Wednesday, November 11, 2026Mortgage news · Rates & market context

Economy · ORIGINAL ECONOMIC RELEASE

2013 Second Quarter (Preliminary) Productivity and Costs

Nonfarm business sector labor productivity increased at a 0.9 percent annual rate during the second quarter of 2013, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The increase in productivity reflects increases of 2.6 percent in…

Historical releaseThe figures below describe the original reporting period. They are not today’s rates or a current economic forecast.Today’s market brief →

THE PRIMARY SOURCE

Read the release

Original source →

Historical release narrative reproduced from the official public-domain source. Statistical tables, standard technical appendices, administrative material and attendance rosters are omitted; formatting is adapted for reading. Figures retain the release's historical context and may have been revised. Consult the linked source for the complete document.

Second Quarter 2013, Preliminary

Nonfarm business sector labor productivity increased at a 0.9 percent annual rate during the second quarter of 2013, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The increase in productivity reflects increases of 2.6 percent in output and 1.7 percent in hours worked. (All quarterly percent changes in this release are seasonally adjusted annual rates.) From the second quarter of 2012 to the second quarter of 2013, productivity was unchanged as output and hours worked both increased 1.8 percent. (See table A.)

Labor productivity, or output per hour, is calculated by dividing an index of real output by an index of hours worked of all persons, including employees, proprietors, and unpaid family workers.

Historical Revisions to Productivity and Costs Data

Data in this release reflect the comprehensive revision to the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce on July 31, 2013. All index series have been rebased from 2005=100 to 2009=100. See "Revised measures" section.

Unit labor costs in nonfarm businesses increased 1.4 percent in the second quarter of 2013, the combined effect of a 2.3 percent increase in hourly compensation and the 0.9 percent increase in productivity. Over the last four quarters hourly compensation and unit labor costs both increased 1.6 percent. (See table A.)

BLS defines unit labor costs as the ratio of hourly compensation to labor productivity; increases in hourly compensation tend to increase unit labor costs and increases in output per hour tend to reduce them.

Manufacturing sector productivity rose 2.7 percent in the second quarter of 2013, as output grew 0.1 percent and hours worked fell 2.6 percent. Over the last four quarters, manufacturing productivity increased 2.2 percent, as output increased 2.1 percent and hours decreased 0.1 percent. Unit labor costs in manufacturing increased 1.4 percent in the second quarter of 2013 and decreased 0.4 percent from the same quarter a year ago. (See tables A and 3.)

The concepts, sources, and methods used for the manufacturing output series differ from those used in the business and nonfarm business output series; these output measures are not directly comparable. See Technical Notes for a more detailed explanation.

Revised measures

Productivity, unit labor costs, and hourly compensation were subject to revisions for the full period of these series, which begin in 1947 for the business and nonfarm business sectors and in 1987 for the manufacturing sectors. Measures of output for the business and nonfarm business sectors and measures of compensation for all sectors incorporate the revised National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) data released on July 31 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Output data for manufacturing incorporates revised output indexes constructed by BLS using data from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Hours were revised for the business and nonfarm business sectors for 1990 forward to include revised NIPA data on government enterprises and for 2001 forward to include revised NIPA data on the proportion of sector compensation paid to employees of nonprofit institutions.

In the first quarter of 2013, nonfarm business productivity declined 1.7 percent--rather than increasing 0.5 percent as reported June 5--as a downward revision to output was larger than a downward revision to hours. Unit labor costs fell 4.2 percent in the first quarter--about the same as previously reported--as the downward revision to productivity was offset by a downward revision to hourly compensation. In the manufacturing sector, productivity growth in the first quarter was 3.9 percent, as output growth was revised up and hours were revised down. Unit labor costs declined 3.2 percent, rather than decreasing 10.0 percent, reflecting a large upward revision to hourly compensation.

Annual Average productivity growth for 2012 in the nonfarm business sector was revised to 1.5 percent from 0.7 percent due to an upward revision to output. (See table C). Unit labor costs increased 1.2 percent, the same as reported June 5. Revisions to annual average changes in 2011 and 2010 were small. Upward revisions to productivity-- resulting from the NIPA benchmark revision to output--raised the annual average rate of growth in nonfarm business productivity during the 2000 to 2012 period from 2.2 percent to 2.4 percent. Growth in unit labor costs was revised down from 1.1 percent per year to 0.8 percent per year over the same period. The long-term productivity growth rate over the 66 years of the series is 2.3 percent, rather than the previously-published rate of 2.2 percent.

In the manufacturing sector, small downward revisions to annual average productivity growth in 2010, 2011, and 2012 were due to downward revisions to output. For the period 2000-2012, manufacturing productivity grew 2.9 percent per year on average, lower than the previous estimate of 3.0 percent. Unit labor costs had smaller increases in 2011 and 2012--and a smaller decline in 2010--than previously reported. For the period 2000- 2012, unit labor costs growth was 0.2 percent per year, lower than the previous estimate of 0.5 percent per year.

