TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

A MONTHLY SUMMARY OF THE BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN TEXAS 
BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 
Teia!!i Stati 
Historical 
Associatioa 

VOL. XXXVI, NO. I $3.00 A YEAR 
• • 

A PRIMER OF URBAN ECOLOGY by Robert H. Ryan / FALLOUT SHELTERS: CONSTRUC­
TION BOON by Charles 0. Bettinger I LP GOES THE RURAL ROUTE by James D. Gordon 

TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

VOL. XXXVI, NO. I 
I: THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS by Francis B. May 
3: A PRIMER OF URBAN ECOLOGY by Robert H. Ryan 
8: POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR TEXAS COUNTIES, April 1, 1961, Prepared by The Population Research Center, De­partment of Sociology, The University of Texas 
9: FALLOUT SHELTERS: CONSTRUCTION BOON by Charles 
0. Bettinger 
I I: LP GOES THE RURAL ROUTE by James D. Gordon 
Editor: John R. Stockton 
Managing Editor: James J. Kelly 
BUSINE SS RESEARCH COUNCIL 
John Arch White, Dean of the College of Business Adminis­tration (ex officio); John R. Stockton; W . E. Adams; Jessa­mon Dawe; G. H. Newlove; B. H. Sord; W. T. Tucker; and E. W. Walker. 
BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 
Director: John R. Stockton Associate Director & Resources Specialist: Stanley Arbingast Assistant to the Director: Florence Escott Statistician: Francis B. May Administrative Assistant: Marjorie Cornwell Research Assistant: James D. Gordon, Thomas V. Greer Research A ssociate: Ruth Ashcroft, Charles 0. Bettinger, Alfred G. Dale, Marie Fletcher, James J. Kelly, Ida M. Lambeth, Robert M. Lockwood, Elizabeth R. Turpin Cartographer: Roberta Steele, Tim M. Duffee Library Assistant: Merle Danz Senior Clerk Typist: Claire Howard, Josephine Knippa, Elnora Mixson, Marilyn Whites Senior Secretary: Cynthia Bettinger, Carole Rutledge, Mar­garet Smith Statistical Technician: Eva A. Arias Statistical Assistant: Mildred Anderson, Jane Bowen, Alfred 
C. Mitchell, J. D. Monk Programmer: Mary Blanche Fanett Clerical A ssistant: Sara Connally, Robert A. Crenshaw 0 1Jset Press Operator: Robert Dorsett, Daniel P. Rosas 
COOPERATING FACULTY 
Charles T. Clark: Associate Professor of Business Statistics Robert H. Ryan: Special Instructor in Business Writing 
Published monthly by the Bureau of Business Research, College of Busi­ness Administration, The University of Texas Austin 12. Second-class postage paid at Austin, Texas. Content of this publication is not copy­righted and may be reproduced freely. Acknowledgment of source will be appreciated, ia.oo a year; individua.I copies, 26 centa. 

AT THE BEGINNING OF 1961, THE STATE AND NATIONAL ECON· omies were near the bottom of a mild recession that began in May 1960. At that time there was a general feeling that there would be a recovery in the latter part of the year but that it would be a mild one. To what extent have these ex­pectations been realized? 
As far as Texas is concerned, the recovery has been more vigorous than was expected. The seasonally adjusted Index of Texas Business Activity reached an all-time high of 256% of the 1947-49 average in August of this year. It dropped sharply in September but rose again in October. For the first three quarters of this year, the index averaged 5% above the first three quarters of 1960. If a comparison by months is made for the first ten months of the two years, every month of 1961 except February was above the cor­responding month of 1960. This is a good record for a year in which proration clamped tighter on the oil industry, one of the state's large employers and one of its high wage industries. 
Despite a continuation of 8-day allowables for November, the seasonally adjusted index of crude pretroleum produc­tion rose 1%. At 109.2% of the 1947-49 average monthly volume of production, the index was 2/{: above November 1960. The increase was due to allowables granted to new wells and variations in producing rates of old wells. 
The steady decline in the number of producing days allowed explains the small increase of the index of produc­tion over the base period. The index reached its post­World War II peak of 138.5 in May 1957. It has declined irregularly to its present value during the interYening months. This has caused declining employment in oil and gas production from a peak of more than 125,000 jobs to the current level of 112,500. This is a reduction of more than 12,500 jobs. The current average weekly wage paid oil and gas field production workers is $112.74. At this average wage, the loss is equivalent to the elimination of a weekly payroll of $1,409,250 or an annual wage bill of $73,281,000. It is small wonder that the state's economy 
Texas Business Activity 
Index • Adjusted for seasonal variation • 1947-1949-100 
.~
300 
-00 
250 
50 
200 
00 
150 
50 
100 00 
5050 
•  2  
·­ ...  ~  ~ AW  2 1 1  
l  I-MA  ~  ~  rJv1f'  rvv' r\/" 1  
- ,..,~  ..,.r­ ~  fN'~  
!¥'""""'.,.  

1947 '48 '49 '50 '51 '52 '53 '54 '55 '56 '57 '58 '59 '60 '61 
00 
JANUARY 1962 1 
has begun to experience a declining growth rate at a time when new job opportunities are needed to take care of a growing labor force. . 
The following table shows the number of producmg days allowed in each of the past several years: 
NUMBER OF PRODUCING DAYS ALLOWED 
1957  1958  1959  1960  1961  1962  
January February March  16 15 18  12 11 9  12 11 12  10 10 10  9 8 10  9  
April May June  16 16 15  8 8 8  11 12 10  9 8 8  9 8 8  
July  13  9  9  8  8  

August 13 11 9 8 8 September 13 12 9 8 8 October 12 11 9 8 8 November 12 11 9 8 8 December 12 12 10 9 9 
Total 171 122 123 104 101 9 
Seasonally adjusted total electric power consumption declined 1% in November. At 429% of the 1947-49 aver­age rate of consumption, the index was 12% above Novem­ber 1960. The decline was caused by a drop in residential and commercial consumption. Industrial power consump­tion rose 5% over October to a level 10% above November 1960. 
Seasonally adjusted sales of ordinary life insurance rose 5% in November after rising to a new high value in October. This makes November the second record-breaking month for this index. 
The seasonally adjusted index of total retail sales in Texas rose again in November. At ll0% of the 1957-59 average monthly volume the index was 1.9 % above its October level. It was 6% above its November 1960 value. This rise, coming after a 3.8 % rise in October, points the way to a definite improvement in fourth quarter sales over the third quarter. It gives added color to expectations of an excellent volume of December sales. Increases in sales of both durable and nondurable goods contributed to the rise. 
Seasonally adjusted sales of durable goods rose 1.8% in November to a value of ll2% of the 1957-59 average. Increases in sales of automotive stores and furniture and household appliance stores pushed the index higher. The usual seasonal drop in sales of automotive stores from October to November is 1 %. November sales of this class of stores rose 2% instead of dropping as expected. Sales of motor vehicle dealers rose 4% to a level 17% above November 1960. The improvement in automobile sales in Texas was part of a nationwide increase. National sales of U.S.-made cars amounted to 585,000 units, up 10% from the 530,600 sold in November 1960. Compact cars took 35% of the market for the U.S.-made automobiles. 
Sales of furniture and household appliance stores usually experience the same percentage of seasonal decline, 1 % in November, as automotive stores. Instead they rose 5% to a volume 13% above November 1960. Sales of furniture stores rose 4%. This indicates that appliance sales rose more than the 5% rise for the combined groups. 
Lumber, building material, and hardware stores suffered a 12% decline in November. This is more than the usual 9% seasonal drop. Despite the fall in volume, sales for these stores were 10% above November 1960. Sales of farm im­plements were 6% above November of last year. Hardware store !:'ales were 5% above November 1960. Sales of lumber and building material dealers were 12% above November 1960. 
November sales of nondurable goods were 2.8% above October after seasonal adjustment. Greater than seasonal increases in sales of apparel, drug stores, food stores, gen· eral merchandise stores, and "other" retail stores were responsible for the rise. November sales of nondurables were 2% above November of last year. 
Sales of apparel stores rose 8% in November instead of experiencing the usual 1 % seasonal decline. Family cloth. 
SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS 
(1947-49 =100) 
Percent change 
Nov 1961 Nov 1961 Nov Oct Nov from from Index 1961 1961 1960 Oct 1961 Nov 1960 
Texas business activity __ 251 243 226 3 + 11
+ 
Miscellaneous freight carload­ings in S.W. district ,___ ..__ ,_____ 62 79 74 -22 -16 Crude petroleum production .... 109.2• 107.6r 107.3 2
+ + 
Crude oil runs to stills 140 151 145 -s Total electric power consumption 429• 433r 384r + 12 +
Industrial power consumption.. 419• 398r 880r 5 + 10 Bank debits __ ..__ ..___ 298 289 270 3 + 10
+ 
Ordinary life insurance sales ... 487 463 453 + 5 + 8 Total retail sales (1957-59=100) -------------······· 110• 108r 104r + 2 + 6 Durable-goods sales ················-··-+
( 1957-59=100) 112• nor 98r 2 + 14 Nondurable-goods sales (1957-59=100) 110• 107r 108r 3 2
+ + 
Urban building permits issued (1957-59=100) -······-············ 119.7 113.9 98.8 + 5 + 21 
Residential (1957-59=100) ------------· ------115.0 114.5 90.2 •• + 27 
Nonresidential 
(1957-59=100) 127.1 116.8 115.1 9 + 10
···················· + 
Average weekly hours manu­facturing (1957-59=100) .... 100.8. 101.2r 97.5 •• + 8 
Adjusted for seasonal variation. 
•Preliminary. 
r Revised. 
** Change is less than one-half of one percent. 
ing stores and women's ready-to-wear did particularly well with increases of 18% and 10%. Men's and boys' clothing stores also had a 10% increase in sales. Shoe stores had a 4% rise in volume of business. 
Drug stores had a 3% increase instead of the usual 5% seasonal decline in sales in November. Sales of food stores in November held up to the October volume instead of dropping the usual 3%. 
Sales of gasoline and service stations dropped 3%. This is more than the usual 1 % seasonal decline. These sales are measured in dollar volume. Gasoline price wars caused by surplus refining capacity and efforts to expand markets in terms of gallonage undoubtedly contributed to the overall decline. Profits, however, are measured in dollars not in gallons. 
General merchandise stores had a sales rise of 8% in· stead of the usual 2%. The rise was due entirely to a 10% increase in sales of department stores. 
"Other" retail stores-a category which includes florists, nurseries, and jewelry stores-had an overall increase of 8% in November instead of the usual seasonal rise of 1%. 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
A PRIMER OF URBAN ECOLOGY 

by Robert H. Ryan 
SINCE THE WORLD'S FIRST POPULATION SHIFT-OUT OF EDEN -people have been moving, on a variety of pretexts but for a very few basic reasons. These reasons, in fact, might be reduced to two: 
Primarily they move to make a living, or a better living. Secondarily they seek a pleasant environment. 
In many ways, not all of them readily apparent, urban places, from hamlets to megalopolises, generally serve both of those needs better than rural areas. However, towns and cities do not all offer economic, social, and aesthetic re­wards in equal measure. As sources of income rise and fall, so do the cities that depend upon that income. 
It is clear from common experience that no one moves in order to accommodate a statistical formula that appears to predict his movement. Consider the cases of four hypotheti­cal but familiar Texas families: 
Houston Bowie: Houston and his wife, now in their late fifties, have farmed a small tract of poor East Texas land since 1929. Both they and the land are nearly exhausted. Yet, Houston hoped his three children might stay and perhaps improve the farm. But all three left the farm and farming. One took a job at a brick factory in the county seat; the other two moved to Dallas. 
Asuncion Garza: Garza and his wife were born in northern Mexico and migrated to Texas in their teens. They live in a small South Texas town where it is not al­ways possible for them to remember that they were worse off in their native pueblo. There are seven Garza children. One moved to Detroit and later to California, where he works as a machinist's helper. One has returned to Mexico and is employed as an industrial laborer in Monterrey. Five are still at home and do not expect to leave unless they hear of promis­ing job openings elsewhere. 
Jim Jefferson: The Jeffersons moved to Odessa from Okla­homa. Rather, they were moved, by the major oil company that employs Jim as a petroleum geologist. For a time he was busy charting new geologic hori­zons in the Permian basin oil fields. But exploration has declined sharply in the area. At 61, Jim faces re­tirement from the company. They will probably leave Odessa, Jim thinks. His wife adds that where· ever they move they will be looking for a warm clim­ate and pleasant recreational facilities. 
Sylvia Spriegel; Sylvia is young, unmarried, a talented dress designer who moved to Dallas from New York, bringing her widowed mother with her. She is trying to interest her two brothers, still in the East, in com­ing to Texas to establish a small sportswear manu­facturing plant in one of the satellite towns near Dal­las. She thinks the wage rates for female labor may be lower there than in the metropolitan area. 
These four cases illustrate all the basic determinants of population change, and they hint at the element of inde­terminacy, as well. The Bowies, Houston and his wife, are still clinging to a dwindling resource, their farm. It pro­duces barely enough to sustain them, not enough to afford the mechanization and soil improvement that would in­crease its resource value. The Bowies will stay, though, for the rest of their lives, partly out of the inertia that comes with advancing age, partly for lack of skills that would make them more productive elsewhere. Even the ghost towns of the Far West are inhabited by a few old miners who worked the veins of silver long since exhausted. 
The Bowie children, on the other hand, have gone to town to help make new resources. For resources are not resources until man does something to make them so.* Nevertheless, certain raw materials and ways of transpor­tation, as well as human labor, are prerequisite to resource­making. Where these raw materials and means of shipping occur in fortuitous patterns, the human labor will come. The first major cities of the United States were seaports, where goods were traded, packed for reshipment, and sometimes manufactured; Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore. The next generation of cities grew up on navi· gable rivers: New Orleans, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and others. The third generation were mostly railroad towns. Today, with a more flexible, more extensive transportation net­work, the rapidly growing cities are those with ready ac­cess to material or energy resources and those that serve as central markets for regions well endowed with those re· sources. 
Mr. and Mrs. Asuncion Garza, of South Texas, have done more than their share to swell the state's population; five of their children are still in Texas. What is more, the children are likely, according to life expectancy tables, to live longer than their parents. A rising birth rate combines with a declining death rate to give an even faster-rising rate of natural increase, as illustrated on the chart below. For the nation as a whole, if one disregards the relatively small immigration, this rate of natural increase is equiva­lent to population growth. But for an individual city or state, this is not so. If better jobs appear elsewhere, the Garza children will not stay in Texas but will migrate. The American people today are astonishingly mobile; thus, some cities with high birth rates are declining in popula­tion, while others with low birth rates are growing. Ob­
*This thesis is discussed at length by Woytinsky and Woytinsky (pp. 312-412) and by Zimmermann (pp. 3-142). See accompanying book list. 
JANUARY 1962 

BIRTHS 
viously one cannot draw conclusions regarding the future of an area from its present population size or charac­
teristics. 
Between 1940 and 1950, Texas population gained 1,163,407 by natural increase, only 132,900 by net migra­tion into the state. This latter figure, though, conceals the fact that many more persons than 132,900 moved into Texas during the decade-and many left Texas. It is these two components, natural increase and net migration, that add up to overall population growth, as the next chart indicates. 
Of course the rate of natural increase is not the same in all cities. It depends largely upon the proportion of resi­dents within the childbearing ages, roughly 15 to 45. This proportion varies more widely than one might expect, and 
NATURAL INCREASE -­
----·­
a 



········· 
D~~!!'i~......................................······ 

-
some of the "old towns" of East Texas are in some danger 
of extinction as most of their youngsters leave as soon as 
they finish school. Thus, a close analysis of the age com­
position of the population is necessary to accuracy in 
forecasting. 
Nationwide, a broad shift in age distribution has been 
seen in recent years. Sociologists Conrad and Irene Taeuber 
have written on the relative shrinkage of that part of the 
population in the productive years from 15 to 65. * As they 
point out, the young and the aged today make up in­
creasingly large proportions of the total population, with 
profound economic and social effects. Concentrating on 
the lower end of the age scale, market analysts have pro· 
moted the sale of "teen-age products" and have adapted 
advertising of still other products to readers in that age 
group. 
At the other end of the scale are petroleum geologist 
Jim Jefferson, his wife, and millions like them. They are 
potential retiree-migrants. With increasing numbers of old­
sters in the population and generally larger retirement in· 
comes than in the past, some significant new trends are 
taking shape. The 65+ group is traditionally the most 
stable in the population, the least likely to move. Yet, in 
several recent years Texas, Louisiana, and Florida drew 
relatively more newcomers over 65 than in any other age 
group. All three of these southern states are of course 
popular retirement havens. On the other hand, the 65+ 
* Taeuber and Taeuber, p. 324. See accompanying booklist. 
residents were the quickest to depart from such states as Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and several other high-income northeastern states. 
The Jim J effersons, like the Houston Bowies, are victims of a shift in resource flow . Odessa, where the Jeffersons live, is the central city of the only Standard Metropolitan Area in all Texas that declined in population from 1960 to 1961 (according to The University of Texas Population Research Center, which developed the estimates tabulated on these pages). The Odessa area decline presumably re­sulted mainly from loss of employment due to cutbacks in oil exploration and production. 
Development of a new resource pattern commonly brings a spectacular population influx during its early stages. 
-

Notably rapid growth from 1950 to 1960 is indicated on the accompanying map for the West Texas oil centers, Odessa, Midland, Andrews, and Kermit. But eventually the rate of growth must decline, even though the actual population may not. Margaret Gordon remarks, rather wistfully one might think, that the rush to California may slow as that state's rich pudding of resources has to be sliced progressively thinner to feed its swelling popu­lation.* 
Some students of regional science would refer to young 
Sylvia Spriegel, the dress designer, as a "city founder," if 
she is successful in establishing an apparel factory. Not 
that she will be starting her own city. She will, however, 
be adding a new economic module to the city she chooses 
as her plant site. 
Sylvia's revenue from the sale of dresses will come al­
most entirely from outside the area where she manu· 
factures them, and the largest share of this revenue will be 
distributed among her employees. These workers will then 
spend most of their wages in local establishments: barber 
shops, garages, groceries, clothing stores, and so forth. This 
circle of local businesses will depend partly, some of them 
perhaps wholly, on income from Sylvia's enterprise. And 
many of them will have to increase their payrolls to serve 
the needs of Sylvia's workers. By injecting new economic 
support into the community, the apparel factory will tend 
to mcrease the population. Or, if some other local in· 
dustries are moribund, Sylvia's payroll may support some 
* Gordon, p. 24. See accompanying booklist. 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW of their discharged workers and keep the population from declining. 

