NSCB - Statistically Speaking... Bigas, galunggong at tilapia – Presyong laban sa kahirapan? by Dr. Romulo A. Virola

Bigas, galunggong at tilapia – Presyong laban sa kahirapan?
by Dr. Romulo A. Virola ¹
Secretary General, NSCB

As mentioned in previous Statistically Speaking columns, 2009 is an FIES² year. This is when the National Statistics Office (NSO) collects in two survey rounds, income and expenditures data of families³, which the NSCB will use to find out if poverty incidence has improved or deteriorated since 2006. The NSCB targets the release of the preliminary 2009 official poverty statistics sometime in 2010. Just before then, some government officials directly responsible for poverty reduction programs could be expected to, in the language of a President, get wee weed up! Not to worry though, because there is time left for us to take decisive action to reduce poverty - before the MDG reckoning in 2015 and before the national elections in May 2010. But we must learn to use statistics, and our action must be sustained beyond 2009 for lasting and meaningful poverty reduction.

In her first State of the Nation Address (SONA) on 23 July 2001, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo used the metaphor of the “tatlong bangkang papel” containing the wishes of three kids from Payatas for trabaho, edukasyon at sariling tahanan which together with “pagkain sa bawat mesa” constituted the core of her vision for our nation.

The poverty reduction program of government has evolved over the years. In the past, we had Lingap Para sa Mahirap, Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services and Kapit Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan. Currently, the overall strategy is called the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program or 4Ps, which is a conditional cash transfer (CCT) program that provides grants to extremely poor households⁴ to improve health, nutrition and education. In addition, the government offers a Family Access Card (FAC) that allows families to purchase NFA rice at P18.25 per kilo sold at Tindahan Natin Outlets. We also have the Katas ng VAT, under which one million qualified senior citizens can be provided a one-time subsidy of P500 ( Tulong Kay Lolo at Lola) and a P500 one-time subsidy (Pantawid Kuryente) can be given to households with electricity consumption of not more than 100 kilowatt hours per month. Under the Accelerated Hunger Mitigation Program (AHMP), the government provides a food subsidy of one kilo of rice per child for 120 days in a school year.

In the last SONA, President Arroyo informed us about projects on the construction of farm-to-market roads, 1 billion peso-budget for the fisherfolk and more investments in agriculture to help our farmers and their families as the backbone of our country. These are in addition to on-going programs like 1) FIELDS Info Caravan (Fertilizer, Irrigation and other rural infrastructure), Extension Work (research and farmer’s education), Loans, Dryers (and other post-harvest facilities), and Seeds, which was implemented by the Department of Agriculture especially for palay subsector through its five-harvest self-sufficiency program that aims to make the country at least 98% sufficient in grain in two years by targeting much higher harvests of 18.55M metric tons this year and 19.77M metric tons in 2010; 2) Ginintuang Masagana Ani Program (Makapagpabagong Programa Tungo sa Masagana at Maunlad na Agrikultura at Pangisdaan), which is focused on achieving food security and poverty alleviation and envisions a modernized and productive agriculture and fishery sector; and 3) Crash Rice Development Program, launched in April 2008, which aims to allot $1 billion a year for three years to make the Philippines rice self-sufficient by 2010.

Impressive and practical strategies. Indeed, poverty reduction has been the greatest challenge of all administrations in the past. But what stories do statistics tell?

As always, the FIES of the NSO is very useful. The first round of the 2009 FIES was conducted last July to collect data for the first semester of 2009 and the second round will be conducted in January 2010 for data covered by the 6-month period from July to December 2009. These data will be the basis for the 2009 official poverty statistics. Meantime, the 2000, 2003 and 2006 FIES tell a lot (Table 1).

Between 2000 and 2003,

GDP/GNP grew at effective annual rates of 8.76%/9.10% and 3.70%/4.12% in current and constant prices, respectively.

Poverty incidence, as a proportion of poor families, declined from 27.5% to 24.4%.

Likewise, the magnitude of poor families was reduced by about 124 thousand families from 4.147 million to 4.023 million families.

Between 2003 and 2006,

GDP/GNP grew at effective annual rates of 11.80%/12.14% and 5.56%/5.90% in current and constant prices, respectively, which growth rates are higher than in the previous period.

However, poverty incidence, as a proportion of poor families, increased from 24.4% to 26.9%.

The magnitude of poor families likewise increased by about 655 thousand families from 4.023 million to 4.677 million families.

Between 2000 and 2006,

GDP/GNP grew at effective annual rates of 10.27%/10.61% and 4.62%/5.01% in current and constant prices, respectively.

Poverty incidence, as a proportion of poor families, slightly declined from 27.5% to 26.9%.

The magnitude of poor families increased however, by about 531 thousand families from 4.147 million to 4.677 million families.

Thus, during the period under review, while economic growth was higher from 2003 to 2006 than in 2000 to 2003, poverty reduction was more effective during the latter period. Of course, Mareng Winnie has been telling us that economic growth is not sufficient to reduce poverty. Growth must be high enough, and it must trickle down to the poor!

Let us look at other indicators, and reflect, as politicians do, for discernment! Specifically, let us look at wages/income and prices. (Table 2)

Economic growth during the 6-year period from 2000 to 2006 actually translated into a general improvement in the income distribution with the shares of the poorest three deciles and the next three deciles increasing at the expense of the three richest deciles.

Per capita nominal income has increased.

The increase in per capita income among the vulnerable groups, specifically the second to the fifth poorest deciles, was high enough to cope with the increase in prices in 2000-2003.

However, in 2003-2006, the increase in income of these vulnerable groups was slower than the inflation rate, be it in terms of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for food, or the CPI for all items.

Between 2000 and 2006, the increased income of the vulnerable groups coped with the inflation for food, but not with the CPI for all items.

In other words, from 2000 to 2006, the Philippines experienced economic growth that was pro-poor and to a certain extent, pro-middle class. However, our poverty reduction program has not exactly been an outstanding success because inflation eroded whatever increase there was in the income of the vulnerable groups. Technically therefore, to be able to address poverty, it is not sufficient that there be economic growth, nor that there be increased income and improved income distribution. Income must increase faster than inflation.

So, how can statistics help us craft better poverty reduction strategies?

In the NSCB methodology⁵ for generating poverty statistics, a key variable is the food threshold, which refers to the minimum income necessary to meet our basic food requirements. An examination of this threshold would show that rice and fish, galunggong/tilapia⁶ in particular, comprise the bulk of the food requirements (Table 3).

Also, in the National Nutrition Survey (NNS) conducted by the Food and Nutrition Research Institute (FNRI), rice and fish, together with vegetables, have contributed the largest share of the total food intake since 1978 (Table 4).

Furthermore, the FIES consistently shows that the poor spend relatively more on rice and fish than on meat, while families in the upper 20% of the income distribution spend more on meat. (Table 5). It may be noted that the average share of vegetables to total food expenditure is relatively smaller compared to its share in the mean one-day per capita food consumption from the NNS. This could be explained by the fact that vegetables are generally cheaper. We should really listen to the popular former DOH Secretary, Senator Flavier….to fight hunger and malnutrition we should munch Malunggay!

Given the significant share of rice and fish in the consumption and expenditure of families who are living close to subsistence level, it is useful to validate whether deterioration in poverty is associated with prices of rice and fish rising faster than income.

Table 6 allows us to shout Eureka!

From 2000 to 2003, the increase in the prices of rice and galunggong was lower compared to the increase in the average per capita income of families in the bottom 30%, and as mentioned earlier, poverty incidence declined from 2000 to 2003.

On the other hand, from 2003 to 2006, prices of rice and galunggong rose faster than per capita income, and poverty worsened.

In short, since food comprises the biggest expenditure item of the poor and since rice and fish eat the biggest chunks of food expenditure, does this not tell us that, in order to reduce poverty, we must manage wages and prices so that the income of the poor will rise faster than prices of bigas, galunggong at tilapia? How do we do this? How do we keep rice and fish affordable without sacrificing our farmers and fishermen? Please do not ask poor statisticians like us! Come to think of it, is raising tilapia in the barangays too difficult to do?

Nonetheless, it seems obvious that careful monitoring of the prices of bigas, galunggong, and tilapia should be done especially if we could not expect a significant increase in income. The moratorium in the price of the NFA rice, as emphasized by the President, to P18.25 per kilo in her recent SONA would definitely help, but the price of other varieties of rice should also be carefully watched especially since NFA rice is not available to everybody⁷. Galunggong is of course, fish commonly bought by the poor because of its relatively low price. In recent years, the price of tilapia declined to almost the same level as galunggong and sometimes, even cheaper.

On the other hand, we should also be conscious of what is happening on the income side, as this surely affects the poverty situation in the country.

