rexas Business ~eview ~ay 1977 ~ureau of Business Research rhe University of Texas at Austin Fifty cents Vol. LI, No. 5, May 1977 Texas Business Articles Review 93 Inflation and the Cost of Living in Texas, Lorna Monti 96 Texas Construction, Charles H. Wurtzebach 98 Mexico: Some Recent Developments, Calvin P. Blair Published by the Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas at Austin Tables Lorna Monti, Acting Director 95 Selected Barometers of Texas Business 97 Estimated Values of Building Authorized in Texas 100 Mexico: Selected Economic Indicators, 1970-1975 101 Key Items in U.S. Trade and Payments with Mexico, 1970-1976 102 Some Measures of the Relative Importance of the United States to The Authors Mexican Trade and Payments, 1975 102 Some Measures of the Relative Importance of Mexico to U.S. Trade and Lorna Monti Payments, 1975 Acting Director 104 Local Business Conditions Bureau ofBusiness Research 114 Gross Retail Sales by Kind of Business for Texas Standard Metropolitan Charles H. Wurtzebach Statistical Areas Assistant Professor of Real Es116 Index of Consumer Prices, United States tate and Finance Barometers of Texas Business (inside back cover) University ofTexas at Austin ChartsCalvin P. Blair Professor of International Busi 94 Ratio of Family Budgets for Four U.S. Cities to U.S. Average Budget, ness 1975 University of Texas at A us tin 95 Percentage of Texas Labor Force Unemployed 96 Residential and Industrial Electric Power Use in Texas Map 99 Urban Population of Mexico, 1970' Cover: Photograph by Nicole Bremner, journalism student at the University of Texas at Austin. Staff Lewis J. Spellman, Editor Lois R. Glenn, Managing Editor Mildred Anderson, Kay Davis, Marylyn Donaldson, and Joan Holloway, Data Compilation Daniel P. Rosas, Printing Coordinator Clintsy Sturgill and Joan Farnham, Compositors James Buchanan, Draftsman Subscription rate: $5.00 per year. Single copy: $.50. Address requests to Publications Office, Bureau of Business Research, Texas Business Review is indexed in Marketing Information Guide P.O. Box 7459, Austin, Texas 78712. Second-class postage paid and Public Affairs Information Service and is available on at Austin, Texas. Publication number 540-400. microfilm from University Microfilms. Contents of . this publication not copyrighted and may be The Bureau of Business Research is a member of the Association for reproduced freely. Acknowledgment of the source will be University Business and Economic Research. appreciated. Inflation and the Cost of Living in Texas Lower housing costs and income taxes make living costs in Texas cities lower than the national average. Nevertheless, inflation hits products Texans buy in national markets. To judge the impact of inflation on the cost of living in Texas, national and regional forces must be separated. Nationwide Inflation Inflation figures in March were comforting because they reversed the alarming upswing reported in February; continuation of the February rate would have meant a double-digit annual rate. The essential numbers in the temporary surge of February were those measuring food prices, up 2.3 percent in one month; March figures were up a much smaller 0.5 percent. Even after the surge, March food price inflation-at 5.5 percent above the level for March 1976-still lagged overall price inflation, which was 6.4 percent over the same period. A year ago the difference was even more marked, 4.3 percent for food against 6.1 percent overall price inflation from March 1975 to March 1976. The very low month-tomonth inflation rates of early 1976 resulted from actual declines in the food price component of the price index. Lorna Monti What is the interpretation of these numbers? The annual changes over both years were in the neighborhood of 6 percent, despite wide variation in month-to-month price index changes. Radical month-to-month changes in the price index should not be considered a trend unless they continue for five or six months. A simple projection of past trends implies a basic 6 percent rate of inflation. If the economy continues to grow at the rates indicated by recent increases in personal income, industrial production, employment, and housing starts, the figure might rise to more than 7 percent. The overall rate of inflation will affect Texas and the nation in similar ways. Regional Differences If inflation is a national phenomenon, how can Texas cities have lower costs of living than cities in the Northeast? Nationwide inflation strikes those products that are traded in national markets, as are most products-lumber, machinery, clothing, and farm products, for example. Regional differences in the cost of living arise primarily from regional differences in prices of products not traded in national markets. Such variations occur in land prices, taxes, and some wages because land, governments, and some workers R a t i o o f F a m i Iy B u d g e t s* f o r F o u r U . S . C i ties to U.S. Average Budget, 1975 Category 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% U.S. 1001 Chicago 1031 Total budget Austin BBi Dallas 911 Houston 921 U.S. 1001 Chicago 1041 Total consumption Austin 911 Dallas 941 Houston 951 U.S. 1001 Chicago 1001 Food Austin s9I Dallas 921 Houston 971 U.S. 1001 Chicago 1011 Housing Austin s1I Dallas 861 Houston 831 U.S. 1001 Chicago 1031 Transportation Austin 1021 Dallas 1041 Houston 1011 U.S. 1001 Chicago 1001 Clothing Austin 1001 Dallas 931 Houston 991 U.S. 1001 Chicago 1031 Personal care Austin 971 Dallas 1031 Houston 1051 U.S. 1001 Chicago 1011 Medical care Austin 951 Dallas 1121 Houston 1oal U.S. 1001 Chicago 1041 con~ut~~tiont Austin 1031 Dallas 1031 Houston 991 U.S. 1001 Chicago 1021 Other items " Austin 951 Dallas 971 Houston 971 U.S. 1001 Chicago 991 Disability payments Austin 94 1 Dallas 971 Houston 981 U.S. 1001 Chicago 991 Personal income Austin 641 taxes Dallas 691 Houston 691 • Based on intermediate budget for four persons. t Other family consumption includes the average costs for reading, recreation, tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, education, and miscellaneous expenditures. =other items include allowances for gifts and contributions, life insurance, and occupational expenses. Source: Calculated from family budget information published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. ~ 94. do not move from region to region in response to price changes (as most goods do). The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor, the official inflation-measuring agency, measures the results of inflation in the United States and Texas in two ways. The most familiar procedure, the consumer price index, is the least reliable for comparisons of national and state conditions. Suppose, for example, that in 1967 a hamburger cost $.50 in Dallas and $.75 in New York. In 1977 the same hamburger costs $.80 in Dallas and $1.00 in New York. The 1977 hamburger index for Dallas would be 160, and the one for New York would be 133, numbers that reflect the 60 percent increase in the Dallas price and the 33 percent increase in the New York price. What the relative changes fail to reveal is that the Dallas hamburger, despite its 60 percent increase in price, is still the less expensive one. The index measures the changes of prices since 1967 but is silent about the final relative prices in 1977. The hamburger price paradox shows that Dallas has had rapid inflation from low prices but that the inflation nevertheless failed to erase the original price advantage. Consumer price indexes compare prices of hamburgers and other goods and services both in the nation and in certain cities for which consumer price indexes are calculated. Actual events since 1967 show very little difference in the rates of inflation in Houston, Dallas, and the United States. Inflation was slightly more rapid in Houston but not significantly rapid to erase the original differences between prices in Houston and in the United States. Last year's averages were 170.5 percent of 1967 in the United States, 167.7 percent in Dallas, and 177.4 percent in Houston. National inflation affected Texas and the country similarly. No category of expenditure has doubled in price in Dallas, a change that is indicated by an index value of over 200. In the United States fuel oil and coal (the only item over 200) reached 250.8 for a 1976 average. In Houston fuel oil and coal reached 264.5, while certain categories of food eaten at home, gas and electricity, and medical care services more than doubled. The example of the hamburger index warns against the erroneous assumption that the more rapid inflation since 1967 means that Houston is more expensive than the average U.S. city, but where can the person weighing a job offer in Chicago against one in Houston find a true comparison? The second procedure employed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to measure inflation produces a more reliable comparison of the United States and the three Texas metropolitan areas of Houston, Dallas, and Austin. Why only three? Because these three are cities in which sufficient prices are recorded for the national price index to enable calculation of the cost of living in those cities. The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the cost of living for a hypothetical four-person family in each city for which family budgets are developed. The budgets present dollar . costs for cities at a specific time, rather than percentage changes from a past time as in the consumer price indexes. The hypothetical family consists of a 38-year-old employed husband, a wife who is not in the labor force, an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Source: Texas Employment Commission. Housing costs are one fourth those the family would encounter as renters and three fourths those the family would encounter as homeowners. No real family has expenditures that exactly match those of the hypothetical family. The value of a carefully specified hypothetical family is that the same standard and pattern of living can be priced in many cities. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes budgets for low, middle, and high standards of living. In relation to the U.S. average middle-level budget and the middle-level budget for Chicago (a city close to the national average), Houston, Dallas, and Austin have a cost of living approximately 10 percent below the national average, with slightly more of an advantage for the Austin family and slightly less for those in Dallas and Houston. The biggest difference, the largest contributor to the lower cost of living in Texas cities, is the lower personal income taxes paid by citizens of this state. One reason Texas can operate without a state personal income tax is that oil and gas production taxes contribute approximately one third of state tax revenues. Thus a large contribution to the low cost of living in Texas is made by the special tax situation resulting from the presence of a large oil and gas extraction industry in the state. In recent years, rising oil and gas prices have more than offset declining production to produce higher state revenues. As production continues the decline already in evidence, revenues will eventually fall and the contribution of the special tax situation to the cost of living in Texas may be erased. Another reason for low taxes in Texas is lower than average per capita spending on state and local services. Growth and migration from other parts of the country may, however, bring pressures to increase government expenditures and taxes. The second significant area of lower costs in Texas cities is housing, which includes costs of home ownership. Important regional factors in housing prices are real estate taxes, land, and labor. Materials costs do not differ significantly from area to area because these are products traded on a national market. In the five-year period from 1971 to 1975, housing prices in Austin increased rapidly to close the original gap between housing prices in Austin and those in Dallas and Houston. Austin grew at a more rapid rate than either Houston or Dallas during this period, placing pressures on land costs and thus raising housing costs. The third area of lower costs in Texas cities is food, especially food eaten away from home. Austin, in particular, has low food costs. A basic cost advantage in Texas is low wages in food service industries. Some prices in Texas cities are higher than the national average. A category called "other consumption" includes reading, recreation, tobacco, alcohol, education, and other miscellaneous expenditures. These products are traded on national markets so the higher prices paid by consumers at some distance from points of manufacture should not be surprising. Medical costs are higher than the national average in both Dallas and Houston but lower in Austin. Clothing is more expensive in Austin than in the nation. The person who moves from a city with a higher-thanaverage cost of living to a Texas city with a lower cost of living must expect to confront higher prices in some retail outlets in Texas. The lower tax and housing bills make the difference. If the mover has compensated by purchasing or renting more spacious quarters, little difference will remain. It should also be remembered that the budgets apply to the hypothetical family; the ranking of cities would be different for families with atypical spending habits. The heavy reader who likes to wear high-fashion clothes and who spends little on housing will pay more for this living standard in Texas than in New York. On the other hand, the family whose budget goes almost entirely to housing and food can live much less expensively in Texas than in Selected Barometers of Texas Business (Indexes-Adjusted for seasonal variation-1967=100) Percent change Year-to- Mar date Year-to 1977 average date from 1977 Mar Feb average Feb from Index 1977 1977 1977 1977 1976 Business activity 265.6 258.5 252.8 5 15 Estimated personal income 288.7p 278.1 p 278.2 4 13 Bank debits 509.6 479.7 480.3 6 21 Crude oil production 103.4p 103.2p 103.4 ** - 5 Total electric power use 205.oP 216.9p 208.7 - 5 12 Residential 268.8p 311.8p 290.4 -14 17 Industrial 174.1 p l 72.2p 169.4 1 13 Total industrial production 136.5p 136.0p 135.7 ** 3 Urban building permits issued 337.5P 290.5p 275.7 16 30 New residential 392.2p 318.8p 322.5 23 36 New nonresidential (unadjusted) 269.6p 272.8p 229.6 - 1 22 Total nonfarm employment 148.3p 147.8P 147.8 ** 4 Manufacturing employment 132.0p l 3 l.6p 131.7 ** 4 Average weekly earn- ings-manufacturing 188.7p 187.OP 185.9 3 Average weekly hours- manufacturing 95.3p 95.7p 94.7 ** 5 Total unemployment 173.1 178.2 179.0 3 5 Insured unemployment 235.4 243.5 240.5 - 3 4 PPreliminary. **Change is less than one half of 1 percent. the Northeast. The families that will experience higher living standards will be those whose income and wages are determined in national markets, mainly professional markets such as that for engineers. Nonprofessional workers in Texas face both lower wages and lower costs so that they gain no advantage. Future Outlook What do these three trends of low labor, land, and tax payments imply for future cost of living in Texas cities? If the cities grow, as they show every indication of doing, land costs should rise, although perhaps not to the level in northeastern cities. As oil and gas revenues decline, some form of taxation will replace them, particularly because the state will have to face the problems associated with growth. Some difference in labor costs may be maintained if workers choose to stay in Texas at lower wages. The present difference between the costs of living in Texas cities and the U.S. average will be partially erased in Texas Construction Charles H. Wurtzehach Building permit authorizations continued to make significant gains throughout Texas during March. The most recent data reveal that the anticipated recovery from the winter slowdown has certainly begun. During the first quarter of 1977 the value of buildings authorized in all categories increased from the first quarter of 1976. Both the value of total construction authorized and the seasonally adjusted index of total construction reached all-time record levels during March. These high levels resulted primarily from dramatic gains in the residential component of total construction authorized. Although the value of nonresidential authorizations through March increased from the year-earlier level, the March index of nonresidential authorizations actually declined by 1 percent from February 1977 and was considerably below the all-time record high reported during May 1976. Consequently, the overall increase in total authorizations can be attributed primarily to gains in the residential component. Comparison of activity in the January-March 1977 and January-March 1976 periods reveals how authorization activity varied in the standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSAs). While the value of total construction authorized throughout the state increased 31 percent, the increase for RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC POWER USE IN TEXAS 300 250 200 150 1971 1972 Source: Reports bye ectric power companies and Federal Power Commission. the future, particularly if the widely discussed Sun Belt phenomenon (faster growth in Texas and other parts of the South and West) continues. Meanwhile, products from national markets will rise in price at approximately the same rate in Texas as in the nation. reporting areas within SMSAs was 32 percent and outside the Texas SMSAs, 26 percent. The value of nonresidential authorizations increased by 21 percent within the SMSAs and 39 percent outside SMSAs. The statewide increase in the value of nonresidential authorizations was 39 percent. The value of new dwelling units authorized increased by 39 percent on a statewide basis, with gains of 40 and 23 percent for SMSAs and non-SMSA areas. These data reveal that thus far in 1977 nonresidential construction authorizations have been relatively more frequent outside of Texas SMSAs and new dwelling unit authorizations have been relatively more prevalent within Texas SMSAs. A more detailed examination of the increase in authorizations for new dwelling units reveals additional differences between SMSAs and non-SMSA areas. Again, the data for first quarter 1976 and first quarter 1977 indicate that the value of one-family dwelling unit authorizations has increased 29 percent from the year-earlier period. The level of one-family authorizations within Texas SMSAs increased 30 percent; those outside of SMSAs increased 26 percent. On a unit, rather than value, basis the relationship between SMSAs and non-SMSA areas was fundamentally the same. One-family unit authorizations both for the state and for the SMSAs increased 19 percent, while similar authorizations outside the SMSAs increased by 14 percent. In the two-family dwelling unit category the value of authorizations granted during the first quarter of 1977 exceeded the year-earlier value by 21 percent. SMSA authorizations of two-family dwelling units increased 18 percent, and non-SMSA areas reported an increase of 67 percent in that category. On the basis of the number of units authorized in the same category, there was a 21 percent increase on a statewide basis, an 18 percent increase within the SMSAs, and a 63 percent increase outside the SMSAs. Nearly all of the increase in the apartment building category occurred within the SMSAs. The value of apartment buildings authorized throughout the state during the first quarter of this year exceeded the previous year's level by 90 percent. However, this significant increase was not spread throughout the state as in the one-and two-family categories. Within Texas SMSAs the value of apartment authorizations increased by 97 percent from the 1976 level, while non-SMSA areas reported a 3 percent decline in the value of such authorizations. The relationship was relatively the same on a unit basis, with a 43 percent increase from 1976 in the number of apartment units authorized throughout the state. A 4 7 percent increase was reported within the SMSAs; a 21 percent decline was reported in non-SMSA areas. These increases in the value of new dwelling units authorized represent an all-time high. The seasonally adjusted index of residential construction for March 1977 exceeded all levels previously recorded. Furthermore, the relative percentage change in the' value of apartment buildings authorized seems, on initial analysis, to be the most significant change in residential categories. However, the estimated value of one-family dwelling units authorized during March totaled $214,713,000, while apartment authorizations were estimated to be $66,129,000. As a result, one must be cautious in analyzing the data presented herein. The seemingly strong recovery in the apartment category is indeed significant, but the estimated value (rather than the percentage change) may provide more pertinent information for comparisons with one-family dwelling unit authorization levels. After all, the relative (percentage) increase in the value of apartment authoriza tions from 1976 is more a function of the low level of activity in this area during 1976 than of the high level of activity this year. The accompanying data also present a category that does not normally receive much attention. The category of residential additions, alterations, and repairs reflects deci sions made by property owners, decisions that are signifi cant enough to require a building authorization. These authorizations cover such construction activity as room additions, major remodeling, and structural repairs. The seasonally adjusted index representing the value of all additions, alterations, and repairs authorized throughout the state reveals a dramatic increase. From February 1977 to March 1977 the aforementioned index increased by 61 percent. The value of such construction authorized during the first quarter of this year increased 30 percent from the level recorded during the first quarter of 197 6. The seasonally adjusted index, indicating the reported value of additions, alterations, and repairs authorized throughout the state, reached an all-time high during March 1977. The level of this index during March also exceeded the average index level for the entire year of 1976 by more than 60 percent. The implications of the data contained herein are relatively clear. The economic environment predicted earlier in the year has indeed developed and has spurred an expected increase in construction authorizations. The factors that contributed to this environment include continued credit availability at a reasonable interest rate, continued population growth stimulated primarily by migration, a strong state economy, and trends in household composition and formation that indicate an increase in the number of households in which both spouses work. Estimated Values of Building Authorized in Texas# Percent change Mar Jan-Mar 1977 1977 Marp Jan-Marp from from 1977 1977 Feb Jan-Mar Classification (thousands of dollars) 1977 1976 All Permits 586,653 1,376,494 23 31 New construction 517,314 1,231,653 19 31 Residential (housekeeping) 320,888 729,895 36 38 One-family dwellings 244,361 562,060 32 29 Multiple-family dwellings 76,527 167,835 47 82 Nonresidential 196,426 501,758 1 22 Hotels, motels, and tourist courts 0 1,479 -22 Amusement buildings 11,095 1 7 ,490 217 221 Churches 6,358 21,523 -40 88 Industrial buildings 22,122 56,277 -9 139 Garages (commercial and private) 3,562 8,870 31 38 Service stations and repair garages 687 1,855 9 -5 Hospitals and institutions 9,316 38,138 -47 -35 Office-bank buildings 44,997 115,336 -5 58 Works and utilities 15,771 20,387 500 -61 Educational buildings 21,247 72,051 -34 2 Stores and mercantile buildings 52,965 126,901 13 68 Other buildings and structures 7,496 21,044 -15 -29 Additions, alterations, and repairs 69,339 144,841 61 30 SMSA vs. non-SMSA Total SMSAt 541,202 1,259,432 24 31 Central cities 358,739 842,933 27 46 Outside central cities 182,463 416,499 18 9 Total non-SMSA 45,451 117,062 11 28 10,000 to 50,000 population 25,503 68,927 7 36 Less than 10,000 population 19,948 48,135 17 19 #only building for which permits were issued within the incorporated area of a city is included. Federal contracts and public housing are not included. PPreliminary. **Change is less than one half of 1 percent. tstandard metropolitan statistical area as defined in 197 5 census. Source: Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. MEXICO Some Recent Developments Calvin P. Blair Mexico, it is often forgotten, is one of the world's large countries, thirteenth in geographical size and ninth in population. Its gross domestic product of 62 billion dollars makes it the world's eleventh largest economy. Mexico is also one of the world's successful developing countries and heir to a major social revolution. "La Revoluci6n Mexicana" began with ten years of shooting wars. One million Mexicans died, at a time when the population of the country was just 15 millions. After a phase of revolution and reform, 1910-1940, the Mexican economy for three decades kept real output growing at rates from 6 to 7 percent per year, well ahead of its high population growth rate of 3 to 3.5 percent. The economy underwent a major structural transformation. Agriculture declined in relative importance while expanding rapidly in absolute terms, and manufacturing came to represent 23 percent of the gross domestic product. Modern facilities have been developed in a long list of light manufactures and also in the heavy industries of steel, petroleum, chemicals, electrical energy, machinery, and transport equipment. The constitution of 1917 established the principle of a "mixed economy," and "Revolutionary" governments have promoted a vigorous entrepreneurial state that intervenes in intricate ways. The state uses a range of fiscal incentives and monetary policy measures, provides public credits in ample amounts, protects internal markets from import competition, and invests in direct government ownership of key firms in energy, steel, fertilizers, petrochemicals, transportation and transport equipment, paper, sugar, and a variety of other products. The entrepreneurial state runs This material was first presented as a statement before the subcommittee on Inter-American Economic Relationships of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress. some eight hundred parastate enterprises and agencies. It enters into joint public-private capital ventures, even with foreign investors; and it pushes government investment into any area in which private investment appears to be flagging. Despite much "guidance" of the economy, the Mexican government relies heavily on private initiative, avoids rigid centralized planning, and frequently expresses tender concern for the prejudices of the business sector. The government has kept taxes on income from capital relatively low by world standards, and for extended periods it maintained stable exchange rates and an absence of exchange controls-conditions dear to private investment planners and lenders of funds across international boundaries. Even after floating the peso, the government imposed no formal exchange controls, and capital and earnings can be freely repatriated. Thirty-six years of impressive development, however, have not rid Mexico of structural problems: massive underemployment, strong pressures of population on the land and in urban centers, a poorly educated labor force, and an income distribution pattern typical of the world's most backward nations. There has been a growing deficit in the current account of the balance of payments, financed by increasing reliance on foreign direct investment and public external debt. Foreign firms, especially of U.S. origin, have become conspicuously important in the export of manufactures, and foreign technology has been widely used. Recent Developments: 1970-1976 When Luis Echeverria became president of Mexico in 1970, he began a restructuring of the Mexican economy. He intended to redistribute income in favor of labor and peasants, vastly expand employment opportunities, decentralize industry, improve the balance of payments, diversify Mexico's sources of trade and capital, and reduce dependence on foreign investment and technology. That is a large and complex order, not something that can be achieved in six years. But Echeverria was the most active president in modern times, prodigious in his legislative initiatives and indefatigable in his attempts to do many things at once. His activism, his impatience, his style, and his occasional baiting of the press and the business community earned him a great deal of critical opposition. His economic policies, however, with a few notable exceptions, were appropriate to the times and included some important measures for long-run change. He created the National Council on Science and Technology, a workers' housing institute, the Mexican Institute for Foreign Trade, and the huge new Metropolitan University. His emphasis was on technical and higher education. Under his administration, Mexico adopted its first agricultural reform law in thirty years, a federal water law, a national agricultural plan, a national indicative plan for science and technology, laws for the regulation of foreign investment and technology transfer, electoral reform, consumer protection, federal control of town and regional planning, pollution control, and even a general population law that recognizes the wisdom of family planning. Selected results during the Echeverria administration are impressive: public credits to agriculture increased five-fold; 2.5 million acres were added to irrigated lands; half of all land under cultivation was fertilized; electrical generating capacity doubled, reaching 12 million kilowatts; roadway length almost tripled, reaching 125 ,000 miles; steel output doubled, totaling 10 million tons per year; crude oil production doubled, totaling over one million barrels per day, and proved reserves expanded to 11 billion barrels. The list is long, and it is a veritable litany to agricultural and industrial development. Of nearly 400 billion pesos (32 billion dollars) authorized for federal investments in the 1971-1976 period, 36 percent went to industry (petroleum, petrochemicals, electricity, and steel, primarily); 2 2 percent went to transport and communications; 22 percent went to social welfare facilities, heavy on schools and hospitals; and 17 percent went to agriculture and rural development. Combined current and capital expenditures of the federal government regularly emphasized education, agricultural and industrial development, irrigation, natural resources, and transportation infrastructure. Public sector expenditures by state- FIFTY LARGEST URBAN CENTERS 6,874,165 134,117 2 GUADALAJARA 1,193.601 27 JALAPA 122.377 J. MONTERREY 28 POZARICA 4, NETZAHUALCOYOTL 5. CIUDAO JUAREZ 6 PUEBLA 401,603 31. CIUDAO OBREGON 114,407 7. LEON 364,990 3:2. TOLUCA 114,079 8, TIJUANA 112,993 9. TAMPICO 3' VILLAHERMOSA 99,565 l1CIUOAD MADERO) 270.414 99,509 10. MEXICALI 26J,498 11 CHIHUAHUA 257,027 12. SAN LUIS POTOSI 230.039 38.. CIUOAD VICTORIA 83,897 13. TORREON 723,104 83,892 14 VERACRUZ 214,072 40. URUAPAN 82,617 15. MERIDA 212,097 41 , CELAYA 16 AGUASCALIENTES 181.277 42. GOMEZ PALACIO 17. HE.RMOSILLO 176.596 78.495 18. ACAPULCO 174,378 44 MONCLOVA 78.134 19 CUUACAN 45, ENSENAOA 20 SALTILLO 161,114 46. COATZACOALCOS 69,753 21 MOREL1A 161,040 47. CAMPECHE 69.506 22 DURANGO 150.541 48. MINATITLAN 68.397 23. NUEVO LAREDO \"8.867 49 LOSMOCHIS 67,9!)3 24 MATAMOROS 137.749 50. TUXTLA GUTIERREZ 66.8~1 25 REYNOSA Urban Population of Mexico, 1970 Note. Thrstotl'oj Oorot.·ushowsurban a111ers 01t!r IV.l>t/f) prrwni 011/~· Source 01recc1bn General de Esladhttca, IX Ctmso (;t•nt:ral Jr Poblao inn. JY10 owned "decentralized" agencies were dominated by PEMEX, the electric power companies, the social security agencies, CONASUPO (which supports agricultural prices and subsidizes low-income consumption), and the national railways. In the inevitable conflict between stability and structural change, Echeverria opted to keep up government spending and employment. The macroeconomic results (shown in table 1) were to keep Mexico's real output expanding under difficult circumstances, but with resultant rapid increases in the money supply, the federal deficit, the current account deficit in the balance of payments, the public foreign debt, and the rate of inflation. One unintended result was the favoring of business profits over labor incomes-though repeated efforts were made to maintain the latter through upward revisions of minimum wages and the control of some three hundred prices. Because government spending was maintained relative to private spending, the government's share in gross fixed investment rose from 27 percent in 1971 to 4 2 percent in 197 5; total government spending on both capital and current account grew from 13 percent of gross domestic product to 21 percent. One inevitable result was the floating of the peso-but that was long overdue. From 1970 to 1975 (the last year for which we have reliable estimates), total real output grew at an average annual rate of 5. 7 percent and per capita output at 2.2 percent. Real product per person in 1975 (corrected for the Table 1 Mexico: Selected Economic Indicators, 1970-1976 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Gross domestic product Billions of pesos 418.7 452.4 512.3 619.6 813.7 987.7 1,231.0 Increase, percent/year 11.7 8.0 13.2 20.9 31.3 21.3 24.6 General price level GDP deflator, 1970=100 100.0 104.5 110.3 123.9 153.5 178.9 216.5 Increase, percent/year 4.5 4.5 5.6 12.3 23.9 16.5 21.0 Real gross domestic product Billions of 1970 pesos 418.7 433.0 464.6 499.9 529.5 552.0 568.6 Increase, percent/year 6.9 3.4 7.3 7.6 5.9 4.2 3.0 Population, midyear Millions 50.7 52.4 54.3 56.2 58.1 60.1 62.3 Increase, percent/year 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Real GDP per capita 1970 pesos 8,258.0 8,263.0 8,556.0 8,895.0 9,114.0 9,185.0 9,127.0 Increase, percent/year 3.3 0.0 3.5 4.0 2.5 0.8 -0.6 Money supply, December 31 Billions of pesos 49.0 53.1 64.3 79.9 97.5 118.3 121.3* Increase, percent/year 10.6 8.4 21.1 24.3 22.0 21.3 21.ot Wholesale prices# Index, 1970= 100 100.0 103.7 106.7 123.4 151.2 167.1 213.0 Increase, percent/year 5.9 3.7 2.9 15.7 22.5 10.5 27.5 Consumer prices# Index, 1970=100 100.0 105.7 111.0 123.6 151.3 176.8 212.9 Increase, percent/year 5.2 5.7 5.0 11.4 22.4 16.9 20.4 Federal government revenues** Billions of pesos 33.9 36.5 42.3 53.8 72.9 103.1 133.9 Increase, percent/year 12.2 7.7 15.9 27.2 35.5 41.4 29.9 Revenue as percent of GDP 8.1 8.1 8.3 8.7 9.0 10.4 10.9 Federal government expenditures** Billions of pesos 40.2 41.3 59.1 81.2 104.1 145.1 184.9 Increase, percent/year 1.8 2.7 43.1 37.4 28.2 39.4 27.4 Expenditures as percent of GDP 9.6 9.1 11.5 13.1 12.8 14.7 15.0 Federal government deficit** Billions of pesos 6.3 4.8 16.8 27.4 31.2 42.0 51.0 Deficit as percent of GDP 1.5 1.1 3.3 4.4 3.8 4.1 4.3 Current account deficit balance of payments Millions of U.S. dollars 1,068.0 838.0 916.0 1,415.0 2,876.0 4,057.o 4,060.0 Long-term foreign debt of public sector, December 31 :J: Billions of U.S. dollars n.a. 3.6 4.2 5.7 8.0 11.6 20.0 * As of September 30. t September 30, 1975, to September 30, 1976. # Indexes for Mexico City. * * Cash flow figures only. Total government spending for consumption and fixed investment are a much higher proportion of GDP than that shown here, e.g., 13 percent in 1971, rising to 21 percent in 1975. :J: Debt of maturity of one year or more issued or guaranteed by the federal government, plus similar debt of selected government institutions. Does not include any "floating" debt of less than one-year maturity, used largely to finance imports or exports. n.a. Not available. Sources: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, May and August 1976; Banco de Mexico, Indicadores Economicos, October 1976; and Secretarfa de Hacienda y Credito Publico. Estimates for 1976 were made by the author on the basis of preliminary and partial data. overvaluation of the peso) was about 820 dollars, which imports from that source, and runs two thirds of its trade puts Mexico at the upper levels for "non-oiP' underdeveldeficit with its giant neighbor (see tables 2 and 3). Mexican oped countries. business firms also pay over 100 million dollars annually for U.S. patents and other technology, some 150 millions in profits to U.S. direct investors, and nearly 400 millions in Economic Interdependence interest on loans and credits from U.S. sources. Mexico relies on U.S. customers for 70 percent of its tourist and The Mexican economy is dependent upon the United border sales and makes virtually 100 percent of its similar States in profound and intricate ways. That is a source of purchases in the United States. U.S. investors own 72 sensitive feelings on the part of Mexican nationals. It is also percent of all direct foreign investment in Mexico. Ninety sufficient reason for diversifying sources of trade, investpercent of Mexico's externally funded public debt is ment, and technology and for pursuing an independent denominated in U.S. dollars, and 90 percent of the central Mexican stand on international relations. bank's foreign exchange reserves are held in dollars. Mexico sells about 60 percent of its merchandise exports A veritable invasion of U.S. goods, services, practices, to the United States, buys a somewhat larger fraction of its standards, and ideas has occurred. At the operational level, Table 2 Key Items in U.S. Trade and Payments with Mexico, 1970-1975* (Millions of dollars) 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Merchandise trade Exports to Mexico 1,706 1,619 1,985 2,962 4,860 5,169 Imports from Mexico -1,223 -1,262 -1,632 -2,307 -3,391 -3,057 Balance 483 357 353 655 1,469 2,112 Tourism and transportt Sales to Mexico 567 618 753 871 1,190 1,542 Purchases from Mexico 748 930 -1,178 -1,317 -1,541 -1,715 Balance 181 312 425 446 351 173 Fees and royalties Received from Mexico 81 87 80 96 115 137 Paid to Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 0 Income on direct investment Received from Mexico 91 123 81 98 112 156 Paid to Mexico 0 0 0 0 1 1 Balance 91 123 81 98 111 155 Other investment income Received from Mexico 166 138 167 234 385 395 Paid to Mexico 59 29 26 54 120 106 Balance 107 109 141 180 265 289 Unilaterial transfers to Mexico U.S. government grants, pensions 23 29 36 44 54 58 Private remittances, gifts 62 63 69 92 102 109 Total 85 92 105 136 156 167 Balance on current account* * 435 186 33 338 1,343 2,217 U.S. capital flows to Mexico Direct investment 92 48 73 55 193 31 Other* * 41 28 391 325 -1,039 -1,458 Total 133 76 464 380 -1,232 -1,489 Mexican capital flows to U.S. Direct investment 0 0 0 1 1 4 Other+ 45 134 122 505 484 361 Total 45 134 122 504 485 365 Statistical discrepancy and transfer of funds between foreign areas 282 24 308 462 596 -1,093 Change in U.S. official reserve assets, vis-a-vis Mexico§ 25 0 0 0 0 0 *Credits: exports of goods and services to Mexico; receipts of income on U.S. investments in Mexico; capital inflows (increase in Mexican assets in U.S. or decrease in U.S. assets in Mexico); sale of U.S. monetary gold. Debits(-): imports of goods and services from Mexico; payments of income on Mexican investments in the U.S.; unilateral transfers to Mexico; capital outflows (decrease in Mexican assets in t U.S. or increase in U.S. assets in Mexico). Includes border transactions. #Estimates are net of transfers from Mexico to U.S. residents. **Goods, services (including income on investments), and unilateral transfers. +Other investments include loans, credits, deposits, and net purchase of securities, both government and private. §This item is included to indicate that the statements summarized here are " balanced"; i.e., the sum of current account, plus capital account, plus statistical discrepancy, plus change in official reserve assets, equals zero. The entry for 1970 represents a sale of gold to Mexico. Changes in Mexico's holdings of U.S. dollars as official reserve assets (which are reserve-related liabilities for the U.S.) are included in line 9, "other" Mexican capital. Source: Survey ofCurrent Business, June issues, 1973-1976. Mexican producers have been highly susceptible to the vagaries of U.S. policy or practice: the salinity of the Colorado River threatened Mexican agriculture; Florida tomato growers once prevailed upon U.S. authorities to restrict imports by size of fruit, hurting Mexican exporters; an independent truckers' strike hit Mexican exports heavily, since so many travel over the U.S. highway system; export quotas on scrap once pinched Mexican steel producers; zealous efforts to intercept drugs had the effect of depressing retail trade in border cities; and so on and on. Mexico lives in apprehension that the United States will suddenly clamp down very hard on migrant labor, both legal and illegal. If Mexico did not enjoy a surplus on tourist trade with the United States, and if it were not for the receipt of private unilateral remittances of more than 100 million dollars per year (much of which must surely be money sent home by illegal migrants), her current account deficit with her partner would have been about 300 million dollars larger than the 2.2 billions recorded for 1975. The reciprocal dependence of the United States on Mexico is relatively slight-but still of surprising importance in a few key respects (tables 2 and 4 ). In 197 5 Mexico was the fourth most important customer, taking 4.8 percent of total merchandise exports, and the sixth largest supplier, furnishing 3.1 percent of imports (both exclusive of border trade). However, the trade surplus with Mexico accounted for nearly one fourth of the total U.S. trade surplus of 9 billion dollars in that year. The United States has run a large merchandise trade surplus with Mexico for many consecutive years, even when it has had large net deficits worldwide (e.g., in 1971, 1972, and 1974). As for tourism, only Canada is in Mexico's class for travel either way. In 1975 U.S. tourists did manage to spend in all of Western Table 3 Some Measures of the Relative Importance of the United States to Mexican Trade and Payments, 1975 Total Approximate (millions of U.S. share Item (Mexico) dollars) (percent) Merchandise exports (FOB) 2,859 60 Merchandise imports (CIF) 6,580 62 Merchandise trade deficit 3,721 67 Tourist and border receipts 2,431 71 Tourist and border expenditures 1,491 100 Tourist and border trade urplus 940 25 Direct foreign investment in Mexico, book value (December 31, 1975) 4,400 72 Long-term foreign debt of public sector (June 30, 1976) 13,331 89* Foreign exchange reserve (December 31, 1975) 1,214 90t *Percent of debt payable in U.S. dollars. The rest is payable in marks, francs, pounds, yen, and other currencies. tPercent held as U.S. dollars. The rest is held in other currencies. Sources: Indicadores Econbmicos; Survey of Current Business; Secretarfa de Hacienda y Credito Publico; and Mauricio de Marfa y Campos, 'Polltica y resultados en materia de inversione extranjeras," in Suplemento de Comercio Exterior 26 (July 1976): 30. Europe roughly the same amount they spent in Mexico, but reciprocal purchases by European travelers were not even half of those made by Mexican visitors. U.S. firms have a very small portion of their direct investments in Mexico and receive an even smaller fraction of their worldwide direct investment income from there. Mexico as a source of income on foreign loans is somewhat more important, relatively. Border Symbiosis On a microeconomic level, pairs of sister cities exist in a kind of economic symbiosis on opposite sides of the U.S.-Mexican border. The Mexican city typically furnishes some workers to the agriculture and service trades of the U.S. side. It also acts as entrepot for goods moving into the Mexican interior, serves as a location for assembly plants (one half of the "twin plant" operation, the other being located on the U.S. side of the border), and draws to its tourist attractions large numbers of U.S. and Canadian travelers who reside temporarily on the U.S. side or spend money there while passing through. Its growing population of Mexican consumers spends heavily on the U.S. side of the border, in the past accounting for anywhere from 10 to 90 percent of the retail sales of individual establishments. The sister city on the U.S. side provides a similar entrepot as well as expenditure stimuli to its Mexican counterpart, and it often contains the other half of the twin plants. Because of reciprocal influences, each city is larger than could be expected on the basis of geographical setting, natural resource base, or location with respect to its own national markets. The high incomes in Mexican border cities, relative to the rest of Mexico, serve as a strong attraction to in migration from areas of lesser economic opportunity. Because the number of respondents greatly exceeds the number of jobs, the migration wave continues northward, legally and illegally. The process is facilitated by a network Table 4 Some Measures of the Relative Importance of Mexico to U.S. Trade and Payments, 1975 Total Approximate (millions of Mexico share Item (United States) dollars) (percent) Merchandise exports (FOB) 107,133 4.8 Merchandise imports (FOB) 98,1 so 3.1 Merchandise trade surplus 8,983 23.S Tourism and transport receipts 11,667 13.2 Tourism and transport expenditures 14,170 12.1 Tourism and transport deficit 2,503 6.9 Direct foreign investment, book value (December 31, 197 5) 133,168 2.4 Income received on direct investment Other investment income received 9,456 8,763 1.6 4.5 Fees and royalties received Income paid on foreign direct 4,285 3.2 investment in U.S. Income paid on other foreign 2,127 0.0 investment in U.S. 10,085 1.0 Source: Survey ofCurrent Business, June and August 1976. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW of family and friendship relations in U.S. border cities and in key interior points: Los Angeles, San Antonio, Chicago. The migration of Mexican labor is the epitome of economic "rationality," and the income and opportunity differentials are so great that only a garrison state could stop the flow. No one knows how many illegal migrants there are, but one hears guesses, on both sides of the border, ranging from one to six million. Such workers make large positive contributions to U.S. output and significant positive contributions to Mexico's balance of payments. They also make the reduction of unemployment among low-income residents of the United States a larger task; and the elastic supply of labor depresses wages. Short-run Outlook On December 1, 1976, Mexico inaugurated a new president, Jose Lopez Portillo, who made a careful appeal for national unity, incorporated business enterprises into his new "indicative" planning scheme, and adopted budget proposals and minimum wage settlements that indicate a serious effort to reduce inflation. Lopez Portillo will continue to emphasize the entrepre neurial state; his budget allocates expenditures largely to education and to the key sectors of energy, steel, transport, and workers' housing. His program renews emphasis on the creation of industrial jobs; and his government signed ten accords with 140 business firms in the following areas: petrochemicals, capital goods, "in-bond" plants, tourism, fats and oils, cement, automobile parts and assembly, and mining. Of special interest is the accord with the industria maquiladora, as the in-bond assembly plants are known. The agreement calls for the creation of 175 ,000 new jobs over six years, investments of 10.5 billion pesos, and an increase in exports from the 480 million dollars estimated for 1975 to a target level of 1.5 billions for 1982. In-bond plants are expected to increase at the rate of 150 per year. The Mexican government is studying appropriate fiscal incentives and promises to negotiate with the U.S. govern ment to improve prospects for reexport of finished textiles. The floating peso has changed abruptly all relative costs and prices. U.S. goods prices became 60 percent higher, in pesos, and Mexican goods 3 7 .5 percent cheaper in dollars unless prices in national currencies were changed to offset the depreciation of the peso. Costs in the in-bond plants are competitive again; and, since U.S. demand is recovering, the expansion program is likely to succeed, unless the United States eliminates the special tariff provisions that permit the twin-plant industry to exist (items 806.30 and 807.00 of the U.S. Tariff Schedules). Much more than in-bond assembly is involved. The Mexican government has long hoped to incorporate into the national economy the border cities, whose isolation from Mexican producers and whose proximity to rich and cheap sources of U.S. goods had made them almost like foreign areas. The new exchange rate and a floating peso offer an opportunity. The Mexican government has an intersecretarial comm1ss1on to stimulate planning for the development of the northern border, and public credits and tax incentives will be given to producers who "capture" those markets-just as if they were export markets. Along the border, Mexican businessmen have noted an increase in sales of foodstuffs and clothing and a reduction of competition from contraband. Significant new investments are being made, or planned, for retail trade in goods of Mexican origin. Meanwhile, U.S. border cities have suffered sharp declines in retail trade. (Many of them had reported unseasonal highs in that trade in July and August, as Mexicans spent in anticipation of the peso depreciation; so the 1976 trade year may not have suffered very much.) But cost and price adjustments will have to be made. In some cities, the equivalent of a 10 percent price reduction across-the-board has already taken place with the decision of merchants to accept pesos at eighteen per dollar. The efforts of Mexican producers to capture their own border markets will take time. The variety and quality of U.S. goods are hard to match, especially over the short run. The increase in Mexican incomes that will come with successful promotion of border development will stimulate trade on the U.S. side as well. Mexico has some prospects for reducing, but not eliminating, its trade deficit with the United States. One problem, however, is the heavy degree of dependence of Mexican output on imported inputs; yet there will be some additional import substitution. The new exchange rate will surely stimulate the tourist trade once U.S. residents realize how attractive prices are. U.S. border cities, as well as the Mexican border and interior, should benefit. Long-run Outlook There is no doubt about the long-run viability of the Mexican economy. A number of features give it excellent prospects for high rates of growth: its endowment of energy resources and other minerals; its tourist attractions; its growing and modern indu~trial sector; its skilled entrepreneurs, both public and private; its increasingly educated cadres of trained technicians; and its possibilities for large internal markets. For either Mexico or the United States, high rates of growth on one side of the border stimulate growth on the other; yet one must remember the grossly one-sided nature of the relationship. What should the United States do? The general answer is: promote its own recovery and expansion. That is the best help the United States can give Mexico. A second general answer is: help Mexico to finance its resumption of high growth rates by offering loans and by allowing debt restructuring and stretch-out. A third general answer: stimulate Mexico's economy by liberalizing import trade. On a practical level, the U.S. should do nothing to increase Mexico's trade deficit. One can even hope that the approach to the problem of illegal migrants will be the positive one of job creation. Local Business Conditions The following section reports business conditions first by Bank debit statistics for SMSAs and for most central metropolitan areas, second by cities, listed under their counties. metropolitan cities are collected by the Federal Reserve Bank of Standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSAs) include one or more Dallas. Most other bank debits figures shown are collected from entire counties, as shown. All SMSAs are designated as such by the cooperating banks by the Bureau of Business Research; the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Population figures are from the 1970 published figures represent all banks in the city shown. census and 1975 estimates by the Bureau of the Census. Employment estimates include only wage and salary workers and Building permit data are collected from municipalities by the are compiled by the Texas Employment Commission in cooperation Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Census. They represent only building authorization$ within city Footnote symbols are defined on pages 105, 113, and 116. limits and exclude federal contracts and public works projects, such as highways, waterways, and reservoirs. Building statistics for the latest month are subject to revision. Indicators of Local Business Conditions for Texas Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas Percent change Percent change from from Mar Feb Mar Mar Feb Mar Reported area and indicator 1977 1977 1976 Reported area and indicator 1977 1977 1976 ABILENE SMSA BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION SMSA (Continued) Callahan, Jones, and Taylor Counties; population: 122,164 (1970); Bankdebits,seas.adj.($1,000) 263,918 6 38 128,400 (1975 est.) (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Urban building permits ($1,000) 3,333 -9 76 Bryan-College Station SMSA.) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 544,461 # 7 20 Nonfarm employment 46,210 2 ** CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA Manufacturing employment 6,130 -1 -13 Nueces and San Patricio Counties; population: 284,832 (1970); Unemployed (percent) 4.4 -12 16 297,300 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 7,544 -8 79 AMARILLO SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 1,247,782 7 8 Potter and Randall Counties; population: 144,396 (1970); Nonfarm employment 102,450 ** 1 152,000 (1975 est.) Manufacturing employment 11,900 2 2 7.1 -5 -14 Urban building permits($ J ,000) 20,377 100 165 Unemployed (percent) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 1,343,554 6 19 Nonfarm employment 66,850 ** 4 DALLAS-FORT WORTH SMSA Manufacturing employment 8,930 1 6 Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Johnson, Kaufman, Unemployed (percent) 3.3 -3 -17 Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise Counties; population: 2,378,353 (1970); 2,552,800 (1975 est.) AUSTIN SMSA Urban building permits ($1,000) 161,180 so 14 Hays and Travis Counties; population: 323,158 (1970); Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 35,263,062# 3 16 394,800 (1975 est.) Nonfarm employment 1,144,300 1 4 Urban building permits ($1,000) 19,977# 86 -13 Manufacturing employment 250,300 ** 4 Bank debits, eas. adj. ($1 ,000) 3,636,359 20 42 Unemployed (percent) 3.9 -s -24 Nonfarm employment 179,650 3 Manufacturing employment 18,400 ** 11 EL PASO SMSA Unemployed (percent) 3.9 -11 -13 El Paso County; population: 359,291 (1970); 414,700 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 19,199 -28 SS BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 1,598,602 -6 S Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties; population: Nonfarm employment 13S,900 ** -2 34 7 ,568 (1970); 349,500 (1975 est.) Manufacturing employment 29,350 ** -8 11.8 -3 16Urban building permits ($1,000) 23,473# 133 383 Unemployed (percent) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 1,294,859 3 19 Nonfarm employment 133,000 ** 1 GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Manufacturing employment 37,850 ** 9 Galveston County; population: 169,812 (1970); Unemployed (percent) 7.2 -3 4 182,000 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 4,104 -4S 99 BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 523,891 8 13 Cameron County; population: 140,368 (1970); 169,300 (1975 est.) Nonfarm employment 68,680 1 s Urban building permits ($1,000) 3,753 38 32 Manufacturing employment 12,090 4 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 1,081,680 8 81 Unemployed (percent) 6.6 -13 Nonfarm employment 49,620 ** 1 Manufacturing employment 9,130 ** 1 HOUSTON SMSA Unemployed (percent) 10.6 -10 9 Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties; population: 1,999,316 (1970); 2,297 ,300 (1975 est.) BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION SMSA Urban building permits ($1,000) 151,289 36 44 Brazos County; population: 57,978 (1970); 72,300 (1975 est.) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 33,562,211# 3 21 Urban building permits ($1,000) 4,221 -40 60 Nonfarm employment 1,128,700 S Percent changePercent change from from Mar Feb MarMar Feb Mar Reported area and indicator 19 77 1977 1976 Reported area and indicator 1977 1977 1976 HOUSTON SMSA (continued) SAN ANGELO SMSA Manufacturing employment 187,200 ** 1 Tom Green County; population: 71 ,047 (1970); 74,800 (1975 est.) Unemployed (percent) 5.0 -4 9 Urban building permits ($1 ,000) 2,794 -84 69 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) 557,668 30 55 KILLEEN-TEMPLE SMSA Nonfarm employment 28,280 1 Bell and Coryell Counties; population: 159,794 (1970); Manufacturing employment 5,390 ** 210,500 (1975 est.) Unemployed (percent) 3.2 ** -11 Urban building permits ($1,000) 7,042 43 46 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 362,964 15 28 SAN ANTONIO SMSA (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe Counties; population: Killeen-Temple SMSA.) 888,179 (1970);977,200 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 21,533# -3 11 LAREDO SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. {$1,000) 3,809,901 4 15 Webb County; population: 72,859 (1970); 78,100 (1975 est.) Nonfarm employment 330,000 ** 1 Urban building permits ($1,000) 2,476 121 35 Manufacturing employment 40,950 1 3 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 213,725 3 7 Unemployed (percent) 6.4 -6 -25 Nonfarm employment 25,270 ** 3 Manufacturing employment 1,810 * * 5 SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA Unemployed (percent) 17.4 -5 7 Grayson County; population: 83,225 (1970); 79,000 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 876 -26 -30 LONGVIEW SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 182,985 3 11 Gregg and Harrison Counties; population: 120,770 (1970); Nonfarm employment 29,210 ** 4 Manufacturing employment 10,250 1 9 125,300 (1975 est.) Unemployed (percent) 7.1 -8 -35 Urban building permits ($1,000) 13,875 321 210 Bank debits ($1,000) 440,217 11 24 TEXARKANA SMSA Nonfarm employment 51,160 ** 3 Bowie County, Texas; Little River and Miller Counties, Arkansas; Manufacturing employment 16,020 ** 3 Unemployed (percent) 6.2 -9 -23 population: 113,488 (1970); 114,700 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 2,643 143 J 3 LUBBOCK SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 277,381 17 14 Lubbock County; population: 179,295 (1970); 196,700 (1975 est.) Nonfarm employment 40,090 ** 5 Urban building permits ($1,000) 14,328 79 26 Manufacturing employment 7 ,700 1 3 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 1,520,5 50 5 49 Unemployed (percent) 7.6 -10 -34 Nonfarm employment 80,050 1 7 (Since the Texarkana SMSA includes Bowie County in Texas and and Miller Counties in Arkansas, all data, including Manufacturing employment 11,470 ** 18 Little River Unemployed (percent) 3.3 -3 -25 population, refer to the three-county region.) McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA TYLER SMSA Hidalgo County; population: 181,535 (1970); 220,700 (1975 est.) Smith County; population: 97,096 (1970); 107,400 (1975 est.) Urban building permits ($1,000) 5,376 5 -23 Urban building permits ($1 ,000) 4,343 -44 95 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 534,831 3 6 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 573,658 16 32 Nonfarm employment 61,280 ** 4 Nonfarm employment 42,800 ** 5 Manufacturing employment 8,050 3 5 Manufacturing employment 12,110 7 - Unemployed (percent) 9.6 -18 9 Unemployed (percent) 4.9 ** 21 MIDLAND SMSA WACO SMSA Midland County; population: 65,433 (1970); 69,700 (1975 est.) McLennan County; population: 147,553 (1970); Urban building permits ($1,000) 3,828 -15 79 156,700 (1975 est.) Bank debits, seas. adj. {$1,000) 910,438 5 43 Urban building permits {$1,000) 6,654 30 82 Nonfarm employment 29,570 ** 2 Bank debits, seas. adj. {$1,000) 673,703 -2 14 -4 3 Manufacturing employment 1,900 1 Nonfarm employment 61,390 Unemployed (percent) 2.5 -7 -17 Manufacturing employment 14,230 ** 4 Unemployed (percent) 4.3 -16 -28 ODESSA SMSA Ector County; population: 92,660 (1970); 98,800 (1975 est.) WICHITA FALLS SMSA Urban building permits ($1,000) 7,571 298 54 Oay and Wichita Counties; population: 128,642 (1970); Bank debits, seas. adj. {$1,000) 679,453 11 28 130,700 (1975 est.) Nonfarm employment 42,860 ** 3 Urban building permits ($1,000) 2,787 138 -63 Manufacturing employment 5,740 1 1 Bank debits, seas. adj. {$1,000) 601,341 # 11 36 Unemployed (percent) 2.6 -7 -43 Nonfarm employment 46,080 1 1 Manufacturing employment 7,530 3 2 Unemployed (percent) 4.1 5 -16 *# Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent. Bank debit reports are based on the 1970 census definition for standard metropolitan statistical areas. MAY 1977 Indicators of Local Business Conditions for Individual Texas Municipalities Urban building permits Bank debits Percent change Percent change COUNTY Population Mar 1977 from Feb Mar Mar 1977 (thousands from Feb Mar City 1970 1975 (est.) (dollars) 1977 1976 of dollars) 1977 1976 ANDERSON 27 ,789 30,600 Palestine 14,525 282,875 -80 60 ANDREWS 10,372 11,300 Andrews 8,625 644,810 186 709 19,524 - 7 17 ANGELINA 49,349 54,600 Lufkin 23,049 2,128,438 168 121 ATASCOSA 18,696 19,800 Pleasanton 5,407 134,800 54 11,352 21 AUSTIN 13,831 15,100 Bellville 2,371 80,050 19 -51 14,662 18 6 BAILEY 8,487 8,300 Muleshoe 4,525 32,034 15 14 BASTROP 17,297 20,200 Smithville 2,959 75,010 341 1,686 4,920 16 8 BEE 22,737 23,300 Beeville 13,506 280,580 159 251 44,440 16 9 BELL 124,483 159,900 (in Killeen-Temple SMSA) Belton 8,696 153,668 -47 -34 Harker Heights 4,216 913,415 61 Killeen Temple 35,507 33,431 3,874,227 1,339,729 129 -23 82 2 97,838 151,431 27 30 17 19 BEXAR 830,460 910,400 (in San Antonfo SMSA) San Antonio 654,153 17,607,728 - 5 25 3,735,266 17 11 BOWIE 68,909 69,700 (in Texarkana SMSA) Texarkana 52,179 675,721 182 - 47 252,181 19 30 BRAZORIA 108,312 122,800 (in Houston SMSA) Angleton Clute Freeport Lake Jackson Pearland 9,770 6,023 11,997 13,376 6,444 779,114 413,745 651,873 1,911,056 1,648,173 -17 300 718 38 23 142 -46 520 -3 45,372 11,800 67,149 19,525 6 11 5 4 12 -2 -2 BRAZOS 57,978 72,300 (constitutes Bryan- College Station SMSA) Bryan College Station 33,719 17,676 1,529,769 2,690,886 -26 -46 17 103 202,039 45,192 13 12 33 30 BREWSTER 7,780 7,800 AJpine 5,971 25,000 706 - 46 15,587 68 62 BROWN 25,877 31,400 Brownwood 17,368 348,000 12 - 39 BURLESON 9,999 10,500 Caldwell 2,308 7,006 4 ** BURNET 11,420 15,200 Marble Falls 2,209 250,100 104 30,660 26 37 CALDWELL Lockhart 21,178 6,489 22,000 54,011 -76 -60 26,502 64 64 Urban building permits Bank debits Percent change Percent change from from Mar 1977 Population COUNTY Mar 1977 Feb Mar (thousands Feb Mar City 1970 197S (est.) (dollars) 1977 1976 of dollars) 1977 1976 CALHOUN 17,831 17,700 Port Lavaca 10,491 2S3,8SO 7S3 33,916 10 -14 Point Comfort 1,446 S,000 -22 -69 1,239 23 -42 Seadrift 1,092 42,410 42 4,141 2,S86 46 30 CAMERON 140,368 169,300 (constitutes Brownsville Harlingen-San Benito SMSA) Brownsville S2,S22 1,380,620 9 -11 41 S,930 S2 110 Harlingen 33,S03 1,748,191 49 S6 SS0,042 ls 90 La Feria 2,642 37,660 -SS 42S 6,477 20 Los Fresnos 1,297 7,1 so 62 36 Port Isabel 3,067 21,llS -31 -S7 10,460 14 -13 San Benito 1 s ,1 76 S6S,396 S31 396 16,S24 23 4 CASTRO 10,394 10,200 Dimmitt 4,327 130,000 -67 41,209 9 13 CHEROKEE 32,008 33,SOO Jacksonville 9,734 189,3SO -26 47 s 1,493 16 17 CHILDRESS 6,60S 6,SOO Childress S,408 140,SOO 236 COLEMAN 10,288 10,200 Coleman S,608 24,000 -68 -96 COLLIN 66,920 92,800 (in Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) McKinney lS,193 314,774 12 167 29,222 17 18 Plano 17,872 10,849,S29 23 60 7S,273 -s 4 COLORADO 17,638 17,400 Eagle Lake 3,S87 1S,S62 44 16 COMAL 24,16S 28,400 (in San Antonio SMSA) New Braunfels 17,8S9 649,200 S8 -7 43,434 29 12 COMANCHE 11,898 12,200 Comanche 3,933 123,700 8,147 COOKE 23,471 2S,100 Gainesville 13,830 306,800 126 -Sl s l ,S 34 28 20 Muenster 1,411 2S,600 16 7,296 9 -2 CORYELL 3S,311 S0,600 (in Killeen-Temple SMSA) Copperas Cove 10,818 74S,64S 16 -34 17,980 27 Gatesville 4,683 20,l 8S 31 2S CRANE 4,172 3,900 Crane 3,427 7,301 27 9 DALLAM 6,012 6,400 Dalhart S,70S 322,3SO SS DALLAS 1,327,69S 1,399,400 (in Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Carrollton 13,8SS 3,666,210 -67 91 6 -33 31,668 Dallas 844,401 ' S2,468,6S6 62 99 28,881,873 14 10 Farmers Branch 27,492 702,3S 1 -3 63,934 19 22 Garland 81,437 1S2,921 -3 -8 Grand Prairie S0,904 2,421,027 38 -9S S8,637 19 23 Irving 97,260 3,361,91S -68 -20 149,794 11 9 Lancaster 10,S22 682,48S -41 143 21,S2S 9 24 Mesquite SS,131 3,394,129 309 S8 43,828 lS Richardson 48,S82 2,849,479 -68 -47 Seagoville 4,390 144,184 34 4S 12,312 22 -17 DAWSON 16,604 lS,800 Lamesa ll,SS9 8S,6SO -47 -34 68,649 -9 61 Urban building permits Bank debits Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY Population Mar 1977 Percent change from Feb Mar Mar 1977 (thousands Percent change from Feb Mar City 1970 197S (est.) (dollars) 1977 1976 of dollars) 1977 1976 DEAF SMITH 18.999 19,400 Hereford 13 414 671,27S S2 -29 DENTON 7S,633 101,100 (in Dallas-Fort Worth S ISA) Denton 39,874 1,914 S86 -12 129 Justin 741 26,000 sso 333 3,006 14 11 Le,visville 9,264 1,897 961 11 s 94 47,184 30 2S Pilot Point 1,663 76,120 1,422 4,272 17 11 EASTLAND 18,092 18,400 Cisco 4,160 7,272 - 6 21 ECTOR 92,660 98,800 (constitutes Odessa S ISA) Odessa 78,380 7,S71,1S3 298 S4 69S,132 21 25 ELLIS 46,638 51,400 (in Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Midlothian 2,322 S,000 -98 -99 8,973 19 22 Waxahachie 13 4S2 234,400 29 -30 36,S09 21 16 EL PASO 3S9,291 414,700 (constitutes El Paso SMSA) El Paso 322,261 19,142,129 -28 SS l ,7S6,992 lS ERATH 18,141 19 400 Stephenville 9 277 546,403 -47 14 42,165 IS 36 FANNIN 22,70S 23,000 Bonham 7,698 142,600 -81 169 30,439 9 22 FAYETTE 17 ,6SO 17,300 La Grange 3,092 80,66S -74 Schulenberg 2.294 40,250 44 -79 FORT BEND S2,314 74,600 (in Houston S ISA) Rosenberg 12 098 1,708,008 146 146 Richmond 5,777 412,36S 163 442 GAINES 11,593 11,300 Seminole s 007 498,700 986 446 S0,181 s 72 Seagraves 2,440 21,000 32 9,387 24 7S GALVESTON 169,812 182,000 (constitutes Galveston- Texas City S ISA) Dickinson Galveston La Marque Texas City 10,776 61,809 16,131 38,908 2,743,9S3 978,S2S -S4 -19 206 30 34,082 300,96S 37,S63 69,116 ** -23 - 18 10 23 9 GILLESPIE 10 5S3 11,300 Fredericksburg S,326 174,403 -47 40 31,23S 4 GONZALES 16,37s 16,SOO Gonzales Nixon S,8S4 1.925 282,SOO 130,700 32 336 2,264 1,822 40,066 2S - 1 GRAY 26,949 25,100 Pampa 21,726 505,727 274 370 67'165 22 8 GRAYSON 83,225 79,000 (constitutes Sherman- Denison SMSA) Denison Sherman 24,92 3 29 061 336,710 S29,426 -S2 7 -S8 23 S3,614 101,916 23 26 - 2 10 GREGG 7S,929 80,900 (in Longvie\ S ISA) Gladewater Kilgore Longview S,S74 9,495 45,S47 197,SOO 479 300 12,240,000 147 40 SlO 31 -33 315 10,757 56,293 30S,4S6 -11 28 12 1 19 27 Percent change Percent change from from Mar 1977Population COUNTY Mar 1977 Feb Mar {thousands Feb Mar City 1970 197S (est.) {dollars) 1977 1976 of dollars) 1977 1976 GRIMES l l ,8SS 12,200 Navasota s,111 137,SSO 1,433 GUADALUPE 33,SS4 38,400 (in San Antonio SMSA) Schertz 4,061 639,S36 -18 81 S,9S2 33 4 Seguin lS,934 169,929 -60 -91 S2,009 9 8 HALE 34,137 3S,800 Hale Center 1,964 4,000 Plainview 19,096 334,0SO -Sl so 112,426 7 9 HALL 6,0lS S,800 Memphis 3,227 S26,600 HARDEMAN 6,79S 6,SOO Quanah 3,948 76,SOO 206 -84 lS,783 18 HARDIN 29,996 3S,OOO (in Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Silsbee 7 ,271 34,777 24 27 HARRIS 1,741,912 1,963,600 (in Houston SMSA) Bellaire 19,009 7S0,960 286 73 Baytown 43,980 1,902,940 -8 2S 193,024 40 12 Deer Park 12 ,773 8,0,22,336 279 232 S6,991 13 3S Houston 1,2:12,802 111,377,912 31 SS 33,S36,S07 20 2S Humble 3,278 137,17S -49 Katy 2,923 797,316 -37 28,608 11 4S La Porte 7 ,149 1,S04,837 90 13,397 46 31 Pasadena 89,277 1,643,16S -S6 -46 2S4,S39 -s 3 South Houston ll,S27 131,7SO -87 -SS Tomball 2,734 4S2,080 41 321 36,6S3 -4 21 HARRISON 44,841 44,400 (in Longview SMSA) Marshall 22,937 9S8,S84 11 4S 64,142 -2 13 HASKELL 8,S 12 7,900 Haskell 3,6SS 60,000 -30 9,437 lS 4 HAYS 27,642 3S,400 {in Austin SMSA) San Marcos 18,860 226,86S -77 -74 28,S81 11 26 HENDERSON 26,466 30,600 Athens 9,S82 377,400 -Sl 130 44,943 16 17 HIDALGO 181,S3S 220,700 (constitutes McAllen-Pharr- Edinburg SMSA) Alamo 4,291 lS,634 23 4 Donna 7,36S 72,34S -22 ** 14,162 48 10 Edinburg 17,163 929,387 19 22S 97,672 40 30 Elsa 4,400 s1,l 6S 126 28 14,192 39 -21 McAllen 37,636 2,S 16,744 s -32 249,481 23 7 Mercedes 9,3SS 22,701 27 8 Mission 13,043 4S7,S48 -2S 17 SS,732 17 8 Pharr 1 S,829 276,916 -69 -17 13,692 19 6 San Juan S,070 762,S80 1,081 14,339 S7 30 Weslaco 1s,313 309,137 -89 -82 S3,834 12 12 HOCKLEY 20,396 20,900 Levelland l l ,44S 938,27S so 186 62,472 26 lS HOOD 6,368 10,200 (in Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Granbury 2,473 11,70S 36 38 HOPKINS 20,710 21,300 Sulphur Springs 10,642 403,738 37 68 60,900 24 13 Urban building permits Bank debits Percent change Percent change COUNTY Population Mar 1977 from Feb Mar Mar 1977 (thousands from Feb Mar City 1970 1975 (est.) (dollars) 1977 1976 of dollars) 1977 1976 HOWARD 37,796 37,400 Big Spring 28,735 137,879 6 -94 140,572 5 12 HUNT 47,948 49,600 Greenville 22,043 276,815 30 - 4 60,950 21 14 HUTCHINSON 24,443 24,500 Borger 14,195 464,200 68 137 JACKSON 12,975 12,800 Edna 5,332 19,201 13 12 JASPER 24,692 26,700 Jasper