TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW VOL. XLVI, No. 9, SEPTEMBER 1972 Editor, Robert H. Ryan Managing Editor, Kathleen Luff Editorial Board: Robert H. Ryan, Chairman; Stanley A. Arbingast; John R. Stockton; Francis B. May; Robert B. Williamsoi Kathleen Luft. CONTENTS Articles 185 : The Business Situation in Texas, by Robert M. Lockwood 189: Potential Voting Population in Texas: The Young and Old of It, by N. Carroll Mohn 196: Texas Construction: What Goes Up Must Sometimes Come Down, by Charles P. Zlatkovich 198: The Energy Economy: The Energy Crises of the 1970s, by Francis B. May Tables 186: Business-Activity Indexes for Twenty Selected Texas Cities 187 : Selected Barometers of Texas Business 188: Indexes of Prices Received by Farmers in Texas 188: Nonagricultural Employment in Texas, Selected Labor-Market Areas 191 : Texas Potential Voting Population 196: Housing Units Authorized for Demolition and New Housing Units Authorized: 1969-1970 197 : Estimated Values of Building Authorized in Texas 198: Calculated Consumption of Mineral Energy Resources and Electricity from Hydropower and Nuclear Power, and Percent Contributed by Each in the United States, 1971 199: Percentage Contribution of Mineral Energy Resources and Electricity from Hydropower and Nuclear Power to Total Energy Consumption in the United States, 1966-1971 199 : Electric-Power Consumption 200 : Local Business Conditions Barometers of Texas Business (inside back cover) Charts 185: Estimated Personal Income, Texas 186: Industrial Production: Durable Manufactures, Texas 187: Comparison of Consumer Prices and Wholesale Prices, United States 187: Total Unemployment, Texas 188 : Average Weekly Earnings: Manufacturing Industries, Texas 197: Total Building Authorized, Texas 197: Residential Building Authorized, Texas · 198: Average Daily Crude-Oil Production per Well in Texas 198 : Crude-Oil Runs to Stills, Texas 198: Crude-Oil Production, Texas 199 : Total Electric-Power Use, Texas 199: Industrial Electric-Power Use, Texas Figures 190: Texas Counties with Potential Voting Population Characteris­tics above State Averages, 1972 BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH Business Research Council: Vernon M. Briggs, James R. Bright, Robert T. Green, Darwin D. Klingman, George Kozmetsky, George M. Scott, Lee A. Tavis Director: Stanley A. Arbingast Assistant Directors: Florence Escott, David L. Karney Statistician: John R. Stockton Consulting Statistician: Francis B. May Cooperating Faculty : C. P. Blair, Charles T. Clark, Law­ rence L. Crum, Clark C. Gill, Gary L. Holstrum, Robert K. Holz, Lorrin G. Kennamer, Jerry Todd, Erne" W. Walker, Robert B. Williamson Administrative Assistant: Margaret Robb Research Associates: Charles Adams, Earlene Call, Nicholas Costas, Ida M. Lambeth, Robert M. Lockwood, Kathleen Luft, N. Carroll Mohn, Robert H. Ryan, Barbara Terrell Charles P. Zlatkovich Research Assistant: Clyde Sommerlatte Computer Programmer: Marilyn Smith Statistical Associate: Mildred Anderson Statistical Assistant: Constance Cooledge Statistical Technician: Kay Davis Cartographer: Charles W. Montfort Librarian: Merle Danz Administrative Secretary: Mary Ann Gready Administrative Clerk: Maureen Meehan Senior Secretary: Clintsy Sturgill Senior Clerk Typists: Christine Fox, Deborah Gozali, Agnes Marie Sullivan Senior Clerks: Robert Jenkins, Salvador B. Macias Offset Press Operators: Robert Dorsett, Daniel P . Rosas Published monthly by the Bureau of Business Research, Graduate School of Business, The University of Texas at Auatin, Austin, Texss 78712. Second-class postage paid at Austin, Texaa. Content of thll 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. Reprints of feature articles are available from the Bureau at ten cents each. The Bureau of Business Research is a member of the Association for University Business and Economic Research. THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS Robert M. Lockwood Although many of the more significant indicators of business conditions in Texas in July altered for the worse in comparison with June's performance, the long-term trend of economic activity in the state has edged generally upward for a year. Through the first seven months of 1972, for example, every significant indicator has moved favorably relative to January-July 1971. Among the more important of these changes are a 17-percent decline in insured unemployment and a drop of 8 percent in total unemployment (calculated after adjustment for seasonal influences). Other gains during the first seven months of 1972 include a one-third bulge in new nonresidential and a one-fifth gain in new housing construction (to the extent that these sectors are reflected in indexes based on reported urban building permits). Total electric-power use increased ?.O percent during this period, and forward strides of 6 to 4 percent were recorded in the seasonally adjusted indexes reflecting industrial electric-power use, bank debits, busi­ness activity, estimated personal income, total industrial production, and average weekly earnings in manufacturing. None of the selected barometers of Texas business failed to exhibit a gain-or a favorable movement-of less than 1 percent between January-July 1971 and the same period this year. Because July 1971 was the last full month before the institution of the Nixon administration's New Economic Policy, July 1971/July 1972 comparisons are historically interesting and possibly instructive. Among the seventeen selected barometers of Texas business tabulated with this article, only one failed to move favorably during July 1972 in comparison with July 1971: the index of new residential construction authorized in urban permit-reporting places dropped 5.1 percent from July 1971 to July 1972. Urban building construction as a whole, however-measured by reported permits in munici­palities-rose by one sixth (16.4 percent) from July to July. New nonresidential permits, the index of which gained 54.9 percent from July to July, accounted for this surge. The overall gain in urban construction was further augmented by additfons, alterations, and repairs, the index of which advanced 4.8 percent from July 1971 to July 1972. Because the gains are generally so large, the adjustment of these indexes for price changes during the past year-an adjustment which has not been made-could not possibly cancel all of these gains. Consequently the decline in residential building-permit activity would be lessened, or, depending on the magnitude of the price increases, the index of residential activity might actually exhibit an increase after adjustment for price changes. Outside the construction sector, the largest July/July gains in business-barometer indexes occurred in total electric-power use (14 percent) and crude-oil production (12 percent). The high level of crude-oil output reflects not only available market outlets but also the almost complete depletion of reserve producing capacity in Texas oil fields. Only a few large fields remain capable of significantly large production increases. ESTIMATED PERSONAL INCOME, TEXAS lndeJC Adjusted for Seasonal Variation -1967=100 SOURCE: Quarterly measures ofTexas personal income made by the Office of Business Economics, U.S. Department of Commerce. 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. NOTE: Shaded areas indicate periods of decline of total business activity in the United States. SEPTEMBER 1972 INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION DURABLE MANUFACTURES, TEXAS 19.H 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 196' 1965 1966 1967 1961 1969 1970 19 71 1972 *.uwr Jialy 19'17 II• plotted Tu• lndualrial lndu it oompultod on 1 .._....... b.e wtlidi lo!ic:wpontes NditiooW oiata: priclf 10 !his time 11M oris-1 lnok• ii.,.,,...., oU !>-. ~Mrl• ""' updaled froon 1957-19$9 10 1967. NOTE: 5Nd.d ..,.,.. lndicaw penock ol d«liM of lot.II .,....._ K IMI)' ill llM Unlud Slalet. souact· F..ra1 •-,... 1u1t ot o.na. The seasonally adjusted index of industrial production in Texas gained 10.3 percent between July 1971 and July 1972, rising from 120.8 to 133.3 percent of the 1967 base-period level. The industrial-production index is a composite of three others: total manufacturing (durable and nondurable), total mining, and total utilities. The index of total manufacturing did not fully regain the levels of late 1969 and early 1970 until the summer of 1971, after which the index moved upward fairly steadily, attaining historic highs in August, September, and November 1971 and in March, April, and June of this year. Although the index of durable-goods manufacturing has followed generally the same trend as the total manufactur­ing index, durable-goods production, as reflected in these seasonally adjusted industrial-production indexes, required twenty-two months to surpass its historic end-1969 high. The November 1971 record was bettered during each of the past five months of 1972. Only in July did the figure decline from that of the previous month (by 1.7 percent). Gaining 11.4 percent on the figure of July a year ago (compared with the 8.1-percent rise of the durable-goods index), the index of nondurable-goods manufacturing has demonstrated more strength and stability in recent years. This index established historic highs in December 1969, in January, March, and November 1970, in August and September 1971 , and in March, June, and July 1972. Adjusted for seasonal variations but not for price changes, estimated personal income in Texas rose in July 1972 to 153.7 percent of the 1967 base-year level, an improvement of 9.8 percent on the comparable figure for July 1971. Adjustment for price changes would reduce this gain to around 6.5 percent, still a respectable increase. Based on bank debits reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and adjusted for seasonal variation and price changes by the Bureau of Business Research, the index of Texas business activity fell by about 8 percent in July, though 1972 through that month was running one tenth ahead of the same period last year. Fourteen of the twenty cities for which the Bureau of Business Research maintains business-activity indexes fol­lowed the pattern of the state as a whole in July 1972: their levels of economic activity, as reflected in the adjusted indexes, declined from June 1972 and rose from July 1972. Austin, Houston, Laredo, Texarkana, Tyler, and Wichita Falls fared better than the state as a whole in both comparisons: June 1972/July 1972 and July 1971/July 1972. Only Laredo, however, actually registered an increase in both instances, the July 1972 index number reflecting an increase of 0.8 percent over the June level of the index and a gain of 12.0 percent over the level of July a year ago. Among those six cities which experienced June-to-July declines in their indexes of business activity less severe than the 7 .6-percent drop recorded in the Texas index, only Wichita Falls and Tyler, with declines of 1.8 percent and 3.3 percent, respectively, significantly bettered the state­wide index movement for this period. In their July 1971/July 1972 comparisons, four of these six cities exhibited gains of 10 percent or more, in comparison with the 4.7-percent bulge in the statewide index between last July and July a year ago. The actual increases were as follows: Texarkana, 12.9 percent; Houston, 12.2 percent; Laredo, 12.0 percent; Tyler, 10.7 percent; Austin, 8.0 percent; and Wichita Falls, ·5.3 percent. An even larger July-to-July upward movement was experienced in Ama­rillo (13.2 percent), which also suffered a larger than average drop from June to July 1972 (11.3 percent). Four cities exhibited adverse performances in both comparisons: Beaumont, Fort Worth, Galveston, and Port Arthur, all cities with severe unemployment and other problems. These four towns slipped from their June 1972 index levels to July figures which were 5.1 to 14 percent lower. Although Corsicana slid further from its June 1972 level then any of the other nineteen cities (20.8 percent), that North Texas town did exhibit a July-to-July increase of 7.1 percent. Of the three largest cities in the state, which so heavily weight the total state experience, only Houston exhibited a strong upward movement from July 1971, recording a July BUSINESS-ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR TWENTY SELECTED TEXAS CITIES (Adjusted for seasonal variation-1967=100) Percent change Year-to­ date Year-to­date Jul 1972 average 1972 City Jul 1972 Jun 1972 average 1972 from Jun 1972 from 1971 Abilene 1 19 .7 129 .8 121.0 - 8 10 Amarillo 140.5 158 . 