[PEN-L:6803] BLS Daily Report

[Richardson_D <Richardson_D@xxxxxxx>]

JUST OUT: CPI up 0.7% March to April, 2.3% from April 1998 to April 1999.
These are much larger than anything I have seen in a long, long time.  Part
but not all of this is due to gasoline: the "core" rate, excluding Food and
Energy, was up 0.4% in April.

Dave

-----------------

> BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1999:
>
> Today's News Release:  The Producer Price Index for finished Goods
> advanced 0.5 percent in April, seasonally adjusted.  This rise follows a
> 0.2 percent increase in March, and a 0.4 percent decline in February.
> Excluding the influence of the 29.1 percent rise in gasoline prices, the
> finished goods index declined 0.1 percent in April.  The index for
> finished goods other than foods and energy increased 0.1 percent, after
> showing no change a month earlier.  Prices received by producers of
> intermediate goods advanced 0.6 percent, after increasing 0.3 percent in
> the previous month.  The crude goods index gained 1.3 percent, following a
> 1.0 percent rise in March.
>
> Surging petroleum prices increased the cost of goods imported into the
> United States 0.8 percent in April, the largest gain in nearly 3 years,
> BLS reports.  Petroleum import costs shot up 17.7 percent in April, the
> most substantial advance since a 21 percent jump in October 1990, amidst
> preparations for the Persian Gulf War. BLS economist Jim Thomas said the
> April gain should be looked at in the context of sharp declines that in
> December placed the petroleum import index at the lowest level since BLS
> began publishing the series in 1983 (Daily Labor Report, page D-1).
> __Import prices rose 0.9 percent in April, sparked by rising oil prices.
> But the increase isn't fueling concerns about inflation.  The Labor
> Department said last month's rise in import prices followed a 0.1 percent
> increase in March. Still prices were down 1.9 percent from a year earlier,
> and excluding oil, prices of imports actually fell 0.3 percent in April
> and 0.5 percent in March (The Wall Street Journal, page A2).
>
> Productivity in the nation's nonfarm business sector increased at a robust
> 4 percent seasonally adjusted annual rate in the first quarter of 1999, as
> unit labor costs rose 0.3 percent.  Output surged at a 5 percent rate in
> the first quarter and hours worked increased 0.9 percent.  Strong first
> quarter gains in productivity or output per hour, followed an even more
> robust fourth quarter of 1998 (Daily Labor Report, May 12, page D-1).
>
> Although all 61 of the Department of Labor' computer systems are Year 2000
> compliant, noncompliance by some states and government vendors could
> possibly cause some problems in delivery of benefits payments to laid-off
> workers and in the calculation of labor and economic statistics, according
> to an analysis by the General Accounting Office. In the case of labor
> statistics, Joel C.Williamssen, director of the GAO Civil Agencies
> Information Systems, says the risk stems from vendors who contract with
> BLS whose systems are not Y2K compliant.  Four of the 23 "million-critical
> systems" used by BLS, he said, "contain a non Y2K compliance vendor
> product.  Given these risks, it is important that appropriate contingency
> plans be developed to ensure business continuity in the event of system
> failures," he said.
> Any disruption in BLS' computers "could have long-term and far-reaching
> consequences on the national economy," says Rep. Pete Hoekstra (D-Mich.),
> chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on
> Oversight and Investigations. Patricia W. Lattimore, assistant secretary
> of labor for administration and management, says top agency officials are
> confident that "even if unexpected problems arise with our automated
> systems," the department "will still be able to deliver core DOL services
> -- including unemployment insurance payments and reports of key economic
> indicators (Daily Labor Report, page A-1).
>
> Congress will almost certainly raise the minimum wage this year, probably
> to $6.15 an hour from $5.15 phased in over 2 to 3 years.  But whatever the
> political attraction, does a higher minimum wage make
> economic sense?  A growing number of economists say "yes", although there
> is reason for Congress to move cautiously, perhaps more creatively.  The
> main purpose for raising the minimum wage is to make it possible for all
> full-time workers to earn enough to lift their families out of poverty.
> The current minimum wage falls short. Based on widely accepted estimates,
> a $6.15 minimum wage would likely take jobs away from fewer than 64,000 of
> the 3.3 million teenagers now working.  And very few adults would lose
> work (Michael M. Weinstein writing in The New York Times "Economic Scene",
> page C2).
>
> Prices of existing homes rose in most metropolitan areas in the first 3
> months of the year.  Nationally, the median resale price -- meaning half
> of homes sold for more and half for less -- was $131,600 during the
> January-March quarter, up 4.6 percent from the corresponding quarter a
> year earlier, the National Association of Realtors said today (The New
> York Times, in an Associated Press article, page C9).
>
>

<<application/ms-tnef>>