TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW VOL. XLIX, NO. I, JANUARY 197 Editor: Robert H. Ryan Managing Editor: Margaret Woodrul Editorial Board: Robert H. Ryan, Chairman; Stanley A. Arbingast; John R. Stockton; Francis B. May; Robert B. Williamson; Margaret Woodruff CONTENTS ARTICLES 1: The Business Situation in Texas, by Robert M. Lockwood 5: Agricultural Income Support: Where Does the Money Go? by Curtis D. Toews 11 : Texas Construction: Current Conditions, by Bryan Adair 12: Texas Construction: Seasonal Fluctuations, by Bryan Adair TABLES 2: Selected Barometers of Texas Business 3: Business-Activity Indexes for Twenty Selected Texas Cities 5: Value of Selected U.S. and Texas Crops, 1972 6: U.S. Agricultural Income Support Methods, 1971 Crop Year 6: U.S. Agricultural Income Support Through Set-Aside Payments and Other Direct Payments, Texas and United States, 1971 7: Gini Coefficients for Selected U.S. Agricultural In­come Support Programs, Texas and United States, Selected Years 10: Indexes of Prices Received by Farmers in Texas 11: Estimated Values of Building Authorized in Texas 15: Local Business Conditions Barometers of Texas Business (inside back cover) CHARTS 1: Texas and U.S. Business Activity 2: Industrial Production, Texas and U.S. 7: Gini Coefficients 8: Percentage of Agricultural Income Support Received for Upper and Lower 50 Percent of Farms, Selected Crops, Texas and United States, 1971 9: Direct Payments to U.S. and Texas Farmers for Selected Crops, 1971 10: Prices Received by Farmers, All Farm Products, Texas 12: Seven-Year Seasonal Trends in Nonagricultural and Construction Employment, 1967-1973 13: Seven-Year Seasonal Nonagricultural and Construc­tion Unemployment Trends, Texas, 1967-1973 13: Seven-Year Seasonal Trends in Dollar Value of Planned Texas Construction, 1967-197 3 14: Trends in Seasonal Construction Employment, Texas, 1958-1973 Published monthly by the Bureau of Business Research, Graduate School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712. Second-class postage paid at Austin, Texas. Content of this publication is not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely, but 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. BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH Business Research Council: Vernon M. Briggs, David L. Huff, George Kozmetsky, Albert Shapero, Po L. Yu Director: Stanley A. Arbingast Assistant Director: Florence Escott 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, Lorrin G. Kennamer, R. C. Means, Jerry Todd Systems Analyst: 0. Frederic Rye Administrative Assistant: Patricia Cloud Energy Specialist and Coordinator of Radio Programs: Robert M. Lockwood Transportation Specialist : Charles P. Zlatkovich Coordinator ofSpecial Projects and of Television Programs: Robert H. Ryan Research Associates : Bryan Adair, Robert Barnstone, Kath­ryn E. Burger, Michael Dildine, Christine Fox, Lois R. Glenn, Mary Gorse, Joseph F. Hildenbrand, Jr., Edward N. Kasparik, J. Britt Kauffman, Ida M. Lambeth, Lorna Monti, Dianne Priddy, Barbara Terrell, Richard L Wheeler, Margaret Woodruff Research Assistants: Deborah Goltra, Harry E. Steffen librarians: Kathryn McMillen, Rita Wright Statisticians : Mildred Anderson, Constance Cooledge, John R. Stockton Statistical Technicians: Kay Davis, Susanna Loh Administrative Secretary : Jewell Patton Administrative Clerk: Yolanda Mindieta Senior Secretaries: Jennifer Brewster, Clintsy Sturgill Senior Clerk Ty pis ts: Frances Briceno, Nancy Davis, Geral­dine Edwards Senior Clerks: Robert Jenkins, Salvador B. Macias Clerk: Rodolfo Rodriguez Cartographers: James Buchanan, William Hezlep Printing Coordinator: Daniel P. Rosas Print Shop Foreman: Robert L. Dorsett Reprints of feature articles are available from the Bureau at te cents each. The Bureau of Business Research is a member of the Associati for University Business and Economic Research. US ISSN 004(}.4209 / THE BUSINESS SITUATION 1N/.fEXAs Robert M. Lockwood Despite troubled regions and sectors, the Texas economy generally held up fairly well in November 1974. The seasonally adjusted index of Texas business activity de­clined slightly from the previous month's level for only the fourth time in 1974. At 201.3 percent of the 1967 base level, the index stood 2.8 percent above the figure for November 1973. This change represents the lowest Novem­ber-to-November gain in several years. During the last ten years, the seasonally adjusted index of business activity in Texas from November to November has recorded these gains: 13.3 percent; 4.8 percent; 16.6 percent; 8.4 percent; 4.8 percent; 13.l percent; 15.8 percent; 12.l percent; 8.1 percent; and 2.8 percent. The January-November 1974 average of the Texas index of business activity, after seasonal adjustment, also advanced over the preceding year, gaining 11 percent. The data for bank debits in Texas, which reflect adjustment for seasonal factors but not for price changes, indicate an increase of less than I percent between October and November 1974. The advance from November 1973 to November 1974, however, amounted to 24.6 percent. As much as half of this gain in bank debits might represent price increases. Price Changes Because bank debits merely represent the flow of money through one type of financial institution, they not only fail to identify flows that actually indicate increased business activity, but they also rise as prices rise. Depending on regional economic circumstances, they may rise proportion­ately or disproportionately with average national price rises. Because regional money flows represent such a specific and rapidly changing mix of economic circumstances, the influence of price changes alone cannot be determined precisely, but rising prices certainly influence these indica­tors heavily. The only two price indexes maintained by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for Texas areas are the quarterly indexes of consumer prices in Dallas and Houston. The Dallas index covers the months of February, May, August, and November. The Houston data refer to January, April, July, and October. Standing at 151.3 percent of the 1967 base level, the all-items consumer price index for Dallas in November 1974 advanced 2.3 percent from the August figure. The annual average for the four Dallas figures last year was 145 .5 percent of the 1967 level. The consumer price index for the United States, also covering all items and referring to a 1967 base level, stood at 154.3 percent in November, 2.9 percent above the national figure for August. The November figure for the country as a whole stood 2 percent (3 percentage points) higher than the Dallas figure in November. The August-to­Novem ber rate of increase was slightly higher in the nation as a whole than in Dallas. Consumer prices for all items in Houston stood at 154.4 percent of the 1967 base level last October; the comparable national figure was 153.0 percent. Houston prices appar­ently had advanced a little farther from the 196 7 base by that time. Houston prices advanced 4.2 percent, according to the index, between July and October, compared with a national gain for this period of 3.4 percent. These numbers say nothing about the absolute relation­ships of national prices to those in Dallas and Houston. All that can be learned from the indexes is that prices in Houston have risen a little farther and a little faster than the national average and that those in Dallas have risen less. Whether prices in Houston and Dallas are higher or lower 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 than the average around the country depends on the relationships of the 1967 prices. Personal Income The monthly index of estimated personal income in Texas, which is not adjusted for price changes., rose slightly in November 1974, reaching 205.7 percent of the 1967 average. At 13.1 percent above the level of November 1973, this figure cannot reflect much real gain, because it roughly approximates the upward movement of most prices. In fact, the unadjusted gain in this index for the last ten years has averaged only a little over 10 percent. A gain of this magnitude now would surely do no more than offset all or most of the effects of price increases. Miscellaneous Indicators The performance of several other economic indicators in Texas last November, though not promising, suggests that known difficulties in the economy of the state are heing offset, at least partially, by healthy trends elsewhere. The energy series performed about as expected, indi­cating a 1.1-percent increase in crude-oil production (ac­cording to the seasonally adjusted index) and a decline of 10 percent from the level of November 1973. Gaining only slightly in November from October, the index (after seasonal adjustment) of crude runs to stills moved up 6.6 percent from November 1973. After adjustment for season­al factors, the index of natural gas production, available only through August, declined 3.3 percent during the first eight months of 1974. Total electric-power consumption in November, accord­ing to the index, climbed 12.8 percent higher than the October level and gained 5.6 percent over November 1973. Industrial ,electric power use, according to the deseasonal­ized index, rose 4.3 percent over the October level and 8.3 percent over the previous November. The index of urban building permits issued continued its decline, falling off 11.4 percent from October and almost 25 percent from November 1973. Most of this decline was attributable to the lackluster showing of new residential lSO SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (Indexes-Adjusted for seasonal variation-1967=100) Percent change Year-to- Nov date Year-to­ 1974 average date from 1974 Nov Oct average Oct from Index 1974 1974 1974 1974 1973 Estimated personal inco me Business activity 205.7p 204.0p 201.3 202.0r 195.3 198.7 •• 13 11 Crude-petroleum production Crude-oil runs to stills 108.2p 107.0p 129.0 128.8 112.3 122.7 •• - 3 •• Total electric-power use 178.8p 158.5p 167.9 13 5 Industrial electric- power use 166.8p 159.9p 156.1 4 7 Ban k debits 34 6. 1 343.8 3 16.6 1 31 Urban building permits issued 136.3p 153.9p 186.5 - 1 1 - 3 New residential 100.2P 118.7p 154.0 - 16 - 21 New nonresidential (unadjusted) 163.8P 155.oP 211.0 6 7 Total ind ustrial produc tion 141.6p 140.4p 139.5 2 Total nonfarm em­ployment 135.0p 135.0p 133.1 •• 4 Manufac t uring em­ ployment 122.5p 123.2p 122.8 - 1 6 Total unemploymen t I 53.9 144.8 135.8 6 3 Insured une m ploymen t 237.8 175.6 170.2 35 19 Average weekly earn- ings-manufacturing 155.9p 153.4p 148.9 2 9 Average weekly hours-manufacturing 97.7p 97.7p 98.I •• - I Preliminary. rRevised. **Change is Jess than one half of 1 percent. permit-issues: the index tracing this activity fell off by almost a sixth in November and 43.4 percent from November 1973. Industrial production in Texas, as measured by the seasonally adjusted index, advanced 0.9 percent from October and 0.2 percent from November 1973. Among the components of this index, only that for mining fell off in Texas during the last year (-5 .0 percent). Manufacturing gained 1.5 percent (primarily on account of the nondurable manufactures increase of 2. 7 percent), and the index of utilities production advanced 3.7 percent. The national seasonally adjusted indexes of industrial production, however, declined uniformly between October and November 1974 and between November 1973 and last November. The total industrial production index fell off 2.3 percent between October and November and 4.3 percent during the twelve months ending with November 1974. During the same one-year period, the index of manufacturing slipped 4.4 •percent, the mining index deteriorated by 6.6 percent, and the utilities index fell by 2.8 percent. Although the index of nonagricultural employment in Texas, allowing for seasonal fluctuations, remained un­changed from October 1974, the November 1974 level gained 3.4 percent on that of November 1973. Down 0.6 percent in November 1974 from October, according to the seasonally adjusted index, manufacturing employment in Texas for the first eleven months of the year remained 6 percent ahead of the comparable period during 1973. Total and insured unemployment, according to the indexes, advanced 6.3 and 35 percent, respectively, over their October levels. For the year through November 1974, total unemployment stood 3 percent higher than during the first eleven months of 1973 and insured unemployment gained 19 percent over the January-November figure for 1973. Regional Business Activity The November 1974 behavior of the seasonally adjusted indexes maintained by the Bureau of Business Research for twenty Texas cities exhibits considerable variety. Only five of the twenty cities advanced or failed to change their October index levels. These five cities were Amarillo, Dallas, Fort Worth, Galveston, and Houston. The largest of these gains, in Fort Worth, amounted to only 7 percent. Other cities, such as Midland and Odessa, might show up well in these indexes, but several significant urban centers are not included among these twenty cities. Only seven of the twenty cities, including one in the first group, exhibited declines for January-November 1974 compared with the same eleven months in 1973. These cities were Amarillo, Corsicana, Port Arthur, San Antonio, Texarkana, Tyler, and Waco. Ranked in accordance with their growth since 196 7, the top five cities are Dallas, Austin, Houston, San Angelo, and Laredo. On the basis of their first eleven months' perform­ ance in 1974, compared with the same period in 1973, the first five cities are Austin, Dallas, Houston, Laredo, and Corpus Christi. These data tell nothing about the quality of this economic activity, and they tell nothing about the relation of the cities to one another. These indexes merely compare each city's growth over time, according to one specific measure or set of measures. That any indicator based primarily on bank debits can be highly misleading as an index to economic health can be demonstrated by the inclusion in these top five cities of Laredo, a city in deep economic difficulty. Regional Unemployment Though useful, data on the percentage rate of unemploy­ ment can be misleading. Recent national unemployment figures, for example, which have crept above 7 percent, have been widely noted to be the highest since 1940. The rate was 9.9 percent in 1941, but the total number of unemployed was about the same as in November 1974. The comparison of rate alone obscures the absolute number of persons involved and therefore disguises the human dimen­ sions of unemployment. A fluctuation of one percentage point in the unemploy­ ment rate in 1940 involved about 560,000 workers and affected perhaps 1.3 million men, women, and children. In 1974 the same percentage fluctuation represented more than 900,000 workers and more than 2.1 million persons, including the dependents of breadwinners. Thus it is useful, and even comforting, in its way, to know that the November unemployment rate in Texas averaged 4.8 percent. In the twenty-three labor market areas for which the Texas Employment Commission com­piles and publishes area statistics, the median rate was 4.5 percent. Only seven areas experienced a rate of 6 percent or higher. In absolute terms, however, the unemployed in Texas in November totaled 245,500 persons, representing an affect­ed population of close to 600,000. A fluctuation of one percentage point in the unemployment rate in Texas in 1974 affected more than 50,000 workers and, through them, a total of perhaps 120,000 persons. The same percentage change in Texas unemployment in 1940 affect­ed only half that many men, women, and children. If unemployment were distributed proportional to the civilian labor force, the labor market areas with the largest unemployment rolls would be Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin. Houston and Dallas do rank first and second, respectively. In all, ten areas are suffering unemployment just about in proportion to the size of their civilian labor force : Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange; Corpus Christi; Dallas; El Paso; Fort Worth; Houston; Longview­Marshall; San Angelo; San Antonio; and Waco. Th~ remain­ing thirteen labor market areas of the state experienced disproportionately high or low unemployment in Novem­ber. BUSINESS-ACTNITY INDEXES FOR TWENTY SELECTED TEXAS CITIES (Adjusted for seasonal variation-1967=100) Percent change Year-to- Nov date City NovP 1974 Octr 1974 Year-to­date average 1974 1974 from Oct 1974 average 1974 fro m 1973 Ab ilene 130.2 137.0 147.S - s 11 Amarillo 14 3.2 14 2.4 1 S7.6 1 - 6 Austin 221.S 2 3 S. 7 2 S 1. 7 - 6 11 Beaumont 11 9 .2 123.7 124 .4 - 4 17 Corpus Christi 1S7.6 l 7S.4 183. s - 10 16 Corsicana 111.4 122.6 133. l - 9 - 2 Dallas 236.3 236. S 2 2S . l •• 13 El Paso 160 .S 183.7 170. S - 13 s Fort Worth 1SS .7 14S.4 ISS.0 7 1 Galveston 148.2 140.6 129.7 s 9 Houston 216.8 214.2 207.3 1 14 Laredo 163.2 170.4 18 S. 8 4 6 Lubbock 132.9 1S3.1 174.9 - 13 6 Port Art hur 90.S 94.6 94.4 - 4 - 10 San Angelo 172. 6 181.6 181.4 s 9 San Antonio 139.S 1S0.4 1S3.8 7 - 4 Texarkana 97.0 99.4 101.1 2 - 10 Tyler 116. 7 128.6 132. l - 9 - 4 Waco 133.8 14S.3 1 SO.O - 8 - 3 Wichita Falls 1S3.8 18S.9 1S7.9 - 17 23 PPreli minary. r Revised. **Change is less than one half of 1 percent. These areas enjoyed proportionately low unemployment totals: Abilene; Amarillo; Austin; Galveston-Texas City; Lubbock; Midland-Odessa; and Wichita Falls. The remaining six areas suffered more than their proportional share of unemployment: Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito; Laredo; McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg; Sherman-Denison; and Texarkana. Three labor market areas in the Rio Grande Valley­Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, Laredo, and McAllen­Pharr-Edinburg-suffered 6.1 percent of the unemployment in Texas in November, although these three areas shared only 2.8 percent of the civilian labor force. They probably also experienced more indirect effects from unemployment, through a larger average number of dependents per unem­ployed person, than many areas of the state. These three areas plus Sherman-Denison and Texarkana, with only 4.4 percent of the civilian labor force in the state, experienced 8.8 percent of the unemployment during November 1974. The twenty-three labor market areas for which statistics are available are themselves proportionately a little better off than the rest of the state: they claimed 77 .6 percent of the November labor force and only 74.6 percent of the unemployment. Evenly distributed unemployment would mean an additional 7 ,300 persons out of work in these labor market areas. Regional Changes in the Labor Force Significant changes in the distribution of employment and unemployment in the state's labor market areas occurred between November 1973 and November 1974. The twenty-three labor market areas for which the Texas Employment Commission maintains monthly data account­ed for 78.3 percent ( 136,800) of the increase of 174,800 in the civilian labor force of Texas during the year ending with last November. Other urban and rural areas accounted for a net increase of only 38,000 workers. Of the gain of 60,400 in unemployment during these twelve months, these twen­ty-three areas contributed only 48.1 percent, or a little more than 29,000 persons. The gain in the labor force, therefore, was roughly proportional to the share contrib­uted by these areas, but unemployment fell heaviest outside these areas. With less than 23 percent of the civilian labor force in Texas, the urban and rural areas outside these twenty-three labor market areas suffered 52 percent of the November-to-November increase in unemployment. Within the twenty-three areas, the gain of 136,800 in the civilian labor force came about in spite of Corpus Christi and Texarkana, which suffered a net loss of 2,300 workers between them. Dallas contributed much more than its share of the new unemployment (11 ,000) and Houston much less (900). Only Galveston (-300) and McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg (-360) experienced declines in unemployment. Of the net decline in manufacturing employment during the year ending with November 1974 (-1,300), much was attributable to Dallas (-6, 100), and Sherman-Denison and Texarkana (-800 each). The twenty-three labor market areas collectively, however, exhibited a net increase of 5,480 manufacturing jobs. These were more than offset by the loss of 6, 780 jobs outside these areas. TEXAS BUSINESS LOG November 1974 5 Federal Energy Administration rules against con­struction of San Antonio refinery which would have produced 10,000-12,000 barrels of fuel oil per day for electric power plan ts owned by City Public Service Board (San Antonio), City of Austin, and LCRA. 6 Southland Paper Mills, Inc., Lufkin, announces possibility of using lignite under owned and leased lands in Shelby and Trinity Counties for future power needs of paper mills. Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union ends ninety-one-day strike at Amoco's Texas City refinery and 1,128 members return to work. Citing worsening economic situation and rising fuel costs, Texas International Airlines defers 197 5 phase of aircraft fleet expansion and modernization program. 12 International Paper Company authorizes $155­million expansion of its Texarkana pulp and paper mill. Texaco, Inc., half owner of Jefferson Chemical Group, agrees to buy other half from Ameri­can Cyanamid Company for $80.7 million. 15 Rise of 4 percent in domestic airline fares becomes effective, following 6-percent advance allowed by Civil Aeronautics Board last April, an increase tied originally to rising fuel bills. 19 Conoco shelves plans to build new refining­petrochemical complex on Gulf Coast, citing uncertainties of federal energy policies. Texas Railroad Commission sets allowable pro­duction of Texas oil wells at 100 percent of market demand for the thirty-second consecu­tive month. 22 U.S. Department of Defense reveals scheduled closing of Ellington Air Force Base near Houston, eliminating 11,500 milita~ and 11,600 civilian jobs. Other Texas installations to close are on Matagorda Island and in Laredo. Forty petrochemical department employees from New York office of Texaco to be relocated in downtown Houston. Texas Instruments, Inc., announces partial or complete closing of some of its worldwide operations during November 29 and December 22-J anuary 5. 27 Exxon defers indefinitely construction of Bay­town pilot plant to convert five hundred tons of coal per day into synthetic natural gas, citing rising costs and competing needs for funds. Agricultural Income Support: Where Does The Money Go? Curtis D. Toews ·. Agriculture is big business in the United States and in Texas. In 1972 U.S. farms produced $60.6 billion worth of raw agricultural produce. In the same year Texas farms produced the third largest output of any state: $3.9 billion. California was the largest producer, with $5.5 billion, followed by Iowa with $4. 7 billion. 1 In the early 1970s Texas and U.S. agriculture have moved from a period of low food prices and large surpluses to a period of high and ever-rising food prices and scarcities. With anticipated increases in world shortages of food and fiber, farm and ranch output in the United States will become increasingly important. The explosion in prices and the shortages of U.S. agricultural products in the domestic market result in part from the combination of increases in world demand for U.S. foodstuffs with the forty-year legacy of federal programs restricting the output of the U.S. farm and ranch. Some of these programs not only slow down necessary expansion of agricultural production, but also show increas­ing trends toward inequitable distribution of benefits to farmers. The programs were designed partly to assist small farmers with low incomes, but distribution of support under the programs is uneven and often benefits large farmers disproportionately. The inequity arises from a small number of farmers owning a large proportion of the acres allotted for support. For example, in 1971 50 percent of U.S. farmers receiving price support for wheat owned 91 percent of the acreage allotted through the program and received close to 91 percent of the support, which is given on a per-bushel basis. Agricultural production has long been considered by governments in North America and Western Europe to merit extensive government subsidy and support. A succes­sion of federal agricultural income support programs has been sponsored by the U.S. government since 1.929. The reasons for government aid to agriculture are complex: l) Farmers sell their products in highly competitive markets, with great seasonal and cyclical fluctuations in produce prices. At the same time they must buy farm machinery and equipment in markets dominated by a few large-scale producers with fixed prices. This causes a profit squeeze for the farmer. Curtis Toews is a doctoral candidate in economics and a research associate at the Center for the Study of Human Resources, The University of Texas at Austin. 2) Agricultural productivity has increased rapidly in the twentieth century, with large decreases in unit costs of production brought about by mechanization and improved techniques disseminated through the agricultural extension service. In 1930 one U.S. farmer fed 8.8 of his fellow Americans; in 1971 he fed 41.7.2 The decrease in unit costs of production has meant concurrent decreases in the price of agricultural products relative to other products. Decreases in agricultural prices and increases in consum­er income do not mean a proportionate increase in the consumption of agricultural goods. With increasing afflu­ence the percentage of the consumer dollar spent on food and fiber drops. The dollar volume of farm production decreases relative to industrial production, and overall farm income can actually drop. 3) The age and the agriculturally oriented skills of many poorer rural farmers and farm workers prevent them from being easily assimilated into an industrial economy, but in order to remain in agriculture they require government support in some form. Support Legislation, 1929-1973 Because of these unique problems and because of the importance of the agricultural sector, the U.S. government began supporting agricultural income with the 1929 passage of the Agricultural Marketing Act. This act, popularly known as the McNary-Haugen bill, established the Federal Farm Board to assist producer cooperatives and clearing houses in marketing agricultural commodities. VALUE OF SELECTED U.S. AND TEXAS CROPS, 1972 (Thousands of dollars) Texas value Percentage of Crop U.S. value Amount U.S. value Rice $ 561 ,729 $ 146,005 26.0 Wheat 2,575,089 67,320 2.6 Corn 7,017,38 1 57,362 0.8 Grain sorghum 1,041,326 489,725 47.0 Cotton 1,743,763 472 ,884 27.1 Peanuts 477, 524 65,822 13.8 Total 13,416,812 1,299,118 9.7 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Statistics 1973 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973), pp. 1, 2, 20, 21 , 28, 29, SO, 51, 58, 59, 122, and 123. In 1933, in response to the Great Depression, Congress passed the first Agricultural Adjustment Act, which pro­vided for production and acreage controls on certain crops with the intention of maintaining the farmer's purchasing power at the 1909-1914 level. In the same year President Roosevelt established the Commodity Credit Corporation to support corn and cotton prices through loans. Under the 1936 Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act µayments were made to farmers who participated in conservation programs. In 1938 a new Agricultural Adjust­ment Act provided for price support loans, direct pay­ments, marketing quotas, and acreage allotments. U.S. AGRICULTURAL INCOME SUPPORT METHODS, 1971 CROP YEAR Direct payment and Indirect support Commodity price support methods methods Barley Loans by CCC* Purchases by CCC Castor beans Purchases of oil from mills by CCC Cotton Loans by CCC Acreage allotments Set-aside payments by USDA** Dairy products Purchases by CCC Dry beans Loans by CCC Purchases by CCC Feed grain Corn Loans by CCC Acreage allotments Purchases by CCC Subsidies to grain Set-aside payments exporters by USDA Grain sorghum Loans by CCC Acreage allotments Purchases by CCC Subsidies to grain Set-aside payments exporters by USDA Flaxseed Loans by CCC Purchases by CCC Honey Loans by CCC Purchases by CCC Mohair Payments by USDA Loans by CCC Oats Loans by CCC Purchases by CCC Peanuts Loans by CCC Acreage allotments Purchases by CCC Marketing quotas Rice Loans by CCC Acreage allotments Purchases by CCC Marketing quotas Rosin Loans by CCC Rye Loans by CCC Purchases by CCC Shorn wool Payments by USDA Soybeans Loans by CCC Purchases by CCC Sugar beets Payments by USDA Import quotas Sugar cane Payments by USDA Acreage allotments Marketing quotas Tobacco Loans by CCC Acreage all otments Marketing quotas Wheat Loans by CCC Acreage allotments Purchases by CCC Subsidies to grain Set-aside payments exporters by USDA *Commodity Credit Corporation. **Payments, based on historical average yield per allotment, to farmers who agree to leave a certain portion of their allotment out of production, by U.S. Department of Agriculture. Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, "Commodity Credit Corporation Price Support Program Data: 1971 and 1970 Commodities," mimeographed, 1971; idem, "Production Adjustment Programs," mimeographed, March 1971. U.S. AGRICULTURAL INCOME SUPPORT THROUGH SET-ASIDE PAYMENTS AND OTHER DIRECT PAYMENTS, TEXAS AND UNITED STATES, 1971 (Millions of dollars) Texas payments Percentage of Program U.S. payments Amount U.S. payments Feed grain Corn Grain sorghum Wheat 1,060.1 (893.1) (167.0) 877.9 89.3 (8.7) (80.6) 52.4 8.4 (1.0) ( 4 8.3) 6.0 Cotton 822.2 276.0 33.6 Conservation 162.2 20.1 12.4 Sugar 80.1 1.1 1.4 Wool 68.8 18.4 26.7 Cropland adjustment 66.8 7.2 10.8 Other 12.8 4.5 3 5.2 Total 3,150.9 469.0 14.9 Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service, Farm Income: State Estimates, 1959-1971, August 1972; USDA, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Frequency Distributions of Participating Farms in 1971 Feed Grain, Wheat, and Cotton Set-aside Programs, December 1971. These and other federal farm relief and agricultural adjustment acts have progressed through numerous revi­sions, deletions, and additions to the latest agricultural support legislation, the Agriculture and Consumer Protec­tion Act of 1973. The new act incorporates the target price or government-guaranteed floor price plan originally pro­posed by Secretary of Agriculture Charles Brannan in 1949. Under the new act farmers will receive government support for wheat, feed grains, and cotton in direct per-unit payments only when the market-determined prices of covered crops fall below government-guaranteed floor prices. Under past programs the government has set prices for these crops by purchases and sales in the market, storing surpluses when necessary. The new act also allows for direct payments to farmers when crops are destroyed by natural causes. Benefit Distribution, 1964-1971 The U.S. Department of Agriculture has distributed direct per-unit payments to farmers for the production of wheat, feed grains (corn and grain sorghum), and cotton when the farmer has agreed to restrict his production by leaving a specified amount of his land out of production. These set-aside payments tend to be more helpful to large farmers, who can more easily hold substantial proportions of their acreage out of production and still make a profit. The addition of direct set-aside payments to price support programs such as loans and purchases by the Commodity Credit Corporation causes benefits to be less equitably distributed than would be the case with price support programs alone. The amount of direct payments to U.S. and Texas farmers has been substantial, constituting 61. 7 percent of 1971 budget outlays for agriculture and rural development and 2.4 percent of the non defense federal budget.3 However, these direct payments have been at least matched by the dollar amount of benefits received from price 4 support programs. The role of the U.S. government in the support of agriculture has been questioned and criticized, with the claim that the primary benefits have gone to the owners of larger farms, while much of the legislative rationale for the programs has been the need for assistance to small farmers with low incomes. The farm population includes a dispro­portionately large share of Americans living in poverty. Research into the distribution of government payments has been extensive. 5 James Bonnen's study in 1968, utilizing Gini coefficients as a measure of concentration of benefits, covered all price support programs between 1963 and 196S. Significant changes occurred in the pattern of benefit distributions in the United States and Texas between 1963 or 1964 and 1971 for rice, wheat, cotton, and peanut farming, as shown in an accompanying table in terms of Gini coefficients. 6 A lower Gini coefficient indicates increasing equity of distribution ; a higher one shows increasing inequity. Gini coefficients are explained in an accompanying box. Equity in benefit distributions is far from being reached in Texas or the United States. Between 1964 and 1971 concentration of national benefits into the hands of larger farmers increased in the wheat and peanut programs and fell for the cotton and rice programs. In Texas concentra­ tion of benefits increased for the cotton program as well as for the wheat and peanut programs, falling only in the rice program. Texas showed greater equity of benefit distribution in 1971 than the nation as a whole for the rice, com, cotton, and peanut programs, and less in the wheat and grain sorghum programs. Texas had the highest benefit concen­ tration of any state in the grain sorghum program. In the most equitably distributed of the 1971 national programs, com, the bottom SO percent of farms ranked in GINI COEFFICIENTS FOR SELECTED U.S. AGRICULTURAL INCOME SUPPORT PROGRAMS, TEXAS AND UNITED STATES, SELECTED YEARS Total program Texas United States Cotton 1964 .530 .653 1971 .539 .559 Feed grain Corn 1971 .390 .425 Grain sorghum 1971 .574 .458 Peanuts 1964 .491 .522 1971 .503 .544 Rice 1963 .525 .632 1971 .500 .579 Wheat 1964 .569 .569 1971 .658 .648 Sources: James T. Bonnen, "The Distribution of Benefits from Selected U.S. Farm Programs," Rural Poverty in the United States (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, May 1968), pp. 466-505 ; 1971 coefficients derived by author. Gini coefficients are explained in an accompanying box. Gini Coefficients Percent of forms, ranked in ord er of allot ment size James Bonnen's study of agricultural income support in the United States, 1963-1965, uses the Gini coefficient, or ratio, as a measure of concentration of benefits from income support programs, a measure ranging in value from zero to one. A coefficient approaching zero denotes increasing equality; one approaching the number one denotes increasing inequality of benefit distribution. Since it has been assumed that no farmer owns more than one allotment, the degree of concentration of benefits is understated. The Gini coefficient is equal to the ratio of the area between the Lorenz curve and the line of equality to the total area beneath the line of equality (see the accompanying illustration). Algebraically, the ratio is equal to K l -i~l (Pi+ 1 -pi) (Ii + Ii+ 1) In cases of absolute equality in the distribution of benefits the area between the line of equality and the Lorenz curve would equal zero and thereby the coefficient would equal zero. In cases of absolute inequality (one farm receives the entire sum of payments) the area between the line of equality and the Lorenz curve would equal one, the ratio of this area to the entire area beneath the line of equality would equal one, and the Gini coefficient would equal one. The precise amount of price support benefits could not be calculated, for this would have required knowledge of what the prices of farm products would have been in the absence of government support. The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, however, does collect national and state information on the number and sizes of allotments in the crop support programs having acreage limitations and on the amount of direct payments by allotment size category. Using this distribu­tional information, Gini coefficients as well as percentages of benefits received by various percentiles of farms ranked in order of increasing allotment size have been calculated for selected crop support programs in the 1971 crop year. Allotment holders were assumed to have received price support benefits in proportion to the estimated dollar value of production for their allotment category, based on acreage yield and seasonal prices. terms of allotment size nevertheless received only 22 percent of program benefits. For the most inequitable program, wheat, the comparable figure was 11 percent of total program benefits for the bottom half of farms. For Texas also, corn was the most equitably distributed program in 1971 and wheat the least. The bottom 50 percent of farms ranked by allotment size received 29 percent of total Texas benefits for corn; the same percentile received a scant 7 percent of benefits for wheat. Inequity of benefit distribution in both Texas and the United States was apparently increased in three of the four 1971 programs including provisions for direct set-aside payments: the corn, grain sorghum, and cotton programs. The set-aside provisions apparently did not alter the equity of distribution in the wheat program. Direct payments under all four programs were limited to a maximum of $55,000 per farmer. Rice Rice prices in 1971 were supported through loans and purchases by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Production was limited through marketing quotas and allotment provisions. The concentration of rice benefits for the United States diminished somewhat from 1963 to 1971. However, the top 50 percent of farms ranked in terms of allotment size still received relatively high benefits from the 1971 rice program, 88 percent compared with 91 percent in 1963. During the same period the concentration of benefits for Texas rice farms decreased, but only among the largest rice farms. The top third of Texas rice farms ranked by allotment size received 71 percent of the benefits from the 1963 Texas rice program, but only 58 percent of the 1971 program. The top 50 percent, however, received the same percentage of benefits in both 1963 and 1971 programs : 84 percent. Even so, small Texas rice farms received a larger proportion of Texas rice price support benefits than small farms in the nation as a whole. Wheat Under the 1971 wheat program, wheat was supported through subsidies to exporters and by CCC loan or purchase. Supply was limited through acreage allotments. Direct payments were based on a historical average yield per allotment and were given with the provision that 75 percent of the allotment should remain out of production. The 1971 program differed from the 1 964 program studied by Bonnen, in which certificate and diversion payments were made. These payments performed the same function as the set-aside payments in reducing the acreage in production, however. The nation and Texas both experienced an increase in the concentration of wheat price support benefits between 1964 and 1971. In 1964 the top 50 percent of national wheat farms ranked in terms of allotment size received 88 percent of the price support benefits. Under the 1971 program the same group of farms received 90 percent of price support benefits. Concentration in Texas wheat production increased from 1964, when the top 50 percent of Texas wheat farms received 86 percent of wheat price support benefits distributed in Texas, to 1971, when the same percentile received 93 percent of the benefits. In the distribution of direct payments at the national level concentration increased from 1964 to 1971. The percentage of benefits received by the top third of U.S. wheat farms ranked by allotment size increased from 74 percent to 79 percent. Since $878 million was spent for wheat set-aside payments in 1971, the top third of farms received at least $694 million. Concentration in Texas during the same period increased both absolutely and relative to the nation. In 1964 the top half of Texas wheat farms ranked in terms of allotment size received 86 percent of the direct wheat payments to Texas. By 1971 the same percentile received a staggering 94 percent of payments, at least $49 million. This concentra­tion of direct payments was the highest in any of the fifty states for the 1971 wheat program. Total wheat benefits received by the top third of U.S. farms ranked by allotment size increased from 74 to 82 percent between 1964 and 1971. In Texas the top third received 77 percent of total Texas wheat benefits in 1964 and 82 percent in 1971. Feed Grain Bonnen calculated distributions of benefits from the 1964 feed grain program, but because of flaws in the raw data input and the valuation of allotment class production, no valid comparison can be made between the 1964 and 1971 programs. PERCENTAGE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SUPPORT • RECEIVED FOR UPPER AND LOWER 50 PERCENT OF FARMS, SELECTED CROPS, TEXAS AND UNITED STA TES, 1971 Grain Cotton Corn sorghum Peanuts Rice Wheot 100 80 60 " 0 "' c .. ~ 0.. 