1 142.0 -11 14 Austin 204.4 21 6. 0 217. 1 -5 14 Beaumont 93.7 105.6 98.0 -11 2 Corpus Christi 145.8 157.7 153.1 -8 12 Corsicana 118.0 149. 1 121.8 -21 1 Dallas 16 6.0 178 .9 170.5 - 7 6 El Paso 153.6 159.8 15 1.2 -4 8 Fort Worth 150.4 186 .5 155.8 -19 3 Galveston 103.9 11 9.4 113. 1 -13 7 Houston 167. 9 179 .0 16 6.7 -6 17 Laredo 16 0.7 159 . 5 15 3. 1 1 5 Lubbock 11 9.0 137 .4 13 1.9 -13 9 Port Arthur 100.2 105.6 101.3 5 - 18 San Angelo 149.0 162.5 152 .4 8 9 San Antonio 147.3 1 53.7 150.5 - 4 3 Texarkana 115.3 124. 1 115.5 - 7 10 Tyler 133.8 138.4 133.2 - 3 7 Waco 148.0 169. 1 150.2 -12 13 Wichita Falls 12 3.7 125.9 123. 1 -2 9 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS Ondexes-Adjusted for seasonal variation-1967=100) Percent change Year-to- Index Jul 1972 Jun 1972 Year-to­date Jul 1972 average from 1972 Jun 1972 date average 1972 from 1971 Estimated personal income 15J.7P 158.5p 152.J J 9 Business activity 159.8 172.9 161.9 8 10 Crude-petroleum production 124.Jp l 20.6p 116.1 J J Crude-oil runs to stills 116.1 117.J 115.2 1 2 Total electric-power use 161.2p 167.7p 16J.l 4 2 0 Industrial electric- power use 140. 5p 145._2P 14J.5 J 14 Bank debits 191.J 205.4 190.9 7 14 Urban building permits issued 158.6 209.4 184.7 -24 2J New residential 160.J 208.1 201.1 -2J 20 New nonresidential (unadjusted) 156.6 222.9 17J.4 -JO J2 Total industrial production lJJ.Jp 134.lp 129.5 - 1 7 Total nonfarm em­ployment 115.Sp 11 5.4P 115.5 •• J Manufacturing em­ ployment 107.JP 108.Jp 108.4 - 1 1 Total unemployment Insured unemploy ment 152.4 179.J 1J2.4 179.1 15J.O 172.7 15 •• 8 -17 Average weekly earn- ings-manufacturing 129.Sp 1J0.6p 128.6 -1 6 Average weekly hours-manufacturing 99.Jp 99.Jp 98.9 •• P Preliminary. •• Change is less than one half of 1 percent. 1972 business-activity index level 12.2 percent above that of the previous July. Dallas scarcely changed this twelve­month interval (up 0.2 percent), and San Antonio slid 2.6 percent below its July 1971 level. In the June 1972/July 1972 comparisons, San Antonio fared best, slipping back­ward only 4.2 percent from June. The comparable figures for the state as a whole, for Houston, and for Dallas, were 7.6 percent, 6.2 percent, and 7.2 percent, respectively: all declines. On balance, the labor picture across the state brightened a little in July. The total number of unemployed persons in the labor force declined by 13,100 in July, but the seasonally adjusted index based on these figures rose 15 .1 percent, which suggests that an even lower unemployment figure ought to have been attained. This experience follows the upturn of June, when the seasonally adjusted index of total unemployment in Texas dropped by about the same percentage (15.7). A more hopeful sign, however, is the fact that only four of these last twenty-two months have recorded levels of the index of total unemployment higher than that of July 1972. In fact, the six months from February through July 1972 all experienced index numbers lower than 160. The most recent six-month period in which the seasonally adjusted index of total unemployment held at less than 160 percent of the 1967 base year was March-August 1970. SEPTEMBER 1972 COMPARISON OF CONSUMER PRICES AND WHOLESALE PRICES, UNITED STATES SOUJICE: .._of Ubof SutiAka. U.S. °"*""*'tot Ul:lor. Following a drop of 21.l percent in June, the seasonally adjusted index of initial unemployment claims rose in July to 164.5 percent of the base year, an increase of 15.8 percent. Comparisons between July 1971 and July 1972 are somewhat more favorable. During that period the labor force gained an estimated total of 107,000 persons and the estimated number of unemployed fell by 5,100, reducing the unemployed percentage of the labor force to from 4.6 percent to 4.4 percent. In the same period the total number of employed persons rose by 116,000, of whom 113,700 were employed outside of agriculture. Some 8,400 of these new jobs were in manufacturing, and the July-to-July gain in wage and salary workers overall amounted to 110,500. Thus the ratio of employed to unemployed workers rose from 20.7 in July 1971to21.8 last July. Although the index of average weekly earnings in manufacturing (adjusted for seasonal aberrations) declined slightly in July (0.6 percent), it has not fallen below 127 percent of the 1967 base level since last January. The previous high, recorded in December 1971, was 123.3 percent. These figures have not been adjusted to offset the effects of inflation. The July/July gain of 5.96 percent, after deflation, would represent a real gain of about 2.8 percent. Throughout 1972 the seasonally adjusted index of the average workweek in manufacturing in Texas also has TOTAL UNEMPLOYMENT, TEXAS outstripped the December 1971 level, although the highest (June/July) level was only 1.2 percent above that of December 1971. Significant gains in the labor force between July 1971 and July 1972 have occurred in several SMSA's: Austin (10,100); Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito (3,850); Dallas (19,700); El Paso (4,200); and Houston (37,000). During this period important increases in manufacturing employ­ment occurred in Austin (700); Beaumont-Port Arthur- AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES, TEXAS 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 196' 1965 1966 1967 lUI 1969 1970 1'71 lf72 NOTE; Shaded ~-ll'ldie.lt pmoOI of 6cdllW of toul buli-1etiwi1y in llw United SlaMI. SOU.CE: Ton h1plo1nwn1 c-...ion.. 0.11 adJ\IJ!td f~...,.... nria1ioll by Ow lwa11 of hllrwll ltnnrdl. Orange (800); Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito (1,910); Dallas (3,825); El Paso (2,450); Galveston-Texas City (400); San Antonio (875); Tyler (970); and Waco (550). These gains and others more than offset several contrac­tions in the manufacturing work force: Amarillo (510); Corpus Christi (290); Fort Worth (5,225); Houston (800); and Texarkana (330). Of the twenty-two labor market areas-most of them standard metropolitan statistical areas-covered in the monthly reports of the Texas Employment Commission, all but Amarillo, Fort Worth, McAllen, and Texarkana in­creased their nonfarm employment between July 1971 and July 1972. The largest gains occurred in Houston (30,400), INDEXES OF PRICES RECEIVED BY FARMERS IN TEXAS (1967=100) Percent change Jul 1972 Jul 1972 Jul Jun Jul from from Classification 1972 1972 1971 Jun 1972 Jull971 All farm products 140 134 116 4 21 All crops 123 117 115 s 7 Food grains 101 100 102 1 - 1 Feed grains and hay 105 102 74 3 42 Potatoes and sweet potatoes 147 114 117 29 26 Fresh fruit 171 180 177 - s - 3 Commercial vege­ tables 140 141 189 - 1 -26 Cotton 153 139 131 10 17 Oil-bearing crops 103 102 104 1 -1 Livestock and products 154 149 120 3 28 Meat animals 171 165 127 4 35 Dairy products 112 110 103 2 9 Poultry and eggs Wool and mohair 110 146 100 146 106 60 10•• 4 143 • • Change is less than one half of 1 percent. Source: Statistical Reporting Service, U.S. Department of Agri­ culture. NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT IN TEXAS SELECTED LABOR-MARKET AREAS Anticipated Jul Jun Jul Oct Labor-market areas 1972 1972 1971 1972 Abilene 39,870 39,645 38,780 40,030 Amarillo 61,810 61,950 62,580 61 ,680 Austin 144,250 146,000 134,600 146,500 Beaumont-Port Arthur- Orange 122,900 122,300 119,200 123,400 Brownsville-Harlingen- San Benito 44,690 43,050 47,770 43,110 Corpus Christi 102,140 101 ,740 101,740 100,350 Dallas 745,000 742,600 717,500 749,800 El Paso 126,450 127,000 122,550 128,950 Fort Worth 290,800 294,900 291,000 295,200 Galveston-Texas City 63,600 62,850 60,800 63,950 Houston 906,500 908,200 876,100 921,400 Laredo 25,885 25,800 24,990 26,020 Longview-Kilgore- Gladewater 36,050 35,800 35,550 36,390 Lubbock 69,01 s 67,340 66,010 71,015 McAllen 42,100 42,600 42,420 43,730 Midland-Odessa 61,970 62,050 61,870 63,090 San Angelo 23,920 23,995 23,745 24,390 San Antonio 309,050 308,350 304,900 310,050 Texarkana 39,850 39,840 39,840 40,180 Tyler 41,1 so 40,920 39,480 41,050 Waco 58,790 58,820 58,100 59,740 Wichita Falls 42,945 43,170 42,275 44,060 Total, labor-market areas 3,398,735 3,398,920 3,311,900 3,434,085 Source: Texas Employment Commission. Dallas (27,500), Austin (9,700), Galveston (5,300), El Paso (4,900), and San Antonio (4,100). Unemployment decreased dramatically in several of the TEC's labor market areas during the year ending with July 1972. Most significant were the contractions in Dallas (5,200), Fort Worth (3,700), San Antonio (2,300), and Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange (1,100). The most alarming gains occurred in Houston (5,300) and Corpus Christi (1,320). Throughout the state, the net gain of 110,500 in nonfarm employment during the year ending with July 1972 was almost wholly attributable to the nonmanufactur­ing sectors, especially wholesale and retail trade, contract construction, and services, with net gains of 33,100, 21,100, and 20,500, respectively. Among those individual subsectors which contributed most heavily to these gains was retail trade, with a net increase of 26,200 employees, 15,500 of whom were concentrated in the general and "other" categories. Other significant contributions came from business and repair services and medical and other health services (15,100 combined), and government (11,500). These and other gains more than offset some rather heavy losses, such as the decline of 9 ,800 workers in the transportation-equipment sector of durable-goods manufacturing. The most uniformly growing sectors during this period were wholesale and retail trade, in which all subsectors grew; services, in which all but two subsectors grew; and government. Gains of 10,700 in local government and 3,400 in state government offset a cutback of 2,600 at the federal level. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW POTENTIAL VOTING POPULATION IN TEXAS: THE YOUNG AND OLD OF IT* N. Carroll Mohn Although a large number of people are speculating about the effects of new young voters on the November election, older citizens also are a group to watch in Texas. Approximations based on the 1970 Census figures indicate that in November 1972, 10.4 percent of Texas' prospective voters will be in the group of new voters eighteen to twenty years old; 16 percent of potential voters, however, will be sixty-four years old or over. These percentages are represen­tative of possible voters, not those who actually registered or those who will show up at the polls to vote. In 1968 the Democratic party's presidential candidate received 41.1 percent of the state's vote, and the Republi­cans' man 39.9 percent, with other parties' nominees getting 18.0 percent of the vote. The Democrats won Texas' electoral votes with less than a 2-percent margin. No one can predict with real surety what these percentages might be in 1972, but campaign workers in Texas may be more likely to direct their appeals to a 16.0-percent older vote than to a 10.4-percent young vote, especially since older voters traditionally are thought to have a better record for registering and subsequent voting. The concentration of older people in the state is greatest in the central Texas regions. In Bosque, Coleman, Delta, Hamilton, Kerr, Llano, Mills, and Throckmorton Counties, 35 percent or more of the potential voting population will be sixty-four years old or older next November. Hamilton and Llano, both with 38.6 percent, lead the state. The highest concentration of young voters is in Caldwell (23.0 percent), with the counties located along the Rio Grande and the western Panhandle following in order. Apparently, retired people ordinarily do not settle in some of those counties. In seventeen counties-Andrews, Brazoria, Caldwell, Coryell, Culberson, Ector, El Paso, Kleberg, Maverick, Midland, Moore, Randall, Reagan, Reeves, and Yoakum­potential new voters outnumber those sixty-four years old or older. The effect of young voters also may be apparent in those counties where the percentages of new and old voters are closely balanced. In Deaf Smith, Hudspeth, Pecos, Lubbock, Nueces, Orange, and Winkler Counties older voters outnumber young voters by a margin of less than 1 percent of the potential voting population. For older and younger potential voters in each county, figures and percentages, as well as each county's median *The author is especially grateful to Frances W. Terhune, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida, whose article entitled "Voting Population in Florida: The Young and Old of It," Business and Economic Dimensions (January /February 1972), suggested the basic approach presented in this article. age, are given in the accompanying table. Hamilton, having the oldest county population in the state, with a median age of 50.4, is followed closely by Bosque (47.9) and Delta (47.1). The county with the youngest population, Maverick, has a median age of 19.9. Almost as young are the populations of Zavala, Dimmit, Webb, Starr, Hidalgo, and Willacy along the southernmost part of the Mexican border, Culberson and Reeves to the west, Castro in the west central Panhandle, and most of the state university counties. As a group these counties generally have a low relative percent­age of older people, but Randall, located adjacent to Castro, records the smallest figure, 8.8 percent. The total count of registered voters is available by county for Texas, and that number as a percentage of the potential voting population may be enlightening. The state average is 49. 7 percent, the range being from 2 7 .9 percent (Coryell) to 83.1 percent (Roberts). The map shows how other counties compare with the state average. Unfortu­nately, county registration totals are not broken down by age groups. Such a procedure would enable a more meaningful analysis regarding young and old voters. The information given in the table and the information from which the map was constructed are approximations based on the 1970 Census data and the final report for 1972 voter registration in Texas. To determine the eigh­teen-to-twenty age group in November 1972, two-thirds of those fifteen years old in April 1970, as well as those sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen were included. Approxi­mate figures for older voters sixty-four years old and over in November 1972 are based on those sixty-two and over in April 1970. The total number of potential voters includes these groups plus those nineteen to sixty-one at the time the Census count was taken. Voter registration statistics include only numbers of registrants through January 31, 1972. Several words of caution are appropriate. Most of the figures are estimates based on the 1970 Census, which used a person's "usual residence" (where he ordinarily sleeps and eats) instead of his voting or legal place of residence. Texas residents living out of the state because of military service, special assignment, or college were not included, although out-of-state residents attending college in Texas were counted. Also, since 1970 there have been in-and outmigra­tions as well as deaths. Moreover, Texans who registered to vote after January 31, 1972 have been excluded. Even with all these qualifications, however, the figures represent a reasonably accurate depiction of potential young and old voters in Texas. SEPTEMBER 1972 TEXAS COUNTIES WITH POTENTIAL VOTING POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS ABOVE STATE AVERAGES, 1972 SCALE OF MILES Above state average of 16.0 percent for potential voters 64 years and over. Above state average of 10.4 percent for potential voters between 18 and 20 years. Above state averages for potential voters both 64 years and over (16.0 percent) and between 18 and 20 years (10.4 percent). LJ Above state average of 49.7 percent for 1972 voter registrations* as a percent of potential voters. *Includes registration figures only through January 31, 1972. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 1:.1) m '"C >-l m TEXAS POTENTIAL VOTING POPULATION: TOTAL POPULATION 1970; TOTAL POTENTIAL VOTING POPULATION 1972; POTENTIAL VOTERS 64 YEARS AND OVER 1972; POTENTIAL NEW VOTERS 1972; MEDIAN AGE OF POPULATION 1970; VOTER REGISTRATION 1972 Si:: l;D m ~ Potential voters Potential new · Number of ...... Counties Total Total potential Total potential 64 and over as percent vot.ers as percent Nu mber of registered voters l.O -i N and state population April 1, 1970 voting population 1 voters 64 years and over2 of total potential voting population Potential3 new voters of total potential voting population Median age registered voters4 as percent of total voting population (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Anderson 27,789 20,586 5,783 28.1 1,924 9.3 36.8 11,554 56.1 Andrews 10,372 7,138 775 10.9 850 11.9 27.5 4,186 58.6 Angelina 49,349 34,341 6,537 19.0 3,322 9.7 28. 1 19,603 57.1 Aransas 8,902 6,357 1,552 24.4 625 9.8 34.1 3,521 55.4 Archer 5,759 4,179 1,024 24.5 402 9.6 34.9 2,434 58.2 Armstrong 1,895 1,453 404 27.8 122 8.4 39. 5 1,060 73.0 Atascosa 18,696 12,633 2,743 21.7 1,435 11.4 26.9 6,999 55.4 Austin 13,831 10,487 3,269 31.2 907 8.6 39.9 4,39 1 41.9 Bailey 8,487 5,673 958 16.9 685 12.1 26.6 3,045 53.7 Bandera 4,747 3,669 1,095 29.8 346 9.4 42.2 2,112 57.6 Bastrop 17,297 12,580 3,683 29.3 1,198 9.5 35.7 7,760 61.7 Baylor 5,22 1 4,041 1,284 31.8 342 8.5 42.8 2,431 60.2 Bee 22,737 15,632 2,374 15.2 1,684 10.8 23.7 7,807 49.9 Bell 124,483 91 ,330 10,8 16 11.8 7,642 8.4 23.4 27,975 30.6 Bexar 830,460 562,368 78,741 14.0 64,227 11.4 24.1 2 57,100 45.7 Blanco 3,567 2,735 852 31.2 223 8.2 42.6 1,656 60.5 Borden 888 616 87 14.l 79 12.8 30.1 368 59.7 Bosque 10,966 8,813 3,194 36.2 616 7.0 47.9 4,776 54.2 Bowie 67,813 48,413 9,685 20.0 4 ,672 9.6 29.7 27,020 55.8 Brazoria 108,312 73,548 7,633 10.4 8,101 11.0 26.0 35,154 47.8 Brazos 57,978 42,356 5,516 13.0 4,27 8 10.1 23.3 19,732 46.6 Brewster 7,780 5,706 833 14.6 615 10.8 23.0 2,743 48.1 Briscoe 2,794 1,988 447 22.5 216 10.9 32.8 1,324 66.6 Brooks 8,005 5,199 828 15.9 640 12.3 24.6 3,914 75.3 Brown 25,877 19,945 5,8 13 29.2 1,633 8.2 36.9 10,515 52.7 Burleson 9,999 7,348 2,217 30.2 702 9.6 37.1 3,862 52.6 Burnet 11 ,420 8,819 2,9 71 33.7 700 7.9 43.2 5,340 60.6 Caldwell 21,178 15,924 3,3 31 20.9 3,668 23.0 23.2 5,881 36.9 Calhoun 17,83 1 11,459 1,291 11.3 1,444 12.6 23.3 6,944 60.6 Callahan 8,205 6,319 2,090 33.1 560 8.9 41.6 3,969 62.8 Cameron 140,368 88,953 15,015 16.9 12,098 13.6 22.2 36,696 41.3 Camp 8,005 5,741 1,555 27.1 600 10.5 34.8 4 , 125 71.9 Carson 6,358 4 ,547 BS 20.6 496 10.9 32.2 2,472 53.4 Cass 24,133 17,357 4,366 25.2 1,694 9.8 33.0 9,9 54 57.3 Castro 10,394 6,321 701 11.1 885 14.0 20.8 3,286 52 .0 Chambers 12,187 8,424 1,233 14.6 9 55 11.3 27.7 4,671 55.4 Cherokee 32,008 24,360 6,580 27.0 2,067 8.5 37.9 10,816 44.4 Childress 6,605 5,151 1,674 32.5 406 7.9 43.4 3,353 65.1 Clay Cochran 8,079 5,326 6,118 3,504 1,661 572 27.1 16.3 580 477 9.5 13.6 37.5 25.2 3,787 1,668 61.9 47.6 Coke 3,087 2,312 627 27.1 220 9.5 39. 1 1,549 67.0 Cole man 10,288 8,035 2,914 36.3 599 7.5 45.5 4 ,445 55.3 Collin 66,920 45,697 7,816 I 7.1 4,260 9.3 26.6 21,211 46.4 Collingsworth Colorado 4 ,755 17,638 3,628 12,776 1,187 3,208 32.7 25.1 324 1,440 8.9 11.3 42.2 34.2 2,147 6,813 59.2 53.3 '° Comal Comanche 24,165 11 ,898 17,451 9,286 3,781 3,119 21.7 33.6 1,764 690 JO. I 7.4 31.3 43.4 6,308 5,687 36.1 61.2 - '°N Potential voters Potential new Number of Counties Total Total potential Total potential 64 and over as percent voters as percent Number of registered voters and population voting voters 64 years of total potential Potential3 new of total potential Median registered as percent of total state April 1, 1970 population 1 and ovei2 voting population voters voting population age voters4 voting population (1) (2) (3) (4) (S) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Concho 2,937 2 ,24S 733 32.7 181 8.1 43.1 1,413 62.9 Cooke 23,471 16,919 3,840 22.7 1,897 11.2 31.3 10,127 S9.9 Coryell 3S,311 27,344 3,063 11.2 3,190 11.7 22.8 7,624 27.9 Cottle 3,204 2,368 668 28.2 209 8.8 37.4 1,4S3 61.4 Crane 4,172 2,910 372 12.8 332 11.4 29. 1 2,014 69.2 Crockett 3,88S 2,640 429 16.3 294 11.1 27.9 1,706 64.6 Crosby 9,08S S,999 1,291 21.S 660 11.0 27.6 3,0SO S0.8 Culberson 3,429 2,099 222 10.6 274 13.1 21.S 1,174 SS.9 Dallam 6,012 4,218 872 20.7 417 9.9 29.9 1,807 42.8 Dallas 1,327,321 913,770 112,767 12.3 8S ,717 9.4 26.3 430,731 47.1 Dawson 16,604 11,172 2,206 19.7 1,221 10.9 27.4 S,477 49.0 Deaf Smith 18,999 11,898 1,S71 13.2 1,S02 12.6 22.S 4,731 39.8 Delta 4,927 3,886 1,394 3S.9 267 6.9 47.1 2,117 S4.S Denton 7S,633 S6,304 7,470 13.3 S,709 10.1 24.0 2S,438 4S.2 De Witt 18,660 13,8S9 4,238 30.6 1,402 10.1 38.6 7,666 SS.3 Dickens 3,737 2,814 870 30.9 2S3 9.0 41.7 1,770 62.9 Dimmit 9,039 S,647 1,023 18.1 823 14.6 21.2 3,226 S7.1 Donley 3,641 2,932 934 31.9 2S9 8.8 43.2 2,070 70.6 Duval 11,722 7,810 1,S33 19.6 94S 12.1 26.3 S,418 69.4 Eastland 18,092 14,S78 S,08S 34.9 1,203 8.3 43.8 8,0SO SS.2 Ector 91,80S 61,943 6,037 9.7 7,276 11.7 2S.7 33,SOO S4.1 Edwards 2,107 1,401 323 23.1 147 10.S 28.4 784 S6.0 Ellis 46,638 32,861 7,647 23.3 3,147 9.6 29.8 12, 161 37.0 El Paso 3S9,291 233,909 26,236 11.2 27,9S9 12.0 22.7 98,S39 42.1 Erath 18,141 14,633 4,36S 29.8 1, 188 8.1 37.S 8,41S S7.S Falls 17,300 12,924 4,213 32.6 1,283 9.9 40.S 6,868 S3.1 Fannin 22,70S 17,S 14 S,638 32.2 1,387 7.9 42.0 9 ,336 S3.3 Fayette 17,6SO 13,988 4 ,793 34.3 1, 172 8.4 46.S 6,689 47.8 Fisher 6,344 4,706 1,378 29.3 471 10.0 39.3 2,923 62.1 Floyd 11,044 7,409 1,S60 21.1 860 11.6 28.S 3,921 S2.9 Foard 2,211 1,73S SS6 32.0 137 7.9 46.2 903 S2.0 Fort Bend S2,314 34,262 4,928 14.4 4,022 11.7 24.1 14,879 43.4 Franklin S,291 4,069 1,277 31.4 314 7.7 41.3 2,409 S9.2 Freestone 11,116 8,433 2,920 34.6 764 9.1 42.S S,842 69.3 Frio 11,1 S9 7,0Sl 1,397 19.8 880 12.S 22.7 3,S92 S0.9 Gaines 11,S93 7,610 1,03S 13.6 919 12.1 2S.4 3,973 S2.2 Galveston 169,812 117,701 16,728 14.2 12,472 10.6 27.6 60,891 Sl.7 ..., Garza S,289 3,690 763 20.7 434 11.8 29.7 2,1 SS S8.4 m Gillespie>< Glasscock> Goliadtll tc Gonzales c Gray 10,SS3 1,1 SS 4,869 16,37S 26,949 7,901 74S 3,S 11 11,789 19,S49 2,440 122 920 3,376 3,826 30.9 16.4 26.2 28.6 19.6 709 87 394 1,17S 1,886 9.0 11.7 11.2 10.0 9.6 39.S 26.8 34.3 34.6 32.9 4,348 371 2,019 6,112 10,0S9 ss.o 49.8 S7.S s1.8 Sl.S tll- Graysonz 83,22S 60,SS2 13,393 22.1 S,430 9.0 30.4 26,213 43.3 m Greggtll Grimestll :;a Guadalupe m Hale < Hall-Hamiltonm ~ Hansford 7S,929 11,8SS 33,SS4 34,137 6,0lS 7, 198 6,351 S4,281 8,592 23,717 22,8S6 4,481 5,896 4,314 9,930 2,676 4,961 4,024 1,340 2,274 569 18.3 31.1 20.9 17.6 29.9 38.6 13.2 S,4S2 864 2,496 2,6Sl 411 410 487 10.0 10.1 10.S 11.6 9.2 7.0 11.3 29.3 3S.6 28.1 26.4 38.3 50.4 27.5 29,284 4,38S 11,889 9,Sl4 2,S38 3,337 2,273 S3.9 Sl.O SO.l 41.6 S6.6 S6.6 S2.7 tll t::J Hardeman Hardin 6,795 29,996 5,176 20,823 1,631 2,884 31.5 13.9 449 2 ,248 8.7 10.8 42.2 28.0 2,844 11 ,626 54.9 55.8 ...., tTl Harris ~ Harrison 1,741 ,912 44,841 1,188,051 31 ,810 133,813 7,204 11.3 22.6 120,393 3,307 10. l 10.4 2S.7 29.7 S78,339 16,371 48.7 51.5 tTl Hartley :;o Haskell ...... Hays:S Hemphill N Henderson 2,782 8,Sl2 27,642 3,084 26,466 2 ,000 6,391 20,774 2 ,189 19,Sl2 383 1,870 2,766 476 4,965 19.2 29.3 13.3 21.7 25.4 213 S62 2 ,542 212 1,959 10.6 8.8 12.2 9.7 10.0 32.4 41.2 22.S 32.0 34.3 982 4,417 10,682 1,342 12,138 49.1 69.l 51.4 61.3 62.2 Hidalgo Hill 181,53S 22,596 113,932 17,460 17,720 S,465 15.6 . 