The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Atlanta, Georgia
March
•
1966
Vol. LI, No. 3
Also in this issue:
IT’S ‘BATTER UP’
IN GEORGIA
Livestock Production Cycles
and Pood Prices
In 1965, the consumer price index accelerated more rapidly than during
the preceding four years of economic expansion. Although gains re
flected continued upward trends in prices for consumer services and
nonfood commodities, the major portion of the increase occurred in food
prices. In the past, food prices, though fluctuating moderately, generally
have trended upward at about the same rate as the index for all items.
Concerned about its ability to expand production without raising prices,
the nation is paying more and more attention to factors influencing cur
rent food prices and implications for the future.
Consumer Price Indexes, 1961-66
P e rc e n t_________________________________________________________________________ _______________
INSTALMENT CREDIT
MOTORS UPWARD
SIXTH DISTRICT
STATISTICS
DISTRICT BUSINESS
CONDITIONS
%
s e m
IB a n k g f
A
t la
n
ta
1965
_ L v J lO O
1966
Prices for most food items increased generally in 1965 (see chart on
page 18). Meat, poultry, and fish prices showed the most spectacular
rise— 11 percent from December 1964 to December 1965. A con
siderably smaller increase of one percent was recorded for cereal and
bakery products, while restaurant food prices advanced over 3 percent.
Prices for other foods eaten at home—various fats and oils, sugar, non
carbonated drinks, and other items— increased 2 percent. The price of
dairy products advanced only a fraction of one percent. Prices for fruits
and vegetables fluctuated sharply, but ended the year at a 3-percent
lower level.
Most of the expansion in food prices was in meats, particularly pork
and beef. During 1965, pork and beef prices advanced 29 and 6 percent,
respectively, with most of the gain occurring from May to August. Prices
for particular cuts of meat increased even more. By the end of 1965,
the price of bacon had risen 39 percent; whole hams, 30 percent. Rib
roasts advanced 9 percent, and sirloin and porterhouse steaks were 7
and 8 percent higher, respectively. Meanwhile, poultry prices climbed 2
percent. These rather sharp movements in meat prices reflect the inter
action of two basic forces— supply and demand for meat.
Generally, if the demand for a commodity increases as its supply de
clines, the price will go up. This essentially describes what happened to
meat prices in 1965. Evidences of strong consumer demand are reflected
in increased incomes, employment, and population. Disposable incomes
were over $30 billion greater in 1965 than in 1964. And $5 billion, or
17 percent, of the increase went to purchase more food, including meat.
Similarly, the continued decline in unemployment indicates that a larger
portion of the nation’s work force had sufficient incomes to purchase a
more balanced diet.
As the consumers’ demand for meat became greater
throughout 1965, the meat supply dwindled. At the end
of December, total production of red meats (beef and veal,
pork, lamb and mutton) was 4 percent less than in 1964.
Reduced pork output accounted for most of the decline.
Livestock production tends to fluctuate cyclically, re
flecting changes in the cost of production and/or prices
for livestock. Generally, farmers make livestock produc
tion plans on the basis of current prices or profits and
short-term forecasts. When prices are relatively high, they
may increase their breeding herds and produce more ani
mals. At some later date, when livestock marketings in
crease, prices decline. These lower prices reduce profits
and cause some producers either to stop production or cut
back the size of breeding herds. This reduces the supply
of livestock at some future date, causing prices to advance
once again. The cycles vary in length, depending upon the
life span of the animal.
Historically, hog production and prices have followed
a four-year cycle, characterized by two years of declining
prices resulting in reduced production. The lower pro
duction causes prices to advance, thus stimulating in
creased production usually for two years.
The chart on hog production shows a slight modification
of this cycle in 1961, but the basic cyclical pattern still
exists. Increasing pork production in the early 1960’s
tended to depress hog prices. The average slaughter hog
price in Chicago was $15.55 per hundred pounds in 1963
and $15.54 in 1964. Those relatively low prices reduced
the profitability of hog production and caused farmers to
change their production plans and reduce output. Thus,
pork production declined 4 and 10 percent in 1964 and
1965, respectively. Lower hog production usually tends to
lag lower prices by at least one year, because it takes some
time for farmers to recognize a downtrend and then to
adjust their plans.
The output of beef and veal also tends to follow cyclical
production patterns. The cycle for cattle is much longer
than for hogs; it has varied from nine to eleven years since
the late 1930’s. Usually, cattle and calves have increased
in number seven to eight years. The liquidation or declin
ing phase of the cycle has lasted only two to four years.
Since 1958, the number of cattle and calves on farms has
been expanding steadily, resulting in production increases
of 2 to 6 percent annually. However, in 1965, cattle
numbers were only one percent greater than a year earlier,
and by January 1, 1966, the cattle population had dropped
below the 1964 level. This turnaround in the buildup
Percent Changes in Food Prices
National Hog Production and Chicago Market Prices*
December 1965 over December 1964
-5
phase of the cattle cycle was in response to lower cattle
prices in 1963 and 1964.
Sheep production, unlike cattle numbers, has been de
clining every year since 1961, resulting in higher prices
for sheep and lambs. By 1965, slaughter lamb prices
reached a yearly average of over $24.50** per hundred
pounds in Chicago markets, the highest level since 1952.
Higher prices induced sheep producers to hold back ewe
lambs rather than sell them for slaughter. Hence, total
slaughter of lambs was down 10 percent from a year
earlier, even though the number of sheep and lambs on
farms was essentially unchanged.
Since the production of beef and veal, pork, lamb and
mutton were near the cyclical lows in 1965, further impli
cations for consumer meat prices become evident. When
the price of an item goes up, the consumer usually tries
to find a substitute product at a lower price. In 1965,
however, he discovered that the general price level had
risen for all meat cuts. Since the nonmeat substitutes (eggs,
beans, and dairy products) were poor, most of the de
mand for protein foods remained in the meat market.
Consequently, prices for each meat product advanced
more than might have been indicated by its drop in pro
duction.
If past experience is any guide, we can expect today’s
higher meat prices to result in increased production and
lower prices in the future. Some evidence that farmers are
changing production plans is already available. During
the December 1965-May 1966 period, farmers plan to
farrow 6 percent more sows than in the same period a
year ago. If these intentions are carried out, hog market
ings would expand during the latter part of 1966, causing
downward pressures on prices.
Likewise, sheep producers are expanding the size of
breeding herds. There are signs that beef producers may
start to rebuild their cattle herds. Except for hogs, how
ever, the main impact of the resulting increased production
probably will not come this year.
The general outlook for 1966 is that meat prices will
continue relatively strong. Production of all major meat
items except poultry will be below last year’s levels dur
ing the first half of this year, and meat prices will remain
well above those of a year ago. During the last half of the
year, increased pork production and possible expansion in
beef and sheep production may result in moderating meat
prices. However, production levels are not expected to ad
vance enough to force meat prices back to levels that
existed during the first quarter of 1965.
R o b e r t E. S w e e n e y
O__________ -MO_________+20________ +30
i
i
i
i
i
i
L iv e w e ig h t
■..
m
m
m
3
iHii
A ll Fo o d
F o o d A w a y fro m H o m e
Fo od at H om e
C e re a ls and B a k e r y P ro d u c ts
B e e f and V e a l
P o rk
:
P o u lt r y
1
|
D a ir y P r o d u c t s
F r u it s a n d V e g e t a b le s
O th e r F o o d s at H o m e
• 18 •
m
1
..
L. _ J
—
1--- i -
.- 1
‘ Average price for 200-220 pound barrows and gilts.
*‘ Estimated by this Bank.
M ONTHLY
R E V IE W
It’s 'Batter Up !’ in Georgia
The Atlanta-Fulton County Recreation Authority’s con
tract with the Atlanta Braves, Inc., was recently ruled
valid and binding on all parties by the courts. In a Georgia
court ruling the Braves were directed to play their National
League home baseball games in Atlanta Stadium (pic
tured above) for the next 25 years, starting April 12,
1966. Atlanta’s professional football team, the Atlanta
Falcons of the National Football League, is rapidly shap
ing up for its 1966 fall opener.
These two events are perhaps the most publicized sym
bols of Georgia’s rapid emergence as one of the leaders in
a region that has made enormous progress in the last few
years. Other evidence abounds. In late January Georgia’s
Governor Carl Sanders accepted an award of the Society
of Industrial Realtors naming Georgia number one in in
dustrial development in the United States and Canada.
A major Atlanta bank held “topping-out” ceremonies for
its 41-story tower in February. Atlanta’s and Georgia’s
cultural growth was emphasized when Robert Shaw ac
cepted an offer to become conductor of the Atlanta Sym
phony Orchestra. National publicity on these and other
events, some on the plus side and some on the minus side,
indeed bring Georgia to the “batter-up” position in 1966.
Future gains could possibly be harder to come by, when
measured against recent progress and achievements of
other states and regions. A review of Georgia’s economy
in 1965 may provide some clues as to how it may fare in
the sharply changed financial conditions that have emerged
in the past few months.
Balanced Teamwork Scores Again
Georgia’s total employment climbed vigorously once again
in 1965. As shown in the chart on page 20, the gain of 7
index points in nonagricultural employment was about in
line with the trend of the four previous years. Manufactur
ing employment rose a similar 7 index points in 1965, rep
Digitized
FRASER
M A R C Hfor19
66
resenting a sharp acceleration over 1964 gains. Absence of
major labor disputes in 1965 was an important factor in
the different behavior of manufacturing employment. The
chart also shows that in both employment categories more
than half the gains occurred during the last four months
of 1965.
This performance of employment indices is only one
side of the picture. Another significant measure of prog
ress is the insured unemployment index. This measure de
clined from 2.2 percent in December 1964 to 1.5 percent
in December 1965— the lowest unemployment ratio of any
state in the District. The decline compares with a District
average of 2.0 percent and a United States figure of 2.7
percent.
Georgia’s total personal income also rose more sharply
during 1965 than it had in 1964, gaining over 11 percent
between November 1964 and November 1965. Partly a
result of increasing productivity and attendant wage and
salary gains, the rise was directly stimulated by a lengthen
ing of the average workweek in manufacturing. Whereas
the average number of hours was 40 or under during 1960,
1961, and 1962, it climbed to 40.6 during 1964 and in
creased to 41.2 in 1965. A postwar record of 41.7 hours
for Georgia was maintained for the two closing months of
the year.
Although these gains in manufacturing were quite sub
stantial, they would not have been large enough to account
for the strong gains in total personal income in the absence
of good performance by other members of the incomegenerating team. Among the most notable of large groups
of employment, wholesale-retail trade, government, and
service were stable contributors. Sharp gains in employ
ment and contributions to total income were reported by
construction, and more modest gains were experienced by
transportation, communications, and public utilities; fi
nance, insurance, and real estate; and proprietors’ income.
Transfer payments also were up substantially. Only two
• 19 •
will be facing changed conditions. What are these condi
tions, and how will they affect Georgia’s economy in 1966?
The Team and the Challenge for 1966
minor types of income-producers, mining and property,
showed declines, according to preliminary estimates.
Rounding out the team effort, Georgia’s agricultural
sector also contributed solidly to increased total income.
Helped by higher prices for many farm products, espe
cially poultry and livestock, total cash receipts from farm
marketings exceeded $900 million in 1965. The resulting
gain of almost 6 percent over 1964 contrasted sharply
with a small percentage decline in 1964 over 1963.
Georgians were also able to keep more of the rising
incomes from higher levels of employment in 1965. A
slowdown in population growth rate from 1.8 percent in
1964 to 1.5 percent in 1965 and Federal tax cuts were
major contributing factors.
Spending and Savings Hit Homeruns
Georgians allocated these income gains among spending
on soft goods and services, investment in housing and
other consumer durables, and savings. Department store
sales rose substantially, extending 1964 gains. Furniture
store sales also rose, and December’s results were espe
cially strong. New passenger car sales, as evidenced by
registrations, were running more than one-tenth higher
through November 1965 than for 1964. Investment in new
residential structures in Georgia was vigorous also, in
creasing substantially over that of 1964 and far exceeding
the regional and national gains for the year.
Savings in depositary type institutions in Georgia in
creased by almost 18 percent in 1965— considerably
above the range of annual increases in the current re
covery of 14 and 16 percent. The growing consumer
preference for savings media offered by commercial banks
was reinforced further during 1965 by generally rising
rates and more aggressive bank competition. Although
Georgia’s savings and loan associations did not match
their 1963-64 rates of increase in savings, the flow of
mortgage repayments showed continued gains.
Savings in the form of nonterm life insurance also in
creased sharply during 1965, as sales climbed by 16
percent over 1964. No direct evidence is available, but
estimates suggest that Georgians also increased their pur
chases of direct investment securities.
This short excursion into measures of current perform
ance leaves little doubt that Georgia’s economy turned in
a stellar performance in 1965. In the minor leagues such
performance might permit some resting upon laurels.
However, by choice and circumstance, Georgia has laid
claim to big-league status. Just as the Braves and the
Falcons will be playing in a new environment, Georgia
Digitized •for
20FRASER
•
As Georgia’s economy comes to bat in 1966, the most
noticeable change in environment is in the financial sphere.
Reduced availability of real savings in the economy was
joined in the latter half of 1965 with sharply expanding
demand for financial resources from virtually all sectors.
It is no secret that Georgia, along with most of the
other Southeastern states and in spite of solid economic
growth in the postwar period, remains a substantial net
importer of capital. Private business capital is imported in
a variety of ways, from the sale of corporate securities and
bank borrowing to the subsidy of private capital by vari
ous agencies of national, state, and local governments.
Funds for acquiring private household capital are im
ported in the form of exports of mortgage contracts mainly
through mortgage bankers. Sales and other finance com
panies also add to the net funds imports. Public financial
capital, ranging from bricks and mortar of public buildings
to social capital invested in improving bodies and minds,
is brought in through the sale of state and local securities.
Capital enters the state in a variety of ways through the
operation of the national budget. In all these areas either
the inflows of funds must be reduced or the higher price
set by the national markets must be met. If rates continue
to rise, then the question divides itself: What are the
chances that the flow of capital will be reduced? Is Geor
gia’s economy able to pay a higher price for capital
imports?
Let’s look first at those areas of Georgia’s economic
activity least likely to be affected, under current programs,
by reduced financial inflows. Barring unexpected reduc
tions in Federal expenditures for military airlift capacity,
it would be surprising if this source of financial inflows did
not expand further. The outlook in other areas of defense
spending appears likely to remain strong, judging from
the combined military and civilian payrolls ($611 million
in 1965) flowing from Georgia’s 15 major military facili
ties. Annual expenditures of $193 million for maintenance
and operations will probably continue or increase.
Georgia’s participation in nondefense Federal programs,
such as NASA and Reclamation, have never been overly
large, so little immediate impact is expected in these areas.
On the other hand, several Federal programs, such as
farm subsidies, Corps of Engineers, veterans, education,
public assistance, and highways, have been quite import
ant. Some of these programs require substantial state and
local matching of funds. The choice may lie between ac
cepting lower financial inputs or meeting higher borrow
ing costs in matching them.
Still in the public sector, recent growth in industrial
base and incomes has placed sharp strains on Georgia’s
state and local governments in providing expanded ser
vices. However, another strength of Georgia’s team is
that it appears to be fully recognized that such services are
vital to continued balanced growth. Thus, while a choice
may be immediately available, long-run factors suggest
that Georgia’s governmental bodies will concentrate on
paying the higher price to remain in the market for finan
cial sources.
How do the strengths and weaknesses in the private
M ONTHLY
R E V IE W
sector of Georgia’s economy stack up? The four largest
components of manufacturing employment in Georgia are
textile mill products, apparel, food, and transportation
equipment, and the overall demand for these products is
strong. The same is true of a substantial number of other
types of manufactured products. Moreover, current pro
jections of more than $60 billion national plant and equip
ment spending in 1966 implies more investment spending
for Georgia industry.
Wholesale and retail trade contributes almost one-fifth
of Georgians’ personal income. There is little doubt that
basic demand is running strong or that Atlanta and Geor
gia will remain the major regional center for trade. Loca
tion and transportation factors, always important, have
now been augmented by two substantial new factors. First,
many of Georgia’s major cities have virtually rebuilt or
are rebuilding their hotel, motel, and convention facilities.
In addition, the 45,000 advance season ticket orders for
Atlanta Falcon games came from fans in 22 states and
c o n tin u e d o n n e x t p a g e
Instalment Credit Motors Upward
Consumers sank further in debt last year, as they used
more instalment credit to buy goods and services than in
any previous year of the business expansion that began
in 1961. Outstanding instalment credit increased by 13.5
percent, bringing the total to $67.4 billion at year’s end.
The largest proportion of this gain occurred at commercial
banks, which now hold over two-fifths of all instalment
debt. Since consumer loans account for roughly one-fifth
of commercial banks’ total loans, the behavior of instal
ment credit was an important element in pushing up total
bank lending.
Most of the recent increase in consumer credit was in
instalment debt, which accounts for about four-fifths of
all consumer credit. What is the nature of the debt’s
growth?
In periods of economic expansion, consumers usually
supplement rising incomes with credit in order to buy more
durable goods. The yearly figures for 1961-65 show that
expenditures for consumer durable goods increased by 46
percent during the entire period, while disposable personal
income advanced by 27 percent. This expenditure growth,
combined with the availability and ease of obtaining credit,
Outstanding Consumer Instalment Credit
Sixth District Commercial Banks
Sixth District consum ers added steadily to their instalment
debt at commercial banks during the 1961-65 period. Automo
bile and personal loans were responsible for nearly all the
increase, with automobile loans accounting for 68 percent of
the growth alone.
M A R C H 1966
pushed instalment credit from 11.9 percent of disposable
personal income in 1961 to 14.5 percent in 1965.
The growth in instalment debt at commercial banks in
the Sixth District has occurred at about the same pace and
for the same reasons as for the nation. Repair and mod
ernization and other consumer goods loans at District
banks did not increase during this expansion period; on
the other hand, automobile loans and personal loans (i.e.,
loans for medical, educational, and travel purposes) ad
vanced by 88 and 57 percent, respectively. Repayments
of instalment debt continued upward, but at a slower rate
than the increase in extensions of new credit. As a result,
the amount of outstanding instalment debt at District
banks reached $2.1 billion at the end of 1965. Automobile
loans, which have accounted for 68 percent of the increase
in instalment debt at District banks since 1961, now con
stitute 54 percent of the total outstanding debt.
Further evidence of the ease of instalment credit during
this period is in the terms of automobile loans at District
banks. The proportion of new car loans written for over
30 months increased from 62 percent in 1961 to 82 per
cent in 1965, according to reports from a sample of Dis
trict banks. The average amount for which new car loans
were written, in relation to the purchase price, also in
creased. Loans written for a balance exceeding 100 per
cent of dealer’s cost jumped from 15 percent in 1961 to
23 percent in 1965.
Commercial banks make automobile loans directly by
lending to the consumer and indirectly by purchasing
paper from various loan companies and automobile deal
ers. District banks have apparently become more aggres
sive in competing for the consumer loan dollar, since the
relaxation in terms of new car loans occurred in direct
loans, as well as indirect loans.
Personal income in the Sixth District rose from $1,651
per capita in 1961 to $2,074 in 1965, according to pre
liminary estimates of this Bank. Consumers have higher
incomes out of which to pay their debts, but a larger part
of their incomes are now committed to repaying instalment
debt. Nevertheless, consumers have been able to build up
their savings. Per capita savings of individuals at finan
cial institutions in the Sixth District states grew from
$1,008 in 1961 to an estimated $1,500 in 1965.
Will the District consumer, like his national counter
part, continue to receive higher incomes, go further in
debt, and at the same time be able to save more? Future
economic developments will tell the story.
J oe W. M c L eary
•
21
•
364 cities. Comparable data for the Atlanta Braves are
not available, but a strong regional following probably
already exists. Trade should increase as fans stream into
Atlanta and Georgia.
Construction has long been one of Georgia’s strong
sectors of economic activity. In each of the past three
years the total has exceeded $1 billion, divided about
evenly between residential and other construction. Al
though construction is not a major contributor of personal
income, accounting for roughly 5 percent of the total, it
is a major capital-importing activity.
Outlays for nonresidential construction in Georgia seem
assured of continued increases in 1966. For one thing,
Georgia has over $600 million in interstate highways
under way, about one-third of which is being constructed
now. Industrial plants, both new and expansions, continue
at a high level. Enough major office building projects have
already been announced or are under way, not only in
Atlanta but in other Georgia cities, to assure a big year
in this category. Georgia’s utilities and railroads have also
announced large increases in investment spending for
1966. Seemingly, most sponsors of these types of con
struction activity will have the need and the capacity to
remain strong bidders in the market for financial resources.
Residential building may not be so fortunate in 1966.
Georgia typically depends quite heavily upon imported
capital in bridging the gap between total demand for mort
gage credit and the local supply of funds through mortgage
repayments and current savings. Existing market condi
tions are relatively unfavorable for increased inflows, even
with the recent rise in permissible contract rates on FHA
mortgages. Against this factor, however, must be weighed
the fact that Georgia’s housing markets are in compara
tively good balance. Experience during the 1958-59 period
suggests that immediate cutbacks in residential construc
tion volume do not necessarily follow increases in interest
rates.
On balance, it seems reasonable to expect that Georgia’s
economy will perform well in 1966, as it steps into the
“batter-up” position in a new league.
H ir a m
J. H o n e a
This is one of a series in which economic developments in each of the
Sixth District states are discussed. Developments in Mississippi’s econ
om y were analyzed in the January 1966 R e v i e w , and a discussion of
Tennessee’s economy is scheduled for a forthcoming issue. • Copies
of the revised edition of A R e v i e w o f A l a b a m a ’ s E c o n o m y , 1960-65,
are now available upon request to the Research Department, Federal
Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
B a n k A n n o u n c e m e n ts
O n F e b ru a r y 1, th e B a n k o f A u b u r n , A u b u r n to w n , T e n
n essee, a n d th e B a n k o f H a m p t o n , H a m p to n , G e o rg ia —
b o th n o n m e m b e r b a n k s— b e g a n to r e m it a t p a r f o r c h e c k s
d ra w n on th e m w h e n r e c e iv e d f r o m th e F e d e r a l R e s e r v e
B ank.
The G u a r a n t y B a n k a n d T r u s t C o m p a n y , M organ
C ity , L o u isia n a , a n e w ly o r g a n iz e d n o n m e m b e r ban k,
o p e n e d f o r b u sin ess o n F e b ru a r y 2 6 a n d b eg a n to re m it a t
p a r. O fficers are A n th o n y J. G u a risc o , P re sid e n t; Joh n A .
B rid g e s, E x e c u tiv e V ic e P r e s id e n t a n d C a sh ier; M ilto n H .
H a m e r a n d L e e V a c ca ri, V ic e P re sid e n ts. C a p ita l to ta ls
$ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 , a n d su rp lu s a n d o th e r c a p ita l fu n d s, $ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 .
Digitized •for22FRASER
•
D e b its
to
D e m a n d
D e p o s it
A cco u n ts
In su re d C o m m ercia l B an k s in th e S ix th D istrict
(In Thousands of Dollars)
Percent Change
Jan. 1966 from:
Dec.
Jan.
1965
1965
Jan.
1966
Dec.
1965
Jan.
1965
STANDARD METROPOLITAN
STATISTICAL AREAS+
Birmingham . . . .
1,368,755
67,306
Gadsden
......................
H u n ts v ille ......................
169,901
478,517
M o b i l e ...........................
Montgomery . . . .
262,340
92,647
T u scalo o sa.....................
1,444,124
73,820
191,504
471,641
291,275
90,028
1,181,269
58,920
165,095
447,479
234,970
77,567
—5
—9
— 11
+ 1
— 10
+3
+16
+14
+3
+7
+12
+19
652,867
1,508,717
2,085,411
488,777
191,126
1,321,384
495,185
616,706r
1,684,582
2,231,700r
486,270
219,990
1,317,749
431,058
552,346
1,307,817
1,844,595
447,372
184,173
1,160,418
402,900
+6
— 10
—7
+1
— 13
+0
+ 15
+ 18
+15
+13
+9
+4
+ 14
+23
......................
86,397
3,927,718
240,266
196,929
220,122
264,109
93,701
4,207,270
247,070
209,321
232,876
259,050
83,464
3,549,732
172,427
193,655
197,608
221,741
—8
—7
—3
—6
—5
+2
+4
+ 11
+39
+2
+11
+ 19
Baton Rouge . . . .
L a f a y e t t e .....................
Lake Charles . . . .
New Orleans . . . .
517,541
126,006
132,223
2,320,242
522,708
118,306
116,584
2,527,599
433,783
100,322
115,111
2,007,155
—1
+7
+13
—8
+ 19
+26
+15
+ 16
Ft. Lauderdale—
Hollywood . . . .
Jacksonville . . . .
P e n s a c o la .....................
Tampa-St. Petersburg .
W. Palm Beach . . .
C o lu m b u s .....................
Savannah
574,708
587,773
476,949
—2
+20
Chattanooga . . . .
K n o x v ille .....................
N a s h v i l l e .....................
582,493
413,158
1,227,328
565,677
462,324
1,370,658
523,141
372,731
1,076,188
+3
— 11
— 10
+11
+ 11
+ 14
OTHER CENTERS
A n n i s t o n ......................
D o th a n ...........................
S e l m a ...........................
60,870
53,221
39,294
62,759
56,889
42,034
53,994
49,294
34,203
—3
—6
—7
+ 13
+8
+15
B a r t o w ...........................
Bradenton .....................
Brevard County . . .
Daytona Beach
. . .
Ft. Myers—
N. Ft. Myers . . .
G ainesville......................
Monroe County . . .
L a k e l a n d .....................
O c a l a ...........................
St. Augustine . . . .
St. Petersburg
. . .
.....................
Sarasota
Tallahassee
. . . .
T a m p a ...........................
W inter Haven . . . .
42,534
68,489
217,355
90,148
41,543
61,025
221,905
87,524
42,025
54,639
176,858
78,158
+2
+ 12
—2
+3
+ 1
+25
+23
+15
84,317
78,348
34,756
123,061
56,339
19,936
368,625
114,792
109,780
681,747
72,337
76,386
79,667
37,249
125,663
57,187
20,870
329,612
112,966
112,066
735,404
63,782r
73,480
69,765
29,464
111,616
49,890
16,473
293,069
98,632
86,811
628,777
66,170
+10
—2
—7
—2
—1
—4
+ 12
+2
—2
—7
+13
+15
+12
+18
+ 10
+13
+ 21
+26
+16
+26
+8
+9
Athens ...........................
B ru n sw ick ......................
D a l t o n ...........................
Elberton
.....................
G ainesville......................
G r i f f i n ...........................
L a G r a n g e .....................
Newnan ...........................
R o m e ...........................
V a l d o s t a .....................
68,190
39,195
83,129
12,058
70,498
30,444
21,647
23,690
69,197
49,548
72,149
46,106
96,018
14,373
70,872
33,385
25,909
28,630
78,968
54,286r
58,718
41,182
90,566
13,050
66,168
27,827
19,734
27,247
59,402
44,349
—5
— 15
— 13
— 16
—1
—9
— 16
— 17
— 12
—9
+16
—5
—8
—8
+7
+9
+ 10
— 13
+16
+12
A b b e v il le .....................
A lex an d ria.....................
B u n k ie ...........................
H a m m o n d .....................
New I b e r i a .....................
Plaquemine
. . . .
T h ib o d a u x .....................
11,385
118,594
5,793
30,079
39,927
10,594
29,335
14,101
117,223
6,409
33,859
38,652
9,814
33,718
10,542
109,482
6,719
29,488
36,873
8,939
27,328
— 19
+1
— 10
— 11
+3
+8
— 13
+8
+8
— 14
+2
+8
+19
+7
Biloxi-Gulfport . . .
Hattiesburg
. . . .
L a u r e l ...........................
M e r i d i a n ......................
N atc h ez...........................
Pascagoula—
Moss Point . . . .
V ic k s b u rg .....................
Yazoo C i t y .....................
88,786
52,924
34,578
63,080
34,706
98,017
51,771
40,262
64,867
34,424
70,058
48,810
31,668
55,393
32,360
—9
+2
— 14
—3
+ 1
+27
+8
+9
+14
+7
45,482
37,643
26,171
53,018
39,379
23,901
40,453
32,823
27,118
— 14
—4
+9
+12
+ 15
—3
B r i s t o l ...........................
Johnson City . . . .
Kingsport .....................
70,574
70,175
128,125
71,784
74,279
144,554r
60,012
62,781
113,088
—2
—6
— 11
+18
+12
+13
SIXTH DISTRICT, Total .
A la b a m a ! ......................
F l o r i d a ! .....................
G e o r g i a ! .....................
Louisiana*+ . . . .
M ississippi*t . . . .
Tennessee*t . . . .
27,700,340
3,505,184
9 ,034,049
6,520,043
3,884,342
1,243,055
3,513,667
29,020,451r
3,696,215
9,234,449r
6,933,251r
4,108,155
1,291,243
3 ,7 5 7 ,138r
24,413,303
3,136,164
7,858,592
5,933,131
3,351,459
1,051,980
3,081,977
—5
—5
—2
—6
—5
—4
—6
+13
+12
+ 15
+10
+16
+18
+14
♦Includes only banks in the Sixth District portion of the state.
tPartially estimated. {Estimated. r-Revised.
MONTHLY
R E V IE W
S ix t h
D
i s t r i c t
S t a t is t ic s
Seasonally Adjusted
( A ll d a t a
a re
Latest Month
in d e x e s ,
One
Month
Ago
1 9 5 7 -5 9
Two
Months
Ago
=
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm E m ploym ent.....................................
M a n u f a c tu r in g ...........................................
A p p a re l.....................................................
C h e m ic a ls ................................................
Fabricated M e t a l s ................................
F o o d ..........................................................
Lbr., Wood Prod., Furn. & Fix. . . .
P a p e r .....................................................
Primary M e t a l s .....................................
T e x tile s .....................................................
Transportation Equipment
. . . .
N o n m anufacturing.....................................
C o n s tr u c tio n ...........................................
Farm E m p lo y m e n t...........................................
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.)
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
Construction C o n tr a c ts * ................................
All O t h e r .....................................................
Industrial Use of Electric Power . . . .
Cotton C o n s u m p tio n * * ................................
Petrol. Prod, in Coastal La. and Miss.**
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member 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 * / * * ..........................................
Dec. 49,968
Jan.
177
Dec.
116
Dec.
108
Dec.
143
Jan.
161
49,490r
174
126
124
138
154
48,992r
174
144
143
133
157
46,238
161
125
134
119
147
Jan.
Jan.
209
198
219r
195
244
203
195
173
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Dec.
Jan.
Jan.
127
128
155
121
138
113
104
112
112
102
159
127
132
71
2.1
42.1
173
174
172
135
120
190
126
126
152
120
136
111
102
112
110
101
157
126
128
75
2.0
41.8r
178
194
165
133
114
188
125
125
152
120
134
112
101
111
111
101
156
125
124
69
1.9
41.9
173
175
171
132
112
199r
121
120
146
115
128
108
98
109
112
97
137
121
122
81
2.7
41.8
190
153
221
126
113
174
Jan.
Feb.
222
207
218
203
215
198
191
177
Jan.
Feb.
Jan.
173
155
173
168
157
173
166
153
174
153
141
160
One
Month
Ago
One
Year
Ago
Dec.
Jan.
Dec.
Jan.
9,630
178
111
160
9,449r
179
122
152
9,227r
178
143
156
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
128
125
129
144
70
1.4
41.6
126
123
127
144
76
1.5
41.7
125
122
126
139
62
1.5
41.7
120
118
122
129
79
2.1
41.5
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
234
184
180
226
178
179
225
177
181
197
161
172
INCOME AND SPENDING
Dec.
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate)
Manufacturing P a y r o l l s ................................JanJan.
Farm Cash Receipts
..................................... DecDec.
Jan.
Department Store S a l e s * / * * ..................... Jan.
7,559
165
115
158
7,495r
159r
142
147
7,515r
158
113
152
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
120
115
122
151
65
2.5
43.6
118
112
119
141
71
2.1
42.2
117
111
119
132
76
2.1
42.3
112
109
112
128
78
3.0
42.8
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s * ..................................... JanJan.
Member Bank D e p o s its * ................................JanJan.
Bank D e b i t s * / * * .......................................... Jan,Jan.
204
154
157
205
148
160
199
147
158
175
139
143
3,604
196
107
121
3,536r
197
120
115
3,540r
193
174
114
3,358
166
128
101
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
131
142
126
141
62
2.6
41.8
129
140
125
138
64
2.1
42.2r
129
139
125
133
57
1.8
41.4
123
128
122
138
69
3.2
41.4
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
261
207
183
234
178
177
228
178
185
209
166
163
INCOME AND SPENDING
Dec.
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate)
Manufacturing P a y r o l l s ................................ JanJan.
Farm Cash R e c e i p t s ..................................... Dec,
Dec.
Jan.
Department Store S a l e s * / * * ..................... Jan,
7,793
172
121
129
7,830r
171r
121
122
7,685r
170
136
132
7,239
155
134
129
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
129
134
126
159
75
2.6
41.0
127
133
125
154
75
2.4
41.4r
127
132
124
144
70
2.2
41.6
121
125
119
149
84
3.4
41.2
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s * ..................................... Jan,
Jan.
Member Bank D e p o s its * ................................JanJan.
Bank D e b i t s * / * * ...........................................JanJan.
220
167
179
215
164
184
216
167
188
192
156
165
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate)
8,811
162
121
145
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.)
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
FINANCE AND BANKING
LOUISIANA
6,928
149
111
131
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.)
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
MISSISSIPPI
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . Dec.
Manufacturing P a y r o l l s ................................ Jan.
Farm Cash R e c e i p t s ..................................... Dec.
Department Store S a l e s * * ........................... Jan.
6,802
165
128
127
6,698r
158r
129
125
6,643r
162
144
123
6,400
154
121
124
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate)
Dec.
Manufacturing P a y r o l l s ................................ JanJan.
Farm Cash R e c e i p t s ..................................... DecDec.
Department Store S a l e s * / * * ..................... Jan,Jan.
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm E m p lo y m ent.....................................
M a n u f a c tu r in g ...........................................
N o n m an u factu rin g .....................................
Construction ...........................................
Farm E m p lo y m e n t...........................................
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.)
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
117
117
117
117
68
2.9
42.5
116
116
116
113
76
2.7
41.3r
116
116
116
114
69
2.5
41.7
114
113
114
116
84
2.9
42.2
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s .....................................
Member Bank D e p o s i t s ................................
Bank D e b i t s * * ................................................
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
208
172
167
208
167
167
204
168
165
183
151
157
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.)
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
FINANCE AND BANKING
FLORIDA
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm E m p lo y m ent.....................................
M a n u f a c tu r in g ...........................................
Two
Months
Ago
Latest Month
GEORGIA
ALABAMA
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, 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 * * ...........................
o t h e r w is e .)
One
Year
Ago
SIXTH DISTRICT
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, 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 Sales*/ * * ......................
Instalment Credit at Banks, *(Mil. )
New L o a n s.....................................................
R e p a y m e n ts ................................................
1 0 0 , u n le s s in d ic a t e d
TENNESSEE
Dec. 14,580
201
Jan.
117
Dec.
Jan.
196
14,482r
194r
128
190
14,382r
198
141
191
13,502
187
131
180
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.)
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
137
137
136
114
98
1.6
42.4
136
137
135
112
101
1.8
42.6r
135
137
134
110
99
1.8
43.0
129
131
129
108
108
2.1
42.1
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s .....................................
Member Bank D e p o s i t s ................................
Bank D e b i t s * * ................................................
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
224
176
174
221
174
173r
219
168
172
197
152
159
*For Sixth District area only. Other totals for entire six states.
* * Daily average basis.
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.)
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
r Revised.
Sources: Personal income estimated by this Bank; nonfarm, mfg. and nonmfg. emp., mfg. payrolls and hours, and unemp., U. S. Dept, of Labor and cooperating state agencies; cotton
consumption, U. S. Bureau of Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Corp.; petrol, prod., U. S. Bureau of Mines; industrial use of elec. power, Fed. Power Comm.; farm cash
receipts and farm emp., U.S.D.A. Other indexes based on data collected by this Bank. All indexes calculated by this Bank.
M A R C H 19 66
• 23 •
DISTRICT BUSINESS CO N D ITIO N S
‘ ' ' ' ' I ' ' ‘ ' ' *' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ........."I
.B i l l i o n s o f D o lla r s
A n n u a lR a
S * a * . A d j.
1
1
I he District’s economy seem s to be working overtime, as the longer days
of spring approach. Average weekly hours in m anufacturing have risen to
record levels, and nonagricultural employment has increased sharply.
Consumer spending continues to expand, financed in part by more credit,
as well as higher incomes. In the farm sector farm ers are anxious to start
field work but have been stymied by wet fields. Strong credit dem ands at
banks verify the quick pace of economic activity.
s
M fg. P a y r o lls
--1 7 3
—
Industrial activity in the District accelerated in January. Total em
ployment experienced the largest monthly increase in five years, with manu
facturing and nonmanufacturing industries sharing equal gains. High employ
ment in construction reflects the larger volume of construction contracts
awarded last year. Average hours worked bounced back from the December
dip to a new all-time high of 42.0 hours. January data confirmed that inexper
ienced workers are landing the bulk of new jobs, since large gains were coupled
again with higher insured unemployment. December cotton consumption and
January petroleum and steel production showed advances.
s
s
Consumer spending appears to be maintaining the vigorous pace estab
lished in 1965, as consum ers’ abilities to buy goods and services expand.
Personal incomes increased further in January and were above levels recorded
last year. Also, the volume of consumer credit at commercial banks, closely
associated with consumer spending, continued to grow in January and Feb
ruary. Upward pressures on prices were evident: The retail food price index
for Atlanta was 0.6 percent higher in January than a month earlier. Rising meat
prices accounted for much of the gain.
s
.
Farm field work has been slowed by wet weather in many areas. The
main farm activities have consisted of routine chores, feeding and caring for
livestock, and general repair and maintenance work. Prices for crops are below
last year’s, but livestock prices are above a year ago. Prices for hogs and broilers
advanced in January, while cattle and egg prices slipped from their December
high levels. In 1965, all District states except Louisiana experienced record
cash receipts.
s s
F a rm C a s h R e c e ip t s
6-m o. m o vin g o v « ra g «
- P E R C E N T O F R E Q U IR E D R E S E R V E S
B o r ro w in g s fro m F. R. B a n k s
_
42.12
1963
E x c e ss R e s e rv e s
1964
1965
♦Seas. adj. figure; not an index.
1966
Negotiable certificates of deposit outstanding at banks in leading
cities increased in February after three months of decline. The gains were
below those of last year, however. Time-deposit expansion at these banks has
been much slower this year. Strong loan demands from consumers and busi
nesses, especially firms manufacturing textiles and apparel, may have created
some credit pressures at these banks. Elsewhere in the District, heavy inflows of
time and demand deposits have allowed banks to expand loans and investments
more rapidly than last year.
N o t e : D a t a o n w hich statem ents are based have been adjusted whenever possib le to elim in ate se ason al
influences.
@FedFRASER