[Douglas Fir Lumber Industry] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov] Oversize ! Áe DOUGLAS FIR LUMBER INDUSTRY An Inter-departmental study conducted under the direction of Dr. DEXTER M. KEEZER for the BUREAU OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE ADVISORY COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL OF NATIONAL DEFENSE o. > U.S. FOREST SERVICE PACFC FOREST RESOLVES LIBRARY UNìVl.l J? OF V/ASHIUGTON SEATTLE, WA 98195 sepzo ts Washington • •• March, 19 4 1 st “^LIBRARY z iSariG northwest forest and ranci experiment station ^/Portland, Oregon TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Page Acknowledgments V. Wages 46 Foreword. Summary 46 Weekly earnings 46 Summary Cost of living and. real weekly earnings 46 Fluctuations in weekly earnings 47 I. .Introduction 1 General trend, of hourly earnings (logging, sawmills), 1929-1940 47 II. Relationship of Production, Sales, Prices, and Average hourly earnings in Washington and Wages in the West Coast Lumber Industry 9 Oregon, by months, 1934-1940 48 Comparison of wage changes in Douglas fir Factors affecting sales and prices of West lumber with changes in the entire lum- Coast lumber 9 ber industry, 1934-1940 48 Relation of construction activity to Comparison of earnings in Douglas fir with sales and prices 9 earnings in other industries of Washing- Relation of stocks and unfilled orders ton and Oregon 51 to prices 11 Relation of Southern pine and Douglas VI, Douglas Fir Prices 54 fir prices 11 Price trends of West Coast lumber 11 Summary 54 Relation of prices to average hourly wages 12 Price trends 54 Relation of average hourly wage to man- Trends in the Bureau of Labor Statis- hours and payroll 13 tics composite index 54 Realizations, by mill classes 55 III. Financial History of the Industry 25 Realizations, by type of shipment 55 Price competition between Douglas fir and Period covered and kinds of source in- Southern pine 58 formation obtained 25 Geographical area of competition 5$ Conduct of field study 25 Competition by kinds and sizes 58 History of earnings 26 Competition by final construction market 59 Changes in physical properties 28 Special surveys of the effect of price Changes in capital structure 28 competition in selected cities " 5$ Government loans granted to the industry 28 Present earning capacity of the industry 38 VII. Military and Civilian Requirements of Lumber in 1941 and 1942 * 60 IV. Employment-and Payrolls 42 Military requirements 60 Summary 42 Civilian .requirements 61 Trends of employment, 1927-1933 42 Irregularity of employment 44 Fluctuations in total payrolls ^5 table of contents (continued) APPENDIX GRAPHS Page Page I. Transportation Cost 64 1. Comparison of Construction Awards for Residential and Non-residential Buildings with New Orders II. Labor Productivity 73 for Vest Coast and Southern Pine Lumber, by Quarters, 1935“4O 17 III. Employment, Earnings, and Prices 75 2. Comparison of Construction Activity in United IV. Statistical Tables 77 States with Prices of Douglas Fir and Southern Pine Lumber, by Quarters, 1935-40 IS V. Questionnaire Form on Costs, Sales, and Profits in the Douglas Fir Industry 1940 and January, 3» Vest Coast Lumber: Comparison of Average Monthly 1941, Together with a List of Companies Re- Price with Unfilled Orders and Stocks at End of spending to the Questionnaire 88 Month, 1935“^O 19 VI. Notes on Presentation of Report to the Industry 4. Average Price of West Coast Lumber at Mill, by and Question and Answer Sessions Relating to Months, 1935“4O 20 the Report. 93 5. Comparison of Average Lumber Prices (WCLA Average Realization) with. Timberman Quotations on Douglas Fir and Hemlock Logs 21 6. Average Hourly Earnings of Employees on Hourly Wage Basis in Logging and Sawmill operations in the West Coast Lumber Industry, 1935~4o 22 7. West Coast Lumber: Comparison of Average Monthly . Price of West Coast Lumber with Monthly Payroll, Average Weekly Payroll, and Average Hourly Wage per Month for Employees on Hourly Wage Basis 23 8. West Coast Lumber: Production, Orders, Shipments, and Stocks, by Months, 1935~^O 24 9« Average Wholesale Price and Average Mill Realization, Douglas Fir Lumber, 1922-1940 56 LIST OF STATISTICAL TABLES Page 1. United. States Production of Lumber, by Years, 1925-40 2 2. Softwood Lumber and Timber: United States Exports to Most Important British Countries, by Principal Species, 1927-40 3 3. Douglas Fir Lumber and Timber: U. S. and Canadian Exports to Specified Countries, 1929, 1931, 1933-40 4 4. Production of Saw Logs in West Coast Begion of Washington and Oregon, 1925-40 5 5. Production of Lumber in Washington and Oregon, 1925-40 6 6. Cutover Forest Land, Saw Mill Capacity, and Log Production, by Districts, West Coast of Wash- ington and Oregon in Specified Years 7 7. Timber Supply, Drain and Growth, by Districts, West Side of Washington and Oregon 8 8. Index of Construction Awards, West Coast Lumber Production and Average Prices of Douglas Fir Lumber in Belation to Profits and Losses in the West Coast Lumber Industry, 1925-40 10 9. Comparison of Production, Man-hours, and Payroll, for Employees on Hourly Wage Basis, and Average Hourly Earnings, in the West Coast Lumber Industry, and also for the Entire State of Wash- ington, 1935-40 15 10. Corporation Income and Profits or Loss in the Sawmill and Planing Mill Industry, Washington and Oregon, 1926-37» 27 11. Summary of Changes in Lumber Operations in the . West Coast Begion of Oregon and Washington from 1928 to 1940 29 12. Lumber Operations in the West Coast Begion of Oregon and Washington, 1928-40 30 Page 13» Summary of Changes in Operations and Annual Capacity Batings in the West Coast Begion of Washington and Oregon, 1928-40 3^ 14. Active and Idle Sawmill Capacity, by Districts, West Coast of Washington and Oregon, 1929-39 32 15. Assets and Liabilities of the Sawmill and Planing Mill Industry in Washington and Oregon, 1531-37 33 16. Summary Comparison of Balance Sheets for 1931 and 1937 for Beporting Corporations in the Sawmill and Planing Mill Industry, Washington and Oregon 34 17. Summarized Information Obtained by Questionnaire from a Bepresentative Group of Loggers and Sawmill Operators, in Washington and Oregon for 1941 and January, 1941 35 18. Costs and Profits Derived from Operations of a Bepresentative Group of Large and Small Sawmills in Washington and Oregon for 1940 37 19. Costs and Profits Derived from Operations of Eight Logging Companies in Washington and Oregon in 1940 3$ 20. Average Costs and Profits or Loss per M. Feet on Lumber and Its By-products in Washington and Oregon, 1934-40 39 21. Comparison of Unweighted Costs and Profits per M. Feet on Lumber and Its By-products in Washington and Oregon, 1940 - January, 1941 41 22. Number of Wage Earners in the Lumber and Timber Products Industry, Washington, Oregon, and the United States, 1927-39 42 23. Indexes of Employment and Payrolls Based on 72 Identical Logging and Sawmill Establishments in the Fir Lumber Begion of Washington and Oregon, 1934-40 43 LIST OF STATISTICAL TABLES (CONTINUED) Page Page 24. Variations of Employment from the Monthly Average in the Douglas Fir Lumber Industry in Washington and Oregon, 1934-40 45 25. Employment With Seasonal Employees in the Logging and Lumber Industries, 12-Month Period Ending September }0, 1939» State of Oregon 45 J26. Average Weekly Earnings and Beal Weekly Earnings of Workers in Sawmills and Logging Camps of the Douglas Fir Region of Washington and Oregon, 1927-40 46 27• Average Weekly Earnings in Logging and Sawmills in the Fir Lumber Region of Washington and Oregon, 193^“4O 47 28. Average Hourly Earnings in Logging, in Sawmills, and in the Two Combined, Douglas Fir Region of Washington and Oregon, 1923-39 48 29. Average Hourly Earnings in Logging Camps and Sawmills of the Douglas Fir Area of Washington and Oregon, 1934-40 49 30. Indexes of Average Hourly Earnings in the Lumber Industry of the United States and in the Douglas Fir Lumber Industry of Washington and Oregon, 1934-40 50 31. Average Hourly Earnings of All Workers in the Lumber and Lumber Products Industry in the North, by Geographic Division and State, 1939 50 32. Average Hourly Earnings of All Workers in the Lumber and Lumber Products Industry in the South, by State, 1939 51 33. Average hourly earnings, Unit Labor Requirements, and Unit Labor Costs of Seven Pacific Coast and Nine Southern Sawmills, 1926-35 51 34. Average Hourly Earnings in Selected Industries in Washington and Oregon, August to October, 1940 52 35* Entrance Wage Rates of Male Common Laborers in the State of Washington, July, 1940 52 36. Payroll and Average Hourly Wage Rate of Logging, Sawmilling, and Certain other Industries, State of Washington, 1938 and 1939 53 37. Annual Averages of Douglas Fir Prices 55 38. Index of Wholesale Prices of Douglas Fir Lumber 57 39« Sales of Northern Pacific and Southern Softwood Lumber in Competitive Areas, 1932 52 40. Estimated Military and Merchant Marine Lumber Requirements 60 41. Preliminary Estimates of Distribution of a Portion of the Construction Expenditures of the Quartermaster Corps, by States 61 42. Estimated Lumber Requirements under 1941 and 1942 Shipbuilding Program 62 43. Estimated Civilian Requirements for Lumber, by Kinds Of Lumber and Use, 1941 and 1942 63 44. Domestic Lumber Consumption, by Uses, 1929-40 63 APPENDIX TABLES 45« Competitive Rail Costs to Detroit, West Coast (Portland, Ore.) Vs. Southern Pine (Alexandria, La.) 65 46. Comparison of Increase in Spreads West Coast Group D over Southern Pine Lumber Rates to Typical Destinations in Official Territory 67 47. Comparison of Increase in Spreads West Coast Blanket Lumber Rate over Southern Pine Lumber Rates to Typical Destinations in Official Territory 67 LIST OF STATISTICAL TABLES (CONTINUED) APPENDIX TABLES (CONTINUED) Page Page 48, History of Intercoastal Lumber Bates, June 1, 58. Vest Coast Lumber: Production, Orders, Shipments, 1933 to March 1, 1941 68 Stocks, by Months, 1935”^$ 78 49. Coastwise Lumber Bates from Oregon and Washing- 59« Cost and Sales Bealization of West Coast Douglas ington Ports to California 68 Fir and Hemlock Lumber and By-products, Pre- pared by the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association, 50. Lumber Bail Bates from Portland, Oregon and from Beports Submitted to the Association, Seattle, Washington to Typical California 193^”39 80 Destinations 68 60. Average Price of West Coast Lumber, by Months, 51. Comparative Bate History - West Coast and South- 1935”4O, as Beported by the WCLA and the BLS 81 ern Pine - to Eastern Territory, 1918 to 1938 69 61. Log Prices, by Months, 1935“^ 83 52. Present Bates on Lumber in Carloads from North Pacific Coast Points to Bepresentative Desti- 62. Man-Hours, Payroll and Average Wages, by Months nations 7^ and Years, in Specified Logging and Sawmilling Concerns, as reported by WCLA, 1935“^ 84 53. Bates on Lumber, Carloads, from Hattiesburg, Mississippi to Specified Points 72 63. Number of Wage Barners, Average Number of Hours Worked per Week, and Average Hourly Earnings 54. Current All-Bail Carload Bates on Lumber 72 in Sawmills in the Fir Lumber Begion of Wash- ington and Oregon, which Beport Man-Hour Data 55- Indexes of Output Per Man-Hour and Unit Labor to BLS, 1934-40 85 Costs in Douglas Fir Logging Camps and Sawmills, 1936-40 74 64. Number of Wage Earners and Amount of Weekly Pay- roll in 72 Identical Sawmills in the Fir Lum- 56. Indexes of Output Per Man-Hour in the Lumber ber Begion of Washington and Oregon which Be- and Timber Products Industry of the United ported Data to BLS, 1934-40 86 States, 1925-39 74 65. Employment in Logging and Sawmilling in Entire 57. Belation of Construction Activity to Orders for State of Washington 87 and Prices of West Coast Lumber and Southern Pine Lumber 77 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Tor their assistance and cooperation in this study of the Douglas Fir Lumber Industry conducted by the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense through its Bureau of Research and Statistics, the Commission gratefully makes acknowledgment to the following Government agencies: The United States Tariff Commission for the loan of personnel, the analysis of costs obtained by the Commission from certain industries, and the tabulation of data made available by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, for its loan of personnel and for the compilation of data on wages, productivity, prices, etc. The Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, United States Forest Service at Port-land, Oregon, for the compilation of data, for the loan of equipment, and for the loan of office space. The Bureau of Internal Revenue of the Treasury Department for information derived from income tax records. The Forest Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, through its Washington office and its office in Washington State, for supplying background information. The Census Bureau of the United States Department of Commerce for a special tabulation of returns made over a long period by a large group of identical companies in Washington and Oregon. The Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor for its loan of personnel. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation for supplying data on loans made to the lumber industry in the States of Washington and Oregon. The Bureau of Research and Statistics of the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense for supplying personnel and data on military and civilian requirements for lumber. The Interstate Commerce Commission for checking rail rates. The Maritime Commission for checking inter-coastal shipping rates. Special acknowledgment is made of the services of Mr. E. M. Whitcomb, Chief of Technical Service of the Tariff Commission, who coordinated the cooperative activities of Government in Washington, D. C.; to Mr. Norman Burns, Principal Economist, of the Bureau of Research and Statistics, Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense, who collaborated in the direction of the investigation in Washington, D. C. and in the field; to Mr. A. L. Morgan, Assistant to the Chief of the Accounting Division of the Tariff Commission, who directed the compilation and checking of cost and financial data obtained in the field; to Mr. T. H. Joyce and Mr. E. T. Welsh, of the accounting staff of the Tariff Commission, who assisted him; and to Paul E. Warwick of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor, who assisted generally in the field work. Mr. Bayard 0. Wheeler, of the Department of Economics of Oregon State College, who is completing as a doctoral dissertation an extensive study of Douglas fir prices, generously made the manuscript available and also contributed a memorandum on prices. Dr. Frank Munk, Lecturer in Economics at Reed College, made a compilation of background material. Special acknowledgment is also made to the West Coast Lumbermen's Association which, in addition to making its statistical records generally available, gave indispensable cooperation in the field study of Costs and Earnings. Full cooperation, which is gratefully acknowledged, was also received from officers of the Lumber and Sawmill Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and officers of International Woodworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Stacy May, Director Bureau of Research and Statistics ADVISORY COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL OF NATIONAL DEFENSE FOREWORD The purpose of this study is to contribute to the stabilization of wage and. employment conditions in the Douglas Fir Industry by enlarging the range of factual information about the economic performance of the industry which both employers and employees accept as reliable. Assurance that the study would be conducted was given in the course of settling a strike affecting a considerable segment of the industry. The settlement included an agreement on wage rates to run for three months and to expire early this month (March I9U1). It was understood that the result of this study would be available for use in negotiations attending the expiration of this wage agreement and other agreements expiring in the Douglas Fir Lumber Industry during the month of March. Narrow time limits have inevitably reposed restrictions upon the scope of this study. This has been true even though, as indicated by acknowledgments elsewhere, the study has enlisted a large volume of cooperative labor by Government agencies and even though the members of the field staff have worked without mercy to themselves, and with extensive cooperation from the industry. The report of this study frequently indicates lines of inquiry which should be followed to have a fully rounded picture of the Douglas Fir Industry but which could not be followed because of time limitations. The study is also restricted by design to matters of fact. It offers absolutely no advice about how the Douglas Fir Industry should be conducted in any particular, but limits itself strictly to factual information about the economic performance of the industry which is particularly relevant to its wage and employment problems. If both employers and employees were fully equipped with such information, it is assumed that the changes of having the operations of the Douglas Fir Industry and the performance of its vital role in national defense interrupted would be minimized. It is in pursuance of this basic idea that the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense directed that the study be made. Not only In the compilation of data, as indicated by the acknowledgments, but in the actual drafting of the report this study is of a broadly interdepartmental character. The material on earnings and employment was drafted by Witt Bowden, Senior Economic Analyst of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor. Walter G. Keim, Statistician, and Philip H, Blaisdell, Assistant Economist in the Prices and Cost of Living Branch of the same agency, collaborated in the preparation of the materials on wholesale prices and price competition. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also directed a field study of labor productivity in the Douglas Fir industry by Alfred Van Tassel, but the results were too inconclusive to warrant inclusion in this report beyond the notations made in an appendix. The section of the report on the “Relationship of Production, Sales, Prices and Wages“ was prepared by Norman Burns, Principal Economist of the staff of the Bureau of Research and Statistics, Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense; and V. Lewis Bassie, Chief of the Civilian Requirements Section of the same bureau directed the preparation of the material on military and civilian requirements of lumber in 1^41 and I9U2. Mr. A. L. Morgan, Assistant to the Chief of the Accounting Division of the Tariff Commission, drafted the report of the field study of costs and profits and also summarized the historical material on the same subjects prepared by governmental agencies to which acknowledgment has been made. These agencies enlisted the services of scores of experts whose cooperation was always eagerly given, as was that of the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station in a measure indispensable to the making of this report on the time schedule set. In order to maximize its chances of serving effectively the purpose for which this study was made, its results are being initially presented at a meeting, designed to be broadly representative of employers and employees in the Douglas Fir Industry, where, before returning to their regular stations in Washington, D. C., experts who directed various phases of the study will be prepared to answer questions about the technical procedures they followed. As a result of this meeting, this report may be expanded by a section embodying the questions asked and the answers given.* Also, in the light of the discussions at this meeting, the text of the report will be subject to modification when necessary to assure a maximum of clarity of expression. In the preparation of the report, brevity and technical accuracy has at times necessarily been emphasized at the expense of felicity of expression. Dexter M. Keezer Consultant, Bureau of Research and Portland, Oregon Statistics, Advisory Commission to March 15» 19^1 the Council of National Defense * Two meetings of the type indicated were held on March 18 and March 26. They are dealt with in Appendix VI. SUMMARY As disclosed in greater detail in the various chapters and appendices, this study of the Douglas Fir Industry indicates that: In 19^0 the average cost of producing West Coast lumber was $17.92 per M. bd. ft. On this production the average profit was $1.29 per M. bd. ft. 1/ The average labor cost was $5.01 per M. bd. ft. The average number of man-hours required to produce M. bd. ft. of lumber was 7.8. In 19^0 the average cost of producing logs was approximately $12 per M. ft. L. S. On this production the average profit, computed for logging companies separately, was $1.07 per M. ft. L. S. The average labor costs were approximately $5 per M. ft. L. S. The average number of man-hours required to produce M. ft. of logs L. S. was $.8. The profits were made largely during the last.third of the year 1940. The higher profit level attained during the last third of the year 1940 was maintained in January 1$U1. During the 14-year period prior to 1940 the losses incurred by the industry as a whole overbalanced the profits. It had a series of years of profitable operation in the late 20's, a series of years of heavy losses from 1930 to 1935 Inclusive, and a period from 1936 to 1939 In which the results were mixed. Prices of West Coast lumber in 1940 were on an average 112 per cent of the 1935“39 average; and in both December 1940 and January 1941 prices were 129 per cent of the 193^“39 average, their highest point since 1923. Prices during the depression years were considerably below the 1935”39 average. Average hourly wages advanced less than prices in the last half of 1940. In December 1940, average hourly wages of loggers were 122 per cent and of sawmill workers 115 per cent of the 1935“39 average. Average hourly wages have fluctuated less than prices in recent years. From the fall of 1937 to the fall of 1939, 1/ See Appendix VI, question 7. and again in the spring of 1940 average hourly wages were high relative to lumber prices (considering 1935“39 as average). Average hourly wages in the West Coast logging and sawmilling are lower than those in a number of other industries in Washington and Oregon, but higher than those in the lumber industry in other parts of the United States. The real value of the weekly pay check in 1940, after allowing for changes in the cost of living, was 26 per cent greater than in 1927 and 11 per cent greater than the 5”year average, 1935“39» In 1940, payrolls in the West Coast lumber industries increased more than lumber production and production increased more than man-hours. In 19^K) payrolls in the West Coast lumber industries were 126 per cent, lumber production 122 per cent, and man-hours 116 per cent of the 1935“39 average. In 1939» production and payrolls were about 111 per cent and man-hours 106 per cent of 1935“39 average. The total number of wage earners employed in the West Coast logging and lumbering Industries was less in 1940 than in the late 1920*e. Payrolls in the industry move more with changes in the volume of lumber production than with changes in wage rates. At the end of 1940, unfilled orders of West Coast lumber were higher than at any time since 1937 and stocks were close to their lowest point since 1935« Construction awards were higher in the last quarter of 1940 than at any time in recent years. Estimates of the combined military and civilian requirements of the United States for all kinds of lumber in 1941, totaling 34,820,000,000 board feet, exceed by slightly over 20 per cent the estimated total lumber consumption of the United States in 1940. Estimates for the year 1942 total 3$>170»000,000 board feet. The present outlook of the industry in terms of orders and prices is contingent in large measure upon business activity stimulated by the defense program. In the past sales and prices of West Coast lumber have been very sensitive to general business conditions, and can be expected to react sharply to any changes in business activity resulting from changes in defense expenditure s. Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION A description of the scope, nature and background of the Douglas Fir Industry is presented in the volume "Forest Resources of the Douglas Fir Region" by H. J. Andrews and R, W. Cowlin, senior economists of the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, published as Miscellaneous Publication No, 389 of the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Its publication was expedited at the request of the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense. Some copies are available now and more will be released in the near future. The volume should be read in connection with this report, which, in the interests of economy, does not undertake to reproduce the material it presents. The present report is limited to the logging and lumbering industry of the West Coast region of Washington and Oregon. This is the area west of the summit of the Cascade Range. It comprises more than 29 million acres of forest land of which 14.5 million acres are of coniferous forests of saw timber size. 1/ Douglas fir constitutes about 61 per cent of the total timber stand. Other commercial species are western hemlock, western red cedar, Port Orford cedar, Sitka spruce, Pacific silver fir, and noble fir. The region produces approximately 26 per cent of the lumber, 23 per cent of the wood pulp, and 90 per cent of the shingles produced in the United States, The report is confined primarily to the so-called West Coast species in this region, that is, Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar and Sitka spruce. Of the total footage of logs cut in the West Coast region in 1939, Douglas fir accounted for 74 per cent, western hemlock 13 per cent, Sitka spruce 3 per cent, and western red cedar 6 per cent. The report relates only to the logging and sawmilling industry which includes independent loggers (who cut and sell logs for lumber, pulp, etfc,), integrated sawmills which cut logs and saw lumber, and independent sawmills which saw lumber from purchased logs. Planing mills operated in conjunction with sawmills are included along with sawmills. However, the report does not cover the fabrication of such products as veneers, plywood, sashes, doors, boxes, shingles, and the like, nor does it cover wood pulp and paper manufacture. Logging and sawmilling constitute a major factor in the economic life of Washington and Oregon. The West Coast logging and sawmilling operations give direct employment to from 50,000 1/ 48# privately owned; national forests; 15# other forms of public ownership or owned by the Indians. to 80,000 wage earners. The total value of the lumber output was estimated at from 140 to 150 million dollars in 1939* Capital assets of the West Coast sawmilling and planing mill companies in timber lands and other lands, buildings and equipment, amounted to 223 million dollars in 1937* Data are not available with respect to the assets of independent loggers in the area. The total number of sawmills in the West Coast region was reported to be 784 in 1939* The log output of the West Coast region goes chiefly to sawmills, pulp mills, and veneer mills, and shingle mills. The lumber is used principally for building and other types of construction, although substantial quantities are used in railroad ties, boxes, crates, doors, shipbuilding and airplane construction. In 1939» 21 per cent of the total West Coast lumber output was consumed locally, 18 per cent was shipped by water to Atlantic and Gulf ports, 21 per cent was shipped by water or rail to California, 6 per cent was exported, and 32 per cent was shipped by rail east of the Rocky Mountains, principally to the North Central and Northeastern states, according to figures of the West Coast Lumbermen's Association, The West Coast region became the leading lumber producing area in the United States after 1900 when production in the Lake states began to decline. The West Coast output reached a peak of 9 or 10 billion board feet annually in the late 1920*s and since then has been considerably less than that figure. Table 1 shows that the West Coast region increased its share of the total United States lumber output from 23 per cent in 1925 to 32 per cent in 1931» and since then has ranged from 24 to 30 per cent of the total. The West Coast production in 1940 was slightly hi^ier relative to Southern pine than in the late twenties. In 1929» the West Coast production was equivalent to 46 per cent of the total West Coast-Southern pine production combined; the ratio fell to 42 per cent in 1938 but increased to over 47 per cent in 1940. The decline in the production of all kinds of lumber in the United States in the last fifteen years is a consequence of a declining consumption of lumber. According to the National Lumber Manufacturers Association, consumption of all kinds of lumber declined from 39*5 billion board feet in 1925 to a low of 12.0 billion board feet in 1932 and increased thereafter to 28 billion board feet in 1940. According to estimates of the Bureau of Research and Statistics of the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense (see chapter on military and civilian requirements in this report), prospective consumption in 1941 is estimated at 34.8 billion board feet. This substantial increase over preceding years is attributed to the direct and Indirect consequences of the national defense program. Page 2 TABLE 1 - UNITED STATES PRODUCTION OF LUMBER BY YEARS, 1925-40 Years All Kinds of Lumber Softwoods only Percent West Coast Lumber is of £ Southern Pine is of West Coast and Southern Pine Combined Total All Softwoods West Coast Lumber and Southern Pine Combined West Coast Lumber 1/ Southern Pine All Kinds West Coast and South ern Pine Combined billion board fe >t per cent 1925 41.0 33.3 22.6 9A I3.2 22.9 41.6 58.4 1926 39-8 32.I 21.9 10.1 11.8 25.4 46.1 53.9 1927 37.3 3O.O 20.6 9.7 IO.9 26.0 U7.1 52.9 1928 36.8 29-9 2O.5 9.9 10.6 26.9 48.3 51.7 1929 36.9 29.8 21.6 10.0 11.6 27.I 46.3 53.7 1930 26.1 21.3 I5.O 7.5 7.5 28.7 50.0 50.0 1931 16.5 13.9 9.7 5.3 4.4 32.I 54.6 45.4 1932 10.2 8.7 6.2 3.1 3.1 3O.4 50.0 50.0 1933 14.0 n.9 8.6 4.2 4.4 3O.O 48.8 51.2 1934 15.5 12.7 8.8 M M 27.7 48.9 51.1 1935 19.2 16.0 IO.9 4.9 6.0 25.5 45.O 55.0 1936 24.4 20.2 I3.7 6.6 7.1 27.O 48.2 51.8 1937 26.0 21.6 14.5 6.8 7.7 26.2 46.9 53.1 1938 21.6 I8.3 12.5 5.3 7.2 24.5 42.4 57.6 1939 25.3 21.2 14.4 6.7 7.7 26.5 46.5 53.5 1940 27.0* 22.9 15.O 7.1 2/ 7.9 26.3 ^7.3 52.7 1,/ Douglas fir, western hemlock, Sitka spruce and. western red. cedar in West Coast region of Washington and Oregon. Source! Production of West Coast lumber for all years except 1940 from Pacific Northwest Forest Range Experiment Station; 1940 from West Coast Lumbermen’s Association. Production of Southern pine lumber from U. S. Bureau of Census. Production of ”all kinds of lumber” and of ”softwood, lumber” from National Lumber Manufacturers Association. 2/ From West Coast Lumbermen’s Association. * Preliminary estimate. Washington was formerly a much larger producer of logs and lumber than Oregon but in recent years the industry has tended to shift more and more to Oregon. In 1925, Washington accounted for 67.5 per cent and in 1939 for 54.6 per cent of the total West Coast log production; thus, Oregon’s share increased from 32.5 per cent to 45.4 per cent in those years. The same is true also with respect to lumber. Washington accounted for 67.2 per cent of the total West Coast lumber output in 1925» and this share declined to 45.9 P®r cent in 1939. The annual statistics of log and lumber production in each state by species are shown in Tables 4 and 5 of this chapter. The shift in log and lumber production from Washington to Oregon is attributed in large measure to the fact that a larger proportion of the economically accessible timber stands have been cut in Washington than in Oregon. In Washington the area of cutover forest lands (cut from 1920 to 1933) represented, in 1933» ^7 per cent of the total area of private and county saw timber land, whereas the proportion was only JO per cent in Oregon. Total forest drain (that is, by cutting, fire, etc.) was about four times as great as growth in the whole West Coast region in 1933» but in the Puget Sound area the ratio was six to one, and in the Grays Harbor area it was nine to one. The drain in Oregon, particularly in the Willamette Valley and the Oregon Coast area, was much less in relation to growth than in Washington. This situation is reflected also in changes in sawmill capacity. Total sawmill capacity in Washington in 1939 was $7 per cent of the 1929 capacity; and in Oregon, 77 per cent. Page J Active Jl/ sawmill capacity in Washington in 1939 was 68 per cent of the 1929 active capacity, and in Oregon, 80 per cent. Idle capacity in Washington in 1939 was 57 per cent of idle capacity in 1929; and in Oregon, idle capacity in 1939 was only pen cent of the 1929 idle capacity. The sharpest decline in active sawmill capacity occurred in the Puget Sound and Grays Harbor areas, the regions where the proportion of cutover forest lands to total saw timber stands was greatest and where the ratio of drain to growth was greatest. Detailed statistics on drain, growth, cutover forest lands, and sawmill capacity are shown by districts in Tables 6 and 7 of this chapter. 1/ By ’’active” sawmill capacity is understood the capacity (M. bd. ft., 8 hr, shift) of operating mills whether or not at full capacity. “Idle” capacity means mills that are closed. According to data of the West Coast Lumbermen's Association, exports accounted for 4.5 per cent of the total West Coast lumber output in 1935» for 6.9 per cent in 1937» for 5-8 per cent in 1939» and for 3-7 per cent in 1940. As shown in Table 2, exports before 1930 were quite large relative to recent years. Exports of both West Coast lumber and of Southern pine have declined sharply, but the decline has been greater in the case of West Coast lumber than in Southern pine. The decline has been most severe since 1932 when British Empire preferences, which led to a restriction of United States exports and an expansion of Canadian exports to Empire preference countries, were adopted. United States exports to Japan and China have declined also since the outbreak of hostilities in China (see Table 3)* This decline in exports has had an adverse effect, particularly on tidewater mills which depended upon exports for a substantial part of their output. TABLE 2 - SOFTWOOD LUMBER AND TIMBER: UNITED STATES EXPORTS TO MOST IMPORTANT BRITISH COUNTRIES, 1/ BY PRINCIPAL SPECIES, 1927-1940 (1,000 board feet) Year Douglas Fir Southern Pine Spruce Redwood Soft Pine Cedar Hemlock 1927 322,890 161,766 14,967 50,556 6,426 2,398 16,857 1928 273.643 154.599 16,501 41.237 5.174 2,570 19,514 1929 312,062 129.760 18,272 45,906 4,206 3,138 22,947 1930 201,181 127,429 20,558 16,786 4.390 1.754 19.747 1931 105,145 63.531 7.673 2,038 3,100 2,225 16,072 1932 45,162 65,916 5,085 4,565 2,488 773 6,282 1933 56,746 66,469 5,528 10,200 3,414 1,395 3.435 1934 51,054 77.047 5,235 13,486 3,237 1,552 1,923 1935 44,778 76,800 6,832 13,555 5,070 1,211 7,795 1936 38,172 77,898 7,827 16,477 14,968 2,487 893 1937 77.146 83,306 7,407 16,723 18,360 1.721 392 193s 32.774 63.352 5,200 10,776 13,709 1,471 7 2/ 1939 1/ 84,729 77,055' 14,647 10,604 15.176 2,362 5,661 2/ 1940 2/ 64,490 93,552 18,207 6,096 8.936 2,360 650 2/ 1/ United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, British West Indies, Union of South Africa. 2/ Includes hemlocklumber only; hemlock timber not shown separately. j/ Preliminary. Source: Compiled from official export statistic« of the U. S. Department of Commerce Page U TABLE 3 - DOUGLAS FIR LUMBER AND TIMBER: UNITED STATES AND CANADIAN EXPORTS TO SPECIFIED COUNTRIES IN 1929, 1931, AND 1933-1940 (Million board feet) Destination I929 I93I 1933 193U 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 I94O United Kingdom 112 92 49 32 United Stat 31 es Exports 25 46 24 71 U7 Australia 180 7 3 8 12 3 13 2 4 4 Union of South Africa 10 5 4 11 6 9 13 6 9 12 Japan 376 271 200 I52 180 166 174 30 45 47 China and Hong Kong 304 251 171 213 125 93 71 53 78 70 All other countries 468 159 148 175 167 195 242 192 210 199 TOTAL 1.450 785 575 591 521 491 559 307 379 United Kingdom 67 222 38O Canadian 409 Exports 528 501 572 705 1/ Australia 31 12 53 53 4ç 3^ 64 40 1 1/ Union of South Africa 2/ 9 5 13 19 17 38 23 23 48 1/ Japan 186 128 59 71 50 30 33 6 5 1/ China and Hong Kong 37 42 110 104 78 91 43 27 31 1/ All other countries 428 252 56 42 112 171 179 221 230 1/ TOTAL 733 506 513 669 715 892 843 889 1,020 1/ JL/ Not reported separately in 1940. 2/ Exports from Canada are to British South Africa which, for trade purposes, closely approximates the Union of South Africa as covered by United States export statistics. Sources: United States; Compiled from official export statistics of the U. S. Department of Commerce. Canada; Trade of Canada. TABLE * - PRODUCTION OF SAW LOGS IN WEST .'OAST REGION OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON, 1925-19*0 PAGE 5 WASHINGTON AND OREGON, WEST SIDE WASHINGTON, WEST SIDE OREGON, WEST SIDE INDEX OF TOTAL PRODUCTION ALL SPECIES YEAR TOTAL ALL SPECIES Total DOUGLAS FIR, WEST. HEMLOCK, SITKA SPRUCE A RED CEDAR DOUGLAS FIR Western HEMLOCK SITKA Spruce West. RED CEDAR ALL OTHER species (a) TOTAL ALL SPECIES Douglas fir WESTERN HEMLOCK SITKA Spruce RED CEDAR Total all SPECIES DOUGLAS FIR WEST- ERN HEM- LOCK SITKA spruce WEST. RED Cedar AVERAGE 1935-39 • 100.0 I925 100.0 MILLION FEET LOG SCALE 1925 1926 1927 192S 1929 I95O I95I 1952 1933 193U 1955 1956 1957 19JS 1939 8,829 9,373 9,777 10,29* 6,5*8 *,812 3,112 U.7^9 5,381 5,607 7,*83 «,036 5,7«9 7,37* 8,680 8,636 9,18* 9,5** 10,030 6,396 *,696 3,0*6 *,650 5,168 5,*07 7,227 7,732 5,592 7,080 6,*65 6,*69 6,865 7,089 7,551 *,«51 3,521 2,322 3,*70 3,77« *,071 5,268 5,68« *,185 5,*33 1,0*8 1,11k 1,275 1,3*5 1,315 99* 791 *3* 679 856 7*7 1,13« 1,251 70U 930 Mo 339 323 360 39« 191 139 11* 190 20* 2*0 296 309 231 2*1 737 71* 721 750 766 360 2*5 176 311 330 3*9 525 *8* *72 *76 161 193 189 233 26* 152 116 66 119 213 200 256 30* 197 29* 5,966 5,921 6,37* 6,677 6,829 *,3*0 3,231 2,0*2 3,19* 3,375 3,352 *,620 *,661 3,037 *,025 *,058 *,007 *,300 *,523 *,679 3,06* 2,272 1,510 2,252 2,186 2,3*5 3,035 3,089 2,039 2,7*1 931 971 1,129 1,161 1,123 «31 625 3O3 52« 72« 551 9*2 9*7 *77 723 230 216 200 21« 23* 9* 91 7* 106 12* 116 152 15* 96 91 7O8 686 69« 723 731 328 219 1*8 2«3 297 302 **7 *25 393 *07 2,«75 2,907 2,998 3,100 3,*65 2,208 1,5«! 1,070 1,575 2,005 2,255 2,863 3,375 2,753 3,3*9 2,*07 2,*63 2,565 2,567 2,«72 1,7«7 1,2*9 812 1,218 1,592 1,726 2,233 2,600 2,1*7 2,693 117 1*3 1*6 18* 192 163 166 131 151 128 196 196 30* 227 207 200 123 123 1*3 16* 97 *8 *0 8* 80 12* 1** 156 136 150 29 28 23 27 35 32 26 27 29 33 *7 78 59 78 70 128.9 128.7 136.7 1*2.6 I50.I 95.5 70.2 *5.* 69.5 78.5 81.8 109.I 117.2 8*.* IO7.5 100.0 99.9 106.0 110.6 116.* 7*.l 5*.* 35.2 53.9 60.9 63.* 8*.6 90.9 65.5 83.* AVERAGE 1935-1959 6,858 6,608 *,929 95* 263 *61 250 3,939 2,650 72« 122 395 2,919 2,280 226 1*2 66 100.0 PERCENT OF TOTAL PRODUCTION SHOWN IN COLUMN 1 PERCENT OF TOTAL PRODUCTION SHOWN IN COLUMN 1 1925 1929 1933 193* 1935 I936 1937 1938 1939 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.2 97.* 97.5 96.0 96.* 96.6 96.2 96.6 96.0 73.1 73.* 72.8 70.2 72.6 70.* 70.« 72.3 73,7 11.9 12.« 1*.2 15.9 13.3 15.2 15.6 12.2 12.6 *.9 3.9 *.0 3.« *.3 *•0 3.« *.0 3.3 «•3 7.* 6.5 6.1 6.2 7.0 6.0 8.2 6.* 1.8 2.6 2.5 *.0 3.6 3.* 3.« 3.* *.0 67.5 66.3 67.0 62.7 59.« 61.7 58.O 52.5 5*.6 32.5 33.7 33.0 37.3 *0.2 3«.3 *2,0 *7.5 *5.* SOURCES Pacific Northwest forest ano range Experiment station, production figures refer to the entire west Coast region of Washington ano Oregon (including Jackson, Josephine, and hood river counties of Oregon). (a) Consists of Ponderosa pine, white fir, western white ano hardwoods for both Washington and Oregon and, in addition, Port Orford cedar, incense cedar, and sugar PINE FOR OREGON. TABLE 5 - PRODUCTION OF LUMBER IN WASHINGTON ANO OREGON, 1925-19*0 Rage 6 Washington AND OREGON WEST SIDE Index of Total Douglas PRODUCTION FIR, WEST SIDE OF WESTERN WASHINGTON HEMLOCK and Oregon PERIOD SITKA, WASHINGTON, WEST SIDE OREGON, WEST SIDE* ALL ALL WASHINGTON AND SPRUCE, WEST- 8EST- WEST- Species Oregon, ALL SPECIES Western ERN ALL ALL ERN ALL West- ERN ALL RED RED OTHER SPEC- RED SPEC- ERN. RED 1935- 1925 Wash- Species CEDAR DOUGLAS WESTERN SITKA CED- SPEC- IES DOUGLAS Hem- SITKA CED- I ES DOUGLAS HEM- Sitka CE- 39« as TOTAL INGTON OREGON Total TOTAL FIS HEMLOCK Spruce AR IES TOTAL FIR lock Spruce AR Total FIR LOCK spruce DAR 100 100 * (1) (2) (3) (*) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (U) (12) (u) (1*) (15) (16) (17) (1«) (19) (20) (21) (22) F MILLION BOARD FEET 1925 11,2*3 7,027 *,216 9,*50 9,355 7,526 1,222 375 232 95 6,5*7 *,819 1,09* 200 222 3,103 2,707 128 175 10 152.7 100.0 1926 12,001 7,5116 »,»55 10,200 10,101 8,238 1,3*2 310 211 99 6,871 5,318 1,153 188 I92 3,329 2,920 189 122 19 16*. 9 107.9 1927 11,319 7,326 3,993 9,83* 9,7*9 7,905 1,*13 257 17* 85 6,750 5,1*5 1,265 150 13 5,««» 2,760 1*8 107 09 158.9 10*.l 192« 11,677 7,305 *»372 10,000 9,898 7,89* 1,537 308 159 102 6,699 *,981 1,355 172 1*8 3,301 2,913 182 136 11 161.6 105.8 1929 12,086 7,302 *,78* 10,155 10,038 8,112 i.*57 290 179 117 6,603 *,997 1,250 150 16* 3,552 3,115 207 1*0 15 16*.1 107.5 1950 M56 5,502 3,65* 7,582 7,*86 6»O55 1,065 221 1'5 96 *,967 3,758 9*6 92 1*1 2,615 2,297 119 129 0* 122.5 80.2 1951 6,536 3,908 2,628 5,33* 5,270 *,398 669 122 81 6* 3,*83 2,750 592 *1 72 1,851 1,6*8 77 81 09 86.2 56.* 1932 3,865 2,261 1,60* 3,129 3,075 2,756 198 78 *3 5» 1,97* 1,7*7 155 27 36 1,155 1,009 *3 51 07 50.6 33.1 1933 5,362 3,106 2,256 *,288 *,213 3,788 257 105 63 75 2,7*9 2,*07 217 *2 58 1,539 1,381 *0 (} O$ 69.3 *5.* 193* 5,*** 3,06* 2,380 *,3*2 *,251 3,81* 2*2 121 7* 91 2,687 2,32* 201 57 70 1,655 l,*90 *1 6* 0* 70.2 *5.9 1935 6,598 3,1153 3,1*5 5,0*2 *,922 *,*70 2*7 121 8* 120 2,988 2,639 183 *9 78 2,05* 1,831 6* 72 06 81.5 53.* 1936 8,6119 *,572 *,077 6,726 6,578 5,«75 *18 170 115 1*8 *,051 3,*85 5*5 8* 107 2,675 2,390 75 86 08 108.7 71.2 1937 9,065 *»715 *,352 6,932 6,798 6,063 *29 188 118 13* *,13* 3,53* 3*0 120 108 2,798 2,529 89 68 10 112.0 73.