31.3 16,214 1,538 14.2 8.8 ll.2 41.4 62,811 9,049 SS.I s1.8 Hockley 20,396 13,921 2,081 14.9 1,722 12.4 25.l 7,176 sl.S Hood 6,368 4,80S 1,370 28.5 401 8.3 37.8 3,317 69.0 Hopkins Houston 20,710 17,855 15,613 13,237 4,242 3,587 27.2 27.l 1,322 1,314 8.S 9.9 3S.7 33.S 6,89S 7,429 44.2 56.1 Howard 37,796 26,715 4 ,0SS 15.2 2,606 9.8 26.9 11,251 42.1 Hudspeth Hunt Hutchinson 2,392 47,948 24,443 l,S63 3S ,949 18,06S 250 7,4S2 2,8SO 16.0 20.7 1 S.8 239 3,2Sl 2,020 15.3 9.0 11.2 23.7 28.2 34.1 917 16,325 11,221 S8.7 4S.4 62.1 Irion Jack 1,070 6,711 795 5,132 238 l,SOl 29.9 29.2 74 435 9.3 8.5 36.2 38.9 562 3,037 70.7 S9.2 Jackson Jasper Jeff Davis 12,975 24,692 l,S27 8,996 17,075 1,077 1,699 3,809 242 18.9 22.3 22.S 1,072 1,789 124 11.9 10.5 11.5 29.0 29.8 30.4 S,540 8,995 6S4 61.6 S2.7 60.7 Jefferson 244,773 172,444 27,259 lS.8 18,574 10.8 28.1 9S,997 SS.7 Jim Hogg 4,654 3,110 635 20.4 3Sl 11.3 26.9 2 ,530 81.4 Jim Wells 33,032 21,61 s 3,244 15.0 2,711 12.S 24.1 11,712 S4.2 Johnson 4S,769 32,847 7,115 21.7 3,144 9.6 30.4 18,065 ss.o Jones 16,106 12,067 3,Sl7 29. 1 1,110 9.2 39.2 5,667 47.0 Karnes 13,462 9,190 2,133 23.2 1,089 11.8 28.9 5,471 S9.S Kaufman 32,392 23,832 5,960 2S.0 2,124 8.9 33.7 10,944 45.9 Kendall 6,964 S,180 1,372 26.5 451 8.7 36.3 2,S30 48.8 Kenedy 678 434 77 17.7 so 11.5 22.9 295 68.0 Kent 1,434 1,057 267 2S.3 114 10.8 36.4 849 80.3 Kerr 19,454 lS,121 S,498 36.4 1,137 7.S 44.2 7,694 S0.9 Kimble 3,904 2,820 772 27.4 273 9.7 33.9 1,896 67.2 King 464 322 44 13.7 29 9.0 30.8 203 63.0 Kinney 2,006 1,363 283 20.8 172 12.6 27.9 839 61.6 Kleberg 33,166 23,68S 2,413 10.2 2·,S72 10.9 22.6 9,716 41.0 Knox S,972 4,3SO 1,357 31.2 395 9.1 39.7 2,426 55.8 Lamar 36,062 26,311 6,944 26.4 2,331 8.9 33.3 14,297 S4.3 Lamb 17,770 12,333 2,729 22.1 1,361 11.0 30.9 5,874 47.6 Lampasas 9,3.23 7,047 1,874 26.6 694 9.8 34.9 3,722 52.8 La Salle 5,014 3,273 673 20.6 393 12.0 24.6 2,S67 78.4 Lavaca 17,903 13,656 4,385 32.l 1,233 9.0 42.2 7,920 58.0 Lee 8,048 6,114 1,902 31.1 S97 9.8 41.0 3,823 62.S Leon 8,738 6,516 2,131 32.7 650 10.0 41.9 3,709 56.9 Liberty 33,014 23,164 4,541 19.6 2,S87 11.2 29.2 12,296 53.1 Limestone 18,100 14,2S2 4,406 30.9 1,240 8.7 40.6 7,832 ss.o Lipscomb 3,486 2,S46 S39 21.2 247 9.7 3S.0 1,483 58.2 Live Oak 6,697 4 ,743 1,082 22.8 520 11.0 30.7 3,359 70.8 Llano 6,979 5,742 2,216 38.6 387 6.7 51.4 3,558 62.0 Loving 164 119 33 27.7 7 5.9 43.5 92 77.3 Lubbock 179,295 124,640 14,585 11.7 13,536 10.9 23.5 74,756 60.0 Lynn 9,107 6,013 1,250 20.8 672 11.2 27.5 2,947 49.0 McCulloch 8,571 6,390 2,114 33.1 552 8.6 40.3 3,272 51.2 McLennan 147,553 108,846 22,430 20.6 10,758 9.9 30.5 59,866 ss.o \0 McMullen 1,095 766 183 23.9 77 10.0 31.9 448 S8.5 w \0 -!'> Potential voters Potential new Number of Counties Total Total potential Total potential 64 and over as percent voters as percent Number of registered voters and population voting voters 64 years of total potential PotentiaJ3 new of total potential Median registered as percent of to tal state (1) A pril 1, 1970 (2) population 1 (3) and over2 (4) voting population (5) voters (6) voting population (7) age (8) voters4 (9) voting population ( 10) Madison 7,693 5,954 1,586 26.6 616 10.3 29.7 3, 131 52.6 Marion 8,517 6 ,114 1,722 28.2 611 10.0 35.0 3,782 61.9 Martin 4,774 3,165 583 18.4 354 11.2 26.6 1,646 52.0 Mason 3,356 2,634 860 32.6 202 7.7 44.1 1,840 69.9 Matagorda 27,913 19,062 3,603 18.9 2, 191 11.5 28. 1 8,41 8 44.2 Maverick 18,093 10,97 5 1,541 14.0 1,616 14. 7 19.9 3,720 33.9 Medina 20,249 13,673 2,803 20.5 1,609 11.8 26.7 6,528 47.7 Menard 2,646 1,9 56 649 33.2 142 7.3 40.6 1,358 69.4 Midland 65,433 43,990 4,582 10.4 5,413 12.3 27.0 24,098 54.8 Milam 20,028 14,678 4,432 30.2 1,411 9.6 37.2 8,137 54.7 Mills 4,212 3,395 1,284 37.8 250 7.4 48.7 2,246 66.2 Mitchell 9,073 6,491 1,753 27.0 713 11.0 34.9 3,468 53.4 Montague 15,326 11,707 3,628 31.0 927 7.9 39.9 6,656 56.9 Montgomery 49,479 33,685 5,582 16.6 3,688 10.9 28.2 19,217 57.0 Moore 14,060 9,460 1,035 10.9 1,083 11.4 26.7 4,935 52.2 Morris 12,310 8,737 1,865 21.3 995 11.4 31.4 5,083 58.2 Motley 2,178 1,675 566 33.8 142 8.5 43.3 1,2 57 75.0 Nacogdoches 36,362 28,068 5,257 18.7 3,006 10.7 24.3 17,6 13 62.8 Navarro 31,150 23,465 7,097 30.2 2,108 9.0 38.0 11,320 48.2 Newton 11 ,657 7,922 1,8 18 22.9 911 11.5 28.3 4,698 59.3 Nolan 16,220 11 ,846 2,955 24.9 1,175 9.9 34.1 5,643 47.6 Nueces 237,544 158,234 19,710 12.5 18,664 11.8 24.1 79,497 50.2 Ochiltree 9,704 6,524 852 13.1 722 11.1 2 7.0 3,445 52.8 Oldham 2,258 1,479 227 15.3 2 77 15.3 22.0 937 63.4 Orange 71 ,170 47,403 5,547 11.7 5,393 11.4 25.4 27,893 58.8 Palo Pinto 28,962 20,624 3,514 17.0 1,625 7.9 26.0 9,683 47.0 Panola 15,894 11 ,767 3,013 25.6 1,235 10.5 35.1 7,922 67.3 Parker 33,888 25,037 4 ,547 18.2 2,274 9.1 27.6 12,505 49.9 Parmer 10,509 6,739 909 13.5 820 12.2 24.3 3,131 46.5 Pecos 13,748 8,762 1,078 12.3 1,009 11. 5 24.2 4,289 49.0 Polk 14,457 10,338 2,759 26.7 1,054 10.2 33.5 6,995 67.7 Potter 90,511 64,515 11 ,408 17.7 6,418 9.9 28.4 26, 106 40.5 Presidio 4,842 3,291 758 23.0 395 12.0 27.9 1,854 56.3 Rains 3,752 2,896 817 28.2 269 9.3 40.2 1,988 68.6 Randall 53,885 37,162 3,279 8.8 4 ,233 11.4 24.8 18,907 50.9 Reagan 3,2 39 2 ,220 256 11.5 285 12.8 28.4 1, 161 52.3 Real 2,013 1,401 370 26.4 125 8.9 32.3 711 50.7 >--j tTl :>< > t/.l t:D c::: t/.lz Red River Reeves Refugio Roberts Robertson Rockwall Runnels 14,298 16,526 9,494 967 14,389 7,046 12,108 10,751 10,321 6,265 692 10,293 4,947 9,028 3,518 1,285 1,166 151 3,209 1,069 2,748 32.7 12.4 18.6 21.8 31.2 21.6 30.4 906 1,296 586 53 1,042 425 849 8.4 12.6 9.4 7.7 10.1 8.6 9.4 39.9 22.2 27.9 33.4 35.8 30.4 38.6 6,556 5,708 4 ,080 575 6,491 2,665 4 ,227 61.0 55.3 65.1 83.1 63.1 53.9 46.8 tTl t/.l t/.l :;ti tTl < tr; ~ Rusk Sabine San Augustine San Jacinto San Patricio San Saba Schleicher 34,102 7,187 7,858 6,702 47,288 5,540 2,277 25,451 5,136 5,567 4 ,720 30,337 4 ,274 1,637 7,123 1,342 1,532 1,343 4,405 1,477 391 28.0 26.1 27.5 28.5 14.5 34.6 23.9 2 ,476 525 631 519 3,950 377 163 9.7 10.2 11.3 11.0 13.0 8.8 10.0 37.1 33.0 32.9 32. 1 23.2 43.4 33.1 17,494 4,022 3,906 3,528 14,883 2,386 1, 105 68.7 78.3 70.2 74.7 49. 1 55.8 67.5 Cf.) Scurrym "ti Shackelford ...., Shelbym s:: Shermanl:D m Smith ~ Somervell -Starr \C) Stephens-.J N Sterling Stonewall Sutton Swisher Tarrant 1S,760 3,323 19,672 3,6S7 97,096 2,793 17,707 8,414 1,0S6 2,397 3,l 7S 10,373 716,317 11 ,226 2 ,6S2 14,403 2,422 69,186 2,137 10,96S 6,418 740 1,843 2,193 7 ,002 499,266 2,234 866 4,047 33S 13,481 696 1,849 1,963 1S9 S03 444 1,326 66,146 19.9 32.7 28.1 13.8 19.S 32.6 16.9 30.6 21.S 27.3 20.2 18.9 13.2 1,233 207 1,36S 281 7,06S 176 1,S22 499 83 199 231 769 49,01 s 11.0 7.8 9.S 11.6 10.2 8.2 13.9 7.8 11.2 10.8 10.S 11.0 9.8 32.0 44. 1 34.9 26.4 29.4 39.3 21.3 40.4 30.7 40.4 30.3 27.8 26.S S,19S 1,88S 8,603 1,330 33,203 1,066 8,289 3,724 438 1,2Sl 1,308 3,787 22S,468 46.3 71.1 S9.7 S4.9 48.0 49.9 7S.6 S8.0 S9.2 67.9 S9.6 S4.1 4S.2 Taylor Terrell Terry Throckmorton Titus Tom Green Travis Trinity Tyler Upshur 97,8S3 1,940 14,118 2,20S 16,702 71,047 29S,S 16 7,628 12,417 20,976 70,076 1,3S6 9,228 1,79 1 12,2S2 Sl ,137 214,6S8 S,660 8,913 1S,307 11 ,381 273 1,4S 1 660 3,172 9,499 26,149 1,784 2,491 3,788 16.2 20.1 lS.7 36.9 2S.9 18.6 12.2 31.S 27.9 24.7 6,9S8 148 1,0S4 141 1,034 S,010 20,824 S3S 904 l,S80 9.9 10.9 11.4 7.9 8.4 9.8 9.7 9.S 10.1 10.3 2S.8 31.2 2S.4 46.8 3S.7 27.S 24.2 37.7 34.8 32.7 30,233 911 4,479 1,223 6,876 22,793 128,0S2 4,467 S,2S2 9,964 43.1 67.2 48.S 68.3 S6.1 44.6 S9.7 78.9 S8.9 6S. 1 Upton Uvalde 4,697 17,348 3,17S 11,769 487 2,461 lS.3 20.9 373 1,316 11.7 11.2 27.0 26.3 1,9SO 7,264 61.4 61.7 Val Verde 27,471 17,864 2,20S 12.3 1,920 10.7 22.8 7,079 39.6 Van Zandt 22,1 SS 16,64S 4,821 29.0 1,40S 8.4 38.4 9,8Sl S9.2 Victoria S3,766 3S,79S 4,924 13.8 4 ,306 12.0 2S.0 18,214 S0.9 Walker 27,680 22,913 3,034 13.2 1,806 7.9 2S.6 9,llS 39.8 Waller 14,28S 10,716 1,89S 17.7 1,2 S8 11.7 23.2 4 ,7S2 44.3 Ward 13,019 8,718 1,208 13.9 1,009 11.6 26.8 4,370 S0. 1 Washington Webb 18,842 72,8S9 14,262 4S,877 4,170 7,260 29.2 lS.8 1,347 S,SS8 9.4 12.1 36.9 21.9 6,300 20,467 44.2 44.6 Wharton 36,729 2S,481 4,113 16.1 3,067 12.0 27.8 11,770 46.2 Wheeler 6,434 4,888 1,490 30.S 411 8.4 40.2 2,933 60.0 Wichita 121,862 88,208 14,S47 16.S 8,899 10.1 26.S 39,637 44.9 Wilbarger 1 S,3SS 11,S74 3,269 28.2 972 8.4 39.8 4,438 38.3 Willacy 1S,S70 9,799 1,649 16.8 1,448 14.8 21.2 S,893 60.1 Williamson 37,30S 26,937 7,069 26.2 2,689 10.0 32.0 13,349 49.6 Wilson 13,041 8,920 1,992 22.3 970 10.9 28.1 6,778 76.0 Winkler 9,640 6,67S 8S4 12.8 840 12.6 28.S 4,0S6 60.8 Wise 19,687 14,238 3,443 24.2 1,280 9.0 32.4 8,38S S8.9 Wood 18,S89 14,419 4,323 30.0 1,273 8.8 40.6 8,037 S5.7 Yoakum 7,344 4,879 509 10.4 S95 12.2 2S.S 2 ,449 S0.2 Young lS,400 ll,78S 3,S14 29.8 1,027 8.7 39.9 6,331 53.7 Zapata 4,3S2 2,947 703 23.9 32S 11.0 27.6 2,167 73.5 Zavala 11 ,370 7,0Sl 1,099 1S.6 1,022 14.5 20.8 3,713 S2.7 TEXAS 11,196,730 7,792,486 1,248,080 16.0 809,476 10.4 26.4 3,872,462 49.7 Includes those 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 years old and 2/3 of those 1 S years old, April 1970. 2 Includes those 62 years old and over, April 1970. 3 Includes those 16, 17, 18 and 2/3 of those 15 years old, April 1970. 4 Includes registration figures only through January 31, 1972. Note: Figures in columns 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 are approximations based on the 1970 Census 1which used a person's "usual residence" (where he usually eats and sleeps} rather than his legal or voting residence. Those residents out. of state because of college, military service, or special assignment were not counted; college students from other states were counted. Also since 1970 there have been deaths as well as in-and outmigrations. \C) Ul Sources: Compiled and computed by author from data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population 1970, General Population Characteristics, Texas and the Texas secretary of state, "The State of Texas 1972 Voter Registration Final Report." TEXAS CONSTRUCTION* WHAT GOES UP MUST SOMETIMES COME DOWN Charles P. Zlatkovich One segment of the construction industry, the wrecking and demolition contractors, is engaged in tearing down what others have built in the past. Wrecking and demolition work is seldom publicized, and relatively few official records are kept. Except for occasional publicity on controversial or large-scale demolition projects, most dem­olition work is done in relative obscurity. Nevertheless, wrecking and demolition work is a significant and increas­ingly necessary part of the construction industry. So few data are available on wrecking and demolition activity that it seems to resemble an iceberg with only the high spots visible. The most recent Census of Construction Industries, compiled in 1967, indicated that 1,071 estab­lishments with payrolls in the United States were engaged in wrecking and demolition work. These companies em­ployed 10,218 workers, had payrolls totalling $62, 166,000, and total receipts of $173,320,000 in 1967. In the state of Texas, the census reported only 24 wrecking and demoli­tion establishments, with a total of 372 employees, a $1,340,000 payroll, and total receipts of $4,304,000. According to records on file at the Bureau of Business Research, at least 1 05 firms are soliciting wrecking and demolition work at the present time. Many of those are contractors whose primary business is in other aspects of construction, house-moving, or related fields. Also, because entry to and exit from the wrecking business are relatively easy, the number of firms may fluctuate widely over time. Still, the difference in numbers suggests that wrecking and demolition work is being conducted on a larger scale in Texas than the official statistics indicate. The lack of complete data on wrecking and demolition is not confined to the contractors performing the work. Complete data are also lacking on the number of buildings torn down. The Bureau of the Census publishes statistics on the number of residential buildings and housing units for which demolition permits are issued at the local level, but there are several limitations to the use of local demolition permits as a source of demolition data. Local building permit offices are usually more concerned with buildings going up than with those coming down. Many places do not issue demolition permits. In many places that do issue demolition permits, exceptions result from exemptions in the local codes, or from casual enforcement of the codes. The records are not maintained on a consistent basis in various places. Finally, the available data generally cover residential buildings only. •oata used in this article come only from building-permit-issuing urban places. The Bureau of the Census is well aware of the deficiencies inherent in the available data. During the 1950s, recorded demolitions accounted for only about 40 percent of the disappearances from the national housing inventory. Of course, other factors cause losses in the housing supply, and recording procedures are improving. The percentage of total demolitions that are actually recorded and reported in Texas at the present time is not known. A recent report of the Bureau of the Census reflects the extent of residential demolitions in major Texas cities for which demolition data are recorded. The total number of recorded demolitions and of new housing units authorized for construction in the years 1969 and 1970 are sum­marized below. HOUSING UNITS AUTHORIZED FOR DEMOLITION AND NEW HOUSING UNITS AUTHORIZED: 1969-1970 Authorized Authorized for for City demolition construction Abilene 100 146 Amarillo 118* 637 Austin 266 10,985 Beaumont 459 1,037 Corpus Christi 519 1,864 Dallas 1,404* 28,077 El Paso 309 7,772 Fort Worth 998 6,496 Galveston 171 853 Houston 1,128 38, 179 Lubbock 208 1,808 Midland 329 239 Odessa 139 452 Pasadena 32 3,907 Port Arthur 266* 93 San Angelo 44 1,084 San Antonio 321 8, 799 Tyler 59 727 Waco 813 1,255 Wichita Falls 52 55 7 • Indicates number of residential buildings authorized for dem­ olition. Number of housing units is equal or greater. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. A number of factors influence the extent of demolition activity in local areas. In general, Texas and the Southwest have experienced relatively less demolition activity than the national average, particularly less than the older sections of the country. The percentage of construction-industry activ­ity attributable to wrecking and demolition in Texas is considerably smaller than the national percentage for all major indexes in the 1967 Census of Construction Indus­tries. The reasons include the relative youth of structures in Texas and the availability of large expanses of vacant land. Until recently, Texas cities have tended to spread out rather than redevelop older areas. Several major demolition projects have literally brought down the house in Texas in recent years. In Austin, expansion of the state capitol complex and of The University of Texas at Austin combined with an active urban renewal program has cleared a vast area to the north and east of the central business district. In Fort Worth, fifteen blocks in the central business district were cleared to TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW make room for the Tarrant County Convention Center. ESTIMATED VALUES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS* Large-scale privately financed urban renewal projects are Percent change underway in Dallas and Houston. Highway construction, federally sponsored urban renewal projects, and other Jan-Jul 1972 factors have influenced the extent of demolition activity in Jul Jan-Jul Jul 1972 from many Texas cities and towns. 1972 1972 from Jan-Jul Wrecking and demolition activity can be expected to Classification (thousands of dollars) Jun 1972 1971 increase in Texas in the near future. Redevelopment of A ll permits conveniently located but blighted areas will probably New construction accelerate in the future. Many shoddily built structures will Residential (housekeeping) deteriorate and require demolition in the future. The One-family dwellingsnecessarily high costs of labor-intensive rehabilitation and Multiple-family dwellings repair efforts on older buildings in comparison with Nonresidential buildings advanced construction techniques will also encourage dem­ Hotels, motels, and olition of all but the better older structures. The crunch of tourist courts Amusement buildings the wrecking ball should be a familiar sound in Texas in the Churches coming years. Industrial buildings Garages (commercial and private) TOTAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS• Service stations Hospitals and institutions Office-bank buildings Works and utilities Educational buildings Stores and mercantile buildings Other buildings and structures Additions, alterations, and repairs SMSA vs. non-SMSA Total SMSAt Central cities Outside central cities JULY BUILDING STATISTICS IN REVIEW Total non-SMSA 10,000 to 50,000 population Less than 10,000 population 259,410 2,135,137 -26 24 231,840 1,937,707 -28 26 117,756 1,053,475 -26 21 75,165 675,378 -25 24 42,591 378,097 -27 16 114,084 884,232 -30 33 2,397 33,502 -31 25 1,359 14,832 -62 -26 2,376 20,565 -21 •• 7,010 60,969 -44 609 31,742 -27 114 846 8,291 -30 -20 3,854 46,779 -76 59 38,255 206,454 80 -2 11,168 66,477 -67 98 12,778 139,042 -62 39 28,275 226,903 6 99 5,157 28,676 6 10 27,570 197,430 2 4 238,818 1,956,412 -27 26 170,394 1,378,089 -30 28 68,424 578,323 -20 22 20,591 178,725 3 4 11,027 102,157 3 14 9,564 76,568 3 -6 * Only building for which permits were issued within the incorporated area of a city is included. Federal contracts and public housing are ·not includ.ed. * * Change is less than one half of one percent. t As defined in 1970 Census. The Bureau of Business Research index of total Source: Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the construction authorized in Texas fell off sharply in Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. July from the near-record high reached in June. The index declined by 24 percent from 209.4 to 158.6, the lowest level for any month since November 1971. Despite the sharp decrease for July in comparison with earlier months of 1972, the first seven months of 1972 posted a gain of 24 percent over the same period in 1971. Dallas leads Texas SMSA's in the total value of construction authorized in 1972, with $492. 7 million, followed closely by Houston with $484.1 million. Four other Texas SMSA's have posted total construction values of over $100 million thus far in 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 196• 196$ 1966 1967 • &ctuda lddilloM. •ltcnuo.... Ind lq>ain.. NOTE $Mdld anM h11hatc pmod1 of dKllM of 1ocal blllli11e• KliYicy in 1972-Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, and El Paso, in order of construction value. Total estimated value of building authorized in Texas for 1972 passed over the $2 billion mark in 1908 1969 1970 1971 1972 ltw Unotrd Stain.. 2'0 200 1'0 100 •o Production of cotton, wheat, oats, barley, rye, peanuts, July. Eighteen Texas SMSA's registered increases over and soybeans in Texas in 1972 will exceed 1971 levels; com 1971 levels, while seven declined in comparison with and rice production will fall below 1971 levels, says the the same period last year. Texas Department of Agriculture. SEPTEMBER 1972 THE ENERGY ECONOMY THE ENERGY CRISES OF THE 1970S Francis B. May The people of the United States have in recent years been battered by wars, inflation, dollar devaluation, and severe environmental problems resulting from the growth of population, industry, and individual wealth. One more crisis, a fuel crisis, is not what is needed. Nevertheless, Americans, particularly in areas suffering power shortages, are hearing startling and dismaying reports of an energy crisis relating to a shortage of fuel needed to power the boilers of electric generating plants. Further, motorists are being informed that the price of gasoline will rise two or three cents a gallon because of the tightness of supplies of crude petroleum, the source of motor fuel. Petroleum supplies are tight because domestic oil fields lack reserve producing capacity and because imports of crude petroleum do not respond automatically and instanta­neously to changes in demand. NOTE: Shaded ucH 11..:llcatt pcriod1 of 6ecbM of IOU.I b"'SIMM ICltYol)' 1n Ille United Stain. In view of the richness of this country in actual and potential energy sources, it seems incredible that there should arise sudden concern over the outlook for energy supplies. The United States possesses extremely large reserves of coal, substantial proved reserves of oil and natural gas, great potential reserves of oil in oil-shale deposits, and substantial potential reserves of oil and gas in undersea oil-bearing geological formations off its coasts. How could there occur another crisis, this time in, of all things, fuels? An examination of the trend of energy consumption in the United States, together with a look at the level of consumption of energy from various sources in recent years, has made clear to many in the energy-producing industries that this country cannot continue indefinitely to exhaust energy sources in ever-increasing amounts. The data on oil and gas reserves have for some time been a source of concern, but the size of coal reserves, and the assumption that unlimited supplies of cheap oil imports would be available for many years, dulled the sense of caution. There would be plenty of time in which to solve the problem. CRUDE-OIL PRODUCTION, TEXAS I.des Adj•tled /or Se ..01101 f'ori.,io11-IH7•100 25 0---,--~~~~~~-~~-....---r-~~-.....---,---,2'0 150 100 .. 0 ki 1951 19$9 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 196' 1969 1970 1971 1972 NOTE: SMded wus ll>diQlt pcnocb of dcdiM of 10111 b11Nl'IC9 1C'lno11y In tlw Unotfll S111n . This comfortable illusion was shattered by the environ­mental crisis which shifted fuel demands away from sulfur-bearing coal and fuel oil to natural gas and low-sulfur fuel oil. Petroleum and natural-gas reserves were not large enough to accommodate this sudden shift in demand. Another crisis erupted. The search for a solution to the problem will probably occupy most of the remaining years of the decade. A close look at current energy consumption by source of energy can provide a sharper insight into the problem. The table below contains these data. Data from different energy sources have been converted to their equivalents in British thermal units. It is apparent from the table that bituminous coal and lignite, petroleum products, and natural gas CALCULATED CONSUMYflON OF MINERAL ENERGY RESOURCES AND ELECTRICITY FROM HYDROPOWER AND NUCLEAR POWER, AND PERCENT CONTRIBUTED BY EACH IN THE UNITED STATES, 1971 (Trillions of British thermal units*) Energy source Amount Percent Bituminous coal and lignite 12,375 17.9 Anthracite 185 .3 Petroleum products From crude petroleum 23,100 33.5 From other sources 4,949 7.2 Dry natural gas 22,734 32.9 Natural gas liquids 2,443 3.5 Electricity Water power 2,833 4.1 Nuclear power 391 .6 Total 69,010 100.0 * Amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit. Source: Preliminary estimates prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW (including natural gas liquids produced with the gas) are our INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC-POWER USE, TEXAS principal sources of energy, constituting 95 percent of all energy consumed in this country last year. Petroleum products, dry natural gas, and natural gas liquids together provided 77.1 percent of the annual total of energy consumed. The percentage composition of energy consump­tion has varied since 1966, as the data in the following table show. Between 1966 and 1971 the contribution of bitumi- PERCENTAGE CONTRIBUTION OF MINERAL ENERGY RESOURCES AND ELECTRICITY FROM HYDROPOWER AND NUCLEAR POWER TO TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN TIIE UNITED STATES, 1966-1971 Percentage contribu tion Energy source 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971p Bituminous coal and lignite 2 1. 6 20.6 20.1 19.3 18.8 17.9 Anthracite 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 Petroleum products From crude petroleum 34.2 34.7 34.2 33.5 33.2 33.5 Fro m other sources 5.5 5. 3 6.0 6.4 7.0 7.2 Dry natural gas 30.9 3 1.3 31.7 32.4 32.7 32.9 Electricit y Water power 3.7 4.0 3.8 4.1 4.0 4.1 Nuclear power 0.1 0. 1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 P Preliminary estimates. Source: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines. nous coal and lignite to totai energy consumption in this country declined from 21.6 percent to 17.9 percent. The use of anthracite coal, once a premium fuel for home heating because of its cleanliness in comparison with bituminous, or "soft," coal, declined from 0.5 to a minuscule 0.3 percent of total energy consumption. The category of petroleum products made from crude petro­leum declined slightly in its percentage contribution, from 34.2 percent to 33.5 percent of the total. Petroleum products from sources other than crude petroleum (primar­ily natural gas liquids blended into gasoline) increased in percentage contribution from 5.5 to 7 .2. The contribution of dry natural gas rose from 30.9 to 32.9 percent. Natural gas liquids, aside from some minor fluctuations, did not change their share of energy consumption from the 3.5-percent figure at the beginning of the period. Hydro­power increased its share of consumption from 3.7 to 4.1 percent. Nuclear power, usually considered to be our ultimate main source of cheap energy, increased from 0.1 percent to 0.6 percent during the six-year period. Obviously 200200 50 00 1951 19'9 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1961 1969 1970 1971 1972 NOTI:: . Shaded arc.. indoalt pnioch of dcd111e of IOlal blllinns .-1M1y i.n thr Urut&d Sutn.. nuclear power is many years away from being a substantial source of energy. The prophets of the early 1960s who saw a rapid development of nuclear power have been disap­pointed. Despite their optimism, petroleum products, na­tural gas, and natural gas liquids remain our principal sources of energy. For the near future the supply of energy can be increased in the following ways : 1. Increasing imports of crude petroleum; 2. Importing liquefied natural gas; 3. Resolving the disputes over environmental changes that have delayed production of North Slope oil; 4. Resolving environmental disputes that have slowed exploration and drilling in offshore areas; 5. Increasing research and development directed toward producing environmentally clean fuels from coal and shale oil; and 6. Resolving technical and environmental problems that have delayed development of nuclear power. For the immediate future, our only recourse is to increase imports of natural gas and to increase incentives for domestic exploration for, and production of, oil and gas. We must also move toward developing our alternate energy sources as rapidly as possible in order to free ourselves from dependence upon an uncertain foreign supply which is becoming more expensive with each passing year. Regardless of the solution ultimately arrived at, energy is going to become more expensive. Rising energy costs will force greater economy in the uses of energy. These economies will undoubtedly change the lifestyle of the American people. Smaller cars, better-insulated homes, more reliance on mass transportation, and, possibly, less travel, will be among the more important of these changes. TOTAL ELECTRIC-POWER USE, TEXAS 200 150 100 50 ELECTRIC-POWER CONSUMPTION t (Thousands of kilowatt hours) Pere en t ch ange Classifi cat io n J u lp 1972 Junp 19 72 Ju{ 197 1 Jul 1972 fr o m Ju n 1972 Jul 1972 fro m J ul 19 71 TOTAL 14,929,882 13, 186 ,4 87 13, t 00,9 6 1 13 14 Commerical 2 ,902 ,4 10 2 ,586, 588 2 ,39 4 ,920 12 2 1 Industri al 6,069, 74 9 6, 127 ,346 5,586,2 88 I 9 Reside nti al 5,674 ,82 5 4 ,202 ,329 4 ,867 ,2 56 3 5 17 Ot her 2 82 ,898 270,224 252 ,497 5 12 P Preliminary data based on reports of electric power companies repo rted to the Bureau of Business Research and leveled to latest Federal Power Commission data. r Revised. t Data no t adjusted fo r seasonal vari ation. 199 Statistical data compiled by Mildred Anderson, statistical associate, Constance Coo/edge, statistical assistant, and Kay Davis, statistical technician. 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 population counts of the 1970 Census. In the second table the population values for individual municipalities are also 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 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. 201 and 208. INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS July 1972 Reported area and indicator Jul 1972 Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 Reported area and indicator Jul 1972 Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 ABILENE SMSA Jones and Taylor Counties; population 113,959 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,779,445 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) 213,278 Nonfarm employment 39,850 Manufacturing employment 5, 795 Unemployed (percent) 3.9 AMARILLO SMSA Potter and Randall Counties; population 144,396 Urban building permits (dollars) 4,561,126 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 629,096 Nonfarm employment 61,800 Manufacturing employment 8,050 Unemployed (percent) 4.3 AUSTIN SMSA Travis County; population 295,516 Urban building permits (dollars) 17,502,848 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 1,027,900 Nonfarm employment 144,300 Manufac turing employment 13,410 Unemployed (percent) 2.8 BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA 84 3 1 1 3 -35 -10 -12 -45 1 -1 2 -15 Jefferson and Orange Counties; population 315,943 Urban building permits (dollars) 3,221,443 -29 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 569,412 -4 Nonfarm employment 122,900 ** Manufacturing employment 37,800 ** Unemployed (percent) 5.3 4 BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA Cameron County; population 140,368 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,217,382 3 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 195,550 6 Nonfarm employment 44,700 4 Manufacturing employment 8,050 4 Unemployed (percent) 7.4 -20 BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION SMSA Brazos County; population 57,978 135 Urban building permits (dollars) 15 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 3 (Monthly employment reports are 8 College Station SMSA). 3 CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA 668,410 -52 -SS 109,S97 •• 26 not available for the Bryan- Nueces and San Patricio Counties; population 284,832 Urban building permits (dollars) 6,276,467 30 53 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) 612,814 1 21 Nonfarm employment 102,100 1 -1 Manufacturing employment 11,260 ** -6 Unemployed (percent) 6.0 -20 DALLAS SMSA Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Kaufman, and Rockwall Counties; population 1,555,950 25 Urban building permits (dollars) 41 , 177,184 -57 19 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) 7 Nonfarm employment 6 Manufacturing employment 4 Unemployed (percent) EL PASO SMSA El Paso County; population 359,291 -41 Urban building permits (dollars)•• Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 3 Nonfarm employment 2 Manufacturing employment lS Unemployed (percent) FORT WORTH SMSA 12,228,639 -5 74S,000 •• lSl,625 •• 3.3 -11 13,092, 792 -21 807,2 63 2 127,SOO 1 27, SOO •• 5.7 -10 Johnson and Tarrant Counties; population 762,086 16 Urban building permits (dollars) 21,2S0,021 8 13 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 2,412,38S -12 10 Nonfarm employment 290, 700 1 31 Manufacturing employment 68,07S s -11 Unemployed (percent) 5.1 4 lS 19 -3 2S -16 9 4 3 -20 83 21 4 10 6 71 7 -7 -18 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Reported area and indicator Jul 1972 Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 Reported area and indicator Jul 1972 Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Galveston County; population 169,812 ODESSA SMSA Ector County; population 91,805 Urban building permits (dollars) 693,19S -27 -62 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,237,2S3 82 120 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000} 242,48S -6 2 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000} 160,280 ** 12 Nonfarm employment 63,600 1 s Nonfarm employment 62,000 ** •• Manufacturing employment 11,000 •• 2 Manufacturing employment S,470 1 1 Unemployed (percent) 6.1 -10 3 Unemployed (percent) 4.3 -23 -12 (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and HOUSTON SMSA Odessa SMSA's since employment figures for Midland and Ector Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, and Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in com­ Montgomery Counties; population 1,985,031 bined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) Urban building permits (dollars) 78,774,404 14 27 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000} 11,4S8,766 -3 18 SAN ANGELO SMSA Nonfarm employment 906,500 •• 3 Tom Green County; population 71,047 Manufacturing employment 149,000 -2 -1 Urban building permits (dollars) 938,720 SS -60 Unemployed (percent) 3.8 -12 12 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000} 143,292 -1 24 Nonfarm employment 23,900 •• 1 KILLEEN-TEMPLE SMSA Manufacturing employment 4,3SO •• 1 Bell and Coryell Counties; population 159,794 Unemployed (percent) S. 1 2 9 Urban building permits (dollars) 4,307,S24 47 138 Bank debits ($1,000} 140,179 4 8 SAN ANTONIO SMSA (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Killeen­Bexar and Guadalupe Counties; population 864,014 Temple SMSA.) Urban building permits (dollars) 13,633,158 -37 19 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000} 1,792,13S -2 3 LAREDO SMSA Nonfarm employment 309,000 ** 1 Webb County; population 72,859 Manufacturing employment 36,0SO • • 2 Urban building permits (dollars) 228,650 -9S -69 Unemployed (percent) S.2 -20 -12 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000} 98,837 4 16 Nonfarm employment 25,900 •• 4 SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA Manufacturing employment 1,570 3 6 Grayson County; population 83,225 Unemployed (percent) 10.4 -19 •• Urban building permits (dollars) 690,100 -9 12 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1 ,000) 101,780 -6 10 LONGVIEW-KILGORE-GLADEWATER METROPOLITAN AREA (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Sherman- Gregg County; population 75,929 Denison SMSA.) Urban building permits (dollars) 1,830, 110 31 33 Bank debits ($1,000} 141,287 1 9 TEXARKANA SMSA Nonfarm employment 36,0SO 1 1 Bowie County, Texas, and Miller County, Arkansas; Manufacturing employment 10,S70 2 2 population 101,198 Unemployed (percent) 5.0 -24 •• Urban building permits (dollars) 423,372 -2S -9 (Building permits and bank debits are included for those portions of Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000} 147,281 -10 19 Kilgore and Gladewater in Rusk County and Upshur County.) Nonfarm employment 39,8SO •• •• Manufacturing employment 8,820 -1 -4 Unemployed (percent) 6.2 -13 -2LUBBOCK 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) 4,08S,SS6 -35 3 the two-county region.) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000} 452,336 •• 4 Nonfarm employment 69,000 3 5 TYLER SMSA Manufacturing employment 7,910 2 4 Smith County; population 97,096 Unemployed (percent) 3.4 -15 -11 Urban building permits (dollars) 555,728 -34 -3S Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000} 231,876 1 19McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA Nonfarm employment 41,lSO 1 4Hidalgo County; population 181,535 Manufacturing employment 13,170 •• 8 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,283,361 -41 2 Unemployed (percent) 4.5 -6 2 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000} 19S,741 -2 31 Nonfarm employment 42,100 -1 -1 WACO SMSA Manufacturing employment 3,720 -19 •• McLennan County; population 147,553 Unemployed (percent) 7.1 -23 •• Urban building permits (dollars) 4,518,353 1 174 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1 ,000} 319,295 9 14MIDLAND SMSA Nonfarm employment S8,800 ** 1Midland County; population 65,433 Manufacturing employment 12,S60 •• s Urban building permits (dollars) 6S 1,043 -8 32 Unemployed (percent) s.o -12 4 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000} 174,6S2 -17 -2 Non farm employment 62,000 • • • • WICHITA FALLS SMSA Manufacturing employment 5,470 1 1 Archer and Wichita Counties; population 127,621 Unemployed (percent) 4.3 -23 -12 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,073,074 -3S -34(Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000} 24S,10S 2 13Odessa SMSA'S since employment figures for Midland and Ector Nonfarm employment 42,950 -1 2Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in com­Manufacturing employment S,270 -1 6bined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) Unemployed (percent) 3.8 -10 12 •• Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent. Urban building-permit data are preliminary and subject to revision. SEPTEMBER 1972 INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR INDNIDUAL MUNICIPALITIES JULY 1972 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Jul 1972 (dollars) Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 Jul 1972 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 ANDERSON Palestine 27,789 14,525 79,500 -64 -19 24,025 - 6 ANDREWS Andrews 10,372 8,625 24,290 10 531 9,002 •• - 10 ANGELINA Lufkin 49,349 23,049 696,587 34 291 ARANSAS Aransas Pass 8,902 S,813 597,000 642 232 15,518 35 47 ATASCOSA Pleasanton 18,696 5,407 6,313 - 16 AUSTIN Bellville 13,831 2,371 0 8,694 •• 11 BAILEY Muleshoe 8,487 4,525 15,900 14 23 BASTROP Smithville 17,297 2,959 85,474 - 4 2,968 - 4 2 BEE Beeville 22,737 13,506 71,260 -10 -71 21,499 - 5 2 BELL (In Killeen-Temple SMSA) Bartlett Belton Harker Heights Killeen Temple 124,483 1,622 8,696 4,216 35,507 33,431 112,900 199,589 1,590,370 1,016,390 2 337 70 -44 -16 164 246 22 1,819 38,240 82,910 14 9 3 - 9 11 16 BEXAR (In San Antonio SMSA) San Antonio 830,460 654, 153 12,947,710 -39 19 1,810,159 •• 2 BOWIE (In Texarkana SMSA) Texarkana 67,813 52,179 379,572 -20 -13 141,856 - 1 18 BRAZORIA (In Houston SMSA) Angleton Clute Freeport Pearland 108,312 9,770 6,023 11,997 6,444 118,200 18,850 610,1 so -91 12 132 249 89 20,288 6,196 36,236 8,998 3 s 6 9 8 4 18 9 BRAZOS (Constitutes Bryan-College Station SMSA) Bryan College Station 57,978 33,719 17,676 497,228 171,182 -56 -33 -28 -79 98,953 13,752 4 3 15 4 BREWSTER Alpine 7,780 S,971 6,644 -96 600 6,842 7 20 BROWN Brownwood 25,877 17,368 66,250 -59 -73 BURLESON Caldwell 9,999 2,308 4,859 s - 6 BURNET Marble Falls 11,420 2,209 9,828 2 32 CALDWELL Lockhart 21,178 6,489 128,505 -32 -63 9,919 - 12 11 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 1,532,600 571 ,820 1,543 40,219 21 -27 -92 -81 19 -3 4 75,083 100,145 2,668 2,279 5,409 9,931 -- 4 19 5 18 27 14 -- 2 19 2 25 45 7 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Jul 1972 (dollars) Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 Jul 1972 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 CASTRO Dimmitt 10,394 4,327 27,039 s 17 CHEROKEE Jacksonville 32,008 9,734 l 83,9SO 744 707 31 ,6S4 24 lS COLEMAN Coleman 10,288 S,608 23,3SO S8 9 17,246 -12 - 6 COLLIN (In Dallas SMSA) McKinney Plano 66,920 lS,193 17,872 331, 147 2,S12,808 14S -s -6S -2S l 9 ,SS2 28,292 2 2 17 38 COLORADO Eagle Lake 17,638 3,S87 4 ,9S9 6 16 COMAL New Braunfels 24,16S 17,8S9 610,400 62 -64 32,961 4 28 COOKE Gainesville Muenster 23,471 13,830 1,411 72,31 s 21,000 -73 -43 soo 2S,997 4,318 s 2 20 16 CORYELL (In Killeen-Temple SMSA) Copperas Cove Gatesville 3S,311 10,818 4 ,683 l,388,27S 36 349 S,929 11,281 3 1 27 16 CRANE Crane 4,172 3,427 26,000 8 36 2,693 2 lS DALLAS (In Dallas SMSA) Carrollton Dallas Farmers Branch Garland Grand Prairie Irving Lancaster Mesquite Richardson Seagoville 1,327,321 13,8SS 844,401 27,492 81,437 S0,904 97,260 10,S22 SS, 131 48,S82 4,390 1,776,040 16,S60,300 l,240,S03 S,288,670 3,630,618 1,960,331 99S,727 840,746 2,196,421 163,683 -68 -74 8 20 -48 33S -6S -S2 -29 -24 -lS 26 41 4 64 160 -78 16 -SS 20,790 10,919,S76 26,S77 77,488 36,40S 90,970 9,070 28,SSS 8,492 -3 -9 -13 -s -10 -9 -8 -24 4 16 s 6 13 2 7 14 3 -S3 DAWSON Lamesa 16,604 11,SS9 6,800 24 24,777 17 19 DEAF SMITH Hereford 18,999 13,414 86,700 -74 -47 DENTON (In Dallas SMSA) Denton Justin Lewisville Pilot Point 7S,633 39,874 741 9,264 1,663 9S4,SOO 12,000 l ,302,S06 29,200 -69 ** 27S -18 -S8 -4 170 82 7S ,71S l,S32 24,S79 4,378 -11 -29 -11 -4 6 1 46 27 DE WITT Yoakum 18,660 S,7SS 103,3SO 46 38 14,3 13 6 EASTLAND Cisco 18,092 4,160 S,70S 6 8 ECTOR (Constitutes Odessa SMSA) Odessa 91 ,80S 78,380 l ,237,2S3 82 120 1Sl,21S - 4 3 ELLIS (In Dallas SMSA) Ennis Midlothian Waxahachie 46,638 11 ,046 2,322 13,4S2 47,800 136,400 -46 -90 3SS -83 14,98S 2 ,748 22,738 -s -17 -10 33 16 9 EL PASO (Constitutes EI Paso SMSA) EI Paso 3S9,291 322,261 13,092,792 -21 83 772,677 lS ERATH Stephenville 18,191 9,277 l 9 8,8SO s -S4 18,016 8 10 SEPTEMBER 1972 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Jul 1972 (dollars) Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 Jul 1972 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 FANNIN Bonham 22,70S 7,698 SS,S97 -73 -8S 14,S97 - 4 13 FAYETTE Schulenburg 17,6SO 2,294 26,000 S6 174 FORT BEND (In Houston SMSA) Richmond Rosenberg S2 ,314 S,777 12,098 86,7SO 640,622 -30 43 -SS 119 12,S6S 11,739 2 12 33 8 GAINES Seagraves Seminole 11,S93 2,440 S,007 2,200 22,2SO -96 47 7S6 3,600 10,481 19 7 8 33 GALVESTON (Constitutes Galveston-Texas City SMSA) Dickinson Galveston La Marque Texas City 169,812 10,776 61,809 16,131 38,908 228,201 143,619 321,37S -60 -20 -13 -76 -32 -S3 17,0SS 1SO,S4S 18,308 40,S60 2 6 7 10 2 -10 -18 19 GILLESPIE Fredericksburg 10,SS3 S,326 90,6SS 181 -21 22,664 25 GONZALES Nixon 16,37S 1,92S 8,000 -90 GRAY Pampa 26,949 21,726 104,0SO 4 13S 38,930 -11 -2 GRAYSON (Constitutes Sherman-Denison SMSA) Denison Sherman 83,22S 24,923 29,061 14S,463 S30,137 -S9 72 -S3 103 31,S37 63,319 7 6 9 8 GREGG (Constitutes Longview-Kilgore-Gladewater Metropolitan Area) Gladewater Kilgore Longview 7S,929 S,S74 9,49S 4S,S47 143,610 141,SOO 1,S4S,OOO 42S 48 21 68 323 23 7,064 22,296 111 ,927 2 8 4 -s 5 11 GUADALUPE (In San Antonio SMSA) Schertz Seguin 33,SS4 4 ,061 1S,934 1,048,482 285,99S 6S 200 86 2 ,128 29,030 s 1 41 26 HALE Hale Center Plainview 34,137 1,964 19,096 43,600 81,000 73 -63 31S -92 63,010 6 11 HARDEMAN Quanah 6,79S 3,948 0 7,074 -2 HARDIN Silsbee 29,996 7,271 14,244 -7 13 HARRIS (In Houston SMSA) Baytown Bellaire Deer Park Houston Humble La Porte Pasadena South Houston Tomball 1,741 ,912 43,980 19,009 12,773 1,232,802 3,278 7 ,149 89,277 11 ,527 2,734 4, 141,094 l 84,S9S 421,994 64,95S,883 222,200 1,133,SOO 3,061,377 67,200 302 -10 -24 8 -S3 484 -23 64 -86 -9 36 -53 7S3 -60 -Sl 69,SSl 77,199 15,692 10,74S,043 13,004 4,943 131 ,109 22,893 -16 1 -20 4 6 -1 -s -12 -3 9 6 17 11 -12 3 22 HARRISON Hallsville Marshall 44,841 1,038 22,937 102,S32 39 -73 1,676 30, l 7 l 8 7 12 3 HASKELL Haskell 8,S12 3,6SS 31,300 -25 8 6,844 20 3S HAYS San Marcos 27,642 18,860 S2 ,700 -88 -89 16,4S4 •• -3 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Jul 1972 (dollars) Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 Jul 1972 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 HENDERSON Athens 26,466 9,582 276,000 116 172 HIDALGO (Constitutes McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg SMSA) Alamo Donna Edinburg Elsa McAllen Mercedes Mission Pharr San Juan Weslaco 181,535 4,291 7,365 17,163 4,400 37,636 9,355 13,043 15,829 S,070 15,313 32,165 37,000 382,279 4,150 838,617 26,400 100,SSO 39,880 35,300 787,020 34 91 -93 -74 8 -19 -72 -62 178 26 -43 16 -18 -so -35 992 4,233 S,119 32,180 4,510 68,691 9,400 25,778 7,122 4,843 18,772 •• -4 -3•• 6 7 15 -2 -12 6 40 13 -8 -28 21 4 26 -s 15 12 HOCKLEY Levelland 20,396 11,445 92,650 63 25,284 2 13 HOOD Granbury 6,368 2,473 4,022 - s 23 HOPKINS Sulphur Springs 20,710 10,642 197,825 183 47 33,408 •• 15 HOWARD Big Spring 37,796 28,735 253,950 187 509 67,098 6 7 HUNT Greenville 47,948 22,043 32,047 7 HUTCHINSON Borger 24,443 14,195 28,900 -31 16 JACKSON Edna 12,975 S,332 89,600 36 -91 10,992 25 -s JASPER Jasper Kirbyville 24,692 6,251 1,869 57,600 338 436 22,018 3,229 14 1 JEFFERSON (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Beaumont Groves Nederland Port Arthur Port Neches 244,773 115,919 18,067 16,810 57,371 10,894 1,697,269 382,072 78,999 704,098 -49 199 -36 63 -64 · 140 -44 64 343,003 22,135 15,707 92,673 19,207 -10 4 8 1 s -1 14 32 -14 2 JIM WELLS Alice 33,032 20,121 672,272 287 278 SS,632 15 13 JOHNSON (In Fort Worth SMSA) Burleson Cleburne 45,769 7,713 16,015 149,065 -44 9,912 26,533 •• 2 31 1 KARNES Karnes City 13,462 2,926 2,925 -95 -95 S,087 6 KAUFMAN (In Dallas SMSA) Terrell 32,392 14,182 177,837 -74 -44 KIMBLE Junction 3,904 2,654 2,900 587 142 3,403 -9 23 KLEBERG Kingsville 33,166 28,711 244,128 -19 -72 28,177 -17 s LAMAR Paris 36,062 23,441 276,819 -79 23 LAMB Littlefield 17,770 6,738 10,424 9 10 LAMPASAS Lampasas 9,323 S,922 59,525 -66 95 13,756 4 •• SEPTEMBER 1972 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Jul 1972 (dollars) Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 Jul 1972 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 LAVACA Hallettsville Yoakum 17,903 2,712 S,7SS 9,464 103,3SO 846 46 - 38 38 S,941 14,313 3 1 lS 6 LEE Giddings 8,048 2,783 102,SSO S67 8,716 -1 13 LIBERTY (In Houston SMSA) Dayton Liberty 33,014 3,804 S,S91 22,SOO 93,SOO -so -IS -11 -2S 8,779 lS,692 2•• 33 18 LIMESTONE Mexia 18,100 S,943 39,400 130 -20 11,83S 2 13 LLANO Kingsland Llano 6,979 1,262 2,608 0 7,17S 7,714 1 -11 4 -44 LUBBOCK (Constitutes Lubbock SMSA) Lubbock Slaton 179,29S 149,101 6,S83 4,069,131 2,42S -3S -98 s -96 408,262 6,938 l 2 10 8 LYNN Tahoka 9,107 2,9S6 14,4SO -68 6,SSl lS 24 McCULLOCH Brady 8,S71 S,SS7 361,800 244 282 11,1 S4 -10 20 McLENNAN (Constitutes Waco SMSA) McGregor Waco 147,SS3 4,36S 9S,326 21,000 4,312,260 - 9 6,930 303,900 -11 8 11 14 MATAGORDA Bay City 27,913 11,733 S3,432 4 17 26,178 12 MAVERICK Eagle Pass 18,093 lS,364 93,3SO -13 -61 1S,12S 6 •• MEDINA Castroville Hondo 20,249 1,893 S,487 S4,238 -67 233 1,862 6,S40 3 14 31 20 MIDLAND (Constitutes Midland SMSA) Midland 6S,433 S9,463 6Sl,043 - 8 32 172,S12 -11 -l MILAM Cameron Rockdale 20,028 S,S46 4,6SS S7,1SO 212 229 9,860 8,134 3 6 11 8 MILLS Goldthwaite 4,212 1,693 8,801 -10 -2 MITCHELL Colorado City 9,073 S,227 8,470 14 18 MONTGOMERY (In Houston SMSA) Conroe 49,479 11,969 1,477,SOO 22 S99 SS,4SO -3 18 MOORE Dumas 14,060 9,771 2Sl,020 76 NACOGDOCHES Nacogdoches 36,362 22,S44 1,296,018 192 228 40,101 3 6 NAVARRO Corsicana 31,1 so 19,972 18S,S63 7 44 38,136 -8 12 NOLAN Sweetwater 16,220 12,020 S8,734 22 17 26,8S7 11 20 NUECES (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Bishop Corpus Christi Robstown 237,S44 3,466 204,S2S 11,217 4,701,634 61,829 43 -92 lS -7S 2,938 S18,487 26,770 11 -2 so -7 8 11 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Jul 1972 (dollars) Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 Jul 1972 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 ORANGE (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Orange 71,170 24,457 342,905 82 591 58,849 - 2 11 PALO PINTO Mineral Wells 28,962 18,411 106,990 711 533 32,509 4 -10 PANOLA Carthage 15,894 5,392 42,825 -57 175 6,256 3 7 PARKER Weatherford 33,888 11,750 13,800 -79 -81 33,120 9 21 PARMER Friona 10,509 3,111 34,300 •• 104 33,996 22 27 PECOS Fort Stockton 13,748 8,283 176,717 421 12,586 •• POTTER (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo 90,511 127,010 4,342,741 107 52 625,739 - 5 18 RANDALL (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo (See Potter) Canyon 53,885 8,333 218,385 -96 93 14,109 7 38 REEVES Pecos 16,526 12,682 38,850 -98 -68 26,581 8 28 REFUGIO Refugio 9,494 4,340 27,000 29 5,491 •• 8 RUSK Henderson Kilgore 34,102 10,187 9,495 169,750 141,500 -39 48 -24 323 23,961 22,296 7 8 12 5 SAN PATRICIO (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Aransas Pass Sinton 47,288 5,813 5,563 597,000 155,330 642 179 232 115 15,518 13,066 35 39 47 18 SAN SABA San Saba 5,540 2,555 111,650 11,890 16 25 SCURRY Snyder 15,760 11,171 550,400 389 183 23,582 - 3 18 SHACKELFORD Albany 3,323 1,978 0 3,461 -12 - 5 SHERMAN Stratford 3,657 2,139 30,000 -12 17,299 3 12 SMITH (Constitutes Tyler SMSA) Tyler 97,096 57,770 537,728 -30 -32 224,454 7 16 STEPHENS Breckenridge 8,414 5,944 34,000 -45 691 SUTTON Sonora 3,175 2,149 17,900 539 4,490 -17 28 TARRANT (In Fort Worth SMSA) Arlington Burleson Fort Worth Grapevine North Richland Hills White Settlement 716,317 90,643 7,713 393,476 7,023 16,514 13,449 6,2 01 ,015 149,065 10,536,369 122,735 1,388,300 194,603 -16 -44 46 87•• -4 -22 29 -27 229 19 122,011 9,912 2,144,106 10,502 22,069 9,248 -12•• -16 -7 -7•• 11 31 1 7 18 51 TAYLOR (In Abilene SMSA) Abilene 97,853 89,653 1,778,295 91 144 184,582 - 5 12 SEPTEMBER 1972 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Jul 1972 (dollars) Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 Jul 1972 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Jun Jul 1972 1971 TERRY Brownfield 14,118 9,647 8S,2SO -60 33,40S 28 28 TITUS Mount Pleasant 16,702 8,877 69,327 -7S 132 29,436 - 18 14 TOM GREEN (Constitutes San Angelo SMSA) San Angelo 71,047 63,884 938,720 SS -60 148,171 2 15 TRAVIS (Constitutes Austin SMSA) Austin 29S,S16 2Sl,808 17,463,848 -4S 2S 9S6,909 6 13 UPSHUR Gladewater 20,976 5,574 143,610 425 68 7,064 - 2 s UPTON McCamey 4,697 2,647 2,202 7 UVALDE Uvalde 17,348 10,764 159,030 47 -51 28,623 9 12 VALVERDE Del Rio 27,471 21,330 1,279,052 520 522 26,766 6 25 VICTORIA Victoria 53,766 41,349 943,295 -29 30 130,741 16 27 WALKER Huntsville 27,680 17,610 1,195,133 136 33,21 s 12 44 WARD Monahans 13,019 8,333 14,500 -86 -52 14,07S 6 12 WASHINGTON Brenham 18,842 8,922 212,110 -52 -42 28,863 - 1 18 WEBB (Constitutes Laredo SMSA) Laredo 72,859 69,024 228,650 -95 -69 99,387 4 17 WHARTON El Campo 36,729 8,563 197,465 187 83 24,978 8 21 WICHITA (In Wichita Falls SMSA) Burkburnett Iowa Park Wichita Falls 121,862 9,230 S,796 97,564 15,976 46,850 1,010,248 -45 80 -37 -75 -6 -33 11,377 4,624 225,346 - 2•• 3 11 8 10 WILBARGER Vernon 15,355 11,454 87,250 -68 492 29,241 - 12 7 WILLACY Raymondville 15,570 7,987 51,000 -51 29 22,138 73 13 WILLIAMSON Bartlett Georgetown Taylor 37,305 1,622 6,395 9,616 716,500 167,580 210 -so 232 32 1,819 16,177 17,029 14 17 15 9 30 13 WINKLER Kermit 9,640 7,884 16,500 817 605 WISE Decatur 19,687 3,240 34,000 - 8 6,985 s - 2 YOUNG Graham Olney 15,400 7,477 3,624 80,100 33,300 74 509 624 19,041 9,365 4 12 28 23 ZAVALA Crystal City 11,370 8,104 12,300 -54 -85 8,311 - 6 11 • • 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 1967=100 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. Jul Jun Jul Year-to-date average 1972 1972 1971 1972 1971 GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY Estimates of personal income (millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted) .$ 3,836p 3,957p$ s 3,494r s 3,801 s 3,481 Income payments to individuals in U.S. (billions, at seasonally adjusted annual rate) . $ 934.2p 922.9p$ $ 862.4r s 915.5 s 847.5 Wholesale prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) 119.7 118.8 114.6 117.9 113.4 Consumer prices in Dallas (unadjusted index) 125.2 121.3 124.4 120.0 Consumer prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) 125.5 125.0 121.8 124.4 120.4 Business failures (number) .. 58 81 54 73 61 Business failures (liabilities, thousands} . $ 3,601 $ 6,025 $ 11 ,324 $ 13,6 14 $ 10,851 Sales of ordinary life insurance (index) 164.6 143.2 143.5 PRODUCTION Total electric-power µse (index) I 61.2p 167.7p I 41.4r 163.1 136.3 Industrial electric-power use (index) 140.5p 145.2p 129.4r 143.5 126.3 Crude-oil production (index) 124.3p 120.6p 111.0 116.1 113.0 Average daily production per oil well (bbl.} 19.8 19.9 17.6 19.0 18.1 Crude-oil runs to stills (index) .. 116.1 117.3 I 08.5 115.2 112.7 Industrial production in U.S. (index) l 13.6p I 13.3p 106.Sr 111.6 106.3 Texas industrial production-total (index) 133.3p 134.1 p 120.Sr 129.5 121.1 Texas industrial production-total manufactures (index) I 34.3p 134.7p 122.2r 131.3 121.5 Texas industrial production-durable manufactures (index) 142.3p 144.7p 131.6r 140.5 131.2 Texas industrial production-nondurable manufactures (index) 128.5P l 27.4p 115.3r 124.0 114.6 Texas industrial production-mining (index) 124.0p 125.9p 111.Sr 118.7 114.9 Texas industrial production-utilities (index) 159.7P 160.7P 143.1 r 157.0 140.4 Urban building permits issued (index) 158.6 209.4 136.3 184.7 150.4 New residential building authorized (index) 160.3 208.1 168.9 201.1 168.1 New residential units authorized (index) .. 138.0 166.0 161.5 160.6 156.2 New nonresidential building authorized (unadjusted index) 156.6 222.9 101.1 173.4 131.6 AGRICULTURE Prices received by farmers (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100} 356 341 311 337 303 Prices paid by farmers in U.S. (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100} 433 432 410 427 407 Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid by farmers 82 79 76 79 74 FINANCE Bank debits (index) 191.3 205.4 175.0 190.9 167.6 Bank debits, U.S. (index) 196.0 172.4 169.3 Bank commercial loans outstanding (index) 135.7 129.3 126.0 128.8 122.5 Reporting member banks, Dallas Federal Reserve District Loans (millions) .. .$ 8,075 $ 8,052 $ 6,822 $ 7,737 $ 6,756 Loans and investments (millions) .. .$ 11 ,738 $ 11,659 $ 10,072 $ 11 ,293 s 9,864 Adjusted demand deposits (millions) .$ 3,850 $ 3,850 $ 3,562 s 3,764 $ 3,544 Revenue receipts of the state comptroller (thousands} . $ 282,509 $ 420,418 $ 258, 124 $ 354,110 s 301 ,658 Federal Internal Revenue collections (thousands} . $ $1,403,320 $ 334,749 $ s 334,749• Securities registrations-original applications Mutual investment companies (thousands} .$ $ 41 ,843 $ 11,170 $ s 244,167• All other corporate securities Texas companies (thousands} .. .$ $ 26,726 $ 42,612 $ s 192,791• Other companies (thousands} .$ $ 37,364 $ 37,810 s $ 269,559• Securities registration-renewals Mutual investment companies (thousands} .$ $ 59,948 $ 75,020 $ s 432,136• Other corporate securities (thousands} . $ $ 10,516 $ 247 s $ 17,486• LABOR Total nonagricultural employment in Texas (index)t 115.sP 115.4p 1I2.4r 115.5 112.4 Manufacturing employment in Texas (index)t 107.3p 108.3p 106.1 108.4 107. 1 Average weekly hours-manufacturing (index)t 99.3p 99.3p 97.7r 98.9 98. 1 Average weekly earnings-manufacturing (index)t 129.Sp 130.6p I 22.5r 128.6 121.6 Total nonagricultural employment (thousands}t 3,785.4p 3,784.9p 3,675.9r 3,746.3 3,647.9 Total manufacturing employment (thousands}t 723.2p 730.oP 714.9r 720. 1 711.6 Durable-goods employment (thousands}t 384.2p 389.0p 380.lr 381.9 378.3 Nondurable-goods employment (thousands}t 339.0p 341.0p 334.Sr 338.2 333.3 Percent of total labor force unemployed 4.4 4.6 4.6 3.9 4.3 Total civilian labor force in selected labor-market areas (thousands} 3,638.0 3,668.7 3,543.9 3,600.6 3,513.2 Nonagricultural employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands} .. 3,399.7 3,399.7 3,292. 1 3,374.7 3,280.7 Manufacturing employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands} 601.0 607.8 589.5 598.4 591.2 Total unemployment in selected labor-market areas (thousands} .. 159.2 183.2 165.0 145.3 150.0 Percent of labor force unemployed in selected labor-market areas .. 4.4 5.0 4.7 4.0 4.3 BUREAU OT' BUSINESS RESEARCH RETURN REQUESTED THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 787 I 2 POLITICAL INST ABILITY AS A DETERMINANT OF U.S. FOREIGN INVESTMENT by Robert T. Green Studies in Marketing No. 35 In this investigation of the role of political instability as a determinant of U.S. involvement in international business, Dr. Robert T. Green, assistant professor of marketing in the Graduate School of Business of The University of Texas at Austin, provides insight into a complex aspect of economic behavior: the decision-making process. Economic statistics and their reference to investment decisions are examined in an effort to shed light on the preferences of businessmen, the sort of choice they were inclined to make in a given situation, and the manner in which they evaluated the instability criterion. The author focuses on U.S. foreign private direct marketing investment, analyzing the interrelationship between the allocation and flow of that type of investment and the degree of political instability in the developed countries and in the less developed nations of the world. The study dispels existing notions of which countries have received what and why and shows the necessity of interaction between theory and practice in the process of decision making. xv+ 122 pp. (Texas residents add $.18 sales tax.) $3.50 Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas at Austin