VOL. XLIV, NO. 8, AUG.UST 1970 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Editor, Stanley A. Arbingast; Associate Editor, Robert H. Ryan; Managing Editor, Graham Blackstock Editorial Board: Stanley A. Arbingast, Chairman; John R. Stockton; Francis B. May; Robert H. Ryan; Robert B. Williamson; Joe H. Jones; Graham Blackstock. CONTENTS ARTICLES 189: THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS, by Joe H. Jones 193: TEXAS IN THE SEVENTIES: 6. DEMOCRATIC FULFILLMENT THROUGH EDUCATION-PART TWO: THE NEW LOOK, 1980, by Graham Blackstock 201 : TEXAS IN THE SEVENTIES : 7. Time for ?, Housing Breakthrough, by Robert H. Ryan TABLES 190: SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS 190: BUSINESS-ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR 20 SELECTED TEXAS CITIES 191: NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT, SELECTED LABORMARKET AREAS 191: ESTIMATES OF NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT IN TEXAS 199: SUMMARY OF PROJECTIONS OF SPACE NEEDS AND RELATED COSTS FOR TEXAS PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION 1975 200: EXPENDITURES FOR TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 200: TEXAS BIENNIAL LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS, APPROPRIATIONS PER STUDENT, AND PERCENTAGE IN CREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS PER STUDENT, ALL FUNDS 201: NEW HOUSING NEEDED TO MATCH 1970-1980 POPULATION GROWTH IN TEXAS' SEVEN LARGEST CITIES 202: BALANCE SHEET FOR 1960-1970 HOUSING IN TEXAS' LARGEST CITIES 206: ESTIMATED VALUES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS 207: LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (inside back cover) CHARTS 189: ESTIMATED PERSONAL INCOME, TEXAS 191: TOTAL UNEMPLOYMENT, TEXAS 192: INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, TEXAS 192: INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION-DURABLE MANUFACTURES, TEXAS 192 : INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION-NONDURABLE MANUFACTURES, TEXAS 192: MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT, TEXAS 203: WEEKLY EARNINGS OF U.S. CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND ALL NONFARM WORKERS 203: ONE-FAMILY AND APARTMENT UNITS AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS, 1958-1970 204: 1980 GOALS FOR THE TEXAS HOUSING INDUSTRY 205: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS 206: NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS DIAGRAMS AND FIGURES 194: MODEL OF THE JOHN H. GLENN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, SAN ANGELO, TEXAS 194: FLOOR PLAN, PHYSICAL-EDUCATION CIRCLE, JOHN H. GLENN J UNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, SAN ANGELO, TEXAS BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH Bu.siness Resea.rch Council: Floyd S. Brandt, James R. Bright, Abraham Charnes, Lawrence L. Crum, Jared E. Hazleton, George Kozmetsky Director: Stanley A. Arbingast Special Research Associate: Joe H. Jones Assistant to the Director: Florence Escott Statistician: John R. Stockton Consulting Statistician: Francis B. May Systems Analysts : Dennis W. Cooper, Richard Scamell Cooperating Faculty: Charles T. Clark, Lawrence L. Crum, Clark C. Gill, William T. Holdi, Robert K. Holz, Jerry Todd, Ernest W. Walker, Robert B. Williamson Administrative Assistant: Margaret Robb Research Associates: Graham Blackstock, Willetta De ment, Margaret Fielder, Carolyn Greene, Ida M. Lambeth, Robert M. Lockwood, Robert H. Ryan, Lamar Smith, Charles P. Zlatkovich Statistical Associate: Mildred Anderson Statistical Assistants: Constance Cooledge, Glenda Riley Statistical Technicians: Kay Davis, Lydia Gorena Computer Assistants: Richard Bernstein, Charles Jordan Cartographers: Penelope Lewis, James Weiler Librarian: Merle Danz Administrative Secretary: Jeanette Pryor Administrative Clerk: Nita Teeters Senior Secretary: Susan Murphy Senior Clerk Typists : Deborah Frishman, Stella Saxon Senior Clerk: Salvador B. Macias Clerks: Edward Hildebrandt, Karen Schmidt Offset Press Operators: Robert Dorsett, Daniel P. Rosas COVER DESIGN BY CHARLOTTE HAGE Published monthly by the Bureau of Business Research, Graduate School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex8' 78712. Second-class postage paid at Austin, Texas. Content of this publication is not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely, but acknowledgment of source will be appreciated. The views expressed by authors are not necessarily .those of the Bureau of Business Research. SubscriP· tion, $4.0-0 a year; individual copies 35 cents. The Bureau of Business Research is a member of the Associated University Bureaus of Business and Economic Research. THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS Joe H. Jones The recession in the Texas economy was clearly in evidence through the first half of 1970, with prospects for a significant economic recovery within the next six months appearing unlikely. Except for the encouraging upward turn taken in urban residential building permits issued, the principal economic indicators for TexaE continued to show the effect of the recession identified nationally with the decline of gross national product in the fourth quarter of 1969 and the first quarter of 1970. Gross national product, the total market value of all goods and services produced, turned through a cyclical low during the most recent three quarters in the United State3. In the fourth quarter of 1969 the seasonally adjusted gross national product in constant dollars declined 0.9 percent from the preceding quarter. Historically, this was the same relative decline in gross national product experienced in the one quarter of economic decline in 1967. For the first quarter of 1970 gross national product took a decisive drop of 2.9 percent from the last quarter of 1969. With source data on inventory investment and foreign trade incomplete on the initial release date, the preliminary figures for the second quarter of 1970 show a 0.3-percent increase in gross national product over the first quarter. Gross-product measures, which provide commonly ac cepted reference values for identification of national business cycles, are available for the nation but not for Texas or other states. Directly comparable values of out put, and, coincidentally, common reference points for state business cycles, are not available. One of the principal problems in the estimation of gross state product is the regional assignment of product for firms operating in several states. Of the income and product accounts reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the personal income received in a state is the most inclusive component available for comprehensive measure of state economic activity. For the most recent three quarters, during which gross national product expressed in constant dollars passed through a cyclical low, personal income in current dollars for Texas and the United States continued to increase moderately. For the two quarters ending in March 1970 state personal income increased 1.3 percent in each quarter over the preceding quarter. Nationally, the last quarter of personal income for the United States in 1969 was 1.4 percent over the preceding quarter, with the first quarter of personal income showing an increase of 1.9 percent. Preliminary estimates of personal income made for Texas by the Bureau of Business Research indicate. an increase for the second quarter of less than 1 percent over the first quarter of 1970. National figures released by the Department of Commerce show personal income for the second quarter of 1970 exceeding the first quarter value by over 2 percent. The consumer price index measures changes in prices paid for goods and services purchased by urban wage and salary workers to maintain a given standard of living. ESTIMATED PERSONAL INCOME, TEXAS lndez A.djulted for Setuonal Variation -1957-1959= 100 SOURCE: Quarterly measures of Texas personal income made by the Office of Business Economics, U.S. Department of Commerce. Monthly allocations of quarterly measures. and estimates of most recen t months. made by the Bureau of Business Research with regression relationships of time. bank debits. and manufacturing employment. AUGUST 1970 SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS As such, the consumer price index does not reflect pr~ce changes in all products purchased out of all personal mcome. Nevertheless, changes in the consumer price index do measure a significant, if restricted, class of purchases made from personal income. With the consumer price index for the nation continuing to advance at an annual rate exceeding 5 percent, the quarterly growth in personal income would need to be at least 1.5 percent greater than in the preceding quarter simply to maintain the same purchasing power over those goods and services grouped in the consumer price index. A separate consumer price index for Texas is not available, but on the reasonable assumption that the prices in the Texas urban wage and salary "market basket" have advanced at the same rate as the national average prices, state personal income in constant dollars has declined in terms of this restricted category of goods and services. The rate of personal-income growth for the state has undoubtedly lagged behind the rate of growth in the national consumer price index for the last quarter of 1969 and for the first two quarters of 1970. The national business cycle, as commonly measured in terms of gross national product in constant dollars, cannot be confirmed for Texas by direct reference to a similar state product account. Reference to changes in state personal income, the largest level of economic aggregation available for Texas, and comparison of state income changes with national averages of consumer price changes, show with sufficient conclusiveness that recession in the national economy has had a comparable effect on the economy of Texas. For the second quarter of 1970, which is identified tentatively as the beginning period of real increases in gross national product following a cyclical low in the first quarter, unemplo·yment in Texas increased significantly to 4.5 percent of the labor force in June. The real growth in nonagricultural employment which was typical of the first five months of this year did not continue through June. On a seasonally adjusted basis both total nonfarm employment and manufacturing employment declined in June from the levels reached in May. For the first half of 1970 manufacturing employment in the state increased only 1 percent over the first half of 1969. Total nonfarm employment increased 4 percent for these same comparable periods. As measured by employment, the manufacturing sector of the state economy has accounted fo,r a major proportion of the state econ-0·mic decline through June 1970. The seasonally adjusted index of industrial production for Texas computed by the Federal Reserve :\3ank of Dallas declined 1 percent from May to June 1970. From a high of 181.1 percent in January 1970, on a base for which the average. industrial production of 1957-1959 represents 100, the decline to 177.0 percent in June is a percentage decline of 2.3 percent in Texas industrial production for the first half of 1970. Of the principal labor-market areas of the state Austin, Dallas, Houston, Longview-Kilgore-Gladewater, and Tyler are the only market areas reporting unemployment rates lower than 4 percent of the area labor force. From a statewide low of 3.1 percent reported for Austin, the unemployment rate ranges to over 8 percent for Texarkana and Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito and to 11.2 190 (Indexes-Adjusted for seasonal variation-1957-1959=100) Percent change Year.to. date June May Year-todate average June 1970 from average 1970 from Index 1970 1970 1970 May 1970 1969 Estimated personal income 224.3* 215.5* 220.5 Crude-petroleum production .. 112.2'' Crude-oil runs to stills. 140.3 Total electric-power use . . 257 .6• 124.1 * 136.4 256.9'' 121.4 133.4 255.1 -2 3.. •• Industrial electric-power use .. 232.8" 228.3'' 231.9 2 Bank debits 314.6 287.0 298.8 10 10 Urban building permits issued 204.5 206.2 184,0 -1 -4 New residential .184.2 156.5 140.1 18 -13 New nonresidential . 231.3 298.5 256.5 -23 Total industrial prOduction 177.0'' 179.1* 178.6 -1 Total nonfarm employment . ... 150.4''' 150.8" 150.2 .;:o~ Manufacturing employment .. .. .. 151.6* 152.5''' 154.0 -1 Total unemployment . .118.6 97. 7 88.5 21 26 Insured unemployment 75.5 68.2 65.4 11 57 Average weekly earnings- manufacturing .. 149.0" 149.7" 149.1 :::~: Average weekly hours- manufacturing 98.5'' 99.3''' 99.4 -1 -2 Preliminary. Change is less than one half of l percent. BUSINESS-ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR 20 SELECTED TEXAS CITIES (Adjusted for seasonal variation and changes in the price level 1957-1959 100) Percent change Year-to-date average Year-to-date June 1970 1970 June':' May average from from Index 1970 1970 1970 May 1970 1969 Abilene .... 152.8 136.8 141.8 12 *~' Amarillo .. 204.1 186.9 202.5 Austin . 372.4 338.2 342.5 10 -4 Beaumont ....... ... 181.3 169.5 181.6 -7 Corpus Christi 164.3 158.1 161.7 Corsicana 158.5 155.4 163.0 Dallas .352.4 302.9 329.3 16 El Paso ... 168.2 141.1 155.9 19 Fort Worth . 186.0 196.S 185.7 -5 Galveston 138.3 122.7 133.1 13 Houston 286.1 265.8 273.8 8 Laredo ....... 267.6 224.8 252.1 19 Lubbock ............ 182.2 157.7 161.8 16 -5 Port Arthur 126.3 111.2 119.3 14 San Angelo 178.1 165.4 174.l 8 San Antonio 228.2 200.8 214.2 14 Texarkana .. 230.2 199.3 215.9 16 -13 Tyler 192.6 167.0 177.8 15 f;~: Waco ....208.9 194.4 198.7 7 Wichita Falls .....137.0 122.0 129.2 12 -7 * Preliminary. ** Change is less than one half of 1 percent. percent for Laredo. The relatively low unemployment rates in the manufacturing centers of Dallas and Houston indicate that the local effects of the state decline in manufacturing employment have been somewhat selective. Interest rates continue to hold at historic highs for the ESTIMATES OF NONAGRIC"CLTl"RAL E:\IPLOYME. "T L • TEXAS majority of funds markets. The rates on short-term Treas Percent change ury issues have declined significantly, but rates on state Employment (thousands) June 1970 June 1970 and municipal bonds have decreased relatively little. With June* from from Industry large numbers of potential debt issues withheld from the 1970 May 1970 June 1969 market during the peak period of interest rates last winter, the demand for funds and the pressure on interest rates will continue to be high. There is little prospect that declines in long-term interest rates will occur in the foreseeable future. Apparently, the housing recovery is in part attributable to consumer recognition of this fact of our current economic life. In four major retailing centers of Texas in the first half of 1970 retail sales increased strongly only in the Houston metropolitan area. As reflected in the report issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas for weekly department-store sales, retail sales in Houston for the first six months of 1970 exceeded those in the first six months of 1969 by 6 percent. On a comparable basis, de- TOTAL UNEMPLOYMENT, TEXAS ... ... --uo .. .. ,II l.a ""_, ~~ ~\ I 100 • ....J --'-'\J I.. A. A . A J .. ""'"'"7 "' •• 1fJ7 1fSI ltSt tHO IHI 1f62 19'3 lf64 19U It .. 19'7 1961 1'69 1t70 SOUi.CL Tea• Employm-l Comnu111-. Oat.a a.d,Juu 1d for ••• •orwil v1u•noa. by th1 au-• of a.... ,,, R••-rcb.. NOTE: Sb&ded ar -• tllid.1cat1 peraod1 of d1c;:lln1 of total bu1m 11t 1ct1.v1ry iJI the Un1t1d Stat11 NONAGRICL'LTL'RAL EMPWYMENT SELECTED LABOR-!llARKET AREAS Anticipated June May June Sept Labor-market area 1970 1970 1969 1970 Abilene 41,050 40,975 40,365 41,350 Amarillo 63,170 63,380 61,120 64,100 Austin 127,800 127,600 123,350 124,900 Beaumont-Port Arthur- Orange 119,000 119,900 121,000 120,900 Brownsville-Harlingen- San Benito 38,070 39,940 38,140 40,350 Corpus Christi 91,050 90,820 90,810 91,560 Dallas 726,200 726,600 708,800 733,400 El Paso 116,715 115,805 114,560 116,415 Fort Worth 305,200 305,200 29 ,000 305,900 Galveston-Texas City 67,450 65,900 57,900 64,000 Houston 875,000 868,000 20,900 884,100 Laredo 24,800 25,000 25,140 25,050 Long\1 iew-Kilgore- Gladewater 35,260 35,390 34, 05 35,700 Lubboek 63,430 63,295 64,440 64,190 McAllen 44,560 45,580 44,930 42,970 Midland-Odessa 60,880 62,330 62,225 62,800 San Angelo 23,785 23,920 23,545 24,215 San Antonio 288,300 291,900 292,900 291,350 Texarkana 40,6 0 40,940 42,960 41,000 Tyler 40,620 40,210 37,7 0 41,300 \\'aco 59,530 59,640 59,385 59,530 Wichita Falls 48,215 47, 0 50,405 48,850 Total, labor-market areas .3,300,765 3,300,205 3,213,460 3,323,930 TOTAL NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT MANUFACTURING Durable goods Lumber and wood products Furniture and fixtures Stone, clay, and glass products Primary~metal industries Fabricated-metal products Machinery, except electrical . Oilfield machinery Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies 53.6 Transportation equipment 97.1 Aircraft and parts 71.0 Instruments and related products 11.4 Other durable goods . 15.9 Nondurable goods 331.1 Food and kindred products. 86.1 Meat products 18.1 Malt liquors 2.7 Textile-mill products 7.3 Apparel and other finished textile products 59.7 Paper and allied products 17.4 Printing, publishing, and allied industries 39.9 Chemicals and allied products 63.6 Industrial chemicals 30.9 Petroleum and coal products. 39.5 Petroleum refining 37.0 Leather and leather products. 4.4 Other nondurable goods. 13.2 NONMANUFACTURING ....3,001.2 ... .. 2 2 -1 -2 -3 -2 "" ·~ 2 2 -2 -1 -4 cooperation .. 3,741.2 740.0 408.9 22.3 16.9 30.7 35.7 54.0 71.3 28.9 -2 -4 -4 -2 -2 -2 -2 -7 -6 -3 -2 -27 1 2 2 29 -6 -1 -1 -1 4 5 -1 -2 -2 4 -3 7 6 ·I 3 -1 -3 7 2 -2 with the Mining Crude petroleum and natural gas Metal, coal, and other mining Contract construction Transportation, communication, and public utilities Interstate raiIroads Other transportation Communication Public utilities Trade Wholesale trade Retail trade Building materials, hardware, and farm equipment General merchandise Food stores Automotive dealers and service stations Apparel and accessories Other retail trade Finance, insurance, and real estate Banking Insurance Real estate and other finance Services. and miscellaneous Hotels and lodging places Laundries and cleaning and dyeing plants Other services and miscellaneous Government Federal government State go\·ernment Local government ,... Preliminary. 105.2 98.3 6.9 250.3 270.3 29.7 139.7 54.8 46.1 893.1 258.2 634.9 33.8 131.9 100.3 101.8 38.9 228.2 196.6 49.0 76.6 71.0 626.9 42.3 36.8 547.8 658.8 166.1 129.3 363.4 <> Change is less than one half of 1 percent. Source: Texas Employment Commission in Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. Te."-to explore. the why's along with the who's and ~hen'~ and how's. Teams of teachers representing numerous disciplines, including English, explore all aspects of a problem, with. personalized study in areas of personal interest, and with full use of all available community resources. The teacher shows the student how to ferret out information for himself, rather than telling him, emphasizing multiethnic and multicultural considerations. In such a situation teachers, who have become leaders of discussion rather than lecturers, are themselves voracious learners trying to "keep on their toes." Work in science in the seventies will be more and more investigative-in the laboratory, in the school science garden or nature park, or even further afield. The technique will require the. student to watch, then wonder why. He will be taught to follow the basic steps of the scientist in defining the problem, gathering the facts for solution, evaluating the facts, and drawing conclusions. In mathematics, too, the emphasis is on the "why" as well as the "how" of mathematical formulas. This program also is being progressively stepped up in Texas high schools, with prealgebra in the seventh grade and full algebra in the eighth. More team teaching, more use of computers in classrooms, more math laboratories in the school, more preparation in the techniques of math, together with the major change-the search for the whyare developing students ripe for easy training by business and industry to work the specialized machinery of the future. Current techniques in the study of English reflect the increasing interest in current social issues. Marerials for study include supplementary readers of wide range, literature by and about minority groups, second-language programs, courses combining subject areas in various ways. Composition laboratories provide dictation and transcription equipment for use in individual remedial work. AUGUSI' 1970 Meanwhile private educational industries are applying business methods to the production of instructional programs designed to prevent dropouts. Contracts with school districts provide for instruction of potential educationai casualties to increase their skills in mathematics, reading, and study generally, and for monetary compensation in accordance with the success of the program. Texarkana and the Liberty-Eylau Independent School District are already operating these guaranteed-success programs in accelerated learning, which offer quality control and accountability in public education where political factors preclude internal experiment ·with curriculum. Contracts with private industry for rapid-learning centers are fast becoming the vogue across the country, with Dallas, San Diego, Detroit, Portland, and Philadelphia in negotiations, and with Virginia considering a statewide contract. Plans in the Dallas District call for work-study programs to enable potential dropouts from economic causes, especially Mexican Americans, to remain in school. Many Texas educators expect greatly expanded futur~ use of performance contracting for instructional services in Texas, especially for potential dropouts in Grades 7-12. On college and university campuses also personalized teaching is becoming more common, with greater free dom for the student in the formation of majors and in schedules, wider selection of electives~ less rigid adherence to sequence of courses, more student decision in the building of his personal curriculum. Traditional classes will soon be· only a memory among old Texas-ex's. The four-year lockstep with a prescribed number of credit hours for graduation will disappear in appreciable degree during the seventies. The already common practice of early admissions and advanced standing presages the demise of the rigid credit-hour system. Curriculums are becoming less fragmented, more interrelated among disci plines, and more relevant to student needs. Measurement of Progress. When the individual student is the focus of education, grades evaluating his efforts in terms of that of another student are meaningless. Grades have never worked as an indication of learning progress. What students need is the expectation of success, in some measure. Advance toward a goal at a student's own rate, rather than by set levels-without comparisons for slow ness or rapidity with others-provides opportunity for a sense of accomplishment and the motivation for continuing effort. Individualized instruction assumes that all stu dents can grow and develop, with oontinuous progress in a curriculum planned for him, with his help, and by means of a methodology devised for him by an understanding teacher, or a team of perceptive, sympathetic teachers. On the college level student achievement by 1980 will be defined on a basis quite different from grades given in specified courses with a specified number of credit hours. Degrees will be measured in terms of the student's real achievement in accomplishing the goals set up for him. Frequent examinations and tests, many of them computer oriented and self-administered, will indicate to the stu dent, and to associated faculty members, both how and where he has advanced and what and where the gaps are in his training. Batteries of large-scale examinations will supplement already existing and continually improved advance-pla.Cement; college-entrance, graduate-record, professional, and aptitude tests. By 1980 all degrees will be granted on completion of an individualized program and on the basis of learning achieved, rather than credit hours. Such degrees will require better coordination of the student's major field with a liberal education. Degree programs will be designed to develop the student's capacity to function as a responsible citizen, to support himself and his family in the economy of the future, to use his leisure well, and to continue learning throughout his life. Comprehensive examinations to test adequate completion of these individualized degree programs will be held before a board of examiners consisting of neutral faculty members from the major disciplines induded in the student's program, and his program advisor. The coverage of these examinations will be determined by the definition of each particular degree and the student's major. Their specific object will be to discover the student's ability to organize knowledge in dealing with new problems and situations. Better Teachers. Democratized individualized education is impossible without high-quality teachers. Since ~he quality required is not too commonly found, the problem would be hopeless except for three factors which will make possible a wider spread in the utilization of the services of gifted teachers. One factor for such increased spread is the relief coming to teacherir from technology, which will perform, through technicians, most of the routine chores now commonly included among the teach ers' endless duties, thus allowing them to use their time in more challenging and professional tasks: planning, production, and development of educative materials, in cluding computer programs, and personal work with students in conferences and evaluation. A second means of spreading high-quality teachers where they are need ed is the development of a hierarchy of educational stalf, ranging from paraprofessionals such ·as the education technician, who will operate and take care of the tech nological devices and other mechanical instruments of in struction; clerks; and teaching aides, who will help mon itor carrels, grade tests through computer punch cards, and keep records; to the highly trained and gifted te!lcher. .These talented teachers will be better than their prede cessors. They will be technology-oriented and computer trained; th~y will be more highly skilled professionally; they will possess great enthusiasm, insight, and idealism; they will be friends to students; they will be humanized, truly educated men and women well-fitted to humanize students. Redirection of Teacher Training. Production of such highly qualified teachers requires changes in the Texas system of teacher training. All teachers over thirty years of age have serious deficiencies for effective performance in the schools of the seventies. With little basis for under standing automated personalized education. for develop· ment of 'au citizens to their full capacity, subject· oriented teachers find difficulty in conceiving a future for education other than as a projection of the past in which they were trained. In-service training mu.st rtr educate them in the concepts and techniques of the future TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW just as teacher-training institutions have changed, and continue to change, curriculums and procedures to prepare new teachers for the future. The new teacher training must provide a new kind of major, cultural areas combining numerous disciplinesa "new container for specialization," such as urbanization, Latin America, ethnic problems--so that teachers can use the problem-oriented, problem-solving approach. The report of the Governor's Committee on Texas Public Education recognized certain weaknesses in the training of . Texas elementary and secondary teachers, and made strong corrective recommendations. It asked for ·changes in certification and in teacher-training programs, lamenting inadequate time provided for in-service training, the lack of training incentives, and the unimaginative training programs, which ignored systems approaches and teaching of the educationally handicapped, and which made inadequate provision for on-the-job experience under supervision. These needs will be met with increasing adequacy by Texas teacher-training institutions. Probable directions to be taken are suggested by current programs of three forward-looking groups on the Austin campus of The University of Texas. The Computer-~isted Instruction Laboratory, during several years' experience as an organization within a college of education at a large state university, has suc cessfully explored the capabilities of the computer for achievement of an intensive degree of individualization not previously possible for mass education. In cooperation with other agencies CAI has initiated several rewarding programs: curriculum development and evaluation in chemistry and mathematics; the English Prerequisite Skills project; feasibility studies in the applicability of computer-assisted instruction to the problems of Mex ican American students, for example, in bilingual reading instruction; Classroom '75, the development of languages, models, terminal devices, and new course material using computer methods. CAI sees as one of its important roles in the College of Education the fostering of change in teacher-education programs and in Texas schools. The Research and Development Center for Teacher Education is one of nine national R and D Centers spon sored by the U. S. Office of Education, each with a differ ent focus for research and development in education. The Texas Center is oriented toward personalization in teach ing and explores the effective use of new educational in struments by teachers who understand the nature and the needs of the learners in addition to the character and use of knowledge, the capabilities of technology, the impor tance of environmental influences on learning. The basic concern of the Center is with the training of the teacher individually by means of guided self-analysis and self evaluation so that she learns to study and understand students individually. The Center is engaged in discover ing the methods, developing the technology, finding the new organizational patterns through which education can he made a systematically personalized experience. The Research and Development Center for College In struction of Science and Mathematics focuses its activities on individualized personalized instruction in the sciences. It has been interested in curriculum revision and surveys, but has now directed much of its activity into the development of single-concept films, and is exploring computerassisted instruction in its tutorial and supplementary potentialities for individualized learning, and in its effectiveness as a predictive device in analysis of students. The New Status of the Teacher. By necessity the teacher of the future, on all levels, will be more highly professional than in the past. Higher standards, better training, increased individual responsibility will result in greater self-confidence and professional self-esteem. Competition for the services of gifted teachers will sharply increase because of new markets in need of them-the production of the software requisite to the effective use of the new technology, the enlarging programs of business and industry to provide educational opportunity for employees and potential employees, and contract programs for specialized instruction. This competition will result in higher economic and social status for teachers. At the same time, the improved quality of teachers-their heightened sense of responsibility, their increased insight into the meaning of teaching, their deeper understanding of the needs and the potential of individual students, their realization of the possibilities in education-will deepen their dedication to the cause of education on all fronts. Highly conscious of the crucial role of education in the future of Texas and the nation they will fight for education's proper share of the wealth of an affluent society. It seems almost inevitable that future teachers will organize more highly and more generally to achieve the ends of education. The Teacher in Higher Education. Although teachers on all levels of education have similar objectives, share the same social environment, practice common techniques, need comparable qualities for success, and benefit equally from technology, teachers in colleges and universities have some peculiar problems resulting from the schizophrenia in defining the role of the faculty member in higher education. Since many educators consider research the basic responsibility of the university the question often arises, What is the mission of the professor: to transmit knowledge, to create additional knowledge, to develop men? The university, with its increasing emphasis on research and publication, its recruiting of faculty from graduate institutions, its growing dependence upon foundation and government grants, has become a less and less congenial environment for the true teacher. The scholar who is not also a true teacher (the combination is rare) has no interest in students except as developing scholars, little concern for the future of man as the human species. As faculties become filled preponderantly with scholars, students experience frustration at the lack of sympathy from their teachers, the lack of relevance of courses to life. A divorce between teaching and research seems to many the only ·answer. Universities should restore the faculty-student relationship by recognizing differences in competence and personality among faculty members, and by assigning some faculty staff to teaching, s?me .to research some to administration, so that the uruvers1ty faculty 'can best contribute to the multiple functions of the institution without jeopardizing the prestige or the effectiveness of teaching. AUGUST 1970 The Kew Status for Special Education Preparation of a curriculum which wi_ll pro~ide e~~~tion for all children regardless of variance m ab1hties and differences in social, economic, and ethnic background has requiretl a special approach-and a special ~duc.ation. Texas came into this field in 1945. Increased realization of the need for special planning for educationally handicapped children resulted in 1965 in a State Plan for Special Education, which was revised t~is year. ~o ~mbody the changing concepts in education, hab1htat10n, and vocations. The Texas Plan makes special provision for the physically handicapped, the mentally retarded, the emotionally disturbed, the otherwise educationally disadvantaged ·(a~ a result of economic and racial factors), and the homebound (including pregnant girls). The program begins with early identification for eligibility to special classes, with parent or guardian approval. Headstart and government day-care programs, devel oped by the Johnson Administration and expanded by the Nixon Administration into the welfare program, give pre cedence to children disadvantaged through poverty or cul tural differences. The new Texas kindergarten program stipulates that children of the poor shall be given prece dence, in an effort to remove language deficiencies and other disadvantages resulting from low economic status or minority racial background. Until recently the program has segregated disadvantaged children into classes where specially trained teachers pro vided training, through special techniques, to reduce the disadvantage. Recently, however, special education in Texas has revised its philosophy, putting less emphasis on the problem and more on the resulting educational need. As quickly as possible children are phased into regular classes, where they associate with their neighbors in the main stream of education, spending only part of their time in special classes with children sharing their handicap. As the concept of personalized individualized instruc tion gains acceptance this new approach with handicapped children will become more common, and more satisfactory, since the potentially embarrassing element of competition with others will be replaced by an internal-reward system. Encouragement for the future comes too from expected social changes of the seventies: increased real income, higher educational level of low-income families, expan sion of preschool education, a more enlightened public atti tude, better teachers, improved techniques for disad vantaged children, slowly decreasing racial and economic segregation in schools and communities, and a gradually decreasing gap between standards of living and between social attitudes and values. The New Urban Education "Citified" A rnerica. Industrialization, with consequent urbanization, has progressed so far in this country that America has become a nation of cities, 75 percent of its citizens living in urban areas. The same trends in Texas have brought over four fifths of Texans to the towns and cities of 2,500 population and over. Even in the villages and on the farms the flavor and style of urban living have exerted strong influence, so that the urbanities are common everywhere. The drift of the cities, unfortunately, has intensified and multiplied urban problems. Urban renewal, use of the land, housing, traffic, juvenile delinquency, crime; . waste disposal, pollution, food shortages for the poor, provision for public education, the general misery of minority groups"'-all these issues urgently demand solutions for domestic ills, while the issues of peace and international security add their tensions and anxieties. Although urban life has fostered the economy and the cultural development of America, its turmoil and variety and frenetic pace-added to its impersonality in hunian relations and its detachment from nature-have made city existence difficult. Integration and the Ghetto. The complexity of urban life in contrast to the relative simplicity of rural living, has' posed for urban education more than the usual problems. The nation's most urgent task in education . is to provid~ for the children of the poor, especially among minority groups, an education that will enable them to become persons fully sharing in the privileges and the responsibilities of citizenship. The extreme poverty and the low level of education in the ghettos impose on education the added burden of taking over responsibilities in training which are normally assumed by the faniily. For Texas this means special care for children of both black and Latin American communities, a task Texas has already assumed in· heartening measure. For proper meeting of this responsibility the schools must begin training children from infancy, no later than two and a half years of age, in kindergarten-creches. Here the language problem can be attacked at an age when it is easier to solve; here dietary and health prob lems, major impairments to intellectual development, cari be identified and solved; here physical abnormalities can be discovered with a chance for early correction, so that children hav: a fairer chance in later schooling. Elementary schools must be improved, with rehabilita tion of their rapidly deteriorating plants and with the employment of teachers specially prepared to . overcome their superproblems, by means of intensive remedial tech niques. Integration must be expedited in every feasible manner. With intensified and expanded preschool training, increasing integration, new teaching methods, and tech nological aids the pace of learning will increase so that ghetto children can enter junior high school on the level with other children. The New Budget The Key to Education in the Seventies. Money-or the lack of it-will determine how fully the possibilities of a rewarding innovative education can be achieved during the new decade. Costs of education are rising faster than the cost of living, faster than land values. An acu~ finan cial crisis has spread through all levels of education and into all types of educational institutions, bringing fears of bankruptcy and .extinction for marginal private col leges and creating the possibility of curtailed programs for all educational institutions. Education has become the nation's new growth industry. Operating at a $44-billion level (6 percent of GNP) in TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 1968, it is estimated to reach $70 billion in 1977, and to be just under $600 billion by 2000 (25 percent of GNP). The national bill for equipment and materials, including textbooks, was $2 billion in 1968; it is estimated at $10 billion for 1974, with textbooks in continuously decreasing share. Along with expanded and enriched programs, and greatly increased expenditures for costly machines, a basic factor in rising costs is inflation, which increases dollar expenditures for ~very budgetary item. Student violence contributes to rising costs, directly through loss of property-which must be replaced-and indirectly through rising insurance premiums. Increased expenditures are accompanied by dwindling income. State legislatures are experiencing difficulty in finding funds adequate to future needs. Their zeal in the search is dampened by their constituents', and their own, disaffection with dissenting students and aversion to increased taxes. The business and financial segment of the economy, frequently generous in donations to local institutions, is less open-handed where student protests have resulted in violence. Alumni, too, are reacting negatively to student demonstrations, reducing, or eliminating, their gifts to alma mater. The federal government, in its fiscal efforts to control inflation, has reduced grants to colleges and universities. The declining stock market has resulted in reduced book values for endowment investments, even in reduced income in some cases, and in a feeling of "poverty" among usually liberal contributors. Private colleges and universities, forced to rely on student tuition in lieu of legislative appropriations, are in desperate situation. The plight of private educational institutions and the great need for educational facilities have brought about a trend among private colleges and universities toward affiliation with state systems. In Texas the University of Houston is an outstanding example of such a merger induced by the cost crisis. The Coordinating Board of the Texas College and Univerility System reports that per-student appropria tions for public senior colleges and universities increased progressively and consistently from $501 in the 1953-1955 biennium to $996 in the 1967-1969 biennium, with about $1,098 for 1969~1971. For public junior colleges the range was from $178 in 1955-1957 to $465 in 1967-1969, with about $545 for 1969-1971. The Board reports for public senior colleges and universities an increase of 56.6 percent in per-student appropriations from the General Revenue Fund in 1969 over those of 1962, and projects an increase of 28.3 percent in 1976 (latest projection available) over the per-student appropriation in 1969. For public junior colleges the comparable increases were 79.2 percent in 1969 over 1962, with 39.6 percent the projected increase in 1976 over the appropriation in 1969. The Board's projected total capital outlay for public higher education until 1975 (including junior colleges) is $296,700,000. Elementary and secondary schools are in as deep financial trouble as that of higher education. They too are threatened by public resistance to tax increases, by voter failure to approve school bond issues, by lagging federal aid, by the need for new and expensive technological · equipment, by teacher pressure for higher salaries (buttressed by strikes or the threat of strikes). Across the nation education costs on these two levels have reached an estimated $39.49 billion, two and a half times the $15.61 bil~on of 1959-1960, with local taxpayers paying 52.7 perceM, the federal government paying 6.6 percent, and the state governments paying 40.7 percent. Most of the local school-tax money comes from property taxes, but public schools cannot expect greatly increased income from taxes in the future. The public is rebelling, and land values are lagging behind increasing educational costs. Many educators and tax analysts argue that the property-tax system is an anachronism anyhow, held over from the old days when agriculture and land were the basis of the economy, and that it should be replaced by a system more fully representative of current wealth, to include, for example, stocks, bonds, bank STATE-SUPPORTED 001'STRUCTION Senior colleges and universities . Six new institutions Existing 22. institutions . Medical schools Expansion of e.xisting public unitsb . New public units (Houston). Expansion of Baylor Medical Unit. Dental schools New unit (San Antonio) . Expansion of Baylor Dental Unit. Totals for state-supported construction . LoCALLY SUPPORTED COXSTR CTION Public junior colleges . St.:MMARY OF PROJECTIONS OF SPACE NEEDS AND RELATED COSTS FOR TEXAS Pt.:BLIC HIGHER EDt.:CATION BY 1975 Additional students Estimated served costs (88,200) ($212,000,000) 17 ,600 132,000,000• 70,600 80,000,000 (468) (49,500,000) 192C 19,400,000 200' 22,500,000 76' 7 ,600,000 (200) (19,900,000) 1[)0C 15,000,000 5oc 4,900,000 ... .... .. 88,868 S281,400,000 105,000 s120.ooo,ooo Estimated federal Balance support by 1973 of costs (850,000.000) ($162,000,000) 20,000,000 112,000,000 30.000,000 50,000,000 (24,750,000) (24,750,000) 9,700,000 9,700,000 11,250,000 11,250,000 3,800,000 3,800,000 (9,950,000) (9,950,000) 7,500,000 7,500.000 2,450,000 2,450,000 $84,700.000 $196,700,000 S20,000,000 s 100.ooo.ooo• • Although the cost estimate for all 6 campuses by 1980 is $150 million, the last of the six will not start before 1975. Therefore, $18 million for that campus is not included here. . . . t t f .· t I b Does not include expansion at Galveston Medical Branch to 200 entering freshmen. which would require additional P1an cos s o approx1ma e Y $5,000,000 ( 50 percent federal). ~ Increase in entering class. . I d fed I es if the public junior colleges are able d This figure is provided to indicate the estimated amount which will be reqmred from loca an era sourc to accommodate the portion of the total enrollment growth assigned to them by the Coordinating Board.. 000 000 II be ired in the 1970-1971 biennium. Note: To permit the necessary planning work to proceed on the six new campuses S6, · WI requ Source: Coordinating Board, Te.xas College and University System. accounts, and education and job skills, or income. Soaring school taxes average nationally a 140-percent increase over the past ten years, 10 percent per child per year. Five years ago the national average school-tax income per child was $454; this year it is $717. In Texas, per capita expenditures of local and state funds increased from $429.25 in 1960-1961 to $686.86 in 1967-1968, a rise of 60 percent over seven years. Projections of Texas Education Agency data indicate that per capita expenditures will be $866.59 in 1968--1969, $1,093.37 in 1969-1970, $1, 302.03 in 1975-1976, and $1,549.34 in 1980-1981. On this basis the increase between 1960-1961 and 1980-1981 would be 260 percent. Pressure is building on the state for additional help. Schools in the poorer districts may be forced to cut corners-by ceasing to operate, by converting to half-day sessions and a reduced year, by curtailing of programs such as art, music, physical education, mental health, and advanced language study, by reduction of faculty. An Overall Solution. Present demands on the educational system-for training the increasing hordes of students of all ages, for greater comprehensiveness of offering, for greatly improved quality-will continue, and will be supplemented in 1980 by new and unpredictable demands. Traditional facilities and methods and objectives are critically inadequate to the needs and must be replaced by a more efficient system. The best hope for that system is the automation of education into a system that provides individualized, progressive instruction and opportunity for the student-from the lowest preschool level to the most sophisticated graduate studies-to work on his own, at his own pace, in developing himself to the ultimate of his potential. Such an objective entails a stupendous growth in educational expenditures, carrying them to undreamed levels. Only a major national effort, under federal funding and leadership, can generate sufficient momentum to solve the associated problems. Research must be stimulated to investigate all aspects of the ambitious program, particularly the future economics of education and the efficient uses of technology for a balance between the jobs that technological systems can perform and the jobs needed in the educational cycle. The essential components of a fully implemented and automated education system, requiring by its very nature a high degree of centralization, must be coordinated. The curriculum must be reformed. The best products of this national effort_must be made available to all institutions throughout the nation. EXPENDITURES FOR 1960-71 74,449,876 136,500 (est.) 545 17.20 "Number of FTE students during fall semester. Note: The above amounts for senior colleges and universities in· elude supplemental appropriations to the Texas Commission on Higher Education or Coordinating Board, Texas-College and University System, for allocation to the public senior colleges and universities. The structure of education on all levels must be reorganized for greater compatibility with the new technologies of instruction. Many economists feel that the expanding gross national product, with an increasing share _devoted to education, will be adequate for financing, and for realizing, this dream. In addition to money, a high and widely shared dedication of purpose will be essential to the development of an educational system which can truly .democratize America. TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS TEXAS BIENNIAL LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS, APPROPRIATIONS PER STUDENT, AND PERCENTAGE INCREASE lN APPROPRIATIONS PER STUDENT ALL FUNDS Number Appropriof FTE Biennium ated students PUBLIC SENIOR COLLEGES 1953-5& (18 Inst.) . S 62,446,749 124,619 1955-57 80,276,695 154,527 1957-59 103,648,933 163,505 1959-61 117,805,857 178,498 1961-63 (19 Inst.) 144,465,343 213,169 1963-65 (20 Inst.) 197,103,622 273,854 1965-67 (22 Inst.) 287,096,051 348,016 1967-69 403,832.265 405,634 Percentage Appropriated increase in per FTE appropriationsstudent per FTE student AND UNIVERSITIES 501 519 3.59 634 22.16 660 4.10 678 2.73 720 6.19 825 14.58 996 20.73 1960-71 514,036,105 468,000 (est.) l,098 10.24 PUBLIC JUNIOR 1955-57 (31 Inst.) . S 7,740,000 43,421 1957-59 (32 Inst.) 9,498,090 47,696 1959-61 10,355,994 49,058 1961-63 (33 Inst.) 14,212,000 57,598 1963-65 (32 Inst.) 16,539,930 60,598 1965-67 (31 Inst.) 26,260,620 79,782 1967-69 (40 Inst.) 50,058,150 107,719 COLLEGES• 178 199 11.80 211 6.03 247 17.06 273 10.53 329 20.51 465 41.34 1960-1961, 1964-1965, 1967-1968 with Projections for 1968-1969, 19i5-19i6, 1980-81 By school districts and county superin· From state Total Average daily Per capitaYear tendents' offices funds expenditures attendance cost 1960-61 s 803,892,000 s 8,406,000" $ 812,298,000t 1,892,365 s 429.25 1964-65 Sl,118,273,000 $ 67,657 ,000 $1,185,930,000 2,185.232· $ 542.70 1967-68 $1,515,445,000 s 92,236,000 $1,607,681.000 2,340,637 $ 686,86 1968-69t $2,045,850,000 $125,441,000 $2.171,291,000 2,504,482 $ 866.59 1969-70t $2.,761,898,000 $170,600,000 $2,929,998,000 2,679,795 $1,093.37 1975-76t $4,032,371,000 $259,312,000 $4,291,683,000 3,296,148 $1,302.03 1980-8 U $5,887,261,000 s 394,154 $6,281,415,000 4,054,262 $1,549.34 " Textbooks only; administration costs for Texas Education Agency not included; funds for Texas Teacher Retirement System not included. t No costs for Texas Education Agency and Texas Teacher Retirement System included. t Projections by Bureau of Business Research on basis of Texas Education Agency data. Source: Texas Education Agency, Annuai Statistical Report. 200 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW TEXAS IN THE SEVENTIES 7. TIME FOR A HOUSING BREAKTHROUGH Robert H. Ryan Texas' major cities are growing faster than their housing capacity. Onlywith sweeping technological and economic changes will they be ableto meet their residents' needs. By the most conservative estimate, Texas will have be required in the suburbs of those cities. In fact, it is 12.7 million residents by 1980, nearly 2 million more expected that virtually all of the state's populationthan the 10.8 million counted by this year's census. growth will take place in the standard metropolitan statisEven with that increase Texas will undoubtedly be able tical areas.to offer its citizens employment opportunities, educaFurther, the fastest population gains are being seen intional facilities, and most of the requirements for a decent those sectors of urban population least able to affordlife. But there is one critical exception. There is serious new or even adequate housing. The nonwhite populationquestion of whether Texans will be adequately housed. is growing about one-quarter faster than the white Anglo Many thousands, even today, are without reasonably ac population, and the Spanish-surname population is inceptable places to live. In ten years the situation could creasing half again as rapidly as the Anglos. New housbe worse. ing for lower-income members of these minority groupsHomebuilding has been harder hit by inflation than cannot be provided without subsidies. They can only hopeany other major industry. Construction labor costs have that more fortunate Texans will be able to upgrade theirsoared without matching increases in productivity. Buildliving conditions rapidly enough to be vacating hand-meing lots have multiplied in price. Interest rates, with down housing units still in decent condition. In any case, their built-in multiplier effect, have risen by more than a the geography of most American cities, in Texas or any third in seven years. As a result of the cost squeeze many other state, tends to reflect the boundaries drawn by de families have purchased new houses built to shoddy facto ethnic segregation. Old-but-decent housing left vastandards, houses that will join the inventory of dilapida cant by upward-mobile Anglos is commonly isolated fromtion before they are paid for. Negro or Chicano neighborhoods, separated by expressDuring the decade of the sixties Texas' population ways, commercial corridors, or the heavily symbolic railgrew by about 1.4 million. To house that many people road tracks.would have required 655,000 new residential units, asNeither the state nor the nation has done a great dealsuming 2.75 occupants per unit. (That ratio is below the about housing for low-income families, of which Texasstate average of 3.0 in 1960 but is representative of most has more than its share. Yet one year's appropriationlarger cities, where population growth has been concenof about $5 billion for farm subsidies could build at leasttrated.) In fact, 734,000 new housing units were authora quarter-million housing units or could provide subsidyized in Texas during the decade, providing an apparent incentives for construction of j;en times that many.surplus of 79,000 homes. However, in 1960 there were In Texas, more than in most states, the sharpest needs537,000 houses classed by the Census Bureau as "deteriofor housing are so highly localized that they are unseenrating." (Some 235,000 of these lacked plumbing facilby most of the state's residents. The 1960 Census ofities.) And an additional 242,000, worst yet, were labeled"dilapidated," the Census synonym for "almost hopeless." :\E\\' HOl"S!. ·c "EEDED TO !\1ATCH 1970 19 O POPl'LAT!O.. GROWTH L. TEX\~·It becomes clear, then, that far from providing 79,000 ~E\ E•• LARGFST CITIFSmore than the needed number of housing units, Texasfell 700,000 units short of fully adequate housing for City Number of units all residents. (Nor do those statistics take account of the Austin 22,900number of sound homes lost to fire or demolished to make Corpus Christi ...17,100 69,800 way for expressways and other projects.) Dallas El Paso 22,200In this decade, that begins with a serious deficit in housFort Worth ..26,900ing, Texas population growth will call for construction Houston 99,300 of another 655,000 housing units before 1980. Almost half San Antonio 44,000 of those homes will be needed in Texas' seven largest Note: Estimates are based on conservative projections of populationcities, as the following table shows. Thousands more will gro"rth, assuming 2.75 occupants per housing unit. AUGUST 1970 201 Housing classified a quarter of all Texas housing units as less than sound. Two thirds of all housing units were over ten years old, meaning that most of them dated to the years before World War II. To be sure, conditions were better in some places. In Dallas' and Houston's glossy suburbs almost everyone was well-enough housed. For example, only 0.8 percent of the houses were substandard in West University Place. But along the Lower Rio Grande, in the so-called "Magic Valley," it seemed that even magic would hardly suffice to fill the need for better housing. In Mercedes only 32.6 percent of all homes were sound and had full plumbing facilities, and in the Valley as a whole, probably not more than half. In 1960 Austin had 11,400 substandard housing units, San Antonio had 47,900, and Houston, 55,400. Certainly some progress has been made in most cities since 1960, but almost all are still deficient. The accompanying balance sheet for housing in Texas' largest cities builds upon a recent study by L. J. Cohen, of Corpus Christi. While the statistics are only illustra tive, they give some measure of the unbridged gap. Among the cities listed, San Antonio, El Paso, and Corpus Christi have welf'over 2.75 occupants per housing unit-in other words more large or overcrowded families than most cities. But the fact of overcrowding can hardly be taken as a justification for it. Of the seven largest cities only Dallas appears to have a margin of surplus housing, but even that indicator may be questionable. Complete data on housing demolition in all seven cities are not available; neither is full informa tion on the number of units destroyed by fire, moved outside the city limits, or converted to nonresidential uses. During the decade much Texas housing demolition has been prompted by freeway development or by special projects, such as the Chamizal Settlement in El Paso or the upcoming Model Cities program in San Antonio. Of course the balance sheet assumes that all houses classed in the 1960 Census as dilapidated or deteriorating were taken out of service before 1970, and that is far from true. The economics of housing in cities with more t.han their share of low-income families, such as El Paso and San Antonio, virtually rules out the possibility of every family's having sound, modern housing in the foreseeable future. Certainly some housing that was sound ten years ago has deteriorated since then. No solid inventory of 1970 housing in Texas will be available until the details of the 1970 Census are published. Even then some of the data presented will represent a fairly wide range of subjective judgments by census enumerators. A new study of the Texas Research League mixes hope and despair in its appraisal of the housing situation. The TRL population forecasts point toward smaller families and more childless marriages, which will eventually help relieve pressure on the housing market and which will enable many families to make do with smaller quarters. This trend has seemingly cast its shadow before it in the upsurge of apartment construction during the sixties. On the other hand, the Research League has already warned Governor Preston Smith that housing needs will increase faster than the population, even without taking replacement requirements into account. Further, the League has adopted a population projection somewhat higher than the very conservative forecast offered here. The housing market is suffering most from two basic problems. First of course is the high price of building itself. Last year's 15-to-16-percent increase in construction wages has been construed as representing a shortage of building-trades workmen. Yet their high wages have often been defended. on the grounds that they cannot be certain of full-time employment. U.S. Department of Labor figures show, nevertheless, that contract construction workers averaged more hours of employment per week last year (38.0) than the average for all the nation's nonfarm production workers (37.7). The accompanying graph charts the astonishing gains that have carried many building-trade workers into the over-$6.00-per-hour wage class, including fringe benefits. In Houston, for example, the average construction worker earns $212 for a 40-hour week, but many work as much as 60 hours per week, putting them well over the $1,000a-month level. (Such workers' families would rank among Texas' 15 percent most'affluent families.) Granted that a majority of building workmen make somewhat less than that, they are still-all of them-well up on the income scale in a state where 1969 per capita income was $3,254. Though residential building has lagged seriously in the past year, emplo·yment in building trades has been supported by nonresidential building, which is moving faster in Texas this year than ever before. Several approaches to the problem of construction labor costs have been suggested. The most obvious ·need BALANCE SHEET FOR 1960-1970 HOUSING IN TEXAS' LARGEST CITIES The 1960-1970 Replacement of all Replacement of homes population growth units classed in 1960 demolished 1960-1969 would have required as deteriorating or would have required this many new units dilapidated would approximately at 2.75 persons have taken this many this manyCity per unit:'' new units: new units: Austin ............12,910 9,856 4,000 Corpus Christi ... 13,766 9,799 2,500 Dallas . 56,876 38,227 8,500 El Paso 14,827 15,267 1,400 Fort Worth 11,620 21,773 9,000 Houston ..99,894 47,280 5,ZOO San Antonio .. 21,989 37,585 2,700 (• The typical 1960 ratio in many major cities. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census and reports from city building authorities. This many new housing The decade ended units were actually with this apparent authorized for condeficiency (-) or struction during the surplus (+) in each decade: city: 36,405 + 639 12,151 -13,914 108,365 + 4,762 23,733 -7,761 26,171 -16,222 142,590 -9,784 44,720 -17,554 is for strong emphasis on mechanization. In an age when even bowling pins are set up automatically, bricks are still being stacked much as they were in antiquity. With electrostatic spray painting in factory use throughout the nation, house paint is still daubed on with hog bristles or the equivalent. A second basic problem of the housing industry is that mortgage investments are hardly attractive enough to draw their share of capital. Industry representatives are fighting for legalization of higher interest rates. Of course higher rates would increase still further the cost of keeping a roof overhead. Nationally the average cost of a single-family home soared during the sixties from less than $14,000 in 1960 to about $19,000 at the end of the decade. The rate of increase was nearly a thousand dollars a year toward the end of the period. The Veterans Administration has reported that houses bought with VA-guaranteed loans strained family budgets increasingly during the decade. Householders found that they had to spread more of their income for housing. In 1957 the monthly housing expenses for a veteran with after-tax income of $740 amounted to $131 on the average. By 1968 a householder with about the same income spent $240 a month for housing. Further, home purchasers in all income brackets tended to have lower liquid assets in the late 1960's than in the late 1950's. Low-income families were increasingly discouraged, if not actually barred, from home ownership. In 1957 about one third of all home buyers had after-tax incomes below $400 a month. By 1968 that income class was buying perhaps a tenth of all houses. Today many of those families would find it difficult to find financing for a home at all. While it is true that incomes have increased, many fam- WEEKl Y EARNINGS Of U.S. CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND All NONfARM WORKERS 1947-1969 No•llor al 4ollo,. Nv•lt•r of llfollo,. 200200 llOt-----------------------11110 I I I IHt-------------------~--tlH I // UOt-----------------_,,:./----tUO •O 40 lt•7 19'9 1951 IUl 1955 1957 1959 1961 19U 1965 1961 1969 -•n..,...,. SOUICf, U.S. lorooo of loiter Stoti1tiu NO'!' D•I• 1flew •••r•1• •••Ur •or111 i•11 of prodwc:tio• 011d 111011111perYi1ary wor•on i111 ro•lroct co1utr•Ctlo11 i1uf..,1fry 0111d i11 a ll Jlrivoto t11011for• i1uf111trio1 . AUGUST 1970 ONE.fAMILY HOMES AND APARTMENT UNITS AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS , 1958-1970 Thaw1011d1 al v•lh ., I ,, ,, I I '--1 20 " " J 10..,....---r-----------------t•o .......~ ' 1951 ""' 1960 1961 1'62 1963 196' 1965 1f66 lf67 1961 lftf 1970•' ----AperMoott w•lh ---0110 la•ily ho••• 0A••vol rate lta••d a• Jo•vory-Moy data. ilies have been left behind to struggle with limited earning power and the seemingly endless inflation of costs. Families with disposable incomes under $500 a month, which includes about half of all Texans, have historically been in the market for houses in the $10,000-$15,000 class. But construction of such houses has dwindled until there are not enough to supply the need. Housing and Urban Development Secretary George Romney recently charged that "total housing production since 1965 has fallen more than 1.1 million units short of the volume needed just to match population growth and the loss of existing units." A background study for the 1968 Housing Act determined that 1968-1978 population growth in the nation woulq call for an additional 26 million housing units. That forecast would indicate a ten-year need for about 1.5 million units in Texas, more than anyone can realistically expect to be built. The National Apartment Association has countered with evidence that apartment occupancy is below the break-even point in many cities. NAA President Jenard Gross, of Houston, concedes, however, that competition and increased costs have driven apartment rentals out of the reach of many moderate-income families. The 1969 Housing Act provided, for the first time, that Urban Renewal projects must replace dwelling units they remove from the housing inventory. Too often in the past the families displaced by public works could not find other homes at prices they could afford. The 1969 Act also permitted twelve-year loans up to $10,000 on mobile · homes, at rates around or slightly over 8 percent. As if the economic woes of the housing industry were not severe enough, a crisis in materials also threatens. If the 26-million-unit goal for 1968-1978 is to be met, a shortage of lumber and plywood is almost certain to result. Already President Nixon has taken steps to enlarge the supply of lumber and to help contain prices. De 203 mand for softwood lumber and plywood is projected to Americans with more, cheaper, or better housing, hope increase from 50 billion board feet a year at present to 65 billion by 1978. That gain is not proportionate to the expected increase in housing construction because it is assumed that more families will be living in high-rise apartments and in mobile homes, which require relatively little lumber. The increased demand for forest products may represent a special challenge to Texas lumber industries, for the replacement rate for trees in Texas and the Southeast is more rapid than in northern forests. Nevertheless, Texas forest resources are slight compared with those of Washington and Oregon, which have about three of every eight standing trees in the nation. During the past year both northwestern states have suffered from high unemployment rates, partly because of the lag in homebuilding. The lumbermen of the Northwest , then, are more than ready for a building boom to materialize. One possible answer to some of the nation's housing needs is being explored in Houston-and elsewhere around the country. It is the heavily publicized Operation Break through, sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Still in planning stages by archi tects, builders, and industrial firms, the HUD project is intended, as its name implies, to develop new design ele ments and production techniques that will help provide fully all three. The Texas site already chosen for Breakthrough prototype houses is at Clear Lake City, Houston's spaceflightoriented suburb. The architectural firm of Caudill Rowlett Scott is currently completing its overall planning of designs, pr.oduction programing, and marketing f~r the project. More detailed planning phases will follow in cooperation with the housing-system producers, local community representatives, and HUD. Some of the HUD projects are essentially innovative; others are based on building systems already proven in Europe. For example, Dallas-based Henry C. Beck Company is adapting a technique used in France, the Balency precast-concrete system for turning out factory-made panels to be assembled on the building site. HUD is using its $50-million Breakthrough budget to subsidize the building of some 2,000 housing units on eleven sites across the country, including the Houston site. The longer-range objective is far more ambitious-to gear up the slow-moving building industry for pro duction of 2.6 to 2.8 million housing units a year within a couple of years, roughly twice the present rate. Criticism has been aimed at the preliminary planning · of Operation Breakthrough for neglecting the nation's worst living environments, the teeming, dilap,idated cores 1980 GOALS FOR THE TEXAS HOUSING INDUSTRY Housing Units in Place in 1960 and Nee.ded by 1980 in Texas' largest Cities• Thou1ond1 of unitsThousands of units 600 600 ,39.9 200 1001-----100 0 Houston ETIJ Units in place in 1960 • Unih needed by 1980 19 •Th• ty 8? ,oa~a r•pr~sent th• number of housing unih needed to occommodote the projected 1980 population at 2.75 persona per unit ' o pica ur on ratio. SOURCES: 1960 data from U.S. Bureau of the Cenaua; 1980 projection• by the author . 204 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW of major cities. Only four Breakthrough sites will demonstrate the possibilities for inner-city revival. Of course downtown sites present special problems, whether in Dallas, San Antonio, or Jersey City. Property values virtually demand that oontral areas be used for high-density housing, which may require expensive features, multilevel parking, elevators, air conditioning, fireproof COI).struction. An even more convincing criticism of Breakthrough concerns its financial limitations. Far-sighted planners are convinced that only heavy capital investment in housemaking factories of kinds not yet seen can give American families the kind of housing they need at prices they can afford. Yet HUD is not prepared to underwrite the cost of building elaborate new production facilities. In one encouraging move, HUD has assaulted head-on a major obstacle to economical building, that is the sur vival of unrealistic building-code requirements, many of them designed or maintained for the coinfort ·and con venience of labor organizations, suppliers, and unprogres sive builders. HUD has required that each city where a test site is to be located waive its building code with the assurance that HUD will guarantee the safety of the Breakthrough structures. To do so, HUD is bringing forth a new performance-based building code that may itself serve as a prototype for the renovation of urban build ing codes. For years, even decades, housing economists have looked with hope at the possibility of adapting, somehow, De troit's mass-production methods to meet the needs for mass housing, preferably without sacrificing individuality in homes. "Prefabrication" has been the byword for factory-built housing for years. More recently "modular housing" has won hopeful attention. If some rumors were credible, half of '(.exas' families would be living in mod ular housing by the mid-seventies. Yet not one Texan in a hundred is sure just what modular housing is. The dif- The Four Dimensions of Housing-C~mstruction Conventional or "stick" houses are assembled from bits and pieces on the building site. The big advan tage: infinite flexibility in design. The drawbacks: high cost and often uncertain quality. Prefabricated houses consist of essentially two-dimensional panels put together on the builder's foundation. Heating and electrical installation is generally done on the building site. Modular houses are made of three-dimensional "boxes" \vith heating, electrical facilities, and some finishing commonly completed at the factory. Modules and prefabs are trucked to the building site. Mobile homes are completely finished modules mounted on their own wheels. They are not literally "trailers" and are generally set up in semipermanent locations. Mobile homes are not usually regarded as real estate. ference between prefabs and modules is indicated in abbreviated form in the box below. Modular construction consists essentially of assembling on the building site rooms that have already been built somewhere else. The spectacular cost savings widely claimed for modular building are seldom realized, but it affords some advantages. Modular building can certainly beat custom building in price and is less expensive than construction by commercial builders who think in terms of twenty-five or fifty houses. On the other hand, big city builders who may have several hundred units under way can cut their costs below modular-unit levels. Typically, well-built modular homes may cost $7.50 a square foot-excluding foundation, site, or land costs, and builder's overhead and profit. There are some physical limitations on modular build ing. Single modules, which generally, but not necessarily, represent one or more rooms in the finished house, must not be too wide to be accommodated by street or highway lines. This means a maximum width of some twelve feet. Modular builders usually include in their prices transportation within a market area of perhaps a hundred-mile radius. Beyond that distance, trailer haulage is billed as an extra. Developers appreciate the fact that they do not have to pay high charges for interim financing. A set of townhouses, for example, can be ready for occupancy within a w~ek after the site work is finished. Carpeting, built-in kitc\lren appliances, and other amenities are included in the modular package. Though large-scale modular production is not yet underway in Texas, National Homes Corporation has announced its readiness to enter the market. Both types of factorymade housing units, modular and prefabricated, are espe cially attractive economically in the fringe areas of Texas SMSA's, where mass builders of conventional homes are not yet at work. In such areas integrated sets of housing units can be placed on sites with attractive topography or with river or lake frontage. Much the largest builder of factory-made housing in Texas is the Tyler Division of National Homes Corporation, a multifaced national producer of "industrialized ho~sing." National Homes has entered the modular market already in other parts of the nation and expects to produce three-dimensional units in Texas when the· regional market warrants. Meanwhile the Tyler plant is turning out prefinished panels for on-site assembly of units ranging between 900 and 1,200 square feet in living area. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS• ,.. /ndu Ad1utted lo t S•.uon•I Y•ri• tron-IU T-11.51 1 100 ... 300 JOO 250 250 200 I I 200 100 ... • J IN\. &. .~ ,... • A "" ,. . . .. ·"" n. \ I Al NI I Ml • , I ,J , 150 100 so ,. so 19.5 7 19.51 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 196• 1965 1966 1967 1961 196' 1970 • £:1u;:lude • add•hon • . alte rahoru , and repaar 1 NOT£: Shaded area• 1nd1cate period• of decline of tot.1.l bu.11ne11 achv11y 1n the United St.att:I AUGUST 1970 The panels are of prefinished aluminum on the exterior sides and prefinished interior plywood, with windows and doors already installed. They range in length up to twentyfour feet. Field carpentry required for completion of one of the units is usually less than a hundred man-hours. National Homes Vice President Frank M. O'Brien foresees increasing acceptance of the company's products in Texas. NHC penetration of the Texas market amounted to 0.8 percent in 1969 and may amount to 1 percent by the end of 1970.· O'Brien looks hopefully for National Homes to account for 3 percent of Texas single-family homes by 1980. Another Texas prefabricator, Truss and Component Company, of San Antonio, is already entering the modular field with construction of a 28-unit apartment project in San Marcos, to be occupied by Southwest Texas students this fall. Truss and Component Manager Don Harris is watching closely the relative costs of his modular project and an adjacent housing project using conventional building techniques to turn out an identical number of units. Another notably innovative Texas factory builder is Hanover Modular Homes, of College Station, formed by Texas A&M Professor Ruble Langston to employ his patented construction technique. A unique feature of the Hanover system is its use of molded snaps to anchor building panels to a welded tubular steel framework, which is the structural skeleton of the module. These highstrength modules can be finished in a variety of surfacing materials and can be stacked to multistory heights for apartment or commercial applications. The long-term resurgence of Texas homebuilding that population increase will demand and that technological improvements may facilitate is still not in sight. Building statistics for the first half of 1970 gathered by the Bureau of Business Research indicate that residential authoriza tions were still 13 percent below the January-June 1969 level, though a measure of revival was shown in May and June this year. Among Texas' largest cities Dallas alone showed en couraging increases in housing construction in the year to-year January-June comparisons. Single-family homes were authorized there at a 9-percent-higher rate than in 1969, and apartments fell by only 7 percent. San Antonio showed a dramatic 23-percent gain in single-family units but from a much smaller base than in Dallas, and San Antonio apartment authorizations were off by 57 percent. El Paso also showed some encouraging response to its growing demand for new housing. By comparison, nonresidential construction in Te:icas has been holding . to its high but erratic course through out the past year. Since late 1968 and the fir:;t half of 1969 the nonresidential index has reached record peaks interposed between months of sharp decline. Office and bank buildings and hospitals have shown especially strong increases in 1970. The sharp contrast between residential and nonresiden tial building trends gives clear evidence that Texas has adequate construction capacity to meet all its needs. Once the problems of economic-resource allocation are resolved, as they must imperatively be, Texans can at least see a beginning to the end of their urban housing crisis. ESTIMATED VALUES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS.: Percent change Jan-June June Jan-June 1970 1970 1970 June 1970 from from Jan-Jun Classification (thousands of dollars) May 1970 1969 ALL PERMITS 224,138 1,163,655 4 New construction ....... . 196,655 1,039,820 -5 Residential (housekeeping) .... 107,334 516,471 11 13 -One-family dwellings 55,801 277,548 9 -12 Multiple-family dwellings 51,533 238,923 13 -15 Nonresidential buildings 89,321 523,349 -9 Hotels, motels, and tourist courts 364 20.627 -97 42 Amusement buildings. 3,755 37,591 211 250 Churches 2,290 20,002 -40 Industrial buildings 5,481 54,525 -32 -19 Garages (commercial and private) 2,894 8,670 23 -5 Service stations 1,167 7,045 135 -27 Hospitals and institutions 15,892 63,969 -46 96 Office-bank buildings 18,215 110,787 65 93 Works and utilities. 8,212 26,757 168 27 Educational buildings . 16,832 66,259 171 -42 Stores and mercantile buildings 10,199 91.606 -43 -15 Other buildings and structures 4,020 15,511 96 -56 Additions, alterations, and repairs 27,483 123,835 33 •• SMSAt vs. NON-SMSAt Total SMSA . .. 206,681 1,034,19& -6 Central cities .142,94& 761,098 -1 Outside central cities. 63,735 273,098 31 -17 Total non-SMSA 17,457 129,459 -25 10,000 to 50,000 population 10,904 69,365 -21 •• Less than 10,000 population 6,553 60,094 -32 17 # Only buildings for which permits were issued within the incorporated area of a city are included. t Standard metropolitan statistical area as defined in 1960 Census and revised in 1968. •° Change is less than one half of l percent. Source: Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED.TEXAS• 450 •OO 350 300 .11 II 250 L U\i Ill II I• j I 21• 200 I UI 1111 \II ~ ,/I I 1111 I' 200 150 100 I " I I . II II 1111 _. JI ,1(111 I II' ,.. " .., ... II I 11111 ~ 111\1 ,. IVI I 11'1 II V f\ I . ~ ' II 110 100 50 19'7 1951 1959 1960 1961 1962 196J 1964 1965 1966 1'67 1961 1969 1970 • Exclu.de• addition•. alteration•, and re pair• . NOTE: Shaded area• indicate period• of decline o! tot.al bu.11ne•• activity in the United StatU TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS Stati8tital data compiled by MWJ.red Anderson, statistical associat.e, Constance Cooledge and Glenda Riley, statistical BSBistants, and Kay Davis and Lydia Gorena, statistfoal t.echnicians. The indicators of business conditions in Texas cities which are included in this table are statistics on bank debits, building permits, and employment. ~cities have been grouped according to standard metropolitan statistical areas. In Texas all twenty-three SMSA's are defined by county lines; the counties included are listed under each SMSA. An area already functioning in many ways as an SMSA, but not yet so designated officially, has been added-the Longview-Kilgo:re-Gladewater Metropolitan Area. The populations shown for the SMSA's and for the counties are preliminary estimates of the 1970 cen81lS. The population shown aft.er the city name is the 1960 Census figure, unless otherwise indicated. Cities in SMSA's are listed alphabetically under their appropriat.e SMSA's; all other cities are listed alphabetically as main entries. Symbols ui:;ed in this table include: (a) Separat.e employment data for the Midland and Odessa SMSA's are not available, since employment figures for Midland and Ector Counties, composing one labormarket area, are recorded in combined form. (b) Data restricted to Gregg County. (p) Preliminary 1970 Bureau, of Census estimat.es. (r) Estimat.es officially recognized by Texas Highway Department. (§) Since the Texarkana SMSA includes inhabitants of Arkansas, the data given here include the population of both Bowie County, Texas, and Miller County, Arkansas. (**) Change is less than one half of 1 percent. (x) Sherman-Denison SMSAi a new standard metropolitan statistical area, for which not all cat.egories of data are now available. n.a. Not available. (#) Monthly averages. ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF SMSA'S AND CITIES WITHIN EACH SMSA, WITH DATA City and item J une 1970 Percent change June 1970 from May 1970 June 1970 from June 1969 Jan-June 1970 Jan-June 1969 Percent cha nge Jan-June 1970 from Jan-June 1969 (Jones ABILENE S:\ISA and Taylor; pop. 112,168 ") Building permits. less federal contracts 240,777 63 -82 s 4,0ll,442 7,560,760 -47 Bank debits (thousands) 178,495 2 .. s 1,036,766 fl93,663 Nonfarm employment (area). 41,050 40,950# 40,050# ¢:;: Manufacturing employment (area) 5,390 -2 IO 5,556# 1.885# 14 Percent unemployed (area) . 4.3 34 26 3.2# 2.6# 23 ABILENE (pop. 88,433 •) Building permi~. less federal contracts 240,77i -63 -81 $ 3,769,072 7,461,160 -49 Bank debits (thousands) . 154,065 8 9 892,945 856,671 Al\IARILLO S:\ISA (Potter and Randall; pop. 140,876 •) Buildi ng permits, less federal contracts 4,473,790 255 385 s 25,636,2 4 s 15,808,186 62 Bank debits (thousands) . 473,169 2 7 s 2,900,630 s 2,576,326 13 Nonfarm employment (area) . 65,200 3 62,967¢' 60,567 it 4 Manufacturing employment (area) 8,370 2 34 8,014# 6,599it 21 Percent unemployed (area) . 4.7 38 •• 3.5# 4.3# -19 For an explanation of symbols see p. 207. AUGUST 1970 Percent change Percent change June 1970 June 1970 Jan-June 1970 June from from Jan-June Jan-June from May 1970 June 1969 1970 1969 Jan-June 1969 1970City and item A MARILLO (pop, 123,973 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . s 1.063,940 -12 21 $ 22,029,801 $ 15,471,411 42 $ 463,566 6 12 $ 2,804,976 s 2,504,313 12 Bank debits (thousands) . Canyon (pop. 9,296 ') Building permits, less federal contracts . . s 3,409,850 .. s 3,606,483 s 360,775 900 1 $ 60,351 s 60,259 •• Bank debits (thousands) .. s 9,882 1 AUSTIN SMSA (Travis; pop. 289,490 P) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 6,080,900 -64 -36 5 56,407,148 s 86,772,305 -35 $ 801.005 8 4 $ 4,431,044 $ 4,398,302 1 Bank debits (thousands) . :>:.:: 4 126,900# 121,517# 4 Nonfar m employment (area) . 127,800 2 15 11,838# 10,429# 14 Manufacturing employment (area) .. 11,970 3.1 63 19 2.1# 1.7# 24 Percent unemployed (area) . AUSTIN (pop, 246,799 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . s 6,080,900 -64 -36 s 55,475,148 $ 86,637,305 -36 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 764,041 -9 9 s 4,487,734 $ 4,497,859 •• BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA (Jefferson and Orange; pop. 313,099 P) $ 7,229,382 254 99 $ 16,130,558 $ 17,350,370 -7 Building permits, less federal contracts. Bank debits (thousands) . $ 524.639 6 -5 s 3,069,373 s 3,006,314 2 Nonfarm employment (area). 119,000 -1 1 120,284# 112,800# 7 Manufacturing employment (area) . 38,100 •• 4 37,817# 32,717# 16 Percent unemployed (area). 5.5 20 53 4.4# 3.8# 16 BEAUMONT (pop. 115,716 P) Building permits, less federal contracts. s 1,616,027 5 64 s 7,386,682 $ 7,272,547 2 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 328,680 8 -5 $ l,978,735 s 2,035,646 -3 Groves (pop. 18,012 1') Building permits, less federal contracts. s 81,822 -48 -8 $ 595,669 $ 822,567 -28 Bank debits (thousands) . s 15,278 9 21 $ 83,239 s 70,523 18 Nederland (pop. 16,647 •) Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . .. s 10,400 6 10 s 61,914 $ 52,738 17 ORANGE (pop. 24,112 ") Building permits, less federal contracts . s 46,843 -65 -38 s 1,101,407 $ 1,371,808 -20 Bank debits (thousands) s -45,514 2 7 $ 284,180 $ 256,086 11 Nonfarm placements .... .. 49 -49 -69 690 820 -16 PORT ARTHUR (pop. 56,552 ") Building permits, less federal contracts. s 5,430,183 13S $ 6,434,466 $ 6,694,609 -4 Bank debits (thousands) . s 90,139 3 1 $ 539,071 s 497,962 8 Port Neches (pop. 10,611 P) Bank debits (thousands). s 16,522 -9 1 $ 103,296 s 96,640 7 BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA(Cameron; pop. 137,506 P) Building permits, less federal contracts s 1,647,762 239 154 $ 5,279,654 $ 7,233,952 -27 Bank debits (thousands) . s 155,748 7 14 $ 919,223 s 813,374 13 Nonfarm employment (area) . 38,100 -5 .,, 39,484# 38,917# 1 Manufacturing employment (area) . ... . 5,640 -11 -7 6,339# 6,230# 2 Percent unemployed (area). 8.5 6.3# 10 ·· ··· 31 9 6.9# For an explanation of symbols see p, 207. 208 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Percent change Percent change June 1970 June 1970 Jan-June 1970 June from from Jan-June Jan-June from Ci ty and item 1970 May 1970 June 1969 1970 1969 Jan-June 1969 BROWNSVILLE (pop. 51,080 P) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 1,298,922 517 566 2,736,122 5,354,231 -49 Bank debits (thousands) . ii6,265 s 10 26 330,228 281,682 17 Nonfa rm placements 268 -1 -69 1,790 5,295 -66 HARLI GEN (pop. 34,005 P) Building permits, Jess federal contracts s 174,610 -58 2,746,716 1,696,425 62 Bank debits (thousands) . s 58,982 13 370,524 324,674 14 Nonfarm placements 205 -30 -55 1,863 2,736 -32 La Feria (Pop. 3,740 r) Duilding permits, less federal contracts 3,000 -57 28 44,650 266,521 -83 Bank debits (thousands) 3,107 -n 10 19,288 17,825 8 Los Fresnos (pop. 1,289) Bank debits (thousands) . 1,778 11 20 s 10,778 9,198 17 Port Isabel (pop 3,575) Building permits, less federal contracts 13,325 -57 118,005 Bank debits (thousands) . 2,357 -1 -10 14,844 17,429 -15 SAN BENITO (pop, 14,909 P) Building permits, less federal <'On tracts 157 ,905 110 355 866,877 170,090 410 Bank debits (thousands) . 7,781 -1 26 47,505 42,507 12 CORPUS CHRISTI S~\ISA (Nueces and San Patricio; pop. 278,410 P) Building perm its, less federal contracts s 2,451 ,763 67 -15 s 17,934,229 s 17,432,835 3 Bank debits (thousands) . s 408,079 -2 4 s 2,488,484 s 2,327,290 Nonfarm employment (area) . 91,100 ** 90,550# 88,700# >."?:;< ..~* Percent unemployed (area) . 6.3 50 19 4.3# 3.7# 16 Manufacturing employment (area) 11,700 3 11,605# 11,195# Aransas Pass (pop. 6,956) Building permits, less federal contracts . 48,250 -55 -58 451,479 617 ,439 -27 Bank debits (thousands) 8,573 15 18 19.176 48,272 2 Bishop (pop. 4,180 ' ) Bank debits (thousands) . 2,468 -17 6 s 16,721 14,740 13 CORPUS CHRISTI (pop. 205,548 P) Building permits, Jess federal contracts . 2,255, 725 100 s 14,850,142. s 14,440,139 Bank debits (thousands) . 351,769 3 s 2,132,609 s 1,998,015 Port Aransas (pop. 824) Bank debits (thousands) . 1.101 10 - 4 5,907 6,248 - G Robstown (pop. 11,047 P) Bank debits (thousands) . 14,264 11 21 79,203 s 74,13:?, 7 Sinton (pop. 5,085 P) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts. 975 6,915 - 97 16 s s 1,203,157 44,177 143,060 36,886 741 20 DALLAS SMSA (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Kaufman, and Rockwall; pop. 1,538,729 P) $310,107,627 2 Bank debits (thousands) . s 10,379,555 11 9 s 59,000,617 s 53,298,805 11 Building permits, less federal contracts s 45,818,737 -30 -11 $305,092,622 ,,.,,,., 724,117# 661 ,450# 9 Manufacturing employment (area) . 163,725 ~'* 4 167,909# 168,438# "" Percent unemployed (area) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 40 Nonfarm employment (area) . 726,200 46 2.3# 1.5# 53 Carrollton (pop. 13,701 P) Bank debits (thousands) . 11,783 21 43 s 65,682 64,634 For an explanation of SYmbols see p. 207. AUGUST 1970 Percent change Percent change Percent change Percent change City and item June 1970 June 1970 from May 1970 June 1970 from June 1969 Jan-June 1970 Jan-June 1969 Jan-June 1970 from Jan-June 1969 DALLAS (pop. 836,093 P) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts . $ 28,773,941 s 10,010,749 -30 15 3 19 $178,121,108 $ 56,452,64& $171,827,750 $ 51,336,882 10 Denton (pop. 38,865 P) Ilank debits (thousands) . Nonfarm placements . . . . . . .. . . 53,545 61 20 -27 12 -74 301,066 590 279,670 756 - 8 22 Ennis (pop. 10,904 P) Bank debits (thousands) . $ &,879 8 - 2 54,679 52,549 Farmers Branch (pop. 27,177 P) Building permits, less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) . 787,002 29,572 148 64 - 21 71 $ 124,341 79,792 56 Garland (pop. 80,659 P) Building permits, less federal contracts Ilank debits (thousands) . 3,!H9,866 62,110 - 31 4 3 $ 20,668,023 $ 387,685 13,540,750 388,429 53 ... Grand Prairie ()_)Op. 52,409 P) Building permits, less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) . 2,022,813 33,555 36 17 -63 16 $ 12,974,138 $ 180,663 s 22,202,060 s 169,802 -42 6 Irving (pop. 97,457 P) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts. s 3,664,420" $ 71,547 -51 3 56 3 s 25,775,818 $ 425,036 s 28,089,587 $ 427,529 Justin (pop. 622) Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,161 - 1 6,681 6,376 Lancaster (pop. 10,612 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . Bank debits (thousands) . $ 475,025 s 8,140 - 151 3 - 344 2 s s 2,486,186 50,415 s s 994,010 50,694 - 150 1 Lewisville (pop. 9,146 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . Bank debits (thousands) . 686,064 13,124 -43 17 1 28 s s 3,342,394 64,557 s 2,395,820 40 McKinney (pop. 14,773 P) Nonfarm placements ··· · ····· · ····· 14 -56 -91 235 788 - 70 Mesquite (pop. 55,101 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . Bank debits (thousands) . s 1,209,729 $ 20,597 -29 -3 160 19 $ 13,659,086 $ 131,532 18,953,369 113,653 -28 16 Midlothian (pop. 1,580 ') Building permits, less federal contracts. Bank debits (thousands) . 7,250 1,969 -39 -29 s s 1,063,350 11,481 $ 320,900 s 10,738 231 7 Pilot Point (pop. 1,603 ') Bank debits (thousands) . 2,423 2 3 $ 14,081 13,243 Plano (pop. 17,600 P) Building permits, less federal contracts. s 1,441,237 -50 195 $ 7,064,324 $ 4,403,163 60 Richardson (pop. 47,596 P) Building permits, less federal contracts. Bank debits (thousands) . s s 1,441,565 48,814 - 22 4 -47 16 s s 7,291,595 294,473 252,455 17 Seagoville (pop. 4,253 P) Bank debits (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. s 8,826 2 31 48,329 s 42,046 15 For an 210 explanation of symbols see p. 207. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW June 1970 June 1970 Jan-June 1970June from from City and item 1970 May 1970 June 1969 Ja n-June 19'10 Jan-June 1969 from Jan-June 1969 Terrell (pop. 13,985 P) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts. s s 521,397 17,614 444 8 19 s s 1,219,297 97,700 508,580 87,014 140 12 Waxahachie (pop. 13,147 P) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . Nonfarm placements contracts. 74,205 17,598 44 86 8 -24 -54 13 -57 s s 1,017,550 103,873 304 s s 2,729,589 98,675 527 -63 -42 EL PASO SMSA (El Paso; pop. 347,103 P) Building permits, less federal contructs s 7,551,776 51 -32 46,629,092 s 54,217,112 -14 Bank debits (thousands) . s 618,854 13 8 3,450,842 s 3,169,011 9 Nonfarm employment (area). 116,700 115,850# 113,984# Manufacturing employment (area) 24,450 2 23,882# 22,629# Percent unemployed (area). ······· .... 6.0 25 25 4.7# 3.4# 38 EL PASO (pop. 317,462 P) Building permits, less federal contracts 7,551,476 51 -32 s 46,625,617 54,211,143 14 Bank debits (thousands) . 579,362 15 s 3,467,655 3,202,347 8 FORT WORTH SMSA (Johnson and Tarrant; pop. 757,(\61 P) Building permits, less federal contracts s 26,539,411 121 15 s 97,867,911 S121,431,189 -19 Bank debits (thousands) . s 1,772,577 -20 ¢0 s 11,032,313 s 9,823,818 12 Nonfarm employment (area) 305,200 10 304,334# 280,434# 9 Manufacturing employment (area). 92,675 ~~' 11 94,150# 89,430# Percent unemployed (area) ... 4.2 35 35 2.9# 2.0# 45 Arlington (pop. 88,385 P) Building permits, less federal contracts 6,797,6 0 143 -49 s 26,634,560 s 40,026,470 -33 Bank debits (thousands) . 118,262 22 s 669,370 s 594,688 13 Cleburne (pop. 16,950 P) Building permits, less federal contracts 241,240 -63 280 1,292,152 2,801,015 -54 Bank debits (thousands) . 21,232 -1 7 129,837 119,216 9 Euless (pop. 18,771 P) Building permits, less federal contracts 607,719 197 50 1,534,700 s 6,869,896 -78 Bank debits (thousands) . 14,703 31 81,024 s 81,846 -1 FORT WORTH (pop. 388,225 P) Iluilding permits, less federal contracts. 15,695,647 234 144 s 47,408,494 s 46,949,604 Bank debits (thousands) . 1,622,529 -5 7 s 9,447,410 s 8,671,188 Grapevine (pop. 4,659 ') Building permits, less federal contracts. 92,587 -30 560,385 Bank debits (thousands) . 7,150 -6 2 43,636 39,708 10 North Richland Hills (pop. 16,365 P) Iluilding permits, less federal contracts . s 274,200 77 70 1,151,400 Bank debits (thousands) . s 17,901 8 29 96,676 84,898 14 White Settlement (pop. 11,513) Building permits, less federal contracts . 243,910 572 251 740,946 540,810 37 GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA (Galveston; pop. 165,669 P) Building permits, less federal contrnct.s 573,206 -17 -65 s 5,189,720 s 23,748,282 -78 Bank debits (thousands) . 240,509 8 s 1,433,393 s 1,270,953 13 Nonfarm employment (area) . 67,500 17 63,884# 55,734# 15 ~":¢ 11 Manufacturing employment (f!rea) 12,050 8 11,925# 10,767# Percent unemployed (area) . 4.8 14 3.8# 5.2# -27 For an explanation of symbols see p. 207. 211AUGUST 1970 Percent change Percent change June 1970 June 1970 Jan-June 1970 City and item June 1970 from May 1970 from June 1969 Jan-June 1970 Jan-June 1969 from Jan-June 1969 Dickinson (pop. 4,715) Bank debits (thousands) . 15,515 16 21 89,457 78,376 14 GALVESTON (pop. 60,714 •) Building permits, less federal contracts 295,011 -16 -79 $ 3,381,6&1 $ 13,041,937 -74 Bank debits (thousands) . I 148,181 12 13 $ 837,278 $ 769,935 9 La Marque (pop. 15,984 •) Bank debits (thousands) . s 19,000 2 19 124,042 95,820 29 TEXAS CITY (pop. 38,393 P) Building permits, less f ederal contracts 278,195 7 35 $ 1,602,400 s 6,297,635 -75 Bank debits (thousands) . 40,04 5 3 $ 244,726 $ )!27,053 8 HOUSTON SMSA (Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, and Montgomery; pop. 1,957,688 ") Building permits, less federal contracts .• s 61,987,047 20 104 $270,373,369 $259,001,420 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 8,206,755 - 1 3 $ 49,245,871 $ 43,828,383 12 Nonfarm employment (ar ea) . 875,000 8 862,334# 796,050# 8 Manufacturing employment Percent unemployed (area) . (area) . 163,900 3.5 11 46 15 6 150,034# 2.3# 141.134# 2.3# •• Angleton (pop. 9,131) Building permits, less federal contracts . s 581,400 402 $ 1.012,290 s 1,031,546 2 Bank debits (thousands) . s 16,845 .;.¢ 13 $ 103,771 s 108,815 Baytown (pop. 43,606 P) Building permits, less federal contracts. 2,024,465 217 59 6,516,827 $ 8,041,265 -19 Bank debits (thousands) . 55,297 8 9 348,750 s 353,325 - 1 Bellaire (pop. 18,978 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . 26,956 -40 -75 $ 447,540 $ 448,439 •• Bank debits (thousands) . 49,871 - 1 13 $ 299,109 s 277,714 Clute (pop 4,463 ') Building permits, less federal contracts . 32,900 -64 356 s 234,028 s 377,347 -38 Bank debits (thousands) . 5,156 3& 39 $ 24,850 $ 22,662 10 Conroe (pop. 10,931 •) Bank debits (thousands) . s 38,596 30 213,611 167,194 28 Dayton (pop. 3,367) Bank debits (thousands) . 6,686 18 39,506 36,565 Deer Park (pop. 12,690 P) Bank debits (thousands) . 10,413 $ 78,985 70,342 12 Freeport (pop. 11,953 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . 81,672 289 - 89 $ 292,142 1,177,800 -75 Bank debits (thousands) . 25,827 3 13 s 153,404 153,911 ¢¢ HOUSTON (pop. 1,212,928 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . 43,694,986 3 87 $227,646,233 $207,459,905 10 Bank debits (thousands) . s 7 ,896,507 7 13 s 46,053,909 $ 41,190,32~ 12 Humble (pop. 1,711) Building permits, less federal contracts . s 138,150 51 ni s 660,42.5 s 792,162 -17 Bank debits (thousands) . s 9,005 5 22 s 51,435 s 40,353 27 Katy (pop. 1,569) Bank debits (thousands) . 4,119 - 6 s 27,526 29,372 - 6 La Porte (pop. 6,152 •) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts 98,000 5,249 - 6 - 6 19 s 307,645 $ 32,557 406,192 30,540 -24 7 Pasadena (pop. 89,219 •) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts s 13,648,323 s 107,493 282 14 s 22,325,40& s 652,90(} s 20,597,417 s 572,859 14 For an explanation of s:Ymbols see p. 207. Percent change Percent change June June 1970 from June 1970 from Jan-June Jan-June Jan-June 1970 from City and item 1970 May 1970 June 1969 1J70 .1969 Jan-June 1969 Pearland (pop. 1,430) Building permits, less federal contracts 211,200 -24 -36 s 1,385,850 Bank debits (thousands) .. 7,004 7 $ 42,780 41,103 Richmond (pop. 4,500 ') Building permits, less federal contracts 137,700 107 6 s 451,988 1,159,979 -61 Bank debits (thousands) . 8,424 - 8 15 s 57,545 53,227 8 Rosenberg (pop. 11,960 P) Building permits, less federal contracts 675,527 632 550 $ 1,210,497 s 1,093,222 11 South Houston (pop. 11,465 P) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 12,272 -10 11 72,837 65,783 11 Tomball (pop. 2,707 P) Bank debits (thousands) . 15,520 11 14 82,326 $ 66,160 24 LAREDO SMSA (Webb; pop. 69,024 P) Building permits, less federal contracts 404,455 -81 96 $ 4,194,527 2,094,585 100 Bank debits (thousands) . Non.farm employment (area) . Manufacturing employm ent (area) . 79,628 24,800 1,530 - 15 1 •• - 18 1 15 s 450,538 24,925# 1,540# 401,301 24,867# 1,380# 12 •• 12 Percent unemployed (area) . 11.2 17 29 10.5# 8.9# 18 LAREDO (pop. 65,491 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . 404,455 -81 96 $ 4,194,527 $ 2,094,585 100 Bank debits (thousands) . 77,964 6 17 s 457,610 s 410,228 12 Nonfarm placements 218 - 31 -56 s 1,949 s 2,524 -23 LONGVIEW, KILGORE, GLADEWATER METROPOLITAN AREA (Gregg; pop. 73,510 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . s 1,049,425 2 -40 s 9,572,245 s 7,722,485 24 Bank debits (thousands) . Nonfarm emp loyment (area)•. s 113,536 35,250 •• 2 $ 681,426 35,284# $ 705,640 34,984# - 3 Manufacturing employment (area) b .. 10,190 10,068# 10,060# Percent unemployed (area)•. 3.7 3.1# 2.5# GLADEWATER (pop. 5,290 P) Building permits, less federal contracts. s 12,000 -82 -87 s 175,750 s 268,565 -35 Bank debits (thousands) . s 6,096 $ 37,939 s 38,239 - 1 KILGORE (pop. 10,500 ') Bank debits (thousands) . Building permits, less federal contracts. s s 16,908 50,425 6 -52 8 -95 105,596 811,055 s s 95,239 1,315,920 - 11 38 LONGVIEW (pop. 44,397 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . Bank debits (thousands) . s s 987,000 90,532 15 4 60 8,585,440 539,930 6,138,000 572,162 - 40 6 LUBBOCK SMSA (Lubbock; pop. 175,757 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . Bank debits (thousands) . Nonfarm employment (area) . Manufacturing employment (area) . Percent unemployed (area) . s s 4,430,623 398,572 63,400 7,010 6.2 - 37 16 •• 3 17 - 73 2 2 2 29 s 17,467,457 s 2,097,938 64,350# 7,245# 4.0# $ 16,996,071 s 2,097,971 64,517 # 7,154# 3.2# 3 •• •• 25 LUBBOCK (pop. 146,379 P) Building permits, less federal contracts. Bank debits (thousands) . 4,415,773 330,452 36 11 72 3 17,351,407 2,071,633 16,812,996 2,092,009 Slaton (pop. 6,568) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts . 0 4,210 -18 - 9 $ $ 28,203 34,770 s s 202,975 35,784 -86 -3 For an e.'!planation of symbols see p , 207. AUGUST 1970 213 Percent change Percent change June 1970 June 1970 Jan-June 1970 June from from Jan-June Jan-June from 1970 May 1970 June 1969 1970 1969 Jan-June 1969City and item McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA (Hidalgo; pop. 173,715 P) 29 $ 5,953,058 $ 7,329,058 -19Building permits, less federal contracts . 1,699,264 129 827,848 $ 788.186 140,505 2 9 $ 44,600 -2 -1 46,367# 47,942# -3 Bank debits (thousands) Nonfarm employment (area). 19 -20 4,750# 5,767# -18 Manufacturing employment (area) . 5,550 6.2# 5.5# 13 Percent unemployed (area) . 7.3 28 Alamo (pop. 4,121) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 3,331 33 20,543 $ 18,154 13 Donna (pop. 7,612 ') Building permits, less federal contracts 35,280 -43 150 $ 252,700 $ 176,669 43 4,242 83 $ 26,397 Bank debits (thousands) . EDINBURG (pop. 16,748 P) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 428,550 75 150 $ 1,314,350 $ 3,600,655 -63 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 24,593 -2 $ 151,017 $ 155, 786 Nonfarm placements 225 -22 -37 1.851 1,796 Elsa (pop. 3,847) Building permits, less federal contracts . l,225 11 -87 Bank debits (thousands) . 4,411 19 14 25,583 22,730 13 McALLEN (pop. 36,761 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . 923,250 309 $ 2,510,690 $ 3,378,955 -26 Bank debits (thousands) . 51,033 •• 15 $ 328,855 $ 336,472 -2 Nonfarm placements 227 -6 -48 1,373 3,015 -54 Mercedes (pop. 11,843 ') Bank debits (thousands) . 6,493 -18 -16 43,295 44,403 -2 Mission (pop. 12,065 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . 18,788 -76 -83 $ 213,243 318,550 -33 Bank debits (thousands) 16,983 -1 -1 $ 105,291 101, 799 3 PHARR (pop. 15,269 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . $ 90,242 605 33 $ 657,692 $ 668,461 Bank debits (thousands) . s 6,038 -4 -6 $ 38,&75 $ 39,167 San Juan (pop. 4,371) Building permits, less federal contracts $ 4,500 -79 -89 $ 74,580 $ 124,592 -40 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 3,153 9 ¢¢ $ 19,863 $ 20,675 -4 Weslaco (pop. 14,562 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . 197,029 281 $ 590,497 s &83,276 -14 Bank debits (thousands) 15,920 7 30 $ 93,341 $ 80,456 16 MIDLAND SMSA (Midland; pop. 64,168 P) Building permits, less federal contracts. $ 541,349 -16 -37 $ 2,383,000 $ 3,959,076 -40 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 154,374 :::* $ 967,292 s 961,403 Nonfarm employment (area)". 2 -61,584# 60,900 -4 60,834# Manufacturing employment (area)" . 5,240 3 3 4,849# 5,097# Percent unemployed (area)" . 5.0 14 56 22 3.2# 2.8# MIDLAND (pop. 58,199 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . 541,349 -16 -37 $ 2,383,000 $ 3,959,076 -40 Bank debits (thousands) . 157,931 2 6 $ 984,476 $ 991,320 -1 Nonfarm placements 685 -7 -25 3,973 4,451 -11 ODESSA SMSA (Ector; pop. 90,132 P) Building permits, less federal contracts. $ 807,424 -38 7 $ 4,811,0&7 5,573,120 -14 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 129,379 $ Sl6,198 740,768 10 Nonfarm employment (area)" · 60,900 -2 4 61,584# 60,834# Manufacturing employment (area)" . 5,240 4,849# 5 3 5,097# Percent unemployed (area)" . 5.0 56 22 3.2# 2.8# 14 For an explanation of symbols see p. 207. 214 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Percent change Percent change City and item J u ne 1970 June 1970 from May 1970 June 1970 from June 1969 Jan-June 1970 Jan-June 1969 Jan-June 1970 from Jan-June 1969 ODESSA (pop. 76,617 P) Buildi ng permits, less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) . Non farm placements ······· ·· ···· s s 807,424 129,350 594 -38 20 -7 -41 s s 4,811.067 781,781 3,265 s s 5,573,120 760,048 5,526 -14 3 -41 SAN ANGELO SMSA (Tom Green; pop. 70,852 P) Buildi ng permits, less federal contracts . 944,875 149 47 s 5,116,030 s 3,192,831 60 Bank debits (thousands) . . Nonfarm employment (area) 104,758 23,800 3 •• 3 s 618,864 23,775# s 568,796 23,275# 9 2 Manufacturing em ployment (area) Percen t unemployed (area) . 3,850 5.1 - 2 42 24 3,902# 3.7# 3,704# 3.0# 5 23 SAN ANGELO (pop. 63,928 P) Building permits, less federal contr:icts . s 944,875 149 47 5,116,030 3,192,831 60 Bank debits (thousands) . s 104,823 11 611,336 566,584 8 SAN ANTONIO SMSA (Bexar and Guadalupe; pop. 863,674 P) Building permits, less federal contracts s 10,546.663 29 52 54,201,874 s 46,245,341 17 Bank debits (thousands) . 1,453,515 4 4 8,512,449 s 7,683,408 11 Nonfarm employment (area). 288,300 -1 290,867# 280,467 # Manufacturing employment (area) . 34,950 •• 12 35,225# 31,846# 11 Percent unemployed (area) . 6.2 38 22 26 4.3# 3.4# SAN ANTONIO (pop. 648,189 P) Building permits, less federal contracts s 10,197,595 34 60 s 51,476,937 s 42,526,734 21 Bank debits (thousands) . s 1.447,273 7 13 s 8,328,237 s 7,556,009 10 Schertz (pop. 2,867 ') Building permits, less federal contracts s 91,336 -68 -36 s 1.160,111 Bank debits (thousands) s 780 -7 12 s 4,833 s 4,275 13 Seguin (pop. 15,569 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . s 131,444 -21 57 1,024,748 s 3,122,810 -67 Bank debits (thousands) . s 20,039 6 120,191 s 113,787 SHERMAN-DENISON S:'.\ISA x (Grayson; pop. 80,847 P) Building permits, less federal contracts s 2,541,561 276 -68 s 10,343,251 s 12,843,392 -19 Bank debits (thousands) . s 93,387 7 s 543,517 s 488,647 11 DENISON (pop. 24,436 P) Building permits, less federal contracts s 728,294 707 183 s 2,396,353 2,612,379 -8 Bank debits (thousands) . s 30,856 s 188,378 172,221 Non!arm placements 85 8 -73 633 1,157 -45 SHERMAN (pop. 28,352 P) Building permits, less federal contracts s 1,799,267 224 -76 7,196,998 10,002,013 -28 Bank debits (thousands) . s 59,316 14 18 331,831 292,009 14 Nonfarm placements 44 -31 -81 406 1,338 -70 TEXARKA.. ·A S:\ISA (Bowie, Texas and l\liller, Ark.; pop. 100,000 §) Building permits, less federal contracts . s 1,009,045 478 270 s 5,237,637 s 3,903,546 34 Bank debits (thousands) . 129,953 11 -1 725,564 s 781,803 -7 Nonfarm employment (area) 40,700 -1 -5 41,492# 43,575# -5 Manufacturing employment (area). 10,940 -3 -26 11,887;/t 15,577# -24 Percent unemployed (area) 8.3 20 113 6.6# 3.0# 120 TEXARKANA (pop. 50,006 ') Building permits, less federal contracts 1,009,045 633 286 5,151,987 3,795,366 36 Bank debits (thousands) . s 117,354 12 s 639,700 s 703,170 -9 For an explanation of symbols see p. 207. AUGUST 1970 Percent change Percent change June 1970 June 1970 Jan-June 1970 J une from from from Jan-June Jan-June 1970 May 1970 June 1969 1970 1969 J an-June 1969City and item TYLER SMSA (Smith; pop, 94,308 P) 62 $ 8,349,695 $ 6,493,541 29Building permits, less federal contracts... $ 1,141,685 *'' .,. $ 193,600 6 $ 1,098,760 $ l,052,457 Bank debits (thousands) 40,600 1 7 39,534# 37,100# Nonfarm employment (area). Manufacturing employment (area) . 13,250 2 18 12,477# 10,797# 16 Percent unemployed (area) . 3.7 48 9 2.8# 2.4# 17 TYLER (pop. 56,301 •) Building permits, less federal contracts. $ 1,117,685 6 59 $ 8,226,045 $ 6,466,241 27 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 187,127 11 11 s 1,050,082 s 1,012,979 4 Nonfarm placements 313 •• -41 2,006 2,523 -20 WACO SMSA (McLennan; pop. 142,772 P) Building permits, less federal contracts 4,460,630 -34 133 $ 23,624,012 $ 10,468,167 126 Bank debits (thousands) . Nonfarm employment (area). 280,234 59,500 15 ** 16 •• s 1,533,053 58,750# $ 1,343,943 58,500# 14 •• Manufacturing employment (area) 12,730 - 3 12,325# 12,825# Percent unemployed (area) . 5.5 34 12 4.6# 4.3# McGregor (pop. 4,642) Building permits, less federal contracts . 64,000 141,001 $ 162,775 -13 Bank debits (thousands) . 5,937 32 22 28,958 $ 29,971 -3 WACO (pop. 92,600 P) Building permits, less federal contracts. $ 4,304,230 -36 131 $ 23,190,862 $ 9,748,542 138 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 243,421 11 18 $ l,412,696 $ 1,242,393 14 WICHITA FALLS SMSA (Archer and Wichita; pop. 124,258 •) Building permits, less federal contracts 621,188 9 $ 5,503,906 8,943,389 -38 Bank debits (thousands) . 175,417 2 $ 1,097,577 1,119,678 2 Nonfarm employment (area). 48,200 4 48,042# 50,084# -4 Manufacturing employment (area) . 5,480 2 6 5,374# 5,124# 5 Percent unemployed (area) . 4.0 33 33 2.9# 2.2# 32 Burkburnett (pop. 7,621) Bank debits (thousands) . 9,677 ** $ 52,536 48,604 Iowa Park (pop. 5,152 ') Building permits, less federal contracts . 42,056 55 277 300,381 56,293 434 Bank debits (thousands) . 4,357 15 9 23,005 24,146 -5 WI CHIT A FALLS (pop. 94,599 •) Building permits, less federal contracts . 579,132 s 5,023,518 $ 8,733,822 -42 Bank debits (thousands) . 168,697 6 i; 1,002,942 $ 1,040,569 -4 ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF NON-SMSA CITIES, WITH DATA ALBANY (pop. 1,959 •) Shackelford Co. (pop. 3,233 •) Building permits, less federal contracts. $ $ 14,005 $ 80,003 -82 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 3,342 $ 20,215 $ 19,221 ALICE (pop. 20,861) Jim Wells Co. (pop. 32,127 •) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 37,800 -19 47 $ 249,621 169,347 ALPfNE (pop. 4,740) Brewster Co. (pop. 7,534 P) Building permits, less federal contracts. 12,838 -10 -65 $ 344,021 $ 146,465 135 Bank debits (thousands) . 4,645 -3 $ 32,165 $ 28,654 12 l''or ~n explanation of symbols see p. 207. 216 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW City and item June 1970 Percent change June 1970 June 1970 from from May 1970 June 1969 Jan-June 1970 Jan-June 1969 Percent change Jan-June 1970 from Jan-June 1969 ANDREWS (pop. n.a.) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts . s s 43,150 7,776 ___: 77 -1 112 Andrews Co. (pop. s 459,425 $ 498,370 $ 50,969 $ 47,427 10,217 •) 8 7 ATHENS (pop. 9,554 P) Bank debits (thousands) . 15,273 8 18 s Henderson 85,362 $ Co. (pop. 76,8Z3 25,703 P) 11 BARTLETT (pop. 1,540) Bank debits (thousands) . 1,056 - 1 Bell Co. (pop. 117,242 P)-Williamson Co. (pop. 36,020 P) •• 6,559 $ 6,764 -3 BAY CITY (pop. 12,196 P) Bank debits (thousands) . Nonfarm placements 21,126 38 2 -12 -4 -62 Matagorda 136,980 s 259 Co. (pop. 145,020 454 27,630 P) -6 -43 BEEVILLE (pop. 13,080 P) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) Nonfarm placements contracts . s s 17,110 17,609 36 15 7 -50 -78 7 -58 362,046 104,713 397 Bee s s Co. (pop. 593,712 101,501 555 22,161 P) -39 -28 BELLVILLE (pop. 2,218) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts . 2,5-00 7,198 -97 14 -95 17 177,501 39,906 Austin Co. (pop. 13,243 P) 328,692 -46 36,289 10 BELTON (pop. 10,000 ') Building permits, less federal contracts . 30,000 •• -76 386,065 Bell Co. (pop. 473,590 117,242 P) -18 BIG SPRING (pop. 28,165 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . Bank debits (thousands) . Nonfarm placements s s 17,509 51,359 122 - 35 16 12 -95 -5 -42 s s Howard 485,643 s 308,989 s 704 Co. (pop. 827.105 320,778 1,051 37,136 P) -41 -4 -33 BONHAM (pop. 9,506 ') Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts . 70,000 12,305 -45 8 -61 17 3,452,782 70,293 Fannin Co. (pop. 22,018 P) $ 549,250 529 $ 65,110 8 BORGER (pop. 13,928 P) Building permits, less federal onfarm placements contracts 17,720 23 -30 -50 -38 -78 Hutchinson Co. (pop. 23,980 P) 161,951 $ 173,880 -7 311 533 -42 BRADY (pop. 5,571 P) Bank debits (thousands) . 10,782 17 McCullough Co. (pop. 56,170 $ 56,119 8,422 P) •• BRECKENRIDGE (pop. 5,873 P) Building permits, less federal contracts. 4,850 -97 -88 262,050 Stephens Co. (pop. $ 440,629 8,205 P) -41 BRENHAM (pop. 7,740) Bank debits (thousands) . .... s 20,485 10 8 s Washington Co. (pop. 18,378 P) 117,102 $ 107,112 BROWNFIELD (pop. 10,286) Building permits, less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) . 55,000 23,183 335 6 12 s s 596,230 160,382 Terry Co. (pop. 138,076 14,239 P) 16 For an explanation of symbols see p, 207. AUGUST 1970 217 Percent change Percent change June 1970 June 1970 Jan-June 1970 June from from Jan-June Jan-June from City and item 1970 May 1970 June 1969 1970 1969 Jan-June 1969 BROWNWOOD (pop. 16,974) Nonfarm placements 57 -50 - 50 438 Brown Co. (pop. 688 24,397 P) -36 BRYAN (pop. 32,489 P) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . Nonfarm placements contracts. 415,480 70,568 196 - 2 9 13 -7 18 -34 $ $ $ 7,006,436 382,1&0 1,430 Brazos Co. (pop. 56,079 P) $ 5,654,357 24 $ 369,236 4 $ 1,755 -19 CALDWELL (pop. 2,204 ') Bank debits (thousands) . 3,698 - 2 •• 22,298 Burleson Co. (pop. 9,721 P) $ :n,868 CAMERON (pop. 5,640) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts 23,800 7,079 -68 6 - 6 42,934 Milam Co. (pop. 40,893 19,600 P) CARTHAGE (pop. 5,389 ") Bank debits (thousands) . 5,482 11 18 31,921 Panola Co. (pop. 15,554 P) $ 28,418 12 CASTROVILLE (pop. 1,800 ') Building permits, less federal contracts. Bank debits (thousands) . 42,100 1,366 37 .;ci;. 32 $ 8,390 Medina Co. (pop, 19,123 P) 7,848 CISCO (pop. 3,817 ") Bank debits (thousands) .. 4,442 14 26,137 Eastland Co. (pop. 25,448 17,527 P) COLLEGE STATION (pop. 17,283 ") Building permits, less federal contracts. 132,010 -91 511 $ 2,577,995 Brazos Co. (pop. 56,079 P) $ 2,359,666 COLORADO CITY (pop. 4,915 ") Bank debits (thousands) . 5,930 14 36,1S7 Mitchell Co. (pop. 8,878 ") 33,969 COPPERAS COVE (pop. 10,608 ") Building permits, less federal contracts. Bank debits (thousands) 589,989 3,632 257 7 165 21 $ $ 1,333,777 19, 704 Coryell s s Co. (pop. 903,785 20,858 34,761 P) 48 -6 CORSICANA (pop. 19,839 ") Building permits, less federal contracts . Bank debits (thousands) . Nonfarm placements 1,070,082 28,783 102 -- 4 37 830 -55 $ $ 2,460,903 185,725 914 Navarro Co. (pop. $ 2,056,145 $ 175,892 1,088 30,294 P) 20 -16 CRANE (pop. 3,447 ") Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts. 0 2,258 - 6 - 3 ~ $ 29,904 14,583 Crane Co. (pop. 4,132 P) $ 65,714 -54 $ 14,058 CRYSTAL CITY (pop. 9,101) Bank debits (thousands) . 6,156 .;..;. 27 $ 38,812 Zavala s Co. (pop. 30,172 11,239 P) 29 DECATUR (pop. 3,563) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) contracts. 6,654 5,266 233 -4 - 77 10 $ $ 51,655 35,080 Wise Co. (pop. 18,830 P) $ 115,502 -55 $ 29,124 20 For an 218 explanation of symbols see p, 207. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW City and item June 1970 Percent change June 1970 June 1970 from from May 1970 June 1969 Jan-June 1970 Jan-June 1969 Percent change Jan-June 1970 from J'an-June 1969 DEL RIO (pop. 20,928 P) Bank debits (thousands) . s 19,728 - 1 s Val 117,845 Verde s Co. (pop. 111,067 26,984 P) DIMMITT (pop. 4,500 ') Bank debits (thousands) . s 16,247 - 8 108,498 Castro s Co. (pop. 10,292 ") 90,206 20 DUMAS (pop. 10,547 ') Building permits, less federal contracts . 48,613 -53 166 477,308 Moore s Co. (pop. 438,529 13,323 P) EAGLE LAKE (pop. 3,565) Bank debits (thousands) . 4,278 -15 •• Colorado Co. (pop. 30,252 $ 27,417 17,155 P) 10 EAGLE PASS (pop. 15,277 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . Bank debits (thousands) . 96,921 12,162 87 -71 49 s s Maverick Co. (pop. 17,919 P) 1,348,977 s 1,395,830 -3 67,641 s 53,042 28 EDNA (pop. 5,038) Bank debits (thousands) . 7,466 -14 Jackson 49,468 s Co. (pop. 44,895 12,597 p) 10 EL CAMPO (pop. 8,442 P) Bank debits (thousands) . 15",427 -11 -10 Wharton 102,801 Co. (pop. 36,234 P) FORT STOCKTON (pop. 6,373 ') Building permits, less federal contracts. Bank debits (thousands) . 31,700 10,589 52 21 36 77,014 56,294 Pecos s s Co. (pop. 284,450 63,222 12,987 P) -73 -11 FREDERICKSBURG (pop. 5,240 ") Building permits, less federal contra.els . Bank debits (thousands) . 32,525 17,012 -73 17 -82 29 Gillespie 298,030 s 92,726 s Co. (pop. 448,265 82,509 10,277 P) -34 12 FRIONA (pop. 3,149 ') Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) .. contracts 63,800 20,883 -39 -12 37 17 1,423,675 142,573 Parmer Co. (pop. 10,374 ") s 575,100 148 s 106,355 34 GATESVILLE (pop. 5,180 ') Bank debits (thousands) . 8,811 14 50,131 Coryell Co. (pop. 34,761 P) s 50,271 •• GEORGETOWN (pop. 5,218) Building permits, less federal contracts . Bank debits (thousands) . 35,000 8,183 14 12 Williamson 320,484 s 48,140 Co. (pop. 36,020 P) 566,588 -43 45,885 GIDDINGS (pop. 2,821) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts s s 51,300 6,732 51 6 46 6 177,975 37,576 Lee s Co. (pop. 406,895 33,518 7,776 ") -56 12 GOLDTHWAITE (pop. 1,653 P) Bank debits (thousands) . 7,678 16 11 36,034 Mills Co. (pop. 37,907 4,047 ") -5 GRAHAM (pop. 7,383 P) Bank debits (thousands) . 13,054 - 8 76,438 Young Co. (pop. 76,044 15,343 P) For an explanation of symbols see p. 207. AUGUST 1970 219 City and item June 1970 Percent change June 1970 June 1970 from from May 1970 June 1969 Jan-June 1970 Jan-June 1969 Percent change Jan-June 1970 from Jan-June 1969 GRANBURY (pop. 2,227) Bank debits (thousands) . 3,583 35 $ 20,788 Hood Co. (pop. $ 18,714 6,182 P) 11 GREENVILLE (pop. 21,867 P) Building permits, less federal contracts. Bank debits (thousands) . Nonfarm placements ··· ··· ···· $ $ 510,325 25,223 60 270 -4 -19 -20 -53 $ 1,582,334 $ 161,240 456 Hunt Co. (pop. 46,602 P) 196,945 -18 871 -48 HALE CENTER (pop. 2,691) Iluilding permits, less federal contracts 18,500 386 546,951 Hale Co. (pop. 33,374 P) 5,202 HALLETTSVILLE (pop. 2,808) Building permits, less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) . 700 4,036 - 97 -84 15 $ 112,276 $ 25,459 Lavaca Co. (pop. 17,483 P) $ 230,966 -51 $ 22,574 13 HALLSVILLE (pop. 1,015 ') Bank debits (thousands) . 1,097 3 Harrison Co. (pop. 6,489 $ 7,172 44,073 P) -10 HASKELL (pop. 3,602 •) Bank debits (thousands) . 5,111 18 $ 28,739 Haskell Co. (pop. 27,683 8,236 ") HENDERSON (pop. 10,003 •) Bank debits (thousands) . 17,742 8 13 104,801 Rusk Co. (pop. 32,773 P) $ 90,476 16 HEREFORD (pop. 13,092 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . 251,700 28 -28 Deaf Smith Co. (pop, 18,533 P) 1,898,600 s 2,166,400 -12 HONDO (pop. 4,992) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts. 222,100 5,546 382 21 Medina Co. (pop. s 1,575,097 $ 376,440 $ 31,446 $ 29,122 19,123 •) 318 HUNTSVILLE (pop. 15,367 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . Bank debits (thousands) . s $ 16,900 22,326 -97 -28 Walker Co. (pop. '$ 1,002,930 $ 155,403 $ 125,724 24,885 P) 24 JACKSONVILLE (pop. 9,411 P) Building permits, less federal contracts. Bank debits (thousands) . 76,300 24,404 -80 13 18 Cherokee Co. (pop. s 857,852 $ 252,050 $ 136,871 s 123,276 31,041 p) 2.40 11 JASPER (pop. 5,120 ') Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts . 345,500 16,897 505 14 890 $ $ 556,61!> 1qo.825 Jasper Co. (pop. s 379,473 $ 102,572 24,149 •') 47 -2 JUNCTION (pop. 2,654 •) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts . s $ 35,150 2,643 -87 -2 - 5 $ 15,668 Kimble Co. (pop. 16,496 3,845 P) -5 KARNES CITY (pop. 3,000 ') Iluilding permits, less federal contracts. Bank debits (thousands) . s s 45,060 4,2.84 185 •• -15 -5 s $ 85,610 27,255 Karnes s $ Co. (pop. 13,147 P) 85,270 •• 24,123 13 Fen an 220 explanation of symbols see p, 207. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW City and item June 1970 Percent change June 1970 June 1970 from from May 1970 June 1969 Jan-June 1970 Jan-June 1969 Percent change Jan-June 1970 from Jan-June 1969 KERMIT (pop. 7,685 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . 6,995 656 - 38 35,560 Winkler Co. (pop. 9,453 P) 71,100 -50 KILLEEN (pop. 34,953 P) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts s s 604,174 35,534 1 8 3,366,876 213,700 Bell Co. (pop. 117,242 P) s 3,925,491 -14 s 196,357 9 KINGSLAND Bank debits (pop. 1,200 ') (thousands) . 4,303 - 3 69 22,075 Llano Co. (pop. 6,583 P) 15,754 40 KINGSVILLE (pop 31,160 ') Bank debits (thousands) . 25,212 13 30 135,110 Kleberg Co. (pop. 32,172 ") 120,310 12 KIRBYVILLE (pop. 2,021 ') Bank debits (thousands) . 2,939 8 18,516 Jasper Co. (pop. $ 17,172 24,149 P) LAMESA (pop. 12,348 P) Bank debits (thousands) . Nonfarm placements 16,801 78 7 7 -13 Dawson 137,488 461 Co. (pop. 134,19Z 616 16,231 P) -25 LAMPASAS (pop. 5,773 P) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts s $ 20,340 11,535 -67 -7 -57 s s Lampasas Co. (pop. 9,140 P) 236,660 s 436,100 -46 62,974 59,601 6 LEVELLAND (pop. 11,386 P) Bank debits (thousands) . 15, 141 -16 -15 125,054 Hockley Co. (pop. 20,199 ") 118,927 LITTLEFIELD (pop. 7,236) Building permits, less federal contracts . Bank debits (thousands) . 13,400 7,871 -47 -2 - 6 56,311 58,462 Lamb Co. (pop. 17,427 P) 97,061 -42 63,880 -8 LLANO (pop. 2,575 P) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts s s 77,500 5,449 ¢>:: 761 7 1,128,478 30,222 Llano Co. (pop. 43,942 28,311 6,583 P) 7 LOCKHART (pop. 6,084) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts 91,820 7,447 150 2 3 s s Caldwell Co. (pop. 20 1,535 402,092 45,532 $ 42,372 20,694 '') -50 7 LUFKIN (pop. 23,739 P) Nonfarm placements 11 -86 -89 Angelina 311 Co. (pop. 49,153 P) 381 -18 McCAMEY (pop. 2,589 ") Bank debits (thousands) . 2,047 11 - 1 12,404 Upton Co. (pop. $ 13.618 4,564 P) -9 MARBLE FALLS (pop. 2,161) Bank debits (thousands) . 6,098 13 36 30,341 Burnet s Co. (pop. 10,655 '') 23,768 28 For an explanation of s AUGUST 1970 bols see p. 207. 221 Percent change Percent change City and item MARSHALL (pop. 22,656 ") Building permits, less federal contracts . Bank debits (thousands) . Nonfarm placements MEXIA (pop. 7,621 ') Building permits, less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) . MINERAL WELLS (pop. 17,109 ") Bank debits (thousands) . Nonfarm placements MONAHANS (pop. 9,476 ') ' Building permits, less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) . MOUNT PLEASANT (pop. 8,027) Building permits, less Jcderal contracts Bank debits (thousands) . MUENSTER (pop. 1,190) Building permits, less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) . MULESHOE (pop. 4,945 ') Bank debits (thousands). NACOGDOCHES (pop. 22,316 P) Nonfarm placements NEW BRAUNFELS (pop. 17,610 •) Bank debits (thousands) . NIXON (pop. 1,751) Building permits, less federal contracts. OLNEY (pop. 4,200 ') Building permits, less federal contracts . Bank debits (thousands). PALESTINE (pop. 14,518 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . Bank debits (thousands). Nonfarm placements PAMPA (pop. 21,239 P) Bank debits (thousands) . Nonfarm placements For an explanation of symbols see p, 207. s $ $ $ s s s s June 1970 118,194 27,960 99 7,830 9.106 31,742 136 3,400 12,955 71,544 20,536 45.200 3,412 11,650 14 21,610 8,71 5 0 6,327 132,300 19,845 14 33,639 64 June 1970 June 1970 Jan-June 1970 from from Jan-June Jan-June from May 1970 June 1969 1970 1969 Jan-June 1969 Harrison Co. (pop. 44,073 P) 126 -85 $ 1,977,295 $ 2,577,236 -23 2 -1 $ 173,452 s 171,998 -43 -59 717 1,598 -55 Limestone Co. (pop. 17,581 ") -71 -90 s 123,350 s 349,698 -65 -8 14 s 54,297 s 46,340 17 Palo Pinto Co. (pop. 28,505 1') -1 13 183,711 s 170,885 77 -7 560 624 -10 Ward Co. (pop. 13,056 P) -78 -92 s 54,550 s 234,910 -77 13 s 80,122 s 76,929 Titus Co. (pop. 16,486 •) -10 -41 s 313,490 387,777 -19 10 17 s 113,606 109,537 Cooke Co. (pop. 22,856 P) 2 -4 20,352 s 19,426 Bailey Co. (pop. 8,172 P) -1 12 85,863 78, 467 Nacogdoches Co. (pop. 35,693 P) -76 -73 296 452 -35 Comal Co. (pop. 23,601 P) 127,817 s 122,475 Gonzales Co. (pop. 16,766 P) -44 82 Young Co. (pop. 15,343 ") 15,004 s 21,602 -31 28 -15 35.022 s 37.744 -7 Anderson Co. (pop. 26,593 P) 22 9 807,425 s 513,240 57 6 14 118,398 s 103,264 15 -65 -67 172 312 -45 Gray Co. (pop. 26,273 •) -4 -5 s 228,115 $ 211,984 -24 -60 552 745 -26 Percent change Percent change City and item June 1970 June 1970 from May 1970 June 1970 from June 1969 Jan-June 1970 Jan-June 1969 Jan-June 1970 from Jan-June 1969 PARIS (pop. 23,194 •) Building permits, less federal Nonfarm placements contracts . 2,165,130 76 6-02 -48 828 -51 5,003,137 696 Lamar Co. (pop. 35,564 P) s 2,006,817 149 886 -21 PECOS (pop. 12,492 P) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . Nonfarm placements contracts . s s 114,500 19,296 76 - 7 ** -3 -11 133,846 385 Reeves s Co. (pop. 16,263 •) 129,881 501 -23 PLAINVIEW (pop. 18,664 •) Building permits, less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) . Nonfarm placements ···· · · ······ 72,700 51,059 127 - ** 39 58 6 -52 521,400 333,723 1,119 Hale Co. (pop. 33,374 ") s 1,522,750 -66 $ 315,950 1,123 ** PLEASAKTON (pop. 6,000 ') Building per.ruts, less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) . 60,850 5,479 34 - 7 Atascosa $ 395,150 s s 34,621 Co. (pop. 531,942 33,237 18,360 P) -26 QUANAH (pop. 4,564 •) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts 25,000 9,333 -21 68 67 31 Hardeman Co. (pop. 6,649 ") 82,503 15,005 450 40,469 38,624 RAYl\IONDVILLE (pop. 9,385) Building permits, less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) ... onfarm placements 7,500 9,662 18 15 3 -67 -23 20 -69 106,135 54,329 267 Willacy Co. (pop. 15,432 ") s 192,500 -45 s 48,681 12 315 -15 REFUGIO (pop. 4,944) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts . 19,900 4,214 - 63 6 - 1 49,466 27,337 Refugio s s Co. (pop. 73,504 26,344 9,089 ") -33 ROCKDALE (pop. 4,481) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) .. contracts . 84,080 8,200 16 - 6 15 s s 263,805 45,574 Milam s s Co. (pop. 192,080 42,822 19,600 1') 37 SAN :\!ARCOS (pop. 18,566 P) Bank debits (thousands) . 14,563 9 82,229 Hays Co. (pop. 26,977 P) SAN SABA (pop. 2,529 P) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts . 12,750 7,745 -10 -13 s s 161,301 46,373 San Saba s s Co. (pop. 67,271 43,380 5,431 P) 140 7 SEAGRAVES (pop. 2,307) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) . contracts . 5,250 2,697 -48 3 275 13 41,150 17,772 Gaines s s Co. (pop. 11,575 ") 271,100 -85 17,393 2 SE:'IIIKOLE (pop. 5,737) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) .. contracts 800 5,839 - 94 :,,':¢ -99 10 s s 138,375 40,655 Gaines Co. (pop. 11,575 P) s 237,725 -42 s 40,924 -1 SILSBEE (pop. 8,447 ') Bank debits (thousands) 10,630 8 - 1 63,943 Hardin s Co. (pop. 28,618 •) 63,142 Fo; an ex lanation of symbols see ..~TGUST 1970 223 Percent change Percent change City and item June 1970 June 1970 from May 1970 June 1970 from June 1969 Jan-June 1970 Jan-June 1969 Jan-June 1970 from Jan-June 1969 SMITHVILLE (pop. 2,935 ') Building permits, less federal contracts. Bank debits (thousands) . s s 2,600 2,499 -85 -2 -48 17 s 44,803 $ 16,982 Bastrop Co. (pop. $ 54,050 $ 14,844 16,828 P) -17 14 SNYDER (pop. 13,850) Bank debits (thousands) . s 15,305 - 2 15 $ 102,232 Scurry s Co. (pop. 15,115 P) 92,015 11 SONORA (pop. 2,076 •) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) .. contracts. $ s 5,950 3.358 22 -11 -4 s s 201,744 18,926 Sutton Co. (pop. $ 135,501 s 19,324 3,051 P) 49 -2 STEPHENVILLE (pop. 7,359) Bank debits (thousands) . s 14,165 - 1 19 s 86,902 Erath s Co. (pop. 78,484 17,527 •) 11 STRATFORD (pop. 2,500 ') Building permits, less federal co ntracts Bank debits (thousands) . s s 82,000 14,057 14 - 43 7 $ 108,601 $ 82,503 Sherman s s Co. (pop. 264,252 81,384 3,603 •) -59 1 SULPHUR SPRINGS (pop. 10,447 P) Building permits, less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) s s 170,850 26,468 -38 12 5 15 $ l,928,410 $ 144,583 Hopkins Co. (pop. 20,334 ") s 1,060,018 82 $ 138,448 4 SWEETWATER (pop. 11,317 P) Building permits, less federal contracts . Bank debits (thousands ) . Nonfarm placemerl.ts .... . .. s s 12,695 17,621 46 314 11 -37 11 14 -61 s 38,725 $ 103,105 $ 377 Nolan s s s Co. (pop. 586,094 100,215 520 15,403 P) -93 3 -28 TAHOKA (pop. 3,600 ') Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands ) . contracts . s $ 28,000 4,051 -19 - 9 s s 57,004 35,462 Lynn Co. (pop. 8,829 P) $ 113,803 -50 s 34,318 3 TAYLOR (pop. 9,434) Building permits, less federa l Bank debits (thousands) . Nonfarm placements contracts. s s 100,460 12,763 H 2 13 -51 5 -53 s s Williamson Co. (pop. 36,020 •) 390,777 $ 1,577,314 -75 79.320 s 76,994 3 85 121 -30 TEMPLE (pop. 32,645 •) Bank debits (thousands) . Nonfa rm placements ... ······· $ 56,385 11 6 1 -28 19 -58 $ 334,243 988 Bell Co. (pop. 117,242 •) $ 290,243 15 1,405 -30 UVALDE (pop. 10,403 •) Building permits, less federal contracts . s 98,100 -93 . 24 s 1,875,853 Uvalde Co. (pop. 16,619 P) $ 912,243 106 VERNON (pop. 11,204 1') Bank debits (thousands) Nonfa rm placements .. . .. .. .. . s 24,643 38 20 -12 -5 -48 Wilbarger Co. (pop. 15,051 •) $ 132,971 $ 137,785 -3 217 482 -55 VICTORIA (pop. 39,349 •) Bank debits (thousands ) Nonfarm placements s 87 ,600 222 -- 3 46 8 -56 s 557,297 2,058 Victoria Co. (pop. 52,776 ") s 519,180 7 2,821 -27 WEATHERFORD (pop. 12,742 P) Building permits, less federal contracts. Bank debits (thousands) . s s 104,050 25,171 -70 1 -82 $ 1,095,705 .. Parker Co. (pop. 32,542 ") s 1,337,963 -18 YOAKUM (pop. 5,761) Building permits, less federal Bank debits (thousands) co ntracts. s $ 59,360 10,336 - 55 3 Lavaca Co. -75 (pop. 17,483 •)-De Witt Co. (pop. 17,872 •) $ 360,326 s 991,991 -64 For an explanation of symbols see p. 207. 224 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW BAR 0 M E-T ER S OF TEXAS BUSINESS (All figures are for Texas unless otherwise indicated.) All indexes are based on the average months for 1957-1959 except where other specification is made; all except annual indexes are adjusted for seasonal variation unless otherwise noted. Employment estimates are compiled by the Texas Emplovment Commission in cooperation with the Bureau of L: bor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The symbols use0d below impose qualifications as indicated here: ''-prelir. inary data subject to revision; r-revised data; #-dollar totals for the calendar year to date; §-dollar totals for the fiscal year to date; t-employment data for wage and salary workers only. Year-to-date averageJune May June 1970 1970 1969 1970 GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY I•:stimates of personal income (millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted) . Income payments to individuals in U.S. (billions, at seasonally adjusted annual rate) .. Wholesale prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) . Consumer prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) . Business failures (number) . Business failures (liabilities, thousands) . Newspaper linage (index) .. PRODUCTIO 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-total manufactures (index) Texas industrial production-durable manufactures (index) Texas industrial production-nondurable manufactures (index) Texas industrial production-mining (index) Texas industrial production-utilities (index) Urban building permits issued (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) Federal Internal Revenue collections (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 Total nona&"ricultural employment in Texas (index)t ?lfanufacturmg employment in Texas (index)t ..... AYerage weekly hours-manufacturing (index)t AYerage weekly earnings-manufacturing (index)t Total nonagricultural employment (thousands)t ... Total manufacturing employment (thousands) t Durable-goods employment (thousands)t ... . ~.ondurable-goods employment (thousands)t Total c1VI!ian labor force in selected labor-market a1"€as (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Nonagricultural 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 $ 3,219* $ 3,093* $ 3,026 $ 3,164 $ 2,969 $ 798.8* $ 799.8* $ 746.2' $ 791.9 $ 732.5 117.0 116.8 113.2 116.6 111.9 135.2 134.6 127.6 133.6 125.9 29 34 29 $ $ 2,494 $ 2,894 $ $ 6,697 130.1 127.7 129.1 122.6 126.6 257.6* 256.9'' 248.7' 255.1 236.8 232.8* 228.3* 217.0' 231.9 214.8 122.2* 124.l" 125.8' 121.4 111.5 16.8 17.1 16.7 17.1 15.4 140.3 136.4 142.8 133.4 133.4 168.6* 169.1 * 173.7' 170.0 171.4 177.0* 179.1 '' 174.7' 178.6 169.9 199.7'' 200.3* 185.8' 200.7 190.7 209.8* 212.4* 215.8' 217.3 214.7 193.0* 192.3'' 182.4' 189.7 177.5 130.1* 134.7" 131.8' 132.3 124.0 253.6'' 253.6'' 242.3' 257.0 242.3 204.5 206.2 170.5 184.0 192.4 184.2 156.5 142.6 140.1 161.2 231.3 298.5 213.6 256.5 245.5 269 267 275 275 261 390 388 376 387 370 69 69 73 71 71 314.6 287.0 275.9 298.8 272.8 345.3 325.1 310.1 s 6,159 $ 5,926 $ 6,270 $ 6,016 $ 6,082 $ 8,765 $ 8,467 $ 8,772 $ 8,601 $ 8,750 $ 3,289 s 3,296 $ 3,277 $ 3,282 $ 3,334 $273,147 $381,685 $178,815 $ 277,962 $ 214,918 $1,323,749 $917,967 $1,047,526 $8,035,260§ $6,926,690§ $ 16,664 s 26,748 $ 31,800 s 307,915 $ 333,611 $ 9,302 $ 0 $ 36,141 $ 109,490 $ 244,509 $ 17,482 $ 9,782 $ 35,939 $ 263,572 $ 423,271 $ 22,292 $ 39,833 $ 24,973 $ 306,953 $ 274,429 $ 405 $ 9,913 $ 410 s 20,518 $ 10,155 150.4* 150.8* 146.2' 150.2 144.5 151.6" 152.5''' 154.9' 154.0 152.6 98.5* 99.3" 100.9 99.4 101.0 149.0'' 149.7* 143.1' 149.1 142.6 3,741.2* 3,723.5'' 3,636.6' 3,697.3 3,555.5 740.0* 736.4''' 755.8' 744.3 737.8 408.9''' 408.0'' 427.0' 414.6 418.1 331.1'' 328.4'' 328.8' 329.8 319.7 3,557.3 3,512.1 3,356.2 3,481.0 3,280.8 3,302.9 3,301.5 3,130.3 3,285.6 3,096.5 648.7 631.6 619.2 639.0 613.9 160.6 116.9 124.9 111.6 89.0 4.5 3.3 3.7 3.2 2.7 BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN RETURN REQUESTED SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712 DIRECTORY OF TEXAS MANUFACTURERS, 1970 The 1970 Directory of Texas Manufacturers, in its twenty-first edition, is off the press and ready for distribution. The most complete and authoritative source of information on manufacturing plants in Texas, the Directory provides the following information for over 12,200 plants: name and complete address, name of executive officer, date of establishment, number of elllployees, description of products manufactured, and, where applicable, name and main office address of parent company. In ~ompiling, editing, and publishing the Directory the Bureau of Business Research at The University of Texas at Austin makes use of data obtained principally from the manufacturers themselves, with supplementary information from Texas chambers of commerce. The varied uses of this two-volume reference work include its functions as a sales-management aid, as a source of information for purchasing agents, as a plant-location tool, as a useful classification for mailing lists. The Directory consists of four helpful sections: a convenient alphabetical listing of all plants by firm name with city location and home office; a geographical listing of plants according to city of location, with both cities and plants in alphabetical order, and with the detailed information for each plant; a product section in which all products manufactured in Texas are listed under at least the first four digits of their Standard Industrial Classification number, in arithmetical order and geographical suborder for each number; an excellent product index, on the basis of alphabetical name order. $22.50 per set 848 pp. (Texas residents pay .96 sales tax.) BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN