Sentences with phrase «unit labour costs in»

And as it turns out, to ONS did release a revised labour productivity report which showed that unit labour costs in the U.K. increased by 3.5 % in Q1 2017, which is much better than the original estimate of +2.1 % and is the strongest reading in four years to boot.

which showed that unit labour costs in the U.K. increased by 3.5 % in Q1 2017, which is much better than the original estimate of +2.1 % and is the strongest reading in four years to boot.

Unit labour costs in Spain are unsurprisingly well above those of other Eurozone members.

The international comparisons shown here suggest, however, that growth in unit labour costs in Australia has still been on the high side over the past couple of years, given the rate of unemployment.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has just released a comparison of manufacturing output, employment, productivity, and unit labour costs in 16 different industrialized countries. Here's the link: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/prod4.pdf This data confirms that Canada's manufacturing industry is in the midst of a uniquely terrible crisis. Some commentators have suggested that the sharp decline in Canadian -LSB-...]

Not exact matches

Long - term interest rates are currently low due to low global inflation expectations and moderate growth potential in Canada due to lower oil prices, a heavily indebted household sector and a weakened manufacturing base due to relatively high unit labour costs.

Without getting into the detail, one of the measures is very consistent with the slack that we still think exists today in the labour market and that shows up in very modest gains in wages and unit labour costs.

Similarly, unit labour costs (based on compensation per hour worked) picked up a little in the December quarter, rising by 1.4 per cent to be 2.3 per cent higher than a year ago.

Low overall inflation has, to a large extent, been a result of relatively subdued growth in unit labour costs.

Strong growth in productivity may continue to restrain growth in unit labour costs to a greater extent than expected, though productivity growth in the past year has been below that in the preceding few years.

Strong productivity growth, combined with moderating wage growth and ample spare capacity in the economy, led to unit labour costs falling by 1.7 per cent over the year to the December quarter.

As a result, there has been no increase in the cost of labour required to produce a unit of output.

[4] Non-tradable inflation was elevated during the boom years and growth in nominal unit labour costs was relatively strong for most of this period.

Unit labour costs (based on compensation per hour worked) increased by 0.9 per cent in the March quarter, to be 2.4 per cent higher over the year.

Core inflation has drifted higher over the past year, as slowing productivity growth has pushed up growth in unit labour costs, albeit from a very low level.

The profits recovery has been driven by continued strong productivity growth in conjunction with subdued compensation growth (due to the weak labour market), which has seen unit labour costs fall by 5 per cent since June 2001 — the largest fall on record (Graph A4).

Unit labour costs (based on compensation per hour worked) grew by 1.3 per cent in the June quarter to be 2.8 per cent higher over the year, which is around the average growth rate of the past few years.

It remains to be seen if the consequent rise in unit labour costs is a precursor to greater inflationary pressures or if it will be absorbed into profit margins.

Fig 2 Cost effectiveness plane: planned birth at home compared with planned birth in obstetric units for nulliparous low risk women without complicating conditions at start of care in labour

For low risk women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour, the mean incremental cost effectiveness ratios associated with switches from planned birth in obstetric unit to non-obstetric unit settings fell in the south west quadrant of the cost effectiveness plane (representing, on average, reduced costs and worse outcomes).25 The mean incremental cost effectiveness ratios ranged from # 143382 (alongside midwifery units) to # 497595 (home)(table 4 ⇓).

In this study of the cost effectiveness of alternative planned places of birth in England in women at low risk of complications before the onset of labour, we found that the cost of intrapartum and after birth care, and associated related complications, was less for births planned at home, in a free standing midwifery unit, or in an alongside midwifery unit compared with planned births in an obstetric uniIn this study of the cost effectiveness of alternative planned places of birth in England in women at low risk of complications before the onset of labour, we found that the cost of intrapartum and after birth care, and associated related complications, was less for births planned at home, in a free standing midwifery unit, or in an alongside midwifery unit compared with planned births in an obstetric uniin England in women at low risk of complications before the onset of labour, we found that the cost of intrapartum and after birth care, and associated related complications, was less for births planned at home, in a free standing midwifery unit, or in an alongside midwifery unit compared with planned births in an obstetric uniin women at low risk of complications before the onset of labour, we found that the cost of intrapartum and after birth care, and associated related complications, was less for births planned at home, in a free standing midwifery unit, or in an alongside midwifery unit compared with planned births in an obstetric uniin a free standing midwifery unit, or in an alongside midwifery unit compared with planned births in an obstetric uniin an alongside midwifery unit compared with planned births in an obstetric uniin an obstetric unit.

Restriction of the analyses to low risk women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour narrowed the cost differences between planned places of birth: total mean costs were # 1511 for an obstetric unit, # 1426 for an alongside midwifery unit, # 1405 for a free standing midwifery unit, and for # 1027 the home (table 2 ⇓).

Profiles of resource use, and their associated unit costs, for each planned place of birth are reported in detail in appendices 1 and 2 on bmj.com.25 The total mean costs per low risk woman planning birth in the various settings at the start of care in labour were # 1631 ($ 1950, $ 2603) for an obstetric unit, # 1461 ($ 1747, $ 2332) for an alongside midwifery unit, # 1435 ($ 1715, $ 2290) for a free standing midwifery unit, and # 1067 ($ 1274, $ 1701) for the home (table 1 ⇓).

Notably though, the real GDP has experienced slight improvement, growing 1.7 % in the first quarter and the labour costs per unit of production, for Canadian businesses, rose by 0.8 % (in Canadian dollars).

It is anticipated that a continuing tight labour market, robust income growth and high levels of consumer confidence will help to offset the dampening effect of rising mortgage carrying costs on the demand for new and existing homes in B.C. Housing starts should decline from 39,195 units in 2007 to 33,250 in 2008 and 31,700 in 2009.