TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 	VOL. XLV, NO. 7, JULY 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 
141 : The Business Situation in Texas, by Robert B. Williamson 
145: 	The Mexican Border Industrialization Program, by Henry Malcolm Steiner 
149: 	Texas Construction, by Francis B. May 
TABLES 
143: 	Business-Activity Indexes for Twenty Selected Texas Cities 
144: 	Selected Barometers of Texas Business 
145 : Business under the Mexican Border Industrialization Program 

145 : 	Minimum Daily Salaries in Selected Border Cities 


150: 	Building Authorized in Texas: Top Thirty Cities Ranked in Descending Order of Total Value 
151: 	Estimated Values of Building Authorized in Texas 
152: 	Local Business Conditions Barometers of Texas Business (inside back cover) 
CHARTS 
141 : 	Estimated Personal Income, Texas 
142: 	
Wholesale-Consumer Prices 

142: 	
Total Unemployment, Texas 

142: 	
Industrial Production, Texas 

142: 


Industrial Production: Durable Manufactures, Texas 
143: 	Crude-Oil Production, Texas 
151: 	
Total Building Authorized, Texas 

151: 	
Residential Building Authorized, Texas 


151 : 	Nonresidential Building Authorized, Texas 
The 	Bureau of Business Research is a member of the 
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 
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 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 Se cretary: 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 tbil 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. 
Association for University Business and Economic Research. 
THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS 

Robert B. Williamson 
The 1971 recovery in Texas business activity hesitated in May. The nation's 1970 economic slowdown-now officially designated by the National Bureau of Economic Research as a classical contraction with a starting date of December 1969-is generally believed to have ended in November 1970, and both Texas and national economic indicators have generally shown modest improvements in their growth rates since then. In May, however, seasonally adjusted data for Texas recorded an absence of significant gains from the previous month for such major economic series as total personal income, nonfarm employment, industrial produc­tion, and urban building authorizations. Meanwhile, the national business recovery continued to show modest and irregular progress and the rate of inflation accelerated. 
Total personal income in Texas, the best available measure of total economic growth for the state, fell back slightly in May on an adjusted basis to about the level of two months earlier. The year-to-year growth of Texas personal income during the first five months of the year, however, averaged a relatively high 8 percent. In compari­son, total personal income in the nation showed a year-to­year gain of slightly less than 6 percent during the first five months of 1971. 
Nonagricultural employment, another comprehensive economic measure, was essentially unchanged in Texas from April to May after seasonal adjustment. The employ­ment level in the state during the first five months of the year also was practically unchanged from a year earlier. Unemployment, however, was increasing during this period. The total number of unemployed workers in Texas rose on a seasonally adjusted basis by 11 percent in May and for the five months ended in May averaged 3 7 percent higher toon a year earlier. The total unemployment rate for all major labor markets in Texas during May was 4.1 percent, up slightly from April and significantly above the 3.3 percent of May 1970. The comparable seasonally unadjusted unemployment rate for the nation during May was 5.3 percent. On a seasonally adjusted basis the national unemployment rate in May was 6.2 percent, the highest since the same level was reached at the end of last year. A year earlier the national seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was less than 5 percent. 
In the various major labor markets of Texas the unadjusted May unemployment rates showed a wide scatter around the state's 4.1-percent average, ranging from a low of 2.5 percent in the Austin area to 9 .9 percent in the Laredo area. Jobless rates for the state's largest labor markets were 3.0 percent for Houston, 3. 7 percent for Dallas, 5.0 percent for San Antonio, and 5.2 percent for Fort Worth. 
Measures of inflation are obviously also among the major economic indicators which are watched closely and con-
ESTIMATED PERSONAL INCOME, TEXAS 
lnde:r Adju1ted for Setuonal Variation -1957-1959= 100 


SOURCE: Quarterly measures of Texas personal income madeby 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. 
JULY 1971 141 
COMPARISON OF CONSUMER PRICES AND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, TEXAS• 
lnde11 AdJu•ted /or Seuon•I Ve netion-1951-195'•100
WHOLESALE PRICES, UNITED STATES 
... 
I,.du Adj111ltd for Sra1oftol Yariolion-1957·1959 =100 
,.5,---.---~_:___;:.-_:___;..-_,---,---.---.---.----r--,145 

1401--1--1--1--1--+--+--+--+--+--/ -r,,,-r---1"0 135\--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---r/-r--r--jl35 200 
200 
130\--\--\---l--l--t---t---t---t--,.t--t-----tlJO 
CONS UMER PRIC ES/
125\--t---t---t---t---t--t--t--tt--t--f--j125 
/

1201--1---1---l--+--+--+--h''--t--t--tT----tl20 SO
/v 


-····· 
1151--+---l---l--+--+---;......~t--t--..r--t-----tll5 
19.57 1951 1959 1960 1961 1962 196) '"' 1965 1966 1967 1961 1969 1970 1911

y /--· 

• Manufacture• and mineral• (1ndud1ng crude-oil a nd na1ural-i•• pro<tuct1onJ. 
1101--+--+--+--b-l--+--t--:"'~--r---r-----1110 NOTE: Shaded aru.1 indicU& pcrloda ol de cline ol total b•,,.ln& u actlvit)' ia 11\e United Su. 

SOURCE Federal Rnerve &nk of Oal\11.
--l,----"" 
_. ... ....."' ' ,.. .... ,.....y;HOLfSAlf PRICES 
105 1-----h-"'1=--+--+-.-_.-.r '--t-"--t---r---r---r---i105 
,' 
100 -100 
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION DURABLE MANUFACTURES, TEXAS 
1961 1961 1963 1964 196.5 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 
" 
" 


,.. ... 
JOO JOO
TOTAL UNEMPLOYMENT, TEXAS 

Jndu AdJ1Hted for SeHon al v.,iat1on-IU1· 19J9• 100 








. 
 
"' ­ ,.,  V,'" A  ,...__  fl'  ..J  
...-./  ~  ...  "  .. ~  . '"'  "  J  
v  

,..
,,. 
JOO
JOO 
,..
... 
ISO
... 
100
... 
NOTE: Shaded areas indicate penod1 of dechne of total butlnen aclwily in the United Si.tu. SOURCE' Federal Reserve 811nk of Oal!aa. 

1957  1951  1959  1960  1961  1962  1963  1964  1965  1966  1967  1961  1969  1970  1971  
SOURCE:  Teu• Employment Comm1uion.  Data &dJu•t ed for  u ••onal 1rari ahon by the  
Bureau of Bu"ne•• R1uearch.  

NOTE: Sh•ded aru.• Indicate penod• of decl•ne of tot.al bu.,nut acllvity in th• United SUU:I 
sidered to be of primary significance for the general welfare. Available monthly data for the nation indicate that the pace of consumer price increases accelerated during May. The consumer price index for the month rose a seasonally adjusted 0.6 percent, or at a 7.2-percent annual rate, which was double the increase of the month before. Accounting for a large share of the total May increase were price hikes for apparel, used cars, homes, and postage. The sharpest consumer cost increases over the twelve-month period ending in May were for housekeeping and home­maintenance services, medical-care services, public transpor­tation, new and used cars, and home fuel and utility services. 
Pressures which could lead to further serious inflation in consumer prices appear to be growing partly as a result of recent wholesale price increases, especially for food sup­plies. Although the average of all wholesale prices rose only 
0.3 percent in May after seasonal adjustment, the average increase for industrial products over the past three months was at an annual rate of 4.4 percent compared with a rate of only ahout I percent in the second half of 1970. Farm and food prices also began to move up again strongly in May. Some economists express concern over the possibility of further rapid inflation over the next several months because of government policy actions intended to stimulate production and reduce unemployment. As evidence of these potentially inflationary policies they cite the rapid expansion of the nation's money supply during the past few months and recent and prospective large deficits in the federal budget. 
Industrial production, a major contributor to fluctua­tions in the growth of general business, continued on a relatively flat trend in Texas during May. For the first five months of 197 I, total industrial production in Texas was only I percent higher than a year earlier. A 9-percent year-to-year decrease in durable-goods production, mainly due to defense production cutbacks in the state's aircraft and electronics industries, was the principal reason for the below-normal growth recorded during the January-May period. In this period the number of workers in durable­goods manufacturing in Texas averaged 47,500 fewer than a year earlier. During the same period, nondurable goods production and crude-oil production registered year-to-year growth rates of 4 percent. 
Industrial production for the nation as a whole demon· strated greater weakness than did Texas production during the first five months of 1971, in the sense that national output remained below the levels of a year earlier in contrast to the small positive growth recorded for the state. The monthly trend has been more definitely pointed upward in the case of the nation, however, and the national seasonally adjusted increase of O. 7 percent in May was the largest-excluding the increases in December and January 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

following settlement of last year's General Motors strike­since June 1969. Steel buying in anticipation of a possible national steel strike on August 1, when labor-management contracts expire, accounted for part of the increase in output but only part. 
Automobile production rose nationally during May to an annual rate of 8.5 million units, up 5 percent from the previous month. Car assemblies during May were 10 percent higher than a year earlier, while unit sales of U.S.-made cars were up 7 percent from a year ago. In contrast, sales of foreign-made cars throughout the nation during May were 27 percent greater than a year earlier. Sales of the leading import, Volkswagen, were down 6 percent, but the number­two import, Toyota, showed a gain of 67 percent, and the number-three import, Datsun, registered a U.S. sales increase of 144 percent. During the first two thirds of June, sales of U.S.-made cars dropped nearly 15 percent below the relatively high levels of the corresponding period of June 1970. 
Crude-oil production continued to support the overall 

level of Texas industrial production during May as the 
state's oil output registered seasonally adjusted gains of 3 
percent from April and 5 percent from a year earlier. Texas 
oil-output quotas have been reduced, however, from the 
May level of 77 .2 percent of maximum permitted pro­
duction to 75.4 percent for June and 68.7 percent for July. 
CRUDE-OIL PRODUCTION, TEXAS 

t9S7 1951 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 196.5 1966 1967 196S 1969 1970 1971 
NOTE: Shadd ar••• indk•I• period• o( dec:line of lot.al butinan a(:tivity in the United Staiu, 

