.10 -0.16 -0.25 -0.32 -0.33 -0.40 -0.48 -0.56 -0.61 -0.55 -0.49 -0.43 -0.49 
Average Real Wage Differential, Page 14 

Appendix 3 

BLS has introduced numerous changes to the Current Population Survey (CPS) concepts over 

the historical period, such that values for employment are not historically comparable over the 

period (for more detail on noncomparability of CPS concepts, see 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf). To make the total employment series more 

comparable, OCACT adjusted the published values for the following: 

1990 Census - 1990 Census-based population controls were introduced in January 1994 by BLS, 

increasing employment levels for 1990 from the originally-published estimates by about 880,000 

(0.7%). BLS later revised the 1990 to 1993 estimates, but not those for earlier years. 

Consequently, OCACT adjusted the CPS data for 1981 to 1989 using a linear interpolation of the 

0.7% increase. 

2000 Census - Population controls based on Census 2000 results were introduced by BLS in 

January 2003. The revised employment series for 2000 was 1.27% (or 1.724 million persons) 

higher than the previously published series. BLS revised the CPS data only back to January 

2000. OCACT adjusted the CPS data back to 1991 by linearly interpolating the 1.27% 

adjustment. 

1994 CPS Methodology Change - In 1994, BLS introduced methodology changes and a 

complete redesign of its CPS. Because the survey redesign and methodology changes raised the 

aggregate employment for 1994, the series was not comparable with earlier years. Thus, OCACT 

applied a multiplicative-adjustment factor estimated by Polivka and Miller (1995)47 to the series 

for years prior to 1994. The aggregate employment series was adjusted for 1993 and earlier years 

by a factor of 1.0053. 

Population Controls since the 2000 Census - Beginning in January 2003, the U.S. Census Bureau 

reflected its updated population controls in the CPS estimates. The difference between the 

updated and originally published employment values for December 2002 is an increase of 

576,000 persons. Data from December 2002 and earlier are not updated by BLS. OCACT 

adjusted the employment series back to 2000. 

In January 2004, the U.S. Census Bureau reflected revised net international migration estimates 

in its updated population controls. The difference between the updated and originally published 

employment values for December 2003 is a decrease of 409,000 persons. Data from December 

2003 and earlier are not updated by BLS. OCACT adjusted the employment series back to 2000. 

 47 Anne E. Polivka and Stephen M. Miller, "The CPS after the Redesign: Refocusing the Economic Lens,” 

Labor Statistics Measurement Issues; Studies in Income and Wealth Volume 60, Edited by John Haltiwanger, 

Marilyn E. Manser and Robert Topel, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1998, Table 6. Also available at 

http://www.bls.gov/ore/pdf/ec950090.pdf . Polivka and Miller’s adjustment factors are for employment-population 

ratios, not employment levels. Because the CPS methodology change affected the employment levels, but not the 

civilian noninstitutional population, we can use their multiplicative employment-population ratio factors to adjust 

the employment levels. 
Average Real Wage Differential, Page 15 

Beginning in January 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau began using its updated population controls, 

which reflected updated vital statistics information, as well as revised estimates of net 

international migration. The difference between the updated and originally published 

employment values for December 2004 is a decrease of 45,000 persons. Data from December 

2004 and earlier are not updated by BLS. OCACT adjusted the employment series back to 2000. 

In January 2006, the U.S. Census Bureau introduced updated population controls, which 

reflected updated vital statistics information, as well as revised estimates of net international 

migration. The difference between the updated and originally published employment values for 

December 2005 is a decrease of 123,000 persons. Data from December 2005 and earlier are not 

updated by BLS. OCACT adjusted the employment series back to 2000. 

In January 2007, the U.S. Census Bureau introduced updated population controls, which 

reflected revised estimates of net international migration and updated vital statistics information. 

The difference between the updated and originally published employment values for December 

2006 is an increase of 153,000 persons. Data from December 2006 and earlier are not updated by 

BLS. OCACT adjusted the employment series back to 2000. 

Beginning in January 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau began using its updated population controls, 

which reflected updated vital statistics information, as well as revised estimates of net 

international migration and the institutional population. The difference between the updated and 

originally published employment values for December 2007 is a decrease of 598,000 persons. 

Data from December 2007 and earlier are not updated by BLS. OCACT adjusted the 

employment series back to 2000. 

In January 2009, the U.S. Census Bureau introduced updated population controls, reflecting 

revised net international migration and vital statistics information. The difference between the 

updated and originally published employment values for December 2008 is a decrease of 

483,000 persons. Data from December 2008 and earlier are not updated by BLS. OCACT 

adjusted the employment series back to 2000. 

Beginning in January 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau began using its updated population controls, 

reflecting updated vital statistics information, revised estimates of net international migration, as 

well as methodological changes in the population estimation process. The difference between the 

updated and originally published employment values for December 2009 is a decrease of 

243,000 persons. BLS does not update data from December 2009 and earlier. OCACT adjusted 

the employment series back to 2000. 

In January 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau introduced updated population controls, reflecting 

revised net international migration, vital statistics information, and some methodological changes 

in the population estimation process. The difference between the updated and originally 

published employment values for December 2010 is a decrease of 472,000 persons. BLS does 

not update data from December 2010 and earlier. OCACT adjusted the employment series back 

to 2000. 
Unemployment Rate, Page 1 

4. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE 

THE 2012 TRUSTEES REPORT 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ACTUARY, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 

4.1 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................2

4.2 PAST EXPERIENCE ..................................................................................................2 

4.3 FUTURE EXPECTATIONS ......................................................................................3 

4.4 PROJECTIONS FROM OTHER FORECASTERS ................................................4 

LIST OF TABLES 

4.1 ASSUMED ULTIMATE TOTAL CIVILIAN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE ..................................... 2 

4.2 CIVILIAN UNEMPLOYMENT RATES OVER COMPLETE ECONOMIC CYCLES ................ 3 

4.3 TOTAL AND AGE-SEX ADJUSTED CIVILIAN UNEMPLOYMENT RATES OVER 

SELECTED INTERVALS .................................................................................................................... 5 
Unemployment Rate, Page 2 

4 Unemployment Rate 

4.1 Summary 

For the 2012 Trustees Report, the Trustees assume ultimate total civilian unemployment rates 

(adjusted by the age and sex distribution of the 2010 civilian labor force) of 4.5 percent, 5.5 

percent, and 6.5 percent for alternatives I, II, and III, respectively (Table 4.1). These assumptions 

are the same as those used for the 2011 Trustees Report. 

Table 4.1: Assumed Ultimate Total Civilian Unemployment Rate 

 

 2012 Trustees Report 

Alternative 

2011 Trustees Report 

Alternative 

2012 Trustees Report Less 

2011 Trustees Report 

I II III I II III I II III

Civilian Unemployment Rate 4.5 5.5 6.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

4.2 Past Experience 

BLS publishes civilian unemployment rates, defined as the proportion of unemployed persons in 

the civilian labor force, by sex and age group as part of its Current Population Survey. The 

Trustees’ ultimate civilian unemployment rate assumptions are based on analysis of past 

experience and expected future conditions and trends. Because the aggregate unemployment rate 

is sensitive to changes in the age-sex composition of the civilian labor force, OCACT 

constructed an age-sex-adjusted unemployment rate by weighting the unadjusted age-sex 

unemployment rates by the age-sex distribution of the 2010 civilian labor force. Since the 

civilian unemployment rate varies significantly over an economic cycle, it is useful to look at 

averages over complete economic cycles or long periods (decades). Table 4.2 shows average 

civilian unemployment rates over complete (peak-to-peak) economic cycles. Over the last two 

(1989-2007), three (1978-2007), four (1973-2007), and five (1966-2007) complete economic 

cycles, the unemployment rate averaged 5.1, 5.5, 5.5, and 5.2 percent, respectively. Table 4.3 

shows annual values for both the adjusted and unadjusted civilian rates. Over the 10-year, 20-

year, 30-year, and 40-year periods ending in 2010, the age-sex adjusted total unemployment rates 

averaged 6.0, 5.6, 5.8, and 5.7 percent, respectively. Average rates over economic cycles and 

long periods suggest an ultimate unemployment rate in the 5.4 to 5.8 percent range. 
Unemployment Rate, Page 3 

Table 4.2. Civilian Unemployment Rates Over Complete Economic Cycles (Peak-to-Peak) 

 Total Rate Age-Sex Adjusted Rate 

Individual Cycle: 

1966-1972 4.5 3.8 

1973-1977 6.7 5.6 

1978-1988 7.2 6.2 

1989-2000 5.6 5.1 

2001-2007 5.2 5.0 

Last Two Cycles 

1989-2007 5.4 5.1 

Last Three Cycles 

1978-2007 6.1 5.5 

Last Four Cycles 

1973-2007 6.2 5.5 

Last Five Cycles 

1966-2007 5.9 5.2 

It is also useful to look at unemployment rates over specific periods. Beginning around 1975, and 

lasting through about 1994, the U.S. experienced generally high unemployment rates. There are 

several possible explanations for why these higher levels of unemployment occurred during this 

period. Firstly, due to rapid changes in technology and increased global competition, job 

searches and retraining may have become more frequent and lasted for longer periods. Secondly, 

the huge influx of women and baby boomers into the labor market may have increased the 

quantity of labor supplied beyond the quantity demanded in the 1970s and 1980s. Finally, since 

the early 1980s, the Federal Reserve has placed increased emphasis on restraining inflation rather 

than stimulating the economy and managing unemployment. Between 1997 and 2000, rapid 

economic expansion reduced unemployment rates to unusually low levels. A mild recession 

raised rates above the ultimate assumed level in 2002 and 2003. In addition, the most recent 

recession has resulted in rates above the ultimate assumed level. 

4.3 Future Expectations 

It is not clear how the aging baby boomers will affect the unemployment rate into the future. As 

these workers age, the working-age population is expected to grow more slowly, particularly in 

relation to the size of the total population. This demographic shift can be expected to increase the 

demand for older workers. Meanwhile, the supply of potential older workers is expected to 

increase, as a significant portion of the baby boomers is expected to remain in the labor force, in 

many cases, out of necessity (as their life expectancies increase). Even with increases in labor 

supply from older workers, it seems likely the increasing age-dependency ratio will exert 

downward pressure on the age-sex-adjusted unemployment rate. 

 

OCACT expects slower rates of increase in female labor force participation, as their rates of 

labor force participation stabilize closer to, but generally below, those of their male counterparts. 

The expected slower growth in the labor supply in the future relative to the total population is 

expected to produce an unemployment rate below the 5.7 percent experienced over the last 40 
Unemployment Rate, Page 4 

years (1970-2010). OCACT believes it is more reasonable to expect that the ultimate future agesex-adjusted unemployment rate will be between 5.4 and 5.7 percent, the levels experienced over 

the last 50 years (1960-2010) and 40 years (1970-2010). Therefore, the Trustees set the assumed 

ultimate average unemployment rate to 5.5 percent (age-sex adjusted to the 2010 labor force) for 

alternative II.

4.4 Projections from Other Forecasters 

The most recent Global Insight, Inc. 30-year trend projections (August 2011 30-Year US Macro 

Baseline Scenario Forecast) assume that the age-sex-adjusted civilian unemployment rate will be 

4.8 percent in 2021 and 4.9 percent in 2041. The Global Insight full-employment unemployment 

rate is 4.8 percent in 2021 and 2041. Macroeconomic Advisers’ ten-year forecast (Long-Term 

Economic Outlook, Third Quarter 2011) indicates an age-sex-adjusted civilian unemployment 

rate of 5.0 percent in 2021. The Moody’s Analytics September 2011 forecast shows an age-sexadjusted civilian unemployment rate of 5.1 percent in 2021 and 5.4 percent in 2041. 

The OMB Mid-Session Review of the 2012 Fiscal Year Budget includes projections through 

2021. OMB projects an aggregate civilian unemployment rate of 5.3 percent for 2021. 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) MAD Forecast, August 2011, includes projections through 

2021. CBO projects an aggregate civilian unemployment rate of 5.2 percent for 2021. The Social 

Security Advisory Board’s 2011 Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods recommended 

assuming an ultimate (i.e., long-range average) aggregate civilian unemployment rate of 5.5 

percent for alternative II. 

 
Unemployment Rate, 

Page 5 

Table 4.3. Total and Age-Sex Adjusted Civilian Unemployment Rates Over Selected Intervals (%) 

Year 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1 5 10 15 20 25 1951 3.3 3.11952 3.0 2.91953 2.9 2.81954 5.6 5.41955 4.4 3.8 4.2 3.71956 4.1 4.0 4.0 3.91957 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.11958 6.8 5.0 6.6 4.91959 5.4 5.0 5.2 4.81960 5.6 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.0 4.41961 6.7 5.8 4.9 6.3 5.5 4.71962 5.5 6.0 5.1 5.2 5.7 4.91963 5.6 5.8 5.4 5.2 5.4 5.11964 5.2 5.7 5.4 4.7 5.3 5.11965 4.5 5.5 5.4 4.9 4.0 5.1 5.1 4.61966 3.8 4.9 5.3 4.9 3.3 4.5 5.0 4.61967 3.8 4.6 5.3 5.0 3.3 4.1 4.9 4.61968 3.5 4.2 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.7 4.5 4.61969 3.5 3.8 4.8 4.9 2.9 3.3 4.3 4.51970 5.0 3.9 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.2 3.4 4.2 4.5 4.31971 6.0 4.4 4.6 5.0 4.8 5.1 3.7 4.1 4.6 4.41972 5.6 4.7 4.7 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.51973 4.9 5.0 4.6 5.0 5.0 3.9 4.2 3.9 4.4 4.51974 5.6 5.4 4.6 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 3.9 4.4 4.51975 8.5 6.1 5.0 5.2 5.2 4.9 7.2 5.1 4.2 4.5 4.6 4.41976 7.7 6.5 5.4 5.2 5.4 5.1 6.4 5.4 4.5 4.5 4.8 4.61977 7.0 6.7 5.7 5.3 5.5 5.3 5.8 5.6 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.71978 6.1 7.0 6.0 5.4 5.5 5.4 4.9 5.8 5.0 4.5 4.8 4.81979 5.8 7.0 6.2 5.4 5.5 5.4 4.7 5.8 5.1 4.5 4.7 4.81980 7.2 6.8 6.4 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.2 5.9 5.6 5.3 4.7 4.8 4.8 1981 7.6 6.7 6.6 5.9 5.6 5.7 5.4 6.3 5.5 5.4 4.9 4.8 4.9 1982 9.7 7.3 7.0 6.2 5.8 5.9 5.6 8.3 6.0 5.8 5.2 4.9 5.1 1983 9.6 8.0 7.5 6.6 6.0 6.0 5.8 8.3 6.7 6.2 5.5 5.1 5.1 1984 7.5 8.3 7.7 6.9 6.1 6.1 5.9 6.6 7.1 6.4 5.8 5.2 5.2 1985 7.2 8.3 7.5 7.1 6.3 6.1 6.0 5.7 6.3 7.2 6.4 5.9 5.3 5.2 1986 7.0 8.2 7.5 7.1 6.4 6.1 6.1 5.8 6.1 7.1 6.3 6.0 5.4 5.2 1987 6.2 7.5 7.4 7.2 6.6 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.4 6.6 6.3 6.1 5.5 5.2 1988 5.5 6.7 7.3 7.2 6.7 6.2 6.1 5.9 4.9 5.9 6.3 6.1 5.6 5.2 1989 5.3 6.2 7.3 7.2 6.7 6.2 6.1 5.9 4.7 5.5 6.3 6.1 5.7 5.2 1990 5.6 5.9 7.1 7.0 6.8 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.7 5.0 5.2 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.3 1991 6.8 5.9 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.3 6.1 6.0 5.8 6.2 5.3 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.4 1992 7.5 6.1 6.8 7.0 6.9 6.5 6.2 6.1 5.9 7.0 5.6 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.5 1993 6.9 6.4 6.6 7.0 7.0 6.6 6.2 6.1 6.0 6.4 5.9 5.9 6.1 6.1 5.7 1994 6.1 6.6 6.4 7.0 7.0 6.7 6.2 6.2 6.0 5.7 6.1 5.8 6.2 6.1 5.8 1995 5.6 6.6 6.3 6.9 6.9 6.7 6.3 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.2 6.1 5.7 6.2 6.0 5.8 1996 5.4 6.3 6.1 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.3 6.1 6.1 5.8 5.0 5.8 5.6 6.1 5.9 5.8 1997 4.9 5.8 6.0 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.4 6.1 6.1 5.9 4.6 5.4 5.5 5.8 5.9 5.8 1998 4.5 5.3 5.9 6.1 6.6 6.7 6.4 6.1 6.0 5.9 4.2 4.9 5.4 5.6 5.8 5.8 1999 4.2 4.9 5.8 5.9 6.5 6.6 6.4 6.0 6.0 5.9 3.9 4.6 5.3 5.4 5.8 5.8 2000 4.0 4.6 5.6 5.7 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.0 6.0 5.9 5.7 3.7 4.3 5.2 5.2 5.7 5.7 2001 4.8 4.5 5.4 5.6 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.9 5.7 4.5 4.2 5.0 5.1 5.6 5.6 2002 5.8 4.6 5.2 5.5 6.0 6.3 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.6 4.4 4.9 5.1 5.5 5.6 2003 6.0 4.9 5.1 5.6 5.8 6.3 6.4 6.2 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.8 4.7 4.8 5.2 5.3 5.6 2004 5.5 5.2 5.1 5.6 5.7 6.3 6.4 6.2 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.4 5.0 4.8 5.2 5.3 5.6 2005 5.1 5.4 5.0 5.5 5.6 6.2 6.3 6.2 6.0 5.9 5.8 4.9 5.2 4.8 5.2 5.2 5.6 2006 4.6 5.4 4.9 5.4 5.5 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.0 5.9 5.9 4.5 5.2 4.7 5.1 5.1 5.5 2007 4.6 5.2 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.9 4.5 5.0 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.4 2008 5.8 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.5 5.7 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.0 4.9 4.9 5.1 5.3 2009 9.3 5.9 5.5 5.3 5.7 5.8 6.2 6.3 6.2 5.9 5.9 9.2 5.8 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.4 2010 9.6 6.8 6.1 5.6 5.9 5.9 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.0 6.0 9.6 6.7 6.0 5.4 5.6 5.5 

Total Rate

Annual Average over the Following Number of Years

Age-Sex Adjus

Annual Average over the Fol
Annual Trust Fund Real Interest Rate, Page 1 

5. ANNUAL TRUST FUND REAL INTEREST RATE 

THE 2012 TRUSTEES REPORT 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ACTUARY, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 

5.1 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................2

5.2 PAST EXPERIENCE ..................................................................................................2 

5.3 FUTURE EXPECTATIONS ......................................................................................4 

5.4 PROJECTIONS FROM OTHER FORECASTERS ................................................4 

LIST OF TABLES 

5.1 ASSUMED ULTIMATE REAL INTEREST RATES ........................................................................ 2 

5.2 AVERAGE ANNUAL REAL INTEREST RATE ............................................................................... 3 

5.3 REAL INTEREST RATES FOR OASDI TRUST FUND NEW ISSUES AND COMPOUND 

AVERAGE ANNUAL REAL YIELD OVER SELECTED INTERVALS ........................................ 6 
Annual Trust Fund Real Interest Rate, Page 2 

5 Annual Trust Fund Real Interest Rate 

5.1 Summary 

For the 2012 Trustees Report, the Trustees assume ultimate real interest rates (effective annual 

real yields on special public debt obligations issuable to the trust funds by the U.S. Treasury) of 

3.4 percent, 2.9 percent, and 2.4 percent for alternatives I, II, and III, respectively (Table 5.1). 

The assumption for alternative II is identical to the rate used for the 2011 Trustees Report. 

However, the Trustees lowered the ultimate alternative I assumption from 3.6 percent to 3.4 

percent and raised the ultimate alternative III assumption from 2.1 percent to 2.4 percent. The 

Trustees changed the ultimate long-range real interest rates for alternatives I and III to make their 

range more in line with the results of our stochastic model. 

Table 5.1: Assumed Ultimate Real Interest Rates 

 

 2012 Trustees Report 

Alternative 

2011 Trustees Report 

Alternative 

2012 Trustees Report Less 

Actual 2011 Trustees Report 

I II III I II III I II III

Real Interest Rate 3.4 2.9 2.4 3.6 2.9 2.1 -0.2 0.0 0.3 

Since October 1960, interest rates on special public debt obligations issuable to the trust funds 

each month have been set equal to the average market yield on all marketable fixed-rate Federal 

obligations that are not callable and do not mature within the next 4 years. As such, the rate on 

new issues to the trust funds represents a fair market return for longer-term, highly liquid, 

default-risk-free obligations. The real interest rate (real effective annual yield) on these 

obligations can be computed either as an expected yield (i.e., nominal effective annual yield less 

expected future inflation rate) or as the actual realized yield over some period after issue (i.e., 

nominal effective annual yield less the actual increase in price levels after issue). For the purpose 

of this analysis, actual realized yields over the year after issue will be examined for obligations 

issuable each year. Real interest rates over periods of two or more years are computed as the 

average annual yield of an investment at the beginning of the period that is reinvested annually at 

the new issue rate. 

5.2 Past Experience 

Tables 5.2 and 5.3 show the average annual real interest rates over various decades and 

economic cycles, using an adjusted CPI-W that reflects BLS improvements to the Index. (See 

Appendix 2.) 

The average annual real interest rate on trust fund assets over the past 40 years was 3.23 percent 

(computed as the average annual return, as of 2010, for investments in 1970 which were 

reinvested annually at the new issue rates for years 1970 through 2009). Annual real interest 

rates for individual years within this period varied substantially from this average of 3.23 

percent. Even the average rates of 0.36, 6.10, 4.43, and 2.11 percent for the 10-year periods 

ending with 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010, respectively, varied substantially from one another. 
Annual Trust Fund Real Interest Rate, Page 3 

The large differences among these periods suggest substantially different conditions across these 

decades. 

Table 5.2: Average Annual Real Interest Rate 

Period 

Average Annual Real Interest Rate 

(percent) 

Historical: 

 By Decade 

 1970-1980 0.36 

 1980-1990 6.10 

 1990-2000 4.43 

 2000-2010 2.11 

 

 1970-2010 3.23 

 1980-2010 4.20 

 1990-2010 3.26 

 

 By Complete Economic Cycle (Peak-to-Peak) 

 Individual Cycle 

 1966-1973 1.84 

 1973-1978 0.08 

 1978-1989 4.91 

 1989-2000 4.38 

 2000-2007 2.19 

 Last Two Cycles 

 1989-2007 3.52 

 Last Three Cycles 

 1978-2007 4.04 

 Last Four Cycles 

 1973-2007 3.45 

 Last Five Cycles 

 1966-2007 3.17 

 

 Alternative 

Ultimate Assumptions I II III 

 

2011 Trustees Report (Actual) 3.6 2.9 2.1 

2012 Trustees Report (Assumed ) 3.4 2.9 2.4 

 

After experiencing negative real yields in the “default-risk-free” investments in U.S. Treasury 

securities from 1974 through 1980, caused largely by higher-than-expected price inflation, 

investors demanded higher interest rates to protect their investments. Sustained high real interest 

rates in the years after 1981 have resulted from four factors: constrained money supply growth, 

increased borrowing by businesses, reduced savings rates in the U.S. economy, and deregulation 

of banks and other financial institutions. 
Annual Trust Fund Real Interest Rate, Page 4 

As the rate of inflation declined from the highs of the early 1980s and remained under control, 

the real interest rate slowly followed suit, declining to 2.39 percent in 2000. In October 2001, the 

federal government, in response to its favorable budget situation, suspended the sale of 30-year 

Treasury securities (leaving the 10-year notes as the longest duration being issued). Since then, 

the budget has fallen back into deficit and, beginning in February 2006, the Treasury reintroduced regular semi-annual auctions of the 30-year nominal Treasury bond. Neither the 

budget deficits nor the federal funds rate hikes by the Federal Reserve between 2004 and 2006 

have resulted in a spike in real interest rates, due largely to foreigners’ continued willingness to 

accumulate Treasury securities. Instead, the real interest rate continued to trend downwards, 

reaching a low of 0.60 percent in 2008. After rebounding to 4.40 percent in 2009, the real 

interest rate fell to 0.84 percent in 2010, resulting largely from volatile energy prices. 

In August 2011, Standard and Poor’s lowered their long-term sovereign credit rating on the US 

one notch, from ‘AAA’ to ‘AA+’. This downgrade reflects their concern that Congress and the 

Administration have not done enough to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics. 

In spite of this downgrade, nominal yields on Treasury securities continued to decline as 

investors chose to focus their attention on renewed recession risks and the eurozone’s sovereign 

debt crisis. 

5.3 Future Expectations 

Over the near term, yields on Treasury securities can be expected to remain at depressed levels 

as long as the economy remains weak and Europe’s sovereign debt crisis remains unresolved. 

Furthermore, the Federal Reserve recently announced a maturity extension program for its 

holdings of Treasury securities. Under the program, the Federal Reserve is expected to sell $400 

billion of shorter-term Treasury securities by the end of June 2012 and use the proceeds to 

purchase longer-term Treasury securities with maturities of 6 to 30 years. This program is 

expected to put downward pressure on yields on longer-term Treasury securities. 

The realized average real interest rate over the post-1987 period is a useful indicator of the likely 

future rate. During this period, monetary policy was stable with few periods of inflation surprises 

that distort real realized rates. The CPI growth rate averaged 2.6 percent and the real interest rate 

averaged 3.4 percent. However, one of the fairly consistent conditions that prevailed in this 

period is that the federal government ran large budget deficits much of the time. These deficits 

put upward pressure on real interest rates during the period from the late 1980s to the early 

1990s. Although the federal debt is expected to continue to grow over the short-range period, it is 

reasonable to believe that the Federal government would have to restore fiscal sustainability over 

the remainder of the long-range period. Thus, OCACT feels that an ultimate interest rate of 2.9 

percent for the intermediate (alternative II) assumption is appropriate. However, if the economy 

worsens further and government debt grows to a level higher than what investors are willing to 

absorb, then a higher real interest rate assumption would be reasonable. 
Annual Trust Fund Real Interest Rate, Page 5 

5.4 Projections from Other Forecasters 

Global Insight, Inc. includes projections through 2041 in its latest long-run trend forecast (see

August 2011 30-year Baseline Annual Forecast). They project real yields on 10-year U.S. 

