TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 	VOL. XLIV, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 1970 
Editor, Stanley A. Arbingast; Associate Editor, Robert H. Ryan; Managing Editor, Graham Blackstock 
Editorial Board: Stanley A. Arbingast, Chairman; John R. Stockton; Francis B. May; Robert H. Ryan; Robert B. Williamson; 

Joe H. Jones; Graham Blackstock 
CONTENTS 
ARTICLES 
269: 	The Business Situation in Texas, by Francis B. May 
272: 	Texas in the Seventies: 10. New World of Retailing, by Robert H. Ryan 
277: 	Construction in Texas, by Robert M. Lockwood 
TABLES 
270: 	Selected Barometers of Texas Business 
271: 	Business-Activity Indexes for Twenty Selected Texas Cities 
277: 	Estimated Values of Building Authorized in Texas 
278: 	
Number of New Housing Units Authorized in Texas Urban Places, 1969-1970, by Type and Quarter 

278: 	
Quarterly Averages of Indexes of Construction Authorized in Texas Urban Places, 1969-1970, by Type and Quarter 


280: 	Local Business Conditions Barometers of Texas Business (inside back cover) 
CHARTS 
269: 	Estimated Personal Income, Texas 
271: 	
Total Unemployment, Texas 

271: 	
Prices Received by Farmers: All Farm Products, Texas 

271: 	
Industrial Production, Texas 

271: 	
Industrial Production: Durable Manufactures, Texas 

271: 	
Industrial Production: Nondurable Manufactures, 


Texas 27 l: Crude-Oil Production, Texas 
27 3: 	The Upward Shift in Texans' Income, 1970 and 1980 (Selected Cities) 
274: 	The Texas Department Store 
278: 	Total Building Authorized, Texas 
27 8: 	Residential Building Authorized, Texas 
278: 	Nonresidential Building Authorized, Texas 
2 79: 	Trend of Bank Prime Interest Rate, January 1969 through September 1970 
MAP 
27 5: 	Ring around the City: The Explosion of Retailing into the Suburbs 
The Bureau of Business Research is a member of the 
BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 
Business Research Council: James R. Bright, Abraham Charnes, Lawrence L. Crum, Jared E. Hazleton, George Kozmetsky 
Director: Stanley A. Arbingast Special Research Associate: Joe H. Jones Assistant to the Director: Florence Escott Statistician: John R. Stockton Consulting Statistician: Francis B. May Systems Analyst: David L. Karney Cooperating Faculty: Charles T. Clark, Lawrence L. Crum, 
Clark C. 	Gill, William T. Hold, Robert K. Holz, Jerry 
Todd, Ernest W. Walker, Robert B. Williamson Administrative Assistant: Margaret Robb Research Associates: Graham Blackstock, Margaret Fielder, 
Carolyn Greene, Letitia Hitz, Ida M. Lambeth, Robert M. 
Lockwood, Robert H. Ryan, Charles P. Zlatkovich Research Assistants: Edward Hildebrandt, Ralph Samford Statistical Associate: Mildred Anderson Statistical Assistants: Constance Cooledge, Glenda Riley Statistical Technicians: Kay Davis, Lydia Gorena Computer Assistants: Lawrence Grossman, Jr., Charles 
Jordan Cartographers: Penelope Lewis, James Weiler Librarian: Merle Danz Administrative Secretary: Jeanette Pryor Administrative Clerk: Nita Teeters Senior Secretaries: Melinda Newton, Rita Relyea Senior Clerk Typists: Deborah Frishman, Stella Saxon Senior Clerk: Salvador B. Macias Clerks: Robert Jenkins, Karen Schmidt Offset Press Operators: Robert Dorsett, Daniel P. Rosas 
COVER DESIGN BY CHARLOTTE HAGE 
Published monthly by the Bureau of Business Research, Graduate School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712. Second-class postage paid at Austin, Texas. Content of this publication is not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely, but acknowledgment of source will be appreciated. The views expressed by authors are not necessarily those of the Bureau of Business Research. Subscription, $4.00 a year; individual copies 35 cents. 
Association of University Business and Economic Research. 
THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS 

Francis 8 . Moy 
September personal income in Texas rose 3 percent after allowance for seasonal factors. At 224.8 percent of its 195 7-19 59 monthly average the index was slightly below its July high of 226.8 percent. During the first three quarters of the year personal income has averaged 6 percent above the level for the first nine months of 1969. Texas income is still growing but at a slower rate than at any time during the past several years. 
If the rise in the index of consumer prices is taken into consideration, even this slowed increase in the purchasing power of Texas income receivers disappears. Consumer prices have risen an average of 6 percent during the first three quarters of 1970, at the same rate as the increase in income. In trying to increase his effective purchasing power the average Texas consumer is on an economic treadmill. 
September crude-oil production in the state rose I percent over August production to a level of 125 .1 percent of the I 9 5 7-19 5 9 base-period average. This was the highest value of the index since June 1969 and the highest September level of production on record. Current high levels of production in the state are related to the slackening of supplies from abroad due to the tanker shortage. The shortage of tankers, in turn, is related to the production cutbacks ordered by the new , revolutionary government of Libya and to sabotage of a major Middle East pipeline. As a result of these two actions it has become necessary to transport large quantities of oil from the Persian Gulf around the southern tip of Africa, a journey requiring much more time. Longer journeys mean a reduced rate of tanker deliveries at American ports. Consequent to these developments the northeastern part of the United States faces the distinct possibility of a fuel crisis if there is a severe winter in that part of the country. Once again we are forcibly reminded of the dangers inherent in a policy of reliance for crude oil on the output from oil-producing countries with unstable governments. Agreements with such governments are subject to change without notice. Inter­ruptions in supplies can occur at any time. The Texas Railroad Commission has increased output to assist in mitigating the shortage, as it has done on numerous occasions since the 1956 Suez Crisis. 
Oil from the North Slope of the Brooks Range in Alaska will not be available for several years. In the meantime, this country would do well to increase price and to utilize other incentives to the search for oil in the "lower 48 " states. There is much oil remaining to be discovered in this most convenient location. With the proper incentives it will be found . 

ESTIMATED PERSONAL INCOME, TEXAS 
Index Adjusted for Seaaonal Variation -1957-1959= 100 


lOOL-~~~---L~~~~-1....~~~~_._~~~~..__--::-:-:-~--'~-:-:-:-::----'-~'""."':':::::-~-'lOO 
1967 1968 1969 19701964 1965 1966 
SOURCE: Quarterly measures ofTe'a" personal income made by the Office of Busmess Economics, U.S. Department ofCommerce. Monthly allocations of quarterly measures. and e timates of most recent months. made by the Bureau of Business Research with regression relationships of time. bank debits. and manufacturing employment. · 
NOVEMBER 1970 

September crude-oil runs to stills rose a fraction of a percentage point over the August level. Slackening demand for the products of Texas petroleum refineries has resulted in an average production during the first nine months 1 percent below that for the comparable period of 1969. Nationally, output of refineries has improved over 1969 production, with the demand for residual fuel oil up strongly because of fears of a shortage of boiler fuel in the Northeast this winter. 
Total electric-power use in September rose despite a decline in industrial power consumption. Domestic and commercial consumption rose enough to more than offset the decline in industrial power use. Total and industrial power usage during the first three quarters of the year were both 5 percent above the like period of 1969. The steady increase in electric-power consumption is a reflection of our increasingly automated society. Factories and homes are full of electric motors and appliances of every description , and the number of new electrical devices introduced each year is as much an evidence of our affluence as it is of our inventiveness. The home and the factory of the future will both be controlled by computers which regulate the internal environment and operate labor-saving devices. The result will be an acceleration of the demand for electric energy. 
The index of urban building permits issued in September rose 1 percent over the August index. At 202.6 percent of its 1957-1959 average value the index value in September was 13.6 percent higher than in September 1969. This was the highest September value of the index on record. After reaching a 1960-1970 credit crunch low of 160.6 percent of its 1957-1959 base value in November 1969, the index rose irregularly to a high of 206.2 in May 1970. It has hovered at a level slightly below the May high since that time. 
The fluctuations in the index of total building autho­rized in Texas during the 1969-1970 period have been influenced primarily by the effect of the two severe credit crunches during this period on residential building autho­rized. These two credit crunches have been the results of the efforts of the Federal Reserve System to subdue rampant inflation that began in 1965. The first of these periods of financial stringency began early in 1966 and ended early in 1967. The seco:1d began early in 1968 and ended only recently. An interlude of relative monetary ease in 1967 resulted from the belief that the 10-percent income surtax would dampen inflation. In fact, some fears of "economic overkill," resulting from the surtax, impelled the Federal Reserve System to ease the money supply rather noticeably. The ensuing flare-up of inflation caused a resumption of monetary controls. These controls had a pronounced effect on residential building, for several 
reasons. 
Residential building is a highly fragmented industry consisting of many relatively small construction firms, each of which supplies some part of a geographically localized market. Long-term mortgage financing is usually required as a means of effecting the sale. Traditionally, the mortgage has carried a relatively low rate of interest, in many cases with availability of government insurance of the mortgage. 
All of this protection in the form of relatively low interest rates, long-term mortgages with relatively low monthly payments, insured loans, and, ordinarily, a plentiful supply of mortgage funds was essential to the health of the industry. The shortage of lendable funds, worsened by flight of capital to more lucrative markets, was the primary cause of the decline in residential building. The resulting high mortgage interest rates undoubtedly contributed to the decline. 

As a result of tight money residential building autho­rized in Texas declined during the 1966 credit crunch from a high of l 29. 2 percent in November 1965 to 64.0 percent of 1957-1959 in September 1966. During the 1967 period of monetary ease the index rose to 167 .6 percent in November of that year. The index continued to rise in 1968, reaching an all-time high of 207 .6 percent. The prolonged rise was due to the fact that the 1968-1970 period of financial stringency did not become really severe until 1969. In that year weekly average net borrowed reserves of member banks of the Federal Reserve System on more than one occasion exceeded $1.0 billion. They were well above $500 million during most of the year. Che year 1969 was one of far greater financial stringency than 1966. 
Residential building authorized sank in 1969 and early 1970, but it did not sink as low as in 1966 because of the (concluded, p. 279) 
SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (Indexes-Adjusted for seasonal variation-1957-1959=100) 

Percent change  
Year-to­ 
date  
Year-to­ average  
date  Sept 1970  1970  
Index  Sept 1970  Aug 1970  average 1970  from Aug 1970  from 1969  

Estimated personal income 224.8p 219.lp 221.7 3 6 Crude-petroleum 
production 125.lp 123.9p 121.4 7 Crude-oil runs to stills 134.4 134.3 133.8 •• Total electric-power 
use 288.oP 280.sP 264.0 3 Industrial electric-power use 227.3p 231.9p 226.9 2 
5 Bank debits 321.5 297.1 305.7 8 9 Urban building permits issued 202.6 201.5 189.6 I •• New residential 162.3 144.l 145.6 13 -4 
New nonresidential 256.5 292.5 261.1 -12 3 Total industrial production 180.sP 179_9P 177.8 •• 4 Total nonfarm em­ployment I49.8P 1so.2P 150.2 •• 3 Manufacturing em­
ployment 147.6p 148.8p 152.3 -1 -1 Total unemployment 117.4 109.5 97.0 7 31 Insured unemployment 101.7 89.8 74.4 13 75 Average weekly earn­
ings -manufacturing !SOAP I Sl.4p 149.4 -I 4 Average weekly hours-manufacturing 97_3P 98.8p 98.9 2 2 
P Preliminary. * * Change is less than one half of I percent. 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

TOTAL UNEMPLOYME T. TEXAS INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, TEXAS" 
350  
 
 350  350  /nde:r: Ad;usted for Season1d VaT1at1on-J957-1959 1 JOO  350  
300  
 
 300  300  
 300  
250  
 
 250  250  
 250  
200  
 
 200  200  
 200  
150  
 
 150  150  
 150  
100  
 100  100  
 100  
50  
 
 50  50  
 50  
XOTE:  Shaded are&• inc!.icll.te period• of dechne of tot.ii.I busine•• actlvity 1n the United Stu,.,  NOTEc Shaded area• tndicate ~nods o! decline of total bu11ne1a acuvuy in the United States. I~·-~ l~lffi , _ , _1_ ~ 1-1­·~ 1-1~ • Manufacture• and m1nerah l:includlt'I cruc:!.e-oil and natural-1•• production). SOURCE· Fedeu.1 Re.u:rve Bank of Dalla1.  
PRICES RECEIVED BY FARMERS ALL FARM PROD CTS. TEXAS Index Ad; 1.ured for Seasonal V•n•t1on-19JO.J914=100  INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION DU RABLE MANUFACTURES, TEXAS Index Adjusted for Se•sona/ Va1/at1on-I957-1959~100  



350 

350 
300
300 
250 
250 
200 
200 
150
150 
100
100 
50 
50 
1957 1958 \959 1960 1961 1962 1963 196• 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 :\'OTE: Sh.aded aru.s .ndac:ate period of dedine of 101&1 b...siness activity in th<!: l.!n•ted Sate• SOURCE: U.S. Dep.arbnent of Agncult\lre 
BCSI. TSS-ACTIY!n 
I. 'DEXES FOR TI\.E 'TY SELECTED TF .AS CITIES u_usted for seasonal variation-195'7-l 59= 00) 
Percent change Year-to­ 
date  
Index  Septp 1970  Aug 1970  Year-to­date average 1970  Sept 1970 from Aug 1970  average 1970 fro m 1969  

Abilene 145.l 136.0 142.4 7 •• Amarillo 213.2 199.5 204.0 7 5 Austin 346.3 298.6 337.9 16 5 Beaumont 173.8 169.9 179.1 2 7 Corpus Christi 189.9 143.5 163.4 32 3 Corsicana 17 1.4 170.0 165.6 1 3 Dallas 354.6 329.3 336.9 8 6 El Paso 165.7 159.5 159.7 4 4 Fort Worth 196.4 172.6 186.1 14 3 Galveston 149.4 118.5 132.8 26 5 Houston 284.2 257.8 276.2 10 6 Laredo 234.8 268.2 254.2 -12 7 Lubbock 192.8 200.6 173.8 4 2 Port Arthur 116.2 116.9 119.2 1 •• San Angelo 174.6 163.2 173.3 7 3 San Antonio 220.6 217.7 219.5 1 6 Texarkana 219.8 224.5 217.9 2 11 Tyler 181.4 174.3 178.0 4 1 Waco 195.1 203.4 200.1 4 6 Wichita Falls 138.7 131.5 132.7 5 5 
P Preliminary. * • Change is less than one half of 1 percent. 
'\OVE\IBE R 1470 
350 300 250 200 150 100 
50 
350 300 250 200 150 100 
50 
350 300 
200 150 
~ 
NOTE; 

350 300 250 200 150 100 
50 

350 300 250 200 ISO 100 
50 

I  



I  
I  I  
II  I  

~  ~  - /\ "'-'­ /'-' ~  
v  

I  
I  

350 300 
200 150 100 
Shaded area• u1.dlcAte period• of dechne of totll.l butine•• ll.Ctlvtty tn the Untted St.ate• 
_:: 7 1 


RETAILING 

Robert H. Ryan 
Texas retailers, all 75,000 of them, are entering not only a new decade but a new age in marketing. The check-out lane is superseding the sales counter, the credit card is replacing an already devalued currency, and sales clerks have become as scarce and as elusive as rare migratory birds. Most of the changes under way in retailing have been taking shape for years, but the overall pattern is new. Perhaps Texas retailing has never been unique. Yet today more than ever before the problems and opportunities of Texas retailers are exactly the same as those faced by sellers throughout the nation. 
-Inflation is changing the shape of the retail market, dictating that people spend more of their watered-down dollars for necessities, somewhat less for big-ticket luxuries. 
·-Shifts in income distribution are bringing a larger share of a growing population into the middle class, giving once-poor families a growing margin of spend-as-they-please discretionary income. 
·-Retailing workers are demanding higher wages and a wider fringe of benefits, escalating the cost of doing business. 
--Lag in numbers and competence of service personnel and their high wages are depressing the market for goods requiring skilled work for installation or maintenance. 
-Continuing migration of trade to suburban stores leaves the future of downtown retailing in doubt. 
-Retailers are finding it necessary to change their "mix," to adjust their merchandising so as to maximize profits and meet shifting consumer demands. 
-Urban pollution is being transferred in wholesale lots to the suburbs with the growth of unplanned commercial districts, and suburban retailers are due to meet increasing resistance from the growing ranks of environmentalists. Inflation-to be continued? 
The future of retailing depends in considerable part on the future of the dollar. Inflation and economic doubts are clearly giving some consumers pause and apparently stop­ping others in their store-bound tracks. Nationally the savings rate in l ~no, about 7 .5 percent of after-tax income, is high. Texas, with its unusually large complement of low-income families, probably cannot match that rate. Nevertheless, Texas retailers are complaining that their customers are not spending the money they obviously have. One department-store executive commented this month that "S30 dresses are moving but $ l 50 dresses are gathering dust." Yet Texas employment has held up well in compar­ison with that in most states. The fact is, inflated prices of necessities are taking a depressingly large bite from family income. Even though the income may be larger, high grocery bills unquestionably instill a feeling of insecurity in housewives. Groceries cost 26 percent more in Dallas than they did only seven years ago. In Houston food prices have escalated by one third since the l 957-1959 period. In an economy in which prices still presumably fluctuate in both directions, customers are inclined to wait, realistically or not , for a downturn. Since they cannot defer expenditures for food or other necessities, they may develop strong resistance to the purchase of nonessentials. 

For all their claims of scientific planning, marketing and advertising are highly uncertain arts. Almost as often as not they fail in their heavy-handed attempts to coach con­sumers in what they want. It has been clear for a good many weeks that women in Texas and elsewhere are not enthusiastic about the lengths to which couturiers have gone in designing their l 970 dress lines. Purchases are being postponed, particularly purchases of coats and dresses in the higher price ranges, where something like investment­quality style is expected. Even a decline of a few percentage points in women's clothing purchases would represent a major loss to Texas' S l .2 billion women's-wear volume. It is estimated that last year Texas women bought about 1 l million dresses. 7.5 million blouses, and perhaps 800,000 coats. 
Wo men's accusations that the fashion industry has gone to extremes are countered by retailers who contend that a woman can wear almost anything that has been in fashion in the past fifty years without much fear of looking out-of-it. Under that seemingly innocent defense, however, lies a real threat to small-town merchants. The broad­spectrum approach to merchandising is perfectly feasible in major city department and specialty stores that can reasonably well afford the depth and range of stock required. But it tends to leave small-scale merchants at a disadvantage, since they can hardly offer a full choice of women's wear with dresses ranging from the ankle-grazing maxi to the rashest micromini. 
Ex cept when they are investing in a new store, retailers are reluctant to look beyond next year's orders. The long 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

perspective of a decade stretches beyond their usual vision. It is none too soon, though. for Texas men:hants to consider how they will respond to one basic change in the economy that will have reshaped their world by 1980. 
Texas income distribution is undergoing a radical change. For once the poor are not getting poorer. and the rich richer. The accompanying chart suggests the dramatic shifts underway in Texans' ability to buy. While the figures are not intended as firm forecasts. they do show the direction of change. The number of low-income families. those with less than SS.000 a year. may be cut in half during the l 970's. At the other end of the scale, the over-S 10,000 households will increase in number. but not much more rapidly than the population as a whole. It is the critical SS .000-S 10,000-income class that will tend to grow fastest. This centripetal trend will have important effects in retailing. The lowest-price, lowest-quality goods will prob­ably be less in demand. Sales of high-priced merchandise may gain only modestly. It will be the mid-range of goods that will move with growing velocity. 
As families move out of the under-S5.000 bargain­basement class of consumers they will tend to spend an increasing amount of their expanded buying power on clothing but less. proportionately. on groceries. They will spend more for furniture and other house furnish ings but relatively less on appliances. Housing will take a smaller share of the budget, but much of the money saved there will be spent for automobiles. As incomes go up, book and sporting-goods shops and departments will flourish. 
Retailers are due to make still other adjustments in their 


THE UPWARD SHIFT IN TEXANS' INCOME 
Columns show estimated numbers of households in the indicated income classes in 1970 and 1980 
Thousands of Thousands of 
households households 
270 240 210 180 150 120 
90 
60 30 0 
1980 



124 
83 

270 
HO 210 180 150 120 
90 
60 
30 
0 

Austin Dallas El Paso Fort Worth Houston Son Antonio 
0 30 
30 31 
60 


90 
120 
150 

180~-------------------------------------------------jlSO 
1970 

210~------------------------------------------------i210 
24QL___________________________________________
~240 
Household income 
c:::J less th an 
$5,000 
D $5,000-Sl0,000 LJ Over $10,000 
SOUR.CE : Bureau of Business Research 

NOVEMBER 1970 ~73 merchandising strategies. Already the increasing millions who are concerned with the quality of today's crowded, trash-clogged environment are taking a cold look at obsolescence, either planned or otherwise, in manufactured products. They can foresee the day when Texas may become a 176-million-acre junkyard. Expensive and inex­pert labor or maintenance is giving increased value to durability and a good repair record. For one example, television manufacturers, who once devoted most of their advertising budget to touting each year's new gadgetry, are now giving more billboard space to talk about easy, inexpensive repair and adjustment. Among automobile manufacturers, Volkswagen may have led the antiobsoles­cence pack by more than a decade. Other European automobile manufacturers, too, have proven the saleability in America of a handsome but frankly functional piece of machinery as opposed to a high-styled body with a machine 
inaccessibility canned in it. 
Still another manifestation of adjustment to the skill shortage in retailing and consumer services is the avoidance of clothing designs that must be fitted in subtle and intricate ways. American manufacturers were the first in the world to design ready-to-wear apparel scientifically scaled so as to permit mass production yet provide garments that required little additional fitting. Now they are finding that they must carry this specialized branch of technology a step further by eliminating even more of the custom fitting work. 
Some marketing specialists now argue that the blurring of sexual roles in the American household is resulting in more demanding attitudes by both men and women as consumers. Women are becoming more technologically astute, especially as they have gone to work in business and industry in growing numbers. Men, largely of necessity, tend to be more domestic than their fathers or grand­fathers. As a result retailers face a new generation of husbands who want an efficient dishwasher because they know they will have to use it and wives who want the machine well grounded for shock protection. 
Not only increasingly cynical consumers but painfully humorless government investigators are now looking coldly at advertisers' masterpieces of hyperbole. Consumer protec­tionists, especially at the federal level, have become highly critical of claims of health and of economy-first in drug selling, then in cigarettes, then breakfast foods, and now even in mouthwashes. Publicity given these attacks on questionable advertising is certain to plant doubts in the minds of many heretofore naive consumers and to subject retailing personnel to sharp interrogation on the sales floor. 
To counter high labor costs the do-it-yourself trend will continue to make stronger inroads on retailing and services in the seventies. Modular furniture, much of it sold unassembled and sometimes unfinished, will follow mod­ular housing in growing popularity. The modular furniture market is already well established in space-hungry New York, where apartment dwellers assemble "living walls" 

THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT STORE 
Percentage figures show the share of total revenue typically contributed by each major line of merchandise. 
Other merchandise 


Services, miscellaneous 
5.0 

7 .5 
Groceries, 
Curtains, dry goods tobacco,
"' 
liquor
8 .0 

3 .0 .0 
K ltchen, 
Shoes
Ii; 
housewares 
Hardware 
3 .0 

Men's, boys' clothing 11 .!5
5 .5 
•u 
3 .5 
:i . ~ 
Automotl\le 
supplies, 

Women's, girls ' 
,_ 
B uild Ing materials Furn iture, floorcoverlnga 
3 .0 
5 .0 
Appliances, TV 
9 .0 
Women's, girls ' cloth ing 24.5 
cloth Ing 
SOURCE, 1967 Census of Business . 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 



8AROUND THE CITY 
The explosion of retailing into the suburbs has left downtown stores with a minor part of sales in most major Texas metropolitan areas. 
AMARILLO 
®
13 


SOURCE: 7967 Census of Busipess . 

NOVEMBER 1970 
from coordinated desk, cabinet, and shelf modules that may include bars, entertainment units, cooking equipment, lighting, even beds. With inflated construction costs, con­sumers will feel constantly gaining pressure to make the most of every square foot. Do-it-yourselfers have already generated enormous demand, of course, for lay-it-yourself tile, spray-it-yourself paint, and even plate-it-yourself home electroplating kits. 
One key to success in this transfer of labor to the consumer is to provide a product that women can visualize themselves using or at least that they will feel their husbands can use without totally botching the job. Ameri­can women, and those in Texas are probably fairly representative, spend 65 to 70 percent of the retail dollars and are widely believed to be responsible for most key decisions in home or automobile buying. Women are spotlighted as being responsible for the use of tinted glass, air conditioning, power steering, and extravagantly tufted upholstery in cars, but perhaps because most men are a little reluctant to admit wanting such luxuries. Women do have one clear-cut edge as consumers: they are three years younger than their husbands, on the average, and survive them by seven years. In other words, women have significantly longer careers as consumers. But at both ends of a woman's consuming career she has special needs and interests. Undoubtedly young women are being served exceedingly well through the current emphasis on youth culture. Women in their late thirties and the nameless years beyond, however, are relatively neglected. According to M. 
H. Segner, president of Joske's of Texas, retailers should and will be giving more attention to women in their middle years. In other words, merchandisers will be less preoc­cupied with goods that the vast majority of women consider inappropriate for themselves. 
The accompanying cross section of a hypothetical (and ill-arranged) Texas department store shows how sales are typically distributed by major merchandise lines. With more flexibility than other retailing establishments, department stores can readily expand or cut back in response to changes in consumer spending patterns. By comparison, almost every other type of retailer is a specialty seller, committed largely or entirely to a particular category of goods. For example, Texas furniture stores depend upon furniture for about 80 percent of their sales, even though a third of furniture stores do sell some other lines. Even drug stores, diverse as their stocks may appear, are more than 38 percent dependent upon prescription medicines; nonpre­scription medici,nes account for another 20 percent of their dollar volume. Texas liquor stores are just that-nearly 94 percent of their revenues come from sales of packaged alcoholic beverages. 
These specialty establishments are so strongly identified with their major lines that they find it difficult to sell other merchandise except of the sort that may be bought on impulse. Further, the specialty retailers face not only the rivalry of department stores but also the price competition represented by discount stores, which rarely attempt to offer full lines of quality merchandise but which offer enough name-brand goods at somewhat lower-than-usual prices to offer a formidable competitive threat. 

The results of specialization and tough competition are apparent in some recently released Census measures of Texas retailing. In many of Texas fastest-growing cities hardware stores have been declining in sales volume and even in number of stores. Almost any independent hard­ware retailer will point to lines that cost him substantially more at wholesale than they cost large-volume discounters and chain stores. On the other hand, the hardware dealer may sell one or two small items-perhaps a couple of machine bolts-and offer some expert advice as well for a total price of a dime. The mass marketer, by contrast, may have the bolts available only in sealed packages of two dozen and may have no fully qualified sales personnel on the floor. 
The trend in Texas retailing is fairly well exemplified in Lubbock, a medium-sized city that showed reasonable growth throughout the sixties. Between 1963 and 1967 the number of furniture stores in the Lubbock SMSA dropped from 52 to 45 and their aggregate sales fell from $9.8 million to $6.9 million. Variety stores in Lubbock were even more drastically depressed; their sales dropped by almost a half. Jewelry stores, too, lost sales volume over the same period, though they increased in number. Yet during the mid-sixties Lubbock SMSA department stores increased in number from seven to eleven and in sales volume from $25 million in 1963 to $46 million in 1967. This increase took place in the outlying shopping centers, for Lubbock's four downtown department stores actually lost ground. Indeed, downtown retailing as a whole was hard hit in Lubbock, as in many other Texas cities. 
Even in Houston, Texas' most dynamically growing metropolis, downtown retailing has been declining, though largely because automotive dealers, service stations, and grocery stores have continued their flight from high-cost central sites. In Houston the cost of real estate in prime central-business-district locations is so high that it has virtually ruled out the construction of buildings designed for retailing alone. Only skyscraping office towers can justify the cost of the ground they occupy. 
Mapped on the preceding page are Texas' largest cities surrounded by rings showing the 1967 distribution of retail sales among the downtown areas, the stores elsewhere in the city, and the stores outside the city but within the SMSA. For its size Dallas appears to have been influenced most strongly by suburbanization: in other Texas cities the central business district still accounted for 15 percent to 20 percent of retail sales in the entire city; in Dallas the ratio was only 11.5 percent. 
Other cities, however, between 1963 and 1967 lost by store count, but not sales volume, even more downtown retail establishments than Dallas. In Houston there was a net decline of 25 7 retail establishments in the central business district; in San Antonio the loss was 160; in Fort Worth, 99; and in Dallas only 42. 
Texans who are accustomed to the assistance of knowl­
edgable sales clerks will be often disappointed as the decade 
wears on. Nevertheless, the comfort, convenience, and 
wide-ranging merchandising of retail stores in the seventies. 
should do much to make shopping endurable, if not 
downright pleasant. 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

CONSTRUCTION IN TEXAS 

Robert M. Lockwood 
Reflecting a surge in apartment building in Houston. Fort Worth, and El Paso. the seasonally adjusted index of urban residential construction authorized in Texas gained 13 percent in September. rising to a level of 162.3 percent of the 1957-1 959 base period. This reflection of new borrowing potential just managed to offset a slowdown in urban nonresidential building, elevating the index of total construction permitted to 202.6 percent. a point above the level achieved in August and the third-highest mark this 
year. 
Of the unadjusted gain over ..\ugust in residential permit values, single-family homes accounted for 5 7 percent l $4.1 million). Of the gross increase. Dallas alone contributed S3. l million, El Paso accounted for more than S2 million, and Austin and Fort Worth together authorized S 1 million­
plus. 
Throughout the residential sector. however. the picture was rather different. The backsliding of all residential permit values in Dallas by SI 1.3 million amounted to considerably more than the net unadjusted gain in urban residential authorizations throughout the state. which came to less than S7.3 million. A S9.2-million bulge in Houston wiped out most of the Dallas decline. Other significant gains were recorded in Fort Worth (S4.5 million), El Paso (S3.7 million), Austin (S2 million). and Odessa (SI.:~ million). The gross increase in residential \'alues in these five cities alone exceeded S20.5 million. 
Almost 7 .900 fewer dwelling units were authorized in Texas urban places during January-September 1970 than those permitted through September 1969. . .\!though one­family homes increased respectably (by I.71 2 units) . multifamily housing declined by almost a fifth, a reduction of almost 9 ,600 units. With a population of perhaps a million, one ele\'enth of the state total. urban pl::ices outside the 23 standard metropolitan statistical areas gained 564 units. Although urban areas generally experienced a net gain in one-family housing units authorized from January­September 1969 to January-September 1970, multifamily housing increased only in the nonmetropolitan areas. The S.'.\IS..\·s reported almost 9.700 fewer duplexes and apart­ments through September 1970 than during the sa me months in 1969. 