Of considerable significance to a major segment of Texas industry, the national decline in defense-related activity appears about ready to level off. Statistical indicators which generally lead defense-production changes bottomed out in the latter part of 1970. Preliminary congressional actions on recent Defense Department spending requests have left the requests substantially intact, and total defense spending for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 197 1, is projected to show a moderate increase from the prior fiscal year according to Administration estimates. The Department of Defense requests would provide funds to continue some production of the F-111 airplane made by the General Dynamics Corporation at Fort Worth. Illustrative of the potential new defense business which is becoming available is a new ship-to-ship missile to be developed by an industrial team which includes Texas Instruments, Inc., of Dallas, as a major member. Apparent also are indications of 
JULY 1971 a leveling off of the decline in space-program spending. Final congressional actions on the current budget proposals, however, could result, of course, in further cutbacks in overall defense and space spending. 
The seasonally adjusted index of Texas nonfarm building authorizations in May reflected a 4-percent decline from April but was 17 percent higher than a year earlier. The average year-to-year gain for the first five months of 1971 was 27 percent, led by a SO-percent rise in the residential index. The index of nonresidential building authorizations recorded a more modest increase of 5 percent for the same period. Types of buildings accounting for the largest dollar increases in Texas nonresidential authorizations thus far in 1971 are office and bank buildings and educational buildings. Those showing the largest decreases are hospitals and other institutional buildings, amusement buildings, industrial buildings, and stores and mercantile buildings. 
The nationwide recovery in residential construction seems to still have considerable momentum. In May the annual rates of both private new housing starts and private residential units authorized by building permits rose throughout the nation to register year-to-year gains of 55 percent and 43 percent, respectively. Reports of the increases were accompanied by the announcement of upward revisions of industry forecasts to 1.9 million private housing starts in 1971. This compares with an earlier forecast of 1.8 million starts and the 1970 total of 1.4 million starts. In addition to these numbers, shipments of mobile homes are now running at an annual rate of close to one-half million units. Despite these increases in the supply of new housing, vacancy rates generally continue to be unusually low. Recent increases in interest rates, however, are a source of some concern to the homebuilding industry. 
BUSINESS-ACTIVITY INDEXES 
FOR lWENTY SELECTED TEXAS CITIES 
(Adjusted for seasonal variation-1957-1959=100) 

Percent change 

Year-to­ 
date  
Year-to­ average  
date  May 1971  1971  
MayP  Apr  average  from  from  
Index  1971  1971  1971  Apr 1971  1970  
Abilene  150.4  161.6  147.8  7  6  
Amarillo  205.5  218.0  212.6  6  5  
Austin  377.3  398.3  379.7  5  13  
Beaumont  176.6  186.0  179.6  5  - 1  
Corpus Christi  202.2  196.9  195.1  3  21  
Corsicana  153.4  211.2  178.7  -27  9  
Dallas  334.2  373.5  354.4  -11  9  
El Paso  177.0  183.6  172.0  4  12  
Fort Worth  236.2  230.8  217.4  2  17  
Galveston  135.3  137.4  144.3  2  9  
Houston  293.9  300.4  291.9  2  8  
Laredo  261.4  281.4  274.2  7  10  
Lubbock  190.9  207.0  176.2  8  12  
Port Arthur  136.6  150.2  137.1  9  16  
San Angelo San Antonio  193.5 235.2  215 .6 259.8  203.2 244.7  -10 9  17 16  
Texarkana  220.9  233.6  220.6  - 5  4  
Tyler Waco  173.2 205.3  190.6 214.3  182.2 204.6  -9 -4  4 4  
Wichita Falls  143.3  160.0  143.8  -10  13  

P Preliminary. 
Interest rates have been rising generally during the past three months. Long-term interest rates as represented by yields on corporate bonds have risen by about three fourths of a percentage point since February. Discounts on govern­ment-backed mortgages have increased and some West Coast banks have raised their conventional mortgage rates to 7.5 percent from 7 .0 percent. Short-term rates have moved up much faster, rising on three-month Treasury bills from around 3.25 percent in March to about 5 percent in June. Expectations of more rapid inflation and of a more restrictive monetary policy have caused the interest rate increases to be greater than would have been indicated solely by the strength of the business recovery to date. Meanwhile, the supply of mortgage money continues to be large. Net inflows to saving and loan associations, banks, and insurance companies have risen at record rates and have resulted in sharp increases in mortgage-loan commitments. In the past, cyclical increases in long-term interest rates have not had a significant depressing effect on home­building until the general level of long-term interest rates has risen long enough and high enough to drain off large amounts of capital supplies from the mortgage market to meet business and government credit demands which are Jess easily discouraged by high credit costs. These other credit demands have not exhibited very strong fundamental increases thus far during the present business expansion. 
Consumers' retail purchases have provided no more than a moderate support for the business recovery so far in 1971. Comprehensive, up-to-date retail-sales data are not 
SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (Indexes-Adjusted for seasonal variation-1957-1959=100) 
Percent change  
Year-to­ 
date  
Index  May 1971  Apr 1971  Year-to­date May 1971 average from 1971 Apr 1971  average 1971 from 1970  

Estimated personal  
244.6p 246.2p income 242.3  - 1  8  
Crude-petroleum  
129.1P 12s.8P-production 126.0  3  4  
Crude-oil runs to stills 144.1 141.4 140.7  2  7  
Total electric-power  
285.4p 289.3puse 277.6  8  
Industrial electric- 
power use 240.4p 25 3.0P 241.S  s  s  
Bank debits 332.9 348.1 333.7  4  13  
Urban building permits  
issued 240.0 248.9 228.9  4  27  
New residential 206.4 211.3 197.6  2  so  
New nonresidential 289.6 285.3 275.3  2  s  
Total industrial  
production 181.7p 181.lp 180.4  **  
Total nonfarm em­ 
ployment 147 .SP 147.3p 147.S  **  **  
Manufacturing em­ 
ployment 146.2p 146.2p 146.6  **  -6  
Total unemployment 124.6 112.S 113.1  11  37  
Insured unemployment 97.0 98.7 98.1 Average weekly earn­ - 2  SS  
ings-manufacturing 158.4p 157.7p 156.8 Average weekly hours­ **  s  
manufacturing 100.0p 99.3p 99.S  **  
P Preliminary.  
* * Change is less than one half of 1 percent.  
144  

available for Texas, but national data indicate that total retail sales are running about 5 to 6 percent higher than a year earlier. Department-store sales are doing better. Avail­able figures for both the state and the nation show comparable year-to-year department-store gains of about g percent. The growth trend of total retail sales weakened in May as the seasonally adjusted estimate of the national total registered an absolute decline from the previous month. Surveys of consumer buying plans, however, pro­vide a basis for expected improvement in the trend of consumer spending in the near future. Projected improve­ments are especially evident for major household goods and houses. On the other hand, continued high rates of unemployment and job uncertainties could weaken con­sumer confidence and lead to cutbacks in spending plans, even though personal income and savings totals remain high. 
Despite recent evidence of some tightening of &edit supplies by the monetary authorities, government policies have been generally expansive since the start of the year. The money supply, after only small increases in the latter part of 1970, has been expanded so far this year at an annual rate of over 11 percent. The rate of expansion rose to 16 percent in May to bring the total money supply to a level 7 percent higher than a year earlier. The Federal Reserve System appears to be taking steps to slow this rapid expansion of the money supply and to bring about selective increases in interest rates. During June the Federal Reserve sold Treasury bills to reduce the supply of funds in the banking system and to put particular upward pressure on short-term interest rates to slow the overseas flow of short-term dollar investments which had reached crisis proportions during May. The latest data on bank reserves show a tightening in response to the more restrictive Federal Reserve policies. Evidence indicates no significant shift away from the expansive posture of fiscal policy, however, but a possible further expansion of fiscal policies. The federal government deficit for the fiscal year ending June 30 is expected to be around $25 billion and unofficial forecasts place next year's deficit, without the adoption of any new specific economic stimulants, such as a tax cut, at about the same level. Meanwhile, talk in Washington suggests increasingly that Congress might approve a major tax cut this year to stimulate the economy and to avoid the significant losses in potential economic output which are implied by the present moderate recovery. 
The general economic outlook for 1971, without further major policy shifts such as a cut in federal income taxes, is still in line with the standard forecast reported at the start of the year, which was for an increase in gross national product of about 7 percent to around $1,050 billion for the year as a whole. Inflation is now expected to account for a somewhat greater share of this increase than believed earlier and the outlook is for average prices to rise at an annual rate of about 4 percent during the remainder of the year. The national unemployment rate is still expected to hold around the 6-percent level during most of the year. This kind of national economy along with a leveling off of the declines in the defense and space programs would help maintain the Texas economy on what could be termed a "normal" or "moderate" recovery pattern during 1971. 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

THE MEXICAN BORDER INDUSTRIALIZATION 
PROGRAM 

Henry Malcolm Steiner• 
Since November 1965 a new type of industry has grown up along the U.S.-Mexican border. It has been called the "twin-plant" operation because a plant on the U.S. side using capital-intensive methods sends uncompleted products to a sister plant on the Mexican side using labor-intensive methods for completion of the production process. For Texas, on a Mexican border longer than that of any other state and with more twin cities than any other bordering state, this is an important development. 
Origins of the Program 

Availability of labor at one sixth the cost of the same labor in the United States, along with a new and appropriate set of Mexican tariff regulations, plus the existing U.S. tariff regulations, had promoted by January 1970 the establishment of more than 160 twin-plant businesses along the border. Table 1 shows plant locations in 1969. These firms employed more than 17,000 Mexican nationals on the Mexican side. In 1969 about $53 million were added to the value of goods that were then shipped back across the border to the United States. 
In Texas the following twin plants were among those established or expanded during 1970 and the first five months of 1971: 
Brownsville  CTS of Brownsville, Inc.  Electronic devices  
CRS Crose International  Oil-field equipment  
Leece Neville  Electric motors  
El Paso  Cowtown Boot Company  Boots  
Components, Inc.  Electronic devices  
McAllen  Form-0-Uth Company  Apparel  

The list illustrates the wide variety of products produced by twin plants. Some other outputs are purses, toys, gloves, furniture, canned goods, surgical implements, artificial flowers, doors, piano components, sports equipment, and reconstructed engines. 
And the growth trend in Texas continues with plans for three more twin plants in El Paso-Juarez. Sylvania Electric Products, General Electric, and American Machine and Foundry are joining the Juarez twin-plant complex. Sylvania, a manufacturer of electronic products, will occupy an assembly plant already under construction in the Antonio Bermudez Industrial Park, in the eastern section of Juarez. It is reported that Monsanto, Inc., manufacturers of agricultural products and other chemical items in the hydrocarbons and polymers family, will occupy a facility in the same industrial complex. Sites for the assembly plants 
*Associate professor, Department of Management, The Univer­sity of Texas at Austin. 
JULY 1971 
Table l 
BUSINESSES UNDER THE MEXICAN BORDER 
INDUSTRIALIZATION PROGRAM (MBIP), 1969 

Location U.S. border city Total 

Ciudad Acuna, Coahuila  Del Rio, Texas  
Piedras Negras, Coahuila  Eagle Pass, Texas  7  
Agua Prieta, Sonora  Douglas, Arizona  2  
Nogales, Sonora  Nogales, Arizona  4  
Matamoros, Tamaulipas  Brownsville, Texas  14  
Reynosa, Tamaulipas  McAllen, Texas  3  
Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas  Laredo, Texas  11  
Palomas, Chihuahua  Columbus, New Mexico  1  
Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua  El Paso, Texas  18  
Tecate, Baja California  6  
Ensenada, Baja California  San Diego, California  2  
Tijuana, Baja California  San Diego, California  45  
Mexicali, Baja California  Calexico, California  55  
Total  156  

Source:  American  consuls and Chambers of Commerce in border  
cities.  
Table 2  

MINIMUM DAILY SALARIES IN SELECTED BORDER CITIES, 1970-1971** 
City Mexican pesos U.S. dollars 

Mexicali  46.00  3.68  
Tijuana  46.00  3.68  
Nogales  33.75  2.70  
Ciudad Juarez  36.00  2.88  
Ciudad Acuna  29.80  2.38  
Piedras Negras  29.80  2.38  
Matamoros  33.75  2.70  
Nuevo Laredo  33.00  2.64  
Reynosa-Rio Bravo  33.75  2.70  

* 1 U.S. dollar = 12.49 Mexican pesos. 
Source: 	Mexico, Comision Nacional de los Salarios Mlnimos, Sa/arias Mlnimos (Mexico, 1970). 

to be operated by General Electric Company and by the American Machine and Foundry Company have not yet been announced. The future of El Paso as a center for the location of twin plants for large U.S . manufacturing firms is made more certain by a recently published presidential decree. Mexican promoters of the twin-plant complex in Juarez received the new statutory provisions jubilantly. Particularly gratifying was the portion amending sections of the Mexican customs code which had been ambiguous with reference to the border industrialization program. The new decree clearly gives preferential treatment to foreign investors who may establish new industries with the assistance of Mexican counseling, thus contributing to the continued development of technology and the manufacture of articles for export. 
Piedras Negras and Eagle Pass, too, have extended the growth pattern into the current year. They have been selected by the Don Carter Manufacturing Company as sites for the operation of twin plants which will produce golf gloves and various other kinds of sports equipment, and will contract for special items. The U.S. plant will employ 60 persons; the Mexican assembly plant will employ 120 
persons. 
Imports of machinery, equipment, raw materials, and components are allowed into the Mexican border area by the Mexican government on a continual basis and free of 
duty. Businesses may be totally foreign-owned. Only one requisite exists: all production must be exported out of the duty-free zone. 
The border program is another evidence of a new trend in world business: the export of labor by labor-surplus countries without the absence of the labor force from the native country. Increasing labor costs in the industrialized countries in combination with decreasing transport costs encourage the performance of capital-intensive and labor-intensive operations in the respective countries where the operation is cheapest. This kind of cooperation is now being practiced by the United States with Mexico, Hong Kong, Macao, and other places. The trend may well broaden to include many more labor-surplus areas, especially with the advent of lower transport prices. 
The Mexican Border Industrialization Program (M BIP), set up in 1965, replaced an older program dating from 1961 . Both programs were established to improve the border cities by bringing in industry, which would provide jobs for the thousands of Mexicans who had migrated from the interior of Mexico to the border. The border and Mexico City were the two principal points of attraction for the increasing numbers of rural dwellers leaving their ancient homes for the urban areas. 
The new industry was calculated also to change the impression of the border held by most visitors. The tourist-for-a-day saw it as an area totally devoted to liquor stores, souvenir shops, and vice of one kind or another. The visitor retained the memory of parasitism as a dominant feature not only of the border but of the whole of Mexico. 
Labor in the Border Zone 
Training 
The level of education of Mexican labor in the border zone is relatively high. This statement is supported by the results of the 1960 census, the latest available: "Of persons 6 years of age and older, 75 percent or more were literate in these states compared with only 62 percent for the nation as a whole. The mean number of years of school completed by the population 30 years of age and older in the border states varied from 2.9 in Sonora, Chihuahua and Tamaulipas to 3.5 in Nuevo Leon. All of Mexico averages 
2. 3 years of schooling." 1 
I 
_u.s. Department of Labor, "Economic Development in the Mexican_ Border .Areas," Labor Development Abroad, prepared by Anna-Stma L. Ericson (Washington, June 1967), p. 3. 
146 
It is a fact, however, that the labor force along the border is unskilled. Training may present a problem for the relatively sophisticated hand-labor industries. 
Productivity 
The productivity of labor is good, as attested by a 1969 study made by the American Chamber of Commerce of Mexico. This study reported that of 63 U.S. companies working under the MBIP , 48 of which had been operating for more than one year, 61 were satisfied with the general efficiency of trained labor.2 Fifty-nine out of 63 firms stated that their labor costs had been what they expected. Twenty-eight of the companies interviewed were unionized and 35 were not. Twenty-five out of 28 stated that they were satisfied in general with their relations with the union. As one U.S. executive put it, "We have the opportunity to choose our employees, and we can take the cream of that labor pool. Certainly we are not dealing with labor trash." 
The opinion on supervisory personnel is a different story. Of 63 U.S. companies 6 answered that they have had troubles with their labor, and only I pointed out lack of skills as the reason. But 22 companies stated that they did have troubles with supervisory personnel. The majority reported that it was difficult to obtain good national supervisors. A great deal of training was necessary. 
Compensation 
Salaries. Table 2 shows the minimum salaries along the border in 1970-1971 for all workers. Note, however, that higher minimum rates are set by the Mexican National Minimum Wage Commission for skilled employees. These amounts are exclusive of fringe benefits and other incentives. 
Fringe benefits. There are a number of fringe benefits. 
Social Security payments. These vary between 8.3 and 
11.7 percent of salary, a major portion being paid by the employer. (The employer who pays only the legal daily minimum wage must pay both the employer's and the employee's share.) Risks and other contingencies covered by the Mexican Social Security System include accidents on the job, general occupational diseases, maternities, old age, and death. 
Overtime. Male employees are paid double time for overtime above eight hours per day. Female employees are paid triple time. The new law of 1970 states that no worker is obligated to work more than nine hours of overtime per week, but when he does he receives triple pay. 
Days off with pay. Fifty-two Sundays, plus six to twelve days of paid vacations, plus seven holidays are required under Mexican labor law. In addition, a 25-percent premium on salary must be paid during the vacation. 
2American Chamber of Commerce of Mexico, A.C., Survey on Border Development Program, a report prepared by the Interna­tional Trade and Investments Committee (Mexico, D.F., July 1969). 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

Christmas bonus. At least fifteen days' salary must be paid to each worker before December 20. This is the traditional aguinaldo. 
Profit sharing. Compulsory profit sharing amounts to a maximum of 14 percent of annual profits. Border cities claim that Mexican output for a U.S. corporation will show no profit, since such output is sold to the parent company at cost. 
Comparative Labor Costs 
As a rule of thumb, it is claimed that labor costs can be cut from the U.S. level by an amount between $3,000 and $6,000 per year per employee, depending on the location and nature of the assembly operations. It is possible to prefigure labor costs with some accuracy. In the American Chamber of Commerce of Mexico study mentioned above, 59 firms out of 63 operating in the border area answered that their labor costs had actually been what they expected. 
Public SerYices in the Border Zone 

Most border cities have adequate electricity, water, sewage, and similar services. In general, transportation and communication in most of them are excellent. Many are served by rail and air as well as highways. For example, goods are moved from Tijuana to San Diego in approxi­mately thirty minutes, and to Los Angeles in three hours. Nogales is linked to Tucson by a one-and-a-half-hour drive and to Phoenix by a three-hour trip. The Mexicali area has direct-dial telephone service from the United States. In other cases, particularly on the Texas border, distance from a Mexican location to a U.S. point can be measured in blocks. Thus the border area has convenient access to U.S. transportation networks, so much so, that in some cases the 
U.S. twin factory has been located far from the border, to as distant a location as Dallas. 
Industrial Parks 

Significant is the recent development of industrial parks on the Mexican side of the border. Since foreigners are forbidden by the Mexican constitution to own land within sixty-two miles of the border, these parks offer, on long leases, industrial sites of various sizes plus construction to tenant specifications. They are supplied with all the important services, and in addition, within the industrial park and the bonded manufacturing zone, expediting assistance from the Mexican government to aid manufac­turers in resolving problems. 
Effects on l 1.S. Emplo)·ment of Labor 

The first official denunciation of border plants was issued by the AFL-CIO Executive Council of the United States. At its convention in Florida in December 1967 the AFL-CIO urged the government to "take immediate action to assure that wages and working conditions of U.S. citizens and the operations of U.S. employers who abide by U.S. labor standards are not adversely affected by low-wage operations along the border of Mexico."3 In January of 1968 the Texas State AFL-CIO described the Mexican program as "another monster in the unemployment field."4 In May of 1968 the National Executive Council of the AFL-CIO denounced the program's only beneficiaries as "profit-hungry companies" and recommended, among other things, repeal of Section 807 of the U.S. tariff schedule, the tax on value-added provision. In June of 1969 Joseph Keenan, secretary of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, claimed that 20,000 jobs moved to Mexico as a result of the Mexican government's in-bond industry promotion. 5 
The Mexican government has pointed out that the whole program was established to allow plants requiring large amounts of hand labor to operate in Mexico, where they could produce such goods competitively. U.S. parts on materials are used in the process, and in many cases the goods are returned to the United States for further processing. The MBIP is a plan to compete with other cheap-labor markets, and to do so right on the U.S. border, where Mexico has an advantage in transportation costs and in the close U.S. supervision permitted. Mexicans say, why not let Mexican hand labor-in oversupply-finish many textile, electronic, and wood products that otherwise would be produced in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Manila, and Japan? 
It is claimed that Mexicans account for between 40 and 60 percent of the retail sales in many of the U.S. towns along the border in spite of Mexican efforts to supply this demand on their own side. Thus, increased employment is said to stimulate business, and both the United States and Mexico stand to benefit by the border plan. 
It is important to note finally that of total 1967 imports of $982 million into the United States, under Section 807, $464 million came from Germany and only $19 million came from Mexico. 
So far, in response to criticism, Washington has decreed only that products must be labeled "assembled in Mexico from materials made in the U.S.A." 
"There is no question, we would have gone to the Far East if the opportunity in Mexico had not come up ... " "If we do not stand up in Mexico we will stand up in Japan or Taiwan. We have no other choice if we are going to compete in world markets." These statements express the position of some executives involved in Mexican border operations. A significant feature of the Mexican operation is that every border plant has to be supported by a manufacturing counterpart in the United States. 
3" AFL-CIO Tries Again To Close the Border," Business A broad, May 27, 1968, p. 29. 
4Ibid. 

5"Mexico Border Industry under Growing Attack," The News (Mexico City), June 10, 1969, p. 32. 
JULY 1971 


TWIN-CITY PLANTS 
ALONG THE MEXICO-U.S. BORDER 


'-"\ I 
, _ Reynosa 
'0°AMAU LIPAS 
DURANGC;·--,'\ 
Certainly it is a fact that low Mexican wage levels relative to U.S. levels in the border area develop an effective attraction for U.S. firms, as shown by the impressive growth of U.S. businesses on the border. However, the alternative of a location in Taiwan or other foreign ports is feasible only for big companies. In fact, some of them presently have operations in many such areas around the world. But for a considerable number of small firms, overseas operations are simply impractical. The advantages of the Mexican border over other surplus-labor areas may just be beginning to be realized. 
Although the AFL-C IO is upset by a visible and close operation across the border, the Mexican border program is only the most recent imitation of older programs in various countries around the world. 
Quite important is the declared effort of the Mexican authorities to restrict the program to so-called "twin plants." No industry is accepted into the program unless it has a manufacturing counterpart in the United States. In this way the M BIP is supposed to promote an international division of labor, which results in the creation of new jobs in both countries. Add this to the fact that U.S. and Mexican border economies are closely related, and the result is a benefit to both countries. 
Some Prospects for the Development of the MB IP 
Since 1965, the year when MBIP began, the total annual exports have increased \:ach year: 
Percent  
Total export  increase  
Year  (million U.S. dollars)  over 1966  

1966  7  
1967  19  270  
1968  30  430  
1969  53  760  

The above figures include labor costs. The export is mainly to the United States. Four companies grew as follows between December 1967 and June 1969: 
No. of employees (approx.) 
Company Location Product Dec. I 967 June 1969 
A Piedras N egras, Electronic Coahuila devices 100 340 B Nogales, Sonora Electronic devices 120 700-800 c Nuevo Laredo, Electronic Tamaulipas devices 600 1,280 D Nuevo Laredo, Electronic Tamaulipas devices 100 ISO 
Finally, the American Chamber of Commerce survey of 63 U.S. companies operating in the border area pointed out that 48 of those companies planned to expand their operations during the next year, 5 did not know, and only 9 did not plan expansion. In short, the importance of MBIP is likely to be much greater in the near future. It may mean 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

an increase in the number of companies or an increase in the level of operations of those already established. 
Two serious problems may cause difficulties for the twin-plant concept. The first is the already discussed opposition of the AFL-CIO . The second is the threat of rising wages of Mexican workers. During the eight years from 1962 to 1970 the minimum daily salary set by the Mexican National Salary Commission went from 12.08 to 
33.7 5 pesos in the state of Tamaulipas, facing Brownsville and McAllen in Texas. This is almost a 300-percent increase. It is an average annual rise of about 35 percent for the eight years. Nevertheless, Mexican wages still remain far below U.S. wages. The gap, however, is narrowing. The question of wages will remain crucial for many businessmen contemplating a twin-plant operation. 
The Future of the Program 

From a strictly economic point of view, "what prod­ucts" and "what markets" represent the two main ques­tions relative to the future of this border area, as well as of other similar areas around the world. That is to say, what products which take advantage of both the technology available in the United States and the labor pool available in Mexico can gain a good position in competitive markets? 
Apart from improving the competitive position of U.S. 

products in and out of the U.S. market, an opportunity 
exists to get a much deeper penetration in markets in 
developing nations. Such products, traditionally imported 
directly from the United States, would contain a substantial 
portion of Mexican border hand labor. Thus developing 
nations would reap the benefits of cheaper labor costs, and 
also would improve the purchasing power of their exchange 
reserves. 
Finally, a new kind of business is likely to develop in the 

border area from the rebuilding of engines: the reconstruc­
tion of a wide variety of durable goods-for example, farm 
tractors-for markets in developing nations. Used goods 
could be bought cheaply from the United States, rebuilt in 
the border area, and shipped to various markets around the 
world. 
Yet of 63 U.S. firms operating in the border area in 

1969 only 8 exported or planned to export to countries 
other than the United States. It seems clear that, for the 
time being, production for world markets is the exception 
rather than the rule among U.S. businesses under the MBIP. 
Many questions need to be answered in future research on this phenomenon of increasing division of labor on a worldwide basis. What products are best suited to this kind of production? What is the relation between transport costs and labor costs which makes for optimization? What new technology in transport will enable business to take advantage of new labor markets throughout the world? What changes in tariff laws are desirable and what opposi­tion to such changes may be expected? Many similar questions might be posed. It may not be overoptimistic to see in the Mexican border plants a new phase in world business and world economic development. 
TEXAS CONSTRUCTION 

Francis B. May 
Total construction authorized in Texas declined 4 percent in May after rising during each of the preceding three months. A decline in urban building permits issued for residential construction and in permits issued for additions, alterations, and repairs to existing structures brought about the decline in the overall index. Construc­tion of nonresidential structures authorized in May rose 2 percent. 
After rising in February to 215 .2 percent of its 1957-1959 base value from a January low of 153.2 percent, the index of residential construction authorized has pur­sued an erratic course. It fell to 202.1 percent in March, rose again in April, dropping in May to 206.4 percent. The dramatic upward movement begun in February has not continued strong. Instead, the index has moved between rather narrow limits without emphatic upward impetus. It is a reflection of the somewhat fitful and lackadaisical recovery of the national economy to date. 
All categories of housing authorized in May declined from their April levels except two-family dwellings. These structures comprise a small portion of the total value of residential building. Only $16.8 million of the total of $616. 7 million of residential structures authorized during the January-May 1971 period were two-family dwellings. Single-family homes and apartment buildings comprise the greater part of the total value of residential structures. Both of these categories declined in May to a total value of $122.9 million from their April total of $130. l million for the two categories combined. 
Comparison of residential building activity during the first five months of this year with the January-May 1970 period shows that this segment of the industry has substantially improved over the depressed levels of con­struction caused by extreme shortages of credit last year. Total value of permits for single-family dwellings issued in January through May of this year was $374.3 million, up 69 percent over the value for the first five months of last year. Permits for apartment buildings at $ 217 .2 million were up 23 percent over the January-May 1970 total. Permits for duplexes more than doubled in value. Those for 3-and 4-family dwellings were up 66 percent. 
This improvement in year-to-date permits for one-family homes over the first five months of 1970 was general for the standard metropolitan statistical areas of the state, all of these metropolitan areas experiencing increases in total value of permits for one-family dwellings. These increases ranged from a low of 8 percent for Laredo and Wichita Falls to a high of 271 percent for Abilene. Among the larger areas, Fort Worth had a 97-percent increase to take the lead. Dallas had a 53-percent increase, Houston, 63 percent, and San Antonio, 38 percent. 
The standard metropolitan statistical areas showed a mixture of gains, losses, and no changes in the value of 

JULY 1971 149 
permits issued for two-family dwelling units during the first five months of this year. Eleven metropolitan areas had increases over the first five months of 1970 with El Paso having the largest increase (3,481 percent). Waco was second, with a 608-percent increase. Eight metropolitan areas had no change in the value of construction of duplexes over the value for the first five months of 1970. Four had declines. San Antonio, with an 8-percent drop, was the only one of the state's four largest areas having a decline in this category. The large percentage changes found in total value of construction of duplexes is due in part to the relatively small volume of construction of this type. 
Apartment living has become more popular in recent years, as young couples have tended to delay beginning a family for a longer period of time than was the case during the period following the end of World War II. This factor accounts in part for the heavy volume of apartment construction ($219.0 million) during the first five months of this year. Fourteen metropolitan areas experienced increases in the total value of permits issued for apartment dwellings. Some of these increases were extremely large because of the small volume of apartment building in those areas during January-May 1970. Amarillo, Texarkana, and Tyler had increases· of 4,003 percent, 2,880 percent, and 2,946 percent, respectively. Two of the state's four largest standard metropolitan statistical areas had increases over the first five months of last year. These were Fort Worth (89 percent) and Houston (67 percent). Dallas had a 10-percent decrease and San Antonio an 8-percent decrease. The increase for the entire state was 32 percent over the January-May 1970 level. In reports of permits issued by SMSA's the apartment category includes 3-and 4-family dwellings, which were up 66 percent, bringing the category total to a gain of 32 percent, whereas the category for apartments only, as reported directly to the Bureau of Business Research, was up only 23 percent. 
Nonresidential building authorized in the state has followed a steady upward course during the past four months, rising from a level of 266.6 percent of the 1957-1959 base value in January to 289.6 percent in May. This category of building activity did not suffer the severe decline in 1969 that residential building suffered. This difference was due to the facts that the sources of financing of nonresidential structures vary from those of residential, aud that lead-times in planning, building, and consequently, in financing commitments for nonresidential structures also differ from those of residential building. 

BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS 
(Top thirty cities ranked in descending order of total value) 

New dwelling units  New nonresidential  Total construction•  
Value in dollars  Number  Value in dollars  Value in dollars  
City  Jan-May 1971 1970  % chng  Jan-May 1971 1970  % chng  Jan-May 1971 1970  % chng  Jan-May 1971 1970  % chng  

Houston ......100,077,786 Dallas ........ 59,491,391 Austin ..... .. 37,029,000 Fort Worth .... 14,682,502 El Paso ....... 29,416,888 San Antonio ... 18,198,027 Corpus  59,357,343 47,405,489 27,130,000 9,866,200 22,329,009 16,442,284  69 25 36 49 32 11  10,867 6,889 2,806 1,286 2,111 1,766  6,254 5,185 2,006 989 2,040 1,684  74 33 40 30 3 5  111,650,427 44,075,159 20,915,401 30,039,490 15,417,827 15,109,406  95,630,827 89,704,408 18,974,467 13,709,9_19 13,339,461 20,318,478  17 -51 10 119 16 -26  263,449,739 114,149,811 61,606,045 49,920,070 49,480,845 46,930,653  183,951,247 149,347,167 49,394,248 31,712,847 39,074,141 41,279,342  43 -24 25 57 27 14  
Christi .... .. Lubbock Denton ....... Amarillo ...... Waco ...... .. Pasadena Grand Prairie . . Wichita  13,194,036 14,199,930 5,917,184 7,700,200 5,052,030 6,582,880 7,300,510  5,360,184 6,277,386 6,439,950 1,945,050 3,672,450 6,415,116 9,274,707  146 126 -8 296 38 3 -21  1,041 820 401 406 400 631 367  545 428 475 76 256 497 639  91 92 -16 434 56 27 -43  10,477,729 5,867,129 10,778,198 4,212,475 5,307,916 4,243,772 2,942,154  5,468,402 92 4,282,256 37 316,606 3,304 16,006,260 -74 14,136,604 -62 1,514,001 180 992,345 196  32,968,891 21,297,400 17,072,334 12,812,440 11,773,011 11,427,518 11,036,380  12,594,417 12,935,634 6,852,406 20,965,861 18,886,632 8,677,083 10,951,325  162 65 149 -39 -38 32 I  
Falls Carrollton .. .. Baytown ..... Mesquite Richardson .... Plano ........ Beaumont Galveston ..... Euless ........ Midland .. .... Tyler .. ...... Longview . .... Lewisville ..... San Angelo .... Hurst ........ Bedford ...... Duncanville ...  5,225,172 5,564,600 4,883,843 6,297,954 6,001,422 5,330,367 4,457,110 2,141,912 5,660,270 2,951,000 4,721,100 4,444,000 4,676,167 3,335,100 4,236,240 4,178,838 4,181 ,618  3,369,562 1,772,000 2,535,465 8,430,044 3,141,811 4,872,878 3,451,597 1,385,500 781,612 919,500 2,302,050 2,637,000 2,283,520 1,207,552 1,744,638 1,641,262 4,219,548  55 214 93 -25 91 9 29 55 624 221 105 69 105 176 143 155 1  510 399 462 577 327 383 384 280 605 112 337 196 343 363 332 403 328  421 21 92 334 180 157 925 -38 167 96 564 -32 361 6 165 70 48 1,160 39 187 113 198 164 20 375 -9 110 230 96 246 110 266 366 -10  4,264,410 4,219,500 4 ,756,748 3,281,045 3,492,262 2,398,100 1,770,934 3,735,209 803,500 2,770,408 920,325 939,900 683,870 1,678,161 1,110,579 974,000 868,490  604,499 711,000 1,728,946 3,698,112 2,403,516 626,722 1,675,249 1,292,277 98,509 395,500 4,433,500 4,560,440 335,335 2,673,106 5,405,672 345,432 248,545  605 493 175 -11 45 283 6 189 716 600 -79 -79 104 -37 -79 182 249  10,377,709 10,045,124 9,991,418 9,901,978 9,777,775 7,963,966 6,898,510 6,536,876 6,526,841 6,221,093 6,182,554 5,800,000 5,565,492 5,353,186 5,346,819 5,161,938 5,098,778  4,444,386 2,593,040 4,492,362 12,449,357 5,850,030 5,623,087 5,770,655 3,086,650 926,981 1,841,651 7,108,360 7,598,440 2,656,330 4,171,155 7,172,730 2,002,773 4,544,223  134 287 122 -20 67 42 20 112 604 238 -13 -24 110 28 -25 158 12  
* Includes additions, alterations, and repairs.  
150  TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW  

The residential construction industry spent 1970 recov­ering from the very low level reached in 1969. In January of 1970 the index of residential construction authorized was at a level of only 11 7.6 percent of its 1957-1959 base value. By December 1970 it had risen to 249.9 percent. By way of contrast, the index of nonresidential construction was at 234.3 percent in January 1970, approximately twice the value of the residential index. It had risen to 349.1 by the end of 1970. This value was reached by a tremendous surge from 249.0 percent in November 1970 to 349.1 percent in December, a 100-point jump. Permits for large numbers of commercial buildings often cause this index to take very large spurts upward in single months. This difference in the factors affecting the two indexes accounts for the fact that, while the residential index is up 27 percent for the first five months of this year, the nonresidential index is up only 5 percent. 
In future years the behavior of these two indexes will continue to differ, particularly because of changes in the 
ESTIMATED VALUES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS* 
Percent change Jan-May 1971
May Jan-May 
May 1971 from
1971 1971 
from Jan-May Classification (thousands of dollars) Apr 1971 1970 

ALL PERMITS 253,074 1,207,649 5 29 
New construction 222,760 1,073,172 3 27 
Residential 

(housekeeping) 127,721 616,671 5 51 One-family dwellings 78,252 374,338 6 69 Multiple-family 
dwellings 49,469 242,333 3 29 Nonresidential buildings 95,039 456,501 1 5 Hotels, motels, and 
tourist courts 3,338 25,911 46 28 Amusement buildings 1,013 17,833 1 -47 Churches 3,073 15,285 40 -14 Industrial buildings 4,960 ~7,771 -58 -23 Garages (commercial 
and private) 657 12,831 -88 122 Service stations 1,172 7,900 -33 34 Hospitals and 
institutions 2,736 19,309 -60 -60 Office-bank buildings 39,503 138,769 41 so Works and utilities 5,848 22,351 106 21 Educational buildings 14,676 67,073 5 36 Stores and mercantile 

buildings 13,278 74, 161 4 -9 
Other buildings and 
structures 4,785 17,307 74 51 
Additions, alterations, 
and repairs 30,314 134,477 -19 40 
SMSAt vs. NON-SMSA 

Total SMSA 228,963 1,089,785 -6 32 Central cities 170,276 744,772 5 20 Outside central cities 58,687 345,013 -29 65 
Total non-SMSA 24, 111 117,864 7 5 10,000 to 50,000 population 14,168 59,768 29 2 Less than 10,000 population 9,943 58,096 -13 9 
• 	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. 
composition of the demand for housing. The trend toward smaller families and the increasing cost of housing will increase the demand for smaller homes and condominium apartments with associated playgrounds for children. As a result of escalating costs, the market for mobile homes will increase from its present level of more than 400,000 units a year. Increasing costs will enlarge also demand for factory­built housing other than mobile homes. The steadily increasing population of retired persons will accelerate demand for especially designed apartments and retirement villages. Ten years from now the market for housing will have changed substantially in these directions. 
TOTAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED , TEXAS • 

A dJ•nted for 
350 

3'0 
300300 
1'01'0 
200 150150 100100 
•o 
\951 1951 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 196' 1965 1966 1967 1961 1969 1970 1971 
•Includes addition•, alteruionl, and re~irt NOTE: Shadiod arioa• 1ndu;11e p<0r1od1 of de cltne of Iota\ bu" "'"'' act1v1ty 1n the Un11ed Su.tel 
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS• 
. 1 IUV>. ; , r. 1r • A.-.i -,,. 	 '"', I IN .~. Mill.. •.1~r11 ..I \  ik II. I  

3'0
3'0 
300300 
2'02'0 
200200 150150 100100 
.. 	•O 
1951 1951 19'9 1960 1961 1962 19 63 1964 196l 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 
• 	EJ<cl\lde:1 addition•, ah eratlon•, and repura. NOTE: Sh.aded aua1 indk ate period• of decllnl! "'Of total b1a i11eu acfr•·;ty in the United Statu. 
NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED,TEXAS• 

1957 1951 \959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 
NOTE: Sh.aded area• tndtcat" period• of dechne of total bu11neu activity m the Unn'"d State• 

JULY 1971 



LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS 

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 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. Jn both tables the populations shown for the SMSA's and for the counties are the preliminary population counts of the 1970 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 noncensus 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. I 53 and 160. 

INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS 
FOR STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS 
May 1971 

Percent change Percent change from from May Apr May May Apr May 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) 2,264,567 247 247 Urban building permits (dollars) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 195,360 ** 12 Bank debits ($ 1,000) 89,447 -I 20 Nonfarm employment 41,200 1 ** (Monthly employment reports are not available for the 
Manufacturing employment 5,710 I 4 Bryan-College Station SMSA.) Unemployed (percent) 3.9 11 22 CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA AMARILLO SMSA Nueces and San Patricio Counties; population 284,832 
Potter and Randall Counties; population 144,396 Urban building permits (dollars) 9,795,247 40 565 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,445,750 20 94 Bankdebits,seas.adj.($1,000) 570,271 II 37 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 536,450 2 11 Nonfarm employment 95,520 •• S 
Nonfarm employment 65,900 4 Manufacturing employment 11,470 •• -2 Manufacturing employment 8,530 ** 4 Unemployed (percent) 4.6 12 10 Unemployed (percent) 3.4 **
3 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) 9,452,836 -29 
-43 Urban building permits (dollars) 49,301,407 6 -25 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 900,873 7 22 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 10,740,221 4 IS Nonfarm employment 135,600 ** 6 Nonfarm employment 709,000 ** -3 Manufacturing employment 12,060 ** 2 Manufacturing employment 142,725 •• -13 Unemployed (percent) 
2.5 	39 32 Unemployed (percent) 3. 7 6 48 (Values for the construction of the Dallas-Fort Worth RegionalBEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA 
Airport [ $45.5 million] are not included because the projected Jefferson and Orange Counties; population 315,943 airport is not within an urban permit-issuing area.) Urban building permits (dollars) 2 946 638 
19 44 

Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) '556:090 	EL PASO SMSA
** 12 Nonfarm employment 119 900 I ** El Paso County; population 359,291
Manufacturing employment 37'400 I 2 	32 125
-Urban building permits (dollars) 11,232,032
Unemployed (percent) ' 5.6 	29
4 22 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 704,866 s 
I
Nonfarm employment 116,300 •• 

BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA 	3
Manufacturing employment 24,650 •• 

Cameron County; population 140,368 	9 2
Unemployed (percent) 4.9 Urban building permits (dollars) 
657,176 -46 35

Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 175,766 -4 20 FORT WORTH SMSA Nonfarm employment 
39, 1so -2 -2 Johnson and Tarrant Counties; population 762,086 
Manufacturing employment 	255
6,2 10 ** -3 Urban building permits (dollars) 42,608,902 81 
Unemployed (percent) 	12
7.6 -3 17 	Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 2,460,628 13 
Percent change Percent changefrom 
from May Apr May May Apr MayReported area and indicator 1971 1971 1970 Reported area and indicator 1971 1971 1970 
FORT WORTH SMSA (Continued) 
ODESSA SMSA 
Nonfarm employment 294,000 • • -4 Ector County; population 91,805 

Manufacturing employment 75,550 -2 -19 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,239,724 15 -5 Unemployed (percent) 5.2 6 68 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 134,633 2 5 (Values for the construction of the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Nonfarm employment 62,600 1 • • Airport [ $45.5 million] are not included because the projected Manufacturing employment 5,250 I 3 airport is not within an urban permit-issuing area.) Unemployed (percent) 3.9 •• 22 (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Odessa SMSA's since employment figures for Midland and Ector Galveston County; population 169,812 Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in 
combined form by the Texas Employment Commission.)

Urban building permits (dollars) 1,531,041 39 121 
Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 241,119 4 6 
Nonfarm employment 59,050 •• -11 SAN ANGELO SMSA 

Manufacturing employment 11,450 •• -5 Tom Green County; population 71,047
Unemployed (percent) 4.9 -17 17 Urban building permits (dollars) 666,235 -40 75 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 121,206 -5 19HOUSTON SMSA Nonfarm employment 24,000 I ••
Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, and Manufacturing employment 4,250 •• 8 Montgomery Counties; population 1,985,031 Unemployed (percent) 4.3 19 19 Urban building permits (dollars) 64, 197,790 -17 25 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 9,228,923 -2 11 
SAN ANTONIO SMSANonfarm employment 872,800 •• 1 Bexar and Guadalupe Counties; population 864,014Manufacturing employment 147,500 •• •• Urban building permits (dollars) 7,080,024 -56 -13Unemployed (percent) 3.0 11 25 

Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 1,670,434 4 19 LAREDO SMSA 
Nonfarm employment 294,200 I Manufacturing employment 35,475 1 2Webb County; population 72,859 Unemployed (percent) 5.0 16 11

Urban building permits (dollars) 1,123,812 71 -48 
Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 83,999 •• 21 

SHERMAN-DENISON SMSANonfarm employment 25,600 •• 2 Grayson County; population 83,225Manufacturing employment 1,450 I -5 Urban building permits (dollars) 579,578 -58 -14Unemployed (percent) 9.9 -5 3 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 97,462 11 (Monthly employment reports are not available for theLONGVIEW-KILGORE-GLADEWATER METROPOLITAN AREA Sherman-Denison SMSA.)

Gregg County; population 75,929 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,186,300 -10 IS Bank debits ($1,000) 124,733 -6 Is TEXARKANA SMSA Nonfarm employment 35,600 • • 1 Bowie County, Texas, and Miller County, Arkansas; Manufacturing employment 10,130 -1 1 population 101,198 Unemployed (percent) 4.3 s 23 Urban building permits (dollars) 488,667 -80 180 
(Building permits and bank debits are included for those portions of Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 132,935 •• 14 Kilgore and Gladewater in Rusk County and Upshur County.) Nonfarm employment 39,650 •• -3 Manufacturing employment 9,010 •• -20 LUBBOCK SMSA Unemployed (percent) 6.9 S •• 
Lubbock County; population 179,295 (Since the Texarkana SMSA includes Bowie County in Texas and Urban building permits (dollars) 3,815,524 -39 18 Miller County in Arkansas, all data, including population, refer to Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 434,821 •• 26 the two-county region.) 
Nonfarm employment 67,850 1 7 Manufacturing employment 7,710 1 7 TYLER SMSA Unemployed (percent) 4.1 14 -23 Smith County; population 97,096 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,097,830 157 84 McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 193,564 3 6 
Hidalgo County; population 181,535 Nonfarm employment 38,600 I -4 Urban building permits Manufacturing employment 11,800 1 -10 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 170,854 4 25 Unemployed (percent) 3.3 3 32 Nonfarm employment 46,700 -3 2 
Manufacturing employment 4,460 5 -5 WACO SMSA Unemployed (percent) 6.3 13 11 McLennan County; population 147,553 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,006,459 -66 -70 MIDLAND SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 269,106 -5 11 
Midland County; population 65,433 Nonfarm employment 58,400 •• -2 Urban building permits (dollars) 960,246 -74 49 Manufacturing employment 11 ,420 1 -8 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 168,045 3 9 Unemployed (percent) 4.8 2 17 Nonfarm employment 62,600 1 • • 
Manufacturing employment 5,250 3 WICHITA FALLS SMSA Unemployed (percent) 3.9 •• 22 Archer and Wichita Counties; population 127,621 (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and Urbanouilding permits (dollars) 2,322,194 13 276 Odessa SMSA's since employment figures for Midland and Ector Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 218,537 1 18 Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in Nonfarm employment 48,950 I 2 combined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) Manufacturing employment 5,880 4 9 
Unemployed (percent) 3.1 3 3 •• Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent. ... No data, or inadequate basis for reporting. 
INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPALITIES 
MAY 1971 

Urban building permits  Bank debits  
COUNTY City  Population•  May 1971 (dollars)  Percent change from Apr May 1971 1970  May 1971 (thousands of dollars)  Percent change from Apr May 1971 1970  
ANDERSON Palestine  27,789 14,525  46,350  -25  -57  21 ,543  -10  lS  
ANDREWS Andrews  10,372 8,625  28,650  54  -85  9,037  ••  IS  
ANGELINA Lufkin  49,349 23,049  354,944  -4  67  
ARANSAS Aransas Pass  8,902 5,813  9,982  ••  33  
ATASCOSA Pleasanton  18,696 5,407  6,089  -8  14  
AUSTIN Bellville  13,831 2,371  104,000  59  29  7,110  -2  12  
BAILEY Muleshoe  8,487 4,525  13,143  -6  12  
BASTROP Smithville  17,297 2,959  2,346  -20  -8  
BEE Beeville  22,737 13,506  160,210  83  973  21,048  28  
BELL Bartlett Belton Killeen Temple  124,483 1,622 8,696 35,507 33,431  37,500 1,633,808 689,472  -60 241 -59  25 184 -20  1,252 40,498 64,656  -13 -8 -7  17 10 16  
BEXAR (In San Antonio SMSA) San Antonio  830,460 654,153  6,427,400  -58  -15  1,636,549  -7  21  
BOWIE (In Texarkana SMSA) Texarkana  67,813 52,179  407,367  -83  196  119,533  3  IS  
BRAZORIA (In Houston SMSA) Angleton Clute Freeport Pearland BRAZOS (Constitutes Bryan-College Station SMSA) Bryan College Station BREWSTER Alpine BROWN Brownwood  108,312 9,770 6,023 11,997 6,444 57,978 33,719 17,676 7,780 5,971 25,877 17,368  107,855 52,840 29,300 787,000 86,638 10,000 286,655  -51 -85 -69 53 -85 -65 -19  331 -42 184 -94 -30 114  16,935 5,877 30,648 8,244 78,991 10,456 6,635  2 3 11 -2 -I -1 22  I S2 22 19 22 6 39  
BURLESON Caldwell BURNET Marble Falls CALDWELL Lockhart CAMERON (Constitutes Brownsville­Harlingen-San Benito SMSA) Brownsville Harlingen La Feria Los Fresnos Port Isabel San Benito  9,999 2,308 11,420 2,209 21,178 6,489 140,368 52,522 33,503 2,642 1,297 3,067 15,176  128,990 379,400 104,856 16,800 138,840  -60 -49 425 332  251 80 -35 140 85  5,279 7,125 8,330 62,471 68,073 2,605 1,789 2,995 7,492  20 -4 -4 -8 -JO -6 -23 -8 -7  40 32 14 22 20 -23 12 26 -4  
154  

Urban building permits  Bank debits  
COUNTY City  Population•  May 1971 (dollars)  Percent change from Apr May 1971 1970  May 1971 (thousands of dollars)  Percent change from Apr May 1971 1970  

CASTRO Dimmitt  10,394 4,327  22,283  2  27  
CHEROKEE Jacksonville  32,008 9,734  37,400  16  -90  24,255  -10  12  
COLLIN (In Dallas SMSA) McKinney Plano  66,920 15,193 17,872  83,900 984,898  -81 14  -79 -66  15,395 23,247  -4 19  18  
COLORADO Eagle Lake  17,638 3,587  4,226  - 8  -16  
COMAL New Braunfels  24,165 17,859  590,500  57  94  24,235  -6  21  
COOKE Gainesville Muenster  23,471 13,830 1,411  64,168 29,500  -27 392  -90  19,230 3,301  7 9  8 2  
CORYELL Copperas Cove Gatesville  35,311 10,818 4,683  424,594  -4  157  3,919 9,165  -11 -5  16 19  
CRANE Crane  4,172 3,427  2,600  -90  -75  2,581  7  8  
DALLAS (In Dallas SMSA) Carrollton Dallas Farmers Branch Garland Grand Prairie Lancaster Mesquite Richardson Seagoville  1,327,321 13,855 844,401 27,492 81,437 50,904 10,522 55,131 48,582 4,390  1,836,255 25,738,255 1,539,019 4,811,971 1,536,932 515,300 788,412 2,459,580 53,183  -25 30 -18 -49 397 -52 -6 -84  852 -37 386 109 3 172 -54 108 -45  15,537 9,926,395 27,796 66,437 8,386 27,749 55,640 19,945  •• -8 9 -11 6 9 1 41  59 14 54 2 •• 30 10 131  
DAWSON Lamesa  16,604 11,559  103,850  29  24  19,410  -10  5  
DEAF SMITH Hereford  18,999 13,414  288,080  24  46  
DENTON (In Dallas SMSA) Denton Justin Lewisville Pilot Point  75,633 39,874 741 9,264 1,663  802,902 28,000 2,283,047 54,270  -90 460 39 -18  14 91  62,096 1,561 14,394 2,865  --- 9 10 4 19  39 36 28 20  
DE WITT Yoakum  18,660 5,755  11,876  9  18  
EASTLAND Cisco  18,092 4,160  4,322  - 11  - 2  
ECTOR (Constitutes Odessa SMSA) Odessa  91,805 78,380  1,239,724  15  - 5  138,793  - 2  8  
ELLIS (In Dallas SMSA) Ennis Midlothian Waxahachie  46,638 11,046 2,322 13,452  0 173,500  173  334  9,516 2,437 16,967  -- 9 2 21  15 23 4  
EL PASO (Constitutes El Paso SMSA) El Paso  359,291 322,261  11,222,762  32  125  718,532  8  30  
ERATH Stephenville  18,191 9,277  148,306  21  261  15,773  8  10  
FANNIN Bonham  22,705 7,698  26,125  -57  -79  

Urban building permits  Bank debits  
COUNTY City  Population*  May 1971 (dollars)  Percent change from Apr May 1971 1970  May 1971 (thousands of dollars)  Percent change from Apr May 1971 1970  

FAYETTE Schulenburg  17,650 2,294  13,500  -66  
FORT BEND (In Houston SMSA) Richmond Rosenberg  52,314 5,777 12,098  155,235 162,977  62 -42  133 77  8,631 9,025  6 3  -6  
GAINES Seagraves Seminole  11,593 2,440 S,007  400 0  - 96  -96  2,959 6,249  s 7  13 7  
GALVESTON (Constitutes Galveston-Texas City SMSA) Dickinson Galveston La Marque Texas City  169,812 10,776 61,809 16,131 38,908  457,117 196,514 877,410  -26 111 123  31 356 193  13,709 151,267 18,009 34,448  -10 -1 7 9  1 14 -3 -II  
GILLESPIE Fredericksburg  10,553 S,326  236,900  70  96  16,169  -s  II  
GONZALES Nixon  16,375 1,925  11,000  -30  
GRAY Pampa  26,949 21,726  48,700  2  35,771  -4  
GRAYSON (Constitutes Sherman-Denison SMSA) Denison Sherman  83,225 24,923 29,061  175,730 395,348  -81 -14  95 -29  30,003 66,202  ** 9  2 27  
GREGG (Constitutes Longview-Kilgore-Gladewater Metropolitan Area) Gladewater Kilgore Longview  75,929 5,574 9,495 45,547  98,400 83,900 1,004,000  21 89 -16  so -20 17  6,910 19,066 98,757  4 s 6  17 19 14  
GUADALUPE (In San Antonio SMSA) Schertz Seguin  33,554 4,061 1S,934  479,436 312,099  425  67 87  1,260 21,054  10 -12  so II  
HALE Hale Center Plainview  34,137 1,964 19,096  0 937,800  52,976  -1  4  
HARDEMAN Quanah  6,795 3,948  0  6,291  -2  13  
HARDIN Silsbee  29,996 7,271  12,668  **  29  
HARRIS (In Houston SMSA) Baytown Bellaire Deer Park Houston Humble La Porte Pasadena South Houston Tomball HARRISON Hallsville Marshall HASKELL Haskell HAYS San Marcos  1,741,912 43,980 19,009 12,773 1,232,802 3,278 7,149 89,277 11,527 2,734 44,841 1,038 22,937 8,512 3,655 27,642 18,860  1,961,058 64,240 430,338 55,036,580 151,000 171,050 3,063,914 80,441 85,279 31,200 1,563,935  -68 -87 -38 -8 -60 80 -25 -92 236  207 43 47 22 66 -14 197 63 107 57  74,390 65,322 14,189 8,458,900 10,329 5,470 17,180 1,387 30,331 4,374 15,256  3 2 -10 4 -7 2 ** 4 -s -s -12  45 30 43 14 21 -3 23 31 10 14  

Urban building permits  Bank debits  
COUNTY City  Population•  May 1971 (dollars)  Percent change from Apr May 1971 1970  May 1971 (thousands of dollars)  Percent change from Apr May 1971 1970  

HENDERSON Athens  26,466 9,S82  178,000  -36  -44  16,143  -4  14  
HIDALGO (Constitutes McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg SMSA) Alamo Donna Edinburg Elsa McAllen Mercedes Mission Pharr San Juan Weslaco  181,S3S 4,291 7,36S 17,163 4,400 37,636 9,3SS 13,043 IS,829 S,070 lS,313  S,468 1,018,SSO 493,36S 61,SOO 100,776 11,000 224,660  -12 619 -7 -6 479 26  -91 31S 119 so 26 -so 33S  3,26S 4,664 26,644 4,9Sl 71,487 8,380 20,917 7,001 4,llS 17,970  -2 -26 -12 -s s•• 2 -s 3 -10  -1 16 11 33 40 6 23 11 42 21  
HOCKLEY Levelland  20,396 11,445  833,089  422  20,849  -13  16  
HOOD Granbury  6,368 2,473  2,872  s  -19  
HOPKINS Sulphur Springs  20,710 10,642  218,600  -24  -21  29,134  ••  23  
HOWARD Big Spring  37,796 28,73S  269,261  699  S6,901  9  28  
HUNT Greenville  47,948 22,043  461,324  370  234  28,S 14  - 8  9  
HUTCHINSON Borger  24,443 14,19S  179,600  136  60S  
JACKSON Edna  12,97S S,332  78,4SO  219  228  8,672  -9  ••  
JASPER Jasper Kirbyville  24,692 6,251 1,869  S,000  -73  -91  16,229 3,043  s 8  10 9  
JEFFERSON (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Beaumont Groves Nederland Port Arthur Port Neches  244,773 l!S,919 18,067 16,810 S7,371 10,894  986,493 247,917 1,331,368 268,6SO  -21 78 292 -7  -36 S7 208  329,071 17,184 12,386 110,7SS 19,983  6 3 7 4 11  8 23 26 27 11  
JIM WELLS Alice  33,032 20,121  49,901  19  7  
JOHNSON (In Fort Worth SMSA) Cleburne  4S,769 16,01 s  93,42S  -62  -86  24,003  - lS  12  
KARNES Karnes City  13,462 2,926  17,300  -3S  9  
KAUFMAN (In Dallas SMSA) Terrell  32,392 14,182  108,400  7  13  
KIMBLE Junction  3,904 2,6S4  11,000  -42  -96  2,91 s  - lS  8  
KLEBERG Kingsville  33,166 28,711  373,S8S  - IS  40  24,S14  - 8  9  
LAMAR Paris  36,062 23,441  112,700  - S7  -60  
LAMB Littlefield  17,770 6,738  0  9,328  -6  16  
LAMPASAS Lampasas  9,323 S,922  346,9SO  466  11,596  - 7  - 7  

Urban building permits  Bank debits  
COUNTY City  Population•  May 1971 (dollars)  Percent change from Apr May 1971 1970  May 1971 (thousands of dollars)  Percent change from Apr May 1971 1970  

LAVACA Hallettsville Yoakum  17,903 2,712 S,7SS  83,36S  ll8  2S2  4,342 11,876  -12 9  14 18  
LEE Giddings  8,048 2,783  31,923  91  -6  6,798  -4  
LIBERTY (In Houston SMSA) Dayton Liberty  33,014 3,804 S,S91  40,200 40,6SO  -60 48  -21  7,9Sl l l,4S8  16 -25  21 -7  
LIMESTONE Mexia  18,100 S,943  34,700  494  27  9,431  -15  -s  
LLANO Kingsland (1969) Llano  6,979 1,200 2,608  141,0SO  8,046 7,440  14 19  81 37  
LUBBOCK (Constitutes Lubbock SMSA) Lubbock Slaton  l 79,29S 149,101 6,S83  3,81S,S24 0  -38  18  370,994 6,S61  s 2  25 28  
LYNN Tahoka  9,107 2,9S6  16,000  -89  S,057  9  
McCULLOCH Brady  8,S71 S,SS7  139,03S  72  181  9,039  -15  -2  
McLENNAN (Constitutes Waco SMSA) McGregor Waco  147,SS3 4,36S 95,326  98,300 1,892,609  SSS -67  -72  S,047 238,407  -2 -12  12 9  
MATAGORDA Bay City  27,913 11,733  78,7SO  -s  140  21,127  -4  
MAVERICK Eagle Pass  18,093 lS,364  484,62S  297  833  13,673  -6  19  
MEDINA Castroville Hondo  20,249 1,893 S,487  107,400  59  133  l,4S7 S,S73  
MIDLAND (Constitutes Midland SMSA) Midland  6S,433 S9,463  960,246  - 74  49  172,369  - s  11  
MILAM Cameron Rockdale  20,028 S,546 4,6SS  66,000 13,800  210 -69  -ll -81  8,299 8,28S  -7 -13  24 2  
MILLS Goldthwaite  4,212 1,693  7,239  - 4  10  
MITCHELL Colorado City  9,073 S,227  S,173  -16  ••  
MONTGOMERY (In Houston SMSA) Conroe  49,479 11 ,969  220,219  -6S  93  45,446  2  22  
MOORE Dumas  14,060 9,771  134,901  41  31  
NACOGDOCHES Nacogdoches  36,362 22,S44  S47,ll 7  23  61  3S,738  -1  
NAVARRO Corsicana  31,lSO 19,972  306,479  93S  30,615  -22  
NOLAN Sweetwater  16,220 12,020  24,300  33  693  20,473  -8  29  
NUECES (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Bishop Corpus Christi Port Aransas Robstown  237,544 3,466 204,S2S 1,218 11 ,217  9,29S,706 147,2Sl  42  724 9  2,724 4S3,4S4 1,261 19,080  14 -1 13 6  -8 32 26 48  

Urban building permits  Bank debits  
COUNTY City  Population*  May 1971 (dollars)  Percent change from Apr May 1971 1970  May 1971 (thousands of dollars)  Percent change from Apr May 1971 1970  

ORANGE (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Orange  71,170 24,457  82,235  -82  -38  52,140  6  17  
PALO PINTO Mineral Wells  28,962 18,411  286,240  652  - 5  29,511  8  -8  
PANOLA Carthage  15,894 5,392  137,500  -63  -42  5,928  5  20  
PARKER Weatherford  33,888 11,750  60,100  -40  -83  24,801  - 1  
PARMER Friona  10,509 3,111  28,850  53  -72  20,939  - 14  -11  
PECOS Fort Stockton  13,748 8,283  50,450  237  143  
POTTER (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo  90,511 127,010  2,324,725  24  91  496,500  - 3  14  
RANDALL (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo (See Potter) Canyon  53,885 8,333  121,025  -19  172  10,005  - 6  3  
REEVES Pecos  16,526 12,682  36,695  20,126  - 20  - 3  
REFUGIO Refugio  9,494 4,340  5,000  -59  4,404  - 17  - 1  
RUSK Henderson Kilgore  34,102 10,187 9,495  147,448 83,900  81 89  80 -20  19,436 19,066  5 5  19 19  
SAN PATRICIO (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Aransas Pass Sinton  47,288 5,813 5,563  16,846  -80  -98  9,982 10,491  ** 12  33 53  
SAN SABA San Saba  5,540 2,555  30,825  85  119  8,105  - 9  
SCURRY Snyder  15,760 11,171  80,150  -59  -19  17,605  - 10  12  
SHACKELFORD Albany  3,323 1,978  26,000  3,552  - 2  8  
SHERMAN Stratford  3,657 2,139  23,500  -85  11,614  2  - 6  
SMITH (Constitutes Tyler SMSA) Tyler  97,096 57,770  2,009,830  155  90  180,749  - 6  7  
STEPHENS Breckenridge  8,414 5,944  7,000  -64  -96  
SUTTON Sonora  3,175 2 ,149  1,275  70  410  2,700  - 32  -2  
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  5,175,684 3,352,706 27,742,485 129,600 780,520 133,834  -57 362 -11 36 694  85 490 -2 404 269  100,261 23,147 2 ,108,999 10,008 17,528 5,787  - 9 26 9 7 7 7  -10 106 24 31 6 -46  
TAYLOR (In Abilene SMSA) Abilene  97,853 89,653  2,261 ,51 7  2 47  246  161 ,63 1  - 5  14  

Urban building permits Bank debits 
Percent change 
Percent change from May 1971 from 

COUNTY May
May 1971 Apr May (thousands Apr City 1970
Population* (dollars) 1971 1970 of dollars) 1971 
TERRY Brownfield  14,118 9,647  44,100  -74  249  24,099  -5  10  
TITUS Mount Pleasant  16,702 8,877  200,000  49  152  
TOM GREEN (Constitutes San Angelo SMSA) San Angelo  71,047 63,884  666,235  -40  75  121,339  -4  21  
TRAVIS (Constitutes Austin SMSA) Austin  295,516 251,808  9,420,836  -29  -43  967,607  14  IS  
UPSHUR Gladewater  20,976 5,574  98,400  21  so  6,910  -4  17  
UPTON McCamey  4,697 2,647  2,081  2  12  
UVALDE Uvalde  17,348 10,764  138,400  -25  -91  23,412  ••  
VAL VERDE Del Rio  27,471 21,330  303,397  199  130  26,616  6  33  
VICTORIA Victoria  53,766 41,349  588,356  -6  125  101,213  -13  12  
WALKER Huntsville  27,680 17,610  16,500  -90  -97  22,395  -3  -27  
WARD Monahans  13,019 8,333  2,250  41  -85  13,030  -4  13  
WASHINGTON Brenham  18,842 8,922  108,798  -63  -38  21,428  -12  IS  
WEBB (Constitutes Laredo SMSA) Laredo  72,859 69,024  1,123,812  71  -48  88,628  -2  20  
WHARTON El Campo  36,729 8,563  55,590  169  47  17,622  -9  
WICHITA (In Wichita Falls SMSA) Burkburnett Iowa Park Wichita Falls  121,862 9,230 5,796 97,564  62,347 10,300 2,249,547  12 -88 18  120 -62 300  9,865 4,033 194,686  7 4 3  8 6 21  
WILBARGER Vernon  15,355 11,454  1,266,143  23,904  - 9  16  
WILLACY Raymondville  15,570 7,987  19,400  256  198  13,150  ••  41  
WILLIAMSON Bartlett Georgetown Taylor  37,305 1,622 6,395 9,616  542,950 49,900  86 -70  1,252 12,198 13,072  -13 12 -6  17 SI 4  
WINKLER Kermit  9,640 7,884  11,550  -70  
WISE Decatur  19,687 3,240  93,500  648  5,551  -22  
YOUNG Graham Olney  15,400 7,477 3,624  59,825 24,000  11 -59  263 133  16,319 6,703  1 3  31 36  
ZAVALA Crystal City  11,370 8,104  44,855  -54  -58  6,633  -7  
* 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 Statistjcs 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. 
May  Apr  May  Year-to-date average  
1971  1971  1970  1971  1970  
GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY  
Estimates of personal income (millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted)  $  3,5 IOP  $  3,53lp  $  3,278r  $ 3,477  $ 3,213  
Income payments to individuals in U.S. (billions, at seasonally adjusted annual rate) ..... Wholesale prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) Consumer prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) Business failures (number) ....... Business failures (liabilities, thousands) Sales of ordinary life insurance (index)  $ $  847.4p 120.7 140.5  841.4p$ 120.2 139.8 52 $ 3,967 274.5  $ 799.7r 116.8 134.6 29 $ 2,494 248.7  $ 836.7 119.8 139.4 $  $ 790.5 116.5 133.2 42 $ 4,767 249.7  
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 mam1factures (index) Texas industrial production-durable manufactures (index) T~xas 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)  285.4p 240.4p 129.lp 18.1 144.1 167.3p 181.7p 199.6p 197.6p 200.9p 139.1 p 275.9p 240.0 206.4 289.6  289.3p 253.0p 125.8p 18.3 141.4 166.2p 181.lp 198.9p 196.5p 200.5p 138.6p 275.9p 248.9 211.3 285.3  260.3r 227.6r 12 3.4r 17.1 136.4 169.0r 177.6r 198.1r 212.3r l 88.6r l 33.8r 255.2r 206.2 156.5 298.5  277.6 241.5 126.0 18.3 140.7 165.9 180.4 198.8 199.8 198.1 136.9 275.4 228.9 197.6 275.3  256.4 229.9 121.1 17.1 132.0 170.2 179.4 201.8 218.8 190.5 132.5 258.1 179.9 131.3 261.5  
AGRICULTURE  
Prices received by farmers (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100) Prices paid by farmers in U.S. (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100)  294 410  279 407  267 389  281 405  276 387  
Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid by farmers ...  72  69  69  70  72  
FINANCE Bank debits (index) Bank debits, U.S. (index)  332.9 381.2  348.1 399.1  287.0 345.3  333.7 387.1  295.6 340.6  
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)  $ 6,786 $ 9,942 $ 3,759 $380,237 $863,926  $ 6,728 $ 9,883 $ 3,580 $320,893 $950,572  $ 5,926 $ 8,467 $ 3,296 $381,685 $917,967  $ 6,687 $ 9,742 $ 3,537 $ 309,322 $7,099,503*  $ 5,987 $ 8,568 $ 3,280 $ 278,924 $6,711 ,511 *  
Securities registrations-original applications Mutual investment companies (thousands)  $ 22,595  $ 33,031  $ 26,748  $  219,547*  $  291 ,251*  
All other corporate securities Texas companies (thousands) Other companies (thousands)  .... . . . . ....  $ 33,557 $ 24,792  $ 18,489 $ 25,789  $ 0 $ 9,782  $ $  138,204* 186,227*  $ $  100,188* 246,090*  
Securities registration-renewals Mutual investment companies (thousands) Other corporate securities (thousands) ..  $ 26,450 $ 3,479  $ 36,672 $ 5,654  $ 39,833 $ 9,913  $ 329,405. $ 14,778*  $ 284,661. $ 20,113*  
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  147.5p 146.2p 100.oP 158.4~ 3,643.0 706.0p 374.1p 331.9p  147.3p 146.2p 99.3p 157.7p 3,636.0p 706.6p 372.8p 333.8p  147.7r 155.0r 99.3r 149.7~ 3,648.9 748.4r 415.0r 333.4r  147.5 146.6 99.5 156.8 3,621.1 707.3 374.0 333.3  147.6 156.2 99.5 149.1 3,624.4 754.0 421.5 332.5  
Total civilian labor force in selected labor-market  
areas (thousands)  .... .... ........  3,527.5  3,503.4  3,512.1  3,492.7  3,465.7  
Nonagricultural employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) ... . .......... . . · · ·  3,290.6  3,282.3  3,301.5  3,275.6  3,282.1  
Manufacturing employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) .... .. . . .. . . . .. . ...  590.1  590.3  631.6  591.1  637.0  
Total unemployment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) ........ .. .........  145.4  133.6  116.9  137.5  101.8  
Percent of labor force unemployed in selected labor-market areas ......... . . . ...  4.1  3.8  3.3  3.9  2.9  

BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 
RETURN REQUESTED THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, TIL\a 
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712 
THE TEXAS WINTER GARDEN 
COMMERCIAL COOL-SEASON VEGETABLE PRODUCTION 

by 
James Weeks Tiller, Jr. 
The luxury of "garden fresh" vegetables during the winter months for consumers throughout the United States is provided almost entirely by specially favored sections of only four states-California, Arizona, Florida, and Texas-where climatic conditions allow the winter production of vegetables. The Winter Garden of Texas, one of these climatically fortunate regions, includes the areas of concentrated cool-season vegetable production in Uvalde, Zavala, Dimmit, and northwestern Frio Counties. This region makes a significant contribution to the ever-increasing market for year-round fresh vegetables. 
According to the United States Department of Agriculture, winter vegetables are those whose most active harvest occurs during the months of January, February, and March. In the Winter Garden of Texas the major vegetables harvested during this period are beets, broccoli, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, lettuce, spinach, and onions. 
Dr. James Weeks Tiller, Jr., professor of geography at Louisiana State University, in New Orleans, applied his interest, as a geographer, in man's use of his environment to this limited area in a concentrated study of all the conditions relevant to vegetable production. His study considered the area's physical environment (geomorphology-hydrology, climate, soils, and native vegetation), its economic history, its water problems, its labor situation, its problems in marketing. Dr. Tiller evaluated all of these conditions in order to make suggestions for sollution of the existing problems. The conditions and the suggestions are interestingly and informatively presented in this report of his study. 
The presentation is enriched by twenty-five highly informative tables, twenty-five interestingly illustrative figures, and forty-one meaningful halftone photographs. 
The Bureau of Business Research is pleased to present as No. 33 in its series of Research Monographs this definitive study of an area important to the economy of Texas and of the nation. 
xvii+ 127 pp. $4.00 
(Texas residents add $.20 sales tax.) 
Bureau of Business Research 
The University of Texas at Austin