Texas Business Review TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW VOL. XLVIII, NO. 7, JULY 1974 Editor, Robert H. Ryan Managing Editor, Kathleen Luft Editorial Board: Robert H. Ryan, Chairman; Stanley A. Arbingast; John R. Stockton; Francis B. May; Robert B. Williamson; Kathleen Luft. CONTENTS ARTICLES 153: The Business Situation in Texas, by Robert H. Ryan 157: The Effect of Crude-Oil Production on the Economy of Texas, by Herbert W. Grubb and William G. Lesso 164: Texas Construction: Housing for the Elderly in Texas, Part II. Retirement Lifestyles, by Dianne Priddy TABLES 154: Texas Population, Employment, Personal Income, and Earnings by Industry, Selected Years, 1950-1990 155: Annual Cost of Budget for a Four-Person Family at Intermediate Scale of Living, Austin, Dallas, Hous­ton, and Urban U.S., Fall 1973 156: Selected Barometers of Texas Business 158: Transactions, Texas, 1967 159: Direct Requirements, Texas, 1967 159: Direct, Indirect, and Induced Requirements, Texas, 1967 161: Estimated Final Demands, Gross Outputs, and Gross State Product in 1967, with Projections of Final Demands and Potential Gross Outputs and Gross State Product to 1980 if Crude Petroleum Supplies Are Available in Adequate Quantities 165: Estimated Values of Building Authorized in Texas 166: Estimates of Nonagricultural Employment in Texas 16 7: Local Business Conditions Barometers of Texas Business (inside back cover) CHARTS 153: Texas Business Activity 156: Comparison of Consumer Prices and Wholesale Prices, United States 166: Nonresidential Building Authorized, Texas 166: Total Building Authorized, Texas FIGURES I 5 5: Where the Growth Is 162: Effect of Crude-Oil Production on Gross State Product and Final Demand 162: Effect of Crude-Oil Production on Output from Various Sectors of the Economy BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH Business Research Council: Vernon M. Briggs, Darwin D. Klingman, George Kozmetsky, Albert Shapero, T. H. Williams Director: Stanley A. Arbingast Assistant Director: Florence Escott Statistician: John R. Stockton Consulting Statistician: Francis B. May Cooperating Faculty : C. P. Blair, Charles T. Clark, Law­rence L. Crum, Clark C. Gill, Robert K. Holz, David L. Huff, Terry D. Kahn, Lorrin G. Kennamer, R. C. Means, Russell M. Moore, Charles H. Smith, H. K. Snell, Jerry Todd, Robert B. Williamson, Robert E. Witt Systems Analyst: 0. Frederic Rye Administrative Assistant: Patricia Cloud Energy Specialist and Radio Coordinator: Robert M. Lock­ wood Transportation Specialist: Charles P. Zlatkovich Coordinator of Special Projects and Television: Robert H. Ryan Research Associates: Bryan Adair, Robert Barnstone, Kath­ryn Burger, Lynn Curtis, Michael Dildine, Roy C. Easton, Christine Fox, Paul W. Green, Edward N. Kasparik, Ida M. Lambeth, Kathleen Luft, Christine McCullough, Lorna Monti, Dianne Priddy Computer Programmer: Marilyn Turnbull Statistical Associate: Mildred Anderson Statistical Assistant: Constance Cooledge Statistical Technician: Kay Davis Cartographers: James Buchanan, William Hezlep Librarian: Merle Danz Administrative Secretary: Jewell Patton Administrative Clerk: Yolanda Mindieta Senior Secretaries: Jennifer Brewster, Sandy Kessler, Clintsy Sturgill Senior Clerk Typists: Nancy Davis, Geraldine Edwards, Marguerite Philpott Senior Clerks: Robert Jenkins, Salvador B. Macias Clerks: Marquita Pyburn, Rodolfo Rodriguez Printing Coordinator: Daniel P. Rosas Print Shop Foreman: Robert L. Dorsett COVER DESIGN BY GILBERT CONWOOP Published monthly by the Bureau of Business Research, Graduate Reprints of feature articles are available from the Bureau at ten School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas cents each. 7871 2. Second-class postage paid at Austin, Texas. Content of this The Bureau of Business Research is a member of the Auoclation publication is not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely, but for University Business and Economic Research. acknowledgment of source will be appreciated. The views expressed by authors are not necessarily those of the Bureau of Business Research. Subscription, $4.00 a year; individual copies 35 cents. US ISSN 0040-4209 THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS Robert H. Ryan Business activity continued in May at record levels for Texas as a whole, principally because of the strong growth movements in Dallas and Houston. Elsewhere in the state the economy tended to be somewhat less dynamic, but economic conditions are generally better than they were in 1973 in every major city except Port Arthur, Texarkana, and perhaps San Antonio. Over the past seven years Dallas and Houston have set the most impressive economic growth records among all Texas cities except Austin, which is not really comparable because of its smaller size. The business-activity indexes computed by the Bureau of Business Research reflect actual economic growth more accurately than many business indicators, for they are adjusted to remove the effect of inflation and therefore register real volumes of business and not just dollar volumes. However, there is some belief that the indexes are somewhat inflated at present because they are based on bank debits, and the rate of demand-deposit turnover has been accelerated as depositors have moved funds from one type of investment to another in search of higher interest rates. Texas industrial production continued upward in May, supported by gains in every category except public utilities. Additionally, building activity gained in May, as measured by the seasonally adjusted index of urban building permits authorized. However, the gain was due entirely to a strong upsurge in planned nonresidential structures. Homebuilding authorizations, on the other hand, dropped precipitously from April to May to reach the lowest level since last December. In only two months since mid-1970 has the index of housing units authorized dipped lower than the May value. The cost of new homes has risen so much that the total value of new homebuilding greatly overstates the actual number of units being provided. The index of building permits issued for alterations, additions, and repairs has continued to rise as owners have elected increasingly often to improve existing structures rather than enter the exorbitantly inflated new-building market. Texas unemployment increased between April and May from 3.6 percent of the labor force to 3.9 percent, but the change was due to the entry into the labor force of more than 50,000 persons during the month. Doubtless a large share of these were students-either recent graduates or those seeking temporary summer employment. Some of the new job-seekers were successful in finding work, for the total number of persons employed in Texas did increase from April to May ; further, the average workweek in manufacturing plants was up in May. These are some of the noteworthy developments in major Texas cities during recent months: Houston business activity, which has risen consistently for several years, reached a new high point in May. Demand for additional workers in the Houston labor market area has been overtaking expansion in the work force, and unem­ployment is substantially lower than it was last year-down from 4.5 percent in May 1973 to 3.8 percent this May. The Houston building industry is currently being sup­ported largely by nonresidential projects. During May more than $40 million of construction at the Memorial Hospital complex was authorized, and several other large structures were begun. By contrast, very few housing units-no apartments at all-were authorized in May. Dallas has increased its volume of business more substan­tially than any other Texas city during the past year. With nearly 76 percent as many nonfarm workers in the Dallas labor market as in the Houston labor market, Dallas has barely more than half as many unemployed. The Dallas civilian labor force has grown by 30,000 persons since May 1973. With the resultant increase in demand for new housing, Dallas homebuilding has held up rather well. During May 2,396 new housing units were authorized in the permit-issuing cities of Dallas County alone, while only 333 units were authorized in the cities of the six-county Houston SMSA. The number of units authorized in Dallas County in the first five months this year was up 13 percent from the comparable 1973 period, while the Houston SMSA registered a decline of 4 7 percent in number of units. The remainder of the Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA has been less active in homebuilding than Dallas itself. Since the consolidation of the Dallas and Fort Worth SMSA's, the identity of Fort Worth has tended to be overshadowed by that of its larger twin metropolis. San Antonio has leveled off economically during the past year after several years of fairly constant expansion. Perhaps the major factor has been the failure of San Antonio employment opportunities to keep pace with the growth of the labor force. Manufacturing employment actually declined from May 1973 to May 1974, and urban wage and salary jobs remained about the same; yet nearly 6,000 persons entered the labor force from May to May. The result : an increase from 3.8 percent to 4.8 percent in the unemployment rate. Homebuilding activity has been more heavily depressed in San Antonio than in most Texas cities. The number of single-farnily houses authorized during the first five months this year was 3 7 percent below the January-May 1973 total. El Paso has maintained steady growth for the past decade, and 1974 is clearly taking shape as a record year, partly owing to a major surge in building. During the first five months about $90 million of new construction was authorized by the city, 22 percent more than during the comparable 1973 period. Residential building has declined, but nonresidential permits have increased enough (81 percent) to more than offset the lows. Nevertheless, TEXAS POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, PERSONAL INCOME, AND EARNINGS BY INDUSTRY SEL C D "'.ARS, 195().19' 0 1950 1969* 1971 1980 1990 1 Population, midyear 7,776,000 11,045,000 11,428,000 12,166,900 13,579, 700 I 2 Per capita income (1967$) 1,861 3,074 3,173 4,360 5,675 2 3 Per capita income relative (U.S.=100) 90 89 90 91 92 3 4 Total employment 2,860,272 4,347,895 5,179,500 5,811,600 4 5 Employment/population ratio .37 .39 .43 .43 5 In thousands of 1967 dollars 6 Total personal income 14,472, 766 33,953,255 36,265,621 53,046,800 77,062,500 6 7 Total earnings 11,958,857 27,394,705 28,663,401 41,776,900 60,077,500 7 8 Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries 1,727,750 1,351,702 1,262,03 5 1,436,200 1,525,500 8 9 Mining 805,253 928,261 925, 166 1,017,900 1,064, 100 9 10 Metal 2,994 2,600 4,000 4,700 10 11 Coal (L) 192 (S) (S) II 12 Crude petroleum and natural gas 878,944 877,738 959,300 997,800 12 13 Nonmetallic, except fuels 46,227 44,644 54,200 61,200 13 14 Contract construction 850,144 1,857,138 1,927,901 2,687,700 3, 776,800 14 IS Manufacturing 1,692,331 5,861,274 5,681,726 8,747,200 12,437,900 I 5 16 Food and kindred products 532,266 555,311 672,600 817,300 16 17 Textile mill products 36,585 32,800 43,100 51,400 17 18 Apparel and other fabric products 246,348 271,406 411,800 580,600 18 19 Lumber products and furniture 214,794 218,318 311,400 429,000 19 20 Paper and allied products 127,238 128,608 200,700 283,500 20 21 Printing and publishing 276,599 283,667 459,700 674,600 21 22 Chemicals and allied products 654,983 682,798 1,119,900 1,800,400 22 23 Petroleum refining 482,230 549,842 694,800 883,200 23 24 Primary metals 291,234 286,121 413,200 524,900 24 25 Fabricated metals and ordnance 485,336 483,386 837,400 1,222,500 25 26 Machinery, excluding electrical 586,502 560,324 921,000 1,352,900 26 27 Electrical machinery and supplies 461,516 399,049 745,900 1,157,800 27 28 Motor vehicles and equipment 118,347 105,041 138,600 183,000 28 29 Transportation eq uipment, excluding motor vehicles 889,932 62 5,814 891,400 1,075,200 29 30 Other manufacturing 457,367 499,246 885,000 1,400,900 30 31 Transportation, communication, and public utilities 1,052,967 1,959,754 2,151,555 3,047,100 4,303,200 31 32 Wholesale and retail trade 2,429,018 5,001,026 5,393,114 7,476,700 10,254,300 32 33 Finance, insurance, and real estate 481,076 1,431,289 1,557,417 2,534,900 3,949,800 33 34 Services 1,284,868 3,905, 139 4,204,783 7,213,200 11,565,500 34 35 Government 1,635,434 5,099, 145 5,559,713 7,61 5,500 11,199,900 35 36 Federal civilian government 412,306 1,265,670 1,382,127 1,936,900 2,800, I 00 36 37 State and local government 629,915 2,413,890 2,777,405 4,206,500 6,526,400 37 38 Federal military 593,221 1,419,592 1,400,181 1,472,000 1,873,400 38 (S) Too small to project. (L) Less than $I 00,000. * Employment and employment/population ratio are for 1970. Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW WHERE THE GROWTH IS Increase in Business Activity Indexes for 20 Texas Cities, 1967 Average to May 1974 1967 All Cities = 100 January-May 1974 Austin 253 (+17%) Dallas 228 (+25%) Houston 202 (+12%) Corpus Christi 200 (+25%) Lubbock 199 (+26%) Laredo 191 (+15%) San Angelo 183 (+12%) El Paso 173 (+10%) Amarillo 172 (+8%) Fort Worth 164 ( +4 %) San Antonio 157 (-3%) Waco 156 (-2%) Wichita Falls 151 (+22%) Abilene 150 (+15%) Corsicana 135 (-3%) Tyler 133 (-6%) Beaumont 127 (+22%) Galveston 119 (-3%) Texarkana 104 (-10%) Port Arthur 95 (-9%) (Parenthetic figures show January-May 1973 to January-May 1974 changes) Source: Bureau of Business Research Business Activity Indexes for Twenty Selected Texas Cities, adjusted for seasonal variation, 1967=100. employment growth has not kept pace with the expansion of the labor force, and unemployment has risen from 5-3 percent in May 1973 to 6.3 percent in May 1974. Austin has become the scene of large-scale private industrial development only in recent years. For that reason it has shown a steeper growth rate than any other Texas city. In the past two years, however, Austin's expansion has been increasingly irregular. With growing dependence on manufacturing and other private-sector activities, the city may lose some of the remarkable economic stability that was due in the past to its nearly total dependence on government payrolls. The Austin unemployment rate is still very low (2_ 7 percent), largely because of continuing industrialization. Some 20 percent of the gain in employment from May 1973 to May 1974 has come through expansion of manufacturing payrolls, though manufacturing still ac­counts for only 9 percent of all wage and salary employ­ment. Corpus Christi has recorded perhaps the most dramatic business-activity expansion in Texas during the past year. Between December 1973 and February 1974 alone, the Corpus Christi business-activity index rose by 39 percent. Because the Corpus Christi economy is heavily petroleum­oriented, the city stands to gain substantially if a deep-draft JULY 1974 tanker port is built in its area to supply imported crude oil and products to local refineries and petrochemical plants. Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange business activity has shown signs of expansiveness after an eight-year period of virtually no growth. During the past year job opportunities have increased, and the area's unemployment rate has been brought down from 5.1 percent in May 1973 to only 3.6 percent in May 1974. Most of the business growth has taken place in Beaumont rather than Port Arthur, for the latter city is a victim of economic geography, hemmed in by industrial areas and incorporated residential suburbs. The Rising Cost of Living Texas is still a relatively economical place to live, but the cost of living is going up just as rapidly here as in most parts of the country_ That is the conclusion to be drawn from a new study by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statis tics, summa­rized in an accompanying table. The BLS study shows that Texans' living cost advantage is due in substantial part to the absence of a state income tax. If some future Texas legislature should impose as stiff a state personal income tax as some Americans pay, it might wipe out at one stroke much of the economic advantage of living in Texas. The living cost study points to Austin, Baton Rouge, Dallas, and Houston, in that order, as the least expensive among the metropolitan areas studied; however, only a limited number of the nation's metropolitan areas are included in the survey, and some lower-cost areas may very well exist. Further, the figures show that living costs are generally lower in nonmetropolitan cities-between 2,500 and 50,000 population-than in metropolitan areas. ANNUAL OST OF BUDGET FOR A FOUR-PERSON FAMILY AT INTERMEDIATE SCALE OF LIVING AUSTIN, ALLAS, HOUSTON, AND URBAN U.S., FALL 1973 Ave rage Austin Dallas Houston U.S. city Total budget $10,959 $11,408 $11,343 $12,626 Total consumption 8,703 9,059 9,012 9,761 Total food 2,899 2,884 3,049 3,183 Food at home 2,453 2,378 2,529 2,700 Food away from home 446 506 520 483 Total housing 2,183 2,442 2,304 2,908 Shelter costs 1,560 1,851 1,674 2,283 For renters 1,244 1,445 1,275 1,633 For homeowners 1,665 1,986 1,807 2, 500 Housefu rnishings and operations 623 591 630 625 Total transportation 999 1,01 8 1,010 1,014 Clothing 1,003 950 952 995 Personal care 272 282 280 275 Medical care 619 762 705 664 Other consumption* 728 721 712 722 Other items** 574 586 584 611 Social security and disability payments 632 632 632 647 Personal income taxes 1,050 1,131 1, 11 5 1,607 * Includes reading, recreation, education, tobacco, alcoholic bev­erages, and miscellaneous items. ** Includes gifts, contributions, life insurance, occupational ex­ penses. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 155 direct requirements table is used by computers to obtain final demands (FD) anticipated. Final demand estimates are additional information about the interdependencies among obtained for the population of Texas by estimating the producing sectors of the economy and the total inputs household consumption of finished goods and services, required to produce finished goods and services for con­government purchasing, exports to other states and foreign sumer markets.4 nations, and capital formation for the point in time for In the input-output analysis, the interest lies in solving which production plans are desired. 5 for the sectors' outputs required to meet a vector of final Final demand multipliers useful in analyzing the impacts demands (FD). The desired solution is obtained by solving of changes in final demands, changes in resources supplies, the system of equations for the X's in terms of the level of or perhaps other changes are obtained from the solution to Table 1 TRANSACTIONS, TEXAS, 1967 (Millions of dollars) Sales Processing sectors Agriculture, Whole· forestry, Construe- Manufac- Transpor- Communi­ sale fisheries Mining tion turing talion cation Utilities trade Purchases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Processing sectors I Agriculture, forestry, fisheries 589. 170 0 30.330 1380.498 0 0 0 1.308 2 Mining 0.126 593.648 78.020 2713.32 1 7.907 0 957.209 0.888 3 Cons!ruction 29.105 9.136 22.160 196.762 24.150 0.306 15.2 70 10.464 4 Manufacturing s 54.899 135.930 1359.270 372 8.626 224.219 24.792 65.623 116.724 s Transportation 57.289 38.057 132.660 800.563 74.309 2.934 8.842 30.883 6 Communications 7.815 8.971 20.475 85.640 52 .781 2.851 8.553 62.914 7 Utilities 38.742 26.832 11.268 496.394 42 .864 9.139 218.204 57.254 8 Wholesale trade 180.169 29.590 14.590 304.690 50.499 1.007 15.337 20.978 9 Retail trade 229.239 I 5.708 104.02 3 43.519 I 5.280 0.405 16.331 39.925 IO Finance, insurance, real estate 114.3~5 49.712 220.801 211.499 I 56.996 11.949 31.534 162.788 11 Education 68.005 128.193 28.249 134.751 38.036 31.128 113.697 37.482 12 Services 23.635 62.319 142 .129 429.305 80.316 29.326 46. s 13 120.433 Final payments 13 Households 11 84.114 1697.010 2318.880 4956.328 1067.076 327.981 419.234 22 11.370 14 Government 86.054 494.303 259.410 938.534 171.477 175. 160 292.711 305.284 IS Imports 246.227 619.893 1321.307 6427.722 171.367 106.576 73.214 261.337 16 Savings and depreciation 252.527 2137.176 173.677 3940.793 371.988 178.748 604.670 814.961 17 Total inputs 3661.471 6046.478 6237.249 26788.945 2549.265 902.302 2886.942 4254.993 Processing sectors Final demand Finance, Total Retail trade 9 insurance , real estate 10 Ed ucation 11 Services 12 House­holds 13 Govern­ment 14 Exports 15 Capital form ation 16 Inventory change 17 final demand 18 Total outputs 19 1s.711 0 0 0.789 202.591 471.214 1192.5 00 0 - 222.640 1643.665 3661.471 0.727 0.582 0 0.077 33.359 2.828 1656.323 0 1.463 1693.973 6046.478 6.772 54.874 9.248 28.398 148.631 46.085 0 5635.888 0 5830.604 6237.249 409. 125 57 .987 189.2 16 327.641 3328.584 2772.436 12222.819 1050.971 220.083 19594.893 26788.945 26.977 6. 554 12.587 5 5. 773 741.759 59.089 468.411 32.578 0 1301.837 2549.265 80.896 52.41 s 10.708 71.839 328.416 19.098 62.065 2 6.865 0 436.444 902.302 95.309 71.576 40.808 76.061 739.782 57.92 1 904.788 0 0 1702.491 2586.942 62.688 18.994 14.288 87.732 1970.002 43.455 834.409 606.565 0 34 54.431 42 54.993 110.691 22.217 0.672 47.802 5679.264 l 5.591 27.007 36.979 0 5758.841 6404.653 265.735 329.49 5 62.979 I 5 3.444 1826.905 90.112 719.852 0.139 0 2637.008 4408.295 57.923 106.966 0 46.610 979.8 10 173.310 0 0 0 1153.120 1944.160 247. 