Who could have guessed, though, that an apparel factory would spring up in the city Sylvia chooses? The answer is, almost anyone with a thorough knowledge of resources and industrial economics might foresee a development of this kind. The town has an underemployed female labor force; a relatively low wage scale; two vacant industrial buildings for lease; and a short, first-class highway to Dallas, Southwestern center of apparel wholesaling. The probability of local apparel manufacturing is clear to those who would look closely. 
No city is self-sufficient. If one tries to visualize a city or small area that produces all its own bread and meat, motion pictures, diamond rings, automobiles and gasoline, and books, this point becomes quite clear. Evidently there can be no such place. Even the largest cities-entire nations, 
Del Rio + 31 %,• Uvalde +19'}'
\ 0 • 
Eagle Poss +66%\ 

LAREDO 
TEXAS URBANIZATION 1950-1960 

Percent changes in population of cities and Standard Metropolitan Areas (shaded) 

for that matter-must buy from outside many of the goods they consume. To buy these, the city must earn exchange credit. This is accomplished by producing more of certain goods, like Sylvia's dresses, and more of certain services than the local residents require. 
These surplus-producing facilities are called "basic in­dustries" by most analysts. Their workers are paid from revenue that originates outside the city. Some of the money they earn is saved in local financial institutions and helps provide employment for banks and savings and loan personnel. Some is used to buy homes and thus to help sup­port local construction workers and suppliers of building goods. Some is spent in retail stores, restaurants, and laundries. Subsequently, the local dependent worker&--the bankers, builders, and bakers-spend the money they re­ceive in much the same way. Eventually most of the money is sent back out of the city to buy goods not made there 
Victoria +I 05'}'0 
• 
Beeville +48% • 
BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN­SAN BENITO 

JANUARY 1%2 
and services not performed there. But in the meantime the recirculated earnings of each basic industrial worker have provided support for about two workers not in basic in­dustry, that is, two dependent workers. In addition, the earnings of each employed person, whether in basic or dependent industry, support two or three persons not in the labor force-children, housewives, retired persons. The ratios of basic to dependent workers and of all workers to nonworkers vary with certain key characteristics of the city, but gross changes in these ratios can generally be foreseen. 
Population 

200.0001~---~--------------­
i.---A 
100.0001-----+----t-------lh··-"------+---.""~/.·'.,.., 
80,000t-----t----l-----...'"+-~--·'----,J'°"~L-~'.c.:'··:_·"_"'-1' 60.000l----t----f-=.,,.-.:._..... ..... --t<___
_ _·'---lf--::;....-!~~<;"~·· ... -1 
•&l••<.~-~.s~~····/·., 
40,000 
"/ / 
l/ 
.,,_----.:;./ Amarillo 
,,/ 
.... / 
/ 
20 000 
.. 
-· 
' 

Wichit~ Falls V . 
1
~ /
10.000 .: _I 
8,000,1-----+-~--1------11-------1---~
1 
6,000,f-----+-1----1------11-------1---~ 
v· 
4,000ll----/~~---1------11-------1---~ 
Lubbock 
•'
2,000b.o/c____-l-----+------+-----1----; 
1,000'-----'------11--------'------'------' 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 
Take, for example, the city of Odessa, where Jim Jeffer­
son lives. Tremendous expansion of oil activity in the 
Odessa area brought in thousands of petroleum drilling 
and production workers during the 1930's and 1940's. The 
population was typical of boom areas: many basic-industry 
employees, the oil people, but relatively few dependent 
workers. The fast growth of the oil business outstripped de­
velopment of new retail and wholesale establishments and 
personal and business services. For a time, the ratio of 
basic to dependent employment in Odessa was radically 
different from that in most cities. But by the late 1950's 
enough dependent businesses had been established to serve 
local needs that the relationship was approaching an ap­
parent equilibrium. 
An analyst forecasting the population of Odessa during 
the years when dependent employment was disproportion­
ately low should have taken that fact into account and 
should have based some of his expectation of further 
growth on the probability that dependent employment 
would ultimately assume normal proportions. 
Often the growth of population in an area is forecast by 
projecting the past population trend according to some 
statistical formula, usually a logistic curve. The chart above 
illustrates the potential danger of assuming that population 
will follow such a path. Of the Texas cities indicated on the 
chart, only Austin has come close to following this pseudo­
normal line of development. And this is probably due to 
the fact that the growth of Austin, the state government and 
educational center, has been keyed to the growth of Texas 
as a whole rather than to the rise of a particular industry. 
On the contrary, the Lubbock curve traces clearly the de-
A POPULATION BOOKLIST 
Recent studies of population trends and regional science 
Richard B. Andrews MECHANICS OF THE URBAN ECONOMIC BASE A series of twelve articles in Land Economics, vols. 29-32 
(1953-56). 
Hans Blumenfeld THE ECONOMIC BASE OF THE METROPOLIS An article in the Journal of the American Institute of 
Planners, 21: 114-32 (1955). 
Otis Dudley Duncan ;£al.--­METROPOLIS AND REGION 

Baltimore : The Johns Hopkins Press, 1960. 
Margaret S. Gordon 
EMPLOYMENT EXPANSION AND POPULATION 
GROWTH 
The California Experience, 1900-1950 
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1954. 

P. M. Hauser and 0. D. D-;;-nc-;n,~diUirs-THE STUDY OF POPULATION: AN INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL 
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. 
Walter lsard 
LOCATJON AND SPACE-ECONOMY 
Cambridge: The Technology Press of the Massachusetts In­

stitute of Technology, and 
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1956. 
Everett S. Lee et al. 
POPULATION REDISTRIBUTION AND ECONOMIC 

GROWTH, UNITED ST ATES, 1870-1950 
Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1957. 

Harvey S. Perloff EDUCATION FOR PLANNING: CITY, STATE, AND REGIONAL Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1957. 
J. J. Spengler and 0 . D. D-;;ncan,ediwr;­
POPULATION THEORY AND POLICY 
Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1956. 

Conrad Taeuber and lren~B.-Ta;ub;r ­THE CHANGING POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES 
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958. 
Edward Ullman 
AMERICAN COMMODITY FLOW 
Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1957. 

W. E. Woytinsky andE. s-:-w-;;yti;sfY ­WORLD POPULATION AND PRODUCTION 
New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1953. 
Erich W. Zimmerma;;t; ----­WORLD RESOURCES AND INDUSTRIES 
New York: Harper & Bros., 1951. 

velopment of High Plains irrigated agriculture and trade; and the Wichita Falls curve, most irregular of all, soars during the early years of North Texas oil development, then lags until the economic push of World War II. Most logistic-curve formulas assume that population will grow at an evenly decreasing rate and gradually level off. This idea incorporates the general validity and particular haz-
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

ards of most truisms. It tends to be true, that is, only if nothing exceptional takes place to deflect progress from its neatly logistic course. And as often as not, something exceptional does take place. 
Rather than being based on analyses of population data as such, forecasts published by The University of Texas Bureau of Business Research and many similar agencies elsewhere have been made in the light of actual and po­tential economic development. The belief underlying these studies is that small-area population forecasting is con­cerned far more with economics than with biology. These are the steps taken in a forecast founded on this assumption: 
1. 	Basic employment in the city or small area is measured, sometimes through examination of employment sta­tistics already gathered, sometimes through questioning 
POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR STANDARD 
METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS 
IN TEXAS, APRIL 1, 1961 

Prepared By The Population Research Center, 
Department of Sociology, The University of Texas 

E st.  Est.  
Standard metro­politan statistical areas  percent growth, Estimated April l, population, 1960­April l, April 1, 1961 1961  Standard metro­politan statistical areas  percent growth, Estimated April 1, population, 1960­April l, April 1, 1961 1961  

Abilene'  123,752  2.8  Galveston- 
Amarillo'  156,084  4.4  Texas Cityio 142,504  1.5  
Austin•  216,988  2.3  Houstonll  l,261,411  1.5  
Beaumont-Port  Laredo1'  66.529  2.7  
Arthur'  311,398  1.8  LubbocklS  160,933  3.0  
Brownsville­ Midlandl4  68,780  1.6  
Harlingen-San Benito• 153,959 Corpus Christi• 223,099 Dallas7 l,107,727  1.9 0.7 2.2  Odessa" Sa n Angelo10 San Antonio17 TexarkanalS  90,993 66,438 708,610 60,306  -0.002 2.8 3.1 0.6  
El Paoo"  323,828  3.1  Tylerl•  88, 114  2.0  
Fort Worth•  581,328  1.4  Waco2•  152,243  1.4  
Wichita Falls21 138,782  3.2  

Counties included: 1Jones and Taylor; ' Potter and Randall; •Travis; 

•Jefferson and Orange ; 5Cameron; 6Nueces; 7Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Ellis; BEI Paso; 9Johnson and Tarrant ; 10Galveston; llHarris; 12Webb;18Lubbock ; 14Midland; 16Ector ; 16Tom Green ; 17Bexar; 1BBowie; does not include Miller County, Arkansas; lOSmith; 2°McLennan; 21Archer and Wichita. 
all local employers. The objective, either way, is to find out how much of the local income derives from out-of­town purchases. A large oil refinery in a small town would presumably ship virtually all its product to ex­ternal markets. Its payroll, then, would be allocated entirely to the column of basic industries. On the other hand, if a large department store made 20% of its sales to out-of-town customers, just 20% of its em­ployees would be classified as basic. 

2. 	
Taking into account the relative wage rates in the various basic and dependent industries of the city, the number of dependent workers supported by each basic worker and the number of nonworkers supported by each worker would be determined. 

3. 	
Through a critical study of the area resource pattern and of national industrial and economic trends, a growth potential is assigned each of the local basic in­dustries. For example, the probable number of workers in local steel mills might be projected to 1975. Or if there seemed strong promise of the development of new industries not currently represented in the city, a con­servative estimate of that industry's potential employ­ment would be established. 


4. 	On the basis of the probable overall industrial growth and the population-supporting strength of each industry represented, the total population in one or several future years would then be computed. 
Obviously the accuracy of this economic-base forecast would depend upon the preciseness of the input data­the measures of current employment and income. Even more critical would be the estimating of future industrial growth. These estimates, upon which the whole structure of the forecast rests, must be made after thorough examina­tion of the resources available to local industry, both now and in the foreseeable future. Allowance must be made here for technological progress that may make resources of ma­terials now useless. (In just this way, Minnesota taconite, formerly a worthless mineral, has become iron ore in recent years.) All forecasts of course may be invalidated by the 
POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR URBANIZED 
AREAS IN TEXAS, APRIL 1, 1961 
Prepared By The Population Research Center, 
Department of Sociology, The University of Texas 

Est.  Est.  
Urbanized  percent, growth, Estimated April l , population, 1960­April 1, April 1,  Urbanized  percent, growth, Estimated April 1, population, 1960­April 1, April 1,  
areas  1961  1961  areas  1961  1961  

Abilene1  96,275  5.4  Houston  1,163,021  2.0  
Amarillo'  145,158  5.2  Laredo  62,404  2.8  
Austin  192,251  2.7  Lubbock  135,023  4.4  
Beaumont  120.9n  1.5  Midland  64,860  2.5  
Corpus Christi• 177,141 Dallas' 958,502  1.3 3.3  Odessa Port Arthur  86,352 119,441  2.5 2.6  
El Paso  291,445  5.2  San Angelo  60,658  3.1  
Fort Worth  512, 751  2.0  San Antonio  664,676  3.5  
Galveston- Texarkana,  
T exas City Harlingen­ 121,128  2.2  Texas5 Tyler  34,183 53,485  3.3 3.4  
San Benito  64,663  4.9  Waco Wichita Falls'  118,750 107,293  2.2 5.1  


1Excluding that part of the Urbanized Area in Jones County (1960 population 221). 
'Includes both Potter and Randall counties. 
•Excluding that part of the Urbanized Area in San Patricio County (1960 population 2,540). 

4E'xcluding those parts of the Urbanized Area in Collin County (1960 population 3,756), Denton County (no inhabitants in 1960), and Tarrant County (1960 population 984). 
•
Excluding that part of the Urbanized Area in Miller County, Arkan­sas ( 1960 population 20,371). 

•
Excluding that part of the Urbanized Area in Archer County (no inhabitants in 1960) . 


discovery of unsuspected resources or ways of using them or by cataclysmic changes in the economy, like those often brought about by major wars. But these imponderables do not invalidate the conceptual framework of economic base studies, they only limit the accuracy and comprehensive­ness of the information on which the studies are founded. 
Perloff complains, with some justice, that elaborate plan­ning of highways, cities, water resources, and the like is often built on flimsy and unqualified projections.* His point is well taken. Projections are not safely undertaken by small-city chambers of commerce unstaffed with pro­fessional industrial economists. 
With care and expertise, however, it is possible to make a good guess as to where the Bowies, the Garzas, the Jeffersons, and the Spriegels-and all their children­may be living several years in the future. For, where a living is to be made and where some of the amenities are to be enjoyed, there will the population increase and the cities grow. 
* Perloff, p. 112. See accompanying booklist. 

JANUARY 1962 

POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR TEXAS COUNTIES, APRIL 1, 1961 
Prepared By The Population Research Center, Department of Sociology, The University of Texas 
Population estimates for Ap ril 1, 196 1, indicate that 1950· 60 trends have not continued for 111 of the 254 T exas counties. The 1961 estimates shown in the accompanying table reveal that of the 143 counties which lost population between 1950 and 1960 no less than 94 registered an increase during 1960-61. The 49 remaining counties continued to lose population, Seventeen of the 111 counties which gained population between 1950 and 1960 experienced a loss during 1960-61. 
Perhaps most significant is the fact that only 66 counties lost popula­tion between 1960 and 1961, as compared with 143 counties during 1950-60. However, there are only a few cases of sharp changes in population trends. Most counties which lost population between 1950 and 1960 either continued to lose or grew only slightly during 1961}-61. Changes in population trends may have begun long before 1960, because the 1950 and 1960 census figures reveal only what happened over a 
decade. A large number of Texas counties suffered extreme drouth condi­tions during the decade and may have begun to recover only toward the 
end of the 1950's, The 1960-61 figures cannot be taken as indicative of a long-run trend but, generally, it appears likely that extreme differences 
in the growth rates of Texas counties do not prevail as much now as they 
did in the 1950-60 period. 
Although there are numerous exceptions, certain geographical patterns appear in the 1950-60 and 1960-61 growth rates of Texas counties. Counties which have grown throughout the eleven year period, 1951}-61, are concentrated in three areas of the state: the Gulf Coast region, the 
Northwestern, and in a belt of counties running from Cooke and Grayson to Travis and then curving southwest toward Maverick. Counties with an eleven year loss are scattered but tend to be concentrated in a wide zone 
running from southeast to northwest in the center of the state. Counties which lost population during 1950-60 but gained between 1960 and 1961 are also widely scattered, but they tend to concentrate in two broad belts 
--one running from the extreme northeastern part of the state toward 
the Valley and the other running from Collingsworth County toward the 
Valley. Nine of the seventeen counties which gained population between 
1950 and 1960 but lost between 1960 a nd 1961 are concentrated in a zone running from Crockett County to Andrews County. Finally, practically all of the counties west of the Pecos gained population between 1960 and 1961, in contrast to the 1950-60 decade when roughly half of them lost population. 

