The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
A M Iu Review Government EmploymentA Growth Industry Atlanta, Georgia June • 1964 Also in this issue: A DIVERSITY OF GROWTHS IN FLORIDA W dp '*<. SIXTH DISTRICT STATISTICS DISTRICT BUSINESS CONDITIONS About 9,500,000 people in the United States were working for govern ments—national, state, and local— in 1963. In the Sixth District states, which include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee, government employment totaled approximately 1.1 million people in that year. Accounting for almost 20 percent of nonfarm em ployment, government or public employment, as it is often called, con tributed about $5.6 billion in wages and salaries to the personal in comes of employees residing in District states. Government employment has been a major contributor to the rise in total employment in recent years. Yet, in spite of this rise, unemployiB ent- the problem that is currently attracting so much attention— still s. One reason for the failure to reduce unemployment to a more -_^,ptable level is the expansion in the total labor force. Moreover, the lack of employment growth in the manufacturing area, in which about the same number of people were engaged in 1964 as in 1956, has also ' oi J/,. restrained the expansion. Nonmanufacturing employment thus has ^^^jw^irheaded the advance, and government employment, a segment of iron^ianufacturing employment, consequently, has been important in absorbing a part of the growing labor force. Total Governm ent Payrolls and Governm ent Payrolls as a Percentage of Personal Income S i x t h D is t r ic t S t a t e s MillionsofDollars S fa fe r a 1929-62 f GovernmentPayrolls PercentofPersonal Income — SixthDistrictStates % MillionsofDollars QFederal | | State and Local s e rv e 1945 O 1960 1962 ^ a n ko f Source: U. S. Department of Commerce. ^ T o t a l g o v e r n m e n t p a y r o l l s h a v e b e e n r is in g in t h e D is t r ic t s t a t e s f o r q u it e s o m e t im e . H o w e v e r , t h e in c r e a s e h a s n o t b e e n s t e a d y f r o m y e a r t o y e a r . A s a p e r c e n t a g e o f p e r s o n a l in c o m e , g o v e r n m e n t p a y r o l l s h a v e f lu c t u a t e d b u t h a v e b e e n in c r e a s in g in r e c e n t y e a r s . M u c h o f t h is i n c r e a s e is t h e r e s u l t o f r i s i n g s t a t e a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y m e n t . fa n ta Payrolls and Employment Fluctuate A long-term upward trend characterizes the payrolls of government workers both in the United States and in the Sixth District states. In recent years, government payrolls have accounted for an increasing percentage of personal income; however, there have been fluctuations over time in the proportion of personal income earned from gov ernment employment. During the 1930’s, the percentage of personal income derived from government generally rose, although the increases were not steady from year to year. By 1941, the percentage of personal income from government employment had almost doubled the 1929 level. During World War II, fairly sharp increases in government payrolls occurred as the number of persons serving in the Armed Forces expanded and thus boosted Federal military payrolls. With the cessation of hostilities, demobilization came fairly rapidly. Federal military pay rolls dropped sharply, and the percentage of personal income from government employment in 1946 fell back to about the 1941 level and dropped still further in 1947. In 1950, however, the Korean War began, necessitating another military buildup. The percentage of personal income from government employment again rose but failed to reach the World War II level. After the Korean Armistice, government employment once more became relatively less important as a source of personal income. Since 1956, a year selected because it does not reflect temporary increases caused by the Korean War, both the number of government workers and the amount of their payrolls have risen. State and local government em ployment, moreover, has come to the fore as the major stimulus of this increase. Public employment in 1956 amounted to 14.2 percent of nonfarm employment, while government wage and salary disbursements came to 10.7 percent of personal income. By 1962, the latest year for which government wage and salary data are available, government employment had risen to 16.6 percent of nonfarm employment, and government wages and salaries were accounting for 12.1 percent of personal income. The growing importance of government payrolls is further highlighted when one considers that since 1956 the per centage of personal income contributed by government employment has been rising at the same time that personal income has been increasing. Government employment and payrolls in the Sixth District states have also been moving up since 1956. At present, Federal civilian employment is more im portant as a contributor to both employment and income in District states than in the United States. Federal civilian employment in 1962 in the United States ac counted for 4.2 percent of total nonfarm employment, and wage and salary disbursements by the Federal Gov ernment amounted to 5.3 percent of the personal income of the nation’s population. In the District states, Federal civilian employment was 4.7 percent of nonfarm employ ment, and wages and salaries from Federal employment were 7.3 percent of personal income. Moreover, in each of the District states, with the exception of Georgia, government payrolls, as a per centage of nonfarm wages and salaries, exceeded govern ment employment as a percentage of nonfarm employ Governm ent Nonfarm P ayrolls W age Employment as a Percentage of Employment and Governm ent as a Percentage of Nonfarm and S a la ry Disbursements S i x t h D is t r i c t S t a t e s 1962 0 5 I 10 I Percent 15 I 20 I 25 I 30 I i i Alabama Florida Georgia Louisiana Mississippi /////////////////////////^ ^ ^ ...................... ............ ...... ...................-■] Tennessee i i i i Source: U. S. Department of Commerce. G o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y m e n t a n d p a y r o l l s , a lt h o u g h im p o r t a n t in e v e r y D is t r ic t s t a t e , v a r y in r e l a t i v e s ig n if ic a n c e f r o m s t a t e to s t a t e . A t t h e s a m e t i m e , t h e g o v e r n m e n t s e c t o r , o n a v e r a g e , c o n t r ib u t e s m o r e t o e m p lo y m e n t a n d in c o m e in D is t r i c t s t a t e s t h a n in t h e U n it e d S t a t e s . ment. This indicates that government workers in general receive higher pay than other people engaged in nonfarm occupations in the District states. But what services, we may ask, do these government workers perform? What level of government employs the most workers; in what location are most employees; and in what functions are they engaged? State and Local Governments — A M ajor Source of Jobs Total government employment has in recent years be come more important when considered from the stand point of contributions to personal income and nonfarm employment. However, Federal civilian employment, con trary to what many people may believe, is declining in significance relative to state and local government em ployment. Federal civilian employment, measured as a Number of Governm ent Employees Thousands ofWorkers S i x t h D is t r i c t S t a t e s 19 5 2 -6 2 Thousands ofWorkers Source: U. S. Department of Commerce. F e d e r a l c i v i l i a n e m p lo y m e n t h a s b e e n f a i r l y s t a b l e in S i x t h D is t r ic t s t a t e s s in c e 1 9 5 2 . M o s t o f t h e r i s e in g o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y m e n t h a s r e s u lt e d f r o m i n c r e a s e s in t h e n u m b e r o f s t a t e a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y e e s . percentage of nonfarm employment, has risen only slightly in the United States since 1956 and has actually declined somewhat in the District states since that time. A further indication of the waning importance of Fed eral civilian employment in the District states may be seen in its drop from 28.4 percent of total government employment in 1956 to 23.8 percent in 1963. Within the District states, Federal government employ ment is concentrated in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. As a percentage of nonfarm employment, Federal civilian employment is lowest in Louisiana and highest in Ala bama. Wages and salaries from Federal employment, as a percentage of personal income, range from a low of about 5 percent in Louisiana and Tennessee to a high of around 11 percent in Alabama. State and local governments now account for most of the government employment in the District states. Con- responsibilities in certain areas. Expanded services, result ing in a larger number of government workers, have also been the consequence of more rapid urbanization. Most government workers in the District states, as in the United States, are employed by counties, cities, and school districts. In 1963, there were about 823,000 state and local government workers in the District states. Local governments employed almost 610,000 of this number. Employment by local governments is increasing relative to employment by Federal or state governments and is greater than state or Federal employment in each of the District states. What Services Account for Most Employees? The Department of Defense has employed more Federal workers than any other agency for the past few years. Federal Civilian Employment by Agency S i x t h D is t r ic t S t a t e s a n d U n it e d S t a t e s Number of Employees of Federal, State, and Local Governm ents 1963 District S i x t h D is t r ic t S t a t e s United States 1963 Source M o s t g o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y e e s in D is t r ic t s t a t e s w o r k f o r lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t s . E m p lo y m e n t b y t h is l e v e l o f g o v e r n m e n t e x c e e d s e i t h e r s t a t e o r F e d e r a l e m p lo y m e n t in e a c h s ta te . sidered in relation to nonfarm employment, state and local government workers are more numerous in the District states than in the United States. Mississippi ranks higher than any other District state in this type of employment, while Tennessee takes last place. Residents of Louisiana, however, received a greater proportion of their personal income from state and local government employment, while persons residing in Georgia received the lowest pro portion among the District states. To eliminate the influence of differences in population, state and local employment may be compared on the basis of the number of workers per 10,000 people. On this basis, state and local employment is below the national figure per 10,000 population in Alabama, Georgia, Mis sissippi, and Tennessee. In Florida and Louisiana, the state figure is higher than that for the nation. One reason for the growth of state and local govern ment employment is the public’s increased demand for services. As the population has risen and people’s in comes have expanded, there have been increased demands for the types of services provided by state and local gov ernments, such as schools, police and fire protection, and highways. Also, governments have taken on additional U. S. Civil Service Commission. M o s t F e d e r a l c i v i l i a n e m p lo y e e s in t h e D i s t r ic t , a s in t h e U n it e d S t a t e s , a r e e m p lo y e d b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f D e fe n s e . H o w e v e r , th e D e fe n s e D e p a rt m e n t a c c o u n ts f o r a h ig h e r p e r c e n t a g e o f e m p lo y e e s in t h e D is t r ic t t h a n in t h e U n it e d S t a t e s . Two other agencies, the Post Office Department and the Veterans Administration, account for most of the remain ing Federal civilian employees. These three departments are responsible for about 71 percent of Federal civilian employment in the District states. Defense Department employees make up a larger pro portion of Federal employment in the District than in the U. S. As of June 30, 1963, 15.3 percent of the number of Armed Forces personnel stationed in the United States were located in the District