Bureau of Business Research • The University of Texas at Austin Volume LI, No. 2, February 1977 · Texas Business Review Bureau of Business Research Lorna Monti, Acting Director The Authors Charles B. Knapp Special Assistant to the Secretary of the U.S. Department ofLabor (On leave from the Department ofEco­nomics, University of Texas at Austin) Bernard L. Weinstein Associate Professor ofEconomics and Political Economy University of Texas at Dallas Robert E. Firestine Associate Professor ofEconomics and Political Economy University of Texas at Dallas Charles H. Wurtzebach Assistant Professor ofFinance and Real Estate University of Texas at A us tin Cover: Ruins on original campus of Baylor University near Independence, Texas. Photograph courtesy of Robert M. Lock­wood . Articles 21 Stimulating the Economy: President Carter's Economic Recovery Package, Charles B. Knapp 24 Texas Construction in 1976, Charles H. Wurtzebach 27 Industrial Dispersal in a Growing Metropolitan Economy: The Case of Dallas, Bernard L. Weinstein and Robert E. Firestine 32 Do Finance Companies Need to Raise Their Rates? Judy Winkel, Robert C. Duke, Randy Pendleton, and James G. Boyle Tables 22 Selected Barometers of Texas Business 22 Index of Consumer Prices, United States 22 Weekly Department-Store Sales in Five Texas Metropolitan Areas 25 Texas Residential Construction Authorized, 1966-1976 26 Estimated Values of Building Authorized in Texas 28 Population Change, Dallas and Selected Suburbs, 1960-1976 28 Percentage of Population 65 and over, Dallas and Selected Suburbs, 1960 and 1970 29 Median Family Income, Dallas and Selected Suburbs, 1959 and 1969 29 Per Capita Income , Dallas and Selected Suburbs, 1969 and 1972 30 Changes in Manufacturing Employment and Value Added, Dallas and Suburban Cities, 1967-1972 30 Percentage Distribution of Manufacturing Establishments by Age for Dallas, Nine Suburbs, Fort Worth, and Denton 31 City-Suburban Comparisons of Manufacturing Employment Growth of Dallas and Other Sun Belt Cities, 1967-1972 36 Local Business Conditions 50 Gross Retail Sales by Kind of Business for Texas Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas Barometers of Texas Business (inside back cover) Charts 22 Texas and U.S. Industrial Production 23 Texas and U.S. Business Activity 23 Total Nonagricultural Employment in Texas 25 New Residential Building Authorized in Texas: Housing Units and Total Value 25 New Nonresidential Building Authorized in Texas 26 Total Construction Authorized in Texas Subscription rate: $5.00 per year. Single copy: $.SO. Address requests to Publications Office, Bureau of Business Research, P. O. Box 7459, Austin, Texas 78712. Second-class postage paid at Austin, Texas. Contents of this publication not copyrighted and may be reproduced freel y. Acknowledgment of the source will be appreciated. Texas B11si11ess Review is indexed in Mark eting Information (juide and Public Affairs Information Service and is available on microfilm from University Mkrofilms. The Bureau of Business Research is a member of the Association for University Business and Economic Research. Stimulating the Economy President Carter's Economic Recovery Package One of the central issues in the 1976 presidential campaign was the pace at which the U.S. economy was recovering from the 1974-1975 recession. Candidate Jimmy Carter pointed to rising unemployment and falling eco­nomic indicators as evidence that the recovery, which had seemed genuine earlier in 1976, was faltering. At that time President Gerald Ford sent administration economists in front of television cameras to characterize the slowdown as a "pause" that, although unfortunately timed from his standpoint, would soon end. In hotly contested states the sluggish performance of the economy may have given President Carter the critical edge necessary to bring about his narrow victory. Although this factor probably was of particular importance in the industrial Northeast, where the most serious implications of the "pause" were in evidence, states like Texas, where the slowdown was hardly felt, may also have been affected. Two explanations are possible : Texans may have felt, justifiably, that their state economy would have been in even better shape without the slowdown, and Texans may have feared that the slowdown in the rest of the country would eventually affect them. Be that as it may, President Carter was, because of his emphasis on the economic situation during the campaign, committed to some type of government-induced economic stimulation package. The proposed economic recovery package was worked out in a series of meetings with the new administration's economic advisers and congressional leaders and was announced early in January. It is interesting to review ex post the reasoning that led to the proposal of this particular stimulation package at this time. The Options The slowdown that began in the last half of 1976 has at least two features that distinguish it from most previous Charles B. Knapp periods of sluggish economic performance. First, although the national unemployment rate climbed from a post­recession low of 7 .3 percent in May to 8.1 percent in November 1976, a renewal of double-digit inflation still poses a threat with the annualized rate of increase in prices continuing to hover around 5 percent. The U.S. Depart­ment of Labor reports, in fact, that wholesale prices jumped nine tenths of a percent in December alone. Second, as mentioned above, the slump has not affected all regions and socioeconomic groups in the country in a uniform fashion. For example, in some central cities over one half of the minority teenagers in the work force are without a job, while the overall unemployment rate in Texas was only 5.4 percent last November. Faced with this situation, President Carter had several policy options. What were the advantages and disadvantages of each course of action? Basically, three types of economic policies (not necessarily mutually exclusive) were con­sidered : Aggregate Fiscal and/or Monetary Policy Until recently many economists felt that the textbook prescription of aggregate fiscal and/or monetary policy in response to an economic downturn was sufficient. Such a response involves increasing the level of demand in the economy either by increasing government spending, or by reducing personal or business taxes (fiscal policy), or by stimulating aggregate demand through increases in the rate of growth in the money supply. The appropriate mix of fiscal-monetary policy was thought to depend mainly on such considerations as the relative speed with which fiscal policy could be enacted and the independence of the Federal Reserve Board in its control of the money supply. However, skepticism among economists concerning the appropriateness of such macroeconomic policies is now widespread. The basic problem is that in a heterogeneous FEBRUARY 1977 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Dalles. economy like that of the United States, across-the-board stimulation is likely to have little effect on entrenched areas outside the economic mainstream (such as minority teenage unemployment), but inflation may result in those parts of the economy already operating at or near capacity. Targeted Fiscal Policy As at least a partial response to the shortcomings of aggregate fiscal and monetary policy discussed above, some economists have suggested focusing tax cuts and increased public expenditures more specifically toward regions of the country and socioeconomic groups perceived as being in Selected Barometers of Texas Business (Indexes-Adjusted for seasonal variation-1967=100) Percent change Year-to- Dec date Year-to­date 1976 from average 1976 Index Dec 1976 Nov 1976 average 1976 Nov 1976 from 1975 Business activity 246.9 240.3 228.3 3 17 Estimated personal income 27 l.9p 265.9p 254.9 2 12 Bank debits 461.4 445.5 417 .2 4 22 Crude oil production 105.8p 106.9p 106.7 1 - 3 Total electric power use 204.4p 185.6p 186.7 10 14 Residential Industrial 294.l p 15 7 .6P 230.9p 157.OP 234.7 155 .2 27 •• 13 14 Total industrial production 133.lp 131.0p 130.3 2 4 Urban building permits issued 249.8p 241.9p 233.4 3 24 New residential 294.lp 254.0p 253.7 16 34 New nonresidential (unadjusted) 218.6p 227.1 p 211.0 - 4 14 Total nonfarm employment 140.8p 140.7p 139.2 •• 3 Manufacturing employment 125.7p 125.9p 124.5 •• 3 Average weekly earn-ings-manufacturing 189.4p l 84.7p 181.7 3 9 Average weekly hours- manufacturing 99.3p 98.0p 98.8 1 1 Total unemployment 177.1 172.6 177.7 3 - 17 Insured unemployment 260.7 304.9 272 .0 - 14 - 20 p Preliminary. •• Change is less than one half of 1 percent. Index of Consumer Prices, United States (1967=100) Percent change Dec 1976 Dec 1976 Dec from from Classification 1976 Nov 1976 Dec 1975 All items 174.3 0.3 4.8 Food 181.7 0.3 0.6 Housing 181.6 0.0 4 .5 Apparel and upkeep 151.8 0.5 5.5 Transportation 171.4 0.0 8.8 Health and recreation 168.0 0.4 6.7 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. particular need. For example, government revenues might be reduced by forgiving the nominal payments currently required from Medicare recipients. This policy would increase the income of what is one of the most needy groups in the society by about $3 billion per year. Increased government expenditures (military and other­wise) might be targeted toward states or regions that are particularly depressed economically. Thus, although the overall Texas economy may not be in need of stimulation, public expenditures in lagging areas, such as South Texas cities with high unemployment rates, might be required. Job Creation and Training Programs Closely related to the specifically targeted fiscal policies discussed above are federal efforts at job creation and training. Job creation can take place through either of two major routes-public service or public works employment­and is attractive because it "directly" tackles the unemploy­ment problem. Public service employment usually involves a federal transfer to state or local government units that are in turn supposed to use the money to hire otherwise unemployed people in useful public sector jobs. A serious danger with this technique is the so-called leakage problem, or use of federal money to hire those who would have been hired anyway. Public works employment puts people to work on federally sponsored capital projects (such as buildings, dams, etc.). The disadvantage of this route is that the cost Weekly Department-Store Sales in Five Texas Metropolitan Areas Percentage changes in dollar volume of retail sales from same period last year Four weeks Jan 3, 1976 Metropolitan areas ended Dec 31, 1976 through Dec 31, 1976 Austin Dallas El Paso Houston San Antonio 13 15 23 13 15 13 11 13 12 9 Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Research Department. per job created is much greater (often four to five times greater) than the cost per job under public service employ­ment. On the other hand, a clear and important advantage is that social overhead capital is created in the process. This capital can produce a return on investment through time in the form of such goods as electricity or water. Job training programs (under the Comprehensive Employment Training Act) are also a popular policy tool during periods of sluggish economic activity and may be a particularly attractive route given the stubborn nature of unemployment in the current slowdown. Jobs programs attempt to upgrade the skills of the unemployed so that those persons will become attractive to private sector businesses. Such programs have often been faulted for their poor performance although most of the past problems appear to have been managerial rather than substantive in nature. The Carter Program What type of an economic recovery package is President Carter proposing? The package will give the economy during fiscal year 1977 (which ends next October 1) a modest and noninflationary boost of between $1 O and $14 billion in direct fiscal stimulation in the form of tax cuts and at least $3 billion in additional jobs programs. For fiscal year 1978, about $8 billion in tax cuts and an additional $3 billion to $5 billion in jobs spending (above the 1977 level) is planned. The exact size of the stimulation will depend on the state of the economy. While substantial, the package falls far short of the $30 billion per year programs proposed by some liberal mem­bers of Congress and the AFL-CIO. A number of prominent economists, including two ex-chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers, Walter Heller (Kennedy-Johnson) and Paul McCracken (Nixon), predicted this program would fall short of reaching President Carter's campaign goal of reducing the unemployment rate to 6.5 percent by the end of this year. The limited size of the program apparently resulted from fears of renewing high inflation rates. The package is heavily "targeted" in the sense discussed above. The major portion of the tax cuts is likely to come 150 .------.---....--~--...----~----.--~--~ TOTAL NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT IN TEXAS lnde Ad •d for easona va al on-1967-100 100 ,___ __.__.......__...._ .._ ._ __.__--'-'=--' __ __ _ 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Source: Texas Employment Commission. in the form of flat rebates of $100 to $200 on each 1976 personal income tax return. These flat rebates would return proportionately more to poorer taxpayers. The available standard deduction will also be raised, another move that will benefit the poor the most. The jobs program proposed would increase public works programs $2 to $4 billion in the remainder of fiscal year 1977 and an additional $2 billion in fiscal year 1978. The base level of spending for public service employment would be increased $.7 billion this fiscal year (290,000 jobs) and about another $2.3 billion next year ( 125,000 jobs). Base spending for job training targeted especially toward youth and minorities would be increased an extra $.3 billion (200,000 training slots) in fiscal year 1977 and another $1.3 billion (150,000 training slots) in fiscal year 1978. State and regional allocations of all these funds will be determined by differences in economic indicators. Thus Texas, with a relatively healthy economy, will receive less than it would otherwise. It should also be noted that the total size of this jobs program represents a sharp increase not only over current expenditure levels but also over the size of the jobs programs originally thought to be under consideration by the new administration. President Carter's economic recovery package clearly represents a compromise between both the tradeoff of unemployment versus inflation and the various schools of thought on economic stimulation. It will be interesting to observe, over the next year or so, how effective the package is in attaining the president's goal of reducing unemploy­ment without causing a new surge of inflation. FEBRUARY 1977 Texas Construction Charles H. Wurtzehach Year-end figures for building construction authorized in Texas show that 1976 was a much better year for the construction industry than was 197 5. The cumulative value of total building construction authorized through Decem­ber 1976 was 30 percent higher than the year-earlier level. Residential construction contributed more than nonresi­dential construction to this increase ; the value of residential authorizations was up 51 percent, while nonresidential authorization values increased 15 percent. One-family • Ill 1976 dwelling unit authorizations through December of 1976 rose 41 percent from the 1975 authorization level; two­family and apartment unit authorizations jumped 124 and 99 percent respectively. Gains in residential authorizations were not spread uniformly throughout the state. In the category of one­family dwelling units authorized in 1976 the San Angelo standard metropolitan statistical area recorded the greatest increase in numbers of units from the December 1975 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Source: Bureau of Business Research, in cooperation with U.S. Bureau of the Census. cumulative figures: 68 percent. The San Angelo SMSA was followed by the Waco SMSA (67 percent), the Bryan­College Station SMSA (59 percent), and the Galveston­Texas City SMSA (57 percent). Three SMSAs reported declines in the number of one-family dwelling units authorized: Texarkana (10 percent), Killeen-Temple (9 percent), and Midland (7 percent). While apartment units authorized through December 1976 increased by 89 percent from the year-earlier figure, gains and losses in the SMSAs varied widely. The greatest increase in number of units was recorded by the Abilene SMSA (l 925 percent). The Austin SMSA reported an increase of 89 l percent in the apartment unit category, followed by the Laredo and Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSAs with 850 and 505 percent increases. Three SMSAs reported declines from a year earlier in the cumulative number of apartment units authorized in 1976-0dessa (53 percent), San Angelo (22 percent), and San Antonio (l 6 percent). From January through December 1976, 91,635 dwelling units were authorized for construction throughout the state. Of that total, 83,916 were issued building permits within the Texas SMSAs, while 7 ,719 were issued permits outside the SMSAs. The Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth SMSAs led the state in number of authorizations issued, with 25,058 and 23,436 respectively. The San Antonio, El Paso, and Austin SMSAs followed with 3,988, 3,580, and 3,218. As the accompanying table indicates, approximately 52 percent of the dwelling units authorized in Texas during 1976 were one-family units; two-family units represented nearly 3 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Source: Bureau of Business Research, in cooperation with U.S Bureau of the Census. tions increased by 19,305, or approximately 89 percent. This rather large increase in apartment unit authorizations was spread rather uniformly throughout the year; that is, total gains in apartment unit authorizations exceeded those in the one-family category on a monthly basis. From 1970 through 1973 one-family unit authorizations represented approximately 40 percent of total authoriza­tions, while apartment unit authorizations accounted for 58 percent of total authorizations. Over the past three years one-family units represented a greater proportion of total authorizations, ranging from 49 to 61 percent of the total. During this same three-year period, apartment authoriza­tions represented 36 to 48 percent of total authorizations. These figures would suggest that while the increase in apartment unit authorizations was impressive relative to total authorizations during 1976, they have not yet reached the levels that were recorded in the early 1970s. Factors Affecting Authorization Levels Many factors affect the rate at which dwelling unit authorizations are issued. Some of the more significant ones include housing demand, population growth, income, gov­ernmental policy, and the availability of financing. Of these factors, perhaps the one that affects the entire state most evenly is the availability of financing. As a result of programs sponsored by the federal government, housing has received an uneven supply of mortgage money throughout the years. While Federal Housing Administration (FHA) percent of total dwelling unit au­Texas Residential Construction Authorized, 1966-1976 thorizations, and apartment units One-family Percent of Two-family Percent of Apartment Percent of represented slightly more than 45 Year units total units total units total Total percent. During 197 5 one-family 1966 30,794 57 .9 1,376 2.6 20,970 39.5 53,140 unit authorizations made up about 1967 35,368 49.0 2,062 2.9 34,699 48.1 72,129 61 percent and apartment units 3 7 1968 35,429 36.3 2,080 2.1 60,119 61.6 97,628 1969 30,066 33.4 1,620 1.8 58,439 64.8 90,125 percent of the total dwelling units. 1970 33,832 37.4 1,832 2.0 54,814 60.6 90,478 Perhaps more significant, however, 1971 48,767 41.1 3,466 2 .9 66,280 56.0 118,513 was the actual increase in the 1972 49,249 40.2 3,446 2.8 69 ,587 57 .0 122,282 1973 39,791 38.6 1,804 1.7 61,574 59.7 103,169 number of dwelling unit authoriza­ 1974 33,834 49.0 1,508 2.2 33,778 48.8 69,120tions. One-family unit authoriza­1975 37,094 61.3 1,248 2.1 22,204 36.6 60,546 tions in 1976 exceeded those in 1976 47 ,718 52.l 2,408 2 .6 41,509 45.3 91,635 1975 by l 0,624, a 27 percent Source: Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the U.S. Department of increase. Apartment unit authoriza-Commerce. FEBRUARY 1977 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Source: Bureau of Business Research, in cooperation with U.S. Bureau of the Census. and Veterans Administration (VA) programs have aided the one-family dwelling unit market, programs designed for apartment units and low-income housing units have been unreliable. The most significant accomplishment of the FHA and VA programs has been in the development of a viable and active secondary market for one-family dwelling unit mortgages. The development of a secondary market has encouraged a large number of institutional investors to lend funds throughout the country on the basis of FHA and VA insurance and loan guarantees. Until recently, however, this secondary market activity did not include conventional mortgage loans. In December of last year the Mortgage Corporation introduced a pilot program designed to list for sale special packages of mortgages to be underwritten by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. The original pilot program will involve only the Mortgage Corporation's Atlanta and Dallas regional offices. If the pilot program wins investor acceptance, consideration will be given to establishing the underwriting service as a regular fee­producing program of the Mortgage Corporation. This year the corporation will buy and sell more than $1 billion in mortgages. As part of its secondary market development effort, the firm is emphasizing the development of uniform loan documents and a computer-aided underwriting system. Uniform loan documents are necessary for the develop­ment of a viable secondary market for conventional one-family dwelling unit mortgages. Uniform documents allow the bringing together of similar grade mortgages into the same block even if they are from different cities. Also, investors will be able to invest in mortgages that represent properties throughout the United States and not be concerned with the need to evaluate each one. Finally, uniform loan documents facilitate the transfer of mortgage blocks between financial institutions. This allows institu­tional investors to make periodic portfolio changes without suffering the effects of attempts to sell nonliquid assets. In the case of apartment units the development of an effective secondary market has not occurred. The primary reason for this deficiency lies in the characteristics of apartment financing techniques. The preponderance of second mortgages, wraparound mortgages, and large mort­gage value has encouraged specialists to invest in apart­ments. Unusual mortgage terms also have made uniformity in legal documents the exception rather than the rule. Without the development of an effective secondary market the flow of mortgage funds to the apartment industry is unreliable. Each apartment complex is financed individually. Borrowers cannot rely on one source for financing, and they find that during periods of tight credit conditions their loan applications are the first to be refused. As the secondary market for one-family dwelling unit mortgages continues to develop, the flow of financing to that segment of the construction industry will tend to be stabilized. Builders will find that financing will be available and that they can expect demand and ability to pay to affect construction activity more significantly. Apartment builders will not benefit much from the development of a secondary mortgage market for one-family dwelling unit mortgages. They can expect to face uncertain financing conditions in addition to changing demands in the housing market. Estimated Values of Building Authorized in Texas Percent change Dec Jan-Dec Classificatio n Deep Jan-Deep 1976 1976 (tho usands of dollars) 1976 from Nov 1976 1976 from Jan-Dec 1975 All Permits 376,705 4,448,015 1 24 New construction 341,875 3,940,304 4 24 Residential (housekeeping) 182,6 17 2,095,818 11 35 O ne-family dwellings 129,939 1,632 ,13 1 6 24 Multiple-family dwellings 52,678 463 ,687 25 99 Nonresidential 159,258 1,844,486 -4 14 Hotels, motels, and to urist courts 2,893 93,822 171 177 Amusem ent buildings 3,269 24,007 70 -43 Ch urches 7,756 64,211 44 -I I Industrial buildings 11 ,439 139,219 -47 7 Garages (commercial and private) 1,078 23,058 -4 8 27 Service stations an d repair garages 817 11 ,675 -24 33 Hospitals and institu!ions 5,286 181,613 -25 -12 Office-bank buildings 36,766 403,045 -20 29 Works and utilities 13 ,18 1 11 8,349 200 -27 Educational buildings 49,192 301,479 41 13 Stores and m ercantile buildings 24,402 366,083 -2 1 35 Other buildings and structures 3,179 105,920 -18 9 Additions, alterations, and repairs 34,830 507 ,711 -21 19 SMSA vs. non-SMSA Total SMSAt 344,4 50 4 ,044 ,798 3 23 Central cities 248,460 , 2,799,207 11 32 Outside central cities 95 ,990 1,245,591 -12 5 Total non-SMSA 32,255 403,217 -19 35 10,000 to 50,000 population 20,335 227,640 -11 39 Less than I 0 ,000 population 11,920 175,577 -29 30 #only building for which permits were issued within the incorpo­rated area of a city is included. Federal contracts and public ho using are not included. PPreliminary. tstandard metropolitan statistical area as defined in 1975 census. **Change is less than o ne half of I percent. Source: Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Industrial Dispersal in a Growing Metropolitan Economy: The Case of Dallas The fiscal distress of the older, industrial cities of the Northeast has been much in the news over the past year. New York City, Buffalo, Newark, Detroit, and other cities have been forced to lay off personnel and cut back on the level of services in order to avert bankruptcy. All of these cities have shown similar demographic and economic changes over the past twenty years: an influx of older, less educated, and poorer people into the central city; an outmigration of educated, middle-income families to the suburbs; the loss of manufacturing jobs to suburban or exurban areas; and a growth of public sector jobs to compensate for the loss of private sector employment. By Bernard L. Weinstein Robert E. Firestine the mid-l 970s the economic bases of these cities had eroded to the point that further tax increases to finance the going level of public services were untenable; the only solution was to cut local government spending. So far, the fast-growing Texas cities have retained their economic vitality and avoided the ravages of urban fiscal distress. The rapid industrialization of Texas over the past decade has benefited both central cities and suburbs by creating more jobs and housing and boosting other mea­sures of economic well-being. However, this apparent good health of Texas's major metropolitan areas should not be permitted to generate totally unguarded optimism about FEBRUARY 1977 the future. In fact the city of Dallas is beginning to show some early signs of the economic and fiscal erosion that has plagued the older cities of the manufacturing belt. Demographic Changes since 1960 for the Dallas Metropolitan Area For the purposes of demographic and industrial com­parisons, the Dallas metropolitan area is defined as Dallas City, Richardson, Farmers Branch, Carrollton, Garland, San Diego, and Phoenix showed faster population growth during this period. It should be pointed out, however, that Dallas's population growth decelerated dramatically after 1970 so that the increase between 1970 and 1976 averaged less than 1 percent a year. By contrast, Fort Worth showed a mere 8 percent population gain during the 1960-1976 period and has actually lost population since 1970. In 1970, 7 .8 percent of Dallas's resident population was over 65 years of age; in 1960, 7.0 percent fell in that category (see table 2). Fort Worth and Denton also showed relatively high proportions of elderly residents in 1970. In So far, the fast-growing Texas cities have retained their economic vitality and have avoided the ravages of urban fiscal distress. Grand Prairie, Irving, Mesquite, DeSoto, and Duncanville. Fort Worth and Denton are not, of course, suburbs contiguous to the city of Dallas but are included in this review because their changing demographic and industrial characteristics conform more to the pattern of the city of Dallas than do those of Dallas's suburban ring cities. Population Growth Not surprisingly, the city of Dallas is growing much more slowly than all of its suburbs (see table 1 ). Nonethe­less, total population increased some 31 percent between 1960 and 1976. Of the major Sun Belt cities, only Houston, Table 1 Populat ion Change Dallas and Selected Suburbs 1960-1976 Percen t 1960 1976 change City po pulation popula tion 1960-1976 Dallas 679,684 888,450 30.7 Richard son 16,8 10 64 ,350 282 .8 Farmers Branch 13,441 29 ,250 117.6 Carrollton 4 ,242 30,200 6 1 1.9 Garland 38,501 123,250 22 0 .1 Grand Prairie 30,386 63,900 110.3 Irving Mesquite De Soto 4 5,98 5 2 7 ,5 2 6 1,969 1 17 ,550 65 ,900 12 ,000 155 .6 139.4 509.4 Duncanville 3,774 22 ,850 505.5 Fort Worth 356,26 8 384 ,300 7 .9 Denton 2 6,844 47 ,250 76.0 Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1960 and NCTCOG Current Population Estimates 1976. Dallas's suburbs, by contrast, elderly residents typically accounted for 2 or 3 percent of the population in 1970 and in some cases declined as a percentage of total population between 1960 and 1970. Income Levels Between 1959 and 1969 median family income grew 67. 7 percent in Dallas (see table 3). Most of the suburbs, as well as Fort Worth and Denton, showed a somewhat greater increase during this period. In both 1959 and 1969, the Table 2 Percentage of Population 65 and over Dallas and Selected Suburbs 1960 and 1970 Percent Percent po pulatio n population Percent 65 and over 6 5 and over change City 1960 1970 1960-1970 Dallas 7 .0 7.8 11.4 Richardson 2.6 2 .2 -15.4 Farmers Branch 1.9 2 .6 36.8 Carroll ton 5.6 3 .5 -37.S Garland 2.7 3.1 14.8 Grand Prairie 3.8 4 .5 18.4 Irving 3.0 3.1 3.3 Mesquite 2. J 2 .5 19 .0 De Soto n .a. 3.4 n.a . Duncanville 3 .8 3 .2 -15 .8 Fort Worth 8.1 9 .5 17.3 Denton 7.9 7 .0 -11 .4 n.a. Not available. Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1960 and Census of Population: 1970. latest year for which such data are available, median family income was lower in Dallas than in any of the ring suburbs. Nonetheless, Dallas's median family income of $10,019 in 1969 was well above the U.S. overall median of $9,596. More recent data are available on changes in per capita income for Dallas and its suburbs (see table 4 ). In 1972 per capita income in Dallas was $4,432; the national average was $4,492. Per capita income was much higher in Dallas than in Fort Worth or Denton, and Dallas also surpassed six of the nine ring suburbs by this income measure. The growth of per capita income in Dallas between 1969 and 1972 also compared favorably with suburban income growth. However, the slow increase in the population since 1970, the rise of the median age, and lagging median family income in Dallas are manifestations of the changing matrix of the Dallas resident labor force. Labor Force Changes Between 1960 and 1970 the fastest-growing job category for Dallas residents was professional, technical, and kindred. However, there was a notable decline in the relative share of managers and administrators over the 1960-1970 period for the city of Dallas. This drop may be a reflection of the flight of white, middle-class families to suburbs such as Farmers Branch, Carrollton, DeSoto, and Duncanville. Fort Worth and Denton also show dramatic declines in the managerial and administrative category between 1960 and 1970. The second fastest-growing job category for Dallas appears to be service work. In both 1960 and 1970 a larger proportion of Dallas's labor force was classified as service workers than was the case in any of the suburban ring cities. Service work covers a broad range of unskilled and semiskilled jobs ranging from barbers and drycleaners to hospital orderlies and hotel maids. Such jobs are usually more abundant in large, central cities than in small or Table 3 Median Family Income Dallas and Selected Suburbs 1959 and 1969 Med ian Med ian family income family income Percent 1959 1969 change City (in dollars) (in dollars) 1959-1969 Dallas 5,976 10 ,01 9 67 .7 Richardson 8,520 14,387 68.9 Farmers Branch 7,272 13,317 83.l Carrollton 6,247 10,976 75.7 Garland 6,792 11,429 68.3 Grand Prairie 5,764 10 ,230 77.5 Irving 6,843 11,454 67.4 Mesquite 6,241 10 ,98 3 76.0 De Soto n.a. 13,031 n .a. Duncanville 6,252 11,2 5 6 80.0 Fort Worth 5,484 9,271 69.1 Denton 4,994 9,093 82.l n.a. Not available. Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1960 and Census of Population: 1970. suburban cities. Fort Worth and Denton also show rela­tively high proportions of their work force in service occupations. Of course, the occupational mix of the labor force does not necessarily match the employment patterns or job availability in a city. In the case of Dallas the employment pattern differs considerably from the skills distribution of its resident labor force. Changing Industrial Patterns in the Dallas Metropolitan Area Over the past few years there has been a growing awareness of the deterioration of Dallas's competitive advantage in attracting new business. Although the metro­politan area as a whole continues to draw businesses and people from other regions, the city of Dallas has not been the recipient of much of this growth in recent years. In addition, a number of existing Dallas-based businesses are shifting all or part of their operations to the suburban cities. In fact Dallas is beginning to take on the appearance of a "doughnut" economy with a diminishing level of business activity in its core and job growth limited to the perimeter and the suburbs. The nature of the industrial shifts occurring in the Dallas metropolitan area can be best illustrated by pointing to trends in manufacturing employment since 1967 for Dallas and its suburbs. Manufacturing employment is singled out in part because Texas has the fastest-growing manufacturing sector of any state in the United States. A large portion of this expansion (a gain of nearly 200,000 jobs since 1967) has occurred in the Dallas-Fort Worth region. Additionally, most studies of economic development and decline have focused on manufacturing as the critical sector affecting the overall performance of the region. Finally, more and better data are available for changes in manufacturing employ­ment since 1967 than for nonmanufacturing employment. Table 4 Per Capita Income Dallas and Selected Suburbs 1969 and 1972 Percent 1969 1972 (est.) change Cit y (in dollars) (in dollars) 1969-1972 Dallas 3,697 4 ,432 19.9 Richardson 4 ,167 5,025 20.6 Farmers Branch 3,925 4,43 5 13.0 Carrollton 3,224 3,994 23.9 Garland 3,300 3,873 17.4 Grand Prairie 3,206 3,619 12.9 Irving 3,49 1 4,15 8 19.1 Mesqu ite 2,962 3,600 21.5 De Soto 3,926 4 ,915 25.2 Duncanville 3,169 3,806 20.1 Fort Worth 3,236 3,747 15.8 Denton 2 ,793 3,305 18.3 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, series P-25, no. 588, June 1975. FEBRUARY 1977 The 1972 Census of Manufactures revealed a surprising decline in manufacturing employment for the city of Dallas between 1967 and 1972 (see table 5). In part this drop can be attributed to the relatively high unemployment rate in 1972 relative to that in 1967. But in a dynamic sense it suggests that Dallas was not benefiting from the overall expansion of the manufacturing sector that occurred over this period. By contrast, all of the suburban cities showed increases in manufacturing employment between 1967 and 1972, and in some cases these increases were dramatic. Fort Worth lost twice as many manufacturing jobs as Dallas during this period, but in the main these job losses can be related to the misfortunes of General Dynamics. Special Analysis from the Directory of Texas Manufacturers Since there are no census figures on intrametropolitan industrial location since 1972, locational and employment data for the Dallas metropolitan area were updated with information from the 1975 Directory of Texas Manu­facturers . Using the 1975 Directory tapes, the Bureau of Business Research at the University of Texas at Austin performed a special computer run that sorted each manu­facturing enterprise by Standard Industrial Classification (S.I.C.) and by zip code. These data were supplemented by current reports from the North Texas Commission so that the manufacturing establishment and employment data would be complete and comprehensive through the first quarter of 1976. Together, these two data sources allowed the development of current estimates of employment for each major manufacturing group in Dallas and each of the suburban ring cities. The data sources also permitted an examination of the temporal distribution of manufacturing establishments in Dallas and its suburbs. Column 7 in table 5 shows manufacturing employment estimates for Dallas, Fort Worth, Denton, and seven suburbs in 1976 as derived from the abovementioned sources. Since 1972 Dallas and Fort Worth both appear to have regained some of the manufacturing jobs lost in the 1967-1972 period. Garland, Mesquite, and Grand Prairie continue to show impressive job growth in relative terms while Richardson, Irving, and Farmers Branch are holding their own. Not only have the suburbs gained manufacturing em­ployment faster than the city of Dallas, but most new plant openings have also been sited in the suburban cities. A look at table 6 substantiates this assertion. About 40 percent of Dallas's manufacturing establishments were opened prior to 1950. During the 1950-1970 period, Dallas was quite successful in attracting new firms, and nearly half of the existing manufacturing firms in Dallas today went into business during this period. But since 1970 very few new manufacturing firms have chosen Dallas as a location. Table 6 Percentage Distribution of Manufacturing Establishments by Age for Dallas, Nine Suburbs, Fort Worth, and Denton Unknown Before 1950-1961-After City year 1950 1960 1970 1970 Dallas 5.0 38.8 25.8 23.0 7.3 Richardson 25.9 18.5 40.7 14.8 Carrollton 7.7 19.2 50.0 23.1 Farmers Branch 4.0 12.0 32.0 32.0 20.0 Garland 1.5 10.7 13.8 53.6 20.4 Grand Prairie 15.4 19.8 39.6 25.3 Irving 6.7 11.7 20.0 45.0 16.7 Mesquite 3.7 11.1 37.0 37.0 I I.I Duncanville 27.3 36.4 36.4 De Soto 50.0 50.0 Fort Worth 2.3 35.7 26.4 28.2 7.4 Denton 2.4 29.3 22.0 34.1 12.2 Source: )975 Directory of Texas Manufacturers (Austin, 1976); North Texas Commission. The suburbs stand out in remarkable contrast. For most of the suburban cities, industrial expansion really began in 1960. In Richardson, for example, 56 percent of the existing manufacturing plants have opened since 1960. For Carrollton the figure is 73 percent and for Garland, 74 Table 5 Changes in Manufacturing Employment and Value Added Dallas and Suburban Cities, 1967-1972 City Manufacturing employment, 1967 (thousands) Manufacturing employment, 1972 (thousands) Percent change 1967-1972 Value added 1967 (millions) Value added 1972 (millions) Percent change 1967-1972 Employment estimate, 1976 (thousands) Dallas Richardson Carrollton Farmers Branch Garland Grand Prairie Irving Mesquite Fort Worth Denton Arlington McKinney 113.1 n.a. 2.4 0.6 6.9 2.1 1.5 n.a. 62.3 2.3 7.0 1.3 106.9 4.7 3.8 2.5 12.5 5.2 3.5 46.5 3.3 9.3 1.1 -5.5 58.3 316.7 81.2 147.6 133.3 -25.4 43.5 32.9 -15.4 $ 1,340.4 n.a. 39.1 5.8 75.8 23.0 44.2 n.a. 938.0 32.0 164.4 9.7 $ 1,79 3.0 45.1 75 .1 39.7 227.9 120.5 92.3 49.9 854.3 44.7 283.3 11.3 33.8 92.1 584.5 200.7 423.9 108.8 -8.9 39.7 72.3 16.5 110.9 4.7 2.5 2.4 16.5 7.9 3.5 4.7 58.9 2.9 n.a. Not available. Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1972 Census of Manufacturers, Texas· 1975 n· Manufacturers (Austin: Bureau of Business Research, 1976); reports from the North Texas Commission. ' zrectory of Texas TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW percent. The trend in plant sitings is even more dramatic if we look at the post-1970 period. All of the suburbs show continued rapid relative growth; the city of Dallas does not. Another interesting aspect of suburban manufacturing expansion is that employment growth has been concen­trated in industries where Dallas does not have a strong relative position. Dallas's dominant manufacturing indus­tries are food processing, apparel, printing and publishing, and transportation equipment. In the suburban cities the dominant industries are electrical and electronic equipment, machinery, and fabricated metals-industries that account for a relatively small share of Dallas's employment. Those industries growing fastest in the suburbs have substantial plant and equipment requirements that have helped to increase the tax base. They have also provided jobs for both professional and blue-collar workers. Dallas's Industrial Growth Is the rapid growth of suburban industrialization unique to the city of Dallas? Do other Sun Belt cities show the same pattern of manufacturing dispersal? The Atlanta metropolitan area, which has an industrial structure quite similar to that of Dallas, follows the Dallas pattern of rapid suburban growth with considerable central-city employ­ment decline (see table 7). Kansas City also shows substantial central-city manufacturing job losses. By con­trast, Houston, Phoenix, and Oklahoma City show manu­facturing employment growth in both the central city and the suburbs during the 1967-1972 period. On balance it appears that the Sun Belt cities, including Dallas, are not immune from the economic erosion that has plagued the older industrial cities of the Northeast. Why some Sun Belt cities continue to show vigorous industrial Table 7 City-Suburban Comparisons of Manufacturing Employment Growth for Dallas and Other Sun Belt Cities, 1967-1972 1967 1972 Percent manufacturing manufacturing change employment employment 1967-1972 Dallas metropolitan area* Central city 113,100 106,900 - 5.5 Suburbs 24,700 36,900 49.4 Houston SMSA Central city 97 ,900 105 ,000 7.2 Suburbs 40,200 54,700 36.1 Atlanta SMSA Central city 54,000 47,800 -11.S Suburbs 60,ooot 84,100 40.2 Phoenix SMSA Central city 42,200 52,400 24.2 Suburbs 17,100 19,500 14.0 Kansas City SMSA Central city 86,200 77,100 -10.6 Suburbs 43,200 42,500 - 1.6 Oklahoma City Central city 26,300 33,800 28.S Suburbs 3,000 7,200 140.0 *Defined as Dallas County.tEstimate. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1972 Census of Manufactures. growth while others have declined can only be understood through in-depth case-by-case analysis. Tax Base Erosion and Potential Fiscal Disparities There are several reasons for concern about the loss of manufacturing jobs in the city of Dallas. In the first place, manufacturing decline implies a potentially serious erosion of the tax base. While it is true that service and government jobs have continued to grow in the city of Dallas, these types of employment aren't nearly as productive in terms of local tax revenue as are manufacturing jobs. Further­more, a decline in the manufacturing sector today may forebode a decline in the service sector tomorrow. The experience of New York City over the last several decades is instructive in this regard. New York began losing manufacturing jobs in the mid-l 950s. For twenty years the conventional wisdom suggested that as long as service and government jobs were growing, manufacturing losses didn't matter. In fact, New York was losing its basic export industries and substituting local service industries with a much narrower economic and tax base. By the early 1970s the service and government sectors in New York City had begun to contract since there was no longer a large and productive industrial sector to support these tertiary jobs. The end result is well known: municipal insolvency and massive cuts in the quantity and quality of public services. If the suburbs continue to attract the lion's share of commercial and industrial development, increased local tax receipts from these sources may result in noticeable fiscal disparities between any central city and its ring cities, on both the revenue and expenditure side. An increase in commercial and industrial ratables helps to keep down residential property taxes and also permits a higher level of local government spending for education, recreation, and other public services. Finally, a continuing drop in manufacturing employ­ment means lost opportunities for high-paying jobs that could be filled by the inner city work force. A number of the suburban ring cities around Dallas, for example­Mesquite, Grand Prairie, and Garland in particular-are largely blue-collar communities. Both the number of manufacturing establishments and the resident work force have grown in tandem. In Dallas, by contrast, there is a growing disparity between job opportunities and the skills distribution of the resident labor force. While the recent job growth in Dallas has required professional, managerial, and office workers for the government and financial sectors, the demographic changes since 1960 suggest that Dallas's inner­city residents are increasingly unskilled or semiskilled. Although the Dallas metropolitan area is in good economic health overall, the central city has been losing population, jobs, and tax base to the suburbs for some time. Dallas is still a long way from the gross intrametro­politan disparities that characterize the older industrial cities of the Northeast. But recent developments suggest that Dallas-and other Sun Belt cities-must take strong remedial actions to reverse the incipient indicators of economic and fiscal erosion. FEBRUARY 1977 Do Finance Companies Need to Raise Their Rates? Through the debate format introduced in this issue of the Review the Bureau of Business Research intends to expand coverage of issues on which opinions diverge sharply. In the present instance the question of a change in the ceiling and rates of finance companies in Texas is argued by representatives of the finance industry and a consumer association. Each group was asked to submit a list of ten questions from which the editors were to select five; representatives were to offer rebuttals after seeing the answers of the opposition. Mr. Boyle of the Texas Consumer Association chose not to submit questions so the plan was changed to selection of five questions from those submitted by the finance industry representatives , submission of answers by the finance industry group, comments on the answers by the representative of the consumer association, and a rebuttal by the finance industry group. Prefatory comments by Lewis Spellman, associate professor of finance at the University of Texas at Austin, define the position of consumer finance associations in the overall structure of financial institutions. Lorna Monti Acting Director There are numerous financial institutions serving the credit needs of the U.S. economy. Each type of institution specializes in a particular loan market. Commercial bank loans are generally secured with assets and income, savings and loan association loans are secured with buildings, and consumer finance company loans are generally unsecured. Because the risk associated with these loans varies with the collateral, the income of the borrower, and the length of the loan period, commercial banks charge the lowest loan rates, which reflect the smallest risk premiums. Savings and loans charge somewhat higher rates, reflecting the uncertainties of the future , and consumer finance companies offer loans at higher rates, which reflect the higher risk premiums. Despite differences in loan rates, there is little evidence of differences in the profits of these types of financial institutions. If differences in profits existed, such differences would encourage the other institutions to enter the more profitable market, regardless of the presence or absence of laws or regulations fostering entry. Moreover, laws or regulations restricting lending activity merely create gaps (in the lending market) that are filled in some manner , whether condoned by law or not. Lewis Spellman Associate Professor of Finance Participants Judy Winkel Randy Pendleton Senior Governmental Affairs Counsel, Associates Corpo­ Legislative Consultant, Texas Consumer Finance Asso­ ration ofNorth America ciation Robert C. Duke James G. Boyle Executive Director, Texas Consumer Finance Associa­ Executive Director, Texas Consumer Association tion Finance Companies Group During the current legislative session the Texas legislature will consider an increase in the maximum interest rates and ceiling for Article 3.15 consumer loans. Financial institutions licensed under Article 3.15 of the Texas Credit Code are those making loans in excess of $100 (Article 3.16 lenders make loans under $100). Most bank, some savings and loan institutions, and a few credit unions, as well as finance companies, are licensed to make such loans between $I 00 and $2,500. The current law provides for an annual interest rate of $18 per hundred on loans of $I 00 to $300 and $8 per hundred on loans of $300 to the maximum of $2,500. Under the proposed amendment the annual interest rates would be $18 (31. 72 annual percentage rate, or APR) per hundred on loans of $I 00 to $300, $12 (21.46 APR) per hundred on loans of $300 to $1 ,200, and $8 (14.45 APR) per hundred on Joans from $J,200 to the new ceiling of $5,000. The maximum amount of time for repayment of loans for amounts between $2,50 l and $5 ,000 would be 60 calendar months. Consumer Group The introductory passage by the consumer finance group is misleading in its description of the various brackets used in small loan legislation. For example, one of the statements reads "under the proposed amendment, the annual interest rates would be $I 8 per hundred on loans of $100 to $300, $12 per hundred on loans of $300 to $1,200, and $8 per hundred on loans from $1,200 to the new ceiling of $5 ,000." Most readers of that statement would conclude that a loan of $1 ,000 would bear interest at the rate of $12 per hundred per annum (not even necessarily as an "add-on" charge*) and that a loan of $1,500 would bear a charge of $8 per hundred per annum as an add-on charge. This statement is misleading. A loan of $1,000 includes the high rates prescribed from $0 to $300. Furthermore, a loan of $1,500 includes both the high rate bracket of $18 per hundred per annum add-on charge for the bracket $0 to $300 and the proposed new add-on rate of $12 per hundred per annum on the portion of the loan between $300 and $1,200. Only that portion of the loan above $1,200 would bear the lower add-on interest charge of $8 per hundred per annum, but the reader is likely to interpret the charge for the entire $1,500 to be $8 per hundred per annum. The annual percentage rate on a $1,000, 37-month loan under the terms of the proposal by the loan companies is 24.04 percent, an increase of 19.54 percent from the present annual percentage rate. Do consumer finance companies licensed under Article 3.15 serve a worthwhile purpose in Texas? Finance Companies Group We believe we do and so do our borrowers, according to the McAlister-Durkin study on consumer lending in Texas. Consumer finance companies licensed under Article 3. I 5 are virtually the only source of credit for high-risk borrowers. They are arbitrarily considered high-risk borrowers because credit is not available to them from other financial institutions. Lenders licensed under Article 3 .15 had just over 900,000 loans outstanding in 1968. Now the number has fallen to just over 600,000. Still approximately one in five Texas families is served by a finance company. Both the Texas Legislative Council studies of fifteen years ago and the McAlister-Durkin study in the mid-l 970s indicate that skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled workers constitute the majority of persons who borrow from finance companies. Over 7 5 percent of the customers surveyed in the mid-l 970s had incomes of less than $15 ,000. The most impressive affirmation of 3 .15 consumer finance companies has come from the customers. In interviews with 3.15 borrowers, McAlister and Durkin found that 354 out of 402 borrowers considered their loan to have been worthwhile despite its high cost. Only 5 2 respondents indicated dissatisfaction, and the reason most often cited was the high rate of interest. It is interesting to note that, despite the concern with interest rates as with all prices, 84 percent of those indicating a desire for lower prices also indicated that their loan had been worth the money. The majority of 3 .15 finance company customers borrow to consolidate debts, buy or repair cars, buy large appliances, or pay medical and hospital bills. Bank and credit union loans are more frequently sought for the purchase of *By the add-on method the total amount of interest to be paid is determined and then tacked onto the principal. An add-on rate of 6 percent means that a borrower pays $6 to borrow $100 for a year. If a borrower makes monthly payments, the amount outstanding diminishes each month; yet the add-on fee is calculated as though the principal were not to be repaid until the end of the year. If the amount outstanding diminishes each month, a $6 fee on a $100 loan to be paid in installments amounts to a real interest charge of 11.4 percent of the amount of the principal the borrower actually had over the entire year, or 11.4 APR. FEBRUARY 1977 cars. It appears that finance companies are considered more likely to accept the higher risk inherent in debt consolidation loans than are banks and credit unions. Consumer Group If these companies can provide credit under reasonable terms with a mm1mum of customer molestation, a curtailment of abuses commonly associated with their business (such as the imposition of additional borrowing charges for unnecessary insurance), and furnish money to borrowers capable of making the necessary repayments, then such companies do have a place. The idea of a consumer finance company charging exhorbitant interest rates in order to provide credit to extremely high-risk borrowers is ridiculous. Low credit rates encourage consumer finance companies to loan money to borrowers who are able to repay their loans and who are credit-worthy. Such companies should not be encouraged to lend money with the expectation of offsetting their losses from bad loans by charging high rates to more credit-worthy borrowers. Should credit be available to families with middle-to-ww incomes? Finance Companies Group Yes. The people of Texas have clearly mandated that credit should be made available to middle-and low-income persons. Prior to the 1960s Texas had no small loan law, only a 10 percent constitutional usury limit. Legitimate lenders were unable to make many small loans at that rate so hip-pocket and unscrupulous lenders had a field day. Texas became known as a loan shark state. The electorate recognized that to rid themselves of the loan shark and encourage legitimate lenders to make credit available to more persons, fair and reasonable rates of charge in excess of 10 percent had to be authorized. By a margin of 4 to 1 the voters in 1960 approved a constitutional amendment giving the legislature authority to license and regulate lenders and to set interest rates, and in 1963 the legislature passed its first small loan law. Some think that middle-and low-income borrowers cannot afford credit and/or are unable to handle credit wisely and that the legislature should protect these borrowers by selecting an arbitrary income figure below which no one would be able to borrow. The Supreme Court would probably find that prohibition unconstitutional. The irony is that the effect of the current law is to eliminate more and more middle-and low-income borrowers from the credit market. Note the 30 percent decrease in loans made by 3.15 lenders in the last ten years. The profit squeeze in which 3 .15 lenders find themselves demands that they select only the best risks, and many borrowers are thus forced to look elsewhere. Consumer Group The answer to this question is almost identical to the answer to the first question; that is, of course credit should be available to middle-to-low-income families. However, these families are done no favor when the interest rates are such that the families cannot cope with everyday problems because of their inability to pay back borrowed money. In the last few years bankruptcy courts in all parts of Texas have had dramatic rises in numbers of cases, and, according to at least one bankruptcy judge, much of the increase is the result of loans made by consumer finance companies (that is, the inability of consumers to repay those loans). In the last legislative session the finance industry reported that if finance companies did not get a rate increase, they would be out of business before the next session rolled around. Following that session, however, the El Paso Times reported that one area borrower was able to borrow from ten different loan companies; the collateral for each loan was the same. The individual was incapable of repaying any of the loans. This, of course, is an indication that money was available to loan to the very high-risk borrower at a time when the prime interest rate was much higher than it is today. What alternate sources of credit are available to the average borrower who uses 3.15 lenders? Finance Companies Group According to the McA!ister-Durkin study 76 percent of those borrowing from 3.15 lenders do not use bank cards and 38.6 percent do not use retail credit cards. One third of our borrowers have no bank checking account; 60 percent have no bank savings account; 82 percent have no savings and loan savings account. As might be expected, the absence of any one of these accounts is more prevalent among the lower-income borrowers than among those with incomes of $15,000 or above. In most cases the absence of a bank checking or savings and loan deposit account precludes a loan from that institution. In this same study, 3.IS borrowers were asked if they had a loan with any other financial institution. Less than half (43.9 percent) had a loan with a bank; less than one fourth of the borrowers were making payments to a credit union. Again, as income and educational levels rose, the incidence of bank and credit union loans increased substantially. For example, among families with incomes of $15 ,000 or above, 30 percent had credit union loans-1 S times as many as those making less than $S,OOO (2.8 percent). Among certain groups of higher income, educational, and occupational levels there is some duplication of markets served by finance companies and other financial institutions. These groups might be characterized as a "lower-risk" category. On the other hand, a finance company may be the only source of funds for a majority of families with incomes of $I 0,000 or less. It may not be realistic to expect other segments of the credit industry to serve these customers effectively should 3. l S lenders curtail available credit. Consumer Group The answer supplied by the finance company representatives indicates that the individuals who borrow from loan companies are reluctant to use other sources of credit. I believe, however, that the study quoted (McAlister-Durkin) is out of date. In the last two years there has been a tremendous increase in the use of credit unions and other sources of credit. Furthermore, the McA!ister-Durkin study was financed by the lending industry; reputedly McAlister and Durkin were paid some $2S,OOO to produce these statistics. In other words, the study must not be accepted without reservation. Are 3.15 lenders making credit available to middle-and low-income families? Finance Companies Group Unfortunately the answer is no. Spiraling costs of providing these loans without concomitant rate increases have forced us to consolidate and abandon a number of offices. The industry cancelled 159 licenses in Texas between January 1975 and July 1976. We have had to ration the money we make available for borrowing. The number of loans made each year has decreased from over 900,000 in 1968 to approximately 600,000 in 1975. From 1968 to 1973 the number of $100 to $300 loans decreased 49 percent; $300 to $500 loans, 27 percent ; $1,500 to $2,SOO loans increased 225 percent. While the trend toward larger loan amounts undoubtedly is in part a result of higher prices for goods and services, the fact that we are seeking better credit risks (those who want and can afford larger loans at rates that make these loans more profitable to us) supports the trend. One can conclude, and in fact the McAlister-Durkin study shows, that a tightening of our credit standards does not affect all income groups equally. At this time, the burden is heaviest on families with incomes under $I 0,000. Can 3.15 lenders assure availability of credit under the present rates? Finance Companies Group There is no way we can assure available credit under the present conditions. Between 1968 and 1973 our return on investment in Texas dropped from 11 .3 percent to 6.5 percent. In 1974 we made no profit. Although the Consumer Credit Commissioner's industry figures for 1975 are not yet available, those returns will not look much better. The current interest rates, established in 1967, were set at a level to provide the lender a fair and reasonable return. What was fair and reasonable in 1967 was determined by the cost of making a loan in 1967. But this is 1977, and the cost of making loans has increased dramatically. Rebuttal Mr. Boyle is correct when he says that the various rates are applied to balances, not loans. Our offer to correct the inadvertent error was declined by Mr. Boyle. On the other hand his argument contains unsubstantiated allegations and erroneous information: (1) Under our proposal the increase in APR for a $1,000, 37-month loan will not be 19.54 percent. (2) We do not loan money to persons who cannot repay, as shown by the fact that industry loss ratios have not exceeded 3.2 percent of net outstandings since regulatory enactment. (3) Research shows that the El Paso Times reporter failed to distinguish between the two kinds of statutory finance companies in Texas. None of the ten companies approached was a 3.15 lender. (4) Since the interest charged by 3.15 lenders has not increased in ten years, their loss ratio has remained constant, and they have 33 percent fewer customers, the likelihood of their contributing to the rise in bankruptcy filings is remote. (5) Barron's reported in August 1976 that the average annual income of a credit union member has risen to $17 ,000 and that credit unions are attempting to appeal to higher-income workers. Over 75 percent of the finance company borrowers make less than $15 ,000 annually. Credit unions and 3.15 lenders appeal to borrowers at different income levels, and there is no reason to expect a change in the future. FEBRUARY 1977 Local Business Conditions Statistical data compiled by Mildred Anderson, Kay Davis, Marylyn Donaldson, and Joan Holloway. The following section reports business conditions first by Bank debit statistics for SMSAs and for most central metropolitan areas, second by cities, listed under their counties. metropolitan cities are collected by the Federal Reserve Bank of Standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSAs) include one or more Dallas. Most other bank debits figures shown are collected from entire counties, as shown. All SMSAs are designated as such by the cooperating banks by the Bureau of Business Research ; the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Population figures are from the 1970 published figures represent all banks in the city shown. census and 1975 estimates by the Bureau of the 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 39, 49, and 52. limits and exclude federal contracts and public works projects, such as highways, waterways, and reservoirs. Building statistics for the latest month are subject to revision. Indicators of Local Business Conditions for Texas Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas Percent change Percent change from 1976 Dec Nov Dec Jan-Dec Jan-Dec from Reported area and indicator 1976 1976 1975 1976 197S 197S ABILENE SMSA Callahan, Jones, and Taylor Counties; population: 122,164 (1970); 128,400 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 6,870 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 471 ,299 # Nonfarm employment 44,420 Manufacturing employment 6,620 Unemployed (percent) 3.7 190 s ** 248 10 3 2 38,982 S,37S,472 # 43,323* 6,640* 3.7* 28,678 .µ. 4,S82,I S4 rr 42 ,3S9 * 6,703* 3.5* 36 17 2 I 6 AMARILLO SMSA Potter and Randall Counties; population: 144,396 (1970); 152,000 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 4 ,969 1,140,002 6S,830 8,990 2.9 -44 -3 ** -12 4 9 s 9 6 93,636 13,376,824 66,3S9* 8,929* 3.3* 82,227 11 ,483,724 61,563* 7, 193* 3.4* - 14 16 8 24 3 AUSTIN SMSA Hays and Travis Counties; population: 323,158 (1970); 394,800 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1 ,000) Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 44,040 3,166,739# 174,800 16,800 4.4 267 7 ** I -4 S93 28 3 12 ** 208,097 33,842,375 # 172,613* 16,142* 4.4* IS 1,330 23,569,329# 166,979* l 4 ,S 46* 4.2 * 38 44 3 II s BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties; population : 347,568 (1970); 349,500 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) Bank debits, seas. adj . ($ 1,000) Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 4,92 1 l,1S8,49! # 137,100 4! ,6SO 6.6 -28 ** I I -10 33 21 s I 8 99,082 13,l 22 ,S61 # 134,196* 41 ,429* 6.8* 66,S 33 l l,126,3S6 # 126,129* 39,733* 7.2* 49 18 6 4 6 BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA Cameron County; population: 140,368 (1970); 169,300 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) 3,674 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) 970,934 Nonfarm employment 48,430 Manufacturing employment 8,860 Unemployed (percent) 11.S 173 IS I I 4 - 82 9S 3 I 20 32,016 8,9S4,682 4 8,04 8* 9 ,003* 10.4* 37,692 4,312,280 46,197* 9,016* 9.5 * -IS 108 4 ** 9 BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION SMSA Brazos County; population: 57,978 (1970); 72,300 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) 4,923 so 239 38,531 21,116 82 Percent change Percent change from 1976 Dec Nov Dec Jan-Dec Jan-Dec fro m Reported area and indicato r 1976 1976 1975 1976 1975 1975 BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION SMSA (continued) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 226,726 - 5 28 2,535 ,330 1,939,634 31 (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Bryan-College Station SMSA.) CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA Nueces and San Patricio Counties; population: 284,832 (1970); 297,300 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) 6,041 46 -23 66,34 5 61,564 8 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 1,252,350 4 10 13,989,470 12,386,971 13 Nonfarm employment 99,600 ** 98,529* 97,5 58* Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 11,450 6.4 l 3 ** 2 11,542* 6.5* 11 ,446* 6.5* •• DALLAS-FORT WORTH SMSA Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise Counties; population: 2,378,353 (1970); 2,552,800 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 77 ,80 1 -16 35 1,219,786 9 38,227 30 Bank debits, seas. adj . ($1,000) 32 ,598,398# - I 25 358,450,343# 295,047,802 # 21 Nonfarm employm ent 1,113,200 I 2 1,09 1,142 * 1,077,358* Manufacturing employm ent 250,000 ** 4 245,825. 237,067* 4 Unemployed (percent) 4 .0 - 7 -18 4.7* 5.3* -11 EL PASO SMSA El Paso County; population: 359,291 (1970); 414,700 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 12 ,869 41 49 147,130 115,454 27 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) 1,333,464 -10 20 17,001 ,928 15,076,486 13 Nonfarm employment 128,650 ** - I 130,717* 128,229* 2 Manufacturing employment 26,800 1 - 7 28,583* 28,275* I Unemployed (percent) 11 .9 - 6 32 10.6* 9.0* 18 GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Galveston County; population: 169,812 (1970); 182,000 (197 5 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 2,245 7 -21 40,65 4 30,572 33 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) 518,412 1 19 5,743,675 5,054,805 14 Nonfarm emplo yment 63,570 I 4 62,223* 61,044* 2 Manufacturing employment 11,960 ** - 2 12,094* 11 ,788* 3 Unemployed (percent) 7.8 22 62 6.3* 4.6* 37 HOUSTON SMSA Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties; population: 1,999,316 (1970); 2,297,300 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1 ,000) 86,002 3 10 1,09 1,205 829,643 32 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 29,190,186# 2 26 328,498,898# 268,109,743# 23 Nonfarm employm ent 1,05 1,700 ** 3 1,030,675 * 996,608* 3 Manufacturing employment 175 ,800 ** I 175,933* 174,058* I Unemployed (percent) 5.2 - 2 6 5.4* 5.2* 4 KILLEEN-TEMPLE SMSA Bell and Coryell Counties; population: 159,794 (1970); 210,500 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 4 ,5 08 7 115 78,007 5 5 ,482 41 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) 316,758 4 7 3,484,807 3,000,409 16 (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Killeen-Temple SMSA.) LAREDO SMSA Webb County; population: 72,859 (1970); 78,100 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 2 ,003 125 321 22,976 12,129 89 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 180 ,47 1 7 - 8 2,408,171 2,136,781 13 Nonfarm employment 24,500 I 4 24,731. 23,123* 7 Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 1,830 18 .4 1 8 16 1 1,776* 15. l * 1,527* 15.3* - 16 I LONGVIEW SMSA Gregg and Harrison Counties; population: 120,770 (1970); 125,300 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 14,227 2 75 217 62,299 41,998 4 8 Bank debits ($ 1,000) 385 ,5 4 8 10 8 4,179,083 3,508, 114 19 FEBRUARY 1977 Percent change Percent change from 1976 Reported area and indicator Dec 1976 Nov 1976 Dec 1975 Jan-Dec 1976 Jan-Dec 1975 from 1975 LONGVIEW SMSA (continued) Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 48,780 15 ,5 00 6.0 - ** 3 3 4 -10 47,827 * 15,434* 6.6* 46,720* 14,988* 6.8* 2 3 3 LUBBOCK SMSA Lubbock County; population: 179,295 (1970); 196,700 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 6,013 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) 1,3 19,4 89 Nonfarm employment 77,010 Manufacturing employment 12 ,950 Unemployed (percent) 2.6 -48 14 I I 4 -5 58 4 32 -26 93,609 13,047,147 72,964* 10,922* 3.5 * 116,006 10,116,091 71,353* 9,828* 4.0* -19 29 2 II -13 McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA Hidalgo County; population: 181,535 (1970); 220,700 (1975 est-) Urban building permits ($1,000) 5,478 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 478,436 Nonfarm employment 53,230 Manufacturing employment 6 ,980 Unemployed (percent) 12.0 49 2 2 5 4 93 10 I 3 26 66,523 5,931 ,261 55,474* 6,713 * 10.9* 49,376 4 ,920,902 50,124* 6,098* 9.4* 35 21 11 10 16 MIDLAND SMSA Midland County; population: 65,433 (1970); 69,700 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) 4 ,403 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 792,656 Nonfarm employment 29,660 Manufacturing employment 2,370 Unemployed (percent) 2.4 -72 -7 ** -17 135 45 3 6 4 59,975 8,925,8 18 2 8,703* 2,412 * 3.0* 29,281 5,080,443 27,993* 2,483* 3.0* 105 76 3 -3 ** ODESSA SMSA Ector County; population: 92,660 (1970); 98,800 (1975 est-) Urban building permits ($1,000) 3,056 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 649,182 Nonfarm employment 41,260 Manufacturing employment 4,890 Unemployed (percent) 2.8 -44 2 ** ** -7 -10 21 2•• -7 54,054 6,615 ,498 40,683* 4 ,9 10* 3.5. 31 ,440 4,473,656 39,844* 4 ,966* 3.1 * - 72 48 2 I 13 SAN ANGELO SMSA Tom Green County; population: 71 ,047 (1970); 74,800 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) 6 ,339 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 345,1 8 1 Nonfarm employment 26,590 Manufacturing employment 5,590 Unemployed (percent) 3.3 - 84 8 •• 6 141 3 3 7 •• 44,285 4,292,672 25,933* 5,511 * 3.8* 25,943 3,198,904 25 ,5 39 * 5,263* 3.8* 7 1 34 2 5 ** SAN ANTONIO SMSA Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe Counties; population: 888,179 (1970); 977,200 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percent) 13,154 3,432,798# 321,850 40,600 6.3 -12 2 ** •• -9 -31 3 2 6 -12 199,379 39,181,204# 317,617* 39,879* 7.3* 178,542 35,547,519# 310,758* 36,954 * 7.5* 12 10 2 8 3 SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA Grayson County; population: 83,225 (1970); 79,000 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 171 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 190,186 Nonfarm employment 29,250 Manufacturing employment 10,410 Unemployed (percent) 7.5 - 73 8 I I 4 -77 7 7 13 -23 17,769 2,026,583 28,533* 9,9 15. 8.7* 8,832 1,788,268 26,983* 9,112 . 13.3* IOI 13 6 9 -35 TEXARKANA SMSA Bowie County, Texas; Little River and Miller Counties, Arkansas; population: 113,488 (1970); 114,700 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 2,368 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 239,977 Nonfarm employment 38,710 Manufacturing employment 7,7 10 Unemployed (percent) 7.0 (Since the Texarkana SMSA includes Bowie County in Texas and Little River and Miller Counties in Arkansas, all data, including population, refer to the three-county region.) -- 69 3•• •• 8 266 7 -I -6 -22 18,471 2,729,865 38,317 * 7,825. 8.4* 10,855 2,467 ,469 37,499* 8,108* 9.4* 70 II 2 -4 -II Percent change Percent change from 1976 Dec Nov Dec Jan-Dec Jan-Dec from Reported area and indicator 1976 1976 1975 1976 1975 1975 TYLER SMSA Smith County; population: 97,096(1970);107,400 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) 4,381 I 60 40,392 29,616 36 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 448,489 Nonfarm employment 39,530 9 •• 26 4 5,165,19 1 38,827 * 4,004,124 38, 112 * 29 2 Manufacturing employment 11 ,490 ** 10 11 ,249* I 0,925 * 3 Unemployed (percent) 4.9 - 4 - 29 5.5 . 6.9* - 20 WACO SMSA McLennan County; population: 147,553 (1970); 156,700 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) 4 ,760 77 53 41,232 30,772 34 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) 591,286 - 3 13 7,206,2 87 6,242,914 IS Nonfarm employment 57,8 30 Manufacturing employment 12 ,980 - I •• 2 s 57,081 * 12,929* 55 ,571 * 12,263* 3 s Unemployed (percent) 4.1 - 11 - 31 5.3* 7.0* - 24 WICHITA FALLS SMSA Clay and Wichita Counties; population: 128,642 (1970); 130,700 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) 2,280 - 26 35,428 21 ,261 67 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) 518,962 # 16 17 5,321 ,311 # 5,171 ,032# 3 Nonfarm employment 45,410 I 2 44,358* 43,628* 2 Manufacturing employment 7,160 I 3 7,185 * 7,018* 2 Unemployed (percent) 3.9 s - 17 4 .2 * 4.5 * 7 #s ank debit reports are based on the 1970 census definition for standard metropolitan statistical areas. *Monthly average. **Absolute change is less than one half of I percent. Urban-building data are preliminary and subject to revision. FEBRUARY 1977 .i>. 0 'Indicators of Local Business Conditions for Individual Texas Municipalities Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Dec 1976 (dollars) Percent change Dec Dec 1976 1976 from from Nov Dec 1976 197S Jan-Dec Jan-Dec 1976 197S (dollars) Percent change --­Jan-Dec 1976 from Jan-Dec 197S Dec 1976 (thousands of dollars) Percent change Dec Dec 1976 1976 from from Nov Dec 1976 197S Jan-Dec Jan-Dec 1976 197S (thousands of dollars) Percent change--­Jan-Dec 1976 from Jan-Dec 197S ANDERSON Palestine 27,789 14,S2S 313,200 60 324 2,679,811 4 ,382,067 -39 Sl,137 16 27 S31 ,31S 444,64S 19 ANDREWS Andrews 10,372 8 ,62S 12,200 - 9S - 73 l ,7Sl,S80 1,009,612 73 18,363 - 1 12 200,S03 l 7S,674 14 ANGELINA Lufkin 49,349 23,049 481,03S - 82 - 20 l 3,2S0,937 10,178,868 30 ARANSAS Aransas Pass (see San Patricio) 8,902 ATASCOSA Pleasanto n 18,696 S,407 . .. . .. . .. ... . .. . .. 10,823 6 13 AUSTIN Bellville 13,831 2,371 120,000 669 422 1,006,713 S73,026 76 12,632 - 2 - 12 l S8,049 146,SS6 8 BAILEY Muleshoe 8,487 4,S2S . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 37,508 24 13 362,2 31 331 ,239 9 BASTROP Smithville 17,297 2,9S9 41,200 3S3 23 703,932 421,26S 67 4,190 - 1 7 s3,283 47,667 12 BEE Beeville 22,737 l 3,S06 222,480 111 8S 3,0S6,323 .. . ... 41,226 6 - 6 BELL (in Killeen-Temple SMSA) Bartlett (see Williamson) Belton Harker Heigh ts Killeen Temple 124,483 8,696 4,216 3S,S07 33,431 261,300 401 ,848 S87,61 s 2,8S8,368 44 33 -42 ** ... -34 -30 400 3,900,6SO ... 24,380,387 34 ,893,2 10 l 9,97 l ,23S 16,l86,S83 22 116 82,390 137,929 -22 2 2 s 969,460 l,788,20S 794,644 1,440,067 22 24 BEXAR --l (in San Antonio SMSA) m San Antonio >< ;J> BOWIEen tt1 (in Texarkana SMSA) c::: Texarkana en-BRAZORIAz m (in Houston SMSA)en Angletonen ~ Clute m Freeport < Pearland-m 830,460 6S4,1S3 68,909 s2 ,l 79 108,312 9,770 6,023 l 1.997 6 ,444 l 2,2S3,806 1,728,613 . . . 94,800 622,l so I ,634,660 14 262 ... -80 862 73 -24 481 . .. 131 3 S9 160, 179,926 10,340,048 6,406,9 j 3 7,433,267 20,693,689 148,340,087 S,S99 ,461 . . . 6,93S ,887 1,2S3,738 13,334,320 8 8S . .. -8 493 SS 3,S2l ,189 249,S4S 44,439 j j ,oso 74,7S s 20,320 - 8 7 31 6 6 2 - 4 41 JS jj 1 l s 38,236,127 2,482,140 432,040 j 38,S26 870,996 227,902 34,S87 ,04S 2,1 S4,223 3S8,809 JJO ,SS9 669,S j 6 193,374 11 1 S 20 2S 30 18 ~ 'Tl tTl CD :;>::! e > :;>::! -<-'D -.] -.] BRAZOS (constitutes Bryan-College Station SMSA) Bryan College Statio n BREWSTE R Alpine BROWN Brownwood 57,978 33,719 17 ,676 7,780 S,971 2S,877 17 ,368 1,9 34,182 2,988,856 6,300 124,700 38 59 -9 1 -SS 20 1 269 100 . . . 16,9 31,692 21,599,091 ... 3,610,979 11 ,018,7 39 10,097,4 19 . .. 54 114 . . . 19 1,856 42,282 11 ,031 - 3 9 •• 26 51 3S 2,097,449 459,8S l 114,043 1,646,905 290,346 97,412 27 S8 17 BURLESON Cald well 9,999 2,308 . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 6,99S - 2 - s 83,840 73,706 14 BURNET Marb le Falls 11 ,420 2,209 . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . 27 ,49S 11 64 293,612 233,44S 26 CALDWELL Lockhart 2 1,178 6,489 132,128 6 484 1,511 ,924 1,096,392 38 19,737 lS 17 201,634 166,483 21 CALHOUN Port Lavaca Seadrift 1 7 ,8 31 10,4 91 1,092 48,250 5,000 ... -90 87 1 -so . .. 216,426 . . . 140,852 . .. 54 35 ,245 2 ,402 9 10 -13 13 454,5 46 26,279 433,S76 22,344 s 18 CAMERON (co nstitutes Brownsville­Harlingen-San Benito SMSA) Brownsville Harlingen La Feria Los Fresnos Po rt Isabel San Benito 140,368 52,522 33,503 2,642 1,297 3,067 15,176 2,696,92 1 606,672 19,000 ... 12,624 337,565 367 13 -14 . .. -84 163 205 -33 764 . . . -84 154 18,214,012 9,602,852 45 3,380 . .. 65 1,997 2 ,897,512 l 9,403,73S 13,083,043 246,670 . . . 2,946,749 1,890,533 -6 -27 84 . .. -78 53 326,962 559 ,376 6,124 4,293 10,442 16,798 -- 32 19 46 14 26 21 84 183 14 -11 7 11 2,687,623 5,126,689 56,240 69,418 130,279 191,939 1,745,047 1,741,423 52,160 52,6S 1 101,667 173,854 54 194 8 32 28 10 CASTRO Dimmitt 10,394 4,327 136,100 105 - 57 2,6S7,950 3,369,951 -2 1 48,549 •• 4 476,316 431 ,326 10 CHEROKEE Jacksonville 32,008 9,734 24,500 -89 -73 2,977,302 2,107,305 41 45,851 •• 15 539,099 443,609 22 COLEMAN Coleman 10,288 5,608 1,483,000 2,09.7 ... 2,918,245 248,600 1,074 COLLIN (in Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) McKinney Plano 66,920 15 ,193 17,872 74 ,4 94 6,218,430 24 11 -60 67 1,535,788 ... 2,513,373 .. . -39 . .. 27,177 71,443 22 6 -13 34 305,872 779,349 298,989 621,484 2 25 COLORADO Eagle Lake 17,638 3,587 . . . ... . . . . .. . .. . .. 13,356 40 20 153,660 139,174 10 COMAL (in San Antonio SMSA) New Braunfels 24,165 17,859 ... . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. 38,048 6 8 461,976 445,315 4 COOKE Gainesville Muenster 23,471 13,830 1,411 366,947 1 5 ,000 164 -86 .. . ... 4,632,365 348,000 . .. 915,250 ... -62 4 8,562 7,038 17 7 25 2 501,709 78,646 417 ,59 1 67,492 2 0 17 .i:. CORYELL (in Killeen-Temple SMSA) Copperas Cove Gatesville 35,311 10,8 18 4,683 390,580 ... -5 . .. 380 ... 8,352,417 . .. 9,735,454 . .. -14 . .. 14,930 16,698 5 4 - 7 10 197,012 169,285 16 .,.. Urban building permits Bank debits Percent Percent Percent Percent change change --­ change change Dec Dec Jan-Dec Dec Dec Jan-Dec COUNTY Dec 1976 1976 from Nov 1976 from Dec Jan-Dec 1976 Jan-Dec 197 5 1976 from Jan-Dec Dec 1976 (thousands 1976 from Nov 1976 from Dec Jan-Dec 1976 Jan-Dec 1975 1976 from Jan-Dec City Population (dollars) 1976 1975 (dollars) 1975 of dollars) 1976 1975 (thousands of dollars) 1975 CRANE Crane 4,172 3,427 0 .. . . .. ... . . . . .. 6,0 63 -16 18 72,337 54,889 32 DALLAS (in Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Carrollton Dallas Farmers Branch Garland Grand Prairie Irving Lancaster Mesq uite Richardson Seagoville 1,327,695 13,8 55 844,401 27,492 81,437 50,904 97,260 10,522 55,131 48,582 4,390 2,032,993 20,329,657 . .. 2,675 ,64 5 1,281,9 17 ... 339,324 1,330 ,989 4,946,275 55,235 -47 -22 . .. -12 32 . .. -3 1 2 119 so 515 75 . .. ** -26 . .. 339 18 30 137 .. . 413,658,4 84 . .. ... ... . .. 4,693,016 . . . . . . 948,296 . .. 241 ,557,817 . . . . .. . . . . .. 1,876,400 . . . . .. 1,175,57 1 . .. 71 . .. . .. . . . . .. 150 . .. . .. -19 34,09 1 29,683,133 56,1 19 1s1,48 4 5 5 ,665 139,475 18,040 .. . 183,378 -24 18 s -19 4 s -11 .. . 2 -31 25 19 9 18 4 29 . .. 20 521 ,497 518,846 295,536,805 238,073,897 624,421 464,103 1,943,165 1,404,5 01 606,946 544,157 1,633,459 1,703,469 199,890 145,512 . . . . .. 1,874,473 1,592,084 24 35 38 12 -4 37 ... 18 DAWSON Lamesa 16,604 11,S 59 69,500 165 - 53 ... . . . ... 87,105 77 84 541,133 435,145 24 DEAF SM ITH Hereford 18,999 13,414 351,900 143 - 14 7,458,550 4,192 ,4 4 1 78 DENTON (in Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Denton Justin Lewisville Pilo t Poin t 75,633 39,874 741 9,264 1,663 1,4 68,780 .. . 487,395 6,200 -18 . .. 9 -94 11 5 . .. 76 -39 . .. 9,721,525 750,4 23 . . . 6,953,09 1 154,978 . .. 40 384 2,937 52,1 37 3,881 2 30 3 - 10 33 1 505,102 4 7,01 7 378,860 38,795 33 21 DE WITT Yoakum (see Lavaca) 18,660 EASTLAND Cisco 18,092 4,160 ... . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. 6,965 19 12 75,155 69,620 8 ...., tTl >< > en b:I c:: en z m en en :::i::i tTl < m ~ ECTOR (constitutes Odessa SMSA) Odessa ELLIS (in Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Mid lothian Waxahachie EL PASO (constitutes El Paso SMSA) El Paso ERATH Stephenville FANNIN Bonham 92,660 78,380 46,638 2,322 13,452 359,29 1 32 2 ,2 6 1 18,141 9,277 22 ,705 7,698 3,056,387 107,000 141 ,600 12,868,6 10 2 14,925 0 -44 98 31 4 1 -I S ... -JO 238 329 49 -42 54,053,935 ... 2,9 13,660 147,0 52,26 1 7, 120,135 642,305 3 1,4 39,444 . .. 2 ,7 16,745 11 5,033,594 2,207,323 607 ,922 72 . .. 7 28 223 6 7,154 43,582 1,579,4 35 37,12 1 28,347 7 11 11 179 8 5 28 20 23 30 89,811 4 10,70 3 17,20 5,74 9 368,674 291,2 17 68,395 352,648 l 5,006,560 306,259 253,561 31 16 15 20 15 'Tl m to ::i:::i c::: > ::i:::i ....:: - FAYETTE Schulenburg FORT BEND (in Houston SMSA) Richmond Rosenberg 17,6SO 2 ,294 S2,314 S,777 12 ,098 I 90,S7S 224,9 87 329,848 S8! -S3 -73 ... -70 197 9S4,7!8 2,88S ,607 7 ,912,63S 973,386 6,468,274 3,43S,819 2--SS 130 22,949 ** s 262,7S3 223,9S8 17 \D -.I -.I GAINES Seagraves Seminole I l ,S93 2,440 S,007 92,SOO IO S,300 370 -64 . .. 39 300,72S ... 93,830 . .. 120 . .. 38,460 20 44 324,081 333,S62 - 3 GALVESTON (constitutes Ga lveston-Texas City SMSA) Dickinson Galveston La Marque Texas City 169,8 12 10,776 61 ,809 l 6,13 1 38,908 ... l ,1S2,647 127,S80 739,38S . .. -24 ... 34 .. . 3SS 71 -62 . .. 1S ,341,42S . .. 11,293,100 . .. 8,744,407 . . . ll,389,12S . .. 7S . . . -I 28,137 331,3S6 31,368 67 ,166 s IS 7 2 - 8 27 6 IS 324,904 3,394,160 382,247 808,l 9S 276,714 3,119,06S 338,276 6S0,817 17 9 13 24 GILLESPIE Fredericksburg 10,SS3 S,326 224,900 S3 -34 2,7S9,SS1 2,479,070 11 31,189 - s 3 376,028 334,S73 12 GONZALES Gonzales Nixon 16,37s S,8S4 l ,92S 9 ,470 10,000 -S8 373 I ,6S3,S86 62S ,26S 164 38,123 - 7 - 2 474,4S2 403,2SS 18 GRAY Pampa 26,949 21,726 1S2 ,100 -24 22S 2 ,301,071 2 ,671,700 -14 63,020 7 s 702,383 707,879 - l GRAYSON (constitutes Sherman-Denison SMSA) Denison Sherman 83,22S 24,923 29,061 86,296 83,940 -63 -76 -70 -80 3,4S4,l 74 13,388,7 18 3,620,026 4,639,067 -s 189 62,620 101 ,2S3 7 lS 12 14 6S3,736 1,086,S04 S46,687 1,002,378 20 8 GREGG (in Longview SMSA) Gladewater Kilgore Longview 7S,929 S,S74 9,49S 4S ,S47 238,700 296,8SO 13,344,000 108 6 411 73 67 239 2,018,820 S,99S ,987 48,88S,SOO I ,407 ,36S 3,230,34S 33,437,679 43 86 46 12,406 SS,S67 249,24S 23 17 8 29 lS 8 12S,047 S29,672 2 ,770,2S8 109,20S 4S6,248 2 ,301,882 lS 16 20 GUADALUPE (in San Antonio SMSA) Schertz Seguin 33,S S4 4,061 1S,934 12,S7S 284,118 -74 22 -90 -60 1,346,947 S,628,8S2 1,491 ,360 S,179,061 -10 9 4,748 46,746 - 3 2 -14 s 68,119 S49,4S7 6S,1S6 469,768 s 17 HALE Hale Center Plainview 34,137 1,964 19 ,096 0 1,109,1 so 198 100 . . . . . . . .. 141 ,137 34 27 l ,293,6S l 1,194,683 8 HARDEMAN Quanah 6,79S 3,948 24,SOO 390 7 748,1 so 817,24S - 8 HARDIN (in Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Silsbee 29,996 7,27 1 . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. 28,424 - 11 7 3S2,S 33 28S,489 23 .j>. w HARRIS (in Houston SMSA) Baytown Bellaire 1,741,912 43,980 19,009 69S ,463 2S7,240 -16 -SS -77 88 I 8,437,941 3,404,349 I S,692,4S9 33,74S,788 17 -90 169,189 124,8S7 - 3 12 - 4 8 1,879,138 l ,369,S2 I 1,797,270 1,209,042 s 13 """ """ Urban building permits Bank debits Percent change Percent change Percent change Percent change COUNTY City Population Dec 1976 (dollars) Dec 1976 from Nov 1976 Dec 1976 from Dec 1975 Jan-Dec Jan-Dec 1976 1975 (dollars) Jan-Dec 1976 from Jan-Dec 1975 Dec 1976 (thousands of dollars) Dec 1976 from Nov 1976 Dec 1976 from Dec 1975 Jan-Dec Jan-Dec 1976 1975 (thousands of dollars) Jan-Dec 1976 fro m Jan-Dec 1975 HARRIS (continued) Deer Park Houston Humble La Porte Pasadena South Houston Tomball 12 ,773 1,232,802 3,278 7,149 89,277 11 ,527 2,734 1,333,521 57 ,303,261 109,200 460,300 5,582,636 640,000 562,000 -27 -10 361 42 57 35 ... -11 -8 .. . 698 457 . . . 378 27 ,006,442 777,877,454 . . . . . . ... 2,773,599 . .. 14,668,048 602,680,5 81 . .. . .. . . . ... . .. 84 29 . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 41,527 31 ,021,451 . . . 10,816 271,338 ... 46,687 6 19 ... 18 8 . .. 39 21 26 ... 19 5 . .. 66 505 ,0 85 381,913 306,640,772 252,099,929 . . . . . . 123,692 94 ,1 03 3,103,846 2,521 ,474 . . . . .. 420,790 324,622 32 22 . .. 31 2 3 . .. 30 HARRISON (in Longview SMSA) Hallsville Marshall 44,841 1,038 22,937 . . . 347,833 . . . -56 . . . 51 ... 5,398,300 . .. 3,923,775 ... 38 3,467 64 ,863 5 9 10 1 40,961 692,7 15 39,692 595,654 3 16 HASKELL Haskell 8,512 3,655 35,300 76 67 549,800 ... . .. 11,838 4 9 14 108,623 107,664 HAYS (in Austin SMSA) San Marcos 27,642 18,860 141 ,400 -37 70 . . . ... . .. 26,880 - 5 7 307 ,617 248,801 24 HENDERSON Athens 26,466 9,582 235,700 40 247 .. . ... 40,362 4 7 454,391 394,095 15 HIDALGO (constitutes McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg SMSA) Alamo Donna Edinburg Elsa McAllen Mercedes Mission Pharr San Juan Weslaco 181,535 4 ,29 1 7,365 1 7 ,163 4 ,400 37,636 9,3SS 13,043 IS,829 5,070 IS ,3 13 . . . 22,850 747,227 . . . 4 ,0S0,3S I 49,200 3SS,9S9 I 03,360 102,7SO 4S ,9 S2 ... -9S 162 . .. 162 -S4 -I -60 186 -92 . . . -S3 203 . . . 178 -38 47 -68 . . . -88 . .. 1,329,677 8,999,830 . . . 38,2S2 ,924 1,8 11,720 S,607 ,646 3,4S9,l 28 . . . ... . .. 1,179,267 S,878,808 . . . 29 ,287 ,819 863,889 3,966,697 2,110,683 . . . . . . . . . 13 S3 . . . 3 1 110 41 64 . .. ... 12 ,820 10,826 71,282 19,718 2 16,683 IS ,3 11 45 ,9 12 12,449 10,280 44,493 12 lS 6 4 17 -II 16 10 -I 3S 148 -7 13 27 16 -12 I 1 -2S 28 146,675 122,656 836,227 213,199 2 ,S l 8,649 212,21 1 .. . 140 ,170 .. . SOS,839 100,704 . . . 67 l ,S93 2 11 ,5 11 1,9S8,020 200,690 . . . 124,728 . .. 421,983 46 . . . 2S 1 29 6 . .. 12 . .. 20 ..., tT1 x > en tii c:: en- HOCKLEY Levelland HOOD (in Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Granbury 20,396 11 ,44S 6,368 2,473 377,800 3 1,S OO I . . . -s . . . 4,028,332 . . . 4 ,S73,779 ... -12 .. . 61,S81 10,634 2S II 15 4 6 608,244 1OS,S94 Sl8,SOO 74,632 17 41 z tT1 en en ~ tT1 < ~ HOPKINS Sulphur Springs HOWARD Big Spring IHUNT Greenville 20,710 10,642 37,796 28,73S 47,948 22,04 3 107 ,300 S3,600 89,780 2 -89 -4 1 69 -70 -87 7,027,687 4 ,82 4,138 5,283,998 2,292,129 4,619,276 4,981,408 207 4 6 SS ,894 I S3,99 J 57 ,637 - s 25 3 8 84 -11 630,91 s l ,50S,IS6 680,292 S26,20S 623,815 20 9 "%1 t'fl tii :::ii:i c:: > :::ii:i -<: -'Cl -.J -.J HUTCHINSON Borger JACKSON Edna JASPER Jasper Kirbyville 24,443 J4,J 9S J 2,97S S,332 24,692 6,2 sJ J ,869 294,900 . . . 19,2 JS . . . 23J . . . -26 ... 342 . .. . . . . .. . .. ... . . . . .. . .. ... . . . . .. . .. 19,444 32,434 8,178 -- 6 6 7 - 24 2 30 2J2,0J7 406,318 89,697 189,97S 347,491 6S,180 12 17 38 JEFFERSON (in Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Beaumont Groves Nederland Port Arthur Port Neches 246,402 J J S,9 J 9 J 8,067 J6,8JO S7 ,37 J J0,894 2,482,902 9S7,829 l 39,J03 S83,97S 60S,OOO -S7 226 J7 13 -7J 40 266 -27 88 332 S9,044,132 6,383,7 S2 4,J18,SS8 8,814,304 9 ,331,633 43,627,018 2,29S,014 3,8S0 ,47 J S,3J 7,8S7 S,232,809 3S J78 7 66 78 82J,021 40,260 29,0S3 177 ,898 38,493 JO 14 1 J8 6 23 J lS 19 7 8,602,897 480,72 2 . . . J,843,3S9 431,611 7,2S6,08J 4J7,871 ... J,S97,906 3S7,034 19 lS . . . JS 21 JIM WELLS Alice 33,032 20,J 21 . .. . .. ... . .. . .. . .. 102,S22 16 8 l,lSl,126 991,S33 16 JOHNSON (in Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Burleson Cleburne 4S ,769 7 ,7 J3 16,0J s 348,300 387,000 38 -4 8 233 130 .. . . . . . .. ... . .. ... 21,S77 S3,361 8 2 17 9 238,326 S91,560 196,678 SJ7,7SO 21 14 KARNES Karnes City 13,462 2,926 1 s,000 -88 -49 613,J8S S4S,8S9 12 9,490 13 8 KIMBLE Junction 3,904 2 ,6 S4 . . . . .. . .. .. . . .. . . . 7,SS9 - 1 4 87 ,944 74,369 18 KLEBERG Kingsville 33,166 28,711 SS3 ,SOO S2 302 S,826,139 2,9S3,910 97 S2 ,662 -lS -39 LAMAR Paris 36,062 23,441 476,700 -31 74 LAMB Littlefield J7,770 6,738 J09,300 63 -3S 3,419,614 1,990 ,202 72 32,527 so lS 293,906 231,994 27 LAMPASAS Lampasas 9,323 S,922 40,000 -78 300 1,060,30S 1,420,822 -25 18,677 4 12 21S,942 184,716 17 LAVACA Hallettsville Yoakum 17,903 2,712 s,7S5 700 s1,950 -95 14S 100 -S 1 341,902 l,172,S26 1,833,446 l,7S6,439 -81 -33 11 ,SS7 22,074 7 s 17 6 124,627 2S6,S17 102,007 227,2 88 22 13 LEE Giddings 8,048 2,783 74,200 -12 397 ... . .. . .. 14,400 - 2 - 1 167,S96 J43,284 17 LIBERTY (in Housto n SMSA) Dayton Liberty 33,014 3,804 5,S9 l 187,2 00 145,400 17 -66 274 40 2,264,729 4,764,079 964,223 4 ,050,492 J3S 18 J6,032 35 ,399 30 •• 3 17 l 76,90J 368,649 176,0SO 316,571 •• 16 LIMESTONE Mexia 18,100 5,943 43,000 -56 -81 ... . .. . . . 20,4S7 - 6 10 245,466 200,972 22 "" Ul LLANO Kingsland Llano 6,979 1,262 2 ,608 . . . 42,250 .. . -4 ... -26 . .. 678,9SO . . . 584,041 ... 16 17 ,254 19,032 8 29 3 33 180,887 180,139 151,156 149,130 20 21 .,,.. °' Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Dec 1976 (dollars) Percent change Dec Dec 1976 1976 from from Nov Dec 1976 1975 Jan-Dec Jan-Dec 1976 1975 (dollars) Percent change --­Jan-Dec 1976 from Jan-Dec 1975 Dec 1976 (thousands of dollars) Percent change Dec Dec 1976 1976 from from Nov Dec 1976 1975 Jan-Dec Jan-Dec 1976 1975 (thousands of dollars) Percent change--­Jan-Dec 1976 from Jan-Dec 1975 LUBBOCK (constitutes Lubbock SMSA) Lubbock Slaton 179,295 149,101 6,583 5,934,930 40,275 -48 1,088 -4 934 91,904,380 810,445 114,822,830 573,370 -20 41 1,619,613 16,205 42 55 58 20 12,730,891 9,758,239 30 LYNN Tahoka 9,107 2 ,956 149,700 ... . .. 331,683 125 ,5 00 164 20,231 54 37 157 ,114 141 ,039 11 McCULLOCH Brady 8,571 5,557 190,900 20 114 1,394 ,110 1,465,025 - 5 19,5 39 ** 13 225,943 195,333 16 McLENNAN (constitutes Waco SMSA) McGregor Waco 147,553 4,365 95,326 48,710 2,415,028 395 61 -61 -4 544,035 24,587,323 1,022,670 20,356,810 -47 21 9,617 573,037 1 4 5 14 117,245 6,698,998 103,663 5,764,653 13 16 MATAGORDA Bay City 27,9 13 11,733 543,900 -65 30 7,986,064 3,958,079 102 57,739 11 7 685,307 574,364 19 MAVERICK Eagle Pass 18,093 15 ,364 691,347 435 218 . . . . .. . .. 25 ,447 7 - 6 292,356 244,944 19 MEDINA Castroville Hondo 20,249 1,893 5,487 13,200 400 300 -96 -47 -99 389,944 . . . ... . . . . .. ... 3,306 9,545 - 6 22 - 12 16 45,614 107,321 36,174 26 MIDLAND (constitutes Midland SMSA) Midland 65,433 59 ,463 4,403,381 -72 135 59,975,313 29,281 ,030 105 910,954 16 44 8,831,643 5,025,040 76 MILAM Cameron Rockdale 20,028 5,546 4,655 . . . 267,900 .. . 437 . .. 2,332 . . . 1,55 0 ,096 ... 845,182 . .. 83 14,823 14,966 7 4 - 9 7 179,406 191 ,380 161,913 176,532 11 8 MILLS Goldthwaite 4,212 1,693 . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... 11 ,49 5 31 2 134,857 120,736 12 "'1 trl MITCHELL Colorado City 9,073 5,227 . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. 13,82 1 10 7 141,084 119,828 18 ~ > en t:li c::: en-z trl en en :;ti trl < ~ MONTGOMERY (in Houston SMSA) Conroe MOORE Dumas NACOGDOCHES Nacogdoches NAVARRO Corsicana 49,479 11 ,969 14,060 9,771 36,362 22,544 31,1 50 19 ,972 1,278,600 1,307,002 498,050 794,311 217 299 -3 318 -14 99 24 I 82 6,775 ,127 6,825,366 9,904,880 6,559,645 . . . 4,892,060 7 ,433,738 3,1 66,952 ... 40 33 107 117,99 1 74,773 24 8 24 15 1,225,432 796,192 972,020 707,959 26 12 ~ m txl NOLAN Sweetwater 16,220 12,020 148,400 -94 2 S,330,982 S,l 81,07S 3 44,491 30 13 467,624 37 3,639 2S ~ c: > ~ ><> Austin en tz:i UPSHUR c: Gladewater (see Gregg) en-UPTONz m McCam eyen en ~ UVALDE m Uvalde <;; VALVERDE ~ De\ Rio 295,516 25 J ,808 20,9 76 4 ,697 2,647 17,34 8 10,764 27,471 21 ,330 43,730,023 30 ,000 2 18,932 293,695 278 ... -16 -80 6 18 . .. -27 100 202 ,436,907 . .. 5,080,759 4,820,408 J 47 ,300,372 . .. 2,352,587 5,J 98,548 37 . .. J 16 -7 3,001,901 3,176 53 ,225 5 J ,301 - 2 16 JJ 3 27 -18 8 12 33,704,055 574,048 59 1,601 23,487,065 486,5 33 515,221 44 18 15 'Tl trl t:i:i :;i::i c: > :;i::i -<: -'D -.I -.I VICTORIA Victoria WALKER Huntsville WARD Monahans WASHINGTON Brenham 53,766 41,349 27,680 17 ,6 10 13,019 8 ,333 18,842 8,922 2 ,916,013 1,247,313 39,190 272,562 178 -52 -15 -23 110 333 25 -37 23,722,190 8,000,034 927,229 6,304,742 18,893,347 3,201,360 2,050,907 5,974 ,897 26 150 -55 6 283,130 49,022 24,679 58,522 -- 18 5 15 2 - 19 6 7 18 2,824,679 592,767 270,891 620,544 2,622,737 510,057 275,256 518,312 - 8 16 2 20 WEBB (constitutes Laredo SMSA) Laredo 72 ,859 69,024 2 ,002 ,974 125 321 22,976,279 12,128,697 89 201,458 8 - 7 2,414,448 2,137,870 13 WHARTON EI Campo 36,729 8,563 190,265 - 5 122 ... . .. ... 46,301 9 •• 578,839 547,598 6 WICHITA (in Wichita Falls SMSA) Burkburnett Iowa Park Wichita Falls 120,563 9,230 5,796 97,564 176,488 20,800 2,082,477 -8 -81 6 . . . 17 -32 3,215 ,920 ... 31,393,726 ... . .. 18,536,206 . .. . .. 69 22,15 3 8,109 493,086 - 8 1 28 - 4 5 15 250,739 91,298 4,837,071 227,541 84,887 4,726,342 10 8 2 WILBARGER Vernon 15 ,35 5 11 ,454 420,942 251 224 3,672,952 1,531,429 140 WILLACY Raymondville 15,570 7,987 14,000 - 5 36 893,150 1,070,100 -17 20,506 - 4 - 11 305,569 279,840 9 WILLIAMSON Bartlett Georgetown Taylor 37,305 1,622 6,395 9,616 ... 261,300 147,072 . . . -12 541 . . . 4 232 . . . 7,939,889 ... . .. 5,482,482 . .. . .. 45 . .. 2,502 21,483 26,788 - 13 5 4 -- 3 14 3 29,003 247,731 315,611 28,627 214,111 288,695 1 16 9 WINKLER Kermit 9,640 7,884 50,300 -10 -68 574,141 638,426 -10 WISE (in Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Decatur 19,687 3,240 500 100 - 98 884,500 409,600 116 11 ,2 75 4 6 133,367 110,715 20 YOUNG Graham Olney 15 ,400 7,477 3,624 244,361 83,990 30 13 155 281 3,714,093 692,192 3,471,085 1,351,732 7 -49 14,9 37 13 18 168,493 142,658 18 ZAVALA Crystal City 11,370 8,104 0 . . . . . . ... . .. . .. 9,852 -23 - 7 118,406 113,293 5 ** Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent. No data, or inadequate basis for reporting. ~ 'D Gross Retail Sales by Kind of Business for Texas Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas Reported area and Jul-Sep 19 76 Percent change Jul-Sep 1976 from Reported area and Jul-Sep 1976 Percent change Jul-Sep 1976 from kind of business ($000) Apr-Jun 1976 Jul-Sep 1975 kind of business ($000) Apr-Jun 1976 Jul-Sep 1975 ABILENE SMSA BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION SMSA Apparel, accessories 4,913 9 8 Apparel, accessories 2,137 3 31 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 35,530 8 24 service stations I 5,449 2 10 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 9,394 6 25 farm equipment 7,938 9 64 Drugstores 2,231 4 -14 Drugstores 1,057 16 43 Eating and drinking 8,439 14 17 Eating and drinking 5,280 14 33 Food 23,530 9 - I Food 13,777 7 9 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 6,289 12 10 furnishings 2,451 25 41 General merchandise 14,262 ** I General merchandise 8,391 - I 9 Liquor 1,324 3 Liquor 846 8 12 Miscellaneous retail 21,596 -7 22 Miscellaneous retail 5,620 39 20 AMARILLO SMSA CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA Apparel, accessories 9,568 12 II Apparel, accessories 7,395 4 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 81,658 17 38 service stations 68,141 13 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 13,086 6 10 farm equipment 16,346 4 18 Drugstores 7,014 3 8 Drugstores 6,374 4 -60 Eating and drinking 15 ,569 8 14 Eating and drinking 20,650 6 13 Food 30,439 3 5 Food 40,567 I -35 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 10,414 6 27 furnishings 11,067 3 16 General merchandise 21,949 ** 5 General merchandise 29,912 3 4 Liquor 3,912 4 6 Liquor 2,861 ** 6 Miscellaneous retail 24,365 I 7 Miscellaneous retail 41,918 - 5 4 AUSTIN SMSA DALLAS-FORT WORTH SMSA Apparel, accessories Automotive dealers, service stations Building materials, farm equipment Drugstores Eating and drinking Food Furniture, home furnishings General merchandise Liquor Miscellaneous retail I 5 ,2 62 92,288 33,241 8,826 37,191 59,915 20,689 52 ,760 5,832 44,268 -2 14 10 2 3 9 I 5 5 -17 5 35 19 14 17 -22 22 8 2 -12 Apparel, accessories Automotive dealers, service stations Building materials, farm equipment Drugstores Eating and drinking Food Furniture, home furnishings General merchandise Liquor Miscellaneous retail 140,428 733,200 179,940 82,419 225,591 438,618 133,007 299,084 45,118 519,479 5 -21 2 3 4 -16 6 13 I 7 20 31 12 13 -17 10 7 4 13 BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA EL PASO SMSA Apparel, accessories Automotive dealers, service stations Building materials, farm equipment Drugstores Eating and drinking Food Furniture, home 8,110 76,685 20,514 12,284 21,277 78,400 3 6 2 8 2 8 I 5 39 9 13 9 Apparel, accessories Automotive dealers, service stations Building materials, farm equipment Drugstores Eating and drinking Food Furniture, home 17,894 133,306 11,185 10,221 23,278 66,302 5 8 9 5 -16 2 23 9 12 12 7 furnishings General merchandise Liquor 14,294 43,346 4,284 3 2 I 24 14 7 furnishings General merchandise Liquor 18,235 58,833 5,25 I 3 4 ** 9 6 14 Miscellaneous retail 37,612 5 40 Miscellaneous retail 46,386 -12 3 BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Apparel, accessories 8,860 -13 6 Apparel, accessories 4,876 2 13 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 21,826 8 8 service stations 160,833 980 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 10,027 9 39 farm equipment 8,794 8 24 Drugstores 3,667 -11 5 Drugstores 5,066 I 7 Eating and drinking 9,451 I 20 Eating and drinking 14,541 2 9 Food 23,954 -25 -17 Food 39,664 2 9 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings General merchandise 7 ,582 30,828 -3 -11 22 9 furnishings General merchandise 4,527 16,375 2 3 17 -6 Liquor Miscellaneous retail 883 15,863 3 3 27 24 Liquor Miscellaneous retail 2,431 18,717 2 19 II 6 Percent change Percent change Jul-Sep Jul-Sep Jul-Sep 1976 from Jul-Sep 1976 from Reported area and 1976 Reported area and 1976 kind of business {$000) Apr-Jun 19 76 Jul-Sep 1975 kind of business ($000) Apr-Jun I 976 Jul-Sep I 975 HOUSTON SMSA MIDLAND SMSA Apparel, accessories 86,184 - 7 8 Apparel, accessories 3,285 15 2 Automotive dealers, service stations 931,789 •• 6 Automotive dealers, service stations 20 ,765 2 38 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 193,216 Drugstores 68,673 - 5 ** 33 6 farm equipment 4 ,750 Drugstores 4 ,89 4 3 •• 17 5 Eating and drinking 194,104 Food 495,494 3•• 19 6 Eating and drinking 4 ,700 Food 1 I ,448 - 8 7 9 1 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 117,052 4 19 furnishings 4,312 22 28 General merchandise 340,296 ** 12 General merchandise 9,089 2 5 Liquor 34,795 I 11 Liquor 9 10 2 -10 Miscellaneous retail 506,5 30 7 15 Miscellaneous retail 33,443 5 6 KILLEEN-TEMPLE SMSA ODESSA SMSA Apparel, accessories 5,100 9 37 Apparel, accessories 3,8 31 7 11 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 30,460 9 4 service stations 39 ,362 - 17 14 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 9,515 Drugstores 1,923 Eating and drinking 9,616 7 3 2 26 3 10 farm equipment 7,989 Drugstores 1,4 2 1 Eating and drinking 7,547 - 14 3 l -21 •• 7 Food 18,379 5 - 18 Food 19,076 3 4 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 4 ,641 General merchandise 16,979 4 4 12 13 furnishings 6,128 General merchandise 18,8 14 34 2 4 8 4 Liquor 1,267 34 46 Liquor 3,176 6 7 Miscellaneous retail 10,608 10 14 Miscellaneous retail 56,047 2 3 LAREDO SMSA SAN ANGELO SMSA Apparel, accessories 11,979 - 13 18 Apparel, accessories 2 ,676 14 19 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 12,036 - 12 - 41 service stations 19 ,367 - 2 7 Building materials, farm equipment 3,606 Drugstores 1,907 - •• 14 32 •• Building materials, farm equipment 7,115 Drugstores 7,202 12 99 12 122 Eating and drinking 4,218 Food 13,341 - 2 6 - 9 16 Eating and drinking 4 ,670 Food 12 ,675 2•• 4 4 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 6,202 - 15 20 furnishings 3,225 - 2 9 10 General merchandise 21,754 - 7 1 General merchandise 10,368 3 1 Liquor 131 - 39 - 30 Liquor 739 4 12 Miscellaneous retail 15,251 - 6 2 7 Miscellaneous retail 5,177 9 4 LUBBOCK SMSA SAN ANTONIO SMSA Apparel, accessories 10,021 19 13 Apparel, accessories 33,878 3 8 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 55 ,570 2 16 service stations 2 18,020 9 18 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment I 9 ,275 Drugstores 2,9 52 6 2 12 6 farm eq uipment 44,929 Drugstores 15,485 I 13 •• Eating and drinking 17 ,428 4 15 Eating and drin king 64 ,5 30 l 7 Food 39,602 6 15 Food 12 2 ,592 s -28 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 14,228 General merchandise 26,195 13 s 24 3 furnishings 36,763 General merchandise 99,954 7 2 23 II Liquor 4 ,919 Miscellaneous retail 31,39 5 - 13 26 - 8 IS Liquor I 1,490 Miscellaneous retail 94,575 16 4 30 12 McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA Apparel, accessories 10,341 Automotive dealers, 6 19 Apparel, accessories 2,76 1 Automotive dealers, 2 7 service stations 36,108 6 12 service stations 19,8 16 4 27 Building materials, farm equipment 14,687 Drugstores 3,444 - 7 19 32 2 Building materials, farm equipment 5,567 Drugstores 2 ,9 39 I 2 2 3 7 Eating and drinking 9,302 4 13 Eating and drinking 4 ,2 51 I 9 Food 32,683 4 - 18 Food 14,8 58 6 Furniture, home Furniture, ho me furnishings 7,763 I 25 furnishings 3,669 23 38 General merchandise 27,343 8 IS General merchandise 9,583 s I I Liquor 826 10 19 Liq uor I ,I I 7 14 2 3 Miscellaneous retail 19 ,741 - 41 25 Miscellaneous retail 7,805 4 6 FEBRUARY 1977 Reported area and Jul-Sep 1976 Percent change Jul-Sep 1976 from Reported area and Jul-Sep 1976 Percent change Jul-Sep 1976 from kind of business ($000) Apr-J un 1976 Jul-Sep 1 97s kind of business ($000) Apr-Jun 1976 Jul-Sep 1975 TEXARKANA SMSA Apparel, accessories Automotive dealers, service stations Building materials, farm equipment Drugstores Eating and drinking Food Furniture, home furnishings General merchandise 1,830 20,553 7,058 1,375 3,814 13,379 3,550 8,339 - 2 14 1 s s 1 4 •• 11 34 61 8 8 s 54 •• WACO SMSA Apparel, accessories Automotive dealers, service stations Building materials, farm equipment Drugstores Eating and drinking Food Furniture, ho me furnishings General merchandise 4,093 48,091 21,389 3,710 12,451 23,593 5,625 17,952 •• s 11 1 IS 7 7 I 3 21 30 11 14 -24 12 s Liquor § Liquor 1,608 1 6 Miscellaneous retail 5,416 - 7 14 Miscellaneous retail 18,329 6 13 TYLER SMSA WICHITA FALLS SMSA Apparel, accessories 5,648 3 Apparel, accessories 4,585 4 8 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 27,567 10 22 service stations 38,252 2 16 Building materials, farm equipment 14,070 3 34 Building materials, farm equipment 9,318 •• 23 Drugstores 2,722 1 14 Drugstores 4,692 I 87 Eating and drinking 6,912 8 12 Eating and drinking 8,589 - 3 9 Food 20,113 6 -4 Food 20,387 -10 -12 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 5,758 7 41 furnishings 5,642 s s General merchandise 13,355 4 General merchandise 15,036 s I Liquor § Liquor 2,182 2 s Miscellaneous retail 12 ,949 -26 s Miscellaneous retail 17,206 4 -IO § Omitted to avoid disclosure . •• Absolute change is less than one half of I percent. No data, or inadequate basis for reporting. Source: Sales Tax Division, State Comptroller of Public Accounts. 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-prcliminary data subject to revision; r-revised data; *-dollar totals for the fiscal year to date; t-employment data for wage and salary workers only. Dec Nov Dec Year-to-date average 1976 1976 1975 1976 GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY Business activit y (index) 246.9 240.3 21 1.9 228.3 195.5 Estimates of personal income (millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted) $ 6,845 .9p $ 6,694.9p $ 6,224.Sr $ 6,417.8 $ 5,741.9 Income payments to individuals in U.S. (billions, at seasonally adjusted annual rate) Wholesale prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) Consumer prices in Dallas (unadjusted index) Consumer prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) Business failures (number) Business failures (liabilities, thousands) Sales of ordinary life insurance (index) $ $ l ,440.7p 187.2 174.3 290.2 $ $ l ,42 1.4p 185.6 171.7 l 7 3.8 255.3 $ $ l ,308.2r 178.7 166.3 0 0 253.7 $ $ I ,375 .4 182.9 170.5 253 .8 $ 1,249.7 174.9 161.2 49 $ 13,852 215.3 PRODUCTION Total electric power use (index) Residential electric power use (index) Industrial electric power use (index) Crude oil prod uction (index) Average daily production per o il well (bbl.) Crude oil processed by refineries (index) Industrial production-total (index) Industrial production -total manufactures (index) Industrial production-durable manufactures (index) Industrial production-nondurable manufactures (index) Industrial production-mining (index) Industrial production-utilities (index) Industrial production in U.S. (index) Urban building permits issued (index) New residential building authorized (index) New residential units authorized (index) New nonresidential building authorized (unadjusted index) 204.4p 294.1 p 157 .6p 1os .8P 18.2 l 3J:Jp 140.oP 141.Sp l 38.9p 113.0p I 65.6p I 32.8p 249.8p 294.1 p I 53.0p 2 l 8.6p l 85.6p 230.9p 157.0p 106.9p 18.4 13i:oP l 35 .3p l 35.9p 134.8p I l 6.4p I 65.6p l 3 l.9p 24 l.9p 254.0p l 20.4p 227.1 p I 73 .3r 226.6r 145.4r I 09.4r 19.0 130.7 I 30.4r l 33.6r I 34.8r I 32 .7r I l 6.9r 114 .or 124.4r J 93 .6r 264.2r 12s.sr I 32 .4r 186.7 234.7 15 5.2 106 .7 18.7 130.3 135.2 134.5 13 5.6 114.1 168.8 129 .8 2 33.4 253.7 129.4 211.0 163.9 207.4 136.5 109.5 19.6 12 8.3 125.8 127.6 129.9 125.8 11 6 .0 166.7 11 7 .8 188.6 189. 1 86.6 185.3 AGRICULTURE Prices received by farmers (unadjusted index) Prices paid by fa rmers in U.S. (unadjusted index) 193 195 187 193 185 184 194 194 178 J 82 Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid by farmers 99 97 JOJ JOO 98 FINANCE Bank debits (index) Bank debits, U.S. (index) Bank commercial loans outstanding (index) 461.4 363.6 200.3 445.5 352 .9 193.1 37 8.7 296.0 192.2 4 J 7.2 335.4 187.7 342.0 2 88.3 J 85 .J Weekly condition report of large commercial banks, Dallas Federal Reserve District Loans (millions) Loans and investments (millions) Adjusted demand deposits (millions) Revenue receipts of the state comptroller (thousands) Federal Internal Revenue collections (millio ns) $ $ $ $ $ 12 ,0 11 17,992 5,335 497.3 1,975.8 $ I J ,667 $ 17,560 $ 5,008 $ 685.4 $ 1,1 39.4 $ 11 ,226 $ 16,637 $ 5,268 $ 448.J $ 935 .5 $ 11 ,245 $ 17,013 $ 4,910 $ 574.6 $ 4,160.4 * $ 10,644 $ I 5,534 $ 4,7 12 $ 499.0 $ 3,285.2 * Securities registrations-original applications Mutual invest ment companies (thousands) $ 99,665 $ 62 ,182 $ 62 ,342 $ 308,437 * $ 212 ,5 02 * All other corporate securities Texas companies (thousands) Other companies (thousands) $ $ 13,734 14,435 $ 14,078 $ 5,523 $ s 10 ,868 11 ,544 s 55 ,232 * $ 44,955. $ s 32,019* 4 5 ,5 74. Securities registration-renewals Mutual investment companies (thousands) Other corporate securities (thousands) $ $ 39,913 529 $ 29,188 $ 0 s 38,359 $ 1,016 $ 129,254* s 3,021 * $ 144,133* s 1,116* LABOR Total nonagricultural employment (index)t Ma nufacturing employment (index)t ..... Average weekly hours-manufacturing (index)t Average weekly earnings-manufacturing (index)t Total nonagricultural employment (thousands)t . Total manufacturing employment (thousands)t Durable-goods employment (thousands)t .. Nondurable-goods employment (thousands)t 140.8p l 25.7p 99.3p I 89.4p 4,602.Sp 8 31.2p 453.9p 377 .3P 140.7p l 25.9p 98.0p l 84.7 p 4 ,582.8p 834.l p 456.2p 377.9p l 37.7r 122.sr I00.2r I 77 .9r 4,49 l.7r 809.0r 443.1 r 365 .9r 139.2 124.5 98.8 J 8 1.7 4 ,5 25.4 826.l 45 1.3 374.8 135.7 120.6 97 .6 166.8 4,504.8 800.2 442.0 358. 1 Total civilian labor force in selected labor market areas (thousands) 4,296.2p 4,280.1 p 4 ,l 94.7r 4 ,244.0 4 ,152.0 Nonagricultural emfloyment in selected labor market areas (thousands) ............. . ... 3,760.9p 3,743.S p 3,66 l .9r 3,693.l 3,601.3 Manufacturing emp\oyment in selected labor market areas (thousands)T . . . . . . . . . ... 699.4p 699.Sp 678.7r 692.1 669.4 Total unemployment in selected labor market areas (thousands) .... ..... . ...... 233.8p 242.8p 232.8r 243.9 238.8 Percent of labor force unemployed in selected labor market areas S.4p S.7P 5 .Sr 5.7 5.9 Percent of total labor force unemployed S.2P 5.4p 5.3r 5.5 5.6 SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, TEXASBUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712 Texas Trade and Professional Associations and Other Selected Organizations 1977 Rita Wright and Kathryn McMillen This annual list of Texas trade and professional assoc1at1ons and other selected organizations is compiled as an aid in answering the requests of many persons who call the Bureau of Business Research each year for information on various phases of Texas business. The associations are alphabetized by key word in the association title. Two indexes-a city index and a title index-accompany the list. For the purposes of this listing, a trade association is defined as a voluntary organization of business enterprises engaging in a particular trade or industry and dealing with the problems of that trade or industry. Generally only statewide associations are listed. Number of members and title of official publication are reported, as well as names of officials and addresses if avai lable. Rita Wright and Kathryn McMillen are librarians at the Bureau of Business Research. $3.00 (Texas residents add $.15 tax) ISB N 87755-266-5 Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas at Austin