TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW VOL. XLV, NO. 6, JUNE 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 121 : The Business Situation in Texas, by Joe H. Jones 124: Measuring Texas Housing Needs, by Robert E. Nor­wood 127 : Industry, the Disadvantaged, and Medicine, by F. J. Kelley, M.D. 130: Texas Construction: New Towns and Communities, by Graham Blackstock TABLES 122: Indexes of Consumer Prices, U.S. and Houston 123: Estimates of Nonagricultural Employment in Texas 123: Nonagricultural Employment in Texas Selected Labor-Market Areas 128: Hiring the Hard-Core Unemployed 129: Major Medical Findings of 4,356 Pre-Employment Examinations 130: Comparison of Major Physical Defects Found in Urban Disadvantaged Minority (4,356) and Rural (91 ,087) Population 131 : Estimated Values of Building Authorized in Texas 132: Local Business Conditions Barometers of Texas Business (inside back cover) CHARTS 121 : Estimated Personal Income, Texas 122: Total Unemployment, Texas 123: Industrial Production: Durable Manufactures, Texas 123: Industrial Production: Nondurable Manufactures, Texas 126: Nonresidential Building Authorized, Texas 131 : Total Building Authorized, Texas 131 : Residential Building Authorized, Texas 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 Assistant to the Director: Florence Escott Statistician: John R. Stockton Consulting Statistician: Francis B. May Sy stems 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 A ssociates: Graham Blackstock, Margaret Fielder, Letitia Hitz, Ida M. Lambeth, Robert M. Lockwood, Robert H. Ryan, Stella Saxon, Charles P. Zlatkovich Research Assistant: Edward Hildebrandt Statistical Associate: Mildred Anderson Statistical Assistants: Constance Cooledge, Glenda Riley Statistical Technicians: Kay Davis, Lydia Gorena Computer Assistant: Lawrence Grossman, Jr. Cartographers: Penelope Lewis, Charles W. Montfort Librarian: Merle Danz Administrative Secretary: Jeanette Pryor Administrative Clerk: Margaret Eriksen Senior Secretary: Mary Ann Gready 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~ 78712. Second-class postage paid at Austin, Texas. Content of this publication is not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely, but acknowledgment of source will be appreciated. The views expressed by authors are not necessarily those of the Bureau of Business Research. Subscription, $4.00 a year; individual copies 35 cents. THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS Joe H. Jones The current status of the Texas economy, as well as the immediate prospects for significant recovery, can best be described as checkered. Encouraging indications of both current and prospective economic strength are apparent, but these areas of improvement must be weighed against some current soft spots in state employment and some increasingly insistent questions as to the national economic recovery. At the state level uneven effects of unemploy­ment are evident in industrial sectors and in geographic regions of Texas. Questions of national recovery which will have direct effects on the state center on the recent upturn in interest rates, the readjustments underway in inter­national monetary exchange rates, and the forthcoming labor negotiations in primary-metals industries. Some assurances of statewide recovery are offered by increases seen in Texas personal income. After having faltered in 1970 in advancing from the second to the third quarter and from the third to the fourth quarter at rates of increase less than 1 percent, Texas personal income showed a clear increase in the first-quarter estimate prepared by the Bureau of Business Research.1 At an annual rate of S4 l ,368 1 The regression model providing monthly estimates of Texas personal income has been revised from the income model reported in the April 1970 and the April 1971 issues of this Rel'iew. The new income estimates are based on a multiple linear regression of quarterly personal income on time, Texas bank debits, and insured unemployment. The quarterly measures of state personal income million, personal income in Texas for the first quarter of 1971 is estimated to have increased 3 percent over income received in the last quarter of 1970. The 2.5-percent rate of income advance into April of this year, determined for estimated Texas personal income of $42 ,396 million on an annual basis, showed recovery momentum continuing into the second quarter. Total nonagricultural employment has remained essen­tially unchanged, on a seasonally adjusted basis, for the first four months of this year. The contrast of this stable employment level with the absolute declines experienced in Texas manufacturing employment is encouraging but the continuing losses of potential employment are not. In comparison with total nonagricultural employment of 3,649 thousand in April of last year the 3,634 thousand Texans employed in April 1971 is a net loss of 15,000 jobs, which can be attributed principally to job losses in durable-goods manufacturing. In relation to the first four months of 1970 employment in durable-goods manu­facturing through April of this year has been lower by some used as the dependent variable have been made by the Office of Business Economics of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The coefficient of multiple determination for the new model is .9979, with a standard error of the estimate of $249.38 million based on quarterly personal income at annual rates. The beta coefficients in the model are .6535 for time, .3646 for bank debits, and .0247 for insured unemployment. ESTIMATED PERSONAL INCOME, TEXAS lnde:ic Adjuated for Seaaonal 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 insured unemployment. JUNE 1971 121 12 percent or, in absolute numbers, by approximately 50,000 jobs. This magnitude of loss in manufacturing employment has been substantially offset by employment increases in the trade, financial, service, and governmental sectors of the state economy. The varying effects of unemployment within state industrial sectors is mirrored in the geographic regional impact of unemployment. Six of the state's twenty-two major labor-market areas had unemploy"ment rates exceed­ing 5 percent in April, with Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, Laredo, and Texarkana registering isolated highs of 7.8-, 10.4-, and 6.6-percent rates of unemployment respec­tively. Extensive unemployment was the exception in the remainder of the regularly monitored labor-market areas of the state. No evidence of a generalized problem of unemployment was evident in the significantly low unem­ployment rates of 1.8 percent in Austin and 2. 7 percent in Houston. During the latter part of May the pressure of large volumes of dollar holdings in European financial markets culminated in an adjustment in dollar exchange rates with foreign currencies. After adjustment the dollar exchanged at rates 4 to 5 percent below the official rates prevailing earlier in the year. Some net gold outflows from the United States were· experienced as the pace of dollar conversions gained momentum. The surfeit of dollars in foreign markets, which precipitated the monetary adjustments, is a consequence of import-export imbalances in our inter­national exchanges over the past few years, for both private and governmental transactions. Large expenditures for military support in foreign countries have been a major contributor to the net dollar outflows culminating in the recent flurry on international monetary markets. A recently developed impetus to dollar outflow has been the decline in domestic interest rates and the consequent attraction of U.S. venture capital to the higher rates available in foreign markets. Some analysts have seen elements of benefit in the adjustment of exchange rates. It has been suggested that price increases for foreign goods implied in the new exchange rates will constructively dampen import sales, increase domestic demand for domestic products, and decrease dollar outflows. These presumed benefits can result only if price increases of 4 to 5 percent have a measurable effect on the sale of imported products. Such a response of U.S. consumer and industrial purchasers is speculative; price increases of larger magnitude than this have passed without notice in the economic history of the past year. The consequences of the continuing dollar outflow and international recognition of a weakened U.S. dollar are of some significance to administrative policy makers. Foreign governments, concerned by instability. in international money markets, would like to see an increase in the rate of interest in the United States. Increases in U.S. interest rates could be achieved only at the expense of aborting a precariously maintained national economic recovery. After the downturns in interest rates experienced in the first four months of 1971, interest rates turned upward again in late April and early May in response to increasing demands for funds. One short-run effect, apparently, has been to spur home purchases by some potential buyers who had been waiting for further rate drops. The long-run effects of increasing rates on the construction industry are too painfully evident from the devastating experiences of 1969 and 1970. The Administration is facing a dilemma of significant proportions. To increase interest rates as discouragement to dollar outflows would imperil the current economic recovery. Ignoring the exchange-rate adjustments impelled by the pressures of additional dollars abroad can be done only by paying increasing prices for foreign goods. Some foreign purchases, of course, can be deferred, but long-run support commitments for stationed military forces will require expenditures in foreign markets at increasing prices. What cannot be avoided is the realization that the United States is paying the price of military adventures in the most painful possible manner. TOTAL UNEMPLOYMENT, TEXAS Irides Adju!ted for Seu on•/ Va,,•t 1on 1957 19$9 •JOO - SOURCE: Tau• Employment Commi•non. Dau. adj•.iated for ••• 101\&I var.atton by the 8'1Ze&u or Bueine•• Re•earcb. NOTE: S"i:&c!ed &rell.1 indicate pe :r1od1 of dec;hne of total bunneu ac:t1v1ty •n the United Sutu INDEXES OF CONSUMER PRICES U.S. AND HOUSTON, TEXAS (1967 =100) Percent change Classification Apr 1971 Apr 1971 fro m Mar 1971 Apr 1971 from Apr 1970 All items United States Houston, Texas 120.2 119.S 0.3 0.2 4.3 2.8 Food United States Houston, Texas 117.8 117.8 0.7 I.I 2.8 2.0 Housing United States Houston, Texas 122 .S 122.7 - 0.1 0.4 4.2 2.8 Apparel and upkeep United States Houston, Texas 119.1 121.7 0.4 1.2 3.6 2.4 Transportation United States Houston, Texas 118. 1 113.2 - 0.3 1.2 6.2 4.6 Health and recreation United States Houston, Texas 121.2 120.2 0.5 0.7 5.5 2.9 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW ESTIMATES OF NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT IN TEXAS IN TEXAS SELECTED LABOR-MARKET AREAS Industry Employment Apr* 1971 (thousands) Total nonagricultural employment Manufacturing Durable goods Lumber and wood products Furniture and fixtures Stone, clay, and glass products Primary-metal industries Fabricated-metal products Machinery, except electrical Oil-field machinery Electrical machinery and equipment Transportation equipment Aircraft and parts Instruments and related products Other durable goods Nondurable goods Food and kindred products Meat products Textile-mill products Apparel and fabricated textiles Paper and allied products Printing and publishing Chemicals and allied products Industrial chemicals Petroleum and coal products Other nondurable goods Nonmanufacturing Mining Crude petroleum and natural gas Contract construction Transportation Communication Public utilities Trade Wholesale trade Retail trade Building materials, hardware, and farm equipment General merchandise Food stores Automotive dealers and service stations Apparel and accessories Other retail trade Finance, insurance, and real estate Banking Services Hotels and lodging places Laundries and cleaners Other services Government Federal 3,634.0 706.2 372.S 20.8 17.2 30.1 S3.8 S3.8 67.1 27.8 4S.3 7S .7 48.2 13.3 14.9 333.7 86.0 18.2 6.9 63.8 16.2 41.6 62.9 3S.6 38.9 17.4 2 ,927.8 103.2 96.8 208.8 149.8 SS. I 47.4 886.8 261.3 62S.S 33.7 128.2 102.4 96.6 39.1 22S.S 196.7 SO.S S96.4 40.4 31.8 S24.2 683.6 IS9.I Percent change Apr 1971 Apr 1971 Apr Mar Apr from from Labor-market area 1971 1971 1970 Mar 1971 Apr 1970 I 3 3 I 2 4 3 6 II .. I 7 8 -22 -24 -34 -3 -13 .. I 3 Abilene Amarillo Austin ........... . Beaumont-Port Arthur- Orange ......... . Brownsville-Harlingen- San Benito Corpus Christi Dallas ............ . El Paso ........... . Fort Worth ........ . Galveston-Texas City . Houston ..... ..... . Laredo ........... . Longview-Kilgore- Gladewater ...... . Lubbock ........ . . McAllen-Pharr- Edinburg . ....... . Midland-Odessa ..... . San Angelo .. ... .. . . San Antonio ....... . Texarkana ........ . Tyler .. . ......... . Waco ........... . . Wichita Falls Total, labor-market 40,900 6S,430 I 3S,7SO 118,900 39,880 9S,920 706,700 11 S,9SO 294,SOO S8,900 868,600 2S,64S 3S,690 67,34S 48,130 61,7SO 23,830 292,7SO 39,640 38,990 S8,310 48,72S 40,800 40,980 64,420 64,130 I 3S,OSO 128,100 119,200 121,900 40,070 39,670 96,310 93,030 704,300 718,800 11 S,600 I IS,800 29S,100 309,000 S8,2SO 62,0SO 863,700 8S2,SOO 2S,16S 2S,14S 3S,S90 3S,3SO 67,60S 67 ,6S s 47,960 47,100 61,630 61,280 23,860 23,910 290,100 293,4SO 39,680 41,320 38,920 40,210 S7,970 S8,640 48,69S 48,04S 8 areas ...........3,282,23S 3,269,97S 3,288,06S Anticipated July 41 ,310 6S,6SO I 29,6SO 122,000 40,210 97,420 711,600 I 14,4SO 292,700 S9,3SO 869,700 2S,ISO 3S,440 6S,790 4S,980 61,380 24,11 s 300,900 34,430 39,430 S8,040 49,77S 3,284,470 •• •• •••• 4 s I 3 I I 6 Source: 350 Texas Employment Commission. INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION DURABLE MANU FACTURES, TEXAS / n d e r AdJu•red for Season•/ Vana rton-1957 -1959 • 100 350 300 300 •• 250 250 •• 7 200 150 .J ... ­ = 1-.... 200 150 •• •• 2 2 3 100 50 100 •O 3 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 196.. 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 3 NOTE: Shaded aru.• indicate peT\odt of decline of iota.I buuneu to<:t;•·•ty in the United State•. SOURCE: Federal Ruerve &nk of Dallaa. 3 2 4 1 I INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION I 4 NONDURABLE MANUFACTURES, TEXAS / ndeir. Adjusted for Se a rona/ Vanation-1957-1959 ~100 I 1 2 4 2 3 4 •• 4 2 2 2 I I 6 2 3 •• I •• 6 • Preliminary. ** Change is less than one half of I percent. Source: Texas Employment Commission in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. JU'.\E 1971 MEASURING TEXAS HOUSING NEEDS Robert E. The shortage of acceptable housing for a large segment of the Texas population is part of the larger national problem, but Texas is not waiting for national solutions. In response to recommendations from the Texas Research League and the Texas Urban Development Commission, and to the generally recognized need for increased housing at the middle-and lower-income levels, Governor Preston Smith has launched a state housing program. Recognizing that specific facts are essential to wise planning and effective action, the Governor's Office has initiated a survey for measuring Texas needs and evaluating Texas problems in housing. The Objective Federal concern for the poor housing conditions of a significant segment of our nation's population was first expressed legislatively in the U.S. Housing Act of I 937. The federal response to the "housing problem" was the initia­tion of low-rent public housing. More than a decade later Congress declared in the National Housing Act of 1949 that a "serious housing shortage" existed, with a need to eliminate "substandard and other inadequate housing through the clearance of slums and blighted areas." A target of one million public housing units by 1955 was set by the Congress. Twenty years later, in 1968, the six-year target was still only 75 percent accomplished. The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 reaffirmed the 1949 national goal of decent homes, but recognized that the objective "has not been fully realized for many of the nation's lower-income families." A Presidential Commission set a target of 26 million new housing units for the country as a whole by 1978. To reach that goal would require: -nearly a 40-percent increase over the 1968 housing inventory ; -more than twice the production of the two decades from 1940 to 1960; and -about l l million more units than current production levels arc likely to produce by the end of the target decade. Governor Smith declared in 1969 that "There is in Texas a critical shortage of decent housing for low-and moderate­ *Research associate with the Texas Research League. The sub­stance of this article was delivered by Mr. Norwood as an address at a recent meeting of the Austin Chapter of the American Statistical Association. Norwood• income families," and proposed a goal of providing "all Texas citizens with decent homes and living environments." Obviously Texas' housing needs are included in the national goal of 26 million additional units, but no one knows how many of these units are supposed to be built in the state-much less where within the state. In fact, even the national target figure is uncertain. The national housing-needs estimates were keyed to the 1960 U.S. Census, in which all dwelling units were classified as "standard, deteriorating, or dilapidated." After a re­survey in 1967 , however, the Census Bureau declared that its own 1960 housing statistics were "unreliable" and "inaccurate"-so poor, in fact, that the 1970 Census dropped all subjective judgments of housing conditions. With the evaluation of the 1960 national housing stock in serious doubt, the projected need for 26 million more units is also in question. Demographers and economists have noted the declining birth rates, changes in family formations and size, and recurring reports of vacancies in many cities. Renovations of existing homes, plus growing popularity of mobile homes, might account for eight to ten million units of the projected national need. Preliminary Action Clearly the goal of a decent home for all Texas citizens set by Governor Smith is one to which all responsible Texans could subscribe. But its rational implementation demands a measurable definition of the abstract concept of "decent homes and living environments," plus a factual evaluation of both the existing housing stock and pros­pective future needs in terms of defined standards. Unfortu­nately , these preconditions to effective and responsible action on the part of the state do not now exist. More than a third of the states have already established action programs aimed at increasing the supply of housing, particularly for low-income groups. Most of these programs resemble the federal efforts to accomplish similar purposes, and few of them have been based on a measured estimate of the extent, location, and cause of housing problems. More than three decades of unsuccessful federal effort to come to grips with the housing problems of our nation and to devise an effective solution point to the difficulties which are involved. Efforts in Texas, or in any other state, to help solve housing problems will be no better than our understanding of the elements and causes of the problem. Even with current data from the 1970 Census of Housing, some serious, unanswered questions still remain: -What is a good working definition of a decent home? At least eight different definitions are being used by various federal agencies. The planning efforts of the TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW regional planning agencies in Texas have produced a variety of other definitions. -What is a suitable living environment? -How many presently acceptable houses will become substandard as the result of age, neglect, and shifting land uses? -How many presently substandard houses could be made acceptable through rehabilitation? -How many families cannot provide themselves with decent homes through the operation of the private market? -Of those families needing governmental assistance for adequate shelter, how many are not able to avail themselves of the present housing programs? -What political and social factors pose obstacles to the solution of economic problems in the provision of adequate housing? Before launching any broad-scale housing effort, the state of Texas needs to take three preliminary steps: I. Determine what objective standards shall be applied in deciding whether a housing unit and its environ­ment are "decent" or adequate. 2. Take an inventory of the present housing stock in terms of the objective standards and project the needs for replacement , rehabilitation, and new con­struction to meet future growth by specific geograph­ical areas, taking into account existing vacancies. 3. Estimate the extent to which the projected needs may be met by private enterprise with the help of established federal programs, and then devise supple­mentary state programs to remedy any deficiencies in the existing system. The Housing Smvey The Texas Research League's report to Governor Smith on the state's role in housing recommended that the Governor's Office contract with a competent survey research firm for the conduct of a statewide survey of housing utilizing ( 1) on-site inspections of housing units to estimate conditions of the current housing stock according to a set of pretested standards, and (2) occupant interviews to develop information on market demand and obstacles to fulfillment of housing objectives under presently available programs. The model for this proposal is a study in Michigan which proved successful. Governor Smith's favorable reception of this suggestion resulted in the employment of the firm of Louis, Bowles and Grace, Inc., in Dallas, which is currently in the process of developing the survey. The target date for completion of the study is June 15. Funds for the survey were jointly subscribed by the Moody Foundation and the Brown Foundation. Snn·.-v Ohj<'ctiH's There are three general objectives for the housing survey: I. To measure the physical condition of housing in Texas with identification of dwellings in substandard status resulting from factors including environmental conditions. 2. To measure the extent of the housing need of Texas residents. 3. To identify causes of housing need and obstacles to alleviation of that need. !\I ethodology Original data collected for the study will consist of two types: 1. EFaluation of the physical characteristics of 12,000 occupied housing units in Texas. 2. lnterriews with occupants in 4,000 housing units to ascertain the residents' attitudes toward their dwel­ling places, their needs, the obstacles to alleviation of those needs, and their demographic characteristics. Physical Evaluation The problems in the physical evaluation of housing will be the most difficult to overcome. Any standard used for grading housing as "good," "bad," or " in-between" will entail some element of subjective judgment. At one end of the scale are dwelling places that would be judged "bad" by any group of prudent observers. At the opposite end, similarly, are the dwelling places that would be judged "standard" or above. But between these simple extremes are many cases where reasonable observers can and will disagree on what is and what is not "substandard." It may be that in the middle, gray area the attitude of the occupant is critical for determining what is substandard. The study of Michigan State Housing Conditions and Trends provides valuable background for the Texas study. The Michigan study made an elaborate pretest of numerous criteria felt to have potential value in determining the suitability of a dwelling. For the Texas survey the Michigan work will be reviewed to see that the criteria selected experimentally do, in fact, provide a sound basis for evaluating a dwelling. The most significant of those criteria will be selected and translated into a pictorial scale. Only those criteria which can be evaluated by an external examination of the dwelling will be chosen, as no examina­tion of the interior of any dwelling is proposed. For example, one such criterion might be the "Con­dition of the paint on wooden trim around exterior JUNE 1971 125 windows and doors." Each interviewer will be provided with a set of three photographs: one showing a picture of a window frame in excellent condition, a second showing one that is cracked and faded , and the third showing one that is peeling. Along with these pictorial representations the interviewer will have a numerical scale, from one to seven, to use in scoring that single characteristic of that dwelling. In this manner the interviewers will score each of about ten characteristics and base their reports on the on-site comparisons with the set of carefully selected and pretested photographs. In addition to dwelling characteristics, pictorial scales for environmental conditions in the neighborhood will be included. This will broaden the evaluation to include conditions surrounding the site of each dwelling, perhaps contributing significantly to whether a particular dwelling is "standard" or "substandard." Each of the characteristics evaluated will be assigned a weight , to be determined during the pretesting period. The average of the weighted scores will be the " grade" for the individual dwelling. An important benefit in using the pictorial scale will be its value in communicating the findings of the survey after its completion. Even if critics should disagree as to the weighting used , raw data collected in this fashion could be reanalyzed at any future time. Accomplishment of two significant purposes is expected from this part of the survey: (I) to provide an ex tensive test of this method of evaluating dwelling units so that it might be used for future planning efforts in Texas, at both the state and the local level, and to evolve a usable definition of "substandard"; and (2) to provide data on the condition of housing across the state. Interview Data Interviews conducted with occupants of selected dwel­lings will include basic demographic characteristics. In addition, the interview will determine ( 1) the occupant's satisfaction with the dwelling ; (2) his desire to rehabilitate the dwelling, move to a different dwelling, or otherwise change his living status; and (3) the nature of whatever obstacles might prevent his fulfilling his desires. The interview data should provide a basis for identifying some of the fundamental causes and the character of the housing problem. These data will provide a linkage between "bad" housing and the characteristics of its occupants, a "linkage" which is one of the principal missing elements in most housing evaluations. Sample Design Both the physical evaluations and the interview data will be obtained by means of a sample survey of Texas households. For purposes of the study the universe consists of all occupied households in the state. The sample is a stratified area probability sample, disproportionate in size among seven regions, based on distribution of ethnic groups in each region. For the purpose of this study the twenty­four planning regions of the state were grouped into seven "housing regions." The grouping was based on the proba­bility of the region's having similar housing-problem charac­teristics. Thus, all of the planning areas along the Mexican border are grouped into one region ; similarly, the planning areas in East Texas are grouped into one region. Within each region separate starting points will be selected at random for each occupant interview, and field interviewers will have no influence on the starting places. At each dwelling selected the interviewer will make an evaluation of the physical characteristics for the selected dwelling, plus an evaluation of one dwelling on either side. This will yield a cluster of three evaluations, plus a personal interview with the occupant of one of the three dwellings. This design will provide unusually broad geographical dispersion of the sample, giving relatively higher chances for dwellings of varying quality to be included. Report Tabulations It appears that the sample will be large enough to provide statistically reliable data on: (I) The physical condition of dwellings within the state as a whole and within each region divided by major ethnic groups of the region and by urban, suburban, and rural areas (2) The needs of Texans in housing, causes of the need, and obstacles to solution of the problem both within the state as a whole and within each region, with breakdowns by major ethnic groups, geograph­ical areas, income levels, and other demographic characteristics obtained during interviews with occu­pants This study plows new ground and hopefully will provide Texas with the type of information about our housing needed to form the basis for some rational solutions to a serious problem. NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS• INDUSTRY, THE DISADVANTAGED, AND MEDICINE F. J. Kelly, M.D.• Minority and otherwise underprivileged groups in Texas, because of a combination of disadvantages-ethnic, educa­tional, and economic-from which they suffer, pose a peculiar problem as potential members of the Texas labor force. Their situation as industrial employees has not yet been studied in Texas as much as in more fully industrial­ized regions of the country, but as urbanization and industrialization in Texas increase, so will the need for expertise in methods of integrating the disadvantaged as competent workers into the labor force of the state. Much can be learned from the experience of other states. The problems encountered in large industrial centers of other sections are identical in some aspects, and similar in others, to the problems of such industrialized Texas areas as Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, and El Paso. The solutions to problems in Chicago, for example, are appli­cable in high degree to problems in Texas urban centers, and, in lesser degree, even to smaller cities only recently developing industrially. This flow of knowledge and under­standing from one locale to another is especially free and effective in the area of health problems. A Newly Recognized Social Responsibility Until quite recently the general public, physicians, and leaders of industry raised no objection to the concept that an employer was not obligated to hire unqualified persons in an attempt to compensate for the injustices of society or to satisfy any other reason. However, as Leo Beebe, vice president of Ford Motor Company and a leader of the National Alliance of Businessmen, stated, " Hiring the most qualified man is a good philosophy-the right philosophy­so long as you give everybody the opportunity to be qualified." 1 The extent to which industry, and all citizens, pursue this approach will have a profound effect upon the nature of our society and the economy of the nation for many years to come. At this chronological point it is not too important why an old concept is qualified, but rather that the practical economics of the business community and its effect on everyone's welfare is recognized. To manufacture a product and sell it in the marketplace employees are needed ; these employees then are able to become consumers of goods and services rather than dependents of the city, state. or federal government. The demand for products in a tight labor market has forced industry to look beyond its previous source of employees­to the disadvantaged unemployed. Gerald Phillippe, late Board chairman of General Electric, stated it this way: "If we contribute to helping residents of the ghetto, we could help create a substantial new group of consumers. Bringing *Medical director, Pantex Plant, Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., Amarillo, Texas. 