* 1938 7,1110 3.5»? 3,791 5,*10 5,323 *,832 256 130 105 87 2,885 2,506 180 82 97 2,525 2,526 76 *8 08 87.* 57.2 1939 9,009 *,2** *,765 „6,«2« 6,685 6,073 291 195 126 1*1 3,690 54?* 25» 120 116 3,136 7,879 57 75 10 110.3 72.2 AVERAGE 1935-39 8,092 *,066 *,026 6,1«7 6,061 5,*63 328 161 110 126 3,550 3,072 256 91 101 2,637 2,391 72 70 08 100.0 PERCENT_OF TOTAL PRODUCTION SHOWN. IN COLUMN 1 PERCENT OF TOTAL PRODUCTION SHOWN 1 N COLU MN * I925 100.0 99.0 79.6 12.9 *.0 2.5 1.0 67.2 32.8 I929 100.0 98.9 79.9 1**3 2.9 1.8 1.1 65.O 35.0 1933 100.0 98.3 88.3 6.0 2.* 1.5 1.7 6*.1 193* 100.0 97.9 87.8 5.6 2.8 1.7 2.1 61.9 38.1 1935 100.0 97*6 88.7 *.9 2.* 1.6 2.* 59.3 *0.7 1936 100.0 97.8 <7.5 6.2 2.5 1.8 2.2 60.2 39.8 1937 100.0 98.1 »7.5 6.2 2.7 1.7 1.9 59.6 *0.* 1938 100.0 98.* 89.3 ».7 2.* 2.0 1.6 53.3 *6.7 1939 100.0 97,9 89.0 *.3 2.9 1.7 2.1 5».l »5.» SOURCE. NORTHWEST FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION. DATA OBTAINED IN COOPERATION WITH THE BUREAU OF CENSUS. INCLUDES ALL MILLS CUTTING $0,000 BO. FT. OR MORE • ER »EAR® (OUTPUT OF SMALLER MILLS BEING NEGLIGIBLE) • West side of Oregon includes Hood river County but excludes Jackson and Josephine counties. Page 7 TABLE 6 - CUTOVER FOREST LANDS, SAWMILL CAPACITY, AND LOG PRODUCTION, BY DISTRICTS, WEST COAST OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON, IN SPECIFIED YEARS Unit AREA OF CUTOVER forest Lands 1920-53 (private and COUNTY OWNERSHIP) SAWMILL CAPACITY M BD. FT. PER 8 HOURS SAW LOG CUT ACRES Ratio of cutover TO TOTAL Private & COUNTY Saw Timber 19 2 9 19 5 9 % 1939 IS OF 1929 1925 1929 1959 % 1959 IS OF 1925 TOTAL ACT 1 VE IDLE Total ACTIVE IDLE TOTAL ACTIVE Idle PER CENT M BD. FT. PER 8 HRS. M BD. FT. PEF 8 hrs. PER cent MH -LION BD. F T. per Cent Washington North Puget sound 1«5,*77 *1*1.0 5,«51 5,?«9 562 5,250 2,757 **73 55 52 8*1 1,166 553 526 . *5 Central Puget sound *25,670 55.0 10,010 9,21** 796 6,161 5,95« 223 62 6* 28 1,821 1,053 1,135 62 SOUTH PUGET SOUND Grays harbor and 279,565 53.2 5,6*19 3,511 358 2,*15 2,305 108 66 70 52 635 392 1,032 16J WILLAPA HARBOR 270,565 **2.7 **,85*1 **,70** 150 5,20** 2,939 265 66 63 177 1,«99 773 82« ** COLUMBIA RIVER 119,207 5».« 2,710 2,552 15« 3,205 3,136 69 118 123 ** **5 6*»3 510 115 Total Oregon 1,280,08* U7.0 27,07** 25,070 2,00** 18,215 17,075 1,13« 67 68 57 5,966 3,19** *,051 68 COLUMBIA RIVER 28*.*85 60.2 5,9«O 5,2*0 7*o 5,157 5,07« 59 86 97 8 1,551 766 1,008 75 WILLAMETTE RIVER 159,677 1^5 6,599 5,915 **8>* 6,6*7 6,310 337 10** 107 70 751 **71 1,136 155 North Oregon coast 65,2*2 15.5 1,5*« 1,208 1*0 856 759 97 6** 63 69 35« 132 *7« 1*1 south Oregon coast 75,069 15,9 2,509 1,7**** 565 2,05« l,«90 1*« 88 108 26 367 135 **67 127 Umpqua river 16,582 2.** 1,026 925 105 850 «19 11 81 89 11 21 16 118 562 ROGUE RIVER 19.7« ».3 9WS 888 60 997 862 135 105 97 225 66 s» 1*2 215 total 616,601 16.9 18,010 15,918 2,092 16,505 15,71« 787 92 99 3« 2,«75 1,575 5,3*9 117 Total, Washington and Oregon 1,896,685 29.8 *5,08* *10,988 **,096 5*,71« 32,793 1,925 77 80 *7 «,«**! 1,769 7,3«O 88 source: pacific northwest forest and range experiment station. TABLE 7 - TIMBER SUPPLY, DRAIN AND GROWTH BY DISTRICTS WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON Page 8 »^aaesacaagBaeaegagssiLj 1 li-a i ■' gaBsaaaaBEeag aBanse3saBBsae=xBSE3ae3BS3XE=ssans3BexEs=scs=s=sa AREA - ACRES VOLUME - MILLION BOARD FEET LOG SCALE Ratio of INVENTORY - I9n3/ Annual drain Total AREA CUT- Cutover annual cut 3/ DISTRICT AREA OF PRIVATE AND County Saw Timber 1955 OVER FROM 1920-33 Inclusive, Private AND COUNTY LAND_g/ to total Private, COUNTY, AND Saw Timber Land Total AVAIL- ABLE Class 1 Total Trees of Saw mill SIZE Trees of LESS THAN SAW MILL SI ZE j/ Loss BY FIRE j/ ASSUMED LOSS BY OTHER Causes Total DRAIN Current annual Growth RATIO OF Drain to Growth (1) .. (2) _ (5) CU) (5) (D («) (9) _ (10) (11) (12) (13) 1,000 ACRES 1,000 ACRES Per CENT Per cent PUGET SOUND 1,750 891 50.9 153,600 81,100 5.3US 5,185 165 97 88 5,555 517 683 GRAYS HARBOR & WILLAPA HARBOR 635 27O *»2.7 55,ooo 55,100 1,*»95 1,M67 28 5 55 1,551 168 923 COLUMBIA RIVER 81*1 HO 4 *»9.6 79,500 *»1,000 1,909 1,819 90 55 71 2,013 38*1 52» WILLAMETTE RIVER 1,098 160 lk.6 103,800 58,*100 870 777 95 61 9« 1,029 *127 2*11 OREGON COAST 9H1 13« U.S 67,1)00 57,900 59« 566 52 52 75 705 623 115 UMPQUA RIVER & ROGUE RIVER 1,130 56 5.2 88,900 2*1,900 1»5 112 55 H6 91 282 2«3 IO? TOTAL j/ 6,366 1,897 29.8 5*»6,ooo j/ 278,*»00 j/ 8,565 7,926 *»59 272 9,115 2,382 5«5 UNRESERVED ONLY, I.E., EXCLUDING NATIONAL FORESTS AND OTHER PUBLIC LANDS WHERE CUTTING IS FORTH ODEN. j/ Based upon average annual cut of saw logs from 1925-3} incl. of million feet; and upon annual cut in 1950 of H99 million feet for fuelwood, pulpwood, poles, and PILING, VENEER BLOCKS, SHINGLE BOLTS AND POSTS. MOST OF THE CUT WAS ON NON-NATIONAL FOREST LANDS. _g/ THAT IS, INVENTORY THAT MIGHT BE CUT PROFITABLY UNDER COST ANO PRICE CONDITIONS PREVAILING FROM 1925-29 INCLUSIVE. REPORTED IN CUBIC FEET WHICH ARE CONVERTED TO BOARD FEET SHOWN HERE ON THE BASIS OF 17*» CU. FT. EQUALS 1,000 BD. FT. OR 1 CU. FT. EQUALS 5.75 BD. FT. LOG SCALE. t/ average of i92*»-33 for national forest lands (94 million feet annually) and average for 1926-50 for other forest lands (178 million feet annually). _g/ LOSS BY WINDS, INSECTS AND HYPOTHETICAL FIRE LOSS OVER AND ABOVE ACTUAL ANNUAL FIRE LOSS SHOWN IN COLUMN 9. COLUMBIA RIVER, WASHINGTON, SAW TIMBER 3^2,12H ACRES WITH 119,207 ACRES CUT OVER; COLUMBIA RIVER, OREGON *»72,3*»6 ACRES SAW TIMBER WITH 28*1,*»¿5 ACRES CUT OVER. j/ WASHINGTON 2,72*1,689 ACRES SAW TIMBER WITH 1,280,08*1 ACRES CUT OVER; OREGON 3,6*»!,505 ACRES SAW TIMBER WITH 616,607 ACRES CUT OVER. 201,000 MILLION BD. FT. NATIONAL FOREST AND 3*»5,OOO MILLION BD. FT. OTHER OWNERSHIPS. _K/ 66,000 MILLION BD. FT. NATIONAL FOREST AND 212,000 MILLION BD. FT. OTHER OWNERSHIPS. source: pacific northwest forest and range experiment station, forest resources of the Douglas Fir region, 19U0 and unpublished data from same agency. Page 9 II. RELATIONSHIP OF PRODUCTION, SALES, PRICES, AND WAGES IN THE WEST COAST LUMBER INDUSTRY Factors Affecting Sales and Prices of West Coast Lumber Relation of construction activity to sales and prices. Sales and prices of West Coast lumber move with general business changes in the United States and more particularly with changes in construction activity. When construction activity is high, West Coast lumber sales, and to a lesser extent prices, tend to rise; when the construction industry is depressed, lumber sales, and to a lesser extent prices, usually fall below average. Sales and prices of West Coast lumber fluctuate proportionately less than construction activity, but both construction and lumber prices and sales have been subject to wide upward and downward swings in the last fifteen years. The same is also true with respect to Southern pine. This means, in effect, as regards the West Coast lumber industry, that sales, production, payroll and profits (a) are influenced in large measure by circumstances outside of the area where the lumber is produced and (b) are subject to great variations from year to year. For purposes of comparing changes in construction activity, lumber prices, sales, production, and payrolls, etc., the average of the five years 1935"39 inclusive may be regarded as the base period for the reason that these are recent years (hence more indicative of the present situation than past years such as 1926 or 1929 which are commonly used for base periods) and for the additional reason that an average of a number of years, some high and some low, provides a more representative base than does a single year which may have been abnormal in one respect or another. During the years from 1925 to 1929, when construction awards were about 218 per cent of the 1935-39 average, production and sales of West Coast lumber were about 167 per cent and prices of Douglas fir lumber were 105 per cent of the 1935”39 average. The contraction of building activity which began in 1929 was followed within a few months by a sharp and almost continuous decline in West Coast lumber production and price until 1932. In 1932 construction awards stood at 38 per cent, West Coast lumber production at 53 per cent, and the average price of Douglas fir lumber at 53 per cent of the 1935"39 average. In 1929 and the immediately preceding years, the West Coast lumber industry operated at a profit, but all of the years from 193$ to 1935 inclusive were loss years according to the internal revenue returns. Building activity continued low in 1933 and I93U, and West Coast lumber sales increased only slightly. Lumber prices increased much faster than sales, apparently following the general price rises in that period. These trends are shown clearly in Table 8 which compares construction awards, West Coast Lumber Production, and the average price of Douglas fir lumber over a period of years in relation to the 1935"39 average. Graphs 1 and 2 show that the improvement in construction activity, which began in the spring of 1935» was accompanied by increased orders and higher prices for both West Coast lumber and Southern pine. This improvement continued until the recession in the winter of 193$"37. At the depth of this recession in building activity, both prices and construction awards remained at about the 1935"39 average. The year 193$ was 811 active construction period, with construction awards increasing sharply from the low point at the beginning of the year to a high point in the summer followed by a sharp drop in the fall which continued throughout the early part of 1938. In 1937 construction awards stood at 108 per cert, West Coast lumber production at 109 per cent, and Douglas fir prices at 111 per cent of the 1935"39 average. In 193^ and 1937 ^he West Coast lumber industry operated at a profit according to internal revenue returns. Construction activity fluctuated widely in 1938 and 1939» rising from a low point at the beginning of 1938 to a high point in the fall of that year followed by a recession in the spring of 1939 and a sharp upward swing in the summer and fall of 1939* Sales of West Coast and Southern pine lumber followed the broad movements of changes in construction activity in both years^ but, as in other periods, changes in sales were proportionately less than changes in construction. On the whole, however, sales (that is, new orders) and prices of West Coast lumber were unusually low in 1938 relative to construction. In 1938 construction awards stood at 105 per cent, production of West Coast lumber at 89 per cent, and prices at 97 per cent of the 1935”39 average. West Coast lumber prices were also low relative to construction in the first three quarters of 1939 (general prices being low also), but a marked upswing occurred upon the outbreak of the European war. For the year 1939 as a whole, construction awards stood at 126 per cent, sales of West Coast lumber at 111 per cent, and prices of Douglas fir lumber at 101 per cent of the 1935"39 average. According to the WCLA cost statements, the West Coast lumber industry operated at a small profit in 1939» the previous year having been a loss year. In 19^0 after the recession at the beginning of the year, construction activity, sales of West Coast lumber, and prices advanced very rapidly. For the entire year construction activity represented 170 per cent, production of West Coast lumber 122 per cent, and prices of Douglas fir lumber 112 per cent, of the Page 10 TABLE 8 - INDEX OF CONSTRUCTION AWARDS, WEST COAST LUMBER PRODUCTION AND AVERAGE PRICES OF DOUGLAS FIR LUMBER IN RELATION TO PROFITS AND LOSSES IN THE WEST COAST LUMBER INDUSTRY, 1925-40 Period Construction Awards 1/ West Coast Lumber Production 2/ Average Price of 8 Kinds of Douglas Fir Lumber 3/ Net Profit ( + ) or Loss (-) for an Average of 471 Companies Engaged Pri-marily in West Coast Sawmilling and Planing Mill Operations 4/ Net Profit (f) or Loss (-) on Sales of West Coast Lumber, per M. Bd. Ft. of Lumber, as Reported in WCLA Annual Cost Statement 5/ Inde x Average! 1935“39s aoo Thousand Dollars $ Per M. Bd. Ft. Average 1925*29 218 169 105 (+) 6,243* 1932 38 53 53 (-) 25,327** 1933 36 72 68 (-) 5,898 1934 37 73 97 (-) 4,711 (-) 2.22 1935 61 82 92 (-) 2,283 (-) 1.53 1936 100 109 99 (+) 5.770 (f) .11 1937 108 109 ill (+) 11,049 (<■) .49 1938 105 89 97 (-) 1.45 1939 126 111 101 (+) .04 1940 170 122 112 1/ Based, upon 1,000 sq. ft, floor space of residential and. non-residential construction in 37 states. F. W. Dodge Corp. 2j Based upon footage, WCLA figures 1935“4O; U. S. Forest Service for earlier years. Includes West Coast output of Douglas fir, hemlock, Sitka spruce and red cedar. 3/ BLS index as used elsewhere in this report. 4/ A special tabulation of Bureau of Internal Revenue returns compiled by the U. S. Tariff Commission. This tabulation covers an average of Uji companies for the 1926-37 period and all of these companies were engaged primarily in sawmilling and planing mill operations. Profit and loss figures refer to total net profits or losses of these companies whether from sales of lumber and logs or from incidental operations such as investment in outside properties and securities or from production of products other than lumber and logs. ¡J The annual cost statements of the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association covers sawmill concerns (some of which cut their own logs) which account in the various years for from 50 to 65 per cent of the total West Coast output of lumber. The cost statement refers to profits or losses from sales of lumber (and by-products). It does not include sales of logs. It is not known to what extent overhead involved in the sales of both lumber and logs is imputed to lumber only in this cost statement. * Average of four years only, 1926-29 inclusive. The total of $6,243,000 per year. Losses amounted to $15*148,000 in 1930 and to $23*33^,000 profits for the four years amounted to $24,9731000-in 1931. That is an average Page 11 1935’39 averages. New orders were very high in July and October but somewhat lower in November and December, notwithstanding sharp advances in construction awards in the latter months. In December, new orders stood at 111 per cent of the 1935-39 average. The relative decline in new orders in November and December came at a time when unfilled orders for West Coast lumber were very high and when, for much of the period in question, a considerable part of the industry was shut down. Prices in 1940 followed the general trend of construction activity, but, as in other periods, price advances were proportionately less than advances in construction. Relation of stocks and unfilled orders to prices. The volume of unfilled orders in relation to stocks has some influence on West Coast lumber prices, but the relationship appears more temporary in nature than that of construction activity to prices. Graph 3 indicates the statistical relationship of unfilled orders and stocks to average prices. If the relationship were very close, the ratio of unfilled orders to stocks should move above or below the average in somewhat the same proportion as prices. Actually, it happened frequently that unfilled orders were low in relation to stocks when prices were average or above average; that unfilled orders were very high in relation to stocks when prices were average or only slightly above average; and that at times unfilled orders were declining relative to stocks when prices were rising. 1/ However, at times, it appears that the condition of unfilled orders in relation to stocks restrained or prevented short run price changes that might have been expected from changes in construction activity. For example, in early 1937 lumber prices increased when construction was declining, but unfilled orders were then high in relation to stocks. Again, in the spring of 1940, lumber prices declined very little in comparison with the fall in construction activity, but unfilled orders were again high in relation to stocks. Relation of Southern pine and Douglas fir prices. Prices of Southern pine and West Coast lumber are inter-related as both enter the same market where they compete with each other in particular uses. The extent to which the price of one species acts as a ceiling on the price of the other cannot be demonstrated in a statistical way for the reason that certain types of each species are virtually non-competitive even in the Northeastern and North Central States; while some types which are competitive in one locality in that area are non-competitive in another. This may be due to a relative disadvantage in 1/ In some instances, the high ratio of unfilled orders to stocks was due to non-market influences (such as the maritime strike in the winter of 1936-37) which tended to obscure normal market relations. transportation cost or to the local contractor’s or consumer’s preference for one or the other species for the particular -type of construction being undertaken. Thus, it is not possible to ascertain precisely whether increased sales of one or the other species in the Northeastern area is due to price factors, to shifts in construction, or to other factors. It is significant indication, however, of the manner in which the price of one species acts as a ceiling on the price and the sales of the other, that neither species is sold to any extent where the other is produced although both are sold in what might be called neutral markets which are distant from the production centers of both. Very little Douglas fir is sold in the Southern states, and very little Southern pine is sold in the Pacific Coast states, but both are sold in the Northeastern and North Central states for construction purposes. The fact that the price index of Douglas fir lumber corresponds fairly closely with the price index of Southern pine over a period of years further suggests the competitive relationship between the two species. 2/ At no time, except in recent months, when large cantonment construction in the Southern states created unusual conditions, has the price of one species varied greatly from the normal spread with the other (see graph 2). There have been some variations, of course, from the normal relationships, but in every instance since 1935 (with the exception of recent months) the spread has returned to a more normal relationship after several months. Douglas fir lumber also competes in certain uses with lumber of other softwood species in the Northeast and North Central states. Price Trends of West Coast Lumber The best indicator of the long run movement of West Coast lumber prices is the Bureau of Labor Statistics index of wholesale prices at the mill of eight typical kinds of Douglas fir lumber from 1923 to date, This index, hereinafter referred 2/ See Appendix VI, question 1. ¿/ This index of eight types of Douglas fir lumber includes: boards 1” x 8” No. 1 and No. 2 common; Dimension No. 1 common 2” x 4” x 16’; Siding 1” x 6” B and better and C; Flooring 1” x 4” B and better and C; Timbers No. 1 common 12” x 12”. Index weighted according to quantities newly made available for consumption in 1937 and 1938* All types of lumber included here are ’’dry” except timber which is’’green’*. The BLS index of nine types of Douglas fir lumber, as used in this report, is the same as the eight-type index except that lath are included in the nine-type index. The inclusion of lath has only a very minor influence on the index. Page 12 to as the BLS index, is based upon quoted prices and makes no allowance for trade discounts which are likely to be greater in falling than in rising markets. 1/ However, the BLS index is useful for showing the general trend over a period of years. The broad outlines of this trend (which followed construction activity and general prices fairly closely) have already been described: prices from 1925 to 1929 were about 105 per cent of the 1935“39 average; prices declined to a low point in 1932 of 53 Per cent of the 1935“39 average and increased irregularly thereafter, with a sharp dip in late 1934, to a high point in May, 1937» of 117 per cent of the 1935“39 average. Prices fell in late 1937 and. remained low through 1932 and 1939 until the outbreak of the war. After an initial spurt in the fall of 1939» prices declined and remained relatively low in the first half of 1940. The last half of 1940 was marked by rapidly rising prices with the average price in both December 1940 end January 1941 standing at 129 per cent of the 1935"39 average - the highest point since 1923. The West Coast Lumbermen’s Association’s monthly average realization price,henceforth referred to as the WCLA average price, is available for the years from 1928 to 1931 and from 1935 to date. As noted in graph 4, the WCLA average price corresponds fairly closely with the BLS index, except for certain deviations which result from different methods of compiling the two indexes. 2/ The WCLA average price represents the invoice value entered each month on the books of account of reporting mills for all shipments, whether or not these shipments represent sales in the current month or in a previous period. Thus, the WCLA average price reflects to some extent prices prior to the month shown. The WCLA average price, which is obtained by dividing the total dollar value sales by the total footage to obtain average realized price per M. board feet of all sales, reflects both shifts in the types of lumber sold and also changes in the price. A shift in the nature of sales may depress the WCLA index (as in December, 1940 when the index represented a larger proportion than usual of green lumber) at a time when the BLS index shows no change. 3/ Graph 4 shows monthly detail of both the BLS and the WCLA index since 1935 aud, in addition, a breakdown by types of shipments represented in the WCLA index. The average price of 1/ See Appendix VI, question 2. 2/ The Davis Bureau prices (collected from 1925 to 1934 from 25 to 49 subscribing mills and based upon daily or weekly sales volume and price for over 1,000 lumber items at f.o.b. mill prices before deduction of trade discounts and commissions) corresponds quite closely with the WCLA index in that period. j/ See Appendix VI, question 3» rail shipments, representing chiefly dry lumber, is consistently above the average price of all shipments; while the average price of cargo shipments to the Atlantic ports and California, consisting chiefly of green lumber, is consistently below the average. 4/ The average price of shipments for local and plant use is usually slightly higher than that of shipments to the Atlantic and California. The price difference between rail (dry) and cargo (green) shipments ¿/ indicates clearly why the average price received by ’’rail” mills is consistently higher than average prices received by ’’cargo” mills. The average, price received by rail or cargo mills varies according to the proportion of dry or green lumber shipped by each class of mills. Prices of rail shipments move parallel with those of cargo shipments with only moderate deviations from year to year in the normal price spread between the two. The volume of rail shipments has increased relative to cargo over the last six years and this has had the effect of raising the general average price to some extent. A comparison between the average price of lumber and the price of logs, as reported in The Timberman, is given in graph 5* The Timberman prices are described as average buying or selling prices of particular reporting dealers. Individual lots of logs may be sold at prices above or below the quoted prices, depending upon the location of the logs, the grade, and prevailing market conditions. Pir and hemlock log prices have followed lumber prices fairly closely, although, on occasion, one deviates from the other. In the fall of 1940, for example, lumber prices advanced more than either fir or hemlock log prices. Relation of Prices to Average Hourly Wages Fluctuations in average hourly wages for West Coast loggers and sawmill workers have not followed closely changes in lumber and log prices. When prices were high and the industry operated at a profit, average hourly wages increased but at a lesser rate than prices. When prices fell and the industry operated at a reported loss, average hourly wages remained either 4/ See Appendix VI, question 4. 5/ See Appendix VI, question 5» 3/ So-called ”rail” mills are those whose shipments by rail constitute 65^ or more of their total shipments; "cargo” mills are those whose shipments by water constitute 65^ or more of their total shipments. Mills not falling in either of these two categories are classified as "combination” mills. Many rail mills make some shipments of green lumber by water, while many cargo mills make some shipments of dry lumber by rail. Page 13 constant or else fell less than prices. This is indicated, in graph 6 which shows average hourly wages for loggers and sawmill workers in relation to lumber prices on the basis of variations from the average of 1935”39* The figures on average hourly wages, upon which graph 6 is based, were obtained from the regular report of the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association entitled “Employment Statistics” and from a regular report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics on employment, payroll, and earnings in the Douglas fir industry. The WCLA report covers from 21 to 35 logging concerns which employed from 4,500 to 7»500 loggers in the various years and from 62 to 75 sawmills which produced from 50 to 65 per cent of the total West Coast output of lumber. The WCLA data refer to all employees during the month who were on an hourly wage basis and who were regarded by the reporting companies as being engaged in logging and sawmilling operations. The BLS figures cover from 50 to 70 sawmilling and logging concerns which employ from 10,000 to 20,000 wage earners. The BLS data refer to payrolls and man-hours, from which the average hourly wages were computed, for the payroll week ending nearest the 15th of each month. Information is not available as to the relative proportion of loggers and sawmill employees (the former receiving a higher wage per hour than the latter) included in the BLS statistics. It appears from graph 6 that the movement of the BLS index of average hourly wages per week corresponds quite closely with that of the WCLA index of average hourly wages per month. From the middle of 1935 “to late 1937 average hourly wages were low relative to prices. Both prices and average hourly wages increased appreciably but irregularly during this period. In early 1937 there was a sharp increase in both prices and average hourly earnings. From the fall of 1937 to the fall of 1939 prices were below the 1935—39 average while average hourly earnings of both loggers and sawmill workers remained fairly constant and were above the 1935“39 average. Thus, in this price trough period wages were high relative to prices. In one of these years, 193$» when sales were also low, the industry operated at a loss according to the WCLA annual cost statement. In 1939» the WCLA cost statement indicates that the industry operated at a profit, presumably because sales were above average and prices were high in the last quarter of the year. In the first half of 19^0 average hourly wages were also higher relative to prices, but the situation shifted after the middle of the year with a sharp advance in prices and a less sharp advance in average hourly wages. 1/ In the last quarter of the year, average prices were 125 per cent of the BLS 1935-39 average while average hourly wages of loggers and sawmill woriters were 117 and 112 per cent, respectively, of the 1935”39 average. Relation of Average Hourly Wage to Man-Hours and Payroll The average hourly wage influences payroll in the sense that the wage rate for a given number of man-hours determine the amount of the payroll. In actual fact, however, the annual payroll varies far less with changes in average hourly wages than with changes in lumber production which, as described above, moves with construction activity. This is evident from graphs 7 and S. In 193$» for example, production and payrolls of the West Coast sawmills were somewhat above average although average hourly wages were relatively low. On the other hand, in 1932» production and payrolls were low although average hourly wages were relatively high. Table 9 presents the available data pertinent to the question of whether the West Coast lumber production increased more or less than man-hours and payrolls in the last few years. 2/ Statistics are available for the total West Coast lumber production but data on man-hours and payroll are available only for an estimated 7Q pen cent of the total West Coast lumber output. If changes in man-hours and payroll in 70 per cent of the industry are typical of changes in the industry as a whole, the comparisons presented here are valid. That this would seem to be so is suggested by the fact that changes in man-hours and payroll in relation to lumber production for the entire State of Washington (87 per cent of which consists of West Coast output) agree closely with the changes in man-hours and payroll for 70 per cent of the total West Coast lumber industry covered. The statistics on man-hours and payroll for the West Coast lumber industry were obtained from the regular reports of the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association entitled ’’Employment Statistics”. The reported WCLA statistics cover from 62 to 75 re-porting sawmills (including planing mills operating in conjunction with sawmills). In order to obtain a comparable index of man-hours and employment from month to month, the reported figures, covering in the various months from 52 to 67 per cent of 2/ It should be noted that this information does not deal with the question of the number of man-hours required to produce a thousand feet of lumber. It relates only to the question of whether the increase in the total footage of lumber produced in the last two years was accompanied by a corresponding increase in the total number of man-hours employed and the total payroll. 1/ See Appendix VI, question 6. Page 15 TABLE 9 - COMPARISON OF PRODUCTION, MAN-HOURS, PAYROLL FOR EMPLOYEES ON HOURLY WAGE BASIS, AND AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS, IN THE WEST COAST LUMBER INDUSTRY AND ALSO FOR THE ENTIRE STATE OF WASHINGTON, 1935-40 Average: 1935“39=1OO 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 Average price West Coast lumber (WCLA) 88.2 99.5 113.3 97-7 101.9 113.1 West Coast Lumber production (WCLA footage) 82.0 109.4 108.8 89.2 110.6* 122.0 Man-hours in sawmills representing estimated 70$ of total West Coast lumber output (WCLA) 81.8 112.4 110.4 89.7 105.6 115.9 Annual payroll in sawmills representing estimated 70$ of total West Coast lumber output (WCLA) 71.7 105.2 115.3 95.5 112.4 126.1 Annual average weekly payroll in 72 identical saw-mills and logging operations (BLS) 70.7 111.7 115.5 93.1* 108.6 120.7 Average hourly wage of: Loggers (WCLA) 82.6 95.0 106.6 106.4 108.5 111.4 Sawmill workers (WCLA) 87-7 93.5 104.4 106.5 106.5 108.8 Loggers and sawmill workers (BLS) 85.6 94.4 IO6.3 106.4 107.3 110.5 Labor costs of producing 1,000 ft.: logs (WCLA) 89.0 95.0 111.4 103.1 101.5 Lumber (WCLA) 93.“+ 95.U 109.0 106.2 96.0 State of Washington (entire state) 1/ Production Logs 86. 116. 118. 78. 103. Lumber 85. 112. 116. 82. 104. Man-hours Logs 84. 119. 124. 78. 95. Lumber 87. 116. 115. 86. 95. Payrolls Logs 72. ill. 130. 83. 103. Lumber 75. 108. 121. 93. 103. Average hourly earnings Logs 85. 9U. 105. 107. 109. Lumber 85. 93- 105. 108. 108. Note: The statistics upon which these percentages are based are presented in the appendix to this report. 1/ In 1935 also la 1939» 87$ of the total output of lumber in the State of Washington was in the coast region. The WCLA production figure of 6,427 million board feet may be too low for the Forest Service’s recently released production of the four species in the West Coast region in 1939 which was 6,685 million board feet. If the Forest Service figure were used instead of the WCLA figure, the index would stand at 114.0 instead of 110,6, thereby conforming with the fact that WCLA data show labor costs down when payrolls were up to 112.4 Page 16 In conclusion, it may "be said that: (1) WCLA and BLS data on average prices of West Coast lumber agree fairly closely and that prices in December, 19^0 were 29 per cent higher by the BLS index or JI per cent higher by the WCLA index than the 1935“39 average; (2) Average hourly wages of loggers and sawmill workers have advanced substantially since 1935 but at a lesser rate than prices. The WCLA index shows average hourly wages of loggers at 22 per cent and of sawmill workers at 15 per cent above the 1935“39 average; the BLS index showed average hourly wages of loggers and sawmill workers combined in December, 19^0» at 16 per cent of the 1935“39 average. Average hourly wages were low relative to prices from 1935 to 1937 and again in the last half of 19^0 but high relative to prices from the end of 1937 to the fall of 1939 1940; and again in the early months of (3) WCLA data on man-hours and payrolls in relation to production show similar changes to those indicated by data for the lumber industry of the entire State of Washington, as published by the State Government (1935“39)» la 1939» production and payrolls increased at approximately the same rate and man-hours increased at a lesser rate than either, relative to the 1935“39 average. In I9U0, according to WCLA data, payrolls increased more than production and production increased more than manhours. This would imply a higher labor cost to produce a 1,000 feet of lumber in 19^0 than in 1939« Th® field study conducted in connection with this report also showed a higher labor cost to produce a 1,000 feet of lumber in 19^0 than the WCLA figure in 1939. fa«e 17 GRAPH I COMPARISON OF CONSTRUCTION AWARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITH NEW ORDERS FOR WEST COAST AND SOUTHERN PINE LUMBER, BY QUARTERS, 1935-40 (AVERAGE 1935-39 = 100.0 ) Note, Construction aw-rds for residential and non-residential buildings Douglas fir lumber from West Coast Lumbermen's Association. New orders in J7 states east for Southern pine of Rooky Mountains from F. W. Dodge Corporation, lumber from Southern pine association, in Dept, of Conmeroe, Survey of Current Business. in Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business Hew orders for Page 18 GRAPH 2 COMPARISON OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN UNITED STATES WITH PRICES OF DOUGLAS FIR AND SOUTHERN PINE LUMBER, BY QUARTERS, 1935-40 Oonstruotion awards for residential and non-residential buildings in 57 states east of Rooky Mount’’is ; rom F. W. Dodge Corporation, in Dept, of Comneroe, Survey of Current Business. Value of total construction in United States from confidential government uouroes for the year with quarterly breakdown .roording to BLS index of oonstruotion in sample oities. Prices of Southern pine and Douglas fir lumber from Bureau of Labor Statistics, as used elsewhere in this report. ~ ~ page 19 GRAPH 3 WEST COAST LUMBER: COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MONTHLY PRICE WITH UNFILLED ORDERS AND STOCKS AT END OF MONTH 1935-40 (WEST COAST LUMBERMENS ASSOCIATION J (AVERAGE 1935-39• 100 0) °utput °f 0<*St 1U“ber “ rep°rted by Coast lumbermen'. Aa.ooiation. Average realised prioe of Weet Coa.t lumber to all markets a. reported the wCUL (no allowknoe made for trade discounts.) » r Page 20 GRAPH 4 AVERAGE PRICE OF WEST COAST LUMBER AT MILL, BY MONTHS, 1935-40 C DOLLARS PER M BD. FT ) Hotei Average price received for West Coast lumber compiled by WCLA from reports of mills representing from 55 to 65% of total West Coast output of lumber in years shown; average prioe is f.o.b. shipping point, no allowance being made for trade discounts. Bureau of Labor Statistics index of prices of 9 types of Douglas fir lumber f.o.b. mill, weighted on basis of consumption in 19J7 and 19J8. 21 GRAPH 5 COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LUMBER PRICES (WCLA AVERAGE REALIZATION ) WITH TIMBERMAN QUOTATIONS ON DOUGLAS FIRCPUGET SOUND) AND HEMLOCK LOGS Notet Weighted average realisation (not allowing for trade diecounts) for all West Coast lumber. For logs, simple average of monthly quotations in The Timbemwn- For sulphite pulp (prime quality, easy bleaching on dook), simple averages of prioes quoted in Survey of Current Business. p««e 22 GRAPH 6 AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF EMPLOYEES ON HOURLY WAGE BASIS IN LOGGING AND SAWMILL OPERATIONS IN THE WEST COAST LUMBER INDUSTRY 1935-40 (AVERAGE 1935-39« 100 0) Motet BLS data compiled from eamailla (from 50 to 70 concern« employing from 10,000 to 20,000 wge earner«) idiiah reported man-hour statistics to the Bureau of Labor Statiatioa for each week nearest the payroll ending the 15th of the month. UCLA det", for loggers wages from 21 to 35 oonoerna which employed from U.500 to 7,500 loggers in the various years. WCLA data for sawmill workers wages from 62 to 75 «awmills producing from 55 to 60% of total West Coeat output of lumber. 23 GRAPH 7 WEST COAST LUMBER: COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MONTHLY PRICE OF WEST COAST LUMBER WITH MONTHLY PAYROLL, AVERAGE WEEKLY PAYROLL AND AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE PER MONTH FOR SAWMILL EMPLOYEES ON HOURLY WAGE BASIS (AVERAGE 1935-39'100 0) Hotei UCLA payroll reported for last 6 months of 1935 estimated to be t>5% of total payroll for year as shown here on basis that production in last 6 months of 1935 accounted for 6% of total year output in 1955. BLS weekly payroll for 72 identical sawmills reporting total weekly payroll for wage earners for week ending nearest 15th of eaoh month. Page 24 GRAPH 8 WEST COAST LUMBER: PRODUCTION>ORDERS, SHIPMENTS AND STOCKS BY MONTHS 1935-40 ( DATA FROM WEST COAST LUMBERMENS ASSOCIATION) Mete» Total WestCoast luaber production, new orders, shipment«, unfilled orders-and stocks, as reported by WCLA, for entire West Coast Industry. Pace 25 III. FINANCIAL HISTORY OF THIS INDUSTRY Period Covered and Kinds of Source Information Obtained. The material presented in this section of the report results from a study of the financial conditions under which the industry has operated from 1926 to the present time. In general the section presents material respecting the profits which have accrued to the industry in good years of operation and the losses which it sustained in continuing its operations in bad ones. More specifically the section deals with the factors, such as cost and price, which affect and determine the profitability or non-profitability of the yearly operations, and with the changes in the physical properties and the capital structure of the industry - which changes have resulted from the industry’s operating activities over the years. From the data available and within time limitations, it was not possible to cover a longer period of years, nor to cover all of the phases for all of the years; for some phases, therefore, the periods are more limited than for others. The material relating to the capital structure of the industry was compiled from information furnished by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Washington, D. C. in form permitting its publication. This Bureau likewise furnished the information from which much of the data relating to profits and losses in the industry were compiled. Additional material respecting the latter phases, and information respecting the costs of producing and selling the industry’s products prior to 1940 was compiled from source material used by the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association in annual releases to participating firms. In using this material, representatives of the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense analyzed a considerable portion of the original compilations made from source materials collected by the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association and found the data generally suitable for inclusion in this report in a more condensed form than that released by the Association. The West Coast Lumbermen’s Association also supplied the information respecting changes in the physical properties of the industry. Information respecting costs in 1929 was obtained through a study of materials in the files of the United States Tariff Commission, Washington, D. C. This material, much of which is confidential and cannot be released in its original form, resulted from an investigation of lumber costs in 1929 conducted by this governmental agency. The findings of that investigation are published in a Commission report which is available and are not repeated here, particularly as no cost information respecting the lumber industry is available for the years be-tween 1929 and 1934. All of the material respecting the operations of the industry in ld4o and for the month of January, 1941, obtained by field study. Conduct of Field Study This study was inaugurated by the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense for the purpose of obtaining first hand information respecting past and present conditions of operation in the industry. Much data of a statistical nature respecting past operations of the industry was collected by representatives of the Advisory Commission, and a considerable proportion of this material is embodied in other sections of this report. In that portion of the study concerned with the financial operations of the industry, particular attention was paid to the amounts realized by the producers from the sale of their products; to the costs of producing and selling these products; to the proportionate outlay of total costs which reverted to the labor engaged in producing these products; and to the proportionate return to management in the form of profits. On February 5, 1941, a questionnaire prepared for the specific purpose of obtaining this information was sent to a representative group of logging companies end sawmill operators in the states of Washington and Oregon with request that the form be returned to Seattle, Washington, not later than February 19» 1941. Within a few days after this time, 55 mills, 47 of which were sawmills which produced approximately 50 per cent of the lumber produced bv the industry in 1940, had returned the questionnaire information for the year 1940. A lesser number, J2, supplied the information for the month of January, 1941. The failure of a larger group to supply the January information is attributed to the fact that^. book information was not available from which accurate costs fof the month could be compiled. Following the submission of the questionnaire a field check was made of the returns against the books and records at the individual mills. Accountants from the Tariff Commission in Washington, D. C. were loaned to the National Defense Council for the specific purpose of this field check. These accountants from their long experience in investigational cost procedure with the Tariff Commission were particularly qualified to meet the requirements of this field check - namely, a quick, and at the same time accurate, check of the information supplied by the Page 26 individual mills. In the course of the field checking, the accountants visited 29 of the 47 sawmills who submitted their information these 29 mills represented more than 75 Per cent of the lumber production covered in the returned questionnaires. At the mills both the 1940 and 1941 information was checked against the records of the submitting concerns, and necessary changes and adjustments were made in the figures. The questionnaires submitted by the mills which could not be visited within the time limit set for the completion of the project were carefully scrutinized before tabulating, and in some instances, it was necessary to refer doubtful points back to the submi 11ing c ompani e s. On completion of the field check, the accountants returned to Seattle, Washington, where the tabulations of the data were compiled. The tabulated results in summarized form are shown in Table 17 of this report, and a list of the contributing companies and a copy of the form of questionnaire on which the mills submitted the information are contained in the appendix to this report. History of Earnings The earning capacity of the lumber industry of the West Coast of Washington and Oregon, as exemplified by net profits and losses of companies whose primary source of income is derived from sawmill and planing mill operations over a period of years can be characterized by its alternating periods of prosperity and depression. In the years 1926-1937» a 12-year period (1937 is the last year for which information about the sawmill and planing mill industry as a whole is available), the losses in a 6-year period of depression greatly exceeded the gains of two periods, totaling 6 years, of prosperity. Mainly as a result of the operating conditions in the industry during this 12-year period, the earnings of the industry if averaged over the period fell short by nearly 3 million dollars a year of meeting the average yearly expenses of the industry. In this period the number of mills in the industry declined from 583 in 1926 to 414 in 1937» with a contraction in the capacity for producing the industry’s products which by 1940 had declined more than 40 per cent. The assets of the industry which stood at 340^ million dollars in 1937 bad also declined, partly because of the reduced number of mills in the industry that year, nearly 80 million dollars since 1931» the last year for which the information is available. Information respecting the earnings of the sawmill and planing mill industry as a whole is not available for the years since 1937* Information compiled from figures furnished by the Bureau of Internal Revenue for a group of 40 companies in the sawmill and planing mill industry, which had been in continuous operation since 1929» indicates that these companies operated at a loss of nearly 5 million dollars in 193$. This is borne out by figures furnished by the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association for a group of mills representing about 58 per cent of the industry’s production in 1938» The figures from the latter source indicate a loss of $1.45 per M. feet of lumber sold - equivalent to about 4$ million dollars. There are no figures available for 1939 from the Internal Revenue Bureau; the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association reports an insignificant profit of 4^ per M. feet of lumber sold that year by a group of mills representing about 65 per cent of the industry’s production of lumber in 1939» These figures indicate that 1938 and 1939 were not profitable years for the industry; on the other hand, the operations for the year 1940, as is shown by the field study conducted by the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense, returned a profit on the year’s operations. Just what effect the operations of these three years has had on the financial status of the industry is not definitely known; consequently, any deductions respecting the change in financial position of the industry cannot be made for the period subsequent to 1937» Table 10 shows the earnings history of the sawmill and planing mill industries of Washington and Oregon for the years 1926-1937. According to the table the profits and losses for the individual years were as follows: Year Gains Losses (Thousands of Dollars) 1926 7,805 1927 1,313 1928 4,427 1929 11,428 1930 15,148 1931 23.338 1932 25,327 1933 5,898 1934 4,711 1935 2,283 1936 5,770 1937 11,049 Total for period 41,792 76,705 Av. loss per year 2,909 The information in Table 10 is given separately for Washington and Oregon, for the two states combined, and also shows averages for the period, and the number of companies reporting. The PAGE 27 TABLE 10 - CORPORATION INCOME ANO PROFITS OR LOSS IN THE SAWMILL ANO PLANING MILL INDUSTRY, WASHINGTON AND OREGON, 1926-1937 AVERAGE 192^-37 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 193* 1935 1936 1937 WASHINGTON AND OREGON Number Companies Reporting *71 583 517 525 521 502 »67 »16 »09 *39 *29 *25 *1* ( In Thousands) Receipts from operations $173,*16 $252,583 $2*3,500 $217,323 $255,970 $186,761 $121,939 $69,3*2 $90,9** $115,5*0 $130,*5» $177,691 $218,9*1 less: Operating expenses (not INCLUDING DEPRECIATION ANO DEPLETION CHARGES) 1*1,782 20*,575 199,538 169,631 206,811 162,»56 11*,*38 66,6»o 70,116 92,300 103,092 139,808 171,97* PROFIT FROM OPERATIONS BEFORE DEPRECIATION ANO DEPLETION 31,63* »8,008 »3,962 *7,692 »9,159 2»,305 7,501 2,702 20,828 23,2*0 27,362 37,883 *6,967 Less: depreciation and depletion CHARGES 15,237 17,619 17,299 20,*»5 18,851 19,»86 1*,15* 11,03* 12, *1» 11,320 10,839 13,367 16,012 OPERATING PROFIT (OR LOSS (-)) 16,397 30,389 26,663 27,2*7 30,308 *,819 -6,653 -8,332 8,*1* 11,920 16,523 2*,516 30,955 plus: other receipts 10,102 12,660 10,070 53,311 11,6*5 5,$3* *,9*0 3,*69 3,502 3,505 3,032 »,503 *,73* less: other deduct ions j/ 29,*08 35,2** 35,*20 76,131 30,525 25,801 21,625 20,*6* 17,81* 20,136 21,858 23,2*9 2*,6*0 compiled net profit (or loss (-)) -2,909 7,805 1,313 *,*27 11,»28 -15,1*8 -23,538 -25,327 -5,898 -*,711 -2,283 5,770 11,0*9 WASHINGTON number Companies reporting 301 39$ 35* 350 335 31* 303 268 25« 273 263 2*6 2*9 Receipts from operations (In Thousands) $125,89* $1<5,O75 $175,563 $189,6*3 $188,732 $132,272 $87,*00 $*7,621 $67,352 $82,192 $88,273 $118,020 $1*8,579 Less: operating expenses (not including depreciation and DEPLETION CHARGES) 103,672 152,117 1*5,180 156,760 155,010 115,*30 «1,3*2 *5,3*7 51,76* 6»,988 69,052 91,663 115,*05 PROFIT FROM OPERATIONS BEFORE DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION 22,222 32,958 3O,3«3 32,883 33,722 16,8*2 6,058 2,27* 15,5«8 17,20* 19,221 26,357 33,17* less: depreciation and depletion CHARGES 10,391 12,210 11,221 13,783 12,9*8 13,3*0 10,068 7,950 9,091 7,«72 7,028 8,7*1 10,*39 OPERATING PROFIT ( OR LOSS (-)) 11,831 20,7*8 19,162 19,100 20,77* 3,502 -*,010 -5,676 6, *97 9,332 12,193 17,616 22,735 plus: other Receipts 5,50» 11,330 7,310 8,960 10,83* *,926 *,227 2,750 2,655 2,902 2,50* 3,773 3,903 Less: other deduct ionsj/ 17,112 2*,930 23,767 23»«2* 21,2*3 16,895 15,272 9,839 12,0*7 13,795 13,*1» 1*,8** 15,*«1 Compiled Net profit (or Loss (-)) 223 7,1*8 2,705 *,236 10,365 -8,*67 -15,055 -12,765 -2,915 -1,561 1,2«3 6,5*5 11,157 OREGON number Companies reporting 170 185 165 175 186 188 16* 1*8 151 166 166 179 165 Receipts from operations (In Thousands) $*7,522 $67,508 $67,937 $27,680 $67,23« $5»,»«9 $3»,539 $21,721 $23,592 $33,3*« $*2,181 $59,671 $70,362 less: Operating expenses (not including depreciation and DEPLETION CHARGES) 38,110 52,*5« 5*,358 12,871 51,801 *7,026 33,096 21,293 18,352 27,312 3*.0*0 *8,1*5 56,569 profit from operating before DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION 9,*12 15,050 13,579 l*,809 15,*37 7, *63 1,**3 *28 5,2*0 6,056 8,1*1 11,526 13,793 less: depreciation and depletion CHARGES *,8*6 5,*09 6,078 6,662 5,903 6,1*6 *,086 3,08* 3,323 3, **8 3,811 *,626 5,573 Operating profit (or loss (-)) *,566 9,6*1 7,501 8,1*7 9,53* 1,317 -2,6*3 -2,656 1,917 2,5«» *,330 6,900 8,220 plus: other receipts *,59« 1,330 2,760 **,351 811 908 713 719 867 60 3 5*8 730 831 less: other deductions_i/ 12,296 10,51* 11,653 52,307 9,282 8,906 6,353 10,625 5,767 6,3*1 8,*** 8,*05 9,159 Compiled net profit (or Loss (-)) -3,132 657 -1,392 191 1,063 -6,681 -8,283 -12,562 -2,983 -3,150 -3,566 -775 -108 _1/ see Appendix VI, question 1J, source: Tabulated by the Tariff Commission from summaries compiled by the cureau of internal Revenue. Page 28 table was compiled, from summaries prepared by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Some further explanation seems necessary with respect to the items shown in the table as "operating profit and loss" and "other deductions". In compiling tables from data furnished by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, it is not possible to determine definitely the amount of "operating profit or loss". This is because such expenses as are usually known in the industry as "factory overhead" or "factory burden" are partially included in Internal Revenue information as "other deductions from income". The inherent qualities in the source material make it impossible, therefore, to arrive at an "operating profit or loss" comparable to one shown by manufacturers in their profit and loss statements. It should also be explained that the item shown in the table as "net profit or loss" undoubtedly contains elements of profit or loss incident to investments in outside properties and securities and to profits and losses accruing from the production of products other than lumber. Changes in Physical Properties. It was previously pointed out that the number of mills in the sawmill and planing mill industry declined from 5^3 in 1926 to 414 in 1937> a loss of 169 mills. The Industrial Pacts Department of the West Coast Lumbermen's Association has supplied information in considerable detail with respect to loss in mills and in milling capacity of Class "A", "B", and "C" mills, with capacity ratings of 26 M feet B. M. and over per 8-hour day in the states of Washington and Oregon for the period 1928-1940. This information is embodied in Tables 11, 12, and 13 which follow. Roughly, these tables indicate a loss of 61 mills in this class in the two states in this period, with a consequent decrease in mill capacity during the period of over 5 billion feet of lumber. Information is not available with respect to the change in number of mills and in mill capacity for those mills which have ratings of less than 26 M feet B. M, per 8-hour day. The Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station also supplied information respecting sawmill capacity in Washington and Oregon for the odd years 1929-1939• This information is given in Table 14, which shows in addition to the total capacity in M bd. ft. per 8-hour day for the region, the active and idle capacity. The table shows a daily total capacity of about J5 million feet of lumber in the region in 1939* Based on a 300-day year this would indicate a yearly total capacity for 1939 of approximately lOj billion feet. At no time during the period, as the table indicates, was capacity used to its full extent. In 1939» it is indicated that total capacity was 77 per cent of what it was in 1929, that active capacity (all mills operating regardless of capacity operated) was 80 per cent of what it was in 1929, and that idle plant was 47 per cent of the 1929 figure. Changes in Capital Structure It was previously pointed out that the assets of the sawmill and planing mill Industiy, which in 1937 had a value of about 34OJ million dollars, had declined in value nearly 80 million dollars since 1931. Table 15, compiled from summaries prepared by the Bureau of Internal Revenue shows the assets and liabilities of the industry for the years 1931 to 1937 end gives averages of the individual items for the period. Table 16 prepared in part from figures shown for 1931 and 1937 la Table 15 gives a summary comparison of the balance sheet items for the two years. Table 16 shows that certain items in the balance sheet decreased about 90 million dollars while others increased about 10 million dollars, a net decrease of about 80 million dollars in the period. As this table denotes, the principal item accounting for the decrease was a decrease of 69 million dollars in the value of capital assets; timber land, other land, buildings, etc. In approximately the same period in which the capital assets decreased by the amount of 69 million dollars, depreciation and depletion were written off in the amount of about 75 million dollars. In gauging the significance of the decrease in capital assets, it should be borne in mind that there were only 395 companies reporting in 1937 as compared with 420 in 1931. Table 16 also shows that there was a decrease of over 38 million dollars in the common stock of the industry during the period. Table 15 indicates that practically all this change occurred between 1934 1935» With respect to decreases in ac- counts, notes, bonds, and mortgages payable, which decrease amounted to about 21 million dollars in the period, the change occurred primarily between 1931 and 1932. The table also denotes that dividends (cash and stock) amounting to about 34 million dollars were paid during the period. Government Loans Granted to the Industry. 1/ Information supplied by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation indicates that 69 Douglas fir companies in the States of Washington and Oregon have been granted loans totaling $10,700,000 during the period from June 19, 1934 to January 20, 1941. The amounts authorized have averaged $150,000.00 per company; the amounts disbursed about $110,000.00; and the amounts now outstanding average about $38,000.00 per company. 1/ See Appendix VI, question 16. Page 29 From 1928 to 1940 TABLE 11 - SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN LUMBER OPERATIONS IN THE WEST COAST REGION OF OREGON AND WASHINGTON (New, Reconditioned and Discontinued) 1928 Number Mills 1928 Annual Total Capacity 1940 Number Mills 1940 Annual Total Capacity Gain or Loss Mills Gain or Loss Capacity M. Ft. M. Ft. M. Ft. Washingtc Per Cent >n Inland Increase (4) or Decrease (-) 62 100# 1,723,066 100# K 34 S 737,856 -28 -45.2 - 985,210 -57.2 Per Cent Tidewater Increase (+) or Decrease (-) wj 112 6,602,855 71 3.549,312 -41 -36.6 -3.053.543 -46.2 Per Cent Total Increase (f) or Decrease (-) »1 174 2,325,921 105 4,287,168 -69 -39.7 -4,038,753 -48.5 Oregon Per Cent Inland Increase (f) or Decrease (~)wi 86 1,946,712 95 1,416,636 + 9 +10.0 - 530,076 -27.2 Per Cent Tidewater Increase (4-) or Decrease B 34 ■ 2,348,161 33 1,694,952 - 1 - 2.9 - 653.209 -27.8 Per Cent Total Increase (f) or Decrease (-) 120 4,294,873 128 3,111,588 + 8 + 6.7 -1,183,285 -27.5 Oregon and Washington Per Cent Inland Increase (f) or Decrease (-) 148 3.669,778 I29 2,154,492 -19 -12.8 -1,515,286 -41.3 Per Cent Tidewater Increase (f) or Decrease (-) 146 8,951»016 104 5,244,264 -42 -28.8 -3.706,752 -41.4 Per Cent Total Increase (4*) or Decrease (-) 294 12,620,794 233 7.398,756 -61 -20.7 -5,222,038 -41.4 Note: This record includes A, B, and 0 mills only with capacity ratings of 26,000 feet B. M. and over per 8-hour day. Source: Industrial Facts Department, West Coast .Lumbermen1 s Association. page 30 TABLE 12 - LUMBER OPERATIONS IN THE WEST COAST REGION OF OREGON ANO WASHINGTON (New, Reconditioned and discontinued) 1928-19J5-19A0 19 2 8 1928-1955 Discontinued 1928-1935 new and Reconditioned 19 3 5 1935-19Ho Discontinued 1935-19Ho new and Reconditioned 1 9 H 0 Net Loss or gain between 1O?8-1SHO Total 1* T^A Total I T total i t Total i t Total i T Total 1 T Total 1 T total I T DISTRICT 1 J8 12 26 li H 7 5 3 2 32 11 21 18 8 10 3 2 1 17 5 12 -21 - 7 -1H District 2 31 11 20 1H 6 8 ? 3 4 26 8 18 9 3 6 1 1 18 5 13 -13 - 6 - 7 district 3 3* 9 25 9 2 7 7 5 2 32 12 20 15 7 « 1 1 18 6 12 -16 - 5 -15 District H 28 21 7 13 12 1 5 » 1 20 13 7 7 4 1 2 2 15 3 4 -13 -12 - 1 district 5 23 2 21 7 2 4 6 H 2 22 5 17 9 2 7 13 3 10 -10 ♦ 1 -11 district 6 6 6 2 2 A H 2 2 6 6 district 7-w 1! I 1_ * 2 2 11 5 6 21 10 11 7 4 1 H 2 2 18 6 12 .♦ H - 1 ♦ 5 WASHINGTON 17* 62 112 4« 27 33 Aj 2H 19 157 59 9« 65 32 33 13 7 6 105 3» 71 -69 -28 -Hl district 7-0 2« 5 7 14 7 1 4 2« 5 23 6 2 H 2 11 2« H 20 - H - 1 - 5 District 8 U 74 Hi Hi 5* 5“ «3 «3 H2 H2 H2 H2 «3 89 ♦13 *13 district 9 16 5 11 4 J 5 11 2 9 a » 17 10 2 8 H H 15 2 13 -1-3 ♦ 2 OREGON 120 86 jH 5* »5 3 72 57 15 138 98 Ho 58 H6 12 »» *3 5 128 95 33 ♦ 8 *9 - 1 WASHINGTON AND OREGON 29 A US 1*6 11H 72 *2 115 81 3H 295 157 13« 123 7« Hj 61 50 11 233 129 10H -61 -19 -A 2 note: This record incujdes a, B, and C Mills only with capacity ratings of 26,000 feet b.m. and over per eight-hour day. * 1 - Inland mills £ T - Tidewater mills SOURCE! INDUSTRIAL FACTS DEPARTMENT, WEST COAST LUMBERMEN'S ASSOCIATION TABLE 15 - SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN OPERATIONS AND ANNUAL CAPACITY RATINGS IN THE WEST COAST REGION OF OREGON ANO WASHINGTON FROM I92O TO 19*0 ALL MILLS 1920 mills 1920 annual Capacity 1920-*0 Mills Discontinued 1920-*0 Capacity discontinued 19*0 mills 19*0 annual capacity M. FT. M. FT. M. FT. District 1, Washington 3« 2,022,M60 21 1,229,316 17 793,152 2 31 1,131,221 13 *16,261 10 71*,960 3 5» 1,339,95* 16 722,17* 10 617,760 M 20 l,022,M96 13 601,296 15 *21,200 5 23 1,7'5,«» 10 1,2*5,030 13 5*0,216 6 6 237,035 27,515 6 209,520 7 1* 707.515 ♦ * ♦ 202.0M7 10 990.560 TOTAL 17* «,325,921 69 *,030,753 105 *,207,160 PER CENT INCREASE (♦) OR DECREASE (-) 100.0 100.0 -59.7 -*0.5 7, OREGON 20 1,907,902 * 610,606 2* 1,297,296 0 7« 1,522,5** ♦13 309,060 «5 1,212,516 9 LÌ O6M.507 1 262.751 15 601.776 TOTAL 120 *,29*,075 ♦ 0 1,105,205 120 3,111,500 per Cent increase (♦) or decrease (-) ♦ 4.7 -27.5 Total Oregon and Washington 29* 12,620,79* -61 5,222,030 230 7,55»,754 per Cent Increase (♦) or decrease (-) -20.7 -»1.» INLAND .MILLS district 1, Washington 12 266,007 7 14',555 5 62,200 2 11 266,69* 6 5»,«5' 5 176,0*0 3 9 552»41» 5 156,05* 6 196,560 M 21 725,717 12 533,909 9 191,000 5 6 2 *9,767 ♦ 1 3,327 5 *6,**o 7 -7 101.*67 1 56.667 6 6*.800 TOTAL 62 1,723,066 20 905,210 >*• 737,056 per cent Increase (♦) or decrease (-) -'5.2 -57.2 7, OREGON 5 351,57« 1 106,330 M 165,2*0 s 74 1,522,5«' ♦13 309,060 «5 1,212,516 9 •J 72.750 5 55.070 2 30.080 TOTAL 06 1,5'4,712 ♦ 9 530,076 95 1, *16,636 per cent Increase (♦) or Decrease (-) ♦10.0 -27.2 Total Oregon and Washington iMO 5,«4,,77» -19 1,515,206 129 2,15*,*92 Per Cent Increase (♦) or decrease (-) -12.0 -*1.5 TI DEWATER Ml LU district 1, Washington 26 1,795,661 1* 1,06*,717 12 750,5" 2 20 06*,527 7 325,607 13 530,920 3 25 9*7,520 13 566,120 12 *21,200 M 7 296,779 1 47,5'7 6 229,392 5 21 1,7J5»"7 11 1,2*1,711 10 »55,774 6 6 237,035 27,515. 6 209,520 7 7 606.0*6 ♦ 5 ♦ 259.51* 12 925.560 TOTAL 112 6,602,055 *1 5,«55,5»5 71 3,5*9,312 PER CENT INCREASE (♦) OR DECREASE (-) -56.6 -*6.2 7, Oregon 23 l,556,*O* 5 *2*,3*0 20 1,132,056 0 9 IL 791.757 ♦ 2 Z 220.061 15 562.096 TOTAL 5» 2,3*0,161 1 455, M5 33 l,45»,55i per Cent increase (♦) or decrease (-) - 2.9 -27.0 Total Oregon and Washington 1M6 0,951,016 *2 3,706,752 10* 5,2**,26* Per Cent increase (*) or decrease (-) -20.0 -*!.* Note 1» This record includes a, B, and c mills only with capacity ratings of 26,000 feet b. m. and over per 8-hour day. note 2. Capacity Ratings Figures as follows: 192a - MS-hour week, so-week year; 1955 - Mo-hour week, 50-week year; 19M0 - Mo-hour week, 10% allowed - or hourly _i^g_=_M=week_year<_________________________________________________source: industrial Facts department, west Coast Lumbermen * s assoc 1 at 1 on • Pace 52 TABLE 14 - ACTIVE AND IDLE SAWMILL CAPACITY, BY DISTRICTS, WEST COAST OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON, 1929-153$. (Capacity m bd. ft. Per « hrs.) Total Washington and Oregon, west SIDE Washington, west side OREGON. WEST SIDE Total NORTH Puget Sound Central Puget Sound South Puget Sound Grays Harbor AND Willapa harbor COLUMB1A river Total Columbia River Willamette River NORTH Oregon coast South Oregon Coast Umpqua R IVER Rogue RIVER Total sawmill capacity 1929 us,oau 1931 M2»g5O 1933 40,«59 1935 5«,O«6 1937 ^,^5 1939 3*,718 27.07*1 25,731 24,09« 21,865 19,837 18,213 5,851 5,7*0 5,598 *,235 3,77* 3,230 10,010 9,205 8,521 7,503 6,330 6,161 3,649 3,152 2,592 2,545 2,547 2, *113 4,854 *,9*2 *,351 *,303 3,6** 3,204 2,710 2,692 3,036 3,277 3,5*2 3,205 18,010 17,099 16,761 16,223 17,008 16,505 5,980 5,922 5,938 5,602 5,816 5,137 6,399 6,200 5,983 5,77* 6, *61 6,647 1,3*8 1,301 1,242 1,1*5 818 «56 2,309 2,017 2,007 1,976 2,029 2,058 1,026 722 756 675 7*3 «50 94« 937 835 1,051 1,141 997 active Capacity 1929 40,9«« 1931 51,890 1933 32.200 1935 55»5T5 1937 35.312 1939 32.793 / 25,070 19,367 19,070 19,863 19,082 17,075 5,289 *,297 4,156 3,872 3,586 2,757 9,21* 7,958 7,15*1 6,«48 6,029 5,938 3,311 1,919 2,011 2,3*6 2,371 2,305 *,70* 2,77* 2,921 3,6*7 3,62* 2,939 2,552 2, *19 2,848 3,150 3,*72 3,136 15,918 12,523 13,130 13,710 16,230 15,71« 5,2*0 *,3«0 5,060 *,780 5,639 5,078 5,915 *,533 *,375 4,815 6,13* 6,310 1,208 1,168 922 l,04j 7*1 759 1,7** 1,511 1,6*3 1,621 2,012 1,890 923 2*4 502 614 655 819 «8« 687 62« «37 1,049 «62 idle Capacity 1929 4,096 1931 10,940 1933 «.659 1935 *,513 1937 1.533 1939 1.925 2,004 6,364 5,02« 2,000 755 1,138 562 1,443 1,462 363 1«« *73 796 1,247 1,367 655 301 223 338 1,233 581 199 176 10« 150 2,16« 1,4 JO 656 20 265 15« 273 1«« 127 70 69 2,092 *,576 3,631 2,513 778 787 740 1,5*2 878 822 177 59 4«4 1,667 1,608 959 327 337 1*0 133 320 102 77 97 565 506 36* 355 17 148 103 *78 25* 61 8« 11 60 250 207 214 92 135 INCREASE (*) OR DECREASE (-) IN 1939 OVER 1929 IN M BD. FT. TOTAL -10,566 active - «,195 Idle - 2,171 -«,861 -7,995 - M H N OX MX W XÄ UX «XI «XI 1 1 1 -3,849 -3,276 - 573 -1,236 -1,006 - 23O -1,650 -1,765 ♦ 115 ♦ *95 ♦ 58* - 89 -1,505 - 200 -1,305 WX «XI «4 J* » DO »HX» 1 1 1 ♦ 2*« ♦ 395 - 1*7 - *92 -*»9 - *3 - 271 ♦ 146 - 417 - 19* - 104 - 92 ♦ 49 * 26 ♦ 75 PERCENT 1939 IS OF 1929 TOTAL 77.0 ACTIVE «0.0 IDLE 47.0 67.3 6«.l 56.« 55.2 52.1 84.2 61.5 64.4 28.0 66.1 69.6 32.0 66.0 62.5 176.7 118.3 122.9 *3.7 91.6 98.7 37.6 85.9 96.9 8.0 103.9 106.7 69.6 63.5 62.8 69.3 «8.3 108.4 26.2 <0.9 88.7 10.7 105.2 97.1 225.0 source: pacific northwest Forest ano Range Experiment Station Page 55 TABLE 15 - ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE SAWMILL AND PLANING MILL INDUSTRY IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON 1951—1957 average 1951-1957 percent of Total 1951 1952 1955 X«» 1955 1956 1957 NUMBER OF COMPANIES REPORTING 596 *20 589 57« *0* >5» 588 595 assets: Cash $ 6,827 1.9 1 5»9«9 1 6,686 IN THOUSANDS $ 6370 $ 7,7*7 $ 6,899 $ 8,1*0 $ 8,060 notes and amounts receivable 2*,657 4.7 55399 5*,*61 19,895 18,590 22,926 22,*0* 18,*28 Inventories 50,866 83 5*,*82 2*,*5° 27. «0 29,2*7 29,*87 52,57« 3M7» Investments, Government obligations 5»52* • 9 5,975 5,991 *,255 5,902 2,580 2,*51 2,555 Investments, other 5«,»7* 10.5 56,611 57,578 57,803 **,9** 54343 56,9«7 5«,952 Capital assets, Timber Land, other land, buildings and Equipment 2*8,816 67.6 292,0*5 275,567 252350 252,198 222,6** 22*,*55 222,575 other assets ll|,011 5.« 15,599 10,706 20,277 1MH 15.155 10,258 113 M total assets: $566,975 100.0 $U20,MOO $595,219 $568,791 $57*365 $555,952 $557355 $5*o,**5 Liabilities: accounts payable (1) 1 51,**9 8.6 $ 50,155 $ 55,562 $ 5*,10* $ 52,505 $ 27,550 $ 29,*11 $ 1537* BONDS, NOTES, AND MORTGAGES PAYABLE 26,6711 7.5 2H,725 27,095 20,806 25,988 2*,505 2*,852 *0,950 OTHER LIABILITIES 15,228 11.2 19,851 17,192 11,166 1*33* 15355 12,85* 1*,185 Capital stock, preferred 11,607 5.2 15,5*7 15..0 12,20* 10,999. 10,505 «.547 12,7*6 Capital Stock, Common 150,029 55.* 1*9,962 1K,„1 155,887 1*5,581 110,57« 112,022 111,62* surplus ano Undivided profits (net) 151,9» 11.1 162 302 155.535 151.62* 1*9.260 1*8.065 1*9.567 1*7,866 total liabilities: 15^6,975 100.0 $*20,Moo $595,219 $568,791 $57*,965 $555,952 $557355 $5*O,**5 (1) FROM 1951 TO 1956 THIS ITEM ALSO INCLUDED NOTES PAYABLE« SOURCE: Tabulated by the Tariff Commission from summaries compiled by the bureau of Internal revenue. Page 34 TABLE 16 - SUMMARY COMPARISON OF BALANCE SHEETS FOR I93I AND 1937 FOR REPORTING CORPORATIONS IN THE SAWMILL AND PLANING MILL INDUSTRY, WASHINGTON AND OREGON (All Values in 1,000 Dollars) I93I 1937 Increase Decrease Number of returns with balance sheets 420 395 25 Assets: Cash 3.939 8,060 4,071 Notes and accounts receivable 35,399 18,428 17.471 Inventories 34,482 38,170 3,688 Investments, Government obligations 3.975 2,335 1,640 Investments, other 36,611 32.932 2,321 Capital assets, timber land, buildings, etc. 292,045 222,575 69.470 Other assets 13.399 11,945 1,454 Total Assets 420,400 340,445 10,080 90,035 Liabilities: Accounts and notes payable 50.135 ) 54,024 20,834 Bonds and mortgages payable 24,723 ) Other liabilities 19,331 14,185 5,646 Capital stock, preferred 13.347 12,746 601 Capital stock, common 149,962 111,624 38.338 Surplus and undivided profits (net) 162,402 147,866 14,536 Total Liabilities 420,400 340,445 79,955 Accumulation of depreciation and depletion accounts, profits and losses, income tax payments, and dividends paid by sawmill and plan-* ing mill companies in Washington and Oregon - from the end of 1931 through 1937* (The number of companies reporting were 416 in 1932; 409 in 1933; 439 in 1934; 429 in 1935; 425 in 1936; and 414 in 1937.) Period 1932-1937 Depreciation Depletion Net Loss Total income tax payments Dividends paid (cash and stock) 44,691 30,295 21,400 4,281 34,096 Source: Data tabulated from information obtained from the Bureau of Internal Revenue. PAGE 55 TABLE 17 - SUMMARIZED INFORMATION OBTAINED BY QUESTIONNAIRE FROM A REPRESENTATIVE GROUP OF LOGGERS AND SAWMILL OPERATORS IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON FOR 19*0 AND JANUARY, 19*1 YEAR 19*0 JANUARY. 19*1 Washington Oregon — . total unit per M FEET WASH 1NGTON Oregon Total Unit per M FEET NUMBER OF COMPANIES REPORTING 51 2* 55 14 Ik 52 Percentage of lumber production covered 50.2 A. Logs: production (m ft. log scale) 2,200,545 970,545 5,170,764 LOG SCALE iko,562 *4,127 144,*49 LOG SCALE Total cost of logs ( (1) (*) Incl.) $25,704,225 $10,900,757 $56,604,942 $11.55 $1,457,722 $55»,756 $2,592,*54 $12.69 (1) STUMPAGE 5,**1,592 2,595,*74 7,45*.470 2.*7 560,419 112,179 *72,994 2.51 (2) Labor 11,556,096 *,154,*64 15,71*,56* k.96 77*,557 255,*21 1,027,774 5.»5 (5) DEPRECIATION 1,**1,5*0 415,506 2,256,4*6 .71 77,150 56,050 115,160 .60 (*) ALL OTHER LOG COSTS 7,269,197 5,555,505 10,402,702 5.*1 6*5,*16 155,106 774,522 ».15 B. LUMBER PRODUCTION (M FT. BOARD MEASURE) 2,246,6*6 1,271,405 5,558,*51 BOARD MEASURE 167,470 4*,759 252,629 BOARD MEASURE TOTAL COST OF LUMBER ( (1) (*) INCL.) (1) LOGS 1*2,526,*74 $21,625,655 $6*,150,111 $14.05 $5,*2«,772 $1,590,*74 $5,019,250 $19.47 OWN LOGS USED 1?,959,42* 7,066,550 20,006,17* 5.62 1,09*,049 564,574 1,662,667 6.54 Purchased logs used 11,695,017 *,915,2*0 16,606,257 k.67 769,97* 5*4,557 1,114,511 ».»5 Purchased lumber used3/ 1,200,*99 152,012 1,552,511 .57 97,599 97,599 .59 TOTAL 25,455,5*0 12,111,602 57,9**,9*2 10.66 1,961,*62 917,115 2,474,577 11.*0 (2) Labor 11,291,269 6,*5*,4*9 17,726,114 k.94 4*2,515 *17,549 1,259,70» ».99 (5) DEPRECIATION 1,775,075 476,002 2,651,075 .75 1*1,616 66,575 204,149 .42 (*) ALL OTHER LUMBER COSTS l/ 5,626,796 2,201,140 5,427,976 1.6k. »45,579 149,*01 672,740 2.66 C. Total cost of Products sold ( (1) (5) incl.) 3/ $5»,750,407 $25,525,054 $40,055,4*5 $5.9O*,**2 $1,655,690 $5,55«,152 (1) logs sold as such Quantity (m ft. log scale) 1,055,770 267,542 1,521,552 Log scale 61,967 7,240 69,2*7 LOG SCALE COST $11,465,575 $ 5,572,626 $15,*54,201 $11.64 $ 750,4*5 $ 165,*5* $ 49»,279 $12.91 (2) LUMBER QUANTITY (M FT. BOARD MEASURE) 2,*05,452 1,292,195 5,694,027 BOARD MEASURE 165,626 42,115 2*5,7*1 BOARD MEASURE COST 1*2,465,252 $21,750,*12 $6*,615,6k* $17.»7 $5,175,597 $1,*70,256 $*,6*5,«55 $14.90 (5) Other Products cost $ $ $ $ — $ $ — 0. gross Sales of all products ( (1) (*) incl.) $72,027,11* $50,525,450 $102,550,9»* $5.697,726 $2,2*1,564 $7,959,09» (1) LOGS SOLD AS SUCH QUANTITY (M FT. LOG SCALE) 1,055,770 267,542 1,521,552 LOG SCALE 61,967 7,240 69,2*7 LOG SCALE AMOUNT $1*,7*9,244 $5,9*4,075 $14,697,565 $14.15 $ 961,12* $ 155,5»« $1,096,672 $15.4» (2) LUMBER QUANTITY (M FT. BOARD MEASURE) 2,*05,452 1,292,195 57694,027 BOARD MEASURE 165,626 <2,115 2*5,7*1 Board Measure AMOUNT $55,502,064 $25,*97,»15 $40,799,*45 $21.45 $*,56*.576 $2,051,90* $6,616,*40 $26.92 (5) other Products amount $ $ — $ — $ — $ $ (*) by-products amount $ 1,975.754 $ 1,074,5*0 $ 5.05k.094 $ 172.026 4 51.216 4 225,9*2 total $72,027,11* $50,525,450 $102,550,9kk $5,697,726 $2,2*1,564 47,959,09» less: (5) CLAIMS ANO ALLOWANCES 445,702 255,625 1,1*1,525 49»205 25,1*7 112,550 (6) SHIPPING EXPENSES 2,2*1,5** 795,667 5,057,211 16*,945 60,990 2?5,975 (7) selling Expenses 5,042,157 1,100,115 k,142,270 20*,941 «9,75» 29»,715 (I) Net Sales of all products $65,417,711 $24,572,*27 $9*,190,154 $5,254,559 $2,067,*97 $7,506,056 t. Gross profit from operations (d. minus C.) Less: $11,046,90* $5,0*9,549 $1*,156,295 $1,55*.117 $ *55,407 $1,767,92» ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER GENERAL EXPENSEs((l) (?) INCL.) (1) SALARIES AND WAGES 1,500,69* 511,264 2,011,962 44,027 *2,595 150,»22 (2) INTEREST PAID 569,1*5 5«5,*77 492,620 11,465 24,426 »0,691 (J) ALL OTHER GENERAL EXPENSES 2,510,126 946,507 5,296,655 105,794 55,950 159,72« F. net Profit from operations $6,906,9*1 $1,024,157 $7,955,074 $1,150,*27 $ 526,656 $1,»57,045 (Continued) pare 36 TABLE 17 (CONTINUED) - SUMMARIZED INFORMATION OBTAINED BY QUESTIONNAIRE FROM A REPRESENTATIVE GROUP OF LOGGERS AND SAWMILL OPERATORS IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON FOR 19*0 AND JANUARY, 19*1 book value - dec. 31, 19*0 DEPRECIATED VALUE - DEC. 31, 19*0 depreciated value - dec. 31, 1939 Washington Oregon Total Washington Oregon TOTAL Washington Oregon total NUMBER OF COMPANIES REPORTING C. ASSETS (1) Timber and Timberland (2) real Estate (plant site) (9) logging railroad and Equipment (*) SAWMILL, PLANER, SHED, ETC. BUILDING ANO EQUIPMENT TOTAL number of companies reporting h. inventories^ Logs Lumber total I I NUMBER OF COMPANIES REPORTING I. miscellaneous information (1) total log production (m ft. Log scale) (2) total operating man-hours on logs 2/ (3) Total payroll - logging operations (*) TOTAL LUMBER PRODUCTION (M FT. BOARD MEASURE) (5) total man-hours on lumber 2/ (6) total Payroll - Lumber operations (7) UNUSUAL SHUT-DOWN PERIODS (a) on account of strikes (b) other causes total shut-down period 28 $79,072,679 2,915,837 25,*53,572 *9,611,117 157,051,205 12 $12,38*,215 1,365,505 8,3*2,076 13,961,718 36,053,51* *0 $91,*56,89* *,279,3*2 33,795,6*8 63,572,835 193,10*,719 29 $78,9*7,275 2,913,238 13,73*,25* 22,119,08* 117,713,<51 20 $16,513,7*9 1,60*,020 *,712,622 8,*18,150 31,2*8,5*1 *9 $95,*61,02* *,517,25« 18,**6,876 50,557,25* 1*8,962,592 29 $80,*59,1*5 2,987,861 1*,2*0,139 25,319,355 121,006,*98 20 $17,719,201 1,603,111 5,527,*2* 8,580,67* 55,*50,*10 *9 $»8,178,3*6 *,590,972 19,767,565 . 31,900,027 15*.*56,908 DECEMBER 31. 19*0 DI ECEMBER 81. 1989 Washington OREGON Total WASHINGTON OREGON TOTAL 5° $3,399,750 5,916,758 9,316,508 21 $1,1*2,076 2,93*,*28 *,076,50* 51 $*,5*1,826 8,851,186 13,393,012 30 $2,691,*59 • 6,958,5*2 9,630,001 21 $1,122,311 2,392,960 5,515,271 51 $3,813,770 9,351,502 15,1*5,272 YEAR 19*0 WASHINGTON Oregon Total 27 1,879,7** 10,955,681 $9,98*,619 2,115,396 15,536,687 $12,3*1,169 Plant Days 523 195 718 18 519,807 2,965,365 $2,325,«51 1,001,631 8,789,*25 $5,629,17* PLANT DAYS 8 177 185 *5 2,399,551 13,921,0*6 $12,309,670 3,117,027 2*,326,112 $17,970,3*3 plant days 531 572 903 SOURCE: QUESTIONNAIRE SUBMITTED BY OPERATORS, SUBSEQUENTLY CHECKED AT THE INDIVIDUAL MILLS BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ADVISORY COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL OF NATIONAL DEFENSE* 1/ SEE APPENDIX VI QUESTION 1*. 2/ SEE APPENDIX VI QUESTION 15. _$/ COST AFTER INVENTORY ADJUSTMENT. PAGE 3? TABLE 1( - COSTS ANO PROFITS DERIVED FROM OPERATIONS OF A REPRESENTATIVE GROUP OF LARGE ANO SMALL SAWMILLS IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON FOR 19*0 AU SAWMILLS LARGE SAWMILLS (MILLS PRODUCING OVER $0 MILLION FEET OF LUMBER n 19O0) SMALL MIUS (MILLS PRODUCING LESS THAN 50 MILLION FEET OF LUMBE p in 19*0) Washington unit UNIT UNIT WASHINGTON UNIT unit WASHINGTON UNIT and PER WASHINGTON PER OREGON PER AND PER WASHINGTON PER Oregon PER ANO PER OREGON M FEET M FEET M FEET OREGON M FEET M FEET M FEET OREGON M FEET NUMBER OF COMPANIES REPORTING *7 11 « 12 11 11 21 AVERAGE YEARLY PRODUCTION PER MILL (LUMBER - M. BO. FT.) 75,712 190,661 109,227 100,1*7 29,201 29,2»! 2(35» A. LOGS PRODUCTION (M. FT. LOG SCALE) 2,*6«,(27 1,600,*20 591,567 2,231,917 (0,377 156363 2363*0 Loa scale LOG SCALE LOG SCALE LOG SCALE Log scale LOG SCALE Loo SCALE TOTAL COST OF LOGS ( (1) (*) INCL.) ♦2?,63*,195 ♦11.19 ♦1(,(33,(** ♦11.0( ♦6,3$2,(*2 ♦10.70 ♦2$,1(6,616 ♦11.2( 925,«5» ♦11.52 (1,521,655 ♦9.75 ♦2,»»?,5«9 ♦10.55 (1) STUMPAGE 5,90»,»30 2.59 3,020,952 2.55 1,007,563 2.3« 5,221,515 2.50 2(1,350 5.50 59»,565 2-52 675,915 23$ (?) Labor _j/ 12,153,320 *.92 0,725,570 5.52 2,*20,006 0.09 11,105,376 0.99 3*6,0(1 ».51 661,(63 ».25 i,oo?,9»k *36 (J) DEPRECIATION 1,527,207 .62 905,5*6 .55 *$0,12* .76 1,555,710 .61 60,659 .75 no, «3« .71 171397 .72 (*) ALL OTHER COSTS (,0*9,23« 5.26 5,5(1,956 5.20 2,075,109 5.51 7,057,01$ 5.50 257,76* 2.96 55»,5«9 237 592,155 2.50 B. LUMBER Production (m. ft. board measure) 3,55«,»51 Bd. measure 1,(77,270 075,017 2,751,01? *09,376 597,9(( (07,36» Lumber Prop, BO. MEASURE BP, measure Bd. measure BD. MEASURE BD. MEASURE Bo. measure Total cost of Lumber ( (1) (*) incl.) (6*.150.Ill ♦l(.03 3*,731,oko ♦10.50 1$,1*2,923 ♦17-55 09,175,963 ♦K.15 7,79535« ♦19.0» 6,*«0,710 ♦16.2« 1»,2?6,1»( 17.6« (1) Logs Own logs used zo, 006,1711 5.62 12,*(6,610 6.6$ 5,7*5,020 6.5« 11,232,03* 6.63 055,210 1.11 1,520,526 5.52 1,775,7*0 2.20 Purchased Logs used 16,606357 *.67 7,520,150 5.90 2,631,395 5.01 9,955,509 3.62 0,36(363 10.6? 2,2(1,(»5 5.75 6,6$o,?o( (3* Purchased lumber used 1.552,511 .57 919,90* .*9 59,70* .07 979,611 .55 2«o,595 .6( 72,22« .1« 552,(25 35 total ♦57,9**,9*2 ♦10.66 2O,73O,66( 11.0* *,037,003 9.66 29,167,671 10.60 5,102,672 12. k6 5,67»,599 9.25 «,777,271 103? (z) Labor 17,726,11* *.9« 9,276,3*7 ».9* »,551,77« 5.21 13,121,165 5.03 2,01k,((2 ».92 13«3371 »•75 5 397,953 ».«5 (?) DEPRECIATION 2,651,075 .75 1,(25,67* .07 67*.550 .77 2,30*,02* .(0 109,599 .57 197,652 .50 5*7351 35 (*) all other lumber costs 5,«27,976 1.6* 5392,511 1.6$ 1,075,792 1.69 0,570,103 1.66 52«,0(5 1.29 725,3«« 1.(2 1355375 1.55 (bd. measure (BD. MEASURE (bo. measure (bd. measure (bo. measure (Bo. measure (Bo. measure lumber sold) LUMBER SOLD) Lumber sold) LUMBER SOLD) LUMBER SOLD) LUMBER SOLD) Lumber sold) C. total Cost of products solo ( (1) (j) incl.)_^/ ♦71.099.090 ♦19.23 *0,(36,666 20.71 1$,60*,*16 17.55 563*1,152 19.73 7,929,061 1(3? 6,?2«3«5 16.69 1»,65?,9»6 17.51 (1) Logs sold as such quantity (m. ft. log scale) 616,(62 55*,9O9 51,611 5*6,520 15,719 16,623 50,5*2 cost ♦6,**5,*5* ♦ 1.76 5,6*9,(02 2.07 505,9*1 .59 5,995,715 2.10 251,093 .5« 256,57* .59 »«7,671 .59 (2) LUMBER QUANTITY (M. FT. BOARD MEASURE) 5.69*,027 1,971,(52 1*9,06* 2,160,916 *35,9(0 »03,151 «57,111 COST ♦6*,615,6** ♦17.07 35,1(6,(6* 17.0* 15,25*,505 17.16 50,0*$,369 17.63 7,67*,36« 17.69 7 3 91,907 16.10 1»,170,275 16.92 (3) other products cost D. Gross Sales of all Products ( (1) (*) incl.) ♦92,3*5»501 ♦20.97 55,0*7,559 27.92 19,179,55* 21.57 70,227,117 25-95 9,900,739 22. «1 «,215,525 20.3« 10,116,26» 21.6* (1) LOGS SOLD AS SUCH QUANTITY (M. FT. LOG SCALE) 616,162 550,909 51,611 516,$20 15,719 16,623 30,3*2 AMOUNT ♦ (,*(9,(00 ♦ 2.29 7,275,516 5.69 507,790 .61 7,(23,106 2.75 595,156 .91 271,55« .6? 666,69* • 79 (z) Lumber quantity (m. ft. board Measure) 3,690,027 1,971,052 «9,06* 2,(60,916 »55,9«o »03351 «57,111 AMOUNT ♦00,799,*03 ♦21.05 06,025,510 25.50 17,976,*5* 20.22 6k,002,176 22.37 9376,750 21.3« 7,520,557 1(.66 16,797,507 20.0? (5) other products amount (*) by-products amount ♦ 5.O50.O9« ♦ .03 1,706,925 .09 650,910 .70 2,*01,(5$ .15 22(,(53 .52 »25330 1.0$ Total ♦92.5O5.5Ol ♦20.97 55,0*7,559 27.92 19,179,55« 21.57 70,227,117 25.95 9,900,739 22.(1 «,215,525 20.30 1«,11636» 21.6* Less: (5) CLAIMS AND ALLOWANCES ♦ 1,120,(93 ♦ .30 7(0,(11 .Oo 17(3(1 .20 95«392 .5» (»,»59 .19 77,5*2 .19 162,001 .19 (6) SHIPPING EXPENSES 3,036,9(6 .02 1,967,5*5 1.00 520,9*6 .59 2392,291 .(7 275,9?» .63 270,721 .6? 5»»,695 .65 (?) selling Expenses 0,150,0(1 1.12 2,70*,09( 1.57 711,66$ .10 5,015,763 1.19 55»,O6( .«2 5«»,590 .95 73«,65« 3« (() net sales of all products ♦(*,031,0(1 ♦22.75 09,595,505 25.15 17,76*,(66 19.91 67,360,171 25.55 9,1««,23« 21.1? 7 »«2,672 K.57 16,670,910 19.92 E. Gross profit (or loss) from operation z/ (d minus c) ♦12,951,9(5 ♦5.50 0,750.659 0.** 2,160,3*0 2.03 10,919,019 5.(2 1,25«,777 2.90 75»,H7 l.(( 2,012,96* 231 less: Administrative ano other general expenses ( (1) (3) Incl.) (1) SALARIES AND WAGES ♦1,(2*392 ♦ .09 1,075,015 .50 261,223 .29 1,55535« .07 279,576 .6» 209,6?« .52 *«935» •51 (z) Interest paio 075,011 .2* 515,551 .16 392,012 .00 707,563 .25 »5,25« .10 120,210 .50 165,»»« • 20 (j) ALL OTHER GENERAL EXPENSES 5,055,190 .05 1,025,023 .95 55«,551 .63 2,5(5,950 .15 595,255 .91 2?»,011 .6( 669,2k* 30 F. NET PROFIT FROM OPERATIONS z/ ♦7,1(13(2 ♦ 1.90 5,505,050 Z31 9*1,61* 1.07 6,*92,060 2.27 55«,750 1.25 150,211 .5« 6(9,01« 35 _1/ COST AFTER INVENTORY ANO ADJUSTMENT. THE PROFITS SHOWN IN THIS TABLE ARE THE COMBINED PROFITS REALIZED FROM THE SALES OF LOGS, LUMBER ANO LUMBER BY-PRODUCTS BY THE COMPANIES CONTRIBUTING TO THIS TABLE; THESE PROF 1’8 SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH THE PROFITS REALIZED BY THESE COMPANIES FROM THE SALE OF LUMBER ALONE. THE PROFITS ON LUMBER ANO ITS BY-PROOUCTS ARE SHOWN IN A LATER TABLE OF THIS REPORT, ANO THE TEXT OF THE REPORT DISCUSSES THE PROFITS ON LOGS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE PROFITS ON LUMBER. IN DEVELOPING THE UNIT PROFIT PER THOUSAND FEET THE BASIS USED WAS LUMBER SOLD IN THOUSANDS OF FEET, THE UNIT FIGURES ARE GIVEN TO FACILITATE THE COMPARISON OF THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS WHICH MAKE UP THE PROFIT TN THE TWO STATES AND IN THE LARGE ANO SMALL PLANTS. see Appendix VI question 11. SOURCE!- QUESTIONNAIRES SUBMITTED BY OPERATORS, SUBSEQUENTLY CHECKED AT THE INDIVIDUAL MILLS BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ADVISORY COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL OF National DEPENSE. Page 38 Present Earning Capacity of the Industry. The field study conducted by the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense covering the operations of the industry in 1940 and for January, 1941, furnishes information by which the present earning capacity of the industry can be gauged. All of the information obtained by questionnaire and by subsequent field checking is summarized in Table 17. A total of 55 companies contributed the figures for 1940; }1 of these companies were in Washington and 24 were in Oregon. For the month of January, 1941, information was furnished by 32 mills, 18 in Washington and 14 in Oregon. The companies whose operations are summarized in Table 17 included 24 sawmills which cut their own logs (in some instances these mills contracted for a portion of the logs which were cut, and most of them purchased additional logs from outside sources); 23 mills which purchased their entire supply of logs; and 8 mills which had logging operations but did no sawing of lumber. The information summarized in Table 17 formed the basis from which further tables in this section of the report were prepared. These further tables, numbered 18 and 19, segregate the information received from the sawmills from that received from the logging companies, and these latter tables are discussed more fully later in this section of the report. In transmitting the questionnaire which resulted in obtaining the figures which are summarized in Table 17, there were certain instructions issued relative to the preparation of the form; these instructions are self-explanatory - a copy of these instructions is contained in the Appendix to this report. Table 18, as previously stated, segregates the costs and profits derived from the 47 sawmill operations in 1940, from those of the 8 logging companies. The first portion of this table shows the costs and profits derived from the combined operations of the 47 sawmills (Washington and Oregon combined). It also shows the average yearly production per mill and unit costs and unit profits per M. feet of products manufactured and sold. These units, for purposes of comparison with similar units for previous years operations are transferred individually and in total to Table 20. The general discussion of the findings respecting costs and profits will be based on Table 20, The second portion of Table 18 breaks down the totals and units shown in the first portion of the table and shows the cost and profit units separately for large mills (mills producing over 50 million feet of lumber in 1940) and for small mills (mills producing less than 50 million feet of lumber in 1940). The information for both the large and small mills is given separately for the States of Washington and Oregon and also for the combined states. Table 19 shows the costs and profits derived from operations by the 8 logging companies in 1940. Similar data respecting the operations of logging companies cannot be shown for 1941. The figures, supplied by a few companies, would disclose confidential information if published. TABLE 19 - COSTS AND PROFITS DERIVED FROM OPERATIONS OF EIGHT LOGGING COMPANIES IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON IN 1940 Quantities M. Feet Log Scale Amounts (Dollars) Unit per M. Feet Log Scale A. Production cost of logs cut Production 701,9^1 Total Cost (1) (4) incl.) (1) Stumpage (2) Labor (3) Depreciation (4) All other costs 8,97^,787 1,930,440 3,561,244 729,639 2,753,464 $12.79 2.75 5.O7 1.04 3.93 B. Cost of logs sold 1/ Quantity Amount 704,490 8,954,747 $12.71 C. Gross Sales of logs 10,207,563 $14.49 Less: (1) Claims and allowances (2) Shipping expenses (3) Selling expenses 20,432 225 27,849 $ .03 .04 D. Net Sales of Logs 10,159,057 $14.42 E. Gross Profit from Operations (D. minus B.) 1,204,310 $ 1.71 Less: Administration and other general expenses (1) Salaries and wages (2) Interest paid (3) All other 187,670 19,609 243,435 $ .27 .03 .3$ F. Net profit from operations 753,596 $ 1.07 1/ Cost after inventory adjustment. Source: Questionnaires submitted by operators, subsequently checked at the individual mills by representatives of the Advisory Commission to the Council of National De' fense. Page 39 TABLE 20 - AVERAGE COSTS AND PROfITS OR LOSS PER M FEET ON LUMBER AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON I93M - 19*10 AVERAGES FOR COMBINED STATES AVERAGES FOR SEPARATE AND COMBINED STATES 193* 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 Washington Oregon 19*10 Combined weighted 1/ A. Logs cut by lumber producers log costs: Log production Log scale 1,*95,523 2,005,858 2,8*11,070 2,953,23*1 2,025,120 2,*K(,8(H 1,720,797 7*18,030 2,*1(8,827 Costs of production $ 10.Hl $ 10.03 $ 10.52 $ 11.53 1 10.87 $ 10.(2 $ 11. *18 1 10.53 $ 11.19 STUMPAGE 2.(0 2.5( 2.5*1 2.72 2.*( 2.32 2.38 2. *1 2.39 Labor 333 33** 3.88 **.55 *1.21 **.15 5.27 **.12 **.92 DEPRECIAT ION •9* 1.17 1.36 I.30 I.31 1.37 • 5( •75 .(2 OTHER 3.2H 2.(( 2.7* 2.9( 2.89 2.78 3.27 3.25 3.2( B. Costs of Lumber and by-products Lumber Production board measure 2,1(1,1*12 2,203,192 **»307,998 3»997» *6« 2,982,897 3,520,291 2,28(,(U6 1,271,805 3,558351 ESTIMATED % OF INDUSTRY PRODUCTION 5O.O HH.0 (H.O (3.0 58.0 (5.0 50.2 Costs of Production $ 15.7* 1 15.77 $ 1(.25 $ 18.12 $ 16.9* 1 16.33 $ 18.(0 $ I7.OO $ 18.03 1 17.92 Own AND PURCHASED LOGS SAWN V 9.28 8.8*1 9.57 10.(8 9.5( 9.51 II.30 9.52 10.(( 10.52 Labor 5.(9 *1.2*1 *.33 **.95 *1.82 *-3( **.9>l 5.0( **.98 5.01 depreciation .99 .90 .71 • 7( • 80 .70 .77 .(9 .75 • 7*» all other 1.78 1.79 13*1 1.73 1.74 1.1« 1.59 1.73 13*1 1.(5 C. Profit (or loss) From lumber Operations Footage sold board Measure 1,9*5» *50 2,28*1,138 3,8(0,59** *1,0*11,225 3,032,303 *»,173,25** 2,**05,832 1,292,195 3,(98,027 gross sales (lumber and by-products) 1 I?.?« 1 17.75 $ 19.72 $ 22.21 1 19.19 $ 19.** $ 23.81 1 20.57 $ ZlSt 2230 Less: Claims and allowances .0*1 .0*1 .05 .o( .05 .05 .3( • 20 .30 .29 Shipping expenses .9*1 • 80 .79 • 81 .«5 • 79 .93 • (2 • 82 .79 Selling expenses 1.(8 1.(2 130 l.(5 1.5( 1.1*1 I.27 • 85 1.12 1.08 net sales return 15.12 15.29 17. *8 19.(9 1(.73 17.19 21.25 I8.90 20. HU 20.2*1 deduct : Cost of lumber and by-products sold 1/ 15.9* 15.80 3.37 18.20 17.00 l(.30 17.82 1(.83 17.*7 1732 gross Profit (or loss) from lumber operaticns (-denotes loss). - .82 - .51 1.11 139 .27 .89 5.M 2.07 2.97 2.82 Less: administrative and other general EXPENSES, SALARIES AND WAGES 3*1 .*1*1 .**5 .50 .53 .38 .5( • 3( • *9 • *»7 Interest paid • 5*1 .25 .15 • 1 ** .19 37 .15 • **0 .2* .27 All other .*12 .33 • **o .35 3( .30 .92 3M .83 .79 net Profit (or loss) from Lumber operations (- DENOTES loss) 1 - 2.22 $ - 1.53 $ .11 1 .50 $ - l.*5 1 .0*1 $ 1.80 1 .(7 $ 131 1 I.29V 1/ AVERAGES FOR WASHINGTON AND OREGON WEIGHTED BY PROPORTIONATE PRODUCTION OF LUMBER IN EACH STATE IN 1939. 2/ COSTS AS ABOVE AFTER INVENTORY ADJUSTMENT. j/ SEE APPENDEX VI QUESTION 7. SOURCE? FIGURES FROM 193* TO 1939 WERE COMPILED FROM INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE WEST COAST LUMBERMEN'S ASSOCIATION. FIGURES FOR I 9*10 WERE COMPILED BY THE ADVISORY COMMISSIONS TO THE COUNCIL OF NATIONAL DEFENSE FROM QUESTIONNAIRES SUBMITTED BY A GROUP OF MILLS REPRESENTING 50.2 PER CENT. OF THE INDUSTRY IN 19HO. Page 40 Tor a number of years prior to 19^0 the yearly earnings record, of the industry was not impressive. In the period 1926-1937 the industry operated at an average annual loss of nearly three million dollars a year; the years 193^ and 1939 and the first 8 months of 19^0 evidently added little towards an improvement of the earnings record. It was not until September, 19^0* that earnings in the industry began to rise. The rise in earnings was greatly accelerated in October of that year and reached a peak in the month of November. Since then the earnings have been only slightly lower. In comparing costs and profits in 19^0 with those of previous years, as has been done in Table 20, the above situation with respect to monthly operations (the averaging of the costs and profits of 8 unprofitable months with those of U profitable months) must be taken into consideration. The information obtained for January, 1941, is much more indicative of the present trends in costs and profits than is the information obtained for 1940. Unfortunately, the January, 1941, information has some inherent weaknesses not possessed by the information for 1940. These weaknesses relate to such factors as smaller coverage in number of plants and smaller percentage of total production coverage than was obtained for 1940; to the fact that many of the mills found it necessary to apportion indirect costs for the month on the basis of the previous year’s experience; to the fact that in some mills the types of products turned out in January could not be regarded as indicative of the types of products which would normally be produced in the mill over a longer period; and to the fact that most mills found it necessary to estimate inventory values for the monthly period because it is not customary for them to value their inventories monthly. These qualifications of the January, 1941, data may affect the average costs and profits to some degree, but they do not destroy their value in gauging the present trend in costs and profits to the industry. A comparison of the 1940 and 1941 information obtained in the cost study is given in Table 21. In snowing the comparison (Table 20) of costs obtained for 1940 with those of previous years back to 193^4 (the first year for which the information is available), the costs shown for the years prior to 1940 were furnished by the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association and were compiled from source material furnished by members of its association. In obtaining information for the year 1940, a considerably larger number of mills and a larger percentage of the yearly production was obtained for the State of Washington, than was obtained for Oregon. As the table indicates, both costs and profits were lower in the latter state. To adjust these conditions to a more equitable basis the costs and profits for lumber, as obtained, were weighted by the production of lumber in the two states. This weighted average is shown in the final column of the table. Based on this weighted average cost the table indicates that the average value realized from the industry’s sales of lumber increased by $2.96 per M. B. M. in 1940 over 1939? the costs of producing the lumber sold during the period increased $1.12 per M.; and the profits returned to the mills was $1.23 more per M. than it was in 1939* The weighted average profit of $1.29 1/ per M. ft. (as shown in Table 20) on the lumber operations of sawmills in 1940 is exclusive of the profits which sawmill companies derive from the sale of logs; in 1940 the profit on logs sold by the reporting mills was over 2 million dollars. In arriving at the profits on lumber and logs, the great bulk of the selling and administrative expenses have been applied to the lumber operation. Most mills do not have reliable information for separating these expenses between the various products which they produce and sell. Some considerable part of these expenses undoubtedly should be apportioned. Table 20 also indicates that the labor cost (not weighted) of producing logs, by sawmill producers, was 77 cents per M. feet more in 1940 than it was in 1939« In 1940, the labor cost 2 in producing logs was approximately 44 per cent of all log costs as compared to 39 per cent in 1939» Tor 19^40» the labor cost j/ of producing lumber was 27 g Per cent of all lumber costs as compared to 26J per cent in 1939« Table 12 shows a comparison of costs and profits per M. feet of lumber and its by-products in Washington-Oregon in 1940 and 1941. The table was prepared from information furnished to the accountants representing the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense by questionnaire submitted by 55 mills in Washington and Oregon for 1940 and 32 mills for January, 1941. 1/ See Appendix VI, question 7« 2j See Appendix VI, question 9« j/ See Appendix VI, question 10. Page 41 TABLE 21 - COMPARISON OF UNWEIGHTED COSTS AND PROFITS PER M. FEET ON LUMBER AND ITS BY-PRODUCTS IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON, 1940 - JANUARY, 1941 Washington - Oregon Combined 1940 January, 1941 A. Logs cut by lumber producers Log costs: Log production Log scale 2,468,827 188,489 Costs of production $ 11.19 $ I2.69 Stumpage 2.39 2.5I Labor 4.92 5.^5 Depreciation .62 .60 Other 2/ 3.26 >+.13 Lumber production Board Measure 3»558,451 252,629 Costs of production $ 18.03 $ 19.87 Own and purchased logs sawn 1/ 10.66 11.40 Labor 4.98 4.99 Depreciation .75 .82 All other 2/ 1.64 2.66 u. rroilt irom operations Footage sold Board Measure 3»$98,027 245,741 Gross Sales (lumber and by-products) $ 22.68 $ 27.84 Le s s • Claims and allowances . 30 .46 Shipping expenses .82 •92 Selling expenses 1.12 1.20 Net sales return $ 20.44 $ 25.26 Deduct• Cost of lumber and by-products sold 1/ 17.47 18.90 Gross profit from lumber operations 2.97 Less: 6.36 Administrative and other general expenses Salaries and wages .49 .53 Interest paid .24 .16 All other .83 .57 Net profit from lumber operations $ 1.41 $ 5.10 1/ Costs as above after inventory adjustment. 2/ See Appendix VI, question 12. Source: Compiled by thr Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense from questionnaires submitted. Page 42 IV. EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLLS 1/ Summary In the Douglas fir industry, as in the lumber industry as a whole, the volume of employment fluctuates sharply with the ups and downs of building construction. Between 1929 and 1932 employment in the logging camps and sawmills of Washington and Oregon declined by slightly more than one-half. A partial recovery began in 1933» Since 1933 there have been two periods of relatively good employment for Douglas fir workers, the first from the late summer of 1935 until the autumn of 1937» and the second from the autumn of 1939 until the present time. During the year 1940, the number of workers employed in Douglas fir was 7.6 per cent greater than the average number during the years 1935 to 1939» However, fewer workers were employed in 1940 than in the last active period, 1936-1937. and the 1940 level of employment was considerably below the levels of the 1920»s. Within any one year the number of workers employed by the Douglas fir industry changes considerably. A slack season ordinarily occurs between November or December of each year and March of the following year. The aggregate weekly pay rolls of the industry fluctuate even more widely than the number of workers employed. In good times the industry not only employs more workers, but it employs them for more hours per week and at better xevels of earnings per hour. In periods of depression or of seasonal slackness, the hours of work and the earnings per hour tend to sag at the same time that employment is decreasing. Trends of Employment, 1927*1933 No satisfactory employment figures are available prior to the year 1934 for the Douglas fir region by itself. An approximate idea of employment trends may be obtained from Census figures covering the lumber and timber products industry of the entire States of Washington and Oregon where Douglas fir predominates. Table 22 shows the Census figures on employment for 81ternate years, 1927 to 1939, covering the lumber industry of Washington and Oregon in comparison with that of the entire United States. The index numbers in Table 22 are expressed in relation to the average of the years 1935» 1937» end. 1939« 1/ The term "Douglas fir industry" as used in this chapter refers to logging and sawmill (including planing mills) operations in the west coast of Washington and Oregon. TABLE 22 - NUMBER OF WAGE BARNERS IN THE LUMBER AND TIMBER PRODUCTS INDUSTRY - WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND THE UNITED STATES, 1927*1939 Index: Average 1935» 1937» and. 1939:=1OO Year Washington and Oregon United States Number Index Number Index 1927 86,067 II5.6 413,946 144.5 1929 93.402 125.5 419,084 146.3 I93I 49,026 65.2 196,647 68.6 1933 50,238 67.5 189.367 66.1 1935 63.^73 35.3 255.230 89.1 1937 84,655 113.7 316,222 110.4 1939 75.232 101.0 287,934 100.5 Source: U. S. Census of Manufactures, lumber and timber product« industry. Includes logging camps, sawmills and planing mills including those making boxes, veneer mills, and cooperage stock mills. United States lumber production in 1927 was about equal to the average for* the decade of the 1920’s. The production of Washington and Oregon, however, in 1927 was somewhat above the average for the decade because the share of that region in the total lumber market had been increasing, especially after 1925» Production and employment in the United States lumber industry remained at a high level in 1929 notwithstanding the declining volume of building construction. As building construction continued to contract, lumber production and employment declined sharply. By 1931» employment in the United States lumber industry had fallen to 47 per cent of the 1929 average (419,084 workers to 189,367 workers, Table 22), while lumber employment in Washington and Oregon was slightly more than 50 Per cent of the 1929 average. The employment continued to decline 2/ Estimated cost of building construction in 257 cities “ 1927 347.9 million dollars 1928 330*5 million dollars 1929 293*3 million dollars Source: U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. page M TABLE 25 - INDEXES OF EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLLS BASED ON 72 IDENTICAL LOGGING AND SAWMILL ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE FIR LUMBER REGION OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON, JANUARY 1954 TO DECEMBER INCLUSIVE AVERAGE 1935-1939*100 YEAR AND MONTH INDEX of EMPLOYMENT Index of payrolls YEAR AND month INDEX OF EMPLOYMENT INDEX OF payrolls 1»» 82.2 41.7 U31 1935 «5.0 70.7 January 101.1 86.4 1?}4 111.9 111.7 February 98.0 84.1 W1 110.$ 115.5 March i»M 121.0 193« 91.9 93.* APRIL 118.2 136.2 1939 100.7 108.6 May 120.9 156.8 19 Mo 107.6 120.7 June 122.5 1*7.9 JULY 122.5 151.0 • August 121.8 137.9 SEPTEMBER 119.« 129*2 October 110.1 II5.2 XJLill NOVEMBER 96.7 92.9 January li.i 50.1 December 79.5 67.8 February 80.8 62.1 March 84.5 47.2 uu April «6.7 70.6 January 76.9 7O.7 May «7.0 65.9 FEBRUARY 79.6 7M June 77.5 57.6 March 95.1 96.9 July 75.« 50.1 April 96.2 96.5 August «3.2 60.5 may 96.0 94.5 September •5.« 65.2 June 0.» 90.9 OCTOBER «».J 45.? July «7.6 75.7 November «3.6 62.3 august 94.4 103.1 DECEMBER 81.7 62.9 SEPTEMBER 99.7 108.4 OCTOBER 97.6 111.4 lili November 96.7 102.2 January 77.* 55.9 December 93.6 96.I FEBRUARY O.J 64.9 March 87.6 70.7 issi April 91.1 77.5 January 88.5 0.« May 71.7 5M.6 February 85.8 88.5 June 37.6 23.3 March »5.» 99*9 JULY 70.3 *9.1 APRIL 100.8 105.1 august 94.0 «».7 may 101.M 113*2 SEPTEMBER 101.6 >7.» June 99.7 116.1 OCTOBER 103.2 100.5 July 100.4 102.5 November 101.3 »».5 August 104.0 112.1 DECEMBER 101.0 95.7 SEPTEMBER 105.8 111.1 OCTOBER 109.4 125.8 November 110.9 I25.I January 106.5 105.2 December 108.6 IO9.3 February 108.0 99.6 march 111.0 110.5 uU April 116. Il 118.8 January 102.2 110.7 May 117.0 122.8 February 101.2 111.3 June II5.2 1193 March 105.2 111.8 July 113.3 110.8 April 106.1 120.5 AUGUST II5.3 117.5 May 106.9 124.4 SEPTEMBER 116. 4 119.1 June 108.4 122.6 OCTOBER 116.6 122.7 July 10*.2 107.3 November 105.6 100.0 august 113.2 131.« DECEMBER 102.0 96.2 SEPTEMBER 113.9 133.6 OCTOBER 111.1 130.4 November 111.2 124.8 DECEMBER 109.9 119.5 source: Bureau of Labor statistics Page 44 in 1932» 1,/ At the bottom of the depression of the 1930’s the Douglas fir industry employed less than half the number of workers it had employed in 1929. A slow but steady recovery of employment occurred from 1933 until 1935 both in the Douglas fir region and in the entire lumber industry of the United States. This moderate recovery is reflected in a general way by the indexes shown in Table 22. It is shown in more detail in Table 23 where the indexes of employment and payrolls are given for the Douglas fir area itself by months from January, 1934, to December, 1940. The first major upward surge of employment in the Douglas fir region after 1933 began in August, 1935» Thereafter employment continued to improve until July, 1937, except for seasonal downswings in November and December, 1935» tn the period from November, 193$» to February, 1937» At the peak of this movement in July, 1937» employment in the Douglas fir area nearly reached the average level of 1929« .2/ Following the sharp business recession of 1937» employment in the Douglas fir industry declined after August of that year and continued low for the next 12 months. After July, 193^» some improvement occurred but from July, 193^» until July, 1939» the number of employees still remained below the average for the whole period, 1935 to 1939* The next upward movement in employment began in October, 1939» following the upsurge of prices that was stimulated by the European war. After the middle of 1940 this increase in employment was further stimulated by the demands of the Government for cantonment construction as well as by the many commercial demands for lumber arising indirectly from the defense program. This latest increase in employment raised the average number of workers in the Douglas fir industry for the year 1940 as a whole to 7*6 per cent in excess of the 5~year average from 1935 to 1939. In no single month of 1940, however, was employment as great as the maximum in either 193$ or 1937» and the IL/ Incomplete returns on file in the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that the number of employees in the Douglas fir region was 23 per cent lower in 1932 than in 1931* 1^ these figures are accepted, the number of employees of the Douglas fir industry in 1932 may be estimated at only 40 per cent of those in 1929 and 51 per cent of the average number in the subsequent period, 1935”1939* 2/ The Douglas fir index for July, 1937» vas 122.5 (Table 2, average of 1935-1939= 100). The Washington-Oregon index for 1929 was 125.5 (Table 1, average 1935» 1937» 1939= 100). average employment during 1940 was about 3 per cent below the averages for these two active years. Although no exact comparisons can be made with employment in the 1920’s, it appears that the Douglas fir industry, during 1940, employed about six-sevenths as many workers as it did in 1929* 3/ Fewer workers were employed in 1940 than in 192?. 4/ In comparison, production of West Coast lumber in 1940 was about 73 Per cent of the 1929 output and 75 per cent of the 1927 output on a footage basis. Irregularity of Employment No information is available to show the regularity or irregularity of employment of individual workers in the Douglas fir industry. Some indication of irregular employment is provided by the monthly indexes of employment already presented in Table 23 and by liable 25 showing, for Oregon, the per cent of employees in logging and lumbering concerns that are classified on a seasonal basis. The employment of individual workers is more irregular than can be shown by figures of average employment. The employment figures shown in Table 23 give the minimum changes in employment that would occur if the entire Douglas fir industry were operated so as to retain every worker as long as the total volume of employment remained the same. No measure is provided of the replacement of one worker by another, in another occupation or in another enterprise or by the substitution of one worker for another as a result of quits or discharges. Moreover, the employment figures do not reflect irregularity of employment within the payroll period, since all workers are counted whether employed for one hour or for the entire period. The minimum employment fluctuations shown in Table 23 are still considerable. A summary measurement of these fluctuations is presented in Table 24. The second column of that table shows that employment in 194-0 ranged from 6 per cent above the average for the year to 6 per cent below the average. This was the smallest variation that had occurred since 193^« In 1935» the number of workers employed in the month of greatest employment was 21 per cent greater than the average number employed during the year, while the number employed in the month of least employment was 56 per cent less than the average for the year. A measure of average irregularity of employment j/ The Douglas fir index for 1940 was 107.6 (Table 2, average of 1935-1939= 100). The Washington-Oregon index for 1929 was 125.5 (Table 1, average of 1935, 1937, 1939= 100). 107.6/125.5= 0.857* This index and above data refer to number of workers and are not necessarily indicative of manhours worked. For a given number of workers, man-hours might vary considerably depending upon the number of days and the number of hours each day that* the employee worked. 4/ The Douglas fir index for 1940 was IO7.6 (Table 23, average of 1935“39= 100). The Washington-Oregon index for 1927 was 115.6 (Table 22, average of 1935, 1937» 1939’ 100). 107.6/115.6= O.93I. Page 45 is provided, in the first column of Table 24. Employment was relatively stable during 1934, 1936, and 1940, but unstable during 1935 and 1937» Since 1937 employment has become more stable in each successive year. However, no general trend toward stability is discernible since 1934. Part of the reason for unstable employment is the seasonal slack period during the winter months. JL/ In each of the 5 years, 1934 to 193$» employment declined in November. In 1939 and 1940 the decline was deferred until December probably because seasonal influences were counteracted by the general increase in the demand for lumber in those years. In every year since 1934 the decisive up-turn from the period of slack employment has occurred in March although preliminary increases in employment have occurred prior to March in some years. As in previous years, employment declined seasonally toward the end of 1940 although there was 8 heavy demand for lumber in consequence of the defense program. Indeed the decline (in number of employees) 2/ set in between September and October of 1940, a month earlier than is usual. On the other hand, the number of workers employed in December was 2 per cent above the average for the year 1940. TABLE 24 - VARIATIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FROM THE MONTHLY AVERAGE IN THE DOUGLAS FIR LUMBER INDUSTRY IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON, 1934 TO 1940 Year Average Per Cent Variation from Monthly Average Maximum Per Cent Variation from Monthly Average 193U 3.9 4 5.8 to - 7.8 1935 16.6 421.4 to -55.7 1936 4.0 4 4.5 to - 8.9 1937 10.1 410.9 to -28.0 1938 6.2 4 8.4 to -16.3 1939 5.6 410.1 to -14.8 1940 3.U 4 5.9 to - 6.0 Source’ Table 23» Fluctuations in Total Payrolls. In the Douglas fir industry, as in other industries, the total amount paid to the workers varies more than the number of workers employed. During 193^» ^or example, the Douglas fir 1/ Table 27 throws some light on the seasonality of the lumber industry of the State of Oregon as a whole. 2j The decline in man-hours occurred from October to November. companies paid their workers only 62 per cent as much as they paid their workers on the average during the years 1935 to 1939 (Table 23). During 1940, on the other hand, the Douglas fir workers received 21 per cent more than the average amount they received between 1935 and 1939. In June, 1935»the gross weekly pay was less than a quarter of the average weekly amount received during 1935 to 1939 while in June, 1937» the gross weekly pay was nearly 50 per cent greater than the average from 1935 to 1939. Gross weekly payrolls vary more widely than the number of workers because of changes in the average hourly earnings of the workers and in the average number of hours worked per week. TABLE 25 - EMPLOYMENT WITH SEASONAL EMPLOYERS 1/ IN THE LOGGING AND LUMBER INDUSTRIES, 12-MONTH PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1939 (STATE OF OREGON) Branch of Industry Maximum No. of Employers Reported Per Cent Distribution of Maximum Number of Employees by Number of Months in Off-Season None 1 Mo. 2 Mo. 3 Mo. 4 Mo. 5 Mo, 6 Mo. 7 Mo. 8 Mo. q Mo. Logging Logging a 26,305 66.3 12.4 7.2 7.0 4.8 1.2 0.5 sawmills 20,178 76.6 1.0 10.2 M 3-7 2.2 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 Sawmills Sawmills 6,585 69.O 7.1 3.2 4.8 2.7 12.8 0.3 & planing mills Sawmills, 12,104 92.2 2.0 0.6 2.4 2.7 0.1 planing mills & box factories ^,355 86.1 0.6 11.2 2.1 Log haul-* ing by R.R. . 380 67.9 12.1 5.0 3»? 9.O 2.1 TOTAL 69,907 75.2 0.3 8.7 4.6 5.3 3.1* 2.0 0.4 0.1 2/ _!/ A seasonal employer has been defined by the Commission as an employer (or an operating unit of an employer) with respect to whom the Commission has found that, on account of seasonal conditions, it is impracticable to operate without curtailment of employment and whose payroll is curtailed during the same months of each of three of the last four years to such an extent that his payroll during such months falls below fifty per cent of the third highest month’s payroll for the year. 21 Less than ¿ of one percent. Source: State of Oregon Unemployment Compensation Commission. Page 46 V. WAGES 1/ Summary Average weekly earnings of Douglas fir workers in 1940 amounted to $27.44. The 1940 average was 6.5 per cent above the 1927 average and 12.8 per cent above the average during the 5-year period, 1935 to 1939» The real value of the weekly pay check in 1940, after allowing for changes in the cost of living, was 26 per cent greater than in 1927 and 11 per cent greater than the 5”year average, 1935 to 1939* Average earnings per hour in the Douglas fir industry stood at 77.6 cents in l$40 as compared with 43 cents in 1933 and 63.5 cents in 1929» A wage increase late in 1940 plus the effect of seasonal layoffs brought the average in December up to 82 cents an hour. Hourly wages are consistently higher in Washington than in Oregon, the average in December, 1940, being 83.7 cents and 76.8 cents an hour, respectively. Douglas fir workers receive higher rates of pay than other workers in the lumber industry as they have done for many years. Since 1937 wages in other geographical sections of the lumber industry have advanced somevzhat more rapidly than in the Douglas fir region. Comparisons of average wage rates paid by various industries are affected by the proportion of skilled workers in the industries. In July, 1940, the entrance rates for common labor in Washington were higher in the building construction, cement, foundry, and paper industries of Washington than in the lumber industry of that state, while the smaller industries of brick, electric power, gas, and meat packing paid lower entrance rates than did the lumber industry. Weekly Earnings The weekly earnings of workers employed in the Douglas fir industry declined steadily from an average of $25.77 1» 1927 to an average of $21.04 in 193^ (Table 26). In 1932 a further sharp decline occurred as a result of reduced rates of pay and reduced hours of work; average weekly earnings in that year amounted to only $14.18 or slightly more than half of the average in 1927. 1/ The term ’’Douglas fir industry” as used in this chapter re-” fers to logging and sawmilling (including planing mill) operations in the West Coast region of Washington and Oregon. After 1932 weekly earnings increased steadily until the boom year 1937 when the average corresponded exactly to that in 1928. Weekly earnings declined again in 1938 but rose in 1939 for the first time above the level of the 1920‘s. By 1940 the average of weekly earnings had risen to $27*44. This was 12.8 per cent above the average for the years 1935 to 1939 an^ ^*5 per cent above the figure of $25*77 attained in 1927* Cost of Living and Real Weekly Earnings. The most adequate available measure of changes in the cost of living for Douglas fir employees consists of the average of the dost of living indexes for Seattle and Portland. This index is shown in the third column of Table 26. The cost of living declined between 1927 and 1933 and rose again thereafter between 1933 and 1937* Both of these movements of the cost of living were more moderate than the corresponding movements in the weekly earnings of Douglas fir workers. In 19^0 the cost of living in Seattle and Portland was 1.4 per cent above the average during the years 1935“39 but it was 1 per cent lower than in 1937 and 15 per cent lower than in 1927* TABLE 26 - AVERAGE WEEKLY EARTHINGS AND REAL WEEKLY EARNINGS OF WORKERS IN SAWMILLS Al® LOGGING CAMPS OF THE DOUGLAS FIR REGION OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON, 1927 - 1940 Year Average Weekly Earnings Index of Cost of Living in Portland and Seattle 2j (kverage 1935-39-100) Index of Real Weekly Earnings 3/ (Average 1935-39*100) Amount 1/ Index Numbers (Average 1935-39=100) 1927 $25-77 106.0 119.9 88.4 1928 25.5s 105.2 118.3 88.9 1929 25.31 104.1 118.5 87.8 1930 25.31 104.1 116.0 89.7 1931 21.04 86.5 105.6 8I.9 1932 14.18 58-3 96.1 60.7 1933 15.50 63-7 91.4 69.7 193U 18.34 75-U 94.0 80.2 1935 20.35 83.7 96.3 86.9 1936 24.41 100.4 , 97.9 102.6 1937 25.5s 105.2 102.6 102.5 193s 24.86 102.2 101.8 100.4 1939 26.38 108.5 101.2 107.2 1940 27.44 112.8 101.4 111.2 1/ Computed from data in monthly reports to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. _2/ Average cost of living indexes for Portland and Seattle. 3/ Column 2 divided by column 3* Page 47 Both the weekly earnings of Douglas fir workers and the cost of living remained, practically unchanged, between 1927 and. 1930» but real weekly earnings, after allowing for changes in the cost of living declined, in 1931 and dropped sharply in 1932. After 1932 the real value of the average pay check of Douglas fir workers rose in every year until 193$• In 1937 the cost of living rose more rapidly than did weekly earnings so that real weekly earnings fell slightly. A further decline in real weekly earnings occurred in 193$* In 1939» however, the real value of the weekly earnings of Douglas fir workers was greater than in any previous year covered by the study. In 1940 there was a further dollar gain in weekly earnings while the cost of living remained practically stationary. Consequently, the real value of the average weekly pay check in 1940 was 11 per cent greater than in the average of the years 1935-1939 and- 26 per cent greater than in 1927. Fluctuations in Weekly Earnings. The extent of fluctuation of weekly earnings is shown in Table 27 which presents the figures for the Douglas fir industry by months from January, 1934, to December, 1940. Weekly earnings are affected by fluctuations in the hours of work as well as by changes in hourly earnings. In every year since 1933 the recurrence of short-time schedules during the slack season has resulted in a decline in weekly earnings. In 1940 weekly earnings again declined after October because of the seasonal decline in weekly hours although actual wage rates were increased at this time. General Trend of Hourly Earnings (Logging, Sawmills) 1929-1940. Monthly data on the hourly earnings of Douglas fir industry are reliable only for the period since 1933« However, it is possible to secure averages for alternate years beginning in 1929. Table 28 gives the averages of hourly earnings of Douglas fir logging and sawmill employees in 1929» 1931» and 1933 and for each year thereafter to 1940. 1/ The hourly pay of Douglas fir workers fell from 63.5 cents in 1929 to 43 cents in 1933« -he recovery which began in 1933 carried the average above the 1929 level by 193$ • 1/ The averages for 1929, 1931» and. 1933 were obtained from data collected by the National Research Project; those for 1935 to 1940 from reports of Douglas fir establishments to the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Both series checked closely with figures submitted by the West Coast Lumbermen's Association. TABLE 27 - AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS IN LOGGING AND SAWMILLS IN THE FIR LUMBER REGION OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON, 1934 TO 1940 Month 1934 1935 1936 1937 193s 1939 1940 Average Weekly Earnings January $16.08 $17.67 $23.77 $20.91 $22.47 $26.27 $26.50 February is .79 19.07 22.57 20.98 22.79 25.22 26.89 March 19.48 19.74 24.34 25. S5 24.92 25.63 26.50 April 19.93 20.80 24.97 28.20 24.55 25.51 27.77 May 18.51 11.80 25.68 27.67 24.10 27.31 28.47 June 18.17 I5.II 25.35 29.52 24.87 28.49 27.67 July I6.I7 17.08 23.92 26.17 21.15 24.91 25.20 August I7.7I 22.05 24.91 27.69 26.70 26.38 28.47 September IS.73 23.45 25.02 26.38 26.60 26.19 28.69 October 18.98 23.81 25-74 25.60 27.92 28.14 28.72 November 18.24 22.82 23.14 23.50 25.87 27.60 27.45 December 18.82 23.16 23.08 20.85 25.11 24.63 26.60 Average I8.34 20.35 24.41 25.58 24.86 26.38 27.44 Index Numbers (Averag e 1935-39=100) January 66.1 72.7 97.S 86.0 92.4 108.0 109.0 February 77.3 78.4 92.8 86.3 93.7 IO3.7 110.6 March 80.1 81.2 100.1 IO6.3 102.5 IO5.4 109.0 April 82.0 S5.5 102.7 116.0 101.0 104.9 114.2 May 76.1 48.5 105.6 113.8 99.1 112.3 II7.I June 74.7 62.1 104.3 121.4 IO2.3 117.2 II3.8 July 66.5 7O.2 98.4 107.6 87.0 102.4 IO3.6 August 72.8 9O.7 102.4 113.9 IO9.8 108.5 II7.I September 77.0 96.4 102.9 108.5 IO9.4 107.7 118.0 October 78.1 97.9 IO5.9 IO5.3 114.8 115.7 118.1 November 75.0 93.8 95.2 96.6 IO6.4 113.5 112.9 December 77.4 95.2 94.9 85.7 IO3.3 101.3 IO9.4 Average 75.4 83.7 100.4 105.2 102.2 108.5 112.8 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. A further continuous advance brought the average up to 77*6 cents per hour in 1A40. Table 28 shows separate averages of hourly earnings of workers in logging camps and in sawmills. The average pay in logging camps has been consistently above than in sawmills. At present, Page 48 the average in logging camps exceeds 85 cents an hour while the average in sawmills is only slightly above 70 cents an hour. TABLE 28 - AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS IN LOGGING, IN SAWMILLS, AND IN THE TWO COMBINED, DOUGLAS FIR REGION OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON, 1929 TO 1939 1/ Year Average Hourly Earnings (Cents) Logging and Sawmills Logging Sawmills 1929 63.5 74.4 56.3 1931 51.2 59.1 47.1 1933 43.1 50.7 39.3 193U 58.3 — 1935 60.1 68.0 55.8 1936 66.3 — — 1937 74.6 84.4 2/ 69.2 2/ 1938 74.7 — — 1939 75.3 85.2 2/ 69.9 2/ 1940 77.6 •• •• 1/ Computed from Bureau of Labor Statistics data 1935"39 and from data collected from Douglas fir firms by the National Research Project for 1929 to 1935* 2/ Estimated by assuming a constant differential in 1935» 1937» and 1939. Average Hourly Earnings in Washington and in Oregon, by Months, 193^19^0^ After the recovery of hourly earnings in 1933» the average for all Douglas fir workers remained close to 58 cents throughout 1934. (See Table 29). During the first half of 1935 the averages began to decline, but a wage increase in the middle of the year brought the averages up to 62 cents an hour in the latter months of that year. The next appreciable increase occurred in May, 193$» when a 76 cent average was obtained. The most marked increase in the whole period, 1934 to 1940, occurred in March and April of 1937» when the average hourly earnings of Douglas fir workers rose to about 76 cents. Thereafter no important change took place until the autumn of 19^0 when another up-turn brought the average in December to 81,4 cents. The increase in average hourly earnings at the end of 1940 was due in part to an actual increase in wage rates. A part may have been due to the selective effect of a seasonal decline of employment. During periods of reduced activity, employers normally lay off their least valuable workers and retain, as far as possible, their key personnel. The remaining workers may also obtain extra pay for overtime work. The effect of this is to raise the general average of hourly earnings toward the end of nearly every year even when the wage rates of individual employees remain stationary. Table 29 shows separate monthly averages of hourly earnings for the Douglas fir industry of Washington and of Oregon for the entire period 1934 to 1940. The movements of hourly earnings are very similar in the two states but the averages are consistently higher in Washington than in Oregon. Taking the year 1940 as a whole, the Douglas fir workers of Washington earned an average of 79«7 cents an hour as compared with an average of 71.4 cents in Oregon. In December, 1940, the average in Washington was 83.7 cents while that in Oregon stood at 76.8 cents an hour. Comparison of Wage Changes in Douglas Fir Lumber with Changes in the Entire Lumber Industry, 1934-1940. The hourly earnings of Douglas fir workers are higher than in those of any other major group in the lumber industry and have been so for many years. A detailed study of earnings in the lumber industry during the late summer and eax*ly fall of 1939 showed an average of 77*3 cents in the Douglas fir region compared with averages of 68.9 cents in the Western pine region, 63*7 in the redwood region, 46.4 in the northeast, and 34.6 cents in the South. 1/ In recent years hourly earnings have increased somewhat more rapidly in other parts of the industry than in the Douglas fir region. The movements of the hourly earnings of Douglas fir workers are compared with those in the whole lumber industry in Table 30* This tabulation covers the period 193^ to 1940 and is in the form of index numbers based on the averages for the years 1935 to 1939* While wages advanced more rapidly in the Douglas fir region than in the whole lumber industry between 193^ and 1937» 1/ U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Preliminary Report on the Average Hourly Earnings in the Lumber and Timber Products Industry, 1939~4O, mimeographed February 33» 1940• PAGE H9 TABLE 29 - AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS IN LOGGING CAMPS ANO SAWMILLS OF THE DOUGLAS FIR AREA OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON, MONTHLY TO 19WO Year or Month Total Douglas fir Washington OREGON year ano Month Total Douglas Fir Washington OREGON annual UH arrases January 67.*» 69.2 62.0 193* 5«.3 59.5 55.7 February 66.7 68.2 62.6 1935 60.1 61.7 56.1 March 69.9 73.9 6*1.1 1956 66.3 68.3 61.1 April 75.8 78.3 693 1937 7*1.6 76.7 69.2 May 763 78.7 69.8 193« 1».7 77.*» 68.8 June 75.9 78.2 70.0 1939 75.3 78.2 68.8 July 76.2 783 70.9 19*10 77.6 79.7 71.*• august 763 78.6 71.1 MONTHLY September 78.3 79.7 73.5 averages October 76.7 78.6 71.3 19 5*1 NOVEMBER 77.3 79.3 71.6 January 56.0 56.9 53.7 DECEMBER 76.5 78.5 71.1 FEBRUARY 5«.5 60.0 5*1.6 mi March 58.3 59.9 5*a January 75.3 77.1 71.1 April 59.5 60.9 55.8 February 7*».9 77.” 69.9 May 58.2 59.6 55.5 March 73.7 753 69.9 June 53.3 60.0 56.0 April 75.8 78.3 69.9 July — — — May 75.7 78.2 70.1 august 57.6 58.7 55.2 June 7».7 773 69.0 SEPTEMBER 57.9 59.0 55.2 July 73.3 75.5 68.7 OCTOBER 57.7 58.6 55.6 august 73.5 76.7 66.8 November 58.0 59.0 55.6 September 73.7 76.8 67.2 DECEMBER 583 59.•» 56.0 October 75.2 7«.3 67.3 Uli November 75.» 78.5 68.2 January 56.8 57.7 5M December 75.1 78.3 68.6 FEBRUARY 56. *» 57.« 52.6 m March 57.0 58.2 0a January 7*1.6 77.5 67.7 April 56.8 58.0 55.7 February 7*1.5 77.3 68.6 may 57.7 59.6 56.0 March 7*1.9 78.0 67.H June 59.6 66.2 56.3 April 76.0 73.3 68.5 July 61.2 64.1 57.1 May 75.0 78.2 67.7 august 61.1 62.6 57.7 June 75.» 78.8 68.1 SEPTEMBER 6z.l 63.6 58.6 July 753 78.2 69.1 October 62.3 63.7 59.0 August 7*13 77.1 68.5 November 62.9 6*1.6 58.6 September 75.7 78.6 70.0 December 62.7 64.2 58.3 October 75.5 73.J 69.8 19*6 November 7«a 78.9 69.6 January 63.0 6*1.3 59.2 December 75.« 783 70.0 February 63.5 65.2 5«-> uki March 63.5 65a 593 January 763 7«.7 70.0 April 6*1.7 67.1 5«.» February 7«.5 79.3' 69.1 May 66.8 68.9 «1.5 March 76.9 79.1 70.5 June 67.6 69.5 62.1 April 74.7 79.*» 70.1 July 47.5 69.2 62.6 May 76.6 73.» 70.1 august «7.1 693 613 June 77.3 79.0 70.9 SEPTEMBER 67.8 69.8 62.5 JULY 7*1.8 76.9 70.1 OCTOBER 67.8 70.2 62.1 August 76.» 79.0 70.3 NOVEMBER 69.0 71.« 62.3 September 77.5 79.9 71.7 DECEMBER 68.5 70.3 63.1 October 78.1 80.6 72.7 November 79.3 82.0 73.» December 813 «3.7 76.8 source: special Tabulation of reports to the u. s. Bureau of Labor statistics Page 50 TABLE 30 - INDEXES OF AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS IN THE LUMBER INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND IN DOUGLAS FIR LUMBER INDUSTRY OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON, 1934 TO 1940 (1935-39=100) Year and Month Index Numbers Cents Per Hour Lumber Industry in the U.S. Douglas Fir Lumber Industry of Washington and Oregon Lumber Industry in the U.S. Douglas Fir Lumber Industry of Washington and Oregon 1934 9O.7 83.O 38.9 58.3 1935 90.2 85.6 38.7 6O.I 1936 92.8 94.4 39.8 66,3 1937 102.1 IO6.3 43.8 74.6 1938 io4.o 106.4 44.6 7^.7 1939 111.0 IO7.3 47.6 75.3 1940 116.8 IIO.5 50.1 77.6 1940: June II7.7 110.6 50.5 77.3 December 118.2 116.0 50.7 81.4 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. the reverse occurred in 1938 011(1 1939. The minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act in particular caused a large increase in wages in the Southern lumber region while they left the Douglas fir region virtually unaffected. Consequently, the level of hourly earnings in the industry as a whole stood at 16.8 per cent above the 1935~39 average by 1940 while the corresponding level in the Douglas fir region was only 10.5 P®r cent above the 1935“39 average. Part of this spread remained even at the end of 1940 after the most recent wage increases had occurred in the Douglas fir region. In De-cembèTT 1940, the general lumber wage level stood 18 per cent above the 1935*"39 average while the Douglas fir level of hourly earnings stood 16 per cent above the 1935"39 average for that region. Regional differences in hourly earnings in the lumber industry are shown for 1939 in Tables 31 and. 32» These figures were obtained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a special survey of the lumber industry. TABLE 31 - AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF ALL WORKERS IN THE LUMBER AND TIMBER PRODUCTS INDUSTRY IN THE NORTH, BY GEOGRAPHIC DIVISION AND STATE, 1939 Division and State No. of Establishments Number of Workers Average Hourly Earnings Total, North 725 57,396 $0.612 Pacific Coast States 236 30,068 .7^3 Washington 107 13,821 .772 Western Washington 77 11,377 .805 Eastern Washington 30 2,444 .627 Oregon 75 9,854 .730 Western Oregon 51 6,055 .715 Eastern Oregon 24 3,799 -75^ California 5^ 6.393 .704 Pine region 46 ^,533 .731 Redwood region 8 1,860 .637 Mountain States 39 4,587 • 623 Idaho 18 2,332 .680 Montana 5 786 .677 Colorado and Wyoming 4 431 .563 New Mexico 7 549 .456 Arizona 5 489 .496 Prairie States 50 3,272 .472 Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota 12 621 .458 Missouri 29 1,399 .418 Iowa 9 1,252 .536 Lake States 98 6,526 .451 Minnesota 23 996 .489 Wisconsin 36 3,044 .445 Michigan 39 2,486 .442 East Central States 82 4,688 .463 Illinois 20 1,395 .487 Indiana 25 852 .431 Ohio 15 752 .527 West Virginia 22 1,689 .432 Middle Atlantic States 122 4,036 .546 New York 42 1,492 .585 Pennsylvania U5 1,339 .564 New Jersey 12 407 .663 Delaware and Maryland 23 798 .385 New England States 98 4,219 .403 Maine 30 1,604 New Hampshire 26 1,043 .^20 Vermont 18 720 .363 Connecticut and Massachusetts 24 852 .548 Source: U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Page 51 TABLE }2 - AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF ALL WORKERS IN THE LUMBER AND TIMBER PRODUCTS INDUSTRY IN THE SOUTH, BY STATE, 1939 State Number of Establishments Number of Workers Average Hourly Earnings Total South 572 47,966 Virginia 42 2,563 .376 Kentucky 23 1,225 .435 Tennessee U3 2,638 • 383 North Carolina 64 ^.535 .322 South Carolina 4o 3,162 .329 Georgia 36 2,409 .305 Florida 40 4,550 .339 Alabama 65 4,613 .330 Mississippi 70 6,138 .348 Louisiana 56 5,^3 .350 Texas 36 4,402 .342 Arkansas and Oklahoma 57 6,278 .352 Source: U, S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. There are extreme differences in hourly earnings in different sections of the North as well as betvzeen the North and the South. Thus, the average in Maine (Table 31) was 33*9 cents, and in Delaware and Maryland, 38*5 cents, in contrast to 80.5 cents in western Washington. Similar figures are given in Table 33 for the years 1926-1935* Comparison of Earnings in Douglas Fir with Earnings in Other Industries of Washington and Oregon. Table 34 shows the average hourly earnings reported for workers in 15 industries (excluding Douglas fir) of the State of Washington and 14 industries of the State of Oregon, as of August-October, 1940. The three-month averages for Douglas fir were 79*8 cents in Washington and 71*6 cents in Oregon. Douglas fir workers in Washington earned less per hour on the average than did the workers in 9 of the 13 industries shown in Table 3^> viz J newspapers, foundries, steel works, paper, stoves, cement, brass, etc., beverages, and liquors. The Douglas fir workers earned more than the workers in 6 industries of TABLE 33 - AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS, UNIT LABOR REQUIREMENTS, AND UNIT LABOR COSTS OF SEVEN PACIFIC COAST AND NINE SOUTHERN SAWMILLS, 1926-35 1/ Year Seven Pacific Coast Sawmills Nine Southern Sawmills Average Hourly Earnings Man-hours Per 1,000 Board Feet of Equivalent Production Labor Cost Per 1,000 Board Feet of Equivalent Production Average Hourly Earnings Man-hours Per 1,000 Board Feet of Equivalent Production Labor Cost Per 1,000 Board Feet of Equivalent Production 1926 $0,565 8.28 $4.67 $0,302 15.77 $4.77 1927 .561 8.39 4.71 .289 16.30 4.72 1928 .576 8.19 4.72 .292 18.42 5.39 1929 .584 7.99 4.67 .285 16.70 4.76 1930 .563 8.21 4.62 .275 15.38 4.23 1931 .478 8.15 3.89 .204 17.40 3.55 1932 •398 8.34 3.35 .163 16.58 2.71 1933 • 392 7.76 3.04 .199 16.33 3.25 1934 .528 7.89 4.17 .291 17.22 5.01 1935 .566 8.05 4.56 .275 16.74 4.61 1/ W.P.A., National Research Project, Report No. M-5: Mechanization in the Lumber Industry, p. 131. Washington, viz: lumber as a whole, flour milling, furniture, millwork, meat packing, and paints. In Oregon the 71*6 cent average for Douglas fir workers was lower than that received by workers in 12 of the 14 industries listed for Oregon in Table 34. Only the furniture and paint workers, among those listed, had lower averages than the Douglas fir workers. Any average of hourly earnings for an industry depends upon the proportion of skilled to unskilled workers as well as upon the actual wage rates of the-different classes of workers. Table 35 shows the entrance rates for common labor in July 1940 in 9 industries of the State of Washington, including the lumber industry. J 1/ This table was obtained from a special tabulation of the regular annual survey of entrance rates by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (compare Monthly Labor Review, January, 1941). The industries shown include all of those from which a sufficient number of returns were received from Washington to justify tabulation. Page 52 TABLE 34 - AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS IN SELECTED INDUSTRIES 1/ IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON, AUGUST TO OCTOBER, 1940 Industry Washington (Cents) Oregon (Cents, Lumber and timber products 78.4 74.0 Douglas fir region only 79.8 71.6 Beverages, (non-alcoholic) 95.2 86.0 Blast furnaces, steelworks, and rolling mill products 104.9 76.O Brass, bronze, and copper products 85.O 81.9 Cement 80.6 — Flour 74.8 76.6 Foundry and machine shop products 86.8 85.5 Fumi ture 65.7 65.7 Liquors, malt 104.4 99.5 Millwork 72.3 73.6 Newspapers and periodicals 112.2 113.5 Paints and varnishes 77.4 68.6 Paper and pulp 82.5 79.3 Slaughtering and meat packing 72.6 75.9 Stoves 81.3 79.1 1/ In general, industries in which the estimated coverage was less than 3$ par cent were excluded. Also excluded were industries in which there is a large proportion of female labor. Source: U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average of 61.5 cents per hour for common labor in the entire lumber industry of the State was lower than entrance rates in the building construction, cement, foundries and paper industries but higher than the (relatively small) brick, electric power, gas, and meat packing industries. TABLE 35 - ENTRANCE WAGE RATES OF MALE COMMON LABORERS IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, JULY 1940 Industry Number of Establishments Number of Laborers at Entrance Rates Average Hourly Entrance Rate Brick, tile, and terra cotta 5 66 $0,587 Building construction 37 372 .806 Cement 4 60 .703 Electric light and power 6 107 .561 Foundry and machine shop products 15 111 .646 Lumber (sawmills) 1/ 86 U.235 .615 Manufactured and natural gas 3 39 .505 Paper and pulp 20 1,141 .645 Slaughtering and meat packing 7 150 .576 1/ Including logging camps. Source: U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Table 36 shows hourly wage rates and payrolls for various industries in the entire State of Washington annually for 193$ and 1939» Annual wage rates in logging and sawmilling were lower than in some industries, such as bridge and dam construction, carpentry, longshoring, etc., but higher than in other industries such as canneries, textile manufacturing and fish products industries. Wage rates in logging are consistently higher than in sawmilling, as is indicated by Table 36 as well as by Table 28 and by wage statistics for the West Coast region of Washington and Oregon, as compiled by the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association. Page 53 TABLE 36 - PAYROLL AND AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE RATE OF LOGGING, SAWMILLING AND CERTAIN OTHER INDUSTRIES, STATE OF WASHINGTON, I938 AND 1939 Industry 1938 _ _ 1939 Payroll (Dollars) Average Hourly Wage Rate (Cents) Payroll (Dollars) Average Hourly Wage Rate (Cents) Logging operations 13,522,873 .845 17,030,845 .855 Booming and rafting logs 621,489 .919 755,935 .921 Logging rail and truck road construction 2,489,910 .766 2,830,682 .772 Total logging 16,634,272 .834 20,617,462 .845 Sawmilling 21,709,220 .727 24,034,298 .726 Total logging and sawmilling 38,343,492 .770 44,651,760 .776 Certain Other Industries! Airplane manufacture 3.3U4.593 .868 6,811,592 .817 Bridge, viaduct and trestle construction 1,283,202 1.119 2,210,322 1.211 Canneries 5,246,116 .508 5.197.438 .516 Carpentering and concrete building construction 7,898,164 .979 9,172,722 .991 Coal mining 3,067,050 .965 3,167,995 .967 Dam construction 3,855,202 .756 8,343,274 1.136 Electric power plant operation 6,616,884 .940 6,738,181 .965 Fish products manufacturing 1,105,396 .650 i,083,$66 .657 Highway, road and street construction 5,664,697 .829 6,431,718 .883 Longshoring and stevedoring 3,004,130 .986 2,970,247 1.009 Metal mining 1,670,245 .651 1,481,035 .675 Pulp and paper mills 10,227,766 .835 11,919,822 .840 Steel mills and smelters 2,672,607 .799 3,256,183 .831 Textile manufacturing 3.999.054 .569 4,345.296 .572 Total of all reporting 1/ 267.78U.196 .706 303,602,602 .735 ,1/ Includes city and county operation and maintenance, peace officers, state foresters, wardens, park employees, state highway patrol and other workers not engaged in industrial or agricultural work. Source: Seventh Report of the Department of Labor and Industries, State of Washington. Page 5^ VI. DOUGLAS FIR PRICES Summary In the last six months of 19^0, Douglas fir prices rose to their highest levels since 192}. In December, 1940, the Bureau of Labor Statistics composite index of Douglas fir wholesale prices reached 129.5 1/ per cent of the 1935~39 av-erage, 26 per cent over the low for the year and 10.6 per cent over the high for 1937» The average realization reported by the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association in November, 1940, was 133 Per cent of the 1935“39 average, 28 per cent over the low of 1940 and 12.5 Per cent over the high of 1937« Douglas fir prices are very sensitive to cyclical forces, but no definite long run trends are discernible. Douglas fir prices have not reached their high levels of 1923 since that time when the composite annual index stood at 128 per cent of the 1935-39 average, but the dominant characteristic of stability for considerable periods of time is indicated by the fact that in four years in the twenties (1922, 1924, 1925» and 1929) prices averaged 108 per cent of the 1935“39 average. Prices in general declined steadily from 1925 to 1932, except for an upward spurt in 1929» and rose steadily from 1932 to 1940, except for sharp reactions in 1935 and 193^. Fir prices are highly sensitive to changes in the volume of business. Thus, there was a 5° per cent decline in the yearly index from 1929 to 1932 (5^ per cent from the monthly high to the monthly low). A subsequent 83 per cent increase from 1932 to 1934 brought the index to within 11 per cent of the 1929 average. The 1937 annual average was approximately 22 per cent higher than the 1935 annual average and approximately 16 per cent higher than the 1938 annual average. The West Coast Lumbermen’s Association classifies mills, according to dominant type of shipment, as "Rail Mills,” "Cargo Mills," and "Combination Mills." In general, the average realization for rail and combination mills is approximately $3 above the average for cargo mills. Trends in realizations for the three types were similar between 1937 and 1939. However, from March to September, 1940, there was little change in the figure for cargo mi-lls while the income on shipments from rail and combination mills increased sharply. The average mill realization on all rail shipments for all types of mills exceeds by ip6—7 the realization of cargo 1/ The index reached a high of 140.2 in May, 1923, and has not yet reached that level since that time. The average annual index in 1923 was 128.1 as compared with 112.3 in 1940. shipments to California and the Atlantic Coast. This differential results from the fact that a large proportion of the rail shipments consists of dry lumber whereas the bulk of the cargo shipments is of green lumber. One of the factors affecting the behavior of Douglas fir prices is the competition between certain types of Douglas fir and certain types of Southern pine in many markets. Although the use of particular types and sizes of Douglas fir or yellow pine lumber is frequently determined by considerations other than the price, there is active price competition between certain types of lumber of the two species in the Northeastern and North Central states which furnish a market for approximately 30 per cent of the total shipments of Northern Pacific softwood lumber. Within the competitive area the competition is limited to specific kinds of Douglas fir and Southern pine. Thus, Southern pine offers very little competition in the longer dimensions, and Douglas fir has been unable to penetrate substantially the market for boards in the "competitive" area. As regards the competitive types of the two species, contractor preference for one or the other may be influenced by habit, specific uses to which the lumber is to be* put, and availability of spot supply. Price Trends Trends in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Composite Index. In reacting to general business conditions, fir prices, notably on sales for rail shipment on dry lumber are among the first of all wholesale prices to be affected by depression or recovery. On all general swings, regardless of direction, fir prices are among the first series to move, and they change more than most products. This has been a characteristic of fir prices over many years for which price statistics are available. For the purpose of describing the major movements in fir prices since 1922, two measures have been used. One is a preliminary index number (1935“1939=1OO.O) composed of the prices of 8 important series of list prices of fir products produced by rail mills. 2/ The individual products are weighted by the 2/ The preliminary index developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is designed to measure general over-all market trends. Although it is considered adequate for this purpose, its use for other purposes is subject to limitations on three grounds? (1) The series represents quoted prices which may deviate at times from actual prices. (2) The companies reporting to the Bureau are limited to a small number of large and medium-sized rail shippers whose sales may not always be typical of all members of the industry. (3) There are only eight items included in the Bureau’s Douglas fir index and although they represent the most important products of the industry, they do not necessarily constitute the most important products of any one mill or any one type 01 mill. Page 55 average of quantities newly made available for consumption in 1937 and 1938J the index is available for the period 1922 to 1940. The second type of measure used in this study is an index (1935”1939=1OO.O) of average mill realizations, the basic data of which are compiled by the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association. The movements of this index reflect both changes in price and shifts in the types of lumber sold. The realization data are available for the years, 1929”1931 an<^ 1935” 1940. (See accompanying chart and table). The Bureau of Labor Statistics index of wholesale prices of fir advanced sharply from 108 in 1922 to 128 in 1923» re-fleeting the post war boom in housing and other construction. However, as the supply of lumber increased, prices declined rapidly and the index fell 17 per cent to 108 in 1924. There was little change during the next year but with the slackening in new small home building after 1925 prices declined steadily, and by 1928 the average had fallen 8 per cent. This trend was arrested in 1928. The index was more than 8 per cent higher in 1929 than in 1928. It is noteworthy that this measure of fir prices reached approximately the same level, 108 per cent of its 1935-39 average, in four years, 1922, 1924, 1925, and 1929. (See Tables 37 and 38) Fir prices were reduced drastically in the fall of 1929» and the decline continued with only slight interruption until February, 1933« The index dropped to an average of 53 in 1932 which is 50 per cent below the 1929 level. The recovery from 1933 to 193^ is even more sharp than the decline. In just two years several of the products included in the index regained or surpassed their 1929 price levels. On the other hand, No. 1 common timbers, one of the most important dimensions, recovered a little more than half of what it lost during the depression. With the exception of the 1937 and 1940 advances, timber prices have been maintained at this new level. TABLE 37 - ANNUAL AVERAGES OF DOUGLAS FIR PRICES Index (1935-39=100.0) Year Index Year Index 1922 108.0 1932 52.6 1923 128.1 1933 67.9 1924 107*9 1934 96.9 1925 108.1 1935 91.7 1926 104.8 1936 99.3 1927 102.3 1937 111.2 193s 99.6 193s 96.7 1939 108.1 1939 101.1 1930 1931 84.0 66.5 1940 112.3 Source! U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The fir index advanced 83 per cent from 1932 to 193^ when it reached a level of 97. After the short recession which affected the prices of many kinds of commodities in 193^ ^nd 1935» fir prices resumed their advance in 1936. The acceleration of the rise in early 1937» typical of the price changes for most raw materials, resulted in the high average index of 111 for the year. Following the late 1937 recession, which resulted in a 13 per cent decline in the average, prices again turned upward in August, 1939» stimulated by the European war. In 1940, although there was a general decline in fir prices in the early months of the year, in the last months prices advanced to the highest levels since 1923» largely a reflection of increased demand for both government and private construction. The index of fir prices was 112 per cent of the 1935“39 average in 1940. The index of mill realizations paralleled fairly closely the movement of the wholesale price index. All of the major swings in prices are reflected in the realization data. Realizations, by Mill Classes. According to figures compiled by the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association, the average realization at mill varies considerably between members of the industry depending on the type of shipment. Mills are classified as Rail Mills, if they ship 65 Per cent or more of their output by rail, and as Cargo Mills, if they ship 65 per cent or more by water; and Combination Mills constitute the remainder. 1/ In general, the average realization for Rail and Combination Mills is approximately three dollars above the average for Cargo Mills (due largely to the fact that rail mill«, and, to a lesser extent, combination mills ship dry lumber while cargo mills ship mainly green lumber which sells at a lower price than dry). The trends of realizations for the three types did not differ much during the period 1937 to 1939* However, from March to September, 1940, the latest period for which a figure is available, there was little change in the figure for Cargo Mills while the average income on shipments from Rail and Combination Mills increased sharply. Realizations, by Type of Shipment. The unusual trend of of mill realization for Cargo Mills from January to September, 1940, was primarily due to a decline in realization on their rail shipments from $28.80 to $25.50* Such a decline was not typical of rail shipments of other classes of mills. 1/ The long leg of the voyage determines the classification as to mode of transportation. If a cargo mill shipped lumber a 100 miles by rail to the seaboard and thence by ship to the Atlantic Coast, the shipment would be classified as being by water. Pa¿*e 5 £ GRAPH 9 AVERAGE WHOLESALE PRICE AND AVERAGE MILL REALIZATION DOUGLAS FIR LUMBER PAGE 5? TABLE )8 - INDEX Of WHOLESALE PRICES Of DOUGLAS f IR LUMBER (AVERAGE ■ 100.0) AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE wholesale average Wholesale AVERAGE WHOLESALE average wholesale Mill price mill Pr| CE mill PRICE mill price Date Reali- of 8 Types Date Reali- OF 8 TYPES date Reali- OF 8 TYPES Date Reali- of 8 Types zat ion of Douglas zat ion OF DOUGLAS ZATION OF DOUGLAS ZATION of Douglas (WCLA)V Fir lumber _z/ (WCLA) 1/ fir Lumber _z/ (WCLA) 1/ Fir Lumber2/ (WCLA) 1/ fir lumber 2/ 1924 1950 193* 1938 JANUARY 105.1 January 99.7 101.d January 101.0 J ANUARY 101.0 97.7 February 105.d February iod.8 98.2 February 91.0 101.1 February 99.5 9«.3 march 104.1 March 99.7 93-5 March 101.1 March 99.« 9«.2 April 104.d April 93.« 91.5 APRIL 93.« 101.0 April 94.9 94.0 may 105.8 may 88.5 85.9 may 9*.4 100.5 may 94.8 95.5 JUNE 105. d JUNE «7.9 85.1 JUNE 97.9 100.5 JUNE 94.5 95.0 JULY 105.d July «3-3 80.d JULY 9*.4 97.1 July 97.5 95.4 AUGUST 105.d august 80.8 77.7 august 88.5 92.1 august 983 97.9 SEPTEMBER 105. d September 79.8 7*3 SEPTEMBER 85.0 92.1 SEPTEMBER 100,8 97.9 OCTOBER 105.d October 8O.5 7*.7 October 80.0 92.1 October 9«.5 97.5 November 100.9 November 72.1 7*.7 NOVEMBER 92.1 NOVEMBER 93.7 97.3 December 100.9 December 73.« 72.7 December 913 December 9«.2 97.« 1927 1951 1935 1939 January 100.4 January 73.« 7*3 JANUARY 78.8 84.7 January 97.1 973 February 100.0 FEBRUARY 7».i 753 February 77.7 84.0 February 97.1 98.0 march 101.4 March 71.1 75.1 march 79.8 8*.9 March 97.5 97.5 April 105.1 April «9.0 72.1 April 80.0 87.1 April 97.0 97.5 May 105.8 May «7.5 «7.3 may 82.7 90.d may 9*.i 97.5 JUNE 105.8 June «7.3 61.5 JUNE 88.5 90.5 JUNE 99.7 97.5 JULY 105.8 July «7.0 «1.2 JULY 9«.3 9*.7 JULY 100.5 98.0 AUGUST 105.8 august «2.9 «0.9 august 9*.8 97.« AUGUST 100.1 99.1 SEPTEMBER 105.4 September «d.z 42.d September 95.9 97.0 SEPTEMBER 102.1 105.d October 102.5 October «33 «2.9 October 98.0 95.3 October 110.7 108.5 NOVEMBER 101.9 November 45. d 42.9 NOVEMBER 92.7 9*.3 NOVEMBER nd.d 109.8 December 99.9 December 4d.7 <23 December 91.7 95.4 December 108.d 109.8 1928 1932 193« 19*0 January 98.1 January «2.5 January 95.1 98.4 January 109.0 IO8.7 February 95.5 February 57.8 February 98.2 99.5 February 103.9 107.3 march 95.5 March 56.5 March 98.5 100.1 March 104.1 1043 April 93-8 April 5«.l April 99.5 1003 April 105.2 105.7 may 94.1 May *9.9 53.7 May 100.4 100.0 May 105.8 105.3 June 98.4 June *7.3 50.9 June 102.1 100.0 June 104.9 1053 July 993 July *9.0 July 99.1 98.4 JULY 109.2 105,8 august 100.5 august d8.4 august 100.d 97.3 AUGUST 111.0 110,2 SEPTEMBER 105.2 September *9.1 September 99.1 97.7 September 113.5 120.8 OCTOBER lOd.i October *93 October 98.1 98.0 October 123.5 120.8 NOVEMBER lOd.o November *93 NOVEMBER 104.2 98.0 November 133.2 12*.4 DECEMBER iod.9 December *9.d December 104.1 102.7 December 129.8 129.5 1929 1953 1937 J ANUARY 108.11 104.7 JANUARY «3.9 d7.8 J ANUARY 113.1 105.5 February 107.? 104.5 February d«.5 February iod.8 110.4 March 110.9 109.8 march *«3 march 109.5 113.1 April 1«9.9 110.7 April 50.5 April iid.7 114.3 MAY 1093 111.5 May 53.3 may 117.7 117.1 JUNE 104.J 111.5 June 4*3 JUNE 114.4 1143 July 108.9 111.5 JULY 75.2 July 1183 115.9 august 110.1 110.7 AUGUST 77.0 august 118.0 lid.9 September 107.9 107.7 SEPTEMBER 8*.9 79.1 September 117.0 112.8 October 105.8 105.5 OCTOBER 80,9 OCTOBER 113.0 107.7 NOVEMBER 102.8 105.5 NOVEMBER 95.2 November 105.1 105.2 DECEMBER 99.2 101.4 December 100.9 December 102.7 99.9 ~.................. rT ---- ■■ -... ' " ........— " - 11 ■ ' ----77*7 1/ Indexes based on data furnished by West coast lumbermen’s association showing average returns on shipments to all markets without deduction of trade discounts. COMPOSITE DOUGLAS F|R INDEX COMPUTED BY WEIGHTING INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS ACCORDING TO AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR CONSUMPTION IN 1957-58. THESE INCLUDE! BOARDS 1" Xl* NOS. 1 AND 2 COMMONJ DIMENSION NO. 1 COMMON 2* X d* X 14'; SIDING 1« X 4* B AND BETTER AND CJ FLOORING 1» X I* 8 AND BETTER ANO C| TIMBER NO. 1 Common 12" X 12*. Page 58 The approximate realization in 1939 ^or more important types of shipment in the different classes of mills follows: Type of Shipment Total Class of Mill Rail Cargo Combination All $19.97 $21.11 $17-7^ $21.24 Rail 23.09 21.54 24.68 24.63 Cargo Atlantic Coast 16.48 16.24 15.63 17.75 California 16.10 14.J0 15.37 17.O3 Other 21.97 23.80 21.19 24.61 Export 22.36 32.OI 20.17 27.31 Local or Plant 17.95 18.14 17.46 18.17 There is a large variation not only by mill but by type of shipment. Realizations also vary on shipments*to the same area reflecting, at least in part, the difference in composition of shipment. Price Competition Between Douglas Fir and Southern Pine Geographical area of Competition. An analysis of the data compiled by the United States Forest Service published in a preliminary release entitled ’’Lumber Distribution and Consumption, 193S” reveals that lumber from the Northern Pacific region is on a competitive basis with lumber from the Southern regions in 20 states and the District of Columbia. The competitive area is bounded on the Southwest by Kansas and Oklahoma, runs as far to the Northwest as Iowa, Illinois, and Michigan, is bounded on the Southeast by Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware, and covers the New England territory. Each one of the states was classified as competitive when the ratio of sales of one of the types of lumber to the other was no higher than 85 to 15. Results of the sales (in millions of board feet) in each of the competitive states are shown in the accompanying Table 39« Softwood lumber from the Southern regions is not sold in substantial rolume west of Kansas and Oklahoma, and Douglas fir is not sold in substantial volume south of Missouri and West Virginia. Sales of Northern Pacific softwood in the 20 competitive states and the District of Columbia totaled 2,182 million board feet in 1938, representing slightly more than 30 per cent of all softwoods distributed from the Pacific Northwest in 1938. TABLE 39 - SALES OF NORTHERN PACIFIC AND SOUTHERN SOFTWOOD LUMBER IN COMPETITIVE AREAS, 1938 (in Million Board Feet) Destination Origin of Shipment Northern Pacific Southern _ Region Kansas 83 70 Oklahoma 29 154 Missouri 55 187 Iowa 266 U9 Illinois 266 323 Indiana 44 254 Michigan 116 295 Ohio 95 341 West Virginia 10 35 Maryland 71 108 District of Columbia 11 21 Delaware 13 13 Pennsylvania 167 237 New Jersey 206 98 New York 510 261 Connecticut 70 26 Rhode Island 42 18 Massachusetts 109 54 Vermont 5 3 New Hampshire 6 4 Maine 8 12 Total in Competitive Area 2,182 2.563 Per Cent of Total Distributee 3O.2 33.3 Source: U. S. Forest Service, Lumber Distribution and Consumption, 1938» (Preliminary Release), Table 2. Competition by Kinds and Sizes. It appears from replies to telegraphic requests sent to lumber dealers in fifty cities (at least one in each state) regarding prices on comparable specifications of the two species that active competition within the competitive area is limited more particularly to certain kinds of Douglas fir and Southern pine. Many of the larger sizes and types of Douglas fir are practically unobtainable in the Southern species. Some contractors insist on Douglas fir dimension in preference to Southern pine because they feel that Southern pine will warp or because they are unable to obtain thoroughly Page 59 dried yellow pine. Other contractors prefer Southern pine because they feel it holds the nail better, being softer, and is more flexible and less likely to crack or split. Contractors who have these definite preferences do not tend to shift their purchases unless there are marked changes in price differentials. Competition by Final Construction Market. Throughout most of this competitive area, Southern pine and Douglas fir lumber of types used for approximately the same purposes usually sell at different prices. Sales of both in the same market at such differentials are possible because of actual or supposed differences of grade or quality. In one locality, Douglas fir sells at the higher price; in another, Southern pine. Where the price differential is not too wide, a change in relative prices tends to increase sales of certain types of one species or the other. In localities where the differential is very great, such as a very high price for Douglas fir relative to Southern pine, a moderate increase in the price of pine might still leave pine much less expensive than fir. The same might be true in the case of a moderate decline in the price of fir. In either event, a contractor desiring to use the least expensive material available would have little inducement to shift from pine to fir. The extent to which a change in the price differential would influence sales of the one or the other would depend upon the grades and qualities of the particular lumber in relation to the uses to which it is intended and also upon contractor or consumer preference in the particular locality. Special Surveys of the Effect of Price Competition in Selected Cities. In an attempt to obtain specific and up to date information on the effective price competition between Southern pine and Douglas fir, lumber dealers were interviewed in three key cities in the competitive area, viz: Chicago, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. The responses, while not of themselves conclusive, substantiated the observations about price competi.tion between Southern pine and Douglas fir previously presented in this section. Page 60 VII.’ MILITARY AND CIVILIAN REQUIREMENTS OF LUMBER IN 1941 AND 1942 1/ The following table presents semi-annual estimates of civilian and military requirements for lumber in 1941 and 1942 in millions of board feet: TABLE 40 - ESTIMATED MILITARY AND MERCHANT MARINE LUMBER REQUIREMENTS 1/ (In Millions of Board Feet) 1941 1942 Jan.- June July-Dec. Total Jan,-June July-Dec. Total Military 1,785 1,935 3,720 1,935 1,935 3.870 Civilian 15,200 15,900 51,100 16,750 17.550 34,300 Total 16,985 17,835 34,820 18,685 19.485 38,170 1940 1941 1942 July-Dec. Jan.- July July-Dec. Jan.-July July-Dec. Army 7OO 9OO 2/ 9OO 9OO 9OO Navy 200 1251/ 125 125 125 Shipbuilding 1/ 100 185 1/ 275 275 275 Overseas Bases 0 35 35 35 35 Defense Housing 5 540 600 6OO 600 Total 1,005 1,785 1,935 1,935 1,935 Estimates of military requirements for all periods beyond the end of the current fiscal year must be based upon some assumption as to the size of the new military programs that will be established. In the present instance, it is assumed that there will be a more or less continuous expansion throughout the period covered and therefore a more or less constant military demand for lumber. The military programs already established are of sufficient magnitude to ensure a more or less continuous expansion in national income and private construction during this period. The civilian estimates, therefore, show a continuous expansion throughout. Military Requirements Table 40 presents a more detailed breakdown of the military requirements estimates. The Army has ordered nearly all its requirements for the current fiscal year under the present program. Estimates of requirements through the first half of 1941 are 'based upon the present enacted fiscal program. Estimates of requirements thereafter are based upon certain assumptions as to the- size of the military force Which may be increased or decreased according to fiscal programs not yet enacted. 1/ Estimates presented herewith were made in March, 1941. At the “ present date (May, 1941) it appears that requirements may exceed even the March estimates on account of (1) the expansion of the defense program, (2) the lend-lease program, and (3) the relative shortage of steel and certain other metals. 1/ Including requirements for British orders. 2/ Approximately 600,000,000 board feet of this had been ordered by January 1, leaving about 300,000,000 to order as of that date. As of March 8, approximately 125.000,000 board feet were still to be ordered. j/ As of March 8, approximately 175»000»000 feet of Navy and shipbuilding requirements remained to be ordered. The barracks program being completed now was planned with existing tent facilities and weather conditions in mind. Any expansion of the program will be based on different conditions, and so the probable general location of new cantonments cannot be estimated from an examination of the location of those now being ejected. Table 41 gives a rough breakdown, by states, of an estimated expenditure of some $739*000,000 under the present program and may be used as a rough index of the relative proportions of lumber used in the various states and territories. It can hardly be used, however, as a clue to the probable relative consumption by states in any expanded program. The Navy is expanding its yard and shipbuilding program. Details are not yet settled, and requirements in certain aspects may be raised while in others they may be lowered, but it is believed that the figures given in Table 42 are approximately correct. Page 61 TABLE 41 - PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF DISTRIBUTION CF A PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES CF THE QUARTERMASTER CORPS, BY STATES State Value ($000) Per Cent State Value ($000) Per Cent U. S. Total $739,440 100.0 New Jersey $21,213 2.9 New Mexico 10,726 1.5 Alabama 20,374 2.8 New York 20,030 2.7 Arizona 3.93“+ 0.5 North Carolina 34,665 M Arkansas 12,381 1.7 North Dakota — 0.0 California 48,156 6.5 Ohio 15,701 2.1 Colorado 4,182 0.6 Oklahoma 12,483 1.7 Connecticut 1,500 0.2 Oregon 10,792 1.5 Delaware 1,248 0.2 Pennsylvania 12,800 1.7 Florida 27,904 3.8 Rhode Island 2,206 0.3 Georgia 44,699 6.0 South Carolina 20,692 2.8 Idaho 1,^35 0.2 South Dakota 402 0.1 Illinois 25,807 3.5 Tennessee 16,348 2.2 Indiana 18,937 2.6 Texas 48,925 6.6 Iowa 414 0.1 Utah 13,785 1.9 Kansas 9,111 1.2 Vermont 1,278 0.2 Kentucky 13,926 1.9 Virginia 34,805 M Louisiana 34,94o U.7 Washington 25,800 3.5 Maine 2,835 0.4 West Virginia — 0.0 Maryland 21,541 2.9 Wisconsin — 0.0 Massachusetts 36.571 M Wyoming 3,600 0.5 Michigan 12,190 1.6 Minnesota 363 1/ Territories Mississippi 17,007 2.3 Alaska 21,759 2.9 Missouri 20,895 2.8 Dist. of Col. 1.655 0.2 Montana — 0.0 Hawaii 6,341 0.9 Nebraska I53 1/ Puerto Rico 9.^79 1.3 Nevada 45O 0.1 Virgin Islands — 0.0 New Hampshire 2,814 0.4 Panama Canal Zone 10,278 1.4 1/ Less than 0,05 Per cent. The overseas bases program is now estimated, to use about 70,000,000 board, feet in 1941. There is a possibility that the program may then be either expanded, or contracted, and the continuation of the estimates at this level is, therefore, purely conjectural. The Division of Housing Coordination reports that as of February 8, 1941, funds have been allocated for 68,432 defense housing units. Of these, 35,011 family dwelling units were under contract. Local housing authorities, the Army, and the Navy have been given the responsibility for 24,470 of these, but lumber consumption per unit will be very small. The United States Housing Authority is building part of its units with masonry and part entirely of frame construction. USHA engineers estimate that they are using about 7,000 board feet, on an average, per house. Contracts to be let in the future may call for a still larger use of lumber. The Public Buildings Administration and other agencies building defense housing with Government money are building frame houses primarily. The consumption per unit will probably be as large or larger than that of the USHA. The housing program is being expanded. It is proposed to make more money available for Government construction and to permit the Federal Housing Administration to underwrite rental housing for defense purposes. This expanded program will probably depend on lumber so that houses built by the PBA and under the FHA may average as much as 10,000 board feet per unit. One gn^lif1cation must be made to the estimates of lumber consumption per unit. Substitute materials are being accepted by Government agencies. For instance, insulation and wall board, and coated gypsum board are being used in place of wood sheathing on defense housing, or housing underwritten by the FHA. It is impossible to ‘forecast how rapidly these materials may replace lumber, but it would seem advisable to allow for some substitution. It is impossible to forecast with any certainty the total defense housing program, the speed with which it will be executed, or the proportion that will be handled by different agencies. For the purposes of this report, we have estimated a total program of about 160,000 units for the current calendar year and have assumed that 80,000 would be completed by June 3$» 19^1» with a lumber consumption for this period of about 5^0,000,000 board feet. From July to December another 80,000 units may be completed. The lumber consumption on these may be higher on the average than for the program now under way and may result in the use of about 600,000,000 board feet. If the program is maintained, ar the same rate through 1942, lumber consumption for defense housing will be maintained at about the same level. Civilian Requirements Table 43 shows a breakdown of the estimated civilian requirements for hardwood and softwood lumber, given separately by industrial uses. Table 44 presents comparable data for the period 1929 to 1940. Page 6? TABLE 42 - ESTIMATED LUMBER REQUIREMENTS UNDER 1941 AND 1942 SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM 1/ (General Two-Year Program of the Navy and. Maritime Commission) (In Board. Feet) Type of Construction Two-Year Total Location of Shipyards Pacific Coast Other Naval Vessels Shipbuilding and shipyards 500,303,000 1^2,730,000 357.573.OOO Maintenance 42,000,000 31,500,000 10,500,000 Conversion of vessels 8,900,000 3,560,000 5,340,000 Total Naval Program 551,203,000 177,790,000 373,413,000 Merchant Vessels Shipbuilding - U.S.M.C. (459) 26,108,400 Shipbuilding - Private ( 5$) 3,300,000 2/ 3,300,000 2/ Shipbuilding - British ( 60) 3,400,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 ’ Shipyards ( 75) 225,000,000 91,000,000 134,000,000 Total Merchant Program 257,808,400 92,700,000 139,000,000 Coast Guard Vessels Shipbuilding 1,000,000 250,000 750,000 Shipyards 0 0 co in co co in 1,471,450 ^,414,350 Total Coast Guard Program 6,885,800 1,7a.450 5,164,350 GRAND TOTAL 815,897,200 272,211,450 517,577.350 1/ Exclusive of teak, lignum vitae, and. millwork; overseas bases not included. 2/ Complete information on the location of shipyards constructing vessels for the Maritime Commission is unavailable, while construction of shipways for the fabrication of 200 additional vessels under the emergency program has not been begunr Page 6j Increased civilian demand for lumber in 1941 and 1942 may be expected as a result of (a) the indirect military requirements for plant and equipment necessary to meet the defense program, and (b) the extra-normal civilian demand that will arise from the increased purchasing power resulting from the large defense expenditures. It is estimated by Government economists that the defense program and the accompanying expansion to supply indirect military requirements and increased civilian demand will result in aggregate production equivalent to a national income of $85 billion in 1941, and $95 billion in 1942. These levels of aggregate production were broken down into the corresponding levels of the various industrial segments of which they are composed; and the civilian requirements for lumber were then estimated from the past relationships between lumber takings and production in the major lumber-consuming industries. Specifically, past figures of lumber used in construction were related to expenditures for total construction. Lumber purchased by railroads was related to the volume of railroad transportation. And the lumber consumed by industry for boxes, crating, furniture, etc., was related to the Federal Reserve Board over-all index of industrial production. A similar procedure was followed in obtaining estimates for softwood and hardwood. Slight adjustments were then made to iron out minor discrepancies and to make the sub-groups check out with the total• It is assumed in making these estimates that the supply of lumber will be adequate to meet all requirements so that no demands will have to be restricted because of a bottleneck in this industry. The method used yielded close estimates of actual lumber consumption in previous years and should, therefore, offer fairly reliable measures of the probable civilian demand for lumber during the next two years. TABLE Uj - ESTIMATED CIVILIAN REQUIREMENTS FOR LUMBER, BY KIND OF LUMBER AND USE, IN CALENDAR YEARS 1941 AND 1942 (In Millions of Board Feet) Kind of Lumber Calendar Year and Use 1941 1942 Total Lumber 31,100 3^.300 Building and construction 22,000 6,500 24,200 Industrial; boxes and crating 7,100 Railroad purchasing 2,600 3,000 Total Softwood 26,580 29,220 Building and construction 20,610 22,640 Industrial; boxes and crating 3,830 4,120 Railroad purchasing 2,140 2,460 Total Hardwood 4,520 5,080 Building and construction 1.390 1,560 Industrial; boxes and crating 2.670 2,980 Railroad purchasing 460 540 TABLE 44 - DOMESTIC LUMBER CONSUMPTION, BY USES, 1929-1940 1/ (In Billions of Board Feet) Year Building and Construction Industrial (Incl. Boxes and Crating) Railroad Purchasing Total 1929 18.5 Total Lumber 10.6 3.2 32.3 1930 12.6 8.8 2.8 24.2 1931 10.1 5.6 1.7 HA 1932 6.6 4.0 1.4 12.0 1933 8.4 4.1 1.3 13.8 193H 8.1 4.3 1.7 14.1 1935 11.4 5.0 1.6 18.0 1936 14.8 5.5 2.0 22.3 1937 15.6 5.7 2.4 23.7 1938 15.6 4.7 1.3 21.6 1939 18.2 5.5 1.8 25.5 1940 20.5 6.0 1.9 28.4 1929 17.1 Softwoods 6.5 2.4 26.0 1930 11.7 5.8 2.1 19.6 1931 9.U 3.5 1.3 14.2 1932 6.2 2.6 1.0 9.8 1933 7.9 2.5 1.0 11.4 193* 7.7 2.7 1.3 11*7 1935 10.8 3.0 1.3 15.1 1936 13.9 3.3 1.6 18.8 1937 iM 3.5 2.0 20.2 1938 14.6 2.9 1.0 18.5 1939 17.0 3.2 1.5 21.7 1929 1.4 Hardwoods 4.1 .8 6.3 1930 .9 3.0 .7 4.6 1931 .7 2.1 .4 3.2 1932 .4 1.4 .4 2.2 1933 .5 1.6 •3 2.4 193U .4 1.6 .4 2.4 1935 .6 2.0 .3 2.9 1936 .9 -2.2 .4 3.5 1937 .9 2.2 .4 3.5 1938 1.0 1.8 .3 3.1 1939 1.2 2.3 .3 3.8 1/ Source: ’‘Lumber Industry Facts”, 1939 and 1940 Supplement, published by National Lumber Manufactures Association, Washington, D. C. The figures for 1940 are preliminary estimates submitted to us by the National Lumber Manufactures Association. Page 64 APPENDIX I TRANSPORTATION COSTS Costs of Transporting Lumber by Hail and. Water from the Douglas Fir Region to Major Consuming Centers in the United. States Outside of the Douglas Fir Producing Area. This memorandum was prepared by the West Coast Lumbermen's Association. Water transportation rates shown herein were verified by the United States Maritime Commission. Rail transportation rates were verified by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and revisions suggested by the Interstate Commerce Commission were incorporated in this report. Average Rail Freight The best average rail freight rate is estimated from shipments of 100 mills during the year 1939» involving 47,808 cars. Shipments to every state in the Union are included; also shipments locally in Washington and Oregon. An estimated average rate was used for each state with actual weights. Since most of the rates are blanketed to destination territory, the estimated average rates taken are believed to be representative. Using a weighted average under this method, the average rate paid in 1939 was $0.58 cents per cwt. Average rail freight from competing regions is not available. Rail Lumber Rates to Territory East of Rock Mountains from the Douglas Fir Region Also Comparative Rates from the Southern Pine Region to Eastern Territory A mp follows which gives a bird’s-eye view of the rates in effect from the Douglas fir region. In Western Washington and Oregon all shipping points are grouped in the Coast origins. The territory east of Chicago and north of the Ohio and Potomac Rivers, known as Official Territory, is highly competitive territory - West Coast with Southern pine. Alternate rates are published from the West Coast* 1. An 82-cent rate with a high minimum weight of 50,000 lbs. and limited description is blanketed to the entire territory. 1/ A uniform rate charged to or from any one of a group or block of points within a given territory. 2. Group ”DH lumber rates higher than the blanket 82-cent rates with a more extensive list of articles which may be shipped and a lower minimum weight. Rates from the South have an extensive list of articles which may be shipped - corresponding to West Coast Group ”Dn description. In making comparative rate histories from the South and West to Eastern Territory, June 24, 1918, is used as the starting date. While the Interstate Commerce Commission has never fixed the rate relationship between the two territories, in the most recent case before the Interstate Commerce Commission the decision referred to the June 24, 1918, date as being a period when rates were properly related. The following tabulations are submitted with this memorandum: 1. Competitive rail costs to Detroit, Michigan under West Coast blanket rate and from Alexandria, Louisiana, typical southern origin. The heavier weight of southern lumber is taken into consideration in this study. On ceiling, the lightest article, the West Coast mills pay $3»9$ Per M. more than Southern pine, while on green timbers the additional freight charge from West Coast mills is $9.46. A conservative average of added freight for West Coast mills would exceed $7.00 per M. 2. Comparison of spreads - West Coast Group ”DM lumber rates over Southern pine to typical destinations in Official Territory. At Detroit, Michigan the spread - West Coast over Southern freight costs - increased from 33*8 cents per cwt, on June 24, 1918, to 47.5 cents per cwt. today. This is an increase in spread of 13»7 cents per cwt., or more than $3.00 Per M. The additional charge for freight paid by West Coast lumber to Detroit over Southern pine exceeds $10.00 per M. as an average. 3« Comparison of spreads - West Coast blanket lumber rate and Southern pine lumber rates to typical destinations in Official Territory. At Detroit, Michigan, increase in the spread Is from 33.8 to 40 cents per cwt., an additional freight cost to West Coast lumber of nearly $10.00 per M. Page 65 Atlantic Coast Water Bate A history of the rates for the movement of lumber by water to the Atlantic Coast is shown in Table 48. Prior to June 1, 1933» when the Intercoastal Shipping Act gave the United. States Maritime Commission authority to regulate do** mestic rates, Atlantic Coast water rates were unregulated and varied with supply and demand for space. Bates as low as $6.50 were reported during periods of excess supply. The $17*00 per MNBM rate published to take effect March 1, 1941, compared with the rate of $9*75 Per MNBM in effect June 1, 1933» is increase of $7.25 P©r M. feet, or 7^ per cent. California From Grays Harbor, Willapa Harbor, Puget Sound, Columbia Biver, and Oregon Coast points to California, lumber transportation is largely by vessel; from the Willamette Valley by rail. On September 21, 193$ the coastwise lumber rates from Oregon and Washington to California were placed under the jurisdiction of the United States Maritime Commission. Prior to that time the rates were not regulated, and while a conference of the steamer lines attempted to establish a firm lumber rate structure because of the number of ships which were not included in the conference, it was extremely difficult to maintain a stabilized rate structure. Table 4$ shows the history of the lumber rates to the principal points of destination, San Francisco and Los Angeles Harbor, beginning with September 21. Prior to September 21 the rate was as low as $4.50 per 14. If an estimated rate of $5.00 is taken as an average, the increase since September 21, 1938, is $2.00 per M. at San Francisco, or 40 per cent and at Los Angeles Harbor, $2.50 per M. or 50 per cent. Water rates from all of the ports in Washington and Oregon are on the same basis so the shipper from Portland pays the same rate as the shipper from Astoria, Longview, Seattle, Bellingham, Aberdeen, Haymond, or Marshfield, Oregon. Because of the water competition, rail rates for many years from the Willamette Valley to California have been maintained on the same level, with exception of a 5 per cent increase which was applied on March 28, 1938. The same rate applies to California points from the entire Willamette Valley, including Boseburg, Oregon and all of the branch lines beginning with Glendale, Oregon. From points north of Portland, rates are higher according to location. Seattle, Tacoma, Haymond, Aberdeen, and Hoquiam are all on the Seattle-Tacoma level as reflected by Table 50. TABLE 45 - COMPETITIVE. RAIL COSTS TO DETROIT, MICHIGAN WEST COAST (PORTLAND, ORE.) VS. SOUTHERN PINE (ALEXANDRIA, LA.) West Coast Blanket Lumber Rate Southern Pine Lumber Rate 82^ per cwt. 42^ per cwt. Weight Per 1000 Ft. BM Delivered Rail Costs Spread in Delivery Cost Per 1000 Pt. BM Favor Southern Pine Lbs. Drop Siding, Flooring West Coast 1,800 $14.76 Southern Pine 1,900 7.?8 $6.78 Ceiling West Coast 1,200 9.84 Southern Pine 1,400 5.88 3.96 1x8 Boards S43 West Coast 2,200 18.04 Southern Pine 2,300 9.66 8.38 2x4 Dimension S4S West Coast 2,200 18.04 Southern Pine 2,500 10.50 7.51* 2 x 10 Joists S4S West Coast 2,300 18.86 Southern Pine 2,600 10.92 7-9^ 3 x 12 Planks S4S West Coast 2,800 22.96 Southern Pine 4,000 16.80 6.16 6x6 Timbers S4S West Coast 2,900 23*78 Southern Pine 3,800 15-96 7.82 12 x 12 Timbers S4S West Coast 3.IOO 25.42 Southern Pine 3,800 15.96 9.U9 Source: WCLA Traffic Department January 29, 1941 A more detailed historical statement of rates is contained in Table 51. Tables 52, 53» 54 are supplemental data submitted by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Pmc M WEST COAST LUMBERMEN’S ASSOCIATION SEATTLE, WASH. SPARTANSBURG, S. CAR. SHOWN IN 94 ‘A ZONE, HAS 97 'A RATE Page 67 TABLE 46 - COMPARISON OF INCREASE IN SPREADS WEST COAST GROUP D OVER SOUTHERN PINE LUMBER RATES TO TYPICAL DESTINATIONS IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY From Increase in To North Pacific Coast Seattle (Cents) Southern Pine Alexandria (Cents) Spread West Coast Over Southern Pine (Cents) Spread West Coast over Southern Pine 6-24-18 to I-1Ç-40 (Cents) (Per Cent) Grand Rapids, Mich» June 24, 1918 Jan. 9, 1940 Jan. 10, 19U0 62.4 86.5 86.5 31.7 46.0 42 3O.7 40.5 44.5 13.8 45.O Indianapolis, Ind. June 24, 191S Jan. 9, 1940 Jan. 10, 1940 64.4 88.5 88.5 26.5 41 41 37.9 U7.5 U7.5 9.6 25.3 Detroit, Mich. June 24, 191S Jan. 9, 1940 Jan. 10, 1940 65.5 89.5 89.5 31.7 46 42 33.8 ^3-5 ^7-5 13.7 40.5 Cleveland, Ohio June 24, 1918 Jan. 9, 1940 Jan. 10, 1940 66.5 91.5 91.5 32.8 48 44 33-7 U3.5 U7.5 13.8 40.9 Buffalo, N. Y. June 24, 1918 Jan. 9, 1940 Jan. 10, 1940 69.7 93 93 3^.5 50 46 35.2 U3 U? 11.8 33.5 Nev York, N. Y. June 24, 1918 Jan. 9, 1940 Jan. 10, 1940 75 9M 9U.5 35.5 51 47 39.5 *»3-5 **7-5 8.0 20.3 TABLE 47 - COMPARISON OF INCREASE IN SPREADS WEST COAST BLANKET LUMBER RATE OVER SOUTHERN PINE LUMBER RATES TO TYPICAL DESTINATIONS IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY From Increase in Spread Spread North West Coast North Southern Coast over Southern Pacific Pine Over Pine Coast Alex- Southern 6-24-18 to To Seattle andria Pine Present (Cents) (Cents) (Cents) (Cents)(Per Cent) Grand Rapids, Mich. June 24, 1918 62.4 3I.7 3O.7 Jan. 9, 1940 82 46.0 36.O Present 82 42 4o 9.3 3O.3 Indianapolis, Ind. June 24, 1918 64.4 26.5 37.9 Jan. 9, 1940 82 41 41 Present 82 41 41 3.1 8.2 Detroit, Mich. June 24, 1918 65-5 31.7 33.8 Jan. 9, 1940 82 46 36 Present 82 42 4o 6.2 I8.3 Cleveland, Ohio June 24, 1918 66.5 32.8 33.7 Jan. 9, 1940 82 48 3* Present 82 44 38 4.3 12.8 Buffalo, N. Y. June 24, 1918 69.7 3M 35.2 Jan. 9» 1940 82 50 32 Present 82 46 36 0.8 2.3 New York, N. Y. June 24, 1918 75 •35.5 39*5 Jan. 9, 1940 82 51 31 Present 82 U7 35 4.5 11.4 SOURCE: WCLA Traffic Department January 29, 1941 SOURCE: WCLA Traffic Department October 2, 1940 Page 68 TABLE 48 - HISTORY OF INTERCOASTAL LUMBER RATES June 1, 1933 March 1, 1941 (Dollars and Cents per M.B.M.) June 1, 1933 $ 9-75 July 1, 1933 1°.25 August 1, 1933 11.00 September 1, 1933 12.00 October 3, 1935 12.50 November 6, 1936 13.00 April 15, 1937 14.00 February 15, 19^0 15*00 May 1, 191»0 16.00 March 1, 1941 17.00 Source: WCLA Traffic Department January 30, 1941 TABLE 49 - COASTWISE LUMBER RATES FROM OREGON AND WASHINGTON PORTS TO CALIFORNIA Date Ports to San Francisco Los Angeles Harbor Rates in Dollars Per M Feet Prior to September 21, 1938 September 21, 1938 December 20, 1939 April 8, 1940 October 15, 1940 Rates not regulated $6.00 $6.00 6.00 6.50 6.50 7.00 7.00 7.50 TABLE 50 - LUMBER RAIL RATES FROM PORTLAND, OREGON AND SEATTLE, WASHINGTON TO TYPICAL CALIFORNIA DESTINATIONS From Portland, Ore. & Willamette Valley To Miles Rates in Cents Per 100 Lbs. 1/30/41 Dollars and Cents Per #M.B.M. Sacramento 658.4 25 5.75 Stockton 7OO.8 25 5.75 San Francisco 726.2 30 6.90 Fresno 822.8 35 8.O5 Bakersfield 93O.2 42 9.66 Los Angeles Harbor 1.099.2 * 44 10.12 From Seattle, Wash. To Sacramento S4o.6 35 8.O5 Stockton 883.0 35 8.05 San Francisco 908.4 40 9*20 Fresno 1,005.0 44 10.12 Bakersfield 1,112.4 49 11.27 Los Angeles Harbor 1,287.4 # 51 11.73 M/W 50,000 Lbs. # Based on Av. Weight 2,300 Lbs. per 1,000 ft. B.M. Source: WCLA Traffic Department January 30, 1941 Source: WCLA Traffic Department January 29» 1941 Pace 69 TABLE $1 - COMPARATIVE RATE HISTORY - WEST COAST ANO SOUTHERN PINE - TO EASTERN TERRITORY WITH INCREASES SHOWN IN CENTS PER HUNDRED POUNDS AND IN PER CENT ALSO SPREAD IN RATES WEST COAST OVER SOUTHERN PINE To date _____SEATTLE. WASHINGTON HATTIESBURG. MISSISSIPPI. ALEXANDRIA. LOUISIANA. SPREAD _ Rate Increase over June ?4_ 1918 Rate _ INCREASE OVER June ?4. 1918 Rate Increase over June ?4_ 1918 WEST COAST OVER SOUTHERN PINE Hattiesburg, miss. CENTS per Cwt Alexandria, la. Cents per Cwt Cents per Cwt Cents per Cwt PER CENT CENTS per Cwt CENTS PER CwT PER Cent CENTS PER Cwt cents per Cwt PER CENT Chicago» ill. June 2». 1918 55 * 26.5 ,4.5 2«-5 28.5 June 25, 1918 60 5 9.1 31.5 5 18.9 31.5 5 18.9 28.5 28.5 Jan. 10, 1920 60 5 9.1 31.5 5 18.9 32.5 6 22.6 28.5 27.5 Aug. 26, I92O 80 25 »5.5 42 15.5 58.5 44 17.5 66.0 3« 36 Mar. 21» 1921 73 18 32.7 42 15.5 58.5 44 17.5 66.0 31 29 mar. 15» 1922 73 18 32.7 38.5 12 »5.3 44 17.5 66.0 3‘.5 29 Apr. 13, I922 73 18 32.7 38.5 12 »5.3 40.5 14 52.8 3». 5 32.5 July 1, 1922 72 17 30.9 38 11.5 43.4 39.5 13 49.1 34 32.5 Jan. 4, 1932 72.6 17.6 32.0 38.6 12.1 45.7 40.1 13.6 51.3 34 32.5 OCT. 1, 1933 72 17 30.9 38 II.5 43.4 39.5 13 49.1 34 32.5 mar. 29, 1938 76 21 38.2 4o I3.5 50.9 41 14.5 54.7 36 35 Indianapolis» June 24, 1918 64.4 25.5 26.5 38.9 37.9 Indiana June 25, 1918 69.5 5.1 7.9 30.5 5 19.6 31.5 5 18.9 39 38 Aug. 2^, I92O 93.5 29.1 *5.2 42 16.5 61.7 44.5 18 67.9 51.5 »9 mar. 21, 192I 86.5 22.1 34.3 42 16.5 64.7 44.5 18 67.9 44.5 42 DEC. 24, I92I 85 20.6 32.0 42 16.5 64.7 44.5 18 67.9 43 40.5 Mar. 13. 1922 «5 20.6 32.0 38.5 13 51.0 44.5 1« «7.9 46.5 40.5 July 1, 1922 «5 20.6 32.0 38 12.5 51.0 39 12.5 47.2 47 46 Aug. 17, 1923 «•.5 20.1 31.2 38 12.5 51.c 39 1,-5 47.2 46.5 45.5 Jan. 4, 1932 85.1 2O.7 32.1 38.6 13.I 51.» 39.6 13.1 49.4 46.5 45.5 OCT. 1, 1933 «1.5 20.1 31.2 38 12.5 51.0 59 12.5 47.2 46.5 45.5 Aug. 24, 1935 / 72 7.6 11.8 38 12.5 51.0 39 12.5 47.2 3» 33 July 1, 1936 / 78 13.6 21.1 38 12.5 51.0 39 12.5 47.2 4o 39 Mar. 29, 1938 (< 82 17.6 27.3 4o 1».5 56.9 41 14.5 54.7 42 41 ( «9 24.6 38.2 4o 14.5 56.9 41 14.5 5».7 49 48 DETROIT» June 24» 1918 65.5 30.7 31.7 34.8 33.8 Michigan JUNE 25, 1918 70.5 5 7.6 35.5 4.8 15.6 36.5 4.8 15.1 35 34 Aug. 26, 1920 9“.5 29 44.3 *7.5 16.8 5*.7 48.5 16.8 53.0 47 46 Mar. 21, 1921 87.5 22 33.6 47.5 16.8 54.7 38.5 16.8 53.0 4o 39 DEC. 24» 192I 85 19.5 29.8 47.5 16.8 54.7 48.5 16.8 53.0 37.5 36.5 mar. 13, 1922 85 19.5 29.8 42.5 11.8 3«.» 48.5 16.8 53.0 42.5 56.5 May 16, 1922 85 19.5 29.8 »5.5 12.8 41.7 48.5 16.8 5J.0 41.5 36.5 July 1, 1922 85 19.5 29.8 43 12.3 4o.l 43.5 11.8 37.2 42 41.5 July 15, 1929 85 19.5 29.8 43 12.3 40.1 »3.5 11.8 37.2 42 41.5 Jan. 4, 1932 85.6 20.1 30.7 43.6 12.9 42.0 44.1 12.4 39.1 42 41.5 OCT. 1, 1933 «5 I9.5 29.8 43 12.3 4o.l 43.5 11.8 37.2 42 41.5 Aug. 2», 1935 i 12 6.5 9.9 *3 12.3 40.1 43.5 11.8 37.2 29 28.5 DEC. 12, 1935 Í 12 6.5 9.9 38 7.3 23.8 39.5 7.8 24.6 34 32.5 July 1, 1936 I 78 12.5 19.I 12.3 40.1 »3.5 11.8 37.2 35 34.5 mar. 29, 1938 (/ 82 16.5 25.2 »5 1»., 46.6 46 14.3 45.1 37 36 ( «9 24.5 35.9 »5 14.3 46.6 46 14.3 45.1 44 43 proposed NO CHANGE 41 10.3 33.6 42 10.3 32.5 48, i*41 47, *40 (Continued) Page 70 TABLE 51 (CONT’D) - COMPARATIVE RATE HISTORY - WEST COAST ANO SOUTHERN PINE - TO EASTERN TERRITORY WITH INCREASES SHOWN IN CENTS PER HUNDRED POUNDS ANO IN PER CENT ALSO SPREAD IN RATES WEST COAST OVER SOUTHERN PINE To date —SCALILA WASHINGTON HATTIESBURG. MISSISSIPPI ALEXANDRIA. LOUISIANA S P R E A D Rate increase over JUNE 1918 Rate increase Over June 1910 Rate _ INCREASE OVER June 24. 1910 ■WEST COAST OVER S »OUT HERN PINE Hattiesburg, Miss. Cents per ÇwT Alexandria, La. Cents PER CWT Cents per Cwt CENTS per Cwt PER Cent Cents per Cwt CENTS per Cwt PER Cent CENTS per Cwt CENTS per Cwt PER CENT Cleveland, June 24, 191g 66.3 31.« 32.« 5».7 33.7 OHIO June 25, 191g U.S 5 7.5 37 5.2 16.4 30 5.2 I5.9 34.5 33.5 Aug. 26, 1920 96.5 50 45.1 49.5 17.7 55.7 50.5 17.7 54.O »7 46 mar. J, 1921 «9.5 23 54.6 49.5 17.7 55.7 50.5 17.7 54.O 4o 39 dec. 24, 1921 00.5 22 33.1 49.5 17.7 55.7 50.5 17.7 54.0 39 30 Apr. ij, 1922 gg. 5 22 33.1 49.5 17.7 55.7 50.5 17.7 54.0 39 30 may 16, 1922 gg.5 22 33.1 49.5 17.7 55.7 50.5 17.7 54.0 39 30 July 1, 1922 gg.5 22 33.1 44.5 12.7 39.9 »5-5 12.7 30.7 44 43 sept.50, 1922 00,5 22 33.I 44.5 12.7 39.9 »5.5 12.7 30.7 44 43 aug. 17, 1923 si 20.5 30.g 44.5 12.7 39.9 »5.5 12.7 5«.? 42.5 41.5 sept.15, 1926 «7 20.5 30.« 44 12.2 3«.4 95.5 12.7 30.7 95 41.5 Jan. 4, 1932 07.6 21.1 31.7 44.6 12.« 4o. 5 46.1 13.3 40.5 43 41.5 oct. 1, 1933 «7 20.5 30.« 44 12.2 30.4 »5.5 12.7 5«-7 »5 41.5 Aug. 24, 1935 / 72 5.5 «.3 44 12.2 3«.* »5.5 12.7 30.7 20 26.5 dec. 12, 193$ / 72 5.5 «•3 3« 6.2 19.5 39.5 «.7 20.4 34 32.5 July 1, 1936 / 7g 11.5 17.3 44 12.2 3g.4 95.5 12.7 3O.7 34 32.5 Mar. 2g, 193g «2 15.5 23.3 46 14.2 44.7 40 15.2 46.J 36 34 ( 91 2<5 36.« 46 14.2 44.7 40 15.2 46.J »5 43 proposed No Change 42 10.2 32.1 44 11.2 34.1 49» *4o 47» *30 Buffalo, June ¿1, 191g *9.7 33 5».5 36.7 35.2 N. Y. JUNE 25, 191g 74.5 4.0 6.9 3« 5 15.2 39.5 5 19.5 36.5 35.0 FEB. 15, 1919 75 5.3 7.« 3« 5 15.2 39.5 5 19.5 37 35.5 Aug. 26, 1920 101 51.3 44.9 50.5 17.5 53.0 52.5 10 52.2 50.5 40.5 mar. 21, 1921 9^ 24.J 34.9 50.5 17.5 53.0 52.5 10 52.2 ”3.5 41.5 dec. 24, 1921 gg.5 10.g 27.0 50.5 17.5 53.0 52.5 1« 52.2 3« 36 mar. 13, 1922 gg.5 10.0 27.0 50.5 17.5 53.0 52.5 10 52.2 30 3^ may 16, 1922 gg.5 l«.g 27.0 50.5 17.5 53.0 52.5 10 52.2 30 36 July 1, 1922 gg.5 1g. g 27.0 45.5 12.5 37.9 »7.5 15 37.7 93 41 July 20, 192U gg.5 Ig.g 27.0 *5 12 36.4 »7.5 13 37.7 »3.5 45 Jan. 4, 1932 «9.1 19. 4 il.» 45.6 12.6 30.2 40.1 13.6 39.4 93.5 41 oct. 1, 1933 gg.5 10.S 27.0 *5 12 56.4 47.5 13 37.7 43.5 45 Aug. z4, 1955 / 72 2.3 3.3 »5 12 36.4 47.5 13 37.7 27 24.5 dec. 12, 1935 i u 2.3 3.3 3« 5 15.2 39.5 5 19.5 5» 32.5 July 1, 1936 I It 0.3 11.9 *5 12 36.4 97.5 13 37.7 33 30.5 Mar. 2g, 1930 « «2 12.3 17.4 »7 14 42.4 50 15.5 44.9 35 32 ( 95 23.3 55. 9 »7 14 42.4 50 15.5 44.9 46 43 proposed Mo Change *3 10 30.3 46 11.5 33.3 50» *39 »7. *5« New York, June 24, 191g 75 34 35.5 ♦ 41 39.5 n. Y. June 29, 191g go 5 6.7 39 5 19.7 40.5 5 14.1 41 39.5 Aug. 26, 1920 106.5 31.5 42.0 52 IS 52.9 5» 1O.5 52.1 59.5 52.5 dec. 24, 1921 90 15 20.0 52 10 52.$ 5» 10.5 52.1 3« 36 JULY 1, 1922 90 15 20.0 »7 13 30.2 49 13.5 30.0 43 41 Jan. Ii, 1932 90.6 15.6 20.0 47.6 13.6 40.0 49.6 14.1 39.7 93 41 Oct. 1, 1933 90 20.0 47 13 30.2 99 13.5 30.0 43 41 Aug. z4, 1933 / 72 3* 4.o* »7 13 30.2 49 13.5 3O.O 25 23 dec. 12, 1933 / 72 3* 4,5® 3« 4 11.0 42.5 7 19.7 34 29.5 July 1, 1936 / 7g 3 4.0 47 13 30.2 49 13.5 30.0 31 29 mar. 2g, 193g (/ «2 7 9.3 »9 15 44.1 51 15.5 »5.7 33 31 ( 95 20 26.7 49 15 44.1 51 15.5 43.7 46 44 Propped NO CHANGE ___ 45 11 32.4 47 11.5 32.4 50. *37 4o. *35 note: rates in force on June 24, 191g, not checked by interstate Commerce Commission. / blanket Lumber Rate. * Spread under Blanket Lumber Rate. _____________________________________________________________________________________________* Indicates reduction under rate of June 24, 1910. Page 71 table 52 - present rates on ujmber in carloads from north pacific coast points to representative destinations rates stated in cents per hundred pounds MINIMUM WEIGHT SHOWN FOR 34 FOOT CLOSED CAR STATED IN POUNDS TO Representative DEST(NATION Shown on map named in Tariff TO Representative CEST I NAT ION Shown On Map named in Tariff Rate minihum «LIGHT AUTHORITY rate K1N1 MUM «EIGHT MUTHORITY MOBILE» ala. 84 1/2 8u 1/2 58,000 Kipp’s I.C.C. no. 1454 butte» mont. 47 >7 J8,000 Bohon's I.C.C. no. 594 Montgomery, ala. ¡9 1/2 89 1/2 58,000 11 OMAHA, neb. 45 1/2 45 1/2 )8,000 kipp's i.c.c. no. 1437 YORK, ala. 84 1/2 84 1/2 58,000 II north Platte, neb. G 38,000 * Eufaula, ala. 92 y2 58,000 M KIMBALL, NEB. 55 1/2 55 1/2 38,000 phoenix, ariz. G P 45 1/2 58,000 haynes* I.C.C. no. 1547 Manchester, n. h. 94 1/2 94 1/2 38,000 kipp's I.C.C. no. 1434 II II G ST2 1/2 58,000 M M H 82 82 50,000 11 LITTLE ROCK, ARK. 75 1/2 75 1/2 58,000 Kipp's I.C.C. No. 1455 NEWARK, N. J. 94 1/2 94 1/2 38,000 H Gentry, ark. 45 1/2 45 1/2 58,000 kipp's I.C.C. No. 1457 H H 82 82 50,000 It new haven, Conn, ?4 1/2 94 1/2 58,000 Kipp's I.C.C. No. 1454 Albuquerque, n. m. 45 1/2 45 1/2 38,000 kipp's i.c.c. no. 1*37 11 11 82 82 50,000 H Carlsbad, n. m. 75 1/2 75 Jz 38,000 •• WILMINGTON, DEL. 9* 1/2 >4 1/2 58,000 II Reno, Nev. G P58 38,000 haynes' I.C.C. no. 1347 11 II 82 82 50,000 II H H C 347 38,000 •• WASHINGTON, D. C. 9“ 1/2 94 1/2 58,000 •I Buffalo, n. y. 95 95 38,000 kipp's I.C.C. no. 1434 •1 II 82 82 50,000 II H 82 82 50,000 H JACKSONVILLE, FLA. 91 1/2 97 1/2 58,000 »• new York, n. y. 94 1/2 94 1/2 38,000 H MIAMI, Fla. G 108 58,000 II 11 II 82 82 50,000 w Pensacola, Fla. G 89 1/2 58,000 II ASHVILLE, N. C. 94 1/2 94 1/2 38,000 M Marianna, Fla. 92 92 58,000 M Greensboro, n. c. 97 1/2 97 1/2 38,000 H ATLANTA, GA. 92 92 58,000 H Bismarck, n. d. 54 1/2 54 1/2 38,000 kipp's I.C.C. No. 14J7 Savannah, Ga. 97 1/2 97 1/2 58,000 II Toledo, Ohio 89 1/2 89 1/2 38,000 kipp's I.C.C. no. 1434 Athens, Ga-. 94 1/2 94 1/2 58,000 II H 11 82 82 50,000 * POCATELLO, IDA. G 47 1/2 58,000 kipp's I.C.C. no. 1457 Columbus, Ohio 91 1/2 91 1/2 38,000 H MONTPELIER, IDA. SJ 1/2 53 1/2 58,000 M »• N 82 82 50,000 11 Chicago, ill. 75 1/2 75 1/2 58,000 Kipp's i.C.C. no. 1459 OKLAHOMA ClTY, OKLA. 45 1/2 45 1/2 38,000 kipp's I.C.C. no. 1437 rock island, ill. 71 1/2 71 1/2 58,000 11 Ardmore, ukla. 75 1/2 75 1/2 38,000 H Danville, ill. 75 1/2 75 1/2 58,000 H altus, Okla. 75 1/2 75 1/2 38,000 • Indianapolis, ino. 88 1/2 88 1/2 58,000 Kipp's I.C.C. No. 1454 PITTSBURGH, PA. 95 95 38,000 kipp's I.C.C. NO. 14>i II II 6¿ SO/.'îo H •• w 82 82 50,000 11 Evansville, Ino. G 85 58,000 11 Philadelphia, Pa. 94 1/2 94 1/2 38,000 H W M 82 12 50,000 •1 H 11 82 82 50,000 11 Valparaiso, Ind. 82 1/2 82 1/2 58,000 H providence, R. I. 94 1/2 9» 1/2 38,000 h II II 82 82 50,000 M 11 H 82 82 50,000 11 South bend, Ind.- G 85 58,000 •I Charleston, s. C. 97 1/2 97 1/2 38,000 11 N II 82 82 50,000 11 SPARTANSBURG, S. C. 94 1/2 97 1/2 38,000 H Des Moines, Iowa 71 1/2 71 1/2 58,000 kipp's i.C.C. no. 1459 Aberdeen, 3. 0. 54 1/2 54 1/2 38,000 kipp's I.C.C. no. 1437 Sioux City, Iowa ¿5 1/2 45 1/2 58,000 N Sioux Falls, 3. 0. 45 1/2 45 1/2 38,000 H Cherokee, iowa G 48 1/2 58,000 11 PIERRE, 3. 0. G 48 1/2 38,000 N Topeka, kans. 45 1/2 45 1/2 58,000 kipp's i.C.C. no. 1457 Nashville, Tenn. 89 1/2 89 1/2 38,000 kipp's I.C.C. no. 1434 Colby, Kans. 45 1/2 45 1/2 58,000 M Chattanooga, Tenn. 92 92 38,000 H Cadiz, ky. 87 1/2 «7 1/2 58,000 kipp's i.C.C. no. 1454 hempmis, Tenn. 75 1/2 75 1/2 38,000 kipp's I.C.C. NO. 1439 Lexington, ky. 89 1/2 89 1/2 58,000 H Jackson, Tenn. 79 79 58,000 kipp's I.C.C. no. 1434 11 II 82 82 50,000 It Houston, Tex. 75 1/2 75 1/2 38,000 kipp's I.C.C. NO. 1437 Paducah, ky. 75 1/2 75 1/2 58,000 kipp's i.C.C. no. 1459 gMARILLO, Tex. 45 1/2 45 1/2 38,000 H Corbin, ky. 92 92 58,000 kipp's I.C.C. no. 1454 Lubbock, Tex. 75 1/2 75 1/2 38,000 11 Shreveport, La. 75 1/2 75 1/2 58,000 kipp's 1. C. C. No. 1439 Salt Lake City, Utah 50 50 38,000 H Mew Orleans, La. 75 1/2 75 1/2 58,000 11 Castle Gate, Utah G 55 1/2 38,000 H PORTLAND, Maine 94 1/2 94 1/2 58,000 KIPP'S I.C.C. NO. 1454 Burlington, vt. 94 1/2 94 1/2 38,000 KIPP'S I.C.C. NO. 1434 II II 82 82 50,000 11 H N 82 82 50,000 W Oakfield, Maine 101 101 58,000 11 Richmond, va. 94 1/2 94 1/2 38,000 11 BALTIMORE, MD. 94 1/2 94 1/2 58,000 11 N M 82 82 50,000 H M II 82 82 50,000 W Norfolk, Va. 94 1/2 94 1/2 38,000 »1 Boston, mass. 94 1/2 9*1/2 58,000 H M H 82 82 50,000 ft H H 82 82 50,000 II N Danville, Va. 94 1/2 94 1/2 38,000 H Grand Rapids, Mich. »4 1/2 84 1/2 58,000 kipp's i.c.c. no. 1434 Huntington, w. Va. 95 95 38,000 M 11 H 82 82 50,000 II * H 82 82 50,000 11 Bay City, mich. 88 1/2 88 1/2 58,000 w Elkins, w. Va. 94 1/2 94 1/2 « 38,000 W n m 82 82 50,000 M " W 82 82 50,000 M DETROIT, MICH. 89 1/2 «9 1/2 58,000 H ÖLUEFIELD, W.VA. 94 1/2 94 1/2 38,000 KIPP’S I.C.C. NO. 1434 N II 82 82 50,000 W H N 82 82 50,000 H ironwood, Mich. G 7 J 1/2 58,000 Kipp's I.C.C. no. 1459 Eau Claire, wise. G 72 1/2 38,000 kipp's I.C.C. no. 1439 MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 45 1/2 45 1/2 58,000 11 Milwaukee, wise. 75 1/2 75 1/2 58,000 M ROCHESTER, MINN. G 70 1/2 58,000 N Superior, wise. 45 1/2 45 1/2 38,000 N Crookston, Minn. G 59 1/2 58,000 H Cheyenne, wyo. 55 1/2 55.1/2 38,000 Kipp's I.C.C. no. 1457 albert lea, Minn. 71 1/2 71 1/2 38,000 N Jackson, miss. 79 79 58,000 kipp's i.c.c. no. 14}4 Explanation of Reference marks Gulfport, miss. 82 82 J8,000 w Greenville, Miss. 75 1/2 75 1/2 J8,000 11 G - Graded Rates Kansas City, mo. 65 1/2 45 1/2 58,000 kipp's I.C.C. no. 1839 p - applies FROM PORTLAND, Ore. sprinsfield, mo. G 72 1/2 58,000 M 3 - applies FROM SEATTLE, wash. st. Louis, mo. 75 1/2 75 1/2 1 J8,000 M Page 72 TABLE 53 - RATES ON LUMBER, CARLOADS, FROM HATTIESBURG, MISSISSIPPI, TO POINTS SHOW BELOW To In Force Rate Min. Wt. Tariff Detroit, Mich. 1- 9-40 45 36,000 Miller’s I.C.C. 349 1-10-40 41 it 11 2-26-41 41 11 11 Grand Rapids, Mich. 1- 9-40 45 11 11 1-10-40 41 11 11 2-26-41 41 11 11 Indianapolis, Ind. 1- 9-40 40 N ti 1-10-40 40 II 11 2-26-41 40 II 11 Cleveland, Ohio 1- 9-40 46 H 11 1-10-40 42 II 11 2-26-41 42 II 11 Buffalo, N. Y. 1- 9-40 47 34,000 Miller’s I.C.C. 343 1-10-40 43 N 11 2-26-41 43 N 11 New York, N. Y. 1- 9-40 49 N N 1-10-40 45 II II 2-26-41 45 It N TABLE 54 - CURRENT ALL-RAIL CARLOAD RATES ON LUMBER FROM THE LOWEST RATED NORTH ATLANTIC PORT, APPLICABLE IN CONNECTION WITH INTERCOASTAL WATER MOVEMENTS OF DOUGLAS FIR LUMBER PROM PACIFIC PORTS, TO THE FOLLOWING POINTS: Rates in Cents per 100 Pounds To From lowest-rated points found Baltimore, Md. Albany, N Grand Rapids, Mich. 33 cents (Note A) •w Indianapolis, Ind. 32 cents (Note A) - Detroit, Mich. 27 cents (Note A) Cleveland, Ohio 25 cents — Buffalo, N. Y. — 20 cents Note A - Rate also applies from Norfolk, Va. Minimum weight 3^*000 Lbs. Tariff authority for rates to all points, except Buffalo, Agent Curlett’s I.C.C. A-574. To Buffalo, N. Y., Agent . Curlett’s I.C.C. A-575 All rates shown are class 22»5 Page 73 APPENDIX II LABOR PRODUCTIVITY An adequate study of changes in labor productivity over a period of years would answer the question of whether more or less man-hours (with a comparable degree of skill) were required in the various years to produce a 1,000 board feet of lumber of the same quality, grade, and finish. To ascertain labor costs to produce a 1,000 board feet of such lumber, it would be necessary to obtain wages for workers producing the particular type of lumber under consideration. Precise data are not available to answer these questions. Statistics are available on the total production of West Coast lumber from year to year, but there is no indication of the changes from year to year in grade and size of lumber produced, nor of changes in the degree of finishing, both of which affect labor productivity. Statistics are available for man-hours and payrolls covering an estimated JO per cent of the total output of West Coast lumber, and these statistics, as indicated elsewhere in this report, permit a conclusion that the volume of lumber produced increased proportionately more in 1940 than the number of man-hours required to produce such lumber in 19^0> considering the average of 1935-39 as the base period. It shows too that payrolls increased in about the same proportion as production in 1939 00re than production in 19^0. These compari- sons appear valid as regards aggregate production, man-hours, and payroll, but they do not deal with the question of the amount of labor, or the cost of such labor, to produce a given quantity of comparable grade, quality, and finish lumber. For convenient reference, there is included here some of the statistical data prepared in the course of this survey in an attempt to ascertain changes in labor productivity. The data are subject to such limitations, as described below, that no definitive conclusions can be reached as regards changes from year to year in number of comparable man-hours required to produce a 1,000 board feet of comparable grade, quality, size, and finish lumber. Certain data obtained for purposes of this report from the West Coast Lumbermen's Association show for a certain number of identical companies (that is, companies identical in, say, 193$ and 1937» and another group identical in 1937 and 193$» etc.) production, man-hours, and payroll data upon which the indexes of Table 55 are based. These data show that the footage output of logs per man-hour increased less than unit labor cost from 1936 19^0, and that output of lumber per man-hour increased more than unit labor costs from 193$ to 19^0« These data indicate similar trends as the census data from 1937 to 1939 (that is, lower labor costs per M. board feet of logs and lumber in 1939 than in 1937)» and they conform with the 1937 to 1939 trend of man-hours, payroll production data presented earlier in this report. However, the WCLA data relate to only a small number of logging concerns and to from 37 to 53 sawmills which are not identical throughout the period. Inclusion or exclusion from one year to the next of mills which perform a hi¿£i degree of planing operations might affect the figures considerably. Table 56 presents an index of labor productivity constructed by the National Research Project from Census materials for logging and sawmilling combined for the Nation as a whole. The two series show a remarkably consistent trend for most of the period 1929-1939« Page 74 TABLS 55 - INDEXES OF OUTPUT PER MAN-HOUR AND UNIT LABOR COSTS IN DOUGLAS FIR LOGGING CAMPS AND SAWMILLS, 1936 TO 1940 1/ (1936=100) Year Logging 1/ Sawmills 2/ Logging and Sawmills Combined Output Per Man-Hour Unit Labor Cost Output Per Man-Hour Unit Labor Cost Output Per Man-Hour Unit labor Cost 1936 100 100 100 100 100 100 1937 102 110 104 108 IO3 109 193s 112 100 106 108 108 IO5 1939 115 98 112 102 II3 101 1940 IO5 110 US 101 111 IO5 1/ Data supplied, "by Wept Coast Lumbermen's Association. £/ Chain indexes based on data for identical establishments for consecutive years. The number of establishments ranged from 14 to 20 in logging and from 37 to 53 sawmills. TABL^ 56 - INDEXES OF OUTPUT PER MAN-HOUR IN THE LUMBER AND TIMBER PRODUCTS INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES, 1925-1939 (Average 1935“39=1OO.O) Year Output Per Man-Hour Lumber and Timber Products United States 1925 74.8 1926 7^.7 1927 77.6 1928 76.5 1929 80.6 I93O 79.*♦ I93I 90.1 1932 78.6 1933 85.2 1934 87.9 1935 95-7 1936 95.6 1937 95. 193s 100.4 1939 113.0 Source: Work Projects Administration, National Research Project, Production, Employment, and Productivity in 59 Manufacturing Industries, 1919"3^» Part 2, p. 126 (data revised and extended to 1939 the N. R. P. staff). Page 75 APPENDIX III EMPLOYMENT, EARNINGS, AND PRICES (Submitted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) This appendix discusses the problems encountered, in making the report on employment, earnings, and prices in the Douglas fir lumber industry and describes some of the limitations of the data used in the report. Employment The method ordinarily used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in estimating employment and payrolls calls for data approximating full coverage during some "base period and at successive intervals, as in the Census of Manufactures. The Bureau of the Census, however, publishes data only by industry and by State and has not ordinarily made available its schedules for segments of industries such as Douglas fir lumber. It is impossible, therefore, to check the Bureau’s sample against the total. As a result, it is not possible to compute full employment and payrolls in absolutes. Furthermore, it is not possible to correct any bias in the sample that may arise from firms dropping out or starting in business. The limitations of the data of employment and payrolls in Douglas fir lumber are such as to make it impossible to compute total employment and payrolls or to be certain that the indexes conform, except approximately, to the actual trends of employment and payrolls. Earnings The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ figures of average hourly earnings, average weekly hours, and average weekly earnings are adequate. There is, however, no satisfactory information about annual earnings. Two possible sources are the records of the unemployment insurance agencies of Washington and Oregon and the records of the old age insurance division of the Social Security Board. These records, however, do not make possible the ascertaining of trends. The use of the old age insurance records would be quite expensive unless some latitude is given as to time. The tabulations for 1939 would be comparatively inexpensive if adequate notice is given and if the work is done during the second half of 19^1» The trend of living costs might be different among the lumber workers from the trend of cost of living in Portland and Seattle (which are included in the regular Bureau of Labor Statistics Cost of Living surveys). Prices A. The Bureau of Labor Statistics Quoted Prices. The Bureau of Labor Statistics regularly collects quotations on 32 series of different types and sizes of Douglas fir lumber for the purpose of measuring general price trends. Right of these quotations have been weighted and included in a special Douglas fir index. These quotations include one specification of dimension and timbers and quotations on two different grades each of boards, drop siding, and flooring. The eight series carried in the Bureau’s weighted index represent manufacturer’s quoted price to the trade subject to a 2 per cent cash discount. The manufacturer’s quoted prices are taken from lists which are prepared for the use of salesmen in determining the price to be charged for the different kinds of Douglas fir. The lists are changed frequently to correspond with the rapidly changing market conditions in the industry. The Bureau of Labor Statistics receives reports from a small number of relatively large and medium sized producers. From the reports sent in by the producers the Bureau has selected one as representative and uses the price from this one firm in the index. The prices from the other reporting firms are used as a check on the prices reported by the representative firm and are held in readiness as substitutes if that should become necessary. These prices are collected to obtain a measure of overall market trends and are considered satisfactory for this purpose. The use of the Bureau of Labor Statistics price data of Douglas fir for detailed wage negotiations, however, is subject to limitations on three grounds. In the first place the series represent quoted prices, and there is some question concerning the frequency and extent of deviations from the Hofficial” price. In the second place the number of companies which report to the Bureau is very small and the applicability of this series to non-reporting members of the industry is questionable. The Bureau has not determined whether the trend in its prices can be used to represent the trends in the prices of different classes of mills or different classes of shipments* Thus, the series may reflect adequately prices charged by large Page 76 mills but not those of the medium-si zed. and smaller mills. Or it may reflect adequately only prices of rail shipments and not those of water shipments; or prices of rail shipments of large mills and not prices of cargo shipments of large mills. In the third place there are only eight items included in the Douglas fir index, and although they represent the most important products of the industry, they do not necessarily constitute the most important products of any one mill or any one type of mill. B. The West Coast Lumbermen’s Association Average Realization Series. The WCLA series of average realization do not necessarily represent changes in price. In the first place the changes in realizations will lag behind changes in price inasmuch as shipments invoiced during one month will contain orders contracted for not only currently but in previous months. In the second place the average realization will reflect changes in the type of transportation used. Thus, a shift from cargo shipment to rail shipment would probably result in an increase in the average realization even though no increase in price occurred. In the third place a change in the average realization would reflect month-to-month shifts in the importance of individual types, grades, and sizes of lumber sold. Thus, if there were a gain in the relative importance of No. 1 boards over No. 2 boards in one month, this would be reflected in an Increase in realizations even though no change in price occurred. Similarly, if drop siding increased in relative importance from the standpoint of number of board feet sold in one month as compared to the shipments of dimension or boards, this would cause an increase in the average realization notwithstanding stability in the individual prices. C. A Comparison of the Two Indexes. Notwithstanding the limitations of both series as indicated above, a comparison of the trends in the composite index computed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the average mill realizations computed by the WCLA since 1929 indicates the reliability of both measures of the general over-all price behavior and per unit gross income of the industry. Using the period 1935 to 1939 as a base, the indexes of the two series moved very closely together. Their 1929 highs were 110.9 -or the average mill realization and 111.2 for the average wholesale price; the 193^ highs were 97 »9 ancL 110.1; the 1937 highs were 118>A and 116.9» the 193$ lows were 93.7 and 95.1; the 19^0 highs were 133.2 and 129.2. The trends in the two series since 1935 have been remarkably similar. On the other hand, there are a good many questions about price changes in the Douglas fir industry to which neither series gives a satisfactory answer. In the first place the over-all composites of both quoted prices and realizations do not necessarily reflect changes in individual types, grades, or sizes. A mill which specializes in the production of one type of Douglas fir, the behavior of which is covered up by the general average is inadequately represented. Also left unanswered is the question of realizations on specific items of Douglas fir. When prices and realizations behave differently, it is impossible to determine whether the producers have been selling at other than quoted prices or whether there has merely been a shift in the relative importance of types of lumber shipped. 1 PAGE 77 APPENDIX IV - STATISTICAL TABLES TABLE 57 - RELATION of construction activity tc orders for ano prices of west coast lumber and southern pine lumber (Index average 1955-1959 = 100.o) PERIOD Contract awards for construction of Residential AND NON-RESIOEN-TIAL BUILDING Index OF VALUE OF Tctal Con- STRUC-T ION IN U.S. NEW ORDERS FOR SOUTHERN PINE AND WEST COAST LUMBER PRICE OF 9 Types of Douglas Fir Lumber (bls) price of 8 Types of Southern pine lumber (bls) Excess of Southern P INE prices uver Douglas Fir prices WEST COAST lumber and Southern PINE COMBINED. Quantity West Coast Lumber SOUTHERN PINE Quant ity PER CENT. THAT WEST Coast is of west Coast and southern pine Combined Quantity per Cent, that Southern pine is of west Coast & sou- IN XT SI FATES THERN Pl ME COMB. 1,000 SO. ft. floor space Index Million BD. FT. Index Million bo. ft. Index PER CENT. Index million bd. ft. Index PER Cent. Index Dollars per m bd. ft. Index dollars per m BD. ft. Index DOLLARS PER M bd. ft. Per CENT. Index of per Cent. 1955 2 U8,856 41 67 10,719 85 5,O»9 85 »7 102 5,670 80 55 98 17.97 92 21.18 89 5.21 17.9 1956 >105,278 100 101 15,971 108 6,591 ill »7 102 7,580 105 55 98 19. »7 99 25.07 97 5.60 18.5 86.9 1957 »59,586 108 107 12,955 100 5,911 99 »4 100 7,02» 100 5» 100 21.78 ill 26.56 ill ».58 21.0 98.6 1958 >124,511 105 108 12,S>i5 99 5,»59 92 »5 95 7,58» 105 57 106 18.98 97 22.86 96 5.88 20.» 95.8 1959 511,058 124 118 1»,»75 111 4,700 115 »6 100 7,775 110 5» 100 19.85 101 25.»5 107 5.58 2«.l 151.9 19>i0 688,59» 170 120 14,205 125 7,58» 128 »7 102 8,420 122 55 98 21.99 112 28.68 121 6.69 50.» AVE. 1955-1959 ANNUALLY >104,2111 100 100 12,988 100 5,9»2 100 »6 100 7,O»4 100 5» 100 19.61 100 25.78 100 ».17 21.5 100.0 quarterly 101,555 100 100 5,2»7 100 1,»84 100 »4 100 1,762 10c 5» 100 19.61 100 25-78 100 ».17 21.5 100.0 1955 1st quarter 56,507 55.9 »» 2, »01 75.9 1,171 78.8 »9 104.5 1,250 49.8 51 9».» 16.82 85.8 20.80 87.5 5.98 25.7 111.5 2ND " 6»,685 65.7 48 2,570 79.1 995 67.O 59 8».8 1,575 89.» 61 115.0 17.5O 89.2 21.05 88.5 5.55 20.5 55.5 50 " 65,5»2 42.4 77 2,778 85.4 1,508 88.0 »7 102.2 l,»70 85.» 55 98.1 I8.92 96.5 21.89 92.1 2.97 15.7 75.7 »th " 8»,102 82.8 78 2,970 91.5 1,575 104.0 55 115.2 1,595 79.2 »7 87.0 18.66 95.2 20.98 88.2 2.52 12.» 58.2 1956 1ST " 77,98» 74.8 81 5,212 98.9 1,550 IO5.O »8 10».5 1,482 95.5 52 96.5 19.51 99.5 21.90 92.1 2.59 12.5 57.7 2ND " 110,005 108.5 108 5,211 98.9 1,605 108.0 50 108.7 1,404 91.1 50 92.6 19.65 100.2 25.»0 98.» 5.75 19.1 89.7 5D " 115,15» 111.» 115 5,567 IO9.9 1,670 112.» »7 102.2 1,897 107.7 55 98.1 19.21 98.O 25.0» 96.9 5.85 19.9 95.» »th ” 10b,157 102.4 9« 5,981 122.4 1,786 120.2 »5 97.8 2,195 12».6 55 101.9 19.5» 99.6 25.95 100.7 ».»1 22.6 106.1 1957 1ST " 102,478 101.1 10» 5,5»6 109.2 1,578 104.2 »» 95.7 1,968 ill.? 56 IO5.7 21.50 IO9.4 28.66 120.5 7.16 55.5 154.5 2ND " 155,258 151.2 125 5,»55 104.» 1,782 II9.9 52 II5.O 1,675 9».9 »8 88.9 22.88 116.7 28.20 118.6 5.52 25.5 109.» 5D " 117,176 115.» 105 5,577 10».0 1,»79 99.5 »» 95.7 1,898 107.7 56 IO5.7 22.»» 11».» 25.12 IO5.6 2.68 11.9 55.9 »th 86,»7» 85.2 97 2,557 78.7 1,072 72.1 »2 91.5 1,»85 8».5 58 107.» 2O.52 IO5.6 25.»8 >8.7 5.16 15.6 75.2 1958 1ST * 71,561 70.5 100 2,985 91.9 1,282 84.5 »5 95.5 1,701 96.5 57 105.6 18.99 96. « 22.65 95.2 5.6» 19.2 yO.i 2ND " 102,551 100.8 100 2,905 89.» 1,25» 8».» »5 95.5 1,6»9 95.6 57 105.6 18.75 95.6 21.85 91.8 5.08 16.» 77.0 5D " 108,856 107.2 118 5,5»1 109.1 1, »75 99.1 »2 91.5 2,048 117.» 58 107.» 19.07 97.2 22.58 9».l 5.51 17.» 31.7 hTH ” 1»5,5»5 1»1.5 11» 5,»14 105.2 l,»50 97.6 »2 91.5 1,964 111.6 58 107.» 19.12 97.5 2». 61 IO5.5 5.»9 28.7 15».7 1959 1ST • 11»,940 115.2 107 5,285 101.2 1, »75 99.1 »5 97.8 1,812 102.8 55 IO1.9 19.19 97.9 25.55 106.6 6.16 52.1 150.7 2ND " 155,168 151.1 128 5,711 11».5 1,7»5 117.» »7 102.2 1,966 111.6 55 98.1 19.15 97.6 2».68 IO5.8 5.55 29.O 156.2 5D * 157,775 155.7 125 »,270 151.5 1,992 15».1 »7 102.2 2,278 129.5 55 98.1 19.66 100.5 2».»7 102.9 ».81 2».5 115.0 »TH " 125,155 125.2 110 5,207 98.6 i,»90 100.5 »4 100.0 1,717 97.» 5» 100.0 21.»» 109.5 27.25 11».6 5.81 27.1 127.2 1?HO 1ST ” 105,176 105.4 8» 5,552 105.2 1,72» 114.0 51 IIO.9 1,428 92.» »9 9O.7 21.07 107.» 26.66 112.1 5.59 26.5 12».» 2ND " 15»,917 152.5 117 5,7»2 115.2 1,75» 118.0 »7 102.2 1,988 112.8 55 98.1 20.56 10».8 25.81 108.5 5.25 25.5 11?.? 50 " 187,5»2 18».5 125 »,8»5 1»9.2 2,195 1»7.6 »5 97.8 2,652 150.5 55 101.9 21.86 111.5 27.55 115.8 5.67 25.9 121.4 »th ” 2»1,159 257.5 156 »,244 151.» 1,91» 128.8 »5 97.8 2,552 155.5 55 IOI.9 2». »6 12».7 5».72 l»6.0 10.26 »1.9 196.7 source: Construction awards by f. w. ^odge Corporation, for 57 states east of Rocky mountains, published in department of Commerce, survey of Current business, annual value of total construction in united states obtained from confidential government sources; breakdown by quarters on basis of bureau of Labor statistics index for construction in sample cities, new orders f. r southern pine by Southern pine association, in survey of Current Business, new orders for west Coast Lumber from west Coast lumbermen’s association, prices of 8 types of Southern pine Lumber by Bureau of Labor statistics includes yellow pine boards, no. 2 Common ih x 8“ and no. 5 Common i” x 8" and no. 1 common 2h x »" x 16’ and no. 2, 2” x »H x 16’; drop siding; b and better 1" x 4”; FINISH 8 AND BETTER 1" X 6"; FLOORING B AND BETTER F. 6. 1" X »”; TIMBERS NO, 1, »" X 6"/8M X 20’ AND UNDER. PRICES OF 9 TYPES OF DOUGLAS FIR LUMBER, BY BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, ARE THE SAME AS THOSE USED ELSEWHERE IN THIS REPORT, PRICES OF SOUTHERN PINE AND DOUGLAS F|R ARE F. 0. B. MILL, NO ALLOWANCE BEING MADE FOR TRADE DISCOUNTS. page 78 TABLE 58 - WEST COAST LUMBERS PRODUCTION; ORDERS; SHIPMENTS AND STOCKS OF DOUGLAS FIR, HEMLOCK, SPRUCE, AND RED CEDAR LUMBER IN THE WEST COAST REGION OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON, AS REPORTED BY THE WEST COAST LUMBERMEN'S ASSOCIATION, BY ¡MONTHS, 1955-19*0 (Index average 1955-1959 = 100.0) Period product ion ORDERS SHIPMENTS Unfilled Orders at End of month GROSS STOCKS AT End of Month l*ER CENT. THAT Unfilled Orders are of stocks m feet Index m feet Index M feet Index M FEET Index m feet Index per Cent. Index 1955 »1,766,105 82.0 5,0*9,200 85.0 *,890,878 82.6 *19,715 90.5 1,167,085 107.0 55.96 8*.5 1956 6,556,891 109.h 6,581,572 110.8 6,17h,660 10*.5 5*2,051 116.8 1,21*,O85 111.5 **.65 105.0 1957 6,522,65* 108.8 5,911,52* 99.5 6,5h6,552 110.5 600,287 129.* 1,15*,585 105.9 51.99 122.2 1958 5,182,528 89.2 5368,671 92.0 5308,917 91.5 51*,55* 67.8 980,085 89.9 52.07 75.* 1959 6,1126,951 110.6 6,699,585 112.7 6,590385 111.5 **5,009 95.5 956317 85.9 *7.51 111.2 19*0 7,086,855 122.0 7,58*,*72 127.6 7,555,911 12h.2 562,125 121.2 912,675 853 61.59 1**3 AVERAGE 1955-1959 5,810,985 100.0 5,9*2,050 100.0 5,922,578 100.0 *65,879 100.0 1,090350 100.0 *2.5* 100.0 Last Quarter 1959 56U,70U 116.6 *96,679 100.5 55835* 109,1 *72352 101.8 892,555 82.6 52.9* 125.0 last quarter 19*0 597,856 125.* 657,986 128.8 622,598 126.2 699,826 I5O.9 859,515 79.5 813* 192.5 1955 J ANUARY 555,596 75.* *5*309 91.8 585,651 773 *56,725 9*.l 1,555,000 122.2 52.76 77.0 February 572,7*5 77.0 5h2,O5O 69.1 585,*1O 78.1 595,565 8*.8 1,505,000 120.0 50.1* 70.9 march 575,168 77.0 57*,512 75.6 562,15* 75.* *05,7*1 87.5 1,519,000 121.0 5036 72.5 APRIL 1107,856 8*.2 *51,19* 91.1 *57» 522 88.7 *19315 903 1,211,000 111.1 5*35 813 may 226,16h *6.7 5*6,995 70.I 568371 7*3 589,281 85.9 1,127,000 IO5.* 5*.5* 81.2 June 15*,*2* 51.9 197,052 59.8 165,800 55.6 *29,555 92.6 1,115,000 102.5 58.52 9O.6 JULY 5*7,102 71.7 *09,651 82.7 557,590 72.5 *81,576 105.8 1,10*,000 101.2 *5.62 102.5 AUGUST *55359 95.7 *78,689 96.7 50h,690 102.5 *55,575 98.2 1,055,000 96.6 *5.26 IO1.7 September 500,515 105.5 hi9,7ho 8*.8 517,969 105.0 557,5*6 77.0 1,056,000 95.0 5*39 81.1 OCTOBER 6511,709 151.0 565,890 11*.5 571,188 1153 552,0*8 75.9 1,100,000 IOO.9 52.00 75.2 November *78,275 98.7 *87,hoU 983 *25,691 85.8 *15,761 89.6 1,15*,000 105.8 56.05 8*3 December 1161,692 95.5 521,55* 105.5 *12,782 85.6 500,215 107.8 1,1*8,000 IO5.5 *5.57 102.* 1956 January 551,975 115.9 625,799 126.0 519,206 IO5.2 60*,806 1503 1,181,000 108.5 51.21 120.* February U61,087 95.2 *2*,15* 85.7 *66315 $*.5 562,525 121.5 1,176,000 107.8 *7.85 1123 march 521,281 107.6 *82,566 97.5 *97,616 100.8 5*7375 118.0 1,195,000 109.6 *5.81 IO7.7 April 665,86h 157.5 6*5,297 150.5 685,712 15«3 510,060 110.0 1,181,000 108.5 *5.19 101.5 May 559,5*5 115.5 *90,6*6 99.1 529,917 107.* *69,789 101.5 1,210,000 111.0 58.85 91.5 JUNE 512,9*8 105.9 *69,025 9*.7 52h,068 106.2 *1*3** 89.* 1,182,000 108.* 55.09 82.5 JULY 59h,509 122.7 571,895 115.5 595,956 120.5 592,685 8*3 1,199,000 110.0 52.75 77.0 AUGUST 515,028 IO6.5 558,588 112.8 h89,505 99.2 *61,566 99.5 1,225,000 112.9 57.68 88.6 September 515,951 106.5 529,66* 107.0 558,800 IO9.2 *52,*5O 97.5 1,186,000 108.8 58.15 893 OCTOBER 678,856 1*0.1 725,565 1*6.5 657,7*2 155.5 520,255 112.2 1,225,000 112.2 *2.5* 100.0 NOVEMBER 556,228 69.* *18,127 8*3 277,265 56.2 661,115 1*2.5 1,282,000 117.6 51.57 121.2 December hh5,985 91.7 6*2,268 129.7 596 358 80.5 906,925 195.5 1,529,000 121.9 68.2* 160.* 1957 January 55h,295 75.1 *59,8*7 88.8 525,805 66.0 1,020,967 220.1 1,557,000 12*3 75.2* 176.9 February *21,899 87.1 *2*,1*6 85.7 518,617 105.I 926396 199.7 1,260,000 115.5 75.55 172.8 march 685,868 1*1.2 715,910 i**.2 752,*07 1*8. * 907.999 1953 1,211,000 111.1 7*.98 176.9 April 599,268 125.7 6*5,25* 129.9 667,291 155.2 885,962 190.6 1,1*5,000 10*.8 77.5* 181.8 may 657321 151.6 551328 107.5 629,05h 127.5 786,556 169.5 1,151,000 105.6 68.52 160.6 JUNE 7*9,957 15*3 60730h 122.7 805,161 162.7 590,599 127.5 1,098,000 IOO.7 5539 126.* JULY 577,797 119.5 *70,879 95.1 587,6hl 119.1 *75,857 102.1 1,088,000 99.8 *5.55 1023 AUGUST 557,966 111.1 *85,768 97.7 521,028 105.6 *56,577 9*.l 1,105,000 101.5 59.51 92.9 SEPTEMBER 618,791 127.7 52*,601 105.9 61 h,707 12*.6 5*6371 7*3 1,109,000 101.7 51.2* 75.* OCTOBER hh6,U92 92.2 552,512 71.2 *55,18* 91.8 270,799 58. * 1,102,000 101.1 2*.57 57.8 November 5*5,50* 71.5 501,5*6 60.9 519,666 6*.8 257379 55.5 1,128,000 1053 22.8* 553 December 5*9,*18 72.1 *18,029 8*3 57*,011 75.8 501,697 65.0 1,105,000 101.2 27.55 6*.5 (Continued) Page 79 TABLE 58 (CONTINUEd)—WEST COAST LUMBER: PRODUCTION} ORDERS; SHIPMENTS AND STOCKS Of DOUGLAS FIR, HEMLOCK, SPRUCE, AND RED CEDAR LUMBER IN THE WEST COAST REGION OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON, AS REPORTED BY THE WEST COAST LUMBERMEN’S ASSOCIATION, BY MONTHS, 1935—19^0 (Index average 1995-1939 - ioo.o) Period product ion Orders Shipments Unfilled Orders at End of month Gross STOCKS AT End of month per Cent, that unfilled Orders ARE OF STOCKS M FEET Index m feet Index m feet Index m Feet Index m feet Index per Cent. Index 193« J ANUARY 525,795 68.1 3 tj, 0*5 70.1 33H,315 67.7 51*,*27 67.8 1,098,000 100.7 28.64 67.3 February 532359 68.6 •111,290 «3.1 371,572 75.3 35*,1 *5 76.3 1,059,000 97.1 53 • H4 78.6 march 509,91* 105.3 523,80« 105.« 536,3*1 108.7 5^1,612 73.6 1,033,000 94.7 33.07 77.7 APRIL 597,535 «2.1 350,321 70.7 til,5 Ha «33 280,391 60.H 1,019,000 93.4 27.52 64.7 May 571355 76.7 3«7 » 5 *0 7«.3 H02,H67 «1.5 265,H6H 57.2 988,000 90.6 26.87 63.2 June *59,501 90.7 516,362 1 OH.3 511,692 103.7 270,13 U 58.2 935,000 «5.7 28.89 67.9 JULY 35*,122 73.1 52n,O7i 105.3 H13,29« «3.7 3«O,9O7 82.1 895,000 82.1 H2.56 100.0 AUGUST 577331 119.2 557.15* 108.5 5«*,279 1183 333,782 72.0 905,000 «3.0 36.88 «6.7 September *65,598 96.1 *11,57* 83.1 *65,528 93.9 281,82« 60.8 920,000 8H.H 30.63 72.0 October *7O»5O7 97.1 •1*3,781 893 *71,3HH 95.5 264,265 57.0 935,000 «5.7 28.26 663 November 517370 106.9 55 4,668 112.0 H95395 100.3 523338 6$.8 986,000 $03 32.8* 77.2 December *16,163 «5.9 *51,257 91.1 H13,6HH 83.8 361351 77.9 988,000 90.6 36.58 86.0 1939 JANUARY HU,377 92.1 4*5,130 «9.9 H12,7O1 85.6 387,9«9 83.6 1,021,000 93.6 58.00 «9.3 February *34,201 «93 •125,736 86.0 H50,530 «7.2 3«3,195 82.6 l,02H,000 93.9 3732 88.0 march 56237« 116.1 601,683 121.5 612,1H1 12H.0 372,737 803 982,000 $0.1 37.96 89.2 APRIL H82336 993 512,762 IO3.6 509,351 103.2 376,1H8 81.1 970,000 89.0 3«.78 91.2 May 609,*27 125.3 660,322 1333 63*,030 128.5 H023U 86.8 955,ooo «7.6 t2.1t 99.1 JUNE 521,733 107.7 571,5*5 1153 535,2H3 108.5 H36,7 *0 9H.1 950,000 87.1 *5.97 108.1 JULY H7M63 98.li 5*7,075 110.5 486,827 $8.6 486,988 105.0 9H6,ooo 86.8 5138 121.0 AUGUST 669,090 138.1 771,653 155.8 775,652 157.2 482,989 lOH.l 869,000 79.7 55.5« 130.7 SEPTEMBER 530,33* 109.5 673,6*2 136.0 579,0*7 117.3 56$,58H 122.8 8H3,OOO 77.3 67.57 158.« October 553,9«2 11H3 51k,086 103.8 562,485 11H.0 521,185 1123 839,000 76.9 62.12 1H6.0 November 66735« 137.« 513,37* 103.7 59«,923 1213 4*5,923 95.7 $08,000 «3.3 k8.«9 lit.9 December 1172,672 973 *62,577 933 *55,955 92.0 452,187 97.5 930,000 «5.3 U.62 lit.3 19*0 J ANUARY 617,767 127.5 655,«*7 1323 600,773 121.7 507,261 109.H 953,000 «73 53.23 125.1 February 508,13t 10U.9 522,379 105.5 516,291 10H.6 515,349 110.7 961,000 88.1 53 3 2 125.6 march 53«3ll7 111.2 5*5,764 110.2 533,735 108.1 520,378 112.2 976,000 8$.5 53.32 125.3 APRIL 56*,855 1163 556,302 112.3 559,317 113.3 517,363 111.5 $81,000 $0.0 52.7* 12t.O May 687,079 ltl.8 666,862 15*.7 76H,163 15 *• 8 H25,062 91.6 926,000 8H.0 H5.90 107.9 June 567,787 117.2 530,820 107.2 582,922 118.1 382,960 82.6 $20,000 8H3 Hl.63 97.9 July 633,560 130.« 811382 163.9 684,625 138.7 509,829 109.9 900,000 82.5 56.65 135.2 AUGUST 6ot,5t$ 12M 726,154 1U6.6 612,777 12H.2 623,206 13*.3 891,772 81.8 69.88 16H.3 September 573,112 118.3 65t,895 132.3 631,516 128.0 6*6,565 1393 865,368 793 7*.72 175.6 October 721,702 lt$.O 788,026 159.1 753,512 152.7 681,099 146.8 «59,558 78.8 79.2H 186.3 NOVEMBER 557355 110.$ 57 *,28* 116.0 529,752 107.3 725,631 1563 «67,239 79.5 «3.67 196.7 December 55 *,*52 110.3 551,6*7 1113 584,550 1183 692,7 H8 1H9.3 851,1H1 78.1 81.39 191.5 notes: Statistics derived from monthly reports of reporting companies to the west Coast Lumbermen’s association, which reports represent approximately seventy—five per CENT (75%) OF THE ESTIMATED TOTAL OUTPUT OF WEST COAST LUMBER. THESE REPORTED FIGURES ARE THEN INFLATED TO AN ESTIMATED ONE HUNDRED PER CENT (lOO?®) OF THE TOTAL PRODUCTION OF WEST COAST LUMBER. A TOTAL OF THE TWELVE MONTHS GIVES THE ANNUAL FIGURES SHOWN HERE. THESE ANNUAL FIGURES ARE USUALLY FROM FIVE PER CENT (5%) TO TEN PER CENT (1C>) SMALLER THAN THE TOTAL WEST COAST PRODUCTION REPORTED BY THE FOREST SERVICE WHICH COOPERATES WITH THE BUREAU OF CENSUS IN MAKING AN ANNUAL Census of lumber production in the west Coast Region of Washington and Oregon. Most of the difference is accounted for by the fact that the west Coast Lumbermen's ASSOCIATION REPORTS WEST COAST PRODUCTION GF FIR, HEMLOCK, SPRUCE, AND CEDAR ONLY, WHEREAS THE FOREST SERVICE REPORTS ALL SPECIES OF WEST COAST LUMBER. $OTH THE west Coast lumbermen's association production figures shown here, and the forest service production shown elsewhere in this report, include hood County and EXCLUDE JOSEPHINE AND JACKSON COUNTIES, UreGON* PAGE ÍO TABLE 55 - COST AND SALES REALIZATION OF WEST COAST DOUGLAS FIR ANO HEMLOCK LUMBER AND BY-PRODUCTS PREPARED BY THE WEST COAST LUMBERMEN'S ASSOCIATION FROM REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE ASSOCIATION, 1950-1959 Period LOG PRODUCTS COVERED M FT. LOG SCALE COST OF PRODUCING LOGS Production costs - |per m ft. Log scale COS Lumber production COVERED F OF PRODUCING LUMBER PRODUCTION COSTS FOOTAGE SOLD M BD. FT. F GROSS Sales Return, Including by-products ROFIT Of SELLING AND SHIPPING expense LOSS Oh ADMINISTRATIVE AND General Exp-PENSE SALES NET Sales Return AFTER deducting SELLING, SHIPPING 4 administrative Expense cost of Lumber sold NET PROFIT OR LOSS FROM SALES Total LABOR STUMPAGE Depreciation ALL OTHER COSTS M. BD. FEET % Of total products Total Labor LOGS SAWN depreciation ALL OTHER Cost 0 Labor IS OF Total Cost Cost % Labor 18 OF Total COST 195* 1395,525 10.*12 5351 5*.9 2.601 .9*1 5359 2,161,1*2 50 15.7*1 5395 25.5 9.281 .989 1.778 l,9*5,*5O 17.78* 2.66* 1.595 15.727 15.9*5 -2.218 1955 2,005358 10.028 5.65s 56.5 2.560 1.17* 2.656 2,205,192 15.770 *.2*2 26.9 8.855 .900 1.795 2,28*358 17.7*9 2.*59 1.018 1*.272 15.800 -1.528 1956 2,8*1,071 10.522 5.ss* 56.9 2.5*5 1.565 2.752 *357,990 6* 16.255 *.555 26.7 9.575 .711 1.656 5 3 60,59* 19.719 2.256 1.00* 16379 16.57* ♦ .105 1957 2,95535* 11.555 *.552 59.5 2.712 1.505 2.96* 5,997,*6S 65 10.us *.952 27.5 10.682 .758 1.726 *3*1,225 22.211 2.520 .996 18.695 18.205 ♦ .*92 1951 2,025,120 10375 *.21* 58.8 2.*5S 1.50S 2395 2,982,097 50 16.9*1 *325 28.5 9.562 .798 I.756 5,052,505 19.192 2.*59 1.179 15.55* 17.OO6 -l.*52 1959 2,*66,S6* 10316 *.151 59.1 2.521 1.575 2471 5,520,291 65 1635* *.559 26.7 9.5IO .700 1.765 *375,25* 19.**2 2.252 .852 16.558 16.298 ♦ .0*0 19*0 AVERAGE 1955-59 10.71* *.oss 51.1 2.519 1.505 2305 16.685 *.5*2 27.2 9352 475 1.755 19.66} 2.586 1.010 16.268 16.756 Index AVERAGE I955-I959 = 100.0 195* 97.2 ss.s 913 IO5.5 72.1 115.6 9*.* 81.5 86.* 96.* 127.9 102.5 903 111.7 157.9 8*3 95.5 1955 953 893 95.5 101.6 90.0 9*3 9*.5 95.* 98.9 91.7 116.* 105.5 90.5 105.1 1003 87.7 9*3 1956 98.2 95.O 96.9 101.0 10*.* 97.5 97.* 95.* 98.2 99.* 923 9*.5 100.5 95.7 99.* 101.5 973 1957 1073 111.* 105.7 107.7 100.0 105.7 108.6 IO9.O 100.* 110.9 98.1 99.5 U5.s 105.6 983 11*. 9 IOS.8 1958 101.5 IO5.I 101.S 973 100.2 105.2 101.5 106.2 10*.8 99.5 105.2 101.2 973 105.1 116.7 953 101.6 1959 19*0 99.1 IOI.5 102,6 92.1 105.2 98.9 97.9 96.0 98.2 98.7 90.6 101.7 98.9 9*3 8*3 1003 97.* INDEX 195* « 100. 0 195* 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1955 96.5 100.2 10*3 983 12*3 S2.0 100.2 11*.9 11*.5 95.2 91.0 100.8 993 92.5 753 10*. 0 99.1 1956 101.1 IO7.O 105.7 973 1**3 <*.5 105.5 117.5 115.6 I05.I 71.9 92.0 110.9 87.7 72.1 120.0 102.7 1957 1103 125.* 115.2 10*.5 150.7 91.5 115.1 15*3 116.2 I15.I 76.6 97.1 12*.9 9*3 71.5 156.2 11*3 195« 10*.* 116.1 111.2 9*.5 159.O 89.5 107.6 I5O.7 121.5 IO5.O SO.? 983 107.9 92.5 8*3 115.5 IO6.7 HO • 102,0 11*.5 112.0 89.2 1*5.9 O5.6 1053 118.0 II5.6 102.5 703 99.5 109.5 8*.5 61.2 119.0 102.2 source: Report of west coast lumbermen's association. Page 81 TABLE 60 - AVERAGE PRICE OF WEST COAST LUMBER, BY MONTHS, 1935-19bO, AS REPORTED BY WEST COAST LUMBERMEN’S ASSOCIATION AND BY THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS PERIOD NUMBER OF mills Reporting Proportion of Estimated Total OUTPUT Reporting AVERAGE RETURN ($) PER M FT. (WCLA) INDEX OF WCLA PRICES BLS PRICE OF 9 TYPES OF DOUGLAS FIR LUMBER ALL Markets Rail DOMESTIC Cargo, Atlantic Domestic Cargo, CALIFORNIA Export Local and Plant USE ALL MARKETS Rail DOMESTIC Cargo, ATLANTIC $ PER M FT. INDEX (A) W5 17.28 20.29 15.112 lb.15 15.55 16.18 88.2 89.5 9b.o 17.98 91.6 1936 96 19.50 22.57 15.88 16.2b 20.07 1638 99.5 99.5 96.8 19.b8 99.3 1957 91 22.19 25.67 18.55 18.27 21.22 19.01 113.3 113.2 113.1 21.79 111,1 195« 08 19.1b 22.08 15.96 15.85 22.b3 16.98 97.7 97.b 97.3 18.99 96.8 1959 8b 19.97 25.09 16.118 16.10 22.56 17.95 101.9 101.8 100.5 19.86 101,2 19b0 75 22.15 25.56 18.58 17.00 2b.91 19.63 113.1 111.8 113.3 21.99 112,1 AVERAGE 1955-1959 19.59 22,68 16.110 16.02 20.9b 17.50 100.0 100.0 100.0 19.62 100,0 Last quarter - 1939 82 21.76 25.66 17*82 16.71 23.87 19.13 111.1 II3.I 108.7 21.bb 109.5 Last quarter - I9bo 75 25.27 28.30 20.02 20.b7 31.00 21.86 129.0 12b,8 122.1 2b. b6 12b.7 1955 January 55 * 15.57 17.65 15.1U 15.05 13.55 16.08 7*.5 77.8 92.3 16.98 86,5 February 65 15.21 17.^2 111.25 13.2b 15.05 15.38 77.4 76.8 86.9 16.85 85.9 march «5 15.61 1737 lb.39 12.87 15.17 15.58 79.7 77.0 87.7 16.6b 8b.8 APRIL 66 15.66 18.27 15.9U 12.118 15.06 lb. 37 79.9 80.6 85.0 17.07 87.0 MAY 61 16.17 I8.65 lb.23 12.81 15.65 15.50 82.5 82,2 86.8 17.71 90.5 JUNE 61 17.50 19.6b 15.71 lb.06 15.5b 17.00 88.3 86,6 95.8 17.7b 90.b July 90 61 18.8b 21.03 17.15 lb.b9 16.15 18.00 96.2 92.7 10b.5 18.57 9b.6 august 98 60 18.5b 22.28 16.25 lb.78 15.52 17.56 9b.6 98,2 99.0 19.16 97.7 SEPTEMBER 105 60 18.76 22.UU 16.13 15.75 17.66 17.22 95.« 98.9 98.b 19.05 97.1 OCTOBER 100 59 19.17 22.11 16.71 15.*7 19.b3 16.20 97.9 97.5 101.9 18.71 95.b NOVEMBER 98 58 18.15 22.09 15.U8 15.55 17.38 15.85 92.5 97.b 9b.b I8.52 9b.b DECEMBER 96 59 17.9b 21,92 15.62 lb.21 17.b3 16.05 91.6 96.6 95.2 18.77 95.7 1956 January 96 5« 18.61 21.b5 1537 15.b8 16.87 15.66 95.0 9b.6 9b.3 19.56 98.7 FEBRUARY 97 59 19.20 22.30 16.31 15.85 25.b3 (b) 16.31 98.0 98.3 99.5 19*53 99.5 March 9b 60 19.26 22.95 16.26 15.60 18.62 16.10 98.3 101.2 99.1 19.6b 100.1 APRIL 95 60 19.M 23.72 15.90 16.23 22.08 16.35 99.b iob.6 97.0 19.70 loo.b May 98 60 19.68 25.Ill 15.93 16.85 22.12 17.25 100.5 103.2 97.1 19.63 100.1 June 96 60 19.98 23.60 15.82 16.96 25.b6 16.71 102.0 lob.i 96.5 19.63 100.1 July 96 60 19.58 25.58 15.*7 16.30 16.95 16.25 98.9 105.1 9b.3 19.36 98.7 august 96 60 19.63 25.25 15.0 16.35 20.23 16.55 100.2 102.5 9b.3 19.10 97.5 SEPTEMBER 96 60 19.58 22.71 16.311 16.08 18.0b 16.37 98.9 100.1 99.6 19.18 97.8 OCTOBER 95 60 19.19 22.2b 15.77 16.02 17.52 16.35 98.0 98.1 96.2 19.2b* 98.1 November 96 60 20.77 21.63 M—• — 16.26 IO6.O 95.b MM 19.2b 98.1 DECEMBER 96 60 20.75 21.19 — HI —— MM 17.39 IO5.9 95.1 MM 20,1b 102.7 1957 January 95 55 22.12 22.58 — — — 17.38 112.9 99.6 MM 20,69 105.5 FEBRUARY 95 60 20.50 23.98 16,38 16.be 18.69 18.67 iob.6 105.7 ».9 21,67 110,b March 95 56 21.59 25.23 16,61 17.76 21.b9 18.93 109.2 111.2 101.3 22.16 112,9 APRIL 90 60 22.bb 26. k2 18.32 18.6b 21.3b 19.66 llb.5 116.5 111.7 22.90 116,7 MAY 90 60 25.O5 27.20 19.19 19.59 19.5b 19.89 117.6 119.9 117.0 22.9b 116,9 JUNE 91 60 22.81 27.55 19.02 20.01 20.61 19.8b 116.b 121.b 116.0 22,81 116,3 July 90 60 25.16 27.59 19.72 19.56 20.2b 20.18 118.2 120.8 120.2 22.71 115.7 AUGUST 90 60 25.09 26.89 19.89 19.27 22.19 19.19 117.9 118.6 121.5 22.52 llb,8 SEPTEMBER 90 60 22.88 26.56 19.*9 17. bi 25.61 18.85 116.8 116.2 118.8 22.10 112,6 OCTOBER 87 54 22.10 25.50 19.27 18.bi 19«bl 18.18 112.8 112,b II7.5 21.12 107.6 NOVEMBER 87 54 20.55 2*1.55 17.b2 16. b8 22.2b 17.96 10b.9 IO7.3 106.2 20.25 103.2 DECEMBER 88 55 20.09 22.69 16.65 16.13 33.06 17.66 102,6 100.0 IOI.5 19.60 99.9 (CONTINUED) page is TABLE 60 (CONTINUED) - AVERAGE BRICE OF WEST COAST LUMBER, BY MONTHS, 1955-19*0, AS REPORTED BY WEST COAST LUMBERMEN’S ASSOCIATION AND BY THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Period NUMBER OF mills REPORTING Proportion of estimated total Output Reporting AVERAGE RETURN ($) PER M FT. (WCLA) INDEX OF WCLA PRICES BLS PRICE OF 9 TYPES OF DOUGLAS fir Lumber all MARKETS Rail DOMESTIC Cargo, ATLANTIC DOMESTIC CARGO, California export LOCAL AND PLANT USE ALL markets Rail DOMESTIC Cargo, ATLANTIC 1 PER M FT. INDEX (A) 1950 January «9 6* 19.76 22.19 16.32 15.51 263* 1735 100.9 97.« 99.5 19.10 97.0 FEBRUARY 09 60 1936 22.33 16.01 15.20 20.10 17.22 99.5 90.5 97.6 10.92 963 March 09 56 1939 22.02 15.0* 15.95 21.32 17.05 99.5 97.1 96.6 10.00 96.2 APRIL 09 5« 10.96 22.11 16.60 15.55 23.01 17.2* 96.0 97.5 101.2 10.06 96.1 MAY 09 5» 10.9* 22.15 16.01 15.02 10.21 17.10 96.7 97.7 97.6 «.75 »5.4 June 09 57 10.00 21.70 15.06 1530 22.1* 16.00 963 96.0 96.1 10.66 95.1 July 00 56 19.07 22.1* 15.*0 1533 22.13 17.0* 97.5 97.6 9*3 10.70 95.7 AUGUST 00 57 19.2* 22«*3 16.0* 16.15 2*. 31 17.05 90.2 90.9 97.0 19.22’ 90.0 SEPTEMBER 09 54 19.71 22.02 163o 17.25 26.30 17.54 100.6 100.6 100.0 19.22 90.0 October 09 57 10.07 21.00 1539 16.3* 25.23 16.53 54.5 96.1 »*.5 19.11 973 NOVEMBER 09 54 10.33 21.32 I5.*o 15.17 19l76 16.02 95.4 9*.9 95.9 19.11 973 DECEMBER 00 54 10.02 21.59 16.2* 15,60 22.02 16.22 • 96.1 95.2 99.0 19.15 97.6 1939 January tl 5« 19.00 21.60 15.03 15.37 20.27 16.96 97.0 95.6 54.5 19.21 97.9 FEBRUARY 07 56 19.00 21.02 16.26 15.90 22.00 16.52 97.0 96.2 99.1 19.25 90.0 march 06 5» 19.00 22.01 15.90 15.96 21.03 17.35 973 97.0 97.0 19.15 97.5 APRIL 06 5» 10.97 21.55 15.99 15.69 21.70 17.62 96.0 95.0 97.5 19.15 97.5 May 07 5» 1931 22.12 15.0* 16.37 21.27 10.09 99.1 97.5 96.6 19.15 97.5 JUNE 02 55 19.50 22.03 15.73 16.00 22.67 17.02 99.5 97.1 95.9 19.1* »7.4 JULY 02 55 19.66 2230 15.71 16.56 22.05 10.10 100.* 99.1 9f.t 19.2* 90.1 AUGUST 02 55 19.50 23.11 16.10 15.73 21.3* 17.50 99.9 101.9 ,0.7 1935 99.1 SEPTEMBER 02 55 19.97 22.97 14.55 16.2* 22.55 17.91 101.9 101.5 99.7 20.29 105.* OCTOBER 02 5« 21.60 2*.77 17.33 16.29 25.20 19.29 110.5 109.2 105.7 21.20 100.5 NOVEMBER 02 55 22.30 26.13 17.97 17.35 25.30 10.50 11* .2 115.2 109.6 21.52 109.7 DECEMBER 02 55 21.29 26.07 10.15 16.50 21.03 19.72 100.7 11*.9 110.7 21.52 109.7 19*0 January 77 5* 21.32 23.00 IO.36 16.60 21.93 19.17 100.0 110.2 112.0 21.51 100.6 FEBRUARY 77 55 20.J2 22.00 10.51 15.65 22.90 10.56 105.7 100.5 112.9 21.05 107.5 March 77 56 20.76 2*.O* 17.96 15.05 25.51 10.69 106.0 106.0 109.5 20.06 106.5 APRIL 77 57 20.30 23.6* 17.02 15.0* 19.11 10.07 105.1 10*. 2 »0.7 20.75 105.7 May 77 5« 20.69 23.93 10.02 16.39 20.57 10.10 105.6 105.5 11*. 0 20.66 105.5 June 77 59 20.92 2*.02 10.29 15.69 20.95 19.05 106.0 105.9 111.5 20.29 105.* JULY 7« 59 21.36 2* «31 1732 16.0* 25.55 19.0* 109.0 107.2 106.2 20.55 ÏO5.7 AUGUST 7« 56 21.72 23.0* 17.23 16.02 27.09 10.96 110.9 1103 105.1 21.60 110.1 SEPTEMBER 74 54 22.21 25.5* 17.56 17.72 20.0* 19.92 115.* 112.6 107.1 25.65 120.5 OCTOBER 74 55 2*.17 27.*7 10.60 19.00 51.29 2031 1253 121.1 U5.9 25.65 120.5 NOVEMBER 74 54 26.06 20.32 19.06 21.03 55.95 22.56 155.0 12*.9 121.1 2*. 59 12*.5 DECEMBER 75 55 25.50 29.11 21.51 21.37 27.74 22.01 150.6 1203 151.2 25.5* 129.2 BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS AVERAGE PRICE OF NINE TYPES OF DOUGLAS FIR LUMBER INCLUDES: PLASTERLATH; NO. 1 BOARDS 1" X 0"} NO. 2 BOARDS 1" X 0"} DIMENSION NO. 1, 2" X *” X 16*} DROP SIDING C} FLOORING B AND BETTER} FLOORING C IN TIMBERS 12" X 12”} DROP SIDING B AND BETTER. WEIGHTED BY QUANTITIES NEWLY MADE AVAILABLE FOR CONSUMPTION IN 1957 AND 1950. b/ Unusually large proportion of clears in small lots. NOTEl WCLA "AVERAGE PRICE RECEIVED" IS ON A GROSS BASIS, I.E., BEFORE DEDUCTION OF TRADE DISCOUNTS AND COMMISSION, F.O.B. MILL. OBTAINED BY QUESTIONNAIRES CIRCULATED BY WCLA TO REPORTING COMPANIES. DERIVED BY TOTALLING REPORTED RETURNS EACH MONTH BY TOTAL REPCRTED QUANTITIES REPRESENTED BY THOSE RETURNS (WHETHER OR NOT THESE QUANTITIES WERE SHIPPED DURING THAT MONTH OR PRECEDING MONTH). BY "RETURN" IS MEANT AMOUNTS ENTERED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE MONTH (WHETHER OR NOT CASH PAYMENT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN MADE). SALE MAY HAVE BEEN MADE IN THAT MONTH OR IN PREVIOUS MONTHS. ACCORDING TO THE WCLA IN PRACTICE THIS MEANS THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE DECEMBER 19*0 RETURNS HERE REFLECT LARGELY (A) RAIL SALES MADE DURING THE LAST HALF OF NOVEMBER AND THE FIRST HALF OF DECEMBER} (fl) THE ATLANTIC COAST CARGO SALES MADE DURING THE LAST HALF OF OCTOBER AND THE FIRST QUARTER OF NOVEMBER} (C) CALIFORNIA CARGO SALES MADE DURING THE LAST HALF OF OCTOBER AND THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER} (D) EXPORT SALES MADE DURING THE LAST HALF OF OCTOBER AND THE FIRST QUARTER OF NOVEMBER. Page », TABLE 61 - LOG PRICES, BY MONTHS, 19,5-19kO (dollars per m pt. Loo scale) Region Month DOUGLAS FIR Douglas fir PEELERS SITKA SPRUCE WESTERN Red Cedar western hemlock DOUGLAS FIR Douglas Fir peelers SITKA SPRUCE WESTERN RED CEDAR Western hemlock Douglas fir DOUGLAS Fir PEELERS SITKA SPRUCE WESTERN RED CEDAR Western hemlock 1 2 » 1 2 5 1 2 5 1 2 1 1 2 9 1 > 1 mi 1 9 » 6 19,7 Puget sound Jan. 18 1k 9 ». — 10 - 17 10 22 17 11 20 15 10 lk-20 S 1/2 25 17 11 52 25 17 11 15 - 23 9 1/2 Columbia river M 1« 12 s 20 15 10 11 8 20 15 9 21 16 10 15 9 22 16 9 28 - 22 27 17 10 151/i 8 2/2 PUGET SOUND FEB. 20 15 10 20 15 10 io - 17 10 25 17 11 20 15 10 15-21 9 2k IS 12 52 25 17 11 16 - 2k 11 COLUMBIA RIVER w 16 12 s 20 15 10 11 8 23 16 10 22 16 10 12 1/2 8 1/2 22 16 12 29 1/2-25 28 19 10 15 2/2 t 1/2 PUOET SOUND mar. 19 Ik 9 21 17 10 11 - 17 10 2k 18 12 20 16 10 15-21 9 2k 18 12 52 25 17 11 16 - 2k 12 COLUMBIA RIVER »0 15 12 s 20 15 10 11 7 25 16 9 2k 16 9 15 1/2 9 2k 17 10 29 — 2, 2k 17 10 15 2/2 8 1/2 Puget Sound APR. 21 1/2 15 9 21 17 9 10 - 18 10 2k 18 12 20 15 10 lk-19 8 1/2 26 20 ik 5k-52 - 28 26 20 15 16 - 50 15 2/2 COLUMBIA RIVER N 16 12 s 20 15 10 10 8 22 16 1/2 9 22 16 10 15 « 1/2 2k 17 10 25 1/2-29 1/2 26 1/2 18 10 15 9 Puget sound May 21 1/2 15 9 21 17 9 « - 17 1/2 10 2k IS 12 22 16 10 15-25 8 1/2 26 20 ik 5k-50 - 2k 2k 18 12 17 - 5k ik COLUMBIA RIVER w 16 12 8 20 15 10 10 7 2k 17 10 22 16 10 15 8 1/2 25 17 11 2k 1/2-50 26 1/2 18 10 16 10 1/2 Puget Sound JUNE 16 1/2 12 s 18 ik 9 *■ 7 2k 18 12 20 1$ 10 15-20 9 26 to ik 5k - 28 25 1/2 IS 12 16 - 50 ik COLUMBIA RIVER w 16 12 s 20 15 10 11 8 2k 17 10 22 16 10 15 8 25 17 11 26 - ,1 26 1/2 IS 10 16 10 1/2 Puget sound JULY 15 15 9 18 ik 9 9-12 9 1/2 2k 18 12 20 1$ 11 lk-20 9 26 20 ik 5» - 50 25 1/2 17 1/2 12 1/2 16 - 50 ik COLUMBIA RIVER W 16 12 s 16 12 9 15 • 1/2 25 16 9 21 16 9 1/2 15 1/2 8 25 17 11 26 - 51 26 1/2 18 10 16 12 PUGET SOUND AUG. 20 15 10 20 15 10 11 - 17 10 2k 18 12 2k 17 10 11-17 9 26 20 ik 5k 50 25 1/2 17 1/2 12 1/2 16 - ,0 ik COLUMBIA RIVER N 16 15 9 20 15 10 15 8 21 15 9 21 16 9 ik 8 25 17 11 25 1/2-51 25 18 10 15 2/2 12 Puget sound SEPT. 20 15 10 20 15 10 15-20 10 2k 18 12 22 16 11 11-17 9 25 1/2 19 1/2 15 1/2 5k-52 - 26 25 1/2 17 1/2 12 1/2 16 1/2-50 1/2 ik COLUMBIA RIVER w 17 15 9 20 15 10 12 S 1/2 21 15 9 20 16 9 15 8 25 16 10 26 1/2-51 2k 17 10 15 2/2 12 PUGET SOUND OCT. 21 16 11 20 15 10 ik - 20 10 25 17 11 22 16 11 15-20 9 25 19 15 52-29 - 25 25 1/2 17 1/2 12 1/2 Ik - 28 15 1/2 COLUMBIA RIVER N 17 15 9 21 16 1/2 9 12 1/2 9 20 ik 9 20 16 9 12 1/2 7 1/2 22 15 10 26 1/2-51 25 17 10 15 2/2 11 1/2 PUGET SOUND NOV. 21 16 11 21 16 11 15 - 19 9 25 17 11 22 16 10 15-20 9 2k IS 12 52 27 IS 12 Ik - 28 15 COLUMBIA RIVER M 19 ik 9 20 1/2 16 1/2 8 1/2 15 8 1/2 20 ik 9 20 15 8 12 1/2 8 22 16 10 2k 1/2-,0 1/2 25 17 10 15 11 PUGET SOUND DEC. 25 17 11 20 15 10 ik - 19 9 25 17 11 22 15 11 15-20 9 2k IS 12 ,2-28 - 22 27 IS it Ik - 28 12 COLUMBIA RIVER H 20 15 10 21 16 9 15 9 22 16 9 23 17 9 15 1/2 8 22 15 1/2 9 2k - 29 25 17 10 ik 1/2 10 1/2 1 9 5 » 1 9 5 9 1 9 k 0 Puget sound Jan. 2k 18 12 52-26 2k 18 12 ik - tt 12 25 17 11 52-26 25 17 11 18-,0 9 1/2 25 18 12 15 - 50 15 Columbia river H 2k 15 9 50-28 25 17 10 Ik 1/2 10 1/2 21 16 9 1/2 52-25 29 21 9 1/2 16 9 ». 16 ». 5k-27 50 20 ik 16 - 2, 12 Puget sound FEB. 2k IS 12 52-26 2k 18 12 Ik - 28 10 25 17 11 52-19 2k 18 11 15-52 10 25 18 12 ik 18 12 15 - 50 15 Columbia river H 2k 15 9 2>-2k 2k 17 11 ik 1/2 10 1/2 21 16 9 1/2 51-25 28 22 9 1/2 16-25 9 16 5k - 27 50 20 1k 15 - 23 11 1/2 puoet Sound mar. 25 19 12 28-22-16 2k 18 12 Ik - 28 9 1/2 25 17 11 52 25 17 11 19-50 9 25 18 12 50 20 12 16 - ,0 15 COLUMBIA RIVER II 2k 15 9 29-2k 2k 17 11 ik 1/2 10 21 16 9 1/2 52-25 55 25 21 16 9 16 ». 55 - 27 50 18 ik 15 - 23 12 Puoet sound APR. 2k 19 12 52-28 25 17 12 Ik - 28 9 25 17 11 52 25 17 11 19-50 9 25 18 12 27 IS 12 15 - 5« 15 Columbia river H 21 16 9 50-2k 2k 18 9 Ik - 28 9 21 16 9 1/2 52-25 26 18 1/2 15 15-25 9 16 ». 5, - 27 52 22 12 1/2 15 - S5 11 1/2 Puget sound may 2k IS 12 52-27 2k 18 12 Ik - 28 9 25 17 11 52-25 25 18 12 18-,0 10 25 IS 12 55-29 - 22 15 - 50 15 COLUMBIA RIVER N 21 16 9 50-25 26 21 16 15 1/2-27 9 21 16 9 1/2 52-26 55 25 20 15-25 9 16 ». 5, - 27 H 25 12 15 - 2k 11 1/2 Puget sound June 2k IS 12 52-27 2k 17 11 Ik - 28 9 25 17 11 52-2k 50 19 11 16-,o 10 26 IS 11 55 - 28 26 it 15 15 - 50 1, Columbia River N 21 16 8 50-25 2k 18 10 15 8 1/2 21 16 9 1/2 52-28 25 17 11 16 9 16 — 52 - 27 50 20 15 15 - 23 11 Puget sound July 23 17 11 52-26 25 16 10 ik - 29 8 1/2 21 15 1/2 10 1/2 52-26 50 1/2 18 1/2 10 1/2 17-50 10 25 IS 12 55-29 - 22 «» 15 15 Columbia River II 21 16 8 50-25 22 16 10 ik 9 —“ — —— 52-26 25 19 11 16-50 9 — 16 ». 55 - 27 50 20 16 15 1/2-25 11 Puget sound AUG. 23 17 11 52-26 25 1/2 17 1/2 11 1/2 17 - 50 « 1/2 25 17 11 52-26 25 17 11 16-52 11 2k 17 11 5k - 27 26 19 12 1, - 28 1, COLUMBIA river N 22 16 9 52*26 25 18 ik 16 9 — — 52-26 25 17 11 16-28 9 ». 16 ». 55 - 27 »A 15 l/2-2k 10 1/2 PUGET SOUND SEPT. 2k IS 12 52-26 25 1/2 17 1/2 11 1/2 17 - 5» 8 1/2 25 17 11 52-27 20 16 it 12-50 12 25 IS 12 55 - 27 29 19 11 ik - ,0 15 COLUMBIA RIVER H 22 16 9 51-26 25 18 ik 16 9 — — 52-26 22 17 10 17-28 9 16 •» 55-- 27 5« 22 12 15 2/2 10 1/2 PUOET SOUND OCT. 23 17 11 ,2-26 25 1/2 17 1/2 11 1/2 17 1/2-5« 8 1/2 25 18 11 5 k—29-22 25 17 11 17-50 12 26 19 12 55 - 27 52 20 11 ik - 50 15 COLUMBIA RIVER II 22 16 9 50-26 25 18 5 2/2 16 9 —— — —■ 52—28 5» 20 15 16-2k 10 — 17 5k - 28 50 22 12 15 - 23 10 1/2 PUOET SOUND NOV. 23 17 11 ,2—26 25 17 11 19 - 5« 9 25 18 11 5k-29 2k 18 12 17-5« 15 26 19 12 56-29 1/2-21 1/2 52 22 12 15 1/2-51 15 COLUMBIA RIVER II 20 1/2 15 1/2 9 1/2 51-26 25 IS 5 1/2 16 9 — — — 5k-28 29 19 12 i6-2k 11 —— 17 ». 5k - 28 50 20 12 15 - 23 10 1/2 PUOET SOUND DEC. 25 17 11 52-26 25 17 11 19 - 5« 10 25 IS 11 5k-27 51 20 15 17-50 15 27 19 15 57 - 2, 25 20 12 15 - 5« 15 Columbia River w 21 16 9 1/2 52-26 29 20 IS 16 9 — — 5k-27 50 20 ik 16 11 1/2 — 17 — 5k - 2t 5« 22 11 15 - 23 10 1/2 source: the Timberman, umkiohteo average or monthly quotations, it is understood that The Timberman quotations, derived from inquiry or Loo buyers ano sellers, represent what might be called average prices at storage points. Prices or individual lots or loos mav vary FROM AVERAGE QUOTATIONS DEPENDING UPON THE MADE OF THE LOT, THEIR LOCATION, ANO THE CONDITION OF THE MARKET. tMt ik TABLE 62 - MAN-HOURS, PAYROLL ANO AVERASE VASES, BY MONTHS ANO YEARS, IN SPECIFIED LOGGING ANO SAWMILLING CONCERNS, AS REPORTED BY THE WEST COAST LUMBERMEN'S ASSOCIATION, 1935-*» (index average: 1955-39 equals ioo.o) period LOGGING .OPERATIONS SAWILL OPERATIONS (INCLUDING PLANING MILLS OPERATED IN CONNECTION WITH SA WHILLS) NUMBER OF Operations REPORT— Utt— Average number of employees PER MONTH ON HOURLY WAGE 1/ man-hours for employees ON HOURLY WAGE payroll for Employees ON HOURLY wage — AVERAGE WAGE Per hour NUMBER OF OPERA-TI0N8 Report- Estimated jC LUMBER or production REPRE- AVERAGE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES PER MONTH ON HOURLY WAAT 1/ REPORTED MAN-HOURS FOR EMPLOYEES ON HOURLY COMPUTED MAN-HOURS TO REPRESENT 70% OF LUMBER PRODUCTION 1/ REPORTED Payroll for Employees ON HOURLY WAGE COMPUTED PAYROLL INFLATED TO REPRESENT 70% OF LUMBER PRODUCTION AVERAGE WA6E PER HOUR FOR EMPLOYEES ON HOURLY WAGE CENTS per Index hour 2/ CENTS PER HOUR IHOCX MAN-HOURS INDEX PAVROU. IHOCX (1) (2) (3) (») (5) (6) (7) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (1») (15) (16) 1935 JULY TO DECEMBER 6,0,6 5,700,000 3,651,105 60.; (2.6 10,297 15,672,155 17,277,«35 1,16;,7(6 10,317,705 59.7 «1.1 1955 Raised to 1»« 0,050,111 5,67«,625 60.3 (2.6 10,99« a,o;0,o;; 26,511,210 81.8 12,562,7*7 15,(15,592 11.1 59.7 «1.1 1936 1,351 15,561,560 10,021,167 73.9 55.0 16,100 31,529,050 56.556,057 11«.» 19,962,072 25,2(6,303 105.2 <5.7 93.5 1937 7.5*3 13,O0(,M5 10,(16,613 (2.5 106.6 16,116 29,51»,5(3 55,906,216 110.0 20,990,520 25,525,*!* 115.3 71.1 10».» 1,3* 1,61$ 0.16,,350 6,761,136 (2.( 106.0 15,927 20,050,692 29,170,565 19.7 17,»»6,«23 21,155,156 95.5 12.5 106.5 1,3, 5,173 10,113,712 «,5»O,36» (0.0 10«.; 10,555 27.965.0O2 50,555.557 105.6 20,269,137 20,((0,913 112.» 12.5 106.5 13 Mo 6,6« 11,550,331 *0,716,370 16.7 111.0 16,3(9 51.20O.05O 37,670.273 115.9 25,12«,66; 27,919,6(3 126.1 7».i 108.8 AVERAGE 1,33-33* ANNUAL 6,006 10,706,576 «,36»,756 10,001 26,779,0(1 3«,5«9,5O5 100.0 ll,2»6,»00 22,i0;,o;2 100.0 MONTHLY 6,006 0,5,500 657,0«3 77*2 100.0 10,001 2,251,623 «,709,125 100.0 1,5«O,555 1,(0;,021 100.0 61.1 100.0 1,3, last quarter 6,510 ,00,063 «»7,333 «;.« 110.3. 16,076 2,072,002 2,109,705 105.2 1,795,9«2 2,070,581 112.2 72.7 106.« 1,10 Last quarter 6,7<6 1,010.6,6 550,775 50.« 116.7 16,(11 2,697,96( 3,«29,979 115*2 2,061,505 2,067,069 133.1 76.» 112.2 1,35 July 21 0,0,0 660,,10 »»7,165 66.1 (;., 62 55 11,120 1,5*5,071 1,966,050 72.6 91»,79« l,160,2(( 63.1 59.2 «6.9 AUGUST 15 6,110 ,50,300 655,6»7 61.0 17.9 75 5* 10,976 2,069,(00 2,910,10; 110.0 1,*«9,163 1,797,26; 91.» 60.3 «(.5 SEPTEMBER 21 6,221 ,50,75« 657,6»» 69.2 11.9 75 55 10,605 2,003,((9 3,»59,09; 112.9 1,»27,»69 1,(16,779 9«.» 59.» «1.2 October 26 6.5,1 1,100,1,1 120,»00 69.0 M.7 75 52 15,2(6 2,650,510 5,573,571 15*.9 1,5«1,7U 2,129,226 115.» 59.6 «1.5 NOVEMBER 26 6,616 1,051,015 7»1,355 70.; 90.6 72 55 10,525 2,238,520 2,109,02; 105.2 1,356,617 1,701,109 92.2 59.7 «1.1 DECEMBER 1956 tl 6,521 917,000 63«,«10 6«.9 ««.6 7« 5* 15,«71 2,560,301 2,101,651 105.1 1,116,02« l,7O(,99( 92.6 60.0 88.1 JANUARY 21 6,122 ,69,315 665,121 61.7 M.3 71 5« 15,07* 2,596,031 5,153,622 115.7 1,553,95» 1,(79,061 101.6 59.9 88.0 FEBRUARY 2* 6,511 060,$7< 607,»71 70.3 90.0 71 56 15,29« 2,321,2»« 2,901,560 107.1 i,»06,5(3 1,1;(,22( 95.3 60.6 «9.« MARCH 27 7,025 1,126,910 161,65« 70.« 91.0 70 65 16,35» «,<76,533 2,973,920 109.8 1,6(5,159 1,(72,99( 101.5 63.0 92.5 APRIL 28 8,300 1,300,007 555,»«» 72.1 92.7 75 65 17,515 «,995,190 3,327,992 122.« 1,1*9,*«0 2,O5*,977 U1.» 61.7 90.6 may 27 0,011 1,1*5,025 536,101 75.2 96.7 70 5« 17,«75 «•<55,593 3,0*9,152 126.2 1,(16,610 2,192,060 118.8 6*.l 9».l JUNE 28 7,779 1,213,609 51»,701 75.0 96.9 76 60 17,23« 2,890,100 3,161,007 116.7 1,(6;,«$« 2,000,(26 110.6 6*.6 9».9 JULY 27 6.73, 1,067,735 7««,067 75.Í 90.9 70. 56 16,009 «,706,23« 3,312,719 12».$ 1,750,162 2,187,702 lit.5 6».7 95.0 AUGUST 22 0,036 1,206,111 536,5«6 75.2 56.7 70 60 16,999 «,700,663 3,202,095 118.2 1,766,917 2,061,003 111.1 6».» 9». 6 SEPTEMBER 22 7.7», 1,196,253 513,060 76.3 9«.l 70 61 16,600 «>709,091 3,109,251 11».1 1,760,020 2,020,2(3 109.1 65.1 95.6 OCTOBER 26 7, ,30 1,365,003 1,002,0;« 76.3 9«.l 72 61 16,072 2,(36,33« 3,250,107 120.1 *,«»2,179 2,113,976 11».6 65.0 95.» NOVEMBER 26 6,0,0 959,15» 72«,$72 75.5 97.6 72 60 10,01« 1,(90,027 2,«5.*9« «1.» *,«53,«5» 1,*39,096 11.0 65.3 95.9 DECEMBER 27 6,010 026,360 630,001 76.« 97.5 72 60 10,290 2,128,800 2,013,600 $1.7 *,»«7,«5« 1,663,127 90.2 67.0 9«.» 1931 January 21 5,500 »3»,363 365,230 7».7 56.0 71 60 10,517 2,009,(67 2,500,10; 16.6 1,3*5,*61 1,530,35» •3.* 65.» 96.0 February 22 5,120 536,533 350,166 73.5 50.5 71 55 15,500 2,1(7,125 «,113,615 102.7 *.»*5,937 1,802,102 91.1 6».7 95*0 march 22 7,05» 1,323,270 1,00;,200 79.0 101.5 72 55 17,O«5 «,9(5,597 5,799,596 i»o.; «,oi;,66» 2,565,590 159.0 <1.5 99.1 APRIL 22 0,607 1,3»3,331 1,127,290 (3.5 107.3 72 60 17,03» «,(63,52« 5,3*0,50« *«3.5 «,069,223 2,»!»,093 150.8 12.3 106.2 MAY 22 0,355 1,30»,065 1,171,106 «0.7 101.5 70 55 17,570 2,7(0,3(2 5,503,759 150.8 «,»33,733 2,5((,3»7 100.) 13.0 107.2 JUNE 27 ,,110 1,»52,010 1,221,500 «0.6 10I.7 70 55 17,106 «,910,35» 5,700,01« 136.7 2,109,581 2,6(0,9a 1»5.5 12.5 106.5 JULY 27 ,,100 1,307,00« 1,050,111 13.7 107.6 70 5« l«,0»7 2,7((,«36 3,565,111 12».2 2,028,558 2,»*7,993 132.1 12.1 106.« AUGUST 22 9,022 1,010 303 1,1(5,710 a.i io«.1 70 61 17,775 «,706,210 5,*51,395 116.3 1,993,«»« 2,2(7.976 12». 0 12.6 106.6 SEPTEMBER 2« 0,6,1 1,300,110 1,139,051 «0.; 10«.6 70 60 17,101 2.572,263 5,000,973 110.8 *,«75 995 2,1((,661 111.6 72.5 107.0 OCTOBER 27 7,056 1,101,127 966,510 «0.2 10«.2 70 5« 15,»31 2,211,206 2,661,695 9«.5 1,617,»63 1,951,627 105.« 15.1 107.3 NOVEMBER 27 6,007 «53,020 722,320 10.6 101.7 70 5$ 13,76« 1,(30,092 2,176,516 «0.3 1,339,»7« 1.5M.729 (6.1 13.0 107.2 DECEMBER 195* 27 3,,75 »37,603 ;6(,s(i «0.2 10«.2 70 56 12,611 1,621,729 2,027,161 7*.« 1,176,9»5 1,071,1(1 19.1 12.6 106.6 January 26 2,650 35«,«55 250,109 12.0 105.0 65 60 12,(27 1,6(0,910 1,965,72« 72.6 1,«3»,»57 1.»35,535 77.« n.o 107.2 FEBRUARY 26 2,007 523,510 276,(12 «0.0 101.0 65 57 13,360 1.672,201 2,053,579 75.« 1,215,«6» 1,»92,»29 80.5 12.1 106.1 march 26 »,251 671,555 533,122 «2.0 10;.5 65 60 10,609 2,190,927 «,56o,70« 9».5 1,59«,7«1 1,(65,200 101.1 12.( 106.9 APRIL 26 5,«5* 721,002 659,006 10.0 10«.; 7» 65 10,276 1,950,(96 «,100,965 77.6 1,»17,295 1.526,315 (2.1 72.6 106.6 may 26 >,9«1 6<0,55O 573.013 «3.« 107.7 70 61 13,691 1,(70,229 «,106,160 79.2 1,359,356 1,559,916 (».5 106.« June 26 1,361 655,682 533,525 «1.6 100.5 70 57 13.596 1,907,(02 «,59«,ot; 88.3 1,007,O51 l,72(,0;6 95.1 106.2 JULY 27 3.73, »25 326 326,(60 76.5 9«.« 65 55 10,206 1,(22,019 2,0o6,00o 88.8 1,515,282 1.730.523 90.0 72.1 105.9 AUGUST 27 0,657 771,301 6’6,725 «1.2 10O.O 65 57 10,701 2.»55.(36 2,988,920 110.5 1,750,769 2,150,066 116.5 71.9 105.6 SEPTEMBER 27 5,»53 «77,610 722,200 «3.0 106.7 65 55 10,555 «,«5».72* 2,169,60$ 105.9 1,631,0(1 2,O76,0;o 112.5 72.» 106.3 October 27 5, <57 9»3,352 753,(35 «0.2 10«.2 65 57 13,(00 «,176,999 «,673,506 9«-7 1,5(0,071 1,905,5»9 105.* 72.( 106.9 November 27 5,036 037,053 760,«75 «0.« 105.0 69 55 13,535 1,967,(5« 2,5O0,;06 92.» 1,»52,097 1,(22,669 58.8 ?2.8 106.9 DECEMBER 1,3, 27 5,71» 77»,056 653,550 «0.3 10«.0 65 5« 13,(75 «,07«,«51 «.50«,«33 92.6 1,506,510 l,(l(,206 9(.5 72.5 106.5 JANUARY 27 0,361 6,1,602 5«0,302 «3.0 106.7 6« 56 13,«5« 2,152,082 2,665,102 9«.» 1,5»»,»29 1.930,536 10».6 72.» 106.3 February 27 0,767 5»2,5oo 001,236 «2.6 106.2 6« 55 13.(06 1,888,180 2,003,13« 88.7 1,367,(5» 1.700,905 9».3 72.» 106.3 march 27 5.03, 911,3’7 767,205 10.2 101.2 67 55 13,(67 2,173,206 2,765 «$« 102.1 1,565,761 1,W,787 108.0 72.1 105.9 APRIL 27 6,360 517,056 7«1,352 «5.2 105.5 67 55 10,136 2,006,302 2,600,03; 96.1 !,»(«,175 1,((6,000 102.2 72.» 106.3 May 22 6,553 503,53» 229,052 «0.3 101.0 67 57 15,113 «,»55,65« 3,01;,71$ 111.3 1,7(1,216 2,1(7,057 118.5 72.5 106.; JUNE 22 6,259 555,513 «35,51« «0.3 10«.0 67 57 10,5(7 «,»65,626 3,027,$60 111.8 1,7(1,»77 2,187,778 11«. 6 72.3 106.2 JULY 22 5,010 77»,7»» 601,322 «2.5 106.6 67 57 10,935 «.«5».7»9 2,76«,$«« 102.2 1,63«,126 2,011,755 105*0 72.7 106.« AUGUST 22 5.599 710,»65 556,525 «3.1 106.« 67 55 15,150 2,667,96$ 5,395.557 129.5 1,936,77* 2,060,905 133.6 72.6 106.6 SEPTEMBER 22 5,,»7 015,537 6«5,35* «0.5 10«.6 67 55 15,7«1 2,»65,100 3.137,0o; 115.« 1,7»*,079 2,270,606 123.0 72.» 106.) October 28 7,056 1,003,306 521,1«7 85.0 109.5 67 67 16,60« 2,701,300 2,16*,091 105.7. 1,9M, *3* 2,O77,06( 112.6 72.5 106.5 NOVEMBER 22 6,150 552,131 «55,655 «6.2 »10.« 67 59 16,o«9 «,092,995 2.957,791 109.2 1,(11,102 2,10«,«12 116»» 72.6 106.6 DECEMBER 19 HO 27 5,707 7*6,033 6*5,157 «6.0 111.1 66 56 15,530 2,181,787 2,727,233 100.7 1*588,570 l,9«5,062 107.6 72.( 106.9 January 35 6,311 555,55» «17,117 «5.2 105.5 75 56 15.55» «,»70,13» 3,092,667 11».2 1,79(,;15 2,201,10; 121.( 72.7 106.« February 35 6,510 550,15« «15,5«5 «6.1 110.7 75 56 15.5(3 «,33»,«69 2,91«,5«6 107.1 1*720,720 2,150,500 116.6 73.7 108.2 march 35 6,355 1,002,900 «76,*13 «6.5 111.7 75 56 15,703 «.397,010 «»996,767 110.6 1,163,550 2,200,0)7 115.5 73.6 108.1 APRIL 35 T.oio 1,116,75« 561,5(2 «6.1 110.7 75 50 15,(«5 «,5«6,(66 3,353,3»» 125.8 1,«93,101 2,»50,797 153.0 73.2 101.5 107.6 MAY 35 7,010 1,15»,525 1,027,6«! «6.0 110.5 75 55 16,059 2,633,2*9 3,351,»01 123.1 1*928,970 2,»55,053 133.0 73.3 JUNE 35 6,0,5 1,060,23« 507,*«6 «5.6 110.0 75 62 16,267 «,506,351 «,129,751 toil.; 1,(3«,232 2,075,»2} 112.5 73.3 107.6 JULY 35 5,921 753,55» 610,360 11.0 10O.1 75 62 16,$60 2,612,7«; 2,9*9,91« 108.9 1,913,523 2,160,»29 117.1 75.2 107.5 AUGUST 35 6,706 1,111,857 537,««* «0.3 10«.0 75 60 16,100 2,«95,12* 3,376,121 12».6 «,110,057 2,»66,576 *33,6 75-1 107.3 SEPTEMBER 35 7,160 1,121,575 566,202 «6.1 110.7 75 60 l(,«0o 2,670,657 3,115,766 115.0 1.972*901 2,501,718 12». 7 75.9 108.5 October 35 6,70, 1,155,21» 1,026,010 «5.0 110.0 75 56 17,117 2,967,720 3,709,6*9 136.9 2,235,9<0 2,79»,9«o lll*f 75*5 110.6 NOVEMBER 35 7,07, 1,101,556 556,760 90.1 115*2 75 61 16,690 2,612,;o; «,997,956 110.7 1,9(6,567 2,279,»37 123.5 76.0 111.6 December 31 6,51, «11,75« 767,562 5O.6 121.6 70 55 16,62; 2,513,610 2,9«2,353 110.1 1,962,163 2,321,990 126.1 7*.l 11».7 »//this MEANS NORMAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES PER MONTH ON HOURLY WAGE (EXCLUDING LABOR TURN-OVER). WEIGHTED MONTHLY ANO YEARLY. J/ THE REPORTING CONCERNS REPRESENTED IN EACH MONTH A VARYING PROPORTION Or THE ESTIMATED OUTPUT Or LUMBER, AS INDICATED IN COLUMN 7. IN ORDER TO OBTAIN COMPARABLE FIGURES MONTH BY MONTH, THE MAN-HOURS AND PAYROLL WERE INFLATED EACH MONTH TO REPRESENT 7<* OP THE ESTIMATED WEST COAST LUMBER OUTPUT, ON THE BASIS Or AVERAGES INDICATED IN COLUMN 7. IT IS BELIEVED .MAT INACCURACIES WOULD RESULT IP AN ATTEMPT WERE MADE TO INFLATE MAN-HOURS ANO PAYROLL TO A PULL 100« OP ESTIMATED LUMBER PRODUCTION FOR THE REASONS THAT THE LUMBER PRODUCTION BEYONO THE PROPORTIONS INDICATED IN COLUMN 7 IS BY SMALLER CONCERNS WHICH MAY HAVE HORE OR LESS MAN-HOURS ANO PAYROLL PER H FT. OF LUMBER OUTPUT THAN THE REPORTING CONCERNS UNDER COLUMN 6. • rOR PURPOSES OF THIS -VER 'GE UPON WHICH THE INDEX IS BASED FOR PAYROLL ANO MAN-HOUPS, THE LAST HALF OF 1935 IS REGARDED AS REPRESENTING 6^ OF THE WHOLE YEAR SINCE PRODUCTION IK THE LAST HALF OF 1,J5 AMOUNTED TO 2,17« MILLION FEET OR APPROXIMATELY OF THE TOTAL PRODUCTION OF 1,766 MILLION FEET FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. THE AVERAGE WAGE PER HOUR IS ASSUMED TO BE THE SAME IN THE FIRST HALF OF 1$); AS IN THE LAST HALF SOURCE: DERIVED FROM QUESTIONNAIRES CIRCULATED MONTHLY BY THE WCLA TO REPORTING CONCERNS, WHO REPORT ALL OF THEIR EMPLOYEES ON AN HOURLY WAGE BASIS WHICH THE COMPANIES REGARD AS BEING CONNECTED W.TH LOGGING OPERATIONS ANO SAWMILL OPERATIONS. DOES NOT INCLUDE EMPLOYEES WORKING IN BOX FACTORIES. —PAUL TABLE ¿3 - NUMBER OF WAGE EARNERS, AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED PER WEEK, ANO AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS IN SAWMILLS IN THE FIR LUMBER REGION OF WASHINGTON ANO OREGON WHICH REPORTED MAN-HOUR DATA TO THE U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, BY MONTHS AND YEARS, TO 19*10 (Index average 1935-59 = ioo.o) Year and month number of establishments Number OF wage Earners average hours worked PER WEEK average hourly Earnings Year and month Number of establishments number of wage earners average HOURS WORKED Per Week average Hourly Earnings Cents Indes Cents Index year 1957 195* 51.6 58.3 83.0 J ANUARY 67 19,125 51.1 673 96.0 1955 55.9 60,1 85.6 February 68 18,526 51.6 66.7 95.0 1956 Ji., 66.3 9*1. *1 March 68 21,687 57.2 69.9 99.6 1957 7*.6 106.3 April 68 22,23« 57.5 753 108.0 195« 55.0 7M 1063 May 68 22,703 363 763 108.8 1959 55.1 75.3 107.5 JUNE 69 25,28*1 59.1 75.9 108.1 19*0 55.2 77.6 110.5 JULY 68 23,160 5*1. *1 76.2 108.5 AUGUST 69 25,191 56.5 76. *1 108.8 Last Quarter SEPTEMBER 69 22,«05 55.7 7«.5 111.5 1959 75.8 108.0 OCTOBER 68 20,759 55.5 76.7 IO9.5 8O.7 115.0 NOVEMBER 66 17,955 50.5 77.5 110.1 avr. 1955-59 70.2 100.0 DECEMBER 67 1*397 27.1 76.5 109.0 195 132» J ANUARY 57 12,081 28,1 56.0 79.« J ANUARY 65 1U,55O 29.6 75.5 IO7.5 February 52 11,556 52.0 5«.5 «5.5 February 47 15335 30.2 7*».9 IO6.7 march 5» 12,26*1 553 58.3 «3.0 March 68 18,026 55.7 75.7 105.0 APRIL 111 10,18*1 55.9 59.5 8*1.8 APRIL 69 1«,559 52.2 75.« 108.0 May 57 15396 51.6 58.2 «2.9 May 69 18,282 51.5 75.7 IO7.8 June 60 12,59« 31.6 583 «3.2 JUNE 69 163I11 55.0 7*1.7 1063 JULY MU 10,269 27.7 60.7 «6.5 JULY 69 16,590 28.6 75.5 10*1. * AUGUST a 1*1,590 31.0 57.6 82.1 August 67 17,920 56.0 75.5 10*1.7 SEPTEMBER 62 1U,2O1 32.8 57.9 82.5 SEPTEMBER 68 18,005 55.6 75.7 105.0 October 6*1 114,808 55.1 57.7 «2.2 October 69 18,5*2 57.0 75.2 107.1 NOVEMBER 6*1 1U,0$7 51.6 58.0 82.6 November 69 18,382 5**.l 753 1073 DECEMBER 66 1*13*15 523 583 «3.2 December 69 17321 55.2 75.1 107.0 1955 1939 January 65 15,69* 51.2 56.8 80.9 J ANUARY 68 16,58*1 55.1 7*i.6 106.3 February 66 1U, 7 Ml 55.9 563 8O.3 February 69 16,377 55.6 7H.5 106.1 March 65 15,36 5^,6 57.0 81.2 March 67 17,50*1 5*1.5 7*1.9 106.7 April 66 16,063 56.7 56.8 «0.9 April 62 16,961 55.9 76.O 108.5 May 65 12,099 19.« 57.7 «2.2 may 67 18,967 56.5 75.0 1063 June 69 6,695 253 59.6 8U.9 JUNE 69 18,780 57.« 753 1073 July 6U 11,956 27.6 61.2 87.2 July 69 18,909 52.9 753 1073 august 65 17,015 36.0 61.1 «7.0 august 69 19,539 553 7*i3 106.0 SEPTEMBER 47 25,796 57.7 62.1 88.5 September 69 193«2 5*.5 75.7 107.8 OCTOBER 68 19,597 5«.5 62.3 88.7 October 69 20,560 57.2 75.5 107.5 November 68 19,225 36.2 62.9 89.6 November 69 20377 56.2 76.2 108.5 DECEMBER 68 18,855 57.0 62.7 «9.5 December 69 20339 52.7 75.