states. The pay and allow ances going to these members of the Armed Forces amounted to $1,034,688,000. At the same time, 11.7 per cent of the civilian employees of the Defense Department were located in District states. Moreover, the District states contained 14 percent of the total number of military and civilian personnel stationed in the U. S. and received 13.6 percent of the payroll earned by this group. The Armed Forces personnel stationed in the District states are concentrated primarily in Georgia and Florida; Tennessee has the smallest number of Armed Forces personnel. With respect to state and local governments, more em ployees are engaged in the field of education than in any other endeavor. In each of the District states, this func tion accounts for around 45 percent of all full-time state and local government employees. Thus, it is not surpris •3 • ing that most local government workers are employed by school districts. Highway and hospital work also occupy a high proportion of state and local government em ployees. Certain other activities add to the total income from government employment. An example is the reserve and national guard program of the Armed Forces. People engaged in this activity receive military training on a parttime basis, and their earnings serve as a supplement to their other income. In addition, these programs employ civilians on a full-time basis. The annual payroll for mili tary personnel in the Army and Air National Guard in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee is about $14,900,000. For civilian employees of the Army and Air National Guard in these same states, the yearly payroll is about $15,800,000. Prospective Changes and Their Implications In recent months, there has been much discussion of cut backs in Federal employment and pay increases for gov ernment workers. Would such changes in Federal employ ment and in government payrolls have any effect in the Sixth District states? Much of the fluctuation in govern ment payrolls, as a percentage of personal income, can be attributed to changes in the size of the Armed Forces. The Federal Government component of government pay rolls has risen during war periods and declined during times of peace. If reductions in Federal employment do occur, they would likely be more serious if they involved the Department of Defense rather than some other agency. However, some District states would feel the impact more severely than others because of variations in the concen tration of Armed Forces personnel within the District. The growth in state and local government employment reflects a greater demand for services by these levels of government. Much of the expansion in local government employment quite likely is the result of expanded educa tional services, since most local government workers are employed by school districts. As people in the District demand more and better educational facilities and as the region becomes more urban, government employment will likely rise still more. Obviously, government employment has much to do with the future economic growth of the S ° u th- Jo h n R o bert C ooper A Diversity of Growth in Florida Economic growth is of interest to many people. “How much has a particular area grown” and “how does it com pare with other areas” are typical questions. In previous Monthly Review articles, Florida’s growth was compared with that of the United States. Thus, Floridians and others interested in the state’s development could see how Flor ida had fared relative to all other states taken as a whole. But Florida, or any other state for that matter, is not a homogeneous mass. Rather, it is made up of separate areas—each differing from the others. How these areas have grown and how they compare with each other and with the state is also of interest. Furthermore, an investi gation of the growth of the state’s major areas will provide an insight into the complexities of Florida’s economy. First of all, however, we need to decide what is to be called a major area. One way is to use the standard metro politan statistical area (SMSA), which is defined by the Bureau of the Census as a county or group of adjoining counties with common social and economic characteristics that has at least one city of 50,000 persons or more and a total population of 100,000 persons or more. There were seven SMSA’s in Florida, according to the 1960 Census. They contained 66 percent of the state’s population and 64 percent of its nonfarm workers. Because of their im portance, many types of information are collected on an SMSA basis and, therefore, they are particularly well suited for our purpose. The use of SMSA’s should not be interpreted to mean that those who live and work outside metropolitan areas are unimportant. Unfortunately, current data are not avail able for most nonmetropolitan areas. However, informa tion is available for one rapidly growing nonmetropolitan area— Brevard County. It also will be included in our list of areas. The results of any study on rates of growth depend upon the time period used. Changes over a long period of time provide information about the trend but may not give a very accurate picture of current developments. Month to month changes, on the other hand, give the latest in current information but tell little about changes over time. A middle course traces changes within a particular time period. The current period of expansion that began in February 1961 is an example of such a middle course and seems appropriate for our study. Although this expansion period is still continuing, an ending date of February 1964 was chosen because many forms of economic activity are seasonal— that is, activity in some months of each year is much higher than in other months of the same year. Such seasonal fluctuations are particularly apparent in those areas of Florida with mild winters. By choosing a period that begins and ends with the same month, many of the problems associated with these seasonal movements are eliminated. The accompanying table shows the changes occurring during this period in selected employment and banking categories for the state, the SMSA’s, and Brevard County. Employment changes are given for total nonfarm employ ment and for two of its most volatile components— manu facturing and construction. Banking changes are illustrated by deposits and loans at banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System. Many other series for measuring change exist. However, space and data limitations restrict the number of mea sures that can be used. These five categories were chosen because changes in economic activity typically show up in job opportunities and in bank deposits and loans. •4 • Rates of Growth By looking at the changes in the five series, we can assign each of the areas to one of three classes: those that have grown at roughly the same rate as the state, those that have grown faster, and those that have grown slower. Growth in Selected Florida Areas (P e r c e n t a g e C h a n g e F e b r u a r y 1 9 6 4 fro m Nonfarm Employment ManufacConstrucTotal turing tion 5.9 Florida 11.1 12.5 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas Ft. Lauderdale17.6 21.8 25.3 Hollywood 0.0 Jacksonville 2.2 —20.8 Miami 12.4 — 5.9 6.8 12.0 Orlando 4.8 18.3 2.2 Pensacola 2.1 — 12.8 Tampa 5.7 St. Petersburg 9.4 8.7 W. Palm Beach 18.7 21.1 36.8 Brevard County 56.4 24.7 159.3 F e b ru a ry 1961) Member Bank Deposits Loans 25.7 39.7 34.1 8.0 22.0 33.0 11.9 39.2 23.2 35.4 54.7 25.0 29.5 16.4 125.3 46.7 18.7 125.7 By far, the fastest-growing area has been Brevard Coun ty. It is above the state average in all five categories shown in the table. This rapid rate of growth, a result of expand ing space activity at Cape Kennedy, is most noticeable in employment— especially construction employment, which more than doubled during the February 1961-64 period. Banking figures suggest that expanded employment in this area generated additional income, which, in turn, boosted bank deposits and trade and afforded a basis for additional bank loans. Rapid growth caused by the space program was not re stricted to Brevard County, however. The Orlando SMSA, consisting of Orange and Seminole Counties, was also stimulated by happenings on the Cape. Increases in build ing, trade, and banking activity helped to make Orlando an area of above average growth despite a less-thanstatewide average increase in manufacturing employment. The Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood SMSA, which takes in all of Broward County, also grew at a faster rate than did the state as a whole. Employment gains in the area were widespread, with increases in manufacturing and construc tion supporting additional activity in trade and govern ment. These increases, in turn, led to a growth in bank deposits and a larger volume of loans. The West Palm Beach SMSA probably belongs in the fast growth class also since nonfarm employment gains were quite strong. Manufacturing employment grew at the fastest rate for any SMSA in the state. A part of the in crease was caused by the opening of several sugar refining mills in the area. Construction gains were also quite strong. Member bank figures do not reflect these spectacular in creases, however, since the rates of gain for deposits and loans in the area were below those for the state as a whole. The two most populous areas of the state— Miami and Tampa-St. Petersburg— grew at about the same pace as the state. The Miami SMSA, composed of Dade County, experienced gains in member bank deposits and loans and in manufacturing employment similar to those of the state. However, a slowdown in building activity produced an absolute decline in construction employment. This, in turn, contributed to a slower rate of growth in nonfarm em ployment. Growth in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties, which constitute the Tampa-St. Petersburg SMSA, was also roughly parallel to that of the state. Construction employ ment gains almost exactly matched the state’s. Slightly less-than-average gains in manufacturing and other types of nonfarm employment were offset by slightly larger-thanaverage increases in member bank deposits and loans. The Jacksonville and Pensacola SMSA’s both experi enced less-than-statewide growth during this period. A slowdown in building activity caused construction employ ment to drop, while manufacturing employment barely held its own. The net result was an increase in nonfarm employment below the state average. The slow expansion of employment opportunities is also reflected in the below average growth in member bank deposits and loans. W hy This Diversity? From the discussion of Florida’s major areas, it appears that the southern and central SMSA’s are growing faster than those in the northern part of the state. The southern portion of the state has traditionally been heavily de pendent upon tourism. However, in recent years many other types of activity have found these areas attractive. This and the stimulus from the Cape Kennedy area ac count for the above average or average rates of growth in the SMSA’s of the southern and middle sections of Florida. The difference between the areas of above average and average rates of growth can be explained partly in terms of relative size. The Miami and Tampa-St. Petersburg SMSA’s have a larger population and greater employment opportunities. The addition of a given number of new jobs thus does not provide as large a percentage increase as it would for an area with a smaller base. It is not unusual, therefore, that the fastest-growing areas are those that started from a lower level of economic activity in Febru ary 1961. N. D. O’Bannon This is one of a series in which economic developments in each of the Sixth District states are discussed. Develop ments in Tennessee’s economy were analyzed in the March 1964 R e v ie w , and a discussion of Alabama’s economy is scheduled for a forthcoming issue. A REVIEW OF FLORIDA'S ECO NO M Y 1959-64 This publication is a compilation of articles devoted to Florida's economy that appeared in this Bank's Monthly Review during 1959-64, together with revised monthly figures of major busi ness indicators for Florida. The articles emphasize various aspects of Florida's economic scene and often consider longerrun developments. Copies of this booklet, as well as copies of A Review of Georgia's Economy, 1960-63; A Review of Missis sippi's Economy, 1960-63; A Review of Louisiana's Economy, 1959-63; and A Review of Tennessee's Economy, 1960-64, the first four publications in this series, are available upon request to the Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. •5 • Bank Announcements On M a y 1, the conversion of the Bank of M elb ou rne and Trust C om pa n y, M elbourne, Florida, to a national bank under the title o f N a t i o n a l B a n k o f M e l b o u r n e a n d T r u s t C o m p a n y b ecam e effective. Officers include T. E. Tucker, Chairman o f the Board; E. D avison Potter, Presi dent; E. G. Litka, Vice President and Cashier; Frederick O. Britton, Jr., D a n Chambers, Jr., E d w a rd A . Judge, and M urray P. Lee, Vice Presidents; R ich ard S. Carney, Vice President and Trust Officer; and L ael N . Batchelor, Trust Officer. Capital is $ 6 00,000, and surplus and undivided profits, $9 46,000, as rep orted by the C o m ptro ller o f C u r rency at the time o f the conversion. The B a x l e y S t a t e B a n k , Baxley, Georgia, a n o n m e m ber bank, began to rem it at p a r fo r checks draw n on it when received fr o m the Federal R eserve Bank on M a y 1. Officers are E. E. Miles, Chairman of the Board; Staten S. Lewis, President; and E. O. Branch, Vice President and Cashier. On M a y 1, the D u c k t o w n B a n k i n g C o m p a n y , D u ck town, Tennessee, a n o n m em b er bank, began to remit at par. Officers include L a m a r Weaver, Chairman of the Board; Carl E. Panter, Jr., E xecutive Vice President; and M . H. Spargo, Vice President and Cashier. The P e o p l e s B a n k , Elba, Alabam a, a newly organized n on m em ber bank, op en ed fo r business on M a y 1 and be gan to remit at par. Officers are L. S. Rainer, Jr., Vice President and Chairman of the Board; James Ft. Blair, Executive Vice President and Cashier; and R. D. Easters, Vice President. Capital is $1 50,000, and surplus an d un divided profits, $150,000. On M a y 7, the A m e r i c a n A r l i n g t o n B a n k , Jackson ville, Florida, a newly organized n o n m em be r bank, open ed for business and began to rem it at par. Officers include Frank W. Sherman, Chairman of the Board; J. M . C o u rt nay, President; and John R. Gehrig, E xecutive Vice Presi dent and Cashier. Capital is $300,000, and surplus and un divided profits, $105,000. T he A m erican N a tio n a l B ank o f H u n tsv ille , Huntsville, Ala bam a, a newly organized m e m b e r bank, open ed fo r business on M a y 7 and began to rem it at par. Officers are R o b ert K . Bell, Chairman of the Board; R ich ard E. Oliver, President; Joseph E. Snyder, Vice Presi dent; and R o b e rt B. Ingram, Jr., Cashier. Capital is $3 00,000, and surplus and other capital funds, $200,000, as reported by the C om p troller of Currency at the time the charter was granted. On M a y 11, the W e s t s i d e N a t i o n a l B a n k o f M a n a t e e C o u n t y , Bradenton, Florida, a newly organized m em b er bank, op en ed for business and began to rem it at par. Officers include H. S. M o o d y , Chairman of the Board; G. E. Tomberlin, President; James W. Stansbury, Vice President an d Cashier; and G eorge H. Harrison, Vice President. Capital is $2 50,000, and surplus and other capital funds, $1 50 ,00 0, as rep orted by the C o m ptro lle r of Currency at the tim e the charter was granted. The B a n k o f t h e S o u t h , M y r tle G rove, Pensacola, Florida, a newly organized n o n m e m b er bank, o p en ed for business on M a y 2 0 and began to rem it at par. Officers are F. M . Turner, Jr., Chairman o f the Board; Charles P. W o odbury, President; Earl L. Crona, E xecutive Vice President; and Jean G. Wolfe, Cashier. Capital is $250,000, and surplus an d undivided profits, $1 15,000. On M a y 29, the B a n k o f t h e S o u t h , Gretna, Louisiana, a newly organized n o n m e m b er bank, op en ed fo r business and began to r e m it-a t par. Officers are Paul D e L a Bretonne, President; A lm a Talbot, Vice President an d Cashier; an d G. Harrison Scott, Chairman o f the Board. Capital is $2 00,000, and surplus and undivided profits, $200,000. Debits to Demand Deposit Accounts I n s u r e d C o m m e r c ia l B a n k s in t h e S i x t h (In Thousands of Dollars) D is t r ic t Percent Change Year-tordate 4 Months Apr. 1964 from 1964 Mar. Apr. from 1964 1963 1963 Apr. 1964 Mar. 1964 Apr. 1963 STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS Birmingham . . . 1.108,382: Gadsden . . . . 53,452 Huntsville . . . 141,100 Mobile . . . . 386,986 Montgomery . . . 233,773 Tuscaloosa . . . 73,355 1,096,127 55,131 142,754 398,679 242,865 69,063 981,760 50,420 119,111 362,100 221,789 69,501 + 1 —3 —1 —3 —4 +6 + 13 +6 + 18 +7 +5 +6 + 11 + 10 +28 +8 +7 +7 Ft. LauderdaleHollywood . . Jacksonville . . . Miami . . . . Orlando . . . . Pensacola . . . Tampa-St. Petersburg W. Palm Beach . . 465,622 1,205,729 1,797,598 496,039 147,293 1,076,493 354,087 451,397 1,145,260 1,775,069 496,292 152,220 1,060,190 356,063 408,129 1,015,071 1,721,064 482,066 134,993 999,382 330,997 +3 + 5 + 1 —0 —3 +2 —1 + 14 + 19 +4 +3 +9 +8 +7 + 17 + 17 +8 + 11 + 10 + 10 +9 Albany . . . . Atlanta . . . . Augusta* . . . Columbus . . . Macon . . . . Savannah . . . 65,748 3,376,705 147,647 157,438 176,417 211,494 68,079 3,201,398 150,607 164,049 178,422 203,978 63,471 3,194,676 142,015 144,789 169,583 195,555 —3 +5 —2 —4 —1 + 4 +4 +6 +4 +9 +4 +8 + 10 +6 +6 +16 +8 +9 Baton Rouge Lafayette . Lake Charles New Orleans . 377,689 85,208 88,338 1,885,466 363,100 80,239 89,821 1,836,217 361,760 77,381 87,216 1,731,102 —2 +4 +6 +4 + 10 +3 + 9 + 8 + 13 +4 + 12 416,491 406,622 365,543 +2 + 14 + 14 430,710 364,012 1,073,741 461,515 355,787 1,059,289 396,474 334,018 911,350 —7 +2 +1 +9 +9 + 18 + 10 +9 + 19 51,058 44,986 32,795 49,143 43,524 30,376 48,528 43,713 27,777 +4 +3 +8 +5 +3 + 18 +8 +5 + 14 27,076 52,705 165,024 75,371 27,524 51,151 167,647 71,615 26,786 51,324 132,862 70,875 —2 +3 —2 +5 -j-1 +3 + 24 +6 + 12 +4 + 34 + 10 65,864 64,450 21,090 100,366 52,563 17,664 266,847 102,022 86,509 548,975 53,965 61,609 63,951 20,851 106,878 45,446 17,606 261,727 88,473 90,013 545,464 55,577 63,194 57,249 20,441 97,325 46,013 16,414 246,153 93,002 81,531 513,710 52,402 +7 + 1 + 1 —6 + 16 + 0 + 2 + 15 —4 + 1 —3 + 4 + 13 +3 +3 + 14 +8 + 8 + 10 +6 +7 +3 +9 + 16 + 10 +6 +4 n.a. +9 +7 + 12 + 10 + 12 51,454 37,315 84,472 12,301 57,517 24,063 19,129 22,120 56,644 39,961 50,792 35,755 69,326 9,515 56,868 24,689 19,867 22,206 59,707 40,090 47,521 35,128 67,826 9,179 52,173 23,326 17,436 20,106 53,545 35,003 + 1 + 4 + 22 + 29 + 1 —3 —4 —0 —5 —0 +8 + 25 + 34 + 10 +3 + 10 + 10 +6 + 14 + 11 + 11 + 23 + 13 +8 +6 + 11 +8 + 14 + 8 8,254 90,635 4,594 28,191 28,166 7,596 18,054 8,121 92,947 4,328 24,939 30,591 7,528 18,456 7,821 81,961 4,439 26,736 25,598 6,636 16,533 + 2 —2 +6 + 13 —8 + 1 —2 +6 + 11 + 3 +5 + 10 + 14 +9 +7 + 13 +0 + 6 + 17 + 17 +9 Meridian . . . . Natchez . . . . PascagculaMoss Point . . Vicksburg . . . Yazoo City . . . 71,690 40,906 31,322 52.585 28,833 72,500 38,217 31,033 54,552 28,369 66,605 38,396 29,470 50,444 25,679 —1 +7 + 1 —4 +2 +8 +7 +6 +4 + 12 +9 + 5 + 11 -(-1 + 13 41,787 27,105 21,487 38,623 27,852 16,855 37,190 25,245 18,579 +8 —3 + 27 + 12 +7 + 16 +5 + 12 + 13 Bristol . . . . Johnson City . . Kingsport . . . 54,111 58,'-86 105,687 55,065 57,013 121,913 58.644 48,669 92,154 —2 +2 — 13 —8 + 20 + 15 —2 + 14 + 12 Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . Chattanooga . . . Knoxville . . . . Nashville . . . . OTHER CENTERS Anniston . . . . Dothan . . . . Bartow . . . Bradenton . Brevard County Daytona Beach Ft. MyersN. Ft. Myers Gainesville . Key West . Lakeland . . . St. Augustine St. Petersburg Sarasota . . Tallahassee . Tampa . . Winter Haven Athens . Brunswick Dalton . Elberton . Gainesville Griffin . LaGrange Newnan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valdosta . . . . Abbeville . Alexandria Bunkie . Hammond New Iberia Plaquemine Thibodaux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biloxi-Gulfport . Hattiesburg . . . . SIXTH DISTRICT, Total 23,070,594 22,624,620 21,282,504 +2 +8 + 12 2,986,562 2,986,861 2,675,199 +0 Alabamat . • Floridat . . . . 7,517,029 7,010,071 7,369,636 +7 + 2 5.567,615 5,338,078 5,271,464 Georgiat . . . . +6 +4 Louisianaf** . . 3,211.876 3,130,483 2,973,188 +8 +3 M ississippif** . . + 12 991,281 967,103 886,301 +3 —1 2,795,932 2.832,758 2,466,281 + 13 Tennesseet** . . U.S., 344 Cities . . 350,000,000 342,900,000 307,800,000 +2 +14 ♦Richmond County only. * * Includes only banks in the Sixth District portion of the tPartially estimated. n.a. Not available. •6 • + 10 + 12 + 10 + 6 + 11 + 12 + 14 + 11 state. S ix t h D is t r ic t S t a t is t ic s Seasonally Adjusted (All data are indexes, 1957-59 Latest Month (1964) One Month Ago Two Months Ago 100, unless indicated otherwise.) One Year Ago Latest Month (1964) One Month Ago Two Months Ago One Year Ago S IX T H D ISTRIC T G E O R G IA INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (M il. $, Annual Rate) . . Manufacturing P a y r o l l s ..................................... Farm Cash R e c e i p t s ........................................... Crops .................................................................... Livestock .............................................................. Department Store S a l e s * / * * ......................... Instalment Credit at Banks, *(M il. $) New Lo an s.............................................................. R ep aym en ts........................................................ INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (M il. $, Annual Rate) . . Manufacturing P a y r o l l s ..................................... Farm Cash Receipts ........................................... Department Store S a l e s * * ............................... Mar. Apr. Mar. Apr. 8,304 142 122 124 8,233r 146 126 133 8,086r 144 119 132 7,568 127 109 115 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................................... M a n u fa ctu rin g ................................................. Nonmanufacturing........................................... C onstruction................................................. Farm Em ploym ent................................................. Insured Unemployment,(PercentofCov.Emp.) Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. 116 112 118 117 73 2.4 40.3 117 113 119 117 71 2.6 41.0 116 112 118 114 71 2.8 40.7 114 109 116 123 77 2.8 39.7 FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s ........................................... Member Bank D e p o s it s ..................................... Bank D e b i t s * * ....................................................... Apr. Apr. Apr. 174 145 158 173 150 156 170 143 149 151 135 152 Mar. Apr. Mar. Apr. 6,413 126 118 116 6,441r 129r 158 121 6,452r 127 155 117 6,014 120 113 112 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................................... Apr. M an u fa ctu rin g ................................................. Apr. Nonmanufacturing........................................... Apr. Construction ................................................. Apr. Farm Em ploym ent................................................. Apr. Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.) Apr. Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . Apr. 104 100 104 88 80 3.7 41.8 104 101 105 88 78 3.9 42.7r 104 101 105 87 84 3.7 42.1 102 98 103 86 84 4.3 42.3 Apr. Apr. Apr. 158 124 137 153 125 131 157 125 132 142 119 127 INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (M il. $, Annual Rate) . . Manufacturing P a y r o l l s ..................................... Farm Cash Receipts ........................................... Department Store S a l e s * / * * ......................... Mar. Apr. Mar. Apr. 3,302 148 130 101 3,312r 153r 140 100 3,242r 151 122 111 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................................... M an u fa ctu rin g ................................................. Nonmanufacturing........................................... Co n stru ction ................................................. Farm Em ploym ent................................................. Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp.) Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. 117 120 116 116 76 4.2 40.1 118 121 117 113 77 4.3 40.7 117 121 116 112 81 4.4 40.8 116 117 115 126 83 4.3 40.5 FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s * ........................................... Member Bank D e p o s its *..................................... Bank D e b i t s * / * * ................................................. Apr. Apr. Apr. 198 153 152 187 152 152 189 150 156 168 143 137 Mar. Apr. Mar. Apr. 7,188 140 117 115 7,053r 142 109 116 7,257r 141 177 116 6,526 133 112 103 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................................... Apr. M a n u fa ctu rin g ................................................. Apr. Nonmanufacturing........................................... Apr. Co n stru ction ................................................. Apr. Farm Em ploym ent................................................. Apr. Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp.) Apr. Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . Apr. 116 118 114 140 84 3.9 40.4 115 118 114 141 90 4.2 40.8r 115 117 114 140 91 4.4 40.7 112 114 111 129 89 4.6 41.2 173 141 154 171 143 155 172 139 150 150 131 136 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................................... M a n u fa c tu rin g ................................................. A p p a re l.............................................................. C h e m ica ls....................................................... Fabricated M e t a l s ..................................... F o o d .................................................................... Lbr., Wood Prod., Furn. & Fix. . . . Paper .............................................................. Primary M e t a l s ........................................... T e x tile s .............................................................. Transportation Equipment . . . . Nonmanufacturing........................................... C o n stru ction ................................................. Farm Em ploym ent................................................. Insured Unemoloyment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.) Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . Construction Contracts* ..................................... Residential ........................................................ All O t h e r .............................................................. Industrial Use of Electric Power . . . . Cotton Consumption** ..................................... Petrol. Prod, in Coastal La. and Miss.** FINANCE AND BANKING Membpr Bank Loans* All B a n k s ............................................................. Leading C i t i e s ................................................. Member Bank Deposits* All B a n k s .............................................................. Leading C i t i e s .................................................. Bank D e b i t s * / * * ................................................. Mar. 43,738 43,380r Apr. 142 144 Mar. 137 132 Mar. 170 146 117 Mar. 116 139p 131 May 43,209r 142 137 149 122 138 40,155 133 127 153 110 123 Apr. Apr. 182 167 188 166 180 158 181 153 Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Mar. Apr. Apr. 115 113 135 110 120 104 93 109 103 95 124 115 105 79 3.2 40.7 145 152 139 122 102 163 115 114 135 110 119 104 94 r 110 103r 96 126 115 104r 81 3.3 41.3r 162 176 150 124 105 161 114 113 135 110 117 106 94 109 100 95 122 115 103 84 3.5 41.1 165 156 172 121 101 168 112 111 132 107 112 104 93 107 101 95 118 112 103 85 3.7 40.7 168 140 191 113 98 157 Apr. May 172 161 170 160 168 158 149 142 Apr. May Apr. 139 133 149 142 131 148 139 133 145 130 123 140 LO U IS IA N A INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (M il. $, Annual Rate) . . Manufacturing P a y r o l l s ..................................... Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ........................................... Department Store S a l e s * / * * ......................... FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s * ........................................... Member Bank D e p o s its *..................................... Bank D e b i t s * / * * ................................................. M ISS IS S IP P I ALA BA M A INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (M il. $, Annual Rate) . . Mar. Manufacturing P a y r o l l s ..................................... Apr. Farm Cash Receipts ........................................... Mar. Department Store S a l e s * * ............................... Apr. 5,966 130 128 107 5,958r 130 136 114 5,924r 130 128 116 5,530 126 119 98 r PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................................... M a n u fa c tu rin g ................................................. Nonmanufacturing........................................... Construction ................................................. Farm Em ploym ent................................................. Insured Unemoloyment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.) Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. 108 104 110 102 79 3.4 40.4 108r 104 111 lO lr 78 3.5 40.9r 108 103 110 101 86 3.8 41.3 107 103 109 98 86 4.1 40.3 FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s ........................................... Member Bank D e p o s it s ..................................... Bank D e b i t s * * ....................................................... Apr. Apr. Apr. 170 139 146 171 142 148 164 140 142 150 128 132 FLO R ID A TEN N ESSEE INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (M il. $, Annual Rate) . . Manufacturing P a y r o l l s ..................................... Farm Cash R e c e i p t s ........................................... Department Store S a l e s * * ............................... INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (M il. $, Annual Rate) . . Manufacturing P a y r o l l s ..................................... Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ........................................... Department Store S a l e s * / * * ......................... Mar. 12.565 Apr. 173 Mar. 166 Apr. 163 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................................... Apr. M an u fa ctu rin g ................................................. Apr. Nonmanufacturing........................................... Apr. Con stru ction ................................................. Apr. Farm Em ploym ent................................................. Apr. Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp.) Apr. Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . Apr. FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s ........................................... Member Bank D e p o s it s ..................................... Bank D e b i t s * * ........................................................ Apr. Apr. Apr. 12,383r 171r 134 175 12,248r 169 134 170 11,443 158 154 147 123 127 122 97 88 2.6 41.8 123 126 122 97 95 2.6 42.2r 122 126 122 94 93 2.7 41.4 118 123 117 93 93 3.4 40.8 173 141 153 172 143 148 169 142 146 147 132 143 FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s * ........................................... Member Bank D e p o s its *..................................... Bank D e b i t s * / * * ................................................. Apr. Apr. Apr. 3,074 140 123 91 *For Sixth District area only. Other totals for entire six states. * * Daily average basis. r Revised. n.a. Not available. Sources: Personal income estimated by this Bank; nonfarm, mfg. and nonmfg. emp., mfg. payrolls and hours, and unemp., U. S. Dept, of Labor and cooperating state agencies; cotton consumption, U. S. Bureau of Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Corp.; petrol, prod., U. S. Bureau of Mines; industrial use of elec. power, Fed. Power Comm.; farm cash receipts and farm emp., U .S.D .A . Other indexes based on data collected by this Bank. All indexes calculated by this Bank. •7 • D IS T R IC T B U S IN E S S C O N D IT IO N S B illio n s of D o lla rs A A a n y indicators of economic activity in the District remain at high levels. Accelerated farm operations, borrowings, and spending signal strength in the farm economy. District member banks continued to increase loans throughout April and on into May. Retail sales remain at a high level with no spending splurge yet visible from the tax cut. Nonfarm employment dropped, although there were increases in construction and a further decline in insured unemployment. The outlook is bright for construction. IS Farm ers have pushed ahead rap id ly with their springtim e opera tions. Despite extremely dry soils in scattered localities, good weather enabled crop farmers to move ahead with their field work, and plantings of major crops are nearing completion. Haymaking and small grain harvesting have acceler ated. Financial indicators reveal little or no strain in the farm sector. Deposits at agricultural and nonagricultural banks dipped slightly in April from the advanced March total but remained well above year-ago levels. Farm credit extensions have been rising and, according to March data, bank debits at most agricultural trade centers have increased. ]S ]S For the first three w eeks in M ay, m em ber banks in leading cities reported the greatest percentage increase in business loans in four y ears. This heightened bank lending was accompanied by reductions in hold ings of U. S. Government securities. State and local securities, however, con tinued to increase in importance in member banks’ portfolios. Total deposits, which declined in April, apparently rose in May, as U. S. Government deposits were replenished. Private demand deposits at District weekly reporting member banks, not seasonally adjusted, dipped in May, but this has been a usual occurrence in May throughout the current expansion period. Time deposits in April grew at an annual rate above ten percent. \S u0 v0 Consumer credit outstanding at District banks expanded during April, although the net addition to debt w as sm aller than it w as in March. Personal income rose in March, the latest month for which data are available, with all states except Louisiana and Mississippi registering gains. Savings figures on time deposits, savings and loan shares, and life insurance sales indicate an increase in net savings during April. Furniture store sales and department store sales declined in April; preliminary figures, however, show a rise in department store sales in May. Checkbook spending, as reflected by bank debits, registered its fourth consecutive gain in April, and latest figures indicate a moderate upswing in sales tax collections. New loan extensions to finance automobile purchases fell slightly and were not offset by gains in new personal loans. v* v* The rate of insured unemployment in each of the District states either improved or rem ained the sam e in April. Construction employ Member Bank Deposits .PERCENTOFREQUIREDRESERVES Excess Reserves Borrowings from F. RLBank 1961 iI— 1962 ment was augmented, as gains in Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi more than offset losses in other states. Total nonagricultural employment, however, was down in April; each of the District states except Florida and Tennessee registered declines. Small but widespread manufacturing losses also took place, with transportation equipment the largest loser. Gains were restricted to pri mary and fabricated metals and food. On a state basis, only Florida showed an increase. Interest rates and terms on m ortgage loans have shown no appre ciable change for the past six months. Heavy backlogs of construction contract awards and starts were built up during the winter and early spring. While some slowing from this extremely high volume has occurred, construc tion activity continues at a brisk pace. Mortgage money remains in good supply. 1963 •Sea s. adj. figure; not an index. N o t e : D a t a o n w h ic h sta te m e n ts a re b a s e d s e a s o n a l in flu e n c e s. h ave been a d ju ste d w h e n e v e r p o s s ib le to e lim in a t e
@FedFRASER