TEXAS BUSINESS REVUN'W'TyP All;f J .,, Bureau of Business Research THE LIBRARY The University of Texas Vol. XVI, No. 2 March, 1942 A Monthly Summary of Business and Economic Conditions in Texu and the Sonthweet Bureau of Bnsiness Reeearch, The University of TexM, Aostin, Texas &steted u -ond elalo matter on May 7, 1928, at the pool oSce at Autin, Teu1, oader Aot ef AapR '6, ltlJ LAREDO BUREAU Of BUSINESS RESEARCH · TMESE i;;; oGET ITOH COMPOS[ APPROX lM AHLY TWO -THIRDS OF TOTA L tXPENDITURES OF HX'A fAMlll[S · CJ f 0 O'() ~RENT limll CLOTH/NG -CAR COSTS ~ UTILITl [ S STATE SOUHE : bUHAU or bUSJN[SS HS(ARCM CO IT Of LIVING SU RVEY S BROWNSVILLE THE UNIVER.51TY OF TEXAS TEN CENTS PER COPY ONE DOLLAR PER YEAR TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Business Review and Prospect Physical volume of industry and trade in the United States, 88 a total, continues to change but little, the grow­ing intensity of activity in the war industries being practically offset by the declining activity in industries which produce goods for civilian use. This situation is reflected in Barron's index of 104.8 for the week ended March 14, indicating a partial recovery from the decline registered in the preceding week. It is expected that Barron's business index will soon begin to show a con­sistent rise 88 the conversion of industries from the production of civilian goods to war goods is completed and the new war industry plants get into full production. During the next few months, much of the prevailing instability of employment and industrial activity, in which labor surpluses and plant shutdowns in some areas occur simultaneously with labor shortages and full twenty·f'our hour operations of' industries in others, will he corrected. But, in order to accomplish this objective, the fullest cooperation among all of the factors involved is necessary. Government agencies which have been set up to bring those who are seeking work and those who are seeking workers together can function best as those most directly concerned become conscious of the existence of such agencies and systematically use them. The United States Employment Service for Texas, with head offices in Austin and branches throughout the State, is already rendering invaluable service, and the scope of its activity and influence is rapidly widening to meet the requirements of' the war situation. TEXAS BUSINESS After a sharp rise lasting three months without a set­back, the Texas index of business activity declined about one point, or a fraction of one per cent, during February. At 136.7, the composite index is still 28.4 points, or twenty-six per cent, above February last year. ACTIVITY IN TEXAS (Average Month, 1930= 100%) Feb.,1912 Feb.,19­11 Jan.,1942 Employment -------­ 112.9 93.9 111.9 Pay Roll ---------­---------­ 149.0 100.9 143.3 Mi cellaneou Freight Carloading ( outhwest District) -·---­ 104.2 79.7 102.7 Run of Crude Oil to Stills 244.2 207.9 255.5* Department tore ales ____ 115.0 109.8 146.7 Con umption of Electric Powu__ 177.9 147.3 174.1 * COMPOSITE INDEX 136.7 108.3 137.9* • Rcviaed. All but two of the components constituting the index-runs of' crude oil to stills and department store sales-­ahowed a gain over January, and all of the factors made euhstantial gains over February, 1942. Part of' the decline in the department store sales index from January to February was a result of the fact that January sales were unusually high this year because of the UIUlettlement growing out of this country's entrance into the war. Evidence of this situation was the fear that many articles of merchandise were about to be subject to rationing, price inflation, or complete government prohibition. The decline in runs of crude oil to stills was the result of different sets of factors than those which influenced retail trade, but was also related to the war situation. FARM CASH INCOME Income from agriculture in Texas during February totalled thirty-five million dollars; whereas, the normal expectancy for the month is a little under seventeen million dollars. The index of farm cash income for the month was, therefore, more than 212 per cent of that during the base period-the average February income during the years, 1928-1932, inclusive-and compares favorably with the January, 1942, index of 187 and February, 1941, index of 120. INDEX OF AGRICULTURAL CASH INCOME IN TEXAS Average month 1928-'32=100% Cumulative Income February, January, February, Jan.-Feb., Jan.