View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

A M Iu Review
Atlanta, Georgia
April • 1958

A ls o i n
I

t h is is s u e :

FARMERS USE
MORE CASH
VARIATIONS IN
UNEMPLOYMENT
DISTRICT BUSINESS
HIGHLIGHTS
SIXTH DISTRICT
STATISTICS
SIXTH DISTRICT
INDEXES

District Bank Lending Still High
JJ/CONOM IC ACTIVITY has slackened less in the Sixth District than
it has throughout the nation. Total employment here, for example, is
only slightly below the advanced level of mid-1957, whereas it has
fallen more sharply in the remainder of the country. Unemployment has
risen somewhat in the District during the last few months, but it is still a
smaller proportion of the labor force than it is in the nation.
As businesses cut down on inventories and reduce operations, they
usually need less credit. The demand for bank credit, measured by loans
outstanding at commercial banks, therefore, is a general indicator of
business activity. Reflecting the business downturn in the nation, bank
loans did not rise as much during the fall of 1957 as they usually do,
and declines this year have been larger than seasonal. Most of the weak­
ness has been in business loans, principally those to sales finance, public
utilities, and metals manufacturers.
Loan volume at District banks suggests that business activity here is
holding up well. Loans at banks insured by the Federal Deposit In­
surance Corporation, which comprise over 99 percent of loans at all
banks, increased steadily last year, and the decline so far in 1958 has
been little more than usual for this time of year.
Most of the strength in total loans in the District is centered in banks
outside larger cities, where customers have increased their borrowings
sharply in recent months; they have not yet shown any indication of
needing less credit. Some signs of weakness, however, are evident at
banks in larger cities; loans there during January and February declined
more than during any similar period in recent years.
Loans increased more sharply at banks in smaller cities than in

Loans at District Banks

ffid era f
l^setve
IB a n k o

f




larger cities during 1956 and 1957. This probably re­
flected the greater lending capacity of smaller banks,
which arose from an inflow of deposits, both from banks
within and outside the District.
Business customers of banks in leading cities have
brought about most of the recent downturn in loans. A
drop off in business borrowing in the first two months of
1958 brought the total outstanding below the year-ago
point for the first time since before World War II. In ad­
dition, loans to purchase and carry securities declined
sharply in February after remaining stable during most
of 1957. Consumers, however, increased their borrowings
in late 1957 and reduced them about seasonally so far
in 1958.
An examination of changes in business loans by in­
dustry reveals that sales finance companies have made
much larger repayments of bank loans so far this year than
they did in the like period of 1957. A decline in loans
to these companies has accounted for almost half of the
drop in total business loans. Some of this decline reflects
a smaller need for credit because of lower automobile

sales. It is also likely, however, that sales finance com­
panies are repaying loans with the proceeds of sales of
paper in the open market. Similarly, public utilities have
likely repaid bank loans with proceeds from security sales.
Food, liquor, and tobacco manufacturers have also re­
duced their borrowing somewhat this year. In addition,
“miscellaneous industries,” which include lumber, wood
products, and furniture manufacturers have reduced
their bank indebtedness appreciably. Textile manufac­
turers, on the other hand, have used more bank credit
this year than last, and construction firms have borrowed
more, whereas they made net repayments last year.
The decline in loans at banks in large cities probably
reflects some weakening in business activity in the District.
Part of the loan decrease, however, may have come about
as borrowers obtained credit from sources other than
banks. The strength in loans at all District banks, more­
over, suggests that business activity has held up better in
the District than it has throughout the nation.
W. M.

D a v is

Farmers Use More Cash
Radical changes occurring virtually overnight on farms
in District states have made farmers step up their use
of capital. Only eighteen years ago, for example, mule
power drove the region’s farm plant. Now it is powered
largely by engines; there are about 450,000 tractors in
use on the 540,000 commercial farms. Eighteen years ago
there were 6.5 million people on our farms; now there
are 4.0 million; farmers, therefore, use labor less freely.
On some commercial cotton farms in the Piedmont of
Georgia and Alabama, farmers used 5,130 hours of labor
for farming in 1940, but only 3,980 hours in 1956. Be­
cause farmers had less labor available they had to make
it more productive. Finally, the average District farm be­
came larger in the eighteen-year period—62 percent
larger. Some farmers enlarged their units by buying or
Farm Production Expenses
Sixth District States
1949-56




renting from others who released land; in this way they |
shifted to engine power more economically than they
could have otherwise.
These events led to greater capital needs, which in turn
caused financial problems. Farmers required more funds
to buy assets like machinery, livestock, poultry, and build­
ings and to operate their farms. At the same time their
economic risks increased because they had more fixed
and operating capital invested and their costs rose. Farm- |
ers’ need for more capital and the new structure of costs
they are having to cope with are significant for two rea­
sons: They are seeking more funds from those providing
capital, and their response to the new cost structure is
causing some important changes in our region’s farm
economy.

Gretiter Capital Investment
When farmers substituted engine power for mule power
they put much more capital into their businesses. Invest­
ment per farm operator in District states averaged about
3,500 dollars in 1940, according to the Sixth District Bal­
ance Sheet of Agriculture. By 1955, the investment aver­
aged about 15,000 dollars. When the influence of rising
prices is removed, the investments totaled 2,822 dollars
and 5,338 dollars for 1940 and 1955, respectively. Fann­
ers also invested more capital by committing more of their
gross incomes for farm production. Outlays for production
in 1957, for example, equaled 80 percent of gross receipts
from marketings. Eight years earlier the proportion w
as
69 percent. This change came partly because farmers use
more operating supplies. Between 1945 and 1956, for
example, farmers on peanut-cotton farms in Georgia s an
Alabama’s southern coastal plains increased their tot
physical inputs for production by 45 percent.
Farmers were responding to economic forces when they

Distribution of Physical Inputs for Production
Farms in Selected Areas of the Southeast
1947-49 and 1956
(Percent)

Physical Inputs

Land and
buildings . .
Farm machinery
Other capital .

PeanutC otton Farms
. Cotton Farms,
Delta
Southern
___ Sou. Coastal
Piedm ont Sm all Farms Large Farms
Plains
191,7-1,9 1956 194T-i9 1956 191,7-1,9 1956 191,7-1,9 1956

J6
15
3

12
21 15
2 _2

J7

23
Family labor .
Hired labor . .
Purchased feed,
livestock, seed
Other goods and
and services .
Total

25
17

JJ7

20

34
18

15

10

_n

33

14

_35
24
7

_16
4
51

2 _2

21

10

23

14
_3

_25
5
28

J7

23
_3
26
31

i!
_2

40
7

6

10
11
16
13
21
16
17
18
_n
66 60 71 55 73 62 72 64
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: “Farm Costs and Returns, Commercial Family-Operated Farms by
Type and Location, 1956,” USDA, June 1957.

pumped this new capital into their farm units. War-born
needs for food and fiber in recent years impelled many
farmers to increase their capital investments. During the
Korean War, for example, farmers in Louisiana’s rice belt
planted new rice land to provide rice for Asian customers.
Also farmers used more capital on their farms because
returns on it were high. In parts of the southeast in 1949,
net income for family labor and capital used ranged from
10 to 20 percent of each dollar invested in the business,
according to research by the United States Department of
Agriculture. Returns were near the high end of the scale
for farmers who had little capital invested and who were
using family labor extensively. With labor thus under­
employed, its productivity was low and that of the capital
in use was high. Many farmers decided it would be profit­
able to use more capital and raise the output of their labor.
Capital investments in District farms also grew rapidly
after 1952 because farmers were troubled by an adverse
price-cost relationship; the prices they received for their
products declined, whereas those they paid rose higher
and higher. Caught in that vise, they used more funds to
raise output and reduce unit costs. Finally, because farm­
ers used more engine power, their operating costs became
a larger part of their total costs. They had to meet that
new cost structure by injecting more capital into their
businesses.

finished product. Nevertheless, capital investments have
helped District farmers lift output per man-hour for
all livestock products by about a fifth since 1949.
Although farmers realized greater efficiencies in pro­
duction by using more capital, they also incurred more
economic risks. They need large incomes to protect their
heavy investments in their physical plant; if their income
fails, as when drought cuts yields, it quickly creates a
financial strain for them. Also, farmers’ total costs are
higher and the pattern of costs is different. Thus they
quickly suffer losses from declining prices for their products.

New Structure of Costs
Costs bulk larger in District farmers’ plans for production
than ever before. For one thing they must plan on heavy
expenditures to operate their businesses; total outlays for
farm production grew 44 percent between 1949 and 1956.
Three-fourths of these total costs stem from purchases of
items used in current operations; depreciation charges add
16 percent, taxes 3 percent, rent to nonfarm landlords 3
percent, and interest on farm mortgage debt 2 percent.
Out-of-pocket costs are largely for feed, labor, and repairs
and operation of capital items.
Although operating expenses are still rising, the in­
crease has slowed since 1951. Depreciation and interest
costs are showing the greatest growth. This is seen clearly
when farm expenses are related to cash receipts from
marketings; current operating expenses, for example, soak
up half of farmers’ cash receipts but when depreciation
and interest are added, the total soaks up 80 percent of
receipts. On commercial cotton farms in Georgia’s and
Alabama’s Piedmont and in the Delta of Louisiana and
Mississippi, the proportion is 70 percent.
Other changes in costs joined with the rise in deprecia­
tion. Feed costs have a larger role on many District farms.
With livestock and poultry production up in recent years,
Production Expenses of Farm Operators
Selected Items
Sixth District, 1949-56

Effects of Investment
One of the most important results of the increased capital
investments was higher output per worker. Production per
hour of man labor on peanut-cotton farms in the southern
coastal plains, for example, rose 48 percent between 1949
and 1956. A 91-percent gain was achieved in the period
°n large cotton farms in the Delta of Louisiana and
Mississippi. Meanwhile costs per unit of production on
these farms declined or held stable. Output increased most
on crop farms, where engine power is quickly and readily
translated into larger yields per acre. Use of more capital
less effective in raising the man-hour output for live­
stock; the production cycle is slower for some livestock
Products; also, engine power is further removed from the



•3 •

Distribution of Farm Cash Expenses
Sixth District States
1949 and 1956_____________________ __________
1949__________ 1956

Item

________Percent of Total

Current operating expenses
. . . .
Feed p u rch ased .........................................
Livestock p u r c h a s e d .............................
Seed p u rch a sed ........................................
Fertilizer and l i m e .............................
Repairs and operation o f capital items
M is c e ll a n e o u s .........................................
Hired l a b o r ..............................................
T o t a l ....................................................
Depreciation and other consumption of
farm c a p it a l..............................................
Taxes on farm p rop erty.............................
Interest on farm mortgage debt . . .
N et rent to nonfarm landlords . . .
Total production e x p e n se s .......................
Am ount (000,000 dollars) . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .

.
79
.
16
.
4
.
5
.
17
.
19
.
14
____25

. .
.
.

100

. .
. .
.

.

100

13
3
1

.
.
.

76
21
5
3
16
20
15
___ 20

16
3

2

4

3

100

100

1,544

2,218

Source: “Production Expenses of Farm Operators by States,” and “The Farm
Income Situation,” AMS, USDA.

21 cents of farmers’ current expense dollar goes for feed;
in 1949 feed took 16 cents of it. Machinery costs have
become more important in total costs on most farms since
1949. Labor costs, however, now have a lesser place.
Family and hired labor used on Piedmont cotton farms,
for example, declined from 52 percent of all costs in the
1 9 4 7 -4 9 period to 31 percent in 1956. Farmers now pay
out 20 cents of their current expense dollar for labor,
compared with 25 cents in 1949.
Farmers find this new cost structure troublesome and
difficult to combat. In past years their major variable cost
was labor. They rolled with the punch from lower prices
by taking less pay for their labor; sometimes they con­
tinued producing for awhile even though prices for their
products fell drastically. With labor now less important
in their costs, however, they cannot as readily absorb
lower prices. Also, the feeds, fuel, fertilizer, poisons, and
other items farmers are using more heavily are rigid cost
items. They must be used to gain high yields, yet once
farmers commit them for production they become sunk
or fixed costs. A new firmness exists in farm costs because
irrevocable cost items have a larger place in farming.
Farmers, therefore, have higher and more inflexible break­
even points. Many small cotton farmers and other farmers
with small units find the new costs especially worrisome
because they cannot effectively use more capital to raise
their output.

Farmers Seek Additional Capital
Farmers can prosper only as they earn larger returns for
their labor. Not only must they further enlarge their farm
units by adding land, livestock, and the like, they must
continue spending heavily for current operations to main­
tain their yields. Thus they need adequate working capital.
Some farmers obtain working capital within their own
businesses; they set up reserves for depreciation or they
commit more of their gross receipts for current farm
expenses. Some adjust their spending for farm and home



items; they maintain their outlays for production but
forego new television sets, radios, stoves, automobiles, and
the like.
Many farmers are asking for more operating funds
from off-farm sources, especially from commercial lenders.
Bankers find District farmers demanding larger operating
loans. Farm production loans made to cotton farmers by
banks in 1956 averaged 772 dollars in size, up 162 per­
cent from the average in 1947. Furthermore, farmers are
seeking longer terms on the larger amounts they are
borrowing.
Commercial lenders do not supply all the credit farm­
ers use because the risks on individual loans frequently
are very great. The risks sometimes stem directly from
the new cost structure; large cash costs, for example, in­
crease the risk of loss from crop failures or declines in
prices. These risks are pushing some farmers to seek
operating capital from merchants like feed and fertilizer
dealers and manufacturers. In these cases, farmers often
enter production contracts with the suppliers that transfer
risks of lower prices, death losses, faulty management
decisions, and the like to them.
Broiler growers are successfully adopting that tech­
nique. Their variable costs per pound of broiler, that are
mainly for feed and chicks, are a large part of their total
costs and also bulk large against the price of broilers.
Thus a dip in broiler prices may quickly cause a loss.
Broiler producers fear that. Even though some of them
have some financial resources to absorb losses from de­
clining prices they do not relish taking the risk. They
often prefer to produce broilers for feed dealers, manu­
facturers, and others on contract and to use operating
capital supplied by such firms. Other broiler growers having surplus labor but little or no funds also obtain work­
ing capital from feed firms under contract and thereby
raise their labor productivity.

,

,

j
j

Looking Ahead

Lenders serving the District’s farm economy are certainly
helping to build its potential. Farmers needing both fixed
and operating capital, of course, depend upon them for
financial aid. High variable costs and fluctuating prices
may induce growers to obtain funds for their o p e ra tio n s
by producing in an integrated program. Broiler producers
have already done this effectively. Some hog growers, egg
producers, and cattle feeders with surplus labor and skill
at husbandry may seek funds that way. Crop f a r m e r s too
need more operating and other capital. They will accumu­
late some themselves; banks will supply some; and busi­
ness firms will supply some. Thus present-day c o s ts in
farming will cause some changes in our traditional farm
businesses.
Fortunately changes in our farm economy, taken
broadly, are more easily made than in some other regionsFarmers here are not as limited b y climatic c o n d itio n s,
soils, and markets. The District’s f a v o r a b l e e n v i r o n m e n t for
farming makes necessary adjustments easier and assures
our farm economy a better future. As farmers’ n e e d s for
capital are satisfied, the pace toward that better future is j
t) U ic k e n e d '

ARTHUR

•

4

•

H.

KANTN EK

|

V

a r i a t i o n s

i n

About 92 out of every 100 men and women in the nation’s
labor force are employed although some are working
fewer hours per week than they were last year. The other
eight are currently unemployed.
We can always expect some unemployment in our econ­
omy: there are always some people who are changing
jobs; there are always seasonal layoffs of one kind or an­
other; then there is a younger group who are looking
for their first job. Recently, however, unemployment has
risen sharply and is much higher than it has been for
several years. The February rate of 7.7 percent, for ex­
ample, compares with 4.7 percent during the same month
of last year, and with an annual average of 3.9 percent in
both 1956 and 1957.
These national figures on total unemployment do not
show which areas have been affected most. In the absence
of comparable data for individual states, however, we can
discover something of what is happening in each state
by using data on insured unemployment. The figures on
insured unemployment tell us the number of people receiv­
ing unemployment checks under the various state unem­
ployment insurance programs. When expressed as a per­
centage of the total number covered by the insurance pro­
grams, this number tells us the “rate” of insured unem­
ployment. It is preferable to use this rate in analyzing
increases in unemployment rather than the number of
unemployed receiving checks, since an increase in that
number may merely reflect greater coverage under the in­
surance programs.
It must be remembered, however, that only about twothirds of the total labor force is covered by these pro­
grams, and therefore figures on insured unemployment
may not be strictly representative of changes in total em­
ployment. Generally speaking, they change more sharply
than the total, for they are more heavily weighted by the
manufacturing sector which is subject to wide swings in
employment as business conditions change.
Rate of Insured Unemployment
Sixth District States and United States
1955-58




U

n e m

p l o y m

e n t

Rate of Insured Unemployment
Sixth District States
February, 1957 and 1958
Percent

Percent

—1
0

---- 0
FLA

LA

GA.

ALA

M IS S .

TEN N

Recently, insured unemployment has increased sharply
in the District and in the entire country. Historical data
show that insured unemployment usually rises during the
first part of the year, but not as much as it has this year.
The rate of insured unemployment in the Sixth District
states was 6.7 percent in February, about half again as
much as that of a year earlier. Since changes in this rate
tend to be greater than changes in total unemployment,
however, the overall situation is probably somewhat less
serious than is indicated by this sharp rise.
District businessmen can also take some comfort from
the fact that the rate of insured unemployment has in­
creased considerably less in this region than it has in the
country. The steeper climb in other areas was sufficient
to reverse the positions of the lines in the accompanying
chart showing insured unemployment in this District and
in the United States. Throughout most of the last three
years, the District rate of unemployment was above the
national rate. Since last November, however, conditions
have been reversed.
Why should unemployment increase less in this Dis­
trict? Largely because workers here do not depend as
heavily on the types of industry suffering the sharpest
declines in employment. Take the declines between Sep­
tember 1957 and January 1958: Nearly 60 percent of the
national decline in the number of factory production
workers was concentrated in three lines—primary metals,
fabricated metals, and machinery. These three industries
accounted for about 30 percent of the total number of
production workers throughout the nation. By compari­
son, such industries in the Sixth District provide jobs to
only about 14 percent of all factory workers.
Just as this District’s picture of unemployment differs
from the national one, the picture in each District state
differs from that of the District. The overall picture in
the area, in fact, hides some rather striking differences
among the states, as the accompanying bar chart shows.
At one extreme, we find Mississippi and Tennessee, where
•5 •

the number of people receiving unemployment benefits in
February of this year was over 10 percent of the total cov­
ered by the unemployment insurance programs. Florida,
at the other extreme, enjoys the most favorable situation,
with the unemployment rate at 3.6 percent. Even among
the other three states, there is still considerable variation:
4.8 percent in Louisiana, 6.0 percent in Georgia, and 8.3
percent in Alabama.
Recalling that national declines in business activity have
been most severe in heavy industries, we are not surprised
to find that between February 1957 and February 1958
the sharpest unemployment increases occurred in Ala­
bama, our most heavily industrialized state. Florida’s un­
employment is also up sharply from a year ago, largely
because of more layoffs among construction workers.
Mississippi and Tennessee have shown the smallest in­
creases. These increases, however, have simply com­
pounded prior weaknesses that have kept unemployment
there substantially above other District states for a long
time.
P h i l i p M. W e b s t e r

Bank Announcement
The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta is pleased to
welcome to membership in the Federal Reserve System
on March 17, the National Bank of Newport, Newport,
Tennessee. Officers of the bank are Charles T. Rhyne,
Chairman and President; B. H. Ray, Vice President;
George B. Nye, Cashier; and T. /. Magill, Assistant
Cashier. It has capital stock of $200,000 and surplus
of $67,500.

Department Store Sales and Inventories*
_____________ Percent Change______________
Sales
Inventories
Feb. 1958 from 2 monthsFeb. 28,1958 from
Jan.
Feb. 1958 from
Jan. 31,
Feb. 28
Place_________________________ 1958
1957
1957
1958
1957
A L A B A M A ............................
—6
-— 10
Birm ingham ........................ —6
— 10
M obile............................... — 9
—8
Montgomery........................ — 9
— 10
— 9
—5
FLO RID A ...............................
Daytona B e a c h .....................
+9
—8
Jacksonville........................ — 17
— 10
Miami A r e a ........................
—5
+0
M ia m i............................
—3
—.3
O r la n d o ............................—11
— n
St. Petersburg-Tampa Area . . . — 12
—6
St. Petersburg................. —6
— 16
Tam pa........................... — 17
+6
GEORGIA
............................
—9
—7
........................ - 1 2
Atlanta**
A u g u s ta ...........................
-A
— 12
Columbus...........................
4-0
_5
M acon............................... —1
____ q
R o m e * * .....................i i - 1 6
-2 6
Savannah........................... ....... 3
_9
LO U ISIA N A ........................... - 1 0
-1 1
Baton Rouge........................ - 1 1
_ n
New Orleans........................ —9
_ i0
M IS S IS S IP P I........................ - 1 2
— 12
—13
J a c k so n ........................... —15
M e rid ia n **.....................i
_8
_ lo
T E N N E S S E E ........................ - 1 2
_ i3
Bristol (Tenn. & Va.)** . . . . —11
_14
Bristol-Kingsport-Johnson City** . —10
—20
Chattanooga........................ ......13
__10
Knoxville.................................
-1 5
D IS T R IC T ................. ...
-9
-8

—6
__ 7

—5

__ 7
— 2
__ 4
__ 5

4-3
_2

10
+11
__ 4

4.5
x is

+4
4I 3
Is

__g
__0

— i
”

1 22

_Lo

7
4I 3
“
_____ ,

Z i
+
__2
__o
g

—la
T"2

— 8

+12
q______ £

—7
__g
It

—9

.

+8

+9

”
+|
I?

-3

f

+

~ 3

JL

"
T ?
iS

—14
3

.t S
T in
'

-1 0
-5

+8
+8

♦Reporting stores account for over 90 percent of totalDistrict
i°.,Ferm.it Publicatjon of figures for this city, a
»
ISknot confin*d exclusively to department
department stores, however, are not used in computing the




+5
4.2

13

— 7

-2

department store sales.
special sample has been
stores. Figures for nonDistrict percent changes

The Monthly Review, as well as other Federal Re­
serve publications, may be received upon request
to the Publications Section, Research Department,
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta 3, Georgia!

Debits to Individual Demand Deposit Accounts
(In Thousands of Dollars)
Percent Change
Feb. 1958 from 1958
Jan.
Feb. fro
m
1958 1957 1957

Feb.
1958

Jan.
1958

Feb.
1957

30,346
633,735
23,012
26,594
242,204
124,394
17,525
40,304

36,257
743,387
27,249
32,230
271,553
135,265
23,414
47,802

32,175
709,670
22,118
28,711
294,414
122,182
19,050
39,055

FLORIDA
Daytona Beach*
Fort Lauderdale*
Gainesville*
.
Jacksonville . .
Key West* . .
Lakeland* . .
Miami . . .
Greater Miami*
Orlando . . .
Pensacola . .
St. Petersburg .
Tampa . . .
West Palm Beach*

50,983
183,371
30,693
636,776
13,785
60,375
733,910
1,119,614
159,099
74,002
155,751
312,892
104,742

63,077
230,027
38,560
777,335
16,507
61,810
800,683
1,280,337
186,537
84,571
189,150
367,038
122,369

45,976
189,515
29,236
584,381
15,276
57,548
711,663
1,102,592
155,483
75,259
147,382
297,938
94,595

GEORGIA
Albany .
Athens* .
Atlanta .
Augusta .
Brunswick
Columbus
Elberton .
Gainesville*
Griffin* .
LaGrange*
Macon .
Marietta*
Newnan .
Rome* .
Savannah
Valdosta .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

48,112
30,954
1,484,683
82,391
19,937
84,789
6,870
39,783
14,652
17,385
91,093
22,498
13,618
33,539
159,944
20,960

60,510
36,835
1,726,967
88,281
23,819
99,645
8,643
48,057
16,382
23,304
111,519
28,132
19,548
41,886
177,870
25,907

48,370
28,368
1,457,373
83,278
17,272
88,180
6,132
40,763
14,002
17,987
92,295
22,303
15,303
35,250
157,495
22,723

— 19

LOUISIANA
Alexandria*
Baton Rouge .
Lafayette* . .
Lake Charles .
New Orleans .

62,686
173,942
46,872
78,371
1,152,792

73,560
225,262
61,909
94,779
1,357,998

61,423
163,017
46,013
74,025
1,222,617

—
—
—
—
—

M ISS ISS IP P I
Biloxi-Gulfport*
Hattiesburg . .
Jackson . . .
Laurel* . . .
Meridian . . .
Natchez*
. .
Vicksburg . .

37,978
28,654
181,825
21,042
32,654
19,581
17,534

38,978
33,024
204,982
21,715
36,437
23,192
19,353

36,700
28,304
177,178
19,482
31,748
18,961
18,455

— 3
— 13

+3

—11

+3

—3

+8

—10

+3
+3
—5

TENNESSEE
Bristol* . .
Chattanooga
Johnson City*
Kingsport* .
Knoxville
.
Nashville
.

37,923
323,037
41,169
70,379
219,015
626,313

32,920
243,801
33,471
59,667
191,925
524,877

—12

.
.
.
.

33,280
241,290
33,247
59,926
187,019
543,974

SIXTH DISTRICT
32 Cities
. .

7,803,187

9,134,164

7,845,744

181,693,000 212,862,000 177,343,000

ALABAMA
Anniston . .
Birmingham
Dothan . .
Gadsden . .
Mobile . .
Montgomery
Selma* . .
Tuscaloosa* .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.

UNITED STATES
344 Cities . .

•Not included in Sixth District totals.

•* *

—
—
—
—

16
15
16
17

—11
—8

—6
—11
+4
—7
— 18

+2
—8

-4
-4
+3
-4
-9

+3

+0
-1
+8

— 19

+11

+14

—20
—20

—3
+5
+9

+2
+8

— 25
— 16

— 18
— 16

—10

—2
—6

+5
+3

— 13
— 15

+2
+2
—2
+6

+1
+1

—12

+13
-4
-4

+2
+1
+4

— 18
— 15
— 14

+5

+7

+11

+8

—20

—1

— 16
— 14
—7
— 16
— 15

+9

+0
+8

+2
—1

+5
-5

+15
—4

+22

—21
— 17

—11
— 25
— 18

—20
— 30

—20
—10

15
23
24
17
15

— 16
—9

+12
—2

-3
+4

-2

+5
—3

+3

—1
+1
—11

+1

—5

-2
+1

+2
-8
+2
+7

+2
+6
—6

+1

+«

—7

+1
+11
+6
+5

—
2
+2
+2
+o
+6
+o
+3
+1

+2

+1
—1
—1

—3

+0
—3

+5
—4

+4

+1

— 15

—1

+2

— 15

+ 2 ^_ + 3

—
—
—
—
—

25
19
15
15
13

+4

Sixth District Indexes
Seasonally Adjusted (1947-49 = 100)
SIXTH DISTRICT___________________________________________________
JAN.

FEB.MAR.

APRIL

1957
MAY

JUNE

1958
JULYAUG.

SEPT.

OCT.

NOV.

DEC.

JAN.

FEB.

134

133
118
164
131
172
115
78
159
99

134r
117
167
129
173
117
77
158
95
87
211r
188
83
317

133
116
167
129
169
117
76
156
90

171
264
272
257
124r
103
160
157r
151r
181

173
n.a.
n.a.

133e
n.a.
n.a.
147p
147
167p

142
109
127
146
139
234
132r
192
185
202r
107
161
270
227
146
157

128
99p
116
128
137
227p
135p
175p
171
200p
93p
161
269
226
144
155

Nonfarm Employment..................... ..134
Manufacturing Em ploym ent.............. ..121
Apparel................................... ..172
Chemicals..................................132
Fabricated M e t a ls ..................... ..165
Food...................................... 117
Lbr., Wood Prod., Fur. & Fix. . . . 83
Paper & Allied P ro d u c ts.............. ..164
Primary M e t a ls ......................... ..108
Textiles................................... ..92
Transportation Equipment.............. ..213
Manufacturing P a y r o lls .................. ..193
Cotton Consumption**..................... 90
Electric Power Production**
. . . . 309
Petrol. Prod, in Coastal
Louisiana & Mississippi**
. . . . 198
Construction C o n tra cts*.................. ..297
Residential..................................298
All o t h e r ..................................295
Farm Cash Receipts......................... 125r
Crops...................................... 106r
Livestock..................................142
Dept Store S a l e s * / * * .................. 158
Atlanta................................... ..151
Baton R o u ge ............................ 184r
Birm ingham ............................ ..125
Chattanooga............................ ..135
Jackson................................... ..115
Jacksonville............................ ..128
K noxville................................ ..156
M aco n ................................... ..149
M ia m i................................... ..221
New O rle a n s............................ ..135
Tampa-SL Ptrsbg......................... ..181
Tam pa................................... ..160
Dept Store Stocks*......................... ..212
Furniture Store S a le s * / * * .............. 112
Member Bank D e p o sits*.................. ..153
Member Bank L o a n s * ..................... ..253
Bank D ebits*..................................218
Turnover of Demand Deposits* . . . .
140
In Leading C itie s......................... ..150
Outside Leading C it ie s .................. ..107

134
121
172
132
164
117
83
161
107
91
206
191
86
288

134
119
172
131
166
116
80
161
106
90
206
190
86
298

134
120
168
134
172
117
81
163
107
91
209
191
84
297

134
120
170
136
175
116
81
162
108
91
218
194
88
308

135
121
171
136
179
117
80
163
107
90
231
198
89
310

135
121
164
136
185
118
80
156
108
89
235
201
87
298

135
120
164
133
180
113
80
161
107
89
243
200
89
297

134
119
165
133
177
113
81
159
104
89
230
197
90
299

134
120
166
131
178
113
80
161
105
88
216
194
86
303

205
339
315
359
127r
120r
147r
161r
157
186
124
143r
114
129
150
151
227r
151
187
161
203r
117r
154
255
226
143
153
107

203
319
293
339
115r
102r
139
161r
159
170
139
141
102
124
144
160
229r
132
165
142
202
111
156
258
216
139
148
109

195
313
268
350
129
120
149
162
141
167
118
139
98
118
146
141
229
140
182
148
203
112
160
259
223
138
156
102

195
311
291
327
132
135
146
172
163
183
134
141
112
127
154
149
252
142
185
157
198
106
159
260
224
144
159
109

170
320
325
315
142
150
145
176
158
186
131
146
107
128
148
151
251
148
187
165
198
111
159
261
223
140
160
103

172
330
319
340
148
149
158
175
159
177
128
149
119
127
151
147
267
148
183
159
204
114

160
330
341

263
231
152
168
111

109
74
152
179
167
194
138
151
121
135
158
166
274
148
185
167
203
110
160
268
225
147
166
106

164
315
324
308
83
62
147
172
154
181
132
147
111
132
156
141
267
151
189
165
201
105
268
231
144
158
110

167
283
334
241
93
76
157
159
149
187
128
141
102
118
139
136
244
145
177
147
208
103
159
265
221
138
145
101

ALABAMA
Nonfarm Em ploym ent.................. .. 123
Manufacturing Employment . . . .
110
Manufacturing Payrolls . . . . . .
180
Furniture Store S a le s .................. ..129
Member Bank Deposits.................. ..135
Member Bank Loans..................... ..209

122
109
177
125r
136
210

122
110
178
118
137
211

122
111
177
108
143
214

123
113
181
117
140
215

123
114
185
113
140
219

123
114
187
131
140
219

123
113
193
125
139
223

122
109
187
100
139
226

123
112
188
111
136
223

FLORIDA
Nonfarm Em ploym ent....................167
Manufacturing Employment . . . .
166
Manufacturing Payrolls.................. .. 257
Furniture Store S a le s .................. ..107
Member Bank Deposits.................. ..193
Member Bank Loans........................385

169
167
267
125r
193
391

170
169
258
132
1%
3%

171
172
264
121

175
174
273

177
177
280
118

179
177
286
124

180
179
293

178
180
291
106

201

206

179
180
290
114
207
414

GEORGIA
Nonfarm Em ploym ent.................. .. 131
Manufacturing Employment
123
Manufacturing PajroU sT ^ . . . . 198
Furniture Store S a le s .................. ..115
Member Bank Deposits
138
Member Bank Loans . ! ! . . . . 207

122

122

193
114
136
208

192
102
140
213

192
106
144
214

194
105
142
214

LOUISIANA
Nonfarm Em ploym ent.................. .. 130
Manufacturing Employment . . . .
102
Manufacturing Payrolls.................. ..172
Furniture Store S a le s * .................. 141
Member Bank Deposits*
151
Member Bank Loans* . ’ ' . ' . ' . . 257
.
MISSISSIPPI
Nonfarm Em ploym ent.................. ..126
Manufacturing Employment . . . .
125
Manufacturing Payrolls.................. ..207
Furniture Store S a le s * .................. ..90
Member Bank D e p o s its * .............. ..143
Member Bank L o a n s * .................. ..269
TENNESSEE
Nonfarm Em ploym ent.................. .. 121
Manufacturing Employment . . . .
119
?u fact“ring P a y ro ll.................. ..189
a™
Furniture Store S a le s * .................. ..86
Member Bank Deoosits*
140
M*mber Bank Loans* . ! '. ! ! ! 221

131

130

201

112
201

401

404

405

410

131

130

122

129
123
1%
105
142
216

130

122

131

130

131

130

103

102

102

101

175

173
141
155
259

174
132
155
259

174
117
155
262

125
125
207
92
152
278

124

144
269

125
124
210
89
145
276

120
117

120
118

120
119
189
91
144
226

119

136r
152
256
126

126

212

100

188
90r
140
218

188
83
143
223

162

122

207
89
155
280

118

188
87
144
229

321

161

111
211

212

415

416

100
88
216
1%
85
299
161r
261
288
239

102

82
151
166
154
205
123
147
115
130
144
143
231
140
195
180
206
108
159
263
216
136
144
99

122
112
185
120

88

225
194
79
295

175r
259
294
229
123
108
173
173
156

201
126
145
117
133
156
149
255
147
207

201
207
113
162
269
235
149
160
113

121

121

111

122

86

197
182
78
n.a.

ru
a.

111

112

120

107
173
117
139

105
171r
123
139
224

103
163
99
139

173
174
281

213
417

174
179
292
126
213
423

174
173
276
99p
206
428

129
118
191

129
116
184
107
141

128
115
178

210

141
208

136
218

176
182
290

111

222

100
210
427

221

122

120
199
107
141
219

130
118
192
107
141
217

130
117
187
103
138
212

130
119
198

137
208

110
142
212

130
99
171
135
151
265

130
97
173
148
153
274

129
98
172r
135r
151
268

129
98
171
118p
154
269

124

125
123
212r

124
123
208
77
164
305

130

130

131

130

130

101

173
139
156
267

100

174
147
155
272

100

173
133
154
271

100

172
133
153
268

123
124
211
92
155
283

124
219
83
157
286

123
124
217
75
158
288

125
124
213
85
154
282

124
123
208

119
117
189
85
148
236

119
117
190
82
148
236

120
116

119
115
185

187
86
144
233

166
131
176
114
78
159

198
106
145
218

131
103
173
139
155
261

120
118

120

126

186
82
147
236

80
147
293

82

146
230

111

124

122
206
95
149
294

120

115
183
80
147
233

121
212

88

107
154
296

163
302

118
114
181
87
148
236

117
113
181
85
146
239

86

115

110

176
72
148
233

For Sixth District area only. Other totals for entire six states.
n.a. Not Available.p Preliminary.
e Estimated.
r Revised.
**Da»y average basis.
Nonfarm and mfg. — »n and payrolls.depts. of labor; cotton consumption, U. S. Bureau Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Corp.; petrol, prod., U. S. Bureau
Mines; elec. power prod., Fed. Power Comm. Other indexes based on data collected by this Bank. All indexes calculated by this Bank.




*7*

SIXTH DISTRICT BUSINESS HIGHLIGHTS




Th
b

d o w n t r e n d in business a ctivity has been ex te n d e d recently
even though som e econom ic indicators have sh o w n increases.
E m p lo ym en t and earnings declined again and consum er spending
has been cautious. M ore recently, E aster sales have been encour­
aging and farm incom e has im proved som ew hat. R eflectin g the
som ew hat easier over-all pace, bank lending in larger cities has
declined, and m em ber bank borrow ings fro m the F ederal Reserve
B a n k o f A tla n ta have continued dow nw ard.

Total nonfarm employment declined again in February after having
improved slightly in the preceding month. Manufacturing employment
continued its recent decline, and nonmanufacturing resumed a slight dow*
ward movement. With employment down, the number of people receiving
unemployment checks rose further. W eekly earnings also declined, con­
tributing to a further slide in factory payrolls during February.

Seasonally adjusted cotton consumption in February was back to abont
December’s depressed level, after a slight improvement at the first of tkt
year. Steel production also slipped further in February and March froei
already lower output. Seasonally adjusted crude oil production in Coastal
Louisiana and Mississippi, however, rose slightly in February. Construction
contract awards, seasonally adjusted, increased slightly in January, following
several months of declines. In marked contrast to the general declining ten*
dencies, electric power output rose sharply in January.
Cash receipts from farm marketings, seasonally adjusted, continued
to rise, principally because of improved returns from livestock and poultry.
Prices of beef, pork, and broilers are well above a year ago. The relation
between costs of feed and selling prices continues more favorable than a year
ago and is bringing about a further rise in livestock and poultry product!— ■
Total spending, measured by seasonally adjusted bank debits, changed
little during February following a decline in January. Seasonally adjurted
sales at department stores in February declined to a two and one-half
year low; furniture store sales dropped to the lowest point in over three
years. Easter sales at department stores, however, have been high, as indicated
by increases in early March. Automobile sales continue to be disappointing*
Consumer credit outstanding at commercial banks showed the large*
month-to-month decline in several years, and savings in the form of tie*
deposits and life insurance rose more than seasonally.
Member bank deposits, seasonally adjusted, in February increased *
all states except Alabama and Florida. Banks continued to reduce theif
borrowings from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, which lowered d*
discount rate from 2 3/4 percent to 2 1/4 percent, effective March 1 *
®
The Reserve System released reserves by two reductions in reserve require'
ments against demand deposits. More funds and larger loan repayment
enabled member banks to add further to their security holdings* The di®P
in member bank loans in February was more than seasonal, and age*
centered at banks in major cities. In March, funds needed to meet Fedefll
income taxes boosted business loans outstanding at banks in major citiee*
but last year’s gain in total loans was not matched. Business borrowers ^
major Atlanta and New Orleans banks paid lower interest rates on A®
average in early March than they did last December.