'-­ _, \ >J-S~, L.4 0 APRIL 1966 .. ~ : .., '" T -3 tri:-~-~IT¥ OF TEY A.c: APR me r. 14 , t: . t. ..,., . -,\ A Monthly Summary of B1isiness and Economic Conditions in Texas BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH: THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW VOL. XL, NO. 4, APRIL 1966 Editor: Stanley A. Arbingast I Associate Editor: Robert H. Ryan / Managing Editor: Robert H. Drenner Editorial Board: Stanley A. Arbingast, Chairman; John R. Stockton, Francis B. May, Robert H. Ryan, Robert H. Drenner CONTENTS 105: THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS by Robert B. Williamson 108: RECENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE IN THE STRUCTURE OF MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT IN THE SOUTHWESTERN STATES by Stephen L. McDonald 112: TEXAS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IN FEBRUARY by John R. Stockton 114: THE DECLINE OF DOWNTOWN SHOPPING by Robert H. Ryan CHARTS AND TABLES 105: TEXAS BUSINESS ACTIVITY 106: SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS 106: NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT: SELECTED LABOR MARKET AREAS 106: TEXAS INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION 107: BUSINESS ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR 20 TEXAS CITIES 107: INDEXES OF CONSUMER PRICES, U. S. AND HOUSTON, TEXAS 109: DISTRIBUTION OF MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY DIVISION, UNITED STATES AND STATES IN THE SOUTHWEST, 1939, 1947, AND 1958 110: AVERAGE MANUFACTURING WAGES PER WORKER IN THE U. S. BY MAJOR INDUSTRY DIVISION, 1939, 1947, AND 1958 110: ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENCES IN MANUFACTURING WAGES PER WORKER, SOUTHWEST AND U. S., 1939-1958 111: AVERAGE ANNUAL MANUFACTURING WAGES PER WORK­ER, U. S. AND STATES IN THE SOUTHWEST, 1939-1958 112: LOANS BY TEXAS SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS 112: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS 113: ESTIMATED VALUES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS 114: PERCENT CHANGES IN RETAIL SALES, 1958 TO 1963, IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS OF ELEVEN TEXAS CITIES, BY TYPE OF STORE 115: ESTIMATES OF TOTAL RETAIL SALES IN TEXAS 116 : LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS BUSINESS RESEARCH COUNCIL John Arch White, Dean of the College of Business Admin­istration (ex officio); John R. Stockton, Jessamon Dawe, Thomas E. Gossett, James R. Kay, Stephen L. McDonald, Kenneth W. Olm, and W. T. Tucker BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH Director: John R. Stockton Associate Director and Resources Specialist: Stanley A. Arbingast Assistant to the Director: Florence Escott Consulting Statistician: Francis B. May Administrative Assistant: Juanita Hammons Research Associate: Charles 0. Bettinger, Pearl Clark, Robert H. Drenner, Ida M. Lambeth, Robert M. Lock­wood, Margaret J. Ritchie, Robert H. Ryan, Elizabeth R. Turpin, Joyzelle Wilke, Robert B. Williamson Research Assistant: Howard D. Brecht, Hans Dieter Kurz, Robert E. Oefinger, John E. Specht, Jr., Robert D. Spellings Administrative Secretary: Margaret F. Smith Senior Secretary: Faye Whobrey SeniOT Clerk Typist: Pamela Binkley, Lois Conrad, Claire Howard, Carolin Smyth, Sharon Wheat Cartographer: Lois Leonard, Mary Paxton, Mary Helen Parks Library Assistant: Merle Danz Statistical Assistant: Mildred Anderson, Constance Cooledge, Jo Neman Statistical Technician: Doris Dismuke, Mary Gorham Clerical Assistant: Berge Garabedian Offset Press Operatv:-: Robert Dorsett, Daniel P. Rosas The Bureau of Business hesearch is a member of the Associated University Bureaus of Business and Economic Research. Published monthly by the Bureau of Business Research, College of Business Administration, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas. 78712. Second-clas!.I postage paid at Austin, Texas. Content of this publication is not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely. The views expressed by authors are not necessarily those of the Bureau of Business Research. Acknowledgment of source will be appreciated. Subscription. $3.00 a year; individual copies, 25 cents. THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS by Robert B. Williamson The Texas busines activity index resumed its upward trend in February after three months of approximate stability. The seasonally adjusted business index, which is based on bank debits activity corrected for changes in the price level, rose 1 % in February to 169% of the 1957-59 average. An annual growth rate of 10% was reflected by the index during the first two months of the year compared with the same months of 1965. Major cities showing the sharpest growth rates over this period and the percent increases in their business activity indexes were: Dallas, 14%; Beaumont, 14%; San Angelo, 12%; and Amarillo, 11% . The expansion in Texas business continues to be broad­ ly based in terms of types of activity as well as in terms of geographic dispersion. Seasonally adjusted gains for February were reported for the state totals and for the major components of several important economic se­ ries, including nonfarm employment, construction authori­ zations, and retail sales. A continuation of a high level of general business in Texas into the month of April was indicated by the employment forecasts of the Texas Employment Com­ mission. This indication is especially noteworthy, since employment levels are a good measure of general busi­ ness and the Commission's forecasts of nonfarm employ­ ment--which are based on a survey of employers' hiring plans-have been fairly accurate in the past. The pro­ jected Texas nonfarm employment total for April repre­ sents a rise of 1% from February, or about the normal seasonal increase. Including agricultural employment, the expected increase from February to April in total em­ployment in the state amounts to 1.6%. Major labor market areas having the largest anticipated percentage gains in nonfarm employment from February to April were: Wichita Falls, with a gain of 1.8%; Brownsville­Harlingen-San Benito, up 1.6%; Austin, up 1.5%; and Dallas, plus 1.5%. Actual employment conditions in the state through February reveal a vigorous growth in demands for work­ers and a tightening labor market. The employment of nonag'"icultural wage and salary workers in Texas reg­isterea a seasonally adjusted gain in February to reach a level nearly 5% higher than a year earlier. Manu­facturing continued to pace the current upswing with a year-to-year employment gain of over 6%, or slightly more than the corresponding national gain of 5.4%. Texas manufacturing industries providing the largest number of new jobs compared with February 1965 were: electrical machinery, principally electronics; transportation equip­ment, mainly aircraft and parts; and apparel and related textile products. Nonmanufacturing industry groups ac­counting for large employment increases over the 12­month period included: (1) the trades, led by wholesale trade and by general-merchandise retail stores, with the latter being especially stimulated by the growth of shop­ping centers; (2) government, with the largest hiring increases being for teachers at all levels; (3) nonrail transportation; and (4) services generally. The growth in Texas employment at rates well be­yond the normal increase in labor supplies reduced total TEXAS BUSINESS ACTIVITY INDEX-ADJUSTED FOR SEASONAL VARIATION-1957-1959•100 250 250 NOTE: Shaded areas indicate periods of decline of total business activity in the United States. SOURCE: Based on bank debits reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and adjusted for seasonal variation and changes .ln the price level by the Bureau of Business Research. APRIL 1966 105 SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (Indexes-Adjusted for seasonal variation-1957-59= 100) Percent change Year-to­ date Index Feb 1966 Year-to­date Jan average 1966 1966 average Feb 1966 1966 from from Jan. 1966 1965 Texas business activity. .169.0 168.0 168.5 + 1 + 10 Crude petroleum prodllction . 98.4* 100.4* 99.4 2 + Crude oil runs to stills . .. 113.1 117.2 115.2 3 + Total electric power use. .186.7* 181.7* 184.2 + 3 + 21 Industrial electric power use. .. 178.1. 171.5* 174.8 + 4 + 14 Bank debits ....178.0 175.7 176.9 + 1 + 14 Miscellaneous freight carload- ings in S.W. district. 79.8 79.7 79.8 •• + Ordinary life insurance sales. .178.9 155.7 167.3 + 15 + 9 Total retail sales. .. 131.4* 129.6r + + 3 Durable-goods sales .143.7* 134.4r + 7 Nondurable-goods sales .. 125.0* 127.2r 2 + Building construction authorized. .157.1 130.5 143.8 + 20 + 24 New residential .... 117.9 113.0 115.5 + 4 + 18 New nonresidential . 214.9 162.8 188.9 + 32 -43 Total industrial production .142.9* 142.1 * 142.5 + 1 + 10 Total nonfarm employmentt. .121.2* 120.8* 121.0 •• + 5 Manufacturing employmentt .. 122.6* 121.9r 122.3 + + 6 Total unemploymentt 79.0 81.0 80.0 -22 Insured unemploymentt 62.5 60.3 61.4 + 4 ·-31 Average weekly earnings­ manufacturingt 123.6* 123.3r 123.5 •• + 4 Average weekly hours­ manufacturingt .102.7* 101.7r 102.2 + •• *Preliminary. rRevised. **Change is less than one-half of 1o/o. tW.age and salary workers only. NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT : SELECTED LABOR MARKET AREAS Anticipated Feb Jan Feb AprilLabor market area 1966* 1966r 1965r 1966 Abilene 36,605 36,760 35,440 36,740 Amarillo 55,535 55,280 54,025 56,160 Austin 99,080 97,710 94,590 100,550 Beaumont-Port Arthur- Orange 112,500 112,000 108,500 111,800 Brownsville-Harlingen- San Benito 36,850 36,650 35,110 37,450 Corpus Christi 81,290 80,600 79.380 81,600 Dallas ... ··· ·· · ····. 552,690 552,710 523,830 560,970 El Paso 97,600 97.500 94,000 98,300 Fort Worth 243,200 242,700 234,500 245,800 Gal eston-Texas City 53,675 53,830 54,295 54,085 Houston 667,450 667,200 640,550 669,450 Laredo 21 ,625 21,490 19,925 21,660 Longview-Kilgore- Gladewater 32,670 32,635 30,570 32,745 Lubbock 60,810 61,225 58,235 60,885 McAllen . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,600 42,410 40,700 42,880 Midland-Odessa 57,245 57,050 56,01 5 57,615 San Angelo 21,610 21,345 20,275 21,625 San Antonio 236,600 236,810 228,925 237,450 T exarkana 33,640 33,615 32,235 33,770 Tyler 33,135 33, 130 32,485 33,515 Waco 53,630 53,735 52,525 53,825 Wichita Falls 47,020 47,480 46,035 47,865 Total, labor market areas . 2,677,060 2,673,865 2,572,145 2,696,740 Total, Texas . . ..........3,519,900 3,516,300 3,377,500 3,554,800 *P reliminary. rRevised. Source: Texas Employment Commission. 106 unemployment in the state in February to only 3.6% of the civilian labor force, the smallest jobless percentage for February in 14 years and sfgnificantly below the 4.9% rate of February 1965. For comparison, the national unemployment rate this February, while the lowest on a seasonally adjusted basis in 12 years, was still 4.4% on the same unadjusted basis as the Texas figure of 3.6%. The major labor market areas in Texas with the tightest job market conditions in February and their unemployment rates were: Austin, 2.4%; Houston, 2.6%; Dallas, 2.7% ; and Fort Worth, 3.0o/o. Wage incomes in the state have moved strongly up· ward in response to the tightening of job markets. Av­erage hourly earnings in Texas manufacturing in Feb­ruary reached $2.52, up 3.7% from a year ago. The cor­responding national figure was $2.67 per hour, for a gain of 3.1o/o. Earnings data for an incomplete list of Texas industries show that the steepest year-to-year in· creases in hourly earnings as of February 1966 were 7.1o/o for wholesale trade workers, 6.2% for petroleum refining, 6.0% for primary metals manufacturing, and 5.8% for transportation equipment manufacturing. Measures of industrial production activity in Texas showed mixed trends as of February. Most lines of manu· facturing apparently continued to expand their output. TEXAS INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION* INDEX -.ADJUSTED FOR SEASONAL VAIUATION-1957 -1 959 • 100 • Manufactures and minen.h (including crude -oil al'Jd natu ral-g;u production). NOTE: Shaded ar ea.• indicate period• of decline o! total business activity in tht United States, Industrial electric power use-which generally varies with factory output, even though it grows at a faster rate-rose nearly 4% after seasonal adjustment during February. Actual manufacturing production in Texas, as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, reg· istered a seasonally adjusted gain of 1% in February to reach a level 11o/o higher than a year ago, which rep­resents an annual growth rate significantly better than the corresponding 9% gain reported for the nation. Oil industry activity was slower in February. Crude· oil production declined more than the normal seasonal amount, despite an increase in the allowable production, and there were expressions of concern about the inability or unwillingness of the industry to produce up to the permitted level. Petroleum refinery activity in the state, as measured by crude-oil runs to stills, also showed a seasonally adjusted decline in February, suggesting the possibility that this part of the market for Texas crude oil was not expanding in February in line with the pro­duction allowables. An inability of the industry to in· crease quickly and economically its output with present production facilities, rather than any weakness in de· mand, is another possible explanation for the recent TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW BUSINESS ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR 20 SELECTED TEXAS CITIES (Adjusted for seasonal variation-1957-59= 100) P ercent cha nge Year-to- Index Feb 1966 Jan 1966 Year-to­date average 1966 Feb 1966 from Jan 1966 date average 1966 from 1965 Abilene ..... 132.7 140.9 136.8 6 + 3 Amarillo ... 183.7 169.5 176.6 + 8 + 11 Austin ........... 170.3 177.9 174.1 - 4 + 4 Beaumont .. 166.4 169.1 167.8 2 + 14 Corpus Christi ....134.8 130.3 132.6 + 3 + 9 Corsicana .. 139.2 136.7 138.0 + 2 + 7 Dallas ... 195.4 181.2 188.3 + 8 + 14 El Paso .......... 118.2 114.3 116.3 + 6 Fort Worth ... 129.8 127.0 128.4 + 2 + 7 Galveston .. : 109.4 115.9 112.7 6 + 8 Houston .175.9 181.7 178.8 3 + 8 Laredo ... 165.4 168.4 166.9 2 + 10 Lubbock ....... 167.9 188.5 178.2 -11 + 9 Port Arthur ...... 105.5 109.1 107.3 3 + 3 San Angelo ... 136.5 149.3 142.9 9 + 12 San Antonio .... 159.7 158.9 159.3 + 1 + 10 Texarkana ....... 165.6 174.9 170.3 + 7 Tyler ........ 151.3 141.3 146.3 + 7 + 4 Waco .. 147.o 151.1 149.1 + Wichita Falls .... 136.5 150.4 143.5 9 + Source: Based on bank debits reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and adjusted for seasonal variation and changes in the price level by the Bureau of Business Research. "underproduction" in the Texas oil industry. Leading indicators of industrial production in Texas point to a further rise in manufacturing in March and April. The manufacturing employment forecast of the Texas Employment Commission indicates an increase in the factory work-force of over 1% from February to April, or more than double the normal seasonal increase. Oil production allowables for April have been raised by the Texas Railroad Commission to an estimated 33.7% of maximum capacity, for the seventh straight monthly increase in the allowable rate. Construction authorizations in Texas registered a 20% increase during February, after correction for normal seasonal changes. The seasonally adjusted index of resi­dential building authorizations rose 4% from the prior month, and the adjusted level of nonresidential building authorizations shot up 32%. Construction authorizations in Texas during the first two months of 1966 were 24% higher than in the corresponding months of 1965, with nonresidential construction showing the strongest growth. Business investment in new plant and equipment is expected to rise another 16% nationally during 1966, or about the same as last year's high growth rate, accord­ing to the latest survey findings released by the gov­ernment in March. Investment increases scheduled this year by some of the industries that are especially im­portant in Texas include: a 45% increase by the non­automotive transportation equipment industry, which in­cludes aircraft and parts manufacturers; a 19% increase by the food and beverage manufacturing industry; a 16% increase by chemical producers; a 15% increase by pe­troleum refiners and related manufacturers; and a 16% increase by the overall mining group. Other recent developments suggest a slowing in some APRIL 1966 other types of business investment. Inventory investment weakened according to available national data for Janu­ary, and manufacturers throughout the nation reported that they planned a lower level of inventory investment in the first half of 1966 than they had achieved in the second half of 1965. Also, the increase in the bank prime lending rate in March to 5~% from 5%, for the second increase in three months, is bound to have some dis­couraging effect on business investment. Of course, some temporary restraints on private spending demands are considered necessary in view of the pressures of rising government military spending on the nation's production capacity. Consumer spending at retail stores in Texas decreased less than the normal seasonal amount in February, with purchases at automotive and other durable-goods stores showing an increase. Projected consumer demands for durable goods continue to be strong, according to a national survey conducted by the U. S. Bureau of the Census in January. Consumer plans to buy major house­hold appliances during the first half of 1966 were re­ported to be higher than a year ago, and plans to buy automobiles were reported to be at about the same level as a year ago. On the other hand, factors which tend to dampen prospects for further strong gains in retail sales include some increases throughout the coun­try on interest charges on automobile loans (principally on loans to dealers thus far) and on the other consumer­type loans. Another possible discouragement to further growth in the real volume of retail sales is the rise in consumer prices, which on a year-to-year basis amounted to 1.9% nationally and about 2.4% in the Houston area as of this January. Further sharp increases in consumer prices were recorded in February. The na­tional consumer price index rose to a level 2.5% higher than a year earlier and the report for Texas, which was for Dallas in February, showed a year-to-year increase of 3.4%. INDEXES OF CONSUMER PRICES, U. S. AND HOUSTON, TEXAS (Adjusted for seasonal variation-1957-59=100) Percent change Percent change J an Jan 1966 from 1965 1965 average from 1966 Feb 1965 average 1964 average All items United States .111.0 + 2 109.9 + 2 Houston, Texas . . 101.0 + 2 108.5 + 1 Food United States .... 111.4 108.8 + 2 Houston, Texas . 113.2 + 109.2 + 3 Housing United States .... . 109.2 Houston, Texas .. . 105.7 + 1 •• 108.5 105.2 + 1 •• Apparel and upkeep United States .... . 107.3 H ouston, Texas ... 107.4 + 1 + 2 106.8 106.9 + 1 •• T ransportation United States ..... 111.2 + 1 111.1 + 2 Houston, Texas .108.7 + 2 107.6 H ealth and recreation United States .....116.9 Houston, Texas .. . 117.7 + + 115.6 11 6.0 + + 3 ••Change is less than one-half of 1o/o. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor. RECENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE IN THE STRUCTURE EMPLOYMENT IN THE Stephen L. I. Introduction In the immediately preceding article in the present series on the recent economic development of the South­west1 it was shown that the region's development has been associated' with a marked change in the structure of employment. The dominant change observed was a de­cline in the proportion of the labor force engaged in agriculture, a decline that was substantially more rapid in the Southwest than in the country as a whole.2 The most rapid relative decline in agricultural employment in the Southwest occurred in the decade 1940-1950, which was also the period when outmigration from the region was high and the region made its most rapid relative gains in per capita income. As the proportion of workers in agriculture declined in the· Southwest, the proportions in all the nonagricul­tural sectors except trade and transportation grew sig­nificantly. Growth of the proportions in mining and manufacturing was much slower than growth of the pro­portions in such "tertiary" sectors as government serv­ices, finance, insurance, and real estate. Neverthele~, the rate of increase of employment in mining and manufac­turing was higher in the Southwest than in the country as a whole.3 The Southwest's relative growth in manu­facturing employment, while moderate, was continuous throughout the period since 1920, suggesting that ex­pansion of manufacturing activity played an important role in providing regional income earning opportunities to outmigrants from agriculture. However, neither the size ~or the continuity of manufacturing growth is ap­propnate to explain the highly irregular pattern of rela­tive per capita income change in the Southwest-decline in the 1920's and early 1930's, recovery in the late 1930's rapid rise in the 1940's, and little or no change in th~ 1950's. One must look to other changes, chiefly out­ *The author is professor of economics at The University of Texas. ~e gratefully acknowledges the research assistance of Mrs. Nur Keyder m the preparation of this article. 'Stephen L. McDonald, "Economic Development and Change in the Structur.e of Employment and Income Sources in the Southwestern States since 1920," Texas Business Review, Vol. XXXIX, No. 12 (De­cember 1965). pp. 328-335. The other articles in the series, by the same author, are: "Growth of Per Capita Personal Income in the Southwestern States since 1920," Texas Business Review, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 11 (November 1964). pp. 276-281; and "Economic De­velop.~ent and Population Shifts in the Southwestern States since 1920, Texas Business Review, Vol. XXXIX, No. 4 (April 1965), pp, 96-103. The Southwest is defined as the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New 1'.1ex1co, Oklahoma and Texas. The research underlying the series of a.rt•cles was made possible by a grant to the Department of Eco­nomics by Resources for the Future, Inc. 'Despite ~he more rapid reduction of the proportion of workers in agr1c~ture m the Southwest, the region still had about 9% of its work for~e m that industry in 1960, as compared with about 6% for the nation as a whole. 'Even so, only about 16% of the Southwest's work force was in manufacturing as late as 1960, as compared with about 27'1< for the United States as a whole. c OF MANUFACTURING SOUTHWESTERN STATES McDonald~ migration from the region and technical improvements in agricultural production, to provide an adequate explanation. Manufacturing is, of course, a very broad category of activities, ranging from steelmaking to printing, from petroleum refining to production of bakery goods. Al­though relative growth of manufacturing employment seems inadequate to explain the pattern of relative per capita income change in the Southwest, change in the composition of the region's manufacturing employment may have some explanatory power. Therefore, this final article of the present series examines change in the struc­ture of manufacturing employment in the Southwest, with particular attention to the effects of such change on the level of manufacturing wages per worker. II. Change in the structure of manufacturing employment Fully comparable data on the distribution of manufac­turing employment among industry divisions in the South­western states are available only for the manufacturing census years of 1939, 1947, and 1958. However, these years embrace two periods of great interest to our in­quiry. Within the 1939-1947 period, the Southwest reg­istered its marked relative gains in per capita income. The years 1947-1958 generally coincided with the period in which the Southwest only held its own in relative per capita income. A comparison of the two periods, therefore, may give some indication of the influence of change in the composition of manufacturing employment on relative per capita income. Table I shows the distribution of manufacturing em­ployment among twelve industry divisions in 1939, 1947, and 1958 for the United States and the five Southwestern states.• In the United States in 1939, the leading manu­facturing industries as measured by number of em­ployees were food, textiles and apparel, and metals and machinery-these four industries accounting for nearly 60% of total manufacturing employment. In the same year, the leading industries (accounting for about the same percentage of total manufacturing employment) in Arkansas and New Mexico were food and lumber; in Louisiana, food, lumber, and paper; in Oklahoma, food, lumber, petroleum refining, and metals; and in Texas, food, textiles and apparel, lumber, and petroleum refining. In all Southwestern states except Arkansas, food manufac­turing was about twice as important as an employer as in the United States as a whole; and in Arkansas, Lou­isiana, and New Mexico, lumber production was five to ten times as important as in the country as a whole. Oklahoma and Texas stand out for their heavy concen­tration of employment in petroleum refining. •Due to withheld data in one or more industrial categories in each of the states except Texas, it is not feasible to compile a detailed W. tribution of employment by industry for the Southwest as a whole. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW For the Southwestern states and the country as a whole, the trend from 1939 to 1947 was toward a more equal distribution of manufacturing employment among the various industry groups. In the United States as a whole, the percentages of manufacturing employment remained about the same in food and metals, decreased markedly in textiles and apparel, and rose significantly in michinery and transportation equipment. In Arkansas, large relative increases occurred in food and metals, while the proportion in lumber production was substan­tially reduced. Louisiana registered large relative reduc­tions in food, textiles and apparel, and lumber, and large relative increases in chemicals, petroleum refining, and transportation equipment. In New Mexico, manufacturing employment in chemicals and metals sharply increased in relative importance, while the percentage of the total engaged in lumber production fell by nearly one-half. In Oklahoma, food, lumber, chemicals, and petroleum refining declined in relative importance, the corresponding relative gains occurring chiefly in metals, machinery, and trans-­portation equipment. Finally, in Texas, relative reduc­tions occurred in textiles and apparel, lumber, and petro­leum refining, and relative increases in chemicals, metals, machinery, and transportation equipment. From 1947 to 1958, these trends generally continued, and in some instances intensified. The United States as a whole experienced a further reduction in the proportion of manufacturing employment in textiles and apparel, and a further increase in the proportion in transporta­tion equipment. Arkansas registered further relative gains in food and textiles and apparel, a marked new relative increase in machinery, and a continued steep relative decline in lumber production. In Louisiana, the percent­age of total manufacturing workers continued to decline substantially in textiles and apparel and lumber produc­tion, while significant increases occurred in the percent­ages in all other industry divisions except food and transportation equipment. In New Mexico, the propor­tion of manufacturing workers in lumber production was nearly halved again, while the proportion in chemicals fell back to its prewar level. The relative gains in New Mexico were registered chiefly in food, petroleum re­fining, machinery, and stone, clay, and glass products. Oklahoma continued to experience relative losses in em­ployment in food, lumber, chemicals, and petroleum re­fining, the relative gains being in metals, machinery, and transportation equipment. The previously established trends in Texas also persisted, with relative employment reductions in food, textiles and apparel, lumber, and pe­troleum refining, and relative employment increases in chemicals, metals, machinery, and transportation equip­ ment. , Thus, in 1958 manufacturing actiyity in the Southwest remained more heavily concentrated in the processing of primary products than in the country as a whole, but the difference was much smaller than in 1939. More­ over, in 1958 there was more variety in the primary products processed in the Southwest, the two more im­ portant growth products being chemicals and metals (largely aluminum). Outside the area of primary prod­ ucts processing, the two most notable relative advances in the Southwest between 1939 and 1958 were in the categories of machinery and transportation equipment, the latter representing chiefly aircraft manufacture. The Table 1 DISTRIBUTION OF MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY DIVISION, UNITED STATES AND STATES IN THE SOUTHWEST, 1939, 1947, AND 1958 (Percent of total manufacturing employment) Abs. total Area/Year Food T.A. Lum. Pap. Pri. Chem. Pet. Sto. Met. Mach. T.E. A.O. Total (thousands) United States 1939 . . .... 10.3 23.5 5.4 3.5 4.1 3.5 1.4 3.4 14.4 10.1 7.0 13.4 100.0 9,622.9 1947 . . . ... 10.1 16.2 4.4 3.1 5.0 4.4 1.5 3.2 14.9 16.4 8.3 12.5 100.0 14,294.3 1958..............11.0 13.5 3.8 3.6 5.6 4.5 1.2 3.6 14.0 16.1 10.1 13.0 100.0 15,393.8 Arkansas 1939 . .....10.2 (w) 56.3 4.4 2.5 5.0 2.0 3.1 1.6 0.3 0.3 100.0 41.9 1947 . ... 14.9 (w) 43.2 4.8 3.4 6.3 1.8 3.8 5.7 0.7 0.5 100.0 65.3 1958 . ... 17.2 11.2 24.2 5.9 3.4 3.7 1.8 3.8 5.9 4.7 1.2 17.0 100.0 87.9 Louisiana 1939 . .. . . . 26.9 9.5 28.3 10.4 2.6 5.5 4.2 2.3 2.6 (w) 2.1 100.0 88.7 1947 . . 21.7 6.5 22.0 10.7 3.0 9.7 9.5 2.5 3.4 1.5 7.1 2.4 100.0 132.5 1958 . .....22.3 (w) 12.5 12.4 3.9 11.9 10.5 4.8 6.9 2.3 5.1 100.0 136.4 New Mexico 1939 . ....22.3 (w) 46.5 9.4 2.6 ( w) 5.1 (w) ( w) (w) 100.0 4.1 1947 . .. . .. 22.5 3.9 25.2 9.9 16.3 (w) 4.3 7.0 0.4 (w) 100.0 7.6 1958 . . .. . . . ... 25.7 (w) 13.3 10.5 2.5 4.8 7.8 (w) 4.2•• (w) 100.0 13.6 Oklahoma 1939 . ... 29.3 ( w) 9.1 0.7 7.6 3.4 15.6 8.4 11.4 6.7.. 0.4 100.0 38.2 1947 . .... . 26.1 ( w) 4.2 0.7 9.1 2.9 13.5 7.9 12.5 11.3.. 2.4 100.0 55.4 1958 . . .. . 19.0 (w) 2.6 0.8 7.5 1.5 8.1 8.4 13.3 14.3 12.6 100.0 80.8 Texas 1939 . .20.0 13.8 15.9 1.2 5.3 5.5 15.2 4.1 5.8 7.1 2.2 3.9 100.0 166.4 1947 . .....19.4 10.2 10.3 1.6 6.0 7.9 12.7 3.6 8.4 8.5 7.0 4.4 100.0 297.1 1958 . .16.2 8.7 3.7 2.1 5.7 8.3 9.2 4.6 11.4 10.1 13.9 6.1 100.0 466.4 ..Excludes electrical machinery. (w) Information withheld to protect confidentiality• . . None reported, or impossible to compute due to withheld information. Abbreviations: T.A., textiles & apparel; Lum., lumber & prod.; Pap., paper & prod.; Chem., chemicals & allied prod.; Pri., printing & pub­lishing; Pet., petroleum & coal prod.; Sto. stone, clay & glass prod.; Met.. primary & fabricated metals; T.E., transportation equipment; A.O., all other (tobacco, furniture, leather, rubber, instruments, & miscellaneous). Sources: Ce?l.8U8 of Manufactures, 1939, 1958. APRIL 1966 109 Table 2 AVERAGE MANUFACTURING WAGES PER WORKER* IN THE U. S. BY MAJOR INDUSTRY DIVISION. 1939. 1947. AND 1958 (Dollars per year) Year Industry division 1939 1947 1958 Food products .l,294 2.6Z8 4,446 Tobacco products 904 1,841 3,488 Textiles . 941 2,299 3,259 Apparel . l,014 2,336 3,037 Lumber & products . . . . . . 955 2,104 3,417 Furniture ... l ,108 2,556 3,995 Paper . l,375 2,847 5,00ii Printing & publishing. ...... 1,770 3,183 5,184 Chemicals ...... 1,536 3,021 5,646 Petroleum & coal, products . ... l,791 3,487 6,233 Rubber & products. ....... l,515 3,024 4,954 Leather & products . 935 2,280 3,282 Stone, clay & glass products... . 1,303 2,620 4,684 Primary metals ................... 1,504 3,106 5,749 Fabricated metals ... . ....... l,495 2,916 5,116 Nonelectrical machinery .. 1,631 3,109 5,4 17 Electrical machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . l,551 2,834 4,995 Transportation equipment .. l,698 3,148 5,883 Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d) 2,868 5,323 Miscellaneous ......... l,311 2,596 4,983 All industry divisions . .l,334 2,777 4,791 •Total manufacturing payrolls divided by total employees. (d) ·Data withheld to protect confidentiality, but included in all-in­ dustry average. Source: Census of Manufactures, 1999, 1947, 1958. most notable relative decline in manufacturing employ­ment in the Southwest between 1939 and 1958 was in lumber production. What of the timing of these changes in the composi­tion of manufacturing employment? Do they throw light on the finding that the Southwest made relative per capita income gains in the 1939-1947 period but not in the 1947-1958 period? In general, the answer is No. The degree of structural change in manufacturing employ­ment was about the same in both periods, and the trends in individual industries were in nearly all cases the same in both periods. III. The structure of employment and manufacturing wages per worker With a view to more precisely measuring the income effect of structural change within manufacturing employ­ment, it is useful to analyze the differences between aver­age manufacturing wages in the Southwestern states and the average manufacturing wage in the United States as a whole. These differences have an important structural component, as will be seen. Table 2 shows average manufacturing wages per work­er in the United States by industry division for the three manufacturing census years of 1939, 1947, and 1958. It is readily apparent that the average wage varies widely from one industry to another and that the relationships among the averages are rather stable. Some industries are in all years relatively low-wage industries, while other industries are in all years relatively high-wage industries. Since the relationships among the average wage levels are persistent, it can be assumed that they reflect chiefly differences in the teehnologies and skills employed in the various industries and differences in the cost of acquiring the various skills, rather than tempo­rary misallocation of labor resources among industries.• Among the persistently low-wage industries are the food, textiles, apparel, and lumber industries.-industries found in heavy concentration in the Southwest in 1939, but which declined in relative importance to 1958. Among the per­sistently high-wage industries is one (petroleum and coal products) which declined in relative importance in the Southwest from 1939 to 1958, but four others (chemicals, metals, machinery, and transportation equipment) which increased in relative importance in the same period. It is possible, then, that the structural changes observed within manufacturing employment carried with them an increase in the Southwest's average manufacturing wage relative to the national average, and to that extent helped raise the Southwest's relative per capita income. The first two columns of Table 3 show that in all three census years the average manufacturing wage in each of the Southwestern states was lower than the average manufacturing wage in the United States as a whole. In 1939 the differences ranged from $525 per year (Arkansas) to $79 per year (Oklahoma); in 1947, from $876 per year (Arkansas) to $185 per year (Ok­lahoma); and in 1958, from $1,513 per year (Arkansas) to $57 per year (Texas). These differences may be at­tributed to a combination of two kinds of influence. First, 'Some part of the observed persistent differences may resuh from semi-permanent misallocation of labor resources due to geographical immobility or imperfect knowledge of opportunities. In addition, 11et11i­permanent differences may arise from variations in union influence on wages and conventional practices governing employment of women and racial minorities whose alternatives are restricted. Table 3 ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENCES IN MANUFACTURING WAGES PER WORKER,* SOUTHWEST AND U. S., 1939-1958 (Dollars per year) Av. mfg. Difference due Difference due wage per Difference, to mfg. to rate Year/ Area worker state-U.S. composition differential 1939 U.S. . . 1.334 s.w. ... l ,095 239 -35 -204 Ark. 809 525 -218 -307 La. 972 362 -93 -269 N.M. . .... l.022 312 -133 -179 Okla. ... l,255 79 + 87 -166 Tex. .. l ,199 135 + 16 -151 1947 U.S. .2,777 s.w. . ....2,422 355 -11 -344 Ark. ...... l,901 876 -303 -573 La. .2.339 438 -85 -353 N.M. . ....2,401 376 -122 -254 Okla. . ....2,592 185 + 114 -299 Tex. . .....2,543 234 + 47 -281 1958 U.S. . 4,791 s.w. .....4,510 -281 +104 -385 Ark. .....3,278 -1,513 -555 -958 La. .4.532 259 + 50 -309 N.M. ....4,302 489 -136 -353 Okla. ....4,556 235 +21l -446 Tex. ......4,734 57 +232 -289 •Total manufacturing payrolls divided by total employees. Source: Com puted from Census of Manufactur es, J9S9, 19.7. 1958. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW some part is due to composition of manufacturing em­ployment-the relative proportions of employment in high-, intermediate-, and low-wage industries. Second, some part is due to rate dift'_erential-differences between a state and the United States in the average manufactur­ing wage in a given industrial category, such as ma­ichinery manufacture. The difference due to composition in each state is found by calculating what the average manufacturing wage in that state would be if the manu­facturing employment composition were the same but the average wage in each separate industry were equal to the national average for that industry,6 and then sub­tracting the national average manufacturing wage from the result. Since the hypothetical state avera·ge wage so calculated eliminates all influences of rate differential, the difference between the hypothetical state average and the national average must be due to composition. Any un­explained difference remaining between the actual state average and the national average is then due to rate differential. The calculated differences due to composition and rate differential are shown in the third and fourth columns, respectively, of Table 3. Negative differences due to composition indicate that the states affected have rela­ tively high proportions of low-wage industries in their manufacturing employment compositions. Negative dif­ ferences due to rate differential indicate that the states affected have, on the whole, lower manufacturing wage rates in any given industry than the nation. Our find­ ings indicate that relatively low rates of compensation are much more important than adverse employment structures in accounting for the relatively low average manufacturing wages typical of the Southwestern states. Indeed, in 1939 and 1947 both Oklahoma and Texas en­ joyed relatively favorable employment structures, and in 1958 they were joined by Louisiana. In 1939 and 1947 the Southwest as a whole had a slightly unfavorable em­ ployment structure in manufacturing, but by 1958 its structure had become favorable. The data in Table 3 indicate that between 1939 and 1958 every state in the Southwest experienced an im­ provement in its manufacturing employment structure, i.e., a reduction in the proportion of low-wage industries. The negative differences due to composition declined as fractions of total differences, and positive differences due to composition increased as fractions of total dif­ ferences. Except in the case of Arkansas, the improve­ ment was somewhat larger between 1947 and 1958 than between 1939 and 1947. Thus this type of improvement is not correlated with relative per capita income growth in the Southwest. The effect of employment composition on the average manufacturing wage in the Southwestern states can use­ fully be shown in another way. In Table 4, the first two columns give the average manufacturing wage in each area and the percentage relationship of that wage to the United States average. The third and fourth columns give the average manufacturing wage in each area, ad­ justed for difference from the United States in employ­ ment composition, and the percentage relationship of the adjusted wage to the United States average. The ad­ "The average is calculated by weighting the national average wage in each industry with the percentage of state manufacturing em­ployment in that industry. Table 4 AVERAGE ANNUAL MANUFACT RING WAGES PER WORKER,* U. S. AND STATES IN THE SOUTHWEST, 1939-195 Av. mfg. wage per worker Av. mfg. wage per worker, adjusted•• Year/ Area Amount Percent of U.S. Amount P ercent of U.S. 1U39 U.S. Sl,334 100.0 $1,334 100.0 s.w. 1,095 82.1 1,130 84.7 Ark. 809 60.6 1,027 77.0 La. 972 72.9 1,065 79.8 N.M. 1,022 76.9 1,155 86.6 Okla. 1,255 94.1 1,168 87.6 Tex. 1,199 89 .9 1,183 88.7 1947 U.S. 2,777 100.0 2,777 100.0 s.w. 2,422 87.2 2,433 87.6 Ark. 1,901 68.5 2,204 79.4 La. 2,339 84.2 2,424 87.3 N.111. 2,401 86.5 2,523 90.9 Okla. 2,592 93.3 2,478 89.2 Tex. .. 2,543 91.6 2,496 89.9 1958 U.S. 4,791 100.0 4,791 100.0 s.w. 4,510 94.1 4,406 92.0 Ark. 3,278 68.4 3,833 80.0 La. 4,532 94.6 4,482 93.6 N.M. 4,302 89.8 4,438 92.6 Okla. 4,556 95.1 4,345 90.7 Tex. 4,734 98.8 4,502 94.0 •Total manufacturing payrolls divided by total employees. •• Adjusted for difference (from U.S.) in structure of manufacturing employment. Source: Computed from Census of Manufactures, 1939, 1947, 1958. justed wage represents what the average wage would be in each area if the composition of manufacturing employment in that area were the same as in the United States as a whole. The difference between the adjusted area wage and the actual U. S. wage is, then, due entirely to rate differential. In a given state, the percentage rela­tionship between the adjusted wage and the United States average is higher than that between the actual wage and the United States average when that state has an unfav­orable employment structure. In the Southwest as a whole, the actual average manu­facturing wage rose from 82% of the national average in 1939 to 87% in 1947 and 94% in 1958, a gain of twelve percentage points over the entire period. But the gain in the adjusted wage was much smaller, because a substantial part of the gain in the actual wage was due to improvement in employment composition. Thus in 1939 the Southwest's adjusted manufacturing wage was about 85% of the national average, a figure which rose to nearly 88% in 1947 and 92% in 1958. The overall gain in the adjusted wage ratio was only seven percent­age points from 1939 to 1958. The same general pattern of change holds for each of the states in the region. Since the adjusted wage increased somewhat more rapidly from 1947 to 1958 than from 1939 to 1947, it must be concluded that neither improvement in manu­facturing composition nor improvement in the relative rate of manufacturing compensation is correlated with relative per capita income growth in the Southwest. Both APRIL 1966 types of improvement were persistent influences tending to raise relative per capita income in the region through­out the period from 1939 to 1958, so it is necessary to consider other influences to explain why Southwestern relative per capita income rose only in the 1940's and barely held its own in the 1950's. The findings here reinforce the earlier impression that variation in out­migration from the region is the key to the historical pattern of change in the Southwest's relative per capita income. IV. Summary Between the manufacturing census years of 1939 and 1958 there was a marked change in the structure of manufacturing employment in the Southwestern states. The proportion of total manufacturing employees in lum­ber production declined most steeply, but the proportions in food processing, textiles and apparel manufacture, and petroleum refining also fell significantly. The chief in­dustries in which 'the proportions of total manufacturing employees increased were chemicals, metals, machinery, and transportation equipment. In general, between 1939 and 1958 the composition of manufacturing employment in the Southwest became more like that in the United States as a whole, and the changes in this direction were _ about equally distributed between the 1939-1947 and 1941'-1958 perio ds. ... -The structur al changes des cribed had a favorable ef­ fect on the average manufacturing wage in the Southwest relative to the national average. The proportion of South­western employees in relatively low-wage industries de­clined, and the proportion in relatively high-wage in­dustries increased. Roughly half of the region's gain in average manufacturing wage relative to the United States average from 1939 to 1958 was due to improved composition of employment, the remainder being due to relatively improved rates of compensation in any given industry. Both types of improvement proceeded some­what more rapidly from 1947 to 1958 than from 1939 to 1947, so they do not help explain why the Southwest's per capita income improved relatively only during the 1939-1947 period. This finding reinforces the impression that the pattern of outmigration from the region best explains the record of change in relative per capita income. LOANS BY TEXAS SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS P ercent change Type Feb 1966 January-February 1966 1965 Jan-Feb 1966 from Jan-Feb 1965 Number ALL LOANS 4,871 9,811 10,552 - 7 Construction 895 1,838 2,162 -15 Purchase Other 2,778 1,198 5,326 2,647 5,077 3,313 + 5 -20 Value (thousands of dollars) ALL LOANS 77,097 150,497 153,207 - 2 Construction Purchase Other 18,251 41,897 16,949 39 ,446 78,040 33,011 33,588 68,620 50,999 + 17 + 14 -35 Source: Federal Home Loan Bank of Little Rock. TEXAS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IN FEBRUARY by John R. Stockton After starting off 1966 with a sharp drop in Texas construction authorized in January, the industry came back with a 16% increase in February. However, this sharp rise was still not enough to reach the value of permits issued in December. The year 1965 was a record year for total building construction authorized in Texas, although the fact that the first part of last year was comparatively slow makes the first two months of this year look favorable when compared with the same period of last year. Total building for the first two months of 1966 was 24% above the first two months of 1965. The pattern of building in February followed the fa­miliar trend in 1965, with nonresidential permits stronger than residential. The former rose 22% in February over January, while the latter were up 4%. In compari­son with the first two months of 1965, residential was up 18% and nonresidential 43%. BUILDING CONSTRUCTIO AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS INDEX -ADJUSTED FOR SEASONAL VAll.4TION-l957.J959·100 250 250I 200 200 . I 150 150 ,~ l3W JU I I hi\ l'J~ -Ar. -~ I' ,.,. ,. v JI" ..rJV, • lill&1i1 J1.. i!IV 100 100 \}\ fWJ ~ "'·-. 50 50 0 0 1954 '55 56 '57 '58 '59 '60 '61 '62 '63 '64 65 1966 NOTE: Shaded a reas indicate periods of decline o f total b111 ineu activity in the United Statu, There seems to be nothing to warrant alarm in the current statistics on building authorized in Texas, but there is reason to believe that it is more important to look at the factors shaping up on the national scene than to study the past record. The past six years have wit­nessed a very high level of business activity, which has inevitably had a considerable influence on the building industry. In the first place, the improved level of business has had a stimulating effect on the construction of build­ings for business use, which make up a substantial part of the nonresidential category. With the business situation still indicating a rising level of business, the demand for business structures has continued strong. The growing school population, first in the public schools and more recently in college, has kept the level of construction of schools and other educational build­ings at a high rate. There is no reason to assume that the college enrollment in Texas will not go on increasing, which seems to assure a continuation of the high level of building in this type of structures. Churches and hos­pitals derive their need from a growing population, and in periods of high income there is more construction of these types of buildings than in periods of economi~ decline. The need for additional hospital facilities con­tinues urgent, and there is good reason to believe that TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW there will be no letup in hospital construction. The growth of cities continues to stimulate the need for more public buildings, and the high level of income prevailing has made it possible to issue bonds for many types of public improvements. Thus it appears that most of the major types of nonresidential building can look forward to a continuation of the high level of activity that has characterized recent years. Even with the increased importance of nonresidential building, residential building still accounts for a larger value than all types of nonresidential building authorized in Texas. This segment of the industry has not been reg­istering as great increases as nonresidential, and it is significant to look into the prospects for the future. The first factor that is generally mentioned is the rising cost of construction. This factor is evident in increased wage rates, increased material prices, rising land costs, and higher interest rates. In spite of this inflationary trend in costs, the demand of consumers has been for larger and better homes. Instead of the rising costs causing buyers to choose cheaper houses in an effort to keep the total price down, the reverse has been the gen­eral rule. The substantial increase in one-family homes authorized during the first two months of 1966 in com­ parison with the same period in 1965 gives some indi­ cation of the strength of the demand from consumers wanting higher-priced housing. The passage of the new GI housing bill offers promise of stimulating the demand for homes in the price range between $11,000 and $15,000. If this increase in demand were added to the strong showing in the higher-priced houses, it is possible that a strong upswing in residential building could be in the making. The housing bill opens the way for a large number of Texas veterans, since it covers all honorably discharged veterans who served at least six months on active duty after January 31, 1955. It is to be expected that its impact on the residential housing market will be felt during 1966 and in following years. The increase in building-materials costs between Jan­ uary 1966 and a year earlier is measured by the De­ partment of Commerce composite cost index, which rose from 113% to 117% of the 1957-59 base in the twelve­ month period. Hourly wages rates for skilled construc­ tion workers rose from $4.823 in January 1965 to $5.064 in January 1966, while common labor rose from $3.307 to $3.496 over the same period. The wage increases in the building trades last year were generally above other industries, and indications are that it will be difficult to hold the line on increases in 1966. Contractors would like to hold increases to the Administration's guidelines of 3.2%, but there is strong likelihood that new wage contracts negotiated this year will exceed the guidelines, thus further increasing the cost of housing. The wholesale price index of all construction materials showed a smaller rise than wage rates during 1965. In December 1964 it was 99.7% of the 1957-59 base, and in December 1965 it was 101.4% of the base. In addition to the rise in labor and material costs is the fact that land costs are rising even more rapidly, with the overall result that the cost of housing is being inflated by every component. APRIL 1966 ESTIMATED VALUES OF BUlLDING A THORIZED lN TEXAS Percent change Feb Jan-Feb 1966 1966 Feb 1966 Jan-Feb 1966 from from Classification (thousands of dollars} Jan 1966 Jan-Feb 1965 ALL PERMITS ...$154,2 6 S2 7,523 + 16 24 New construction ...... 136, 20 25 ,411 13 Residential (housekeeping} 69,200 135,473 + 4 18 One-family dwellings 51. 795 104,604 2 13 Mutiple-family dwellings ... 17,405 30, 69 + 29 + 37 Nonresidential buildings .......... 67,620 122,93 22 + 43 Nonhousekeeping buildings (residential} 2,11 2, 70 +1 2 -3 Amusement buildings 553 1,000 + 24 -48 Churches ..... 2,424 4,39 + 23 -29 Industrial buildings. 4,060 17,316 -69 + 1 Garages (commercial and private} 743 2,013 -41 + 74 Service stations 1,623 2,939 23 + 23 Hospitals and institutions ... 3,651 6,257 + 40 + 84 Office-bank buildings 26,0 7 29,935 +57 + 49 Works and utilities.. 432 2,979 -83 + 2 Educational buildings 13,011 27,190 - 8 + 63 Stores and mercantile buildings ........ 11,760 21,091 + 26 36 Other buildings and structures ····-··· 1,15 4,950 -69 + 188 Additions, alterations, and repairs ······-··­ 17,466 29,112 50 - 4 METROPOLITAN vs. NO METROPOLITAN' Tot.al metropolitan .... 136,075 249,826 + 20 + 31 Central cities 113,244 195,464 + 38 + 32 Outside central cities. 22, 31 54 ,362 -2 + 26 Total non metropolitan 1 .211 37,697 - 7 - 8 10,000 to 50,000 population .. 11,229 19,6 9 + 33 -16 Less than 10,000 population .... .. 6,9 2 1 ,00 -37 + 3 •As defined in 1965 by the Bureau of the Census. Source: Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau o~ the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce. One of the most-publicized factors in the prospects of the building industry is the tightening of credit and rising interest rates. During the past year, interest rates have risen substantially, and now from 6% to 6!%, with the possibility of going much higher. The increase in the FHA interest rate from 5!% to 5i% may be an important factor in the refinancing of existing homes, and since the ability to sell an old house is frequently a factor in the decision to buy a new one, it is a favor­able factor in the prospects for building. There is no immediate indication that the money mar­ket will become any easier in the near future. The in­creased cost of money does not seem to be having any depressing effect on the demand for loans; the most important factor seems to be the availability of credit, and the increased interest being paid on saving accounts in order to lure more deposits seems to be the most immediate effect observable. There seems to be little indication at the present time that building activity in the immediate future will be restrained by higher credit costs. THE DECLINE OF DOWNTOWN SHOPPING by Robert H. Ryan "What boom?" That is the question being asked these days in the downtown retail shopping districts in Texas and in cities throughout the nation. Where are the cus­tomers going? They seem to be going almost every place except downtown. Problems of retailing in some central business districts may be slightly exaggerated, and down­town trade does respond to certain remedies, the chief one of which is provision of enough low-charge or free parking sp~ce. Yet, only one of Texas' 11 leading re­tailing cities showed an improvement in downtown store sales between 1958 and 1963. That is the finding of the most recent Census of Business released by the U. S. Bureau of the Census. Sales in the Central Business Dis­ trict (CBD) of El Paso advanced by 2.6% over the :five­ year period, and Houston's downtown merchants approxi­ mately held their own. Elsewhere, sales to downtown shoppers plunged by as much as 17.3% in Dallas, 17.4% in Amarillo, and 21.8% in Beaumont. Perhaps more sig­ nificantly, sales of general merchandise stores, which in­ clude department stores, dropped in every one of the 11 cities, as tabulated below. A city-by-city review of the downtown retail trends from 1958 to 1963 may indicate that even most favorable aggregate sales figures mask some alarming problems. Houston's downtown retailing showed no significant overall change, yet most types of downtown retailing dropped sharply. It was only because Houston has a high concentration of automotive dealers in the Central Busi­ ness District that the sales record looked as good as it did. Automotive sales in downtown Houston grew from $111 million in 1958 to $138 million in 1963, represent­ ing about 40% of all automotive sales in the city. By contrast, more than two-thirds of all department store sales in Houston are in suburban centers, and the vol­ ume of sales in suburban department stores was not far from doubling (+84.7%) over the five years. The number of retail stores in downtown Houston declined by 134, but most of those that closed were convenience re­ tailers: gasoline stations, drugstores, and small eating places. Of course, there are no firm guides for defining the limits of the Central Business District in ariy given city. In each major city investigated in detail by the Bureau of the Census, the Bureau enlists the help of a local advisory committee, responsible for outlining the down­town retail area. The Census Bureau describes the Cen­tral Business District in any city as being an area char­acterized by "very high land valuation ... a high con­centration of retail businesses, offices, theaters, hotels, and service businesses . . . an area of high traffic flow." Within this broad definition, census tract committees in Texas cities have come up with Central Business District outlines differing sharply in the areas they contain. In Houston beyond the intensively developed Main Street and some adjacent shopping streets, downtown businesses sprawl across a very large area, roughly 40 blocks long and 30 blocks across. By contrast, the official CBD of Dallas is only about 15 blocks long and 6 blocks wide. This alone may help to account for the fact that retail sales were more than twice as great in downtown Hous­ton as in downtown Dallas, even though total sales in the two cities are not nearly that far apart. Dallas has lost a larger dollar volume of retailing from its CBD than any other Texas city, a decline of nearly $30 million annually within the five-year period 1958­1963, even while retail sales throughout the Dallas metro­politan area were rising by 27%. Sales fell sharply in almost all lines of retailing, partly in response to the opening of new suburban branches by some major down­town merchants. Clearly in Dallas as elsewhere the real losers have been small independent retailers committed to remaining downtown. In and around Preston Center, Dallas' top-volume suburban shopping development, sales rose during the five years to $44 million, more than one­third of the total downtown volume. And in four Oak Cliff shopping centers, all within a two-mile radius, sales topped $80 million, compared with $130 million in Dallas' CBD. In 1958, 60% of department store sales in Dallas were downtown; by 1963 the downtown share was reduced to 38% . Elaborate new suburban stores opened since 1963 have probably reduced the proportion further. Oddly, the only important consumer-oriented business that has flourished downtown in Dallas in recent years has been motion picture theaters. The number of sub­ urban movie houses has declined, and ticket sales down­ town have increased. Even the hotel trade in downtown PERCENT CHANGES IN RETAIL SALES, 1958 TO 1963, IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS OF ELEVEN TEXAS CITIES, BY TYPE OF STORE City All stores Lumber hardware, etc. General merchandise Food Automotive Apparel F urniture & appliances Eating places Amarillo -17.4 +34.7 -41.2 -55.7 +31.1 -38.5 - 4.9 - 17.6 Austin .... ...... .. ... ... ... -12.3 -11.2 -26.4 -23.9 +21.9 -33.2 -13.5 -10.0 Beaumont Corpus Christi El Paso .. ... .... .... .. -21.8 -6.2 + 2.6 + 8.8 (D) -25.5 -10.4 -18.4 -5.5 (D) (D) -35.7 -59.3 + 12.9 +29.1 -4.4 -21.7 + 14 .3 +53.3 -54.2 + 4.6 -31.4 + ao.7 -20.2 Dallas . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . Fort Worth ..... ... .. . -17.3 -14.7 ( D ) +13.7 -15.9 -17.8 -- 2.5 49.1 (D) +30.3 -11.9 -23.4 + 3.6 -43.1 -13.4 -24.4 Houston ..... ···•·· · · ·· ········ · - 0.1 - 2.5 - 2.6 - 16.6 +24.0 -17.4 -26.4 - 2.5 Lubbock . . . . . .. . .. ······ ··· · ·· · ·· · · - 8.9 - 17.4 - 8.0 +23.3 - 3.7 - 17.0 +21.0 -29.8 San Antonio . . . . . . . . . ..······ ···· ·· ··· Wichita Falls -- 1.8 8.9 -34.9 -17.4 -- 3.0 8.0 -16.2 +23.3 + - 9.2 3.7 + 4.0 -17.0 -16.7 +21.0 +10.s -29.8 (D) : Withheld to avoid disclosure of operations of individual stores. Source: U. S. Bureau of t he Census, 1963 Census of Business, Major Retail Center Statistics. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW ESTIMATES OF TOTAL RETAIL SALES IN TEXAS (Millions of dollars) Percent change Type of store Feb 1966 Jan-Feb 1966 Feb 1966 from Jan 1966 Feb 1966 from Feb 1965 Jan-Feb 1966 from Jan-Feb 1965 TOTAL ......Sl,053.0 $2,143.7 -3 + 3 + 3 Durable goods' 408.5 798.5 + 5 + 4 -1 Nondurable goods 644.5 1,345.2 -8 + 3 + 5 *Contains automotive stores, furniture stores, and lumber, building material, and hardware stores. Dallas, heavily promoted as a convention center, dropped by $2 million, a 13% cut, during the five years, while hotel and motel revenues throughout metropolitan Dallas rose 48%. (During the same years, downtown hotel rev­enues in Houston increased impressively.) San Antonio retailing is still rather heavily concen­trated in the Central Business District. In 1963 over 24% of all the city's retail sales were made downtown, as compared with 10% in Houston. In fact, San Antonio's downtown retailing volume is larger than Dallas', even though Dallas' population has substantially surpassed San Antonio's. The power of the CBD to attract cus­tomers in San Antonio is attested to by the fact that most clothing retailing and about half of the furniture and general merchandising retailing in the city were still carried on in the CBD at last count. Moreover, San An­tonio's downtown hotels and motels still dominate their line of business, an unusual pattern in the age of the expressway. Fort Worth has made the least impressive showing among Texas' major retailing centers in recent years. Over the five-year census period, sales sagged in furniture stores, drugstores, clothing stores, and many other types in Fort Worth as a whole. In fact, throughout the city retailing dollar volume was up only 6% (as compared with +12% in San Antonio, +18% in Dallas, and +24% in Houston). Fort Worth's one striking increase was in the sales of variety stores, which nearly tripled during the five-year period (the number of variety stores almost doubled) . While downtown department-store retailing in Fort Worth evidently declined in volume, it still counted for more than half the city's total. Clothing store sales, too, were still securely concentrated in the Fort Worth CBD in 1963. El Paso has sustained a large volume of downtown retail sales more successfully than any other major Texas city largely because of the growth of its family clothing stores. These stores have been notably successful in cap­turing a large volume of trade from the twin city of Juarez, Chihuahua, across the Rio Grande in Mexico. The Central Business Districts of the two cities, separated only by the international river, are conveniently situated to share their retailing facilities. This fact has undoubt­edly helped to support downtown traffic in El Paso. On the other hand, department stores have barely held their own either downtown or elsewhere in El Paso. Although there was some development of shopping centers in El Paso during the 1958-63 period, only the Bassett Shopping Center on Montana Avenue attained major-center status. Suburban shopping in El Paso continued to be more scattered than in most comparable cities. Austin's Central Business District has been especially hard hit by suburbanization. The biggest sales declines between 1958 and 1963 in the CBD were in apparel stores (-33%) and general-merchandise stores (-26%). In sharp contrast, general-merchandise stores' sales throughout the Austin metropolitan area increased by 122%. By 1963, Austin already had its first major planned shopping center, Capital Plaza. This center, to­gether with some adjacent stores, accounted for $20 million in sales in 1963, more than one-quarter as much as the volume of the entire CBD. By 1963, Austin had another major planned center, which unquestionably cut further into the sales potential of downtown retailers. Corpus Christi retailing as a whole did not expand between 1958 and 1963, yet retail sales in the CBD came fairly close to maintaining their 1958 volume. However, the strong points in downtown retailing were not the "shopping-goods" categories of stores. That is, general­merchandise stores and clothing stores lost ground in the CBD, and sales of furniture stores were halved. The only significant growth was in automotive sales; it hap­pens that in Corpus Christi over half the major auto­mobile dealers are located in the CBD. Also, downtown eating places and liquor stores, in Corpus Christi rather heavily dependent on tourist trade, tended to prosper over the five-year period, though downtown hotels and motels lost a good deal of their business to outlying establish­ments. Lubbock's Central Business District accounted for near­ly 40% of the city's total retail sales as recently as 1958, but five years of decline brought the share to 27.3% in 1963. The drop would have been greater if it had not been for the proliferation of small furniture stores in the downtown area over the period. The number of fur­niture stores in the CBD increased from eight to four­teen, with a commensurate increase in aggregate sales. Amarillo's total retail volume grew almost as rapidly from 1958 to 1963 as that in Lubbock, but the Amarillo CBD was even harder hit. In four department stores sales dropped 41.2%, and sales in apparel and accessories stores declined almost as fast. While downtown retailing revenues fell from $79 million to $65 million, sales rose to $19 million in just one of Amarillo's planned shopping centers, Sunset Center, together with adjacent stores. Beaumont and Port Arthur, the twin central cities of a single metropolitan area, experienced slower growth in retail sales during the five-year period than most major Texas cities. The major shopping center in smaller Port Arthur did almost as much business in 1963 ($28 mil­lion) as Beaumont's CBD ($34 million). Yet, these two areas of concentrated retailing together accounted for less than one-sixth of all retail sales in the two-county Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. Wichita Falls downtown retailing was relatively suc­cessful during the 1958-1963 period in that the loss of volume was only 2%, and that decline was attributable mainly to the downtrend in apparel stores and furniture stores. As of 1963, Wichita Falls department-store retail­ing, unlike that in many cities, was still heavily concen­trated in the CBD. Only one of the city's four depart­ment stores was outside the CBD. APRIL 1966 115 Indicators of business conditions in Texas cities pub­lished in this table include statistics on banking, build­ing perniits, employment, postal receipts, and retail trade. An individual city is listed when a minimum of three indicators-is available. The cities have been grouped according to Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. In Texas all 21 SMSA's are defined by county lines; the counties included are listed under each SMSA. The populations shown for the SMSA's are estimates for April 1, 1965, prepared by the Population Research Center, Department of Sociology, The University of Texas--the fact designated by footnote (1). Cities are listed under their appropriate SMSA's; all other cities are listed alphabetically. The population shown after the city name is the 1960 Census figure, with the exceptions of those marked (r) , which are estimates officially recognized by the Texas Highway De­partment, and that given for Pleasanton, which is a com­bination of the 1960 Census figures for Pleasanton and North Pleasanton. Since the SMSA and city population estimates have different sources, it is not surprising that they are sometimes inconsistent, as is the case here with the Odessa SMSA (Ector County) and Odessa. Retail sales data are reported here only when a min­imum of five stores report in the given retail area sales category. The first column shows an average percent change from the preceding month, indicated by (t). This is the normal statewide seasonal change in sales by that kind of business-except in the cases of Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio, where the dag­ger is omitted because the normal seasonal changes given are for each of these cities individually. The second col­umn shows the percent change in actual sales reported for the month, and the third column shows the percent change in actual sales from the same month a year ago. A large variation between the normal seasonal change and the reported change indicates an abnormal sales month. Additional symbols used in this table include: (*) Indicates cash received during the four-week postal accounting period ended February 25, 1966. (:t:) Money on deposit in individual demand deposit accounts on the last day of the month. (§) Data for Texarkana, Texas, only. (**) Change is less than one-half of 1%. (11) Annual rate basis. Percent change Percent change Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb from from Feb from from City and item 1966 Jan 1966 Feb 1965 City P nd item 1966 Jan 1966 Feb 1965 ABILENE SMSA AMARILLO SMSA (Jones and Taylor; pop. 124,3571) (Potter and Randall; pop. 169,9421) Buildin(l permits, le .. federal contracts $ 673,581 + 45 -61 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2,173,315 + 102 -19 Bank debits (thousands) JI ...... .....$ 1,744,584 -7 + 7 Bank debits (thousands) JI . $ 4,691,556 + 11 + 23Nonfarm employmeht (area:) . 36,600 •• + 3 Nonlarm employment (area) . 55,500 •• + s Manufacturinfl employment (area) 4,090 2 + 3 Manufacturing employment (area) . 6,900 + + 7 Percent unemployed (area) . 4.1 + 5 -23 Percent unemployed (area) . 3.7 •• -29 ABILENE (pop. 110,049r) Retail sales st AMARILLO (pop. 155,205r) + 8 + 11 Automotive stores Retail sales -st + 10 + 4t + 78 + 20 General merchandise stores 9t -19 Apparel stores -23t -15 + 4 Postal receipts• $ 131.339 -4 Automotive stores ........ . . . ..... . -4t + 17 + 3 + 11 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 646,581 Eating and drinking places. -llt + 2 + 20 + 41 -62 Bank debits (thousands) .. . ....... . . . $ 118,321 -15 + 8 Postal receipts• .. $ 275,130 + + 12 End-of-month deposits (thousands); .. $ 74,062 + 2 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,387,545 + 41 -44 + 5 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 19.4 -15 Bank debits (thousands) ............ .$ 351,424 5 + 23 + 5 End-of-month deposits (thousands); .. $ 128,566 •• ALPINE (pop. 4,740) Annual rate of deposit turnover . 32.0 + 22 Postal receipts• . . ..... . ... . .. $ 5,926 + 19 + l Building permits, less federal contracts $ 4,200 -87 Bank debits (thousands) . $ -70 Canyon (pop. 6,755r) 3,523 -11 + 2 End-of-month deposits (thousands); $ Postal receipts• ................. $ 8,832 + 18 + 33 5,179 -3 + 10 Annual rate of deposit turnover Building permits, less federal contracts $ 785,770 + 773 +331 8.0 -14 -10 Ba nk debits (thousands) . $ 8,125 -23 + 20 A DREWS (pop. 11,135) End-of-month deposits (thousandslt.. $ 7,559 -3 + Postal receipts• ......... .$ Annual rate of deposit turnover. 12.7 -22 + 17 8,371 -15 + 1 Building permits, less federal contracta $ 65,700 + 4 -14 Bank debita (thousands) .. . ... . .. .. . . $ 6,226 -13 + 3 ANGLETON: see HOUSTON SMSA End-of-month deposits (thousands); .. $ 6,911 -16 8 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 9.9 -7 + 3 ARANSAS PASS: see CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA 116 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Percent changePercent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Feb 19GG Feb 19GG Feb 19GG Feb 19GG Feb from from Feb from from City and item 19GG Jan 19GG Feb 19G5 City and item 19GG Jan 19G6 Feb 19G5 ARLINGTON: see FORT WORTH SMSA Nederland (pop. 15,274r) Postal receipts• . . . . ............ .$ 11,397 -13 + 28 Bank debits (thousands) ..... . . $ 6,335 7 + 10 ATHENS (pop. 7,086) End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 4,977 3 + 5 Postal receipts• .............. .$ 14,821 + 3 + 13 Annual rate of deposit turnover..... . 15.1 7 + 8 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 49,GOO -85 •• Bank debits (thousands) ..... $ 10, 760 -20 6 Orange (pop. 25,605) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t $ 8,G64 -10 5 Postal receipts• .................... . S 29,338 -3 + 4 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 14.l -13 3 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 142,424 +568 -43 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . . $ 34,315 10 + 21 AUSTIN SMSA End-of-month deposits (thousands) i ..S 29,720 + 10 + 23 (Travis; pop. 245,5421) Annual rate of deposit turnover.. ... . 14.5 11 + 11 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 9,259,320 + 40 +111 Nonfarm placements ............... . 200 + 11 + 37 Bank debits (thousands) 11-........ . . $ 3,77G,43G -11 -1 Nonfarm employment (area) 99,100 + + Port Arthur (pop. 66,676) Manufacturing employment (area) . G,7GO + 1 •• R<>tai I sales ... 5i -3 + 8 Percent unemployed (area) 2.4 17 -27 Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 71,574 + 29 + 40 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 225,777 + 28 -25 AUSTIN (pop. 212,000r) Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 68,231 -10 + 7 Retail sales ... -5j + 6 + 10 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 43,630 -1 + 3 Apparel stores -23t .. + 18 Annual rate of deposit turnover.. ... 18.7 -10 + Automotive stores 4t + + 1 Eating and drinking places .. . -llt 8 Port Neches (pop. 8,696) Furniture and household Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7,429 -20 -4 appliance stores 5t + 13 + Duilding permits, less federal contracts $ 8 ,800 -28 +125 General merchandise stores. 9j 15 + 9 Bank debits (thousands) .. ........ . ..$ 11,885 -17 + 6 Lumber, building material, End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 7,066 -5 4 and hardware stores. . . . . . . . . . . . + Gt + G + 10 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 19.6 -13 + 7 Postal receipts• . . $ 589,143 2 + 23 Duilding permits, less federal contracts $ 9,202,320 + 41 +171 BEEVILLE (pop. 13,811) Bank debits (thousands) ......... . ...$ 315,302 -11 -1 Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 13,740 -4 + 6 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i ..$ 188,090 -3 + 14 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 75,590 +129 +189 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 19.9 -12 -10 Bank debits (thousands) ..... ....... .$ 10,589 -9 + 8 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i ..$ 15,774 -l •• BAY CITY (pop. 11,656) Annual rate of deposit turnover . 8.0 -10 + 7Postal receipts• $ 15,119 + 1 -15 Nonfarm placements 88 -l + 24 Bank debits (thousands) . $ lG,779 -2G 2 End-of-month deposits (thousands)f.. $ 2G,9G7 -2 + 5 BELTON (pop. 8,163) Annual rate of deposit turnover.... . . 7.4 -25 6 Postal receipts• .....................$ lG,521 + 54 + 20 Nonfarm placements 90 + 8 + Gl Building permits, less federal contracts $ 74,574 -16 9 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i. $ 8,946 -4 -5 BAYTOWN: see HOUSTON SMSA BIG SPRI G (pop. 31,230) BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA !«>tail sales -5t + 32 (Jefferson and Orange; pop. 312,7991) Postal receipts• ......... . ... . $ 36,592 4 + Building permits, less federal contracts S 1,605, 170 + -23 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 25,950 -82 -95 Bank debits (thousands) 11 -.$ 4,991, 700 •• + 15 Bank debits (thousands) ............ .$ 42,917 4 + 24 Nonfarm employment (area) . . . 118,300 + + 9 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 28,590 -1 + 17 Manufacturing employment (area) . 34,300 + + rate of deposit turnover.. . .. ­ 1 Annual 17.9 7 + 6 Percent unemployed (area) 4.1 11 33 -Nonfarm placements 199 + 34 + 20 BEAUMONT (pop. 127,500r) BISHOP: see CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA Retail sales -St + 4 + 10 Apparel stores -23t -18 + G BONHAM (pop. 7,357) Automotive stores -4t + 12 + 11 Retail sales Eating and drinking places llt 'G + Automotive stores -4t + 24 + 10Food stores .. . . Gt Postal receipts• ...............$ 7,995 General merchandise stores 9t 12 + 8 •• + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 31,000 + 41 -81 Lumber, building material, Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . . . . . $ 7,745 -19 and hardware stores... + Gt + 38 + 22 + End-of-month deposits (thousands) i ..$ 8,3 2 •• + 4 Postal receipts• $ 154,249 + 15 + 12 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 11.1 -17 + 2 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 8G2,719 + G5 22 Bank debits (thousands) .. ...........$ 253,3G9 -12 + 18 BORGER (pop. 20,911) End-of-month deposits (thousands) i .. $ 120,G39 + + G Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...$ 19,845 4 + 4 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 25.3 -12 + 12 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 133,0G5 +531 +269 Nonfarm placements ..... 115 17 Groves (pop. 17,304) + 42 ­Postal receipts• ...$ 8,751 + 3 + 11 BRADY (pop. 5,338) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2GO,OOO -56 + 71 Postal receipts• . . ..... ..... . S 5,004 -22 -9Bank debits (thousands) . . ... . . . $ 5.877 -13 + 15 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 32,400 +450 + 56End-of-month deposits (thousands)f.. $ 4,374 -25 + 3 Bank debits (thousands) .. . ......... $ 6,778 -26 + 39 Annual rate of deposit turnover... 13.8 + 8 + 2 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 7,330 -4 + 6 For an explanation of symbols, please see p. 116. Annual rate of deposit turnover.. .. . . 10.8 -23 + 29 APRIL 1966 Percent change Percent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb from from Feb from from City and item 1966 Jan 1966 Feb 1965 City and item 1966 Jan 1966 Feb 1965 BRENHAM (pop. 7,740) San Benito (pop. 16,422) Postal receipts• .. .................. .$ 8,813 + 3 + 19 Postal receipts• .... .$ 12,263 + 19 + 22 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 60,929 +164 + 85 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 122,023 -14 +140 Bank debits (thousands) ........... . S 5,977 + 3 + 18 Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 12,378 -11 + 9 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .S 6,053 8 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 14,737 •• + 3 + Annual rate of deposit turnover . 11.4 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 10.1 -12 + 7 + + BROWNWOOD (pop. 16,974) BROWNFIELD (pop. 10,286) Postal receipts• .... .$ 35,500 + 11 + Postal receipts• . . $ 10,989 -11 + 33 Bu ilding permits, less federal contracts $ 74,867 + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 47,275 +281 +456 Bank debits (thousands) ....... .$ 19,125 -13 + Bank debits (thousands) . $ 22,299 -42 + 8 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 14,255 -2 + 7End-of-month d'eposits (thousands) i . .$ 16, 184 -11 + Annual rate of deposit turnover . 15.9 -13 2Annual rate of deposit turnover . 15.6 -41 + 3 Nonfarm placements 132 + 16 + 15 BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA BRYAN (pop. 27,542) (Cameron; pop. 141,6711) Postal receipts* .....................$ 29,711 -5 + 3 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 259,815 -14 + 44 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 601,638 +123 +109 Bank debits (thousands) ............ .$ 36,342 + 13 Bank debits (thousands) JI. . .. $ 1,532,376 + 19 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i. $ 22,656 + 8Nonfarm employment (area) 36,850 + + 6 Nonfarm placements 295 + 5 -2 Manufacturing employment (area) 5,640 3 + 7 Percent unemployed (area) . 6.3 + 2 -26 CALDWELL (pop. 2,202r) Postal receipts• $ 3,569 + 19 + 45 BROWNSVILLE (pop. 48,040) Bank debits (thousands) ........... . S 2,793 -15 + 21 Ret.ail sales -5t 8 •• End-of-month deposits (thousands) i. $ 4,572 -2 +IS Automotive stores -4t 4 -2 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 7.3 -14 + 9 Postal receipts• ......... . . $ 43,579 3 + 18 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 345,559 + 146 + 64 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 40,760 -22 + 10 CAMERON (pop. 5,640) End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 21,765 -25 + 6 Postal receipts• ........... ..........$ 6,341 + 14 -19 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 19.3 -15 9 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 4,900 +390 -93 Nonfarm placements 611 + 34 2 Bank debits (thousands) .... .$ 5,717 -15 + 11 End-of-month deposits (thousandsJi.. $ 5,612 -3 + Annual rate of deposit turnover. 12.0 -12 + Harlingen (pop. 41,207) Retail sales 4t + 12 + 22 CANYON: see AMARILLO SMSA Automotive stores 5t + 23 + 38 Food stores St -7 -6 Postal receipts• .. $ 38,192 -7 + 11 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 176,650 + 70 +467 CARROLLTON: see DALLAS SMSA Bank debits (thousands) .... . . ...... :$ 40,994 6 + 19 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 23,599 2 + 13 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 20.6 4 + 2 CISCO (pop. 4,499) Nonfarm placements 403 - Postal receipts• .... .$ 4, 755 10 3 11 -+ Bank debits (thousands) . . ... .$ 3,836 -10 + 11 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 4,086 + 2 + 11 La Feria (pop. 3,047) Annual rate of deposit turnover . 11.4 -12 -1 Postal receipts• $ 2,497 + 1 1 - Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1.000 -62 -82 CLEBURNE: see FORT WORTH SMSA Bank debits (thousands) . . . . ....... .$ 2,087 + 3 + 30 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 1,801 •• + 20 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 13.9 + 10 + CLUTE: see HOUSTON SMSA Los Fresnos (pop. 1,289) Postal receipts• $ 1,102 -19 -COLLEGE STATION (pop. 11,396) 1 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 0 Postal receipts• .. .$ 29,052 -18 + 16 Bank debits (thousands) . . ....... .$ 1,080 -20 141,784 -61 + 6 + 7 Building permits, less federal contracts $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 1,305 + 19 + 2 + 12 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . $ 6,459 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 10.0 -17 •• End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 4,798 + + 10 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 16.4 + 12 Port Isabel (pop. 3,575) Postal receipts• .............$ 4,123 + 34 7 COLORADO CITY (pop. 6,457) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 15,500 + +179 Postal receipts• .. .$ 6,741 + 7 + 7 Bank debits (thousands) ............ .$ 1,595 7 Bank debits (thousands) .. $ 7,435 -12 + 51 + 9 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t.. $ 1,476 + 1 + 13 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 7,966 + 1 + 27 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 13.0 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 11.3 -15 + 23 8 For an explanation of symbols, please see p. 116. CONROE: see HOUSTON SMSA 118 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Percent change Percent change Local Business Condi tiun_ Local Business Conditions Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb from from Feb from from City and item 1966 Jan 1966 Feb 1965 City a nd item 1966 Jan 1966 Feb 1965 COPPERAS COVE (pop. 4,567) CRYSTAL CITY (pop. 9,101) Postal receipts• .... ..........S 5,286 + 20 + 17 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 44,3 3 -22 -79 Building permits, less federal contracts S 17,250 -41 -92 Bank debits (thousands) ............ $ 3,366 11 + 19 Bank debits (thousands) . . .... S 1,440 4 10 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 3,26 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 1,395 2. Annual rate of deposit turnover . 12. 14 + 14 Annual rate of deposit turnover .. 12.2. 2 •• DALLAS S:'\fSA (Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Ellis; pop. 1,261,7871 ) CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA (Nueces and San Patricio; pop. 268,7021) Building permits, less federal contracts Sl0,939,252 + 22 + 80 Bank debits (thousands) II .. .. .......$61, 95,424 + + 18 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 5,194,348 + 82 + 68 Nonfarm employment (area) . . . . . . . . . 552,700 •• + 6Bank debits (thousands) 11-....S 3,554,028 + 13 Manufacturing employment (area ) . 129,625 + + 11Nonfarm employment (area) . 81,300 + + 2 Percent unemployed (area) . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 -4 27 Manufacturing employment (area) . 10,380 •• •• Percent unemployed (area) . 3.8 + -32 Carrollton (pop. 9,832r) Postal receipts• ......... ...... ......$ 12,75 + 28 + 34 Aransas Pass (pop. 6,956) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 742,355 + 32 +347 Postal receipts• ..................$ 5,627 2 + 3 Bank debits (thousands) .............$ 7,432 9 + 31 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 22.,840 51 +231 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. S 3, 9 + 7 + 29 Bank debits (thousands) . . .. .$ 4,388 7 + 7 Annual rate of deposit turnover. . ... 23.7 14 + 7 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 5,109 •• Annual rate of deposit turnover ..... 10.1 + 5 DALLAS (pop. 679,684) Retail sales .. . ................... . 5 2 -s Apparel stores 20 9 •• Bishop (pop. 3,825r) Automotive stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + 4 + 16 -25Postal receipts• .....$ 3,582 + 14 + 61 Eatini' and drinkini' places. . . 1 6 5Building permits, less federal contracts $ 20,000 59 +150 Florists . . . . . . . . . . •• + 19 + 19Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 2,006 + 1 + 14 Furniture and household End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 2,348 9 + 9 appliance stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 4 + 6 Annual rate of deposit turnover .. . 9.8 + + 2. Gasoline and service stations....... 2 12 6 Ge·neral merchandjse stores...... _.. 8 13 + 13 Lumber, building material, CORPUS CHRISTI (pop. 184, 163r) and hardware stores. . . . . . . . . . . . . + 6 2 + 10 Retail sales 5t -14 + 2 Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 3,362,702 •• + 7 Apparel stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • -23t -26 + 17 Building permits, less federal contracts $30, 37,601 + 94 +130 Drugstores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -11 t 6 + 5 Bank debits (thousands) ...... ... ....S 4,505,991 12 + 5 General merchandise stores -9t -15 + 8 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. S 1,394,241 + 3 Postal receipts• .....................$ 230,470 -2 + 14 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 3 .1 + 1 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 4,789,818 + 107 + 78 Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 247,743 10 + 14 End-of-month deposits (thousands Ji .$ 136,119 + 12 Denton (pop. 26,844) Annual rate of deposit turnover. 21.5 + 2 Postal receipts• ........... ..........$ 53,301 + 11 + 22 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 66 ,725 + 20 3 Ba nk debits (thousands) ............. $ 31,560 -16 Robstown (pop. 10,266) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 25,491 •• + 9 Postal receipts• ............ . $ 8,466 •• -6 Annual rate of deposit turnover. . . . . . 14.9 -13 15 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 175,210 +261 + 119 Non fa rm placements 216 21 •• Bank debits (thousands) . . ..........$ 10,222 9 + 14 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 9,462 8 Ennis (pop. 10,250r) Annual rate of depo•it turnover 12.4 6 + 13 Postal receipts• . . ..................$ 11,687 + 8 3 Building permits, less federal contracts S 6,3 8 + 30 Bank debits (thousands) .............$ 7,773 11 + 22 Sinton (pop. 6,008) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 7, 1 2 + 4 Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . S 5,434 -54 -40 Annual rate of deposit turnover.. ... . 11.8 11 + 17 Building permits, less federal contracta S 9,316 -76 -58 Bank debits (thousands) ............ .$ 4,491 -14 + 11 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 6,002 + 15 + 27 Garland (pop. 50,622r) Annual rate of deposit turnover. 9.4 -22 -7 Retail sales .................... . -5t •• 8 Postal receipts• .................... .$ 56,902 + 3 + 19 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,009,996 -48 + 13 CORSICA A (pop. 20,344) Bank debits (thousands) ............ . $ 39,077 12 + 12 Retail sales -5t -18 •• End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 19.359 + 2 Postal receipts• ...S 30,916 + 31 + 9 Annual rate of deposit turnover..... . 23.5 7 + 11 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 143,044 + 78 + 83 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 21,538 -19 + 9 Grand Prairie (pop. 40,150r) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..S 23,451 -2 + 8 10.9 -20 Postal receipts• .................... .$ 36,034 + 5 + 14 Annual rate of deposit turnover.. .. . . + 3 Building permits, less federal contra<:ta $ 46,455 + 93 -44 Non(arm placements 206 + 3 + 6 Bank debits (thousands) .......... .. . $ 1 ,475 11 + 1 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..S 13,001 16 + 20 For an explanation of symbols, please see p, 116. Annual rate of deposit turnover..... . 15.6 11 -20 APRIL 1966 119 Percent change Percent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb from from Feb from from City and ilem 1966 Jan 1966 Feb 1965 City and it.cm 1966 Jan 1966 Feb 1965 DEER PARK: see HOUSTON ~1SA Irving (pop. 60,136r) Postal receipts• .$ 57,401 -5 + 26 DEL RIO (pop. 18,612) Iluilding permits, less federal contracts $ 2,660,565 + 105 + 85 Postal receipts• $ 18,178 + 2 + 24 Bank debits (thousands) $ 41,808 -6 + 9 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 218,013 +130 +256 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 21,716 •• + 21 Bank debits (thousands) . . ... .. .. .. .S 13,721 3 + 15 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 23.1 -1 -6 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..S 17,592 + I + 17 Annual rate of deposit turnover.. . 9.4 3 -2 Justin (pop. 622) Postal receipts• . . $ 770 + 56 + 46 DENISON (pop. 25,766r) Building permits, less federal contracts ~ 0 Retail sales Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . $ 1,055 •• + 25 Automotive stores . . ... . .•.. . .. . ... -4t •• + 11 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t $ 881 + 34 + 10 Postal receipts• . . . . ........ .....$ 22,684 -12 + 2 Annual rate oi deposit turnover.. . . .. 16.4 -2 + 31 Bank debits (thousands) . . . .S 18,548 + 11 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 16,646 + 11 McKinney (pop. 13,763) Annual rate of deposit turnover . 13.0 + I -2 Nonfarm placements 164 Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 17 ,27 5 + + 39 ........ . 8 + 29 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 126,600 +270 + 59 Bank debits (thousands) . . . .$ 11.600 -5 + 4 DE TON: see DALLAS SMSA End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 9,348 -12 -12 Annual rate of deposit turnover.... 13.9 -5 + 10 DONNA (pop. 7,522) Nonfarm placements .. 116 + 10 + 13 Postal receipts• . . S 4,713 + 5 + 15 Iluilding permits, less federal contracts S 28.500 -55 + 105 Bank debits (thousands) .. . .$ 2,628 -1 + 17 Mesquite (pop. 27,526) End-of-month deposits (thousands) i ..$ 4,072 •• + 10 Postal receipts• ..... .$ 22,078 •• + 39 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 7.8 -1 + 7 Building permits, less federal cont racts S 877 ,632 -32 +191 Bank debits (thousands) . . ..........$ 10,520 -18 + 20 DUMAS (pop. 10,547r) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 7,739 -5 + 15 Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 8,600 -3 + 14Annual rate of deposit turnover . . . . . 15.9 -13 + 1 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 275,775 + 330 -4 Bank debits (thousands) .. . . . ... .. . . . $ 11,701 -18 + 2 Midlothian (pop. 1,521) End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 12,234 -4 + 11 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 10,000 -71 5 Annual rate of deposit turnover.. ... . 11.2 -18 -10 Ilank debits (thousands)......... .$ 1,014 -11 + 2 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ l ,580 + 3 + 6 EAGLE PASS (pop. 12,094) Annual rate of deposit turnover . . . . . 7.8 -11 + 4 Postal receipts• . . . .. . ....... .S 9,485 -11 + 9 Building permits, less federal contracts S 151,270 +122 +128 Pilot Point (pop. 1,254) Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . . .. $ 6,352 -15 + 2 Building permits, less federal contracts S 13,000 + 30 + 88 End-of-month· deposits (thousands) i ..$ 5,529 + 4 + 21 Bank debits (thousands) .$ 1,272 -17 + 23 Annual rate of deposit turnover.. . . . 14.0 -18 -IS End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 1,989 + 4 + 23 Annual rate of deposit turnover ... 7.8 -19 + 5 EDI BURG (pop. 18,706) Postal receipts• . . $ 15,885 + 1 + 27 Plano (pop. 10,102r) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 147,2()() + 76 + 74 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 447,819 -89 +120 Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 20,149 + 34 + 26 Bank debits (thousands) $ 5,099 + 8 + 18 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i. $ 12,770 + 2 + 14 End-of-month deposits (thousands);..$ 3,808 1 + 34 Annual rate of deposit turnover.. . 19.2 + 17 + 8 Annual rate of deposit turnover ... 16.0 + 6 -2 Nonfarm placements ........... .... . 295 -5 + 88 Richardson (pop. 34,390r) EDNA (pop. 5,038) Postal receipts• $ 46,672 -12 Postal receipts• .. $ 5,589 -20 -10 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 993,594 -81 + + 45 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 42,906 + 1 +121 Bank debits (thousands) .$ 24,183 -12 Bank debits (thousands) .$ 5,757 -21 + 10 + 12 + 3 Annual rate of deposit turnover.. ... . 21.2 -11 + + 6 Annual rate of deposit turnover.. ... . 9.3 -18 + 7 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 13,380 -4 End-of-month deposits (thousands); .. S 7,360 -2 EL PASO SMSA Seagoville (pop. 3,745) Postal receipts• . . . . .. $ 6,613 -12 + 34 (El Paso; pop. 339,9491 ) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 11,575 -32 -35 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 4,991,500 -8 + 17 Bank debits (thousands) . .$ 3,144 -33 + 6 Bank debits (thousands) JI... . . $ 4,877,268 + 2 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 2,101 + 8 + 21 Nonfarm emplqyment (area) .. . . . ... . 97,600 •• + 4 Annual rate of deposit turnover... 18.7 -27 -6 Manufacturing employment (area) . 17,750 + + 8 Percent unemployed (area) . 4.8 •• -21 Waxahachie (pop. 12,749) EL PASO (pop. 276,687) Postal receipts• $ 17,524 •• -16 Retail sales -St -6 + 2 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 148,400 + 134 +396 16 + 10 Apparel stores . . -23t ­Bank debits (thousands) S 11,618 23 -s -+ 12 Automotive stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -4t + 3 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t $ 11,018 -10 + 10 + + 11 Eating and drinking places........ -llt Annual rate o! deposit turnover 12.7 + 2 -21 + 4 Food stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -St 5 Non!arm placements + 8 108 + 9 + 77 Postal receipts• . . . . ... . . . . ..... .$ 369,845 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 4,989,500 8 + 17 DA YT01 : see HOUSTON SMSA Bank debits (thousands) . . . . .. $ 370,158 -2 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 215,945 + 5 •• For an explanation of symbols, please see p. 116. Annual rate of deposit turnover . . . 21.1 -10 -2 120 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Percent change • Percent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb from from Feb from from City and itkm 1966 Jan 1966 F eb 1965 City a nd item 1966 Jan 1966 F eb 1965 ENNIS: see DALLAS SMSA White Settlement (pop. 11,513) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 111,450 -64 -23 EULESS: see FORT WORTH SMSA Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 1,853 6 + 36 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 1,550 + 7 + 50 FORT STOCKTON (pop. 6,373) Annual rate of deposit turnover. 14.8 + 36 -6 Postal receipts• . . $ 7,689 + 12 + 24 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 221,500 +588 +136 Bank debits (thousands) ............. $ 6,021 -12 + 10 FREDERICKSBURG (pop. 4,629) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 7,858 -1 + 10 Postal receipts• ............. .$ 7,981 + 7 + 23 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 9.2 -11 + Building permits, less federal contracta $ 28,135 -69 -63 Ilank debits (thousands) . . . $ 8,924 -22 -4 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 9,434 -5 + 11 FORT WORTH SMSA Annual rate of deposit turnover. 11.1 -21 -13 (Johnson and Tarrant; 611,2931) Building permits. less federal contracts $ 7,277,255 6 -13 Bank debits (thousands) II. . . $13,329,840 + + 10 FRIONA (pop. 3,049r) Nonfarm employment (area) . 243,200 •• + 4 Iluilding permits, less federal contracts $ 58,430 + 17 + 66 Manufacturing employment (area) . 67,650 + 2 + 11 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . .. .$ 8,277 -29 + 11 Percent unemployed (area) . 3.0 •• -25 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t.. $ 6,105 -13 + 3 Annual rate of deposit turnover.... . . 15.1 -23 + 6 Arlington (p-0p. 53,024r) Retail sales -5t -8 + 15 GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Postal receipts• . . S 91, 782 + + 20 (Galveston; pop. 153,9931) Building permits, less federal contracts $ l,831,800 -12 + 20 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1.362,780 + 89 -9 Bank debits (thousands) II. ......$ 2,042,280 + 7 + 10 Cleburne (pop. 15,381) Nonfarm employment (area) .. 53,700 •• -1 Po•tal receipts• .............. .$ 16,716 -­ 6 9 Manufacturing employment (area) . 10,000 1 -2 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 434,450 +505 + 154 Percent unemployed (area) 5.1 -2 -15 Bank debits (thousands) . .$ 13,221 -18 + 8 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 12,534 -3 + Annual rate of deposit turnover. 12.5 -14 + 6 GALVESTON (pop. 67,175) Retail sales 5t + 3 + 19 Automotive stores . . . .... . ... . Euless (pop. 10,500r) 4t + 4 + 20 Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8,655 -14 + 42 .......... ......... . 6t 6 + 15 Food store• Postal receipts• . . . . . . .... .. $ 88,063 -34 -28Building permits, less federal contracts $ 198,410 + 46 + 81 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 645,531 + 56 +122 Bank debits (thousands) .. ....... . .. .$ 8,356 -1 + 57 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . ... . $ 96,997 -14 + 12End-of..month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 3,924 + 10 + 62 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 56,887 4 -5 Annual rate of deposit turnover..... 20.1 -8 + 16 Annual rate of deposit turnover.. .. . 26.7 -4 + 1 FORT WORTH (pop. 356,268) Retail sales 5 -4 + La Marque (pop. 13,969) Apparel stores -23 -21 -11 . . $ Postal receipts• 13,956 + 13 + 44 Automotive stores + + 3 + 1 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 193,969 +421 -50 Eating and drinking places . 2 + 15 Bank debits (thousands) . . .. .$ 8,838 -21 -24 Food stores + 8 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 6,979 -2 + 8 Furniture and household Annual rate of deposit turnover... . . 15.0 -21 -28 appliance stores 5 9 + 15 Gasoline and service stations. 4 + 2 4 General merchandise stores. 14 -11 + 10 Texas City (pop. 32,065) Lumber, building material, Postal receipts• .. $ 27,460 -3 + 9 and hardware stores. + + 6 5 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 523,280 + 94 -36 Postal receipts• .. $ 949,473 + 9 Bank debits (thousands) . . .....$ 32,642 + 20 + 20 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2, 767 ,241 -11 -36 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t.. $ 14.436 -13 1 Bank debits (thousands) ............ . $ 901,853 -15 + 9 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 25.2 + 19 + 18 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 428, 776 -2 + Annual rate of deposit turnover . 25.0 --12 + 4 GARLAND: see DALLAS SMSA Grapevine (pop. 4,659r) Postal receipts• .......... . . $ 5,304 -10 + 5 GATESVILLE (pop. 4,626) Building permits, less federal contracta $ 96,000 + 72 +275 Postal receipts• . . . . . . $ 5,701 + 8 9 Bank debits (thousands) . . .. . .. ..... . $ 4,140 -13 + 12 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 5,807 14 +End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 4,074 -2 + 17 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 6,502 1 + 3 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 12.1 -16 -2 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 10.7 13 + North Richland Hills (pop. 8,662) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 141.900 -30 -69 GEORGETOWN (pop. 5,218) Bank debits (thousands) . . ...... . . $ 9,571 -12 + 42 Postal receipts• . $ 7,005 -7 -3 End-of-month deposits (thous~nds) t .. $ 5,370 + 8 + 29 Building permits, less federal contracts S 65,200 + 100 + 115 Annual rate of deposit turnover. . . . . . 22.2 -17 + 16 Bank debits (thousands) ....$ 4,735 -22 + 3 End--0f-month deposits (thouaanda) ; ..$ 6,832 -4 + 18 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 8.2 -22 -13For an explanation of symbols, please see P'. 116. APRIL 1966 P ercent change P ercent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb from from Feb from from City and item 1966 Jan 1966 Feb 1965 City a nd item 1966 Jan 1966 Feb 1965 GIDDINGS (pop. 2,821) Angleton (pop. 9,131) Postal receipts• ... .$ 4,618 + 23 + 11 Postal receipts• ...... ... . ...... . $ 7,366 -28 -5 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 3,000 -96 55 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 7,000 -93 95 -Bank debits (thousands) . • . $ 3,476 13 + 19 Bank debits (thousands ) . $ 14,848 + 8 End-of-month deposits (thou-sands) t .. $ 4,749 + + 13 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 12,175 7 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 8.8 12 + 6 Annual ra te of deposit turnover. 14.1 + 9 GLADEWATER (pop. 5,742) Baytown (pop. 38,000r) Postal receipts• . ... . $ 8,275 + 20 + Postal receip ts• ..... . $ 33,149 -15 -3 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 16,300 + 81 +151 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 528,970 + 17 + 76 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . $ 4,672 18 + 9 Ba nk debits (thousands) .............$ 36,676 4 + 13 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 4,881 + 2 + 8 End-of-month deposits (thousands>*.. $ 30,083 6 Nonfarm employm~t (area) . 32,650 •• + 7 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 14.1 + + Manufacturing employment (area) . 7,970 •• + 13 Percent unemployed (area) . 3.9 + + 3 Bellaire (pop. 21,182r) Postal receipts• .. .$ 50,280 + 2 + 14 GOLDTHWAITE (pop. 1,383) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 442,795 +164 Postal receipts• .. .$ 2,807 + 31 + 29 Bank debits (thousands) . . ......... .$ 22,481 15 + 16 Bank debits (thousands) ............ . $ 3,164 -25 + 14 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i. $ 15,979 •• + 19 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 5,822 •• + 7 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 16.8 -14 -1 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 6.5 -24 + 8 Clute (pop. 4,501) GRAHAM (pop. 8,505) Postal receipts• ........$ 3,295 13 + 35 Postal receipts• .... .$ 8,241 -22 -8 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 20,800 + 66 +278Building permits, less federal contracts $ 58,900 +522 Ba nk debits (thousands) ............ .$ I.860 •• 2 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . $ 9,055 -20 •• End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 1,638 1 6 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 10,378 + 4 + 7 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 13.6 -2 + 2Annual rate of dep'lsit turnover . 10.7 -18 -2 GRANBURY (pop. 2,227) Conroe (pop. 9,192) Postal receipts• ....... ~$ 3,577 11 Postal receipts• ... ... . $ 19,709 + 35 Ba nk debits (thousands) . .$ 1,699 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 98,000 + 5 + 8 + 36 9 + 8 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 2,404 2 + 5 Bank debits (thousands) . . ....$ 14,536 8 + Annual rate of deposit turnover . 8,4 7 + 2 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 13,118 3 + Annual rate of deposit turnover . 13.1 7 GRAND PRAIRIE: see DALLAS SMSA Dayton (pop. 3,367) GRAPEVINE: see FORT WORTH SMSA Postal receipts• .............. . $ 3,332 + + 29 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 35,000 +289 -83 GREENVILLE (pop. 22,134r) Bank debits (thousands) ......... ... . $ 4,825 4 + 40 Retail sales -5t + 8 + 7 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 3,586 -17 Postal receipts• ........ ..... . . $ 29,578 + 3 + 11 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 16.0 + 63 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 383,100 + 22 + 60 Bank debits (thousands) . . ... . $ 18,271 11 + 12 Deer Park (pop. 4,865) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 15,664 3 + 12 Postal receipts• . . $ 7,556 -17 + 8 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 13.8 10 -1 Building permits, less federal contract• $ 307,112 -70 + 33 Nonfarm placements 110 + 7 + 18 Bank debits (thousands) . . ....... . $ 5,947 -37 -14 End-of-month deposits (thousandsJi.. $ 2,689 + 6 5 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 27.3 -19 + 1 HARLINGEN: see BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA HOUSTON (pop. 938,219) HENDERSON (pop. 9,666) Postal receipts• ... $ 14,621 + 14 + 36 Retail sales -7 + 2 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 82,287 -36 Apparel stores 14 -13 + 11 Bank debits (thousands) . . ....... . S 8,808 12 + 4 Automotive stores 3 + 2 + 11 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 19,734 + 2 Drugstores ................. . . 6 + 7 + 7 2 Annual ra te of deposit turnover. 5.4 11 Eating and drinking places. 2 Food stores 16 HEREFORD (pop. 9,584r) General merchandise stores. 2 + Postal receipts• $ 16,854 + 26 + 40 Liquor stores 3 + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 246,200 + 133 9 Lumber, building material, Bank debits (thousands) . . ....$ 23,044 + 11 and ha rdware stores. •• + 26 + 11 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 16.719 Postal receipts• .$ 2,512,316 + 3 + lS + Building permits, less federal contracts $29,755,064 + 4 + 13 HOUSTON SMSA Bank debits (thousands) . . $ 4,035,890 16 + 11 + 5 (Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty and Montgomery; End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 1,694,235 •• Annual rate of deposit turnover . 28.7 -11 + pop. 1,613,9571) Building permits, less federal contracts $34,773,516 1 6 -+ Humble (pop. 1,711) Bank debits (thousands) II .. ..... ... . $ 57,954,876 2 + 11 Postal receipts• .. . $ 4,810 + 25 + 23 Nonfarm employment (area) . 667,500 •• + 4 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 17,000 +240 -77 Manufacturing employment (area) . 120,700 + + 4 Percent unemployed (area) . 2.6 Bank debits (thousands) . . ..... .$ 3,914 10 + -26 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t.. $ 3,626 For an explanation of symbols, please see p, 116. Annual rate of deposit turnover. 12.9 8 + TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Percent cha nge Percent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb from from Feb from from City a nd item 1966 Feb 1966 F eb 1966 Jan 1966 Feb 1965 City and item 1966 Jan 1966 F eb 1965 Katy (pop. 1,569) JASPER (pop. 5,120r) Building permits, less federal contracta S 55,000 -47 + 80 Reta il sales Bank debits (thousands) ........... .$ 2.657 -23 + 4 Automotive stores ... -4t -3 + 4 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 2,733 -7 -13 Postal receipts• . . .... .$ 10,084 + 6 + 26 Annual rate of deposit turnover . .. 11.2 -18 + 18 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 16,000 -81 -42 Bank debits (thousands) . .$ 10,364 -9 3 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t.. $ 8,352 + 2 + 2 La Porte (pop. 7,250r) Annual rate of deposit turnover.... . 15.0 -10 Building permits, less federal contracts $ Ba nk debits (thousands) . . .... $ 4,869 + + 18 KATY: see HOUSTON SMSA End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 3,429 6 + 28 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 16.5 + 3 -9 KILGORE (pop. 10,092) Postal receipts• .$ 19,137 + 35 + 63 Liberty (pop. 6,127) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 33,700 -92 -29Postal receipts• ......$ 8,642 + 4 + 18 Bank debits (thousands) . . .....$ 12, 154 -14 + 1Building permits, less federal contracts $ 35,750 + 74 4 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 14,584 + 4 + 9Bank debits (thousands) ..... . . . . . . . $ 9,821 -16 + 12 Annual rate of deposit turnover . . .. . . 10.2 -14 6 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .$ 10,743 •• + 9 Nonfarm employment (area) .. 32,650 •• + 7Annual rate of deposit turnover . 11.0 -14 + Manufacturing employment (area) . 7,970 •• + 13 Percent unemployed (area) 3.9 + 8 + 3 Pasadena (pop. 58,737) Postal receipts• ....... .$ 57 ,835 •• + 16 KILLEE (pop. 23,377) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,424,250 -41 -54 Postal receipts• ... .$ 43, 198 + 3 -9 Bank debits (thousands) .............$ 75,961 + 6 + 28 Building permits, less federal ~ontracts $ 787 ,926 + 149 -20End-of-month deposits (thousands) t $ 32,760 1 + 4 Bank debits (thousands) . .$ 16,899 -16 -10Annual rate of deposit turnover. 27.7 + 8 + 25 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 13,627 •• + 9 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 14.9 -14 -14 Richmond (pop. 3,668) Postal receipts• . . $ 5,054 + 34 + 22 KINGSVILLE (pop. 25,297) Sank debits (thousands) .............$ 7,041 -17 + 15 Postal recei pts• ....$ 20,783 -1 + 15End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .$ 9,279 -2 + 13 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 56,350 -48 -74Annual rate of deposit turnover . 9.0 -13 + 7 Ba nk debits (thousands) . . . $ 13,958 + 6 + 29 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t. . $ 17,424 3 + 13 Rosenberg (pop. 9,698) Annual rate of deposit turnover . 9.5 + 4 + 13 Postal receipts• $ 9,921 + 10 + 8 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 153,690 + 13 +107 KIRBYVILLE (pop. 2,021r) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 10,590 + 8 Postal receipts• ... .$ 3,900 + 9 -6 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . .... .$ -13 South Houston (pop. 7,253) 1,968 + 2 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 4,242 -1 + 24 Postal receipts• $ 9,932 + 8 + 16 Annual rate of deposit turnover... 5.5 -13 -18 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 156,472 56 + 186 Ba nk debits (thousands) . .$ 7,632 3 + 16 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t $ 5,874 + 2 + 2 LA FERIA: see BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN Annual rate of deposit turnover . 15.8 + 12 BE ITO SMSA Tomball (pop. 2,025r) Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . . . $ 7 ,984 -4 + 12 LA MARQUE: see GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA End-of-month deposits (thousands)*·. $ 10,656 + 3 + 61 Annual rate of deposit turnover 9.1 -22 -28 LAMESA (pop. 12,438) Postal receipts• ... .$ 10,381 -23 -15 HUMBLE: see HOUSTON SMSA Building permits, less federal contracts $ 7,500 -80 -90 Ba nk debits (thousands) . . .. .$ 19,597 -39 + 15 HUNTSVILLE (pop. 11,999) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 18,853 -12 + 14 Postal receipts• ....$ 16,912 + 21 -1 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 11.6 -38 2 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 62,700 -53 + 40 Nonfarm placements 76 + 25 -1 Bank debits (thousands) . . ...$ 10,249 + 4 + 26 E:nd-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 12,012 + 6 + 16 LAMPASAS (pop. 5,670r) Annual rate of deposit turnover .... ·.. 10.5 •• + 11 Post al receipts• ............. .$ 5,113 -24 7 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 73,000 -6 8 IOWA PARK: see WICHITA FALLS SMSA Bank debits (thousands) .......... ...$ 6,455 -24 + 5 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 6,649 -6 + 10IRVING: see DALLAS SMSA Annual rate of deposit turnover. .. . . . 11.3 -21 6 JACKSONVILLE (pop. 10,509r) LA PORTE: see HOUSTO SMSA Postal receipts• ... .$ 23,890 + 3 + 15 Building permits, less federal contracta $ 69,000 + 41 +138 LAREDO SMSA Bank debits (thousands) $ 13,607 -22 + (Webb; pop. 71,7381) Annual rate of deposit turnover..... 13.6 -18 7 Building permits, less federal cont racts $ 319,560 + 62 -33 Bank debits (thousands) JJ. . ..S 546,384 •• + 15 Nonfarm employment (area) . 21,650 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .$ 12,050 •• + 16 JUSTIN: see DALLAS SMSA + + 9 Manufacturing employment (area) . 1,310 •• -2 For an explanation of symbols, please see p. 116. Percent unemployed (area) ... 11.6 8 -17 APRIL 1966 123 Percent change Percent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb 1966 Feb from from Feb from from City and item 1966 J an 1966 Feb 1965 City and item 1966 Jan 1966 Feb 1965 LAREDO (pop. 60,678) LUFKI (pop. 17,641) Postal receipts• . . ..... .... .$ 43,888 -4 + 2 Postal receipts• .. . ....... . . S 36,622 + 2 + 34 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 319,560 + 62 -33 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 382,S20 + 132 -13 Bank debits (thousands) ... .$ 41.2"4 l -15 + 15 Nonfarm placements 45 -2 -25 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 29,664 + + 7 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 16.7 -15 + 8 McALLEN (pop. 32,728) Nonfarm placements 532 + 37 + 17 Retail sales -5t + 10 + 12 Apparel stores .. -23t -30 + 12 LEVELLAND (pop. 12,117r) Automotive stores -4t + 30 + 12 Postal receipts• .....................$ 9,433 -10 + 3 Postal receipts• ... $ 40,484 -4 + 11 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 95,250 + 76 -46 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 241,150 -25 -6 Bank debits (thousands) . . .... . $ 19,438 -53 + 3 Ba nk debits (thousands) ............ . $ 38,511 5 + 13 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 12,923 -8 -19 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 26,637 + 2 + 22 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 17.3 -46 + 11 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 17.6 7 -3 Nonfarm placements ........... . 653 + 6 +122 LIBERTY: see HOUSTON SMSA Nonfarm employment (area) . 42,600 •• + 5 Manufacturing employment (area) . 2,910 -20 Percent unemployed (area) ..... 6.6 -4 -20 LLA 10 (pop. 2,656) Postal receipts• .......$ 3,597 + 4 + 26 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 89,200 +475 +643 McCAMEY (pop. 3,350r) Bank debits (thousands) . . .. .$ 2,857 -13 4 Postal receipts• .. $ 2,978 + 12 + 10 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 4,430 + 10 + 6 Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 1,858 + 16 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 8.1 -13 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 1.727 4 -2 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 12.6 5 + 17 LOCKHART (pop. 6,084) Postal receipts• ...... $ 5,232 -7 + 9 McGREGOR: see WACO SMSA Building permits, less federal contracts $ 100,212 -10 +293 Bank debits (thousands) ...... : ..... .$ 5,696 9 + 18 .McKI NEY : see DALLAS S 1SA End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 6,229 + 11 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 10.6 7 + 2 MARSHALL (pop. 25,715r) Retail sales -St -8 + 12 LONGVIEW (pop. 40,050) Postal receipts• ......$ 28,157 + 2 -6 Retail sales -St 7 + 21 Building permits, less federal contracts S 166,653 + 63 + 44 Automotive stores -4t + 26 Ba nk debits (thousands) . .$ 20,066 -3 + 14Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . S8,514 4 + End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 23,098 -5 -1 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,486,000 + 77 -43 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 10.2 •• + 11 Bank debits (thousands) ............ . $ 63,153 -11 + 14 Nonfarm placements 244 -1 + 11 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 43,958 -5 + Annual rate of deposit turnover . 16.8 -+ 8 4 .MERCEDES (pop. 10,943) Nonfarm employment (area) . 32,6SO · •• + 7 Postal receipts• ...... . $ 5,667 -15 -5 Manufacturing employment (area) . 7,970 •• + 13 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 19,370 + 12 -45Percent unem ployed (area) . 3.9 + 8 + 3 Bank pebits (thousands) . . . .........$ 6,172 •• + 4 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 4,615 + 6 + 25 LOS FRESNOS: see BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN­ Annual rate of deposit turnover . 16.6 -3 -12 S i\N BENITO SMSA MESQUITE: see DALLAS SMSA LUBBOCK SMSA (Lubbock; pop. 177,1401) MEXIA (pop. 7,621r) Building permits, less federal contract<; S10, 788,985 +174 +153 Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . .. S 6,372 + 8 + 12 Bank debits (thousands) II · ........$ 3,725,916 -11 + 22 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 20,000 60,800 Nonfarm employment (area) + 4 Bank debits (thousands) ............. $ 4,290 -19 -6 Manufacturing employment (area) . 7,120 + + 8 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 5,339 -1 + 7 + -Annual rate of deposit turnover... . . . 9.6 -19 10 Percent unemployed (area) . 3.9 19 ­ LUBBOCK (pop. 155,200r) MIDLAND SMSA Retail sales St + 4 (Midland; pop. 64,7041) Automotive stores 4t •• Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2,253,700 -43 +217 General merchandise stores 9t 16 + Bank debits (thousands ) II. . .. $ 1,623,264 -1 -6Postal receipts• ..... .. .. . $ 236,809 + 9 Nonfarm employment (area) . 57,200 •• + 2Building permits, less federal contracts $10,7Sl,385 + 174 + 1s8 Manufacturing employment (area) . 4,770 + + 15Bank debits (thousands)... . .. .$ 297,013 -36 + 22 Percent unemployed (area) .. . .. 3.2 •• -22 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 146,249 -6 + 6 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 23.6 35 + 15 - MIDLA D (pop. 62,6.25) Postal receipts . . $ 110,396 + I + 5 Slaton (pop. 6,568) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2,253;700 -43 +217 Postal receipts• .................... .$ 4,924 + 19 + 22 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . ...$ 119,075 -18 6 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 35,100 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t..$ 112,333 -I -3 Ba nk debits (thousands) . . ...... ... .$ , 116. End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. + 3 + 17 ttReported in cooperation with the Baylor Bureau of Business Research. Annual rate of deposit turnover. 17.4 -5 128 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS All figures are for Texas unless otherwise indicated. All indexes are based on lhe average months for 1957-59, except where indi­cated; all are adjusted for seasonal variation, excepl annual indexes. Employment eslimales are Texas Employment Commission dala in cooperation wilh the Bureau of Labor Slalislics of the U. S. Depanmenl of Labor. Employmenl dala marked (t) cover wage and salary workers only. The index of Texas business aclivily is based on bank debils in 20 cities, adjusted for price level. An asterisk (•) indicates preliminary dala subject lo revision. Revised dala are marked (r). Data marked (§) are dollar totals for the fiscal year lo date. Year-to-date average Feb Jan Feb 1966 1966 1965 1966 1965 GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY Texas business activity, index. . . ................ . 169.0 168.0 Miscellaneous freight carloadings in SW District, index . 798.8 79.7 Wholesale prices in U. S., unadjusted index . . . . . .. . .. . 105.3 104.6 Consumers' prices in Houston, unadjusled index . . . ......... . . . 110.0 Consumers' prices in U. S., unadjusted index . 111.6 111.0 Income payments to individuals in U. S. (billions, at seasonally ad­ justed annual rate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . s 556.3• S 552.3r Business failures (number) . 56 43 Business failures (liabilities, thousands) . 5,264 2;086 Newspaper linage, index . 116.0 lW.l Ordinary life insurance sales, index . 178.9 155.7 TRADE Total retail sales, index . 131.4• 129.6r Durable-goods sales, index . 143.7• 134.4r Nondurable-goods sales, index . 125.0• 127.2r Ratio of credit sales to net sales in department and apparel stores . .. 65.2• 67.4• Ratio of collections to outstandings in department and apparel stores 27.6• 32.5• PRODUCTION Total electric power use, index . 186.7• 181.7• Industrial electric power use, index . . .............. . 178.1 • 171.5• Crude oil production, index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . 98.4• 100.4• Average daily production per oil well (bbl.) 14.2 14.1 Crude oil runs to stills, index. . . . . . . . . ......... . 113.1 117.2 Industrial production in U. S., index. . ............. . 151.3• 150.1 r Texas industrial production-total, index. . ........ ..... . 142.9• 142.1 • Texas industrial production-manufactures, index. 169.9• 167.8• Texas industrial production-durable manufactures, index .... 172.3• 170.5• Texas industrial production-nondurable manufactures, index. 168.2• 165.9• Texas industrial production-mining, index. 107.5• 108.4• Building construction authorized, index. 157.l 130.5 New residential building authorized, index . 117.9 113.0 New nonresidential building authorized, index .......... . ... . .. . . . . 214.9 162.8 AGRICULTURE Prices received by farmers, unadjusted index, 1910-14=100. 266 259 Prices paid by farmers in U.S., unadjusted index, 1910-14=100 . 329 327 Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid by farmers . . 81 79 FINANCE Bank debits, index . 178.0 175.7 Bank debits, U. S., index . . .. . . . . ... . 195.1 191.8 Reporting member banks, Dallas Federal Reserve District: Loans (millions) s 4,676 s 4,645 Loans and investments (millions) . 6,847 s 6,856 Adjusted demand deposits (millions) . s 2,721 s 2,811 Revenue receipts of the State Comptroller (thousands) $176,132 _143,328 Securities registrations: Original applications: Mutual inveslmenl companies (thousands) . . . 49,600 s 30,135 All other corporate securities: Texas companies (thousands) 4,336 s 445 Other companies (thousands) . 970 s 1,924 Securities registrations: Renewals: 154.9 168.5 153.6 74.3 79.8 75.9 101.2 105.0 101.1 107.4 108.9 111.3 108.9 5152 554.3 515.3 55 50 63 3,024 3,675 s 5,484 111 .5 118.I 11 3.0 163.6 167.3 153.3 127.0r 136.8r 122.0r 65.4r 66.3 66.7 27.5r 30.1 29.9 152.6r 184.2 152.3 153.9r 174.8 153.3 93.7 99.4 94.8 13.4 14.2 13.4 112.2 11 52 1122 139.2r 150.7 138.9 130.8r 142.5 130.1 153.lr 168.9 152.0 150.8r 171.4 150.0 154.8r 167.1 153.4 IOl.5r 108.0 101.4 118.5 143.8 115.8 90.0 11 5.5 98.1 151.5 188.9 132.4 238 263 238 318 328 318 75 80 75 156.8 176.9 155.3 168.5 193.5 169.0 4,409 4,661 4,381 6,482 6,852 6,470 2,818 2,766 2,808 198,722 Sl59,730 160,376 28,104 128,124§ 64,688§ 7,944 13,148§ 45,869§ 3,040 33,950§ 24,919§ Mutual investment companies (thousands) 12,340 s 13,787 s 3,245 71,331§ 52,308§ Other corporate securities (thousands) . 508 919 494 4,280§ 3,919§ LABOR Manufacturing employment in Texas, indext .......... . 122.6• 121.9r 115.4r 122.3 115.0 Total nonagricultural employment in Texas, indext .... ...... ..... . 121.2• 120.8• l 15.6r 121.0 115.7 Average weekly hours-manufacturing, indext ... ... . 102.7• 101.7• 102.0r 102.2 101.7 Average weekly earnings-manufacturing, indext ................ .. . . 123.6• 123.3r I 18.3r 123.5 118.7 Total nonagricultural employment (thousands) t ......... ...... . . . . 2,958.o• 2,954.9r 2,821.4r 2,956.5 2,825.5 Total manufacturing employment (thousands) t ...... . . ...... . . 589.8• 586.8r 555.2r 588.3 553.5 Durable-goods employment (thousands) t ... . . . ...... . 306.2• 304.2r 280.4 305.2 278.6 Nondurable-goods employment (thousands) t ......... . 283.6• 262.6r 274.8r 283.1 275.0 Total nonagricultural labor force in selected labor market areas (thousands) 2,852.0 2,848.2 2,782.7r 2,850.1 2,779.8 Employment in selected labor market areas (thousands) .. 2,677.1 2,673.0 2,5722r 2,675.1 2,571.4 Manufacturing employment in selected labor market areas (thousands) ... ... .. . 500.8 496.3 470.7r 498.6 469.4 Total unemployment in selected labor market areas (thousands) .. 100.0 101.5 128.6r 100.8 126.4 Percent of labor force unemployed in selected labor market areas 3.5 3.6 4.6r 3.6 4.6 > >i bj ~ d ~ >i 00 c::: l'J c: >i ~ la .... d t.".l z .z z .... > ;i c::: 1:J ~ la ~ 00 0 d ~ 00 l'rj gi -:i ~ bj 00 0 -::i c::: ~ f-0 "'l Ul t.".l > ~ (i t:c:: NEW TEXAS SMSA DESIGNATED Early this month the U. S. Bureau of the Budget designated Hidalgo County as the "McAllen-Edinburg-Pharr Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area." The designation makes 22 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas now in Texas. The Texas Business Review will begin publication of economic statistics for the new SMSA as soon as possible . .,, l'1 0 00 z >i >i l'J 0 l'J ~ (') l'J 0 z > 'i' d (') 00 fll