The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Monthly Review ATLANTA, GEORGIA, FEBRUARY 28, 1953 ln % is Issue: T h e S ix th D is tr ic t. . . D e p o s it G r o w th B a r g a in Its P e o p le P a r a lle ls I n c o m e E x p a n s io n D a y a t th e M e a t C o u n te r R e c e n t R e v i v a l in C o t t o n T e x t i l e s T h e D is c o u n t R a te a n d B a n k L e n d in g S ix t h D it fr id S t a t is t ic s : Condition of 27 M em ber Banks in Leading Cities Debits to Individual Bank A ccounts Department Store Sales and Inventories Instalment Cash Loans Retail Furniture Store Operations W holesale Sales and Inventories S f r t f i V ffir it f:In d e x e s : Construction Contracts C otton Consumption Department Store Sales and Stocks Electric Power Production Furniture Store Sales Gasoline Tax Collections Manufacturing Employment Petroleum Production Turnover of Demand Deposits T h e S ix t h D is t r i c Broadly speaking, a region’s people are its focal point, for without people there can be no industry, agriculture, or finance. We can say with Rupert P. Vance, “People— what else matters?” We may take a look at ourselves in the Sixth District— of what divergent elements are we com posed, native and foreign bom, white and nonwhite, men T a b le 1— Population Distribution of the Sixth District States, 1950 (In Thousands) White Nonwhite Urban Alabama .............. 2,079 Florida ................. 2,166 Georgia................. 2,380 Louisiana.............. 1,796 Mississippi.............. 1,188 Tennessee.............. 2,760 T o ta l................. 12,371 982 605 1,064 886 990 531 5,059 1,340 1,813 1,559 1,471 607 1,452 8,245 State Foreignborn , Rural white 1,720 957 1,885 1,211 1,571 1,839 9,186 13 122 16 28 8 15 205 and women, young and old; what are our standards of consumption, our skills, our educations, our employments; and what are our prospects for future population growth and development? t ... i t s P e o p le In his American Social Problems , Howard W. Odum characterizes the Southeast as the most American part of the nation. “By this is meant,” he says, “that part of the nation which, holding on to its historical priority of the 13 original colonies and the tradition of the early settlers, still retains, since the turn of the twentieth century, more of the early ‘Americanisms’ than any other region. These ‘Americanisms’ are usually interpreted to mean the largest ratio of native whites of native parents from original upper European stocks, small foreign population . . . agrarian in culture, simple in living in rural isolated life. . . .” This characterization is borne out by the 1950 census. Table 1 summarizes census data on population distri bution for the Sixth District states for white and nonwhite, urban and rural, and foreign-born white. In these states, the census figures reveal that 5 out of every 17 persons were non white and that 9 out of every 17 lived in rural areas. Barely one out of 100 persons in the region was foreign-born. The bi-racial quality of the region’s popu lation is its most outstanding characteristic. In Alabama and Georgia, one person out of three is nonwhite, and in Mississippi, the proportion is almost one out of two. In Florida, 22 percent of the people are nonwhite, and in Tennessee, 16 percent. T a b l e 2 — Summary of Population Characteristics, 1950, Sixth District States Alabama Florida Georgia Louisiana Mississippi Tennessee Total population: 2,771,305 3,444,578 2,683,516 2,178,914 3,291,718 N u m b e r ..................................................... 3,061,743 8.1 46.1 10.3 Percent increase 1940 to 1950 ............. 13.5 — 0.2 12.9 25.5 30.9 26.2 Median age ( y e a r s ) ................................. 26.7 24.6 27.3 6.5 8.6 6.4 Percent 65 years old and o v e r ............. 6.6 7.0 7.1 32.1 21.8 30.9 33.0 Percent n o n w h ite .................................... 45.4 16.1 3.81 3.22 3.75 3.61 3.84 3.67 Persons per household................................. Married couples— 6.7 7.3 7.2 7.4 6.7 6.6 Percent without own household............. Persons one year old and over— 77.2 71.2 75.1 Percent in same house, 1949 and 1950 . 80.5 77.8 77.2 Persons 14 to 17 years old— 73.4 78.0 82.7 79.1 77.4 77.9 Percent in s c h o o l.................................... Persons 25 years old and over— 7.9 9.6 7.8 7.6 8.1 8.4 Median school years com pleted............. Persons 14 years old and over: 1,336,924 1,098,781 928,626 756,896 1,199,609 Number in labor f o r c e .......................... 1,085,226 75.2 80.6 75.5 78.7 77.7 77.3 Male— Percent in labor fo rc e ................. 31.7 26.4 31.2 24.6 25.7 24.8 Female— Percent in labor fo rc e ............. Civilian labor force— 3.4 4.2 4.5 4.6 3.5 3.9 Percent u n e m p lo y e d .............................. Employed—Percent engaged in 10.7 23.0 15.1 21.8 12.6 21.1 manufacturing .................................... Families and unrelated individuals: 1,950 1,644 1,810 1,580 1,028 1,749 Median income, 1949 (d o lla rs)............. Percent having incomes less 57.7 53.9 72.4 51.1 55.6 58.6 than $2,000 ........................................... Notwithstanding the spectacular growth in recent years of the District’s major cities, the region is still predomi nantly rural in character. Only Florida and Louisiana of the six states have more urban than rural residents. De clining dependence upon cotton, the development of beefcattle raising and dairying, and the spread of mechaniza tion in agriculture have stimulated a large movement of population from the farm to the city. In the District states, with the exception of Florida and Louisiana, more counties showed losses in population from 1940 to 1950 than counties with gains. Counties or parishes showing losses numbered 43 out of 67 in Alabama, 18 out of 49 in Flor ida, 98 out of 159 in Georgia, 30 out of 64 in Louisiana, 59 out of 82 in Mississippi, and 37 out of 77 in Tennessee. Still another striking characteristic of the District’s popu lation is its large proportion of young people, markedly larger than that of other regions. According to the 1950 census, 38.0 percent of the people of the South were under 20 years of age, compared with 29.5 percent for the North- T a b le 3— Per Capita Dollar Incom e Payments State or R egion Alabama....................... Florida.......................... G eorgia....................... Louisiana.................... Mississippi.................... Tennessee.................... Six States.................... Southern States1 ........... United States.............. 1930 ........... 232 ........... 431 ........... 274 ........... 344 ........... 191 ........... 283 ........... 284 ............279 ........... 596 1940 1950 1951 269 468 316 358 204 316 318 320 575 840 1,204 958 1,042 702 960 965 953 1,439 950 1,284 1,103 1,135 111 1,064 1,063 1,066 1,584 Tn addition to the six states, includes Arkansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. east, 35.9 percent for the North Central states, and 33.0 percent for the West. The median age in 1950 was 32.3 years for the popu lation in the Northeast, 31.1 years in the North Central states, 27.2 years in the South, and 30.6 years in the West. Florida, with a median age of 30.9, and Tennessee, with one of 27.3, are above the median age for the South, but Alabama with 25.5, Georgia with 26.2, Louisiana with 26.7, and Missisippi with 24.6 are below this point. Standards of consumption in the District as revealed by income payments are indicated in Table 2. For the six states in 1949, median income ranged between a low of $1,028 for Mississippi and a high of $1,950 for Florida. Median income for family and unrelated individuals for the United States was $2,599 and by census areas it was $2,924 for the Northeast, $2,841 for the North Central states, $1,940 for the South, and $2,907 for the West. In Table 3, per-capita income payments for the six states for four selected years are compared with those for all the Southern states and the United States as a whole. District standards of consumption are inferior to those in the nation, but progress is being recorded. In 1951, percapita income payments in the Southeast were roughly four times as large as they were in 1930, whereas for the United States they were less than three times as large. Skills of the District’s people cannot be precisely meas ured. In 1922, Frank H. Neely, then Industrial Engineer T a b le 4— School Enrollment, 1910-50 P ercent of children 7 to 13 years old en rolled in sch ool State Alabama ....................... Florida .......................... Georgia.......................... Louisiana...................... Mississippi .................... Tennessee....................... 1950 95.6 96.4 96.0 95.2 93.2 94.8 1940 92.4 93.4 91.9 92.4 88.3 90.8 1930 88.580.4 91.7 88.6 89.4 91.3 91.7 1920 66.3 83.2 79.1 75.9 80.1 85.3 1910 70.5 70.5 58.8 75.4 77.2 with the Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills of Atlanta, charac terized the industrial workers of the South as potentially good factory artisans. He said, “Their lack of training of hand and mind makes them difficult at first as factory workers, but their knowledge of the English language makes them, when trained, a group of the most satis factory and able artisans.” Of the individual Southern worker, Mr. Neely said, “Response is not quick, but when once trained, he develops skill and ability, which added to his native stability, enables him to outclass in many cases the workers of other sections of the country.” In 1953, Mr. Neely’s characterization of the Southern worker would be about as true as it was in 1922. The Dis trict still lags behind other regions in the matter of formal schooling, meaning that a larger proportion of its people than is true of the country as a whole have not had suffi cient school training to enable them to read and under stand simple written instructions. This handicap is espe cially true of that group of workers who are 25 years old and over. For the current school age group, however, the region is doing a far better educational job. Moreover, the state and local authorities are now vastly enlarging their educational facilities in a determined effort to provide their young people with opportunities for schooling, whether they be urban or rural, white or black. Percentage distribution by major occupation groups for the six states for the year 1950 is shown in Table 5. In employments, or in distribution developments among T a b le 5— Major Occupation Groups, 1950 G roup Professional, technical and kindred workers . . . Farmers and farm managers Managers, officials, and proprietors, except farm . Clerical and kindred workers Sales workers.................... Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers.............. Operatives and kindred workers .......................... Private household workers . Service workers, except private household........... Farm laborers, unpaid family workers.............. Farm laborers, except unpaid, and farm foremen........... Laborers, except farm and m in e ............................... Occupation not reported . . A la. F la. Ga. 6.3 15.6 8.1 4.0 12.5 6.8 7.3 5.6 11.5 10.1 8.0 7.1 8.5 6.0 8.5 9.8 6.4 6.1 5.4 4.6 7.2 9.0 6.3 10.8 13.1 10.2 11.5 7.5 11.8 18.9 5.3 13.3 5.2 19.8 5.9 15.0 5.0 11.9 4.6 18.9 3.6 5.8 9.7 6.3 8.0 5.0 6.8 4.8 0.9 4.0 2.3 7.3 2.7 3.7 6.6 4.3 4.3 5.1 3.3 7.6 1.5 8.1 1.4 7.5 1.4 9.6 1.4 6.6 1.4 6.1 1.7 6.2 •3 • La. M iss. Tenn. 8.0 5.8 10.3 28.9 7.2 15.5 major occupational groups, the District does not differ markedly from other regions. Generally, it may be said that a smaller proportion of the District’s people are en gaged in professional and technical work than is true of other regions— 7.4 percent in this group as against 8.9 percent for the United States. The District has more farmers and farm managers than is true of any other region: 12.7 percent in this group against 2.0 percent in the Northeast, 9.9 percent in the North Central states, and 5.1 percent in the West. Furthermore, it is close to the national average in the percentage of people working as operatives and kindred workers. Certain assumptions suggest themselves on the District’s future population growth and development. The first as sumption is that in the 1960 census, the Southeast, as a region, should show an increase in population. This as sumption can be made if for no other reason than that the census for 1950 showed an increase over that for 1940. The assumption that population gains will be experi enced during the current decade is borne out by the popu lation record for 1951 and 1952. Births in the United States boomed to a new record of 3,833,000 in 1951 and they exceeded 3,900,000 in 1952. At the end of September 1952, the total population was estimated at 157,500,000. The rate of population growth for both 1951 and 1952 exceeded 1.70 percent annually. The District is undoubt edly sharing in this growth. Secondly, the shift from an agrarian to an industrial economy will be accelerated in the years ahead. Existing trends in agriculture, notably the development of livestock raising, dairying, and poultry production, mean that less dependence will be placed upon the raising of cotton, which in the past has been accomplished largely with hand labor. Displaced farm workers will continue to move to the cities, attracted by job opportunities in our expanding industrial establishments. We have only to look at the employment opportunities offered by our expanding indus tries— in oil, in iron and steel, in coal, in textiles, in pulp and paper making, in chemistry, and in manufacturing in general—to assure ourselves that job opportunities for our population will be found. Highlighting the opening of new industrial employment opportunities in the South was a news report on employ ment conditions made in the latter part of 1952. Speaking of current demands for 50,000 additional automobile workers, demands which cannot be filled, the report said: “Formerly, the auto industry used to recruit workers easily in the South, whenever they were needed. But now, pro duction workers have good jobs at home in the South, and the special buses that used to take them to Detroit and back home aren’t running.” Finally, the vigorous attack by the District states on the problem of expanding their educational facilities will raise immeasurably the economic contribution of their workers. Georgia’s Minimum Foundation Program for Education, under which additional millions of dollars are to be spent in building new schools and providing more adequately trained teachers, is an outstanding example of the vigor with which the Southeastern states are attempting to im prove the economic potential of their people. L. B. R aisty D e p o s it G r o w t h In c o m e P a r a lle ls E x p a n s io n Answers to the question, “How’s business?” are usually couched in terms of national aggregates. Even on the side roads of the nation, businessmen are beginning to toss around such terms as “Gross National Product” and “Con sumer Purchasing Power.” Yet the typical enterprise is usually carried on within a particular locality, which seldom extends beyond the limits of a single state. Statistics on a national level, therefore, do not fully meet the needs of the individual businessman; on the other hand, statistics for specific areas are seldom available. One of the best and most easily accessible indicators of local business condi tions is the data on member bank deposits, published monthly by this bank for the six states and for the twentyseven trade and banking areas of the District. In the individual states of the Sixth District, the growth of member bank deposits during 1952 largely reflected a continuation of trends that have been evident since the end of World War II. Florida and Louisiana experienced the greatest proportionate rises in bank deposits from 1951 to 1952 as well as the greatest percentage increases since 1945. These states also showed the greatest percentage increases in income payments, both in the entire postwar period and from 1951 to 1952. Finally, Florida and Louisiana actually showed increases during 1949 when there was a general decline in income elsewhere. Louisiana has been making the biggest strides in in come payments since 1945. In the Sixth District portion of that state, member bank deposits have increased every year since 1946 and deposit growth during the six-year period has run a close second to that in Florida. This post war boom in Louisiana is characterized by extremely favor able developments in both agriculture and industry. From 1945 to 1952, income derived from agriculture rose at M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s its a n d In c o m e P a y m e n ts 1945 = 100 INDEX INDEX Note: 1952 income payments preliminary •4 • almost twice the rate of increase for all Sixth District states. Construction activity likewise increased in Louisi ana considerably more than in the entire District. Recent major oil and sulphur developments have been important in stimulating activity in the extractive industries, particu larly in the coastal area south and west of New Orleans. Florida has shown the greatest increase in member bank deposits since 1945. This is all the more remarkable be cause from 1945 to 1948 deposits declined continuously. Beginning in 1949, however, substantial increases in de posits of Florida member banks have occurred each year, which more than made up for decreases in the early post war years. Nearly 60 percent of the increase in income payments in Florida between 1945 and 1952 has been in three fields— the construction, service, and trade industries. The expansion of phosphate mining and the increase in citrus and cattle production have also contributed to the postwar boom. Basic underlying factors important for Florida’s prosperity, of course, include the increase in population and the growing popularity of the state as a tourist center. Georgia has shown substantial gains, running second only to Florida over the second half of the postwar period, following the 1949 dip in income payments and deposits. The noticeable improvement from the 1949 low in Georgia has been associated with a substantial pickup in manufac turing activity in the state, as well as an increase in Gov ernment payrolls and the favorable agricultural situation during 1950 and 1951. Tennessee can attribute one-fourth of her postwar in crease in income directly to an increase in income derived from manufacturing. In no other District state, has the proportionate gain in income from that source been as large. Of major importance in Tennessee’s development has been the expansion in chemical and synthetic fiber production. A labam a and Mississippi were most severely hit by the decline in income payments during 1949. This may be why their total income payments rose less during the entire postwar period than those in other District states. In Ala bama, stoppages in the coal and steel industry in the fall of 1949 were particularly strong forces affecting income payments. From 1945 to 1952, however, income payments in Alabama increased about 50 percent. Distribution o f th e District’s d e p o sit grow th in 1 9 5 2 1 by trade and banking area, is shown on the ac companying map. The District portion of Louisiana out side of New Orleans and the entire state of Florida showed deposit increases of 10 percent or more. In addi tion, the Mobile, Augusta, and Tri-cities areas experienced similarly large increases in deposits. The large growth in deposits in the Mobile area seems to have been associated with increased employment in shipyards and Government activities, as well as with developments in paper, chemi cals, and synthetic fiber production. In the Augusta area, deposit growth during 1952 undoubtedly reflected con struction activity at the hydrogen bomb plant across the Savannah River in South Carolina. The increase in de C hanges in D is tric t M e m b e r B a n k D e p o sits b y T ra d e a n d B a n k in g A re a PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN DEPOSITS, 1951-52 ■ 10 AND OVER H I 5 TO 10 UNDER 5 OR DECREASE Trade and Banking Area: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Anniston-Gadsden Birmingham Dothan Mobile Montgomery Jacksonville Miami Orlando Pensacola Tampa-St. Petersburg 20. New Orleans 21. Jackson 22. HattiesburgLaurel-Meridian 23. Natchez 24. Chattanooga 25. Knoxville 26. Nashville 27. Tri-Cities 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Atlanta Augusta Columbus Macon Savannah South Georgia AlexandriaLake Charles 18. Baton Rouge 19. Lafayette-lberia posits in the Tri-cities area, including Kingsport, Bristol, and Johnson City, Tennessee, seems largely associated with construction of new industrial plants of which an ordnance plant for the manufacture of guided missiles and several chemical plants appear to be the most important. Various reasons have been given for the relatively small increases and declines in deposits during 1952 in some sections of the District. Two areas in south and central Georgia are primarily agricultural and were affected by adverse weather conditions and falling farm prices. Similar conditions were present in the two areas of lowest increase in Mississippi, where other forces were also adversely affecting business activity. In Newton, for example, fire destroyed a large planer mill and a Government contract with a garment plant ran out, and in Laurel, two indus trial plants were idle during the last six months. Although growing urbanization has been a long-run characteristic of the South’s economy, it appears that the greatest development during 1952 as measured by deposit growth took place in areas where middle-size communities are predominant. With the exception of Miami, Jackson ville, and Mobile, the sections surrounding major cities of the District experienced neither the highest nor the lowest rates of increase in deposits. T h o m a s • 5 R . • A t k in s o n B a r g a in D a y a t th e M e a t C o u n t e r Meat, particularly beef, has been making headline news since July 1952, when cattle prices started to drop sharply. Consumers wait expectantly for bargains at meat markets. Livestock producers, on the other hand, fervently hope for relief from the pain of rapidly shrinking gross incomes. Each group may, in some measure, realize its hopes. The p ric e o f m e a t w e n t d o w n . . . . At Atlanta, Georgia, commercial grade beeves, which are in greater supply in the District than beeves of higher quality, held steady at a price of about $29.00 per 100 pounds liveweight from May 1951 to July 1952, when the price began to fall precipitously to reach $20.39 by No vember. Medium grade 160-180 pound barrows and gilts selling for $17.00 at Atlanta in December 1951 were 75 cents lower in December 1952. Both wholesale beef and pork prices, following the lead of liveweight prices, have tended down since October 1951, but pork prices have fluctuated more than beef prices. A composite of fresh and cured hog products, in cluding lard, had an average wholesale price of $37.93 per hundred pounds in August 1952. By November the price was $30.59. Although prices of even the best grades of beef on the hoof were falling sharply in late 1952, choice steer carcass beef of the 500-600 pound weight at Chicago declined moderately from $54.56 a hundred in August to $52.40 in November. Prices of the retail cuts of rib roast and chuck roast at Atlanta held steady or actually advanced. In December 1952, rib roast was selling at 87 cents just as it was in August. Prices of hamburger and frankfurters, made from poorer quality beef, changed promptly. In August 1952, hamburger was 64 cents a pound and frankfurters were 67 cents. By December, hamburger was down to 54 cents and frankfurters were down to 59 cents. Among the pork cuts, bacon prices fluctuated more than ham prices. In July 1952, when live pork prices started down, pork at wholesale moved up in price and the retail price of sliced bacon advanced to 72 cents a pound, where it stayed until October when it fell to 69 cents and ulti mately to 62 cents by December. The price of ham did not rise when live hog prices started falling in 1952, but it did hold at the 69-cent level during August and Septem ber and then declined to 67 cents in October. In Decem ber, ham was selling for 63 cents. Retail prices of sliced bacon and ham in the last half of 1952 were, in general, above the levels of the same period a year earlier. In s p ite o f h ig h - le v e l d e m a n d a n d c o n s u m p tio n A gradual decline in the general price level since early 1951 has reflected effects of strong forces, notably im proved worldwide supply conditions and a slowing down of inflationary pressures. These broad forces naturally affect meat prices, but most important in the recent sharp decline has been the meat supply and demand situation, which determines the price of meat in relation to the gen eral level of all prices. And demand conditions were less potent in the 1952 decline of cattle prices, it would seem, than supply conditions. The overriding force in high-level food consumption, including meat, is a large disposable income in the hands of many people. Such income in the last quarter of 1952 was running at $1,541 for each of the 157 million persons in the United States; it was $1,457 per person in 1951 and $1,355 in 1950. Of the record disposable income last year, about $406, or approximately 26 percent, was spent on food products. This proportion has varied little since 1946, and if it holds for this year, the prospective larger percapita disposable income will mean more food dollars spent by the average consumer. Because nearly one-quarter of total food expenditures is for meats, consumer dollar purchases of all meats would no doubt continue high, with emphasis on better quality and choice cuts since con sumers switch to these as their incomes rise or prices fall. When consumers move from a low income level to a higher one, they buy more meat, with the amount of increase in their meat purchases depending on the income level they are shifting from. The net effect of income changes and other influences, such as habitats and sizes of families, on meat use last year was a total red meat consumption of 145 pounds per cap ita. This was 5 percent above 1951 consumption and one percent above that of 1950. Pork led in consumption last year with 72 pounds used per capita. Beef consump tion per person amounted to 62 pounds, veal 7 pounds, and lamb and mutton 4 pounds. The increase in red meat consumption in 1952 occurred in beef, with an 11-percent gain; pork consumption held steady. Each year since 1948 people have eaten more poultry and by 1952 were con suming 36 pounds per person. By year’s end, retail prices of meat were working down in spite of these levels of consumption. Falling retail prices undoubtedly will help increase meat purchases, though less than proportionately, since per-capita conPrices o f B e e f, 1 9 5 1 - 5 2 , A t la n t a , G e o rg ia R e ta il C uts, C arcass, L iv e w e ig h t (cents per pound) cen ts cen ts w 50 CH O ICE S T E E R B E E F , r.APr.AQQ uiu m c q a i p * - 60 50 - 60 50 50 - 40 _ ^ -------- 1 GOOD AND C H O ICE S L A U G H T E R S T E E R S , LIV EW E IG H T I 40 _ 30 30 w J ____ 1_____1____ 1____ 1____ 1____ 1____ 1____J____ 1____J____ ____ 1 - 1____ 1---- 1---- 1---- 1____ 1____ 1____ 1____ 1---- IviA M A M J 195) D J F M A M J 1952 sumption of livestock food products as a group (all meat, poultry and eggs, dairy products) according to the rela tionship existing in the period 1922-41 rises about one percent in response to a decline of 1.6 percent in the aver age retail meat price. Consumption of beef increases one percent with a 1.06 percent decrease in retail price, where as pork consumption increases one percent with a drop of 1.16 percent in price. High levels of consumption at high prices, growing population, growing disposable incomes, and more fam ilies entering higher income brackets meant a strong consumer demand for meat last year and indicate a con tinuing strong demand in 1953. They do not support the conclusion that a slackening of consumer demand has been responsible for the decline in cattle prices. But farmers’ demand for steers to put into their feed lots for fattening was weak in the summer and early fall months of 1952. They had seen feeding margins per hundred pounds— their return on the feeding operation— shrink from a peak of $10.03 in April 1951 to as low as $0.49 in December 1951 and hover between $1.18 and $2.98 through August 1952. With these prospective margins, feeders chose to delay buying cattle. Circumstances worked to their advan tage; dry weather in the range country forced an abnor mally heavy sell-off of cattle in late summer, which pushed prices below the normal seasonal decline. Cattle feeders ultimately did step-up their buying to the extent of placing in their feed lots a record number of cattle by January 1— about 16 percent above a year earlier. upswing is still under way and numbers on farms in 1954 and even 1955 will likely be larger. After the normal twoyear lag, numbers and pounds of cattle slaughtered started to rise in 1951. National slaughter of cattle and calves was 17.5 billion pounds in 1951 and 19 billion in 1952. The high price of hogs per hundred pounds relative to the price of corn per bushel led to record pig crops in 1950 and 1951. Part of the 1951 crop went to market in 1952, and along with growing beef supplies helped to depress meat prices. Recently, an unfavorable hog-corn price ratio has turned some farmers from pork production; pork supplies, according to farmers’ intentions, will be reduced in 1953. The natural increase in beef slaughter resulting from the cycle, the large supply of pork, the record supply of poultry, and the normal seasonal increase in marketings would ordinarily have had a depressing effect on beef prices in late 1952, assuming the level of demand stayed approximately constant. But a sudden upheaval in supply conditions in the last half of the year did major price dam age. The forced selling of grass-fed steers from dry areas loaded the market with more than could be absorbed as feeder cattle and slaughter cattle at that time without a severe price break. Such abnormal supplies have a severe ly depressing effect on farm prices of meat animals, since a one-percent increase in meat production brings a 1.6 per cent decrease in the farm price, according to the relation ship in the 1922-41 period. Cattle prices under such con ditions decline 1.19 percent, and hog prices, 1.54 percent. L a rg e s u p p lie s p u sh e d th e m lo w e r . . . . A n d w ill c o n tin u e to be a p re s s u re in 1 9 5 3 On the supply side, increased production of meat has been prominent in bringing cattle prices down. The amount of meat, liveweight basis, put on the nation’s markets was 187 pounds per capita in 1952, up about 8 pounds since 1951 and 9 pounds since 1950. Red meat output, most important in this gain, was being supplemented by a grow ing poultry production. Favorable prices leading to an expansion ef breeding herds brought about a rise in numbers of cattle on farms starting in 1949. Despite adverse weather in some regions, numbers on farms continued to increase in 1952 and by 1953 amounted to more than 93 million head. The cyclical Beef prices in 1953 may average somewhat lower than in 1952, more as a result of changes in supply than in demand. With consumer incomes at a high level in 1953, demand for meat should remain strong. Demands for feeder cattle this year will hinge on current and prospec tive feeder margins. A downward drift in cattle prices with corn under price support would hamper the improvement of feeder margins, and demand for feeder cattle may not, in consequence, be exceptionally strong. Pork is expected to be in short supply. Recently, hog prices as well as some cattle prices have strengthened. Hog prices may average higher in 1953 than last year, but it remains to be seen whether reduced shipments of hogs will more than offset increased shipments of cattle and bring about a yearly average price for cattle approaching that of 1952. The record numbers of cattle on feed and the antici pated increase of 15 percent in beef slaughter, together with the probable continued growth in poultry meat pro duction, raise some doubt about such an eventuality. During the early part of the year, the possibility of larger than normal seasonal marketings of fed steers from the record numbers in feed lots may make any springtime rise in average cattle prices a feeble one, even though there may be a strengthening in demand for stockers to replace liquidated herds. Continued adverse weather in the range areas would aggravate the shortage of grass, would renew the selling-off of animals from those areas, and would create once again an abnormal supply situation with its overly depressing effect on cattle prices. A rthur H. Kantner P rices o f P o rk , 1 9 5 1 - 5 2 , A tla n ta , G e o rg ia R e ta il Cuts, H og P ro d u cts, a n d L iv e w e ig h t cen ts (cents per pound) cen ts • 7 • R e c e n t R e v iv a l in C o t t o n T e x t ile s An Appraisal of the Strength of Underlying Forces A most significant economic occurrence in 1952 for the Sixth Federal Reserve District was the long-awaited re covery in textiles. From an unprecedented peak in activity attained shortly after the Korean War started, the textile business then began to fall off sharply to reach a low point in mid-1952. By December, however, the nation’s pro duction— the most comprehensive indicator of total textile activity—had climbed 8 percent from June. Of far greater importance to the Sixth District than movements in total textile production, however, is the course of cotton textiles, which account for almost 90 per cent of the value of total textile output in the District states. In these states, the seasonal adjusted index of cotton consumption was 9 percent higher in December 1952,than in July. Employment, which was relatively more stable in 1952 than in any other year in the last decade, was up 4 percent. Despite these gains, the mills are concerned as to how long the advance will last, which can best be an swered by reviewing the nature of the supply and demand forces underlying it. W h y th e R e v iv a l? Since textile producers were not threatened with shortages of raw materials, plant and equipment, or labor, they were under no pressure to increase production in anticipation of future demands. The recent rise in production by District cotton textile producers, therefore, resulted entirely from strengthened demand, as indicated by increased consumer and merchant purchases of their products. There is little doubt that the cotton textile industry has sufficient capacity to meet today’s demand with no strain. A commonly used indicator of the size of the country’s industry and of its capacity to produce is the number of spindles in place. The number has not changed much since 1941, even though the industry has met a tremen dous war and postwar military, civilian, and foreign de mand. Judging from this indicator alone, cotton textile productive capacity may even be excessive for current as well as foreseeable requirements. More basic to the recent recovery than supply is the demand situation. Domestically, civilian demand is by far more important than the military, although during World War II and immediately following the Korean War govern mental demand for military purposes was significant. 1946-51, sales of women’s apparel and accessories at the nation’s department stores in December 1952 were 68 percent higher than in June; sales of men’s and boys’ wear rose 33 percent; and piece goods and household textile purchases advanced 19 percent. Slightly lower prices may have contributed to the ex pansion in retail sales of clothing and other merchandise items made from cotton. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumers Price Index, prices of apparel in June 1952 were 3 percent below the post-Korean high. Stepped-up consumer buying in the last six months of 1952 stimulated inventory accumulation at the retail store level. Following the Korean War boom in consumer spending, department stores throughout the nation, for example, had increased their inventories, including cotton goods, to unprecedented heights. Slackening consumer purchases during most of 1951 and half of 1952 forced merchants to cut down on new orders until inventories had once again reached a satisfactory relationship with sales, a condition achieved in mid-1952. With the pick-up in consumer buying in the last six months of 1952, re tailers themselves had to buy merchandise, including goods made from cotton, in order to rebuild their inventories. B u t in d u s tria l d e m a n d a n d G o v e rn m e n t b u y in g o f c o tto n te x tile s w e r e o ff • . . . Industrial demand for textile products including cotton was down in the last half of 1952. Cotton textile produc tion for tire cord and fabric, for example, dropped from 40 million pounds in the second quarter of 1952 to 19 million pounds in the third quarter. Press reports indicated a continuation of this decline for the remainder of 1952. Although the automobile industry will probably con sume more synthetic textiles in 1953 than last year be cause of an expected increase in output of nearly a million motor vehicles, its take of cotton textiles will doubtless be considerably lower. Most of this demand will be met from synthetics, which have virtually displaced cotton in the manufacture of tire cord and fabric. The Govern ment’s take of cotton textiles for military purposes was estimated at nearly 10 percent of total output in 1951 and 6 percent in 1952. In 1953, this percentage is likely to be even smaller since the military stockpile is apparently well established. P e rs o n a l co n s u m e r p urcha ses in c re a s e d a n d m e rc h a n ts e x p a n d e d t h e ir in v e n to rie s . . . . C o m p e titio n w a s k e e n f o r fo r e ig n m a r k e ts a n d sales o f t e x t ile m a n u fa c tu re rs ro s e s e a s o n a lly Undoubtedly, personal consumer demand was the princi pal source contributing to the revival in the cotton textile industry. By mid-1952, consumers had apparently reduced their inventories, particularly of cotton and other clothing, to the point where replenishment was desirable. Even after allowing for the average seasonal expansion in the period The physical volume of United States exports of cotton cloth declined rather steadily from the tremendous 1947 record level through the first half of £952. In July, how ever, the trend was reversed. By October 1952, the yard age of cotton cloth exports had advanced 30 percent over the physical volume prevailing in June; exports, therefore, •8 • definitely contributed to the revival in the nation’s cotton textile industry. Judging from reports from abroad, United States cotton textile exports are likely to be down in 1953. Japanese, Indian, and English mills have announced intentions of expanding their 1953 exports some 700 million square yards over the 1951 physical volume. Unless foreign de mand for cotton textiles were to expand appreciably, the United States stands to lose the market for some of its 802 million square yards which were exported in 1951. Thus 1953 ushers in a period of fierce competition for foreign markets, a condition which American producers have not fully experienced since pre-World War II days. As a stone thrown into a still pond creates a chain of ripples, so the expansion in consumer buying initiated a series of events. Accumulation of inventories by retailers was reflected in seasonal increases in wholesale sales throughout the nation. Beginning in July 1952, wholesale sales of apparel and dry goods, which include cotton prod ucts, started climbing. Wholesalers, in turn, placed orders with manufacturers to build up inventories. Since whole sale sales of finished products rose more rapidly than inventories, part of the inventory accumulation at retail was evidently met out of previously acquired inventories at wholesale. At the manufacturing level, it is necessary to use total textile mill sales and inventory data for analysis. The low point in seasonally unadjusted sales of all textile products, including those made from cotton, occurred in July 1952. From that point until the October 1952 peak, sales ad vanced almost 40 percent. Most of this increase, however, was of a seasonal nature. Despite a quickening in the tempo of textile activity, inventories at the close of 1952, were still somewhat high in relation to sales; manufac- turers were carrying about a 2.5 month’s supply at current sales levels. The gap between inventories and sales was wider in 1952 than in any other postwar year except 1951. W h a t Does th e F uture H o ld ? Many cotton textile producers are guardedly optimistic about the short-run future and expect the gains made in the last half of 1952 to continue at least through June. As evidence they point to the greater-than-seasonal increase in textile production and the increases in employment and sales in the final months of 1952. Manufacturers reportedly have a two-month’s backlog of orders. The decline in wholesale prices of cotton textile products, moreover, slowed down in the latter part of 1952. These factors seem to indicate a balancing of the supply and demand forces, which has been absent from the market place for over two years. Consumer demand as reflected by the nation’s depart ment store sales may be more -ef a neutral than a positive factor. Thus far in 1953, sales are up slightly from the like period a year ago, although January and February sales were slightly off from the very high December level. On the other hand, forces exist which offer little ground for complacency to the cotton textile industry. Military requirements of the Federal Government for cotton textile products are expected to decline. Foreign demand has bedn trending downward and promises to be more difficult to maintain. In addition, inventories of textile manufac turers are still quite large in relation to sales. A weighing of these factors does not indicate a striking resurgence in textile activity in 1953 and raises some doubt that pro duction can be maintained at the rates experienced in the closing months of 1952. B a sil A. Wapensky T h e D is c o u n t R a t e a n d B a n k L e n d in g In the middle of January the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, along with the other Federal Reserve Banks, an nounced that the interest rate at which funds are advanced to member banks was increased from 1.75 to 2.00 percent. This is the first increase in the discount rate since August 1950. The announcement has aroused considerable interest as to reasons for and possible consequences of the change. In the past, major factors which seem to have influenced decisions to change the discount rate include the general condition of the economy, the volume of member bank borrowing, and the relation of the discount rate to interest rates on other loans and investments. Discount rate in creases have generally occurred in periods of high level business activity and at such times when member banks were borrowing from their Federal Reserve Banks in order to extend credit in amounts greater-than-normal. In addi tion, discount rate changes have often been made in periods when other interest rates have undergone changes. Traditionally, the discount rate has been maintained above the rate on Treasury bills and other prime short-term paper but below the rates on less than prime market paper and rates charged by banks to their customers. In the light of past factors seemingly important in ex plaining changes in the discount rate, it may be worth while to examine the situation at the time the decision to raise the rate was made. During the fall and winter months of 1952, employment, production, income, and consumer spending all reached high levels. In addition, a more-thannormal growth in bank loans to customers had occurred after May. Accompanying the increase in bank loans dur ing the fall was an increase in member bank borrowing from the Federal Reserve Banks. Although the seasonal return flow of currency and the decline in loan demand in January resulted in lower levels of borrowing than in De cember, member banks were still borrowing considerably more than they had in many previous years. The rate of interest on Treasury bills exceeded the dis count rate in December, when it was the highest it had been since 1933. This condition— a higher bill rate than discount rate— had prevailed with isolated exceptions since •9 • W e e k ly C hanges in C o m m e rc ia l Loans a t Banks in L e a d in g C itie s (L a st W e d n e s d a y of P re v io u s D ecem b er e q u a ls INDEX 100) in d e x the end of June. Easing of money market conditions after the end of December was reflected in some decline in the bill rate, but it had not resulted in a bill rate lower than the discount rate. It was in this setting that the decision to raise the rate was made. The increase in the discount rate in January was prob ably anticipated for several months and many of the effects of the rate change may have actually occurred before rather than after the move was made. Nevertheless, it may be worthwhile to summarize the effects of an increase in the discount rate as if the move were not anticipated. First, of course, the increase in the discount rate means that member banks will find it more costly to borrow from their Federal Reserve Banks. To some banks, the increase in the discount rate may of itself discourage borrowing and further credit expansion. Other banks which find it necessary to borrow in order to expand credit may pass on part or all of the increased cost to their customers. Most banks will find no immediate increase in their cost of operations because they follow a policy of avoiding indebt edness to the Federal Reserve System. Second, changes in the discount rate often have an in direct effect which is partly psychological. The financial and business community regards changes in the discount rate as being indicative of future System policy and attaches considerable importance to them. Generally, the discount rate has not been changed merely in response to temporary changes in business and economic conditions. Discount rate changes, therefore, are often regarded by bankers and businessmen as indicative of the views of the Reserve bank ing authorities on the general credit situation. Accordingly, discount rate moves have claimed considerable attention and have at times been followed by effects greater than those which might be accounted for simply because of changes in cost and volume of member bank borrowing. The most direct effects of a change in the discount rate are felt at times when member banks are borrowing heavily from the Federal Reserve Banks. For this reason, any ex planation of discount policy is incomplete without mention of open market operations, which may increase or decrease the necessity for member bank borrowing. Purchases and sales of Government securities by the Open Market Com mittee of the Federal Reserve System add and withdraw funds from the banking system as a whole and thus bring about conditions in which the individual bank finds itself with too much or not enough reserve funds. When member banks need reserves, they frequently borrow funds from the Reserve Banks. An increase in the discount rate, there fore, could add to the expenses of bank operations. Be cause purchases and sales of Government securities by the Open Market Committee are made quietly and without publicity, they receive little public attention, but their effect may be fully as important as changes in the discount rate, which receive formal announcements. During the fall, because of the reluctance of the Federal Reserve System to purchase Government securities, the banks turned to borrowing in order to get reserves required to meet in creased loan demand. In recent years, open market operations— purchases and sales of Government securities— have tended to be the most important instrument of general credit control used by the Federal Reserve System. In the future, however, it is possible that discount policy may become increasingly important. Since the Federal Reserve System has lessened its active support of the Government security market, member banks are not being supplied with reserves as freely as in the past. Consequently, banks are likely to find it more necessary to borrow form their Federal Reserve Bank in order to obtain additional reserves. With this de velopment, discount rate changes are likely to take on increased significance. Changes in the volume of bank lending since the second week in January, when the discount rate was raised, have not been great. In the nation as a whole, commercial, in dustrial, and agricultural loans of weekly reporting mem ber banks have remained higher than in previous years, but the seasonal downturn during January and the first two weeks of February seems fairly satisfactory considering the high rate of lending in the late months of 1952. In the Sixth District, commercial, industrial, and agri cultural loans of weekly reporting banks have declined less during January and February than in 1952, but about the same as they did in 1950. The rate on Treasury bills has fallen from the seasonal peak reached in Decem ber despite the increase in the discount rate. New issues of Treasury bills are presently being quoted at a slightly higher yield, however, than the rate at which member banks may borrow from the Federal Reserve Banks. Prime rates quoted by major money market banks have not been increased appreciably and whether or not rates to other than prime borrowers have been advanced cannot be de termined until results of the quarterly interest rate survey are received early in April. There are, undoubtedly, other effects of the recent in crease in the discount rate than those mentioned above. Many of the statistical series upon which a judgment might be based are not yet available and even when the record is complete, it is impossible to determine what events might have taken place if the action had not been taken. Some results may take time to become apparent. Finally, in judg ing the effectiveness of the discount rate increase, it is well to remember the actions of the Federal Reserve Sys tem are only one of many factors that affect the economy. T homas R. A tkinson • 10 • S ix t h In s t a lm e n t No. of Lenders ReportLender___________________ ing Federal credit unions............... 36 State credit unions..................20 Industrial banks..................... 7 Industrial loan companies . . . . 10 Small loan companies...............33 Commercial banks..................33 C a s h D is t r ic t L o a n s Volume Percent Change Jan. 1953from Jan. Dec. 1952 1952 —9 +26 —4 + 29 —15 +2 —11 + 10 + 14 —36 —11 + 18 Outstandings Percent Change Jan. 1953from Jan. Dec. 1952 1952 +0 +31 +33 +1 +9 +1 —2 +4 +0 + 19 —1 + 26 R e ta il F u rn itu re S to re O p e ra tio n s Percent Change January 1953 from Jan. 1952 Dec. 1952 +3 —50 —10 —46 +6 —51 —4 +33 + 15 +7 Number of Stores Item_______________________ Reporting Total sales....................................139 Cash sales...................................... 124 Instalment and other credit sales............124 Accounts receivable, end of month . . . . 132 Collections during month..................... 132 Inventories, end of month.................... 97 —3 +1 W h o le s a le Sales a n d In v e n to rie s * No. of Firms Reporting Sales Percent Change Jan. 1953from Jan. Dec. 1952 1952 +4 +5 —34 —15 —8 +24 —34 +5 Type of Wholesaler 6 Automotive supplies. . . 3 Electrical—Full-line . . 4 “ Wiring supplies 7 “ Appliances. . 9 —11 Hardware.................. 13 + 15 Industrial supplies . . . 4 —75 Jewelry.................... + 12 9 Lumber and bldg. mat’ls . 4 + 12 Plumbing & heating supplies —27 5 Confectionery............ 10 +25 Drugs and sundries . . . 16 —1 Dry goods. . . . . . . +2 52 Groceries—Full-line . . . “ Voluntary group +8 3 “ Specialty lines 11 +4 Tobacco products . . . . 15 —11 Miscellaneous............ 16 —7 Total....................... 187 —3 *Based on U. S. Department of Commercefigures. Inventories No of Percent Change Firms Jan. 31,1953, from ReportDec. 31 Jan. 31 ing_____ 1952 1952 —7 —18 —8 +2 —1 +6 + 21 —2 + 12 —4 —5 —7 12 + 14 +4 +2 —2 6 9 20 120 +5 —6 —3 +28 +20 —10 —22 + 15 —4 —6 —6 —9 + 12 —3 —1 +4 42 +8 +8 +6 C o n d itio n o f 2 7 M e m b e r Banks in L e a d in g C ities (In Thousands of Dollars) Item Loans and investments— Total.................... Loans—Net.............. Loans—Gross............ Commercial, industrial, and agricultural loans Loans to brokers and dealers in securities . Other loans for pur chasing and carrying securities........... Real estate loans . . . Loans to banks. . . . Other loans............ Investments—Total . . . Bills, certificates, and notes ............ U. S. bonds............ Other securities . . . Reservewith F. R. Banks . Cash in vault............ Balances with domestic Demand deposits adjusted Time deposits............ U. S. Gov’t deposits. . . Deposits of domestic banks *0ver 100 percent. Feb. 18 1953 Jan. 21 1953 Feb. 20 1952 . 2,956,132 2,962,141 2,757,260 , 1,221,805 1,219,539 1,072,692 , 1,243,036 l,240j709 1,092,466 . 711,136 13,679 709,864 14,111 634,296 8,857 36,499 37,163 33,455 96,507 96,484 86,989 9,054 6,374 6,291 . 378,841 374,033 322,578 . 1,734,327 1,742,602 1,684,568 . 759j979 760,634 810,565 720,134 727,023 639,884 254,214 254,945 234,119 525,578 529,351 515,701 46,274 46,791 48,215 . 233,660 239,611 205,277 . 2,134,754 2,178,205 2,053,051 . 558,227 554,385 536,562 72,467 . 109,367 79,048 . 688,937 722,090 628,833 35,750 20,500 12,000 +4 —1 —1 ___________ Percent Change___________ Sales____ Inventories Jan. 1953 from Jan. 31,1953, from Dec. Jan. Dec. 31 Jan. 31 Place_______________________ 1952 1952_________1952 1952 ALABAMA.............................. —60 +6 +6 +13 Birmingham...........................—59 +1 +5 +6 Mobile.................................—60 +23 Montgomery...........................—60 +8 FLORIDA.................................—49 +8 +6 +1 Jacksonville...........................—62 +1 +9 +7 Miami.................................—45 +11 +5 —4 + 7 Orlando.................................—51 St. Petersburg-Tampa............... —49 +7 St. Petersburg........................—41 +7 +7 +6 Tampa.................................—55 +7 GEORGIA.................................—58 +5 —1 +6 Atlanta**..............................—56 +4 —4 +5 Augusta.............................. —64 +7 Columbus............................. —63 +4 +6 +7 Macon.................................—61 +7 +6 +1 Rome**................................ —67 +13 Savannah**...........................—60 +17 +9 +7 +14 LOUISIANA............................. —52 Baton Rouge........................... —56 +20 +1 +2 NewOrleans........................... —51 +8 +8 +16 MISSISSIPPI...........................—60 +2 +2 +4 Jackson.................................—57 —1 +8 +6 Meridian**...........................—64 +10 TENNESSEE........................... —62 +7 —2 +8 Bristol**............................. —68 +2 +5 +7 Bristol-Kingsport-Johnson City** . . —67 +9 Chattanooga........................... —59 +7 Knoxville..............................—60 +9 —16 +6 Nashville..............................—63 +5 +3 +10 DISTRICT................................ —57________+6_________ +3______ +5 * Includes reports from 122 stores throughout the Sixth Federal Reserve District. **ln order to permit publication offigures for this city, a special sample has been constructed which is not confined exclusively to department stores. Figures for non department stores, however, are notused in computing the District percent changes. Percent Change Feb. 18,1953, from Jan. 21 Feb. 20 1953 1952 —0 +0 +0 +0 —3 +7 +14 + 14 —2 +0 —30 +1 —0 +9 +11 +1 + 17 +3 —0 —1 —0 —1 —3 —2 —2 +1 +51 —5 + 74 —6 +13 +9 +2 +1 + 14 +4 +4 +38 +10 * + 12 +54 D e b its to In d iv id u a l B a nk A ccounts (In Thousands of Dollars) +19 ______ D e p a rtm e n t S to re Sales a n d In v e n to rie s * ______ S t a t is t ic s Place ALABAMA Anniston . . . . Birmingham . . . Mobile............ Montgomery . . . Tuscaloosa* . . . FLORIDA Jacksonville . . . Miami............ Greater Miami* . . Pensacola . . . . St. Petersburg . . West Palm Beach*. GEORGIA Atlanta........... Brunswick . . . . Columbus . . . . Elberton . . . . Gainesville* . . . Percent Change Jan. 1953 from Jan. Dec. 1952 1952 Jan. 1953 Dec. 1952 Jan. 1952 31,671 466,247 20,446 26,622 183,242 102,277 34^396 33,844 498,477 20,136 26,350 192,865 101,269 37,173 30,352 461,622 20,445 23,993 163,909 99,222 32,779 —6 —6 +2 +1 —5 +1 —7 +4 +1 +0 +11 +12 +3 +5 458,365 419,171 656,231 103,714 56,002 114,350 214,264 73,496 445,705 423,193 634,562 98,614 57,697 105,198 220,244 70,038 401,988 355,186 572,213 83,927 48,775 94,649 181,953 65,879 +3 —1 +3 +5 —3 +9 —3 +5 + 14 + 18 +15 +24 + 15 +21 +18 + 12 42,726 1,178,662 98,380 12.943 86,445 4,651 24,669 13,978 81,743 12,427 28,623 135,916 18,616 47,569 1,338,521 105,339 13,745 93,663 5,505 25,905 16,611 89,479 13,009 29,350 138,201 19,673 40,001 1,136,241 90,117 13,249 83,518 4,550 26,007 13,231 89,017 15,932 27,398 122,432 14,894 —10 —12 —7 —6 —8 —16 —5 —16 —9 —4 —2 —2 —5 +7 +4 +9 —2 +3 +2 —5 +6 —8 —22 +4 + 11 +25 +2 —0 +5 +4 +5 + 10 +14 +15 +6 +31 +3 —10 +1 + 11 —1 +3 +24 +2 —12 +27 +15 +2 —2 +10 —13 +8 Savannah . . . . Valdosta........... LOUISIANA Alexandria* . . . 50,019 49,159 47,492 Baton Rouge . . . 138,331 138,332 125,311 Lake Charles . . . 59,710 57,000 52,485 NewOrleans . . . 1,074,668 1,033,692 933,238 MISSISSIPPI Hattiesburg . . . 22,334 20,992 22,202 237.561 181,738 213,828 Meridian . . . . 337340 32,262 33,605 Vicksburg . . . . 33,338 37,186 32,384 TENNESSEE Chattanooga . . . 276,004 221,688 217,807 Knoxville . . . . 177,093 173,841 153,350 Nashville . . . . 416,626 472,267 407,814 SIXTH DISTRICT 32 Cities . . . . 6,337,885 6,457,294 5,767,996 UNITED STATES 342 Cities . . . . 149,004,000 170,648,000 138,520,000 • 11 • S ix t h M a n u fa c tu rin g E m p lo y m e n t Dec. 1952 UNADJUSTED District Total . . . . 114 Alabama . . . . . 109 Florida . . . . . . 136 Georgia. . . . . . 114 Louisiana . . . . . 112 Mississippi. . . . . 114 Tennessee . . . . . 113 SEASONALLY ADJUSTED District Total . . . . 113 Alabama . . . . . 107 Florida . . . . . . 130 Georgia. . . . . . 113 Louisiana . . . . . 107 Mississippi. . . . . 113 Tennessee . . . . . 113 D is t r ic t In d e x e s 1947-49=100 C o tto n C o n s u m p tio n * * Nov. 1952 Dec. 1951 Jan. 1953 Dec. 1952 Jan. 1952 114 109 129 114 114 114 109 103 125 113 104 108 105 106 107 — 105 — 130 105 107 107 — 107 — 127 115 111 — 118 — 115 114 111 130 113 109 113r 107 102 108 — — — — — — 110 112 112 101 120 112 100 107 105 — — — — — — 101 102 — — — — — — C o n s tru c tio n C o n tra c ts Jan. 1953 ___ 91 147 194 159 135 130 Dec. 1952 _ 193 176 331 579 267 331 Jan. 1952 _ 115 137 121 641 31 77 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — G a s o lin e T a x C o lle c tio n s F u rn itu re S to re S a le s * / * * Jan. 1953 Dec. 1952 Jan. 1952 Jan. 1953 Dec. 1952 Jan. 1952 155 153 172 151 133 146 165 142 140 145 140 120 176 140 78 74 91 79 78 — 64 139 137 146 140 119 173 129 820 75 98 71p Sip — 65 lOlp 151r 177 148r 162r 149r — 127 155 156 166 148 135 155 174 142 138 149 135 149 148 133 142 141 143 133 151 157 140 108r 113 90p 98p — 117p 115 lOSr — 97 99 104 100 88 120 88 101 94 — 87 D e p a rtm e n t S to re Sales a n d S to c k s * * O th e r D is tric t In d e x e s Adjusted Unadjusted Jan. Jan. Jan. Dec. Jan. Dec. 1952 1953 1952 1953 1952 1952 119r 90r DISTRICT SALES* . . . . 126 130 221 96 90r Atlanta1 ..............., . 130 125r 94 135 213 66r 111 94r 79 180 Baton Rouge . . . . . 113 85r Birmingham............ . . 110 109r 85 208 129 94 228 88 Chattanooga............, . 125 129 117 189 79 Jackson............... . . 112 119 110 81 107r 78 205 77 Jacksonville............ . . 108 119 105r 218 78r Knoxville............... . . 114 127r 85 Macon.................. . . 130 236 85 126 122 91 Miami................. . . 127 226 113 126 116 125 Nashville.............. . . 119 217 77 124 113 81 94 NewOrleans............, . 122 99 202 115r 123 Tampa................. . . 120 112r 97 215 91 128 122r 119r DISTRICT STOCKS* . ,. . 140p 141r 133r 126p Ho permit publication of figures for this city, a sample has been constructed that is not confined to department stores. Such non-department stores are not included in the District index. *Does not include data for all of La., Miss., and Tenn. Other totals for entire six states. **Daily average basis. Sources: Mfg. emp., state depts. of labor; cotton consumption, U. S. Bureau Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Corp.; gas. tax, state depts. of rev.; furn. sales, dept, store sales, turnover of dem. dep., FRB Atlanta; petrol, prod., U. S. Bureau of Mines; elec. power prod., Fed. Power Comm. Indexes calculated by this Bank. Adjusted_____ ____ Unadjusted Jan. Dec. Jan. Jan. Dec. Jan. 1953 1952 1952 1953 1952 1952 .. .. 141 322r 216 Construction contracts*............ Residential........................ .. 151 151r 140 Other.................................................................134 452r 274 Petrol, prod, in Coastal Louisiana and Mississippi**. 138 144 128 141 139 130 Turnover of demand deposits* . 24.6 22.6 24.0 25.8 24.2 25.2 Index........................ 127.7 117.3 124.6 ........................ Dec. Nov. Dec. Dec. Nov. Dec. Mfg. emp. by type 1952 1952 1951 1952 1952 1951 Apparel.................................................... 133 133 120 Chemicals........................ .. 114 115r 111 Fabricated metals................ 160 158 135 Food..................................................... 114 114 108 Lbr., wood prod., furn. & fix. 97 96r 98 Paper and allied prod.............. 130 130 129 Primary metals................... 103 102r 99 Textiles.................................................. 103 102 101 152 150 121 Trans, equip........................ Elec. power prod.**.................. 170 159 153 Hydro-gen........................... 96 58 136 Fuel-gen................................................... ............ 238 251 168 r Revised p Preliminary O Reserve Bank Cities • Branch Bank Cities mm District Boundaries — Branch Territory Boundaries B o a r d o f G o v e r n o r s o f th e F e d e r a l R e s e rv e S y s te m
@FedFRASER