INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INCORPORATED
2067 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge. Massachusetts 02140 Telephone 617/354-0074 Facsimile 617/354-0463
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
MEMORANDUM Washington DC 20460
September 8, 1995
TO:
Catherine Tunis (EPA/OPPE)
FROM: Suzette Apis, James Cummings-Saxton, Daphne McMurrer
SUBJECT: Second Profile of the New Jersey Chemical Industry
This memorandum augments an earlier profile of the New Jersey chemical manufacturing
industry (SIC 28). This second profile makes comparisons and reaches conclusions based on the
new data combined with data presented in the previous memorandum, dated August 8, 1995. In
this profile, seven tables (Tables 3 to 9) and four figures (A, B, C, and D) provide detailed
statistics on the New Jersey chemical industry at the statewide and county level. The information
ranges from the two-digit to the four-digit SIC level for the years 1987, and 1990 through 1993.
CAUTIONARY TRENDS
As described in detail below, employment and the number of establishments in New
Jersey's chemical industry have been declining. Company restructuring, state taxes and
environmental regulations have been cited as reasons for these declines. A brief summary of New
Jersey's response to these declines is also provided below.
Employment Trends in New Jersey
Industries within the New Jersey private sector are allocated by the New Jersey Department
of Labor into eleven different categories, one of which is manufacturing. Fifteen years ago, in
1980, the manufacturing industry (SIC 20-39) was the largest private sector employer in New
Jersey, employing 779,389 workers. This represented 31.3 percent of all personnel working in
the private sector at that time. By 1993, however, employment in the manufacturing sector had
declined to 513,630, a 34.1 percent decrease. As a result, in 1993, manufacturing accounted for
only 17.9 percent of private sector employment. Between 1980 and 1993, while 265,759
1
-------
employees lost their jobs in manufacturing, employment in the New Jersey "services" industry
(SIC 70-89) steadily increased, reaching 942,782 in 1993. At that point, the service industry had
become the largest employer within the state's private sector, the "retail trade" industry (SIC 52-
59) ranked second, and the manufacturing industry third.1
The New Jersey Department of Labor subdivides the manufacturing industry into two
divisions — manufacturing nondurable goods and manufacturing durable goods. Chemicals and
allied product businesses (SIC 28) are the largest employer within the manufacturing nondurable
goods division. During the three-year period from 1990 to 1993, chemical firms on average
employed 35 percent of the workers in non-durable goods manufacturing. However, as was true
in manufacturing as a whole, employment in the New Jersey chemical industry decreased in recent
years.2 From 1980 to 1993, the number of chemical industry employees decreased by 18,000 in
New Jersey, representing a 14.7 percent decline.3
Trend in Number of Establishments
In addition to the drop in number of employees, a related concern regarding the New
Jersey chemical industry is a persistent decrease in the number of chemical establishments. From
1990 to 1993, the total number of New Jersey chemical industry establishments decreased at an
average annual rate of 2.6 percent (see Tables 5A - 5D). In 1990, 926 chemical establishments
were located in New Jersey; by 1993, only 857 remained (see Tables 5A - 5D). One-half of the
3-digit SIC 28 industry groups in New Jersey followed the steady downward trend (see Tables 5A
- 5D and Figure C). The four groups with decreasing numbers of establishments are: plastics
materials and synthetics (282); soaps, cleaners, and toilet goods (284); paints and allied products
(SIC 285); and miscellaneous chemical products (SIC 289).*
Four other chemical sectors (SIC 281, 283, 286, 287) increased their number of New
Jersey establishments slightly between 1990 and 1993 (see Tables 5A - 5D and Figure C). For
example, SIC 281 establishments (industrial inorganic chemicals) increased 5.5 percent in number
from 1990 to 1992, and slightly decreased hi 1993. Establishments in the drug industry (SIC 283)
'State of New Jersey, Department of Labor, Labor Market and Demographic Research. Trends In
Unemployment & Wages Covered by Unemployment Insurance. 1993 (Trenton, NJ: ES202, 1994), p.2:
2See State of New Jersey, Department of Labor, Labor Market & Demographic Research. Trends in
Unemployment & Wages Covered by Unemployment Insurance. 1990-1993 (Trenton, NJ: ES202, 1992-
1994), p.2. (1990-1993).
3The Chemical Industry Council of New Jersey. Economic Impact Study: New Jersey Chemical
Process Industry. 1993-1994 (Trenton, NJ: CIC/NJ), p.2.
4U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1991 Annual Survey of Manufactures:
Geographic Area Statistics (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1993), p.3-82.
-------
steadily declined in number from 1990 to 1992, but in 1993 increased by 3.7 percent relative to
the previous year. SIC 287 (agricultural chemicals) achieved a steady rise in establishment count
from 1990 to 1993, but still represented only 2.8 percent of the total chemical establishments in
New Jersey (see Table 5D).
Chemical Manufacturers' Perspective
The New Jersey Chemical Industry Council (CIC) reported that chemical industry
employment decreased 3.5 percent from 1980 through 1993 nationally. In comparison, as noted
above, New Jersey chemical industry employment declined 14.7 percent over this period. This
comparison takes on added significance because it also indicates that nearly half the total decline
in national chemical industry employment is attributable to jobs lost in New Jersey. Such a
significant decline in state chemical industry employment, when compared to national trends, is
a subject of concern in New Jersey. However, as is discussed below, the chemical industry's low
labor-intensity has enabled it to flourish in New Jersey in spite of the decline in employment and
facilities.5
An economic impact study prepared recently by CIC put forth five reasons for the
reduction in number of New Jersey chemical industry establishments: (1) financial retrenchment
by the parent company, (2) downsizing of companies to decrease company expenditures, (3)
company mergers, (4) sale of a division to another company, and (5) burden of state environmental
regulations. All these reasons relate directly to company decisions regarding profitability. For
example, closing a facility or establishment in an expanding market connotes either a relocation
of that facility to another state, or complete closure because similar facilities already exist for the
parent company in other states. Likewise, an establishment may close due to concerns that a
facility will be unable to comply with new environmental regulations or standards.6 Companies
that have closed establishments or downsized their New Jersey facilities include CIBA-GEIGY,
Posner Labs, DuPont, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.7
Several sources of business information support the conclusion that company mergers and
sales of company divisions to other corporations have contributed to the decline in number of
chemical manufacturing establishments in New Jersey. For example, in 1994, American Home
Products Corporation-(AHP) and American Cyanamid Company, Inc.
5The Chemical Industry Council of New Jersey, op. cit., p.22.
6Personal communication with Jill Brady (The Chemical Industry Council of New Jersey); August 30,
1995.
7The Chemical Industry Council of New Jersey, op. cit., p.30.
3
-------
(AC) consolidated into a single parent company called American Home Products Corporation.8
Both AHP and AC were active in the drug industry (SIC 283). Restructuring following the merger
sought to eliminate overlapping facilities. As a result, a number of facilities located in New Jersey
were closed.9
State Taxes
Information from CIC indicates that two factors contributed significantly to the decline in
state chemical industry employment: (a) the high New Jersey corporate income tax rate, and (b)
the expense of complying with state environmental regulations.10 In 1992, New Jersey and
California had the highest corporate income tax rates among the four largest chemical
manufacturing states (NJ, CA, TX, LA). As of January 1992, New Jersey had a business
franchise tax rate of 9.375 percent, made up of a 9 percent flat tax rate plus a 0.375 percent
surcharge. In addition, New Jersey imposes a state net-worth tax at rates of 0.2 to 2 mills (1 mill
= $0.001 dollars). Corporations exempt from the franchise tax are subjected to a 7.2 percent
corporate income tax. In comparison, California taxes corporations at a franchise tax rate of 9.3
percent, or at 7 percent under its Alternative Minimum Tax."
The CIC indicates that corporations undergoing restructuring generally perform
competitive evaluations of their New Jersey operations vis-a-vis out-of-state establishments. In
these evaluations they often find greater financial benefit in closing their New Jersey
establishments. For example, a parent corporation with establishments in New Jersey, Texas, and
North Carolina decided, after detailed study of the company's financial records, that Texas and
North Carolina are better locations for their facilities. Tax rates were claimed to be one of the
primary considerations.12 The 1992 franchise tax rate in North Carolina was 7.9825 percent,
which included a 3 percent surcharge scheduled to drop to 2 percent in 1993. Texas had a tax rate
of 0.25 percent on taxable capital, and 4.5 percent of federal taxable income apportioned to the
state.13
8Brady, op. cit.
'See McGraw-Hill, Inc. SlMd.ar4,& Poor's Corporate Descriptions & News (New York, NY:
DIALOG, file 133, 1995); Reed Reference Publishing: Corporate Affiliations (New York, NY: DIALOG,
file 513, 1995); and Dun & Bradstreet. Dun's Market Identifiers (New York, NY: DIALOG, file 516,
1995).
10Brady, op. cit.
"The Council of State Governments. The Book of States. 1992-93 edition (Lexington, KY: The
Council of State Governments, 1992), p.403.
12Brady, op.cit.
13The Council of State Governments, op. cit.
4
-------
Environmental Regulations
In addition to tax levies, corporations asserted in the CIC Report that state environmental
regulations are a significant factor in facility relocation decisions.14 New Jersey corporations spent
$154 million dollars on pollution abatement and control in 1992. Over 37 percent of this was
spent by the chemical industry.13 According to the New Jersey Institute of Technology,
"comparison of federal and state regulations ... shows that New Jersey often has more inclusive
or stricter regulations than those adopted at the federal level. This extends from the number of
materials regulated under the Community Right-to-Know and labeling requirement, to the Toxic
Catastrophe Prevention Act, ... to the requirement to use state-of-the-art technologies. This
complicated regulatory patch work quilt creates an enormous challenge for all businesses and
industries and, in particular, for small businesses."16
Response by the State
Officials from chemical companies in New Jersey have met annually over the last decade
with members of the New Jersey governor's office to address their concerns regarding the
economic climate in the state. The administration of Governor Christine Todd Whitman
responded to the regulatory concerns of business sectors in New Jersey by releasing a strategic
report on regulatory reform in July 1995. Prepared by the Office of the Business Ombudsman,
the Starr Report revealed sixteen "priorities of action." The following three are most relevant to
the SIC 28 industry:
• prepare an economic impact statement that determines the necessity of new rules
made and to reduce regulatory compliance to allow for the creation and protection
of jobs;
• eliminate redundant statutes" and regulations and duplicative oversight in areas of
jurisdiction; and,
provide a "grace period" to allow permittees to come into compliance.
17
l4Brady, op. cit.
l5The Chemical Industry Council of New Jersey, op, cit., p. 15.
16The Chemical Industry of New Jersey, op. cit. p. 16.
17The Department of State, Office of the Business Ombudsman. The Starr Report: Strategy To Advance
Regulatory Reform, A Response of the Whitman Administration (Trenton, NJ: The Department of State,
1995), p. 1-12, 1-14, 1-16.
-------
INCREASING ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
Even though the number of chemical establishments has declined in New Jersey, the value
of shipments for the SIC 28 industry rose 21 percent in recent years, from $20.3 billion in 1987
to $24.6 billion in 1991 (see Tables 3 and 4A - 4B). In conjunction with this increase in value of
shipments, cost of materials increased 20 percent, from $7.9 billion in 1987 to $9.5 billion in
1991; and value added by manufacture rose 22 percent from $12.5 billion in 1987 to $15.3 billion
in 1991. (Value added by manufacture is derived by subtracting the cost of materials, supplies,
containers, fuel, purchased electricity, and contract work from the value of shipments.)18
One contributing factor to the stability of the New Jersey chemical industry is that, even
with downsizing and restructuring, some of the largest companies in the United States have
chemical establishments in New Jersey. The New Jersey Business ranked four of them among the
top twenty-five largest employers in the United States: Johnson & Johnson (5), Merck &
Company (15), Hoffman & LaRoche (17), and Bristol-Myers-Squibb (22). Although these
corporations do not manufacture SIC 28 products exclusively, they are important actors in this
industry.19
Another factor contributing to the health of the chemical industry is the competitive
advantage provided by New Jersey's large harbors for exporting purposes.20 The chemical
industry remains the foremost exporter among New Jersey manufacturing industries. In 1993,
New Jersey exported $2.9 billion of chemical shipments, primarily to five countries. Canada was
the primary destination for New Jersey chemical industry shipments, accounting for almost one
quarter ($679.3 million dollars) of 1993 exports. Other countries receiving a large share of New
Jersey's chemical exports include Mexico, Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom.21
In contrast to the New Jersey chemical industry as a whole, SIC 283 establishments
(Drugs) achieved a steady growth in personnel from 1990 through 1993, increasing employment
by 6.1 percent over this period. As a result, this industry sector remained the largest employer
within the chemical manufacturing sector. Its share increased from 40.1 percent of New Jersey
chemical industry employment in 1990 to 47.1 percent in 1993. Corporate headquarters for
several pharmaceutical companies are situated in New Jersey, and the growth in number of
18U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1987 Census of Manufactures. Geographic
Series. New Jersey (Washington. D.C.: GPO, 1990), p. NM6.
l9The Magazine of the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, New Jersey Business. May 1994.
