TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS .4 Monthly Summary of Bwiness and Economic Conditions in Texas MAY 1961 VOL. XXXV, NO. 5 $3.00 A YEAR By Jerome Glynn Report of a special study: and Sanford Labovitz Population Growth in Texas Counties, 1950-1960 Editor ·-·--·-------------·-·John R. Stockton Managing Editor__ _____ _James J. Kelly BUSINESS RESEARCH COUNCIL John Arch White, Dean of the College of Business Administration (ez officio) ; John R. Stockton; Jessnmon Dawe; J. Neff; G. H. New· love; W. T . Tucker; and E . W. Walker. BUREAU OF BUSINESS John R. Stockton Director Florence Escott Aslristant to the Director Marjorie Cornwell Administrative Aasistant AICred G. Dale Research. Associate Ida M. Lambeth R••11roh A,,.ociate Mona H . White Reaearch. Associate Margaret Smith Senior Secrdar11 Claire S. Howard Senior Clerk T11pist Anna Merle Danz Libra'11 A88i6tant Mildred Anderson Statistical Assistant Eva A. Arias Statiatical Technician Robert Doniett Ojfaet Pre88 Operator RESEARCH Stanley A. Arbingast Associate Director Resources Specialist Francis B. May Statistician Charles 0 . Bettinger Junior Statistician James J. Kelly Research Aasociate Marie Fletcher Research ABBociate Roberta Steele Cartographer Cynthia Lee Senior Secretar11 Josephine Knipp& Senior Clerk T11piat Ruth Ashcroft Senior Clerk T11pi6t Jane A. Bowen Statietical Assistant Elnora W. Mixson Statistical Technician. Daniel P. Rosas Offset Press Operator Cooperaling Faculty Calvin Patton Blair Charles T . Clark A••ociate Profe88or of Assiatant Professor of International Trade Buainess Statistics John Lymberopoulos Robert H. Ryanlnt1trv.ctor in. Special, Instructor in Businesa Statistics Business Writing Assislanls Nell Abell; J ohn R. Brown, Jr., J ean S. Claunch ; Mary Blanche Fanett ; Bruce A. Fox ; J oe H . J ones ; Fredolin J . Kaderli; Alfred C. Mitchell ; Richard D. Sanders; Elizabeth R . Turpin ; Marilyn C. Whites. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW VOL. XXXV, NO. 4 MAY 1961 THIS MONTH'S ARTICLES The Business Situation in Texas ___ _ Population Growth in Texas Counties, 1950-1960. _______ March Retail Sales Best Since Last November ---------·-···-­Construction Valuations Reach New High --------·--------··-· THIS MONTH'S TABLES 3 .. -···-· -------·--··----6 ·· ------------_____ .. 12 ···----------·-14 Selected Barometers of Texas Business ___ ... -· ·-----· --····----------··--4 Population Change in Texas Counties ---·--·------·--II Estimates of Total Retail Sales ·----·-----·--·---·------· . ··-·----··· ...... ____ .... ·---·---12 Credit Ratios in Department and Apparel Stores _ ----------------·--------·--·--· 12 Retail Sales Trends by Kinds of Business· ···-··-----·----·------···----------------·--..... 13 Postal Receipts --------·-·--·--·--------·----------------------···-·-·-··-----··---···--·---13 Estimated Value of Building Authorized-------·--------------·--------·----·--------·· 14 Building Authorized in Texas-20 Selected Cities -------·-----------­Local Business Conditions ·---·-------·-. -·-·-··----·------·--·---------·----·---­Barometers of Texas Business -·-···---··--·--··---·-·-···-··---·-------------·· THIS MONTH'S CHARTS Texas Business Activity -----------------------··--·---------·--·­ Crude Petroleum Production in Texas --·-----. --·-··-·-------·-·----·--····--·----------­Average Crude Oil Production per Well in Texas --··--···------··-·-·-··-·-------· 5 Ordinary Life Insurance Sales in Texas ·-·----·---··-·-----·----·-··-------·-----··-·-·-·· 12 Newspaper Advertising Linage ·--·--------·----·-·-----·---··--·--·-------·--------13 Building Construction in Texas -----··-········------------------------------------····-14 Texas Industrial Production ------·------·---·---------------------·--------· -·--------------------15 Total Electric Power Use in Texas -------·---·----------------------------------------------------15 Published monthly by the Bureau of Business Research, College of Business Administration, The University of Texas Austin 12. Second·claas postage paid at Austin, Texas. Content of this publication is not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely. Acknowledgment of source will be appreciated. Subscription, $3.00 a year ; individual copies, 26 cents. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW ------· __ 16 -·---····--··---18 ·------· --------28 3 5 The Business Situation in Texas By FRANCIS B. MAY The seasonally adjusted Index of Texas Business Activity rose 4% in March. At 239% of the 1947-49 average the March index value was 5% above March 1960 and equal to its all-time high established in August 1960. This is a very encouraging development. The index reached a recession low of 213% in October of last year. It rose to 226% in November and held to that level in December. In January it rose again to 230%, holding that level in February. The fine March rise was undoubtedly assisted by the excel­lent volume of retail sales resulting from Easter sales pro­motions in the state. The state is finding its way out of the recession in a very gratifying manner. Nationally, the downturn which began in May of last year seems to have touched bottom. The Federal Reserve Board Index of Industrial Production slowed its rate of decline in February, holding at 102.0% of 1957, only a fraction of a point below its value of 102.4 in January. The Index held steady at 102.0% again for March. March per­sonal income for the nation totaled $409.6 billion, up $3.4 billion from February. There is general agreement that the recession has ended and that the recovery phase of the cycle is under way or near at hand. We cannot be certain that the trough of a recession has been passed until three or four months of uninterrupted upward movement of key business indicators has occurred. Of the four recessions that have affected business activity since World War II, this has been the mildest. As measured by the Index of Industrial Production, a decline of about 8% in industrial activity took place between the peak of activity of 111 % in January 1960 and the low of 102% in February of this year. During the 1948-49 recession ~ decline of 10% took place. During 1953-54 the decline was 11 %. The worst of the four recessions occurred in 1957-58 when the decline was 15%. In duration, the 1960-61 recession matched 1953-54 and 1957-58, both of which lasted for about 9 months. The recent recession was so mild in fact that some analysts regarded it as a case of incomplete recovery from the 1957­58 recession rather than a separate recession. This was particularly true during its early stages. Not until the bot­tom was at hand was it clear that the decline was of suffi­cient magnitude to be categorized as a cyclical downturn. The recession was felt most acutely in the steel and auto­mobile industries. Personal income declined from a high of $409.7 billion in October 1960 to $405.9 billion in Febru­ary of this year, a 1 % drop. In March it rose to $409.6 billion, a hairsbreadth from its all-time peak last October. Gross National Product, the total value of all goods and services produced valued at market prices, dropped from a peak of $505.0 billion in the second quarter of 1960 to Texas Business Activity Index • Adjusted for seasonal variation • 1947-1949 ..100 300 300 250 250 200 200 150 150 100 100 50 50 ·­ ... ~ ~ l-1 l ~A ~ ~ rJIV' rvv"\. V"' 1 - ,..)~ l.J'­ ~ fN'" ~~ 1947 '48 '49 '50 '51 '52 ·53 '54 '55 '56 ·57 '58 '59 '60 '61 0 $S03.5 billion in the third and fourth quarters, a decline of 011ly 0..1/L So small a drop is scal'!'cly noticeable and would 11ol ha\T aro11sPd 1·om111P11t i11 11on11al timr~. TIH' n·1·!'ssion s1'<'1t1s to have gain<'d its i11itial impetus from a ~udden change l'arly in 1960 from rapid build-up in inventories lo decisions by many firms lo live on stocks of goods on hand in order to reduce inventories. When the 1959 sled strike ended in November of that year there was a general expectation that 1960 would be a boom year SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS Percent change Mar F~b Mar 1961 1961 1960 Mar 1961 Mar 1961 -------from from Intl"" (1947-49=100) Febl961 Marl960 239 230 228 + 4 76 71 79 + 7 150 153 142 2 Total electric power consumption 359'' 379" 380r 6 Indm;trial power consumµtion Bank cll'l>ils 343• 286 365* 276 385r 273 + 4 -11 + 5 Ordin;iry life insurance sales 383 396 397 3 Total retail sales (19'>7-59 == 100) 104.1 99.7 100.5 + 4 + 4 Durable-goods sales (1957-59=100) 97.2 93.1 104.l + 4 7 Nondurable-goods sales (1957-59=100) . 107.6 103.2 98.7 + 4 + 9 Urhan building permits issued (1957-:,9=100) 115.9 97.3 113.3 + 19 + 2 Residential (1957-59=100) . . 