173 179 Te:x:as BUSINESS The Bureau of Bu1dneilf' Re!'farch The l'niversitJ of TexH at Austin Vol. 52, No. 9, September 1978 Annexation and Population Growth in Texas Cities 173 Alfred J. Watkins and Arnold Fleischmann Collective Bargaining and Public Employee Strikes 1 79 Richard D. Brown The Housing Demand in Texas in 1985 183 Arthur L. Wright Dallas-Fort Worth: The Southwest Metroplex 186 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: $ l.00. Published monthly. 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. Annexation and Population Growth During the last two decades annexation has been the most important factor in sustaining the population growth of Texas cities. While popular literature on the rise of the Sunbelt suggests that migration is the primary cause of population increase, 1 the major Texas cities would have faced limited growth rates since the end of World War II had they not acquired new territories. Some Texas cities would even have lost population had they not extended their corporate boundaries through annexation (the addi­tion of formerly unincorporated land to a city's corporate limits) and consolidation (the merger of two or more incorporated municipalities). Were it not for annexation, the state's metropolitan areas would resemble those of the industrial northeast, where urban areas are often characterized as doughnuts: an empty center-composed of a central city with a shrinking population, eroding tax base, rising social problems, and a declining industrial base-surrounded by suburban areas containing an ever-increasing share of the metropolitan area's population, jobs, and wealth. The New York Times of January 9, 1977, used Houston as an example of this process: "Texas has an unusual annexation policy and Houston has aggressively used it to take in outlying suburban areas. 'When the white people have left the Alfred J. Watkins is Assistant Professor of Government, University of Texas at Austin. Arnold Fleischmann is a doctoral candidate, Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin. in Texas Cities Alfred J. Watkins Arnold Fleischmann downtown, we just go get them again,' Mr. Welch [Louie Welch, a former Houston mayor and current chamber of commerce president] said."2 Postwar Annexation in Texas Land Area In 1935, most cities in Texas were quite small; only Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio extended for twenty square miles or more, while most of the remaining municipalities were smaller than ten square miles. Over the next forty years this situation changed dramatically so that by 1975 almost all of the central cities in the state had expanded their land areas by between 400 and 1,000 percent. Generally, the pace of areal expansion has proceeded in fits and starts with years of rapid territorial growth followed by a period of fewer new acquisitions. During the 1940s most of the central cities in the state made only modest territorial additions. The exceptions were San Angelo, which quadrupled its land area; Beaumont, which tripled its size; and Dallas and Houston, which added more than 70 square miles each. This period of relative quies­cence only served as a prelude to the frenetic pace of expansion between 1950 and 1960. During that ten-year period, Dallas and Houston each added an additional 160 square miles; San Antonio and El Paso grew by 90 square miles; Galveston annexed 76 square miles; Abilene and Lubbock added more than 50 square miles; and Amarillo, Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Fort Worth each acquired between 33 and 4 7 square miles. The pace of annexation declined dramatically during the 1960s because the cities could channel growth into the areas annexed during the 1950s and because of restrictions that the legislature in 1963 had placed on a city's ability to annex. Only Austin, Corpus Christi, Fort Worth, Texas City, Houston, and San Antonio added appreciable tracts of new territory between 1960 and 1970. In fact, during that decade, these six cities increased their corporate limits by a total of 360 square miles and accounted for more than 80 percent of the territorial growth registered by the thirty­three cities covered in this survey. Table 1 Total Land Area for Central Cities in Texas SMSAs 1935-1975 (In square miles) City 1935 1940 1950 1960 1970 1975 Abilene 8.3 6.5 8.2 62.5 74.9 74.9 Amarillo 16.9 16.4 20.9 54.8 60.7 70.7 Austin 20.4 25.1 32 .l 49.4 72.1 101.0 Beaumont 10.1 10.4 31.4 70.8 71.6 71.6 Port Arthur 8.5 9.4 12.2 45.7 48.2 49.0 Orange 2.0 7.6 13.0 16.8 Brownsville 5.7 3.3 9.8 15.7 15 .2 24.3 Harlingen 1.9 1.9 31.0 22.5 22.9 San Benito 1.9 1.8 5.7 7.0 7.8 Bryan 5.4 16.6 16.8 18.4 College Station 6.5 4.9 16.6 20.5 Corpus Christi 5.2 9.3 21.5 37.8 100.6 175.7 Dallas 40.9 40.5 112.0 279.9 265.6 309.3 El Paso 13.5 13.6 25.6 114.6 118.3 161.1 Fort Worth 46.4 49.8 93.7 140.5 205.0 230.1 Galveston 7.8 8.1 8.1 84.2 21.0 21.0 Texas City 2.9 45.0 67.l 67.1 Houston 71.8 72.8 160.0 328.1 433.9 489.2 Laredo 14.3 13.5 13.5 13.5 20.5 20.6 Lubbock 6.2 6.3 17.0 75.0 75.7 83.8 McAllen 2.0 3.6 9.5 13.5 19.2 Pharr 1.0 2.8 4.6 6.4 Edinburg 2 .5 1.6 4.6 6.3 7.3 Midland 4.0 22.9 29.2 33.8 Odessa 2.1 6.0 15.7 18.4 24. 8 San Angelo 6.5 7 .1 28.8 29.7 33.7 37.2 San Antonio 35.7 35.7 69.5 160.5 184.0 263.5 Sherman 5. 1 5.3 9 .2 19.l 21.5 Denison 3.5 3 .6 9.3 12.0 15.5 Texarkana 3.1 3.3 15.9 16.2 19.8 Tyler 9 .0 10~ 1 12.6 18.3 23.1 30.7 Waco 12.5 12.5 26.0 37.3 58.7 71.8 Wichita Falls 10.7 10.8 14.1 3 7.3 42.2 76.4 Sources: 1935: Clarence E . Ridley and Orin F. Nolting, eds., The Municipal Year Book 1936 (Chicago: International City Managers' Association, 1936). 1940: U.S. Bureau of the Census, County and City Data Book 1949 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1952); and Ridley and Nolting, eds., The Municipal Year Book 1941. 1950: U.S. Bureau of the Census, County a.nd City Data Book 1952; and Ridley and Nolting, eds. (David Arnold, associate ed.), The Municipal Year Book 1951. 1960: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population 1960: United States Summary (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1961), Table 22. 1970 and 1975: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Boundary and Annexation Survey, 1970·1975, Report GE 30·2 (Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office, 1978). It would be premature to draw any conclusions from these trends, however, since the most recent data covering the period from 1970 to 1975 indicates that the diminished activity of the 1960s has been supplanted by a resurgence of annexation. Already, the total area annexed between 1970 and 1975 exceeds by 33 percent the total area added during the entire previous decade; if these trends should continue, the 1970s could become one of the most active decades of urban areal expansion in Texas history. Population Growth The figures tracing the velocity and quantity of territo­rial expansion illustrate only one dimension of the effects that annexation has had on the population growth of Texas cities. Certainly, without annexation most of the ensuing population growth would have been channeled into the suburban areas and would not have counted in the cities' population totals. Alone, the data on square miles annexed during a decade provide only an imprecise barometer of the immediate effects of annexation on a city's population growth rate; but the two most recent decennial censuses provide additional information that can add a second important dimension to analysis. Since 1960, separate figures have been published that show population at the end of the decade both in the annexed territory and in the old preannexation boundaries of the city. Although these figures also place several limitations on the type of questions that can be answered (for instance, it is impos­sible to determine the population growth during the 1960s in areas annexed during the 1950s, and it is also impossible to determine whether popuWion growth in the newly acquired territory accelerated after it had been annexed), they do provide a more precise description of the impact of annexation on population growth. The results of separating each city's net population change into two components­population change caused by annexation and population change within the old boundaries-are shown in table 2. During the 1950s, the pace of annexation had immediate and dramatic results on each city's population growth rate. Had there been no annexation during the decade, nine cities would have lost population within their 1950 city limits and three others-Abilene, San Benito, and Sherman­would have had virtually no population growth. Each of these cities avoided this potential stagnation and decline, however, by timely extensions of their boundaries. Because of annexation, no city failed to grow and, with the exception of Galveston, every major city in Texas posted rather large population growth rates. In all but six cases, annexation accounted for two-thirds or more of each city's total decennial population increase. The fast-paced decade of the 1950s was replaced by more sobering population growth during the 1960s. Thir­teen cities suffered absolute population losses, and all but one city-College Station-had growth rates below their 1950-1960 pace. Several factors account for this generally lackluster record. First, and perhaps most importantly, fourteen cities lost population inside their 1960 boundaries, and only one of these cities-Sherman-offset this loss with a vigorous program of annexation. Since in every one of these cases the metropolitan area as a whole was expanding quite rapidly, these population declines can only be explained by the failure of central cities to incorporate the growing suburban subdivisions into their jurisdictions. Second, in those cities with absolute population increases, the deceleration in growth rates can be linked directly to a decrease in the pace of annexation. Many of the cities in this group had accelerating growth rates inside their 1960 city limits (which had been greatly enlarged by the annexations of the previous decade), but the effects of these increases were partially nullified by the often dra­matic decreases in the number of people added to the populations of the cities through annexation. At this early date, it would be premature to extrapolate the 1960-1970 trends into the future and to predict that Texas cities have started on a population decline. As the figures for the 1970-1975 areal expansion suggest, the anemic annexation rates of the 1960s have been reversed. Almost all of the available evidence indicates that the migration flows into the metropolitan areas of the state are continuing at a healthy pace. In view of these trends, it would appear that in most cases the population declines and growth decelerations during the 1960s were temporary aberrations that could be reversed by strategic programs of future annexations. It remains to be seen whether Texas central cities will have the political capability to initiate a policy of annexation that is effective and sufficiently vigorous to reverse the population losses of the previous decade. Texas Annexation Strategies Until now, central cities in Texas have fared significantly better than a number of major cities elsewhere. As suburbanization gathered momentum at the end of World War II, many older cities, hamstrung by state constitutional and statutory restrictions on annexation, watched power­lessly as their tax bases and populations moved beyond the city limits to the independent suburbs that continued to encircle them. Their heyday of rapid annexation had come and gone during earlier decades; and, as a result, they have been confined to boundaries determined long ago. Philadel- Table 2 Population Change for Central Cities in Texas SMSAs 1950-1970 19S0-1960 1960-1970 Popula tion change Population change Cit y Populatio n in terri tory annexed inside 19SO city boundaries Decennial rate of population change Population in territory annexed inside 1960 city boun daries Decennial rate of populatio n change Abilene 4 3,930 868 98.3 1,304 -2,019 -0.8 Amarillo 4 S,383 18,340 8S.8 3,2SS -14,210 -7.9 Austin 37 ,3S3 16,733 40.8 44,649 20,614 3S.O Bea umont 8,4 34 16,727 26.8 0 -3,2S6 -2.7 Port Arthur 9,S44 39 8 IS .9 0 3,90S -14.0 Orange Brownsville S,771 3,267 1,340 8,707 20.9 33.2 J ,132 0 2,280 4 ,482 -4.S 9.3 Harlingen 8,902 9,076 77.4 316 8,020 -18.7 San Benito 2,4 99 6S2 23.7 609 l ,8SS -7.6 Bryan 6,0 77 3,363 S2.l 218 S,9S9 22.4 Co ll ege Statio n Corpus Christi Dallas 2 ,1 S8 4 3,638 192,707 1,3 13 JS,76S S2,S 1 S 43.8 S4.9 S6.4 2,431 2S,307 11,336 3,849 l I ,S28 I S,381 s s. J 22 .0 24.2 El Paso 124 ,lSS 22,047 112.0 316 4S,2S8 16.S Fort Worth S6,799 20,691 27.8 1l,04S 26,163 10.4 Ga lves ton 7,039 -6,432 0.9 0 -S,366 -8.0 Texas City Ho uston Laredo 10,092 2Sl ,193 0 S,3S3 9 0,863 8,768 92.9 S7.4 16.9 640 3S,S24 4,879 6,203 2S9,0S9 3,467 21.3 31.4 13.8 Lubbock McAllen Pharr 34,389 J0,088 S,784 22,SSS 2,S73 378 79.4 63.1 62.3 0 1,990 1,70 8 20,4 10 2,918 JS I S.9 1 S.O 12.2 Edin burg Midland Odessa San Angelo San Anto nio Sherman Deniso n Texarkana Tyler Waco Wichita Falls S,OS7 3 1,98 1 s 1,1 71 SS 139,4 92 4 ,S26 7,0 68 8,783 10,893 I S ,132 46,122 1,266 8,93·1 328 6,687 39,784 3 12 1,8 24 -3,318 1,369 -2,030 -12,440 SI. I 188.4 172.4 12.9 43.9 24.0 30.0 18.1 31.S lS.S 49.S 1,03 8 2,104 3,22S 2,39 1 14,466 4 ,694 1,022 98 l ,S77 3,291 1,663 2,S8 J S,266 S, 183 2,678 S l ,969 62 1 1, 1 S3 181 4,9 63 S,773 -S,823 8.2 -s.o -2.4 8.6 11 .3 16.3 9 .6 0.9 12.8 -2 .S -4.1 Sources: l 9SO-l 960: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population 1960 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1961), Part A, Number of Inhabitants, Table 9. 1960-1970: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population 1970 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, J 97 J ), Part A, Number of Inhabit ants, Table 7. SEPTEMBER 1978 phia, for example, last expanded in 1854; New York City last altered its borders in 1898; St. Louis has been stymied in its annexation and consolidation efforts since 1876; Baltimore's last significant annexation occurred in 1918; and both New Orleans and Boston have been unable to spread beyond their 18 74 boundaries. For these cities, their confinement to obsolete boundaries has been catastrophic-a relentlessly accelerating trajectory of population decline, economic malaise, fiscal crises, and general decay and abandonment coupled with increasing growth and pros­perity in their unannexable suburbs. Texas, by comparison, has avoided these problems because of its more lenient approach to annexation.3 A 1912 amendment to the Texas Constitution allowed cities with home rule to annex in a manner specified in their charters. Since the 1930s, most cities have simply relied on the passage of ordinances to acquire adjacent territories, often without the consent of residents living in the areas being annexed. Not surprisingly, most central cities used these powers to full advantage in the postwar boom by initiating a series of annexations designed to achieve several objectives: first, to encircle their older independently incorporated suburbs and thereby prevent them from ever adding any additional territory (Dallas did this to Highland Park; Houston, to Bellaire; San Antonio, to Alamo Heights); second, to block the incorporation of any new suburbs on lands considered desirable for future expansion; and third, to obtain revenues by adding newly completed subdivisions to their tax bases. A city did not always have to annex an area to control its future, however, since case law held that once a city introduced an ordinance to annex an area, that area could not incorporate or be annexed by another city. Consequently, during the 1950s many cities Philadelphia last expanded in 1854; New York City last altered its borders in 1898. declared their intentions to annex vast tracts of territory but did not complete action on the annexation ordinances until years later when the land had been developed and could produce tax revenues. San Antonio, for example, proposed the annexation of 330 square miles and 76,000 people in September 1959 but kept this area in limbo through mid-1963 when it finally completed the second reading of an amended version of the ordinance. In 1963, however, the legislature limited the cities' unfettered power to reserve great tracts of land for future acquisition. Legislation provided each city with an extrater­ritorial jurisdiction that parallels its boundaries and varies in width according to the city's population, with a maximum extraterritorial jurisdiction of five miles for those cities of 100,000 or more people. Within a city's extraterritorial jurisdiction, no new municipalities could incorporate, no other cities could annex, and the city could regulate new subdivision development. More important, however, was the fact that a city was limited to annexing land within its extraterritorial jurisdiction that was contiguous to existing limits, and the total of such annexations during any calendar year could not exceed 10 percent of the city's area at the start of that year. As might have been expected, once these restrictions were enacted in the 1960s the pace of annexation slowed considerably; and most major Texas cities had population declines or growth decelerations. Prospects for the Future The 1963 statute has not proven to be an insuperable barrier to Texas cities. Many cities developed means of artificially expanding their extraterritorial jurisidictions during the 1960s and have engaged in extensive annexations during the early 1970s. A new set of restrictions, however, has emerged and may diminish the zeal with which Texas cities annex new territory. Three factors in particular could conceivably cause Texas cities to cease annexing. First, when Congress extended the Voting Rights Act .in 1975, it brought Texas under the jurisdiction of the act for the first time and also required federal clearance of boundary and electoral changes that might dilute the voting strength of ethnic and linguistic minorities.4 Recent actions in San Antonio and pending cases in Dallas, Houston, and Port Arthur indicate that the Justice Department may prohibit future annexations when the affected tracts contain a predominately white population, the city council is elected by an at-large system of representation, and candidates favored by the minority population have been consistently defeated for city council positions by the white majority. When these conditions prevail, the city will be offered two alternatives: either it can de-annex the new territory and refrain from similar annexations in the future or it can provide for a city council based on representation by districts. While San Antonio voters chose to amend their charter in 1977 to provide for district elections, pending litigation suggests that the Voting Rights Act may be used extensively to challenge future annexations, thereby freez­ing city boundaries unless voters alter the structure of their local governments. Even if the Voting Rights Act does not slow the rate of future annexation in Texas, cities may fail to extend their boundaries as a result of the growing conflict over the territorial distribution of their resources. Many residents who are members of minority groups, as well as downtown business interests, are beginning to question the high cost of providing services and basic infrastructure, such as water mains, sewers, street paving, and street lighting, to the newly annexed territories. On March 31, 1978, the New York Times reported that "a direct connection has been made between Houston's rapid growth and the physical deterioration of the blighted ring around the downtown area, which is populated predominately by minorities. The city is so pressed in trying to provide services for its expanding population and newly annexed area, it is said, that older areas tend to be ignored." Minorities and downtown businessmen believe that many older sections of the cities also require improved services and that funds for these improvements have been diverted to pay for service provision in the annexed territorities. This coalition also argues that the present method of providing service to outlying districts amounts to a subsidy to the newly acquired territories. Objecting to the use of the entire city tax base to finance services in these districts, this coalition is demanding special assessments in the new tracts to raise the revenue to provide the services and infrastructure. At present, their opposition amounts to a vocal-and growing-minority; if the Voting Rights Act should convert city councils from at-large to district forms of representa­governments without financial resources to provide the requisite services. Regardless of its impact on growth rates, legislation similar to that recently enacted in California could significantly reduce the financial ability of cities in Texas to continue their old programs of annexation. In 1899, a time when most cities in the northeast were booming and annexing territory at an unusually rapid rate, one observer remarked that if the trends at that time were to continue "the cities of New York and Chicago will go to war to decide which shall annex Texas. " 6 Clearly, annexa­tion had been a major tactic for boosting the population growth rates in the older industrial cities during the nineteenth century just as it has been used to accomplish similar ends in Texas during the recent decades of the twentieth. Just as clearly, when annexation ceased to be Opponents of annexation may use the Voting Rights Act to challenge future annexations, thereby freezing city boundaries unless voters alter the structure of their local governments. tion, this opposition may become more effective in blocking future annexations or in changing the method of paying for these services. If new methods for paying for services are adopted, the outlying subdivisions may discover that there are significant costs and few benefits associated with annexation and may object more vigorously to inclusion in cities. In either event, the era of unopposed extensive annexations may soon be over; and, if this is the case, many city councils may hesitate to embark on large-scale annexation programs. Finally, growing opposition to increased taxes-as seen in the adoption of Proposition 13 in California-jeopardizes future annexations and could create chaos in such rapidly growing regions as Texas. Business Week recently pointed out that "Even before Proposition 13 went into ef­fect . .. [California] was having trouble resolving the com­plex issues raised by the new boom. Now the problems of providing jobs, housing, energy, water, transportation, and a pollution-free environment for hordes of newcomers must be faced in an era of draconian limits on government spending and widespread suspicion of government's mo­tives. California's challenge is to evolve new mechanisms for planning and financing its infrastructure-or risk choking off its economic growth."5 Annexing territory and provid­ing it with services is an expensive growth strategy. Up to now, cities in Texas have had no trouble raising revenues and selling bonds to finance their expansions, but if voters should impose severe taxing limits, this revenue raising may no longer be so easy. Somewhat paradoxically, if lower taxes should improve the business climate of the state, new firms may find it even more desirable to locate in Texas and, thus, may raise the growth rate, increase the pace of development of new subdivisions, and yet leave the local popular in the northeast, the growth rates of the central cities in that region began to diminish, and ultimately a period of protracted population decline began. At present, Texas has avoided a similar fate, but the successes of the past are not a justification for congratulations or content­ment. Several obstacles to continued annexation are rapidly emerging in Texas, and, should they succeed in blocking or even slowing the pace of territorial expansion, problems similar to those of the northeastern cities may soon emerge in Texas. Notes 1. Kirkpatrick Sale, Power Shift (New York: Random House, 197S) and Alfred J. Watkins, "Intermetropolitan Migration and the Rise of the Sunbelt," Social Science Quarterly 59 (forthcoming). 2. "Houston-Booming Even by Sunbelt Standards," New York Times, 9 January 1977, Section 3, p. 41. 3. For a detailed discussion of annexation practices in Texas see Stuart MacCorkle, Municipal Annexation in Texas (Austin: Univer­sity of Texas Press, 196S). An historical narrative of San Antonio's annexation strategies is contained in Arnold Fleischmann, "Sunbelt Boosterism: The Politics of Postwar Growth and Annexation in San Antonio" in David C. Perry and Alfred J. Watkins, eds., The Rise of the Sunbelt Cities (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1978). 4. An analysis of the 197S Voting Rights Act and its implications for annexation in Texas is contained in Charles L. Cotrell and R. Michael Stevens, "The 197S Voting Rights Act, Annexation Policy and Urban Growth in the Sunbelt," paper presented at the Southwest Political Science Association meetings, 14 April 1978, Houston, Texas. 5. "California: Will It Choke Off Its Boom?" Business Week, 17 July 1978, p. SS. 6. Adna Ferrin Weber, "Suburban Annexations," North American Review 166 (May 1898): 612. Need information about Texas? Texas Fact Book and Texas Family Law can answer many ofyour questions. Texas Fact Book (1st ed.) $4.00 plus tax Texas Family Law (5th ed.) $5.00 plus tax Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas at Austin P.O. Box 7459 Austin, Texas 78712 Collective Bargaining and Public Employee Strikes Editor's note : In previous issues the R eview has presented contrasting discussions of public issues-on loan rates and finance companies in February 1977 and on illegal immigration in August 1977. Richard Brown's article was submitted in response to an earlier article, requiring a sequential rather than simultaneous presentation of contrasting views. We hope to continue offering two or more views of important issues in both formats. Readers are invited to contribute responses to articles in the Review. I. B. Helburn propounded an interesting theory in the January 1978 issue of Texas Business Review ("Public Employee Unionization and Texas" ). As Helburn notes, public-sector collective bargaining is generally illegal in Texas and strikes by public employees are strictly forbid­den. Nevertheless, despite these prohibitions, the level of public employee unionism is steadily increasing, and public employee strikes have occurred from time to time in various localities across the state. It is Helburn's thesis that the rising level of public employee activity in the state cannot be properly accom­modated under current Texas statutes covering labor relations in the public sector. Moreover, he asserts, some of the municipal strikes in Houston, San Antonio, and other cities might have been avoided if Texas laws allowed for public-sector bargaining and provided administrative pro­cedures for determining recognition and resolving impasses. In sum, Helburn proposes that current Texas labor laws covering the public sector be abolished in favor of new legislation establishing collective bargaining rights for all public employees in the state. This view is consistent with the conventional argument made by other advocates of public-sector collective bargaining: such laws are needed to promote labor-management harmony and reduce strike activity in the public sector. This argument is fallacious. Collective bargaining laws do not retard public labor strife; in fact, the opposite is true. As statistics compiled by Richard D. Brown is Executive Director, Texas Municipal League. the U.S. Department of Labor clearly show, the number of strikes in most of the states where state and local governments are required to bargain collectively with their organized employees actually has increased after such legislation has been approved. Cause-and-effect relations between public-sector collective bargaining laws, unionism, and strike activity may be drawn. In 1959, Wisconsin became the first state in the nation to enact public employee collective bargaining legislation. At that time, 1,035,000 public employees in the United States were unionized. During the previous year (1958), there had been 15 public employee strikes nationwide, and 7,500 working days were lost as a result of public-sector job actions in the entire country. By 1974, thirty-four states had enacted public-sector collective bargaining laws, and the number of unionized public employees had increased to 5,333,000-a 400 percent increase over 1958. During 1974, there were 382 public employee strikes in the United States-2,500 percent more than in 1958. Approximately 1,404,000 working days were lost as a result of public employee strikes in 1974-5,350 percent more than in 1958. Pennsylvania offers a dramatic example of the direct links between public-sector collective bargaining laws and strike activity by public employees. In the twelve years before the passage of Act 195 (the state's public-sector collective bargaining statute), Pennsylvania had 72 public employee strikes involving 43,086 workers at a cost of 97,017 lost working days. During the four years after Public Employee Strike Activity Before and After Enactment of Collective Bargaining Legislation in Texas 1958-1974 Before passage of legisla lion permit tin g public-sector coll ec ti ve barga inin g After passage of legislat io n permitling public-sector collective barga ining State Employees covered by legisla ti o n Nu mber o f strikes N um ber o f wo rkers in volved Year of passage of legislatio n Number o f strikes Number o f workers involved Strikes pro hi bit ed Binding arbitration req uired Alaska Teachers 0 1970 2,304 Yes• Yes All other public employees 3S8 ( 972 4 ,7S 1 Yes Yes California Slate workers 14 2,82 1 197 1 s S,778 No No Teachers 1 S l 96S 66 S3,S74 No No All o ther public employees 3,886 196 1 104 S8,000 No No Connecticut All public employees excepl sla te S76 l 96S 63 20,333 Yes No Delaware Teachers 0 0 1969 10 6,048 Yes No All other public e mployees 29 l 96S 8 2,836 Yes No Hawaii All public employees 2,000 1970 13,076 Yes•• No I da ho Fire fighters 0 0 1970 0 0 Yest No Teachers sos 197 1 0 0 No No Illin o is State employees only 18 9,135 1973 800 Yes No India na Teachers 29 3 l ,SS7 1973 Yes No Ka nsas Teachers 0 1970 1 8 1 Yes No All other public employees 773 1971 10 1,4 83 Yes No Maine State employees 301 1974 unknown unknown No Yes All other public employees 0 1969 2 129 Yes Yestt Maryland Teachers S,220 1969 8,927 Yes No Massachuse tts All public employees 4 10,455 l 96S 47 16,073 Y es No Mich igan AJI public e mployees except state 34 l 96S 410 161,002 Yes Yes Minnesota All public employees 2,412 1971 242 Yest Y es Missou ri All public em ployees except 1eachers and po lice 18 3,S89 1967 3 1 9,S67 Yes No Montana Nu rses 0 1969 1,470 No No Teachers 2 1,0 55 197 1 2 1 s Yes No All 01ht:r public e mployees 6 6S3 1973 307 Yes No Nebraska Teachers 0 1967 0 Yes No All 01her public em ployees 0 1969 33 Y es Yes Nevada All public e mployees excep1 slate 1969 170 Yes Yes New Hampshire State employees 0 1969 0 Yes NoPolice 0 1972 0 Yes No All o ther public employees 1,745 1970 672 Yes No New Jersey All publi c employees 3 1 8,46 1 1968 11 2 40,S2 l Yes No New York All public e mployees 38 86,028 1967 1SO 145,222 Yes No North Dakota Teachers 1969 Yes NoOklaho ma All public employees except stale 17,967 1971 283 Yes No Oregon Teachers 0 0 l 96S 446 No No All other public e mployees 3 103 1973 17 Yes No Pennsylvan ia Police and fire fighters 1 2 1 1968 14 6S6 NoUAll o ther public employees 72 43,086 1970 117,7 18 Yes 292 Yes No Rho de Island Teachers 730 1966 2 1 l 2,S79 Yes§ YesState, police, and fire fighters 88 1 1970 3,SS4 Yes Yes All 01her public e mployees 9 1967 2 14 Yes YesSou 1h Dakota All public emplo yees 441 1969 S9 Yes No Vermo n1 State and teachers 0 0 1969 0 Yes No All other public employees 0 0 1973 0 Yes No Washington Teachers 0 1965 14 7,2 47 No No College teachers 38 197 1 s 1,468 Yes No All o ther public employees S3 1967 10 3,84 1 Yes No Wisconsin All public employees excep1 state 0 l 9S9 99 35,672 Yes NoS1ate employees 0 1966 7 3,208 Yes No Wyoming Fire righters o nly 0 0 l 96S 0 No Yes •scrikes prohibited and binding arbitration required for essential employees. ••strikes ''endangering public heal1h and sarety" prohibited. Jn all cases of impasse, parties may agree to binding arbitration. tStrikes by fire fighlers prohibi1ed during lhe term of a contract. · ttVoluntary binding arbitratio n. tMandatory binding arbitration for essential employees. t~Strikes that ''create a clear and present danger to public safety" prohibited. §Voluntary binding arbitration for teachers and other local employees, except fire figh1ers and police. Source: Based on data from the U.S. Depariment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW passage of Act 195, there were 292 public employee strikes (400 percent more than occurred before passage of Act 195), involving 117, 718 workers (up 173 percent) at a cost of 1,517,178 lost working days (up 1,500 percent). While the Pennsylvania example is dramatic, it is not unique. Pennsylvania shares a definite kinship with numerous other states with public employee collective bargaining, including California-where the number of public employees involved in strikes increased by more than l 0,000 percent after collective bargaining legislation was approved. The accompanying table comparing the level of strike activity among public employees before and after the approval of collective bargaining legislation indicates that public-sector strike activity in most states either continued or increased after such laws were approved. In a handful of states, passage of public employee collective bargaining legislation has not led to strike activity, but these states had had no strikes before the passage of such laws. In no case did passage of collective bargaining legislation halt public employee strike activity. little to inhibit strikes by public employees. In the Wisconsin statute, for example, strikes by public personnel are clearly forbidden; yet, more than 35,000 public employees in the state have been involved in strikes since public-sector collective bargaining legislation was passed in 1959. The same has been true in Connecticut, New Jersey, and other states that have allowed collective bargaining but forbidden strikes for public employees. Collective bargaining advocates claim that inclusion of binding arbitration requirements in such legislation will provide an alternative to impasses and public employee strikes. The examples of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island-all of which have binding arbitration clauses in their statutes-offer solid statistical evidence that public employee strikes proliferate in collective bargaining states whether binding arbitration is mandated or not. Experience with the Texas Fire and Police Employee Relations Act shows that the people of this state do not want public employee collective bargaining. Approved by the Texas legislature in 1973, this law grants collective Public-sector strike activity in most states has either continued or increased after public employee collective bargaining legislation has been enacted. The largest percentage of public employee strikes still arise over economic issues-even though public-sector wages and benefits are often equal to, or greater than, those in the private sector. For example, San Francisco, which endured widespread public-sector labor strife and violence through illegal strikes in 1974 and 1975, paid street sweepers an average of $17 ,000 a year and gardeners an average of $22,000 a year before local voters went to the polls in 1977 to reduce their pay. Pension benefits for these and other city employees are proportionately high; and, in fact, half of San Francisco's annual property tax collections go to ·support the cost of the city's pension system. Public employee collective bargaining bills regularly introduced into the Texas legislature may acquaint the citizens of this state with the same phenomenon that has become familiar to the citizens of Hawaii ( l public-sector strike before collective bargaining legislation was passed in 1970 against 6 strikes between 1970 and 1974) and New Jersey (31 strikes before legislation was passed in 1968 against 112 strikes between 1968 and 1974). Senate Bill 335 in the 1975 Texas legislative session, for example, proposed to establish collective bargaining rights for all city, county, and other local government employees. A state board to provide binding arbitration to overcome impasses was also included in this bill. It should be noted that S. B. 335 did not prohibit public employee strikes. This omission probably was in recogni­tion of the fact that prohibitions in other states have done bargaining and binding arbitration rights to fire fighters and police, but only after local voters in a city have given their approval at an election. The Fire and Police Employee Relations Act is the only exception to Article 5I 54c, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, which forbids public em­ployee collective bargaining in Texas. As of December 31, 1977, twenty-eight such local-option elections had been conducted in Texas. In sixteen of these elections, local voters declared their opposition to public employee collec­tive bargaining by defeating the proposition. Collective bargaining for police and fire fighters has been approved in eleven Texas cities. In three-Corsicana, Bryan, and Kingsville-of these eleven cities, however, the voters repealed collective bargaining after a short time. Almost five years after the state legislation permitting local-option elections on police and fire-fighter collective bargaining was passed, only eight cities-Texas City, Beaumont, Sherman, Laredo, San Antonio, Brownsville, Corpus Chris­ti, and El Paso-of the more than 1, l 00 municipalities in Texas are operating under the provisions of the act. Those who advocate collective bargaining rights for the public employees of this state claim that Texas is "differ­ent" and that what has happened time after time in New York, Pennsylvania, and other states with public-sector collective bargaining "won't happen here." This belief is as naive as the position that mandatory collective bargaining legislation induces public-sector labor-management har­mony. ---------.,.-----­ Research Report Series 1977 I. Th e Identification of Functional Regions Based on Highway Traffic Flow Data Charles P. Zlatkovich. ISBN 8775 5-269-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 Exam in ation of National Air Traoel 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 8775 5-274-6. 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. Bureau of Business Research • The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712 The Housing Demand In the late 1960s and early 1970s young adults left their parents' homes in unprecedented numbers and greatly increased the demand for apartment buildings and other multifamily units. Now these same people are in their thirties and forming families; they are seeking single-family dwellings and are driving up the cost of these houses. The number of households in Texas is expected to increase 32 percent between 1975 and 1985, while the state's popula­tion will rise slightly less than 15 percent, according to census data. Since all age groups will be expanding, there will not be a surplus of any type of existing housing. But the demand for detached single-family houses will be much stronger than the demand for apartment units. Young householders in their early twenties typically live in apartments or mobile homes. By age thirty, most people Arthur L. Wright is Associate Research Economist, Texas Real Estate Research Center, Texas A&M University. in Texas • Ill 1985 Arthur L. Wright are living as couples and seeking to buy moderately priced single-family houses. Ownership of a single-family house is a strong goal for most Americans and is expected to remain so. A recent survey by the Institute for Life Insurance found that 92 percent of those fourteen to twenty-five years old rated such ownership as a necessity or a highly important priority. In middle age, homeowners may up­grade their standards of housing several times as their financial positions improve. During their midfifties, after their children have grown, homeowners may move back into smaller houses, and finally, as age advances, they may give up householder status completely by moving either into a retirement residence or in with relatives. Shift in Age Distribution During the next two decades, the age distribution of our society will shift significantly. Currently, the most numer-ous part of our population is between ten and twenty-five years of age, and the proportion in each older age bracket declines almost progressively. By the year 2000, however, this bulge in the age groups will have shifted to the ages thirty-five to fifty. By the end of the century our society will have a much older population. Concurrently, the size of the average Texas household is expected to drop to 2.66 persons in 1985 from 3.17 in 1970, according to 1976 estimates by the Texas Real Estate Research Center at Texas A&M University. This 16 percent reduction in household size means that the size of a typical dwelling unit could decline from approximately 1,600 to 1,350 square feet without increasing the average occupancy density per dwelling. In addition, the U.S. Department of Commerce expects personal income to rise at an annual rate of more than 2.5 percent during the next decade. There­fore, the average single-family residence constructed in 1985, while smaller than today's house, will probably shrink less than household size will decrease; and, even with higher taxes and high utility bills, most people will be able to afford some type of house ownership if they choose to do so. Changes in the age mix of the population will favorably affect the future availability of housing credit because the amount of savings of a society is related to the average age of the people. There will be fewer net borrowers and more net savers since young householders frequently go more deeply into debt to purchase houses, cars, furniture, and other items, and middle-aged householders tend to spend a smaller portion of their income on current consumption and accumulate savings for retirement. Thus, more capital should eventually be available for investment and house building. The War Babies Come of Age The housing market today reflects the increasing impact of young adults. New dwellings now being built are smaller than those built in the late 1960s because of higher construction costs and fewer people in the average house­hold. Young householders are now entering their thirties, forming families, and wanting the space and privacy of a single-family house. Their earning abilities, however, have probably not risen as rapidly as their desires. When purchasing a house, many have been forced to buy older units and have, thus, increased the prices of older houses relative to the new. The strong demand in the late 1960s and early 1970s by young adults for small new maintenance-free living units, combined with a readily available supply of construction funds, created the greatest boom in apartment construction Population Estimates and Projections for the United States 1()()5 t'slimatcs 1975 ~st1mates 1985 projci.:tions (I 7 childrcn per woman) \.blc hmrnh: Mall' Female Mak Femak 0.4 85+ 0.1 Millions Milhons Millions Soun.:c L.S. Dt'parlmcnt of ( omn11.~n.:c. Bureau of the ( cnsus. Stut1H (July 1976) 6-7 Texas has ever seen. In fact, 1968 was the first time in the history of the state in which more apartment units were built than single-family residences (excluding mobile homes), and this phenomenon persisted through 1973. During these six years, the annual average number of new single-family units was 39,000 as against 62,000 apartment units per year. In the 1980s, the number of new single­family dwellings should be relatively greater than apartment units as young householders continue to enter the house­buying market. The Age Distribution of Texans in 1985 By 1985, the population of Texas is expected to increase to slightly more than 14 million, but the change in the age The total number of Texans between the ages of thirty-eight and sixty-four is expected to expand 14. 2 percent by 1985, a rate considerably less than that for expansion of the state population as a whole. This figure suggests that the relative demand for large luxury homes might be less in the 1980s than in the 1970s, even if housing costs stabilize and incomes continue to rise. People generally have purchased their last houses by age sixty-four. Either they stay in the larger houses bought when their children were young or they buy smaller houses requiring less upkeep. According to data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the National Association of Realtors, less than 6 percent of all houses sold in 1973 went to people sixty-five years of age or more. The self-sufficient portion of this group could constitute a noticeable market for older apartments as these people grow in number and as In Texas the need for additional multifamily units will probably continue, but the great boom in apartment construction appears to be over. mix will be more dramatic. The number of young adults eighteen to twenty-seven years old will rise nearly 26 percent between 1970 and 1985 (roughly the same rate of growth as that of the total population) and will account for an average annual increase of 11,300 household heads. Since the average annual number of new apartments in the state has been more than 49,900 for the last seven years, the rate of apartment construction will have to decrease, or apartment conversion to condominiums and rentals to other age groups will have to increase. Persons in their late twenties and their thirties will be responsible for most of the accelerated demand for single­ family houses during the 1980s. Their numbers are ex­ pected to jump 71 percent between 1970 and 1985, nearly three times the statewide rate of population increase. By 1985, the group between the ages of twenty-eight to thirty-seven will have increased to over 2.2 million or nearly 840,000 households. This increase corresponds to a state­wide average annual increase of slightly less than 56,000 households between 1970 and 1985; the average number of single-family building permits (excluding construction of mobile homes) issued between 1970 and 1976 was only 41,000, nearly 27 percent below the number of household expansions. The migration of this group into the market for single-family houses during the past five years has been one of the main factors driving up the prices of older houses relative to newer ones and has caused many apartment complexes to be converted to condominiums. As these people mature and become more established in their careers, there will likely be several rounds of "trading up" as they sell their earlier homes and buy newer or larger ones. the cost of detached housing increases. Many existing apartments will probably become housing for the elderly and lower-income groups in the late 1980s and 1990s. In states like Texas, with a growing population and net in-migration, the need for additional multifamily units will probably be prolonged, but the great boom in apartment construction in the late 1960s and early 1970s has probably passed-if per capita disposable real income continues to rise as predicted. The population shift from younger to older groups will result in an increasing demand for single-family houses relative to multifamily units. Although it will not be as noticeable in Texas and other rapidly expanding areas, this national trend will better balance the supply of single­family and multifamily units. By the early 1990s the accelerating price of housing should be more nearly equal to the general inflation rate. Age Distribution of Texas Population 1970 and 1985 Pop ulatio n Perce ntage Age 1970 1985 change 0-17 3 ,999 ,836 4 ,552,935 13.8 18-27 1,860 ,9 13 2,34 1,72 0 25.8 2 8-37 1,3 0 3 ,977 2 ,228,690 70 .9 38-54 2,0 83 ,180 2 ,3 31 ,626 l 1.9 55-64 956,765 I ,13 9,588 19. J 65 and over 992,0 59 1,4 34 ,78 0 14.6 To tal 11 ,196,730 14 ,0 29,339 25.3 Source: Data for 1970 comes from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Projected po pulation figures for 1985 come from Dudley Poston, Po pulation Research Center, University of Texas at Austin. Dallas-Fort Worth: The Southwest Metrople~ Joanne P. Austin Although aggressive competitors until they were joined into one metropolitan area in 1973, Dallas and Fort Worth have always had one thing in common: the hustle to make something out of nothing. Neither location possesses any of the traditional reasons for existing: no natural resources, inland waterways, ports, or agrarian bounty. Yet the desire to turn small villages into centers of commerce, the pride of accomplishment, and the thirst for pure, heady power have caused Dallas and Fort Worth to seek aggressively and retain not only the means of existing but of achieving a successful longevity. As Metroplex residents see it, they have "the right attitude." Dallas was founded in 1841 by John Neely Bryan of Arkansas, who established a trading post at the three forks of the Trinity River. Believing that the road planned across the forks by the Republic of Texas lent itself to city development, Bryan and the early settlers campaigned for, and won, designation as a stop on the wagon train route across Texas and the honor of the Dallas County seat. The army, meanwhile, established Camp Worth in 1849 on the Trinity River farther west and stayed until 1853. Practically a ghost town until after the Civil War, Fort Worth revived with the beginning of the great cattle drives to Abilene, Kansas. From 1866 until after the turn of the century, Fort Worth became Cow Town, opening the city to the entertainment and requirements of the cowboy. It was more than likely this cultural breach between rough cow­boy and genteel society, as well as competition for the railroads, that led to the sometimes bitter rivalry between the two cities. The coming of the railroads (1872-1876) has been called the catalyst for the phenomenal growth of Dallas and the spur for continued prosperity in Fort Worth after the decline of the cattle drives. Here again, both communities realized the importance of rail transportation and argued, finagled, bought land and influence, and even laid track to ensure the railroads' presence in the towns-the first line was originally to have run thirty-five miles farther east of Dallas. As rail, truck, and, eventually, air traffic made the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth commercial and distribution centers, there was no longer any need to justify their locations. By working to create their own advantages, Dallas and Fort Worth had ensured their existences. Today the intercity competition has become coopera­tion on behalf of all the municipalities in the eleven-county metropolitan area. Most Dallasites would rather not live in Fort Worth and vice versa, yet residents of each city have realized that they have more in common than not and that promotion of the entire Metroplex (a term coined from the phrase metropolitan complex) benefits all. Population Growth The Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA is the largest in Texas, encompassing the eleven counties of Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise. The Bureau of the Census estimates that from 1970 to 1976, the Dallas-Fort Worth area grew at a rate of 8.7 percent, whereas the state of Texas grew somewhat faster at 11.5 percent. Of that increase in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, only 26 percent could be attributed to net in-migration. Natural increase, or the excess of births over deaths, accounted for the remaining 74 percent. Texas, on the other hand, gained 42 percent of its population change from in-migration. Hood County had the greatest percentage gain with a growth rate of 58.2 percent. In-migration accounted for nearly 100 percent of the change, a fact indicative of great population moves away from the immediate Fort Worth area to smaller rural communities. Collin County, in the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport northeast quadrant of the metropolitan area, grew by 44.3 percent, with 79 percent of that change due to in-migration resulting from suburban flight from Dallas. All of the less-populated counties around Dallas and Fort Worth, with the exception of Parker County, showed sizable population gains from in-migration. Dallas and Tarrant counties, although registering growth rates of 7.2 and 5.3 percent, lost population to the outlying areas. Dallas County, which encompasses the city of Dallas, is the most populated county at over 1.4 million people; Tarrant County, home of Fort Worth and Arlington, has a population of approxi­mately 750,000 people. The Structure of Employment and Personal Income The economy of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area is strong and well balanced, not only among the various sectors but within the sectors themselves. No single industry or type of employment is so predominant in the area that its loss would create financial chaos. According to estimates of the 1977 nonagricultural civilian payroll that were prepared by the Texas Employment Commission, the categories of manufacturing, trade, services, and finance, insurance, and real estate, and the transportation, commu­nications, and public utilities sector are all larger contribu­tors to the economy of the Dallas-Fort Worth area than to that of Texas. Three sectors-transportation, communica­tions, and public utilities; trade; and finance, insurance, and real estate-are larger employers for the SMSA than they are for either Texas or the nation. Although not as great, other important sources of income are construction and government employment. The mining sector, while a lesser contributor to the area economy than are the other sectors, generates greater income in Dallas-Fort Worth than it does in the United States as a whole. The average rate of unemployment for Dallas-Fort Worth over 1977 was 4. 7 percent, six-tenths of a point lower than the 5.3 percent rate in Texas. Unemployment in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area fell as low as 3.5 percent in May of 1977 and never exceeded 5. 7 percent for any month of that year. According to the Texas Employ­ment Commission, demand remains strong for all types of highly skilled workers, especially in construction, and for people in professional and technical occupations. There are shortages in all occupations. The manufacturing sector is the largest contributor to personal income in the Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA. Estimates made in 197 5 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce show that manufacturing provides 19.26 percent of area earnings, while Texas receives 15.14 percent of personal income from the manufacturing sector. The national figure is only 0.08 percent more than that for Dallas-Fort Worth. Principal manufactures in the area are primarily light industrial and include electronics, aircraft, apparel, oil-field equipment, food processing, automotive transportation, printing and publishing, and nonelectrical equipment. There are fifty­seven firms in the Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA that employ over five hundred people; no single industry or group of industries, however, has a monoply on manufacturing in the area. Ever since the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth fought to gain railroad rights-of-way (in fact, since Dallas became a principal stop on the wagon train route across the early Texas Republic) transportation has been vital to the health and economic growth of the landlocked area. An extensive railroad, highway, and air network, however, makes the Dallas-Fort Worth area a crossroads for nearly all types of domestic and international shipping except waterborne commerce. The region is a major point of intersection of routes from the four metropolitan areas of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Mexico City and serves as the heart of a five-state primary market area. As of late 1977, the Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA was the hub of seven spokes of interstate highway and fourteen state and federal highways and was served by ten railroads, forty-five common motor carriers, and five major bus lines. In addition, twelve commercial airlines and six commuter lines provided one thousand scheduled departures from Dallas-Fort Worth Nonagricultural Civilian Payroll Percentages Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA, Texas, and United States 1977 Annual Average Dallas-Fort Wo rth United Category SMSA Texas States Mining 1.2 3.2 1.0 Con tract construction 4.7 7.0 4.7 Manufacturing 22.5 18.4 23.8 Transpo rtatio n, co mmunication , and public utilities 6.6 6.3 5.6 Trade 26.8 24.6 22.3 Finance, insurance, and real estate 7.5 5.6 5.5 Services 17.3 17.2 18.7 Government 13.4 17.7 18.5 Sources: Data for Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA and Texas obtained from Economic Research and Analysis Depar tment, Texas Employment Commission; U.S. data obtained from Employm ent and Earnings (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, April 1977-March 1978). Regional Airport and Love Field every day. It is no surprise, then, that the transportation, communications, and public utilities sector contributes 7 percent to personal income in the Dallas-Fort Worth area but only 5.84 percent to Texas and 5.43 percent to the United States as a whole. The Southwest Metroplex is the largest metropolitan area in the nation without a navigable waterway; for this reason, and because of the airport's extensive use and range, backers of the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport (D/FW Airport) consider the facility to be an "air harbor to the world." In other words, they believe it is not necessary to have a seaport. Only open since January 1974, D/FW Airport is the largest in the nation and is reported to be the third busiest handler of scheduled air carrier operations in the world. The facility covers 17,000 acres between the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth with an eventual capacity of thirteen terminals and 234 passenger gates, which will be able to handle fifty-five million passenger boardings per year. Four terminals and 68 gates are now open, and bonds are being raised for the fifth terminal. At ultimate capacity (expected some time in the next century) the airport will exceed the combined capacities of Kennedy International, LaGuardia, and Newark airports. Braniff International, based at D/FW Airport, has recently begun service for direct flights to London and has petitioned the Civil Aeronautics Board for additional flights to Central and South America and for direct service to Tokyo. The Japanese, who have extensive cultural and commercial ties with Brazil, have discovered that Dallas-Fort Worth is on the great circle route from Rio de Janeiro to Tokyo and are interested in developing direct service as soon as possible. The volume of freight passing through the airport has prompted Flying Tiger Line, the largest all-cargo air carrier in the world, to offer freight service from D/FW Airport to major cities in the United States and Asia as of April 1978. Area businessmen and Metroplex supporters feel very strongly that regional development would not have oc­curred so rapidly without the new airport. The wholesale and retail trade sector is the second largest contributor to personal income in the Dallas-Fort Worth area at 17.97 percent. Retail sales for 1976 totaled over $8.8 billion, placing Dallas-Fort Worth eleventh in total retail sales among the twenty most populous SMSAs, and are projected to be over $9.9 billion for 1977. Historically, most retail merchandising of clothing, furnish­ings, and accessories in Texas has been located in Dallas. There are 263 shopping centers in the Dallas area alone, and several of them are regional malls (with greater than 50,000 square feet). Fort Worth recently opened its first fully enclosed center, Ridgmar Mall, and followed that by opening Hulen Mall, a two-level domed facility. The other large shopping center is Fort Worth is Seminary South, anchored by Sears, J. C. Penney's, and Stripling's, a local Fort Worth department store; a fourth anchor for this center, Dillard's, has been added. In Dallas NorthPark, which has won recognition from the American Institute of Architects for the highest gross sales per square foot in the nation, is anchored by Neiman-Marcus, Titche's, and Lord and Taylor of New York. Retailing does not take preeminence over wholesale trade, however. The Southwest Metroplex is the heart of an eleven-state market and distribution network made up of the primary areas of Texas, New Mexico, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma and the secondary areas of Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama. Wholesale receipts exceed $15 .1 billion annually and can be linked directly to the position of Dallas-Fort Worth as a crossroads on major rail and truck lines in addition to the tremendous volume of cargo traffic through Percentage of Personal Income by Major Sources Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA, Texas, and United States, 1975 Dallas­ Fort Worth United Source SMSA Texas States Agr iculture 0.14 2.63 2.69 Mining 1.54 3.52 1.06 Constructio n 4.05 5.56 4.28 Manufacturing 19.26 I 5. 14 19. 34 Transportation , communicatio n , and public utilities 7 .00 5.84 5.43 Who lesale and retail trade 17.97 14. 54 12.67 Finance, insuran ce, and rea l estate 6 .00 4.04 4.00 Services 13 .22 11.45 12.09 Other industries 0.12 0.27 0.25 Total private labor and proprietor in come 69.31 63.00 61.81 Federal civilian 2.62 3.28 3.35 Federal military 0.79 2.79 1.62 State and local 6 .50 7.66 8.80 Total government earnings 9.91 13.73 13.77 Total labor and proprieto r in come (place of work) 79 .22 76.73 75.58 Less: personal co ntributio ns fo r social insurance 4 . 17 3.78 3.97 Residence adjustment -0.39 0.15 0.00 New labor and p roprietor income (place of residence) 74.66 73.11 71.61 Dividends, interest, and rent 15.92 15.64 14. 52 Transfer payments 9.42 11.26 13.82 Total personal in come (place of residence) 100.00 100.00 100.00 Source: Developed from data compiled by the Regional Economics Info rmation System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Fort Worth skyline and water garden D/FW Airport. Over 83. 7 tons of air freight passed through the airport in 1976, a 19.1 percent increase from 1975. Wholesaling facilities in the SMSA exist for nearly twenty product categories, from electrical and nonelectrical ma­chinery to beverages and apparel. The most significant aspect of the wholesale trade industry in the Dallas-Fort Worth area is the Dallas Market Center. Designated a Permanent International Trade Fair by the Department of Commerce in 1969, the center has six merchandising marts covering more than 4.8 million square feet. Completion and dedication of the World Trade Center in 1974 made this market center the largest wholesale merchandising complex located on one site in the world. Facilities include the Homefurnishings Mart, devoted exclu­sively to furniture and large furnishings; the Trade Mart, used for floorcoverings, lamps, and home accessories; the Decorative Center, exhibiting designer furniture, fabrics, and interior merchandise; the Apparel Mart, comprising four city blocks devoted to the fashion industry; the World Trade Center, a forum for international trade and manufac­turing exchange; and Market Hall, an exhibit hall designed for special shows and all merchandisers who do not have permanent display facilities. There are twenty-five markets a year, attracting over 400,000 buyers from all fifty states and approximately twenty-five foreign countries; the mar­kets are restricted to buyers for wholesale and retail distribution and are not open to the general public. Nationally, the Dallas Market Center is ranked first in the summer and winter home furnishings and floor coverings markets; it is one of the leading regional toy markets and is ranked second nationally in the apparel market. Wholesale and retail trade in the Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA, although second to manufacturing, is considerably more important to personal income in the area than it is to personal income in either Texas or the United States. The Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area receives 13.22 percent of personal income from the services sector, whereas Texas receives 11.45 percent and the nation receives 12.09 percent. Conventions and tourism are now seen as immediately behind finance and manufacturing as the most important area industries; according to the Dallas Chamber of Commerce, tourism is the fifth largest industry in that city. Few area residents think of Dallas-Fort Worth as a tourist mecca, but the Metroplex has become the largest single recipient of state tourist income and receives l l cents out of every out-of-state dollar spent in Texas. Tourists spent over $ l billion in 1976 on food, lodging, and entertainment in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The most popular location is Six Flags Over Texas, which bypassed the Alamo in 1963 as the number one tourist attraction in Texas. Since Six Flags is located in Arlington between Dallas and Fort Worth, each city benefits from the tourist trade. Other principal attractions include professional and intercollegiate sports, excellent museums, fine restaurants, and shopping. Allied with tourism is the convention business. Both U.S. News and World Report and World Convention Dates magazine have rated Dallas first nationally in total number of meetings held in the city. Both Dallas and Fort Worth have large convention centers, and exhibit space, hotel rooms, and area sports and recreational facilities make the Metroplex increasingly attractive for convention business. Chamber of commerce officials feel that even more than property. The 6 percent contribution of the finance, insurance, and real estate sector to area personal income is nearly two percentage points higher than the contribution of that sector to state or national personal income. The construction industry, after a slump during the 1973-1975 recession, is now improving. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that construction contributed only 4.05 percent to personal income in the Dallas-Fort Worth area for 1975, whereas Texas received 5.56 percent of state personal income from that sector. Total number of building permits issued in January and February 1978 increased IO percent over the same period in 1977. There were sixteen permits issued in February 1978 for over $ l million each. Based on the level of construction and investment in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, the sector comprising dividends, interest, and rent contributes 15.92 percent of personal income in the SMSA. Texas receives 15.64 percent from that sector, while the United States receives 14.52 percent. The World Trade Center in Dallas is the largest wholesale merchandising complex located on one site in the world. the attraction of facilities, conventions come to the Dallas-Fort Worth area because delegates can expect to spend less and get more in the Metroplex than in such other large conventions cities as New York or Chicago. Service income is also generated by the health and education fields. There are seven private four-year colleges in the Metroplex, including Southern Methodist University in Dallas and Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, and one private junior college in Waxahachie. Baylor University operates both a school of nursing and a school of dentistry, with the participation and cooperation of medical facilities in the area. Although not the largest contributor to area personal income, the finance, insurance, and real estate sector provides 6 percent of earnings in the SMSA. The two largest banks in Texas-Republic National and First National-are located in Dallas and have deposits in excess of $7 billion each. The Dallas-Fort Worth area has more than two hundred commercial banks and is seventh in commercial bank deposits among the twenty most populous SMSAs in the nation. The largest banks, in particular, take an active interest in the Metroplex economy through industrial development programs and participation in community affairs. More than 260 insurance companies with combined assets of approximately $8 billion have headquarters in Dallas-Fort Worth, making the area the leader of the state's insurance business. In real estate, as of January 1978, there were 3 million square feet of office space, a figure which does not include over 50,000 acres of industrially zoned Total government earnings in the Metroplex are 9.91 percent of area personal income, much smaller than the state receipts of 13. 73 percent. Most of this figure is made up of state and local government earnings, principally in education and public services. There are four large state universities in the Metroplex: North Texas State University and Texas Woman's University (both in Denton), the University of Texas at Arlington, and the University of Texas at Dallas. The University of Texas System also operates the Health Science Center at Dallas, which includes a graduate school of biomedical sciences, a school of allied health sciences, and Southwestern Medical School. Medical students undergo training at both Parkland Hos­pital and the Veterans Administration Hospital. Both Dallas and Tarrant counties maintain community and junior college systems. In addition, any Metroplex industry may tie into TAGER (The Association for Graduate Education and Research of North Texas) over closed-circuit micro­wave television. The city of Fort Worth, as part of its renovation of the downtown area, opened a new under­ground public library this summer. The federal civilian sector is made up primarily of regional offices for the various government departments and agencies, including the Small Business Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the following departments: Agriculture; Commerce; Labor; Justice; Health, Education and Welfare; the Army; the Navy; Housing and Urban Development; and the Treasury. Total contribution of the federal civilian sector is 2.62 percent. Federal military earnings provide only 0.79 percent of area personal income. Three major branches of military service are represented in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, however: Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, the Dallas Naval Air Station in Grand Prairie, and army stations throughout the metro area. Transfer payments are low in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, making up only 9.42 percent of total personal income. Texas receives 11.26 peJcent of state personal income from transfer payments and the United States receives 13.82 percent. Chief Manufacturing Industries Lacking a water port to ship and receive heavy equip­ment and chemicals, the Dallas-Fort Worth area has developed lighter, cleaner industries primarily in the classifi­cations of electronics, high-technology manufacturing, aero­space, and apparel. Among the twenty most populous SMSAs in the nation, Dallas-Fort Worth is ranked by the Department of Commerce as eleventh in value added by manufacturing. Not only did lighter industry develop as a result of an inland location, but the accessibility of international shipping through D/FW Airport now guaran­tees continued growth and attraction of this type of industry to the area. The largest manufacturing group in the Metroplex, although it is not much greater than the others, is electronics. There are ten manufacturers with more than five hundred employees and several smaller electronics firms. The largest companies, with between one thousand and five thousand workers, are E-Systems, Inc., of Garland; Rockwell International Corp. in Richardson; Teccor Elec­tronics, Inc., of Euless; Varo Semiconductor, Inc., in Garland; Western Electric Co. in Mesquite; and Texas Instruments Inc., which began as Geophysical Services, Inc., in Dallas. Principal products of the ten firms include radio and telephone communication equipment, semiconductors and circuits, microwave tracking systems, electronic com­puting equipment, digital circuits, and electronic typing systems and telecopiers. The aerospace industry also flourishes in the high­technology atmosphere of Dallas-Fort Worth. There are seven firms manufacturing aircraft and aircraft parts; the two largest, Bell Helicopter Textron and General Dynamics Corp., are located in Tarrant County. Each of these two companies employs more than five thousand workers. General Dynamics recently began production of the F-16 fighter jet in the United States and Europe and is designing a sophisticated F-16 that can interfere with enemy antiair­craft radar and disrupt air defenses based on the ground. The remaining firms involved in the production of aircraft and related materials are Vought Corp., Cooper Airmotive, Inc., Intercontinental Manufacturing Co., Inc., and Menasco Manufacturing Co. One of the oldest industries in the area, and still a vital one, is apparel manufacturing; there are seven large firms in the Metroplex. One of the seven, Haggar Co., although maintaining a large administrative staff, does no manufac­turing at its Dallas facility. Actual manufacturing takes place in plants throughout the state. The manufacture of oil-field equipment dates from the 1930s and 1940s, when the Dallas-Fort Worth area, instead of Houston, was considered the capital of the oil business in Texas. There are seven area manufacturers of oil-field and drilling equipment, the oldest being Gardner-Denver Co. in Dallas. Other principal industries in the Metroplex include food processing, automotive and boat assembly, printing and paper products, plastics, insulation, asphalt, detergent, and golf clubs and balls. Population and Income Profile The Dallas-Fort Worth area has a median age of 28.2 years, slightly higher than the median age of 27.8 years for the state as a whole. The area has a higher concentration of Manufacturing Plants with More Than 1,000 Employees Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA Name of compan y Primary Establishment City products date ARA Manufact uring Co. Auto air condition ing 1949 Gra nd Prairie an d radio American Mfg. of Texas O il-field equipment 1929 Fort Worth A. H. Belo Corp. Newspaper 1885 Dallas E-System s, Inc. Electro nic communication 1957 Garla nd system s Gardner-Denver Co. Oil-field and mining 1923 Dallas equipmen t Gardner-Denver Co. Oil-field and m inin g 1967 Sun nyvale equipment General Dynamics Corp. Aircraft 1942 Fort Wor t h General Mo to rs Corp . Passenger ca r assemb ly 1952 Arli ngton Lennox Industries, Inc. Heating and air 1895 For t Worth conditioning Otis Engineering Corp. Oil-well controls, valves 1937 Carro ll ton Rockwell International Electro nic systems 1951 Corp. Richardson Taylor Publish ing Co. Yearbooks, printing 1942 Dallas Teccor Electronics , Inc. Electronic devices 1964 E uless Texas Bitulithic Co. Asphalt paving material 1906 Dallas Texas Instrumen ts, Inc. Electronic data processing 1958 Dallas equipmen t Texas Steel Co. Stainless steel castings 1904 For t Worth Varo Semiconductor, Silicon equipment 1968 Inc. Garland Vought Corp. Aircraft, aircraft parts 1948 Dallas Vought Corp. Missiles, airc raft parts 1967 Grand Prairie Western Electric Co. Telephone switching 1969 Mesquite equipment Source: 1977-1978 Directory of Texas Manufacturers (Austin : Bureau of Business Research, 1978). working age people between ages 25 to 49 (34.5 percent in the SMSA, 31 percent in the state), and approximately two percent fewer young people under 18. Only Collin, Dallas, and Denton counties have median ages younger than that for the entire Metroplex; Denton County, with two universities, has the lowest median age (24.6 years) and the greatest percentage of people between the ages of 18 and 24. Hood County has the oldest population, with 37.5 percent of the population 50 years old or more. The healthy business climate and the preponderance of midlife working people give the Dallas-Fort Worth area a significantly better household buying income than that of the state as a whole. Only 29 percent of the households in the Metroplex have yearly incomes of less than $10,000, whereas 3 7 .9 percent of Texas households are in that category. Over half (51.8 percent) of all area households in Dallas-Fort Worth have incomes of more than $15,000 per year. The median annual household income is $15,453, whereas in Texas median household income is $13,117. Dallas County is by far the wealthiest, with 54.9 percent of all households making over $15 ,000 annually; 40 percent of these households have incomes of at least $25,000 a year. Metropolitan Area Characteristics The Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex may be described as having the following characteristics: • A steady growth rate somewhat slower than that for Texas as a whole. • A very diversified economy, well balanced in manufac­turing, trade, transportation, finance, and services. • An unemployment rate consistently lower than the state average. • A substantial light manufacturing industry producing electronics, aircraft, apparel, oil-field equipment, and other high-technology goods and services. • A slightly older population than that of the state as a whole. • Greater-than-average household buying power. Significant Factors Most residents of the Metroplex feel that their two greatest assets are the "right attitude" and their ability to Age Profile Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA and Texas (Percentage of population) Dallas-Fort Worth Age group SMSA Texas 0-17 30.7 32.0 18-24 13.6 13.7 25-34 17.9 15.3 35-49 16.6 15 .7 50 and over 21.3 23.2 Source: Sales and Marketing Management, Survey ofBuying Power Data Service, 1977. attract business. It is their attitude, they believe, that keeps business coming to the Metroplex. A survey taken recently of several new corporate migrants into the Dallas-Fort Worth area indicates that companies that relocated into the area were looking for the following things: first, a commu­nity that provides an image in keeping with the firm's industrial reputation and that will develop increased financial exposure and recognition; a business and social environ­ment that will continue to attract qualified executives on a long-term basis at competitive salaries; good transportation facilities for freight shipments and executive travel; a time zone compatible with most of the corporation's business; a favorable but equitable tax structure; and a favorable legal climate. The companies were also looking for a community with an aggressive and proven growth record; suitable facilities or available construction space for the corpora­tion's needs; a climate for interaction with other business executives; a concern over environmental problems; sound local governments; and stable, fairly low local tax struc­tures. Finally, they wanted a location with good shopping facilities, churches, schools, and civic organizations; mini­mal commuting time; geographic and recreational benefits; and a cost of living at or below the national level, which will enable the company's executives and their families to relocate economically and will attract executives in the future. Since these are the responses of companies that have already moved to the Metroplex, residents of the Dallas­Fort Worth area take great pride in the success of their region's business development. The old rivalry between Dallas and Fort Worth has thus been channeled into a healthier competition between them by their common airport. Now that both have been included in and redefined as the Southwest Metroplex, it is in each city's best interest to promote the eleven-county metropolitan area, not just Dallas or Tarrant counties. As Ted St. Clair of the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce said, "Fort Worth's greatest asset is Dallas, and Dallas' greatest asset is Fort Worth." Too, residents of both cities are concerned that the no-holds-barred growth patterns of the Houston metropolitan area not be repeated-that growth, wealth, and development proceed strongly but in an orderly manner so as to ensure the position and future of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area that generations have worked so hard to establish. Household Effective Buying Income* Profile Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA and Texas (Percentage of households) Income Dallas-Fort Worth (in dollars) SMSA Texas 0-7 ,999 22.2 30.2 8,000-9,999 6.8 7.7 10,000-14,999 19.2 19.4 15,000-24 ;999 32 .7 27.8 2 5 ,000 and over 19 .1 14.9 *Household effective bu ying income is the total income of all household members after taxes. Source: Sales Marketing Managem ent, Survey of Buying Power Data Service, 19 77. Local Business Conditions Stattnical data compUed by Mfldred 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 the census and 1976 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 1978 Jun May Jun Jan-Jun Jan-Jun from Reported area and indicator 1978 1978 1977 1978 1977 1977 ABILENE SMSA Callahan, Jones, and Taylor Counties; population: 122,164 (1970); 131,500 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) 10,698 Nonfar m employ ment 47,700 Manufacturing employment S,800 Unemployed (percentage) 4.4 -14 2 s 16 16S 2 3 8 49,0 1 s 46,387 • S,330 • 4.7 • 23,822 46,1 so• 6,182• 4.7 • 106 -14 •• AMARILLO SMSA Potter and Randall Counties; population: 144,396 (1970); 154,300 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Un em ployed (percentage) I 0,87 1 71,420 8,380 3.8 -23 2•• 23 12 s 4 74,764 69,913• 8,448 • 3.7• 69,399 67,818• 8,782 • 3.9• 8 3 4 s AUSTIN SMSA Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties; population: 323,158 (1970); 461,300 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) 40,737 Nonfarm employment 2 11 ,900 Manufacturing employment 2S,3SO Unemployed (percentage) 3.7 •••• 4 32 6S 7 13 -23 224,449 209,392 • 24,22S * 3.3* 120,8 S7 196,283* 2 1,742 * 4 .3* 86 17 11 -23 BEAUMONT-PORT ARTH UR-ORANGE SMSA Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties; population: 34 7 ,568 (1970); 355,500 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) Nonfarm employment Manufac turing employment Unemployed (percentage) 18,023 142,8 SO 41,SSO 7.1 IS •• I 13 -- I •• 2 s 77 ,S 13 142,02S* 41 ,233* 6.9* 80,020 139,S7S * 38,467* 7.4* 3 2 7 7 BROWNSVILLE-HARLIN GE -SAN BE ITO SMSA Cameron County; population: 140,368 (1970); 179,500 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) 7,017 Nonfarm employment S2,120 Manufac turing employment 10,380 Unemployed (percentage) 9.6 2 •• 4 8 - 30 6 18 24 33,S80 Sl,863* 9,983* 9.9* 27 ,2 1 I 48,920* 8,S87 * l 2.4 * - 23 6 16 20 BRYAN-COLLEGE STA TIO SMSA Brazos County; population: 57,978 (1970); 73,000 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) 2,300 Nonfa rm employment 30,010 Manufac turing employment 2,7SO Unemployed (percentage) 3.S -41 -s I 17 -33 2 8 -12 30,361 31 ,12S* 2,678* 3.o• 27,801 29,692. 