Nonfinancial Corporate Sector Data Not Available

Data for the nonfinancial corporate sector are not available due to corrections to source data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis received August 15, as noted at http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2013/gdp2q13_adv.htm. These corrections could not be included in time for this news release. Measures for all other sectors are correct. BLS nonfinancial corporate sector data will be published with the next regularly scheduled Productivity and Costs news release on September 5, 2013, at 8:30 a.m.

Sector Nonfarm Durable Nondurable Business Business Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing

Q to Q Y to Y Q to Q Y to Y Q to Q Y to Y Q to Q Y to Y Q to Q Y to Y

Sector Nonfarm Durable Nondurable Business Business Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing

Revised Previous Revised Previous Revised Previous Revised Previous Revised Previous

Percent change, annual rate, first quarter 2013

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics · Original release Aug 16, 2013.

Archived Nov 11, 2026. Source reuse policy. Formatting has been adapted for reading; the source’s conclusions remain attributed to its publisher.

MortgageRates.news analysis · Historical context

The mortgage market around this release

This original analysis is separate from the source article. It compares observed benchmarks around ; historical averages and yields are not current mortgage offers.

Separate output per hour from compensation per unit

Labor productivity measures real output per hour worked. Unit labor costs relate labor compensation to output, so a change in hourly pay alone does not describe the change in cost per unit produced. Check the sector, whether a quarterly percentage change has been annualized, and how it differs from the change over four quarters. Revisions to output and hours can alter earlier estimates. Productivity and costs help describe the economy’s supply conditions; the historical rate comparison does not measure this release’s isolated effect. BLS Productivity and Costs.

Nearest published observation on or before each target date
Benchmark30 days earlierJul 17, 2013Publication referenceAug 16, 201330 days laterSep 15, 2013
30-year fixed mortgageNational weekly averageFreddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey®4.51%Observed 4.40%Observed −11 bps vs. earlier reference4.57%Observed +17 bps vs. publication reference
10-year TreasuryDaily par yieldU.S. Department of the TreasuryUnavailableBefore available coverage, which starts Jan 4, 2016.UnavailableBefore available coverage, which starts Jan 4, 2016.UnavailableBefore available coverage, which starts Jan 4, 2016.

Calendar references, not an intraday reaction. A same-day market observation may have been published after a morning release. These figures do not show what was known at its exact publication time. One basis point (bp) is 0.01 percentage point; changes use the actual dated observations shown.

Six months around publication

May 16, 2013 – Nov 16, 2013
Historical mortgage and Treasury observations around Aug 16, 2013Each dot is a published observation. No missing values are estimated. The dashed vertical line marks the article’s publication calendar date. Rates and yields are percentages.3.50%4.25%5.00%Publication date30-year fixed mortgage: 3.51% · May 16, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 3.59% · May 23, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 3.81% · May 30, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 3.91% · Jun 6, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 3.98% · Jun 13, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 3.93% · Jun 20, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.46% · Jun 27, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.29% · Jul 3, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.51% · Jul 11, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.37% · Jul 18, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.31% · Jul 25, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.39% · Aug 1, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.40% · Aug 8, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.40% · Aug 15, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.58% · Aug 22, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.51% · Aug 29, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.57% · Sep 5, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.57% · Sep 12, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.50% · Sep 19, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.32% · Sep 26, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.22% · Oct 3, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.23% · Oct 10, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.28% · Oct 17, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.13% · Oct 24, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.10% · Oct 31, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.16% · Nov 7, 201330-year fixed mortgage: 4.35% · Nov 14, 2013May 16, 2013Aug 16, 2013Nov 16, 2013
30-year fixed mortgage27 observations
Dots show published observations only. Missing dates remain blank, with no interpolation. The series have different publication schedules and measure different markets.

What that benchmark difference would mean for a $300,000 loan

At the publication reference$1,502.28/month

4.40% · Aug 15, 2013

At the later reference$1,532.56/month

4.57% · Sep 12, 2013

The illustrative principal-and-interest payment is $30.28 higher per month. This holds the loan amount and term constant to show the arithmetic effect of the benchmark difference.

Assumptions: two separate hypothetical $300,000 loans, each fully amortizing over 30 years with 360 monthly payments and its stated fixed interest rate. Excludes points, lender fees, taxes, insurance, association charges and other costs. PMMS is a national average, not an APR or a personalized rate offer. These are not two payments on one existing loan.

Sources, historical coverage and calculation limits

The 30-day comparisons use calendar days. Each cell selects the last published observation on or before its target; no rates are synthesized for missing dates. Gaps greater than seven days for daily Treasury data or fourteen days for weekly mortgage data are marked unavailable. Forward comparisons require the date to have arrived and source coverage to extend through it.

Historical files may contain revisions and do not reconstruct precisely what every market participant knew at the time. Freddie Mac changed its PMMS collection methodology in November 2022. Cross-period comparisons should account for that change. These windows include other news and cannot establish causation or forecast the next rate move.

Understand the Treasury–mortgage relationship →See current advertised mortgage options →