Kirbyville 6,251 1,869 132,100 129 82 38,284 9,705 21 23 13 36 JEFFERSON 246,402 239,200 (in Beaumont-Port Arthur- Orange SMSA) Beaumont 115,919 8,540,632 45 195 879,707 19 18 Groves 18,067 1,171,840 238 353 47,812 14 12 Nederland 16,810 891,021 257 192 28,942 - 4 23 Port Arthur 57,371 3,117,020 93 700 187,557 5 18 Port Neches 10,894 2,079,757 223 388 JIM WELLS 33,032 33,500 Alice 20,121 609,992 92 111,406 -18 27 JOHNSON 45,769 56,600 (in Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Burleson 7,713 1,027,800 -47 157 23,679 15 19 Cleburne 16,015 2,837,000 253 57,676 17 11 KARNES 13,462 13,100 Karnes City 2,926 21,000 -52 924 10,666 18 - 1 KAUFMAN 32,392 36,900 (in Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Terrell 14,182 155,180 -48 188 KERR 19,454 22,000 Kerrville 12,672 949,801 317 KIMBLE 3,904 4,200 Junction 2,654 200,625 2,159 7,388 - 3 8 KLEBERG 33,166 32,500 Kingsville 28,711 495,685 15 -69 64,668 -25 LAMAR 36,062 37,700 Paris 23,441 830,716 -41 442 LAMB 17,770 16,600 Littlefield 6,738 28,395 ** -7 LAMPASAS 9,323 12,300 Lampasas 5,922 102,600 -31 230 20,270 8 12 LAVACA 17,903 17,300 Hallettsville 2,712 67,240 608 3,027 12,427 9 26 Yoakum 5,755 89,050 450 46 21,981 10 13 LEE 8,048 8,600 Giddings 2,783 323,650 148 278 16,688 17 LIBERTY 33,014 37,200 (in Houston SMSA) Dayton 3,804 109,000 - 8 15 14,499 13 -11 Liberty 5,591 236,100 38 -68 41,722 32 40 LIMESTONE 18,100 17,900 Mexia 5,943 1,674,600 534 632 25,681 24 20 Urban building permits Bank debits Percent change Percent change from from Mar 1977 Population COUNTY Mar 1977 Feb Mar (thousands Feb Mar City 1970 1975 (est.) (dollars) 1977 1976 of dollars) 1977 1976 LLANO 6,979 8,700 Kingsland 1,262 24,118 54 63 Llano 2,608 129,850 52 100 13,005 -28 2 LUBBOCK 179,295 196,700 (constitutes Lubbock SMSA) Lubbock 149,101 14,146,231 85 26 1,572,499 15 71 Slaton 6,583 42,854 -61 -28 16,176 14 36 LYNN 9,107 8,400 Tahoka 2,956 75,000 -68 18,824 -7 26 McCULLOCH 8,571 8,300 Brady 5,557 195,250 9 237 19,831 -3 -2 McLENNAN 147,553 156,700 (constitutes Waco SMSA) McGregor 4,365 20,200 -92 -83 10,273 19 ** Waco 95,326 3,191,772 -7 111 659,061 12 20 MATAGORDA 27,913 27,500 Bay City 11,733 1,659,001 622 137 70,290 19 27 MAVERICK 18,093 21,300 Eagle Pass 15,364 611,947 -46 22 30,950 12 22 MEDINA 20,249 21,700 Castroville 1,893 149,200 610 885 3,915 16 9 Hondo 5,487 72,790 312 -39 10,206 44 21 MIDLAND 65,433 69,700 (constitutes Midland SMSA) Midland 59,463 3,827,768 -15 79 910,017 21 36 MILAM 20,028 19,900 Cameron 5,546 15,034 13 3 Rockdale 4,655 122,845 -68 6 15,804 8 3 MILLS 4,212 4,200 Goldthwaite 1,693 11,805 15 8 MITCHELL 9,073 8,900 Colorado City 5,227 13,189 16 MONTGOMERY 49,479 83,400 (in Houston SMSA) Conroe 11,969 948,380 109 -4 118,617 17 MOORE 14,060 14,000 Dumas 9,771 792,850 125 156 NACOGDOCHES 36,362 42,600 Nacogdoches 22,544 1,380,006 39 95 NAVARRO 31,150 31,400 Corsicana 19,972 768,198 -39 -11 76,892 26 11 NOLAN 16,220 16,000 Sweetwater 12,020 293,500 -82 43 45,871 10 12 NUECES 237,544 247,600 (in Corpus Christi SMSA) Bishop 3,466 3,493 27 -30 Corpus Christi 204,525 6,010,720 -19 71 1,153,512 13 17 Port Aransas 1,218 2,728 62 7 Robstown 11,217 25,771 -74 27 36,271 17 4 ORANGE 71,170 75,300 (in Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Orange 24,457 7,621,864 629 1,234 104,467 6 13 ~ALO PINTO 28,962 20,700 Mineral Wells 18,411 114,500 -9 Urban building permits Bank debits Percent change Percent change from from Mar 1977Population COUNTY Mar 1977 Feb Mar (thousands Feb Mar City 1970 1975 (est.) (dollars) 1977 1976 of dollars) 1977 1976 PANOLA 15,894 16,400 Carthage 5,392 171,900 -14 -13 10,784 18 18 PARKER 33,888 34,400 (in Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Weatherford 11,750 1,142,950 -26 346 57,638 39 37 PARMER 10,509 10,300 Friona 3,111 59,500 1,067 2,875 35,402 21 11 PECOS 13,748 13,800 Fort Stockton 8,283 145,361 15 -30 23,026 3 2 POTTER 90,511 87,900 (in Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo 127,010 19,880,995 106 185 1,370,249 31 20 RANDALL 53,885 64,100 (in Amarillo SMSA) Canyon 8,333 495,603 -4 -30 25,568 11 12 REEVES 16,526 15,800 Pecos 12,682 516,325 591 -8 41,920 14 -6 REFUGIO 9,494 8,600 Refugio 4,340 15,000 150 9,793 21 -18 RUSK 34,102 36,500 Henderson 10,187 353,706 -69 -7 68,763 16 16 SAN PATRICIO 47,288 49,700 (in Corpus Christi SMSA) Aransas Pass 5,813 225,850 12 -7 22,722 58 12 Sinton 5,563 82,603 117 180 20,115 9 12 Taft 3,274 31,133 SAN SABA 5,540 6,200 San Saba 2,555 0 16,017 19 24 SCURRY 15,760 16,900 Snyder 11,1 71 629,910 -51 46,497 4 SHACKELFORD 3,323 3,400 Albany 1,978 0 9,055 11 8 SHERMAN 3,657 3,600 Stratford 2,139 0 21,936 20 7 SMITH 97,096 107,400 (constitutes Tyler SMSA) Tyler 57,770 4,242,662 -44 98 517,599 26 26 STEPHENS 8,414 8,400 Breckenridge 5,944 202,900 -1 107 SUTTON 3,175 4,400 Sonora 2,149 194,500 153 6,383 9,553 9 15 TARRANT 716,317 739,100 (in Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Arlington 90,643 24,948,064 101 100 238,000 12 23 Bedford 10,049 3,178,915 25 133 38,359 25 77 Euless 19,316 3,092,537 685 1,822 Fort Worth 393,476 15,076,307 66 97 4,511,328 25 32 Grapevine 7,023 842,896 48 74 23,274 -26 30 North Richland Hills 16,514 1,883,214 -75 51 50,105 24 -3 White Settlement 13,449 238,024 632 523 18,098 14 TAYLOR 97,853 103,400 (in Abilene SMSA) Abilene 89,653 3,294,566 -8 87 511,152 22 25 TERRY 14,118 14,100 Brownfield 9,647 497,394 92 132 59,092 12 30 Urban building permits Bank debits Percent change Percent change from from Mar 1977 Population COUNTY Mar 1977 Feb Mar (thousands Feb Mar City 1970 1975 (est.) (dollars) 1977 1976 of dollars) 1977 1976 TITUS 16,702 18,000 Mount Pleasant 8,877 413,450 65 279 48,762 15 8 TOM GREEN 71,047 74,800 (constitutes San Angelo SMSA) San Angelo 63,884 2,793,714 -84 69 552,526 39 so TRAVIS 295,516 359,400 (in Austin SMSA) Austin 251,808 19,651,500 103 -10 3,413,418 12 28 UPSHUR 20,976 24,600 Gilmer 4,196 46,000 -32 9,264 23 UPTON 4,697 4,600 McCamey 2,647 0 3,403 -11 38 - UVALDE 17,348 19,900 Uvalde 10,764 378,580 39 140 49,465 7 -2 VAL VERDE 27,471 31,600 Del Rio 21,330 569,553 28 57 55,038 22 13 VICTORIA 53,766 58,100 Victoria 41,349 2,353,402 85 -26 362,850 48 53 WALKER 27,680 37,200 Huntsville 17,610 554,020 -19 61 60,245 19 23 WARD 13,019 12,300 Monahans 8,333 370,479 103 6,400 26,582 ** 6 WASHINGTON 18,842 19,300 Brenham 8,922 635,800 -34 -39 53,907 15 9 WEBB 72,859 78,100 (constitutes Laredo SMSA) Laredo 69,024 2,475,765 121 35 277,831 49 28 WHARTON 36,729 36,000 El Campo 8,563 491,215 93 180 51,880 21 15 WICHITA 120,563 122,200 (in Wichita Falls SMSA) Burkburnett 9,230 345,884 60 60 23,589 23 22 Iowa Park 5,796 53,000 23 8,883 22 13 Wichita Falls 97,564 2,388,327 112 -67 558,130 18 37 WILBARGER 15,355 15,500 Vernon 11,454 1,001,145 328 84 WILLACY 1S,S70 16,000 Raymondville 7,987 24,416 -85 -39 22,022 26 10 WILLIAMSON 37,305 48,300 Bartlett 1,622 2,650 20 -42 Georgetown 6,395 695,250 18 36 26,751 20 27 Taylor 9,616 382,079 111 158 29,262 21 11 WINKLER 9,640 9,100 Kermit 7,884 6,875 -90 -65 WISE 19,687 21,800 (in Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Decatur 3,240 211,000 233 325 13,766 28 22 YOUNG 15,400 16,000 Graham 7,477 259,100 -33 -54 Olney 3,624 865,000 475 6,403 16,717 35 13 ZAVALA 11,370 11,400 Crystal City 8,104 40,500 -62 -53 10,763 -16 7 * * Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent. . . . No data, or inadequate basis for reporting. Gross Retail Sales by Kind of Business for Texas Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas Percent change Percent change Oct-Dec Oct-Dec Oct-Dec 1976 from Reported area and 1976 Reported area and 1976 Oct-Dec 1976 from Oct-Dec 1975 kind of business ($000) Jul-Sep 1976 Oct-Dec 1975 kind of business ($000} Jul-Sep 1976 ABILENE SMSA BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION SMSA Apparel, accessories 6,296 28 5 Apparel, accessories 2,817 32 28 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 43,894 24 39 service stations 16,557 7 35 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 8 ,757 -7 18 farm equipment 6,885 -13 44 Drugstores 2,584 16 17 Drugstores 1,450 37 76 Eating and drinking 8,255 2 18 Eating and drinking 5,331 1 25 Food 24,336 3 33 Food 13,919 24 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 6,716 7 22 furnishings 2,940 20 54 General merchandise 19,113 34 6 General merchandise 11,469 37 14 Liquor 1,551 17 10 Liquor 1,013 20 15 Miscellaneous retail 26,799 24 9 Miscellaneous retail 5,569 -1 22 AMARILLO SMSA CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA Apparel, accessories 12 ,422 30 11 Apparel, accessories 10,006 35 16 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 65,695 -20 20 service stations 62,045 9 2 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 16,629 27 25 farm equipment 16,564 1 17 Drugstores 9,984 42 30 Drugstores 9,392 47 36 Eating and drinking 15,468 -1 15 Eating and drinking 19,104 -7 18 Food 34,321 13 18 Food 59,748 47 4 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 11,819 13 35 furnishings 12,567 14 26 General merchandise 30,851 41 8 General merchandise 38,988 30 3 Liquor 4,900 25 11 Liquor 3,650 28 9 Miscellaneous retail 38,100 56 47 Miscellaneous retail 58,579 40 31 AUSTIN SMSA DALLAS-FORT WORTH SMSA Apparel, accessories 21,121 38 40 Apparel, accessories 169,795 21 47 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 82,457 -11 16 service stations 828,702 13 26 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 32,949 -1 32 farm equipment 179,218 33 ** Drugstores 10,095 14 15 Drugstores 101,248 23 18 Eating and drinking 37,650 1 19 Eating and drinking 232,510 3 14 Food 74,775 25 15 Food 503,452 15 16 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 21,775 5 28 furnishings 155,536 17 13 General merchandise 69,687 32 13 General merchandise 429,431 44 14 Liquor 7,252 24 10 Liquor 53,206 18 7 Miscellaneous retail 55,082 24 -10 Miscellaneous retail 658,827 27 26 BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA EL PASO SMSA Apparel, accessories 11,302 39 21 Apparel, accessories 20,761 16 -15 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 83,023 8 17 service stations 134,814 19 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 20,914 2 32 farm equipment 11,466 3 17 Drugstores 13,996 14 8 Drugstores 12,548 23 17 Eating and drinking 22,585 6 20 Eating and drinking 22,954 1 14 Food 80,938 3 10 Food 60,396 9 7 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 1 7 ,241 21 35 furnishings 18,016 1 ** General merchandise 62,962 45 17 General merchandise 66,737 13 -7 Liquor 5,629 31 18 Liquor 6,106 16 9 Miscellaneous retail 43,389 15 16 Miscellaneous retail 53,419 15 ** BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Apparel, accessories 8,332 6 -21 Apparel, accessories 6,056 24 15 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 23,476 8 9 service stations 150,723 6 4 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 10,911 39 21 9 farm equipment 8,292 6 Drugstores 3,545 3 9 Drugstores 6,547 29 20 Eating and drinking 9,267 2 16 Eating and drinking 12,390 -15 23 Food 28,203 18 3 Food 37,819 -5 15 Furniture, home Furniture, home 9 5 furnishings 5,085 furnishings 6,928 -12 11 General merchandise 28,294 -8 -22 General merchandise 20,740 27 7 Liquor 1,083 23 16 Liquor 2,944 21 13 Miscellaneous retail 16,250 2 4 Miscellaneous retail 18,769 -2 ** Reported area and kind of business Oct-Dec 1976 ($000) Percent change Oct-Dec 1976 from Jul-Sep 1976 Oct-Dec 1975 Reported area and kind of business Oct-Dec 1976 ($000) Percent change Oct-Dec 1976 from Jul-Sep 1976 Oct-Dec 1975 HOUSTON SMSA MIDLAND SMSA Apparel, accessories 128,337 49 22 Apparel, accessories 4,184 27 1s Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 908,318 - 3 service stations 19,884 4 2 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 242,597 26 40 farm equipment 5,177 9 Drugstores 98,402 43 23 Drugstores 5,678 16 ** Eating and drinking 225,201 16 21 Eating and drinking 4,757 1 15 Food 530,536 7 18 Food 14,964 31 35 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 132,897 14 26 furnishings 4,401 2 26 General merchandise 462,878 36 13 General merchandise 11,888 31 7 Liquor 55,719 60 10 Liquor 1,209 33 - s Miscellaneous retail 652,454 29 16 Miscellaneous retail 48,480 45 12 KILLEEN-TEMPLE SMSA ODESSA SMSA Apparel, accessories 6,608 30 39 Apparel, accessories 5,394 41 24 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 44,301 45 67 service stations 45,570 16 15 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 10,073 6 47 farm equipment 8,679 33 40 Drugstores 2,346 22 8 Drugstores 1,994 12 s Eating and drinking 10,352 8 24 Eating and drinking 7,940 11 12 Food 25,099 37 27 Food 21,312 12 22 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 5,536 19 22 furnishings 5,718 - 7 24 General merchandise 22,692 34 18 General merchandise 24,633 31 s Liquor 1,125 -11 -29 Liquor 4,243 34 9 Miscellaneous retail 12,724 20 23 Miscellaneous retail 63,729 14 1 LAREDO SMSA SAN ANGELO SMSA Apparel, accessories 8,602 -28 -38 Apparel, accessories 3,413 28 16 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 11,010 - 9 6 service stations 31,062 60 73 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 3,084 -14 1 farm equipment 6,901 - 3 25 Drugstores 2,324 22 9 Drugstores 4,228 -41 9 Eating and drinking 3,644 -14 6 Eating and drinking 4,641 - 1 8 Food 18,324 37 9 Food 14,212 12 46 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 4,484 -28 -33 furnishings 3,656 13 9 General merchandise 19,237 -12 -30 General merchandise 13,957 35 13 Liquor 295 125 10 Liquor 982 33 14 Miscellaneous retail 14,341 - 6 - 9 Miscellaneous retail 7 ,11 s 37 17 LUBBOCK SMSA SAN ANTONIO SMSA Apparel, accessories 12,416 24 15 Apparel, accessories 44,405 31 11 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 58,146 s 19 service stations 224,67 s 3 15 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 22,069 14 32 farm equipment 43,010 4 17 Drugstores 3,447 17 4 Drugstores 17,850 15 6 Eating and drinking 20,249 16 29 Eating and drinking 65,671 2 6 Food 48,176 22 30 Food 160,821 31 1 Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 17,504 23 12 furnishings 39,458 7 31 General merchandise 37,405 43 7 General merchandise 129,660 30 8 Liquor Miscellaneous retail 5,007 47,971 2 53 8 4 Liquor Miscellaneous retail 14,403 114,722 25 21 28 11 McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA Apparel, accessories 10,283 -14 Apparel, accessories 3,744 36 17 Automotive dealers, Automotive dealers, service stations 36,930 2 - 3 service stations 20,521 4 15 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 19,966 36 19 farm equipment 7,575 36 17 Drugstores 3,979 16 - 9 Drugstores 3,440 17 9 Eating and drinking 10,000 8 11 Eating and drinking 4,123 3 -14 Food 41,936 28 - 3 Food 15,677 6 so Furniture, home Furniture, home furnishings 7,772 ** ** furnishings 3,290 -10 20 General merchandise 28,366 4 -10 General merchandise 12,880 34 11 Liquor 1,314 59 41 Liquor 1,200 8 16 Miscellaneous retail 26,191 33 - s Miscellaneous retail 11,294 45 32 Reported area and Oct-De 1976 Percent change Oct-Dec 1976 from Reported area and Oct-Dec 1976 Percent change Oct-Dec 1976 from kind of bu ine ( 000) Jul-Sep 1976 Oct-Dec 1975 kind of business ($000) Jul-Sep 1976 Oct-Dec 1975 TEXARKANA SMSA WACO SMSA Apparel, accessories Automoti e dealers 2,622 43 19 Apparel, accessories Automotive dealers, 5,557 36 16 ervice station Building materials, farm equipment Drug tores Eating and drinking Food Furniture home 16,406 8,662 1,676 3,740 14,677 -20 23 22 -2 10 20 -28 8 1 3 23 service stations Building materials, farm equipment Drugstores Eating and drinking Food Furniture, home 50,135 19,561 4,210 12,678 33,510 4 9 13 2 42 3 19 9 28 36 furni hing eneral mer handise Liqu r Mi ellaneou retail 3,732 10,990 7 146 5 32 32 - 2 3 18 furnishings General merchandise Liquor Miscellaneous retail 6,332 23,739 2,042 24,245 13 32 27 32 18 6 11 21 TYLER SMSA WICHITA FALLS SMSA pparel acces orie ,358 48 23 Apparel, accessories 5,942 30 15 utomotive dealer , Automotive dealers, ervi e tations 33,769 22 20 service stations 38,463 19 Building materials, Building materials, farm equipment 14,338 2 40 farm equipment 11,352 22 38 Drug tore 3,438 26 32 Drugstores 5,369 14 86 Eating and drinking F d Furniture, h me 6 799 14,232 -2 -29 21 -23 Eating and drinking Food Furniture, home 8,545 23,460 - 1 15 14 30 furni hing General merchandi e Liquor 1iscellaneou retail 7,410 19,309 1S,939 29 45 23 54 12 19 furnishings General merchandise Liquor Miscellaneous retail 5,919 20,502 2,422 21,336 5 36 11 24 12 3 5 11 Omitted to avoid disclosure. ** Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent. o data, or inadequate basis for reporting. Source: Sale Tax Divi ion State Comptroller of Public Accounts. Index of Consumer Prices, United States (1967=100) Percent change Mar 1977 Mar 1977 Mar from from Classification 1977 Feb 1977 Mar 1976 All items 178.2 0.6 6.4 Food 188.6 0.5 5.5 Housing 185.5 0.7 6.3 Apparel and upkeep 151.7 0.6 4.6 Transportation 174.8 0.9 9.4 Health and recreation 170.7 0.5 6.3 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Barometers of Texas Business (All figures are for Texas unless otherwise indicated.) All indexes are ba ed on the average months for 1967=100 except where other specification is made; all except annual inde:\.CS arc adjusted fr seasonal variation unlc s otherwise noted. Employment estimates arc compiled by the Texas Employment Commi ssion in ooperation with the Bureau of Labor Stati tics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The symbols u cd below impose qualifi ations as indicated here: p preliminary data ubject to revi ion; r-revised data; *-dollar totals for the fiscal year to date; t -employment data Cor wage and salary w rkcrs only. Mar Feb Mar Year-to-date average 1977 1977 1976 1977 1976 GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY Business activit y (index) 265.6 252.5 237.4 252.8 220.4 Estimates of personal income 7,269.4p $ 7 ,002.4p $ 6,466.5r $ 7,004.2 $ 6,185.3 (millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted) $ Income payments to individuals in U.S. (billions, at $ 1,486.0p $ l,461.2p $ 1,341.9r $ 1,462.7 $ 1,331.4 seasonally adjusted annual rate) 191.9 190.0 179.6 190.0 179.5 Wholesale prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) Con umer prices in Dallas (unadjusted index) 175.2 Con umer price in U.S. (unadjusted index) 178.2 177.1 167.5 176.9 167.1 45 44 Business failures (number) Business failure (liabilities, thousands) $ $ $ 18,349 $ $ 17,946 Sales of ordinary life insurance (index) 299.5 264.7 267.9 278.7 248.7 PRODUCTION 205.oP 216.9p 189.7r 208.7 185.9 Total electric power use (index) 268.8p 311.8p 241.3r 290.4 247.4 Residential electric power use (index) 174.lp 172.2p 159.3r 169.4 150.1 Industrial electric power use (index) 103.4p 103.2p 106.3r 103.4 109.1 Crude oi l production (index) 18.0 17.8 18.3 18.0 18.4 Average daily production per o il well (bbl.) 146.9 133.5 134.1 Crude oil processed by refineries (index) 136:sP 136.0p 132.3r 135.7 131.4 Industrial production -to tal (index) 142.5p 142.8p 138.lr 142.0 135.9 Indu trial production-total manufactures (index) 140.9p 141.6p 139.6r 139.8 135.8 Industrial production-durable manufactures (index) 143.8p 143.8p 137.or 143.7 136.1 Industrial production-nondurable manufactures (index) 115.lp 112.6p 1l3.5r 113.7 115.4 Industrial production-mining (index) 192.5p 192.5p 171.2r 192.5 173.1 lndu trial production-utilities (index) 135.lp 133.3p 128.lr 133.4 127.0 lndu trial production in U.S. (index) 337.5p 290.5p 255.4r 275.7 212.3 Urban building permits issued (index) 392.2p 318.8p 237.0r 322.5 236.6 New residential building authori zed (index) 197.4p 162.6p 121.0r 157.2 123.0 New residential units authorized (index) 269.6p 272.8p 270.9r 229.6 188.1 New no nresidential building authori zed (unadjusted index) AGRICULTURE Prices received by farmers (unadjusted ind ex) 198 199 187 196 186 Price paid by farmers in U.S. (unadjusted index) 201 200 191 200 190 Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid by farmers 98.5 99.5 97.9 98.0 97.9 FINANCE Bank debits (index) 509.6 479.7 426.3 480.3 395.6 Bank debit , U.S. (index) 382.4 379.1 332.5 376.6 317.6 Bank commercial loans o utstanding (index) 197.9 199.0 186.7 197.9 186.1 Weekly condition report of large commercial banks, Da ll as Federal Reserve District Loan (millions) $ 12,171 $ 12,005 $ 10,933 $ 12,079 $ 10,898 Loans and investments (millio n ) $ 18,505 $ 18,275 $ 16,595 $ 18,326 $ 16,395 Adjusted demand deposits (millions) $ 5,218 $ 4,925 $ 5,025 $ 5,089 $ 4,772 Revenue receipts of the state comptroller (thousands) $ 586.0 $ 658.4 $ 482.9 $ 586.3 $ 520.8 Federal Internal Revenue collections (millions) $ 2,038.0 $ 1,271.8 $ 1,180.4 $ 9,362.6* $ 7,256.1* Securities registrations-original applications Mutual investment companies (thousands) $ 85,813 $ 132,209 $ 62,498 $ 620,864* $ 418,396* All other corporate securities Texas companies (thousands) $ 8,266 $ 9,234 $ 6,570 $ 86,437* $ 68,214* Other companies (thousand ) $ 15 ,824 $ 17,635 $ 8,571 $ 89,681 * $ 75,940* Securities registra tion-renewa Is Mutual investment companies (t housands) Other corporate securities (thousands) $ 62,228 $ 9 $ 107,605 $ 0 $ 33,255 $ 0 $ 324,105* $ 4,110* $ 277,942* $ 2,271* LABOR Total nonagricultural employment (index)t Manufacturing em p loyment (index)t .. .. . Average weekly hours-m anufacturing (index)t Average weekly ea rnings-manufact uring (index)t Total nonagricultural employment (thousands) t . Total manufacturing employment (tho usands)t Durable-goods employment (thousands)t .. endurable-goods empl oyment (thousands) t 148.3p 132.0p 95.3p 188.7p 4,789.1 p 869.7p 477.4p 392.3p 147.8P 131.6p 95.7p 187.0p 4,758.7p 864.6p 474.2p 390.4p 142.5r 127.5r 98.2r 179.0r 4,599.8r 840.4~ 459.4 381.0r 147.8 131.7 94.7 185.9 4,763.6 865.9 475.5 390.4 141.8 127.1 99.5 180.3 4,569.3 835.5 456.3 379.2 Total civilian labor force in elected labor market area (thousands) 4,462.8p 4,437.3p 4,307.or 4,440.9 4,263.8 Nonagricultura l emtloyment in selected labor market area (thou ands) ..... . .......... . 3,923.4p 3,900.3p 3,801.6r 3,901.5 3,775.0 Manufacturing employment in areas (thousands)t . . . . . elected labor market . ..... . 714.4p 712.6p 703.1 r 712.6 699.6 Total unemployment in selected labor market areas (thousand ) 237.3p 251.7p 269.1r 248.0 266.9 Percent of labor force unemployed in selected labor market areas 5.3P 5.7P 5.6 6.2 Percent of total labor force unemployed 5.1 p 5.5P 5.4 6.1 BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, TEXAS THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712 Intrastate and Interstate Marketing Mechanisms Research Reports 1 and 3 The Identification of Functional Regions Based on Highway Traffic Flow Data ($4.00) Intermetropolitan Relationships-An Examination of National Air Travel Patterns ($4.00) by Charles P. Zlatkovich For executives making locational and marketing decisions, Research Reports 1 and 3 (published by the Bureau of Business Research) are exceptionally practical and useful studies. Both current highway traffic patterns for the state and air travel patterns for the state and nation are determined and illustrated on maps. Because such traffic may ultimately determine the volume for new businesses, the information is useful in locating sites for businesses, as well as in determining areas for marketing efforts. Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas at Austin P.O. Box 7459 Austin, TX 78712