Charting International

Labor Comparisons

U.S. Department of Labor • Bureau of Labor Statistics

2012 EDITION

2012 EDITION

Charting International Labor 

Comparisons

U.S. Department of Labor

Hilda L. Solis, Secretary

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

John M. Galvin, Acting Commissioner

September 2012
iv CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

Contact ILC

Division of International Labor Comparisons

www.bls.gov/ilc | ilcHelp@bls.gov | (202) 691-5654

For the latest updates, we invite you to join our email notification service

by sending an email with “subscribe” in the subject line to ILCPR@bls.gov.

W

ith ever-expanding global markets, international 

labor statistics have assumed a greater role 

in assessing the relative performance of 

individual economies and in influencing both 

national and international policy decisions. However, 

direct comparisons of statistics across countries can 

be misleading because concepts and definitions often 

differ. To improve the comparability of international labor 

statistics, the International Labor Comparisons (ILC) 

program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) adjusts 

data to a common conceptual framework.

The 2012 edition of Charting International Labor 

Comparisons features 2010 data, and data trends over 

time, for the main indicators published by ILC: gross 

domestic product, labor force, manufacturing hourly 

compensation costs and productivity, and consumer 

prices. Country coverage varies by chart and is based 

primarily on data available from the ILC program; 

however, to increase country and indicator coverage, 

this chartbook also uses data from other organizations. 

(Notes are provided at the end of each section to detail 

sources used and to furnish helpful definitions.)

For the latest ILC key indicators by country, see the 

Country at a Glance feature at www.bls.gov/ilc.

PREFACE
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T

his edition of Charting International Labor 

Comparisons was prepared by the BLS 

International Labor Comparisons (ILC) program, 

under the coordination of Elizabeth Crofoot 

and Jacob Kirchmer and the overall guidance of 

Marie-Claire Sodergren and Chris Sparks. ILC team 

members are Amy Bixler, Aaron Cobet, Rich Esposito, 

Mubarka Haq, Christopher Morris, Bradley Nicholson, 

and Andrew Petajan. Cover art and layout design 

were created by Bruce Boyd, and editorial services 

were provided by Maureen Soyars, both of the Office 

of Publications and Special Studies.
vi CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

CONTENTS

page

Preface...................................................................................................................................................................................iv

Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................................................v

Section 1 Gross Domestic Product

Chart 1.1 Gross domestic product, selected countries, in U.S. dollars, 2010.................................................. 9

Chart 1.2 Share of world gross domestic product, selected economies, 1990–2010..................................10

Chart 1.3 Manufacturing output as a percent of gross domestic product, selected economies,

1970–2010................................................................................................................................................11

Chart 1.4 Gross domestic product per capita and per employed person, selected countries,

in U.S. dollars, 2010 ................................................................................................................................12

Notes Sources and definitions..........................................................................................................................13

Section 2 Labor Market

Chart 2.1 Labor force size, gender composition, and participation rates, selected countries, 2010.........15

Chart 2.2 Labor force participation rates by sex, selected countries, 2010 ...................................................16

Chart 2.3 Labor force participation rates by age, selected countries, 2010...................................................17

Chart 2.4 Working-age population by labor force status, selected countries, in percent, 2010 .................18

Chart 2.5 Employment-population ratios, selected countries, 2007 and 2010 ..............................................19

Chart 2.6 Employment growth, selected countries, average annual rates, 2000–2007 and 2007–2010 .........20

Chart 2.7 Part-time employment rates by sex, selected countries, 2010 .......................................................21

Chart 2.8 Share of employment by sector, selected countries, 2010..............................................................22

Chart 2.9 Unemployment rates, selected countries, 2000–2010 .....................................................................23

Chart 2.10 Unemployment rates by age, selected countries, 2010...................................................................24

Chart 2.11 Unemployment rates by education, selected countries, 2009........................................................25

Chart 2.12 Composition of unemployment by duration, selected countries, 2010.........................................26

Notes Sources and definitions..........................................................................................................................27

Section 3 Competitiveness in Manufacturing

Chart 3.1 Hourly compensation costs in manufacturing, selected countries, in U.S. dollars, 2010...........30

Chart 3.2 Hourly compensation costs in manufacturing, selected countries and regions,

in U.S. dollars, 2010 ................................................................................................................................31
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS vii

CONTENTS

page

Chart 3.3 Percent change in hourly compensation costs in manufacturing and exchange rates,

selected countries, 2009–2010..............................................................................................................32

Chart 3.4 Growth in manufacturing hourly compensation costs, selected countries,

average annual rates, 2000–2007 and 2007–2010.............................................................................33

Chart 3.5 Hourly compensation costs in manufacturing, selected countries and regions,

annual percent changes, 2006–2010 ...................................................................................................34

Chart 3.6 Components of hourly compensation costs in manufacturing, selected countries,

in percent, 2010.......................................................................................................................................35

Chart 3.7 Manufacturing productivity growth, selected countries, average annual rates,

2000–2007 and 2007–2010....................................................................................................................36

Chart 3.8 Manufacturing output growth, selected countries, average annual rates,

2000–2007 and 2007–2010....................................................................................................................37

Chart 3.9 Growth in manufacturing hours worked, selected countries, average annual rates,

2000–2007 and 2007–2010....................................................................................................................38

Chart 3.10 Growth in manufacturing unit labor costs in national currency, selected countries,

average annual rates, 2000–2007 and 2007–2010.............................................................................39

Chart 3.11 Growth in manufacturing unit labor costs in U.S. dollars, selected countries,

average annual rates, 2000–2007 and 2007–2010.............................................................................40

Chart 3.12 Gap between productivity and real hourly compensation in manufacturing,

selected countries, 1970–2010.............................................................................................................41

Notes Sources and definitions..........................................................................................................................42

Section 4 Consumer Prices

Chart 4.1 Measures of consumer price inflation, selected countries, average annual growth rates,

2007–2010................................................................................................................................................45

Chart 4.2 Harmonized indexes of consumer prices, selected countries, average annual growth rates,

2000–2007 and 2007–2010....................................................................................................................46

Chart 4.3 Gap between manufacturing compensation and consumer price indexes,

selected countries, average annual growth rates, 2007–2010........................................................47

Chart 4.4 Price of a basket of goods that costs one dollar in the United States,

selected countries, 2010........................................................................................................................48

Notes Sources and definitions..........................................................................................................................49
8 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

1

G

ross domestic product (GDP) is a 

measure of a country’s economic 

output. GDP per capita and GDP 

per employed person are related 

indicators that provide a general picture of 

a country’s well-being. GDP per capita is 

an indicator of overall wealth in a country, 

and GDP per employed person is a general 

indicator of productivity.

Gross

Domestic

Product

SECTION
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 9

Gross domestic 

product (GDP) 

was more 

than 14 trillion 

dollars in the 

United States 

and exceeded 

4 trillion 

dollars in only 

three other 

countries: 

China, Japan, 

and India.

 In addition to China 

and India, other large 

emerging economies, 

such as Brazil and 

Mexico, were among the 

10 largest countries in 

terms of GDP.

 The GDP of the United 

States was roughly 5 

times larger than that of 

Germany, 10 times larger 

than that of South Korea, 

and 40 times larger than 

that of the Philippines. CHART

1.1 Gross domestic product, selected countries, in 

U.S. dollars, 2010

United States

China

Japan

India

Germany

United Kingdom

France

Brazil

Italy

Mexico

Spain 

South Korea

Canada

Australia

Poland

Netherlands

Argentina

Belgium

Sweden

Philippines

Switzerland

Austria

Greece

Singapore

Czech Republic

Norway

Portugal

Israel

Denmark

Hungary

Finland

Ireland

New Zealand

Slovakia

Estonia

Trillions of 2010 U.S. dollars

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

NOTE: GDP is converted to U.S. dollars using purchasing power parities (PPP). See section notes.

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and The World Bank.
10 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

China’s share 

of world gross 

domestic 

product (GDP) 

increased 

steadily during 

the past two 

decades, from 

approximately 

5 percent in 

1990 to 15 

percent in 

2010. By 2001, 

China’s GDP 

had surpassed 

Japan’s.

 As a percent of total 

world GDP, the United 

States, Europe, and Japan 

each declined slightly over 

the last two decades, 

largely because of China’s 

growth.

 The rest of the world’s 

share of world GDP 

changed little throughout 

the 1990s, but grew 

steadily from 2000 to 2010. CHART

1.2 Share of world gross domestic product,

selected economies, 1990–2010

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Percent

Rest of world

Europe

United States

China

Japan

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

NOTE: Europe includes Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, 

Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

SOURCE: The Conference Board.
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 11

Between 1970 

and 2010, the 

manufacturing 

sector’s 

share of gross 

domestic 

product (GDP) 

declined at 

about the same 

rate in Japan, 

the European 

Union, and the 

United States.

 From 2009 to 2010, 

after several years 

of overall decline, 

manufacturing output 

increased as a share 

of GDP in Japan, the 

European Union, and the 

United States. 

 In China, manufacturing 

output as a share of GDP 

decreased from a peak 

of more than 40 percent 

in the late 1970s to less 

than 30 percent in 2010. CHART

1.3 Manufacturing output as a percent of gross 

domestic product, selected economies,

1970–2010

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Percent

China

Japan

European Union

United States

1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and The World Bank.
12 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

Gross domestic 

product (GDP) 

per capita in 

the United 

States was 

approximately 

six times larger 

than the GDP 

per capita in 

China.

 Norway had the highest 

GDP per capita and per 

employed person.

 Countries with the 

lowest employmentpopulation ratios (see 

chart 2.5), such as 

Belgium, Hungary, and 

Italy, had relatively larger 

gaps between GDP per 

capita and per employed 

person. CHART

1.4 Gross domestic product per capita and per

employed person, selected countries,

in U.S. dollars, 2010

Norway

United States

Ireland

Belgium

France

Austria

Italy

Netherlands

Sweden

Australia

Finland

Canada

United Kingdom

Spain 

Denmark

Germany

Japan

Slovakia

South Korea

Czech Republic

Hungary

Poland

Mexico

Brazil

China

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and The World Bank.

2010 U.S. dollars

 GDP per employed person

 GDP per capita
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 13

Sources

Gross domestic product (GDP) data for most 

countries are based on the BLS report International 

Comparisons of GDP per Capita and per Hour, 

1960–2010. GDP data for the remaining countries 

and all purchasing power parities (PPP) are based on 

data in the World Bank database World Development 

Indicators. A country or region’s share of world GDP 

(chart 1.2) is based on data in The Conference Board 

Total Economy Database. 

Each country prepares GDP measures in accordance 

with national accounts principles. To make 

international comparisons of levels of GDP, GDP 

per capita, and GDP per employed person, it is 

necessary to express GDP in a common currency 

unit. BLS converts GDP from national currency units 

to U.S. dollars through the use of PPP. 

Definitions

Gross domestic product (GDP) is the market value of 

all goods and services produced in a country. GDP 

per capita is GDP divided by population and is a 

rough measure of a country’s overall wealth. GDP 

per employed person is GDP divided by the number 

of employed persons and is a rough measure of a 

country’s productivity. Purchasing power parities (PPP) 

are currency conversion rates that allow output 

in different currency units to be expressed in a 

common unit of value. A PPP is the ratio between 

the number of units of a country’s currency and 

the number of U.S. dollars required to purchase an 

equivalent basket of goods and services within each 

respective country. 

Section 1 Notes GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT
14 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

2

L

abor force statistics, such as 

employment and unemployment, are 

key indicators of how labor

markets are functioning within and 

across countries. Labor force levels and 

participation rates provide information 

on the supply of labor in an economy. 

Employment levels and employmentpopulation ratios measure the extent 

to which people are engaged in 

productive labor market activities, while 

unemployment levels and rates provide 

information on an economy’s unused 

labor supply.

Labor

Market

SECTION
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 15

China and India 

had the largest 

workforces; 

China had 

the highest 

labor force 

participation 

rate, while 

India had the 

lowest.

 Women made up less 

than half of the labor force 

in all selected countries 

and Europe. India had 

the lowest proportion 

of women in the labor 

market, by far. CHART

2.1 Labor force size, gender composition, and 

participation rates, selected countries, 2010

Women's share of the labor force (percent)

50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Total labor force participation rate (percent)

NOTE: Each bubble represents the size of the labor force for that country. Europe includes Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, 

Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, 

Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and International Labour Office.

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

Canada

Australia

Argentina

South Korea

Japan

Philippines

Mexico

Brazil

India

China

Europe

United

States
16 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

Women’s 

participation 

rates in India 

and Mexico 

were among 

the lowest, and 

these countries 

had the largest 

gender gaps.

 Labor force 

participation rates were 

higher for men than 

women in all selected 

countries, although the 

size of the male-female 

gap varied considerably. 

The largest differences 

between men and women 

were in Asian and Latin 

American countries. 

 The highest 

participation rates for 

men were in large 

emerging economies: 

Brazil, India, Mexico, and 

China. China also had the 

highest participation rate 

for women and, thus, a 

relatively low gender gap. CHART 2.2 Labor force participation rates by sex, selected 

countries, 2010

China

Canada

Norway

New Zealand

Sweden

Switzerland

Australia

Denmark

Brazil

Netherlands

United States

United Kingdom

Singapore

Estonia

Portugal

Finland

Austria

Israel

Ireland

Germany

France

Spain

Slovakia

Philippines

Czech Republic

South Korea

Japan

Poland

Belgium

Argentina

Greece

Mexico

Hungary

Italy

India

0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and International Labour Office.

Percent

 Women's participation rate

 Men's participation rate

— Male-female gap
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 17 CHART 2.3 India

Mexico

South Korea

Philippines

Italy

Israel

Argentina

Ireland

Hungary

United States

Brazil

Australia

Greece

Japan

Poland

New Zealand

United Kingdom

Singapore

Spain

Belgium

Canada

Slovakia

Germany

Norway

Czech Republic

Finland

Austria

Netherlands

Estonia

Portugal

France

Denmark

Switzerland

Sweden

China

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

SOURCE: International Labour Office.

Percent

 Ages 15–24

 Ages 25–54

 Ages 55–64

 Ages 65 and

older Participation 

rates were 

lowest for 

those ages 65 

and older in 

all selected 

countries 

except South 

Korea.

 In the Philippines, more 

than one-third of people 

ages 65 and older were 

still in the labor force. In 

contrast, many European 

countries had rates below 5 

percent for this age group.

 Participation rates 

among youth (ages 

15–24) varied most across 

countries. The Netherlands 

and Australia had the 

highest participation rates, 

and Hungary, South Korea, 

and Italy had the lowest 

rates.

Labor force participation rates by age, selected 

countries, 2010
18 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

The workingage population 

is composed 

of those in the 

labor force—

the employed 

and the 

unemployed—

and those not 

in the labor 

force.

 Italy was the only 

country with less than 

half of its working-age 

population in the labor 

force.

 High unemployment in 

Spain and Estonia led to 

employment rates similar 

to countries with lower 

labor force participation, 

such as Italy and Hungary. CHART

2.4 Working-age population by labor force status, 

selected countries, in percent, 2010

China

Brazil

Switzerland

New Zealand

Canada

Singapore

Australia

Norway

United States

Sweden

Denmark

Philippines

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Portugal

Mexico

Estonia

Austria

Argentina

Ireland

South Korea

Finland

Spain

Slovakia

Japan

Czech Republic

Germany

Israel

France

Poland

India

Greece

Belgium

Hungary

Italy

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and International Labour Office.

Percent

 Employed  Unemployed  Not in the labor force
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 19

In 2010, 

China and 

Switzerland 

had the highest 

proportions 

of employed 

persons, while 

Italy and 

Hungary had 

the lowest.

 Employment-population 

ratios decreased between 

2007 and 2010 in 30 out 

of 36 selected countries, 

with the steepest declines 

in Ireland, Estonia, Spain, 

and the United States. CHART 2.5 Employment-population ratios,selected 

countries, 2007 and 2010

China

Switzerland

Brazil

Norway

New Zealand

Singapore

Australia

Canada

Netherlands

Denmark

Philippines

Sweden

United States

Mexico

United Kingdom

South Korea

Austria

Japan

Argentina

Portugal

Finland

Taiwan

Czech Republic

Germany

India

Israel

Ireland

France

Estonia

Slovakia

Poland

Belgium

Greece

Spain

Hungary

Italy

0 20 40 60 80

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and International Labour Office.

Percent

 2010

 2007
20 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

Between 2007 

and 2010, 

the sharpest 

declines in 

employment 

were in Estonia 

and Ireland, 

followed by 

Spain and the 

United States.

 Employment grew 

from 2000 to 2007 in all 

selected countries except 

Japan, but it decreased 

in almost half of the 

selected countries from 

2007 to 2010, a period of 

global recession.

 The largest gains in 

employment between 

2007 and 2010 were in 

Singapore, Israel, and 

the Philippines. These 

countries and Poland were 

the only countries that 

had more employment 

growth between 2007 

and 2010 than between 

2000 and 2007. CHART 2.6 Employment growth, selected countries, average 

annual rates, 2000–2007 and 2007–2010

Estonia

Ireland

Spain

United States

Denmark

Hungary

Portugal

Greece

Japan

Finland

Italy

Slovakia

Czech Republic

United Kingdom

Netherlands

Sweden

New Zealand

France

India

Belgium

South Korea

Germany

Canada

Taiwan

China

Switzerland

Austria

Norway

Argentina

Mexico

Poland

Brazil

Australia

Philippines

Israel

Singapore

–5 –4 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 4 5

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and International Labour Office.

Percent

 2007–2010

 2000–2007
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 21

Part-time 

work for men 

and women 

was most 

prevalent in the 

Netherlands; 

it was much 

less common 

in Eastern 

European 

countries.

 A larger share of 

employed women worked 

part time (fewer than 

30 hours per week) than 

did employed men in all 

selected countries. The 

part-time employment 

rate for women was 

roughly two to five times 

higher than the men’s rate 

in all selected countries. CHART 2.7 Part-time employment rates by sex, selected 

countries, 2010

Netherlands

Switzerland

United Kingdom

Australia

Ireland

Germany

Japan

New Zealand

Austria

Belgium

Italy

Norway

Mexico

Canada

Denmark

France

Israel

Spain

Sweden

United States

Finland

South Korea

Greece

Portugal

Poland

Estonia

Czech Republic

Hungary

Slovakia

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

SOURCE: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Percent

 Men

 Women
22 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

More than half 

of employment 

was in the 

service sector 

in all selected 

countries.

 The United States, 

the Netherlands, and the 

United Kingdom had the 

largest shares of service 

employment (more than 

80 percent).

 The largest shares of 

industry employment 

(near or more than 

30 percent) were in 

five Eastern European 

countries: the Czech 

Republic, Hungary, 

Estonia, Slovakia, and 

Poland. These countries, 

plus Portugal and Mexico, 

also had the lowest 

shares of employment in 

services.

 Mexico, Poland, 

Greece, and Portugal had 

the largest agricultural 

sectors. CHART 2.8 Share of employment by sector, selected 

countries, 2010

Netherlands

United States

United Kingdom

Denmark

Canada 

Sweden

Norway 

Australia

Greece

Israel

Ireland

France

New Zealand

Switzerland

Spain

Finland

Belgium

Mexico

Austria

South Korea

Japan

Italy

Portugal

Germany

Poland

Slovakia

Estonia

Hungary

Czech Republic

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

NOTE: 2009 data for the Czech Republic and Switzerland. Agriculture includes hunting, forestry, and fishing. Industry is 

composed of mining and quarrying, manufacturing, construction, and for some countries, public utilities (electricity, gas, 

and water). Public utilities represent less than 3 percent of industry in all countries shown.

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

 Industry  Services  Agriculture
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 23 CHART 2.9

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Percent

United States

Mexico

Canada

North America

20

15

10

5

0

Poland

Slovakia

Estonia

Czech Republic

Hungary

Percent Eastern Europe

20

15

10

5

0

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Percent

New Zealand

South Korea Japan

Australia

Asia and Oceania

20

15

10

5

0

Percent

Germany

Ireland

France

Austria

United Kingdom

Switzerland

Western Europe

20

15

10

5

0

Finland

Sweden

Denmark

Netherlands Norway

Percent Northern Europe

20

15

10

5

0

Spain

Greece

Portugal

Italy

Percent Southern Europe

20

15

10

5

0

Unemployment rates, selected countries,

2000–2010

In a majority 

of the selected 

countries, 

unemployment 

rates were 

higher in 2010 

than they were 

in 2000, in 

part because 

of the effects 

of the global 

recession at 

the end of the 

decade.

 The global recession had 

the most profound effect 

on unemployment rates 

in Southern and Eastern 

Europe; unemployment 

rates increased sharply in 

those countries between 

2008 and 2010.

 Ireland and Spain had 

the largest increases in 

the unemployment rate 

between 2000 and 2010.
24 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

Unemployment 

rates for youth 

(teenagers and 

young adults) 

are generally 

higher than 

those for 

adults, partly 

because youth 

lack skills 

and work 

experience. 

They are 

therefore more 

vulnerable 

to economic 

downturns.

 Unemployment rates 

for youth are highest in 

Eastern and Southern 

Europe. For countries 

in these regions, youth 

unemployment rates 

topped 30 percent for 

teenagers, and exceeded 

15 percent for young 

adults. CHART 2.10 Switzerland

Japan

Mexico

Austria

Germany

Netherlands

South Korea

Norway

Denmark

Australia

Canada

Israel

New Zealand

United States

Finland

France

United Kingdom

Poland

Portugal

Belgium

Sweden

Greece

Czech Republic

Ireland

Italy

Hungary

Estonia

Spain

Slovakia

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percent

NOTE: For Canada, France, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States,

teenagers are ages 16 to 19.

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Unemployment rates by age, selected countries, 2010

 Teenagers (15–19)

 Young adults (20–24)

  Adults (25 and older)
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 25

In 26 out of 

30 selected 

countries, 

college 

graduates had 

the lowest 

unemployment 

rates, followed 

by high school 

graduates; 

those with 

less than a 

high school 

education had 

the highest 

rates.

 The unemployment 

rate gap between 

persons with less than 

a high school education 

and those with a high 

school diploma was 

generally larger than the 

gap between college 

graduates and high school 

graduates, reflecting the 

value of a high school 

education in seeking 

employment. CHART 2.11 Unemployment rates by education, selected 

countries, 2009

Norway

Netherlands

Switzerland

Austria

South Korea

New Zealand

Australia

Mexico

Denmark

Czech Republic

Italy

United Kingdom

Japan

Sweden

Belgium

France

Brazil

Poland

Germany

Finland

Israel

Canada

Hungary

Portugal

Greece

United States

Slovakia

Ireland

Estonia

Spain

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Percent

NOTE: Data refer to persons ages 25 to 64. Data for those who have less than a high school education

are not available for Japan.

SOURCE: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

 Less than high school

 High school or trade school

  College or university
26 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

Long-term 

unemployment 

(1 year or 

more) made 

up the largest 

share of total 

unemployment 

in 13 out of 

28 selected 

countries; the 

12 countries 

with the 

largest shares 

of long-term 

unemployment 

were all in 

Europe.

 Slovakia had the 

highest composition of 

long-term unemployment, 

with nearly 60 percent 

of the unemployed out of 

work for 1 year or more.

 In Mexico, more 

than two-thirds of the 

unemployed were out 

of work for less than 3 

months. CHART 2.12 Composition of unemployment by duration, 

selected countries, 2010

Slovakia

Portugal

Hungary

Ireland

Belgium

Italy

Germany

Estonia

Spain

Greece

Czech Republic

France

Japan

Switzerland

United Kingdom

United States

Netherlands

Poland

Austria

Finland

Israel

Denmark

Australia

Sweden

Canada

Norway

New Zealand

Mexico

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

SOURCE: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

 1 year or more  3 months to less than 1 year  Less than 3 months
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 27

Sources

Data for 10 countries for most indicators are based 

on the BLS report International Comparisons of 

Annual Labor Force Statistics, Adjusted to U.S. 

Concepts, 10 Countries, 1970–2010. The 10 

countries are the United States, Canada, Australia, 

Japan, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, 

Sweden, and the United Kingdom. To facilitate 

international comparisons, BLS adjusts data for 

these countries to U.S. concepts. For specific 

adjustments and breaks in series, see the country 

notes associated with the BLS report.

Data for the remaining countries and for some 

indicators in their entirety—labor force participation 

rates by age (chart 2.3), part-time employment rates 

(chart 2.7), and unemployment by education (chart 

2.11) and by duration (chart 2.12)—are based on 

data from the International Labour Office (ILO) or 

the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OECD). 

Country coverage for labor force levels and 

participation rates, employment-population 

ratios, and employment growth (charts 2.1–2.6) is 

supplemented with data from the ILO database Key 

Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM). The KILM 

harmonizes data using econometric models to 

account for differences in national data and scope of 

coverage, collection and tabulation methodologies, 

and other country-specific factors, such as military 

service requirements. Although some differences 

remain between the KILM and ILC series, they do 

not materially affect comparisons across countries.

Country coverage for part-time employment 

rates, employment by sector, and unemployment 

data (charts 2.7–2.12) is supplemented with data 

from the OECD database OECD.Stat. The OECD 

generally uses labor force surveys and captures 

labor force statistics according to ILO guidelines, 

which facilitate cross-country comparisons, because 

these guidelines create a common conceptual 

framework for countries. However, except for total 

unemployment rates (chart 2.9), the OECD does 

not adjust data for differences that remain across 

countries in coverage and definitions that can 

affect international comparisons. See Labor Force 

Statistics in OECD Countries: Sources, Coverage and 

Definitions. For total unemployment rates, the OECD 

series used is the “harmonized unemployment rates” 

(HURs), which are adjusted to conform to the ILO 

guidelines in countries where deviations occur. For 

a full discussion of comparability issues, see the 

BLS article, “International unemployment rates: 

how comparable are they?” at www.bls.gov/opub/

mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdf.

Using multiple sources for an indicator to extend 

country coverage can introduce additional 

comparability issues, because each organization 

employs different methods for harmonizing data, 

if adjustments are made at all. Users should use 

caution when making international comparisons 

and are encouraged to review the methodological 

documents associated with each source. 

In chart 2.6, the periods 2000–2007 and 2007–2010 

are selected to compare a time of global recession 

(2007–2010) against a prerecessionary time (2000–

Section 2 Notes LABOR MARKET
28 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

2007). The chart shows the average annual growth 

rate during each period. Although 2007 is included 

in both, it represents two different annual changes 

that do not overlap: 2006–2007 in the first period and 

2007–2008 in the second period.

Definitions

Labor market data cover only civilians (i.e., members 

of the Armed Forces are not included). The labor force 

participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the 

working-age population. The labor force is the sum of 

all persons classified as employed and unemployed. 

The working-age population is either ages 15 and 

older or ages 16 and older, with the lower age limits 

varying by country. (See BLS and ILO documents 

from above sources.)

The employed are persons who, during the 

reference week, did work for at least 1 hour as 

paid employees; worked in their own business, 

profession, or on their own farm; or did work as 

unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a family 

member (for at least 1 hour according to the ILO 

guidelines but for at least 15 hours according to 

U.S. concepts). Definitions of the employed vary by 

country. (See BLS, ILO, and OECD documents from 

above sources.) The employment-population ratio is 

employment as a percentage of the working-age 

population. Part-time employment refers to employed 

persons who usually work less than 30 hours per 

week in their main job; in some countries, “actual” 

rather than “usual” hours are used. The part-time 

employment rate is the share of total employment that 

is part time and is also referred to as the incidence 

of part-time employment. 

The unemployed are persons without work, who were 

actively seeking employment and currently available 

to start work. Definitions of the unemployed vary by 

country. (See BLS and OECD documents from above 

sources.) The unemployment rate is unemployment as 

a percentage of the labor force; it is the most widely 

used measure of an economy’s unused labor supply. 

For unemployment rates by education (chart 2.11), 

the levels of educational attainment accord with 

the 1997 International Standard Classification for 

Education (ISCED). Less than high school corresponds 

to “less than upper secondary education” and includes 

ISCED levels 0–2 and 3C. High school or trade school

corresponds to “upper secondary and post-secondary 

education” and includes levels 3A, 3B, and 4. College 

or university corresponds to “tertiary non-university 

and university” and includes levels 5–6. 
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 29

3

T

hree indicators of international competitiveness 

in the manufactured goods sector are hourly 

compensation costs, labor productivity, and unit 

labor costs.

Hourly compensation measures employers’ average 

hourly labor costs in the manufacturing sector.

Labor productivity (output per hour worked) measures 

how effectively hours worked are converted into 

output. Unit labor costs measure the cost of labor 

compensation required to produce one unit of output. 

Increases in labor productivity indicate that a country’s 

workforce is becoming more efficient, and declines in 

unit labor costs indicate that an economy is becoming 

more cost competitive.

SECTION

Competitiveness

in Manufacturing
30 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

The nine 

countries with 

the highest 

manufacturing 

hourly 

compensation 

costs were all 

in Europe.

 Compensation costs in 

Norway were 1.7 times 

larger than compensation 

costs in the United States 

and more than 50 times 

larger than those in China.

 Compensation costs 

in China and India have 

been growing faster than 

those in the United States 

in recent years, but were 

still less than 4 percent of 

the U.S. level. CHART

3.1 China

India

Philippines

Mexico

Poland

Taiwan

Hungary

Estonia

Brazil

Slovakia

Czech Republic

Portugal

Argentina

South Korea

Singapore

Israel

New Zealand

Greece

Spain

United Kingdom

Japan

Italy

United States

Canada

Ireland

France

Australia

Netherlands

Austria

Finland

Germany

Sweden

Denmark

Belgium

Switzerland

Norway

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

U.S. dollars

NOTE: Data for China and India refer to 2007 and are not directly comparable with each other or with data for other 

countries. See section notes.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Hourly compensation costs in manufacturing, 

selected countries, in U.S. dollars, 2010
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 31

Compensation 

costs in 

Northern 

Europe were, 

on average, 

$12 higher than 

compensation 

costs in the 

United States, 

while those in 

Latin America 

were $28 

lower than the 

U.S. level.

 Eastern European 

countries, on average, 

had the lowest hourly 

compensation costs in 

Europe, at $38 below the 

Northern European level.

 Compensation costs in 

China were only 5 percent 

of compensation costs in 

other Asian countries.

China

CHART 3.2

India

Latin America

Eastern Europe

Asia

Southern Europe

United States

Western Europe

Northern Europe

0 10 20 30 40 50

U.S. dollars

NOTE: Data for China and India refer to 2007 and are not directly comparable with each other or with data for other 

countries. Latin America refers to Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico; Western Europe to Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, 

Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom; Northern Europe to Denmark, Finland, Norway, and 

Sweden; Southern Europe to Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain; Eastern Europe to the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, 

Poland, and Slovakia; and Asia to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Singapore, and Taiwan. Data are trade weighted 

averages for the regions; see section notes.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Hourly compensation costs in manufacturing, 

selected countries and regions, in U.S.

dollars, 2010
32 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

From 2009 to 

2010, many 

European 

currencies lost 

value against 

the U.S. 

dollar, causing 

widespread 

declines 

in dollardenominated 

compensation 

costs in 

Europe.

 Austria and Estonia 

experienced currency 

depreciation along with 

declining compensation 

costs in national currency, 

leading to even larger 

drops in U.S.-dollar costs.

 U.S.-dollar hourly 

compensation costs for all 

selected countries outside 

Europe increased much 

faster than those costs in 

the United States. CHART

3.3

–30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30

Percent

NOTE: Changes in compensation costs in U.S. dollars roughly equal the change in compensation costs in national currency 

plus the change in the value of the currency relative to the U.S. dollar.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Percentage change in hourly compensation costs 

in manufacturing and exchange rates, selected 

countries, 2009–2010

Argentina

Brazil

Australia

Canada

New Zealand

South Korea

Philippines

Mexico

Israel

Singapore

Norway

Sweden

Taiwan

Poland

Japan

United States

Switzerland

Czech Republic

United Kingdom

Greece

Italy

Denmark

Hungary

France

Portugal

Belgium

Finland

Netherlands

Spain

Ireland

Slovakia

Germany

Estonia

Austria

 Percent

change

in hourly

compensation

costs in U.S.

dollars

 Percent

change

in hourly

compensation

costs in

national

currency

units

 Percent

change in

exchange

rate
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 33

Most countries 

experienced 

higher 

growth in 

compensation 

costs, on 

average, over 

the first 7 

years of the 

last decade 

than they did 

over the 2007–

2010 period.

 Argentina, Estonia, 

Hungary, and South 

Korea had the 

largest differences in 

compensation cost 

growth between the two 

periods 2000–2007 and 

2007–2010.

 In Taiwan and Japan, 

compensation costs 

declined during the 

2007–2010 period. CHART

3.4

Percent

NOTE: Growth rates are based on national currency-denominated compensation costs.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Growth in manufacturing hourly compensation 

costs, selected countries, average annual rates, 

2000–2007 and 2007–2010

Taiwan

Japan

Germany

South Korea

Switzerland

France

Canada

Austria

United Kingdom

United States

Australia

Netherlands

Italy

Denmark

Portugal

Belgium

Hungary

New Zealand

Singapore

Sweden

Ireland

Czech Republic

Spain

Finland

Estonia

Israel

Norway

Slovakia

Philippines

Mexico

Greece

Poland

Brazil

Argentina

–5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

 2007–2010

 2000–2007
34 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

Manufacturing 

compensation 

costs in China 

grew the 

fastest, while 

those costs in 

the rest of Asia 

and Western 

Europe grew 

at the slowest 

pace.

 Eastern Europe and 

Latin America also 

experienced rapid 

increases in compensation, 

although cost growth in 

Eastern Europe slowed 

substantially from 2008 to 

2010.

 In 2010, the increase 

in compensation costs 

in each region of Europe 

was the lowest it had 

been in 5 years. CHART

3.5

–10 0 10 20 30

Percent

NOTE: Annual percent change from previous year. Percent changes are based on national currency-denominated 

compensation costs. The latest available data for China and India refer to 2008 and 2007, respectively. Latin America 

refers to Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico; Western Europe to Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, 

Switzerland, and the United Kingdom; Northern Europe to Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden; Southern Europe to 

Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain; Eastern Europe to the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia; and Asia 

to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Singapore, and Taiwan. Data are trade weighted averages for the regions; see 

section notes.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Hourly compensation costs in manufacturing, 

selected countries and regions, annual percent 

changes, 2006–2010

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2006

2007

2006

2007

2008

Asia

Western Europe

United States

Southern Europe

Northern Europe 

Latin America

Eastern Europe

India

China
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 35 CHART

3.6

NOTE: For Mexico, South Korea, Norway, and Taiwan, pay for time worked and directly paid benefits are combined into 

total direct pay. See section notes.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Total benefits 

(social 

insurance 

and directly 

paid benefits) 

surpassed 40 

percent of 

compensation 

costs in 15 out 

of 34 selected 

countries.

 Total benefits as a 

percentage of total costs 

were highest in Belgium, 

at 53 percent of costs, 

and lowest in New 

Zealand, at 16 percent.

 For manufacturers 

in Sweden, Belgium, 

Brazil, and France, social 

insurance costs made up 

approximately 33 percent 

of total compensation 

costs in 2010. Social 

insurance in New Zealand, 

however, accounted for 

only 3 percent of total 

costs.

Components of hourly compensation costs in 

manufacturing, selected countries,

in percent, 2010

New Zealand

Denmark

Philippines

Ireland

Taiwan

United Kingdom

Switzerland

Poland

Singapore

Israel

Norway

Argentina

Japan

South Korea

Portugal

Australia

Netherlands

Finland

Germany

Canada

Greece

Hungary

United States

Austria

Spain

Estonia

Czech Republic

Slovakia

Italy

Mexico

France

Brazil

Belgium

Sweden

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

 Social insurance  Directly paid benefits  Pay for time worked (wages and salaries)  Total direct pay
36 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

Manufacturing 

productivity 

grew for most 

countries from 

2007 to 2010, 

but at a much 

slower rate 

than during 

the 2000–2007 

period.

 Germany, Finland, Italy, 

Sweden, and Slovakia 

experienced productivity 

declines in manufacturing 

during the 2007–2010 

period.

 Singapore and 

Denmark were the only 

countries that had faster 

productivity growth from 

2007 to 2010 than from 

2000 to 2007. CHART

3.7 Germany

Finland

Italy

Sweden

Slovakia

Austria

United Kingdom

Netherlands

France

Spain

Canada

Australia

Hungary

Belgium

Norway

Japan

United States

South Korea

Denmark

Estonia

Czech Republic

Singapore

Taiwan

–5 0 5 10 15

Percent

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Manufacturing productivity growth, selected 

countries, average annual rates, 2000–2007 and 

2007–2010

 2007–2010

 2000–2007
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 37

When output 

grows faster 

than hours 

worked, 

productivity 

(output per 

hour) rises.

 Manufacturing output 

decreased in 18 out of 

23 selected countries 

between 2007 and 2010, 

causing relatively slow 

growth in manufacturing 

labor productivity for 

most countries during this 

period.

 In contrast to the 2007 

to 2010 period, output 

increased in 21 out of 23 

selected countries from 

2000 to 2007.

Finland

CHART

3.8

Italy

Spain

Estonia

Germany

Canada

Slovakia

Sweden

United Kingdom

France

United States

Japan

Denmark

Hungary

Belgium

Austria

Netherlands

Norway

Australia

Czech Republic

South Korea

Singapore

Taiwan

–10 –5 0 5 10 15

Percent

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Manufacturing output growth, selected countries, 

average annual rates, 2000–2007 and 2007–2010

 2007–2010

 2000–2007
38 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

Between 

2007 and 

2010, hours 

worked in 

manufacturing 

declined in 

all selected 

countries 

except 

South Korea. 

In several 

countries, 

hours fell by 

more than 5 

percent.

 Hours worked also 

decreased in almost all 

selected countries from 

2000 to 2007, but not to 

the extent seen during the 

2007–2010 period. CHART

3.9

–10 –8 –6 –4 –2 0 2 4 6

Percent

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Growth in manufacturing hours worked, selected 

countries, average annual rates, 2000–2007 and 

2007–2010

 2007–2010

 2000–2007

Estonia

Spain

United States

Finland

Denmark

Canada

Italy

Japan

Slovakia

France

United Kingdom

Belgium

Hungary

Sweden

Czech Republic

Norway

Germany

Austria

Netherlands

Australia

Singapore

Taiwan

South Korea
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 39

Manufacturing 

unit labor costs 

(compensation 

per unit of 

output) in 

national 

currency grew 

between 2007 

and 2010 

in 16 out of 

23 selected 

countries. 

Germany, 

Slovakia, Italy, 

and Finland 

experienced 

the largest 

growth.

 Of the countries that 

experienced increases in 

unit labor costs from 2000 

to 2007, only Canada, 

Denmark, and Estonia 

had declines in unit labor 

costs from 2007 to 2010. CHART 3.10

–8 –6 –4 –2 0 2 4 6

Percent

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Growth in manufacturing unit labor costs in 

national currency, selected countries, average 

annual rates, 2000–2007 and 2007–2010

 2007–2010

 2000–2007

Taiwan

Singapore

Czech Republic

Japan

Canada

Denmark

Estonia

United States

Hungary

South Korea

Belgium

Australia

Spain

Sweden

France

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Norway

Austria

Finland

Italy

Slovakia

Germany
40 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

Converting unit 

labor costs 

(compensation 

per unit of 

output) to U.S. 

dollars enables 

comparisons 

of international 

competitiveness. 

Competitiveness 

increases as 

unit labor costs 

decrease.

 Growth in manufacturing 

unit labor costs was faster 

from 2000 to 2007 than 

the growth between 2007 

and 2010 in most countries. 

Japan and Slovakia had the 

sharpest increases in unit 

labor costs during the latter 

period. CHART 3.11 Growth in manufacturing unit labor costs in U.S. 

dollars, selected countries, average annual rates, 

2000–2007 and 2007–2010

–10 –5 0 5 10 15

Percent

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

 2007–2010

 2000–2007

South Korea

United Kingdom

Taiwan

Hungary

Denmark

Estonia

Sweden

Czech Republic

United States

Belgium

Singapore

Canada

Spain

France

Netherlands

Austria

Norway

Finland

Italy

Germany

Australia

Slovakia

Japan
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 41

In all selected 

countries, 

the growth of 

productivity 

outpaced the 

growth of 

real hourly 

compensation in 

manufacturing 

between 1970 

and 2010, 

creating a 

compensationproductivity 

gap.

 By 2010, the gap was 

largest in the United 

States, Finland, and 

Sweden. The gap was 

smallest in Germany, the 

United Kingdom, and 

Denmark. CHART 3.12

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Gap between productivity and real hourly 

compensation in manufacturing, selected 

countries, 1970–2010

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

70 80 90 00 10

Year

Year

Year

Year

Natural logarithm of indexes Natural logarithm of indexes

United States

Japan

France

Denmark

Finland

Belgium

Canada

United Kingdom

Sweden

Netherlands

Italy

Germany

— Productivity — Real hourly compensation
42 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

Sources

Hourly compensation costs (charts 3.1–3.6) 

measure employers’ average hourly labor costs in 

the manufacturing sector. Average costs refer to all 

employees, are based on national establishment 

surveys, and are prepared for level comparisons. To 

permit meaningful level comparisons of employer 

labor costs across countries, earnings data from 

national surveys are adjusted to the BLS concept of 

hourly compensation. (See definition that follows.) 

Data for all countries are based on the BLS news 

release International Comparisons of Hourly 

Compensation Costs in Manufacturing, 2010 and the 

related time series tables. Also, see the technical 

notes and country notes associated with this release.

Because of various data gaps and methodological 

issues, compensation costs for China and India are 

not directly comparable with each other or with data 

for other countries. For further information, see the 

Country at a Glance pages for China and India at 

www.bls.gov/ilc/country.htm.

Average compensation costs for selected regions 

(charts 3.2 and 3.5) are calculated by weighting each 

country’s compensation cost value by its relative 

importance to U.S. trade. The weights are calculated 

using the dollar value of U.S. trade (exports plus 

imports) in manufactured commodities with each 

country in 2010. 

Data on productivity, output, hours, unit labor costs, 

and real hourly compensation (charts 3.7–3.12) refer 

to all employed persons (employees and the selfemployed) in the manufacturing sector. These data 

are based on national accounts and are prepared 

for trend (rather than level) comparisons. Data 

for most countries are based on the BLS news 

release International Comparisons of Manufacturing 

Productivity and Unit Labor Cost Trends and the 

related time series tables. See the technical notes

associated with the news release.

Data for the remaining countries are based on data 

from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation 

and Development (OECD) database OECD.Stat. 

In charts 3.4 and 3.7–3.11, the periods 2000–

2007 and 2007–2010 are selected to compare a 

time of global recession (2007–2010) against a 

prerecessionary time (2000–2007). The charts show 

the average annual growth rate during each period. 

Although 2007 is included in both, it represents 

two different annual changes that do not overlap: 

2006–2007 in the first period and 2007–2008 in the 

second period. 

Definitions

Hourly compensation (labor cost) is the average cost 

to employers of using one hour of employee labor in 

the manufacturing sector. Compensation includes (1) 

pay for time worked, (2) directly paid benefits, and (3) 

Section 3 Notes COMPETITIVENESS IN MANUFACTURING
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 43

employer social insurance expenditures and laborrelated taxes. Pay for time worked refers to wages 

and salaries for time actually worked, including basic 

wages, overtime pay, shift and holiday premiums, 

and regular bonuses. Directly paid benefits primarily 

include pay for vacations and other leave, irregular 

bonuses, and pay in kind. Social insurance expenditures

are employer contributions to social benefit funds 

on behalf of workers, such as for unemployment 

insurance, workers’ compensation, health insurance, 

and pension funds. Labor-related taxes are taxes on 

payrolls or employment, net of subsidies. Total hourly 

direct pay includes all payments made directly to the 

worker consisting of pay for time worked and directly 

paid benefits.

Productivity is real output per hour worked. Output is 

the market value in constant dollars of goods and 

services produced in a country. For international 

comparisons, output refers to gross output minus 

intermediate inputs, or real value added. Hours refer 

to the hours worked by all persons engaged in the 

manufacturing process. Unit labor costs are nominal 

compensation costs divided by real value-added 

output. Unit labor costs can be expressed in national 

currency and in U.S. dollars. Real hourly compensation

refers to the hourly labor cost for employed persons 

(employees and the self-employed), adjusted for 

inflation. It includes all payments made in cash or 

in kind directly to employees and employer social 

insurance expenditures. It includes labor-related 

taxes and excludes labor-related subsidies. 
44 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

4

C

onsumer price indexes (CPI) and 

harmonized indexes of consumer 

prices (HICP) measure the change 

over time in the prices paid by 

consumers for a fixed selection, or 

market basket, of goods and services. 

Price indexes are used primarily to adjust 

income payments for changes in the cost 

of living and to compute inflation-adjusted 

measures of other economic series.

Consumer

Prices

SECTION
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 45

The two 

inflation 

rates were 

identical in 5 

countries, and 

the difference 

between the 

two rates 

was greater 

than half a 

percentage 

point in just 

3 out of 23 

selected 

countries.

 The greatest 

differences between the 

two inflation rates were 

in Sweden and Finland. 

The differing trends reflect 

differences in the way 

owner-occupied housing 

is treated by the HICP and 

CPI for these countries.

Ireland

Japan

CHART

4.1

Switzerland

Portugal

Germany

Netherlands

France

Austria

Slovakia

United States

Spain

Italy

Belgium

Denmark

Sweden

Finland

Norway

Czech Republic

United Kingdom

Greece

Poland

Estonia

Hungary

–1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Percent

NOTE: HICP and CPI are two measures of consumer price changes. HICP are adjusted for comparability across countries, 

whereas CPI are not adjusted.

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Eurostat, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Measures of consumer price inflation, selected 

countries, average annual growth rates,

2007–2010

 Harmonized index of consumer prices (HICP)

 Consumer price index (CPI)
46 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

Harmonized 

indexes of 

consumer 

prices (HICP) 

are an 

internationally 

comparable 

measure of 

consumer price 

inflation.

 For half the countries 

shown—particularly 

Ireland, Slovakia, and 

Portugal—inflation was 

slower during the 2007 

to 2010 period, when 

economies worldwide 

experienced recessionary 

pressures.

 Eastern European 

countries generally 

had the highest rates 

of inflation during both 

periods, while prices 

decreased slightly in 

Japan. CHART 4.2 Japan

Ireland

Portugal

Germany

Netherlands

France

Austria

Slovakia

United States

Spain

Italy

Belgium

Denmark

Sweden

Finland

Norway

Czech Republic

United Kingdom

Greece

Poland

Estonia

Hungary

–1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Percent

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Eurostat.

Harmonized indexes of consumer prices, selected 

countries, average annual growth rates, 2000–

2007 and 2007–2010

 2007–2010

 2000–2007
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 47

The gap 

between the 

growth rates 

for hourly 

compensation 

costs and the 

consumer 

price indexes 

(CPI) indicates 

the degree 

to which 

manufacturing 

worker 

compensation 

has kept up 

with inflation.

 Compensation growth 

outpaced inflation in 

most countries between 

2007 and 2010. The 

compensation-inflation 

gap was largest in Ireland, 

Brazil, and Slovakia.

 Compensation growth 

rates lagged inflation 

most notably in Hungary, 

Taiwan, and South Korea.

Poland

Brazil

CHART 4.3

Greece

Mexico

Philippines

Slovakia

Israel

Norway

Estonia

Finland

Spain

Czech Republic

Ireland

Singapore

New Zealand

Sweden

Hungary

Portugal

Belgium

Denmark

Italy

Netherlands

Australia

United States

United Kingdom

Austria

Canada

France

Switzerland

South Korea

Germany

Japan

Taiwan

–2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Percent

NOTE: Hourly compensation growth rates are based on national currency-denominated costs.

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the national 

statistical offices of the Philippines, Singapore, and Taiwan.

 Consumer price indexes

 Hourly compensation costs

— Compensation-inflation gap

Gap between manufacturing compensation and 

consumer price indexes, selected countries, 

average annual growth rates, 2007–2010
48 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov CHART

4.4 Norway

Denmark

Australia

Japan

Sweden

Finland

Canada

France

Belgium

Ireland

Austria

Netherlands

Germany

Italy

United Kingdom

United States

Brazil

Spain

Greece

Portugal

Singapore

Czech Republic

South Korea 

Estonia

Slovakia

Mexico

Hungary

Poland

China

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

U.S. dollars

SOURCES: International Monetary Fund, U.S. Federal Reserve, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development, and The World Bank.

Price of a basket of goods that costs one dollar in 

the United States, selected countries, 2010

Low prices 

relative to the 

United States 

were found in 

Southern and 

Eastern Europe, 

Latin America, 

and East Asia. 

The cheapest 

basket of 

goods was in 

China.

 The price of foreign 

goods and services 

compared with their price 

in the United States is 

known as the relative 

price. Values less (higher) 

than 1 indicate that 

prices in that country 

are relatively low (high), 

compared with the United 

States.

 Countries with high 

relative prices included 

those in Northern Europe 

and Western Europe, as 

well as Australia, Japan, 

and Canada.
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov SEPTEMBER 2012 | CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS 49

Sources

Consumer price indexes (CPI) and harmonized indexes 

of consumer prices (HICP) for most countries are from 

the BLS report International Indexes of Consumer 

Prices, 18 countries and areas. Data for the remaining 

countries are based on data from the Organisation 

for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 

database OECD.Stat, the European Commission 

database Eurostat, and national statistical offices (for 

the Philippines, Singapore, and Taiwan).

Each country produces its own consumer price index 

using unique methods and concepts. For this reason, 

CPI data are not fully comparable across countries. 

Differences exist mainly in population coverage, 

frequency of market basket weight changes, and 

treatment of homeowner costs. 

The HICP is an internationally comparable measure 

of consumer price inflation. The HICP is the standard 

price index that European Union member states 

must produce for comparisons across countries. 

HICP data for the United States are experimental. 

Although the HICP series for the United States 

broadly follows the European Union definitions, 

some differences remain in the frequency of market 

basket weight changes, aggregation methods, and 

quality adjustments.

Relative prices are based on PPP from OECD.Stat

and the World Bank database World Development 

Indicators, and on market exchange rates from the 

U.S. Federal Reserve, the International Monetary 

Fund’s International Financial Statistics publication, 

and OECD.Stat.

The relationship between purchasing power parities 

(PPP) and market exchange rates can be used to 

estimate comparative, or relative, prices of goods 

and services in different countries. (See chart 

Section 4 Notes CONSUMER PRICES
50 CHARTING INTERNATIONAL LABOR COMPARISONS | SEPTEMBER 2012 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS | www.bls.gov

4.4.) Relative prices are calculated by dividing PPP 

by market exchange rates. The resulting values 

indicate the domestic price, expressed in U.S. 

dollars, of a basket of goods that would cost exactly 

one dollar in the United States. Consequently, 

values less than 1 indicate that prices in that 

country are relatively low, compared with the United 

States. Values greater than 1 indicate that prices in 

a particular country are relatively high, compared 

with the United States.

In chart 4.2, the periods 2000–2007 and 2007–2010 

are selected to compare a time of global recession 

(2007–2010) against a prerecessionary time (2000–

2007). The chart shows the average annual growth 

rate during each period. Although 2007 is included 

in both, it represents two different annual changes 

that do not overlap: 2006–2007 in the first period and 

2007–2008 in the second period.

Definitions

Consumer price indexes (CPI) are a measure of the 

average change over time in the prices paid by 

consumers for a market basket of consumer goods 

and services. CPI and annual percent changes are 

based on national CPI as published by each country. 

They have not been adjusted for comparability. 

Harmonized indexes of consumer prices (HICP) are an 

internationally comparable measure of consumer 

price inflation based on European Union definitions. 

The index represents urban and rural households 

in each country and excludes the component for 

owner-occupied housing costs. Purchasing power 

parities (PPP) are currency conversion rates that 

allow output in different currency units to be 

expressed in a common unit of value. A PPP is the 

ratio between the number of units of a country’s 

currency and the number of U.S. dollars required 

to purchase an equivalent market basket of goods 

and services within that country. Compensation costs

refer to average hourly compensation costs for all 

employees in manufacturing. See section 3 notes. 

The price of a basket of goods that costs one 

dollar in the United States is known as the relative 

price. Relative prices are calculated by dividing PPP 

by market exchange rates. See the discussion of 

relative prices in Sources above. 

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

Postal Square Building, Room 2850

2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE.

Washington, DC 20212-0001