TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW VOL. XLII, NO. 3, MARCH 1968 Editor, Stanley A. Arbingast; Associate Editor, Robert H. Ryan; Managing Editor, Graham Blackstock Editorial Board: Stanley A. Arbingast, Chairman; John R. Stockton; Francis B. May; Robert H. Ryan; Graham Blackstock CONTENTS ARTICLES 65: THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS, by Robert H. Ryan 68: MARKET-STRUCTURE CHANGES IN THE LIVESTOCK-MEAT INDUSTRY, by Raymond A. Dietrich 74: BUILDING REVIEW, JANUARY 1968, by Robert B. Wil­liamson 76: POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR TEXAS COUNTIES, APRIL 1, 1967, by Population Research Center, The Univer­sity of Texas TABLES 66: SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS 67: BUSINESS-ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR 20 SELECTED TEXAS CITIES 68: CATTLE AND CALVES ON FEED, SELECTED AREAS, JANU­ARY 1, 1950, 1960, AND 1967 68: CATTLE ON FEED AND NUMBER OF FEEDLOTS, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND SELECTED AREAS, JANUARY 1, 1967 69: SIZE AND CAPACITY OF TEXAS CATTLE FEEDLOTS, JANU­ARY 1, 1955-1967 69: CATTLE AND CALVES ON FEED BY WEIGHT GROUPS, JULY 1, 1965, AND JANUARY 1, 1966, TEXAS AND SELECTED AREAS 69: AVERAGE WEIGHT OF STEERS AND HEIFERS SOLD, DECEM­BER 1964 69: PERCENT OF PACKER LIVESTOCK PURCHASES THROUGH DIFFERENT MARKET OUTLETS, SELECTED YEARS 70: MEATPACKING PLANTS: SPECIALIZATION BY SPECIES SLAUGHTERED, BY CENSUS REGIONS, AND TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, MARCH 1, 1965 71 : PERCENT OF U.S. COMMERCIAL MEAT PRODUCTION BY LARGEST COMPANIES, BY RANK, IN 1950, 1955, 1960, AND 1964 71: NUMBER OF U.S. SLAUGHTERING AND PROCESSING FIRMS PRODUCING 95 PERCENT OF THE FEDERALLY INSPECTED OUTPUT, 1958-1964 72 : FEDERALLY INSPECTED MEATPACKING PLANTS: SPECIAL­ IZATION BY SPECIES SLAUGHTERED, CENSUS REGIONS, AND TEXAS, MARCH 1, 1965 72: PACKER BRANCH HOUSES: NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS, TOTAL AND AVERAGE SALES, BY CENSUS REGIONS, FOR 1963 72 : MEAT-MERCHANT WHOLESALERS: NUMBER OF ESTAB­LISHMENTS, TOTAL AND AVERAGE SALES, BY CENSUS REGIONS, TEXAS, FOR 1963 73: GROCERY-STORE SALES, BY SIZE OF STORE, UNITED STATES, 1952-1963 73: NUMBER AND SALES OF GROCERY STORES, BY SIZE OF FIRM, IN THE U.S. AND IN TEXAS 73: RETAIL GROCERY STORES: DISTRIBUTION OF STORES AND SALES VOLUME, BY SALES CLASSIFICATION, U.S., 1954 AND 1963 74: GROCERY-STORE SALES, BY TYPE OF RETAILERS, U.S., 1947-1963 76: ESTIMATED VALUES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED JN TEXAS 77: 1967 POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR TEXAS COUNTIES, WITH AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATES 80: 1967 POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR TEXAS STANDARD MET­ROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS, WITH AVERAGE AN­NUAL GROWTH RATES, 1960-1967 80: DISTRIBUTION OF TEXAS COUNTIES ACCORDING TO AVER­AGE ANNUAL PERCENT GROWTH RATE OF POPULATION, 1960-1967 81: COWS AND HEIFERS BORN 1961-1967, TEXAS AND THE UNITED STATES 81: LAMB CROP, 1966 AND 1967, TEXAS, OTHER STATES, AND THE UNITED STATES 81 : PRODUCTION OF ORANGES AND GRAPEFRUIT 84: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF TOTAL RETAIL SALES 84 : ELECTRIC-POWER CONSUMPTION 84: NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT IN SELECTED LABOR­MARKET AREAS 85: TEXAS MANPOWER TRENDS: HOURS AND EARNINGS 86: LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (inside back cover) CHARTS 65: TEXAS BUSINESS ACTIVITY 66: CRUDE-OIL PRODUCTION, TEXAS 66: CRUDE-OIL RUNS TO STILLS 67: TOTAL ELECTRIC-POWER USE, TEXAS 67: INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, TEXAS 67: PRICES RECEIVED BY FARMERS 75: TOTAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS 75: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS 75: NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS 82: BUSINESS-ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR TWENTY TEXAS CITIES (twenty charts) 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: Cynthia Bettinger Research Associates: Charles O. Bettinger, Graham Black­ stock, Dennis W. Cooper, Willetta Dement, Ida M. Lam­ beth, Robert M. Lockwood, Robert H. Ryan, Elizabeth R. Turpin, Robert B. Williamson Research Assistant: Claire S. Howard Statistical Assistants: Mildred Anderson, Constance Cool­ edge, Margaret Tannich Statistical Technicians: Doris Dismuke, Mary Gorham Cartographers: Janet Winter, Douglas Winters, Jr. Librarian: Merle Danz Administrative Secretary: Phyllis Parks Senior Secretary: Carolyn Harris Senior Clerk Typists : Rosa Gonzalez, Sandra Hooper, Danielle Powers Senior Clerk: Salvador B. Macias Clerical Assistants: Mary Susan Muzny, Stephen W. Nolen, Leo Vasquez, Martha Wilkes Offset Press Operators: Robert Dorsett, Daniel P. Rosas Published monthly by the Bureau of Business Research, Graduate School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712. Second-class posta11:e paid at Austin, Texas, and at an additional office in Houston, Texas. Content of this publication is not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely, but acknowledgment of source will be appreciated. The views expressed by authors are not necessarily those of the Bureau of Business Research. Subscription, $3.00 a year; individual copies, 25 cents. The Bureau of Business Research is a member of the Associated University Bureaus of Business and Economic Research. THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS Robert Business barometers, such as those which appear monthly inside the back cover of the Texas Business Review, serve much the same purpose as meteorologists' barometers. That is, they indicate with some accuracy current condi­tions. Like measures of the weather, they may also point toward conditions to come, but their. forecasting value is seldom unmistakably clear and sometimes not clear at all. These economic indicators suggest, with their ac­companying uncertainties, that Texas business entered the new year at a high level of activity and with rather good assurance of stability. In January industrial production in the state con­tinued its long-term gains. Building authorizations re­mained high, and retail sales were strong. Employment, which clearly concerns more Texans than any other business indicator, was scarcely below the level of the booming Christmas season. Nevertheless, none of these barometers registered notable increases, a fact which made it the more remarkable that the Index of Texas Business Activity showed a striking upward movement. Though the Texas economy at least sustained its strong position in January, it is not clear at all that .business at large improved by 13 percent from December to January, as the Index of Texas Business Activity (charted below) indicates. This index, which measures bank clearings adjusted for seasonal variation and for changes in wholesale prices, is subject to occasional non­significant fluctuations from month to month when finan­cial activity is temporarily stimulated by the coincidence of several economic factors. Suffice it to say that the sharp upturn in the business-activity index for January cannot be attributed to any comparable gain in actual business apparent at this time. If any remarkable shift H. Ryan in Texas businesss actually is under way, it probably can­not be identified with certainty until mid-April. The Index of Business Activity rose sharply not only in the state as a whole but also in Texas' largest cities: Houston, +9 percent from December to January; Dallas, +17 percent; and San Antonio, +13 percent. Nationally, January marked the beginning of the eighth year of economic expansion since the upturn that began in 1961. The acceleration of this growth, which began both nationally and in Texas around the middle of 1967, appears to be extending into the new year, with the continuing stimuli of government spending and renewed confidence in the construction industry. Although evidence of labor shortages still persists in some areas and in certain occupational lines, the competitioin for labor may not be quite as high as it was in 1966. In Texas the seasonally adjusted index of unemployment was up 5 percent from December 1967 to January 1968, but this change represents little more than a rebound from the exceptionally high level of business and employment registered during the 1967 holiday season. Unemployment continues to be a problem mainly among marginal workers, those without marketable skills o,r experience . Total nonfarm employment in Texas during January held remarkably close to its high December level, accord­ing to Texas Employment Commission estimates. The month-to-month change in the number of wage and salary workers was from 3,378,000 in December to 3,318,000 in January. Of that decline of 60,000 workers, cutbacks in retailing employment accounted for 46,000 of the newly jobless. Not surprisingly, the heaviest influence was that of department stores, which laid off some 30,000 Christmas­rush workers, most of whom were initially hired on a TEXAS BUSINESS ACTIVITY Index. Adjusted for Seasonal Variation-1957-1959 =100 250 250 200 200 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 temporary basis. In other areas of business there were some gains in employment from December to January. The number of manufacturing workers in Texas was virtually unchanged, with increases in some industries (for example, transportation equipment) being offset by small seasonal declines in food processing, apparel manu­facturing, and lumber and wood-product manufacturing. In contrast with the strength of the employment pattern for manufacturing, distributive industries, and services, employment in Texas agriculture continued to fall in January. Some seasonal drop from December to January is to be expected in farming, but this January's farm work force was 16,000 fewer than that of January 1967. Unemployment during January remained remarkably low in most major Texas cities (1.7 percent in Austin and Dallas, 1.8 percent in Fort Worth and Houston). Only in Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange and in the Rio Grande Valley labor-market areas -Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg, and Laredo-was un­employment greater than 5 percent of the civilian labor force. Average weekly earnings in Texas manufacturing in­dustries declined slightly from $116.62 in December to $112.96 in January, a change due to a two-hour cutback in average weekly hours worked rather than to a drop in hourly earnings. In fact, the average hourly rate for manufacturing workers was up from $2.77 in December to $2.81 in January. The most serious and most basic economic problem continues to be the rise in prices of goods and services, which has resulted chiefly from increasing production costs rather than from underproduction. Labor costs con­tinued to rise during 1967 faster than productivity; in fact, increases in productivity were lower than they have been in most years since World War II. About the only CRUDE-OIL PRODUCTION, TEXAS /nde~ Adjusted for Se1uon•l Variation-1957-1959zJOO 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 350 300 250 200 150 100 so 1955 1956 19.57 19 58 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 196.5 1966 1967 1968 NOTE: Shaded areas indicate periods o! decline of tol.4!ol bunne11 activity in the United States. CRUDE-OIL RUNS TO STILLS, TEXAS lnd e7: Adjusted for Seasonal Variation-1957 -1959 z JOO 350 3.50 300 300 250 250 200 200 150 150 A ,_ 100 100 1w 50 50 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 NOTE; Shllded area• mdic,.te period• o ! dechne of to t.a.I bunneu ;activity in the United St.a.let. relief from the upward pressure on the cost of living was a slight decrease in retail food prices during 1967, a reflec­tion of the decline in farm prices. Prices received by Texas farmers for all farm products broke sharply in 1967 to register a twelve-month average of 241 index points, down from 261 the preceding year and the lowest average value since 1956 (1910-1914=100). But farmers were nearly alone in their depressed condition. Manufacturing workers earned more than ever before in 1967, a gain of more than 29 percent over their 1957-1959 average earnings. It was the sharp wage increases in manufacturing industries and in distribution costs that were largely responsible for raising the Consumer Price Index for the nation to new record highs in ten of the twelve months of 1967. Money during the past year has been much more readily available to borrowers than it was during 1966. Nevertheless, interest rates have continued to climb even higher than they were during the tight money market of the year before last. Corporate requirements for new funds and the expectation of further monetary inflation have prompted new security offerings, and the high yields indicated for many of these offerings have tended to increase interest rates generally. The construction industry has recovered from its 1966 setback and in Texas is running well ahead of early­1967 levels. In January the value of urban building permits issued was 40 percent higher than the total for January 1967, though down a fraction from December, since slightly fewer new homes were projected for immediate construction during the winter months. Nationally mortgage lending by savings institutions and other lenders appears to have continued its increase into SELECl'ED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (Indexes Adj'lsted f'or season, I variation 57-Hl5q 00) Percent change Jan 1968 Jan 1968 Ja n Dec J an from horn Index 1968 1967 1967 Dec 1967 J an 1967 Texas business activity. 215.6 * 190.7 r 185.9 + 13 + 16 Cr ud1>-petroleum production .........131.8 • 125.4 • 106.3 r + 24 + Crud<>-oil runs to st ills. 128.2 130.6 117.4 2 9 + Total electric-power use 219.3 • 216.7. 195.5 r 1 + 12 Industrial electric-power use ................193.0 • 195.9 • 179.7 r 7 + + Ba nk debits . . . . .. 230.9 203.7 197.4 + 13 + 17 Building authorized ...151.4 155.7 r 107.9 r 3 + 40 New residential .....122.4 147.2 r 88.5 r 17 + 38 New nonresidential . . 205.4 157.9 r 131.5 r + 30 + 56 Total industrial production .163.7 • 163.1 • 152.9 r .. + 7 Miscellaneous freight carloadings in S.W. district . . .. ..... .... 80.3 81.8 80.9 2 Total nonfarm employment .. 135.6 • 134.1 • 129.3 r 1 + + Manufacturing employment .. 141.0 • 140.8 • 132.7 r •• +Total unemployment 69.5 66.5 68.4 + 5 + Insured unemployment 48.8 47.6 54.2 3 -10 Average weekly earnings-manufacturing .....131.7. 134.3 • + 125.0 2 + Average weekly hours-manufacturing 97.8. 101.1 • ····· 100.0 3 • Preliminary. "'*Change is less than one half of 1 perc·ent. T Revised. the final months of 1967 and probably the beginning of 1968. In Texas 1968 began with a considerable show of strength in both residential and nonre5idential building categories. Industrial buildings and churches, especially in and around the larger cities, were being scheduled for construction at particularly high rates. In the residential category both one-family homes and multiple-family struc­tures were ·being projected in much higher volume than a year earlier. During January 1968, in fact, more residential building permits were issued in Texas than in any past January, though the month was somewhat lower than last year's average month. January permits for one-family homes and for apartment buildings were higher in the Dallas Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area than in the Houston SMSA, but together those two cities and their environs accou.nted for well over one third of the new housing units authorized for the entire state, leaving out of account the rural areas, where building permits are not issued. A more detailed analysis of the construc­tion situation is given in "Building Review, January 1968," in t.his issue. Texas industrial production in· January continued to show slightly more strength than national industrial production, according to Federal Reserve System econ­omists. During the last decade manufacturing has ex­panded much more rapidly in Texas than in the nation as a whole. (Texas utilities, too, have shown extraordi­nary impetus.) Output of durable manufactured goods in Texas, for example, was 109 percent higher this January than during the 1957-1959 base period. The comparable increase for the entire nation was only 68 percent. The more rapid growth in Texas reflects this state's increasing concentration of metal and machine industries, transporta­tion-equipment manufacturing, and particularly the mak­ing of electric and electronic equipment in Texas. Even the petroleum-production industry has contributed to the overall growth of the Texas industrial economy during the past few months, and for the first time in several years. Activity in this still vitally important BUSINESS-ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR 20 SELECTED TEXAS CITIES Percent change Jan 1968 J an 1968 J an Dec r J an from from Index 1968 1967 1967 Dec 1967 J an 1967 Abilene .. .....142.3 120.2 152.8 + 18 -7 Amarillo .. 198.7 169.2 170.3 + 17 + 17 Austin ... .235.8 228.8 186.7 + 3 + 26 Beaumont .193.6 170.0 176.0 + 14 + 10 Corpus Christi . .. 159.0 152.9 140.5 + 4 + 13 Corsicana ...176.2 130.1 142.9 + 35 + 23 Da llas ... 253.1 215.9 208.7 + 17 + 21 El Paso ....147.8 117.0 130.7 + 26 + 13 Fort Worth . . .. 159.0 152.5 138.0 + 4 + 15 Galveston .. .. . ... . .. . 139.3 114.0 120.6 + 22 + 16 Houston .......231.2 212.9 203.4 + 9 + 14 Laredo . .. ....202.0 178.7 179.2 + 13 + 13 Lubbock .. ...... .. .. . 167.1 134.8 163.4 + 24 + 2 Port Arthur .111.2 114.2 108.8 -3 + 2 San Angelo .. 172.5 142.1 150.8 San Ant.onio .195.5 173.6 172.2 + 21 + 13 + 14 + 14 Texarkana . .. .. ... .. ..237.8 214 .4 207.1 + 11 + 15 Tyler .. . .. .. .. . . .. . . . .163.4 140.0 152.0 + 17 + 8 Waco .... .171.1 169.3 159.7 + 1 + 7 Wichita F alls · ·· · ··· .146.6 126.7 142.7 + 16 + 3 •• Change is less t han one half of 1 percent. r Revised. MARCH 1968 sector of the Texas economy has been depressed by a long-term cost-price squeeze. Growing strength in petro­leum prices since mid-1967 has resulted in the best January on record for the Texas oil industry, at least in terms of production. The average daily flow per well during January was as high as any monthly production average since September 1957. Another part of the energy-produc­ing sector that moved upward to a new January record this year was electric-power consumption, now more than twice as high as in 1960. Although precisely comparable measures of natural-gas consumption and electric-power consumption are not available, it is fairly clear that the electric-power industry in Texas has increased its sales much more rapidly than have natural-gas utilities. The use of electric power in industrial plants in Texas has gained rapidly, but considerably less rapidly than electric­power use in homes and commercial buildings. As Texas population and production grow, however, virtually all energy industries, and other phases of the economy as well, will be due for impressive expansion. 100 ,__. ­ >O 195.S 19.S6 19.S7 19.S8 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 196.S 1966 1967 1968 *'Manufacture• and minu·al1 (including cr ude· oil and natural-gal pr oduction). 350 300 HO 200 ISO 100 3'0 300 250 200 ISO 3'0 300 200 100 >O TOTAL ELECTRIC-POWER USE, TEXAS Jnde• Adju sted for Se•sona/ Vari•tion-J9j1-l959 #JOO "" - / A.. _A. ,­ / - ~ 19.5.5 1956 1957 1951 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 196' 196.S 1966 1967 1968 NOTE: Shaded are&• indicate period• of de cline of total bu.tne•• &ctivity in the United State1. INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, TEXAS" /nde~ Adjusted for Seuon a/ Variatio n-1957 -1959 ,, JOO .--,.-..,.....-.---,--..,.--.----,..-..,.--.---..--.--.----­ ,._...,_ NOTE: Shaded •re•• indicate period• of decline of total bu1ine11 activity in the United Stuei. SOURCE: Federal Re1erve Bank of Dalla•. PRICES RECEIVED BY FARMERS ALL FARM PRODUCTS, TEXAS /ndu Adjusted fo r Seasonal Varia tion-19JO.J9J4:JOO ~ -~ 1~ 1-~ -1~ 1~1-1-1-~ I~ NOTE: Shaded are,1.1 indicate period• of decline of total bu1ine11 activity in the United S~tel. SOURCE: U.S. Dep&ttment of Agriculture. 350 300 HO 200 ISO 100 >O 3'0 300 250 200 1'0 100 >O 3'0 300 1'0 100 50 MARKET-STRUCTURE CHANGES IN THE LIVESTOCK-MEAT INDUSTRY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO TEXAS Raymond A. During the last several decades pronounced changes have occurred, in Texas and in the nation generally, in the number, type, size, and location of firms in the live­stock-meat industry.' Cattle feeding has increased sharply with the advent of large-scale commercial feedlots. The slaughtering industry is decentralizing and moving tOward the area of production. Packing-house branches have become less prominent in the meat industry, and meat-merchant wholesalers (jobbers) are increasing in size. Large-volume grocery chains and affiliated grocery-retailing organiza­tions have been increasing in number and size, as the number and relative volume of business handled by small independent retailers has been declining. Changes in Cattle Feeding Increased cattle feeding within the last fifteen years has been characterized by the advent of large-scale com­mercial feedlots, a movement in cattle feeding toward Table 1. CATTLE AND CALVES ON FEED, SELECTED AREAS. JANUARY l, 1950, 1960, AND 1967 1950 1960 1967 1,000 1,000 1,000 Region and state head head head Southern P lains 216 317 Texas 161 248 ····· ······ Oklahoma ..... .. 55 69 North Central Regionl .......3.376 4,848 Corn Belt' .... . . l ,996 2,866 Northern P lains' 909 1,312 Other North Central ...... . 471 670 Western Region" .. 710 1,925 Arizona 59 265 Colorado . . . . . . .. 206 404 California 196 665 Other Western States 249 591 ··· ····· Other states ... ... 88 445 844 674 170 7,142 3,866 2,385 891 2,774 370 615 984 805 519 United States .. . . . 4,390 7,535 11,279 Percentage Percentage distribution change in U.S. 1950-67 1950 1967 ~~--~~~ ~~­ Percent Percent Percent 290.7 4.9 7.5 318.6 3.6 6.0 209. 1 1.3 1.5 111.6 76.9 63.3 93.7 45.5 34.3 162.4 20.7 21.1 89.2 10.7 7.9 290.7 16.2 24.6 527.1 1.3 3.3 198.5 4.7 5.5 402.0 4.5 8.7 223.3 5.7 7.1 489.8 2.0 4.6 156.9 100.0 100.0 1. Ohio. Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Mis­ souri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas. 2. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri. 3. North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas. 4. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Washington, Oregon, California, and Nevada. Source: Cattle on Feed, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Crop Re­porting Board, Statistical Reporting Service, selected issues. • Assistant professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. 'D. E. Butz and G. L. Baker, Jr., The Changing Structure of the Meat Economy (Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration. Division of Research, Boston, 1960), pp. 24-93; R. A. Dietrich, W. F . Williams, and J. · E. Miller, The Texas-Oklahoma Meat Industry (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economics Report 39, Economic Research Service, July, 1963), pp. 3-27; W. F. Williams and T. T. Stout, Economics of the Livestock-Meat Industry (Macmillian Co., New York, 1964), pp. 426-442. Dietrich* the West and the Southwest, and a wider dispersion of cattle-feeding activity within the United States. While the number of cattle on feed in the United States almost tripled between 1950 and 1967 (Table 1), the number on feed in the Southern Plains (Texas and Oklahoma) quadrupled. Other areas experiencing rapid growth in cattle feeding include Arizona, California, Colorado, and the Northern Plains states. Texas annually produces large quantities of basic re­sources necessary for cattle feeding. These include rela­tively large supplies of feed grains-specially grain sorghum-a substantial amount of roughage, large volumes of feeder cattle and calves, and generally adequate supplies of water. The availability of necessary basic resources, a rapidly growing population, rising incomes, and shifting tastes and preferences in the Southern Plains suggest that cattle feeding will continue to expand in Texas. The size of feedlots in the Midwest, the West, and the Southern Plains varies significantly (Table 2) .' Farmer­feeders with less than 1,000-head capacity held almost two thirds of the January 1 cattle on feed in South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas in 1967. Small feedlots in the Southern Plains and the Western states accounted for 16 percent or less of the numbers on feed. Large commercial feedlots with 1,000-or-more-head capacity were most prevalent in California and Arizona, where they Table 2. CATTLE ON FEED AND NUMBER OF FEEDLOTS, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND SELECTED AREAS, JANUARY 1, 1967 Lot capacity Average head Under 1,000 head Under 1,000 head per feedlot No. of Cattle No. of Cattle Total Under Over feedlots on feed feedlots on feed no. of 1,000 1,000 Item (thousands) (thousands) feedlots head head Southern Plains 3,200 Texas 1,500 Oklahoma 1,700 South Dakota .10,081 Nebraska . 22,044 Kansas .......12,907 Western Regionl 4,698 Colorado .. .. 940 Arizona 22 California 231 Other Western 3,505 16 States' . .. 52,830 101 64 37 347 794 275 328 278 50 19 336 93 743 610 133 43 514 311 3,428 1,778 1,650 10,100 22,380 13,000 32 43 22 34 36 21 2,265 2,194 2,660 2,263 1,529 3,344 434 190 5 14 744 87 65 300 2,340 425 365 970 5,442 1,027 87 531 92 202 227 61 3,145 4,885 5,615 3,233 225 1,951 292 1,520 580 3,951 3,797 54,350 64 37 1,986 2,599 1. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California. 2. Includes eleven Western states, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Source : Cattle on Feed, Mt. An. 2-1 (1-67), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Crop Reporting Board, Statistical Reporting Ser\'ice, J a nuary 1967. 'Comparable data were not available for much of the North Central Region. held 98 percent of the cattle on feed. The average number of cattle per feedlot with 1,000-or-more capacity was highest in Arizona and Colorado, with approximately 5,000 head on feed; it was lowest in Kansas, with 21 head per lot of 1,000-or-less capacity. The number, size, and lot capacity of feedlots has changed significantly in Texas since 1955. Texas feedlots with 1,000-or-more-head capacity increased from 61 in 1955 to 278 in 1967 (Table 3). The capacity of these lots increased from 160,000 head to 1,042,000 head. Cattle and calves on feed in the Southern Plains are lighter than those on feed in the North Central and Western states (Table 4). During July 1, 1965, and January 1, 1966, 25 percent or more of the cattle on feed in the North Central and Western states weighed in Table 3. SIZE AND CAPACITY OF TEXAS CATTLE FEEDLOTS. JANUARY 1, 1955-1967 (In thousands of head) 1,000-or-more head Less tha n 1,000 head Year Number Total capacity Number Tota l capacity 1955 61 160 1,400 NA 1960 120 350 1,750 a NA 1965 234 805 1,500 a NA 1967 278 1,042 1,500 NA a Estimated by author ities in the livestock and cattle-feeding industry. Source: •'Texas Cattle on Feed," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Crop Reporting Boa rd, Statistical Report ing Service, selected issues. Table 4. CATTLE AND CALVES ON FEED BY WEIGHT GROUPS, JULY I. 1965, AND JANUARY l, 1966, TEXAS AND SELECTED AREAS Total cattle 1,100 a nd Under 900-1099 lbs. calves 500 500-699 700-899 lbs. and on ~~~~~~lb-lbslbsp.o~n~~v_~~otal~-'feed ~s·~----=~-._~----=~-~~~udsoerT _ _ _ ___ Month, year, Per- Per- Per- Per- Per- Per­ 1,000 and area cent cent cent cent cent cent head July 1, 1965 : Southern Plains .15.0 37.8 32.6 13.9 .7 100.0 439 Texas .16.4 39.0 30.5 13.5 .6 100.0 354 Oklahoma . . . . 9.4 32.9 41.2 15.3 1.2 100.0 85 Iowa ........... 1.3 17.3 50.3 23.9 7.2 100.0 1,596 Nebraska . . . . . . . 1.2 17.0 50.4 25.9 5.5 100.0 883 Califo rnia .... . . 6.0 29.4 41.5 20.3 2.8 100.0 1,029 North Central Region' 1.8 19.9 49.0 24.4 4.9 100.0 4,614 Western Region' 5.1 25.4 43.4 22.5 3.6 100.0 2,255 Total 32 States' 3. 7 22.7 46.1 23.3 4.2 100.0 7,515 Ja nuary 1, 1966: Southern Plains .19.2 38.8 26.4 14.1 1.5 100.0 655 Texas .. ......19.8 39.9 25.7 13.5 1.1 100.0 526 Oklahoma ... . 17 .o 34.1 29.5 16.3 3.1 100.0 129 Iowa ... .... . . ..22.1 24.9 30.3 17.8 4.9 100.0 1,642 Nebraska . . . .. . 10.5 19.7 37.3 26.0 6.5 100.0 1,227 Califo rnia ..... . 11.5 26.5 34.8 24.5 2.7 100.0 952 North Central Region' .... . . 18.8 25.2 32.0 19. 7 4.3 100.0 6,088 Western Region' 13.2 25.7 34.1 23.7 3.5 100.0 2,672 Total 32 States' 17 .4 26.4 32.l 20.3 3.8 100.0 9,820 1. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Mis· s·;~ri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas. 2. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California. 3. Includes North Central states, Western states, Texas, Oklahom a, Mis­ sissippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, Georg ia, and Pennsylvania. Source: Cattle on Feed, U.S. Department of Agricult ure, Crop Re­ porting Board, Statistical Reporting Service, selected issues. MARCH 1968 excess of 900 pounds. Only 15 percent of the cattle and calves on feed in the Southern Plains, during the same feeding period, however, weighed in excess of 900 pounds. The Southern Plains, traditionally, consumes substantial quantities of calf or baby beef. This consumption pattern is reflected by the weight ranges of cattle on feed and average weights of steers and heifers sold out of first hand for slaughter at Fort Worth and Oklahoma City. The average weights of steers and heifers, grading U.S. Good or higher, and sold out of first hand for slaughter at fourteen selected markets in the United States for 1964 was almost 1,100 pounds (Table 5). This compares with about 900 pounds of steers and heifers sold out of first hand for slaughter at Fort Worth. Table 5. AVERAGE WEIGHT OF STEERS AND HEIFERS SOLD OUT OF FIRST HAND FOR SLAUGHTER AT FORT WORTH AND SELECTED MARKETS, DECEMBER 1964 Steers a nd Steers' Heifers 1 heifers' Ma rket P ounds P ou nds Pounds Fort Wort h . . . .. . .• . . . . . . .. 1,036 719 903 Oklahom a City .. .. . .• . . •. .. . 1,058 844 943 Chicago . . .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... . 1,1 62 949 1,127 Denver .... ... . .. . ..... . .. . .. 1,117 938 1,026 Kansas City ..... . . . .. . . . . . . . 1,098 901 1,058 Oma ha .1,117 959 1,056 Tota l 14 ma rkets' . . . l ,122 94 3 1,071 1. Includes steers and heifers grading U.S. Good or higher. 2. The fourteen ma rkets include Chicago, Cincinnati, Denver, Fort Worth, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Omaha, St. Lo·iis, Sioux City, Sioux Falls, South St. Joseph, South St. Pa ul, a nd West Fargo. Changes in Livestock Marketing Livestock marketing too has undergo,ne much change since 1950. These changes include the declining importance of the terminal markets, the rise of auction marketing in the early 1950's, and the more recent increase in direct marketing. The predominant change in livestock marketing since 1950 has been the decline of the terminal markets (Table 6). The proportion of slaughter livestock bought by packers on terminal markets declined from 1950 to 1964 as follows: cattle, 75 percent to 37 percent;_ calves, 57 percent to 19 Table 6. PERCENT OF PACKER LIVESTOCK PURCHASES THROUGH DIFFERENT MARKET OUTLETS, S ELECTED YEARS Year and market Cattle Calves Sheep Hogs Terminal markets 1950 a 74.9 56.7 57.4 39.9 1960 45.8 25.4 35.4 30.3 1962 42.6 23.3 35.4 29.3 1964 36.5 18.8 28.6 23.8 Direct, country dealers, etc. 1960 38.6 42.5 54.0 61.0 1962 38.6 31.0 49.4 59.6 1964 44.6 31.7 57.7 63.1 Auction markets 1960 15.6 32.1 10.6 8.7 1962 18.8 45.7 15.2 11.1 1964 18.9 49.5 13.7 13.1 ---=-~~~--:---:-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a Percenta ges for these years are based on federally inspected slaughter purchased at terminal public markets. Source: National Commission on Food Marketing, Organization and Competition in the Livestock and Meat Industry, Washington, D.C. Technical Study No. 1, J une 1966. 69 percent; sheep, 57 percent to 29 percent; and hogs, 40 percent to 24 percent. The most important source of slaughter live.stock for packers in 1964 was producers and country dealers. Auction markets also supplied sub­stantial volumes of slaughter supplies in 1964. Increased direct marketing has considerable impact on other segments of the livestock-meat economy, including producers, livestock marketing firms, and meat packers.' Producers selling livestock direct avoid some of the marketing costs such as yardage, commission charges, and feed at organized markets. Transportation costs paid by the producers may also be reduced, depending on the distances to packing plants, buying stations, and public markets. Increased direct marketing has also had an influence on price reporting by the Market News Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and has raised questions concerning the "true price" for livestock. Although the price reports issued by the Market News Service include country selling, most of the firms and individuals buying and selling livestock still rely heavily on price reports originating from terminal markets. If an increasing pro­portion of slaughter animals by-pass organized markets in the future, live-animal prices may eventually be based directly on prices reported for meat sold at wholesale. Increasing numbers of finished cattle from commercial feedlots are being sold directly to packers on a liveweight, consignment, or carcass basis. The National Commission on Food Marketing reported that feedlots with 1,000-head­or-more capacity in fifteen selected states' sold 71 percent of their finished cattle on a liveweight basis directly to packers in 1964. Less than 11 percent were sold through auctions or terminal markets. The Commission also re­_ported that more than 13 percent of the total were sold on some form of carcass basis. Feedlots in Texas sold 76 percent of their finished cattle directly to packers on a liveweight basis in 1964. Feedlots in Texas sold almost 17 percent on some form of carcass basis, with grade and yield and also carcass weight accounting for about 7 percent of the total. These direct methods of selling appear to be becoming more important as increasing proportions of slaughter cattle originate from feedlots. Changes in the Meat Industry Meat Packers The number, type, size, and location of slaughtering plants have changed dramatically in the United States since 19'55. Total slaughtering plants decreased 8 percent in the United States from 1955 to 1965 (Table 7). Slaughtering plants in this report include all establish­ments with an output of 300,000 pounds or more liveweight annually regardless of whether slaughter was a primary function. They decreased in all major regions except the .Mountain region. Decreasing numbers of slaughter plants, along with a decline in the concentration of slaughter among the four largest firms, indicates that medium-sized firms are be­coming more prominent in the slaughter industry (Table ' See Marketing and Transportation Situation (U.S. Department of Agriculture, MTS-161, May 1966), pp. 14-17, for a more detailed dia­cussion of these changes. 'Includes Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington. Table 7. MEATPACKING PLANTS: SPECIALIZATION BY SPECIES SLAUGHTERED, BY CENSUS REGIONS, AND TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, MARCH 1, 1965, AND PERCENTAGE CHANGE 1955-19651 Number of Plants Slau&'hterin&' Varioua Specie• Cattle, calves, Cattle, Cattlf', Hoga, hogs, Cattle calves. calves, sheep, Sheep sheep, and and sheep, & and and Region and state & lamb• cawes hogs lambs Ho&'s lambs lambs Total South Central' 116 82 342 7 37 2 588 Texas ..... .... 50 33 121 5 3 0 Oa 212 Oklahoma . . .. . 17 16 37 3 0 0 74 North Central' .. 240 244 417 53 64 1 6 1,025 North Atlantic' . . 196 105 127 95 40 0 1 664 South Atlantic' .. 59 25 204 9 38 0 0 335 Mountain6 ... ... . 133 17 38 18 2 0 9 217 Pacific7 .........127 50 15 35 0 0 228 United States .. . . 871 623 1,143 217 182 3 18 2,957 Percentage Change 1955-1965 South Central -23.7 70.8 14.1 16.7 105.6 b b 5.5 Texas . ..... -24.2 43.5 - 4.7 150.0 b 0 0 -2.8 Oklahoma 240.0 45.4 -28.8 b 200.0 0 7.2 North Central 2.1 .4 - 6.1 -35.4 23.1 -66.7 20.0 -3.7 North Atlantic .5 -30.0 -24.4 -26.4 -9.1 0 0 -17.8 South Atlantic -15.7 -24.2 -16.7 28.6 65.2 0 0 -11.4 Mountain .... . 12.7 30.8 -9.5 63.6 100.0 0 b 17.3 Pacific ... . .. -31.0 61.3 -59.5 16.7 b 0 -19.1 U nited States -8.7 -1.0 -14.3 -18.1 31.9 0 260.0 -8.1 1. Includes all plants with an output of 300,000 pounds or more live­weight annually regardless of whether slaughtering is a primary function. These figures, therefore, also include retailers, wholesale meat distributors, and others who slaughter 300,000 pounds or more liveweight annually. 2. Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. 3. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas. 4. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Con­necticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Dela­ware, and District of Columbia. 5. Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. 6. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Nevada. 7. Washington, Oregon, and Califiornia. a. One large slaughter plant in Central West Texas is generally con· sidered by the meat trade to be a specialized sheep-and-lamb slaugh­ter plant. b. No plants indicated for 1955. c. No plants indicated for 1966. Source: Number of livestock slaughter plants, March 1, 1966, and March 1, 1965, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Crop Reporting Board, Statistical Reporting Service, June 1955 and June 1965. 8). That is, firms with a national network of slaughter establishments are accounting for a smaller proportion of total slaughter. Medium-sized plants, on the other hand, are accounting for an increasing share of the commercial slaughter and are apparently realizing economies which are not inherent in larger firms. Such economies or diseconomies often center around management, labor, procurement, and distribution. Economies in procurement are being realized by constructing new plants near concentrated areas of production. Numbers of slaughtering firms accounting for 95 per­cent of the federally inspected cattle increased about 14 percent from 1958 to 1964 (Table 9). Numbers of firms accounting for 95 percent of the federally inspected calf, lamb, and hog slaughter declined. The fact that cattle production increased more than hog production between TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Table 8. PERCENT OF U.S. COMMERCIAL MEAT PRODUCTION ACCOUNTED FOR BY LARGEST COMPANIES, BY RANK, IN 1950, 1955, 1960, AND 1964' Pork, including Lamb and Beef and veal lard mutton Total meat Y_e_a_r~_l_-4~~-6--_5~1~4=--~--5~~8~~~1~--=-4 -8~~~1_4~~~-8=--~-=--6-8 Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent 1950 33:5 ---a:6 ~10:6 64.9 6.937.9 ~ 1955 31.4 4. 7 38.2 15.0 61.4 6.6 35.2 9.3 1960 24.2 4.2 33.7 15.8 54.1 7.0 29.3 9.5 1964 23.7 4.2 34.1 14.2 56.8 4.3 28.7 8.4 L Ranked according to red-meat sales in 1963. Largest 4 companies include Armour, Morrell, Swift, and Wilson. Companies in second group include Hormel, Hygrade, Oscar Mayer, and Rath. Source : National Commission on Food Marketing, Organization and Competition in the Livestock and Meat Industry. Technical Study No. 1 (Washington, D.C., June 1966). Table 9. NUMBER OF U.S. SLAUGHTERING AND PROCESSING FIRMS PRODUCING 95 PERCENT OF THE FEDERALLY INSPECTED OUTPUT AND PERCENTAGE CHANGE, 1958-1964 Percentage Type of firm 1958 1964 change Slaughtering firms Number Number Percent Cattle ..... .... . . . .• . ... ....210 239 ~ Calves .... ... ... .• .. .. •.... . 64 59 -7.8 Lambs .... .... • . . ..• .. ...... 21 20 -4.8 Hogs .. . . .. ........ • .. .. . ... 70 68 -2.9 Total firms' ....... .... ..217 252 16.1 Processing firms .... .... .... . . ..238 250 5.0 1. Numerous firms slaughter more than one species. Source: National Commission on Food Marketing, Organization and Competition in the Livestock and Meat Industry, Technical Study No. 1 (Washington, D.C., June 1966). 1958 and 1964 is probably the primary reason for the larger number of cattle-slaughter firms in 1964.' How­ever, average output per firm among those producing 95 percent of federally inspected output rose about 30 percent for both cattle and hogs during the 1954-1964 period. The percentage of total U.S. commercial slaughter under federal inspection increased from 1950 to 1964 for all species slaughtered with the exception of sheep and lamb. Changes in the proportion of federally inspected slaughter (FIS) to total commercial slaughter from 1950 to 1964 by species were: cattle, 73 to 82 percent; calves, 59 to 66 percent; and hogs, 82 to 86 percent. Federally inspected sheep slaughter declined from 91 percent of the total in 1950 to 89 percent in 1964. Numbers of federally inspected slaughter plants, however, increased 25 percent in the United States from 1955 to 1965 (Table 10). While numbers of federally inspected slaughter plants increased in all major census regions during the 1955-1965 period, they increased most in the South Central Region, where FIS plants i·ncreased almost 70 percent in Texas from 1955 to 1965. Generally larger percentage increases in numbers of plants acquiring federal-insper.tion status re­lative to increases in federally inspected slaughter suggest that most of the slaughter plants qualifying for federal inspection are primarily medium-sized establishments. Such firms often seek federal-inspection status so they can merchandise meat and meat products in interstate com­merce. Large national firms ordinarily possess established brands or trade marks on which they often rely for •National Commission on Food Marketing, Organization and Com­petition in the Livestock and Meat Industry, Technical Study No. 1 (Washington, D.C., June 1966), p. 15. Table 10. FEDERALLY INSPECTED MEATPACKING PLANTS: SPECIALIZATION BY SPECIES SLAUGHTERED, BY CENSUS REGIONS, AND TEXAS, MARCH 1, 1965 AND PERCENTAGE CHANGE 1955-19651 Number of Plants Slaughtering Various Species Cattle, calves, Cattle, Cattle, Hogs, hogs, Cattle calves, calves, sheep, Sheep Region and sheep, and and sheep, & and and state2 & lambs calves hogs lambs Hogs lambs lambs Total South Central 19 26 22 5 6 2 0 80 Texas . . .. . 11 14 7 4 0 Oa 37 North Central 34 117 36 6 37 1 2 233 North Atlantic 17 28 8 29 12 0 0 94 South Atlantic 3 10 11 3 6 0 0 33 Mountain .... 16 9 6 10 2 0 1 44 Pacific . ' .. .. 19 44 4 18 0 0 86 United States 108 234 87 71 64 3 3 570 Percentage Change 1955-1965 South Cen­ tral -13.6 225.0 22.2 66.7 500.0 b 0 53.8 Texas 10.0 133.3 40.0 300.0 b 0 0 68.2 North Central -37.0 84.1 24.1 -68.4 146.7 0 -50.0 28.0 North Atlantic 0 55.6 -42.9 3.6 -14.3 0 0 3.3 South Atlantic -25.0 100.0 b 100.0 0 0 43.5 Mountain 6.7 125.0 -14.3 233.3 b 0 0 51.7 Pacific -45.7 109.5 100.0 -10.0 b 0 10.3 United States -26.5 96.6 7.4 - 2.7 93.9 200.0 200.0 25.3 L Includes all plants with an output of 300,000 pounds or more live­weight annually regardless of whether slaughtering is a primary function. These figures, therefore, include retailers, wholesale meat distributors, and others who slaughter 300,000 pounds or more live­weight annually. 2. The regions are defined in footnotes to Table 7. a. One large slaughter plant in Central West Texas is generally con­sidered by the meat trade to be a specialized sheep and lamb slaughter plant. b. No plants indicated for 1955. Source : Number of Livestock Slaughter Plants, March 1, 1955, and March 1, 1965, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Crop Reporting Board, Statistical Reporting Service, June 1955 and June 1965. merchandising much of their fresh-meat and processed­meat items. Smaller FIS packers, who generally do not possess established packer trademarks, ordinarily rely on such terms as "U.S. Choice" and "U.S. Good" to compete with firms which possess established brands. Specialization by FIS plants is becoming more pro­nounced as plants specializing in cattle, calf, and hog slaughter almost doubled in numbers from 195i5 to 1965 (Table 10) . However, the degree of specialization is not evident for total slaughter plants, including federally inspected and nonfederally inspected plants, compared to FIS plants, as shown in Tables 7 and 10. These results indicate that the degree of specialization by nanfederally inspected plants is somewhat lower than that of federally inspected plants. FIS plants specializing in cattle and calf slaughter more than tripled in the South Central Region and more than doubled in Texas and Oklahoma during the 1955­1965 period. It is interesting to note that FIS hog slaughter increased considerably more in the South Central Region than in any other region. However, even with such a large percentage incease, only six FIS specialized hog-slaughter plants were operating in the South Central Region during 1965. Prepared-Meat Plants Processing or prepared-meat plants, concentrated primar­ily in the North Cen~ral and North Atlantic Regions, are becoming increasingly more important in most regions of the United States (Table 11). The total number of pre­pared-meat plants was about the same in 1963 as in 1954. Total and average sales, however, increased about one third, indicating that the average output per plant has increased sharply. Although the numbers of plants and average sales increased at about the same rate in Texas, this dual growth did not occur in many other areas. Numbers of prepared-meat plants increased 5 percent in the Pacific Region, but total and average sales increased about 50 percent. Prepared-meat plants, however, appear to be decreasing in importance in the Mountain Region, where both numbers and total sales decreased during the 1954­1963 period. Packer Branch H ouses6 Packer branch houses decreased both in numbers and in total and average sales in most major census regions from 1954 to 1963 (Table 12). Sales per packer branch declined more than 8 percent in the United States from 1954 to 1963, when total sales of packer branches de­ creased relatively more than did numbers. Indications are that packer branches will probably continue declining in numbers and sales, since national and regional packers are merchandising an increasing proportion of their products on a direct basis. Sales of packer branches, in most areas, are oriented primarily to pork and prepared-meat items. Packing-house branches in the Texas-Oklahoma area merchandise primarily fresh and cured-pork products, but some also sell beef, veal, and lamb. Meat-Merchant Wholesalers' Meat-merchant wholesalers increased more, relatively, in numbers and volume of sales from 1954 to 1963 than did any other type of meat handler. Similar growth oc­curred during the 1948-1958 period.' Meat-merchant whole­salers increased almost 20 percent in the United States from 1954 to 1963 (Table 13). They also increased 45 per­cent in the Mountain states and more than 30 percent in the West Coast Region. Numbers in the South Central Region increased about 14 percent, but less than 10 percent in both Texas and Oklahoma, where packers are performing many of the wholesaling functions. Total sales of meat-merchant wholesalers increased substantially more than numbers during 1954-1963, there­by increasing the average sales per wholesaler (Table 13). The largest increase in average sales occurred in the North Central, Mountain, and Pacific Regions. Numerous firms in these areas have acquired federal-inspection status and are merchandising meat throughout the United States. It is interesting to note that in 1963 about 45 percent of the U.S. wholesaler sales occurred in the North Atlantic 6Nonslaughtering establishments which process and distribute fresh and processed meat and are affiliated with National Packers. 7Nonslaughtering firms which are primarily buyers of carcasses and sellers of primal cuts. These firms are known as '"breakers" or "jobbers" and specialize in selling wholesale cuts. •Dietrich et al., The Texas-Oklahoma Meat Industry, p. 23. (See footnot<> 2.) Table 11. MEAT-PROCESSING (PltEPARED-MEAT) PLANTS: NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS, TOTAL AND AVERAGE SALES, BY CENSUS REGIONS AND TEXAS, FOR 1963, AND PERCENTAGE CHANGES, 1954-1963 Number of P lants Total sales• Average Sales• Percentage Percentage Percentage change change change Region and state' 1963 1954-63 1963 1954-63 1963 1954-63 1,000 1,000 Number Percent dollars Percent dollars Percent South Central 132 .1 120,878 20.7 916 19.9 Texas ...... ... .. 55 7.8 59,271 15.4 1,078 7.1 North Central ... .. 427 3.9 745,680 23.7 1,746 19.0 North Atlantic .... 456 0 759,865 34.0 1,666 33.9 South Atlantic .... 140 -.7 166,051 23.8 1,186 24.7 Mountain 25 -16.7 17,637 -6.7 705 11.9 Pacific .. ... ....... 155 5.4 291,523 53.1 1,881 45.3 United States ......1,335 1.4 2,101,634 30.2 1,574 28.4 1. The 1954 sales were adjusted to represent 1963 prices by the Con­sumer Price Index, 1957-1959 =100. 2. The regions are defined in footnotes to Table 7. Source: Census of Manufactures, Industry Statistics. Table 12. PACKER BRANCH HOUSES: NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS, TOTAL AND AVERAGE SALES, BY CENSUS REGIONS, FOR 1963, AND PERCENTAGE CHANGES, 1954-1963 Number of P lants Total Sales• Average Sales• Region and state' Percentage change 1963 1954-63 P ercentage change 19633 1954-63 Percentage change 19633 1954-63 Number Percent 1,000 dollars Percent 1,000 dollars Percent South Central 89 -20.5 345,173 -27.9 3,878 -9.3 North Central 122 - 8.3 396,983 -30.5 3,254 -24.2 North Atlantic 195 -20.4 937,870 -25.1 4,810 -5.9 South Atlantic 124 -2.4 495,740 -4.3 3,998 -2.0 Mountain . .. . 12 33.3 34,240 7.0 2,853 -19.7 Pacific ... . .. 35 - 7.9 235,932 5.8 6, 741 14.8 United States 577 - 13.1 2,445,938 -20.5 4,239 -8.5 1. The 1954 sales were adjusted to represent 1963 prices by the Con­sumer Price Index, 1957-1959 = 100. 2. The regions are defined in footnotes to Table 7. 3. Preliminary. Source: Census of Business, Wholesale Trade. Table 13. MEAT-MERCHANT WHOLESALERS': NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS, TOTAL AND AVERAGE SALES, BY CENSUS REGIONS, TEXAS, FOR 1963, AND PERCENTAGE CHANGES, 1954-1963 Number of plants Total sales' Average sales3 Percentage Percentage Percentage change change change Region and state2 1963 1954-63 1963 1954-63 1963 1954-63 1,000 1,000 Number Percent dollars Percent dollars Percent South Central 604 14.4 367,686 37.3 609 20.1 Texas . . . . . . . 259 6.6 174,951 31.6 675 23.4 North Central .1,307 13.5 1,466,231 86.3 1,122 64.3 North Atlantic 1,909 14.6 2,330,922 50.4 1,221 31.3 South Atlantic 471 29 .0 346,996 60.0 737 24.1 Mountain . . . . . 181 44.8 118, 738 117.0 656 49.8 Pacific 698 34.0 740,084 89.0 1,060 41.l United States .5,170 18.7 5,370,657 64.4 1,039 38.5 1. Meat-merchant wholesalers a"' generally referred to by the meat trade as jobbers, hotel and restaurant supply houses, breakers, or frozenwmeat handlers. 2. The regions are defined in footnotes to Table 7. Source: Census of Business. Wholesale Trade. 3. The 1954 sales were adjusted to represent 1963 prices by the Con· sumer Price Index, 1957-59 = 100. Region. That area is generally regarded as a beef-deficit area. The regional concentration of meat-merchant whole­saler sales was similar to that for prepared-meat plants; the North Atlantic and North Central Regions accounted for more than 70 percent of the merchant-wholesaler sales during 1963. Changes in Food Retailing The changing structure of the food-retailing industry, including innovations in buying and selling at the retail level, has sent reverberations throughout the slaughtering, processing, and distributing industries. Supermarkets, stores with $500,000 or more sales annually, accounted for about 70 percent of the grocery sales in the United States in 1963, compared with 40 percent in 1952 (Table 14) . Stores with sales under $500,000 annually are receiving a smaller share of the grocery business each year (Table 14). The number of grocery stores declined more than 12 percent in the United States from 1954 to 1963 (Table 15). This decline can be attributed to the smaller number of stores associated with firms of one to three stores, since stores associated with larger firms increased in numbers between 1954 and 1963. Numbers of grocery stores in Texas followed a pattern similar to that of the United States (Table 15). Total numbers of stores in the Southern Plains declined 17 percent from 1954 to 1963, but stores associated with firms of four or more stores increased 80 percent. Total deflated sales of retailers increased 25 percent during the 1954­1963 period, while deflated sales per store rose more than 50 percent. The rapid expansion of firms with eleven or more stores in Texas is indicative of a growing population and of rapidly expanding metropolitan areas. Although grocery retailing is an industry with a large number of units, the majority of the sales within that industry are concentrated among a small proportion of the stores. In 1963, 11 percent of the grocery stores accounted for almost 70 percent of the total grocery sales (Table 16). The upsurge in numbers of large-volume retailers has influenced the buying as well as the selling policies of retailers. Many large-volume retailers have had to extend their buying activities over a larger area to secure adequate supplies of fresh meat consistent with their prevailing weight, quality, and quantity specifications. The growth of affiliated independents and chains be­comes clear when grocery sales are analyzed by type of Table 14. GROCERY-STORE SALES, BY SIZE OF STORE, UNITED STATES, 1952-1963 Year Small' Superette' Supermarketl Total Percent Percent Percent Percent 1952 39 22 39 100.0 1954 34 20 4G 100.0 1956 29 19 52 100.0 1958 25 17 58 100.0 1960 20 15 65 100.0 1963 18 13 69 100.0 I. Sales of less than $150,000 a year. 2. Sales from $150,000 to $500,000 a year. 3. Sales of $500,000 or more a year. Sou rce: Progressive Grocer, Grocery Business Annual Report, 1964. Item United States Texas Table 15. NUMBER AND SALES OF GROCERY STORES, BY SIZE OF FIRM, IN THE UNITED STATES, AND IN TEXAS, 1954 AND 1963 Number, size of firm, and year Number Percent Number Percent 1954 I to 3 stores 260,364 93.2 16,044 94.0 4 to 10 stores 2,171 .8 229 1.3 11 or more stores .... 16,905 6.0 802 4.7 Total .. .. ...... . 279,440 100.0 17,075 100.0 1963 1 to 3 stores ·· ···· · 220,760 90.2 12,981 87.2 4 to 10 stores ...... 2,789 1.1 357 2.4 11 or more stores .... 21,289 8.7 1,552 10.4 Total ······· ·· ·· 224,838 100.0 14,890 100.0 Sales, size of firm, 1,000 1,000 and year Dollars Percent Dollars Percent 1954 1 to 3 stores . .. ....19,502,204 56.6 1,252,757 63.4 4 to 10 stores ..... 1,365,760 4.0 116,438 5.9 11 or more stores .. ..13,552,800 39.4 605,543 30.7 Total .. . . . . .. 34,420, 764 100.0 1,974,738 100.0 1963 1 to 3 stores .... . .. 25,307,245 48.2 1,467,859 51.9 4 to IO stores ··· ··· 2,537,677 4.8 186,311 6.6 11 or more stores . ... 24,721,033 47.0 1,174,832 41.5 Total . .... .. .. .. 52,565,955 100.0 2,829,002 100.0 Source: Census of Business, Retail Trade. Table 16. RETAIL GROCERY STORES: DISTRIBUTION OF STORES AND SALES VOLUME, BY SALES CLASSIFICATION, UNITED STATES, 1954 AND 1963 1954 1963 Sales size Stores Sales volume Stores Sales volume Dollars Percent Percent Percent Percent 5,000,000 and over NA NA .1 2.1 2,000,000 -4,999,000 NA NA 1.8 21.7 1,000,000 -1,999,000 2.3 a 32.6 a 4.6 29.0 500,000 -999,000 . .. 2.8 16.1 5.0 16.1 300,000 -499,000 2.9 9.0 4.1 7.0 100,000: 299,000 15.1 19.8 17.5 12.9 50,000 -99,000 20.7 11. 7 20.2 6.3 30,000 -49,000 18.8 5.9 16.3 2.8 20,000 -29,000 13.8 2.7 10.5 1.1 10,000 -19,000 14.4 1.7 11.9 .8 5,000 -9,000 6.8 .4 5.7 .2 Less than 5,000 2.4 .1 2.3 .. b Total . .......... .. .. .. .. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 a. Percentage figures in this classification for 1954 are for $1,000,000 and over and not $1,000,000-$1,999,000. b. Less than .05 percent. Source : Census of Business, Retail Trade. retailers (Table 17). Affiliated independent grocers have expanded more in relation to sales than any other type of retailer within the last two decades. Sales by affiliated retailers increased from 29 percent of the total grocery sales in 1947 to 49 percent in 1963. This rapid growth of affiliated independents represents an effort by independent retailers to affiliate with buying groups in order to pur­chase commodities on a basis comparable to chains and other large-volume retailers. Sales by unaffiliated inde­pendents and chains have provided a contrasting parallel since 1947. Both groups accounted for approximately 35 percent of the grocery business in 1947. However, the movement from an unaffiliated to affiliated status by many independent retailers has drastically decreased the total sales volume of unaffiliated grocers, while sales by chains, which represented 41 percent of the total in 1963, have been increasing at a fairly even rate since 1947. Implications of Structural Changes Dramatic changes are taking place and will continue to take place in the livestock-meat industry. It is evident from the foregoing discussion that (1) the cattle-feeding industry is expanding rapidly in the Northern Plains, the Southern Plains, and the Western states; (2) medium­sized, more !Specialized, and more federally inspected slaughtering plants are accounting for a large proportion of the total slaughter; (3) large-volume retail and affiliated stores dominate meat merchandising at the retail level; and ( 4) meat-merchant wholesalers are ex­panding in numbers and sales volume, but packer branch houses are declining in numbers and relative sales volume. Increasing per capita incomes and population growth have been a major factor for increasing the demand for grain-fed beef. These trends are expected to continue. Texas annually produces abundant supplies of feed and feeder animals. Recent research findings show that the Southern Plains area is favorably located for shipping surplus fed beef to the South and the Southeast. Implica­tions of these results are that Texas cattle feedlot opera­tions will continue expanding both in numbers and in size. Specialized cattle-slaughtering facilities have increased in Texas during the last decade. More medium-or large­volume, federally inspected, more specialized, and lower­cost plants may be required as cattle feeding expands in the Southern Plains. Small-volume packers, who are finding it increasingly difficult to compete with large-volume packers, will probably decline in numbers and in relative sales volume. Numbers and sales of packinghouse branches may con­tinue to decline. Numbers and sales of processors or pre­pared-meat plants, however, may continue to increase. Meat-merchant wholesalers (commonly called jobbers or breakers), historically, have been most prevalent in meat-deficit areas. The sales volume of meat jobbers or Table 17. GROCERY-STORE SALES, BY TYPE OF RETAILERS, UNITED STATES 1947-1963 Unaffiliated Affiliated Yea r Chains1 I nclependents' lndependents3 Total Percent Percent Percent Percent 1947 37 34 29 100.0 1953 36 25 39 100.0 1956 37 19 44 100.0 1958 39 l G 45 100.0 1963 41 10 49 100.0 1. An operator of 11 or more retail stores. 2. Independents : Operators of 10 or fewer retail stores. 3. Cooperative Retailers: Retailers (generally independen ts) who are stockholder members of cooperative wholesale buying groups, such as Certified Grocers, Associated Grocers, or Voluntary Group Re­tailers, retailers who belong to voluntary merchandising groups sponsored by wholesalers and who operate under a common name such as IGA, Red & White, Spartan, Super Value, Clover Farms, etc. Source: Progressive Grocer, Grocery Business Annual Report, 1964. Building Review, January 1968 Robert B. Williamson Building construction authorized in Texas during January registered a moderate seasonally adjusted decline from December but continued to show a very large growth compared with a year earlier. The seasonally adjusted Index of Building Construction Authorized in Texas, which is derived from data on the total value of building permits issued in Texas cities, stood in January at 151.4 percent of the 1957-1959 base-period average. This level rep­resented a decline of 3 percent from December but was 40 percent higher than in January 1967. The sag from December in the total authorizations rate reflected a decline of 17 percent in the seasonally adjusted index of residential authorizations. The latter decline may have been caused partly by bad weather conditions, which seem to have had an especially adverse effect on resi­dential building schedules during December and January. Nonresidential building permits, on the other hand, showed a large seasonally adjusted gain of 30 percent from December. Both residential and nonresidential building authoriza­tions recorded very high year-to-year growth rates in Texas during January. Residential building permits were up 38 percent from January 1967, while the nonresidential authorizations were up by an even greater margin, or 56 percent. Over the same twelve-month interval total authori­zations in the standard metropolitan statistical areas of the state grew relatively faster than those in nonmetro­politan areas while the building permits in the SMSA central cities grew even faster. Within the nonresidential building category for Texas as a whole, the types of construction that accounted for the largest dollar increases from a year ago during January were, in order, works and utilities, hospitals and other institutional buildings, churches, and industrial build­ings. The largest year-to-year declines occurred in the authorizations for educational buildings and for service stations and repair garages. Some very large individual nonresidential authorizations were issued during January. Two permits of around $5 million each were issued for telephone-plant additions in Houston and San Antonio. Hospital buildings valued at approximately $3 million each were approved in both Corpus Christi and Plainview. And, although the values (Continued from Column 1) breakers in the Southern Plains will probably increase relatively more than will numbers. Small breakers are finding it increasingly difficult to compete with specialized hotel and restaurant suppliers and may decline in numbers and sales. Further growth in cattle feeding, more specialized shipper-type beef slaughterers in the Texas Panhandle, and other far-reaching innovations in meat handling and retailing are anticipated as the livestock-meat industry adjusts to a rapidly changing economic environment. of individual church authorizations were generally smaller, some fairly large church additions were approved in Austin, Dallas, and San Antonio. The largest permit issued for an industrial building in a reporting unit during January was a $4-million permit issued to a Houston newspaper. Other major nonresidential building projects receiving approval were a $3.6-million building at the Texas Woman's University in Denton and a $2.3-million student-union building at The University of Texas at El Paso. The greatest gains in residential authorizations over the twelve-month interval from January 1967 to January 1968 were for three-and four-family dwellings and apartment buildings, although all major types of resi­dential buildings showed gains. The year-to-year increases in the values of authorizations for the different categories and a 6.60-percent rate in February 1967. Later reports point to a possible reversal of the trend toward higher mortgage rates. When savings deposits at savings and loan associations failed to decrease as previously ex­ pected, mortgage rates charged by savings and loan associations were reduced in some areas of the n~tion during February. Unusually rainy weather has prevailed over most of Texas since early December and has slowed actual build­ing activity within the state. The bad weather also may have reduced the flow of building authorizations, since any appreciable holdup of ,work in progress will tend to slow the rate at which builders request permits for new projects. Texas cities with record or near-record rainfall TOTAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS of new residential construction were 6 percent for one­family dwellings, 16 percent for two-family or duplex-type 350 /nd e• A df1.u ted fo r Season.a/ V1uia tio n-l951· 19'9 • 100 350 dwellings, 515 percent for three-and four-family dwell­ 300 300 ings, and 177 percent for apartment buildings. Townhouse­type dwellings have become increasingly popular in Texas 2'0 HO urban centers. Depending upon the nature of the separating 200 200 walls used in the townhouses, they are classified as either 1'0 130 one-family or multiple-family dwellings in the authoriza­tions statistics. 100 100 Some of the greatest growth rat.es for single-family '° 30 dwellings in Texas during January were recorded in the 1955 1956 1957 19!i8 1959 1960 196' 1962 1963 1964 196.5 1966 1967 1968 East Texas standard metropolitan statistical areas of NOTE: Sh._ded area• indicate period• of decline of tot.al bu•ineu activity. in the United St.ale•. Texarkana and Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange, the two SMSA's of the Lower Rio Grande Valley, and the San Angelo SMSA in West Texas. The largest absolute year­RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS'" l ndu: Adjusted fo r S easonal Vatiation-1951-lf59• JOO to-year increases in single-family residential authoriza­350 tions were recorded in the Dallas and Fort Worth SMSA's. 300 Dupl~x authorizations showed significant gains in the Austin arid San Antonio areas. Apartment approvals reg­250 istered their largest year-to-year increases in the state's 200 three most populous standard metropolitan statistical areas, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. Five individual 150 apartment projects valued at more than $1 million each 100 were included among the apartment buildings authorized in Texas during January. The largest was a $2.3-million complex to provide 250 dwelling units in El Paso. The . 350 300 2!i0 200 150 .~ . Ml ,..,Ir• J W\ ..IW !'U ..J 100 ...... "'-lu' \ . "' ·-v lf!i!i 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 196• 1965 1966 1967 1961 others were valued around $1 million apiece and each will • Exdude• addition•, alterations, a.nd re pairs. contain between 120 and 150 units. One each of these NOTE: Shaded area• indicate period~ of de cline or tot&! bu•m eu a.ctivity in the United Sate•. four very large apartment projects will be located in the cities of Corpus Christi, Fort Worth, San Antonio, and NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS• Waco. Jnde• Adj usted for S e .uon•/ V•,i•tion-19.57-19.59 z /00 National trends in residential authorizations during January parallel those for the state. The seasonally ad­justed number of housing units authorized throughout the nation during January reflected a decline of 16 percent from December but was 18 percent larger than a year earlier. Mortgage credit supplies and interest rates may have begun to ease during February. Up until February average interest rates on conventional first mortgages for new homes were still increasing in the Southwest region and in the nation as a whole. The average rate for the Southwest was 7.00 percent on February 1, compared with 6.95 percent in January and 6.75 percent a year earlier. The national average of 6.75 percent on February 1 reflected increases from a 6.70-p.ercent level the previous month '50 '50 400 400 350 350 300 300 200 200 150 150 O• 1955 1956 19.57 19.58 19.59 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 196.5 1966 1967 1968 *Exch.1de• addition•, alteration•, &nc:I re pair•. NOTE: Shaded a r eas llldicate period• of de chne of tot.al b1.1•ine•• a.ctivity m the United Sta.le•. levels during January included Abilene, Amarillo, Austin, San Antonio, and Wichita Falls. Dallas, Fort Worth, and some other cities had near-normal rainfall amounts in December and January, but builders in these cities report that they have experienced serious construction delays because of the frequency and spacing of the rains. Most types of building work from foundation pouring to roofing have ben adversely affected by the wet weather, and it appears likely that the unusually bad weather will last through most of the winter. The official long-range forecast for the period from February 15 to March 15 has called for moderate to heavy precipitation in all areas of the state and below-normal temperatures in all except the El Paso area. Basic economic conditions favor the prospect of an overall growth in Texas building during 1968, and this prospect is reinforced by recent reports which indicate that the backlog of planned building construction in Texas at the start of the year was larger than the backlog at the beginning of 1967. Although public buildings, and especially those sponsored by the federal government, showed the greatest backlog increases, such gains were indicated for all of the major categories of both private and public building construction. ESTIMATED VALUES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS Percent change J an Jan r Jan 1968 Jan 1968 1968 1967 from from Classification (thousands of dollars) Dec 1967 Jan 1967 ALL PERMITS .... 154,547 109, 787 + 20 + -41 New construction .. ... . .. 141,615 96,581 24 47 + + Residential (house­keeping) 71,802 51,903 + 8 38 + One-family dwellings) 43,608 41,320 + 20 + 6 Multiple-family dwellings 28,194 10,583 6 + 166 N onresidential buildings. 69,813 44,678 45 56 + + Hotels, motels, and tourist courts .. .. .. 2,774 1,363 30 104 + + Amusement buildings 729 115 76 534 Churches 6,235 2,585 + 106 + 141 Industrial buildings .. 8,973 7,008 + 62 + 28 Garages (commercial and private) ..... 1,328 324 +347 310 + Service stations 839 1,835 2 54 Hospitals and institutions 8,247 1,911 10 332 + Office-bank buildings .. 3,597 3,498 57 3 Works and utilities .. 14,388 852 + 425 + 1,589 Educational buildings .. 12,298 16,496 + 38 25 Stores and mercantile buildings 9,307 7,692 28 21 + + ···· ·· ·· ·· + + Other buildings and structures 1,098 999 10 + + Additions, alterations, and repairs .. ....... ... 12,932 13,206 10 2 METROPOLITAN vs. NONMETROPOLITANt Total metropolitan .......136,662 95,195 + 19 + 44 Central cities .. .. . . ... . 110,474 71,611 31 54 Outside central cities ... 26,188 23,584 13 11 + + + Total nonmetropo1itan .. ... . 17,885 14,592 24 23 + + 10,000 to 50,000 population 11,240 9,890 40 14 + + + + Less than 10,000 population 6,645 4,702 3 41 r Revised. t As defined in 1960 Census and revised in 1968. •• Change is less than one half of 1 percent. Source: Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census, U .S. Department of Commerce. POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR TEXAS COUNTIES, APRIL 1, 1967" Prepared by Population Research Center Department of Sociology The University of Texas at Austin CURRENT TRENDS** The population of Texas as a whole increased at a lower rate during the 1960-1967 period than it did during the 1950-1960 decade, a trend it shares in common with the great majority of othe11 states. The average annual percent growth for the 1950-1960 decade was 2.2; the estimated rate for 1960-1967 is 1.8.6 The state had an absolute average annual increase of 186,848 between 1950 and 1960, while the corresponding figure for 1960-1967 was 179,832. These absolute figures indicate that the increase in each of the seven years of the 1960-1970 decade was approximately 7,000 fewer persons than the absolute average annual increase over the 1950-1960 decade. Although this decline may be partly attributable to changes in migration patterns, the major reason unquestionably is the fall in the birth rate in recent years. One of the interesting and important differences between the 1960-1967 period and the 1950-1960 decade is that in the latter period only 44 percent of the counties gained absolutely fo population, whereas over the period from 1960 to 1967, 66 percent gained (Table 3) . Thus, m ore counties are gaining population in this decade than in the last, even though the rate of increase for the state as a whole is decelerating (2.2 percent vs. 1.8 perfent). This indicates that an important change has developed in the variation in rates of growth for the counties between these two periods. For example, it may be noted (Table 3) that for 1960-1967, 94 percent of the gaining counties were in th'> range of gain 0.0 to 3.0 ; for 1950-1960, 82 percent were in this range. The remaining 6 percent of the gaining counties in 1960-1967 had an increase of 4.0 or over, contrasted with 18 percent of the counties in 1950-1960 gaining 4.0 or over. Although there were more gaining counties in 1960-1967, more of them were within a low range of gain (0.0 to 3.9) than the fewer gaining counties in the 1950-1960 decade. For the losing counties the contrast between the proportions in a low range of loss, -0.0 to -1.9, for the 1960-1967 period and the 1950-1960 decades is equally pronounced. In the 1950-1960 decade 64.3 percent of the losing counties lost between -0.0 and -1.9 percent; for 1960-1967, 85.1 percent of the losing counties were "l'ithin this low rana-e. These factors jointly considered account for the owrall deceleration of average annual gain in spite of the fact that a larger proportion of the counties in the 1960-1967 period record a gain in population. A greater proportion of the gaining counties in the 1960-1967 period are in a low range of growth compared with the 1950-1960 decade, as well as a. greater proportion in a low range of Joss. For 1950-1960, 72 percent of the counties fall within a range of from +3.9 to -1.9; and 91 percent of the counties in the 1960-1967 period fall within this ranee. This slowing down of the overall growth rate is necessarily reflected in the state's standard metropolitan statistical · a.reaa. Over •he 1950-1960 decade the average annual growth of the total SMSA population was 3.5 percent. For the 1960-1967 period this rate had d·ropped to 2.2 percent. Only one SMSA lost population in the 1950-1960 decade, whereas six show a loss over the 1960-1967 period (Table 2). In addition sixteen of the stat.e's twenty-three SMSA's (Sherman-Denison was added this year) had lower average annual rates of growth for 1960-1967 than they had for 1950-1960. In other words, while the (Continued p. 78) • Comments and inquiries regarding the estimates should be addraised to the Population Research Center, Department of Sociology, The University of Texas at Austin. **This section was written by Dr. Betty J. Maynard, assistant professor of sociology and research associate with the Population Research Center at The University of Texas. Table 1 1967 POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR TEXAS COUNTIES, WITH AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATES, 1960-1967 County Enumerated population, April 1, 1960 Estimated population, April 1, 1967 Difference, 1960-1967 Average annual percent change, 1960-1967 County Enumerated population, April 1, 1960 Estimated popul ati o~ April 1, 1967 Difference, 1960-1967 Average a nnual percent change, 1960-1967 TEXAS TOTAL 9,579,677 10,838,502 1,258,825 1.8 Ellis - 43,395 47,203 3,808 1.2 Anderson 28,162 31,197 3,035 1.5 El Paso 314,070 349,144 35,074 1.5 Andre1!"9 13,450 9,492 -3,958 -4.9 Erath 16,236 17,511. 1,275 1.lt Angeline. 39,814 46,730 6,916 2.3 Falls 21,263 19,756 -1,507 -1.1 Aransas 7,006 9,462 2,456 4.3 Fannin 23,880 25,467 1,587 .9 Archer 6,110 6,343 233 .5 Fayette 20,384 19,662. -722 -.5t Armstrong 1,966 2,328 362 2.4 Fisher 7,865 7,898 •• 33 .It At88C088 18,828 20,822 1,994 1.4 F loyd 12,369 13,272 903 1.0 Austin 13,777 14,529 752 .8 Foe.rd 3,125 2,624 -501 -2.5 Bailey 9,090 9,960 870 1.3 Fort Bend 40,527 50,406 9,879 3.1 Bandera 3,892 4,263 •• 371 1.3 Franklin 5,101 5,764 663 1.7 Bastrop 16,(\25 17,611 686 .6 Freestone 12,525 12,125 -400 -.5 Baylor 5,893 5,935 42 .1 Frio 10,112 12,173 2,061 2.6 Bee 23,755 24,868 1,113 .7 Gaines 12,267 13,165 898 1.0 Bell 94,097 114,131 20,034 2.7 Galveston 140,364 166,016 25,652 2.4 Bexar 687,151 822,377 135,226 2.6 Garza 6,611 5,820 -791 -).8 Blanco 3,657 4,011 • 354 1.3t Gillespie 10,048 11,755. 1,707 2.2t Borden 1,076 936 -140 -2.0 Glasscock 1,118 1,513 395 4.3 Bosque 10,809 11,574 •• 765 1.0 Goliad 5,429 5,417 -12 -.0 Bowie 59,971 70,413 10,442 2.3 Gonzales 17,845 18,108 263 .2 Brazoria 76,204 102,810 26,606 4.2 Gray 31,535 27,684 -3,851 -1.9 Brazos 44,895 47,875 2,980 .9 Grayson 73,043 80,957 7,914 1.5 Brewster 6,434 7,220 786 1.6 Gregg 69,436 77,542 8,106 1.6 Briscoe 3,577 3,694 117 .5 Grimes 12,709 12,468 -241 -.3 Brooks 8,609 9,248 639 1.0 Guadalupe 29,017 30,114 1,097 .5 Brown 24,728 26,797 2,069 1.1 Hale 36,798 39,811 3,013 1.1 Burleson 11,177 10,519 -658 -.9 Hall 7,322 7,358 36 .1 Burnet 9,265 10,689 1,424 2.0 Hamilton 8,488 8,281 • -207 -.4t Caldwell 17,222 18,382 1,160 .9 Hansford 6,208 7,274 •• 1,066 2.3t Calhoun 16,592 19,826 3,234 2.5 Hardeman 8,275 7,619 -656 -1.2 Callahan 7,929 9,430 •• 1,501 2.5·t Hardin 24,629 30,574 5,945 3.1 Cameron 151,098 139,124 -11,974 -1.2 Harris 1,243,158 1,540,574 297,416 3.1 Camp 7,849 8,400 551 1.0 Harz:-ison 45,594 45,014 -580 -.2 Carson 7,781 8,956 •• 1,175 2.0 H artley 2,171 3,134 • 963 5.2 Ce.SB 23,496 24,642 1,146 .7 Haskell 11,174 9,694 -1,480 -2.0 Castro 8,923 11 ,486 2,563 3. 6 Hays 19,934 23,868 3,934 2.6 Chambers 10,379 11,870 1,491 1.9 Hemphill 3,185 3,712 •• 527 2.2 Cherokee 33,120 34,622 1,502 .6 Henderson 21, 786 27,104 5,318 3.1 Childress 8,421 7,622 • -799 -l.4t Hidalgo 180,904 180,596 -308 -.0 Cle.y 8,351 8,429 78 .1 Hill 23,650 23,281 -369 -.2 Cochran 6,417 6,904 487 1.0 Hockley 22,340 22,255 -85 -.1 Coke 3,589 3,352 -237 -1.0 Hood 5,443 5,734 • 291 .7t Coleman 12,458 11,588 -870 -1.0 Hopkins 18,594 21,703 3,109 2.2 Collin 41,247 57,374 16,127 4.7 Houston 19,376 20,884 1,508 1.1 Collingsworth 6,276 5,564 -712 -1.7 Howard 40,139 39,371 -768 -.3 Colorado 18,463 19,069 606 .5 Hudspeth 3,343 2,941 -402 -1.8 Comal 19,844 22,699 2,855 1.9 Hunt 39,399 45,396 5,997 2.0 Comanche Concho 11,865 3,672 13,296 •• 3,625 1,431 -47 l.6t -.2 Hutchinson Irion 34,419 1,183 26,275 1,171 •• -8,144 -12 -3.8 -.1 Cooke 22,560 25,064 2,504 1.5 Jack 7,418 7,174 -244 -.5 Coryell 23,961 29,308 •• 5,347 2.9 Jackson 14,040 14,316 276 .3 Cottle Crane 4,207 4,699 3,608 4,260 -599 -439 -2.2 -1.4 J asper J eff Davis 22,100 1,582 26,321 1,539 4,221 -43 2.5 -.4 Crockett Crosby 4,209 10,347 4,060 11,450 -149 1,103 -.5 1.4 Jefferson Jim Hogg 245,659 5,022 253,057 4,990 7,398 -32 .4 -.1 Culberson Dallam Dallas 2,794 6,302 951,527 3,408. 6,350 1,209,887 614 48 258,360 2.8t .1 3.4 Jim Wells Johnson Jones 34,548 34,720 19,299 33,396 44,368 19,736 -1,152 9,648 437 . -.5 3.5 .3 Dawson 19,185 18,913 -'272 -.2 Karnes 14,995 14,326 -669 -.7 Deaf Smith Delta 13,187 5,860 19, 425 •• 6,065 • 6,238 205 5.5 .5 Kaufman Kendall 29,931 5,889 32,737 6,864 • 2,806 975 1.3 2.2t Denton 47,432 70,829 •• 23,397 5.7t Kenedy 884 952. 68 1.1 De Witt 20,683 20,274 -409 -.3 Kent 1,727 822. -905 -10.1 Dickens 4,963 4,648 -315 -.9 Kerr 16,800 21,714 4,914 3.6 Dimmit 10,095 9,524 -571 -.8 Kimble 3,943 4,310 •• 367 l.3t Donley 4,449 4,518 69 .2 King 640 562 •• -78 -1.9 Duve.I 13,398 14,247 •• 849 .9t Kinney 2,452 2,343 -109 -.6 Eastland 19,526 18,907 -619 -.5 Kleberg 30,052 27,988 -2,064 -1.0 Ector 90,995 88,194 -2,801 -.4 Knox 7,857 7,349 -508 -1.0 Edwards 2,317 2,465 148 .9 Lamar 34,234 37,040 2,806 1.1 Table I-Continued Table !-Continued County E num erated popula tion, April 1, 1960 E stimated population, April 1, 1967 Difference, 1960-1 967 A verage annual percent cha nge, 1960-1 967 County Enumerated population, April 1, 1960 Estimated population, April 1, 1967 Difference, 1960-1967 Average annual percent change, 1960-1967 La mb 21,896 21,832 -64 -.0 Smith 86,350 99,881 13,531 2.1 Lampasas 9,418 8,993 • -425 -.7 Somervell 2,577 2,548 -29 -.2 L a Salle 5,972 5,805 -167 -.4 Starr 17,137 19,941 2,804 2.2 Lavaca 20,174 20,219 45 .o Stephens 8,885 8,568 • -317 -.5 Lee 8,949 8,922 -27 -.o Sterling 1,177 1,133 -44 -.5 Leon 9,951 10,463 512 .7 Stonewall 3,017 3,023 • 6 .Ot Liberty 31,595 35,057 3,462 1.5 Sutton 3,738 3,985 247 .9 Limestone 20,413 21 ,892 1,479 1.0 Swisher 10,607 12,416 1,809 2.2 Lipscomb 3,406 3,945 539 2.1 Tarrant 538,495 61 5,973 77,478 1.9 Live Oak 7,846 7,264 -582 -1.1 Taylor 101,078 98,693 -2,385 -.3 Llano 5,240 6,283 • 1,043 2.6t Terrell 2,600 2,299 -301 -1.8 Loving 226 122 •• -104 -8.5 Terry 16,286 17,034 748 .6 Lubbock 156,271 175,839 19,568 1.7 Throckmorton 2,767 2,539 -228 -1.2 Lynn 10,914 10,513 - 401 - .5 Titus 16, 785 17,512 727 .6 McCulloch 8,815 9,456 • 641 1.0 Tom Green 64,630 75,210 10,580 2.2 McClennan 150,091 151,871 1,780 .2 Travis 212,136 258,406 46,270 2.8 McMullen 1,116 1,091 • • -25 -.3 Trinity 7,539 7,725 186 .3 Madison Marion Martin 6,749 8,049 5,068 8,116 8,398 5,042 •• 1,367 349 -26 2.6 .6 -.1 Tyler U pshur Upton 10,666 19,793 6,239 11,987 21,753 4,178 1,321 1,960 -2,061 1.7 1.3 -5.7 Mason 3,780 3,890 •• 110 .4 t U valde 16,814 18,539 1,725 1.4 Ma tagorda Maverick Medina Menard Midla nd Milam Mills 25,744 14,508 18,904 2,964 67,717 22,263 4,467 30,923 20,061 20,794 2,867 66,487 20,607 4,705 • • 5,179 5,553 1,890 -97 -1,230 -1,656 238 2.6 4.6 1.4 -.5 -.3 -1.l .7 t Va l Verde Va n Zandt Victoria Wa lker Wa ller Wa rd Washington 24 ,461 19,091 46,475 21,475 12,071 14,917 19,145 26,389 21,101 57,515 24,525 14,926 13,110 19,895 1,928 2,010 11 ,040 3,050 2,855 -1,807 750 1.1 1.4 3.0 1.9 3.0 -1.8 .5 Mitchell 11,255 11,391 • • 136 .2 t Webb 64,791 75,863 11,072 2.2 Montague Montgomery 14,893 26. ~39 15,778 42,409 885 15,570 .8 6.4 Wha rton Wheeler 38,152 7,947 40,482 7,172 2,330 -775 .8 -1.5 Moore 14,773 13,386 -1,387 -1.1 Wichita 123,528 120,451 -3,077 -.4 Morris Motley 12,576 2,870 11,71 7 2, 651 •• -859 -219 -1.0 -1.1 Wilbarger Willacy 17 ,748 20,084 16,767 15,730 -981 -4,354 -.8 -3.5 N acogdoches N a va rro Newton 28,046 34 ,423 10,372 30,71 3 34,873 11 ,477 . 2,667 450 1,105 1.3 .2 l.4 t Williamson -vv·ilson Winkler 35,044 13,267 13,652 37 ,229 14,392 9,804 2,185 1,125 -3,848 .9 1.2 -4.7 N ola n 18,963 17,686 -1,277 -1.0 Wise 17,012 20,151 3,139 2.4 N ueces Ochilt ree 221,573 9,380 232,940 10,067 11,367 687 .7 1.0 Wood Yoakum 17 ,653 8,032 19,932 7,735 2,279 -297 1.7 -.5 Oldham 1,928 2,451 • • 523 3.4 Y ou ng 17 ,254 15,634 -1,620 -1.4 Ora nge 60,357 72,470 12,113 2. 6 Zapata 4,393 4,470 77 .2 P a lo Pinto 20,5 16 25,384 4,868 3.0 Za va la 12,696 14,367 1,671 1.8 Panola 16,870 16,950 80 .1 NOTE : *Meth od II is the inte rmediate estim ate. ( 2.2 percent) is 0.4 percentage points greater than that for the state Parker 22,880 28,301 5,421 3.0 ••Method III is the intermediate estimate. Parmer 9,583 11,338 1,755 2.4 t Method I estimate within 1.0 of this figure. Pecos 11,957 12,281 324 .4 Polk 13,861 14,844 • 983 l.Ot Potter 115,580 109,324 -6,256 -.8 Presidio 5,460 5,774 314 .8 (Continued from p. 76)Rains 2,993 3,436 •• 443 2.0 irrcwth rates of both the state as a whole and the SMSA's are slowingRa ndall 33,913 57,999 24,086 7.5 down, the SMSA'~ are decelerating in rate of population growth more Reagan 3,782 3,617 -165 -.6 ra pidly than i; the state, though the growth rate for the SMSA'sReal 2,079 2,167 88 .6 Red River 15,682 16,396 .6 714 1 I.~ percent) as a whole. With 71 percent of the state's total popula­Reeves 17,644 15,214 -2,430 -2.l tion now residing in the twenty-three SMSA's, this discrepancy is Refu gio 10,975 10,525 -450 -.6 not likely again to approach the 1.3 percentage-point difference between Roberts 1,075 1,115 40 .5 SMSA's and the state total, as occurred in the 1950-1960 decade. The Robertson 16,157 15,562 -595 -.6 obvious conclusion from a consideration of these facts is that the Rockwall 5,878 6,385 507 1.2 population growth of Texas counties during the current decade shows Runnels 15,016 13,262 -1,754 -1.8 considerably less variation than that of the previous ten-year period. Rusk 36,421 35,690 -731 -.3 Sabine 7,302 8,076 774 1.4 San Augustine 7,722 8,147 425 .8 San Jacinto 6,153 6,982 829 1.8 The Texas farm labor force consisted of 201,000 persons San Patricio 45,021 47,234 2,213 .7 during the week of January 21-27, 1968, compared with San ~aba 6,381 6,850 469 1.0 Schleicher 2,791 2,804 •• 13 .It 221,000 for the corresponding period last year and 196,000 Scurry 20,369 15,076 -5,293 -4.3 in February 1968. Of the 201,000 employed in January Schackelford 3,990 3,710 -280 -1.0 1968, 162,000 were family workers and 39,000 were hired Shelby 20,479 21,620 1,141 .8 (SRS-USDA). Sherman 2,605 3,400 •• 795 3.8 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW MFTHODOLOGY Population estimates for Texas counties have been prepared by the Population Research Center of The University of Texas at Austin every year since 1960.1 Methods for making these estimates have varied during this time. In the most recent years three methods have been used, methods based respectively on the scholastic census, vital statistics, and passenger-car registrations.' These three methods, and an innovation by which the U.S. Bureau of the Census yearly estimate for the total population of Texas was used, constituted the bases for generating the 1966 estimates. The same procedure has been followed his year for estimating the population of Texas counties and the standard metropolitan statistical areas. As in the previous years in which these three methods have been used, Method I, based on the scholastic census, has produced the more reliable estimate. It tends to yield county estimates intermediate between those resulting from Method II (based on vital statistics), which tends to produce the lowest county estimates, and those from Method III (based on car registrations), which tends to produce the highest county estimates. This yesr Method II produced the smallest estimate for 226 counties. Method III produced the largest estimate for 221 counties and Method I produced the intermediate estimate for 208 counties. In addition to the 208 times that Method I produced the intermediate estimate, for 24 additional counties the average annual growth rate for the Method I estimate differed from the rate of the intermediate estimate (Method II or III) by less than one percent. This means that for 91 percent of the counties the estim11te resulting from Method I was either inter­mediate or variant only minimally from the intermediate growth rate. The innovation of using the U.S. Bureau of the Census total Texas population estimate as instituted last year has been followed again this year, and for the same reasons. The Population Research Center's state total, produced by summing the county estimates, has consistently produced a total state estimate that is appreciably lower than that arrived at by the U .S. Bureau of the Census.' Since the Bureau of the Census has access to superior sources of data (that is, school enrollment figures rather than scholastic census), the Population Research Center's state figure has been brought into congruence with the Bureau's state total. After preparation of the estimates in the usual manner for each county and selection of the intermediate figure, each county figure was multiplied by an adjustment factor in order to produce a congruence of the overall state total between the estimates of the Bureau of the Census and those of the Population Research Center. The adjustment factor for the 1967 data is 1.02773320. This factor is generated by taking the July 1 provisional state estimate for 1967 issued by the Bureau, adjusting it to make it consistent with the April 1 data of the Population Research Center, and calculating the ratio of the Bureau of Census figure and the Population Research Center state total. As a result of this adjustment almost 300,000 people have been added to the 254 county estimates of the Population Research Center. Because of this adjustment only the 1966 and the 1967 estimates can be compared. Comparisons of the 1966 and 1967 estimates with any prior estimates are not valid. DESCRIPTION OF METHODS Method I. The Method I estimates in Tables 1 and 2 are based on the following formula: M=L+[ (H) (I)]+ (J-K) ..Each variable in this formula is described below : 1See "Population Estimates for Texas Counties, Standard Metro­politan Statistical Areas and Urbanized Areas, April 1, 1961," Texas Business Review, XXXVI (January 1962), pp. 7-8 ; "Population Esti­mates for Texas Counties, 1961 and 1962," Texas Business Review, XXXVII (April 1963), pp. 79-88 ; "Population Estimates for Texas Counties, 1963," Texas Rusiness Review, XXXVIII (March 1964), pp. 69-72; "Population Estimates for Texas Counties, 1964," Texas Business Review, XXXlX (March 1965), pp. 76-79 ; "Population Esti­ mates for Texas Counties!, 1965," Texas Businesll Review, XL (March 1966), pp. 88-91; and "Population Estimates for Texas Counties, April 1, 1966," Texas Business Review, XLI (January 1967), pp. 12-15. 'Part of the data necessary for the preparation of these estimates was supplied through the cooperation of the Texas Education Agency, the Texas State Department of Health, and the Texas Highway Depart­ment. These agencies, however, are not to be held responsible for the estimates presented here. 'U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Estimates of the Population of States: July 1, 1966, with Provisional Estimates for July 1, 1967." Current Population Reports, Population Estimates, Series P-25, No. 380. MARCH 1968 A -· Number of potential scholastics for year X. For example, the potential scholastics for 1967 (year X in this case) are persons born during 1960, plus persons 0-10 enumerated in the 1960 federal census. B ::::i Number of potential scholastics dying between birth or 1960 and year X. If A1 is a particular potential scholastic cohort, the number of deaths of Apersons up to year X is subtracted. 1 For example, suppose A1 is persons 2 years of age in the 1960 federal census and X is 1964. _Then the deaths of A 1 are the number of persons 2 years of age who died in 1960, plus the number 3 years of age who died in 1961, plus 4-year­olds who died during 1962, plus 5-year-olds who died during 1963. B is thus the number in cohort Adying between 1960 1 and 1963 (inclusive), plus the number in A dying between 2 1960 and 1963. etc. C Number of persons 6-17 years of age enumerated in the 1960 federal census. A-B D c E Number of persons enumerated in scholastic census for 1960. F D x E, giving expected number of scholastics in year X with no net mig.ration of scholastics. G = Actual number of scholastics enumerated in scholastic census for year X. H G -F, the increase or decrease of scholastics attributable to migration. I = Migration multiplier, which is taken as the ratio of the total population to the number of persons 6-17 years of age in 1960. J = Number of resident births between 1960 and year X (for example, when X is 1967, it is the number of births during 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966). K = Number of resident deaths between 1960 and year X. L = Resident 1960 population according to the federal census of 1960. M = Estimated population for year X. The crucial factor in the estimation formula is the migration multiplier. The first step taken in the computation of a migration multiplier for each Texas county is to determine the 1960 potential number of persons 6-17 years of age (henceforth referred to as scholastics), given the age composition of the county's population in 1950, and the births and deaths in the county during the 1950-1960 decade. In this instance the 1960 potential number of scholastics is all persons 0-7 years of age in 1950 plus all persons born between April 1, 1950, and April 1, 1954. Subtraction of the estimated number of deaths of potential scholastics from the total yields the expected number of scholastics in 1960. The difference between the number of expected scholastics in 1960 and the number of persons 6-17 years of age enumerated in the 1960 federal census is indicative of net migration. For example, if the 1960 expected number of scholastics in a county is 150, but the number of persons 6-17 years of age enumerated in the 1960 federal census is 200, then the estimate of net migration of scho!astics over the decade 1950-1960 is 50. Since the total net migration over the years 1950-1960 is known for each county, the division of total net migration by the estimate of scholastic net migration yields a migration multiplier for each county (referred to as the "obtained" migration multiplier). For example, if the 1950-1960 total net migration is 500 and the estimated scholastic net .migration is 125, then the obtained migration multiplier is 4.00 (that is, a gain of one scholastic from migration represents a gain of four migrants of all ages). In most cases this operation yields a plausible multiplier. However, the problem case is the county with a very small migration. To illustrate, if a county gained only two scholastics from migration, it may have lost a few persons as far as total migration is concerned. In such a case, it is not possible to compute a migration multiplier. Then there may be cases when a county gained three scholastics from migration but gained 30 from total migration. In such a case, the obtained migration multiplier would be 10.00, but this extremely high value is likely to reflect nothing more than minor errors in the estimates of deaths of potential scholastics, inaccuracies in the 1950 federal census enumeration, and/or inaccuracies in the enumeration of the 1960 federal census. Rather than use extremely high or extremely low obtained migration multipliers for some counties (most of which have a very small population). it was decided to compute a state total (the sum of all counties) of estimated scholastic net migration and total net migration. The division of the latter by the former yields a state obtained migra­ 79 Table 3 Table 2 1967 POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR TEXAS STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS, WITH AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATES, 1960-1967* Standard metropolitan statistical area Enumerated population, April l , 1960 Estimated population, April 1, 1967 Difference, 1960-1967 Av. annual per. change 1960-1967 Total .. .. .......6,611,665 7,704,751 1,093,086 2.2 Abilene' . . . .. . . . . . . 120,377 118,429 -1,948 -.2 Amarillo2 ······· ··· 149,493 167,323 17,830 1.6 Austin3 ············ 212,136 258,406 46,270 2.8 Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange" 306,016 325,527 19,511 .9 Brownsville- H arlingen-San Benito5 ···· ·· ··· ·· 151,098 139,124 -11,974 -1.2 Corpus Christi• .. .. . 266,594 280,174 13,580 .7 Dallas' . . .. ..... .. . . 1,119,410 1,424,415 305,005 3.4 E l Paso• .. . . . . . ... . . 314,070 349,144 35,074 1.5 Fort Worth9 .. .. . 573,215 660,341 87,126 2.0 Galveston- Texas CitylO ...... 140,364 166,016 25,652 2.4 Houston11 ....... . .. 1,41 8,323 1,771,256 352,933 3.2 Laredo12 ········· · 64,791 75,863 11,072 2.2 Lubbock 13 156,271 175,839 19,568 1.7 McAllen-Pharr­ Edinburg14 180,904 180,596 - 308 - .0 Midland" 67,717 66,487 -1,230 -.3 Odessa16 90,995 88,194 -2,801 -.4 San Angelo" ...... .. 64,630 75,210 10,580 2.2 San Antoniola 716, 16 852,491 136,323 2.5 Sherman-Denison19 73,043 80,957 7,914 1.5 Texarka na, Texas20 .. 59,971 70,413 10,442 2.3 Tyler21 .......... .. .. 86,350 99,881 13,531 2.1 Waco22 150. 091 151 ,871 1,780 .2 W ichita Falls" ······ 129,638 126,794 -2,844 -.3 *1967 population estimates for SMSA's are the intermediate-method estimate for the county comprising the SMSA. In the case of SMSA's containing two or more counties, estimates by all three methods were summed independently for each county and the intermediate total for each county was used as the SMSA estimate. Method I proved to be the intermediate for all counties except Denton in the Dallas SMSA. Counties in each SMSA (italicized counties have been added since 1960): •Jones and Taylor ; 2Potter and Randall ; 3Travis; 'J efferson and Orange; scameron; 6Nueces and San Patricio; 7Collin, Dallas. Denton, Ellis, Kaufman, and Rockwall; ' E l Paso; 9Johnson and Tarrant; lOGalveston; 11 Brazoria, Fort Bend, H arris, Liberty, a nd Montgomery ; 12Webb; 13Lubbock ; "Hidalgo; 15Midland; " Ec tor; 17Tom Green ; 1sBexar and Guadalupe ; 19Grayson; 20Bowie (excluding Miller, Arkan· sas); 21Smith ; 22McLennan ; 23A!·cher and \Vichita. tion m ultiplier of 4.35, which corresponda very closely to the 1960 ratio of the total population of the state to the number of persons 6-17 years of age. the ratio being 4.26. Further analysis of 1960 census figures revealed that the ratio of totaJ intercounty migrants (persons who in 1960 did not reside in the same county as 1955) to intercounty migrants 6-17 years of age is 4.25.• These comparisons suggest a fairly close relationship between the obtained migration multiplier and the ratio of the total population to persons 6-17 years of age. Further substantiation is found by inspec­tion of the two figures for individual counties. Generally, counties with a high obtained m igration multiplier also .have a high age ratio, and the reverse also is generally true. Moreover, there is generally a close agreement between the age ratio and the obtained migration multiplier in counties with a large population, where minor errors are least likely to create extremely high or extremely low obtained migration multipliers. Finally, in a large proportion of the counties the ratio of the total population to persons 6-17 years of age is betweon 3.35 and 5.35, values within 1.00 of the obtained m igration •See U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1960. PC (1 )-45D (Washington : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962). Table 100. Figure on migrants of less than five years of age were estimated (by assuming the same proportion of migrants as among the 5-9 age group) , and figures for the 6-17 age group were estimated from census da ta on age groups 5-9, 10-14, and 15-19. DISTRIBUTION OF TEXAS COUNTIES A CCORDING TO AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT GROWTH OF POPULATION, 1960-1967 Average annual Number of Percent distribution percent growth counties of counties Gains: 2 0.8 6.0 and over 3.1 4.0 to 5.9 8 2.0 to 3.9 .. . ....•..•. . •............. 49 19.3 42.5 0.0 to 1.9 .............. .............108 65.7 Subtotal gaining counties .. ... ......167 Losses: -1.9 to -0.0 .... . ..... ..... ... . . .. 74 29.l - 3.9 to -2.0 7 2.8 - 5.9 to -4.0 1.6 Over -6.0 .. ..... . ................. . 2 0.8 Subtotal losing counties ........ . ... . 87 34.3 Gra nd Total .. ....... .......•........254 100.0 multiplier for the state as a whole. All of these obse~tions clearly suggest that the use of the ratio of the total population to perso111 6-17 years of age as the migration multiplier is justified. Although the major question in the use of Method I is the migration multiplier, several other possible sources of inaecuracy exist. The formula assumes the accuracy of the 1960 federal census and each annual scholastic census for the years 1960-1967. It further assumes the reliability of the following vital statistics for the years con­sidered : deaths of potential scholastics, total deaths, and total birth1. Although minor changes may be made in the future, the basic features of the estimation formula of Method I will be retained in makillll annual population estimates up to the year of the next federal census. 1970. Method II. The second method generates a 1967 estimate based on the ratio of the 1960 census population to the 1959 number of reiident births and deaths times the 1966 number of resident births and deaths. The formula for a Method II estimate is: P= [P..,/(B+D)] 67 59 59 (B+D). where P is the 1967 population estimate, P is the 66 6667 60 1960 census population, Bis the number of resident births in 1959, 59 Dis the number of resident deaths in 1959, Bis the number of 59 66 resident births in 1966, and D66 is the number of resident deaths in 1966. Method II assumes that the numbers of resident births and deaths registered for a county are reliable, and it further assumes that neither the birth ra te nor the death rate of the cou.nty has changed substantially between the census year and the estimate year. Method III. Estimates based on the third method are computed by multiplying the ratio of the 1960 census population to the number of 1960 passenger-car registrations times the number of 1967 passenger­car registrations.' The formula for the Method III estimate is: = P67 (P,,,IC) C67, where P is the 1967 estimate, Pis the 1960 census 6067 60 population, c 60 is the number of passenger cars registered in 1960, and C67 is the number of passenger cars registered in 1967. Method III assumes that the ratio between passenger cars and popu­lation remains constant. It also assumes either no irregularities in registration (persons registering their cars in a county where they are not residents) or no change in either the amount or kind of such irregti1arities. 'The actual registration year 1960 was from April J, 1959, to March 31, 1960, ..nd actual registration year 1967 was from April i, 1966, to March 31. 1967. •Most of the growth figures reported in this paper are reduced to an average annual basis. The average annual percent growth (PR) i• computed as follows: (P2-P1)/ T PR (P, + P,)/ 2 100. where PR is the average annual percent growth, P is the population 1 size at the beginning of the period, P 2 is the population size at the end of the period, and T is the number of years in the period. This formuJa gives a much more realistic average annual growth rate than does the simple interest formula: (P2-P )/ T PR ---,P=-, 1--100. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW COWS AND HEIFERS 2 YEARS AND OLDER JANUARY AND CALVES BORN 1961-1967, TEXAS AND THE U.S. T E XAS UNITED STATES' Year Cows & heifers 2 yrs. & older J an. 1 Calves born as o/c of cows 2 yrs. & older J a n. I' Calves born Cows & heifers 2 yrs. & older J a n. 1 Calves born as % of cows 2 yrs. & older J a n. I' Calves born 1961-65 1961 1962 1963 J964 J965 J966 1967' 1,000 head 5,402 4,984 5,100 5,509 5,726 5,692 5,589 5,670 Percent 83 86 82 81 82 84 86 1,000 head 4,469 4,137 4,386 4,517 4,638 4,667 4,695 4,876 1,000 head 48,976 46,598 47,654 48,968 50,44J 5J,2J9 50,420 49,883 Percent 86 87 86 87 86 86 87 J,000 head 42,325 40,180 41,441 42,268 43,809 43,928 43,526 43,647 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service, and the Texas Department of Agriculture, Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. 1. Includes a ll fifty sta tes. 2. Not strictly a calving rate. Figure represents calves born expressed as· percentage of January 1 inventory of cows and heifers 2 years old and over. 3. Preliminary. LAMB CROP, 1966 AND 1967, TEXAS, OTHER STATES, THE UNITED STATES Breeding ewes 1 year and older Lambs saved per JOO ewes 1 year a nd Lambs saved' January 1 older- J a n. J ' 5-year 5-year average 1961-65 1966 1967 1966 1967 average J96J-65 1966 1967 Texas ..... .. ................... 3,833 1,000 head 3,158 3,190 82 Num ber 75 2,8 J4 2,590 1,000 head 2,392 13 Western states .... . ..... . .. . . 14,097 12,134 11,816 91 88 J2,415 10,993 10,384 35 native states ········ ······ ·· 5,837 4,707 4,392 104 106 6,043 4,882 4,649 Alaska ·· ······ ···· ······ ······· 7 9 10 67 70 5.2 6.0 7.0 U nited States .... . ......... . ....19,941 16,850 16,218 94 93 18,463 15,881 15,040 I. Lambs Jiving July 1 or sold before July 1 in the native states and lambs docked or branded in the Western states. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Statistical Reporting Service, and the Texas Department of Agriculture, Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. PRODUCTION OF ORANGES AND GRAPEFRUIT' By States P RODUCTION 1, 000 boxes' Equ ivalent tons A verage Indicated A verage Indicated Crop and state 1961-65 1966 1967 1961-65 1966 1967 ORANGES EARLY, MIDSEASON, AND NAVEL VARIETIES' California ....... ......... . . .. . . . . . . . ..... . . . 13,740 17 ,400 10,000 515,200 652,000 375,000 Florida . . . . . ............. · • · · • · · · · · · · All ............. ..... ... ... .... . 45,620 78,200 56,400 2,053,000 3,5J9,000 2,538,000 Temple ............................. · · · · · · · 3,660 5,000 4,400 164,600 225,000 198,000 Other ..... .•... ........•...•..•. .... ...... 41,960 73,200 52,000 1,888,400 3,294,000 2,340,000 Texas ..................... ...... ......... .. . 655 1,700 1,000 29,454 76,500 45,000 768 a 860 900 28,800 a 32,200 Arizona ..... ....................... · · · · · · • · · 33,800 Louisiana .................. .. .. ... . ..... . · . . · b 59 b b 2,660 b Total above varieties .............. .......... . 60,842 98,160 68,300 2,629.114 4,279, 700 2,991,800 VALENCIAS California . . . . . . . . ... ................. ..... . 15,960 20,000 10,000 598,600 750,000 375,000 Florida .......•..... ........... ........•..•.. 40,940 66,300 42,000 1,842.000 2,984,000 1,890,000 Texas ................... ........ ....... . 297 1,100 900 13,365 49,500 40,500 Arizona .......... .. . . . . .. . . . . . . ...... · · · · · · · 1.240 3,050 2,800 114,000 105,000 46,500 Total Valencia ............... ............•..... 58,437 90,450 55,700 2,500,465 3,897,500 2,410,500 ALL ORANGES 29,700 750,000 37,400 20,000 l, 113,800 1,402,000 California ......... . ... . .. . ...... . . . ........ . F lorida ...... . ... .. .. . . .. .. ... . ..•..• . . .. . .. . 86,560 144,500 98,400 3,895,000 6,503,000 4,428,000 Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ .... · · 952 2,800 1,900 42,819 126,000 85,500 Arizona ....... ..................... · 2,008 a 3,910 3,700 75,300 a 146,200 138,800 Lou isiana .......... . . ... ..... . .... . .... .. . . · 59 b b 2.660 h b U.S. All Oranges . . . . ..... .... ... · 119,279 188,610 124,000 5.129,579 8, 177,200 5,402,300 GRA PEFRUIT 31,620 43,600 32,500 1,343,600 1,853,000 1,381,000 Florida, All ............ ...... ...... · . · · · · · · · Seedless ........ . . ..... . . . . ...... . 21.780 30,100 22.500 925,400 1,279,000 956,000 8,420 11,500 9,000 357,800 489,000 382,000 Pink ...... ......... · · · • · · · · · · • · · · · · · · 13.360 18,600 13,500 567.600 790,000 574,000 White ..................... · ·. ·· ·· · · · Other .. .............. ...... ...... · · · · · · · · 9,840 13,500 10,000 418,200 574,000 425,000 Texas ............. ... .. .. ...... ... . 1,814 5,600 2.800 72,560 224 .000 112,000 Arizona ...................... .... . 2,720 1,680 3,000 87,080 53,800 96,000 California, All .. .... .... ................... . 3,764 5,000 4,400 122,980 163,400 143,500 Desert Valleys · · · · · · · · · · · 2,104 2,700 2,600 67,340 86.400 83,200 1,660 2,300 1,800 55,640 77,000 60,300Other Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . .... · · · · · · · 39,918 55,880 42,70(' 1,626,220 2,294,200 I,732,500U.S. All Grapefruit ..... .... ... . 1. Crop year begins with bloom of year shown and ends with completion of harvest the following year. Includes quantities not harvested, or har­vested but not utilized on account of economic conditions, and quantities donated to charity. 2. Net content of box varies. Approximate averages are as follows : oranges-California and Arizona, 75 lbs.; other states, 90 lbs. ; grapefruit-Cali­ for nia Desert valleys and Arizona, 64 lbs. ; other California areas, 67 lbs. ; Florida, 85 lbs. ; Texas, 80 lbs. 3. N avel and miscellaneous varieties in California and Arizona. Early and midseason variet ies in Florida and Texas. All varieties in Louis iana. Includes small quantities of tangerines in Texas and Louisiana. a. Includes sm a ll quantit ies of ta ngerines prior to the J964-1 965 season. b. Production too small to warrant quantitative estimate. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service, and Texas Department of Agricu ltu re, Crop and Livestock Reporting Service (table m odified by Bureau of Business Research ). BUSINESS ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR TWENTY TEXAS CITIES ABILENE BUSINESS ACTIVITY CORPUS CHRISTI BUSINESS ACTIVITY Ind.a Adju ated for SaHon•/ V.,iation-1'S1· l fSf •IOO 350 350 . Jn A 11\Nf"'I"­ 150 300 300 2'0 2SO HO 200 200 ISO ISO 150 100 100 50 100 .. 1955 1956 1957 1951 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1961 1955 1956 1957 1951 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 ..... "" 1966 1967 '"' NOTE: Shaded area• U:i.dicate perlo~b of decline of total budne11 activity in the United St&tu. NOTE: Shaded uea• indicate period• or decline of total buehwu acdrity in tbe United State•. SOURCE: BaHd OD be.nk d• bill re ported by tba Federal Re..rva B.ankof Dalla• and adjuated for SOURCE: BaHd on.bank debiH uported by tbe Federal Ruerve Bank of O.llae aDdadjuated for 1eaeonal variationaQd cban1aa in the price lava I by the BW'eau of Bv.alnea• Re1u rch. ••a•onal variation and cban1•• int.he price level by the Ba.raa1a of &u.lne•• Jlaeearcb. AMARILLO BUSINESS ACTIVITY CORSICANA BUSINESS ACTIVITY Inda• Ad]uded for Se• 1ona/ Variation -1,51.JIJl • IOO ) SO •so 300 300 2SO 250 200 200 ISO ISO 100 100 50 50 1955 1956 1957 1951 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 196' 1965 1966 1967 1961 350 ... 2SO 200 lSO 100 .. 350 300 2SO 200 ISO 100 50 1955 1956 1957 19.51 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1'65 1966 1967 1961 NOTE: Shaded az-• iAdicate period.a of declloa of total bv.•hMH acd:rity in tbe Ulllted lta&H . SOURCE: Baaed on baolr. debit• r eported by the Federal lleHn'a B&Akof Dallaa aDd.adjaated ior aaaaou.1 variation&nd cban1•• in the price 1-•I by tbe Buuu of lkasiaeaa Re..arcb. DALLAS BUSINESS ACTIVITY Ind.a Adj u atH for SaHon a/ V•riation-JH1-1Hf•IOO 1955 1956 19.57 1951 19.59 1960 1961 1962 1963 196' 1965 1966 1967 1961 350 300 2SO 200 150 100 so HO 250 200 150 100 so NOTE: Shaded area• indiu.te period• of dadina of total b1uio1n activity in the United St.atu. NOTE: Sb.adad a r aaa indicate 5"'rioda of daclina of tot&l bual~u acd.Yity in tbe United Sta&ea. SOURCE: !t&Hd on baok dabita reported by tba F1d1ral RaHrve B•nkof D1Ua1 andadj1nted for SOURCE: Baud on b&ok debit• uported by the Federal ReH"'• &Mot Dalla• andadj'a9ted m 1aa1onal variation and cban1a1 ln the price level by the Bureau of Bu.1in11a R11ea1'ch. sea.onal variation and cb.an1•• in the prie• l•v•I by the B1,1rea11 of haiJM•• Ree..rch. BEAUMONT BUSINESS ACTIVITY EL PASO BUSINESS ACTIVITY /ndaa Adjulted for Sa.uona/ V•riation-19$1./Uf • 100 Ind.. Adju atffl for S•••On• I Va riation-1'51·11Sf•IOO )50 •so ) 00 ) 00 300 300 250 250 2SO 2SO 200 200 200 200 150 150 ISO lSO ..A 100 ~·100 100 ,,... ' y 100 . 50 so 50 so 1955 1956 1957 1951 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 196, 1965 1966 1967 1961 NOTE: Sb.aded area• indica.t~ period• o! dacllne of total bu.tinen activity in the Uftited State• . SOURCE: ':::::a::::;~::a:=::::;~:.!':.ep~::::~e~e:.,•::.e ::;:::~;~:i:~:d~::i::r:~ 82 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW ' .. • .Ai -A. - AA.. .,.., ./'< tr"\. y.J\ 'V ' r--.. ~ . '"• . • BUSINESS ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR TWENTY TEXAS CITIES (continued) FORT WORTH BUSINESS ACTIVITY LUBBOCK BUSINESS ACTIVITY lndu Adiu•ted for SeHon•/ Vui•lion-IU1-1'Jl•IOO /nd1 z Ad__1u lf1d for S1Hon1 J Variation-1'57-JJJl • IOO 350 250 200 150 100 50 1--~ --+ -.... ~.,. ~­ -+-, .,,. ,+-­ +-­ +--+ --t­ --1f ---t +--1 1--­ 1-­ •·· +-,-i {-f--­,, t---t -,..-~. . .... ..__, f---­ t--+­ -+--+ t--t ---t l---1l--l --l --4+--t i-­---+ !-­ !--lt--+ --4 '--1 ...--­f--­ fb."'.-t-­ 1..... f¥'""1+-­ L.J\ ~~F=­+--+ \.JI t,_,---t --.r+Jill ...~ ,t--i --t 350 350 uo .\ 300 100 100 250 250 250 200 200 200 150 150 150 100 100 50 50 tHS 1956 1957 1951 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1961 NOTE: Shaded ar••• indicate period• of decline of IOtal bu1inen activity in the Unhed Statee. SOURCE: BaNd Oft bank de bill reported by the Federal Reeuve Bank of D.aUae and adjulted for ...Mina.I varl&tionand cban1ea in the price level by the Bureau of 8uaine11 Reaearch. GALVESTON BUSINESS ACTIVITY -150 350 300 250 250 200 200 150 150 so 1955 1956 1957 1951 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 "'' 196$ 1966 1967 1961 NOTE: Shaded araaa indicai. period• of decline of total buaineH activity in the United States. SOURCE: Baaed on bank debite n ported by the Federal Re Hrve B&nk of Dalla• and ;idjualed for eeaeoaal ¥&rl&don&Dd cban1a1 In the price level by the Bureau of Bu1lnea1 Re•e•rch. HOUSTON BUSINESS ACTIVITY llHh• Adju•IM for SH.on•/ Vui•tion-11$1-JISf • 100 -350 250 200 150 100 so 0 100 50 uo 300 250 200 150 100 50 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 19$5 19$6 1957 1951 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 196' 1965 1966 1967 1961 NOTE: Sbadad 1r1a1 indicate period• nf d1clin1 of total bu1in111 activity in tha United Stet11. SOURCE: &•ed on bank d1bit1 u pori.d by Lba Federal Ra Hrva & nk of Dalla• and adju1t1d for 11a1onal varlationand cba1:1111 intha pric1 l1vel by the Bureau of Bu1in111 R111arcb . PORT ARTHUR BUSINESS ACTIVITY Ind.. Adj ulfad lot' S1Honal Vu;ation-1'$1 -1'5' • 100 1955 1956 1957 NOTE: Sbad1d area• SOURCE: Ba1ed on bank d1bit1 reported by Lbe F1deral R11erve & nkof Dalla• a"4 adjuet1d for 11a1onal variation and cban1e1 in th1 pr ice level by the Bureau of Bulin11• R• • 1ar cb. SAN ANTONIO BUSINESS ACTIVITY 100 250 l'i 200 ~..... 150 ,A.hivv• 100 .. 50 1955 1956 1957 1951 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 196• 1965 1966 1967 1961 NOTE: Shaded uea1 indicate period• of decUne of tot.el bu1ineH activity in the United State•. SOURCE: Ba11d on blink d1blt1 reported by the Federal Ree1rve Banko! Da lla•andadju•ted for 11a1onal variation and chan1e• In the price level by the Bureau of Bu•lne•• Reeearch. SAN ANGELO BUSINESS ACTIVITY Ind• • Adjulfad fo, Sea1ona/ Vari•tion-Jf57-Jf5'•100 1951 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 196' 1965 1966 1967 1961 indicate period• of d1clin1 of total bu1in111 activity in tha United State1. 150 100 50 uo 300 250 200 150 100 so 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 BUSINESS ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR TWENTY TEXAS CITIES (continued) TEXARKANA BUSINESS ACTIVITY WACO BUSINESS ACTIVITY 250 JOO ISO I® lndn Adiu•t.d for SH1onal Varjation-lfJ1. IfSP•100 "' 3® 1955 1956 1957 19$1 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1961 NOTE: Shaded ana• b:idic:ate peJ'io~b of decline ol total b\Hln•n activity in the United Statea. SOURCE: Baud on bank debit• reported by the F1dera1 R..erve Bank of Dall&• and adju1tad foi­••••onal Y&riationand cbanaa• lntba prtc1 laval by th• Bur1au of Bll•Uia11 R11earch.. TYLER BUSINESS ACTIVITY /ttdH Adjuded for Se•1on•I Vui•tion-J9S1·1'St•l00 uo r--.--.-...1,.,,n'"'......,-....,,..........,.,.,-.,....-..--..--...--..--1-1-, 3so ,..,:; ~ ~ ' .1 3® l----ll---+--'~, ,~1----!--+.,,,.f.;-----+~+-~+-~+-~1-----t~-+~--1 3® ~+,;. "~' . ) ~. l2SO l---4~-+-~.P\~+---!-,.-~~+-~+---!~-+~+-~+---t~--1 250 200 l---+~+--"4~-+-~t---H1~+---+~+---t~-+-~t--~----t JOO 1SO 100 50 NOTE: Shaded area• lndicate period• of declln• of total bu1ine11 activity in the United State•. SOURCE: BaHd oo ballk debit• npo:rWd "by the Fedliral Re•nve Ballkof Dalla• aod &dju1ted for eea•on&l va.rlatlon and cban1•• ln the price level by tbe 8UJ'•au of Bual..De•• bHarcb. WICHIT A FALLS BUSINESS ACTIVITY 3SO 3sor--ir--r""""!~rn,. ~. r, -r~-r;r:,,-~;--,~,..~,-~;--r~-r-..., 3SO 300 f '3® l----ll---+~~~,......~+---l~*,·­~..+i-~+---11-----t~-+~-+~-r-~-t---; 300 2SO 2SO l---4~-+-~l~,.~..::--+~+--i'­~ +~1--+-~+---1~-+~+-~t---1·--t 2SO 200 1-~+--+-"'~".;:__-+-~~-'­· ~· ~~+--+~+---f~-+-~t---+---t2® 1• '® ... I® :0, ~::~~~~~~f~;' ~~~....~.~~...~:~~~~~~~~l~A ~~~~·~~~ ISO 100 so ' \ Iso l--+~+-­,,-Rill--f'---+--'­1 ~. ~~+--+~+---f~-+-~t---+---t so ; It ih' '' I 1955 1956 1957 IUI 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1961 NOTE: Shaded araa ti indkate puiod1 of d1clln1 of total bu1in111 activity i.11 the United Statea, SOURCE: &Hd OD bank debtt•reported by the F•dnalR•Hrv•B.ankof Dalla•andadju1ted £or •-•oulv&riation&ad cban1•• lnth• prlc• lev•I by the Bur•au of Bu1lne11 Re•ear ch. 1955 1956 1957 1951 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1961 NOTE: Shaded area• ind.le.at• period• of d•cllne of total bu1ine&1 activity tn the United Statu. SOURCE: BaHd on baQk debit• reported by tl:&e Federal R•Hrve Bank of Dalla• and &dju•t•d for 1ea•onal variation&Dd cbao1e• lntbe price level by the B\ll'eau of Bu•ln••• Re1earcb. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF TOTAL RETAIL SALES NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT IN SELECTED LABOR-MARKET AREAS Percent change Anticipated January Jan 1968 J an 1968 Labor-market area Jan• Dec r Jan r March 1968 p• from from 1968 1967 1967 1968Type of store (millions of dollars) Dec 1967 Jan 1967 Abilene 37,530 38,405 37,085 37,635 Amarillo 59,015 60,055 59,750 59,105 Total , . , ....... , , .. .. .......1,447.0 17 10 Austin ..... .... ..... . 110,260 111,875 103,960 111,325 Durable goods# . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509,0 7 12 Beaumont-Port Arthur- Nondurable goods .... , . . . . . . . 938.0 22 9 Orange ...... .. . . . . . 113,300 113,400 108,100 113,800 Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito ... . . , .. . 37,640 38,410 37,020 38,030 p Preliminary. e Bureau of Business Research estimates based on data from the Bureau Corpus Christi ....... . 86,350 87,040 84,140 86,670 of the Census. Dallas .... , , ......•... 622,900 633,730 590,030 630,040 #Contains automotive stores, furniture stores, and lumber, building­ El Paso ........... .. . 106,890 107,400 106,420 107,790 material, and ha rdwa.re dealers. Fort Worth 273,300 278,000 256,100 275,100 Galveston-Texas City .. 57,390 58,185 54,240 57,450 Houston 736,710 746,970 713,350 744,050 Laredo 23,265 23,130 22,490 23,425 ELECTRIC-POWER CONSUMPTION Longview-Kilgore­Gladewater 33,280 33,520 33,005 33,405 Percent change Jan• Dec• Jan r Lubbock .. ...... , . , .. . 63,280 64,095 62,615 63,160 Jan 1968 J an 1968 1968 1967 1967 McAllen 43,960 45,190 42,670 44,490 from from Use Thousands of kilowatt hours Dec 1967 Jan 1967 Midland-Odessa 58, 785 59,640 58~650 58,940 San Angelo .. .. ... .. . . 22,715 23,050 22,120 22,760 Commercial . .. . 1,145,968 1,141,289 1,058,090 .. San Antonio .....•.... + 8 265,380 266,720 257,090 269,900 Industrial .... , . 4,296,346 4,360,002 4,001,647 1 + 7 Texarkana .... .. ..... . 41,065 41,710 37,865 41,185 Residential , .. , 1,835,155 1,597,176 1,444,786 + 15 + 27 Tyler ............. .. . . 34,550 34,880 34,680 34,855 Other . . . . . . . . . 175,117 169,852 141, 750 + 3 + 24 Waco ........ ........ . 56,285 57,045 55,465 56,950 TOTAL .......7,452,586 7,268,319 6,646,273 + 3 + 12 Wichita Falls .. . ... . . . 49,120 50,115 49,005 49,370 Total, labor-market • Preliminary based on reports of 10 electric power compani~ reported areas ... ....... , ..2,932,970 2,972,565 2,825,850 2,962,435 to the Bureau of Business Research and leveled to Federal Power Total, Texas ... . ....3,889,000 3,949,300 3,731,000 3,919,000 Commission preliminary data. • Preliminary. r Revised to preliminary Federal P ower Commission data. r Revised. •• Change is less than one half of 1 percent. Source: Texas Employment Commission. 84 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW TEXAS MANPOWER TRENDS: HOURS AND EARNINGS* Industry Av. Weekly Earnings Jan.t Dec. 1968 1967 Jan. 1967 Av. Jan.t 1968 Weekly Hours Dec. Jan. 1967 1967 Av. Hourly Earnings Jan.t Dec. Jan. 1968 1967 1967 -~~~-,--~-·~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~--~~~~--~~~~ FOR TEXAS MANUFACTURING­ TOTAL .... . . . .... .. , .. , . . , .....$112.96 $1 16.62 $107.27 40.2 42.1 41.1 $2.81 $2.77 $2.61 Durable goods ................. . . , .. •. .. .. , .. , ... . .. . 116.28 122.40 110.66 40.8 43.l 41.6 2.85 2.84 2.66 Lumber and wood products....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.83 80.35 74.27 39.7 43.2 42.2 1.91 1.86 1.76 Furniture and fixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.04 90.29 79.20 38.0 41.8 39.8 2.08 2.16 1.99 Stone, clay, and g lass products .. . .. , ..... , .. , . . . . . . Primary metal industries ..... . .. . ..... . .. . ... . .... 91.73 131.65 96.70 132.72 90.98 126.35 39.2 41.4 41.5 42.0 40.8 41.7 2.34 3.18 2.33 3.16 2.23 3.03 Fabricated metal products .... . ... . . . ... . . . .. ... .. . 114.12 121.33 113.78 41.2 43.8 43.1 2.77 2.77 2.64 Machinery, except electrical .. . , . . , . . ..... .. .. , . .. .. 118.94 126.85 118.43 41.3 44.2 43.7 2.88 2.87 2.71 Oil-field machinery .. .. ..... . .. , ..•.... .. ..•. .. .. 131.35 137.81 128.04 42.1 44.6 44.0 3.12 3.09 2.91 Transportation equ ipment .. .... . . . .. ... . ........... 143.87 154.11 132.52 41.7 44.8 40.9 3.45 3.44 3.24 Nondurable goods .. . .......... . ..... . ........ . ...... 108.74 109.61 102.87 39.4 40.9 40.5 2.76 2.68 2.54 Food and kindred products . . .... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.11 96.98 93.41 40.3 41.8 41.7 2.36 2.32 2.24 Meat packing . . .. .. ........ . ... • ... . .. .. ... , .. .. 101.18 101.82 101.09 40.8 41.9 43.2 2.48 2.43 2.34 Textile-mill products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79. 73 79.65 76.36 41.1 41.7 42.9 1.94 1.91 1.78 Broad-woven goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.37 82.71 79.12 41.6 42.2 43.0 1.98 1.96 1.84 Apparel a nd other finished textile products .... ,..... 61.23 65.60 60.80 34 .4 37.7 38.0 1.78 1. 74 1.60 Paper a nd allied products... . . . ......... . .•.... 121.09 Printing, publishing, and a llied industries .... . .. .... 109.29 Chemicals and a llied products ....... . . . ... 151.06 Petroleum refi ning a nd related industries ............ 168.09 129.47 114.52 149.94 156.71 116.76 103.14 148.33 147.97 41.9 37.3 41.5 43. l 44.8 38.3 42.0 41.9 41.7 38.2 42.5 40.l 2.89 2.93 3.64 3.90 2.89 2.99 3.57 3.74 2.80 2.70 3.49 3.69 Leather and leather products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.30 71 .21 59.21 40.9 42.9 38.7 1.67 1.66 1.53 NONMANUFACTURING Mining . . .... . ...... .. . .. .... ... .. . .. . Crude petroleum and natural gas . . . . .. ... . ....... . . Sulphur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ .. ..... . 142.38 144.58 154.51 139.73 141.53 148.16 137.69 139.97 157.32 42.5 42.4 42.1 42.6 42 .5 41.5 43.3 43.2 45 .6 3.35 3.41 3.67 3.28 3.33 3.57 3.18 3.24 3.45 Public utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . .. ..... ... . . 120.39 119.99 113.32 40.4 40.4 39.9 2.98 2.97 2.84 Wholesale trade ... .. .. . ... . .. . .. . ... . . . 114.09 115.60 109.65 42.1 42.5 42.5 2.71 2.72 2.58 Retail trade .. . .... .. ... . .... . ... . ..... . .. . ... . 74.23 73.70 68.82 37.~ 37.6 37.0 1.99 1.96 1.86 FOR THE MAJOR MARKETS AMARILLO Manufacturing-total .. ... ... ..... ........ , .. . ..... . Durable goods Nondurable goods ... ...... .. ..• ... . . ......• . ...... 93.41 95.11 91.72 94.23 94. 17 94.43 92. l 0 94 .30 90.01 38.6 39.3 37 .9 39.1 39.4 38.7 39.7 41.0 38.3 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.41 2.39 2.44 2.32 2.30 2.35 AUSTIN Manufacturing-total ................ . Durable goods .............. .. ........ • ....... Nondurable goods . . . . . . . .. .. . ... .. ..... . ..... . 87.69 84.85 90.53 89.69 86.53 93.60 82.42 75.99 88.31 39.5 40.6 38.2 40.4 41.6 39.0 40.4 41.3 39.6 2.22 2.09 2.37 2.22 2.08 2.40 2.04 1.84 2.23 BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE Manufacturing-total Durable goods Nondurable goods .. 152.07 134.21 158.80 143.51 123.88 151.66 129.65 121.34 132.75 41.1 38.9 41.9 40.2 38.0 41.1 37.8 38.4 37.5 3.70 3.45 3.79 3.57 3.26 3.69 3.43 3.16 3.54 CORPUS CHRISTI Manufacturing-total Durable goods Nondurable goods 1~4.82 109.89 152.14 137.17 114.63 152.77 125.40 111.35 135 .38 42.0 40.4 43.1 43.0 42.3 43.4 41.8 42 .5 41.4 3.21 2.72 3.53 3.19 2.71 3.52 3.00 2.62 3.27 DALLAS Ma nu factu ring-total Durable goods Nondurable goods 108.54 117.03 90.86 114.97 126.98 92.63 100.61 107.16 88.32 40.5 4 l.5 38.5 42.9 44.4 40.1 40.9 40.9 40.7 2.68 2.82 2.36 2.68 2.86 2.31 2.46 2.62 2.17 EL PASO Manufacturing-total Durable goods Nondurable goods 68.02 90.04 63.72 69.72 91.68 64.62 74.69 99.20 66.64 35.8 36 .9 35.6 36.5 38.2 36.1 38.7 40 .0 38.3 1.90 2.44 1. 79 1.91 2.40 1.79 1.93 2.48 I.74 FORT WORTH Manufacturing-total Dura ble goods Nondurable goods 126.24 134.73 95.80 133.15 141.32 103.74 120.38 128.59 94.24 41.8 42.5 39.1 43.8 44.3 42.0 41.8 42 .3 40.1 3.02 3.17 2.45 3.04 3.19 2.47 2.88 3.04 2.35 GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY Manufacturing-total Durable goods Nondurable goods 170.83 178.61 168.80 162.96 161. 36 163.44 151.16 119.57 158.84 42.6 44.1 42.2 42.0 42.8 41.8 41.3 35 .8 42.7 4.01 4.05 4.00 3.88 3.77 3.91 3.66 3.34 3.72 HOUSTON Manufacturi ng­total Durable goods Nondurable goods 134.09 126.42 143.56 137 .34 133.48 142.86 130.36 123.97 138.98 42.3 42.0 42.6 43.6 44.2 42.9 42.6 42.6 42.5 3.17 3.01 3.37 3.15 3.02 3.33 3.06 2.91 3.27 LUBBOCK Manufacturing-total Durable goods Nondurab le goods 92.67 92.29 93.07 92.64 93.06 92.41 91.37 94.16 87.99 43.1 41.2 45.4 43.7 42.3 45.3 43.1 44.0 41.9 2.15 2.24 2.05 2.12 2.20 2.04 2.12 2.14 2.10 SAN ANTONIO Manufactu ring-total Durable goods Nondurable goods ... 88.75 90.92 86.62 ~9.88 91.38 89.02 85.90 86 .17 85 .68 40.9 41.9 40.1 42 .0 42.5 41.6 41.7 43.3 40.8 2.17 2.17 2.16 2.14 2.15 2.14 2.06 1.99 2.10 WACO Manufacturing-total Dura ble goods Nondurable goods 103.63 127.75 82.89 99.88 121.09 81.53 92.03 108.63 79.80 40.8 43.9 38.2 40.6 43.4 38.1 40.9 42.6 39.7 2.54 2.91 2.17 2.46 2.79 2.14 2.25 2.55 2.01 WICHITA FALLS Manufacturing-total Durable goods Nondurable goods 87.74 96.56 76.05 87 .78 99. 12 72.96 86.32 99.54 72.09 39.7 40.'I 38.8 39.9 41.3 38.0 41.3 42 .0 40.5 2.21 2.39 1.96 2.20 2.40 1.92 2.09 2.37 1.78 •Figures cover productioi: workers in ma!1ufactu:ing and mining in~lustries only and nonsupervisory employees in other industry divisions. Earnings averages include premmm pay for overtime, holidays, and for late-shift work t Preliminary--subject to revisions upon receipt of additional reports. Source: Texas Employment Commission in cooperation with the U.S. ilureau of Labor Statistics. LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF CITIES INCLUDED IN MARCH 1968 ISSUE OF TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEfV Statistical data compiled by: Mildred Anderson, Constance Doris Dismuke and Mary Gorham, statistical technicians. Indicators of business conditions in Texas cities pub­lished in this table include statistics on banking, building permits, employment, postal receipts, and retail trade. An individual city is listed when a minimum of three indicators are available. The cities have been grouped according to standard metropolitan statistical areas. In Texas all twenty-three 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, 1966, prepared by the Population Research Center, Department of Sociology, The University of Texas at Austin. The population shown after the city name is the 1960 Census figure, unless otherwise indicated. Cities in SMSA's are listed alpha­betically under their appropriate SMSA's; all other cities are listed alphabetically as main entries. Retail-sales data are reported here only when a mini­mum total of fifteen stores report; separate categories of retail stores are listed only when a minimum of five stores report in those categories. The first column presents current data for the various categories~ Percentages shown for retail sales are average statewide percent changes from the preceding month. This is the normal seasonal change in sales by that kind of business-except in the cases of Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio, where the dagger (t ) is replaced by another symbol (tt ) because the normal seasonal changes given are for each of these cities individually. The second Cooledge, and Margaret Tannich, statistical assistants, and column shows the percent change from the preceding month in data reported for the current month; the third column shows the percent change in data from the same month a year ago. A large variation between the normal seasonal change and the reported change indi­cates an abnormal sales month. Symbols used in this table include: (a) Population Research Center data, April 1, 1967. ( t) Average statewide percent change from preceding month. (tt) Average individual-city percent change from pre­ceding month. (r) Estimates officially recognized by Texas Highway Department. (rr) Estimate for Pleasanton: combination of 1960 Census figures for Pleasanton and North Pleasanton. ( *) Cash received during the four-week postal account­ing period ended January 12, 1968. (!) 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 percent. (Ii) Annual rate basis, seasonally adjusted. (#) Monthly averages. (X) Sherman-Denison SMSA: a new standard metro­politan statistical area, for which not all categories of data are now available. ABILENE (ABILENE SMSA) ALAMO (McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA) ALBANY ALPINE AMARILLO (AMARILLO SMSA) ANDREWS ARANSAS PASS (CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA) ARLINGTON (FORT WORTH SMSA) AUSTIN (AUSTIN SMSA) BAY CITY BAYTOWN (HOUSTON SMSA) BEAUMONT (BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR­ORANGE SMSA) BEEVILLE BELLAIRE (HOUSTON SMSA) BELLVILLE BELTON BIG SPRING BISHOP (CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA) BONHAM BORGER BRADY BRENHAM BROWNFIELD BROWNSVILLE (BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN· SAN BENITO SMSA) BROWNWOOD BRYAN CALDWELL CAMERON CANYON (AMARILLO SMSA) CARROLLTON (DALLAS SMSA) CASTROVILLE CISCO CLEBURNE (FORT WORTH SMSA) CLUTE (HOUSTON SMSA) COLORADO CITY CONROE (HOUSTON SMSA) COPPERAS COVE CORPUS CHRISTI (CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA) CORSICANA CRANE CRYSTAL CITY DALLAS (DALLAS SMSA) DAYTON (HOUSTON SMSA) DECATUR DEER PARK (HOUSTON SMSA) DEL RIO ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF CITIES INCLUDED IN MARCH 1968 ISSUE OF TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW (Continued) DENISON (SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA) DENTON (DALLAS SMSA) DICKINSON (GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA) DONNA (McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA) EAGLE LAKE EAGLE PASS EDINBURG (McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA) EL PASO (EL PASO SMSA) ELSA (McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA) ENNIS (DALLAS SMSA) EULESS (FORT WORTH SMSA) FORT STOCKTON FORT WORTH (FORT WORTH SMSA) FREDERICKSBURG FRIONA GALVESTON (GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA) GARLAND (DALLAS SMSA) GATESVILLE GIDDINGS GLADEWATER GOLDTHWAITE GRAHAM GRANBURY GRAND PRAIRIE (DALLAS SMSA) GRAPEVINE (FORT WORTH SMSA) GREENVILLE GROVES (BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR­ ORANGE SMSA) HARLINGEN (BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN­ SAN BENITO SMSA) HASKELL HENDERSON HEREFORD HONDO HOUSTON (HOUSTON SMSA) HUMBLE (HOUSTON SMSA) HUNTSVILLE IOWA PARK (WICHITA FALLS SMSA) IRVING (DALLAS SMSA) JACKSONVILLE JASPER JUNCTION JUSTIN (DALLAS SMSA) KARNES CITY KATY (HOUSTON SMSA) KILGORE KILLEEN KINGSLAND KINGSVILLE KIRBYVILLE LA FERIA (BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN­ SAN BENITO SMSA) LA MARQ.UE (GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA) LAMESA LAMPASAS LANCASTER (DALLAS SMSA) LA PORTE (HOUSTON SMSA) LAREDO (LAREDO SMSA) LEVELLAND LIBERTY (HOUSTON SMSA) LITTLEFIELD LLANO LOCKHART LONGVIEW , LOS FRESNOS (BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN­SAN BENITO SMSA) LUBBOCK (LUBBOCK SMSA) LUFKIN McALLEN (McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA) McCAMEY McGREGOR (WACO SMSA) McKINNEY (DALLAS SMSA) MARBLE FALLS MARSHALL MERCEDES (McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA) MESQUITE (DALLAS SMSA) MIDLAND (MIDLAND SMSA) MIDLOTHIAN (DALLAS SMSA) MINERAL WELLS MISSION (McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA) MONAHANS MOUNT PLEASANT MUENSTER MULESHOE NACOGDOCHES NEDERLAND (BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR­ORANGE SMSA) NEW BRA UN FELS NORTH RICHLAND HILLS (FORT WORTH SMSA) ODESSA (ODESSA SMSA) OLNEY ORANGE (BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR­ORANGE SMSA) PALESTINE PAMPA · PARIS PASADENA (HOUSTON SMSA) PECOS PHARR (McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA) PILOT POINT (DALLAS SMSA) PLAINVIEW PLEASANTON PORT ARANSAS PORT ARTHUR (BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR­ORANGE SMSA) PORT ISABEL (BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN­SAN BENITO SMSA) PORT NECHES (BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR­ORANGE SMSA) QUANAH RAYMONDVILLE REFUGIO RICHARDSON (DALLAS SMSA) RICHMOND (HOUSTON SMSA) ROBSTOWN (CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA) ROCKDALE ROSENBERG (HOUSTON SMSA) SAN ANGELO (SAN ANGELO SMSA) SAN ANTONIO (SAN ANTONIO SMSA) SAN BENITO (BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN­SAN BENITO SMSA) ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF CITIES INCLUDED IN MARCH 1968 ISSUE OF TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW (Continued) SAN JUAN (McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA) SAN MARCOS SAN SABA SCHERTZ (SAN ANTONIO SMSA) SEAGOVILLE (DALLAS SMSA) SEGUIN (SAN ANTONIO SMSA) SHERMAN (SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA) SILSBEE SINTON (CORPUS CHRSTI SMSA) SLATON (LUBBOCK SMSA) SMITHVILLE SNYDER SONORA SOUTH HOUSTON (HOUSTON SMSA) STEPHENVILLE STRATFORD SULPHUR SPRINGS SWEETWATER TAYLOR TEMPLE TERRELL (DALLAS SMSA) TEXARKANA (TEXARKANA SMSA) TEXAS CITY (GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA) TOMBALL (HOUSTON SMSA) TYLER (TYLER SMSA) UVALDE VERNON VICTORIA WACO (WACO SMSA) WAXAHACHIE (DALLAS SMSA) WEATHERFORD WESLACO (McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA) WHITE SETTLEMENT (FORT WORTH SMSA) WICHITA FALLS (WICHITA FALLS SMSA) ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF SMSA's AND CITIES WITHIN EACH SMSA, WITH DATA Percent change Percent change Jan 1968 Jan 1968 Jan 1968 Jan 1968 Jan from from Jan from from City and item 1968 Dec 1967 Jan 1967 City and item 1968 Dec 1967 Jan 1967 ABILENE SMSA AMARILLO (pop. 155,205 r) (Jones and Taylor; pop. 118,429 a) Retail sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -18t 1 + 21 + Automotive stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -5t + 21 + 27 Apparel stores . ................. . -51 8 Postal receipts• ...... . ............ . $ 373,474 + 1 Retail sales -15 -7 + Automotive stores ............... . 8 -18 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,898,068 + 36 + 33 + General-merchandise stores ....... . -41 -5 Bank debits (thousands) . ...... .... $ 441,870 + 18 + 18 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t . . $ 134,204 -4 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 484,997 -58 - 68 Bank debits (thousands) ........... . $ 1,694,004 1 -10 Annual rate of deposit turnover..... . 38.7 + 17 + 17 + Nonfarm employment (area.) . . . . . . . 37,550 2 1 + + Manufacturing employment (area). 4,300 •• •• Percent unemployed (area) . . . . . . . . . 3.0 + 20 -3 Canyon (pop. 6,755 r) ABILENE (pop. 110,049 r) Postal receipts• . ..... . ... . ......... $ 13,318 + 12 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 503,800 + 56 Retail sales . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -18t -15 7 -Bank debits (thousands) ............ $ 8,338 5 -26 Apparel stores -46t -51 8 ················· ·· + End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 7,307 3 -4 + Automotive stores ..... .. .... .. .. . -5t 8 -18 + Annual rate of deposit turnover. . . . . 13.9 -5 -23 General-merchandise stores -54t -41 -5 ··· ·· ··· Postal receipts• 189,194 9 · ····· ··· · ······· · ·· $ + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 479,997 -58 -68 Bank debits (thousands) ............ $ 143,847 + 17 -6 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t . . $ 76,922 -6 6 AUSTIN SMSA + Annual rate of deposit turnover..... 21. 7 + 14 - 12 (Travis; pop. 258,406 a) Retail sales -26 + 15 AMARILLO SMSA Apparel stores ............... , .. . -47 6 + (Potter and Randall; pop. 167,323 a) Automotive stores ........... .. .. . -1 + 25 Eating and drinking places.......• + 2 •• Retail sales + 1 + 21 Food stores ......... ... ......... . -13 + 7 Automotive stores ............... . + 21 + 27 Furniture and household­General-merchandise stores ....... . -56 -3 appliance stores ..... . . . ....... . -23 7 + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2,401,868 + 68 + 37 General-merchandise stores .... .. . . -60 + 30 Bank debits (thousands) ...........i$ 4, 773,168 + 5 + 14 Building permits, Jess federal contracts $ 7,409,681 -16 + 44 Nonfarm employment (area) . . . . . . . 59,000 + 2 2 Bank debits (thousands) ............ $ 5,711,388 2 + 26 + Manufacturing employment (area). 5,270 + 2 6 Nonfarm employment (area) . . . . . . . 110,300 2 6 + + Percent unemployed (area) . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 + 6 + 6 Manufacturing employment (area ) . 9,540 + 11 + 36 Percent unemployed (area) . . . . . . . . 1.7 •• -29 For an explanation of symbols see p. 86. Percent change Percent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Jan 1968 Jan 1968 Jan 1968 Ja.n 1968 Jan from from Jan from from City and item 1968 Dec 1967 Jan 1967 City and item 1968 Dec 1967 Jan 1967 AUSTIN (pop. 245,295 r) PORT ARTHUR (pop. 66,676) Retail sales ....................... . 18t 26 + 15 Postal receipts• ... ............. . . . . $ 77,674 10 Apparel stores . .. . .............. . 46t 47 + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 195,233 19 69 Automotive stores ......... . .. ... • 5t 1 + 25 Bank debits (thousands) ... .... ..... $ 78,848 5 + 3 Eating and drinking places ... ....• 4t + 2 •• End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 47,221 + 2 7 Food stores .. . ... .... . . .........• llt 13 + 7 Annual rate of deposit turnover..... 20.3 6 + 7 Furniture and household-appliance stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21t 23 + General-merchandise stores . . . . . . . . 54t 60 + 30 Port Neches (pop. 8,696) Postal receipts• . ... . ................ $ 775,782 + 9 Postal receipts• ..... ............. . . $ 20,834 + 25 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 7,406,681 15 + 45 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 53,528 14 + 14 Bank debits (thousands) .. .......... $ 481,146 + 8 + 27 Bank debits (thousands) ........ . . .. $ 12,800 14 + End-of-month deposits (lhousands)t . . $ 239,114 + 8 + 24 !end-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 7,301 + 2 10 Annual rate of deposit turnover. . . . . . 25.1 + 2 + Annual rate of deposit turnover ..... . 21.2 17 + 12 BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA(Jefferson and Orange; pop. 325,527a) (Cameron; pop. 139,124 a) Retail sales ...................... . . 23 + Apparel stores . ....... . .. ... , ... . 65 + 7 Retail sales 12 + 27 Automotive stores ........... . ... . + 10 + 8 Apparel stores ............... ... . 44 1 Food stores ............ . ....... . . 5 + 5 Automotive stores .. .. ... ... .. ... . + 32 Furniture and household-Drugstores ......... .... . . .. . . .. . 17 + 10 appliance stores ..............•. 23 + 12 Lumber, building-material, and Gasoline and service stations . ....• + 2 + 8 • hardware dealers . ...... . . ..... . 24 + 60 General-merchandise stores . . ..... . 64 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 699,580 16 + 121 + Lumber, building-material, Bank debits (thousands) ....... . . . . . $ 1,551,672 3 + 12 and hardware dealers . . ........ . + + Nonfarm employment (area) 37,650 + 2 + 2 Building permits, less federal contracts 2,132,006 + 12 + 32 Manufacturing employment (area) . 6,480 •• + 3 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,482,476 + 2 Percent unemployed (area) ........ . 5.2 + 16 12 Nonfarm employment (area) . ..... . 113,300 .. 4 Manufacturing employment (area). 34,300 + 14 + Percent unemployed (area) .. .. .... . 5.2 + 30 7 BROWNSVILLE (pop. 48,040) Retail sales . . ..... . ......... . ..... . -1st 19 + 31 Automotive stores ............... . 5t 16 + 40 BEAUMONT (pop. 127,500 r) Postal i:eceipts• .. .. ................ $ 59,366 6 Retail sales ....................... . 18t 25 + 10 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 264,600 + 77 + 80 Apparel stores .. .... ............ . 46t 68 + 7 Bank debits (thousands) ............ $ 49,338 2 3 Automotive stores ............... . 5t + 9 + 15 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 30,190 9 + 19 Lumber, building-material, and Annual rate of deposit turnover . .... 18.7 3 22 hardware dealers .............. . 5t + 15 + 10 Nonfarm placements 426 14 Postal receipts• ..... ......... ..... . 230,676 + 6 Building permits, less federal contracts 1,416,560 + 47 +135 Bank debits (thousands) ....... . .. . . $ 336,756 + 11 + 11 HARLINGEN (pop. 41,207) End-of-month deposits (thousands)t.. $ 133, 729 2 + 7 Retail sales .......... .. ........... . 18t 9 + 22 Annual rate of deposit turnover ... .. 29.9 + 8 + 3 Automotive st.ores .... .. . . ..... . • . 5t + 7 + 26 Lumber, building-material, Groves (pop. 17,304) and hardware dealers ...... . ... . 5t 23 + 68 Postal receipts• . ............. ... ... $ 16,958 + 10 Postal receipts• .. ... ... . ... . ...... . $ 57,320 13 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 99,237 + 8 54 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 399,950 31 +222 .Bank debits (thousands) ............ $ 10,781 1 + 88 Bank debits (thousands) .. .. .... . .. $ 54,630 + 10 + 15 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 5,181 2 + 11 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 31,001 5 + 30 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 24.7 3 + 72 Annual rate of deposit turnover. . . . 20.6 + 6 + 7 Nonfarm placements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376 32 14 Nederland (pop. 15,274 r) Postal receipts• . ... ... ... .. .. .. .... $ 24,397 + 34 La Feria (pop. 3,047) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 190,253 +238 +649 Postal receipts• . . ......... ... ...... $ 3,796 2 Bank debits (thousands) ........... $ 7,500 + 19 + 2 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 0End-of-month deposits (thousands)t.. $ 5, 770 •• + 6 Bank debits (thousands) .. . .. . ..... $ 2,620 + 17 + 81 Annual rate of deposit turnover..... 15.7 + 15 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 2,485 + 16 + 45 Annual rate of deposit turnover... .. 13.6 + 12 + 31 ORANGE (pop. 25,605) Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 39,306 27 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 162,395 59 +146 Los Fresnos (pop. 1,289) Bank debits (thousands) ....... . ... $ 43,710 + 3 6 Postal receipts• ..... .. ............ . 1,869 9 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 27,695 5 Bank debits (thousands) ... ... ..... $ 1,926 Annual rate of deposit turnover .... . 18.6 + 4 4 + 18 + 28 End-of-month deposits (thousands ) t .. $ Nonfarm placements .. ...... . ..... . 164 + 12 + 16 1,686 17 + 36 Annual rate of deposit turnover . .. .. 12.5 + 26 11 For an explanation of symbols, see p. 86. Percent change Percent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Jan 1968 J aJl 1968 Jan 1968 Jan 1968 Jan from from Jan from from City a nd item 1968 Dec 1967 J a n 1967 City and item 1968 Dec 1967 Jan 1967 Port Isabel (pop. 3,575) DALLAS SMSA Postal receipts• .... . . . ......... .. . Building permits, less federa l contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . . ........ . $ 4,505 1,800 2,641 + 13 93 10 89 + 22 (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Kaufman, and Rockwall; 1,424,415 a) E nd-of-mon th deposits (thousandsH .. $ 2,513 15 + 34 Retail sales 14 + 18 Annual rate of deposit turnover . . ... . 11.6 + 2 13 Apparel stores . . .. . . . . .. ..... . . . . 52 + 5 Automotive stores .. .... .. . .. .... . + 5 + 28 SAN BENITO (pop. 16,422) Drugstores . .. .. ..... . .. . ..... . .•. 27 + 18 Postal receipts• ...... ... . . . . . .. . 13,177 + 2 Eating and drinking places . . .. . . . 18 2 Building permits, less federal contracts 23,230 58 + 87 F lorists . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. ... . . . . .. . . 39 + 35 Bank debits (thousands) . . ...... . . . E nd-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. 6,769 7,711 4 3 + + 20 Food stores . . ... ... . .. . .... .. . • .. Furniture and household­ + 14 An nual rate of deposit t urnover . . . . . 10.4 16 appliance stores .. .. ... . . .. . .. . . 29 + 17 Gasoline and service stations . . ... . + 9 + 17 CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA General-merchandise stores . .. . . .. . 58 + (Nueces and San Patricio; pop. 280,174 a) Lumber, building-material, and hardware dealers . . . ... . . . . . 15 + 17 Retail sales . . ... . .. ........ . . .. . . . . 11 + 15 Office, store, and school Automotive stores . .. .. . . . ... . . .. . 3 + 5 supply dealers ·4 -21 Drugstores .... ... . . . General.merchandise stores . . . . .. . Building permits, less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) .. ......... . Nonfa rm em ployment (area) . ... ... . Manufactu ring employment (area) . 7,445,07i $ 4,405,200 86,400 10,480 17 49 +304 + 4 •• + 8.. +176 + 9 + 4•• Building permits, less federa l contracts Bank debits (thousands) . ... . .._. . . . Nonfa rm employment (area) .. ... . . Ma nufacturing employment (area). P ercent unemployed (area ) .... . . . . . $29,981,612 $80,664,384 622,900 154,500 1.7 20 + ..4 + 4 + 21 + 18 + 18 + + 11 11 Percent unemployed (area) 3.4 + 21 + Carrollton (pop. 9,832 r) Aransas P osta l receipts• Pass (pop. 6,956) . ... . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . $ 8,382 P osta l receipts• .. . . .. .. . . . . . .... ... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ 27,338 317,500 + 60 + 35 Building permits, less federa l contracts Bank debits (thousands) ... .. . .. .. .. $ $ 48,710 7,336 51 + 15 + 65 + 28 Ba nk debits (thousands) . ... . . . ... . $ E nd-of-month deposits (thousands ) t .. $ 9,452 5,307 5 + 7 12 + 22 E nd-of-month deposits (thousands)t . . $ 5,371 9 + 12 Annual rate of deposit turnover . . . . . 22.1 6 29 An nual rate of deposit turnover . . . . 15.7 + 20 + 30 Bishop (pop. 3,825 r) Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,097 Building permits, less federal contracts $ O Bank debits (thousands) ... .. ..... . . $ 2,427 End-of-month deposits (thousandsH .. $ 2,804 Annuar rate of deposit turnover . . . . . 10.2 -14 + 8 3 + 12 4 •• 10 DALLAS (pop. 679,684) Retail sales . . . . . .... .... ... .. ..... . Apparel stores .. . . . . . ...•.... . •.. Automotive stores . .. . . ... ... ... . . Florists Furniture and household-appliance stores 28tt 51 t t 12tt 40tt 18tt + 17 50 39 28 + 11 + 5 + 29 -35 + 21 CORPUS CHRISTI (pop. 204,850 r) Retail sales Drugstores Postal receipts• . . . . .... . ... . . Building permits, less federa l contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . ... . . . $ E nd-of-month deposits (thousands H .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover .. . .. 18t 26t 329,256 7,048,636 344,665 154,056 25.7 21 17 + 2 +379 + 12 8 + 10 + 4 + 8 + 197 + 14 + 8 + General-merchandise stores . . ... . . . Lumber, building-material, and hardware dealers . .. . . . . .. . ... . . 53tt 2tt Postal receipts• . .. .... . .... .. .. . . . . Building permits, less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands ) . .. .. . . . . .. . End-of-month deposits (thousandsH . . Annual rate of deposit turnover... . . 3,936,300 $15,215,911 $ 7,289,143 $ 1,567,275 50.9 59 11 15 29 + 12 -16 + 10 + + + 9 + 22 + 8 + 12 Port Aransas (pop. 824) Denton (pop. 26,844) Ba nk debits (thousands) . ......... . E nd-of-m ont h deposits (thousands) t . . Annual rate of deposit turnover .... . 747 861 10.4 + .. + 11 14 + 3 15 P osta l receipts• . .. . ..... . . . .... . ... $ 63,993 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 4,167,000 Bank debits (th0usands ) ... .. ..... .. $ 38,276 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t . . $ 26,968 23 + 54 4 4 +755 + 3 + Robstown (pop. 10,266) Annual rate of deposit turnover . .. .. N onfarm placements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.7 151 + 30 3 + 6 Posta l receipts• . . . . . . . $ 11,457 -13 Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ... .... . .. . . End-of-mont h deposits (thousandsH. Annual rate of deposit turnover . 11 2,210 11,399 10,066 13. 7 + 192 + 4 + + 4 + 2 4 Ennis (pop. 10,250 r) P ostal receipts• . . . . . . .. .. . . . ..... .. $ Bank debits (thousands) . ....... ... $ End-of-month deposits (thousandsH .. 19,621 8,331 8,099 + 24 + 24 4 4 + 10 Annual rate of deposit turnover .. ... . 12.1 + 25 13 Sinton (pop. 6,008) Postal receipts• .. ....... .... ... . .. . $ 12,797 + 55 Garland (pop. 50,622 r) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 11,375 +395 92 Postal receipts• ... .. .. . . ... · · · · · · · · $ 90,192 8 Bank debits (thousands) . . ... .. . . .. $ 7,164 + 19 + 8 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,561,560 + 50 + 6 E nd-of-month deposits (thousa nds) t .. 5,542 15 + 10 Bank debits (thousands) .. . . . ..... .. $ 56, 759 + 21 + 21 Annual For an ratP of deposit turnover ... . . ex pla na tion of symbols see p. 86. 14.3 + 23 8 E:nd-of-month deposits (thousands)t . . $ Annual rate of deposit turnover.... . . 24,655 26.2 10 + 22 + 12 •• Percent change Percent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Jan 1968 JM1 1968 Jan 1968 Jan 1968 Jan from from Jan from from City and item 1968 Dec 1967 Jan 1967 City and item 1968 Dec 1967 J an 1967 Grand Prairie (pop. 40,150 r) Waxahachie (pop. 12,749) Postal receipts• ............... .... . $ 71,456 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,594,864 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 24, 723 i':nd-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 14,814 Annual rate of depasit turnover. . . . . . 20.l 11 + 16 + 8 •• + 5 26 + 21 + 17 + 5 Postal receipts• ........ .. ...... . ... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ..... . ...... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ Annual rate; of deposit turnover .... . 22,356 20,750 14,739 11,838 15.1 + + + + 3 38 8 2 9 87 + 7 + 12 Irving (pop. 60,136 r) Nonfarm placements .. . ... . . . .. . .. . 80 + 5 13 Postal receipts• ........ .. .. ..... . •. $ 99,734 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,981,940 •• + 7 + 3 EL PASO SMSA Bank debits (thousands) ...... ...... $ l':nd-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 61,729 27,317 + 13 •• + 25 + 23 Retail sales (El Paso; pop. 349,144 a) 36 + 6 Annual rate of ·deposit turnover . . . . . 27 .1 + 8 + 10 Apparel stores .... .. .......... . . . 59 11 Food stores ..... . . .... .......... . 6 + 10 Lancaster (pop. 7,501) Building permits, Jess federal contracts $ 84,800 Bank debits (thousands) ..... .... .. $ 6,373 EncH>f-month deposits (thousands)t . . $ 4,775 Annual rate of deposit turnover..... 16.7 + 3 3 + 8 6 34 + 3 + 29 17 Building permits, less federal contracts 9,884,573 Bank debits (thousands) .. . ... .. .... $ 5,689,500 Nonfarm employment (area) . . . . . . . 106,900 Manufacturing employment (area) . Percent unemployed (area) ........ . 18,270 4.2 +119 + 18 •• + 3 + 14 + 48 + 11 •• 8 + 8 McKinney (pop. 13, 763) Postal receipts• ............ . ....... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . ..... .... .. $ End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover.... . Nonfarm placements .. ......... .. . . 15,736 641,270 14,047 13,649 12.4 110 -39 9 + 25 + + 22 + 6 + 14 + 14 + 2 + 39 EL PASO (pop. 276,687) Retail sales .... . .... .. .. . . ....... . Apparel stores .. . .... .... .. • . ... . Food stores . ... . ..... ......... . . . Postal receipts• . .... . . ............. $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ............ $ -18t -46t -llt 498,857 9,884,573 521,300 -36 59 6 7 +119 + 18 + 6 11 + 10 + 48 + 14 Mesquite (pop. 27,526) End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ..... 200,930 29.5 10 + 18 6 + 13 Postal receipts• ................... . 41,425 + 20 Building permits, Jess federal contracts $ 924,430 + 86 36 Bank debits (thousands) ... . ........ $ 14,106 2 29 FORT WORTH SMSA End-of-month deposits (thousands)t.. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover... . . 9,697 17.8 + 4 5 + 17 37 Retail sales (Johnson and Tarrant; pop. 660,341 a) . ... .. ...... .. .. . . ..... . 12 + 14 Apparel stores ....... .. .... . . .. . . 49 + 18 Midlothian (pop. 1,521) Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ........ . .. . $ End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 21,800 1,494 1,719 + 1 2 + 17 + 4 Automotive stores ........... .. ..• Drugstores .. ... .................• Eating and drinking places . ...... . Gasoline and service stations ... ..• 3 26 •• + 15 + 14 + 5 + 3 + 32 Annual rate of deposit turnover. . . .. 10.3 + 13 General-merchandise stores .. .... •. 56 Lumber, building-material, Pilot Point (pop. 1,254) Building permits, Jess federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) .......... .. $ End-of-month deposits (thousands)t ·.. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ..... . 0 1,608 2,021 9.4 + 2 2 2 9 5 and hardware dealers ....... . .. . Building permits, less federal contracts $ 7, 769,691 Bank debits (thousands ) .. . ........ $16,222,668 Nonfarm employment (area) . . . . . . . . 273,300 Manufacturing employment (area). Percent unemployed (area) ........ . 90,550 1.8 21 38 5 + 3.. + 20 + 12 20 + 11 + 5 + 15 10 Richardson (pop. 34,390 r) Postal receipts• ......... . .......... $ 98,881 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,316, 723 Bank debits (thousands) ..... . .. . .. $ 37,413 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 18,037 Annual rate of deposit turnover..... 24.6 7 63 + 28 2 + 24 + 61 + 26 23 Arlington (pop. 75,000 r) Retail sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -18t Postal receipts• . .. ............ ... .. $ 140, 730 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2,366,750 Bank debits (thousands) ............ $ 74,183 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t . . $ 32,249 1 2 44 + 4 + 25 + 10 + 13 + 13 Annual r ate of deposit turnover ..... 27.4 + 2 4 Seagoville (pop. 3, 7 45) Postal receipts• .. .. .. ............ .. $ Building permits, less f<>deral contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ... . .. .. .... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t . . $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ..... 7,379 0 7,322 2,953 29.7 35 + 43.. + 42 + 23 + 18 + 16 Cleburne (pop. 15,381) Postal receipts• ......... ... ... . ... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) .. ..... ... . $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t . . $ 33,482 19,150 17,045 14,623 + 5 91 + 7 3 91 + 12 + 6 Annual rate of deposit turnover. . ... 13.8 + 7 + 5 Terrell (pop. 13,803) Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 14,033 -14 Euless (pop. 10,500 r) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 74,500 +147 16 Postal receipts• ........ . .......... . $ 13,320 21 Bank debits (thousands) ... ... . .... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. 11,104 10,929 11 4 9 + 11 Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) .. .. ........ $ 240,150 12,109 + 73 + 3 + 20 + 14 Annual rate of deposit turnover ..... 12.0 8 15 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 4,884 5 + 13 For an explanation of symbols see p. 86. Annual rate of deposit turnover..... . 33.4 + 23 + 18 Percent change Percent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Jan 1968 Jan 1968 J a n 1968 J an 1968 Jan from from Jan from from City and item 1968 Dec 1967 Jan 1967 City and item 1968 Dec 1967 Jan 1967 FORT WORTH (pop. 356,268) TEXAS CITY (pop. 32,065) Retail sale• ... ............. . ... . .. . 25tt 22 + 4 Postal receipts• ........ ......... ... $ 45,195 + 7 Apparel stores ........ . ......... . 35tt 52 + 20 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 405,521 + 81 Eating and drinking places.... . .. . ltt + 3 Bank debits (thousands) ...... ...... $ 36,495 + 13 + 29 Gasoline and service stations..... . 6tt + 16 + 34 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 18,559 •• + 10 Lumber. building material, and Annual rate of deposit turnover . . .. 23.5 + 2 + 9 hardware stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + 9tt 21 7 Postal receipts• . .. . ...... . ......... $ 1,225,120 13 HOUSTON SMSA Building permits, less federal contracts $ 3,554,348 39 32 Bank debits (thousands) . .. ......... $ 1,357,461 + 2 + 16 (Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, and End-of-month deposits (thousands)t . . $ 471,427 9 + 9 (Montgomery; pop. 1,771,256 a) Annual rate of deposit turnover . .. . . 33.0 + 2 + 6 Retail sales .. . . .. ...... .. ...... · · · · 12 + 12 Apparel stores .......•..•........ 56 + Grapevine (pop. 4,659 r) Automotive stores . . ............. . + + 17 Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9,457 8 Drugstores ....................•.. 9 3 Builindg permits, less federal contracts $ 94,542 43 + 73 Eating and drinking places .. ... . . . 3 + 12 Bank debits (thousands) ............ $ 4,736 + 14 8 Food stores . ................. .. . . 12 + 6 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 4,303 + + 2 Furniture and household- Annual rate of deposit turnover .... . . 13.3 + 10 12 applianee stores .... .. ... . .•... 51 + General-merchandise stores ......•. 54 North Richland Hills (pop. 8,662) Liquor stores . .. . ...............• 46 + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 124,130 + 21 + 17 Lumber, building-material. Bank debits (thousands) .... .... .. . $ 11,630 + 20 + 3 and hardware dealers ... . ...... . + + 12 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 5,605 + 3 Building permits, less federal contracts $40,015,059 + 49 + 87 Annual rate of deposit turnover ..... 25.2 + 18 •• Bank debits (thousands) .. .. . .. . .... $71,946,000 + 10 Nonfarm employment (area) . . . . . . . 736,700 .. + 3 White Settlement (pop. 11,513) Manufacturing employment (area). 134,550 + 3 + 4 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2,375 99 -91 Percent unemployed (area) . . . . . . . . 1.8 + 12 10 Bank debits (thousands) ............ $ 5,190 + 72 + End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 2,632 + 47 Baytown (pop. 38,000 r) + Annual rate of deposit turnover..... . 23.8 + 16 Retail sales ...... ................. . Automotive stores .. . . . . .. . ...... . 5t + 7 + 35 GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Posta! receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57,647 + 10 (Galveston; pop. 166,016 a) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 477,324 + 249 + 11 Retail sales Bank debits (thousands) .......... . $ 62,407 + 29 + 35 22 + 10 Apparel stores . ... . .......... .. . . 57 + 7 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 32,911 + 3 + Automotive stores .... .•.. •.. . .... 13 + 20 Annual rate of deposit turnover ..... 23.1 + 22 + 23 Drugstores . ....... . ....... . ..... . 28 + 19 Food stores ........ . . . .... . .... . . 16 2 Bellaire (pop. 21,182 r) Furniture and household-Postal receipts• .. .. .... .. ... . ...... $ 258,896 + 18 appliance stores ............... . 25 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 60,306 +304 + 2 Lumber, building-material, Bank debits (thousands) . . .......... $ 38,508 + 22 + 30 and hardware dealers ..... .. ... . •• 2 En l'J c:: "'1 c:: rn ~ :j z :<: ~ "'1 l'J l'J £) ~ c:: > rn rn l'J "'1 00 l'J ;::! """ t:) "' "'1 :i: l'J c:: z < l'J ~ rn ;:i >< 0 "%j "'1 l'J ~ > rn b;j c::: ~ trj > c::: 0 "l:j b;j c::: Ul ...... z trj Ul Ul ~ t;:j Ul trj > ~ 0 ::i:: Texas 90 An Economic Profile of Texas to 1990 by Robert H. Ryan Grady D. Bruce John R. Stockton Stanley A. Arbingast With the urgent recommendation of Governor Connally this educa­tional research publication was prepared by the Bureau of Busi­ness Research under the sponsorship of the Coordinating Board for the Texas College and University System, and developed with the advice and cooperation of the Planning Agency Council for Texas and its agency representatives. It presents a series of economic forecasts from the present to the year 1990, with a series of charts and tables presenting data on various facets of the Texas economy-population, the work force, industry in its varied forms, natural resources, and agriculture and ranching. These facts are useful guidelines for those interested in measuring the future growth potential of Texas. The Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas Austin, Texas 78712 (Texas residents add 2-percent sales tax)