Treasury notes to rise to 3.0 percent in 2020 before declining to an ultimate rate of 2.8 percent in 

2035 and thereafter. Moody’s Analytics’ forecast (retrieved September 15, 2011 from their 

DataBuffet database) projects real yields on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes to rise from 0.3 percent 

in 2011 to 2.8 percent in 2017 before declining to 2.1 percent by 2023 and then to rise to an 

ultimate rate of 2.8 percent in 2038 and thereafter (through 2040). Macroeconomic Advisers 

produces forecasts to 2021 only. In their third quarter 2011 Long-Term Economic Outlook

publication, Macroeconomic Advisers projects real yields on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes to be 

3.4 percent i for 2029 and 2021. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Mid-Session Review of the Fiscal Year 2012 

Budget projects the real yield on the trust funds’ special-issue securities to reach 3.2 percent by 

2018 and remain at that level for the remainder of the projection period (through 2021). CBO’s 

Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update (published August 2011) includes projections 

through 2021. CBO projects real yields on 10-year Treasury notes of 3.0 percent in 2018 and 

later. The Social Security Advisory Board’s 2011 Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods 

recommended lowering the alternative II real interest rate assumption to 2.7 percent. The prior 

technical panel, which met in 2007, recommended lowering the alternative II real interest rate 

assumption to 2.6 percent. 
Table 5.3. Real Interest Rates for OASDI Trust Fund New Issues and the Compound Average Annual Real Yield 

over Selected Intervals 

To RYINDEX 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

1937 26.09

1938 27.31 4.69

1939 28.60 4.71

1940 29.31 2.50

1941 28.68 -2.15

1942 26.57 -7.36 0.37

1943 25.65 -3.45 -1.24

1944 25.75 0.40 -2.07

1945 25.71 -0.17 -2.59

1946 24.23 -5.74 -3.31

1947 21.56 -11.05 -4.10 -1.89

1948 20.61 -4.40 -4.28 -2.78

1949 21.27 3.20 -3.76 -2.92

1950 21.58 1.49 -3.44 -3.01

1951 20.48 -5.12 -3.31 -3.31

1952 20.50 0.10 -1.00 -2.56 -1.59

1953 20.85 1.70 0.23 -2.05 -1.78

1954 21.31 2.19 0.04 -1.88 -1.94

1955 21.92 2.90 0.31 -1.58 -1.92

1956 22.14 1.00 1.58 -0.90 -1.71

1957 21.93 -0.95 1.36 0.17 -1.27 -0.86

1958 21.91 -0.11 1.00 0.61 -1.05 -1.10

1959 22.37 2.08 0.98 0.51 -0.94 -1.22

1960 22.62 1.12 0.62 0.47 -0.85 -1.29

1961 23.10 2.11 0.84 1.21 -0.32 -1.08

1962 23.79 3.03 1.64 1.50 0.66 -0.55 -0.37

1963 24.45 2.74 2.22 1.61 1.15 -0.24 -0.44

1964 25.14 2.81 2.36 1.67 1.12 -0.12 -0.51

1965 25.82 2.73 2.69 1.65 1.20 0.02 -0.51

1966 26.22 1.56 2.57 1.71 1.66 0.40 -0.36

1967 26.77 2.08 2.38 2.01 1.80 1.09 0.03 0.09

1968 27.17 1.49 2.13 2.17 1.78 1.39 0.23 -0.02

1969 27.51 1.27 1.83 2.09 1.72 1.30 0.26 -0.13

1970 28.07 2.00 1.68 2.18 1.66 1.32 0.35 -0.14

1971 28.96 3.18 2.00 2.29 1.80 1.75 0.71 0.03

1972 29.78 2.85 2.16 2.27 2.06 1.89 1.30 0.38 0.38

1973 29.79 0.04 1.86 2.00 2.07 1.80 1.49 0.50 0.25

1974 28.95 -2.84 1.02 1.42 1.73 1.54 1.24 0.39 0.04

1975 28.88 -0.25 0.57 1.12 1.64 1.39 1.17 0.39 -0.04

1976 29.43 1.92 0.32 1.16 1.63 1.43 1.46 0.65 0.07

1977 29.75 1.08 -0.02 1.06 1.50 1.54 1.50 1.08 0.32 0.33

1978 29.91 0.54 0.08 0.97 1.35 1.57 1.45 1.25 0.44 0.23

1979 29.56 -1.18 0.42 0.72 1.09 1.40 1.32 1.10 0.39 0.08

1980 29.11 -1.52 0.16 0.36 0.80 1.27 1.14 1.00 0.36 -0.02

1981 29.60 1.69 0.11 0.22 0.81 1.25 1.17 1.24 0.57 0.08

1982 31.80 7.45 1.34 0.66 1.15 1.46 1.50 1.47 1.12 0.45 0.44

1983 34.56 8.66 2.93 1.49 1.62 1.75 1.84 1.70 1.49 0.75 0.52

1984 37.00 7.06 4.59 2.48 1.99 1.95 2.03 1.86 1.59 0.91 0.57

1985 40.37 9.12 6.76 3.41 2.45 2.26 2.34 2.06 1.80 1.13 0.71

1986 44.16 9.39 8.33 4.14 2.85 2.64 2.63 2.33 2.22 1.51 0.96

1987 46.22 4.67 7.76 4.50 2.97 2.77 2.69 2.52 2.35 1.93 1.24 1.15

1988 48.47 4.87 7.00 4.95 3.30 2.94 2.78 2.68 2.44 2.16 1.42 1.15

1989 50.67 4.54 6.49 5.54 3.80 3.10 2.84 2.76 2.51 2.19 1.52 1.15

1990 52.63 3.86 5.45 6.10 4.08 3.19 2.89 2.86 2.53 2.25 1.60 1.18

1991 55.33 5.15 4.62 6.46 4.30 3.29 3.03 2.96 2.65 2.52 1.85 1.32

1992 58.41 5.55 4.79 6.27 4.60 3.42 3.17 3.04 2.84 2.65 2.24 1.59

1993 61.21 4.80 4.78 5.88 4.89 3.67 3.30 3.11 2.98 2.73 2.45 1.75

1994 63.68 4.04 4.68 5.58 5.25 4.02 3.41 3.15 3.03 2.77 2.47 1.83

1995 66.61 4.60 4.83 5.14 5.67 4.27 3.52 3.21 3.13 2.82 2.54 1.92

1996 69.48 4.30 4.66 4.64 5.85 4.39 3.56 3.30 3.20 2.90 2.75 2.13

1997 72.58 4.47 4.44 4.62 5.66 4.56 3.63 3.38 3.24 3.04 2.85 2.46

1998 76.55 5.47 4.57 4.68 5.45 4.81 3.85 3.51 3.31 3.18 2.93 2.66

1999 79.28 3.56 4.48 4.58 5.21 5.06 4.11 3.59 3.34 3.21 2.96 2.67

2000 81.17 2.39 4.03 4.43 4.77 5.26 4.22 3.60 3.33 3.25 2.95 2.68

2001 84.05 3.56 3.88 4.27 4.38 5.36 4.29 3.62 3.38 3.28 3.01 2.86

2002 87.27 3.83 3.75 4.10 4.33 5.18 4.40 3.65 3.43 3.30 3.12 2.94

2003 89.62 2.69 3.20 3.89 4.18 4.88 4.49 3.74 3.47 3.30 3.18 2.96

2004 90.89 1.42 2.77 3.62 3.97 4.60 4.60 3.89 3.47 3.27 3.16 2.94

2005 91.62 0.80 2.45 3.24 3.77 4.18 4.69 3.92 3.44 3.22 3.16 2.90

2006 92.61 1.08 1.96 2.92 3.49 3.77 4.67 3.90 3.38 3.20 3.13 2.90

2007 94.43 1.96 1.59 2.67 3.25 3.64 4.45 3.93 3.35 3.20 3.11 2.96

2008 94.99 0.60 1.17 2.18 2.97 3.42 4.13 3.93 3.37 3.18 3.06 2.98

2009 99.17 4.40 1.76 2.26 3.00 3.41 4.02 4.12 3.58 3.26 3.10 3.02

2010 100.00 0.84 1.77 2.11 2.75 3.26 3.70 4.20 3.61 3.23 3.05 3.02

Average Annual Percentage Change over the Following Number of Years:

Note: The index for each year is the accumulated value in that year of an investment made in the prior year in the 

amount of the prior year's index, with interest paid at the average rate for special public debt obligations issuable 

to the OASI and DI Trust Funds during the prior year.