^terady, op. cit.
2lThe Chemical Industry Council of New Jersey, op. cit., pp. 19-20.
6
-------
employees may to some extent be credited to a growing demand for headquarters staff. To this
extent, the increase in SIC 283 employment does not translate into an increase in production
workers.
Employees in the pharmaceutical industry earn one of the highest average annual industrial
wages per employee of any industry. In the four-year period from 1990 through 1993, drug
industry employees earned an average wage of $53,786 dollars annually (see Tables 5A - 5D).
In addition to the pharmaceutical industry, industrial inorganic chemicals (SIC 286) workers also
receive high annual wages per employee (see Tables 5A - 5D). In the 1990-1993 period, industrial
inorganic chemical employees received an average of $50,744 dollars annually, and employees
of the industrial organic chemical industry earned an annual average of $51,899 dollars. These
three industry groups pay the highest annual average wage to their employees among all elements
of the private sector. In comparison, the New Jersey manufacturing industry averaged $39,572
dollars per employee, in 1993, and the entire New Jersey private sector average annual wage was
$32,202 dollars.22
REGIONAL AND COUNTY PATTERNS
New Jersey is divided into three distinct labor markets that reflect the geographical areas
within the state: the northern, southern, and coastal regional enclaves (see Figure D). Northern
New Jersey, also called the northern labor market, encompasses an area including eleven counties,
bordered on the south by Middlesex county, abutted by Sussex, Passaic, and Bergen counties. The
other seven northern labor market counties are Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Morris, Somerset,
Union, and Warren. The coastal labor market is composed of four eastern counties positioned
along the Atlantic Ocean — Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, and Monmouth counties. The
remaining six counties, bordering Delaware and Pennsylvania, comprise the southern labor market
— Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, Mercer, Ocean, and Salem counties.23 As mentioned in the
previous memorandum, the bulk of the New Jersey chemical industry is located in the northern
part of the state. In 1990, the northern labor market accounted for 82.9 percent of New Jersey
chemical industry establishments, the southern labor market for 11.0 percent, and the coastal
market for only 4.4 percent (see Table 6A). (The remaining 1.7 percent of establishments are not
allocated by county.)"4
From 1990 through 1993, three New Jersey counties ~ Bergen, Essex, and Middlesex -
accounted for the largest number of chemical establishments. Bergen County had the most (over
12-
The State of New Jersey, Department of Labor, op. cit.
"Personal communication with Doug Moore (New Jersey Department of Labor, Division of Labor
Market and Demographic Research); September 1, 1995.
"Calculated from data included in Tables 7A - 7D.
7
-------
15 percent of the total), although its number of establishments declined during this three-year
period. This result is consistent with statistics from the 1987 Census of Manufactures (see Tables
6A - 6D and Figure A). In 1987, Bergen County had 133 chemical establishments, Essex had
111, and Middlesex had 138. Five 3-digit SIC 28 industry groups are located within Bergen,
Essex, and Middlesex counties. Bergen county is the primary location for SIC 283 establishments
(drugs), SIC 284 establishments (soap, cleaners, and toilet goods), and SIC 289 establishments
(miscellaneous chemical products). Atlantic and Cape May Counties consistently have the lowest
number of chemical establishments.
Although a smaller number of establishments are located within Middlesex County, the
largest number of chemical industry personnel work there. In 1993, SIC 28 industries employed
20,458 individuals within Middlesex County establishments (see Table 6D). Union, Morris, and
Essex Counties were the next three areas of large chemical industry employment. From 1990 to
1992, Mercer County chemical industry employees received the highest average annual wages (see
Tables 6A - 6C), but Hunterdon County passed Mercer in this regard in 1993 (see Table 6D). The
high average annual wages for Mercer County chemical industry employees are attributable to the
concentration of drug industry (SIC 283) facilities in that county (see Table 7). As mentioned
earlier, employees in SIC 283 earned an average wage of $53,786 dollars annually in the 1990
to 1993 period (see Tables 5A - 5D). In the geographic series of the 1987 Census of
Manufactures, all New Jersey counties except Monmouth and Salem reported at least one SIC 283
facility (see Table 7).
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Chemical Industry Council of New Jersey. Economic Impact Study: New Jersey
Chemical Process Industry. 1993-1994 (Trenton. NJ: CIC/NJ).
The Council of State Governments. The Book of States. 1992-93 edition (Lexington, KY:
The Council of State Governments, 1992).
The Department of State, Office of the Business Ombudsman. The Starr Report: Strategy
To Advance Regulatory Reform. A Response of the Whitman Administration (Trenton, NJ: The
Department of State, 1995).
Dun & Bradstreet. Dun's Market Identifiers (New York, NY: DIALOG, file 516, 1995).
The Magazine of the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, New Jersey Business.
May 1994.
McGraw-Hill, Inc. Standard & Poor's Corporate Descriptions & News (New York, NY:
DIALOG, file 133, 1995).
Reed Reference Publishing. Corporate Affiliations (New York, NY: DIALOG, file 513,
1995).
State of New Jersey, Department of Labor, Labor Market and Demographic Research.
Trends In Unemployment & Wages Covered by Unemployment Insurance. 1990 (Trenton, NJ:
ES202, 1992).
State of New Jersey, Department of Labor, Labor Market and Demographic Research.
Trends In Unemployment & Wages Covered by Unemployment Insurance. 1991 (Trenton, NJ:
ES202, 1993).
State of New Jersey, Department of Labor, Labor Market and Demographic Research.
Trends In Unemployment & Wages Covered by Unemployment Insurance. 1992 (Trenton, NJ:
ES202, 1994).
State of New Jersey, Department of Labor, Labor Market and Demographic Research.
Trends In Unemployment & Wages Covered by Unemployment Insurance. 1993 (Trenton, NJ:
ES202, 1994).
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: 1987 Census of Manufactures.
Geographic Series. New Jersey (Washington. D.C.:GPO, 1990).
-------
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1991 Annual Survey of
Manufactures: Geographic Area Statistics (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1993).
10
-------
FIGURE A. 1987 NEW JERSEY CHEMICAL FACILITIES:
Percentage Share Of 3-Digit SIC Establishments By County
Figure AS. NJ SIC 284 Establishments
Soaps, Cleaners, SToilet Goods
(27.27%)
' Cr classified
'-"lion c -acoi^J,
'6.36%)—\
Somel*'t(364%)-
Moms (3.64%)-
xlonroomh
- (23.18%)
Bergen
(9.55%)
Essex-
(11.36%)
Middlesex
Figure A7. NJ SIC 286 Establishments
Industrial Organic Chemicals
(23.08%)
i Unclassified
L'mon
(6.73%) -j
(1.92%)
Sale
(12.50%)
Passaic (0.96%)-
Ocean
-(11.54%)
Berger,
(21.15%)
Essex
220 E«tabU«bm(nbment»(u3)
(21.10%)
•X UncluuGed
(6.42%)
Union
(16.97%)
(21,56%)
Sergen
(11.93%)
Essex
(3.21%)
Moms
(11.47%)
Middlesex
(7.34%)
Hudun
218 Establishments (»3)
*#: Unclassified - - This category includes facilities that were not
categorized by county.
(ss3): Tdtal establishment numbers were obtained from Table 2A
(8/8/95 memo).
F'AGE A-2 (NJfiga.wbl)
-------
FIGURE B. 1987. NEW JERSEY CHEMICAL FACILITIES:
PERCENTAGE SHARE OF ESTABLISHMENTS
AND VALUE-ADDED (BY 3-DIGIT SIC GROUP)
Flour* B1. NJ SIC 28 Establishments
SIC 285 (11 18%)-
Pwiti I Mix) ProOucB
Figure B2. NJ SIC 26 Value Added
114,418.8 Milton Dollars
-------
FIGURE C. NEW JERSEY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES:
Number Of Establishments and
Number Of Employees (1990-1993) (ss5)
Figure C1.New Jersey Chemical Industry
No. of Establishments (1990-1993)
(By 3-DSgit SIC Cod«)
250
|200 -289
E r 283
I 15° ~
eo
tf)
LU
o 100 -
1
6
i 50-
286.
"281
285.
282
287
1990
1991 1992
Year
1993
Figure C2.New Jersey Chemical Industry
No. of Employees (1990-1993)
(By3-DigitSICCode)
0)
>
o
I
LLJ
50000 -
45000 i
40000 ~
.35000 1
30000 -
283
•s 25000 -
284
3
z
20000 -L
i 286
15000 i-
10000 i
5000 1 . *~~
+ 285 __-_-
0 -
281
289
282
287
1990
1991
Year
1992
1993
Jata for SIC 282 and SIC 287 were not included for 1990.
5): These tables were created from data included in Tables 5A-5D (current memo).
PAGE C-1 (Njfigc.wbl)
-------
Figure D. NEW JERSEY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES:
Number of Employees By County 1993 (ss6)
Number
of Employees
(in thousands)
1 -3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15
Non-reporting
Counties"
*•: Data for industries with less than 3 units or for industries where one unit makes up
80% or more of the total industry have been suppressed.
(ss6): Information for employment size was obtained from Table 7D (current memo).
The county map of New Jersey was constructed by a software package called Atlas GIS,
copyright 1993-1995, Strategic Mapping, Inc.
-------
*y
li
1—
(/)
^^\
Q
Z
o
UJ
X
y.
LU
"*
Q£
LU
>
Z
LU
X
1—
£
O
u_
Ul
O
1-
r"™ ^^
O^^
i— » »
_j O
O 1-
l§
z 9
OO fJQ
W — '
J>
(A
at
o z
=» UJ
S a.
UJ X
Z UJ
en
1 1 ^<
5
UJ
UJ 7
= i
^J ^K
< Z
_l
u. <
OE
^ s
W H
0 <
U S
z
-
I
jj
2
_
_
_
S
5;
Z
0
z
_
2
UJ
3
. r*
S S*
yj Q LL
•"H yLJ M)
Jo Z
LJ 5
$32
St
2
g
•J
i
J3
_i
o
a
>•
a
z
o
i
_
u.
o
a:
UJ
CO
5
3
Z
(0
UJ
UJ
O
a
S
UJ
Ul
a
O
U
o
5>
in
^_
o
CO
o
CM
OO
S
f-
m
"T
CM
in
CM
h-
oo
CM
S
CO
CD
*""
28: CHEMICALS AND ALLIED
PRODUCTS*
— — ro
CO CO *— "
""'""'(£)
in f- ^
•<»• o ! «-
--» *-^
<^-^ CO (0
CO ' — ' ' — '
"~" V CM
T co TT
O O T-
T T- r-
— ~
*—* ~~* CO
CO (0 — •
"~" w .
°H "P in
00 00 (D
»- in oo
^_^
— ^ . — to
^ ^ oo
CM r- v
CM in co
^-^. (Q CO
"~" v in
"*! oi 06
01 T- t>~
JMH>
— . — . co
(0 fQ **^"
^* o
000
o o oo
•* CD CM
281. INDUSTRIAL INORGANIC
CHEMICALS**
2813: Industrial Gases
2816: Inorganic Pigments
2819: Industrial Inorganic
Chemicals, not elsewhere
classified
282; PLASTICS, MATERIALS,
SYNTHETIC RUBBER, &
MANMADE FIBERS**
Z
Q
•£
•— ^
Q
~~.
Q
.a
Q
•"2
Q
3"
a)
Q
0
s
m
CM
2821: Plastics Materials &
Resins
— . o
(J • — •
° S 2
oo r-
00 CM Q
— "o"
o • — •
' ' in
9 CM IT
in in — •
CM OO
O) CD Q
—v "tT
O "^^
o
• V O
Is- CD —
oo 52 Q
^~. o
3. ' —
in ^__
do -^
OO I*- _
CD 'T Q
^-. — .
2. ii
>n o — "
^-^. Q
2
OS
OS
— ^. ^
*ii» o
o o o
o in o
t- CM 0
T CM »-
283: DRUGS**
2833: Medicinals & Botanicals
2834: Pharmaceutical
Preparations
2835: Diagnostic Substances
284; SOAP, CLEANERS, &
-— T3
~~~ OS
T CM
in T-
^^
T3 T3
' — • • — '
CM T-
ih in
CM r~
in (o
— . ^~.
2. 2.
oo «-
T- CN
— _^^
T3 13
O) ^f
V O>
oo oo
OO V
H- 2-
OS CD
oo in
in CD
.•—. ^^.
2. 2-
o o
0 0
00 V
«- CM
TO/tfT GOODS"
2841: Soap & Other Detergents
2842: Polishes & Sanitation
Goods
T3 TJ
O CM
CM CM
<- in
—^ ~o
•o —
' — *
us ^
O G)
CM CM
OO OO
— — .
2- 2-
oo r—
•«- o>
^~- "U
2.
06 os
CM OO
r- CM
— •
2^ ' — '
co m
oo oo
f*^.
>— - ^
"O "^"
o
§8
CM V
'" *~
2843: Surface Active Agents
2844: ToiJet Preparations
285: PAINTS & ALLIED
OO
J3
(Q
LU
O
-------
SL
Q
CM
2
O
CD
"5"
«
i
oT
h-
2
o
o
*?
I/I
0
10DUCTS"
Paints & Allied Produ
*S
00
CM
"
INDUSTRIAL ORGAN
VEMICALS"
•o °
•—
05
CO
S
2
o
o
0
*~
Cyclic Crudes &
termediates
UD C
8-~
CM
«—
CM
ID
o>
CM
o
2
Cl*
^,
^w
-— K
!^,
CM
O
O
CM
CO
(U
Industrial Organic
lemicals, not elsewher
ossified
|0o
CM
cn
T3
0)
_3
o
c
"o
c
«
e
o
CD
£
C
• o
u>
1
5"
Q.
U>
m
y
09
r—
-*
"Z.
AGRICULTURAL
HEMICALS"
f^. °
S
^ -C
£- x" -~
° ZT x <•>
•«- Q D CM
-^" ^
°> ZZ ^
Ul — — - 00
Soa£
S"
j— ^ ^ ^^
CM _ _ 00
CM Q O t*>
____ £
ic" ""'
o s?5
™ Q Q c?
S" 2"
•-mm- ^^
to £.£. q
ic1
soT
a>
o> •*
~~" o *- — r
° ** ° S
(DOOM
T- m ^- co
«
« «o
tji tfi r~
M -2^
">a -i 2S
r^Q 8 3 £
iss .1'
SiMiii
^j *r .=. -T C7> O £
S § « S = E 1
O S .c ^. C CD S
ll^^iS 2
-. o »- r>J mi 6) 2
o> w en en CD en
% CO CO GO 00
«M CM W CM CM
ts
3
|
Q.
O
w
'S
"5
^
^
£
«
1 o"
Q. E
S i
^$
§.^2-
£ ?
C
>• 5,
§ i
s »
S o
j2 to
C ^vi
|5
l^s
J3 j£
(0 C
" c
« E
c in
o —
s ^
2 S
I!
four-digit SIC code inl
^petition exists betweer
5 •-
U.O
«
+-
*
.c
g>
.c
c
T>
C
(0
CD
to
Companies; d
w
"Si
1
1
^.
ra
(Q
T3
.i1
Wheld to avoid disclos
-S.
Q
ington, D.C : GPO. 1990). p NJ-16.
cals (Washington. DC : GPO, 1990), pp. 28A-8, 28A-9.
•C e
% 1
i. 6
11
U
I!
1 1
3 f*
u to
«. £
n in
?!
3
1 1
Census of Manuf
7 Census of Mar
*- »
i 1
i o
^ J
£ %
o 2
*1
5 n.
Department of Commerce, E
S. Department of Commerce
wj D
?s
ic Rubbers, and Manmade Fibers (Washington, D.C.: GPO,
GPO. 1990). p 28C-8
Goods (Washignton. DC: GPO. 1990), pp.28D-7. 28D-8
IP!
£ Q i-
w g '
« S a
1 ,f sf
11 I
^£g
i M
™ 2 S
a. o to
uf «) «f
•S .S .£
tfi Department of Commerce,
S. Department of Commerce.
333
S 2 S
(Washington, D.C.: GPO. 1990), p. 28E-5.
i
1 Allied Pro
c
1
«
Q.
1
«>
I
1
W
1
f
' Census of Man
$
3
S
a
i
•5
a
=>'
s3£
CO
J3
(0
-------
1
(A
3
Q
Z
g
5
UJ
X
u
T*
i
g
1-
oz
^
UJ
uL
9
Q
UJ
CO
Ul
'ENTORI
9
^m
HM
v»
Z
C
1
CO
<
£
u
1
UJ
cc
Q
z
UJ
a.
X
UJ
5
Z
c
s
s#k ^1
u.
VALUE 0
1-
SHIPMEN
w
z
C
i
CO
1
u.
0
CO
o
u
ac
UJ
^IM»
*4!
s
«A
«»
Z
c
••I
JH
£
UJ
IT
i_
CO
3! UJ
< o
u.
i
5
«t
w*
g
HM
«*
AA
_J
o
o:
Q.
z
g
i
t^
i
^H
u.
0
DC
UJ
CD
S
z
IPLOYEES
£
Ul
a
Ul
Q
o
o
53
IlNDUSTRY GROUP
\ft ^ °> ff) •> O> -^
f"-. ^ ~*t fx.i— —. CN
« 2- D S-?- "- ?
<*) ^, (O 1/3 ^p
(jj ^ - tO !**• UO ^
^ (O 3l C^Ol Q1^ fe
« CN p 25 2 "
5T ^* O* XTCP Qtf) *— '
^ r*» to -T—
^ •". ^ J3 T « ^
tvf «- — .,_- >o T CN
°. ' o o ° ° 9 o
Q -a-
- 1 J8 ^
H £ SJ -H
J ^ U C
< .a « «« ? 0 |
i S .| 2 £ i 5 .
* g1 1 i S§ s
2w.£5 830 8
il iliiif.iitii
T° iilf^5?*^S4i
»CC SSQ-s.Q«o(v££Sg
|Ja ^0gw"S0S80SQ"
IN ScNScNCNCNCJ
JS
(H
2
1
^
x:
c
1
T
i are inch
«»
13
•o
S
1
1
0
S
•o
•3
0
I
•o
Q
CN
CO
CO
Q.
m"
2
O~
o.
(3
O
ashington, 6
^
(0
.y
y)
1
(Q
0)
.9
i.
to
&
1
(fl
0)
J
3
c
n
"5
>*
$
c
3
C/]
I
tA
j of the Censu:
£
1
S
E
o
O
• "5
»
w
Z)
•»
ffl
-------
I
(/}
Q
O
I
Ul
X
U
tf)
HI
UK
UJ
»-
o:
o
u.
o
<0
6«
-12
< (A
a» m
o» "*
UJ
m
UJ
(A
UJ
D£
O
UJ
V)
UJ
OC
3
Q.
UJ
U.
O
U
3
UJ
Q.
X
UJ
(A
Z
UJ
CL
(A
CO
Ul
Ul
QC
UJ
CO
O
UJ
a
§
a:
a.
UJ
UJ
a.
0
u
u
en
01 in
- s
(O —
•? «-
o> —
O O)
S t ° 8 5?
^ in m *-
s
.
w
s
-------
c
111
>.
_o
Q.
0>
C
of
O
0
UJ
UJ
1-
^
>
Q.
>-
UJ
(O
CL
UJ
-J
g
UJ
UJ
X
^
O £•
u, ~,
UJ <"
$y
S5
UJ Q
> _ ao O O ro
^ N. O) to XT
S S S5 5=
5
CM in m
% S S3 9
" "- !JS »•
t
CD __ Is* o fvj
CN JZ CD CN M
0> ® S= CN °°
*
$
(/I
CO o «fl C
Q h S - 42 5
5 3 §> -S 1 2 ,
2§l 1 I'll
S?l «• « 8 Q^,08,.
* 8 1-8 ll a sf-ill
|«5|EjfBSSl-§
g3£®CL §,QW®0- g
^t ' ' t* ^ ^; C/3 .:_' j^; O '— r CL
• • T" . ^-* IN C*J ". U>
CO CO CO 00 CO CO
CN
oo"
LTI
CO
"5
o
'c
Miscellaneous Cher
'roducts
o> °-
00
CM
5
m
£
o
o
^
o
CO
Q.
D
4>
<5
5
in
«
'^.
to
c
^
o
w
1
_c
(/)
2
IB
£
_c
c
OT 13
£ S
U) tf>
— Q.
« ="
Data for industries w
industry have been s
1
S
o
O
a>
V
17)
!
0)
o
"o.
UJ
at
•a
C
ES
r CM
« to
§" ^
Q -S
State of New Jersey
nsurance (Trenton, 1
S]
U)
JQ
I
-------
CU
'>«
_o
o.
« •
ct
e
o
UJ
CO
UJ
^
i
Q.
UJ
CO
UJ
UJ
z
UJ
X
N™
fy
0 =•
UL *~ *
CO CO
UJ UJ
CD r~
rf d
o2 —
in cj
52
^o
™J c>i
^
3 UJ
z Q
z O
< o
| CO
ffl
in
UJ
m
j-
rv UJ
UJ
AVERAG
UJ
ANNUAL
Q.
UJ
O
i
UJ
EMPLOY
DC
UJ
Q.
u_
UJ
O
2
§
£
S
3
Z
CO
UJ
Q.
S
UJ
I-
Z
UJ
S
X
CO
_J
(0
UJ
UJ
UJ
>
<
Z
Z
<
LL.
O
S
3
Z
LOYEES
a.
S
LU
CO
1-
z
UJ
LL.
uj P
o
i
UJ
>
<
1
D
Z
Z
<
a:
•C
Z)
z
2
CO
i
CO
UJ
Q
UJ
Q
8
(J
CO
DUSTRY GROUP
z
o
en
CM
ro
in"
co
O)
CO
•
; CHEMICALS AND
ALLIED PRODUCTS
CO
co r»- r~ r-
T** CD Y~ r^
!•— •* in r—
to" m" CM" co"
^ ^ in co
s s si
S 1 S5
.. - ._- o> CM"
^ •" TT CM
•
_. ^ m ,_ ^
1: Industrial Inorganic
Chemicals
2: Plastics Materials &
Synthetics
3: Drugs
4: Soap, Detergents,
CO CO CO CO
CN CM - CM CM
Cleaning Preparations
en
CO
in"
CO
to
%
en
CN"
|s-
5: Paints & Allied
Products
09
CM
CO
o"
m
in
<0
CO
in"
CO
en
6: Industrial Organic
Chemicals
co
CM
CO
CO
ro"
in
1
CO
CD
co"
'-
J/J
7: Agricultural Chemica
co
CM
CN
O
in"
*
r-
o
CN
co"
CO
£
"(5
o
9: Miscellaneous Chem
Products
CO
CM
I
I
o
X
0)
_o
a.
LLJ
•a
in
m
a:
o
C?
0)
Q
~ CO
c ^^
I ?
•e CM"
(B O
O LU
>- -S
a> -5
& %
„,
a> u
5 2
Cfl
m
-------
c
-
C4
T-" CN"
10 10
oo
of
co o
T—
a.
UJ
v>
T3
«
to
-
CM
- .
g »
o
«
(N
UDCN
m f
CO is.'
<0
<§
h~ "CM
IS »«
O)
0
J2
g
I.!
s §
I o
.
o -
CL
u
Q.
m
0)
Q
0)
•
o
jz
a
(C O)
I?
g.g
5
~> c
S 2
a» ^
Z «
o t,
a> a>
Q
to
UJ
CM
CN
CMCM
CM
CM
CMCM
-------
c
0)
I
•5.
a:
e
o
UJ
0}
UJ
i
£
Q.
>
UJ
CO
K
UJ
-?
UJ
Z
UJ
X
DC _
O cT
LL "—
CO CO
UJ UJ
UJ U
32
IS
z O
< U
o
o
u>
UJ
_l
m
tf
UJ
AVERAG
UJ
ANNUAL
WAGE PI
£
UJ
0.
m
VERAG
•*
u.
0
UJ
03
S
D
Z
UJ
UJ
MPLOY
UJ
u_
UJ
O
in
^
<
UJ
(3
i>
<
0
g
Z
1
a.
UJ
ffl
S
D
Z
u.
0
<
z
tr
S
2
z
UJ
UJ
EMPLOY
H
Z
UJ
s
co
STABLI
UJ
CO
UJ
UJ
s
Q.
S
UJ
SHMEN'
m
CO
in
Q.
D
O
5
UJ
o
o
o
o
CO
§
o
a:
CO
o
z
o
m
in
ID
o
O co
D> O
to" co" CD" CM" oT
in T in ^r co
ro in
CO
00
00
10
in
O>" o"
to in
in
CM
C35
rv.
II s
" •^ ^
o
CM
§
CO
IO ^
O co r-r
m ^
CT)
r~.
ao
cc
cr>
10
xn
co co
co
CO
U
IB
s§
CO
O)
CD
|'i
15
ra
.2 j«
•s «
i $ Q.
o>
w 6
co
CM
= w -F
(A
-"I
rt) i—• ^3 •— ^—
en co « g> cj _
« £ | O ™ S
* Q. .j, co « 3 £
.
co (0
«>
J> d. S —
CMcoc«i5r'^kr). ^tb
CM -. CM CM CM CM
CM CN
"S
1
o
u
|
0)
o
0.
ro
O)
o
CJ
Q
00
o
£)
CO
o
J2
".
0) O)
E 52
•c
2. ^
S &
OT 2
>^N It
in
.a
6
in
-------
p
i
ifS
ill
•3*000
o o •
e» e a o «. o
o * e * oooo «t
a o *
* o o o
t> B o C? -
• o o o o
*j
?'»
M
«
J
gi Uj
S3!
fl
o Mk On
R R
*t-R 8 S
rl
I
«fi« s
5 RSE
£ S
sss? J § a
Jiil
» * * 5 Mex*i* i
iHHfiii
Q *i ** * ft Ml
O S « R Q
H
B*5
a 8
s ---s
» - — £
Roes
* R s -
- a
3
a a
Irll
ji iifij
-4 "^^iSSS4 S
S
! .1 !
« * *
-------
on .o> r» . .
i-~ r- 10 c~ eo >n eo r-
03 *
a. d. ti d.
<4 to £ £ uj
Ilglliit
tt O
$2
O DQ
< F
E o
Q. Z
>• oo
LU "
SP
CD
J?
JQ
UJ
AVERAG
ANNUAL
LL
UJ
1
UJ
<
O
UJ
m
13
Z
WAGES
e/>
UJ
UJ
g
QL
5
UJ
z
UJ
^
UJ
1
UJ
^
*
LU
O
£
UJ
m
3
Z
^^
ffl
H
CO
UJ
UJ
5
I
z
13
O
U
t •<- CO
CN r- TT
(D a eo •«• to
h- (D oo r~- »-
(D ra o
O)
N-
CO IO
^ CN
o
a>o
co
J3
n
«u
f
-------
' t S * *
fi*l**|2
Jo'S'So'o-E'S
iiiiliji
StatnA ^
a:
o >
Q. I—
o m
o:
Q.
>•
UJ
CO
Q
z
,,,
y
0)
UJ
AVERAG
ANNUAL
u.
UJ
0
S
UJ
<
O
UJ
m
2
=>
Z
WAGES
CO
UJ
UJ
O
_i
Q.
g
UJ
z
UJ
*E
UJ
1
UJ
^
u.
0
o:
UJ
m
^
z
ABLISHT
1-
co
UJ
UJ
z
z
=3
O
O
03 T- fi « ^
in
n
is.
n
- « - oo
co
oo
o
0)
o
o
CO CO
•* Q.
'c
3
C
O
tttlllll
I
^1 CN
:N
r-
in
CM
« S 33
in
o>
05
CO
CO
(O
3
co
'5?E
P 2
^ "> O ^ —
—«. —v ' *" *"•
S^^-2^
^^.o^S v>SLc*
•&SnE0»e9v
E8jJl8.S'fc«8
5(SJcB«BO3'S'5"!-
S O a. co co co ^
Ul
1
-------
CD>
o m
>D
a: a
a. z
O
<£>
re
UJ
u.
o
ct
UJ
CO
u.
o
UJ
CD
(/>
UJ
UJ
o
a.
UJ
UJ
m
(A
UJ
UJ
5
<
|
Z>
O
o
^•mo cNTv^'TtD^-^-socNminin^-inTtin
o
a>
-
0 _- ^
'
CM g o> °-
^ CO M- o
ro to ffi
rf ,0- N «
a.
3
V)
0)
c
o
I
f
to
a>
r--co
1
8
-, -X-^
t
-------
°x
U CD
a: Q
a. z
Z (O
.
re
UJ
z
UJ
m
UJ
UJ
5
<
z
>
z;
O
C>
co CN :N
_ .0.0.0.0.
li'Sitttf
s
(0
UJ
2
-------
Q
CO
C4
O
CO
>-
a.
UJ
i_
si
"• co
to =•
U CO
P UJ
CO
o
S o
il U
oo
(9)
4)
A
n
CO
UJ
«
M
HI
§
'oi
UJ
I
«
z
UJ
5i
• _-,
aoo
" o o
DQQ
|Q
i sis
00
g°
OQa
o a a
So
QOO
S
H a
g
> a o
§
§8
in
£co
8
M
i 1
ut -g
i i
2 CO tg
CO O 2
y P s
t- "J =
<9 x g «,
< I— .9 c
J Z *• B
a. > .. &
« s: a:
fc
CA
m
p—
3
-------
Q O Q
cp
in
cp
IS)
on
oi
Q Q Q
—
a- s
£
u>
Q Q Q
si si s
Soo
•s.
So
Q Q Q
QQ
»
Q Q Q
n
8
W
o:
UJ
o
; S 2
!~i §
S
-------
Q Q
Q
«•» Q
- Q
§ 8
00 O
o a
m O
, O N
s si
o a
•a
cn
^.
CM
8
N (M (N
•V ^ h. CM ^
K 2 S
1
-------
co
T. Q
00 O
w
n
Q O Q
o a a a Q
Q Q Q 5> $ a Q Q Q Q Q Q
~- *">
>> CN
Q O Q
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
CN •- 5
CO CO ft
Q Q O
": ip
Q Q Q QQOQO
rt CO O)
8
n co ^r
g 0)
CN »- ^~
(O ^
u] a
og
S.
-------
(D
to
a o
35 S QQ Q o
o>
S< Q
ID
5
o o
8 8
Q O O
o a
n w
CN O
CO «-
a a
8? 85
Q O Q Q
fl fO
35 2:00
S
o a o a
si
o o
a a o a
£ £
o o
E E
S S
ll
£ S!
I 8 8 s &
I
tsf
8 -
2 m
JJ
-------
o
Oi
t* O
o o
00
5! o
n
Q Q
O Q
Q O
$
CM
» Q O
Q a
istiliisis
2
1?
32
<3a
^ CM
B wo
jr? f % =
O
I
o
i- <
o 1
'E :
a Q. o. a. a. a.
80)* D a> . ai" a*
o o o ID o o
S te S ft p fe £
1
OZ I
IJ3
3 8
w -i l'
S**W?5^.
31 Zi&£&£%£&
J 3J . KJ- . Q
gS 3|"§""«DD
I Illl
-------
£t
^_
«
3
Q
Z
HEMICAL
u
LU
LU
-?
LU
X
Q£
O
u.
en
o
CO uT
P Q
H O
* *
— i 55
0 t
"Z. O
jrf w£>
z •*
|m
^
eb
LU
CO
t—
-!
C
lij
z
^
o
IU
1
>
&
H
M
O
U
CD
313
as
M
z
u
Is
11
«i
LU 3
_,,
5
o
H
g
2
C
i
X
IU
•MM
*
«
2
a"™"
oiuid
Cfl *»
^
HI
&
w»
f
5
CO 9
M 5
E
IU
H
I
IU
EC
3
§
u_
E
V*
z
|
«
«*
z
c
M
v»
O
DC
i
LU
O
z
£
I
U.
i
af
2
IU
u.
IU
IU
|
5
&>
LL
M
^M
LL.
o
i
E
3
Z
HW
i
i
i
M
M
IU
Q
O
O
o
u
55
Q.
i
o
at
V.
I
T- «
•* s
tf> 0)
*- O>
^s
85
'
n
^
S
"* o o
1 2 S
n
i
^
u
S
2ft: IHDUSTKIAL INOKOAh
CHEMICALS" (tt3)
2613 Industrial Gases
2816 Inorganic Pigments
2819 Industrial Inorganic
Chemicals, not elsewhere
classified
o °| QQ -S £§ » o a ' 32
CDOl ^_"~ «. m^
nS -" -S ° « S
Q ss. QQ a»§5 s §s «Q
(N ** ^
^S °°'NrN ^ ^ rt »
a) ^. ^ " rj "* " ^.'
_ trt ^ „
™0» cor-io" P ,-«
Q gg 00 S?Sg 5 8g "°
*"
1 |i S'l 88 °| 8 11 gl
(V ' ~^-
o oooo .&ooo o oo oo
^ f'5(ov OfNOcn 3> mtp ^^
f\i »-iftw'^ (N^-»-»O ro r^i^r
o oooo opoP o qq oo
fN ooiiO-f fMioroG •»- oioj O(Q
on .p>«S *-«
*£
-. » I
^3 "'uj ^ — O '4, >»•
1|E« 1 1* Jill Is 0^1 Is- o| ^s!l?
SaSM S- 15s uj'Q? *2 lu&Q- K >. oa eg daS"*
i, l« 111,1! I lii 11
s10*^ aSS'-SS3' S"3s5il s*s s°i-§00 sisSsUJ
R F<- HSSSS SSSSS'*»tN«iK™ IM ?;
-------
.-00
! O Qi
i Q Q -
>!*•<
loo!
« O?
m *^ n 03
Is I
si
-Soo-So
Hifi I
i 13 a i s
•S'S'B^S'S'S'B
3»3
I 111 III! -.
CO
UJ
1
-------
rfUM.
M
1
CM
0>
0>
M
LU
M
3
Q
09
CM
NTS FOR SIC
Ul
S
i
<2
m
<
t-
ul
Ul
_f
d
it
Q.
to"
UJ
1
Z
in
5
e>
!fS
ffl
5
i
z
Ul
3
H_
i
tfl
H
£
s
X
in
i
(0
Ul
1L
O
Of
m
3
jg;
it
0
2
i
1
o
i
91
S
O
1
o
e
te
5
g
8
»
o
*••
o
^
O
t-
u>
^
O
*~
1-
z
TOTAL
NUMBER OF
ESTABLISHME
3 *li
f>\ 2rt W
*
lO
o
«
«o
o
I
o"
1 1 u> ifj . lA
O O | O O O
(^ ^ 1 tD BO *-
° o o a o o
£! M « «o 10 m
° o o o o o
a o o o o o
en •» f» IM in •<«•
o o o o o o
^ CN O« »-- ft (N
o o o o o p
3 ? ^ & S M
; o°°
S Sgg o D
OT ^ ^j' JV
'
i i
1 ii§ 2 2
CN (N
i 3*
III
5 sss a" s
I I i S i
111 i
QOOQ
o e» t o o
t
| SS
°oo
s SS
00|0
|0
1-
• "• "<* 5
C? - o>
5 i
O i O
O i O O
O O , o Q
a a
i 2
o ,00
O O , o O
?°' "=00 S
sss SS g
0000
o
§ «
s s
n «
S
i
s.s
; si §| i i
g s* a5 a !
S oog
S ° 2 «' *
Si§ '22
a"'S §8
*
o
| S S
(N >- t- «
" 88'
I i »f* i
I I - « 2 iHI ?i
!k him Hm! Ii
f
. 11
II | !
I i
jjR
as
a sss
if p j.J
fsai *! I }
IS S i z o *
«i
------- |