The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
^
o e r
v
7
it**'
!<,
Atlanta, Georgia
December
•
1966
Vol. LI, No. 12
/1Zm
this
MISSISSIPPI PAUSES
TO ENJOY ITS GAINS
INDEX FOR THE
YEAR 1966
SIXTH DISTRICT
STATISTICS
DISTRICT BUSINESS
CONDITIONS
A W ilij Review
A Full Measure of the
District States’ Employment
During the 1960-65 economic expansion period, 5.5 million jobs were
created in the nation. This growth not only provided jobs but reduced
the number of unemployed persons by half a million. The 5.6-percent
unemployment rate of 1960 fell to a 4.6-percent annual average in 1965.
During the past year the rate has been in the 3.7-4.0-percent range.
The same general trend occurred in the six states wholly or partly in
the Atlanta Federal Reserve District. Nonfarm payroll jobs increased
from 5.3 million in 1960 to 6.3 million last year, and the insured un
employment rate decreased from 4.8 percent to 2.4 percent. However,
these statistics give only a partial picture because they are not strictly
comparable with national total labor force statistics. Both the nonfarm
payroll and the insured unemployment series exclude farm workers,
proprietors, and the self-employed. Insured unemployment statistics also
exclude new entrants and re-entrants to the labor force and those who
have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits. About 60 per
cent of total employment is covered by unemployment insurance. There
fore, only a full measure of the District states’ employment and unem
ployment can provide a comprehensive picture of total job growth.
Series for the District states’ total work force and unemployment
could answer some of these questions: How large is unemployment for
those not covered by unemployment insurance— new entrants to the
labor force, those who have exhausted their benefits, and those who
work on uninsured jobs? How has the percentage of working age people
(14 and over) in the labor force changed over time in District states?
How does the participation rate differ among District states? Has the
high level of demand for labor affected the willingness of people to enter
or re-enter the labor force?
The rapid gains in economic activity in the past year have pushed the
unemployment rate to the point where further economic expansion will
be increasingly dependent on growth in the labor force. The possibilities
of expanding output by reducing the number of unemployed below the
present national rate (3.7 percent in November) are limited. How does
the present pool of unemployed persons in District states compare with
that of the nation? Is our situation more or less severe?
Estimating Procedures
To complement the national series on nonfam payroll employment,
a monthly household survey provides data on the size of the labor force,
different types of employment, and characteristics of the unemployed
for the nation. However, such a survey is not feasible on a regular
basis for individual states because of the prohibitive cost. An accurate
state survey would cost nearly as much as the national survey.
After experimenting with the types of information available within
the Federal-state employment security system for many years, the Bu
reau of Employment Security concluded “that it is possible to derive
reasonably accurate estimates of total unemployment, by state and area,
from this data.” The Bureau then developed a procedure for estimating
total unemployment based largely on data from covered unemployment
1960-65 Employment Trends
D istrict States
Percent Change
1965
From 1960
U nited States
Percent Change
1965
From 1960
E m p lo ym en t (Thousands)
T o ta l
8 ,2 7 9
1 2 .4
7 2 ,1 7 9
8 .2
6 ,2 4 9
1 8 .6
6 0 ,4 4 4
1 1 .5
347
- 2 8 .4
3 ,4 5 6
- 1 2 .1
99
- 4 4 .2
1 ,3 2 8
- 3 0 .3
N o n fa rm , W a g e
and
S a la r y
U n em ploym en t (Thousands)
T o ta l
In su re d
U n em ploym en t R ates (P ercent)
T o ta l
4 .0
- 3 9 .4
4 .6
- 1 7 .9
In su re d
2 .4
- 5 1 .0
3 .0
- 3 7 .5
N o n in s u r e d
5 .4
- 2 5 .0
6 .8
3 .0
Civilian Participation
R a te * (Percent)
5 3 .7
-
1 .5
5 3 .2
-
6 .0
♦These civilian participation rates are not comparable with the participation
rates published in conjunction with the national household survey, which
includes members of the armed forces.
and employment service operations.
The estimates are now prepared by state employment
agencies for total employment, unemployment, and the
civilian work force. However, the method as first devel
oped has become less accurate in recent years because
more young people are now entering the labor force than
in the 1950’s. A recent revision of the estimating proced
ure, incorporated by all the states’ employment agencies,
has corrected this weak point. (Starting in January, the
six-state unemployment rate will be published regularly
in the Review.)
How reliable are these estimates? The accuracy for an
individual area is difficult to ascertain, because accurate
benchmarks with which to compare the estimates generally
are not available. However, some idea of the series ac
curacy is possible by comparing the BES estimating pro
cedure with the national household survey data. Such a
comparison was made for the annual average for the 196164 period.
The difference between the estimates derived from the
BES method and the household survey for each year was
within two standard errors (the largest difference occurring
between the true value and the survey estimate 95 percent
of the time). The largest difference between the two esti
mates would have led to a difference of only one-tenth of
one percent in the national unemployment rate. The ex
pected error for a state, however, would be larger, because
overestimates of unemployment in some states offset un
derestimates in other states. Yet the estimates appear
reliable enough for many uses. And the change between
two periods in the estimated unemployment would prob
ably be more accurate than the estimate of the unemploy
ment level.
Some Applications of the Figures
Using these figures, we found that the District states
compared favorably with the nation in terms of total job
growth and the reduction of unemployment. The District’s
unemployment rate of 6.6 percent in 1960 was one per
centage point above the national rate. However, by 1965,
the region’s rate dropped to 4.0 percent, while the na
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
• 94*
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tion’s rate defined to 4.6 percent. In accomplishing this
feat, District states provided 913,000 additional jobs and
reduced unemployment by 137,000. The area’s job growth
was 50 percent greater than the nation’s. Additional fig
ures on these trends are given in the table.
All six District states registered a faster employment
growth than the nation. Florida, with the smallest unem
ployment rate in the District in 1960, led in percentage job
gains, made possible by an upsurge in the state’s popula
tion and work force. The growth rate of total employment
trailed that for nonfarm payroll employment because of
the decline in agricultural jobs.
The incidence of unemployment is greater on those not
covered by unemployment insurance than those covered.
This reflects two factors: the high rate of unemployment
for new entrants to the labor force who have not yet built
up unemployment insurance benefits and higher unem
ployment rates in agriculture than in nonfarming activi
ties because of the large seasonal fluctuations in farming
activity. In 1965, only 46 percent of the total work force
was covered by unemployment insurance in the District
states.
While the total unemployment rate in 1965 stood at
4.0 percent in the region, the rate for those not covered
by unemployment insurance was 5.4 percent. Not only
was the rate lower for insured employees in 1960, but it
dropped faster. However, those not covered by unemploy
ment insurance were more fortunate in the District states
than in the nation. While the region’s rate declined from
7.2 percent in 1960 to 5.4 percent in 1965, the nation’s
rate rose from 6.6 percent to 6.8 percent. These figures
support the hypothesis that the demand for skilled workers
(roughly represented by those covered by unemployment
insurance) has risen faster during expansion than the de
mand for unskilled workers.
Over time, the percent of the noninstitutional popula
tion in the labor force has declined. In the 1955-65 period,
the rate dropped from 58.7 percent to 57.5 percent for the
U. S., mainly because young people stayed in school longer
and old people retired at an earlier age. The decline would
have been even larger except for the greater participation
of women in the labor force.
Figures for the District states from 1960 through 1965
reveal a similar trend. All states showed a lower civilian
participation rate in 1965 than in 1960. The smallest de
crease in the participation rate occurred in Florida, where
jobs have grown most rapidly. However, the state ranked
fifth among District states in 1960 participation rates be
cause of its large number of retirees. Mississippi has the
lowest participation rate in the region because of its less
industrialized economy.
The participation rate is also affected by the demand
for labor. During a time of slack employment, some per
sons drop out of the labor force. When demand is stronger,
they return to the labor force because of the greater em
ployment opportunities.
In 1965, strong demands for labor led to an increase
in the civilian participation rate in the U. S. and in each
of the District states. The region’s greater job growth and
its larger gain in the civilian participation rate than the
nation’s reflect these demands.
continued on page 98
M O N T H L Y R E V IE W
Mississippi Pauses to Enjoy Its Gains
Mississippi’s economy is sporting a new and more expen
sive coat this year, purchased with its steadily rising in
come. More than likely, the coat will not be outgrown
this year, for growth is not quite so vigorous as last year.
The state’s economy is moving upward (ask any
Mississippian), but it is not traveling quite so fast as last
year. Evidence of this slowing can be seen in personal
income figures computed by this Bank for the first eight
months of 1966. Mississippi’s growth rate of personal
income for this period last year led national and District
averages. This year it fell below the District average, and
the gap between it and the national rate has narrowed. Al
though income growth in the nation topped 1965 gains,
Mississippi’s growth fell behind last year’s pace.
A difference between the growth rates of income in
Mississippi and the nation is not unusual. As was shown
in a recent Review article (September 1966, page 70)
personal income in Mississippi moves less closely with
national income than does that of any other District state.
Because of the unusual importance of agriculture in the
Magnolia state— a factor which often explains fluctuations
in Mississippi’s growth rate— one may be inclined to at
tribute any straying from the national path to agriculture.
Through this summer, agriculture enjoyed healthy gains
in the state, largely because of high prices for livestock
and livestock products. True, livestock prices fell a bit in
the fall, and crop receipts, which cluster late in the year,
are being dampened noticeably by low cotton prices and
reduced acreages. But the slowdown came after aggregate
income growth began decreasing. Thus, we must look
beyond agriculture to discover the reason for this year’s
slackening.
The Role of Manufacturing
While you can’t say that as manufacturing goes, so goes
Mississippi, you may rest assured that this dynamic sector
will determine to a large extent where the state goes. An
infant a decade ago, today manufacturing is the state’s
largest income producer outside government.
In 1955, a “good” year for agriculture, manufacturing
income was less than that of agriculture. Two years later,
as agriculture slumped, manufacturing outstripped its
rural rival. Manufacturing has remained larger ever since,
significantly outweighing agriculture even in boom farm
years. Nearly 21 percent of the total civilian labor force
is employed in manufacturing industries. In 1965, they
accounted for about 17 percent of Mississippi’s personal
income, and this, of course, is only part of their influence.