-Feb., District 1942* 1942* 1941* 1942 194lt (000. Omitted) 1­ 161.5 137.6 76.0 7.565 3,468 1-S -­----­ 294.4 225.2 164.3 8,074 4.263 2 195.0 170.1 146.5 7,812 5.256 3 188.3 156.9 132.6 3,061 2,239 4 232.l 185.3 99.8 13,289 6.241 5 115.2 107.3 77.7 2,524 1,791 6 203.7 246.3 207.5 5.499 3.880 7 199.7 195.5 128.7 3,312 2,418 8 192.4 196.5 109.9 5.381 3.141 9 272.5 274.5 131.0 8,981 5.094 10 ---------­ 142.5 184.l 73.0 1,683 1,006 10-A ---· 258.7 193.5 131.7 8,426 5,335 STATE _ 212.5 187.0 120.4 75,607 44,132 •Base period revised. fR eviaed. NOTE: Farm cash income as computed by this Bureau understate& actual fArm cash income by from 6 to JO per cent. This situation results from the fact tha t means of securi ng complete local marke tings. e&pecially by truck . havo not yet been fully developed. In addition, means have not yet been developed for computing cash income from all agricultural spccinltics of local imporlance in &callcred areas throughout the State. This situation. however, doc& not impair the accuracy of the indexes to any appreciable extent. Total farm cash income (see footnote under above table) for the months of January and February was seventy-six million dollars compared with forty-four million dollars for the two corresponding months in 1941. Sources of income which were mainly responsible for the increase in cash returns for agriculture during Feb­ruary compared with the corresponding month last year were: cotton and co~onseed, $3,654,000 in February, 1942, compared with $2,247,000 during the same month last year; cattle, $5,653,000 versus $3,917,000; eggs, $5,530,000 versus $1,567,000; milk and milk products, $5,508,000 versus $2.975,000; fruits and vegetables $4,· 440,000 versus $2,210,000; and rice, $2,765,000 versus Sl,067,000. For OIMr TUtU Da1a., See Statistical Tables at Ike End of This Publication TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW It will be noted that the major porlion of the Febru· ary farm cash income was derived from livestock and livestock products. With the comparatively large in· ventories of livestock and poultry at the beginning of the year and the rising trend of prices for these products, a record income from these sources during 1942 is prac· tically assured. Returns from cash crops such as wheat, rice, cotton, fruits and vegetables will depend upon the size and quality of the crop since the demand for these products is practically certain to remain strong. Although currently such factors as moisture deficiency and subnormal temperature throughout much of the State are not conducive to plant growth, there appears to be little basis for pessimism at this early stage of the season concerning crop prospects. Conditions have been and are favorable for soil tillage and planting even if not for plant growth so that with the advent of more seasonable weather, at least normal production for the principal crops of the State is still possible. STUDIES ON FAMILY EXPENDITURES On the outside front cover page of the current issue of the REVIEW are charts summarizing the more general tabulations derived from community studies on family expenditures. These studies are under way in twenty· four Texas communities, twelve of which are represented on the chart mentioned, and the remaining twelve will appear on the cover of the April issue of the REVIEW. A figure showing the state average is included on the chart. Progress Reports have recently been issued on this study and a limited number of copies are still available. The scope of the more recent report-Progress Report No. 2-is indicated by the table of contents, as follows: Introduction Distribution of Family Expenditures Distribution of Expenditures by Population Groups Comparison of Expenditures by Income Classes Food Clothing Rent and Home Payments Car Costs Utilities Income Distribution Population Composition Progress Report No. 1 embraced only nine Texas com· munities, but was based upon a more detailed question· naire. The scope and content of this report is indicated by the table of contents, as follows: Foreword Questionnaire Distribution of Family Expenditures Expenditures by Population Groups Variation in Family Expenditures in Nine Texas Cities Community Comparisons in Family Expenditures Average Family Expenditures by Cities and Popula· tion Groups Annual Per Capita Consumption by Population Groups Per Capita Consumption by Income Classes Discussion of Graphic Presentations C~llateral Uses of Per Capita Consumption Data A thud Progress Report of this series relating to retail trade will be issued soon. F. A. BUECHEL FEBRUARY, 1942, CARLOAD MOVEME T OF POULTRY AND EGGS Shipments from Texas Stations Cars of P ouJtry Ca ro of Eggs DrcHed Shell De1tinatioo• Chickens Turkey& Shell Frozen Dried Equivalentt F~. 