1Kent McKamr. "Putting the Jobless to Work, " Business . \[anagemen t, Vol. 6. No. 1 (1968). p. 26. non-white-family income up to the level of white-family income would add about $2 0 billion to U.S. personal income yearly. " 2 A New Task for i\ledicine Critical analysis of experiences, findings, and challenges in this new medical arena requires the redesigning of the industrial medical approach if doctors are to do their part in assisting these disadvantaged people to become produc­tively employed. Furthermore, it is apparent that nearly all the jobless in the nation today are of this group. The acceptance of this responsibility required the development of new guidelines-guidelines which would not compromise basic concepts of the pre-employment medical examination but which would minimize the unacceptable rate among a segment of the community known to have medical defects at a higher rate than those previously employed. The ever-present question confronting responsible physicians throughout the nation, whether directly or indirectly connected with industry, remains-where do we draw the line in fairness to the individual, to industry, and to the physician? A report on the findings of pre-employment medical examinations of white applicants in a rural com­munity near Amarillo, Texas,3 stated that "the nature of the industry, the socioeconomic background of the appli­cants in general, and the geographic location of the industry will dictate, to a greater or less degree, the type of examination which will best serve the purpose." Experience and findings among the hard-core, disadvantaged minority serve to re-emphasize this view. A New Labor Force For many years large-city industries had been recruiting employees from nearby suburbs, comparatively stable white communities of first-and second-generation blue-collar factory families. These recruits had had exposure, from childhood, to the demands and expectations of factory jobs. Training, for this group, consisted of specific job instruction, under which the new employees were quick to learn. At a certain plant in the Chicago area the average hourly employee in 1964 had worked for eighteen years. At about that time. however, broadening market demands required in a relatively short time a build-up in the work force of 25 to 30 percent, a need impossible of fulfillment with a trained manpower reserve virtually nonexistent. At the same time this industry found itself on the edge of Chicago's burgeoning ghetto. Here was a huge manpower 2G. L. Phillippe, Employee Relations Managers Meeting. New York, October I 6, 1968. 3F. J. Kelly, "Pre-employment Medical Examinations, Including Back X-rays," Jo11mal of Occ11patio11a/ Medicine, No. 3 ( 1965). p. 132. JUNE 1971 127 supply almost all unemployed, but because of the absence of even the most basic work experiences, considered unemployable. Management faced two alternatives: relo­cate, or remain and face the challenge of developing a whole new work force. The decision was to remain. As a result the industry has experienced many new learning processes, with some problems yet to solve, but that industry is satisfied now that it met its community responsibility. New Problems for Munagement Since this operation is situated on the edge of one of the largest ghettos in the United States, the potential labor force is overwhelmingly composed of minority groups­Negro and Spanish-American. A composite hard-core appli­cant is under twenty-five years of age; he is a school dropout with a sixth-grade education; he is the product of a system that gave him little vocational or civic guidance or sense of responsibility as generally understood; he is untrained and unmotivated toward the industrial situation; he has a police record and a drinking problem; and he believes that power comes through physical force. One of the personnel counselors-himself a product of the ghetto­summarized their problem: "The attitude is one of appre­hension, concealed or unconcealed suspicion, feigned or real indifference, constantly on the defensive. They know they want something desperately, but they're not sure exactly what it is or how to obtain it." The problem faced was that of the economically and educationally disadvantaged, the handicapped, whether from Appalachia or the ghetto-it was not a problem of color or race. The hiring of Spanish-Americans, blacks, or whites, not considered disadvantaged, had no effect on the normal conduct of the operation of the business. This new-found work force, however, did have effects upon the business. Turnover reached a new high with as many as 8 percent leaving the day they were hired and 22 percent the first week. Absenteeism reached levels of 10 percent on a single assembly line, making efficient opera­tion nearly impossible. The costs of scrap rework and inspection skyrocketed, and Workmen's Compen;ation costs and claims reached new highs. The processing of health-insurance claims became a major problem entailing frustration, errors, delays, and reviews-not because of increase in volume but rather because of the inability of the new employees to handle the strange and complex paper­work. Discipline became another major problem, with an increase of over 100 percent in disciplinary time off during one period-this despite the fact that the most severe discipline in our society today can be found in the ghetto gangs from which these employees came to us. Communication between these new hires and other employees and foremen broke down, obstructing attempts at building real understanding. It was necessary to be aware of and to respond to a new language-ghetto talk. These applicants were coming to the company, not from company ads but from "pulling a few coats" and they came with dirty "fronts." They had never had regular "bread" before and their "floats" were "hot." Ghetto sharpies would sell them a "float," now that they were employed, but they too frequently caught "a rock on their bread" and would be "up tight" again. Translated, this talk meant that they learned of the jobs by word of mouth ("pulling coats") and came in dirty clothes ("fronts"). Money ("bread") had been scarce and if they had ever had a car ("float") it had been stolen ("hot"). They soon found out that one late payment meant garnishment ("rocks on their bread") and they were back on the edge of desperation again ("up tight"). New Medical Experience The medical function in the employment process at this company became intimately involved with many new experiences and interesting findings. During a recent one­year period over 40,000 applications were screened by personnel, of which 5 ,511 were approved for pre-placement examination. Of these, 632 (14.5 percent) were physically or emotionally not initially qualified. Reference to Table l reveals that about one of eight screened applicants was approved for physical examination. Since 82 percent either did not report for work, quit, or were discharged following approval to work, the net gain was only about 800. Because precise figures were impossible from some departments­because of identical names and addresses, attempts at deception, and repeat applications-some figures were necessarily approximate, and have been so indicated. Minimizing the Unacceptable Rate A higher medical rejection rate was anticipated, since the large majority of those examined were of the disadvantaged minority. In an effort to minimize the unacceptable rate several changes in requirements were made without jeopar­dizing the basic concept of the pre-employment examina­tion. This procedure, in certain instances, involved coopera­tion and adjustments in the manufacturing areas. When this hiring program was started the physical requirements included a height minimum of 68 inches and a weight minimum of 150 pounds. By improvement of placement procedures both of these requirements were eliminated. The dental status of these applicants was of great concern to the medical director, being a matter certainly open to medical judgment as it relates to acceptability or rejection for work. Answers to two questions would allow for the setting of a medically justified standard: (1) Would the number of teeth involved and the degree of dental decay reasonably be expected to result in lost time in the near future? (2) To what degree may dental caries and Table 1 HIRING THE HARD-CORE UNEMPLOYED Per 100 Applications 40,000+ 100 Preplacement examinations 5,51 1 12 Approved 4,879 II Reported for work 3,000 (approx.) 7 Quit or discharged 2,100 5 Did not report for work 1,800 (approx.) 4 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW peridontal disease be present before it may become a source of annoyance and irritation to fellow employees? Definitive answers to these questions could not be expected, but it was apparent that development of some guidelines was necessary. It must be clearly understood that the concern was not for small or even comparatively large cavities, but rather for teeth in the process of almost total dissolution and disintegration of the enamel and dentin, to or below the gingival margin in many cases. The decision was to accept those applicants with not over two teeth in this advanced state. This standard has been maintained to date. Support for this decision was found in the existence of extensive peridontal disease and minor caries in association with three or more severe cavities. Contrary to what might be expected, the events which followed the establishment of these criteria were highly gratifying. In no other area was insistence on corrective measures received with as much voluntary appreciation as from many of these employees who, after dental extraction, returned for approval to work. Thirty-one percent of those initially disqualified returned after corrective therapy. Many were directed to free dental clinics and several of those so referred returned within one day for completion of the examination. On several occa­sions telephone calls were received from the applicant's clergyman, who expressed his appreciation for the encouragement of the individual to this remedial action, which improved his general health as well as enabling him to obtain a job. The personal history was initially obtained by having each applicant complete the standard General Electric form. This Chicago company, however, found it necessary to devise its own form when it became apparent that the level of education of these applicants made it difficult to decide whether the applicant was knowingly falsifying his answers or whether the contradictions were the result of an honest lack of understanding. It was evident very early that the staff were wasting entirely too much of the applicant's time, as well as their own, and were still not confident that they were obtaining those elements of the history needed for accurate documentation. Many who indicated that they had had no surgery, accidents, or operations, were found on examination to have prominent operative scars or major knife or gunshot wounds. When questioned they would indicate that they had forgotten the operation or that they did not consider the knifing or gunshot to be an "acci­ dent." Specific references to such injuries as "gunshot wounds" and "knife wounds," are now included in the questionnaire. A potentially serious and somewhat delicate situation, constantly present during these examinations, was of great concern because of the danger of undermining the morale and enthusiasm of the company staff. It involved the varying degrees of lack of body hygiene present among many of the applicants. In a few instances (the condition was pointed out to many others) it was necessary to have the applicant return after improving his unhygienic condi­ tion. This situation, together with frequent blocks to communication from language barriers, and the lack of ability to comprehend instructions during vision, hearing, and other tests, were very taxing to all the examining staff, JUNE 1971 particularly to the secretary, the technician, and the nurses. Only a high degree of dedication and a sympathetic appreciation of the applicants' disadvantaged background made it possible to maintain effective productivity. \lt>d ic~tl Findin~s To obtain an overview of the medical findings, from which to develop further refinements, the staff summarized the results of 4,35 6 consecutive preplacement physical examinations (Table 2). These data were compared with earlier results found during examination of 1,087 white, male applicants in a nonindustrial area in the Amarillo, Texas, area. The findings are compared in Table 3. Several significant variations, seemingly a direct reflection of the genetic and/or socioeconomic background of the two groups, are notable. Vision problems were encountered almost seven times more frequently among the disadvan­taged, approximately one half of whom returned with acceptable corrections. These defects appear to have resulted from a socioeconomic factor, more social than economic, as evident by the fact that such a large number returned with proper glasses. Hypertension was found to be increased by a factor of almost 8 (0.4 to 3.0 percent), which reflects the large number of Negro applicants. Rasmussen states that "Many aspects of the situation suggest that genetic forces may control the major portion of the variability of blood pressure tenor, and that most of the morbidity and mortality due to high blood pressure in a population is determined by such forces." 3 The Texas rural group disclosed an absence of industrially significant dental disease as contrasted with 2.9 percent for the Chicago urban group. In the earlier study no lung disease was found on routine chest X-rays as contrasted with identification of 20 (0.5 percent) with suspected lesions among the disadvan­taged. Follow-up on these individuals disclosed that 8 were Table 2 MAJOR MEDICAL FINDINGS OF 4,356 PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAMINATIONS Initially not qualified Approved Finally not qualified Defect No. % No. % No. % Vision 168 3.86 80 1.84 88 2.02 Hypertension 132 3.03 20 0.46 112 2.57 Dental 128 2.94 40 0.92 88 2.02 Urine 72 1.65 12 0 .28 60 1.38 Scoliosis 24 0.55 0 24 0.55 Hernia 20 0.46 2 0.04 18 0.41 Pulmonary 20 0.46 8 0.18 12 0.28 Skin 16 0.37 4 0.09 12 0.28 Psychological 12 0.28 4 0.09 8 0.18 Cardiovascular 12 0.28 0 12 0.28 Musculo-skeletal 8 0 . 18 0 8 0.18 Obesity 8 0.18 0 8 0.18 Foot 4 0.09 0 4 0.09 Spinal surgery 4 0.09 0 4 0.09 Knee 4 0.09 0 4 0.09 TOTAL 632 14.50 170 3.90 462 10.60­ 4p, Rasmussen, "An Overview of Essential Hypertension," Medical Times, Vol. 95, No. 4 (1967), p. 467. 129 diagnosed "active tuberculosis," 4 were lost to follow-up, and the remaining 8 were approved after appropriate investigation. The incidence of inguinal hernia is identical (0.5 percent) in both series. Another finding of interest is that of cardiovascular disease, which was almost 3 times more frequent among the rural group than among the disadvantaged. The challenge which the new labor market has posed and which American industry has accepted is not the result of a shortage of people or potential effectiveness, but stems from the basic attitudes and values of the disadvantaged individual. Very recently signs of some real mutual under­standing between them and their employer have emerged as a result of considerable effort by all concerned. At the risk of oversimplifying a complex situation it can be said that industry, with a built-in expectation of success, has almost overnight been brought face to face with a group of new employees educated by experience to expect failure. Sound business principles have dictated the need to initiate programs for hiring, medical evaluation and rehabilitation, and job training as a start toward developing understanding and industrial environment values. Medical services in industry must acknowledge their responsibility and the need to change many previous concepts and procedures as their contribution toward preparing these young people for a future in society-not merely a job. Medical standards need not be lowered, but the history, physical examination, and other elements of the preplacement evaluation can be structured to fit the circumstances while still protecting the requirements of the individual and the business. To obtain this balance will require a detailed survey of all facets of the pre-employ­ment processes, involving representatives of top manage­ment, employee and public relations, and medicine; hygienists; and manufacturers. Failure to obtain coopera­tion from one or more of these groups will result in confusion, increased costs, and decreased efficiency in direct proportion to the lack of effective communication. The social challenges of our time are no longer limited to government, church, or academic agencies-they are present in the medical examining rooms of industry, and they require a creative commitment if they are to be dealt with successfully. Table 3 COMPARISON OF MAJOR PHYSICAL DEFECTS FOUND IN URBAN DISADVANTAGED MINORITY (4,356) AND RURAL (91,087) POPULATION Urban D.M., Chicago Rural, Amarillo, Texas Defects (percent) (percent) Vision 3.9 0.6 Hypertension 3.0 0.4 Dental 2.9 0.0 Scoliosis 0.6 0.0 Hernia 0.5 0.5 Pulmonary 0.5 0.1 Psychological 0.3 0.1 Cardiovascular ~3 ~8 Lower Extremity 0.2 0.9 TEXAS CONSTRUCTION NEW TOWNS AND COMMUNITIES Graham Blackstock Residential building permits issued during April in Texas urban areas, seasonally adjusted, are still providing the major impetus to the upward trend in the Texas construc­tion industry. And the main interest of government and other groups concerned for the national welfare is still in creating the needed housing units for low-and middle­income families. Texas data adjusted for seasonal variations show a 7-percent gain over March for total construction, a 5-per­cent gain for residential construction, and a 2-percent gain for nonresidential construction. On a year-to-date basis total construction gained 30 percent over the January-April 1970 level, residential permits increased 56 percent, and nonresidential permits increased 8 percent. Even with these gains, however, unadjusted data on additions, alterations, and repairs suggest that many fami­lies who might be buying new homes are discouraged by the high costs of land, labor, materials, and taxes, and have decided to "make do" with what they have, adding a little here, patching a little there, and repairing generally. These April permits for modifications of existing housing units totaled 77 percent more than similar permits during March; for the year to date the value of 1971 alteration permits was 46 percent higher than that for the corresponding first four months of 1970. A relatively new development in housing-the construc­tion of complete new towns and cities-is receiving a new impetus from federal legislation passed in the fall of 1970 for the purpose of stimulating such new communities, and from currently pending legislation to encourage innovation and the building of communities outside cities as part of the revenue-sharing program. The "new town" concept is a response to several factors. Chief among these is the expectation of a population of 300 million by the year 2000. The National Committee on Urban Growth Policy has recommended, as one means of meeting this increased demand, a mammoth new-town program, the creation of one hundred new communities of 100,000 each and ten new communities of 1,000,000 each. The direction of population growth, too-away from urban centers-suggests the need for new population centers and the creation of scattered new towns. The almost insuper­able problems involved in high-density residential areas and in the rebuilding of existing ghettos argue for the dispersing of population into new communities. Most demographers foresee a major change in the nation's growth pattern, a trend away from the megalopolises to small and medium­size cities. As usual, costs and the problem of finding the money are the main deterrents to the implementation of this gigantic program. Existing and pending legislation assumes that the devel­opers of such communities will be both private and public, but it is designed to encourage the private segment. It provides for government guarantees of privately secured TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW long-term loans; cheaper interest rates; government loans to pay interest on developers' private loans; the availability of money for public facilities, such as mass transit, schools, libraries, and salaries for teachers, policemen, and nurses; and planning assistance. Government guarantees of mortgages provide additional capital through attracting investment by pension funds, insurance companies, foundations, and trusts, which ordi­narily are leery of real estate. These guarantees for long-term investment in mortgages will thus supply , in some measure , the "patient capital" which has become almost nonexistent, with investors expecting a quick return, but which is essential to the success of new-town projects, where returns on investment are delayed. New legislation has created a tremendous new interest in these projects. Corporations are diversifying through entrance into the real-estate markets of new towns. Utilities are developing such housing projects to extend their markets. Nearly a year ago they formed a promotional Utilities