94.6 79.9 106.7 + 18 -11 Nonresidential (1957-59=100) . 151.l 116.1 129.3 + 30 + 17 Total industrial production 175 170 173 + 3 + l Average weekly earnings manuracturin~ 178.2 177.7 174.5 .. + 2 Adjusted for tH...'asonal variation. • Preliminary. r Revised. •• Change is less than one-half of one percent. ushcring in the "Scintillating Sixties," the "Soaring Sixtit's," anything hut the "Sodden Sixties." Fairly early in 1960 it became obvious that demand was rising at less than the antiC'ipated rate. Since wholesale prices were steady, tlwrc were no speculative profits to be reaped from over-accumulation of inventories, hence the decision to curtail inventory accumulation. The resulting decline was 1·011<·pntrated primarily in manufacturer's inventories, par­ti('ularly durable goods. Why did demand in 1960 fail lo rise as rapidly as ex­1w1·L1·d? It is too early for a definitive analysis but certain facts stand out. The change in the composition of the product-mix of thP automobile industry was one outstand­ing factor. The aulomohile industry is one of the primary 1·ustomPrs of the steel industry. It is also a major buyer of flass. pa'.nt and heavy fabrics for upholstering. The rapid 111crease 111 th!' output of compact cars suhstantially reduced the ~emand for steel, glass, paint, and upholstering rnatenals. Another factor was the relatively low le\'el of oil well drilling in 1960. I~crPasing rn;ts of finding oil, static prices for ('J'llde, a relatively small rncrease in demand and in­crPasing crud!' imports all contributPd to the creation of an e~1\'ir?n.ment discoura9ing lo a high rate of drilling. The 011 dnllrng and producrng industries are large users of steel when they are prosperous. Housing starts declined in 1960. Total private construc­ tion al~o dedi1wd. Public ronstruction rose but not enough to offst'l the decline in the private sector. This resulted in a drop in demand for building materials, reinforcing steel, household furnishings and appliance of all kinds. Another important factor is that we have passed through the period of catching-up to the accumulated demand caused by shortages of consumer durable and nondurable goods resulting from World War II. Just when this period of catching-up ended is debatable, but it was approximately in 1955 or 1956. Some place it as late as 1957. The present principal sources of demand for consumer durable goods are replacement demand and demand resulting from forma­ tion of new households, Because of the low birth rate dur­ ing the 1930's and early 1940's, the rate of new household formations is relatively low. A strong pick-up is not ex­ pected until about 1965. Thus, we may have to contend with an absence of strong stimulants to demand until the middle of this decade. This does not mean chronic reces­ sion. It means an absence of any terrific booms of the kind that followed immediately after World War II when there were great shortages of homes, automobiles and other con­ sumer durables and large liquid assets (savings bonds and savings accounts) held by the public. One thing that could change the situation would be some new inw·ntion or discovery that would create large new markets. During the 1920's, the automobile and radio industries experienced a high rate of growth that created much employment and purchasing power. It is possible that the same thing could happen again as a result of some new invention resulting from, say, space research. It is cer~ain that high birth rates, a strong desire for more edu­ cat10n and the need of our society for more highly skilled workers and well educated engineers, scientists and social scientists contain the seed of a new and different kind of boom ~han an~ we have had before. We are just beginning to ~eal~ze that. m modern technology, trained minds are the nat10n s most important resource. One of the most important measures of progress of a modern nation is its output of B.S.'s, M.A.'s, Ph,D.'s and the amount of post-doctoral training offered. Miscellaneous freight carloadings rose 7% in March, after seasonal factors are taken into account. Miscellaneous freight consists largely of manufactured goods. At 76% of the 1947-49 average value the March index was 4% below March 1960. It was the highest value that the index has reached since September 1960. The_ seasonally adjusted index of electric power con­sumptwn dropped 5% in March to a value of 359% of the 1947-49 average rate of consumption. At this level it was?% below the year-ago value. The decline was due primar­ily to a decline in industrial electic power consumption. . Seasonal~y ~djusted industrial electric power consump­t10n fell 6 % rn March to a level of 11% below March, 1960. Consumers of electric power are divided into three categ?ries =. residential (households), commercial and in­dustrial. Smee industrial consumption declined more than total consumption, it is obvious that commercial and resi­denti~l sales sustained the total index, breaking its decline, The rndex of total power consumption in March was at the same level as January. Ordinary life insurance sales declined 3% in March after seasonal adjustment. At 383% of the 1947-49 average, sales were 4% below March of last year. Life insurance sales TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW in Texas held up well during the recession, establishing a high value of 453% in November 1960, which was just a shade under the all-time high of 457% established in December, 1959. The seasonally adjusted index of total retail sales rose 4% in March to a level 4% above its March 1960 value. Both consumer durables and nondurables shared the sales increase. Sales of consumer durables rose 4% to a level that was 7% below March 1960. Sales of automobile stores rose more than would be expected on a seasonal basis. The usual seasonal rise is 14%. The actual February-March rise was 18%. After this excellent improvement, sales were still be- Crude Petroleum Production in Texas Index • Adjusied for seasonal variolion • 1947-1949·100 200 200 150 150 ~ ~ i\ ~ v \ J"\., \_ /',,./ \. ~tI\., ltJ"-' ~ 100 100 - I VJ 50 50 0 1947 ;9 '51 '52 53 55 '56 '58 61 '"8 ·'50 ·'5A ·'SJ '5? 60 low March 1960. Furniture and household appliance stores showed the same pattern: a greater than seasonal rise that left sales below March, 1960. It was these two groups that held total March sales of durables below March of last year. Lumber, building material and hardware stores enjoyed a greater than seasonal rise that placed sales volume 7% above the year-ago level. Farm implement sales were par­ticularly good: 10% above February and 9% above March 1960. Hardware sales were also very good: 30% above February and 6% above March 1960. Nondurable goods sales rose 4% in March to a level 9% above March 1960. An early Easter resulted in a high volume of March apparel sales. A 35% February-March increase in this category exceeded the usual seasonal rise of 28%. At this level, apparel sales were 10% above March, 1960. Drug stores experienced a greater than seasonal rise in sales as did eating and drinking places. Food stores had a slightly less than seasonal rise. Gasoline service stations, general merchandise stores, and "other retail" stores all enjoyed greater than seasonal improvements in sales. National retail sales increased from $17.9 billion to $18.l billion, after seasonal adjustment. This was a month­to-month increase of 1 %. The rise in personal income un­doubtedly contributed to this increase. Sales of both dur­able and nondurable goods increased with nearly all of the increase concentrated in the durable goods area. Urban building permits issued in March rose 19% after seasonal adjustment. At 115.9% of the 1957-59 average, the index was 2% above March 1960. Both residential and nonresidential permits contributed to the rise. This lusty increase, coming after a 4% decline in the index in Feb­ruary is most welcome. The seasonally adjusted index of residential permits rose 18% in March after declining 4% in February. At 94.6% of the 1957-59 average, the March index was 11 % below March 1960. Nonresidential permits in March were 30% above Feb­ruary. In February permits dropped ll07< . At 151.1 % of the 1957-59 average, March nonresidential permits were 17% above March, 1960. Nationally, private nonfarm housing starts rose to an annual rate of 1.25 million in March after seasonal adjust­ment. This was a 10% gain over the 1.14 million rate in February. This series reached its recession low of 970,000 starts in December of last year. This was a 28% decline from its prosperity high of 1.35 million in February 