~ TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas Vol. XVI, No. 1 ·~ A Monthly Summary of Business and Economic Conditions in Texas and the Southwest Bureau of Business Research, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas r,; Q\j ., J19 2 Entered u teeond claM matter on May 7, 1928, at tho poat olice at Aa1tin, Texa1, onder Act ef Aqut ft; lt!SJ KARY TEN CENTS PER COPY ONE DOLLAR PER YEAR TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Business Review and Prospect In spite of the rapid rise of activity in the Nation's war industries Barron's index of the physical volume of business in the United States during the week ended February 14 was slightly lower than at the end of the preceding week. This index is not influenced by price changes and is designed to measure changes in the physical volume of goods after making allowance for population trend, seasonal variation, and the trend in standard of living. We thus have had for many weeks a virtually stationary index, while the war industries have been increasing their output at a rapid rate. The ex­planation of this situation obviously is that up to the present time the increase in output of the war industries has been approximately offset by a decrease in output of goods for civilian use. It is to be expected that as the plant expansion for the production of war materials progresses, the disemployed in those civilian industries which have been curtailed or suspended, because of in­ability to secure raw materials, will find employment in war industries, and the total physical output of goods will then begin to show a definite and sustained increase. TEXAS BUSINESS Industry and trade in Texas continued during January the sharp upward trend which began four months ago. The Texas business index at the end of January stood at 139.5--an increase of 5.5 points or four per cent over the preceding month; and from November 1941 through January of the current year the index rose 16.9 points -from 122.6 to 139.5--an increase of nearly fourteen per cent. Compared with January 1941, the State index has risen 30.7 points or more than twenty-eight per cent. i; INDEXES OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN TEXAS (Average 1onth, 1930=100%) Jan •. 1942 Jan., 1941 Dec., 1941 mployment -·-------------111.9 93.3 115.0 ay Rolls ----------·· 143.3 99.6 143.0 ~iscellaneous Freight Carloadings (Southwest District) -------102.7 80:1 99.6 Runs of Crude Oil to Stills_____ 261.6 216.0 238.1 * Department Store Sales --------146.7 116.6 120.4 Electric Power Consumption __ 182.7 147.0 173.2* COMPOSITE INDEX ----···· 139.5 108.8 134.0* •Revi1ed. After the rapid increase during preceding months, the January employment index dropped three points from December to January, but the pay roll index rose slightly in comparison with December. Both indexes were sharply above those of January, 1941. The remaining four components of the State index were well above those of both the preceding month and a year ago, the increase having been especially rapid for oil refining, department store sales and electric power consumption. All indications point to a continuation of the upward trend during the coming months as more of the new T:rlJ war industries come into production, and existing plants are converted to the production of war materials. Un­fortunately, many small plants which do not lend them­selves to war activity, and which are unable to secure raw materials for the production of civilian goods, will have either to curtail or suspend operations which will cause considerable local hardship. Dealers in products of such industries are already suffering serious losses. There will be much dislocation of employment during coming months, with unemployment in many localities and serious labor shortages in others. Employment services will be taxed to the limit during the months ahead in the adjustment of employment to the needs of the war industries. FARM CASH INCOME Texas agriculture began the first month of the new year quite favorably from the standpoint of farm cash income. When compared with a year ago the farm cash index in January showed an advance of sixty-seven per cent over the corresponding month last year, and when compared with the base period, (the average January in the five years 1928-'32) the increase was 168 per cent. INDEX OF AGRICULTURAL CASH INCOME IN TEXAS ·· Average month 1928-'32=100% Jan., Dec., Jan., Actual Cnsh Income Dietricta 1942 1941-1941 . . Jan., 1942 Jan., 1941• (000 Omitted) 1-N ········--·····-···133.3 