TEXAS BUSINESS Tt~~f'I!W i_:· :\ y Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas -·----­ ·-------· -··::::..=.=..:...........:.::-=:.::..:....__·-----·-·----·--·-·-=---· --------­ ~..=::=-=--~_:._------------------­ Vol. XVIII, No. 4 \Jay 29. 1939 ----------·---·------------·------·--·· A Monthly Summary of Business and Economic Conditions in Texas an: inclu; trinlist reccntlv stated that in order lo broaden '11ie present rP<"O\l'rl 11;"n'11w11l it i;: llf't'(',.:;o:uy that there be>, first, more capital inl'ested for making rww and u~eful thin!.':;.;. :111d ,-r•·mHI. l1etlcr ins:rnmc"r~ of prnduction in ord~r that pre,.:ent thing:s may be made al lower C'ost a nd solcl at a 101\·c'r price. The samC' snurce ~'lc: and tlw i11°0!cx of ru'ns of crude oil lo stills d~cli 11cd from '\Iarch but wue : comliinl'd. INDEXES OF BUSINES ACTIVITY Apri l April 1\larch 1939 1938 1939 Employment ----------------------­88.35 Pay Rolls --·-----·------··-----·-·-·----­89.83 87.67 91.52 87.40 89.64 Miscellaneous Freight Car-loadings ---·-·-·­·-·--·-----· 57.66 Crude Runs to Srills _ ·-­_ 186.71 56.19 183.06 60.91 192.55 Department tore Sales Electric Power Consumption 100.06 130.9-1' 102.32 118.23 97.4•1 124.01* COMPOSITE ---·--------·--·--­_ 95.06 93.16 9.u.2• ~·~c::·tn ca.~!1 i11 r·o:nc :n T e:\ (: .: d: 1r-i11~ Apt·il , ll~ 1· ·, ' ~11­:•utcd !i•: t!ie B,1reau of ll1:•i :1c.•' l~1·~carch, totalled s2 -;-JHl\1.ClOO. an inn<'a"~' "f 11\r·11 t1 --i \ p:·r c·1·:1t ')\ "r the 'r. Jan .-Apr. 1936 1939 1938 (000 Omitted) 54.0 $ 8,275 $ 8,488 95.0 5,959 7,680 72.1 5,106 6,820 82..5 4,4.07 4,341 114.9 7,775 8,981 129.9 1,901 2,444 124.4 8,346 5,686 71.1 6,118 5,436 71.6 6,060 4.,215 138.6 5,462 5,113 71.8 7,092 3,832 93.1 11,455 ll,091 83.0 $77,956 ~74.,127 period ] 92n to ]9,q2 inclusive, the average April farm cash i11ro111r was $2S,9il2,000. Thus the April index of farm cash income this year was JO:·t9 or 3.9 per cent gr<•aler than the average April farm cash income dur­ing the hasc period, which induJed two prosperity years, one average year, and two depression years for Texas agriculture. The following tabulation gives the cornparablc indexes of farm cash income not only for Lli c Stale a~ a whole, hut for each crop reporting district. Marked differences are to he observed in the indexes of form cash inconws uf the various crop reporting districts. For the most part, the favorable relative showing of such districts as 6, 9, and 10 is the result of unusually heavy shipments of livestock, especially cattle and calves. Since but little cotton is marketed at this season of the year, districts in which cotton and cottonseed constitute the main source of income made relatively the most unfavorable comparisons. During the first four months of the year, the computed form cash income for the State is $77,956,000 compared with $74,127,000 during the corresponding period last year, an increase of more than five per cenL Present indications arc that this margin of improvement will at least be maintained. F. A. B UECHEL. Pay Rolls and Business Activity Twenty-six years ::igo the United States Department of Labor wa,, created lo promote the interests of the worlw r_ Since that time, Congress has seen the need for and provided legislation to improve conditions of work and to sP<·urc the worker against loss of income because of phri<'al injury, unemployment, and old age. Agencies for the ;;ystematic and objective collection and diss!'n1ination of statistical data relating to all aspects of lal1or have been rslahlished and function with in­crca~;ing usrfulrwss. It would seem, therefore, unneces­sary Lo rT~latc the i111porta1u:c of labor in the general welfare. But the public, including a considerable cle­ment of business management and labor itself, has not yet realized the fu ll extent to which the economic well­being of the Nation depends upon the welfare of the worker. Of the total National income produced, salaries and wages account for sixty-nine per cent.1 In Texas, be­cause~ of entreprcnurial agricultural income and oil roy­alties and lca~!'S, the percentage is slightly less-about sixty-five 1wr ('Cnl." It readily can he seen that any changes in the volume of pay rolls arc at once renected in the p;m·ha~ing power of the public and in general busincf,s ;1c-Livitv. \Vage payments, long considered an undt•!-'iralilc l1ul neces~ary susl;;in l1w;; 11'.':i';. Tin: T 11i-:o::y OF \Vith u11 c111ployrnr11l in tivdy 1>limatd at ten to drain on business, actually LABOR LEcrsLATION the United Suttr'S conscrva­twelve millio11~, labor has a f'urpl1:~ of o\"<'r lwcnly biilion man-hours a year. This ;;urplus prw, ides an employer's m;:rket, "·here individual frcedo111 of contract on the parl of the \\"Orkcr adually docs 11ol cxi~l. E!'onornic necco.sily Lhu~ exerts a com­pul~ion on the worker which eliminates the element of choice in accepting or rejecting employment on what- 1"The National Income in 1936 and 1937," l\ational Industrial Conft•wnce Roa rt I, Jnc. "''lncnmt· Ht·ccivt·d in the Various States, 1936 and 1937," Na­tional Industrial Conference Board, Inc_ ever terms offered. The doctrine of "rufrgcd individ­ualism" may be suitable for encouraging initiative and enterprise, hut it is not a solution to the problem of t!nPmploymcnt because we, as a Nation, are no longer individualists. Industrialization and mass production have curtailed individualism in favor of a form of regi­mentation. To the employer, enlightened self-interest \rnuld sug­gest the maintaining of high standards of employment, even in the fact of available cheap labor, but competi­tive conditions cliscourage individual action along this line. Only by collective bargaining, governmental regu­lation, or a situation in which the demand for labor exceeds the supply can the worker be assured of reason­able standards of pay, hours, and working conditions. This hypothesis formed the basis for the well-intentioned National Recovery Act, which, apart from being uncon­stitt:Lional, was not economically or ethically acceptable to American business. Considerable progre$S along a slightly different line already has been made by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1933, which is a simple, direct, and workable method of improving labor standards. Extension of the principle embodied in this law to cover empl:iyees eng~igc~d in industries, trades, and services purely intra­"li:te in character may be expected, either throu~h en­act1111~nt of stale laws or com•titutional amenclrnent. Already modd state lnws have been drawn up and are Lei ng prc.;scd in a number of slates. SOCIAL SECURITY Theoretically, unemployment insurance and old age annuities are sound. As it is not feasible for workers lo provide funds of their own to sustain them in periods of unemployment or in old age, and as workers so un­employed or unable to work must be supported by the public in some way, it is proper that the public require each worker to provide for such contingencies by regu­lar and systematic contributions from his wages_ The employer likewise may be required to contribute on the TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW ----·­ theory that such chnr~cs are lt>gitimatc ('O$ts of pro­duction. ' The financing of St!!'h in!'urancc or a:mu it ie!' ~-hot' Id not impose gigantic tax burdens upon the grncral puli!ic. They should be self-;-t•5taining, o:hcrwi!'<' the ecorwmic basis upon which they are constructed will be lo~t. Or..cANIZED LABon Although organized labor has become today a major political movement, the contributions of labor unions to the welfare of all labor have been greatly exaggerated. Agitation for high wa~e rates and short working clays frequently bring only temporary benefits, even to the organized recipients themselves. It has been set forth elsewhere3 that increased wage rates actually may result in increased prices, restricted production, and a lower annual income for the worker, with a correspondingly lower standard of living. The advantages that labor has gained throurd1 the Wagner Labor Relations Act has placed business man­ agement on the defensive. It would seem, from the pro­ visions of the law itself, that unorganized workers are discriminated against, and it is possible that these in­ equities may result in changes in the law which will be more favorable to mnaagement, as well as to nonunion employees. It is essential to public welfare that business, labor, and the Government secure leadership which can deal with labor problems with a broad view of their relation to the National economy. The establishment of per­ sonnel and labor rela~ions departments in the larger business concerns is a step in this direction. GovEH N'\-IENT E'\1PLOY21TE:\T AcENC!ES Government-operated employment agencies, usually affiliated with the Employment Service of the United States Department of Labor and connected with State Unemployment Compensation Commissions, have done much in the way of classifying jobs and workers and facilitating necessary lnbor turnover. The primary pur­pose of such organizations is to reduce unemployment benefit payments by ~ecuring employment for claimants 3"Wage Rates in the General Welfare," by Willford I. King, American 9conumic Review, March, 1939. -·--·-··---·-·-·-·· ==========c--===:.:__::oc:____- -­ clurjng thr. waiti11g prriod prnvid<'d ll\· law. or a~ ~non then·aftcr as po'.'~ihlc'. It i;; rH•l h ·li1·H'd tliat ~uch adivities will malcrialh· n·d11t 't' tut:d u11t•111pl<1Yl!1t"1l. ;1;; tlwt can he act·umpl::'lll'd 011h· thro!!gh i11n1<1:'1'd pro­ duction. U;-; I' 'lPLO\ 'lE:\T Perhaps the mo"t pressin~ prnlilr111 <·011frn11lin;>: the Na: ion today is that of putti;1g .to 1rnrk m rr tPn million uacmploy~d workers. Helid i$. of <'0'1r~r. onh· a slop­gaj1, and 1s not regarclrd a~ a 11ennn1wnt part of ihe National ecnnoml'. PulJlic 1rnr!.::'. d;·~irnhlr e1·c·n durirw . -. 0 penocls of pro$penty, cnn t::!.;:· up moclernlr and temporarv.unemployn:ent, i:nd 11·hen so u~t>d can oprrate as a cm0l11on to la:rging inrlt!slri:d emplonnent. But continuation of pt:hlic 1rnrk on the prc·~c-nt sca!F-, or the expamion of it lo take up a larger po;-tion of un­employment, suggests eith0 r continued lar~!e-sf'a lr deficit fini:lncin.!!: by the Frdcral Gowrn1ncnt ~r a ';alional huclget balanced bv exccs;;i1·e and l111rc!r n,_;0111e tnxation. Eith~r rn~tho.222.000 lialr~ per ~-car, 11hereas duri11µ: the fin· y1·ars prior to l'J2') it a\ernged G,7.'i::l,000 hale,;. Tlw Cnitcd ~talp,_; I.a:' IP~t thrsr> markets not for lack ,,f !'Olton lo export. !-ince much money has been siwnt to kcep land out <•f cotton production hr'"ausc of the exi;;tence of large surpluses. It (' i!ll be as truly said that foreigners haYe not refmed to l1tl\" l'.nited State~ cotton hccause they prefn red the qt:alitirs of forei;rn-gro"·n cotton or because they pre­f,-r:·cd to buy cotton elsel'.here. In the main, ju5t the "!J!H'"ite ;, t:ue. TE\:AS BUSI:\i::S.3 REYIE\\' -----------·-··-··--:::=.;._:_:__: ___::__::,_::_:__ The 01w Iii:! n'""'n 11 th l'' (' L11itcJ Stale• k h In< forc<.!..:n 1narkt·L ....: i'or 1·: 1: t1Jll i:-:. t '.1~~ l it has no t !1c~~11 \\·illi:1 p: to ~·· Il al 11·11rU ilid!-;, .. l p• i1"'"'· !t can !l'•·111•'r 11lli-lti n:at-1.:l'ts for ('otl1>11 11·};;'11 it i• 11·illing to L't tLe t'11ll11;1 fi1ll'; frn 111 thi~ <-.iuntn· i:1l:> l': 11rld -mari-:•.'lo at 1v•1rld uiar1,et prit·c~. and ail\: p1ii " f dumpinp: i.• not onh· um1t.•c1·~·c1n· hut 11 ill l•'nd tu Lrnclicap rnt'.:c:· lh:rn aid in t!:e iTc<;1·cn · of markeh. A111· ineauit.ies to cullon gr;J\l'Crs resulting from tariffs or othn l;andicaps should be dea lt 11·ith~ as dcrniestic prol 0!1"ll". and rH>l confuseJ with the business of mer­ cl ;andi~inµ cotton. A. B. Cox. COTTO\ B.-\L\:\CE SHEET Total ~upplil's of cotton in the l'nited States I\Iay 1 \I c;·e I.), l ll:.iJUO Ides, compared 11 ith 13,36 7,UOO !Jal es on i\Iay l la~t year and 6,921,000 bales two years ago. The total net increa~e in the supply of cotton in the L-,.~'.·~·-; ~ca'.cs and of American cotton in l::uropean ports a:1d aflrwt to Europe from :\lay 1, 1938, to l\Iay 1, 1939, \'::1> 'J') !.IJ1)i) liak-s. Th,, ( ,1lrnlatcd price of middling: :-.~-inch spot cotton i:1 :\.! 1'.· Orlfan~ La;;ed on this change in supph·, changes i;1 t!;e price len'l of all t'Otn:ntidities, and spinners ratio rn:rn.!i n i~ G.92 cent5. \\-hen the calculation~ are based o:i ,;.'rc·enla!e changl's of :ouppl y and price and changes in fr,, index price only, the indicated price is onlr 1.75 cen'.s. SPI:\:\ERS l\IARGI\ :::ipmners ratio margins on 32's twist yarn 111 :\Ian­c!~~:.ter tu middling Ts-inch American cotton in LiYer­pool a1·eraged 18-l-during April compared \1ith 173 dc;:·ing ;\larch and 212 for April last year. Th,: pence mar'.:!ins in l\Ianchester al'eraged .J-.Ud dur­ing April. comp~red 11ith 4.0ld for :.\Ia~ch and 5.-l-ld for April last year. COTTO. BALA 'CE HEET FOR THE UNITED TATES A OF l\l:AY 1 (In Thousands of Running Bales Except as Noted) Carryover Aug. I 1923 19:29 ------·----------------2,536 1929-1930 ---2,3131930-1931.___________________ 4.530 1931-1932__ --------6,369 1932-1933. 1933-193-1-. 1934-1935 -----­1935-1936. 1936-1937 1937-1938____ 1938-1939________ *In 500-pound balr'J. Thi• cottt>n yt•ar be~in'J Au~ust I. 9,682 --8.176 ---7,746 ---7,138 ---5.397 ---4,498 ___11,533 Imports Final Consumption Exports to l\l::iy l* Ginnings* Tota l to l\Iay l t o ~fay l 368 14,297 17,201 5.306 7,194 311 14,548 17,172 4,848 6,121 69 13,756 18,355 3,893 5.910 82 16,629 23,080 3,932 7.397 96 12,710 24.488 4,219 6.521 112 12.664 20,952 4,458 6,~85 83 9,472 17,301 4,116 3,986 102 10,417 17,657 4.658 5,167 167 12.130 17.694 6,017 4,762 99 18,242 22,839 4,4..30 5,03.J. 108 11,621 23,262 5,150 2.964 1\un:: The fi~urc!$ ha\"C bc1·n revil 136 34 205 5 84 21,785 475 20,844 8,071 231 8,587 3,841 147 4.187 302 2 393 618 3 652 539 15 591 1,148 20 1,149 60 104 1,533 44 1,511 422 t t 2,019 t t ... 5.900 t I 2,026 28 1,199 3,347 49 3.071 8,190 101 6.060 410 11 372 2,575 201 2,256 1,328 26 1.274 16,660 394 14,598 5,248 130 5,230 616 25 585 6,627 178 5,632 647 337 1 781 5 794 3,708 82 3,630 Balance Tot:il ~l;y I 12,500 4.701 10.969 6,203 9.803 8.552 11,329 11,751 10,740 13,7-IB 10.9.:J..3 10,009 8.102 9.199 9.825 7,832 10,779 6,915 9.-16.J. 13.375 8,114 15,148 March, 1939 Dallas United District States 32,845 76-i March 29, 1939 504 21,579 245 8.191 161 3.81.J. 1 305 3 76-i 14 531 20 1.136 9.J. 46 1,5+7 29 286 50 1.997 79 5,813 48 2,026 53 3.266 112 7,515 11 4~4 232 2,579 29 1,272 432 15.991 137 5,Z17 34 629 197 6.466 613 3 5 766 83 3,684 TEXAS BliSL\CS~ RE\ IE\V ----­-­----·--­----­·­---­ -­ EMPLOYMENT AND PAY ROLLS IN TEXAS APRIL, 1939 Employment and pay-roll figures for the year 19:)7 whidt were rl'le"''"I hy the Btm'au of the C1'n,-us a few W<'eb :Ii!" indicate that in a number of cases the estimates given below will he revi,-cd upwartl by adjustment to the Ccn;,us, lndtHriP' which upon pn'lim­inary examination will require a substantial upward revi.•ion arc carlionate1l bevera!::es, ice cream, cottun textile mills, >aw mills, paper products, commercial printing, cotton oil mills, brick anrl tile, foundries and machine shops, and structural and ornamental iron. The need for such adjustment rests upon the fact that i11creas<>s in employment caused by the estahli;.hment of new plants during the years 1936 and 1937, or by the reopening of plants which were closed in 1935, are not accounted for in the monthly e>timates compiled by this Bureau. The total manufactming figures have already been adjusted to the Census of _jfanufactures for 1937 ; the comp~ment industry figmes will be adjusted at an early date. Estimated Percentage Change Estimated Percentage Change Number of from from Amount of from from Workers March April Weekly March April Employed 1939 1938 Pay Roll 1939 1938 M anu/acturing All Manufacturing Industries________________ 126,622 + 1.5 + 1.5 $2,378,522 0.8 3.6 Food Products Baking.__________ ---------------6,529 + 0.4 + 0.4 137,763 2.9 l.Z Beverages, Carbonated.__, ______ 1,651 + 4.4 + 2.B 29,726 + 1.2 + 13.8 Confectionery__ 901 + z.o 9.8 8,701 2.7 -26.0 Flour Milling_____ 1,554 3.7 8.7 34,759 + 0.7 9.6 Ice Cream_________ 497 + 4.5 + 1.8 10,569 + 5.4 + 7.9 Meat Packing_______________________ 3,549 + z.o 2.3 92,248 + 2.2 0.9 Textiles Cotton Textile Mills ________________________ 3,868 0.7 + 13.5 58,958 + 3.1 + 9.6 Men's Work Clothing__ 3,356 4.1 + 6.2' Z4,524 3.0 5.8 Forest Products Furnitme___________________ 1,727 + 1.6 + 5.4 25,675 + 2.4 + 1.0 Planing Mills___________ ________ 2,440 + 3.2 + 6.3 33,509 + 4.8 -11.2 Saw Mills _________________________________ 10,799 + 1.5 + 17.1 128,983 3.9 + 8.8 Paper Products___________________________ 321 6.5 + 14.7 4,431 9.0 + 13.6 Printing and Publishing Commercial Printing_______________________ 2.085 + 2.8 + 4.Z 57,173 + 3.8 + 2.4 Newspaper Publishing.___________________________ 4,246 + 1.1 0.4 119,413 + 1.9 1.1 Chemical Products Cotton Oil Mills__________________________ 1,366 -14.5 7.0 17.375 -19.2 -11.3 Petroleum Refining_ ______________________ 18,112 + 1.7 4.1 652,252 1.9 -6.0 Stone and Clery Products Brick and Tile _____________________________ 920 0.7 + 16.5 13,888 1.5 +18.8 Cement_______________________________________ 1,708 +27.7 6.7 26,330 +18.9 -14.1 Iron and Steel Products Foundries, Machine Shops_____________________ 10,022 + 2'.5 6.4 261.229 -2.4 -11.7 Structural and Ornamental lroIL______________________,____ 1,536 + 6.9 +43.7 31,656 + 17.8 +34.0 Employment Pay Rolls Employment Pay Rolls Percentage Change Percentage Change Percentage Change Percentage Change Mar. 1939 April 1938 Mar. 1939 April 1938 Mar. 1939 April 1938 Mar. 1939 April 1938 to to to to April 1939 Apnl 1939Aeril 1939 April 1939 to to to to April 1939 April 1939 April 1939 April 1939 Nonmanufacturing Cities Crude Petroleum Production 1.4 -9.6 1.0 -8.6 Abilene ------------------T +14.8 + 1.9 + 28.5 -36.7 -17.3 4.2 -17.3 Amarillo 0.8 -30.5 + 0.6 Austin 4.2 2.8 + 2.3 1.0 Quarrying --------------------9.4 --------------­ Public Utilities -----------· + 1.3 + 0.6 + rn + 4.1 -------------------­Retail Trade ----------=J= 3.6 + 5.5 + 2.3 -0.9 Beaumont ---------------+ 1.6 2.1 3.1 1.8 + l.9 + 7.0 + 2.8 + 3.Z Wholesale Trade -----------+ 0.1 + 1.8 + 1.9 + 0.9 Dallas -------------------­ Cotton Compresses ______ 4.7 -24.0 -10.0 -38.6 El Paso --------------------+ 1.9 + 1.1 + 2.5 7.9 Dyeing and Cleaning______ + 5.0 2.3 + 2.9 3.9 Fort Worth ----------------+ 1.8 + 0.8 + 2.8 + 3.1 Galveston 0.9 -17.3 + 1.0 9.4 l.9 + 0.1 8.6 ---------------­Laundries -------------------+ 0.4 Hotels -----------------------­ 1.8 + 1.2 + 5.0 Houston -----------------+ 0.2 2.1 LO 2.0 Port Arthur + 4.4 1.6 0.5 4.9 an Antonio + 2.7 + 4.8 + 2.0 + 3.0 Sherman + 6.1 + 2.3 + 11.5 +18.9 ____________________. Waco + 0.2 + 7.1 + 0.2 -1.3 Wichita Falls --------+ 4.6 -21.9 + 2.5 -15.6 STATE + 1.1 + 0.8 + 0.2 -2.2 *Decrease of less than 1/10 of one per cent. t No change. Prepared from reports from representative Texas establishments "<> the Bureau of Business Rese3rcb, coOperating with t1ae United States Bureau of Labor StatiS'tica. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW ----------·-----------·-­ APRIL RETAIL SALES OF INDEPENDENT STORES IN TEXAS Total Number of Firms Re­ porting TOTAL TEXAS _______________________ l,121 TEXAS STORES GROUPED BY PRODUCING AREAS: DISTRICT 1-N______________ 80 Amarillo ---------------------16 Pampa -------------------------13 Plainview ---------------16 Al I Others -------------------35 DJSTRICT 1-S__________________ 24 Big Spring_____________________ 8 Lubbock ------------------------13 All Others___________________ 3 DISTRICT 2._ __________________ 106 Abilene -----------------------16 Childress ---------------------5 'nyder --------------------------5 Vernon _____ ·--------------------7 Wichita Falls__________________ 11 All Others__________________________ 62 DISTRICT 3 --------·--------------34 Brownwood ----------------------7 Eastland ----------------------6 All Others -----------------------21 Percentage Change in Dollar Sales Apr. 1939 Apr. 1939 from from Apr. 1938 Mar. 1939 + 4.2 -4.9 + 2.1 + 4.4· + 5.7 + 8.5 + 0.4 0.3 + 2.3 + 11.6 1.3 + 0.4 1.8 -16.8 -14,2 -26.4 + 0.4 -14.1 +20.5 -18.1 -1.5 0.1 + 5.7 0.9 +10.3 + 7.3 + 15.l + 1.5 -9.3 + 5.1 -20.3 + 9.5 + 3.9 5.0 + 8.6 3.3 + 5.1 + 1.7 +18.4 + 1.4 Total Number Percentage Change of in Dollar Sales Firms Apr. 1939 Apr. 1939 Re-from from porting Apr. 1938 Mar. 1939 4 __________ 298 DISTRICT + 4.5 4.9 Cleburne ------------+ + 10 0.9 6.1 Commerce 7 +35.3 + 1.3 Corsicana 8 +20.4 + 2.3 Dallas 55 + 0.9 4-.0 Denison ---------------8 1.6 -10.7 Ennis ----------------7 6.0 6.7 Fort Worth________ ­ 56 + 7.1 4.6 Sherman 7 -15.4 + 0.9 Taylor 6 +70.7 -24.3 Temple -----------12 + 4.5 + 7.2 Waco 31 + 12.2 -4.7 Others___________ All 91 + 7.1 -11.9 5___________ 118 DI TRICT + 7.1 -3.2 Bryan Clarksville -----------·­Henderson ------------Longview --------------­ Marshall Tyler Others ______________ All 6. _____________ DISTRICT El Paso ----------------­ All Others ----------------­ 7 _______________ DLTRICT Brady Angelo_.________________ San All Others________________ 8 ______ ,________ DISTRICT Austin Corpus Christi. _____________ Cuero Lockhart San Antonio --------------­ San Marcos ____________ , All Others ________________ 9______________ DISTRICT Beaumont Galveston Houston Arthur_________________ Port Victoria All 0th~;~-=:=--===~-=:= 10____________ DISTRICT Brownsville Harlingen Laredo All 0th~~~-=--=--=--===--= 10 + 66.7 + 13.5 5 + 3.0 + 2.1 6 -17.7 -30.2 8 -32.1 -13.l 11 -12.0 + 0.3 17 + 0.2 + 3.8 61 + 15.2 4.9 40 + 3.8 9.4 27 + 4.7 -10.2 13 3.7 0.7 63 + 1.5 + 0.7 8 + 42.5 5.7 15 1.0 + 3.6 40 -1.6 0.8 222 + 4.7 7.7 21 +22.1 + 4..6 14 -5.6 9.4 9 -2.4 -20.8 8 + 31.9 -6.4 79 + 1.5 -7.4 7 9.4 -18.5 84 + 0.2 -18.3 171 + 3.5 3.2 21 3.8 + 2.9 21 8.1 0.8 62 + 7.8 3.3 19 2.7 3.8 9 + 8.9 + 3.1 39 3.8 -11.8 65 + 17.0 1.8 13 + 7.4 + 7.8 13 + 20.7 6.7 5 + 17.7 + 5.5 34 + 19.4 4.8 NoTE: Prepared from reports from independent retail stores to the Bureau of Busincs! Research, coOperating with the United States Department of Commerce. APRIL SHIPMENTS OF LIVE STOCK CONVERTED TO A RAIL-CAR BASIS§ Cattle Calves Hogl!I Sheep Total 1939 1938 1939 1938 1939 1938 1939 1938 1939 1938 Total Interstate Plus Fort WorthU_____ 9,171 6,808 1,057 800 864 602 750 858 11,842 9,068 Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth_ _____ 1,254 914 205 147 74 58 26 5 1,559 1,124 TOTAL SHIPMENTS 10,425 7,722 1,262 947 938 660 776 863 13,4.01 10,192 TEXAS CAR-LOT§ SHIPMENTS OF LIVE STOCK, JANUARY 1 TO MAY 1 Cattle Calvee Hoge Sheep Total 1939 1938 1939 1938 1939 1938 1939 Total Interstate Plus Fort WorthU_____ 20,143 15,422 3,318 2,639 3,069 2,477 2',061 Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth_____ 3,150 2,513 600 478 223 216 148 TOTAL SHIPMENTS 23,293 17,935 3,918 3,117 3,292 2,693 2,209 §Roil-car Basis : Cattle, 30 head per car; calves, 60; bogs, 80; and sheep, 250. Fort Worth shipments are combined with interstate forwardings in order that the hulk of market disappearance for the month NoTI:: These data are furnished the United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics by railwny officials through more than ...ery live •tock shipping point in the State. The data are compiled by the Bureau of Business Research. 1938 1939 1938 2,161 28,.591 22,699 167 4,121 3,374 2,328 32,712 26,073 may be shown. 1,500 station agents, representin' TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW BUILDING PERMITS POSTAL RECEIPTS April April March April April March 1939 1938 1939 1939 )938 1939 ____________$ Abilene 95,760 $ 328,627 $ 54,685 Abilene ----S 18,199 18,733 18,050 Amarillo -----------377,505 223,770 229,427 Amarillo 30,40-l-35,025 31,357 Austin -----------656,502 421,501 1,041,293 Austin ------62,648 67,934 72.975 Beaumont 110,718 83,101 167,290 Beaumont 26,285 26.261 26,807 Big Spring_________ 33,380 23,155 34,145 Big Spring__ 6,212 7,248 5,991 Brownsville 8,277 11,962* 12,387* Brownsville 5,661 6,408 5.827 Brownwood ______ 5,165 2,550 9,420 Brownwood 6,281 6,262 5,381 Cleburne ---------6,700 4,725 2,785 Childress ____ 2,582* 2,543* Corpus Christi_____ t 204,795 344,525 568,340 Corpus Ouisti _____ 23,926 23,789 25,299 Corsicana -------14,685 6,215 26,495 Corsicana 5,644 5,695 5.315 Dallas ------------945,870 1,186,742 1,224,437 Dallas -----------353,257 354,30-J. 381,221 Del Rio ----------14,935 7,990 8,105 Del Rio. ______ 3,950 3,757 3,876 Denison ------------37,274 12',755 21,379* Denison -------5,219 4,774 5,423 Denton 43,140 8,500 13.300 Denton 7,660 6,869 6,830 Paso______________ El 176,600 160,879 148,527 El Paso_______ 43,367 4,7,545 46,840 Fort Worth________ 416,767 898,949' 4.03,503 Fort Worth________ 125,644 133,154 149,416 Galveston ------107,271 177,662 160,838 Galveston 27,816 30.389 -------27,673 Gladewater -------300 11,900 148 Gladewater 2,960 3,226 2,713 Harlingen ----------22,266 11,815 4,025 Graham ---------2,552 2,334 2,169 Houston -------------3,296,095 2,480,330 3,300,296 Harlingen --------5,706 6,220 6,574 Jacksonville -----13,000 500 14,800 Houston ------24.0,070 238,721 261,%4 Kenedy -----------3,200 7,900 Jacksonville --------3,472 3,875 2,866 Kilgore -----------------1,302 1,363 1,092 208,250* 59,800* 60,850•* Kenedy Laredo 1,800 1,750 1,625 Kilgore 6,378 6,2.34 4,913 Longview -----------22,800 36,860<* 15,04.() Longview ------10,093 11,276 9,125 Lubbock 259,577 215,430 322,749 Lubbock ---------16,557 16,314 17,671 72,641 35,906 74,636 Lufkin Lufkin -----------------------4,205 3,569 4,475 McAllen 76,170 11,805 33,835 McAllen 4.,610 4,550 4,487 Marshall ------------37,599 31,505 32,64.o Marshall 6,086 5,934 5,827 New Braunfels____ 23,670 9,970 6,180 Palestine 4,370 4,729 4,881 27,282 55,641 13,670 7,462 Palestine -------------Pampa ----------6,751 5,835 Pampa 100 18,800 22,300 Paris 6,225 5,420 6,4-93 Paris 2,015 9,920 11,600 Plainview 3,934 4,092 4,125 Arthur____ Plainview 7,375 5,900 11,320 Port 14,242 13,077 13,068 Port Arthur_______ 65,314 75,255 87,717 San Angelo. _____ 11,924 11,406 12,783 San Angelo ------34,350 29,700 44,460 San Antonio___ 118,495 117,886 128,264 San Antonio______ 353,400 318,518 400,505 Sherman ------8,042 7,414 7,783 Sherman 29,686 21,868 14.,036 Snyder ------1,220 1,306 1,274 Sweetwater -----25,076 12,446 6,070 Sweetwater ---5,075 4,782 5,328 Tyler 135,251 97,485 39,808 Temple ------6,364 6.410 6,655 Waco 135,695 131,954 117,326 Tyler 15,320 15,295 16,644 Wichita Falls._____ 59,486 52,419 109,627 Waco 33,727 32,645 34,133 Falls ____ ___________$8,167,742 $7,641,085 $8,879,519 Wichita 22,607 23,487 23,919 TOTAL TOTAL ______$1,314,460 $1,334,458 1,416,058 No·rE: Compiled from reports from Texas chambers of commerce to the Bureau of Business Research. *Not included in total. •Does not include public works. tNot available. Non: Compiled from reports from Texas chambers of commerce to the Burea• of Business Research. LUMBER (In Board Feet) TEXAS CHARTERS April April March April April !\farch 1939 1938 1939 1939 1938 1939 Southern Pine Mills: Domestic Corporations-Average Weekly Production Capitalizationll $2,841 1,889 2,347* per unit -----------------299,468 261,258 286,846 Number --------------127 160 154* Average Weekly Shipments Classification of new corporations: per unit_________________302,108 244,970 294,660 Banking-Finance ------­5 2 6 Average Unfilled Orders per Manufacturing -------------35 44 22Unjt, End of Month _____754,125 516,271 705,305 ~.Merchandising ________ 28 40 38* -Oil ___ ---·· -·--·--------22 36 30* Non:: From Southern Pine Association. Public Service -------­Real Estate-Building __ --­15 11 15 TEXAS COMMERCIAL FAILURES Transportation -------­2 4 5 All Others---------------­ 20 23 38 April April March Number capitalized at less than 1939 1938 1939* 54 58 65* 5,000 ---------------­ 37 Number ----------30 19 $539 Number capitalized at 100,000 Liabilitiesll ---·-----$402 $182 5 4 or more -----------_ 6 Assetsll ____________________$446 $112 $244 $ 15 Foreign Corporations (Number) _ 24 20 36Average Liabilities per Failurell--$ 13 $ 10 •Revised. *Revised. HIn thousands. NoTE: From Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. Uin thousands. Non:: Compiled from recorda of the Secretary of State. -·---------­ =====-.....:...-··_·---·---· -------. . ···----· --·--------------------­ APRIL RETAIL SALES OF INDEPE 1DE~T STORES IN TEXAS April 1939 Year 1939 Number Percentage Change Number Percentage of in Dollar Sales of Change in Firms from from Firms Dol1ar Sales Re· April l\larch Re· from portine-Do1lar Sales 1938 1939 porting Dollar Sales Year 1938 TEXAS_ 1,221 16,305,848· + 4.2 -4.9 1,140 58,384,453 + 2.7 STORES GROUPED BY LlNE OF GOODS CARRIED : APPAREL.._____ 131 2,430.597 + 0.1 + 11.0 119 8,312.576 1.0 Family Oothing Stores____ 29 252.170 4.1 +22.3 26 770.071 + 5.2 Men's and Boys' Oot11ing Stores________________ 49 914,921 + 2.3 +31.9 46 2,9-16.776 2.5 'hoe tores___ 19 168.211 2.7 + 17.2 16 459,936 3.1 Women's Specialty Shops_____________ 34 l.095.295 0.3 ­4.5 31 4.135,793 0.7 AUTOMOTIVE___ 137 3.372.680 +13.4 -24.0 127 13,807,354 + 11.0 Filling Stations-------------45 146,048 + 3.1 + 3.1 4{) 481,934 -1.4 Motor Vehicle Dealers ..__ --·------------·--------· --------·-92 3,226.632 + 13.9 -24.9 87 13,325.420 + 11.5 COUNTRY GENERAL AND FARMERS' SUPPLlES_ 102 668.472 + 0.2 -2.3 101 2,450,24·2 2.2 DEPARTMENT STORE ___ 65 4.938.553 ­ 1.1 1.1 63 17.668,523 0.6 DRUG STORES ____ _____ -----------·--------------------142 4-23.582 + 2.4 -4.2 127 1.517.243 0.1 DRY GOODS AND GENERAL .MERCHANDISE_______ 17 72,643 + 3.9 +22.6 13 132,422 + 5.0 FLORISTS 35 73,200 + 6.7 +25.0 34 247,937 + 2.3 FOOD _ 172 96.1.539 5.8 + 1.7 161 3.222,717 5.0 Grocery Stores__________ -------------------53 225.644 3.2 + 3.0 48 785,594 3.9 Grocery and Meat Stores ·----· 119 738,895 6.5 + 1.3 113 2.537,123 8.5 FUR 1ITUREA DHOUSEHOLD 60 922.673 + 5.2 + 5.9 54 2,596.180 + 1.1 Furniture Stores ______ 48 763.532 + 6.9 + 4.0 44 2,160.084 + 2.9 Household Appliance Stores.___________________________ 7 109,584 + 3.7 +31.1 5 256,153 3.1 Radio Stores_________________________________________ 5 49,557 -13.2 -7.4 5 179.943 -12.2 JEWELRY.. _____ ----··----------------· _____ 50 189.509 + 3.3 +21.4 47 ­ 648;608 3.2 LUMBER, BUILDING. AND HARDWARE_______ 265 2.001.769 + 16.3 -2.2 255 7.038,922 + 9.4 Fann Implement Dealers 12 52.322 + 4.1 -13.7 11 198,797 -11.2 Hardware Stores ·---· ---------------------------------85 45L321 + 1.0 + 1.0 81 1.557.272 -4.8 Lumber and Building Material Dealers_______ 168 1,4.98.126 + 22.3 2.7 163 5,282.853 + 15.4. RESTAURANTS 20 -1.9 20 -4.8 --·-----69.008 2.4 278.307 ALL OTHER STORES ---------------------24 178,623 + 13.6 2.1 19 363,422 +24.2 TEXAS STORES GROUPED ACCORDING TO POPU­ LATION OF CITY: All Stores in Cities of- OVER 100,000 POPULATION. 279 8862.565 + 4.1 5.2 261 32,744.459 + 5.3 50.000-100.000 POPULATION._________ 113 1.799,374 + 5.9 0.01 105 5.655.089 + J.5 2.500-50.000 POPULATTON ---------517 4.171.111 + 4.0 4.8 4,74 14.490.687 1.3LESS THAN 2,500 POPULATION________ 312 1.472,798 + 3.7 8.7 300 5,494,218 + 0.03 NOTE ! Prepared from reports from independent retail stores to the Bureau of Bus:ncss Rei:enrch, coOperating with the United States Department of Ccmmcrce. APRIL CARLOAD MOVDIENTS OF POULTRY COMMODITY PRICE A D EGGS Apri l April ~J:irch Cars of Poultry 1939 1938 1039 Live Dressed Cars of Eggst WHOLESALE PRICES :D stination• Chickens Turkeys Chickens Turkeys u. <:: . Bureau of Labor ~h;pmmts from Texa Stations tatistics (1926 =100) ______________ 76.2 78.7 76.7 Apr. Apr. Aor. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Arr. (1926 =100)___________ 1939 19~8 1939 1938 1939 1938 1939 1938 1939 1038 The Annalist 77.8 80.7 78.9 TOTAL 6 9 51 44 2 4 147 114 FAR:li PRICES : Intrastate 3 68 73 U. S. Department of Agricul-Inter tat 3 9 51 44 2 4 79 41 ll!re (1910-14 =100) _______________ 89.0* 91.0 94.0 Origin Receipts al Texas Stations u. . Bureau of Labor TOTAL -------1 78 71 Statistics (1926 =100) -------------------6:1.7 68.4 65.8 Intraslal 1 69 55 R ETAIL PRICES: lntei.·8tale 9 16 Food (U.S. Bureau of Labor •Theo d1·stina1ion above is !he first deslination as ghown by the original waybill. Statistics, 1923-25 =100)_____ 76.6 76.4. 79.4 Change in dr tinntion hr u~1 t about by diversion ordeIS are not ~hown. tPowdert>d (·:;::gfl and ca!'Jned fro1c·n eggs are converted to a ~bell egg equivalent. Denartment Stores (Fairchild's OTE: T' e I:' c.!_ata are furni~hf'd th e nited tat es Oepar•ment of Agriculture Publications, Jan. 1931 =100)___ 89.1 90.6 89.1 by railroad C'lfficial throu;!h ar:ents at aJI stat""(.Os wbio:-h ori,:inate and receive carload Fhipm("nts of poultry and ("i;!:gs. The data are compiled by the Bureau of Business Research. *Prdiminary. TEXAS 13CSL\ESS REVIE W ·····--·--·-··------­ APRIL CREDIT RATIOS I TEXAS RETAIL STORE (Expressed in Per Cent) Ratio of R:itio of Ratio of Number of Credit Sales Collections to Credit Salariet Store.s to Net Sales Outstandings to Credit ales Reporting 1939 1938 1939 1938 1939 1938 All Stores __ 70 66.5 65.1 38.3 40.1 1.2 1.2 Stores Grouped by Cities: Abilene__ 3 61.4 61.8 32.l 35.2 1.9 1.7 Amarillo 3 61..J, 59.2 46.6 42.3 2.0 2.2 Austin..____ 6 58.9 60.1 45.5 44.0 LO 1.1 BeaumonL______ 3 67.6 63.7 41.6 41.3 1.5 1.5 Dallas -------------------­ 10 73.7 71.9 38.4 41.2 1.1 1.1 Fort Worth____ 7 67.4 64.3 3U 35.3 1.1 1.3 Houston.______ 7 63.1 62.5 41.3 43.8 1.3 1.3 San Antonio______ Waco_________ 7 60.7 60.4 42.0 43.9 0.9 0.9 4 6.5.8 64.9 29.4 30.4 1.3 1.3 All Others______ 20 61.2 60.1 36.5 37.6 1.5 1.3 Stores Grouped According to Type of Store: Department Stores (Annual Volume Over $500,000) __ 20 66.9 65.5 40.2 41.7 1.1 1.2 Department Stores (Annual Volume Under $500,000) 12 62.5 62.5 34.5 36.1 1.8 1.7 Dry Goods-Apparel Stores___________________________ 5 58.7 62.6 40.4 36.5 1.5 1.9 Women's Specialty Shops __________ 15 65.5 63.4 32.9 36.3 1.0 1.0 Men's Clothing Stores ____ 18 67.6 67.0 39.2 40.2 1.5 1.5 Stores Grouped According to Volume of Net Sales During 1938: Over $2,500,000 _______________ 10 67.5 67.2 4-0.9 44.1 1.1 1.0 $2,500,000 down to $1,000,000 _________________ 10 60.9 61.6 38.3 39.1 1.3 1.1 $1,000,000 down to $500,000 .. 10 61.0 62.0 41.7 42.5 1.3 1.3 $500,000 down to $100,000 _________________ 30 60.4 61.1 37.7 40.5 1.4 1.6 Less than $100,000 .. 10 61.8 64.0 41.0 43.7 3.8 2.9 NoTE: The ratios shown for each year, in the order in which they appear from left to right, are obtained by the following computations: (1) Credit talet divided by net sales. (2) Collections durine-the month divided by the total accounts unpaid on the first of the month. (3) Salaries of the credit depart. ment divided by credit sales. The data aro reported to the Bureau of Business Research by Texat retail stores. CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRIC POWER IN TEXAS CEMENT Power Consumed (In Thousands of Barrels) (In Thousands of K.W.H.) April April March 1939 1938 1939 Percentage Change Texas Plants Ap i,d . Dr. W. J. Danforth, Dalla~. T ('X;l" • .)u11.· .). TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW --=-===---:::-___-_--==~·--:-_-_-_-__ -_-__ -__________ LIST OF PUBLICATIONS Printed Bulletins The Basis of the Comn;ercial and Industri2l DeYelopment of Texas, by Elmer H. Johnson. Price $2.00. Natural Regions of Texas, by Elmer H. Johnson. Price $1.00. Directory of Texas Manufacturers, by F. A. Buechel and Clara H. Lewis. Price $2.00. Eight Years of Livestock Shipments in Texas, by F. A. Buechel. Price $1.00. A Sys!em of Accounting Procedure for Livestock Ranches, by F. W. Woodbridge. Price $1.50. Methods for the Study of Retail Relationship:, by William J. Reilly. Price $1.00. What Place Has the Advertising Agency in Market Research?, by William J. Reilly. Price $1.00. Mimeographed Bulletins Stucl:es of Employment Problems in Texas, ,by A__,_B. Cox. Price $1.00. '.\1anufacture of Dairy Products in Texa5, hy F. A. Buechel and Elmer H. John­son. Price $1.00. Farm Cash Income in Texas, 1927-1938, by F. A. Buechel and Elmer H. John­rnn. Price $1.00. JJonthly Publications Texas Busine$S Review. Price $1.00 per year. I\ew PassengC'r Car Registrations in Texas. Price $2.00 per year. 1\l'w Commercial Registrations in Texas. Price $1.50 per year. CONTE:\TS PAGE Anno1111ce111en!s _... ____________ __ ____ ____ ·----· ·------------------------------------··----------·---------------------·-----------------------------------------11 Basiness Reviell' and Prospect, F. A. Buec:heL_____________ ___________________. ---· ______ ----------------------------------------------------------------3 Cotton Situation. A. J;L Cox ________ ...----·····---__...------···--··------------------------------·--·------·----------------------------------------------------------------5 List of Publications .................. _____ ...... ------·-----------------------------·---------------_____________________ ______________--·-------------------------12 Pay !foils and Business Activity, A. P. Vickery ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 LIST OF CHAHTS Cond C"n•cd. Evaporated. and Powdrrnl \lilk :\!anuf;;cturing Plants in Texas, 1938 ------------------·-----------·-----------------·--------------------------··· 1 I ndexf:"~ of B11 ... ine~s Au ivit y jn T('X<.!<.; . ··--_ _ ._ ..._ .......---··-----··------.----·-------··-----·····--·· ·--------·-···--------------------------------------·----------------------------2 LIST OF TABLES Bf'ndent .c..:t< in ·1.: in Texa.~ _ -.. ----··· ---·· ---------------------·-.. ----·--------------.. ·---··-----------------------------------------------------------------8, 10 Shipm~· nf--: c;f Li\f'-inck . ------------------------------------· -·· ----------------·---·---------------------------------------------8