1960. The March 1961 rate was 14% above the March, 1960 figure of 1.1 million starts. Applications for both F.H.A. commitments and VA appraisals increased in March. The index of average weekly earnings in manufacturing Average Daily Crude Oil ProduITY, 1950 Average Annual Percent Rates -3 -2 -1 0 2 3 1'otal growth Largest city 500000 15,000-49,999b + • 1111111111~~~WJIBJifil 5,000-14,999• 2,500-4,999d 0-2.4~9· l'Vatura l increase Largest city 5 !5,000-49,999b 5,000-14,999' 2,500-4,999d o.ooo + • 11111111111~' 0-2,499•. Number of counties in each size range: 3 16, h24, <' 76, d63, and ~1s. largest city was less than 2,500 actually had higher aver­age rates of total growth and net migration than did counties in which the population of the largest city was between 2,500 and 5,000. Note, however, that differences in the population size of cities of less than 5,000 are so slight that differential growth rates are unlikely to appear. High total growth rates for counties with cities of 15,000 or more inhabitants were largely a function of net migra­tion and not so much of natural increase, even though the rate of natural increase becomes progressively higher as city size increases. All counties in Texas had an excess of births over deaths and, therefore, all of them gained popu· lation through natural increase. However, since migrants are typically persons in their reproductive years ( 15-44), Texas counties with small cities may come to have an excess of deaths over births in the near future. These counties are losing their most reproductive persons, and a declining birth rate will be the ultimate result. At the same time those who remain in these counties will come to have a higher average age and, as a com;~q~1ence; a higher rate.of mortality. Thrrdore, with a drcl1111ng h1rth rate. and. 111­creasing death rate as products of selective out-m1grat1011, non-metropolitan counties are likely to undergo even greater declines in population betwe~n 1960 an.d.1970. On the other hand, counties that contam large cities should continue to increase their populations through both net migration and natural increase. . Nine counties are extreme exceptions to the pattern m Chart 1. These are Castro, Chambers, Culberson, Hansford, K<'ncdy, Morris, Parmer, Reagan, and Yoakum. All ~f them experienced high growth rates even t~ough thelf largest cities were less than 2,500. These count1e.s share t.wo characteristics in common: ( 1) most of them high median incomes (over $3,000 for five of the counties) and (2) high rates of net migration (only Reagan county l~st throu.gh miuration). Although considered least metropolitan by size of largest city, in terms of me~ian income .they w~uld be considered as highly metropolitan, and t~1s explams t.he high rates of net migration. No county with a large city PxpcriPnccd a low growth rate from 1950 to 1960. Population Si:e as a Metropolitan Characteristic The second metropolitan characteristic considered is the number of people in each county. As in the case of city size a direct relationship between growth rates and the population size of counties should be found. Chart 2 gives the average growth rates for counties grouped according to population size in 1950. The relationship is in the expected direction for all three rates--tolal growth, net migration, and natural increase. Unlike the city size characteristic there are no exceptions to the anticipated pattern. However, counties in the fourth (5,000-24,999) and fifth (0-4,999) size groups have similar average rates. This is consistent with the finding for the city size characteristic, i.e. that below a certain point population size is not closely related to growth rates. Since there are no exceptions to the pattern in Table 2, population size appears to be a better metropolitan charac­ teristic than size of largest city. However, certain similar­ ities are apparent. In both Charts 1 and 2 total growth and net migration vary more by size groups than does natural increase. Furthermore rates of natural increase, besides being much the same for the five population size groups, wPre positive for all counties in Texas. Thus, variation in net migration rates was the major factor in differences in the Lota! growth rates of counties. Thrre arc certain limitations involved in treating the population size of a county as a metropolitan characteristic. Some counties have relatively large populations either be­ cause they encompass a large land area or because they have a large agricultural population. These counties may he predominantly rural in character, but judged in terms of population size alone they would be considered more metropolitan than counties that have smaller but more concentrated populations. In general, however, the popu­ lation size of counties bears a close correspondence to other metropolitan characteristics in its relationship to growth. The following counties are the major exceptions to the patterns found in Chart 2: Aransas, Culberson, Hansford, Kenedy, Reagan, and Yoakum. All six had relatively small populations in 1950 but experienced high growth rates over the decade. The reverse did not occur; not one county with a large population experienced a low growth rate over the decade. CHART 2 AVF.RAGF. RATES OF TOTAL GROWTH, NF.T MIGRATION, AND NATl lRAL INCREASE, 1950-1960, t'OR TEXAS COUNTIES GROUPED llY POPULATION SIZE, 1950 Average Annual Percent Rates -3 ~2 -1 0 2 To tal growth Population s'ize 50,000-99,999b 100,000 + • 1111111,11~~~CTJID!fil 25,000-49,999° 5,000-24,999d 0-4,999 ° (-0.5 Natural in.crease Population size 50,000-99,999b 25,000-49,999° lOO.OOO + • 111111111111rf!l 5,000-24,999d 0-4,999 • Number of counties in each size range: •13, hlO, ' 36, d}50, and '45. Population Density as a Metropolitan Characteristic The population density of a county (the number of per· sons per square mile) is considered as indicative of metro· politan character on the grounds that metropolitan areas typically have high population densities. In line with the major hypothesis of this study, growth rates should in· crease with increasing density of population. Chart 3 shows the average rates of total growth, net migration, and nat· ural increase for counties grouped according to levels of population density. The two highest density groups (40-99.9 and 100 or more persons per square mile) far surpass the other three groups in total growth. In fact, those counties with a popu· lation density of less than 40 persons per square mile ex· perienced, on the average, a decline in population over the decade. But the relationship between density and natural increase is not clear, with the differences among the groups of counties being slight and not always in the direction anticipated. The net migration rate is again the most important growth component in accounting for the differences in total growth rates among the five groups. There are thirteen major exceptions to the overall pat­tern in Chart 3. These counties had low population den­sities but experienced high growth rates. They included Andrews, Castro, Culberson, Deaf Smith, Hansford, Ken­edy, Ochiltree, Parmer, Reagan, Reeves, Swisher, Val Verde, and Yoakum. Most of these counties had high me­dian incomes at the start of the decade. No counties with high population densities experienced extremely low growth rates. CHAU 3 AVERAGE RATES OF TOTAL GROWTH, NET MIGRATION, AND !liATt:RAL INCREASE, 1950-1960, FOR TEXAS COUNTIES GROUPED BY POPULATION DENSITY, 1950 Average Annual Percent Rates --3 -2 -1 0 2 3 Total growth Population density• 100 +. 40-99.9b 20-39.9' 10-19.9d 0-9.9• Net migratio11. Populatio11. density 100 +. 40-99.9b 20-39.9' 0-9.9• Natural increase Population density 100 +. 40-99.9b 20-39.9' 10-19.9d 0-9.9• Number of counties in each density range: •16, b2J, <67, •67, and •83. • Perscns per square mile. Metropolitan Location Numerous observations suggest that counties containing all or part of the largest urban center in a SMSA are highly metropolitan in character, with metropolitan traits dimin­ishing outward through successive rings of counties. If this is the case, it should be expected that central metropolitan counties (those containing all or part of the metropolitan center) experienced higher rates of growth than adjacent counties, and that the latter experienced higher rates of growth than counties farther removed. To test this, each county was classified as to its location relative to the largest urbanized area in each SMSA. Counties which contain all or part of the largest urbanized area in a SMSA are con­sidered first ring counties. Counties touching upon first ring counties but within a SMSA boundary are considered second ring counties. Third ring counties also touch upon first ring counties but are not part of a SMSA. Counties are classified as fourth ring if they touch on either a second or a third ring county. Finally, fifth ring counties are those which touch on a fourth ring county. Admittedly, this ring classification is not an exact measure of distance from the largest urbanized area. A more sophisticated study would have employed distance in formulating county rings. Never­theless, the pattern in the growth rates shown in Chart 4 substantiates the use of the ring classification. CUA.RT 4 AVERAGF. RATES OF TOTAL GROWTH, NET MIGRATION, AND NATURAL l'iCHt:ASE, 1950-1960, FOR TEXAS COlJXTIES GROUPED lff METllOPOLITA:'I' RIXGS,• 1960 Average Annual Percent Rates -3 -2 -1 2 Totctl growth R ing 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th N et migration Ring 1st 2nd 3rd 5th Na tural imcrease R ing !st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th • Description of rings: lst-23 metropolitan counties containing alJ or part of the largest urbanized area in a standard metropolitan statistical area. 2nd-6 metropolitan counties that touch upon a 1st ring county. 3rd-96 non-metropolitan cc untie:; that touch upon a 1st ring county. 4th-102 non-metropolitan counties that touch upon either a 2nd or a 3rd ring county. 5th-27 non-metropolitan counties that touch upon a 4th ring county. The major feature in Chart 4 is the very high average total growth rate for first ring metropolitan counties. The rates for these counties were on the average four times greater than those for any other of the four rings. This high average rate was a product of high rates for both net mi­gration and natural increase. Similar to the other metropolitan characteristics, the growth differentials for the five rings of counties are largely due to differences in net migration. There was little difference among the five rings with regard to natural in­crease, the exception being first ring counties, whose aver­age rate of natural increase was substantially higher than the average rates for the remaining four rings. Three major exceptions to the pattern in Chart 4 are Calhoun, Victoria, and Val Verde counties. Th~y are fifth ring counties with high total growth rates. This was ~ue to both net migration and natural increa~t'. No first rmg counties experienced cxlremely low growth rates. Median Income as a Metropolitan Characteristic At least over recent decades, residents of metropolitan areas in the United States have had much higher incomes than residents of rural and other non-metropolitan parts of the country. On this basis median income is considered a metropolitan characteristic. Chart 5 shows the relation­ship between median income and population growth. Cn.utT 5 AVt:llAGE HATES OF TOTAL GROWTll, NET MIGRATION, ANO NATlllUI. INCRt:ASE, 1950-1960, FOH TEXAS COllNTIES GROlll'ED BY MEDIAN INCOME,• 1949 Average Annual Percent Rates -3 -2 -1 0 Total f1rowth M edian income 2,671-4,098' J,738-2,114' J,303-J ,729d O-l,300• l?f1)~'7ffl~~f Net 'm.igration M edian income 2,671-4,098' 2,115-2 ,620b ~~~[4,, 1,738-2,114 ' ~................ 1,303-1,729• 0-1,300• Nuturnl i1&.e.rease Median inconie 2.671-4.098·•r 2. 11 5-2,620b 1,738-2,114 ' l.303-J,729d 0-1,300• Number of counties in each income group : "51, b51, t·50, dfi2, and •·5o. • 'I'ht.• mt•dian is the value which divides the distr ibution into two t."Qunl pnrts--t:ne-hnlf of the case.i Callin~ below this value and one-half 11f the nt~1.·s cxct.-t.'(ling this vulue. M~dian income in this case are for !uroilh·l'\. ttml unrelated individuals. The median income class was e.:ili­nrnl1·4I for tht• folluwin){ counlil·.s : Bo rden, Glus:5ccck, Irion, Ktnt.:Jy, King, l.1 \"i11:c Ml·Mull <'n, Ruherts, and Sterlin~~­ Total growth rates in Chart 5 follow the expected pat­lt•m, with the first group of counties (those with median incomrs of between $2,671 and $4,098) growing at sub­stantially higher rates than the other four. Net migration and natural incrrase have the same general relationship to median income, but there are two minor exceptions. Coun­ties in the income group $2,115-$2,620 had a lower aver­age rate of net migration than counties in the income group $1,7:18-$2,114. The exception for natural increase is the fourth income group ($1,303-$1,729) which had a lower average rate than the fifth income group ( $0-$1,300). Four counties are major exceptions to the pattern found in Chart 5. Two counties, Kenrdy and Starr, had low median incomes and high growth rates, while Hemphill and Mitchell, had high median incomes and low growth rates. Kenedy and Starr grew mainly by natural increase, while Hemphill and Mitchell lost population through migration. Summary and Conclusions Between 1950 and 1960 the most metropolitan counties in Texas consistently had the highest average rate of total growth on each characteristic: size of largest city, popula­tion size, population density, metropolitan location, and median income. These counties also had the highest rates of net migration and natural increase. A rather surprising finding was that all Texas counties had positive rates of natural increase, but the rates were not consistently associated with metropolitan character­istics. Although the most metropolitan counties consistently had the highest average rate of natural increase, differ­ences among the other county groups are neither great nor consistent. In general, the data suggest that differences in the total growth rates of counties are largely the product of net migration rather than natural increase. It is significant that most counties showed a net loss in population through mi­gration. Only the most metropolitan counties had a positive average net migration rate. Two unexpected findings relate to the size of largest city and median income as metropolitan characteristics. With regard to size of largest city, the fourth group of counties had a lower average rate of net migration than did the fifth group. In the case of median income the sec­ond group of counties had a lower average rate of net migration than did the third group. Population size and ring location are the two metropolitan characteristics which were most consistently associated with growth. Population size, without exception, exhibited a direct relationship to average rates of total growth, net migration, and natural increase. Ring location displayed perfect patterns with re­gard to total growth and net migration, but was somewhat inconsistent in the case of natural increase. Apparently, the population size of a county and its spatial proximity to a metropolitan center are the most important factors in de­termining growth. The total growth rate was highest for first ring counties, i.e. those containing all or part of the largest urbanized area in a SMSA. Almost all of the major exceptions found in the analysis were counties with a high total growth rate but not highly metropolitan in character. Since most of the exceptions were counties with high growth rates and low metropolitan characteristics, it appears that to be highly metropolitan is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for high growth rates. If the 1950-1960 population trends continue, there will be a further concentration of the population of Texas into a few counties. Throughout the decade concentration was largely a product of differences in the net migration rates of counties. However, differences in rates of natural in­ crease are likely to play a more important role in the future than in the past, with some counties facing the possibility of an eventual excess of deaths over births. Three statistics on population change between 1950 and 1960 are re­of natural increase (births in excess of deaths ) as a percent of the mean ported below for each of the 254 counties in Texas. The first number population over the decade. The third number expresses the average an­immediately after the name of a county is the average annual change in nual amount of net migration as a percent of the mean population over number of Inhabitants as a percent of the average population size of the the decade. In addition, the last column contains the final 1960 total county over the decade. The second number Is the average annual amount county population taken from the Bureau of the Census. Jbte ol R•te 0£ R•te 11f Tot•I Ihle or Rate or Rate nf Tot•I R•lr. nf Ralf' nf n.1,. nf Tnt11I Counly Tol•I N•lunl Net Mi -Crowth lnerulfl grati on Populalion 1960 CGunty Total Natural Net Mi · Crowth lncre ..e gralion Porullit ion 1960 County Tnt•I N•lnr"I Crowlh lnnf'ur. Sf't Mi· aration rnruhtinn I%0 ..\.nderaon -1.2 1.0 -2.2 28,162 Gillespie -0.6 0.9 -1.3 10,048 Moore 1.0 2.7 -1.7 14.77~ ..\ndrewa 9.2 2.7 6.5 13,450 Gluscock 0.3 1.4 -1.2 l ,118 Morris 2.9 1.9 1.0 12.676 Ange1tna 1.0 1.5 -0.5 39,814 Goliad -1.4 1.4 -2.8 6.429 Motley - 3.2 I.I - 4.4 2,870 Aransaa Archer 4.9 -I.I 1.6 1.5 3.4 -2.6 7.006 6.110 Gonzalea Gray -1.7 2.4 1.1 1.9 -2.9 0.5 17,845 31,535 Nacogdoches Navarro -0.8 -1.5 1.4 0.9 -2.1 -2.4 28,046 34,423 Armatronc -1.2 0.8 -2.0 1,966 Grayson 0.4 1.3 -1.0 73,043 Newton -0.4 1.5 -1.9 10.372 Atascosa · -0.6 1.8 -2.6 18,828 Gregg 1.3 1.9 --0.6 69,436 Nolan -0.4 1.7 -2.1 18.963 Auotln --0.6 0.7 -U 13,777 Grimes -1.7 1.1 -2.8 12,709 Nueces 2.9 2.9 0.0 221,573 Bailey Bandera Butrop Baylor Bee Bell Bexar Blanco Borden Bo1que Bowle Brazoria 1.8 -1.2 -1.5 -1.5 2.7 u 3.1 -0.3 -0.3 -0.9 -0.3 4.8 2.3 0.6 1.0 !.I 2.6 2.4 2.4 0.9 0.6 0.4 1.8 2.4 --0.6 -1.8 -2.6 -2.6 0.2 0.0 0.7 -1.2 --0.9 -1.3 -2.0 2.5 9,090 3.892 16,925 6,893 23,765 94,097 687,161 3,667 l,076 10,809 69,971 76,204 Guadalupe Hale Hall Hamilton Hanaford Hal'deman Hardin Harris Harrison Hartley Haokell Hays 1.3 2.6 -4.0 -2.3 3.9 -2.1 2.3 U -0.6 1.3 -2.1 !.I 2.1 2.4 1.3 0.2 1.9 1.1 1.7 2.Z 1.5 1.8 1.4 2.7 --0.8 0.2 -5.2 -2.5 2.0 -3.2 0.6 2.1 -1.9 -0.6 -3.5 -1.6 29,017 36,798 7,322 8.488 6,208 8.275 24,629 1,243.168 46,594 2,171 11,174 19,934 Ochiltree Oldham Orange Palo Pinto Panola Parker Parmer Pecos Polk Potter Presidio 4.4 1.4 3.9 1.8 -1.3 0.6 4.0 1.8 -1.6 4.5 -3.0 1.5 1.7 2.( 1.8 1.4 I .I 2.1 2.4 1.3 2.1 2.1 2.8 -0.3 1.5 --0.1 -2.7 -0.5 2.8 --0.5 -2.9 2.4 -6.1 9,380 1,928 60,357 20,616 16,870 22,880 9,583 11,967 13,861 115,680 5,460 Braim 1.8 2.6 -0.9 44.896 Hemphill -2.6 1.2 -3.8 3,186 Raina -3.6 0.2 -3.8 2,993 Brewster -1.3 2.0 -3.3 6,434 Henderson -0.7 1.0 -1.7 21,786 Randall 8.4 2.0 6.4 33,913 Briscoe 0.1 1.6 -1.4 3,677 Hidalgo 1.2 3.3 -2.1 180,904 Reacan 1.9 3.8 -2.0 3,782 Brooks --0.7 2.6 -3.1 8.609 Hill -2.8 0.6 -3.4 23,660 Real -1.8 1.2 -2.9 2,079 Brown Bur1non -1.6 -1.5 0.7 1.1 -2.2 -2.6 24,728 11,177 Hockley Hood 0.9 0.3 2.6 0.7 -1.7 -o.4 22,340 6,443 Red River Ree,·es -3.3 4.o 1.0 3.1 -4.2 0.9 16,682 17,644 Burnet -1.1 0.9 -2.0 9,265 Hop kine -2.3 0.6 -2.8 18,594 Refugio 0.8 2.2 -1.4 10,976 Caldwell -1.2 1.5 -2.7 17,222 Houston -1.6 1.1 -2.8 19,376 Roberta 0.4 1.2 -0.9 1,076 Calhoun CallahH 6.7 -1.• 3.1 0.4 2.6 -1.7 16,692 7,929 Howard Hudopeth 4.0 -2.5 2.7 3.0 1.3 -5.5 40,139 3,343 Robertson Rockwall -2.1 -o.5 1.3 1.2 -3.4 -1.7 16,167 6,878 Cameron 1.9 3.6 -1.6 161,098 Hunt --0.8 0.8 -1.6 39,399 Runnels -1.I 1.3 -2.4 16,016 Camp -1.1 1.2 -2.3 7,849 Hutchinson 0.9 2.6 -1.6 34,419 Rusk -1.5 1.2 -2.7 36,421 Canon Can 1.3 -1.3 1.7 1.3 -0.5 -2.6 7,781 23,496 Irion Jack -2.9 -0.4 q 0.9 -4.0 -1.3 l,183 7,418 Sabine San Auiru1tine -1.6 -1.3 1.6 u -3.2 -2.8 7,302 7,722 Cutro 4.9 2.3 2.6 8,923 Jackson 0.8 2.1 -u 14,040 San Jacinto -1.6 0.7 -2.3 6,163 Chamben 2.1 1.8 0.9 10,379 J'uper 1.0 1.6 --0.6 22,100 San Patricio 2.3 3.1 -0.8 45,021 Cherokee -1.8 l .l -2.7 33,120 Jetf Davis -2.8 2.0 -4.7 1,682 San Saba -3.0 0.9 -4.0 6,381 Childreoa -3.6 0.9 -4.6 8,421 Jeffenon 2.3 2.0 0.3 246,669 Schleicher --0.2 1.6 -1.7 2,791 Clay -1.7 0.7 -2.4 8,351 Jim Hogg -0.7 1.9 -2.6 6.022 Scurry -I.I 2.2 -3.3 20.369 Cochran 0.8 2.6 -1.7 6.417 Jim Wells 2.1 2.7 -0.6 34,648 Shackelford -2.2 0.8 -3.0 3,990 Coke -1.2 1.6 -2.8 3,689 Johnson 1.0 0.9 0.1 34,720 Shelby -1.4 u -2.6 2M79 Coleman -2.2 0.8 -3.0 12,468 Jones -1.4 1.2 -2.6 19,299 Sherman 0.6 !.I --0.5 2,605 CoHln -0.1 1.2 -1.3 41,247 Karnes -U 2.0 -3.4 14.995 Smith u 1.8 -0.1 86,860 Colllniroworth -3.7 1.2 -4.9 6,276 Kaufman -0.4 I.I -1.5 29,931 Somervell 0.1 0.2 --0.1 2,677 Colorado 0.6 1.8 -1.1 18.463 Kendall 0.8 1.1 -0.3 5,889 St&rr 2.1 2.9 --0.9 17.137 Comal 1.9 1.9 0.0 19,844 Kenedy 3.3 2.6 0.8 884 Stephens -1.8 0.8 -2.6 8,885 Comanche -2.7 0.2 -2.8 11.866 Kent -2.6 1.4 -4.0 1,727 Sterlinc -0.9 1.6 -2., l,177 Concho -3.2 1.2 -4.4 3,672 Kerr 1.8 0.9 0.9 16,800 Stonewall -2.0 1.1 -3.1 3,017 Cooke 0.2 1.4 -1.2 22,660 Kimble -1.6 1.1 -2.7 3,943 Sutton 0.0 2.1 -2.1 3,738 COtTeil 3.8 1.5 2.3 23.961 King -3.0 1.1 -4.1 640 Swisher 2.5 2.2 0.8 10,607 Cottle -3.7 1.4 -6.1 4.207 Kinney --0.8 1.8 -2.6 2,462 Tarrant 3.9 2.0 1.9 638,495 Crane 1.7 2.6 -0.9 4,699 Kleberg 3.1 3.2 -0.1 30,062 Taylor 4.6 2.0 2.6 101,078 Crockett 0.8 2.1 -1.6 4,209 Knox -2.6 1.8 -4.3 7,867 Terrell -2.0 1.8 -3.8 2,600 Crosby 0.8 2.4 -1.8 10.347 Lamar -2.3 1.0 -3.3 34.234 Terry 2.2 2.8 -o.6 16,286 Culberson 4.2 2.6 1.7 2,794 Lamb 0.9 2.3 -1.4 21,896 Throckmorton -2.7 0.7 -U 2.767 Dallam -1.9 1.6 -3.4 6,302 Lampasaa -0.5 1.4 -1.9 9,418 Titus -0.3 1.2 -1.3 16.785 Dallas 4.3 2.0 2.3 951,527 LaSalle -2.2 2.1 -4.3 6.972 Tom Green 0.9 2.0 -1.1 64,630 Dawson o.o 2.6 -2.6 19.185 Lavaca -0.9 1.0 -2.0 20,174 Travis 2.7 2.0 0.8 212,135 Deaf Smith 3.7 2.6 -1.2 13,187 Lee -1.3 1.0 -2.3 8,949 Trinity -2.8 0.9 -3.7 7,589 Dell& -4.2 0.8 -4.6 6,860 Leon -1.9 0.8 -2.7 9,961 Tyler -0.6 1.3 -1.9 10,666 Denton 1.4 1.2 0.2 47.432 Liberty 1.7 2.0 -0.4 31,595 Upahur -0.6 I .I -1.6 19,793 DeWitt -1.0 1.4 -2.4 20,683 Limestone -2.1 0.6 -2.7 20,413 Upton 1.6 3.1 -1.5 6,239 Dickens -3.8 1.6 -6.2 4.963 Lipscomb -0.7 1.2 -2.0 3,406 Uvalde 0.5 ·2.l -1.6 16,814 Dimmit -0.6 2.3 -2.8 10,095 Live Oak -1.4 1.7 -3.2 7,846 Val Verde 3.8 3.0 0.8 24.461 Donley -3.3 0.6 -3.8 4,449 Llano -0.3 0.6 --0.8 5,240 Van Zandt -1.7 0.6 -2.2 19,091 Duval -1.5 .2.2 -3.8 13,398 Loving o.o 1.8 -1.8 226 Victoria. 3.9 2.7 1.2 46,475 Eutland -2.0 0.6 -2.6 19,626 Lubbock 4.3 2.7 1.6 166,271 Walker 0.6 0.8 -0.2 21,476 Ector 7.3 2.8 4.6 90,995 Lynn -0.I 2.1 -2.2 ID.914 Waller 0.1 1.2 -1.l 12.071 Edward a -2.3 1.6 -3.8 2,317 McCulloch -2.8 0.9 -3.7 8,816 Ward 1.1 2.2 -1.1 14,917 Ellis -0.6 1.4 -1.9 43,395 McLennan 1.4 1.8 -0.3 150,091 Waahinirton -0.7 0.9 -1.6 19.146 El Paoo 4.7 3.4 1.3 314,070 McMullen -0.6 1.5 -2.1 1,116 Webb 1.4 3.2 -1.8 64,791 Erath '-1.3 0.4 -1.6 16,236 Madison -1.7 0.8 -2.5 6,749 Wharton 0.6 2.1 -1.5 38,162 Falla -2.3 1.2 -3.4 21 ,263 Marion -2.3 1.2 -3.5 8,049 Wheeler -2.6 I .I -3.7 7.947 Fannin -2.7 0.6 -3.1 23,880 Martin -0.9 2.3 -3.2 6,068 Wichita 2.3 1.9 0.3 123.628 Fayette Fisher -1.7 -3.3 0.7 1.2 -2.4 -4.6 20.384 7.861> Muon Matairorda -2.7 1.8 0.7 2.1 -3.4 _:_a.a 3,780 26,744 Wilbarger Willacy -1.6 -0.4 1.3 3.4 -2.8 -3.8 17.748 20,084 Floyd 1.6 2.2 -0.6 12,369 Maverick 1.7 3.8 -2.2 U ,508 WiHiamson -1.0 1.2 -2.2 36,044 Foard -3.0 0.8 -3.8 3,125 Medina I.I 2.1 -1.0 18.904 Wilson -1.0 1.6 -2.6 13,267 Fort Bend 2.6 2.4 0.2 40,627 Menard -3.4 0.9 -4.3 2,964 Winkler 3.0 2.6 0.4 13,662 Franklin -2.0 0.4 -2.5 6,101 Midland 9.0 3.0 6.0 67,717 Wise 0.6 0.9 -0.4 17,012 Freestone -2.2 0.8 - 3.0 12,526 Milam -0.6 1.2 -1.7 22,263 Wood -1.9 0.7 -2.6 17,663 Frio - 0.2 2.2 -·2.5 10.112 Milla _:2.9 0.3 -3.2 4,467 Yoakum 6.0 2.4 3.6 8,032 Gaines 3.2 2.9 0.3 12.267 Mitchell -2.4 1.9 -4.3 11 ,255 Youn« 0.3 1.1 -0.8 17,154 Galveston 2.2 1.9 0.2 140,364 Montague - 1.4 0.8 -2.1 14,893 Zapata o.o 2.0 -2.0 4,393 Gal'Ja 0.5 2.0 -1.4 6.611 Montgomery 0.9 . 1.4 -0.5 26,839 Zavala: • ).3 2.7 -1.5 12,696 MAY 1961 MARCH RETAIL SALES BEST SINCE LAST NOVEMBER By IDA M. LAMBETH Consumers loosened their purse strings during March 11ot only for Easter finery but also to boost the sales of the long-suffering durable goods retailers. This increased spending on the retail level indicates a returning con­sumer confidence which economists have watched for since last fall. There are several contributing factors in this willingness to buy on the part of the consumer-Consumers are more nearly free of debt than they have been since last August. New claims for unemployment insurance dropped to the lowest point since last November and claims paid were lower than in mid-February-the high point. Factory, construction, textile, and apparel store employees had overtime pay in their paychecks which they did not have in January or February. Texas retail sales in March rose 18% from February, or a rise of 4'.I,· after adjustment for seasonal variation_ The national rise was 1 % after adjustment for seasonal varia­tion. March 1961 volume in Texas was estimated at $923.0 million, seasonally adjusted. The national sales volume for March was estimated at $18.l billion, seasonally adjusted. ESTIMATES OF TOTAL RETAIL SALES Mar J an-Mar Percent change 1961 1961 Mar 1961 Mar 1961 Jan-Mar 1961 from from from (millions of dollars) Feb 1961 Mar 1960 Jan-Mar 1960 TOT AL .... ... ......... $ 938.5 $ 2,555.0 + 18 + 3 -1 Durable goods• . 311.2 824.7 + 19 -7 -10 Nondurable goods 627 .3 1,730.3 + 17 + 9 + 3 •Contains automotive stores. furniture stores, and lumber, building material, and hardware stores. As nationally, Texas sales for March were the best since last November, though short of last April-1960's best month-when sales reached a seasonally adjusted $974.6 million. In the March-to-March comparison, Texas retail sales registered a 3% rise. In the three-month period of 1961, Texas retail sales fell 1 % short of the like period of 1960. March sales in Texas of durable goods, including auto­motive stores, furniture stores, and lumber, building ma­terial, and hardware stores, rose 19% above February, or 4% after adjustment for seasonal variation. Estimated at $:Hl.2 million on an unadjusted basis, this was the best month since last November for durable goods. Last March, sal~s volume dropped 4% from February when seasonally ad1usted. J\lar<"h 1961 sales volume was still 7% below last March, and the thn•e-month period of 1961 trailed the same rwriod of 1960 hy 10%. The outlook for durable goods is that the second quartPr of 1961 will bring continued im­provement. I nYPntories are now considered to be in balance so dealt'rs will no longer he working off inventories and produc!ion will he more rrlatcd to sales. Automotive ston·s, expected lo rise 14'/,-seasonally actually rose Hl/{ from February, hut fell 14% below las~ Man:h. In the year-to-year comparison, 1961 trailed the three-month period of 1960 by 15%. Automotive accessory and parts storrs' sales have hrrn rising steadily. There are more cars on the road today between four and six years old. These call for rww scat covers, new tires, and new parts. Furniture and household appliance stores registered a 600 500 400 300 100 0 Ordinary life Insurance Sales In Texas Index •. Adjusted for seaso nal variation • 1947-1949°100 19.0 ·;a '49 ·50 ·51 '52 ·53 5' '55 56 •face omount of ordinary life insvronce policies sold. 57 58 59 60 '61 sales gain of 11 % over February while seasonally expected to rise 10% . Sales trailed March 1960 by 3%. The first quarter of 1961 trailed the first quarter of 1960 by 11%. This group of stores, heavily affected by new homebuilding, must wait for an upsurge in new homebuilding and then for the completion of those homes before they can experience any great improvement. Lumber, building material, and hardware sales, expected to rise 21 % seasonally, actually rose 34% above February and 7% above last March. The three-month period of 1961 was equal lo the like period of 1960. March was the best month since last August. Nationally, the construction in· dustry employed 200,000 new workers in March-the largest gain for any March in the postwar period. Nondurable goods, including apparel stores, food stores, drug stores, general merchandise stores, eating and drink­ing places, gasoline and service stations, and other retail stores, registered a sales gain of 17% over February, 9% over last March, and the three-month period of 1961 reg- CREDIT RATIOS IN DEPARTMENT AND APPAREL STORES Ratio o! Ratio at credit sales collections to to net sales• outstandingst Number o! ----­ Classification r eporting Mar Mar stores 1961 1960 Mar Mar 1961 1960 ALL STORES . 54 73.1 73.4 38.9 89.5 BY CITIES Austin ....... .... . . 5 67.8 65.3 48.0 50.0 Cleburne ...... ·········-·· .. 3 46 .4 51.6 45.5 47.0 Dallas .. . ................ . 78.5 78.3 38.7 89.7 F ort Worth 67.8 69.5 31.5 34.5 Ga lveston ···-······ 3 63 .2 63 .6 46.0 41.7 Houston _ . 4 77 .9 78.9 43.6 43.l Sa n Antonio 3 78.3 79.3 40.1 42 .0 Waco 4 60.4 59.4 44.9 41.5 BY TY PE OF STORE Department stores (over $1 million) .... 19 74.0 74.1 38.2 88.9 Department stores (under $1 million) 16 51.5 52.7 88.7 88.9 Dry goods and apparel stores 4 75.1 76.0 54.1 52.2 Women's specialty shops . 8 71.7 73.8 40.3 42 .2 Men's clothing stores .......... . 74.3 74.2 43.6 41.7 BY VOLUME OF NET SALES Sl ,500,000 and over 22 74.3 74.7 88 .7 89.4 $500,000 to $1,500,000 . 11 62.1 61.6 48.1 42.7 5250,000 to $500,000 11 50.3 52.7 38.8 89.7 Less than $250,000 ···-­10 47 .7 48.4 88.5 38.7 • Credit sales divided by net sales. t Collections during the month as a percent o! accounts unpaid on thf first of the month. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Newspaper UYertlsl11 ll1111 Index • Adjusted for seasonal variation • 1947.1949·100 recorded an 8% rise over February. Sales were 4% above last March and 1 % below last year. Gasoline and service stations, expected to rise 9% sea­sonally, actually rose 10%. In the March-to-March com· parison sales were 20% better than last March. The first quarter of 1961 bettered the same period of 1960 by 3%. Other retail stores, including florists, jewelry stores, liquor stores, and office, store, and school supply dealers, POSTAL RECEIPTS Percent cha~e Mar 4-Mar4­Mar 31 1961 Mar 311961 from from Mar 4-Mar 31 Feb 4-Mar 3 Mar5-Apr 1 City 1961 1961 1960 Angleton 5.843 + 4 •• Athens ................... . 11,510 + 59 + 70 Brownfield ....... .................. . 7,930 -19 -1 Cameron ·--·-············­6,500 + 5 Childress 4,708 + 4 -17 Crystal City ................ .................. . 8,064 + 6 -1 Cuero ................. . 7,895 + 47 + 40 Eagle Pass 6,799 + 11 + 2 El Campo 8,709 -5 -4 Freeport 15.936 + 22 + 18 Gainesville 11,894 + 1 -15 Gonzales 7,618 + 62 + 48 Granbury ...................................... . 6,755 +142 +108 Groves ................... . 5,590 + 5 + 7 Hillsboro ........................ 6,743 -18 + 10 Huntsville ...... 8,704 -27 -16 Hurst 5,377 + 11 + 9 Kermit 7,852 + 5 -4 Kerrville ........................................ .. 11,411 + 2 -8 Kirbyville ...................................... . 3,849 + 56 + 17 La Grange ....................................... 4.547 + 18 + 4 Lake Jackson ....... . 4,950 + 2 + 22 Levelland 7,384 -9 -11 Littlefield 7.323 + 10 + 30 Marlin ........... .. 6,583 -1 + 6 Navasota ............. . 4,941 + 23 -10 Pecos .................................... . 11.794, 8 + 12 Pittsburg ......................................... 8,525 + 15 Port LaTaca ............ .. ................. . 7,504 + 6 8 Sinton ......................................... . 5,562. + 86 -9 Terrell ............................................. . 7,053 + 13 -2 Yoakum .......................................... . 12,186 + + + 16 25 •• Change is less than one-half of one percent. registered a 20% rise over February while seasonally ex­pected to rise 9%. Sales were 3% ahead of last March. The three-month comparison showed 1961 4% behind 1960. Of the 54 Texas department and apparel stores reporting credit information, the ratio of credit sales to total net sales was 73.1 % for March 1961, down 0.3 point from March 1960. The ratio of collections during the month of March to accounts unpaid as of March 1, 1961, was 38.9%, down 0.6 point from March 1960. Austin had the best collection ratio of any of the 8 cities reporting credit in­formation by department and apparel stores. The collection ratio reported for Austin was 48.0%, down 2.0 points from March 1960. Of the 16 Texas furniture and household appliance stores reporting credit information, the ratio of credit sales to total net sales was 85.9%, up 0.3 point from March 1960. The ratio of collections during the month of March to accounts unpaid at the first of the month was 15.8%, up 1.1 points from March 1960. i3 250 200 150 100 Iv 50 0 1947 iA-\1' ..,...,.., .... . 1" 48 ;9 50 51 ,v -' ,..,...... ~ A 52 ·53 ·s; 55 "°"I. ·56 250 200 r.J'I' u Vv'1 """'-iv I50 100 50 ° ·57 ·sa ·59 '60 '61 Percent change istered a gain of 3% over the like 1960 period. After adjustment for seasonal variation, sales of nondurable goods registered a 4% rise over February. Nondurable goods were estimated at $627.3 million on an unadjusted basis. Apparel stores, expecting a 28% seasonal rise in sales, actually recorded a rise of 35% over February and 10% over last March. The first quarter of 1961 was equal to the first quarter of 1960. Easter came two weeks earlier than last year, pushing all Easter sales into March except for the Saturday before Easter. General merchandise sales, including sales of country general stores, department stores, and variety and dry goods stores, were expected to show a seasonal rise of 28%. They actually reported a rise of 35% over February. March sales were 9% above last March. The three-month period of 1961 was equal to the same period last year. Easter buying was the big factor in the sales of this group also. Drug store sales, expected to rise 4% seasonally, actually rose 5% above February. Sales fell 2% below last March and 7% below last year. Food store volume, expected to rise 10% seasonally, RETAIL SALES TRENDS BT ll:INDS OF BUSINESS Source: Bureau of Buslnea• Relle&rch In eooperatlon with the Bur•u of the Census. U. 8. Department of Commerce Normal seasonal• Actual Number Mar Mar Jan-Mar of 1961 1961 1961 reporting Mar from from from t>StabliBh-from Feb Mar Jan Mar Kind of business ments Feb 1961 1960 1960 DURABLE GOODS Automotive storest ..... 