« 108.0 122» i2ii January 68 20,2U2 57.6 63.0 «9.7 January 66 1«,5«5 5*1.6 763 108.8 February 68 20,565 553 63.5 90.5 February 47 18,571 55.0 76.5 IO9.O march 68 21,1611 5«.5 63.5 90.5 march 69 19,597 5**3 76.9 IO9.5 April 68 a,«57 5 «.9 4»0 923 April 47 18,832 56.0 76.7 IO9.5 may 69 22,155 38.6 66.8 95.2 May 68 19,5«8 57.1 76.6 109.1 June 69 21311 37-4 67.6 96.3 JUNE 69 20,519 55.9 77.5 110.1 July 69 21355 35.6 67.5 95.9 July 69 19,676 JJ.H 7*1.8 106.6 august 69 2135* 57.2 0.1 95.6 august 69 21325 57.0 763 108.8 SEPTEMBER 69 22,071 57.0 67.8 96.6 SEPTEMBER 69 21,586 56.8 77.5 1103 October 69 22,755 38.1 67.8 96.6 October 69 21,217 56.7 7«.l 111.5 November 68 19,9«« 55.6 69.0 9«.5 November 69 21,285 55.1 82.7 117.8 December 66 19371 , 51.0 December 0 *23 81.U 11L» SOURCE; BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, STATISTICS ARE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF HOURS WORKED AND PAY ROLL FOR EACH WEEK NEAREST THE 15TH OF THE MONTH Page 16 TABLE 6H - NUMBER Of WAGE EARNERS ANO AMOUNT OF WEEKLY PAYROLL IN 72 IDENTICAL SAWMILLS IN THE FIR LUMBER REGION OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON WHICH REPORTED DATA TO THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS BY MONTHS AND YEARS, 19)*-*0 (INDEX AVERAGE 1955—59 = 100.0 ) year AND Month NUMBER Of wage Earners AMOUNT OF WEEKLY PAYROLL year AND Month NUMBER Of Wage Earners AMOUNT OF WEEKLY PAYROLL DOLLARS Index DOLLARS Index year 19)4 16,OSS 295,080 61.7 im 1955 16,6)1 558,414 70.7 January 19,773 41),484 86.4 19)6 21,897 554,579 111.7 February 19,180 402,411 84.1 1957 21,612 552,860 115.5 march 22,40) 579,025 121.0 19)8 17,978 446,864 93.4 APRIL 23,115 651,794 156.2 1959 19,698 519,726 108.6 MAY 23,652 654,444 156.8 19*0 21,055 577,715 120.7 JUNE 23,964 707,519 147.9 July 23,957 626,916 151.0 LAST QUARTER august 23,836 659,956 137.9 1959 21,*llU 574,680 120.1 SEPTEMBER 23,442 61S,)7O 129.2 1940 21,65S 597,682 124.9 October 21,541 551,457 115.2 NOVEMBER 18,920 444,610 92.9 Average 1955—59 19,56) 47S,489 100.0 December 15,555 324,539 67.8 1U* 1212 January 14,898 259,582 50.1 January 15,053 338,176 70.7 February 15,808 296,974 62.1 February 15,581 355,068 74.2 march 16,496 521,408 67.2 march 18,609 46),66) 96.9 APRIL 16,964 558,042 70.6 April 18,818 461,968 96.5 May 17,02S 515,227 65.9 may 18,771 452,374 94.5 JUNE 15,160 275,449 57.6 JUNE 17,486 434,856 90.9 JULY 14,824 259,655 50.1 JULY 17,136 562,440 75.7 AUGUST 16,282 288,541 60.) AUGUST 18,475 495,225 105.1 SEPTEMBER 16,659 511,965 65.2 SEPTEMBER 19,498 518,666 108.4 October 16,611 515,250 65.9 OCTOBER 19,090 532,965 111.4 NOVEMBER 16,555 298,526 62.) NOVEMBER 18,911 489,261 102.5 DECEMBER 15,978 500,785 62.9 DECEMBER 18,312 459,729 96.1 1211 1939 JANUARY 15,134 267,589 55.9 January 17,271 453,678 94.8 FEBRUARY 16,292 510,721 64.9 February 16,790 423,428 88.5 march 17,140 338,557 70.7 MARCH 18,659 478,189 99.9 APRIL 17,814 570,615 77.5 APRIL 19,710 502,847 105.1 may 14,0)6 165,665 34.6 May 19,829 541,587 115.2 June 7,56) 111,261 23.3 June 19,500 555,458 116.1 JULY 15,762 234,994 49.1 JULY 19,6)9 489,305 102.5 AUGUST 18,591 405,446 84.7 AUGUST 20,339 536,449 112.1 SEPTEMBER 19,869 465,86) 97.4 SEPTEMBER 20,302 531,724 111.1 OCTOBER 20,197 480,879 100.5 October 21,396 602,169 125.8 NOVEMBER 19,810 452,080 94.5 NOVEMBER 21,697 598,748 125.1 DECEMBER 19,759 457,69) 95.7 December 21,239 523,124 109.3 1216 1212 January 20,786 494,002 10). 2 January 19,996 529,821 110.7 FEBRUARY 21,119 476,595 99.6 February 19,798 532,425 111.3 March 21,714 528,556 110.5 march 20,197 535,124 111.8 APRIL 22,772 568,563 118.8 April 20,751 576,3*3 120.5 may 22,88) 587,656 122.8 May 20,907 595,321 124.4 June 22,546 571,454 119.4 June 21,209 586,841 122.6 July 22,168 530,251 110.8 July 20,586 513,638 107.3 august 22,565 562,047 117.5 august 22,150 630,572 131.8 SEPTEMBER 22,777 569,904 119.1 SEPTEMBER 22,291 639,44) 133.6 October 22,819 587,279 122.7 October 21,730 624,106 130.4 NOVEMBER 20,668 478,270 100.0 NOVEMBER 21,753 597,190 124.8 DECEMBER 19,950 460,570 96.2 DECEMBER 21,492 571,750 119.5 NOTE: IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE FIGURES SHOWN HERE REFER ONLY TO THOSE SAWMILLS REPORTING TO THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS AND NOT TO ALL SAWMILLS IN THE WEST COAST REGION. HENCE THE INDEX OF EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLLS SHOWN HERE ARE NOT NECESSARILY TYPICAL OF THE FLUCTUATIONS IN TOTAL EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLLS IN THE REGION FOR THE REASON THAT NON-REPORTING SAWMILLS MAY OPEN IN A RISING MARKET ANO CLOSE IN A FALLING MARKET THUS MAKING FOR A GREATER TOTAL INCREASE OF EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLLS IN A RISING MARKET THAN IS SHOWN BY THE ABOVE FIGURES AND SIMILARLY FOR A GREATER DECLINE OF EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLLS IN A FALLING MARKET THAN IS SHOWN BY ABOVE FIGURES. HOWEVER, THESE FIGURES DO 8H0W THE FLUCTUATIONS IN EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLLS FOR A GROUP OF IDENTICAL MILLS FROM 1934 TO 1940. SOURCES BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. STATISTICS SHOWN HERE GIVE THE NUMBER OF WAGE EARNERS AND THE PAYROLL FOR SAME IN EACH WEEK NEAREST THE 1$TH OF THE .MONTH. Page 87 TABLE 65 - EMPLOYMENT IN LOGGING AND SAWMILLING IN ENTIRE STATE OF WASHINGTON SAWM ILLING, FUEL, L 0 G G 1 N G ENBKEEatSESKSBn PRODUCTION AND LUMBER YARDS infifi liufi noroATiCAie 3/ BOOMING AND LOGGING RAIL AND TOTAL LOGGING 0 f: Wl TH POWER 1/ RAFTING LOGS TRUCK CONSTRUCTION y Logs Lum- period AVER- AVER- aver- aver- aver- mil- SER AGE AGE age AGE AGE lion mil- WAGE Wage Wage WAGE Wage ft. LION Payroll WORKMAN PER Payroll WORKMAN PER Payroll WORKMAN Per payroll WORKMAN per PAYROLL workman Per log BO. dollars HOURS HOUR Dollars HOURS HOUR DOLLARS HOURS hour dollars HOURS HOUR DOLLARS hours HOUR scale FT. 1935 11,485,445 26,897,817 42.6 9,628,271 20,058,776 48.0 295,416 580,182 50.9 9,923,687 20,638,95« 48.1 3,493 3,106 193* 111,530,065 26,671,320 5».5 12,155,484 19,446,373 62.5 394,218 597,317 66.0 12,549,702 20,043,690 62.6 3,684 3,064 1935 17,455,«00 57.6 13,871,616 20,961,221 66.2 468,564 653,524 71.7 14,340,180 21,614,745 66.3 3,711 3,453 1936 25,165,854 40,276,644 «2.5 21,706,446 29,817,440 72.8 545,689 712,157 76.6 22,252,135 30,529,597 72.9 5,026 4,572 1937 28,092,905 '0,055355 70.1 24,134,359 29,436,520 82.0 769,794 850,681 90.5 1,097,744 1,422,681 77.2 26,001,897 31,709,««2 82.0 5,106 4,713 193« 21,709,220 29,050,997 72.7 13,522,873 16,007,721 84.5 621,489 676,066 91.9 2,489,910 3,250,290 76.6 16,634,272 19,934,077 3,383 3,349 1939 AVERAGE 2<05H,298 33,117,570 72.6 17,030,845 19,916,609 85.5 755,935 820,483 92.1 2,830,682 3,665,450 77.2 20,617,462 24,402,542 «4.5 4,472 4,244 1935-1939 23,291,615 34,722,626 «7.1 19,969,189 25,658,169 77.« 4,540 4,066 Index average 1935-1939 = 100.0 1933 »9.5 77.5 63.5 49.7 80.5 61.8 80.5 76.4 W» 62.M 76.6 81.2 62.8 78.2 80.5 84.9 75.4 1935 74.9 «7.3 65.« 71.8 Í 85.2 «5.5 «4.9 1936 106.0 116,0 93.1 111.4 119.1 93.7 115.8 112.4 1937 120.6 115.4 104.5 130.2 123.7 105.4 117.6 115.9 193« 93.2 66.0 108.5 «J.J 77.« 107.2 77.9 «2.4 1939 103.2 95.4 108.2 103.2 95.2 108.6 105.0 104.4 Includes lath mills, planing mills, sawmills, and tie mills (operation and maintenance); masts, with or without machinery; pole yards, independent of logging operations (N.O.S.); FUEL AND LUMBER YARDS WITH POWER DRIVEN MACHINERY, INCLUDING TEAMSTERS, DRIVERS, AND HELPERS; SPARS, WITH OR WITHOUT MACHINERY; RETAILING OF FUEL OIL BY FUEL DEALERS USING POWER DRIVEN MACHINERY. DOES NOT INCLUDE SHINGLE MILLS NOR MANUFACTURERS OF SHAKES. z/ Logging operations and maintenance: railroads, logging (operation) shingle bolt cutting, tie cutting, log trucking (including contract log hauling), logging isconsidered COMPLETE OPERATIONS OF FALLING, BUCKING, SKIDDING, YARDING, LOADING, AND OTHER NECESSARY INCIDENTAL OPERATIONS. j/ Logging rail and truck road construction and maintenance (new classification effective September 1, 1937). Previous thereto, workers in this classification seem to have BEEN REPORTED IN PART UNDER "LOGGING OPERATIONS" AND IN PART UNDER A SEPARATE "RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION". source: state of Washington, department of Labor and Industries, annual report, for employment statistics. Production statistics from pacific northwest Forest and Range Experiment station. Page «« APPENDIX V - QUESTIONNAIRE FORM ON COSTS, SALES AND PROFITS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR INDUSTRY I9HO AND JANUARY TOGETHER WITH A LIST OF COMPANIES RESPONDING TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE Code no.____________ Information for the Year 19U0 or for the (do NOT use) FISCAL YEAR ENDING____________________ ADVISORY COMMISSION TO COUNCIL B. LUM B E R I QUANTITY | AMOUNTS OF NATIONAL DEFENSE ________________________________________ TOTAL PRODUCTIOn(M FT BD MEASURE) INFORMATION RESPECTING THE DOUGLAS FIR INDUSTRY 19»0 - 19*1 C08T W ,NCU) *_____________ (1) logs: Own logs Used m ft. LS ________________________ $____________ COMPANY NAME .................. .. . ______________ LOGS PURCHASED M FT. LS ________________________________________ I____________ Total - < LOCATION OF OFFICE WHERE (?) LABORS (SEE INSTRUCTIONS) $_____________ RECORDS KEPT ___________________________________________________________________ (j) DEPRECIATION (LUMBER MILL and Transportation equip-location OF OPERATION THAT MENT WITHIN LUMBER MILL) $_____________ IS COVERED BY INFORMA- (4) ALL OTHER LUMBER COSTS, TI3N SUBMITTED HEREWITH______________________________________________ EXCEPT SHOWN IN D AND E (SEE INSTRUCTIONS) $_____________ INDIVIDUAL TO SEE RELATIVE TO THE CHECKING OF REPORT Ç, TOTAL COST OF PRODUCTS SOLD IN YOUR OFFICE__________________________________________________________________ A PLUS B (SEE INSTRUCTIONS) $____________ (1) Logs sold as such $_____________ mail to: (2) lumber $ HARRIS E. SMITH, AUDITOR (j) OTHER PRODUCTS I_____________ west coast lumbermen's assn. jéH STUART BUILDING D, GROSS SALES OF ALL PRODUCTS: $_____________ SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (1) LOGS SOLD AS SUCH (M FT LS) _______________ I____________ DOUGLAS FIR ____________ $____________ February li, 19 Hl Hemlock ____________I_____________ all Other logs ____________ I____________ READ INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY. (2) LUMBER - (M FT. BM) _____________ $___________ LOG BUYING SAWMILLS START WITH SCHEDULE B. (j) OTHER PRODUCTS ____________ $____________ (H) BY-PRODUCTS ____________ $____________ Information for the year 19H0 or for the total ===== * FISCAL YEAR ENDING_____________________ LESS: (5) CLAIMS AND ALLOWANCES $____________ QUANTITY AMOUNTS_(6) SHIPPING EXPENSES $_ A, L C G S (7) SELLING EXPENSES $_____________ $____________ (g) net Sales of all Products $_____________ total production (m ft. log scale)_______________ (a) net sales of Douglas fif and w.c. hemlock TOTAL COST ((1) (H) INCL.) $___________ LBR. (M FT.) ____________ $____________ (1) stumpage: (b) net Sales of all other DOUGLAS FIR $____________ LBR. (M FT.) ____________ $____________ HEMLOCK $_____________ ALL OTHER $____________ NOTE: THE COMBINED QUANTITY TOTAL $___________ SHOWN UNDER (a) AND (B) (2) Labor: (see instructions) I_____________ above should coincide (3) DEPRECI AT ICN (LOGGING AND WITH QUANTITY SHOWN UNDER transportation Equipment) $____________ (2) Lumber, above, amounts (M) ALL OTHER LOG COSTS. (SEE SHOWN UNDER (A) AND (B) Instructions) should be net of prcpor- CONTRACT LOGGING: $ _____ TI ONATE SHARES OF DE— M FT. LS ________ DUCT IONS MADE UNDER (5), AMOUNT ________________ (6), (7) ABOVE. page ¿9 Code no, (do not use) (wcla - 2—U—Ux) Information for the year 19U0 or for the I, miscellaneous information for the year 19H0: READ INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY, FISCAL YEAR ENDING_____________________ (1) TOTAL LOG PRODUCTION (M FT. LOG SCALE/___________________________________________ ________________________________________ (2) TOTAL OPERATING MAN-HOURS ON LOGS (SEE INSTRUCTIONS) ..w_____________________________________(3) Total payroll, logging operations $ ____________________________ (U) total Lumber production (m ft. board measure) __________________________________ e. GROSS PROFIT OR (LOSS) W T0T*L M*N-H0URS 0N0THER CAUSE£ ---------------------------- (1) SALARIES AND WAGES I (2) Interest paid $------------- information for month of January, 19U1 (j) ALL OTHER $__$----------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------i-------------- QUANT ITY AMOUNTS F. NET PROFIT OR (LOSS) FROM ------------------------------------------------ OPERATIONS i ûs-i-iLM-àX ------------------------------------------------ Total production (m ft, log scale) ------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL COST ((1) (U) INCL.)_|_ YEAR 19*0 stumpage: ■ -.... .............................. Douglas fir $_______ book Value depreciated value hemlock $___ ------------------------------- ----- ■ n, , all OTHER $ St ASSETV TOTAL I (2) Labor: (see Instructions) $_____________ AS pF DECEMBER }1, XgUO (j) DEPRECIATION (LOGGING AND (1) TIMBER AND TIMBER LAND $ $ TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT) $____________ (2) real estate (plant site) $-------------- $------------------------- ALL 0THER LoG costs, (see (J) LOGGING RAILROAD AND INSTRUCTIONS) Equipment Contract logging: $ (A) RAILROAD $_____________ $____________ $____________ M fT Ls (b) Equipment $-------------$_____________$_____________ amount $ (u) Sawmill, planer, sheds, ETC.,BUILDING AND B> L U M B E R EQUIPMENT $------------- $------------ $------------ TOTAL PRODUCTION (M FT. BD, MEASURE) Total cost ((1) (H) Incl.) $ AS,QF. DECEMBER Loes. ----------- (1) TIMBER ANO TIMBER LAND *-------------- $------------ „ Lg , 2) REAL ESTATE (PLANT SITE) $--------------- $--------------------------- LOGS PURCHASED M FT LS ------------ $------------ (3) LOGGING RAILROAD AND ------------ TOTAL UsŒŒŒassŒxa \ quipment Labor: (see instructions) $___________ (a) RAILROAD $------------- $------------ (j) DEPRECIATION (LUMBER MILL AND (8) Equipment $-------------$-------------$------------- Transportât!on Equ.pment (») SAWMILL, PLANER, SHEDS, ETC., W,TH|N LuMBEB R } - BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT $ S S -------------- ------------ *------------- *----------- («I) ALL OTHER LUMBER COSTS, EXCEPT SHOWN IN D AND E (SEE INSTR.) $ December 51, 19U0 December 31, 1939 _________________________- ______________ C, TOTAL COST OF PRODUCTS SOLD H«,lhVENTORIES A PLUS 8 (SEE INSTRUCTIONS) $ Logs (m ft. Log scale) $ $ \ । 4 . * ■— ..... T--------------------------------*------------- (1) LOGS SOLD AS SUCH i Lumber (m ft. . *----------- » a. \ a (2) Lumber $ BD. MEASURE) I $ /.x__ . ------------ --------------r----------— —--------------Other Products $ Page 90 Code no. ________________ (do not use) INFORMATION FOR MONTHS OF JANUARY, l^l D. GROSS SALES OF ALL PRODUCTS: QUANTITY AMOUNTS — -- —— $ $ (1) LOGS SOLO AS SUCH (M FT. LS) DOUGLAS FIR HEMLOCK ALL OTHER LOGS (?) LUMBER - (M FT. BM) (j) OTHER PRODUCTS (M) BY-PRODUCTS Total Less: (5) claims and allowances (6) shipping Expenses (7) SELLING EXPENSES (8) NET SALES OF ALL PRODUCTS (a) NET SALES OF DOUGLAS FIR AND W.C. HEMLOCK Lumber (m ft.) (b) NET SALES OF ALL OTHER LUMBER (M FT.) note: The combined quantity SHOWN UNDER (A) AND (&) ABOVE SHOULD COINCIDE WITH QUANTITY SHOWN under (2) Lumber, above. AMOUNTS SHOWN UNDER (A) AND (B) SHOULD BE NET OF PROPORTIONATE SHARES OF DEDUCTIONS MADE UNDER (5), (8), (7) ABOVE. E, GROSS PROFIT OR (LOSS) FROM OPERATIONS D MINUS C Less: ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER GENERAL EXPENSES! (1) Salaries and wages (2) Interest Paid (3) ALL OTHER F. NET PROFIT OR (LOSS) FROM operations: $ $ - 1 $ —— $ 1- - —■ ■ $ $ $ $ $ $ ♦ $ 1 $ $ * List of Companies Contributing to Field Study Conducted by The Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense WASHINGTON Company Address Bay City Lumber Company Aberdeen Bloedel Donovan Lbr. Mills Bellingham Carlisle Lumber Company Onalaska Cascade Timber Company Tacoma Tide Flats Defiance Lumber Company Tacoma U601 Ruston Way Dolge, Inc., Ernest Tacoma Donovan Lumber Company Aberdeen DuBois Lumber Company Vancouver Eclipse Mill Company’ Eve re 11 Hart Mill Company Raymond Henry Mill & Tbr. Company Tacoma Box 11J3 Lake Washington Mill Company Renton Long-Bell Lumber Company Longview Merrill & Ring Lumber Co. Seattle 920 White Bldg. Mountain Lumber Company Tacoma Box 1255 Humbly Lbr. & Shingle Co. Bordeaux Mutual Lumber Company Bucoda Pacific National Lumber Co. Tacoma Tacoma Bldg, St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co. Tacoma Simpson Logging Company Shelton Reed Kill Division Simpson Logging Company Seattle 1010 White Bldg. Snoqualmie Falls Lumber Co. Snooualmie Falls Sound Timber Company Seattle 9U6 Henry Bldg. Walton Lumber Company Everett Weyerhaeuser Timber Company - Everett Weyerhaeuser Timber Company Longview Weyerhaeuser Timber Company Tacoma Clemons Branch Weyerhaeuser Timber Company Tacoma Vail Operation White River Lumber Company Enumclaw Willapa Harbor Lumber Mills Raymond Wood Lumber Company, E. K. Anacortes Page 91 OHEGON Company Address Booth-Kelly Lumber Co., The Eugene Carnation Lumber Company Forest Grove Chambers & Son, J. H. Cottage Grove Clark & Wilson Lumber Co. Portland Linnton P.O. Cobbs & Mitchell Company Portland Term Sales Bldg. Consolidated Timber Co. Glenwood Coos Bay Logging Company North Bend Corvallis Lumber Company Corvallis Crossett Western Company Wauna Deep River Timber Company Portland Yeon Bldg. Durable Fir Lumber Company Dorena Engle & Worth Lumber Company McMinnville Forcia & Larsen Noti Inman-Poulsen Lumber Co. Portland 455 Grand Ave. Johnson Lbr. Corp., C. D. Toledo Kingsley Lumber Company Portland Linnton P.O. Lebanon Lumber Company Lebanon Oregon-American Lumber Corporation Vernonia Prouty Lumber & Box Company Warrenton Snellstrom Lumber Company Eugene Southeast Portland Lumber Company Portland, Box 7^3 Lents Station Tidewater Timber Company Astoria Box 720 Westfir Lumber Company Westfir West Oregon Lumber Company Portland Linnton, P.O. CALIFORNIA Company Coos Bay Lumber Company Addire s e San. Francisco 351 California St 2-8-41 Instructions Relative to Questionnaire Form Covering Information Respecting the Douglas Fir Industry - 1940-41 SPECIAL NOTE. It is the desire of the Defense Commission that this form be prepared to reflect your operations in the production of logs, lumber and such usual operations as are associated with the production of these products. If you engage in other businesses not directly associated with this form of operation, be sure to apportion only such parts of the costs to the enterprise as a whole as are justified by sound accounting principles. YEAR 1940 OR FISCAL YEAR, The twelve month report should cover the year 1940 or the f iscal year ending PRIOR to that date. If fiscal year is used, note the period same covers on pages 1 and 2 of the report. JANUARY, 1941. It is realized that securing accurate information for a one-month period covering logs and lumber costs is very difficult, yet it is important to ascertain if at all possible some recent cost and sales information. Therefore, will appreciate a special effort being made to report this information to the extent that you can do so, even if it is necessary to use an estimate in some cases. CONFIDENTIAL NATURE OF DATA. Note particularly that the data sent in will be handled in a confidential manner by the accountants for the Defense Commission. Note also Dr. Dexter Keezer’s letter relative to this and that the individual reports sent in will be returned later to the reporting companies. SEPARATE COSTS FOR EACH MILL OR LOGGING OPERATION IF POSSIBLE. Where a company has more than one mill or logging operation, costs should be sent in for each operation separately if possible. If all operations are combined, please be certain to mark on the cover page of the report the various locations and operations covered by the report. SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEALING WITH CERTAIN ITEMS IN QUESTIONNAIRE A. (2) Labor. Include in this item amounts paid to all persons employed in the logging operations, including transportation to sawmill. Page 92 A» (4) All Other Log Costs. Show the costs covering contract logging separately in space provided for that purpose, showing footage involved as well as the total cost. Stumpage Costs should not be included as part of Contract Logging Costs. Show also in this item the net change in inventory amounts as between opening and closing Log inventories. Interest on Log purchase contracts or other interest usually charged to Logging costs should be included in Administrative and Other General Expenses, Item E. (2) B. (2) Labor. Include in this item amounts paid to all persons employed in the Lumber Operation, including transportation to stock or temporary storage piles. Do not include wages paid to employees engaged in shipping and selling finished lumber, or salaries and wages to be included in Administrative 3. (1) C. (1) (2) (3)* This item is a distribution of the Costs shown in A and B. Do not include shipping, selling and administrative costs. If by-products were obtained - do not deduct the amount returned from their sale in determining the costs of the products sold; include instead the sale value of the by-products in Item D (4), page 2. I. (2) Total Operating Man-Hours on Logs. Include man-hours on all log production including log transportation, spur construction, booming, and all maintenance. I. Total Operating Man-Hours on Lumber. (5) Include man-hours on all lumber production including maintenance and by-product operations such as fuel, pulp chips and lath. Do not include man-hours on supplementary operations such as shingle mill, box factory, etc. Do not include man-hours on Plant additions or administrative, clerical, and selling. B. (4) All Other Lumber Costs. Include in this item net change in Inventory amounts as between opening and closing lumber inventories. Do not include any shipping, selling or administrative costs in this item. 93 APPENDIX VI NOTES ON PRESENTATION OF REPORT TO THE INDUSTRY AND QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSIONS RELATING TO THE REPORT This report was presented, to the industry at a meeting held on March 18, 1941, at the State Capitol in Olympia, Wash- Hetherton, P. Hoch, Adolph State Planning Council U. S. Conciliation Olympia ington; physical facilities for the meeting being made avail- Service Seattle able by Governor Arthur B. Langlie of Washington. The follow- Hoyt, Frank V. Coast Columbia District ing persons, with their industrial affiliations and addresses. Council St. Helens set down as they recorded them, attended the meeting which by Hutton, George W. U. S. Dept, of Labor, the invitations issued was designed to be and which, in fact, Wage & Hour Div. San Francisco developed to be broadly representative of the Douglas fir lumber industry: Anderson, William District J, I. W. A. Aberdeen Jackson, E. S. Jorgensen, E. C. U. S. Conciliation Service Local 2519, Lumber & Sawmill Workers Seattle Seattle Burton, H. W. Industrial Employes Union Portland Cochennette, L. J. Union J-2, I. W. A. Aberdeen Cowlin, R. W. P. N. W. Forest Exp’t. Kinney, C. G. Koehler, K. H. Clark & Wilson Lumber Co. Eastern-Western Lumber Co. Portland Portland Sta. Portland Koivunen, liman I. W. A. Seattle Davis, Kenneth Ore.-Wash. Council of Lumber & Sawmill Workers, A. F. of L. Portland Kreienbaum, C. H. Lalande, J. A. Simpson Logging Co. Grays Harbor County District Council Shelton, Wash. Aberdeen Dokter, Ted District J, I. W. A. Aberdeen Dolge, Ernest Ernest Dolge Inc. Tacoma Larsen, Karly Law, Richard S. District 2, I. W. A. Seattle Seattle Doud, Lee L. Defiance Lumber Co. Tacoma Lewis, E. A. Lewis Lumber Co. Dexter, Ore. Dwyer, E. C. Southeast Portland Lowery, Worth I. W. A. Portland Lumber Co. Portland Dyer, Denle Aberdeen Evans, H. R. Olympia McCready, F. H. Metzger, G. A. Donovan Lumber Co. Willamette Valley Lumber Operators Assn. Aberdeen Eugene Fadling, J. E. I. W. A. Aberdeen Miller, Orville R. Deep River Timber Co. Deep River, Wash Fitzgerald, J. B. Lumbermen’s Industrial Morely, W. R. Saginaw Logging Co. Aberdeen Relations Committee, Morse, Ray Long Bell Lumber Co. Longview Inc. Seattle Fremming, H. C. National C. I. 0. Representative Seattle Gemnell, Charles Monroe Logging Co. Everett Goetze, G. I. W. A. Portland Neal, Carl B. Owre, M. T. Pearson, D. F. Peoples, Ralph W. Olympic National Forest Everett Council of Lumber & Sawmill Workers Oregon State Industrial Olympia Portland Everett Greenman, Judd Oregon-American Lumber Co. Vernonia Union Council Portland Hagen, Fritz Coos Bay District Coun- Potts, J. K. I. W. A. * Vernonia, Ore. cil of A. F. of L. Marshfield Hartley, Earl Puget Sound District Council of Lumber & Sawmill Workers Tacoma Hartung, A. F. Columbia River District Raught, A. L., Jr. Ruegnitz, W. C. Smith, H. E. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. Columbia Basin Sawmills Columbia Basin Loggers West Coast Lumbermen’s Assn. Tacoma Portland Seattle Council, I. W. A. Portland Stamm, S. A. Merrill & Ring Lumber Co. Pyst, Wash. Hayes, Edmund Rau River Lumber Co. Dorena, Ore. Stone, E. C. Stimson Mill Co. Seattle Haynes, Guy L. H. L. Lumber Co. Carlton, Ore. Swale, Jack B. Tri-County Logging Assn. Seattle Page 9U Tennant, J. D. Terzick, Peter Tucker, H. I» Vaughan, William Viancour, J. C. Wallace, Webster, Weidert, Whallon, Wyckoff, William L. T. Wilbur James S. N. Long Bell Lumber Co. Union Register (Editor) Washington State In-* dustrial Union Council Coos Bay Logging Co. Tacoma District Council, Lumber and Sawmill Workers, A. F. of L. District 2, I. W. A. State Division of Forestry, Washington Plywood District Council, I. W. A. A. F. of L. P. N. W. Forest Exp’t. Sta. Longview Seattle Seattle North Bend, Oregon Tacoma Seattle Olympia Olympia Portland Portland Of those who had been engaged in the preparation of the report, the meeting was attended by Dexter M. Keezer, who presided, Norman Burns, and A. L. Morgan. After the report had formally been presented and its contents noted, those present were invited to ask questions or make comments, devoid of argument on matters of policy, which would advance the purpose of the report to enlarge the range of generally accepted factual information relevant to the solution of the wage and employment problems of the industry. Technical questions concerned with the statistical aspects of the report were dealt with by Mr. Burns, while Mr. Morgan handled questions on the sections of the report concerned with the financial record of the industry. In response to a general request for another question and answer session after opportunity to study the report carefully had been available, a second meeting was held at the Capitol in Olympia, Washington, on March 26, 1941. The personnel and procedure in answering questions was the same as that of the first meeting. From a partial stenographic record of the two sessions, the following material has been prepared in an effort to present those questions and answers, as well as comments, which illuminate the phases of the report with which they are concerned. The form believed most likely to make the material illuminating - whether an abstract or a transcript of what was said - has been used in presenting it, with Mr. Burns handling the statistical questions and comments and Mr. Morgan handling those concerned with the financial and accounting aspects of the report. QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, AND COMMENTS Chapter II Price Statistics 1. Q. How was the index of Southern pine prices constructed! A. The index of wholesale prices of Southern pine lumber is based upon mill realizations (of all mills reporting to the Southern pine lumber exchange) for eight types of Southern pine lumber, viz., yellow pine boards No. 2 common 1” x 8” and No. 3 common 1” x 8” and No. 1 common 2M x M x 16’ and No. 2, 2” x M x 16’; drop siding, B and better 1” x 6”; finish B and better 1” x 6”; flooring B and better f.g. 1” x UH; timbers No. 1, 4H x 6/8” x 20’ and under. Mill realizations make allowance for trade discounts but not for cash discounts. Eight types weighted on basis of quantity newly made available for consumption in 1937 and 1938. 2. Q. What is the difference between the average price of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average realized price of the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association and the average price received as obtained through questionnaires distributed in this investigation! A. The average price of the Bureau of Labor Statistics is based upon the selling price of eight types of Douglas fir lumber, as reported by one large sawmill, weighted according to consumption in 1937-38. No allowance is made for trade discounts. The average realized price of the West Coast Lumbermen's Association is based upon total sales of all kinds of lumber by all mills reporting to the WCLA, no allowance being made for trade discounts. The average price received, as obtained by questionnaire, is based upon total sales of all kinds of lumber by all mills reporting under the questionnaire distributed in this investigation. Allowance is made for trade discounts. The mills covered by the questionnaire include some mills covered and some not covered in the WCLA average price. Page 95 J. Q. Why did. the WCLA average price decline in December, 1940, when the BLS price continued to rise? A. The BLS average price rose because of rising prices for most grades of lumber included in the BLS index. The WCLA average price fell in December because a larger proportion than before of the total shipments included in the index consisted of cargo shipments. Cargo shipments consist chiefly of green lumber which is normally lower in price than dry lumber. The inclusion of relatively more green lumber and relatively less dry lumber in December shipments depressed the average price index in December even though the actual price of dry lumber and also of green lumber was higher in December than in the preceding months (see graph U). Profits 7. Dry and Green Lumber U. Q. The report states that rail shipments consist chiefly of ”dry” lumber and cargo shipments chiefly of ’’green” lumber. What is meant by ”chiefly”? A. Over 50 per cent. Taking all rail shipments for all mills, it is believed that well over one-half of the total consists of dry timber. Likewise for cargo shipments. Of course, certain individual mills may ship green lumber mostly by rail and others may ship dry lumber mostly by water. 5. Q. When the report states that dry lumber sells at a higher price than green lumber, would it not be fair to point out that dry lumber also costs more to produce than green lumber? A. Yes. Drying, whether by air drying or kiln drying, adds to the production cost. Average Hourly Wages 6. Q. Why do the graphs show changes in average hourly wages when there were no changes in the wage rates themselves? the year, individual mills may employ a larger or smaller proportion of skilled workers; at times mills which pay low wages may close temporarily; at times mills pay overtime. All of these circumstances change the average slightly from month to month. It is apparent, however, from graph 6, that average hourly wages change proportionately less from month to month than average prices. Chapter III Q. When you speak of the weighted average profit of $1.29 per thousand in 19^0» as I understand it, that $1.29 does not make any provision for the payment of income taxes on the profits? A. That is correct. The figure of $1.29 per thousand is the average profit shown before payment of Federal Income taxes. Comments; There were numerous other questions relating to the average profit of $1.29 Per thousand feet sold in 19^-0. These questions can all be answered by stating that this figure is the weighted average profit on approximately half of the lumber and by-products sold by the industry in 19^0. It does* not include the profit on logs sold as such, nor on other products produced in conjunction with the lumber operations, except, as before stated, it includes the profits derived from the sale of byproducts of the industry in 19^0. In arriving at this profit, all costs of preparing the lumber and by-products for shipment to ultimate destination were included, such as production, selling, local shipping and administrative costs, but no freight or transportation costs for delivery of the products to market were included. The administrative costs include an amount for interest paid on moneys actually borrowed to carry on the industry’s business, but there was no provision made for inclusion of a theoretical charge for interest on the capital invested in the enterprises. A. Average hourly wages shown in the graphs are based upon aggregate payrolls for a large number of workers in a large number of mills, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. At certain times in Page 96 Material Costs 8. Q. In the cost, I take it, that lumber purchased, of the dollars at least, has been included in the cost? A. Yes. Q. And I also take it the footage of lumber purchased has not been considered? A. You are referring to the item of ’‘purchased lumber used” in Table 17 and later repeated in other tables in the report. The inclusion of purchased lumber in the cost of production probably overstates the costs to some slight degree, but I do not believe the overstatement is as great as the understatement would have been if the purchased lumber was left out. The purchased lumber included in the costs in these tables is confined to a very few firms. It is not general. Some of these firms undoubtedly re-sell this lumber in the same state in which it was purchased, or at least a part of it. I know that the firm which handled a large part of this purchased lumber bought it in the rough and did considerable toward preparing it for market. In that, within the time period alloted, we were unable to go into departmentalized costs, we do not know just what additional costs were put on the lumber in getting it ready for market. In the case of this one firm, and I presume the other firns who did further processing to the purchased lumber, included the footage of this purchased lumber in reporting the production figures. The total purchased lumber which is included, as you will note from the tables, is only about 5a Per cent of the total material costs; some small part of this - that would be the lumber purchased directly for resale - may have inadvertently slipped into the costs without the corresponding footage having been reported. Labor Costs 9. Q. I take it that you haven’t considered the amount of labor that would be in the spur tracks or items of that nature? A. You mean as to whether it was considered as ’labor1 in getting out the logs, or as ’other costs' incident to logging. Insofar as we were able to separate the labor costs in items of that nature, it was done. I think, in most instances, we were able to do it. 10. Q. Turn back to the page where it states 'For 1940 the labor cost for producing lumber was JO per cent of all lumber costs as compared to per cent in 1939*• It Is my understanding that there is a considerable amount of labor that is not in that JO per cent? A. Yes, there is quite a bit of labor that is not included in the JO per cent. The JO per cent represents the amount of labor directly applied to lumber; in addition, there is a certain amount of labor included in the item shown as 'other costs'; these would be the labor in the auxiliary departments, such as the power departments and the machine shops. Also, I might state that there is some labor in shipping, and salaried personnel in the selling and administrative functions. Q. Referring to this same matter, I take it you haven't included in the JO per cent figure for 1940 and the 26^ per cent figure for 19J9 the labor in the logs? A. That is correct. The amount of labor in producing the logs is shown separately in the tables. The log labor, of course, is reflected in the lumber costs as part of the costs of logs used, but this is in addition to the JO and 26J figures we have been discussing. 11. Q. In Table IS the large Washington mills show a logging labor cost of $5*32 per thousand as compared with $4.09 in Oregon, and $4.JI for small Washington mills logging labor cost as compared to $4.2J for Oregon. Is there any way to account for that? A. We have nothing in the report which illuminates the differences in labor costs in different size plants. Maybe some of the operators can answer the question. Page 97 A. I wish to make the observation from a practical standpoint entirely separate from any accounting problem, and I think you will find probably that the logging companies have farther transportation and have more transportation problems to account for a part of it. I am expressing merely by personal opinion, and I don’t think the size of an operation has anything to do with the figure of labor cost. Another explanation might be that the smaller operations might have trucking expenses which would not show up under labor as labor applying to the operation itself, and the larger operators would tend to carry their own product right to the water while the smaller operators would contract hauling by a trucker or common carrier, and that labor would not be shown under labor in the companies records. ’’Other Costs” of Production 12. Q. Isn’t it true that the item of ‘all other’ costs of $1.64 a thousand on lumber does include ’selling costs’? Isn’t that correct? A. Ho, it is not. Q. What does that mean? per cent for payroll taxes and insurance, 20 per cent for power and steam, and 19 per cent for property taxes and insurance. Q. Referring to thegg same items in Table 21, the ’all other’ costs under the costs of lumber and the ’all other’ costs on the logs. On the lumber it shows $1.64 per M. feet for 1940 and for 1941 it shows $2.66, and for logs it shows $3*26 in 1940 and $4.13 in 1941. What is the reason? A. Do you mean the reason for the increased costs in 1941. If so, I might say, there are a number of reasons why they are different for 1941 than for 1940. Previously, I qualified the 1941 data, tne costs are for one raonth only. I think it is agreed that there were some natural increases in costs in 1040 and 1941, and, in addition, the figures for 1941 are for a different group of companies - a much smaller group - and the products which were produced in the month of January, 1941» may have been quite different then the products which were produced by a different group in 1940. The qualifications state this. In other words, you have a different group in 194O than in 1941 end they night have different costs all along the line and still be entirely consistent. A. You are referring to the $1.64 figure in Table 21. This figure also appears in Table That figure represents the unit of ’all other’ costs of producing lumber and its by-products in 1940, other than the costs of materials, labor, and depreciation. It does not include the selling, shipping, and administrative expenses which are detailed below this figure of $1.64 which you refer to in Tables 17 and 21. You will note also that a figure of $3.26 appears in these same tables, above the $1.64 figure. That figure of $3.26 is a similar kind of item, but it represents the ’all other’ costs of logs, whereas the $1.64 figure represents the ’all other’ costs of lumber. The questionnaires which the firms submitted did not break these items down into their component •parts. I can give you a rough idea of what they are from the 193V figures which we have. The log item of $3.26 is mde up approximately of 42 per cent for supplies, 12 per cent for payroll taxes, 18 per cent for log freight, towing, and scaling fees, 8 per cent for prooerty taxes, insurance and general expenses, and 20 per cent for contract charges other than labor. The contract labor item, I might add, was separated out and included with the logging labor. The lumber item of $1.64 is made up approximately of 44 per cent for supplies and expenses, 17 ’’Other Deductions” in Internal Revenue Data IJ» Q* have any breakdown of the ’other deductions’ shown in Table 10 for that period of years? A. Mo, we do not. That material was prepared in Washington from figures furnished by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. I would be glad to inquire if such a breakdown is available. Comments• Inquiry in Washington develops that the material is available only in the guSinarlzed fora shown in the table referred to above. To prepare a breakdown of the figures would involve tabulating the material from^the individual returns submitted over the years. In each of the 12 years covered in the table, from 400 to 500 individual returns were filed each year. The enormous amount of labor involved in making such a tabulation precludes the possibility of preparing such a breakdown as was requested. Page 98 Inventories of Lumber Productivity n Figures 14. Q. One point. In the tables and in the chart there is no showing as to the amount of inventory on hand with respect to the up trend in the price structure in the latter part of 1940, in the last quarter of 1940, and the early period of 1941. In other words, how much stocks on hand inventory participated in the new increase in prices and is that properly compensated for in the tables and charts? A. Table 17 shows the inventory of logs and lumber at the end of December, 1939 and 19^0. Q. But it doesn't show the inventory on hand as of, we will say, October 1, 1940? A. No, it does not. Is the contention that large stocks of low cost lumber participated in the price rise late in 1940. If so, I do not think that is the case; lumber depreciates when held for long periods. I do not think that is the policy, to hold stocks for any great length of time. On an average, I think the inventories are turned over every 40 to 45 days. 15. Q. Do the productivity figures in the 1940 cost statement in the second part of Table 17 include planing mill labor? A. Table 17 shows the total operating man-hours on logs, and the same on lumber. In those lumber mills where planing was done, the operating man-hours for planing is included. Loans Granted to Operators 16. Q. In the section covering government loans granted to the industry, just preceding Table 16, did you include the loans made by the Federal Bank in this district? A. The information came from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in Washington. I am not prepared to say whether it includes loans made through the Federal Loan Bank of this district, or whether those loans are in addition. We can get that information if you would like it. Comments: Inquiry developss that the loans as shown in the report do not include any loans obtained by the operators through the Federal Loan Banks.