40 20 Upper 50 Percent of Farms -Texas -U.S. Lower 50 Percent of Forms LJ Texas LJ U.S. *Farms ranked by allotment size. Source: Various reports from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. DIRECT PAYMENTS TO U.S. AND TEXAS FARMERS FOR SELECTED CROPS, 1971 Cotton Corn G rain Wh.e ot 60 sorghum 50 58.8 Ol "' 40 a "' c v 30 0.."' 20 10 0 LJ Percentage for this crop of total direct payments in Tex as -Percentage for this crop of total direct payments in United States Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service, Farm Income: State Estimates, 1959-1971 , August 1972; USDA, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Frequency Distributions of Participating Farms in 1971 Feed Grain, Wheat, and Cotton Set· aside Programs, December 197 1. In 1971 com and grain sorghum, the two crops covered by the feed grain program, were supported through subsidies to exporters and by CCC loan and purchase. Supply was limited through acreage allotments. Direct payments were also made on the basis of the allotment's historical yield, provided that 20 percent of the com or grain sorghum allotment was not placed in production. The upper SO percent of national farms ranked in terms of allotment size received 77 percent of corn price support benefits in 1971. In Texas the top SO percent received 69 percent of the Texas benefits. The top 1 percent of Texas farms received 21 percent of the benefits, however, while the same percentage at the national level received only 2.9 percent of price support benefits, a more equitable distribu­tion. The distribution of com set-aside payments revealed a perverse relationship. For Texas and the nation, more inequity existed in set-aside payments than in price support. Nationally, the top half of farms ranked by allotment size received 88 percent of set-aside payments, at least $784 million of direct government subsidies. The corn program distributes the largest direct payments of any single Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service pr9gram: $891 million altogether. The top SO percent of Texas corn farms received 87 percent of the Texas set-aside payments, amounting to $7.6 million. The top 1 percent, 472 farms, received 13 percent of benefits ($1.1 million), while the same percentile nationally received only 4 percent. Set-aside payments for the top 1 percent were thus more equitable than price support benefits for the same group. Texas showed less concentration in the total corn support program than the United States. The top half of state corn farms ranked in terms of allotment size received 71 percent of total state benefits, and nationally the top half received 78 percent of total benefits, a slightly higher concentration than that found for national price support programs alone. However, the top 1 percent of Texas corn farms received 21 percent of total state corn benefits, compared with a national figure of 2. 9 percent. The figures for the top 1 percent are the same for total benefits as for price support benefits. The grain sorghum component of the 1971 feed grain program exhibited the same pattern as the corn component in the relationship between the distribution of price support benefits and the distribution of set-aside benefits for both the United States and Texas. The top SO percent of farms received 77 percent of grain sorghum price support benefits nationally and 87 percent in Texas. The distribution of set-aside payments for grain sorghum was even more perverse than for corn. The top SO percent and 10 percent of national grain sorghum farms received 90 and S3 percent of set-aside payments, respec­tively. In Texas the top SO percent of grain sorghum farms received 91 percent of set-aside payments. Nevertheless, because the concentration was more evenly distributed within the top half of farms in Texas than nationwide, Texas showed less set-aside payment concentration in its Gini coefficient. The price support and set-aside distributions were combined to determine the distribution of total grain sorghum program benefits. The top SO percent of farms in the United States received 79 percent of total benefits, and Texas displayed the highest concentration of any state, 88 percent of total Texas grain sorghum benefits for the top half of farms and S2 percent of total benefits for the top 20 percent. Cotton In 1971 two types of cotton, upland and extra long staple, were supported by CCC loan programs. Supply was limited through acreage allotments, and set-aside pro­grams paid producers to leave 20 percent of their allot­ments idle. In 1971 the top SO percent of national cotton farms ranked by allotment size received 8S percent of price support benefits, less than the 1964 figure of 93 percent. Texas showed an increase in concentration of price support benefits from 1964 to 1971, with the top half of Texas cotton farms receiving 80 percent of Texas cotton price support benefits in 1971. The national distribution of 1971 cotton set-aside payments resembled the set-aside distributions in the 1971 feed grain program. The top SO percent and 10 percent of farms ranked by allotment size received 92 and S6 percent, respectively, of national set-aside payments. They received at least $7S6 million and $460 million, respectively, from the entire $822 million spent in the set-aside program for cotton. The set-aside distribution for Texas cotton farms was not as concentrated as the national distribution. The state set-aside distribution was slightly more concentrated than the state distribution of price support, however. In 1971 the top S 0 and 10 percent of Texas cotton farms received 81 and 28 percent of state cotton set-aside payments, or $341 million and $77 million. The top half of U.S. farmers received 85 percent of total cotton benefits in 1971 , the top half of Texas farmers 80 percent (the same proportion as the Texas price support benefit distribution, in spite of the Texas set-aside distribu­tion being slightly more concentrated). Peanuts In 1971 peanut farmers received support through CCC loans and purchases. Production was limited by marketing quotas and acreage allotments, but there were no set-aside payments. According to Bonnen's data, concentration in peanut production increased from 1959 to 1964. This trend continued through 1971, with concentration rising in nearly all states and in the nation as a whole. The top 50 percent of national peanut farms ranked in terms of allotment size received 84 percent of price support benefits in 1964; this group raised its share of total benefits to 85 percent in 1971. Texas peanut production was shown by Bonnen to be increasing between 1959 and 1964 in the level of benefit concentration, and concentration of benefits for the top 1 percent of farms continued through 1971. In 1964 the top 1 percent of Texas peanut farms ranked in terms of allotment size received 8.2 percent of Texas peanut price support benefits; in 1971 this same percentile received 8.6 percent of benefits. In 1971 the top 50 percent of Texas peanut farms garnered 78 percent of peanut price support benefits for the state, down from the 1964 figure of 8 2 percent. Conclusion The distributional wind seems to blow the chaff to the small farmer, while the grain falls down to the large farmer. Crop support programs through 1971 probably achieved more in the area of raising total farm income relative to total nonfarm income than in the area of equitable distribution of farm income among farmers. If trends in agricultural income support distribution between 1964 and 1971 continue, large farms will continue to gain relative to smaller farms in the amount of federal support received and it will be increasingly difficult to justify the programs in terms of assistance to small farmers with low incomes. 250ra"'~-,-~,,...,~~,.-~~~~~~-.-~---.~~..,-~-.~--, Sourcez U.S. Deportment of Agriculture. 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 197• 10 NOTES 1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics 1973 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973), p. 469. 2u.s. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics 1972 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 542. 3u.s. Council of Economic Advisors, Economic Report of the President (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973), p. 269. 4For estimates of the dollar sum of price maintenance schemes for various agricultural commodities, see Charles L. Schultze, The Distribution of Farm Subsidies: Who Gets the Benefits, Staff Paper (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institu­tion, 1971), p. 23. Price support subsidy is estimated to be at least equal in dollar value to the amount of direct pay ments. SJames L. Bonnen, "The Distribution of Benefits from Cotton Price Supports," in Samuel B. Chase, Jr., ed., Problems in Public Expenditure Analysis (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1968), pp. 223-254; James L. Bonnen, "The Distribution of Benefits from Selected U.S. Farm Programs," in President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty, Rural Poverty in the United States (Washing­ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, May 1968), pp. 461-505; Kenneth L. Robinson, "The Impact of Government Price and Income Programs on Income Distribution in Agriculture," Journal of Farm Economics 47 (December 1965): 1225-1234; Charles L. Schultze, The Distribution of Farm Subsidies: Who Gets the Benefits, Staff Paper (Washing­ton, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1971); and U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, The Economics of Federal Subsidy Programs, Part 7, Agricultural Subsidies (Washing­ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, April 30, 1973). 6sources of data for determining 1971 benefit distribu­tions include U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics 1972, and the following mimeographed reports issued in 1971 by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conser­vation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture: "Peanuts: Frequency Distribution of Farm Acreage Allot­ments by Size of Allotment, 1971"; "Frequency Distribution of 1971-Crop Rice Acreage Allotments by Size of Farm Allotments and Size of Producer Allotments with Percent­age" ; and "Frequency Distribution of Participating Farms in 1971 Feed Grain, Wheat, and Cotton Set Aside Programs." INDEXES OF PRICES RECEIVED BY FARMERS IN TEXAS (1967=100) Percent change Nov 1974 Nov 1974 Nov Oct Nov from from Classification 1974 1974 1973 Oct 1974 Nov 1973 All farm products 183 191 204 4 -10 All crops 236 243 224 3 5 Food grains 270 264 305 2 -11 Feed grains and hay 300 297 189 59 Potatoes and sweet potatoes 236 214 174 10 36 Fresh fruit 212 280 195 -24 9 Commercial vege­tables 197 196 150 ** 31 Cotton 176 205 262 -14 -33 Oil-bearing crops 196 196 150 ** 31 Livestock and products 138 146 187 -5 -26 Meat animals 123 135 191 -9 -36 Dairy products 149 147 ISO -I Poultry and eggs 186 186 172 ** 8 Wool and mohair 213 217 372 -2 -43 **Change is less than one half of I percent. Source: Statistical Reporting Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW No November since World War II has seen lower values of residential construction authorized in Texas urban areas, in terms of real-dollar-per-capita value, than November 1974. Even in terms of dollar amounts, both in current and in real value, 1974 November values are the lowest since 1966. In this respect Texas shares the lot of the nation. The Wall Street Journal stated on December 18, 1974, that the national rate of permits for new residential construction issued in November was the lowest on record. Even though the first few months of 1974 yielded record levels of residential construction, the total current­dollar volume of new residential construction authorized for January-November represented a 21-percent decrease from the same period of 1973. A great part of this decrease was concentrated in multiple-family dwellings, down 38 percent from 1973, and especially in apartment buildings (down 39 percent). New nonresidential construction authorized, which as of November still exhibited a 7-percent current-dollar value increase over the first eleven months of 1973, included notable increases in the current-dollar value of authoriza­tions for amusement buildings, commercial parking garages, works and utilities, educational buildings, and structures other than buildings. In spite of the relatively strong position of new nonresidential construction, total construction authorized in the first eleven months of 1974 for Texas urban areas was down 4 percent from the 1973 January-November level. This decrease is attributable to the 21-percent decrease in new residential construction, for additions, alterations, and repairs were up 28 percent in this period. Total construction in SMSAs decreased by 5 percent in the first eleven months of 1974 over the year-earlier level, and non-SMSA construction increased by 11 percent. In November total construction authorized in Texas urban areas fell in current-dollar value to the lowest point since 1970 and in real-value terms to the lowest point since 1969. However, if the real-dollar-per-capita value is con­sidered, this was the lowest November in 23 years, since the Korean War year 1951, when November authorizations fell to only 60 percent of the 1950 value. With the exception of November 1951, November 1974 showed the lowest per-capita real-dollar value of authorizations since World War II. In the earlier months of 1974 a certain amount of optimism and some speculation appeared in the Texas construction industry. Total construction authorized in the first four to five months of the year generally exceeded that in the corresponding months of 1973. A significant break in residential authorization values appeared in May, and in June nonresidential authorizations began to decline. The declines cannot be attributed to normal seasonal factors, for they appear even after seasonal adjustment of the data. Both declines continued at a steep rate until late summer but have leveled off since September. Seasonally adjusted data show that October and Novem­ber values of construction authorized have tended to return to the seasonal norm that could have been expected from early 1974 construction authorizations, indicating that the cycle may have reached a trough in September-October. This is not sufficient evidence on which to base a prediction of recovery, but it does indicate that a slight recovery may have begun, particularly in nonresidential building. Condi­tions are not likely to worsen significantly, although little or no improvement may come about during the next few months. ESTIMATED V ALOES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS# Percent change Nov J an-Nov 1974 1974 NovP J an-NovP from from 1974 1974 Oct Jan-Nov Classification (thousands of dollars) 1974 1973 All Permits New construction 2 16,202 187, 55 l 3,312,621 2,90 6,6 39 -9 •• 4 7 Residential (housekeeping) 68,215 1,2 15 ,756 -9 - 21 One-family dwellings 55,148 866,073 -13 - 11 Multiple-fa mily dwellings 13,067 349,683 17 - 38 Nonresidential 11 9,336 1,690,883 6 7 Hotels, motels, and tourist co urts 1,717 25 ,327 922 - 69 Amusement buildings 2,912 39,302 36 48 Churches 3, 132 47,082 -49 4 Industrial buildings 9,437 l 55 ,678 -51 l Garages (commercial and private) 4, 107 47,534 -14 26 Service stations and repair garages 463 9,423 -55 9 Hospitals and institutions 7,558 170,685 -14 11 Office-bank buildings 27 ,780 258,820 35 - 7 Works and utilities 3,423 131 ,388 57 6 2 Educational buildings 10,07 8 330,927 -44 58 Stores and mercantile buildings 19, 122 341,998 -17 - 18 Other b uildings and structures 29,607 132,719 335 47 Additions, alterations, and repairs 28,65 1 405,982 -43 28 SMSA vs. non-SMSA Total SMSAt 193,908 3,014,088 -10 - 5 Central cities 138,339 2, 190, 194 -17 - l Outside central cities 55,569 82 3,894 15 - 13 Total non-SMSA 22,295 298,534 -2 11 10,000 to 50,000 population 9,966 164,590 -23 20 Less than 10,000 population 12,329 133,944 25 2 #only building for which permits were issued within the incorporated area of a city is included. Federal contracts and public housing are not included. PPreliminary. **Change is less than one half of 1 percent. tStandard metropolitan statistical area as defined in 1973 Census. Source: Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. ; TEXAS CONSTRUCTION: SEASONAL FLUCTUATIONS . Bryan Adair Seasonal fluctuation in Texas construction can be predicted to some extent from analysis of statewide historical trends in construction employment, an indicator of present activity, and in contract letting and issuing of building permits. Undesirable weather is the most obvious cause of variation in construction activity. Rental and leasing dates, lending policies of financial institutions, and uncertainty with respect to materials costs and wage scales similarly affect construction. Many customs and habits that devel­oped in the past when the economy was more closely tied to agriculture and when seasonally related technological limitations more directly affected the manufacture, trans­portation, and placement of construction materials have carried over to the present. Construction Activity Employment Trends. The primary building season in Texas lasts roughly from April through October. January is the lowest-activity (trough) month for Texas construction employment, according to 1967-1973 data, and as the year progresses activity builds up steadily between January and June by about 3 percent per month until a June-August plateau is reached. After August, activity fails steadily through December with a pattern that closely mirrors the spring activity buildup; A graph of the Texas trend resembles a truncated isosceles triangle, with the legs of the triangle representing the January-June upswing and the August-January down­swing and the flattened top representing the June-August plateau. Texas construction employment between 1967 and 1973 generally fluctuated by about 10.5 percent of the yearly average between the winter low and the summer high, less than half of the 22. 9-percent peak-to-trough seasonal variation in national construction employment, even though much of the state experiences significant weather variations through the year. In contrast to the truncated triangular shape of the Texas seasonal pattern, the curve of the national trends between February and January closely resembles the positive half of a sine wave, with the January-February low presenting a flattened trough. The January-February national activity trough tends to lag the more definite Texas trough in January by about three weeks, and the national peak in August lags the initial Texas high by two months. Construction employment in Texas, even though exhib­iting milder cycles than those for the entire United States, shows about five times as great seasonal fluctuations for 1967-1973 as those in Texas nonagricultural employment as a whole. Both series show troughs in January, with the construction employment 5. 7 percent below the average month and nonagricultural employment 1.2 percent below the norm. The series gradually increase in activity through the spring and into the summer, generally peaking in June or July. Both series tend to remain high after the early summer peak, but construction tends to hold the summer plateau longer. Except for the delay of the drop in construction employment until September and for the November-December rise in general employment to a level almost as high as that of June employment, Texas construction employment and nonagricultural employment show similar curves, which differ primarily in amplitude. Construction labor variations are included in the non­agricultural index and influence the overall variations to some extent. Construction labor makes up about 6.6 percent of the total nonagricultural labor force in Texas in June and about 6.0 percent in January. The partial similarity between construction and general nonagricultural employment trends indicates that fluctuations are caused by some of the same seasonal forces, but that the forces affect construction and general business by different weighting factors. General business activity is at times affected by seasonal factors not relevant to the construc­tion industry, such as the usual Christmas surge in retail sales. Residential construction employment fluctuates more directly with the weather than does nonresidential con­struction, largely because the indoor work in residential construction is completed relatively soon after framing has taken place. On the other hand, larger commercial and institutional buildings that often require more than an SEVEN-YEAR SEASONAL TRENDS IN NONAGRICULTURAL AND CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT, 1967-1973 entire seasonal cycle to complete have indoor work that may be continued during the winter. Unemployment Trends. The Texas construction unem­ployment rate averages more than three times that of unemployment in Texas nonagricultural industry as a whole; this trend prevails throughout the year. The two seasonal unemployment trends are very similar when corrected for amplitude differences, but the yearly average unemployment rate for construction (based on 1967-1973 data) is 2.7 percent and ranges between l.6 percent and 3.9 percent, while nonagricultural unemployment for the state is 0.8 percent on the average and has a 0. 7-percent to l.0-percent range. Seasonal insured-unemployment statistics show that unemployment is highest in Texas during January for both construction workers and nonagricultural workers in gener­al. The numbers employed are lowest in January for both groups. Both series show that the unemployment rate drops through the spring and stabilizes somewhat during the early summer. Minimum unemployment is not registered in June, the maximum employment month, however, but in Sep­tember, three months after the June employment peak. The labor force supplying the construction industry is quite mobile and varies greatly throughout the year. Much of the jump in Texas construction employment in the summer, especially between May and June, may be ex­ plained by the summer vacations of students and the supply of fresh high school graduates looking for their first jobs. Similarly, the appearance of minimum unemployment in September rather than in June may be attributed to this seasonal fluctuation of the number of prospective construc­ tion workers. In September most of the students return to school, eliminating themselves from the job market, and many high school graduates drift from construction into other sectors of the economy or begin college without ever having joined the unemployment rolls. Construction workers who did not find work in June or July are drawn in to fill vacancies. Thus total employment and construction unemployment drop simultaneously in August and September. As construc­ tion projects are completed or slowed down in October and November, workers who had replaced the students are laid off. Some immediately apply for unemployment benefits, thus expanding unemployment rolls. This fluctuation process is not so dramatically appar­ ent in general nonagricultural employment as in construc­ tion. Moreover, in November and December nonagricultural employment expands in response to the . increased com­ SEVEN-YEAR SEASONAL NONAGRICULTURAL AND CONSTRUCTION UNEMPLOYMENT TRENDS, TEXAS, 1967-1973 SEVEN-YEAR SEASONAL TRENDS IN DOLLAR VALUE OF PLANNED TEXAS CONSTRUCTION, 1967-1973• • 1hree-month ceruer-weighted moving overoge. Source: Doro from Bureau of Bu1ine 11 Research ond Toos Conlroclor mercial activity of the holiday season; this upswing is not reflected in construction operations. Construction Planned Final go-ahead decisions for contemplated construction projects in Texas tend to be made between February and July, and activity in the fall and winter is relatively low, especially from September through January. Residential construction authorizations build up early in the year, while nonresidential authorizations are generally heavier between March and August. Contracts are heavily grouped in the summer, generally centering around a July high. Housing authorizations lead general construction em­ployment by approximately three months at the peak, but by only one month at the trough. Authorizations increase at a more rapid pace early in the year, based on the expectations of good building weather in the two-to-three­month future. On the other hand, seasonal construction employment is more directly affected by the weather and builds up more gradually, although rapidly, as the spring progresses and more work days become available. The Texas construction employment curve is roughly symmetri­cal about the month of July. · Seasonal fluctuations in residential building authoriza­tion are greater than those for nonresidential permits issued. Both dollar values and numbers of units authorized vary seasonally more than 20 percent on either side of the monthly average. December authorizations tend to be more than 20 percent below average, while peak issuance of permits in March exceeds the average by 20 percent. The yearly seasonal distribution for residential building permit authorization generally approximates a triangle, with a rapid climb from the December trough to the March peak and a gradual decline through the remainder of the year. January and August are closest to the average. Awards for public works and engineering contracts in Texas show a deep seasonal cycle that generally lags the variations in construction permit authorizations. This trend fluctuates symmetrically about a July peak and shows a maximum peak-to-trough variation of about 30 percent. At first the seasonal change appears to be a direct function of weather, but the fiscal years of public institutions and the dependence of contract letting on the completion of other seasonally influenced steps are probably more heavily felt factors. The m'ajor peak occurs in July, the first month of the federal fiscal year. January shows the most significant trough in contracts awarded. It is traditionally a low- Source: Dalo from T...o, Employm•nl Comm1111on volume month, largely because final decisions are habitually put off by many until the spring, when a better "feel" for the coming year's activity is available. Construction activity remains low until March or April. Reduction of Seasonal Fluctuation Seasonal fluctuations in business are expensive. Equip­ment and business infrastructures that require substantial fixed costs to maintain are largely idle during slack seasons; potential monetary recovery from capital and business goodwill investment is not fully realized. In addition to the diminished returns on investments, heavier social costs are generated by industries experiencing large seasonal varia­tions. Skilled, experienced labor goes unused during part of the year, domestic upset results from varying family income flows, and an individual's self-esteem fluctuates as his employment status changes. Because of the need for steady employment, many construction workers seek nonconstruction occupations during off-seasons; when construction activity again builds up, many former construction employees remain with their new jobs. The large seasonal turnover in the construction labor force constrains the industry to train many workers each year for both skilled and unskilled positions. Inexperi­enced workers can cause increased costs through their ignorance of hazards to health and equipment and through misinterpretation of instructions given in construction jargon. In addition, seasonal workers cannot maintain a constant level of proficiency in their work if it is broken up into yearly segments. Even trained and highly skilled workers experience some inefficiencies during the first two or three weeks back in construction after work in another field, owing to lack of practice in muscle coordination and development, in job-oriented thinking processes dealing directly with specific construction operations, and in precautionary awareness of hazards and basic watchfulness necessary to job safety. The resultant accidents and mistakes are, of course, an even greater problem when many new and inexperienced workers must be employed. With increasing recognition of the disadvantages of seasonal fluctuation, the construction industry has con­sciously worked toward damping the cycles as much as possible. The effort has succeeded to some extent in Texas during the past few years. The average portions of the total year's work performed in December, January, and February increased about 2.3 percent between 1958 and 1973, while TRENDS IN SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT, TEXAS, 1958-1973 Jun -Jul -Avg overage 8.75 8 . .50 8 .2.5 [ B.00 7 .7.5 19.58 1961 196.t 1967 1970 1973 Doto from Texos Employment Commission. 14 the June, July, and August portions fell slightly more than l percent during the same span. About 6.8 percent of yearly construction employment in Texas has shifted away from the summer peak period. About half of this shifted employment now appears in the three slower winter months. Efforts have been made to manage construction projects so that outside work is performed primarily from late spring through early fall, while much of the interior work is scheduled for months in which inclement weather is probable. Unit construction, prefabrication, and improved equipment, as well as some modification of established business practices, have also contributed to damping of seasonal construction activity fluctuations. Many construction companies have adopted sophisti­cated management and operations research techniques for use in project planning and control. Tools such as PERT/ CPM (program evaluation and review technique/critical path method), now used in project design, can be used to schedule specific operations with respect to weather so that fluctuation in the number of employees is minimized and the labor force in a given craft can be applied more evenly through the year. Seasonal fluctuations in numbers and values of residen­tial building permits authorized have also been damped somewhat during the past decade. The relative decline during the winter months and the steep spring increase have not been as great in the last few years as they were in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Since 1959 average housing unit authorizations have increased by l 0 percent for November and by 30 percent for December and declined by l 0 percent for July and by 13 percent for August. Seasonal Fluctuation in 1974 The normal seven-year seasonal cycles in Texas construc­tion were amplified by uncertain economic conditions in 1974. The season in which much of the final go-ahead decision-making traditionally occurs, the spring and early summer, saw a much greater buildup in planned construc­tion than is usual. When economic expectations were not fulfilled in late spring and early summer, much of the speculation in building, especially in housing, was curtailed, exaggerating the decline that normally occurs after midsum­mer. Construction activity in the state, based on employment, was high from January through April 1974, while seasonal­ly adjusted activity from June through September fell below the seven-year norm, actually experiencing a relative low point in July. Activity rose in October and November to a level higher than that which could have been predicted from activity earlier in the year. Because of the bleak outlook for the industry that became apparent in the late spring of 1974 contractors seem to have deliberately avoided building up their work forces to the maximum level usual for the summer. Instead, contractors maintained a somewhat less expensive, moder­ate level of activity, spreading the work more throughout the year and keeping their favored work cadres busy. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS Statistical data compiled by Mildred Anderson and Constance Coo/edge, statisticians, and Kay Davis and Susanna Loh, statistical technicians. The following section reports business conditions first by as highways, waterways, and reservoirs. Building statistics for the metropolitan areas, second by cities, listed under their counties. latest month are subject to revision. Standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSAs) include one or more Bank debit statistics for SMSAs and for most central entire counties, as shown. All SMSAs are designated as such by the metropolitan cities are collected by the Federal Reserve Bank of U.S. Bureau of the Census; however, the Longview-Marshall Dallas. Most other bank debits figures shown are collected from metropolitan area, not an SMSA, is listed because it is now a cooperating banks by the Bureau of Business Research; the significant urban node. Population figures are from the 1970 published figures represent all banks in the city shown. Census. Employment estimates include only wage and salary workers and Building permit data are collected from municipalities by the are compiled by the Texas Employment Commission in cooperation Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Census. They represent only building authorizations within city Footnote symbols are defined on pages 16 and 24. limits and exclude federal contracts and public works projects, such INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS Percent change Percent change from from Nov Oct Nov Nov Oct Nov 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) 1,391,412# 27 108 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,745,333 12 -45 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 327, 145 * * 8 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 909,284 3 12 Nonfarm employment 39,850 ** 3 Nonfarm employment 90, 100 I -2 Manufacturing employment 7,310 -2 9 Manufacturing employment 11,510 3 -4 Unemployed (percent) 2.4 26 14 Unemployed (percent) 6.3 21 19 AMARILLO SMSA DALLAS-FORT WORTH SMSA Potter and Randall Counties; population 144,396 Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Johnson, Kaufman, Urban building permits (dollars) 3, 123,963 -42 39 Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise Counties; Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 935,995 8 l population 2,377,979 Nonfarm employment 57,300 ** 3 Urban building permits (dollars) 42, 191,657 # -31 -42 Manufacturing employment 6,720 l 2 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) 29,096, l 36t 10 33 Unemployed (percent) 3.1 29 7 Nonfarm employment l,07 l,400t •• 1 Manufacturing employment 235,500t -1 -3 AUSTIN SMSA Unemployed (percent) 3.6 20 50 Hays and Travis Counties; population 323,158 Percent changePercent change from Urban building permits (dollars) 13,992,795 # 29 -41 EL PASO SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1 ,000) 1,636,216 5 20 El Paso County; population 359,291 Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 158,200 14,550 3.3 - ** l 22 - 2 l 14 Urban building permits (dollars) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) Nonfarm employ ment 11,438,069 1,242,42 2 131,500 - 22 5 I 98 19 2 BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties; population 345,939 Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 31,000 6.4 - 5 16 6 14 Urban building permits (dollars) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1 ,000) Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 3,863, 194# 9 39, 2 31 125,400 41,700 5.6 -42 l ** * * 24 62 17 3 3 4 GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Galveston County; population 169,812 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,417,976 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 427, 166 Nonfarm employment 59, 100 28 2 2 -71 39 4 BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA Cameron County; population 140,368 Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 10,900 4.0 11 18 4 -11 Urban building permits (dollars) 2, 177,427 -20 -73 HOUSTON SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1 ,000) 300, 102 6 4 Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 42,250 8,670 9.3 l I 18 - ** 4 11 Montgomery, and Waller Counties; population 1,999,316 Urban building permits (dollars) 53,657,050 # -25 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 21,420,016 6 -17 33 IBRYAN­COLLEGE STATION SMSA Brazos County; population 57,978 Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 953,400 171,400 4.5 * * 22 6 5 2 1Urban building permits (dollars) 293,306 -70 -91 1 r~~~t~~its,es:i~~-o~~e~$t1' 0r~~~rts are 148,093 not available 6 for the !Bryan-College Station SMSA). from Nov Oct Nov Nov Oct Nov 1974 1973Reported area and indicator 1974 1974 1973 Reported area and indicator 1974 KILLEEN-TEMPLE SMSA SAN ANGELO SMSA Bell and Coryell Counties; population 159,794 Tom Green County; population 71,047 154 •• Urban building permits (dollars) 2,069,560 -18 -9 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,663,873 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 217,613 5 3 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 232,393 -2 32 (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Nonfarm employment 23,000 ** 7 Killeen-Temple SMSA.) Manufacturing employment 5,050 ** 16 Unemployed (percent) 3.1 29 -3 LAREDO SMSA Webb County; population 72,859 SAN ANTONIO SMSA Urban building permits (dollars) 160,800 13 -73 Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe Counties; population 888,179 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 154,348 4 3 Urban building permits (dollars) 12,921,730# 36 -14 Nonfarm employment 20,950 -1 1 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 2,514,303 -1 8 Manufacturing employment 1, 590 -1 7 Nonfarm employment 307,800 ** •• Unemployed (percent) 17.4 44 2 Manufacturing employment 38,300 -1 •• Unemployed (percent) 5.8 23 32 LONGVIEW-MARSHALL METROPOLITAN AREA Gregg and Harrison Counties; population 120,770 SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA Grayson County; population 83,225 Bank debits ($1,000) 2 36,545 -11 16 Urban building permits (dollars) 258,108 -84 -98 Urban building permits (dollars) 3,872,791 34 112 .. Nonfarm employment 46,900 3 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) 129,084 -15 ** Manufacturing employment 15,590 -2 2 Nonfarm employment 29, 100 -3 -3 Unemployed (percent) 4.1 24 3 Manufacturing employment 10,750 -s -7 Unemployed (percent) 7.7 71 166 LUBBOCK SMSA Lubbock County; population 179,295 TEXARKANA SMSA Urban building permits (dollars) 2,802,1 28 -33 -34 Bowie County, Texas, and Miller County, Arkansas; Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 667, 140 -7 -14 population 101,198 Nonfarm employment 71,900 ** ** Urban building permits (dollars) 333,470 -10 26 Manufacturing employment 10,440 -4 3 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) 185,391 5 8 Unemployed (percent) 2.7 29 13 Nonfarm employment 37,350 -I -2 Manufacturing employment 8, 130 -3 -13 McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA Unemployed (percent) 8.6 18 IS Hidalgo County; population 181,535 (Since the Texarkana SMSA includes Bowie County in Texas and Miller County in Arkansas, all data, including population, refer to Urban building permits (dollars) 5,714,496 44 7 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 350,215 6 16 the two-county region.) Nonfarm employment 43,550 3 3 Manufacturing employment 5,620 10 IS TYLER SMSA Unemployed (percent) 9.8 8 -7 Smith County; population 97,096 Urban building permits (dollars) 980,300 -89 MIDLAND SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 298,391 -I Midland County; population 65,433 Nonfarm employment 39,200 ** I Urban building permits (dollars) 6,527,935 971 523 Manufacturing employment 12,220 -I -4 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 369,487 10 40 Unemployed (percent) 5.1 II 31 Nonfarm employment 58,800 I 7 Manufacturing employment 6,270 2 16 WACO SMSA Unemployed (percent) 3.0 I 5 7 McLennan County; population 147,553 (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and Urban building permits (dollars) 2,662,083 118 -26 Odessa SMSAs since employment figures for Midland and Ector Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 404,662 -7 15 .. Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in Nonfarm employment 56,200 ** combined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) Manufacturing employment 13,260 I -2 Unemployed (percent) 4.6 s 24 ODESSA SMSA Ector County; population 91,805 WICHITA FALLS SMSA Urban building permits (dollars) 5,084 ,620 189 535 Clay and Wichita Counties; population 129,941 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 258,449 11 27 Urban building permits (dollars) 773,382# -32 -23 Nonfarm employment 58,800 1 7 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 437,131 -IO 40 Manufacturing employment 6,270 2 16 Nonfarm employment 43,500 ** 5 Unemployed (percent) 3.0 I5 7 Manufacturing employment 6,820 -2 8 .. (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and Unemployed (percent) 3.1 19 Odessa SMSAs 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 debits reports are based on the 1970 census definition for standard metropolitan statistical area. t Monthly employment reports exclude Hood, Parker, and Wise Counties. INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPALITIES COUNTY City Population Urban building permits Percent change from Nov 1974 Oct Nov (dollars) 1974 1973 Bank debits Percent change Nov 1974 from (thousands Oct Nov of dollars) 1974 1973 ANDERSON Palestine 27,789 14,525 127,000 5 -24 30,655 -12 - 7 ANDREWS Andrews 10,372 8,625 62,250 428 I07 11,981 - 3 I2 ANGELINA Lufkin 49,349 23,049 652,843 -IO 222 ... I ARANSAS Aransas Pass (See San Patricio) 8,902 ATASCOSA Pleasanton I8,696 5,407 8,043 ** 7 AUSTIN Bellville 13,83 I 2,37 I 15,000 552 200 11,922 36 28 BAILEY Muleshoe 8,487 4,525 27,579 17 ** BASTROP Smithville 17,297 2,959 13,500 -45 71 3,217 -17 -12 BEE Beeville 22,737 13,506 95,400 57 -72 29,186 -10 - 7 BELL (In Killeen-Temple SMSA) Bartlett (See Williamson) Belton Harker Heights Killeen Temple 124,483 8,696 4 ,2 16 35,507 33,431 24,350 316,881 961,335 362,810 -57 128 -27 -31 -97 76 149 -57 58,393 105,906 7 -4 - 9 4 BEXAR (In San Antonio SMSA) San Antonio 830,460 654,153 12,017,364 52 - 9 2,306,477 -11 4 BOWIE (In Texarkana SMSA) Texarkana 67,813 52, I 79 234,081 -34 6 155,950 - 8 6 BRAZORIA (In Houston SMSA) Angleton Clute Freeport Pearland 108,312 9,770 6,023 11,997 6,444 28,500 89,000 142,700 846,070 -67 66 56 72 -76 154 392 I43 24,672 8,47 I 48,465 I2,956 10 -8 -11 -9 -- 8 18 2 I9 BRAZOS (Constitutes Bryan-College Station SMSA) Bryan College Station 57,978 33,7 19 17,676 I06,398 I86,9 08 -89 -65 -94 120,205 20,285 -2 -10 I 8 BREWSTER Alpine 7,780 5,971 2,000 -67 300 6,987 -2 -16 BROWN Brownwood 2 5,877 17,368 176,800 164 - 24 BURLESON Caldwell 9,999 2,308 5,347 -IO -10 BURNET Marble Falls l I,420 2,209 I6,259 4 22 CALDWELL Lockhart 21 ,178 6,489 I6,360 -40 - 3 11,162 -16 -12 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Nov 1974 {dollars) Percent change from Oct Nov 1974 1973 Nov 1974 {thousands of dollars) Percent change from Oct Nov 1974 1973 CALHOUN Point Comfort Port Lavaca Seadrift 17,831 1,446 10,491 1,092 21,500 11,220 800 -80 -98 -69 -96 1,965 32,799 1,910 -56 -12 34 16 26 56 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 15,176 1,037,892 1,015,400 800 123,335 -24 -20 -94 62 -82 -35 -47 -83 118,644 146,242 3,449 3,275 8,673 11, 104 -1 -14 -13 -23 -17 2 -3 37 -10 4 -12 7 CASTRO Dimmitt 10,394 4,327 36,509 -8 -23 CHEROKEE Jacksonville 32,008 9,734 21,500 -69 -62 35,196 -11 -3 COLEMAN Coleman 10,288 5,608 0 COLLIN {In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) McKinney Plano 66,920 15, 193 17,872 54,200 4,092,042 -37 145 -57 -20 18,840 34,592 -18 -24 -20 -2 COLORADO Eagle Lake 17,638 3,587 11 ,236 -13 46 COMAL {In San Antonio SMSA) New Braunfels 24,165 17,859 257,563 -39 -49 32, 121 - 5 4 COOKE Gainesville Muenster 2 3,471 13,830 1,411 78,500 22,000 26 27 -76 23,836 5,202 -20 1 -15 18 CORYELL {In Killeen-Temple SMSA) Copperas Cove Gatesville 35,311 10,818 4,683 425,534 - 7 151 10,169 11,332 -8 -14 23 -16 CRANE Crane 4,172 3,427 0 4,402 - 5 11 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 4,390 375,049 10,659,318 682,931 2,939,917 752,286 519,121 548,615 3,550,535 30,800 -1 -29 -44 2 -20 -46 129 237 -87 -90 -62 5 51 -37 -80 49 47 -19 21,960,492 31,909 95,840 37,281 132,743 10,288 30,644 121 ,8 16 11,778 -5 -7 -17 -9 -8 -13 4 5 32 19 9 2 14 -12 -26 6 -1 DAWSON Lamesa 16,604 11,559 11,500 3 -98 25,083 -8 -29 DEAF SMITH Hereford 18,999 13,414 41, 100 -54 -79 DENTON {In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Denton Justin Lewisville Pilot Point 75,633 39,874 741 9,264 1,663 573,450 0 437,775 25,600 36 -29 -52 -21 125,6 18 2,314 25,932 2,291 4 -17 -15 -17 22 16 -19 -21 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Nov1974 (dollars) Percent change from Oct Nov 1974 1973 Nov 1974 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Oct Nov 1974 197 3 DEWITT Yoakum (See Lavaca) 18,660 EASTLAND Cisco 18,092 4, 160 4,517 - 15 - 9 ECTOR (Constitutes Odessa SMSA) Odessa 91,805 78,380 5,084,620 189 535 2 34,766 - 6 7 ELLIS (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Midlothian Waxahachie 46,638 2,322 13,452 0 114,400 -40 496 4,231 25,926 -- 17 18 - 11 22 EL PASO (Constitutes E l Paso SMSA) El Paso 3 59,291 322,261 11,518,266 23 99 1, 17 5,026 - 11 13 ERATH Stephenville 18, 191 9,277 55,075 -71 -67 24 ,330 7 6 FANNIN Bonham 22,705 7,698 112,875 43 18,543 - 17 - 10 ·I FAYETTE . Schulenb urg 17,650 2,294 4,175 - 95 - 24 FORT BEND (In Houston SMSA) Richmond Rosenberg 52,314 5,777 12,098 131,000 256,030 -33 -74 -46 26 15,910 - 15 11 GAINES Seagraves Seminole 11,593 2,440 5,007 242,500 6,000 362 3,133 26,022 - 6 61 - 26 3 5 . GALVESTON 1 (Constitutes Galveston-Texas City SMSA) Dickinson Galveston La Marque Texas City 169,812 10,776 61,809 16, 131 38,908 867,509 55,267 334,785 11 -64 286 -9 -26 -90 17,186 263,643 22,022 43,452 ---- 6 9 13 2 - 17 53 7 8 GILLESPIE Fredericksburg 10,553 5,326 71,665 -16 110 26,491 - 17 - 12 GONZALES Nixon 16,375 1,925 1,500 -90 ·GRAY Pampa 26,949 21 ,726 366,000 -57 534 48,960 - 23 - 9 GRAYSON (Constitutes Sherman-Denison SMSA) Denison Sherman 83,225 24,923 29,061 20,948 237,160 -87 -83 1 -99 37,665 80, 153 -- 17 7 - 7 •• GREGG (In Longview-Marshall Metropolitan Area) Gladewater Kilgore Longview 75,929 5,5 74 9,495 45,547 15,950 86,800 3,433,000 -77 -58 39 -75 -47 144 7 ,325 33,883 151 ,524 -- 23 19 9 1 33 17 GUADALUPE (In San Antonio SMSA) Schertz Seguin 33,554 4,061 15,934 44,175 83,400 81 -30 241 -56 4,068 36,044 -- 18 3 - 8 •• Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Nov 1974 (dollars) Percent change from Oct Nov 1974 1973 Nov 1974 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Oct Nov 1974 1973 HALE Hale Center Plainview 34, l 37 1,964 19,096 0 272,750 -56 56 93,648 2 -7 HARDEMAN Quanah 6,795 3,948 0 6,968 -4 HARDIN (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Silsbee 29,996 7,271 20,757 -4 18 HARRIS (In Houston SMSA) Baytown Bellaire Deer Park Houston Humble La Porte Pasadena South Houston To mball 1,741,912 43,980 19,009 12,773 1,232,802 3,278 7,149 89,277 11,527 2,734 282,120 31,505 175,600 44,187,434 56,965 150,000 1,370,613 0 -80 -56 -65 -27 138 -91 -12 -93 -52 -52 -11 484 74 100 110,706 91 ,788 22,956 18,383,473 14,502 7,037 161,803 28,269 ** -5 -7 -6 -17 -10 -20 7 34 18 13 29 -17 17 11 25 HARRISON (In Longview-Marshall Metropolitan Area) Hallsville Marshall 44,841 1,038 22,937 337,041 117 73 2,526 41,287 4 7 SS -1 HASKELL Haskell 8,512 3,655 0 5,742 -9 -30 HAYS (In Austin SMSA) San Marcos 27,642 18,860 86,237 36 -92 18,874 - 4 HENDERSON Athens 26,466 9,582 99,000 -48 -68 30,918 - 2 HIDALGO (Constitutes McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg SMSA) Alamo Donna Edinburg Elsa McAllen Mercedes Mission Pharr San Juan Weslaco 181,535 4,291 7,365 17,163 4,400 37,636 9,355 13,043 15,829 5,070 15,313 24,000 95,050 642,635 2,117,331 39,800 911,209 90,575 84,558 2,620,547 -41 -68 107 -86 165 -29 25 90 -38 80 -70 271 -39 7 6,807 8,352 45,976 12,503 122,092 13,414 37,348 9,365 6,052 26,450 6 -10 -2 33 7 -18 4 -9 2 -17 -6 -8 25 26 19 8 23 -9 -25 20 HOCKLEY Levelland 20,396 11,445 42,290 -66 36,130 9 -25 HOOD (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Granbury 6,368 2,473 4 ,692 -18 -18 HOPKINS Sulphur Springs 20,7 10 10,642 307,740 -19 -60 38,602 -9 -7 HOWARD Big Spring 37,796 28,735 646,550 395 96,874 -14 HUNT Greenville 47,948 22,043 59,550 -84 -94 54,632 3 13 HUTCHINSON Borger 24,443 14, 195 90,350 -88 700 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Nov 1974 (dollars) Percent change from Oct Nov 1974 1973 Nov 1974 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Oct Nov 1974 1973 JACKSON Edna 12,975 5,332 78,485 44 13,406 -14 - 1 JASPER Jasper Kirbyville 24,692 6,251 1,869 9,600 -37 -56 23,654 4,983 -10 -4 ** 12 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 2,401,277 93,900 152,034 150,245 59 -64 -96 42 116 -12 -83 25 581 ,958 29,484 18,671 112,089 29,953 -10 -11 -4 -12 -4 17 28 7 2 37 JIM WELLS Alice 33,032 20, 121 160,995 -16 57 56,598 - 7 11 JOHNSON (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Burleson Cleburne 45,769 7,713 16,015 131 ,356 123,000 -37 31 -41 14,584 41,742 -8 -10 8 16 KARNES Karnes City 13,462 2,926 30,000 36 -37 5,700 -16 - 5 KAUFMAN (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Terrell 32,392 14,182 1,943,614 KIMBLE Junction 3,904 2,654 5,012 - 5 - 7 KLEBERG Kingsville 33,166 28,711 64,900 -56 -49 37,029 -10 9 LAMAR Paris 36,062 23,441 138,230 -39 -40 LAMB Littlefield 17,770. 6,738 40,000 ** 13,260 ** -27 . LAMPASAS Lampasas 9,323 5,922 86,500 173 66 14,400 - 5 -14 LAVACA Hallettsville Yoakum 17,903 2,712 5,755 6,000 99,880 -76 646 -82 156 7 ,860 17,233 -13 19 I 5 LEE Giddings 8,048 2,783 2,825 -91 -98 10,347 -17 22 LIBERTY (In Houston SMSA) Dayton Liberty 33,014 3,804 5,591 30,000 114,800 -14 -51 69 13,625 24,226 -27 -5 14 5 LIMESTONE Mexia 18, JOO 5,943 22,800 -88 80 14,463 - 5 8 LLANO Kingsland Llano 6,979 1,262 2 ,608 0 7, 134 16,356 -18 19 -17 37 LUBBOCK (Constitutes Lubbock SMSA) Lubbock Slaton 179,295 149, 101 6,583 2,800, 128 2,000 -30 -97 -34 -92 614,422 9,297 -11 9 -18 -19 LYNN Tahoka 9, 107 2,956 0 8,861 8 -32 ; JANUARY 1975 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Nov 19 74 (dollars) Percent change from Oct Nov 1974 1973 Nov 1974 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Oct Nov 1974 1973 MCCULLOCH Brady 8, 571 5,557 51,730 -53 -15 12,365 -13 -16 MCLENNAN (Constitutes Waco SMSA) McGregor Waco 147, 553 4,365 95,326 23,200 2,299,90 8 162 404 -30 7 ,297 356,830 -16 -15 -5 15 MATAGORDA Bay City 27,913 11,733 1,052,080 670 771 51 ,946 -10 39 MAVERICK Eagle Pass 18,093 1s,364 37,300 -75 -83 15,385 -9 MEDINA Castroville Hondo 20,249 1,893 5,487 12,500 700 - 89 -99 2,727 5,971 -12 -21 -I -7 MIDLAND (Constitutes Midland SMSA) Midland 65,433 59,463 6,527,935 971 523 322,348 -2 35 MILAM Cameron Rockdale 20,028 5,546 4 ,655 67, lSO -41 407 11 , 164 12,091 -19 -6 -8 6 MILLS Goldthwaite 4,212 1,693 8,30S -4 -11 MITCHELL Colorado City 9,073 S,227 8,723 2 -3 MONTGOME RY (In Houston SMSA) Conroe 49,479 11,969 3S,300 -80 -94 64,7SO -9 -3 MOORE Dumas 14,060 9,771 617,SSO - 8 142 NACOGDOCHES Nacogdoches 36,362 22,S44 161,698 -88 -31 NAVARRO Corsicana 31,lSO 19,972 128,746 36 7 49,718 -12 NOLAN Sweetwater 16,220 12,020 87,300 SS -S7 2S,276 -6 -16 NUECES (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Bishop Corpus Christi Port Aransas Robstown 237,S44 3,466 204,S2S 1,218 11,217 0 2,S43,936 933 34 - 2 98 3,106 743, 114 1,746 27,380 -19 -14 -7 -22 25 JO 65 28 ORANGE (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Orange 71, 170 24,4S7 1,041 ,198 84 76,008 8 PALO PINTO Mineral Wells 28,962 18,411 349,237 33,697 - s -5 PANOLA Carthage lS,894 S,392 67,000 79 6,838 - 7 -8 PARKER (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Weatherford 33,888 I l,7SO 401 ,080 139 30,9 19 8 -5 PARMER Friona 10,S09 3, 111 1, 1 so -80 -98 24,987 3 -51 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Nov 1974 (dollars) Percent change from Oct Nov 1974 1973 Nov 1974 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Oct Nov 1974 1973 PECOS Fort Stockton 13,748 8,283 s 1 S,200 S4 19,S38 ** -lS POTTER (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo 90,S 11 127,010 3,123,963 -41 49 833,893 - 6 - 2 RANDALL (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo (See Potter) Canyon S3,88S 8,333 116,344 - 9 -20 16,S08 -7 -2S REEVES Pecos 16,S26 12,682 7,SOS -86 -so 29,449 2 -34 . REFUGIO Refugio 9,494 4,340 0 12,468 2 34 RUSK Henderson Kilgore (See Gregg) 34, 102 10,187 274,600 198 lSl 32,892 - 7 8 . SAN PATRICIO (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Aransas Pass Sinton 47,288 S,813 S,S63 1,SOO 19,390 -99 -66 -98 -61 14,40S lS,423 -19 -13 -3 -13 SAN SABA San Saba S,S40 2,SSS 0 12,203 -17 SCURRY Snyder 1s,760 11,171 116,300 - s 22 27,731 2 -4 .SHACKELFORD Albany 3,323 1,9 78 0 s,sss s 41 SHERMAN Stratford 3,6S7 2,139 0 16,37 1 -20 -27 SMITH (Constitutes Tyler SMSA) Tyler 97,096 S7,770 980,300 -89 9 2S9,296 -10 7 STEPHENS Breckenridge 8,414 S,944 142,000 S24 SUTTON Sonora 3,17S 2,149 108,SOO 41 4 S,6S6 4 19 TARRANT (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Arlington Bedford Burleson (See Johnson) Euless Fort Worth Grapevine North Richland Hills White Settlement 716,317 90,643 10,049 19,316 393,476 7,023 16,S 14 13,449 3,269,lSO 201,940 217,040 7,17 l,S2S 62,0SO 381,290 16,942 -43 80 197 -62 61 9 -86 -S9 -SS -73 81 -94 lS -8S 141 ,S08 lS,SSO 14,487 2,990,379 12,644 24,718 8,043 -lS 11 -4 6 -12 -10 1 11 9 16 -4 s ** fAYLOR (In Abilene SMSA) Abilene 97,8S3 89,6S3 1,31S,262 20 101 278,008 -10 10 rERRY Brownfield 14, 118 9,647 222,900 8S 346 32,801 4 -19 rITUS Mount Pleasant 16,702 8,877 29,SOO -S9 -91 37,830 -13 3 .rOM GREEN (Constitutes San Angelo SMSA) San Angelo ..... 71,047 63,884 1,663,873 154 ** 214,438 - 9 28 Urban building permits Bank debits Percent change from Nov 1974 from COUNTY Nov1974 Oct Nov (thousands Oct Nov City Population (dollars) 1974 1973 of dollars) 1974 1973 Percent change TRAVIS 295,S 16 (In Austin SMSA) Austin 251,808 13,903,308 30 -38 1,657,487 7 21 UPSHUR 20,976 Gladewater (See Gregg) UPTON 4,697 McCamey 2,647 3, 191 25 20 UVALDE 17,348 Uvalde 10,764 167,103 -59 -34 39,716 -1 -s VAL VERDE 27,471 Del Rio 21,330 116,188 -65 -56 37,631 6 10 VICTORIA 53,766 Victoria 41,349 897,838 69 -24 263,031 15 39 WALKER 27,680 Huntsville 17,610 127,000 -42 -96 38,626 -8 WARD 13,019 Monahans 8,333 20,350 -61 -82 21,450 20 46 WASHINGTON 18,842 Brenham 8,922 586,087 23 153 36,096 -8 -2 WEBB 72,859 (Constitutes Laredo SMSA) Laredo 69,024 160,800 13 -73 143,810 -4 .. WHARTON 36,729 El Campo 8,563 24,972 -84 -35 42,758 -13 2l WICHITA 121,862 (In Wichita Falls SMSA) Burkburnett 9,230 114,032 70 48 15,188 -11 ll Iowa Park 5,796 130,416 403 5,895 -9 20 Wichita Falls 97,564 528,934 -so -41 373,254 -23 41 WILBARGER 15,355 Vernon 11,454 47,050 -72 -62 33,S 12 -2 WILLACY 15,570 Raymondville 7,987 30,900 -6 -56 16,635 -21 -1 WILLIAMSON 37,305 Bartlett 1,622 2 ,063 -18 -l Georgetown 6,395 142, 100 46 18 17,424 4 1 Taylor 9,616 29,600 -57 -93 20,486 -15 -11 WINKLER 9,640 Kermit 7,884 11,575 962 WISE 19,687 (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Decatur 3,240 0 8,236 -10 -1 YOUNG 15,400 Graham 7,477 213,350 282 -67 •" ,, Olney 3,624 133,502 796 135 9,384 -13 ZAVALA 11,370 Crystal City 8, 104 5,900 -95 -90 6,793 -14 •• Absolute change is less than one half of l percent. No data, or inadequate basis for reporting. BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (All figures are for Texas unless otherwise 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. Nov Oct Nov Year-to-date average 1974 1974 1973 1974 1973 GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY fexas business activity (index) .. . .. ... .... ...... . .•..•..... .. . 201.3 202.0r 19S.8 198.7 179.S Estimates of personal income (millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted) . .....•................ $ !ncome payments to individuals in U.S. (billions, at S,146p $ S, 104p $ $ 4,887 $ 4.310 seasonally adjusted annual rate) .................... .. ... . ... $ 1,183.0p $ l , 18S.Op $ 1, 100.0r $ 1,146.7 $ 1,043.9 .Vholesale prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) ............ .. ...... . . 171.9 170.2r l 39.2r 1S9.0 134.2r ;onsumer prices in Dallas (unadjusted index) ........... ... ... . ::onsumer prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) ..... •... .. .. . ...... .. IS 1.3 I S4.3 1s3:or 13S.6 137.6 14S.S 147.0 131.9 132.6 3usiness failures (number) .......... ... ....... .... . ... ...... . SI S4 3usiness failures (liabilities, thousands) ..... ...... . ............. $ $ $ 10,660 $ $ 9,831 )ales of ordinary life insurance (index) .... ..... ..... . .. .. . .... . 197. 1 218.8 191.3 203.9 189.4 PRODUCTION :otal electric-power use (index) .. .. .................. . ....... . 178.8p 1s8.sP 169.3r 167.9 160.0 lesidential electric-power use (index) • •........ .............• .. l 97.2p 1so.sP 199.7r 192.S 184.7 i ndustrial electric-power use (index) . ... . ....... . ..... .... .... . 166.8p IS9.9p 1S4.0r I S6.1 14S.8 :rude-oil production (index) ...... . ......... . .....• . ......•.. 108.2p 107.0p 120.2r 112.3 l lS.7 \verage daily production per oil well (bbl.) •..................... 20.4 20.4 19.9 20.7 19.8 :l :rude-oil runs to stills (index) •. .. ....... . ........... ... ... . . . 129.0 128.8 121.0 122.7 122.8 ndustrial production in U.S. (index) . .. ........ ... ... . . . ... . . . . 12 2.0P 124.9p 127.S 12S.0 12S.3 ·exas industrial production-total (index) ... .. . ................ . 141.6p 140.4p 141. 3r 139.S 137.2 :exas industrial production-total manufactures (index) ........... . 149.2p 148. 3P 147.0r 146.1 142.2 'exas industrial production-durable manufactures (index) ......... . 'exas industrial production-nondurable manufactures (index) . ... .. . 'exas industrial production-mining (index) ....... •... .... . . .... 164.4p 138.3p 11 S.2P 163.6p 137.2p 11 S.4p 164.2r 134.6r 12 l.2r 161.S 13S.0 117. 1 1S7.S 131.2 119.1 'exas industrial production-utilities (index) •. . ..•.... . . .. ..... . . 171.Sp 163.1 p 16S.4r 164.S 161.6 Jrban building permits issued (index) •........ .. . ... .. .... ..... 136. 3P 1S3.9P 180.Sr 186.S 193.0 New residential building authorized (index) .... . . .... .. . . ..... . New residential units authorized (index) . .... . ....... ........ . . 100.2P 48.7p 118.7P SS. Ip 177.0r 147.3r IS4.0 9S.9 194.7 1SO. I New nonresidential building authorized (unadjusted index) .... ... . 163.8p lSS.oP 188.6r 211.0 197.4 AGRICULTURE rices received by farmers (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100) . . •... ... 467 486 S20 S03 473 ·II rices paid by farmers in U.S. (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100) . .... . 610 603 S18 S73 493 . ! ~atio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid .lJ by farmers .... . . ..... ... ... .......... . .. .. .......... . .. . 77 81 100 88 9S FINANCE .ank debits (index) . ..... .. ... . . ..... . . ... . .... . .......... . 346.1 343.8 277.7 316.6 242.1 . I .ank debits, U.S. (index) . . ......... . ... .. ..... .. . ........ .. . 280.8 2S8.0 229.7 ank commercial loans outstanding (index) •.................... 188.7 183.0 168.7 177.2 1S9.9 .eporting member banks, Dallas Federal Reserve District Loans (millions) •. ..... . . .. ..... ........... ...... ..... . .. $ 10,61 s $ 10,SS3 $ 9,799 $ 10,370 $ 9,S41 .1\ Loans and investments (millions) . ......... ............... ... $ 14,906 $ 14,7S2 $ 13,7S3 $ 14,S62 $ 13,S43 Adjusted demand deposits (millions) ................ . • .. .... .. $ 4,441 $ 4, 173 $ 4,342 $ 4,244 $ 4,104 .evenue receipts of the state comptroller (thousands) . . . .. . . . .. ... . $ SI0,3S9 $ 409,061 $ 469,341 $ 447,483 $ 382,987 -11 ederal Internal Revenue collections (thousands) ...... ........ ... $ 1, 170.3 $ 1,011.3 $ 1,004.6 $ 4,992.0* $ 4,331.S* ~curities registrations-original applications -11 Mutual investment companies (thousands) .. .. ....• ............ $ S3,793 $ S9,83S $ 34,0S9 $ 176,336* $ 97,SOI * All other corporate securities Texas companies (thousands) •.. . . . ..................... ... $ 22,406 $ 810 $ 7,922 $ 30,82S* $ S9,377 * Other companies (thousands) •........... .. .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . . $ 3,882 $ 4,283 $ 21,940 $ 16,8SO* $ 43,068* ~curities registration-renewals Mutual investment companies (thousands) .. .... ..•.... . . ...... $ 32,849 $ 28,497 $ 46,408 $ 99,SSI* $ 93,319* Other corporate securities (thousands) ........ . .. . . .. . . ..... . . $ 387 $ 1,884 $ 0 $ 2,271* $ O* 10 l.ABOR otal nonagricultural employment in Texas (index)t .... . .. . ...... . anufacturing employment in Texas (index)t ..... . .. ... .. ...... . verage weekly hours-manufacturing (index)t ...... . . ... . . . . . . . . ll verage weekly earnings-manufacturing (index)t . . ....... .... .. . . :ital nonagricultural employment (thousands)t . . ............... . Total manufacturing employment (thousands)t ..... . ... . .. . ... . 14 Durable-goods employment (thousands)t .. ... ..... ... .. . .. .. . / Nondurable-goods employment (thousands)t ... ... . ....•...... Percent of total labor force unemployed ... . ... . .. . ... ....... . 13S.Op 122.Sp 97.7p I SS.9~ 4,391.S 809.6p 443.2p 366.4p 4.8 !3s.oP 12 3.2 p 97.7 1S3.4P 4,388.0p 817.lp 449.Sp 367.6p 3.9 130.6r 122.8r 100.3r 144.4r 4,2 Sl.4r 810.9r 444.0r 366.9r 3.7r 133. l 122.8 98.l 148.9 4,327.4 81 S.3 448.l 367.1 4.1 127.4 116.2 98.6 137.0 4 ,139.2 794.S 433.4 361.1 3.9 Jtal civilian labor force in selected labor-market areas (thousands) ....... .. ......... . . ... ... .... .. ....... • 3,986.3 3,963.1 3,849.Sr 3,929.7 3,782.2 Nonagricultural employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) . .............. ... ....... . . ........ . ... . 3,S06.8 3,SOl.9 3,416.Sr 3,460.2 3,339.0 Manufacturing employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) . . . .. ........ ..... . .. ..... ........ . .... . 673.3 679.3 667.8r 676.S 6S4.2 Total unemployment in selected labor-market areas •Rf( (thousands) .... ... ......... . .... . . . ..... ............ .. . 183.2 1sI.5 1S4.6r lSS.4 I S6.1 ' Percent of labor force unemployed in selected labor-market areas ............................. ... ...... . 4.6 3.8 4.0r 3.9 4.1 BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH RETURN REQUESTED THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, TEX AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712 35191000 TBR CAMP TEX ST HIST ASSN SRH•2e306 CAMPUS MAIL ENERGY TOMORROW • • • is a new radio series beginning in January 1975. A joint production of the Bureau of Business Research and the Longhorn Radio Network, an agency of the Communication Center, both of The University of Texas at Austin, "Energy Tomorrow" is sponsored by the Center for Energy Studies, also of The University of Texas at Austin. Covering the entire field of energy, the series is oriented toward the future. Present as well as future social and policy problems and technologies are treated, but contemporary issues are approached within the framework of the future. Geothermal, nuclear, solar, coal, fusion, oil and gas-these and other sources of energy will be discussed in one or more weeks' programs. Consisting of five modular programs per week, each running five minutes, each week's programs are devoted to different aspects of a single subject. Using a minimum of scripted material, the programs involve field and studio interviews with industry, university, and government professionals throughout the United States, as well as businessmen, consumers, and environmentalists. "Energy Tomorrow" is distributed nationally. These stations are among the initial subscribers to "Energy Tomorrow": TEXAS OTHER ST ATES Austin KHFI Arkansas Little Rock KLRE Oregon Pendleton KRBM KUT California San Mateo KCSM South Dakota Brookings KESD Bowie KBAN Illinois Chicago WCYC Rapid City KTEQ Brownsville KBOR Edwardsville WSIE Tennessee Collegedale WSMC Crockett KIVY Rock Island WVIK Virginia Blacksburg WUVT Dallas KRSM Indiana Indianapolis WAJC Yorktown WYCS El Campo KULP Iowa Waverly KWAR Washington Spokane KPBX Fort Worth KPLX Kentucky Louisville WFPL Tacoma KPEC KXOL Louisiana Shreveport KEEL Bellevue KBCS Galveston KUFO Michigan Houghton WGGL Wisconsin Superior wssu Houston KLOL Minnesota Minneapolis KBEM Wyoming Laramie KUWR KLYX Duluth KUMD Killeen KNCT Montana Helena KHTC Laredo KLAR New Jersey Flemington WCVH KOYE New York Greenvale WCWP Lufkin KRBA Rochester WRUR McAllen KVMV North Carolina Greensboro WUAG Texarkana KADO Ohio Cleveland WBOE Tyler KOOK Columbus WCBE Uvalde KVOU Degraff WDEQ Waco KWBU Streetsboro WSTB 1