206.5 60.0 4,365 1,961 1-S ·---····-·--···227.1 586.6 114.6 4,786 2,428 _______________:_110.2 2 392.6 105.7 4,642 2,873 3 -·--·-··--------156.1 137.3 119.0 1,688 1,271 4 -----·-·······-··--184.4 194.3 92.9 6,634 3,376 5 --·-·-------96.6 117.0 75.7 1,316 975 6 ------····----···----· 265.3 220.6 141.6 3,421 1,763 7 --·-····-····--·---·196.8 106.5 154.8 2,093 1,632 8 ------------···202.5 133.4 119.5 2,884 1,718 9 ··-····--·-----·--·-313.0 445.4 207.0 4,438 2,920 10 --··-------···----195.9 105.7 128.7 902 608 10-A ··----------195.1 191.4 154.4 3,768 2,977 ST ATE ----········--188.7 268.1 112.5 40,937 24,502 *Revieed. TOTE: Farm cash income aa computed by this Bureau understates actual farm eaah income by from 6 to 10 per cent. This situation results from the fact that means of eecuring complete Jocal marketinge, especially by truck, have not yet been fully developed. In addition, means ba.ve not yet been developed for computing cash income from all agricultural specialties of local importance in ecnttcrcd areas throughout the State. Thi1 situation, however, doe• not impair the a.ccuracy of the indexeJ to any appreciable extent. The computed income of nearly forty-one million dollars for the State as a whole is an understatement for the reason given in the footnote to the foregoing table as is also the twenty-five million dollars for the income in January, 1941. During the base period 1928-'32, the January farm cash income averaged less than twenty­two million dollars on the basis used in making current computations. It will be of interest to note a few of the factors which account primarily for the marked rise in income over January last year. For Other Texas Data, See Statistical TableJ at the End of ThiJ Publication Among the principal factors causing the sharp gains in income during the last three months of 1941 com· pared with the corresponding period of the year before were the relatively large ginnings of cotton and the high level of prices both of cotton and of cottonseed. These same factors carried over into the new year resulting in an income from cotton and cottonseed during January more than double that during January, 1941. The bulk of this increased income is attributable to Districts 1-S and 2-the South High Plains and the district adjacent to it on the east. In District 1-S, income from cotton and cottonseed totalled more than 3% million dollars during January this year compared with less than one million dollars in January 1941; and in District 2 the value of January ginnings of nearly 2% million dollars was approximately double that of a year ago. There still remain more than the average ginnings for February in these districts which will he included in the February figures on farm cash income. Other crops which showed. large gains in farm cash income during January (as a result of larger marketings and higher prices) over a year ago were wheat, grain sorghums, fruits and vege­tables and rice-the gain in income from the latter reflecting mainly the sharp gain of nearly seventy per cent in price over a year ago. LIVESTOCK INDUSTRIES Since weather conditions and insect infestation during the critical period of crop production are the determin· ing factors in the yield of crops and hence in the pro· duction of grains, cotton, and forage crops, it obviously is impracticable even to guess at the relative 1942 farm cash income from these sources this early in the year. Indications, however, definitely point to a higher average level of prices for these products during the current year compared with a year ago. But the outlook for the income from livestock and livestock products is con· siderahly clearer and this situation is already being reflected in the cash income from these sources during January. Cash income from cattle and calves totalled more than nine million dollars during January compared with six million dollars during the same month a year ago­an increase of fifty per cent-a result both of a sub­stantial gain in the marketings of cattle and a higher level of prices for these animals. There also was an increase in cash income from sheep and hogs, the result of the higher level of prices rather than an increase in marketings. But it is in those which are generally regarded as the minor animal industries of the State-the poultry and dairy industries-that the greatest gains were registered. The computed cash income from eggs during January was nearly six million dollars against a comparatively negligible income from this source a year ago. Out-of· State shipments of eggs, on a shell egg basis, totalled 595 cars compared with ninety-eight cars a year ago. Moreover, the price of eggs per dozen was nearly double that of a year ago. Cash income from milk and milk products totalled more than five million dollars corn· pared with three million dollars during January last year. Present indications point to a continuation of the wide year to year margin of gain for at least the first six months of the year. Inventories of animals on farms as of January 1, 1942, which have just been released by the United States Agri· cultural Marketing Service, lend further basis for ex· pectation of substantial year to year gains in income from livestock and livestock products. Cattle numbers are estimated at 7,444,000 head compared with 7.090,000 head a year ago; milk cows number 1,473,000 head against 1,444,000; sheep 10,349,000 versus 9,831,000; goats 3,500,000 and 3,397.000; and hogs 2,042,000 com· pared with 1,926,000. Moreover, the outlook for the 1942 pig crop is even more optimistic than is indicated by the increase in the total number of hogs on farms since the number of sows and gilts was increased nearly fiftv per cent over the previous year. Farmers are being well advised to use the present situation of strong demand reflected in high prices for livestock and livestock products to cull their herds and flocks rigorously so that the feed and labor expended may yield the maximum results both in the form of profits to the farmer and as a means of practical con· servation of feed and of labor. This policy will also lay a firm foundation against the future period when declining prices will require the greatest efficiency in production for profitable operation. The present low yield of milk per cow in Texas in comparison with that in other states, for example, must be corrected during the coming years if the dairy industry of the State is to be placed on a permanently prosperous basis. (See outside cover chart.) F. A. BUECHEL Relation of Government Loans to Movements of Cotton in Trade Channels For many good reasons, it is obvious we do not now have a world market for cotton. and more particularly for cotton grown in the United States: and we will not have one for the years just ahead. This does not mean that the Nation, and especially the South, which is so highly dependent on cotton, should overlook foreign developments in the cotton situation; indeed, the very opposite is true. The time to begin to plan to meet the ~otton problems which are bound to come upon us later is now. In the meantime, the changed world situation due to the war, particularly, has created domestic cotton prob­lems which challenge our attention for immediate solution. One matter of immediate importance is the relation of government loans to the flow of cotton into the market from different regions of the cotton belt. The importance of this problem is illustrated by the fact that the percentage of the crop going into the loan this year varies from a low of 1.8 per cent in Virginia to 35.4 per cent in Oklahoma. There are several reasons why farmers put cotton into the loan. Some farmers, and farmers in some regions, prefer to sell their cotton when it is ginned and not be bothered by making loans from any source. The figures this year indicate that freight differentials and quality differences in relation to loan values are major determining factors as to the amount of cotton going into the loan. Loan premiums and discounts on different grades and staples are the major factors determining the location of the cotton going into the loan this season. The United States Department of Agriculture Market­ing Service estimated on November 30 that about twenty­four per cent of the cotton harvested in the United States this year was Low Middling or below in grade, compared with eight per cent last year. In Texas, more than thirty· two per cent of this season's cotton production has gone into the loan so far. Because of unfavorable weather and scarcity of pickers, Texas has had one of the lowest grade crops in its history, it being estimated that over fifty per cent of the crop is Low Middling, or below in grade, compared with only fourteen per cent last year. This large increase in the percentage of low grades has greatly decreased their relative commercial value in spite of the fixed loan rates established by the government before the beginning of the season. On February 14, 1942, the llverage discount for Low Middling in the ten eouthern spot markets was 247 points "off'' Middling for basis 15/10 inch staple. The loan value of Low Middling is only 165 points "off" Middling for basis 15/16 inch staple. On the other hand, Good Middling is worth only 45 points "on" Middling basis 15/16 inch etaple; whereas, Good .Middling is worth 47 points "on" Middling in the market. Obviously, the government loan is the best market rel­atively for the Low Middling cotton by eighty-two points, or more than $4.00 per bale; whereas, the market will pay relatively more for the high grades than the govern· ment loan. The low grades are thus going into the gov· ernment loan, for they are relatively over priced there, and the states that bad low grade crops show a large percentage of production going into the loan. Of what significance are these loan disparities? Much, in a number of ways and to many people. The grade of cotton is determined primarily by the weather. In areas where they had heavy rainfall and high winds during the picking season, they had large percentages of low grades. The relatively best place to put these cottons was in a warehouse under government loan. Farmers were simply following good business practice at the time by selling good grades and putting the poor ones in the loan. In communities where there was a large percentage of low grades, there was often not sufficient warehouse space, and some communities, at any rate, have been induced to build additional warehouse space; whereas, if the cotton were permitted to move into the market based on market supply and demand, none would be needed. The small cotton merchants who confine their efforts to the merchandising of the cotton of a restricted area must inevitably be the victims of such a policy. Already the government has announced very high loan premiums for the longer staples to be produced next season. The object, of course, is to stimulate the farmers to grow more of the longer staple cottons. Now, suppose that many farmers comply with the request of the government and there results a very substantial increase in the supply of these staples. It is very probable that their commercial premiums will be below their loan value with the result that the longer staples will go into the loan and the government will thus defeat its own purpose of providing more long staple cotton for the mills of the country to fill war orders. The fact is, the government in presuming to fix grade and staple premiums and discounts arbitrarily, and ahead of production is doing exactly what it condemned the New York Cotton Exchange for doing over thirty· five years ago in fixing grade values for cotton delivered on futures contracts. In order to obviate the uneconomic procedure of the Exchange the government itself set up a system for determining commercial grade and staple differences in the South daily, and forced the New York Cotton Exchange to use these in paying grade differences for cotton delivered on contract. Why would it not be feasible for the government to use the same data to establish commercial loan values for cotton that it compels the New York and New Orleans Cotton Exchanges to use to determine the commercial values of cotton delivered on futures contracts? The whole cotton manufacturing industry is also vitally interested in this unneeded interference with forces of supply and demand. Each mill when it is set up is designed to use a very narrow range of grades and staple lengths of cotton. An arbitrary government loan policy with reference to different grades and staples must inevitably tend to help some mills and hurt others through its effects on the flow of cotton into the loan away from the markeL A.B.Cox EMPLOYMENT AND PAY ROLLS IN TEXAS January, 1942 Efltimnted Number of Percentage Change Estimated Amount of Percenta1e Chanii:e Workers Employed* from from Weekly Pay Roll from from December January December January December January December January 1941(1) 1942(2) 1941 1941 1941(1) 1942(2) 1941 1941 MANUFACTURING All Manufacturing lndustriea_l56,319 154,332 1.3 +12.3 3,572,717 3,498,697 2.1 + 33.0 Food Products Baking 7,043 7,027 -0.2 + 15.7 161,776 159,183 1.6 +22.6 Carbonated Beverages ____ 2,987 2,802 -6.2 + 4.8 77,150 69,914 9.4 +12.5 Confectionery 1,212 1,062 -12.4 + 29.4 13,127 13,037 0.7 + 61.8 Flour Milling 1,980 2,012 + 1.6 + 10.1 36,673 39,214 + 6.9 + 19.7 Ice Cream 968 996 + 2.9 +29.4 19,555 20,195 + 3.3 +36.l Meat Packing 5,598 5,631 + 0.6 + 14.3 134,360 139,763 + 4.0 + 29.l Textiles Cotton Textile Mills 6,974 6,890 1.2 + 5.6 120,827 125,065 + 3.5 +37.9 l\len's Work Oothing ----3,976 4,027 + 1.3 + 23.9 53,249 53,898 + 1.2 + 64.9 Forest Products ::•:i::~;tf1t;.~~ Furniture _ 2,360 2,339 0.9 +38.6 48,838 43,710 -10.5 +75.5 Planing Mills --------2,168 2,108 2.8 -10.0 54,776 50,887 -7.1 + 1.5 Saw !\tills ---------17,501 17,403 0.6 + 4.9 248,599 217,290 -12.6 + 6.4 Paper Boxes --------720 673 -6.5 + 16.3 15,121 13,395 -11.4 +34.8 _, Printing and Publishing t .1. li·· ·.,t '-•if!]J.f.!~~i~)jf~ Commercial Printing ----2,563 2,382 7.0 + 2.8 58,841 54,371 -7.6 + 7.1 Newspaper Publishing _ 5,123 4,850 5.3 + 3.2 138,493 117,466 -15.2 + 0.6 Chemical Products Cotton Oil Mills 4,014 3,857 3.9 + 0.9 42,634 39,560 7.2 + 14.5 Petroleum Refining 21,786 21,805 + 0.1 + 9.0 855,326 849,554 0.7 +33.4 Stone and Clay Products Brick and Tile 2,170 2,002 7.8 4.9 29,830 26,279 -11.9 + 3.6 Cement _ 1,252 1,241 0.9 + 50.9 39,126 39,205 + 0.2 +64.7 Iron and Steel Products Structural and Ornamental Iron__ 2,638 2,546 3.5 + 9.0 56,875 56,458 0.7 +33.2 NON MANUFACTURING Crude Petroleum Production _ 30,521 31,214 + 2.3 + 6.4 1,145,273 1,134,824 0.9 + 21.2 13 (3) Quarrying __ > 5.9 +22.8 l•J (:0 -12.2 +41.2 (3) (3) (<) {S) Public Utilities + + 8.2 (8) + 1.2 + 14.1 Retail Trade -------------240,649 182,638 -24.1 + 4.6 4,360,038 3,535,825 -18.9 + 11.1 Wholesale Trade 67,485 62,815 6.9 + 7.1 2,076,767 1,879,997 9.5 + 7.7 Dyeing and Cleaning ------2,703 2,544 5.9 + 12.3 39,951 40,055 + 0.3 +33.2Hotels ------------15,764 15,849 + 0.5 + 5.1 190,363 190,971 + 0.3 + 7.4 Power Laundries-------11,708 11,931 + 1.9 +13.4 148,886 157,083 + 5.5 + 17.5 CHANGES IN EMPLOYME NT AND PAYROLLS IN SELECTED CITIES°" Employment Pay Rollo Employment Pay RolloPercentage Change Percentage Change Percentage Change Percentage ChangeDec., 1941 Jnn., 1941 Dec., 1941 Jan., 1941 Dec •• 1941 Jan., 1941 Dec., 1941 Jan., 1941 to to to to to to to to Jan., 1942 Jan., 1942 Jan., 1942 Jan., 1942 Jan., 1942 Jan., 1942 Jan., 1942 Jan., 1942 Abilene -------20.8 -2.0 -13.3 + 14.7 Galveston --------1.2 + 1.6 2.9 + 2.5 Amarillo -------9.1 -0.3 8.1 + 20.2 Houston 3.6 +23.3 2.7 +34.1 -------Port Arthur --·------2.3 + 1.8 2.1 +28.2 Austin 6.2 + 13.7 4.2 + 13.0 Beaumont ----+ 1.4 + 95.5 + 5.1 + 167.4 San Antonio 5.3 + 9.4 2.1 ------· + 22.4 Dallas -----8.5 + 10.0 8.4 +26.9 Sherman --------2.6 + 2.6 + 8.0 +22.4 El Paso -----0.4 + 16.3 2.2 + 21.9 Waco 9.8 ----------------+ 7.7 4.5 + 13.0 Fort Worth 5.7 + 17.9 2.4 +39.4 Wichita Falls ____ 2.6 +23.3 + 0.4 +40.0 STATE ---------------2.7 + 19.8 + 0.2 +43.5 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN NONAGRICULTURAL BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT EST ABLISHMENTSt"' 1940"' 194 1(1) 194QCl) January 944,000 1,052,000 1941 July -----------983,000 1,101 ,000°>February 943,000 1,092,000 August 988,000 1,113,000{l) l\Iarch -------­%5,000 1,086,000 September -----------------1,009,000 1,134,000(1) April ----------­963,000 1,097,000 October ____________ l,022,000 l ,141,000<1>May 983,000 1,077,000 November ---------------...1,048,000 1,161,000(1)June 982,000 1,084,000 December ---------------1,084,000 1,175,000<•> •Doe1 not include proprieton, 6rm memben , of6.cen of corporation1, or other priocjpal ei:ecutive1. Factory employment exclude• alao office, N1e1, techolca) aod pofet1ional penonnel. U) Revi!ed. <2>subject to revilioo. U>Not avaiJable. <4>Less than 1/ 10 of one per cent. Oued on uoweiKhted heure.. or Statiatloa. Due to the national emerrency, publicatioD of data for certain lnduttriH 11 b tins withheld until further ngtlce. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW BUILDING PERMITS POSTAL RECEIPTS ./ Jan., 1942 Jan., 19•11 Dec., 19-11 Jan., 19·12 Jan., 1941 Dec., 1941 Abilene -.;;/-----------­98,375 74,860 50,140 Abilene --------------· 30,263 21,612 44,398 Amarillor ------ ----46,775 173,960 161,200 Austin ----------------­78,871 72,898 102,435 Austin ---T. __________ 249,221 392,158 330,012 Beaumont -------------· 32,360 29,429 45,295 7 Beaumont -¥--------­167,642 307,310 106,868 Big Spring --------­7,523 6,739 10,809 Big ;lpring ------­9,235 12,630 12,725 Brownwood --------­16,323 14,606 25,109 Brownwoo~---------­15,895* t t Childress ------------­3,392 3,070 2,000 Coleman ------/-----82,900 34,700 582 Coleman -------------­2,997 2,138 4,860 Corpus C!j ti ______ _ 36,164 1,202,464 163,012 Corpus Christi -------­43,564 36,643 64,766 Corsicany ------------4,250 31,550 11,625 Corsicana -·---------------­6,936 5,982 10,156 Dallas_ ___________ 2,433,784 1,048,691 1,501,276 Dallas -------------------­400,610 408,351 546,410 7 Del Rio --------­8,090 1,590 3,495 Del Rio -------------­3,837 5,762 5,672 Denton 'J--------­4,900 18,375 7,350 Denison -------------­7,111 6,551 11,248 El Paso -/------­122,627 223,032 190,556 Denton -----------------­9,506 8,971 10,808 Fort Worth ---------­493,207 500,882 14 553 725m El Paso ----------------­65,164 61,212 103,224 , 2,'200 Gladewater ----­2,500 0 Fort Worth ------------­156,483 154,818 255,389 Gral~am ;z---------­240 16,102 1,950 Galveston ------------­35,934 32,354 60,464 Harlmgen;r--------­3,875 13,800 37,600 Gladewater --------------­3,616 3,310 4,221 Houston -------­1,480,535 2,004,075 1,045,155 Graham ---------------· 2,627 2,655 3,661 Jacksonville --------­300 11,400 2,000 Harlingen ---------------­5,705 7,055 10,494 Kenedy ----------­650* 300* t Houston ------------· 288,264 271,666 410,011 Kilgore ----------­5,200 30,700 7,000 Jacksonville ---·-----­3,663 3,687 4,476 Laredo -r--------­6,100• t t Kenedy ---------------­1,687 1,747 1,817 Longview/ -----------­8,350 3,950 10,245 Kilgore -------------­7,162 7,028 9,307 L . Lubbock ---------­184,684 211,971 156,994 ongv1ew ----------------11,730 10,364 14,498 Lufkin --;r---------· 7,609 24,266 7,925 Lubbock ---------------­25,161 21,677 32,783 McAllen 7 -------------­15,955 8,004 16,500 Lufkin ---------------­6,071 5,244 7,147 Marshall ----------­22,861 63,660 63,864 McAllen -------------­6,497 6,438 8,017 Midland --------------­78,290 17,825 97,925 Marshall ----------------­7,557 6,589 10,377 New Braunfels 8,950 4,155 4,595 Palestine -----------­6,628* 6,651* t Pampa -·-;:!'------­113,200 31,750 24,700 Pampa ---------­7,896 6,786 11,328 Plai nview -j---­4,000 3,800 6,450 Plainview -------------------­4,946 4,241 7,181 Port Arthur --r-------64,555 84,416 30,971 Port Arthur ----­16,878 14,603 28,449 San Angelo Y-....L____ 55,097 66,000 40,369 San Angelo -------­15,536 13,312 23,208 San Antonyi_ --------576,144 1,083,086 412,533 San Antonio ---------------­164,287 145,688 249,538 Sherman .!;/___________ 21,057 8,273 37,672 Sherman -------------­9,359 8,086 12,869 Snyder ___ -------4,625* t t Snyder -------------­2,122• 1,624* t weetwate; ------­15,085 10,985 31,360 Sweetwater ------------­6,657 5,558 7,461 Tyler ---1--f----------­35,910 46,065 147,956 Temple ------------­7,379* t 10,539 Waco - ..J,--.;-r------­77,463 165,085 64,257 Tyler ------------------17,410 17,284 23,934 Wichita Falls "-------24,757 58,125 866,136 Waco ------------------36,732 37,981 50,719 TOTAL --------6,563,787 7,989,735 20,208,923 Wichita Falls -----------48,944 26,371 52,042 TOTAL -------1,599,259 1,505,639 2,295,116 -38 -38 -29 -43 • Jn thousand•. Non: Compiled from record.a of the Secretary of St.I te-. Fort Worth 33 + 7 -42 herman -------­Waco ----------­ 17 26 +22 + 2 -27 -42 COMMODITY PRICES All Other ---------­ 99 +11 -23 District 5 Tyler -------------­All Others _______ 117 14103 -1 -30 + 9 -38 -48 -34 Wholesale Prices: Jan., 1942 Jnn., 1911 Dee., 1941 District 6 ----------------­ 45 -3 -37 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics El Paso ---------­All Other ----------------­Di trict 7 -----------­ 23 22 66 -6 + 22 + 20 -40 -19 -32 (1926=100%) Farm Prices: ----------------­ 96.0 80.8 93.6 Fredericksburg ----------Kerrville San Angelo -------­All Others _ District 8 _ 10 11 12 33 172 -16 +25 +17 +34 + 11 -46 -24 -37 -23 -31 U.S. Department of Agriculture09I0-14=100%> ___ ________________149.o• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1926=100%) ________________100.8 104.0 71.6 143.0 94.7 Austin 14 +16 -52 Retail Prices: an Antonio ------­All Others -----­District 9 ----------­Beaumont ----------­Calve.ton -------­ 50 108 142 20 13 + 14 + 6 + 19 +30 +24 -29 -20 -35 -46 -19 Food (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statis­tics, 1935­39=100%) _____________116.2• Department Stores (Fairchild's Pub­lications, Jan. 1931=100%) ___110.2 97.8 94.2 113.1 108.3 Hou ton 51 +21 -35 Port Arthur All Others 12 46 -4 + 6 -39 -25 •Preliminary. District 10 37 + 16 -32 Di trict 10-A --------­Brownsville 50 13 + 7 +15 -IS -15 CEMENT All 01hers 37 + 5 -15 Un Thousands of Barrels) nlCban10 of 1... than .5%. on: Prepared from reportt o( independent retail 1tore1 to the Bu1ioe91 Reaearch. coOperatia1 with the U.S. Bureau of the Cca1u1. Bureau of Texas Plants Jan., 1942 Ian., 1941 Doc ., II»! Production -----------­ 850 654 829 TEXAS COMMERCIAL FAILURES Shipments ----------------­Stocks ---------­- 847 742 793 764 844 ·739 Jan., 1942 Jan., 1941 Dec., 1941• United States Number __ Liabilitie t -------------­A et t ----------------------­Average Liabilitie per failuret_ 9 83 89 9 37 $372 186 10 15 $170 134 12 Production --------­Shipments --------------­tocks -------------------­Capacity Operated ------­ 12,429 9,120 23,245 58.9% 9,025 7,986 24,420 42.4% 13,810 11,511 19,937 64.8o/o •Revised. fin thouunda. NOTE: From U.S. Department of Int erior, Bureau of Mine5. Non: From Dua aad Bradatn«, lac. Number R•tlo of Ratio of Ratio of of Cred it Salco Collcction1 to Credi t Sa larfee Store. to Net SaJe. Out1tandinr1 lo Credit Salet Report inc 1942 1941 1942 1941 1942 1941 All Stores 56 63.6 65.7 43.0 41.0 1.0 1.3 Stores Grou ped ay Cities: Au tin -----­ 5 58.5 59.3 51.3 48.5 1.4 1.5 Beaumont ___ -----------------­ --------­ 3 68.1 70.2 46.6 41.5 0.9 1.6 Dall as---------------------------------------------------------­ 8 73.0 73.4 41.1 39.7 0.7 0.8 El Pa 0­-------------------------------­--------------------­ 3 4.0.4 53.4 43 .3 35.8 1.6 1.3 Fort Worth -----------------------------­ 4 64.5 65.9 47.7 44.8 1.2 1.4 Hou ton ----­--------------­ 7 66.2 66.4 43.2 43.0 1.2 1.9 San Antonio -----------------------­ 3 46.2 48.8 43.0 47.3 1.4 0.2 Wa <:o -------­ 5 64.4 65.4 35.1 32.1 1.3 1.5 All Others 18 57.8 58.5 45.3 42.7 1.5 1.9 Stores Grouped According to Type of Store: Depa rtment Stores (An nu al Volume Over $500,000) ___________ 16 63.3 64.9 45.5 42.7 1.1 1.5 Department Stores (Annual Volume under $500,000) ------­ 9 54.7 56.4 42.5 38.3 1.7 2.3 Dry-Goods-Apparel Stores -------­-- ____ 3 61.2 59.2 41.5 32.8 2.2 2.9 Women's Specialty Shops -----------------­Men's Clothing Stores ---------­ --­ 16 12 63.5 68.0 67.0 70.0 38.0 42.3 37.7 40.3 0.6 1.1 0.8 1.2 Stores Grouped According to Volume of Net Sales During 1941: Over $2,500,000 -------------------­ 8 61.3 70.3 44.8 42 .5 1.0 1.4 $2,500.000 down to Sl,000,000 -----------­ 10 57.6 55.5 40.7 40.3 1.0 1.3 Sl.000.000 down to $500,000 -­---­---­$500,000 down to s100,ooo____________ Less than $100,000______________ 9 25 4 60.9 52.7 56.1 59.7 57.4 54.5 45.2 43.7 37.4 42.1 39.7 30.3 1.4 1.5 2.3 1.4 2.0 2.4 Non : The ratio! shown in the order in which they appear from left to right are obtained by the following computations: (1) Credit Sa lei divided by 'ct Sales. (2) Col1ectious during the month divided by the total account1 unpaid on the first of the month. (3) Salaries of tho Credit department divided by Credit Salc1. The data are reported to the Bureau o( Busine11 Re1earch by Texas retail atorea. JANUARY, 1942, CARLOAD MOVEMENT OF POULTRY AND EGGS Shipments from Texas Stations Can of Poultry Can of Eggs Dressed Chiclcen1 Turkeys Shell Frozen Drled Shell Equivalentf Jan. 1942 Jan . 1941 Jan. 1942 Jan. 1941 Jnn. 1942 Jar.. 1941 Jan. 19·12 Jan. 1941 Jan . 1942 Jan. 1941 Jan. 1942 Jan. 1941 TOTAL ---­ 24i 56§ 6 1311 1 11 26 31% 81 3 701 98 Intrastate ------------------­Interstate -----------------­-----­ 0 24i 0 56§ 0 6 0 1311 0 I 0 11 1 25 0 13 31% 68 0 3 106 595 0 98 Receipts at Texas Stations Ori gi n TOTAL 2 32 3 2 2 --------------------·-----------16 164 7 Intrastate 0 0 0 0 ---------------------0 0 11 88 0 Interstat ------------------------2 1 32 3 2 2 5 76 7 •The destination above is the first destination aa shown by the original waybill. Cbangea Jn destination brought abCJut by dlveraion orders are not shown. tDried eggs and frozen eggs are converted to • 1'. II egc equivalent on the following basis: 1 rail carload of dried ecgs ~ 8 carloads of shell eggs, and J carload of fro7. n egg c:s 2 carloads of shell cais. Uncludc 1 carload of live chicken•. §Include 2 carloaos of live chickens. llncludes 2 carload.s of live turkeys. NOTE: These data are furnished to the Agricultural Marketlna Service, U.S.D.A., by railroad official1 tliroueh ae:enu at all 1tatlou1 which orieinate aud receive oarloed 1hipment1 of poultry and eea-1. The data are compi!ed by the Bureau of Du iaeu Retearch. BANK1 C STATISTICS On l\ldlions of Dollars) January. 1912 Janunry, 1941 Delcmber, 19-11 Dalb."' Un11ed Dallttti Unned Dalla. Un ited Oi1uric1 S1:11c1 Ois tric1 State• Oiatrict State• DEBIL to indi"iclual acf'ounts -------------------$ 1,217 $42,919 $ 984 $37,846 $ l,39S SS0,364 Condition uf reporting member banks on-Jan. 28, 1942 Jan. 29, 19-11 Dec. 31, 1941 Assn : Loan~ and investments-total__ 681 30.342 S80 2S.676 687 30,08S Loan. total ........ -------· ----------·-···· 360 l l,2SS 319 9.308 374 11,370 Commen·ia l. industrial. and agricultural loans -----­2S4 6,778 219 S,076 2S6 6,728 Open marke1 paper ...... ---------------2 424 2 314 2 423 Loan>' to l1rokers and dealers in securities -···-------4 448 4 4S8 11 S37 Other lo11ns (or rurchasing or carrying securities__ ___ 13 409 13 4S9 16 422 Real estate loans 22 1,248 23 1,229 22 l ,2S8 Loans to l1anks 37 3S 3S Other loans 6S 1,911 S8 1,737 67 1,967 Treasurv Bills -------------3S 1.240 28 68S 3S 883 Trea>'ury 1 utes -----------------------41 2,362 37 2,214 39 2.S3S U. ffonds . ----------········-···----···----------14S 9,087 97 7,0Sl 138 8.667 01.Jigatious fully guaranteed by U.S. Cov't .. 39 2,7C9 39 2,744 40 2,964 Other securities .................. ·--·----------------61 3.689 60 3,674 61 .3,666 Reserve with Federal Re~crve Ban k ·-·-----185 10,4S2 l SS 12,111 190 9,82S ah in vault ... ···--···------·-·--------------------16 SS2 13 S27 lS SSS flalances with domestic banks 298 3,329 281 3,3S2 288 3,2SS Other assets-net ---------31 1,196 31 1,232 32 l,1S3 LtAllll ITtES: Demand clernsits-adjusted 624 24,747 S36 22.932 602 23,6SO Time dero Its --·-----------­131 S.241 136 . S,42S 133 S.348 U.S. Government deposits 3S 1,469 14 237 44 l,49S Inter-hank rlernsits: Domestic l1anks ---------­323 9,088 280 9,076 334 9,040 Foreign hanks l 640 l 6SO l 6S6 Borrowings 1 1 l Other lial1ilities s 76S 4 7S4 6 770 Capital account 92 3,920 89 3,823 92 3,913 •Five wcek1. Non: From Federal Reserve Boatd, PERCE 'TA!,E CHA GES I CONSUl\IPTION LUMBER OF ELECTRJC POWER (In Board Feet) Jan.. 1942 Jan .. 1942 rrnm from Jan., 1942 Jan., 1941 Dec., 1941 } au.. t941 Dec., 1941 Southern Pine Mills: Commercial --·--·-______ -4.8 -IS.2 Average Weekly Production lndu trial ·····--·---------­+49.0 + 9.1 per unit ···-------------------------304,9Sl 32S,918 293,S8SResidential ··-----------------­+ 6.8 + 3.S Average Weekly ShipmentsAll Others ·------------·-­+38.6 + 9.S per unit .................... -----······ 349,842 340,S22 284,992 TOTAL ·-·--·-·-··-----+2S.7 + 2.4 Average Unfilled Orders per unit, end of month__________ l,62S,979 1,041,316 1,231,622 Prepared h orn report1 from 10 electric power companies to the Bureau of Busi. oc11 Rc1carch. Non: From Southern Pine Auociatioo. JA UARY SHIPMENTS OF LIVE STOCK CONVERTED TO A RAIL-CAR BASIS" Cattle Calvet Hor• Sheep Total 1942 1941 1942 1941 1942 1941 1912 1941 1942 1941 Total lnter~tate Plu~ Fort Worth1T ··-----3,346 2,611 921 931 933 1,001 408 364 S,608 4,907 Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth ·--------379 210 147 1S2 22 17 23 13 S71 392 TOTAL SHIPMENTS ---------3,72S 2,821 1,068 1,083 9SS 1,018 431 377 6,179 S,299 •Rail-car Buis: Cattle. 30 head peT eu : calves. 60: hois. 80: and 1hf'cp. 250. ffF'or1 Worth ehipmcntfi are combined with inter.talc forwarclin~s in order 1hat the bulk of market disappearance for the month may be ahown. 1on : Thr-sf' da ta are furn ieht>d the A~r·cuhura l Marketin,i: Service, U.S.0 .A. by railway officiala through more than 1,500 station acent1, repre1entin1 eye17 li•e stock 1hipprn1 poin1 ia the State. The data arc compiled by the Bureau o{ Bu1ioc11 Research. ANNO UNCEMENT PROGRESS REPORT No. Il-FAMILY EXPENDITURES IN TWENTY-ONE TEXAS COMMUNITIES BY F. A . BUECHEL AND EDWARD D EDEKE This is the second of a series of studies relating to family expenditures, per capita consumption, and con­sumer habits and preferences. A third study relating to consumer reactions in local retail distribution is in preparation and the release date will be announced later. The price of the entire series for the current year is one dollar. TABLE OF CONTENTS PACE Bruina1 RetMw and Prospect, F. A. Buechel. --------------------------3 Relation of Government Loam to Movements of Cotton in Trade Channels, A. B. Cox _________ _ _ LIST OF CHARTS Milk Production per Cow, by States, 1939·----·--------Inclexee of Blllin1111Actiut7 in T~1a-----------------------------­ LIST OF TABLES BanldncStatiltice ________________________ ~---------­ Building Permiu -----------------------------­Carload Mnement of Poultry and Egp ----------------------------­C.ement Charten Commercial Failures -------------------------·---------­Commodity Prices ---------------------------­ Cotton Balance Sheet --------------------------­Credit Ratio. in Teir.u Department and Apparel Stores'-----------------------­Emplo}'lllent and Payrolls in Teir.u ---------------------------­ Lumber----------------------------·----­ Perc:entap Chanpa in Consumption of Electric Power -·----------- Pdrokwn ---------------------------POltu Receipu -----------------------------Rdail Sales of Independent Stores in Teir.u ---------------------------­Ship-a. of u..tock ' 1 2 11 7 10 9 9 9 9 7 10 6 11 11 8 7 8,9 u