Texas Business "" Review March 1975 ''· TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW VOL. XLIX, NO. 3, MARCH 1975 Editor: Robert H. Ryan Managing Editor: Margaret Woodruff Editorial Board: Robert H. Ryan, Chairman; Stanley A. Arbingast; John R. Stockton; Francis B. May; Robert B. Williamson; Margaret Woodruff CONTENTS ARTICLES 57: The Business Situation in Texas, by Lorna A. Monti 61 : Growth of the Texas Economy, 1959-1974, by Bryan Adair 65: Texas Construction, by Dianne Priddy 68: The Energy· Economy: U.S. Oil Imports and Exports, 1860-1974, by Francis B. May TABLES 58: Selected Barometers of Texas Business 58: Business Activity Indexes for Selected Texas Cities 61: Gross Texas Product by Sector, Selected Years, 1959-1974 62: Sector Percentages of Total Personal Income and Gross Product in Texas and the United States, 1973 62: Texas and U.S. Economic Concentration in 1973 63: Gross Texas Product, 1959-1974 65: Growth Trends in Gross Products of Selected Sectors of the Texas Economy 66: Estimated Values of Building Authorized in Texas 67: One-Family, Two-Family, and Apartment-Building Dwelling Units Authorized in Texas' Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas 68: U.S. and World Production of Crude Oil, Selected Years, 1860-1900 69: U.S. Crude Oil Supply and Demand, 1919-1939 69: U.S. Crude Oil Supply and Demand, 1946-1974 71 : Local Business Conditions Barometers of Texas Business (inside back cover) CHARTS 57: Texas and U.S. Business Activity 59: Index of Consumer Sentiment 59: Final Demand for the Gross National Product, Fourth Quarter 1974 62: Indicators of Texas Economic Growth: Annual Percentage Changes in Real Value, 1959-1974 66: New Residential Building Authorized in Texas Cover photograph: The Graduate School of Business will soon occupy this new wing of the Business Administration­ Economics Building on the campus of The University of Texas at Austin. Published monthly by the Bureau of Business Re_search, ~raduate School of Business, The University of Texas at Austm, Austm, Tex~s 78712. Second-class postage paid at Austin, Texas. Content of this publication is not copyrighted and may _be reprodu~ed freely, but acknowledgment of source will be appreciated. The views expr~ssed by authors are not necessarily tho~e ~f. the Bur~au of Busmess Research. Subscription, $4.00 a year; md1v1dual copies 35 cents. BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH Business Research Council: Vernon M. Briggs, David L. Huff, George Kozmetsky, Albert Shapero, Po L. Yu Director: Stanley A. Arbingast Associate Director and Office Manager: Florence Escott Assistant Director and Coordinator of Television Programs: Robert H. Ryan Assistant Director and Systems Analyst: 0. Frederic Rye Consulting Statistician: Francis B. May Cooperating Faculty: C. P. Blair, Charles T. Clark, Law­ rence L. Crum, Clark C. Gill, Robert K. Holz, David L. Huff, Lorrin G. Kennamer, R. C. Means, Jerry Todd Energy Specialist and Coordinator of Radio Programs: Robert M. Lockwood Transportation Specialist: Charles P. Zlatkovich Research Associates: Bryan Adair, Kathryn E. Burger, Michael Dildine, Christine Fox, Lois R. Glenn, Mary Gorse, Joseph F. Hildenbrand, Jr., Edward N. Kasparik, Ida M. Lambeth, Lorna Monti, Dianne Priddy, Barbara Terrell, Richard L. Wheeler, Margaret Woodruff Research Assistant: Deborah Goltra Librarians: Kathryn McMillen, Rita Wright Programmer: J. Britt Kauffman Statisticians: Mildred Anderson, Constance Cooledge, John R. Stockton Statistical Technicians: Kay Davis, Susanna Loh Administrative Assistant: Patricia Cloud Administrative Secretary: Jewell Patton Administrative Clerk: Yolanda Mindieta Senior Secretaries: Jennifer Brewster, Clintsy Sturgill Senior Clerk Typists: Frances Briceno, Nancy Davis, Geral­ dine Edwards Senior Clerks: Robert-Jenkins, Salvador B. Macias Clerk: Rodolfo Rodriguez Cartographers: James Buchanan, William Hezlep Printing Coordinator: Daniel P. Rosas Print Shop Foreman: Robert L. Dorsett Reprints of feature articles are available from the Bureau at ten cents each. The Bureau of Business Research is a member of the Association for University Business and Economic Research. US ISSN 0040-4209 THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS Lorna A. Monti Like Alice in Wonderland, the U.S. economy is falling down a rabbit's hole with Texas tumbling after. The question is: where is the bottom? Common sense says that the hole does not extend to the center of the earth; economic and political institutions have changed sufficient­ly to forestall a repeat of the 1930s. Uncertainty remains, however, as to how much more serious the recession will become. Production and Employment U.S. industrial production dropped 9 percent from January 1974 to January 197 5, 3.6 percent from December 1974 to January 1975 alone. Texas industrial production dropped 1 percent from January 1974 to January 1975 and 2 percent from December to January. (December 1974 was slightly above January 1974.) The industrial production indexes reflect manufacturing, which declines much more rapidly during recessions than does the rest of the economy. Employment figures empha­size this point. Total Texas nonagricultural employment is higher than a year ago, despite a December 1974 to January 1975 drop, while manufacturing employment is lower. The increase in total nonagricultural employment has not been large enough to absorb new entrants into the labor force, so the Texas unemployment rate rose from 3.8 percent in January 1974 to 5.7 percent in January 1975, having been 5.1 in December 1974. Variations in unemployment rates around the state reflect different employment bases. Even the strong areas are experiencing rising unemployment, however. Houston SMSA, the center of oil field equipment production, saw its unemployment rate rise from 3.9 in December 1974 to 4.6 percent in January 1975. Midland-Odessa SMSAs registered 3.1 percent in January. Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA, a distribu­tion and general manufacturing center, showed 4.5 percent. Laredo and Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito SMSAs con­tinue to have high unemployment rates of 19.2 and 9.4 percent. The Laredo rate is certainly a depression rate, indicating severe problems for that city. The San Antonio SMSA unemployment rate rose to 5.8 percent. Business Activity Similar variation is shown in Texas business activity indexes, which are based on bank debits. Houston, Galves­ton, and Tyler have had increases from both January 1974 to January 1975 and December 1974 to January 1975. Houston with its oil based economy would be expected to fare better in the recession than Dallas, which is more interdependent with the rest of the economy because of its distribution and general manufacturing base. Although this expectation is supported by the business activity indexes, unemployment rates for the Dallas labor market area are more favorable than Houston rates. This may be due to movement of unemployed South Texas workers into the Houston area. The largest January 1974 to January 1975 drop in business activity, 46 percent, occurred in Lubbock, reflect­ing the diminished affluence of agriculture in 1974. The rest of the state, including Dallas, showed either yearly or monthly declines, which indicates that Texas cities are experiencing the recession along with the rest of the country. TEXAS AND U.S. BUSINESS ACTIVITY Indexes-Adjusted for seasonal variation -1967=100 2ooi--~~~~.-~~~~.-~~~~.-~~~~~::::~~~~':;:;:;t;i~~~'f:;-~~~---j 1969 1970 1971 1974 1975 SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (Indexes-Adjusted for seasonal variation-1967= 100) Percent change Jan Jan 1975 1975 from from Jan Dec Jan Dec Jan Index 1975 1974 1974 1974 1974 Business activity 190.4 191.7 184.2 - 1 3 Estimated personal income 201.1 p 201.1 p 188.0r ** 7 Bank debits 325.6 328.8 277.1 1 18 Crude oil production 11 o.8P 114.1 p 118.8r 3 7 Crude oil processed by refineries 117.8 128.9 113.6 9 4 Total electric power use 178.5p 180.8p 165.6r 8 Residential 220.3p 231.3p 202.3r 9 Industrial 159.0p 160.0p 151.3r 5 Total industrial production 136.1 p 138.3p 137.7r 2 Urban building permits issued 157.0p 169.7p 203.3r 7 - 23 New residential 119.3p 121.9p 171.6r 2 - 30 New nonresidential (unadjusted) 193.4p 220.3P 239.3r - 12 - 19 Total nonfarm employment 136.0p 136.2p 131.lr ** 4 Manufacturing employment 123.3p 124.9p 123.9r ** Average weekly earn- ings-manufacturing 15 5. 5P 154.3p 147.7r 5 Average weekly hours- manufacturing 96.3p 96.7p 101.2r ** 5 Total unemployment 204.7 189.4 134.4 8 52 Insured unemployment 300.1 268.2 150.5 12 99 Preliminary. r Revised. **Change is less than one half of 1 percent. The business activity indexes have been subject to suspicion for most of the year because bank debits had been increasing as deposit owners moved their money frequently to take advantage of high interest rates. With the drop in interest rates, this shuffling can be expected to diminish. Bank deposit turnover (the number of changes in ownership of the average demand deposit) in the Dallas SMSA, by far the highest in the state, dropped from an annual rate of 90.8 for December to 77.1 for January. Both the lowering of interest rates and the slackening of economic activity contributed to the decline. Deposit turnover in the Fort Worth SMSA, however, decreased only slightly, from an annual rate of 43.8 for December 1974 to 42.8 for January 1975. (Although the Dallas and Fort Worth SMSAs were combined in 1973, bank debit reports are still based on the 1970 census SMSA definition.) The Houston economy showed an annual deposit turnover rate increase, rising from 61.7 in December to 63.3 in January. Turnover rates have been stable in other Texas metropoli­tan areas, with the exception of Austin, which showed a rise. Thus business activity indexes are more reliable outside Dallas, Austin, and Houston. Altogether, activity is down. Forecasting Economic Activity Forecasting the possible direction of economic activity in coming months is a time-honored practice of economists, business writers, industrialists, politicians, and psychics, none of whom has developed a widely accepted method. Economic forecasting is fraught with perils because the economy is not a static system but a continually changing and largely unplanned one, governed by many individual decisions and affected by the expectations of the individ­uals making the decisions. Because behavior and expecta­tions may change from one recession to another, no universal rules of forecasting have been developed. In this situation, the most useful forecasting procedure is to consider expectations of important groups in the economy. The gross national product accounts are divided into consumer, investment, and government expenditures (plus net exports, which accounted for less than 1 percent of the gross national product in the fourth quarter of 1974). The comparison between behavior in these three categories in the recent past and plausible expectations for these categories in the immediate future makes it possible to forecast the direction of economic activity. This approach, called an aggregate demand approach to forecasting, is used for most statistical models of the economy in operation today. Instead of simply attempting to judge the direction of demand for the gross national product, creators of the statistical models estimate (using statistical procedures) equations for two demand categories, consumption and investment, on the basis of past behavior and then use current data in these equations to estimate future demand for consumption and investment. Govern­ment demand is forecast by judgment. Two main difficulties in this approach have arisen in recent years. First, behavior can change in such a way that BUSINESS ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR SELECTED TEXAS CITIES (Adjusted for seasonal variation-1967=100) Percent change Jan Jan 1975 1975 from from Jan Dec J an Dec Jan City 1975 1974 1974 1974 1974 Abilene 137.8 149.3 156.8 - 8 -J2 Amarillo J44.6 143.S 170.S 1 -JS Austin 239.2 247.9 255.4 - 4 -6 Beaumont J23.2 108.6 131.2 13 -6 Corpus Christi 177.1 167.2 194.6 6 -9 Corsicana 120.7 126.6 141.4 5 -IS Dallas 201.9 217.6 198.3 7 2 El Paso 143.2 138.8 J70. J 3 -J6 Fort Worth 149.3 157.2 161.9 5 -8 Galveston J76. J 152.8 J 16.2 15 52 Houston 216.1 201.1 187.0 7 J6 Laredo 178. 