Texas BUSINESS The Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas at Austin Vol. 52, No. 7, July 1978 The Texas Insurance Industry: A Decade of Growth 121 Jerry D. Todd Industrial Location Decisions in Texas 125 Robert F Pollard and Lorna A. Monti Computers and Small Businesses: An Interview with Roy Harris 128 Kenneth Roberts Texarkana: Working to Come Together 131 Joanne P. Austin Cover design: Eje Wray Bureau of Business Research Charles C. Holt, Director Review Staff Lorna A. Monti, Editor Lois Glenn, Publications Manager Charles F. Dameron, Jr., Managing Editor Mary Jo Powell, Editorial Assistant Mildred Anderson, Marylyn Donaldson, Jean Hall, and Mercedes Torres, Data Compilation Daniel P. Rosas, Printing Coordinator Joan Farnham, Compositor Subscription rate: $5.00 per year. Single copy: $.50. Second-class postage paid at Austin, Texas. Publication number 540-400. Address manuscripts and communications to Texas Busi­ness Review, Bureau of Business Research, P.O. Box 7459, Austin, Texas 78712. Telephone: 512-471-1616. Texas Business Review is indexed in Marketing Information Guide and Public Affairs Information Service and is available on microfilm from University Microfilms. Contents of this publication are not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely. Acknowledgment of the source will be appreciated. The Texas Insurance Industry The insurance industry in Texas nearly tripled in size in the decade 1966-1976, growing from $2.6 billion in piemium volume to $7 .8 billion. Its annual compounded rate of growth, 11.5 percent, was 0.7 percent higher than the rate for the United States as a whole. Because of this rapid growth, taxes and fees collected by the state of Texas from its insurance industry also nearly tripled, rising from $44.6 million to $132.6 million. Only two states, California and New York, now collect more tax and fee revenues from insurance than Texas. Since Texas spent only $12.3 million to collect these fees and regulate the industry, insurance iepiesents an excellent source of revenue. During this same period, the benefits paid by insurers and insuring associations have more than tripled, increasing from Sl.45 billion to $4.73 billion. Types of Texas lnsuren As of August 31, 1976, the latest year for which full data on the insurance industry are available, there were 1,704 insurers licensed in Texas, slightly fewer than the number ten years earlier (see table I) but still more than in JULY 1978 A Decade of Growth Jerry D. Todd any other state. Of this number about 60 percent were life and health insurers, while 40 percent wrote property and liability insurance. With 680 Texas-based insurers, about 40 percent of the national total, Texas ranked first in the number of home-based insurers. While the number of insurers in Texas remained fairly constant over these ten years, the distribution among the types of insurers did not. Substantial increases occurred in the number of legal reserve stock life insurance companies, stipulated premium life insurers, stock property-liability insurers, and Lloyds associations. These increases offset equally substantial declines in the number of local mutual Table 1 Licensed Insurers in Texas 1966, 1971, and 1976 Type of insurer 1966 197 1 Jeay D. Todd is Associate Profe11or ofFinance, University of Texas tit Atatin. Life-health Texas-based 756 580 495 Ou t-o f-state based 338 432 5 12 Property-li ability Texas-ba ed 170 167 185 Out-of-state based 445 464 5 12 Total Texas-based 926 747 680 Out-of-state based 783 896 1,024 aid associations, burial associations, and statewide mutual assessment companies. One significant trend-the merging with or takeover of the latter organizations by stipulated premium insurers-involved the transition from a mutual to a stock organization. The Growth in Premiums Written Total premiums written by all insurers in Texas in­creased almost 200 percent from 1966 to 1976, an average annual increase of 11.5 percent. The bulk of this growth from over three-fourths in 1966. Blue Cross-Blue Shield accounted for 28.5 percent of such premiums in 1976, up from 19.4 percent in 1966. Nevertheless, health insurance premiums still accounted for 43 percent of life insurers' premiums, up from 37 percent in 1966. Texas-Based Insurers The number of insurers chartered and domiciled in Texas between 1966 and 1976 declined sharply from 927 to 680. In 1966, 54 percent of the insurers operating in Total premiums written by all insurers in Texas increased almost 200 percent from 1966 to 1976, an average annual increase of 11.5 percent. stemmed from property-liability insurance premiums (l 3.0 percent growth rate) and health insurance premiums (12.5 percent growth rate). Life insurance premiums increased by 8.4 percent per year. This variation in growth rates altered the proportional distribution of premiums (see table 2). Life insurance premiums, which represented one-third of total premiums in 1966, declined to one-fourth by 1976. Meanwhile, health insurance premiums increased from 24.9 percent to 27.2 percent, and property-liability premiums from 41.7 percent to 4 7 .6 percent of the total. The two insuring groups that had the highest growth rates were the title insurance industry and the hospital service corporation (Blue Cross-Blue Shield). The former had a 15 .8 percent average annual growth rate, primarily because of increases in real estate values and in the number of transactions. The latter grew at an average annual rate of 16.9 percent. (Although legally Blue Cross is not an insurer, it is regulated by the State Board of Insurance and its service is, by anyone's functional definition, insurance.) While life insurers accounted for more than two-thirds of health insurance premiums in 1976, their share declined Texas were Texas-based. By 1971, this figure had dropped to 45 percent, and by 1976 to 40 percent. Much of the decrease in the number of insurers was accounted for by mergers and reinsurance " takeovers," causing no reduction in premium volume. In fact, between 1966 and 1976 Texas-based insurers even increased their share of the Texas market from 36.l percent to 39.7 percent. But by 1976, Texas-based insurers had their market share reduced to 36. l percent, exactly what it was ten years earlier (see table 3). Property-liability insurers based in Texas improved their market share from 1966 to 1971 , as did life insurers in the health insurance market (excluding Blue Cross). From 1971 to 1976, however, with the exception of property-liability coverages, out-of-state insurers' growth in premium volume exceeded that of Texas-based insurers in all lines, reducing Texas insurers' share of the market quite significantly, especially in life insurance and title insurance. (Out-of-state insurers purchased a number of Texas title insurers.) Admittedly, many Texas companies have been concen­trating on expanding into other states. Still, although Texas continues to have more home-based insurers than any other Table 2 Distribution of Premiums Written in 1966 and 1976 (In thousands of dollars) Life Healt h Property-liability insurance insurance insurance T ype of insurer 1966 1976 1966 1976 1966 1976 Li fe (lega l reserve and stipulated premium) 849,8 15 1,932,044 501,101 1,454,526 Li fe associa tio ns a nd fra tern als 29,366 45 ,109 7 47 2,087 No nprofi t hospi tal corps ( Blue Cross-Blue Shield) 127, 192 607 ,687 Pro pert y-li abilit y 27,977 66,996 1, 100,634 3,733,772 Total 879,18 1 1 ,977 ,153 657,017 2,131,296 1, 100,634 3,733,772 state, out-of-state insurers are increasing their market share in several coverage areas. Property-Liability Insurance Premiums written by property-liability insurers increased from $ l.l3 billion in 1966 to $3.68 billion in l 976, a 227 percent increase. The national figure increased 168 percent, from $22 billion to $59 billion. Consequently, Texas' share of the national market increased from 5. l percent to 6. 2 percent. From l 966 to 1976, certain lines of insurance in Texas had more rapid increases in premium volume than other lines, generally because higher claims payments required higher premium rates. Thus, while premiums for automo­bile insurance increased l 83.4 percent, those for workers' compensation increased 330.9 percent, affecting both lines' percentages of total premiums accordingly (see table 4 ). Significant declines in shares of total premiums were recorded by three lines: health, property, and crime. Life insurers and Blue Cross increased their shares of the health insurance market at the expense of property-liability insurers. Increases in multiple-peril insurance, which encom­passes property and crime coverages, more than offset the declines in the relative market shares for those lines. Commercial multi-peril insurance has grown rapidly since its introduction to Texas three to four years ago. Nationally, such coverages have been available for almost two decades. Consequently, multi-peril lines accounted for l 7.4 percent of premiums nationally and 11.6 percent of premiums in Texas. Liability lines other than auto liability (including med­ical malpractice) also increased at a rate faster than average, causing their share to rise from 4.9 percent to 9.0 percent. Medical malpractice liability and products liability ac­counted for much of this increase. Nevertheless, automobile insurance and workers' compensation insurance still ac­counted for the bulk (59 percent) of total property-liability premiums, as they did nationally (56.6 percent). Life and Health Insurance Of the $2.34 trillion of life insurance in force in the United States at the end of 1976, $135 billion was written Table 3 Percentage of Premiums Written in Texas by Texas-based Insurers Type o f coverage 1966 197 1 1976 Life insurers Life insurance 40. I 39 .2 31.3 Health insura nce 27.3 35.9 30.0 Fraternals 30.3 27.5 22.0 Property-liabilit y insurers 28.2 30.4 30.2 Title insurers 63.3 57.7 36.5 Total 36.1 39 .7 36 .1 in Texas. To support this coverage and to purchase additional coverage, Americans paid $31.4 billion in life insurance premiums to life insurers in 1976. They also spent $35.2 billion on health insurance premiums and annuity considerations. More than half of life insurers' total premiums, then, was derived from annuity considerations and health insurance premiums. In 1966 only 35 percent of total premiums came from these sources. Texans paid $1.67 billion for life premiums and $1.73 billion for health-annuity premiums, or 5.1 percent of total U.S. premiums. While slightly more than half of all Texas premium receipts, as with the nation, came from annuity and health insurance, the proportions varied considerably. Annuities represented 8 percent of the state total and 21 percent of the national total, while health insurance premiums com­prised 42.9 percent of the state total but only 31. 