During the seven quarters beginning with January-.'.\larch 1969 no quarter has exceeded the first in total number of dwelling units authorized in Texas urbJn areJs ...\pril-June 1970 ranked second in total units. howewr. with 25.749. first in one-family permits. \\'ith 9.563. and third in multifamily housing. The quarter just conducted recorded the second-largest one-family permit tot:il and ranked fourth in all dwelling units. '\othing suggests that Jny influence other than inflation is dri,·ing housing unit \'alues increasingly higher. 
'\O\'E.'.\IBER 1970 
At S780 million the unadjusted cumulative total of urban residential authorizations through the first nine months of 1970 is running S37 million behind the comparable figure for 1969. Permit values for one-family dwellings, however. amount to S430 million. less than SS million below the total for January-September 1969. Multiple-family dwelling-unit values have experienced a net decline of S33 million from the first nine months of last year. 
Probably on account of the tornado in Lubbock in May and Hurricane Celia in August. the category of additions, alterations. and repairs gained S4.2 million from January­September 1969. On account of various difficulties. much of the new construction attributable in any degree to these catastrophes has not yet been authorized. 
In unadjusted dollar values. nonresidential construction authorized in Texas urban areas during September 1970 gained S9. I million over August. less than typical Sep-
ESTn!ATED \ ALCES OF Bl'ILDING At.:T!-IORIZED L' TEXAS 
Percent change Jan-Sept 1970 Sept Jan-Sept 
Sept 1970 from 1970 1970 
from Jan-Sept Classification (thousands of dollars) Aug 1970 1969 
ALL PERl\llTS 211,503 1,773,729 9 New construction 186,942 1,579,109 10 Residential (housekeeping) 90,593 779,659 9 One-family dwellings 50.435 429,590 9 
~lultiple-family 
dwellings 40,158 350,069 9 9 Nonresidential buildings 96,349 799.450 I 0 3 Hotels. motels, and tourist courts 832 27.256 29 30 Amusement buildings 11 ,694 52.657 829 293
..
Churches 2,044 26.917 -4 Industrial buildings 9,566 88.903 -42 -20 Garages (commercial 
and privare) 3,062 14.973 1 1 1 33 Service starions 1,867 11.381 100 -16 Hospitals and 
instirutions 6.136 85,780 -8 9 Office-bank buildings 33,363 180.670 5 I 72 Works and uriliries 1.810 32 ,532 -37 19 Educational buildings 12.603 112 ,187 25 -30 Stores and mercantile 
buildings 10,742 143,278 -47 -12 Other buildings and structure 2,630 22,916 4 -49 Additions. alrerations. and repairs 24,561 194.620 2 SMSA vs. ON-S~ISA 
Total SMSA+ 185.300 1,580,163 4 Central ciries 139.198 1,132,779 32 I Outside central cities 46,102 447,384 -37 6 
Total non-S~lSA 26,203 193,566 61 2 I 0.000 to 50,000 population 17 ,917 I 06,8°69 110 4 Less than I 0.000 population 8.286 86.697 6 11 
• 	Onl~ buildings for which permits were issued within rhe incorporated area of a city are included. •• Change is less than one half of 1 percent. t Standard metropolitan statistical area as defined in 1960 Census and re\'ised in 1968. 
Source: 	Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of rhe Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. 

NUMBER OF NEW HOUSING UNITS AUTHORIZED 
TOTAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS •
IN TEXAS URBAN PLACES, 1969-1970* 
(By type and by quarter) 
350350 300300 
Year and 
250

quarter One-family Two-family Apartment Total 250 
200200 
1969 Ist 8,592 680 18,835 28,107 
150

2nd 8,336 404 13,314 22,054 150 
3rd 6,956 296 16,263 23 ,515 100 

100 
4th 6,182 240 10,027 16,449 
so
50 
1970 l st 7,320 250 10,216 17,786 


2nd 9,563 386 15 ,800 25,749 "' Includes additiona, alteration•, and repairs. 
3rd 8,713 734 12,8 16 22,263 
* Excluding some urban places not reporting. 
QUARTERLY AVERAGES OF INDEXES OF 
CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IN TEXAS 
URBAN PLACES, 1969-1970 
(By type and by quarter) 
(Adjusted for seasonal variation 1957-1959=100) 

Year and 
quarter  Residential  Nonresidential  Total  
1969  !st 2nd 3rd 4th  159.5 162.9 132.3 126.9  250.0 240.9 269.5 227.6  193.5 191.2 185.6 169.1  
1970  !st 2nd 3rd  121.8 158.4 156.5  251.0 261.9 270.2  170.8 197.2 200.7  

NOTE: Shaded area• indicate period• of decline o{ total bu11ness act•vity in the United State• 
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED TEXAS• 
350 350 
300 

300 
250 
250 
200 200 
150 150 
100 100 
50 50 
Excludes additLon1, alterations. and r epai r • NOTE: Shaded area• indicate periods of decline of total bu111ne1111 activity •n the United State• 
NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED,TEXAS* 
•so 
AOO
tember performance in this sector. The greatest gross 
increases from August were in office-bank buildings ($ I 1.3 
350 

million), amusement buildings ($ 10.4 million), and educa­tional buildings ($2.5 million). This $24-plus million, 300 together with a few minor increases, was offset principally 250 by two major declines: $9 .6 million in stores and mercan­
200 

tile buildings and $6.8 million in industrial buildings. The industrial category, of course, is frequently understated by 150 the limitations of the construction-data series, which is 100 based only on urban building permits and exdudes all construction authorized outside urban areas. 
During the first nine months of both l 969 and 1970, the 
ASO 
AOO 
350 300 250 200 150 100 
same five categories of nonresidential construction accounted for most of the va lue authorized in that sector (in urban places). About $ 181 million in office-bank buildings has been permitted so far this year, more than in any other category. This type of construction ranked fourth last year, with SI 05 million during the first nine months. Stores and mercantile buildings. the leading sector through September of last year, with S 163 million autho­rized, ranked second during January-September 1970. compiling values totaling S 143 million. Educational build­ings ranked second last January-September and third 
* Excludes additLont, alterations, and r epairs. NOTE: Shaded areas indicate periods of decline of total businets activity in the United States 
through September 1970. The nine-month authorized values amounted to S 112 million through September 1970 und S 161 million last year. Dropping to fourth place from third, industrial buildings accounted for $111 million in permit values through the first nine months of 1969 and $89 million during the comparable period this year. Runking fifth during both nine-month periods, authori­zations for hospitals and other institutional buildings 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

totaled SSo million through the first three quarters of 1970 and S79 million through Septt'mber l lJblJ. 
..\!though the 23 standard metropolitan statistical areas of the state inc'lude only 7-l percent of the popu!Jtion. some 8.1 million persons. these Jreas issued construction permits Jc,·ounting for about 89 percent of the toral urbJn authoriz:itions in the state during January-September of both l lJol) and l 'J70. Part of this imbalance. of course. is accounted for by the faL·t that all of the unreported-that is. rural -increment of Texas construc'fion authorizations lies outside the S'.\IS . .\'s. The comparable percentages for January-September l 9blJ were the same. Of the cumulati\"e estimated values of L·o nstruction authorized in the 23 standard metropolitan statistical areas through September 
19 70. about 7 2 percent was accounted for by the central cities. which contain about t\\"O thirds of the metropolitan­area population. The comparable proportion for the same period last year was about 70 percent. Outside the metropolitan areas a shift has occurred in the opposite direction. From a share of about 58 percent of the nonmetropolitan total in January-September l Yo9. cities in the 10,000-50.000 population r:mge slid to a proportion of about 55 percent through the first nine months of 1970. As in all of these data. however. the sllJre of nonmetropolitan Texas in urban areas of less tlun I0.000 population amounts to considerably less than it might if this seL·tor were defined to include rural areas also. 
A few hopeful signs have begun to appeJr in the national construction outlook. Insured savings and loan JssociJtions exceeded S2 billion in mortgage lending for the third consecutive month in August. the latest month for which data are available. Construction loans by these institutions. which stood Jt around S330 million during January and February. surpassed S400 million in \larch and S500 million in ..\pril and \lay. During June-August construction loans closed totaled more than SbOO million. 
Although the immediate outlook for con,;truction in Texas in unc·ertain , several trends promi,;e an encouraging beginning in 1971. Among these are the vigorous program of the federal government to stimulate housing construL·­tion. the beginnings of a break in the cost of borrowing money, and such local phenomena as deferred repairs and reconstruction following tornado and hurricane damage in the Lubbock and Corpus Christi areJs and the persistent shortage of housing in some cities. 
TRDD OF B"K PR l\I E "TEREST H ITE 



THE BUSINESS SITUATION 
( ( "011c/11dcd; 

,;ucL·ess of spec·ial efforts to ch:1nnel funds in10 !he 
mortgage market. The index has risen 10 a \·alue as high :1s 
18-l.2 percent of [l)5 "7 -ll):'i 9 since ih lOX.2 percen! lo\\" of 
December l 9t>9. Currently il is helo11· !hat kvd bu! should 
exceed it in !ht? months to ,·ume. barring a third credit 
crunch. 

