VOL. XL IV, NO. 6, JUNE 1970 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Editor Stanley A. Arbingast; Associate Editor, Robert H. Ryan; Managing Editor, Graham Blackstock Editori~l Board: Stanley A. Arbingast, Chairman; John R. Williamson: Joe H. Jones: Graham Blackstock. CONTENTS ARTICLES 145: 148: THE BVSINESS Stockton TEXAS IN THE SITUATION IN TEXAS, by John SEYENTIES: 4. TEXAS' FUTURE FA R. RM­ lfi4: ERS, by RobeCONSTRl'CTION rt H. Ryan IN TEXAS, by Francis B. May TABLES 146: SELECTED BARO~IETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS 147: ESTD!ATES OF TEXAS CI\"ILIAN LABOR FORCE 149: PROFILE OF THE TEXAS FARMER, 1970 158: ESTIMATES OF TEXAS FARM PRODUCTION, 1967 AND 1980 155: ESTDIATED \'ALn;s OF BrILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS 156: LOCAL Bl'SJNESS CONDITIONS HARO~IETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (inside back cover) CHARTS 145: ESTBIATED PERSONAL INCO~IE, TEXAS 146: INDUSTRIAL PRODl'CTION, TEXAS 146: INDl'STRIAL l'RODl'CTION-TOTAL MANUFACTURES, TEXAS 146: ll\'Dl'STRIAL PIWDCCTION-DURABLE ~IANVFACTURES, TEXAS 146: INDl'STRIAL PRODl'CTION-NONDVRABLE MANUFAC­ Tl'RES, TEXAS 147: CONSl'~IER PRICES, UNITED STATES 147: WHOLESALE PRICES, l'NITED STATES 151: TEXAS FARM INCOME, 1950-1980 154: TOTAL Bl'JLDING AVTHORIZED, TEXAS 154: RESIDENTIAL Bl'JLDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS 154 : NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS DIAGRA~I 148: THE ALL-TEXAS FARM MAP 150: DISTRIBUTION OF TEXAS FAR~! EARNINGS, 1967 The B ureau of Business Research i's a meinber of the Stockton: Francis B. May; Robert H. Ryan; Robert B. BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH Director: Stanley A. Arbingast Special Research Associate: Joe H. Jones /1.q1;istant to the Direr.tor: 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, William T. Hold, Jerry Todd, Ernest W. Walker, Robert B. Williamson Adininistratire Assistant: Margaret Robb Research Associates: Graham Blackstock, Willetta De­ment, :Margaret Fielder, Gay Horak, Ida M. Lambeth, Robert :\1. Lockwood, Robert H. Ryan, Lamar Smith, Charles P. Zlatkovich Statistical A.ssociate: Mildred Anderson Statistical Assistants: Constance Cooledge, Glenda Riley Statistical Technician: Kay Davis Coinpnter Assistants: Richard Bernstein, Charles Jordan, David King, Terry Throckmorton Cartographers: Penelope Lewis, James Weiler Librarian: :\Ierle Danz .1dministrative Secretary: Jeanette Pryor .1dininistrative Clerk: Nita Teeters Senior Secretary: Susan Murphy Senior Clerk Typist: Carolyn Greene, 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, Texas 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, $4.00 a year; individual copies 35 cents. B · d E Research 1· Associated University Bureaus of usmess an conom c · THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS John R. Stockton Business acti\'ity in Texas is caught in the uncertain­ties that ensnare the national situation, where the forces of inflation are still boosting prices while key business indicators seem to be growing more sluggish. The con­sumer price index of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in­creased .6 percent in April O\'er the pre\·ious month. This represents an annual rate of increase of 7.2 percent, and is the sharpest rise since a similar climb last December. The index in April stood at 134, after an increase of 6 percent o\·er the le\'el a year ago. As inflation continues to run rampant the economy sho\\'s definite signs of slowing down. The continued drop in common-stock prices is viewed by many as a warning of a serious recession. The unemployment rate rose in April to 4.8 percent of the labor force from 4.4 in :\larch and 4.2 in Februar~". The le\'el of retail sales reflects a mood of caution on the part of consumers. Dollar \'olume of consumer spending during the first four months of 1970 has been abon the le\'el for the same period a year ago, but the increase has been less than the rise in prices. This means that the physical \'Olume of goods sold has declined. The gross national product, adjusted for price increases, declined in the fourth quarter of 1969 and again in the first quarter of 1970. These successiYe drops mean that the total volume of goods and services produced by the economy has been declining. The \'olume of factory out­ put has decreased in seven out of the past eight months \\'ith April reversing an encouraging upturn in :\larch. Productivity of labor is decreasing at the same time that the pay of workers has brrn increasing. The result ot' this situation is an incrrasr in costs, which togetlwr with slowing sales has brought about a decline in corporate profits. _.\!though the prospects for business in Texas are close­ly tied to the trends in the nation, some \'ariations from thr O\'erall picture are oln·ious. In general it appears that the economy show,; fewer signs of slowing down in Texas than in other sections of the country. The im­portant Texas petroleum industry showed a significant ..\pril gain o\·er :\larch. . .\pril production of crude oil, adjusted for seasonal n 1riation, ro:;e 2 percent and was 11 percent aho\'e production in .-\pril of last year. Re­fining acti\'ity in April, as measured by crude runs to stills. rose 19 percent, although this le,·el was only 3 percent abo\·e that of a year ago. Total electric-power consumption and industrial po,,·er consumption both rose 3 percent after seasonal adjust­ment, with the le\'el of total consumption 7 percent abo\'e the year-ago le\·el and with industrial po\\'er 7 percent ahead of last year's comparable total. The index of industrial production compiled by the Federal Resel'\'e Board of Dallas declined 1 percent in April. At 175.8 percent of the 1957-1959 an.rage, how­eYer, the April 1970 index increased 6 percent over the ..\pril 1969 index. The unemployment rate in Texas areas reporting to the Texas Employment Commission was 2.9 percent of the ci\·ilian labor force. This is a 3-percent decline from the :3.0-percent rate reached in :\larch 1970. ESTIMATED PERSONAL INCOME, TEXAS lndu Adjuated for Secuonal Variation -1957-1959= 100 SOURCE: Quarterly measures ofTexas personal income made by the Office of Business Economics, U.S. Department ofCommerce. Monthly allocations of quarterly measures, and estimates of most recent months, made by the Bureau of Business Research with regression relationships of time, bank debits, and manufacturing employment. 14G JCNE 1970 High interest rates and the shortage of funds, at any price, have slowed the construction industry in all parts of the nation. Residential building authorized in Texas rose 7 percent in April, although the level was 30 per­cent below that of April a year ago. Nonresidential con­struction authorized, however, was 23 percent higher in April 1970 than in April 1969, in spite of the fact that the April figures for this year registered a decline of 13 percent from March. The cautious buying of consumers has hit the automo­bile in:< 24 48 Average weekly hours-­ manufacturing 99.3* 99.7* 99.5 ¢* -1 * Preliminary. ** Change is less than one half of 1 percent. 14(i INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION DURABLE MANUFACTURES, TEXAS 350 250 IH 200 200 IH150 100 100 JO lt57 ltSI 1Ut 1960 1'61 1962 1963 1fU 1'65 1'66 1''7 1961 1969 1970 NOTE: Shaded area• indicate pel'iod• o{ decline of total b111inea1 activity in the United Statu. SOURCE: Federal Ruerve Be.nk o! Dalla.a . INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION NONDURABLE MANUFACTURES, TEXAS lndu Adjuated lor S•••onel V•rietion-IJS1-JJJl•IOO uo 250 ISO 100 ' 0 1957 1951 1'59 1960 IHI lfU 1963 19'4 196S 1966 lf'7 1961 1'70 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW funds appropriated for cavital expenditures is considered an important indicator of future expenditures on new plant and equipment, although the appropriation of funds does not necessarily mean that the money \\·ill e\·entually be spent. It does serve, howeYer, as a good indication of the attitude of corporate management with respect to the future. This new smTey indicates a substantial change in the plans of businessmen from the surYey made by the Department of Commerce and the Securities and Exchange Commission in January and February. The earlier study reported an intended increase of 10.6 per­cent in expenditures for new plant and equipment. There is no reason to belieYe that the need for capital goods has declined, but the shortage of funds has made some adjustment of plans imperatiw. Any gains against inflation achieved by a reduction in the capital-expenditure plans of business concerns may be canceled by the growing prospects for a deficit in the federal budget. Because of the combined effects of re­ duced revenues and increasing expenses, the ..\dministra­ tion has apparently given up hope for a balanced budget. Already consideration is being ginn to an increase in taxes to make up for the shrinkage in collections and for reductions that will result from the redsions in the in­ come tax. How long the present paradox of inflation and reces­ sion will last is the question that worries business an­ alysts. The April rise in both the consumer price index and the level of unemployment seem almost too contra­ dictory to be real; either phenomenon would be bad enough, but simultaneous occurrence of both creates a puzzlingly frustrating situation. The rise in prices, which has been substantial since 1965, means simply that a considerable proportion of the gain in business ,·olume has been inflation. Wages and business profits continued to register gains, although, because costs in general usually rise faster than prices, these gains ewntually diminished when a squeeze on profits dewloped. A typical example of cost increases is the increase in truck rates. Interstate rates in the Southwest haw been increased 4 percent but another 7 percent has been requested. The minimum rate on small shipments in Texas has been increased 25 percent, with the aYerage increase on larger shipments up 8 percent. The decline in profits and the extreme sho1tage of credit have reduced the liquidity of the economy to what many consider a dangerous point. A series of failures of financial concerns could haYe serious and widespread consequences. The Federal Resene Board could expand the money supply, but with prices still rising this clan­gerous action would probably only add more fuel to the inflationary fires. Once new funds had been addt>d to the mont>y supply their withdrawal might be difficult \\·hen need for them had passed. The suggestion of tlw Chairman of the Hoard of Gonrnors of the F t>deral Resen·e System that wage and price guidelines might he necessary has been received \\'ith apprehension by the business community. In a ma­jor \\·artime inflation, controls ha,·e been necessary, al­though they are extremely cumbersome and difficult to enforce. Some analysts belieYe that control of the money supply is enough to p1·en•nt a seYere recession, but there is serious doubt that credit controls alone are enough to stop the UP\\·ard spiral of prices...\!though the federal go,·ernment's fiscal policy is considered by many to be an essential yokernate of monetary policy, attempts to balance the federal budget ha\·e apparently failed, and the excess of expenditures O\'er receipts appears likely to continue. There seems to be no escape from the conclusion that the performance of the economy during the past seven months can be called a recession. The decline in factory output, the rise in unemployment, the reduction of corpo­rate profits, and the \\'Orst decline in the security markets since World \Var II look wry much like a recession re­gardless of \\'hat the situation is called. At the same time com·incing signs that inflation has been brought under control are not Yisible. With a sizable war in progress it may be that inflation is a greater threat for the future than recession. The existence of the infla­tionary pressures handi~aps the use of effecti\·e measures to fight the recession. CONSUMER PRICES, UNITED STATES HO SOO HO 150 ... ESTIMATES OF THE TEXAS CIYILIAN LABOR FORCE April" March""' Aprilr 1970 1970 1969 Total civilian labor force . ... 4,743,300 Total employed .. 4,604,500 Agriculture 302,000 Nonfarm . . 4,302,500 Manufacturing 766,000 Nonmanufacturing 3,536,500 Total unemployed 136,500 Involved in work stoppages. 2,300 P reliminary. ' Revised. Source: Texas Employment Commission. 4,689,400 4,547,700 281,200 4,266,500 771,000 3,495,500 140,500 l,200 4,578,600 4,463,700 303,700 4,160,000 767,600 3,392,400 105,500 9,400 100 0 JUNE 1970 147 TEXAS IN THE SEVENTIES 4. TEXAS' FUTURE FARMERS Robert H. Ryan A new generation of farmer.s ig due to take over Texas' immense, inefficient agricult1lral economy. They will have to add new manage~ nwnt nnd teclinological skill~ to the imagination and bo1lndless energy that farmers illWP always needed. The hungry, shabby world of the 1970's is already look­ing to thE' Texas farmer to provide food and clothing for expanding markets on every continent. Yet domestic mar­kds, too, are not only growing hut shifting rapidly in the prnducts they demand. Whether Texas can begin to meet the needs for its agricultural goods is open to serious ques­tion. In spite of its size and diversity, Texas is a land of shortages, with too little water for much of its best soils, less-than-ideal farmland where there is enough water, and too many farmers and farm workers who lack the high skills demanded by today's sophisticated farm economy. Lack of skills may be the easiest of these problems to remedy. The facts about the typical Texas fa1mer (facing page) suggest that more often than not he is without benefit of professional training in agriculture. On the other hand, he is fairly advanced in age and will be much less active in another decade or two. His replacement on the farm will be a younger man, more likely to be fa­miliar with farm accounting, advanced soil-improvement techniques, new high-yield cropping practices, and ways of meeting the astonishing requirements of federal farm programs. 2\-foreover, the young farmer of the seventies will need his well-honed wits about him. Not only will he have to apply fairly high technology to his work, he will have more land to manage. With the trend toward consolida­ tion that has been apparent for several decades, the Texas farm is growing rapidly. Of course the New Farmer will be faced with some very old prohlems-drouth and declining ground-water level s; crop and livestock damage from disease, storms, and severe weather; the choice of stiff market competi­tion or agricultural controls, usually awkward; and the lack of enough money to improve his situation. Addition­ally, the farmer in Texas may face labor shortages and rncreas1ng bhor rates that can he met only by heavy mvPstmcnt m machinery, investment that he often can ill afford. The unhappy plight of hired workers on farms has IJccn heavily publicized, but less often noted is the poverty of the farmers themselves, who now heavily out­ number the farm laborers in Texas and elsewhere.''' Some of the problems of farm labor are IJeing solved th(! most direct possible way-by eliminating much human labor in farm production. But Texas is lagging in this trend. The nation as a whole employed about 10 million persons in farming in 1950, some 7 million in 1960, and "The term "farmers" here includes meml>E:!rs of their families who work on the farm. now fewer than 4 million. Last year the number of hired farm workers dropped below one million, probably for the first time since 1800. The number of hired workers on Texas farms has de­clined from 1:35,000 in 1950, to 107,000 in 1960, and to 98,000 in 1967; however, Texas still has higher farm employment than any other state except California. Ot her states with farm output comparable with that of Texas, such as Iowa and Illinois, get by with about a third of the work force Texas farmers employ. Some of the .results of Texas' undermechanized agriculture are illustrated by comparison with the farm situation in a much smaller state, Iowa. The most recent published Census of ..\griculture, which was issued six years ago, showed Texas to have about 24,000 commercial farms with less than $2,500 in sales; Iowa had only 4,091. Yet Iowa had 40,223 farms in the over-$20,000 sales bracket, while Texas had 26,.432. ·If it seems that Texas farms are overmanned and underproductive, at least part of the fault must be found in the land. The vastness of the state obscures the serious shortage of highly productive land in Texas. A map shown in this article presents hitherto unpublished in­formation on how farm income is distributed across the Cotton Groin sorghum Wheat 17 acres 33 acres 28 acres 1-----i Other harvested crops 78 acres THE All-TEXAS FARM Typica I a rec : 700 acres Open permanent postures .433 acres forest Cropland­ and Cropland used woodlandidle or in for pasture .53 acressoil-building 35 acres crops 23 acres TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW state. It shows also which counties (those with stars) depend heavily on agriculture for economic suppo1i. Ironically the largest block of counties where farming contributes most is the irrigated zone of the High Plains, where unce1iainty about the future dependability of water supplies may threaten the agricultural prosperity of the recent past. Elsewhere over the state farming is a major source of income only in South Texas, where much of the cropland is also irrigated, and along the Gulf Coast, where the most profitable crop is irrigated rice. By contrast, humid East Texas is the state's least profit.able agricultural region. During the seventies the pattern of farm earnings is certain to change. The aquifers that provide water for High Plains irrigation are far from totally depleted. Yet water levels will continue to decline, and farmers will have to use their water more sparingly. The possi­ble results are outlined in a table presented with this article, which projects Texas farm output to 1980. The statistics are drawn from an admittedly pessimistic fore­cast published by Texas A&:\I economists in 1967. They show a·n increase of only 14 percent in output of major farm commodities between 1967 and 1980 (on the as­sumption that 1967 price relationships continue). While livestock and vegetable production is headed sharply up­ward, lower outputs of grain crops offset much of the gain. Underlying the projection is the assumption that water supplies will be much less generous within a dec­ade. It is questionable that the heavy increase in live- PROFILE OF THE TEXAS FAR'.\IEH, 19i0 Age: over 50 (Average age for all employed males is under 40.) Education: high-school graduate (He is more likely to have dropped out before completing high school than to have gone to college.) Annual net income from farming: $5,000 (Net incomes per farm in 1969 ranged from $735 in West Virginia to $29,471 in Arizona. Texas farms averaged lower in net income than farms in 28 other states, including Ar­kansas and Georgia.) Value of farm: about $100,000 Operating costs and overhead: $13,500 Mortgage loans outstanding: $10,000 Real-estate taxes: $450 to $500 Sources of gross income: Livestock sales-$8,500 Crop sales-$7,100 Government payments-$2,800 Source: Data derived from reports by federal agencies. JUNE 1970 stock production could he supported, in fact, by rapidly dwindling grain crops. Because the pattern of Texas land use is the result of long experience and because farmers tend to be con­servatinly resistant to change, truly radical changes in farming during the 1970's are unlike!~· except in re­sponse to sheer necessity. The gains in consumer income in Texas and the nation han already been felt in in­creasing demand for beef, much of which of course will be produced in Texas. Early last year the number of cattle being fed for slaughter in the nation as a whole was up by one third from a year earlier. While that increase was not typical of the long range, it reflects a persistent trend that began early in the decade. Cattle feedlot operations in Texas are growing faster than those in any other state. During the next decade feed cattle in Texas may likely double in number. Output of other meat animals is also due to increase. There are indications of growing popular acceptance of lamb and mutton in Texas. Even sharper gains are fore­ seen by many authorities for Texas pork production. Two reasons are offered for that forecast: first, con­ sumer markets for pork are thought to be promising; second, pig farming is becoming increasingly economical, since new varieties of corn can supply virtually all the nourishment required by hogs at lower relative cost than feeds used in the past. Imprond grain and other seed crops may have great significance, too, in human nutrition, particularly in coun­tries deficient in protein production. (It should not be assumed that the United States can never be one of these.) Opaque-2, a new corn variety well suited to hog feeding, also supplies most of the amino acids needed for human nutrition. Also, some new types of wheat and other grains are potential sources of lipin, the most im­po1iant amino acid (protein constituent) lacking in most grains. Soybeans, too, have not been very widely planted in Texas, even though neighboring Louisiana and Ar­kansas are among the leading soybean states and even though Texas yields per acre have been higher than average. Long identified primarily as livestock feed, soy­beans han strong potential for use as a raw material for human foods and chemical products. A relati,·ely optimistic picture of the future is shown in the accompanying bar cha1i based on Bureau of Busi­ness Research farm-income projections. This chart shows Texas farm marketings passing the $2.8-billion level in 1970 and soaring on toward $3.7 billion in 1980. The estimates here are based on the thesis that Texas farming has more unrealized potential than farming in perhaps any other state. Specifically, it is expected that the cen­tral and eastern parts of Texas will be re-established as major farm areas, with particular emphasis on vegetables and other high-rnlue crops. At the same time, these esti­mates presuppose continuing prosperity on the High Plains and in other irrigated areas. It is believed that ground-water supplies will decline rather slowly and that the decline will be offset in part by more effective use of water and perhaps by development of some less­thirsty crop yarieties. In East Texas more intensive use of the best croplands can enhance agricultural output dramatically. :\Iechaniza­tion and fuller use of scientific farming methods give this now-depressed area the greatest potential for gro\\ih DISTRIBUTION OF TEXAS FARM EARNINGS, 1967 • County form earnings 1967 Over $5 million D $2-5 million D $0-$2 million D Net loss County form earnings as °lo of county personal income 1967 * Over 30% • 15-30% SOURCE, Unpublished estimat b o· · · f R 1 es Y tvtsion o egiona Economics, Office of Business Economics, U.S. Department of Commerce 1 .) (1 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW among all Texas farming regions. In the past two dec­ades many of the small, marginal crop farms of East Texas have been consolidated and turned back to pas­ture. In the future some of this land will be rehabilitated as cropland but with fuller use of machinery, soil addi­tives, and some irrigation. While West Texas, with its perennial shortage of water, is well provided with skills and capital for farming, humid East Texas has a history of undercapitalized, underskilled agriculture. In classifying the nation's farmland resources the U.S. Department of Agriculture does not regard any part of Texas as prime humid farmland, and only the coastal area from Galveston to Corpus Christi is labeled as being distinctly favorable in some respects. On the other hand, the soils and surface relief of the dry High Plains and the subhumid plains of Central and North Texas are regarded by USDA economists as prime farmlands ex­ cept for their lack of dependable water. TEXAS FARM INCOME CASH RECEIPTS FRO!\I FARl\I l\IARKETl:\GS, 1950·1980 (l\lillions of 1957-1959 dollars) SOURCE, U.S. Deportment of Agriculture, 1950-1965; projections to 1980 by Bureau of Business Research, on the assumption of optimum agricultural conditions . The chart (p. 148) depicting a composite "All-Texas Farm" shows how farmlands are used in the state as a whole, not on a typical farm anywhere in the state. :\Iuch of the permanent pastureland that dominates the farm pattern is semiarid, hilly, or otherwise disqualified for cropping. Nevertheless, even a small shift toward higher or more intensive use of land could yield enor­mously larger earnings for Texas farming. As land prices and investment in capital equipment continue to rise, farmers may be compelled, in fact, to find more profitable uses for some of their acreage. According to Texas A&'.\I agricultural economist A. B. Wooten some farmlands in the state are priced without much regard for their actual productivity. For example, the typical Blackland cotton farm, priced at about $336 per acre in 1968, would require a twenty-year payoff period for the land alone; the comparable 1947-1949 pay­off period was only 4.4 years. By contrast, land in parts of the High Plains averaged only $162 an acre in 1968, and planted to irrigated cotton it should pay for itself in 6.5 years. Part of the difference in land price is due to special factors. The Blacklands, stretching from Dallas to San Antonio, are rather heavily urbanized, and the rnlue of much of the land is enhanced by its potential for nonfarm uses. On the other-hand, High Pltlins prices have been somewhat depressed by the uncertainty of underground water supplies and by government restric­tions on cotton acreage. Land prices have been high in the El Paso area ( $1,185 an acre in 1968), where irrigated cotton yields are good and where the rapid expansion of the .El Paso metro­politan population points toward future urban use. Other high-priced land in Texas is found along the Gulf Coast and in the timbered region of East Texas. In both cases industrial and recreational potentials have raised land values. On the other hand, low-cost land is still avail­able. Trans-Pecos acreage, mostly dryland liYestock range, could be had for an a\·erage price of $29 in 1968, and dryland crop farms in the Rolling Plains cost $103 an acre, Dr. Wooten has obsened that on the Rolling Plains "you can make a crop failure cheaper than anywhere else in Texas." There is e\·ery reason to expect land prices to continue their response to urbanization through the seventies. Land for considerable distances surrounding major cities is being held more or less speculatively in the confidence that the expanding population of Texas metropolitan areas will occupy far more land than jn the past. To some degree this confidence may be misplaced. Texas cities characteristically have low population density, and much higher concentrations of population are possible­ and likely-within the city limits, :\fore congested com­ muter routes and soaring transportation costs will be strong incentiYe for city dwellers to compromise their elbow room rather than attempt to find driving room in rush-hour freeway traffic. In an extreme contrast in urban population spread, Census figures show that Lub­ bock recently had about twice the incorporated land area of San Francisco and nearly four times the area of '.\Ianhattan. Dallas and Houston are among the nation's largest cities in area, and San Antonio covers approxi­ mately the same acreage as Detroit, though it has far less population. Two facts will encourage high land prices on urban fringes. First, the need for rural recreational areas will continue to stimulate the land market around cities. Second, the need for market garden and nursery products will prompt more intensi\·e, more profitable, use of some nonresidential suburban land. Land producth·ity and, indirectly, land values are due to be enhanced by agricultural management techniques still unheard of by most small-scale farmers. For one example, agricultural sun-eying by airplane and satellite can be used to determine irrigation and fertilizer needs, e\·en to spot the presence of plant diseases. Remote sens­ ing scanners measure the color and temperature of fields to determine crop conditions and changes in plant me­ tabolism. The~e methods, still in denlopment, will enable far more effective treatment of large tracts of land. It is probable that data from high-altitude scanners will ·be used mainly by organizations of independent farmers and corporations managing nry large units of land, giving still another adYantage to agricultural conglomerates. JUNE 1970 151 Airborne technology may reach the farm in still an­other way. In the 1970's Texas may see the growth of "no-tillage" agriculture, particularly with respect to the cultivation of grains and legumes. Using this method, farmers harvest a crop but do not subsequently plow the harvested field. Instead, low-flying aircraft distribute seeds in the stubble of the harvested crop. This second crop is harvested, and a third grows in the stubble of the second. On the surface of the land, crops are being redesigned to meet the needs of large-scale farm operators and co­operatives able to afford sophisticated planting, cultivat­ing, and harvesting machinery. The California tomato crop has been almost entirely mechanized within the past decade. Lettuce harvesting by machine is also coming into practice. The harvesting of green beans and lima beans has been successfully mechanized for years, though only recently have varieties of these vegetables been developed with adequate disease resistance to permit ex­tensive enough plantings for optimum use of mechanical harvesters. In Texas too little use is yet. made of me­chanized farming of specialty crops. However, Texas has moved impressively in the mechanization of major field crops. The management of large farms provides advantages other than technological improvements. For one, the big­scale producer can better negotiate sales contracts with buyers, through his ability to offer them large quantities and better-assured quality with the additional convenience of a single contract. Large-acreage farmers can also buy their supplies at advantageous prices. As chemical and equipment purchases become an even more significant part of the farm budget, the economies of scale will in­crease. Additionally, trained, professional farmers will need to attribute higher value to their own time and efforts. Only by managing increasingly· large units of land can they "pay" themselves as much as they deserve. In Texas and throughout the nation agriculture is an extensive industry on its way toward being far more intensive. The nation's croplands cover more than 440 million acres (one thirteenth of that total is in Texas alone). If all that land were cultivated as intensively as the croplands of Japan the output, on the basis of equal productivity, would be enough to feed a population of nearly 2 billion. While it is incomprehensible to most Americans that their nation's land resources will ever have to feed 2 billion persons in this country, it is even harder to ac­cept the knowledge that such a population would allow only one acre per person for all purposes-raw materials for food and clothing, factories, roads and airports, hous­ing, recreation. Nevertheless, the recent rate of popula­tion increase, if it continues, points to a U.S. population of two billion in less than two hundred years. Moreover, the population of Texas has been growing more than a third faster than that of the nation as a whole. Already a Texas population of 18 million in 1990, projected by the Bureau of Business Research, has been assumed by the State of Texas for planning purposes. The implications for Texas farming are inescapable. Texas has historically been a net exporter of food and fiber products and has been relatively self-sufficient in provieling fresh produce and processed foods for its din­ner tables. With the decline of fruit and vegetable pro­duction in Texas, residents have become increasingly dependent upon supplies of fresh produce from the Far West and supplies of canned and frozen foods from many parts of the nation. In the future those regions of in­tensive fruit and vegetable raising, dairying, and other specialized lines of agriculture may be less fully capable of supporting the needs of a growing population through­out the land. As supply problems develop, Texas farmers will be called upon to upgrade their production in quan­tity and quality. In doing so, they can make use of whole new realms of applied scientific knowledge. However, they will be under increasing pressure to apply that knowledge with discretion. Ecologist Barry Commoner pointed out in Dallas last year that farmers as well as urban dwellers are guilty of polluting the environment. The target of his concern was the use of nitrogen fertilizers. Al­ready, according to Commoner, some Illinois water sup­plies have been found to contain more nitrate compounds than the acceptable limit. His remedy was alarming to many farmers: "I believe these difficulties will even­tually require the limitation of the current high rate use of inorganic fertilizer." Apart from the disease-producing potential of nitrate content in water for domestic use­a fairly remote threat-Commoner and other environ­mentalists are concerned that synthetic fertilizers, like nitrogen-rich sewage, will promote excessive growth of algae in streams and lakes. Whether that particular fear is well founded, the pub­lic in Texas is taking an increasingly lively interest in human use, and misuse, of the environment. (At The University of Texas at Austin students are carrying on studies in urban noise pollution-better known to their parents as "racket.") While it may not become desirable to limit soil fertilization, it has always been desirable to apply soil additives discriminately in a well-balanced, well-reasoned regimen tailored to the particular circum­stances. Farmers have a more immediate motive, too, for mini­mizing the use of production inputs. While manufactured fertilizers are still remarkably low in price, farm costs in general have been eating up most of the increase in farm income. Many farmers actually sell more but net less today than in the recent past. Farm specialization is at the root of some of their cost increases. Most farm families are no longer nearly as self-sufficient as they once were, and not long ago. This change is especially marked in Texas, where many farms provide virtually none of the farm owner's food. Last year U.S. farmers consumed at home less than half as much of their own products as in the late 1950's, though their total output was up by 27 percent. The economic dislocations suffered during the past four decades of farm "industrialization" have inspired a variety of government programs, seldom quite satisfac­tory, to remedy the problems. The federal farm pro­gram, under fire for more than a generation, is certain to be revised during the seventies. The number of farms in the nation has dropped by about half since World War II, and grain surpluses have largely disappeared; yet government payments to farmers soared during the l 960's. Growing domestic meat production was reflected TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW in demand for grain-it takes about eight pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef. Even more important, foreign shipments of U.S. grain \\·ere stepped up, partly through a program of gifts and easy-term sales to needy nations. In one year India received about H fifth of the total U.S. wheat crop, or fiye times the Texas crop. This nation has accepted a measure of responsibility for feeding the world's underfed. It is unnecessary to point out that such a policy has practical limits. NeYer­theless, the need for food in this country and through­out the world appears to make unrealistic a domestic farm policy posited on the fiction of oYerproduction. While there are still a good many marginal farmers in Texas and elsewhere, their output is so small that they cannot benefit much from price-support or acreage-dh·er­sion programs, while many large and already profitable farms have benefited handsomely. In the current year the ayerage Amerirnn is paying $25.02 in taxes to support the $5-billion agriculture pro­ gram-slightly less than it cost him in 1959. Farm statis­ tics seem to indicate that the a\·erage Texas farmer's net income would be cut in half without goYernment pay­ ments. Realistically, though, there is no "anrage Texas farmer," and the distribution of the funds apparently tends to oyersubsidize large producers and keep some marginal farms uneconomically operatiYe. Projections of farm development and production in Texas tend to avoid one of the uglier threats to farm prosperity: drouth. While dry weather has been a fre­ quent problem in the 1960's, Texas was parched by a full-scale drouth only a decade earlier, from 1950 to 1957. After that drouth was over, Texas .\&:\I research­ ers took a close look at its effects on a typical county, '.\'!ills County, located near the geographio center of the state. They found that county residents maintained their optimism through the first two or three years of drouth, then, after fiye or six years of rainfall shortage, tended to give way to despair. Half the farmers and many farm wins in the study area found off-farm jobs. :\Iany farmers, particularly the younger ones, gan' up farming entirely and even left the county permanently. Others changed tlwir pro­duction patterns, shifting from cattll' to sheep and, especially, goats. Cotton and peanuts, major field crops in the area, were cut back sharply except on a few farms where irrigation \ms begun. Changes in income in the drouth-ridden county \\·ere not inYestigated, but produc­tion declines make it clear enough that fa1111 earnings had dropped sharply. The case study is instructi\·e as an example of the fairly rapid response of farmers to ad\·erse conditions. Future drouths and massive depletion of groundwater resources could prompt similar changes in a farming area. A target value of $3.6 billion in Texas farm income by 1976 was recently set by Texas .\gricultural Exten­sion Director John Hutchison. This hopeful forecast in ­cludes some significant items not ordinarily included in projections of agricultural earnings-hunting leases and catfish farming. Re\·enue from the leasing of hunting tracts, estimated at $19 million for the 1968-1969 season, is expected to be $27 million by 1976. Fish farming, al­ready a major activity in Arkansas and elsewhere, is foreseen as producing $31.:i million for Texas farmers in 1976, more than ten times the amount realized in 1968-1969. Forestry, another activity not included in the com·entional crop-and-li\·estock economy, should continue to bring Texas farmers about $100 million a year. Bx­tension Director Hutchison emphasizes that the goals he has set can be realized only through strong attention to marketing. In spite of the dramatic changes underway in the farming revolution, Texans need not fear, or hope, that farms and farmers will change beyond recognition in the next ten years. But even by 1980 farmers will look back with pity at the farmers, farm incomes, and agri­cultural practices of the 1960's. ESTIMATES OF TEXAS FARM PRODUCTION, 1967 AND 1980 Estimated Projected Estimated value of production Projected value of production production production Percent change in production in 1967 in 1980 (at 1967 prices) in 1967 in 1980 1967 to 1980 (thousands of dollars) (thousands of dollars) Turkeys (lbs.) 156,000,000 205,000,000 31 30,027 39,335 Chickens (lbs.) 569,000,000 745,000,000 31 76,948 100,802 Milk (lbs.) 3,080,000 3,309,000 187,880 201,032 Cattle and calves (lbs.) . .. . 3,333,000,000 4,646,000,000 39 719,101 999,550 Hogs (lbs.) 296,000,000 289,000,000 -2 ;;5,470 ;;4,361 Sheep and lambs (lbs.) . 139,000,000 188,000,000 35 23.724 32,027 Wheat (bu. ) 53,216,000 59,742,000 12 79,824 89,403 Cotton (bales) 2,767,000 3,986,000 44 272,549 392,471 Rice (cwt.) 25,908,000 19,517,000 -25 125,653 94,240 Corn (bu.) 18,658,000 4,458,000 -76 25,188 6,04;; ;;,358 1,232Oats (bu.) 6,615,000 1,551,000 -77 Barley (bu. ) 1,350,000 1,294,000 -4 1,363 1,308 Sorghum grain (bu. ) 343,485,000 75,705,000 -78 350,354 77,078 -27 37,679 27,506Peanuts (lbs.) 333,450,000 243,338,000 146 124,414 306,058Vegetables (cwt.) 23,738,000 58,340,000 7 11,610 12,423Potatoes (cwt.) 3,395,000 3,631,000 51 3,900 5,889 479 5,740 33,23;; Sweet potatoes (cwt.) 780,000 1,178,000 Grapefruit (tons) 121,000 701,000 Peaches and pears (tons). 16,400 26,000 59 n.a. n.a. 15 12,338 14,189Peeans (lbs.) 31,000,000 35,539,000 . n.a. Not available. Sources: 1967 production and value data computed from U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates; 1980 production data from 1961 projections by the Department of Agricultu ral Economics and Sociology, Texas A&M University. JUNE 1970 CONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS Francis B. May Residential construction in Texas continued to show improvement in April. At 134.6 percent of its average monthly value during the 1957-1959 hase pe1·iod the index of rt>sidential construction authorized, after allowance for seasonal factors, was 7 percent above the level of the pr('ceding month. The index has risen every month sinci> reaching ib low of 108.2 percent in December of 1969. Building permits authorizing construction of residen­tial structures reached a peak of 207.6 percent in De­cember 1968, during the period of relative financial ease following the 19G5-196G credit crunch. During the ,,·orst part of this credit dearth the index of residential permits reached a nadir of 64.0 in September 1966. It rose ir­regularly during 1967 and 1968 to its 1968 year-end peak value. If the recovery of the first four months of this year continues, the December low of 108.2 marks this period of financial stringency as being less severe than its predecessor insofar as Texas homebuilders are concerned. This is not very much consolation to builders twice squeezed in a period of five years. The steepness of the decline in value of residential permits authorized is demonstrated hy comparing the value of permits during the first four months of this year with the value for the corresponding period of last year. Despite thi> steady improvement during the Jan­ uary-April period of the cunent year, the 1970 year-to­ date value of permits authorized was 25 percent below the .January-April 1969 value. Hardest hit among the various types of residential construction were three-and four-family dwellings. Value of permits for this kind of structure during .January-April was 77 percent below the value for the comparable period of 1969. Two-family dwellings were next in depth of decline, falling 56 per­ cent below the level of the first four months of last year. Apartment-building permits were down 26 percent. Single­ family dwellings were least affected, declining 21 percent. The relative disfavor shown to duplexes anrl three-and four-family dwPllings compared with larger apartment buildings is a reflection of the fact that builders of apartment complexes can afford to supply more tenant­ attracting ameni ties, such as swimming pools and other rPcreational facilities, than the builder of smaller struc­ turf's can afford to supply and still earn a reasonable return on his investment. The strrngth of single-family rPsidence pPrrnits is a reflection that onee a young couple h('gin a family, they prefer a detached residence. Owning their home is still a major goal of Anwrican families. Examination of multiunil dwr~lling construction in Tex­ as standard metropolitan statistical areas i·ev€'als a great din•rsity in number and valup of units authorized during the first four months of this yf'ar. Changes in permits l'or eonstrurtion of two-family dwelling units ranged from a 100-perc(~nt dPcline lo zf·ro in Ahil!'ne during the first four months of thb Yf~ar to a construction increase of IGO p('rtPnt in numhPr of units and 110 percent in nilue in Corpus Christi. A bilPne was not the only stand­ ard rndropolitan statistical arPa showing zero construc­ tion nl' duplr·xe,._ during thP January-April period. Arna­ 1S4 TOTAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED , TEXAS• • Exclude• addition•, altetatlon1, and tep&ir1. NOTE: Shadt:d area• indicate pn iod1 of de clint: of tot.al bu1i.neu activity in the United St.atH rillo, Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, Galveston-Texas City, Laredo, San Angelo, Texarkana, and Wichita Falls issued no permits for duplexes during this four-month period. Cities other than Corpus Christi showing gains in number and value of permits for duplexes in J anuary­April were Houston, with an 8-percent gain in number and a 28-percent gain in value; Odessa, with a 150­percent gain in number of units and an 82-percent gain in value; and San Antonio, with a 45-percent gain in number of units and a 25-percent gain in value. Fourteen of the twenty-three areas had declines in value of permits for two-family units. Five showed no change from the TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW first four months of last year. Only four areas had in­creases. Permits issued for building apartments during the first four months in the state's twenty-three standard metro­politan _statistical areas also showed a preponderance of declines. Abilene had a 100-percent decline to zero in this category as well as in permits for two-family units. Other cities with zero value of permits for apartments during this period were :\1idland and Odessa. Lubbock showed the greatest increase in both number and value of permits, with a 2,726-percent increase in \'alue and a 1,417-percent increase in number of units. Damage caused by the recent tornado will result in further increases in Lubbock permits. Other areas that had increases in num­ber and value of apartment permits during the first four months were Corpus Christi, with a 106-percent increase in number and a 127-percent increase in \'alue; Sherman­Denison, with a 272-percent increase in number and a 507-percent increase in value; Waco, with a 70-percent increase in number and a 185-percent increase in value; ESTIMATED VALUES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS±: Percent change Classification Apr Jan-Apr 1970 1970 (thousands of dollars) Apr 1970 from Mar 1970 Jan-Apr 1970 from Jan-Apr 1969 ALL PERMITS ... 191,562 724,058 - 11 New construction .. 170,346 648,401 - 12 Residential (housekeeping) 85,732 312,328 - 25 One-family dwellings 52,703 170,569 15 - 21 Multiple-family dwellings 33,029 141,759 -18 - 30 Nonresidential buildings . 84,614 336,073 -17 Hotels, motels, and tourist courts 2,351 8,143 -8 - 30 Amusement buildings . 4,40: 32,630 -83 291 Churches 7,026 13,886 251 13 Industrial buildings 13,344 40,943 118 Garages (commercial and private) 907 3,419 39 - 57 Service stations 1,175 5,381 10 - 22 Hospital and institutions 5,814 18,561 10 - 27 Office-bank buildings 14,237 81,547 -28 86 Works and utilities . 4,209 15,482 592 59 Educational buildings . 8,109 43,211 -46 - 33 Stores and mercantile buildings 20,611 63,425 Other buildings and structures 2,426 9,445 41 - 67 Additions, alterations, and repairs 21,216 75,657 21 - 9 METROPOLITAN vs. NONMETROPOLITAN Total metropolitant .... 171,001 635,475 -6 - 14 Central cities ..........121,609 474,724 -15 - 9 Outside central cities . 49,392 160,751 31 - 26 Total nonmetropolitan 20,561 88,583 -12 8 10,000 to 50,000 population 12,365 44,608 Less than 10,000 population 8,196 43,975 -29 34 # Only buildings for which permits were issued within the incorporated area of a city are included. t Standard ll)etropolitan statistical area as defined in 1960 Census and revised in 1968. •• Change is less than one half of 1 percent. Source: Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bu­ reau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. JUNE 1970 and Wichita Falls, with a 530-percent increase in num­ber and a 395-percent rise in Yalue. Thirteen of the twenty-three areas had declines in both number and Yalue of permits. FiYe had no change. Two of these five areas were 1Iidland and Odessa, with zero Yalue of apart­ment permits in the January-April period of both 1969 and 1970. No standard metropolitan statistical areas had zero Yalue of permits for single-family houses issued in the first four months of the year. Only fh·e of the twenty­three areas had increases in \'alue of permits over the first four months of 1969. One of these five, Odessa, had a 17-percent increase in ,·alue of permits but no change in number of units. The other four had increases in both value and number of units, ranging from an 89-percent increase in Yalue and a 70-percent increase in number for Laredo to a I-percent increase in \'alue and a 42­percent increase in number for Wichita Falls. Browns­,·ille-Harlingen-San Benito had a 27-percent rise in value and a 55-percent rise in number. Texarkana had a 93­percent rise in Yalue but only a 40-percent rise in num­ber of single-family units. The remaining eighteen areas all had decrease8 in Yalue of permits for the first four months. Seventeen of them had declines in the number of units authorized. Only one, Dallas, had no change in the number of units authorized. While the le\'el of authorized residential construction of all types for the year to date was below the level for the first four months of 1969, this decline did not hold for nonresidential construction permits, which were 6 percent abo,·e the January-April 1969 \'alue. Seven of the fomteen categories of nonresidential construction contributed to this rise. Amusement buildings had a 291­percent increase in Yalue of permits authorized. Churches had a 13-percent rise. Industrial buildings rose 9 per­cent. PriYate garages rose 21 percent. Office-bank build­ings \\-ere up 86 percent. Public works and utilities were up 59 percent. Permits for stores and mercantile build­ings were up 4 percent. Of the seYen declining groups, commercial garages suffered the largest drop, 79 percent. Service stations and repair garages had the smallest decline, 22 percent. The relath·e strength of nonresidential construction was not great enough to preYent a decline in the index of total yalue of building permits issued, since total non­residential permits amounted to only $336.1 million com­pared to a total of $724.0 million of permits issued in the first four months of the year. This amount was less than half of the total. The value of permits for residential structures and alterations and repairs exceeded non­residential permits by a substantial margin. Further, the declines in these two categories of permits were greater than the rise in nonresidential permits. Banks, insurance companies, and pension funds have pledged $2 billion of mo1tgage investment funds in re­sponse to an appeal by the Administration. Congress is at work on legislation designed to aid the homebuilder. This aid is sorely needed by residential builders. It can't come too soon. A long-range problem facing the construction industry, particularly the homebuilder, is the rapid rise in costs. Increasing costs are pricing many homeseekers out of the market. Federal rent subsidies are not the best long­ range solution to this problem. Subsidizing inflation is no way to cure it. 155 Statisticnl clatn compiled by Mildred Anderson, Const11n('e Dnvis, statistical technician. The indicators of business conditions in Texas cities which are included in this table are statistics on hanking debits, building permits, and employment. The cities have been grouped according to standard metropolitan statistical areas. In Texas all twenty-three SMSA's are defined hy county lines; the counties included are listed under each S!\1SA. An area already functioning in many ways as an S'.\1SA, hut not yet so designated oflicially, has been added-the Longview-Kilgore-Glade­ water '.\letropolitan ..\rea. The populations shown for the S!\ISA's and for the counties are estimates for April 1, Hl6!J, prepared by the Population Hesearch Center, De­ partment of Sociology, The l:niversity of Texas at Aus­ tin. The population shown after the city name is the 1960 Census f\gur<', unl!'ss otherwise indicated. Cities in S:\ISA's are listed alphabetically under their appropriate SMSA's; all othPr <"ities a 1·p listed alphabetically as main entries. Cooled,qe, and Glenda Riley, statistical assistants, and Kay Symbols used in this table include: (a) Population Research Center data, April 1, 1969. (b) Separate employment data for the Midland and Odessa S'.\TSA's are not available, since employment figures for '.\lidlan,371,874 34 137 Percent unemployed (area) . 3.7 -5 16 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 66.680 10 8 Aransas Pass (pop. 6,956) Grand Prairie (pop. 51,200 ') Building permits less federal contracts S 64,550 -35 24 Building permits less federal contracts $ 2,595,764 50 -88 Bank debits (thousands) . S 8,278 1 -6 Bank debits (thousands). $ 31,967 5 15 For an explanation of symbols see p. 156. .TUNE 1970 Percent change Local Business Conditions Percent change Local Business Conditions Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr from from Apr from from City nnd item 1970 Mar 1970 Apr 1969 City and item 1970 Mar 1970 Apr 1969 EL PASO (pop. 315,000 ') Building permits less federal contracts S 7,451,078 -29 -14 Irving (pop. 86,360 ') Building permits less federal contracts S 6,355,836 378 263 Bank debits (thousands) $ 72,645 -3 -8 10 Bank debits (thousands) . $ ,;76,853 FORT WORTH SMSA Justin (pop. 622) (Johnson and Tarrant; pop. 727,800 •) Huilding permits less federal contracts S 23,000 54 Building permits less federal contracts $18,425,991 49 13 Bank debits (thousands) S 1,051 18 Bank debits (thousands) ff. $21,567,576 7 Nonfarm employment (area) . 304,400 Manufacturing employment (area) 93,400 Lancaster (pop. 10,117 ') Percent unemployed (area) . 2.8 65 Building permits less federal contracts $ 744,400 146 Bank debits (thousands) . S 8,006 -r, Arlington (pop. 79,713 ') Building permits less federal contracts 3,948,250 -33 17 Bank debits (thousands) . . 112,925 12 Lewisville (pop. 3,956) Building permits less federal contracts 977,720 249 122 Cleburne (pop. 15,381) Building permits less federal contracts 64,350 . 37 -60 Bank debits (thousands) . 22,795 .\'IcKinney (pop. 16,237 ') Building permits less federal contracts S 91,750 -42 -78 Euless (pop. 10,500 ') Bank debits (thousands). $ 16,606 31 14 Building permits less federal contracts 305,931 82 -61 Nonfarm placements 39 -66 FORT WORTH (pop. 356,268) Building permits less federal contracts S 7,094,533 84 -26 Mesquite (pop. 51,496 ') Bank debits (thousands) S 1,585,205 7 Building permits less federal contracts $ 3,397,217 Bank debits (thousands) 24 ,474 20 Grapevine (pop. 4,659 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 95,427 -44 -86 Bank debits (thousands). S 7,475 20 Midlothian (1>op. 1,580 ') Bui lding permits less federal contracts S 5,000 213 -89 North Richland Hills (pop. 8,662) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 1,909 Building permits less federal contracts 181,250 -SiJ !Jank debits (thousands) . 17,290 31 14 White Settlement (pop. 11,513) Pilot Point (pop. 1,603 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 270,890 312 131 Building permits less federal contracts $ 770,000 Bank debits (thousands) S 2,627 24 15 Bank debits (thousandR) . S 10,977 28 GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Richardson (pop. 43,406 ') (Galveston; pop. 162,100 •) Building permits less federal contracts $ 985,847 Building permits less federal contracts S 1,305,703 22 -73 Bank debits (thousands) r,1,462 24 Bank debits (thousands) ff . $ 2,628,684 Nonfarm employment (area) . 64,000 15 Manufacturing employment (area) 12,050 12 Seagoville (pop. 4,410 ') Percent unemployed (area) . 3.2 -41 Building permits less federal contracts 201,216 13 Bank debits (thousands) 8,340 25 Dickinson (pop. 4,715) Bank debits (thousands) . 14,145 Terrell (pop. 13,803) GALVESTON (pop. 67,175) Building permits less federal contracts 388,100 360 195 Building permits less federal contracts 822,998 -63 Bank debits (thousands) 16,788 16 Bank debits (thousands). 141.210 -1 La Marque (pop. 13,969) Waxahachie (pop. 15,720 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 55,705 52 -37 Building permits less fed eral contracts $ 648,545 621 -69 Bank debits (thousands) . S 19,925 -6 20 !lank debits (thousands) . $ 17,662 13 Nonfarm placements 51 6 50 TEXAS CITY (pop. 38,276 ') Building permits less federal contracts 427,000 198 -82 Bank debits (thousands) . 40,994 -1 14 EL PASO SMSA (El Paso; pop. 340,700 •) HOUSTON SMSA Building permits less federal contracts $ 7,451,078 -29 14 (Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty and Montgomery; Bank debits (thousands) ff . S 7,027,464 9 pop. 1,864,200 •) Nonfarm employment (area) . 115,800 Iluilding permits less federal contracts $45,746,207 45 -15 Manufacturing employment (area) 24,360 Bank debits (thousands) ff. . ..... .$102,026,688 6 21 Percent unemployed (area). 4.5 o•· 8 4G Nonfarm employment (area). 863,400 Manufacturing employment (area) 147,500 Percent unemployed (area). 2.1 For an explanation of symbols see p. 156. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Local Business Conditions Percent change Local Business Conditions Percent change Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr from from Apr from fromCity and item 1970 Mar 1970 Apr 1969 City e.nd item 1970 Mar 1970 Apr 1969 Angleton (pop. 9,131) Tomball (pop. 2,025 r) .Building permits less federal contracts S 138,940 92 -23 Building permits less federal rontracts S 24.500 SB Bank debits (thousands) . 17,643 --3 10 Bank debits (thousands) . S 14,251 6-1 Baytown (pop. 45,263 r) LAREDO SMSA Building permits less federal contracts S 385,916 85 - (Webb; pop. 73,800 ") Ba nk debits (thousands) . S 57,095 -10 Building permits less federal contracts $ 363,270 25 . -26 Bank debits (thousands ) II S !!43,392 18 Bellaire (pop. 19,872 r) Nonfarm employment (area) . 25, 130 Building permits less federal contracts S 79,190 -.)5 -20 ~fanufacturing employment (nren) 1,520 I Bank debits (thousands) . S 52,873 lJ 11 Percent unemployed (area) . 8.8 19 Clute (pop. 4,463 r) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 4, 144 lj LAREDO (pop. 71,512 r) Building permits less federal contracts $ 363,270 -23 -26 Bank debits (thousands) . S 85,066 22 Conf(>e (pop. 9,192) Nonfarm placements 444 47 BuildingtPermits less federal contracts $ 1!8,200 46 154 Bank debits (thousands) . S 39.229 21 41 LONGVIEW-KILGORE-GLADEWATER Dayton (pop. 3,367) METROPOLITAN AREA ' Buildim'.. permits less federal contracts S 12,820 -92 (Gregg; pop. 80,500 •) Bani/debits (thousands) . . . . . ..... S 6,487 -14 Building permits less federal contracts S 1,449,600 105 -21 Bank debits (thousands-unadjusted) S 118,541 2 8 Deer Park (pop. 4,865) Nonfarm employment (area) . 35,350 Building permits less federal contracts S 240,604 106 -48 Manufacturing employment (area) 10.080 Bank debits (thousands) . S ll,527 -13 15 Percent unem ployed (area) . 2.9 26 Freeport (pop. 11,619) GLADEWATER (pop. 5,742) Building permits less federal contracts S 46,510 -32 -45 Building permits Jess federal contracts S 20,430 -31 -2H Bank debits (thousands) . S 26,909 4 -3 Ba nk debits (thousands) . S 6,583 21 HOUSTON (pop. 938,219) Building permits less federal contracts $4 1,523,490 53 12 KILGORE (pop. 10,500 r) Bank debits (thousands) . S 8,050,671 4 20 Building permits less federal rontracts $ 510,830 664 973 Bank debits (thousands) . . S 19,38.; l~ 26 Humble (pop. 1,711) Building permits less federal contracts $ 13,175 -91 99 LONGVIEW (pop. 52,242 ') Bank debits (thousands) . $ 9,085 3 33 Building permits less federal contracts 918,300 ;)} Bank debits (thousands) . 92,573 I Katy (pop. 1,569) Building permits less federal contracts S 9,500 -85 -99 Bank debits (thousands) . S 4,316 -7 LUBBOCK SMSA (Lubbock; pop. 174,100 ') La Porte (pop. 7,500 r) Building permits less federal contracts 4,258,113 ~20 Building permits less federal contracts S 10,325 -91 -22 Ba nk debits (thousands) 11-4,473,828 ~ Bank debits (thousands) . S 5,163 Nonfarm employment (area) . 63,800 I Manufacturing employment (area) 7.360 Liberty (pop. 6,127) Percent unemployed (area) . 3.7 19 Building permits less federal contracts S 40,695 -37 -75 Bank debits (thousands) . S 15,551 --5 9 LUBBOCK (pop. 170,025 r) Building permits less federal cont racts S 4,210,61.; 218 Pasadena (pop. 83,000 r) Bank debits (thousands) . S 330,971 -6 Building permits less federal contracts $ 421,214 -73 -95 Bank debits (thousands) . S 106.860 12 Slaton (pop. 6,568) Pearland (pop. 1,430) Building permits less federal contracts :;oo 150 ~l !I 27 Bank debits (thousands) . 5,770 Building permits less federal contracts S 385,700 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 7,370 11 II McALLEN-PHARR-EDIXBURG SMSA Richmond (pop. 4,500 r) (Hidalgo; pop. 182,800 ') Building permits less federal contracts S 148,750 422 -75 Building permits less federal contracts S 785,517 -4 l 8 Bank debits (thousands) . S 8,973 8 Bank debits (thousands) 11-S 1.733,916 Nonfarm employment (area) 47 .100 Rosenberg (pop. 13,000 r) Ma nufacturing employment (area) 4.230 10 ~6 Building permits less federal contracts 81.078 -40 -79 Percent unemployed (area) .i.. i 20 South Houston (pop. 7,253) Building permits less federal contracts S 132,200 408 Alamo (pop. 4,121) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 13,028 17 Bank debits (thousands) . 3,703 26 For an explanation of symbols see p. 156. JUNE 1970 Percent change Percent c.hange Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr from from Apr from from City and item 1970 Mar 1970 Apr 1969 City and item 1970 Mar 1970 Apr 1969 SAN ANGELO SMSA Donna (pop. 7,612 ') Building permits less federal contracts 57,500 195 522 (Tom Green; pop. 73,700 •) Bank debits (thousands) . 4,585 -3 21 Building permits less federal contracts $ 176,094 -83 -63 Bank debits (thousands) ff. $ 1,230,384 8 Nonfarm employment (area) . 23,900 EDINBURG (pop. 18, 706) Manufacturing employment (area) 4,000 Building permits less federal contracts 218,550 16 -91 Percent unemployed (area). 3.1 -11 19 Bank debits (thousands) 25,877 9 Nonfarm placements 316 26 SAN ANGELO (pop. 58,815) Building permits less federal contracts 176,094 -83 -63 Bank debits (thousands) . 102,551 6 Elsa (pop. 3,84 7) Building permits less federal contracts $ 19,028 -72 Bank debits (thousands) . S 4,817 10 21 SAN ANTONIO SMSA (Bexar and Guadalupe; pop. 863,000 •) Building permits less federal contracts S 9,700,754 -29 14 McALLEN (pop. 35,411 ') Bank debits (thousands) ff. $17,069,352 13 Iluilding permits less federal contracts 266,850 36 -24 Nonfarm employment (area) 291,600Bank debits (thousands) . 58,066 -8 Manufacturing employment (area) 35,500 Nonfarm placements 336 47 -46 Percent unemployed (area) . 4.0 8 21 Mercedes (pop. 11,843 ') SAN ANTONIO (pop. 726,660 ') Building permits less federal contracts 77,890 76 33 -16 Building permi'ts less federal contracts $ 9,290,200 30 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 1,439,876 13Bank debits (thousands) . 7,059 -6 -8 Schertz (pop. 2,867 ') Mission (pop. 14,081) Building permits less federal contracts S 367,100 Building permits less federal contracts S 13,975 -60 -69 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 765 13 Bank debits (thousands) . 18,991 8 1l Seguin (pop. 14,299) Building permits less federal contracts $ 26,223 -77 -58PHARR (pop. 15,279 ') Bank debits (thousands) S 21,168 1 11 Building permits less federal contracts S 22,725 -95 12 Bank debits (thousands). S 7,054 11 SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA x (Grayson; pop. 79,500 •) San Juan (pop. 4,371) Building permits less federal contracts S 709,930 -4S -26 Building permits less federal contracts S 26,130 51 136 Bank debits (thousands) ff. $ 1,132,968 17 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 3,431 12 DENISON (pop. 25,766 ') ·Building permits less federal contracts S 119,984 -73 -75 Weslaco (pop. 15,649) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 32,284 -1 13 Building permits less federal contracts 83,664 -18 Nonfarm placements 70 -47 -69 Bank debits (thousands) 16,892 27 SHERMAN (pop. 30,660 ') MIDLAND SMSA Building permits less federal contracts $ 524,546 -42 14 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 57 ,861 10 17 (Midland; pop. 69,800 ") Nonfarm placements 38 -51 -82 Building permits less federal contracts $ 346,775 -34 ;)8 Bank debits (thousands) ff. 1,953,336 Non farm employment (area) b . 61,300 TEXARKANA SMSA Manufacturing employment (area) b 5,030 (Bowie, Texas, and Miller, Ark.; pop. 100,000 §) Percent unemployed (area) b . 3.0 25 Building permits less federal contracts $ 1,584,901 423 63 Bank debits (thousands) fl $ 1,483,680 -9 Nonfarm employment (area) 41,300 ~~::: -4 MIDLAND (pop. 62,625) Manufacturing employment (area) ll,740 -23 Building permits less federal contracts S 346,770 !l4 -58 Percent unemployed (area) 6.4 -6 121Bank debits (thousands) . 173,297 4 Nonfarm placements 702 10 -16 TEXARKANA (pop. 50,006 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 1,584,901 478 71 ODESSA SMSA Bank debits (thousands) . $ 110,019 883 -8 (Ector; pop. 90,200 •) TYLER SMSA Building permits less federal contracts S 383,526 -37 Fi8 Bank debits (thousands) ff. S 1,647,252 8 (Smith; pop. 101,200 •) Nonfarm employment (area) b. 61,300 Building permits less federal contracts $ 1,554,960 98 -20 Manufacturing employment (area) b 5,030 Bank debits (thousands) ff. $ 2,199,024 •• Percent unemployed (area) b. 3.0 Nonfarm employment (area) . 40,200 25 Manufacturing employment (area) 12,970 3 19 Percent unemployed (area) . 2.5 14 9 ODESSA (pop. 80,338) 'Building permits less federal contracts $ 383,526 -37 58 TYLER (pop. 60,256 ') Bank debits (thousands) . $ 143,573 12 9 1Building permits less federal contracts 1,538,960 97 -20 Nonfarm placements 644 48 -30 Bank debits (thousands) . 176,264 5 -3 Nonfarm placements ......... . .. . 218 -56 -47For an explanation of symbols see p. 156. 160 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Percent change Local Business Conditions Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr from from City and item 1970 Mar 1970 Apr 1969 WACO S::'llSA (l\IcLennan; pop. 139,500 ' ) Building permits less federal contracts Bank debits (thousands) 11 Nonfarm employment (area) . Manufacturing employment (area) Percent unemployed (area) S 3,758,709 S 3, l 0,624 58,700 12,060 4.2 46 2 -- 235 1·1 I 7 Ji ::'llcGregor (pop. 4,642) Building permits less federal contracts S 42,000 Bank debits (thousands) 4,744 WACO (pop. 103,462) Building permits less federal contracts S 3,606,359 - 48 228 Bank debits (thousands) . S 254,604 12 16 Percent change Local Business Conditions Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr from from City and item 1970 Mar 1970 Apr 1969 WICHITA FALLS S::'llSA (Archer and Wichita; pop. 132,400 ") Building permits less federal contracts $ 1,997,317 28 25 Bank debits (thousands) II $ 2,21 ,152 7 8 Nonfarm employment (area) 48,000 *"" - 4 Manufacturing employment (area) 5,380 Percent unemployed (area) 2.7 - 10 35 Burkburnett (pop. 7,621) Building permits less federal contracts $ 113,818 8 197 Bank debits (thousands) . 8,415 Iowa Park (pop. 5,152 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 53,745 29 76 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 3,717 - 8 WICHITA FALLS (pop. 115,340 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 1,829,754 29 20 Bank debits (thousands) . S 167,908 3 - 8 ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF NON-SMSA CITIES, WITH DATA ALBANY (pop. 2,174) Shackelford Co. (pop. 4,000 ' ) BONHAM (pop. 9,506 ') Fannin Co. (pop. 24,200 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ Building permits less federal contracts S 124,881 -92 20 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 3,321 -9 -7 Bank debits (thousands) $ 12,298 4 14 ALICE (pop. 20,861) Jim Wells Co. (pop. 32,700 ') BORGER (pop. 20,911) Hutchinson Co. (pop. 24,400 ' ) Building permits less federal contracts S 107,304 -39 -6 .Building permits less federal contracts $ 27,350 -61 -35 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 39,133 3 57 Nonfarm placements 53 -21 -56 ALPINE (pop. 4,740) Brewster Co. (pop. 8,200 ' ) BRADY (pop. 5,338) l\lcCulloch Co. (pop. 9,100 ') Building permits less federal contracts S 15,815 -94 -67 Building permits less federal contracts $ 24,100 -65 79 Bank debits (thousands) . S 4,967 - I 12 Bank debits (thousands) S 10,405 23 11 ANDREWS (pop. 13,450 ') Andrews Co. (pop. 11,300 ' ) Building permits less federal contracts S Bank debits (thousands) . S 42,400 8, 47 -64 -3 BRECKE~RIDGE (pop. 6,273) Stephens Co. (pop. 9,000 ") Building permits less federal contracts S 36,400 32 ATHENS (pop. 10,260 ') Henderson Co. (pop. 27,800 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ !lank debits (thousands) $ 26,600 14,676 -i3 II -78 1;; BRENHAM (pop. 7,740) Washington Co. (pop. 20,100 ') Building permits less federal contracts S 649,475 -30 100 Bank debits (thousands) . S 20,452 8 14 BARTLETT (pop. 1,540) Bell Co. (pop. 125,300 ')-Williamson Co. Bank debits (thousands) $ 1,028 (pop. 39,600 ') -7 BROWNFIELD (pop. 10,286) Terry Co. (pop. 15,100 ') Building permits less federal contracts S Bank debits (thousands) . S 48,250 28,616 -59 24 33 BAY CITY (pop. 11,656) ::'\Iatagorda Co. (pop. 28,500 ' ) Building permits less federal contracts S 104,250 -II Bank debits (thousands) $ 22,3 2 BROWNWOOD (pop. 16,974) Building permits less federal contracts Nonfarm placements Brown Co. $ 41,700 91 (pop. 26,400 ' ) -42 -71 57 -43 Nonfarm placements 51 34 -35 BRYAN (pop. 33,141 ') Brazos Co. (pop. 55,000 •) BEEVILLE (pop. 13,811) Building permits less federal contracts S Bank debits (thousands) S Bee Co. (pop. 22,900 ') 107,7 5 18,393 39 -7 10 Building permits less federal contracts S Bank debits (thousands) . $ Nonfarm placements 994,021 69,163 259 -79 17 -3 73 -23 Nonfarm placements 77 -21 CALDWELL (pop. 2,204 ') Burleson Co. (pop. 11,200 ' ) BELLVILLE (pop. 2,218) Austin Co. (pop. 15,000 ' ) Bank debits (thousands) $ 4,105 21 22 Building permits less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) S 80,500 6,929 II -32 -4 CA::'llERON (pop. 5,640) Bank debits (thousands) .Milam Co. s 7,755 (pop. 21,600 ' ) 14 8 BELTON (pop. 10,000 ') Bell Co. (pop. 125,300 ' ) Building permits less federal contracts S 7,950 -10 -94 CARTHAGE (pop. 5,262) Panola Co. (pop. 16,900 ' ) Building permits less federal contracts S 28,050 - 7 -29 BIG SPRING (pop. 31,230) Howard Co. (pop. 35,500 ') Bank debits (thousands) S 5,997 24 24 Building permits less federal contracts S 24,675 -65 -29 Bank debits (thousands) Nonfarm placements S 50,653 13 - 1 19 -6 -29 CASTROVILLE (pop. 1,800 ') Bank debits (thousands) ::'lledina Co. (pop. 22,200 ') 1,454 8 For an explanation of symbols see p. 156. .JUNE 1970 161 Percent change Percent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr from fromApr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr from from City and item 1970 Mar 1970 Apr 1969City and item 1970 Mar 1970 Apr 1969 CISCO (pop. 4,499) Eastland Co. (pop. 19,600 •) FREDERICKSBURG (pop. 4,629) B1mk debits (thousands) . $ 4,684 13 15 Gillespie Co. (pop. 12,400 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 34,070 354 -13 Bank debits (thousands). $ 15,385 13 COLLEGE STATION (pop. 18,590 ') Brazos Co. (pop. 55,000 ' ) FRIONA (pop. 3,149 ') Parmer Co. (pop. 11,100 ') Building permits less federal contracts S 647,935 519 Building permits less federal contracts $ 27,050 2 -38 Bank debits (thousands) . . .... $ 10,330 23 2 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 25,882 57 COLORADO CITY (pop. 6,457) GAINESVILLE (pop. 13,083) Cooke Co. (pop. 25,000 ') Mitchell Co. (pop. 10,100 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 35,550 -87 -61 Bank debits (thousands) . 5,581 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 18,461 17 COPPERAS COVE (pop. 10,202 ') GATESVILLE (pop. 5,180 ') Coryell Co. (pop. 38,800 ') Bank debits (thousands) . S 8,181 -6 Coryell Co. (pop. 38,800 •) Building permits •less federal contracts $ 271 ,680 70 104 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 3,446 -8 GEORGETOWN (pop. 5,218) Williamson Co. (pop. 39,600 ') Building permiits less federal contracts $ 32,200 -58 -58CORSICANA (pop. 20,344) Navarro Co. (pop. 33,500 ') Bank debits (thousands) . $ 8,936 20 20 Building permits less federal contracts S 597,910 555 420 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 32,755 8 Nonfarm placements 194 -5 GIDDINGS (pop. 2,821) Lee Co. (pop. 8,500 ') Building permits less federal contracts 27,935 637 -52 CRANE (pop. 3,796) Crane Co. (pop. 4,300 ') Bank debits (thousands) . 6,147 3 15 - Building permits less federal contracts $ Bank debits (thousands) . . $ 2,549 25 GOLDTHWAITE (pop. 1,383) Mills Co. (pop. 4,900 ') Bank debits (thousands) 5,538 12 -17 CRYSTAL CITY (pop. 9,101) Zavala Co. (pop. 16,700 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 94,000 -14 107 GRAHAM (pop. 9,326 ') Young Co. (pop. 16,100 ') Bank debits (thousands) . $ 7,422 2 45 Building permits less federal contracts $ 276,658 45 Bank debits (thousands). 13,116 -4 DECATUR (pop. 3,563) Wise Co. (pop. 20,900 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 17,500 GRANBURY (pop. 2,227) Hood Co. (pop. 6,800 ') Bank debits (thousands) . $ 6,500 14 43 Bank debits (thousands) . 3,741 11 2 DEL RIO (pop. 23,290 ') Val Verde Co. (pop. 27,300 ') GREENVILLE (pop. 22,134 ') Hunt Co. (pop. 52,000 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 179,838 34 -11 Building permits less federal contracts $ 592,949 133 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 19,477 -2 -5 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 29,011 12 -9 Nonfarm placements 64 -25 -63 DIMMITT (pop. 4,500 ') Castro Co. (pop. 11,000 ') Bank debits (thousands) . $ 16,520 24 HALE CENTER (pop. 2,691) Hale County (pop. 34,100 ') Building permits less federal contracts S 2,750 DUMAS (pop. 10,547 ') Moore Co. (pop. 16,200 •) Building permits less federal contracts $ 89,750 -7 31 HALLETTSVILLE (pop. 2,808) Lavaca Co. (pop. 20,100 ') EAGLE LAKE (pop. 3,565) Colorado Co. (pop. 17,800 ') Bank debits (thousands) . 4,744 -17 -2 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 4,440 11 16 HALLSVILLE (pop. 1,015 ') Harrison Co. (pop. 46,800 ') EAGLE PASS (pop. 12,094) Maverick Co. (pop. 17,400 ') Bank debits (thousands) . $ 1,194 19 -7 Building permits less federal contracts $ 137,022 -85 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 11,278 -1 21 HASKELL (pop. 4,016) Haskell Co. (pop. 9,500 ') Building permits less federal contracts $EDNA (pop. 5,038) Jackson Co. (pop. 13,500 ') Bank debits (thousands) . S 4,616 22 16 Building permits dess federal contracts $ 11,990 -66 367 B1mk debits (thousands) . $ 8,741 14 21 HENDERSON (pop. 11,477 ') Rusk Co. (pop. 36,800 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 129,500 220 EL CAMPO (pop. 7,700) Wharton Co. (pop. 39,200 ') Bank debits (thousands) . $ 18,099 10 18 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 16,016 -5 -10 HEREFORD (pop. 12,175 ') FORT STOCKTON (pop. 6,373 r) Deaf Smith Co. (pop. 20,900 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 167,100 -54 -83 Pecos Co. (pop. 12,000 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 2,02.5 -86 _ 92 Bank debits (thousands) . S 9,074 M _ 16 HONDO (pop. 4,992) Medina Co. (pop. 22,200 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 69,240 -94 70 Bank debits (thousands) . . ....$ 5,034 -1 -1 For an explanation of symbols see p. 156. 162 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Percent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Percent change Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr from from Apr from fromCity and item 1970 Mar 1970 Apr 1969 City and item 1970 Mar 1970 Apr 1969 HUNTSVILLE (pop. 11,999) Walker Co. (pop. 29,100 ' ) LUFKIN (pop. 20,756 ') Angelina Co. (pop. 48,200 ' ) Building permits less federal contracts $ 81,200 -43 Building permits less federal contracts $ 197,360 -30 -42 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 24,955 -4 8 Nonfarm placements 61 -8 McCAMEY (pop. 3,375 ') Upton Co. (pop. 4,200 ' ) JACKSONVILLE (pop. 10,509 ') Bank debits (thousands) . $ 2,146 -10 Cherokee Co. (pop, 36,400 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 162,000 391 72 Bank debits (thousands). $ 24,618 11 MARBLE FALLS (pop. 2,161) Burnet Co. (pop. 11,000 ') 22 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 5,580 19 35 JASPER (pop. 5,120 ') Jasper Co. (pop. 27,600 ' ) MARSHALL (pop. 29,445 ') Harrison Co. (pop. 46,800 ' ) Building permits less federal contracts $ 20.800 -32 -64 Building permits less federal contracts $ 62,019 -96 -85 Bank debits (thousands) ........... $ 16,266 -5 -5 Bank debits (thousands) . . .....$ 32,226 20 15 Nonfarm placements 78 -51 -73 JUNCTION (pop. 2,514 ') Kimble Co. (pop. 4,300 ') Bank debits (thousands) . $ 2.650 12 -16 MEXIA (pop. 7,621 ') Limestone Co. (pop. 20,200 ' ) Building permits less federal contracts S 8,200 -72 -94 Bank debits (thousands) . S 8,894 12 KARNES CITY (pop. 3,000 ') Karnes Co. (pop. 14,400 ' ) Building permits less federal contracts $ 6,850 -49 -48 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 5,191 17 49 MINERAL WELLS (pop. 11,053) Palo Pinto Co. (pop. 33,100 ') Building permits Jess federal contracts $ 263,155 167 243 KERMIT (pop. 10,465) Winkler Co. (pop. 10,400 ' ) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 30,247 -4 5 Building permits Jess federal contracts $ 700 -71 -96 Nonfarm placements 90 23 -13 KILLEEN (pop. 30,400 ') Bell Co. (pop. 125,300 ") MONAHANS (pop. 9,476 ') Ward Co. (pop. 13,200 ' ) Building permits less federal contracts $ 345,327 -2 -68 Building permits less federal contracts s 9,200 96 -76 Bank debits (thousands) .............$ 35,415 11 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 13,514. 12 12 KINGSLAND (pop. 1,200 ') Llano Co. (pop. 6,500 ' ) MOUNT PLEASANT (pop. 8,027) Bank debits (thousands) . 4,084 15 46 Titus Co. (pop. 17,800 ' ) Building permits Jess federal contracts $ 93,815 454 282 KINGSVILLE (pop. 31,160 ') Bank debits (thousands) . $ 18,939 -1 8 Kleberg Co. (pop. 30,700 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 226,012 7 96 MUENSTER (pop. 1,190) Cooke Co. (pop. 25,000 ') Bank debits (thousands) . $ 23,871 6 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 3,750 48 29 KIRBYVILLE (pop. 2,021 ') Jasper Co. (pop. 27,600 ' ) MULESHOE (pop. 4,945 ') Bailey Co. (pop. 9,100 ' ) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 3,067 -8 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 12,508 -6 LAMESA (pop. 12,438) Dawson Co. (pop. 17,000 ') NACOGDOCHES (pop. 18,076 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 6,250 -91 -75 Nacogdoches Co. (pop. 36,200 ') Bank debits (thousands) ........... $ 18,166 -14 2 Building permits less federal contracts $ 316,818 68 -25 Nonfarm placements 105 84 -37 Bank debits (thousands). $ 36,753 19 Nonfarm placements 56 -15 -20 LAMPASAS (pop. 5,670 ') Lampasas Co. (pop. 10,200 ') Building permits Jess federal contracts $ 32,600 -65 NEW BRAUNFELS (pop. 15,631) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 9,841 11 -2 Comal Co. (pop. 22,700 ' ) Building permits less federal contracts $ 464,470 31 -12 LEVELLAND (pop. 12,073 ') Hockley Co. (pop. 21,000 ' ) Bank debits (thousands) . $ 20,745 1 -4 Building permits less federal contracts $ 77,725 46 -44 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 17,602 -12 -1 NIXON (pop. 1,751) Gonzales County (pop. 17,600 ' ) Building permits less federal contracts S 22,970 193 LITTLEFIELD (pop. 7,236) Lamb Co. (pop. 19,600 ' ) OLNEY (pop. 4,200 ') Young Co. (pop. 16,100 ') Building permits less federal contracts s Building permits Jess federal contracts $ 4,700 -63 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 8,951 -14 -7 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 5,973 10 -7 LLANO (pop. 2,656) Llano Co. (pop. 6,500 ') PALESTINE (pop. 15,950 ') Anderson Co. (pop. 27,900 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ Building permits Jess federal contracts $ 148,745 -21 79 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 4,841 7 Bank debits (thousands). $ 20,175 5 17 Nonfarm placements 7 -87 -91 LOCKHART (pop. 6,084) Caldwell Co. (pop. 18,100 ' ) . Building permits less federal contracts $ 5,380 -83 -89 PAMPA (pop. 24,664) Gray Co. (pop. 26,300 ') Bank debits (thousands) . s 7,753 -5 8 Bank debits (thousands) . 39,958 3 16 Nonfarm placements 104 -14 -41 For an explanation of symbols see p, 156. JUNE 1970 Percent change Percent change Local Business Conditions Local Business Conditions Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr 1970 Apr from from Apr from from City and item 1970 Mar 1970 Apr 1969 City and item 1970 Mar 1970 Apr 1969 PARIS (pop. 20,977) Lamar Co. (pop. 39,700 ') SMITHVILLE (pop. 2,935 ') Bastrop Co. (pop. 18,200 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 1.692, 184 610 Building permits less federal contracts $ 19,369 629 -28 Nonfarm placements 90 -52 -41 Bank debits (thousands). $ 3,170 29 44 SNYDER (pop. 13,850) Scurry Co. (pop. 15,300 ') PECOS (pop. 15,592 ') Reeves Co. (pop. 16,800 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 25,000 -94 -38 Building permits less federal contracts S 31,500 -56 Bank debits (thousands) S 17,190 --6 13 Bank debits (thousands) . S 22,113 1 Nonfarm placements 76 31 --18 SONORA (pop. 2,619) Sutton Co. (pop. 3,600 ') Building permits less federal contracts S S,849 -95 181 PLAINVIEW (pop. 21,703 ') Hale Co. (pop. 34,100 ") Bank debits (thousands). $ 3,167 10 -9 Building permits less federal contracts $ 35,500 -76 -81 Bank debits (thousands) S 57,394 11 20 STEPHENVILLE (pop. 7,359) Erath Co. (pop. 20,100 ') Nonfarm placements 294 92 41 Building permits less federal contracts $ 262,000 325 -24 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 14,512 11 8 PLANO (pop. 10,102 ') Collin Co. (pop. 63,300 ') Building pel'mits less federal contracts S 1.424,342 260 STRATFORD (pop. 2,500 ') Sherman Co. (pop. 3,800 ') Building permits less federal contracts S 3,800 -5 -95 Bank debits (thousands) . $ 11,427 -27 -3 PLEASANTON (pop. 6,000 ') Atascosa Co. (pop. 21,100 ') SULPHUR SPRINGS (pop. 12,158 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 38,200 -76 -20 Hopkins Co. (pop. 22,100 ') Bank debits (thousands) . $ 6,176 9 "* Building permits less federal contracts $ 1,109,350 918 595 Bank debits (thousands). $ 24,158 '" QUANAH (pop. 4,570 ') Hardeman Co. (pop. 7,000 ') l:luilding permits less federal contracts S 26,000 SWEETWATER (pop. 13,914) Nolan Co. (pop. 17,900 ') Bank debits (thousands) S 5,506 -14 -10 Building permits less federal contracts $ 4,974 22 -76 Bank debits (thousands) . S 16,531 Nonfarm placements RAYMONDVILLE (pop. 9,385) 56 -10 -42 Willacy Co. (pop. 16,100 ') Building pel'mits less fedcrnl contracts .S 1,200 -60 -99 TAHOKA (pop. 3,600 ') Lynn Co. (pop. 9,000 ') Bank debits (thousands) . S 8,848 14 Building permits less federal contracts S Nonfarm placements 51 19 Bank debits (thousands) . S 4,359 -23 TAYLOR (pop. 9,434) Williamson Co. (pop. 39,600 ')REFUGIO (pop. 4,944) Refugio Co. (pop. 10,100 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 88,205 -39 -87 Building permits less federal contracts S 650 -95 Bank debits (thousands) $ 13,348 -1 Bank debits (thousands) . S 4,650 Nonfarm placements 9 -25 -65 ROCKDALE (pop. 4,481) Milam Co. (pop. 21,600 ') TEMPLE (pop. 34, 730 ') Bell Co. (pop. 125,300 ') Building permits less federal contracts S 13,800 -18 -23 Building permits less federal contracts $ 1,308,485 -31 I Bank debits (thousands) . 7,673 -1 Bank debits (thousands) S 59,011 11 28 Nonfarm placements 208 22 -23 SAN MARCOS (pop. 17,500 ') Hays Co. (pop. 27,200 ') Bui ldin g permits less federal contracts $ 237,166 151 129 UVALDE (pop. 14,000 ') Uvalde Co. (pop. 18,500 ') Bank debits (thousands) . S 13,700 -4 Building permits less federal contracts 107,340 256 99 Bank debits (thousands) . 22,374 15 SAN SABA (pop. 2,728) San Saba Co. (pop. 6,100 ') Bui ldi ng permits less federal contracts S 14,950 754 VERNON (pop. 13,385 ') Wilbarger Co. (pop. 16,300 ') Bank debits (thousands) S 7,784 16 12 Building permits less federal contracts $ 107,290 56 188 Bank debits (thousands) $ 22,218 -2. "' Nonfarm placements 30 -12 -64 SCHULENBURG (pop. 2,340) Fayette Co. (pop. 19,600 ') Building pel'mits less federal contracts S 25,000 16 -52 VICTORIA (pop. 50,211 ') Victoria Co. (pop. 54,300 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 290,038 -42 -73 SEAGRAVES (pop. 2,307) Gaines Co. (pop. 13,100 ') Bank debits (thousands) S 104,295 16 23 Building permits less federal contracts $ 2.900 -40 -98 Nonfarm placements 448 25 -17 Bank debits (thousands) . S 2,512 -1 WEATHERFORD (pop. 9,759) Parker Co. (pop. 34,200 ') SEMINOLE (pop. 5,737) Gaines Co. (pop. 13,100 ') Building permits less federal contracts $ 185,800 104 -56 Bank debits (thousands) . Bank debits (thousands) . . .. $ 23,939 -3 s 5,488 -9 -7 YOAKUM (pop. 5,761)SILSBEE (pop. 8,447 ') Hardin Co. (pop. 30,700 ') Bank debits (thousands) Lavaca Co. (pop. 20,100 ')-De Witt Co. (pop. 20,500 ') s 11,115 -2 10 Building permits less federal contracts $ 142,966 -79 Bank debits (thousands) . 10,514 For an explanation of symbols see p. 156. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (All figures are for Texas unless otherwise indicated.) ;\II indexes are. based on the average .m~nths for 1957-1959 except where other specification is made; all except annual mdexes are adJu.st~d f?r seasonal. vana~10n unless otherwise noted. Employment estimates are compiled by the Texas Em­ployment C?mm1ss1on 1~ co~perat101~ ":1th the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The symbols used below impose quahficat10ns as md1cated here: '''-preliminary data subject to revision; r-re\·ised data; # -dollar totals for the calendar year to date; §-dollar totals for the fiscal year to date; t-employment data for wage anti salary workers only. Year-to-date average April1970 March 1970 April1969 1970 1969 GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY Estimates of personal income (millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted) . $ 3,191* $ 3,192* $ 3,023' $ 3,168 $ 2,947 Income payments to individuals in U.S. (billions, at seasonally adjusted annual rate) . Wholesale prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) . Consumer prices in Houston (unadjusted index) Consumer prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) . Business failures (number) . Business failures (liabilities, thousands) . Newspaper linage (index) . $ $ 801.1* 116.6 132.9 134.0 132.6 $ 783.3* 116.6 133.2 44 $ 4,630 111.8 $ 735.3' 111.9 125.5 126.4 34 $ 9,569 120.0 $ 784.3 116.4 131.9 132.9 $ 119.5 $ 727.2 111.4 124.4 125.2 28 $ 6,911 125.6 PRODUCTION Total electric-power use (index) .. Industrial electric-power use (index) . Crude-oil production (index) . Average daily production per oil well (bbl.) Crude-oil runs to stills (index) . Industrial production in U.S. (index) . Texas industrial production-total (index) ...... Texas industrial production-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) . 256.8* 235.6* 122.7* 17.3 137.3 170.4* 175.8* 194.5* 212.9* 182.3* 134.5* 255.2* 181.0 134.6 256.0 248.7* 227.9* 120.2* 17.1 114.9 171.1 * 177.0* 198.2* 218.4* 184.8* 132.2* 255.2* 184.7 125.5 295.1 240.8' 220.9' 110.2' 15.4 133.7 171.7' 165.4' 186.3' 214.1' 167.8' 123.6' 226.7' 200.2 193.2 208.7 254.0 232.5 120.8 17.1 130.9 170.6 177.4 198.4 219.5 184.3 132.4 257.7 173:4 125.0 252.3 234.0 213.6 106.3 15.0 129.6 170.6 168.0 190.9 214.1 175.5 121.0 243.7 195.2 168.0 239.7 AGRICULTURE Prices received by farmers (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100) ... Prices paid by farmers in U.S. (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100) 274 388 281 385' 262 372 279 386 256 368 Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid by farmers .....................·.............. 71 73 70 72 70 FINANCE Bank debits (index) . Bank debits, U.S. (index) . 304.8 350.3 300.4 339.2 278.2 307.8 297.8 339.5 271.5 304.6 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) $ 5,978 $ 8,607 $ 3,294 $263,791 $707,868 $ 33,282 $ 6,020 $ 8,584 $ 3,413 $220,488 $562,486 $ 15,529 $ 6,140 $ 8,894 $ 3,227 $280,967 $587,606 $ 15,700 $ 6,003 $ 8,593 $ 3,276 $ 253,234 $5,793,544§ $ 264,503§ $ 6,045 $ 8,798 $ 3,343 $ 221,719 $5,109,790§ $ 273,320§ All other corporate securities Texas companies (thousands) Other companies (thousands) $ 7,458 $ 51,632 $ 21,022 $ 21,611 $ 29,089 $ 42,854 $ $ 100,188§ 236,309§ $ $ 175,575§ 294,114§ Securities registrations-renewals Mutual investment companies (thousands) Other corporate securities (thousands) . $ 32,911 $ 4,311 $ 21,793 $ 2,269 $ 29,867 $ 1,987 $ $ 245,828§ 10,200§ $ $ 219,146§ 7,001§ LABOR 'l'otal nonagricultural employment in Texas (index)t Manufacturing employment in Texas (index)t . . . . . Average weekly hours-manufacturing (index)t Average weekly earnings-manufacturing (index)t Total nonagricultural employment (thousands)t Total manufacturing employment (thousands)t Durable-goods employment (thousands)t Nondurable-goods employment (thousands) t 150.6* 153.5* 99.3* 149.1* 3,716.0* 742.3* 413.6* 328.7* 150.0* 154.4* 99.7"' 149.1 * 3,681.6* 747.3* 416.8* 330.5* 145.1' 153.9' 101.3' 144.8' 3,580.9' 744.2' 421.l' 323.1' 150.0 154.9 99.5 148.7 3,678.8 747.4 417.7 329.7 143.8 151.6 101.0 141.9 3,525.1 731.3 414.9 316.5 Total civilian labor force in selected labor-market areas (thousands) ............................ 3,486.9 3,457.0 3,286.2 3,454.2 3,256.3 Nonagricultural employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 3,293.9 3,278.8 3,109.6 3,277.3 3,083.5 Manufacturing employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) .......... . ........... 635.1 637.8 623.6 638.4 613.1 'l'otal unemployment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) ...... . ..................... 99.4 101.2 80.1 98.0 80.2 Percent of labor force unemployed in selected labor-market areas 2.8 2.9 2.4 2.8 2.5 BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH RETURN REQUESTED THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712 GROUP INFLUENCE ON CONSUMER BRAND CHOICE by Robert E. Witt What induces a consumer to buy a special brand of a particular product is a question whose answer is of great importance to the marketer. The actual tangible properties of the brand, of course, enter into any decision to purchase it. Anticipated satisfaction in its use, however, is influenced also by its intangible properties, drawn in part from the consumer's social environment. Some of these intangible qualities are attributed by consumers to users of the brand. Thus user image supplements brand image in con­sumer choice of brand. This study, No. 13 in the,Bureau of Business Research Studies in Marketing series, was planned to ascertain just how great is the influence of social class and reference groups on consumer brand-choice decisions in a limited area: the influence of small, informal social groups (college undergraduates) on member choice of brands for four products (beer, after-shave lotion, deodorant, and cigarettes) . The author, Dr. Robert E. Witt, assistant professor of market­ing administration at The University of Texas at Austin, in his conclusions from the study indicates how group influence relates to consumer brand choice, and suggests supplementary areas for future research. xi + 79 pp. $3.00 Texas residents add 4.25-percent sales tax. BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN