TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW VOL. XLV, NO. 5, MAY 1971 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; Robert B. Williamson; Joe H. Jones ; Graham Blackstock CONTENTS ARTICLES 93 : The Business Situation in Texas, by Francis B. May 97 : Texas Population in 1970: 1. Trends, 195().1970, by Benja­min S. Bradshaw and Dudley L. Poston 110: Texas Construction: The Shrinking Housing Unit, by Robert M. Lockwood TABLES 93 : United States Crude-Oil Production for the Six Largest Producing States, January-February 1971 94: World Oil Reserves, 1970 95 : Selected Barometers of Texas Business 95 : Estimates of Nonagricultural Employment in Texas 96: Business-Activity Indexes for Twenty Selected Texas Cities 96: Texas Nonagricultural Employment Trends, 1960, 1968, 1969, and 1970 98: Population and Net Migration for Texas Counties and State Economic Areas, 195~1970 106 : Population and Net Migration for Texas Standard Metro­politan Statistical Areas and Constituent Counties, 195~1970 108: Texas Counties Oassified by Population Increase or Decrease, 195~1960and 196~1970 llO: Number and Type of New Housing Units Authorized Quar­terly in Texas, 1967-1971 110: Estimated Values of Building Authorized in Texas 111: Selected Statistics on Housing Authorized in Standard Metro­politan Statistical Areas, Texas, 1956-1970 112: Local Business Conditions Barometers of Texas (inside back cover) CHARTS 93: Estimated Personal Income, Texas 94: Crude-Oil Production, Texas 94: Crude-Oil Runs to Stills, Texas 96: Industrial Production: Total Manufactures, Texas 96: Industrial Production: Durable Manufactures, Texas 96 : Industrial Production: Nondurable Manufactures, Texas 110: Estimated Total and Indicated Average Values of One-Family Housing Units Authorized Annually in Texas, 1958-1970 111: Estimated Total and Indicated Average Values of Apartment Units Authorized Annually in Texas, 1958-1970 MAPS 103: Population Changes in Texas Counties and State Economic Areas, 196~1970 104: Net Migration for Texas Counties and State Economic Areas 1970 ' BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH Business Research Council: James R. Bright, Abraham Charnes, Lawrence L. Crum, Jared E. Hazleton, George Kozmetsky Director: Stanley A. Arbingast Special Research Associate: Joe H. Jones A ssistant to the Director: Florence Escott Statistician: John R. Stockton Consulting Statistician : Francis B. May Systems Analyst: David L. Karney Cooperating Faculty: Charles T. Clark, Lawrence L. Crum, Clark C. Gill, William T. Hold , Robert K. Holz, Jerry Todd, Ernest W. Walker, Robert B. Williamson Administrative Assistant: Margaret Robb Research Associates: Graham Blackstock, Margaret Fielder, Letitia Hitz, Ida M. Lambeth, Robert M. Lockwood, Robert H. Ryan, Stella Saxon, Charles P. Zlatkovich Research Assistants: Edward Hildebrandt, Ralph Samford Statistical Associate: Mildred Anderson Statistical Assistants: Constance Cooledge, Glenda Riley Statistical Technicians: Kay Davis, Lydia Gorena Computer Assistants: Lawrence Grossman, Jr., Charles Jordan Cartographer: Penelope Lewis Librarian: Merle Danz Administrative Secretary: Jeanette Pryor Administrative Clerk: Margaret Eriksen Senior Secretary: Melinda Newton Senior Clerk Typists: Deborah Frishman, Barbara Terrell Senior Clerk: Salvador B. Macias Clerks: Robert Jenkins, Karen Schmidt Offset Press Operators: Robert Dorsett , Daniel P. Rosas COVER DESIGN BY PENELOPE LEWIS Published monthly by the Bureau of Business Research, Graduate School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex~s 78712. Second-class postage paid at Austin, Texas. Content of th15 publication is not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely, but acknowledgment of source will be appreciated. The views expr~ssed by authors are not necessarily those of the Bureau of Business Research. Subscription, $4.00 a year ; individual copies 35 cents. The Bureau of Business Research is a member of the Association of University Business and Economic Research. THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS Francis B. May At the end of the first quarter of the year business activity showed signs of continuing the mild cyclical revival which began during the latter part of 1970. Estimated personal income in Texas rose 3 percent in March after showing no gain in February. With the exception of the February hesitation, this index has risen during each month since November 1970. Since it shows changes in personal income which have not been adjusted for changes in consumer prices, comparisons of its values with price-index values reveal how the consumer fares with inflation. The personal-income index value for March, 232.4 percent of the 1957-1959 monthly average, was 5.4 percent above last November's value. Between November and March the consumer price index computed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics rose 1.1 percent to 139 .3 percent of its 1957-1959 average. At last inflation has abated to the point where price increases are not as great as increases in income. The 5 .4-percent increase in personal income between November and March represents an approximately 4-per­cent gain in real purchasing power, This is welcome news to the consumer. Production of crude oil in the state during March was up a fraction of a percentage point from February. The March index value of 123.4 percent of 1957-1959 average monthly production was down 2.3 percent from January. It was still the highest March level of production in the history of the index, representing a 3. 7-percent positive margin over the previous March peak, in 1957. Both of these peaks resulted from closing of the Suez Canal and related events affecting world oil production. In October of last year oil production in the state reached a peak of 133.5 percent of its 1957-1959 base value. It has declined to the March value as a result of some current, possibly tempo­rary, abatement of the fuel scarcity. As shown by the following table, Texas and Louisiana, between them, produce most of the domestic oil supply. During the first two months of the year Texas and Louisiana produced a total of 372.9 million barrels of crude oil. This was 63.2 percent of total United States produc- UNITED STATES CRUDE-OIL PRODUCTION FOR THE SIX LARGEST PRODUCING STATES January-February 1971 (Thousands of barrels) Percent change January-February 1971 January-February 1971 from State production January-February 1970 California 59,056 -3.8 Louisiana 163,680 17.1 New Mexico 20,237 -5.3 Oklahoma 36,687 2.4 Texas 209,245 3.8 Wyoming 25,751 5.9 Total United States 589,628 5.1 Source: World Oil, April 1971. tion. Texas alone produced 35.5 percent of total domestic output during this period. Despite the high level of domestic production, it was necessary to import 1.2 million ESTIMATED PERSONAL INCOME, TEXAS lnde% Adjulted for Sea1onal Variation -1957-1959= 100 SOURCE: Quarterly measures ofTexas personal income made by the Office of Business Economics. U.S. Department ofCommerce. Monthly allocations of quarterly measures, and estimates of most recent months, made by the Bureau of Business Research with regression relationships of time, bank debits, and manufacturing employment. MAY 1971 barrels of foreign-produced crude oil a day during January­February of this year. An additional 2.4 million barrels of refined products a day was imported during this period. Much of the total of refined products imported is residual fuel oil burned as boiler fuel. It might seem that, with the large domestic production of crude oil plus large domestic production of natural gas and coal, this country is comfortably situated with regard to its energy supplies. This is not the case. Much of the coal in this country contains sulfur compounds, which oxidize into a poisonous gas, sulfur dioxide, when the coal is burned in home or factory furnaces. Problems of air pollution in large cities where coal is a major industrial fuel make it desirable to shift to a source of energy that does not emit large quantities of pollutants into the air. Natural gas either does not contain sulfur compounds, or if it does contain them, is stripped of them before it is released into the pipelines that carry it to homes and factories. Fuel oil also is cleansed of sulfur compounds before it is sold. Gases and liquids can be purged of harmful sulfur compounds relatively easily. The sulfur recovered by the purification processes is sold to be used in making sulfuric acid and other industrial products. Another source of energy, atomic fission, has developed much more slowly than was predicted two decades ago. Technical problems of design and construction of these plants, as well as ecological problems relating to thermal pollution of lakes and streams resulting from discharge of heated water from these plants, have inhibited rapid spread of atomically fueled electric generating plants. As a result of these factors, this country and the other highly industrialized countries of the world are being forced toward a reliance on crude oil and natural gas as their principal sources of energy. A great deal of oil and natural averaged I.3 million barrels a day, adding almost a half billion barrels to the total supply of crude available for refining. In order to increase its supplies of clean fuels such as oil and gas this country has several alternatives. In the short run it can ( 1) import more oil and gas, (2) step up the search for new oil and gas supplies, or (3) engage in some combination of these activities. As a result of recent agreements concluded with OPEC, the oil-producing and -exporting countries of the Middle East and Africa, the cost of imported oil has advanced substantially. Gas imported from these countries as liquefied natural gas will be expensive also. An increase in incentives for domestic exploration for oil and gas is very much in order. In the long run we must increase our efforts to find economical ways to obtain oil and refined products from our enormous deposits of oil shale. We must also intensify our efforts to obtain gasoline and refined products from coal. Coal can also be converted into gas. More economical ways of effecting this conversion must be found. March crude runs to stills were changed less than half a percentage point from February. Crude runs in Texas reached their second-highest value in history in November of last year, when the index rose to 144.8 percent of its 1957-1959 average. This was slightly below the all-time high of 146.5 percent in July of 1969. Refinery runs have subsided slightly since last November but still are at historically high levels. The March value of 138.2 percent was the highest March value of the index on record. Refinery runs were increased last year in anticipation of an East Coast fuel shortage which, fortunately, did not develop. CRUDE-OIL PRODUCTION, TEXASgas is available in the world, but the most abundant supplies / ndu Adjusted for S eaaon•I V.u1•t1on-1957·19$9i l 00 are located at present in the relatively undeveloped coun­ 3'0 tries of the world. The table below shows the location of 300 world reserves. It is apparent that more than half of the world's reserves of crude oil are in the Middle East. If the 2SO reserves of the Communist world are subtracted, Middle 200 Eastern reserves are 67.6 percent of Free World reserves. 1'0 United States reserves of 37.0 billion barrels are a small 100 fraction of the Free World total. At the present rate of •o consumption they are sufficient to supply domestic needs, if imports were cut off, for only a few years. Total oil 1957 19.58 195 9 1960 1961 1962 1963 196• 196!i 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 production in the United States in 1970 amounted to 9 .6 S4ded aru.• indic•te pe riod• of decline of total bu•inu• a<::tivity in the Uniled Stu . NOTE: n million barrels a day. This is more than 3 billion barrels of oil produced during the year. Crude imports during 1970 CRUDE-OIL RUNS TO STILLS, TEXAS '" 300 JJO 200 150 , -'\. 100 iV - •o ,,. WORLD OIL RESERVES, 1970 3'0 (Billions of banels) >OO 300 250 Region Reserves 2SO 200 200 Asia-Pacific 14.4 Europe ,,. 1'0 3.7 Middle East 344.6 100 100 Africa 74.8 Western Hemisphere 73.9 .. •o Co mmunist world 100.0 Total world 611.4 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 196• 1965 1966 1967 \9611 1969 1970 191l Source : The Oil and Gas Journal, December 28, 1970. NOTE: Shaded :1.re11• ind1c11te period• of de cline of toul bu"""'' activity ;n the United Statu . TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Electric power use declined in March. For the first quarter use was above year-ago levels in both main categories, by 6 percent for the total and 4 percent for industrial. Urban building permits issued in March rose 3 percent. Total permits were up 28 percent for the first quarter over the first quarter of 1970. Residential permits were down 6 percent in March but on a quarterly basis were up 56 percent over last year. Nonresidential permits were up l O percent for March and 6 percent for the first quarter. Strong demand and easing of the credit stringency have made construction activity one of the strong props under the current business revival. Total industrial production in the state is still sluggish. All components of this index showed very little change on a monthly basis during the first quarter. Nationally the index of industrial production shows the same pattern of small monthly changes during the first quarter. It is below the first quarter of last year. The state index is at the same level as last year's first quarter. Total nonfarm employment was unchanged in March. For the first quarter it held at the same level as for the first quarter of 1970. Manufacturing employment was down l percent from February and 6 percent from the first quarter of last year. Total unemployment and insured unemploy­ ment were both up substantially for the first quarter. Average weekly earnings in manufacturing were un­ changed in March. They were 5 percent above earnings for SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (Indexes-Adjusted for seasonal variation-1957-1959=100) Percent change Year-to­date Year-to-average date Mar 1971 1971 Mar Feb average from from Index 1971 1971 1971 Feb 1971 1970 Estimated personal income 232.4p 225.3p 227.7 3 3 Crude-petroleum production 123.4p 122.9p 124.7 ** 4 Crude-oil runs to stills 138.2 138.7 139.3 •• 8 Total electric-power use 267.7p 276.6p 271.1 3 6 Industrial electric- power use 232.1 p 250.4p 238.0 7 4 Bank debits 342.4 323.5 329.1 6 11 Urban building permits issued 232.5 226.6 218.5 3 28 New residential 202.1 215.2 190.2 6 56 New nonresidential 280.6 254.6 267.3 10 6 Total industrial production 181.lp 181.3p 180.5 ** ** Total nonfarm em­ ployment 147.3p 147.9p 147.5 ** ** Manufacturing em­ ployment 145.7p 147.lp 146.8 -1 -6 Total unemployment 109.4 109.2 109.5 •• 43 Insured unemployment 94.7 96.8 98.2 -2 62 Average weekly earn- ings-manufacturing 156.0p 155.9p 155.7 •• 5 Average weekly hours- manufacturing 99.3p 99.5p 99.2 •• ** P Preliminary. ** Change is less than one half of 1 percent. ESTIMATES OF NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT IN TEXAS Employment __P_e_rc_e_n_t_c_h_a_n_ge__ MarP Mar 1971 Mar 1971 1971 from from Industry (thousands) Feb 1971 Mar 1970 Total nonagricultural employment 3,614.3 ** ** Manufacturing 705.2 ** -7 Durable goods 371.3 -1 -12 Lumber and wood products 21.1 ** 1 Furniture and fixtures 17.2 2 •• Stone, clay, and glass products 29.8 •• 2 Primary-metal industries 34.2 -1 4 Fabricated-metal products 52.2 -3 4 Machinery, except electrical 66.4 •• 8 Oil-field machinery 27.5 -1 -10 Electrical machinery and equipment 45.4 ** -23 Transportation equipment 77.0 3 -24 Aircraft and parts 50.6 4 -31 Instruments and related products 13.0 2 -6 Other durable goods 15.0 1 -14 Nondurable goods 333.9 ** ** Food and kindred products 86.2 -1 ** Meat products 18.0 -1 5 Textile-mill products 7.0 •• 8 Apparel and fabricated textiles 63.5 6 Paper and allied products 16.3 5 Printing and publishing 41.6 •• 2 Chemicals and allied products 63.2 •• 2 Industrial chemicals 35.6 •• ** Petroleum and coal products 39.0 2 2 Other nondurable goods 17.1 -2 7 Nonmanufacturing 2,909.1 •• 2 Mining 102.6 ** Crude petroleum and natural gas 96.2 ** Contract construction 211.7 2 Transportation 150.4 Communication 55.3 ** 4 Public utilities 47.3 •• 3 Trade 876.3 ** 3 Wholesale trade 258.6 ** 3 Retail trade 617.7 •• 2 Building materials, hardware, and farm equipment 32.9 3 General merchandise 126.6 ** 1 Food stores 101.8 ** 4 Automotive dealers and service stations 96.0 ** Apparel and accessories 38.4 2 ** Other retail trade 222.0 ** 3 Finance, insurance, and real estate 194.3 ** 4 Banking 50.4 ** 5 Services 587.4 ** 2 Hotels and lodging places 39.7 1 Laundries and cleaners 32.0 ** 6 Other services 515.7 ** 2 Government 683.8 ** 3 Federal 158.7 ** 1 P Preliminary. * * Change is less than one half of 1 percent. Source: Texas Employment Commission in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. MAY 1971 BUSINESS-ACTIVITY INDEXES INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION FOR 1WENTY SELECTED TEXAS CITIES (Adjusted for seasonal variation-1957-1959=100) TOTAL MANUFACTURES, TEXAS Percent change 300 Year-to­date Year-to-average date Mar 1971 1971 Marp Febr average from from Index 1971 1971 1971 Feb 1971 1970 Abilene 144.5 148.0 142.3 -2 3 Amarillo 233.4 201.9 213.2 16 3 Austin 377.4 388.5 374.3 -3 11 Beaumont 173.2 193.5 178.4 -11 -1 Corpus Christi 195.7 196.8 192.1 -1 18 Corsicana 197.1 178.9 176.3 10 10 Dallas 369.8 330.5 354.8 12 8 El Paso 171.8 165.6 166.5 4 8 Fort Worth 229.0 200.7 206.6 14 16 Galveston 149.8 149.9 149.6 10 ** Houston 284.0 297.5 288.4 Laredo 284.5 295.8 276.0 Lubbock 184.4 165.1 161.0 Port Arthur 157.7 130.2 132.8 San Angelo 223.7 198.3 202.3 San Antonio 260.1 249.2 242.9 Texarkana 233.8 229.5 216.2 Tyler 194.4 186.2 182.4 Waco 213.5 200.1 201.2 Wichita Falls 143.1 148.8 138.6 -5 -4 12 21 13 4 2 4 7 4 7 11 7 12 17 15 2 4 4 10 P Preliminary. r Revised. * * Change is less than one half of 1 percent. the first quarter of 1970. Average weekly hours were 300 ... ,,. ... _,_. 200 200 ,. ,~ "' _,,. 150 ,_...-150 100 100 ,. ,. 1957 1958 1959 1900 1961 1962 1963 196.4 1965 1966 1967 1961 1969 1970 1911 NOTE: S.,_ded areal •ndicate period• of decline of total bu1ine11 actwity •n the United Staiu. SOURCE: F'ederal Ruuve B•nk of Dallaa. INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION NONDURABLE MANUFACTURES, TEXAS unchanged from February and the first quarter 1970. The improvement in first-quarter average weekly earnings was due to increased hourly wage rates, not to a longer work week. The revival of business that is under way will help the industrial and service sections of the state's economy. Pervasive and severe drought conditions are damaging the agricultural sector. Widespread rains are needed badly to rescue the cattle industry and to aid those planting activities which can be carried out at this late date. More 1957 1951 19 59 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 federal aid to the drought-stricken areas would do much to NOTE' SOURCE: Federal Reserve Bank of Dall••· alleviate conditions. TEXAS NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT TRENDS (Annual average wage and salary employment 1960, 1968, 1969, and 1970) Percent change 1968-1969-1960· Classification 1960 1968 1969 1970 1969 1970 1970 Wage and salary workers, total Manufacturing Durable goods Nondurable goods Nonmanufacturing Mining Contract construction Transportation, communications, 2,531,700 489,500 232,400 257.100 2,042,200 122,800 161,100 3,419,600 712,000 398,000 314,000 2,707,600 102,900 214,900 3,599,200 753,000 427,300 325,700 2,846,200 104,600 228,400 3,639,900 742,200 407,500 334,700 2,897,700 104,700 223,300 5.3 5.8 7.4 3.7 5.1 1.7 6.3 --- I. I 1.4 4.6 2.8 1.8 0.1 2.2 43.8 51.6 75.3 30.2 41.9 -14.7 38.6 and utilities Trade Finance, insurance and real estate Services and miscellaneous Government 226,800 640,000 129,000 331,500 431,000 246,200 803,700 172,900 536,900 630,100 250,400 850,200 183,700 577,500 651,400 255,000 875,100 191,400 586,600 661,600 1.7 5.8 6.2 7.6 3.4 1.8 2.9 4.2 1.6 1.6 12.4 36.7 48.4 77.0 53.S Source: Texas Employment Commission. 96 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW TEXAS POPULATION IN 1970 1. TRENDS, 1950-1970• Benjamin S. Bradshaw and Dudley L. Poston•• Between 1960 and 1970 the population of Texas grew from 9,579,677 to 11,196,730, an increase of 16.9 percent as compared with 14.2 percent for the nation as a whole (Table 1 ). This rate of growth, however, is moderate when contrasted with the rates for some of the other states. For example, sixteen states had growth rates greater than that of Texas, with Nevada's rate of 71.3 percent being the highest in the nation. Despite its somewhat moderate rate, which is about two-thirds the magnitude of the 1950-1960 growth rate of 24.2 percent, Texas' net population gain of 1,617,OS 3 was the third-largest in the nation, exceeded only by gains in California and Florida. During the decade Texas moved up two ranks in total population size; in 1960 it was the sixth-largest state in the nation, but by 1970 it had surpassed Illinois and Ohio (in population size) and held the fourth rank among the fifty states. Metropolitanization and Metropolitan Growth The modest growth rate for Texas resulted from a combination of vastly different patterns of population change in the metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, as well as in the geographic regions of the state. The metropolitan population of Texas, that is, population in those areas classified in 1970 as standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's), showed between 1960 and 1970 a rate of increase of 23. 7 percent, a rate significantly higher than that for the state as a whole, or for that of the nonmetropolitan, or non-SMSA, population ( 1.3 percent). In fact, of the entire population increase during 1960 to 1970, 98 percent occurred in the SMSA's. That such a large proportion of the state's population increase was concen­trated in the metropolitan areas simply reflects the continu­ation of a historic trend toward urbanization or, more specifically, metropolitanization. By 1970 nearly 74 per­cent of the population of Texas resided in standard metropolitan statistical areas, as compared with about 70 percent in 1960, and 62 percent in 1950. A fact clearly indicated by these figures is that the nonmetropolitan *This is the first article in a series entitled Texas Population in 1970 by members of the staff of the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin. Th.e articles will appear intermit­tently in the Texas Business Review. **Dr. Bradshaw Jnd Dr. Poston are assistant professors of soci­ ology and research associates in the Population Research Center, Department of Sociology, The University of Texas at Austin. The authors wish to thank Professor W. Kennedy Upham, of Texas A&M University, for the computation of net migration for Texas counties, 1960 to 1970. population of Texas, that is, the population outside the SMSA's, has been steadily decreasing as a proportion of the total population of Texas. The metropolitanization of Texas is even more striking when trends in SMSA's by size are examined (Table 2). Of the total metropolitan population increase of 1,577 ,898 during the 1960-1970 decade, about 85 percent (1,339,965) occurred in SMSA's of 500,000 or more (Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio SMSA's). These four SMSA's now include slightly over 46 percent of the population of Texas, whereas in 1960 they included only 40 percent, and in 1950 only 34 percent. Finally, the rate of growth of this largest-size group during the most recent decade was 35 percent, a growth rate twice as large as the rate for the state. The next-size category includes SMSA's with a popula­tion of 250,000 to 500,000. These SMSA's (Austin, Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange, Corpus Christi, and El Paso), which comprise more than 11 percent of the population of Texas, grew during the decade at a rate of 14.3 percent. Among the SMSA's, however, only Austin, with a rate of 39.3 percent, increased faster than the state as a whole. Of the remaining three SMSA's only El Paso exceeded a 10-per­cent population increase. The group of SMSA's between 100,000 and 250,000 includes several metropolitan areas of demographic interest. These SMSA's (Abilene, Amarillo, Brownsville-Harlingen­San Benito, Galveston-Texas City, Lubbock, McAllen-Pharr­Edinburg, Waco, and Wichita Falls) as a class grew by nearly 30 percent between 1950 and 1960, but by only a little more than 2 percent between 1960 and 1970; and five of the eight SMSA's experienced net losses in population during the 1960-1970 decade. Rates of population growth for all SMSA's in this category except Galveston-Texas City were drastically reduced or reversed from those of the l 950's. The natural-increase and migration conditions resulting in these dramatic changes in population trends are significant. Galveston-Texas City alone of the SMSA's of 100,000 to 250,000 had a net inmigration of population during the 1960-1970 decade, and it alone maintained approximately the same rate of population increase over the entire two decades, 1950 to 1970. The smallest-size class of SMSA's, those eight SMSA's with a population of less than 100,000, increased by about l 0 percent during 1960-1970 compared with nearly 29 percent during the previous decade. The Bryan-College Station SMSA, with a growth rate of 29.l percent during (Discussion continued, p. 102) MAY 1971 Table 1 POPULATION AND NET MIGRATION FOR TEXAS COUNTIES AND ST ATE ECONOMIC AREAS 1950-1970 Change Net migration Change Net migration Texas, state economic area, and county Population 1970 1960 1960-1970 Number Percent 1960-1970 Number Percent Population 1950 1950-1960 Number Percent 1950-1960 Number Percent Texas 11,196,730 9,579,677 1,617,053 16.9 213,241 2.2 7,711,194 1,868,483 24.2 113,831 1.5 SEA l Trans-Pecos 63,427 64,357 - 930 - 1.5 -12,278 -19.1 58,133 6,224 10.7 -9,168 -15.7 Brewster 7,780 6,434 1,346 20.9 336 5.2 7,309 875 - 12.0 -2,291 -31.3 Culberson 3,429 2,794 635 22.7 31 - 1.1 1,825 969 53.1 390 21.4 Hudspeth 2,392 3,343 - 951 - 28.4 1,514 -45.3 4,298 - 955 - 22.2 -2,121 -49.3 Jeff Davis 1,527 1,582 55 - 3.5 196 - 12.4 2,090 - 508 - 24.3 - 971 -46.5 Loving 164 226 62 -27.4 58 -25.7 227 I - 0.4 41 -18.1 Pecos 13,748 11,957 1,791 15.0 591 - 4.9 9,939 2,018 20.3 - 582 - 5.9 Presidio 4,842 5,460 - 618 - 11.3 1,424 -26.1 7,354 -1,894 -25.8 -3,335 -45.3 Reeves 16,526 17,644 -1,118 - 6.3 4,827 -27.3 11,745 5,899 50.2 1,369 11.7 Ward 13,019 14,917 -1,898 -12.7 3,973 -26.6 13,346 1,571 11.8 -1,586 -11.9 SEA 2 Edwards Plateau- Eastern 218,858 195,075 23,783 12.2 6,498 3.3 188,106 6,969 3.7 24,355 -12.9 Bandera 4,747 3,892 855 22.0 886 22.8 4,410 - 518 - 11.7 - 760 - 17.2 Blanco 3,567 3,657 90 - 2.5 - 121 - 3.3 3,780 - 123 - 3.3 - 443 - 11.7 Coke 3,087 3,589 - 502 - 14.0 - 604 - 16.8 4,045 - 456 - 11.3 -1,026 -25.4 Comal 24,165 19,844 4,321 21.8 2,106 10.6 16,357 3,487 21.3 15 0.1 Concho 2,937 3,672 - 735 - 20.0 - 909 - 24.7 5,078 -1,406 -27.7 -1,950 -38.4 Gillespie 10,553 10,048 505 5.0 257 2.5 10,520 - 472 - 4.5 -1,349 -12.8 Hays 27,642 19,934 7,708 38.7 4,797 24.0 17,840 2,094 11.7 -2,888 -16.2 Kendall 6,964 5,889 1,075 18.3 843 14.3 5,423 466 8.6 - 231 - 4.3 Kerr 19,454 16,800 2,654 15.8 2,152 128 14,022 2,778 19.8 1,425 10.2 Llano 6,979 5,240 1,739 33.2 1,966 37.5 5,377 - 137 - 2.5 - 48.0 -8.9 McCulloch 8,571 8,815 - 244 -· 2.8 - 410 - 4.6 11,701 -2,886 -24.7 -3,812 -32.6 Mason 3,356 3,780 - 424 - 11.2 - 430 - 11.4 4,945 -1,165 -23.6 -1,477 -29.9 Medina 20,249 18,904 1,345 7.1 -1,056 - 5.6 17,013 1,891 11.1 -1,820 -10.7 San Saba 5,540 6,381 - 841 - 13.2 - 846 - 13.2 8,666 -2,285 -26.4 -3,044 -35.1 Tom Green 71,047 64,630 6,417 9.9 -2,133 - 3.3 58,929 5,701 9.7 -6,515 -I I.I SEA 3 Southwest Rio Grande Plain Brooks Dimmit Duval Jim Hogg Kenedy 197,754 8,005 9,039 11,722 4,654 678 188,673 8,609 10,095 13,398 5,022 884 9,081 -604 -1,056 -1,676 -368 -206 4.8 7.0 -10.5 -12.5 -7.3 -23.3 -35,176 2,232 2,873 -3,707 1,170 323 -18.6 -25.9 -28.5 -27.7 -23.3 -36.5 170,163 9,195 10,654 15,643 5,389 632 18,510 -586 -559 -2,245 -367 252 10.9 -6.4 -5.2 -14.4 -6.8 39.9 -34,643 -2,779 2,951 -5,611 -1,362 48 -20.4 -30.2 -27.7 -35.9 -25.3 7.6 Kleburg La Salle McMullen Maverick Starr Webb Zapata Zavala 33,166 5,014 1,095 18,093 17,707 72,859 4,352 11,370 30,052 5,972 1,116 14,508 17,137 64,791 4,393 12,696 3,114 -958 21 3,585 570 8,068 41 -1,326 10.4 -16.0 -1.9 24.7 3.3 12.5 -0.9 -10.4 3,456 1,815 99 1,471 3,541 9,660 718 4,111 -11.5 -30.4 -8.9 -10.1 -20.7 -14.9 -16.3 -32.4 21,991 7,485 1,187 12,292 13,948 56,141 4,405 11,201 8,061 -1,513 71 2,216 3,189 8,650 12 1,495 36.7 -20.2 -6.0 18.0 22.9 15.4 -0.3 13.3 -252 -2,923 -237 -3,118 1,529 -10,948 1,094 -1,887 -1.1 -39.1 -20.0 -25.4 -11.0 -19.5 -24.8 -16.8 SEA 4 Texas Northern High Plains Armstrong Briscoe Carson Castro Dallam Deaf Smith Floyd Gray Hale Hansford Hartley Hemphill Hutchinson Lipscomb Moore Ochiltree Oldham Parmer Roberts Sherman Swisher 210,256 1,895 2,794 6,358 10,394 6,012 18,999 11,044 26,949 34,137 6,351 2,782 3,084 24,443 3,486 14,060 9,704 2,258 10,509 967 3,657 10,373 221,778 1,966 3,577 7,781 8,923 6,302 13,187 12,369 31,535 36,798 6,208 2,171 3,185 34,419 3,406 14,773 9,380 1,928 9,583 1,075 2,605 10,607 -11,522 71 783 1,423 1,471 290 5,812 1,325 4,586 2,661 143 611 101 9,976 80 713 324 330 926 108 1,052 234 -5.2 -3.6 -21.9 -18.3 16.5 -4.6 44.1 -10.7 -14.5 -7.2 23 28.1 -3.2 -29.0 2.3 -4.8 3.5 -17.1 9.7 -10.0 40.4 -2.2 -43,847 54 1,167 2,193 690 937 1,896 3,407 7,361 9,358 783 439 326 -13,411 85 2,818 1,264 54 833 140 793 2,202 -19.8 -2.7 -32.6 -28.2 -7.7 -14.9 14.4 -27.5 -23.3 -25.4 -12.6 202 -10.2 -39.0 -2.5 -19.l -13.5 2.8 -8.7 -13.0 30.4 -20.7 182,278 2,215 3,538 6,852 5,417 7,640 9,111 10,535 24,728 28,211 4,202 1,913 4,123 31,580 3,658 13,349 6,024 1,672 5,787 1,031 2,443 8,249 39,510 -249 49 929 3,506 -1,338 4,076 1,834 6,807 8,587 2,006 258 -938 2,839 -252 1,424 3,356 256 3,796 44 162 2,358 21.7 -11.2 1.4 13.6 64.7 -17.5 44.7 17.4 27.5 30.4 47.7 13.5 -22.8 9.0 -6.9 10.7 55.7 15.3 65.6 4.3 6.6 28.6 -3,664 -2.0 -417 -18.8 -490 -13.9 -338 -4.9 1,827 33.7 -2,349 -30.7 1,363 15.0 -679 -6.4 1,322 5.3 658 2.3 1,017 24.2 -127 -6.6 -1,372 -33.3 -5,317 -16.8 -698 -19.I -2,341 -17.5 2,137 35.5 58 -3.5 2,118 36.6 95 -9.2 125 -5.1 300 3.6 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Table 1 (Continued) POPULATION AND NET MIGRATION FOR TEXAS COUNTIES AND STATE ECONOMIC AREAS 1950-1970 Table 1 (Continued) Texas, state economic area, and county Population 1970 1960 Change 1960-1970 Number Percent Net migration 1960-1970 Number Percent Population 1950 Change 1950-1960 Number Percent Net migration 1950-1960 Number Percent SEA 5 Texas Southem High Plains Andrews Bailey Cochran Crane Crosby Dawson Ector Gaines Hockley Howard Lamb Lynn Martin Midland Terry Winkler 343,822 10,372 8,487 5,326 4,172 9,085 16,604 91,805 11,593 20,396 37,796 17,770 9,107 4,774 65,433 14,118 9,640 372,494 13,450 9,090 6,417 4,699 10,347 19,185 90,995 12,267 22,340 40,139 21,896 10,914 5,068 67,717 16,286 13,652 -28,672 -3,078 603 1,091 527 -1,262 2,581 810 674 1,944 -2,343 -4,126 1,807 294 -2,284 2,168 4,012 -7.7 -22.9 -6.6 -17.0 -11.2 -12.2 -13.5 0.9 -5.5 -8.7 -5.8 -18.8 -16.6 -5.8 -3.4 -13.3 -29.4 -90,377 4,818 2,160 -2,353 1,111 3,220 6,015 -14,613 2,893 5,855 9,707 7,651 3,615 1,028 -12,380 5,358 -5,672 -24.3 -35.8 -23.8 -36.7 -23.6 -31.1 -31.3 -16.0 -23.6 -26.2 -24.2 -34.9 -33.1 -20.3 -18.3 -32.9 -41.5 239,203 5,002 7,592 5,928 3,965 9,582 19,113 42,102 8,909 20,407 26,722 20,015 11,030 5,541 25,785 13,107 10,064 133,291 8,448 1,498 489 734 765 72 48,893 3,358 1,933 13,417 1,881 -116 -473 41,932 3,179 3,588 55.7 168.9 19.7 8.2 18.5 8.0 0.4 116.l 37.7 9.5 50.2 9.4 -1.1 -8.5 162.6 24.3 35.7 51,690 6,033 -392 -1,051 -370 -1,566 -5,240 30,560 345 -3,760 4,353 -2,995 -2,397 -1,771 28,119 -873 516 21.6 120.6 -5.2 -17.7 -9.3 -16.3 -27.4 72.6 3.9 -18.4 16.3 -15.0 -21.7 -32.0 109.1 -6.7 5.1 Yoakum 7,344 8,032 688 - 8.6 - 1,928 -24.0 4,339 3,693 85.1 2,179 50.2 SEA 6 Texas Rolling Plains 232,403 273,428 -41,025 -15.0 -52,128 -19.1 329,679 -56,251 -17.1 -93,591 -28.4 Baylor 5,221 5,893 672 - 11.4 894 - 15.2 6,875 982 - 14.3 1,664 -24.2 Borden 888 1,076 188 - 17.5 221 - 20.5 1,106 30 - 2.7 103 - 9.3 Brown 25,877 24,728 1,149 4.6 427 1.7 28.607 3,879 -13.6 5,814 -20.3 Callahan 8,205 7,929 276 3.5 368 4.6 9,087 1,158 -12.7 1,474 -16.2 Childress 6,605 8,421 -1,816 -21.6 1,931 -22.9 12,123 3,702 -30.5 4,627 -38.2 Clay 8,079 8,351 272 - 3.3 268 - 3.2 9,896 1,545 -15.6 2,213 -22.4 Coleman 10,288 12,458 -2,170 -17.4 1,875 -15.0 15,503 3,045 -19.6 -4,176 -26.9 Collingsworth 4,755 6,276 -1,521 -24.2 1,654 -26.3 9,139 2,863 -31.3 3,960 -43.3 Cottle 3,204 4,207 1,003 -23.8 1,253 -29.8 6,099 1,892 -31.0 -2,613 -42.8 Dickens 3,737 4,963 1,226 -24.7 1,497 -30.2 7,177 2,214 -30.8 3,139 -43.7 Donley 3,641 4,449 808 - 18.2 678 - 15.2 6,216 1,767 -28.4 2,018 -32.5 Fisher 6,344 7,865 1,521 -19.3 2,013 -25.6 11,023 3,158 -28.6 4,251 -38.6 Foard 2,211 3,125 914 - 29.2 954 - 30.5 4,216 1,091 -25.9 1,393 -33.0 Garza 5,289 6,611 1,322 -20.0 2,101 -31.8 6,281 330 5.3 929 - 14.8 Hall 6,015 7,322 1,307 -17.9 1,737 -23.7 10,930 3,608 -33.0 4,816 -44.1 Hardeman 6,795 8,275 1,480 -17.9 1,759 -21.2 10,212 1,937 -19.0 2,976 -29.1 Haskell 8,512 11,174 2,662 -23.8 3,240 -29.0 13,736 2,562 -18.7 4,370 -31.8 Kent 1,434 1,727 293 - 17.0 391 - 22.6 2,249 522 - 23.2 818 - 36.4 King 464 640 176 - 27.5 226 - 35.3 870 230 - 26.4 303 - 34.8 Knox 5,972 7,857 1,885 -24.0 2,444 -31.1 10,082 2,225 -22.1 3,832 -38.0 Mitchell 9,073 11,255 2,182 -19.4 3,281 -29.l 14,357 3,102 -21.6 5,526 -38.5 Motley 2,178 2,870 692 - 24.1 772 - 26.9 3,963 1,093 -27.6 1,472 -37.1 Nolan 16,220 18,963 -2,743 -14.5 4,187 -22.1 19,808 845 - 4.3 4,105 -20.7 Runnels 12,108 15,016 2,908 -19.4 3,674 -24.5 16,771 1,755 -10.5 3,768 -22.5 Scurry 15,760 20,369 4,609 -22.6 6,426 -31.5 22,779 2,410 -10.6 -7,131 -31.3 Shackelford 3,323 3,990 667 - 16.7 624 - 15.6 5,001 1,011 -20.2 1,385 -27.7 Stephens 8,414 8,885 471 - 5.3 530 - 8.0 10,597 1,712 -16.2 2,514 -23.7 Stonewall 2,397 3,017 620 - 20.6 707 - 23.4 3,579 662 - 18.0 1,014 -27.6 Throckmorton 2,205 2,767 562 - 20.3 522 - 18.9 3,618 851 - 23.5 1,063 -29.4 Wheeler 6,434 7,947 1,513 -19.0 1,730 -21.8 10,317 2,370 -23.0 3,398 -32.9 Wilbarger 15,355 17,748 2,393 -13.5 -3,192 -18.0 20,552 2,804 -13.6 5,310 -25.8 Young 15,400 17,254 1,854 -10.7 2,142 -12.4 16,810 444 2.6 1,416 -8.4 SEA 7 North Central Texas 263,767 227,334 36,433 16.0 28,736 12.6 232,579 -5,245 2.3 -26,039 -12.6 Bosque 10,966 10,809 157 1.5 674 6.2 11,836 -1,027 8.7 1,373 -11.6 Burnet 11,420 9,265 2,155 23.3 1,967 21.2 10,356 -1,091 -10.5 1,990 -19.2 Comanche 11,898 11,865 33 0.3 394 3.3 15,516 -3,651 -23.5 3,865 -24.9 Cooke 23,471 22,560 911 4.0 - 125 - .5 22,146 414 1.9 2,640 .!... 11.9 Coryell 35,311 23,961 11,350 47.4 7,717 32.2 16,284 7,677 47.1 4,675 28.7 Eastland 18,092 19,526 -1,434 - 7.3 - 611 - 3.1 23,942 -4,416 -18.4 5,690 -23.8 Erath 18,141 16,236 1,905 11.7 2,344 14.4 18,434 -2,198 -11.9 -2,811 -15.2 Hamilton 7,198 8,488 -1,290 -15.2 707 - 8.3 10,660 -2,172 -20.4 2,380 -22.3 Hood 6,368 5,443 925 17.0 922 16.9 5,287 156 3.0 199 - 3.8 Jack 6,711 7,418 707 9.5 823 - 11.l 7,755 - 337 - 4.3 - 1,014 -13.l Lampasas 9,323 9,418 95 - 1.0 497 - 5.3 9,929 - 511 - 5.1 - 1,818 -18.3 Mills 4,212 4,467 255 - 5.7 5 0.1 5,999 -1,532 -25.5 -1,679 -28.0 Montague 15,326 14,893 433 2.9 563 3.8 17,070 -2,177 -12.8 -3,423 -20.1 Palo Pinto 28,962 20,516 8,446 41.2 5,127 25.2 17,154 3,362 19.6 101 0.6 Parker 33,888 22,880 11,008 48.l 9,649 42.2 21,528 1,352 6.3 1,062 4.9 Somervell 2,793 2,577 216 8.4 247 9.6 2,542 35 1.4 19 0.7 Wise 19,687 17,012 2,675 15.7 1,850 10.9 16,141 871 5.4 - 650 4.0 MAY 197 1 POPULATION AND NET MIGRATION FOR TEXAS COUNTIES AND STATE ECONOMIC AREAS 1950-1970 Change Net migration Change Net migration Texas, state economic area, and county Population 1970 1960 1960-1970 Number Percent 1960-1970 Number Percent Population 19SO 19S0-1960 Number Percent 19S0-1960 Number Percent SEA 8 Northern Blackland 46S,829 427,S69 38,260 9.0 4,32S 1.0 4SS,883 -28,314 - 6.2 -83,337 -18.3 Bell 124,483 94,097 30,386 32.3 7,263 7.7 73,824 20,273 27.S 82 0.1 Delta 4,927 S,860 - 933 - lS.9 - 722 - 12.3 8,964 3,104 -34.6 -3,317 -37.0 Falls 17,300 21,263 -3,963 -18.6 -3,9SS -18.6 26,724 S,461 -20.4 8,29S -31.0 Fannin 22,70S 23,880 -l,17S - 4.9 - 77S - 3.2 31,2S3 7,373 -23.6 -8,663 -27.7 Grayson 83,22S 73,043 10,182 13.9 4,S94 6.3 70,467 2,S76 3.7 6,829 -9.7 Hill 22,S96 23,6SO -l,OS4 - 4.S - 399 - 1.7 31,282 7,632 -24.4 9,279 -29.7 Hunt 47,948 39,399 8,S49 21.7 6,419 16.3 42,731 3,332 - 7.8 6,6SO -lS.5 Lamar 36,062 34,234 1,828 S.3 119 0.3 43,033 8,799 -20.4 -12,698 -29.5 Limestone 18,100 20,413 -2,313 -11.3 -1,728 - 8.S 2S,2S 1 4,838 -19.2 -6,486 -2S.7 Milam 20,028 22,263 -2,23S -10.0 -2,696 -12.1 23,S8S 1,322 - S.6 - 4,031 -17.1 Navarro 31,lSO 34,423 -3,273 9.S -3,740 -10.9 39,916 S,493 -13.8 -8,864 -22.2 Williamson 37,30S 3S,044 2,261 6.S SS 0.1 38,8S3 3,809 - 9.8 8,307 -21.4 SEA 9 Post Oak 147,113 140,037 7,076 S.l -2,38S 1.7 1Sl,91S -11,878 - 7.8 -33,392 -22.0 Bastrop 17,297 l 6,92S 372 2.2 S6 0.3 19,622 2,697 -13.7 -4,610 -23.5 Brazos S7,978 44,89S 13,083 29.1 S,070 11.3 38,390 6,SOS 16.9 -3,896 -10.1 Burleson 9,999 11,177 -1,178 -10.S -1,413 -12.6 13,000 1,823 -14.0 -3,197 -24.6 Freestone 11,116 12,S2S -1,409 -11.2 -1,063 - 8.S 1S,696 3,171 -20.2 4,319 -27.S Grimes ll,8SS 12,709 -8S4 - 6.7 -1,141 - 9.0 1S,13S 2,426 -16.0 3,97S -26.3 Lee 8,048 8,949 - 901 - 10.1 - 883 - 9.9 10,144 l,l 9S -11.8 2,172 -21.4 Leon 8,738 9,9Sl -1,213 -12.2 -1,084 -10.9 12,024 2,073 -17.2 3,193 -26.6 Madison 7,693 6,749 944 14.0 808 12.0 7,996 1,247 -lS.6 1,910 -23.9 Robertson 14,389 16,1 S7 -1,768 -10.9 -2,623 -16.2 19,908 3,7Sl -18.8 6,120 -30.7 SEA I 0 Southern Blackland 91,948 94,770 -2,822 - 3.0 -4,723 - s.o 107,391 -12,621 -11.8 -23,209 -21.6 Caldwell 21,178 17,222 3,9S6 23.0 2,838 16.S l 9,3SO 2,128 -11.0 4,987 -25.8 Fayette 17,6SO 20,384 -2,734 -13.4 -1,988 - 9.7 24,176 3,792 -IS.7 S,292 -21.9 Gonzales 16,37S l 7,84S -1,470 - 8.2 -2,441 -13.7 21,164 3,319 -lS.7 S,S71 -26.3 Lavaca 17,903 20,174 -2,271 -11.3 -2,418 -12.0 22,1S9 l,98S 9.0 - 4,210 -19.0 Washington 18,842 19,14S - 303 1.6 - 714 - 3.7 20,S42 1,397 6.8 - 3,149 -15.3 SEA 11 Northeast Rio Grande Plain749 160,749 167,444 -6,69S - 4.0 -27,996 -16.7 160,992 6,4S2 4.0 -27,771 -10.S Aransas 8,902 7,006 1,896 27.1 1,246 17.8 4,2S2 2,7S4 64.8 1,893 44.5 Atascosa 18,696 18,828 - 132 - 0.7 2,S47 -13.S 20,048 -1,220 - 6.1 - 4,98S -24.9 Bee 22,737 23,7SS -1,018 - 4.3 S,326 -22.4 18,174 S,S81 30.7 323 1.8 De Witt 18,660 20,683 -2,023 - 9.8 2,7S4 -13.3 22,973 -2,290 -10.0 S,401 -23.5 Frio Goliad 11,1 S9 4,869 10,112 S,429 1,047 -S60 - 10.4 10.3 1,027 778 -10.2 -14.3 10,3S7 6,219 -- 24S 790 -- 2.4 12.7 -2,647 -1,717 -2S.6 -27.6 Jim Wells Karnes Live Oak Refugio Wilson 33,032 13,462 6,697 9,494 13,041 34,S48 14,99S 7,846 10,97S 13,267 -l,Sl6 -l,S33 -1,149 -1,481 -226 -4.4 -10.2 -14.6 -13.S 1.7 7,431 3,1S7 1,921 2,842 l,4S9 -21.S -21.1 -24.S -2S.9 -11.0 27,991 17,139 9,0S4 10,113 14,672 6,SS7 -2,144 -1,208 862 -l,40S 23.4 -12.S -13.3 8.S 9.6 - l,9S9 -7.0 S,S29 -32.3 2,729 -30.I l,3S8 -13.4 3,662 -2S.0 SEA 12 Northeast Texas Sandy Lands Anderson Bowie Camp Cass Cherokee Franklin Gregg Harrison Henderson Hopkins Houston Marion Morris Nacogdoches Panola Rains Red River Rusk Shelby Smith Titus Upshur Van Zandt Wood 671,26S 27,789 67,813 8,00S 24,133 32,008 S,291 7S,929 44,841 26,466 20,710 l 7,8SS 8,Sl 7 12,310 36,362 lS,894 3,7S2 14,298 34,102 19,672 97,096 16,702 20,976 22,1 s s 18,S89 633,273 28,162 S9,97 l 7,849 23,496 33,120 S,101 69,436 4S,S94 21,786 18,S94 19,376 8,049 12,S76 28,046 16,870 2,993 1S,682 36,421 20,479 86,3SO 16,78S 19,793 19,091 17,6S3 37,992 -373 7,842 1S6 637 -1,112 190 6,493 -7S3 4,680 2,116 -l,S21 468 -266 8,316 -976 7S9 -1,384 -2,319 -807 10,746 83 1,183 3,064 936 6.0 1.3 13.1 2.0 2.7 3.4 3.7 9.4 1.7 21.S 11.4 -7.8 S.8 -2.1 29.7 -S.8 2S.4 -8.8 -6.4 -3.9 12.4 -o.s 6.0 16.0 S.3 86S -1,269 l,9S2 -287 -S9S -2,201 186 -816 -3,470 3,831 1,724 -1,800 2S6 -998 6,249 -1,248 894 -l,S3S -3,273 -1,613 1,277 -991 413 3,049 1,130 ---- 0.1 4.S 3.2 3.6 2.S 6.6 3.6 1.2 7.6 17.6 9.3 9.3 3.2 7.9 22.3 7.4 29.9 9.8 9.0 7.9 l.S S.9 2.1 16.0 6.4 670,838 31,87S 61,966 8,740 26,732 38,694 6,2S7 61,2S8 47,74S 23,40S 23,490 22,82S 10,172 9,433 30,326 l 9,2SO 4,266 2l,8S1 42,348 23,479 74,701 17,302 20,822 22,S93 21,308 -37,S6S 3,713 l,99S 891 3,236 -S,S74 1,1 S6 8,178 2,1s1 1,619 4,896 3,449 2,123 33,143 -2,280 2,380 1,273 6,169 S,927 3,000 11,649 Sl7 1,029 3,S02 3,6SS -S.6 -123,S74 -18.4 -11.6 -6,663 -20.9 -3.2 -12,062 -19.5 -10.2 -1,999 -22.9 -12.1 -6,S79 -24.6 -14.4 -9,S24 -24.6 -18.S -1,409 -22.5 13.4 -3,918 -6.4 -4.S -9,239 -19.4 -6.9 -3,794 -16.2 -20.8 -6,00S -2S.6 -lS.l -6,036 -26.4 -20.9 -3,304 -32.5 33.3 1,076 11.4 -7.S -6,238 -20.6 -12.4 ­S,003 -26.0 -29.8 -1,361 -31.9 -28.2 -8,091 -37.0 -14.0 ­l l,07S -26.2 -12.8 -S,879 -25.0 lS.6 -924 -1.2 -3.0 ­2,638 -IS.2 -4.9 -3,181 -15.3 -lS.S -4,720 -20.9 -17.2 -S,008 -23.5 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Table 1 (Continued) POPULATION AND NET MIGRATION FOR TEXAS COUNTIES AND ST A TE ECONOMIC AREAS 1950-1970 Texas, state economic area, and county Population 1970 1960 Change 1960-1970 Number Percent Net migration 1960-1970 Number Percent Population 1950 Change 1950-1960 Number Percent Net migration 1950-1960 Number Percent SEA 13 Southeast Texas Sandy Lands Angelina Hardin Jasper 199,623 49,349 29,996 24,692 171,633 39,814 24,629 22,100 27,990 9,535 5,367 2,592 16.3 23.9 21.8 11.7 12,732 4,271 2,549 161 7.4 10.7 10.3 0.7 168,714 36,032 19,535 20,049 -2,919­3,782 5,094 2,051 I.75 10.5 26.l 10.2 -20,940 1,938 1,288 1,422 -12.4 -5.4 6.6 -7.1 Newton 11,657 10,372 1,285 12.4 384 3.7 10,832 - 460 - 4.2 2,048 -18.9 Polk 14,457 13,861 596 4.3 160 I.I 16,194 -2,333 -14.4 4,308 -26.6 Sabine 7,187 7,302 - 115 - 1.6 501 - 6.9 8,568 -1,266 -14.8 2,628 -30.7 San Augustine 7,858 7,722 136 1.8 500 6.5 8,837 -1,115 -12.6 2,301 -26.0 San Jacinto 6,702 6,153 549 8.9 433 7.0 7,172 -1,019 -14.2 1,563 -21.8 Tyler 12,417 10,666 1,751 16.4 1,093 10.2 11,292 - 626 5.5 2,144 -19.0 Walker 27,680 21,475 6,205 28.9 4,960 23.1 20,163 1,312 6.5 - 451 - 2.2 SEA 14 Texas Coast Prairie 207,155 195,693 11,462 5.9 -12,774 - 6.5 163,086 32,607 20.0 -4,555 -2.8 Austin 13,831 13,777 54 0.4 141 - 1.0 14,663 - 886 - 6.0 -1,962 -13.4 Calhoun 17,831 16,592 1,239 7.5 2,378 -14.3 9,222 7,370 79.9 3,401 36.9 Chambers 12,187 10,379 1,808 17.4 711 6.8 7,871 2,508 31.9 843 10.7 Colorado 17,638 18,463 - 825 - 4.5 1,820 - 9.8 17,576 887 5.0 -1,971 -11.2 Jackson 12,975 14,040 -1,065 - 7.6 2,487 -17.7 12,916 1,124 8.7 -1,706 -13.2 Matagorda 27,913 25,744 2,169 8.4 - 1,474 - 5.7 21,559 4,185 19.4 - 803 - 3.7 Victoria 53,766 46,475 7,291 15.7 872 - 1.9 31,241 15,234 48.8 4,532 14.5 Waller 14,285 12,071 2,214 18.3 1,280 10.6 11,961 110 0.9 -1,276 -10.7 Wharton 36,729 38,152 -1,423 - 3.7 5,593 -14.6 36,077 2,075 5.8 -5,613 -15.6 SEA 15 Lower Rio Grande Valley 337,473 352,086 -14,613 - 4.2 -95,886 -27.2 306,536 45,550 14.9 -69,220 -22.6 Cameron 140,368 151,098 -10,730 - 7.1 -44,592 -29.5 125,170 25,928 20.7 -23,298 -18.6 Hidalgo 181,535 180,904 631 0.3 -42,914 -23.7 160,446 20,458 12.8 -38,047 -23.7 Willacy 15,570 20,084 -4,514 -22.5 -8,380 -41.7 20,920 - 836 - 4.0 - 7,875 -37.6 SEA 16 Edwards Plateau- Western 79,989 81,867 -1,878 2.3 -15,646 -19.1 75,662 6,205 8.2 -11,558 -15.3 Crockett 3,885 4,209 324 7.7 1,045 -24.8 3,981 228 5.7 644 - 16.2 Edwards 2,107 2,317 210 9.1 492 - 21.2 2,908 591 - 20.3 978 - 33.6 Glasscock 1,155 1,118 37 3.3 115 - 10.3 1,089 29 2.7 120 - 11.0 Irion 1,070 1,183 113 9.6 147 - 12.4 1,590 407 - 25.6 563 - 35.4 Kimble 3,904 3,943 39 1.0 343 - 8.7 4,619 676 - 14.6 1,163 -25.2 Kinney 2,006 2,452 446 - 18.2 751 - 30.6 2,668 216 - 8.1 679 - 25.4 Menard 2,646 2,964 318 - 10.7 406 - 13.7 4,175 -1,211 -29.0 1,527 -36.6 Reagan 3,239 3,782 543 - 14.4 980 - 25.9 3,127 655 20.9 610 - 19.5 Real 2,013 2,079 66 - 3.2 285 - 13.7 2,479 400 - 16.1 680 - 27.4 Schleicher 2,277 2,791 514 - 18.4 694 - 24.9 2,852 61 - 2.1 489 - 17.1 Sterling 1,056 1,177 121 - 10.3 230 - 19.5 1,282 105 - 8.2 284 - 22.2 Sutton 3,175 3,738 563 - 15.1 1,099 -29.4 3,746 8 - 0.2 816 - 21.8 Terrell 1,940 2,600 660 - 25.4 864 - 33.2 3,189 589 - 18.5 1,109 -34.8 Upton 4,697 6,239 -1,542 -24.7 2,297 -36.8 5,307 932 17.6 830 - 15.6 Uvalde 17,348 16,814 534 3.2 1,886 -11.2 16,015 799 5.0 2,690 -16.8 Val Verde 27,471 24,461 3,010 12.3 4,012 -16.4 16,635 7,826 47.0 1,624 9.8 SEA 17 Abilene SMSA 113,959 120,377 -6,418 - 5.3 -23,252 -19.3 85,517 34,860 40.8 16,104 18.8 Jones 16,106 19,299 -3,193 -16.5 -4,042 -20.9 22,147 -2,848 -12.9 -5,448 -24.6 Taylor 97,853 101,078 -3,225 - 3.2 -19,210 -19.0 63,370 37,708 59.5 21,552 34.0 SEA 18 Amarillo SMSA 144,396 149,493 -5,097 - 3.4 -28,178 -18.8 87,140 62,353 71.6 38,022 43.6 Potter 90,511 115,580 -25,069 -21.7 -42,009 -36.3 73,366 42,214 57.5 22 ,571 30.8 Randall 53,885 33,913 19,972 58.9 13,831 40.8 13,774 20,139 146.2 15,451 112.2 SEA 19 Austin SMSA Travis 295,516 212,136 83,380 39.3 46,549 21.9 160,980 51,156 31.8 19,040 11.8 SEA 20 Beaumont-Port Arthur- Orange SMSA 315,943 306,016 9,927 3.2 -28,820 - 9.4 235,650 70,366 29.9 l?,124 6.4 Jefferson 244,773 245,659 - 886 0.4 -29,742 -12.1 195,083 50,576 25.9 7,427 3.8 Orange 71 ,170 60,357 10,813 17.9 922 1.5 40,567 19,790 48.8 7,697 19.0 SEA 21 Corpus Christi SMSA 284,832 266,594 18,238 6.8 -32,837 -12.3 201,313 65,281 32.4 -3,567 1.8 Nueces 237,544 221,573 15,971 7.2 -26,666 -12.0 165,471 56,102 33.9 56 0.0 San Patricio 47,288 45,021 2,267 5.0 - 6,171 -13.7 35,842 9,179 25.6 -3,511 9.8 MAY 1971 Table 1 (Continued) POPULATION AND NET MIGRATION FOR TEXAS COUNTIES AND STATE ECONOMIC AREAS 1950-1970 Texas, state economic area, and county Population 1970 1960 Change 1960-1970 Number Percent Net migration 1960-1970 Number Percent Population 1950 Change 1950-1960 Number Percent Net m igr a ti on 1950-1960 Number Percent SEA 22 Dallas SMSA Collin Dallas Denton Ellis Kaufman Rockwall 1,555,950 1,119,410 66,920 41,247 1,327,321 951,527 75,633 47,432 46,638 43,395 32,392 29,931 7,046 5,878 436,540 25,673 375,794 28,201 3,243 2,461 1,168 39.0 62.2 39.5 59.5 7.5 8.2 19.9 247,682 20,029 203,524 22,112 61 1,172 784 22.1 48.5 21.4 46.6 0.1 3.9 13.3 780,827 41,692 614,799 41,365 45,645 31,170 6,156 338,583 -445 336,728 6,067 -2,250 -1,239 -278 43.4 -1.1 54.8 14.7 4.9 4.0 -4.5 163,454 -5,408 182,639 833 -8,576 -4,968 -1,066 ---- 20.9 13.0 29.7 2.0 18.8 15.9 17.3 SEA 23 El Paso SMSA El Paso 359,291 314,070 45,221 14.4 -30,922 - 9.8 194,968 119,102 61.1 30,654 15.7 SEA 24 Fort Worth SMSA Johnson Tarrant 762,086 45,769 716,31 7 573,215 34,720 538,495 188,871 11,049 177,822 33.0 31.8 33.0 107,183 8,659 98,524 18.7 24.9 18.3 392,643 31,390 361,253 180,572 3,330 177,242 46.0 10.6 49.l 86,395 154 86,241 22.0 0.5 23.9 SEA 25 Galveston-Texas City SMSA Galveston 169,812 140,364 29,448 21.0 11,196 8.0 113,066 27,298 24.1 3,049 2.7 SEA 26 Houston SMSA Brazoria Fort Bend Harris Liberty Montgomery 1,985,031 1,418,323 108,312 76,204 52,314 40,527 1,741,912 1,243,158 33,014 31,595 49,479 26,839 566,708 32,108 11,787 498,754 1,419 22,640 40.0 42.l 29.I 40.1 4.5 84.4 314,879 19,65 5 4,967 271,495 -1,658 20,420 - 22.2 25.8 12.2 21.8 5.2 76.l 935,539 46,549 31,056 806,701 26,729 24,504 482,784 29,655 9,471 436,457 4,866 2,335 51.4 63.7 30.5 54.l 18.2 9.5 225,610 15,225 69.4 212,029 -1,065 -1,273 24.l 32.7 2.2 26.3 -4.0 -5.2 SEA 27 Lubbock SMSA Lubbock 179,295 156,271 23,024 14.7 -10,952 7.0 101,048 55,223 54.7 19,975 19.8 SEA 28 San Antonio SMSA Bexar Guadalupe 864,014 830,460 33,554 716,168 687,151 29,017 147,846 143,309 4,537 20.6 20.9 15.6 15,828 14,649 1,179 2.2 2.1 4.1 525,852 500,460 25,392 190,316 186,691 3,625 36.2 37.3 14.3 40,070 42,308 -2,238 7.6 8.5 -8.8 SEA 29 Waco SMSA McLennan 147,553 150,091 -2,538 - l.7 -15,976 -10.6 130,194 19,897 15.3 -4,721 -3.6 SEA 30 Wichita Falls SMSA Archer Wichita 127,621 5,759 121,862 129,638 6,110 123,528 -2,017 -351 -1,666 l.6 5.7 l.3 -19,079 832 -18,247 -14.7 -13.6 -14.8 105,309 6,816 98,493 24,329 -706 25,035 - 23.I 10.4 25.4 1,948 -1,701 3,649 1.9 -25.0 3.7 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population, Final Population Counts, Advance Report, PC(VI)-45, Texas (January 1971); U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 7, "Components of Population Change for Counties, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, State Economic Areas, and Economic Subregions" (November 1962). Net migration figures for 1960-1970 ~ere computed by Professor W. Kennedy Upham of Texas A&M University from final population counts, 1960 and 1970, and data for births and deaths compiled by the Texas State Department of Health. the past decade, was the only area in this group showing fairly rapid population increase. The others, with the exception of Midland and Odessa, grew by about 10 percent or more. Significantly, Midland and Odessa had increased by well over 100 percent during the 1950-1960 decade, thus becoming the most rapidly growing SMSA's in Texas, and among the most rapidly growing in the United States. But during the 1960-1970 decade both these SMSA's suffered serious net outmigration, and in the case of Midland a net population decline. Thus the contrasting and widely divergent rates of population growth among the standard metropolitan statis­tical areas of Texas are quite apparent with respect to changes between 1960 and 1970. Whereas the l 950's saw general increases in all sizes of SMSA's, the l 960's were years of distinctly different trends. As in the past, substantial amounts of growth occurred in the largest-size class of SMSA's. In most of the remaining SMSA's the rates of increase were considerably less, with some SMSA's showing rates of growth near zero, and six SMSA's experiencing a net loss in population. Nonmetropolitan Population Trends Among the sixteen predominantly nonmetropolitan state economic areas (SEA's)1 of Texas, SEA 4 (Texas Northern High Plains), SEA 5 (Texas Southern High Plains), SEA 6 (Texas Rolling Plains), SEA 10 (Southern Black­lands), SEA 11 (Northeast Rio Grande Plain), and SEA 15 (Lower Rio Grande Valley) experienced net losses of 1A description of these areas is given below in the section State Economic Areas. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW population between 1960 and 1970, ranging as high as 15 percent for the Texas Rolling Plains. Among the nine remaining nonmetropolitan SEA's, only three-SEA 2 (Edwards Plateau-Eastern), SEA 7 (North Central Texas), and SEA 13 (Southeast Texas Sandy Land s)-has net growth rates above 10 percent. In some of the nonmetropolitan SEA's the phenomenon of population decline was not merely a case of some counties losing, and other counties gaining, with a net decrease being the result. Rather several rapidly decreasing SEA's showed a consistent decrease in nearly all counties comprising the SEA. For example, the Texas Rolling Plains (SEA 6) is comprised of 32 counties; 30 of these lost population between 1960 and 1970. Similarly, of the 17 counties included in the Texas Southern High Plains (SEA 5), 16 lost population after 1960, with Winkler County showing a loss rate as high as 29.4 percent, the highest negative rate of any county in the state. Finally, only 2 of the 11 counties of the Northeast Rio Grande Plain (SEA 11) experienced an increase in population during the past decade. Were it not for the positive growth rates of those two counties-Aransas (27 percent) and Frio (I 0 percent)­ Map 1 POPULATION CHANGES IN TEXAS COUNTIES AND STATE ECONOMIC AREAS 1960-1970 - l---+-18-+---.J.---I LEG END, LJ Population increas e of 17% or mor e LJ Population incr ea se of 0.1% to 16.9% LJ Population decrease of .\Q.0%or more to.0.1% State economic areas Numera ls 1-30 MAY 197 1 this SEA would have suffered a net loss much greater than its decrease rate of 4.0 percent. Population change in the nonmetropolitan counties of Texas during the past decade thus was one of very low growth, or, in many cases, negative rates of change. As noted in Table 2, in the nonmetropolitan counties as a whole the overall growth rate was a very modest 1.3 percent, substantially less than the rate of 16.9 percent for the entire state of Texas. Even though the rate of population growth in nonmetropolitan areas of Texas was small, the fact that there was any growth is significant. In the l 950's these areas had shown a slight decline. These data for Texas SEA's make rather evident the fact that the rapidly increasing and decreasing counties are clustered with counties of like or similar rates of growth. Population-increase and population-decrease counties are not distributed randomly throughout the state. As is illustrated on Map 1, these clusters normally are found within the nonmetropolitan state economic areas. The majority of counties losing population between 1960 and 1970 are located in the northern and western portions of the state, particularly within SEA 4 (Texas Northern High Plains), SEA 5 (Texas Southern High Plains) and SEA 6 (Texas Rolling Plains). Since the agricultural and economic Map 2 NET MIGRATION FOR TEXAS COUNTIES AND STATE ECONOMIC AREAS 1970 -~· - t----HS-t----.--1 27 5b LEGEND , LJ Net inmigrotion of 10.0% or more LJ Nerinmigration of 0.1% to 9.9% LJ Net outmigration of -10.0% or more to -0.1% State economic areas Numerals 1-30 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW characteristics shared by most of these counties have certainly not facilitated population increases during this past decade, nearly all of the counties in these three SEA's suffered serious net outmigration between 1960 and 1970. Portrayed also on Map I is another concentration of declining-population counties; these are located in an 80-to-l 00-mile-wide belt stretching southeast from just below the Dallas and Fort Worth SMSA's (SEA's 22 and 24), and then curving southwestward through portions of SEA 8b (Northern Blacklands), SEA 9 (Post Oak), SEA 10 (Southern Blacklands) and SEA 11 (Northeast Rio Grande Plain). This belt of population-loss counties continues in a southwestward direction through the majority of the counties in SEA 3 (Southwest Rio Grande Plain). From there the band of population-decrease counties extends in a northwestward direction through most of the counties of SEA 16 (Edwards ·Plateau-Western), touching also upon a number of the counties in SEA I (Trans-Pecos). The belt stops at the eastern boundary of the El Paso SMSA (SEA 23). Clearly, counties suffering population losses between 1960 and 1970 are predominant in Texas. For all practical purposes, the entire Panhandle of the state is characterized by population decline, save only a few counties on the western and northern boundaries. Furthermore, the popula­ tion-decrease belt includes at least one half of the remaining land mass of the state. In absolute terms 146 of the 254 counties of Texas (or better than 57 percent) lost popula­ tion during this most recent decade. This fact, together with the earlier evidence noting a positive growth rate of 16.9 percent for the state as a whole, indicates clearly that the l960's may best be characterized as a period of metropolitanization; the population of Texas has become even more concentrated into a very few large urban agglomerations. By 1970 the population of the state was located primarily along a north-south metropolitan axis extending from Sherman-Denison in the north to Austin and San Antonio in the south, as well as in the southeastern metropolitan complex comprising Houston, Galveston­Texas City, and Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange. It was only within these areas that any sizable population increases occurred between 1960 and 1970. Components of Popula lion Change Population increase or decrease in a given geographic area is effected by changes in the three components of population change: fertility, mortality, and migration. Changing trends in all these variables have had great impacts recently on the population of Texas and its subareas. Between 1960 and 1970 about 2,246,200 babies were born to mothers residing in Texas. The numerical contribution of these new residents to growth of the state's population was partially offset b~· the occurrence of 843,600 deaths, leaving a natural increase-births minus deaths-of 1,402,600. Approximately 108,200 fewer children were born to Texas mothers between 1960 and 1970 than between 1950 and 1960, as the state experienced the same general decline in fertility which occurred in most of the United States after 1957. At the same time that births were declining, about 161,800 more deaths occurred in the state in the l960's than in the I 950's-an increase in mortality of 23.7 percent. The net result of the opposite trends in fertility and mortality between 19 5 0-1960 and 1 960-1970 was a decline of 270,000 (16.1 percent) in natural increase. It is partly because of the much smaller natural increase in the l 960's than in the l 950's that the total population of Texas grew by a less amount in the more recent decade. Net migration to Texas during 1960-1970, however, was significantly larger than during the previous ten years. About 213,200 new residents moved into the state during the past decade. While the figures shown in Tables 1 and 2 for net migration, 1960-1970, are not precisely comparable with those for 1950-1960, there can be no doubt that migration to the state during 1960-1970 had increased over that during 1950-1960.2 Births exceeded deaths substantially in most counties of Texas during the last decade, and therefore natural increase contributed to their growth-or at least helped offset the effects of outmigration. Yet there were 29 counties in which deaths for the ten-year period exceeded births, creating a natural decrease for the decade, and many more counties where deaths exceeded births in one or more years. Because of the recent decline in fertility few counties, SMSA's, or SEA's have experienced significant gains in annual levels of natural increase during the l960's. Net migration into Texas presents several striking fea­tures. The first of these is that the great majority of Texas counties (182 out of 254, or nearly 72 percent) showed a net outmigration for the 1960-1970 decade (Map 2). The areas of heaviest outmigration were SEA 1 (Trans-Pecos), SEA 3 (Southwest Rio Grande Plains), SEA 4 (Texas Northern High Plains), SEA 5 (Texas Southern High Plains), SEA 6 (Texas Rolling Plains), SEA 11 (Northern Rio Grande Plain), SEA 15 (Lower Rio Grande Valley, com­prised mainly of the Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito and McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg SMSA's), SEA 17 (Abilene SMSA), SEA 18 (Amarillo SMSA), SEA 21 (Corpus Christi SMSA), SEA 29 (Waco SMSA), and SEA 30 (Wichita Falls SMSA). As Map 2 clearly shows, a vast area of Texas, comprising a band of contiguous counties stretching from the top of the Panhandle to the Lower Rio Grande Valley and from the Sabine River west to El Paso, experienced net outmigra­tion. In fact, few areas were exempted from outmigration. The most notable exceptions are to be found radiating from the southeastern metropolitan complex around Houston and from the north-south metropolitan axis extending from 2 For a description of the method of computation and a discussion of comparability of migration figures for 1950-1960 and 1960-1970, see Note on Estimates of Net Migration, below. Reprints of "Population Trends in Texas, 1960-1970" may be obtained from the Bureau of Business Research, P.O. Box 7459, University Station, Austin, Texas, 78712, at a charge of twenty-five cents ($.25) per copy. MAY 1971 Table 2 POPULATION AND NET MIGRATION FOR TEXAS STANDARD METROPOLITAN STA TISTICAL AREAS AND CONSTITUENT COUNTIES 1950-1970 Change Net migration Change Net migration Standard metropolitan Population 1960-1970 1960-1970 Population l 9S0-1960 l 9SO-l 960 statistical area Number Percent Number Percent 19SO Number Percent Number Percent and county 1970 1960 11,196,730 9,S79,677 l,617,0S3 16.9 213,241 2.2 7,711,194 1,868,483 24.2 113,831 1.5 TEXAS NONMETROPOLIT AN 2,962,272 2,923,117 39,1 SS 1.3 -226,711 7.8 2,946,0S 1 -22,934 -0.8 -493,486 -16.7 METROPOLITAN 8,234,4S8 6,6S6,S60 l,S77,898 23.7 439,9S2 6.6 4,76S,143 1,891,417 39.7 607,317 12.7 500,000 or more S,167,081 3,827,116 l,339,96S 3S.O 68S,S72 17.9 2,63S,861 l,191,2SS 4S.2 Sl5,S29 19.5 Dallas SMSA l,SS5,950 1,119,410 436,S40 39.0 247,682 22.1 780,827 338,583 43.4 163,4S4 20.9 Collin 66,920 41,247 2S,673 62 .2 20,029 48.5 41,692 445 -1.1 -S,408 -13.0 Dallas 1,327,321 9S l,S27 375,794 39.S 203,524 21.4 614,799 336,728 54.8 182,639 29.7 Denton 75,633 47,432 28,201 59.5 22,112 46.6 41,365 6,067 14.7 833 2.0 Ellis 46,638 43,395 3,243 7.5 61 0.1 45,64S 2,250 4.9 -8,576 -18.8 Kaufman 32,392 29,931 2,461 8.2 1,172 3.9 31,170 -1,239 -4.0 -4,968 -15.9 Rockwall 7,046 5,878 1,168 19.9 784 13_3 6,1S6 278 -4.5 -1,066 -17.3 Fort Worth SMSA 762,086 573,215 188,871 33.0 107,183 18.7 392,643 l 80,S72 50.0 86,395 22.0 Johnson 45,769 34,720 11,049 31.8 8,659 24.9 31,390 3,330 10.6 154 0.5 Tarrant 716,317 S38,495 177,822 33.0 98,S24 18.3 361,2S3 177,242 49.1 86,241 23.9 Houston SMSA 1,985,031 1,418,323 S66,708 40.0 314,879 22.2 93S,S39 482,784 51.4 225,610 24.1 Brazoria 108,312 76,204 32,108 42.1 19,6SS 2S.8 46,S49 29,6S5 63.7 15,225 32.7 Fort Bend S2,314 40,S27 11,787 29.1 4,967 12.2 31,0S6 9,471 30.5 694 2.2 Harris 1,741,912 l,243,1S8 498,754 40.l 271,49S 21.8 806,701 436,4S7 S4.l 212,029 26.3 Liberty 33,014 31,595 1,419 4.5 -1,6S8 -S.2 26,729 4,866 18.2 -1,065 -4.0 Montgomery 49,479 26,839 22,640 84.4 20,420 76.l 24,504 2,335 9.5 -1,273 -5.2 San Antonio SMSA 864,014 716,168 147,846 20.6 lS,828 2.2 52S,8S2 190,316 36.2 40,070 7.6 Bexar 830,460 687,151 143,309 20.9 14,649 2.1 500,460 186,691 37.3 42,308 8.5 Guadalupe 33,SS4 29,017 4,S37 1S.6 1,179 4.1 2S,392 3,62S 14.3 -2,238 -8.8 250,000-499,999 1,2SS,S82 1,098,816 1S6,766 14.3 -46,030 4.2 792,911 30S,90S 38.6 61,251 7.7 Austin SMSA Travis 29S,S 16 212,136 83,380 39.3 46,S49 21.9 160,980 s1, 1S6 31.8 19,040 11.8 Beaumont-Port Arthur- Orange SMSA 31S,943 306,016 9,927 3.2 -28,820 -9.4 23S,6SO 70,366 29.9 1S,124 6.4 Jefferson 244,773 24S,6S9 886 -0.4 -29,742 -12.1 19S,083 SO,S76 2S.9 7,427 3.8 Orange 71,170 60,3S7 10,813 17.9 922 l.S 40,S67 19,790 48.8 7,697 19.0 Corpus Christi SMSA 284,832 266,S94 18,238 6.8 -32,837 -12.3 201,313 6S,281 32.4 3,S67 -1.8 Nueces 237,S44 221,S73 lS,971 7.2 -26,666 -12.0 16S,471 S6,102 33.9 56 0.0 San Patricio 47,288 45,021 2,267 5.0 -6,171 -13.7 3S,842 9,179 2S.6 -3,511 -9.8 El Paso SMSA El Paso 359,291 314,070 4S,221 14.4 -30,922 -9.8 194,968 119,102 61.1 30,654 15.7 100,000-249,999 1,204,539 1,178,236 26,303 2.2 -173,697 -14.7 907,890 270,346 29.8 13,032 1.4 Abilene SMSA 113,959 120,377 6,418 5.3 -23,252 -19.3 85,517 34,860 40.8 16,104 18.8 Jones 16,106 19,299 3,193 -16.5 -4,042 -20.9 22,147 -2,848 -12.9 -5,448 -24.6 Taylor 97,853 101,078 3,225 -3.2 -19,210 -19.0 63,370 37,708 S9.5 21,552 34.0 Amarillo SMSA 144,396 149,493 -5,097 -3.4 -28,178 -18.8 87,140 62,353 71.6 38,022 43.6 Potter 90,511 115,580 -2S,069 -21.7 -42,009 -36.3 73,366 42,214 57.S 22,571 30.8 Randall 53,885 33,913 19,972 58.9 13,831 40.8 13,774 20,139 146.2 15,451 112.2 Brownsville-Harlingen- San Benito SMSA Cameron 140,368 lSl,098 -10,730 -7.1 -44,S42 -29.1 125,170 25,928 20.7 -23,298 -18.6 Galveston-Texas City SMSA Galveston 169,812 140,364 29,448 21.0 11,196 8.0 113,066 27,298 24.1 3,049 2.7 Lubbock SMSA Lubbock 179,295 156,271 23,024 14.7 -10,9S2 7.0 101,048 55,223 54.7 I 9,97S 19.8 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Table 2 (Continued) POPULATION AND NET MIGRATION FOR TEXAS STAND ARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS AND CONSTITUENT COUNTIES Standard metropolitan Change Net migration Change Net migration Population 1960-1970 1960-1970 19S0-1960 19S0-1960 statistical area Population and county 1970 1960 Number Percent Number Percent 19SO Number Percent Number Percent McAllen-Pharr- Edinburg SMSA Hidalgo 181,S3S 180,904 631 0.3 -42,914 -23.7 160,446 20,4S8 12.8 -38,047 -23.7 Waco SMSA McLennan 147,s s3 1S0,091 2,S38 1.7 -lS,976 -10.6 130,194 19,897 1 S.3 4,721 -3.6 Wichita Falls SMSA 127,621 129,638 2,017 1.6 -19,079 -14.7 lOS,309 24,329 23.1 1,948 1.9 Archer S,7S9 6,110 3Sl S.7 832 -13.6 6,816 706 -10.4 1,701 -2S.O Wichita 121,862 123,S28 1,666 1.3 -18,247 -14.8 98,493 2S,03S 2S.4 3,649 3.7 Less than I00,000 607,2S6 SS2,392 S4,864 9.9 -2S,893 -4.7 428,481 123,911 28.9 17,sos 4.1 Bryan-College Station SMSA Brazos S7,978 44,89S 13,083 29.1 S,070 11.3 38,390 6,SOS 16.9 -3,896 -10.1 Laredo SMSA Webb 72,8S9 64,791 8,068 12.S 9,660 -14.9 S6,141 8,6SO lS.4 -10,948 -19.S Midland SMSA Midland 6S,433 67,717 2,284 3.4 -12,380 -18.3 2S,78S 41,932 162.6 28,119 109.1 Odessa SMSA Ector 91,80S 90,99S 810 0.9 -14,613 -16.1 42,102 48,893 116.1 30,S60 72.6 San Angelo SMSA Tom Green 71,047 64,630 6,417 9.9 2,133 -3.3 S8,929 S,701 9.7 6,SlS -11.1 Sherman-Denison SMSA Grayson 83,22S 73,043 10,182 13.9 4,S94 6.3 70,467 2,S76 3.7 -6,829 -9.7 Texarkana SMSA Bowie (pt.) 67,813 S9,97 l 7,842 13.1 l,9S2 3.2 61,966 l,99S 3.2 -12,062 -19.S Tyler SMSA Smith 97,096 86,3SO 10,746 12.4 1,277 1.S 74,701 11,649 lS.6 -924 1.2 - Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population, Final Population Counts, Advance Report, PC(VI)-4S, Texas (January 1971); U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 7, "Components of Population Change for Counties, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, State Economic Areas, and Economic Subregions" (November 1962). Net migration figures for 1960-1970 were computed by Professor W. Kennedy Upham of Texas A&M University from final population counts, 1960 and 1970, and data for births and deaths compiled by the Texas State Department of Health. the Sherman-Denison SMSA through the Dallas-Fort Worth only Austin, Galveston-Texas City, Sherman-Denison, and complex to the Austin and San Antonio SMSA's. Except Tyler were recipients of net inmigration during the for those areas the only noteworthy cluster of counties 1960-1970 decade. All other SMSA's except those of with significant inmigration was located in SEA 4 (Texas 500,000 or more lost migrants. The strategic location of Northern High Plains) in the Panhandle. these four SMSA's with respect to Dallas and Fort Worth, As the preceding paragraph suggests, a second outstand­Houston, and San Antonio may in part explain their ing feature of patterns of net migration in Texas in exceptional status. 1960-197 0 has been the remarkable concentration of An examination of net migration for SMSA's by migrants in a few large SMSA's (Table 2). During the subregions shows population trends which may be highly 1950-1960 decade all size classes of SMSA's increased significant for future selective development of the various through inmigration, though not all individual SMSA's grew subregions. In West Texas, where in the 1950's almost every through this source. In the l 960's, however, only the class SMSA had had large inmigration, during the l 960's every comprising those SMSA's with 500,000 or more residents SMSA lost residents through outmigration. The Midland had a net inmigration; the other size classes suffered an and Odessa SMSA's, whose populations had grown by over outmigration amounting to about 245,700 persons. Of the 100 percent in the l 950's, and which had received twenty Texas SMSA's with fewer than 500,000 population inmigrations in that decade equivalent to I09.1 percent and MAY 1971 107 72.6 percent, of their 1950 populations, respectively, both registered out migrations of over I 5 percent. Abilene, Amarillo, El Paso, and Lubbock SMSA's had similar, but by no means as spectacular, reversals in migration balances. All of these SMSA's had outmigrations in the 1960's of between 7 percent and 20 percent. In the l 970's migrants also left the two other West Texas SMSA's, Wichita Falls and San Angelo. For Wichita Falls the migration loss represented a reversal from the previous decade, but the positive net migration in 1950-1960 to that SMSA had been very small. San Angelo's net outmigration in the past decade was a continuation of a trend established during the I 950's, but the amount of recent outmigration is notably less than that between 195 0 and 1960. As was the case in West Texas, all SMSA's in South Texas, except San Antonio, lost heavily from outmigration. About 131,000 migrants left the Corpus Christi, Browns­ville-Harlingen-San Benito, McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg, and Laredo SMSA's in the 1960-1970 decade. Outmigration from all these SMSA's had begun in the I 950's, although movement from Corpus Christi in 1950-1960 was relatively small. Outmigration from SMSA's in West and South Texas is in strong contrast to the heavy inmigration to the SMSA's located in the central and southeastern portions of the state. SMSA's comprising the north-south metropolitan axis (Sherman-Denison, Dallas, Fort Worth, Waco, Austin, and San Antonio SMSA's) and the southeastern metropolitan complex (Houston, Galveston-Texas City, and Beaumont­Port Arthur-Orange SMSA's) received a net inmigration of about 700,600 in the 1960-1970 decade. Of these nine SMSA's only Waco and Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange lost migrants. The remaining seven SMSA's had a net inmigra­tion of 746,400, of which 359,200 (48.1 percent) went to the contiguous SMSA's of Dallas, Fort Worth, and Sherman-Denison, and 326,096 ( 43. 7 percent) went to Houston and Galveston-Texas City. The migration to the Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth areas is a continuation of a pattern which has been maintained throughout this century and reflects the diversi­fied economies of those metropolises. The fact that San Antonio ranked a very poor fourth in volume of inmigra­tion among the SMSA's of 500,000 or more may be in part a consequence of that metropolitan area's heavy depen­dence on the military establishment for support of its population. Conclusion Of paramount importance is the extent to which the patterns and trends described above for the 1960-1970 decade were the same as the patterns and trends of population change in the earlier decade, 1950-1 960, or the extent to which these patterns and trends differed from those of the preceding decade. This question may be answered in part by classifying each of the 254 counties into one of four groups according to whether it increased or decreased in population in both the 1950-1960 and the 1960-1970 decades (Table 3). Nearly 66 percent of the counties of Texas either lost population in both decades-I01 counties, or almost 40 percent-or gained population in both time periods-66 counties, or 26 percent. For almost two thirds of the counties, then, the patterns and trends for the l 960's were no different from those of the I 950's. But the remaining one third of the counties experienced reversals in popula­tion change from one decade to the next. Nearly 17 percent, or 42, of the counties lost population from 1950 to 1960, but then experienced population increases from 1960 to 1970. On the other hand, almost an equal number of the counties were characterized by the reverse: an increase from 1950 to 1960, and then a decrease from 1960 to 1970. Forty-five counties were in this category. Those counties which gained population in both decades are to be found both among SMSA counties and among non-SMSA counties. Of the 66 counties gaining population in both decades 26 are SMSA counties; the remaining 40 counties are non-SMSA. Proportionately, however, of the 40 counties of Texas which are included in an SMSA 26, or 65 percent, increased in both decades, whereas of the 214 non-SMSA counties, only 40 of them, or about I 0 percent, gained population in both decades. The SMSA counties had substantially greater proportionate representation among that group of counties gaining population in both decades than did the non-SMSA counties. Those I 0 l counties which lost population in both decades are predominantly non-SMSA counties; only 2 of them are SMSA counties-Jones County (Abilene SMSA), and Archer County (Wichita Falls SMSA). Both of these counties are predominantly "ring," or satellite, counties in their SMSA's. In fact, of the 214 non-SMSA counties 99, or better than 46 percent, lost population in both the 1950-1960 and the 1960-1970 decades. The remaining two groups of counties, those experienc­ing both losses and gains within either decade during the past twenty years, are of greatest demographic interest, since these counties are not only areas of dramatic population change, but areas of changing social and Table 3 TEXAS COUNTIES CLASSIFIED BY POPULATION INCREASE OR DECREASE 1950-1960 and 1960-1970 1950-1 960 Population decrease Population increo.. IOI •5 U6 Popu la tion (57.5 percent) decrease (39.8 percent) 117.7 percent) •2 Popu lation 108 1"'2.5 percent! incr e a se {16.5 percent) (26.0 percent! U3 111 25• {56.3 percent) ("'3.7 pHcentl (100.0 percent} TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW economic organization as well. After showing population loss during the 1950-1960 time period, 42 counties reversed that trend in the next decade by gaining population. Five of the counties are SMSA counties, but the remaining 37 of these are nonmetropolitan, and for the most part, are located in East and North Central Texas. Seventeen of the counties are in SEA's 12 and 13, and eight more are in SEA's 7 and 8. Only a very small number of the counties characterized by losses in the l 950's and gains in the l 960's are to be found in the Panhandle or Plains areas or in South Texas. However, the Panhandle and the remainder of the Plains area are the central locations for those counties which gained population in the 1950-1960 decade and then lost population in the 1960-1970 decade. Of the 45 counties classified into this group in Table 2, 26, or about 58 percent, are found in Panhandle SEA's (SEA 4, Texas Northern High Plains, and SEA 5, Texas Southern High Plains). Furthermore, of these 45 counties gaining in the 1950's and losing in the 1960's, 6 are SMSA counties. These population changes in Texas counties illustrate the principal and overriding pattern of population redistribu­ tion in the state. Counties located along or near the north-south metropolitan axis and the southeastern metro­ politan complex are primarily the counties which are gaining population. Those counties falling outside these areas, and particularly those in West and South Texas, for the most part, are experiencing losses in outmigration and in many cases in total population. The counties losing population in both decades, as well as those that gained in the 195O's and then lost in the l 960's, are primarily located to the west and south of the large metropolitan aggrega­ tions, while counties located either within or near these aggregations have increased in population size during both decades, or, in the case of some, have increased during the l 960's following declines in the previous decade. The population of Texas has become increasingly more concen­ trated in these two metropolitan complexes during the past ten years, and in all likelihood will continue this trend of selected metropolitanization during the l 970's. State Economic Areas State economic areas (SEA's) as defined by the Bureau of the Census . . . are relatively homogeneous subdivisions of the States. They consist of single counties or groups of counties which have similar economic and social characteristics. The boundaries of these areas have been drawn in such a way that each State is subdivided into relatively few parts, with each part having certain significant characteristics which distinguish it from adjoining parts . . . In the establishment of the State economic areas, factors in addition to industrial and commercial activities were taken into account. Demographic, climatic, physiographic, and cultural factors, as well as factors pertaining to the production and exchange of agricultural and nonagricultural goods, were considered. 3 The areal definitions of SEA's employed here are those of the 1960 Census, with appropriate adjustments made for changes in the 3u.s. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1960, PC(l)-lA (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969), pp. xxvii-xxviii. definitions of those standard metropolitan statistical areas which are also SEA's. State economic areas are either metropolitan or nonmetropolitan. Although the correspondence is not exact, most SMSA's are also metropolitan SEA's, with only the smallest SMSA's excluded from the metropolitan SEA group. Thus the counties comprising the nonmetropolitan SEA's in most cases will be non-SMSA counties. Note on Estimates of Net Migration The figures for net migration, 1950-1960 and 1960-1970, were obtained by subtracting the enumerated population at the end of the decade from the population expected as a result of natural increase (or decrease) to the enumerated population at the beginning of the decade. More specifically, net migration was obtained as a residual by inverting the general formula for population change: P2 = P1 + B -D ± M, and therefore, M = P1 -B + D, where P2 ­P2 =population at the end of the period, P1 = population at the beginning of the period, B = total resident births during the period, D = total resident deaths during the period, M = net migration during the period. As may be inferred from the second formula, the procedures employed do not yield separate information on numbers of inmigrants and outmigrants, but rather the algebraic sum of inmigrants and outmigrants. Furthermore, because net migration is obtained as a residual value, any changes in census accuracy, any errors in registration of births and deaths, or any adjustment to these components will affect the size, and, therefore, the accuracy of the migration estimate. Despite these latter possible sources of variability, the residual method remains the simplest and probably the most accurate means of estimating net migration. The estimates of net migration 1950-1960 developed by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and presented in Tables 1 and 2, are not precisely comparable with those for 1960-1970. In preparing its estimates the Bureau introduced an upward adjustment for esti­mated underregistration of births in individual counties. 4 A small adjustment to resident deaths was also introduced. The residual estimates of net migration were consequently reduced in general for areas of net inmigration and increased for areas of net outmigration by an amount which varied from place to place depending mainly on the percentage by which numbers of births were adjusted. No similar adjustment was made to base as terminal populations. The 1960-1970 estimates of net migration shown here do not include adjustments to births for underregistration or to any other component in the migration formula. They were derived from 1960 and 1970 final population counts and from total resident births and deaths occurring between April l,;960, and March 31, 1970, as reported in Texas Vital Statistics, 1960-1969, and from special tabulations of resident births and deaths occurring April 1 to December 31, 1960, and January 1 to March 31, 1970. The estimate of total net migration to Texas, 1960-1970, shown in this report (213,241), is substantially different from that reported bl the Bureau of the Census in a recent news release (146,000). Apparently, most of the difference between the two estimates results from different treatment of births, since the Bureau's estimate of total births for 1960-1970 is 2,318,000, nearly 72,000 higher than the number actually registered. The technical arguments for preferring adjustment or nonadjust­ment for underregistration of births need not be introduced here. Generally speaking, however, the staff of the Population Research Center believe that adjustment of births without corresponding adjustments for estimated accuracy of enumeration of the initial and terminal populations adds little or no improvement to the quality of estimates of net migration by the residual method. 4u .s . Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 7, "Components of Change, 1950 to 1960, for Counties, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and Economic Subregions" (November 1962), pp. 10-11. 5Texas State Department of Health, Austin, Texas. 6u.S. Department of Commerce, News, "Whites Account for Reversal of South's Historic Population Loss thrQugh Migration, Census Shows," CP 71-34 (March 3, 1971). MAY 1971 109 TEXAS CONSTRUCTION THE SHRINKING HOUSING UNIT Robert M. Lockwood Although the number of Texans per housing unit has decreased since 1950, even with an increasing population, persuasive evidence suggests that many new homes and apartments are poorly built and relatively small. Further­more the inroads of catastrophe and eminent domain alwa;s fall heaviest on those who occupy substandard housing. In addition to the rapid creation of new potential slums encouraged by the unchecked rise of building costs and the permissive apartment-investment climate of the sixties the lot of those who have always occupied miserable dwelli~gs is made more miserable. The dollar of the low-income renter has shrunk further than most, and his dwelling is apt to be the last to be improved. Should a freeway wipe out his neighborhood-an apparent social blessing-he must find other accommodations, which are likely to be worse and more expensive. Between the censuses of housing of 1960 and 1970 the state experienced a net gain of some 670,000 units, including about 46,000 mobile homes. Considering the gross addition during this period of 850,000 new units, one must assume the loss of some 180,000 housing units. The number of persons per housing unit fell from 3.2 in 1950 to 3.0 in 1960 and to 2.9 in 1970. Probably a greater decline would be required to offset the effects of shrinking size and deteriorating quality. The graphs accompanying this article illustrate the extent to which the average real unit values of both one-family homes and apartments have remained un­changed since 195 8. The general decline in the number of houses and the rapid rise in apartment construction are reflected only in the total-value curves. This small variation NUMBER AND TYPE OF NEW HOUSING UNITS AUTHORIZED* QUARTERLY IN TEXAS, 1967-1971 Year and quarter One-family Two-family Apartment Total 1967 Ist 2nd 3rd 4th 8,762 9,832 8,929 7,911 447 604 428 587 6,240 8,426 8,120 11,913 15,449 18,862 17,477 20,411 1968 !st 2nd 3rd 4th 8,997 9,657 8,724 8,051 550 596 394 540 15,036 14,254 14,733 16,096 24,583 24,507 23,85 I 24,687 1969 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1970 !st 2nd 3rd 4th 1971 I st 8,592 8,336 6,956 6,182 7,320 9,563 8,713 8,169 11,883 680 404 296 240 250 386 734 462 832 18,835 13,314 16,263 10,027 10,216 15,800 12,816 I 5,976 16,945 28,107 22,054 23,515 16,449 17,786 25,749 22,263 24,607 29,660 * In urban places reporting building permits. figure l ESTIMATED TOTAL AND INDICATED AVERAGE VALUES OF ONE-FAMILY HOUSING UNITS AUTHORIZED" ANNUALLY IN TEXAS, 1958·1970 (In conetanl-dollau) Total value Average ¥olue (million') (tho111ondtl 800 16 700 Total value 300 200 100 1958 1960 1962 1966 1968 1970 •in urban ploc91 reporting building permih. ••u .S. Departmen t of Commerce compo1ite cost indeJO : 19.57-19.59=100. ESTIMATED VALUES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS* Percent change Jan-Mar 1971 Mar Jan-Mar M 1971 from 1971 1971 ar from Jan-Mar Classification (thousands of dollars) Feb 1971 1970 ALL PERMITS 262,908 688,373 17 29 New construction 234,668 621 ,570 14 30 Residential (housekeeping) 138,216 354,417 9 S6 One-family dwellings 85,564 212,7S7 22 81 Multiple-family dwellings 52,652 141,660 -6 30 Nonresidential buildings 96,452 267,153 20 6 Hotels, motels, and tourist courts 3,900 20,282 -75 2SO Amusement buildings 3,879 lS,813 3S7 -44 Churches 3,055 10,020 7 46 Industrial buildings 7,916 21,017 1 -24 Garages (commercial and private) 997 6,695 -S7 167 Service stations 1,628 4,980 11 18 Hospitals and institu!ions 2,090 9,776 -2 -23 Office-bank buildings 42,930 71, 161 1S9 6 Works and utilities 6,506 13,670 10 21 Educational buildings 7,897 36,967 71 5 Stores and mercantile buildings 13,714 46,999 -18 10 Other buildings and structures 1,940 9,773 -28 39 Additions, alterations, and repairs 28,240 66,803 so 23 SMSA vs. NON-SMSA Total SMSAt 234,387 617,111 lS 33 Central cities 148,623 412,892 -I 17 Outside central cities 85,764 204,219 SS 83 Total non-SMSA 28,521 71,263 39 5 10,000 to 50,000 population 15,027 34,590 45 7 Less than 10,000 population 13,494 36,673 32 2 * Only buildings for which permits were issued within the incorporated area of a city are included. t Standard metropolitan statistical area as defined in 1960 Census and revised in 1968. Source: Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the Cen.sus, U.S. Department of Commerce·--~~ TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW in real unit values must be accomplished by a reduction in size or quality or both. Some notion of the relative age of housing units in the state can be gained by a comparison of 1970 dwelling-unit totals with the total units authorized during the preceding decade. The Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Lubbock, and Bryan-College Station SMSA's rank first through sixth, respectively, in the extent to which 1961-1970 authoriza­tions comprise the 1970 census count of housing units. The same half-dozen areas occupy the first six places, in the same sequence, in the number of units authorized per thousand persons of 1970 population. Only eleven of the twenty-four SMSA's, in fact, occupy the first ten positions on both lists. The other five areas are Amarillo, El Paso, Midland, San Antonio, and Sherman-Denison. Through the seventeen quarters since 1966 no quarter has shown such high levels of housing-unit authorizations as January-March 1971. Only the first quarter of 1969 exceeded the 16,945 apartment-unit permits issued through March 197 1. Only the October 1968-March 1969 apart­ ment-unit authorizations stand higher-since the end of 1966-than the last six months' total for all new housing categories. Some relief in construction and interest costs, more rapid replacement of substandard housing, and practical cessation of the alarming trend toward the construction of near-slum housing-these are essential steps in any progress toward the satisfaction of long-term housing requirements in Texas. Fillure 2 ESTIMATED TOTAL. AND INDICATED AVERAGE VALUES OF APARTMENT UNITS AUTHORIZED ANNUALLY IN TEXAS, 1958·1970 (In conalan1•• dollau) Total value Average value (million1J {tt.ou1and1) 350 7 300 250 5 200 150 100 50 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 •in urban places reporting building permih. ••u.S. Deportment of Commerce composite cost ind••: 1957-1959=100 . SELECTED STATISTICS ON HOUSING AUTHORIZED* IN STAND \RD \IETROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS, TEXAS, 1956-1970 Number of units authorized Per thousand Existing Percentage Standard metropolitan Total persons 1970 population housing units Column 2 of statistical area 19S6­1970 1961-1970 1961-1970 1970 census Column 4 Abilene ...... . . . ..... . ............... . 9,778 4,041 3S.S 40,332 10.0 Amarillo . . ... . ....... . .......... . .... . 17,749 10,672 73.9 S3,803 19.8 Austin . . ... . .. . . . .. . .. . .. .. .... . ..... . 47,993 39,70S 134.4 100,S62 39.S Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange . . ...... . ...... . 19,47S 10,S77 33.S 104,382 10.1 Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito . ........... . 6,346 3,880 27.6 41,393 9.4 Bryan-College Station ....... .. . . ......... . 6,27S 4,791 8S.7 18,471 2 S.9 Corpus Christi .. ... . . . ... . .... . ........ . 20,04S 14,182 49.8 89,798 1S.8 Dallas .. . ....... . ....... . ........ . ... . 269,082 208,020 133.7 S29,S03 39.3 El Paso .................. . ......... · · · 41,619 24,7Sl 68.9 101,1S2 24.S Fort Worth . . .. .. .... ................. . 94,992 70,S08 92.S 2S7 ,878 27.3 Galveston-Texas City ........... .. ....... . 9,S26 6,3SS 37.4 61,889 10.3 Houston ............ . ........ . ....... . 233,998 181,193 91.3 668,302 27.1 Laredo ... . .. . .. .. ................... . 3,124 1,794 24.6 19,488 9.2 Lubbock .......... . . .. ............ . .. . 23,986 lS,703 87.6 S8,614 26.8 McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg ........ . ......... . 10,20S 6,936 38.2 S0,719 13.7 Midland ........ . .................... . 10,470 4,080 62.4 22,840 17.9 Odessa ... . .................. . ....... . 9,829 2,789 30.4 30,426 9.2 San Angelo ............ . .............. . 6,1 S2 4,072 S7.3 24,892 16.4 San Antonio .... . ..................... . 70,004 S0,138 S8.0 260,898 19.2 Sherman-Denison ...................... . . 6,6S8 S,01 s 60.3 31,492 1S.9 Texarkana** .............. . .... . .... · . · 2,976 2,19S 21.7 3S,846 6.1 Tyler ........... . ........ . .. . ....... . Waco .... . .... . ...... . .............. . 6,643 10, I SS 4,118 6,818 42.4 46.2 33,846 S2,342 12.2 13.0 Wichita Falls .... . ...... . .... . ......... . 9,884 S,S8S 43.8 44,616 12.S Total SMSA** ....................... . 946,964 687,918 83.2 2,733,484 2S.2 Total non-SMSA 124,063 81,S36 27.S 1,101,482 7.4 Total Texas** 1,071,027 769,4S4 68.S 3,834,966 20.1 * In urban places reporting building permits. •• Includes Arkansas portion of Texarkana SMSA. 11 l MAY 1971 Statistical data compiled by Mildred Anderson, statistical associate, Constance Coo/edge and Glenda Riley, statistical assistants, and Kay Davis and Lydia Gorena, statistical technicians. The values of urban building permits have been collected from included in this section are statistics on bank debits, urban building participating municipal authorities by the Bureau of Business permits, and employment. The data are reported by metropolitan Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census of the U.S. areas in the first table below and by municipalities within counties Department of Commerce. Inasmuch as building permits are not in the second table. The indicators of local business conditions in Texas which are required by county authorities, it must be emphasized that the Standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's) in Texas are reported permits reflect construction intentions only in incor· defined by county lines; in the first table the counties included in porated places. Permits are reported for residential and nonresi­the area are listed under each SMSA. Since the Longview-Kilgore­ dential builrling only, and do not include public-works projects such Gladewater area is functioning as a significant metropolitan complex as roadways, waterways, or reservoirs; nor do they include in its region, although not officially designated as an SMSA by the construction let under federal contracts. Bureau of the Census, data for this area have been included in the The values of bank debits for all SMSA's and for most central table for SMSA's. In both tables the populations shown for the cities of the SMSA's have been collected by the Federal Reserve SMSA's and for the counties are the preliminary population counts Bank of Dallas. Bank debits for the remaining municipalities have of the 1970 census. In the second table the population values for been collected from cooperating banks by the Bureau of Business individual municipalities are also preliminary counts of the 1970 Research. census, unless otherwise indicated. Population estimates made for Employment estimates are compiled by the Texas Employment municipalities in noncensus years are commonly based on utilit y Commission in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics of connections, and these estimates are subject to the errors inherent in the U.S. Department of Labor. a process dependent on base ratios derived in 1960. Footnote symbols are defined on pp. 113 and 120. INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS March 1971 Percent change Percent change from from Mar Feb Mar Mar Feb Mar Reported area and indicator 1971 1971 1970 Reported area and indicator 1971 1971 1970 ABILENE SMSA BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION SMSA Jones and Taylor Counties; population 113,959 Brazos County; population 57,978 Urban building permits (dollars) 478,970 61 16 Urban building permits (dollars) 69 3, 11 5 -2 6 -85 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 181,245 -3 9 Bank debits ($ 1,000) 99,739 22 48 Nonfarm employment 40,800 ** ** (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Manufacturing employment 5,620 ** ** Bryan-College Station SMSA.) Unemployed (percent) 4.1 ** 24 CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA AMARILLO SMSA Nueces and San Patricio Counties; population 284,832Potter and Randall Counties; population 144,396 Urban building permits (dollars) 5,928,2 53 -28 41 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,319,485 -56 -6 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 520,704 -2 22 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 547,055 10 10 Nonfarm employment 96,300 7 Nonfarm employment 64,400 2 4 ** •• Manufacturing employment 11,540Manufacturing employment 8,440 2 9 Unemployed (percent) 3.9 -5 ** Unemployed (percent) 3.5 -10 3 DALLAS SMSA AUSTIN SMSA Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Kaufman, andTravis County; population 295,516 Rockwall Counties; population 1,555,950 Urban building permits (dollars) 12,397,037 5 18 Urban building permits (dollars) 60,409,347 40 -15 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 837,367 2 2 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 10,951,037 6 6 Nonfarm employment 135,100 1 7 Nonfarm employment 704,500 ** -3Manufacturing employment 11,960 1 2 Manufacturing employment 141,925 ** -16Unemployed (percent) 1.8 -14 -10 Unemployed (percent) 3.6 6 80 BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA EL PASO SMSA Jefferson and Orange Counties; population 315 943 El Paso County; population 359,291 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,926,28; -29 36 3 Urban building permits (dollars) 10,114,326 -17 ­ Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 537,083 _ 6 6 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 662,425 10 15 Nonfarm employment 119 000 ** -5 Nonfarm employment 116,000 ** ** Manufacturing employment 36'.200 2 -4 Manufacturing employment 24,700 2 2 Unemployed (percent) 5.3 _ 2 33 Unemployed (percent) 4.7 ** 9 BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA FORT WORTH SMSA Cameron County; population 140,368 Johnson and Tarrant Counties; population 762,086 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,159,805 105 43 60 143 Urban building permits (dollars) 30,181,002 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 183,210 4 21 31 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 2,309,108 15 Nonfarm employment 40,100 1 1 Nonfarm employment 294,700 ** -2 Manufacturing employment 6,210 2 3 Manufacturing employment 78,450 2 -17 Unemployed (percent) 6.8 4 3 74 Unemployed (percent) 4.7 -6 Percent change from Mar Feb Mar Reported area and indicator 1971 1971 1970 GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Galveston County; population 169,812 Urban building permits (dollars) 3,2S9,764 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 2S2,181 Nonfarm employment S8,200 Manufacturing employment 11,400 Unemployed (percent) S.4 HOUSTON SMSA Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, and Montgomery Counties; population 1,985,031 Urban building permits (dollars) S8,232,878 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 8,803,2S7 Nonfarm employment 863,SOO Manufacturing employment 147,000 Unemployed (percent) 2.8 LAREDO SMSA Webb County; population 72,859 Urban building permits (dollars) S3,090 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 90,302 Nonfarm employment 2S,1SO Manufacturing employment l,4SO Unemployed (percent) 12.0 114 7 1 2 s -lS -I -I ** -88 2 ** 2 -1 204 10 -6 -4 S4 84 9 33 -89 IS 2 -3 11 LONGVIEW-KILGORE-GLADEWATER METROPOLITAN AREA Gregg County; population 75,929 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,919,900 67 172 Bank debits ($1,000) 140,883 24 23 Nonfarm employment 3S,600 Manufacturing employment 10, 160 Unemployed (percent) S.0 6 67 (Building permits and bank debits are included for those portions of Kilgore and Gladewater in Rusk County and Upshur County.) LUBBOCK SMSA Lubbock County; population 179,295 Urban building permits (dollars) 3,9S6,4 l 6 27 212 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 414,493 12 14 Nonfarm employment 67,600 I s Manufacturing employment 7 ,480 I 3 Unemployed (percent) 3.S 5 •• McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA Hidalgo County; population 181,535 Urban building permits (dollars) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 160,629 5 16 Nonfarm employment 48,000 1 •• Manufacturing employment 4,300 7 9 Unemployed (percent) S.9 -11 4 MIDLAND SMSA Midland County; population 65,433 Urban building permits (dollars) 684,49S • * 29 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 173,860 S Nonfarm employment 61,600 ** -1 Manufacturing employment 5,1 SO I 2 Unemployed (percent) 3.8 6 36 (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and Odessa SMSA's since employment figures for Midland and Ector Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in combined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) • • Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent. . . . No data, or inadequate basis for reporting. Percent change from Mar Feb Mar Reported area and indicator 1971 1971 1970 ODESSA SMSA Ector County; population 91,805 Urban building permits (dollars) 630,280 S9 4 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 143,167 S 4 Nonfarm employment 61,600 • • 1 Manufacturing employment S,1 SO 1 2 Unemployed (percent) 3.8 6 36 (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and Odessa SMSA's since employment figures for Midland and Ector Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in combined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) SAN ANGELO SMSA Tom Green County; population 71,047 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,363,418 -28 3S Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 130,021 8 28 Nonfarm employment 23,900 s 1 Manufacturing employment 4,240 3 10 Unemployed (percent) 4.0 •• 14 SAN ANTONIO SMSA Bexar and Guadalupe Counties; population 864,014 Urban building permits (dollars) 14,81 l,07S 72 8 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) l,731,49S 2 2S Nonfarm employment 290,100 •• •• Manufacturing employment 3S, 100 •• -I Unemployed (percent) 4.4 •• 19 SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA Grayson County; population 83,225 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,298,694 41 -s Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 99,222 6 9 (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Sherman-Denison SMSA.) TEXARKANA SMSA Bowie County, Texas, and Miller County, Arkansas; population 101,198 Urban building permits (dollars) 348,9SS -68 1 S Bankdebits,seas.adj.($1,000) 131,170 •• 10 Nonfarm employment 39,700 ** -4 Manufacturing employment 9,200 • • -24 Unemployed (percent) 6.4 2 -6 (Since the Texarkana SMSA includes Bowie County in Texas and Miller County in Arkansas, all data, including population, refer to the two-county region.) TYLER SMSA Smith County; population 97,096 Urban building permits (dollars) l,57S,327 63 101 · Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 192,34S ** 9 Nonfarm employment 38,900 •• -2 Manufacturing employment 11,760 1 -7 Unemployed (percent) 3.4 -11 17 WACO SMSA McLennan County; population 147,553 Urban building permits 1,884,368 77 -73 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 278,753 6 14 Nonfarm employment S8,000 1 •• Manufacturing employment 11,360 •• -4 Unemployed (percent) 4.9 •• 11 WICHITA FALLS SMSA Archer and Wichita Counties; population 127,621 Urban building permits (dollars) 4,369,810 419 179 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 201,337 -s 17 Nonfarm employment 48,700 •• 1 Manufacturing employment S,560 2 3 Unemployed (percent) 3.4 -8 13 INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPALITIES MARCH 1971 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population* Mar 1971 (dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1971 1970 Marl971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1971 1970 ANDERSON 27,789 Palestine 14,525 170,825 83 -5 23,247 21 21 ANDREWS 10,372 Andrews 8,625 6,100 -90 -95 8,844 -11 ANGELINA 49,349 Lufkin 23,049 676,700 440 141 ARANSAS 8,902 Aransas Pass 5,813 8,157 22 --I ATASCOSA 18,696 Pleasanton 5,407 6,374 5 13 AUSTIN 13,831 Bellville 2,371 13,700 756 7,447 14 19 BAILEY 8,487 Muleshoe 4,525 14,253 3 7 BASTROP 17,297 Smithville 2,959 34,777 -53 2,626 8 7 BEE 22,737 Beeville 13,506 13,564 -43 -83 22,160 21 27 BELL 124,483 Bartlett 1,622 1,344 21 33Belton 8,696 156,450 23 Killeen 35,507 990,000 69 181 37,133 17 sTemple 33,431 592,064 23 -69 68,840 22 29 BEXAR 830,460 (In San Antonio SMSA) San Antonio 654,153 12,184,818 67 -8 l,789,S40 20 30 BOWIE 67,813 (In Texarkana SMSA) Texarkana S2,l 79 285,155 -74 4 llS,004 12 14 BRAZORIA 108,312 (In Houston SMSA) Angleton 9,770 210,800 60 191 17,139 -s -6 Clute 6,023 6,S28 13 2S 6,311 S4Freeport 11,997 27,583 3 7Pearland 6,444 S06,600 30 67 8,849 7 34 BRAZOS 57,978 (Constitutes Bryan- College Station SMSA) Bryan 33,719 496,645 -28 -89 88,994 24 SI College Station 17,676 196,470 -20 88 10,745 6 28 BREWSTER 7,780Alpine S,971 S3,498 -39 -79 S,S61 •• 10 BROWN 25,877Brownwood 17,368 16-3,075 -65 125 BURLESON 9,999Caldwell 2,308 4,038 IS 19 BURNET 11,420 Marble Falls 2,209 5,891 -2 26 CALDWELL 21,178Lockhart 6,489 64,03S -80 103 8,753 11 8 CAMERON 140,368 (Constitutes Brownsville­Harlingen-San Benito SMSA) Brownsville 52,S22 Harlingen 888,750 273 346 68,986 20 16 33,503 La Feria I 93,S80 -s 71 80,968 14 27 2,642 Los Fresnos 2,160 -17 209 3,075 24 -8 1,297 Port Isabel 2,154 33 32 3,067 San Benito 3,136 24 18 15,176 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population• Mar 1971 (dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1971 1970 Mar 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1971 1970 CASTRO Dimmitt 10,394 4,327 19,031 24 17 CHEROKEE Jacksonville 32,008 9,734 40S,407 2S,746 11 16 COLLIN (In Dallas SMSA) McKinney Plano 66,920 lS,193 17,872 86,764 1,449,473 -- 1 23 -4S 266 14,296 19,470 4 2 13 99 COLORADO Eagle Lake 17,638 3,S87 S,347 12 -7 COMAL New Braunfels 24,16S 17,8S9 441,3SO 32 24 24,3S3 16 18 COOKE Gainesville Muenster 23,471 13,830 1,411 39,1 so 26,000 S7 -86 19,8S3 3,410 10 14 26 3S CORYELL Copperas Cove Gatesville 3S,311 10,818 4,683 S63,90S 81 2S3 4,460 9,2S4 13 8 31 14 CRANE Crane 4,172 3,427 0 2,663 31 9 DALLAS (In Dallas SMSA) Carrollton Dallas Farmers Branch Garland Grand Prairie Irving Lancaster Mesquite Richardson Seagoville 1,327,321 13,8SS 844,401 27,492 81,437 S0,904 97,260 10,522 5S,l 31 48,S82 4,390 419,33S 27,422,069 2,890,614 9,967,232 3,119,0S8 3,84S,S99 2S6,310 1,619,754 122,381 -90 45 313 99 117 172 -4S -19 233 11 -49 647 149 80 189 -15 69 15,250 10,767,531 2S,462 75,894 37,796 87,041 9,391 16,446 SS,666 14,044 14 17 -3 39 9 18 9 -28 IS 36 28 8 30 18 24 25 12 -29 8 111 DAWSON Lamesa 16,604 11,SS9 82,100 2 17 26,266 -7 2S DEAF SMITH Hereford 18,999 13,414 277,900 480 - 24 DENTON (In Dallas SMSA) Denton Justin Lewisville Pilot Point 7S,633 39,874 741 9,264 1,663 3,09S,70S 46,000 384,200 207 -62 471 37 67,972 1,S04 16,12S 2,841 29 lS 24 18 26 38 S9 3S DE WITT Yoakum 18,660 5,75S 275,8SO 388 11,623 12 EASTLAND Cisco 18,092 4,160 4,691 11 13 ECTOR (Constitutes Odessa SMSA) Odessa 91,80S 78,380 630,280 59 4 14S,554 12 14 ELLIS (In Dallas SMSA) Ennis Midlothian Waxahachie 46,638 11,046 2,322 13,4S2 I 76,27S 1S7,87S 109 76 10,3SS 2,423 19,302 18 22 8 14 31 23 EL PASO (Constitutes El Paso SMSA) El Paso 3S9,291 322,261 10,114,326 -17 -3 737,787 31 18 ERATH Stephenville 18,191 9,277 182,900 130 197 15,403 14 18 FANNIN Bonham 22,70S 7,698 172,900 82 -89 14,208 11 20 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population• Marl971 (dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1971 1970 Mar 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1971 1970 FAYETTE Schulenburg I 7,6SO 2,294 30,000 -84 39 FORT BEND (In Houston SMSA) Richmond Rosenberg 52,314 S,777 12,098 I 16,4SO 172,7S6 6 SI 309 27 9,34S 9,166 -32 -s GAINES Seagraves Seminole ll,S93 2,440 S,007 17,700 SS,967 102 269 3,158 8,221 3 23 25 36 GALVESTON (Constitutes Galveston-Texas City SMSA) Dickinson Galveston La Marque Texas City 169,812 10,776 61,809 16,131 38,908 3,010,034 249,730 460 -70 238 74 IS,683 160,4S2 19,028 37,004 •• 13 6 -10 12 19 -10 -II GILLESPIE Fredericksburg 10,SS3 S,326 308,l7S 268 16,766 10 12 GONZALES Nixon 16,37S l,92S 42,100 GRAY Pampa 26,949 21,726 2,719,9SO 38,S3S 18 -I GRAYSON (Constitutes Sherman-Denison SMSA) Denison Sherman 83,22S 24,923 29,061 198,600 l,08S,094 -13 6S -SS 21 34,0S3 S8,07S 2S 13 s 10 GREGG (Constitutes Longview-Kilgore-Gladewater Metropolitan Area) Gladewater Kilgore Longview 75,929 S,S74 9,49S 4S,S47 64,800 90,800 1,764,300 -6 IS 76 117 36 190 6,649 I 9,S6S 114,669 13 21 2S 22 13 22 GUADALUPE (In San Antonio SMSA) Schertz Seguin 33,SS4 4,061 IS,934 43,890 1,130,060 474 997 906 1,154 24,498 14 11 53 IS HALE Hale Center Plainview 34, 137 1,964 19,096 0 l 33,8SO 90 -11 S6,869 18 10 HARDEMAN Quanah 6,79S 3,948 0 7,378 20 16 HARDIN Silsbee 29,996 7,271 13,116 13 16 HARRIS (In Houston SMSA) Baytown Bellaire Deer Park Houston Humble La Porte Pasadena South Houston Tomball 1,741,912 43,980 19,009 12,773 1,232,802 3,278 7,149 89,277 ll,S27 2,734 8S4,37S 2,S 18,898 289,681 48,947,668 S6,6SO 2,586,964 275,000 68,000 29 -10 -23 -S7 228 2S -so 130 148 80 -S2 6S 9S6 7S,117 69,291 13,SOS 8,774,074 10,832 7,600 119,707 17,087 12 26 -17 18 s IS 17 7 37 46 2 14 23 53 10 71 HARRISON Hallsville Marshall 44,841 1,038 22,937 216,824 -76 -87 1,216 30,017 9 2 21 12 HASKELL Haskell 8,Sl2 3,6SS 12,000 -70 4,846 -6 28 HAYS San Marcos 27,642 18,860 977,38S 26 93S lS,235 -7 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population• Mar 1971 (dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1971 1970 Mar 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1971 1970 HENDERSON Athens 26,466 9,582 79,600 61 -19 17,100 25 29 HIDALGO (Constitutes McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg SMSA) Alamo Donna Edinburg Elsa McAllen Mercedes Mission Pharr San Juan Weslaco 181,535 4,291 7,365 17'163 4,400 37,636 9,355 13,043 15,829 5,070 15,313 5,000 20,253 146,035 3,745 75,288 174,815 33,300 173,294 -78 -65 -94 11 826 68 4 -22 -95 117 -65 93 571 3,850 6,773 30,881 6,226 67,657 8,533 21,524 7,490 5,029 21,141 - 5 17 8 21 21 14 12 21 48 12 5 43 13 43 24 14 23 10 64 28 HOCKLEY Levelland 20,396 11,445 69,209 -8 30 22,467 - 8 13 HOOD Granbury 6,368 2,473 3,011 27 - 10 HOPKINS Sulphur Springs 20,710 10,642 201,700 15 85 30,801 24 29 HOWARD Big Spring 37,796 28,735 69,715 356 - 2 58,736 12 14 HUNT Greenville 47,948 22,043 186,630 -76 719 28,951 5 11 HUTCHINSON Borger 24,443 14,195 15,900 -54 -77 JACKSON Edna 12,975 5,332 57,755 6 66 7,764 - 21 JASPER Jasper Kirbyville 24,692 6,251 1,869 38,500 -51 27 18,797 3,482 11 32 10 4 JEFFERSON (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Beaumont Groves Nederland Port Arthur Port Neches 244,773 115,919 18,067 16,810 57,371 10,894 1,254,251 213,277 113,578 148,569 -53 72 -86 -29 -27 158 14 88 341,234 17,933 11,759 123,524 19,640 6 24 4 27 12 4 30 9 30 21 JIM WELLS Alice 33,032 20,121 174,628 -13 - 1 48,180 22 26 JOHNSON (In Fort Worth SMSA) Cleburne 45,769 16,015 259,440 8 153 29,232 36 35 KARNES Karnes City 13,462 2,926 135,450 903 5,353 16 20 KAUFMAN (In Dallas SMSA) Terrell 32,392 14,182 172,764 -88 105 KIMBLE Junction 3,904 2,654 3,000 2,846 8 20 KLEBERG Kingsville 33,166 28,711 991,130 136 306 26,939 18 18 LAMAR Paris 36,062 23,441 331,667 153 188 LAMB Littlefield 17,770 6,738 3,400 - 41 10,749 7 3 LAMPASAS Lampasas 9,323 5,922 13,600 -74 - 86 11,139 15 26 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population • Mar 1971 (dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1971 1970 Mar 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1971 1970 LAVACA Hallettsville Yoakum 17,903 2,712 5,755 43, 108 275,850 274 388 7 4,671 11,623 2 l 17 12 LEE Giddings 8,048 2,783 22,450 -15 492 6,966 10 9 LIBERTY (In Houston SMSA) Dayton Liberty 33,014 3,804 5,591 59,300 46,400 -50 307 -64 -28 8,261 15,567 2 3 10 -s LIMESTONE Mexia 18,100 5,943 4,600 -84 10,098 20 19 LLANO Kingsland ( 1969) Llano 6,979 1,200 2,608 280,850 800 6,447 5,934 27 16 82 31 LUBBOCK (Constitutes Lubbock SMSA) Lubbock Slaton 179,295 149,101 6,583 3,841,916 114,500 24 209 381,191 6,970 7 13 IS 27 LYNN Tahoka 9,107 2,956 124,000 328 5,768 -3 McCULLOCH Brady 8,571 5,557 125,250 204 83 9,455 20 11 McLENNAN (Constitutes Waco SMSA) McGregor Waco 147,553 4,365 95,326 0 1,808,568 77 -74 5,623 270,776 20 21 21 19 MATAGORDA Bay City 27,913 11,733 68,200 13 -36 23,315 8 MAVERICK Eagle Pass 18,093 15,364 1,429,304 56 14,753 18 29 MEDINA Castroville Hondo 20,249 1,893 5,487 88,900 39,690 27 -70 423 -96 1,780 5,740 13 18 23 12 MIDLAND (Constitutes Midland SMSA) Midland 65,433 59,463 684,495 •• 29 186,204 18 II MILAM Cameron Rockdale 20,028 5,546 4,655 0 209,625 684 7,871 9,238 13 10 16 26 MILLS Goldthwaite 4,212 1,693 6,053 25 22 MITCHELL Colorado City 9,073 5,227 6,442 4 IS MONTGOMERY (In Houston SMSA) Conroe 49,479 11,969 341,000 30 57 47,686 24 47 MOORE Dumas 14,060 9,771 154,578 59 NACOGDOCHES Nacogdoches NAVARRO Corsicana NOLAN Sweetwater NUECES (Jn Corpus Christi SMSA) Bishop Corpus Christi Port Aransas 36,362 22,544 31,150 19,972 16,220 12,020 237,544 3,466 204,525 228,835 157,307 19,755 30,000 5,334 ,440 -29 17 -79 757 -31 21 72 385 57 36,951 38,025 22,341 2,564 441,697 12 16 11 •• 6 26 38 -9 23 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population• Mar 1971 (dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1971 1970 Mar 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1971 1970 NUECES (continued) Port Aransas Robstown 1,218 11,217 193,414 38 65 1,157 19,587 -2 11 34 50 ORANGE (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Orange 71,170 24,457 1,188,526 360 632 56,310 -2 19 PALO PINTO Mineral Wells 28,962 18,411 30,963 -46 -69 32,951 20 5 PANOLA Carthage 15,894 5,392 42,824 22 -79 5,592 3 15 PARKER Weatherford 33,888 11,750 31,900 -68 -65 25,502 13 4 PARMER Friona 10,509 3,111 81,000 - 3 194 28,227 38 12 PECOS Fort Stockton 13,748 8,283 59,100 32 315 POTTER (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo 90,511 127,010 2,177,785 -59 -10 543,965 23 13 RANDALL (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo (See Potter) Canyon 53,885 8,333 141,700 498 166 11,289 9 4 REEVES Pecos 16,526 12,682 21,600 -70 23,112 8 6 REFUGIO Refugio 9,494 4,340 10,800 4,917 •• 9 RUSK Henderson Kilgore 34,102 10,187 9,495 132,427 90,800 -10 15 - 3 36 20,488 19,565 12 21 24 13 SAN PATRICIO (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Aransas Pass Sinton 47,288 5,813 5,563 110,583 58 918 8,157 10,643 -22 lS -I 55 SAN SABA San Saba S,S40 2,S55 10,510 7,726 13 IS SCURRY Snyder 15,760 11, 171 27,SOO 3S8 -94 19,1S8 3 5 SHACKELFORD Albany 3,323 1,978 0 3,634 27 •• SHERMAN Stratford 3,657 2,139 14,000 2SO 13,1 S4 13 - 16 SMITH (Constitutes Tyler SMSA) Tyler 97,096 S7,770 1,518,827 77 94 191,769 12 14 STEPHENS Breckenridge 8,414 5,944 880,400 SUTTON Sonora 3,l 7S 2,149 200 -99 3,113 4 8 TARRANT (In Fort Worth SMSA) Arlington Euless Fort Worth Grapevine North Richland Hills White Settlement 716,317 90,643 19,316 393,476 7,023 16,Sl4 13,449 I 7,S9S,899 626,244 6,7S3,641 25S,667 767,9SO 69,553 129 -6S 33 S93 113 29 199 273 7S 50 549 6 123,577 16,801 2,104,167 7,761 18,9S4 6,126 - 13 8 36 7 20 11 10 20 36 4 43 -44 TAYLOR (In Abilene SMSA) Abilene 97,8 S3 89,6S3 439,470 49 ISO 163,6S5 13 12 MAY 197 1 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population• Mar 1971 (dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1971 1970 Mar 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1971 1970 TERRY 14,118 Brownfield 9,647 131,290 87 13 29,060 •• 26 TITUS 16,702 Mount Pleasant 8,877 167,650 51 890 23,073 21 21 TOM GREEN 71,047 (Constitutes San Angelo SMSA) San Angelo 63,884 1,363,418 -28 35 130,845 22 35 TRAVIS 295,S 16 (Constitutes Austin SMSA) Austin 251,808 12,390,037 5 21 862,676 •• 4 UPSHUR 20,976 Gladewater 5,574 64,800 -6 117 6,649 13 22 UPTON 4,697 McCamey 2,647 2,207 21 12 UVALDE 17,348 Uvalde 10,764 276,762 226 817 22,662 13 16 VAL VERDE Del Rio 27,471 21,330 410,744 159 206 21,738 18 9 VICTORIA 53,766 Victoria 41,349 502,965 11 104,396 IS 17 WALKER Huntsville 27,680 17,610 164,400 -86 44 26,503 37 2 WARD Monahans 13,019 8,333 16,400 -24 249 13,100 -5 9 WASHINGTON Brenham 18,842 8,922 161,990 -16 -83 24,325 21 28 WEBB (Constitutes Laredo SMSA) 72,859 Laredo 69,024 53,090 -88 -89 91,284 15 17 WHARTON El Campo 36,729 8,563 113,646 65 28 18,624 -2 10 WICHITA (In Wichita Falls SMSA) 121,862 Burkburnett Iowa Park Wichita Falls 9,230 5,796 97,564 8,725 62,242 4,298,843 -58 183 438 -92 50 203 8,433 4,237 201,606 10 23 13 -1 20 23 WILBARGER Vernon 15,355 11,454 54,700 130 -21 25,010 12 11 WILLACY Raymondville 15,570 7,987 9,300 210 210 13,413 23 49 WILLIAMSON Bartlett Georgetown Taylor 37,305 1,622 6,395 9,616 91,850 157,615 70 115 19 9 1,344 16,040 21 29 33 19 WINKLER Kermit 9,640 7,884 0 WISE Decatur 19,687 3,240 32,500 23 5,881 16 YOUNG Graham Olney 15,400 7,477 3,624 319,671 5,800 764 -37 17,112 6,251 22 12 42 15 ZAVALA Crystal City 11,370 8,104 142,200 102 30 6,800 4 -6 • For 1970 unless otherwise indicated. ** Absolute change is less than one half of 'l percent. . . . No data, or inadequate basis for reporting. 120 BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (All figures are for Texas unless otherwise indicated.) All indexes are based on the average months for 1957-1959 except where other specification is made; all except annual indexes are adjusted for seasonal variation unless otherwise noted. Employment estimates are compiled by the Texas Employment Commission in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The symbols used below impose qualifications as indicated here: p-preliminary data subject to revision; r-revised data; *-dollar totals for the fiscal year to date; t-employment data for wage and salary workers only. Year-to-date average Mar Feb Mar 1971 1971 1970 1971 1970 GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY Estimates of personal income (millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted) $ 3,335p $ 3,233p $ 3,212r $ 3,268 $ 3,180 Income payments to individuals in U.S. (billions, at seasonally adjusted annual rate) ..... $ 836.3p $ 830.4p $ 787.6r $ 831.4 $ 782.3 Wholesale prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) 119.9 119.7 116.6 119.4 116.3 Consumer prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) 139.3 138.9 133.2 138.9 132.5 Sales of ordinary life insurance (index) 280.3 279.3 249.1 271.0 249.4 PRODUCTION Total electric-power use (index) .... Industrial electric-power use (index) Crude-oil production (index) Average daily production per oil well (bbl.) Crude-oil runs to stills (index) ........ Industrial production in U.S. (index) .... Texas industrial production-total (index) Texas industrial production-total manufactures (index) Texas industrial production-durable manufactures (index) Texas industrial production-nondurable manufactures (index) Texas industrial production-mining (index) .. Texas industrial production-utilities (index) .... Urban building permits issued (index) ........ New residential building authorized (index) ... New nonresidential building authorized (index) 267.7p 232.lp 123.4p 18.3 138.2 165.2p 181.lp 200.4p 199.2p 201.2p 136.2p 275.2p 232.5 202.1 280.6 276.6p 250.4p 122.9p 18.3 138.7 164.9p 181.3p 201.1 p 200.7p 201.3p 136.0p 275.2p 226.6 215.2 254.6 250.3r 226.7 119.9r 17.1 114.9 171.lr 180.1r 203.1 r 218.4r 192.9r 132.6r 257.3r 184.7 125.5 295.1 271.1 238.0 124.7 18.3 139.3 165.2 180.5 199.9 201.1 199.1 135.7 274.6 218.5 190.2 267.3 254.7 229.3 120.4 17.0 128.7 170.7 180.3 203.7 221.8 191.6 131.9 259.2 170.8 121.8 251.0 AGRICULTURE Prices received by farmers (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100} Prices paid by farmers in U.S. (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100) 277 403 281 403 281 385 277 402 280 385 Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid by farmers ... 69 70 73 69 73 FINANCE Bank debits (index) Bank debits, U.S. (index) 342.4 391.1 323.5 394.3 300.4 339.2 329.1 385.1 295.4 335.9 Reporting member banks, Dallas Federal Reserve District Loans (millions) .................... Loans and investments (millions) .......... Adjusted demand deposits (millions) ........ Revenue receipts of the state comptroller (thousands) Federal Internal Revenue collections (thousands) $ 6,681 $ 9,736 $ 3,595 $272,216 $671,748 $ 6,580 $ 9,561 $ 3,387 $328,754 $713,429 $ 6,020 $ 8,584 $ 3,413 $220,488 $562,486 $ 6,640 $ 9,629 $ 3,449 $ 281,827 $5,285,005 $ 6,011 $ 8,588 $ 3,270 $ 249,715 $5,085,676 Securities registrations-original applications Mutual 'investment companies (thousands} $ 31,805 $ 24,050 $ 15,529 $ 163,922 $ 231,221 All other corporate securities Texas companies (thousands} Other companies (thousands} ....... ....... $ 12, 148 $ 36,875 $ 8,199 $ 12,085 $ 21,022 $ 21,611 $ 86,159 $ 135,646 $ 92,730 $ 184,677 Securities registration-renewals Mutual investment companies (thousands) Other corporate securities (thousands) ... $ 22,279 $ 1,452 $ 34,036 $ 1,500 $ 21,793 $ 2,269 $ 266,281 $ 7,745 $ 211,917 $ 5,889 LABOR Total nonagricultural employment in Texas (index)t Manufacturing employment in Texas (index)t Average weekly hours-manufacturing (index)t Average weekly earnings-manufacturing (index)t Total nonagricultural employment (thousands)t .. Total manufacturing employment (thousands)t Durable-goods employment (thousands)t .. Nondurable-goods employment (thousands)t 147.3p 145.7P 99.3p 156.0p 3,614.3 705.2 371.3 333.9 147.9p 147.1p 99.5p 155.9p 3,608.7 707.9 374.3 333.6 147.1 r 156.0r 99.7r 149.lr 3,609.4 755.0 422.3 332.7 147.5 146.8 99.2 155.7 3,608.7 707.8 374.3 333.5 147.4 1-56.8 99.6 148.6 3,608.1 756.2 424.5 331.7 Total civilian labor force in selected labor-market areas (thousands) ............... 3,482.2 3,473.6 3,457.0 3,477.6 3,443.2 Nonagricultural employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands} .................... 3,269.9 3,265.9 3,278.8 3,268.3 3,271.7 Manufacturing employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) ................... 589.2 591.0 637.8 591.7 639.4 Total unemployment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) ................... 134.6 135.7 101.2 136.2 97.5 Percent of labor force unemployed in selected labor-market areas .................. 3.9 3.9 2.9 3.9 2.8 BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH RETURN REQUESTED THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712 TEXAS LABOR LAWS A Guide to Laws Affecting Employers, Employees, and Labor Organizations by Joan McCrea Labor law in the United States results directly from the shift of the American economy from an agricultural to an industrial polarization. With industrialization came the development of labor unions and the need for legal definitions, guidelines, and safeguards. The legal status of labor unions has evolved from repressive common-law decisions of the nineteenth century, through sympathetic New Deal legislation of the 1930's, to a balanced-power philosophy as express.ed in congressional acts of 194 7 and 1959. Federal law encourages union organization and collective bargaining, while protecting the rights of individual workers and of the general public. Consequent to passage of federal legislation the states enacted various laws modeled on the federal statutes. State law was severely limited, however, by the expansion of federal-law jurisdiction through a broadened interpretation of interstate commerce, which left to state coverage principally small retail-sales firms, service operations, and agriculture, which is usually excluded from federal labor laws. Labor legislation has becorrie so comprehensive yet so detailed, so multifarious yet so particularized, so universally applicable yet so inaccessible to nonlawyers, that workers and small employers need help in understanding how its provisions affect them. Realizing this need, Dr. Joan McCrea, associate professor of economics at The University of Texas at Arlington, has prepared this brief guide to Texas Labor Laws. It is a very useful aid to workers, small employers, students, and other laymen who lack easy access to the laws which significantly affect workers, employers, and labor unions in Texas. The Bureau of Business Research is pleased to present this helpful handbook on Texas labor law as No. 14 in its Business Guides series. $2.00 65 pp. (Texas residents add $ . 09 sales tax.) Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas at Austin