View original document

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

Atlanta, Georgia
August • 1962

Also in this issue:
REVISIONS IN MEASURES
OF DEPARTMENT STORE
TRADE

SIXTH DISTRICT
STATISTICS

DISTRICT BUSINESS
CONDITIONS

3& eraf
% sm
j& fa ta



Greater Competitive Thrust
“The main concern of economics is . . . with human beings who are
impelled, for good and evil, to change and progress.” So wrote Alfred
Marshall, the famous English economist, more than forty years ago.
Many forces impel human beings along the courses they follow, per­
haps without being clearly recognized. One economic force that currently
seems to be felt with increasing thrust, as is appropriate in this day of
guided missiles and moon projects, is competition. Ten years from now
hindsight will tell us more about today’s increased competition, but
even now enough features are discernible to help us explain its develop­
ment, recognize its symptoms, judge whether or not it’s here to stay,
and plan accordingly.
A word meaning different things to different specialists, competition
is used here to refer to the contest for business in the market place, i.e.,
what the businessman usually thinks of as competition. We can per­
ceive increases or decreases in the competitive struggle for business by
noting changes in the ease of buying or selling goods and services. To
sellers, lack of competition is likely to mean that they have little or no
difficulty in selling goods at prevailing or higher prices inasmuch as
their productive facilities are probably being used to their limit. To
buyers, this is likely to mean difficulty in obtaining the things wanted,
limited selection of goods, few price alternatives, poor quality, or in­
different salesmanship. With increased competition, sellers, perhaps find­
ing some of their facilities idle, must intensify their efforts to obtain busi­
ness. Buyers will enjoy the likely effect of being able to obtain easily the
things they want, of having a wide selection from which to choose, of
paying less as a result of price concessions, or of obtaining goods and
services of higher quality.
A shift toward increased competition, it now appears, is what has
been taking place in the postwar years. We see in this shift a reflection of
fundamental changes in economic relationships that have been working
themselves out over this period. In terms of that tried-and-true economic
law of supply and demand, a greatly increased ability to supply goods
and services is interacting with a demand that is less urgent now than
in the early postwar years. Although this situation has evolved mainly
from domestic changes, it also reflects the postwar rebuilding of
economies abroad.

A Gradual Change
The economy of this country has always been a competitive one.
Relatively speaking, however, business has become more competitive
as the economic environment has changed over the past four to six
years or so.
The change has not been an abrupt one. Rather, it has taken place
gradually as fundamental relationships between demands for goods and
the ability of business to supply them have been altered. The change
has occurred at different times for different businesses in different
localities.
In the automobile industry, for example, we can, perhaps, pinpoint

a rather definite change that took place in 1955. Previ­
ously, automobile producers had, for the most part, been
confronted with the problem of boosting output to meet
a demand that seemed to them to be insatiable, even
though prices were rising. Things changed markedly in
1955. True, it was the year in which more sales were made
than ever before, but this was accomplished only by prodi­
gious selling efforts. Price discounting became widespread,
credit terms were eased drastically to stimulate buying, and
a major change in styling occurred. The days of so-called
“wheeling and dealing” had indeed been ushered in. Severe
competition has been characteristic of the automobile
market ever since. Increasingly so, buyers have had no
difficulty in obtaining a car to their liking from a wide
variety of makes and models.

W hy?
The reason for the generally increased degree of competi­
tion now facing American businessmen is fundamentally
very simple: Their ability to supply just about every kind
of product has increased enormously, and at the same
time, the public’s most urgent demands for goods and
services at current prices have been satisfied. Now, in
most lines, American businessmen are able to produce
much more than is actually being sold at prevailing prices.
Looking first for evidence of the easier supply situation,
we find it in the charted figures on productive resources.
Neither our labor force nor our industrial capacity (repre­
sented by factories and mines) is being fully utilized;
hence, we could be producing much more than we are
producing. Although the level of business activity is
substantially higher now than at the low point of the
recession ending in February 1961, labor continues to
be in easy supply, as shown by the failure of the unem­
ployment rate to drop more than it has. The rate persisted
at nearly 7 percent of the labor force through most of
last year, in spite of general business expansion. It has
dropped some since last October, but in July, the unem­
ployed still accounted for 5.3 percent of the total labor
force. There are shortages of people with professional,




technical, and skilled training, but the generally high
unemployment rate does indicate that the total labor force
is underutilized. Looking at our ability to produce a
number of major, basic materials, such as steel, textiles,
cement, and chemicals, you will find that approximately
24 percent of productive capacity is still unused, despite
the higher level of business. Over the past six or seven
years, both unemployment and unused productive capacity
have shown a general upward trend.
With the easing of the supply situation, businessmen
have been able to obtain more rapid delivery of finished
goods and materials, a development that has, in turn,
reduced the need to build inventories. As is usually the
case when sales expand, inventories have increased during
the past seventeen months, but they have not increased
as rapidly as previous postwar experience would have led
one to expect.
To find evidence of easing demand during a period when
spending of most types has actually been increasing is
difficult. It may even seem paradoxical to think it possible.
To speak of an easing demand is not, however, necessarily
to say that the amount of goods purchased is declining.
Rather, the reference is to a change in the character of
demand. Reflecting this change, consumers, though possi­
bly buying more goods than previously, feel less compul­
sion to buy and are, as a group, more responsive to price
changes in determining the quantities of goods they pur­
chase.
In relating consumption expenditures to personal dis­
posable income, we can see evidence of an easing of de­
mand in the contrast between developments in the early
postwar years and those of more recent years. In the
early years, consumers spent unusually large proportions
of their income in satisfying pent-up demands for many
goods that had been unavailable during the war. It was
not until about 1952 that the proportion of income spent
on consumer goods and services settled down to a rela­
tively stable level. Since then, the range of fluctuation
has been between about 92 and 94 percent of con­
sumers’ income. The dollar amount spent for durable
goods, such as automobiles, appliances, television sets,
and furniture, has shown very little uptrend since 1955.
The contrast this provides with an earlier strong uptrend
suggests that there has been in recent years much less
of a stimulus to business from such consumer spending
than previously was the case. Undoubtedly, the large
volume of purchases of durable goods through 1955
dulled consumers’ appetites for more of the same.
Still, since about 1952 the consumer has continued to
increase his total spending pretty much in line with his
gains in income, as is indicated by the relative stability of
the percentage of income devoted to spending. As the
total amount of consumer spending has increased, how­
ever, it has been allocated in different ways than formerly.
Generally speaking, consumers have been allocating a
larger part for the purchase of services and a smaller part
for the purchase of goods. Insofar as the satisfaction of
demands for some goods leads consumers to spend in
order to satisfy less urgent wants, this shift in the spend­
ing pattern also gives evidence of a gradual easing of
demand over the years.
.

2

•

Shifting Consumption Patterns

Source: Based on data published by U. S. Department of Commerce.

The shift from goods to services has been occurring
since World War II. Back in 1948, spending for goods
took about sixty-eight cents out of every dollar spent by
the consumer, whereas in the first quarter of this year,
goods took only fifty-nine cents out of every dollar. In
contrast, spending for services increased in relative im­
portance from thirty-two cents out of every dollar in 1948
to forty-one cents in the first quarter of this year. This
includes such spending as that for telephone, gas, and
electric services, medical care, and repair and financial
services.
The shifting of consumer demands has been even more
complex than these general figures suggest. Sometimes
the demand for some services simply grows faster than the
demand for certain goods. Expenditures for medical serv­
ices, for example, have increased rapidly along with gains
in income, whereas expenditures for food, more closely
related to population gains, have increased more slowly.
Sometimes, services substitute for goods. For example,
the gas and electric services now used for heating and re­
frigeration substitute for the coal and ice formerly pur­
chased by individuals for those purposes.
Sometimes goods substitute for services. Thus, enter­
tainment in the home provided by television sets, radios,
and record players has been substituted, to a considerable
extent, for entertainment in theaters, paid for as a service.
Frequently, the purchase of goods has also caused in­
creases in service expenditures, thus bringing about com­
plementary gains in both goods and services. The rise in
the number of automobiles on the road and of appliances
in our homes, for example, has been followed by increased
expenditures for repair services. Also, the use of credit in
making purchases has brought increases in consumer
expenditures for financial services.
In the business sector, demands for new productive
facilities have also eased in the past five or six years.
Not since 1957 has business spending for new plant and
equipment shown a general upward trend, whereas in the
earlier years of the postwar period such an uptrend was
evident. Undoubtedly, the satisfaction of urgent consumer
demands and the relative shift away from spending for
goods has been partly responsible. Also, as existing pro­
ductive capacity has tended, over the years, to be used less
and less fully, there has been less and less incentive for
businessmen to spend increasing amounts on productive
capacity.



Spending by Federal, state, and local governments as
a group is a different matter, for it has resumed an upward
movement since about mid-1956. Earlier in the 1950’s,
Federal spending for military purposes first expanded
sharply because of the Korean War and then declined in
late 1953 and in 1954. Defense spending subsequently in­
creased to about the volume reached in mid-1953. Spend­
ing by state and local governments has, however, shown a
persistent, strong uptrend. With recently increased Federal
spending for national defense added to this strong uptrend,
total government spending has provided a major addition
to overall demands during about the last five years.
While greater supply and less urgent private demands
on the domestic scene have been primarily responsible for
increased competition, developments on the international
scene have also been responsible. Early in the period
after World War II, this country had a virtual monopoly
in supplying goods to the world market because productive
capacity in much of the industrial world had been devas­
tated by the war. As this industrial capacity was rebuilt,
foreign economies became better able both to supply
goods for themselves and, eventually, to compete for sales
in the world market. Now American businessmen find
themselves competing more vigorously both here and
abroad with foreign producers. In cases where newly in­
stalled industrial productive facilities abroad are more
modern than their counterparts in this country, the com­
petitive position of foreign producers is enhanced.
Even during this period of increasing world-wide com­
petition, however, purchases by foreigners have provided
an enormous stimulus to some manufacturers in this
country, as is shown by our sharply expanded exports.
Amounting to a record total of over $20 million last
year, total exports from the United States were nearly
45 percent greater than they were a decade earlier.

The Symptoms
We have seen a reflection of all these forces— the symp­
toms of increased competition—in the relative stability of
the wholesale price index since early 1958. The effects of
these forces have also been seen in greater efforts to pro­
vide high-quality services. The proliferation of models of
many consumer goods is also a symptom of increased
competition. Witness the variety of automobile models
now available to satisfy the desires, even the whims, of
American consumers, and the many-colored shapes and
sizes of household appliances and television sets now on
the market.
Ignoring all the statistics that, at their best, give only
an imprecise indication of increased competition, one
waggish businessman expressed the situation rather effec­
tively when he said, “I no longer find it necessary to beat
off customers with a club.” Further evidence of increased
competition is apparent in the greater emphasis that manu­
facturers are now giving to modernizing their productive
facilities to cut costs.
All this reflects a change from the situation of the early
postwar years, when many manufacturers could expand
output with relatively little fear of being unable to sell at
steadily increasing prices. There is no certainty now that
. 3 .

output can be sold without greater sales effort, which fre­
quently involves price competition.
The question may well be asked, “Is all this increased
competition good or bad?” Certainly it means that life is
more difficult for the businessman. To maintain or expand
profits, he must be constantly alert to discern changes
in demand for goods and services, while at the same time
seeking to expand the use of productive facilities and try­
ing to reduce costs. The effect has been felt in labor
markets, where, generally speaking, recent wage gains
have been smaller than those of earlier postwar years.
Individuals as consumers, however, frequently discover
that increased competition means they can find better
goods more readily than before and often at better
prices. Whatever the point of view, most observers would
probably agree that competition is now more effectively
providing economic discipline than was the case a few
years ago. One way it does this is by providing a strong
stimulus to more efficient production.

Rising Production w ith Price Stability

i
i
Industrial Production

-------- -------- -------- -----

1957 = IO
O

W
holesale Prices
1957 - 59 = 100

Will It Last?
Whether or not increased competition is a phenomenon
of indefinite duration remains to be seen. However, since
it has become most apparent— in the past four or five
years—it has not been transitory and related only to
recession. This is evident from the chart showing industrial
production and prices, that is if we can assume that the
price stability since early 1958 reflects the more competi­
tive situation facing businessmen today. Since that time,
this country has experienced two periods of sharp expansion
in industrial production. In neither one did wholesale
prices show any appreciable rise. In the most recent
experience—that beginning in February 1961— expansion
has been about as large as any previous postwar expan­
sion, but wholesale prices are now actually lower than
they were a year ago.
The evidence is less clear-cut when we look at consumer
prices, but even here the upward trend of the average
index of prices for all items has slowed considerably. This
is especially true for commodities, which have shown little
price change in the recent period of business expansion
and, over the past four years, have shown a price rise of
about 2 percent. Most of the upward pressure on the
consumer price index for all items during this time has
reflected a persistent uptrend in prices of services and
rent. A highly competitive situation is, of course, normally
expected in a time of recession, but it is significant that
in recent years, business has continued to be highly com­
petitive even as economic activity has recovered from
periods of recession.

C
onsum Prices
er
1957 - 59 = IO
O

A Item
ll s

C m
om odities

9l*> -------- 1-------1------- 1------- 1-------1------- 1 «» o
o u--1
— a J9
1956
1957 1958
1959 I960
16
91
1962
Sources: Industrial production: Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System; Prices: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department
of Labor.

It is impossible, of course, to determine the extent to
which the long-run changes that have brought about this
situation influence current business decisions. Undoubtedly
because of this, most observers are now having unusual
difficulty in judging what course economic activity is likely
to take in the next few months.
P h il ip M. W eb st e r

Revisions in Measures of Department Store Trade
The department store sales and stocks indexes published
monthly by this Bank have been revised extensively from
1947 forward. Revisions include adjustment to the Census
benchmark on the basis of 1958 data, recomputation of
weights used in constructing indexes for the Sixth District



and for the individual six states, a shift in the base period
from the average of 1947-49 to the 1957-59 average, and
a recalculation of seasonal adjustment factors.
The indexes measure sales and stocks at retail stores
that fall within the definition of department stores. Such
. 4 .

stores carry a broad line of merchandise, including apparel,
furniture and appliances, and household linens and dry
goods. The stores normally use a departmental accounting
system and they employ twenty-five or more persons. Re­
tail stores specializing in a particular type of merchandise,
such as apparel, are not considered department stores.
Monthly indexes of sales and stocks are based on
voluntary reports from a sample of department stores.
The revised departm ent store sales index shows more rapid
growth than the old index.
Percent

Percent

The indexes based on the monthly sample were re­
vised to agree with the universe data for the year 1958.
In this process, monthly indexes were revised from
December 1954 to date. The indexes prior to that time
had already been adjusted to the 1954 Census benchmark.
The Census data for 1958 also showed that there had
been a shift in the relative importance of sales and
stocks in the different areas in the District. Most metro­
politan areas declined in relative importance and the
“other cities” component tended to gain. This was
especially marked in Florida. The District index and
indexes for individual states are computed by applying
the weights listed in the tables to indexes for individual
areas. Previous weights were based on the relationship of
areas for the 1947-49 period.
The revised indexes were then recomputed using the
new standard base of 1957-59 so that they would be
comparable with other indexes. Neither the month-tomonth variation in the indexes nor the relationship among
indexes was affected by this change.
Finally, seasonal adjustment factors were recomputed
for each of the sales indexes and for the index of stocks.
The ratio-to-moving-average technique that has been in
use within the Federal Reserve System for several decades
was used in deriving the seasonal adjustment factors. The
Estimated Annual Department Store Sales for the
Sixth District, by A rea, 1957-59
(Thousands of Dollars)

-

—

■ I
V

I____ I____ I____ I____ I____ I____ I____ I____ I____ 1
____J____ I____ I____ I___V

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

I960

19 2
6

In 1958, the sample included 125 of the 269 depart­
ment stores in the District. Total sales of stores included
in the sample comprised 82 percent of total department
store sales during that year. In some areas the monthly
sample included all department stores, whereas in others
the coverage was less.
Indexes for metropolitan areas are not computed unless
the sales of the reporting stores are representative of the
sales of all department stores. Data are not published for
certain major cities or metropolitan areas either because
the number of stores is too small to permit publication
without disclosing individual store operations or because
some stores have declined to participate in the series. This
reporting arrangement does not allow us to reveal the
names and the number of reporters, or their dollar sales.
Since there is a sizable variation in sample coverage
from area to area, the District and state indexes are con­
structed by applying weights to the area indexes. The
weights are based on the sales of all department stores in
each area as reported by the Bureau of the Census.
The Census data also provide means of comparing
sales estimated from the sample with actual sales of all
department stores, i.e., “universe” sales. The latest Census
data cover the year 1958. Sales estimated from monthly
reports were found to be slightly lower than sales reported
for all department stores in the District in the 1958
Census. Indexes for some metropolitan areas and parts
of states differ from the universe data to a larger degree.



Weights in District Index
(Percent of District Total)
1957-59
1947-49

Area

1957-59

1947-49

A L A B A M A .......................
Birmingham . . . .
Other Cities . . . .

125,565
58,353
67,212

73,591
39,462
34,129

12.5
5.8
6.7

13.8
7.4
6.4

FLORIDA
.......................
Jacksonville . . . .

313,397
32,049
97,197
67,391
116,760

116,785
22,397
37,862
28,499
28,027

31.3
3.2
9.7
6.7
11.7

21.9
4.2
7.1
5.3
5.3

Other Cities . . . .

219,954
133,779
15,653
70,522

127,983
79,456
10,132
38,395

22.0
13.4
1.6
7.0

24.0
14.9
1.9
7.2

LOUISIANA.......................
Baton Rouge . . . .
New Orleans . . . .
Other Cities . . . .

161,058
24,356
101,115
35,587

99,186
12,798
71,457
14,931

16.1
2.4
10.1
3.6

18.6
2.4
13.4
2.8

MISSISSIPPI . . . .
J a c k s o n .......................
Other Cities . . . .

35,738
15,202
20,536

25,063
14,398
10,665

3.6
1.5
2.1

4.7
2.7
2.0

TENNESSEE
. . . .
Chattanooga . . . .
Knoxville.......................
Other Cities . . . .

145,990
26,304
46,507
73,179

90,655
15,998
26,130
48,527

14.5
2.6
4.6
7.3

17.0
3.0
4.9
9.1

. 1,001,702

533,263

100.0

100.0

Tampa-St. Petersburg
Other Cities . . . .
GEORGIA............................
A t l a n t a .......................

SIXTH DISTRICT .

. .

.
.

seasonal indexes for March and April include an allowance
for the changing date of Easter.
Historical data incorporating the above changes for the
period 1947 to date are available upon request to the
Research Department of this Bank.
T h e total su p p ly o f m o n e y in the S ix th D istrict— ch eckin g
d ep o sits a n d cu rrency h eld outside b a n ks— a m o u n te d in
D ec em b er 1961 to a b o u t $ 1 0 .7 billion or ro ug h ly $ 6 0 0
p er D istrict resident.
• 5 •

Bank Announcements

Debits to Individual Demand Deposit Accounts
(In Thousands of Dollars)

On July 1, the Merchants and Planters Bank, Montevallo, Alabama, a nonmember bank, began to remit at
par for checks drawn on it when received from the
Federal Reserve Bank. Officers are James A. Kelley,
President, and John P. Kelley, Vice President and
Cashier.
The First National Bank of Slidell, Slidell, Louisiana,
a newly organized member bank, opened for business
on July 2 and began to remit at par. Officers include
R. M. Walmsley, III, President; E. E. Riffel, Executive
Vice President and Cashier; and C. W. Schneider, Vice
President. Capital totals $200,000, and surplus and un­
divided profits, $200,000.
A newly organized nonmember bank, the Bank of
Kendall, Miami, Kendall 56, Florida, opened for busi­
ness on July 12 and began to remit at par. Officers are
H. T. Maroon, President; M. E. Stephens, Executive
Vice President; Richard L. Rotroff and Howard F.
Dale, Vice Presidents; and C. E. Douglas, Cashier.
Capital totals $400,000, and surplus and undivided
profits, $300,000.
On July 20, the First State Bank of Lutz, Lutz,
Florida, a newly organized nonmember bank, opened
for business and began to remit at par. Officers include
Ray Clements, President; Osier Adams, Executive Vice
President; W. H. Greene, III, Vice President; and
Donald Whitworth, Cashier. Capital totals $300,000,
and surplus and undivided profits, $100,000.
The First National Bank of Sebring, Sebring, Florida,
a newly organized member bank, opened for business
on July 30 and began to remit at par. Officers are Rex
E. Bond, President, and Alfred W. Roepstorff, Vice
President and Cashier. Capital totals $200,000, and
surplus and undivided profits, $200,000.
Departm ent Store S ales and Inventories*
Percent Change

Place

Sales_______________
June 1962 from
6 Months
May
June
1962 from
1962
1961
1961

ALABAMA .............................
Birmingham.......................
M obile..................................
Montgomery.......................
FLORIDA
.............................
Daytona Beach . . . .
Jacksonville.......................
Miami A r e a .......................
M ia m i.............................
O rla n d o .............................
St. Ptrsbg-Tampa Area

— 16
— 15
— 16
—16
—4
—3
—13
+2
—1
—5
—5

+12
—1
+5
+6
+6
+ 66
+21

+1
—1
+5
+5
+12
+1
+4
+8
+5
+47
+21

— 16
—1
—5
—9
—7

+7
+9
+9
+8
+3
—3

+8
+11
+5
+3
+6
+2

LOUISIANA............................. — 12
Baton Rouge.......................
—9
New O rleans....................... — 13

+2
+10
+0

GEORGIA
.............................
Atlanta4*
.......................
A u g u s ta .............................
M acon..................................
Rome** .............................
Savannah .............................

—3
—6
+0
+2

Inventories
June 30,1962 from
May 30,
June 30,
1962
1961
—3
—2

+5
+5

— 10

+11

—2

+3

—7

+ 20

—5
—5

—0
—0

—0

+14

+3
+11
+1

—2
—4
—2

+9
+ 15
+8

+6
+8

—2
—1

+5
+5

M IS S IS S IP P I.......................
Jackson .............................

— 10
— 14

TENNESSEE
.......................
Bristol-KingsportJohnson City** . . .
Bristol (Tenn. & Va.)**
Chattanooga.......................
Knoxville.............................

—20

+6
+8
—3

+3

—3

+8

— 14
—5
— 18
— 22

—3
—3
+0
—4

+4
+3
+6
+3

—1

+7

............................. —12

+4

+7

—6

DISTRICT

+7

♦Reporting stores account for over 80 percent of total District department store sales.
**In order to permit publication of figures for this city, a special sample has been
constructed that is not confined exclusively to department stores. Figures for non­
department stores, however, are not used in computing the District percent changes.




Percent Change
Year-to-date
6 months
June 1962 from
June
May
June
from
1961
1962
1961
1961

June
1962

May
1962

46,855
900,857
39,446
37,438
82,344
295,028
180,519
27,508
60,822
1,670,817
848,297

47,844
954,329
42,251
39,646
86,361
312,802
210,989
28,968
67,008
1,790,198
907,635

45,325
849,177
38,678
35,487
69,754
314,553r
172,592
26,263
60,634
l,612,463r
768,230r

—2
—6
—7
—6
—5
—6
— 14
—5
—9
—7
—7

+3
+6
+2
+5
+ 18
—6
+5
+5
+0
+4
+10

+6
+8
+7
+3
+18
+2
+7
+8
+ 10
+7
+9

50,460
57,374
206,362
48,980
824,453
15,179
84,909
961,671
1,399,464
267,603
89,264
215,484
79,128
65,886
440,503
154,065
3,999,114
1,723,415

n.a.
61,356
232,672
50,648
937,230
17,725
90,221
1,026,796
1,495,293
280,815
93,847
233,677
86,344
74,664
485,079
189,050
4,328,621
1,875,108

n.a.
53,114
200,569
43,019
833,396r
16,769
83,100
863,894r
l,298,955r
253,640
87,810r
218,542
n.a.
n.a.
427,790
143,747
3,660,451r
l,748,848r

n.a.
—6
— 11
—3
— 12
— 14
—6
—6
—6
—5
—5
—8
—8
— 12
—9
—19
—8
—8

n.a.
+8
+3
+ 14
—1
—9
+2
+11
+8
+6
+2
—1
n.a.
n.a.
+3
+7
+9
—1

n.a.
+6
+6
+ 11
+5
+4
+2
+8
+6
+6
+3
+8
n.a.
n.a.
+7
+ 18
+10
+6

57,694
44,178
2,445,592
126,448
31,171
118,268
52,922
12,254
53,836
21,219
17,866
139,389
36,345
22,460
48,584
179,977
31,759
3,439,962
932,033

61,238
48,756
2,561,870
129,308
34,718
129,690
56,% 0
10,025
60,046
21,723
16,510
145,344
37,412
18,831
53,132
189,631
36,878
3,612,072
994,408

52,343
45,879
2,186,671r
113,162
27,361
112,862
n.a.
8,829
50,343
19,963
17,180
126,664
34,765
21,878
47,331
158,977r
33,132
3,057,340r
955,421r

—6
—9
—5
—2
— 10
—9
—7
+ 22
— 10
—2
+8
—4
—3
+ 19
—9
—5
— 14
—5
—6

+ 10
—4
+ 12
+12
+ 14
+5
n.a.
+ 39
+7
+6
+4
+ 10
+5
+3
+3
+ 13
—4
+ 13
—2

+12
+11
+16
+ 14
+25
+11
n.a.
+7
+9
+9
—3
+10
+ 12
+9
+0
+9
+6
+15
+3

81,616
289,462
68,657
88,093
1,499,848
2,027,676
693,257

85,755
302,476
73,852
88,495
1,579,305
2,129,883
707,058

70,000
262,204
60,137
79,661
1,429,291
1,901,293
593,937r

—5
—4
—7
—0
—5
—5
—2

+17
+ 10
+ 14
+11
+5
+7
+ 17

+ 18
+12
+11
+11
+7
+8
+ 19

58,128
39,322
347,487
28,776
46,817
24,909
23,136
568,575
307,926

65,832
40,651
365,753
30,094
52,965
24,742
23,608
603,645
308,430

54,458
37,897
308,490
29,629
44,617
23,220
22,414
520,725
280,504r

— 12
—3
—5
■
—4
— 12
+1
—2
—6
—0

+7
+4
+ 13
—3
+5
+7
+3
+9
+10

+ 12
+6
+14
+2
+10
+7
+10
+ 12
+ 10

56,325
344,743
50,015
93,171
270,188
826,295
1,640,737
635,339

57,189
354,333
49,526
92,448
270,118
851,795
1,675,409
619,652

51,405
350,040
43,917
95,281
260,566
782,480
1,583,689
614,555r

—2
—3
+1
+1
+0
—3
—2
+3

+ 10
—2
+14
—2
+4
+6
+4
+3

+ 10
+6
+ 13
+10
+4
+8
+7
+3

18,487,148
13,346,881
5,140,267
11,239,524

19,552,119
14,139,828
5,412,291
11,912,337

17,297,456r
12,335,961r
4,961,495r
10,560,423r

—5
—6
—5
—6

+7
+8
+4
+6

+9
+10
+7
+9

—1

+8

+11

ALABAMA
Anniston . . . .
Birmingham . . .
Dothan . . . .
Gadsden . . . .
Huntsville* . . .
Mobile . . . .
Montgomery
. .
Selma* . . . .
Tuscaloosa* . . .
Total Reporting Cities
Other Citiesf . . .
FLORIDA
Bradenton* . . .
Daytona Beach*
Fort Lauderdale* .
Gainesville*
. .
Jacksonville
. .
Key West* . . .
Lakeland* . . .
Miami
. . . .
Greater Miami*
Orlando . . . .
Pensacola . . .
St. Petersburg . .
Sarasota* . . .
Tallahassee*
. .
Tampa . . . .
W. Palm-Palm Bch.*
Total Reporting Cities
Other Citiesf . . .
GEORGIA
Albany . . . .
Athens* . . . .
Atlanta . . . .
Augusta . . . .
Brunswick . . .
Columbus
. . .
Dalton* . . . .
Elberton . . . .
Gainesville* . . .
Griffin* . . . .
LaGrange* . . .
Macon
. . . .
Marietta* . . .
Newnan . . . .
Rome* . . . .
Savannah . . . .
Valdosta . . . .
Total Reporting Cities
Other Citiesf . . .
LOUISIANA
Alexandria*
. .
Baton Rouge . .
Lafayette* . . .
Lake Charles
. .
New Orleans
. .
Total Reporting Cities
Other Citiesf . . .
MISSISSIPPI
Biloxi-Gulfport* .
Hattiesburg . . .
Jackson . . . .
Laurel* . . . .
Meridian . . . .
Natchez*
. . .
Vicksburg . . .
Total Reporting Cities
Other Citiesf . . .
TENNESSEE
Bristol* . . . .
Chattanooga . . .
Johnson City* . .
Kingsport* . . .
Knoxville . . . .
Nashville . . . .
Total Reporting Cities
Other Citiesf . . .
SIXTH DISTRICT
Reporting Cities
Other Citiesf .
Total, 32 Cities .

.
.

UNITED STATES
344 Cities

. .

.

292,500,000 295,600,000 271,800,000

♦Not included in total for 32 cities that are part of the national debit series maintained
by the Board of Governors,
fEstimated.
r Revised.
n.a. Not available.

•

6

•

S ix t h

D is t r ic t

S t a t is t ic s

Seasonally Adjusted
(All data are indexes,
Latest Month
(1962)

One
Month
Ago

1957-59 = 100,

Two
Months
Ago

unless indicated otherwise.)

One
Year
Ago

Latest Month
(1962)

One
Month
Ago

Two
Months
Ago

One
Year
Ago

May
May
June

7,009
107
105r

6,846r
99
106r

6,965r
114
103r

6,472r
103
106r

June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June

107
104
108
108
77
3.3
39.8
118

106
103
108r
109
80
3.0
40.0
118r

106
103
107
105
82
3.4
39.9
118

102
99
103
91
86
5.4
39.7
107

June
June
June

144
128
133

138
125
127

136
126
133

128
116
116

May
May
June

5,598
120
lOOr

5,558r
103
105r

5,611r
117
97r

5,376r
99
97r

June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June

98
93
99
72
101
4.7
41.2
107

98
94
99
73
91
4.8
41.2r
106

98
94
99
76
98
4.7
41.6
108

98
93
99
76
104
6.4
40.9
101

June
June
June

132
113
124

129
112
115

132
112
116

118
106
108

May
May

2,923
126
97r

2,810r
86
102r

2,827r
110
lOOr

2,686r
92
92r

109
114
107
101
81
4.1
40.0
129

110
113
108
103
84
4.6
40.5
129r

109
112
107
102
93
4.6
40.2
126

105
105
105
98
77
7.2
39.8
112

152
130
137

151
130
131

150
129
138

134
117
117

G EO RG IA

SIXTH DISTRICT
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . May
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ........................................May
C r o p s ...............................................................May
Livesto ck......................................................... May
Department Store S a l e s * / * * ....................... July
Department Store S t o c k s * .............................June
Instalment Credit at Banks,* (Mil. $)
New Loans......................................................... June
Repayments....................................................June
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment........................................ June
Manufacturing..............................................June
Apparel......................................................... June
Chemicals................................................... June
Fabricated M e t a ls .................................. June
Food...............................................................June
Lbr., Wood Prod., Furn. & Fix. . . . June
P a p e r ......................................................... June
Primary M e ta ls ........................................June
Textiles
................................................... June
Transportation Equipment
. . . .
June
Nonmanufacturing........................................June
Construction..............................................June
Farm Employment..............................................June
Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp.) June
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . June
Manufacturing P a y r o lls .................................. June
Construction Contracts*.................................. May
R e sid e n tia l................................................... May
All O th e r.........................................................May
Electric Power P ro d u ctio n **.......................May
Cotton Consum ption**.................................. June
Petrol. Prod, in Coastal La. and Miss.**
. June
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank Loans*
All B a n k s.........................................................June
Leading C i t i e s ..............................................July
Member Bank Deposits*
All B a n k s.........................................................June
Leading C i t i e s ..............................................July
Bank D e b it s * / * * ..............................................June

37,788
117
129
111
116p
115

36,961 r
102
105
104
113r
114

37,527r 35,343r
113
106
119
110
113
107
117r
109r
114
107

144
128

133
125

139
127

106
106
118

106
105
116

104

105
106r
98
103
97
96
103
106
94
85
4.0
41.Or

105
107
97
104
95
96

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT

126
126

107
106
120
101
104
105
98
103
96
96
105
107
94
85
4.1
40.9
122
122
124
120
130
109
146

INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate)
Farm Cash R e c e ip ts .............................
Department Store Sales** . . . .

100

121
139
116
158

122
106
147

100

101

106
93
91
4.2
40.6

121
137
114
156
124
105
147

102
111
100
100
104
96
104
94
96

88

104
89
87

6.0
40.3
111
102

Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.)
FINANCE AND BANKING

LO U ISIAN A
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate)

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT

108
98
118

101
135

Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.)
136
136

133
136

134
133

124
124

122
122
129

120

121

111

120
123

119
127

FINANCE AND BANKING

114
115

MISSISSIPPI
A LA BA M A
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate)
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s .............................
Department Store Sales** . . . .

May
May

. June
> June
.)
. June

5,190
116
102r

5,074r
104
llO r

5,115r
112
98r

4,893r
105
106r

102
99
104
90
85
4.9
40.7
116

102
99
104
90
80
4.7
40.4r
116

101
98
103
91
85
4.6
40.2
114

102
96
105
93
85
6.3
39.4
102

136
121
126

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment.............................
Manufacturing..................................
Nonmanufacturing.............................
Construction..................................
Farm Employment..................................
Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. E
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . .
Manufacturing P a y r o lls .......................

.
.

132
119
122

133
119
124

INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate)
Farm Cash R e c e ip ts .............................

126
109
114

.
.

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT

Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.)

).) June
. June

FINANCE AND BANKING

FINANCE AND BANKING

TENNESSEE

FLORIDA
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . May
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ........................................May
Department Store S a l e s * * .............................June
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment........................................June
Manufacturing..............................................June
Nonmanufacturing........................................June
Construction..............................................June
Farm Employment..............................................June
Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp.) June
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
June
Manufacturing P a y ro lls .................................. June
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s ........................................June
Member Bank D e p o s its .................................. June
Bank D e b its * * ................................................... June

*For Sixth District area only.

. June

11,039 10,745r 10,938r 10,240r
115
115
121
133
137r
137r
124r
140r
115
122
114
94
84
3.3
41.6
150
131
122
128

114

121

113
92
105
3.2
41.4
148r
128

122
125

Other totals for entire six states.

113

120
112

93
94
3.3
41.4
147

130
123
129

110

115
109

88

82
4.8
41.0
135

120
111
115

INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . May
Farm Cash R e c e ip ts ........................................May
Department Store S a l e s * / * * .......................June

6,029
87
99r

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment........................................June
Manufacturing..............................................June
Nonmanufacturing........................................June
Construction..............................................June
Farm Employment..............................................June
Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp.) June
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . June
Manufacturing P a y r o lls .................................. June

105
108
104
114
86
4.9
40.2
120

105
107
104
ll7
84
4.8
40.8r
120r

105
107
104
110
92
4.9
40.6
118

103
105
103
107
93
7.2
40.1
113

135
119
129

133
119
120

134
122
127

124
113
118

FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s*........................................June
Member Bank Deposits*.................................. June
Bank D e b it s * / * * ..............................................June

p Preliminary.

5,928r 6,071r
110
95
109r
95r

5,676r
92
102r

r Revised.

**Daily average basis.
Sources: Personal income estimated by this Bank; nonfarm, mfg. and nonmfg. emp., mfg. payrolls and hours, and unemp., U.S. Dept, of Labor and cooperating state agencies; cotton
consumption, U.S. Bureau of Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Corp.; petrol, prod., U.S. Bureau of Mines; elec. power prod., Fed. Power Comm.; farm cash receipts and
farm emp., U.S.D.A. Other indexes based on data collected by this Bank. All indexes calculated by this Bank.




• 7 •

D

I S

T

R

I C

T

B

U

S

I N

E

S

S

C

O

N

D

I T

I O

N

S

I t i i i i I i i i i i i i i i i i I i i i i i | i ii i i | i i i i i
Billions of Dollars
Annual Rate
Personal Income^

T o ta l economic activity in the District has continued to expand in
recent months, although all states have not been eq ually favored.

The performance of key indicators has also been uneven. Employment, personal
income, and consumer spending have continued to increase, but an accumula­
tion of evidence suggests that expansion has been less rapid recently than
earlier this year.

1 9 5 7 -5 9 = 1 0 0
- Se as. Adj.

In June, gains in nonfarm em ploym ent w ere concentrated in Florida
and G eorgia. Employment declined in Mississippi and Louisiana and remained

unchanged in Alabama and Tennessee.
)S
Activity in textiles and construction has continued at im proved levels.

Construction Contracts
3 - mo. moving avg.

*

Cotton consumption, an important indicator of textile activity, increased suffi­
ciently further in June to recover almost the March level, the highest volume of
the current period of business expansion. The latest three-month average of
construction contracts declined as a drop in the nonresidential components
more than offset a further rise in residential contracts.
u*

Electric Power Production

In recent months, factory p ayrolls have contributed little to boosting
personal income. In June, however, payrolls did inch up because a rise in the

number of workers more than offset the effects of a decline in the average
work week. Lately, total personal income appears to have expanded more
slowly than earlier this year in all states except Mississippi.
v* v*

Cotton Consumption

Spending, w hile at a high level, lacks the oomph it demonstrated
last spring. Department store sales, according to preliminary figures, rose
Dept. Store Sales

during July but failed to regain the record high of March. Sales at furniture
stores advanced slightly in June, but also remained below volumes reached
earlier in the year. Sales at household appliance stores remained virtually
unchanged. Bank debits, a measure of checkbook spending, recovered sharply
from the previous month’s decline to a level somewhat above April’s.
^

Bank Debits

Consumers continue to add to their debts as w ell as to their savings.

In June, consumer credit outstanding at District commercial banks rose for the
fifth consecutive month, reflecting increased borrowing for the purchase of
automobiles and for personal use. The pace of consumer saving remained high.
)S ]S
The overall farm economy has recently been doing w ell, but inade­
quate rain in m any localities dims the outlook for crops. Higher prices
Member Bank Loans

Member Bank Deposits

P E R C E N T O F R E Q U IR E D

RESERVES

Excess Reserves

Borrowings from
F. R. Bank

i T* rw f?T*?
l


1961


posted in July for beef, eggs, broilers, and hogs has probably lifted the index
of prices received by farmers slightly. Meanwhile, farm marketings have picked
up as harvests of tobacco and summer vegetables and some field crops have
gathered headway. Livestock marketings have declined somewhat, however, as
broiler shipments were curtailed. The hot, dry weather that prevailed in many
localities in July has had an adverse effect on prospective crop yields.
Loan expansion, which has been underw ay since m id-1961, resumed
in June after a brief interruption in M ay. The rise was dominated by

gains at banks in Florida. During July, however, loans at member banks in
leading cities declined. Since April, the expansion in deposits at all mem­
ber banks has fallen short of the pace maintained in the first four months of
the year, partly because time deposit expansion slowed.
N o t e:

D ata on which statements are based have been adjusted to eliminate seasonal influences.