1942 Fe~ 19-11 Fe~ 1942 F~. 1941 Feb. 1942 Feb. 1911 Feb. 1942 Feb. 1941 Feb. 1942 Feb. 1941 Feb. 19,~2 Feb. 1941 T T L ---­ --------------­---·-----------------­ 24.5:1: 57§ 5.5 7U 3 16 56 40 86 3 803 120 Intrastate Jnter tale ----------­-------------------­-­-- --------------­-­-----­ 6 18.5:t: 0 57§ 2 3.5 2 511 0 3 0 16 22 34 1 39 20 66 0 3 204 599 2 118 Receipts at Texas Stations Origin TOTAL . _ 3 1 2 2 24 19 202 I ntrastat Interstate ----·-·------------------­---··---­---------------­ 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 21 3 19 0 194 8 •Th.c de!tination above is die first dest ination as shown by th.e original waybil1. Chang 8 in destination brought abc..ut by diversion orders are not shown. tOnC'd Cad of l.vc chickens. 'I ncludes l carload of live turkeys. Non:: These dat.:i are furnished to the Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S.D.A., by railroad officials through agents at all stations which originate and receive carload shipments of poultry and eg:;s. The data are compiled by the Bureau of Busine151 Research. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW The World Demands a Sound Cotton Policy Events transpiring now and policies in the making relative to cotton, or which vitally affect cotton, will determine to a large extent the welfare of the cotton South during many years ahead. The vital issues in· volved demand that the cotton-growing interests of the South do their most level-headed thinking, and that they think beyond the temporary war situation and advantage. It is imperative that they see the cotton situation and the economy of the South in a world perspective and formulate their policies accordingly. Cotton is one of the world's major war materials and will be a vital factor in winning the war. Its great importance in the economy of every warring nation means that cotton will continue to play a major role in international relations. If cotton policies formulated now are wise, they can be a major factor in winning a lasting peace; but if the cotton policies now in the making are narrow, or the importance of cotton is surordinated by the selfish interests of other more powerful interests in the nation, the germs of dis­content and trouble will be planted in many fields. Wars are not spontaneous; to a large extent they grow out of faulty international or inter-regional relations. Nature limits the production to a comparatively few important areas; whereas, some of the greatest areas of cotton manufacturers cannot grow cotton at all. About ninety-five per cent of the world's cotton is normally grown in six countries-United States, India, Russia, China, Brazil, and Egypt; whereas, about seventy per cent of the world's 147,000,000 cotton spinning spindles are in Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and other European countries and Japan, which all to· gether grow less than one per cent of their raw cotton requirements. The tremendous significance of the prob­lems of international relations caused by this separation of cotton manufacturing from cotton growing becomes evident when it is realized that the trade in raw cotton, semi-finished, and finished cotton goods together consti­tutes the largest unit in world trade. Moreover, in a number of countries the importation of raw cotton, its manufacture, and export of cotton goods form the eco­nomic foundation of the country. Cotton goods are not only the biggest item of exports in countries like Italy and Japan, but the biggest source of industrial employ­ment as well. The economy of the South is geared to produce about 15,000,000 bales of cotton, and would normally export about fifty per cent of that amount. The South must thus depend on foreign countries for a market for a large part of its normal production, but these same coun­tries have depended on the South for their supplies of raw cotton for 130 years. Governments cannot break these basic economic relations without causing wide­spread dislocation of employment, poverty, and unrest. A sound cotton policy vigorously presented and de­veloped is now one of the world's major outstanding needs. Only the South can devise and the Nation put into operation such a policy. A. B. Cox COTTO BALANCE SHEET FOR THE UNITED STATES AS OF MARCH 1 (In Thousands of Running Bales Except as Noted) 1932-1933 1933-1934 1934-1935 1935-1936 1936-1937 1937-1938 1938-1939 1939-1940 1940-1941 1941-1942 --·---------­- Carryover Aug. I 9,682 8,176 7,746 7,138 5,397 4,498 11,533 13,033 10,596 12,367 Imports to March I • 75 81 65 74 94 65 86 103 72 t Govern· men t Estimate as of Dec. 1 12,727 13,177 9,731 10,734 12,407 18,746 12,008 11,792 12,686 10,976 Total 22,484 21,434 17,542 17,946 17,898 23,309 23,627 24,928 23,354 23,343 Consump­t ion to March I 3,253 3,400 3,255 3,530 4,521 3,505 3,959 4,704 5,216 6,280 Exports to March I • 5,597 5,548 3,165 4,410 3,921 4,231 2,456 4,917 714 t Total 8,850 8,948 6,420 7,940 8,442 7,736 6,415 9,621 5,930 6,280 Balance March 1 13,634 12,486 11,122 10,006 9,456 15,573 17,212 15,307 17,424 17,063 •In 500-pound bales. tFigure1 not available. Cottoo Year be1in1 Aueiut 1. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW EMPLOYMENT AND PAY ROLLS IN TEXAS February, 1942 E1timnted Number of Percentage Chane:e Estimated Amount of Percentage Change Worken Emplovi•d• from from Weekly Pay Roll from from January February January February Jnnunry February January February 1942(1) 1942<'> 1!»2 1941 1942(1) 1942<'> 1942 1941 MANUFACTURING All Manufacturing lndu1trie1.J54,566 153,747 -0.5 + 11.7 3,483,893 3,582,586 + 2.8 +33.1 Food Products Bak in i:; --------------6,925 6,925 ± (8) + 10.0 161.663 159,521 1.3 + 13.8 Carhonated Beverages____________ 2,814 2,600 7.6 -2.8 70,220 67,910 3.3 + 7.1 Confectionery 1,051 969 7.9 +20.6 12,977 9,856 -24.1 + 21.4 Flour 1illing ----------2,012 2,059 + 2.4 + 11.7 39,214 36,955 5.8 + 12.0 Ice ram ·--996 1,009 + 1.4 +27.0 20,161 21,474 + 6.5 +33.9 Meat Packing ---------5,653 5,580 1.3 +25.9 141,114 135,155 4.2 +48.6 Textiles Cotton Textile Mills ------6,913 7,127 + 3.1 + 7.2 123,863 132,909 + 7.3 +37.6 Men's Work lothing -----4,024 4,166 + 3.5 +23.1 54,479 58,304 + 7.0 +60.6 F nrest Products Furniture -----------2,280 2,218 2.7 + 16.8 39,768 38,721 2.6 +30.4 - Planing 1 ills ---------2,125 2,150 + 1.2 8.2 48,919 53,096 + 8.5 + 3.8 aw Mills --------17,501 17,288 1.2 + 6.7 219,966 235,487 + 7.1 + 15.3 Paper Boxes -------673 664 1.3 + 12.9 13,395 13,423 + 0.2 +41.7 Printing and Publishing Commercial Printing 2,370 2,339 1.3 + 2.6 53,704 52,170 2.9 + 3.0 Newspaper Publi hing -----4,820 4,888 + 1.4 + 0.8 117,726 118,764 + 0.9 2.0 Chemical Products Cott.on Oil Mills ------3,857 3,432 -11.0 + 0.1 39,427 36,420 7.7 +22.2 Petroleum Refining -------21,980 22,194 + 1.0 + 10.9 844,307 906,751 + 7.4 +41.4 tone and Clay Products Brick and Tile 2,002 1,972 1.5 -5.3 26,279 25,165 ­ 4.3 1.8 ement ---1,241 1,313 + 5.9 +42.3 39,205 42,813 + 9.2 +62.l Iron and teel Products trurtural and Ornamental Iron__ 2,567 2,536 1.2 + 5.7 57,102 57,178 + 0.1 +18.8 NON MANUFACTURING Crude Petroleum Production _ 30,983 30,925 (<) (() 0.2 + 5.4 1,131,610 1,142,861 + 1.0 +18.6 Quarrying Employment Pay Rolla Employment Pay Rollo Pcrc1•n1a ge Chanie Perccntaee Chanite Percentage Change Percentage Change Jan.• 1942 Feb., 1941 Jan.• 1942 Feb., 1941 Jan.• 1942 Feb., 1941 Jan., 1942 Feb., 1941to to to to to to Feb .. 1942 Feb.• 1942 Feb.• 1942 Feb.. 1942 to to Feb., 1942 Feb.. 1942 Feb., 1942 Feb.• 1!»2 Abilene -------+ 20.l + 9.7 +16.9 +23.9 Galveston ------------+23.2 +26.3 +SO.I +52.3 Amarillo -------0.7 + 0.7 + 1.4 +22.3 Houston -0.6 + 20.7 + 0.4 -----------+31.6 Au tin + 1.8 + 14.9 + 3.5 +12.8 ------Port Arthur ----------1.0 0.2 + 7.1 +35.8 Beaumont + 6.1 +109.7 + 10.4 +198.2 --·-San Antonio + 2.4 + 9.5 _(OJ + 2.8 + 24.1 Dalla + 8.4 + 2.7 ----------+24.5 Sherman ------------+ 1.6 ­ 1.2 + 7.2 +20.9 El Paso 2.5 7.4 ------+ + 1.0 +18.6 Waco + 4.8 + 8.3 + 4.1 + 14.2 Fort Worth + 1.4 + 21.5 + 0.5 +43.6 Wichita·-·y;jj~-=--= 2.1 + 21.3 + 3.5 +50.4 State --------------+ 0.9 +20.2 + 4.0 +47.3 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN NONAGRICULTURAL BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENTSm 1940(1) 1941W 1942 1940(1) 19H<1> 1!»2 January-------­944,000 1,052,000 1,115,000(2) July -------------------983,000 1,101,000 February --------­943,000 1,092,000 August ------------988,000 1,113,000 March --------­965,000 1,086,000 September ________l ,009,000 1,134,000April -----963,000 1,097,000 October --------------1,022,000 1,141,000 May -----------­983,000 1,077,000 ovember ______________l ,048,000 1,161,000 June --------982,000 1,084,000 December -------------1,084,000 1,177,000 •Ooea not include propdctora, firm memben, officers of corporations, or other princi1>al executlve1. Factory employment excludes also office, Nlea, technical and pofc aional personncJ. U>R e v1scd. (U ubj~ct to revision. CS>No change. CO ot availa ble. Ui> Based on unweighted figures. <&>Le than 1/ 10 of one per cent. (7) 'ot including tcH-cmploycd persons, casual workcn, or domestic 1crvant1, and es:cluaive