287 + 14 + 18 - 14 - 15 Furniture and household appliance storest ..... 171 + 10 + 11 8 - 11 Lumber, building material, and hardware stores 280 + 21 + 84 + 7 •• NONDURABLE GOODS Apparel stores ............... ·······­·· 215 + 28 + 35 + 10 •• Drug stores ....................... Eating and drinking places . 216 89 + + 4 9 + + 5 14 - 2 •• 7 2 Food stores ................. 472 + 10 + 8 + 4 Gasoline and service stations ···················-··· 209 + 9 + 10 + 20 + 3 General merchandise storest 169 + 28 + 85 + 9 •• Other retail storest .. ....... 236 + 9 + 20 + 8 - 4 • Average seasonal change from preceding month to current month. •• Change is less than one-half of one percent. t Includes kinds of business other than classification listed. MAY 1961 CONSTRUCTION VALUATIONS REACH NEW HIGH WITH PUSH FROM NONRESIDENTIAL By CHARLES O. BETTINGER Total construction in Texas in March 1961 reached a new record for that month with total dollar authorizations reaching a grand total of $130,397,000. This amounted to a 36% increase from last month before seasonal adjust­ment. The index of total construction rose to 115.9% of the 1957-59 average and a 19% gain from February 1961 aftf'r a large downward seasonal adjustment. First quarter ]961 data on building permits in all cate­gories rank second only to 1959 in Texas construction his­tory. As compared to the same periods last year, each 1961 month in the first quarter advanced over the compara­ble month in 1960 and pushed the three-month total to a 4% increase over the same quarter last year. Nonresidential construction has continued to buoy construction upward as it did in 1960 with some ready assistance from the classi­fication of additions, alterations and repairs. Both of these categories wrre 24% ahead of the same period last year. While residential construction is still somewhat depressed, March gains over February ( +38%) show much encour­agement to the prediction of an end to the current economic and homebuilding recession. Non residential Construction Construction permits in the nonresidential classification continued to hold the spotlight in March building and in the first quarter of 1961. The index of nonresidential construe- ESTIMATED VALUE OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED Source: Bureau of Bu.aineos Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce Percent change Mar Jan-Mar 1961 1961 Mar 1961 Jan-Mar 1961 from from Classification (thousands of dollars) Mar 1960 Jan-Mar 1960 ALL PERMITS ····· ........ 130,397 329,471 + 36 + 4 N cw construetion . 116,658 292,545 + 40 + 2 Residential (housekeeping) 64 ,735 160,231 + 38 -12 One-family dwellings ... 57,148 143,109 + 33 -16 Multiple-family dwellings 7,587 17,122 + 87 + 46 Nonrf"SidentiaJ buildings 51,923 132,314 + 42 + 24 Nonhousekeeping buildings ( residen tiRI) Anrnsement buildings 1,581 1,286 4,854 3,040 +226 -8 + 22.. Churches 2,812 5,792 + 69 -43 Industrial buildings 1,592 6,798 -38 -18 Garages (commercial and private) ·· --·· ····· ·· ······ 950 1.945 + 73 + 3 Service stations 737 1,878 + 53 -32 Hospitals and Institutions 4,!"l51 22,553 - 6 +952 Office-bank buildin11:s 8,107 18,296 + 29 + 42 Works and utilities 6,806 9,693 +1269 + 59 E:o Chnnge is less than one-half of one percent. lion stood at an impressive 151.1% of the 1957-59 average, a 30% gain over the February index and a 17% gain over March 1960. Quarterly data indicate that 1961 con­struction in these categories is substantially higher than any other January-March period on record. Area nonresidential construction has changed consider­ably from last year in the first quarter with Houston, last year's leader, dropping 32% from 1960 and with Dallas producing over $28 million in nonresidential authoriza­tions (a 194% increase from first quarter 1960). Other cities having increases over last year in excess of 100% were: El Paso (+506%), Wichita Falls (+107%), and Corpus Christi ( + 106%). The internal complexion of nonresidential construction changed almost as radically as did the dollar valuations in the various areas. One exception to this general rule is the classification of school construction which has consistently advanced each year. Almost $15 million in educational buildings were authorized in March 1961 to represent the Building ConstructiOI i1 Texas* Index , Adjusted for seaso nal variation , 1957-59-100 •valve of bvilding construction authorized. largest single classification in the nonresidential category. This pushed the total for the first three months to over $30 million, a 25% gain over first quarter 1960. Hospital construction continued to show very impressive gains over last year with an increase of 952% over the first three months of 1960. The office-bank building classifica­tion increased by 42% in this same comparison. Other categories showing gains in this period over last year were: commercial garages (+11 % ) , works and utilities (+59%), and residential nonhousekeeping buildings (+22%). A single permit let to Southwestern Bell Tele­phone to build in Dallas was the implement which gave rise to the increase in utility building. Several large hotels were primarily responsible for the gain in residential, non­housekeeping construction permits. However, while many classifications did enjoy sizable gains, several were not so fortunate to maintain the 1960 level in the first quarter. Service station construction is one such example, slipping 32% below last year. Church con­struction also followed this pattern dropping 43% in this comparison. The largest decrease in dollar valuations oc­curred in the stores and mercantile classification which etal receipts• Tiuilding permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) $ F.nd-of-month deposits (thou.ands) t . $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ODESSA (pop. 80,338) Iktail sales Jo"'urniture an+ ___ _$ Annual rate of deposit turnover Employment (area) Manufacturing employment (area) __ Percent unemployed (area) 324,384 69,220 41,766 19.6 106,400 33,470 7.6 PORT ISABEL (pop. 3,575) -37 + 9 -4 + 13 + •• 13 -31 + 6.. + 7 + 3 + 1 16 SAN ANGELO (pop. 58,815) Retail sales --------­------------­--­------­+ 12t Jewelry storea _ Postal receipts• ..$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) _________________ _$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ Annual r ate of deposit turnover Employment (area) 68,579 521,831 51,292 46,290 13.3 19,800 + 38 + 19 -5 -25 + 5 + + 6 + + 20 -8 -8 -18 2 + 4 4 14 Postal receipts• -----------------­---­_ --­$ 2,300 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 800 Bank debits (thousands) . _$ 576 -1 -70 + 20 -2 -91 Manufacturing employment (area) Percent unemployed (area) __ _ 2,950 6.6 - 13 8 + 18 End-of-month depoeits (thousands) t---$ 580 Annual rate of deposit turnover 11.5 RAYMONDVILLE (pop. 9,385) Retail sales Lumber, building material, and hardware stores . + 21t 6 + 16 + 38 + 11 SAN MARCOS (pop. 12,713) Postal receipts• _---------­$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ---------­---$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ............ 10,643 60,045 6,814 7,903 10.1 + 3 + 39 + 12 -5 + 15 + 8•• + 9•• + 9 Postal receipts• .. $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Hank debits ( thousands) _$ End--0f-month deposits (thousands) t---$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ..... 6,492 10,015 6,104 7,096 10.1 + 23 + 89 + 13 4 + 16 + 11 9 7 + 6 SAN SABA (pop. 2,728) Postal receipts• ...$ Ilank debits (thousands) __ $ End--0f-month deposits (thousands) t _$ Annual rate of deposit turnover . 2,445 8,808 4,445 10.2 -4 + 19 -2 + 28 + + + + 1 8 4 s SAN ANTONIO (pop. 587,718) Retail sales -----· Apparel stores Automotive stores Drug stores -----­---------------­-------­Eating and drinking places ------­+ 16t + 28t + 16t ••t + 7t + 20 + 38 + 15 + 4 + 11 -5 + 8 -17 + •• SEGUIN (pop. 14,299) Postal receipts• ________ $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) __ _____ __ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover -----­-----­11.016 64,905 9,923 13,688 8.7 + 15 -81 + 24 -1 + 24 + 4 +158 + 12 -1 + 14 Furniture and household appliance stores . Gasoline and service stations General merchandise stores . Jewelry stores ... Lumber, building material, + 15t + 12t + 40t and hardware stores _ + 27t Postal receipts• ------­---­$ 685,848 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 4,856,733 Bank debits (thousands) -----­$ 658,741 End-of-month deposits (thousands) _$ 380,222 Annual rate of deposit turnover _ 21.0 Employment (area) ------------------­---­-204,700 Manufacturing employment (area) 24,750 Percent unemployed (area) -------------------­5.3 + + 12 + 87 + 7 + 33 + 1 + 12 + 16 + 2 + 17 •••• -2 -12 -9 -6 -16 •• + 7 -12 + 8 + 5 + 4•••• + 56 SHERMAN (pop. 24,988) Retail sales Apparel stores AutomotiYe stores .................... Furniture and household appliance stores .... General merchandise stores . Lumber, building material, and hardware stores Postal receipts• ____ ____ $ Building permits, Jess federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) _ ___ __ _______ __ __ __ ____ _$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover _ + 12t + 28t + Ht + lOt + 28t + 2lt 27,742. 315,243 26,017 18,178 17.1 + 26 + 77 + 18 + 82 + 35 + 16 + 4 + 15 + 16 l + 18 + 9 + 87 17 + 9 + 20 + 90 + 3 + 7 + 6 + 13 SAN JUAN (pop. 4,371) Postal receipts• _________ _---­-------­--­-----­----­-$ lluilding permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) _$ End-of-month deposits (thousands)t ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ..... 2,038 23,850 1,861 1,946 11.9 -s +122 + 8 + 8 + 8 -30 -35 -2 + 3 -12 SNYDER (pop. 13,850) Postal receipts ---­$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) __ $ End--0f-month deposits (thousands) Ji _$ Annual rate of deposit turnover 15.150 65,875 15,556 16,566 11.1 + 46 +140 + 14 -3 + 18 + 23 -48 2 8 + 6 MAY 1961 25 City and item Mar 1961 Mar 1961 from Feb 1961 Mar 196I from Mar I960 City and item Mar I961 Mar I96I from Feb 1961 Mar 196I from Mar I960 SLATON (pop. 6,568) Postal receipts• --­--­------­-... ......... .. $ Building permits, less federal contracts S Bank debits (thousands) .......... .......$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover Employment (area) Manufacturing employment (area) Percent unemployed (area) ------------­--­--­· 4,090 47,88& S,549 4,040 10.1 60,000 6,440 4.7 + 34 +660 + 1 -9 + 11 + + 4 + 26 -73 + I2 -7 + 23 -7 + 1 + SI TEXARKANA, TEX. (pop. 30,218) Retail sales ..... Apparel stores .................. . Automotive stores . Furniture and household appliance stores Postal receipts•§ ...................... ..$ Building permits, less federal contracts§$ Bank debits (thousands) .. .......... $ + 12t + 28t + 14t + lOt 64,042 766,882 49,I60 + 30 + 67 + 18 -2 + 86 + 62 + 18 -8 + 82 -28 -8 + IS +22& + 6 SMITHVILLE (pop. 2,933) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t§....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover .......... . 17,800 16.0 -s + 18 + 6 8 PoMtal receipts• ......$ I,67I -I7 -SS Employment (area) .................... . 28,600 + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 64,2I4 +328 Manufacturing employment (area) .. 8,640 + Bank debits (thousands) ... . $ 1,200 + 20 + 8 Percent unemployed (area) .. 9.0 End-of-month deposits (thousancls)t $ 2,I92 - 2. 4 Annual rRte of deposit turnover .. 6.5 + 23 + I2 SULPHUR SPRINGS (pop. 9,160) TEXAS CITY Retail sales (pop. 32,065) Postal receipts" -----­.. -­-­---------­'' ......... $ Building permits. less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) .................... $ En1l-of-month deposits (thousands)t . $ AnnuRl rate or deposit turnover 7,334 113,486 9,737 I2,220 9.6 -2I +I42 + I6.. + 17 -10 -18 •• + 1 + 2 Lumber, building material, an-date average March February March 1961 1961 1960 1961 1960 ·-------·-·---------------·----­ GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY Texas business activity, index.. .... .. .. ........... .... ...... .. ... ................... . 239 230 228 233 228 Miscellaneous freight carloadings in SW Dist., index............ . i6 71 79 73 80 Ordinary life insurance sales, index.... ......... ...... .... ......... 383 396 397 385 402 Wholesale prices in U.S., unadjusted index.. .......... ....... 119.8 120.0 120.0 119.9 119.6 Consumers' prices in Houston, unadjusted index.. ........ ....... ........ ······ 125.1 125.l 125.6 Consumers' prices in U.S., unadjusted index....... Business failures (number) ..... ...... ...... .. ...... .... ............... 127.5 59 127.5 64 125.7 35 127.5 54 125.6 38 Newspaper linage, index ......... ........... ...... ................................ ..... 168.6 158.6 172.4 164.5 175.4 TRADE Total retail sales, index 104.l 99.7 100.5 Durable-goods stores .. 97.2 93.l 104.1 Nondurable-goods stores . . ..... . 107.6 103.2 98.7 .... Ratio of credit sales to net sales in department and apparel stores ...... .. 73.1 72.l 73.4 72.7 72.7 Ratio of collections to outstandings in department and apparel stores ... . 38.9 35.3 39.5 37.9 38.7 PRODUCTION Total electric power consumption, index............. ............ .......... ... . Industrial electric power consumption, index ....... ... ................. ..... ............... ... . Crude oil production, index ................ . .... ............. ............................... ........ . Average daily production per oil well ............. ......... ........ .......... .......... ................. Crude oil runs to stills, index...... ......................... ..... ...... ........ .... ........................... Gasoline consumption, index......... ........ ......... .... .. .......... ...................... .......... ......... Industrial production in U.S., index......................... ........ .......... .......................... Southern pine production, index.. .......................................................................... Cottonseed crushed, index . ......... ............. ... .............................. Construction authorized, index (1957-59=100) .............. .. ................................ Residential building (1957-59=100) ......................................................... Nonresidential building (1957-59=100) ... ....... ........................... .... .. Cement shipments, index ......................... ......... .... ..... ................................ Cement production, index ........... .. .. .. ............. ......... .......................... .. .... . Cement consumption, index .. ....... .... ...... .... .... ........ ... ........ .... .. Texas industrial production-total index...................... .................................... Texas industrial production-manufacturing index..... .................... Texas industrial production--durable goods, index......................... Texas industrial production-nondurable goods, index ................... .. Texas mineral production-index .................................... ......... .... ................. 359 343 106.8 13.5 150 155 176 115.9 94.6 151.l 199 193 183 175 217 251 202 135 379 365 106.2 13.5 153 177 155 59 141 97.3 79.9 116.1 171 150 158 170 213 248 196 129 380 385 111.6 13.8 142 176 165 79 161 113.3 106.7 129.3 168 158 164 173 216 249 200 132 370 350 107.5 13.4 152 155 153 104.8 85.8 132.1 177 161 163 172 215 249 200 131 380 388 114.7 14.0 146 177 166 74 150 100.3 97.3 106.4 153 146 149 173 213 248 196 134 AGRICULTURE Prices received by farmers, unadjusted index, (1910-14=100) ...... .. .. Prices paid by farmers in U.S., unadjusted index (1910-14=100)... .. Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid by farmers... . 248 302 82 249 302 82 245 300 82 249 302 82 243 299 81 FINANCE ::~t ~=~:~: trt\~d~~ -.-.-.-:.·.·····_.._.._....... . ..•_._. _._._._. _.. _._. ._._. ••• _._-_-_­_­_-_-_-_­_­_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ ........ . . Reporting member banks, Dallas Federal Reserve District: -····· ··········-· 286 246 276 252 273 237 279 248 273 239 Loans (millions) ... ........... . ..... .. .......... ........................ ........... .... ... Loans and investments (millions ) .. ............. .. ......... .. Adjusted demand deposits (millions) .................... Revenue receipts of the State Comptroller (thousands) Federal Internal Revenue collections (thousands) ... . . _ ......... .... s 3,045 s 4,867 s 2,743 $118,123 s 2,992 s 4,837 s 2,716 s 97,928 $364,192 s 2,830 s 4,421 s 2,639 s 90,338 $225,282 s 3,000 s 4,832 s 2,718 $101,136 s 2,841 s 4,438 s 2,639 s 79,758 $258,890 LABOR Total nonagricultural employment (thousands) .... Total manufacturing employment (thousands) Durable-goods employment (thousands) ... Nondurable-goods employment (thousands>.. . ........ ... .. ..... ..... ................... 2,486.8* 479.8* 227.3* 252.5* 2,475.5r 478.9r 226.2r 252.7r 2,479.3r 489.8r 233.3r 256.5r 2,480.8. 479.6* 226.3* 253.3* 2,477.0r 488.8r 232.6r 256.2r 28 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW