TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW VOL. XLV, NO. 9 SEPTEMBER 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 185: The Business Situation in Texas, by John R. Stockton 188: Texas Livestock Auctions, by Linda Crawford 194: Texas Construction, by Robert M. Lockwood Tables 186: Selected Barometers of Texas Business 186: Business-Activity Indexes for Twenty Selected Texas Cities 190: Receipts of Livestock at Texas Auction Markets, 1968 and 1969 194: Estimated Values of Building Authorized in Texas 196: Local Business Conditions Barometers of Texas Business (inside back cover) Charts 185: Estimated Personal Income, Texas 187 : Total Nonagricultural Employment, Texas 187: Industrial Production, Texas 187: Industrial Production: Durable Manufactures, Texas 187: Industrial Production: Nondurable Manufactures, Texas 188: Growth Curve for Texas Livestock Auctions 195: Total Building Authorized, Texas 195: Residential Building Authorized, Texas 195: Nonresidential Building Authorized, Texas Map 189: Texas Livestock Auction Markets, March 1, 1970 Photographs 191 : A Texas Livestock-Auction Building 191 : Area of the Bid Starter and the Auctioneer 192: Tagged Calves Awaiting Their Turn with the Auctioneer 193 : Weighing Animals after Sale 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. Hazelton, George Kozmetsky Director: Stanley A. Arbingast 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, Charles P. Zlatkovich Research Assistant: Edward Hildebrandt Statistical Associate: Mildred Anderson Statistical Assistants: Constance Cooledge, Glenda Riley Statistical Technicians: Kay Davis, Lydia Gorena Computer Assistants: Michael Coneway, Lawrence Grossman, Jr. Cartographer: Charles W. Montfort Librarian: Merle Danz Administrative Secretary : Jeanette Pryor Administrative Clerk: Margaret Eriksen Senior Secretary: Mary Ann Gready Senior Clerk Ty pist: 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 Researcb, Graduate School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex~ 78712. Second-class postage paid at Austin, Texas. Content of t~IS publication is not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely, liut acknowledgment of source will be appreciated. The views expr~ssed by authors are not necessarily those of the Bureau of Business Research. Subscription, $4.00 a year; individual copies 35 cents. Association for University Business and Economic Research. THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS John R. Stockton The overriding factor in the Texas business picture at the present time is the effect of the sweeping economic moves made recently by President Nix on. The paradox of con­tinuing inflation with continuing simultaneous unemploy­ment at a high level has dominated the business news for months. ow the most important factor to consider in the analysis of Texas business is the economy's reaction to the President's program. The index of personal income in Texas rose slightly in July, from 250.0 to 250.3 and stood at a level 7 percent above that of a year ago. The largest rise in this index during 197 1 occurred in June, but the first seven months of 1971 averaged 7 percent above the year 1970. On the basis of this comprehensive index of total economic activity in the state it appears that a substantial degree of recovery from the recession has occurred. On a national basis, however, the rate of recovery has been too slow and the rate of inflation has continued to be more than most persons were willing to tolerate. The general reaction to the President's sweeping change in his economic program has been relief that a positive approach to the problems of inflation and unemployment has been initiated. Any differences between the rate of recovery in Texas and that for the United States as a whole are generally submerged in a consideration of the outcome of the President's aggressive policies. In addition to the rise in personal income in Texas, other barometers of the state's economy were generally opti­ mistic in July. Total electric-power use, with adjustment for seasonal variation, rose 8 percent. Industrial electric-power use rose I percent. Bank debits, which measure the total dollar volume of business transactions, rose 4 percent. Residential building permits rose 3 percent in July follow­ ing a 7-percent rise in June. Crude-oil production rose Jess than one tenth of a percent. The only discouraging changes in the major barometers of Texas business were declines in crude-oil runs to stills (5 percent), nonresidential building (a stunning 40 percent), and industrial production ( 1.3 percent). When all of the Texas barometers are viewed together the balance for July tips strongly toward signs of recovery. When July is compared to the levels a year ago the improvement seems even more substantial. The major business indexes were up from a year ago by the following percentages: total electric-power use, 8 percent; industrial electric-power use, 5 percent; bank debits, I2 percent; and residential building permits, 39 percent. Although the business indicators for Texas have been showing some gains during 1971, the problem of inflation has grown more acute. The consumer price index for the United S!ates rose .4 in July, to bring the level to 141. 7 as against the 135. 7 level of a year earlier. The increase in July ·was somewhat less than the average monthly increase for the past year, but the July rise made the seventy-first consecutive month during which this index has risen. The last time it registered a decline was in August 1965. ESTIMATED PERSONAL INCOME, TEXAS Index Adjusted for Seasonal Variation -19.5i·19.59 =100 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 SOURCE. Quarterly measures of Texas personal income made by the Office of Business Economics, U.S. Department of Commerce. Monthly allocations of quarterly measures. and e~timates of mos1 recent monlhs. made by lhe Bureau of Business Research wilh regression relationships of time. bank debils. and insured unemploymenl SEPTEMBER 1971 On a national basis the economic indicators have been making a somewhat less favorable showing than in Texas. Unemployment has remained high and although it has not shown a recent tendency to increase above the high levels of last spring, it has not shown any tendency to decline appreciably. The peak occurred in May of this year, at 6.2 percent of the labor force. This increase was followed by a decline to 5.6 in June but a further rise to 5.8 in July. The output of national industry dipped in July to 106 percent of the 1967 level; this level, however, was above the low point of 102, reached in December 1970. On the other hand, the inflow of orders for durable goods was up 3.5 percent in July from the June level. Since durable goods are manufactured to fill specific orders, this series tends to forecast an increase in production of durable goods. Capital spending by business concerns is one of the strategic factors in business conditions, and as would be expected in a period of declining industrial activity invest­ment in new plant and equipment has slowed down. In 1970 total expenditures for new plant and equipment increased 5.5 percent, which was less than the rise in prices. The latest report on anticipated expenditures for new plant and equipment during 1971 indicates an annual rate of increase of 2.7 percent, which is considerably below the expected increase in prices. Many business concerns are finding themselves with a surplus of capacity at the present time. United States manufacturing plants are currently operating at about 73 percent of current capacity, which means that the incentive SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (Indexes-Adjusted for seasonal variation-1957-1959=100) Percent change Year-to­date Year-to-average date July 1971 1971 July June average from from Index 1971 1971 1971 June 1971 1970 Estimated personal income 25o.3P 250.oP 242.9 ** 7 Crude-petroleum production 127.8p 127.4p 126.2 ** 5 Crude-oil runs to stills 142.2 149.5 142.1 -5 6 Total electric-power use 322.7p 297.5p 282.3 8 8 Industrial electric- power use 251.3P 248.6p 241.7 1 5 Bank debits 366.8 353.8 341.3 4 12 Urban building permits issued 221.7 265.1 233.0 -16 25 New residential 227.3 220.1 205.1 3 43 New nonresidential 212.0 351.2 277.1 -40 8 Total industrial production 179.3p 181.7p 180.0 -1 Total nonfarm em­ ployment 146.7P 146.9p 147.3 ** ** Manufacturing em­ ployment 144.8p 145.6p 146.2 -­ 1 6 Total unemployment 130.8 140.4 119.6 -7 30 Insured unemployment 98.6 98.3 98.2 ** 44 Average weekly earn-ings-manufacturing 156.3p 156.2p 156.6 ** 5 Average weekly hours-manufacturing 98.7p 99.3p 99.3 -1 ** p Preliminary. ** Change is less than one half of 1 percent. 186 to expand capital spending is largely lacking. Many of the major expansions of the past few years are still not being used to full capacity, and a growing tendency toward caution has delayed further expansions until the prospects for the future are somewhat clearer. Another serious factor in the national economic situa­tion has been the vanishing foreign-trade surplus. The shrinking U.S. gold reserves and the increasing pressure on the dollar in foreign markets have been of threatening proportions for several years. In spite of the unfavorable developments in the econom­ic situation of the country, the Nixon Administration continued to hold to the belief that the improvement in business was real and that the anti-inflationary measures of the government were gradually bringing the rise in prices under control. On August 15, however, the President surprised the nation with the announcement of drastic changes in the posture of the federal government with respect to the state of the economy. Critics of the government policies had become stronger in pointing out the parallel to the attitude of President Hoover in the early days of the Great Depression of the thirties. In a complete reversal of policy President Nixon announced a ninety-day freeze on wages and prices to control inflation, a proposal for tax cuts to stimulate consumer and business spending, a ten-percent surcharge on foreign imports, and freedom of the dollar to find its own level in foreign markets. The effect of these measures on the economy of the nation remains to be seen. The reaction of the public to the proposal is mixed, with businessmen in general favoring the proposals but with labor less inclined to go along with them. The President has the authority to impose the wage BUSINESS-ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR 1WENTY SELECTED TEXAS CITIES (Adjusted for seasonal variation-1957-1959=100) Percent change Year-to­date Julyp June average Index 1971 1971 197 1 July 197 1 from June 197 1 Year-to· date average 197 1 from 1970 Abilene 154. 