JULY 1966 THE UNIVERSITY OF TF.VAS JUL 1966 THE LIBRARY A Monthly Summary of B1tsiness and Economic Conditions in Texas BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH: THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW VOL. XL, N 0. 7, JULY 19 ti ·.·:~,.. Editor: Stanley A. Arbingast/ Associate Editor: Robert H. Ryan/Managing Editor: D. E. Roberisoi Editorial Board: Stanley A. Arbingast, Chairman; John R. Stockton, Francis B. May, Robert H. Ryan, D. E. Roberteon CONTENTS 177 : THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS by Francis B. May 181: THE IMPORTANCE OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN TEXAS by Kenneth D. Starnes, Jr. 186: TEXAS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IN APRIL by Stanley A. Arbingast CHARTS AND TABLES 177: TEXAS BUSINESS ACTIVITY 178: BUSINESS ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR 20 SELECTED TEXAS CITIES 178: LEADING OIL-PRODUCING STATES, JANUARY-APRIL, 19.66 178: CRUDE-OIL PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 179: MISCELLANEOUS FREIGHT CARLOADING$ IN THE SOUTHWESTERN DISTRICT 179: TOTAL ELECTRIC POWER USE IN TEXAS 179: INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC POWER USE IN TEXAS 179: SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS 180: TEXAS INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, TOTAL MANUFACTURERS 180: TEXAS INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, DURABLE MANUFACTURERS 180: HOURS AND EARNINGS IN TEXAS 181: ORDINARY LIFE INSURANCE SALES IN TEXAS 181: MILEAGE TRAVELED BY AUTOMOBILE FOR FISHING AND HUNTING 182: NUMBER OF PERSONS TWELVE YEARS OLD AND OVER WHO FISHED AND HUNTED IN 1960, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS 183: EXPENDITURES OF FISHERMEN AND/ OR HUNTERS l B4 : AVERAGE EXPENDITURES FOR FISHERMEN AND FOR HUNTERS, 1955 AND 1960 184: EXPENDITURES FOR FISHING AND HUNTING IN 1955 AND 1960, BY ITEMS 185: MAJOR ITEM EXPENDITURES OF FRESH-WATER AND SALT-WATER FISHERMEN 185: EXPENDITURES OF HUNTERS, BY ITEM AND TYPE OF HUNTING 186: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS 186: NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEX AS 186: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS 186: ESTIMATED VALUES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS 187: LOANS BY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS 187: AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS AND GROSS AVERAGE INGS OF FACTORY PRODUCTION WORKERS IN SOUTHWESTERN STATES, DECEMBER, NOVEMBER, 1965 AND DECEMBER, 1964 EARN­FOUR 188: 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 Asaociate Director and Resources Specialist: Stanley A. Arbingast Assistant to the Director : Florence Escott Consulting Sta.tistician: Francis B. May Administrative Assistant: Cynthia Bettinger Research Associate : Charles 0. Bettinger, Charles T. Clark, Otis D. Horton, Jr., Ida M. Lambeth, Robert M. Lockwood, Charles A. Pieper, Dennis W. Richardson, Donald E. Robertson, Robert H. Ryan, Elizabeth R. Turpin, Kornelis J . Walraven, Joyzelle Wilke, Robert B. Williamson, James E. Willis Resea·rch Assistant: Howard D. Brecht, Robin Driggs, Hans Dieter Kurz, Robert E. Matlock, Jr., John E. Specht, Jr., Robert D. Spellings Administrative Secretary: Margaret F. Smith Senior Secretary: Betty Sue Hoch Senior Clerk Typist: Lois Conrad, Carolyn Harris, Sharon Wheat Cartographer: Mary Helen Parks, Mary Paxton Library Assistant: Merle Danz Statistical Assistant: Mildred Anderson, Constance Cooledge, Jo Neman Statistical Technician: Doris Dismuke, Mary Gorham Clerical Assistant: Peggy Bobo, Berge Garabedian, Rob­ert Jenkins, Ross Kammlah Offset Press Operator: Robert Dorsett, Daniel P. Rosal The Bureau of Business Research is a member of tl!e Associated University Bureaus of Business and Eeono11ac Research. Published monthly _by the B~reau of Business Research, Graduate School of Business, The University of Texas, Aust!n, Tuaa, ?8'1:­Second-clas!I postage Pill~ at Austin, Texas. Content of this publication is not copyrighted and may be reproduced !reelir. The view• esp~ •. aut~~rs are n'?t necessarily those of the Bureau of Business Research. Acknowledgment of source will be appreciated. Subacriptlon, p,00 a ,.,l· ind1v1dual copies, 25 cents. THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS by Francis B. May TEXAS BUSINESS ACTIVITY INDEX-ADJUSTED FOR SEASONAL VARIATION-1957-1959 • 100 O~~~~L--L--~~gg~~____L_____L_____L__j_____L_~o ~ l__i__L_~ 1954 '55 '56 '57 '58 '59 '60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 1966 NOTE: Shaded areas indicate periods of decline of total business activity in the U!lited States. 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. After declining 1 % in April, the seasonally adjusted index of Texas business activity rose 2% in May to a new all-time high value of 177.2% of the average monthly value during 1957-59. The May peak was 1.2% above the April high. This index is based upon bank debits in twenty Texas cities adjusted for seasonal variation and price changes. Bank debits reflect all monetary transac­tions effected by means of check payments. These include payments for goods and services as well as payments for sales of securities and real property. Bank debits fluc­tuate in accordance with changes in the rate of general business activity. They are classified by the National Bureau of Economic Research as a coincident indicator of changes in the business cycle. This means that bank debits reach their cyclical peaks and lows at the same time as the general business cycle. Adjustment for seasonal variation removes the influ­ence of seasonal highs and lows during the course of a year. The adjusted data show primarily cyclical and random changes in the short run. Small monthly changes are primarily random in character. Adjustment for price changes removes the influence of inflation and deflation, showing changes in flows of goods and services undistorted by the effects of changes in prices in various items. A glance at the table of indicators of business activity in twenty Texas cities reveals that in May there were nine increases, one unchanged index, and ten decreases. Austin led all cities with a 14% May increase. Dallas had a 1% increase, Fort Worth a 7% increase, and San Antonio a 3% increase. Houston had a 9% decrease. The net effect of the increases was to produce a 2o/c rise in the combined index of all twenty cities. Comparison of the first five months of this year shows that state-wide business activity averaged 9% above the comparable 1965 period. The indexes for twenty Texas JULY 1966 177 BUSINESS ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR 20 SELECTED TEXAS CITIES (Adjusted for seasonal variation-1957-59= 100) Percent change Yea r-to­date City May 1966 Apr 1966 Year-to­date average 1966 May 1966 from Apr 1966 average 1966 from 1965 Abilene Amarillo ....... 139.8 .. 171.0 146.1 171.0 142.3 173.8 - 4 •• + 5 + 10 Austin .....195.0 171.5 179.6 + 14 + 5 Beaumont .173.1 183.8 173.8 6 + 11 Corpus Christi ....131.1 142.1 134.4 8 + 4 Corsicana .. 150.5 137.5 140.5 + 9 + 10 Dallas ..........196.2 193.4 191.4 + 1 + 11 El Paso .127.9 120.8 121.2 + 6 3 Fort Worth ......139.9 130.3 132.8 + 7 + Galveston ........113.3 120.2 113.4 + 2 Houston .. 178.1 196.2 183.2 + Laredo ..... 158.7 164.7 165.3 4 + Lubbock ......... 160.5 155.7 165.8 + 3 + Port Arthur .. 100.8 115.7 110.6 -13 + San Angelo .. 141.0 139.! 141.5 + + 10 San Antonio .. . .. 166.9 162.7 163.6 + + 10 Texarkana . . ..... 176.8 177.9 173.4 + 14 Tyler .. .... 143.3 145.6 144.7 + 4 Waco .. 139.5 166.6 151.6 -16 + 8 W ichita Falls .. 141.8 133.7 142.9 + 6 + 10 ••Change is less than one-half of 1o/o . cities show nineteen rises and only one decline. Among the state's largest cities, Dallas led with an index av­erage 11% above the first five months of 1965. San An­tonio was up 10%, Houston 9%, and Fort Worth 7%. May was the sixty-third month of the current cyclical upswing. The current rate of business activity is un­precedented. This upswing is exceeded in length only by the eighty-month upswing during World War II. Crude oil production rose 6% in May after seasonal factors were taken into account. This was an unusually large month-to-month rise. At 107.0% of average month­ly production during 1957-59, the index was at its highest level since June 1957 when it registered 115.2% of the base period average. During the nine years since June 1957, the index has been as low as 88.3% of its 1957-59 base value. Data published in the June issue of World Oil show that January-April production of crude oil in Texas amounted to 353.0 million barrels, an increase of 6.6% over the first four months last year. United States pro­duction amounted to 989.7 million barrels, up 5.3% over production during the first four months of 1965. A com­parison of production in the nation and the six largest producing states is made in the following table: LEADING OIL-PRODUCING STATES, JANUARY-APRIL 1966 January-April Percentage changeproduction from State (thousands of barrels) January-April 1965 California .. ..................... .. 