to highest average earnings as of August 1949, shows that estimated direct pay adjustments required to raise to 75 cents an hour earnings below that rate involved wage-bill increases varying from 15 percent in the low-wage Southwest to less than half of 1 percent in the high-wage Pacific States. Between August 1949 and March 1950, average earnings rose sharply in lowerwage regions but very little in higher-wage ones, the range running from a high of 22 percent in the Southwest States to a low of 2 percent in the Pacific States. The Southeast and Border States, which together had one-third of all workers employed in 1950 in plants with 21 or more employees, are representative of the relatively low-paying areas; they experienced comparatively large

average-wage increases. The Middle Atlantic States, with 44 percent of all persons employed in 1950 in establishments with 21 or more workers, are representative of the higher-wage regions, experiencing a relatively small average-wage increase of only 4 percent. In every region except the Pacific area, half or more of the actual short-run increase was due to directly required wage adjustments because of the higher minimum.

The proportion of employees receiving less than 75 cents an hour in August 1949 ranged from half to three-fourths of all plant workers in the four lowest-paying regions to one-fourth in the important Middle Atlantic States and to less than a tenth in the Pacific area (Table 23). Many of the workers whose average hourly earnings were

raised from below 75 cents found themselves in March 1950 in the 75-84.9 cents earnings interval. But a definite upward drift to the middle sector of the wage structure, that from 85 cents to $1.249, occurred in the short run, especially in the lower-wage regions. The chief reason for this indirect effect was the prevalence of the piece-rate method of payment in the industry, permitting an increase in benefits for faster workers with initially higher earnings as well as for slower, lowerpaid employees.

The short-run influence of the higher minimum on the upper end of the wage scale, that from $1.25 up, was negligible, even in the low-wage regions which otherwise experienced substantial adjustments (Table 23). Higher-wage jobs were more often paid by time rates and these were evidently not increased when piece rates were. To the extent that lower average earnings rose percentagewise while higher ones did not, or not so much, the short-run effects of the new minimum rate served to narrow wage differentials within each region.

Between March and November 1950 average hourly earnings rose in every area (Table 22), reflecting generally rising manufacturing wages at the time. As with the wage structure for the entire industry, each region's structure tended to maintain its percent spreads between pay levels because many wage increases in the industry during this period were in uniform percent amounts.

Increases in hourly earnings between March and November were generally larger percentagewise in the higher-paying regions than in

the lower-wage ones. This may have been partly due to the fact that the typical men's dress shirt and nightwear establishment in high-wage areas is more likely to be unionized and located in a large community than is the typical plant in low-wage areas, 1 and so tends to be more immediately responsive to inflationary economic pressures. 2/ Percent spreads between average earnings in low- and high-wage areas, narrowed in the short run, were widened again by the larger increases in the higher-paying regions at this time. Nevertheless, there was some longerrun trend toward contraction of regional wage differentials. Between August 1949 and November 1950, average-earnings increases varied from 31 percent in the lowest-wage region to 6 percent in the highest (Table 22).

In November 1950 about four-fifths of the plants located in the four highestwage regions were unionized (that is, with over half their workers employed under terms of union agreements) as against only two-fifths of the plants in the four lowest-wage regions.

The same ratios obtained in November 1950 for plants located in larger population centers. About fourfifths of the plants in the four highest wage areas were located in com munities of 25,000 or more inhabitants as against only two-fifths of the plants in the four lowest-wage areas.

Computed from U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Wage Structure Series 2, No. 80: Men's Dress Shirts and Nightwear 1950, Table 2, p. 8.

/ comparison of occupational earnings in union and nonunion plants and in larger-community and smaller-community plants showed larger percent in reases in job earnings between Maroh and November 1950 in union than in nonunion establishments and in largercommunity than in smaller-community establishments. See below, pp. 55-58 including Tables 24 and 25.

rowed percent wage differentials gional wage structures, and naras well as in lower sectors of reences, were noticeable in middle gional average-earnings differregions and tended to decrease remarked in low- than in high-wage the higher minimum wage were more In summary, the effects of

within each region.

C. Other wage effects

24), in plants in larger and smaller in union and nonunion plants (Table impact of the new minimum upon wages Some idea of the comparative

Table 24. Increases an average hourly earnings of plant workers in men's dress shirt and nightwear establishments, by selected occupation / and union status

of establishment, b/ United States, 1949-50

Working foreladies:

Machine outters (men):

Except where otherwise noted, employees in selected occupations are women. tions are same as those in Table 21 exoept Janitors (men) substituted for Janitors (women); no data by unionization for August 1949 available for latter. Occupations are listed from lowest to highest August 1949 average hourly earnings in nonunion establishments. b/ Establishments alassified as unionised if over half their workers employed under terms of union agreements. All workers in these unionized establishments, whether or not they worked under union agreements, inoluded in data on earnings in union plants. Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of the establishments surveyed in Nov. 1950 were unionised. Souroe: Computed from U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Wage Structure

able from the data collected in communities (Table 25), and in ployee sizes (Table 26) is availplants of larger and smaller em

Table 25. Changes in average hourly earnings of plant workers in men's dress shirt and nightwear establishments, by selected occupation a/ and size of community in which establishment located, b/United States, 1949-50

over

From Aug. 1949

Communities

with population of:

Under 25,000 Under

Communities

25,000

and

and

25,000

over

25,000

xoept where otherwise noted, employees in selected occupations are women. Selected oooupations are same as those in Table 24. Occupations are listed from lowest to highest August 1949 average hourly earnings in establishments in communities of under 25,000 inhabitants.

b/ Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of the establishments surveyed in November 1950 were located in places of 25,000 or more inhabitants.

of Parentheses indicate minus quantity.

Sources Computed from U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistios, Wage Structure Series 21
Data for Maroh and November 1950 from Study No. 80, Men's Dress Shirts and Nightwear 1950,
Tables 16-17, pp. 27-28.

Data for August 1949 from Study No. 75, Cotton Garments 1949, Table 20, p. 30.

/Except where otherwise noted, employees in selected occupations are women. Selected oooupations are same as those in Tables 24 and 25. Occupations are listed from lowest to highest August 1949 average hourly earnings in establishments with 21-100 workers.

b/ For the November 1950 payroll period, about four-fifths (81 percent) of the plant workers in the 8 selected oooupstions listed above were employed in establishments with over 100 workers each.

Source: Computed from U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistios, Wage Structure Series 2:

Data for March and November 1950 from Study No. 80, Men's Dress Shirts and Nightwear 1950, Tables 14-15, pp. 25-26.
Data for August 1949 from Study No. 75, Cotton Garments 1949, Table 18, p. 26.