of military and maritime personnel. Theae 6guree ar f h • by 1he Bureau uf Labor !:i1atuHic1, U.S. Department of Labor. e urn•1 • Preparrd from rr,,ort from repre-t1entativt-Tt'xaa e1ubli1hmen11 to the Bureau of BusinM1 Re11careb coOpcratine with the Burc•u of Labor Statlatice Due to the national emere:cncy, publication of data for certain indu1trie1 it beioc withheld until funber notice. • TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW BUILDING PERMITS POSTAL RECEIPTS Feb., 1942 Feb., 1941 Jan ., 1942 Feb., 1942 Feb., 1941 Jnn., 1942 Abilene -------­ 101,744 55,753 98,375 Abilene ------------------­ 29,379 19,138 30,263 Austin -------­Beaumont _____ 288,301 318,527 769,188 88,453 249,221 167,642 Amarillo ------------­Austin -------------------­ 31,401 75,168 29,672 68,476 34,478 78,871 Big pring ---­Brownwood -----­ 3,850 39,125• 7,245 t 9,235 15,895. Beaumont ------------­Big Spring ______ 28,841 5,930 26,441 5,885 32,360 7,523 oleman -------­ 14,150 7,200 82,900 Brownwood -----­ 20,396 14,877 16,323 orpus Cbri ti ----­ 1,189,417 1,455,958 36,164 Childress ---------------­ 2,479 2,223 3,392 orsicana -----­ 8,000 8,475 4,250 Coleman -------------­ 2,957 2,685 2,997 Dalla -------­ 904,952 971,557 2,433,784 Corpus ChTisti -----­ 40,687 28,675 43,564 Del Rio -----­ 3,195 1,702 8,090 Cor5icana -------------­ 5,984 5,840 6,936 Denton ------­ 15,005 11,750 4,900 Dallas --------­ 373,988 384,636 400,610 El Paso -----­ 76,032 285,782 122,627 Del Rio -------------------­ 2,881 6,838 3,837 Fort Worth -----­ 447,720 350,659 493,207 Deniso n -------------------­ 6,505 5,897 7,111 Galve ton ---------Gladewater ____ 153,336 610 96,795 3,800 189,287 2,500 Denton ---------------------­El Paso ----------------­ 8,215 60,807 7,969 54,461 9,506 65,164 Graham -------­ 250 1,924 240 Fort Worth ---­---------­ 157,086 152,728 156,483 Harlingen -----­ 15,200 27,100 3,875 Galveston ------------·--·­ 33,992 31,395 35,934 Hou ton ------­Jack onville _____ 1,400,890 6,200 1,116,640 10,400 1,480,535 300 Gladewater ---­-------­Graham ----------------­ 2,803 2,244 2,532 2,108 3,616 2,627 Kentdy --------­Longview Lubbock ______ 390 5,023 563,894 2,850 11,800 380,263 650 8,350 184,684 Harlingen ----------­Houston ----------­Jacksonville ______ 6,884 263,189 3,012 6,456 256,874 3,061 5,705 288,264 3,663 MAilen ----­ 31,522 25,016 15,955 Kenedy --------------­ 1,264 1,178 1,687 Mar hall ----­Midland -----­ew Braunfels _____ 56,887 54,600 7,359. 28,548 50,715 t 22,861 78,290 8,950• Kilgore -------------­L -ongv1ew ----------------­Lubbock ------------------­ 5,701 9,289 21,544 5,559 8,644 19,463 7,162 11,730 25,161 Pampa -----­Paris ------------­ 8,300 24,590 16,500 16,050 113,200 29,968 Lufkin -----­------------­McAllen ----------------­­ 4,840 5,097 4,474 4,963 6,071 6,497 Plainview --------­ 3,475 4,000 Marshall -----------------­ 6,072 5,641 7,557 Port Arthur an Angelo ----­____ 69,118 110,332 106,428 56,057 64,555 55,097 Pampa -------------­P . ans -------------­ 6,212 6,679 6,089 6,552 7,896 6,669 an Benito -----­ 325• t t Plainview ------------­ 3,566 4,032 4,946 herman ------­ 34,065 28,761 21,057 Port Arthur - -----­ 15,654 12,829 16,878 weetwater -----­ 10,285 18,140 15,085 San Angelo ------­ 13,187 12,150 15,536 Temple -----­Tyler ------­Waco ----------Wi hita Falls ____ TOTAL ------­ 61,150• 57,107 219,858 55,339 6,248,689 t 43,528 151,566 81,120 6,291,188 t 35,910 77,463 24,757 6,139,014 Sherman -------­Sweetwater ------­Temple --------­Tyler ----------­Waco --------------­Wichita Falls______ 7,843 4,460 6,557 15,363 32,143 42,623 7,311 4,387 6,796 14,414 31,609 22,229 9,359 6,657 7,379 17,410 36,732 48,944 • ot included in total. TOTAL -----­----­ 1,372,922 1,297,187 1,483,498 fNoc ava ilable. Non: CompiledBureau of Bu1ioeu from reportaReaearch. from Texaa chambcn of commerce to the Non: Compiled from reporh from Texas chamben of commerce to the BurMu. of Bueine11 Rctearch. LUMBER PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRIC POWER (In Board Feet) Feb., 1942 Feb., 1942Feb., 1942 Feb., 1941 Jan., 1942 from from Southern Pine Mills: Feb., 1941 Jan., 1942 Average Weekly Production Commercial -------------------­-5.1 5.7 per unit 315,757 319,633 304,951 Industrial ------------­+33.3 5.2 Average Weekly Shipments Residential -------------­+ 6.8 9.7 per unit 359,879 336,450 349,842 All Others ----------+42.5 3.1 Average Unfilled Orders per TOTAL ___ +20.3 5.8 unit, end of mont 1,828,114 1,031,150 ' 1,625,979 Prepared from reportt from 10 •lectric power companiee te the BurMu of DaaJ. Non: From Soutberu Pin• A.ociati011. ne• R•e.rcb. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW FEBRUARY RETAIL SALES OF INDEPENDENT STORES IN TEXAS Percentage Changes in Dollar Sales No. of Feb., 1942 Feb., 1942 Ye•r 1942 Firms from from from Reporting Feb., 19U Jan., 1942 Year 1941 1,195 + 4 -13 + 5 TEXAS STORES GROUPED BY LINE OF GOODS CARRIED: APPAREL _ 135 +10 -22 +19 Family Clothing Stores --------------­ 33 + 15 -21 +24 Men's and Boys' Clothing Stores -------------­ 43 + 3 -36 +16 17 + 15 -6 +26 hoe tores ----------·------------------·----­Women's Specialty Shops ------------------· 42 + 12 -15 + 20 85 -71 -32 -64 AUTOMOTIVE• Motor Vehicle Dealers 81 -73 -34 -66 COUNTRY GENERAL -----------­ 108 +20 -5 +20 DEPARTMENT STORES 62 + 10 -19 +18 DRUG STORES -------------------------­ 153 + 12 -4 + 9 DRY GOODS AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE___ 27 + 17 -12 +28 FILLING STATIONS --------------------­ 57 +14 -11 +17 FLORI TS 28 -18 4 13 - FOOD• 173 +32 6 +30 Grocery Stores 52 + 19 8 + 21 Grocery and Meat Stores ---------------------------111 + 35 5 + 34 FURNITURE AND HOUSEHOLD• ----------69 + 9 + 3 + 6 Furniture Stores _ ------------------60 + 13 + 2 + 8 _ (l} JEWELRY ----------­35 + 12 +20 LUMBER, BUILDING, AND HARDWARE• -------·---215 +22 + 4 +13 Farm Implement Dealers ------------------____ 12 +40 8 +32 Hardware Stores -------------71 +35 1 +27 Lumber and Building Material Dealers.___ 129 + 15 + 8 + 4 RESTAURANTS 31 + 14 8 + 12 ALL OTHER STORES -----------------· 17 +23 -12 +25 TEXAS STORES GROUPED ACCORDING TO POPU­LATION OF CITY: All Stores in Cities of­Over 100,000 Population 180 -1 -21 + 2 50,000--100,000 Population 136 + 1 -10 -32,500-50,000 Population 597 -2 -13 -6 Less than 2,500 Population --------------------282 +15 -7 + 11 •Croup total includc1 kinda of buaineH other than tho claui6cation1 li1ted. Change o( lees than .5%. Number capitalized at 100,000 or •The total number of firms reporting does not check exactly with 1he totals or more --···-·--· 1 1 3 of the citie because some motor vehicle dealers whose "ales varied radicaJly from the sales of other store in their respective cities were omitted when Foreign Corporations working the percentage changes for those cities. This was done only when the ( umber) -----·--···---·-·------14 9 15 tales of motor vehicle dealer were an unusually large proportion of the total ulcs of a city. Non: Prepared from report1 of independent retail stores to the Bureau of *In tbousand1. Bu1io,. 1 Re1carch, coiiperating with the U.S. Bureau of the Ceosua. NOTE: Compiled from record1 of the Secretary of State. FEB RUARY CREDIT RATIOS IN TEXA DEPARTMENT AND APPAREL STORES (Expressed in Per Cent) Number Ratio ef Ratio of Ratio of of Credit Salee Collectioo1 to Credit Sala riee Ston~• to Not Salct Out1tandini1 to Credit Sttlet Rcportin1 1942 1941 1942 1941 1942 19<11 All tore 63 63.4 66.1 41.3 39.6 1.2 1.2 tore Group d lily Citic : Abilene------------------------------------------------------------------­ 3 55.0 49.7 34.6 36.7 2.3 1.8 Austin -------------------­ 6 56.3 59.2 45.8 45.7 1.6 1.4 Beaumont ----------------------------------------------------­ 3 68.1 70.2 41.2 37.6 0.9 1.2 Dall a --------------------------------------------------------------­ 10 69.9 72.8 43.8 41.8 0.8 0.8 El Pa 0-------­------------------------------------------------· 3 53.9 57.1 40.3 37.0 1.7 1.1 Fort Wort h -------------­--------------­-----· 6 62.9 64.3 39.3 35.7 1.4 1.5 Houslon -------------------------------­ 8 63.3 65.0 40.5 40.8 2.1 1.8 an Antonio ---------------------­-------­ 4 45.0 50.0 40.4 44.5 1.9 1.1 Wa<:o ------------------------------------­ 5 63.2 64.4 32.4 30.2 1.6 1.6 All Others -----­ 15 54.1 58.9 38.6 36.5 1.8 2.3 Stor s Grouped Accordin g to Type of Store : Departmen t tore (A nn ual Volu me Ove r 5500,000) ___________ 19 63.3 65.7 42.4 41.0 1.2 1.2 Department Stores (Annual Volume under $500,000 ) ------­ 10 53.1 56.5 23.7 34.8 2.0 2.3 Dry-Good -Apparel tores -----------­ 4 59.2 61.2 39.7 38.0 2.4 2.1 Women's pecialty hops -------------­i\ len's lothing tores -------­ 17 13 64.2 66.7 66.0 70.0 39.0 41.1 38.6 37.8 0.7 1.8 0.8 1.6 Stores Grouped According to Volume of et Sales During 1941: Over 2,500,000 -------------­. 2,500,000 down to 1,000,000 Sl ,000,000 down to 500,000 ---------­SS00,000 down to $100,000.