18 5 242.356 22.72 6 308.449 3 166. 350 272.550 431.711 5.200 1.010 3876.821 5631.513 2952.043 2029.495 1401.428 2958.240 1952.833 5266.9 68 0 0 0 7219.801 30743.000 343.300 22 8.445 15.922 252.736 4384.335 466.735 0 0 0 4851.070 8414.406 764.767 104.462 134.939 588.484 5195.545 2134.700 0 522.632 0 7852.877 18673.172 964.804 1081.877 28.639 627.438 64.834 0 0 0 0 64.834 11242.132 6404.6 53 4408.29 5 1944 . 160 5631.513 30743.000 11892.0 92 18519.885 7917.817 0.0 84 69072.710 140788.976 ...... c::: r >< 'Cl -..J .j:>. Table 2 DIRECT REQUIREMENTS, TEXAS; 1967 Agriculture, forestry, Construe- Manufac- Transpor- Communi- Whole­sale Retail Finance, insurance, House- fisheries Mining tio n turing tat ion catio n Utilities trade trad e real estate Educatio n Services holds Pu rchases I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 t 2 3 Agri culture, fores try , fisheri es Mining Construction 0.16091074 0.00003441 0.00794899 0 0.098 18079 0.00 I 51096 0.00486272 0.01250872 0.00355285 0.05153238 0.10128510 0.00734490 0 0.00310168 0.00947332 0 0 0.00033913 0 0.33156503 0.00528933 0.00030740 0.00020870 0.00245923 0.00245306 0.00011351 0.00105736 0 0.000 I 3202 0.01244790 0 0 0.0047568 1 0.00014010 0.00001367 0.00504269 0.00658983 0.00108 509 0.00483463 4 Manufacturing S Transport ation 6 Co mmunications 0.15155084 0.01564644 0.002 13439 0 .02248086 0.00629408 0.00148 367 0.21792781 0.02126899 0.00328270 0.13918525 0.02988408 0.00319684 0.0879 5437 0.02914919 0.02070440 0.02747639 0 .00325 168 0.00315970 0.02273097 0.003062 76 0.00296265 0.02 743224 0.0072 5806 0.01478592 0.06387934 0.00421209 0.0 1263082 0.01315407 0.00148674 0.01189008 0.097 32532 0.00647426 0.00550778 0 .0581 7992 0.00990373 0.01275661 0.10827 128 0.02412 774 0.0 I0682 63 7 Utilities 0.01058099 0.00443762 0.00180657 0.0 1852981 0.0 168 1426 0.01012854 0 .07558309 0.01345572 0.0148812 1 0.0162 3666 0.02099004 0.01350632 0.02406343 8 Wholesale trade 0.04920673 0.00489 376 0.002 339 17 0.01137372 0.01980924 0.0011 1603 0.00531254 0.00493021 0.00978788 0.00430870 0.007349 19 0.01557876 0.06407%9 9 Ret ail trad e 0.06260844 0.00259788 0.01667771 0.00 16245 1 0.00599388 0.00044885 0.00565685 0.00938309 0.01728290 0.00503982 0.00034565 0.00848831 0.18473357 10 II Finance, insurance, real estate Educatio n 0.03123198 0.01857314 0.00822165 0.02120127 0.03540038 0.00452908 0.0078950 I 0.005030 I 0 0.06158481 0.01492038 0.0 1324279 0.03449843 0.0 I 092298 0.03938320 0.038258 11 0 .00880895 0.04149093 0.00904389 0.07474432 0.02426471 0.03239394 0 0.02724738 0.00827664 0.05942 507 0.03 187 100 12 Services 0.00645 506 0.01030666 0.02278713 0.0 1602 545 0.03 1505 55 0.03250131 0.0 1611151 0.02830392 0.03859460 0 .05497726 0.0 11 68937 0.05477196 0. 102994 18 13 Ho use holds 0. 32339844 0.28066091 0.37 177929 0.1 8501 393 0.4 1858 183 0.36349360 0.14521733 0.5 197 11 78 0.46092161 0.46038094 0.72083985 0.5253.0110 0.06352122 14 Government 0.02350258 0.08175057 0.04 159045 0.0 3503438 0.06726527 0. 194 12 569 0.101 39 137 0.07 174724 0.053601 65 0.051 8 21 62 0.008 18966 0.04487888 0.142 6 1246 1 S Imports 16 Savings and de preciatio n 17 To tal o utputs 0.06724811 0.06896873 1.00000000 0.10252134 0.35345"800 1.00000000 0.21184131 0.027845 13 1.00000000 0.23993935 0.14710520 1.00000000 0.06722212 0. 1459 197 1 1.00000000 0.11 8 11 566 0. 198 10219 1.00000000 0.02536040 0.20945000 1.00000000 0.06 141 890 0.19 15305 1 1.00000000 0. 11 940803 0.15064 11 0 1.00000000 0.02 369669 0.24541847 1.00000000 0.069407 35 0.01473078 1.00000000 0. 10449838 0.1114 1553 1.00000000 0.16899928 0.002 10 890 1.00000000 Table 3 DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND INDUCED REQUIREMENTS, TEXAS, 1967 Agriculture, Whole- Finance. forestry , Co nstrue- Manufac- Transpo r- Communi­ sale Retail insurance , House - fisheries Mining tion tu ring tation ca tion Utilities trade trade real estate Education Services holds Pu rchases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I Agriculture, fo restry, fisheries 1.2253764 1 0.01381689 0.03913482 0.08463068 0.02569174 0.01647700 0 .01478750 0.02213544 0.02648238 0.02071452 0.03308053 0.02 5485 14 0.03183706 2 Mining 0.070165 32 1.1 37 101 34 0.07903034 0.16526314 0.05992353 0.03545022 0.42699929 0.04687679 0.05107547 0.04641 886 0.07087945 0.05369 148 0.0587922 7 3 Co nstructio n 0.02214800 0.00809733 1.01510726 0.0 16 14288 0.02 11 289 1 0.008 16496 0.01316231 0 .0 13 14784 0 .01179763 0.02 356364 0.0 1905686 0.01668937 0.01545409 4 Manufactu ring 0.40302254 0.13944897 0.41883304 1.2 9278563 0.2 82949 54 0.16573591 0.15496658 0.2 126662 7 0.24872962 0. 198099 17 0.350 17059 0 .26202499 0.2847 1096 S Transportation 0.06271180 0.02976966 0.06180456 0.06025327 1.06820127 0.03062685 0.02945890 0.04428404 0.04106694 0.0378543 1 0.0 5743343 0.05069589 0.05745233 6 Co mmunicatio ns 0.02582966 0.01406657 0.0228922 5 0.01743794 0.04207247 1.01 819875 0 .01674030 0.03550498 0.03292383 0.0329 42 60 0.03246 196 0.0352 1565 0.03145364 7 Utilities 0.06266197 0.03149213 0.04508049 0.051 3 11 08 0.06241122 0.04266059 1.1111 7052 0 .05748948 0.05843207 0.0606630 I 0.07989930 0.061 13856 0.06604236 8 Wholesale trade 0. 13785936 0.05149459 0.07286 388 0.06362144 0.0942 1524 0.05671079 0.05424959 1.08098207 . 0.083 114 51 0.0790223 8 0.1089 16 16 0.09699340 0. 12298 134 9 Retail trade 0.27 153692 0.12 155969 0.18963027 0. 124201 37 0.1 9374012 0. 14317030 0.1256 1426 0.20602259 1.20451 992 0.1 9730627 0.26225334 0 .2 168464 1 0.32424272 10 Finance, insurance, real estate 0. 14070990 0.06615776 0. 12 36 191 7 0.0722430 I 0. 1586532 1 0.082 12784 0.07437490 0.13362397 0. 13407484 1.1 7213070 0. 15674982 0.12893004 0. 14647572 11 Education 0.07091660 0.05075866 0.04728889 0.0387072 3 0.06 164289 0.067580 11 0.07868 178 0.05505502 0.05391564 0.0706460 I 1.06095950 0.05748923 0.07097382 12 Services 0.15385003 0.09486036 0.15007406 0.1 055505 3 0. 16989998 0. 13374446 0 .1 066964 7 0.1 68 101 62 0.17372667 0.19532 198 0. 1954 1226 1.204 36 117 0. 22008848 13 Households 1.00059566 0.613 18 502 0.88 156529 0.603 18159 0.96297500 0.737 17096 0.60979907 1.0 I 508686 0.96230728 0.98979344 1. 35292 523 1.072 84966 1.68488963 Total 3.647384 17 2 . .37 180898 3. 146924 32 2 .69532976 3.203505 12 2.s318181s 2.8 1670 148 3.09097697 3.082 16682 3. 12444989 3. 780 19843 3.282 4 1099 3.1 1539442 - Vl 'Cl Figure 1 EFFECT OF CRUDE-OIL PRODUCTION ON GROSS STATE PRODUCT AND FINAL DEMAND 100 90 80 70 !--< 60 ::::> !=: ::::> 50 0 ~ 40 30 20 10 o._~.._~.._~.._~.._~.._~..._~......_~......_~....._--­ o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100 %CRUDE PRODUCTION of exports, government purchases, and capital formation); (2) a "one-for-one" drop in the economy; and (3) "Atlas shrugged"-the economy breaks down. In addition to the effect upon GSP, the effect upon the output levels of each sector was also calculated for each hypothesized level of crude oil and natural gas. As the effect on individual sectors is viewed, three groups can be identified (see Fig. 2): ( 1) those sectors that are somewhat insensitive to the change in available crude oil, (2) those that follow the general trend, and (3) those that have a high response to the level of crude oil available. In the first group are: Sectors Titles 3 Construction 8 Wholesale trade 10 Finance, insurance, real estate There is nothing contrary to concluding that this group is relatively insensitive to crude oil availability except facility (highway) construction. Highway and other facility con­struction depends heavily upon motor fuel-a dependence that is somewhat obscured since this type of construction is grouped with all other construction in this particular version of the analysis. A more detailed analysis appropri­ately reveals the strong dependence of high way construc­tion upon the crude petroleum sector through its depend­ence upon the refining sector for motor fuel and asphalt paving materials. In the third group are: Sectors Titles 2 Mining 7 Utilities 18 Natural gas liquids 4 Manufacturing It is easy to visualize strong dependence of these sectors upon crude oil supplies, and the impact of crude oil production on any sector is more than a one-step process. Most crude oil is either sent to refineries or (currently) exported. From here it is transported for use in industry and by other consumers. As the supply of crude oil to Texas users is decreased, holding other things constant, the outputs of sectors contributing the least to GSP per unit of petroleum inputs are reduced. The first sectors thus affected by a lack of Figure 2 EFFECT OF CRUDE-OIL PRODUCTION ON OUTPUT FROM VARIOUS SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY 100 100 90 80 70 !--< 60 ::::> Q., !--< 50 ::::> 0 40 ~ 30 14. 15. 20 16. 10 17. 18. 0 real estate Savings and depreciation Services Education Government Households 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %CRUDE PRODUCTION crude oil are the crude oil exporting sectors. That is, if maximizing Texas GSP is the objective, then before deliveries of petroleum products (including crude oil) to Texas industries and households are curtailed, out-of-state shipments of crude oil and natural gas should be reduced. Naturally, contractual commitments and federal regulations would not allow the rest of the nation to "freeze to death in the dark." In decreasing order, utilities, natural gas liquids, manufacturing, construction, and agriculture are affected in tum, and when crude oil is reduced to zero all of the other sectors' outputs decrease to zero. The sequential LP-IO analysis provides a measure of the value of additional quantities of crude oil to each sector of the Texas economy. These "shadow prices" are calculated during the LP-IO analysis for each level of crude petroleum supply imposed upon the model. The dollar values for selected hypothesized levels of crude petroleum as a percent of estimated requirements in 1980, other things remaining equal, were calculated per unit final demand. The "shadow price" of crude oil at 100 percent availability ($7.187 billion in 1980) is zero. That is, if we satisfy all of our demands, additional oil is a "glut on the market." If, however, we can satisfy only 90 percent of the crude oil requirement, the shadow price becomes $5.50. For every dollar's worth of crude (in 1967 prices) added to the available supply, GSP will increase by $5.50. If available supply is only 55 percertt of requirements, the shadow price rises to $9.05. In view of the recent price increases by the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) it still may be "economical" to buy this higher-priced crude to keep the economy going. However, there are larger economic effects (trade deficits, balance of payments) and political effects that also must be considered. Summary In the absence of a "free market" situation the allocation of scarce resources such as crude oil can be made in an infinite number of ways. Quite often the way chosen is arbitrary and designed to meet current crises and priorities. Using the Texas input-output model and applying the method of linear programming, we have illustrated a method of "optimal" allocation of crude. Optimality here was chosen to be maximization of Gross State Product. The methodology allows for choice of other objectives such as maximizing employment. The results of the study show that the economy of Texas can absorb some shortfall in crude, but if the shortfall goes above 30 percent the economy begins to suffer. Some industries are relatively insensitive to the availability of crude, while others such as public utilities are drastically affected. The approach used here also provides "shadow prices" showing the marginal value to the economy of obtaining additional supplies of crude. As such they provide bounds for the price of crude. In the long run, if the supply of crude oil remains critical, there will be a substitution of other energy sources or a change in technology to reduce dependency on petroleum energy. Nuclear power plants of the fission variety have been built and research on fusion reactors is under way. This new type is being considered since it is recognized that the supply of fissionable material is also limited. Another phenomenon in the marketplace is the shift to smaller cars as an increasing number of Americans realize that many functions of automobiles can be fulfilled nearly as well by Pintos as by Cadillacs. This paper describes extreme effects that could prevail. As such, these represent a base for evaluating alternatives whereby the Texas economy might adjust to the energy crisis. NOTES 1 w . E. Mullendore and A. L. E kholm, Projections ofFinal Demand for Texas, Report No. 7400-Pl 4-08 72 (Austin: Office of Information Services, State of Texas, 19 72). 2H. W. Grubb, The Structure of the Texas Econom y, vols. 1 and 2 (Austin: Office of Information Services, State of Texas, 1973). 3w. G. Lesso, "Comprehensive Planning through the Use of the Input-Output Models," working paper, Office of Information Services, State of Texas. 4By use of the fo llowing notation a continuity equation is written for each sector: Xi = total output from sector i (i = 1, 2, ... , 16), A= matrix of direct requirements coefficients, and FDi = final demand for the pro ducts of sector i. The sector output (Xi) minus that which is sold to other processing sectors equals final demand (FD) of that sector. In equation form Xi -:Ej Ar Xj = FDi or in matrix form X ­AX= FD or [I -A) X = FO where I is the identity matrix. SThe solution is stated in matrix form as X = [I ­AJ-1 FD. The (I -AJ-1 matrix yields the direct, indirect, and induced production requirements coefficients per dollar of goods and services delivered to final demand. 61n many instances estimates of changes in outputs are available but one cannot estimate change in final demand. Thus output, as opposed to final demand, multipliers are required for use in the impact analyses. Output multipliers are obtained directly from the direct, indirect, and induced requirements table (Table 3) by dividing each cell of each column by the numeric value found in the principal diagonal cell of the column, or if the gross output multiplier is all that is desired it is obtained by dividing the column total by the value found in the principal diagonal cell for the sector. 7 A new set of vectors and coefficients is defined where Yi = quantity of final demand for sector i actually filled, Bkj = per unit quantity of resource k required by sector j, and Ck = capacity of sector k. These new terms are used to rewrite the input-output model in vector-matrix fo rm as follows: (I -A)X-Y = 0 Y~FD BX~C The first equation is the original form of the input-output model, with Y replacing the final demand vector and moved to the left side of the equation. The second equation states that the quantity of final demand actually satisfied must be less than or eq ual to final demand. The final equation states that the quantity of resources used cannot exceed the available supply. 8Mullendore and Ekholm, Projections of Final Dem and. 9Heretofore the Texas Railroad Commission, whose reponsibili ty it is to regulate crude petroleum production in Texas by prorating monthly producti on among oil wells so as not to permit producers to "glut" markets, had held monthly allowables below 100 percent. TEXAS CONSTRUCTION HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY IN TEXAS Part II. Retirement Lifestyles Dianne Priddy Even though the baby boom of the fifties produced a predominantly youth-oriented culture for the seventies, the increasing proportion of Texans over age sixty-five is creating greater social awareness of the needs of the aging, including the inevitable changes in lifestyle that accompany retirement. Over the past two decades Texans have demon­strated an increasing degree of concern for the social, psychological, and economic welfare of the elderly in the state. Providing attractive housing that is appropriate for the requirements of the aged is the initial step in the larger process of restoring dignity and self respect to the elderly. Victoria Plaza in San Antonio is the result of the farsighted efforts of Marie McGuire, the executive director of the San Antonio Housing Authority in 1956, when this pioneer project for housing the low-income elderly was in the planning phase. Located only seven-tenths of a mile from the city's business district, Victoria Plaza was a close neighbor to HemisFair 1968. The nine-story, modified T-shaped structure opened in 1960. It provides 185 apartments designed particularly for the elderly. Senior Community Services, a United Fund Agency, staffs and operates an activity center on the main level. The numerous activities and social events sponsored by the Senior Center provide outlets for the special interests of the Victoria Plaza residents. In addition to the lounge, recreation room, and library, medical services for several of the housing projects in the area are made available through clinic facilities on the first floor. Effective management and cooperation with the other fourteen low-cost housing projects for the elderly in San Antonio help to make Victoria Plaza a focal point for many community activities and services. Each of the apartments has a balcony and includes such special safety features as raised electrical outlets, entrances sufficiently wide to accommodate wheelchairs, non-skid floor surfaces, lowered kitchen cabinets, electric stove, showers with non-slip floors and seats, grab bar, sliding door, and an emergency buzzer positioned beside the commode. The interest subsidy provided by the Federal Housing Authority makes it possible for the low-income elderly to rent a one-bedroom apartment for as little as $27 per month, or 25 percent of their monthly income. The annual income of a resident cannot exceed $4,600, nor may his assets exceed $12,000. For those few who have finances approaching the maximum limitations, monthly rent may be as high as $86. Unfortunately today's inflated construc­tion costs would not permit duplication of the high-quality construction in this low-cost project, for which the original investment was only about $2 million. A similar low-cost apartment project for the elderly is visible along the shoreline of Town Lake in Austin. The immaculately groomed lawn and winding walkways of the Lakeside Apartments could easily deceive an observer into believing the building was a luxury highrise rather than a retirement center for the lower-income elderly. The Lake­side Activity Center organizes special activities that include exercise classes, quilting, art, and tri-wheeler cycling along the landscaped walkways. The availability of such activities is important, for the two persons most responsible for the success or failure of a retirement center project are the manager and the activities director. Opened in 1966, the Lakeside Apartments are fully occupied and have only infrequent vacancies. Income is restricted to $4,200 for an individual, and rent is determined on the basis of income, with $20 or 25 percent being the minimum. Victoria Plaza and Lakeside Apartments are only two examples of the low-cost public housing projects available for the elderly throughout the state. According to recent statistics, 41 percent of the low-rent public housing in Texas is occupied by families qualified as elderly on the basis of age, disability, or handicap, an increase of over 2 percent for the twelve-month period preceding June 30, 1972. Despite the increased availability of public housing for the elderly, nearly 20 percent of the Texans over sixty-five live in substandard housing, as designated by the Texas Housing Report. Monthly rentals for these two retirement centers are typical of housing projects across the country designed for the lower-income elderly. Of the 39,694 elderly families who moved into low-cost public housing in the United States during the twelve-month period preceding September 30, 1972, the median annual income was $1,990, with median rent being $37.22 per month. MAY STATISTICS IN REVIEW The Bureau of Business Research seasonally ad­justed index of total construction authorized in Texas during May rose to a record high of 257. Comparisons of January-May 1973 and 197 4 estimated values of authorized building indicate that the most dramatic increases occurred in nonresidential buildings, includ­ing amusement buildings (+81 percent), industrial buildings (+79 percent), commercial garages (+311 percent), works and utilities ( + 184 percent), educa­tional buildings ( +99 percent), and structures other than buildings ( + 121 percent). For the same period the residential construction category registered a 15-percent decline. Galveston-Texas City, Midland, and Texarkana were the Texas SMSA's experiencing the most substantial gains in authorized nonfarm building. ESTIMATi;-D VALUES OF BUILDINC AUTIIORIZf.D IN TEXAS* Percent change Classification MayP Jan-MayP 1974 1974 (thousands of dollars) May 1974 from Apr 1974 Jan-M ay 1974 from Jan-May 1973 All permits 423,022 1,793,460 9 8 New construction 38S,312 1,6 12,433 14 7 Residential (housekeeping) 130,S04 703,3 14 -27 -JS One-family dwellings 96,93S 4S2,316 - 6 -lS Multiple-famil y dwellings 33, S69 2S0,998 -SS -17 Nonresidential buildings 2S4,808 909,1 19 60 34 Hotels, motels, and tourist courts 2,27S 18,288 -20 -S6 Amusement buil dings 2,027 24,894 S2 8 1 Churches 6,SS9 23,440 6 4 Industrial buildings 30,S7 s 9S,l31 104 79 Garages (commerci al and private) 3,088 22,246 77 207 Service stations 1,040 3,870 410 - 26 Hospitals and institutions 4S,373 111 ,J 67 112 42 Office-bank buildings 33,187 134,076 JlS - 2 Works and utilities 18,303 76,0S9 46 184 Educational buildings 29,493 !49,4 S3 16 99 Stores and mercan tile buil dings S4,S33 189,62 I 19 Other buildings and structures 28,3SS 6 0,874 149 91 Additions, alterations, and repairs 37,7 l 0 18 1,027 -23 23 SMSA vs. non-SMSA Total SMSAt 378,S98 1,629,937 7 7 Cen tral cities 27S,946 l , 18 1,SS3 6 9 Outside central cities 102,6S2 448,384 IO 1 Total non-SMSA 44,424 163, S22 3S 26 I 0,000 to S0,000 population 28,398 93,660 78 36 Less than I 0,000 population 16,026 69,862 - 6 16 • Only buildings for which permits were issued within the incorporated area of a city are included. P Preliminary. t Standard metropolitan statistical areas are listed in accordance with 1973 Bureau of the Census definition. Source: Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Ideally, in the perfect retirement arrangement a man and his wife, both in good health, would maintain the family residence, where they had accumulated treasured posses­sions over the past half century. Unfortunately this ideal is rarely realized, for over half of the women beyond age sixty-five are widowed. Only one sixth of the men in this age bracket are widowers, and seven out of ten are married and living with their spouses, in comparison with only one in three women. Since married couples are more likely to maintain a single-family residence, these figures provide some insight into the minimal representation of men in retirement centers. One alternative to the expense and exhaustive mainte­nance involved in traditional homesites is particularly well suited for the older person desiring a private home, but having only minimum savings with which to make the investment. For the person with a small piece of undevel­oped land already in his possession, Dr. Phillip Creer, professor emeritus of architecture at The University of Texas at Austin, has designed an easily built two-bedroom house consisting of two modules, each measuring twelve feet by twenty-four feet, and carrying a production cost of about $7,000. Financial considerations are only one of many influences on the elderly person's decision for appropriate housing. Access to public transportation is particularly vital for those who can no longer economically or physically maintain a personal auto, for without accessibility to the "outside world" loneliness and isolation become the most dreaded cripplers of old age. For those years beyond sixty-five, census figures show a significant decline in population mobility and migration, as evidenced by the 1.4-percent rate for interstate migrants in the 1970-1971 year. This was only one sixth as great as the migration rate for youths twenty to twenty-four years old. The desire to be within reasonable distance of church, shopping, family, and doctors may be responsible for the concentration of elderly in the cities. According to statistics recently compiled by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 71.8 percent of the 992,059 Texans over sixty-five live in urbanized areas, while 28. 2 percent live in rural areas. Contrary to earlier speculation that these rural communities would be gradually drained as their populations were attracted to the opportunities and diversity of city living, it now appears that many of Texas' rural communities have reached a stationary level at which they can economically justify their existing populations. Providing further support for the theory that city centers are not offering the necessary attractions to continue past trends of immigra­tion among the elderly, R. L. Polk & Co., which produces criss-cross directories for major Texas cities, has accumu­lated data for the largest cities (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Fort Worth) that indicate a substantial decline in the proportion of elderly in the central cities, with an increasing number moving to the suburbs. For those over sixty-two with only moderate financial means, the six teen-story Rebekah Baines Johnson retire­ment center provides a scenic view of Town Lake and downtown Austin. The project opened in 1972 under the auspices of the Federal Housing Authority. Average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $113, with all utilities paid. While the Rebekah Baines Johnson Center does not place a limitation on assets, if annual income is greater than $4,590 the resident will be required to pay the market rent equivalent of $212. Residents take an active role in governing complex activities through a council of elected representatives from each of the fifteen residential floors, tend their own vegetable and flower garden, maintain a small shop for the handwork they produce, and provide a volunteer staff to run the coffee shop. Probably the most important benefit of retirement center living is the availa­bility of companionship and planned group-oriented activi­ties. The affluent elderly are the most catered-to segment of all. While the spectrum of accommodations for this group is the most varied, running the gamut from townhouse living to luxury highrise, none is more specifically designed to meet the requirements of the well-to-do elderly than Westminster Manor in Austin. A lifetime lease on an apartment costs between $8,400 and $17 ,900, depending on square footage (265 to 585 square feet), with monthly maintenance fees in the range of $250 to $310. All meals are prepared for the residents and served in an elegant dining area. While the apartments are designed for retired, active people, the adjoining hospital facility assures lifetime hospital care for any resident, at the normal maintenance fees. Despite the advances in Medicare, availability of public housing, and increased social security coverage, it is crucial that today's workers not be lulled into a sense of false security as to what their retirement will bring. As medical technology improves and a greater proportion of our population lives to enjoy older age, special problems will arise. Economists and demographers, already looking thirty years into the future, foresee a time when the retired segment of the population will be equal to the working segment. These greater numbers will imply an increased financial burden if our present system continues to func­tion without adjustment. Just as important as the provision of suitable living accommodations at reasonable cost are the social adjustments our culture must make to insure the dignity of the aging. 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 197• Excludes additions, altera tions, and repairs. TOTAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS Index Adjusted for Seasonal Voriotion-J967:::JOO 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 197• Includes additions, alterations, and repairs. The nonresidential component is not seasonally adjusted . 350 I I I I I I I I NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TExks Unadjusfed-1967=100 300 250 200 il \ 150 }!~ v !iWl ~ h . ~ 100 ! /V ' I it\J ~ 1 vv~ )I/ ' so ESTIMATES OF NONAGRICULTURAL FMPLOYMENT IN TEXAS Percent change Employment MayP May 1974 May 1974 1974 from from Industry (thousands) Apr 1974 May 1973 Total nonagricultural employmen t 4,316.6 ** 4 Manufacturing 814.9 ** Durable goods 44 9.2 ** 4 Lumber and wood products 27.1 5 Furniture and fixtures 19.7 -2 Stone, clay, and glass products 34.9 2 Primary-metal industries 39.8 6 Fabricated-metal products 69.6 ** 6 Machinery, except electrical 89.2 9 Oil-field machinery 33.7 12 Electrical machinery and equipment 59.3 6 Transportation equipment 71.3 ** 3 Aircraft and parts 35.1 ** 2 Instruments and related products 20.0 I 11 Other durable goods 18.3 2 -2 Nondurable goods 365.7 ** 2 Food and kindred products 88.8 -I 3 Meat products 18.3 ** 3 Textile-mill products 7.7 Apparel and fabricated textiles 71.7 I -3 Paper and allied products 19. l 2 4 Printing and publishing 46.3 ** 3 Chemicals and allied products 65.5 2 Industrial chemicals 38.0 3 Petroleum and coal products 38.6 2 Other nondurable goods 28.0 ** 7 Nonmanufacturing 3,501.7 ** Mining 111. 5 ** 4 Crude petroleum and natural gas 105.0 ** Contract construction 293.7 -l 7 Transportation 163.7 ** Communication 62.5 ** Public utilities 53.6 ** Trade 1,059.9 4 Wholesale trade 296.7 ** 4 Retail trade 763.2 5 Building materials, hardware, and farm equipment 41.7 6 General merchandise 160.6 8 Food stores 115.9 3 Automotive dealers and service stations 112. l I Apparel and accessories 44.7 3 Other retail trade 288.2 6 Finance, insurance, and real estate 247.8 ** 6 Banking 60.4 •• 7 Services 725.1 ** 6 Hotels and lodging places 47.9 2 5 Medical and other health services 194.6 ** 6 Other services 482.6 ** 6 P Preliminary. * * Change is less than one half of one percent. Source: Texas Employment Commission in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Departme nt of Labor. Statistical data compiled by Mildred Anderson, statistical associate, technician. Business conditions are reported in the following tables first by metropolitan areas, second by counties and cities. Standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's) are defined by county lines and include the counties listed. All SMSA's are designated as such by the U.S. Bureau of the Census except one, the Longview­Marshall area, which is now a significant metropolitan node. Population figures represent the 1970 Census counts except where otherwise noted. The population estimates not taken from the Census are generally based on utility connections and are subject to substantial error. Building-permit values are collected from municipalities by the Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the Constance Coo/edge, statistical assistant, and Kay Davis, statistical Census. They represent only building intentions within city limits, since construction permits are not issued except by incorporated cities in Texas. The building data also exclude federal contracts and public works projects, such as highways, waterways, and reservoirs. The bank debit statistics for SMSA's and most central metropolitan cities are collected by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Most other bank debits figures shown are collected from cooperating banks by the Bureau of Business Research. Employment estimates are compiled by the Texas Employment Commission in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Footnote symbols are defined on pages 168 and 176. INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR ST AND "lD METROPOLITAN s-\ TISTICAL AREAS Percent change Percent change from from May Apr May May Apr May Reported area and indicator 1974 1974 1973 Reported area and indicator 1974 1974 1973 ABILENE SMSA CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA Callahan, Jones and Taylor Counties; population 122,164 Nueces and San Patricio Counties; population 284,832 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,600,302 16 -60 Urban building permits (dollars) 18,394,592 430 197 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 348,962# 39,050 7,000 2.2 6 1 * * 10 35 4 13 -·1 s Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 933,521 91,200 11,580 5.4 - 6 ** ** 15 35 1 1 2 AMARILLO SMSA DALLAS-FORT WORTH SMSA Potter and Randall Counties; population 144,396 Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Johnson, Kaufman, Urban building permits (dollars) 4,399, 53 5 6 - 1 Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant and Wise Counties; Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 997,6 54 2 27 population 2,377,979 Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 56,600 6,790 2. 5 1 ** 9 3 1 -24 Urban building permits (dollars) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) Non farm employment 104,986,223 26,299,807# 1,058,900t 17 6 ** 26 41 3 AUSTIN SMSA Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 240,64ot 2.9t ** 12 2 4 Hays and Travis Counties; population 323,158 Urban building permits (dollars) 13,894,366 -26 -27 EL PASO SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 1,561,897# - 7 43 El Paso County; population 359,291 Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 156,200 14,450 2. 7 ** 1 23 2 4 8 Urban building permits (dollars) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) Nonfarm employment 18,555,793 1,098,896 129,100 12 5 1 - 5 25 3 BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 30,900 6.3 3 13 11 19 Hardin, Jefferson and Orange Counties; population 345,939 Urban building permits (dollars) 3,475,348 -62 -49 GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 838,290# 8 30 Galveston County; population 169,812 Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 123,600 41,450 3.6 - 1 1 10 4 4 -29 Urban building permits (dollars) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) Non farm employment 23,752,504 34 5,616 56,800 362 4 1 1,045 27 ** BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 10,800 3.6 1 9 2 -33 Cameron County; population 140,368 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,628,264 -31 -71 HOUSTON SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 346,575 8 33 Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION SMSA Brazos County; population 57,978 43,050 8,690 7.9 1 2 8 7 8 Montgomery and Waller Counties; population 1,999,316 Urban building permits (dollars) 104,236,732 28 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 18,237,665# 1 Nonfarm employment 927,600 ** Manufacturing employment 167,700 1 Unemployed (percent) 3.8 6 37 32 5 7 -16 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,743,382 -22 -37 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 144,202 9 3 (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Bryan-College Station SMSA). Percent change Percent change from from May Apr May May Apr May Reported area and indicator 1974 1974 1973 Reported area and indicator 1974 1974 1973 KILLEEN-TEMPLE SMSA SAN ANGELO SMSA Bell and Coryell Counties; population 159,794 Tom Green County; population 71,047 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,444,290 -66 -47 Urban building permits (dollars) 795,213 -8 -20 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 219,104 -10 9 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 221,840 1 30 (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Nonfarm employment 22,450 •• 7 Killeen-Temple SMSA.) Manufacturing employment 4,810 1 12 Unemployed (percent) 3.0 7 -6 LAREDO SMSA Webb County; population 72,859 SAN ANTONIO SMSA Urban building permits (dollars) 1,415,276 697 -38 Bexar, Comal and Guadalupe Counties; population 888,179 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 165,619 12 45 Urban building permits (dollars) 17,671,645 -28 -32 Nonfarm employment 20,950 2 -2 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 2,533,676# •• 13 Manufacturing employment 1,570 1 15 Nonfarm employment 306,200 -1 •• Unemployed (percent) 13.7 6 16 Manufacturing employment 37,700 1 -3 Unemployed (percent) 4.8 20 26 LONGVIEW-MARSHALL METROPOLITAN AREA Gregg and Harrison Counties; population 120,770 SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA Urban building permits (dollars) 18,550,474 221 321 Grayson County; population 83,225 Bank debits ($1,000) 246,1 73 -1 19 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,670,690 96 52 Nonfarm employment 46,100 •• 2 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1 ,000) 143,187 •• 20 Manufacturing employment 1 5,600 1 1 Nonfarm employment 30,100 •• s Unemployed (percent) 4.2 27 5 Manufacturing employment 11,630 1 12 Unemployed (percent) 3.9 -9 -5 LUBBOCK SMSA Lubbock County; population 179,295 TEXARKANA SMSA Urban building permits (dollars) 7,671,132 -17 15 Bowie County, Texas, and Miller County, Arkansas; Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 820,568 -4 28 population l 01,198 Nonfarm employment 73,000 •• 8 Ur.ban building permits (dollars) 741,502 -69 117 Manufacturing employment 12,210 2 42 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 175,415 -3 8 Unemployed (percent) 2.5 19 4 Nonfarm employment 38,200 1 -1 Manufacturing employment 9,020 •• -7 McALLEN-PHAR R-EDINBURG SMSA Unemployed (percent) 6.8 -7 10 Hidalgo County; population 181,535 (Since the Texarkana SMSA includes Bowie County in Texas and Urban building permits (dollars) 6,493,242 3 83 Miller County in Arkansas, all data, including population, refer to the two-county region.) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 316,562 5 12 Nonfarm employment 40,800 1 •• 1YLERSMSA Manufacturing employment 5,390 8 9 Unemployed (percent) 9.8 5 29 Smith County; population 97,096 Urban building permits (dollars) 4,776,179 132 86 MIDCAND SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj.($ !,000) 301,477 2 23 Midland County; population 65,433 Nonfarm employment 39,650 1 5 Manufacturing employment 13,260 1 3 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,159,494 -15 -56 Unemployed (percent) 3.2 10 -16Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 306,733 14 46 Nonfarm employment 56,000 1 6 WACO SMSA Manufacturing employment 5,580 2 • • Unemployed (percent) 3.0 15 -3 McLennan County; population 147,553 (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and Urban building permits (dollars) 3,632,530 -21 31 Odessa SMSA's since employment figures for Midland and Ector Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 467,604 9 25 Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in Nonfarm employment 56,300 •• I combined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) Manufacturing employment 13,710 1 •• Unemployed (percent) 4.2 11 14 ODESSA SMSA Eetor County; population 91,805 WICHITA FALLS SMSA Urban building permits (dollars) 853,534 -17 -30 Clay and Wichita Counties; population 129,941 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 223,922 1 9 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,012,483 -32 -47 Nonfarm employment 56,000 1 6 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 403,481# 3 46 Manufacturing employment 5,580 2 •• Nonfarm employment 5 42,100 1 Unemployed (percent) 3.0 15 -3 Manufacturing employment 6,470 1 14 (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and Unemployed (percent) -10 2.6 4 Odessa SMSA's since employment figures for Midland and Ector Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in combined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) • • Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent. # Bank debit reports are based on the 1970 census definition for standard metropolitan statistical areas. t Monthly employment reports exclude Hood, Parker, and Wise Counties. Urban building-permit data are preliminary and subject to revision. INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPALIT ES Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population May 1974 (dollars) Percent change from Apr May 1974 1973 May 1974 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Apr May 1974 1973 ANDERSON Palestine 27,789 14,525 228,200 65 21 32,378 - 1 18 ANDREWS Andrews 10,372 8,625 2, 132,415 11 ,699 ** 6 ANGELINA Lufkin 49,349 23,049 602,314 10 -42 ARANSAS Aransas Pass (See San Patricio) 8,902 ATASCOSA Pleasanton 18,696 5,407 8,252 -4 9 AUSTIN Bellville 13,831 2,371 24,050 -52 -13 9,993 -10 - 2 BAILEY Muleshoe 8,487 4,525 22,368 - 9 8 BASTROP Smithville 17,297 2,959 24,710 -75 -45 3,271 -16 - 9 BEE Beeville 22,737 13, 506 174,400 78 20 30,088 - 7 BELL (In Killeen-Temple SMSA) Bartlett (See Williamson) Belton Harker Heights Killeen Temple 124,483 8,696 4,216 35, 507 33,431 97,100 103,025 1,438,457 799,708 66 -75 -68 -55 -13 -48 -33 -27 60,211 111,455 - 8 3 7 14 BEXAR (In San Antonio SMSA) San Antonio 830,460 654,153 13,079,465 -37 -31 2, 543,475 ** 13 BOWIE (In Texarkana SMSA) Texarkana 67,813 52,179 708,822 14 126 157,864 - 2 6 BRAZORIA (In Houston SMSA) Angleton Clute Freeport Pearland 108,312 9,770 6,023 11,997 6,444 82,874 156,850 264,700 593,813 -36 -66 115 19 -60 -2 -34 26,690 58, 993 12,08 5 - 8 4 1 16 41 21 BRAZOS (Constitutes Bryan-College Station SMSA) Bryan College Station 57,978 33,719 17,676 2,479,931 263,451 114 -89 71 -91 120,591 24, 18 l -12 7 ** 55 BREWSTER Alpine 7,780 5,971 38,880 -75 -55 6,924 2 - 2 BROWN Brownwood 25,877 17,368 430,400 165 54 BURLESON Caldwell 9,999 2,308 6,011 - 3 16 BURNET Marble Falls 11,420 2,209 18,657 - 6 -10 CALDWELL Lockhart 21,178 6,489 54,760 14 -73 l 2, 159 -17 - 6 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population May 1974 (dollars) Percent change from Apr May 1974 1973 May 1974 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Apr May 1974 1973 CALHOUN Point Comfort Port Lavaca Seadrift 17,831 1,446 10,491 1,092 1,291 253,130 50,000 -98 625 62 3,193 2 5, l 07 1,245 45 3 -9 68 27 90 CAMERON (Constitutes Brownsville­Harlingen-San Benito SMSA) Brownsville Harlingen La Feria Los Fresnos Port Isabel San Benito 140,368 52,522 33,503 2,642 1,297 3,067 15, l 76 844,680 444,409 7,280 188,807 143,088 -30 -47 14 126 -35 -74 -64 -56 -49 -80 140, 127 128,378 3,586 2,889 10,314 12,302 11 4 -5 -9 37 -7 40 25 -7 21 SS 7 CASTRO Dimmitt 10,394 4,327 33,405 -12 -10 CHEROKEE Jacksonville 32,008 9,734 107,000 -80 -54 39,249 - 8 16 COLEMAN Coleman 10,288 5,608 0 COLLIN (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) McKinney Plano 66,920 15, l 93 17,872 139,300 3,846,185 -78 -25 -61 23,833 46,620 -13 -23 34 25 COLORADO Eagle Lake 17,638 3,587 8,586 - 1 74 COMAL (In San Antonio SMSA) New Braunfels 24, 165 17,859 444,660 -11 -28 36,527 4 14 COOKE Gainesville Muenster 23,471 13,830 1,411 496,370 57,000 130 89 31,307 4 ,747 -14 -5 •• -12 CORYELL (In Killeen-Temple SMSA) Copperas Cove Gatesville 3 5,311 10,818 4,683 9,192 13,526 -9 6 17 1 CRANE Crane 4,172 3,427 0 3,630 - 11 20 DALLAS (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Carrollton Dallas Farmers Branch Garland Grand Prairie Irving Lancaster Mesquite Richardson Seagoville 1,327,321 13,855 844,401 27,492 81,437 50,904 97,260 10,522 55 ,131 48,582 4,390 4,479,849 53,558,555 5,139,525 2,216,326 10,370,825 11,343,448 184,600 1,264,541 8,550 -57 9 648 -34 362 -86 -98 -36 122 102 -43 186 149 -55 -56 -93 21,565,639 32,774 108,390 44,479 12,135 42,486 116,918 12,522 2 3 1 6 2 2 4 -14 45 21 21 2 -1 10 18 15 DAWSON Lamesa 16,604 11 ,559 122,200 13 35,613 -19 30 DEAF SMITH Hereford 18,999 13,414 109,500 - 35 - 1 DE NTON (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Denton Justin Lewisville Pilo t Point 75,633 39,874 741 9,264 1,663 1,401,6 so 3,500 771,732 16,630 4 724 -87 -54 -32 -37 -62 124,296 2,307 36,039 2,771 -2 -2 16 -8 37 13 6 -12 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population May 1974 (dollars) Percent change from Apr May 1974 1973 May 1974 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Apr May 1974 1973 De Witt Yoakum (See Lavaca) 18,660 EASTLAND Cisco 18,092 4,160 5,573 - 9 -44 ECTOR (Constitutes Odessa SMSA) Odessa 91,805 78,380 853,534 -17 -16 ELLIS (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Midlothian Waxahachie 46,638 2,322 13,452 40,650 209,080 •• -71 -85 -41 5,067 30,733 5 5 13 9 EL PASO (Constitutes El Paso SMSA) El Paso 359,291 322,261 18,555,793 12 - 5 1,155,355 30 ERATH Stephenville 18,191 9,277 1,198,450 683 23,390 4 16 FANNIN Bonham 22,705 7,698 50,500 -49 -68 22,919 10 28 FAYETTE Schulenburg 17,650 2,294 11,300 -84 -72 FORT BEND (In Houston SMSA) Richmond Rosenberg 52,314 5,777 12,098 251,519 218,390 -38 76 -57 77 16,332 15,646 - 15 6 26 12 GAINES Seagraves Seminole 11,593 2,440 5,007 0 3,400 -96 4,766 20,826 8 10 38 57 GALVESTON (Constitutes Galveston-Texas City SMSA) Dickinson Galveston La Marque Texas City 169,812 10,776 61,809 16, 131 38,908 889,501 21,787,973 95,674 480,182 -71 80 -4 - I 21,332 216,520 24,553 47,323 I 8 7 4 13 37 5 16 GILLESPIE Fredericksburg 10,553 5,326 124,750 -70 -23 22,632 - 12 - 2 GONZALES Nixon 16,375 1,925 5,000 -75 GRAY Pampa 26,949 21,726 59,800 -6 -53 59,839 2 18 GRAYSON (Constitutes Sherman-Denison SMSA) Denison Sherman 83,225 24,923 29,061 151,380 1,457,310 73 105 -46 IOI 41,745 85,390 l 4 20 16 GREGG (In Longview-Marshall Metropolitan Area) Gladewater Kilgore Longview 75,929 5,574 9,495 45,547 144, 100 203, 150 18,081,000 -36 250 52 -12 361 7,807 31,567 160,607 - 21 6 2 8 9 22 GUADALUPE (In San Antonio SMSA) Schertz Seguin 33,554 4,061 15,934 449,908 1,762,000 77 204 19 221 4,315 39,582 4 3 67 11 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population May 1974 (dollars) Percent change from Apr May 1974 1973 May 1974 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Apr May 1974 1973 HALE Hale Center Plainview 34,137 1,964 19,096 900 620,9SO - SS 1 -36 -30 94,180 - 8 12 HARDEMAN Quanah 6, 795 3,948 0 8, 114 -11 -16 HARDIN (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Silsbee 29,996 7,271 19,291 -9 8 HARRIS (In Hous ton SMSA) Baytown Bellaire Deer Park Houston Humble La Porte Pasadena South Houston Tomball 1,741,912 43,980 19,009 12,773 1,232,802 3,278 7,149 89,277 l 1,S27 2, 734 826,S36 10,224,960 326,920 8S,7S7,404 37,0SO 113,98S 1,279,901 100,92S -23 6I4 -44 34 -9S -2S -S4 -66 -28 61S -29 46 -88 -35 -64 1 88,602 18,902 17,617,479 18,4S3 7,046 1S9,S32 24,99I -13 -16 1 -1 I 3 -7 -14 13 s 35 7 13 8 -9 HA RRISON (In Longview-Marshall Metropolitan Area) Hallsville Marshall 44,841 1,038 22,937 122,224 -S7 -20 2 ,261 43,931 4 1 20 16 HASKE LL Haskell 8,S12 3,6SS 0 6,61 s 9 -4 HAYS (In Austin SMSA) San Marcos 27,642 18,860 19,347 s 3 HENDE RSON Athens 26,466 9,S82 162,8SO 94 30 29,862 14 HIDALGO (Constitutes McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg SMSA) Alamo Donna Edinburg Elsa McAllen Mission Pharr San Juan Weslaco 181,S3S 4,291 7,36S 17,163 4,400 37,636 13,043 1S,829 S,070 1S,313 20,2SO 44,690 797,080 101,0SO 4,731,370 321,522 172,100 30S,l 80 13 -29 76 786 -9 S6 18 -43 -4S 45 -17 677 30S 26 96 -66 7,898 4S,909 10,988 127,803 3S,442 10,90S S,968 -7 -7 -2S -11 -10 -4 -12 -- 30 13 2 18 7 16 10 HOCKLEY Levelland 20,396 11,44S 32S,400 111 20 39,770 - 2 29 HOOD (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Granbury 6,368 2,473 6,3S8 8 25 HOPKINS Sulphur Springs 20,710 10,642 106,300 -60 -36 43,429 -3 6 HOWARD Big Spring 37,796 28,73S 1S6,S60 -43 121 86,981 - 23 24 HUNT Greenville 47,948 22,043 126,420 -81 -60 S2,641 6 16 HUTCHINSON Borger 24,443 14,19S 130,80S 6 -10 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population May 1974 (dollars) Percent change from Apr May 1974 1973 May 1974 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Apr May 1974 1973 JACKSON Edna 12,975 5,332 55,207 -68 -24 11,884 -12 12 JASPER Jasper Kirbyville 24,692 6,251 1,869 82,500 -20 - 8 26,661 5,002 - 11 3 17 8 JEFFERSON (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Beaumont Groves Nederland Port Arthur Port Neches 244,773 115,919 18,067 16,810 57,371 10,894 1,819,816 308,988 94,263 238,351 325,837 -76 95 -76 22 -33 -51 32 -76 -87 -4 587,405 30, 124 19,969 114,941 26,895 -11 8 3 7 4 41 27 21 6 11 JIM WELLS Alice 33,032 20, 121 248,975 -20 28 53,238 - 6 -36 JOHNSON (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Burleson Cleburne 45,769 7,713 16,01 5 141,317 -39 -57 15,437 41, 108 1 41 29 34 KARNES Karnes City 13,462 2,926 29,500 -30 993 6,428 -4 9 KAUFMAN (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Terrell 32,392 14,182 185,420 43 95 KIMBLE Junction 3,904 2,654 37,500 838 5,829 -11 39 KLEBERG Kingsville 33,166 28,711 260,335 95 10 37,757 - 9 17 LAMAR Paris 36,062 23,441 369,127 -44 -22 LAMB Littlefield 17,770 6,738 2,000 233 16, 172 4 40 LAMPASAS Lampasas 9,323 5,922 22,340 -68 -33 16,696 ** 2 LAVACA Hallettsville Yoakum 17,903 2, 712 5, 755 480,083 195,775 18 701 118 7,842 17,494 3 1 21 6 LEE Gidclings 8,048 2,783 5,576 -96 -87 11,263 -4 7 LIBERTY (In Houston SMSA) Dayton Liberty 33,014 3,804 5,591 122,454 57,750 25 -89 2 -80 16, 193 21,734 - 19 2 46 19 LIMESTONE Mexia 18,100 5,943 44,500 -43 110 15,748 ** 27 LLANO Kingsland Llano 6,979 1,262 2,608 2, 750 -92 -94 9,232 12,622 -13 -5 17 17 LUBBOCK (Constitutes Lubbock SMSA) Lubbock Slaton 179,295 149,101 6,583 7,507,832 29,300 -17 -74 15 -73 755,108 10,665 4 8 29 31 LYNN Tahoka 9,107 2,956 34,000 -91 - 3 10,226 - 9 49 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population May 1974 (dollars) Percent change fro m Apr May 1974 1973 May 1974 (thousands of dollars) Percent ch ange from Apr May 1974 1973 MCCULLOCH Brady 8,S7 l S,SS7 11,700 -88 -92 16,442 19 8 MCLENNAN (Constitutes Waco SMSA) McGregor Waco 147,SS3 4,36S 9S,326 49,73S 2,84S, 1S8 -24 -28 134 9,217 413,846 s 4 12 24 MATAGORDA Bay City 27,913 11,733 61,427 -7S -34 41,210 2 42 MAVERICK Eagle Pass 18,093 1 S,364 104,700 -82 -42 lS,337 -4 -14 MEDINA Castroville Hondo 20,249 1,893 S,487 427,211 339 2,383 7,492 9 3 20 2 MIDLAND (Constitutes Midland SMSA) Midland 6S,433 S9,463 1,1 S9,494 -lS -.56 308,060 12 49 MILAM Cameron Rockdale 20,028 S,S46 4,6SS 64,06S 8 12, 1S6 14,948 II 14 14 49 MILLS Goldthwaite 4 ,212 1,693 10,910 10 MITCHELL Colorado City 9,073 S,227 8, S63 -10 •• MONTGOMERY (In Houston SMSA) Conroe 49,479 11,969 184,498 -30 -83 77,631 -10 -2 MOORE Dumas 14,060 9,771 4SS,S30 - s S2 NACOGDOCHES Nacogdoches 36,362 22,S44 1,072,400 133 138 NAVARRO Corsicana 31, 1so 19,972 329,206 -67 2S S6,916 3 24 NOLAN Sweetwater 16,220 12,020 99,SOO 118 34 26,431 - s -2 NUECES (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Bishop Corpus Christi Port Aransas Robstown 237,S44 3,466 204,S2S 1,218 11,217 0 17,888,069 128,071 493 110 239 -36 3,028 830,lSS 1,384 2S ,397 9 6 -13 s -35 38 8 18 ORANGE (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Orange 71, 170 24,4S7 6S0,23S 171 600 74,S73 -3 24 PALO PINTO Mineral Wells 28,962 18,411 6,4SO -33 -S9 41,849 7 7 PANOLA Carthage 1 S,894 S,392 169,334 288 42 8, 1 S6 -21 -4 PARKER (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Weatherford 33,888 11, 7SO 163,3SO 29 274 3S,36S - 6 9 PARM ER Friona 10, S09 3, 111 13S,1SO so 203 34,8SS -11 -24 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population May 1974 (dollars) Percent change from Apr May 1974 1973 May 1974 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Apr May 1974 1973 PECOS Fort Stockton 13,748 8,283 59,900 134 - 97 16,051 -14 6 POTTER (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo 90,511 127,010 4,117,535 - 7 ** 959,826 ** 27 RANDALL (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo (See Potter) Canyon 53,885 8,333 282,000 12 - 4 18, 530 - 6 - 8 REEVES Pecos 16,526 12,682 47,047 -20 -42 36,144 - 1 19 REFUGIO Refugio 9,494 4,340 75,000 150 7,038 -14 4 RUSK Henderson Kilgore (See Gregg) 34, 102 10, 187 137,055 38 -45 34, 146 - 2 14 SAN PATRICIO (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Aransas Pass Sinton 47,288 5,8 13 5,563 53,000 -83 -87 14,964 14,380 3 9 5 49 SAN SABA San Saba 5,540 2, 555 1,200 -96 -99 13,662 4 -15 SCURRY Snyder 15,760 11,1 71 28,491 ** 6 SHACKELFORD Albany 3,323 1,978 0 4,971 2 41 SHERMAN Stratford 3,657 2,139 25,230 -88 18,944 8 -34 SM ITH (Constitutes Tyler SMSA) Tyler 97,096 57,770 4,747,179 138 88 291,236 25 STEPHENS Breckenridge 8,414 5,944 87,000 427 SUTTON Sonora 3,175 2,149 21 5,805 721 5,643 3 23 TARRANT (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Arlington Bedford Burleson (See J ohnson) Euless Fort Worth Grapevine North Richland Hills White Settlement 716,3 17 90,643 10,049 19,3 16 393,476 7,023 16,514 13,449 527,060 8 0,5 00 7,009,943 228,740 746,350 41 ,890 13 -79 -23 -90 45 -88 -15 43 -10 105 147,696 16,843 16, 138 2,990,786 15,92 5 28,254 9,424 -17 6 1 1 -10 -5 -11 4 8 8 26 -5 5 -13 TAYLOR (In Abilene SMSA) Abilene 97,853 89,653 1,574,602 16 -58 3 15,275 3 37 TERRY Brownfield 14, 118 9,647 154,058 -46 249 33,790 - 9 12 TITUS Mount Pleasant 16,702 8,877 256,800 -16 41 TOM GREEN (Constitutes San A ngelo SMSA) San Angelo 71,047 63,884 795,213 - 8 -20 232,140 4 34 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population May 1974 (dollars) Percent change from Apr May 1974 1973 May 1974 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Apr May 1974 1973 TRAVIS (In Austin SMSA) Austin 29S,Sl6 2Sl,808 13,893,S66 -2S -22 1,802,220 II 38 UPSHUR Gladewater (See Gregg) 20,976 UPTON McCamey 4,697 2,647 2,4S7 - 7 13 UVALDE Uvalde 17,348 10,764 322,904 -31 99 39,221 - 6 16 VAL VE RDE Del Rio 27,471 21 ,330 81 S,S03 38S 38,824 21 VICTORIA Victoria S3, 766 41 ,349 S84,9S9 -70 3 174,924 - 16 26 WALKE R Huntsville 27,680 17,610 686,S34 163 22 40,41 s 3 14 WARD Monahans 13,019 8,333 2,600 -91 -94 1S,60S - lS 8 WASHINGTON Brenham 18,842 8,922 69,628 -92 -97 37, 146 - 8 WEBB (Constitutes Laredo SMSA) Laredo 72,8S9 69,024 l,41S,276 697 - 38 173,lSl 11 44 WHARTON El Campo 36,729 8,S63 162,172 -18 34,993 - I S2 WICHITA (In Wichita Falls SMSA) Burkburne tt Iowa Park Wichita Falls 121,862 9,230 s,796 97,S64 227,S69 6,300 1,778,614 263 -84 -38 S22 -6S -S2 16,280 6,390 368,994 -- 13 8 2 43 37 44 WILBARGER Vernon 1S,3SS ll,4S4 10S,2SO 30 44 33,S7S - 19 47 WILLACY Raymondville 1S,S70 7,987 63,SOO so 49 14,924 - 6 16 WILLIAMSON Bartlett Georgetown Taylor 37,30S 1,622 6,39S 9,616 18S,900 194,72S 33 -47 -s 168 2,341 17,827 20,388 - 13 6 11 42 26 II WINKLER Kermit 9,640 7,884 0 WISE (In Dall as-Fort Worth SMSA) Decatur 19,687 3,240 0 10,so1 - 7 18 YOUNG Graham Olney I S,400 7,477 3,624 136,060 49,S21 -S9 3S so 342 27, 146 10,SS8 - 6 16 4 ZAVALA Crys tal City 11,370 8, 104 !20,33S -32 14,169 14 28 •• Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent• No data, or inadequate basis for reporting. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (All figures are for Texas unless otheiwise indicated.) All indexes are based on the average months for 1967=100 except where other specification is made; all except annual indexes are adjusted for seasonal variation unless otherwise noted. Employment estimates are compiled by the Texas Employment Commission in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The symbols used below impose qualifications as indicated here: p-preliminary data subject to revision; r-revised data; *-dollar totals for the fiscal year to date; t-employment data for wage and salary workers only. Year-to-date averageMay Apr May 1974 1974 1973 1974 GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY Texas business activity (index) .. . . . . ......................... . 2 l 2.4p 200.0 173.3 Estimates of personal income (millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted} . . .... . .. ........ ..... . $ 4,948p $ 4,893p $ 4, 2 7 Sr $ 4,768 $ 4,206 Income payments to individuals in U.S. (billions, at seasonally adjusted annual rate) . ... . ......... . .... ......... . $ Wholesale prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) ..................... . Consumer prices in Dallas (unadjusted index) . ......... .. ..... . Consumer prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) . . ................... . Business failures (number) .. .. ........ . ... .... ........ . ..... . Business failures (liabilities, thousands} ...................... . .. $ Sales of ordinary life insurance (index) . ...................... . . 1, 121.0p I SS.O 143.3 14S.6 209.3 $ $ 1, 111.0p I S2.7r 144.0 63 11,332 20S.3 $ $ 1,018.7r 133.2r 130.6 131.S 48 4,067 193.1 $ $ l, l 03.0 I Sl.8 141.S 142.8 199.2 $ $ 1,004.0 129.0 129.2 129.7 so 6,960 186.8 PRODUCTION Total electric-power use (index) ....... . . . . . .... . ....... .. .... . 169.1 p I 7 l.4p 1S4. Sr 166. 7 1S7.4 Residential electric-power use (index) . .......... ... .. . . .. ..... . 212.7P 223.3p 167.7r 20S.6 190.3 Industrial electric-power use (index) . ........... .... ....... .. . . 147.9p I SO. Ip 143.Sr 148.1 141.1 Crude-oil production (index) .. . .... ... ... ... ..... ........... . 110.3P l l 2.3p 111.9r 114. 1 114.S Average daily production per oil well (bbl.} . .. ........ .. ........ . 20.6 20.6 19.8 20.7 19.3 Crude-oil runs to stills (index) ........... . ......... ... ...... . . 126.6 119.1 121.8 116. 7 121.1 Industrial production in U.S. (index) . ..... . . ...... ...... .. ... . . 12S.4p l 24.9p l 24.9r 124.9 123.7 Texas industrial production-total (index) ...........•........... 140.6p l 39.3p 13 S. 9r 138.3 134.6 Texas industrial production-total manufactures (index) ......... . . . 14s.sP 143.6p 140.6r 143.6 139.2 Texas industrial production-durable manufactures (index) ...... ... . l 60.4p I S8.7p I S6. l r I S9.6 I S4. l Texas industrial production-nondurable manufactures (index) .. .. • .. 134.7P 132.7P 129.3r 132.1 128.4 Texas industrial production-mining (index) ... .. .... . . ....... . . . l 2 l.6p 121.2P 118.7r 119.0 117.S Texas industrial production-utilities (index) .. ..... ... .. . . ... . .. . 167.7p l 69.4p I SS. Ir 163.2 162.8 Urban building permits issued (index) .......... .. ....... . . .... . 2S7.0p 236.0p 197.Sr 217.S 200.0 New residential building authorized (index) . .. . .. ...... . .. . . .. . 169.SP 241.Sp 19S.4r 186.0 221.3 New residential units authorized (index) . . .................... . 101.2p 201.9p 134.6r 128.4 170.3 New nonresidential building authorized (unadjusted index) . . . . ... . 349.7p 218.Sp 204.1 r 249.6 186.S AGRICULTURE Prices received by farmers (unadjusted index, 1910-14= 100} ........ . Prices paid by farmers in U.S. (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100} . . ... . 482 S64 sos S62 446 488 S38 SS2 424 473 Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid by farmers . .............. . ............................. . SS 90 91 98 90 FINANCE Bank debits (index) .. .. .............. ..... . .......... .. . .. . 329.1 322.0 239.6 303.8 223.S Bank debits, U.S. (index) . .................................. . 247.2 222.0 21S.8 Bank commercial loans outstanding (index) ...... .. ... ...... . .. . 177.0 174.9 I S9.9 168.7 IS3.7 Reporting member banks, Dallas Federal Reserve District Loans (miIii ons) ... .. ................................... . $ I 0,268 $ 10,26S $ 9,698 $ 10,089 $ 9,290 Loans and investments (millions) . . .... ...... ........... .... . $ 14,442 $ 14,436 $ 13,732 $ 14,244 $ 13,339 Adjusted demand deposits (millions) . . . ........ .. . . ....... ... . $ 4,147 $ 4,264 $ 4, 166 $ 4, 182 $ 4,1 SS Revenue receipts of the state comptroller (thousands} . . ........... . $ S69,867 $ 448,136 $ S24,798 $ 4S8,366 $ 393,S7S Federal Internal Revenue collections (thousands) ................ . $ 1,S46,679 $ l,OSS,303 $1,072,219 $ 10,769.7* $ 9,414.6* Securities registrations-original applications Mutual investment companies (thousands} ....... . ............. $ 22,213 $ 17,066 $ 42,4Sl $ 242,134* $ 34S,60S* All other corporate securities Texas companies (thousands} . .... . ... . .... . ............... $ 29,S48 $ 9,633 $ 14,41S $ 191,032* $ 201,870* Other companies (thousands} ....... . .. . .. .... .. . . .. .... . .. $ 3,0S7 $ 3,888 $ 8,379 $ SS,309* $ 1S6,760* Securities registration-renewals Mutual investment companies (thousands} .... ..... .. ..... .. .. . $ 29,Sl4 $ 31,682 $ 36,76S $ 34S,SSO* $ 324,890 * Other corporate securities (thousands} ... .................... . $ S,400 $ 769 $ 6,461 $ 18,768* $ 7,868* LABOR Total nonagricultural employment in Texas (index)t ... ........... . 132.4p 132.3p 127.0r 132.2 12S.S Manufacturing employment in Texas (index)t .... ... . . .......... . 122.7P 122.sP 119.1r 122.9 118.0 Average weekly hours-manufacturing (index)t ...... . ........... . 97.7p 96.Sp 98.6r 98.6 98.0 Average weekly earnings-manufacturing (index)t ....... . . ... .. . . . 147.3p 142.lp 13S. 7~ 14S. l 133. 7 Total nonagricultural employment (thousands)t ......... . ....... . 4,316.6p 4,306.Sp 4,137. 1 4,277.S 4,0S6. l Total manufacturing employment (thousands)t .. ....... ....... . 814.9p 814.lp 791.1 r 811.2 779.0 Durable-goods employment (tho usands}t .................... . 449.2p 448.1 p 431.1 r 44S.2 423.7 Nondurable-goods employme nt (thousands}t .......... ... .... . 36S.7P 366.0p 360.0r 366.0 3SS.3 Percent of total labor force unemployed .............. . .. . . . . . 3.9 3.6 3.8r 3.8 3.6 Total civilian labor force in selected labor-market areas (thousands} .... .................. . .... . ........... . 3,946.7 3,897.8 3,790.Sr 3,876.9 3, 723.S Nonagricultural employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands} . ..................... · ... · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Manufacturing employment in selected labor-market 3,4S4.0 3,44S.3 3,342.0r 3,428.6 3,292.9 areas (thousands} . . .............. ... · ..... . · · . .. . . · · · · · · · 677.0 674.6 649.Sr 670.6 641.9 Total unemployment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) . . ..... ............. · .. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Percent of labor force unemployed in selected I S2.6 138.3 149.Sr 140.8 140.6 labor-market areas .......... . ... . .. . · · ... · · · ... ..... ... • . 3.9 3.S 3.9r 3.6 3.8 BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH RETURN REQUESTED TIIE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712 TEXAS FAMILY LAW by Jack W. Ledbetter Realizing the significance and impact of marital laws on the lives of all Texas citizens, the Bureau of Business Research believes that Texas Family Law will help to provide a comprehensive explanation of the basic legal principles of marriage in Texas. Published as Business Guide No. 13, this revised edition is an expanded, up-to-date version of previous publications by the same author. It includes all of the Texas legislative marital changes through mid-1974, discussed in a professional and readable manner. Special attention is given to the rapidly developing areas of family credit transactions and "truth-in-lending," as well as to other areas of community property law, marital rights, contractual powers, insurance, taxation, and descent and distribution. Citations to authorities and reference publications are included in support of each major conclusion. Jack W. Ledbetter, the author of Texas Family Law, is an attorney-at-law in Austin, Texas, and a former associate professor of business law at The University of Texas at Austin. It is not the purpose of this publication to offer legal advice or to attempt to solve any particular fact situation. The statutes and cases herein represent only a small portion of the law in this field. Only an attorney thoroughly familiar with the details of a particular situation and with the individual legal principles involved can adequately and safely advise in this area. 149 pp. (Texas residents add $.20 tax.) $4.00 Bureau of Business Research Graduate School of Business The University of Texas at Austin