1 173.6 184.7 3 -4 Lubbock 123.9 133.8 228.4 7 -46 Port Arthur 95.8 105.5 102.3 9 -6 San Angelo 171.4 177.8 182.1 4 -6 San Antonio 147.5 149.9 157.6 2 -6 Texarkana 98.4 110.4 106.0 - 11 -7 Tyler Waco 140.6 155.4 130.0 143.1 128.4 15 5.1 8 9 JO•• Wichita Falls 137.2 149.1 135.5 - 8 **Change is less than one half of 1 percent. the equations based on past behavior are no longer accurate. Second, the demand approach assumes that the necessary labor, equipment, and materials are available to produce whatever is demanded. In a world becoming more and more aware of material and energy limitations, the validity of the demand approach is more frequently questioned. At the moment, however, the U.S. economy can be approached with a demand outline for forecasting because there is so much excess capacity and unemployed labor and because the drop in wholesale prices indicates that materials shortages are not severe in most areas of the economy at the moment. Shortages could become important again during recovery. Consumer and Business Confidence The key issue in the decline and any potential recovery of the national economy is consumer and business confi­dence. The signal that the economy is moving toward recovery would be signs of rising confidence. Expenditures by households for durable goods, such as appliances or cars; for nondurable goods, including food and clothing; and for services, ranging from car repairs to medical care, accounted for approximately 63 percent of the demand for the gross national product, the sum of all goods and services produced and sold in the economy, in the last quarter of 1974. Thus the willingness of consumers to buy could constitute a major force for recovery of the economy. Consumer Expectations Consumer confidence has been at an all-time low. As recorded by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan, an index based on consumer responses to economic conditions hit 58.4 at the end of 1974, compared with a level of 100 for 1966. Drops in the index have preceded economic downturns in the past, so its continuing decline is not a good omen. A rise would be a very positive sign, a signal that the bottom has been reached and recovery is likely. 105 Index of Consumer Sentiment 95 85 75 65 55 Final Demand for the Gross National Product (Fourth quarter 1974) Net exports Gross private domestic investment 1--~____!.-"""-'.u.i;-____, Government purchases Personal consumption expenditures Source: Business Conditions Digest (January 1975). The Harris and Gallup polls are making different points about public attitudes. The Gallup poll for the last week in January revealed that the percentage of persons believing that economic conditions would deteriorate over the next six months dropped from 71 percent in November to 56 percent in the more recent poll. Likewise, the percentage expecting a l 930s-style depression dropped from 57 to 43 percent. At the same time, the Harris survey found that 52 percent of the population lived in households in which someone had had either a reduced workweek or a job loss in recent years. The poll's previous high for that response was 36 percent, in 1971. Considering the results of both polls, it appears that Americans expect the recession to reach bottom within the next six months. The recession, however, has already caused a majority of the population to experience directly the reduced availability of work, a situation that can be expected to produce more cautious behavior over the next few years. The expectation of ending the fall could very well be a self-fulfilling prophecy, if it leads to purchases. Consumer saving increased by about one third between the third and fourth quarters of 1974. This trend needs to be reversed for recovery. The January drop in the inflation rate (as measured by the consumer price index) to an annual rate of 6. 2 percent from a rate of 12.2 percent for 1974 is both a sign of the seriousness of the recession and a development that will hearten consumers. Economic downturns are associated with declining rates of inflation or, in past decades, price level declines. On the other hand, because inflation discour­ages consumers, some abatement may improve confidence. Thus the recession contains at least one seed of its own reversal. Business Expectations An annual survey by the Commerce Department for November and December showed that business is planning to invest less in plants and equipment this year than last. Of the other two forms of investment recorded in the gross national product accounts, investment in residential con­struction is expected to improve somewhat this year and investment in inventories is expected to drop. Private domestic investment accounted for approximately 15 per­cent of demand for the gross national product in the fourth quarter of 1974. The final important category of demand for the GNP is government, which accounted for approxi­mately 23 percent of aggregate demand at the end of last year. Neither consumers nor businesses show clear signs of substantial increases in spending, which would put unem­ployed people to work and cause increased use of existing production capacity. The burden for stopping the fall of the economy lies with government policy, which is still being formed in Congress. Federal Reserve Policies Another institution responsible for determining econom­ic policy is the quasi-public Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve System has been widely criticized recently for restricting Federal Reserve balances supplied to the banking system. Banks must hold Federal Reserve balances and cash in vaults equal to a specified percentage of bank deposits. The Federal Reserve can vary bank deposits with the Reserve System by buying and selling government securities. As the payment checks clear, the Federal Reserve in effect adds to or subtracts from banks' balances in the System. Increases in banks' Reserve System balances caused by Federal Reserve activities expand production and employment because banks can make more loans at lower interest rates when their Reserve System balances move above the required percentages. Easier loan terms are expected to encourage businesses to increase production and open new enterprises. Business confidence is, of course, necessary for initial loan expansion. As loans expand, bank deposits, the largest component of the money supply, also expand. Increases in total bank deposits are believed to expand aggregate demand directly since they encourage spending. By varying Federal Reserve balances, the Federal Reserve attempts to control the money supply. Because Reserve System banks' balance requirements are different for different categories of deposits and amounts of currency, it is not possible to know precisely what change in the money supply will result from a given change in Federal Reserve balances. For January and February, Reserve System balances plus cash in vaults held by banks were approximately 3 percent over a year ago, comparing weekly averages. Considering the rate of inflation over the past year, this small growth of Reserve System balances implies a sharp decline of the purchasing power of the potential money supply. The growth of the money supply from January to January was approximately 4 percent. Policy deliberations of the Federal Reserve are kept secret for several months after decisions are made, so the reasons for restrictive policy can only be surmised. Presum­ably, the Federal Reserve Board fears a rekindling of inflation if it increases the money supply now. The expansionary effects of increases are believed to begin after a lag of several months, so that the effects would coincide with the end of the recession as forecast by many observers and the easy monetary policy would create inflation durin~ the next expansion. Because of these fears, present policy remains restrictive. Policy has been restrictive for some time, so it is currently depressing aggregate demand in the economy. With depressed business confidence, the money supply has been increasing very slowly or not at all in recent months. If it should begin to show an increase of five or six percent at an annual rate, sustained over several months, this would be a second positive sign that the bottom of the recession has been reached, as much because of the cooperation required of businesses in bringing the increase about as because of the expansionary effect of the increased money supply on aggregate demand. Economic Prospects Considering all the potential sources of demand in the economy, only a congressional program could supply any impetus for increased production in the near future. The onslaught of depressing economic news is not likely to encourage business and consumers to change their behavior. Negative news, on the other hand, is likely to persuade Congress to create a more expansionary program than the one recommended by the president and thereby halt the economy's fall. Any expansionary program will take time to pm Congress and still more time to take effect, so that expectation of recovery before the end of 1975 is probably too optimistic. The bottom could be reached before then, however. Recent recessions have been sufficiently short that, following the examples of 1957-1958, 1961-1962, and 196 9-19 70, the current recession could be expected to reach bottom before summer. Previous recessions were not accompanied by depressions in confidence as severe as the one that has accompanied this recession, however, so the past may not be an accurate guide. The cumulative blows of Watergate, the energy crisis, inflation, and recession have not been entirely absorbed. They may produce new patterns of economic behavior: an insecure public might not behave as the economically secure public of recent years behaved. Recovery will not mean a return to the patterns of the sixties. Problems of energy and materials supplies, which were the primary subjects of concern at this time last year, will regain their primacy with economic recovery. Consider­ation of these issues has been postponed but not eliminated by the recession. Because the economy has been operating below its capacity, the problems that face the economy when it is operating at or near capacity have ceased to command attention-but they have not been solved. The outlook, then, is for recovery delayed until 1976, although the bottom may be reached before then. The signs of a turning point would be improved consumer confi­dence, improved intentions of business to invest, and expansion of the money supply sustained over several months at a five or six percent annual rate. GROWTH OF THE TEXAS ECONOMY, 1959-1974 Bryan Adair Texans can put the current recession in perspective by reflecting that the average real (constant dollar) compound growth rate of the state's economy for the past fifteen years has been 4.0 percent, a rate at which output doubles every eighteen years. Although growth has been inter­rupted, Texas produced a seventy-two billion dollar econo­my in 1974, in contrast to a twenty-four billion dollar total in 1959. True, there are more Texans to share this increased output. Even considered on a per capita basis, however, the state's economy has grown at a yearly compound rate of 2.3 percent, which would cause the real product per capita to double every thirty years. These figures are based in part on a recently completed Bureau of Business Research study of the gross state product of Texas. On the basis of data from various sources, both government and private, gross products for each year since 19 59 have been estimated for the Texas economy and for these sectors: manufacturing; agriculture; private, exclusive of manufacturing and agriculture; federal government and military; and state and local government. Texas prosperity is tied to national prosperity; during the past fifteen years overall economic growth in Texas has mirrored that of the nation. A comparison of the gross Texas product (GTP) and the gross national product (GNP) shows that, except for some lag by the state in the early 1960s, U.S. and Texas growth patterns since 1959 are almost indistinguishable. The nation has fared slightly better than the state in per capita increases in the gross product. The national average annual compound growth rate would cause the overall real per capita output of the nation to double every twenty-four years (as opposed to thirty for the state), should present trends continue. Since 1964 the per capita growth rate in the state has been approaching the national rate, but at present per capita increases in the overall gross Texas product still tend to lag national increases slightly. Average citizens in Texas, on the other hand, are faring better than the national average. In contrast to the GROSS TEXAS PRODUCT BY SECTOR, SELECTED YEARS, 1959-1974 1959 1964 1969 1974 Sector Constant do llars (millions) Percent of total constant value GT P* Constant do llars (millions) Percent of total constant valu e GTP* Constant do llars (millions) Percent of to tal constant value GTP* Constant dollars (millions) Percent of total co nstant value GTP* Private nonagricultural 19,438 82.4 23,239 84.l 30,077 8 5.4 36,1 00 84 .7 Mi ning 1,724 7.3 2,04 7 7.4 2,227 6. 3 2,440 5.7 Contract construction 1,068 4 . 5 1,124 4. 1 1,299 3.7 1, 530 3.6 Ma nufacturing 5,4 22 23.0 6,479 2 3.4 8,332 23.7 8,760 20.6 Durable n.a. n.a. 3, 12 1 11.3 4,52 6 12.9 4,350 10.2 Non durable n.a. n.a. 3, 358 12. l 3,806 10.8 4 ,4 10 10.4 Wholesale and retail trade 4,16 1 17.6 4,930 17.8 6,6 55 18.9 8,680 20.4 Finance, insurance, real estate 2,551 10.8 3,552 12.9 4,544 12.9 5,470 12.8 Transportation, communicat ion, public utilities 2,357 10.0 2,764 10 .0 3,843 10.9 5,2 10 12.2 Services 2,15 5 9. 1 2,34 3 8. 5 3, 177 9.0 4 ,010 9.4 Agriculture** 1,549 6.6 1,2 77 4.6 I, 10 1 3. 1 1,720 4.0 Farm 1,521 6.4 1,249 4.5 1,0 62 3.0 1,670 3.9 Governmen t 2,613 11.0 3,125 11.3 4,037 11.5 4,790 11.3 Federal 1,5 21 6.4 1,726 6.2 2,187 6.2 2,320 5.5 State and local 1,092 4.6 1,399 5.1 1,850 5.3 2,470 5.8 Gross Texas produ ct 23,600 :j: 27 ,64 1 100.0 35,215 100.0 4 2,610 100.0 • Gross Texas product in constant 1958 dollars. n.a. Not availab le. •• Includes forest ry ~nd fisheries . :j: Column total does not sum to 100.0 because of rounding. Note: It is advisable to round off individual gross state product estimates at the third significant figure. MARCH 1975 6 1 SECTOR PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME AND GROSS PRODUCT IN TEXAS AND THE UNITED STATES, 1973 (Gross product and personal income in current dollars) Texas United States Sector Personal income GTP Personal incom e GNP Agriculture 7.7 5.2 5.1 4.6 Government 18.0 12.9 17.3 13.0 Manufac turing 19.0 23.7 26.6 25.2 Durable goods 10.5 12. 1 17.0 15.2 Nondurable good s 8.5 11.6 9.6 10.0 Private nonagri­ cultural, nonmanufacturing 55.3 58.2 51.0 57.2 Source: Personal income data and gross national product data from Survey of Current Business (August 1974). GTP-GNP relationship, growth of total personal income in the state has exceeded that in the nation. In real value terms the state personal income total has increased at an average compound rate of 4.8 percent per year, while that of the nation has increased at a rate of only 4.2 percent per year. At these rates personal income in the state and national economies doubles. every 14.8 and 16.8 years, respectively. Personal income in the state is growing at about twice the rate of growth of the GTP, while national personal income is growing only one and one half times as fast as the GNP. The difference in income/product relationships for the state and the nation indicates that the economic mix of the two entities, though similar, is not the same. The propor­tion of income to population in Texas, as reflected in 1973 data, exceeds the corresponding national proportion in certain economic sectors, while the reverse is true for other sectors. For example, Texas, which contains 5.2 percent of the nation's population, receives 7.8 percent of the nation's agricultural income, about 39 percent above the amount that would be indicated by national per capita distribution. On the other hand, only 3.7 percent of the nation's personal income from manufacturing originates in Texas­two thirds of the income that would be expected for Texas from a national per capita distribution. TEXAS AND U.S. ECONOMIC CONCENTRATION IN 1973 Personal income Variation of personal paid in Texas income paid in Texas (percent of from amount indicated national sector by national per capita Sector total) distribu tion (percent) Agriculture 7.80 38.8 Federal government 6.86 22.1 BASE: POPULATION 5.62 0 Private nonagricultural, nonmanufacturing 5.60 - 0.4 Total Texas economy 5.16 - 8.2 State and local government 4.48 - 20.3 Manufacturing 3.68 - 34.5 Source: Data from Survey ofCurrent Business (August 1974). INDICATORS OF TEXAS ECONOMIC GROWTH Annual Percentage Changes m Real Value, 1959-1974 Tla•r N on ag ric ultural Employ me nt emend Dep osits in Insured Texas Commercial Banks: June Me asurements I I I Nonagricu ltural, Per centage Change ..;. r Agricultural GTP p E 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 Sou rce : Do to from Bureau of Busin e ss Research gross state product estimates, expressed in terms of constant 1958 dollars; U.S. Department of Commerce , Survey of Current Business · Te xas Employment Commission ; Bureau of the C e nsus , ~urrent Population Reports: Populgtion Estimates and Projections(Series P-25);andFederal Deposit Insurance Corpora ti on,Assets and Liabil ities:Commercial and Mutual Savings Banks . Texas industry tends to be relatively labor-intensive; the state does not contain a large share of the nation's highly capitalized industry, such as durable goods manufacturing. The state's large share of federal government activity and the relative importance of the various nonmanufacturing private sectors in the state economy (services, transporta­tion, trade, etc.) allow the personal income of the state to increase without necessitating intensive capital investment in production installations and facilities. People, not ma­chines, are the primary producers in the Texas economy. Nonagricultural Employment Growth In the past fifteen years the GTP has grown substantially faster than the state's population, but only slightly faster than nonagricultural employment. This indicates that an increasingly greater portion of the population is employed in nonagricultural work than has been true in the past. It also suggests that most of the increase in gross product in the state has come from the increase in employment rather than through the individual worker's increased contribution to the state product. In fact, the average annual real increase in gross product per worker in Texas during the past fifteen years has been about 0.3 percent. The nonagricultural employment of the state grew steadily during the economic upswing between 196 l and 1969, but following the peak of the expansion in the 1960s the growth in nonagricultural employment tapered off. It was 1972 before employment growth resumed its previous trend slope. Demand Deposits Growth Demand deposits by businesses and individuals in Texas commercial banks demonstrated a flat trend between 1959 and 1967, increasing at a rate less than the rate of population increase. After 196 7, Texas demand deposits GROSS TEXAS PRODUCT, 1959-1974 Current Constant 19S8 dollars dollars Year (millio ns) (millio ns) 19 S9 2 3,946 23,600 1960 24 ,680 2 3, 79 S 1961 2 S,78S 24,416 1962 27,314 2S ,Sl6 1963 2 8,8 11 26,3S 3 1964 30 ,9 48 27 ,641 l 9 6S 33,4 9S 29,249 1966 36,923 3 1,09 0 1967 40,089 32 ,S l s 1968 44,2 13 34 ,3 83 1969 48,377 3S,2 l s 1970 s 1,4 6S 3S ,600 197 1 SS, 760 36,79 6 1972 62,437 39,600 1973 68,976 40,93 1 1974 72,440 42 ,6 10 Note: It is advisable to round off individual gross state product estimates at the third significant figure. increased at about the same rate as nonagricultural employ­ment, substantially exceeding the rate of increase of the state's population. Private Sector Growth In the private sector the growth in the state's product has generally been steady, again with a leveling tendency during the 1969-1970 recession. Within this sector, the nonagricultural, nonmanufacturing private subsector, which includes mining, construction, trade, finance-insurance-real estate, transportation-communication-public utilities, and services, was only slightly influenced by the 1969-1970 recession. This subsector has seen greater and steadier growth during the past fifteen years than the agricultural and manufacturing subsectors, with an average annual real compound growth rate of 4.6 percent; at this rate output doubles every fifteen to sixteen years. Manufacturing Growth The growth in the manufacturing sector of the state's economy during the past fifteen years has tended to parallel that of the manufacturing GNP, especially during the first half of the period. Between 196 2 and 1968 Texas manu­facturing grew rapidly, at a real annual compound rate of almost 6.5 percent. But as the national economy ap­proached a cyclical peak in 1969 the rate of Texas manufacturing growth tapered off, and during the 1969-1970 recession the state lost some of its previous gains in real manufacturing output. The growth trend in manufacturing after 1970 has taken a positive but less spectacular growth slope than that apparent in the mid-l 960s. 1971 saw a nationwide econom­ic recovery and by 1972 the state had slightly exceeded its 1968-1969 peak. But while the nationwide manufacturing sector saw significant growth during the 1971-1973 expan­sion, Texas manufacturing grew more slowly than the Texas population. During the seven year period of 1966-1973, national growth in the manufacturing sector averaged 4. 2 percent per year, while manufacturing in Texas grew at about 1.4 percent per year. Agricultural Growth During the past fifteen years Texas agriculture has shown rather erratic behavior. The real value of Texas combined crop and livestock production generally dropped between 1959 and 1967, but the downward trend was reversed in 1967. Texas agricultural production trends are closely related to fluctuations in the prices received by farmers. After peaking in 195 1, agricultural prices fell; by 195 3 they reached the level around which they generally fluctuated until about 1967. With the decline in national agricultural surplus during the late 1960s, however, and with the increasing worldwide demand for food, prices were bid up after 1967. During the world crisis of food supply and demand in 1972-1973, prices rose as steeply as they have Estimating the Gross State Product Gross state product (GSP) figures have been estimated for a number of states (including Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota among others) since the early 1960s. In at least one study, figures were estimated for each state in the union for one year. Each GSP investigator, if he does not create a new method, varies the usual method to fit his needs. Consequent­ly, published GSP figures for the various states may not be directly comparable, nor are they always directly comparable with gross national product (GNP) figures. General compari­sons may be readily and safely made, and comparisons through time for a single state may be quite meaningful, since the calculating scheme remains constant. Nevertheless, a GSP calculating procedure acceptable throughout the nation has not yet been established. Several factors prevent the gathering of rigorously com­parable data for GSP calculation. Prices vary from place to place, and local economic and tax environments are not identical across the nation. Development of local price indexes is often impracticill, and taking into account varying goals for regional growth may be impossible. Moreover, state economies are not independent of each other, and attempts to assume that they are can be seriously misleading. Exports and imports across state lines are not systematically meas­ured. Considering the extent of interstate commerce, gross product estimates based entirely on state and local measure­ments are rough at best. In spite of its drawbacks, a historical overview of a state's product, especially if broken down by sector, may be useful in social and political, as well as in economic, planning. The comparison of economic trends can identify where and when various economic activities have occurred and, if properly used, may point to areas in which economic activity may occur in the future. Serious analysis, however, requires a combination of GSP estimates with other data. The results of four separate calculations have been added in order to estimate the gross Texas product in current dollars. First, an earnings and costs approach is used to estimate the state's product in the nonmanufacturing, non­agricultural private sector. National income originating in Texas for each subsector is estimated by determining the ratio of Texas personal income to U.S. personal income for each subsector and then applying the ratio to national income for that subsector. The same ratio is applied to U.S. capital consumption allowances and U.S. industrial business taxes to determine the Texas components of those values for each subsector. The national income, capital consumption allowance, and industrial business tax components are then added for each subsector to obtain the portion of the state's gross product originating in that subsector. Data for this part of the procedure are found in July and August issues of Survey of Curren t Business. A value-added approach is used in the calculation of the manufacturing product of Texas. Current Texas values are taken directly fro m the Survey of Manufactures and Census ofManufactures. A value-added approach is also used to determine the state's agricultural product. This is derived by adding the Texas values of total farm output, including cash receipts from marketings, value of home consumption, gross rental value of dwellings, and net change in inventories, less net rent to nonfarm landlords. Intermediate production expenses (including feed, livestock, seed, fertilizer, repair and opera­tion of equipment, and miscellaneous operating expenses) are subtracted from that figure. The result of this calculation is the gross farm product of Texas. The data are found in annual supplements to the Farm Income Situation. The government product is found by determining the nationwide ratio of income originating in government to government wages and salaries and applying this ratio to government wages and salaries paid in Texas. The data for these calculations are found in July and August issues of Survey of Current Business. Constant values of the gross Texas product are calculated by applying GNP deflators for each subsector to the current state product estimates. Because the data on which estimates are based are available only through 1973, 1974 estimates of the subsector products are determined by finding the ratio of 1974 Texas employment to 1973 employment in each subsector and applying the ratio to the 1973 constant value subsector product. This produces an estimate of the 1974 constant value subsector product. GNP deflators are applied to this figure to produce an estimate of the current 1974 product. risen during wartime food shortages in the past. The agricultural GTP increased in line with price increases after 1967, demonstrating a significant jump between 1972 and 1973 that corresponded with a jump in prices. In the last fifteen years the agricultural sector of the state economy has seen only a 1.5 percent annual real compound rate of growth, but if only the period since 1967 is considered, Texas agriculture has shown a 9.1 percent annual rate of growth. Texas usually ranks among the top five states in both livestock and crop production and is about third in combined agricultural production. Neverthe­less, agriculture accounts for only 3 to 5 percent of the GTP, falling from 6.6 percent in 1959 to 2.9 percent in 1967 but climbing back to 4.0 percent by 1974. Government Growth Growth in the federal government sector of the state economy has closely paralleled the state's population increases, but during the mid-l 960s somewhat larger increases appeared, resulting primarily from the Vietnam War, the space program, and the implementation of government antipoverty programs. All three of these functions stimulated the Texas economy; Texas probably benefited more, economically, than most other states from the war and the space program. The most rapidly growing sector of the Texas economy is state and local government. During the past fifteen years the growth in this sector has been steady, averaging a 5.6 percent annual compound rate of increase in real value. At this rate the economic impact of state and local government in Texas doubles every twelve to thirteen years. The various sectors of the Texas economy have grown at different rates in the past fifteen years. Activity in certain sectors is correlated with other economic activity, while activity in some sectors seems relatively independent. In addition, actions of the government influence the several sectors to varying extents. For example, government­sponsored military and space projects significantly affect local economies in the areas in which the associated manufacturing and service work is performed. Likewise, government decisions to promote selected areas of expan­sion have significant economic impacts on many local areas. Finally, worldwide market trends may heavily affect local growth in some sectors, especially those which (like agriculture) produce commodities that are identical to or can be substituted for commodities traded in international markets. Prediction of future growth trends, based on past trends and on consideration of the various influences, can be helpful to planners in business and government. An accompanying table shows the growth trends of selected sectors of the Texas economy for 1959-1974 and for 1967-1974. Thoughtful consideration of the table reveals how easy it is to select numbers to "prove" what one wants to prove. For example, predictions of the impact of agriculture on the state's economy could be based on either fifteen year trends or seven year trends. Results would be quite different, despite use of the same method­ ology. In reality, neither prediction would be particularly meaningful without insights gained from sources other than the specific time series involved. Profitable analysis of sector performance depends both on general knowledge of the field and on careful explanation and interpretation of a statistical data set. GROWTH TRENDS IN GROSS PRODUCTS OF SELECTED SECTORS OF THE TEXAS ECONOMY (Gross product in constant 1958 dollars) Compound Doubling growth rate period Sector (percentage) (years) Fifteen year trend (19S9-1974) State and local government S.6 13 Private nonagricultural, nonmanufacturing 4.6 16 Gross state product 4.0 18 Manufacturing 3.3 21 Federal government 3.0 24 Agriculture 1. s 47 Seven year trend (1967-1974) Agriculture 9. 1 8 State and local government S.8 12 Private nonagricultural, nonmanufacturing 4.7 IS Gross state product 4.0 18 Federal government 1. s 46 Manufacturing 1.4 so TEXAS CONSTRUCTION Dianne Priddy The long-awaited housing recovery in Texas and the nation appears to be a slow starter, despite increases in available mortgage money and decreases in lending rates. January year-to-year comparisons revealed a 32 percent drop from the January 1974 level of values of residential building authorized in Texas and a 48 percent decline in the annual rate of housing units authorized in the United States, as well as a 31 percent decline in the annual rate of national housing starts. High mortgage interest rates have been spotlighted as a major factor in both state and national declines. Since mid-September, however, the prime rate of interest has plunged from 12 to around 8 percent, without perceptible impact on the Texas housing industry. While many individ­uals may be tempted by lower mortgage interest rates, the majority of potential home buyers are postponing their purchase decisions, perhaps hoping for further declines in mortgage interest rates. Obviously, factors other than interest rates also influ­ence purchase decisions of prospective home buyers. One of the most critical indicators is the economic confidence associated with employment expectations. As the number of unemployed workers in the country continued its upward surge past 8 percent (significantly higher in some specialized industrial areas), unemployment in Texas reached 5.7 percent in January, a moderate level compared with the critical situation in other areas of the country. However, the 5. 7 percent level represents a 50 percent increase from January 1974. Even though the levels of unemployment in major Texas cities are appreciably lower than the state level might indicate, the pessimistic attitude prevalent in the nation appears to have dampened the enthusiasm of potential Texas homeowners. Few individuals are willing to under­take long-term financial commitments when they are bombarded by negative economic news. Residential Construction Of the twenty-four SMSAs in Texas, seventeen reported no authorizations for new construction of two-family dwelling units in the first month of 1975, and in fifteen of the areas no permits for new apartment dwelling units were issued. Houston was the only SMSA which evidenced January year-to-year percentage gains in all three categories of residential development: the number of one-family dwelling units authorized in Houston increased by 4 7 percent of the January 1974 figure, the number of two-family units rose 400 percent, and a 7 percent gain was realized in the number of apartment dwelling units. Houstonians have experienced few of the effects of the recession that has stalled economic growth in many areas of NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS 250~md=·~·-~i•="°"=.;.'°'::...:;~·=w=;·~-•-196-100 ~Ad'.....,~~='•~_~7=_.,._~~ft-~~t-~~t-~--j 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 So ur ce : &ureou of 8u5ine u R~ueorch , in coopero lion with U.S. 8ureou of the Cen5u5. the country. Continuing expansion is the result of the energy orientation of the city and the surrounding area. Due to national recognition as the energy capital, Houston continues to attract new businesses, which have contributed to the accelerated growth of demand deposits in Houston banks. Additional activity has resulted from the choice of Houston as a relocation point for the branch or head offices of approximately 150 companies. Employment opportuni­ties in that city's energy-and business-related fields indicate a potential for continued growth. With Houston as the sole exception, the number of permits issued for apartment dwelling units declined in all of the Texas SMSAs. McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg and Houston were the only SMSAs experiencing increases in January 1974-1975 comparisons of the two-family dwelling unit construction authorizations. Although it may be several months before the housing industry perks up from its current anemic state, initial indications of improvement are evident in the figures for the first month of the new year. Estimated values of residential building authorized in Texas were down in all categories in the January 1974-1975 comparison, but authorizations for residential construction in Texas rose in value by 2 percent from December levels. This is undoubt­edly encouraging news for the industry, since it indicates an about-face from the dismal pattern of authorized residential values set during 197 4. Additions, alterations, and repairs soared to a record high in estimated values of authorizations in 1974, 28.2 percent above the 1973 cumulative level. The 4 percent increase in values of permits issued from December 1974 to January 197 5 shows that the activity continues, due both to the cost savings that can be achieved by improving an existing structure rather than building a new one and to an increasing esthetic appreciation for older buildings. Nonresidential Construction The index of nonresidential building permits issued registered a 19.2 percent decrease in January comparisons. Laredo and Texarkana SMSAs, however, registered particu­larly impressive percentage gains in nonresidential authori­zations for January. Neither the 5,407 percent increase in Laredo nor the 769 percent increase in Texarkana nonresi­dential authorizations represents substantial investment; percentage swings are typically more dramatic in smaller SMSAs than in the larger ones because of the limited number of construction projects undertaken. In Laredo a large portion of the increase in nonresidential construction authorized in January was due to support facilities for the extensive development of natural gas resources in the area. Over four fifths of Texarkana's $280,000 in nonresidential authorizations was accounted for by the conversion of an elementary school into health care facilities. Office-bank buildings are a significant but frequently overlooked category of nonresidential construction. A comparison of January figures with month-earlier levels shows that office-bank buildings suffered the worst month­to-month percentage decline in values of building author­ized of all major construction categories, excluding the relatively insignificant dollar values represented by commer­cial parking garages, miscellaneous nonresidential buildings, and structures other than buildings. ESTIMATED VALVES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS# Percent change Jan Jan JanP Janr 1975 from 1975 from 1975 1974 Dec Jan Classification (thousands of dollars) 1974 1974 A ll Permits 245,322 319,959 -6 -23 New construction 218,523 289,021 8 -24 Residential (housekeeping) 77,598 114,668 2 -32 One-family dwellings 60,850 62,778 4 -3 Multiple-family dwellings 16,748 51,890 -4 -68 Nonresidential 140,925 174,3 53 -12 -19 Hotels, motels, and tourist courts 2,898 6,137 -35 -53 Amusement buildings 3,075 2,217 64 39 Churches 10,492 2,139 639 391 Industrial buildings 10,133 17,603 54 -42 Garages (commercial and private) 716 11,599 -93 -94 Service stations and repair garages 464 312 274 49 Hospitals and institutions 24,053 23,164 175 4 Office-bank buildings 22,755 22,207 -45 2 Works and utilities 4,054 17,340 88 -77 Educational buildings 39,304 34,110 -4 IS Stores and mercantile buildings 18,138 32,534 -43 -44 Other buildings and structures 4,843 4,991 -55 - 3 Additions, alterations, and repairs 26,799 30,9 38 4 -13 SMSA vs. non-SMSA Total SMSAt 221,717 287,996 -10 -23 Central cities Outside central cities Total non-SMSA 161,145 60,572 23,605 230,597 57,399 31,963 -7 -15 43 -30 6 -26 10,000 to 50,000 population 11 ,461 18,213 80 -37 Less than 10,000 population 12,144 13,7 so 20 -12 the incorporated area of a city is included. Federal contracts and public housing are not included. PPreliminary. r Revised. t standard metropolitan statistical area as defined in 1973 Census. Source: Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. # only building for which permits were issued within The February issue of Fortune featured an extensive article on the financial crisis affecting several of Manhat­tan's skyscraper office buildings. Since 1965 the square footage of Manhattan office space has increased over 50 percent to about 230 million square feet. New York City's current vacancy level is over 18 percent, which results from the white-collar exodus that has continued since 1969, when many major corporations began to move their headquarters to other areas of the country. Both Houston and Dallas have experienced substantial business gains as targets for relocating companies. Despite the number of new businesses moving to Dallas, available office space has not been absorbed as quickly as new buildings are completed. While eyes across the country are focused on Manhattan's 18 percent vacancy level, the 20 percent vacancy level in Dallas has received little publicity. Since a major new office building typically requires three years for design and construction prior to leasing, office builders must foresee potential demands. Frequently surveys of office occupancy levels, which define current and projected office absorption levels, are consulted for planning purposes. Twice each year the Dallas Building Owners and Manag­ ers Association (BOMA) surveys all buildings in the city and surrounding area (including Stemmons Freeway, Love Field, Turtle Creek, Oaklawn, North Central Expressway Sector, LBJ Freeway Sector, North Dallas Sector, East Dallas Sector, and Oak Cliff Sector) that contain more than 25 ,000 square feet of commercial competitive space, which excludes owner-occupied space. According to figures re­leased February 1, 1975, the Dallas BOMA shows that the overall office building vacancy level in the city's downtown and outlying areas is about 20 percent. Out of a total competitive office footage of 24,812,349 it appears that 4,747,495 square feet are vacant. The downtown area is hardest hit, with more than 25 percent of the competitive space unleased. The First International Building, which opened in early December, accounts for 1,400,000 square feet of competitive office space, of which 80 percent has not yet been leased. The Henry S. Miller Company is another firm that produces an annual survey of office space absorption in the Dallas area. Their 197 5 study includes all nonmedical, multitenant office buildings of at least 20,000 square feet that are available for occupancy. The Henry S. Miller study divides the area into nine sectors, which are listed here in order of descending absorption levels: LBJ Freeway, East Dallas, Central Expressway, North Dallas, Stemmons Free­way, Downtown, Turtle Creek, Mid-Cities, and Oak Cliff. ONE-FAMILY, 1WO-FAMILY, AND APARTMENT-BUILDING DWELLING UNITS AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS (Values in thousands of dollars) Jan 197S One-family dwelling units Jan 1974 Percent cha nge J an 197 s from Ja n 197 4 Jan 197S Two-family dwelling units Percent change J an 197S from J an J an 1974 1974 Apartment-building dwelling units Percent change J an 197S from J an J an Jan 197 S 1974 1974 Standard metropolit an statistical area Value No. o f units Valu e No. o f units Value No. o f units Value No. of units Value No. o f un its Value No. o f units Value No. of units Value No . . of units V alue No. o f units Abilene 61 4 20 474 18 29 11 0 0 133 6 - 100 - 100 0 0 0 0 Amarillo 2212 66 18 63 so 19 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aust in 23 17 7S 3473 12 1 -33 -38 110 4 160 8 - 31 -so 90 3 919S 798 - 99 -99 Beaumont-Port Ar thur- Orange 1373 48 1063 40 29 20 70 33 4 11 2 - so 0 0 100 13 - 100 - 100 Brownsville-Harlingen- San Benito 177 32 47S 30 -63 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 198 - 100 - 100 Bryan-Coll ege Station Corpus C hristi Dallas-Fort Worth 180 1137 16342 10 S9 648 246 637 2 1083 13 43 8 19 -27 79 -22 -23 37 -21 0 0 76 0 0 6 0 90 4S2 0 6 28 -100 -83 -- 100 79 0 0 6SO 0 0 40 1207 300 9 10S 168 4 0 10 44 --- 100 100 93 -100 -100 -96 El Paso 1797 84 2174 103 - 17 -18 1S4 8 2S6 10 -40 -20 2081 134 4136 260 - so -48 Galves to n-Texas City Houston 410 8402 12 248 S49 5477 29 169 -2S S3 -S9 47 0 90 0 10 0 15 0 2 soo 400 0 8482 0 9SS 2000 6276 104 89S - 100 3S - 100 7 Ki lleen-Temple Laredo 1624 86 62 10 80S 90 32 8 102 -s 94 2S 0 0 0 0 39 0 4 0 - 100 - 100 30 0 6 0 224 0 31 0 - 87 -81 Lubbock 1692 S3 2Sl4 78 -33 -32 0 0 287 16 - 100 - 100 sso S6 466 60 18 - 7 McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg Mid land 2382 137 3 132 40 806 312 73 8 196 340 8 1 400 11 2 0 8 0 24 0 2 0 367 300 0 0 0 0 347 0 42 0 - 100 - 100 Odessa 221 9 405 1 5 -46 -40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Angelo San Antonio 428 1490 14 66 227 4279 14 2 14 89 -6S -69 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 4 - 100 - 100 0 909 0 167 168 S99S 39 786 -- 100 8S -100 -79 Sherman-Denison 313 12 2 17 8 44 so 0 0 18 2 - 100 - 100 14S 11 0 0 Texarkana 236 10 32 3 639 233 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tyler Waco 836 382 20 13 422 662 13 19 98 -42 S4 -32 130 0 4 0 0 3S 0 2 - 100 - 100 11 s 0 8 0 2600 8S 192 17 -- 96 100 -9 6 -100 Wichit a Falls 388 I S 679 30 -43 -50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total SMSAs 464 12 17 S8 48963 19SO -s -10 743 42 1S 77 94 - SJ -SS 130S2 1380 44203 4687 - 70 71 O utside SMSAs 6S88 279 689 1 307 - 4 - 9 IS 2 170 16 - 91 - 88 679 77 4 18 1 400 - 84 -81 State to tal S3000 2037 SS8S4 22S7 - s -10 7S8 44 1747 110 - S7 - 60 1373 1 14S7 48384 5087 - 72 -71 :: Metropolitan areas are listed in accordance with 1973 Bureau of the Census definition. This table includes only the cities reporting in metro po litan areas. •• Change is less than one half of I percent. .. . Inadequate bases for comparison. According to the results of the Miller study approxi­mately 18.5 percent of the area's 27,635,800 total square footage was unleased office space. One of the more interesting breakdowns in this analysis is the classification of existing office space by quality and desirability. Perhaps it is an indication of current hard times that the highest classification was also plagued by the highest vacancy level, 20.7 percent, while the third classification (of four possible gr.ades of declining quality) had the lowest vacancy level, 12.9 percent. Unlike New York City, Dallas is not experiencing a loss of corporations, as it has consistently maintained an exceptional growth record and has established itself as a major financial center. Anticipating a continuing influx of new businesses, Dallas builders apparently overbuilt the area. As a partial explanation for high vacancy levels, the Miller report states that "acceptance of Dallas as [the] new location for home office[ s] [was] thwarted by the world­wide economic downturn." The Houston Association of Building Owners and Managers is affiliated with the Dallas BOMA, as well as other affiliates located in major cities all over the country. In the December 31, 1974, office space occupancy survey, the Houston report includes 88 buildings, which contain nearly 23 million square feet of rentable area. The Houston report considers both competitive and noncompetitive (single purpose) office buildings. The survey results indicate that 89.5 percent of the 52,597,000 gross square footage of office space is occupied, which indicates that just slightly more than 10 percent of all office footage is vacant. Leasing activity in Houston's new office buildings is reported every other month by Julien J. Studley, Inc. The Studley Report is generally regarded as one of the most objective and authoritative sources of current information on leasing activity in new office buildings in the seven cities it surveys: Houston, New York, Chicago, Boston, Washing­ton, D.C., Miami, and Los Angeles. Unlike other office occupancy studies, the Studley Report deals exclusively with new footage that is being leased for the first time, and it includes unleased space in buildings completed in previous years, as well as providing footage figures (both total and available area) for office buildings scheduled for completion during the coming year. According to Julien Studley, supply and demand for office space in Houston and Washington, D.C., are balanced. The concentration of government jobs in Washington provides a steadily increasing demand for office space in the nation's capital. In Houston new office space is absorbed at a rate exceeding 150,000 square feet each month. Apparently Houston will be experiencing an acute shortage of office space by the end of 1975. The only major office building scheduled for completion in downtown Houston during 197 5 is Pennzoil Place, which has already leased or has leases pending on 90 percent of the total square footage. Buildings scheduled for completion this year at suburban sites in Houston are approximately 3 5 percent unleased, but that situation probably will not last long, considering the city's rapid rate of growth to date. The Energy Economy U.S. OIL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS 1860-1974 Francis B. May The United States produced over 98 percent of the world's petroleum supplies, and more than half of all U.S. oil production was exported. That was the situation in the early 1860s. Since that time the United States has become a net oil importer, an undesirable and uncomfortable role. In 1974 the United States received more oil daily from each of three countries-Canada, Nigeria, and Iran-than total world production in 1860. Crude Oil Exports World production of petroleum in 1860 is estimated to have been 508,000 barrels. Nearly all of this (500,000 barrels) was produced in the United States. Most of the remainder was produced in Rumania. There was very little competition from other countries in the petroleum market. As a result, foreign demand absorbed 259,000 barrels of U.S. crude oil and products in 1862. During the first forty years of its existence, from 1860 through 1900, the U.S. petroleum industry found its biggest market abroad. Rising production abroad reduced U.S. exports of petroleum during the last decades of the nineteenth Table 1 U.S. AND WORLD PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL, SELECTED YEARS, 1860-1900 (millions of barrels) U.S. Percentage of U.S. World percentage of U.S. Year production production world total production exported 1860 0.5 0.5 98.4 n.a. 1865 2.5 2.7 92.0 28.4 187 0 5.3 5.8 90.7 63.9 1875 8.8 10.0 88.1 64.3 1880 26.3 30.0 87.6 31.4 1885 21.9 36.8 59.5 61.l 1890 45.8 76.6 59.8 36.l 1895 52.9 103.7 51.0 38.4 1900 63.6 149.l 42.7 36.5 n.a. Not available. Source: Petroleum Panorama, an edition of the Oil and Gas Journal, January 28, 1959. Production totals are rounded to the nearest tenth. Table 2 U.S. CRUDE OIL SUPPLY AND DEMAND, 1919-1939 (millions of barrels) Year Production Imports Expo rts 1919 378 53 6 1920 443 106 9 1921 472 125 10 1922 558 127 11 1923 732 82 18 1924 714 78 18 1925 764 62 13 1926 771 60 15 1927 901 58 16 1928 901 80 19 1929 1,007 79 26 1930 898 62 24 1931 851 47 26 1932 785 45 27 1933 906 32 37 1934 908 36 41 1935 997 32 51 1936 1,1 00 32 so 1937 1,279 27 67 1938 1,214 26 77 1939 1,265 33 72 Source: American Petroleum Institute, Petroleum Facts and Figures, 1959. This table does not include expo rts of refined products. Totals are rounded. century. By 1900 only 36.5 percent of U.S. petroleum was exported. Much of the foreign production was in Russia. Around 1872 Russia invited foreign capitalists to develop its oil fields. The resulting growth of its oil industry during the next twenty years was phenomenal, as deposits around Baku on the Caspian Sea were developed. It was not until 1902, a year after the Spindletop gusher on the Gulf Coast blew in, that the United States regained the supremacy over Russia in crude oil production which it had lost several years earlier. The history of the U.S. oil industry from 1870 to 1910 is to a considerable degree the history of the Standard Oil Company, which dominated the industry until it was broken up into thiry-four competing companies in 1911 by the Supreme Court. Standard countered Russian oil competition by acquir­ing a tanker fleet in 1888 and exporting crude oil and its products in bulk at substantially reduced costs. In the late 1880s it began developing the kerosene trade in the Orient by giving away thousands of small kerosene lamps. By 1890 it had a near monopoly of the Far Eastern petroleum products trade. The formation of large European oil companies toward the end of the century culminated in the Royal Dutch-Shell group of companies in 1902. This competition reduced U.S. exports. Crude Oil Imports From 1900 until 1918 U.S. petroleum production expanded steadily, but the national appetite for crude oil grew even more rapidly. As a result, by 1918 we were a net importer of crude oil but a net exporter of refined products. Increased use of the automobile greatly enlarged the national appetite for gasoline and, hence, for crude oil. World War I proved the superiority of automobiles and trucks over animal-powered vehicles. General Foch's "taxi­cab army," which rushed to the defense of the Marne, was convincing proof of the speed and reliability of the automobile. Automobile sales increased rapidly during the 1914-1918 period. The number of passenger cars manufac­tured in the United States increased from 548, 139 in 1914 to 943,436 in 1918. Trucks manufactured increased from 24,900 in 1914 to 227,250 in 1918. Total motor vehicle registrations increased from 1.8 million in 1914 to 6. 2 million in 1918. As a result, total motor-fuel usage increased to more than 2 billion gallons by 1918. A whole new life style for the American people followed widespread use of motor vehicles. The mode of travel, the distances traveled in pleasure driving, and the design of cities changed as a result. Increased automobile, bus, and truck usage created an enormous expansion of the petroleum refining industry. By 1918 there were 267 refineries in the country with a total capacity of 1.2 million barrels a day. Their principal product now was gasoline, although important volumes of kerosene were still produced. Growth in the demand for gasoline abroad led to a great increase in exports of that Table 3 U.S. CRUDE OIL SUPPLY AND DEMAND, 1946-1974 (millions of barrels) Year Production Imports Exports 1946 1,734 86 4 2 1947 1,857 98 4 6 194 8 2,020 129 40 1949 1,84 2 154 33 1950 1,974 178 35 195 1 2,24 8 179 29 1952 2,290 210 27 1953 2, 357 236 20 1954 2,3 1 s 239. 14 1955 2,4 84 285 12 1956 2,617 34 2 29 1957 2,617 373 so 1958 2,449 348 4 1959 2,575 352 2 1960 2,575 372 3 1961 2,622 382 3 1962 2,676 41 1 2 1963 2,753 4 13 2 1964 2,787 439 l 1965 2,849 4 52 l 1966 3,028 4 47 l 1967 3,2 16 4 12 26 1968 3,329 472 2 1969 3,372 514 l 1970 3,517 4 83 s 1971 3,454 613 l 1972 3,455 811 1973 3,353 1,184 1974 3,2l 2p 1,277 *Less than 500,000 barrels. PPreliminary. Source: American Petroleum Institute, Petroleum Fµcts and Figures, 1971; Oil and Gas Journal, January 27, 1975; and Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1974. This table does not include exports of refined products. product. Exports of refined products rose from 57,500,000 barrels in 1919 to 137,133,000 barrels in 1929. The U.S. preeminence in refining technology was a prime reason for its position as a net exporter of refined products in the 1920s. By 1929 the number of refineries in the United States had increased to 427, with a total capacity of 3.6 million barrels a day. Refining techniques had improved as a result of research, which produced the Burton cracking process, and the use of tetraethyl lead cracking substantially increased the number of gallons of gasoline that could be obtained from a barrel of oil. Tetraethyl lead improved the antiknock qualities of the gasoline. As the decade of the 1920s closed, the United States petroleum industry had only one main problem-a surplus of productive capacity, which had caused a weaken­ing of prices. New discoveries of large oil fields during the 1920s such as Mexia in Texas, El Dorado in Arkansas, Osage in Oklahoma, and Los Angeles Basin in California, as well as great foreign discoveries in Venezula and Iraq, brought a flood of oil into this country or, conversely, cut into America's foreign markets. U.S. refining capacity rose 35 percent above market demand by 1927. As a result the domestic oil industry was having difficulty before the stock market crash in 1929. The decade of the 1930s began inauspiciously with large surplus producing and refining capacity. Discovery of the enormous East Texas field in 1930 added to the industry's problems of trying to market the vast quantities of petroleum available at a price that would return a profit. The East Texas field gave the United States an abundance of oil, placing great pressure on the industry to find export markets for the surplus. Although the United States was a net exporter of refined products during the entire 1930-1939 period, it did not become a net exporter of crude oil until 1933. The East Texas oil field was the principal source of exports. The dominant position of the United States as an exporter of refined products continued because of growth in refining capacity as well as improve­ment in refining techniques. Between 1930 and 1939 the number of refineries in this country increased from 420 to 545. Refining capacity increased from 3.8 million barrels a day in 1930 to 4.7 million barrels a day in 1939. Catalytic cracking and reforming increased yield of gasoline from a barrel of oil. Alkylation and isomerization increased the quality of the product. As a result, the refining industry shifted toward increasing the output of gasoline, its most profitable product. Product imports consisted largely of residual fuel oil burned for boiler fuel. This freed U.S. refineries from the need to make large quantities of this relatively unprofitable product. World War II broke out in 1939. The United States supplied its own needs as well as those of its allies. Aviation gasoline output soared from 14.7 million barrels in 1940 to 152.4 million barrels in 1945. The war in the air was powered largely by aviation fuel produced by U.S. refiner­ies. Refinery capacity increased from 4. 7 million barrels a day in 1940 to 5.3 million barrels a day in 1945. After 1941 crude oil imports declined and did not begin to rise again significantly until 1944, when the shipping situation eased due to rapid building of more tankers. Most of the increased crude oil imports in 1944 and 1945 came from Venezuela because of its nearness and its great surplus producing capacity from the Mene Grande and other large oil fields. After the end of World War II the United States entered an era of unprecedented prosperity. One result of this was a great increase in the number, size, and power of motor vehicles manufactured. There was also a great increase in air travel. The railroads converted from coal-to diesel-powered engines. Farmers converted from animal-to gasoline-and diesel-powered equipment. As a result, demand for crude oil and refined products soared. Domestic oil production could not increase fast enough to meet the demand. Imports increased rapidly to fill the gap between supply and demand. Imports of petroleum have exceeded exports in every year since 1946. The increases in exports in 1957 and 1967 were in response to wars in the Middle East. Interruptions of flows from the Middle East to Europe in 1957 and 1967 were met by increases in exports from this country. No such increase occurred in 1973 during the Yorn Kippur war because the United States had no surplus to spare. Reductions in output by Middle Eastern countries were met in Europe by rationing. Our exports of refined products exceeded imports in 1946-1949. Since 1950 imports of refined products have exceeded exports by ever-widening margins. Venezuela, Canada, and the Middle East have been the major suppliers of petroleum to this country. In recent years crude oil exports from Venezuela have declined in volume. Algeria and Nigeria have expanded their volume of exports to the United States significantly in the last two years. In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Iran are our major suppliers, shipping 338,000 and 535,000 barrels a day, respectively, to this country in 1974. In 1974 Canada and Nigeria were our largest suppliers, shipping 865,000 and 655,000 barrels a day, respectively. Canada has announced plans to reduce exports to this country. All of our major suppliers, except Canada, are members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Every supplier has raised prices to the levels imposed by the OPEC, with consequent complication of the U.S. balance-of-payments problems. Any new embargo imposed by the Arab members of the OPEC would be more effective than the 1973 embargo because these countries now have more control over American oil producers operating in those countries. This has been accomplished by nationalization in some cases and by increased participation in management in others. Prudence, reasons of national security, and the need to improve our balance of trade argue that we must reduce our dependence on imports as rapidly as possible. We must step up our search for domestic supplies of crude oil and enlarge our effort to find methods of converting coal to a source of clean fuel. Energy from nuclear plants must be increased, and we must intensify our efforts to conserve energy. The emergency is here and now. LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS Statistical data compiled by Mildred Anderson and Constance Coo/edge, statisticians, and Kay Davis and Susanna Loh, statistical technicians. The following section reports business conditions first by as highways, waterways, and reservoirs. Building statistics for the metropolitan areas, second by cities, listed under their counties. latest month are subject to revision. Standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSAs) include one or more Bank debit statistics for SMSAs and for most central entire counties, as shown. All SMSAs are designated as such by the metropolitan cities are collected by the Federal Reserve Bank of U.S. Bureau of the Census; however, the Longview-Marshall Dallas. Most other bank debits figures shown are collected from metrqpolitan area, not an SMSA, is listed because it is now a cooperating banks by the Bureau of Business Research ; the significant urban node. Population figures are from the 1970 Census published figures represent all banks in the city shown. and 1973 estimates by the Bureau of the Census. Employment estimates include only wage and salary workers Building permit data are collected from municipalities by the and are compiled by the Texas Employment Commission in Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Census. They represent only building authorizations within city Footnote symbols are defined on pages 72 and 80. limits and exclude federal contracts and public works projects, such INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR TEXAS STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS Percent change Percent change from from Jan Dec Jan Jan Dec Jan Reported area and indicator 1975 1974 1974 Reported area and indicator 1975 1974 1974 ABILENE SMSA BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION SMSA (Continued) Callahan, Jones, and Taylor Counties; population: 122,164 (1970); Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 151,314 2 12 127,300 (1973 est.) (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Urban building permits (dollars) 1,134,818# -20 -26 Bryan-College Station SMSA). Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 334,095 7 4 Nonfarm employment 40,400 -2 3 CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA Manufacturing employment 6,920 -1 4 Nueces and San Patricio Counties; population: 284,832 (1970); Unemployed (percent) 3.2 33 52 301,100 (1973 est.) Urban building permits (dollars) S,185,543 -6 71 AMARILLO SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 976,570 6 ** Potter and Randall Counties; population: 144,396 (1970); Nonfarm employment 97,600 -1 3 150,400 (1973 est.) Manufacturing employment 11,630 -2 3 Urban building permits (dollars) 3,030,437 -35 -34 Unemployed (percent) 6.1 22 20 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 875,173 -2 4 Nonfarm employment 60,200 ** 4 DALLAS-FORT WORTH SMSA Manufacturing employment 6,440 1 3 Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Johnson, Kaufman, Unemployed (percent) 3.1 7 29 Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise Counties; population: 2,377,979 (1970); 2,441,800 (1973 est.) AUSTIN SMSA Urban building permits (dollars) 67,248,956# ** 9 Hays and Travis Counties; population: 323,158 (1970); Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 22,685,471t -14 12 373,000 (1973 est.) Nonfarm employment 1,062,100 -2 1 Urban building permits (dollars) S,319,831 # -85 -72 Manufacturing employment 229,900f -2 -5 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 1,753, 171 5 10 Unemployed (percent) 4.5 22 61 Nonfarm employment 163,100 -1 3 Manufacturing employment 14,700 -3 2 EL PASO SMSA Unemployed (percent) 3.9 22 so El Paso County; population: 359,291 (1970); 391,700 (1973 est.) Urban building permits (dollars) 21,226,086 112 53 BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) 1,014,038 -1 6 Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties; population: Nonfarm employment 129,800 ** 2 345,939 (1970); 347,900 (1973 est.) Manufacturing employment 27,700 1 1 Urban building permits (dollars) 3,193,576# 36 -31 Unemployed (percent) 7.2 7 24 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 969,650 12 9 GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Non farm employment 121,000 -7 -1 Manufacturing employment 34,100 -18 -15 Galveston County; population: 169,812 (1970); Unemployed (percent) s.s 28 4 177,600 (1973 est.) Urban building permits (dollars) 1,667,305 -56 ** BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 459,0 89 13 42 Cameron County; population: 140,368 (1970); 158,900 (1973 est.) Nonfarm employment 59,000 s ** Urban building permits (dollars) 2,207,605 14 -68 Manufacturing employment 11,650 -1 4 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 309,199 2 9 Unemployed (percent) 3.4 ** -11 Nonfarm employment 46,800 -1 4 Manufacturingemployment 9,710 -2 7 HOUSTON SMSA Unemployed (percent) 9.4 18 32 Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties; population: 1,999,316 (1970); BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION SMSA 2,138,400 (1973 est.) Brazos County; population: 57,978 (1970); 64,500 (1973 est.) Urban building permits (dollars) 67,715,260# 9 -16 Urban building permits (dollars) 405,680 -31 -75 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 20,417,073 3 27 Percent change Percent change from from Jan Dec Jan Jan Dec Jan Reported area and indicator 1975 1974 1974 Reported area and indicator 1975 1974 1974 HOUSTON SMSA (Continued) SAN ANGELO SMSA Nonfarm employment 981,700 •• 6 Tom Green County; population: 71,04 7 (1970); 72,900 (1973 est) Manufacturing employment 174,300 •• 5 Urban building permits (dollars) 506,401 -19 _ 67 Unemployed (percent) 4.6 18 24 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 227,722 4 6 Nonfarm employment 25,600 -2 2 KILLEEN-TEMPLE SMSA Manufacturing employment 5,350 -2 •• Bell and Coryell Counties; population: 159,794 (1970); Unemployed (percent) 4.0 21 33 191,600 (1973 est.) SAN ANTONIO SMSA Urban· building permits (dollars) 2,165,776 4 -28 Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe Counties; population: Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 231,919 •• 4 (Monthly employment reports are not available for the 888,179 (1970); 957,600 (1973 est.) Killeen-Temple SMSA.) Urban building permits (dollars) 8,617,367 # -so -63 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 2,534,832 5 7 LAREDO SMSA Nonfarm employment 305,400 -1 •• Webb County; population: 72,859 (1970); 81,200 (1973 est.) Manufacturing employment 39,300 -2 .. Unemployed (percent) 5.8 21 23 Urban building permits (dollars) 708,883 276 540 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 161,896 5 10 SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA Nonfarm employment 22,400 •• 4 Manufacturing employment 1,640 -1 5 Grayson County; population: 83,225 (1970); 77,800 (1973 est.) Unemployed (percent) 19.2 19 10 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,303,200 -51 89 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 138,643 1 4 LONGVIEW-MARSHALL METROPOLITAN AREA Nonfarm employment 28,600 •• -4 Gregg and Harrison Counties; population: 120,770 (1970); Manufacturing employment 10,600 2 -Jl 122,300 (1973 est.) Unemployed (percent) 9.7 56 137 Urban building permits (dollars) 3,014,371 129 -32 TEXARKANA SMSA Bank debits ($1,000) 279,370 6 11 Nonfarm employment 46,800 -2 2 Bowie County, Texas, and Miller County, Arkansas; Manufacturing employment 15,080 -2 •• population: 101,198 (1970); 102,900 (1973 est.) Unemployed (percent) 5.3 23 13 Urban building permits (dollars) 666,848 260 375 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 184,798 1 7 LUBBOCK SMSA Nonfarm employment 36,050 2 -2 Lubbock County; population: 179,295 (1970); 191,700 (1973 est.) Manufacturing employment 7,880 3 -14 Urban building permits (dollars) 4,424,056 48 -74 Unemployed (percent) 9.9 3 36 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 661,002 1 -32 (Since the Texarkana SMSA includes Bowie County in Texas and Nonfarm employment 70,200 -3 -1 Miller County in Arkansas, all data, including population, refer to Manufacturing employment 9,880 -2 -6 the two-county region.) Unemployed (percent) 3.5 52 75 TYLER SMSA McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA Smith County; population: 97,096 (1970); 103,900 (1973 est.) Hidalgo County; population: 181,535 (1970); 207,100 (1973 est.) Urban building permits (dollars) 2,667,880 -44 -70 Urban building permits (dollars) 3,070,480 -54 74 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 325,800 3 19 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 397,067 -2 27 Nonfarm employment 38,900 •• I Nonfarm employment 50,800 ** 4 Manufacturing employment 11,640 -1 -8 Manufacturing employment 6,410 ** 3 Unemployed (percent) 5.5 -14 25 Unemployed (percent) 8.8 5 8 WACO SMSA MIDLAND SMSA McLennan County; population: 147,553 (1970); Midland County; population: 65,433 (1970); 65,900 (1973 est-) 152,800 (1973 est.) Urban building permits (dollars) 1,692,691 173 -86 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,427,789 -14 36 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 366,060 3 30 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 492,551 13 JS Nonfarm employment 66,900 •• 9 Nonfarm employment 55,600 -2 -I Manufacturing employment 8,170 3 21 Manufacturing employment 12,760 -2 -4 Unemployed (percent) 3.1 24 19 Unemployed (percent) 5.8 38 23 (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and Odessa SMSAs since employment figures for Midland and Ector WICHITA FALLS SMSA Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in Oay and Wichita Counties; population: 129,941 (1970); combined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) 129,700 (1973 est.) Urban building permits (dollars) 530,471 # -63 -66ODESSA SMSA 8 18 Ector County; population: 91,805 (1970); 93,300 (1973 est.) 4 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 384,577 Nonfarm employment 44,600 -1 Urban building permits (dollars) 892,737 27 -78 Manufacturing employment 6,640 -2 3 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) 266,021 3 33 Unemployed (percent) 4.4 26 42 Nonfarm employment 66,900 •• 9 Manufacturing employment 8, 170 3 21 Unemployed (percent) 3. 1 24 19 (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and Odessa SMSAs since emplo yment figures for Midland and Ector Coun~ies, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in combined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) **Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent. fBank debit reports are based on the 1970 census definition for standard metropolitan statistical areas. Monthly employment reports exclude Hood, Parker, and Wise Counties. INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL TEXAS MUNICIPALITIES Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population 1970 1973 (est.) Jan 1975 (dollars) Percent change from Dec Jan 1974 1974 Jan 1975 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Dec Jan 1974 1974 ANDERSON Palestine 27,789 14,525 30,200 148,325 239 33,003 8 3 ANDREWS Andrews 10,372 8,625 10,900 40,700 41 731 15,151 14 ANGELINA Lufkin 49,349 23,049 53,900 959,102 - 1 -27 ARANSAS Aransas Pass (See San Patricio) 8,902 10,000 ATASCOSA Pleasanton 18,696 5,407 19,800 8,755 7 13 AUSTIN Bellville 13,831 2,371 14,100 0 11,599 15 3 BAILEY Muleshoe 8,487 4,525 8,400 43,538 85 - 10 BASTROP Smithville 17,297 2,959 19,600 11,550 -46 24 3,810 6 - 5 BEE Beeville 22,737 13,506 24,000 450,500 37,766 12 17 BELL (In Killeen-Temple SMSA) Bartlett (See Williamson) Harker Heights Killeen Temple 124,483 4,216 35,507 33,431 148,600 116,650 959,617 501,224 67 26 -42 97 29 -73 58,472 117,264 7 8 12 2 BEXAR (In San Antonio SMSA) San Antonio 830,460 654,153 892,000 7 ,42 5 ,5 31 -51 -63 2,661,241 ** 7 BOWIE (In Texarkana SMSA) Texarkana 67,813 52,179 68,800 644,348 247 503 173,078 - 9 6 BRAZORIA (In Houston SMSA) Angleton Clute Freeport Pearland 108,312 9,770 6,023 11 ,997 6,444 114,400 309,528 22,635 14,539 939,561 822 -87 -89 33 -13 -51 396 28,979 9,713 51,564 15,384 -- 97 27 2 7 5 27 6 23 BRAZOS (Constitutes Bryan-College Station SMSA) Bryan College Station 57,978 33,719 17,676 64,500 212,600 193,080 112 -60 - 85 1 130,541 25,190 8 21 7 24 BREWSTER Alpine 7,780 5,971 8,500 44,500 986 7,808 - 17 BROWN Brownwood 25,877 17,368 28,100 171,000 -78 -59 BURLESON Caldwell 9,999 2,308 10,700 6,959 - 8 7 BURNET Marble Falls 11,420 2,209 14,900 19,050 36 10 CALDWELL Lockhart 21,178 6,489 20,200 14,075 17 - 3 Urban building permits Bank debits Percent change Percent change from Jan 1975 fromPopulation Jan 1975 Dec Jan (thousands Dec COUNTY Jan City 1970 1973 (est.) (dollars) 1974 1974 of dollars) 1974 1974 17,831 17,800 Point Comfort CALHOUN 1,446 55,600 5,020 71 157 57,625 345 -87 36,525 15 Port Lavaca 10,49 1 29 0 2,239 15 138 Seadrift 1,092 CAMERON 140,368 158,900 (Constitutes Brownsville­Harlingen-San Benito SMSA) Brownsville 52,522 383,322 57 -94 135,134 7 •• 112 142 128,206 Harlingen 33,503 1,721,613 1 IS La Feria 2,642 275 6 II 30,000 4,915 ­Los Fresnos 1,297 4,007 3 34 Port Isabel 3,067 1,920 -82 -92 7,577 -13 -22 San Benito 15,176 70,750 -92 66 14,047 15 12 CASTRO 10,394 9,600 4,327 54,933 16 -17 Dimmitt CHEROKEE 32,008 34,100 Jacksonville 9,734 113,500 68 340 36,774 8 COLEMAN 10,288 9,800 Coleman 5,608 0 COLLIN 66,920 79,500 (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) McKinney 15,193 18,S SO -75 27,628 19 -8 Plano 17,872 2,771,235 88 -47 54,276 25 27 COLORADO 17,638 16,800 Eagle Lake 3,587 15,424 29 28 COMAL 24, 165 28,300 (In San Antonio SMSA) New Braunfels 17,859 417,366 -9 96 40,709 21 COOKE 23,471 24,200 Gainesville 13,830 199,140 241 -24 31,102 23 -11 Muenster 1,411 0 6,049 16 7 CORYELL 35,311 43,000 (In Killeen-Temple SMSA) Copperas Cove 10,818 587,585 7 129 9,814 -1 23 Gatesville 4,683 14,160 20 -9 CRANE 4, 172 4,100 Crane 3,427 10,000 -91 -95 4,349 4 10 DALLAS 1,327,321 1,350,800 (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) -3 49,162 39 Dallas 844,401 36,878,694 95 66 21,667,484 -10 14 Carrollton 13,855 479,108 93 -80 21 35,214 s Farmers Branch 27,492 440,576 -59 22 10 1 Garland 81 ,437 3,532,081 -67 -34 123,944 46,554 7 Grand Prairie 50,904 2,294,881 -68 150 1 Irving 97,260 1,088,797 193 -35 147,942 6 ­ - Lancaster 10,522 42,000 -42 -97 11,639 9 s - Mesquite 55 , 131 2,370,422 -14 542 34,636 4 19 24 4 Richardson 48,582 1,65 8,868 109 -13 125,991 Seagoville 4,390 4,545 -96 -89 12,718 3 -7 DAWSON 16,604 16,300 -40 Lamesa 11,559 13,S 70 -66 -81 53,318 53 DEAF SMITH 18,999 18,700 Hereford 13,414 138,450 -31 -66 DENTON 75,633 91,300 (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) 19 24 Denton 39,874 335,750 27 -32 127,278 IJustin 741 0 2,764 16 -Lewisville 9,264 237,818 -so -72 35,041 8 4 3 Pilot Point 1,663 3,500 -36 3,104 13 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 74 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population 1970 1973 (est.) Jan 1975 (dollars) Percent change from Dec Jan 1974 1974 Jan 1975 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Dec Jan 1974 1974 DEWITT Yoakum (See Lavaca) 18,660 18,600 EASTLAND Cisco 18,092 4,160 18,800 S,846 17 ** ECTO~ (Constitutes Odessa SMSA) Odessa 91,805 78,380 93,300 892,737 27 -78 294,278 16 26 ELLIS (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Midlothian Waxahachie 46,638 2,322 13,452 49,000 0 1,257,845 5,780 28,802 22 2 - 25 16 EL PASO (Constitutes El Paso SMSA) El Paso 359,291 322,261 391,700 21,226,086 117 53 1, 173,913 - 4 ERATH Stephenville 18,191 9,277 18,900 75,100 -42 27,813 26 2 FANNIN Bonham 22,705 7,698 23,400 26,025 -84 48 23,876 6 10 FAYETTE Schulenburg 17,650 2,294 17,800 17,985 52 -51 FORT BEND (In Houston SMSA) Richmond Rosenberg 52,314 S,777 12,098 64,200 58,300 74,947 -67 -53 -62 -68 23,691 19,309 10 3 3 10 GAINES Seagraves Seminole 11,593 2,440 5,007 11,200 10,300 23,150 -62 6,267 33,188 30 26 - 19 s GALVESTON (Constitutes Galveston-Texas City SMSA) Dickinson Galveston La Marque Texas City 169,812 10,776 61,809 16,131 38,908 177,600 1,255,875 330,757 273,000 17 41 -51 141 -58 20,743 361,316 30,261 53,516 - 3 36 20 19 - 4 65 28 9 GILLESPIE Fredericksburg 10,553 S,326 11,100 403,475 363 - 63 27,522 3 GONZALES Nixon 16,37s 1,925 16,500 0 GRAY Pampa 26,949 21,726 25,100 60,000 25 71,267 11 - 3 GRAYSON (Constitutes Sherman-Denison SMSA) Denison Sherman 83,225 24,923 29,061 77,800 324,495 978,705 -88 -s 183 43,287 98,975 s 3 s 3 GREGG (In Longview-Marshall Metropolitan Area) Gladewater Kilgore Longview 75,929 5,574 9,495 45,547 78,100 39,050 54,970 2 ,584,129 53 -72 158 - 32 17 10,789 39, 184 178,607 49 2 s s 42 6 GUADALUPE (In San Antonio SMSA) Schertz Seguin 33,554 4,061 1S,934 37,300 6,187 220,200 67 -SS -99 -20 S,292 38,877 - 1 10 39 3 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population 1970 1973 (est.) Jan 1975 (dollars) Percent change from Dec Jan 1974 1974 Jan 1975 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Dec Jan 1974 1974 HALE Hale Center Plainview 34,137 1,964 19,096 35,900 0 56,609 - 80 - 94 148,513 26 -II HARDEMAN Quanah 6,795 3,948 6,200 0 10,067 42 -34 HARDIN (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Silsbee 29,996 7,271 32,800 23,567 17 30 HARRIS (In Houston SMSA) Baytown Bellaire Deer Park Houston Humble La Porte Pasadena South Houston Tomball 1,741,912 43,980 19,009 12,773 1,232,802 3,278 7,149 89,277 11,527 2,734 1,835,900 2,314,957 40,144 1,135,653 53,988,730 205,02 s 154,400 3,629,331 99,000 98,000 -39 51 6 48 513 589 -68 110 -26 146 371 539 104 136,416 102,169 41,317 21,273,974 20, 15 5 7,028 179,384 34,909 8 s 79 4 33 -9 -13 27 35 10 -9 30 5 7 7 -4 HARRISON (In Longview-Marshall Metropolitan Area) Marshall 44,841 22,937 44,200 336,222 252 -73 50,790 10 II HASKELL Haskell 8,512 3,655 8,000 0 9,288 32 -43 HAYS (In Austin SMSA) San Marcos 27,642 18,860 33,700 661,651 -78 122 21,128 10 -2 HENDERSON Athens 26,466 9,582 29,600 51,700 -64 -55 32,391 2 HIDALGO (Constitutes McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg SMSA) Alamo Donna Edinburg Elsa McAllen Mercedes Mission Pharr San Juan Weslaco 181,535 4,291 7,365 17,163 4,400 37,636 9,355 13,043 15 ,829 5,070 l 5,313 207,100 13,500 28,700 26,175 11,378 881,832 20,700 398,897 145,5 52 1,541,111 13 -s -99 -76 -54 517 -26 205 4 -58 -84 -34 14 -29 63 10 388 10,934 9,194 56, 131 24,028 173,658 16,691 48,817 11,004 8,008 40,926 40 -23 17 -26 13 s 6 1 -11 14 16 7 54 103 29.. 22 -6 -18 39 HOCKLEY Levelland 20,396 11,445 21,200 115,700 -41 62 ,882 59 -21 HOOD (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Granbury 6,368 2,473 8,600 5,883 13 12 HOPKINS Sulphur Springs 20,710 10,642 22,000 87,385 269 87 43,060 12 HOWARD Big Springs 37,796 28,735 39,200 177,030 165 -96 120,804 IS -IS HUNT Greenville 47,948 22,043 47,200 41,295 302 -87 49,837 -4 HUTCHINSON Borger 24,443 14, 195 25,800 322,500 290 544 JACKSON Edna 12,975 5,332 12,900 125,389 108 17,759 24 22 76 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population 1970 1973 (est.) Jan 1975 (dollars) Percent change from Dec Jan 1974 1974 Jan 1975 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Dec Jan 1974 1974 JASPER Jasper Kirbyville 24,692 6,251 1,869 25,100 0 27,537 4,224 9 -19 - 3•• JEFFERSON (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Beaumont Groves Nederland Port Arthur Port Neches 244,773 115,919 18,067 16,810 57,371 10,894 241,700 1,953,830 66,010 155,575 285,348 444,008 63 -81 37 19 164 -48 -56 43 4 202 707,852 32,653 23,314 129,544 22,624 - 19 2 14 s 3 10 23 20 8 -21 JIM WELLS Alice 33,032 20, 121 33,700 242,975 8 -37 106,214 46 16 JOHNSON (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Burleson Cleburne 45,769 7,713 16,01 s 52,500 332,267 80,000 251 -34 -66 17,599 47,172 22 13 14 12 KARNES Karnes City 13,462 2,926 12,500 52,000 46 7,175 15 - 4 KAUFMAN (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Terrell 32,392 14,182 35,500 5,100 -92 -98 KIMBLE Junction 3,904 2,654 3,900 23,500 6,261 14 9 KLEBERG Kingsville 33,166 28,711 35,000 237,770 427 39 53,385 12 28 LAMAR Paris 36,062 23,441 36,900 112,806 24 -91 LAMB Littlefield 17,770 6,738 17,300 0 25,396 54 -38 LAMPASAS Lampasas 9,323 5,922 12,400 147,600 571 - 62 19,412 30 4 LAVACA Hallettsville Yoakum 17,903 2,712 5,755 18,200 3,500 91,500 58 -67 83 9,571 20,359 19 13 6 8 LEE Giddings 8,048 2,783 8,900 102,625 63 10,423 -11 -12 LIBERTY (In Houston SMSA) Dayton Liberty 33,014 3,804 5,591 37,400 100,800 79,900 57 -4 -51 24,672 32,504 35 20 28 41 LIMESTONE Mexia 18,100 5,943 19,100 76,600 -80 15,564 3 -12 LLANO Kingsland Llano 6,979 1,262 2,608 7,700 94,500 10,199 12,659 19 -13 -2 -12 LUBBOCK (Constitutes Lubbock SMSA) Lubbock Slaton 179,295 149,101 6,583 191,700 4,378,356 9,700 so -86 -74 -80 924,244 14,652 20 30 -32 -19 LYNN Tahoka 9,107 2,956 9,300 0 16,125 53 -35 McCULLOCH Brady 8,571 5,557 8,100 144,400 -19 16,194 4 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY Population Jan 1975 Percent change from Dec Jan Jan 1975 (thousands Percent change from Dec Jan City 1970 1973 (est.) (dollars) 1974 1974 of dollars) 1974 1974 McLENNAN (Constitutes Waco SMSA) McGregor Waco 147,553 4,365 95,326 152,800 57,670 2,102,094 13 163 59 7,341 489,980 •• 19 -8 IS MATAGORDA Bay City 27,913 11,733 27,600 128,545 43 99 42,452 -4 MAVERICK Eagle Pass 18,093 15,364 20,600 86,620 -60 -73 18,367 -3 -10 MEDINA Castroville Hondo 20,249 1,893 5,487 20,900 52,700 -29 -90 3,327 12 MIDLAND (Constitutes Midland SMSA) Midland 65,433 59,463 65,900 1,692,691 173 - 86 422,288 7 32 MILAM Cameron Rockdale 20,028 5,546 4,655 20,100 13,250 -91 -81 12,889 15,262 9 8 -3 27 MILLS Goldthwaite 4,212 1,693 4,400 9,484 4 -9 MITCHELL Colorado City 9,073 5,227 8,500 10,973 10 -28 MONTGOMERY (In Houston SMSA) Conroe 49,479 11,969 71,200 89,000 -25 -83 7 8,345 13 -10 MOORE Dumas 14,060 9,771 13,100 162,360 -38 NACOGDOCHES Nacogdoches 36,362 22,544 41,600 754,721 346 289 41,984 13 32 NAVARRO Corsicana 31,150 19,972 31,600 173,513 65 156 61,486 -3 NOLAN Sweetwater 16,220 12,020 16,600 25,125 -71 -87 33,759 16 -17 NUECES (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Bishop Corpus Christi Port Aransas Robstown 237,544 3,466 204,525 1,218 11,2 17 250,800 7,670 4,854,800 134,389 -1 217 -80 70 3,511 951,602 1,810 36,230 6 7 -2 16 IS s 49 37 ORANGE (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Orange 71, l 70 24,457 73,400 264,155 2 38 96,796 22 21 PALO PINTO Mineral Wells 28,962 18,411 22,900 1,530,100 33,270 -9 -12 PANOLA Carthage 15,894 5,392 16,400 81,000 -33 406 8,531 19 -17 PARKER (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Weatherford 33,888 11,750 31,900 364,957 35,312 7 - I PARMER Friona 10,5 09 3, 111 10,000 0 45,104 57 -30 PECOS Fort Stockton 13,748 8,283 13,300 12,500 97 -97 19,500 11 -I Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City POTTER (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo Population 1970 1973 (est.) 90,511 91,400 127,010 Jan 1975 (dollars) 2,941,537 Percent change from Dec Jan 1974 1974 -37 -36 J an 1975 (thousands of dollars) 975 ,705 Percent change from Dec J an 1974 1974 10 -3 RANDALL (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo (See Potter) Canyon 53,885 59,000 8,333 88,900 230 19, l 51 -31 REEVES Pecos 16,526 16,000 12,682 10,450 34 -17 39,303 19 -21 REFUGIO Refugio 9,494 9,400 4,340 2,100 -92 11,195 12 17 RUSK Henderson Kilgore (See Gregg) 34, 102 35,500 10,187 50,300 -32 -71 44,488 27 42 SAN PATRICIO (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Aransas Pass Sinton 47,288 50,300 5,813 5,563 14,300 12,492 198 -75 16,033 18, 145 4 ** 9 ** SAN SABA San Saba 5,540 5,900 2,555 9,600 -93 15,738 5 -4 SCURRY Snyder 15,760 17,900 11,171 298,150 215 215 41,389 26 14 SHACKELFORD Albany 3,323 3,300 1,978 40,000 ** 6,923 18 39 SHERMAN Stratford 3,657 3,300 2,139 5,500 -91 24,221 28 -33 SMITH (Constitutes Tyler SMSA) Tyler 97,096 103,900 57,770 2,637,880 -44 -71 346,388 17 21 STEPHENS Breckenridge 8,414 8,100 5,944 0 SUTTON Sonora 3, 175 3,300 2,149 16,400 -82 7, 119 11 6 TARRANT (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Arlington Bedford Burleson (See Johnson) Euless Fort Worth Grapevine North Richland Hills White Settlement 716,317 714,600 90,643 10,049 19,316 393,476 7,023 16,514 13,449 8,656,143 412,175 24,500 3,673,720 73,430 596,365 154,997 15 66 78 -11 -16 -54 -57 127 -14 15 -7 653 163,339 15,269 3,058,662 29,967 9,313 6 2 1 5 -6 5 2 5 10 4 TAYLOR (In Abilene SMSA) Abilene 97,853 102,400 89,653 1, 134,818 -20 20 348,673 ** 2 TERRY Brownfield 14,118 14,400 9,647 4,550 -96 -99 58,39 5 37 -16 TITUS Mount Pleasant 16,702 17,600 8,877 36, 16 5 3 4 TOM GREEN (Constitutes San Angelo SMSA) San Angelo 71,047 72,900 63,884 506,401 -19 -67 263,936 11 9 TRAVIS (In Austin SMSA) Austin 295,516 339,200 251,808 4 ,583,180 -86 -75 1,695,635 7 7 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY Population Jan 1975 Percent change from Dec J an Jan 1975 (thousands Percent change from Dec Jan City 1970 1973 (est.) (dollars) 1974 1974 of dollars) 1974 1974 UPSHUR Gladewater (See Gregg) 20,976 22,900 UPTON McCamey 4,697 2,647 4,400 2,997 6 22 UVALDE Uvalde 17,348 10,764 18,000 169,070 160 11 43,081 •• -8 VAL VERDE Del Rio 27,471 21,330 29,400 347,492 60 42,772 9 4 VICTORIA Victoria 53,766 41,349 55,800 940,395 139 98 WALKER Huntsville 27,680 17,610 34,300 92,000 -25 - 3 44,562 12 23 WARD Monahans 13,019 8,333 12,600 759,175 24,695 33 32 WASHINGTON Brenham 18,842 8,922 19,300 1,440,033 3 248 41,514 7 WEBB (Constitutes Laredo SMSA) Laredo 72,859 69,024 81,200 708,883 276 540 167,283 WHARTON El Cam po 36,729 8,563 36,800 90,950 164 - 67 57,046 39 27 WICHITA (In Wichita Falls SMSA) Burkburnett Iowa Park Wichita Falls 121,862 9,230 5,796 97,564 120,900 60,224 27,332 442,915 -14 92 -67 -93 639 -37 20,311 7,374 399,746 6 12 1 21 19 13 WILBARGER Vernon 15,355 11,454 15,000 164,300 674 2 45,361 17 -32 WILLACY Raymondville 15,570 7,987 16,300 74,800 150 231 WILLIAMSON Bartlett Georgetown Taylor 37,305 1,622 6,395 9,616 45,200 185,000 48 -19 2,796 18,412 27,261 14 1 7 •• WINKLER Kermit 9,640 7,884 9,300 500 - 89 WISE (In Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA) Decatur 19,687 3,240 20,400 1,000 -97 10,234 17 -7 YOUNG Graham Olney 15,400 7,477 3,624 15,800 74,400 25,708 -28 -70 299 -30 10,864 4 -8 ZAVALA Crystal City 11,370 8,104 11,500 4,500 -96 11,763 40 -8 ** Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent. No data, or inadequate basis for reporting. BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (All figures are for Texas unless otherwise indicated.) All indexes are based on the average months for 1967=100 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 Employment Commission in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The symbols used below impose qualifications as indicated here : p-preliminary data subject to revision; r-revised data; *-dollar totals for the fiscal year to date; t-employment data for wage and salary workers only. Jan Dec Jan 1975 1974 1974 GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY Texas business activity (index) .. .. . . ........... ...... .. . ..... . 190.4 191.7 184.2 Estimates of personal income ~millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted) .... ........ .. . . . .... . . $ 5,064p $ 5,062p $ 4,733r Income payments to individuals in U.S. (billions, at seasonally adjusted annual rate) ....... .. ... ... .. . ... ... ... . . $ 1,193.6p $ 1,191.0p $ 1,107.0r Wholesale prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) .. ........... . ... .... . 171.0 171.5 146.6 Consumer prices in Houston (unadjusted index) ................. . 159.4 139.1 Consumer prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) . .............. ... .. . . 156. 1 155.4 139.7 Business failures (number) .... . ....... ... . ..... .. . ... .. . .... . 41 58 Business failures (liabilities, thousands) . ..... ............. . .... . $ $ 10,876 $ 14,724 Sales of ordinary life insurance (index) . .. . .... .. .. ............ . 205.7 216.9 201.6 PRODUCTION Total electric-power use (index) ... .. . ... .. . .................. . 178.5p 180.8p 165.6r Residential electric-power use (index) ...... .. ........ • ... . .. .. . Industrial electric-power use (index) ........ ... ............... . 220.3p 159.0p 231.3p 160.0~ 202.3r 151.3r Crude-oil production (index) .. . ... .... .. ... . .. . . ..... . .. . ... . l 10.8p 114.1 118. 8r Average daily production per oil well (bbl.) ... .................. . 20.1 20.6 20.6 Crude oil processed by refineries (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) . .. . .. .... . .. ..... .. . 117.8 113.7P 136.1p 143.1 p 161.lp 130.2~ 110.7p 128.9 1l7.9p 138.3~ 145.2 161.3p 133.6p 113.3~ 113.6 12 5.4r 137.7r 143.8r 160.7r 131.6r 116.9r Texas industrial production-utilities (index) . . . .. ......... . ... . . . Urban building permits issued (index) ... . . . . . ... . ...... ..... .. . New residential building authorized (index) ................... . New residential units authorized (index) ....... ...... ... ..... . . New nonresidential building authorized (unadjusted index) .. ..... . 167.0 157.0p 119.3p 60.4p 193.4p 169.6p 169.7 121.9p 70. 1 p 220.3p 160.9r 203.3r 171.6r 127. lr 239.3r AGRICULTURE Prices received by farmers (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100) ....... . . Prices paid by farmers in U.S. (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100) . ... . . 433 612 458 612 580 538 Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid by farmers ....................... ... ...... . . . .......... . 71 75 108 FINANCE Bank debits (index) .... .. ..... .. . .. ... .. .. ...... . ...... .. . . 325.6 328.8 277.1 Bank debits, U.S. (index) . .. . .. .. ... ... . ... . . .... . . ... .. ... . . 274.6 278.9 254.5 Bank Commercial Loans outstanding (index) . ..... .. . ......... .. . 188.3 192.5 167.8 Reporting member banks, Dallas Federal Reserve District Loans (millions) ........................................ . $ 10.384 $ 10.747 $ 9,898 Loans and investments (millions) ................... .... ... . . $ 14,753 $ 15 ,254 $ 14,005 Adjusted demand deposits (millions) ... .. ......... ........... . $ 4,564 $ 4,553 $ 4,078 Revenue receipts of the state comptroller (thousands) ............. . $ 417,357 $327,328 $ 358,212 Federal Internal Revenue collections (thousands) .. . . . . .. .... .... . $ 1,,647.0 $ 845.9 $ 1,397.2 Securities registrations-original applications Mutual investment companies (thousands) ... ... ..... . . ... . ... . $ 69,911 $ 24,649 $ 23,020 All other corporate securities Texas companies (thousands) . .. .... .. .. .. .... . . . .. ....... . Other companies (thousands) . .. ............. . ............ . $ $ 9,000 2,9 12 $ 7,818 $ 7,285 $ $ 49, 100 3,813 Securities registration-renewals Mutual investment companies (thousands) ... . ....... . . . . .. ... . Other corporate securities (thousands) .... . . .... .... .... • ..... $ $ 68,039 0 $ 38,388 $ 8, 131 $ $ 69,469 1,124 LABOR Total 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 ................. . Percent of total labo r force unemployed ............... ...... . 136.0p 12 3.3P 96.3p 155. 5~ 4,372. lp 807.6p 447.0 360.6p 5.7 136.2p 124.9p 96.7p 154.3~ 4,422.3 824.lp 456.5p 367.6p 5.1 131.lr 123.9r 101.2r 147.7r 4,215.3r 810.8r 448.4r 362.4r 3.8r Total civilian labor force in selected labor-market areas (thousands) . .. . .............. . ................... . . 4,081. 5 4,093.3 3,909.3r Nonagricultural employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) . ..... .. .... .. ........................ . . 3,55 3.6 3,600. 5· 3,455.3r Manufacturing employment in selected lab or-marke t areas (thousands) ..... .. .... . ...... .... ............. . .. . . 662.4 678.6 67 3.4r Total unemployment in selected labor-marke t areas (thousands) . .... . .. . ... ... .. ..... .. ................... . 207.4 174.9 151.0r Percent of labor force unemployed in selected lab or-market areas .... .. .. . .. ....... . .. .......... ... . .. . . 5.1 4.3 3.9r RETURN REQUESTED 13UlU:,\l.i OF !JLS!NESS RFSLARC!I THE UNIVERSITY OF TFXAS AT AUSTIN SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, TEXAS AlWi'li-<. TEXAS 7871 2 Mexican Migration and the U.S. Labor Market A Mounting Issue for the Seventies Studies in Human Resource Development No. 3 Vernon M. Briggs, Jr. With January unemployment in the Laredo labor market area at the exceptionally high rate of 19. 2 percent and unemployment generally high along the border, the problem of Mexican workers migrating to Texas and entering the labor market of the Southwest has indeed become "a mounting issue for the seventies." Mexican Migration and the US. Labor Market contributes further insight into this serious problem, which was described by Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., in his earlier book in the human resource development series, The Mexico-United States Border: Public Policy and Chicano Economic Welfare. In his new study Dr. Briggs, professor of economics at The University of Texas at Austin, analyzes the effects of U.S. labor, immigration, and border policies, along with their enforcement, on employment and labor problems of the seventies and suggests alternative courses of action. The study is an expanded version of a paper presented at the First International Conference on Migrant Workers, sponsored by the International Institute of Management in West Berlin in December 1974. Dr. Briggs is the author of numerous studies in labor economics, including Chicanos and Rural Poverty (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1973). 37 pp. (Texas residents add $. 08 tax) $1.50 Center for the Study of Human Resources and Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas at Austin