MARCH 1966 

TH°7 • : ~ =S! ~1 
OF TEXA'! 


MA. 1966 
THE LIB AR 


A Monthly Summary of Business and Economic Conditions in Texas 
BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH: THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW VOL. XL, NO. 3, MARCH 1966 
Editor: Stanley A. Arbingast I Associate Editor: Robert H. Ryan I Managing Editor: Robert H. Drenner 
Editorial Board: Stanley A. Arbingast, Chairman; John R. Stockton, Francis B. May, Robert H. Ryan, Robert H. Drenner 

CONTE)NTS 
69: 	THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS by Francis B. May 
72 : 	THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY: AN ECONOMIC PROFILE by Robert B. Williamson 

79 : 	TEXAS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IN JAN­UARY by Robert B. Williamson 

81 : THE FEDERAL RESERVE DISCOUNT RATE: RELATION TO MARKET RATES AND PURPOSES OF RECENT CHANGES by James R. Kay 


86: 	TEXAS RETAIL SALES IN JANUARY by Robert H. Drenner 
88: 	POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR TEXAS COUNTIES, 1965 
MAPS, CHARTS, AND TABLES 
69: 	TEXAS BUSINESS ACTIVITY 
70: 	
BUSINESS ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR 20 TEXAS CITIES 

70: 	
TEXAS CRUDE-OIL RESERVES, 1956-1964 

70: 	
TEXAS INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION. 


71: 	
INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC POWER USE IN TEXAS 

71: 	
$LECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS 


72: 	LOCATION OF THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 
" 
73: 	POPULATION, CITIES AND COUNTIES, LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY'. 1940, 1950, AND 1960 
75: 	
ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT AND SALES, BY LOCAL IN­DUSTRY GROUPS, LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 

75: 	
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TOTAL ECONOMY BY EACH LOCAL INDUSTRY'S EXTERNAL SALES, LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY, 1963 


77: 	EMPLOYMENT TRENDS, BY LOCAL INDUSTRY GROUPS AND SELECTED COMPONENTS, LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY, 1940, 1950, 1960, AND 1964 
79: 	
POPULATION, LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY, TEXAS, AND UNITED STATES, 1920-1964 (SELECTED YEARS) AND PRO­JECTED 1985 

79: 	
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS 


80: 	
ESTIMATED VALUES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS 

80: 	
UNION WAGE SCALES FOR BUILDING TRADES IN SE­LECTED TEXAS CITIES: LEVELS AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1965 AND PERCENT CHANGES FROM OCTOBER 1, 1964 


82: 	DISCOUNTS AND ADVANCES, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM AND DALLAS FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, 1964-1965 
83: 	LOANS, INVESTMENTS. AND DEPOSITS OF COMMERCIAL BANKS, 1961-1965 
84: 	LONG-AND SHORT-TERM INTEREST RATES 
85: 	
MEMBER BANK BORROWINGS AT FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS 

85: 	
U. S. GOLD STOCK, FEDERAL RESERVE GOLD CERTIFICATE RESERVES, AND U. S. SHORT-TERM LIABILITIES TO FOREIGNERS 


86: 	
ESTIMATES OF TOTAL RETAIL SALES IN TEXAS 

86: 	
RETAIL SALES TRENDS BY KINDS OF BUSINESS 


87: 	PER CAPITA RETAIL SALES, TEXAS SMSA'S, 1958-1963 
89: 	POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR TEXAS COUNTIES, WITH AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATES, 1960-1965 
90: 	1965 POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR TEXAS STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS, WITH AVERAGE AN­NUAL GROWTH RATES, 1960-1965 
91: 	DISTRIBUTION OF TEXAS COUNTIES ACCORDING TO AVER­AGE ANNUAL PERCENT GROWTH OF POPULATION, 1960· 1965 
BUSINESS RESEARCH COUNCIL 
John Arch White, Dean of the College of Business Admin· istration (ex officio) ; John R. Stockton, Jessamon Dawe, Thomas E. Gossett, James R. Kay, Stephen L. McDonald, Kenneth W. Olm, and W. T. Tucker 
BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 
Director: John R. Stockton 
Associate Director and Resources Specialist: Stanley A. Arbingast 
Assistant to the Director: Florence Escott 
Consulting Statistician: Francis B. May 
Administrative Assistant: Juanita Hammons 
Research Associate: Charles 0. Bettinger, Pearl Clark, 
Robert H. Drenner, Ida M. Lambeth, Robert M. Lock· 

wood, Margaret J. Ritchie, Robert H. Ryan, Elizabeth R. 
Turpin, Joyzelle Wilke, Robert B. Williamson 
Research Assistant: Howard D. Brecht, Hans Diet.er 

Kurz, John E. Specht, Jr. 
Administrative Secretary: Margaret F. Smith 
Senior Secretary: Faye Whobrey 
Senior Clerk Typist : Lois Conrad, Claire Howard, Carol­

lin Smyth, Sharon Wheat 
Cartographer: Lois Leonard, Mary Paxton 
Library Assistant: Merle Danz 
Statistical Assistant: Mildred Anderson, Constance 

Cooledge, Jo Neman 
Statistical Technician : Doris Dismuke, Mary Gorham 
Clerical Assistant: Pamela Binkley, Berge Garabedian 
Offset Press Operator: Robert Dorsett, Daniel P. Rosas 

The Bureau of Business Research is a member of the 
Associated University Bureaus of Business and Economic 
Research. 


Published monthly by the Bureau of Business Research, College of Business Administration, The University of Texas, Aus~in, Texas, 78712. 
Second-clas& postage paid at Austin, Texas. Content of this publication is not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely. The views expressed by authors are not necessarily those of the Bureau of Business Research. Acknowledgment of source will be appreciated. Subscription, $3.00 a year: individual copies, 25 cents. 

THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS by Francis B. May 
The January seasonally adjusted index of Texas busi­ness activity rose a fraction of a percentage point above December's high level. At 168.0'/c of average monthly activity ·<luring the 1957-59 base period, the index was 0.3% above its December value of 167.7%. It was 10% above January 1965. It was the highest January value in the history of the index. 
Inspection of the seasonally adjusted indexes of busi­ness activity for twenty Texas cities shows that seven experienced increased activity in January. Of these seven, Lubbock, with an 18% gain over December, had the largest month-to-month increase. Wichita Falls was seeond with a 9% increase over December. Austin and Galveston, each with a 4% rise, were tied for third place. Laredo, Dallas, and Corsicana, with rises of 3%, 2%, and 1'/r , respectively, were the remaining cities with January increases. Amarillo, Beaumont, Texarkana, and Waco indexes of business activity were virtually un­changed from December. The remammg nine cities had losses in January business activity, ranging from 11% for El Paso to 2% for Abilene, Houston, and San Angelo. 
Comparison of January with January 1965 for the twenty cities shows nineteen increases and one decline. Dallas led with a 26% increase. Wichita Falls was in second place with a 16% rise. Austin and Beaumont were tied for third place with a 14% gain. San Angelo was fourth with a 13% rise. Of the state's larger cities, Dallas business activity was up 26% over January 1964, Fort Worth was up 9%, Houston was up 9%, and San Antonio was up 11% . This is a very auspicious beginning for 1966. 
January crude-oil production in the state rose 2% after seasonal factors were taken into account. At 101.6% of average monthly production during the 1957­59 base period, the index was 6% above January 1965. This was the highest value of the index since May 



TEXAS BUSINESS ACTIVITY 

INDEX-ADJUSTED FOR SEASONAL VARIATION-1957-1959 ·JOO 
NOTE: Shaded areas indicate periods of decline of total business activity in the United States. SOURCE: Based on bank debits r eported by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and adjusted fo r seasonal variation and changes in the price level by the Bureau of Business Research. 
BUSINESS ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR 20 SELECTED TEXAS CITIES '(Adjusted for seasonal variation-1957-59= 100) 
Percent change  
City  Jan 1966*  Dec 1965r  Jan 1965  Jan 1966 from Dec 1965  Jan 1966 from J an 1965  

Abilene Amarillo  .....140.9 .. 169.5  144.5 170.3  138.0 162.7  - 2 ••  + 2 + 4  
Austin Beaumont  ... 177.9 169.1  171.6 168.9  155.6 148.4  + 4 ••  + 14 + 14  
Corpus Christi  ... . 130.3  138.4  120.2  + 8  
Corsi.cana  ....136.7  135.2  125.8  + 1  + 9  
Dallas  ......181.2  177.6  143.9  + 2  + 26  
El Paso  .114.3  129.1  120.9  -11  5  
Fort Worth  .. 127.0  132.6  116.4  + 9  
Galveston  ....115.9  111.0  107.1  +  +  8  
Houston  .. 181.7  184.9  167.3  + 9  
Laredo  .. 168.4  164.1  153.3  + 3  + 10  
Lubbock  ......... 188.5  160.2  183.3  + 18  + 3  
Port Arthur  ....109.1  112.2  105.6  3  + 3  
San  Angelo  ... 149.3  152.1  131.6  - 2  + 13  
San Antonio Texarkana  ... 158.9 ... 174.9  166.1 174.7  142.6 165.0  - 4 ••  + 11 + 6  
Tyler Waco  ............ 141.3 ......151.1  147.0 151.1  137.9 141.2  - 4 ••  + 2 + 7  
Wichita  Falls  ... 150.4  138.4  129.9  + 9  + 16  

"*Change is less than one-half of 1o/o. 
*P reliminary._ 
rRevised. 
Source: Based on bank debits reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and adjusted for seasonal variation and changes in the price level by t he Bureau of Business Research. 
1959. It is probable that the index will advance again in February because the Railroad Commission has set the February allowable at 32.7% of potential production, a slight increase over the 32.6% allowable for January. This is the highest allowable since the state switched to the percentage system of setting allowables in 1963. If the allowable is met, average daily production in February will be 3,157,864 barrels a day, a gain of 13,­090 barrels a day over the allowable for January. The percentage of underproduction has risen lately. In No­vember of last year, cumulative underproduction for 1965 varied from 30.04% in District 10 to 7.08% in District 
2. Average cumulative underproduction 'for the state for the first eleven months of 1965 was 13.69%. This increas­ing underproduction has led some oil men to question whether the allowable will be met. 
The problem of underproduction is a compound of several ingredients. One of these is that many of the state's oil wells are stripper wells. These are wells that produce an average of less than ten barrels a day. The 1965 edition of Petroleum Facts and Figures, published by the American Petroleum Institute, shows that at the end of 1963 Texas had 92,258 stripper wells. This was an increase of 27,245 over the total of 65,013 at the end of 1957. Total production in Texas from these wells in 1963 was 160.0 million barrels. Strippers comprised 47.4% of the 194,469 producing wells in Texas at the end of 1963. They produced 16.4% of the 977.8 million barrels of oil produced in the state during that year. 
Giant fields are those with estimated ultimate recovery of 100 million barrels or more. The January 31 issue of the Oil and Gas Journal reports that there were 251 such fields in the United States at the end of 1965. Texas had 97 of these fields.. They produced 720.7 million barrels of oil or 74.1% of the state's total~1965 production of crude. 
70 Despite the contribution of these large fields, total pro­duction in 1965 exceeded additions to reserves from new discoveries and extensions and revisions of estimates for old fields by 88.2 million barrels. The result was another decline in year-end reserves. Texas reserves at year-end for recent years are shown below. 
TEXAS CRUDE-OIL RESERVES, 1956-1964 
December 31 reserves Change Year (millions of barrels) (millions of barrels) 
1956  . . . .. . . . . . . . . .  ... 14,783.1  -150.4  
1957  . . . . . . . . . . .. .  ....14,555.1  -228.0  
1958  ... 14,322.2  -232.9  
1959  . . 14,859.7  + 537.5  
1960  ....14,758.5  -101.2  
1961  .14,849.6  + 91.1  
1962  . 14,648.3  -201.2  
1963  14,573.1  - 75.2  
1964  14,299.8  -273.3  

Source: American P etroleum Institute, Proved Reserves of Crude Oil, Natural Gas Liquids, and Natural Gas. 
From 1956 to 1965 production exceeded additions to re­serves in all but two years, with resulting declines in reserves. An important reason for the decline in reserves is that fewer wells have been drilled. Drilling in the na­tion reached a total of 58,160 wells in 1956. The 1965 total was 41,423. For Texas the figures were 21,460 in 1956 and 9,729 in 1965. Although a total of only 9,630 wells is expected to be drilled in the state in 1966, the number of wildcat wells will increase 213 to 3,225. In view of the low success ratio for wildcat wells, incentives to drill this kind of well should be increased. These are the wells that find new oil fields. 
The seasonally adjusted index of crude-oil runs to stills declined 1% in January. At 117.2% of average monthly runs to stills during the 1957-59 base period, the index was 5% above January 1965. It was the highest January value of the index on record. Unusually cold winter weather affects refinery runs by increasing the demand for fuel oil. January averaged 8% colder for the nation than usual. Distillate fuel-oil demand was 10.6% above January 1965. Kerosine demand was 13.2% above Jan­uary of last year. Although the weather was bad, drivers used 8.5% more gasoline than during January of last year. Total demand for all refinery products was 7.6% above January 1965. As a result, refinery runs for the United States averaged 9,407,000 barrels a day for the first time, up 5.2% from January 1965. 
Total crude-oil production in the United States in 
TEXAS INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION* 
INDEX-ADJUSTED FOR SEASONAL VARIAT/ON-1957-1959 •JOO 


January was 8,235,000 barrels a day, up 5.9<;!, from January 1965. This was approximately the same as the year-to-year January gain for the state. Crude-oil im­ports into the United States in January averaged 1,315,­000 barrels a day, up 9.2'7< from the corresponding 1965 month. The percentage gain in crude imports was much larger than the gain in domestic production. Most of this rise in imports went to the West Coast. 
Total imports of crude oil during 1965 rose 3.5o/c over 1964. Domestic production rose 2.2'7< . Imports con­tinue to increase their share of the domestic market at the expense of domestic production. 
New oil discoveries and refinery construction abroad 

have greatly changed patterns of production and con­
sumption of crude oil. Last year the free world utilized 
slightly more than 27 million barrels of oil a day. The 
United States constituted approximately 42'7< of this 
enormous market. The other nations of the free world 
comprised the other 58'7< of the market. A decade ago, 
the positions were reversed. Oil markets abroad are 
growing much faster than the domestic market. 
Sour gas, which is natural gas containing hydrogen 

sulfide, was once the bane of oil and gas producers. It 
corroded pipelines, well casing, and other equipment. Re­
moving it from gas and oil was expensive. The discovery 
of methods of producing elemental sulfur from this un­
desired co-product has changed all this. There is a 
world-wide shortage of sulfur. Prices are high. One re­
sult is renewed interest in oil and gas leases in areas 
around offshore Texas salt domes. These are considered 
to be the best prospects for wells which will produce 
elemental sulfur by the Frasch process. If no sulfur is 
found in this area, there is still plenty of natural gas 
which may contain sulfur. 
Seasonally adjusted total electric power use in Jan­
uary rose 24o/c to an all-time high of 222.5o/c of average 
monthly consumption in the 1957-59 base period. It was 
36% above January 1965 consumption. This increase em­
phasizes the fact that the electric utilities are one of the 
state's fastest growing industries. 
Seasonally adjusted industrial electric power consump­
tion rose 5% in January to an all-time high of 169.4o/C. 
Industrial power use correlates closely with industrial 
production but tends to rise faster because of rapid in­
crease in industrial use of electrical motors, controls, 
computers, and other electrically powered equipment. 
A recent publication of the Bureau of the Census esti­
mates Texas population to be between 13,482,000 and 
14,759,000 in 1985, depending on which growth rates are 
more nearly realized. The larger estimate is of an in-
IND STRI AL ELECTRIC POWER SE I TEXAS 
250"""'.--r~-.~'N~~~-~~J~US~fAN~~,A,,r_-_,.,_,._,,.,oo-,~-,-~,250
DEXA/JTE~D_Fro•_S~'S~O~~v,__oN,._._•
i 
'---t-~r--+~-t-~t---j200
200 
150 
100 

50 50 
0 0 
1954 '55 '56 '57 '58 '59 '60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 1966 
NOTE:: Sh•ded ll r<l'OI S 1nd1clll<1' Pf'flOCh or dtd1nc or l°'.11' bv•mtU •cuv11y u• the Uru~d SU.tel. 

MARCH 1966 
SELECTED BAROM~TERS OF TEXAS BCfilS ESS (Indexes-Adjusted for seasonal variation-1957-59= 100) 
Percent change  
Index  J an 1966  Dec 1965  Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan from from 1965 Dec 1965 Jan 1965  

Tt xas  busi ness  activity  16 .0  167.7r 152.2r  ecc  + 10  
Ci-ude  oil  production  101.6* 100.0*  95. r  + 2  + 6  
Crude  oil  runs  to  tills  117.2  11.  112.l  - l  + 5  
Total  electric  power  u e  222.5* 179.1°  163.7r  24  36  
Industria l electric Bank debits  power  use. _ 169.4 • .. 175.7  161.5° 174.6  152.7r + 5 153.7r + l  + 11 + 14  
~f iscellaneous freight carloadings in S. W. district  79.7  79.2  n.4  +  +  3  
Ordinary life insurance sales  176.7  142.9  
Total  retail  sales  ....  . 12 .2°  141.Sr  9  + 2  
Durable-goods  sales  140.5°  166.5r  -16  l  
ondurable-goods  sales  121.  • 12 . r  - 5  + 3  
13uildi ng construction  authorized  130.5  167.5  113.0  -22  + 15  
New residential  11 3.0  125.2  106.2  -10  + 6  
New  nonresidential  162.  249.7  113.3  -35  + 44  
Total  industrial  production  .  . 142.0•  141.2°  129.4 r  + l  10  
Total  nonfarm  employment"'  120. •  119.4* 115.7r  + l  + 4  
Manufacturing  employment"'  121. 7•  121.3*  l 14.6r  ••  + 6  
Total  unemployment"'  1.0  7.l r  100.5r - 7  -19  
Insured  unemployment""  .  60.3  70.7  9.1  - 15  -32  
Average  weekly earnings­ 
manufacturingt  123.t• 123.  • 119.lr - l  + 3  
A,·erage weekly hours­manufacturingt  . . 101.9*  102.1°  101.4r  ••  ••  

t: Prelim inary. 
rRevised. 
••Change is less than one-half of l %. 
tW age and salary workers only. 

crease of 39.9% o\,er the July 1, 1965, population of 10,­552,000. The smaller estimates a 27.8o/c increase. Either estimate means good news for retailers and homebuild­ers. Markets in the state will continue to grow. If the higher rate of growth occurs, Texas ·will have 5.6% of the nation's population in 1985. Cnder the lower esti­mate, the state's percentage of national population will be 5.5. On July 1, 1965, Texas had 5.4o/c of total United States population. 
Under the higher estimate, the Texas population aged 5 to 17 years will be 57.8o/c larger in 1985 than it was on April 1, 1960. The lower estimate places this figure at 30.5%. Either means that demand for education through the high school will increase. 
The college-age group (18-24 years) will increase in size 9L6o/c over April 1, 1960, in Texas by 1985 under the higher estimate and 82.1o/C under the lower. The demand for higher education in the state will continue to increase under both estimates. This is a demand that must be satisfied. Educated young people are the state's most important resource. 
March will be the sixty-first month of the current busi­ness cycle upswing. It is the longest upsv.ing since De­cember 1854 · with the exception of the eighty-month upswing during World War IL Prosperity in Texas has paralleled national prosperity and will continue to do so. 
Business Cycle Deveurpments, a publication of the Bu­reau of the Census, contains a number of economic time series which tend to turn down in a business cycle be­fore the general downturn occurs. Currently twenty-one of the series are moving upward, four are on a plateau, and only five point downward. All portents indicate con­tinued prosperity. 

THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 
An Economic Profile 
Robert B. Williamson 

At one time, the Lower Rio Grande Valley probably was regarded by most Texans as either an out-of-the-way agricultural area where large irrigated plantations em­ployed many Mexican braceros and produced.. grapefruit, oranges, vegetables, and cotton, or as a recreational area with a semitropical climate adjacent to Mexico and the Gulf that might be fun to visit someday. Such images are incomplete. Today, more and more Texans and others are visiting the "Valley" and discovering its colorful history, the diversity of its economy, and the recreational and business opportunities it offers. 
Amarillo• Fort Worthe •Dallas



Po..J 
•Austin 
Son Antonio• ···.. 
• 
\ 
·· ... 
Chihuahua Corpus Christi 
Laredo 

::~ 
Monterrey• l OWER 
Torreon• 

RIO GRANDE ;.';VALLEY 
Ciudod Victoria• 
....
P~~)J;c, 
,/.· .; GULF OF MEXICOOCEAN·\ . 
The Valley, located in the southernmost tip of the state, comprises a clearly identifiable economic region. Not only is there a great similarity in the resources, economic activities, and population characteristics of its component parts, but there is also a common pattern of historical development and a traditional feeling of unity within the area. The boundaries of the region often are drawn to include all or part of four counties-Cameron, Hidalgo, Willacy, and Starr. Only the first three counties-Cam­eron, Hidalgo, and Willacy-are used to represent the region in this report, but these three counties account for the bulk of the population and economic activity. 
The Valley, which is not a valley but a fertile plain sloping away in delta-fashion from the Rio Grande, has a long history of development by Europeans and their descendants. The area was important in the 18th century as an outpost of the Spanish colonizers. In the 19th cen­tury, the development of the area was sustained by its advantageous position on the route to northern Mexico. 
However, the principal foundations of the Valley's pres­ent economic structure were not laid until the 20th cen­tury. The region's population, which had been only about 20,000 in 1900, increased rapidly to over 350,000 by 1960. 
Completion of railroad connections to the north, con­struction of large irrigation facilities, and the develop­ment of refrigeration cars for the shipment of fresh produce were the bases for the Valley's rapid growth after the beginning of the present century. The economic growth of the Valley was given a boost also by the discovery of oil and gas in the area during the 1930's. Among the other important economic developments in the region during the past 30 years have been the increase in manufacturing, the establishment (and closing) of mili­tary bases in the area, the rise in the number of winter visitors, and the expansion of trade with Mexico. 
Resources and Special Facilities 
Water supplies, along with fertile soils, are among the most important of the region's natural resources. Sur­face water provides the major supply of water. The basic source of the surface supply is the U. S. share of the water flow in the Rio Grande. This share has been esti­mated at a long-run average annual rate of about 1.7 million acre-feet at the Falcon Dam site. Past variations in the yearly flow have ranged from over two times to less than one-third the historical average. The inter­national Falcon Reservqir, completed in 1953, has a con­trolled capacity f01" water conservation and flood control of about 3.9 million, acre-feet, with the conservation part being somewhat more than 2.1 million acre-feet. The Texas share of these reservoir supplies is 58.6%. 
The Valley's climate-its long growing season and mild temperatures-is another vital ingredient in the region's agricultural success, and a key factor in its growing tourist business as well. The climate varies from semi­arid in the western part of the region to semitropical in the southeast. Temperatures throughout the year average 74 degrees, with a range in the central portions from a January average minimum of about 51 degrees to an August average maximum of around 97 degrees. Near the coast, the summer maximums are 3 to 4 degrees cooler. The growing season (average number of frost­free days per year) is more than 300 days. Severe cold spells that cause extensive damage to crops are in­frequent, with winter minimum temperatures as low as 20 degrees not likely to occur more often than every ten years. The actual occurrence of severe damaging freezes in the Valley in recent years has been in 1930, 1949, 1951, and 1962. 
The major mineral resources of the Valley are natural gas and gas liquids and crude oil. Other important com­mercially developed minerals are sand and gravel, lime­stone conglomerate for concrete aggregate and roadstone, burning clays used to make building brick and other struc-tural clay products, and pumicite (in Starr County) used to make pozzolan cement and insecticide diluent. Addi­tional minerals found in the region include salt in sur­face saline deposits and caliche (crusts of calcium carbonate). 

Marketed natural-gas production in Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy counties has been in excess of 200 billion cubic feet per year in recent years, and another 80 bil­lion cubic feet or more per year have been produced in Starr County. Recent levels of crude-oil production have exceeded two million barrels per year in the three-county area and five million barrels in Starr County. 
The human resources of the three-county Valley region, 

as of the 1960 census, included a local labor force of 
nearly 120,000 workers drawn from the total population 
of about 352,000 persons. Migration to the Valley has 
been an especially important source of population and 
labor force growth. A large share of the immigrants have 
come from across the Mexican border. Over two-thirds 
of the region's population in 1960 had Spanish surnames 
and 44 '7c of the total population was of foreign stock 
(that is, foreign born or children of a foreign-born par­
ent). The foreign born accounted for 15% of the total 
population. 
The educational levels of the region's population are 
comparatively low. In 1960, the median number of school 
years completed by persons 25 years of age and older 
Table 1 
POPULATION, CITIES AND COUNTIES, LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY, 1940, 1950, AND 1960 
Cities and counties 1940 1950 1960 
C:1 meron County  
Brownsville  22,083  36,066  48,040  
Harlingen  13,306  23,229  41,207  
San  Benito  9,501  13,271  16,422  
Rest  of  countr .  38,312  52,604  45,429  
County  total  83,202  125,170  151,098  
Hidalgo County  
Donna  4,712  7,171  7,522  
Edinburg  8,71 8  12,383  18,706  
McAllen  11,877  20.067  32,728  
Mercedes  7,624  10,081  10,943  
Mission  5,982  10,765  14,081  
Pha rr  4,784  8,690  14,106  
Weslaco  6,883  7, 514  15,649  
Rest of  county .  55,479  83,775  67,169  
County  total  ...............106,059  160,446  180,904  
Willacy County  
Raymondville  4,050  9, 136  9,385  
Rest  of  county .  9,180  11,784  10,699  
County  total  13,230  20,920  20,084  
LOWER RIO  GRANDE  
VALLEY  TOTAL*  ... 202,491  306,536  352,086  
Starr County  
Rio  Grande  City . ............  3,992  5.835  
Rest  of  county .  13,312  9,956  11,302  
County  total  13,312  13,948  17,137  
Four-county  total  ........215,803  320,484  369,223  
Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census. 


<Study definition of the region: Cameron, Hidalgo and Willacy Counties. 
ranged from six years in Hidalgo and Willacy counties to eight years in Cameron County. The state average was more than ten years. However, educational levels in the Valley in 1960 were higher than they had been a decade earlier. Also, the increasing proportion of the school-age population enrolled in school indicates that further progress is being made in raising educational levels. 
The general kinds of job skills presently held by the Valley's labor force are suggested by the 1960 occu­pational and industrial employment patterns for the re­gion. Farm occupations were reported by over one-fifth of those employed in 1960. The "operatives and kindred workers" occupational group, which embraces a wide range of semiskilled industrial and other nonfarm occu­pations ranging from truck drivers to building-trades apprentices and machine operators in manufacturing, ac­counted for 17'7c of the region's workers. Sales, clerical, and kindred workers were 15'7< of the total. Professionals 
(excluding elementary-and secondary-school teachers), technical workers, craftsmen, foremen, and other similarly skilled workers accounted for 14'7<: of the total. In the state as a whole, these latter professional and skilled worker groups accounted for 21 % of all workers. 
Wage costs in the region are comparatively low. Ac­cording to the 1960 census, the median earnings of male operatives and kindred workers were around $1,800 per year, or only about 50% of the state median earnings for this group. Earning levels in the region relative to the state for some other groups were: 63% of the state level for craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers; around 76% of the Texas median for hired farm labor­ers; slightly less than 80% of the state level for female clerks and other similar female occupations; and 82% of the Texas median for male professional, managerial, and kindred workers. 
Among the region's facilities that are of special im­portance are its transportation facilities. These include three U. S. highways, rail connections by two American railroad companies, four ports for water transportation, and three major airports. Also, natural-gas pipelines of six major companies, which are in addition to the local gas utility, connect the general area of the Valley with other areas, including the markets of Chicago and New York. Besides the three U. S. highways connecting the region with other parts of the United States, there are two principal highway routes from the Valley to the interior of Mexico. 
Ports at Brownsville and Port Isabel handle both deep­water and barge shipping, while ports at Harlingen and Port Mansfield handle barges. The dominant port in the region is Port Brownsville, which was opened in 1936 and which is operated by the Brownsville Navigation Dis­trict, an independent public body. The port's turning basin is four miles east of Brownsville and 17 miles from the Gulf of Mexico via deepwater channel. Not all regions have ready access to water transportation, and the presence of a healthy water transportation industry and adequate port facilities provides conditions favorable both to the expansion of local industry and to the at­traction of new industries to the Valley. 
The Valley possesses a number of natural and man-made tourist attractions. Among the region's natural resources that attract winter visitors and other tourists are its 

mild climate; its reservoirs and coastal areas which pro­
vide fishing, boating, swimming, and other types of rec­reational opportunities; its wild game, found mainly in the brush country on the western and northern fringes and in the coastal areas ; and its location with respect to northern Mexico. There is an increasing number of man-made facilities in the Valley to attract and to accommodate visitors. In­cluded are developed recreation areas. An example of one such area is Cameron County's 100-acre Isla Blanca Park, located on the southern tip of Padre Island and accessible by causeway from Port Isabel. The park has bathhouses, picnic shelters, cabanas, a pavilion, and a restaurant. Adjoining the park area are motels and other privately owned facilities. A new seaside park that is expected to attract large numbers of visitors to the region is the Padre 'Island National Seashore. The park was authorized by Congress in 1962 and is currently in the early stages of develop­ment, with land for the park still being acquired from private owners. The park is to be about 80 miles long, extending from the northern boundary of Cameron Coun­ty north to within a few miles of Corpus Christi. Island property will be left in the hands of private property owners at both the north and south ends for commercial development. The Padre Island National Seashore will be the largest of the nation's six national seashores and will be the nearest one for the large population between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains. Convention business is actively promoted by Valley busi­ness groups. Each of the largest cities has sizeable audi­toriums for convention use, and there are many smaller public and private places available throughout the region. The Valley also is becoming increasingly well supplied with good lodging and eating places to accommodate visitors. Other area facilities of special significance for the region's future economic development are its educational facilities. Outstanding in this regard is the Pan American College at Edinburg, which provides a four-year co­educational college program with major degrees in teach­er education, liberal arts, and business administration. The college is accredited by the appropriate accrediting associations and was accepted as a part of Texas' state­supported college system effective September 1965. An­other college is located at Brownsville. Texas Southmost College, at the Old Fort Brown site, is a two-year junior college providing courses in liberal arts, business admin­istration, and other fields. There are several special educational programs for the educationally retarded and economically underprivileged in the region, and currently this type of educational ac­tivity is undergoing a tremendous expansion as a result of the financial assistance available under new federal government programs. The growing attention and effort being directed toward meeting educational needs at all levels in the Valley are very encouraging with respect to the prospects for future economic development of the region. Improvements in the amount and quality of area facili­ties and the general economic development of a region can be influenced to a significant degree by the extent to which the region has that rare human resource, leader­ship. The Valley has demonstrated an unusual amount of 
active leadership in several fields. Local civic groups and governmental organizations have done much to pro­mote facilities and general development in the fields of water supply, transportation, industrial and commercial sites, tourist and convention business, and education. Various other Valley groups also are engaged in pro­moting general business and industrial development, agri. culture, and general urban and regional planning. 
Basic Industries and Markets1 
More than 100,000 residents were employed within the 
region in 1964. A division of the employment into in­
dustry groups, or sectors, provides one measure of the 
direct importance of different kinds of economic activities, 
and it shows the present high importance of agriculture 
in the Valley. Farming activities, and the closely related 
agricultural services and trade groups which specialir.e 
in supplying farm needs or in marketing raw farm 
products, directly account for approximately one-fourth 
of all employment in the region. If food proce,¢ng (the 
manufacture of food and kindred products) is included, 
the agricultural group employs as much as one-third 
of the total. 
General trade and service-type industries are the next 
largest groups in terms of employment and together they 
account for over 35% of the total, or slightly more than 
the combined agricultural and food-processing groups. 
Each of the remaining industry groups employs no more 
than 10 % of the total. 
Estimates of the total volume of monetary trans­
actions in the region in 1963 provide another means of 
measuring the overall size of the region's economy and 
the relative size of agriculture and the other industry 
groups. Estimated total transactions by local groups dur· 
ing 1963 amounted to nearly $1.5 billion. Approximately 
one-half billion dollars of transactions, or more than one­
third the total, represented "external sales"-that is, 
sales to nonlocal sectors or for local investment purposes. 
The individual local group with the largest amount of 
sales to external markets is food processing. This group 
also has the greatest relative amount of external sales, 
exporting out of the area nearly 90% of its total pro­
duction. The three farming groups, taken together, have 
an even larger total amount of external sales. 
A breakdown of the region's external sales by type 
of market shows that the greatest amount of external 
sales by Valley producers, totaling more than $300 million 
in 1963, is in the form of exports to private businesses 
and individuals in other parts of the United States. 
The next largest share of external revenues, amounting 
to over $100 million in 1963, is received from state 
and federal government agencies. One reason for the 
present, and potentially greater, importance of this see· 
ond type of income is the significant number of retirees 
who move to the Valley, bringing in additional amounts 
of social security and government retirement revenues. 
Tourists and other visitors to the region and Mexican 
shoppers from neighboring border areas who cross the 
1The following 1964 employment and 1963 sales estimates and the 
related multipliers are based on a special "input-output" study done 
by the Bureau of Business Research. For a more complete report of the 
study, see Robert B. Williamson, The Lower Rio Grande ValUll of 
Tuas: Economic Resources and Growth Prospects to I933-I9S4 (AWi­
tin : Bureau of Business Research, The University of Texas, 1966). 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

T&ble 2 ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT AND SALES, BY LOCAL INDUSTRY GROUPS, LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 
Employment March 1964  Sales, 1963• (m illions of dollars)  
Local industry group  (thousands)  Total  External  

1. 	Fruit and v~etable farming . 
2. 	Cotton farming ........... 

3. 	Other farming 
4. 	Minerals . ... ....... 

5. 	Food processing 
6. 	Other manufacturing Trade 
··· ··· · ·· ··· ···· ·· 
20.1 
5.9 1.6 1.2 6.6 4.2' 17.5 

8. Hotels, eating, and amusements. 4.3 9. Other services and miscellaneous 19.4 10. Contract construction 5.2 1l. Local government 10.2 
12. Households• 0 	8.0 
Total ...................104.3 

79.4  56.2  
73.9  45.7  
47.8  23.8  
39.0  31.6  
108.1  96.9  
56.2  40.4  
402.6  52.2  
29.3  10.7  
199.3  31.0  
32.1  20.6  
66.0  21.8  
350.0  91.5  
1,483.8  522.4  


•"Sales" figures include other kinds of revenues besides sales rev­enues. 
••Employment data include only private household workers and non­local government employees; "sales" figures include all personal income payments received by local households. 
Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. 
bridges to buy in Valley stores also comprise a significant and expanding source of external revenues. Altogether, visitors and Mexican shoppers provided an estimated $46 million in sales revenues in 1963. Another source of external revenues is foreign export shipments. The total of these export shipments by local businesses was about $26 million in 1963. According to the classifications used in the study, sales for local net investment requirements are also classed as a kind of external sales. 
The discussion of industries and major external mar­kets up to this point has considered only the direct con­tributions of the individual industries and markets to the Valley economy. The overall (direct and indirect) im­portance of the various industries and types of external 
markets to the Valley's economy has been calculated also, based on the theoretical abstraction that all of the re­gion's sales and employment are, directly or indirectly, dependent upon external sales. Based on this theoretical model, the external sales of an industry will directly account for given amounts of the region's total sales and employment. But this is not the end of the effects. The industry in question will have to make purchases from local (and external) sources as a consequence of its external sales. And, in addition to these direct purchases by the industry, its local suppliers consequently will make purchases from other local industries and they in turn from others and so on until the total local sales resulting from the external sales may be several times the amount of the external sales. Through such sales-supply relation­ships, based on the pattern of local purchases in the region in 1963, the total amounts of local sector sales and employment can be traced and related to the ex­
ternal sales of one sector or another. 
Such an analysis shows that the external sales of cotton farming and the external revenues of local govern­ments have the largest multiplier effects on the region's total sales for each dollar of external sales or revenues. Each dollar of external sales by the cotton industry, for example, generates an estimated $3.41 of total sales in the Valley. The average for all local industries is $2.85 total sales generated per dollar of external sales. In terms of the total amount of Valley employment sup­ported per unit of external sales, fruit and vegetable farming ranks first, with 404 employees in all local in­dustries supported by each $1 million of external sales by the fruit and vegetable farming industry. 
Another type of employment multiplier, showing total 
regional employment supported per worker producing for 
external sales in a given local industry, is the type of 
multiplier usually presented in typical "economic base" 
studies. The size of this type of multiplier is affected by 
the productivity of the workers producing for export 

Table 3 
CON TRIBUTIONS TO THE TOTAL ECONOMY BY EACH LOCAL INDUSTRY'S EXTERNAL SALES,• LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY, 1963 
Contributions per unit of external sales 
Employment  Relative total  
Sales  contribution to  
Per industry worker  
Per dollar of  Per Sl million  producing for  Total  
external sales  external sales  e>.-ternal sales  Total sales  employment  
Local industry  (dollars)  (employment)  (employment)  (percent)  ( percent)  
1.  Fruit and vegetable farming .......... .  .. 3.15  404  1.77  13.1  24.0  
2.  Cotton farming  .. 3.41  227  2. 4  10.3  9.8  
3.  Other farming  .. 3.06  141  4.13  4.  3.1  
4.  Minerals  .. 2.13  90  2.85  4.5  2.7  
5.  Food processing  3.07  181  2.98  19.9  16.7  
6.  Other manufacturing  ................... 2.13  134  1.77  5.7  5.1  
7.  Trade  2. 15  107  2.46  7.4  5.3  
8.  Hotels, eating, and amusements .  . 2.83  249  1.68  2.0  2.5  
n.  Other services and miscellaneous.  . .. 2.85  197  2.03  5.8  5.8  
JO.  Contract construction  ...... ..•... . . .. 3.14  269  1.66  4.3  5.2  
11.  Local government  ...•.....•.... 3.24  271  1.76  4.7  5.5  
12.  Households  ..............•....... 2.90  134••  17.5  14.300•  
Total local industry.. . . . 2.85  200  2.34  100.0  100.0  

0 Based on estimated normal crop conditions for the region. 

¢ 0 Assumes no direct employment producing for external "sales," e.g., as would be true in case of external retirement income. 
•••Includes state and federal government direct employment. which accounts for 2.7 percent of total. 
sales. The "other farming" group supports the largest number of Valley employees for each of its workers pro­ducing for external sales (or 4.13 employees) partly because of the high productivity levels of "other farming" workers. For the entire economy of the region there is an average of 2.34 workers supported per worker produc­ing for external sales. 
The preceding multipliers show the total economic ef­fects of each unit of external sales or "external em­ployment" of the various local industries. To determine the actual total contribution of each industry's external sales, the size of the industry's external sales has to be taken into account as well as the multiplier effects of each unit of its external sales. On this basis, food process­ing, with its large volume of external sales and its fairly high multiplier effect per dollar, makes the largest total contribution to the region's total sales. In terms of total employment supported, fruit and vegetable farming makes the largest contribution. All types of farming and food processing taken together support approximately one-half 
of all sales and employment in the Valley. 
Although Valley agriculture continues to make a major 
contribution to the economy of the region, there has been 
a decrease in the size of its relative contribution in recent 
years. Sales by Valley farmers rose fairly rapidly after 
the national depression of the 1930's until around 1950. 
Since then, the region's farm sales have tended to level 
off, and Valley farm employment has shown a decline. 
There also have been major changes in the composition of 
Valley agriculture during the past 25 years. In 1939, 
citrus fruits and vegetables represented over one-half the 
region's farm sales, with citrus accounting for more than 
35% of the farm sales total. Cotton sales were about 
one-third of the total. By 1959, cotton sales had risen to 
over 60% of the total, while fruit and vegetable sales 
had decreased to less than one-fifth. A significant in­
crease in cotton prices during World War II and the 
postwar continuation of government support of cotton 
prices, plus severe freeze damage to citrus trees in 1949 
and 1951 and shortages of hand labor and irrigation 
water, helped to bring about this shift. Since the 1959 
census year, vegetable production has risen in importance 
again, but citrus production was curtailed further by 
the 1962 freeze. Cattle and grain sorghum production 
have shown notable increases in the Valley over the past 
10 to 15 years. 
The Lower Rio Grande Valley presently grows about 
one-third of the vegetables harvested in Texas and is 
one of the leading vegetable-producing areas of the nation. 
The farm value of the region's vegetable sales was more 
than $25 million by 1963. The major vegetables in terms 
of cash receipts are onions, carrots, tomatoes, peppers, 
lettuce, and cabbage. 
Grapefruit and oranges historically have been important 
farm products in the Valley, with the region ranking 
third in the nation after Florida and California as a 
citrus-producing area. Valley citrus production reached 
a peak of over 28 mjllion boxes during the years 1946­
1948, with grapefruit accounting for more than 80% 
of the total during this period. After the 1949 and 1951 
freezes, production dropped to 500,000 boxes, but output 
had recovered to more than 10 million boxes (with grape­
fruit being two-thirds of the total) before the January 
1962 freeze. Production was reduced by the latest freeze 
76 to as low as 110,000 boxes in the 1962-1963 crop year, but there has been a recovery to nearly three million boxes in the 1964-1965 year. 
Cotton plantings in the Valley in recent years have amounted to about 400,000 acres, or around one-half the cultivated cropland of the region. Approximately 60% of this cotton acreage has been on irrigated land. Both Hidalgo and Cameron counties ranked among the first ten counties in the nation in cotton acreage and among the first 15 in cotton production in 1959. 
The peak in Valley cotton production was the more than 600,000 bales produced in 1951. Much of this cotton was grown on land from which citrus trees had been removed following the January 1951 freeze. The largest crop after the 1951 peak was the nearly 450,000 bales harvested in 1959. Production in the 1962-1963 crop year was the smallest since 1947, less than 270,000 bales, partly as a result of adverse weather, water, and insect conditions. However, acreage allotments for Valley cot­ton production under the government's acreage control program have trended downward in recent ye_ars__and have been an important limiting factor. 
The principal products in the "other farming" cate­
gory are beef cattle and calves, accounting for over 
50% of the group's sales, and grain sorghum, providing 
nearly 25% of sales. Other important items are dairy 
products and other miscellaneous livestock and poultry 
products. 
The Lower Rio Grande Valley is not a major mineral­
producing area. The mineral indu!>try accounts for less 
than 5% of total sales in the region and for less than 
3% of the region's employment, considering both direct 
and indirect effects. However, in other ways the industry 
is more important to the Valley than is indicated by its 
apparent contribution to sales and employment. The 
availability of adequate local supplies of fuel contributes 
to the potential econ<!_mic growth ofthe region. 
The oil and natural-gas production of the Valley has 
shown mixed trends over the last several years. The pro­
duction trend for oil has been faiPl.y persistently down­
ward for a number of years. On the other hand, the 
region's production of natural gas has increased at a rate 
of about 5% per year during the past decade. 
The Valley's 6,600 workers in food processing as of 
March 1964 were 8% tJf Texas employment in this in­
dustry, or nearly two and one-half times the proportion 
which would have been expected based on the region's 
share of state population. In 1940 the region accounted 
for only 3% of the state's employment in food processing. 
The greatest relative growth in the Valley's food industry 
occurred prior to 1950, but the employment growth since 
1950 has been at the fairly high rate of 4% to 5% per 
year. The corresponding growth rate for the industry 
statewide has been about 2% per year, while national 
employment in food processing has shown an actual 
decline since 1950. 
Among the region's major food-processing establish­
ments, the largest group comprises plants which are 
mainly engaged in processing vegetables and citrus fruit. 
These plants are scattered throughout the Valley. Their 
activities include the canning of tomatoes (and tomato 
juice) and other vegetables, preserving, and the canning 
and freezing of citrus juices and segments. The next 
largest group are the establishments primarily engaged 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

Table 4 

EMPLOYMENT TRENDS, BY LOCAL INDUSTRY GROUPS AND SELECTED COMPONENTS, 
LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY, 1940, 1950, 1960, AND 1964 

1940  1950  1960  Percent increase,  1 96~e  
Industry group  (March )  (April)  ( April)  1960 over 1940  ( March )  
Farming and agricultural services.  27,310  33,493  25. 2  -6  23, 700  
Minerals  497  918  1,233  14  1.200  
Food processing  1,515  3,547  5,459  2.60  6,600  
Other manufacturing  1,351  3,3<;2  4,075  202  4,200  
Apparel and other finished textile products . 47  72  767  1,532  1,000  
Chem icals and a llied products .  128  583  682  433  500  
Transportation equipment, except motor  vehicle . 25  92  150  500  300  
All other  1,151  2,60:;  2,476  115  2,400  
Trade (not elsewhere classified) ... . ........ . . . •. 12,067  18,009  22, 6  90  21 ,500  
Wholesale  5,355  6,206  7,993  49  6,600  
Retail  6,712  11,803  14, 93  122  14,900  
Hotels, eating, and amusements.  2,590  4,257  4,591e  77  4,300  
Hotels and other lodging places .  564  722  945e  68  1,000  
Eating and drinking places.  1,578  2,766  2, 40  0  2,400  
Amusement and recreation services.  448  769  06  900  
Other services and m iscellaneous .  10,401  17,147  23,000e  121  19,400  
Transportation  2,2.19  3,488  3,020  36  2,900  
Communication and utilities* .  909  2, 60  3,354  269  1,900  
Finance, insu rance, and real estate.  983  1,956  2,607  165  2,500  
Selected services  5,319  7,044  10,5 2e  99  11,500  
Fisheries ................................. . .. .. ..... . . . .  2.75  469  721  162  600  
Industry not reported  696  1,330  2.,716  290  
Contract construction  2,914  6,434  5,715  96  5,200  
Government (total)  (n.a. )  (6,837 )  {16,310 )  n.a.  (13,100 )  
Government not elsewhere classified* .  2,142  5,021  13,063  510  13,100  
Local government  n.a.  n.a.  n.a.  n.a..  10,200  
State and federal government..  n.a.  n.a.  n.a.  n .a.  2,900  
Households ( private household workers  only) .... . .. . . . .. . .. .  3,654  4,239  4,977  36  5,100  
Total  64,441  96,417  110,8 l  72  104,300  

eEstimated. 
n.a.: Not available. 

*Government employees in utilities and other industry-type operations are incJuded with the nongovernment industry groups in 1940, 1950, and 1960 but are assigned to the government group in 1964. 
Note: The industry groups shown above are not strictly comparable with those presented in the other tables. 
Source: U. S. Bu reau of the Census, for 1940, 1950, and 1960. Estimated, with the assistance of the Texas 'Employment Commission. for 1964. 
in the processing of seafood, mainly freezing or other­wise preparing and packaging shrimp caught in the Gulf of Mexico and unloaded at Port Brownsville and Port Isabel. 
Valley employment in nonfood manufacturing in 1964 was about two-thirds as great as the employment in food processing, and the 1963 sales of the nonfood group were roughly one-half as large as the food group. Approxi­mately 1,000 workers, or nearly one-fourth of the ap­proximately 4,200 workers in nonfood manufacturing, were in the apparel industry as of early 1964. The chemical industry accounts for 10% to 15% of total employment in the nonfood manufacturing category. Transportation equipment, exclusive of automotive, accounts for less than 10% but is expected to grow in importance. Recent re­ports indicate that employment in each of these three major industries has expanded since the spring of 1964. The increase in apparel manufacturing has been espe­cially significant. 
Tourists and Mexican shoppers in the Valley are im­portant and growing sources of income. According to survey estimates, sales to tourists and other visitors, such as convention delegates, totaled about $32 million, while retail store sales to foreigners were about $14 million. 
The largest share of revenues from tourists and other visitors goes to general trades and to the hotels, eating, and amusements sector. The remainder goes to transpor­tation and miscellaneous services, for the most part. The bulk of Mexican shopper sales revenues is received by the general trade industry. 
Tourists and other visitors to the Valley can be classi­fied in three distinct categories. First, there are the winter residents who spend up to six months in the region during the wintertime. Winter residents probably account for the greatest amount of tourist revenues. Second, there are the ordinary tourists who may spend a week or two or only a few days in the region. Often these visitors are en route to Mexico. Third, there are the convention delegates and other traveling businessmen. Local sources estimate that several thousand convention delegates a year come to the Valley, with Brownsville and McAllen attracting especially large numbers. 
Retail sales to Mexican shoppers and tourist visits by Mexicans are promoted by Valley merchants with ad­vertising and by "friendship caravans" into the interior of Mexico. Perhaps the major factors increasing Mexican shopper business in the region have been the more limited shopping facilities in the Mexican border towns and the 

fairly high general economic growth of the border areas. 
Most of the industries in the "other services and miscellaneous" group are considered service-type indus­tries, and their general growth and external sales will depend to a major degree upon the growth of other indus­tries in the region. Included among these service-type industries are: transportation; communications and util­ities; finance, insurance, and real estate; and miscel­laneous personal, business, and professional services. 
Fishing was classified with the preceding miscella­neous group of industries in this study, but it is not a service industry in the same sense that the other in­dustries are. Fishing became important to the region with the development of deepwater trawling in the late 1940's. The Brownsville and Port Isabel area has been the major area for Texas shrimp landings for a number of years and currently accounts for more than one-third of the total shrimp landed at Texas ports. Furthermore, Texas has been a leading state in the production of shrimp. Today, total fish unloaded annually at Valley ports is around 24 million pounds, valued at about $10 million. There are several associat~d industries in the region depending to a significant extent on the fishing industry. These include the businesses serving the fish­ing harbors (such as boat repair establishments, ice man­ufacturers, and others), the seafood processors referred to earlier, and some large seafood wholesalers head­quartered in the Valley. 
There are many separate local governmental units 
within the Lower Rio Grande Valley, including munici­
palities, the county governments, school districts, and 
special districts (including water, navigation, and road 
districts, as well as others) . These local governments 
have growing responsibilities, and both their expenditures 
and numbers of employees have shown rapid increases 
for several years. Currently, the local governmental units 
of the region together employ more than 10,000 workers 
directly. 
Good governmental administration in the region can 
do much to facilitate general economic development. Ef­
fective municipal government administration can have an 
especially beneficial influence on the development of the 
region's cities, and the major cities of the Valley appear 
to have efficiently organized and administered municipal 
governments. Several of the larger cities in the region 
have had formal city planning studies and their city 
governments have systematic programs for the provision 
of necessary public facilities that will be needed in the 
future. 
Included in this study as a part of the external rev­
enues received by local households were the wages and 
salaries paid to state and federal government employees 
who reside in the area. There were nearly 3,000 such 
employees in the region in 1964, with the federal govern­
ment accounting for the largest share. Local households 
also receive external revenues from nonlocal governments 
in the form of transfer payments, such as social security 
benefits and various types of welfare payments. 
Approximately 30 percent of the external revenue 
received by local households presently comes from other 
than state and federal government sources. Included are 
income received from private investments, retirement in­
come received from private industry, various business 
transfers and miscellaneous payments to local households, 
and wages and salaries earned from private business es­tablishments in other regions. Both household income from nonlocal industry and government transfer payments are expected to show sizable expansion, due partly to an ex­pected increase in the number of retirees coming to the Valley. 
Problem.~ and Prospect.~ 
Some of the major problems confronting Valley agri­culture include periodic irrigation water shortages, poor drainage and high soil salinity in some areas, a diminish­ing and an often inadequately trained farm-labor supply, the risks of damaging freezes, and insects and plant diseases. Successful marketing of agricultural products presents a continuous challenge, but the region has rea­sonably good access to major markets for its principal products, and increasing attention is being given by producer and shipper groups to good marketing require­ments. 
Problems related to the potential growth of manufac­turing and other nonfarm activities in the region in­clude inadequate water supplies for particular types of industry, inadequately trained labor, low income and the small size of local markets, the remoteness of major out­side markets, and the need for continued improvement of transportation facilities. 
The future economic development of the region will 
have to adjust to some extent to the more intractable of 
these problems. Limited water supplies, a diminishing 
supply of farm workers, and long distances to major 
outside markets will be important in shaping the charac­
ter of the region's economic development. On the other 
hand, steps can be taken, and are being taken, to remove 
or reduce the seriousness of these and other restraints 
to growth. 
Water supplies constitute an especially vital problem 
for the Valley. The great importance of water supplies 
stems from such facts as the following: much of the 
region's past growth has been based on irrigated farm­
ing; the region has a semiarid climate and must depend 
upon the development of river flow or groundwater sup­
plies for most of its water requirements; and any sig­
nificant expansion of water supplies would require a 
costly and concerted effort. An analysis of expected total 
water requirements compared with supplies indicates that 
average water supplies from existing sources probably 
will be adequate over the next two decades. However, the 
continued growth of the region will generate increasing 
pressures to find ways to expand effective water supplies. 
Tight farm-labor supplies relative to the high seasonal 
demands, particularly for vegetable harvesting, is another 
especially critical restraint on the expansion of Valley 
agriculture. The expiration of the bracero law apparently 
did not have as great an immediate effect on Valley 
farmers ii.s it did on farmers in southern California. 
However, California and other areas are bidding for the 
resident farm workers of this region and increasing 
numbers of those who "follow the crops north" are fail­
ing to return. Increasing mechanization and better-quali­
ty workers will be necessary, if the region is to maintain 
its position as a vegetable producer in the face of poten­
tial competition from Mexico and other low-wage areas. 
Outside of agriculture and the closely related food­
processing industry, the Valley's supplies of the various 
productive factors suggest· that the r~on is best suited 

UNITED STATES,  1920-1964  (SELECTED  
United States  YEARS)  AND PROJECT ED 1985  
(Mi ll ions  of  
pe rso ns)  
300  
100  
90  
80  
70  

for labor-intensive industries willing to train workers, especially those industries which can use seasonal agri­cultural labor supplies. Furthermore, the region is bet­ter suited for industries not requiring large amounts of freshwater. Also, the location of the area indicates that transportation requirements and costs have an impor­tant influence on the types of industries best suited for the region. From this standpoint, it appears that there would be an advantage for industries which could rely on local supplies and markets, which have lightweight supplies and products, or which could make use of the slower but cheaper water transportation. The character­istics of local productive factor supplies and distances to outside supplies and markets indicate that manufac­turing industries such as the following might be among those with the best potential in the Valley: apparel manufacturing, aircraft modification, container manu­
facturing for local agricultural food processing, and simple hand assembly operations in the manufacture of lightweight products. Because of the region's locational advantages for attracting tourists, Mexican shoppers, and retirees, those trade and service industries which cater to the needs of these groups also should fare especially well. 
Specifically, industry groups in the Valley expected to show the greatest relative gains in revenues and em­ployment over the next decade or two are the hotels, eating, and amusements group; local government; gen­eral trades; and nonfood manufacturing, such as apparel manufacturing. The growth in external revenues of households is also expected to be rapid, and this reflects increases in such items as state and federal government payments and private retirement income. Each of the farming groups and the mineral industry probably will experience declines in employment, despite some projected growth in their sales. 
Population and other overall economic projections for the region over a twenty-year period have been derived based on forecasts of employment and sales for the separate industry groups. The projected overall growth rates for the Valley show improvement from the rates experienced since 1950 and compare favorably with the state and national projections. 
POPULATION, LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY, TEXAS, AND 

Sources: U . S. Bureau of the Census; Population Research Center, The University of Texas ; and Bureau of Business Research. 
MARCH 1966 
TEXAS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 
AUTHORIZED IN JANUARY 

by Robert B. Williamson 

The value of building permits issued in Texas declined during January in contrast to the seasonal increase normally recorded for the month. As a consequence, the seasonally adjusted index of Texas construction authori­zations showed an especially large drop in January. The index fell to 130.5% of the 1957-59 average, or 22% below the December level and 4% below the 1965 average. Both residential and nonresidential building shared in the seasonally adjusted decline from December. 
Texas building permits for January reflected strong growth trends when compared with a year earlier, how­ever. The value of all January perl!lits was up 16% from January 1965, with residential up 6% and non­residential building showing a sharp increase of 44%. Because of the somewhat erratic nature of the monthly changes in those series, the year-to-year growth rates 
B ILDI G C01 STR CTI01 A THORIZED IN TE A 

NOTE: Sb&ded a rea• indic.ue pc-rioch of decl11ae of tou.1 •me st acUYlty 1.a the Uruted Su.tea. 
probably are more significant as a measure of current trends than is the change from just one preceding month. Calculations of moving averages for the indexes of Texas construction authorizations over three-to six-months time spans provides additional evidence on the basic trends in Texas building. This evidence, up to the latest period for which data are available, also supports the view that the basic trend in Texas building is continuing to point upward. 
Industrial buildings and educational buildings provided the largest dollar increases in nonresidential building per­mits in January, compared with a year ago. Among the largest single industrial building permits issued during the month were: a $3-million permit issued at Plano in the Dallas area to the Atlantic Refining Company; a $2­million permit issued at Houston to the Cleco Company, a manufacturer of metalworking machinery; and a $1.8­million permit at Richardson in the Dallas area to the Collins Radio Company. 
The 6% year-to-year gain in the dollar value of Texas residential building permits during January was led by a 60% increase for two-family dwellings and a 10% gain for single-family homes. Apartment authoriza­tions, consistent with recent trends, showed a decline from a year ago. The total number of new dwelling units in Texas residential permits during January registered a 1 % decline from January 1965, in contrast to the gain in 
ESTIMATED VALUES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS 
Percent change  
Dec  Jan  
1965  1966  Jan 1966  Jan 1966  
Type of construction  J a n 1966  (thousands of dollars)  from Dec 1965  from J a n 1965  

ALL  PERMITS  .. 133,237  142,372  115,158  6  + 16  
New  construction  .121,591  132,617  100,825  - 8  + 21  
Residential  
(housekeeping)  66,273  56,537  62,318  + 17  + 6  
One-family  
dwellings  52,809  37,007  48,141  + 43  + 10  
Multiple-family  
dwellings  13,464  19,530  14,177  -31  - 5  
Nonresidential  
buildings  55,318  76,080  38,507  -27  + 44  
Nonhou~keeping  
buildings  
(residential)  752  2,065  1,418  -64  -47  
Amusement  
buildings  447  2,049  1,817  -78  -75  
Churches  1,974  2,197  2,209  -10  -11  
Industrial  
buildings  13,256  8,749  4,522  + 52  +193  
Garages  
(commercial  
and  private)  1,270  261  801  +387  + 59  
Service stations  
and  repair  
garages  1,316  1,067  1,372  + 23  - 4  
Hospitals  
and other  
institutional  
buildings  2,606  2,964  1,577  -12  + 65  
Office-bank  
buildings  3,848  18,014  7,347  -79  -48  
Works and  
utilities  2,547  4,730  1,481  -46  + 72  
Educational  
buildings  14,179  18,013  7,256  -21  + 95  
Stores &  
mercantile  
buildings  9,331  9,038  7,745  + 3  + 20  
Other buildings  
&  structures .  3,792  6,933  962  - 45  +294  
Additions,  altera­ 
tions,  and  repairs 11,646  9,755  14,333  + 19  -19  
METROPOLITAN  vs.  
NONMETRO­ 
POLITANt  
Total  
metropolitan  ... 113,751  123,130  93,978  - 8  + 21  
Central  cities  82,220  98,023  71,833  -16  + 14  
Outside central  
cities  31,531  25,107  22,145  + 26  + 42  
Total  
nonmetropolitan  19,486  19,242  21, 180  + 1  - 8  
10.000 to 50,000  
population  8,460  10,637  11,809  -20  -28  
Less than 10,000  
population  11,026  8,605  9,371  + 28  + 18  

t As defined in 1965 by the Bureau of the Census. 
total value. Nationally, the seasonally adjusted number of new dwelling unit authorizations in January reflected a 5% decline from a year ago. These declines in numbers of units authorized for construction are a reversal of recent improvements in both the state and national trends. 
Building costs appear to have risen at an accelerated pace during the past few months. Indicative of a faster rise in homebuilding costs in Texas, the average permit value of single-family dwellings authorized in Texas in­creased 5.4% in 1965, compared with an increase of 3.7% in 1964. In the three-month period ended January 1966, the average value showed an increase of 9.8% over the corresponding period a year ago. Some of the increase in average value is undoubtedly the result of increases in average home size and in the number of home features, but most of the recent acceleration of the uptrend in average value probably reflects a faster rise in building costs. 
National construction cost indexes published by the 
U. S. Department of Commerce show that both overall construction costs and residential building costs increased at annual rates of about 3% in 1964 and 1965. How­ever, in the final quarter of 1965 the cost indexes rose nearly 4% over the year-earlier period. Construction ma­terials showing the sharpest cost increases during the latest period included selected hardwood lumber and non­ferrous metal products. 
Union wage rates of building trades workers through­out the nation reflected an average year-to-year increase of nearly 5% in the final quarter of 1965. This compares with annual rates of increase of about 4% as of both mid-1964 and mid-1965. Texas building trades wages do not appear to be rising at such a rapid rate. Available data on union wage scales and fringe benefits in the building trades in major Texas cities show an average annual increase of only about 3.5% in the latter part of 1965. 
Interest rates on new home loans continue to in­crease. According to estimates of the Federal Housing Administration, the average interest rate on conventional first-mortgage new-home loans in the Southwest on Feb­ruary 1, 1966, was 6.00%, compared with 5.85% on De­cember 1, 1965 (before Federal Reserve banks raised discount rates), and 5.75% a year earlier. On February 7, 1966, the Federal Housing Administration, which pro­vided mortgage insurance on an estimated 15% to 20% of the private nonfarm housing starts in Texas in 1965, increased the top interest rate permitted on the new­home loans it insures to 5~% from 5io/o. 
UNION WAGE SCALES FOR BUILDING TRADES IN SELECTED 
TEXAS CITIES: LEVELS AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1965 AND 
PERCENT CHANGES FROM OCTOBER 1, 1964 

San Building trade Dallas El Paso Houston Antonio Average 
Dollars per hour* 
Bricklayers  .. 4.525  4.300  4.675  4.250  4.438  
Carpenters  .....4.150  3.950  4.220  3.875  4.049  
Electricians  .. 4.443  4.444  4.884  4.166  4.484  
Painters  . 4.013  3.350  4.110  3.625  3.775  
P lasterers  4.488  4.300  4.470  4.250  4.377  
P lumbers  4.620  4.200  4.675  4.450  4.486  
Building  laborers  2,250  2.300  2.645  1.900  2.274  
Average  .4.070  3.835  4.240  3.788  3.983  
Percent changes  

Bricklayers ...... 3.4 3.0 
6.3 1.9 3.7 Carpenters ...... 3.8 
4.8 2.4 3.3 3.4 Electricians .... 3.6 2.3 3.3 
3.1 3.1 Painters ... 3.2 
3.7 3.8 3.6 3.6 P lasterers .. ....2.3 3.0 2.3 
0.0 1.9 Plumbers ..........6.2 2.4 
5.1 3.5 4.3 Building laborers . 7.1 5.7 4.5 
0.0 4.5 Average ........4.0 3.4 3.9 2.3 3.4 
*Minimum hourly wage rates plus employer contributions to insur· ance and pension funds and for vacation payments. 
Source: U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 



THE FEDERAL RESERVE DISCOUNT RATE Relation to Market Rates and Purposes of Recent Changes James R. Kay¥ 
The recent increase in the Federal Reserve's discount rate, announced last December 5, sparked an unusual amount of controversy, including the sharpest clash in evidence in some years between views of the executive branch of the federal government and the Federal Re­serve's Board of Governors. Other, less-publicized views ranged from condemnation to praise of the Board's ac­tion. Thus Senator Paul Douglas, a member of the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress which held im­mediate hearings on the policies of the Federal Reserve following the rate increase, is quoted as saying the 
Bo11rd's action was "as cruel as it was impolite."1 On 
the other hand, the official statement of the American 
Bankers Association congratulated the Federal Reserve 
Governors for "facing up squarely to their statutory re­
sponsibilities."2 Another view, however, reported to be 
held by most economic forecasters, considered the rate 
increase "pretty much as a molehill."a These diverse 
views indicate that discount-rate changes are widely but 
not universally believed to have great economic import. 
The matter of concern is, of course, the level of economic 
activity. The processes by which a nonmarket rate, 
which applies directly to only rather limited borrowing, 
affects general economic conditions are certainly not 
obvious. The link to market rates of interest is assumed 
but vaguely understood. The link between interest-ra~ 
levels and economic activity is a matter on which opinions 
differ widely, even among professional economists. 
This article makes no attempt to settle the issue of how 

market rates of interest influence economic activity. Let 
it suffice here to state a sequence of changes that ma.ny 
economists would agree upon. Capital expansion is viewed 
as the dynamic force changing the total level of expendi­
ture in the economy. Interest costs are held to be 

critical in business decisions on whether or not capital 
expansion plans should be activated. If interest cost 
of the financing funds is less than the expected yield 
of the new capital project, activation would seem to be 
in order. But if interest costs are the higher, the project 
would appear not to be feasible. Rates that apply for 

only short periods, such a businessman's borrowing from 
his commercial bank, are not viewed as weighty enough 

among business costs to have much effect. But longer­
term rates, such as those fixed in coupon rates attached 
to corporate bond issues, can mean many more dollars 

of outlay for interest costs over the life of the financing 
issue. Furthermore, the expected yield of the capital 
expansion project is less certain to materiali.7.e when it 
can be realized only over a period of many years. Thus, 
•Profeuor of Finance, The Univeralt:v of Taaa. 
1&.U.inq, January 1966, pp. 43, 99. 
2lbi.d., p. 81. 
'New York Time•, December 16, 1966, p. 67. 


higher long-term rates of interest are held to be depress­ing to capital expansion plans, and through them to total expenditures in the economy and to economic activity in general. 
The purpose of this article is two-fold : (1) to clarify the relationship between the Federal Reserve's discount rate and market rates of interest in a period of business expansion, and (2) to set forth the major purposes sought by the Federal Reserve by changes in the dis­count rate in recent years. 
Federal Reserve Discount Rate and 
Market Rates of Interest 

A few fundamentals about the Federal Reserve's dis­count rate should be understood. First, it does not rep­resent a cost of funds available in large amounts to qualified borrowers. Instead, access to these funds is highly restricted. Only somewhat less than half the na­tion's commercial banks, which are members of the Fed­eral Reserve system, may seek to borrow.4 Nor are funds freely available to this limited clientele. The System's regulation dealing with discounting emphasizes borrowing to be "a privilege of membership," rather than a right.5 The purpose of the funds borrowed must be justified as "beyond those which can reasonably be met by the bank's own res:ources."6 While loans may run up to ninety days, or to rune months if related to the borrower bank's ag­ricultural lending, the loan period is usually for only a few days in practice. The System forewarns that "con­tinuous use of Federal Reserve credit by a member bank over a considerable period of time is not regarded as appropriate."• The rather forbidding nature of the "discount window" finds expression in certain phrases often encountered in financial literature: "a safety valve for member banks," "paper technically eligible, but un­acceptable for discount,'' "lender of last resort,'' "reluc­tance to be indebted to the Federal Reserve." 
In view of what has just been said, the question may well be asked: "What benefit, if any, do the dis­count operations of the Federal Reserve Bank offer to the Texas businessman, farmer, or rancher?" The answer must be that the benefit is great. In fact, the major rea­son for the establishment of the Federal Reserve System w:as to. alleviate credit shortages that periodically--espe­c1ally m the fall of the year-afflicted producers all over the country. For example, a business jirm is likely to 
•JUDUlation A, Board of Govemora of the Federal Reserve S:vstem. Actually, the Federal Reserve bas more than one discount rate. appli­cable to other borrowings. Only the discount rate applied to member bank borrowinp is at all active aa a loan rate. 
'lbi.d. 
•rbi.d. 
1[bi.d. 

need a bank loan each year, as it moves into its season of peak sales volum~, for financing a larger investment in inventories and receivables. Should the seasonal loan de­mands of the businesses of the commercial bank's service area be highly concentrated in a few months of the year, the aggregate demand might exceed its normal lending capacity. The Federal Reserve Bank stands ready to help with temporary loans to the commercial bank. In periods of general economic prosperity, when growing production is associated with mounting credit demands, any commer­cial bank that aggressively serves such needs is likely 
to experience a need to borrow itself, on a temporary basis, occasionally. Here, also, the Federal Reserve Bank stands ready to lend. 
Commercial banks serving agricultural areas experi­ence strong seasonal swings in demands for loans. Seed and fertilizer loans and other needs connected with the planting and growing and, later, the harvesting of crops represent credit needs extending over several months. Commercial banks in such areas may borrow from the Federal Reserve Bank prior to their lending season and repay after crops have been marketed. Ranching activi­ties, likewise, represent credit needs extending over pe­riods of months. Therefore, Federal Reserve Banks loan to member commercial banks for periods up to nine months when the commercial bank's need stems from its own 
lending in support of agricultural and ranching pursuits. 
Chart 1 shows for 1964-65 the discount volume of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, along with that for the entire System. The state of Texas constitutes a major portion of the Dallas Reserve Bank's area, but also in­cluded are northern Louisiana, a small section of South­east Oklahoma, southern New Mexico, and a small sec­tion of Southeast Arizona. The dollar volume of dis­counts appears quite modest, but the true significance of the figures lies in the fact that they are marginal amounts that support productive loans that, in many cases, would not have been made. 
In simple terms, the borrowing by a member bank at the Federal Reserve discount window has the same pur­pose as an individual's or business firm's borrowing from a commercial bank: to improve a cash condition. Never­theless, the commercial bank's problem in maintaining adequate cash is unique in at least two respects. First, it must maintain a certain level of cash funds, for law prescribes minimum reserve requirements to be held behind the bank's deposits. Second, others order it to pay out cash without forewarning, i.e., its depositors write checks at their pleasure against their deposits kept with the commercial bank. Thus, the "safety valve" aspect of the Federal Reserve discount window is of great importance to banks. The commercial banker's vulner-

Chart 1 : Discounts and Advances, Federal Reserve System 
and Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, 1964-1965 
Millions of Millions of 

doll a rs 
1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 
400 
300 200 100 
0 

Weekly 

dollars 
120 110 100 90 
80 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 
Source: Federal Reserve System. 

ability as a holder of the public's deposits to cash losses is, of course, of his own choosing. In fact, his own lending and investing operations cause deposit liabilities to grow, as shown in Table 1. In every period of business expansion, such as the present one, deposit liabilities of commercial banks, as a system, increase rather rapidly. While in­dividual banks may scale down their investments in se­curities as they grant additional loans, the growth of loans always exceeds the contraction of investments for commercial banks, taken in the aggregate. More cash reserves are called for to support this expansion. And, in general, the Federal Reserve System is a rather 
Table 1 
LOANS, INVESTMENTS, AND DEPOSITS OF COMMERCIAL 
BANKS, 1961-1965 

(Billions of dollars) 

Total loans and Total End of investments deposits 
1961  ....... 215.4  248.7  
1962  .. 235.8  262.1  
1963  ...........254.2  275.1  
1964  " " " 277 .4  307.2  
1965  (Nov.)•  .. 297.0  314.5  

t:Preliminary figure. 
Source: Federal Reserve Bulletin. 

willing supplier of more cash. In fact, this additional cash is supplied, for the most part, on the Federal Re­serve's own volition. By merely purchasing United States Government securities in the open market, it pays out cash funds to the market and these funds quickly flow to commercial banks as deposits. But this flow does not match precisely with individual bank needs for cash. Therefore, they may borrow additional cash directly at the discount window. 
In a period of general economic expansion most com­mercial banks, sooner or later, begin to experience a chronic shortage of cash. Loan demand is intense, and the proceeds of loans granted tend to be checked out and to become cash losses. It might appear that cash losses would cancel out for the banking system and that no shortage would develop. While in most cases cash funds checked out from one bank become deposits in others, there are two quarters from which a general shortage begins to develop: (1) the growth of deposits against which cash must be held, and (2) the net withdrawal of cash from banks by individuals and business firms which feel a greater need for pocket money and till cash be­cause of the same rising tempo of economic activity. 
When a member bank experiences a need for addi­tional cash, it may obtain it in the generally preferred way by selling off investments in the securities markets. Banks hold substantial amounts of highly liquid, easily marketable securities, known as secondary reserves, for backstopping their cash positions. The major component of banks' secondary reserves is United States Government securities with only short periods to run until maturity, especially Treasury bills which are issued weekly to run for 91 days. Trading markets are active for these and other secondary-reserve-type instruments. 
An alternative open to the member commercial bank in need of cash is to borrow it at the Federal Reserve discount window. Here the cost of borrowed funds is fixed by the official discount rate. In deciding whether or not to incur this cost, a comparison is inevitably drawn to short-term market rates on instruments composing the bank's secondary reserves. For example, the "key" short­term market rate on Treasury bills is a per annum rate which will determine, along with the number of days the bill has left to run, a deduction for discount from the bill's maturity value if sold. If held to maturity, on the other hand, this discount is gained by the holder in the form of the proceeds from the matured bill. In this manner, action by banks to gain cash tends to follow the least-cost route. 
In the early stages of a business expansion and for an indefinite period thereafter, the Federal Reserve can be expected to supply more cash reserves on its own volition through open-market purchases of U. S. Government se­curities. However, as the sustainability of the expansion becomes more and more doubtful to System authorities because of incipient price inflation, cash reserves are supplied less generously through the open-market pur­chase route. Further additions come more and more to be due to individual member bank borrowing at the dis­count window. 
Even after cash reserves have become generally scarce 

in the commercial-bank system, individual banks may 
avoid the Federal Reserve discount window by selling 
Treasury bills or other secondary-reserve instruments. 
However, this process adds nothing to total reserves avail­
able to banks unless the Federal Reserve is purchasing. 

One bank's gain of reserves tends to cause equal losses 
by other banks and may throw them into deficiencies. So 
security sales by banks tend to beget other security sales, 

with a strong tendency to force market prices to a lower 
level and to raise the market yields (i.e., interest rates) 
on the instruments under selling pressure. In this way, 
a discount rate temporarily higher than key short--term 
market rates of interest tends to induce them to rise. 
As the cost of funds obtained by market transactions 
comes to offer less or no cost advantage, more and more 
banks choose to borrow at the discount window and their 
aggregate borrowings rise. The borrowing by individual 
banks is temporary, but their repayments to the Federal 
Reserve ·are in cash funds which are gained at the ex­
pense of other commercial banks, which in turn may 
feel the necessity to borrow. Thus two effects may be 
expected to follow: (1) short-term market rates of in­
terest move up, and (2) commercial banks become more 
restrictive in their own lending operations. 
Inevitably, upward pressure on short-term rates of in­
terest spreads to intermediate-term and long-term credit 
markets. To a certain extent, investor interest shifts to­
ward shorter-term instruments as their yield rates rise. 
This alone tends to spread the rate increases beyond 
short-term markets. More important, undoubtedly, is that 
expectations will point to higher rates generally, so that 
users of intermediate-term and long-term credit are likely 
to advance the time schedule of their demands for funds 
and normal suppliers are apt to withhold funds in antici­
pation of higher investment yields. 
The recent changes in discount rates are shown in 
Chart 2, along with the market rates on Treasury bills 
and corporate bonds rated Aaa by Moody's Investor 
Service. It will be noted that the discount rate was well 
above the Treasury bill rate from mid-1960 to late 1961. 

Chart 2: Long-and Short-Term Interest Rates 
Percent per Percent per annum Weekly annum 


Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 
This gap closed to zero in the summer of 1963. The tendency of the higher discount rate of July 1963 and those instituted in November 1964 and December 1965 to induce higher rates in both the short-term and long­term (see "Corporate Aaa" rates) credit markets is clearly discernible. 
Purposes of Discount Rate Changes 
Since Mid-1960 

The above discussion has been confined to discount-rate changes in periods of rising business activity. When business begins to recede, the Federal Reserve System is usually quick to reduce the discount rate and initiate other credit-easing actions. Open-market purchases of U. 
S. Government securities supply additional cash reserves on the System's own initiative. Few banks are likely to find it necessary to borrow at the discount window at this juncture, as shown in Table 2. Therefore, the lower discount rates are largely symbolic of the System's policy of credit ease. 
In the 1953-54 recession, the discount rate was reduced in two stages from 2% to Ho/c. In the recession that began in 1957, discount-rate action was even more ag· gressive: four reductions between mid-November 1957 and May 1958 brought the rate down from 3§% to U%. In both recessions, open-market purchases of U. S. Gov· ernment securities were made in large volume and short­term market rates of interest fell sharply. 
Discount-rate policy in the recession of 1960-61 stands in sharp contrast to that used in the previous two re­cessions. The reductions of June and August 1960 were explained in terms of bringing the discount rate into better alignment with lower short-term market rates of interest.8 The Board of Governors seems not to have concluded that the trend was recessionary until about two months after these reductions.D There followed a period of almost three years without a rate change, even 
8Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Annual Report, 1960, pp. 81, 86. 
•/bid., pp. 65-66. 

Table 2 MEMBER BANK BORROWINGS AT FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS (Millions of dollars) 
Year Month Amount 
1959  Dec.  . .... . 906  
1960  June  .425  
1960  Dec.  .....  87  
1961  J une  ... . .  63  
1961  Dec.  .. 149  
1962  June  . .. .. . .. . .. . .•.........100  
1962  Dec.  .... . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . ... . . ....304  
1963  June  .. 236  
rn63  Dec.  .. 327  
1964  June  .. . 270  
1964  Dec.  .... . 243  
1965  J une  .. . 528  
1965  Nov.  .......452  
1965  Dec.  1  ... . .. .. .. ... . .. .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .  . .. . 534  
8  . . . . . . ... . . .. .. . . . .. . .....478  
15  .... . 486  
22  .. . 218  
29  . 546  
J an.  . .......562  
12  . .. ..... 590  

Source: Federal Reserve Bulletin. F igures are averages of daily figures. 
though it might appear from Chart 2 that a better alignment with short-term market rates would have been achieved with reductions. 
Between the recession of 1957-58 and that of 1960-61, the position of the Federal Reserve System changed drastically. United States international-payments deficits, about which so much has been heard in recent years, were the immediate cause of the change. These deficits took on a different meaning in the years 1958 to 1960, in two important respects: (1) they became larger and ap­parently intractable, and (2) they were settled, to a much larger extent, by gold export which cut deeply into the gold-certificate reserves of the Federal Reserve banks, as shown in Table 3. 
Table 3 

U. S. GOLD STOCK, FEDERAL RESERVE GOLD CERTIFICATE 
RESERVES, AND U. S. SHORT-TERM LIABILITIES 
TO FOREIGNERS 

(Billions of dollars) 
U.S. sho~tenn 

U.S. gold F.R. gold liabilities to End of stock ctf. reserve foreigners 
1957  .....22.8  22.1  15.2  
1958  ............20.5  20.0  16.2  
1959  .. 19.5  19.2  19.4  
1960  ...17.8  17.5  21.3  
1961  .....16.9  16.6  22.5  
1962  .. 16.0  15.7  25.0  
1963  .. 15.5  15.2  26.0  
1964  .15.4  15.1  28.8  
1965  ..... 13.7  13.4  29 .1 (Oct.)•  

•Preliminary figure. 

Source: Annual Reports of Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Suatem: Federal Reserve Bulletin. 
At the inception of the 1960-61 recession, the Federal Reserve found itself in a unique situation. For the first time in its history it was short of adequate means for waging a truly all-out battle against declining economic activity. United States balance-of-payments deficits had reduced its gold-certificate reserves, as a larger propor­tion of the country's deficits was settled in gold exports, as shown in Table 3. :Moreover, potential claims on the remaining gold stock, our short-term liabilities to the rest of the world, became much larger. There was a clear threat to the remaining gold reserves of the country and the gold-certificate reserves of the Federal Reserve banks. So as the 1960-61 recession developed, the System, in its own words, faced a dilemma. 
"On the one hand, rising unemployment and declining output called for credit ease and lower interest rates. On the other hand, the continued adverse balance of pay­ments, together with increased outflow of gold gave rise to concern about the interest rate differentials between the United States and the rest of the world that, along with other factors, were inducing capital to leave this country."1'' 
In brief, relatively higher short-term rates were indicated 
by the international position. 
Since 1960, the Federal Reserve has generally kept 
its discount rate above the Treasury bill rate and rather 
quickly raised it after the two rates equalized (Chart 2). 
The purpose has been to keep short-term interest rates 
rising enough to be competitive internationally. The proc­
esses by which market rates are induced to rise have 
been set forth above. In explaining the July 1963 in­
crease, the Board said it was "influenced primarily by a 
desire to minimize short-term capital outflows, which had 
been encouraged by higher rates of interest prevalent in 
other countries."11 The November 1964 increase was 
"aimed at preserving the strength of the doliar inter­
nationally."12 
By way of contrast, the December 1965 discount rate increase was motivated primarily by a threat of price inflation; at least, the first of three reasons given for the increase was to "prevent inflationary excesses from damaging" the economy.13 A few days after the increase, Chairman Martin of the Federal Reserve Board further explained: 
"As long as unemployment of manpower and plant capacity was greater than could be considered acceptable or normal, we had every reason to lean on the side of monetary stimulus.... 
Recent developments in our economy-mounting dan­ger of price pressures, rapidly climbing bank credit, and continuing deficit in our payments balance-have been warning signals. And they have indicated that prevailing market rates· of interest were beginning to distort the flow of funds through the economy. Our recent action has been designed to insure that the demands for credit do not reach inflationary dimensions...."H 
Reasons two and three, however, once again emphasized 
the need for competitive rates internationally "to over­
come persistent deficits in the U. S. balance of payments" 
and "to maintain the international strength of the 
dollar."15 
"'Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Annual Repqrt, 1960, p, 2. 
11/bid., 1918, p. 39. 
"Ibid., 1964, p. 45. 
uFederal Re1erve Bvlletin, December 1985, p. 1668. 
"Ibid., pp. 1669-74. 
"'Ibid., p. 1668. 

TEXAS RETAIL SALES IN JANUARY 
by Robert H. Drenner 

Total retail sales in Texas in January dropped about 28% from their record December level. The January decline was somewhat greater than could have been sea­sonally anticipated; the index of total retail sales, ad­justed for normal seasonal variation, fell from 142% to 128% of the 1957-59 monthly average. The explanation for the greater-than-seasonal decline in January retail volume is largely the greater-than-seasonal rise in De­cember sales. It was generally expected that sales during' the Christmas shopping season would be the highest ever, 
and those expectations were more than fulfilled. It is scarcely surprising that consumers, after spending so freely for Christmas, cut back on their purchases a bit more than usual in January. 
ESTIMATES OF TOTAL RETAIL SALES IN TEXAS 
(Millions of dollars) 
Percent change 
Jan 1966  Jan 1966  
from  from  
Type of store  Jan 1966  Dec 1965  Jan 1965  
Total  ........ ..  . $1,080.3  -28  + 2  
Durable goods*  408.5  -18  - 1  
Nondurable  goods  671.8  -33  + 3  

''Contains automotive stores, furniture stores, and lumber, building material, and ha rdware stores. 
Given the uniform greater-than-seasonal sales declines in January, it is encouraging that Texas retail stores nevertheless generally posted gains from January a year ago. Total sales were up 2%. Nondurable-goods stores re­corded a 3% January-to-January improvement. Durable­goods stores showed a 1 % decline, but the decline is deceptive; consumer demand for durables actually re­mained surprisingly strong in January. The durables category is dominated by sales of new motor vehicles, and Texans purchased the 1966 models in the last months of 1965 at a pace never before equalled. The small de-
RETAIL SALES TRENDS BY KINDS OF BUSINESS 
Percent change 
Normal seasonal* Actual Number of ---­
reporting establish- Jan from  Jan 1966 from  Jan 1966 from  
Kinds of business  ments  Dec  Dec 1965  Jan 1965  

DURABLE GOODS  
Automotive  stores  ..........391  - 1  - 15  ••  
Furniture  & household  
appliance  stores  172  - 15  - 34  + 3  
Lumber,  building  material,  
and  hardwa re  stores. ....... .244  + 1  - 18  
NONDURABLE GOODS  
Apparel  stores  .....294  -46  - 51  + 4  
Drugstores  .....177  -23  - 27  + 4  
Eating and drinking places .. 167  - 2  - 11  3  
Food  stores  .. 351  - 13  - 15  +  
Gasoline and  service  stations 108  - 3  - 7  + 2  
General  merchandise  stores .. 306  -53  - 59  + 5  
Other  retail  stores  ..... 292  - 33  - 32  + 4  

.:. Average seasonal change from preceding month to current month. ''*Cha nge is less than one-half of 1%. 
eline in new car sales this January from the same month a year ago was a decline from a month when the 1965 models were just becoming available in quantity after the strikes at Ford and General Motors the preceding fall. January 1965, that is, was a month when sales of new cars were at an extremely high level. 
The immediate retail sales outlook is extremely promis­ing-and for virtually every type of merchandise. Busi­ness activity in Texas is still headed strongly upward. Employment is at an all-time high, and the percentage of the labor force looking for jobs is at a record low. Gen­eral prosperity is also reflected in the unusually large gain ~stimated at about 7%-in Texas personal income last year. Though birth rates are slowing markedly over the entire nation, the Texas population continues to grow somewhat faster than the U. S. population. Consumer surveys indicate that consumer confidence in continued prosperity is high and that plans to purchase new homes, new cars, new household furniture and appliances, and similar items in the year ahead are extremely optimistic, with most consumers anticipating further gains in in­come commensurate with those that have been experi­enced in the recent past. All these factors will operate to keep Texas retail buying moving strongly upward. 
There is another side of the coin, however. One factor 
acting at present and as early as January was the dis­
covery by most taxpayers that the amount of income 
tax withheld from their salaries last year was substan­
tially less than they will be required to pay when they 
file their final returns on 1965 income. Another is the 
increase, which was effective January 1, in social security 
taxes. And there is the prospect of other tax increases 
if the war in Viet Nam becomes a severe strain on the 
productive capacity of the nation's economy. These in­
creases will be designed to decrease domestic demand for 
goods and services by absorbing a portion of consumer 
disposable income. 
But much the worse threat to the physical volume of 
retail trade this year will be the upward pressure on 
retail prices. The real gains in retail volume last year 
were, for most types of merchandise, significantly lower 
than the gains in dollar volume--in some cases, increases 
in prices offset virtually all of the gains in dollar volume. 
Food is the outstanding example: from January to De­
cember last year, food prices rose approximately 4% and 
were on the average 2.2% higher than in 1964. There 
were also persistent increases last year in the prices of 
most types of apparel; the average increase from January 
to December was about 2.5%. Consumer prices as a 
while rose approximately 2% over the year. After a long 
period of relative stability, wholesale prices rose sharply 
this January, suggesting that retail prices may soon show 
an even sharper movement upward. Further price in· 
creases will cut into the gains in real personal income 
and will also hold down increases in unit retail sales 
volume. 
The accompanying table on per capita retail sales in 
Texas for 1958 and 1963 contrasts per capita sales for 
the state as a whole with per capita sales in the state's 
individual metropolitan areas, in the metropolitan areas 
taken as a whole, and in the nonmetropolitan portion of 
the state. The table has two sources. The first is the 1963 
Census of Business, which gives dollar retail sales totals 
for each Texas county and SMSA and for the state for 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

PER CAPITA RETAIL SALES, TEXAS SMSA'S, 1958-1963 (In order of 1963 per capita sales) 
Per capita retail sales Total retail sales, Population, Percent 195 -1963, 195 1963, SMSA 1958 1963 change percent change percent change 
Lubbock  Sl,437  Sl,691  + 1  + 35  + 15  
Amarillo  1,496  1,602  + 7  + 26  18  
Odessa  1,383  1,566  + 13  + 6  - 7  
H ouston1  1,374  1,530  + 11  + 26  14  
Dallas  1,436  1,514  5  + 23  + 17  
Midla nd  1,226  1,454  + 19  + 21  2  
Fort  Worth  1.327  1,439  +  + 14  + 6  
San  Angelo  1,320  1,371  + 4  17  + 13  
Abilene  1,244  1.323  6  + 16  + 9  
Tyler Texarkana'  1.181 1,075  1,293 1,262  + 10 + 17  + 22 19  + 11 ••  
Wichita Falls  1,322  1,232  + 6  + 14  
Waco  1,133  1.230  + 9  12  + 4  
Beaumont-Port  Arthur-Orange  1,171  1,221  4  11  + 7  
Austin  1,087  1,215  + 12  + 30  + 17  
Laredo  943  1,196  + 27  + 35  + 6  
Corpus  Christi•  1,091  1,137  + 4  + 4  - 1  
El  Paso  1.074  1,126  +  + 1  12  
Galveston-Texas City  1.120  l,102  2  7  + 9  
San  Antonio  1,026  1,043  + 2  + 15  + 13  
Brownsville-Harlingen-Sa n  Benito  797  892  12  + 6  - 6  
TEXAS,  SMSA's  1.254  1,353  + 8  + 20  + 11  
TEXAS,  NON-SMSA's  998  1,076  + 8  + 14  + 6  
T EXAS  1.1 64  1,258  + 8  + 18  + 9  

•Ch"ange is less than one-half of 1o/c. 
'Including Brazoria, Fort Bend, Liberty, and Montgomery counties. 


both 1958 and 1963. The second source is the estimated 1963 population of each Texas county and SMSA, and the estimated change in each population since 1960, by the Population Research Center of The University of Texas. Since there are no reliable estimates available of the comparable 1958 populations, such estimates were calculated from the enumerated 1960 populations on the assumption that the population trends which character­ized the state and its individual counties during the 1960­1963 period were also characteristic during 1958-1960. The Population Research Center's latest estimates (else­where in this issue) of population changes in the state since 1960 show substantial differences for some counties in the average annual percent change from that indicated in the 1963 estimates, but it seemed appropriate to take as a basis for the table the average annual percent changes shown in the earlier estimates. All the Population Research Center's estimates are based on the scholastic census for the appropriate years, and the Center notes that the reliability of the scholastic census has apparent­ly declined since 1960. An accurate population count for 1958 and 1963 would therefore probably have given sig­nificantly different per capita retail sales figures for several of the areas listed. Nevertheless, in most instances the errors in the estimates should be minor and the cal­culated per capita figures not much different from their actual values. 
A different kind of distortion in the data on the in­dividual SMSA's should be noted. Probably in no instance is a given SMSA exactly coterminous with its regional trade territory, and the variation is sometimes consider­able. San Antonio, for example, is the principal trading center for an area large enough to include Del Rio and Eagle Pass, El Paso draws shoppers from as far away as Alpine, Amarillo from Tucumcari, New Mexico, 
'Including Miller County, Arkansas. 
·· ' Including San Patricio County. 

and Lubbock from Denver City and Seminole. Since each SMSA contains a central city (or cities) that functions as the principal trading center for the area around it, the proportion of total retail volume in the SMSA due to purchases by individuals living outside the SMSA pro­portionate!)'-injl.ates per capita retail sales for the SMSA. The amount of distortion is a function primarily of the proportion between the population of the SMSA and the larger population that regularly buys at retail in the SMSA, and in some cases the distortion may be sig­nificant. There is of course a certain amount of spending outside each SMSA by its residents, but the amount is probably much smaller in every instance than that done in the SMSA by nonresident shoppers. 
As interesting as are the differences shown in the ta­ble between the various areas, the most significant are those in the percent change between 1958 and 1963 in total and per capita retail sales and in population. In general, but with some notable exceptions, those areas which grew the fastest in general business and economic activity in the 1958-1963 period were those areas with the largest population gains. These areas, but again with some ex­ceptions, also had the largest increases in total retail spending. On the average, the state's metropolitan areas grew faster in both respects than did either the non­metropolitan areas or the state as a whole. But much their faster rate of growth was in population-twice that of the nonmetropolitan portion and nearly a quarter greater than that of the state during the five-year period. In contrast, the SMSA's only barely exceeded the state as a whole in the rate of growth of total retail sales. In spite of its much lower population gain, nometro­politan Texas showed a percentage retail sales gain from 1958 to 1963 that was not proportionately lower than the state's gain nor than that shown by the SMSA's. 


POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR TEXAS COUNTIES, APRIL 1, 1965~ 
Prepared by Population Research Center, 
Department of Sociology, The University of Texas 

Every year since. 1960 the Population Research Center has prepared population estimates for each of the 254 Texas counties.1 With the exception of 1963, these yearly estimates have been based almOllt ex­clusively on the scholastic census. For 1963 three methods were used in preparing the estimates. Method I was based on the scholastic cen­sus, Method II was based on vital statistics, and Method III was based on passenger car registrations.2 
Previous research has indicated that Method I generally produces far more reliable estimates than either of the other two methods. However, its reliability undoubtedly varies considerably from one county to the next, deir€nding upon the reliability of the scholastic census. Therefore, for some counties Method II or Method III may produce a more accu­rate estimate of the "true" population than Method I. The problem, 
·-n.en, is to decide which estimate is the most accurate for each indi­vidual county.• 
One solution is to use the method that produces the most reliable estimate for the largest number of counties. This was the procedure followed in 1961, 1962, and 1964, when Method I was used for all but a very few of the counties. In 1963 all three estimates were reported, and the choice of the most accurate estimate was left to the reader. Another P09'1.ibility is to take the average of the three estimates and use it as the. most probable estimate. This is not an ideal solution, since one very extreme estimate will distort the average substantially. A better solution is to choose the intermediat~ estimate for each county. This was the procedure used in preparing the 1965 estimates. The primary advantage of this procedure is that it does not use Method I 
in those cases where that estimate is greater than or less than both of the other two estimates. These are the cases where Method I is prob­ably the least reliable. 
For most counties Method I will produce the intermediate estimate, since earlier research has shown that Method II tends to underestimate and Method III tends to overestimate the population. The 1965 esti­mates confirm this pattern. Specifically, Method II produced the small­est estimate for 195 counties. Method III produced the largest estimate for 202 counties, and Method I produced the intermediate estimate for 179 counties. In addition to the 179 times that Method I produced the intermediate estimate, for 46 additional counties the average annual growth rate for the Method I estimate differed from the rate for the intermediate estimate by less than 1% . This means that for over 88% of the counties the Method I estimate was either the intermediate esti­mate or its growth rate differed only minimally from the intermediate growth rate. This is further evidence of Method l's generally greater reliability, but it also indicates that in a small proportion of the coun­ties its reliability is probably less than one of the other methods. In these cases the use of one of the other methods is advisable. 
DESCRIPTION OF METHODS 
Method I. The Method I estimates in Tables 1 and 2 ar~ based on th~ following formula: M = L + [ (H) (I)] + (J -K). Each variable in this formula is described below: A = Number of potential scholastics for year X. For example, the 
potential scholastics for 1965 (year X in this case) are persons 1-12 enumerated in the 1960 federal census, and for 1967 it will be persons born during 1960, plus persons 0-10 enumerated in the 1960 federal census. 
B = Number of potential scholastics dying between birth or 1960 and year X. If A1 is a particular potential scholastic cohort, subtract the number of deaths of A1 persons up to year X. For example, suppose A, is persons 2 years of age in the 1960 federal census and X is 1964. Then the deaths of A, are the number of persons two years of age who died in 1960, plus the number three years of age who died in 1961, plus four-year-olds who died during 1962, plus five-year-olds who died during 1963. B is thus the number in cohort A, dying between 1960 and 1963 (inclusive), plus the num­ber in A, dying between 1960 and 1963, etc. 
C = 	Number of persons 6-17 years of age enumerated in the 1960 fed­

eral census. 
•Comments and inquiries regarding the estimates should be addressed to the Population Research Center, Department of Sociology, The Uni­versity of Texas. 
A-B 
D=--­
C 
E = Number of persons enumerated in scholastic census for 1960. F = D x E, givinir expected number of scholastics in year X with no net migration of scholastics. G = Actual number of scholastics enumerated in scholastic census for year X. H = G -F, the increase or decrease of scholastics attributable to migration. I = Migration multiplier, which is taken as the ratio of the total population to the number of persons 6-17 years of age in 1960. 
J = 	Number of resident births between 1960 and year X (e.17., when X is 1965, it is the number of births during 1960, 1961, 1962, 196S, and 1964). 
K = Number of resident deaths between 1960 and year X. 
L = Resident 1960 population according to the federal cenllllS of 1960. 
M = Estimated population for year X. 

The crucial factor in the estimation formula is the migration muhi­plier. The first step taken in the computation of a migration multiplier for each Texas county is to determine the 1960 potential number of persons 6-17 years of age (henceworth referred to as scholastics), riven the age composition of the county's population in 1950 and the births and deaths in the county during the 1950-60 decade. In this inltulce the 1960 potential number of scholastics is all persons 0-7 years of 118' in 1950 plus all persons born between April 1, 1950 and April 1, 1954. Subtraction of the estimated number of deaths of potential scholastics from the total yields the expected number of scholastics in 1960. The difference between the number of expected scholastics in 1960 and the number of persons 6-17 years of age enumerated in the 1960 federal census is indicative of net migration. For example, if the 1960 expected number of scholastics in a county is 150, but the number of penona 6-17 years of age enumerated in the 1960 federal census is 200, then the estimate of net migration of scholastics over the decade 1950-60 i8 50. 
Since the total net migration over the years 1950-60 is known for each county, the division of total net migration by the estimate of scholastic net migration yields a migration multiplier for each county 
(referred to as the obtained migration multiplier). For example, if the 1950-60 total net migration is 500 and the estimated scholastic net migration is 125, then the obtained migration multiplier is 4.00 (i.1., a gain of one scholastic from migration represents a gain of four migrants of all ages) . In most cases this operation yields a plausible multiplier. However, the problem case is the county with a very small migration. To illustrate. if a county gained only two scholastics from migration, it may have lost a few persons as far as total migration is concerned. In such a case, it is not possible to compute a migration multiplier. Then there may be cases when a county gained three scho­lastics from migration but gained 30 from total migration. In such a case, the obtained migration multiplier would be 10.00. but this ex­tremely high value is likely to reflect nothing more than minor errors in the estimates of deaths of potential scholastics, inaccuracies in the 1950 federal census enumeration, and/or inaccuracies in the enumera­tion of the 1960 federal census. 
Rather than use extremely high or extremely low obtained migration multipliers for some counties (most of which have a very small pop­ulation), the decision was made to compute a state total (the sum of all counties) of estimated scholastic net migration and total net mi­gration. The division of the latter by the former yields an obtained migration multiplier of 4.35. This migration multiplier of 4.35 for the state as a whole was found to correspond very closely to the 1960 ratio of the total population of the state to the number of persons 6-17 years of age, the ratio being 4.26. Further analysis of 1960 census figura revealed that the ratio of total intercounty migrants (persons who in 1960 did not reside in the same county as 1955) to intercounty mlgranta 6-17 years of age is 4.25.' 
These comparisons suggest a fairly close relationship between the oLtained migration multiplier and the ratio of the total population to persons 6-17 years of age. Further substantiation is found by inspec­tion of the two figures for individual counties. Generally, counties with a high obtained miirration multiplier also have a high age ratio, and 

Table 1: 1965 POPULATIOI'I ESTIMATES FOR TEXAS COUN TIES, WITH AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATES, 1960-1965 





Counties 

Counties 
Texas 9,579,677 10,336,141 756,464 1.5 Foard 3,125 3,223** 9 .6 Anderson 28,162 30,046 1,884 1.3 Fort Bend 40,527 46,341 5, 14 2.7 Andrews 13 ,450 10,507 -2,943 -4.9 Franklin 5,101 5,454•• 353 1.3 Angelina 39,814 42,815 3,001 1.5 Freestone 12,525 11, 796 -729 -1.2 Aransas 7,006 8,055 1,049 2.8 Frio 10, 112 11,295 1,1 3 2.2 Archer 6,110 6,157.. 47 .2 Gaines 12,267 13,331 * 1,064 1.7 Armstrong 1,966 2, 132** 166 1.6 Galveston 140,364 153,993 13,629 1.9 Atascosa 18,828 19,394 566 .6 Ga rza 6,611 6,121 --490 -1.5 Austin 13,777 15,023* 1,246 1.7 Gillespie 10,04 11,319* 1,271 2.4 Bailey 9,090 10,335 1,245 2.6 Glasscock 1,118 1,282 164 2.7 Bandera 3,892 4,114** 222 1.1 Goliad 5,429 5,392 -37 -.1 Bastrop 16,925 17 ,266* 341 .4 Gonzales 17,845 1 .75 • 913 1.0 Baylor 5,893 5,824 -69 -.2 Gray 31,53ii 27, 26 -3,709 -2.5 Bee 23,755 23,996 241 .2 Grayson 73,043 75,197 2,154 .6 Bell 94,097 120,083* 25,986 4.9 Gregg 69,436 73.791 4,355 1.2 Bexar 687,151 -'771,451 84 ,300 2.3 Grimes 12. 709 12,214 -495 -.8 Blanco 3,657 3,940** 283 1.5 Guadalupe 29,017 29,517 500 .3 Borden 1,076 909 -167 -3.4 Hale 36,798 42, 115 5,317 2.7 Bosque 10,809 10,787 -22 -.0 Hall 7,322 7,744 422 1.1 Bowie 59,971 66,743• 6,772 2.1 Hamilton 8,488 8,426** -62 -.1 Brazoria 76,204 91,050 14,846 3.6 Hansford 6,208 6,932•• 724 2.2 Brazos 44,895 46,485 1,590 .7 Hardeman ,275 ,170 -105 -.3 Brewster 6,434 6,930 496 1.5 Hardin 24,629 2 ,194 3,565 2.7 Briscoe 3,577 3,791 214 1.2 Harris 1,243, 158 1,408,456 165,29 2.5 Brooks 8,609 8,938 329 .8 Harrison 45,594 42,936 -2,658 -1.2 Brown 24,728 27,168 2,440 1.9 Hartley 2,171 3,093 922 7.0 Burleson 11,177 10,881 -296 -.5 Haskell 11.174 10,455 -719 -1.3 Burnet 9,265 9,550 285 .6 Hays 19,934 22.245** 2,311 2.2 Caldwell 17 ,222 16,058 -1,164 -1.4 Hemphill 3,185 3.282 97 .6 Calhoun 16,592 18,449 1,857 2.1 Henderson 21,786 26,586* 4,800 4.0 Callahan 7,929 9,142 1,213 2.8 Hidalgo 180,904 178,343 -2,561 -.3 Cam eron 151.098 141,671 -9,4 27 -1.3 H ill 23,650 24,612** 962 .8 
Camp 7,849 8,448 599 1.5 Hockley 22,340 23,464 l,124 1.0 Carson 7,781 7,885 104 .3 Hood 5,443 5,409• -34 -.1 Cass 23,496 24,241 745 .6 Hopkins · 18,594 20,194 1,600 1.6 Castro 8,923 11, 132* 2,209 4.4 Houston 19,376 20,046 670 .7 Chambers 10,379 11,129 750 1.4 Howard 40,139 39, 714 -425 -.2 Cherokee 33,120 33,660 540 .3 Hudspeth 3,343 3,387 44 .3 Childress 8,421 7,537 -884 -2.2 Hunt 39.399 41,677 2,278 1.1 Clay 8,351 7,810 -541 -1.3 Hutchinson 34,419 30,239 -4,180 -2.6 Cochran 6,417 7,557(1,1) 1,140 3.3 Irion 1.183 1,190** 7 .1 Coke 3,589 3,471* -118 -.7 Jack 7,418 6,912 -506 -1.4 Coleman 12,458 12,019 -439 -.7 Jatkson 14,040 14,272 232 .3 Collin 41,247 49,602 8,355 3.7 Jasper 22,100 2.4,868 2,768 2.4 Collingsworth 6.276 5,883 -393 -1.3 Jeff Davis 1,582 1,438 -144 -1.9 Colorado 18,463 18, 748 285 .3 Jefferson 245,659 246,861 1,202 .1 Comal 19,844 21,791 1,947 1.9 J im Hogg 5,022 4,886 -136 -.5 Comanche 11,865 12,919 1,054 1.7 Jim Wells 34,548 33,601 -947 -.6 Concho 3,672 3,833* 161 .9 Johnson 34,720 41,368 6,648 3.5 Cooke 22,560 23,389 829 .7 Jones 19,299 20,119 820 .8 Coryell 23,961 33,554* 9,593 6.7 Karnes 14,995 14,876 -119 -.2 Cottle 4,207 4,029 -178 -.9 Kaufman 29,931 31,270 1,339 .9 Crane 4,699 4,356 -343 -1.5 Kendall 5,889 6,561* 672 2.2 Crockett 4,209 3,893* -316 -1.6 Kenedy 884 770 -114 -2.8 Crosby 10,347 11,810* 1,463 2.6 Kent 1,727 1,708 -19 -.2 Culberson 2,794 3,497 703 4.5 Kerr 16,800 20,205•• 3,405 3.7 Dallam 6,302 6,031 -271 -.9 Kimble 3,943 4,133•• 190 .9 Dallas 951,527 1,105,594 154,067 3.0 King 640 543 -97 -3.3 Dawson 19, 185 20,430 1,245 1.3 Kinney 2,452 2,306• -146 -1.2 Deaf Smith 13,187 18,866° 5,679 7.1 Kleberg 30,052 29,311 -741 -.5 Delta 5,860 6,270** 410 1.4 Knox 7,857 7,672 -185 -.5 D~nton 47,432 62,329 ** 14,897 5.4 Lamar 34,234 35,629 1,395 .8 De Witt 20,683 19,675 -1,008 -1.0 Lamb 21,896 24,729 2,833 2.4 Dickens 4,963 4,955** -8 -.0 Lampasas 9,418 9,488* 70 .1 Dimmit 10,095 9,665 -430 -.9 LaSalle 5,972. 5,761 -211 -.7 Donley 4,449 4,594•• 145 .6 Lavaca 20,174 19,696 -478 -.5 Duval 13,398 13,673*• 275 .4 Lee 8,949 8,72.l -228 -.5 Eastland 19,526 18,798 -728 -.8 Leon 9,951 10,468.. 517 1.0 Ector 90,995 85, 727 -5,268 -1.2 Liberty 31,595 33,622 2,027 1.2 Edwards 2,317 2,496** 179 1.5 Limestone 20,413 21,483.. 1,070 1.0 Ellis 43,395 44,262• 867 .4 Lipscomb 3,406 3,595 189 1.1 El Paso 314,070 339,949 25,879 1.6 Live Oak 7,846 7,883* 37 .1 Erath 16,2:l6 17,942*• 1,706 2.0 Llano 5,240 5,620* 380 1.4 Falls 21,263 19,224 -2,039 -2.0 Loving 226 119 -107 -12.4 Fannin 23,880 23, 764 -116 -.1 Lubbock 156,271 177, 140 20,869 2.5 Fayette 20,384 19,323 -1,061 -1.l Lynn 10,914 11,072 158 .3 Fisher 7,865 8,100 235 .6 McCulloch 8,815 9,008• 193 .4 Floyd 12,369 14,587 2,168 3.2 McLennan 150,091 152,680 2,539 .8 
Table !-Continued 
Table 1-Continued 

Counties 

Counties 




McMullen Madison Marion Martin Mason Matagorda Maverick  1,116 6,749 8,049 5,068 3,780 25,744 14,508  1,145 7,403 7,466 5,012 3,899** 29,637 18,076  29 654 -583 -56 119 3,893 3,568  .5 1.8 -1.5 -.2 .6 2.8 4.4  Van Zandt Victoria Walker Waller Wa rd Washington Webb  19,091 46.475 21,475 12,071 14,917 19,145 64, 791  19,543 52,846 23,666 13,549 13,659* 19,142 71,738  452 6,371 2,191 1,478 -1,258 -3 6,947  .5 2.6 1.9 2.3 -1.8 -.o 2.0  
Medina  18,904  20,370  1,466  1.5  Wharton  38,152  38,334  182  .1  
Menard  2,964  2,877  -87  -.6  Wheeler  7,947  7,392  -555  -1.4  
Midland  67,717  64,704  -3,013  -.9  Wichita  123,528  123.196  -332  -.1  
Milam  22,263  20,464  -1,799  -1.7  Wilbarger  17,748  17,719  -29  -.o  
Mills  4,467  4,501**  34  .2  Willacy  20,084  17,027  -3,057  -3.3  
Mitchell  11,255  10,786**  -469  -.9  Williamson  35,044  35,259  215  .1  
Montague  14,893  16,247**  1,354  1.7  Wilson  13,267  13,647..  380  .6  
Montgomery  26,839  34,489  7,650  5.0  Winkler  13,652  10,948  -2,704  -4.4  
Moore  14,773  13,044  -1,729  -2.5  Wise  17,012  18,610  1,598  1.8  
Morris  12,576  11,442  -1,134  -1.9  Wood  17,653  18,869  1,2.16  1.3  
Motley  2,870  2,883**  13  .1  Yoakum  8,032  7,895*  -137  -.3  
Nacogdoches  28,046  30,358*  2,312  1.6  Young  17,254  15,331  -1,923  -2.4  
Navarro  34,423  34,604  181  .1  Zapata  4,393  4,306  -87  -.4  
N~wton  10,372  10,842*  470  .9  Zavala  12,696  14,072•*  1.376  2.1  
Nolan Nueces  18,963 221,573  17,368 224,719  -1,595 3,146  -1.8 .3  ( Note:  * denotes where Method II was used to obtain the estimate.  
Ochiltree  9,380  10,807  1,427  2.8  •• denotes where Method III was used.)  
Oldham  1,928  2,352*  424  4.0  
Orange  60,357  65,938  5,581  1.8  Table  2  
Palo Pinto Panola Parker Parmer  20,516 16,870 22,880 9,583  22,968• 16,353 25,450 11,243  2,452 -517 2,570 1,660  2.3 --.6 2.1 3.2  1965 POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR TEXAS STANDARD lllETROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS, WITH AVERAGE ANNTTAL GROWTH RATES, 1960-65*  
Pecos  11,957  11,792*  -165  -.3  
Polk  13,861  14,027  166  .2  
Potter  115,580  119,778  4,198  .7  
Presidio  5,460  5,648  188  .7  
Rains Randall Reagan  2,993 33,913 3,782  3,005*• 50,164 3,091  12 16,251 -691  .1 7.7 -4.0  Standard Metropolitan Statistical  
Real  2,079  2,250  171  1.6  Area  
Red River Reeves Refugio Roberts Robertson  15,682 17,644 10,975 1,075 16,157  15,999 17,710** 10,634 1,170 16,219*  317 66 -341 95 62  .4 .1 -.6 1.7 .1  Total Abilene' Amarillo" Austin3 Beaumont­ 6,321,909 120,377 149,493 212,136  6,959,283 124,357 169,942 245,542  637,374 3,980 20,449 33,406  1.9 .7 2.6 2.9  
Rockwa ll  5,878  6,124  246  .8  Port Arthur­ 
Runnels Rusk  15,016 36,421  13, 778 35,303  -1,238 -1,118  -1.7 -.6  Orange• Brownsville­ 306,016  312,799  6,783  .4  
Sabine San Augustine San Jacinto San Patricio San Saba Schleicher Scurry  7,302 7,722 6,153 45,021 6,381 2,791 20,369  7,427 7,850 6,685 43,983 6,839** 2,859.. 16,214  125 128 532 -1,038 458 68 -4,155  .3 .3 1.7 -.5 1.4 .5 -4.5  Harlingen~ San Benito" Corpus Christi' Dallas' El Paso• Fort Worth' Galveston­ 151,098 266,594 1,083,601 314,070 573,215  141.671 268,702 1,261,787 339,949 611,293  -9,427 2,108 178,186 25,879 38,078  -1.3 .2 3.0 1.6 1.3  
Shackelford Shelby Sherman Smith Somervell Starr Stephens Sterling Stonewall Sutton Swisher Tarrant Taylor Terrell  3,990 20,479 2,605 86,350 2,577 17, 137 8,885 1.177 3,017 3,738 10,607 538,495 101,078 2,600  3,631 ~1. 235* 3,011 ** 95,412 2,577* 19,453 8,398 1,131** 3,154** 3,623 13,94 0** 569,925 104,237 2,490  -359 756 406 9,062 0 2,316 -487 -46 137 -115 3,333 31,430 3,159 -110  -1.9 .7 2.9 2.0 0 2.5 -1.1 -.8 .9 -.6 5.4 1.1 .6 -.9  Texas City10 Houston11 Lared.012 Lubbock13 Midland" Odessa•; San Angelo16 San Antonio17 Texarkana, Texas18 Tyler19 Y.laco:?0 Wichita Falls2t  140,364 1,418,323 64, 791 156,271 67,717 90,995 64,630 716,168 59,971 86,350 150,091 129,638  153,993 1,613,957 71,738 177,140 64,704 85,727 70,876 800,968 66,743 95,412 152,630 129,353  13,629 195,634 6,947 20,869 -3,013 -5,268 6,246 84,800 6,772 9,062 2,539 -285  1.9 2.6 2.0 2.5 -.9 -1.2 1.8 2.2 2.1 2.0 .3 -.0  
Terry  16,286  17,472"*  1,186  1.4  *The 1965  population  estimates  for  the SMSAs  were  derived  by  se­ 
Throckmorton  2,767  2,648* .  - 119  - .9  lecting  the  intermediate  estimate  for  each  county  in  the  SMSA  and  
Titus Tom Green  16,785 64,630  16,949* 70,876  164 6,246  .2 1.8  then adding these county estimates to obtain the estimated total population.  SMSA  
Travis  212,136  245,542  33,406  2.9  Counties  in  each  SMSA:  'Jones  a nd  T aylor;  'Potter  and  Randall;  
Trinity  7,539  7,196  -343  -.9  3Travis;  "Jefferson  and  Orange;  5Cameron;  6Nueces  and  San Patricio;  
T yler  10,666  11,276  610  1.1  'Collin,  Dallas,  Denton,  and  Ellis;  8EI  Paso ;  9Johnson  and  Tarrant;  
Upshur  19,793  20,569  776  .8  10Galveston;  11Brazoria,  Fort  Bend,  Harris,  Liberty,  and  Montgomery;  
Upton  6,239  4,428  -1,811  -6.8  12Webb;  13Lubbock;  "Midland;  ,, Ector;  " Tom  Green;  "Bexar  and  
Uvalde  16,814  17,015*  201  .2  Guadalupe;  18Bowie  (excluding Miller,  Aransas);  "Smith;  '°McLennan;  
Val  Verde  24,461  25,019  558  .5  11 Archer  and  Wichita.  Italicized  counties  have  been  added  since 1960.  

the reverse also is generally true. Moreover, there is generally a dose agreement between the age ratio and the obtained migration multiplier in counties with a large population, where minor errors are least likely to create extremely high or extremely low obtained migration multi­pliers. Finally, in a large proportion of the counties the ratio of the total population to persons 6-17 years of age is between 3.35 and 5.35, values within 1.00 of the obtained migration multiplier for the state as a whole. All of these observations clearly suggest that the use of the ratio of the total population to persons 6-17 years of age as the migration multiplier is justified. 
Although the major question in the use of Method I is the migration multiplier, there are several other possible sources of inaccuracy. The formula assumes the accuracy of the 1960 federal census and each annual scholastic census for the years 1960-65. It further assumes the reliability of the following vital statistics for the years considered : deaths of potential scholastics. total deaths, and total births. 
Although minor changes may be made in the future, the basic fea­tures of the estimation formula of Method I will be retained in making annual population estimates up to the year of the next federal census. 1970. 
Method 11. This method generates a 1965 estimate based on the ratio of the 1960 census population to the 1959 number of resident births and deaths times the 1964 number of resident births and deaths. The formula for a Method II estimate is: P6, = [P00/ <B.. + D,.)] (B., + D0.>. where P., is the 1965 population estimate, is the
P00 1960 census population, B,, is the number of resident births in 1959, D,. is the number of resident deaths in 1959, B.. is the number of resident births in 1964, and D.. is the number of resident deaths in 1964. Method II assumes that the numbers of resident births and deaths registered for a county are reliable, and it further assumes that neither the birth rate nor the death rate of the county has changed substan­tially between the census year and the estimate year. Method Ill. Estimates based on this method are computed by mul­tiplying the ratio of the 1960 census population to the number of 1960 passenger car registrations times the number of 1965 passenger car registrations.'· The formula for the Met.hod III estimate is: =
P05 (P00/C00) C.,, where P0, is the 1965 estimate, P00 is the 1960 census population, C,., is the number of passenger cars registered in 1960, and c,"' is the number of passenger cars registered in 1965. Method III assumes that the ratio between passenger cars and pop­ulation remains constant. It also assumes either no irregularities in registration (persons registering their cars in a county where they are not residents) or no change in either the amount or kind of such irregularities. SUMMARY OF RESULTS 
The population of the state as a whole increased at a slower rate 

during the first half of the present decade than it did throughout the 
previous decade. The average annual percent growth for the 1950-60 
decade was 2.2%. but the estimated rate for 1960-65 was 1.5%.• The 
state had an absolute average annual increase of 186,848 between 1950 
and 1960, while the corresponding figure for 1960-65 was 151,293. 
This lower rate of increase for the state primarily is a reflection of 

the lower rate of growth experienced by most of the state's metro­
politan counties. According to the 1965 estimates, 16 of the state's 21 SMSA's had lower rat.es of growth for 1960-65 than they did for 1950­60; and four SMSA's even showed population losses between 1960 and 1!165, as compared to only one SMSA that lost population between 1950 and 1960. The average annual percent increase for the total metro­politan population dropped from 3.5o/c for 1950-60 to l.9o/c for 1960-65. The metropolitan counties also contributed a smaller share to the total increase during the fir:st five yea.rs of the 1960's than they did during the decade of the 1950's. The average annual absolute increase between 1950 and 1960 in the metropolitan population (including population in counties added to metropolitan areas since 1960) was 186,440, which was almost equal to the average for the state as a whole. Between 1960 and 1965 the average increase of the metropolitan population was 127,475, more than 20.000 fewer than the average state increase per 
year. 
Table 3 
DISTRIBUTION OF TEXAS CO NTIES ACCORDING TO A VER­
AGE ANNUAL PERCENT GROWTH OF POPULATION, 1960-65 

Aver::ige annual Number of Percent distribution percent growth counties of cou.nties 
Gains:  
6.0 and  over.  . ..... _......  4  1.6  
4.0 to  5.9 . ..  . .. ­... -. -. . . .  7  2.7  
2.0 to 3.9 . ---. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41  16.1  
0.0 to  1.9.... -.... . . . ......... . . . . . . -.. 115  45.3  

Subtotal: 
Gaining Counties ..................... 167 65.7 

Losses:  
- 2.0  to --0.1. ... ­.. ..... --............  71  28.0  
-4.0 to -2.1. ...... .......... ... ......  10  3.9  
-6.0 to -4.1. ....... -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4  1.6  
Over -6.0  2  .8  

Subtotal: 
Losing Counties 87 34.3 

Grand Total ......... .............. 254 100.0 

In contrast to the declining trend of growth in the state's metro­politan counties, many of the nonmetropolitan counties had higher rates for the 1960-65 period. The distribution of all counties according w their 1960-65 growth rate is shown in Table 3. Over 65% gained population during this period. as compared to only 44% which gained from 1950 to 1960. However, most of the gaining counties between 1!160-65 bad rates of increase of less than 2.0%. Coupled with the fact that the nonmetropolitan counties included only 34% of the state's population in 1960, the small changes in their growth rates that re­sulted in positive rather than negative growth were not enough to significantly affect the rate for the state as a whole. 

1See "Population Estimates for Texas Counties, Standard Metro­politan Statistical Areas and Urbanized Areas, April 1, 1961," Texcu Buaineaa RetJiew, XXXVI (January 1962) , pp. 7-8; "Population Esti­mates for Texas Counties, 1961 and 1962," Texcu Buaineas Review, XXXVII (April 1963). pp. 79-88; "Population Estimates for Texas Counties. 1963," Texcu B1U1iness RetJiew, XXXVIII (March 1964), pp. 69-72; and "Population Estimates for Texas Counties, 1964," Texcu Buaineaa Retriew. XXXIX (March 1965) , pp. 76-79. 
'Part of the data necessary for the preparation of these estimates was supplied through the cooperation of the Texas Education Agency, the Texas State Department of Health, and the Texas Highway De­partment. They are not, however, to be held responsible for the esti­mates presented here. 
'Of course. these three estimates do not exhaust the number of pos­sible estimates. Regardless of the number, the problem of selecting the most accurate one would remain. 
'See U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. c,,,..,,.,. of PopvlatU...: 19110. PC(l)-450 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office. 1962). Table 100. Figures on migrants of less than five years of age were estimated (by aasuminir the same proportion of miirrants aa among 
the 5-9 age group), and figures for the 6-17 age group were estimated 
from census data on age groups 5-9, 10-14, and 15-19. 
''The actual reiiistration year 1960 was from April I, 1959 to March 31, 1960, and actual registration year 1965 was from April l, 1964, to March 31, 1965. 
"Most of the growth figures reported in this paper are reduced to an average annual basis. The average annual percent growth (PR) is computed as follows: 
<P, -P1 )/T 
PR 100, 
(P2 + P1)/2 

where PR is the average annual percent growth, P1 is the population size at the beginning of the period. P. is the population size at the end of the period, and T is the num~r of years in the period. This formula gives a much more realistic average annual growth rate than does the simple interest formula: 
(P2 -P1 )/T 
PR 100. P, 


Indicators of business conditions in Texas cities pub­lished in this table include statistics on banking, build­ing permits, employment, postal receipts, and retail trade. An individual city is listed when a minimum of three indicators is available. 
The cities have been grouped according to Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. In Texas all 21 SMSA's are defined by county lines; the counties included are listed under each SMSA. The populations shown for the SMSA's are estimates for April 1, 1965, prepared by the Population Research Center, Department of Sociology, The University of Texas--the fact designated by footnote 
(1). Cities are listed under their appropriate SMSA's; 
all other cities are listed alphabetically. The population 
shown after the city name is the 1960 Census figure, 
with the exceptions of those marked (r), which are 
estimates officially recognized by the Texas Highway De­
partment, and that given for Pleasanton, which is a com­
bination of the 1960 Census figures for Pleasanton and 
North Pleasanton. Since the SMSA and city population 
estimates have different sources, it is not surprising that 
they are sometimes inconsistent, as is the case here with 
the Odessa SMSA (Ector County) and Odessa. 
Retail sales data are reported here only when a min­imum of five stores report in the given retail area sales category. The first column shows an average percent change from the preceding month, indicated by (t). This is the normal statewide seasonal change in sales by that kind of business--except in the cases of Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio, where the dag­ger is omitted because the normal seasonal changes given are for each of these cities individually. The second col­umn shows the percent change in actual sales reported for the month, and the third column shows the percent change in actual sales from the same month a year ago. A large variation between the normal seasonal change and the reported change indicates an abnormal sales month. 
Additional symbols used in this table include: (*) Indicates cash received during the four-week postal accounting period ended J~nuary 28, 1966. (:I:) Money on deposit· i~ individual demand deposit accounts on the last day /,f the month. 
(§) Data for Texarkana, Texas, only. 
(**) Change is less than one-half of 1%. 
(11) Annual rate basis. 

Percent change Percent change 
Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 
Jan from from Jan from from
City and item 1966 Dec 1965 Jan 1965 City and item 1966 Dec 1965 Jan 1965 

ABILENE SMSA AMARILLO SMSA (Jones and Taylor; pop. 124,357') (Potter and "Randall; pop. 169,9421 ) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,074,625 -54 -74
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 463,156 -20 -36 Bank debits (thousands) JJ. . .. S 4,209,372 -5 + 6Bank debits (thousands) JJ. . .. $ 1,867,872 -1 

+ 4 
Nonfarm employment (area) . 55,300 -2 + I

Nonfarm employment (area) . 36,750 -2 + 4 ..
Manufacturing employment (area) . 6,690 + sManufacturing employment (area) . 4,180 •• 
+ 6 
Percent unemployed (area) . 4.4 + 16 -17Percent unemployed (area) . 3.9 + 26 -34 
AMARILLO (pop. 155,205r)ABILENE (pop. 110,049r) 
Retail sales -9t -24 -7 

Retail sales -9t -34 -15 Apparel stores -46t -58 -5 Automotive stores -It -41 -41 Automotive stores -It -19 -11 General merchandise stores -53t -46 -14 Postal receipts• .....$ 261,137 -33 -8 
Postal receipts• $ 136,770 -27 -10 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 984,625 -55 -75 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 459,756 -20 -36 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . .. $ 368,074 •• + 8 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 139,1 51 3 + 6 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 134,741 -3 + End-of-month deposits (thousands) i. $ 72,310 3 + 1 Annual rate of deposit turnover . . 32.3 •• + 4 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 22.7 
-4 + 5 

Canyon (pop. 6,755r) ALICE (pop. 20,861) Postal receipts• ........$ 7,491 -57 -14 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 90,000 -43 -39
Retail sales -9t -15 -7 Postal receipts°' 19,096 -32 
Bank debits (thousands) . . .... $ 10,489 + 7 + 20 
-7 

Building permits, less federal contracts 59,666 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 7,758 •• +
-17 -67 
Annual rate of deposit turnover. 16.2 + 7 + 13 

ALPINE (pop. 4,740) ANDREWS (pop. 11,135) 
Postal receipts• ..... $ 4,974 -47 -17 Postal receipts• ...............$ 9,895 -38 + 20 Building permits, less federal contracts S 31,200 -12 + 97 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 63,000 +143 +406 Bank debits (thousands) . . ..........$ 3,950 -2 Bank debits (thousands) . . $ i,160 3 + 15 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 5,343 + + 16 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 8,216 
+ 4 + 

Annual rate of deposit turnover . 9.3 -5 -11 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 10.7 4 
+ 

92 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
Percent change 	Percent change
Local Business Conditions 	Local Business Conditions 
Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan from from Jan from from City and item 1966 Dec 1965 Jan 1965 City and item 1966 Dec 1965 Jan 1965 
ANGLETON: see HOUSTON SMSA 	Nederland (pop. 15,274r) 
Postal receipts• 	.. $ 13,059 -49 + 17 

ARANSAS PASS: see CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA 	Building permits, less federal contracts $ 113,389 •• + 40 Bank debits (thousands) ............ $ 6,808 9 3 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 5,112 + 4 ••
AHLINGTON: see FORT WORTH SMSA 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 16.3 11 

!\.THENS (pop. 7,086) 
Postal receipts• S 14,333 Orange (pop. 25,605) 

-29 + 1 

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 325,900 +358 + 109 Postal receipts• .....................$ 30,307 -30 + 2 
Bank debits (thousands) ............$ 13,449 + 10 + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 21,333 -74 -87

2 
End-of-month deposits (thousands)~ $ 9,595 -6 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . $ 3 ,01 + 22 

+ 14 +

Annual rate of deposit turnover . 16.3 	End-of-month deposits (thousands) t $ 27,137 -2 
Annual rate of deposit turnover... 16.3 + + 18 
Nonfarm placements 180 + 10 + 26

AUST! SMSA 
(Travis; pop. 245,5421) 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 6,601,621 + 36 + 61 Port Arthur (pop. 66,676) 
Retail sales -9t -33 -2

Bank debits (thousands) 11-.. .$ 4,229,568 + 18 Nonfarm employment (area) . 97,800 •• + 3 Postal receipts• .. $ 55,375 -44 + Manufacturing employment (area) . 6,700 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 176,641 + 31 -20 Percent unemployed (area) 2.9 + 45 -6 Bank debits (thousands) .. .. . . . ......$ 75,516 + 7 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 43,954 + + AUSTIN (pop. 212,000r) Annual rate of deposit turnover . 20.7 6 + 10 
+ 

Retail sales -9t -27 + 4 
Apparel stores -46t -53 + 3 Port Neches (pop. 8,696) 

1t -10 +

Automotive stores Postal receipts• ........... .....$ 9,332 -39 + 8 Eating and drinking places... 2t -6 -14 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 122,769 +290 +190 Furniture and household Bank debits (thousands) ............. $ 14,348 + 22 + 32 
appliance stores 15t -36 + 26 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 7,453 -5 + 1 General merchandise stores -531 -59 + 35 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 22.5 + 12 + 22 Lumber, building material, 
and hardware stores. + 1t -18 -6 BEEVILLE (pop. 13,811) Postal receipts• .............$ 602,730 -15 + 3 Postal receipts• .................$ 14,264 -38 + 12 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 6,543,621 + 35 + 52 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 33,020 +436 -25 Bank debits (thousands) . . ....$ 354,543 + 9 + 18 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . .. . $ 11,670 -9 6 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t $ 193,056 + 4 + 7 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 15,950 + 3 + 4 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 22.5 + 1 + 15 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 8.9 11 -6 
Nonfarm placements 	89 + 13 

BAY CITY (pop. 11,656) Postal receipts• ...............$ 15,024 -40 + 15 BELTON (pop. 8,163) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 22,766 + 16 •• Postal receipts• . $ 10,727 -11 + 18 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 27,541 -1 + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 88,550 + 70 +397 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 9.9 + 16 -3 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 9,318 -10 + 3 
Nonfarm placements 	83 + 17 + 20 
BIG SPRING (pop. 31,230) 

BAYTOWN: see HOUSTON SMSA Retail sales -9t -15 + 34 Postal receipts• .. $ 38,184 -32 -4 BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA Building permits, less federal contracts $ 146,151 + 43 -39 Bank debits (thousands) ..........$ 44,477 1 + 11
(Jefferson and Orange; pop. 312,7991) 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 28,915 + 8 + 17

Building permits, less federal contracts S 1,530,563 -5 -55 
Annual rate of deposit turnover. . 19.2 5

Bank debits (thousands) 11-...$ 5,003,028 •• + 12 
Nonfarm placements . 	148 9 6

Nonfarm employment (area) . 111,800 + 3 
Manufacturing employment (area) . 33,900 •• •• 
Percent unemployed (area) . 4.6 + 10 -26 

BISHOP: see CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA 

BEAUMONT (pop. 127,500r) 	BONHAM (pop. 7,357) 
Retail sales -9t -34 + 2 Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . ...$ 7,998 -46 + 14 Apparel stores -46t -64 + 10 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 22,000 + 22 60 Automotive stores -lt -12 •• Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . . ...$ 9,515 + 8 Eating and drinking places . -2t -6 + End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 8,418 + 3 
Postal receipts• .....................$ 134,638 -43 -8 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 13.4 + 2 + 6 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 523,464 -58 -82 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 287.256 2 + 18 BORGER (pop. 20,911) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 119,769 1 + Postal receipts• .... .. ........$ 19,123 -45 -2 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 28.7 2 + 13 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 21 ,100 -79 -76 
Nonfarm placements 	81 -40 -34
Groves (pop. 17,304) 

Postal receipts• ....................$ 8,499 -53 + 31 

BRADY (pop. 5,338) 

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 591,300 +524 +616 
Postal receipts• ....$ 6,446 -32 + 13Bank debits (thousands) . . ...$ 6,751 -13 + 9 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 5,887 -74 + 18

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 5,839 14 + 21 
Bank debits (thousands) . . ...$ 9,192 + 23 + 63Annual rate of deposit turnover.... 12.8 -10 -17 

End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 7,663 -5 + 10 
Annual rate of deposit turnover.. . 14.0

For an explanation of symbols, please see p. 92. 	+ 24 + 47 
Percent change 	Percent change
Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions

Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan from from Jan from from
City and item 1966 

Dec 1965 Jan 1965 City and item 1966 	Dec 1965 Jan 1965 
BRENHAM (pop. 7,740) San Benito (pop. 16,422) 

Postal receipts• ...... .$ 10,339 -44 -11 Postal receipts• .$ 8,542 -61 + 5 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 142,330 -29 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 23,050 -50 -78 Bank debits (thousands) ..... $ 13,913 2 •• Bank debits (thousands) . . .. .$ 5,810 -6 + 4 End-of-month deposits (thousandsH .. $ 14,675 + •• End-of-month deposits (thousandsH .. $ 6,567 + 3 + 11 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 11.5 •• Annual rate of deposit turnover . 10.8 -13 -4 
BROWNFIELD (pop. 10,286) 	BROWNWOOD (pop. 16,974) 
Postal receipt.• . . .. $ 31,876 -13 -18

Postal receipts• .................... .$ 12,392 -30 + 2 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 3,266 -91 98

-Bank debits (thousands) . . ..... .. .$ 22,068 -13 + 10 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 12,400 -64 -38 

Bank debits (thousands) . . ..... .$ 38,764 + 2 + 15 
End-of-month deposit! (thousands) t ..$ 14,585 + 2

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 18,229 + 9 + 6 + 6 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 18.3 -16

Annual rate of deposit turnover . 26.6 -15 + 12 + 6 
Nonfarm placement. ...... . . .. ... . 114 + 10 + 2 

BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA 

BRYAN (pop. 27,542) (Cameron; pop. 141,6711) Postal receipts• ...$ 31,284 -39 -10 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 302,250 -25 -74
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 269,845 -3 -64 
Nonfarm placements 	280 + 29 + 19
Bank debits (thousands) JJ. . ... .$ 1,550,256 -3 + 17 
Nonfarm employment (area) 36,650 . 
+ 4 
Manufacturing employment (area) . 5,790 + 1 


+ 7 CALDWELL (pop. 2,202r)
Percent unemployed (area) . 6.2 + 2 -18 
Postal receipts• .. .$ 3,007 -46 + Bank debits (thousands) . . ... .$ 3,302 + 2 + 12 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 4,663 •• + 12
BROWNSVILLE (pop. 48,040) 
Annual rate of deposit turnover. 8.5 
+ + 
net.ail sales 	-9t -20 + 17 

Automotive stores -lt -13 + 45 Postal receipts• . .$ 44,978 -20 + 16 CAMERON (pop. 5,640) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 140,245 -20 -54 Postal receipts• .................$ 5,562 -58 -10 Bank debits (thousands) . . ......... .$ 52,012 + 6 + 26 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1.000 -94 -17 End-of-month deposits (thousanils) t ..$ 28,990 + 11 + 36 Bank debits (thousands) .. . ... . ... .. .$ 6,718 -1 + 13 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 22.7 -3 + 2 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 5,795 -4 + 11 Nonfarm placements 455 -17 27 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 13.6 •• + 
CANYON: see AMARILLO SMSA
Harlingen (pop. 41,207) 
Retail sales -9t -23 -1 
Automotive stores -1t -20 -1 

CARROLLTON: see DALLAS SMSA

Postal receipts• . $ 41,049 -35 + 11 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 103,900 + 9 -68 Bank debits (thousands) .... . $ 43,764 4 + End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 24,190 3 + 18 CISCO (pop. 4,499) Annual rate of deposit turnover . 21.4 8 -8 Postal receipts• . . . $ 5,300 -29 -1 
417 -21 -22 	-+
Nonfarn1 placements 	Bank debits (thousands) .............$ 4,261 9 7 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 4,010 + 4 + 12 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 13.0 -12 -4 
La Feria (pop. 3,047) 
Postal receipts• ........ .$ 2,465 -50 -1 

CLEBURNE: see FORT WORTH SMSA
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2,650 + 23 -32 
Bank debits (thousands) ............ ..$ 2,031 

9 + 16 

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 1,805 + 3 + 16 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . -13.7 -12 + 2 CLUTE: see HOUSTON SMSA 

Los Fresnos (pop. 1,289) 	COLLEGE STATION (pop. 11,396) 
Postal receipts• .........$ 1,364 -41 Postal receipts• .......... .$ 35,541 + 25 + 21 Bank debits (thousands) . . .. .$ 1,352 11
-+ 12 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 367,850 +987 +771 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 1,282 -10 + Bank debits . . . ......$ +
3 (thousands) . 6,857 4 18 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 12.0 -6 + 8 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 4,650 + 2 + 3 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 17.9 7 + 10 

Port Isabel (pop. 3,575) 
Postal receipts• .$ 3,088 -57 -2 COLORADO CITY (pop. ~,457) 

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 0 Postal receipts• ....... . ... . . .... ....$ 6,309 -46 -10 Bank debits (thousands) ........... .$ 1,718 -10 + 20 Bank debits (thousands) . ..........$ 8,440 + 12 + 41 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 1,466 + 1 + 18 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t.. $ 7,879 + 7 + 21 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 14.2 -7 + 3 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 13.3 + 22
+ 

For an explanation of symbols, please see p. 92. 	CONROE: see HOUSTON SMSA 
94 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

Local Business Conditions City and item  Jan 1966  Percent change Jan 1966 from Dec 1965 Jan 1966 from Jan 1965  Local Business Conditions City and item  Jan 1966  P ercent change Jan 1966 from Dec 1965 Jan 1966 from Jan 1965  
COPPERAS COVE (pop. 4,567)  CRYSTAL CITY  (pop. 9,101)  
Postal  receipts•  ......S  4,395  55  - 7  Building permits, les's federal contracts  $ 56,695  +  - 22  
Building permits, less federal contracts  $ 29,000  35  -92  Bank debits  (thousands ) .  .$  3,800  10  28  
Bank debits  (thousands) .  . ....$  1,493  21  16  End-of-month deposits  (thousands) t .. $  3,058  + 3  
End-of-month deposits  (thousands) t .. $  1,429  2  14  Annual  rate of deposit turnover .  14.8  + 10  + 21  
Annual  rate of deposit turnover .  12.4  23  2  
DALLAS SMSA  
CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA  (Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Ellis; pop. 1,261,7871)  
(Nueces and San Patricio; pop. 268,7021)  Building permits, less federal contracts  $33,678,787  + 20  + 53  
Building permits, less federal contracts  $ 2,847,061  29  + 20  Bank  debits  (thousands ) II.  .$58,766,928  +  +  17  
Bank debits (thousants-) II .......... Nonfarm employment (area) .  $ 3,572,976 80,600  2 ••  + 12 + 1  Nonfarm employment (area) . Manufacturing employment  (area ) .  552,800 127,925  ••  + 5 + 11  
Manufacturing employment  (area) .  10,340  +  Percent unemployed  (area) .  2.8  +  8  -18  
Percent  unemployed  (area) .  3.6  +  6  -29  
Carrollton (pop. 9,832r)  
Aransas Pass (pop. 6,956)  Postal receipts•  $ 9,952  37  + 12  
Postal receipts•  ....$  5,731  -35  -11  Building permits, less federal contracts  $ 563,975  + 89  -16  
Building permits, less federal contracts  $ 46,800  + 65  +106  Bank debits  (thousands) .. . ... . ......$  8,205  38  + 20  
Bank debits (thousands) . . ...... . $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $  4,694 5,296  - 8 ••  + 12 + 2  End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover .  3,634 27.4  + 3 39  + 16 + 8  
Annual rate of deposit turnover .  10.6  - 8  + 10  
Bishop (pop. 3,825r)  DALLAS (pop. 679,684) Retail sales  -25  -25  - 7  
Postal receipts• ............. . .... ... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ 3,138 48,500  -44 +471  -l -10  Apparel stores Automotive stores  . . . .. ..... .  -47 -10  -54 -18  -16 -10  
Bank debits (thousands) . . ......... .$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $  1,981 2,568  +  + 39 + 14  Eating and drinking places . Florists  -40  13 -51  - 4 3  
Annual rate of deposit turnover.  9.3  + 24  Furniture and household  
appliance  stores  -22  -28  -22  
CORPUS CHRISTI (pop. 184,163r) Retail sales Apparel stores Drugstores 9t -46t -23t General merchandise stores . -531 Postal receipts• .....................$ 235,271 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2,316,906 Bank debits (thousands) . . .... .$ 275,899  -34 -49 18 -59 31 -36 +  + 12 + + + 11 + 16 + 12  General merchandise stores. Lumber, building material, -56 and hardware stores.... . . Postal receipts• .. ... -2 .... $ 3.349,680 Building permits, less federal contracts $15,858,358 Bank debits (thousands) . . $ 5,097,390 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 1,442,887 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 40.3  64 3 16 + 12 3 9  + l + + + 58 + 14 + -4 + 9  
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t Annual rate of deposit turnover .  $ 140,570 23.0  + 11 ••  Denton (pop. 26,844)  
Postal receipts•  . . $  48,095  -32  + 9  
Robstown (pop. 10,266) Postal receipts• .. .$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) .... . ....... .$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 8,490 48,600 11,209 10,244  -47 + 75 4 + l  + 18 10 •• + 3  Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover . Nonfarm placements 555,850 37,633 25,399 17.l 179  -85 + 7 8 + 7 + 12  16 + 18 + 17 + 2 + 11  
Annual  rate of depo~it turnover.  13.2  4  - 4  
Ennis (pop. 10,250r)  
Sinton (pop. 6,008) Postal receipts• ............. . .... . . . $ Building permits, less federal contract.a $ Bank debits (thousands) . . ....... .$ 11,926 38,950 5,239  + 17 -34 2  + 10 + 11  Postal receipts• . . . . . $ Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover..  10,808 8,760 7,968 13.2  -42 + 6 u +  4 + 17 + + 14  
End-of-month deposits (thousandslt .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover .  5,229 12.0  ••  + 8 + 3  Garland (pop. '150,622r)  
Retail sales  - 9t  -19  + 13  
CORSICANA (pop. 20,344) R_tan sales . .... .... ....... . Lumber, building material, and hardware stores. Postal receipts• . . .. .$  9t + 1t 23,631  -42 -25 -85  11 + 7  Postal receipts• .$ 55,275 lluilding permits, less federal contracts $ 1,957 ,398 Bank debits (thousands) ........... . . $ ' 44,422 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 20,480 Annual rate of deposit turnover . . . . . . 25.4  -37 + + 7  + 14 +135 + 4  
Building permits, less federal contract.a  $ 80,410  90  -91  
Bank debits (thousands) . .$ End-of-month deposits (thousandslt.. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover . Nonfarm placements  26,750 23,889 13.6 200  + 4 + 2 •• 14  + 13 + 4 + 11 + 6  Grand Prairie (pop. 40,150r) Postal receipts• . . $ lluilding permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) ... . . . ... ....$ 34,420 437,754 20,727  -47 -74 + l  -8 -85 + 4  
End-of-month deposits  (thousands) t ..$  15,399  + 18  + 33  
For an explanation of symbols, please see p. 92.  Annual rate of deposit turnover.. ... .  17.5  -11  14  

Percent changePercent change

Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions 
Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan from from Jan 
Jan 1966 Jan 1966 

from from City and item 1966 Dec 1965 J an 1965 City and item 1966 Dec 1965 Jan 1965 
Irving (pop. 60,136r) 	DAYTON: see HOUSTON SMSA 
Postal receipts• ...$ 60,675 -41 -19 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,296,549 -20 -32 DEER PARK: see HOUSTON SMSA 
Bank debits (thousands) . . . .. .$ 44,335 
2 + 11 

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 21,733 9 
+ 10 
DEL RIO (pop. 18,612) 

Annual rate of deposit turnover . 23.3 -8 
Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 17,822 -43 + 10 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 94,631 + 54 -34 

Justin (pop. 622) Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 14,187 11 + 11 Postal receipts• . ..... .$ 495 -65 30 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 17,386 1 + 16 Building permits, Jess federal contracts $ 22,000 + 19 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 9.7 10 -5 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . .......$ 1,054 -19 
+ 

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 659 -23 -20 DENISON (pop. 25,766r) 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 16.7 -8 + 9 Postal receipts• .. .$ 25,720 -39 + 8 Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 19,082 -11 •• McKinney (pop. 13,763) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 17,540 -2 + 16 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 12.9 -11 -11
Postal receipts• ... $ 17,147 -22 + 9 
Nonfarm placements 178 + 10 + 75

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 34,200 +294 -54 
Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 12,207 + 4 
End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 10,649 + 14 •• DENTON: see DALLAS SMSA 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 14.7 + 12 + 8 
Nonfarm placements 105 + 3 + 18 DONNA (pop. 7,522) 

Postal receipts• .................. . . . $ 4,492 -37 + 14 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 62,980 +118 +520
Mesquite (pop. 27,526) 
Bank debits (thousands) . . ... .$ 2.658 -13 + 14
Postal receipts• 	.$ 22,082 -39 + 21 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t . .$ 4,057 + 11

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,282,975 +425 + 63 	+ 
Annual rate of deposit turnover. 7.9 -13 + 3

Bank debits (thousands) . . ........ .. $ 12,777 3 + 33 
End-of-month deposits (thousands)t . . $ 8,106 4 + 22 
Annual rate of deposit turnover. 18.3 9 + 12 DUMAS (pop. 10,547r) 

Postal receipts• .... .$ 8,874 -50 + 14 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 64,100 -74 -76
Midlothian (pop. 1,521) 
Bank debits (thousands) . . .. .$ 14,325 + + 18 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 34,600 -80 +177 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 12,759 + + 16 
Bank debits (thousands) ...... .$ 1,139 13 12 
Annual rate of deposit turnover. 13.6 +
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 1,532 3 8 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 8.8 8 7 

EAGLE PASS (pop. 12,094) 
Postal receipts• . . $ 10,623 -24 + 5 

Pilot Point (pop. 1,254) 

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 68,260 -28 -66 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 10,000 -41 
Bank debits (thousands) . . .......... .$ 7,448 -7 + 18 Bank debits (thousands) . . ... .$ 
1,530 3 -9 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 5,322 + 3 + 13 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ l ,913 + 11 Annual 17.0 + 7
+ rate of deposit turnover. -13 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 9.6 + -19 EDINBURG (pop. 18,706) Plano (pop. 10,102r) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 83,810 -11 Postal receipts• .................... .$ 9,390 -29 + 33 Bank debits (thousands) . . ....... .$ 15,079 7 -15 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 4,004,569 +553 +791 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 12,481 + 30 + 21 Bank debits (thousands) . . .... ... $ 4,731 + 21 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 16.4 -15 -25 
Nonfarm placements 	311 -3 -5End-of-month deposits (thousands>* ..$ 3,863 + 5 + 9 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 15.1 8 
+ 
EDNA (pop. 5,038) 
Postal receipts• ....... ....$ 6,993 19 + 22

Richardson (pop. 34,390r) 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 42,300 +
Postal receipts• .......... .$ 53,246 -40 + 21 

Bank debits (thousands) . . ..........$ 7,281 8 +

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 5, 181,623 +201 +ass 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 7,496 4 +
Bank debits (thousands) . . ......... .$ 27,523 + 6 + 10 

Annual rate of deposit turnover . 11.4 7 +
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 13,943 + 2 + 6 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . . 23.9 + 3 + 31 

EL PASO SMSA (El Paso; pop. 339,9491)Seagoville (pop. 3,745) 

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 5,440,735 + 4 -26 Postal receipts• .. .$ 7,509 •• + 44 Bank debits (thousands) 11 . $ 4,491,324 10 3 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 17,137 + 9 55 Nonfarm employment (area) . 97,500 4
+ 

Bank debits (thousands) .... ... ... ... $ 4,671 + 23 + 11 Manufacturing employment (area) . 
17,550 + 1 + 7 

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 1,938 -20 + 4 Percent unemployed (area) . -16 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 25.6 + 29 + 14 
4.8 + 2 

EL PASO (pop. 276,687) Waxahachie (pop. 12,749) Retail sales -9t -32 -3 Postal receipts* .. .$ 17,597 -15 Apparel stores -46t -+ 14
+ 16 	57 
Building permits, less federal contracts S 63,500 -55 -86 Automotive stores -1t -21 -11 Bank debits (thousands) . . ......... . S 15,040 + 10 + 24 Food stores . . . -13t -9 •• End-of-month deposits (thousands) t . .$ 10,945 -5 + 4 Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 389,979 32 + 10 Annu.al rate of deposit turnover. 16.0 + 13 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 5,438,735 26
+ 18 + ­+230
Nonfarm placen1ents 99 +191 	Bank debits (thousands) . . ... .$ 393,861 17 -2 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 205,468 


+ 3 •• 

For an explanation of symbols, please see p, 92. 	Annual rate of deposit turnover . 23.4 16 -1 
96 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

Local Business Conditions City and item  Jan 1966  Percent change Jan 1966 from Dec 1965 J an 1966 from Jan 1965  Local Business Conditions City and item  Jan 1966  Percent change Jan 1966 f rom Dec 1965 Jan 1966 from Jan 1965  
ENNIS:  see  DALLAS SMSA  White Settlement (pop. 11,513)  
EULESS:  see  FORT WORTH SMSA  Building permits, less federal contract. $ Bank debits (thousands) .... . . . ......$ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 312,228 1.973 1,449  +445 •• -50  + 785 + 55 + 37  
Annual  rate of deposit  turnover.. . .. .  10.9  - 4  -23  
FORT STOCKTON  (pop. 6,373)  
Postal receipts• .. $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ 6,880 32,200  -52 -26  -10 -9  FREDERICKSBURG (pop. 4,629)  
Bank debits (thousands) . . $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t . $  6,837 7.931  -18 ••  + 19 + 8  Postal receipts• ...... ...... $ Building permits, less federal contracts $ 7,455 91,625  -46 19  16 + 60  
Annual  rate of deposit turnover .  10.3  -16  + 8  Bank debits  (thousands) .. ....... .. . . $  11,438  9  + 8  
End-of-month deposits  (thousands) t ..$  9,981  + 3  + 8  
FORT WORTH SMSA  Annual  rate of deposit  turnover.  14.1  8  + 4  
(Johnson and Tarrant; 611,2931 )  
Building perm its, less federal contracts  $ 7,776,464  18  9  FRIONA  (pop. 3,049r)  
Ba nk debits (thousands ) II. Nonfarm employment (area) . Manufacturing employment Percent unemployed (area) ..  . . $13,220,400 242,800 (area) . 66,525 3.0  2 2 + + 11  + 12 + 3 + 10 -25  Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . . . . $ End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover.. .. . . 50,000 11,717 7,038 19.6  + 182 + 31 4 + 19  6 + 6 -17  
Arlington (pop. 53,024r) Retail sales -9t Postal receipts• .S 90,712 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2,071,620  -16 -29 -8  •• + 22 + 43  GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA (Galveston; pop. 153,9931 ) Building permits, less federal cont racts $ 720,3 3 Bank debits (thousands) 11-..........$ 1,900,296 -20 ••  + 13 +  
Nonfarm employm_ent  (area) . . . . . . . . .  53,800  
Cleburne Postal receipts•  (pop. 15,381) .......... . ...... . S  17,727  -44  + 13  Manufacturing employment (area) . Percent unemployed (area) . . . . . . . . . .  10,100 5.2  +  1 8  1 9  
Building permits, less federal contract•  $ 71,866  -77  + 3  
Bank debits (thousands) ..........$ End-of-month deposits (thousands ) t .$ Annual rate of deposit turnover . 16,107 12,926 14.5  + 8 -6 + 11  + 9 + 3 + 5  GALVESTON (pop. 67,175) Retail sales ..... . .. . Automotive stores ............ .  9t 1t  -28 -20  + 14 + 23  
Food store•  ...... . ...... . ... . .. . . .  13t  - 7  + 12  
Euless  (pop. 10,500r)  Postal receipts•  ...... . ..... . . .... .. . $  134,207  -18  + 31  
Postal  receipts•  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . S  10,118  -23  + 33  Building permits, less federal contracts  $ 414,083  -48  + 19  
Building permits, less federal contracts  $  135,9~  -16  -50  Bank debits  (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . $  113,412  - 2  + 12  
Bank debits (thousands) ......$ End-of-month deposits (thou...nds) t ..$ 8,465 3,578  3  + 40 + 48  End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover....  59,071 21.9  - 9 ••  -3 + 12  
Annual  rate of deposit turnover . . ... .  27.9  6  + 1  
FORT WORTH (pop. 356,268) Retail sales Apparel stores Automotive stores Eating and drinking places . Food stores  -21 -36 -9 -1 -12  -26 -54 -18 -7 -13  l 8 + 9 + 6  La Marque (pop. 13,969) Postal receipts• .. .. ....$ Building permits, less federal contract. $ Bank debits (thousands) . .. ... . . $ End-of-month deposits (thousando)t..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover.. . .. . 12,309 37,250 11,190 7,145 19.1  -46 + 7 + 12 + 3 + 11  + -67 + 5 + 3••  
Furniture and household  
apvliance  stores  -26  -41  8  Texas City (pop. 32,065)  
Lumber, building material, and hardware stores... + 9 Postal receipts• .. S 995,010 Building permits, less federal contracta $ 3,124,091 Bank debits (thousands) ....$ 1,059,284 End-of-month deposits (thousand•) t .. $ 438,126  -15 -23 -14 6 4  -17 + 4 -32 + 13 + 5  Postal receipts• .. ... . ...$ Building permits, less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) .. , ....... .. .$ End-of-month deposits (thousands)t..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover... 28,231 269,050 27,241 16,625 21.1 -36 +306 2 + 16 9  -6 + 54 -13 + 4 -12  
Annual  rate of deposit turnover .  28.5  6  + 7  
GARLAND: see DALLAS SMSA  
Grapevine (pop. 4,659r)  
Postal receipts• .S Building permits, less federal contracta $ Bank debits (thousands) ........ . .. . . S End-of-month deposit. (thousands) t .. $ Annual rate of deposit turnover... 5,892 55,950 4,745 4,151 14.4  -28 +296 •• + 11 -3  + 7 -2 + 20 + 13 + 10  GATESVILLE (pop. 4,626) Postal receipts• ... . . . .. . ... . .. . . . . .. $ Bank debits (thousandi!) .......... .. S End-of-month deposits (thousand•) t ..$ Annual rate of deposit turnover.. ... .  5,302 6,753 6, 580 12.3  --- 66 4 •• 2  7 + 10 + 5 + 8  
North Richland Hills (pop. 8,662) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 203,621  -12  -24  GEORGETOWN (pop. 5,218)  
Bank debits  (thousands) .... . ..... .. .$  10,889  + 48  Po.ta! receipts•  . . .  . . . .........S  7,526  -35  + 23  
End-of-month deposits  (thousand1lt .. $  4,981  +  + 16  Building permits, less federal contracts  $ 32.600  + 71  -87  
Annual  rate of deposit turnover . . . . . .  26.8  7  + 25  Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . .$ End-of-month dep01itl (thousands) t . .s  6,054 7,093  + + 4  + 15 + 19  
For an explanation of symbols, pleaae oee p, 92.  Annual  rate of deposit turnover..... .  10.5  + 2  

Percent change Percent change
Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions 

Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan
Jan from from from from City and item 1966 Dec 1965 Jan 1965 City and item 1966 Dec 1965 Jan 1965 
GIDDINGS (pop. 2,821) Baytown (pop. 38,000r) 
Postal receipts• .......$ 3, 741 -57 -6 


Retail sales -9t -18 + 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 71,086 +263 

Automotive storea ... -lt -7 1 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . $ 3,986 -10 + 4 Postal receipts• .. $ 39,092 -88 
+ 4 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 4,718 3 + 13 

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 4&0,212 -56 + 46 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 10.0 -8 -6 
Bank debits (thousands) . . . .$ 38,125 + 1 + lS End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 32,168 + 2 + 9
GLADEWATER (pop. 5,742) 

Annual rate of deposit turnover . 14.4 4 + 2 Postal receipts• ...... . $ 6,886 -41 •• 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 9,000 -73 -81 
Bellaire (pop. 21,182r)
Bank debits (thousands) .............$ 5,708 + 12 + 17 

Postal receipts• . . . .....$ 49,146 -62 + 82-End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 4,798 -13 + 6 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 19,599 -90 -19Annual rate of deposit turnover . 13.3 + 19 + 12 Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 26,473 •• + 23

Nonfarm employment (area) . 32,650 •• + 8 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 16,049 2 + 16Manufacturing employment (area) . 7,970 + 1 + 15 Anqual rate of deposit turnover . 19.6 -1 + 4Percent unemployed (area) . 3.6 + 6 -14 

GOLDTHWAITE (pop. 1,383) Clute (pop. 4,501) 
Postal receipts• ...............$ 2,141 -62 -6 Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . ....$ 3,775 -35 + 48 

Bank debits (thousands) . . ... .$ 4,2:45 + 17 + 14 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 12,500 -82 -67 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 5,849 4 + 3 Bank debits (thousands) . . ... . $ 1,866 -14 + 6 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 8.6 + 19 + 9 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t.. $ 1.647 + 6 2 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 13.9 -16 + 8
GRAHAM (pop. 8,505) 
Postal receipts• .............. .$ 10,511 -30 + 14 

Conroe (pop. 9,192) 

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,000 -98 -99 Postal receipts• . ..... .. . .. . .. $ 20, 765 -27 + 88
Bank debits (thousands) . . ....$ 11,308 + 2 + 8 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 93,000 -29 +168
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 9,976 7 1 Bank debits (thousands) ....$ 15,726 + 2 + 4
Annual rate of dep'lsit turnover . 1.3.1 + 4 + 9 

End-of-month deposits (thousands>* .. $ 13,519 + 2 + 19 GRANBURY (pop. 2,227) Annual rate of deposit turnover. 14.1 + 2 -9 
Postal receipts• .....................$ 2,624 -56 -89 


Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 1,867 4 1 Dayton (pop. 3,367) End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 2,'447 3 + 6 Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 8,165 -88 + 2 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 9.0 5 8 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 9,000 -84 -64 
Bank debits (thousands) . . ....... .. . $ 6,033 •• + 89

GRAND PRAIRIE: see DALLAS SMSA 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 3,646 -1 -12 Annual rate of deposit turnover... 16.6 •• + 67
GRAPEVINE: see FORT WORTH SMSA 

Deer Park (pop. 4,865) 
Postal receipts• ...$ 28,829 -49 + 16 

GREENVILLE (pop. 22,134r) 

Postal receipts• . . $ 9,137 -81 + 85 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,028,600 +378 +746 Bank debits (thousands) . . ... .$ 20,592 Bank debits (thousands) . . .. .$ 9,454 + 69 +106 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 312,990 -57 -38 
•• + 7 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 2,645 -39 -24End-of-month deposits (thousands)t .. $ 16,071 -1 + 14 

Annual rate of deposit turnover . 33.9 + 84 + 96 Nonfarm placements 103 -10 + 2 HOUSTON (pop. 938,219) 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 15.3 + 1 4 
HARLINGEN: see BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN 

Retail sales -23 -26 + 8 BENITO SMSA Apparel stores . -45 -48 + 10 Automotive stores -15 -10 + HENDERSON (pop. 9,666) Eating and drinking places . -12 -16 Postal receipts• ...$ 12,802 -87 -6 
Food stores -13 -17 + s Building permits, less federal contracts $ 5,300 -97 -98 
General merchandise stores . -65 -58 + 24 Bank debits (thousands) ............ $ 10,003 
+ 9 + 20 Lumber, building material, End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 19,364 -4 + ­
4 and hardware stores. + 9 -11 10 
Annual rate of deposit turnover ..... . 6.1 + 13 + 13 Postal receipts• ...........$ 2,442,267 -25 + 9 Building permits, less federal contracts $28,567, 135 -SS + 50
HOUSTON SMSA 

Bank debits (thousands) . .$ 4,796,921 -6 + 18 (Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty and Montgomery; End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 1,685,934 -10 + 6 pop. 1,613,9571) Annual rate of deposit turnover . 32.4 -6 + 7 Building permits, less federal contracts $35,084,532 -24 + 84 Bank debits (thousands) 11-.$59,376,348 + + 11 Humble (pop. 1,711) Nonfarm employment (area) . . 667,000 2 6
-+ Postal receipts• . . ..... . .. . .. . $ 3,840 -66 + 18 
Manufacturing employment (area) . 119,950 •• + 8 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 5,000 +too -79 Percent unemployed (area) . 2.7 + 17 -21 
Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 4,340 7 + 17 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 3,652 -1
Angleton (pop. 9,131) 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 14.0 5 + 11 Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 10,221 -21 + 
1 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 96,050 + 30 +393 

Katy (pop. 1,569) 
Bank debits (thousands) ... ....... ...$ 13,710 -8 

Building permits, less federal contracts S 104,350 -77
End-of-month deposits (thousands)t.. $ 13,034 + 6 Bank debits (thousands) ... .. .$ 3,451 + 24 + so
Annual rate of deposit turnover.. . . 12.9 -12 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 2,944 -6 -10 

For an explanation of symbols, please see p, 92. Annual rate of deposit turnover. 13.7 + 23 + 88 
Percent change Percent change
Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions 
J an 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan from from Jan from from City and item 1966 Dec 1965 Jan 1965 City and item 1966 Dec 1965 Jan 1965 
La Porte (pop. 7,250r) KATY: see HOUSTON SMSA 

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 173,000 +861 + 27 Bank debits (thousands) . . .. $ 4,837 + 11 + 4 
KILGORE (pop. 10,092) 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 3,641 •• + 31 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 16.0 + 5 -15 Postal receipts• . $ 14,182 -42 -4 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 430,426 + 18 Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 14,077 -2 + 7
Liberty (pop. 6,127) 

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 14.077 -2 + 7 
Postal receipts• .. $ 8,339 -23 -4 

Annual rate of deposit turnover . 11.9 •• •• Building permits, less federal contracts $ 20,600 + 99 -86 Nonfarm employment (area) . 32.,650 •• + 8 
Bank debits (thousands) .. ...........$ 11.721 

+ 23 + 7 Manufacturing employment (area) . 7,970 + + 15 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .$ 10,695 6 + 8 Percent unemployed (area) . . .. 3.6 -14
+ 6 

Annual rate of deposit turnover . 12.8 + 16 
KILLEEN (pop. 23,377) 
Pasadena (pop. 58,737) 

Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 41,843 -47 -13 Postal receipts• .$ 57,699 -46 + 15 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 316,371 + 97 -50 Building permits, less federal contract• $ 2.,420,100 +270 + 69 Bank debits (thousands) ......... .... S 20,186 -5 
Bank debits (thousands) . . .$ 71,367 2 + 12 End-of-month deposits (thousandsli. . $ 13,626 •• End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 33,032 3 + 1 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . .. 17.3 2 + 2 Annual rate of deposit turnover. . 25.6 3 + 10 
KINGSVILLE (pop. 25,297) Richmond (pop. 3,668) 
Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......$ 20,924 -35 + 10


Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 3,766 -51 -88 Building permits, less federal contracts S 108,025 + 73 + 21
Bank debits (thousands) ............. $ 8,510 1 + 18 

Bank debits (thousands) ............ .$ 13,175 -10 + 7


End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 9,498 8 + 2 End-of-month deposits (thousandsJi..$ 17,895 + 7 + 14
Annual rate of deposit turnover. 10.3 2 + 12 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 9. 1 -12 8 
Rosenberg (pop. 9,698) KIRBYVILLE (pop. 2,021r) 

Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9,044 -49 -19 Building permits, less federal contracts $ Postal receipts• ....... ...... ..... . . . $ 3,585 -43 ••
135,750 +240 -16 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 11.169 -8 + 8 

Bank debits (thousands) . . ....... .. $ 2,267 -30 -12 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. S 4,303 -1 + 23 

South Houston (pop. 7,253) Annual rate of deposit turnover..... . 6.3 -34 -26 Postal receipts• $ 9, 192 -53 + 8 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 358,850 +586 LA FERIA: see BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN Bank debits (thousands) .. $ 7,878 -10 + 8 
BENITO SMSA 

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 5,741 •• + 
Annual rate of deposit turnover. 16.5 -11 + 

LA MARQUE: see GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Tomball (pop. 2,025r) 

Bank debits (thousands) . . . .. .$ 8,308 + 5 + 8 
LA 1ESA (pop. 12,438) 

End-of-month deposits (tho'1llands) i . .$ 10,393 + 53 + 52 Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 13,555 -30 -12Annual rate of deposit turnover . 11.6 -23 19 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 37,400 + 17 -81 Bank debits (thousands) ............ .$ 31,948 + Z4 + 23

HUMBLE: see HOUSTON SMSA 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 21,520 + 12 + 19 Annual rate of deposit turnover..... . 18.8 + 3 + 11

HUNTSVILLE (pop. 11,999) 
Nonfarm placements 61 + 20 •• 

Postal receipts• ... .$ 13,936 -38 -3 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 134,500 +216 
Bank debits (thousands) ....... .$ 9,877 -14 + 10 LAMPASAS (pop. 5,670r) 

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 11 ,346 + 1 + 12 Postal receipts• ....... ... . . ........ . S 6,727 -41 + 10 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 10.5 -16 5 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 77,500 -84 + 99 B!'nk debits (thousands) ...... .. .... .$ 8,509 + 6 + 18 
IOWA PARK: see WICHITA FALLS SMSA (thousands) t ..$ + 11
End-of-month deposits 7,023 3 Annual rate of deposit turnover.. . 14.3 + 6 + 

IRVING: see DALLAS SMSA 
LA PORTE: see HOUSTON SMSA 
JACKSONVILLE (pop. 10,509r) 
Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...$ 23,161 -13 + 12 LAREDO SMSA 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 48,800 -62 -82 

(Webb; pop. 71,7381)

Bank debits (thousands) . . ..... $ 17,356 + 8 + 12 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 197,425 + 128 +104End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 12,002 8 + 8 
Bank debits (thousands) jj ......... . . $ 545,544 + 5 + 15


Annual rate of deposit turnover. 16.6 + 2 + 2 
Nonfarm employment (area) . . . . . . . . . 21,500 + + 8 Manufacturing employment (area) . 1,310 8

JASPER (pop. 5,120r) 
Percent unemployed (area) . . . 12.0 2 9

Postal receipts• .. $ 9,511 -83 -10 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 83,000 +911 3 

LAREDO (pop. 60,678) 

Bank debits (thousands) ......S 11,357 + 14 1 
Postal receipts• . . .................. .$ 45,564 -32 + 6


End-of-month depoaits (thousands ) t .. $ 8,219 + 1 + 3 Building permits, less federal contractB $ 197,425 +128 +104Annual rate of deposit turnover . 16.6 + 11 2 
Bank debits (thousands) .............$ 48,607 + 4 + 14 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 29,494 -2 + 6

JUSTIN: see DALLAS SMSA 
Annual rate of deposit turnover.... . . 19.6 + 11
+ 
Nonfarm placements .. ............. . 387 -10 s


For an explanation of symbols, please see p, 92. 
Percent change 	Percent change
Local Business Conditions Local Busines.s Conditions 
Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan from from Jan from from City and item 1966 Dec 1965 Jan 1965 City and item 1966 Dec 1965 Jan 1965 
LEVELLAND (pop. 12,117r) McALLEN (pop. 32,728) 
Postal receipts• .. .$ 10,537 -50 -4 Retail sales .. .... .... ... . -9t -30 + 4 

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 54,220 -65 ·_ 27 Apparel stores -46t -44 + 35 
Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . . $ 40,995 + 46 + 10 Automotive stores -1t -21 -7 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t $ 13,980 -15 + 8 Postal receipts• .. $ 42.178 -33 + 12 

Annual rate of deposit turnover . 32.3 + 31 + 13 	Building permits, less federal contracts $ 323,500 + 45 + 27 Bank debits (thousands) . . .. $ 40,690 + + End-of-month deposits (thousands)l .. $ 26,026 + + 13
LIBERTY: see HOUSTON SMSA 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 18.9 -s
/ 

Nonfarm placements 617 + 73 +106 LLANO (pop. 2,656) Nonfarm employment (area) . 42,400 1 + 5 Manufacturing employment (area) . 2,940 6 -19
Postal receipts• .. . . . $ 3,458 -38 + 30 
Percent unemployed (area) . 6.9 + -12

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 15,500 + 45 
Bank debits (thousands) .... . . . . .... .$ 3,302 -2 -11 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 4,037 -10 7 

McCAMEY (pop. 3,350r)
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 9.3 + 4 -9 
Postal receipts• .. ......... ... . S 2,667 -51 -20 Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 1,885 -8 
+

LOCKHAHT (pop. 6,084) 	End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. S 1,799 + 12 
Postal receipts• .... .$ 5,634 -46 -6 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 13.3 -10 + 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 111,500 +268 +108 
Bank debits (thousands) . . ... .$ 6,280 -3 + 10 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 6,632 + + 18 McGREGOR: see WACO SMSA 
Annual rate of deposit turnover. 11.4 •• -6 

McKINNEY: see DALLAS SMSA 
LONGVIEW (pop. 40,050) 
Retail sales -9t -10 + 17 


Automotive stores -1t + 7 + 18 MARSHALL (pop. 25,715r) Postal receipts• . . . .. . .. ...... .$ 6(),726 -45 + 4 Retail sales -9t -49 -4 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 839,000 3 + 75 Postal receipts• ... .$ 27,645 -37 -7 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 70,791 4 + 12 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 102,121 -19 -87 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 46,249 1 + 13 Bank debits (thousands) .... . . . . . . . . . $ 20,715 -1 + 1 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 18.3 3 + 3 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 24,252 •• + 6 Nonfarm employment (area) . 32,650 •• + 8 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 10.2 -4 -2 
Manufacturing employment (area) . 7,970 + + 15 Nonfarm placements 246 -23 + 62 Percent unemployed · (area) 3.6 
+ 6 -14 
MERCEDES (pop. 10,943)LOS FRESNOS: see BROW_NSViLLE-HARLINGEN­

Postal receipts• .. . .... .. .. .$ 6,700 -29 +S.-\N BENITO SMSA Building permits, less federal contracts S 17,220 +47 + Bank debits (thousands) . . ... .$ 6,166 + 2 
+ 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 4,334

LUBBOCK SMSA 	+ + 11 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 17.2 -6
+
(Lubbock; pop. 177,1401) 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 3,932,,152 -39 
+ 35 
Bank debits (thousands) II. . ....... $ 4,185,42.0 


+ 21 + 8 MESQUITE: see DALLAS SMSA 
Nonfarm employment (area) . 61,200 
-1 + 4 
Manufacturing employment (area) . 7,05() 
-1 + 9 

Percent unemployed (area) . 3.7 + 28 -16 MEXIA (pop. 7,621r) Postal receipts• .....$ 5,917 -43 -18 LUBBOCK (pop. 155,200r) 
Buildinll' permits, less federal contracts $ 0 Bank debits (thousands) .. . ... . . . . . . . $ 5,290

Retail sales -9t -26 + 4 	•• + 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 5,401 

Automotive stores -lt -14 + 5 	+ 1 + 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 11.8 ­

General merchandise stores. -53t -54 •• 2 + Postal receipts• .. ..... .$ 236,124 -28 7
-
Buildinll' permits, less federal contracts $ 3,929,173 39


-+ 37 	MIDLAND SMSA 
Bank debits (thousands) . .. . .... . ... .'$ 462,190 

+ 18 + 7 	(Midland; pop. 64,7041)
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 156,0()3 
+ 3 + 6 

Annual rate of deposit turnover . 36.1 + 11 + 	Building permits, less federal contracts $ 3,925,225 +617 + 56 Bank debits (thousands) II. . .... $ 1,635,816 + 3 9 Nonfarm employment (area) . 57,100 -2 + 2
Slaton (pop. 6,568) 
Manufacturing employment (area) . 4,720 + 26 + 15
P ostal receipts• 	.. $ 4,128 57 ­

33 Percent unemployed (area) . 3.2 -	22
+ 23
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 2,379 •• 91
-
Ba nk debits (thousands) . $ 7,787 

+ 16 + 18 

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 4,926 	MIDLAND (pop. 62,625)
+ 5 + 2 

Annual rate of'-deposit turnover. 19.4 + 2 + 16 	Postal receipts .. ............ $ 109,184 -43 + 8 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 3,925,225 +617 + 56 Bank debits (thousands) . . ....$ 144,885 
LUFKIN (pop. 17,641) 	+ 3 -11 
End-of-month deposits (thouaanda)t. . $ 113, 779 4 -4
Postal receipts• . . ...... . ... . .. ..... .$ 35,934 -20 + 16 
Annual rate of deposit turnover. 14.9 + ­

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 165,200 + 28 -42 	1 7 
Nonfarm placements 	684

Nonfarm placements ......... . 46 -25 -21 	+ 7 + 23 

For an explanation of symbols, please see p, 92. 	MIDLOTHIAN: see DALLAS SMSA 
100 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
P ercent changePercent change

Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions 
Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan from from Jan from from City and item 1966 Dec 1965 Jan 1965 City and item 1966 Dec 1965 Jan 1965 
Jan 1966 J an 1966 

MINERAL WELLS (pop. 11,053) ODESSA (pop. 86,937r) 
Postal receipts• . . . . $ 23,776 + 6 + , 66 Retail sales 9t -46 + 11 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 196,500 -22 -9 Furniture and household Bank debits (thousands) . .$ 15,446 7 + 20 appliance stores 15t -24 + 15 End-of-month deposits (thousands) 12,885 2 + 9 Postal receipts• ......$ 90,107 -40 + 3 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 14.3 + 12 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 722,839 + 47 + 29 Nonfarm placements 167 + 19 + 174 Bank debits (thousands) ... . $ 96,282 8 + 8 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t . . $ 68,172 + 2 + 11 

Annual rate of deposit turnover . 17.1 -10 -1 
MISSION (pop. 14,081) Nonfarm placements 298 -16 -17 
Postal receipts• . . $ 11,001 -37 + 10 
Building permits, Jess federal contracts $ 11.400 -53 -62 
Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 12,026 4 -9 ORANGE: see BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR­
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 9,732 + 12 

ORANGE SMSA 

Annual rate of deposit turnover . 14.8 4 -16 
PALESTINE (pop. 13,974) MONAHANS (pop. 9,252r) Postal receipts• .. .. $ 16,217 -58 -4 Postal receipts• ........ ............ $ 10,121 -52 -6 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 95,047 19 -43 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 31,250 -64 -78 Bank debits (thousands) ....$ 15,092 -15 + 12 Bank debits (thousands) ... .. . . ... . . . $ 11,006 + 3 + 7 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 17,514 -1 + 1 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 8,293 3 + 7 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 10.3 -18 + 11 Annual rate of deposit turnover.. . . 15.7 + •• 
PAMPA (pop. 24,664) MOUNT PLEASANT (pop. 8,027) Retail sales -9t -19 + 11 Postal receipts• . . $ 11,817 -26 •• Building permits, less federal contracta $ 72,305 -40 -26 
Building J;>ermits, less federal contracta $ 110,600 + 36 + 73 Bank debits (thousands) . .$ 29,823 -5 + 7 Bank debits (thousands) . . ..... . $ 11,720 -6 + 6 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. .$ 20,890 •• -6 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t . .$ 8,957 -12 + 9 Annual rate of deposit turnover . .. . 17.1 -3 + 14 Annua.l rate of deposit turnover . 14.7 -6 8 Nonfarm placements .. . 131 -13 + 4 
MUENSTER (pop. 1,190) PARIS (pop. 20,977) 
Postal receipts• ..... .. ... ... . $ 1,911 -50 + 83 Postal receipts• . . ..... .... ... ...... . $ 29,416 -26 -1 Building permits, less federal contracta $ 10,000 -33 -49 Building permits, less federal contracta $ 202,032 -42 -43 Bank debits (thousands) . . .. . $ 3,002 + 2 + 9 Nonfarm placements 134 + 6 + 63 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 2,193 + 3 3 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 16.7 + 2 + 14 
PASADENA: see HOUSTON SMSA 

NACOGDOCHES (pop. 15,450r) 
PECOS (pop. 12,728)

Postal receipts• ......... ... ... . $ 24,630 -18 + 25 
Building permits, Jess federal contracta $ 234,362 -83 +162 . . . . . 12,590 23 +

Postal receipts• .$ ­
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 9,850 + 4 -77 Bank debits (thousands) . . .$ 21,354 5 + 13 Bank debits (thousands) . . .$ 24,857 + 2 -5 

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. .$ 23,000 + 10 + 15 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 13.6 -4 -13 +

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. . $ 11,489 3 6 Nonfarm placements 91 -14 -14 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 21.9 6 + 7 Nonfarm placements 168 + 15 + 81 
NEDERLAND: see BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR­PHARR (pop. 14,106)ORANGE SMSA 
Postal receipts• . .. . $ 9,586 -42 + 23 

Building permits, .less federal contracta $ 40,470 -66 -12 NEW BRAUNFELS (pop. 15,631) Bank debits (thousands) . . . . .$ 4,882 •• + 14 Postal receipts• . . . $ 18,888 -51 -10 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t . . $ 4,711 + 14 Building permits, less federal contracta $ 112,988 -46 -45 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 12.0 -3 •• Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 15,965 1 + 14 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 15, 194 + 2 + 19 
PILOT POINT: see DALLAS SMSA
Annual rate of deposit turnover. 12.7 -3 
PLAINVIEW (pop. 18,731r) NORTH RICHLAND HILLS: see FORT WORTH SMSA 

Postal receipts• . ···· ·· · . .. $ 33,997 -+ 5
····· 39 Building permits, less federal contracta $ 206,850 -51 -87 Nonfarm placements 205 -22

ODESSA SMSA •• 
(Ector; pop. 85,7271 ) 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 722,839 + 47 + 29 

PLANO: see DALLAS SMSA 
Bank debits (thousands) 11 . . . $ 1,213,500 + 3 + 21 
Nonfarm employment (area) . 57,100 -2 + 2 

PLEASANTON (pop. 5,053r) 
Manufacturing employment (area) . 4,720 + 26 + 15 
Building permits, less federal contracts 6,400 -95 -60Percent unemployed (area) 3.2 + 23 -22 Bank debits (thousands) . .. . . ..... .. .$ 4,788 + 28 + 32 End-of-month deposits (thousands)t.. $ 3,941 

-4 + 4 For an explanation of symbols, please see p, 92. Annual rate of deposit turnover . 14.3 + 28 + 81 
Percent change 	Percent change
Local Business Conditions 	Local Business Conditions 
Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan from from Jan from from City and item 1966 Dec 1965 Jan 1965 City and item 1966 Dec 1965 Jan 1965 
PORT ARTHUR: see BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR­ SAN ANTONIO (pop. 655,006r)  
ORANGE SMSA  Retail  sales  -19  -22  + 4  
Apparel stores  -40  -43  + 6  
Automotive stores  4  -19  +  
PORT ISABEL: see  BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN­ Eating and drinking places .  6  - 2  +  
SAN BENITO SMSA  Florists .... ...... . Furniture and household  -52  + 18  
appliance  stores  -43  -50  2  
PORT NECHES: see ORANGE SMSA  BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR­ Gasoline and service stations . General merchandise stores . Lumber, building material, and hardware stores  -- 3 48 ••  --- 2 40 9  +  2 8  
Nurseries  -35  -28  
RAYMONDVILLE (pop. 9,385) Postal receipts• .. . $ 5,400 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 14,800 Bank debits (thousands) ......$ 5,710 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . . $ 7,590  -55 -93 -19 -6  -20 -54 7 -4  Postal receipts• .. .$ 869,018 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 4,788,849 Bank debits (thousands) . . ... .$ 940,192 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 483,346 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 23.5  -39 6 + 2 8  + 4 + 28 + 15 + 6 + 10  
Annual  rate of deposit turnover .  8.7  - 13  - 6  
Nonfarm placements  ················  41  -20  -24  
Schertz (pop. 2,281)  
RICHARDSON: see DALLAS SMSA  Postal receipts• Bank debits (thousands) .  .. .$ $ 16,118 639  -34 8  + 20 +  
End-of-month deposits  (thousands) i . .$  1,103  7  
Annual  rate of deposit turnover.....  6.7  +  
RICHMOND: see HOUSTON SMSA  

Seguin (pop. 14,299) ROBSTOWN: see CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA 
Postal receipts• ............ ........ .$ 16,118 -34 + 20 Building per mits, less federal contracts $ 115,275 +130 + 75 Bank debits (thousands) .. .......... .$ 15,828 + s 

ROCKDALE (pop. 4,481) End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 16,454 + + + Postal receipts• . . . ........... . $ 5,967 -30 + 7 Annual rate of deposit turnover.. . 11.6 + + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 4,200 -80 -84 Bank debits (thousands) . . . . $ 4,795 -8 3 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i. .$ 7,166 
+ 2 + 6 SAN BENITO: see BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 8.1 -11 9 
BENITO SMSA 
ROSENBERG: see HOUSTON SMSA 
SAN JUAN (pop. 4,371) Postal receipts• .$ 2,954 -52 + 11 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 3,300 25 +175

SAN ANGELO SMSA 	+ 
Bank debits (thousands) . . ... .$ 2,688 + 1 + IS (Tom Green; pop. 70,8761) End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 2,736 + 6 + 15 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 12.1 -I 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 309,380 + 23 -50 Bank debits (thousands) 11 ...........$ 922,944 + 18 Nonfarm employment (area) 21.350 
+ 6 

Manufacturing employment (area) . 3,170 + 15 SAN MARCOS (pop. 12,713) 
Percent unemployed (area) . 3.9 + 5 -24 	Postal receipts• .. .. $ 16,227 -27 + 34 Building permits, le•s federal contracts $ 154,248 -46 +us Bank debits (thousands) . ........ .$ 13,839 + 12 + 27 
SAN ANGELO (pop. 58,815) End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 14,676 + + 14 Retail sales -9t -46 
Annual rate of deposit turnover. 11.6 + 13 + 8+ 10 
Postal receipts• ........ . . . .... $ 93,237 -34 

+ 5 

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 309,380 + 23 -50 
Bank debits (thousands) . . ... .$ 81,926 + + 17 SAN SABA (pop. 2,728) 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 56,481 2 + 11 Postal receipts• .. . $ 3,810 -36 + 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 17.3 

+ + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 38,500 + 51 Bank debits (thousands) . .... . $ 5,419 -12 + 19 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i. . $ 5,065 -6 + 15 SAN ANTONIO SMSA Annual rate of deposit turnover . 12.4 -11 + 4 
(Bexar and Guadalupe; pop. 800,9681) 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 5,207,449 6 + 27 
SCHERTZ: see SAN ANTONIO SMSA 
Bank debits (thousands) 11. ......$11,412,708 
-1 + 14 
Nonfarm employment (area) ... 236,000 -1 
+ R 
Manufacturing employment (area) . 27,925 
•• + 2 
SEAGOVILLE: see DALLAS SMSA 
Percent unemployed (area) . 4.4 
-2 -27 
SEGUIN: see SAN ANTONIO SMSA 
For an explanation of symbols, please see p. 92. 

102 	TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
Percent change 	Percent change
Local Business Conditions 	Local Business Conditions 
J an 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan from from Jan from from City and item 1966 Dec 1965 Jan 1965 City and item 1966 Dec 1965 Jan 1965 
SHERMAN (pop. 30,660r) 	SWEETWATER (pop. 13,914) 
Retail m ies 	-9t -42 Postal receipts* $ 17,063 -31 -10 
Automotive stores -lt -35 12 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 230 Postal receipts• ..... $ 42,449 -35 + 3 Ba nk debits (thousands) . .$ 1 • 71 + 15 + 23 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 995,575 + 40 +188 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 10,760 4 + 3 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 41,889 .. + 11 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 20.6 + 11 + 20 Cnd-of-month deposits (thousands) t $ 24 ,635 7 + 11 Nonfarm placements 121 + 11 + 66 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 19.6 + 2 •• 
Nonfarm placements 	151 + 7 6
+ 

TAYLOR (pop. 9,434) 
Postal receipts• 	.. $ 10,7 2 -34 + 10
SILSBEE (pop. 6,277) 	$ +
Building permits, less federal contracts 103,140 +523 88 Postal recei pts0 ...... S 10,427 -31 + 8 Bank debits (thousands) . . .. . $ 11,326 + 18 + 16 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,400 -96 13 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. $ 17,012 -1 + 6 
Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . . $ 4,892 -12 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 7.9 + 22 + 10 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 5,737 + 1 + Nonfarm placements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 -2 +153 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 10.3 -8 
TEMPLE (pop. 34,730r)SINTON: see CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA 
Retail sales -9• -31 + 4 Postal receipts• ...$ 54,419 -25 + 20 Building perm its, less federal contracts $ 283,787 -53 + 83
SLATON: see LUBBOCK SMSA 
Nonfarm placements 	177 + 12 -19 

Sl\IITHVILLE (pop. 2,933) TERRELL (pop. 13,803)
Postal receipts• . . . $ 2,169 -53 -12 Postal receipts• . . . . . . . . .... $ 9,172 -54 + 9Building permits, less federal contracts $ 500 -83 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 112.,496 +156 -73
Ba nk debits (thousands) .............$ 1,893 + 22 + 33 

Bank debits (thousands) . . .......$ 11,426 + 11

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 2,385 -1 -4 End-of-month deposits (thousands) i . .$ 10,517 •• + 10Annual rate of deposit turnover. 9.5 + 23 + 38 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 13.0 6 + 2 
SNYDER (pop. 13,850) TEXARKA A SMSA 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 25,750 -73 + 15 
Bank debits (thousands). . .... $ 16,705 4 (Bowie, excluding Miller, Ark.; pop. 66,7431) 

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 20,970 + 4 + 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 360,275 + 95 -46 

Annual rate of deposit turnover . 9.8 6 11 
Bank debits (thousands) 11 -.. $ 1,066,300 + 4 + 13 Nonfarm employment (area) 33,600 + 4 Manufacturing employment (area) 7,2.50 •• + 11 SOUTH HOUSTON: see HOUSTON SMSA Percent unemployed (area) . 4.9 + 7 -33 
SULPHUI{ SPRINGS (pop. 9,160) 	TEXARKANA (pop. 50,006r) 
Postal receipts• .. . S 18,465 -27 
+ Retail sales ....... ... . -9t -24 + 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 718,378 + 61 +600 1.

Automotive stores _.......... . --14 + 
Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 16,359 + 1 + 4 

Postal receipts• $ 82,006 -22 + 4 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 14,948 2 + 11 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 265,056 + 52 -59 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 4
13.0 	+ Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 80,656 -2 + 10 End-of-month deposit& (thousands) H. $ 23,457 •• + 11 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 21.6 -6 + 13 
STEPHENVILLE (pop. 7,359) 
Postal receipts• ..$ 10,021 -46 17 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 66,300 + 37 + 49 

TEXAS CITY: see GALVESTO -TEXAS CITY SMSA 

Hank debits (thousands) . ......$ 10,390 + + 21 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) i. .$ 10,227 + + 
Annual rate of deposit turnover. 12.3 + 7 + 12 

TOMBALL: see HOUSTON SMSA 

STRATFORD (pop. 1,380) TYLER SMSA
Postal rec~• . . . ......... . ...... .$ 1,695 -52 -20 

Building perm··~· less fe<leral contracts $ -19,400 +161 -31 
(Smith; pop. 95,4121)

Bank debits (thousands) ...... .......$ 9,767 + 10 + 52 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) i. $ 5,952 -5 + Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,121,395 +135 + 

Annual rate of deposit turnover . 19.2 10 + 41 Bank debits (thousands) 11-.$ 1,579,776 2 + 6 Nonfarm employment (area) ..... . . 33,150 + 2 Manufacturing employment (area) . 8,750 + + Percent unemployed (area) . 3.9 + 26 19 
+ 

For an explanation of symbols, 	please see p. 92. 
Percent change 	Percent change
Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions 

Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan 1966 Jan from from J an from from 
City and item 1966 Dec 1965 	Jan 1965
Jan 1965 City and item 1966 Dec 1965 
TYLER (pop. 51,230) WAXAHACHIE: see DALLAS SMSA 
Retail sales 
-9t -18 •• 
Postal receipts .. . ..... .., . . .. .. .... $ 114,039 -39 
+ 8 
Building permits, less federal'contracts $ 

1,100,895 +161 + 7 WEATHERFORD (pop. 9,759)
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 131,774 •• + 6 End-of-month deposits (thousands) t $ 78,246 + + 2 -7
Postal receipts• .$ 14,020 -32 Annual rate of deposit turnover. 20.3 3 + 5 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 314,200 +zoo + 76 Nonfarm placements 571 + 8 + 12 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 15,413 -1 + 7 
WESLACO (pop. 15,649) UVALDE (pop. 10,293) 
Postal receipts• .. .$ 13,846 -25

Postal receipts• $ 11,281 -31 + + 19 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 39,450 -68 -6
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 115,812 + 26 -11 
Bank debits (thousands) . . . $ 9,905 + 8 + 2

Bank debits (thousands) ...... . .... $ 15,201 + 33
+ 
Ernl-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 9,061 + 18

End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 9,794 + + 8 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 13.0 + 7 -10

Annual rate of deposit turnover . 19.1 + + 2.4 
WHITE SETTLEMENT: see FORT WORTH SMSAVERNON (pop. 12,141) 

Building permits, less federal contracts $ 30,400 -86 -46 
Bank debits (thousaads) ........$ 22,482 + 10 + 16 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t .. $ 20,850 5 •• WICHITA FALLS SMSA 
Annual rate of deposit turnover. 12.6 + + 13

9 	(Archer and Wichita; pop. 129,3531 ) 
Nonfarm placements 77 + 35 + 26 Building permits, less federal contracts $ 420,634 -24 -76 Bank debits (thousands) 11-.. .$ 2,259,588 + 7 + 22 Nonfarm employment (area) . . . 47,500 + 8
VICTORIA (pop. 33,047) 

Manufacturing employment (area) . 4,120 + -1 Retail sales -9t -24 Percent unemployed (area) . 3.1 + 15 -28
+ 
Automotive stores -lt -10 + 14 
Postal receipts• S 48,325 -29 + 2 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 116,130 -72 86 

Iowa Park (pop. 5,152r) 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 84,054 4 8
+ + 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 108,800 +313 +867
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t S 94,524 4 
+ 10 
Bank debits (thousands) . .. ·: .........$ 3,713 8 4

Annual rate of tleposit turnover 10.4 + 3 •• 
Nonfarm placements 	433 11 -17 End-of-month deposits · (thousands) t ..$ 4,280 2 2 Annual rate of deposit :t~rriover . 10.3 10 
WACO SMSA WICHITA FALLS (pop. 101,724)
(McLennan; pop. 152,6301) 

Retail sales 9t -38 -14 Building permits, less federal contracts S 1,823,384 -56 27 Automotive stores 1t -23 -21 
Bank debits (thousands) 11-..........$ 2,057,772 + 2 Furniture and household 

Nonfarm employment (area) . 53,700 2 appliance stores 	15t -26 + 11 + 12 
+ 2 

Manufacturing employment (area) . 11,460 + 1 Postal receipts• .. ...... .. .. $ 127,581 -40 + 2
+ 6 

Percent unemployed (area) . 4.7 + 18 2 	Building permits, less federal contracts S 399,434 -24 -76 Bank debits (thousands) . . .... $ 179,591 + 7 + 20 End-cf-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 102,969 10 •• 
McGregor (pop. 4,642) 	Annual rate of deposit turnover . 19.8 + + 17 
Building permits, less federal contracts $ 129,469 +339 
Bank debits (thousands) . $ 6, 131 + 8 + 38 
End-of-month deposits (thousands) t ..$ 6,612 -2 LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 
Annual rate of deposit turnover . 11.0 

+ 12 + 39 (Cameron, Willacy, and Hidalgo; pop. 337,0411) 
Retail sales -9t -23 + Apparel stores -46 + 25

WACO (pop. 103,462) 	-46t 
Automotive stores -lt -17 + 7 Retail salestt 
-9t 27 + Drugstores -23t -15 + 10 Apparel storestt 
-46t 45 + Eating and drinking places . 2t 1 + 1 Automotive storestt 
1t 7 + 6 Food stores 13t -7 -. 8 Furniture and household 
Furniture and household 
appliance storestt 

151 14 + appliance stores 15t -44 + 6 Postal receipts* 
s 194,596 -37 Gasoline and service stations . 3t •• -3 Building permits, less federal contracts 
$ 1,661,501 -60 12 General merchandise stores. 53t -36 + 17 Bank debits (thousands) . 163,522
$ + + 11 Lumber, building m::terial, End-of-month deposits (thousands) t 90,386 + 1 and hardware stores + It -38 + 2 Annual rate of deposit turnover . 21.3 + Postal receipts* -35 + 11
+ 

Building permits, less federal contracts -23 -82 Bank debits (thousands) + 7 For an explanation of symbols, please see p. 92. End-of-month deposits (thousands) t. + 3 + 17 
ttReported in cooperation with the Baylor Bureau of Business Research. 	Annual rate of deposit turnover . 17.4 -6 




BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS 

All figures are for Texas unless otherwise indicated. All indexes are based on the average months for 1957-59, except where .in.di­cated; all are adjusted for seasonal variation, except annual indexes. Employment estimates are T exas Employment Comm1ss1on data in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U. S. Department of Labor. Employment data marked (t) cover wage and salary workers only. The index of Texas business activity is based on bank debits in 20 cities, adjusted for price level. An asterisk (•) indicates preliminary data subject to revision. Revised data are marked (r) 
Jan
Jan 	Dec 
1966 	1965 

GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY Texas business activity, index . . ..... .... . Miscellaneous freight carloadings in SW District, index . 
Wholesale prices in U. S., unadjusted index . 
Consumers' prices in U. S., unadjusted index . 
Income payments to individuals in U. S. (billions, at seasonally ad­
justed annual rate) . . .............. . . Business failures (number) . . .......... . Business failures (liabilities, thousands) . Newspaper linage, · index . Ordinary life insuranee sales, index 
TRADE Total retail sales, index . Durable-goods sales, index ... Nondurable-goods sales, index. . ........ . Ratio of credit sales to net sales in department and apparel stores ... Ratio of collections to outstandings in department and apparel stores PRODUCTION Total electric power use, index ............... . Industrial electric power use, index. . . ........... . Crude oil production, index. . .. .......... ....... . Average daily production per oil well (bbl.) ......... .. .... . Crude oil runs to stills, index. . ..................... . 
Industrial production in U. S., index... . ........... . Texas industrial production-total, index. . .. ...... ... . Texas industrial production-manufactures, index . 
Texas industrial production-durable manufactures, index. 
Texas industrial production-nondurable manufactures, index . 
Texas industrial production-mining, index . . ........ . 
Building construction authorized, index .............. . 

New residential building authorized, index . 
New nonresidential building authorized, index. . .. .............. . 

AGRICULTURE Prices received by farmers, unadjusted index, 1910-14=100... Prices paid by farmers in U.S., unadjusted index, 1910-14=100 . Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U. S. prices paid by farmers .. 
FINANCE Bank debits, index . Bank debits, U. S., index . . ......... . Reporting member banks, Dallas Federal Reserve District: 
Loans (millions) 
Loans and investments (millions) . 
Adjusted demand deposits (millions) 


Revenue receipts of the State Comptroller (thousands) 
Securities registrations: Original applications: 
Mutual investment companies (thousands) .. 
All other corporate securities: 

Texas companies (thousands) ..... 
Other companies (thousands) 


Securities registrations: Renewals: 
Mutual investment companies (thousands) .. 
Other corporate securities (thousands) .. . 

LABOR Manufacturing employment in Texas, indext. . ........ ....... . Total nonagricultural employment in Texas, indext ..... .......... . Average weekly hours-manufacturing, indext ..... ......... . Average weekly earnings-manufacturing, indext ............. . Total nonagricultural employment (thousands) t ... . .... . . .. .. . Total manufacturing employment (thousands) t ... . .. ...... . Durable-goods employment (thousands) t ....... . ondurable-goods employment (thousands) t ........ . ..... . Total nonagricultural labor force in selected labor market areas ('thousands) . . . . . . . . Employment in selected labor market areas (thousands) ........ . Manufacturing employment in selected labor market areas (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . ........ . Total unemployment in selected labor market areas (thousands) .. Percent of labor force unemployed in selected labor market areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....... .. . 
168.0 
79.7 
104.6 
111 .0 
55 1.6• 43 2,086 
120.1 
155.7 
128.2• 
140.5 • 
121.8• 67.3• 32.5• 
222.5 • 169.4• 101.6• 
14.l 
11 7.2 149.9• 142.o• 167.9• 
170.7 • 165.8• 
108.1. 
130.5 
11 3.0 
162.8 
259 327 79 
175.7 
191.8 
s 	4,645 6,856 2,811 
143,328 
30,135 
445 s 1,924 
13,787 919 
121 .7• 120.8• 101.9• 
123.1. 
2,954.4• 585.9• 303.7• 282.2• 
2,848.2• 2.673.0• 
167.7r 
79.2 
104.1 r 
111.0 
550.9r 58 s 7,144 
11 7.8 
176.7 
l 4 l.6r 166.5r 128.8r 60.6• 39.o• 
179.I. 161.5• 100.o• 
13.8 
11 8.8 
148.5 • 141.2• 167.7* 17 I.O· 165.4• 106.4• 
167.5 
125.2 
249.7 
256 324 79 
174.6 
192.3 
4,762 6,980 2,928 127,528 
17,500 
1,902 5,216 
s 9,711 s 797 
121 .3• 

11 9.4 


102.1 • 123.8• 3,008.1 • 
584.9• 301.7• 283.2• 
2,880.9r 2,707.2r 
494.5r 
93.I r 
3.2r 
152.2r 
77.4 
101.0 
108.9 
515.4r 70 7,944 
114.4 
142.9 
126.8r 142.3r 11 8.9r 67.9r 32.3r 
163.7r 152.7r 95.8r 13.3 
112.1 138.6r 129.4• 150.8• 
149.2 • 151.9• 
101.3 • 
113.0 
106.2 
113.3 
238 317 75 
153.7r 
169.5 
4,353 6,457 2,797 122,030 
8,816 
137 2,729 
9,092 196 
114.6r 
115.7 101.4r 119.lr 
2,829.6r 551.8r 276.7r 
275.l r 
2,777.7r 2,751.1 r 
468.0r 125.0r 
4.5r 
td 
d 
~ 
l:.:i:j 
>
d 
0 
>:j 
td 
d 
rn 
...... 
z 
l:.:i:j rn 
rn 
~ 
l:.:i:j 
00 
l:.:i:j 
> 
~ 
C":l 
= 

0 <D t-zj

::s 1-j 
C"f' ...... 
(j) Q) Q '"j ::l 
0.. 
"' 
t""' 
t-'• 
O" '"j ll> 
~ 
t-'> 
t."l
ll> 
z
::l 
>i 0 t."l "'.l i;ll "'.l t."l 
..... 0 
&l > 
> >i 
en 
en >i t."l :i:8 t."l z >1' c:: 
C'l en 
s: j 
f:l ~ 
~ >i > t."l 
~ ~ 
:II en 



NEW PUBLICATIONS 

DALLAS-FORT WORTH: Regional Growth Influenc­ing Transportation Planning. By Joe H. Jones. $3.00 
MIDLAND-ODESSA: Regional Growth Influencing Transportation Planning. By L. L. Schkade, Charles T. Clark, and Charles A. Pieper. $2.50 
SAN ANGELO: Urban Growth Influencing Transpor­tation Planning. 13y Joe H. Jones. $2.50 
These three economic base studies concentrate on those factors in the economic composition of each study area which are significant variables in trans­portation planning. 
BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712 
(Texas residents add 2% sales tax.) 
>

~ 	c::
>'3
c:: 	en 
:II 	~ 

z 	.z 
f;l 	;J 
.c
c:: 	~ 
~ 	Ul -:i
;J 	00 
-:i

0 
"""'
!:..:> 
>i :i: 
t."l 
c:: 
z 
..... 
~ 
:II 
en 
~ 
0 
"'.l 
;J 
~ 
Ul