109,930 + 8.6 Louisian a ... .. . .. ..........216,021 + 11.7 New Mexico 42,345 + 6.3 Oklahoma 72,530 7.3 + Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 353,045 + 6.4 Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,233 -10.6 United States . ... . ..........989,663 + 5.3 Source: World Oil, June 1966. Louisiana had the largest increase, 11.7%. New Mexi­co had the smallest, 6.3%. Wyoming was the only sta.t.e of the six having a decline. These six states produced a total of 837.1 million of the 989.7 million barrels of United States production during the first four months. This was 84.6% of the total. Texas produced 35.7% of the national total. The 11.7% increase for Louisiana was a continuation of a pattern of large production increases in the sta.t.e. In 1958, Louisiana was the third largest producer in the nation with a total output of 312.0 million barrels of crude oil in that year. Since that time it has risen to second rank as a producer, displacing California from that position. Last year Louisiana produced 513.3 mil· lion barrels, a 64.5% increase over 1958. Annual com­pounding of the respective percentage increases in pro­duction at a rate equal to 11.7% for Louisiana and 6.3% for Texas indicates that, if these rates were to continue, Louisiana production would equal Texas output in ten years. The principal source of Louisiana production is the South Louisiana district, which includes the prolific off. shore producing areas. During the January-April period, this area had the largest percentage increase in output, 12.0%. The North Louisiana district had an 8.3% in· crease. The southern district produced 90.7% of total state production during the first four months of the year. A huge new oil pipeline of 36-42 inches in diameter designed to carry an initial 400,000 barrels a day from southern Louisiana to central Illinois is being planned by a group of oil companies. CRUDE-OIL PRODUCTION IN TEXAS NOTE: Shoi.ded area• ind1cat<.: pcr 1od• of d<.:clme 0( 1ornl \.1u1in,.s11 act1v11y in 1h~ United SU.tu. Of the ten Texas Railroad Commission districts, num· ber five, the East Central District, had the largest per­centage increase in output during the first four month.a of the year. The increase was 21.5%, compared with 13.5%, the second largest increase, which occurred in the West Central District. District 8, West Texas, which produced 41.7% of the state's output during the first four months, had a 10.2% increase over the comparable 1965 period. Only two districts, the upper Gulf and the Panhandle districts, had decreases. Although there have been three significant gas discov· eries in offshore Texas areas during the past year, there still is no boom in offshore drilling. This has been at­tributed to a complex of factors which include the low success ratio of wildcats drilled and the need for com· pletion of seismic work currently in progress. In·an effort to spur drilling of wildcat wells, the Texas Rail· road Commission has increased the number of new wells TEXAS BUSINESS· REVIEW MISCELLANEOUS FREIGHT CARLOADINGS IN THE SOUTHWESTERN DISTRICT 200 150 LOO 50 0 NOTE: Shaded area1 indicate pedoda o! decline of toLl.I butineu 1.ct1vi1y in the-United SUtel. entitled to discovery allowables from five wells in any new field to ten. The duration of the extra allowable production has been extended from 18 months to 24 months. These rules apply to onshore discoveries. Offshore wells lose their discovery allowable after 18 months or the completion of six wells in the field. Seasonally adjusted May crude oil runs to stills rose 4%. At 120.0% of average monthly runs during the 1957­59 base period, the index was at its highest level since its record peak of 120.6% reached in July 1964. Runs to stills have been at high levels during the first five months of the year. Strong demand for both gasoline and kero­sene contributed to the rise. The seasonally adjusted index of total electric power use in the state declined 2% in May. Industrial electric power use declined 1%. Commercial and domestic power use contributed the remainder of the decline. For the first five months of the year both total power use and industrial power use were up substantially over the comparable 1965 period. Seasonally adjusted sales of ordinary life insurance rose 9% in May to a value of 185.9% of average monthly sales during the 1957-59 base period. This was the highest rate of May sales in the history of the index. It was 11.1% above May 1965. Sales for the first five months of the year were 10% above the comparable 1965 period. Growing population and higher family incomes in the state have increased total need for life insurance cover­age. Rising price levels during the post World War II era have meant that more insurance coverage is needed to provide for a given level of family needs. Data supplied by the industry show that there were 261 life insurance companies domiciled in Texas at mid-year of 1964. This was an increase of 2% over the number TOTAL ELECTRIC POWER SE IN TEXAS in 1954. In 1963 life insurance companies doing business in this state paid $410.3 million in benefits. These include death payments, matured endowments, annuities, sur­render values, and policy dividends. Total retail sales in Texas declined 3% in May after seasonal factors were taken into account. Sales of durable consumer goods declined 2%. Sales of nondurables fell 4%. Cumulative data show that for the first five months of the year total retail sales were 4% above the com­parable 1965 period. Sales of durables were up 4'7c. Nondurables had a 3% sales rise. Total May retail sales in the United States dropped 2.4% to a seasonally adjusted $24.4 billion. This was the second consecutive monthly drop. It placed sales at a level 5% above May 1965. Sales of durable goods were down 7% from April. They were 2% below )fay 1965. The decline in automobile sales was primarily respon­sible for the drop. Sales of nondurables were at virtually the same level as in April. They were 8% above May SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (lndexes-Adjuted for seasonal variation-1957-59=100) Percent change Year-to­ date Year-to­ average May date May 1966 1966 Apr a vera.ge from from Index 1966 1966 1966 Apr 1966 1965 Texas business activity . . . 177.2 173. 172.6 + 2 + 9 Crude petroleum production ..... 107.0• 100.8• 100.9 + 6 + 7 Crude oil runs to stills . . .....120.0 115.2 115.8 + 4 3 Total electric power use . . . . 1 .o• 192.0• 183.6 2 + 10 Industrial electric power use....180.5• 1 2.2• 175.0 1 + 13 Bank debits ...186.9 1 3.4 181.7 + 2 + 13 Miscella neous freight carload­ings in S.W. district . . . . . . . 4.0 83.7 82.1 •• + 5 Ordinary life insurance sales.... 185.9 170.2 174.7 + 9 10 Total retail sales...............130.4• 134 . r 3 + 4 Durable-goods sales . 149.7• 152.8r 2 + 4 INDEX-ADJUSTED FOR SE.A. SO N A! VARIAT/ON -1957-1959 · IOO 250 200 150 JOO 50 1954 '55 '56 '57 '58 '59 '60 '61 62 '63 '64 '65 1966 NOTE: Shaded aru.1 indicue perioch of decline ol total bu1ii:r.eu activity in the United St.ates. JULY 1966 Nondurable-goods sales .......!20. 5• 125.5r 4 3 + Buildi ng construction authorized 141.5 145.3 145.0 3 + 21 New residential ...... ....... .110.1 96.5 111.3 + 14 + 10 New nonresidential ........195.7 224.1 199.4 -13 + 43 Total nonfarm employment ......122.3° 122.1* 121.6 •• + 4 Ma nufacturing em ployment ..... 124.0• 123.3* 122.8 1 6 + + Total unemployment . . .......... 7 .6 75.2 77.4 + 5 -17 Insured unemployment .......... 49.9 51.5 56.4 3 -41 Average weekly earnings-­ manufacturing . . . . ..........125.7• 126.1• 124.6 4 u + Average weekly hours-manufacturing ...............102.9° 103.0* 102.6 •• •• C.Preli m..i nary. rRevised.. ..Change is less than one-half of I%. TEXAS INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTIO , TEXAS INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION TOTAL MANUFACTURES DURABLE MANUFACTURES ' INDEX -ADJUSTED FOR SEASONAL VARIATION -1957·1959 · IOO 200 200 150 150 50 I 00 100 00 50 50 0 0 1954 '55 '56 '57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 1966 NOTE: Shaded a.rea• ind1c•te period• of decline o( total bu1me11 activity in the United Statt1. 1965. Total urban building permits issued in May were down 3% after seasonal adjustment. For the first five months of the year both residential and nonresidential permits were well above the comparable 1965 period. Total building permits for the United States in May were down 7% from April after seasonal adjustment. They were 12% below May 1966. Housing starts were down also, falling at an accelerated rate. Tightness of mortgage money has affected national building data sooner than it has Texas'. There are strong indications that the unavailability of long-term funds for housing will soon affect Texas home builders. Thus far, the credit stringency has been felt most in the homebuilding in­dustry in the Northeast. The North Central, and South­ern regions have not been affected so much. NOTE: Shaded a r eal indicue period• o( decline o( total bu1 ine u activity in the United Suitu, May seasonally adjusted total nonfarm employment waa virtually unchanged from the April level. For the first five months of the year total nonfarm employment av· eraged 4% above the comparable 1965 period. Manufacturing employment was up 1% in May after seasonal adjustment. During the first five months it averaged 6% above the like 1965 period. Average weekly earnings in manufacturing averaged 4% above 1965 dur­ing the first five months of the year due to higher wape. Average hours were unchanged. The first five months have been prosperous ones for Texans, resulting in high employment and high earnings. There is no sign of an end to the upswing. The problems of the housing industry in the nation may develop into a threat. This situation will bear watching. HOURS AND EARNINGS IN TEXAS Average weekly earnings Average weekly hours Average hourly earninp May• Apr r Mayr May• Apr r May r May• Apr r Mayr Industry 1966 1966· 1965 1966 1966 1965 1966 1966 1966 Manufacturing-Total .... .. ...... . $107.52 $107.52 $103.99 42.0 42.0 42.1 $2.66 $2.66 12.47 Durable goods 110.33 110.33 108.00 42.6 42.6 43.2 2.59 2.69 2.60 Lumber and wood products . 74.21 73.96 70.31 43.4 43.0 42.1 1.71 1.72 1.67 Furniture a nd fixtures . 68.94 70.46 73.13 38.3 38.5 37.5 1.80 1.88 1.96 Stone, clay and glass products . 95.70 100.57 88.36 44.1 45.1 43.1 2.17 2.28 2.06 P rimary metal industries. 123.85 128.90 119.23 H .7 42.4 41.4 2.97 8.04 2.88 Fabricated metal products. 11 4.84 110.49 110.31 44.0 48.5 44.8 2.61 2.54 2.19 Machinery, except electrical. 114.58 112.92 113.09 43.4 43.1 44.7 2.64 2.62 2.6S Oil field machinery . . ........ . .... .. .. , , .. 120.98 123.82 123.75 42.6 48.6 45.0 2.84 2.84 2.76 Transportation equipment 142.02 142.89 143.36 43.3 43.3 44.8 8.28 8.80 1.20 Nondurable goods 103.91 l03.82 100.21 41.4 41.2 40.9 2.61 2.62 2.16 Food and kindred products . 92.10 89.10 87.98 41.3 40.5 41.5 2.23 2.20 2.12 Meat products 98.67 92.28 95.26 42.9 39.1 41.6 2.80 2.86 2.29 Textile mill products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.23 77.16 71.61 44.9 44.6 43.4 1.72 1.78 1.16 Broad woven fabric mills ............... . .. ... . , .. . ... 79.12 79.83 73.35 44.7 44.6 43.4 l.77 1.79 1.69 Apparel and other finished textile . . , ...... .. , . . 61.07 60.83 56.85 39.4 39.5 37.9 1.56 1.64 1.60 Paper and allied products................. . ... .. 118.16 114.17 114.54 43.6 42.6 42.9 2.71 2.68 2.67 Printing, publishing and allied industries . 103.10 1.02.00 102.70 39.5 40.0 89.6 2. ~1 2.66 z.60 Chemicals and allied products . 146.20 149.04 140.53 48.0 43.2 42.2 8.40 8.46 S.SI Petroleum refining and related industries . 150.84 154.82 143.72 41.9 42.3 41.9 3.60 3.66 I.II Leather and leather products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63. 79 66.60 67.20 48.1 46.0 46.1 1.48 1.48 1.49 Nonmanufacturing Mining . . .............. . Crude petroleum and natural gas .......... . Sulphur ...... ..... ... . .. .... . Public utilities Wholesale trade Retail trade ··················· · · ·········· ······ · · 130.97 132.91 146.88 111.35 107.10 68.44 133.2.4 135.53 143.37 111.78 109.04 68.06 126.14 127.71 148.71 l08.00 105.27 69.36 42.8 42.6 48.2 40.2 42.0 87.4 43.4 43.3 41.8 40.5 48.1 87.6 48.2 43.0 46.2 40.8 48.5 87.9 8.06 8.12 8.40 2.77 2.55 1.88 8.07 8.18 8.48 2.76 2.68 1.81 2.91 2.97 !.29 2.68 2.41 I.ii •Preliminary, subject to revision upon receipt of additional reports. rRevised. De.ta cover wage and salary workers only. Source: Texas Employment Commission. TEXAS BUSINESS REVU:W THE IMPORTANCE OF WILDLIFE R~O·URCES IN TEXAS by Kenneth D. Starnes, Jr.~ Although Texans are constantly reminded of the boun­tiful supply of wildlife which their state contains, few realize how much economic and aesthetic benefit is reaped from this abundance. In 1960, over $383 million changed hands as a direct result of hunting and fishing activities. If all the dollars spent both directly and indirectly on hunting and fishing could be calculated, the total would be staggering. These expenditures reach into almost every segment of the state's economy. Three prerequisites are necessary for a hunting and fishing "industry." First, there must be an adequate sup­ply of wildlife. Second is the need for a population which makes use of wildlife resources. The third factor, and the one that directly benefits the economy, is that sportsmen must need and buy equipment and other items necessary to participate in the sports. Texas Wildlife Texas is fortunate in having a wide variety of wild­life. This is due partly to the forests and other vegetation of the state. They serve as an excellent cover and nu­trient resource to the thousands of varieties of game which roam Texas fields and forests. Although other spe­cies of game are perhaps more numerous, the white-tailed deer is by far the most important Texas game animal. According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, it numbers over 2,250,000, and usually more than 100,000 are killed each year. In size, the Texas deer population is almost 2,000,000 more than that of any other state. In 1960, the Texas deer kill was estimated to be 208,000, a kill which ranked in numerical size among the five top deer states. In 1964, the Texas kill was almost 20% of the total U. S. kill. The white-tailed deer habitat covers almost all the state except for parts of the Panhandle and extreme West Texas. The Edwards Plateau region has some of the highest concentrations of deer found in the U. S. In fact, the deer population in some Edwards •Former student at The Univl'!'llity of Texas. Now with George Sand­lin and Company, Auatin, Texu. ORDINARY LIFE INSURANCE SALES IN TEXAS Plateau counties exceeds the livestock population. Other members of the deer family, the mule deer and the antelope, are found primarily in the Davis Moun­tains and the open ranges of the Trans-Pecos region. Recently, the elk has been introduced to the Guadalupe and Davis mountains and promises to become a valuable game animal. Texas ranks as the number one bird state in the United States. More than 540 species have been recorded in the state-three-fourths of all the species known to occur between Mexico and Canada. Nearly one-half of the Table 1 MILEAGE TRAVELED BY AUTOMOBILE FOR FISHING AND BUNTING Total Passenger Activity automobile miles (thousands) total (thousand ) Average m iles F ishermen and/or hunters ... 1,16 ,706 2,660,300 1,097 Fishermen 51,200 1,937.716 Fresh water 621,206 1,360,494 710 Salt water 229,994 577,222 1,040 Hunters 317,507 722.5 5 6 9 Waterfowl 27,352 72,625 494 Small game 1 6, 13 430,00 53 Big game ...... 104,017 219,952 520 TRIPS AND MAN-DAYS OF FISHING AND B NTING Number of days (thousands) A verage number of days Number of trips (thousands) Average number of trips Fishing and/ or hunting ....54 ,63 22.5 47,369 19.5 Fishing ......... .... .. 40, 160 1 .4 34, 122 15.6 Fresh water .33,924 17.7 29,230 15.3 Salt water ...... 6.236 11.2 4,872 Hunting ..... 14,47 13. !3.247 12.6 Waterfowl ..... 1,099 7.5 928 6.3 Small game 11,117 13.9 10,628 l S. S Big game ··-········ 2,262 5.3 1,691 4.0 Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Texas Hunting and Fishing Survey," 1960, pp. B-12, B-. wild turkeys in the United States are found in Texas, with the heaviest concentration being in the Hill Country or Edwards Plateau region. About 15,000 wild turkeys were killed in 1964. As well as having a wealth of native birds, the state benefits by being in the migratory path of practically all species of wild duck. The coastal area of the Gulf serves as the winter home of many. The Eagle Lake region is often referred to as the "Goose Capital" of the world. The most widely hunted game bird is the mourning dove, a bird which migrates in great concentrations to South Texas each fall and winter. Another popular game bird, the quail, is found in almost all sections of the state. Lesser game birds found throughout the state in­clude pheasant, grouse, prairie chicken, partridge, wood­cock, snipe, and rails. For those who thrill to the hunt of dangerous game, the javelina or Texas collared peccary serves as a source of hunting adventure. This ferocious little animal is found in the border country of southwest Texas and is often hunted with dogs. The peccary's cousin, the wild boar, is found primarily in East Texas. The Davis Mountains and Palo Duro areas are wild sheep and goat country. Wild sheep from Arabia recently have been introduced to the area as a complement to the native stock and promise to become excellent game animals. Texas is well known for its abundance of small game. Despite its being one of the most heavily hunted animals in the state, the rabbit seems to maintain a fairly large and constant population. Hunters also find plentiful sup­ plies of coyote, bobcat, fox, hawk, owl, squirrel, and other various small game animals. The only member of the reptile family which could be classified as a game animal is the western diamond­ back rattlesnake. In some sections of the state, an annual rattlesnake hunt is staged, normally sponsored by the local chamber of commerce or some other CIVIC organi­ zation. These hunts often attract hunters from as far away as Canada and New England. Various factors influence the levels of game population. Rainfall, vegetation, climate, and the profusion of preda­ tory animals all serve as checks on the growth of the game population. Should one animal become too numer­ ous, the balance is soon restored through nature's self­ correcting adjustments. However, it it not uncommon from season to season to note cyclical patterns in the growth of game animals. True to its reputation as a land of diversity, Texas has a wide variety of both fresh-water and salt-water fish. Red snapper, sea trout, and tarpon are probably the most popular of the salt-water species. The large­ mouthed bass and the catfish are found widely in the fresh-water lakes and streams of the state. Plans for water development and the creation of new reservoirs will add thousands of acres of fishable lakes and streams to what is already a sizeable water system. Hunters and Fishermen In 1960, the U. S. Bureau of the Census listed 9,579,677 persons living in Texas, ranking the state sixth in total population among the states. In that same year, the Bureau of the Census also found that 2.4 mil­lion, or one in every three, Texans twelve years of age or older engaged in sport fishing and hunting. Forty-six percent of all males fished and/ or hunted and 21% of all females fished and/ or hunted. Almost one out of every two males and one female in five fished. There were fewer hunters, with one male in four hunting and only one female in thirty participating. The number of persons hunting and fishing has increased almost 800,000 since 1955, or from about 26.8% to 33.2% of the population. The highest percent of sportsmen is found in small cities or suburbs of large cities, with 36% of the popu­lation being participants. The lowest percent is found in large cities, with 29o/c participating. From 31%-33% of the population of rural areas and towns are listed as participants. Participation by age group varied little except that fewer older persons hunted and fished. About 35% of each age group under 65 participated, whereas only 2Q '7( over 65 participated. Of the 2.1 million fishermen in Texas, 1.9 million fished in fresh water, and 555,000 fished in salt water. Because some participated in both fresh-water and salt-water fishing, the totals do not balance. There were over a million hunters in 1960 with 147,000 hunting waterfowl, 800,000 hunting small game, and some 423,000 hunting big game. Altogether, 47 million trips were taken by sportsmen in 1960, which totaled over 2.6 billion passenger miles. Table 2 NUMBER OF PERSONS TWELVE YEARS OLD AND OVER WHO FISHED AND HU NTED IN 1960. BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS (thousands) Characteristics Population twelve years and over F ished and/or hunted Number P ercentage Fished and hunted Number P ercentage Fished only Number Percentage Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,W6 2,425 33.2 811 11.1 1,375 18.8 Density Big cities 1,728 502 29. 1 155 9.0 305 17.7 Small cities and suburbs . 2,654 963 36.3 264 9.9 594 22.4 Towns .......... 1,055 329 31.2 I02 9.7 203 19.2 Rural areas I,859 631 33.9 290 15.6 273 14.7 Sex Male S,458 1,6\5 47.7 721 20.9 694 20.1 Female 3,837 810 21.1 90 2.3 681 17.7 Age 12-I 7 years 18-24 years 2;;.34 years 35-44 years 45-64 years 65 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ··············· 1,189 94 7 1,326 l ,228 1,957 650 398 318 481 434 663 132 33.5 33.6 36.3 35.3 33.9 20.3 I 71 132 163 I26 201 19 I4.4 13.9 12.3 I0.3 10.3 2.9 211 160 276 245 386 97 17.7 16.9 20.8 20.0 19.7 14.9 (Continued) TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW ·"" Table 2 NUMBER OF PERSONS TWELVE YEARS OLD AND OVER WHO FISHED AND H NTED IN 1960, BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS (Continued) (thousands) N either fished P opulation Total fi shed Hunted on ly Tota.I hunted nor hunted Cha racteristics twelve years and over N umber P ercentage N umber Percentage N umber Percent.age N umber Percentage Total .... . ...... 7,296 2,186 30.0 239 3.3 1.04~) 14.4 4, 71 66. Density Big cities 1.728 460 26.6 42 2.4 197 11.4 1,226 70.9 Sma ll cities and su burbs . 2,654 857 32.3 105 4.0 36 13.9 J,691 63.7 Towns 1,055 305 28.9 24 2.3 126 11.9 726 6 . Rura l areas ····· · · ·· ··· 1,859 563 30.3 6 3. 7 35 19.3 1,228 66.1 Sex Male ..... ............. . 3,458 l,4 15 40.9 200 5. 921 26.6 l, 43 53.3 F em a le .. . ... ..... 3,837 771 20.1 39 1.0 129 3.4 3,027 7 .9 Age 12-17 years 1,189 381 32.0 16 1.3 1 7 15.7 791 16.3 18-24 years 947 292 30. 26 2.7 15 16.7 629 12.9 25-34 years 1,326 439 33.1 42 3.2 205 15.5 45 17 .3 35-44 years J,228 371 30.2 63 5.1 1 9 15.4 794 16.4 45-64 years 1,957 586 29.9 76 3.9 276 14.1 I.294 26.6 65 and over . 650 116 17. 16 2.5 34 5.2 51 10.2 Source: u. s. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Texas Hunting and Fishing Survey," 1960, p. B-1. The average sportsman took 19.5 trips and traveled over 1,000 miles. Fifty-five million man-days were spent in hunting and fishing. In making these trips, 418,000 Texans hunted deer, kill­ing 242,000 (including 34,000 out of state). Three hun­dred twenty-one thousand quail hunters bagged 9.8 million quail for an average of 31 each. Over 14 million doves were shot by 450,000 hunters for an average of 32 each, and 137,000 duck hunters took an average of 25 each. Economic Significance The economic impact of hunting and fishing is signifi­cant. Texans spent twice as much money on these sports as they did for admission to all football, baseball, and basketball games, plus all movies and other stage a\tractions combined. More was spent on these sports than the total amounts spent for medical care, plus den­tal care, plus hospitalization insurance. Such is the im­pact of hunting and fishing on the economy of Texas. Texas sportsmen spent more than $383 million on fish­ ing and hunting during 1960. There was a 131.9% increase in expenditures from 1955 to 1960. This sharp increase is the result of three factors: (1) the growth of the population; (2) the increased rate of participation in fishing and hunting; and (3) the higher average spending by sportsmen. The average sportsman spent $158 during 1960 as com­ pared to $102 in 1955. In 1955, the average expenditure was $87 for fishing and $59 for hunting. In 1960, it was $130 and $93, respectively. Studies show the average expenditure of $158 per sportsman was almost equally divided between equipment costs and the other costs as seen in Table 3. About $82 was spent on equipment, with $42 of that spent on boats and motors. Auto expense amounted to $19.28. The sharpest increase in expenditures is in specialty equipment, such as special clothing, cooking and camping equipment, bi- JULY 1966 noculars, etc. There was a 32.5'7< increase in sales from 1955 to 1960 in this category. One hundred and se\·enty-six million dollars were spent for fresh-water fishing and $109 million for salt-water fishing. Hunters spent $11 million for waterfowl hunting, $50 million for small game, and $36 million for big game. It is difficult to place an o\·erall value on fish and game because the aesthetic, recreational, and biological values Table 3 EXPENDIT RES OF FISHERMEN AND/OR H .NTERS P ersons with expenditures Amount o f expenditu res Expenditure item Number ( thousands) P ercentage Number (thousands) Average Total 2,330 96.l S3 2, 769 S15i. 4 Equipment, total J.625 67.0 19 ,436 81. 3 H unting and fish ing equipment _. 1,57 65. l 72,223 29.7 Boats and motors 264 10.9 102. 37 42.41 Other 591 24 .4 23,374 9.64 Trip expenditure, total .. 2,241 92.4 156,168 66.40 Food __ J.472 60.7 35,067 14.46 Lodgi ng . . 26 11.J 7,739 3.19 Automobile ex pense ....2,110 7.0 46,748 19.28 Other transportation 19 0. 970 0.40 Entrance and privil2ge fees.. 430 17 .7 7,407 3.05 Other .......1.71,4 10. 7 58,236 24.01 L icense and lease fees, total ......1,356 55.9 13.649 5.63 License ... 1,32 54. 6,956 2.87 Lease and p r ivilege fees (annual) 133 5.5 6,463 2.67 Duck stamps . . 78 3.2 230 0.09 Other stamps 5 7 24.2 14,519 5.99 Source: U. S. Department of Co= erce, Bureau of the Census, "T exas Hunting and Fishing Survey.'' 1960, p. B-17. T&ble 4 AVERAGE EXPENDITURES Jo'OR FISHERMEN AND FOR HUNTERS, 1955 AND 1960 Fishermen and/or hunters Fishermen Hunters Expenditure item 1955 1960 1955 1960 1955 1960 Total .. . ..... . . SIOl.57 $157 .84 $86.69 $130.39 $59.43 $93.1 8 Equipment ······ ···· 36.25 81.83 28.11 66.03 26.85 51.57 Hunt ing and fishing equipment. ) 7.69 29.78 8.85 13.11 22.84 41.53 Other equipment 18.56 52.05 19.26 52.92 4.01 10.04 Trip expenditures 58.27 64.40 56.45 59.60 20.66 24.67 License and lease fees . 2.12 5.&3 1.06 2.45 2.76 7.91 Other expenditures 4.93 5.99 1.07 2.31 9. 16 9.03 Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Tex as Hunting and Fishing Survey," 1960, p. B-23. are often neglected or considered "intangible" when the economist views these natural resources. T. D. Carroll of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has attempted to place a dollar value on the deer. He uses the figure of $110 as the average per-gun-cost of a buck deer lease in Llano County. The doe is evaluated at an average cost of $15 per hunter. During the 1959 hunting season, 5,211 bucks and 4,009 does were killed in Llano County. Since each hunter is allowed two bucks, each buck would be worth $55, or the 5,211 bucks would be worth $286,605. Four thousand does at $15 each would be worth $60,135, giving a total potential value of the harvested deer to the landowners of $346,640. The small businessman re­ceives by far the greatest benefit from abundant wildlife. On property which has a high population of wildlife, the cash income is considerable to the landowner. Often the charge per buck is $125, with $23 for the first doe, $15 for the second one, and $10 for the third. One rancher reportedly receives over $6,000 per year for a two-week lease on his property. Due to extensive advertising by local chambers of commerce, Texas had it:> heaviest influx of out-of-state deer hunters last season. In 1965, landowners in Texas leased their land to hunt­ ers for over $13 million, according to a study by Wallace Klussmann, extension wildlife conservation specialist at Texas A&M University. There were approximately 21,000 landowners who leased 33 million acres for all types of hunting. Over 16,000 of the leases were for deer hunting, the average cost per state acre being forty-six cents, while the acre cost in the Edwards Plateau was eighty cents. The average return for a day lease was $1.10 per acre. More than 12,000 landowners leased land for hunting game birds. Dove hunting showed the greatest increase Table in leasing activity. The presence of game animals on land can certainly mean much economically to landowners and no doubt is considered in the sale or purchase of land. There were about 3,000 private lakes leased for fishing. The annual return was about three-quarters of a million dollars, with daily fishing being about a dollar per fisher­man. The annual family rate was between $25 to $500. Presently, there are about 13,000 foreign big game animals of 13 species present in Texas. It is estimated that by 1969 there will be over 100,000 individual big game animals. This type of development has the poten­tial of becoming a major contributing factor to the already sizable economic impact that wildlife has on the Texas economy. The Y. 0. Ranch at Mountain Home, for ex­ample, attracts hunters who stalk the African Aoudad Sheep, the Corsican Wild Ram, the Indian Axis Deer, the Japanese Sika Deer, and the Indian Blackbuck Antelope. For those who cannot afford the time and expense of a genuine African safari, the Texas ranch serves as a con­venient substitute. More and more hunters are taking advantage of these rather unique hunting expeditions which are complete with guides, meals, and transpor­ tation. Aside from sport fishing and hunting, many persons pay to receive aesthetic pleasure from wildlife. The whooping cranes located in the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge near Corpus Christi are a popular tourist attrac­tion, providing more than a million dollars a year to the state's economy. All along the Gulf Coast are private refuges where bird watchers come during the spring migration. The two most famous are the Rockport Cot­tages, operated by Connie Hagar, and Welder Refuge, operated by Clarence Cottam. Since there is such a wide 5 EXPENDITURES FOR FISHING AND HUNTING (thousands) IN 1955 AND 1960, BY ITEMS Fishermen and/ or hunters Fishermen Hunters Expenditure items 1955 1960 Percent change 1955 1960 Percent change 1955 1960 Percent change Total ..... 5165,054 3382,769 + 131.9 3122,919 3285,027 + 131.9 $42,135 $97,747 + 132.0 Equipment, total Hunting and fish ing Other eQuipment Trip expenditures License annual fees . equipment . . . . . .. . .. .. . 58,898 28,740 30,158 94,679 3,464 198,436 72,223 126,211 156,1 68 13.649 + 236.9 + 151.3 + 318.5 + 64.9 + 294.0 39,861 12,545 27,316 80,033 1,506 14 4,345 28,663 115,683 130,2.86 5,353 + 262.1 + 128.5 + 323.5 + 62.8 + 255.4 19,037 16,195 2,842 14,646 1,958 54,094 43,564 10,531 25,881 8,297 + 184.2 + 169.0 + 270.5 + 76.7 + 323.7 Other expenditures 8,013 14,519 + 81.2 1,519 5,047 + 232.3 6,494 9,475 + 45.9 Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Tex as Hunting and Fishing Survey," 1960, p. B-22. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW variety of bird species across the state, it is extremely difficult to estimate the dollar value added to the economy by bird lovers and tourists. If one attempts to estimate how many people receive income, partially or wholly from hunting or fishing, where is the line to be drawn? How many persons raise worms to sell to fishennen? What percentage of ammunition reloading equipment do hunters use? Certain questions can be answered easily. For instance, the state of Texas Table 6 MAJOR ITEM EXPENDITURES OF FRESH-WATER AND SALT-WATER FISHERMEN Fresh-water expenditures Salt-water expenditures Expenditure item Total• Average Total• Average Total ............ .5~75,554 39 1.67 3109,467 3197 .24 Equi pment, total . 68,283 35.66 76,060 137.05 Trip, total 98,307 51.34 31.977 57.62 License and lease fees, total 4,911 2.56 441 0.79 Boat launching .. 2,036 1.06 417 0.75 Other expenditures 2,019 1.05 574 1.03 •In thousands. Sou rce: u. s. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Texas Hunting and Fishing Survey," 1960, p. B-19. received $3,697,743 in game and fish license fees in the fiscal year ending August 31, 1962. Other expenditures and collections are more difficult to trace. Conclusion If one looks at the $383-plus million that hunters and fishermen spent in 1960, and with this amount increasing every year, the importance of conservation and good game management can be quickly realized. At the present time, according to A. J. Springs of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, Texas' deer are overly populated from the standpoint of good game man­agement. One's first impression might be "the more, the better," but this is not true. Wildlife, like domestic life, needs to be managed to reap the greatest economic ben­efit. Certainly, it is true as Mr. Springs feels that "the people who, through proper wildlife management, dangle the most attractive fish and game bait before the eyes of the people are going to have the best chance of catching their share of our increasing number of outdoor sports­men." The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in concluding a national survey, states that the number of participants, EDITOR'S NOTE Dr. George Kozmetsky, executive vice-pre ident of Teledyne, of Hawthorne, California, has been ap­pointed dean of the Graduate School of Busines and of the College of Business Administration, The University of Texas, effective September 1, 1966. He has also been appointed as Executive As ociate for Economic Affairs for The niversity of Texas System which has nine components in seven cities. Dr. Kozmetsky holds a B.A. degree in political science from the niversity of Washington and the l\1.B.A. and Doctor of Commercial Science degrees from Harvard niversity. His academic experience includes faculty appointments at the niversity of Washington, the Harvard niversity Graduate School of Business, and the Graduate School of Industrial Administration of the Carnegie Institute of Technology. He is a well-known author and i a past president of the Institute of :\lanagement Science. Currently, he is serving on the Presidential Advisory Committee for the Kational Data Center and as a consultant to the nited tales Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. Dr. Kozmetsky will succeed Dr. John Arch White, a distinguished scholar and tea<'her in the field of accounting, who became dean in 1959 and reached the mandatory retirement age of 65 this year. Dur­ ing Dean White's administration, a number of sig­ nifican·t changes in college curriculum were made; the faculty was strengthened; and the Graduate School of Business Administration was established. He will be on research leave during the 1966-67 academic year. Dean White's friends will be de­ lighted to learn that he plan to return to classroom teaching at the end of his leave. S.A.A. the amount of money expended, and the interest from youth to old age, all emphasize that hunting and fishing continue to be the most popular American sports. Texans have many reasons to be proud of their state with its multitude of resources. As the state grows more urban each year, more persons will be going to the for­ests, the mountains, and the plains for recreation. Wildlife resources will become more important to Texans, both in economic value and aesthetic value. Table 7 EXPENDITURES OF HUNTERS, BY ITEM AND TYPE OF HUNTING Waterfowl Small game Big game Expenditure items Number (thousands) Average umber (thousands) Average Number (tltousands) Average Total 31~.136 375.76 $50,439 $63.05 $36,170 s 5.51 Equipment, total 6,518 44.34 29,729 31.16 17, 4 42.19 Trip, total 3,855 26.22 12,357 15.45 9,66 22. 6 License and privilege fees, total . . ... . . . ... . 591 4.02 l, 24 2.2 5. 3 13.91 Dogs ....... ........... . . . 145 0.99 6,0 1 7.60 1.447 3.42 Other expenditures 27 0.18 454 0.57 1,323 3.i3 Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Texas Hunting and Fishing Survey," 1960, p. B-21. JULY 1966 185 TEXAS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION RESIDENTI AL B ILDI G AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS* AUTHORIZED IN APRIL by Stanley A. Arbingast The seasonally adjusted index of total construction au­thorized by permit-issuing municipalities in Texas dropped 3% from 145.3 in April to 141.5 in May (1957­59 = 100) . However, the index for this May is 21 points above the May 1965 level, and the pace of con­struction in the state appears to be holding up very well in comparison with that of the nation as a whole. Hous­ing starts on a national basis dropped to a three-and­one-half-year low in May. The year-to-date index of Tex­as residential construction is up 9%, and the nonresi­dential index is up 40%. BUILDING CONSTRUCTJO AUTHORIZED I TEXAS INDEX -.ADJUSTED FOR SEASONAi. VAl!IATION -1957.1959· IOO 200 150 I 00 50 0 1954 55 56 57 58 59 '60 61 62 63 '64 65 1966 • Exclude• .idd1tiunt. o.lt.:rations, .lnd repairs. NOTE: Sh.1.ded a r eas indu:ato;-periods uf decline of Iota! business ;activity in the United St;i.tu. buildings was the increased cost of building. Higher in­terest rates, rising wages, increased pressure for ma­terials, and higher land costs all contributed. Buyers have also tended to favor larger, more expensive homes. The Austin, Corpus Christi, Houston, Laredo, Midland, 1954 '55 '56 '57 '58 '59 '60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 1966 NOTL: Shaded :are"'s ind1cale prrioch of decline of tolal buaineu activity iA the United States. The index of Texas residential construction authorized regained its momentum in May and was up 13.6 points after dropping in April to its lowest point since February 1965. One-family-dwelling permits were up 2% in value from April to May, and multiple-family-dwelling permits were up 41%. Comparing January through May with the same months of 1965, the value of one-family residential buildings authorized increased by 5%, and multiple­family dwelling permits rose by 29%. The total number of permits for one-family dwellings issued in Texas' 22 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas was 5% lower and outside the SMSA's, the number declined by 1% from the first five months of last year to those months of 1966, but the total value rose. The major reason for increase in the aggregate value of one-family residential NONHESIDENTIAL UUILIJI 1G AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS* INDEX -Al>JUSTED FOR SEASONAL VARIATION -1957 1959 • 100 :: ::: :1110 :: ::: .. :-:: :-: 1-.· ,__;:'J;._-1--t-·---;-;.r--+--+---f--ff.-ll...j..,~2~0 2011 1:' ---'-f :;__ --IL .·. ll l--11-11.J -~--+-rlli"--~2110 J50 Zl I _ "-l~';-t--ltl/~--t-l-jllltff--.1 _j :_.·,-,._-1IC--l-t-H:t::: t'--'t'\--tt'fi l.Y\l l/fl.J"tit+J---l I 50 --·~""'-: ··I'+-tf -IJ u-1-~ Ioo 4il: . .. r. -. . :-: ·II ttil~11111~.. ::+".;o..-+1--I' '" . !---+--J00 '-t-~:.::::f' -:::J l Ill /I I 'VI l7 \I. :p II -._,':.~-t---t-'-+--l---+­ 51""' . ·:-:·::-: ·' p :-~ 0" +--+--+--+--50 ()~ I ~-· 0 1954 '55 '56 '57 '511 '59 '60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 1966 • E:11..,l11de• .ldd111un•, ,.\tc r.lt1<.>n1, .ind r..:pair•, NOTE:: Sh.id1:<1 .. re.. • ind1cat1:: per1o'lBit turnover..... 11.4 - 13 - 1 JULY 1966 193 Perc~nt change Percent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions City and item MAy 1966 MAy 1966 from Apr 1966 May 1966 from May 1965 City and item May 1966 May 1966 from Apr 1966 May 1966 from Mny 1%5 GRANBURY (pop. 2,227) Postal receipts• $ Bank debits (thousands) . $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover . 3,854 1.768 2,474 8.6 + 12 12 + 19 + 9 + 15 Conroe (pop. 9,192) Postal receipts* .... . ...... .. ... .$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover . 22.038 36.000 16.065 13,323 14.4 .. -73 + 30 -87 + 7 + 15 -6 GRAND PRAIRIE: see DALLAS SMSA Dayton (pop. 3,367) Postal receipts• ...........$ 3,849 + 15 + 21 GRAPEVINE: see FORT WORTH SMSA Building permits. less federal contracts S 14,975 -75 t 163 Bank debits (thousands) $ 4,503 + 2 + 13 GREENVILLE (pop. 22,134r) Retail sales + 6t + 4 + 15 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover 3.617 15.2 + 3 + + 16 -1 Apparel stores Postal receipts• ...$ 7t 32,319 12 + 1 -1 + 29 Deer Park (pop. 4,865) Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ............ .$ 733.078 20,625 +201 •• +402 + Postal receipts• . .... S Building permits, less federal contracts $ 9,646 205, 191 + -38 + 23 -17 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 15,590 - 2 + 11 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 5,299 + 5 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 15.7 - 1 - 2 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t . $ 2,740 + + Nonfarm placements 202 - 21 + 51 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 23.6 HARLINGEN: see BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN HOUSTON (pop. 938,219) BENITO SMSA Retail sales Apparel stores + . + + + HENDERSON (pop. 9,666) Automotive stores Eating and drinking places . + + + + + + Postal receipts• . .. . .$ 13,765 + 12 + 4 Food stores + + 17 + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 31,800 + 29 + 23 General merchandise stores . + + 10 Bank debits (thousands) . . .... ...... $ 9,554 + 8 + 20 Liquor stores + - 10 End-uf-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover . 20,224 5.7 + + 8 + 9 + 12 Lumber, building material, a nd hardware stores. Postal receipts• + ........$ 2,754,538 + 10 + 6 + +14 HEREFORD (pop. 9,584r) Postal receipts• . ..............$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . .. .$ 15,495 206,900 22,007 + 17 24 19 + 11 -38 + 25 Building permits, less federal contracts $38,777,554 Bank debits (thousands) ......... . .. $ 4,653.746 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 1.658.162 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 33.3 + 65 + 84 t IS + 6 + 10 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover . 14.239 18.0 10 + 3 + 43 Humble (pop. 1,711) Postal receipts• ...$ 4,511 14 + HOUSTON SMSA (Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty and Montgomery; lluilding permits. less federal rontr>H'ts $ Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . .$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 338,465 4,216 3.609 +•• pop. 1,613,9571) Annual rate of deposit turnover . 13.7 + t I Building permits, less federal contracts $45,067,841 Bank debits (thousands) II . ..... .$09, 124,768 + 45 8 + 91 + 10 Katy (pop. 1,569) Nonfarm employment (area) . Manufacturing employment Percent unemployed (area) . (area) . 673.500 121,400 2. 5 + ** •• + 2 + 3 19 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,000 Bank debits (thousands) . . . .. .$ 2,636 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 2.817 -93 + 11 -98 + + Annual rate of deposit turnover . 11.8 -10 + Angleton (pop. 9,131) Postal receipts• ...$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) .$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover . 9,509 24.700 12.279 10,610 12.7 + + + 58 2 16 6 •• -66 + 11 •• + 8 La Porte (pop. 7,250r) Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . . . .. . .. . .. .. $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover . 4,130 3.416 14.8 -12 + 4 -20 + 16 + 4S -14 Bellaire (pop. 21,182r) Postal receipts• .. ............... ....$ Building permits. less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) .. . ... . ... . .. $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover . 55,464 16.910 25,520 15,799 18.7 + 7 -91 8 7 + 10 -88 + 12 + 14 6 Liberty (pop. 6,127) Postal receipts• .. .$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) .............$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .$ Annual rate of deposit turnover . 9,250 61,249 10,435 10,200 12.3 + 6 -5 -11 •• -8 + 22 +224 + 13 t IS + 2 Clute (pop. 4,501) Pasadena (pop. 58,737) Postal receipts• .$ Building permits, l~~~ fede~~j c~~;r~~~ $ Bank debits (thousands) . .. . . . . .... . .$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover . 3,610 0 2,112 1,678 15.2 For an explanation of symbols, please see p. 188. + 8 + 1 8 + 28 + 2 + 4 + 4 Retail sales Automotive stores + 4t Postal receipts• .... $ 68,396 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 3,048,504 Bank debits (thousands) ............ .$ 67,461 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t . .$ 34,799 Annual rate of deposit turnover . . . . 23.7 -'4 + 15 -31 + -6 +19 t!16 +11 +18•• TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Percent change Percent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions May 1966 May 1966 May 1966 May 1966 May from from May from from City and item 1966 Apr 1966 May 1~65 City and item 1966 Apr 1966 May 1965 Richmond (pop. 3,668) KILLEEN (pop. 23,377) Postal receipts• .. .$ 4,613 + so + s Postal receipts• ............. .... $ 42,316 -5 -9 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 74,188 + 22 + 18 Building permits, less federal contract.I $ 309,248 + 26 -58 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 6,437 -14 + 8 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . $ 18,276 5 -20 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 7,948 -15 End-of-month deposits (thousands>i.. $ 12,656 + 4 -11 + Annual rate of deposit turnover .. 8.9 -8 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 17.6 -s Rosenberg (pop. 9,698) I\INGSVILLE (pop. 25,297) Postal reeeipts• .................... .$ 10,877 + 8 + 22 Postal receipts• .. . $ 20,890 + + l9 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 131,850 -78 -4 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 166,750 -17 -32 End-of-month deposits (thousands>i.. $ 9,812 -1 + 10 Bank debits (thousands) . . ......... .$ 12,554 -9 6 End-of-month deposits (thousands>i.. $ 17,448 + + 9 South Houston (pop. 7,253) Annual rate of deposit turnover . 8.8 -14 -13 Postal receipts• $ I0,007 + 10 + KIRBYVILLE (pop. 2,021r) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 40,000 -60 -38 Postal receipts• ... ..... .$ 4,371 •• -8 Bank debits (thousands) .. . ......... .$ 8,754 + 14 Bank debits (thousands) . . . .. . $ 3,249 + 38 -4 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t $ 5,928 + 2 + 5 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 4,242 -1 + 15 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 17.9 6 + Annual rate of deposit turnover.. 9.1 + 38 -18 Tomball (pop. 2,025r) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 7,753 4 + 12 LA FERIA: see BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 5,790 2 + 4 BENITO SMSA Annual rate of deposit turnover . 1.5.9 + + 6 LA MARQUE: see GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA HUMBLE: see HOUSTON SMSA LAMESA (pop. 12,438) HUNTSVILLE (pop. 11,999) Postal receipts• ........ . $ 16,009 + 40 + 34 14,312 -26 -15 +119 Postal reeeipts• $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ 88,700 +121 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 32,395 + 47 -49 Bank debits (thousands) . . .. . . $ 14,506 -4 + 9 + Bank debits (thousands) . . ....$ 12,412 7 + 41 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 15,984 10 + 10 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 10,824 3 + 20 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 10.3 + 3 -2 0 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 13.6 + + 18 Nonfarm placements 94 + 6 -25 LAMPASAS (pop. 5,670r) IOWA PARK: see WICHITA FALLS SMSA Postal receipts• .... . $ 6,043 -11 -15 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 71,200 + 691 + 47 IRVING: see DALLAS SMSA Ba nk debits (thousands) ............ .$ 9,584 + 10 + 14 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 7,467 •• + 6 JACKSONVILLE (pop. 10,509r) Annual rate of deposit turnover . 15.4 + 6 + 6 Postal reeeipts• ........ .$ 28, 103 + 19 + 13 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 68,600 -28 +243 LA PORTE: see HOUSTON SMSA Bank debits (thousands) . . . . $ 15,238 7 + 14 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 11,608 .+ l3 LAREDO SMSA Annual rate of deposit turnover . + 15.5 (Webb; pop. 71,7381) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 137,470 -55 -63 JASPER (pop. 5,120r) Bank debits (thousands) 11 -.........$ 538,032 + 3 + 8 Postal reeeipts• .................... .$ 9,614 -12 + 8 .. Nonfarm employment (area) . 21,550 + 5 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 143,300 +156 + 49 Manufacturing employment (area) . 1,260 2 6Bank debits (thousands) $ 11,372 9 + 9 Percent unemployed (area) . 8.2 -7 -25 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 8,086 1 -6 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 8 16.8 + 14 LAREDO (pop. 60,678) Postal receipts• .. ... ..... .$ 53,771 + ll + 26JUSTIN: see DALLAS SMSA Building permits, less federal contracts $ 137,470 -55 -63 Ba nk debits (thousands) . . .... . $ 47,514 •• + 6KATY: see HOUSTON SMSA End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 29,830 + 3 + Annual rate of deposit turnover. 19.4 -1 + 3 KINGSLAND (pop. 150) Nonfarm placements 600 + 15 + 14 Postal receipts• 1,236 + -5 Bank debits (thousands) .. . . . $ 2,637 + 7 + 73 LEVELLAND (pop. 12,117r) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 964 14 + 42 Postal receipts• .. . $ 10,940 + 7 -4 Ar.nual rate of deposit turnover . 30.3 + 15 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 172,560 +257 + 50 + 30 Bank debits (thousands) . . ....$ 13,892 7 + 1 KILGORE (pop. 10,092) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 10,955 3 + 6 Postal reeeipts• . $ Annual rate of deposit turnover.... . 15.0 3 ~5.505 -5 + + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 130,922 +158 Bank debits (thousands) .. ...........$ 14,388 + 7 + + 8 6 LIBERTY: see HOUSTON SMSA End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 12,951 •• + 2 Annual rate of deposit turnover.. . . 13.3 + 10 + LLANO (pop. 2,656) Nonfarm employment (area) ........ . 33,000 Postal receipts• . . .................. .$ 3,731 •• + 5 + + 4l Manufacturing employment (area) '. 8,310 + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 5,000 ­ + 12 29 Percent unemployed (area) ........ . . 3.0 •• -25 Bank debits (thousands) . . ......... .$ 4,318 + 23 + 18 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 4,231 -7 + 5 For an explanation of symbols, please see p. 188. Annual rate of deposit turnover . 11.8 + 27 + 9 JULY 1966 195 Percent change Percent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions May 19SS Ma y 19SS May 19SS May 1966 May from from May from from City and item 19SS Apr 19SS May 19S5 City and iiem 19SS Apr 19SS May 1965 LOCKHART (pop. 6,084) Elsa (pop. 3,847) Postal receipts• ... .$ 5,419 + 13 -8 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,100 -51 Building permits, less federal contracts $ SS,485 + s35 + 83 Bank debits (thousands) ...... .......$ 2,255 9 + 1 Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 5,490 -11 3 End-of-month deposits (thousandsJi. . $ l.4S7 + 19 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 5,934 •• + 7 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 18.1 -15 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 11.l -9 11 McALLEN (pop. 35,41lr)LONGVIEW (pop. 40,050) Retail sales + St -9 + 12 Retail sales + St + 12 3 Automotive stores + 4t -11 + 12 Automotive stores + 4t + 19 2 Postal receipts• ........ $ 40,357 + 7 + 17 Postal receipts• .. . . . $ S5,133 + 2 + 8 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 781,300 -21 +270 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2,005.100 + S5 +234 Bank debits (thousands) . ............$ 37,848 -11 + 8 Bank debits (thousands) . . ...... ... .$ 71,052 + 1 + 10 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 2S.942 + 4 + 19End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 42,133 3 + Annual rate of deposit turnover . 17.2 -11 -7 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 20.0 + + 10 Nonfarm placements 740 + 1 + 74 Nonfarm employment (area) . 33,000 •• + 5 Manufacturing employment (area) . 8,310 + + 12 Mercedes (pop. 10,943) Percent unemployed (area) . 3.0 •• -25 Postal receipts• $ S,912 + 10 + 12 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 5S,980 +108 +349 LOS FRESNOS: see BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN­ Bank debits (thousands) ......$ S,511 + SAN BENITO SMSA End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 4,184 + + LUBBOCK SMSA + Annual rate of deposit turnover . 18.8 (Lubbock; pop. 177,1401 ) Mission (pop. 14,081) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 5,488,332 + 57 +108 Postal receipts* ...... . . . ... ... . . $ 9,SOl -2 + 13 Bank debits (thousands) II . . ...... .$ 3,SS0,744 + 2 + 4 Nonfarm employment (area) . Sl,000 •• + 4 Building permits, less federal contracts .$ 28,1S5 -24 Manufacturing employment (area) . 7,340 •• + 10 Ba nk debits (thousands) . . . $ 12,098 + 2 + Percent unemployed (area) . 3.8 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 8,892 + + 3 -17 Annual rate of deposit turnover. IS.l + LUBBOCK (pop. 155,200r) Retail sales + St + 7 + 13 Pharr (pop. 15,279r) Automotive stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + 4t + 11 + 24 Postal receipts• .$ 8, 144 + s + 13 General merchandise stores . + 12t .. -4 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 5, 735 -86 -90 Postal receipts• .. .$ 244,019 -4 + 3 Bank debits (thousands) . ...... .. .. .$ 4,434 -17 + 17 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 5.484,932 + S2 +110 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 4,398 -14 + 14 Bank debits (thousands) . . ....$ 258,217 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 11.2 -4 + 5 + + End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 133,32S 2 + 3 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 23.0 + 7 San Juan (pop. 4,371) + Postal receipts• $ 3,159 + 9 -1 Slaton (pop. 6,568) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 8,800 -32 -17 Postal receipts• .. .$ 5,135 + 12 + 10 Bank debits (thousands) .. ....... ....$ 2,441 + 18 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 900 -99 -9S End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 2,403 + 14 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 4,882 + 19 + 3S Annual rate of deposit turnover . 12.0 + 4 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t. . $ 3,939 -s + Annual rate of deposit turnover . 14.4 + 24 + 27 Weslaco (pop. 15,649) Postal receipts• .. .$ 11 ,005 -s + 4LUFKIN (pop. 17,641) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 157,350 +211 +286Postal receipts• . . . . .. .. $ 32,39S -9 + 7 Ilank debits (thousands) . . . . . S 9,24S -11 + 14 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 102,830 -S8 ­ S4 Enop. 8,027) Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ............ .$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .$ 11,851 43,1 50 10,809 8,189 + 5 -51 -12 6 + 3 -50 7 6 Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover . . Nonfarm placements 163,700 2G,980 19, 171 17.2 119 -25 5 + 3 -45 + 12 -2 + 15 -7 Annual rate of deposit turnover l fi.4 - 7 6 MUENSTER (pop. 1,190) PARIS (pop. 20,977) Retail sales + Gt + 11 + 19 Postal receipts• . . ......... ..........$ l,G92 -28 - 2 Automotive stores + 4t + 17 + 22 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 0 Postal receipts• .................... .$ 2G,228 - G + I 2 Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 2,540 2,09G + 2 + + 2 2 Building permits, less federal contracts Nonfarm placements $ 245,236 1G8 -94 + 2 + 23 •• Annual rate of deposit turnover..... 14.6 + 2 + NACOGDOCHES (pop. 15,450r) PASADENA: see HOUSTON SMSA Postal receipts• .. $ 26,529 + 21 + 12 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 112,924 -25 -74 PECOS (pop. 12, 728) Bank debits (thousands) . . $ 23,433 4 + 5 Postal receipts• ............$ 10,317 -19 -10 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 21.348 + 3 + 15 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 138,945 + 23 + 255 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 13.4 - G - G Bank debits (thousands) . . ......... .$ 14,889 - 8 - 8 Nonfarm placements 120 - 30 + 12 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 12,559 + \8 + 27 For an explanation of symbols, please see p. 188. Annual rate of deposit turnover . Nonfarm placements 15. 4 G5 -15 •• -17 + 2 JULY 1966 197 Percent change Percent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions May 1966 May 1966 May 1966 May 1966 May from from May from from City and item 1966 Apr 1966 May 1965 City and item 1966 Apr 1966 May 1965 SAN ANGELO SMSA PHARR: see McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA (Tom Green; pop. 70,8761) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,628,582 + 114 + 113 PILOT POINT: see DALLAS SMSA Bank debits (thousands) II. $ 871,524 6 + 9 Nonfarm employment (area) . 22,050 + + 7 Manufacturing employment (area) . 3,620 + 17 + PLAINVIEW (pop. 18,731r) Percent unemployed (area) . 3.4 •• -82 Postal receipts* .. .$ 30,459 + 7 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 374,550 + 4 -24 SAN ANGELO (pop. 58,815) Nonfann placements 271 + 3 -32 Retail sales + 6t + + 13 General merchandise stores . + 12t + + lS Postal receipts* 114,344 PLANO: see DALLAS SMSA + + 15 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,628,582 +114 + us Ba nk debits (thousands) . . .. ... .$ 75,933 + 3 + 12 PLEASANTON (pop. 5,053r) + End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ !\2,976 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 17.0 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 38,500 + 11 + + Ba nk debits (thousands) ............ .$ 3.310 -26 + 10 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t . . $ 3,960 -2 + 15 SAN ANTONIO SMSA Annual rate of deposit turnover. 9.9 -24 -s (Bexar and Guadalupe; pop. 800,9681) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 6,344,127 -33 + 56 PORT ARTHUR: see BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR­Bank debits (thousands) 11 $11,913,456 + + 15 Nonfarm employment (area) . 240, 100 •• + ORANGE SMSA Manufacturing employment (area) . 27,800 + •• Percent unemployed (area) . 4.4 + 10 -27 PORT ISABEL: see BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN­ SAN BENITO SMSA SAN ANTONIO (pop. 655,006r) Retai l sales + 9 + 3 + Apparel stores -l -lO + PORT NECHES: see BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR­Automotive stores + 13 .. Eating and drinking places . 2 + ORANGE SMSA + + Furniture and household appliance stores + 25 + 15 QUANAH (pop. 4,564) Gasoline and service stations. + 3 -8 Postal receipts• $ 4,892 + 7 General merchandise stores. + 13 + 13 + 18 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 35,050 + 89 Lumber, building material, Bank debits (thousands) . . . ... $ o,628 + 42 and hardware stores + -1 + 51 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t $ 5, 122 + + 4 Postal receipts* $ 744,349 -24 -19 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 13.4 2 + 38 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 5,388,525 -39 + 47 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 1,006,658 + + 18 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 481,227 + 8 + RAYMONDVILLE (pop. 9,385) Annual rate of deposit turnover.. 25.5 + 7 + 12 Postal receipts* .... $ 6,960 + 4 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2,600 -80 -95 Bank debits (thousands) . . ..... .$ 5,982 -9 -13 Schertz (pop. 2,281) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t $ 7,037 •• -4 Postal receipts• .. .$ 1,802 + + Annual rate of deposit turnover. 10.2 -11 Bank debits (thousands) $ 670 + Non farm placements 40 -7 + 6-0 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 1,107 + Annual rate of deposit turnover . 7.5 + 14 IUCHARDSON: see DALLAS SMSA Seguin (pop. 14,299) Postal receipts* ...$ 14,626 -7 + 7 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 361,665 +262 +234 RICHMOND: see HOUSTON SMSA Bank debits (thousands) . ......... $ 17,337 + 13 + 82 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. . $ 15,375 -6 + 8 Annual rate of deposit turnover .. 13.l + 16 + 25 ROBSTOWN: see CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA SAN BENITO: see BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SANROCKDALE (pop. 4,481) BENITO SMSA Postal receipts* $ 5,068 -l2 -8 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 13,280 -86 71 - Ba nk debits (thousands) . . . . $ 4,981 6 1 + SAN JUAN: see McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 7,223 + 8 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 8.2 2 SAN MARCOS (pop. 12,713) Postal receipts• ....... $ 17,085 •• + 83 ROSENBERG: see HOUSTON SMSA Building permits, less federal contracts $ 416,900 + 108 +104 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1.3.077 7 + 25 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t . . $ 15,170 + + 26 For an explanation of symbols, please see p. 188. Annual rate of deposit turnover . 10.6 + 2 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Percent change Percent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions May 19GG May 19GG May from from May 1966 May 1966 May from from City and item 1966 Apr 1966 May 1965 City a nd item 19GG Apr 19GG May 19G5 SAN SABA (pop. 2,728) STRATFORD (pop. 1,380) Postal receipts• $ 3.686 + 28 -2 Postal receipts• $ 2.410 + + 13 Building permits, less federal contracts 22,750 +225 Building permits. less fe*.. $ 9,621 1 + 6 Bank debits (thousands) 11-......... .$ 1,538,G52 4 + 8Annual rate of deposit turnover . 12.0 + 3 + 13 Nonfarm employment (area) . 33,100 2 + Manufacturing employment (area) . 8,490 8 + 1 For an explanation of symbols, please see p. 188. Percent unemployed (area) . 3.3 + 3 -30 JULY 1966 199 Percent change Percent cba.nge Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions May 19G6 May 1966 May 19GG May 1966 May from from May from from City and item 19GG Apr 19GG May 19G5 City and item 1966 Apr 1966 May 1965 TYLER (pop. 51,230) WAXAHACHIE: see DALLAS SMSA Retail sales + Gt •• 6 Apparel stores -7t 6 + 9 Postal receipts ............. ... ..... .$ 115,455 7 + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 779,405 + 6 + 20 Bank debits (thousands) $ 129.3G7 + 3 + 10 WEATHERFORD (pop. 9,759) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. S 75,828 4 + 4 Postal receipts• .. . $ 13,285 + 8 4 + Annual rate of deposit turnover . 20.1 + 2 + 6 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2G,780 3 -81 + Nonfarm placements 808 12 + 21 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i. $ 15,239 3 + + 2 UVALDE (pop. 10,293) Postal receiptsi!'I $ 10,823 + 7 + 12 WESLACO: see McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA Building permits, less federal contracts $ 200,510 +37G + 9 Bank debits (thousands) ... . $ 14,417 8 3 + End-of-month deposits (thousands) t 9,G71 6 + + Annual rate of deposit turnover . 18.4 10 + 4 WHITE SETTLEMENT: see FORT WORTH SMSA VERNON (pop. 12,141) Postal receipts• 13,G58 -2 + 11 WICHITA FALLS SMSA Building permits, less federal contracts 20,800 + 104 -92 Bank debits (thousaads) $ 15,539 G + 9 (Archer and Wichita; pop. 129,3531) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t $ 19,780 2 + 3 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 9.3 + 4 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 703,285 -82 -3 Nonfarm placements 93 + 19 -11 Bank debits (thousands) II ... ....... .$ 2,173,140 + 5 + 17 Nonfarm employment (area) . . . . . 48,300 ....: G + 6 Manufacturing employment (area) . 4,230 •• -1 VICTORIA (pop. 33,047) Percent unemployed (area) 2.9 + 12 -33 Retail sales + Gt 3 Automotive stores + 4t 4 + Postal receipts• $ 50,41G + 2 4 + low.a Park (pop. 5,152r) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 23G,Gl2 -34 -29 Bank debits (thousands) . . ...... $ -$ +G97 +282 73,190 -u lG Building permits, less federal contracts 80,300 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t S 4 3,234 11 + s 89,GG9 + 1 Bank debits (thousands) . ... .... .. .. .$ ­Anr.ual rate of deposit turnover . 9.G 8 -21 2 End-of-month deposits (thousands); . .$ 4.12G + Nonfarm placements 573 + 12 -lG Annual rate of deposit turnover . 9.5 -11 + WACO SMSA WICHITA FALLS (pop. 101, 724) (McLennan; pop. 152,6301) Retail sales Gt + 4 + Building permits, less federal contracts $ G75,2G3 -49 -73 + Automotive stores + 4t + 7 + Bank debits (thousands) II ...........$ l.9GG,83G -12. 8 + Postal receipts* .. . . .. . $ 141,329 + 1 +Nonfarm employment (area) . 53,800 •• + Building permits, less federal contracts $ G20,985 -84 Manufacturing employment (area) . 11.330 1 + Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 1G2,42.9 + 8 + 20 Percent unemployed (area) . 4.G + 2 End-cf-month deposits (thousands) t. . $ 94,34G -3 -2 Annual rate of deposit turnover...... 20.3 + 11 + 21 McGregor (pop. 4,642) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 0 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 5,22G LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY End-of-month deposits (thousands); . . $ G,G4G 3 + 10 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 9.3 -23 G -18 (Cameron, Willacy, and Hidalgo; pop. 337,0411) Retail sales + Gt -G + Apparel stores 7t -10 + 20 Automotive stores + 4t -7 + 10 WACO (pop. 103,462) Retail salestt + Gt -1 -15 Drugstores .. .............. ...... . + lit •• + 8 Apparel storestt 7t -10 -4 6 2 Food stores + 9t Automotive storestt + 4t -8 -25 Furniture and household General merchandise stores. + 12t + 22 G + appliance stores + 9t + Postal receipts• ....... . $ 208,487 4 1 -+ Gasoline and service stations . + Gt 9 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 590,238 -49 10 18 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 144,599 -7G General merchandise stores . + 12t -+ -15 9 + Lumber, building material,End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 87,525 -1 + 2 8 + 19 and hardware stores + 2t ­ Annual rate of deposit turnover . 19.7 -13 7 + 15 + Postal receipts• •• Building permits, less federal contracts -11 -44 Bank debits (thousands) 9 + 6 ttReported in cooperation with the Baylor Bureau of Business Research. 1 12 For an explanation of symbols, please see p, 188. Annual rate of deposit turnover. lG.8 8 -8 End-of-month deposits (thousands); . + 200 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS All figures are for Texas unless otherwise indicated. All indexes are based on the average months for 1957-59, except where indi­cated; all are adjusted for seasonal variation, except annual indexes. Employment estimates are Texas Employment Commission data in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U. S. Department of Labor. Employment data marked (t) cover wage and salary workers only. The index of Texas business activity is based on bank debits in 20 cities, adjusted for price level. An asterisk (•) indicates preliminary data subject to revision. Revised data are marked (r) . Data marked (§) are dollar totals for the fiscal year to date. May 1966 Apr 1966 May 1965 Year-to-date average 1966 1965 GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY Texas business activity, index . 177.2 173.8 157.2 172.6 Miscellaneous freight carloadings in SW District, index . 84.0 83.7 81.4 82.1 Wholesale prices in U. S.. unadjusted index .. 105.5 105.5 102.1 105.3 Consumers' prices in Houston, unadjusted index . 110.9 Consumers' prices in U. S., unadjusted index .. 112.6 112.5 109.6 111 .9 Income payments to individuals in U. S. (billions, at seasonally ad­ justed annual rate) . $ 565.5• $ 563.1 • 525.0r 560.0 $ Business failures (number) . 42 46 43 48 Business failures (liabilities, thousands) s 4,817 $ 13,541 6,085 7,989 $ Newspaper linage, index . 119.0 113.7 114.5 117.1 Ordinary life insurance sales, index . 185.9 170.2 167.4 174.7 TRADE Total retail sales, index . 130.4• 134.8r 126.lr Durable-goods sales, index. 149.7• 152.8r 150.0r Nondurable-goods sales, index . 120.5• 125.5r 116.3r Ratio of credit sales to net sales in department and apparel stores ... 63.3• 64.6• 63.lr 65.7 Ratio of collections to outstandings in dep•.rtment and apparel stores 27.2" 29.3• 27.lr 29.5 PRODUCTION Total electric power use, index . 188.o• 192.0• 170.9r 183.6 Industrial electric power use, index . 180.5• 182.2• 156.9r 175.0 Crude oil production, index . 107.0• 100.8• 95.2r 100.9 Average daily production per oil well (bbl.) 14.3 14.1 12.8 14.2 Crude oil runs to stills, index . . . . .. . 120.0 115.2 ll3.7 115.8 Industrial production in U. S.. index . . . . .................... . . . 154.8• 153.6• 141.6r 152.7 Texas industrial production-total, index . . .................... . 148.4• 144.6• 136.8r 143.7 Texas industrial production-manufactures, index . . . . . . . . ....... . . 173.0• 171.9" 157.5r 170.4 Texas industrial production-durable manufactures, index ........... . 176.6• 175.9" 159.lr 171.7 Texas industrial production-nondurable manufactures, index . 170.4• 169.0• 157.5r 168.5 Texas industrial production-mining, index. . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . 116.J • 108.8" 108.8r 108.5 Building construction authorized, index . 141.5 145.3 116.8 "145.0 New residential building authorized, index ........ . . llO.l 96.5 100.7 111 .3 New nonresidential building authorized, index . 195.7 224.1 139.5 199.4 AGRICULTURE Prices received by farmers, unadjusted index, 1910-14=100 . 268 271 251 267 Prices paid by farmers in U. s.. unadjusted index, 1910-14=100 . 333 333 323 331 Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U. S. prices paid by farmers 80 81 79 81 FINANCE Bank debits, index . 186.9 183.4 160.5 181.7 Bank debits, U. S., index . 201.8 206.6 168.0 199.5 Reporting member banks, Dallas Federal Reserve District: Loans (millions) ...... . . . s 4,823 $ 4,855 $ 4,503 $ 4,761 Loans and investments (millions) .. .. .. ........... . . . . $ 6,992 $ 7,037 $ 6,584 6,941 Adjusted demand deposits (millions) .. $ 2,942 $ 2,832 $ 2,925 2,833 Reve~~e receipts of the State Comptroller (thousands) . $257,615 $221,300 ' 210,507 190,880 Secunues registrations: Original applications: Mutual investment companies (thousands) $ 37,931 $ 19,885 $ 11 ,829 $208,531 All other corporate securities: Texas companies (thousands) . 1,230 $ 7,231 $ 12,150 $ 27,862 158.1 78.3 101.5 109.1 518.8 63 5,898 ll2.5 158.4 66.2 29.6 166.8 155.4 94.4 13.2 112.8 140.2 131.7 154.8 154.2 155.4 102.4 120.2 IOI.I 139.6 242 319 78 160.4 171.6 4,453 6,537 2,852 178,110 106,432 65,490 Other companies (thousands) . $ 4,ll l $ 13,598 $ 10,235 $ 55,276 $ 48,984 Securities registrations: Renewals: Mutual investment companies (thousands) ... . .. . . .. . $ 15,401 $ 8,209 $ 5,118 s 96,840 72,382 Other corporate securities (thousands) ....... . .. . ....... . . $ 0 $ 2,749 s 1,770 s 6,351 5,616 LABOR Manufacturing employment in Texas, indext ................ . . . 124.0" 123.3• 568.8r 122.8 116.1 Total nonagricultural employment in Texas, indext . 122.3" 122.J • 117 .6r 121.6 116.6 Average weekly hours-manufacturing, indext ...... . 102.9• 103.0" 103.2r 102.6 102.3 Average weekly earnings-manufacturing, indext .. 125.7• 126.J • 121.6r 124.6 119.6 Total nonagricultural employment (thousands) t . 3,019.3• 3,013.8" 2,905.2r 2,985.0 2,864.0 Total manufacturing employment (thousands) t . 598.9• 596.2• 568.8r 592.8 560.3 Durable-goods employment (thousands) t . . . ............. . 313.J • 310.8• 291.6r 308.3 284.2 Nondurable-goods employment (thousands) t ........ . 285.8" 285.4• 277.2r 284.6 276.1 Total nonagricultural labor force in selected labor market areas (thousands) .... . ................ ...... . .. . 2,907.6 2,894.5 2,832.7 2,873.3 2,801.1Employment in selected labor market areas (thousands) . 2,717.8 2,713.2 2,617.4 2,694.7 2,594.4Manufacturing employment in selected labor market areas (thousands) .... ............... . ... . . 509.3 509.0 479.3 503.9 473.8Total unemployment in selected labor market areas (thousands) . 93.5 90.2 122.7 95.4 121.9 Percent of labor force unemployed in selected labor market ~TP!Ul 3.2 3.1 4.3 3.3 4.3 ~ >-3 c: :o:i z 1!l 6) c: &l ;J t:i > d 00 >-3 ~z ;J ~ Cll -'I 00 -'I I-' ~ >-3 ::i: l'.l d z .... ;j :o:i 00 .... ~ 0 "'.! ;J ~ 00 tx1 c::: ~ t;i:j > c::: 0 '%j tx1 c::: 00 ...... z t;i:j 00 00 ~ t;i:j 00 t;i:j > ~ Cl t:r: NEW PUBLICATION TEXAS ECONOMIC INDICATORS The Bureau of Business Research is initiating a new monthly publication entitled TEXAS ECONOMIC INDICATORS. This publication will include data not published in the monthly TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW and will serve as a supplement to that publication. If you would like to be placed on the com­plimentary mailing list to receive TEXAS ECONOMIC IN­DICATORS each month, please write the address noted below. BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712