2,433* 3.S. - 9 s 10 14 Percent change Percent change from 1978 Jun May Jun Jan-Jun Jan-Jun from Reported area and indicator 1978 1978 1977 1978 1977 1977 CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA Nueces and San Patricio Counties; population: 284,832 (1970); 298,400 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) 13,007 Nonfarm employment 105,900 Manufacturing employment 13,300 Unemployed (percentage) 6.3 -14•• 1 15 42 4 5 -17 86,453 105,567* 13,183* 5.8* SI ,036 101 ,533* 12,767 * 7.4* 69 4 3 -22 DALLAS-FORT WORTH SMSA Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise Counties; population: 2,378,353 (1970); 2,585,300 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employ ment Unemployed (percentage) 261,601 1,243,900 279,600 4.5 19 1•• 25 40 5 5 8 1,218,014 1,220,283* 276,233* 4.2* 865,418 1,166,683* 262,817* 4.8* 41 5 5 -12 EL PASO SMSA El Paso County; population: 359,291 (1970);425,200 (1976 est.) Urban buildin g permits ($1,000) 13,59 3 Nonfarm employment 141,600 Manufacturing employment 28,000 Un em ployed (percentage) 9.7 -4 8 •• -1 17 -44 2 -5 -25 117,193 140,808* 28,358* 9.2* 112,946 138,767* 28,767* 12.6* 4 1 -27 GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Galveston County; population: 169,812 (1970); 186,300 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percentage) 5,523 73,010 12,120 6.5 -38 2 2 16 31 5 1 -22 32,892 70,280* 11,627* 6.3 * 28,870 66,507. 11,697* 8.2* 14 6 -1 -23 HOUSTON SMSA Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties; population: 1,999,316 (1970); 2,392,100 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 188,935 Nonfarm employment 1,237,800 Manufacturing employment 202,700 Unemployed (percentage) 4 .6 12 I 1 35 40 6 5 4 1,053,646 1,217,633* 199,467* 4.o• 694,326 1,141 ,283* 190,650. 4.s• 52 7 5 -II KILLEEN-TEMPLE SMSA Bell and Coryell Counties; population: 159,794 (1970); 204,600 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percentage) 24,414 51 ,270 7,420 5.4 193 1 3 17 220 1 8 -13 65,684 49,967 * 7,095* 5.1. 42,899 49,623* 6,507* 6.1 * 53 1 9 -16 LAREDO SMSA Webb County ; population: 72,859 (1970); 82,700 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) Nonfarm employment Ma nufact uring employ ment Unemployed (percen tage) 2,101 26,510 2,070 11.5 -54 5 •• 3 60 5 -5 -12 14,927 25,615 * 2,077 * 13.4* 11,334 24,833* 2,058* 13.9 * 32 3 I 4 LONGVIEW SMSA Gregg and Harrison Counties; population: 120,770 (1970); 127,900 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) No nfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percentage) 6,817 5 5 ,670 18,530 5.7 -37 •• 2 19 -28 4 9 8 43,682 55,075 * 17,960* 5.5. 44,559 52 ,793* 16,597* 6.2 * 2 4 8 -11 LUBBOCK SMSA Lubbock County; population: 179,295(1970);196,600 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percentage) 17,676 82,190 13,000 4.4 - 39 3 •• 33 42 4 10 5 74,778 83,637* 12,637* 3.8* 71,657 79,725* 11,227* 3.9* - 4 5 13 3 Percent change Percent change from 1978 Jun May Jun Jan-Jun Jan-Jun from Reported area and indicator 1978 1978 1977 1978 1977 1977 McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA Hidalgo County; population: 181 ,5 35 (1970); 230,300 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) 8,202 Nonfarm employment 60,000 Manufacturing employment 8,090 Unemployed (percentage) 10.9 -12 -2 3 2S -11 2 -10•• 47,S90 61,267* 7,940* 11.9* S0,1 16 S9,702. 8,233* 10.4* s 3 4 14 MIDLAND SMSA Midland County; population: 65,433 (1970); 71 ,400 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) S,11 7 Nonfarm employment 3S ,420 Manufacturing employment 3,400 Unemployed (percentage) 4.4 -27 I •• 26 3 9 20 -2 S0,336 34,247* 2,992. 4.o• 28,960 31,3S8* 2, 1s8• 4.o• 74 9 39•• ODESSA SMSA Ector County; population: 92,660 (1970); 100,900 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 4,0 30 Nonfarm employment 47,S40 Manufacturing employment 6,200 Unemployed (percentage) 4.4 26 •••• 47 137 6 1 •• 22,346 46,873 * 6, 137* 3.6* 23,646 44,100 * S,960 * 3.9* s 6 3 8 SAN ANGELO SMSA Tom Green County; population: 71,04 7 (1970); 77,200 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 2,239 Nonfarm employm ent 31 ,S 30 Manufacturing employment S,7 10 Unemployed (percentage) 3.7 -71•• -I 19 -2S 8 6 9 22,139 31,187* S,682* 3.3* 33,613 28,9SS. S,323* 3.S* -34 8 7 6 SAN ANTONIO SMSA Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe Counties; population: 888,179 (1970); 987,200 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percentage) 21,344 3S6,700 4S,2SO 7.2 -46 I I 29 -44 4 8 8 162,472 3S l ,12S* 44,300 * 6.3* 142,688 338,S SO* 40,967* 6.9* 14 4 8 9 SHERMAN-DENlSON SMSA Grayson County; population: 83,225 (1970); 81,900 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) IS,460 Nonfarm employment 33,120 Manufacturing employm ent 12,170 Unemployed (percentage) 6.1 842 I I 20 222 7 8 -12 21,83S 32,32S. 11,990* 6.o• 9,374 29,908* 10,74S* 7.3* 133 8 12 -18 TEXARKANA SMSA Bowie County, Texas; Little River and Miller Counties, Arkansas; population: 113,488 (1970); 117 ,800 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($1 ,000) 3,847 Nonfarm employment 42,440 Manufacturing emplo yment 8,480 Unemployed (percentage) 8. 1 (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-eounty regio n.) 28•• 3 14 90 3 3 II 24,090 41 ,862* 8,172. 7.S. 12,2S7 40,487 * 7,87 s. 7.7* 97 3 4 3 TYLER SMSA Smith County; population: 97,096(1970);108,900 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($1 ,000) 3,776 Nonfarm employment 46,320 Manufacturing employm ent 12,640 Unemployed (percentage) 5.0 -61•• 1 28 -S6 2 I 2 3S,016 4S ,990* 12,4 32. 4.s• 32,293 44,763* 12,332. 4.8* 8 3 1 6 WACO SMSA McLennan County; population : 14 7,553 (1970); 155,400 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($1 ,000) Nonfarm employment Manufacturing employment Unemployed (percentage) 4 ,S 66 6S,1 so I S,940 S.2 -14•••• 30 21 3 4 2 36,801 64,88S* IS,7S2* 4.8* 34,4S2 62,S 38 • 14,9S8* 4.9* 7 4 s 2 Percent change from Percent change 1978 Jun May Jun Jan-Jun Jan-Jun from Reported area and indicator 1978 1978 1977 1978 1977 1977 WICHITA FALLS SMSA Clay and Wichita Counties; population: 128,642 (1970); 129,200 (1976 est.) Urban building permits ($ 1,000) Nonfarm employment 1,501 49,210 - 73 •• - 82 3 25,365 48,878* 21 ,478 46,828* 18 4 Manufacturing employment 9,120 1 10 8,903* 7,738* 15 Unemployed (percentage) 3.9 26 - 7 3.6* 4.2* - 14 *Monthly average. ••Absolute change is less than one-half of 1 percent. Urban-building data are preliminary and subject to revision. Selected Barometers of Texas Business (Indexes-adjusted for seasonal variation-1967=100) Percent change Year-to- Jun date Index Junp 1978 Mayp 1978 Year-to­date average 1978 1978 from May 1978 average 1978 from 1977 Crude oil production 98.0 97.6 98.1 •• Total electric power use 228.3 216.3 221.7 6 9 Residential 282.6 257.2 273.5 10 11 Industrial 189.3 180.7 181.5 5 6 Total nonfarm employment 156.0 155.5 I 55.1 .. 4 Manufacturing employment 141.2 141.3 141.2 •• 6 Average weekly earn­ings-manufacturing 214.8 214.5 213.3 •• 9 Average weekly hours-manufacturing 98.5 98.7 98.6 •• •• Total unemployment 145 .6 149.4 161.0 3 - 7 Insured unemployment 200.0 206.2 213.3 3 - 15 Initial claims on unem­ ployment insurance 185.4 184.0 178.2 - 8 Preliminary. **Change is less than one-half of I percent. 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 e-.cept annual indc:-.c' are adju'1ed for seasonal variation unless otherwise noted. Employment estimates are compiled by the Te:-.as Employment Commhs1on in rnopl'rat1on \\ith the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The symbols used below impose qualifications as indicated here: p prcl11rnnar) data subject to revision; r-revised data; *-dollar totals for the fiscal year to date; t-employment data for wage and salary ll'Orkers onli. Jun May Jun Year-to-date average 1978 1978 1977 1978 1977 GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY Wholesale prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) 209.4 207.9 194.4 204.9 192.3 Consumer prices in Houston (unadjusted index) 207.S 191.6 202.2 188.0 Consumer prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) 19S. l 193.2 181.8 190.8 178.8 Sales of ordinary life insurance (index) 3S8.3 361.9 298.4 338.8 279.1 PRODUCTION Total electric power use (index) 228.3p 2 l 6.3p 202.9r 221.7 202.7 Residential electric power use (index) 282.6p 2s1.2P 239.8r 273.S 247.1 Industrial electric power use (index) 189 .3P 180.7p 1 7 l.6r 181.S 171.3 Crude oil production (index) .. 98.0p 97.6p 103.3r 98.1 103.6 Average daily production per oil well (bbl.) 17.3 17.3 18.0 17.4 18.0 Industrial production-total (index) 147.lp 146.Sp 141.1 r 14S.9 138.7 Industrial production-total manufactures (index) 1S8.0p 1S6.6p 149.0r 1 SS.8 146.4 Industrial production-durable manufactures (index) 167.7P 16S.Sp 1S3.2r I 6S.6 148.9 Industrial production-nondurable manufactures (index) 1so.JP 149.7p 14S.7r 148.0 144.4 Industrial production-mining (index) 116.7p 117.3P l 16.6r 116.9 11 S.3 Industrial production-utilities (index) 190.0p 190.0p l 89.2r 194.2 182.4 Industrial production in U.S. (index) 144.3p 143.8p 137.8r 141.6 13S.3 Estimated cost of urban construction by permits authorized (thousands) $ 743.2p $ 713.0p $ S91.3r $ 3,938.S s 2,888.3 Estimated new residential construction authorized (thousands) $ 329.3p $ 362.2p $ 31 o.sr $ 2,062.S $ 1,SS8.4 Estimated new residential units authorized (number) ll,233p 13,1S6p 13,090r 73,823 6S,788 Estimated new nonresidential construction authorized (thousands) $ 346.6p $ 289.9p $ 222.lr s 1,S28.4 s 1,032.6 AGRICULTURE Prices received by farmers (unadjusted index) 227 22Sr 18Sr 213 196 Prices paid by farmers in U.S. (unadjusted index) 218 21S 204 214 202 Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid by farmers . . .. 104.1 104.7 90.7 99.S 97.0 FINANCE Bank commercial loans outstanding (index) 268.2 2SS.4 206.9 243.1 201.1 Weekly condition report of large commercial banks, Dallas Federal Reserve District Loans (miJlions) .. . ­Loans and investments (millions) .. Adjusted demand deposits (millions) . -.. Revenue receipts of the state comptroller (thousands) Federal Internal Revenue collections (millions) $ 16,S47 $ 22,96S $ S,221 $ $ 3,312.2 $ 16,0S3 $ 22,46S $ 4,946 $ $ 2,43S.7 $ s $ $ $ 12,902 19,231 S,2S8 702.8 2,866.8 $ lS,470 $ 21,960 $ S,114 $ $ 18,328.0* s 12,373 $ 18,694 $ S,129 $ 636.9 $16,737.3* Securities registrations-original applications Mutual investment companies (thousands) . $ ll 8,3S2 $ 147,S81 $ 72,972 s 1,228,902* $ 874,312* All other corporate securities Texas companies (thousands) Other companies (thousands) .. . $ 22,010 $ 61,064 $ $ l 6,S40 22,32S $ $ 30,4S3 28,608 $ $ 140,91S* 241,S64* S 1 S4,820* s 140,710* Securities registration-renewals Mutual investment companies (thousands) Other corporate securities (thousands) . $ S0,608 $ 0 $ S2,437 $ 0 $ $ 41,180 3SO s $ 422,81S* S,766* s443,333* s 4.460* LABOR Total nonagricultural employment (index)t Manufacturing 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 . 1S6.0p 14 l.2p 98.Sp 214.8p S,104.Sp 946.3p S38.0p 408.3p 1SS .sP l 41.3p 98.7p 214.Sp S,067.3p 936.8p S32.Sp 404.3p 149.4r l 34.6r 99.0r 200.0r 4,S87.7r 902.2r SOI.Sr 400.7r lSS.l 141.2 98.6 213.3 S,02S.4 932.1 527.9 404.2 148.S 133.7 98.4 l 9S.l 4,812.S 883.1 488.6 394.S Total civilian labor force in selected labor market areas (thousands) .. 5,056.7p 4,888.6p 4,803.6r 4,898.9 4,674.7 Nonagricultural employment in selected labor market areas (thousands)t . . . . . . .. 4,341.3p 4,322.9p 4,144.lr 4,278.2 4,077.2 Manufacturing employment in selected labor market areas (thousands)t .. 798.0p 791.2p 762.9r 784.8 746.2 Total unemployment in selected labor market areas (thousands) ................ 270.lp 208.8p 282.5r 240.6 263.7 Percent of labor force unemployed in selected labor market areas Percent of total labor force unemployed 5.3P 5.2P 4.3P 4.2P 5.9r 5.7r 4.9 4.8 5.7 5.S BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, TEXAS THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712 The Only One: 1977-1978Directoryof TexasManufacturers If you buy or sell in Texas: Over 14,000 plants listed: name, address, telephone, executive officer, and product descriptions. Volume 1: plants listed by firm name and by city Volume 2: products listed by S.I.C. number and by city within each S.I.C. group. Includes complete addresses and an index. $40.00/set Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas at Austin Box 7459 Austin, Texas 78712