______________ Less tha n , 100,000________________ 11 11 8 29 4 65.1 59.2 56.6 53.0 52.6 67.4 60.8 59.6 55.5 55.3 42.2 41.7 40.4 37.1 39.8 41.2 40.1 39.4 37.6 29.6 1.3 1.6 1.7 2.0 3.9 1.2 1.3 1.5 2.0 5.1 Non;: The ratios shown for each year in the order in which they appear from le ft to right aro obtained by the following computations: (1) Credit Salee divided by ct alc1. (2) Collections during the month divided by the total accounts unpaid on the first of the month. (3) Salaries of the Credit department divided by Credit nl 1. The Data nro reported to the Bureau of Business Research by Texas rctnil stores. FEBRUARY SHIPME TS OF LIVE STOCK CO VERTED TO A RAIL-CAR BASIS• Cottle Calvea Hoe• Sheep Total 1942 1941 1942 1941 1942 1941 1942 1941 1942 1941 Total Inter tale Plus Fort Worth fi_ _____ 2,505 2,117 568 690 876 782 365 219 4,314 3,808 Total Intra tale Omitting Fort Worth ____ 371 203 71 130 5 18 14 1 461 352 TOTAL HlPME 2,876 TS ------------2,320 639 820 881 800 379 220 4,775 4,160 TEXA CAR-LOT* HlPMENT OF LIVE TOCK, JANUARY I-MARCH 1 Cattl e Calv ea 1912 1911 1912 1941 Hoe• Sheep T otal 1942 1941 1942 1941 1942 1911 Total Inter tale Plu Fort Worth 6,058 4,728 1,505 ----- 1,621 1,813 1,783 773 582 10,149 8,714 Total Intra late Omitting Fort Worth ----750 413 218 282 27 35 37 14 1,032 744 TOT L HIPME T 6,808 -----------5,141 1,723 1,903 1,840 1,818 810 596 11,181 9,458 •nail-car Bui1: Cattle, 30 head per car; calve , 60; hoes. SO: and theep, 250. Fort W rtb 1hipments are combined with intentato forwardingt in order that the bulk of market diuppcarancc for the month may be ihown. OTK: The:ae data are furnithed the A'!ricul!ural Marketinc en•ice, U.S.D.A. by railway official1 through more than 1,500 atation ai;enti, representini eyen live 1tock 1bippin1 point in the Sttte. Tho data are compiJcd by the Bureau of Bu1ioe11 Research. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW BANKING STATISTICS (In Millions of Dollars) Dal!TS to individual accoun..,._____________ Condition of reporting member banks on- Auns: Loan! and investments-tot~----------­Loans-total Commercial, indu!trial, and agricultural loam ----­Open market paper Loans to brokers and dealers in securities -------­Other loans for purchasing or carrying securities, ____ Real estate loan! --------------­ Loans to hanks ----------------­ Other loans Treasury Bill! -·---------------­ Treasury Notes ----------------­ U.S. Bonds ~:-----------------­ Obligations fully guaranteed by U.S. Gov't -----­Other securities:---:---------------­Reserve with Federal Reserve Bank Ca!h in vault ___ Balancea with domestic banks ----------­ Other ueets-net --------------­ LIABil.ITIES: Demand deposits-adjusted ----------­Time deposits ---------------­ U.S. Government deposits -----------­Inter-bank deposits: Domestic banks -------------­Foreign banks --------------­ Borrowings Other liabilities ---------------­Capital account ---------------­ •Five week1. Non: From Federal Reae.rve Board. ANNOUNCEMENT TEXAS STATISTICAL COUNCIL "Texas' Part in the War Effort" is the subject of the spring meeting of the Texas Statistical Council to be held in Austin, Friday, May first, on the University campus. Mr. L. J. Logan, associate editor of the Oil Weekly and president of the Council, and the program committee have arranged a program dealing with the problems of the all-out war effort as relates to both agriculture and industry. Speakers scheduled to appear on the program include: Mr. I. H. Lloyd, Agricultural Adjustment Administra· tion, College Station; Mr. B. F. Vance, State Adminis· trator, Agricultural Adjustment Administration; Mr. C. J. Crampton of the War Production Board, Houston; Mr. Jam~s H. Bon~, State Director, United States Employment Service, Austm; Mr. Frank Scofield, Internal Revenue Department, Austin; Mr. W. L. Pier, Fort Worth National Bank, Fort Worth ; Mr. Hulon W. Black Director The University of Texas Development Board ;'Mr. Hen;y W. fiahn, Southern Alkali Company, Corpus Christi; Mr. L. January, 1942 February, 1942 February, 19U Dallu United Dallu United Dallu United Stateo Di1trict StateoDistrict Statea Di1trict $ 1,156 $41,331 s 945 $35,612 $ 1,217 $42,919 I an. 28, 1942 Feb. 25, 1942 Feb. 26, 1941 30,342 697 30,943 589 26,450 681 360 11,255 360 11,392 320 9,495 253 6,902 221 5,227 254 6,778 2 422 1 319 2 424 4 471 4 478 4 448 14 410 12 455 13 409 22 1,250 23 1,232 22 1,248 37 1 36 37 65 1,900 58 1,748 65 1,911 35 1,206 30 727 35 1,240 42 2,337 40 2,555 41 2,362 158 9,589 100 7,052 145 9,087 39 2,723 38 2,766 39 2,709 63 3,696 61 3,855 61 3,689 188 10,001 153 12,003 185 10,452 15 547 14 530 16 552 302 3,267 300 3,473 298 3,329 32 1,214 31 1,255 31 1,196 635 24,712 544 23,431 624 24,747 129 5,188 138 5,454 131 5,241 44 1,688 22 356 35 1,469 327 9,033 289 9,253 323 9,088 1 653 1 626 1 ' 640 1 1 5 768 4 755 5 765 93 3,929 89 3,836 92 3,920 W. Worth, Houston Paper Stocks Company, Houston; Mr. Elmer H. Johnson, Bureau of Business Research, The University of Texas; and Mr. Morgan H. Rice, Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, Dallas. COMMODITY PRICES Feb., 1942 Feb., 1941 Jan., 1942 Wholesale Prices: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1926=100%) 96.7 80.6 96.0 Farm Prices: U.S. Dep't of Agriculture (191{}­1914=100%) --------145.0" 103.0 149.0 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1926=100%) -------101.3 70.3 100.8 Retail Prices: Food (U.S. Bureau of Labor Sta­tistics, 1935-1939=100%) __ 116.8 97.9 116.2 Department Stores (Fairchild's Publications, Jan. 1931=100%) 111.9 94.5 110.2 •Preliminary. NOW AVAILABLE DIRECTORY OF TEXAS WHOLESALE FIRMS Companion Volume To Directory of Texas Manufacturers The explanatory statement at the beginning of this volume reads as follows: ."As in the case of the Directory of Texas Manufacturers, the Directory oz Texas ~ho~esal~ Firms is ~ivided into two distinct parts. ~ection I, which 1s prmted on white paper, lists the firms al~~abetlcally under the cities in which they are located, which (c~tles) have been arranged alphabetically. Section II, which is prmte~ on yellow paper, lists these same firms alphabetically according to products distributed. "Section I gives the following information: name of firm, ad· dress of firm, date of establishment, extent of distribution of products, name and title of principal officer or officers location of home office (if located in a city other than that under which the est~b~ishment is listed), and cross reference code numbers for determmmg pro~ucts handled by the finn as listed in Section II. I~ the c?ncern. 1s a manufacturer's agent or broker, this is in· d1cated 1mmed1ately following the name of the firm by (M.A.) or (B) • The extent of distribution of the products is indicated by numbers from 1 to 6, as follows: 1-local 2-county-wide ~istrict (several counties) 4-state-wide ~national 6--international "Whenever any of the foregoing items were omitted it was because the information was not furnished. Where data were omitted between the date of establishment, or the extent of distribution figures, and the product code numbers, a semicolon has been used to separate the numbers and indicate the omission. "Section II lists all firms which appear in Section I according to products distributed. Each product classification has a code number. For example, 3156 RUGS (See Floor Coverings) "Indexes have been arranged for each section. The index for Section I gives the name of the city, the county, and the page on which the city appears. The index for Section II gives the product code number, the name of the classification which the code num· ber represents, and the page number on which the names of firms distributing that product appear. "The code numbers are arranged in numerical order and the product classifications are arranged in alphabetical order. Firm names are li&ted alphabetically under each of these classifications." The price of each volume is two dollars when pur· chased separately; but the two publications together may he had for three dollars. Those who have already purchased the Directory of Texas Manufacturers may secure a copy of the Directory of Texas Wholesale Firms for one dollar. TABLE OF CONTENTS P.lGIC Buineu Rmew "1Ul Pro1pecl, F. A. BuecheL..-------··--------------------------------·-·--S The World Demands A Sound Cotton Policy, A. B. Cox..----------------------·--------------------··-------------------------------------------5 LIST OF CHARTS Distribution of Average Family Dollar Among Five Principal Budget Items in Texas Cities.. 1 Indexes ef Bu.in-AetiTity ia T•n• ------------2 LIST OF TABLE.5 11 Banking 5tatiltiea ----------------------·---­7 Building Permita --------------------------­ Carload MoTement of Poultry ud Egp --------------------4 Unnent ____ ----------------------------------­9 9 Commercial Failun:1 ---------------------------------------------------------9 OiarteJ"I ____ ---------------· -----------------------------------­ Commodity Prices 11 Cotton Balance Sheet 5 Credit Rati09 in Tesu Department and Apparel Storea'---------·-------------------------·-·-·--­10 Imployment and Payrolla in Te:xu -----------------------·-----------------------­ 6 Lumber -------·--­ 7 Psrcentage Changee in Co11.1umption of Electric Pewer -----------------------------­ 7 Petroleum ---------·----------­8 PMtal Receipta 7 I.et.ail Sal• of Independent Store. ia Tau ---------~-------------------­ 8,9 Shipmenta ol I.inltock -------------------­10