3 158.2 150.2 Amarillo 2 13.7 209.0 212.3 Austin 405.9 471.7 396.6 Beaumont 186.2 174.9 179.9 Corpus Christi 205.5 205.7 198. I Corsicana 168.0 184.8 178.0 Dallas 370.4 366.2 358.4 El Paso 184.7 196.7 177.4 Fort Worth 236.7 246.1 224.2 Galveston 136.4 130.1 141.1 Houston 3 16.0 304.4 297.l Laredo 277.1 302.7 278.7 Lubbock 195.8 204.7 183.1 Port Arthur 133. 7 149.3 138.3 San Angelo 198.S 197.6 201.7 San Antonio 265. 1 262.4 2 50.2 Texarkana 221.1 235.3 222.8 Tyler 182.7 186.1 182.8 Waco 215.7 220.0 208.4 Wichita Falls 159.8 149.2 146.9 -2 2 -14 6•• -9 I -6 -4 5 4 -8 -4 -10•• 1 -6 -2 -2 7 5 4 16 -I 22 8 7 12 20 6 7 9 9 15 16 14 3 3 4 11 P Preliminary.* * Change is less than one half of 1 percent. and price controls and they have been put into effect immediately. The changes in the tax law must await action INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, TEXAS* by Congress, although the first reaction to the proposal appeared to be favorable. Governor Preston Smith, of Texas, unsuccessfully protested the freezing of the wages of state employees, although many states have indicated that they will go along without protest. It is expected that strong protests will be registered by labor unions. If the freeze is not generally accepted the problem of enforcing it may become unmanageable. The public reaction, however, appears to be favorable and there is great hope that this move will bring the inflationary spiral to a halt and build the basis for a sound expansion without undue inflation. The proposal to change the tax laws to increase personal exemptions and reduce the 7-percent excise tax on auto­mobiles is designed to increase consumer spending. Since this element of the economy has been one of the most important factors in the sluggishness of business, one of the most significant factors in the President's proposal could be a change in consumer psychology. All of the statistical data indicate that consumer spendable income is high and that accumulated savings are substantial. If the fear of inflation and continued unemployment can be allayed, it does not seem unreasonable to assume that consumers will respond with increased buying. The tax incentives may be sufficient to bring about an increase in capital spending, although the large amount of unused capacity raises some doubt as to the effectiveness of this move. The 10-percent surcharge on imports should help U.S. manufacturers compete with foreign industry, thus stimulating production. It is probably useless to try to isolate the effects of the events since August 15 on the Texas economy since the business climate of the state at this time is so closely interwoven with the national economy. Doubtlessly, how­ever, in few weekends since the early days of March 1933 has as much significant action in the area of economics taken place. The dramatic reversal of the position that the President had held so stubbornly in itself is news. The first peace-time control of prices and wages in this country is a major happening. The course of the economy for possibly the decade of the seventies has probably been affected. The influence of this action may be highly significant in the elections of next year. All in all, it was quite a weekend. TOTALNONAGROCULTURAL EMPLOYMENT, TEXAS l1ulu: A.flj..1ed / or Su•••-' J'oriotio" -l9S7-l959"100 350 350 JOO 300 2'0 200 200 150 150 JOO JOO >O 50 f\IOTf:: Sh..tcd areas md1al( ~nodsof dcchM of 10111 busmns ach~ily m 1hc Um!cd States.. SOURCE: Tuu Employmenc C'ommruiM. Data 11d1ustcd for S0$0nal •11ru1oon by tlw.o BuKau of Busmcss Rc5ench. l nde 11. Adj u sted for Seaaona/ V.,1at1on-1957-1959k l00 350 ..-­ _, ~ 3'0 JOO JOO 250 2'0 200 200 150 1'0 JOOJOO 50 50 19.57 1951 19$9 1960 196\ 1962 1963 196A 196.5 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1911 • Manu!aclure• and m•nera!t (Including Cl"ude-oil and n&tural-gaa productton). NOTE: Shaded are•• ;.,dicate ~riod• or decline of total buuneu activity in the Uniled State•. SOURCE: Fede ral Reurve &nk of Dall&•. INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION DURABLE MANUFACTURES, TEXAS !ndu Ad1uated for S e uon•/ Van.Uton -1957-1959• 100 300 JOO 250 250 200 150 150 JOO 50 1951 1958 19 59 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 NOTE: Shaded area1 1nd1ca1e penod• of decline of iota\ buune11 ac1ivity •n the Unned State•. SOURCE: Fedenl Ruerve Bank of 011lu. INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION NONDURABLE MANUFACTURES, TEXAS lndu : Adju&red for S e•1ona/ Vart<on-1957-1959 • JOO 3'0 3'0 JOO 300 250 250 200 200 150 150 JOO JOO 50 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 NOTE: Shaded area• tndicaa period• of decline or lotal bu11ne11 activny 1n the United State1. SOURCE: Federal Ruerve Bank of Dallu. TOT AL UNEMPLOYMENT, TEXAS /nde11 Ad1usted for Sea aona/ Va riat1on-19S7-J959 • 100 350 3'0 300JOO 250 250 200200 1'0 uo JOOJOO 5050 19.57 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 SOURCE: Te:ua Employment Commiuion. ~ta adjuated for 1ea1onal variation by th& B11reau of 8111ine•• Re1eareh. NOTE: Shaded are&a indicate period• of dechne of total bu1ines1 aehvity in the United State•. SEPTEMBER 1 971 TEXAS LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS Linda Crawford* When the Texas cattle population reached 12,212,000 in 1969 and Texas became the leading state in cattle produc­tion, no rancher had any doubt that a cattle auction could be quite useful. Records are vague as to the beginnings of the livestock auction, and the exact date for the first auction is not easily ascertainable. The first sales for livestock date back to 1676 in New York City, but the first public livestock auction sale, held in Ohio by a company that imported English cattle, did not take place until 1836. The evolution of auctioning in all probability was not planned. As in other forms of marketing, the auction probably began in a very casual situation. An owner wished to sell stock and he was made an offer. Another gentleman standing nearby over­heard the offer and decided that he needed the stock more than the first offerer and could afford to make a higher offer. The owner realized he could enhance his returns by allowing the men to bid against each other. The next step was obvious. The ranchers needed to decide on a meeting place, designate a regular trading time, and adopt certain rules and conditions of sale. Thus the auction was initiated. Texas felt the need for such an enterprise and estab­lished a few markets prior to 1930. The growth curve in Figure 1 shows that the auctions have doubled since 1937. About 175 auctions are functioning in the state of Texas. This number varies from month to month because auctions, just as other businesses, are not all successes, and new ones are established from time to time. In Figure 2 the location and number of auctions are shown as of March 1, 1970. What is a livestock auction? Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, defines it as "the public sale of livestock to the highest bidder as by successive increased bids." Ralph Cassady elaborates that "Anybody who chooses may attend and bid and the final sale will be made to the highest bidder with absolute freedom for competitive bidding." 1 The auction is available also to any rancher who would like to bring his stock and offer it for sale. In other words, the auction is open to any buyers and sellers around the country, but 80 percent of its market usually come from within a twenty-mile radius. One of the special characteristics of an auction is that it provides a service but does not produce the livestock up for sale. "As a service establishment, the auction also does not own the goods up for sale but merely serves as a sales agent for the producer. It provides a set of physical facilities to insure the proper receiving, holding, selling, and loading out of the livestock it handles. All the labor necessary for *A marketing major in the College of Business Administration, The University of Texas at Austin. Ralph Cassady, Jr., Auctions and Auctioneers (University of California Press, 1967), p. 8. efficient operation of the market is also provided and oftentimes auxiliary services are made available at the request of either seller or buyer."2 Since the owner of the auction is acting as the middleman in this channel of distribution, he must accept the role of broker to whom the cattle owner will consign his livestock for sale under certain mutually agreed-upon conditions. "Then as a publicly regulated market, the auctions become responsible for all fiscal transactions between buyers and sellers. Responsibility is accepted for paying the seller for his cattle and collecting payment from the buyer. The accuracy of the accounting for each transaction also is the responsibility of the auction. "3 Any errors and the loss belong to the auction. Auctions have no control over livestock procurement, since they are not producers of their own goods. "Auctions have no control over their supply and little knowledge of what the supply will be for a particular sale until the day of the sale. "4 They simply must be prepared to handle all livestock consigned to them during each sales day, for any cattle turned away are a loss of revenue and probably a lost customer. In a year's time Texas auctions handle anywhere from 5,000 to almost 350,000 animal units. The operation- Figure 1 GROWTH CURVE FOR TEXAS LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS Number Number of markets of markets .--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---.., 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 1930 SOURCE, Dr. Ed Uvacek. 2Charley V. Wooten and John G. McNeely, Factors Affecting Auction Market Costs (College Station: Texas A&M University, 1966), p. 6. 3Jbid. 4 Ibid. al efficiency is measured in terms of average cost per unit marketed. Below 15,000 marketing units per year is consiaered inefficient and termed a submarginal market. When volume is less than 25 ,000 units the auction is marginal. More than 37 percent of Texas auctions fall within these two categories. If an auction runs between 25,000 and 40,000 units annually the degree of its success and efficiency depends on the quality of its management. If an auction runs over 40,000 units it usually is in no real danger of failure. 5 It is obvious, therefore, that auctions must be prepared to handle the largest anticipated vol­ umes. Since most auctions operate only one day a week, the auctions that are relatively close to each other should avoid conflict by trying not to hold sales on the same day. 5 Capacity figures were supplied by Dr. Ed Uvacek. Figure 2 TEXAS LIVESTOCK AUCTION MARKETS MARCH 1, 1970 (By number in county) ~1 8 Source: Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Texas Department of Agriculture, Texas Livestock Statistics. SEPTEMBER 1971 For instance, the Capitol Livestock Commission in Austin holds its sales on Monday; Smithville has its sale on Wednesday; La Grange has a sale every Friday; and Columbus has a sale every Thursday. The once-a-week practice is based on two major reasons. To begin with, in any given market area the supply of livestock is so limited that it would be impractical for the auction to stay open more than one day. If the management tried to insure a sale by splitting the supply and running a few units, or head, every day, the sale would not be large enough to attract many buyers. Furthermore, keeping the auction open for only a trickle of a few cattle would greatly increase costs. The second major reason for the operation of auctions only once a week is the fact that major buyers are working on a very tight schedule. The major packer-buyers and order­buyers must operate on a schedule so that within an overall market area they can attend a different auction every day. Auctions must have a sufficient number of cattle to run to make the trip worthwhile for the buyer. The sale usually st'!rts somewhere in the vicinity of noon, running until every goat, hog, sheep, horse, cow, calf, and bull has gone through the ring. Many times the rancher may sit until the early hours of the morning if he wishes to watch his stock run. The average is fifty sales per hour but the time required to move each animal through the auction slows down the operation. Time is more flexible for the buyers and the ranchers. This is their job and they don't want to see any decisions rushed. For this reason the buyers have a tendency to be more casual in their bidding, a deliberation which leads to the consumption of much time. The auction is very significant to the rancher, especially the small rancher. It is a convenient way for marketing his cattle. If he has only a small number of cattle to sell, the rancher knows the auction to be the closest and best market open to him. The small rancher does not always have conformity of livestock and the auction meets this need by allowing the stock to run through the ring one at a time. Of course, different grades of cattle come through the ring, for ranchers use the auction also to sell salvage cows, and cows and bulls that have been culled for any other reason. But the predominant item for sale is the rancher's calves. Although the most functional role of the auction is to serve the small rancher, the auction is not without competition in other markets. With options of alternative marketing channels, the larger owners usually choose to ship direct. The owner will seek a private buyer or the buyer may go to the owner with an offer. In this instance, the price is usually fixed on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. But ranchers and buyers have long been known for their continuing arguments until an agreement is reached suitable to both parties. If this method is chosen, title actually passes from one negotiating party to another. Another alternative for the rancher is to contract his cattle to an order buyer who buys for a feedlot. The rancher used to have also the option of taking his stock to a terminal market. At the stockyards the seller was brought into direct contact with the individual buyers, with whom he con­cluded a private treaty. The price was specified but both buyer and seller knew this price was subject to negotiation. From one initial quotation they could work toward a settlement. In the mid-l 960's the largest terminal markets left in Texas (San Antonio, Fort Worth, and Houston) yielded to the auctions. The reasons were several. It appeared to the rancher that the stockyard showed too much partiality to favored buyers. The stock was not put before the public. No time was taken with a rancher if the managers did not know him personally. Often they tried to use their own judgment without allowing for real competitive bidding. The price-making scheme of the auction-the competi­tive bid-seems to be highly acceptable to the rancher. The Table 1 RECEIPTS OF LIVESTOCK AT TEXAS AUCTION MARKETS, 1968 AND 1969 (Number of head) Cattle and calves Hogs Sheep Goats Month 1968 1969 1968 1969 1968 1969 1968 1969 January . . 415,000 502,000 58,000 54,000 55,000 61,000 13,000 14,000 February . 287,000 369,000 45,000 46,000 44,000 42,000 12,000 14,000 March ... 439,000 446,000 56,000 54,000 66,000 95,000 22,000 23,000 April .... 438,000 478,000 58,000 55,000 99,000 116,000 34,000 43,000 May . .... 507,000 609,000 56,000 58,000 215,000 223,000 42,000 36,000 June .... 471,000 587,000 51,000 52,000 155,000 167,000 44,000 27,000 July ..... 567,000 560,000 60,000 26,000 54,000 125,000 130,000 29,000 August .. 597,000 603,000 51,000 49,000 119,000 120,000 55,000 54,000 September 665,000 716,000 48,000 53,000 116,000 118,000 60,000 76,000 October .. 788,000 781,000 52,000 46,000 144,000 99,000 50,000 55,000 November 657,000 638,000 47,000 43,000 68,000 69,000 28,000 26,000 December 429,000 470,000 46,000 43,000 41,000 46,000 10,000 13,000 Total 6,260,000 6,759,000 628,000 407,000 607,000 1,247,000 1,286,000 399,000 Note: Rece~pts of livestock. at Texas Auction Markets are available through the cooperation of the Texas Animal Health Commission. Auct10n market receipts are obtained by auction inspectors. Source: Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Texas Department of Agriculture, Texas Livestock Statistics. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW buyers attempt to outbid one another. This forces the price to the highest price the bidder is willing to pay and gives the rancher a chance to receive top prices for his stock. Of course, prices are subject to change with each transaction. This method of flexible pricing is one of the basic characteristics of the auction. The auction is one of the most realistic representations of the supply, demand, and competition structure. Today the rancher is more informed than formerly as to the price he should be receiving for his stock. Before the dissemination of information became broad through news­papers, farm magazines, television, and other forms of mass media, certain so-called buyers would approach the rancher and buy his calves for little or nothing and resell to make money. Today the rancher knows the market price and knows about what to expect. The animals are typically sold individually or in groups at so much per pound. For the auctions the price quotations are based on poundage, with the standard escalation for livestock usually one cent a pound. The Texas auctions normally run their calves one at a time, because small ranchers normally do not have calves that resemble each other. If an owner has several calves of consistent quality, weight, and breed, they may be run by the lot, a group ranging in number from one to ten. A Texas Livestock Auction Building "Standard escalation is not maintained as the price ap­proaches the market quotation. It is at this point that the auctioneer will ask for fractional increases. The auctioneer is responsible for reducing the size of the advances as the price rises to higher levels."6 A buyer may be unwilling to pay 30 cents a pound for a calf but he may be willing to pay 29.5 cents. The auctioneer and the bid starter, or ringman, are very special and play important parts in the success of the sale. The bid starter is standing or sitting within the ring in a fenced-off area. The bid starter is responsible for a reasonable starting price, but his initial bid is not critical, for it can be adjusted. If a price of 25 cents is asked and the auctioneer cannot get it, he then must drop to 24 cents and on down until he gets a bid. If the auctioneer finally gets a bid at 20 cents he will try to move it up fractionally. The 6eassady, Auctions and Auctioneers, p. 122. next amount the auctioneer may ask for may be 20.5 cents. If the owner is present and does not feel that he has received an adequate price for his stock, he has the option of a P.0.-pass it over. The owner must P.O. the stock before the auctioneer brings the gavel down. If a bid is never received after the bid starter gives the first bid, then the auction owns the stock. Both the ringman and the auctioneer must use sound judgment. The auctioneer must know exactly when to reduce to fractional amounts. If the auctioneer reduces to fractional amounts too soon on successive increased bids, it will take too long to receive top price and the bidders may lose interest. If the auctioneer knows, however, that top price is between 29 and 30 cents and starts asking for fractions after 29, he will probably receive top money without slowing up the sale. Area of the Bid Starter and the Auctioneer The auctioneer leads the bidders by calling out the bid needed as well as the bid last received. This is not necessary for the professional buyers, for they can understand the auctioneer and are familiar with the procedures, but not all the buyers at a livestock auction are professionals. The auctioneer must also be quick to notice each of the bids. Some of the buyers with special signals to indicate a bid inform the auctioneer in advance as to their signals. Such techniques are pulling on the ear, removing the hat, wiping the brow, or a single flick of the wrist. These are often employed among buyers to keep the other buyers from knowing who is bidding against them. If nothing special is employed, simply raising the hand will indicate a bid. The auctioneer immediately decides once and for all who rightfully has made the purchase. SEPTEMBER 197 1 "The bidding at a livestock auction is slow and delib­erate. Therefore, to avoid periods of silence, the auctioneer bridges the gaps between bids with rhythmic and high-speed verbalizing. The auctioneer can cover the silences by repeating the amount of the bid he has, announcing and repeating the amount of the bid he wants next, and utilizing filler words."7 Among the people important to the success of an auction is the buyer, who must not be forgotten, for without him there could be no sale and no auction. The buyer sits in a gallery extremely close to the ring. The buyer must be close so he can study the animal and .make his own judgments. Of course, the buyer's judgment also is keen. He must be able to judge the average weight of a calf and decide within a matter of seconds whether the animal fits his present needs. The buyer must be aware continually. He must be able to recognize a calf that is unusually swollen because some rancher has fed it salt so it would drink water and weigh more. The buyer knows to bid less. The buyer also knows to bid more on a high-quality calf that has stood too long and has shrunk. The buyer above all is bidding on quality. Buyers are of different types. A good selection of buyers and a balance are important to an auction. With too many buyers the auction will have a tremendous sales day when all the stock goes at high prices. Such a situation kills the buyer, who cannot buy enough to justify his coming. With too few buyers the market is weak and low prices result. This offends the seller, who probably will not return. It is therefore necessary to encourage just the appropriate balance of packer, order, and stocker buyers. The packer buyers receive from their firms a figure to work around, and they buy live cattle and determine a dress figure. They continue to buy what they can at the figure they are allowed. The order buyer, usually working for a company handling the stock for a feedlot, has an order to fill. The stocker buyer may be working to replace cattle in feedlots or for himself to build his own herd . The buyers buying for a feedlot are in search of as many as 4,000 calves a week, which must be of certain grades and certain weights, but when the buyer is handed an order he is not to exceed it. It is often questionable as to whether collusion among the buyers is possible. Such connivance can occur, but not very easily. Any buyers attempting it are always faced with the possibility that outside competition may frustrate their low-bid agreement. To provide real security, however, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Agricul­ture have inspectors watching buyers. Often even lunch together is risky. The only buyers allowed together are the order buyers, and they are permitted to associate only when they are working for the same feedlot. Accusations against the buyers would be really difficult unless someone were reasonably sure of their duplicity, for the auction does not want to offend a $40,000 buyer. State inspectors at every auction see that cattle which do not meet health standards are not allowed to go through the ring. If something is wrong with a cow she is specially Ibid. tagged. If her trouble is only a disease of the eyes she is allowed to run, and if a packer buys her she is inspected again at the plant to see whether the meat is endangered. If the cow is condemned she will go to a federal plant for further inspection, and there probably end in soap. All these important people are essential to an auction. One further element is vital to an auction-the animal. The auction is interesting also from the calves' point of view. The calf will probably arrive the night before or early in the morning. After being unloaded he will be tagged with a number to designate when he will go through the ring. The tagging procedure is very important. It works on a first-come, first-serve basis. The rancher who gets his stock there early supposedly gets them through the ring first. The middle of the sale usually provides the best market, because toward the end of the sale the buyer starts reaching his quota and in the beginning of the sale nqt all the buyers may be there yet. Numbered and tagged and assigned to a pen, with his number and that of the pen recorded for his owner, the calf awaits his turn. When it is his time he leaves the pen and goes down an alley, where a door will open to allow him entrance into the ring. There he is usually prodded to turn in every direction so the buyers can see him from every angle. After leaving the ring to be weighed the calf will return to a pen to await the buyer's request for removal. He will then be loaded and shipped out. Tagged Calves A waiting Their Turn with the Auctioneer Accurate records are kept on each animal from the initial tagging. A secretary sits beside the auctioneer to record amount of purchase and name of buyer. Another gentleman sitting in a booth just behind the auctioneer waits for the animal to hit the scales, weighs, and hands the weight stubs back to the secretary. The weight scales break on five pounds and poundage is rounded off. These scales are government-inspected every six months. As further protection for the seller, the scales are balanced after every fifteen head. Another service the auction performs is to assist in apprehending cattle thieves. Present at every auction is a brand inspector. A description of cow and brand is recorded for each animal. When a cattleman misses a cow he needs only call the regional director or area supervisor of the Texas Cattleman's Association, who will instruct the TCA brand inspectors to check as to whether the cow has ever gone through the ring and who sold it. No one expects the auction to perform its many services for nothing. A commission charge is decided upon by the owner and approved by the Department of Agriculture. Once this commission charge is set, it is difficult to change. Capitol Livestock Commission charges 3 percent on the first $2,000 and 2 percent thereafter, and a yardage fee of 35 cents per head. Some optional fees also are charged, but only upon agreement by the rancher and the owner of the auction. An additional 12 cents per head, paid to the Southwestern Cattleman's Association, may be collected for brand inspection. The National Livestock Meat Board may collect 3 cents per head to pay for advertising. The auction must be prepared to deal also with seasonal fluctuations. The prime selling months are June through September. The weakest time of the year starts with October and usually ends around December. At the present time the ranchers are faced with the drought situation, which has led to an unbelievable amount of stock selling. The livestock auction is by no means on its way out. The following statistics were taken from a summary of the annual reports filed with the Packers and Stockyards Administration in 1969. Only 12 percent of the steers and heifers were purchased in the United States by packers through the auction market in Texas. But 64 percent of the cows and bulls were purchased at Texas auctions; 31 percent of the calves were purchased at auctions; and 31 percent of all cattle were purchased by packers at Texas auctions. In addition 30 percent of the hogs sold in Texas were purchased through auctions and 15 · percent of the sheep and lambs. Auctions are holding their own in the Texas livestock market. Relative to the future of the livestock auction, Pete Jones owner and auctioneer of the Hockley Livestock Comr:iission, is optimistic: "I don't feel that auction sales will decline, not as far as the small rancher is concerned. It's the best way a rancher can go, especially when it is a good auction that is kept honest." Eddie Hendricks, vice presi­dent of the Capitol Livestock Commission, in Austin, said that "auctions are a definite part of the future. Ranches are going to get smaller. Inheritance often breaks up the large ranches, and. ranchers that have been operating in what used to be country find themselves in the middle of suburban areas and are forced to sale. Also the drugstore-type cowboy is buying in and he feels that a hundred head is really ranching. He's actually too small to sell any other way but through an auction." Dr. Ed Uvacek, livestock­marketing specialist, had some different ideas. "The fallacy of the auction today is that some men go into it thinking that a physical facility is going to insure a market. It is often felt that any cowboy can run and manage an auction. This is not true. As for instance, Bryan had two auctions. It did not have the cattle population to support two auctions and one was forced to close. Of course, the auctions are good. They stimulate money activity in the community." Dr. Uvacek also recently wrote an article on marketing cattle in 1990. He felt that the cattle auction would still be a prominent means for marketing livestock then, but that it would be up-dated. Dr. Uvacek views the auction as an ultramodern facility with buyers enclosed in a special glass, soundproof section down near the ring. Here spectator noise and odors will be eliminated. There will be a two-way mike to hear the auctioneer and to raise the bid. Some auctions will even provide electric buttons to facilitate bidding and lessen the auctioneer's errors. When the button is pressed, it will light up a panel in front of the auctioneer and a large panel above the ring, visible to all buyers. As each bid is raised an electronic device will select the higher offer and drop the lower so that the purchaser of the animal is never in question. To facilitate the bidding and increase the accuracy of pricing, management will weigh the animals before they enter the ring and will flash the weight on a TV screen above the area. Lunch, snacks, and drinks will be served the buyers to keep them in their purchasing compartments until the bulk of the sale is over. The thrill and excitement connected with auctions should prolong their existence. Their congenial atmosphere is no longer found in most other places of business. The people connected with the auction-management, the ranchers, and the buyers-are real people, not the typical stuffed shirts one finds everyday. Auctions are very much alive with no sign of decline. SEPTEMBER 1971 TEXAS CONSTRUCTION Robert M. Lockwood Rising three percentage points from June and almost 40 percent from a year ago, the seasonally adjusted index of residential construction authorized in Texas urban areas climbed in July to a level of 227 .3 percent of the 195 7-1 959 average. Declines in nonresidential construction depressed the July index of total construction authorized to 22 l.7 percent of the base-period level. July of this year assumes additional significance as the last full month before the initiation on August 15 of the new economic program of the Nixon Administration. Considerable changes from July 1970 and from last year are evident in the structure of the estimated value of construction authorized in Texas. The proportion repre­sented by new construction fell from 89.2 percent in July a year ago to 88.2 percent in July 1971. Almost four fifths of the gain of $22.5 million (not adjusted for price changes) was borne by new construction. Similar changes occurred in the cumulative estimated value of construction authorized during January-July. Through the first seven months of 1970 new construction accounted for 89.3 percent of total estimated values, an absolute (unadjusted) figure of about $1,222 million. The category of additions, alterations, and repairs amounted to some $ 146 million during the same period last year. The estimated values of new construction for the year through July 197 1 made up only 89 .0 percent of the total. The absolute figure, however, had increased to $1,537 million, a gain of 25.8 percent (not adjusted for price changes). Additions, alterations, and repairs during January-July 197 1 amounted to an estimated $189 million 29.7 percent ahead of the comparable figure for 1970. ' These data are highly misleading. The Department of Commerce composite construction-cost index indicates that the cost of new construction rose perhaps 9.5 percent between January-July 1970 and January-July 1971. A more nearly accurate representation of the movement of the estimated value of new construction authorized in Texas between these two periods therefore might establish the relative increase at about 14-15 percent and the dollar gain at perhaps some $200 million. Because the application of this index to estimates representing additions, alterations, and repairs would almost certainly yield a considerable understatement, the use of this index ought at least to suggest the upper limit of the real change in the value of this sector. Similarly, the Department of Commerce com­posite index ought to understate slightly the real change in total valuations, of which the rapidly inflating additions­alterations-repairs component makes up roughly a ninth. Application of this index to the additions-alterations-repairs category yields a deflated estimate for January-July 1971 of about $173 million, only 18.4 percent, or about $27 million, above the comparable 1970 estimate. A more realistic price deflator might reduce this real gain to something nearer 15 percent. In the same way the rise in total estimated values authorized might amount to roughly $200 million, or about 14.6 percent. The apparently considerable decline in the proportion of new construction is therefore at least partly, and perhaps entirely, illusory. A much more significant shift which is in no way a mirage is the trend within the new-construction sector toward more housing. Adjustment of the 1971 figures as nearly as possible according to the Department of Com­merce composite cost index yields a gain of about $24 million, or nearly 27 percent, from July 1970 to July 197 1 in the estimated value of new residential construction authorized. Nonresidential values, adjusted similarly, fell off 26.3 percent, the dollar-equivalent of $ 24 million, during the same twelve months. The adjusted total for the estimated value of new construction authorized is almost precisely the sa me: $18 1.8 million in July 1970 and $181.4 million in July 197 1. Rising construction costs almost certainly accounted for practically all of the apparent gain. The shift in the relative share of each type of construction is consequently much more striking. The share of residen­tial values rose from 49.1 percent of estimated total values ESTIMATED VALUES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS* Percent change Jan-July 1971 July Jan-July July 1971 from 1971 1971 from Jan-July Classification (thousands of dollars) June 1971 1970 ALL PERMITS 226,14S l,72S,S46 -22 26 New construction 199,471 l,S36,SOS -24 26 Residential (housekeeping) 124,S2S 869,463 -3 44 One-family dwellings 87,034 S44,697 4 64 Multiple-family dwellings 37,491 324,766 -17 19 Nonresidential buildings 74,946 667,042 -4S 8 Hotels, motels, and tourist courts 8SO 26,782 3,948 4 Amusement buildings 1,341 20,061 Sl -49 Churches 3,281 20,S71 64 -10 Industrial buildings 10,991 60,120 -3 -s Garages (commercial and private) 1,0SO 14,842 9 42 Service stations 1,142 10,413 -17 21 Hospitals and institutions S,849 29,363 39 -60 Office-bank buildings 24,48S 211,04S -49 68 Works and utilities 1,624 33,S71 -83 21 Educational buildings 4,064 100,1OS -86 12 Stores and mercan tile buildings 13,972 114,091 -46 2 Other buildings and structures 6,297 26,078 !SS 47 Additions, alterations, and repairs 26,674 189,041 -4 30 SMSA vs. NON-SMSA Total SMSAt 202,608 l,SS4,379 -23 28 Central cities 138,473 1,080,664 -30 22 Outside central cities 64,l 3S 473,71S -1 44 Total non-SMSA 23,S37 171,167 -21 13 10,000 to S0,000 population 12,8S s 89,810 -2S 12 Less than 10,000 population 10,682 81,3S7 -IS IS * 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. in July 1970 to 62.4 percent in July 1971 , and the nonresidential share fell from 50.9 percent to 3 7 .6 percent. The cumulative figures through July of each of the last two years demonstrate that this trend is sustained. Residen­tial values authorized during January-July 1971 gained about $188 million, or 31 percent, over the same seven months in 1970. Nonresidential values fell off about 1 percent. Even with the imperfections of generalized cost indexes and their application to the deflation of figures such as these, evidence suggests unmistakably that the real value of nonresidential construction authorized in Texas urban places reporting building-permit issues was roughly the same during the initial seven months of each of the last two years. It is equally clear that the real value of residential authori zations r ose considerably. Although the number of housing units authorized in permit-reporting places throughout Texas fell off in July, the seven-month total (January-July) gained almost 19 ,000 units on the total recorded through July 1970. Geographi­cally this gain is attributable largely to the twenty-four standard metropolitan statistical areas, which accounted for about nine tenths of the net increase. During the first seven months of 197 1 the Houston SMSA recorded 6,8 20 more units than during January-July 1970; the Dallas and Fort Worth SMSA's reported 3,811 more units; and San Antonio and Austin issued permits for 1,822 more units. The type-composition of housing-unit totals also has undergone a considerable shift during the past year. Of some 69 ,900 new units reported in urban areas during January-July 1971 , 42.3 percent consisted of one-family homes, compared with 39.1 percent during the same seven months last year. The actual number of single-family houses increased from some 19,900 last year to about 29,600 through July 1971. Apartment-unit totals reported slid from 58.8 percent of all housing units through July 1970 to a July 1971 cumulative total of 5 5 percent. The real value of building permits issued and reported in the twenty-four standard metropolitan statistical areas is increasing faster than that of permits reported outside the SMSA's. The real value of SMSA permits through the first seven months of the year increased about one sixth from 1970 to 1971 , a gain roughly equivalent to about $200 million. From a share of ab0ut 89 percent of the January-July total in 1970, the SMSA's accounted for about 90.1 percent of the estimated real value of permits issued and reported through July of this year. The twenty-four SMSA's, on the basis of the 1970 Census, included 73.4 percent of the population of Texas and Miller County, Arkansas, which is a part of the Texarkana SMSA. Of the total 1970 SMSA population of 8,267,843, includ­ing rural areas, 6,996,037 persons in 192 communities are covered by building-permit reports received by the Bureau of Business Research Rural and other areas outside corporate limits do not issue permits and are not even theoretically covered in these statistics. Even with allow­ance for areas within the SMSA's for which permits are not issued and for those cities which do not report or report incompletely, Bureau of Business Research statistics pro­vide effective coverage for about 83 percent of the SMSA's. SEPTEMBER I 971 Probably several months will elapse before any valid assessment can be made of the effect of the new economic program of the Nixon Administration. Because so many variables have been affected, unarguable analysis may never be possible. Two sectors of Texas construction may bear watching, however. Single-family housing already has re­sponded to favorable impulses and may continue to do so. The largest elements of nonresidential construction are usually the most vulnerable to short-run fluctuation, and this sector is notoriously erratic even in "normal" times. Sustained economic health-should this be achieved or appear attainable-might shore up nonresidential construc­tion to a level consistent with long-term strength. TOTAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS• Jndu: AdJusted for Seuonal V•riarion-1957·1959•100 350 I A A 1\.1 '"' -~" Jll v'l.l A II ·•"II ~v V' vr.; _J Vl I I If\ I -. .J ·rn ,/ N• J 350 JOO 300 2'0 2'0 200 200 uo uo 100 100 .. •o 19!17 \951 19!19 1960 1961 1962 1963 196" 196.5 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 • lnclude1 add1hon1, •lterallon•. and repa.1r1 NOTE: Shaded &rH• 1ndH;Ue period& of dedine of tou.1 bu11no!l1 &ctivuy in the Unued S1aie1 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS• 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. In 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 utilit y 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 nonresi­dential 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. 197 and 204. INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR ST AND ARD METROPOLITAN ST A TISTICAL AREAS July 1971 Percent change from July Jun July Reported area and indicator 1971 1971 1970 ABILENE SMSA Jones and Taylor Counties; population 113,959 Urban building permits (dollars) 757,214 -74 -72 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 186,141 -1 4 Nonfarm employment 41,700 1 1 Manufacturing employment 5,840 ** 8 Unemployed (percent) 4.0 -20 8 AMARILLO SMSA Potter and Randall Counties; population 144,396 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,975,160 88 150 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 519,466 4 6 Nonfarm employment 65,800 ** 4 Manufacturing employment 8,630 -1 3 Unemployed (percent) 4.1 -13 ** AUSTIN SMSA Travis County; population 295,516 Urban building permits (dollars) 13,998,681 -7 -15 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 866,153 -15 23 Nonfarm employment 131,300 -3 7 Manufacturing employment 12,160 ** 1 Unemployed (percent) 2.8 -20 7 BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA Jefferson and Orange Counties; population 315,943 Urban building permits (dollars) 5,475,718 137 206 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 569,380 I 10 Nonfarm employment 118,800 1 ** Manufacturing employment 37,200 1 ** Unemployed (percent) 6.2 3 27 BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA Cameron County; population 140,368 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,912,431 63 227 Bank debits, sea~. adj. ($1,000) 172,543 -5 3 Nonfarm employment 40,750 4 6 Manufacturing employment 6,140 ** 2 Unemployed (percent) 8.3 ­ 21 22 Percent change from July Jun July Reported area and indicator 1971 1971 1970 BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION SMSA Brazos County; population 57,978 Urban building permits (dollars) Bank debits ($1,000) 98,932 3 9 (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Bryan-College Station SMSA.) CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA Nueces and San Patricio Counties; population 284;832 Urban building permits (dollars) 5,473,809 -15 131 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 515,265 -1 27 Nonfarm employment 96,800 1 5 Manufacturing employment 11,550 ** 4 Unemployed (percent) 4.8 -20 4 DALLAS SMSA Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Kaufman, and Rockwall Counties; population 1,555,950 Urban building permits (dollars) 48,735,814 -18 -10 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 11,239,018 -2 3 Nonfarm employment 711,800 ** -2 Manufacturing employment 142,925 ** -11 Unemployed (percent) 4.1 -15 21 (Values for the construction of the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport [ $45.5 million] are not included because the projected airport is not within an urban permit-issuing area.) EL PASO SMSA El Paso County; population 359,291 Urban building permits (dollars) 7,136,480 -32 10 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 664,706 -12 8 Nonfarm employment 114,100 -2 3 Manufacturing employment 23,050 -7 7 Unemployed (percent) 5.7 -17 4 FORT WORTH SMSA Johnson and Tarrant Counties; population 762,086 Urban building permits (dollars) 12,420,197 -42 -11 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 2,248,839 -6 24 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Percent change Percent change from from July Jun July July Jun July Reported area and indicator 1971 1971 1970 Reported area and indicator 1971 1971 1970 FORT WORTH SMSA (Continued) ODESSA SMSA Nonfarm employment 291,900 -1 -3 Ector County; population 91,805 Manufacturing employment 74,450 * * -19 Urban building permits (dollars) 562,229 -9 -4Unemployed (percent) 6.2 -10 38 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 142,633 -3 13 (Values for the construction of the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport [ $45.S million] are not included because the projected N~:~~%~~~i~::r::~:oyment 6!'.~~~ :: ~ airport is not within an urban permit-issuing area.) Unemployed (percent) 4.9 -16 9 (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland andGALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Odessa SMSA's since employment figures for Midland and EctorGalveston County; population 169,812 Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in Urban building permits (dollars) 1,840,175 -49 114 combined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 248,078 3 8 Nonfarm employment 58,300 2 -13 -SAN ANGELO SMSA Manufacturing employment 11,400 ** -7 Tom Green County; population 71,047Unemployed (percent) 6.5 -7 25 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,345,452 109 -2 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 115,779 -4 16HOUSTON SMSA Nonfarm employment 23,750 ** ** Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, and Manufacturing employment 4,290 1 10 Montgomery Counties; population 1,985,031 Unemployed (percent) 4.7 -6 9 Urban building permits (dollars) 62,245,315 -36 54 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 9,716,167 4 9 SAN ANTONIO SMSA Nonfarm employment 879,500 7 1 Bexar and Guadalupe Counties; population 864,014 Manufacturing employment 149,100 •• 1 Urban building permits (dollars) 11,458,853 -25 37 Unemployed (percent) 3.3 -20 10 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 1,738,144 ** 9 Nonfarm employment 299,100 ** 3 LAREDO SMSA Manufacturing employment 35,075 -2 I Webb County; population 72,859 Unemployed (percent) 4.0 -43 -31 Urban building permits (dollars) 1731,595 s -52 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 84,932 8 s SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA Nonfarm employment 25,000 2 1 Grayson County; population 83,225Manufacturing employment 1,480 1 s Urban building permits (dollars) 613,432 37 -81Unemployed (percent) 10.4 -12 12 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 92,559 -12 -4 (Monthly employment reports are not available for theLONGVIEW-KILGORE-GLADEWATER METROPOLITAN AREA Sherman-Denison SMSA.) Gregg County; population 75,929 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,376,075 2 2 TEXARKANA SMSA Bowie County, Texas, and Miller County, Arkansas; ~~~~a~~~~~~~~o~~~t 1;~'.~~~ .~ ** 3 population 101,198Manufacturing employment 10,390 2 Urban building permits (dollars) 466,S 13 -25 165Unemployed (percent) 5.0 -15 . 32 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 123,766 -10 4(Building permits and bank debits are included for those port10ns of Nonfarm employment 39,850 ** -2Kilgore and Gladewater in Rusk County and Upshur County.) Manufacturing employment 9,150 ** -15 Unemployed (percent) 6.3 -19 -16LUBBOCK SMSA (Since the Texarkana SMSA includes Bowie County in Texas andLubbock County; population 179,295 Miller County in Arkansas, all data, including population, refer to Urban building permits (dollars) 3,955,919 -69 15 the two-county region.) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 433,897 -7 1 Nonfarm employment 66,300 -3 8 1YLER SMSA Manufacturing employment 7,650 ** 12 Smith County; population 97,096Unemployed (percent) 4.7 -22 -24 Urban building permits (dollars) 849,561 1 -58 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 195,019 2 sMcALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA Nonfarm employment 39,500 1 -3 Hidalgo County; population 181,535 Manufacturing employment 12,200 -7 ** Urban building permits (dollars) 2,241,278 57 86 Unemployed (percent) 4.4 -6 16 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 149,982 -s 4 Nonfarm employment 42,400 -s 3 WACO SMSA Manufacturing employment 3,720 -30 -13 McLennan County; population 147,553 Unemployed (percent) 7.1 -18 ** Urban building permits (dollars) 1,650,189 -42 -IS Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 279,486 -7 6MIDLAND SMSA Nonfarm employment 58,200 3 ** ­ Midland County; population 65,433 Manufacturing employment 11,700 2 -10 Urban building permits (dollars) 493,895 -30 S Unemployed (percent) 5.1 -20 11 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 178,705 6 S Nonfarm employment 61,900 ** 1 WICHITA FALLS SMSA Manufacturing employment 5,410 ** 3 Archer and Wichita Counties; population 127,621 Unemployed (percent) 4.9 -16 9 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,626,222 81 -37(Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 217,535 12 10Odessa SMSA's since employment figures for Midland and Ector Nonfarm employment 49,800 3 Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in ** Manufacturing employment 5,980 ** 9combined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) Unemployed (percent) 3.4 -15 6 • • Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent. . . . No data, or inadequate basis for reporting. SEPTEMBER 1971 INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPALITIES JULY 1971 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population* July 1971 (dollars) Percent change from June July 1971 1970 July 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from June July 1971 1970 ANDERSON Palestine 27,789 14,525 98,100 -43 -48 23,822 10 ANDREWS Andrews 10,372 8,625 3,850 -72 -94 10,005 22 10 ANGELINA Lufkin 49,349 23,049 177,944 -84 100 ARANSAS Aransas Pass 8,902 5,813 179,680 10,581 4 23 ATASCOSA Pleasanton 18,696 5,407 6,277 5 - 4 AUSTIN Bellville 13,831 2,371 20,000 -52 313 7,859 7 3 BAILEY Muleshoe 8,487 4,525 12,886 2 -25 BASTROP Smithville 17,297 2,959 4,950 -67 237 3,028 10 3 BEE Beeville 22,737 13,506 242,858 57 702 21,175 8 8 BELL Bartlett Killeen Temple 124,483 1,622 35,507 33,431 460,206 830,233 -21 -27 -26 5 1,667 42,849 71,408 10 -4 2 39 20 14 BEXAR (In San Antonio SMSA) San Antonio 830,460 654,153 10,835,993 -24 36 1,780,468 3 9 BOWIE (In Texarkana SMSA) Texarkana 67,813 52,179 438,718 - 26 254 120,301 - 3 BRAZORIA (In Houston SMSA) Angleton Clute Freeport Pearland 108,312 9,770 6,023 11,997 6,444 51,000 45,640 5,400 323,300 -76 -43 -57 -89 -90 -58 18,828 5,940 30,715 8,234 10 7 19 ** 3 5 3 19 BRAZOS (Constitutes Bryan-College Station SMSA) Bryan College Station 57,978 33,719 17,676 802,060 -50 896 85,755 13,177 1 18 9 8 BREWSTER Alpine 7,780 5,971 949 -98 -98 5,694 - 3 3 BROWN Brownwood 25,877 17,368 245,109 -68 45 BURLESON Caldwell 9,999 2,308 5,171 12 BURNET Marble Falls 11,420 2,209 7,443 3 22 CALDWELL Lockhart 21,178 6,489 350,717 347 908 8,931 4 6 CAMERON (Constitutes Brownsville­Harlingen-San Benito SMSA) Brownsville Harlingen La Feria Los Fresnos Port Isabel San Benito 140,368 52,522 33,503 2,642 1,297 3,067 15,176 1,286,400 587,418 0 38,558 242 -11 -56 180 533 248 76,758 84,444 2,606 3,028 3,728 9,313 12 14 1 56 7 12 4 2 -9 -5 85 -1 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population* July 1971 (dollars) Percent change from June July 1971 1970 July 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from June July 1971 1970 CASTRO Dimmitt 10,394 4,327 23,132 11 14 CHEROKEE Jacksonville 32,008 9,734 22,800 -83 -94 27,548 12 13 COLLIN (In Dallas SMSA) McKinney Plano 66,920 15,193 17,872 957,028 3,328,990 579 45 144 144 16,755 20,505 4 21 4 COLORADO Eagle Lake 17,638 3,587 4,279 2 -11 COMAL New Braunfels 24,165 17,859 1,715,182 262 327 25,692 10 6 COOKE Gainesville Muenster 23,471 13,830 1,411 126,750 3,500 -54 -93 34 -42 21,636 3,731 7 3 8 14 CORYELL Copperas Cove Gatesville 35,311 10,818 4,683 309,469 -54 -25 4,677 9,691 4 4 26 -8 CRANE Crane 4,172 3,427 19,150 -48 316 2,340 -6 -6 DALLAS (In Dallas SMSA) Carrollton Dallas Farmers Branch Garland Grand Prairie Irving Lancaster Mesquite Richardson Seagoville 1,327,321 13,85 5 844,401 27,492 81,437 50,904 97,260 10,522 55,131 48,582 4,390 2,326,657 19,506,620 981,342 3,753,655 3,487,154 1,196,017 382,900 3,159,973 1,896,251 363,019 1 9 -40 -15 2 -62 -70 -30 296 443 -36 69 -24 9 -78 88 223 17,85 8 10,433,908 25,129 68,714 35,677 84,707 7,922 27,625 62,538 18,162 16 -3 -14 4 4 1 7 4 -10 -20 48 3 23 ** 18 6 -6 25 22 79 DAWSON Lamesa 16,604 11,559 0 20,817 13 -12 DEAF SMITH Hereford 18,999 13,414 162,700 -75 -51 DENTON (In Dallas SMSA) Denton Justin Lewisville Pilot Point 75,633 39,874 741 9,264 1,663 2,251,100 12,500 482,196 16,000 89 13 68 206 -75 -69 -66 71,291 1,544 16,794 3,446 4 3 6 12 21 36 27 31 DE WITT Yoakum 18,660 5,755 74,672 -77 -78 13,448 22 19 EASTLAND Cisco 18,092 4,160 5,290 7 21 ECTOR (Constitutes Odessa SMSA) Odessa 91,805 78,380 562,229 -9 -4 147,242 3 9 ELLIS (In Dallas SMSA) Ennis Midlothian Waxahachie 46,638 11,046 2,322 13,452 817,150 286 102 11,267 2,361 20,888 8 -12 8 11 7 11 EL PASO (Constitutes El Paso SMSA) El Paso 359,291 322,261 7,136,480 -32 11 672,629 -4 8 ERATH Stephenville 18,191 9,277 431,200 -11 112 16,398 2 4 FANNIN Bonham 22,705 7,698 360,375 299 12,872 -9 -3 SEPTEMBER 197 1 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population* July 1971 (dollars) Percent change from June July 1971 1970 July 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from June July 1971 1970 FAYETTE 17,650 Schulenburg 2,294 9,500 -79 -61 FORT BEND 52,314 (In Houston SMSA) Richmond 5,777 191,800 -37 184 9,422 -9 22 Rosenberg 12,098 292,518 28 80 10,895 22 GAINES 11,593 Seagraves 2,440 1,500 -96 3,334 19 -3 Seminole 5,007 2,600 -87 -92 7,872 16 11 GALVESTON 169,812 (Constitutes Galveston-Texas City SMSA) Dickinson 10,776 16,726 15 22 Galveston 61,809 951,110 102 99 167,345 16 9 La Marque 16,131 210,805 -58 161 22,314 16 11 Texas City 38,908 678,260 -74 126 34,151 3 -14 GILLESPIE 10,553 Fredericksburg 5,326 115,420 66 18,159 9 GONZALES 16,375 Nixon 1,925 80,000 132 GRAY 26,949 Pampa 21,726 44,350 -26 167 39,611 4 9 GRAYSON 83,225 (Constitutes Sherman- Denison SMSA) Denison 24,923 306,971 242 2 29,042 -15 7 Sherman 29,061 260,761 30 -91 58,813 -9 9 GREGG 75,929 (Constitutes Longview-Kilgore- Gladewater Metropolitan Area) Gladewater 5,574 85,600 -12 242 7,437 6 -11 Kilgore 9,495 33,475 -72 -84 21,149 6 13 Longview 45,547 1,257,000 11 12 100,822 8 2 GUADALUPE 33,554 (In San Antonio SMSA) Schertz 4,061 349,725 235 1,504 53 78 Seguin 15,934 153,530 -25 -20 23,065 ** 8 HALE 34,137 Hale Center 1,964 10,500 -63 Plainview 19,096 1,043,250 857 56,610 7 -2 HARDEMAN 6,795 Quanah 3,948 31,500 -74 7,208 22 3 HARDIN 29,996 Silsbee 7,271 12,604 4 14 HARRIS 1,741,912 (In Houston SMSA) Baytown 43,980 298,412 -64 -51 72,070 6 22 Bellaire 19,009 1,294,646 238 70,757 10 36 Deer Park 12,773 461,680 -79 247 14,834 14 24 Houston 1,232,802 47,730,792 -42 44 9,167,045 5 8 Humble 3,278 14 476,000 -27 198 11,732 2 La Porte 2 7,149 1132,950 -87 -72 5,607 13 Pasadena 89,277 7,674,524 247 211 126,692 6 10 South Houston 11,527 137,500 56 -37 Tomball 2,734 69,300 285 18,731 26 HARRISON 44,841 Hallsville 1,038 1,495 -20 16 Marshall 22,937 378,978 56 -15 29,172 -1 -5 HASKELL 8,512 Haskell 3,655 28,950 35 5,053 -16 HAYS 27,642 San Marcos 18,860 466,400 198 159 16,887 2 200 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population• July 1971 (dollars) Percent change from June July 1971 1970 July 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from June July 1971 1970 HENDERSON Athens 26,466 9,S82 101,SOO 8 72S 18,931 3 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 lS,829 S,070 lS,313 84,SSO 13,308 302,9SO 1,461,700 22,700 122,200 80,41S S4,400 72,0SS 29 29 48 7 347 2S 308 -8 147 -30 79 78 239 -39 3,030 4,S39 34,987 6,243 S6,707 9,036 20,388 7,S06 4,208 16,803 -7 -17 31 48 -4 11 4 2 7 s -16 4 21 8 17 29 -10 -24 lS -12 HOCKLEY Levelland 20,396 11,44S 91,92S -S8 S81 22,404 22 11 HOOD Granbury 6,368 2,473 3,278 •• 4 HOPKINS Sulphur Springs 20,710 10,642 134,240 -31 10 29,082 6 11 HOWARD Big Spring 37,796 28,73S 41,683 39 -37 62,734 10 4 HUNT Greenville 47,948 22,043 248,98S 3 -47 30,012 - 1 - 8 HUTCHINSON Borger 24,443 14,l9S 24,9SO -S8 -14 JACKSON Edna 12,97S S,332 948,700 l l,SS3 12 43 JASPER Jasper Kirbyville 24,692 6,2Sl 1,869 10,7SO -60 19,370 3,19S 14 -7 16 10 JEFFERSON (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Beaumont Groves Nederland Port Arthur Port Neches 244,773 llS,919 18,067 16,810 S7,371 10,894 4,660,770 1S8,927 430,3SO 17S,07S 194 S3 44 20 29S 177 128 -2 347,819 19,468 11,944 107,424 18,827 6 8 1 3 2 - 8 24 7 12 1 JIM WELLS Alice 33,032 20, 121 177,7S9 - 1 497 49,112 19 -2 JOHNSON (In Fort Worth SMSA) Cleburne 4S,769 16,01 s 104,S6S -71 s 26,204 10 KARNES Karnes City 13,462 2,926 S4,3SO 101 72 KAUFMAN (In Dallas SMSA} Terrell 32,392 14,182 318,600 -20 271 22,017 2S KIMBLE Junction 3,904 2,6S4 1,200 -S2 2,776 -9 KLEBERG Kingsville 33,166 28,711 884,300 286 418 26,893 - 1 9 LAMAR Paris 36,062 23,441 224,180 -38 SS LAMB Littlefield 17,770 6,738 83,900 12 296 9,468 -12 - 1 LAMPASAS Lampasas 9,323 S,922 30,S7S -80 378 13,82S 13 19 SEPTEMBER 197 1 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population* July 1971 (dollars) Percent change from June July 1971 1970 July 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from June July 1971 1970 LAVACA Hallettsville Yoakum 17,903 2,712 5,755 15,275 74,672 -64 -77 -47 -78 5,147 13,448 11 22 13 19 LEE Giddings 8,048 2,783 15,370 -81 -80 7,704 - 4 14 LIBERTY (In Houston SMSA) Dayton Liberty 33,014 3,804 5,591 25,360 124,650 275 378 20 6,622 13,304 -12 -s 12 4 LIMESTONE Mexia 18,100 5,943 49,325 264 54 10,493 - s -3 LLANO Kingsland (1969) Llano 6,979 1,200 2,608 67,000 501 6,879 13,785 -7 121 43 126 LUBBOCK (Constitutes Lubbock SMSA) Lubbock Slaton 179,295 149,101 6,583 3,889,S 19 66,400 -70 230 14 372,284 6,445 3 8 1 -5 LYNN Tahoka 9,107 2,956 0 5,266 26 3 McCULLOCH Brady 8,571 5,557 94,700 29 99 9,319 -7 McLENNAN (Constitutes Waco SMSA) McGregor Waco 147,553 4,365 95,326 23,200 211,427 -93 -89 6,224 267,132 4 •• 20 6 MATAGORDA Bay City 27,913 11,733 45,750 -62 -68 23,374 6 6 MAVERICK Eagle Pass 18,903 15,364 236,605 -91 51 15,053 6 •• MEDINA Castroville Hondo 20,249 1,893 5,487 16,300 -65 -78 1,416 5,466 8 1 -1 -13 MIDLAND (Constitutes Midland SMSA) Midland 65,433 59,463 493,895 -30 -s 175,004 3 MILAM Cameron Rockdale 20,028 5,546 4,655 68,000 17,390 339 -74 64 -91 8,863 8,836 22 13 11 -10 MILLS Goldthwaite 4,212 1,693 8,962 8 24 MITCHELL Colorado City 9,073 5,227 7,160 15 -3 MONTGOMERY (In Houston SMSA) Conroe 49,479 11,969 211,500 -16 46,844 9 30 MOORE Dumas 14,060 9,771 2,100 -98 -95 NACOGDOCHES Nacogdoches 36,362 22,544 394,852 -18 -22 37,662 s 2 NAVARRO Corsicana 31,1 so 19,972 129,260 2 69 34,094 -2 2 NOLAN Sweetwater 16,220 12,020 50,300 -28 82 22,352 4 -12 NUECES (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Bishop Corpus Christi Port Aransas Robstown 237,544 3,466 204,525 1,218 11,217 4,084,973 246 721 -22 28 80 622 3,158 479,385 1,527 24,101 36 5 22 44 -s 27 -2 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population• July 1971 (dollars) Percent change from June July 1971 1970 July 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from June July 1971 1970 ORANGE (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA} Orange 71,170 24,457 49,596 -69 -70 53,108 -1 13 PALO PINTO Mineral Wells 28,962 18,411 16,900 75 -98 36,248 14 6 PANOLA Carthage 15,894 5,392 15,600 61 -78 5,874 ** 3 PARKER Weatherford 33,888 11,750 74,100 -96 -62 27,413 6 8 PARMER Friona 10,509 3, 111 16,850 -53 -61 26,810 27 11 PECOS Fort Stockton 13,748 8,283 33,900 -80 -97 POTTER (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo 90,511 127,010 2,861,860 96 153 528,918 7 6 RANDALL (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo (See Potter) Canyon 53,885 8,333 113,300 -7 98 10,203 2 5 REEVES Pecos 16,526 12,682 121,920 141 44 20,772 7 - 15 REFUGIO Refugio 9,494 4 ,340 21,000 11 5,096 4 - 6 RUSK Henderson Kilgore 34,102 10,187 9,495 222,320 33,475 22 -72 -66 -84 21,482 21,149 2 6 15 13 SAN PATRICIO (In Corpus Christi SMSA} Aransas Pass Sinton 47,288 5,813 5,563 179,680 72,095 -76 393 10,581 11,118 4 11 - 23 12 SAN SABA San Saba 5,540 2,555 5,200 -2 -13 9,516 21 13 SCURRY Snyder 15,760 11 ,171 194,400 52 96 20,044 11 10 SHACKELFORD Albany 3,323 1,978 0 3,655 9 - 3 SHERMAN Stratford 3,657 2,139 0 15,499 19 - 17 SMITH (Constitutes Tyler SMSA) Tyler 97,096 57,770 790,061 -5 -61 194,214 4 5 STEPHENS Breckenridge 8,414 5,944 4,300 5 330 SUTTON Sonora 3,175 2,149 2,800 -68 -80 3,519 3 - 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 13,449 481 ,392 8,197,795 168,127 421 ,500 163,145 9 -49 -34 -40 -29 6 83 5 27 118 109,826 18,876 2 ,123,492 9,784 18,734 6,131 3 3 5 1 2 9 -- 14 6 27 29 66 18 TAYLOR (In Abilene SMSA) Abilene 97,853 89,653 728,614 -74 -73 164,144 - 1 7 SEPTEMBER 197 I Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population* July 1971 {dollars) Percent change from June July 1971 1970 July 1971 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from June July 1971 1970 TERRY 14,118 Brownfield 9,647 1,337 -99 26,088 8 -15 TITUS 16,702 Mount Pleasant 8,877 29,84S -77 -17 2S,809 6 19 TOM GREEN 71,047 (Constitutes San Angelo SMSA) San Angelo 63,884 2,34S,4S2 109 -2 128,83S 7 16 TRAVIS 29S,Sl6 (Constitutes Austin SMSA) Austin 2Sl,808 13,970,681 -7 -lS 847,982 -lS 23 UPSHUR 20,976 Gladewater S,S74 8S,600 -12 242 7,437 6 -11 UPTON 4,697 McCamey 2,647 2,17S -3 UVALDE 17,348 Uvalde 10,764 322,933 86 186 2S,6S4 •• 26 VAL VERDE 2'7,471 Del Rio 21,330 21,478 -s 6 VICTORIA S3,766 Victoria 41,349 724,836 9 -S2 103,108 -4 8 WALKER 27,680 Huntsville 17,610 102,448 -90 23,109 2 6 WARD 13,019 Monahans 8,333 30,240 -41 4SO 12,620 7 6 WASHINGTON 18,842 Brenham 8,922 367,30S 16 2SO 24,S2S 7 11 WEBB 72,8S9 (Constitutes Laredo SMSA) Laredo 69,024 731,S9S s -S2 84,994 -7 WHARTON 36,729 El Campo 8,S63 107,998 47 283 20,641 26 18 WICHITA 121,862 (In Wichita Falls SMSA) Burkburnett 9,230 Iowa Park S,796 Wichita Falls 97,S64 63,746 49,822 1,S 12,6S4 46 lS 87 624 -37 -39 10,23S 4,264 204,869 2 3 8 -2 11 WILBARGER 15,3S s Vernon 11,454 14,7SO -SS -93 27,232 10 21 WILLACY 15,570 Raymondville 7,987 39,400 22 604 19,S67 66 -12 WILLIAMSON 37,30S Bartlett 1,622 Georgetown 6,39STaylor 9,616 21 S,97S 127,010 84 -69 -31 1,667 12,42S lS,126 10 lS 16 39 29 4 WINKLER 9,640 Kermit 7,884 2,340 42 192 WISE 19,687Decatur 3,240 0 7,102 23 30 YOUNG lS,400Graham 7,477Olney 3,624 13,150 4,600 -83 -90 -93 14,888 7,608 1 8 -1 s ZAVALA 11,370Crystal City 8,104 79,700 -10 -8 7,Sl 7 13 17 * For 1970 unless otherwise indicated. * * Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent. . • • No data, or inadequate basis for reporting. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (All figures are for Texas unless otherwise indicated.) All indexes are based on the average months for 1957-1959 except where other specification is made; all except annual indexes are adjusted for seasonal variation unless otherwise noted. Employment estimates are compiled by the Texas Employment Commission in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The symbols used below impose qualifications as indicated here: p -preliminary data subject to revision; r-revised data; *-dollar totals for the fiscal year to date; t -employment data for wage and salary workers only. Year-to-date average July June July 1971 1971 1970 1971 1970 GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY Estimates of personal income (millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted) $ 3,S92p $ 3,S87p $ 3,367r $ 3,48S $ 3,2S9 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) •• Consumer prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) Business failures (number) .•..... Business failures (liabilities, thousands) Sales of ordinary life insurance (index) $ 8S9.lp 121.6p 138.8 141.7 281.S $ $ 870.lp 121.3p 141.3 SS 9,S49 292.2 $ 80S.3r 117.7 133.7 13S.7 $ 43 6,719 274.1 $ 846.9 120.3 137.3 140.0 277.2 $ 794.S 116.7 132.S 133.9 $ 44 12,146 2SS.2 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) 322.7p 2S 1.3p 127.8p 17.6 142.2 166.8p 179.3p 196.9p 194.7p 198.3p 134.Sp 289.9p 221.7 227.3 212.0 297.sP 248.6p 127.4p 17.9 149.S 167.9p 181.7p 199.6p 197.2p 201.2p 136.6p 289.9p 26S.1 220.1 3Sl.2 289.4r 232.4r 1l8.6r 16.4 13S.0 169.2r 172.Sr 193.8r 204.1r 186.9r 12S.8r 260.7r 197.9 163.0 261.6 282.3 241.7 126.2 18.1 142.1 166.4 180.0 197.9 198.7 197.3 136.3 280.7 233.0 20S.1 277.1 262.0 230.2 120.6 17.0 133.6 169.9 177.8 199.9 21S.2 189.7 131.0 2S8.3 186.0 143.4 2S7.2 AGRICULTURE Prices received by farmers (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100) Prices paid by farmers in U.S. (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100) 297 410 290 412 272 389 284 407 27S 388 Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid by farmers ... 72 70 70 70 71 FINANCE Bank debits (index) Bank debits, U.S. (index) 366.8 3S3.8 40S.0 339.9 3S2.2 341.3 304.7 343.6 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) $ 6,822 $ 10,072 $ 3,S62 $2S8,124 $ $ $ $ 7,037 10,267 3,S60 $ 306,873 $1,367,632 $ 6,042 $ 8,617 $ 3,190 $22S,634 $299,6Sl $ $ $ $ $ 6,7S6 9,864 3,S44 301,6S8 • $ 6,020 $ 8,603 $ 3,269 $ 270,486 $8,334,911 * Securities registrations-original applications Mutual investment companies (thousands) $ 11,170 $ 13,4SO $ 42,124 $ 244,167 * $ 3S0,039* All other corporate securities Texas companies (thousands) Other companies (thousands) ..... . ..... . $ 42,612 $ 37,810 $ $ 11,97S 4S,S22 $ 24,007 $ 27,67S $ $ 192,791* 269,SS9* $ $ 133,497* 291,247* Securities registration-renewals Mutual investment companies (thousands) Other corporate securities (thousands) .. $ 7S,020 $ 247 $ 27,711 $ 2,461 $ 38,S21 $ 841 $ $ 432,136* 17,486* $ $ 34S,474* 21,3S9* 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 146.7p 144.8p 98.7p 1S6.3~ 3,643.S 70S.6p 373.2p 332.4p 146.9p 14S.6p 99.3p 1S6.2~ 3,6S S.3 712.7p 377.8p 334.9p 147.0r 1S3.3r 98.0r 148.2~ 3,649.8 747.2r 409.lr 338.1r 147.3 146.2 99.3 1S6.6 3,629.S 707.9 374.S 333.4 147.4 lSS.6 99.2 149.1 3,1;33.0 7S3.2 419.0 334.2 Total civilian labor force in selected labor-market areas (thousands) ..... .. .. . ........ . '3,S43.9 3,S8S.1 3,Sl9.9 3,S 13.2 3,486.6 Nonagricultural employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) . ...... . .......... . 3,292.1 3,294.9 3,28S.4 3,280.7 3,28S.6 Manufacturing employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) .................. . S89.S S93.4 627.S S91.2 637.3 Total unemployment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16S.0 197.4 146.1 lSO.O 116.S Percent of labor force unemployed in selected labor-market areas . . . . .......... . 4.7 s.s 4.1 4.3 3.3 BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH RETURN REQUESTED THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 787 12 ECONOMIC AND POPULATION GROWTH IN THE GUADALUPE-BLANCO RIVER AREA by Charles T. Clark and Robert K. Holz No. 32 in Area Economic Surveys A recent research study of the Guadalupe-Blanco River area and the publication of Economic and Population Growth in the Guadalupe-Blanco River Area reflect the continued interest of the Bureau of Business Research in the economic development of various geographical areas of the state of Texas. The deep concern of all citizens with the problems of water shortages and water pollution which accompany population growth makes this study one of vital interest. Careful planning, which can result from anticipated economic and population growth, provides the key to prevention and control of these problems. The authors have gathered and analyzed data on this area covering the physical setting, the shifting pattern of agriculture, manufacturing and associated activities, services, and projections for the next twenty years in population, the influence of large cities, recreation, tourism, and retirement, and employment. Both Dr. Charles T. Clark, associate professor of business statistics, and Dr. Robert K. Holz, associate professor of geography, at The University of Texas at Austin, are research associates with the Bureau of Business Research. xii+ 65 pp. $3.50 (Texas residents add 18 cents sales tax.) Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas at Austin