The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Atlanta, Georgia
March
•
1960
Also in this issue:
FARM ADJUSTM ENTS IN
AN EX PA N D IN G
EC O N O M Y AN D THEIR
EFFECTS O N INCOM E
CH AN GES IN SA V IN G S
IN 1959
M ISSISSIPPI CLIM BS
UP A NOTCH
DISTRICT BUSINESS
H IGHLIGHTS
SIXTH DISTRICT
STATISTICS
SIXTH DISTRICT
INDEXES
A More Stable Mortgage
Market?
W™
t w o m o n t h s o f t h e y e a r already history, the national
housing and mortgage markets have been dissected, previewed, re
viewed, summarized, and analyzed to a fare-thee-well. Will demand for
houses continue strong throughout 1960? How much mortgage money
will be available? How many houses will be started? Since a number of
economic pundits have already considered these and similar questions,
one might well ask what purpose can be served by a further outpouring
of words.
Our purpose is to analyze housing and mortgage developments and
prospects in the South. Much of our analysis will be conducted within
a national economic framework, however, because the flow of mortgage
funds through regional markets is influenced by economic and financial
developments throughout the country. Inferences drawn from national
data, moreover, sometimes help to bridge statistical gaps that are all
too frequent at the regional level.
The Past
In a Review article last spring, we remarked that “The housing indus
try has been looking over its shoulder apprehensively for several months,
expecting the phenomenon of mortgage money tightness to overtake
it momentarily. So far, however, in most sections of the country mort-
Residential Building Permits Issued
Sixth District States, 1959
Thousands of Units
Thousands of Units
ffeern
% n{oT
jS lm ta
A record number of residential building permits w as issued
in District states last y e a r, with Florida again leading the w ay.
gage money still appears ample.” A reduction in the
availability of mortgage funds did catch up with the
housing industry in the second half of last year. Neverthe
less, enough mortgage money was available during 1959
to finance a record volume of home building in the South.
In states lying wholly or partly within the Sixth Federal
Reserve District—Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Tennessee—housing starts, measured by
building permits issued, reached a new high of 140,000.
Florida accounted for almost one-half of all permits
issued, or 64,198. The number in other states ranged from
4,002 in Mississippi to 20,584 in Georgia. The large
volume of residential building in Florida reflects a rela
tively high per capita income as well as a tremendous in
flux of people into the state.
Private nonfarm housing starts in the nation totaled a
near-record 1,341,500 units in 1959. Of that number 67
percent carried conventional financing, 25 percent carried
mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration,
and only 8 percent carried mortgages guaranteed by the
Veterans Administration. The distribution of starts by
type of financing was probably about the same in District
states as in the nation, since financial institutions in both
places over the years have held conventional, FHA, and
VA debt in similar proportions.
In recent years, conventional financing has grown in
importance relative to Federally underwritten financing,
partly because of differences in the way interest rates on
these two types of mortgages respond to changing market
conditions. When credit demands are strong, for example,
interest rates generally move up. Since interest rates on
conventional mortgages rise with other long-term rates,
conventional mortgages tend to maintain their competitive
position for investor funds. Interest rates on Federally
underwritten mortgages are fixed by law or regulation,
hence they are insensitive to market forces. Investors
therefore will acquire such loans only at discounts that
will yield a return close to that on alternative investments.
Findings of a recent mail survey of District builders illus
trate how mortgage rates behave in a period of strong
credit demands.
The builders surveyed indicated that the cost of mort
gage borrowing advanced throughout 1959 in the District,
as it did in the nation. Over half of them reported an
interest rate on conventional loans early this year of over
6 percent; last spring, however, only one-tenth of these
same builders reported a rate of over 6 percent. Dis
counts of 4-6 points on 25-year loans insured by FHA
were reported in January, compared with 2-4 points last
spring; discounts are higher now despite an increase in
the FHA rate last September from 5*4 to 5% percent.
The majority of builders reported that discounts on VA
mortgages— with a rate of 5% percent— total about 10
points. Even with such high discounts, there is practically
no VA money available.
With VA money scarce and FHA funds limited, it is
not surprising that most of the increase in residential
mortgage debt in 1959 in both the nation and the District
was in conventionally financed debt. The sharp rise in
conventional lending reflected in part a substantial in
crease in funds obtained by savings and loan associations,
primarily lenders on conventional terms. Insured savings
and loan associations in District states, for example,
added $754 million to their share account balances, a
gain of 23 percent over 1958. Most of the net increase was
accounted for by a gain of $450 million by Florida sav
ings and loan associations.
The Present
Most everyone would agree home building fared well in
1959. But, what about now? Our appraisal of the situa
tion is, .of course, based upon events only through
January. Although the current view of home building is
slightly blurred because of the lag in economic indicators,
the picture that does emerge is one of reduced activity.
Residential Building Permits
District States and U.S.
In d ex, Dec. 195 4= 1 00
Percent
Percent
Residential building activity has declined since
last spring in both the District and the nation.
Housing starts in the nation have drifted down from
a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,434,000 in April
1959 to 1,210,000 in January of this year. Residential
building in District states appears to be following the
same pattern, judging from the steady decline in building
permits issued since May 1959. The number of build
ing permits, however, is down percentage-wise more
than the value of residential contracts awarded. This
implies that the decline in the number of houses started
is being partly offset by a gain in average value.
Most of the decline in housing starts in the nation and
in the District has been attributed to a reduction in
mortgage funds rather than a basic weakness in demand
for houses. Though it is impossible to isolate the factors
associated with the decline in housing starts, it is apparent
that mortgage funds are less readily available now than
they were some months ago. This is evident from the com
petition for funds and the rise in mortgage rates as well as
. 2
•
the reduced net inflow of funds into financial firms whose
activities are oriented toward the mortgage market.
Throughout the nation, life insurance company assets,
deposits at mutual savings banks, and share capital at
savings and loan associations combined grew more slowly
during the last half of 1959 than a year earlier. True, the
net increase in share capital at savings and loan associations
was slightly larger than in 1958, and the asset growth of
insurance companies was maintained, but savings bank
deposits were substantially smaller. Reflecting largely a
reduced inflow of savings, the total value of commitments
to acquire mortgages by these institutions has declined.
bility, however, is not likely to carry into 1960, because
VA mortgages— whose yields are presently most out of
touch with the market— have been relatively unimportant
since 1957. The recent general easing in interest rates has,
for the time being at least, reduced the pressure for higher
discounts on FHA mortgages. The firmness in conven
tional mortgage rates and the decline in bond yields may
also make this type of mortgage more attractive to inves
tors. Finally, with conventional financing playing a more
prominent role in the housing drama, the mortgage market
should be more able to adapt to changing economic and
credit conditions.
The Future
Net Additions to Residential Mortgage Debt
Home building is skidding. But what about the future?
More specifically, what about 1960? Many forecasters
who have ventured an opinion estimate that for the year
about 1,200,000 houses will be started throughout the
country. Early this year, we asked builders in the Dis
trict what they were planning in the way of starts for
1960. They indicated that they plan to build 12 percent
more houses in 1960 than they actually started in 1959.
This planned increase is considerably smaller than that
reported in early 1959, and when adjusted for the usual
upward bias may be interpreted to mean a slight decline.
Of the total number of houses planned, District builders
had advance commitments for one-fourth, about the same
percentage as a year ago.
Just how many starts will be made in 1960 in both the
nation and the District depends upon the strength of
housing demand and the availability of mortgage funds.
The volume of funds in turn hinges largely upon the flow
of savings into financial institutions and the attractiveness
of mortgages relative to competitive types of investments.
The latter is partly contingent upon the pattern of interest
rates which may affect the willingness of all investors to
channel funds into the mortgage market.
Although it is difficult to accurately predict savings
flows for the remainder of the year, it is possible to point
out a couple of things that may lend an element of sta
bility to the mortgage market. Much of the decline in
mortgage lending by financial institutions is due to a
reduction in the inflow of funds rather than a shift out
of mortgages into corporate securities or other types of
investments. A major reason for past instability in the
mortgage market was variations in the rate at which in
vestors added to their holdings of VA debt. This insta
United States, 1946-59
Billions of Dollars
Billions of Dollars
With the expansion in savings and loan association activity,
net additions to outstanding conventional mortgage debt
have been g reater than additions to FHA and VA debt.
In recent years, much of the instability in home build
ing has been attributed to the ebb and flow of mortgage
funds. We would do well to remember, however, that
there is still a demand side to housing, and that home
design, quality of production, price, consumer incomes,
stock of houses, rate of family formation, and other fac
tors strongly influence the level of housing activity.
A lfr ed P . Jo h nso n
Bank Announcements
On February 1, the newly organized Oconee State
Bank, Watkinsville, Georgia, opened for business as a
nonmember bank and began to remit at par for checks
drawn on it when received from the Federal Reserve
Bank. C. G. Hardigree, Sr., is President and Chairman
of the Board; R. M. Nicholson and A. W. Green, Sr.,
are Vice Presidents; and G. E. Borden is Cashier. It has
capital of $75,000 and surplus of $15,000.
On February 4, the newly organized National Bank
of Commerce, Miami, Miami, Florida, opened for
business as a member of the Federal Reserve System
and began to remit at par. Officers are Leonard A.
Usina, President; Roland M. Stafford, Vice President
and Cashier; Henry A . Freeman and Frank Peterson,
Jr., Vice Presidents; Robert G. Hughes, Assistant Vice
President; and Thomas Vento, Assistant Cashier. Capi
tal stock totals $450,000 and surplus and other capital
resources $326,250.
•
3
•
Farm Adjustments in an Expanding Economy
and Their Effects on Income
Of all the changes in the District’s economy during the
1950’s, few were greater than those in farming. Pressed
by adverse income conditions, farmers coped with their
economic problems by improving management techniques
and adjusting land, labor, and capital to raise produc
tivity and increase output. They could do this partly be
cause the region’s economy was growing and provided uses
for excess farm resources as well as outlets for new farm
products. Whether these developments will continue dur
ing the 1960’s, what form they will take, and what effect
they will have on farm earnings may be important to
economic growth in the Sixth Federal Reserve District—
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, southern Louisiana and Mis
sissippi, and eastern Tennessee.
more capital to use than he had in 1950. In constant
1950 dollars, farm capital per worker rose from $6,615 in
1950 to $11,739 in 1959, over half of which was invested
in land.
Meanwhile, in each District state farms grew in size and
the number of farms declined correspondingly. Farm size
in terms of acres increased 25 percent during the ten
years, from 130 acres per farm in 1950 to over 160
acres in 1959. According to estimates by this Bank, there
are less than 850,000 farms in District states today,
compared with well over one million in 1950.
Farms in Sixth District States
1940-60
Changes in Structure of Farming in 1950's
Paramount to all other changes in District farming dur
ing the 1950’s were those in the farm labor force. Despite
influences holding workers on farms, some 600,000, or
34 percent, of workers on District farms moved to jobs
off the farms.
Migration from farms was greatest in Alabama, Georgia,
and Mississippi. Despite this, however, and because of
a tendency toward more rapid replacement of men with
machines in those states, a larger underemployed farm
labor force exists there than in Florida, Louisiana, and
Tennessee.
Finally, farm lands are used differently today. Between
1950 and 1955, a million farming acres in District states
were diverted to sites for highways, homes, and industrial
plants. Also, farmers shifted three to four million acres
from crop production to pastures for livestock.
Farm W orkers and Capital Used
Sixth District States, 1950-59
Number of Farm Workers
A Closer Look at the Changes
Basic to these changes in District agriculture were the
lower incomes of farm workers than those of other
workers. Although exact comparisons are not possible,
Earnings Per W orker, Farm and Nonfarm
Sixth District States, 1950*59
In 1950 Dollars
In 1950 Dollars
[
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
W orker
1959
Significant adjustments were also made in farm capital
investments. Almost twice as many dollars are invested
in the average District farm today as ten years ago. Each
farm worker in the District now has roughly 77 percent
| Fa rm
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
• 4 •
1959
the average income for District farm workers in 1950
was $1,397 less than for those in construction, min
ing, or manufacturing. This disparity suggests that labor
was excessive in relation to capital on District farms.
Under these conditions, economic forces would be ex
pected to draw labor away from agriculture and to draw
capital to it. In the process, the structure of farm produc
tion would change and labor would become more pro
ductive. As already noted, this is exactly what happened
in the 1950’s.
Typical of the burst of productivity that resulted from
the application of more capital to District farming—
helped along by advancing technology— was the 21-per
cent increase in livestock production between 1953 and
1959. More capital meant more machines, and because of
certain natural characteristics of the region, opportunities
to increase production through mechanization were great.
The region enjoys a long growing season and ample
rainfall, for example, conditions favorable for intensive
use of mechanical equipment and the adoption of modern
mechanical methods of farming.
The application of more capital through mechaniza
tion increased total output in other ways. Replacing
animal power with machine power freed acreage formerly
used to produce feed for animals. In 1950, roughly eight
billion pounds of feed were fed to slightly over a million
mules in District states, whereas in 1959 less than half as
much feed was needed for about 400,000 mules. Over
four billion pounds of grain, hay, and pasture needed
for workstock ten years ago, therefore, was available for
cattle and hogs last year. Also, machines now perform
many jobs formerly done by hand labor, so laborers who
once followed mules and plows are available for more
productive farm tasks.
Farm Productivity, Sixth District States
Selected Y e ars, 1949-59
C otton
L b s Per Acre
Eggs
Per Layer
T o b a cc o
Lbs Per Acre
IP
m
$8Sl
■
if t
i.j
ing, which also meant increased capital investment. But
whatever the explanation, physical productivity increased,
whether measured in terms of yields per acre or yields
per manhour.
Measured in terms of physical output, the District’s
agriculture was certainly more productive at the end of
the decade than at the beginning. If productivity is meas
ured by the District’s ability to produce higher incomes,
however, the story is different. The ability of the area’s
farm economy to expand production was greater than its
ability to market the expanded output profitably.
Farm Output and Population
United States, 1950-59
Percent
Percent
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
Demand for farm products produced in this region grew
during the 1950’s but not as much as did supply. True,
there were more people to feed and clothe in the United
States— roughly 1.7 percent more each year— but farm
production increased 2.3 percent per year during the same
period. Higher personal incomes afforded people a much
higher level of living, but most people do not increase the
amount of farm products they buy as their incomes go up;
they only want better quality. Total farm sales, therefore,
were not very responsive to the increases in personal in
comes. Then too, foreign demand for commodities pro
duced in this District failed to boost demand for farm
products significantly. Tobacco, one of the District’s lead
ing export items, has even lost foreign markets since the
1950’s began. Together, these forces held the increase in
demand for farm products below the increase in supply.
Consequently the increased output did not result in a
corresponding increase in farm income.
How Changes Benefited Farmers
&. si
IP
::P..
m&
Data for A lab am a, Flo rida, G e o rg ia, and South C a ro lin a .
Some of the increased output during the 1950’s can
be explained by a greater mastery of the science of farm
Was the average farmer actually any better off at the end
of the decade than at the start? Did the structural changes
in farming lift income enough so that the fewer workers
on farms at the end of the 1950’s were receiving more on
an average than the greater number at the beginning? The
answer is Yes, but the improvement was modest.
In 1950, the average District farm worker earned
$1,153. By the end of 1959, his earnings had risen to
$1,486 after adjustments for rising prices. Aside from
the small income gain, however, major improvements
were made in working conditions. Technological innova
tions have reduced the drudgery in farming until it no
longer requires what has been termed the “unbearable
sweat and toil” of some years ago. Then too, some farm
• 5 •
workers such as those on dairy farms enjoy more leisure
today than they did ten years ago— an important accom
plishment. Finally, farm operators are wealthier in terms
of assets owned than they were at the beginning of the
1950’s.
The income benefits of the structural changes in farm
ing, however, were by no means limited to farming. They
were felt in the nonfarm sectors of the economy as well.
As machines replaced men on farms, a ready pool of
workers became available for new industrial plants. Those
workers earned higher incomes. Farm production of food
and fiber encouraged growth in District food processing,
pulp and paper manufacturing, and other industries that
depend on farming for their raw materials. Also, the
large mechanized farms opened vast markets for farm
machinery, equipment, and supplies, thus directly stim
ulating District business. Indeed, the stimulus to economic
developments in the nonfarm sectors of the District’s
economy by the structural changes in farming may well
have been agriculture’s greatest contribution to economic
growth in the region during the 1950’s.
Nevertheless, the disparity between incomes of farm
workers and nonfarm workers still exists. Actually, the
gap widened between 1950 and 1959. Employees in
construction, mining, and manufacturing earned $1,397
more than farm workers in 1950; in 1959, according to
estimates made by this Bank, they earned $1,879 more.
Effects of price increases have been removed in making
the comparison.
Continued Changes in the 1960's?
So long as the disparity between the incomes of farm
workers and those of comparable workers in other trades
continues, it is probable that maximum productive use is
still not being made of all the District’s labor force. Thus,
the incentive for farmers to improve their relative eco
nomic position by continually reorganizing their resources
still exists. In the process the economic efficiency of the
region will be improved.
Farms could become larger in terms of land, capital,
and production as farmers apply technology still more.
By 1970, District farms may average well over 200 acres
per farm, compared with 163 acres in 1959. As the level
of farm management increases, there may be a rapid rise
in part-owners, farmers owning some farm land but rent
ing additional acres.
If historical trends and current economic conditions
are a guide to the future, one can readily predict a
further decline in the District farm population and a
further change in its composition. Fewer unskilled workers
will find jobs on farms; they will either find unskilled
work elsewhere or they will become semi-skilled or skilled
and find more profitable employment in other businesses.
Part-time farming may become more attractive to lowincome farmers as they seek to close the income gap with
their nonfarm neighbor by getting a job in town and still
hang on to a part of their farm heritage. More emphasis
may be directed toward vocational education and job
placement for farmers who want other jobs but find the
transition difficult.
Farms will require more capital as they grow larger
and more productive. As a group, District farmers may
rely more heavily on borrowed capital, although their
savings will likely remain their most important source of
funds. A larger proportion of their total assets, however,
may be used directly in production during the next ten
years.
There is little doubt that changes similar to those just
discussed will occur in the 1960’s to some degree. How
great those changes will be, however, may well depend
upon the extent to which hindrances to farm adjustments
in the 1950’s are reduced by the present Rural Develop
ment Program or other measures. In the 1950’s, changes
were limited by institutional factors such as price support
programs that encouraged uneconomical production and
rural educational programs that did not provide skills
for occupational adjustments. Another hindrance was
the lack of economic opportunities for some workers who
wanted to readjust. Many workers were poorly trained
for off-farm work, and were unable to get training because
of their age or financial obligations. Finally, some workers
simply resist changes.
The 1960’s may truly be an exciting decade for Dis
trict farmers who are eager to accept the fundamental
changes occurring in our dynamic economy. For them,
the years ahead can be profitable ones indeed. They may
maintain sufficient flexibility to keep their farming opera
tions in line with changing trends. Many others who adopt
new nonfarm trades will also find their rewards particu
larly gratifying. Progress toward the farm adjustments
still needed may constitute one of the most important
contributions to this area’s income growth in the 1960’s.
N. C arson B r an an
This is the second in a series of articles that w ill appear in this
R e v ie w from tim e to tim e on different aspects of econom ic growth in
the Sixth D istrict during the 1950’s and im plications for the 1960’s .
Changes in Savings
in 1959
Greater capital investment was a major explanation of the
rise in personal income in the Sixth Federal Reserve Dis
trict during the 1950’s, as an article in last month’s Review
pointed out. Increases in long-term savings during this
period indicate that the Sixth District states are providing
more of the capital funds necessary for financing new
houses, factories, power plants, schools, roads, and the
like in the area. As the top chart shows, long-term savings
in the form of life insurance equities, time deposits at
commercial banks, savings and loan shares, and other
types such as government savings bonds and postal sav
ings grew without interruption over the 20-year period
ending in 1958. If the Sixth District enhanced its ability
to provide investment funds during this period, how did
it do in 1959?
Sample data through 1959 available for time deposits at
commercial banks and savings and loan shares indicate
that District savers may have faltered a bit last year. True,
savings did grow, but by a smaller amount than in 1958.
This development is brought out in the second chart,
which directs attention to additions to savings and includes
an estimated change for 1959 based on the sample data.
The lesser growth in 1959, as the third chart shows, is
explained largely by changes in the first half of the year,
when additions to time deposits and savings and loan shares
fell substantially below a year earlier; additions in the
last half of 1959 were about equal to the comparable
period of 1958. As the final chart indicates, additions
to time deposits at commercial banks and savings and
loan shares in 1959 were down in each District state
except Florida, where a substantial increase occurred.
Personal income, however, rose in each District state, a
development that on the basis of past experience would
have meant a gain in savings.
Because of the variation from past behavior, one might
well ask if changes in time deposits and savings and loan
shares are really indicative of a change in all types of long
term savings. The answer is that we can be fairly certain
of a downward direction in new savings, although the
magnitude of the decline is less certain. First of all, the
figures on savings at commercial banks and savings and
loan associations account for a large part of the more
comprehensive figures. Second, a decline in savings is con
sistent with the greater increase in retail sales from 1958
to 1959 than in income, 11 percent in retail sales com
pared with 7 percent in income. Instalment borrowing
in 1959 financed only a part of the increase in retail sales.
Students of savings figures will point out, of course, that
our figures do not include some forms of savings, which
may have increased. With incomes up more in 1959 than
in 1958, contributions to pension and retirement funds,
for example, probably increased. Then too, more funds
may have gone into government securities. Similarly, the
higher volume of homebuilding and greater sales of con
sumer durable goods indicate a greater use of personal
Long-term savings in District states increased through 1958,
1940
1943
1946
1949
1952
1955
1958
but additions to savings w ere less in 1959 than in 1958.
Millions of Dollars_______________________
Millions of Dollors
J600
- 1600
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
Additions to time deposits and savings and loan shares w ere
below a y e a r e a rlie r in the first half of 1959, but w ere
about equal to a y e a r e a rlie r in the last half.
Time deposits and savings and loan shares rose less in
1959 than in 1958 in each District state except Florida, but
personal income rose in 1959.
200
Millions of Dollors
400
~T
Additions to Savings
M illions of Dollors
600
0
2000
4000
6000
--------- 1------- 1--------r
Personal Income
1958
1959
Georgia
Mississippi
Continued on Page 10
•
7
•
8000
Mississippi Climl
Economic Indicators
M ississippi, 1956-60
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
I 1947-49=100
I
I
I
"S e a so n a lly Adjusted
136
125'
Nonfarm Employment
Mississippi’s economy made impressive gains during 1959.
Employment increased appreciably as Mississippians
found work both at established firms and also at firms
that were opened during the year. The state’s farmers,
unlike their counterparts in the nation, also had a good
year. As a result, total income received by individuals in
the state showed a healthy increase.
Gains W idespread
125'
Mfg. Employment
157
151
Dept Store Sales
Although final figures are not yet available, personal
income in Mississippi probably amounted to about $2,500
million in 1959, a gain of over 8 percent during the year.
Mississippi’s rate of increase in personal income was
higher than that achieved by most other states in the Sixth
Federal Reserve District. Income also rose 8 percent on a
per capita basis— from $1,053 in 1958 to $1,140 in 1959.
Aggregates like income and employment tell us that
business activity in Mississippi expanded, but they do not
explain why nor do they reveal whether increases were
spread uniformly throughout the economy. To obtain this
type of data, it is necessary to look behind the aggregates
and examine the various economic indicators.
It will undoubtedly be helpful to look at the farm sec
tor, which accounts for about 14 percent of total personal
income in Mississippi. Farm receipts from crops during
1959 exceeded the previous year’s by 28 percent. Although
crop receipts were up in other District states, Missis
sippi’s gain was the largest. A sharp rise in the cotton
crop, mainly due to the release of acreage from the acre
age reserve program, was the principal factor behind the
gain in crop receipts. Cotton is the state’s leading source
of farm income, accounting for well over 50 percent of
the total.
Part of the gain in crop receipts during 1959 was offset
by a decline of about 2 percent in receipts from livestock,
which includes hogs, cattle, and poultry. A sharp drop in
hog prices produced a significant decrease in total live
stock receipts in the nation. Since most of Mississippi’s
livestock represents cattle, dairy products, and poultry,
farmers in the state did not experience as large a drop
in receipts as farmers in the nation did.
Total receipts from crops and livestock probably in
creased about 13 percent. Higher production costs for
such items as fertilizer, seed, and insecticides, whittled
away part of this gain. Federal Government payments to
the state’s farmers, moreover, were below those of 1958,
principally because of the discontinuation of the acreage
reserve. After taking all factors into account, however,
Mississippi’s farmers closed their books on a profitable
year.
Nonfarm Activity Quickens
111 ti 111M1 1111 ( 11111111111111 11111! 1111 11111111111111111111
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
Although many persons still consider Mississippi a pre
dominantly agricultural state, the nonfarm sector actually
accounts for about 86 percent of total personal income.
Manufacturing alone accounts for a larger proportion of
total personal income than does agriculture. Obviously,
then, developments within the nonfarm sector will contain
•8 •
Tp a Notch
much of the explanation of why business activity and in
comes rose during 1959. The accompanying chart shows
the various economic indicators for Mississippi that are
published regularly in the “Sixth District Indexes” section
of this publication.
At the end of December a record 402,800 Mississippians were employed in nonfarm jobs, 2.5 percent more
than held nonfarm jobs at the end of 1958. Manufacturing
employment, which provides almost a third of Mississip
pi’s nonfarm jobs, rose 2.4 percent. Nonmanufacturing
employment rose about as fast.
What types of industries within the manufacturing and
nonmanufacturing sectors accounted for the rise in total
employment? Within manufacturing, the textile, apparel,
and chemicals industries turned in the largest percentage
gains during 1959. The employment rise in apparel, the
state’s most important manufacturing industry, amounted
to 12 percent. Textile employment was up 11 percent
over 1958 and employment in furniture and fixtures rose
12 percent. Employment in food processing and in miscel
laneous manufacturing also rose appreciably.
Only the transportation equipment and paper industries
registered declines from 1958. Transportation equipment
firms, which include shipbuilding as well as bus and truck
assembly, reduced their employment rolls by over a
fourth. Firms manufacturing paper and paper products
trimmed their employee rolls by 8 percent between De
cember 1958 and December 1959.
Mississippi’s sprawling lumber and wood products in
dustry, the state’s second largest employer, showed a slight
growth during 1959. Demand for wood products in the
nation, especially for lumber, failed to expand appreciably;
and the demand for Mississippi’s timber products reflected
this trend. The state’s furniture-making industry, however,
added steadily to employment throughout the year.
Widespread employment gains in nonmanufacturing
lines during 1959 also contributed to income growth.
Federal, state, and local governments had 88,400 persons
on their payrolls at the end of 1959, 2 percent more
than a year earlier. Most of the gain was accounted for
by the state government. In addition, trade, service,
construction, and financial firms added considerably to
the number on their payrolls. Altogether the rise in non
manufacturing jobs accounted for over two-thirds of the
increase in total nonfarm employment during 1959.
Other Indicators Show Gains
Not only were more Mississippians employed in nonfarm
jobs at the end of 1959 than a year earlier, but they were
also making more money. As the chart shows, manufac
turing payrolls, which reflect both the employment and
earnings rate, rose steadily throughout the first three
quarters although at a slower rate than during the previous
year. Following a drop in the last quarter, when many
firms were affected by steel shortages, payrolls rose to
new heights in January 1960. Employees in nonmanufac
turing jobs also received higher pay.
The brisk pace of the business activity in the state is
reflected in the rise in total spending by businesses and
consumers. Bank debits, a measure of gross spending, ex
panded to a new record. A rise in total retail spending is
also indicated by an increase in department store sales
and by a steady climb in sales tax receipts by the state
of Mississippi.
At the state’s banks the rise in business activity took
the form of a continued strong demand for loans. For
example, loans at member banks in the southern half of
the state expanded 9 percent during the year. Deposits,
however, remained relatively stable until the final quarter
when they increased moderately.
Perspective
As the result of income gains during the last year, per
capita income in Mississippi probably gained in relation
to that of most other Southeastern states and the nation
generally. Incomes in Mississippi are still relatively low,
however, and, with expansion likely for both the South
east and the nation in the years ahead, the state’s economy
must expand at a similar rate just to maintain its relative
position.
Mississippi Per Capita Income
Ratio to Southeast and U.S.
Annually, 1940-58
P e rc e n t
P e rce n t
Whether Mississippians can continue to improve their
incomes depends in large measure on the availability of
jobs for persons leaving the farms. Expansion in existing
plants has absorbed some workers in the past, but eco
nomic development in the state also requires the creation
of new firms that take advantage of the state’s natural re
sources. In recent years Mississippi has been successful in
attracting a large number of new firms of all types. Some of
these have been local firms, whereas others have been
attracted from outside the state. This trend apparently
continued during 1959 when, according to the state’s
Agricultural and Industrial Board, the number of new
firms locating in the state set a new record.
The fortunes of the state’s farmers during the years
ahead will also have an important bearing on total per
.
9
.
sonal income. As already indicated, farm income contrib
uted substantially to the expansion in total income in
1959. Most of the growth is attributable to a sharp rise in
cotton acreage made possible by the suspension of the
acreage reserve feature of the Federal soil bank program.
Mississippi’s farmers obviously cannot expect a similar
boost to incomes from this source in the years ahead.
Unless the demand for cotton and other important farm
products grown in Mississippi improves materially, there
fore, most of the state’s future income growth will have
to be provided by the nonfarm sectors.
W. M. D avis
This R ev ie w may be received regularly upon
request to the Publications Section, Research
Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta,
Atlanta 3, Georgia.
Debits to Individual Demand Deposit Accounts
(In Thousands of Dollars)
Percent Change
Jan. 1960 from
CHANGES IN SAVINGS
Continued from Page 7
funds for repayment of mortgage and consumer instalment
debt, a form of saving that builds up individual equities in
the items purchased.
In the absence of information on all types of savings,
can we really determine the significance of the decline in
the types of savings for which information is available?
Clearly, the answer is No. The decline we know of may
simply reflect a shift toward other types of savings. If it
does represent the direction of total savings, however, it
means that District savers made fewer funds available for
potential investment in 1959 than in 1958.
P h ilip M. W e bster
Percent Change
Inventories
Jan. 1960 from
Jan. 31,1960 from
Dec.
1959
Jan.
1959
Dec. 31,
1959
Jan. 31,
1959
—7
—7
—8
—6
—0
—1
+ 12
+5
Montgomery....................
— 62
— 60
— 64
— 64
FLO RID A ..............................
Daytona Beach . . . .
Jacksonville....................
Miami A r e a ....................
M ia m i.........................
O r la n d o .........................
St. Ptrsbg-Tampa Area .
— 54
— 53
— 62
— 53
— 53
— 51
— 54
+4
+1
+ 16
+2
+ 1
— 10
+9
+7
+ 13
—1
+ 12
+ 24
+ 12
+5
+ 23
GEORGIA..............................
Atlanta**
....................
Augusta . . .
Columbus.........................
M acon..............................
Rome** .........................
Savannah .........................
— 60
— 59
—65
— 63
— 65
— 64
— 61
+1
+1
+8
—3
—2
+3
—8
+7
+9
+ 19
+ 23
—3
+4
—8
+ 14
LO U ISIA N A.........................
Baton Rouge ....................
New O rleans....................
— 57
— 61
— 56
—7
—7
—7
+ 0
—6
+2
+8
+ 11
+7
M IS S I S S I P P I....................
J a c k s o n .........................
M e rid ia n * * ....................
— 60
— 58
— 65
—7
—8
—5
—
2
+3
+ 15
+ 11
TENNESSEE
....................
Bristol-KingsportJohnson City** . . .
Bristol (Tenn. & Va.)**
Chattanooga....................
Knoxville.........................
D I S T R I C T .........................
—64
—4
—2
+ 10
— 71
— 71
— 63
— 62
— 59
—6
— 12
—7
+2
—2
3
6
—2
— 13
1
+4
+ 26
+ 13
Place
ALABAMA .........................
Birmingham....................
G a d s d e n ....................
Huntsville*
. . .
M obile.........................
Montgomery . . . .
Tuscaloosa* . . . .
Total Reporting Cities
Other Citiesf
. . . .
FLORIDA
Daytona Beach* . . .
Fort Lauderdale* . .
Gainesville* . . . .
Jacksonville . . . .
Key West*
. . . .
Lakeland*....................
Greater Miami* . . .
O r la n d o ....................
Pensacola ....................
St. Petersburg . . .
Athens* ....................
A t l a n t a ....................
A u g u s t a ....................
Brunswick....................
Columbus....................
E lb e r t o n ....................
Gainesville* . . . .
G r i f f i n * ....................
LaG range*
. . . .
M arietta*....................
N e w n a n ....................
—
—
—
*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.
. . .
. . . .
West Palm Beach* . .
Total Reporting Cities
Other Citiesf
. . . .
GEORGIA
Department Store Sales and Inventories*
Sales_________
ALABAMA
Anniston .
Birmingham
Jan.
1960
Dec.
1959
Jan.
1959
Dec
1959
Jan.
1959
42,671
808,609
35,224
37,635
63,931
285,667
161,437
24.552
56,082
1,515,808
799,762
44,515
858,255
35,440
37,587
73,920
321,214
178,023
27,943
54,814
1,631,711
825,548
40,849
786,354
33,852
41,805
63,451
283,036
166,291
24,284
52,440
1,492,362
756,243
—4
—6
—1
+0
— 14
— 11
—9
— 12
+2
—7
—3
+4
+3
+4
— 10
+1
+1
—3
+1
+7
+ 2
+6
63,139
253,830
43,939
808,367
17,259
88,646
967,971
1,467,896
280,717
89,946
266,032
446,670
147,537
3,973,978
1,987,540
61,632
233,462
44,236
891,730
18,806
93,671
972,013
1,443,361
286,695
96,061
251,849
474,924
142,885
4,039,312
1,949,584
60,864
235,036
41,421
801,852
17,641
84,508
904,811
1,406,458
259,916
90,530
247,582
437,546
151,426
3,834,780
1,655,529
+2
+9
—1
—9
—8
—5
—0
+2
—2
—6
+6
—6
+3
—2
+2
+4
+8
+6
+ 1
—2
+5
+7
+4
+8
—1
+7
+2
—3
+ 4
H-20
51,959
37,441
2,049,992
113,909
28,458
107,782
9,335
47,555
18,942
21,596
125,089
33,663
21,729
46,998
197,761
34,988
2,947,197
1,009,998
54,959
42,127
2,267,326
126,291
31,177
115,540
10,112
45,613
22,777
21,496
131,571
35,999
21,582
53,233
224,963
37,398
3,242,164
961,626
47,842
37,337
1,900,324
101,304
25,241
100.493
9)155
49,105
18,478
21,805
119,642
33,068
19,622
41,812
193,021
32,317
2,750,566
917,840
—5
— 11
— 10
— 10
—9
—7
—8
+4
— 17
+0
—5
—6
+1
— 12
— 12
—6
—9
+5
+9
+0
+8
+ 12
+ 13
+7
+2
—3
+3
—1
+5
+2
+ 11
+ 12
+2
+8
+7
+ 10
74,621
288,176
69,840
90,224
1,444,636
1,967,497
645,711
78,191
272,635
70,895
99,168
1.352,173
l ’873,062
669,493
+7
—3
—2
+ 0
—8
—6
—3
+2
+3
—4
—9
—2
—1
—7
52,650
37,186
321,625
29,386
45,966
27,273
22,498
536,584
294,243
45,782
36,509
285,451
27,532
41,905
23,837
19,868
480,884
257,849
—9
+4
— 11
—6
—7
— 13
— 17
—9
—7
+4
+6
+1
+0
+2
—1
—6
+1
+6
48,516
353,038
44,816
82,139
268 468
752,913
1,549,890
553,394
18,194,406
12,967,158
5.230,106
llj093,955
43,527
356,942
42,910
79,456
243,284
721,045
1,487,164
570,884
16,746,656
11,918,818
4,827,838
10,072,365
—4
+9
—0
+4
— 11
—6
—3
+3
—4
—5
+1
—6
+7
+8
+4
+8
—2
.—2
-1
—0
-k5
+3
+9
+3
261,121,000
221,953,000
— 12
+4
Savannah ....................
V a ld o s ta ....................
Total Reporting Cities
Other Citiesf
. . . .
LOUISIANA
79,837
Alexandria* . . . .
Baton Rouge . . . .
280,876
68,164
Lafayette*
. . . .
Lake Charles . . . .
90,563
1,326,661
New Orleans . . . .
1,846,101
Total Reporting Cities
Other Citiesf
. . . .
624,395
MISSISSIPPI
Biloxi-Gulfport*
. .
47,787
38,815
Hattiesburg . . . .
J a c k s o n ....................
287,288
27,610
L a u r e l * ....................
42,647
M e rid ia n ....................
23,664
N atchez*....................
Vicksburg ....................
18,654
Total Reporting Cities
486,465
272,302
Other Citiesf
. . . .
TENNESSEE
46,672
B r i s t o l * ....................
386,444
Chattanooga . . . .
Johnson City*
. . .
44,612
85,497
Kingsport*
. . . .
Knoxville....................
238,147
706.825
N ashville....................
1,508,197
Total Reporting Cities
569,205
Other Citiesf
. . . .
SIXTH DISTRICT . . . .
17,540,948
Reporting Cities
. . .
12,277,746
Other Citiesf
. . .
5,263,202
Total, 32 Cities
. . . .
10,388,868
UNITED STATES
344 Cities
. . . .
. 230,100,000
* Not included in total for 32 cities that are part of the National Bank Debit Series,
t Estimated.
• 10 •
Sixth District Indexes
Seasonally Adjusted (1947-49 = 100)
1958 I
Nonfarm Em ploym ent....................
Manufacturing Employment . . .
A p p a re l........................................
C h e m icals...................................
Fabricated M e t a l s ....................
F o o d .............................................
Lbr., Wood Prod., Fur. & Fix.
Paper & Allied Products
. . .
Primary M e t a l s .........................
T e x tile s........................................
Transportation Equipment . . .
Manufacturing Payrolls....................
Cotton Consumption**....................
Electric Power Production** . . .
Petrol. Prod, in Coastal
Louisiana & Mississippi** . . .
Construction Contracts*
. . . .
Residential...................................
All O t h e r ...................................
Farm Cash R eceipts.........................
C r o p s * * * ...................................
L iv e sto c k ***..............................
Dept. Store S a le s * / * * ....................
A t la n t a ........................................
Baton R o u g e ..............................
Birmingham
..............................
Chattanooga
..............................
Ja ck so n ........................................
Jacksonville
..............................
Knoxville
M a c o n ........................................
M i a m i ........................................
New O r le a n s ..............................
Tampa-St. Petersburg . . . .
Dept. Store Stocks* .........................
Furniture Store Sales*/**
. . .
Member Bank Deposits*
. . . .
Member Bank L o a n s * ....................
Bank D e b its* ...................................
Turnover of Demand Deposits* . .
In Leading C it ie s .........................
Outside Leading Cities . . . .
ALABAMA
Nonfarm Employment . . . .
Manufacturing Employment . .
Manufacturing Payrolls . . . .
Furniture Store Sales . . . .
Member Bank Deposits . . . .
Member Bank L o a n s....................
Farm Cash R e ce ip ts....................
Bank D e b i t s ..............................
FLORIDA
Nonfarm Employment . . . .
Manufacturing Employment . .
Manufacturing Payrolls . . . .
Furniture Store Sales . . . .
Member Bank Deposits . . . .
Member Bank L o a n s....................
Farm Cash R eceip ts....................
Bank D e b i t s ..............................
GEORGIA
Nonfarm Employment . . . .
Manufacturing Employment . .
Manufacturing Payrolls . . . .
Furniture Store Sales . . . .
Member Bank Deposits . . . .
Member Bank Lo a n s ....................
Farm Cash R eceipts....................
Bank D e b i t s ..............................
LOUISIANA
Nonfarm Employment . . . .
Manufacturing Employment
. .
Manufacturing Payrolls . . . .
Furniture Store Sales* . . . .
Member Bank Deposits*
. . .
Member Bank Loans*
. . . .
Farm Cash R eceipts....................
Bank D e b it s * ..............................
MISSISSIPPI
Nonfarm Employment . . . .
Manufacturing Employment . .
Manufacturing Payrolls . . . .
Furniture Store Sales* . . . .
Member Bank Deposits*
. . .
Member Bank Loans*
. . . .
Farm Cash R eceipts....................
Bank D e b it s * ..............................
TENNESSEE
Nonfarm Employment . . . .
Manufacturing Employment . .
Manufacturing Payrolls . . . .
Furniture Store Sales* . . . .
Member Bank Deposits*
. . .
Member Bank Loans*
. . . .
Farm Cash R e ce ip ts....................
Bank D e b it s * ..............................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1959
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT.
OCT.
NOV.
DEC. |
JAN.
138
121
176
135
180
115
79
161
98
87
214
214
94
340
139
122
179
135
181
113
80
163
100
88
212
215
92
346
139
123
182
135
182
114
79
163
103
88
202
219
89
357
139
123
186
135
181
112
80
165
102
89
207
224
110
359
139
120
185
136
175
112
79
163
73
88
206
216
94
359
139
120
185
131
177
113
81
165
74
88
203
213
93
351
139
120
186
130
173
115
82
164
74
87
209
210
93
350
140
121
186
131
174
116
81
161
94
86
183
212
91
346
139r
121
187
133
177
114
81
160
100
86
187r
217r
91
345
140
122
189
133
183
117
80
164
98
87
197
220
95
n.a.
189
463
394
520
129
I09r
183r
167
155
171
127
148
104
136
147
143
251
130
221
195
141
179
305
273
149
160
118
198
453
398
499
135
116r
188r
175
169
190
135
148
111
130
151
170
263
142
230
201
157
178
311
274
145
164
112
206
397
429
370
136
119r
183r
182
161
187
135
164
121
135
153
166
269
144
251
200
153
182
316
262
158
174
126
200
411
433
393
137
114r
186r
186
174
192
127
161
114
139
148
168
277
151
245
202
148
183
321
280
152
174
117
195
416
425
410
142
123r
I86r
190
178
179
136
168
124
138
164
167
301
155
244
212
158
181
329
285
162
179
124
203
440
444
436
123
96r
179r
196
188
190
145
164
131
221
165
177
312
156
263
217
161r
183
330
260
154
174
115
207
380
440
331
151
134r
194r
180
169
168
131
155
111
166
165
158
277
151
241
222
149r
183
331
283
150
164
118
215
350
441
276
141
124r
181r
178
169
185
124
160
113
151
159
158
274
149
241
225
158r
182
331
273
147
153
109
214r
302
373
245r
143
123r
176r
187
178
209
129
168
130
182
168
162
269
154
260
223
163r
184
333
273
150
160
109
231r
302
367
249
132
106
154
188
176
202
135
160
123
172
172
164
282
153
251
151
181
335
290r
154r
166r
121
225
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
178p
173
189
131
158
118p
176
170
164
257p
141
234p
225p
169p
182
337
278
154
166
119
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
136
118
172
129
179
112
79
160
92
86
211
205
84
330
137
119
173
132
182
113
79
160
91
86
212
204
91
351
137
120
174
132
178
114
80
161
92
87
212
206
92
346
138
121
174
133
179
115
78
161
95
88
208
209
93
341
193
445
382
496
131
115r
164r
168
161
180
127
154
116
141
154
155
248
139
203
198
154
178
303
271
153
162
121
. . 201
. . 309
. . 367
. . 262
. . 134
1960
MAY
DEC. |
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
186r
178
163
204
138
156
124
142
163
158
257
148
215
205
146
179
292
273
150
161
121
192
336
364
314
132
108r
156r
174
164
195
136
163r
124
146r
161
161
242
145
207
199r
165r
181
298
265
144
153
114
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
120
105
179
131
155
242
Ill
232
121
105
182
149r
155
248
126
233
120
106
185
154
154
254
123
233
121
107
189
125
154
250
147
233
120
107
193
145
156
254
148
238
121
107
190
135
157
259
132
231
121
106
195
134
160
266
162
253
122
109
198
139
160
275
164
254
117
100
173
143
160
269
127
226
117
99
167
139
160
270
134
248
117
97
168
138
159
272
84
241
121
105
184
134
159
273
126
229
121
106
190r
128r
158
272
158
252
121
106
194
148
159
279
n.a.
240
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
187
186
316
162
241
477
162
403
188
188
318
180r
242
485
281
372
189
190
326
184
238
492
232
382
191
193
319
163
235
500
182
391
193
195
343
183
233
511
230
389
195
195
351
176
241
526
227
400
197
198
351
175
243
534
236
437
199
202
364
178
238
544
239
441
199
202
371
212
246
548
200
408
200
202
370
177
247
550
212
450
200
202
371
180
245
547
172
436
200
201
366
203
245
547
157
428
198
199
370r
195r
241
549
215
439
198
201
360
196
242
546
n.a.
404
. . 130
. . 116
. . 200
. . 153
. . 158
. . 227
. . 153
. . 243
131
115
195
149r
159
230
143
236
131
116
197
143
157
237
142
238
131
117
204
134
157
235
169
243
132
118
206
151
157
244
150
248
132
119
211
148
160
246
158
235
132
119
215
139
159
250
140
253
134
120
219
159
157
256
178
261
133
119
216
163
162
260
131
238
134
120
207
144
160
260
172
258
134
120
210
159
160
261
97
249
134
117
203
157
163
266
142
244
134
118
204
150 r
158
266
121
264r
135
119
211
147
161
269
n.a.
255
. . 129
. . 97
. . 169
. . 189
. . 159
. . 274
. . 105
129
96
173
185r
163
284
104
210
129
95
173
174
160
287
106
216
128
96
175
203
165
293
109
227
128
96
178
177
160
293
111
229
128
96
179
191
165
295
141
217
128
96
175
177
165
295
109
240
127
96
176
193
160
302
105
233
126
95
176
178
160
299
97
223
127
95
178
193
160
304
127
248
126
96
170
171
157
307
136
226
127
95
171
195
160
309
104
212
127
95
171r
184
158
311
111
235
128
95
177
192
162
313
n.a.
204
.
.
132
131
247
114
197
361
100
216
131
131
246
106
190
367
103
210
131
131
251
97
198
378
110
225
130
132
250
114
195
383
110
225
132
134
247
120
191
391
106
208
131
133
247
132
195
398
111
238
131
134
252
115
197
403
112
233
131
134
253
129
194
400
106
224
133
135
253
95
195
411
140
236
133
135
241
83
202
392
127
230
134
136
244
117
204
392
136
233
133
136r
245r
133r
208
403
130
249
135
135
254
107
200
414
n.a.
222
120
117
202
114r
165
262
98
230
121
118
204
114
160
267
107
242
122
119
205
109
159
268
119
229
123
119
208
114
162
272
109
229
122
119
206
116
166
276
95
225
123
120
206
116
164
283
113
235
122
121
211
105
165
287
87
239
122
119
214
122
165
287
108
221
122
120
211
109
166
288
105
229
122
119
206
108
167
293
109
225
122
120
206
102
167
291
145
234
121
119r
209
109r
164
296
104
230
123
120
216
107
166
296
n.a.
232
. 130
. 132
. . 133
. . 195
. . 369
. . 125
. . 233
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
.
120
116
196
116
162
256
. 100
. 235
*For Sixth District area only. Other totals for entire six states.
**Daily average basis.
***Revisions reflect new seasonal factors.
n.a. Not Available.
p Preliminary.
221 r
r Revised.
Sources: Nonfarm and mfg. emp. and payrolls, state depts. of labor; cotton consumption, U. S. Bureau Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Corp.; petrol, prod., U. S. Bureau
of Mines; elec. power prod., Fed. Power Comm. Other indexes based on data collected by this Bank. All indexes calculated by this Bank.
• 11 *
SIXTH DISTRICT BUSINESS HIGHLIGHTS
1 9 4 7 -1 9 4 9 = 100
SeasonoJIy A djusted
Nonfarm Employment
C 3 v e r a l l e c o n o m ic a c t iv it y in the D istrict expanded further
in January. M ost states registered gains in nonfarm em ploym ent
and factory payrolls. M em ber bank loans and deposits rose,
although investm ents declined slightly. Consum er spending changed
little as increased autom obile sales offset declines in other lines.
A verage prices received by farm ers increased m oderately, but total
farm em ploym ent and output were at seasonal lows.
Mfg. Payrolls
Mfg. Employment
Electric Power
Production
Construction j
Contracts '
-mo moving avg.
Cotton Consumption
Bank Debits
Dept. Store Stocks
Dept. Store Sales
Member Bank
Loans
Member Bank
Deposits
RA T IO TO R E Q U IR E D R E S E R V E S
B o rro w in gs from
F. R Bank
Excess
R e s e rv e s
Nonfarm em ploym ent, seasonally adjusted, rose slightly in January, as
a result of gains in both manufacturing and nonm anufacturing. Higher
employment was reported in Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee,
but no change occurred in Alabama and Florida. For the states as a group,
manufacturing payrolls rose in January; nevertheless, they were still below
last July’s record. The rate of insured unem ployment declined after
allowance for seasonal changes.
Construction em ploym ent edged downward further in January from last
summer’s seasonally adjusted record. The three-month average of contract
aw ard s, however, based in part on January data, was unchanged, after
several months of sharp declines. Cotton consumption, a measure of ac
tivity in the cotton textile industry, rose in January, according to preliminary
estimates. Steel mill operations expanded to about the pre-strike volume,
but slackened somewhat in late February.
Department store sales declined further in February, based on a sea
sonally adjusted preliminary estimate. This decline followed a slight drop in
January, when sales decreased more than seasonally in nearly every major
metropolitan area. Furniture store sales, seasonally adjusted, increased in
January, as gains in Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana more than offset de
clines in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Automotive sales increased
from depressed December levels, as most models were again available.
Consumer instalment credit outstanding increased slightly at commercial
banks and department stores in January, after seasonal adjustment, and
changed little at other institutions.
Dollar value of international trade through District ports increased
again in December as exports rose seasonally, and imports rose more than
seasonally. All District ports shared in these increases.
Employment on farm s was at a seasonal low in January and totaled less
than that a year earlier. W ages for farm labor slightly exceeded wages a
month ago and a year ago. Continued cold weather damaged vegetables in
parts of Florida and curtailed harvesting operations and employment some
what. Wet and cold weather hindered farming operations elsewhere in the
District. Although total farm output exceeded that of a year ago, it declined
from the preceding month. The averag e of prices received by farm ers
increased slightly in January, principally because prices of citrus and cattle
increased. The valu e of farm real estate rose further from July to
November in all District states except Mississippi. Values were up sharply
from a year earlier in all states.
Member bank loans continued to rise in January, after seasonal adjust
ment, the largest gains percentage-wise being observed for Alabama and
Mississippi. Lending continued strong in February on the basis of data from
banks in leading District cities. Member bank investm ents resumed their
downward trend in January following December’s modest increase. Member
bank deposits increased somewhat, after seasonal adjustment, in all states
except Mississippi. Borrowings by member banks from the Federal Re
serve Bank of Atlanta were, on the average, the same in February as in
January, following a sharp decline from the December high.
@FedFRASER