Housing Council consisting of eleven big com- ESTI~fATED VALUES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS* Percent change Jan-Apr 1971 Apr Jan-Apr Apr 1971 from 1971 1971 from Jan-Apr Classification (thousands of dollars) Mar 1971 1970 ALL PERMITS 266,202 954,575 I 32 New construction 228,842 850,412 2 31 Residential (housekeeping) 134,533 488,950 3 57 One-family dwellings 83,329 296,086 3 74 Multiple-family dwellings s1,204 192,864 3 36 Nonresidential buildings 94,309 361 ,462 2 8 Hotels, motels, and tourist courts 2,291 22,573 -41 177 Amusement buildings 1,007 16,820 -74 -48 Churches 2, 192 12,212 -28 -12 Industrial buildings 11 ,794 32 ,811 49 -20 Garages (commercial and private) 5,479 12,174 450 356 Service stations 1,748 6,728 7 25 Hospitals and institutions 6,797 16,573 225 -II Office-bank buildings 28,105 99,266 -35 22 Works and utilities 2,833 16,503 -56 7 Educational buildings I 5,430 52,397 95 21 Stores and mercantile buildings 13,884 60,883 -4 Other buildings and structures 2,749 12,522 42 33 Additions, alterations, and repairs 37,360 104,163 32 38 SMSAt vs. NON-SMSA Total SMSA 243,711 860,822 4 35 Central cities 161 ,604 574,496 9 21 Outside central cities 82,107 286,326 4 78 Total non-SMSA 22,490 93,753 -21 6 I 0,000 to 50,000 population 11 ,0 I 0 45,600 -27 2 Less than I 0,000 population 11 ,480 48,153 -IS 10 * 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 Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. JuNE 1971 panies, with emphasis on the construction of low-and moderate-income housing. Boeing has entered the field to provide jobs for its displaced employees. Westinghouse is currently building new "good communities to raise kids" in fifteen locations. These new towns will provide modest­priced, comfortable. attractive homes, starting at about $17 ,000, homes kept low in price by computerized plans for the projects and by the use of factory-built, assembly-line units. The contractors will utilize local, minority-group subcontractors, where available, and local labor. Corporate scouts are ranging the country looking for land , with special interest in Texas, California, Florida, and Arizona. Such communities have already come to Texas-for example, in the already functioning, and recently reorgan­ized, Clear Lake City, in completed plans for Flower Mound new town between Dallas and Fort Worth, in the new project southwest of Austin. tentatively named Travis Country , and in plans for new towns in the Houston and San Antonio areas. The emphasis is largely environmental, with planning for preservation of natural beauty. Some developers feel that the private sector in the housing industry should be given the same opportunity as that supplied the private sector in the defense industry-a government subsidy, with provision for overruns, so that the housing industry can more effectively provide the needed information on the city plant and how it works. Legislation giving more generous support to new-town projects would permit more innovative planning, with resulting truly new communities. TOTAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS • 3'0 I I• _J ! A "'' .111\J .Ill/ \Ila'' . ,..,"""'IA /l lAI•" •• v 'V' I rvn11 . .I ... ,/ IH 11-1 .I 350 300 300 250 200200 150150 100100 50 50 19.57 19.51 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 196.5 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 Indude1addit100•, ill.ltcra.uon1, and tepa•r• NOTE: Shadid ar eas lndlca!e periods of decline of total b1,,.1ne.s1 activity in the United State • RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS* J,.d,,, .4dj..rtd Jo, s..uo.. 1/ J . ,iolio .. -1951-1959 .. •oo LOCAL BUSINESS CONDl"filONS Statistical data compiled by Mildred Anderson. statistical associate, Constance Coo/edge and Glenda Riley , statistical assistants, and Kay Davis and Lydia Gorena, statistical technicians. INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR STANDARD METROPOLITAN STA TISTICAL AREAS April 1971 Percent change Percent changefrom from Apr Mar Apr Apr Mar AprReported 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) 652,707 36 -16 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,020,635 47 -38 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 194,583 7 11 Bank debits (S 1,000) 90,090 -10 13Nonfarm employment 40,900 •• •• (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Manufacturing employment 5,640 •• I Bryan-College Station SMSA.) Unemployed (percent) 3.5 -15 30 CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA AMARILLO SMSA Nueces and San Patricio Counties; population 284,832 Potter and Randall Counties; population 144,396 Urban building permits (dollars) 7,009,530 18 130 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,032,230 -12 2 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 512,780 -2 26 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 526,742 4 13 Nonfarm employment 95,900 •• 6 Nonfarm employment 65,400 2 4 Manufacturing employment 11,470 -I Manufacturing employment 8,540 I 6 Unemployed (percent) 4.1 11 Unemployed (percent) 3.3 6 10 DALLAS SMSA AUSTIN SMSA Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Kaufman, and Travis County; population 295,516 Rockwall Counties; population 1,555,950 Urban building permits (dollars) 13,267,952 7 42 Urban building permits (dollars) 46,656,678 -23 -13 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 845,086 20 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 11,142,358 2 14 Nonfarm employment 135,800 6 Nonfarm employment 706,700 •• -3 Manufacturing employment 12,110 3 Manufacturing employment 142,300 •• -15 Unemployed (percent) 1.8 •• 5 Unemployed (percent) 3.5 -3 59 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) 2,482,077 -15 67 Urban building permits (dollars) 8,487,699 -16 14 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 558,020 4 7 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 673,304 2 I 5 Non farm employment J 18 900 • • -1 Nonfarm employment 116,000 •• •• Manufacturing employment 37: I00 2 -2 Manufacturing employment 24,600 •• Unemployed (percent) 5.4 2 38 Unemployed (percent) 4.5 -4 •• BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA FORT WORTH SMSA Cameron County; population 140,368 Johnson and Tarrant Counties; population 762,086 Urban building permits (dollars) 1 221 195 192 Urban building permits ((dollars) 23,591,299 -22 28 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) '183:187 •• 13 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 2,181,833 -6 21 Nonfarm employment 39 900 -1 I Nonfarm employment 294,500 •• -3 Manufacturing employment 6:180 •• -2 Manufacturing employment 77,300 I -17 Unemployed (percent) 7.8 15 22 Unemployed (percent) 4.9 4 75 The indicators of local business conditions in Texas which are included in this section are statistics on bank debits, urban building permits, and employment. The data are reported by metropolitan areas in the first table below and by municipalities within counties in the second table. Standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's) in Texas are defined by county lines; in the first table the counties included in the area are listed under each SMSA. Since the Longview-Kilgore­Gladewater area is functioning as a significant metropolitan complex in its region, although not officially designated as an SMSA by the Bureau of the Census, data for this area have been included in the table for SMSA's. In both tables the populations shown for the SMSA's and for the counties are the preliminary population counts of the I970 census. In the second table the population values for individual municipalities are also preliminary counts of the 1970 census, unless otherwise indicated. Population estimates made for municipalities in no ncensus years are commonly based on utility connections, and these estimates are subject to the errors inherent in a process dependent on base ratios derived in 1960. The values of urban building permits have been collected from participating municipal authorities by the Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Inasmuch as building permits are not required by county authorities, it must be emphasized that the reported permits reflect construction intentions only in incor­porated places. Permits are reported for residential and nonresi· dential building only, and do not include public-works projects such as roadways, waterways, or reservoirs; nor do they include construction let under federal contracts. The values of bank debits for all SMSA's and for most central cities of the SMSA's have been collected by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Bank debits for the remaining municipalities have been collected from cooperating banks by the Bureau of Business Research . Employment estimates are compiled by the Texas Employment Commission in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Footnote symbols are defined on pp. 133 and 140. Reported area and indicator Apr 1971 Percent change from Mar Apr 1971 1970 Reported area and indicator Apr 1971 Percent change from Mar Apr 1971 1970 GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Galveston County; population 169,812 ODESSA SMSA Ector County; population 91,805 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,101,S08 -66 -16 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,077,837 71 181 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 230,870 8 s Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 136,914 -4 •• Nonfarm employment S8,900 1 -8 Nonfarm employment 61,800 •• 1 Manufacturing employment 11,SOO 1 -5 Manufacturing employment 5, 190 1 3 Unemployed (percent) S.9 9 84 Unemployed (percent) 3.9 3 30 (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and Odessa SMSA's since employment figures for Midland and Ector HOUSTON SMSA Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, and combined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) Montgomery Counties; population 1,985,031 Urban building permits (dollars) 77,015,073 32 68 SAN ANGELO SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 9,441,808 7 11 Tom Green County; population 71,047 Nonfarm employment 868,600 1 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,108,349 -19 529 Manufacturing employment 147,400 •• •• Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 128,134 -1 2S Unemployed (percent) 2.7 -4 29 Nonfarm employment 23,850 •• •• Manufacturing employment 4,230 •• 6 Unemployed (percent) 3.6 -10 16 LAREDO SMSA Webb County; population 72,859 SAN ANTONIO SMSA Urban building permits (dollars) 6S6,625 1,137 81 Bexar and Guadalupe Counties; population 864,014Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 83,665 7 6 Urban building permits (dollars) 16, 1 S l ,S46 9 66Nonfarm employment 2S,650 2 2 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 1,73S,258 •• 22Manufacturing employment 1,440 -1 s Nonfarm employment 292,700 ••Unemployed (percent) 10.4 -13 18 Manufacturing employment 35,1 SO •• 1 Unemployed (percent) 4.3 -2 8 LONGVIEW-KILGORE-GLADEWATER METROPOLITAN AREA SHERMAN-DENISON SMSAGregg County; population 75,929 Grayson County; population 83,225Urban building permits (dollars) 1,324,000 -31 -9 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,389,702 7 96Bank debits ($1,000) 132,303 -6 12 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 98,734 •• sNonfarm employment 35,700 •• 1 (Monthly employment reports are not available for theManufacturing employment 10,240 2 Sherman-Denison SMSA.) Unemployed (percent) 4.1 -18 41 (Building permits and bank debits are included for those portions of TEXARKANA SMSAKilgore and Gladewater in Rusk County and Upshur County.) Bowie County, Texas, and Miller County, Arkansas; population 101,198 LUBBOCK SMSA Urban building permits (dollars) 2,49S,028 61S S7 Lubbock County; population 179,295 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) l 33,24S 2 8 Urban building permits (dollars) 6,249,310 S8 47 Nonfarm employment 39,6SO •• -4 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 436,131 5 17 Manufacturing employment 9,030 -2 -23 Nonfarm employment 67,300 •• s Unemployed (percent) 6.6 3 3 Manufacturing employment 7,670 3 4 (Since the Texarkana SMSA includes Bowie County in Texas and Unemployed (percent) 3.6 3 3 Miller County in Arkansas, all data, including population, refer to the two-county region.) McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA TYLER SMSA Hidalgo County; population 181,535 Smith County; population 97,096 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,022,057 126 30 Urban building permits (dollars) 817,617 -48 -47 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 164,9S7 3 14 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 199,153 4 9 Nonfarm employment 48,100 •• 2 Nonfarm employment 39,000 •• -3 Manufacturing employment 4,2SO 1 •• Manufacturing employment 11,940 2 -8 Unemployed (percent) 5.6 -s 2 Unemployed (percent) 3.2 -6 28 WACO SMSA MIDLAND SMSA McLennan County; population 147,553Midland County; population 65,433 Urban building permits (dollars) 5,818,088 209 SSUrban building permits (dollars) 3,659,062 43S 9S5 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 282,442 1 7Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 172,S41 -1 6 Nonfarm employment S8,300 1 -1Nonfarm employment 61,800 •• 1 Manufacturing employment 11,340 •• -6Manufacturing employment S,190 1 3 Unemployed (percent) 4.7 -4 12Unemployed (percent) 3.9 3 30 (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and WICHITA FALLS SMSA Odessa SMSA's since employment figures for Midland and Ector Archer and Wichita Counties; population 127,621 Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in Urban building permits (dollars) 2,052,090 -S3 3combined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 221,3S2 10 20 Nonfarm employment 48,700 •• 1 • • Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent. Manufacturing employment S,670 2 5 ... No data, or inadequate basis for reporting. Unemployed (percent) 3.2 -6 19 INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPALITIES APRIL 1971 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population• Apr 1971 (dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1971 1970 Apr 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1971 1970 ANDERSON 27,789 Palestine 14,525 61,400 -66 -59 23,993 3 19 ANDREWS 10,372 Andrews 8,625 18,600 205 -S6 9,012 2 ANGELINA 49,349 Lufkin 23,049 369,700 -4S 87 ARANSAS 8,902 Aransas Pass S,813 9,973 22 20 ATASCOSA 18,696 Pleasanton S,407 6,630 4 7 AUSTIN 13,831 Bellville 2,371 6S,28S 377 -19 7,2SS -3 BAILEY 8,487 Muleshoe 4,S2S 13,980 -2 12 BASTROP 17,297 Smithville 2,959 6,4S2 -81 -67 2,924 11 -8 BEE 22,737 Beeville l 3,S06 87,605 S46 -19 20,884 -6 14 BELL 124,483 Bartlett 1,622 1,436 7 40Belton 8,696 92,600 -41 Killeen 3S,S07 479,7SS -S2 39 43,839 18 24Temple 33,431 1,672,628 183 28 69,S96 1 18 BEXAR 830,460 (In San Antonio SMSA) San Antonio 6S4,IS3 I S,328,S85 26 6S l,7Sl,874 -2 22 BOWIE 67,813 (In Texarkana SMSA) Texarkana S2,l 79 2,4S0,628 759 SS 116,042 BRAZORIA 108,312 (In Houston SMSA) Angleton Clute 9,770 218,720 4 S7 16,680 -3 -s 6,023 S,707 -10 38Freeport 11,997 9S,22S 34S lOS 3Pearland 27,662 •• 6,444 8,4S3 -4 IS BRAZOS S7,978 (Constitutes Bryan- College Station SMSA) Bryan 33,7I 9 4S7,96S -8 -S4 79,S 10 -11 IS 17,676 S62,670 186 -13 10,S80 -2 2 BREWSTER College Station 7,780 Alpine S,971 28,32S -47 79 S,430 -2 9 BROWN 2S,877 Brownwood 17,368 3S 1,800 116 744 BURLESON 9,999 Caldwell 2,308 4,39S 9 BURNET 11,420Marble Falls 2,209 7,407 26 33 CALDWELL 21,178Lockhart 6,489 7,326 -89 36 8,670 -1 I2 CAMERON 140,368 (Constitutes Brownsville­Harlingen-San Benito SMSA) Brownsville 52,S22 947,380 14 Harlingen 7 397 68,221 1 33,S03 207,472 La Feria 7 17 7S,30S 7 20 2,642 3,200 48 -89 -18 Los Fresnos 2,78S -9 1,297 28 3,067Port Isabel 2,337 8 IS San Benito 3,248 4 IS,176 32,143 -37 90 8,079 -4 -6 134 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population• Apr 1971 (dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1971 1970 Apr 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1971 1970 CASTRO Dimmitt 10,394 4,327 21,844 IS 32 CHEROKEE Jacksonville 32,008 9,734 32,3SO -92 -80 27,094 s 10 COLLIN (Jn Dallas SMSA) McKinney Plano 66,920 IS,193 17,872 434,3S8 866,913 401 -40 373 -39 16,061 19,464 12 •• -3 COLORADO Eagle Lake 17,638 3,S87 4,616 -14 -3 COMAL New Braunfels 24,16S 17,8S9 376,099 -IS -19 2S,82S 6 24 COOKE Gainesville Muenster 23,471 13,830 1,411 87,8SO 6,000 124 -77 147 20,786 3,62S s 6 - 13 3 CORYELL Copperas Cove Gatesville 3S,31 I I 0,818 4,683 444,0SO -21 63 4,408 9,643 I 4 28 18 CRANE Crane 4,172 3,427 2S,ISO 2,404 -10 - 6 DALLAS (Jn Dallas SMSA) Carrollton Dallas Farmers Branch Garland Grand Prairie Irving Lancaster Mesquite Richardson Seagoville 1,327,321 l 3,8S s 844,401 27,492 81,437 S0,904 97,260 IO,S22 ss,131 48,S82 4,390 2,461,247 19,816,27S I ,874,99S 3,019,879 4,S07,747 103,76S 1,627,991 2,617,632 324,IOS 487 -28 -3S -3 17 -60 -68 62 16S 83 -16 16 -29 -86 -S2 166 61 I S,S90 I0,7S2,027 2S,S2S 74,848 36,483 87,968 7,934 2S,S68 SS,117 14,160 2•• •• I -3 I -16 SS I I 37 IS 30 6 14 21 I 4 7 70 DAWSON Lamesa 16,604 ll,SS9 80,SSO -2 21,S30 -18 19 DEAF SMITH Hereford 18,999 13,414 231,800 -17 39 DENTON (Jn Dallas SMSA) Denton Justin Lewisville Pilot Point 7S,633 39,874 741 9,264 1,663 8,27S,186 S,000 1,639,440 66,000 167 -89 327 48 313 -78 68 -91 68,101 1,414 14,972 3,S22 •• -6 -7 24 42 3S 29 34 DE WITT Yoakum 18,660 S,7SS l 16,97S -S8 -18 10,882 -6 4 EASTLAND Cisco 18,092 4,160 4,8S4 3 4 ECTOR (Constitutes Odessa SMSA) Odessa 91,80S 78,380 1,077,837 71 181 141,061 - 3 - 2 ELLIS (In Dallas SMSA) Ennis Midlothian Waxahachie 46,638 11,046 2,322 I 3,4S2 I S0,400 63,4SO -IS -60 -90 10,442 2,398 21,414 I I 11 3 26 21 EL PASO (Constitutes El Paso SMSA) El Paso 3S9,29 I 322,261 8,487,S99 -16 14 667,75 I - 9 16 ERATH Stephenville 18,191 9,277 123,000 -33 -S3 14,S92 - 5 FANNIN Bonham 22,70S 7,698 61,400 -64 -SI 13,441 - s 9 Urban building permits Bank debits Percent change Percent change from Apr 1971 from Apr 1971 Mar Apr (thousands Mar Apr COUNTY Population* (dollars) 1971 1970 of dollars) 1971 1970City 17,6SO 2,294 39,300 31 S7 FAYETTE Schulenburg S2,314 (In Houston SMSA) FORT BEND S,777 96,100 -17 -3S 9,203 -2 Richmond Rosenberg 12,098 283,069 64 249 ll,S93 Seagraves GAINES 2,440 l l ,3SO -36 291 3,119 -1 24 21,6SO -61 11 6,68S -19 22 Seminole S,007 GALVESTON 169,812 (Constitutes Galveston-Texas City SMSA) Dickinson 10,776 3 lS,221 8 Galveston 61,809 61S,S43 -80 -2S 1S3,342 4 9 La Marque 16, 131 93,200 31 67 19,347 2 -3 Texas City 38,908 392,76S S7 -8 37,823 2 -8 GILLESPIE 10,SS3 Fredericksburg S,326 l 39,37S -SS 309 17,009 11 GONZALES 16,37S Nixon 1,92S 800 -98 -97 GRAY 26,949 Pampa 21,726 47,900 -98 37,244 -3 -7 GRAYSON 83,22S (Constitutes Sherman- Denison SMSA) Denison 24,923 920,223 363 667 30,1 lS -12 -7 Sherman 29,061 460,979 -S8 -12 GREGG 7S,929 (Constitutes Longview-Kilgore- Gladewater Metropolitan Area) Gladewater S,S74 81,200 2S 297 7,171 8 9 Kilgore 9,49S 44,300 -Sl -91 20,032 2 3 Longview 4S,S47 1,198,SOO -32 31 lOS,100 8 14 GUADALUPE 33,SS4 (In San Antonio SMSA} Schertz 4,061 1,1 so •• so Seguin lS,934 S9,400 -9S 127 23,938 -2 13 HALE 34,137 Hale Center 1,964 13,000 373 Plainview 19,096 6,7SO -9S -81 S3,726 -6 -6 HARDEMAN 6,79S Quanah 3,948 764,000 6,443 -13 17 HARDIN 29,996 Silsbee 7,271 12,618 -4 14 HARRIS 1,741,912 (In Houston SMSA) Baytown 43,980 6,0S8,S86 609 71,996 -4 26 Bellaire 19,009 3 27 SOl,463 -80 S33 66,932 ­Deer Park 12,773 17 37 699,4S6 141 191 1S,840 Houston JO 1,232,802 S9,688,243 22 44 8,8S2,626 1 Humble 23 3,278 11, 140 3 La Porte 4 7,149 9S,OOO 68 820 S,3S8 -30 Pasadena 19 89,277 4,07S,86S S8 868 127,697 7 South Houston ll,S27 l,066,93S 288 707 Tomball 2,734 13,7SO -80 -44 17,123 •• 20 HARRISON 44,841Hallsville 1,038 1,338 10 12 Marshall 22,937 31,908 6 -1 HASKELL 8,Sl2 Haskell 3,6SS -I 0 4,S81 -s HAYS 27,642 San Marcos 26 18,860 46S,300 -S2 96 l 7,24S 13 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population• Apr 1971 (dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1971 1970 Apr 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1971 1970 HENDERSON Athens 26,466 9,582 278,800 250 948 16,779 -2 14 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 6,186 141,700 528,000 106,786 58,000 1,900 178,985 -69 -3 -23 42 -67 -94 3 -89 -35 98 664 155 -93 114 3,332 6,289 30,250 5,208 68,395 8,368 20,542 7,377 4,012 19,982 -13 -7 -2 -16 1 2 5 2 -20 -5 - 10 37 17 8 18 19 8 5 17 18 HOCKLEY Levelland 20,396 11,445 159,675 131 105 23,924 6 36 HOOD Granbury 6,368 2,473 2,734 -9 - 27 HOPKINS Sulphur Springs 20,710 10,642 287,850 43 -74 29,101 -6 20 HOWARD Big Spring 37,796 28,735 33,720 -52 37 62,396 6 23 HUNT Greenville 47,948 22,043 98,063 -47 -83 30,992 7 7 HUTCHINSON Borger 24,443 14, 195 75,950 378 178 JACKSON Edna 12,975 5,332 24,580 -57 105 9,568 23 9 JASPER Jasper Kirbyville 24,692 6,251 1,869 17,149 3,295 9 5 5 7 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 1,247,350 139,112 340,057 290,254 -1 -35 114 95 20 72 223 159 351,649 17,646 11,605 115,370 17,974 3 2 1 7 8 - 3 17 9 27 1 JIM WELLS Alice 33,032 20,121 564,131 223 426 42,095 -13 8 JOHNSON (In Fort Worth SMSA) Cleburne 45,769 16,015 243,226 -6 278 28,356 -3 24 KARNES Karnes City 13,462 2,926 26,500 -80 287 4,750 -11 - 8 KAUFMAN (In Dallas SMSA) Terrell 32,392 14,182 101,500 -41 -74 21,626 5 29 KIMBLE Junction 3,904 2,654 19,100 537 3,430 21 29 KLEBERG Kingsville 33,166 28,711 440,550 -56 95 26,567 - 1 11 LAMAR Paris 36,062 23,441 263,401 -21 -84 LAMB Littlefield 17,770 6,738 25,350 646 9,962 - 7 11 LAMPASAS Lampasas 9,323 5,922 0 12,474 12 27 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population• Aprl971 (dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1971 1970 Apr 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1971 1970 LAVACA Hallettsville Yoakum 17,903 2,712 5,755 38,264 116,975 -11 -58 471 -18 4,931 10,882 6 6 11 4 LEE Giddings 8,048 2,783 16,700 -26 -40 7,072 2 15 LIBERTY (In Houston SMSA) Dayton Liberty 33,014 3,804 5,591 100,800 27,470 70 -41 686 -32 6,876 15,373 -17 1 - 6 I LIMESTONE Mexia 18,100 5,943 5,840 27 -29 11,039 9 24 LLANO Kingsland (1969) Llano 6,979 1,200 2,608 0 7,085 6,255 10 5 73 29 LUBBOCK (Constitutes Lubbock SMSA) Lubbock Slaton 179,295 149,101 6,583 6,193,280 55,230 61 -52 47 390,306 6,412 2 8 18 11 LYNN Tahoka 9,107 2,956 148,700 20 4,625 -20 6 MCCULLOCH Brady 8,571 5,557 81,000 -35 236 10,622 12 MCLENNAN (Constitutes Waco SMSA) McGregor Waco 147,553 4,365 95,326 15,000 5,758,188 218 -64 60 5,171 270,709 -8•• 9 6 MATAGORDA Bay City 27,913 11,733 82,800 21 -21 22,083 5 -1 MAVERICK Eagle Pass 18,093 15,364 122,075 -91 -11 14,530 -2 29 MEDINA Castroville Hondo 20,249 1,893 5,487 59,350 67,350 -33 70 - 3 1,530 5,604 -14 -2 5 11 MIDLAND (Constitutes Midland SMSA) Midland 65,433 59,463 3,659,062 435 955 182,058 -2 MILAM Cameron Rockdale 20,028 5,546 4,655 21,300 44,200 -79 220 8,919 9,472 13 3 15 23 MILLS Goldthwaite 4,212 1,693 7,513 24 36 MITCHELL Colorado City 9,073 5,227 6,156 -4 JO MONTGOMERY (In Houston SMSA) Conroe MOORE Dumas 49,479 11,969 14,060 9,771 635,700 95,933 86 -38 438 7 44,433 -7 13 NACOGDOCHES Nacogdoches 36,362 22,544 443,381 94 40 36,244 2 -1 NAVARRO Corsicana 31,1 so 19,972 39,124 3 19 NOLAN Sweetwater 16,220 12,020 18,275 -7 267 22,338 •• 35 NUECES (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Bishop Corpus Christi Port Aransas Robstown 237,544 3,466 204,525 1,218 11,217 56,000 6,529,694 148,897 87 22 -23 140 16 2,398 456,345 1,116 18,022 6 3 4 8 -18 26 -5 36 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population• Aprl971 (dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1971 1970 Apr 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1971 1970 ORANGE (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Orange 71 , 170 24,457 453,254 -62 216 55 ,2 65 2 19 PALO PINTO Mineral Wells 28,962 18,411 38,050 23 -86 32,015 - 3 6 PANOLA Carthage 15,894 5,392 376,050 778 5,655 - 6 PARKER Weatherford 33,888 11,750 100,100 214 - 46 25,160 - 1 5 PARMER Friona 10,509 3, 111 18,800 -77 -30 24,414 - 14 - 6 PECOS Fort Stockton 13,748 8,283 14,950 -75 638 POTTER (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo 90,511 127,010 1,882,130 -14 -5 512,911 - 6 9 RANDALL (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo (See Potter) Canyon 53,885 8,333 150,100 6 10,656 6 25 REEVES Pecos 16,526 12,682 1,370 -94 -96 25,045 8 13 REFUGIO Refugio 9,494 4,340 0 5,322 8 14 RUSK Henderson Kilgore 34,102 10,187 9,495 81,300 44,300 -39 -51 -37 -91 20,545 20,032 ** 2 14 3 SAN PATRICIO (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Aransas Pass Sinton 47,288 5,813 5,563 82,719 -25 44 9,973 9,364 - 22 12 20 21 SAN SABA San Saba 5,540 2,555 16,650 58 11 8,039 4 3 SCURRY Snyder 15,760 11,171 196,100 613 684 19,662 3 14 SHACKELFORD Albany 3,323 1,978 0 3,615 - 1 9 SHERMAN Stratford 3,657 2,139 156,140 11,369 - 14 - 1 SMITH (Constitutes Tyler SMSA) Tyler 97,096 57,770 788,267 -48 -49 192,494 •• 9 STEPHENS Breckenridge 8,414 5,944 19,500 -98 -46 SUTTON Sonora 3,175 2,149 750 275 - 92 3,949 27 25 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 16,514 13,449 12,070,737 263,340 6,004,891 145,618 573,606 16,866 -31 -58 -11 -43 -25 -76 206 -14 -15 53 216 -94 110,456 18,320 1,934,525 9,310 18,905 6,207 -- 11 9 8 20 •• -- 2 25 22 25 9 43 TAYLOR (In Abilene SMSA) Abilene 97,853 89,653 651,007 48 -17 169,790 4 12 Urban building permits Bank debits Percent change from Apr 1971 Percent change from COUNTY City Population* Apr1971 (dollars) Mar 1971 Apr 1970 (thousands of dollars) Mar 1971 Apr 1970 TERRY Brownfield 14,118 9,647 166,900 27 246 25,380 - 13 -II TITUS Mount Pleasant 16,702 8,877 134,005 -20 43 22,887 - I 21 TOM GREEN (Constitutes San Angelo SMSA) San Angelo 71,047 63,884 1,108,349 -19 529 126,166 -4 23 TRAVIS (Constitutes Austin SMSA) Austin 295,516 251,808 13,267,952 7 43 848,061 - 2 23 UPSHUR Gladewater 20,976 5,574 81,200 25 297 7,171 8 UPTON McCamey 4,697 2,647 2,032 - 8 -5 UVALDE Uvalde 17,348 10,764 184,530 -33 72 23,529 4 4 VAL VERDE Del Rio 27,471 21,330 101,348 -75 -44 25,063 IS 29 VICTORIA Victoria 53,766 41,349 627,555 25 116 116,095 II II WALKER Huntsville 27,680 17,610 171,500 4 111 23,120 -13 -7 WARD Monahans 13,019 8,333 1,600 -90 -83 13,539 3 •• WASHINGTON Brenham 18,842 8,922 298,037 84 -54 24,312 •• 19 WEBB (Constitutes Laredo SMSA) Laredo 72,859 69,024 656,625 81 90,172 -I WHARTON El Campo 36,729 8,563 20,645 -82 -63 19,276 4 20 WICHITA {In Wichita Falls SMSA) Burkburnett Iowa Park Wichita Falls 121,862 9,230 5,796 97,564 55,725 86,000 1,910,365 539 38 -56 -51 60 4 9,249 4,187 200,008 10 I -I 10 13 19 WILBARGER Vernon 15,355 11,454 9,440 -83 -91 26,222 5 18 WILLACY Raymondville 15,570 7,987 5,450 -41 354 13,200 -2 49 WILLIAMSON Bartlett Georgetown Taylor 37,305 1,622 6,395 9,616 291,200 165,600 217 5 804 88 1,436 10,914 13,966 7 6 -13 40 22 5 WINKLER Kermit 9,640 7,884 38,560 WISE Decatur 19,687 3,240 12,500 -62 -29 7,133 21 10 YOUNG Graham Olney 15,400 7,477 3,624 53,700 59,000 -83 917 -81 16, 141 6,922 -6 II 23 16 ZAVALA Crystal City 11,370 8,104 97,706 -31 4 7,099 4 -4 * For 1970 unless otherwise indicated. ** Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent. ... No data, or inadequate basis for reporting. 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 averageApr Mar Apr 1971 1971 1970 1971 GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY Estimates of personal income (millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted) $ 3,533p $ 3,510p $ 3,310r $ 3,469 $ 3,197 Income payments to individuals in U.S. (billions, at seasonally adjusted annual rate) ... . ..... Wholesale prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) Consumer prices in Houston (unadjusted index) . $ 841.3p 120.2p 136.7 $ 836.8p 119.9p $ 806.0r 116.6 132.9 $ 834.0 119.6 136.6 $ 788.2 116.4 131.9 Consumer prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) Business failures (number) . . . . . . . 139.8 139.3 66 134.0 63 139.2 132.9 46 Business failures (liabilities, thousands) Sales of ordinary life insurance (index) $ 274.5 $ 5,438 280.3 $ 8,682 251.4 $ 271.9 $ 5,335 249.9 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) 289.3p 253.oP 125.6p 18.3 141,4 166.0p 180.8P 198.9p 196.2p 200.7p 138.2p 273.3p 248.9 211.3 285.3 267.7p 232.1 p 124.2p 18.3 138.2 l 65.5p 181.7P 201.4p 201.0p 201.7p 136.7P 273.3p 232.5 202.1 280.6 257.9r 233.7r 121.0r 17.3 137.3 l 70.2r l 78.6r 200.lr 2 l 6.3r l 89.2r l 33.2r 257.7r 181.0 134.6 256.0 275.7 241.7 125.1 18.3 139.8 165.5 180.5 199.4 200.3 198.8 136.4 273.9 226.1 195.5 271.8 255.5 230.4 120.5 17 .1 130.9 170.6 179.9 202.8 220.5 191.0 132.2 258.8 173.4 125.0 252.3 AGRICULTURE Prices received by farmers (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100) Prices paid by farmers in U.S. (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100) 279 407p 277 404p 274 389r 277 404 279 386 Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid by farmers .. . 69 69 70 69 72 FINANCE Bank debits (index) Bank debits, U.S. (index) 348.1 399.1 342.4 391.1 304.8 350.3 333.8 388.6 297.8 339.5 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) $ 6,728 $ 9,883 $ 3,580 $320,893 $950,572 $ 6,681 $ 9,736 $ 3,595 $272,216 $671,748 $ 5,978 $ 8,607 $ 3,294 $263,791 $707,868 $ 6,662 $ 9,692 $ 3,482 $ 291,594 $6,235,577* $ 6,003 $ 8,593 $ 3,276 $ 253,234 $5,793,544* Securities registrations-original applications Mutual investment companies (thousands) $ $ 31,805 $ 33,282 $ $ 264,503* All other corporate securities Texas companies (thousands) Other companies (thousands) ...... ...... $ $ $ 12,148 $ 36,875 $ 7,458 $ 51,632 $ $ $ $ 100,188* 236,309* Securities registration-renewals Mutual investment companies (thousands) Other corporate securities (thousands) .. $ $ $ 22,279 $ 1,452 $ 32,911 $ 4,311 $ $ $ $ 245,828* 10,200* 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 147.2p 146.lp 99.6p 158.oP 3,634.0p 706.2p 372.5p 333.7P 147.3p 145.8p 99.7p 156.7p 3,614.9p 705.8p 37 l.6p 334.2p 147.8r 15 5.8r 99.6r 150.0~ 3,649.0 75 3.2r 419.2r 334.0r 147.4 146.6 99.4 156.5 3,615.2 707.6 373.9 333.6 147.5 156.6 99.6 148.9 3,618.3 755.5 423.2 332.3 Total civilian labor force in selected labor-market areas (thousands) ............... 3,503.4 3,482.2 3,486.9 3,484.0 3,454.2 Nonagricultural employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) ................... 3,282.3 3,269.9 3,293.9 3,271.8 3,277.3 Manufacturing employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) . ......... . .... .. .. 590.3 589.2 635.1 591.4 638.4 Total unemployment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) .... .......... .. . .. 133.6 134.6 99.4 135.5 98.0 Percent of labor force unemployed in selected labor-market areas ............... 3.8 3.9 2.8 3.9 2.8 BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH RETURN REQUESTED THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, ~ AUSTIN, TEXAS 7871 2 ·, SELECTED TRADE AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS OF TEXAS by Merle Danz This list of Texas trade and professional associations was compiled to assist in answering the needs of persons seeking information on various phases of Texas business. For this listing a trade association is defined as a voluntary organization of business enterprises engaged in a particular trade or industry and dealing with the problems of that industry. These associations, generally only statewide organizations, are listed alphabetically under the general term in the name. When available, information is included on addresses, telephone numbers, names of association officials, number of members, and names of official publications. 40 pp. $1.00 (Texas residents add $.04 sales tax.) PUBLICATIONS, 1971 A complete listing of all available publications by the Bureau of Business Research can be obtained without charge by request of the Bureau. Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas at Austin