The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
FEDB
’RESERVE BANK a
RICHMOND
e m
a a
October 1957
PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME, 1956
( IN D O L L A R S )
Source: U S. Department of Commerce
Also In This Issue - - The
Fifth District Agriculture— Crops Rank
High But Livestock L a g s ____________Page
6
article beginning on page 3 describes recent move
Fifth District Industry—
In Step With the T im es_____________ Page
8
ments in personal income, differences between
Business Conditions and P rospects_____ Page
9
states, and some causes of the differences.
Fifth District Statistical Data _________ Page 11
j P
e r so n a l
income hits a new high in ’56!
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
F ifth
D ist r ic t
T r en d s
DEPARTMENT STORE SALES
BANK DEBITS
Over-all spending as represented by bank debits in the F ifth D is
trict during Au gust dropped 4 % (a fter seasonal correction) from
July, but w as still 4 % larger than a year ago; the eight m onths’
accumulation was 6 % higher than last year.
A new high level was established by sales o f department stores in
the F ifth D istrict during A u gu st, after having moved on a flat for
nearly a year. A u gust was up 4 % from July, 3 % ahead o f a year
ago, and the eight m onths’ total was up 4 % .
BITUMINOUS COAL PRODUCTION
RETAIL FURNITURE STORES NET SALES
D istrict output rose a sharp 2 9 % during August from the holi
day month o f July. A u gu st output was 4 % ahead o f that month
last year, and the eight m onths’ total was also 4 % ahead o f last
year.
The exuberance shown in department store sales during Au gust
was not shared by the furniture stores o f the F ifth District. A d
justed sales in A u gust were 2 % lower than July, but 1% ahead of
Au gust last year. In the first eight m onths o f the year these sales
were 3 % smaller than last year w ith practically all the loss com ing
in credit sales.
COTTON SPINDLES CONSUMING OTHER THAN COTTON
COTTON CONSUMPTION
140
220
220
120
180
180
100
140
/
fJ
100
80
"
V
V
60
i____ i...
1951
1952
1953
Cotton consumption in tbe mills o f
age daily (seasonally adjusted) basis
back almost to the June level. The
than that month last year, and the
4% .
1954
1955
1956
140
A
100
.
V
60
(1947-1949*100)
1950
J
/
' '
60
(Seosonolly Adjusted)
1949
V / .
V ^ W
0
0
1949
1957
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
(Seo sonolly Adjusted)
,
(19 *8-1949= Kx > ,
j
1955
1956
1957
Cotton system ’s spindles operating on fibers other than cotton
during A ugust dropped 9 % (after seasonal correction) from July,
but held 5 % ahead o f Au gust 1956. In the first eight m onths of
the year these operations were 1% smaller than a like period last
year.
the Fifth D istrict on an aver
rose 6 % from July to August
Au gust figure was 3 % smaller
eight months’ total was down
i
2
y
Z fo n M /fo
H
October 1957
u a
$1,940! Personal Income Hits New Peak In ’56
spendings somewhat in line with personal income. Some
businesses also make use of this principle in estimating
their sales potentials within particular states or regions
where no adequate retail sales statistics are available.
There are also many other uses— estimating the yield
from personal income and other types of taxes, pre
dicting the level of personal savings, forecasting Gross
National Product, and so on. Few economic statistics
are so versatile.
year per capita personal income in the United
States rose to $1,940, a $94 gain over 1955. Sound
impressive ? Depends on how you look at it. Historically,
it does look good. In only one other year— 1955— has
average personal income ever exceeded $1,800. Further
more, not once since the early part of the Korean War
has the increase been anything like as great as it was
last year! On the other hand, quite a few states have
considerably higher levels and much larger increases to
brag about.
L
a st
Nature and Importance of Personal Income
W h a t the Record Shows
. . . Per Capita and Total Income Levels
But what is personal income? It’s just about what
its name implies— the income people earn during some
period of time. Consequently, it encompasses many
kinds of income— some common types and some un
usual ones. Among those included are wages and
salaries, rents, the income of proprietors, pensions,
dividends and interest, and some nonmonetary income
such as the rental value of owner-occupied homes.
Personal income statistics, in addition to being in
teresting bits of information for almost anyone to toy
around with, are also quite useful. Probably they are
used most often as a means of comparing the economic
development of different states and regions. In such
comparisons income figures are essential, and there are
few other regional income statistics available.
In addition, personal income statistics— the only
“ national income” figures published monthly-—are often
used to forecast movements in personal consumption
expenditures since people tend to hold consumption
Per capita personal income levels during 1956 varied
all the way from $964 in the case of Mississippi up to
$2,858 for Delaware. A check with the cover chart
shows eight additional states scattered from New Eng
land to the Far West with per capita incomes over
$2,200. At the other end of the scale are eight states
besides Mississippi with average incomes of less than
$1,400. Regionally, the Far Western States (Cali
fornia, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) continue to
top the list with an average income of $2,312. The
Southeast— the twelve Southern states including Ken
tucky and West Virginia— still has the lowest regional
average ($1,368) despite impressive gains last year.
Here in the Fifth District, there is also a considerable
spread between states and the District of Columbia.
First place goes to the District of Columbia, which
ranks eighth within the country with $2,371. Mary
land is next with $2,102, followed by Virginia with
$1,647 and West Virginia with $1,420. North Caro
i
3
y
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
At the other end of the line, Nevada actually suffered a
lina averages $1,305, and South Carolina runs at a
small percentage decline and such diverse states as
$1,133 clip.
Mississippi, Kansas, and Michigan showed around 1%
New York has the highest total personal income of
increases.
any state— $38.8 billion— but California runs a close
second with $32.5 billion. As one might guess, Illinois,
The chart below illustrates how the rates of growth in
per capita income among Fifth District states last year
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Texas also rank
high relative to other states. Sparsely settled Nevada
split fairly evenly around the national increase of 5% .
holds claim to the low point on the scale— $596 million
West Virginia, of course, was way ahead, but Mary
— and Wyoming and Vermont have incomes only slight
land and Virginia incomes also grew more rapidly— by
ly more than $600 million. Only three other states—
around 6)4% . North Carolina racked up about a 4%
increase, and South Carolina and District of Columbia
Idaho and the Dakotas— have incomes of less than
$1 billion.
residents ended the year about 1)4% better off.
There were also striking differences among the rates
Virginia still has the highest personal income of any
Fifth District state— $6.0 billion. Maryland and North
of change in the total personal incomes of individual
states. Tiny Delaware grabbed first honors here, too,
Carolina are next in line with $5.9 billion and $5.8 bil
lion, respectively. Of the two smaller states, West
with more than a 14% rise. Arizona followed with al
most 12%, and several oth
Virginia has $2.8 billion
er states— Florida, Idaho,
and South Carolina has $2.7
West Virginia, and Louisi
billion. The tiny District of
QhIAN S IN PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME
Columbia comes last with
ana— were c l o s e on her
$2.1 billion.
heels with increases of 10%
Percentage
to 11%. Mississippi ranked
. . . Trends in Per
<* m m
last with only a negligible
Capita Income
r
+10
increase in personal income.
A glance at the roughly
Others with relatively slow
parallel state and Federal
growth rates were Arkan
per capita income trend
+6
sas, South Carolina, Kansas,
lines in the chart on page 3
+4
Nevada, and the District of
suggests s t r o n g l y that
Columbia, none of which
forces affecting the relative
+2
had increases as great as
levels of state per capita ino
4% .
comes operate very slowly.
r
Maryland and Virginia
Throughout the e n t i r e
both piled up impressive
twenty-seven year period,
9% gains— a couple of per
shifts in income levels of
centage points above that
District states have been so similar that there has been
for the country as a whole. North Carolina income rose
practically no change in the relative ranks of states.
6% — slightly less than the United States increase but
more than the growth in either the District of Colum
The District of Columbia has consistently led the
bia or South Carolina.
District with per capita income levels substantially above
those for the United States as a whole. Maryland, too,
. . . Sources of Income
has compiled an impressive record by earning slightly
Personal income-wise, the United States is still a
more than the national average for every year since
“ manufacturing” country. As indicated in the chart
1929. Virginia and West Virginia used to fight a nip
on the following page, manufacturing wages and salaries
and tuck battle for third place, but Virginia’s income
during 1956 alone contributed about a fourth of the
has run considerably ahead since 1949. North and
“ income pie”— by far the largest slice. And if it were
South Carolina income levels for most of the period have
possible to separate the manufacturing element from
been practically identical except that North Carolina
“ proprietors’ incomes” and “ other income” and add
figures have always been slightly higher.
these to manufacturing wages and salaries, manufac
. . . Recent Rates of Growth
turing’s contribution would appear much larger. In
During 1956 there was a tremendous divergence in
comparison, agriculture produced only a little above
the rates of growth in per capita income among the dif
4% of total personal income— less than it contributed
in either 1954 or 1955.
ferent states. Delaware, in addition to achieving the
country’s highest per capita personal income level, took
Wholesale and retail wages and salaries, proprietors’
first honors with a whopping 10.9% increase from
incomes, and property income (dividends, rent, and in
1955. Only a shade behind Delaware was West Virginia,
terest) each accounted for about an eighth of total per
which pushed its average up by an impressive 10.7%.
sonal income. Wage and salary disbursements of
{ 4 }>
October 1957
service industries yielded about one-sixteenth of the
total. Minor parts originated in transportation,
finance, mining, construction, and other industries and
from state, local, and Federal government spending.
Roughly, the same sorts of relationships exist for the
Fifth District as a whole, but there are important dis
tinctions between areas. The District of Columbia
quite naturally receives the bulk of its income— almost
a third— from Government wage and salary disburse
ments. It is also unusual in that it obtains over a
sixth of its income from property and almost a tenth
from “ service” wages and salaries.
Virginia and Maryland, too, depend heavily upon
Government wage and salary disbursements for their
income. Virginia receives a fifth of hers— the high
est percentage of any state— this way as compared
with only 15% from her next largest source— manu
facturing wages and salaries. Just the reverse is true
of Maryland; a fifth of her income comes from manu
facturing wages and salaries and about 15% from Gov
ernment wages and salaries.
West Virginia also obtains about a fifth of her per
sonal income from manufacturing, but the most un
usual aspect of West Virginia’s income pattern is the
15% that comes from mining wages and salaries. No
other sources account for particularly large blocks of
West Virginia income. In fact, wholesale and retail
wages and salaries— her next most important source—
contribute a smaller percentage than in any other Fifth
District state.
Both the Carolinas are manufacturing states, receiv
ing about a quarter of their personal incomes from
manufacturing wages and salaries. Both also obtain
large blocks of income in the form of proprietors’ in
come, largely that of farm owners. In all, agriculture
accounts for about an eighth of North Carolina personal
income and for about a twelfth of South Carolina per
sonal income.
6.6%
Property Income 11-9%
D IS T R IC T OF C O LU M B IA
V IR G IN IA
W EST
V IR G
What causes these wide differentials in state per
capita income levels? Persistent differences are due
largely to such slow-changing factors as the type of
natural resources, the location of the area, the educa
tion, temperament, and ethnic background of the popu
lation, the per cent of population having income, and
so on.
The more frequent variations in growth rates often
stem from rather transitory forces such as adverse
weather conditions, sudden changes in the competitive
positions of dominant industries, cancellation of public
expenditures, and the like. Last year, for example,
West Virginia’s impressive growth resulted largely
from a boom in the coal industry just as South Caro
lina’s slower progress was due primarily to the adverse
effects of weather upon farm income.
N O R TH
C A R O L IN A
Source U. S Deportment of Commerce.
«! 5 }>
Income 117%
Property Income 9.1%
SOUTH
Causes of Differences in Personal Income Levels
SOURCES OF PERSONAL INCOME
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
More tobacco is grown in Pitt County, North Caro
lina, than anywhere else in the nation, while farmers in
Southampton County, Virginia, are the biggest peanut
producers in the country. Similarly, there are more
turkeys raised in Rockingham County, Virginia, and
more turkey hens kept for breeding by Rockingham
County farmers than in any other county in the nation.
These and many other salient features of Fifth District
agriculture are revealed in a recently released Special
Report of the 1954 Census of Agriculture, entitled
“ Ranking Agricultural Counties.”
Agricultural resources and production are so impor
tant throughout the Fifth District that many of its coun
ties rank among the nation’s 100 leading agricultural
counties. They rank high nationally in many different
items— 45 to be exact— of inventory, acreage, and pro
duction. Many are also included among the country’s
top 100 counties for several— sometimes related, some
times different— farm activities. A single county, for
example, might be nationally ranked not only in the
acreage but also in the quantity of tobacco harvested.
This same county might also be among the nation’s topranking peanut-producing counties. See maps below.
Fifth District Agriculture—Crc
show that of the top 50 tobacco-producing counties in
the nation, 48 are located right here in the Fifth District.
With production of these commodities concentrated
over large areas of the District, it is not surprising that
nearly two-thirds of all tobacco produced in the United
States is grown in this five-state area. Nor is it sur
prising that more than a third of the nation’s peanuts,
a fifth of all broilers, and 15% of all turkeys are pro
duced here in the Fifth District. T o be more specific:
North Carolina leads the parade in the production of
tobacco. Stablemates South Carolina, Virginia, and
Maryland are currently running in third, fourth, and
eighth positions, respectively. North Carolina and V ir
ginia, in that order, occupy the number two and three
positions in the production of peanuts. The commer
cial broiler race finds North Carolina now in fourth
place, producing 7% of the nation’s broilers, followed
not too far behind in seventh and eighth places, respec
tively, by Maryland and Virginia. Virginia is also the
third leading state in the production of turkeys, being
surpassed only by California and Minnesota.
Space does not permit enumeration— graphically or
otherwise— of all the items of inventory, acreage, and
production in which Fifth District counties are ranked
nationally. Suffice it to say that the list is long and
includes such income producers as sweet potatoes, Irish
potatoes, apples, peaches, and many of the vegetables
harvested for sale— snap beans, cabbage, tomatoes, and
sweet corn.
High Rank for Crops and Poultry
How well some of the counties in this five-state area
“ stack up” with counties throughout the nation is clear
ly shown on the accompanying maps for they reflect at
a glance the most important producing areas in the Dis
trict for each commodity. The designated counties—
those in dark color— are included among the country’s
100 leading counties in production of the indicated
commodities. A map of the entire United States would
- i.
i
AREAS OF PRODUCTION
TH/I
r
'■* « # ::3
•
-:
Peanuts Harvested
t D r u i r» r l e \
M
7
■ A
Source: U. S Census of Agriculture: 1954.
.
*{ 6
y
/fo n M
fy $ &
October 1957
K 6 U JL
Rank High, But Livestock Lags
An important fact to remember is that inclusion
among the nation’s 100 leading agricultural counties
usually indicates that the county is an agricultural area
of commercial significance. Intensive production is
often manifest.
Livestock Lags
Any true perspective of the District’s agriculture
must include a look at the livestock side of the picture.
Though much progress has been made in expanding
livestock enterprises in recent years, District farmers
still cannot view their national standings in these fields
with high satisfaction. This, of course, excludes those
engaged in the broiler and turkey businesses. It also
excludes the dairy farmers of Frederick County, Mary
land, where the number of milk cows and both the
quantity and value of milk sold rate it as one of the
country’s leading dairy counties. With these exceptions,
no single county in the District concentrates sufficiently
on livestock production to place it among the nation’s
leaders.
A look at livestock numbers and liveweight of pro
duction on a statewide basis reveals that national rank
ings of most District states are far down on the totem
pole— this despite the fact that livestock and livestock
products (other than poultry) contribute nearly onefourth to the District’s total cash income from farming.
Actually, less than 5% of the nation’s hog, cattle, and
sheep populations are concentrated in this five-state
area. Interestingly, dairy cattle numbers provide each
of the five states with a higher national ranking than
do beef cattle, with Virginia ranking highest— eight
eenth in the inventory of milk cows and twenty-ninth
in the beef cattle count— in both. Hog numbers, on
the other hand, give each state (with the exception of
Virginia) higher ranking nationally than do either
dairy or beef cattle. North Carolina, with a far larger
hog population than her sister states, has the twelfth
largest hog raising business in the nation.
More Sales per Acre
The lack of intensive money-making livestock enter
prises throughout much of the District has a very real
meaning, particularly where the economic well-being of
a community or county depends heavily on the health
of the agricultural sector. Naturally District farmers
find themselves in different situations with respect
to the earning capacity of their farms. Wide variations
in size and type of farm, the kind of soils, topography,
and available capital are all influencing factors. But
the lack of intensive production per acre can, and often
does, mean the difference betwreen an adequate farm
incomewise and one that is inadequate because its owner
produces so little to sell.
More intensive use of farm land for the production
of livestock and the accompanying pasture and feed
crops necessary for such operations could be the means
for improving income per acre and, in turn, the income
of farm families. Such action could also result in the
District’s attaining a more important position in the
nation’s livestock economy.
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
Fifth District Industry
—
In Step With the Times
has leased the new 12,000 sq. ft. building erected by the
Dublin Development Company, Dublin, North Carolina,
and will roast and salt peanuts in the shell for whole
sale to outlets in mid-western states and other areas of
the nation.
Research stimulates progress . . .
The white-coated scientist in his laboratory, unravel
ing intricate problems through research, is becoming
an increasingly familiar figure in the practical world of
industry as businessmen are ever more aware of his
contributions to the improvement of existing products
and the development of new commodities. That this
trend toward utilization of research in industry is pres
ent in the Fifth District is evidenced by the announce
ment that Reynolds Metals Company plans to build
a $6 million research and office building in Henrico
County, Virginia, where packaging and metallurgical
laboratories already in Richmond will be housed. In
addition, a minimum of 750 sales staff employees will
be transferred from Louisville, Kentucky. Construc
tion of the research building will be started immediately,
and completion is expected by 1959. And Dan River
Mills, Danville, Virginia, will soon construct a new re
search and chemical manufacturing plant to be used in
part for expansion of the company’s long-established
research facilities and in part for the production of
various chemicals required in the company’s manufac
turing and finishing operations.
Union Carbide Corporation will build a major new
chemical plant near Winfield (Putnam County), West
Virginia. Planned as a major facility in the corpora
tion’s booming chemical network, the multi-million-dollar plant is scheduled to be in operation by 1960. The
plant will have an initial force of 500 workers.
United Fuel Gas Company has announced plans for
the construction of an $8 million hydrocarbon extrac
tion plant on a site adjacent to its Kenova Compressor
Station, Wayne County, West Virginia. The plant
will extract valuable petrochemical raw materials from
natural gas produced and purchased in West Virginia.
Construction will begin in December of this year and
is expected to be completed by December 1, 1958.
The Carling Brewing Company, Cleveland, Ohio,
has purchased a 40-acre tract in Baltimore County for
the construction of a multi-million-dollar plant to pro
duce both Black Label Beer and Red Cap Ale. The
plant will serve a seven-state area.
Other individual companies have made similar forays
into the world of science, but the first step toward a
prospective unification of industrial research labora
tories was taken recently by Karl Robbins, former
textile manufacturer and owner of the Robbins Mills
in Moore County, North Carolina, as he purchased
4,000 acres of land located in the center of North Caro
lina’s Research Triangle formed by Duke University,
State College, and the University of North Carolina,
with the hope that major industries will establish there
a small city of research laboratories. The area will be
developed into a “ research park” at an approximate cost
of $1,000,000. Mr. Robbins reports that a number of
industries have expressed keen interest in his idea of
encouraging industry to locate national and regional
research laboratories close by the valuable research re
sources available in the Research Triangle.
The West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company plans
to enter the grocery bag manufacturing field, with the
new enterprise to be located in a building adjacent to
the company’s Charleston, South Carolina, mill. Paper
for the operation will be made on the company’s recently
completed $20 million kraft paper machine at Charles
ton.
. . . as a dominant industry falters.
One cannot gainsay the importance of textile manu
facturing to Fifth District economy nor view with calm
detachment the adverse economic effect of recent de
pressed market conditions in that industry. Production
curtailment through a shortened workweek was effected
earlier in the year, but current reports indicate that
manufacturers’ sales are still inadequate to absorb
weekly production with the inevitable result that inven
tories accumulate and converters, certain that materials
are readily available for spot delivery, are showing little
interest in making forward commitments. Reports of
textile plant closings continue— among the most recent:
the Reeves Brothers plant at Rutherfordton, North Car
olina.
. . . and diversification proves a boon . . .
Types of manufacturing once alien to the District are
changing the industrial characteristics of the five-state
area and lending flexibility not present in a predomi
nantly single-industry economy.
The Glasspar Company of Santa Ana, California,
will locate a new plant to manufacture fiberglass boats
in Petersburg, Virginia. Employment will range be
tween 60 to 100 persons. Construction is underway,
and Fall completion is anticipated.
But even as market conditions remain unfavorable
and some plants suspend operation, others invest in new
machinery to replace that which has become obsolete—
Erwin Mills with the purchase of some $400,000 worth
Sachs Nut Company, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota,
(Continued on page 10)
-f 8
y
October 1957
/ fo flM lt/ $£6K£UJL
Business Conditions and Prospects
ped 4% from July to August; the August level was 4%
ahead of a year ago, or somewhat smaller than the
eight months’ increase of 6% . Deposits in Baltimore
mutual savings banks rose $769,000 between July and
August this year; last year they rose $1,140,000.
n f o r m a t i o n at hand as of September 27 reveals a
mixed picture in the business situation in the Fifth
District for August. Mixtures of good and bad were
shown in trade as well as in the textile industry.
The areas of relative strength include substantial re
coveries in bituminous coal output from the holiday
level; in sales of general merchandise as indicated in
department store sales, and in production in manufac
turing industries. In the last the rise from July was
on a broad front, but it was not quite as large a rise as
occurred last year between July and August; the dif
ference lay mainly in the durable goods industries.
Nondurables showed about the same rise this year as
last year.
Areas of deterioration were in over-all spending, as
indicated by a seasonally adjusted drop of 4% in bank
debits; in the building industry, as indicated by a drop
of 37% in building permits (seasonally adjusted) ; and
in some areas of retail trade. Smattering evidence in
dicates automobile sales to be lower in August than
July; retail furniture store sales and household ap
pliance sales were also down from the previous month.
Cash farm income began to show up adversely in
July after running ahead of a year ago in the first half
year. August usually shows a small rise in nonmanufac
turing employment from July, but this year there was
no change. Sales of life insurance in August rose 1%
on an adjusted basis from July, and time deposits in
the member banks rose $10 million compared with no
gain a year ago. Sales of Series E and H savings
bonds dropped 7% during the month, but redemptions
also fell by 5%. Business failures were down 17%
during the month after seasonal correction.
/
Manufacturing
Manufacturing activity in the Fifth District rose be
tween July and August, but the rise was somewhat
smaller than last year, and the August level (as repre
sented by man-hours) was slightly smaller than a year
ago. The July-August rise in nondurable goods indus
tries was the same as last year, but the durable goods
industries showed a smaller increase during the month
than was witnessed last year.
Industries showing a better rise this year between
July and August than last year include: the furniture
industry, most areas of the textile mill products in
dustry (with the exception of full-fashioned hosiery),
apparel, paper, chemicals, and lumber and wood prod
ucts. Industries showing poorer performance this year
than last year between July and August include: stone,
clay, and glass industries; primary metals; fabricated
metals; machinery; transportation equipment; food and
kindred products; and tobacco, including cigarettes.
Average daily (seasonally adjusted) cotton consump
tion in August rose 6% from July but was 3% under
August last year. The number of hours cotton spindles
were run on cottons was down 6% (after seasonal cor
rection) from July to August, but showed nearly the
same change as cotton consumption from a year ago—
down 4% . These differences in indications are not
explainable here, but the fact that employment in the
industry rose and the man-hour figures also rose is
pretty good evidence that the industry made some im
provement over the July level. On balance, it appears
that the industry may show a further production rise
between August and September, but conditions remain
spotty. Several mills have stepped up operations from
a four to a five-day week, while others have reduced
theirs from five to four. Mill inventories are heavy,
and forward coverage is not encouraged as a conse
quence. But this situation, too, is spotty. Some prod
ucts are in short supply, and operations are moving up.
Banking
Total loans and investments of member banks in the
Fifth District rose $2 million between July and August;
last year they rose $75 million; the year before, $42 mil
lion. Loans rose $19 million during the month compared
with a gain of $36 million last year and with $46 million
the year before. Security holdings dropped $17 million
from July to August; last year they rose $39 million;
the year before they dropped $4 million.
Total deposits of member banks in August were $5
million higher than in July; last year they rose $18
million in this period; and the year before, $49 million.
Time deposits were up $10 million between July and
August this year; last year they showed no change;
and the year before they were up $2 million. Gross
demand deposits dropped $5 million this year compared
with an increase of $18 million last year and $47 mil
lion in 1955. Borrowings of the members banks drop
ped $23 million between July and August; last year
they rose $32 million; and in 1955 they rose $24 million.
Seasonally adjusted bank debits in the District drop
Bituminous Coal
Average daily output of bituminous coal in the Fifth
District rose 30% in August over July. August was
4% larger than a year ago, and the eight months’ total
was up 4% .
Foreign cargo shipments from Fifth District ports in
four weeks of August were 7.7% smaller than a month
earlier and 1.1% under a year ago. This is still a good
level of exports but is less optimistic than earlier indi
cations. The year’s total through August 31 was 28.1%
higher than in the same period last year.
i
9
y
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
Coal movement from Fifth District ports to New
England and other coastal areas, as well as inside the
Capes, improved sharply between July and August but
ran moderately behind a year ago.
Domestic consumption in July was about the same
level as in June but 25% ahead of that month a year
ago when the steel strike was under way. Domestic
consumption in the first seven months was about 5%
smaller than a year ago.
The stockpile of coal on July 31 amounted to 75 mil
lion tons, a drop of 4% from the end of June, but about
3y 2 million tons or 5% higher than a year ago. The
prices of # 6 fuel oil have been falling, but thus far
their effect on coal has not been substantial.
Trade
Department store sales broke out on the upside of
the broad range in which they have been moving for
the past 12 months. The District’s sales index (sea
sonally adjusted) rose 4% over July and was 3% over
a year ago, bringing the eight months’ total 4% ahead
of last year. This sales performance was apparently
somewhat better than expected, for adjusted inven
tories dropped 2% during the month and show a gain
over a year ago somewhat less than that shown by sales.
Other selected areas of District trade, however, seem
to have softened between July and August. Retail furni
ture store sales (seasonally adjusted) were down 2%
during the month, but 1% higher than a year ago, which
brought the eight months’ total 3% under last year.
Household appliance sales (without seasonal correction)
usually rise between July and August, but this year they
declined 4% ; they were 7% under a year ago, but the
eight months’ total was up 3%>. Scattered figures on new
passenger automobile registrations over the District
point to a rather considerable decline between July and
August, but two states of the District show an im
provement in truck sales.
Agriculture
Cash income from farm marketings in July began to
reveal the impending status of the new crop season.
July income (seasonally above June) was 2% smaller
than a year ago, with the drop more than accounted for
in a loss of crop income. The seven months’ accumu
lation shows total income 2% above a year ago. This
gain will be short-lived when the effect of smaller mar
ketings from the sharply reduced 1957 crops is reflected
in cash receipts this Fall. A slight gain in the Septem
ber 1 crop estimate for burley tobacco, grain sorghum,
and peaches is indicated, but all other crops are down
and some down substantially. The important fluecured tobacco crop production is indicated to be down
34% and the cotton crop down 27%. The truck crops,
furthermore, were badly hit by drought, and this re
flection has been shown in substantially reduced cannery
operations.
On the basis of the September 1 crop estimate and
prices prevailing through September 20, there will be a
loss of $185 to $190 million in cash receipts from fluecured tobacco marketing this year as compared with last
year. The drop in the cotton crop of 27%, as indicated
on September 1, appears likely to cause a reduction of
between $35 and $40 million in cash receipts from this
product.
Building Permits
Building permits in 35 Fifth District cities during
August totaled $28.1 million, a drop of $20 million from
that month a year ago or 42%. Most of the drop
occurred in Baltimore, Maryland, but important de
creases are also noted in Norfolk, Richmond, Roanoke,
High Point, Raleigh, and Washington, D. C. The
August change over a year ago was not a one-way
proposition— only 14 cities showed declines in this
period while 21 showed increases. On a seasonally
adjusted basis, Fifth District permits were down 37%
from July to August, August was 41% under a year
ago, and the eight months’ total was down 4% .
Employment in contract construction industries in
four District states was 0.2% higher in August than
July, and August was 2.8% higher than a year ago,
with gains in the Virginias more than offsetting losses
in the Carolinas.
Fifth District Industry—In Step With The Times
(Continued from page 8)
of modern Versamatic drawing frames to be installed at
the Erwin and Durham, North Carolina, and the Stone
wall, Mississippi plants— and plan expansions such as
that by the Kent Manufacturing Company which will
increase production 60% at its Runnymede plant, Pick
ens, South Carolina, with the change-over from the
French to the American system.
Attention is focused, too, on announcements concern
ing new textile plants: a finishing and dyeing operation,
which will eventually employ 350 persons, to be in full
operation by January 1, 1958, in Lumberton, North
Carolina; Aileen Knitwear Company, New Market,
Virginia, now in operation and augmenting a plant
opened last Fall in Strasburg, Virginia; and— an allied
industry— Textile Machine & Supply Company, Inc.,
Gastonia, North Carolina, which was scheduled to go
into production late in August on a general line of tex
tile machinery parts. And the air age has invaded the
textile industry as Burlington Industries, Inc., has been
granted authority to set up a downtown helicopter port
atop the company’s office building in Greensboro, North
Carolina.
10 1-
/fo fiM jfy / ffaM & ujL
October 19 57
F if t h d is t r ic t s t a t is t ic a l d a t a
F U R N IT U R E SA L E S*
STATES
Maryland
Dist. o f Columbia
Virginia
W est V irgin ia _
North Carolina
South Carolina
D istrict
(Based on Dollar Value)
Percentage change with correspond
ing period a year ago
A u g. 1957
8 M os. 1957
— 4
+ 4
— 10
— 7
— 5
+ 1
+ 2
+ 1
— 1
+ 2
— 2
+ 3
_____
I N D I V I D U A L C IT IE S
Baltimore, M d.................... ...
W ashington, D. C. _______
Richmond, V a .............. .........
Charleston, W . V a . _______
Charlotte, N . C_____ ______
Greenville, S. C. _________
— 1
— 3
+ 4
— 10
+ 2
+24
+ 2
— 7
— 4
— 7
— 3
+ 10
+ 2
— 6
*Data from furniture departments o f department stores as well as
furniture stores.
W H O LESALE TRADE
Sales in
Au g. 1957
compared with
A u g.
July
1957
1956
— 3
+25
L IN E S
Auto supplies
___________
Electrical, electronic and
appliance goods _____
Hardware, plumbing, and
heating goods __
Machinery equipment sup
plies
D rugs, chemicals, allied
products _______________
D ry goods »„
Grocery, confectionery,
meats ________________
Paper and its products
Tobacco products ______
Miscellaneous ___________
District total
Stocks on
A u g. 31, 1957
compared with
July 31,
A u g . 31.
1956
1957
NA
NA
— 4
NA
NA
— 8
+
NA
NA
+
5
— 7
+
1
— 6
— 2
NA
— 2
NA
+ 15
NA
+ 3
NA
— 8
— 16
+ 6
— 2
— 10
+ 11
+12
+ 11
+ 6
+ 3
— 12
+ 1
NA
— 3
+ 12
+ 1
NA
+ 3
— 1
— 33
5
+
1
B U IL D IN G P E R M IT F IG U R E S
(37 Cities)
A u g .A u g .
8 Months
1957
1956
1957
8 Months
1956
Maryland
Baltimore _______ $ 4,261,090 $20,904,756 $ 46,697,315 $ 52,397,194
Cumberland _____
139,600
76,150
844,716
1,113,250
Frederick _______
277,647
54,460
1,372,632
3,856,220
H agerstow n ____
190,790
120,145
5,707,286
926,655
Salisbury ________
82,495
64,317
906,327
1,346,322
Virginia
5,739,296
Danville __________
270,690
569,377
4,391,398
5,392,791
Ham pton _______
427,187
423,569
10,644,794
Hopewell _______
136,735
96,140
2,160,673
1,600,797
Lynchburg ______
458,115
601,020
6,237,614
7,276,575
N ew port New s ..
213,269
143,553
1,838,771
1,448,048
N orfolk __________
913,381
1,276,290
6,791,312
18,703,183
136,000
324,900
1,930,964
Petersburg ______
2.346.950
P o rtsm o u th ______
538,532
269,185
2,383,406
3,776,269
894,800
1,569,213
25,070,092
19,342,072
Richmond _______
Roanoke ________
1,077,446
2,030,775
8,879,548
15,873,362
Staunton ________
782,965
245,551
2,008,976
2,030,890
W arw ick _______ 1,291,650
644,802
7,018,895
5,394,597
W inchester* ___
247,932
NA
1,354,258
NA
W est Virginia
6,341,410
Charleston ______
466,903
864,206
6,092,086
1,421,998
Clarksburg ______
218,499
82,825
1,264,988
3,471,535
626,800
562,170
3,375,821
H untington ____
North Carolina
Asheville ________
4,904,305
270,740
211,200
2,358,556
20,821,879
Charlotte _______ 2,251,911
1,203,174
13,798,617
Durham _________
484,879
497,152
6,316,284
6,158,940
4.213.950
Gastonia ________
653,275
296,750
4,774,550
11,386,963
Greensboro _______ 1,173,388 1,128,371
9,495,659
5,235,530
H igh P o i n t ______
322,349
1,592,441
3,498,366
Raleigh __________
608,011
3,020,957
9,457,587
10,927,557
2,458,022
Rocky Mount ___
209,124
321,500
4,870,891
Salisbury _______
375,675
87,250
1,774,553
1,527,350
3,292,053
W ilson ___________
258,800
113,400
1,531,560
11,601,560
W inston-Salem .. 2,426,975
2,409,302
13,379,631
South Carolina
Charleston ___________ N A
179,528
NA
2,493,016
Columbia _______ 1,226,272
540,785
10,414,758
7,174,924
Greenville _______
369,400
349,609
3,679,797
4,494,050
Spartanburg ____
273,949
532,524
2,946,848
3,762,489
Dist. of Columbia
W ashington ____
3,813,555
4,689,528
49,672,179
37,948,917
District Totals ___ $28,122,897 $48,096,875 $283,587,450
$298,200,919
* N ot included in District totals.
N A N ot available.
N o te : Au gust 1957 figures for D istrict not comparable w ith last year
because Charleston, S. C. figures are not available.
N A N ot available.
Source: Bureau o f the Census, Departm ent o f Commerce.
D E P A R T M E N T S T O R E O P E R A T IO N S
(Figures show percentage changes)
Rich.
Sales, A u g . ’57 vs A u g . ’56
W ash .
Balt.
Other
Cities
+
1
+ 12
Sales, 8 M os. ending A u g . 31,
’57, vs 8 Mos. ending A u g.
31, ’56 _____________________
--
2
+ 10
+
5
+
3
+
4
Stocks, A u g. 31, ’57 vs ’56 -
0
+
9
— 3
-
2
+
1
4
+
6
-1 3
+
4
— 4
Outstanding Orders,
A u g. 31, ’57 vs ’56 -----------
--
+
7
+
6
+
6
A ug.
1957
Open account receivables A u g.
1, collected in A u g . ’57 —
32.9
49.3
43.8
36.8
42.6
Instalm ent receivables A u g. 1,
collected in A u g. ’57 -------
10.8
13.5
12.4
16.4
13.0
D .C .
Va.
W .V a .
N .C .
+
+
+ 10
0
Md.
Sales, A u g . ’ 57 vs A u g.
’ 56 ......................................
+12
F IF T H D IS T R IC T I N D E X E S
Seasonally A djusted: 1947-1949 = 100
Dist.
Totals
7
4
S.C.
+
5
N ew passenger car registra
tion* ______ ____________________
Bank debits „
____ _____
Bituminous coal production* _
Business failures— number
Cigarette production _ . _ ___
Cotton spindle hours ...................
Departm ent store sales . ..
M anufacturing employment* ..
Furniture store sales ____ _____
Life insurance sales ___________
* N ot seasonally adjusted.
r Revised.
< ii y
196
112
238
113
150
122
278
July
1957
A u g.
1956
157
204
87r
286
116
120
144
111
125
274
164
188
108r
298
105
118
145
115r
121
230
%
Chg.—
Latest Mo.
Prev.
Yr.
Mo.
Ago
+ 5
— 4
+29
— 17
+ 10
— 6
+ 4
— 1
— 2
+ 1
—
1
+ 4
+ 4
—20
+10
— 4
+ 3
+ 2
+ 1
+21
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
F if t h
D E B IT S TO
D is t r ic t B a n k in g
D E M A N D D E P O S IT A C C O U N T S *
(000 omitted)
A u g.
1957
Dist. of Columbia
W ashington __ ____ $1,584,349
Maryland
Baltimore ___ _____ 1,813,524
Cumberland _______
29,827
Frederick _________
25,893
Hagerstow n _______
42,181
Salisbury _________
38,273
Total 5 C i t i e s __. 1,949,698
North Carolina
Asheville
_________
96,800
Charlotte ............. __.
445,373
Durham
_____ __
97,643
Greensboro _______
178,267
H igh Point _______
55,512
Kinston ____________
37,648
Raleigh
.............. .
256,037
W ilm ington _______
59,332
W ilson ......................
41,592
W inston-Salem
196,029
Total 10 Cities ... 1,464,233
South Carolina
106,914
Charleston ________
Columbia ______
204,846
Greenville _________
151,144
Spartanburg ___ _.
78,886
Total 4 Cities __
541,790
Virginia
Charlottesville
46,637
Danville
________
54,622
Lynchburg ________
58,272
N ew port News
63,321
332,106
N orfolk _. ________
29,493
Petersburg ________
Portsmouth _______
37,738
831,819
Richmond _________
Roanoke
172,495
Total 9 C i t i e s __. 1,626,503
W est Virginia
60,809
Bluefield __________
Charleston ________
208,722
Clarksburg ________
44,745
H untington _______
91,700
Parkersburg _____
42,001
Total 5 Cities __
447,977
District Totals _____ -$7,614,550
W E E K L Y R E P O R T IN G M E M B E R B A N K S
(000 omitted)
A u g.
1956
8 Months
1957
8 Months
1956
$1,484,083
$12,536,066
$11,969,613
Change in A m ount from
Sept. 11,
1,788,180
29,751
26,285
42,260r
37,715
l,924,191r
15,038,414
239,270
220,291
369,683
305,720
16,173,378
13,955,063
224,222
207,693
355,896r
291,851
15,034,725r
78,102
444,882
103,221
168,851
56,689
31,468
242,023
57,762
31,015
207,853
1,421,866
645,669
3,592,541
742,620
1,446,729
458,742
205,971
2,039,923
442,462
195,539
1,554,946
11,325,142
587,878
3,533,028
706,636
1,300,655
441,976
187,174
1,881,881
432,114
177,646
1,538,362
10,787,350
92,220
196,577
143,077
75,560
507,434
824,467
1,678,948
1,192,854
572,986
4,269,255
738,063
1,563,402
1,141,077
565,176
4,007,718
39,856
45,402
63,024
61,667
325,410
26,320
37,810
794,822
158,039
1,552,350
350,031
374,333
493,369
511,872
2,669,655
220,409
315,080
6,188,653
1,312,243
12,435,645
309,402
340,958
492,729
501,459
2,505,075
227,905
302,198
5,670,185
1,236,938
11,586,849
Item s
Total Loans
60,715
494,512
1,573,410
189,899
40,218
344,249
81,672
738,379
38,415
315,100
3,465,650
410,919
$7,300,843r $60,205,136
456,258
1,452,485
324,012
681,133
294,877
3,208,765
$56,595,02 Or
A u g. 14,
1957
___ ____ ______ _ _ $1,962,224**
Bus. & A g ric____ ___________ ____
Real Estate Loans ____________
A ll Other Loans ______ _ - ___
Total Security Holdings
919,657
343,763
731,140
________ 1,531,539
i
Sept. 12,
1957
1956
+
45,994
+ 1 0 7 ,2 6 3
+
+
+
25,559
3,260
17,305
+
+
+
61,822
6,051
45,330
—
15,557
—
95,906
U . S. Treasury Bills ___________
53,952
—
5,687
+
4,952
U . S. Treasury C ertifica tes__
104,926
—
8,877
U . S. Treasury N otes
U . S. Treasury Bonds
__ ____
________
149,126
957,732
—
—
3,402
424
+ 50,218
— 138,553
— 13,523
Other Bonds, Stocks & Secur.
265,803
+
2,833
+
890
Cash Items in Process of Col. ..
383,848
+
2,796
—
13,908
Due from Banks ................................
186,995*
+
4,616
—
Currency and Coin _______________
87,601
+
4,397
+
3,535
Reserve with F . R . Banks _____
Other Assets _____________________
541,384
80,489
+
+
17,439
1,077
+
+
12,210
6,311
Total Assets ___ _______________ $4,774,080
+
60,762
+
14,925
Deposits of Banks ________ __
Certified & Officers’ Checks „
Total Tim e Deposits __________
Deposits o f Individuals ______
Other Tim e Deposits ________
4,580
_
545,296*
53,431
+ 34,491
— 5,271
41,728
27,297
— 41,053
+ 24,658
2,056
+
92
—
803,139
753,379
49,760
6,755
5,307
1,448
+ 39,748
+ 62,244
— 22,496
5,758
—
2,981
+
Total Demand Deposits ________ 3,513,678
Deposits o f Individuals ______ 2,657,800
54,271
Deposits o f U . S. Government
202,880
Deposits of State & Local Gov.
+ 54,075
+ 42,043
— 12,874
— 4,314
—
Liabilities for Borrowed Money
37,600
+
+
+
—
A ll Other Liabilities ____________
64,778
+
Capital Accounts .............. ...............
354,885
+
2,709
+
14,555
Total Liabilities ______________ $4,774,080
+
60,762
+
14,925
* N et figures, reciprocal balances being eliminated.
** Less losses for bad debts.
* Interbank and TJ. S. Government accounts excluded,
r Revised.
s t a t is t ic s
12 f
8,000
10,350
@FedFRASER