7 percent In 1976 Texans paid $1.67 billion in life . . insurance premiums. of the national total. In all classes of coverage except health insurance and credit life insurance, out-of-state-based insurers had a greater growth in premiums written in the Texas market than Texas-based insurers (see table 5). In 1976 life insurers in Texas paid $1 .2 billion in life benefits and $I. I billion in health benefits. Less than 45 percent of benefits paid on life insurance policies was for death claims. More than half (5 I percent) was paid in approximately equal shares of 17 percent each as annuity payments, surrender values, and policy dividends. The remaining 4 percent was paid as matured endowments and disability payments. Nationally, less than 40 percent of the Table 4 Premiums Written by Property-Liability Insurers in Texas, 1976 Premiums Perceniage Ten-year written of growth rate Line {thousand of dollars) total (percentage) Automobile 1,450,956 39.4 183.4 Worke rs' compensation 719,5 I 5 19.5 330.9 Property 387,770 I 0.5 139.1 Liability 330,024 9.0 499.3 Multi-peril 426,487 I 1.6 379.4 Transportation 213,575 5.8 200.4 Crime-surety 57,691 1.6 104.0 Health 66,996 1.8 139.5 Other• 30,810 0.8 379.8 Total 3,683,824 100.0 227.4 *Includes boiler and machinery, credit, and glass insurance; excludes title insurance. total was paid for death benefits, while significantly higher proportions were paid for policy dividends (22.6 percent), matured endowments (4 percent), and disability payments (1.9 percent). Mutual company policies, which pay divi­dends, obviously accounted for a higher proportion of the national total than the Texas total. The average amount of life insurance in force per family in Texas in 1976 was $30,600, just ahead of the national are a major source of mortgage funds for Texans. The total amount of mortgages owned by life insurers on Texas property, $8.9 billion, represents 10.3 percent of the $86.4 billion in mortgages held by life insurers in the nation. Only California has a larger percentage of the industry's mortgage money, but Texas' share has grown over the past decade while California's has declined. Other important but less tangible measures of the insurance industry's contribution The average amount of life insurance inforce per family in Texas in 1976 was $30,600, just ahead of the national average of $30,100. average of $30,100. This was only the second year (the first being 1975) that Texas was above the U.S. average. Employment and Other Economic Benefits There were approximately 84,000 full-time salaried employees in the insurance business in Texas in 1976. Also during that year, an estimated 97 ,000 agents possessed one or more licenses ( l 01,013 licenses were in effect). It is not possible to simply add these figures to get total employ­ment since some agents are salaried and therefore included in the first figure . Others are only part-time employees. After examining state employment records and types of licenses, I can estimate that there are approximately 150,800 individuals working full-time in the insurance business in Texas and another 25 ,000 part-time employees. The full-time figure represents 9 percent of the national total of 1,675,000 employed in the insurance business in 1976. The insurance industry also provides benefits other than employment to the Texas economy. For example, insurers to the Texas economy over the last decade include the following : it enabled the efficient flow into new invest­ments at minimum costs by reducing or eliminating insurable risks, made credit widely available at relatively low rates by insuring borrowers' collateral, prevented bankruptcy of businesses and families that suffered insured losses, and conducted important research on fire prevention and automobile highway safety. In addition insurance companies and agencies pay untold millions in property taxes to local governments and make major investments in state and municipal bonds, stocks of Texas corporations, real estate, and policyholder loans. Note For Texas insurance data, records from the State Board of Insurance were consulted. Employment figures were developed from data gathered at the State Board of Insurance and the Texas Employment Commission. National data came from Insurance Information Institute, Insurance Facts (annual edition) and Amer­ican Council of Life Insurance, Life Insurance Fact Book (annual edition). Table 5 Premiums Written by Life Insurers in Texas Perce ntage writ ten Kind of written, 1976 growth rate• Premiums Ten-year by Texas-based insurers insurance (thousa nds of do llars) (percentage) 1966 1976 Ordinary 1,153,766 97.5 4 2 33 Group 327 ,6 85 60.6 34 22 Industrial Credit 73,372 105 ,0 29 19.3 38 66t 26 68 Annui ties Health 272 ,192 1,454,526 173.8** 190.3 46tt 27 22 30 *Credit and annuities figures were relatively small in 1966 and were not listed separately before 1971. ••Growth rate from 1971-1976 only. t 1973 figure. tt1971 figure. Industrial Location Decisions in Texas People and Buildings, Planes and Trucks Manufacturing industries that have chosen to locate in Texas are either footloose (they seek no standard location characteristics) or population oriented (they seek either markets or a labor supply as part of their site location decision). The files of the Texas Industrial Commission indicate that the factors that firms from these industries weigh when choosing a specific site in the state are the availability of buildinp, access to transportation, and the availability of particular kinds of labor-both low wage and skilled. In recent years a large number of firms have found Texas to be an attractive location. Between 1972 and 1977, Texas Industrial Expansion reported 3 ,513 decisions to build new plants or expand existing plants within the state. This trend can be expected to continue. Fortune magazine recently surveyed the thousand largest corporations in the United States regarding their expansion plans over the next ten years. Eleven percent named Texas as their most likely choice for a new plant location. (California was the second most popular choice with 8 percent.) The factors that determine the broad location decision­choice of a state or region of the country, for example-are sometimes classified as labor, materials, and market orienta- Robert F. Pollard is Assistant Profeaor ofEconomics, University of Texas at Austin. Loma A. Monti is Editor, Texas Business Review. Robert F. Pollard Lorna A. l\lonti tions. Some industries, such as apparel, must find a good source of labor. Others, such as some food processing, must locate near agricultural producers. Still others, such as printing, must locate near markets because time and communication with customers are important. The site selection process is made in two stages. F'JJ'St a region is selected, based on the general orientation of the industry, and then a particular site within the region is chosen. In numerous national surveys the most frequently cited factors for the choice of a region are the availability of raw materials and resources together with access to markets.1 These are obviously prerequisites for a successful operation. Orientation of Expanding Industries An examination of the new plants and expansions reported between 1972 and 1977 indicates that labor­oriented and market-oriented industries have located in Texas,2 as have footloose industries, which have no general orientation (see table l ). The largest category of new plants and expansions­nonelectrical machinery-consists of a wide variety of types of machinery, including oil field machinery, an important subcategory in Texas. Other subcategories include machin­ery for printing, construction, farming, textiles, food processing, and office work. In general, machinery whose final value is much higher than the wages component of costs will not have a particular orientation. Most nonelectri­cal machinery categories fit this generalization. The excep­tions are such industries as machine tools and ball and roller bearings, which have high labor components when con­trasted with an industry such as trucks and tractors. The absence of a general orientation for most of the industries in the largest category of new plant and expansions indicates that specific factors, such as buildings and transportation, will be important. A footloose indus­try's location can be determined by climate, civic leaders, or even-as commonly alleged-the professional staff's desire to live near recreational facilities or cultural centers. Fabricated metal products, the second largest sector, includes such things as metal cans, plumbing, wire, and structural steel. A number of the subcategories are labor oriented, including fabricated structural steel, boiler shops, architectural metal work, and products such as cans, wire, springs, tubes, and barrels. Those that are not labor oriented have no particular orientation. The third largest category of new plants and expansions, chemicals and allied products, has no specific orientation Industrial consultants have noted that Texas has the best bushu>s climate in the nation. but has developed in Texas in conjunction with petroleum refining. Petrochemical complexes provide a favorable environment for this industry. The fourth and fifth categories-food and kindred products and apparel and related products-are clearer cases of general orientation. Food and kindred products has a mixed orientation toward markets and materials, sometimes Table 1 locating near the agricultural producer and sometimes near the consumer. Apparel is a classic example of a labor­intensive industry. The bottom half of the list of top ten industries repeats the pattern exhibited by the top half: a mixed orientation toward labor and markets or a very specific orientation. People-oriented industries and footloose industries sum­marize the situation. Sources of Interest in Texas Where are these plants likely to come from? The distribution of inquiries to the Texas Industrial Commission is approximately the same as the distribution of manufac­turing employment in the United States, indicating uniform interest in Texas as a potential site among plants and companies presently located elsewhere (see table 2). Be­cause many new plants are branch plants, the interest should not be interpreted solely as potential relocations but also as potential expansions into a new region. The Texas Industrial Commission's findings incorporate slightly more than 34,000 inquiries received from September I 975 to January 1978. Many factors lead firms to make these inquiries. In 1975 an industrial location consulting firm ranked all fifty states according to their desirability as an industrial site. 3 For factors such as state and local taxes, legislative attitude, and laws affecting business-what is termed the business climate-Texas led the nation. Add to this the state's reputation for its sources of energy, its rapidly expanding markets, and its climate, and Texas has a great deal to offer prospective firms. On the negative side, these industrial consultants ranked Texas in the bottom half of the states in "characteristics of the population" and only about average in "facilities for living." Specific Site Requirements In the course of responding to requests for information about the state, the Texas Industrial Commission asks Number of New Plants or Expansions by Industry in Texas, 1972-1977 Number of new plants SI Industry or expansions Orientation 35 Machinery (except electrical) 34 Fabricated metal products (except machinery) 28 Chemicals and allied pro ducts 20 Food and kindred products 23 Apparel and related products 30 Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products 37 Transportation equipment 36 lectrical a nd electronic equipment 27 Printing a nd a ll ied products 32 Sto ne, clay, glass, and concrete products 634 mixed 566 slight labor 360 mixed 325 market and material 322 labor 266 mixed 237 mixed 226 slight mar ket 190 market 178 labor and market Source: Texas Industrial Expansion. prospective manufacturers their criteria for a suitable location. These criteria reflect the needs of firms at all stages of the site selection process. Some firms are comparing Texas with other states, while other firms are already seeking specific sites in the state. The range of responses is wider than in the case of most survey studies because firms are free to state any criteria. (Most studies ask firms to select from a predetermined list.) These responses are reflected in a sample (206 firms) of all firms that made inquiries during 1974-1977. The most frequently mentioned criterion for an accept­able location was the presence of a suitable existing building. This condition, which does not rank high in most surveys, may be the consequence of rising construction costs and a shortage of vacant buildings in a region that has not had much out-migration of industries. Adequate transportation was the second most frequently mentioned criterion. More firms expressed a specific need for air rather than truck transit, which indicates that industries are becoming more footloose or less rooted to traditional locations and modes of transportation. About 15 percent of the prospective firms expressed a particular labor requirement. For some it was the tradi­tional low wage rates and the absence of strong unions. However, an even larger number of firms were concerned with the availability of certain types of labor-especially specific skilled occupations. This is consistent with the findings for the top ten industries; the growth that has occurred in recent years has not been dominated by industries that use unskilled labor intensively. It may very well be that wage-rate differentials are declining in impor­tance as an attraction to industry. Another 15 percent of the firms stipulated financing as their primary locational criterion. Most of the firms in this category were small and probably nonviable without external financing. About 3 percent sought revenue bonds, apparently unaware that they were unavailable in Texas. The availability of energy was cited by 9 percent of the prospective firms, and two-thirds of these were interested specifically in natural gas. The strong interest in such factors as buildings and transportation indicates that most of the firms are in the second stage of the two-stage process of site selection or are Table 2 Industrial Inquiries to Texas Industrial Commission Region of country Percentage of total New England 6 Middle Atlantic 22 East North Central 16 West North Central 4 South Atlantic 11 South Central 16 Northwest 0 Far Southwest 12 Foreign 13 Source: Texas Industrial Commission. gathering information to be used in the second stage. The inquiries about labor force, depending on how specific, could fit into either the search for a region or the search for a specific site within a region. Local Strategy Industries that inquire of the Texas Industrial Commis­sion have the same concerns as industries that have recently expanded or established plants in Texas. They ask about buildings, transportation, and a particular type of labor force, not always meaning low wage, when choosing a specific site. Interest in Texas is widespread across the country; so the city or county whose citizens wish to expand manufacturing employment by seeking new plants should adopt a strategy of broad geographic search and narrow industrial search. The specific industries to be sought should be determined after an examination of buildings or building sites, transportation services, and the characteristics of the available labor supply. Notes 1. Among the major studies on which these conclusions are based are Florence Escott, Texas Plant location Survey 1955-1963 (Austin: Bureau of Business Research, The University of Texas, 1964); Glenn E. McLaughlin and Stefan Robock, Why Industry Moves South (Washington: National Planning Association, 1949); and Eva Mueller and James N. Morgan, " Location Decisions of Manufacturers," American Economic Review Papers and Proceed­ings 52, no. 2 (1962): 204-17. 2. For a discussion of these industrial classifications see William R. Latham III, location Behaviors in Manufacturing Industries (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Social Sciences Division, 1976). 3. Fantos Company, A Study of the Business Climates ofthe States (Chicago : Fantos Company, 1975). Table 3 Major Criteria for Texas Sites Criteria Number Percentage• Existing building 84 40 Transportation Truck 8 4 Airport 11 s Port 7 3 Unspecified 7 3 Labor Availab ility 17 8 Wage rates and union activity 14 7 Financing Revenue bonds 6 3 Unspecified 24 12 Energy Na tural gas 12 6 Other 6 3 Proximit y to markets 6 3 Taxes 4 2 •Totals do not equal 100 percent after rounding. Computers and Small Businesses An Interview with Roy Harris Kenneth Roberts Review: How does the manager of a small business know when he is ready for a small computer? Harris: The sign for computerization is growth in repet­itive clerical tasks. Onerous payrolls, mail order lists, and fat inventory files are clues that you've grown to the point that you should add a computer. You also sometimes discover that you have lags in the billing process because so many accounts receivable are piling up and your cash flow is not what it should be; that process could be computerized. Rnally, you should consider a small computer when you feel that you aren't Roy Harris is Associate Professor ofManagement, University of Texas at Austin. Kenneth Roberts is Research Associate, Bureau of Business Research. getting the information you need to make deci­sions. The information could come from available data on sales or populations, for example, but you just can't process the data fast enough to make relevant decisions. A computer is applicable to all areas in which numbers and values can be quanti­fied. Review: What is the smallest business that can use a computer, and how would that business use it? Harris: An auto parts store or a small grocery store can actually use a computer with a point-of-sale terminal to keep track of inventory. Some com­puters are small enough, fast enough, and econom· ical enough to be applied to those businesses. Law firms, doctors' offices, and other professional businesses are already using computers for billing, keeping track of records, handling cases, editing wills, and so forth. Individual law offices and doctor's offices are about as small a business as you can get, and computers are being used in them now. Review: What are the different methods of acquiring a computer? Harris: This is the old buy~r-lease problem. You can install a computer at your place of business, or you can rent the services of the computer by having a computer terminal put in your place of business. The terminal is hooked up to a main computer somewhere else through a telephone line. If you don't want to have a terminal you can send data by mail or courier directly to the computer service bureaus. There's no right answer to this question because it's similar to the problem you face in deciding on buying or leasing a car. It depends upon the individual's personal needs and preferences. Review: What are the major advantages and disadvantages of buying or leasing a computer? Harris: I generally advise buying the computer and putting it in your own place of business. For one thing, you get immediate access to the computer whenever you need it. Once you put the job in for processing, you can get it back fairly soon. You also can get lower variable costs because most of the cost comes in the initial expenditure; there's not very much cost in operating the computer after it is in place. You get better security by keeping all the data on the premises. Also, by having the computer on the premises, you can modify the computer and add software as your needs change. Review: What does it take to run the computer? Harris: It takes the computer itself, an operator, a programmer, and software. Review: What exactly is software? Harris: If you put the computer in your own place, you have to have programming support from people who prepare instructions for the computer. Their instructions are called software . Review: So the overall advantage of having your own computer is that you have control of it. Harris: Yes. You can run jobs when they are needed, and you can set your own priorities for processing. The major disadvantage is, of course, the initial cost of the computer. Review: What price are we speaking of as an initial investment? Can you give us a ball-park figure for the computer itself? Harris: The prices of computers for small businesses have been coming down dramatically. At the lower end are the so-called home computers, which are down to around $800. These can't yet do very many of the things that the small businessman needs. As a ball-park figure, anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000 is the cost of the computer we are talking about. Actually, minicomputers for small busi­nesses have been coming down in price at the same time that they have been growing more powerful. This is the best of all possible worlds for the businessman because, to use the analogy of an automobile, he is able to get a machine that will go faster and is fancier but less expensive than an earlier model. It has been many years since that has happened to automobiles. But technology in computers is still in a stage where the power of the computers is going up while the prices are going down. The small businessman can now afford to do things on small computers that he could not afford to do in the past. Review: Once we've got the computer, how do we go about getting software? Harris: This is a problem area for the small businessman. There are many large hardware manufacturers, such as IBM, Control Data, and Burroughs, that also provide extensive software for many business applications. The small computer manufacturers, on the other hand, have concentrated on the hardware and have not provided much software. This leaves the small businessman more in the dark, more dependent on hiring his own program­mers, who can then develop the software programs to operate the computer for that business. Review: Can't the programs that are developed for large computers be modified and used for the mini­computer? Harris: No, because most of those programs have been tailored to the fancy features that are available on the large computer. It's like trying to make a small airplane out of a large airplane. You start chop­ping off the wings and you think, "Well, I have a small airplane." The trouble is that it doesn't fly. If you want a small airplane, you must build it as a small airplane, and that's equally true in all the software programs. They need to be tailored to the small computer hardware on which they are to be operated. Review: Does a businessman have to have a programmer and an operator if he gets a small computer? Harris: Let's distinguish between the programmer and the operator. The operator of a computer may be likened to the operator of a truck or an automo­bile. He has to learn certain rules for driving the computer. But those are relatively elementary rules-a matter of pushing the right buttons and checking to see that the process is progressing satisfactorily. But he doesn't really have to know more about the computer than a truck driver has to know about the diesel cycle that causes his truck to go. Programming is a different matter. The programmer is the individual who develops the logic of the programs that direct the computer to do various operations. This means that that person has to think rationally and logically and has to be trained in the language of the computer. You need a programmer if you wish to tailor the computer to the areas that are unique to your business. You also need one if for security reasons you do not want your data to be floating around outside your business. The operators, as a conse­quence, are less important to the success of the system than most people would suspect. A good secretary can be trained to operate most com­puters. But the programmers receive analytical training, and they must know the details of the particular business and how these details are going to have to be translated into a program for the computer. Review: So, do you feel that the small businessman must have someone within the company who has programming skills? Harris: Yes, if the small business wants to tailor its computer programs to its own way of doing business, then it will need a programmer. Review: Can't this be farmed out to programming com­panies or consultants? Harris: It can be farmed out to programming companies or consultants, but somehow it always seems to work out better if that individual is under your managerial control. Review: How is help obtained when the computer breaks down? Harris: This again relates to the integrity of the com­panies that are building the computer hardware. The problem of maintenance support is worst in the minicomputer and microcomputer markets. The manufacturers are trying to bring the price down, and one of the ways that they do that is by cutting out the service part of the contract. They Review: Harris: Review: Harris: Review: Harris: have relatively short warranty periods and rela­tively skimpy service. For example, they may ask you to send the equipment to the factory or to a distant service center. How does the computer grow as the business grows? The problem again is not so much in the hardware but in changing the procedures of the business as the business grows. In a small one-man store operation or professional operation, you can use a manual system. That is, you can use the tradi­tional inventory control system, and you can write out the payroll checks. But as soon as you go to two stores, then the procedures that were well defined for the single store cannot control the two stores. You have payrolls that are coming from remote locations. This calls for changing proce­dures, and if you must change procedures then you will need more computer hardware and more software. Once the small businessman has installed the computer and it works on payroll, what should he consider doing next? The thing that I would like to emphasize is that the hardware is not enough. Buying a computer is only a third of the effort. The key is developing programs and software that are tailored to the needs of the small business. The software comes in chunks. That is, you can put in a payroll system, but you can't put in half of a payroll system. You can put in an inventory control system, but you can't put in half of an inventory control system. The key to success is tailoring the software and the programs to the specific methods and proce· dures used by the businessman. You mentioned that the computer hardware may be about one-third of the effort involved. What percentage of the total cost of the computer system is the hardware? That is hard to judge, because as you become more and more sophisticated in using the com­puter you will invest more money in the software and the programs that support your business. Keeping those programs current with your proce· dures is again the key. You may start out with the hardware being 100 percent of the cost. After a few years you will discover that the hardware may only be 20 percent of the cost. You must remember that the cost of tailoring the computer to your unique needs is not coming down and will not come down. Therefore you must concentrate on what you are going to do in software programs and let the hardware take care of itself. Texarkana Working to Come Together The Texarkana Chamber of Commerce slogan, "twice as nice," illustrates the evolution of that city from two separate cities to one metropolitan area that spans three counties in two states yet considers itself a single entity: Texarkana, U.S.A. Instead of competing with each other, residents on both sides of the state line feel that their unique situation is a benefit and that every effort should be made to equalize the halves and to use the facilities of both Texas and Arkansas for the mutual good of the community. In fact, early residents of Texarkana expected the city to span an area covering three states. Local legend generally attributes the founding of the city to Col. Gus Knobel, who, believing Louisiana to be much closer than the actual twenty-five miles, took the name from parts of the names of each of the three adjoining states. Having spread eastward from Bowie County , Texas, the Texarkana metro­politan area is now composed of Miller and Little River counties in Arkansas as well. Miller County, judged "unpa­triotic" by Arkansas Governor James Conway in 1838, was absorbed into LaFayette County until the sale of town lots in Texarkana in 1873 forced the incorporation of Texar­kana, Arkansas, and the reestablishment of the original county. Envisioning itself as a crossroads, Texarkana has grown from a railroad depot to a diversified manufacturing, trade, and government center. Structure of the Population Over the period 1970-1976 the growth rate for the Texarkana SMSA was only 3.8 percent while that for Texas was 11.S percent. This SMSA figure includes the two counties in Arkansas. Bowie County, Texas, grew at a rate of 4.1 percent, which was nearly one full percentage point above the 3.2 percent population increase of the two Joanne P. Austin is Research Associate, Bureau of Business Research. JULY 1978 Joanne P. Austii Arkansas counties combined. As a whole, the state of Arkansas grew at a rate of 9. 7 percent. According to Bureau of the Census statistics, total population for the SMSA is approximately 117,800 people; 60.1 percent reside in Bowie County, Texas. Of the remaining 39.9 percent, three-fourths are in Miller County (Texarkana, Arkansas) and one-fourth in Little River County, Arkansas. Population growth for the metropolitan area is attribut­able solely to natural increase, or the excess of births over deaths. Each of the three counties had some out-migration, ranging from a 2.6 percent loss in Little River County to a 0.1 percent loss in Bowie County. Total loss due to out-migration for the entire SMSA was 0.6 percent or approximately seven hundred people. The state of Arkansas registered an increase from in-migration of S. S percent; Texas, 4.9 percent. The Structure of Employment and Personal Income Although there is representative employment in all sectors, Texarkana 's nonagricultural civilian payrolls are predominantly in the areas of manufacturing, trade, and government. Federal, state, and local governments consti­tute the largest employer in the SMSA at 27 .0 percent. Government employment at all levels is more important to Texarkana than to Texas as a whole, where it is 17.8 percent of employment, or to the United States, where it is 18.S percent. From January through November 1977 the unemploy­ment rate in the Texarkana SMSA ran 7 .3 percent, slightly higher than the 7. I percent average for the United States over the same period and a great deal higher than the average S.J percent unemployment rate for Texas. Unem­ployment, a chronic problem in the Texarkana area, rose as high as 9. I percent in January and dropped to 6. 5 percent in September. Industrial diversification and a steadier layoff 13 I program have reduced the catastrophes produced when a large-scale dismissal at the Lone Star Ammunition Plant would bring the area from boom to bust. Although the Texarkana SMSA encompasses two counties in Arkansas, the labor force is primarily made up of Texas residents. Total government earnings constitute the largest contri­bution to personal income (23.45 percent) in the Texar­kana metropolitan area. Most of this percentage is in the federal civilian sector at 16.56 percent. In Bowie County, total government earnings provide 32.21 percent of per­sonal income, with the federal civilian component being 25.04 percent. In contrast, Miller and Little River counties combined receive only 7.39 percent of personal income from government contributions. The largest single source of federal government income is the Red River Army Depot, covering approximately fifty square miles in Bowie County and employing nearly 5 ,200 people. One of three Material and Readiness Command depots for the U.S. Army, Red River is responsible for supplying the continental United States and South America in the event of attack. The facility is used primarily for ammunition storage but also for overhauling and repairing heavy equipment, trucks, tanks, and helicopters. In addi­tion, the Red River depot produces personnel carrier track-vehicles used by the army. Supplementary responsi­bilities include harvesting and selling the pine and hard­wood trees on not only the army's property but also the adjoining lands under the jurisdiction of the Lone Star Ammunition Plant and providing switching locomotives for both facilities. Although operating under a government contract, the Lone Star plant is separate from Red River and is run by a private firm under contract. Another source of federal civilian income is the Federal Correctional Institution south of Texarkana, again in Bowie County. State and local government earnings, contributing 6.37 percent to area personal income, are provided by local schools, public administration, and the Texarkana campus of East Texas State University. Manufacturing contributes 16.81 percent to personal income in the Texarkana SMSA and only 15.14 percent in Texas as a whole. Whereas Bowie County relies heavily upon its government earnings, the manufacturing sector has a greater impact in the Arkansas counties of Miller and Little River (20.57 percent). According to the chamber of commerce, Arkansas' industrial development bonds are a significant factor in inducing industry to that state and far outweigh, for corporations producing component parts and materials, the influence of Texas' lack of state income taxes. Originally an area dependent upon ammunition and pulp and paper, the Texarkana SMSA, principally through the chamber of commerce, is fostering diversification in order to draw in more business and stabilize employment. There are six firms with more than 250 employees; two employ over 1,000 people. Major products include rubber tires, pipe, pulp and cartons, ammunition, pickles, and railroad cars, with secondary emphasis on concrete, wooden boxes and products, and other types of food processing. Wholesale and retail trade make up 13.02 percent of area personal income. Although smaller than the contribution of 14.54 percent for Texas as a whole, trade is the third largest Percentage of Personal Income by Major Sources Texarkana SMSA, Texas, and Arkansas, 1975 Texarkana Bowie County, Little River Source SMSA Texas and Miller counties, Arkansas Texas Arkansas Agriculture 2 .76 1.00 5.98 2.63 11. 16 Mining 0.47 3.52 0.71 Constru ctio n 3.29 3 .19 3.46 5.5 6 4.07 Manufacturing 16.8 1 14.75 20.57 I 5. 14 17. 12 Transpo rtation , communication , and pu blic u t ilities 4 .72 5.73 5. 84 5.07 Wholesale and retail trade 13.02 12 .79 13.44 14.5 4 1 I.79 Finance, in surance, a nd real esta te 2.3 1 2.42 4 .04 2.95 Services I 0.39 11.49 8.39 11.45 9.09 Other indu stries 0.19 0.27 0 .39 To tal private labor and pr prie to r in co me 53.96 5 1.7 8 57 .9 5 63.00 62.35 Federal civilia n 16.5 6 25.04 1.02 3.28 2.65 Federal m ilitary 0 .52 0 .52 0.5 2 2.79 I. 5 8 Sta te and local 6 .37 6.66 5.85 7.66 6.97 To tal government ea rnings 23 .4 5 32.21 7.39 13.73 11 .20 Total labor an d p ro priet o r inco me (place of work ) 77.4 1 83.99 65.34 76.73 73.55 Less: perso nal contri bu ti o ns for s cial insuran ce 4 .26 4 .56 3.71 3.78 3.83 Residen ce adjustment -6.56 -13.93 6.93 0 . 15 0 . 18 Net labor and proprieto r in co me (place o f resid ence) 66.5 9 65.50 68.56 73. 11 69.90 Dividends, int eres t , an d rent 14.47 I 5.99 1 1. 68 I 5.64 13.21 Transfer paym ents 18.95 18.5 I 19.75 11. 2 6 16.91 To tal person al in co me (place o f res id ence) 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Source : Develo ped fro m data compiled by Regio nal Econo mics Informa tio n S yste m , Bureau o f Econ o mic Analysis, U.S. Department of Co mmerce, 1975. 132 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW source of industrial income for residents in the Texarkana SMSA. Texarkana is the commercial center for most of the small towns in the surrounding counties of Cass, Morris, and Red River, as well as those of Bowie, Miller, and Little River. Better competition with the trading centers of Dallas, Shreveport, Tyler, Longview, and Little Rock will be possible when a 650,000-square-foot regional shopping mall opens in August 1978. Present employment projec­tions are that the new mall will employ more than 1,200 people. As new business attracts more new business and as levels of buying power rise, the expansion of wholesale and retail trade appears favorable. Residents of the Texarkana metropolitan area receive 2.76 percent of their personal income from agriculture; The Texarkana area has had chronically high 1111e"1ployment rates. 2.63 percent is received by residents of Texas as a whole. Agriculture is more important in the Arkansas counties of Miller and Little River, which receive 5.98 percent of personal income from that sector; Bowie County, Texas, on the other hand, receives only 1.00 percent. Little River County, which contains none of the city of Texarkana, receives more personal income from agriculture (8.64 percent) than from any other industrial sector with the exception of manufacturing. Principal products include cotton, rice, soybeans, pecans, beef cattle, dairy products, and pine trees. The construction sector contributes only 3.29 percent to area personal income and 5.56 percent to that in Texas. Most housing growth is occurring towards the northwest within a two-mile radius outside the city limits. According Nonagricultural Civilian Payroll Percentages Texarkana SMSA, Texas, and United States January-November, 1977 Texarkana Uniced Category SMSA Texas Stai es Min ing 0 .5 3.1 1.0 Const ruc tio n 4.4 6.8 4 .7 Ma nufaccuring 19 .8 18.3 23.8 Transpo r ta tion, communication, and publi c u tilities 5.6 6.2 5.6 Trade 23.5 24.5 22.3 Fi nance, insurance, and real esta le 3.5 5.5 5.5 Services I 5.6 17.7 18.7 Govern ment 27.0 17 .8 18.5 So urces: Date for Texarkana SMSA obtained from Manpower Trends, la ter Texas Labor Market Review (Austin: Texas Employment Commission, February 1977-January 1978); Texas and United States data obtained from Employment and Earnings {Washingcon, D.C.: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Departmenc of Labor, April 1977-February 1978). to chamber of commerce estimates, the average cost for a new home is $35,000, and three single-family permits are issued for every one of any other type. Texarkana is served by five highways (including IH 30), four railroads, and twenty motor freight lines and serves Dallas, Oklahoma, Little Rock, Shreveport, and beyond. Air traffic, both private and corporate, is frequent between Texarkana and Dallas-Fort Worth. Coupled with local utilities and telephone service, the transportation sector provides 4. 72 percent of area personal income. The state of Texas receives 5.84 percent from the same sector. Services, although a smaller percentage ( l 0.39 percent) of Texarkana SMSA income than of Texas income ( 11.45 percent), are a significant part of the area's economic picture. Components of this sector include medical facil­ities, recreation, and education. Texarkana College is an accredited two-year college offering courses in most of the arts and sciences, agriculture, education, and business. The campus is the location for East Texas State University in Texarkana, offering junior, senior, and graduate course work. Fishing, hunting, and boating in the numerous lakes and woods nearby result in wide use of parks and other recreational facilities ; according to the chamber of com­merce, tourism generates $40 million a year for the Texarkana area. Citizens of the Texarkana SMSA receive 18.95 percent of their personal income from transfer payments. This figure is higher than that for Texas, 11 .26 percent, or even for the entire United States, 13.82 percent. The Arkansas counties of Miller and Little River are more dependent upon transfer payments than is Bowie County, Texas; they receive 19. 7 5 percent of personal income from that category as opposed to 18.5 I percent. Contributing factors are the chronically high rates of unemployment, a large segment of area households making less than $8,000 per year, and a sizable percentage of older residents. Chief Manufacturing Industries Of the six largest industrial employers in the Texarkana area, no two are engaged in the manufacture of similar products. In order to prevent huge employment swings, Manufacturing Plants with More Than 250 Employees Texarkana SMSA, 1977 Name of Primary Escabli hment company products date Bowie County , Texas Brown -Mi ller o. Pickles 1938 Day & Zimmermann , In c. Lone Sta r Plant Ammuniti n 194 1 Int ern atio nal Paper Co . Pu lp and carto n 1972 Mi ller Co unty , Arkansa Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. o rth A merican Car Corp . Au to a nd tr uc k cires Railroad cars Rockwell International Corp. Pipe equipment 1960 • ot available. Source: 1977-1978 Directory of Texas Manufacturers (Austin : Bureau of Business Re earch, 1978). diversity is promoted and actively sought. Satellite busi­nesses exist in each sector, yet no one industry dominates the entire economy. The Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, operated by Day & Zimmermann, Inc., has traditionally been the largest economic force in the Texarkana area and particularly in Bowie County. The plant was built in 1941 at the urging of Congressman Wright Patman and has been in continuous operation ever since. The Lone Star facility was originally operated by B.F. Goodrich until 1945; Day & Zimmer­mann, Inc., a large contract engineering corporation out of Philadelphia, assumed operation for the U.S. government in 1951 and has retained the contract. Covering 23,000 acres, the facility produces detonators, primers, fuses , mortars, hand grenades, and light antitank weapons; Day & Zimmer­mann is also responsible for storage and testing areas. The plant is completely self-contained, providing its employees with a hospital and clinic, diagnostic equipment, laundry, uniforms, and a cafeteria. All insurance claims are handled at the plant, and Lone Star employs members of eleven unions to handle all operations and maintenance of the plant and grounds. Represented are carpenters, millwrights, chemical workers, electrical workers, firefighters, security guards, machinists, painters, clerical and office workers, pipefitters, and teamsters. All plant personnel, including executives, are from local areas; most are approximately forty-five years of age and work in assembly production and materials handling. Since local labor, particularly in surrounding small towns, is very dependent on the plant, personnel ups and downs at Lone Star have had a dramatic effect on the economy of the Texarkana area. Following the Korean War, employment went from over seven thousand to less than two thousand in a matter of months. The result was a severe local depression; succeeding lay-offs have been more gradual, with recall rights for two years. Peak employment occurred in 1968 with the Vietnam War; present workers number approximately seventeen hundred, a level that has been maintained and is projected to remain for quite a while. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co., located in Miller County, Arkansas, is one of the largest employers in the area with over 1,000 workers. Producing auto and truck tires, the plant is joined in Miller County by North American Car Corp., producer of railroad cars, and Rockwell Interna­tional, manufacturer of pipes and fittings. North American Car and Rockwell each employ over 250 people. In addition to Lone Star two other large manufacturers are located in Bowie County. Brown-Miller Co., established in 1938, produces pickles; other food processors include meat-packing houses, dairies, and bottling companies. The pulp and paper industry is headed by International Paper Co. Other satellite firms manufacture lumber and other wood and pulp products. Nekoosa is planning a $245 million facility in Little River County, Arkansas, for the production of paper products. Smaller industries important to the Texarkana area include wooden ammunition boxes, concrete, metal products, and commercial printing. Population and Income Profile As noted earlier, there is a higher percentage of older residents in the Texarkana SMSA than in Texas as a whole. Median age for the area is 30.9 years, whereas 27.8 years is the median age for all Texans. The trend towards aging is most evident in Bowie County. Of the three counties in the SMSA, Bowie County has the smallest concentration of children up to age seventeen (29.8 percent), a low percentage in ages eighteen to twenty-four ( 11 .0 percent), and the highest percentage of population in both the thirty-five to forty-nine group ( 15.8 percent) and the over-fifty classification (29.0 percent). Median age for the county is 31.4 years. There are more children and young people in Little River County, Arkansas; 32.8 percent of the population there are under eighteen. Little River County also has the lowest percentage of residents over fifty years of age in the SMSA: 27.2 percent. By compari­son, residents over the age of fifty make up 23.2 percent of the population of the state of Texas. Only 11.3 percent of the entire area's population are between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four, indicating that most college-age people are leaving the Texarkana area for employment markets elsewhere. Large numbers of older residents, coupled with unem­ployment levels that are higher than the state average, are reflected in the buying power of Texarkana area households as well. Whereas the percentage of all Texans making less than $8,000 a year is 30.2, 40.l percent of the households in the Texarkana SMSA are receiving incomes at that level. In Little River County, 42.6 percent of all households are in that category. Only 22.2 percent of Texarkana area households receive between $15,000 and $25,000 a year; Age Profile Texarkana SMSA, Texas, and Arkansas (Percentage of population) Texarkana Bowie County, Miller County, Little River Age gro up SMSA Texas Arkansas County, Arkansas Texas Arkansas 0-17 30.2 29.8 30.2 32.8 32.0 30. S 18-2 4 11.6 11.0 11.7 11.3 13.7 12.2 25-34 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.S 15.3 14.1 35-49 l 5.4 15.8 15.0 14.2 I 5.7 14.6 SO and over 28.7 29.0 28.7 27.2 23.2 28.S Source: Sales and Marketing Management, Survey ofBuying Power Data Service, 1977. the figure for Texas as a whole is 27 .8 percent. Little River County is the poorest of the three, having a median income of $9,750 per year. The entire SMSA has a median income of $10,092, while the median household wage for Texas is $13, l 17. The median yearly household income for the state of Arkansas is $9,863. Characteristics of the Area The Texarkana metropolitan area may be described as having the following characteristics: • A relatively slow growth rate based entirely upon natural increase. • Unemployment rates chronically higher than the state average. • An economy heavily weighted in the sectors of government, manufacturing, and trade. • Increasingly diversified manufacturing industries pro­ducing tires, ammunition, railroad cars, pickles, and pulp and paper products. • An older population with lower levels of buying power. Significant Factors Straddling the state line has been both a drawback and an advantage for the Texarkana SMSA. Until recently, Texarkana, Texas, and Texarkana, Arkansas, existed as two distinct municipalities sharing some public facilities but otherwise going their separate ways. Now, however, empha­sis has shifted from allegiance to state to concern over the quality of life in the total area. Residents of Texarkana are making a concerted effort to foster development on both sides of the state line and to equalize the halves. The most significant push towards equalization occurred January l, 1978. Up to that time, residents in Texas paid 5 percent state and city sales tax but no state income tax ; Arkansas residents paid a combined sales tax of only 4 percent but were responsible for state income taxes. Income earned in Arkansas was to be taxed, even for Texas residents. This situation particularly affected doctors and other professionals. The Arkansas General Assembly agreed to allow residents of Texarkana, Arkansas, to pay no state income tax and to pay a penny more for sales tax. Not only serving to bring Texarkana together, the plan is expected to result in greater revenue for Arkansas. Further signs of cooperation are evident in downtown Texarkana. Substandard structures are being replaced, a new library is under way, and long-range plans call for the construction of a municipal auditorium and convention center. All civic ventures, such as the library and airport, are funded 60 percent by Texas and 40 percent by Arkansas to correspond with the population breakdown of the SMSA. Also under negotiation is a criminal justice center with enforcement and judiciary facilities for both states. This pilot program is the first in the country to encompass two states, two cities, and three counties. Growth of cultural activities has been slow, but the auditorium should aid and speed their development. DiversitJ has been the goal in Texarkana's industrial expansion. Diversity has been the goal in Texarkana's industrial expansion. So long dependent upon one industry or one employer, citizens of the Texarkana area are determined to acquire a wider range of manufactures and employment opportunities. Even so, the loss of such an employer as the army could be devastating to the area's economy. The potential exists for further economic development. Highway accessibility to the South and Midwest places Texarkana in the possible position of becoming a ware­housing and distribution center. As the population of the area ages, more opportunities will arise for medical facili­ties, recreation centers, and health services personnel ranging from technicians to volunteer companions. Enjoying an abundance of outdoor recreation possibilities, Texarkana could promote the tourist industry to provide income, employment, business expansion, and a flow of potential area residents. The surface has barely been scratched. The citizens of the Texarkana area, whether living in Texas or Arkansas, feel that only through cooperation will their prospects and potential ever be realized-only then will Texarkana be "twice as nice." Household Effective Buying Income* Profile Texarkana SMSA, Texas, and Arkansas (Percentage of households) Income Texarkana Bowie County, Miller County, Little River (in dollars) SMSA Texas Arkansas County, Arkansas Texas Arkansas 0-7 ,999 40.1 40.7 38.0 42.6 30.2 41.8 8,000-9,999 9.5 9.5 9.6 8.5 7.7 8.8 10 ,000­14 ,999 22 .7 23.0 22.5 21.9 19.4 19.5 I 5,000-24,999 22 .2 22.2 22.5 21.9 27.8 21.4 25,000 and over 5.5 4 .6 7.4 5.1 14.9 8.4 •Household effective buying income is the total in come of all household members after taxes. Source: Sales and Marketing Management, Survey of Buying Power Data Service, 1977. JULY1978 135 Local Business Conditions Statistical data compiled by Mildred Anderson, Marylyn Donaldson, Jean Hall, and Mercedes Torres. Standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSAs) include one or Census. They represent only building authorizations within city more entire counties, as shown. All SMSAs are designated as such by limits and exclude federal contracts and public works projects, such the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Population figures are from the 1970 as highways, waterways, and reservoirs. Building statistics for tho census and 197 6 estimates by the Bureau of the Census. latest month are subject to revision. Building permit data are collected from municipalities by the Employment estimates include only wage and salary workers and Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the are compiled by the Texas Employment Commission in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Indicators of Local Business Conditions for Texas Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas Percent change Percent change from from Apr Mar Apr Apr Mar Apr Reported area and indicator 1978 1978 1977 Reported area and indicator 1978 1978 1977 ABILENE SMSA CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA Callahan, Jones, and Taylor Counties; population: 122,164 (1970); Nueces and San Patricio Counties; population: 284,832 (1970); 131,500 (1976 est.) 298,400 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 9,838 10 185 Urban building permits ($1,000) 14,965 -31 106 Nonfarm employment 46,350 I •• Nonfarm employment 104,900 •• 3 Manufacturing employment 5,180 -1 -15 Manufacturing employment 13,1 so •• 4 Unemployed (percentage) 3.8 -21 -10 Un employed (percentage) 4.8 -14 -29 AMARILLO SMSA DALLAS-FORT WORTH SMSA Potter and Randall Counties; population: 144,396 (1970); Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Johnson, Kaufman, 154,300 (1976 est.) Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise Counties; Urban bu ilding permits ($1,000) I 5,566 -16 37 population: 2,378,353 (1970); 2,585,300 (1976 est.) Nonfarm employment 70,050 1 3 Urban building permits {$1,000) 207,634 -17 46 Manufacturing employment 8,270 •• -6 Nonfarm employment 1,229,100 s Unemployed (percentage) 2.7 -33 -21 Manufacturing employment 276,900 •• s Unemployed (percentage) 3.4 -17 -19 A STI SMSA Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties; population: 360,463 (1970); EL PASO SMSA 461,300 (1976 est.) El Paso County; population: 359,291 (1970); 425,200 (1976 est.) Urban building permit {$ 1,000) 34,116 -7 69 Urban building permits ($1,000) 14,497 -53 17 Nonfarm employment 210,500 •• 6 Nonfarm employment 141 ,200 •• 2 Manufacturing employment 24,050 •• 10 Manufacturing employment 28,350 •• -1 Unemployed (percentage) 2.5 -19 -31 Unemployed (percentage) 7.7 -15 -36 BEA MONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties; population: Galveston County; population: 169,812 (1970); 34 7,568 (1970); 355,500 (1976 est.) 186,300 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) 11,016 -31 Urban building permits ($1,000) 5,343 3 19 Non farm employment 139,700 -3 1 Nonfarm employment 69,970 s Manufacturing empt yment 41 ,450 •• 9 Manufacturing employment 11 ,330 -4 Unemployed (percentage) 6.4 2 7 Unemployed (percentage) 5.2 -15 -24 BROW SVILLE-HARLINGE -SAN BENITO SMSA HOUSTON SMSA Cameron County; population: 140,368 (1970); l 79,500 (1976 est.) Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Urban building permits {$1,000) 3,637 -31 IS Counties; population: l,999,316 (1970); 2,392,100 (1976 est.) Non farm employment SI ,800 -I 4 Urban building permits ($1,000) 165 ,069 -17 67 Manufacturing employment 10,060 -1 14 Nonfarm employment 1,219,800 •• 6 Unemployed (percentage) 8.4 -13 -29 Manufacturing employment 198,800 •• 4 Unemployed (percentage) 3. 1 -16 -18 BRYAN-COLLEG · STATIO SMSA Brazo County ; population: 57 ,978 (1970); 73,000 (1976 est.) KILLEEN-TEMPLE SMSA Urban building permits ($ 1,000) 7 ,606 SS 25 Bell and Coryell Counties; population: 159,794 (1970); Nonfarm employment 31,530 I s 204,600 (1976 est.) Manufacturing employment 2,7 10 s 10 Urban building permits {$ 1,000) 7 ,67 S -31 -35 Unemployed (percentage) 2.2 8 -24 Nonfarm employment 50,150 1 1 Manufacturing employment 7 ,120 1 8 Unemployed (percentage) 4.2 -13 -21 Percent change Percent change from from Apr Mar Apr Apr Mar Apr Reported area and indicator 1978 1978 1977 Reported area and indicator 197 1978 1977 LAREDO SMSA TEXARKANA SMSA (continued) Webb County; population: 72,859 (1970); 82,700 (1976 est.) Unemployed (percentage) 6.6 -14 •• Urban building permits ($1 ,000) 1,670 1S6 146 (Since the Texarkana SMSA includes Bowie ounty in Te a and Nonfarm employment 2S ,380 -I 2 Little River and Miller Countie in Arkansa , all data, including Manufacturing employment 2,080 -I •• population, refer to the three-county region.) Unemployed (percentage) 11.7 -21 -21 TYLER SMSA LONGVIEW SMSA Smith County; population: 97 ,096 (1970); 108,900 (1976 est.) Gregg and Harrison Counties; population: 120,770 (1970); Urban building permits ($1,000) 8,824 91 16S 127,900 (1976 est.) Nonfarm employment 46,180 3 Urban building permits ($1,000) 8,220 -26 127 Manufacturing employment I 2 ,480 1 I Nonfarm employment SS,610 I s Unemployed (percentage) 3.7 -14 -12 Manufacturing employment 18,120 I 9 Unemployed (percentage) 4.3 -22 -2S WACO SMSA McLennan County; population: 14 7,553 (1970); LUBBOCK SMSA 155,400 (1976 est.) Lubbock County; population: 179,295 (1970); 199,600 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 4 ,472 -36 -S6 Urban building permits ($1,000) 12,012 -16 -24 Nonfarm employment 6S,130 •• 3 Nonfarm employment 83,760 •• 4 Manufacturing employment I S,660 •• 4 Manufacturing employment 11,840 -2 7 Unemployed (percentage) 3.9 -24 -13 Unemployed (percentage) 2.8 -22 -IS WICHITA FALLS SMSA McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA Clay and Wichita Counties; population: 128,642 (1970); Hidalgo County; population: 181,535 (1970); 230,300 (1976 est.) 129,200 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 6,844 -16 -10 Urban building permits($ I ,000) 7,6S8 20S 47 Nonfarm employment 61 ,960 •• 2 Nonfarm employment 48,870 •• 3 Manufacturing employment 7,900 -2 -8 Manufacturing employment 8,940 •• 12 Unemployed(percentage) 9.1 -27 -IS Unemployed (percentage) 3.0 -17 -19 MIDLAND SMSA ••Absolute change is less than one-half of I percent.Midland County; population: 65,433 (1970); 71,400 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 12 ,998 -18 81 Nonfarm employment 33,890 I 9 Manufacturing employment 2,640 2 31 Unemployed (percentage) 2.9 -24 -17 ODESSA SMSA Ector County; population: 92,660 (1970); 100,900 (1976 est.) Urbanbuildingpermits($1 ,000) S,781 72 3 Nonfarm employment 47,030 I 6 Manufacturing employment 6 ,170 I 3 Unemployed (percentage) 2.9 -IS -17 Selected Barometers of Texas Business (Indexes-adjusted for seasonal variation-1967=100) SAN ANGELO SMSA Tom Green County; population: 71,04 7 (1970); 77,200 (1976 est.) Percent change Urba n building permits ($1,000) 2,768 I -SI Year-to- Nonfarmemployment 31,310 •• 8 Apr dateManufacturing employment S,710 •• 7 Year-to-1978 averageUnemployed (percentage) 2.S -17 -17 date from 1978 Aprp MarP average Mar from SAN ANTONIO SMSA Index 1978 1978 1978 1978 1977 Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe Counties; population: 888,179 (1970); 987,200 (1976 est.) Crude oil production 100.9 98.S 98.9 2 •• Urban building permits ($1,000) 30,43S s 78 Total electric Nonfarm employment 3S2 ,SOO I 4 power use 242.0 223.7 227.l 8 11 Manufacturing employment 44,6SO I 10 Residential 2S6.9 283.3 27S.3 9 6 Unemployed (percent) S.l -16 -23 Industrial 184.0 I 78.0 179.7 3 s Total nonfarm SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA employment 1 SS.O I SS.4 I S4.8 •• 4 Grayson County;population: 83,225 (1970); 81,900 (1976 est.) Manufacturing Urban building permits (S 1,000) 1,S44 I 3 S8 employment 143.0 141.9 141 .0 6 Nonfarm employment 32,470 I 8 Average weekly earn-Manufacturing employment 12,010 -I 13 ings-manufacturing 213.S 21S.6 212.4 2 10 Unemployed (percentage) S.l -14 -23 Average weekly hours- manufacturing 98.9 100.1 98.S 1 •• TEXARKANA SMSA Total unemployment 139.9 163.4 167.8 -14 -4 Bowie County, Texas; Little River and Miller Counties, Arkansas; Insured unemployment 206.S 217.8 217.S -s -13 population: 113,488 (1970); 117,800 (1976 est.) Initial claims on unem-Urban building permits (S 1,000) 3,00S -32 32 ployment insurance 193.6 160.1 17S.O 21 -II Nonfarm employment 42,220 3 4 Manufacturing employment 8,280 10 5 PPreliminary. •*Change is less than one-half of I percent. ales by Kind of Business for Texas Standard Metropolitan Statistical ·\rcas Percentage change Percentage change Oct-Dec Oct-Dec Oct-Dec 1977 from Oct-Dec 1977 from Reported area and 1977 Repo rted area and 1977 kind of business ($000) Jul-Sep 1977 Oct-Dec 1976 kind of business ($000) Jul-ep 1977 Oct-Dec J 976 ABILENE SMSA BRYAN-<:OLLEGE STATION SMSA Apparel, accessories 5,527 34 -12 Apparel, accessories 3,297 3.1 17 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 40,848 -16 7 service stations 20,77 11 25 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 10,354 7 18 farm equipment 9,884 -10 44 Drugstores 2,864 12 11 Drugstores 1,509 26 4 ating and drinking 9,924 3 20 Eating and drinking 7,029 7 32 Food 29,981 1 5 23 Food 17,833 13 28 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 8,082 16 20 furnishings 3,905 3 33 eneral merchandise 24 ,367 5 I 27 General merchandise 12,498 24 9 Liquor I ,738 14 12 Liquor J ,225 24 21 Miscellaneous re tail 40,582 39 5 I Miscellaneous retail 6,672 11 20 AMARILLO SMSA CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA Apparel, accessories 13,784 34 11 Apparel, accessories 13,906 40 39 Automotive dealers, Automo tive dealers, service stati ns 80,156 12 22 service stations 76,563 -2 23 Building materials, Building m aterials, farm equipment 17 ,997 -3 8 farm equipment 24,087 12 45 Drugstores 8,914 17 -11 Drugstores 8,361 27 11 Eating and drinking 17 ,415 3 13 Eating and drinking 22,078 4 16 Food 36,848 2 7 Food 70,J J 8 3 17 Furniture, h me Furniture, ho me furnishings 12,599 17 7 furnishings 14,839 4 18 General merchandise 34,287 47 11 General merchandise 42,447 33 9 Liqu r 5,526 20 13 Liquor 4,1 1 5 31 13 Miscellaneous retail 35 ,350 I 5 -7 Miscellaneous retail 60,7 58 12 4 AUSTI SMSA DALLAS-FORT WORTH SMSA Apparel, accessories 27 ,006 47 28 Apparel, accessories 207,839 26 22 Automotive dealers, Automo tive dealers, service station 103,3 10 25 service stations I ,001,566 7 21 Building materials, Building m aterials, farm equipment 45 ,75 0 4 39 farm equipment 250 ,959 12 40 Drugstores I 1,370 20 13 Drugstores 114,273 1 13 ating and drinking 43,455 2 I 5 Eating and drinking 257,068 2 II Food 85 ,833 3 15 Food 556,527 5 11 Furniture, h me Furniture, home furnishings 28,387 I 5 30 furnishings 190,928 22 23 eneral merchandise 73,533 32 6 General merchandise 485,076 42 13 Liqu r 8,245 25 14 Liquor 58,792 19 10 Miscellaneous retail 70,492 22 28 Miscellaneous retail 747,896 25 14 BEAUMO T-PORT ARTH R-ORANGE SMSA EL PASO SMSA Apparel, acce sories 16,577 42 47 Apparel, accessories 23,724 32 14 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 89,785 8 8 service stations 148,582 8 10 Building materials, Building m aterials, farm equipment 28,384 II 36 farm equipment 16,343 17 43 Drugstores I 5,733 19 12 Drugsto res 11 ,194 -13 -11 ating and drinking 28,657 10 27 Eating and drinking 27 ,504 6 20 Food 88,584 2 9 Food 62,764 8 4 urniture, h me Furniture, home furnishings 18,886 17 10 furnishings 24,202 20 27 General merchandise 62,842 49 •• General merchandise 77,739 34 16 Liquor 6,470 28 I 5 Liquor 6,771 2 11 Mi cellaneous retail 45,310 11 4 Miscellaneous retail 64,691 22 21 BROW SVILLE-HARLINGE -SA BE ITO SMSA GALVESTO -TEXAS CITY SMSA Apparel, accessories 10,0 I 5 28 20 Apparel, accessories 7,844 28 30 12 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 185 ,928 10 23 service stati ns 30 ,981 11 32 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment I 1,379 1 37 farm equipment 13,013 6 19 Drugstores 6,200 ­ 9 5 Drug tores 3,37 1 I 5 Eating and drinking 14,961 -15 21 ating and drinking I 0,980 4 18 Food 43,998 I 16 Food 33,789 20 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 6,188 21 22 furnishings 9,795 3 1 41 General merchandise 20 ,456 23 -1 General merchandise 39,656 26 35 Liquor 3,446 13 17 Liquor 1,200 29 11 Miscellaneous retail 21,541 18 15 Miscellaneous retail 18,038 6 11 Reported area and Oct-Dec 1977 Percentage change Oct-Dec 1977 fro m Reported area and Oct-Dec 1977 Percentage change Oct-Dec 1977 fro m kind o f busine s ($000} Jul-Sep 1977 Oct-Dec 1976 kind of business ( 000} Jul-Sep 1977 Oct-Dec t 976 HOUSTON SMSA McALLE -PHARR-EDINB RG MSA Apparel, accessories I S0 ,699 37 17 Apparel, accessories t 3,172 s 28 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations I ,000,92S 8 10 service statio ns 46,32 I S 2S Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 334,0 78 19 38 farm eq uipment 24,838 60 24 Drugsto res 96,202 lS - 2 Drugstores 4,S3S 29 14 Eating and drinking 24S,201 6 9 Eating and drinking 11 ,907 16 19 Food S99,901 2 13 Food 49,732 10 19 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 174,219 18 31 furnishings 11 ,789 28 S2 General merchandise S34,S96 40 lS General merchandise 37,038 32 3 1 Liquor 66,023 63 18 Liquor l ,2S7 so -4 Miscellaneous re tail 768,21 s 22 18 Miscellaneous re tail 37,l 7S so 42 KILLEE -TEMPLE SMSA MIDLA DSMSA Apparel, accessories 8,322 39 26 Apparel, accessories 4 ,94 1 38 18 Automotive dealers, service statio ns 44 ,37S 3S •• Auto mo tive dealers, service stati ons 26,S03 7 33 Building materials, Building materials, fa rm eq uipment 11 ,011 - 2 9 fa rm equipment 7,373 4 42 Drugstores Eating and drinking 2,63S 12,067 21•• 12 17 Drugstores Eating and drinking 6 ,S 13 S,6 17 29 -I I S 18 Food 30 ,S82 -4 22 Food 17,264 I S l S Furniture, home Furniture, ho me furnishings 6,2 13 14 12 furnishings S,276 9 20 General merchandise 2S,Ol 9 40 10 General merchandise 13 ,S 19 29 14 Liquor 1,2 38 29 10 Liquor 1,374 26 14 Miscellaneous retail 13,S27 17 6 Miscellaneous retail 47,338 4 - 2 LAREDO SMSA ODESSA SMSA Apparel, accessories l 3,0 S7 -2S S2 Apparel, accessories 6,S26 40 2 1 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service statio ns 13,406 - 9 22 service statio ns SS ,3S2 12 2 1 Building materials, Building materials, farm eq uipment 4 ,4SS 12 44 farm eq uipment 13,101 19 S 1 Drugstores 2, 186 20 - 6 Drugstores 2,384 61 20 Eating and drinking S,036 6 38 Eating and drinking 10 ,304 8 30 Food 20,4S6 - I 12 Food 24,837 10 17 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 8,004 17 79 furnishings 6 ,S8S 14 I S General merchandise 32,782 4 1 70 General merchandise 29, J S6 36 18 Liquor 3S2 S7 19 Liquor S, l 9S S4 22 Miscellaneous retail 24,333 so 70 Miscellaneous retail 76,3S3 18 20 LO GVlEW SMSA SAN ANGELO SMSA Apparel, accessories 8,786 SI 20 Apparel, accessories 4 ,724 30 38 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service statio ns S8 ,732 16 36 service stations 24,129 s -22 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment l S,619 2 20 farm eq uipment I 0,483 8 S2 Drugstores S,63S 27 14 Drugstores 1,899 34 -S6 Eating and drinking 10 ,8S9 I 11 Eating and drinking S,816 I 2S Food 37,234 - I 41 Food l 7,8S3 3 26 Furniture, home Furniture, ho me furnishings 9,786 14 36 furn ishings 4 ,2 17 6 l S General merchandise 23,607 37 20 General merchandise 14 ,S22 43 4 Liquor S,647 13 J s Liquor 1,072 38 9 Miscellaneous retail 3 l ,634 23 34 Miscellaneous retail 9,70 1 36 36 LUBBOCK SMSA SAN ANTO IO SMSA Apparel, accessories 14,466 29 17 Apparel, accessories 48,108 34 8 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 73,100 7 26 service statio ns 29S,268 9 3 1 Building materials, Building materials, farm eq uipment 33,320 16 SI fa rm eq uipment 68,SOO 16 S9 Drugstores 4,298 43 2S Drugstores 20,367 14 14 Eating and drinking 20,631 3 2 Eating and drinking 8S,l 8S 10 30 Food 48,439 - I J Food 180,063 -2 12 Furniture, hom e Furniture, home furnishings 21 ,134 17 21 furnishings 46,831 19 19 General merchandise 42,01 8 40 12 General merchandise 140,809 3S 9 Liquor 6,S93 24 32 Liquor 13,9 10 9 -3 Miscellaneo us retail 42 ,S I I 11 -II Miscellaneous retail I 3S,l 60 29 18 Reported area and kind of business Oct-Dec 1977 ($000) Percentage change Oct-Dec 197 7 from Jul-Sep I 9 77 Oct-Dec 1976 Reported area and kind of business Oct-Dec 1977 ($000) Percentage change Oct-Dec 1977 from Jul-Sep 1977 Oct-Dec 1976 SHERMAN-DEN ISO Apparel, accessories Automotive dealers, service stations Building materials, farm eq uipment Drugstores Eating and drinking Food SMSA 4 ,490 24,400 10 ,166 3,596 S,321 17 ,207 56 9 64 26 I 3 20 19 34 s 29 10 TYLER SMSA (continued) Food 26,04 1 Furniture, home furnishings 7 ,453 General merchandise 22,959 Liquor § Miscellaneous retail 24,043 WACO SMSA 12 8 4 9 74 83 I 19 SI Furniture, home furnishings General merchandise Liquor Miscellaneous retail 4 ,076 16,11 8 1,2 13 6,569 6 38 17 -40 24 25 I -4 2 Apparel, accessories Auto mo tive dealers, service stations Building materials, fa rm equipment 6,409 s1,242 19,641 22 16 14 I S 2 •• TEXARKANA SMSA Apparel, accessories 3,208 4 3 22 Drugstores Eating and drinking Food 4 ,9 14 12,728 36,923 21 -16 3 17•• 10 Automo tive dealers, Furniture, ho me service statio ns 19,285 -16 18 furnishings 7 ,68 3 7 2 1 Building materials, General merchandise 2 S,447 40 7 farm equipment I0 ,579 39 22 Liquor 2,193 22 7 Drugsto res 2,131 40 27 Miscellaneous retail 24,763 9 2 Ea ting and drin king 4,860 4 30 Food I S,744 7 7 WICHITA FALLS SMSA Furniture, home Apparel, accessories 7 ,989 38 34 furnishings 3,376 17 10 Automotive dealers, Ge neral merchand ise 13,692 26 25 service stations 45 ,233 2 18 Liquor § Building materials, Miscellaneous retail 5,7 I 3 28 -20 farm equipment 14,464 41 27 TYLER SMSA Drugstores Eating and drinking 6 ,603 10,295 IS 2 23 20 Apparel, accessories 9 ,775 33 17 Food 25 ,399 s 8 Automotive dealers, Furniture, home servi ce stations 4 5, J66 36 34 furnishings 7 ,141 4 21 Building materials, General merchandise 22,127 4 2 8 fa rm eq uipment Drugstores 2 1,264 3,843 11 26 48 12 Liquor Miscellaneo us retail 2 ,8 52 28,430 IS 30 18 33 Ea ting and drinking 8,3 1s - 3 22 § mitted to avoid disclosure. ••Absolute change is less than one half of I percent. . . . No data, r inadequate basis for comparison . Source: Sales Tax Division, State Comptroller of Public Accounts. BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, TEXAS THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712 Research Report Series 1977 I. The Identification of Functional Regions Based on Highway Traffic Flow Data Charles P. Zlatkovich. ISBN 87755-269-X. 38 pp. $4.00. 2. Two Programs for the Delimitation of Functional and Nodal Regions from an Intercity Flows Matrix Christopher Wrather. ISBN 87755-270-3. 20 pp. $4.00. 3. lntermetropolitan Relationships: An Examination of National Air Travel Patterns Charles P. Zlatkovich. ISBN 87755-271-1. 33 pp. $4.00. 4. Exploratory Analysis of Texas Construction Data E.L. Frome and R.D. Armstrong. ISBN 87755-274-6. 54 pp. $4.00. 1978 I. The Mexican Migration Numbers Game: An Analysis of the Lesko Estimate of Undocumented Migration from Mexico to the United States Kenneth Roberts, Michael E. Conroy, Allan G. King, and Jorge Rizo-Patron. ISBN 87755-228-2. 33 pp. $4.00.