Est. Est. Est. Est. 
percent percent percent percent 
growth, growth, growth, growth, Estimated April 1, Estimated April l, Estimated Aprill, Estimated Aprill, population, 1960-population, 1960-population, 1960-population, 1960­April 1, April 1, April 1, April l, April 1, April l, Aprill, April l, Counties 1961 1961 Counties 1961 1961 Counties 1961 1961 Counties 1961 1961 
Anderson Andrews Angelina Aransas Archer Armstrong Atascosa Austin Bailey Bandera Bastrop Baylor Bee Bell Bexar Blanco Borden Bosque Bowie Brazoria Brazos Brewster Briscoe Brooks Brown Burleson Burnet Caldwell Calhoun Callahan Cameron Camp Carson Cass Castro Chambers Cherokee Childress Clay Cochran Coke Coleman Collin Collingsworth Colorado Comal Comanche Concho Cooke Coryell Cottle Crane Crockett Crosby Culberson Dallam Dallas Dawson Deaf Smith Delta  28,470 13,435 40,307 7,253 6,204 2,049 18,993 13,821 9,516 3,959 16,934 5,957 24,428 97,718 708,610 3.569 1,039 10,693 60,306 78,080 45,638 6,601 3,600 8,634 25,127 11,044 9,212 17,390 17,021 8,265 153,959 7,966 7,949 23,335 9,113 10,556 33,282 8,449 8,160 6,360 3,572 12,428 41,921 6,401 18,704 19,935 12,047 3,792 22,976 25,016 4,212 4,604 4,199 10,617 2,830 6,397 973,098 19,69~ 13,840 5,579  1.1 -0.1 1.2 3.5 1.5 4.2 0.9 0.3 4.7 1.7 0.1 1.1 2.8 3.8 3.1 -2.4 -3.4 -1.l 0.6 2.5 1.7 2.6 0.6 0.3 1.6 -1.2 -0.6 1.0 2.6 4.2 1.9 1.5 2.2 -0.7 2.1 1.7 0.5 0.3 -2.3 -0.9 -0.5 -0.2 1.6 2.0 1.3 0.5 1.5 3.3 1.8 4.4 0.1 -2.0 -0.2 2.6 1.3 1.5 2.3 2.7 5.0 -4.8  Duval Eastland Ector Edwards Ellis EI Paso Erath Falls Fannin Fayette Fisher Floyd Foard Fort Bend Franklin Freestone Frio Gaines Galveston Garza Gillespie Glasscock Goliad Gonzales Gray Grayson Gregg Grimes Guadalupe Hale Hall Hamilton Hansford Hardeman Hardin Harris Harrison Hartley Haskell Hays Hemphill Henderson Hidalgo Hill Hockley Hood Hopkins Houston Howard Hudspeth Hunt Hutchinson Irion Jack Jackson Jasper Jeff Davis Jefferson Jim Hogg Jim Wells  13,535 19,414 90,993 2,266 43,512 323,828 16,372 20,980 23,741 20,309 8,014 12,833 3,096 41,261 5,109 12,467 10,218 12,284 142,504 6,615 10,094 1,107 5,363 17,652 31,747 74,112 71 ,016 12,682 29,137 37,661 7,466 8,381 6,423 8,222 25,052 l,261,411 45,458 2,315 11,192 20,362 3,150 22,070 184,519 23,352 22,462 5,394 18,779 19,517 40,835 3,397 39,819 34,937 1,172 7,38~ 14,174 22,330 1,521 249,355 5,148 34,766  1.0 -0.6 -0.002 -2.2 0.3 3.1 0.8 -1.3 -0.6 -0.4 1.9 3.8 -0.9 1.8 0.2 -0.5 1.0 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.5 -1.0 -1.2 -1.1 0.7 1.5 2.3 -0.2 0.4 2.3 2.0 -1.3 3.5 -0.6 1.7 1.5 -0.3 6.6 0.2 2.1 -1.1 1.3 2.0 -1.3 0.5 -0.9 1.0 0.7 1.7 1.6 1.1 1.5 -0.9 -0.5 1.0 1.0 -3.9 1.5 2.5 0.6  Kenedy Kent Kerr Kimble King Kinney Kleberg Knox Lamar Lamb Lamoasas La Salle Lavaca Lee Leon Liberty Limestone Lipscomb Live Oak Llano Loving Lubbock Lynn McCulloch McLennan McMullen Madison Marion Martin Mason Matagorda Maverick Medina Menard Midland Milam Mills Mitchell Montague Montgomery Moor~ Morris Motley Nacogdoches Navarro Newton Nolan Nueces Ochiltree Oldham Orange Palo Pinto Panola Parker Parmer Pecos Polk Potter Presidio Rains  880 1,748 17,371 3,971 630 2,485 30,969 7,842 34,249 22,296 9,366 6,062 20,227 8,949 10,111 32,013 20,141 3,493 7,897 5,222 230 160,933 11,013 8,783 152,243 1,152 6,879 7,877 5,1?.8 3,824 26,728 15,010 19,079 3,034 68,780 22,096 4,450 11,416 14,902 27,115 14,559 12,428 3,014 28,439 34,553 10,276 18,849 223,099 9,850 2,058 62,043 20,562 16,885 23,164 9,866 12,114 13,966 119,783 5,534 3,00~  -0.5 1.2 3.4 0.7 -1.6 1.3 3.1 -0.2 0.04 1.8 -0.6 1.5 0.3 0.0 1.6 1.3 -1.3 2.6 0.7 -0.3 1.8 3.0 0.9 -0.4 1.4 3.2 1.9 -2.1 1.2 1.2 3.8 3.5 0.9 2.4 1.6 -0.8 -0.4 1.4 0.1 1.0 -1.4 -1.2 5.0 1.4 0.4 -0.9 -0.6 0.7 5.0 6.7 2.8 0.2 0.1 1.2 3.0 1.3 0.8 3.6 1.4 0.3  Refugio Roberts Robertson Rockwall Runnels Rusk Sabine San Augustine San Jacinto San Patricio San Saba Schleicher Scurry Shackelford Shelby Sherman Smith Somervell Starr Stephens Sterling Stonewall Sutton Swisher Tarrant Taylor Terrell Terry Throckmorton Titus Tom Green Travis Trinity Tyler Upshur Upton Uvalde Val Verde Van Zandt Victoria Walker Waller Ward Washington Webb Wharton Wheeler Wichita Wilbarger Willacy Williamson Wilson Winkler Wise Wood Yoakum Young Zapata Zavala  11,128 1.064 16,042 5,879 15,014 36,551 7,371 7,697 6,179 45,386 6,492 2,867 19,983 3,993 20,524 2,753 88,114 2,530 17,731 9,006 1,173 3,017 3,756 10,873 546,061 104,307 2,622 16,641 2,773 16,946 66,438 216,988 7,550 10,672 19,937 6,183 17,374 25,141 19,311 47,417 21,633 12,347 14,784 19,101 66,529 38,221 7,937 127,578 18,068 20,172 35,172 13,436 13,528 17,338 17,937 8,111 17,048 4,312 12,808  1.4 -1.0 -0.7 0.02 -0.01 0.4 0.9 -0.3 0.4 0.8 1.7 2.7 -1.9 0.1 0.2 5.7 2.0 -1.8 3.5 1.4 -0.3 0.0 0.5 2.5 1.4 3.2 0.8 2.2 0.2 1.0 2.8 2.3 0.1 0.1 0.7 -0.9 3.3 2.8 1.2 2.0 0.7 2.3 -0.9 -0.2 2.7 0.2 -0.1 3.3 1.8 0.4 0.4 1.3 -0.9 1.9 1.6 1.0 -1.2 -1.8 0.9  
Denton DeWitt Dickens Dimmit Donley  49,196 20,875 5,007 10,196 4,415  3.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 -0.8  Johnson Jones Karnes Kaufman Kendall  35,267 19,445 15,118 29,941 5,909  1.6 0.8 0.8 0.03 0.3  Randall Reagan Real Red River Reeves  36,301 3,585 2,058 15,638 17,665  7.0 -5.2 -1.0 -0.3 0.1  All Counties  9,743,949  1.7  

TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 




FALLOUT SHELTERS: 
CONSTRUCTION BOON 


by Charles 0. Bettinger 

THE SUBJECT OF FALLOUT SHELTERS RATES AS THE NUMBER one conversational topic in the nation since the nuclear test explosions conducted by Russia in the past few months. The resumption of testing, the magnitude of the bombs in­volved, and the publicity given the Russian announcements have created a surge of interest in protection which over­shadows anything the civil defense officials have been able to accomplish. As a result of this interest, pressure has been brought to bear on all levels of government for a revalua­tion of the situation and for specific proposals for action. Another immediate result of this public concern has been the recognition by the construction industry that the fall­out shelter could be very good business indeed. 
The problem seems to have such a complex answer that even major details have not yet been worked out satis­factorily. Perhaps the biggest question to resolve is to de­termine the type of shelter which should be specified. The simplest type is the shelter which provides for fallout pro­tection only. This shelter is the most difficult to describe because its physical appearance can take any form, shape, or size. Included in this category would even be natural shelters such as caves, caverns, and tunnels. This fallout shelter serves one purpose only: as a shield from radio­active dust particles that might contaminate the air after an atomic or hydrogen explosion. 
The materials used in a man-made shelter of this type consist of many elements, with the products of greater density offering the most protection. Clay brick, concrete block, sand, and dirt are commonly used for this purpose. 
Shelters offering fallout protection only are usually much less expensive than the second type of shelter which offers blast and fire protection as well as fallout safety. Even in a shelter with some blast and fire protection, the effect is limited to the exact pressure specifications of the individual shelter and its relation to ground zero or point of explosion. At ground zero to almost a three-mile radius, shelter is of little use because of the tremendous heat, the explosive force, and direct radiation. In the case of a larger bomb, the destroyed area has an even greater radius. 
Fallout, however, is not restricted to a few miles, but 
can be wind-borne for thousands of miles with deadly ef­
fect. Fallout danger is at a maximum if the bomb is ex­
ploded at ground level where radioactive dust is sucked up 
by the explosion and blown to other areas. Conversely, 
radioactive fallout is at a minimum when the bomb is ex­
ploded in the atmosphere. Proximity to a high priority 
military or industrial target might dictate that a shelter 
provide blast and fire protection, whereas a reasonable 
distance may permit some kind of fallout protection only. 
Another basic controversy in fallout shelter construction is the practical one involving cost. Advocates of group shelters say that the construction expense per person can be greatly reduced below that of a family shelter. Recent ex­periments on group blast-and fire-resistant shelters have placed the cost of group shelters at approximately $200 per person. One shelter tested withstood a pressure of 35 pounds per square inch as blast protection and was in­sulated for protection against fire to a reasonable degree. It was equipped with food, water, medicine, generators, batteries, and radiation detectors. Cost estimates of similar protection in a family shelter were more than double those in the group shelter on the same per-person basis. 
The government attitude toward shelters originally leaned toward family shelters as demonstrated by the booklet, The Family Fallout Shelter published by the Department of Defense, Office of Civil Defense. More re­cently, this stand is being reversed because of the high con­struction costs involved. A new publication being prepared is said to emphasize other types of shelters including group shelters and natural shelters. Some families have decided to pool finances and build a stronger shelter for the same cost. Others have included shelter provisions in a new home with plans to use the shelter area as a den, playroom, or even a spare bedroom for guests. 
The possible effect of shelter construction on the build­ing industry in Texas can be shown by using the conserva­tive estimate of $200 per person and multiplying it by the state's population of nearly 10 million persons. With only one shelter per person this total would exceed $2 bil­lion. However, it is generally acknowledged that more than one shelter per person will be needed for adequate protec­tion at home, work, and school. 
To illustrate the effect that such construction could have on a single industry, the construction of 10,000 family shelters made of standard brick for six persons would re­quire approximately 45 million brick. Similar estimates could be calculated for concrete block, iron and steel, wood, and other structural products. Needless to say, the potential boost to the entire industry is great indeed. 
Recognizing this fact, steel companies and metal fab­ricators were quick to seize the opportunity. Steel com­panies such as Lone Star Steel, Armco Steel and others quickly organized new divisions and went into mass pro­duction. New companies making prefabricated shelters grew overnight. Fly-by-nighters, too, are taking advantage of the special situation for quick profits. 
Now the Russians have eased off with their nuclear tests and the crisis has lessened, but the interest in protection still runs high. Except in isolated areas, the family fallout shelter will not get as much attention as the group shelter in the future. Yet many families still desire some protec­tion at home and feel that this should be incorporated in the cost of the house. However, the expense of building a 

JANUARY 1%2 family shelter near the site of an existing house will prob­ably remain prohibitive for most of the population. Ex­ceptions to this could occur in the event federal loans are made available at a nominal interest rate. 
This possibility seems remote for the present, but some companies have made similar proposals to their employees for shelter construction. International Business Machines, for example, has offered interest-free loans to their em­ployees of up to $1,000 for such projects. Many other busi­nesses have established group shelters for employees and sometimes their families. Others have gone well under­ground to insure that business records are maintained in the event of attack. 
ESTIMATED VAI, UE OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED 
Source: Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau 
of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce 
Percent change 
Nov Jan-Nov 1961 1961 Nov 1961 Jan-Nov 1961 
from from 
Classification (thousands of dollars) Oct 1961 Jan-Nov 1960 
ALL  PERMITS  ........ $101,980  1,261,180  - 9  + 6  
New construction  ................ .  92,118  1,125,022  - 9  + 6  
Residential  (housekeeping) ..  52,193  648,728  -14  + 11  
One-family dwellings  ......  44,150  564,267  - 8  + 3  
Multiple-family dwellings..  8,043  84,461  -36  +113  
Nonresidential  buildings  ....  39,925  476,294  - 1  - 1  
Nonhousekeeping buildings  
(residential)  ...................... ..  1,695  27,857  -76  + 21  
Amusement buildings  693  7,922  +600  - 6  
Churches  ........................... ..  4,745  35,725  + 53  -13  
Industrial buildings .......... ..  2,604  33,212  -65  - 7  
Garages  (commercial  
and private)  .............. .  639  8,896  -63  -12  
Service  stations  1,105  10,956  +  2  + 13  
Hospitals and  
institutions  2,568  46,149  +120  + 20  
Office-bank buildings ........  10,924  79,117  + 73  -11  
Work and utilities  71  20,837  -96  + 20  
Educational buildings ......  4,864  78,704  + 27  -14  
Stores and mercantile  
buildings  ............... .  6,136  96,019  + 26  + 4  
Other buildings and  
structures  ....  3,881  30,900  +134  + 39  
Additions, alterations,  
and repairs  9,862  136,158  - 6  + 13  

The current federal budget for civil defense is $207 mil­lion with almost half that amount ($93 million) designated for surveying and marking public buildings that can be used as shelters. Over one-fourth of this amount will be used for shelter equipment and supplies and another $38 million on warning and detection systems and on research and development. 
After the federal shelter inventory search, the budget will probably be greatly enlarged to modify existing struc­tures. Expectations of the most optimistic are that this cur­rent budget will serve to locate 50 million possible shelter spaces-enough for less than one-fourth of the population. In addition to a larger budget, other aids to provide shelter protection might come in the form of tax incentives such as deductions given to business and individuals for shelter construction. The need for shelter does exist, and a nation­wide policy will probably emerge in the near future. 
Other government action might occur at the state level. For instance, Governor Rockefeller has urged that the State of New York pass a compulsory shelter-buildin g pro­gram for that state. Wisconsin officials have exempted shelters from local property taxes as an incentive. Others have considered state income tax exemptions in the amount 
!0 
of the shelter constructed or some smaller set amount. Many of these programs will be tabled as group shelters get the spotlight. Preference is being given to group shel­ters on a government basis, not for the improved protec­tion during an actual attack, but for additional facilities such as equipment and supplies that could be provided. Also, special skills and talents in the group could be utilized in the post-attack which would not be available to individ­ual families that might be caught half-prepared and iso­lated. 
At any rate the future market for shelter construction will depend upon all levels of the government as well as the individual. Due to the nature of shelters and their respec­tive physical characteristics, this market will be highly diversified as to type of materials used and the contracting units which will build them. Smaller contractors and com­panies will be able to enter the market for the family shel­ter as they have in the past few months. Some of these will provide inadequate structures and eventually .be driven out by the quality builders who know their business. Com­potential buyer who will value information about shelters, hundreds of new companies springing up overnight to meet this new demand. Much of this growth has just served to confuse the shelter buyer, forcing him to make a decision between different materials and supplies. 
This has caused the potential buyer in many instances to just look and not buy in the midst of his confusion. The marketing of family shelters must be oriented toward the potential buyer who will value information about shelters about the fallout and blast protection which is offered, about survival measures, and about the corresponding costs of each. An explanation that even a hole in the ground covered with sandbags will offer some fallout protection might be necessary. However, it should be emphasized that the average family probably does not want to have any­thing so unsightly in their back yard. Therefore, a happy medium must be reached by the buyer which will agree with his income and current budget. The buyer should be completely informed as to what he is getting as well as what he is not getting in the form of protection. 
Group ;;;helters will receive the attention of the larger contractors and companies, and heavy structural products will benefit from group shelter construction. One company is already offering a basic group shelter for 200 to 400 per­sons for $15,000. Livermore, California is currently con­sidering a bond issue to build a $2 million shelter for the city's entire population of 16,000. Conversion of institu­tional basements or underground parking lots seems a logi­cal approach since the major costs of conversion are for medical supplies, water, ventilation, food supplies, and sanitary systems. Additional construction costs are some· times encountered in this situation if the building is strengthened structurally for more blast protection. Many buildings with some protection can be modified to reduce fallout radiation greatly. For example, window exposures which provide very little fallout protection may be modi· fied with a variety of shields which reduce radiation pene­
tration. 
The fallout shelter is indeed a challenge to the construe· 
tion industry. To those who help in solving the problems of 
shelter construction and the unique market involved, a 
good profit will be reaped. To others who fail to meet the 
challenge, it could prove to be only a costly venture. 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

LP GOES THE RURAL ROUTE 


by James D. Gordon 

NEVER AGAIN WILL THE MOST PRODUCTIVE FARMER BE THE one who simply rises earliest, plows deepest, knows intui­tively what weather to prepare for and puts in the most hours pampering his crops and stock. Agriculture is pro­gressively demanding a more technical approach, denying reliance upon tradition or custom. The individual farm owner, while still beset with the age-old problem of nature's inconsistency, must now be versed in genetics hybridization, chemistry, governmental policy, nutrition, mechanics, eco­nomics, and so on endlessly. Granted, not all farmers are so qualified, but those neglecting these subjects are most prevalent among the enormous farm exodus of the past half century. 
Nor has this trend ceased. The obvious implication is that the land left behind is being absorbed by larger farms. The absorbers are, needless to say, expanding in size while dwindling in numbers. The following statistical testimony should suffice: 50 years ago Texas had 420,000 farms and ranches averaging 265 acres in size, while at present there are only 225,000 averaging 630 acres. This constitutes a 45 % decrease in numbers and more than a doubling in average size. Moreover, the per-acre value of the land com­prising Texas farms has catapulted 600% during the same period. 
In sum, the typical Texas farm owner of today has in­vested in land alone an amount practically ten times as great as did his counterpart of a half century ago. At the same time, farmers are being subjected to a major and prolonged profit squeeze seldom paralleled in times past. Thus, the majority of farm owners have with little hesita­tion adopted new methods to increase or insure produc­tivity. Obvious examples are fertilization and soil conserva­tion. But, while related practices may enhance land value and/ or crop yields, they give the farmer no assurance that the use made of his land-his choice of products-is suffi­cient to return the maximum profits possible. 
Yet a tool has been developed which caters to such de­mands, though it is, regrettably, a rather mysterious sub­ject to the vast majority of farmers. While not the panacea that some profess, it has proved itself effective in numerous instances since its recent inception. The technique is var­iously labeled linear programming (LP), activity analysis, or mathematical programming. Though many are repelled by its apparent complexity, in essence it is simply a highly 
formalized system of farm r{~~;R~€JS.'t~t,.id budgeting. 
HistoT1cal Linear Programming as a~~l!iW1!lOJll Method of Budgeting D<R 
The budget analogy is worthy of elaboration for it may well remove at least a portion of the mystery which en­shrouds the concept of linear programming. The budget, defined as an estimation of income and expenses for a given period of time, may rightfully claim linear programming as its offspring. The inheritance is significant. The two methods utilize the same general technique. Both neces­sitate the assumption of linearity. Stated negatively, neither functions properly if a constant input-output ratio does not exist. Were either method employed, it would be assumed that both revenue and expense incurred would double if production of slaughter calves was increased from 50 to 100 or corn from 10 to 20 acres. 
The essence of the dissimilarity arises in the computa­tional methods employed. Further, the budget infrequently considers more than two alternative production plans. It leaves all other possibilities unexamined. Typically, the conventional budget demands the maximum use of some single resource, almost invariably land but perhaps labor or capital. 
Consider a Texas Blackland farmer who devotes the maximum amount of available land to the production of corn, maize, and cotton. Though such a plan fully exhausts the one resource-land, there remains an excess of both labor and capital. The situation appears to him ideal for the installation of a feedlot operation. Such a decision neces­sitates the reduction of one of the original crop allocations so that small grains may be produced to be included in th{; livestock ration. The chance that this final combination of products will maximize profits is infinitesimally small. Moreover, an attempt to prepare individual budgets for every possible combination of crops and livestock would require an inconceivable amount of time. 
Linear programming assumes the otherwise impractical task of determining that particular assembly of enterprises which utilizes existing resources in the most effective man­ner. It will designate the combination which is superior to all others, a chore which budgeting does not normally at­tempt to undertake. In brief, linear programming permits the simultaneous consideration of numerous activities as well as their interrelations and demands upon existing resources. 
The linear programming solution requires an elaborate procedure of trials and retrials. This process of iteration begins with a workable budget and with each successive reallocation it aosures an improvement, i.e., a greater profit, until an optimal status has been attained. 
Linear programming should be considered for use only on relatively large scale problems. If a problem is subject to budgeting, the more complex technique should be avoided. 
Linear programming is the more efficient procedure only where the number of restricting resources and possible enterprises and techniques are large, particularly if an­swers must be precise. 

JANUARY 1962 
Identity of a Problem Susceptible to Linear Pro· gramming 
The following list of conditions summarizes those fea­tures which combined provide a basis for the application of linear programming. 
1. 
The problem must involve the maximization or mini­mization of a specified activity. This could be an analysis of profit opportunities or an attempt to discover a plan incurring a minimum cost. 

2. 
Only one objective may be sought. This is usually a plan which maximizes profits. 

3. 
There must be alternative courses of action avail­able. If a farmer is unwilling or incapable of considering any crop save peanuts and abhors livestock and poultry, his dilemma is not subject to mathematical treatment. 

4. 
Resources must be limited to the extent that not all of the alternative projects may be performed most effec­tively. If land, labor, and capital are in such abundance that all activities may be sustained, linear programming is ineffective. 


5. 
A linear relationship among the variables is necessi­tated. The matter of a constant input-output ratio has been discussed. 

6. 
An assumption of independence must be made. Re­source requirements and net profit must be the same whether an individual activity functions alone or is com­bined with other farm enterprises. 

7. 
Finally, all data is required to be in numerical terms. 


This may appear to be an unrealistic assembly of pre­requisites. Nevertheless, most farm problems which evolve from efficiency consci0usness may be made to comply with each of these conditions. 
Primary Applications 
As has been persistently asserted, linear programming facilitates the most efficient use of farm resources. The pre­requisite conditions have been enumerated and the essen­tial data specified. Having complied, the farmer may then proceed to apply linear programming to any one of the following inquiries: 

LP in Practice---------------------------------------­
The ensuing are intended to illustrate typical, though simplified, instances in which this technique has been successfully applied. While only 5 crops are considered in the first illustration, the latter problems treat as many as 25 or more activities. Further, there is herein no attempt made to enable the reader actually to compute an optimum program. The procedure normally employed is as tedious as it is time consuming. Were it not for the ability of electronic computers to assume this burden, linear pro­gramming could seldom be considered a practical ap· proach to an allocation problem. 
Example 1. 
A farmer, familiar with the production of cotton, alfalfa, barley, sugar beets, and potatoes, purchased a 150 acre farm in Deaf Smith County and requested a program which would utilize his resources in the most profitable manner. He indicated that the only factors which would restrict the production plan were: ( 1) the number of acres available, (2) the amount of water available during different periods of the season, and (3) the size of the acreage allotment of cotton. However, in addition to these absolute limitations, the farmer decided voluntarily to re­strict his potato acreage to not more than 50 acres because of the extreme variability of potato prices. His cotton acreage allotment was 60 acres and the water limitations were 2,200 acre-inches during period 1, 2,100 for period 2, and 730 for period 3. The resource requirements of the various crops were as follows : 
Sugar 
Item Cotton Potatoes Alfalfa beets Barley 

Cropland 1 1 1 1 1 
Water, period 1 4.0 13.3 15.8 13.0 6.3 
Water, period 2 16.6 0 22.2 42.7 0 
Water, period 3 7.8 0 11.1 3.3 0 
Net cash return $207 $200 $86 $136 $29 The final iteration in the solution process indicated that profits would be maximized if the following plan were em­ployed: 5 acres of barley, 16 acres of sugar beets, 19 acres 
of alfalfa, 60 acres of cotton, and 50 acres of potatoes. In­serting these figures into the linear function, the actual profit figure is deduced. 
$207 (60) +$200 (50) +$86 (19) +$136 (16) +$29 
(5) = $26,375.00 
With this program, only one resource was in excess supply, 755 units of water during period 1. 
Example 2. This problem, encountered by a North Texas stockman, involves the selection of a livestock enterprise which will fit a given cropping system. The farm under analysis consists of 320 acres, half in corn and a quarter each in oats and an alfalfa-brome grass mixture. Two men provide 480 labor hours per month. However, the amount which may be applied to livestock is that which remains after crop re· quirements have been met. Consideration is to be given 5 operations: spring litter hogs, x1 ; fall litter hogs, x2 ; full.feed dry lot cattle, xa; full-feed pasture cattle, x4; and delayed-feeding cattle, X5. In addition, the production cost occasioned by the use of corn, ( x6 ) ; protein feed, ( x7 ) ; and the purchase of feeder calves, {x8 ) , would be taken into account. From the fore· going, the net income equation may be constructed by in· traducing expected prices: I= $305x1 +$280x2 +$370xa 
+$355x4 +$355x5 -$1.48x6 -$0.47x1 -$130xs 
A refined solution necessitates the formulation of 19 restraints. Twelve of these are created by the monthly labor supply. The January restriction typifies each of these rela­tionships. The labor consumed during this month by the livestock operations may not exceed 420 hours. Each unit of x1 requires 1.4 hours, x2 1.8 hours, x3 1.4 hours, and x4 and x5 1.4 hours. Hence, the January inequality 
l.4x1 +l.8x2+l.5x3 +l.4x4 +l.4xs ~ 420. 
The 80 acres of alfalfa-brome grass, which may he utilized as either pasture or hay, creates a restriction for each of the three two-month periods during which grass 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
I. 	Best combination of (a) crops, (b) livestock, 
(c) both. 
2. 	
Best or least cost technique (a) type of mechani­zation, (b) strains and quality of livestock or crops. 

3. 	
Optimum assembly of all factors considered as a unit. 



The more common of these procedures is the all­inclusive analysis. A program thus intended may inspect 25 or more possible activities. A realistic examination may demand that individual crops be compared using various types and grades of seed, a number of fertilizer applica­tions, or with several unique irrigational plans. Livestock requires equivalent elaboration concerning the numerous feeding programs, each with a specific duration and feed mix. Yet, if several resources have specific limits, linear programming will designate the one optimal combination. 
The sophisticated practitioner of the linear programming method, upon confronting a problem area, will immediately assemble the relevant information into two divisions. Like­wise, he will acknowledge an indispensable condition which all activities must meet. This initial arrangement facilitates the computational process. The ensuing discussion lists each of these three necessary components. 
1. 
The Linear Function. Of ultimate concern is that sum denoted by the letter Z, for this represents the amount to be maximized (profit) or minimized (cost). If maximum profit is the objective of a farmer who has proposed corn and maize as alternatives to cotton, the linear function would be (net profit per acre of cotton) X (acres of cot­ton) + (net profit per acre of corn) X (acres of corn) + (net profit per acre of maize) X (acres of maize) = Z. 

2. 
Resource Restrictions. If, in the above, land was the only limitation upon productivity capacity, a pencil would be a more appropriate tool than a computer. However, few farmers are so fortunate. Were this not the case, linear programming for farms would be a superfluous activity. 

3. 
Nonnegativity Condition. The mathematical gym­nastics of the iterative computation requires every problem to specify that all of the variables (each activity to which resources may be allocated) be equal to or greater than zero. The method used to compute the optimal solution has no appreciation for the fact that the farmer is incapable of planting, for example, -20 acres of cotton. Were this re­quirement deleted, the final solution would invite pro­grams providing for negative allocations. 


would be provided. For example, no more than 5,200 pas­ture days may be consumed between April 15 and June 15. The unit pasture acre signifies the amount of pasture re­quired per day to sustain a cow receiving no other feed. These units convert to a ton of hay at a rate of 50 to 1. Computing the pasture-day demands made by each activity during the same period and introducing them as coeffi­cients, the following inequality is obtained: 
16x1 +Ox2 +Ox3 +12x4 +35x5 ~ 5,200 Thus, the restraints associated with the limited quantities of labor and pasture have been imposed. The remaining re­quirements are stated as equalities-sums which must be identical to other sums. These pertain to the utilization of the corn, protein feed, and feeder calves purchased as well as hay produced. The quantities produced or purchased may neither exceed nor fall short of the amounts consumed. The condition for calf purchases affords an example. The number of animals demanded in the implementation of systems x~, x4, and x5 should be reflected in Xs , the number bought. Therefore, X3 +X4 +Xs -Xg = 0. In less time than it took the farmer to slop his pigs, an electronic digital computer emitted the following advice: profits would be maximized with 3 litters of fall pigs, X2, and 72 cattle conforming with system x4• The employment of these two activities incurred 4,302 units of Xr., 14,370 of 
x7 and 72 of x8• Consequently, profits were projected to be $10,080 if this optimum allocation of resources was in­stalled. 
Example3. 
A somewhat more elaborate model, this illustration sought for a Blackland farmer the most profitable combina­tion of 27 possible activities in the face of 20 restraints. Resources included 240 acres of cropland plus the labor of two men at a uniform rate of 480 hours per month. 
Of the 11 livestock activities to be considered, one 

through four are systems of handling hogs, five and six are methods of feeding 400-pound calves, seven and eight are feeding systems for 650-pound yearling steers, nine is a yearling heifer feed plan, and ten and eleven are a beef-cow and dairy-cow enterprise, respectively. Activities 12 through 19 represent various crop rotation plans. Costs for each include both production and soil conservation ex­penses. Activity 20 is for supplement buying, 21 grain buying, and 22 indicates grain selling. Activities 23 through 25 are associated with various hay-making ac­tivities. Finally, 26 signifies calf selling, and 27 calf buying. 
Individual restrictions on labor, 1 through 12, are con­structed for each month. Next, the solution must assume that the quantity of supplement purchased is equated with the amount consumed by the livestock. This is accom­plished in an equation, restraint 13. In a like manner, equations 14 through 19 treat grain, hay, pasture, and calf purchases. Imposed by the final restriction, 20, is the limit of land available. 
In the deduction of an optimal combination of the 27 activities, the computer whirled through 39 iterations. The exercise lasted twenty-five minutes. The machine then yielded the following program: 
Livestock 	Number 
(1) 
Two-litter system of hogs 43 

(
5) Calves on pasture 	4.0 

(7) 
Yearling steers on pasture 48 

(9) 
Yearling heifers-dry lot 23 



Crops 	Acres 
Corn-corn-oats, clover-clover rotation, 
contoured 	12 
Corn-corn-oats-clover rotation, contoured 228 
Bushels of corn equivalent sold 160.7 
Hundredweight of supplement purchased 712.7 

Substituting these values into the profit equation, the net income is determined to be $22,200. 
JANUARY 1962 Restrictions upon the ability to produce have various origins but all focus upon the triad of land, labor, and capital. Each of these resources may be subject to any number of influences, the more frequent of which are indi­cated in the following: 
LAND 
1. 	
no more available for either sale or lease 

2. 	
government regulation on crop acreage 

3. 	
pasture lands incapable of cultivation 

4. 	
fertility of soil insufficient for raising certain crops 

5. 	
leases stipulating the extent to which particular crops can be grown 


LABOR 
1. 	
dependence upon family labor 

2. 	
help available only during certain seasons, as with migrant labor or school children 

3. 	
other required activities which limit time available 


CAPITAL 
1. 	
limits on credit obtainable 

2. 	
individual policy 

3. 	
funds available for some activities but not others 


Again, the restrictions prevailing upon a particular prob­lem are the limits of available resources. Yet only in isolated cases will the final plan utilize 100% of every resource at the farmer's disposal. For this reason the re­strictions are normally written as inequalities, meaning that the total demands made upon land, labor, or capital must be equal to or less than the amount available of each. For example, consider a farmer who is capable of mustering 1,200 hours of labor during the growing season and has chosen wheat and oats as possible crops. He calculates that an acre of wheat while requiring 5 hours of labor will yield 25 bushels, or .2 hours per bushel. Oats, on the other hand, average 30 bushels and use 3 hours of labor, or .l hours per bushel. The labor restriction would therefore be stated: .2 hours (per bushel of wheat) + .1 hours (per bushel of oats) < 1,200 hours. With few exceptions, all restrictions, whether on land, labor, or capital, are formu­lated in an equivalent manner. 
Increasing the Scope 
Determined agricullural economists, eagerly engaged in developing the capabilities of linear programming, have succeeded in adapting it to a progressively greater range of practical farm problems. A fundam ental impediment to the utility of this technique had previously been that re­sources were in fact seldom subject to absolute restrictions. This was particularly evident with rqrard to capital and labor. As a consequence, farm economists have busied themselves in the perfection of methods which derive opti­mum plans for each of a series of different resource levels. This is necessitated because of the fact that an alteration of any one restriction will most likely change the optimum plan. 
Similarly. the inability of Fconomists to provide reliable price projections precipitated the development of methods to determine the best plans at various price ranges. A par­allel technique for varying per acre yields has also been implemented. Perhaps the ultimate device in practical pro­gramming is a method which allows consideration of risk aversion. This approach attempts to compensate for factors which the farmer has no way of predicting, such as the implications of bad weather, machine breakdowns, or the disability of a laborer. 
Professional Applicators 
The practice of planning farm operations through linear programming has in the past several years emerged from the journals of university agricultural economists and has been assumed by enterprising farm consulting services. Certainly, mathematical programming provides an im­pressive supplement to the battery of tools intended to aug­ment efficient farm management. Sporting IBM electronic computers, one such firm assures a prospective client that after a thorough analysis of the farm plant, they will pro· vide an optimum plan which will normally increase operat­ing profits by 25% and frequently as much as 33%. Upon request, they will furnish a $100 per day consultant to as­certain sufficient information to feed their computers. 
The firm asserts that linear programming, as "agricul­ture's most advanced analysis technique," is designed to put farm or ranch operations on a business-like basis. The primary objective is to indicate to the farm owner "how to use his resources-land, labor, and capital-to the best possible advantage." 
In proceeding with the formulation of a precision plan, several steps are necessitated. First, consideration must be given both the farm's resources and every influencing factor such as climate, soils, credit, type and location of markets, topography, machinery and facilities. Next, the analyst should derive all of the adapted farm income op­portunities. An enduring program demands the careful determination of revenue and expense projections for each enterprise system. Finally, the information is coded into punched cards and devoured by a computer. The result is invariably, they profess, a more efficient and more profit­able farm operation. 
Nor has professional programming been restricted to individual farms. The entire 900 square-mile area of Sher· man County on the northern border of the Panhandle was the site of a recent regional development program. Linear programming facilitated formulations for county-wide plans of alternating livestock and cropping enterprises. A typical farm was set up in several areas of the county and optimum plans of resource allocation computed for each. Working both with farmers and Extension Service special­ists, the consultants provided ( 1) detailed cost and return budgets for each of 30-40 activities, and (2) a table of the amounts of resources-land, labor. and capital-that each activity required to produce $LOOO of income. Optimum plans for the typical farms were calculated for as many as a dozen lrvels of capital. Thus, as input-output data were quite similar for each of the areas surrounding the model farms, individual programming was unnecessary. 
Various enterprises have been engaged in agricultural development programming since the mid-1940's. However, the Sherman County project was the first attempt at em· ploying linear programming and computer analysis. The arnilability of this technique has provided no small im· petus to further large-scale endeavors. 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
Local Business 






Conditions 

As a reader's guide to better utility of retail sales data, an average per cent change from the preceding month has been computed for each month of the year. This percent change is marked with a dagger (t) following that figure. The next percent change represents the actual change from the pre­ceding month. A large variation in the normal seasonal from the actual figure represents an abnormal month. This third percent change is the percent change for the identical period the preceding year showing the change between the two years. Postal receipt information which is marked by an asterisk (•) indicates cash receipts received during the four-week postal accounting period ending December 8, 1961, and the percent changes from the preceding period and the compar· able period in the previous year. Annual postal data are for 13 four-week periods falling closest within 1960 and 1961 calen­dar years. Changes less than one-half of one percent are marked with a double asterisk (**) . Houston and Waco retail sales information are reported in cooperation with the Uni­versity of Houston Center for Research in Business and Eco­nomics and Baylor Bureau of Business Research, respectively. End-of-month deposits as reported represent money on de­posit in individual demand deposit accounts on the last day of the month. All population figures are final 1960 census data. Figures under Texarkana with the following symbol 
(§) are for Texarkana, Texas, only. 
Percent change  
City and item  Nov 1961  Nov 1961 from Oct 1961  Nov 1961 from Nov 1960  

ABILENE (pop. 90,368) 
Retail sales .................................................. . 

Apparel stores ........... . 

Automotive stores _____ _ 
Drug stores ................... . 

Food stores ......................................... 

General merchandise stores ......... . 

Lumber, building material, 
and hardware stores .................. . Postal receipts• ........ ........$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) .......$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ... $ Annual rate of deposit turnover .......... .. Employment (area) .............. . 
Manufacturing employment (area) .... Percent unemployed (area) 
ALICE (pop. 20,861) 
Retail sales Lumber, building material, 
and hardware stores ......................... . Postal receipts• ..........................................$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ 
lt  +  2  - l  
lt  - 7  - 14  
lt  ••  +  a  
6t  +  l  
at  4  
+  2t  +  +  4  
9t  +  5  
121,026  +  1a  +  4  
814,4a9  - 62  - 46  
110,021  +  +  
70,764  +  10  
18.6  +  12  
a6,800  +  2  +  16  
4,140  +  6  +  27  
6.1  4  - 12  

- 9t  - 2  + 9  
16,696  + 1a  + 6  
165,191  + 7  + 22  

Percent change


Local Business Conditions 
Nov 1961 Nov 1961 Nov from from City and item 1961 Oct 1961 Nov 1960 
ALPINE (pop. 4,740) Postal receipts• .........................................$ 4,582  + 15  ••  
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,600  +256  
Bank debits (thousands) ......................... $ a,026  6  +  14  
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 4,072  +  5  
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 8.9  8  +  9  
AMARILLO (pop.137,969) Retail sales _ it  ••  - 9  
Apparel stores _ ............................. .. 1t  + 12  - a  
Automotive stores ·-------············· 1t  a  - 1a  
Eating and drinking places ... st  8  - 6  
Furniture and household  
appliance stores ........................ 1t  4  - 11  
Postal receipts• ....................................... $ 209,882  +  - a  
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2,660,925  + 56  +  49  
Bank debits (thousands) ......................... $ 2a7,717  4  +  6  
End-of-month deposits (thousands )t ....$ 117,055  -2  
Annual rate of deposit turnover ..... 24.1 Employment (area) .................... 52,100 Manufacturing employment (area) 4,810  -2.. ••  + - 4 20  
Percent unemployed (area) ........ 6.6  + ao  +  ao  
+ 
61 + 12 + 19 + 69 -7 -9 + 8 + 7 -21 -1a 




ANDREWS (pop. 11,135) 
Postal receipts• ..... ............. ..$ 8,798 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1a9,810 Bank debits (thousands) ............. .. .. $ 4,915 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 10,192 Annual rate of deposit turnover 6.0 
ARANSAS PASS (pop. 6,956) 
Postal receipts•  .......................................... $  4,498  
Building permits, less federal contracts $  14,000  
Bank debits  (thousands)  ........................$  4,84a  
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$  5,470  
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... .  10.8  


ARLINGTON (pop. 44,775) 
Retail sales 
Lumber, building material, and hardware stores ··············---····-···­Postal receipts• ... .................................. $ Building permits, less f ederal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover _ Employment (area) .................... . Manufacturing employment (area) .... Percent unemployed (area) .................. .. 
-9t 45,021 
1,141,696 a2,861 21,725 
18.l 
216,200 51,250 
5.a 
+ 	
1a -6 

+ 	
a9 + 67 1a + 14 

+ 	
a + 24 17 -6 


-22 -2 
+ 
11 •• 

+ 
1 + 7a 


•• + 17 
•• + 9 
-a + 9 
•• + 2 
4 
+ 8 •• 
A THENS ( 7 ,086)  
Postal receipts• ........ ........$ 6,560  -5  2  
Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ 7,9aa  -16  + 7  
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 7,977  -6  1  
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 11.6  -14  + 6  
AUSTIN (pop. 186,545) Retail sales ......... lt  + 4  ••  
Apparel stores ............ ...................... . 1t  2  2  
Automotive stores 1t  + 2  + 8  
Drug stores ···········--·····-···-············ 6t  + 2  
Eating and drinking places St  6  + 6  
Food stores .................. . at  9  + 2  
Furniture and household  
appliance stores ...................... . 1t  + a  
Lumber, building material,  
and hardware stores ........... . 9t  6  4  
Postal receipts• ....................... $ a94,757  + 2  + 6  
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 6,464,809  + 59  +149  
Bank debits (thousands ) ........................$ 229,154  10  + 11  
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 160,976  + 6  + 1a  
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 17.5  12  + 1  
Employment (area) ................. . 80,400  ••  + 6  
Manufacturing employment (area) ... 5,600  +  6  
Percent unemployed (area) .................... a.9  + 11  7  

JANUARY 1962 
Percent change Percent change
Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions 
Nov 1961 Nov 1961 Nov 1961 Nov 1961 Nov from from Nov from from City and item 1961 Oct 1961 Nov 1960 City and item 1961 Oct 1961 Nov 1960 
BAY CITY (pop. 11,656) BRADY (pop. 5,338) 
Retail sales Postal receipts• ......................................... $ 4,951 + 11 + 6 Automotive stores --·---···--·-------------··· -1 t + 12 + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 15,800 66 -65
-
Postal receipts• ........................................ $ 13,371 + 13 + 8 Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 4,552 -13 •• 
Bank debits (thousands) ......................... $ 15,716 -10 + 16 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 7,610 -1 + 9 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 24,161 + 3 + 15 Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 7.1 -15 -9 
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 7.9 -16 + 

BRENHAM (pop. 7,740)
BAYTOWN (pop. 28,159) Postal receipts* ........................................ $ 8,190 + 7 -6 
Postal receipts• ... . .......................... $ 25,527 -1 + 3 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 111,498 +256 +323 
Building permits, less federal contracts$ 453,085 + 15 +153 Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 10,456 -16 + 10 
Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 23,972 3 + 18 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ... $ 13.145 -3 + 4 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 24,213 + + 16 Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 9.4 -17 + 6 
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 11.9 4 + 5 
Employment (area) ................................. . 513,900 + BROWNSVILLE (pop. 48,040) 

Manufacturing employment (area) ... . 93,900 •• •• Retail sales ................................................. . lt -8 -10 Percent unemployed (area) ................... . 4.5 + 7 -4 Automotive stores ............................... . lt -14 -24 Lumber, building material, 9t -15 + 28
and hardware stores ·······-················· Postal receipts• .......................................... $ 30,363 -1 -1
BEAUMONT (pop. 119,175) 
Retail sales .................................................. 1t •• + 22 

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 412,006 +183 +134 
Apparel stores ........................................ 1t + 15 + 13 

Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 31,024 -12 9 

Automotive stores .................................. 1t 7 + 37 

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 20,085 -3 
Furniture and household 
Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------18.3 -12
appliance stores .................................. 1t 7 -26 
Lumber, building material, 

BROWNWOOD (pop. 16,974)
and hardware stores .......................... 9t -16 + 5 

Retail sales
Postal receipts• ..........................................$ 126,067 + 9 -8 

Apparel stores ....................................... . -1 -6 

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 5,400,573 8 +179 
Furniture and household
Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 176,693 •• + 9 

appliance stores ................................. . lt + 47 + 14

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 105,623 + 2 
Postal receipts* .......................................... $ 26,239 + 21 -6 

Annual rate of deposit turnover ............ 20.3 -3 + 

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 21,300 -43 -40
Employment (area) ..... ............................ 105,200 -3 

Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 15,314 7 + 10 

Manufacturing employment (area) .... 30,420 -11 -10 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t $ 13,448 + 4 + 5
Percent unemployed (area) .................... 6.9 + 17 + 5 

Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 13.9 + 8 

BEEVILLE (pop. 13,811) BRYAN (pop. 27,542) 
Retail sales Retail sales ................................................. . -1 t + 6 + 
Lumber, building material, Food stores ............................................. . -3t •• 8 

and hardware stores ..... . -9t -4 + 4 Postal receipts• ..........................................$ 21,480 -7 
Postal receipts* .......................................... $ 12,897 + 21 + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 57,874 -64 -62 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 67,280 -29 + 94 Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 26,147 -17 + 13 
Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 9,707 + 1 + 4 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 17,875 -1 + 10 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 13,893 + 2 + 5 Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 17.5 -18 •• 
Annual rate of deposit turnover ______ 8.5 2 

CALDWELL (pop. 2,204) 
Postal receipts• ........................................$' 2,536 + 14 -7

BELLAIRE (pop. 19,872) 
Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 2,618 -6 + 14

Postal receipts* ......................................... $ 36,641 + 8 + 1 

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 4,314 + 3 + 5Building permits, less federal contracts $ 159,480 +121 +104 
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 7.4 -11 + 10

Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ 13,052 5 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 9,154 

CAMERON (pop. 5,640)
Annual rate of deposit turnover ___ _ 17.0 
Postal receipts* ......................................... $ 6,376 + 38 + 22

Employment (area) .......................... . 513,900 + 

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 30,859 +236 +482Manufacturing employment (area) ... . 93,900 •• 
Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 5,522 8 + 12

Percent unemployed (area) ................... . 4.5 + 7 -4 

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 5,185 5 + Annual rate of deposit turnover ...... . 12.4 2 + 15 
BIG SPRING (pop. 31,230) 
Retail sales CANYON (pop. 5,864) 

Furniture and household Bank debits (thousands) .......................... $ 6,261 4 
appliance stores 1t -6 + 23 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 6,674 
Lumber. building material, Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 11.l 11 
and hardware stores ---------·---------9t -13 + 
Postal receipts* .......................................... $ 31,934 •• + 6 

CARROLLTON (pop. 4,242)
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 350,881 -48 +us 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 576,716 +204 +930 Bank debits (thousands) .......................... $ 45,703 + 7 + 8 
Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 3,564 9 -8 

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 28,305 + End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 2,411 4 + 6 
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 19.2 + 2 + 

Annual rate of deposit turnover ............ 17.4 8 -13 

BISHOP (pop. 3,722) CHILDRESS (pop. 6,399)
Postal receipts• ......................................... $ 2,446 -8 -14 Postal receipts* ... 5,482 --30

···································· .$ 11 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 3,700 -63 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 31,475 -26 +272 Bank debits (thousands) ........ . .... $ 2,183 -20 + 11 Bank debits (thousands) .......................... $ 11,885 + 17 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 3,125 -9 + 19 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 7,913 + 10 Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 8.0 -14 -8 Annual rate of deposit turnover ............ 18.8 + 3 
16 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
Percent change Percent change

Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions 
Nov 1961 Nov 1961 Nov 1961 Nov 1961 Nov from from Nov from from City and item 1961 Oct 1961 Nov 1960 City and item 1961 Oct 1961 Nov 1960 
CISCO (pop. 4,499) DALLAS (pop. 679,684) 
Postal receipts• .........................................$ 4,554 + 21 •• Retail sales ................................................ . + at + 7 + 8 
Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ 3,273 -7 + 3 Apparel stores ....................................... . lt + 20 + 5 
End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ....$ 3,910 •• 3 Automotive stores ................................. . + 7t + 5 + 28 
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 10.1 -8 + 4 Eating and drinking places ............... . 15t 12 a 
Florists ..................................................... . + at + 7 + 7 
Food stores ........................................... . + lt a + 2

CLEBURNE (pop. 15,381) 
Furniture and household
Postal receipts• ......................................... $ 16,779 + 20 + 6 appliance stores ------···········----------------­1t 1 + 12
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 100,439 +133 General merchandise stores + st + 22 ••
Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ 10,208 -8 •• 

Lumber, building material,
End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ....$ 11,691 •• + 2 
and hardware stores ....... . -14t 7 + la

Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 10.5 -8 2 

Nurseries .............. . + 4 + 4

Employment (area) ................................. . 451,100 •• + a 

Office, store, and school
Manufacturing employment (area) ... . 96,100 + 2 + 3 supply dealers .... --------·--············ •• 2 + 2
Percent unemployed (area) ...... . 4.3 + 8 4 
Postal receipts• ..........................................$ 2,575,206 + 7 Building permits, less federal contracts $11,860,854 -30 + 25CLUTE (pop. 4,501) Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ a,107,190 -a + 9 
Postal receipts• .......................................... $ 2,420 + 34 + 11 

End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ....$ 1,249,869 •• + 8 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 52,600 -47 + 46 
Annual rate of deposit turnover ............ 29.8 -5 +

Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 1,299 -a5 -9 

Employment (area) .................................. 451,100 •• +

End-of-month deposits (thousands) + .... $ 1,797 + la + a3 Manufacturing employment (area) .... 96,100 + 2 + a 
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 9.2 -42 -32 

Percent unemployed (area) .................... 4.3 + 8 4 

COLLEGE STATION (pop.11,396) DEER PARK (pop. 4,865) 
Postal receipts• ..........................................$ 17 ,808 -2 + 44 Postal receipts• .......................................... $ 4,454 -9 -3 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 78,888 +109 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 66,550 -74 +178 Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 3,79a -4 + 11 Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ a,524 + 11 + 33 Annual rate of deposit turnover ............ 16.8 •• -3 End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ....$ 2,168 6 + 46 
ERd-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ....$ 2,696 -1 + 12 Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 18.9 2 -5 Employment (area) ................................. . 513,900 + Manufacturing employment (area) ... . 93,900 •• ••
COLORADO CITY (pop. 6,457) 
Percent unemployed (area) ................. . 4.5 + 7 -4

Retail sales 
Lumber, building material, 
DEL RIO {pop. 18,612)
and hardware stores ....................... . -9t -4 -2a 

Retail sales 
Postal receipts• .......................................... $ 6,580 + 28 

+ Lumber, building material,
Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 7,a56 + 18 -4 

and hardware stores ------------------··-------9t -4 -11 
End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ....$ 6,195 + 3 -19 
Postal receipts• .........................................$ 12,785 + 14 -7 
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 14.5 + 10 + 15 

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 58,606 1 + 12 
Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ 9,673 3 + 2 
COPPERAS COVE (pop. 4,567) End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ....$ 13,381 3 + 5 
Postal receipts• .......................................... $ 3,028 + aa + 8 Annual rate of deposit turnover ··----------8.6 2 a 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ a68,400 + 28 +a99 
Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ l,062 •• + 54 DENISON (pop. 22,748) 

End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ....$ 7a9 + a -11 Retail sales ................................................. . -lt + -2 
Annual rate of deposit turnover ·······-··· 17.5 + 2 + 55 Automotive stores ................................. . -st + 17 + 26 
Postal receipts• ..........................................$ 21,658 + 1a -5 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 325,744 + 73 + a5

CORPUS CHRISTI (pop. 167,690) 
Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 15,861 4

+
Retail sales .................................................. 1t + + 19 

End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ....$ 14,802 + 2
Apparel stores ........................................ -lt + 17 + 8 

Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 12.8 + 2 7

Automotive stores .................................. -1t + 6 + 20 
Nurseries ----·-······---··································· 15 6

--DENTON (pop. 26,844)
Postal receipts• ..........................................$ 172,783 + 4 -4 

Postal receipts• .......................................... $ 34,744 -10 + 4

Building permits, less federal contracts $ l,a54,845 -22 + 54 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 326,400 -26 -18
Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 209,2a8 + 6 + 11 

Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ 20,029 -11 + 9

End-of-month deposits (thousands) + .... $ 112,36a -5 + 4 End-of-month deposits (thousands) f ....$ 22,768 -1 + 14
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 21.7 + 4 + 4 

Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 10.5 -15 7

Employment (area) ................................. . 64,200 •• •• 

Employment (area) ................................. . 451,100 •• + 3

Manufacturing employment (area) ... . 8,500 •• •• Manufacturing employment (area) ... . 96,100 + 2 + 3
Percent unemployed (area) ................... . 5.7 + 10 -16 

Percent unemployed (area) ................... . 4.3 + 8 4 

CORSICANA (pop. 20,344) DONNA (pop. 7 ,522)
Postal receipts• .......................................... $ 95,107 +155 -1 

Postal receipts• ......................................... $ 3,476 + 9 -2 

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 22,200 -65 + 71 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 16,515 + 4 -49
Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ 18,749 -7 + 17 

Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ 2,495 + 12

End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ....$ 20,a12 •• + 4 End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ....$ 2,974 
+ + 6
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 11.0 -10 + la 

Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 10.1 4 + 7 

CRYSTAL CITY {pop. 9,101) EDINBURG (pop. 18,706)
POBtal receipts• .......................................... $ 2,798 -18 -5 Postal receipts• .......................................... $ 11,918 + 24 -4 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 28,350 -62 + a7 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 104,475 -9 + 12 Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ 2,834 + 2 + 15 Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ 17,433 + 32 + 21 End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ....$ 2,929 + 17 End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ .... $ 8,609 -13 -7 Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 11.5 6 2 Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 22.6 + 27 + 21 
JANUARY 1962 
Local Business Conditions  Percent change  Percent change  
Nov 1961  Nov 1961  Nov 1961  Nov 1961  
Nov  from  from  Nov  from  from  
City and item  1961  Oct 1961  Nov 1960  City and item  1961  Oct 1961  Nov 1960  
ELECTRA (pop. 4,759) Postal receipts• ---------------------------------------­_$ 4,207 Bank debits (thousands) ------------------------$ 2,623 End-of-month deposits (thousands) j: ---­$ 3,391 Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­9.4  + 12 + a + 2 + l  + 5 + + 31 -14  GAINESVILLE (pop. 13,083) Retail sales Apparel stores -------------------­------­------------­Furniture and household appliance stores --------------------­Postal receipts• ·--------­------­------------------------·$ lt 1t 14,563  + 30 + 2 + 11  + 11 + 10 -5  
EL PASO  (pop. 276,687)  Building permits, less federal contracts $  30,578  -65  
Retail sales Automotive stores ------------­--------------------­-l t Postal receipts• ------------­---------------------­------$ 318,947 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 3,478,693 Bank debits (thousands) ________________________ $ 377,045 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i: ____ $ 179,551 Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­25.l Employment (area) . ---------------------·--......__ 93,300 Manufacturing employment (area) ____ 14,150 Percent unemployed (area) ----­--------------­4.3  -28 + 7 + 4 + 6 + 2•• -1 + 13  •• -8 -31 + 6 + 6•• + 2 + 1 9  GALENA PARK (pop. 10,852) Postal receipts• -----------­-------­----------------------$ 4, 7 44 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 11,600 Bank debits (thousands) ________________________ $ 4,652 End-of-month deposits (thousands) j: ____ $ 2,845 Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­18.8 Employment (area) -----------------------------­513,900 Manufacturing employment (area) ____ 93,900 Percent unemployed (area) --­----------------­4.5  -7 -85 4 8 8 •• + 7  -18 +209 + 16 + •• 4  
ENNIS (pop. 9,347) Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ------------­-----------$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) j: ----$ Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­40,813 7,619 7,676 11.9 FORT STOCKTON (pop. 6,373)Bank debits (thousands) ________________________ $ 5,402  + 71 -14 •• -14 -15  -27 + 9 + 3 + 8  GARLAND (pop. 38,501) Retail sales Automotive stores ·--------------------------------­-1t Drug stores ---------------------------------------------­-5t Postal receipts• ------------------------------$ 31,387 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2,198,277 Employment (area) ---------------­-----------------­451,100 Manufacturing employment (area)____ 96,100 Percent unemployed (area) -------------------­4.3  14 2 8 +161 •• + 2 + 8  + 25 + 13 + + 57 + 3 + 3 4  
End-of-month deposits (thousands) j: ____ $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ---­----­--­ 5,044 12.8  -1 -16  GATESVILLE (pop. 4,626) Postal receipts• -----------------------------------------­$ 5,210  + 37  + 7  
FORT WORTH (pop. 356,268) Retail sales ----­----------­---------------------------------­..t Apparel stores -----­--------­-----------------------­7t Automotive stores ---······· ----·--······--------·· Drug stores ------------­----------­-------­Eating and drinking places Food stores -------------­--------------------------­Furniture and household appliance stores -----------·········----­Gasoline and service stations --······-··· General merchandise stores ............... . Lumber, building material, + St 3t St 7t 3t 2t + 14t and hardware stores --------­----------------­-14t Postal receipts• -----------­-----------------­-----------$ 840,289 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2,035,827 Bank debits (thousands) ----------------------­-$ 804,973 End-of-month deposits (thousands) j: ----$ 387,705 Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . Employment (area) ---------------------------------­24.7 216,200  + 4 2 + 3 + 5 9 2 + 16 -4 + 15 -13 + 2 + 3 2 1 3 ••  + + + 17 + 18 8 11 + 13 + 5 + 9 + 6 -47 + 9 + 1 + 8 + 2  Bank debits (thousands) ------------------------$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) j: ____ $ Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­GIDDINGS (pop. 2,821) Postal receipts• ---···--------­-----­------------------­--$ Bank debits (thousands) ·-----------------------$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ---­$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ------··---­5,290 5,646 11.1 3,569 2,890 3,985 8.8 GLADEWATER (pop. 5,742) Postal receipts• -·--------­--------­------------. $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ---------------­--------$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) j: ---­$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . Employment (area) -----------------------­Manufacturing employment (area) ___ _ Percent unemployed (area) ------------­------­6,470 64,700 3,480 5,625 7.1 28,800 5,740 3.6  4 5 + 1 9 + 2 -11 + 17 +327 •• -7 -5 •••• + 9  + 8 + 6 + 5 -12 + 13 3 + 9 -7 -21 + 9 + 19 -10 + 1 + 8 -28  
Manfacturing employment (area) ---­Percent unemployed (area) -----­-------------­ 51,250 5.3  +  1 8  4 ••  GOLDTHWAITE (pop. 1,383) Postal receipts• ------------------------------­-----------$ 1,826  + 4  -25  
FREDERICKSBURG (pop. 4,629) Retail sales -------------------------------------------------­-1t Food stores -------------------­-----------------------­-3t  -5 + 6  + 8 + 6  Bank debits (thousands) ------------------------$ 2,883 End-of-month deposits (thousands) j: ____ $ 3,889 Annual rate of deposit turnover ---­8.9  8 9  -2 + 10 -12  
General merchandise stores ---------------­+ 2t Postal receipts• ---­___________ $ 6,314 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 82,400 Bank debits (thousands) ------------------------$ 8,126 End-of-month deposits (thousands) j: ____ $ 8,290 Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­11.6  + 11 + 48 +too •• 3 + 3  + 5 + 7 + 35 + 16 + 4 + 12  GRAHAM (pop. 8,505) Postal receipts• ----------­---------------------­-­___ $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ____________________ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) j: ----$ Annual rate of deposit turnover -------····· 7,838 14,520 8,727 10,379 10.1  -9 +123 1  -8 -72 + 6 •• + 4  
GALVESTON (pop. 67,175) Retail sales ------------------------­-----------------------­Apparel stores ------------­-----·------------·------­Food stores -----------------­--------------------------­Postal receipts• -------------­----------------------------$ Building p ermits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) --------------------------$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) j: ---­$ Annual rate of deposit turnover -··-·------· Employment (area) ---------------------------------­Manufacturing employment (area) ··-­Percent unemployed (area) -------------------­1t 1t 3t 86,588 376,537 90,293 65,433 16.7 52,600 10,600 8.5  3 •• -75 •• + 2 •••• + 9  + 29 + 9 -8 -6 + 13 + 5 + 12 4 •• -1 + 49  GREENVILLE (pop. 19,087) Retail sales -----------­-------------------------------------­Apparel stores ---------------------------------------­Automotive stores ___ ----------------------------­Drug stores __ ----------------------­Lumber, building material, and hardware stores ___ -----------········­Postal receipts• ·---------------------­_________ $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ___________ _____________ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) j: ____ $ Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­1t lt 1t 6t 9t 31,320 120,415 16,194 16,849 10.9 + 6 -15 + 26 + 5 -23 + 37 -33 -9 + 2 -11  + 16 + 2 + 38 + 13 -13 -1 -18 -6 + 7 -10  
18  TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW  

Local Business Conditions  Percent change  Local Business Conditions  Percent change  
City and item  Nov 1961  Nov 1961 from Oct 1961  Nov 1961 from Nov 1960  City and item  Nov 1961  Nov 1961 from Oct 1961  Nov 1961 from Nov 1960  
GRANBURY (pop. 2,227) Postal receipts• -------------­------------­---------------$ Bank debits (thousands) ________________________$ Elnd-of-month deposits (thousands ) t ____ $ Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­4,600 1,488 2,086 8.9  +119 3 + 7 4 -8  HUMBLE (pop. 1,711) Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands ) ________________________$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ____$ Annual rate of deposit turnover 1,000 2,212 2,500 10.6  -90 + 1 7 -93 + 28 -15 + 45  
GRAND PRAIRIE (pop. 30,386)Postal receipts• -------­----­_____ _______________________$ 24,663 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 602,670 Bank debits (thousands) --­---------------------$ 15,616 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ____ $ 10,186 Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­15.4 Employment (area) ___ ___----­---------------------­451,100  + 24 + 21 -13 -28 13 ••  -4 +138 + 17 + 12 + 18 + 3  JACKSONVILLE (pop. 9,590) Postal receipts• -------------------------­------$ 19,569 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 420,000 Bank debits (thousands) ________________________$ 11,470 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t ----$ 9,204 Annual rate of deposit turnover ___ 14.8  .. +1028 7 2 8  + 11 + 10 + 23 + 8 + 13  
Manufacturing employment (area) ·--­Percent unemployed (area) ---------------­---­ 96,100 4.3  + 2 + 8  + 3 4  JASPER (pop. 4,889) Retail sales -----------------------------------­ - 1t  +  7  +  6  
HALE CENTER (pop. 2,196)Postal receipts• _____ ___________ _______ $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ----­------­------------$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ----$ Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­2,095 22,500 4,211 4,663 11.7  + 20 + 74 + 9 + 17 -7  + +423 -6 + 11 -19  Automotive stores Postal receipts• -------­--------------------------­_____$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ________________________ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ____$ Annual rate of deposit turnover --lt 7,182 24,000 8,140 8,444 11.4  + 18 •• -39 + 2 + 2  + 8 -15 + 9 + 9  
HARLINGEN (pop. 41,207) Retail sales Automotive stores ---­-------­------­-----------­­Postal receipts• -------­----­---­------­--­-------------· $ Building permits, less federal contracts$ Bank debits (thousands) -------­----------------$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ____$ Annual rate of deposit turnover -------­---­-1t 37,585 1,709,550 37,724 27,443 16.1  -5 + +1901 + 4 5 + 6  -1 -18 +310 1 + 4  JUSTIN (pop. 622) Postal receipts• ___ ------------------------­____________$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) --­---------------------$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ____$ Annual rate of deposit turnover . KATY (pop. 1,569) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 620 15,000 1,293 855 17.9 7,500  + 13 2 2 9 -21  -9 + 8 + 16 -7 + 7  
HEMPSTEAD (pop.1,505) Postal receipts• -----------­------­----------------------·$ Bank debits (thousands) ---------------------­_$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ____$ Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­4,398 1,461 1,914 9.2  -46 + 24 + + 21  + 9 + 34 -2 + 42  Bank debits (thousands) ________________________ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ____$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ....... . KENEDY (pop. 4,301) Retail sales 1,990 2,012 11.4  -19 -8 -28  + 13 8 + 16  
HENDERSON  (pop. 9,666)  Lumber, building material, and hardware stores ---------------­ - 9t  + 2  + 26  
R etail sales Food stores ------------­--­-------------------------­---­Postal r eceipts• ------------------­--------­--­---­-------$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) -------­----------------$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ____$ Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­ -at 11,551 48,425 7,077 15,920 5.4  -4 + 45 -37 -13 + -14  -12 + 8 -62 -1 + 2••  Postal receipts• --------­$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ KILGORE (pop. 10,092) Postal receipts• ---------------------­__ $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) __ ____ $ 4,138 80,500 14,838 136,527 12,087  + 9 +683 + 12 + 51 -10  + 8 +178 -3 +720 + 4  
HEREFORD (pop. 7,652) Postal r eceipts• -------­---­-----------­-----------------·$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ----­-------------------$ End-of-mont h deposits (thousands) t ____ $  9,549 57,700 15,350 12,624  + 5 -25 + 7••  + 8 -67 + 11  End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ----$ Annual rate of deposit turnover Employment (area) --------------------­Manufacturing employment (area) ____ Percent unemployed (area) ---------­ 14,897 9.8 28,800 5,740 3.6  + 2 -10 •••• + 9  + 7 1 + 1 + 8 -28  
Annual rate of deposit turnover --­-----­--­HOUSTON (pop. 938,219) Retail sales -----------------------­---­-----------­-------­-­Apparel stores ----­-----------------­----­Automotive stores ----­-----------------­----------­Drug stores -------­-----­--------------­--­Eating a nd drinking places -------­-------­Food stores --------------------------------------------­Furniture and household appliance stores ---···-----·--·-····--·---------­Gasoline and service stations ---·-···---­-· General merchandise stores ·····­----···--­Liquor stores -------·-···---·--------------······-------·  14.6 + + + 2t 2t 5t 1t at 2t 2t ••t lt ••t  + -4 + 6 -14 + •• -1 + 13 -5 -5 + 10  16 + 13 + 20 + 22 + 11 + 1 + 3 + 27 -1 + 12 + 16  KILLEEN (pop. 23,377) Postal receipts• _--------------------------------­______ $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debts (thousands ) ----------------------------$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ----$ Annual rate of deposit turnover .... KINGSVILLE (pop. 25,297)Postal receipts• ____ ---­_______________$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) --------------------­____$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ____$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ......... . 34,115 305,721 11,154 8,975 14.9 14,753 101,369 10,588 13,072 9.8  + 22 + 2 + 3•• -3 + 14 + 5 2 + 4  + 2 + 58 + 22 + 15 + 6 -4 -42 + 8 + 7 +  
Lumber, building material, Pos~~~e~~~':'.ar~--~t_o_r_e~__ ::::::::::::::::::::::::$ 1,88--;:0~~t Building permits, less federal contracts $15,554,638 Bank debits (thousands) ________________________$ 2,871,002 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ____$ 1,352,593 Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­25.4 Employment (area) -------------------------------­513,900 Manufacturing employment (area) ____ 93,900 Percent unemployed (area) -------------------­4·5  -28 + 15 -38 + 1 + •• + 7  + 12 + 2 + 8 + 14 + 2 + 9 + •• -4  LA MARQUE (pop. 13,969) Postal receipts• -­. -------------­----------.$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands ) -------------------------$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t --­$ Annual rate of deposit turnover -------­Employment (area) ----­Manufacturing employment (area) P ercent unemployed (area) -------------------­11,109 41,290 7,898 6,376 14.8 52,600 10,600 8.5  + 95 -39 1 12 •••• + 9  + 32 +no + 24 + 25 + 3•• -1 + 49  
JANUARY 1962  19  

Percent change 	Percent change
local Business Conditions 	local Business Conditions 
Nov 1961 Nov 1961 Nov 1961 Nov 1961 Nov from from Nov from from City and item 1961 Oct 1961 Nov 1960 City and item 1961 Oct 1961 Nov 1960 
KIRBYVILLE (pop. 1,660) 	LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY (pop. 352,086) 
Postal receipts* ---------------------------------$ 3,326 -15 
Bank debits (thousands) ________________________$ 2,129 4 (Cameron, Willacy, and Hidalgo Counties) 

End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ____$ 2,421 6 Retail sales ·------------------------------·--1t + 4 + 1 Apparel stores ___ 1t + 5 + 3
Annual rate of deposit turnover --------···· 10.2 Automotive stores 1t + 8 + 5 LA FERIA (pop. 3,047) Drug stores 5t + 8 -11 
Postal receipts* -·-·---·-----------------·-·---·-------..$ 2,346 + 11 •• Food stores ___ 3t + 2 •• Building permits, less federal contracts $ 10,700 -26 +265 
Furniture and household appliance stores ___ __ _
Bank debits (thousands) --------·-------·-------$ 1,409 + + 13 1t + 17 -10 E'nd-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ___ $ 1,399 -7 •• General merchandise stores ----· + 2t + 2 + 2 Annual rate of deposit turnover ______ 11.6 + 10 + 9 Lumber, building material, 
and hardware stores -------------------------­9t -27 + 15 LAMESA (pop. 12,438) Postal receipts* --·------------·-----------·--------------$ + 40 7 Retail sales Building permits, less federal contracts $ +203 +133 Automotive stores -1t -21 -15 Bank debits (thousands) -----------·--------------$ .. + 2 
E'nd-of-month deposits (thousands) t ___ 
$ 4
Drug stores --------------··········----5t -18 -3 + 3 Annual rate of deposit turnover .. 15.3 2
Postal receipts* --------------------------$ 13,650 -11 -12 	+ 2 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 207,700 + 72 + 82 Bank debits (thousands) --------------$ 34,240 -9 -13 LUBBOCK (pop. 128,691) End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ____$ 23,151 + 6 + 15 
Retail sales -···-----·-·-------	1t + 18 + 18
Annual rate of deposit turnover ___ _______ __ 18.2 -24 -25 
Apparel stores ·-------------------------­1t + 6 + Automotive stores lt + 21 + 36LAMPASAS (pop. 5,061) Furniture and household 
Postal receipts* -------------------------.$ 6,253 + 40 + 13 appliance stores 
1t + 21 + 40 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 92,000 + 90 +283 
Postal receipts* _ -------·----$ 176,073 + 1 ••
Bank debits (thousands) ________________________$ 6,483 4 + 6 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2,849,100 -21 + 13
End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ____$ 6,660 1 + 13 
Bank debits (thousands) -----------·--·--·--------$ 270,600 + 23 + 11
Annual rate of deposit turnover ___________ _ 11.6 -5 
End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ __ __ $ 126,858 + 9
+ 5 
Annual rate of deposit turnover 26.3 + 14 1LAREDO (pop. 60,678) Employment (area) 52,000 5
+
Postal receipts* ------------------------------------__ __ $ 32,214 -6 -11 Manufacturing employment (area) ____ 5,370 •• 4 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 118,365 +148 

+ 4 Percent unemployed (area) ----·---------------4.7 + 7 + 38 
Bank debits (thousands) ------------------------$ 26,673 3 + 3 
End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ____$ 22,454 .. 


+ 4 LUFKIN (pop. 17,641)
Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------· 14.3 
Retail sales 
Automotive stores -lt -9 -17


LEVELLAND (pop. 10,153)
Postal receipts* ____ ______________ $ 	Postal receipts* ___ $ 22,952 + 16 -16
8,486 + -6 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 120,450 +136 -32 	Building permits, less federal contracts $ 69,020 -44 + 99 
Bank debits (thousands) ________ _____ $ 24,163 3

Bank debits (thousands) -------------------------.$ 18,039 + 13 + 11 
End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ____$ 12,557 End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ____$ 27,761 + 5 + 8

+ 
Annual rate of deposit turnover _ 18.0 -5 	Annual rate of deposit turnover . 10.7 7 + 3 
LLANO (pop. 2,656) 	McALLEN (pop. 32,728) 
Postal receipts* ------·-----· --------------------·-----­2,411 -5 •• 	Retail sales 
-1t + 19 + 8
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 8,650 + 44 
Automotive stores ....... 
-1t + 34
Bank debits (thousands) ________ ____________$ 
3,493 -18 •• Postal receipts• ____ -------·----------........$ 31,687 + 12 -+ 26 1

End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ____ $ 4,241 
+ + 2 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 301,062 + 31 + 56
Annual rate of deposit turnover ............ 9.9 -20 

-2 Bank debits (thousands) ____ _____ ___$ 
26,019 2 + 8 
End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ....$ 19,569 
6 + 7
LOCKHART (pop. 6,084) 	Annual rate of deposit turnover ---------·--15.5 
+ 5 3
Retail sales 
Food stores ------·----------------·-____ _______,,_,,,,__ -at + 1 •• Postal receipts* -------·------------------------------------$ 4,272 +109 -12 McCAMEY (pop. 3,375) Building permits, less federal contracts 12,515 +158 -22 Postal receipts* ··--------·-·-----------·----.$ 2,640 -19 Bank debits (thousands) ...____ ...$ 4,426 -2 •• Bank debits (thousands) ----------·----------__$ 2,012 + 21
2 
End-of-month deposits (thousands>+ ____$ 5,665 -6 End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ____$ 2,105

4 + 	+ 6
Annual rate of deposit turnover ............ 9.2 •• -6 	Annual rate of deposit turnover 11.1

---·-·-----· 
+ + 13 
LONGVIEW (pop. 40,050) McGREGOR (pop. 4,642)

Retail sales Lumber, building material, Building permits, less federal contracts $ 28,563 + 116 -79 Bank debits (thousands) --------------------___ $ 2,996
and hardware stores --------------------······ -9t -6 + 30 	+ 3 + 41 
End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ____$
Postal receipts* ____ --------------------------·---·------$ 54,793 + 15 + 6 4,979 + 1 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,080,662 + 53 + 84 Annual rate of deposit turnover ·-------·--7.0 + + 35 Employment (area) -----------·--------------· 28,800 •• 
+ 
Manufacturing employment (area) ... 5,740 
•• + 8 :\IARSHALL (pop. 23,846)
Percent unemployed (area) 3.6 28
-
+ Retail sales 
-lt -4 -3 
Apparel stores 
-1t -11 -4
LOS FRESNOS (pop. 1,289) 	Postal receipts* _ ______ 

___ _
$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ 7,000 -37 -26 25,388 + 9 -11 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 72,137 -77 
-52
Bank debits (thousands) ·--------------·-------·--$ 1,173 + 10 
+ 17 Bank debits (thousands) ----·---------·-------·---$ 16,462
End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ....$ l,535 	-5 + 6
-6 + 8 End-of-month deposits (thousands)+ ____$ 21,567 + 8
Annual rate of deposit turnover 8.9 	+
+ 14 + 3 Annual rate of deposit turnover 9.2 -10 7 
20 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
Local Business Conditions Percent change Percent change
Local Business Conditions 
City and item  Nov 1961  Nov 1961 from Oct 1961  Nov 1961 from Nov 1960  City and item  Nov 1961  Nov 1961 from Oct 1961  Nov 1961 from Nov 1960  
McKINNEY (pop. 13,763) Postal receipts• .......................................... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ............... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ··-----···-­MERCEDES (pop. 10,943) Postal receipts• ......................................... $  11,995 91,950 10,815 9,448 13.3 4,925  + 2 -68 -21 -6 -20 -2  -10 5 + 7 + 2 + 4 -45  NACOGDOCHES (pop. 12,674) Retail sales Apparel stores Postal receipts• ..... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ... ...$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ..... . 1t 18,400 1,338,605 16,192 15,488 12.6  + 12 + 20 +1846 + 7•• +  + 18 + 2 +6269 + 18 + + 12  
Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ..............$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover MESQUITE (pop. 27,526) Postal receipts• ......... . .................... $  34.745 5,162 3,916 15.5 10,225  + 27 •• 4 + -17  + 79 + -1 •• -7  NEW BRAUNFELS (pop. 15,631) Postal receipts• .........................................$ 23,575 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 98,855 Bank debits (thousands) . . ............... $ 9,297 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 11,313 Annual rate of deposit turnover 9.9  + 25 + 32 -12 •• -9  -5 -44 -6 •• -7  
Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . . ... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . Employment (area) ................. . Manufacturing employment (area) ... . Percent unemployed (area)  1,895,304 6,263 6,931 12.8 451,100 96,100 4.3  +144 + 3 + 44 -21 •• + 2 + 8  +348 + 13 + 22 + 9 + 3 + 3 4  ODESSA (pop. 80,338) Postal receipts• . . ....................... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) .......................... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ... Employment (area)  81,372 655,078 72,767 65,442 13.0 54,400  + 27 -38 1 5 + 2 ••  -1 -11 •• 4 + 2  
l'\IEXIA (pop. 6,121) Postal receipts• .......................................... $  5,566  + 15  - 7  Manufacturing employment (area) Percent unemployed (area) .................. .  2,330 3.3  + 2 + 22  + - 23  
Building permits, Jess federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . . ....... $ Bnd-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover .  14,000 3,678 4,719 9.3  9  +126 + 13 + 3 + 12  ORANGE (pop. 25,605) Retail sales Apparel stores .. Postal receipts• ................... .. $  -lt 26,763  + 3 + 7  + 7  
MIDLAND (pop. 62,625) Retail sales Drug stores ........................... .................. -5t Postal receipts ................. . ............ $ 94,074 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,464, 785 Bank debits (thousands) .............. $ 119,534 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 105,629  + 8 + 6 + 22 + +  + 17 + 25 + 27 + 21 + 15  Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . .$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover .. Employment (area) Manufacturing employment (area) .... Percent unemployed (area)  128,872 29,102 22,504 15.6 105,200 30,420 6.9  -43 + + 1 3 -11 + 17  -29 + 8 + + 2 10 +  
Annual rate of deposit turnover ............ Employment (area) ..................... . Manufacturing employment (area) ... . Percent unemployed (area) ................... .  14.1 54,400 2,330 3.3  5 •• + 2 + 22  + 8 + 2 + -23  PALESTINE (pop. 13,974) Postal receipts• ....................................... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ..... $  18,318 215,459 12,468  + 26 -64  + 20 + 46 + 16  
MIDLOTHIAN (pop.1,521) Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ..........................$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . MISSION (pop. 14,081) Postal receipts• ..........................................$  74,715 1,202 1,703 8.2 12,352  + 79 -22 -6 -22 + 56  + 42 + 11 + 7 + + 19  End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ PAMPA (pop. 24,664) Retail sales Automotive stores __ Eating and drinking places Food stores ----------------····--­Lumber, building material, and hardware stores  14,538 1t 1t Gt 3t 9t  -2 -5 -14 •• -8  + -7 -8 -10 -12 -3  
Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ............ ...$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover .......... .  4&,350 9,986 8,594 14.0  -41 ••••••  + 7 + 3 + 3  Postal receipts• ... .$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ..$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$  25,767 64,850 23,731 22,477  + 18 -17 1 + 2  -7 -26 + 3 -12  
Annual rate of deposit turnover  12.8  + 19  
MONAHANS (pop. 8,567) Postal receipts• .......................................... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ..........................$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$  8,888 29,490 10,583 8,279  + 17 -76 + 7 5  + + 55 + 14 + 11  PARIS (pop. 20,977) Retail sales . Apparel stores Automotive stores  1t 1t 1t  + -11 + 12  + 12 7 + 15  
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... .  15.0  + 3  +  Lumber, building material,  
and hardware stores ---··-­ 9t  -15  + 36  
MUENSTER (pop. 1,190) Postal receipts• ...................................... $ Building permits, Jess federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover NEDERLAND (pop. 12,036) Bank debits (thousands) ....................... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ... $ Annual rate of deposit turnover .. ·  1,240 3,000 2,111 1,840 13.9 5,138 3,754 15.7  -40 -96 + 1 + + + 8 + 20  -46 -75 + 17 + 4 + 18  Postal receipts• ..........................$ Building permits, Jess federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) .............$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover . PHARR (pop. 14,106) Postal receipts• ........$ Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover  21,067 274,586 18,552 14,133 15.6 6,574 3,614 3,377 12.8  + 17 + 42 -9 -2 -14 + 3 2  -8 + 36 + 11 + 4 + 23 + -12 + 3  

JANUARY 1%2 
Percent change 	Percent change
Local Business Conditions 	Local Business Conditions 
Nov 1961 Nov 1961 Nov from from 
Nov 1961 Nov 1961 
Nov from from City and item 1961 Oct 1961 Nov 1960 City and item 1961 Oct 1961 Nov 1960 
ROBSTOWN (pop. 10,266)PASADENA (pop. 58,737) 
Postal receipts• -·----··-----------------··--··-·---------$ 6,872 + + 34 
Postal receipts• --------------------$ 35,839 •• -8 	37,500 -62
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 	+ 13 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,089,850 + 19 + 93 
Bank debits (thousands) ---·---------$ 9,023 -10 + 22 
Bank debits (thousands) --------___ ___ $ 44,167 + 10 + 29 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 10,764 7 + 10 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ___ $ 23,559 3 -1 Annual ra.te of deposit turnover ----------·· 9.7 -8 +
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........ . 22.2 + 26

+ 
Employment (area) 	513,900 
+ ROCKDALE (pop. 4,481)
Manufacturing employment (area) __ 93,900 •• •• 
Postal receipts• ····---------------------···----·-··------$ 4,718 + 39 -2 
Percent unemployed (area) __________ 4.5 -4
+ Building permits, less federal contracts $ 5,980 + 16 -69 
Bank debits (thousands) ------------······--·---$ 3,600 4 PILOT POINT (pop. 1,254) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 5,422 1 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 400 -98 -91 Annual rate of deposit turnover ····--------7.9 2 Bank debits (thousands) ····-------·····-·-·------$ 970 -29 
End-of month deposits (thousands) t ___ .$ 1,718 -3 
SAN ANGELO (pop. 58,815)
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 6.7 -29 

Retail sales ····----····-·-·-·--lt + 7 3 Apparel stores ····----·--1t + 9 + 15 PLAINVIEW (pop. 18,735) Postal receipts• -----·----------··$ 81,792 + 11 + 17 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 346,325 -40 + 11
Retail sales Apparel stores -lt + 5 
Bank debits (thousands) ---------------·---·----$ 54,216 -9 + 6
+ 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 49,983 + 2
Automotive stores _ -1t + 14 + 2 	+ 
Annual rate of deposit turnover ______ 13.2 -10 + 2
Postal receipts• ...... ··----·-·--··----------------------$ 21,765 + 4 + 7 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 252,450 -67 -54 
Employment (area) ------·--·····-····· 19,700 Manufacturing employment (area) __ 2,710 -11Bank debits (thousands) ------------$ 38,816 + 7 -12 
Percent unemployed (area) -------·-4.9 + 9 -9End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .$ 24,855 + 5 -1 Annual rate of deposit turnover ... 19.2 15
+ ­
SAN ANTONIO (pop. 587,718) 
Retail sales ------------····-----·-----····---···--····-··-·-· + lOt •• + 2
PLANO (pop. 3,695) 
Apparel stores ----····-----· ·-----··---··------+ 5t + 8 + 5 Postal receipts* 4,313 -14 + 24 Automotive stores ····-···-+ 3t •• + 4 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 438,225 -11 +375 
Drug stores _ ------·--·-··-------·-----· St 2 Bank debits (thousands) ·------·------·--···----$ 2,125 7 + 48 Eating and drinking places _______ 1t 7 + 2 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ____ $ 2,181 + 5 + 14 Food stores ______________ 5t 3 5 
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 12.0 2 + 36 Furniture and household 

appliance stores .... -----······----------+ 4t + + 
PORT ARTHUR (pop. 66,676) Gasoline and service stations at + 2 2 
General merchandise stores 5t + 3 + 10

Retail sales _ 	1t -4
+ 	Lumber, building material,
Apparel stores ___ 	1t -5
+ 	and hardware stores . -llt 4 + 15
Automotive stores .............. . 1t + 24 -11 

Nurseries -------····-····· ------------·-······· -24 + 11
Food stores ·······--·······­	St 4
+ Postal receipts• ----------------------·---$ 816,834 	+ 13 + 4
Furniture and household 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 4,538,110 •• + 48
appliance stores ... 	1t + 1 + 11 
Bank debits (thousands) -·-· _________$ 643,985 •• + 13
Gasoline and service stations ............. . 1t 2 + 5 

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 395,773 .. + 5
Postal receipts• -·------------------·-·---··-·· _____ ___ $ 64,580 + 16 
Annual rate of deposit turnover __ _________ _ 19.6 + 8
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 231,020 -62 
Employment (area) -· ----------·---------------···-· 207,400 + 
+
Bank debits (thousands) ----······-····---·····-$ 63,756 -4 + 5 
Manufacturing employment (area) ___ _ 24,500 +
E'nd-of-month deposits (thousands) t ----$ 46,331 •• + 3 	5 4 
Percent unemployed (area) ---· 5.0 + 4 + 22
Annual rate of deposit turnover ---­16.6 -7 •• Employment (area) 105,200 -3 -1 Manufacturing employment (area) ____ 30,420 -11 -10 SAN JUAN (pop. 4,371) Percent unemployed (area) Postal receipts• -------·-·-· ··----------$ 3,065 + 16 + 6
6.9 + 17 + 5 
Building permits less federal contracts $ 9,860 -82 -56 
Bank debits (thousands) ·-------------$ 2,158 + 13 + 19
PORT ISABEL (pop. 3,575) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ___ $ 2,144 +

3 2 Postal receipts• _.. -------····-·--------------·--$ 2,014 + 29 + Annual rate of deposit turnover ········-·--11.9 + 11 + 10 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 3,854 + 62 -71 
Bank debits (thousands) ·-·--··----------·---···· $ 1,058 7 +103 SAN MARCOS (pop. 12,713)End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ____ $ 894 
3 + 63 Postal receipts* -------·-·-·----------··--···---------·---$ 12,185 + 24 + 14Annual rate of deposit turnover 14.0 
+ 11 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 29,550 +214 +937 Bank debits (thousands ) ______ $ 6,310 -19 •• 
PORT NECHES 	(pop. 8,696) End-of-month deposits (thousands)t ----$ 8,017 •• + Annual rate of deposit turnover ··-----9.4
Postal receipts• --·-·········· _________$ 6,074 -30 12 	-16 +
-
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 42,249 -78 -64 Bank debits (thousands ) -----··------------··· $ 7,239 -12 -17 SAN SABA (pop. 2,728) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 5,668 + 3 Bank debits (thousands) -------·· $ 5,408 + + 9 Annual rate of deposit turnover 15.5 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t __ __ $ 5,029 ••
-5 	+ 
Annual rate of deposit turnover ----------· · 12.9 •• 
+ 
RAYMONDVILLE (pop. 9,385) SEAGOVILLE (pop. 3,745)
Postal receipts• -----------·---·-------------$ 5,347 -4 -15 
Postal receipts• ------·-------··---····-----····------------$ 2,838 + 40 -11
Building per mits, less federal contracts $ 10,800 ­
+ 18 68 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 375 -99 -98 Bank debits (thousands) --------··-·--·---------$ 5,958 5 
-6 Bank debits (thousands) -------------------___ _$ 1,990 1 + 18End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ____ $ 8,351 + 6 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 1,274 4 + 10Annual rate of deposit turnover 
8.5 -10 Annual rate of deposit turnover 	18.4 2 + 7 
22 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
Local Business Conditions  Percent change  Local Business Conditions  Percent change  
City and item  Nov 1961  Nov 1961 from Oct 1961  Nov 1961 from Nov 1960  City and item  Nov 1961  Nov 1961 from Oct 1961  Nov 1961 from Nov 1960  
SEGUIN (pop. 14,299) Postal receipts• ........... $  11,545  + 12  5  SWEETWATER Retail sales  (pop. 13,914)  
Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ......................... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... .  64,105 9,923 14,633 8.1  + 22 -3 •• -5  6 + 13 + 7 + 9  Automotive stores ............................ Postal receipts• ... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) .. . $  lt 11,692 20,000 13,770  + 13 + 23 -21 2  -11 •• -36 -14  
SHERMAN  (pop. 24,988)  End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ... $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ....  10,283 15.8  3 6  -5 -11  
Retail sales ................................................. . Automotive stores __ __ ----------------------··--·-­Furniture and household  l t lt  + l + 6  +  4 3  TAYLOR Retail sales  (pop. 9,434)  
appliance stores ... General merchandise stores Postal receipts• .......... . .................... $ Building permits less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ......................... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ lt + 2t 35,881 268,718 24,688 19,800  -18 + 22 + 25 +121 -13 +  -11 + 15 -l + 21 4 + 8  Automotive stores Postal receipts• .... ....................... . ........ $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ......................... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ... $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ...... .  -lt 8,849 42,200 7,204 13,540 6.2  -6 + 18 + 6 -30 -4 -29  -16 + l + 46 + 4 + 7 3  
Annual rate of deposit turnover ....... .  16.0  -16  12  TERRELL (pop.13,803)  
SILSBEE (pop. 6,277)  Postal receipts• ... . .............................. $ Building permits, less federal contracts $  8,737 125,570  + 4 +107  -13  
Postal receipts• ......................................... $ Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover SLATON (pop. 6,568)  7,018 3,840 6,269 8.7  + + ••  + 16 + 11 + 13 -1  Bank debits (thousands) ........... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ______ ----­7,507 7,528 11.7 TEXARKANA, TEX. (pop. 30,218) Retail sales Furniture and household  6 7  + + 5 4  
Postal receipts• ... . ........................ $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ......................... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .... $ Annual rate of deposit turnover Employment (area) ................................. . Ma nufacturing employment (area) ... . Percent unemployed (area) ................... . SMITHVILLE (pop. 2,933) Postal receipts• ..........................................$ Building permits, less federal contracts $  3,798 11,860 4,669 4,439 13.0 62,000 6,370 4.7 1,941 4,000  -9 -73 + 16 + 11 + 2 + •• + -1 -86  + -95 + 10 + 13 1 -5 -4 + 38 -16  appliance stores ------------------­Postal receipts*§ .............. $ Building permits, less federal contracts§$ Bank debits (thousands) ......... . ... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t§ $ Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . Employment (area) .......................... . Manufacturing employment (area) .... Percent unemployed (area) ........ . -lt 57,839 277,865 66,014 17,341 16.8 29,900 4,280 7.6 TEXAS CITY (pop. 32,065) Postal receipts• .......................................... $ 27 ,688  + 8 + 2 +101 + 2 + + + + + 6 + 39  + •• -76 + 9 + 1 + 8 + + 13 •• + 35  
Bank debits (thousands) ........................$  1,138  + 2  + 8  Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,975,345  +518  +624  
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ... $  2,308  +  +  2  Bank debits (thousands)  .......................... $  27,118  + 5  + 39  
Annual rate of deposit turnover ..... .  6.0  2  + 7  End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$  17,180  + 10  + 54  
SNYDER (pop. 13,850) Postal receipts ........................................... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $  11,834 1,700  -5 -99  + 22 -99+  Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­Employment (area) .......................... . Manufacturing employment (area) ... . Percent unemployed (area) ................... .  19.9 52,600 10,600 8.6  7 •• •• + 9  -6 •• -l + 49  
Bank debits (thousands) ......................... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... . 14,518 18,767 9.2 SOUTH HOUSTON (pop. 7,523) Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) .......................... $ 3,660 3,864  + 6 -93 + 4  -19 + 14 -21 -93 + 12  TOMBALL (pop. 1,713) Bank debits (thousands) ........................ . $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover __ TYLER (pop. 51,230) Retail sales  7,372 5,443 15.8 -lt  -7 -6 •• + 4  + 9 + 16 -2 + 25  
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$  2,843  2  + 17  Apparel stores  - lt  + 7  + 16  
Annual rate of deposit turnover ........... .  16.2  + 4  - 3  F lorists  4  + 9  
Postal receipts  .............................. $  88,898  + 3  + 4  
SULPHUR SPRINGS (pop. 9,160) Postal receipts• ......................................... $ 10,477 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 35,436 Bank debits (thousands) ........................$ 11,460 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ 13,651 Annual rate of deposit turnover ............ 10.l  + 29 66 + 2••••  + 17 + 19 + 14 + 8 + 7  Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ... . ........ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover UVALDE (pop.10,293) Postal receipts• ......................................... $  526,135 93,241 62,083 17.8 12,193  + 3 + l 2 •• + 66  + 50 + 11 + 9 + 3 + 64  
TEMPLE (pop. 30,419) Retail sales .................................................. .  lt  + 2  2  Building permits, Jess federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ........................ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$  82,681 8,467 8,973  -33 -19 -4  +246 -2 + 17  
Apparel stores ................... .  l t  + 7  + 6  Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­ 11.1  -17  -18  
Furniture and household appliance stores --------···· ----------·--····---­Lumber, building material, and hardware stores ------­Postal receipts• ......................................... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) .......................... $  9t 43,094 702,125 25,097  7 + 22 + 80 -4  + 2 9 + 8 + 94 + 8  VERNON (pop. 12,141) Postal receipts• ........................................ $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) .......................... $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ....$ Annual rate of deposit turnover -----------­ 13,451 112,005 20,028 19,865 12.2  + 26 +219 + 12 + l + 9  + 6 + 34 + 4 + 3 + 2  

JANUARY 1962 
Percent change 
Nov 1961  Nov 1961  
Nov  from  from  
City and item  1961  Oct 1961  Nov 1960  

Percent change  
City and item  Nov 1961  Nov 1961 from Oct 1961  Nov 1961 from Nov 1960  

VICTORIA (pop. 33,047) 
Retail sales ____
_____ ------------------­
Automotive stores ---------------------------------­Eating and drinking places Food stores -------­
Furniture and household appliance stores _ Postal receipts* ___ ___ _$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ 
Bank debits (thousands) ______ ___________$ End-of-month deposits (thousanda) t ____ $ Annual rate of deposit turnover _ 
lt it Gt 
3t 
1t 37,313 
1,948,790 59,660 77,300 
9.3 
+ 
+ 	
9 8 

+ 
1 +414 -2 


6 
-	3 
+ 
14 

+ 
11 


-11 + 
+ 
37 

+424 

+ 
13 


+ 	
15 1 


WACO  (pop. 97,808)  
Retail  sales _____ ---·············----------­ lt  +  8  +  3  
Apparel stores ---------­--­ 1t  +  3  
Florists ·---------·-········------­------­General merchandise stores  +  2t  + +  11 12  +  13 ••  
Lumber, building material,  
and hardware stores ------­Postal receipts• ····-­____________________ _______________$  9t 171,787  +  4 9  +  9  
Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) _________________ $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ____ $  811,559 108,481 71,316  +  5 2  -+  33 6 ••  
Annual rate of deposit turnover ............  18.4  5  +  6  
Employment (area)  48,100  - l  
Manufacturing employment (area) ____  9,710  1  - 3  
Percent unemployed (area)  5.6  +  17  +  22  

WAXAHACHIE (pop. 12,749) Postal receipts• _-----------------­_____ ___ ___ $ 14,099  + 12  -31  
Building permits, less federal contracts $  14,220  -92  -77  
Bank debits (thousands)  __ _$ 10,909  -11  + 23  
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t Annual rate of deposit turnover  _..$  10,914 11.l  -14 ••  + 16 ••  
WESLACO Postal receipts•  (pop. 15,649) __ _______________________ __ $  9,122  + 14  +  
Building permits, less federal contracts $  81,214  2  + 35  
Bank debits  (thousands)  -------­ ---­$ 6,129  10  + 11  
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ____ $  7,929  + 9  + 25  
Annual rate of deposit turnover  9.7  - 11  - 7  
WICHITA FALLS  (pop. 101,724)  
Retail sales ---------------------------------------------------­ 1t  + 5  +  
Apparel stores -----------------------------­ 1t  + 11  + 13  
Automotive stores ----------------­- 1t  + 8  + 34  
Food stores -----------­ at  +  2  10  
Furniture and household  
appliance stores ...............  - 1  1  
Postal receipts  ___  _______ $ 130,208  +  4  +  
Building permits, less federal contracts $  839,157  -72  -68  
Bank debits  (thousands)  __ $ 121,707  +  4  +  
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ___ _$ 99,431  - 1  +  
Annual rate of deposit turnover ............ Employment (area) -------­ 14.6 45,350  + 7 ••  + +  
Manufacturing employment (area)  3,710  +  2  + 4  
Percent unemployed (area)  5.3  +  23  + 4  
- 

TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS 

All figures are for Texas unless otherwise indicated. All indexes are based on the average months for 1947-49, except where indicated ; all are adjusted for seasonal variation. except annual indexes. Employment estimates are Texas Employment CommiYion data in cooper•· tion with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The index of Texas Business Activity is based on bank debita in 20 cities, adjusted for price level. An asterisk ( •) indicates preliminary data subject to revision. Revised data are marked (r). 
November  October  November  Year-to-date average  
1961  1961  1960  1961  1960  

GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY  
Texas business activity, index________________ ------------------------------------------­--------------------­Miscellaneous freight carloadings in SW District, index__________________________ __________ _ Ordinary life insurance sales, index__________________ _____ _______________________________________________ __  251 62 487  243 79 463  226 74 453  239 74 410  226 78 415  
Wholesale prices in U.S., unadjusted index.. _____________________________________________ _  118.8  ll8.7  119.6  119.1  119.5  
Consumers' prices in Houston, unadjusted index...______________________________________________ _  128.0  126.4  126.4  125.8  
Consumers' prices in U.S., unadjusted index________________________________________________________ _  128.3  128.4  127.4  127.8  126.4  
Income payments to individuals in U.S. (billions, at seasonally adjusted annual rate) --------------­-----------------------------------------------------------------­----­Business failures (number> --------------------------------­---------------------------------------------------­Newspaper lineage, index_______ ----------------------------------------------------------­ $ 429.0 41 173.8  $ 425.2 43 166.8  $ 406.0 53 169.8  $  415.5 48 167.4  $ 402.4 43 173.3  
TRADE  
Total retail sales, index, 1957-59=100________ ---------------------------------------------------------­Durable-goods sales, index, 1957-59=100________ _____ ________________________________________ _ Nondurable-goods sales, index, 1957-59=100______________________________________________ _ Ratio of credit sales to net sales in department and apparel stores________ _ Ratio of collections to outstandings in department and apparel stores______ _  uo• 112•no• 65.6. 40.1•  108r llOr 107r 73_3• 36.8•  104r 98r 108r 65.7r 41.lr  70.4. 35,5•  70.6r 36.3r  
PRODUCTION  
Total electric power consumption, index________________ ----------------------------------------------­Industrial electric power consumption, index _-----------------------------------------------------­~~~=~n ~~~~~~~rr~.i7~J:~_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_­ 429• 419• 109.2. 140  433r 398r 107.6r 151  384r 380r 107.3r 145  419• 389. 109.1• 147  407r 387r 109.0r 147  
lndustrial production in U.S., index___ ________ ------------------------------------------------­----------­Texas industrial production-total index__ -----------------------------------------------------------­Texas industrial production-manufacturing index.......--------------­---------------------­Texas industrial production-durable goods, ind~X---------------------------------------------­Texas industrial production-nondurable goods, mdex_____________________________________ __ I~~~!;i<l:f1~1 ::it~~t~~~·p~~d;ii·;~-ii: :::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Construction authorized, index, 1957-59=100...---------------------------­---------------------­Residential building, 1957-59=100____________ _________________________________ __________________ _ Nonresidential building, 1957-59=100____________ _____________ _____ -------------------------­ 173 178 226 267 207 132 12.7 119.7 115.0 127.l  171 180 229 271 209 134 12.4 113.9 ll4.5 U6.8  159 172 215 251 198 131 12.5 98.8 90.2 115.1  165 175 220 257 203 132 12.8 112.9 102.6 129.2  165 173 216 250 201 131 12.9 104.9 91.6 127.9  
AGRICULTURE  
Prices received by farmers, unadjusted index, 1910-14=100......___________________ __ 
.. Prices paid by farmers in U.S., unadjusted in~ex, 19~0-14=100.....-----------------­Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid by farmers__________________ ..  265 301 88  262 301 87  247 297 83  255 301 85  245 299 82  
FINANCE  
Bank debits, index..... -------------·--···---·· -----­·· ---------­-----­-------------­--------······· Bank debits, U.S., index ----------------------­----------;-----.----------­ 298 285  289 275  270 246  285 264  270 242  
Reporting member banks, Dallas Reserve D1stnct: t~~~: ~:J1f~~~:~~-~~-t~-(~i-iii~:;~-j-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_:-.-.-_-_-_-_-_-_-_::·:_:·_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_:·_-_-_-_-_-_­Adjusted demand deposits (millions) .. ----------------------­-----­----------------------------­Revenue receipts of the State Comptroller (thousands) ___________________ -----------------­ $ 3,191 $ 5,136 $ 2,860 $ll9,219  $ 3,162 $ 5,139 $ 2,793 s 88,735  s 2,935 $ 4,652 $ 2,725 $ 87,526  s 3,050 s 4,977 $ 2,761 $105,948  $ 2,882 $ 4,529 s 2,663 $102,521  
LABOR Total nonagricultural employment (thousands)--­-----------------------------------------------­Total manufacturing employment (thousands) -------------------------------------------­Durable-goods employment (thousands)-----------------­-------------------------------------­Nondurable goods employment (thousands> ---·:·------;----------------------------------­-kl h (1957-59-100) manufacturmg, index...................... ..... wee y ours -. . dAverage 
weekly earnings--manufactunng, m ex________________________________________________ _  2,564.1• 486.2• 233_3• 252.9. 100.8 187.8  2,570.4r 489.lr 233.2r 255.9r 101.2 190.9  2,551.9r 486.lr 227.5r 258.6r 98.9 176.l  2,545.5• 484.3. 229.6. 254_7• 99.8 182.0  2,539.0r 490.6r 233.lr 257.6r 99.9 175.8  

A New Publication 
MARKETING ASPECTS OF CAPITAL-EQUIPMENT LEASING 
Peter D. Bennett 
NO. 6 IN THE MARKETING SERIES • • . • • . $ I.00 
This study of the leasing of various types of capital equip­ment by both large and small companies was written by a member of the faculty in the Department of Marketing, The University of Texas. Findings are reported from 100 companies representing 32 industries, including both the manufacturer-marketer and the companies who leased the equipment. 
ORDER YOUR COPY FROM THE BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 
as
=· 



ENTERED AT THE AUSTIN, TEXAS 
BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 
POST OFFICE AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER 
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN 12, TEXAS 
Texas State Historical Assn 
Old Library Building lOS •
FACULTY MAIL 
RETURN REQUESTED