The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
IN THIS ISSUE: • A Regional View of Export Patterns REVIEW •1 9 6 8 : Another Prosperous Year for Georgia •D istrict Business Conditions a m : V V ' FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ATLANTA MARCH 1969 i# # § A Regional View of Export Patterns Efforts to increase exports form part of a broad program to bring about a better balance in our international payments. In addition to benefiting our payments balance, export expansion also promotes national and regional economic growth. For a given region such as the South, therefore, export expansion can play a significant role in policies designed to foster economic growth. Developing an effective program for export expansion requires more than general steps to promote a region’s exports. Although measures such as special financing plans, exhibitions, and special promotions are essential, some knowledge of individual markets for specific types of goods is needed to help direct energies to where they are most likely to succeed. Moreover, knowledge of the destination and character of exports is essential for analysis of the economic forces un derlying export activity. This article provides information on the export pattern of that part of the South covering the states in the Sixth Federal Reserve District: Ala bama, Florida, Georgia, the southern halves of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the eastern two-thirds of Tennessee. The emphasis is on what the region exports, where the exports go, and how the region’s export pattern differs from the pattern of exports from the United States as a whole. The underlying data are derived from Monthly Review, Vol. LIV, No. 3. Free subscription and additional copies available upon request to the Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of At lanta, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 34 a special tabulation of exports (obtained by this Bank from the Census Bureau of the U. S. De partment of Commerce) moving through the cus toms districts of Miami, Mobile, New Orleans, Savannah, and Tampa in 1966.1 Some caveats about these data are in order. The dollar value of exports includes charges for freight, insurance, and other items up to the point of exportation. Thus, the value of the re gion’s exports at port of exit necessarily differs from the value at their production sites. Further more, exports through District ports include goods produced outside the region. On the other hand, some goods produced within the District are exported through non-District ports. Despite these imperfections, the data on exports moving through District ports reasonably approximate the pattern of exported goods actually produced within the District (a t the level of aggregation to be u sed ). 1N o p u re ccn t o f th e s p e c ia l C ensus b lis h e d in f o r m a t io n p r o v id e s c o m m o d it y e x p o r t s f o r y e a r s b y g e o g r a p h ic d e s t in a t io n f o r s ta te s o r r e g io n s U . S . in t h e s p e c if ic f o r m u s e d h e r e . T h e r e f o r e , a t a b u la t io n w a s n e c e s s a r y . T h e B u r e a u o f th e p u b l i s h e s , i n FT 990 Highlights of U.S. Export and Import Trade, e x p o r t d a t a b y c u s t o m s d i s t r i c t s a n d a r e a d e s t in a t io n a n d b y c u s t o m s d is t r ic t s a n d c o m m o d it y g r o u p s . H o w e v e r , it d o e s n o t p u b l i s h , f o r c u s t o m s d i s t r i c t s , e x p o r t d a t a o n c o m m o d it y g r o u p s b y a r e a d e s t in a t io n . I n a d d it io n , th e B u r e a u o f th e C e n s u s h a s p u b lis h e d f o r e a c h o f t h e 5 0 s t a t e s a State Export Report. T h e s e p r o v i d e d a t a o n m a n u f a c t u r in g e x p o r t s f o r e a c h s ta te b y 2 - d ig it codes and a g r ic u l t u r a l e x p o r t e s t im a t e s b a s e d o n s ta te a g r ic u lt u r a l p r o d u c t io n . N o d a t a o n m a n u f a c t u r in g o r a g r ic u lt u r a l e x p o r t s b y a r e a d e s t in a t io n a n d n o m in e r a l e x p o r t d a t a a r e p r o v id e d , h o w e v e r . U.S. SIC MONTHLY R E V IE W C o m m o d ity C o m p o s itio n o f E x p o rts In 1966, manufactured goods were half of total District exports, followed by agricultural com modities with a substantial 40.7-percent share. Mining accounted for only 4.5 percent. The importance of agricultural exports may be overstated to some degree, because some of the agricultural exports, particularly grain shipments, originate in Midwestern states. For instance, much of the exports of com seed, unmilled wheat, and soybeans moving through New Orleans have been produced outside District states. These three commodities through New Orleans accounted for nearly a third of all agricultural exports from the District in 1966. Even after making allowance for this, agricultural exports accounted for a sub stantial proportion of total District exports. Within the manufactured goods sector, exports from capital goods producers nearly tripled ex- Table I Commodity Structure of Sixth District and U. S. Exports (Percent) SIC Code Product Group 19-39 20 & 21 22 & 23 25 27 30 & 31 39 M anufacturing Food & Tobacco Textiles & Apparel Furniture Printing Rubber & Leather Misc. M anufacturing T O T A L — Consum er Goods 24 26 28 & 29 32 19, 33-38 Wood Paper Chem icals & Petroleum Stone, Clay, & Glass Metal & M etalworking Industries TO T A L — Capital Goods 01-09 10-14 Agriculture Mining Unclassified T O T A L — A L L EXPO R TS The distribution of agricultural and manufac tured products in Sixth District exports contrasts sharply with the national distribution. Sixth District Exports, 1966 $3,680 million U.S. Exports, 1966 Sixth District U .S . 54.7 11.7 1.9 .2 .2 .6 .7 77.0 6.7 2.6 .2 1.0 1.2 3.3 15.3 15.0 .9 5.1 11.1 .5 1.2 2.2 11.6 1.2 21.8 45.8 39.4 62.0 40.7 4.5 .1 17.5 4.1 1.4 100.0 100.0 ports from consumer goods industries.2 Exports from the metal and metalworking industries (pri mary and fabricated metals, machinery, trans portation equipment, instruments, and ordnance) account for a substantial part of capital goods exports. Chemical and petroleum products also added significantly to these exports. However, even though consumer goods were smaller than capital goods, food and tobacco ranked second in overall importance of manufactured exports (see Table I ) . District and U. S. Compared District and U. S. export patterns reveal rather sharp contrasts. Agricultural exports are relatively more important in the region than nationally. Correspondingly, District manufacturing exports are less important than those of the nation. In addition, District exports also differ sharply from the national pattern within the manufacturing sector—primarily because of the disparity in the importance of capital goods. The District exports a much lower proportion of goods from the metal and metalworking industries than does the nation. On the other hand, the Dis trict exports a higher proportion of paper prod ucts, and nearly matches the nation in chemical and petroleum products. The abundant timber and water resources (necessary for manufacturing 2T h e t e r m s c a p i t a l g o o d s a n d c o n s u m e r g o o d s a r e e m p l o y e d m a in ly f o r d e s c r ip t iv e c o n v e n ie n c e . T h e y a r e b a s e d o n g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f i n d u s t r i e s i n e a c h c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ; i.e., a m a j o r p o r t io n o f c o n s u m e r g o o d s a r e d e s t in e d f o r f in a l c o n s u m p t io n , w h ile c a p it a l g o o d s m o r e o f t e n s e r v e a s in p u t s to o t h e r in d u s t r ie s . MARCH 1969 35 paper and paper pulp) and the petroleum output in Louisiana (which stimulates petroleum refining and petrochemical manufactures) have apparently boosted the importance of these products in Dis trict exports. Despite the nearly equal importance of con sumer goods in both District and U.S. exports, considerable variation exists between individual groups. The lesser share of textiles and apparel, printing and publishing, rubber and leather, and miscellaneous goods in District exports compared with the nation is completely offset by the much higher proportion of food, beverages, and tobacco exports. This reflects the orientation of the region toward production of agricultural raw materials. These serve as inputs to many consumer goods industries and are of greater importance in Dis trict exports than in the U.S. The contrast between regional and national commodity export patterns reflects widely known differences in economic structures and endow ments of productive resources. The South, of which District states form a substantial part, has more abundant natural resources and labor, while capital is relatively scarcer than in the nation. Thus, the South enjoys a comparative advantage in producing many raw materials, especially those of agricultural origin. Industries processing these raw materials and industries using relatively more labor than capital are more important in the region’s share of manufactures than in the entire nation. On the other hand, most producer and durable goods industries, which require large amounts of capital and generally are technologically more sophisticated, account for a considerably smaller portion of output in the South than in the nation. Not unexpectedly, the differences in the two ex port patterns closely resemble these differences in productive structure. Although the pattern of District exports implies an industrialization level somewhat less than that of the nation, it does indicate that the region has achieved a significant degree of indus trialization. Manufactured goods constitute more than half of total District exports, and capital goods far surpass consumer goods—despite the greater orientation to raw materials and consumer industries. Geographic Destination of Exports The area destination of District and U. S. exports reveals further distinct dissimilarities. The impact of geographic location on exports is reflected in the much larger share going from the District to Latin America and other Western Hemisphere 36 The area destination of Sixth District exports in 1966 differed significantly from the U.S. pattern. 20 EEC Japan Other EFTA Canada Latin Asia & Africa America* Other** 0 'Includes other Western Hemisphere except Canada. "Includes Communist countries. countries (except C anada). In fact, this area leads as a claimant of District exports, not only in total value, but for many individual groups as well. Proximity of District ports to Mexico, one of the nation’s largest trading partners, and the relative nearness to other parts of the hemisphere have obviously influenced the share of District exports to this area. In contrast, Canada, which commands the num ber one spot as a market for exports from the entire nation, receives less than one percent of District exports. The distance of District states from Canada probably has something to do with this. The shares of District and national exports going to the European Common M arket (E E C ) and the European Free Trade Association (E FT A ) also differ markedly, although the com bined totals for the two groups are nearly equal. The other industrialized areas reveal an addi tional divergence in the two patterns. Factors other than geographic location seem to have played a role here, however. Interaction of Commodity Composition and Geographic Destination The level of development of diverse countries may have a distinct impact on the character of their purchases of District exports. As can be seen from Table II, the total value of export trade with industrialized areas only modestly exceeds that with so-called less developed areas. Yet, the major portion of District manufactured exports flows to less developed areas, while the greatest part of its raw material exports goes to industrialized areas. As a corollary, the propor tion of manufactured exports sold to less de veloped areas far exceeds the proportion of raw materials. Conversely, industrialized areas purM ONTHLY R E V IE W Table II Structure of Sixth District Exports (Percent of Total) Industrialized Areas SIC Code 19-39 20 & 21 22 & 23 25 27 30 & 31 39 Product Group Manufacturing Food & Tobacco Textiles & Apparel Furniture Printing Rubber & Leather Misc. Manuf. T O T A L — Consum er Goods 24 26 28 & 29 32 19, 33-38 Total All Areas 8.2 3.0 .2 * * .1 * 4.0 .9 .1 * * * * 1.8 .5 * * * * * 4.4 1.0 .2 * * * * 18.9 5.4 .5 * * .1 * 24.2 2.8 1.3 .2 .2 .4 .6 4.1 1.3 .1 * * * * 7.5 2.2 * * * * * 35.8 6.3 1.4 .2 .2 .5 .7 54.7 11.7 1.9 .2 .2 .6 .7 * 3.3 1.0 .5 1.2 6.0 5.5 1.5 2.3 9.3 15.3 .2 1.1 .9 * * .2 .9 * * .1 .4 * * .5 2.6 * .4 1.7 6.4 .3 .9 5.1 11.1 .5 .5 Agriculture M ining Unclassified T O T A L — A L L E XPO R TS EEC Total Indust. Areas .5 * * * * * * * Wood * Paper Chem icals & Petroleum .3 * Stone, Clay, & Glass Metal & Metal w orking Ind. .1 T O T A L — Capital Goods 1-09 0-14 Canada Other Indust. EFTA Japan Areas Less Developed Areas Total Asia, Lat. Am. Less Com m. & West. Dev. Areas & Hemis. Africa Areas Others .2 1.8 1.8 .1 .5 3.4 4.7 .2 .3 1.1 3.4 .3 1.0 .8 .2 2.0 4.1 13.6 2.0 2.1 17.7 21.8 4.9 3.0 1.3 3.2 12.9 18.7 2.6 5.2 26.5 39.4 17.5 4.1 1.4 4.6 .6 * 31.0 3.7 * 2.4 .4 .1 2.1 .1 * 5.2 .3 * 9.7 .8 .1 40.7 4.5 .1 10.5 9.6 53.6 27.1 6.3 13.0 46.4 100.0 40.7 4.5 .1 .6 .1 .3 .8 * 25.7 7.2 *Less than .1 percent. chase considerably more raw materials than manufactured goods from the District. Canada and EFTA countries were exceptions. The area distribution of specific groups of man ufactured exports reveals further contrasts. Not only did the less developed areas purchase more of nearly all types of manufactured exports than the industrialized areas, but their purchases of capital goods constituted a larger portion of their total purchases of manufactures than the indus trialized areas. The greatest differences lie in exports of metal and metalworking industries. In this instance, diversity of economic struc tures between industrialized and less developed areas provides a probable explanation for these patterns. Industrialized countries tend to meet a large part of their demand for manufactured goods through internal production, but they im port large amounts of raw materials as inputs for manufacturing. Thus, their purchases are heavily oriented toward District raw material commodi ties. Furthermore, the manufactured goods they buy from the District are completely dominated by paper products and by food, beverage, and tobacco goods—exports with high raw material content. On the other hand, production in less developed areas is heavily oriented toward raw materials, thereby reducing their demand for these commodities from the District. But their lower levels of industrialization limit their ability MARCH 1969 to satisfy domestic demand for many manufac tured goods. Thus, these must be imported. Pro grams to promote industrialization and economic development in many of these areas have stimu lated a high demand for capital goods—the most difficult for them to produce domestically. District and U. S. Compared District and U. S. exports diverge both in overall commodity structure and area trade. Hence the District ex port structure, not unexpectedly, differs from the U. S. export structure vis-a-vis industrialized and less developed areas (see Table I I I ). Whereas District exports are split approximately equally between industrialized and less developed areas, two-thirds of national exports flow to the former areas and only one-third to the latter. Since roughly two-thirds of raw material exports from both the District and the nation flow to indus trialized areas, the variation in area destination of total exports stems primarily from manu factured goods. Not only do U. S. exports of manufactures to industrialized areas more than double such exports to lesser developed areas, but they exceed by a wide margin raw material exports to the industrialized areas. In both cases, the reverse pattern holds for the District. The orientation of District manufactured exports to less developed areas can be narrowed down to the large proportion of capital goods destined to these 37 Table III Commodity Distribution and Area Destination of Sixth District and U. S. Exports (Percent of Total) District Industrialized Less Developed U. S. Total Industrialized Less Developed Total 6.0 9.3 15.3 9.9 5.1 15.0 Capital Goods 12.9 26.5 39.4 40.4 21.6 62.0 Total Manufactured Goods 18.9 35.8 54.7 50.3 26.7 77.0 Agriculture 31.0 9.7 40.7 12.4 5.1 17.5 3.7 * .8 4.5 3.6 .5 4.1 .1 .1 .7 .7 1.4 53.6 46.4 100.0 67.0 33.0 100.0 Consum er Goods Mining Unclassified T O T A L E XP O R TS *Less than .1 percent areas. In turn, the orientation of U. S. manu factured and total exports to industrialized areas also derives from the large proportion of capi tal goods going to industrialized areas. These commodity-area export differences very likely lie in the interaction of distinct demands of industrialized and less developed areas and dissimilar production structures of the District and the nation. Thus, the more industrialized areas require more sophisticated goods and, for industry in particular, goods incorporating very advanced levels of technology. A large quantity of these goods—such as computers, large com mercial aircraft, electronic equipment, and highprecision machinery—-are purchased from the United States—a major world producer of these goods. The relatively limited production of these manufactures in the District reduces its scope for exporting them. Moreover, the industrialized areas tend to meet, through their own domestic production, their demand for the type of manu factured goods the District usually exports. On the other hand, the simpler, consumer- 38 oriented industries most common in less devel oped areas generally don’t require the most tech nologically advanced goods. But, the expansion of such industries does require certain capital goods that these areas usually find uneconomical to produce. Therefore, the District—possessing an industrial structure more advanced than the less developed areas—has a comparative advan tage in furnishing capital goods necessary to these areas. In summary, the examination of the pattern of exports through Sixth District ports in 1966 revealed sharp contrasts with exports from the United States as a whole in both the commodity composition and area destination of exports. Unfortunately, the focus on a single year pre cludes the possibility of determining trends in District exports and thus makes difficult the task of anticipating future export patterns. Further studies along these lines could prove very fruitful. Jo h n E. L e im o n e M O NTHLY R E V IE W 1968: Another Prosperous Year for Georgia Mid-February’s snow and ice brought memories of early 1968, which was launched by the icy breath of old man winter. But the sun soon melted last January’s offering of snow and ice and Geor gia’s economy—off temporarily—soon was up ward bound again. Charting the course of economic activity in Georgia during 1968, we find that some key sec tors started the year hesitantly and gathered mo mentum as the year progressed; others gave a vigorous showing early in the year, but were dragging by year-end. For an overall picture of the year, we can look to personal income, which expanded 10 percent last year—a growth rate better than 1967’s and better than the nation’s. Employment The demand for labor remained strong in Geor gia, and unemployment was extremely low. Non agricultural employment averaged 3 percent high er than in 1967. In terms of number, government jobs (especially on the state and local level), trade, and manufacturing were the biggest gain ers. Nonmanufacturing jobs advanced quickly during the first few months of 1968, tapered off during April and May, and then resumed their climb. Manufacturing jobs were lethargic at first and even dipped slightly through April, but then climbed the rest of the year. Much of the early sluggishness in manufactur ing can be traced to the durable goods sector where problems at automobile assembly plants kept employment down. In February and early MARCH 1969 March, local assembly plants were plagued by supply shortages as a result of labor disputes at their out-of-state suppliers. Then at mid-March, several thousand auto workers walked off their jobs in a dispute over working conditions. In turn, several hundred workers at related body assembly facilities were idled. By May the disputes were settled, and workers had returned to their jobs. Since then, the trend has been strongly up, ex cept for the purely seasonal drop during late summer when auto assembly plants shut down for the annual model changeover. Payrolls started out the year at the lowest level since May 1967, as snow and ice storms prevented many workers from reaching their jobs on time and caused temporary shutdowns in some plants. However, once recovered from January’s wintry blast, the path was upward bound. Not only did jobs increase, but the average workweek length ened 15 minutes, and most workers enjoyed siz able wage increases. Consequently, 1968 manu facturing payrolls averaged 12 percent higher than 1967’s. Construction Residential building provided the strength in Georgia’s construction sector. In fact, increases in the residential sector, in terms of contracting volume, were more than enough to offset a slug gish year in all other types of construction. The total value of contracts awarded for the year were up 5 percent from 1967. Among Georgia’s metropolitan areas, activity 39 Nonmanufacturing employment climbed vigor ously early in the year and more gradually after wards; whereas manufacturing employment had a sluggish start. 1957-59 = 100 Seas. adj. I 1968 Much of this early sluggishness can be attributed to developments in durable goods, especially transportation equipment. Thousands tivity in 1968. And, Georgia’s insured savings and loan associations appeared to be willing lenders. Though net savings inflows were somewhat less than in 1967, mortgage repayments were up, and net acquisitions totaled almost one-third again as great as in 1967. Agriculture What started out to be a promising year for most Georgia crops turned out to be disappointing. Very dry weather late in the growing season caused yields to fall far short of what had been previously anticipated. And, many planted acres were not harvestable. With both yields and har vested acreages below 1967, production plunged. Price rises, where they did occur, were modest and not anywhere near enough to offset the lower production. Georgia’s four principal crops—peanuts, com, tobacco, and cotton—were all plagued by low yields and, with the exception of cotton, lower Diverse trends were evident in Georgia’s con struction and agricultural sectors during 1968. Value of Construction Contracts Percent Change, 1968 from 1967 Unadj. -15 I -10 I -5 I C1 ' 5 I 10 I 15 I Residential All Others Total i 1968 varied. In areas where construction had been booming the year before—Albany, Augusta, and Columbus—construction (again measured by con tract awards) was down. And in areas where con struction had been relatively weak in 1967— Atlanta, Macon, and Savannah—1968 brought an increase in the value of contracts awarded. More specifically, in Atlanta, some very large apartment complexes and a considerable amount of public housing contributed to a surge in resi dential building. In the Savannah, Macon, and Columbus areas, public-owned school and medi cal facilities provided a boost to nonresidential building. Evidently, the increasingly high cost of mort gage funds did not reduce homebuyers’ demands for funds or dampen residential construction ac 40 Farm Cash Receipts Percent Change, 1968 from 1967 -15 I -10 I -5 I ) 5 I 10 I 15 I Crops Livestock & Livestock Products Total* *No change. M ONTHLY R E V IE W production. The jump in cotton production can be attributed to modifications in the Federal cot ton program which resulted in an almost 50-per cent increase in acreages. Still, despite this in crease in harvested acreages and slightly higher average prices, the value of the cotton crop rose only 20 percent because of low yields. Of all Georgia crops, soybeans were the hardest hit by Georgia’s dry weather. Yields dipped to less than two-thirds what they were in 1967. Many acres had to be left standing in the fields and prices were sluggish. As a result, soybean production was cut in half, as was the value of the crop. Higher prices and greater production made 1968 a profitable year for Georgia livestock pro ducers. Red meat, broiler, and egg prices were all strong last year. Only hog prices tended to be somewhat lower than in 1967, but increased sales kept receipts at a high level. With prices and production generally improved, total cash receipts from livestock and livestock product marketings climbed 8 percent. Barely offsetting the cut in crop receipts, total cash receipts from farm mar ketings were unchanged from 1967. Banking To the extent that bank credit growth and de posit inflows accelerated after mid-year, develop ments at Georgia member banks followed the na tional pattern. However, there were also some sharp differences. Throughout the year, time de posit inflows were relatively stronger in Georgia. And, the rise in bank credit (loans and invest ments) was more heavily concentrated in the lending area. Though some Georgia metropolitan areas fared better than others, all enjoyed healthy Georgia outpaced the U.S. in rate of bank credit and loan expansion. Member Banks Dec. ’68 from Dec. '67 Georgia Loans & investments Securities Securities Deposits deposit inflows and made sizable additions to their loan portfolios. For the year as a whole, Georgia member banks outpaced the U. S. in both deposit and bank credit growth. What Lies Ahead? It is really too early to say exactly how Georgia will fare in 1969. Closely tied to the nation’s eco nomic fortunes as Georgia is, the state’s economy will probably behave not too much differently from national activity. Many forecasters expect expansion in the national economy to slow in 1969. If this prediction proves correct, Georgia’s economy may also expand at a slower pace. Sport ing a faster long-run growth rate than the na tion’s, chances are good, though, that in 1969 Georgia will outperform the national economy once again. D orothy F. Arp T h is is on e o f a se r ie s o f a r tic le s in w h ic h eco n o m ic d e v e lo p m e n ts in ea ch o f th e S ix th D is tr ic t s ta te s a re d isc u sse d . B a n k A n n o u n c e m e n ts Cornelia Bank, Cornelia, Georgia, a nonmember bank, and its branch in Demorest, Georgia, began to remit at par on February 1 for checks drawn on them when received from the Federal Reserve Bank. The Merchants & Farmers Bank, Milledgeville, Geor gia, a nonmember bank, also began to remit at par on February 1. On February 19, Bank of Coral Gables, Coral Gables, Florida, a newly organized nonmember bank, opened for business and began to remit at par. Officers are MARCH 1969 Tully F. Dunlap, president; James R. Davant, executive vice president; and Gaylord S. Sayles, assistant vice president. Capital is $300,000; surplus and other capital funds, $285,000. Another newly organized nonmember bank, American Bank of Fort Myers, Fort Myers, Florida, opened on February 25 and began to remit at par. Luis W. Wood son is president and Glenn D. Myers, cashier. Capital is $480,000; surplus and other capital funds, $120,000. 41 Sixth District Statistics Seasonally Adjusted (All data are indexes, 1 9 5 7 -5 9 = IOO, unless indicated otherwise.) Latest M onth One Month A go Two M on th s Ago One Year A go Latest M onth S IX T H D IS T R IC T . . . . . Dec. 65,616 Jan. 231 Dec. 139 Dec. 126 Dec. 171 C r o p s ........................................ L i v e s t o c k .................................... In stalm e nt Credit at B a n k s* (Mil. $) New Lo an s ................................. . Jan. R e paym e nts ............................. . Jan. 284.8 248.3 65,258 230 145 134 164 320.2r 273.4 65,682 229 133 104 161 59,325 205 134 131 145 339.1 292.9 274.0 245.7 144 143 177 137 164 141 141 172 132 158 115 106 P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T N onfarm E m p lo y m e n t t ......................Jan. M an u factu rin g ............................. Jan. Apparel ........................................ Jan. C h e m i c a l s .................................... Jan. Fabricated M e t a l s ......................... Jan. F o o d ............................................... Jan. Lbr., Wood Prod., Furn. & Fix. . . . Jan. P a p e r ............................................Jan. Prim ary M e t a l s ............................. Jan. Textiles ........................................ Jan. Transportation Equipm ent ........... Jan. N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n g f ......................... Jan. C o n s t r u c t i o n .................................Jan. Farm E m p lo y m e n t ............................. Jan. U nem plo ym ent Rate (Percent of W ork F o r c e ) ! .............. Jan. Insured U nem ploym ent (Percent of Cov. E m p . ) .................. Feb. Avg. W eekly Hrs. in M fg. (Hrs.) . . . Jan. C o nstruction C o n t r a c t s * .................. Jan. R e s i d e n t i a l .................................... Jan. A ll O t h e r ........................................ Jan. Electric Power P ro duction** . . . . Dec. Cotton C o n s u m p t i o n * * ......................Dec. Petrol. Prod, in C oastal La. and M iss.**Jan . 126 130 144 144 177 138 164 115 107 126 134 106 126 130 198 145 141 63 197 144 136 62 194 144 130 60 187 141 130 3.2 3.5 3.9 3.7 1.9 41.1 290 268 309 153 1.9 41.5 209 270 157 153 107 242 145 144 177 137 164 116 110 112 100 206 112 112 112 121 135 110 66 2.0 2.1 41.1 226 233 40.4 196 224 173 152 215 265 220 150 101 301 264 299 263 224 189 244 227 193 243 8,146 197 123 296 259 222 266 239 168 163 122 94 168 162 117 95 167 163 116 94 168 155 105 77 Jan. Jan. 2.6 40.8 2.6 42.1 2.8 41.9 3.0 41.5 M em ber B ank L o a n s ......................... Jan. M em ber B an k D e p o s i t s ......................Jan. B an k D e b i t s * * .................................... Jan. 324 250 251 325 257 247 326 246 248 279 216 216 190 242 8,211 192 125 8,209 193 105 7,607 182 113 129 131 128 119 61 129 131 128 124 67 128 130 128 124 64 128 129 127 120 65 3.7 41.4 4.1 42.0 4.5 41.3 4.3 41.3 272 211 223 270 213 227 267 211 219 247 194 205 . Dec. 19,971 303 151 19,834 299 188 19,886 293 162 17,490 264 160 . Dec. P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T . Jan. U nem ploym ent Rate (Percent of Work Force)! . Avg. W eekly Hrs. in M fg. (Hrs.) . Jan. . Jan. F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G GEORGIA IN C O M E Personal Incom e (Mil. $, A nnual R a t e ) * * * ...............Dec. M an u factu rin g P a y r o l l s ......................Jan. Farm C a sh R e c e i p t s ..........................Dec. 12,851 241 147 12,875 241 123 12,904 244 132 11,705 205 152 146 140 149 154 64 145 140 148 147 59 145 139 147 145 48 141 135 144 145 64 2.5 41.0 2.8 41.3 3.4 40.9 3.2 39.6 324 250 266 321 248 268 309 241 269 276 224 237 Personal Incom e (Mil. $, A nnual R a t e ) * * * ...............Dec.9,444 9,399 9,377 M an u factu rin g P a y r o l l s ...................... Jan. 182 186 182 Farm C a sh R e c e i p t s ..........................Dec. 156 170 150 8,679 172 150 P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T Nonfarm E m p l o y m e n t t ...................... Jan. M an u factu rin g ............................. Jan. N o n m a n u f a c t u r in g ..........................Jan. C o n s t r u c t i o n ............................. Jan. Farm E m p lo y m e n t ............................. Jan. U nem ploym ent Rate (Percent of W ork F o r c e ) t .............. Jan. Avg. W eekly Hrs. in M fg. (Hrs.) . . . Jan. F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G M em ber B an k L o a n s ..........................Jan. M em be r B an k D e p o s it s ......................Jan. B an k D e b i t s * * .................................... Jan. N onfarm E m p l o y m e n t t .............. . . M an u factu rin g ...................... . . N o n m a n u f a c t u r in g .................. C o n s t r u c t i o n ...................... Farm E m p lo y m e n t ...................... U nem ploym ent Rate (Percent of Work Force)t . . . . . Avg. W eekly Hrs. in M fg. (Hrs.) . . . Jan. Jan. 134 123 136 150 51 132 122 134 147 51 132 123 134 143 58 132 120 134 156 55 Jan. Jan. 4.9 41.7 5.1 40.9 5.2 40.5 4.4 42.5 247 178 190 249 181 189 242 179 196 235 170 173 5,013 257 133 4,779 254 126 5,135 255 121 4,483 226 113 147 159 142 159 57 146 158 141 151 51 145 157 141 147 52 144 153 139 159 60 3.6 40.8 3.7 41.9 4.8 41.5 4.6 40.3 359 254 242 359 256 231 353 253 251 330 241 217 F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G M em be r B a n k L o a n s * ............... M em ber B a n k D e p o sits* . . . . B an k D e b i t s * / * * ......................... MISSISSIPPI IN C O M E Personal Incom e (Mil. $, A n n u a l R ate )*** . . . . . Dec. M an u factu rin g P a y r o l l s .............. . . Jan. Farm C ash R e c e i p t s .................. . . Dec. P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T M em be r B an k L o a n s ............... M em be r B an k D e po sits . . . B an k D e b its** ...................... F L O R ID A IN C O M E Personal Incom e (Mil. $, Annual Rate)*** . . M an u factu rin g P ayrolls . . . . Farm C ash R e c e i p t s ............... U nem ploym ent Rate (Percent of W ork Force)t . • Avg. W eekly Hrs. in M fg. (Hrs.) P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T 203 181 213 ALABAMA IN C O M E P ersonal Incom e (M il. $, A nnual R ate)*** One Year A go 120 F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G Loan s* All M em ber B a n k s ......................... Jan. Large B a n k s .................................Jan. D e po sits* All M em ber B a n k s ......................... Jan. Large B a n k s .................................Jan. B an k D e b i t s * / * * .................................Jan. Two M o n th s Ago Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. . . . , IN C O M E A N D S P E N D IN G Personal Incom e (Mil. $, Annual Rate)* One M onth Ago P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T N onfarm E m ploym e ntt . . . . 42 163 163 163 157 N onfarm E m p l o y m e n t t ............... . . Jan. M a n u fa ctu rin g ...................... N o n m a n u f a c t u r in g .................. C o n s t r u c t i o n ...................... Farm E m p lo y m e n t ...................... U nem ploym ent Rate (Percent of Work Force)t . . . . . Jan. Ayg. Weekly Hrs. in M fg. (Hrs.) . . . Jan. F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G M em ber B an k L o a n s * ............... M em ber B an k D e p o sits* . . . . B an k D e b i t s * / * * .......................... M O NTHLY R E V IE W Latest M onth One M onth Ago Two M on th s Ago One Year Ago TEN N ESSEE . . Dec. 10,191 227 . . Dec. 111 10,171 221 120 10,160 225 137 9,361 200 104 Two Months A go Ago . Jan. . Jan. . Jan. 138 185 63 136 176 64 136 165 61 69 . Jan. . Jan. 3.0 40.0 3.7 40.9 4.1 40.9 3.9 39.2 M em be r B a n k L o a n s * ..................... . Jan. M em be r B a n k D e p o s i t s * ................... Jan. B an k D e b i t s * / * * ......................... . Jan. 293 281 199 274 288 194 253 260 186 N o n m a n u f a c t u r in g ...................... C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................... Farm E m p lo y m e n t ......................... U nem ploym ent Rate (Percent of W ork Force)* . . . . A verage Weekly H o urs in M fg. (Hrs.) IN C O M E Personal Incom e (M il. $, Ann. R ate )*** . . . . M an u factu rin g P a y r o l l s ............... Farm C a sh R e c e i p t s .................. One M onth A go Latest M onth 135 172 F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T N onfarm E m p lo y m e n t * .............. M an u factu rin g ...................... . . Jan. 143 151 141 151 140 149 *F or Sixth D istrict area only. Other totals for entire six states. Com m erce benchm arks. tPre lim in ary data. r-Revised. 139 149 “ Daily average basis. 189 275 221 ***R e fle c ts revision of current m onthly estim ates to 1967 U.S. Dept of Sources: Personal incom e estim ated by th is Bank; nonfarm , mfg. and nonm fg. em p., mfg. payrolls and hours, and unemp., U.S. Dept, of Labor and co operating state agencies; cotton consum ption, U.S. B ureau of C e nsus; construction contracts, F. W. Do dge Corp.; petrol, prod., U.S. Bureau of M ines; industrial use of elec. power, Fed. Power Com m .; farm cash receipts and farm emp., U.S.D.A, Other indexes b ase d on data collected by th is Bank. All indexes calculated by th is Bank. Debits to Demand Deposit Accounts Insured Commercial Banks in the Sixth District (In Thousands of Dollars) Percent C h a n ge Jan. 1969 Dec. 1968 Jan. 1968 Jan., 1969 from Dec. Jan. 1968 1968 S T A N D A R D M E T R O P O L IT A N S T A T IS T IC A L A R E A S f B irm in gh a m . . G adsden . . . . H u ntsville . . . M obile .............. M ontgom ery . . T uscalo osa . . . Ft. L a u d e r d a le H ollyw ood . . Jacksonville . . M ia m i .............. O rlando . . . . P ensacola . . . T alla h asse e . . . T a m p a — St. Pete. W. P alm Beach A lb an y .............. A tlanta . . . . A u gu sta . . . . C o lu m b u s . . . M aco n .............. Sav a n n a h . . . Baton R o uge . . Lafayette . . . Lake C h a rle s . . New O rleans . . B ilo x i-G u lfp o rt Jackson . . . . Chattano o ga K noxville N ash v ille . 1,915,657 69,095 210,806 600,148 367,563 130,152 1,955,487 72,245r 211,284 563,284 349,973 119,250 l,770,560r 66,500 193,946 571,223 320,277 117,622 -2 -4 -0 +7 +5 +9 +8 +4 +9 +5 + 15 + 11 . . . 1,158,492 1,997,372 3,593,128 743,190 240,740 169,043 2,165,087 668,973 984,890 1,906,911 3,446,050 744,943 235,872 158,022 1,882,774 586,477 930,513 1,690,593 2,996,284 748,594 221,634 151,113 1,752,034 582,167 + 18 +5 +4 -0 +2 +7 +15 + 14 +24 + 18 +20 -1 +9 + 12 +24 +15 113,770 6,456,435 309,357 272,884 312,516 341,512 117,398 6,302,666 323,733 280,097 301,638 355,879 110,297 5,626,301 304,065 243,019 280,259 305,460 -3 +2 -4 -3 +4 -4 +3 +15 +2 +12 +12 +12 665,322 189,446 193,125 2,812,288 643,606r 155,548 174,208 2,686,381 640,229 150,118 179,819 2,627,433 +3 +22 + 11 +5 +4 +26 +7 +7 . . . . . . . . . . . . 132,737 759,490 129,088 776,593 112,722 692,575 +3 -2 + 18 + 10 766,233 600,216 2,443,931 712,181 584,927 2,359,683 662,433 522,004 1,782,033 +8 +3 +4 + 16 + 15 +37 TH ER C E N T E R S Anniston . . . . Dothan . . . . Se lm a .............. 77,813 79,751 51,467 80,062 75,327 53,573 67,836 71,196 45,716 -3 +6 -4 + 15 +12 +13 Bartow . . . . Bradenton . . . Brevard County Daytona B each Ft. M ye rs— N. Ft. M yers 50,921 121,804 286,893 106,974 40,322 89,318 258,295r 99,377 50,260 102,749 270,656 105,782 +26 +36 + 11 +8 + 1 + 19 +6 + 1 145,207 142,853r 113,887 +2 +28 . . . •Includes only banks in the Sixth District portion of the state. MARCH 1969 tPartially estimated Jan. 1968 Percent C h a n ge Jan , 1969 from Dec. Jan. 1968 1968 Jan. 1969 Dec. 1968 G aine sville . . . . .............. Lakeland M onroe County . . O cala .................. St. A u gu stin e . . . St. Petersburg . . . Saraso ta .............. Tam p a .................. W inter Haven . . . 102,692 149,525 47,497 81,615 29,977 492,041 176,762 1,089,859 86,031 110,727 155,848 42,910 81,864 32,338 408,245 154,678 1,004,221 71,432 98,588 154,014 40,517 66,926 24,251 411,638 158,668 911,255 81,796 -7 -4 +11 -0 -7 +21 +14 +9 +20 +4 -3 +17 +22 +24 +20 +11 +20 +5 Athens .............. B runsw ick . . . . Dalton .............. Elberton .............. G aine sville . . . . Griffin .................. LaG range . . . . N e w n a n .................. Rom e .................. Valdo sta .............. 104,144 55,133 125,948 17,155 78,393 39,181 24,876 25,597 88,054 61,332 98,526 57,408 119,075 16,231 80,294 42,176 24,162 28,389 93,907 61,669 92,594 50,141 97,139 14,617 75,285 37,567 22,155 28,114 76,308 62,862 +6 -4 +6 +6 -2 -7 +3 -1 0 -6 -1 +12 +10 +30 +17 +4 +4 +12 -9 +15 -2 A bbeville . . . . Alexandria . . . . B u n k i e .................. H am m ond . . . . New Iberia . . . . Plaq uem ine . . . Thibodaux . . . . 17,817 185,062 8,825 43,277 46,193 15,983 36,398 16,135 178,973 9,537 39,973 42,011 14,219 33,333 14,186 154,467 8,610 38,828 38,828 14,867 31,472 + 10 +3 -7 +8 +10 +12 +9 +26 +20 +2 +11 +19 +8 +16 H a ttiesbu rg . . . . .................. Laurel M eridian .............. Natchez .............. P a sc a g o u la — M o s s Point . . . V i c k s b u r g .............. Yazoo C i t y .............. 71,718 40,305 81,213 47,927 63,153 45,602 81,487 45,840 62,267 37,517 72,613 41,063 +14 -1 2 -0 +5 +15 +7 +12 +17 83,931 48,694 34,670 74,345 43,925 27,690 70,150 44,119 31,326 +13 +11 +25 +20 +10 +11 B ristol .................. Johnson City . . . . K i n g s p o r t .............. 91,008 94,619 186,410 84,499 95,351 179,495 85,146 85,911 163,574 +8 -1 +4 +7 +10 +14 . 40,879,928 38,876,054r 25,743,669 +5 +14 4,899,474 A lab a m a * . . 13,628,151 Florida* . . . 10,103,330 G e orgia* . . . 4,905,958 L o u isia n a ** . . . . . 1,720,909 M is s is s ip p i* * T e nnesse e** . . . 5,622,106 4,785,760r 12,588,657r 9,922,169 4,636,651r 1,603,853 5,338,964 4,504,700 11,710,724 8,971,922 4,485,559 1,543,836 4,526,928 +2 +8 +2 +6 +7 +5 +9 +16 +13 +9 +11 +24 S IX T H D IS T R IC T , Total ^Estimated. r Revised. 43 District Business Conditions Despite some indications that the consumer may be spending less heavily, inflationary pressures con tinue in the District economy. Employment continued to push upward; construction advanced sharply to a new high; and banks increased loans at a brisk pace. Farmers, having just completed a profitable year, concentrated on preparing for the forthcoming season. Sharp increases in construction contract vol ume continued in January, accented by large gains in the nonresidential categories. Higher costs for building materials and shortages of construction labor continue widespread. Nevertheless, strong housing demand, reflecting the lowest vacancy rates in a decade, and large public projects under lie the sustained strength in construction. Bank lending, especially to businesses, ad vanced rapidly in the first three weeks of February. With demand for loans remaining strong and de posit inflows tapering off, large banks have been moderate sellers of U. S. Government securities and have stepped up their borrowing from other commercial banks in the Federal funds market and from the Federal Reserve. In January, nonfarm employment continued to rise at a brisk pace as manufacturing and non manufacturing jobs registered moderately strong gains. While the unemployment rate edged down further, average weekly hours in manufacturing also declined fractionally. Reflecting the rapid pace of new job increases, manufacturing workers’ payrolls registered further sizable gains. The twomonth strike by the longshoremen’s union ended in late February, and dock operations have re portedly resumed at virtually every District port. 44 Instalment lending at banks in January dropped sharply from the previous month. Most of the de cline was concentrated in automobile loans, al though new loans to finance nonauto purchases also dropped. Outstanding instalment credit rose, however, as repayments also declined and re mained below new loan extensions. Personal in come continued to rise at a brisk pace through December 1968. However, District consumers, like their national counterparts, probably received a smaller boost in income in January, partly re flecting the increase in social security taxes. Plans for the new crop year dominate the Dis trict’s agricultural activity. Some early soil prepa rations are taking place in the southern portions of the region, and early season vegetable crops are being planted. Prices for most major crops declined in December, but sharply higher re turns from eggs have helped keep total farm re ceipts up. Preliminary estimates indicate that net income per farm in 1968 was higher in each state except Mississippi. Florida made the largest gain, reflecting very high receipts from citrus. N O TE : Data on w hich statem ents are based have been adjusted w henever possible to elim inate seasonal influences. MONTHLY R E V IE W
@FedFRASER