NSCB official poverty statistics for 2000, 2003 and 2006 show that ironically, farmers and fishermen⁸, the producers of our basic food commodities, rice and fish, are two of the poorest sectors because of insufficient income (Figure 1). Indeed, responding to the needs of our fishermen and farmers should be a major issue that must be addressed by any poverty reduction program. We need to increase the production/supply of rice and fish to ensure affordable prices but at the same time , we need to increase the income of our farmers and fishermen.

Meanwhile, having experienced the food crisis and the global financial crisis and having repeatedly heard the threats of global warming, what are the prospects for the 2006 to 2009 period when the official poverty statistics are released by NSCB next year?

Looking at the GDP growth and the increase in wages vis-à-vis the increase in prices (Table 7),

From 2006 to 2008, GDP/GNP grew at effective annual rates of 10.94%/ 12.38% and 5.45%/6.83% in current and constant prices, respectively. These are higher than the growth experienced from 2000 to 2003 and from 2003 to 2006.

However, in the first semester of 2009, GDP/GNP grew only by 3.27%/6.49% and 1.04%/3.77% in current and constant prices respectively, much lower than in previous years. Forecast for the whole year growth is also lower than in previous years.

Between 2006 and 2008, minimum wage in NCR grew annually by 4.99 % and 4.47 % for agriculture and nonagriculture workers, respectively. From 2008 to July 2009, the minimum wage in NCR did not grow at all.

During the same period, CPI all Items for NCR increased by 4.76 %, and CPI food increased by 6.81%. Inflation for the first half of 2009 is at 2.47% and 6.29%, for all Items and for food, respectively.

Similarly for ARMM, minimum wage grew annually by 5.00% from 2006 to 2008 while there was no change from 2008 to the first half of 2009.

CPI on the other hand increased by 8.71% and 10.84% for all items and for food, respectively between 2006 and 2008. For the first half of 2009, the corresponding figures are 8.18% and 11.90%.

For government employees ( Salary Grade 11), wages increased annually by 10 % from 2006 to 2008 and by 11.37% from 2008 to July 2009.

Government employees⁹ generally have income above the poverty line. Based on the above statistics, it seems unlikely that government employees will go below the poverty line when the 2009 poverty statistics come out, because the increase in their income outpaces inflation. However, the same cannot be said of employees in the private sector, and unless they receive a wage adjustment before the end of 2009, many of them might join the ranks of the poor as of 2009! Time to get wee weed up?

Campaigning seems to have started and election spending can give a little boost to economic activities. Yes, we teetered but we did not go into recession and our major trading partners are on their way to recovery. But Alan Greenspan, the former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman thinks another global financial crisis is inevitable because human nature always reverts to “speculative excesses”. I think he is saying that despite all the talk about corporate social responsibility (CSR), business will continue to believe that greed is good. If that is true, notwithstanding the improving albeit still lethargic business environment, the poor minimum wage earners in the private sector might not get a reprieve. That is sad, because unless business genuinely imbibes CSR as a virtue, unless business is willing and learns to give a bigger share of corporate profit to labor, poverty will persist. Poverty eradication just has to be a joint responsibility of the government and the private sector.

And it is naïve for anyone to think that poverty can be addressed by managing prices of rice and fish and levels of wages only during FIES years. Such strategies must be sustained over time so that poverty will be systematically reduced. Otherwise, that would be cheating, a case of lying with statistics!

Meanwhile, let us start thinking and praying hard on who to vote for in May 2010…so that the democracy our heroes fought for will not degenerate into an ochloracy!

Reactions and views are welcome thru email to the author at ra.virola@nscb.gov.ph.

________________

¹ Secretary General of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) and Chairman of the Statistical Research and Training Center (SRTC). He holds a Ph. D. in Statistics from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, USA and has taught mathematics and statistics at the University of the Philippines. He is also a past president of the Philippine Statistical Association. This article is co-written by Bernadette B. Balamban, OIC-Division Chief of the Social Sectors B Divsion, Social Statistics Office, NSCB. The authors thank Jessamyn O. Encarnacion, Mildred B. Addawe, Anna Jean G. Casañas, Noel S. Nepomuceno, Mark Rex S. Romaraog, Albert A. Garcia, Jeffrey E. Enrado, Edwin U. Aragon and Candido J. Astrologo, Jr. of the NSCB for the assistance in the preparation of the article. The views expressed in the article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NSCB.

² Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES)

³ According to the 2009 FIES Enumerator’s Manual of the NSO, if a sample household has two or more families, family transactions data are collected only on the family of the household head. This could introduce some upward bias in the income data because it can be expected that the recognized head of the household is the income provider.

⁴ Based on official provincial poverty statistics and the small area poverty estimates (municipality level) of the NSCB.

⁵ The methodology was recommended by the NSCB Technical Committee on Poverty Statistics chaired by Dr. Celia M. Reyes, and approved by the NSCB Executive Board.

⁶ The present methodology uses galunggong but a new methodology being considered allows for the substitution of galunggong by tilapia when galunggong is not available or tilapia is cheaper.

⁷ As mentioned in the January 2009 article of Statistically Speaking, “The Spending Pattern of the Poor – What is Left After Food?” the poorest 30% get only about 1/10 of their rice needs from the NFA.

⁸ Farmers, fishermen and children are the three poorest basic sectors of our society. See 2006 Official Poverty Statistics for the Basic Sectors, NSCB, 25 June 2009.

⁸ From 1985 to 1994, about 3% of the poor household heads worked in the government. See “Monitoring Changes in the Characteristics of the Philippine Poor: 1985 to 1994”, by Nelia R. Marquez & Romulo A. Virola, Sixth National Convention on Statistics, Papers and Proceedings, 1995.

Table 1. Poverty Incidence, Magnitude of Poor, Gross Domestic Product
and Gross National Product: 2000, 2003 and 2006


Statistics	2000	2003	2006	Growth
Statistics	2000	2003	2006	2000-2003	2003-2006	2000-2006

Poverty Incidence (%)				Percentage Point Difference
Among Families	27.5	24.4	26.9	(3.10)	2.47	(0.64)
Among Individuals	33.0	30.0	32.9	(2.99)	2.88	(0.12)

Magnitude of Poor				Difference
Among Families	4,146,663	4,022,695	4,677,305	(123,968)	654,610	530,642
Among Individuals	25,472,782	23,836,104	27,616,888	(1,636,678)	3,780,784	2,144,106


Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (in million pesos)				Effective Annual Growth Rate
Current	3,354,727	4,316,402	6,031,164	8.76	11.80	10.27
Constant (1985=100)	972,960	1,085,072	1,276,156	3.70	5.56	4.62

Gross National Product (GNP) (in million pesos)
Current	3,566,059	4,631,479	6,532,104	9.10	12.14	10.61
Constant (1985=100)	1,037,856	1,171,431	1,391,289	4.12	5.90	5.01

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB)

Table 2. Official Poverty Statistics and Income Profile, Philippines
2000, 2003 and 2006


Statistics	2000	2003	2006	Percent Increase
Statistics	2000	2003	2006	2000-2003	2003-2006	2000-2006
Consumer Price Index^a
All Items	100.0	113.8	137.9	13.8	21.2	37.9
Food	100.0	109.3	130.7	9.3	19.6	30.7

Mean Per Capita Income ^b (in Pesos)
All Income Groups	28,356	30,767	35,788	8.5	16.3	26.2

First Decile	5,435	6,034	7,389	11.0	22.5	36.0
Second Decile	8,276	9,492	11,263	14.7	18.6	36.1
Third Decile	10,795	12,422	14,599	15.1	17.5	35.2
Fourth Decile	13,675	15,663	18,249	14.5	16.5	33.5
Fifth Decile	17,076	19,554	22,781	14.5	16.5	33.4
Sixth Decile	21,557	24,526	28,493	13.8	16.2	32.2
Seventh Decile	27,747	31,288	36,551	12.8	16.8	31.7
Eight Decile	36,693	40,993	48,200	11.7	17.6	31.4
Ninth Decile	52,410	58,114	69,335	10.9	19.3	32.3
Tenth Decile	127,068	133,347	151,130	4.9	13.3	18.9

% Share to Total Income ^b				Percentage Point Increase/Decrease
All Income Groups	100	100	100

First Decile	1.7	1.8	1.9	0.1	0.1	0.2
Second Decile	2.7	2.9	2.9	0.2	0.0	0.2
Third Decile	3.5	3.8	3.8	0.2	0.0	0.3
Fourth Decile	4.4	4.7	4.7	0.3	0.0	0.3
Fifth Decile	5.5	5.8	5.8	0.3	(0.0)	0.3
Sixth Decile	6.9	7.2	7.2	0.3	(0.0)	0.3
Seventh Decile	8.8	9.1	9.1	0.3	(0.0)	0.3
Eight Decile	11.7	11.9	11.9	0.2	0.0	0.2
Ninth Decile	16.3	16.6	16.9	0.2	0.3	0.6
Tenth Decile	38.3	36.3	36.0	(2.0)	(0.3)	(2.3)

Sources of basic data:

^a/ National Statistics Office (NSO)
^b/ Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the 2000, 2003, and 2006 FIES public use files (PUFs) of the NSO

Table 3. Average Share of Major Food Items to Food Threshold
2003 and 2006


Major Food Items	2003	2006
Rice	28.6	21.9
Galunggong	10.8	8.9
Other Fishes and Seafood	13.8	13.5
Meat	5.9	6.1
Vegetable	9.6	12.6
Fruits	4.9	3.0
Milk	9.3	9.5

Source: Official Poverty Statistics of the Philippines, NSCB

Table 4. Mean one-day per capita food consumption: Philippines
1978 - 2003


Food Group/Sub-group	Consumption (g), Raw As Purchased
Food Group/Sub-group	1978	1982	1987	1993	2003
Cereals and Cereal Products	367	356	345	340	364
Rice and Products	308	304	303	282	303
Corn and Products	38	34	24	36	31
Other Cereal Products	21	18	18	22	30
Starchy Roots and Tubers	37	42	22	17	19
Sugars and Syrups	19	22	24	19	24
Fats and Oils	13	14	14	12	18
Fish and Products	102	113	111	99	104
Meat and Products	23	32	37	34	61
Poultry	7	10	9	14	20
Eggs	8	9	10	12	13
Milk and Milk Products	42	44	43	44	49
Dried Beans, Nuts and Seeds	8	10	10	10	10
Vegetables	145	130	111	106	111
Fruits	104	102	107	77	54
Miscellaneous	21	32	26	19	39
Total	896	916	869	803	886

Source: Philippine Nutrition Facts & Figures 2003, Food and Nutrition Research Institute (FNRI)

Table 5. Average Percent Share of Major Food Items
to Total Food Expenditure of Families in Bottom 30% and Upper 20%
2000, 2003 and 2006


Major Food Items	Average Percent Share of Major Food Item to Total Food Expenditure (%)
	2000			2003			2006
	All	Bottom 30%	Upper 20%	All	Bottom 30%	Upper 20%	All	Bottom 30%	Upper 20%
Rice	23.3	31.4	12.8	21.1	28.7	11.8	22.7	32	11.9
Fish	14.1	15.7	11.7	13.8	15.9	11	13.4	15.3	10.7
Meat	13.4	7.1	19.7	13.4	8	18.1	12.8	7.6	17.4
Egg	2.1	1.7	2.1	2.1	1.9	2.1	2.1	1.9	2
Milk	3.6	2.6	4.6	4.1	2.9	5.1	3.9	2.5	5.3
Fruits	3.4	3.1	4.4	10.2	10.3	10.2	3.1	2.7	3.9
Vegetables	5	5.2	4.3	5	5.6	4	4.6	5.2	3.7

Source: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the 2000, 2003, and 2006 FIES public use files (PUFs) of the NSO

Table 6. Comparison of Poverty Incidence, Mean Per Capita Income
and Prices of Rice, Galunggong and Tilapia
2000, 2003 and 2006


	Amount in Peso			Inc./Dec.
	2000	2003	2006	2000-2003	2003-2006
Poverty Incidence ^a	27.5	24.4	26.9	-3.1	2.5
Mean Per Capita Income ^b
First Decile	5,435	6,034	7,389	11.0	22.5
Second Decile	8,276	9,492	11,263	14.7	18.6
Third Decile	10,795	12,422	14,599	15.1	17.5
Price of Rice^c
Well Milled Rice (WMR)	19.45	20.2	23.56	3.9	16.6
Regular Milled Rice (RMR)	17.59	17.95	21.28	2.0	18.6
Galunggong ^c	54.9	59.81	73.43	8.9	22.8
Tilapia ^c	58.58	58.8	70.46	0.4	19.8

Sources:

^a/ Official Poverty Statistics of the Philippines, NSCB
^b/ Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the 2000, 2003, and 2006 FIES public use files (PUFs) of the NSO
^c/ Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS)

Figure 1. Poverty Incidence Among the Basic Sectors: 2000, 2003 and 2006

Source: Official Poverty Statistics for the Basic Sectors, NSCB

Table 7. Gross Domestic Product, Gross National Product, Consumer Price Index
and Wages: 2006, 2008 and 2009

Inidcators	2006		2008		First Semester 2009	Effective Annual Growth Rate (%) (2006-2008)	% Increase/ Decrease (First Semester, 2008- 2009)
Inidcators	Annual	First Semester	Annual	First Semester	First Semester 2009	Effective Annual Growth Rate (%) (2006-2008)	% Increase/ Decrease (First Semester, 2008- 2009)

A. Philippines

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ¹(in million pesos)
Current	6,031,164	2,840,854	7,423,213	3,494,251	3,608,650	10.94	3.27
Constant (1985=100)	1,276,156	612,793	1,418,952	686,221	693,326	5.45	1.04
Gross National product (GNP)¹(in million pesos)
Current	6,532,104	3,083,235	8,250,249	3,863,822	4,114,423	12.38	6.49
Constant (1985=100)	1,391,289	669,110	1,587,797	764,281	793,119	6.83	3.77
CPI (Average) ²
Food	130.70	129.40	153.30	147.72	160.93	8.30	8.95
All Items	137.90	136.62	155.00	150.92	158.47	6.02	5.00
Wages (in Pesos)
Minimum Wage ³
Agriculture
Non-Agriculture
Government Wages (SG-11) ⁴	10,535 a	10,535 b	12,748 c	12,748 d	14,198 e	10.00	11.37
Private Sector ⁵	7,472 f		8,394 g			5.99

B. National Capital Region
CPI (Average)²
Food	127.80	125.92	145.80	142.75	151.73	6.81	6.29
All Items	140.70	139.27	154.40	151.78	155.53	4.76	2.47
Wages (in Pesos)
Minimum Wage ³
Agriculture	8,138 h	8,138 i	8,970 j	8,970 k	8,970 l	4.99	-
Non-Agriculture	9,100 h	9,100 i	9,932 j	9,932 k	9,932 l	4.47	-
Government Wages (SG-11) ⁴	10,535 a	10,535 a	12,748 b	12,748 b	14,198 c	10.00	11.37
Private Sector ⁵	8,842		10,053			6.63

C. ARMM
CPI (Average) ²
Food	143.90	142.38	176.80	168.00	188.00	10.84	11.90
All Items	144.70	142.88	171.00	164.45	177.90	8.71	8.18
Wages (in Pesos)
Minimum Wage ³
Agriculture	5,200 h	4,680 i	5,460 j	5,460 k	5,460 l	5.00	-
Non-Agriculture	5,200 h	4,680 i	5,460 j	5,460 k	5,460 l	5.00	-
Government Wages (SG-11) ⁴	10,535 a	10,535 a	12,748 b	12,748 b	14,198 c	10.00	11.37
Private Sector ⁵	3,158 m		3,856 n			10.50

Sources:

1. NSCB
2. NSO
3. National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC)
4. Salary Schedule for Civilian Personnel, Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
5. Occupational Wages Survey, Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics

Notes:

a/ Salary of a government employee with salary grade 11, as of December, 2006
b/ Salary of a government employee with salary grade 11, as of July, 2006
c/ Salary of a government employee with salary grade 11, as of December, 2008
d/ Salary of a government employee with salary grade 11, as of July, 2008
e/ Salary of a government employee with salary grade 11, as of July 2009
f/ Average monthly wage rate of unskilled workers (except janitors, messengers and freight handlers) in non-agricultural establishments employing 20 and over which includes basic pay & regular/guaranteed cash allowance) from the 2006 Occupational Wages Survey (OWS)
g/ Average monthly wage rate of unskilled workers (except janitors, messengers and freight handlers) in non-agricultural establishments employing 20 and over which includes basic pay & regular/guaranteed cash allowance) from the 2008 Occupational Wages Survey (OWS)
h/ As of December, 2006
i/ As of July, 2006
j/ As of December, 2008
k/ As of July, 2008
l/ As of July 2009
m/ Average monthly wage rate of unskilled workers (except janitors, messengers and freight handlers) in non-agricultural establishments employing 20 and over which includes basic pay & regular/guaranteed cash allowance) Occupational Wages Survey in ARMM. Wage in 2006 in ARMM was suppressed due to low response rate. Hence, what was done was to estimate the 2006 wage in ARMM using the increase in the wage in Region IX from 2006 to 2008 and applied it to the 2008 average
monthly wage in ARMM.
n/ Average monthly wage rate of unskilled workers (except janitors, messengers and freight handlers) in non-agricultural establishments employing 20 and over which includes basic pay & regular/guaranteed cash allowance) from the 2008 Occupational Wages Survey in ARMM

Posted 14 September 2009