A basic sector of the economy, like manufacturing, is
important not only for its size but for its ability to in
crease the size of itself and other sectors. It is able to do
this because manufacturing fuels the economy just as the
public utility’s generators fuel other industries. Manufac
turing spawns a host of other types of employment.
Slowing Centered in Heavy Industry
A slowing in manufacturing accounted for nonagricultural
wage and salary employment growth’s falling from 1965’s
31,700 ten-month gain to 26,000 this year. Growth of
weekly earnings in manufacturing also leveled off. Sectors
outside manufacturing which are growing less rapidly than
in 1965 are fairly well balanced by those growing more
rapidly, like transportation, communication, and public
utilities.
The reduced pace in manufacturing has been centered
in durable goods (heavy industry). The overall dampen
ing of nonagricultural employment growth is entirely
accounted for by the slower pace in durable goods manu
facturing. In contrast to durables, nondurables have bet
tered last year’s record, offsetting part of the shortfall in
durables.
The lag in durable goods was particularly discernible
in nonelectrical machinery and transportation equipment.
These industries have experienced absolute declines in
employment since early 1966. The decline was greater in
the larger industry, transportation equipment, whose ship
building sector was particularly affected, but relatively
mm
The “ SS Long B ea ch ” w a s built in
P ascagou la, th e s ta te ’s ship b u ild in g
cap ital. This v e ss e l, th e w orld’s largest
con ta in er ship (600 fe e t in length ), w as
used a s a Navy transport ship
until th is year.
D E C E M B E R 19 66
1
• 95 •
Mississippi’s Income
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
1955 1956
1
1957 1958 1959 1960
I
i
1961
i
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
i
i
z
1962 1963 1964 1965
S tead ily rising m an ufacturin g payrolls and flu ctuatin g
incom e influence th e growth of total personal incom e.
O
farm
larger in machinery. Shipbuilding employment also dropped
from January to September in the nation, whereas last
year it rose during this period. In Mississippi a sizable
part of the reduction in shipbuilding occurred in Pasca
goula, the state’s shipbuilding capital.
In contrast, employment in Mississippi’s largest manu
facturing industry, lumber and wood products, continues
to climb. Its increase this year falls short of last year’s
phenomenal gain, however. The nationwide slump in hous
ing starts, which has reduced demand for Mississippi soft
woods, helps explain the slower employment growth.
Growth of employment in this industry has been less en
ergetic throughout the nation this year.
A disproportionate share of the shortfall in nonfarm
employment growth based on last year’s state average can
be attributed to Mississippi’s larger cities: Biloxi, Green
ville, Gulfport, Hattiesburg, Jackson, Laurel, Meridian,
and Vicksburg. They currently account for a little more
than 30 percent of the state’s manufacturing employment;
in the last census they had only 20 percent of the state’s
population. Here, however, a slowing based on the state
rate is not on balance solely confined to manufacturing,
although the larger part lies within it. The eight large
cities as a group registered a nonagricultural growth rate
below last year’s state average, but Greenville beat the
average. Credit for this accomplishment resides with its
nonmanufacturing sector, however.
We cannot conclude that the slowdown in the growth of
weekly earnings and employment in manufacturing is the
only factor causing an excessive deceleration in the growth
of personal income in Mississippi. Other factors which
also determine the economic health of the state may offset
or emphasize the effect of changes in manufacturing. We
have already considered agriculture. What are some of
the other factors?
Investment plays a leading role in determining the
growth of the state. A number of firms have announced
new plants or expansions in Mississippi this year, but
there has been no spate of announcements like those
appearing last year for the paper and allied products
industries. In a related key sector, major construction, the
tempo of activity has tapered off, despite increased
activity in nonresidential construction. As is generally true
in the Southeast, residential building activity has held up
surprisingly well, only recently falling below last year’s
mark.
We see that a leveling of an uptrend in key Mississippi
economic indicators is rather common today. It reminds
one of a runner pausing between hurdles to catch
his breath.
C
a r o l e
E .
S
c o t t
This is one of a series in which economic developments in
each of the Sixth District states are discussed. Develop
ments in Louisiana’s economy were analyzed in the Sep
tember 1966 R e v i e w , and a discussion of Georgia’s econ
omy is scheduled for a forthcoming issue. • Copies of the
revised editions of A R e v i e w o f F l o r i d a ’ s E c o n o m y ,
1959-66, and A R e v i e w o f L o u i s i a n a ’ s E c o n o m y , 195966, are now available upon request to the Research De
partment, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303.
Economic Indicators, Mississippi
Slowing Rather General
How does Mississippi’s employment growth compare with
others? For the nation as a whole, gains in employment
occurred more rapidly in the first months of 1966 than
in 1965. Early Sixth District employment gains exceeded
these national gains, but in recent months the District’s
rate of employment growth has fallen behind the now
lagging national rate. In the District, contract construc
tion has been particularly affected, but the slowing is
rather general and is apparent in manufacturing. The
let-up in Mississippi’s rate of employment growth is com
mon in the Sixth District. But, unlike Mississippi, the
District’s personal income gain over the first eight months
of this year was greater than last year, though the gap
between the District’s and the nation’s rate lessened.
• 96 '
A lev elin g
off can
be s e e n
in
several
e co n o m ic
indicators.
M ONTHLY
R E V IE W
I n d e x
f o r
t h e
AGRICULTURE
Crop Acreages May Decline by Robert E. Sweeney, May,
p. 35.
District Farm Employment Continues Decline by Robert E.
Sweeney, July, p. 52.
Livestock Production Cycles and Food Prices by Robert E.
Sweeney, Mar., p. 17.
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
Hitting the Target in 1965-66 by W. M. Davis, Jan., p. 1.
BANK ANNOUNCEMENTS
Jan., p. 6; Feb., p. 14; Mar., p. 22; April, p. 30; May,
p. 38; June, p. 46; July, p. 58; Aug., p. 66; Sept., p. 74;
Oct., p. 82; Nov., p. 90; Dec., p. 98.
BANKING
Banking on a Boom by Paul A. Crowe, Feb., p. 11.
Banking Responds to the Growing Needs of Tennessee
Business by C. Richard Long, April, p. 28.
District Banks Expand Their Role as Capital Market Inter
mediaries by Hiram J. Honea, June, p. 41.
Hitting the Target in 1965-66 by W. M. Davis, Jan., p. 1.
Instalment Credit Motors Upward by Joe W. McLeary,
Mar., p. 21.
Interest Rates and the Demand for Credit by Harry Brandt
and Robert R. Wyand, II, April, p. 25.
1965 Operating Ratios by Paul A. Crowe, May, p. 36.
A Shift in Banking Philosophy? An Examination of Bank
Investment Practices by Harry Brandt and Robert R.
Wyand, II, Aug., p. 61.
A Study of Checking Activity by Paul A. Crowe, Oct.,
p. 77.
Time and Savings Deposits in Perspective, July, p. 56.
CAPITAL MARKET INTERMEDIARIES
District Banks Expand Their Role as Capital Market Inter
mediaries by Hiram J. Honea, June, p. 41.
CONSUMER CREDIT
Consumer Credit Quality— A Search for an Answer by
Robert E. Sweeney and Joe W. McLeary, Nov., p. 85.
Instalment Credit Motors Upward by Joe W. McLeary,
Mar., p. 21.
CONSUMER MARKETS
Southern Consumer Markets—Growing, but Changing by
Joe W. McLeary, Oct., p. 79.
DEFENSE SPENDING
The Impact of Defense Spending on the District Economy
by C. Richard Long, July, p. 49.
DISTRICT BUSINESS CONDITIONS
Jan., p. 8; Feb., p. 16; Mar., p. 24; April, p. 32; May,
p. 40; June, p. 48; July, p. 60; Aug., p. 68; Sept., p. 76;
Oct., p. 84; Nov., p. 92; Dec., p. 100.
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, SIXTH DISTRICT STATES
Banking Responds to the Growing Needs of Tennessee
Business by C. Richard Long, April, p. 28.
Diversification Aids Alabama’s Growth by Joe W. Mc
Leary, July, p. 54.
Digitized
D E C E Mfor
B EFRASER
R 1966
Y e a r
1 9 6 6
Florida’s Employment Profile by Paul A. Crowe, June,
p. 44.
It’s ‘Batter Up’ in Georgia by Hiram J. Honea, Mar., p. 19.
Mississippi Pauses to Enjoy Its Gains by Carole E. Scott,
Dec., p. 95.
Mississippi’s Economy: ‘Five in a Row’ by Robert E.
Sweeney, Jan., p. 5.
The Roller Coaster Effect in Louisiana by Carole E. Scott,
Sept., p. 72.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SIXTH DISTRICT STATES
The Impact of Defense Spending on the District Economy
by C. Richard Long, July, p. 49.
’65 District Economy: Where the Growth Is by C. Richard
Long, Feb., p. 9.
ECONOMIC FORECASTING
As the Nation Goes, So Goes the South? by Joe W. Mc
Leary, Sept., p. 69.
EMPLOYMENT
District Farm Employment Continues Decline by Robert
E. Sweeney, July, p. 52.
A Full Measure of the District States’ Employment by C.
Richard Long, Dec., p. 93.
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Interest Rates and the Demand for Credit by Harry Brandt
and Robert R. Wyand, II, April, p. 25.
FOOD PRICES
Livestock Production Cycles and Food Prices by Robert E.
Sweeney, Mar., p. 17.
INCOME
As the Nation Goes, So Goes the South? by Joe W. Mc
Leary, Sept., p. 69.
INTEREST RATES
Interest Rates and the Demand for Credit by Harry Brandt
and Robert R. Wyand, II, April, p. 25.
What Happened to State and Local Government Borrow
ing? by C. William Schleicher, Jr., Nov., p. 88.
OPERATING RATIOS
1965 Operating Ratios by Paul A. Crowe, May, p. 36.
SIXTH DISTRICT STATISTICS
Jan., p. 7; Feb., p. 15; Mar., p. 23; April, p. 31; May,
p. 39; June, p. 47; July, p. 59; Aug., p. 67; Sept., p. 75;
Oct., p. 83; Nov., p. 91; Dec., p. 99.
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BORROWING
What Happened to State and Local Government Borrow
ing? by C. William Schleicher, Jr., Nov., p. 88.
State and Local Borrowing in a Changing Market by
Hiram J. Honea, Jan., p. 3.
TEXTILES
Textiles in Transformation by C. Richard Long, May, p. 33.
VOLUNTARY FOREIGN CREDIT RESTRAINT PROGRAM
Hitting the Target in 1965-66 by W. M. Davis, Jan., p. 1.
• 97*
Debits to Demand Deposit Accounts
continued from page 94
Insured Commercial Banks in the Sixth District
(In Thousands of Dollars)
Comparative Unemployment Rates
Percent Change
Sixth D istrict S ta te s and U nited S ta te s
Year-to-Date
10 m onths
Oct. 1966 from 1966
Oct.
Sept. Oct. from
1965
1966 1965 1965
Oct.
1966
Sept.
1966
1,450,753
66,508
167,098
509,759
297,413
90,369
1,378,015
63,948
173,069
414 ,214
290,027
83,410
1,257,351
60,489
163,941
440,980
268,373
80,722
+5
+4
-3
+23
+3
+8
+15
+10
+2
+ 16
+11
+12
+13
+10
+5
+ 10
+ 11
+ 14
539,463
1,340,591
2,076,988
464,136
195,710
506,878
1,312,153
l,8 6 8 ,9 3 7 r
409,286
202,148
461 ,394
1,304,973
1,732,877
393,736
181,881
+6
+2
+ 11
+ 13
-3
+ 17
+3
+20
+ 18
+8
+16
+ 13
+ 15
+9
+7
1,182,997
394,518
1,065,280
369,941
1,014,216
326,544
+ 11
+7
+17
+21
+ 11
+21
Albany
........................
Atlanta
........................
A u g u s t a ........................
Colum bus
...................
Macon .............................
Savannah
...................
89,020
4,168,917
261,312
206,921
223,449
240,436
97,885
4,154,755
256,727
213,891
221,295
244,909
85,327
3,852,056
210,816
179,884
202,928
225,659
-9
+0
+2
-3
+ 1
-2
+4
+3
+24
+ 15
+ 10
+7
+7
+ 12
+26
+7
+ 11
+ 11
Baton Rouge . . . .
Lafayette
...................
Lake Charles . . . .
New Orleans . . . .
Jackson
........................
570,707
116,691
122,956
2,216,166
587,754
544,005
115,352
138,931
2,235,687
452 ,754
108,053
112,494
2,093,690
+5
+ 1
-1 2
-1
+25
+ 8
+9
+6
+22
+ 15
+ 17
+ 15
598,270
558,500
-2
+5
+ 15
Chattanooga
. . . .
Knoxville
...................
N ashville
...................
542,493
421,825
1,332,430
552,719
432,965
1,439,524
494,125
408,741
1,201,281
-2
-3
-7
+ 10
+3
+ 11
+ 14
+9
+ 12
62,619
59,377
45,299
34,033
58,359
198,307
83,484
64,676
61,655
42,822
58,971
54,640
45,434
-3
-4
+6
+6
+9
-0
+ 14
+ 11
+ 14
39,012
59,225
199,979
77,279
36,343
44,569
193,911
74,998
-1 3
-1
-1
+8
-6
+31
+2
+ 11
+ 14
+21
+9
+9
63,856
83,411
29,198
107,190
51,897
19,298
254,078
90,287
113,960
610,697
52,507
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-7
+ 16
+22
-1
+ 10
+22
+6
+ 14
+ 14
+ 11
+ 17
-1
80,661
38,791
81,550
15,838
68,543
31,674
24,028
22,118
72,076
50,254
57,206
67,474
29,629
98,654
47,109
16,582
258,270
85,250
103,776
562,908
48,542
60,930
37,087
84,940
15,012
68,303
28,589
19,894
22,141
65,931
47,061
+4
-1
-0
+2
+ 11
-9
+ 16
+8
+ 1
+8
Athens
...................
Brunswick
. . . .
D a l t o n ........................
E l b e r t o n ...................
G ainesville . . . .
G r i f f i n ........................
LaGrange
. . . .
...................
Newnan
R o m e ........................
V a l d o s t a ...................
66,190
82,580
29,190
108,853
57,484
17,564
293,608
97,194
114,985
658,521
48,837
75,768
38,595
80,165
12,427
69,124
31,778
20,828
25,351
73,087
54,096
-6
-1
-2
-2 2
+ 1
+0
-1 3
+ 15
+ 1
+8
+24
+4
-6
-1 7
+1
+ 11
+5
+ 14
+ 11
+ 15
14
12
14
12
12
15
12
12
12
+9
+6
+ 14
+ 1
-1
+ 14
+5
+ 14
+ 16
+6
+ 12
+4
Abbeville
. . . .
Alexandria
. . . .
Bunkie
...................
Ham m ond
. . . .
New Iberia . . . .
Plaquem ine
. . .
Thibodaux
. . . .
11,894
117,102
6,412
35,986
33,528
10,696
20,692
13,216
116,582
6,169
36,258
34,986
10,832
21,106
10,453
117,163
6,561
30,194
34,142
8,152
19,500
-1 0
+0
+4
-1
-4
-1
-2
+ 14
-0
-2
+ 19
-2
+ 31
+6
+ 14
+ 12
+4
+ 14
+8
+21
+ 10
B iloxi-G ulfport
. .
H attiesburg
. . .
L a u r e l ........................
M eridian
. . . .
N a t c h e z ...................
Pascagoula—
Moss Point . . .
Vicksburg
. . . .
Yazoo City . . . .
93,890
57,039
35,866
64,870
34,610
92,963
53,362
34,516
62,141
33,451
84,890
48,997
37,460
58,118
29,944
+ 1
+2
+4
+4
+3
+ 11
+ 16
-4
+ 12
+ 16
+ 17
+ 18
+2
+9
+ 15
64,190
41,453
22,612
51,506
40,454
25,739
45,592
35,415
27,630
+25
+2
-1 2
+41
+ 17
-1 8
70,722
68,953
139,814
71,419
66,247
142,606
61,457
63,659
118,875
-1
+4
-2
+ 15
+8
+ 18
+
+
+
+
+
+
27,519,912
26,798,069
24,913,235
+3
+ 10
+ 12
3,628,188
8,299,538
6 ,831,194
3,790,228
1,303,940
3,666,824
3,473,852
7,699,520
6,821,925
3,820,728
1,277,916
3,704,128
3,287,346
7,374,424
6,253,246
3,519,955
1,190,477
3,287,787
+4
+8
+0
-1
+2
-1
+ 10
+ 13
+9
+8
+ 10
+ 12
+
+
+
+
+
+
STANDARD METROPOLITAN
STATISTICAL AREASt
Birm ingham
. . . .
Gadsden
...................
H u n t s v i l l e ...................
M obile
........................
M ontgom ery
. . . .
T u s c a lo o s a ...................
Ft. Lauderdale—
Hollywood
. . . .
Jacksonville
. . . .
M i a m i .............................
O r l a n d o ........................
Pensacola
...................
Tam paSt. Petersburg
. .
W. Palm Beach . . .
Current Analysis
To measure the normal seasonal pattern and to make iden
tity of cyclical changes easier, we seasonally adjusted the
unemployment and the work force series on the Bureau
of the Census’ X - ll program. The ratio of the two series
gives the District’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate.
The District’s unemployment rate declined during 1962
and early 1963, while the U. S. rate fluctuated around
5 Vi percent (see chart). By mid-1963, the District’s rate
had fallen below the U. S. rate and has generally main
tained a lower level since then. As the economy picked up
steam in mid-1965, the unemploymnt rate declined rapidly.
The national rate sank from 4.6 percent in June to 3.7 per
cent in February of this year. The rate in the District states
plummeted from 4.3 percent in June to 3.3 percent in
January.
Neither the District nor the nation has been able to pen
etrate the low rates established early this year. The lower
District unemployment rate at the beginning of the year
and the subsequent slowdown in job growth indicates the
District is facing greater labor supply problems than the
nation. Nonetheless, the gap between the region's and the
nation’s unemployment rates has narrowed in recent
months. Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi currently
have rates above 4.0 percent. The October unemployment
rate of 3.6 percent for the region leads one to ask if the
District can push below the January rate in the months
ahead. Recent experience illustrates the difficulty of the
task. Time will give us the answer.
C. R i c h a r d L o n g
B a n k Announcem ents
The Fairburn Banking Company, Fairburn, Georgia, a
nonmember bank, began to remit at par on November 1
for checks drawn on it when received from the Federal
Reserve Bank.
Another nonmember bank, the M erchants Bank and
T ru st Company, Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, began to remit
at par on November 21.
The Bank of Kinston, Kinston, Alabama, a newly
organized nonmember bank, opened for business on No
vember 28 and began to remit at par. J. F. Grigg, Jr., is
President, and T. W. Pierce, Cashier. Capital amounts to
$100,000, and surplus and other capital funds, $50,000.
. 98 ’
OTHER CENTERS
A n n is t o n ...................
Dothan
...................
S e l m a ........................
...................
Bartow
Bradenton
. . . .
Brevard County . .
Daytona Beach . .
Ft. M yers—
N. Ft. Myers . .
G ainesville . . . .
Monroe County . .
Lakeland
. . . .
O c a l a ........................
St. Augustine . . .
St. Petersburg
. .
S a r a s o t a ...................
Tallahassee
. . .
Tam pa
...................
W in ter Haven . . .
Bristol
...................
Johnson City . . .
K i n g s p o r t ...................
SIXTH
DISTRICT, Total
Alabama^:
. . . .
F l o r i d a ^ ...................
G e o rg ia :):...................
L o u isian a*f
• • •
M iss issip p i*f ■ • •
Ten n essee *t
. • •
16
18
11
14
11
17
10
11
11
15
15
12
i n c lu d e s only ba n ks in the Sixth D istrict portion of the state.
fP a rtia lly estim ated.
{Estim ated .
M ONTHLY
r e v ie w
Sixth District Statistics
Seasonally Adjusted
(A ll d a ta a re in d e x e s , 1 9 5 7 - 5 9
Latest Month
(1966)
One
Month
Ago
Two
Months
Ago
241
221
240
224
240
223
214
198
178
164
191
175
163
181
180
159
182
165
154
172
ALABAMA
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) Sept. 7,200
169
Manufacturing P a y r o lls........................... Oct.
126
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ............................... Sept.
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm E m p lo y m e n t...........................
M anufacturing........................................
N onm anufacturing...............................
C o n s tr u c tio n ....................................
Farm E m ploym ent....................................
Insured Unemployment,
(Percent of Cov. E m p .)......................
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . .
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s ..................
Member Bank Deposits . . . .
Bank D ebits**................................
7,286r
170
133
7,282r
173
157
6,855
162
149
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
121
120
122
128
60
121
120
122
128r
48
122
121
123
128
79
118
116
119
122
61
Oct.
Oct.
2.0
41.1
2.1
41.3r
2.0
41.4
2.6
41.8
. Oct.
. Oct.
. Oct.
223
175
180
222
175
164
224
178
173
204
166
162
FLORIDA
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) Sept. 16,023
223
Manufacturing P a y r o lls........................... Oct.
149
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ................................ Sept.
I O O , u n le s s in d ic a te d o th e r w is e .)
One
Year
Ago
SIXTH DISTRICT
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) Sept. 53,997 53,975r 53,875r 50,239
188
Manufacturing P a y r o lls ........................... Oct.
189
187
173
147
149
143
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ................................Sept.
134
114
126
136
C r o p s ...................................................... Sept.
118
158
157
143
L iv e sto c k ..................................................Sept.
156
Instalment Credit at Banks, *(Mil. $)
262
264r
282
New L o a n s ............................................. Oct.
264
228
265
265
R e p a y m e n t s ..........................................Oct.
253
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
126
131
Nonfarm E m p lo y m en t............................ Oct.
132
131
125
132
Manufacturing
....................................Oct.
132
132
155
161
160
Apparel
.............................................Oct.
161
120
127
127
C h e m i c a l s ........................................ Oct.
127
134
145
143r
Fabricated M e t a ls ........................... Oct.
144
109
111
111
F o o d ...................................................... Oct.
112
102
105
Lbr., Wood Prod., Furn. & Fix. . . Oct.
104
106
109
115
114
P a p e r ..................................................Oct.
115
109
117
116r
Primary M e t a l s ................................Oct.
116
101
104
104r
Textiles ............................................. Oct.
104
159
170
Transportation Equipment . . . Oct.
174
170
126
131
N onm anufacturing................................Oct.
132
131
125
123
124
C o n s tr u c tio n .................................... Oct.
125
70
67
58
Farm E m ploym ent.................................... Oct.
63
Insured Unemployment,
2.4
1.8
2.0
(Percent of Cov. E m p .).......................Sept.
1.8
41.8
41.8r
41.3
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . Oct.
41.5
166
139
165
Construction C o n t r a c t s * .......................Oct.
176
167
137
124
R e s id e n tia l............................................. Oct.
117
165
141
199
All O th e r ................................................. Oct.
226
128
144
141
143
Electric Power Production**.................. Sept.
114
115
116
Cotton C onsum p tion**........................... Oct.
117
196
205
207
Petrol. Prod, in Coastal La. and Miss.** Oct.
225
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank Loans*
All B a n k s ................................................. Oct.
Leading C i t i e s .................................... Nov.
Member Bank Deposits*
All B a n k s ..................................................Oct.
Leading C i t i e s .................................... Nov.
Bank D eb its*/* * .........................................Oct.
=
15,738r 15,587r 14,696
200
228r
221
142
137
151
Latest Month
(1966)
GEORGIA
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) Sept. 10,213
Manufacturing P a y r o lls...........................Oct.
189
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ................................Sept.
183
One
Year
Ago
10,100r 10,114r
191r
187
111
135
9,411
173
151
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm E m p lo y m e n t........................... Oct.
M anufacturing........................................ Oct.
N onm anufacturing................................Oct.
C o n s tr u c tio n .................................... Oct.
Farm E m ploym ent....................................Oct.
Insured Unemployment,
(Percent of Cov. E m p .)...................... Sept.
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . Oct.
131
129
132
122
56
130
128
131
118
52
130
126
131
118
66
126
123
127
138
69
1.5
41.1
2.1
42.0
1.4
41.1
41.2
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s ............................... Oct.
Member Bank D e p o sits ...........................Oct.
Bank D ebits**.............................................Oct.
252
195
199
252
190
194
252
196
196
223
178
183
8,168r
168
210
8,302r
166
153
LOUISIANA
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) Sept. 8,147
Manufacturing P a y r o lls........................... Oct.
170
130
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ................................ Sept.
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm E m p lo y m e n t...........................
M anufacturing........................................
N onm anufacturing...............................
C o n s tr u c tio n ....................................
Farm E m ploym ent....................................
Insured Unemployment,
(Percent of Cov. E m p .)......................
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . .
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank Loans* . . . .
Member Bank Deposits* . . .
Bank D e b its*/** ...........................
7,538
156
135
122
112
124
136
70
121
111
123
136
62
121
112
123
134
67
116
106
118
131
81
Oct.
Oct.
1.8
42.5
1.8
42.7 r
1.9
41.9
2.1
43.0
. Oct.
. Oct.
. Oct.
223
152
170
226
154
167
225
156
167
201
144
158
4,004r
201 r
162
3,959r
201
177
MISSISSIPPI
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) Sept. 3,799
Manufacturing P a y r o lls........................... Oct.
204
88
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ............................... Sept.
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm E m p lo y m e n t...........................
M anufacturing........................................
N onm anufacturing...............................
C o n s tr u c tio n ....................................
Farm E m ploym ent....................................
Insured Unemployment,
(Percent of Cov. E m p .)......................
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . .
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank Loans* . . . .
Member Bank Deposits* . . .
Bank D e b its*/** ...........................
2.1
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
3,794
191
133
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
132
143
127
132
55
132
142
127
130
47
132
142
127
128
56
127
136
123
129
66
Sept.
Oct.
1.6
41.1
1.6
41.2
1.7
41.0
2.1
41.7
291
216
199
290
208
196
283
228
205
226
175
181
8,679r
189r
156
8,631r
186
140
. Oct.
. Oct.
TENNESSEE
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) Sept. 8,615
Manufacturing P a y r o lls........................... Oct.
189
107
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ................................ Sept.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
143
148
143
110
84
143
147
142
110
79
142
147
141
110
53
137
139
137
112
89
Oct.
Oct.
1.6
42.4
1.8
42.7r
2.0
42.7
1.9
42.7
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm E m p lo y m e n t...........................
M anufacturing.........................................
N onm anufacturing................................
C o n s tr u c tio n ....................................
Farm E m ploym ent....................................
Insured Unemployment,
(Percent of Cov. E m p .).......................
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . .
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s ............................... Oct.
Member Bank D e p o sits ........................... Oct.
Bank D ebits**............................................. Oct.
246
180
193
244
177
174
245
181
175
216
167
171
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s * ........................... Oct.
Member Bank D e p o s i t s * ....................... Oct.
Bank D eb its* /* * ........................................ Oct.
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm E m p lo y m e n t...........................
M anufacturing.........................................
N onm anufacturing...............................
C o n s tr u c tio n ....................................
Farm E m ploym en t....................................
Insured Unemployment,
(Percent of Cov. E m p .).......................
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . .
One
Two
Month Months
Ago
Ago
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
135
142
131
156
66
Sept.
Oct.
1.8
41.4
237
171
204
7,945
169
119
135
143
131
153
77
127
132
125
144
66
1.7
41.3
1.9
40.7
2.5
41.2
235
170
206
231
174
195
213
165
183
134
142
131
155r
66
*For Sixth District area only. Other totals for entire six states. **Daily average basis.
r-Revised.
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; industrial use of elec. power,
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.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
D E C E M B E R 1 9 66
Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis
. 99 *
DISTRICT BUSINESS CONDITIONS
Although economic activity continues at a high level, a definite cooling
of the District’s economy has accom panied falling winter tem peratures.
Consumer spending slackened, reflecting in part the slower rate of income
growth. Rising mortgage interest rates and restricted availability of con
struction loans kept the total contract volume of residential construction
well below its year-ago levels for October. Other types of lending expanded
unenergetically, as banks experienced lower deposit gains. Total manhours worked declined as a shorter workweek in October more than offset
the largest employment gain in recent months. Weaker livestock prices
and reduced cotton production caused the agricultural sector to lose some
of its glow.
N o n fa r m
E m p lo y m e n t
A v e r a g e W e e k ly H o u r s
C o n s t ru c tio n C o n tr a c ts
The recent slower rate of increase in seasonally adjusted incomes may
dampen consum er spending further. Indirect measures indicate that spend
ing has already slackened considerably. Retail sales in September were up only
slightly, and new consumer loan extensions at commercial banks were down.
This trend may have extended into October, as new loan extensions remained
at about the September level and automobile sales declined further.
v*
)S
Banks expanded credit moderately in November, continuing their ac
tions of recent months. Business loans rose somewhat less than seasonally,
following the modest October gains. Deposits again failed to gain significantly,
perhaps accounting for some of the lack of steam in bank lending. Many banks
may have difficulty in meeting a fairly strong loan demand during the holidays
because of reduced deposit inflows.
v* v*
In d u s t ria l U s e of E le c tric P o w e r
Total contract volume, still exhibiting m odest gains in October, was up
from the year-ago level. Strong increases in nonresidential construction were
repeated in October, offsetting persistent weakness in residential building. Mort
gage rates rose further, and lending terms became less liberal. Net savings flows
to the District’s savings and loan associations remain severely depressed.
B a n k D e b it s
v*
District m anufacturers in October shortened the workweek from the
high Septem ber level but employed additional workers. Nonfarm jobs
registered the largest gain in recent months— a gain still only half the average
monthly increase of the September 1965-March 1966 period. Construction
jobs scored their second monthly gain after suffering large cuts earlier this year.
October petroleum production continued the phenomenal pace of recent
months.
M em ber Bank
Loans
v*
E x ce ss
R eserves
B o r r o w in g s fr o m F. R. E3anka
1964
.1 9 6 5
;
* S e a s . a d j. f ig u r e ; n o t a n in d e x .
Harvesting of the District’s major row crops is nearing completion.
Prices for eggs, broilers, cattle, and hogs weakened further in October, but
prices for milk and rice increased. Through September, cash receipts for each
District state are above those of the same period last year. However, if livestock
prices continue to fall as the smaller cotton crop is marketed, the rate of growth
in cash incomes may decline. Interest rates paid by farmers for both production
and real estate loans seem to be advancing.
1966
N o t e : D a t a o n w h ic h st a te m e n t s a r e b a s e d h a v e b e e n a d ju s t e d w h e n e v e r p o s s i b l e to e lim in a te s e a s o n a l
in flu e n c e s.
@FedFRASER