'.\onresidential building has been affected by tight money also. but not so extensively as residential building. In September the index of nonresidential building autho­rized declined. but the nine months' average is 3 percent abo1·e the le\·el for the first three quarters of 1969. The nationwide effects of the ,·redit crunches haw been a reduction in the YaL·anL·y rate among rental houses to 5 
percent. the lowest le\·el since the 1957-1958 recession. The honH.'O\\·ner vaL·ancy rate. which is the percentage of homes intended for printe ownership or privately owned which are \"a,·ant and a\·aiLible for sale. is less than l percent. 
HomeO\\·ner 1·acancies are also at their lowest level since the l 957-J lJ58 recession. The upsurge in sales of mobile homes and modu!Jr homes has been great. \!any factors indiL·ate that these factory-built homes will enjoy an increasing share of the housing market. 
Texas industrial production leveled off in September Jfter rising 2 percent in ..\ugust. '.\ational industrial pro­duc·tion declined in September. Average weekly hours and e:unings in manufacturing and total manufacturing employ­ment in the state dec·lined in September. Total unemploy­ment and insured unemployment both rose. 
Prospects of a strong revival in business activity are oYershado\\ ed by the likelihood of a substantial federal defi,·it. The neL·essity of continuing to fight inflation means that the money supply L'Jnnot be expanded as rapidly as would be desirable. A counterinflationary fiscal policy is needed because of price rises that are uncomfortably persistent. The use of monetary measures unaided by fiscal measures designed to control inflation produces unequal strains and sacrifices among the various sections of our economy. 
1969 COTTON PRODUCTION Ten Leading States 

Production in bales, I 969 States (thousands) 
TEXAS 2,862 Mississippi 1,328 California 1,315 Arkansas 1,140 Arizona 634 Louisiana 483 Alabama 461 Tennessee 422 Missouri 326 Georgia 282 
Source: Texas Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. 





LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS 

Sratistical data co111piled bv Mildred A11derso11. statistical associate, Co11stance Coo/edge and Glenda Riley, statistical assistants, and Kay Davis 
and Lydia Gorena, statistical technicians. 
The indicators of local business conditions in Texas which are included in this section arc statistics on bank debits, urban building permits, and employment. The data are reported by metropolitan areas in the first table below and by municipalities within counties in the second table. 
Standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's) in Texas are defined hy county lines; in the first table the counties included in the area arc listed under each SMSA. Since the Hryan-College Station area and the Longview-Kilgore-Gladewater area are functioning as significant metropolitan complexes in their regions, although not officially designated as SMSA's hy the Bureau of the Census, data for these areas have been included in the ta hie for SMSA's. In both tables the populations shown for the SMSA's and for the counties are the preliminary population counts of the I970 census. In the second table the population values for individual municipalities are also preliminary counts of the I 970 census, unless otherwise indicated. Population estimates made for municipalities in noncensus years are commonly based on utility connections, and these estimates arc subject to the errors inherent in a process dependent on base ratios derived in 1960. 
The values of urban building permits have been collected from participating municipal authorities by the Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Inasmuch as building permits are not required by county authorities, it must be emphasized that the reported permits reflect construction intentions only in incor­porated places. Permits are reported for residential and nonresi­dential building only, and do not include public-works projects such as roadways, waterways, or reservoirs ; nor do they include construction let under federal contracts. 
The values of bank debits for all SMSA's and for most central cities of the SMSA's have been collected by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Bank debits for the remaining municipalities have been collected from cooperating banks by the Bureau of Business Research . 
Employment estimates are compiled by the Texas Employment Commission in coo peration with the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. 
INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR STANDARD METROPOLITAN ST A TISTICAL AREAS September 1970  
Reported area and indicator  Sept 1970  Percent change from Aug Sept 1970 1969  Reported area and indicator  Sept 1970  Percent change from Aug Sept 1970 1969  

ABILENE SMSA 
Jones and Taylor Counties; population 112,168 
Urban building permits (dollars) 506,031 
Bank debits, seas. adj . ($1,000) 173,989 
Nonfarm employment 40,900 
Manufacturing employment 5,470 
Unemployed (percent) 3.3 

AMARILLO SMSA 
Potter and Randall Counties; population 140,876 
Urban building permits (dollars) 2,770,275 
Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) Sll,703 
Nonfarm employment 63,7 00 
Manufacturing employment 8,320 
Unemployed (percent) 3.4 

AUSTIN SMSA 
Travis County; population 289,597 
Urban building permits (dollars) 8,078, 100 
Bank debits, seas. adj.($ I ,000) 699,168 

Nonfarm employment 126,900 
Manufacturing employment 12,160 
Unemployed (percer>t) 2.7 

BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA Jefferson and Orange Counties; population 313,099 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,3S0,92 I Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) S06,936 Nonfarm employment I 20,700 Manufacturing employment 37 ,SOO Unemployed (percent) 4.5 
BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA 
Cameron County; population 137,506 Urban building permits (dollars) 3 I 4,860 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($I ,000) 142,246 
Nonfarm employment 
38,7SO Manufacturing employment S,640 Unemployed (percent) 
6 .6 
~80 
266 
4 -I -I 
-20 
75 
7 ** ** ** 
-44 
-s 
3 ** 4 
IS 2 
** -2 
-82 38 3 8 3 
BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION METROPOLITAN AREA Brazos County; population 56,089 II Urban building permits (dollars) 2,702,102 201 310 -4 Bank debits ($1,000) 8S,407 11 20 (Monthly employment reports are not available for the 3 Bryan-College Station Metropolitan Area.) 6 CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA Nueces and San Patricio Counties; population 278,443 
Urban building permits (dollars) l,834,4S8 6 -34 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 492 ,467 28 IS -41 Nonfarm employment 96,SOO -2 6 
4 Manufacturing employment 11,S60 -2 I 3 Unemployed (percent) S.9 -II SI 32 -3 
DALLAS SMSA Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Kaufman, and Rockwall Counties; population 1,539,372 Urban building permits (dollars) 46,922,183 2S 6 
-2S 
Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 
-9 
Nonfarm employment
s 
Manufacturing employment12 Unemployed (percent)
so 
EL PASO SMSA El Paso County; population 347,103 -SI Urban building permits (dollars) 
Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 
2 

s 
Nonfarm employment 
2 

Manufacturing employment 
45 

Unemployed (percent) 
FORT WORTH SMSA 
10,736,352 10 I 727,200 I 6 I 56,42S ** -11 
3.2 88 
19,642,0SO 318 407 619,888 ** 6 117,400 ** .. 2S,040 2 6 
S.O -2 39 
Johnson and Tarrant Counties; population 757 ,105 -90 
Urban building permits (dollars) 19,31 S,S32 -IS 96 I Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 1,906,308 2 
Nonfarm employment 301,700 •• s I Manufacturing employment 89,000 3 s Unemployed (percent) 3.9 5 86 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
Percent change Percent change from from Sept Aug Sept Sept Aug SeptReported area and indicator 1970 1970 1969 Reported area and indicator 1970 1970 1969 
GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA 
ODESSA SMSA 
Galveston County; population 165,669 

Ector County; population 90,132 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,865,905 
80 -60 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,508,338 442 390 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 249,190 10 13 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 134,880 8 Nonfarm employment 65 700 I 11 Nonfarm employment 61,200 -2 
Manufacturing employment 11 :900 2 7 	Manufacturing employment 4,990 4 I 
Unemployed (percent) 4.4 4 16 	Unemployed (percent) 3.7 32 (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and Odessa SMSA's since employment figures for Midland and Ector 
HOUSTON SMSA Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, and Montgomery Counties; combined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) 
population 1,958,491 Urban building permits (dollars) 60,899,442 37 32 SAN ANGELO SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 8,389,417 -2 I Tom Green County; population 70,852 Nonfarm employment 873,500 I 5 Urban building permits (dollars) 370,655 53 -33 
Manufacturing employment 146,300 •• 2 Bank debits, seas. adj.($ 1,000) I 02 ,425 I 
Unemployed (percent) 2.7 •• 35 Nonfarm employment 23,9 50 •• I Manufacturing employment 4,000 I 10 Unemployed (percent) 4.0 14 14 
LAREDO SMSA Webb County; population 69,025 SAN ANTONIO SMSAUrban building permits (dollars) 280,850 -74 421 Bexar and Guadalupe Counties; population 863,669
Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 76,573 -8 3 
Nonfarm employment 24,950 •• Urban building permits (dollars) 7 ,548,439 -31 -32 Manufacturing employment 1,510 3 7 
Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 1,438,520 -5 I Unemployed (percent) 8.5 -2 37 Nonfarm employment 289,800 * * 3 Manufacturing employment 34,000 I 9 Unemployed (percent) 5 .3 -5 36 
LONGVIEW-KILGORE-GLADEWATER METROPOLITAN AREA 
SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA 
Gregg County; population 73,510 

Grayson County; population 80,890 Urban building permits (dollars) 3,400,656 320 -56 Urban building permits (dollars) 657,475 -7 -32 Bank debits ($1,000) 115,631 • • Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 89,829 2 2 Nonfarm employment 35,450 • • (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Manufacturing employment I 0,020 -I -I Sherman-Denison SMSA.) Unemployed (percent) 4.5 7 SO (Building permits and bank debits are included for those portions of 
TEXARKANA SMSA Kilgore and Gladewater in Rusk County and Upshur County.) 
Bowie County, Texas, and Miller County, Arkansas; 
population 99,411 
McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA 

Urban building permit's (dollars) 281 ,765 97 -78 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1 ,000) 124,787 5 -10
Hidalgo County; population 173, 715 
Nonfarm employment 	40,700 * * -7Urban building permits (dollars) 2,277,110 28 216 Manufacturing employment 10,500 -2 -29
Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 127,028 7 s 
Unemployed (percent) 	7.4 4 124
Nonfarm employment 	42,000 •• 3 (Since the Texarkana SMSA includes Bowie County in Texas andManufacturing employment 3,880 4 7 
Miller County in Arkansas, all data, including population, refer to
Unemployed (percent) 	6.5 •• 10 the two-county region.) 
TYLER SMSA 
LUBBOCK SMSA 
Smith County; population 94,308Lubbock County; population 175,757 Urban building permits (dollars) 567,537 -17 -10 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,801,270 -75 -6 
Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 183,628 -3 3 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 428,503 -4 •• 
Nonfarm employment 	39,350 -3 4 
Nonfarm employment 	62,900 -4 Manufacturing employment 11 ,840 -10 6 
Manufacturing employment 6,890 •• -2 Unemployed (percent) 3.2 3 28 Unemployed (percent) 4.1 -13 28 
WACO SMSA McLennan County; population 142,772MIDLAND SMSA Urban building permits (dollars) 1,047,969 -62 -16 
Midland County; population 64,168 
Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 236,676 7 -9 Urban building permits (dollars) 429,7 03 32 -52 Nonfarm employment 59,600 •• Bankdebits,seas.adj.($1,000) 175,254 12 7 
Manufacturing employment 12,720 -I -3 
Nonfarm employment 	61,200 -I -2 
Unemployed (percent) 	3.9 3 11 
Manufacturing employment 4,990 -4 I Unemployed (percent) 3.7 -5 32 WICHITA FALLS SMSA(Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and Archer and Wichita Counties; population 124,238Odessa SMSA's since employment figures for Midland and Ector Urban building permits (dollars) 747,071 -52 -48Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 193,408 I
combined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) 	** 
Nonfarm employment 48,100 I -3 Manufacturing employment 5,370 2 5 ••Absolute change is less than one half of I percent. Unemployed (percent) 3.0 3 25 
INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPALITIES 
SEPTEMBER 1970 

COUNTY City  Population*  Urban building permits Percent change from Sept 1970 Aug Sept (dollars) 1970 1969  Bank debits Percent change Sept 1970 from (thousands Aug Sept of dollars) 1970 1969  Nonfarm placements Percent change from Sept Aug Sept 1970 1970 1969  
ANDERSON Palestine  26,593 14,518  116,375  -2  12  19,415  4  39  22  -47  
ANDREWS Andrews  10,178 8,440  16,905  -68  6  9,030  13  16  
ANGELINA Lufkin  49,153 23,739  1,810,214  284  713  24  -51  -52  
ARANSAS Aransas Pass  8,468 5,594  10,049  36  
ATASCOSA Pleasanton  18,360 5,391  68,700  11  137  6,245  7  20  
AUSTIN Bellville  13,243 2,318  7,177  -5  6  
BAILEY Muleshoe  8,172 4,414  12,008  -19  -31  
BASTROP Smithville  16,828 2,888  2,000  -96  -25  2,746  16  27  
BEE Beeville  22,161 13,080  54,295  318  18  19,286  6  9  67  -57  -39  
BELL Bartlett Belton Killeen Temple  121,405 1,598 8,476 34,953 32,645  4,350 409,001 2,176,480  -97 -15 296  -77 -15 898  1,811 35,551 59,569  -11 l -3  24 11 9  136  -53  -48  
BEXAR (In San Antonio SMSA) San Antonio  830,656 650,188  7,029,792  -32  -27  1,386,264  - 2  3  
BOWIE (In Texarkana SMSA) Texarkana  67,210 50,481  262,765  138  - 79  110,780  -7  -8  
BRAZORIA (In Houston SMSA) Angelton Clute Freeport Pearland  106,230 9,469 5,871 11,953 6,173  29,900 203,380 210,800  -29  -79 868 36  17,229 5,188 29,591 8,529  3 40 8 9  -3 43 •• 15  
BRAZOS (Constitutes Bryan-College Station Metropolitan Area) Bryan College Station  56,089 32,489 17,183  689,470 2,012,632  -6  21  75,158 10,249  11 7  26 -11  274  -37  -42  
BREWSTER Alpine  7,534 5,811  85,025  -56  5,610  12  -10  
BROWN Brownwood  24,397 16,277  139,535  -11  -39  72  -47  -48  
BURNET Marble Falls  10,655 1,979  5,317  6  7  
CALDWELL Lockhart  20,694 6,444  8,360  -50  -99  7,963  -4  4  
CAMERON . (Constitutes Brownsville­Harlingen-San Benito SMSA) Brownsville Harlingen La Feria Los Fresnos Port Isabel San Benito  137,506 51,080 34,005 2,404 1,261 2,978 14,909  150,500 145,910 1,270 11,830  -91 612 -84  -5 -93 -89 -99  57,773 81,309 2,922 3,664 3,358 9,207  3 I 32 26 54 13  IO 10 -12 -7 24••  213 208  -60 -42  -75 -44  
282  TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW  

COUNTY City CASTRO Dimmitt  Population* 10,292 4,2SS  Urban building permits Percent change from Sept 1970 Aug Sept (dollars) 1970 1969  Bank debits Percent change Sept 1970 from (thousands Aug Sept of dollars) 1970 1969 17,269 -11 -10  Nonfarm placements Percent change from Sept Aug Sept 1970 1970 1969  
CHEROKEE Jacksonville  31,041 9,411  118,783  780  89  22,379  3  ••  
COLLIN (In Dallas SMSA) McKinney Plano  6S,312 14,773 17,600  36,300 733,64S  -62 -36  -8S••  13,77 8  - 1  9  so  -21  -SS  
COLORADO Eagle Lake  17,I SS 3,S36  10,980  93  S9  
COMAL New Braunfels  23,601 17,610  262,098  -47  30  21,137  -9  
COOKE Gainesville Muenster  22,8S6 13,S6S 1,38S  88,000 6,100  17 -4S  48  18,083 3,390  •• 16  -8  
CORYELL Copperas Cove Gatesville  34,761 10,608 4,S6S  2S6,069  193  148  4,632 8,4Sl  23 -11  48 -6  
CRANE Crane  4 ,132 3,447  3,000  so  2,23S  -6  -12  
DALLAS (In Dallas SMSA) Carrollton Dallas Farmers Branch Garland Grand Prairie Irving Lancaster Mesquite Richardson Seagoville  1,316,289 13,701 836,121 27,177 80,6S9 S2,404 97,4S7 10,612 SS,136 47,S96 4,2S3  2,84S,293 2 l ,868,06S 301,001 4,880,78S l ,76S,S78 7,197,334 219,000 1,764,08S 1,108,330 83,S04  3S 62 -63 32 -73 S3 -6S -14 -69 336  163 lS -S8 -22 21 362 20 -82 -26  11,889 9,6 12 ,809 18,91S 61,728 29,S06 70,6Sl 7,724 20,678 48,680 11,112  6 2 -14 1 -12 -10 8 8 3 1  6 3 4 7 2 s -14 10 18 39  
DAWSON Lamesa  16,231 11,401  6,000  44S  17,28S  -23  -IS  S2  -36  -S2  
DEAF SMITH Hereford  18,S 33 13,092  324,300  -23  SS  
DENTON (In Dallas SMSA) Denton Justin (1960) Lewisville Pilot Point  73,S31 38,86S 622 9,146 1,631  770,S70 0 811,800 S0,100  -l S -64 -2S  -19 82  S4,3 l 2 1,194 l l,S20 2,S4S  1 3  6 3 SS -1  78  -37  -63  
DE WITT Yoakum  17,872 S,S47  29,200  -42  -S7  11,122  -6  
EASTLAND Cisco  17,S27 3,817  4 ,373  12  -9  
ECTOR (Constitutes Odessa SMSA) Odessa  90,132 76,109  1,S08,338  442  390  129,S07  -2  -6  7SO  24  -36  
ELLIS (In Dallas SMSA) Ennis Midlothian Waxahachie  4S ,693 10,904 2,283 13,147  17,200 8S,400  -73 193  -71 -Sl  8,394 1,7SS 17,14S  -s -23 -s  -20 -8 ••  44  -34  -S3  
EL PASO (Constitutes El Paso SMSA) El Paso  347,103 326,278  19,642,0SO  318  408  S71 ,S37  2  6  
ERATH Stephenville  17,S7S 9,297  2S2 ,600  14S  27  1S,227  s  12  
FANNIN Bonham  22,018 7,S93  127,000  -13  S76  11,393  -8  -3  

COUNTY City  Population*  Urban building permits Percent change from Sept 1970 Aug Sept (dollars) 1970 1969  Bank debits Percent change Sept 1970 from (thousands Aug Sept of dollars) 1970 1969  Nonfarm placements Percent change from Sept Aug Sept 1970 1970 1969  
FAYETTE Schulenburg  16,876 2,238  2,600  -98  - 73  
FORT BEND (In Houston SMSA} Richmond Rosenberg  51,410 5,675 11,960  84,329 99,550  -39  - 57 46  9,476  29  4  
GAINES Seagraves Seminole  11,575 2,411 5,011  500 29,200  -so  -97 -29  2 ,303 5,040  -24 -20  -28 -24  
GALVESTON (Constitutes Galveston-Texas City SMSA) Dickinson Galveston La Marque Texas City  165,669 4,715 60,714 15,984 38,393  1,457,700 14,640 393,565  130 -84 -2  -66 -47 37  13,300 148,433 19,742 34,987  -4 5 ** -13  2 14 II -5  
GILLESPIE Fredericksburg  10,277 5,240  68,975  135  372  17,757  - 2  17  
GONZALES Nixon  15,763 1,893  48,000  967  110  
GRAY Pampa  26,273 2 I ,239  54,000  2  34,267  4  - 9  66  - 57  -42  
GRAYSON (Constitutes Sherman-Denison SMSA} Denison Sherman  80,890 24,436 28,352  102,085 428,990  -36 -10  -47 -42  29,083 52,517  5 2  -7 -17  77 97  -70 -27  -65 -44  
GREGG (Constitutes Longview­Kilgore-Gladewater Metropolitan Area) Gladewater Kilgore Longview  73,510 5,298 9,120 44,397  49,681 481,775 2,869,200  14 989 298  -29 -62  5,471 17,520 92,640  -14 3 1  -15 10 **  
GUADALUPE (In San Antonio SMSA) Schertz Seguin  33,013 3,980 I 5,569  0 214,270  3  103  1,003 21,863  25 6  31 10  
HALE Hale Center Plainview  33,374 1,882 18,664  8,625 I 85,850  -64 194  990  51,020  - 24  - 12  156  - 30  - 34  
HARDEMAN Quanah  6,649 3,819  0  5,392  - I  -12  
HARDIN Silsbee  28,618 6,907  10,408  - 1  -15  
HARRIS (In Houston SMSA} Baytown Bellaire Deer Park Houston Humble La Porte Pasadena South Houston Tomball  1,722,336 39,175 18,978 10,348 1,213,064 3,059 5,858 89,291 11,465 2,707  375,079 105,284 56,765,698 104,200 13,500 523,580 37 ,000 6,000  -88 608 62 -32 -81 -89 -72  79 -31 40 82 -82 -74 -71 -82  62,543 50,581 10,263 7,539,181 9,661 5,360 110,318 10,642 16,882  9 4 -15 -1 -4 11 3 -3  - 7 9 4 4 17 10 10 1 35  
HARRISON Hallsville Marshall  44,107 1,008 22,666  78,873  -32  -49  I ,282 28,530  4 5  5 -14  113  - 29  -60  
HASKELL Haskell  8,236 3,602  18,300  66  8  5,306  3  JO  
HAYS San Marcos  26,977 18,556  630,883  114  314  14,287  3  

TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
COUNTY City HENDERSON Athens  Population• 2S,703 9.S3S  Urban building permits Percent change from Sept 1970 Aug Sept (dollars) 1970 1969 14,800 -74 -89  Bank debits Percent change Sept 1970 from (thousands Aug Sept of dollars) 1970 1969 I S,186 •• s  Nonfarm placements Percent change from Sept Aug Sept 1970 1970 1969  
HIDALGO (Constitutes McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg SMSA) Alamo Donna Edinburg Elsa McAllen Mercedes Mission Pharr San Juan Weslaco  173,71S 4,187 7,101 16,748 4,100 36,761 9,116 12,06S I S,269 4 ,927 14,S62  soo 11,698 191 ,47S S,07S 96S,800 18,093 I 01 ,8SO 43,30S 1,400 749,314  -68 -84 -61 273 -49 -17 171 -48  20 Sl 139 2S6 -S7 ISO 74 472  3,304 S,330 22,162 S,193 4S,792 7,448 16,3S6 6,3S8 4,22S 1S,709  -9 29 -9 IS 2 6 4 8 4S 2  -12 29 -11 -1 14 -32•• I 6 2  93 98  -S3 -S9  -S3 -74  
HOCKLEY Levelland  20,199 11,386  224,9SO  131  67  18,S9S  -12  -9  
HOOD Granbury  6,182 2 ,423  2,6SO  -s  -8  
HOPKINS Sulphur Springs  20,334 10,447  241,930  19  24,SS9  -2  -4  
HOWARD Big Spring  37,136 28,16S  28,6SO  -70  -82  Sl,068  - 3  - 8  106  - 23  -39  
HU T Greenville  46,S64 21 ,867  29,SSO  -66  -86  27,00S  -4  -21  9S  13  -40  
HUTCHINSON Borger  23,980 13,928  12,300  -61  -31  76  -10  -22  
JACKSON Edna  l 2,S97 S,2S2  21,160  29  31S  8,847  -13  - s  
JASPER Jasper Kirbyville  24,149 6,397 1,817  9S0,600  I S,09S 2,974  2 1  -1 1 -8  
JEFFERSON (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Beaumont Groves Nederland Port Arthur Port Neches  242,719 11 S,716 18,012 16,647 S6,SS2 10,611  946,364 7 l ,S20 171,4S6 60,666  3S lS 14 -64  -S8 -13 so -16  307,978 IS,061 10,900 8S,497 17,7S2  s 3 2 2 3  -s 12 14 s 7  
JIM WELLS Alice  32,127 19,682  98,994  -2S  213  4S ,000  13  18  
JOHNSON (In Fort Worth SMSA) Cleburne  4S,7 I 8 16,9SO  249,41 s  182  188  21,249  -3  6  
KARNES Karnes City  13,147 2,877  12,000  -84  -64  S,496  26  24  
KAUFMAN (In Dallas SMSA) Terrell  31 ,666 l 3,98S  167,817  -24  2S  16,742  4  9  
KIMBLE Junction  3,84S 2 ,6S4  2,7 12  -16  -7  
KLEBERG Kingsville  32,181 27,809  196,660  -70  -S7  2S ,16 l  II  14  
LAMAR Paris  3S,S64 23,194  304,S44  131  SI  100  -44  -43  
LAMB Littlefield  17,427 6,677  900  -97  -9S  9,168  -IS  -24  
LAMPASAS Lampasas  9,140 S,799  96,800  710  -28  10,7 10  4  2  

Bank debits Nonfarm placements
Urban building permits 
COUNTY City  Population*  Sept 1970 (dollars)  Percent change from Aug Sept 1970 1969  Sept 1970 (thousands of dollars)  Percent change from Aug Sept 1970 1969  Sept 1970  Percent change from Aug Sept 1970 1969  
LAVACA Hallettsville Yoakum  17,483 2,630 5,S47  74,060 29,200  -2 -42  276 -57  4,3S9 11 ,122  s 6  7  
LEE Giddings  7,776 2,724  2S,378  ••  641  6,517  - 4  15  
LIBERTY (In Houston SMSA) Dayton Liberty  31,565 3,705 5,531  40,695 19,155  -63  -42 -21  6,695 14,768  17 22  12 -I  
LIMESTONE Mexia  17,581 S,8S9  324,900  856  8,726  4  10  
LLANO Kingsland (1969) Llano  6,583 1,200 2,575  0  5,418 6,438  24 -2  72 -I  
LUBBOCK (Constitutes Lubbock SMSA) Lubbock Slaton  175,757 146,379 6,151  1,713,770 2,900  -76 152  - 9  334,274 6,144  2 4  2 ••  
LYNN Tahoka  8,829 2,866  0  3,870  -46  -36  
McCULLOCH Brady  8,332 5,481  59,960  -20  9,179  -10  
McCLENNAN (Constitutes Waco SMSA) McGregor Waco  142,772 4,34S 92,600  7,350 936,719  -32 -6S  -19  5,1 SS 218,481  9 3  -18 -4  
MATAGORDA Bay City  27,630 12,196  83,048  103  -41  27,915  lS  ••  34  -36  -53  
MAVERICK Eagle Pass  17,919 IS,277  106,440  -36  -28  11,171  -13  10  
MEDINA Castroville Hondo  19,123 1,788 5,279  30,800 37,175  -67  311  1,589 5,100  -6 -23  17 -I  
MIDLAND (Constitutes Midland SMSA) Midland  64,168 S8,199  429,703  32  -52  163,814  8  496  -36  -36  
MILAM Cameron Rockdale  19,600 5,455 4,664  6,500 2,050  -98 -94  -99 -93  8,277 7,819  4 2  10 II  
MILLS Goldthwaite  4,047 1,653  6,112  -9  -4  
MITCHELL Colorado City  8,878 4,915  5,314  -13  -14  
MONTGOMERY (In Houston SMSA) Conroe  46,9 50 10,931  S0,000  -70  -42  35,850  -11  10  
MOORE Dumas  13,788 9,665  8,850  -75  -54  
NACOGDOCHES Nacogdoches  36,472 22,316  237,632  -62  7  38,205  16  ..  so  -22  -18  
NAVARRO Corsicana  30,294 19,839  1,639,588  245  31,007  -12  - 2  115  - 42  -58  
NOLAN Sweetwater  15,275 11,317  4,750  -59  -61  17,173  - 5  7  65  -18  -41  
NUECES (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Bishop Corpus Christi  233,998 3,551 201,581  797,672  -21  -63  4,157 429,086  29 32  42 20  

TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
Urban building permits  Bank debits  Nonfarm placements  
COUNTY City  Population*  Sept 1970 (dollars)  Percent change from Aug Sept 1970 1969  Sept 1970 (thousands of dollars)  Percent change from Aug Sept 1970 1969  Sept 1970  Percent change from Aug Sept 1970 1969  

NUECES (continued) Port Aransas Robstown  1,091 11,047  44,006  211  - 85  1,169 21,006  - 25 3  2 23  
ORANGE (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Orange  70,380 24,l 12  100,180  16  -55  47,666  2  93  - 13  - 46  
PALO PINTO Mineral Wells  28,505 17,109  110,187  6  60  32,438  3  7  55  - 46  - 47  
PANOLA Carthage  15,554 5,389  47,500  -87  -93  5,179  -4  7  
PARKER Weatherford  32,542 11,846  382,390  443  ••  21,325  -10  
PARMER Friona  10,374 3,112  165,100  247  2 5,330  
PECOS Fort Stockton  12,987 7,773  33,600  63  -69  8,921  6  - 15  
POTTER (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo  87 ,985 123,973  1,769,090  17  -62  480,525  10  7  
RANDALL (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo (See Potter) Canyon  52 ,891 8,123  1,001,185  9,591  -12  - 10  
REEVES Pecos  16,263 12,492  64,300  93  159  18,034  -4  - 2  50  - 34  - 33  
REFUGIO Refugio  9,089 4,225  0  4,659  -17  ••  
RUSK Henderson Kilgore  32,773 10,003 9,120  120,400 481,775  104 989  163  19,252 17,520  4 3  6 10  
SAN PATRICIO (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Aransas Pass Sinton  44,445 5,594 5,085  10,049 l 0,610  36 I  21  
SA SABA San Saba  5,431 2 ,529  50,000  85  9,275  31  8  
SCURRY Snyder  15, 115 10,722  176,000  477  372  15,723  -18  8  
SHACKELFORD Albany  3,233 1,959  0  3,053  - 7  
SHERMAN Stratford  3,603 2,587  12,225  11,501  -12  - 8  
SMITH (Constitutes Tyler SMSA) Tyler  94,308 56,301  567,537  -16  -6  166,924  -2  - 2  292  - 49  - 46  
STEPHENS Breckenridge  8,205 5,873  55,000  36  424  
SUTTO Sonora  3,051 2 ,076  500  - 62  -97  3,7 59  - 3  8  
TARRANT (In Fort Worth SMSA) Arlington Euless Fort Worth Grapevine North Richland Hills White Settlement  711,387 88,385 18,7 72 388,123 7,5 I 3 I 6,375 I 3,461  3,730,200 1,87 5,952 I I ,066,369 I 5,1I5 895 ,497 69,300  -74 646 116 -87 -17 -64  68 35 161 -97 365 -40  117,926 16,6 03 I ,592,353 7,088 18,260 5,536  2 6 2 3 5 -l I  - 9 I I 2 8 21 50  

Bank debits Nonfarm placements
Urban building permits 
COUNTY City TAYLOR (In Abilene SMSA) Abilene  Population* 96,463 88,433  Sept 1970 (dollars) S06,03 I  Percent change from Aug Sept 1970 1969 291 12  Sept 1970 (thousands of dollars) 148,226  Percent change from Aug Sept 1970 1969 6  Sept 1970  Percent change from Aug Sept 1970 1969  
TERRY Brownfield  14,239 9,701  34,1 so  -7S  - S8  20,743  - 19  - 3  
TITUS Mount Pleasant  16,486 8,6S4  124,330  116  920  19,734  2  -2  
TOM GREEN (Constitutes San Angelo SMSA) San Angelo  70,8S2 63,928  370,6SS  S3  -33  102,29S  3  3  
TRAVIS (Constitutes Austin SMSA) Austin  289,S97 246,904  8,024,100  -44  -2S  680,287  -10  2  
UPSHUR Gladewater  20,468 S,298  49,681  14  -29  S,471  -14  -IS  
UPTON McCamey  4,S64 2,S89  I ,86S  3  -19  
UVALDE Uvalde  16,619 10,403  87,11 s  126  39  21,124  8  - I  
VAL VERDE Del Rio  26,984 20,928  104,802  -4  -91  19,409  **  
VICTORIA Victoria  S2,776 39,349  290,322  -64  39  98,432  IS  4  390  -41  -2S  
WALKER Huntsville  24,88S IS ,367  281,099  36S  21,S27  10  22  
WARD Monahans  13,0S6 8,287  131,8SO  -36  68  11 ,S76  -II  -9  
WASHINGTON Brenham  18,378 8,776  l 83,0S9  - 3  -18  20,867  9  9  
WEBB (Constitutes Laredo SMSA) Laredo  69,02S 6S,491  280,8s"o  -74  421  72 ,0SI  -7  249  - 27  -43  
WHARTON El Campo  36,218 8,442  28,441  -6S  -88  26,872  10  
WICHITA (In Wichita Falls SMSA) Burkburnett Iowa Park Wichita Falls  118,SOI 9,148 S,741 94,976  4,800 148,939 S93,332  -93 -13 -SS  -94 -S6  8,432 3,679 166,791  8  I 8 3  
WILBARGER Vernon  I S,OSI I 1,204  I 93,27S  124  S6  18,919  - s  - s  34  -38  -63  
WILLACY Raymondville  I S,432 7,988  7 ,000  2SO  7S  17 ,767  II  34  4S  -4  2  
WILLIAMSON Bartlett Georgetown Taylor  36,020 I ,S98 6,377 9,2S3  S,600 102,1 so  -9S -20  -84 44  1,811 7,937 18,743  -II -s 2S  24 6 9  17  -43  -60  
WISE Decatur  18,830 3,234  0  4 ,9 S3  -3  -II  
YOUNG Graham Olney  I S,343 7,383 3,810  I 9S,OOO  12,637 S,S63  7 4  6--17  
ZAVALA Crystal City  11 ,239 8,012  108,180  38  36  S,222  -13  - 3  
* For 1970 unless otherwise indicated.  

**Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent. ... No data, or inadequate basis for reporting. 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS 

(All figures are for Texas unless otherwise indicated.) 
All indexes are based on the average mo nths for 1957-1959 except where other specification is made; all except annual indexes are adjusted for seasonal variation unless otherwise no ted. Employment estimates are compiled by the Texas Employment Co mmission 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. 
Year-to-date average
Sept Aug Sept 1970 1970 1969 1970 1969 
GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY  
Estimates of personal income  
(millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted)  $  3,226p  $  3,144p  $  3,151r  $ 3,183  $ 3,005  
Income payments to individuals in U.S. (billions, at  
seasonally adjusted annual rate)  .....  $  811.Sp  $  806.4p  $  763.lr  $ 796.9  $ 741.1  
Wholesale prices in U.S. (unadjusted index)  117.Sp  117.2p  113.6  116.9  112.4  
Consumer prices in U.S. (unadjusted index)  136.6  136.0  129.3  134.4  126.8  
Newspaper linage (index) . ...... .  129.2  131.8  117.7  126.2  125.5  
Sales of ordinary life insurance (index)  282.8  254.9  236.9  255.2  235.7  
PRO DUCTION  
Total electric-power use (index)  ....  288.0p  280.5p  27 l .4r  264.0  250.4  
Industrial electric-power use (index)  227.3P  231.9p  221.{  226.9  216.8  
Crude-oil production (index) ... . ..  125. lp  123.9p  114.0r  121.4  113.4  
Average daily production per oil well (bbl.)  18.0  17.S  I 5.9  17.1  I 5.6  
Crude-oil runs to stills (index)  . . . . . . . .  134.4  134.3  136.9  133.8  135.6  
Industrial production in U.S. (index)  .. . .  166.0p  168.9p  l 73.9r  169.3  172.4  
Texas industrial production-total (index)  180.Sp  l 79.9p  175.s'  177.8  171.7  
Texas industrial production-total manufactures (index)  I98.4p  I 99.2p  199.i  198.9  193.5  
Texas industrial production-durable manufactures (index)  2os.2P  208.4p  226.6'  213.3  217.7  
Texas industrial production-nondurable manufactures (index) Texas industrial production-mining (index) . .  193.Sp 140.2p  193.lp l 37.5p  181.s' 127 .o'  189.3 132.7  179.1 125.0  
Texas industrial production-utilities (index)  260.7p  260.7p  247.4r  258.7  246.4  
Urban building perm its issued (index) ......  202.6  201.5  178.4  189.6  190.l  
New residential building authorized (index)  162.3  144.1  122.7  145.6  I 51.6  
New nonresidential building authorized (index)  256.S  292.S  258.6  261.1  253.S  
AGRICULTURE  
Prices received by farmers (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100)  280  280  264  276  264  
Prices paid by farmers in U.S. (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100)  393  389  375  388  372  
Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid  
by fa rmers  ...  71  72  70  71  71  
FINANCE  
Bank debits (index) Bank debits, U.S. (index)  321.S 364.l  297.1 364.0  311.4 337.3  305.7 348.1  280.7 316.1  
Reporting member banks, Dallas Federal Reserve District  
Loans (millions)  ..... . .... . ..... . ...  $ 6,180  $ 6,126  $ 6,025  $ 6,049  $ 6,077  
Loans and investments (millions)  ... . . .... .  $ 8,919  $ 8,785  $ 8,492  $ 8,658  $ 8,683  
Adjusted demand deposits (millions)  . .......  $ 3,234  $ 3,336  $ 3,311  $ 3,272  $ 3,337  
Revenue receipts of the state comptroller {thousands)  $193,768  $313,904  $167,751  $ 266,786  $ 228,193  
Federal Internal Revenue collections {thousands)  $615,386  $512,789  $606,160  $1 ,427,826*  $1,341,723*  
Securities registrations-original applications  
Mutual investment companies (thousands)  $ 28,772  $  8,55 s  s 34,490  $ 28,772.  $  34,490*  
All other corporate securities  
Texas companies {thousands)  . .. ...  s  9,548  $ 10,714  $ 13,314  s  9,548*  $  13,314*  
Other companies {thousands)  ... ...  $ 12,918  $ 10,466  $ 25,529  s  12,918*  $  ~S,529*  
Securities registrations-renewals  
Mutual investment companies {thousands)  s 59,318  $ 30,305  $  52 ,537  $  59,318*  $  52,537*  
Other corporate securities (thousands)  ..  $  9  $  0  $ 248  $  9•  $  248*  
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 ..  149.Sp 147.6p 97.3p I 50.4p 3,72 l.9p 718.3 391.1  1so.2P 148.Sp 98.Sp IS I.4p 3,729.oP 726.4 396.3  146.7r I 56.1 r 99.9r 146.8 3,645.Sr 737.8 431.1  I 50.2 I 52.3 98.9 149.4 3,707.5 738.1 408.6  145.3 153.9 100.7 143.6 3,587.4 746.2 423.2  
Nondurable-goods employment {thousands)t  327.2  330.1  328.7  329.6  323.0  
Total civilian labor force in selected labor-market  
areas {thousands)  .......... . ....  3,511.4  3,505.2  3,340.7  3,491.4  3,35 5.9  
onagricultural employment in selected labor-market  
areas {thousands)  . . . ..... . ..........  3,301.I  3,292.0  3,170.9  3,288.0  3,118.2  
Manufacturing employment in selected labor-market  
areas {thousands)  . . ....... . .......  615.0  620.1  628.3  632.9  618.9  
Total unemployment in selected labor-market areas  
{thousands)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  133.1  135.4  88.1  120.4  90.9  
Percent of labor force unemployed in selected labor-market areas ..... . .... . .. .  3.8  3.9  2.6  3.4  2.7  

BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 
RETURN REQUESTED 
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, TEXAS 
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712 
TRANSITION IN THE TEXAS COMMERCIAL 
BANKING INDUSTRY, 1956-1965 

by 
Lawrence L. Crum 

The Bureau of Business Research is pleased to present Transition in the Texas Commercial Banking Industry, 1956-1965, as Number 9 in its series Studies in Banking and Finance. The author, Lawrence L. Crum, professor of finance at The University of Texas at Austin, has purposefully utilized much the same organization and terminology in his study as that used by William H. Baughn in his monograph concerning developments in the Texas banking structure in the earlier portion of the post-World War II period, in order to provide reasonable continuity in the coverage and a basis for comparison of the present work with the earlier work published in 1959. 
In analyzing the extent and nature of changes in the commercial banking industry of Texas over the ten-year timespan from 1956 through 1965, Dr. Crum accords considerable attention to comparisons of rates of change in banking variables for Texas with those for adjoining states in the Southwest and rates of change in the same variables for the entire banking system of the United States. Graphic presentation throughout the discussion assists the reader by providing detailed visual comparisons of the data. 
Studies in Banking and Finance No. 9 x + 170 pp. 
$4.00 
Texas residents add 17 cents sales tax. 
Bureau of Business Research 
Graduate School of Business 
The University of Texas at Austin