The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
U B R A Atlanta, Georgki K \ 0 196 June • 1962 Also tn this issue: SIXTH DISTRICT STATISTICS DISTRICT BUSINESS CONDITIONS The South and Its Future Meeting here with you today is indeed a pleasant occasion. It is now over a year since I retired from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, and I therefore welcome this opportunity to be associated again with old friends and colleagues. At the Bank we have always been proud of our several Boards of Di rectors because of the public spirit and intelligence with which they have discharged their duties. Today, however, I think that a special accolade of praise is due the Nashville Branch Board and its Chairman for having brought together such a distinguished group as this in the interest of forging closer and more understanding bonds between the Federal Reserve System and the business community. We of the Federal Reserve System write and talk a great deal about ourselves and our policy problems. We do so because we want you businessmen and the general public to have an intelligent interest in us, for we know that what we do is going to affect all of you very in timately in your business. On our side, however, we want you to know that we are equally in terested in you and your problems, for what goes on in the nation’s economy is a matter of the greatest concern to us. The Federal Reserve System, after all, has a fundamental duty to help maintain a healthy rate of growth in the nation’s economy, insofar as it can do so with the limited powers given it by law. Each Federal Reserve Bank, in turn, therefore, has a very special in terest in the economic health and progress of its own particular district and seeks to promote them in whatever way it can. It is because I know of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s lively and continuing interest in the economic development and well-being of the South that I want to say a few things on this subject today. It must be understood, how ever, that what I have to say today is on my own responsibility and must not be held against anyone else in or out of the System’s official family. Looking Backward % sm S fan ta My own interest in the matter of the South’s economic future goes back some forty-five years to the days of the First World War when I was soldiering with the Twenty-Eighth Division at Camp Hancock at Augusta, Georgia. In those days I had the pleasure of knowing a prominent Georgia industrialist. One Sunday afternoon he took me out to his factory to show me what he had built up there. When we had completed the inspection, my friend turned to me and said that although he was proud of his plant, it was, nevertheless, only a drop in the bucket. What the South needed, he said, was thousands of factories and plants of all kinds. The South, he said, had been asleep ever since the War Between the States, and he hoped that the war then N O T E — A n ad dress by E arle L . R au ber, form er Vice President an d D irector o f Research, F ed eral R eserve B ank o f A tlanta, before an assem bly o f M iddle Tennes see bankers an d businessm en. The m eeting w as held under the auspices o f the B o ard o f D irectors o f the N ash ville Branch o f the F ed eral R eserve B ank o f A tlan ta at Peabody C ollege, A p ril 13, 1962. going on would wake it up. In any case, he urged me to return and be a part of the “new South” that he hoped would emerge. My friend was a very persuasive gentleman, and I determined that when the war was over I would come back and cast my lot with the South. For various personal reasons, however, this was not to be. It was not until 1930 that I finally realized my earlier intention and came South to stay. But in 1930 the whole nation was going over the prec ipice into the most catastrophic depression in history, and the South, not yet having been stirred from its leth argy, as my friend had hoped, landed on the bottom of the heap with the reputation of being the nation’s “No. 1 Economic Problem.” What the First World War did not accomplish, how ever, the Second World War did. In helping to meet un precedented war demands, the South was finally gal vanized into unheard-of activity, and the pulse of this new life has been coursing through its veins ever since. Those of us who have lived through these years have seen a veritable economic revolution take place before our eyes. We have seen a region that had lain fallow for generations burst suddenly into life and, in the course of three brief decades, carry through an economic revolu tion on two fronts. A region once predominantly agricultural so changed its face that in 1960 agriculture produced only 5.3 per cent of the income in the six states of this Federal Reserve District. And within agriculture itself— once dominated by cotton— cotton is no longer king, for that crop yielded only 20 percent of total cash receipts from farm market ings in this District in 1960, whereas livestock— a new comer— produced more than 45 percent. In the industrial complex, the old traditional textile industry now employs only 13.7 percent of all manufac turing workers in this District. Lusty newcomers like chemicals and allied products, transportation equipment, fabricated metals, and a host of others are providing more and more jobs for Southern workers, as are the trade and service industries. All in all, the South is apparently on the march at last, as the soaring skylines of our cities and the changing face of the countryside continually remind us. What Has the South Achieved? Contemplating the gains made in the past thirty years, one could easily bask in the luxury of self-congratulation. On sober second thought, however, he would have to admit that this economic upsurge was not something peculiar to the South. On the contrary, it was a nationwide phenom enon, and the South’s economic rebirth was only an episode in the larger development of the nation. Indeed, if we are quite frank about the matter, we shall have to admit that these great changes in the South were by no means exclusively the result of Southern initia tive. It was the prodigal expenditure of Government funds during the Second World War and the influx of capital and management from the outside that turned the trick. Even in 1960, Government expenditures provided almost 14 percent of all personal income in the South— about half of the income from this source coming from Federal expenditures. But regardless of where the initiative came from, these changes have nevertheless been of tremendous importance for the South. They have meant that the South is no longer the nation’s “No. 1 Economic Problem.” It is no longer an enclave of economic backwardness within the body of the national economy. The South has at last been drawn into the mainstream of economic progress. To what extent, however, has the South actually shared in this nationwide upsurge of economic well being? I do not want to burden you with statistics, but I find I must use a few. They will concern the six states of this Federal Reserve District, for I think them fairly representative of the South and especially so of the South east. I shall draw your attention, moreover, only to per capita personal income. This measures in a general way the average individual’s contribution to the production of goods and services and also indicates the extent to which he can function as either a saver or a spender. In dealing with such figures we must beware of the trickery that lies in percentage changes, for they can easily lull one into unwarranted complacency. For ex ample: Between 1930 and 1960, per capita personal in come increased by 256 percent in the United States as a whole but by 418.9 percent in this District. Putting it another way, per capita personal income in the District was 50 percent of the national average in 1930. By 1950 it had risen to 68 percent, and in 1960 it was 73 percent. Looking at these percentage figures, one could easily con clude that the South was making quite satisfactory progress. A somewhat different impression, however, is gained when we look at some dollars and cents figures. After all, people earn and spend dollars—not percentages. In 1930, per capita personal income amounted to $624 a year in the United States, but only to $312 a year in the District. In other words, the average person got $312 a year less in the District than he did in the nation as a whole. By 1950, the figures had risen to $1,491 for the United States and to $1,010 for the District. The District’s lag behind the nation was then $481 a year instead of the earlier $312. And as of July 2, 1960, when the national figure had grown to $2,223 and the District figure to $1,619, the discrepancy between them was greater than ever— $604 a year. Thus, although the average person’s income position was improving in absolute terms in the South as it was in the nation, there was an increasing lag in absolute terms behind the national average. The Disappearance of ” the South" So much for statistics. I have cited these only to make clear two points. First: The South’s economic direction now tends to conform to that of the nation and may there fore be presumed to be governed by nationwide forces rather than by peculiarly Southern conditions. Second: The fact that per capita personal income in the South shows a tendency to lag by an increasing amount behind that of the nation even while conforming to its general •2 • direction is therefore probably explainable in terms of regional factors. Let me speak a little more to these two points. It is merely stating a fact, I believe, to say that except as a geographical designation, “the South” no longer exists. By that I mean that there is no longer a more or less homogeneous Southern economy as there was in the days before the War Between the States and for more than a half century thereafter. So varied have become the eco nomic interests of the region that differences from state to state, and even differences within individual states, are now greater than those between the so-called “South” as a whole and the rest of the country. Per capita personal income as of July 2, 1960, for example, ranged from a low of $1,173 a year in Missis sippi to a high of $1,988 in Florida— a spread of $815, whereas there was a spread of only $604 between the District as a whole and the United States. By what stretch of the statistical imagination can two such disparate states be considered parts of any meaningful whole? And what community of economic interest can there possibly be between the great petro-chemicals development along the Gulf Coast and an upland farmer in Louisiana? No, for better or worse, the inexorable march of economic his tory has abolished the South as an economic entity and there remains now only our common destiny as Americans. The Population Explosion and the South We may take for granted, therefore, that the future of the South is going to be shaped by the same forces as those shaping that of the nation. We don’t know all of them, but we can see a few clearly enough. The most obvious, and perhaps the most important, of these is the explosive growth of population. This is actually a worldwide phenomenon in which the United States is sharing, albeit on a more modest scale than some other parts of the world. But even in this country the in crease in population is great enough to be creating many serious problems. Let us consider this for a moment. In 1950, we had approximately 152 million people in this country. In 1960, we had about 180 million, and in 1975, by a very conservative estimate, we shall have over 222 million. Thus, between 1950 and 1975 the population will grow by at least 70 million persons. If present trends continue, moreover, this increase will not be spread evenly over the country. On the contrary, it is much more likely to be distributed in such a way as to create the maximum of problems, for it is estimated that 60 million of the increase will go into the country’s metropolitan districts— the areas already most densely populated. Do you have any idea what this means? It means that between 1950 and 1975 the metropolitan population of this country will increase by the equivalent of another 1950-sized New York-Northern New Jersey district; another Boston district; another Buffalo district; another Philadelphia; a Baltimore; a Pittsburgh; a Cleveland; a Chicago; a Detroit; a St. Louis; a Minneapolis-St. Paul; a Los Angeles; and another San Francisco district. And there will still remain 15 million more people to be spread among the smaller metropolitan districts. We know only too well the difficulties presently faced by cities, by states, and by public utilities in providing essential services to these rapidly growing and shifting masses of people— streets, roads, and expressways; hous ing; water; sewers; schools; fire protection; police protec tion; sanitary facilities; health services; recreation; electric power, gas, and telephone service. In city after city, schools cannot be built fast enough to keep up with the growth of population, and half-day sessions are becom ing increasingly common. If cities and states are having difficulty now in meeting the demands being made on them, imagine the physical and financial job they will have on their hands thirteen or fourteen years hence when they will have to provide for the much larger population that is already in sight! Just as the United States shares the world’s population problem, so the South will have to share that of the nation. The South is already the most populous of the four regions into which the Census divides the country, and between 1950 and 1960, except for the West’s, its numerical and percentage growth was the greatest. The South, therefore, cannot hope to escape the serious economic and financial difficulties that are bound to arise from this cause. The Impact of the Technological Revolution A second force shaping the future of the nation, and therefore that of the South, is the technological revolu tion now in progress. We know what such technological revolutions have meant in the past, when, for example, the introduction of machinery destroyed age-old handi craft industries in the latter part of the eighteenth century; or again, when steam power applied to transportation by land and water in the middle of the last century opened up the continents and oceans of the world to commerce and industry; or when, at the beginning of the present century, electricity and the internal combustion engine began to alter every aspect of life so radically that we can now scarcely think of any tolerable life without them. The present technological revolution, however, is so complex and so profound in its nature that we cannot even imagine what its ultimate effects are likely to be. Chemistry is giving us a fantastic array of materials to work with that nature never dreamed of; nuclear fission and fusion hold the promise of a supply of energy beyond man’s wildest dreams. And, under the catch-all name of “automation,” electronic science is creating machines that are replac ing unskilled and semi-skilled workers by the thousands; and because in some respects these machines rival and even surpass the human brain, they are now invading the ranks of skilled workers, of white-collar workers, and even of some echelons of management itself. The nature of the problems created by the conjunction of these two forces— the explosive growth of population and the technological revolution—is already evident in the statistics. In 1961, for example, when the civilian labor force in this country was greater by 9 percent than it was in 1955, the number of persons employed was greater by only 6 percent, but the number of unemployed was greater by 66 percent. In 1961, our manufacturing industries turned out a product 13 percent greater than • 3 • in 1955 but did so with 9 percent fewer production workers. Although its dimensions will fluctuate with seasonal and cyclical factors, this nagging problem of the un employed and unemployable will continue to be serious in many parts of the nation but is likely to be especially so in the South. Think again of the population figures. The South en joys a higher birth rate and a lower death rate than the country as a whole and consequently has a higher rate of natural increase. One would therefore expect the population to grow faster here than in the nation. This, however, is not the case, and the reason lies in the fact that the South loses many thousands of its people every year through migration to other parts of the country. This migration occurs because, among other things, capi tal expansion has so far been insufficient to create enough jobs to absorb the increase in population. Many people, therefore, must remain unemployed; or they must be con tent to rot away on a submarginal level of living; or they must seek their livelihood outside the South. At present the South is experiencing all three contingencies. Will the South find in migration the same partial relief from population pressure in the future as it has in the past? There is reason to doubt it, for the classes of workers that have constituted the bulk of the migrants are precisely those that are feeling the brunt of automa tion everywhere. Uneducated, untrained, and unskilled workers from the South are therefore going to experience increasing difficulty in finding jobs elsewhere. Some people, of course, will always be able to migrate, but more and more of them will have to remain at home and seek their future here, if they are to have any future at all. If these people are to be an economic asset rather than an economic liability, they will have to be provided with jobs and with the necessary education and training for those jobs. This will entail a huge investment of new capital. As much as we may rejoice in the growing share of our capital requirements now being generated within the South itself, it is obvious that the bulk of the new capital will still have to come from the outside, and it will have to come on a much larger scale than ever before. In the past, industry came South partly because it found here an abundant supply of cheap labor, but this factor may not be of the same importance in the future. All across the country the spread of automation is creat ing pools of unemployed unskilled and semi-skilled labor. Not only will other parts of the country be unable to absorb the South’s excess population but will them selves be looking for new industries and new enterprises to provide jobs for their own surplus labor. The South, indeed, will have to compete with all of them in seeking the capital we shall need to care for our people. Some Considerations in Attracting Capital Capital will be attracted to the South only by what we can offer it, and we can offer only two things— the en dowment of natural resources with which we have been blessed, and the kind of social, political, and economic climate that we create for business to work in. We can do little to alter our endowment of natural resources, al though there are some things we can do by way of sound conservation and developmental programs. There is much that we can and must do, however, to provide a climate congenial to modern business. Many things go to create such a climate and thus tend to encourage new capital in vestment. Here we can mention but a few. One of the most important of these is the adequacy and quality of the services that states and municipalities now find it necessary to provide for their citizens. I mentioned some of these a little while ago. The number, the complexity, and the quality of these services increase inexorably year by year, and the state or region that fails to keep abreast of them is almost sure to fall behind in the race for new capital. It is almost equally important that the tax burden oc casioned by these expanding services be distributed equitably as among the various political jurisdictions and as among the various classes of business and taxpayers. Without such tax equity, new investment will be dis couraged. Business taxes must certainly not be punitive. If we expect business to come and make its home with us, we dare not treat it as a beast of all burdens or as a cow placidly waiting to be milked. It must also be said (although this should really go without saying!) that the public officials responsible for the levying, the collection, and the expenditure of tax monies should not only be technically qualified for their jobs but should also be men of the greatest honesty and probity of character. No intelligently managed business will be eager to risk its capital and subject itself to taxa tion where it has reason to believe that the tax revenues, to which it may be a substantial contributor, will be frittered away through incompetence, or be leached away through the malfeasance of those through whose hands the money passes. Another condition necessary for a healthy business climate is the political equality of all citizens. By this I mean that the vote of any man must be roughly equal to that of any other, regardless of where he may happen to live. No man should ever feel that he is losing part of his American heritage or having it diluted into insignif icance when he finds it necessary to move from one state to another or from one political jurisdiction to another within a state. It would be difficult for business to attract the higher type personnel it now requires if they were to be subjected to substantial disfranchisement because of a too common discrimination against urban areas in the distribution of political power under whatever guises it may occur. And finally, a state of social tranquillity must prevail. No business can thrive in an atmosphere of public apathy and indifference toward the pressing problems of crime, delinquency, and of haphazard and discriminatory law enforcement, on the one hand, or of public disorder and the defiance of constitutional authority on the other. These are some of the conditions that must be estab lished if we are to attract really adequate amounts of new capital to the South. How far we are presently succeed ing or are failing to do so I leave to your own knowledge and observation. Let me say this, however— although capi • 4 • tal is the most mobile of all the agents of production and will go to the ends of the earth seeking a profit, it is also the most timid. Let any condition arise to threaten its safety and the continuity of its operations, or to reduce its profitability because of unfair burdens, and capital will either not come at all, or will soon take wings and seek refuge in more hospitable climes. Looking Forward To make a long story short, what I have been saying boils down to this: The South is no longer an economic entity in itself; for better or worse, the thousand strands of its varied economic interests have been woven inextricably into the warp and woof of the nation’s economy. The South must therefore be prepared to adopt not only the external, physical, and institutional arrangements appro priate to this new and irrevocable position, but also the attitudes, customs, practices, and obligations implicit therein. I do not believe, for example, that we can much longer afford the folly of pretending to maintain a so-called “Southern way of life” when all we probably mean by that phrase is a body of fetishes and taboos, of habits and customs that were appropriate only to a kind of economy that has long since “gone with the wind.” Least of all, therefore, should we be caught playing the fool with our schools and colleges in an age when the universe is shrinking under the impact of science and when education, more than ever before, is going to spell the difference between destitution and affluence for the individual; between stagnation and progress for the region; and, perhaps, between death and survival for our country. We cannot afford to waste the productive poten tial of any individual or class of individuals by relegat ing them, through lack of educational opportunities or substandard education, to a position where they can only exist as parasites on the otherwise productive elements of the economy. The South is rapidly growing up economi cally— it now behooves us to grow up in other respects as well. Much wisdom is enshrined in the folklore, the prov erbs, and the poetry of peoples. During the great ex pansion period of the United States in the last half of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twenti eth, there entered into American folklore a mythical bird of uncertain parentage known variously as the “whiffle bird,” or the “galawampus.” The late H. L. Mencken called it the “goofus bird.” The peculiarity of this crea ture was that it flew backwards, since it was more in terested in where it had been than in where it was going. This mythical bird symbolized the folks who preferred to keep their eyes on the past rather than on the magnificent future that was then opening up for them as individuals and for the country as a whole— a future they could not see but with which they were bound to collide, blindly and therefore painfully. If you gentlemen are really interested in the future of the South— indeed, if you are concerned about the future of your own business—you had better use your influence as citizens and as businessmen to get rid of the “goofus birds” that still nest in too great numbers in nearly every nook and cranny of our Southern institutions. As painful as it may be to do so, we must learn to turn our backs to the past and face the future with open eyes. In no case can we escape the future. We should therefore not be so stupid as to damage our tailfeathers by flying into it backwards. The ancient Romans had a proverb that taught this same lesson. In Latin it goes like this: Ducunt fata volentem, nolentem trahunt. In a very free translation this means that destiny will lead you along gently by the hand if you go willingly and cooperatively. If, however, you go unwillingly and resentfully, it will nevertheless drag you along, but then by the scruff of the neck. This task that I envisage for the South, and for all of us who love the South and who want her to have a future worth the having—this task of growing up to the requirements of a new age—has been expressed in noble words by one of America’s early poets—Oliver Wendell Holmes. It is the last stanza of his poem, “The Chambered Nautilus.” Build thee more stately mansions, O my soul, as the swift seasons roll; Leave thy low-vaulted past; let each new temple, nobler than the last, Shut thee from heaven with a dome more vast, till thou at length art free, Leaving thine outgrown shell by life’s unresting sea. Do we have the wisdom to heed the lesson taught by folklore, by proverb, and by poetry? Or will the iron finger of economic reality have to spell it out for us in red ink on the books of every countinghouse before we understand? Bank Announcements On May 1, the Industrial Savings Bank of Fort Lauder dale, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, converted to a non member commercial bank and opened for business under the name of the Central Bank in Fort Lauder dale. The bank began to remit at par for checks drawn on it when received from the Federal Reserve Bank. Officers are Charles L. Perkins, President; J. W. Bates, Executive Vice President; and N. Robert Hammer, Cashier. The Florida National Bank at Lake Shore, Jackson ville, Florida, a newly organized member bank, opened for business on May 7 and began to remit at par. Officers include E. B. Kirkpatrick, Jr., President; Charles B. Norton and David L. Reid, Vice Presidents; and H. H. Stewart, Cashier. Capital totals $300,000, and surplus and undivided profits, $150,000. On May 15, the Ocean State Bank, Neptune Beach, Florida, a newly organized nonmember bank, opened for business and began to remit at par. Officers are Joseph C. Gill, President; and Jack W. Connell, Vice President and Cashier. Capital totals $250,000, and surplus and undivided profits, $150,000. • 5 • NONFARM EMPLOYMENT in the District has continued to improve this y e a r, g en e rally p arallelin g the national trend. Debits to Individual Demand Deposit Accounts (In Thousands of Dollars) Percent Change 1959 1960 1961 1962 Trends among District states, how ever, have v aried . Further advances have occurred in Florida, G eo rgia, M ississippi, and Tennessee, w hile a decline has taken place in A labam a. Louisiana employm ent has changed little. Percent Percent Apr. 1962 Mar. 1962 43,466 861,658 37,454 34,901 80,289 291,353 178,086 25,118 60,642 1,612,967 781,346 43,762 901,171 40,430 35,201 77,205 303,902 184,685 26,340 60,896 1,673,592 811,414 37,130 762,176 35,060 34,590 62,648 269,554 154,691 23,756 52,825 1,432,430 701,945r —1 —4 —7 —1 +4 —4 —4 —5 —0 ■ —4 —4 + 17 +13 +7 +1 + 28 +8 + 15 +6 +15 +13 +11 +7 + 11 +8 +2 + 18 +5 +9 +8 + 14 61,378 236,187 46,767 915,967 18,768 90,806 1,053,109 1,544,082 269,500 96,975 244,173 n.a. 68,812 477,018 179,676 4,250,109 1,954,972 56,315 217,123 42,497 802,362 18,103 77,292 896,504 1,343,114 238,995 81,799 204,061 n.a. n.a. 409,812 147,949 3,639,422 l,709,139r +1 +0 + 10 W. Palm-Palm Bch.* Total Reporting Cities Other Citiesf . . . 61,905 236,658 48,575 852,688 19,459 82,347 1,006,764 1,490,546 272,579 85,722 239,022 90,733 71,728 456,798 183,278 4,192,038 1,842,492 +4 —7 +4 —9 —4 —3 +1 — 12 —2 n.a. +4 —4 +2 —1 —6 +9 + 14 +6 +7 +7 + 12 + 11 + 14 +5 + 17 n.a. n.a. + 11 + 24 + 15 +8 +5 +7 +9 +7 +9 +0 +6 +6 +7 +3 + 12 n.a. n.a. +7 + 19 +9 +8 GEORGIA Albany . . . . Athens* . . . . Atlanta . . . . Augusta . . . . Brunswick . . . Columbus . . . . Dalton* . . . . Elberton . . . . Gainesville* . . . Griffin* . . . . LaGrange* . . . Macon....................... Marietta* . . . Newnan . . . . Rome* . . . . Savannah . . . . Valdosta . . . . Total Reporting Cities Other Citiesf . . . 56,866 45,689 2,476,813 119,747 33,849 119,589 55,390 10,559 51,323 20,575 16,796 130,184 34,683 19,982 48,571 172,315 37,036 3,449,967 940,582 58,615 47,059 2,512,335 126,017 30,529 122,483 n.a. 8,843 52,502 21,851 18,614 137,150 38,604 22,608 50,062 182,506 35,310 3,465,088 1,030,211 49,985 37,823 1,965,841 99,905 23,276 102,783 n.a. 8,677 46,061 17,510 16,302 114,668 31,540 19,072 45,238 158,859 30,644 2,768,184 899,350r —3 —3 —1 —5 + 11 —2 n.a. + 19 —2 —6 — 10 —5 — 10 — 12 —3 —6 +5 —0 —9 + 14 +21 + 26 + 20 +45 + 16 n.a. + 22 +11 + 18 +3 + 14 + 10 +5 +7 +8 +21 + 25 +5 +13 + 17 + 17 + 13 +27 + 13 n.a. +4 +9 +10 —4 + 10 + 12 + 13 —1 +8 + 10 + 16 +5 LOUISIANA Alexandria* . . . Baton Rouge . . . Lafayette* . . . Lake Charles . . New Orleans . . . Total Reporting Cities Other Citiesf . . . 76,300 272,409 64,718 85,476 1,407,887 1,906,790 683,224 77,132 289,039 70,675 84,211 1,537,390 2,058,447 682,856 68,354 246,532 63,680 72,881 1,244,263 1,695,710 560,816r —1 —6 —8 +2 —8 —7 +12 +0 +2 + 17 + 13 +12 + 22 + 16 + 13 +8 + 12 +6 +8 +20 MISSISSIPPI Biloxi-Gulfport* Hattiesburg . . . Jackson . . . . Laurel* . . . . Meridian . . . . Natchez* . . . . Vicksburg . . . . Total Reporting Cities Other Citiesf . . . 60,342 37,798 342,803 28,591 47,722 23,629 23,242 564,127 290,140 59,099 41,428 358,914 28,625 48,375 25,231 23,656 585,328 298,058 52,861 36,428 297,448 24,664 39,459 22,242 19,011 492,113 255,193r +2 —9 —4 —0 —1 —6 —2 —4 —3 + 14 +4 +15 + 16 +21 +6 + 22 + 15 + 14 +11 +6 + 15 +4 + 12 +7 + 15 + 13 + 10 TENNESSEE Bristol* . . . . Chattanooga . . . Johnson City* . . Kingsport* . . . Knoxville . . . . Nashville . . . . Total Reporting Cities Other Citiesf . . . 52,184 331,217 43,514 96,180 250,840 808,466 1,582,401 600,525 55,383 373,073 47,396 108,793 254,143 847,680 1,686,468 662,851 55,117 300,671 37,738 78,775 224,511 700,916 1,397,728 582,421r —6 — 11 —8 — 12 —1 —5 —6 —9 —5 +15 + 22 + 12 + 15 + 13 +3 +7 +9 + 11 + 14 +5 19,159,394r 16,134,451r 13,719,032r ll,425,587r 5,440,362r 4,708,864r ll,660,198r 9,682,564r —4 —3 —6 —4 + 14 + 16 +9 + 15 + 10 +11 +9 281,700,000 293,300,000 241,000,000r —4 + 17 + 12 ALABAMA Anniston . . . . Birmingham . . . Dothan . . . . Gadsden . . . . Huntsville* . . . Mobile . . . . Montgomery . . . Selma* . . . . Tuscaloosa* . . . Total Reporting Cities Other Citiesf . . . FLORIDA Daytona Beach* Fort Lauderdale* Gainesville* . . Jacksonville . . Key West* . . Lakeland* . . Greater Miami* Orlando . . . . Pensacola . . St. Petersburg . Sarasota* . . Tallahassee* . _______ Department Store Sales and Inventories*________ ____________________________ Percent Change___________________ ________ Sales______________ _______ Inventories Apr. 1962 from 4 Months ________Apr. 30,^962 from Mar. Apr. 1962 from Mar. 31, Apr. 30, Place 1962 1961 1961 1962 1961 A L A B A M A .............................— 2 +1 +1 +2 +3 Birmingham.......................— 11 ■ —2 +0 +2 +1 Mobile.................................. +4 + 12 +5 Montgomery....................... +4 +4 +4 FLORIDA.................................. — 3 + 18 + 12 +1 +14 Daytona Beach . . . . —1 +6 +1 Jacksonville.......................+12 +11 +1 +3 —3 Miami A r e a .......................— 7 + 10 +9 M ia m i.............................—8 +9 +5 O rla n d o ............................. +3 + 67 + 35 St. Ptrsbg-Tampa Area . —2 +30 +22 +3 +15 GEORGIA.................................. +4 + 14 +7 —1 —0 A tlanta**............................. +2 +15 + 10 —1 +1 A u g u s ta ............................. +8 + 20 +4 Columbus.............................n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Macon.................................. + 13 + 16 +3 +1 +9 R o m e * * .............................+ 16 + 19 +5 Savannah............................. +3 +U +2 LOUISIANA............................. +9 +10 +2 —0 +1 Baton Rouge....................... — 1 + 12 + 11 +3 +12 New Orleans.......................+ 11 + 10 —1 —1 —2 M IS S IS S IP P I.......................+ 12 + 13 +6 —1 +7 J a c k s o n ............................. +5 + 16 +8 —2 +6 M eridian............................. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. TENNESSEE............................. +6 + 10 +3 +4 +7 Bristol-KinrsportJohnson City** . . . + 10 +21 +5 +2 —0 Bristol (Tenn. & Va.)** + 1 0 + 19 +4 Chattanooga....................... +1 +H +8 Knoxville............................. +7 + 10 +2 D I S T R IC T ............................. + 2_________ +12__________ + 6 ___________ +1__________ + 6 ♦Reporting stores account for over 90 percent of total District department store sales. **In order to permit publication of figures for this city, a special sample has been constructed that is not confined exclusively to department stores. Figures for non department stores, however, are not used in computing the District percent changes, n.a. Not available. SIXTH DISTRICT . Reporting Cities Other Citiesf . Total, 32 Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNITED STATES 344 Cities . . . 18,466,599 13,308,290 5,138,309 11,145,291 Apr. 1961 Year-to-date 4 months Apr. 1962 from 1962 Mar. Apr. from 1962 1961 1961 + 10 + 10 + 10 +9 + 10 +9 +3 + 10 *Not included in total for 32 cities that are part of the national debit series maintained by the Board of Governors. tEstimated. r Revised. n.a. Not available. • 6 • S ix t h D is t r ic t S t a t is t ic s Seasonally Adjusted (All data are indexes, Latest Month (1962) One Month Ago 1957-59 = 100, Two Months Ago unless indicated otherwise.) One Year Ago SIXTH DISTRICT INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . Mar. 37,416 37,252r 36,492r 35,087 114 109 111 Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ........................................Mar. 113 111 112 101 C r o p s ...............................................................Mar. 119 104 114 108 Livestock.........................................................Mar. 113 102 111 110 Department Store S a l e s * / * * .......................May 114p 114 118 115 Department Store S t o c k s * .............................Apr. 120 Instalment Credit at Banks,* (Mil. $) 142 118 136 New Loans......................................................... Apr. 137 129 124 Repayments................................................... Apr. 130 130 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT 105 105 103 Nonfarm Employment........................................Apr. 106 104 104 101 Manufacturing..............................................Apr. 105 109 114 114 Apparel......................................................... Apr. 116 101 100 100 Chemicals................................................... Apr. 100 102 104 105 Fabricated M e t a ls .................................. Apr. 105 104 105 105 Food...............................................................Apr. 107 97 95 Lbr., Wood Prod., Furn. & Fix. . . . Apr. 97 96 102 103 102 P a p e r .........................................................Apr. 104 94 94 90 Primary M e ta ls ........................................Apr. 95 95 96 96 Textiles ................................................... Apr. 96 87 Transportation Equipment . . . . Apr. 101 99 101 104 Nonmanufacturing........................................Apr. 106 105 106 94 94 88 Construction..............................................Apr. 93 94 91 85 Farm Employment..............................................Apr. 91 4.1 6.3 Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp.) Apr. 4.2 4.5 41.l r 39.7 40.9 Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . Apr. 40.8 122r 121 109 Manufacturing P a y r o lls .................................. Apr. 121 92 Construction Contracts*.................................. Mar. 137 133 99 112 96 R e sid e n tia l................................................... Mar. 114 100 151 99 90 All O th e r.........................................................Mar. 156 120 130 115 Electric Power P ro d u ctio n **.......................Mar. 124 94 109 104 Cotton Consumption** .................................. Apr. 105 145r 150 131 Petrol. Prod, in Coastal La. and Miss.** Apr. 147 FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank Loans* 132 123 All B a n k s.........................................................Apr. 134 130 Leading C i t i e s ............................................. May 133 133 126 131 Member Bank Deposits* 112 121 All B a n k s.........................................................Apr. 121 120 112 Leading C i t i e s ..............................................May 119 120 120 117 Bank D e b it s * / * * ..............................................Apr. 127 127 121 One Month Ago Two Months Ago One Year Ago 6,947 114 99 6,872r 111 113 6,691r 103 103 6,492 122 96 106 103 107 104 82 3.4 39.9 118 105 102 105r 102 84 3.3 40.5r 120r 105 102 106 105 80 3.8 39.9 118 102 98 104 92 85 5.9 39.4 106 136 126 133 136 126 132 133 124 126 128 115 116 Latest Month (1962) G EO RGIA INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . Mar. Farm Cash R e c e ip ts ........................................Mar. Department Store S a l e s * * .............................Apr. PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................................Apr. Manufacturing..............................................Apr. Nonmanufacturing........................................Apr. Construction..............................................Apr. Farm Employment..............................................Apr. Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp.) Apr. Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . Apr. Manufacturing P a y r o lls .................................. Apr. FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s ........................................Apr. Member Bank D e p o s its .................................. Apr. Bank D e b its * * ................................................... Apr. LO U ISIAN A INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) Mar. Mar. Apr. 5,582 117 95 5,597r 101 102 5,556r 114 105 5,345 98 97 Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. 98 94 99 76 98 4.7 41.8 108 98 94 99 80 100 4.5 41.5r 106r 99 93 100 79 89 5.0 42.9 110 98 94 99 77 105 6.3 40.7 101 Apr. Apr. Apr. 132 112 116 128 111 120 126 111 112 119 108 107 Mar. Mar. Apr. 2,822 110 104 2,831 r 109 104 2,847 148 108 2,607 108 101 Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. 109 111 107 102 93 4.6 40.2 126 108 110 107 98 91 4.8 40.8r 128r 108 109 108 96 79 5.5 40.9 127 105 103 105 94 92 7.6 39.2 109 Apr. Apr. Apr. 150 129 138 148 127 140 145 124 136 133 117 127 Mar. Mar. Apr. 6,057 95 94 5,968r 96 106 5,895r 106 104 Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. 105 107 104 111 92 4.9 41.0 119 104 106 103 118 90 5.0 41.l r 121 104 106 103 118 86 5.4 40.8 120 102 103 102 100 94 7.3 39.6 109 Apr. Apr. Apr. 134 122 127 134 124 130 133 123 119 123 112 121 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) FINANCE AND BANKING MISSISSIPPI ALABAM A INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ............................. Department Store Sales** . . . . PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) Manufacturing Payrolls . . . FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank Loans . . . . FLORIDA INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ............................ Department Store Sales** . . . . PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT 5,115 112 102 5,097r 107 111 4,934r 111 106 Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. 102 98 103 92 85 4.6 40.2 114 101 97 103 92 84 4.5 40.7r 116 101 97 104 91 82 5.1 41.0 115 101 94 104 93 93 6.7 39.3 101 Apr. Apr. Apr. 133 119 124 133 119 124 129 117 122 125 114 116 Mar. 10,893 Mar. 115 Apr. 133 Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Farm Employment....................... Insured Unemployment, (Percent c Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) 4,834 111 110 Mar. Mar. Apr. 113 119 112 92 94 3.3 41.4 146 10,887 115 141 112 119 111 93r 96 3.6 41.8 145 10,569r 10,089 98 109 119 127 112 118 111 90 94 3.8 41.9 146 108 113 107 87 100 5.2 40.9 133 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment . . . . Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) Manufacturing Payrolls . . . FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank Loans* . . . . TENNESSEE INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) Farm Cash R e c e ip ts ............................. Department Store Sales*/** . . . PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) 5,720 96 97 FINANCE AND BANKING FINANCE AND BANKING Apr. Apr. Apr. *For Sixth District area only. INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . 130 123 129 128 121 125 Other totals for entire six states. 125 120 121 119 111 120 p Preliminary. r Revised. **Daily average basis. Sources: Personal income estimated by this Bank; nonfarm, mfg. and nonmfg. emp., mfg. payrolls and hours, and unemp., U.S. Dept, of Labor and cooperating state agencies; cotton consumption, U.S. Bureau of Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Corp.; petrol, prod., U.S. Bureau of Mines; elec. power prod., Fed. Power Comm.; farm cash receipts and farm emp., U.S.D.A. Other indexes based on data collected by this Bank. All indexes calculated by this Bank. • 7 • D B illions of Dollars A Senans,ualAdR].ate I S T R I C T B U S I N E S S C O N D I T I O N S Personal Income Nonfarm Employment Mfg. Employment Average Weekly Hours* Worked in Mfg. Mfg. Payrolls Construction Contracts ^106 E x p a n s io n of District economic activity continued in April. This is apparent from trends in seasonally adjusted indicators. Employment increases were the result of widespread gains in most types of activity. Although a rise in cash receipts from farm marketings occurred in March, a critical spring drought in recent weeks has weakened the farm economy. Most measures of consumer spending increased further in April, reflecting first-quarter gains in personal income. Loans and deposits at member banks continued to expand moderately. iS \S Total nonfarm em ploym ent rose substantially in April after a month of virtu a lly no change. The nonmanufacturing sector contributed signifi cantly to the increase in the number of those gainfully employed. Manufactur ing employment also expanded. A slight shortening in the average work week in District manufacturing, however, caused a minor dip in manufacturing payrolls. )S \S 3-mo. movingavg. * The latest three-month a ve rag e of contracts for new construction rose further, follow ing a month of sh arp ly increased volum e. Construc Electric Power Production tion employment, however, changed little in April from the improved level of the two preceding months. Cotton consumption, a measure of activity in the textile industry, declined but was still at a relatively high level. IS \S Important m easures of consumer spending advanced during April. Cotton Consumption Bank Debits Bank debits, a measure of total spending, increased somewhat further to a record high. Department store sales rose slightly during April, and preliminary figures suggest that they reached a new record in May. Auto sales during the first quarter, as reflected by the latest state registration figures, were at the highest level in recent years. )S Consumer instalm ent credit outstanding at District commercial banks increased slightly, p rim arily reflecting greater borrowing for the purchase of autom obiles and a rise in personal loans. At the same time, consumers added to their time deposits and savings and loan accounts during April but at a reduced rate from that in March. u* v* A modest rise in receipts from farm m arketings in March has buoyed the farm economy, although a critical shortage of soil moisture in M ay has jeopardized crop plantings and pastures in m any areas. Member Bank Loans Member Bank Deposits With production of livestock and some crops increasing more than seasonally in March, and the index of prices received by District farmers down only slightly, cash receipts from farm marketings increased moderately. Recent rainfall in scattered localities suggests that the severe drought that has plagued farmers may be ending. is u* Loans and deposits at m em ber banks advanced further in April. PER C EN T OF R E Q U IR E D RESERVES Excess Reserves Borrowings from V j T . R. Bank http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ ♦Seas. adj. figure; not an index. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Preliminary data for member banks in leading District cities indicate that loans, seasonally adjusted, may have increased in May and that recent strength stems principally from a rise in consumer loans. Member bank deposits, seasonally adjusted, rose partly because time deposits expanded significantly. Among District states, Florida has experienced the sharpest deposit gain so far this year.
@FedFRASER