The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
IN THIS ISSUE:
•Slowdown in Space Programs:
Its Impact on the Southeast
REVIEW
•Growing Financial Resources
in the Southeast
• District Dusiness Conditions
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ATLANTA
MAY 1969
Slowdown in Space Programs:
Its Impact on the Southeast
Nearly a decade of intensive preparation for a
manned lunar flight by the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration ( NASA) provided an
almost magic formula for vitalizing the local
economy of several communities in the South
eastern region of the country. Huntsville, Ala
bama; Cape Kennedy, Florida; and the Bay St.
Louis-Pearlington-Picayune area (Hancock Coun
ty, Mississippi) have all undergone fundamental
changes in their economic structures and have
experienced phenomenal growth in population,
employment, and income from the advent of
large-scale NASA operations. For instance, in
the short period between 1960 and 1965, almost
all key economic indicators doubled in Hunts
ville—once a declining textile town. Her popula
tion grew by as much as 90 percent, the employ
ment level rose about 95 percent, and per capita
income rose faster than Alabama’s. Experiences
of Cape Kennedy and Hancock County, Missis
sippi, during this period matched, if not sur
passed, the Huntsville experience.
M o n t h ly
a n d
R e v ie w , V o l.
a d d it io n a l
R e se a rch
A t la n t a ,
c o p ie s
L I V ,
D e p a rtm e n t,
A t la n t a ,
N o . 5.
a v a ila b le
F e d e ra l
G e o r g ia
58
F re e
u p o n
30303.
s u b s c r ip t io n
re q u e st
R e se rv e
to
B a n k
th e
of
Effects of the NASA operations in New Orleans
were less dramatic; but the opening of the NASA
Michoud Assembly Facility in 1962 provided
enough expansionary stimulus in New Orleans to
reverse the downward employment trend of the
five preceding years. For the Southeastern region
as a whole, the employment build-up by NASA
during the 1962-64 period accounted for about
one-third of the annual net increase in the
region’s total manufacturing employment.
Constraints on the nation’s space spending be
gan to take place in fiscal 1966-67 when NASA’s
space budget was reduced to $5.3 billion from
the previous year’s record budget of $5.9 billion
(on an expenditure basis). Subsequently, the
NASA budget was gradually cut back to $3.8
billion for the 1969-70 fiscal year—about a 30
percent decline from the peak in 1965. A reduc
tion of this magnitude is bound to affect the
economy of the region in general and that of
individual space communities in particular. This
article traces the economic aspect of regional
impacts that resulted from the nation’s relaxed
space exploration programs.
There is little doubt that funding priority for
the Vietnam war has accentuated the magnitude
of the reduction. But, even without the Vietnam
M O NTHLY
R E V IE W
The nation’s NASA space budget expenditures
have declined since 1965-66.
Billion $
region’s total manufacturing employment de
creased to 2.7 percent in 1968 from the peak of
3.1 percent in 1966-67.
The overall economic impact of the reduced
space program so far has been relatively mode
rate for the region as a whole. However, the im
pacts on the individual communities have been
varied in timing and degree. This is because each
space installation carries out a different function,
and because the importance of NASA operations
in each area is unequal.
Direct Employment Effects
Fiscal
1961-62
1962-63
1963 64
1964-65
1965-66
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969 70*
’January budget request.
Source: Bureau of the Budget.
military build-up, some contraction in overall
space programs would have been almost inevita
ble. First, the initial spurt of space expenditures
for construction of plants, buildings, test struc
tures, and procurement of equipment had been
felt by 1965, and the basic design and fabrication
works needed for the Apollo program (manned
lunar flight program) had been nearly completed
by late 1966. Secondly, the budget cutbacks stem,
in large measure, from the absence of positive
long-run goals of the country for space explora
tion after the Apollo program. This was essential
ly a short-run crash program, and the country
has not yet established the national priority for
the post-Apollo programs over other national
goals. Consequently, NASA recently has been
concentrating on the Apollo Applications Pro
gram which is in essence a follow-up on a limited
scale to the manned lunar flight program.
Nationally, the impact of the reduction in
space spending is reflected in a drastic shrinkage
in space employment; the present space industry
employment is estimated to be about 200,000,
about half of that reached during the 1965-66
peak period. On the whole, the Southeast’s total
space employment (i.e., civil service employees
of NASA and private contractor employees) did
not decline as much as that for the nation. The
region’s total space employment reached a peak
of 55,600 in 1965 and was down to 49,700 at the
end of 1968—a 12-percent decline. During the
same period, the region lost only $15 million in
space payroll income. Considering the secon
dary ripple effects of income, the $15-million
decline in space income might have depressed
the region’s total personal income by about $30
to $45 million last year. However, it is significant
to note that the share of space employment in the
MAY
1969
Michoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans. The
Michoud Facility in New Orleans—manufactur
ing site of Saturn rockets—was the first space
installation in the region to feel the pinch of the
nation’s relaxed space efforts. The number of
NASA and private contractor employees was
reduced to 6,200 by the end of 1968 from the
peak of 12,000 in May 1965. While this nearly
50-percent decrease in the working force reflects
a rapid contraction in Michoud activity, an even
more dramatic turn of Michoud operations is
reflected in the drastic reduction in space con
tracts awarded by the Michoud Facility between
1965 and 1966. In 1965, Michoud awarded a
record $352 million to private space contractors
(including construction contractors). In the fol
lowing year, the comparable figure shrank to $173
million, nearly a 50-percent decline in a single
year. This drastic contraction contrasts with a
fractional reduction (about 1.4 percent) that oc
curred in the total NASA space budget during the
same period. This suggests that the decline in
the Michoud Facility’s working force since 1965
reflects not so much a primary impact from the
recent cut in the nation’s space budget, but that
the redirection of the nation’s space efforts seems
to focus upon research and development of postApollo programs rather than the manufacturing
of Saturn rocket boosters.
In terms of the actual number of jobs that
NASA provided in the total nonagricultural labor
force of New Orleans, the Michoud employment
—both civil service and private contractor em
ployees combined—appears relatively insignifi
cant. In May 1965, when peak employment was
reached at Michoud, it accounted for only 3.7
percent of New Orleans’ nonfarm jobs, and last
year the share declined to a mere 1.7 percent.
However, when the growth pattern of New Or
leans’ nonagricultural employment since 1950 is
closely scrutinized, NASA activities at Michoud
emerge as having exerted a rather substantial in
59
fluence on the growth of the New Orleans
economy.
Until NASA reactivated the Michoud Facility
in late 1961, New Orleans’ total nonfarm employ
ment had been growing at a rather slow rate of 1.8
percent per year for the preceding decade. How
ever, in 1963, about one year after the plants were
reopened, the growth rate of New Orleans’ nonfarm employment jumped from 1.2 to 3.7 percent.
When the NASA build-up was at its peak in
1964, the city’s nonfarm employment rose by the
post-World War II record of 8.5 percent. Since
then, as the peak of the Michoud operations has
passed, New Orleans’ nonfarm job increases have
decelerated correspondingly. In 1967, the city
registered only a nominal growth of 1.2 percent
in her nonfarm jobs. Last year the increase
shrank to a mere .9 percent. However, two years’
experience is not long enough to conclude that
the New Orleans economy has relapsed to the
pre-NASA period of economic sluggishness.
There may be various factors other than the
appreciable cut in the Michoud operations since
1965 that have contributed to the concurrent
sluggishness in the New Orleans economy. But
one thing seems to stand out clearly: Unlike
many other communities that hosted the nation’s
major space installations (where private space
contractors have chosen to expand and diversify
locally or the local space activities have attracted
so-called spin-off industries or nonspace indus
tries), NASA operations at Michoud seem to
have given only peripheral effects to the New
Orleans economy.
employees increased from 6,200 to 26,300—a
whopping 330-percent increase. The share of
NASA and space contractor employment to
Brevard County’s total nonfarm jobs increased
from 12 percent in 1963 to 31 percent in 1967.
The share declined to 30 percent last year. Be
tween 1963 and 1967, payrolls rose from $36.7
million to $292.8 million. Even though space em
ployment at Cape Kennedy declined slightly in
1968, payroll income disbursed by the Kennedy
Center increased to $324 million. However, this
payroll increase is the smallest annual increase,
in absolute and relative terms, that the Kennedy
Center has registered since it began operations
in 1962.
Cape Kennedy, Florida. The situation at the Ken
nedy Space Center has been different from the
Michoud experience. Between 1963 and 1967,
the total number of NASA and private contractor
Huntsville, Alabama. The Marshall Space Flight
Center, one of the nation’s key space instal
lations, performs, under the direction of Dr.
Werner von Braun, basic design and develop
Reduction in space employment at Cape Ken
nedy has been very small, largely because of the
unique roles and functions that the Center per
forms in the space program. The Cape is the site
of the final assembly and launching of the rockets
that were manufactured elsewhere. Thus, the
Cape is at the end of the space program “pipe
line,” and is where the nation’s space technology
and efforts culminate. Consequently, the recent
reduction in space spending has not yet affected
the Cape as much as other centers where major
design works are performed or space hardwares
are fabricated, such as Michoud.
Another factor that so far has cushioned a
decline in the work force at the Kennedy Space
Center is rapid job increases in the launch opera
tions. These have more than offset considerable
declines in construction workers since 1965.
Table I
Region’s1 Space Employment
Kennedy Space Center2
Marshall Space Flight Center3
Michoud A ssem bly Facility4
Mississippi Test Facility
Space Total
Share of Total Space Em ploym ent
in the Region’s M anufacturing
E m ploym ent (in percent)
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
6,157
12,500
9,038
n.a.
27,695
11,145
15,500
11,485
2,477
40,607
16,529
16,900
10,644
4,794
48,867
22,583
17,900
9,264
4,410
54,157
26,296
18,500
7,984
2,848
55,628
25,912
14,900
6,166
2,744
49,722
1.9
2.7
3.0
3.1
3.1
2.7
n.a.— Not available.
’ Sixth District States {Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, M ississippi and Tennessee).
in c lu d e s Federal em ployees, aerospace contractor em ployees, construction workers, and A ir Force support.
^Includes Federal em ployees and contractors.
’ Construction contractor personnel not included.
Sources: NASA, U. S. Departm ent of Labor (BLS), and individual state departm ent of labor offices.
60
M O NTHLY
R E V IE W
Table II
Share of Space Employment in Local Nonfarm Employment
(in Percent)
Space
Center
Kennedy
Marshall
Michoud
MTF
Area
Brevard County
H untsville
New Orleans
Hancock County
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
12.0
20.5
3.0
n.a.
17.6
22.3
3.6
70.4
23.7
22.1
3.1
77.7
28.6
22.3
2.6
55.7
31.2
23.8
2.2
35.8
1968
30.1
19.6
1.7
41.8
n.a.— Not available
Sources: NASA, U. S. Departm ent of Labor (BLS), and individual state departm ent of labor offices.
ment of the launch vehicles for the Apollo
project—in addition to some fabrication of so
phisticated space hardwares. The important role
that the Marshall Center plays in the nation’s
space program is amply attested to by the huge
amount of contract awards administered by or
through the Center. When the country’s space
spending reached the plateau in 1965 and 1966,
the Center awarded about $1.6 billion worth
of space contracts annually (on an obligational
authority basis), or about 30 percent of the total
NASA budget during the corresponding period.
Space employment at the Marshall Center
reached its peak in 1967 when combined NASA
and private contractor employees totalled 18,500.
Since December 1967, the Center has lost a total
of approximately 3,600 space engineers, techni
cians, and other supporting workers.
With NASA and Army Missile Command
operations in the area, the Huntsville economy is
heavily dependent upon Federal spending. In
1967, NASA and its contractor employees con
stituted about one-fourth of Huntsville’s non
agricultural employment. In 1968, the share
shrank to one-fifth.
Last year’s reduction in space employment had
mildly depressing effects on the local employ
ment and business situations. Total nonfarm em
ployment declined, unemployment rose, and the
real estate market was especially depressed by
the exodus of space contractors and their em
ployees. It was fortunate for Huntsville to have
the nearby newly established Sentinel Anti-Ballistic Missile Agency and Army Missile Com
mand, which absorbed a part of the workers re
leased by NASA last year. However, the new
jobs at these agencies in many cases were pro
duction-oriented so that Huntsville lost a high
proportion of its top caliber space engineers.
Although the local job market situation has
reportedly improved, the housing market is still
recovering from last year’s depressed level. How
ever, in view of other evidence, such as an in
MAY
1969
crease in public school enrollment last year, the
depressed real estate market seems to reflect not
an excess of overall housing capacity but an ex
cess of certain high-priced houses and apartments.
These are no longer in great demand after the
exodus of the relatively affluent space contractor
employees.
Mississippi Test Facility. Because of the mis
sion that Mississippi Test Facility (M T F )
carries out—static test-firing of launch vehicles—
the site of M TF was deliberately chosen in a
sparsely populated area of Hancock County,
Mississippi, where rockets can be shipped by
waterways. NASA has spent an aggregate amount
of $340 million for acquisition of land, construc
tion of buildings and testing structures, a water
navigation system, and procurement of equip
ment. The construction of the site began in 1963
and was completed in 1966. When construction
activities were at their peak, M TF provided
about 4,800 workers, accounting for about 78
percent of nonagricultural jobs in Hancock
County. The combined NASA and supporting
private contractor employees at the end of 1968
was 2,700, and the share of the space employment
to the county’s total nonagricultural jobs de
clined to about 42 percent.
This decline in employment is undoubtedly
quite dramatic. While it was accentuated by the
recent reduction in space spending, it was large
ly attributable to the completion of initial con
struction works required for the testing facilities,
rather than to the reduced space budget per se.
Whatever the original sources for the slackened
employment, this drastic change in M TF em
ployment in such a short span of time was not
without some adverse economic repercussions to
the areas surrounding the MTF.
While M TF employment was rapidly climbing,
housing and apartment construction mushroomed,
and school facilities, water, and sewer systems
needed to expand. For instance, the first com
61
munity sewerage system ever installed in the
county was installed in a large residential sub
division in Pearlington which was developed dur
ing the period when M TF construction activities
were at their peak. There now reportedly exists
an excess supply of housing in the communities
surrounding the M TF. The local governments in
the area have reportedly incurred a substantial
amount of debt in order to expand their schools
and public utilities to meet the increased demand
arising from the influx of space-related workers.
On the basis of the known NASA program, there
is little doubt that M TF has seen the peak of its
employment.
Secondary Effects
The reduction in space spending is bound to
produce ripple effects that go beyond the initial
cutback in space spending. That is, initial reduc
tion in NASA procurement of goods and services
will decrease overall regional income more than
the original reduction in the expenditures by the
individual NASA installations—unless it is off
set by an increase in other autonomous govern
ment or private spending. The process of the
ripple effects can be explained as follows: Initial
ly, the reduced NASA expenditures are borne
by NASA and its contractors who reduce their
work forces. The individuals laid off from space
works reduce their spending on a variety of goods
and services produced locally, thus creating
downward pressures on the local employment
and income levels. In turn, the affected local
workers spend less, and their reduced spending
will further lower local employment and income.
The results of this process are often called “nega
tive multiplier effects.”
Empirically, it is difficult to measure the
regional effects of this negative income multiplier
for various reasons. First, the complexity of the
nation’s aerospace industry structure makes it
difficult to measure the magnitude of NASA con
tract and subcontract work that shifts from state
to state. NASA contracts awarded to firms in the
Southeast may actually be produced by subcon
tractors in other regions. Conversely, NASA
prime contracts given to firms in other regions
may be done by subcontractors in the Southeast.
In this respect, the best available statistics that
can be used to estimate the effects of reduced
space spending on the local economy seem to be
the subsequent changes in NASA payroll data
(civil service and contractor employee payrolls)
at the individual space centers.
62
Secondly, even if we use the payroll data as
reflecting the primary decline in space income,
secondary effects of the reduced space income on
total regional income are difficult to ascertain.
Either the local trade figures or trade relation
ships between different regions are poor or non
existent. At any rate, with the exception of New
Orleans, which has a broadly diversified economic
base, there may be no significant ripple effects.
The ripple income effects in Huntsville, Cape
Kennedy, and Hancock County, if any, probably
have been confined to minor declines in local
trade and service employment, as these areas
have very narrowly diversified economic bases.
What we do know is that the four space centers
in the region have lost a substantial amount of
payroll income. Huntsville experienced a net loss
in space payrolls of about $40 million in 1968.
Michoud has lost a cumulative total of $53 mil
lion in a four-year period since 1965, and Han
cock County a total of $18 million in the threeyear period since 1966. As of the end of 1968, the
Cape Kennedy payroll was still increasing on
an annual basis. With the exception of 1968, net
gains at the Cape during the last several years
more than offset the net loss of space payrolls at
Michoud and Hancock.
The Southeastern region as a whole experi
enced, for the first time, a net loss of $25.3
million in space payrolls last year. Because of a
broader economic base of the region, it may be
reasonable to assume that this net loss might
have depressed the overall personal income of the
region by 2 to 3 times the original base, or about
$51-$76 million last year. On the surface, this
reduction in total personal income appears rela
tively insignificant. However, it should be pointed
out that the region did benefit from the positive
multiplier effects of the accelerated increase in
space payrolls during the 1962-67 period. A
rough estimate shows that during this same
period the region probably added about $290
million annually to its total income from the net
increase in space payrolls and its income multi
plier effect. Under these circumstances, the loss
of the net space income and its secondary income
last year was undoubtedly considerable.
Prospects
On the basis of NASA’s known post-Apollo
manned flight program (called the Apollo Ap
plications Program ), further reduction in the
Southeast’s space employment seems almost un
avoidable. The President’s January budget re
quest for fiscal 1969-70 shows another $300-milM O NTHLY
R E V IE W
Table III
Space Payrolls and Region’s1 Wages and Salaries
(in Millions of Dollars)
Kennedy Space Center2
Marshall Space Flight Center
Michoud Assem bly Facility
Mississippi Test Facility
Total Space Payrolls
Share of Total Space Payrolls in
Region’s Total Wages and Salaries
(in percent)
Share of Total Space Payrolls in
Region’s M anufacturing Wages and
Salaries (in percent)
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
36.7
134.0
56.9
n.a.
227.6
62.2
187.0
87.3
19.4
355.9
109.2
214.0
96.4
53.3
472.9
207.3
232.0
85.5
55.5
580.3
292.8
248.0
76.8
42.3
659.9
323.9
209.0
68.0
33.7
634.6
.9
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.7
n.a.
3.4
4.9
5.7
6.2
6.6
n.a.
n.a.— Not available.
5Sixth District States (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee),
in c lu d e s on ly Federal em ployees and aerospace contractor em ployees.
Sources: NASA and Office of Business Economics, U. S. Departm ent of Commerce.
lion decrease in NASA’s space budget from the
previous appropriation of $4.1 billion (on an ex
penditure basis). Largely because of this budget
ary restriction, it appears that NASA will have
to continue taking holding action that mainly
concerns development of the so-called flexible
“Core Program” which can be readily expanded
as needed funds become available. At the current
rate of reduction in the NASA space program, a
rough estimate indicates that the Southeast’s
space employment may go down to a 40-42,000level this year from 49,700 of last year, and to a
30-33,000-level by mid-1971. Beyond 1971, bar
ring a drastic Congressional cut in space appro
priation, it is likely that the region’s space jobs
will be stabilized at the level estimated for mid1971.
New Orleans. At Michoud, some of the Saturn
rockets manufactured there have already been
put into mothballs for future use. Informed
sources estimate that Michoud employment may
go down to 3,700 by the end of this year and to
1,700 by mid-1971. It is projected by the same
sources that some modification and refurbishing
will probably be performed on the mothballed
rockets in 1972-73, and employment may go up
to about the 3,000-level during this period.
However, unless NASA decides to procure ad
ditional Saturn rockets or other basic launch
boosters after fiscal 1970-71, NASA operations at
Michoud may have to phase out.
Cape Kennedy. Because Cape Kennedy is the
launching site of the nation’s space program,
activity at the Kennedy Space Center will be
MAY
1969
affected primarily by the number of future space
launchings. NASA officials visualize a gradual
decrease in overall space employment at the
Cape—a decrease due not so much to the reduc
tion in space funding, but to the reduced needs
for space contractor workers as a result of in
creases in their work efficiency. But if, as is
being speculated, the number of launches is going
to be stretched out to two or three a year as com
pared to an average of five a year in recent years,
the Cape also will, in all probability, have to
undergo appreciable reductions in its work force.
Should this happen, the Cape Kennedy area will
probably lose a substantial number of high-paying
jobs that cannot be easily replaced. One factor
that may mitigate the possible reduction of pro
duction workers at the Cape is the Air Force
missile operations at nearby Patrick Air Force
Base. In contrast to the downward trend of
NASA budgets since 1965, aerospace expendi
tures by the Department of Defense have been
gradually accelerating since 1965 ($1.5 billion in
1965 to $2.1 billion in fiscal 1968-69). While it
is not certain whether the Patrick Base operation
will be expanded, the present level of the Base
operations may be sustained for the next several
years.
There is a possibility that a rapid increase in
private employment in the future may absorb
some of the workers who might be laid off by
space contractors (if further reduction in space
contract works occurs). In recent years, there has
been a rather impressive growth in manufacturing
employment in the Cape area. Most of the growth
is attributable to increases in space-related or
“spin-off” industries such as nonspace precision
industries. Major space contractors like Chrysler,
63
General Electric, and McDonnell-Douglas have
established service and manufacturing facilities
in the area either to support the space effort or as
an outgrowth of their active operations in the
Kennedy Space Center. In addition, a number
of nonspace industries also have recently estab
lished production facilities in the area.
Huntsville. The Marshall Space Flight Center
is also slated to experience further slackening
in its work force in the near future. However,
future cutback in space employment and its over
all impact on space-related employment in the
Huntsville area, in all probability, will be gradual
and moderate. The Center is currently deeply
involved in the development and fabrication of
highly sophisticated space hardwares such as the
Orbital Workshop mission and the Apollo Tele
scope Mount mission, which form the nucleus of
NASA’s Apollo Applications Program.
Furthermore, expected increases in the Depart
ment of Defense expenditures on the missile
system, which may increase employment at the
nearby Army Missile Agencies, may give some
cushion against the adverse impacts of the re
duced NASA activities in Huntsville’s area. In
addition, concerted efforts of the local community
have been quite successful in inducing nonspacerelated private industries into the area. Within
the past few years, five large national firms an
nounced their plans of plant locations in Hunts
ville. The five firms, which will eventually create
about 4,200 new jobs, are Automatic Electric
Company, Barber Coleman, PPG Industries,
Dunlop Tire and Rubber, and U. S. CorrugatedFiber Box Company.
Hancock County. Operations at Mississippi
Test Facility will probably undergo a sizable
reduction in the near future as the number of
test-firings needed declines. At present, NASA
officials project a further employment decline to
a 2,100-level by the end of this year. Citizens of
Hancock County, in cooperation with regional
planning bodies, are working hard to create sus
tained economic growth of the area by opening
up new industrial port and harbor facilities.
When highway 1-10, now near completion, con
nects the surrounding communities, the area will
likely get some expansionary impacts if new
plants and industries locate in the area. Should
that happen, the presently underutilized housing,
school, and public utilities will be ready to sup
port future growth of the local economy.
64
The Region. At the regional level, the cutback in
space jobs, if it materializes, will be less painful
than at the individual community level. The se
verity of the future adjustment process that the
affected individual communities may experience
is difficult to predict; many diverse factors are
involved in determining a local economy’s adapt
ability to change.
Conclusion
Recent contractions in the nation’s space pro
gram have already imposed varying degrees of
adverse economic impact on the local economies
of the region’s space centers. Such impacts are
likely to be accentuated in the near future unless
the space program gets reinvigorated soon. Un
derstandably, the local communities where the
space centers are located would welcome a stepup in NASA spending because the vitality of the
space programs affect the economic life of their
communities.
A crucial issue is whether this country should
relax its space exploration at this stage. There
are some who appear to believe that space ex
ploration is a frill when there are pressing needs
for funds to combat the nation’s social and urban
problems. Others, though conscious of the latter
needs, believe that space exploration must con
tinue because preservation of the national secur
ity—and possibly western civilization as well—is
at stake.
Despite its spectacular achievement in space,
the United States has barely begun to tackle the
hostile environment of space and of harnessing
space knowledge for the betterment of mankind.
Whether we should or should not relax our fu
ture space endeavors hinges on the determination
of the national priority of space exploration over
various competing national goals, and this in
volves more than narrow economic considerations.
C. S. P yun
B a n k A n n o u n c e m e n ts
On April 1, two nonmember banks—Ashburn Bank,
Ashburn, Georgia, and Merchants & Citizens Bank,
McRae, Georgia—began to remit at par.
Another nonmember bank, The Citizens Bank of
Ashburn, Ashburn, Georgia, also began to remit at par
on April 7.
MO NTHLY
R E V IE W
Growing Financial Resources
in the Southeast
Rapidly developing regions, such as the South
east, have an almost insatiable demand for credit.
This demand is too large to ever be completely
satisfied, but this is especially true when credit
demands throughout the nation rise as fast as
they have recently. Exactly how well the South
eastern economy is currently being financed by
lending institutions located within the region,
and outside, is unknown. Judging from the ex
panding financial resources of both commercial
banks and savings and loan associations in the
Southeast in early 1969, we are certain, however,
that the total amount of funds provided by the
District’s financial institutions has not shrunk;
although the rate of gain probably has.
In addition to commercial banks and savings
and loan associations, two important lenders are
life insurance companies and credit unions domi
ciled in the District for which 1967 data have
only now become available.1 When added to
those of banks and savings and loans, the total
resources of all four financial institutions between
1962 and 1967 have increased from $35.9 to $59.5
billion. These institutions garner the savings of
individuals and others and make them available
to a variety of borrowers.
Since savings expand as incomes increase ( and
the rate of growth has been faster in the District
than in the United States as a whole), it is not
surprising that the resources of these four types
of institutions have long increased at a faster rate
in the District than in the nation. 1967 was no
exception; the 13-percent rate for that year ex
ceeded the nation’s 10 percent. Additionally,
more than one-fourth of the new financial insti
tutions established in the nation in 1967 were
located in the Sixth District. Commercial banks
—the most important of the four in asset size—
accounted for 70 percent of the District’s asset
growth that year; whereas credit unions—the
most important numerically—accounted for 80
'These figures and those for 1947 and for 1957-1966, are
available on request to the Research Department, Federal
Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
MAY
1969
percent of the total number of new institutions
established. Florida alone was responsible for
more than two-fifths of the increase in assets for
the entire District.
Assets of Selected Financial Institutions
Billion $
—12
Insured Sa vin gs & Loan A ssociations
Domestic Life Insurance Companies
—
1
Ala.
Fla.
mm
Ga.
La.
M iss.
Tenn.
Credit Unions
Million $
1957
1967
201
Alabama
50
Florida
81
351
Georgia
49
2 00
159
Louisiana
49
M ississipp i
11
58
Tennessee
63
554
1—
65
Sixth District Statistics
Seasonally Adjusted
(All data are indexes, 1 9 5 7 -5 9 = IOO, unless indicated otherwise.)
Latest M onth
1969
One
M onth
A go
Two
M on th s
A go
One
Year
Ago
Latest M onth
1969
SIX T H D IS T R IC T
IN C O M E A N D S P E N D IN G
P ersonal Incom e
(Mil. $, Annual R a t e ) ..............
M an u factu rin g P a y r o l l s ..................
Farm C ash R e c e i p t s ......................
C r o p s ........................................
L i v e s t o c k ....................................
Instalm ent Credit at B a n k s* (M il. $)
New Lo an s .................................
Repaym ents
.............................
. Feb. 69,484
239
. Feb.
177
. Feb.
190
. Feb.
172
67,885
238
164
167
169
66,211
233
139
126
171
62,109
221
146
154
152
297
294
296r
278
283
248
259r
258
147
146
174
139
168
116
108
127
134
112
202
147
140
59
147
147
175
140
167
117
109
128
133
112
202
146
143
63
146
146
176
139
167
116
142
141
174
134
157
113
108
126
134
112
198
146
140
63
105
122
135
111
185
142
133
64
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
1.8
41.1
182
207
161
159
106
217
1.9
41.1
249
278
225
154
103
207
1.9
40.9
290
268
309
153
101
206
2.0
41.0
184
222
151
149
109
222
Two
One
M onth M on th s
A go
A go
One
Year
A go
. Mar.
. Mar.
, Mar.
Mar.
169
164
124
83
168
163
125
95
168
163
122
94
166
157
102
83
Mar.
. Mar.
2.6
41.3
2.6
41.4
2.6
40.8
2.9
40.8
, Mar..
Mar.
, Mar.
347
253
251
338
251
257
324
250
251
280
216
213
Personal Incom e
Feb 13,518
(M il. $, A nnual R a t e ) ................... Feb.
249
. Mar.
M an u factu rin g P ayrolls . . . .
166
. Feb.
Farm C a sh R e c e i p t s ..........................Feb
13,153
247
171
12,915
242
147
12,135
218
134
147
140
150
154
52
147
140
150
157
54
146
140
149
154
64
142
134
146
153
56
2.6
41.1
2.6
41.1
2.5
41.1
3.2
40.7
329
250
283
328
249
287
324
250
264
282
224
256
. Feb. 10,161
185
197
Feb.
10,058
185
175
9,487
181
156
9,249
173
161
134
124
137
146
56
134
125
136
151
58
134
123
136
150
51
132
121
133
153
60
5.0
41.6
4.7
41.8
4.7
41.3
4.3
42.5
254
176
192
253
177
188
247
178
190
232
170
182
5,155
262
214
4,948
263
186
5,059
260
133
4,587
242
143
148
158
144
148
159
143
144
153
141
154
52
160
58
147
159
142
159
57
3.7
40.8
3.7
41.2
3.6
40.8
4.1
41.1
373
255
265
375
254
254
359
254
242
332
235
246
C o n s t r u c t i o n ..................
Farm E m p lo y m e n t ..................
U nem plo ym ent Rate
(Percent of W ork Force)t . .
Avg. W eekly Hrs. in M fg. (Hrs.)
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 be r B an k D e p o sits . . . .
B an k D e b i t s * * ..........................
P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T
G E O R G IA
N onfarm E m p lo y m e n t t ..................
M an u factu rin g
..........................
Apparel
....................................
C h e m i c a l s .................................
Fabricated M e t a l s ......................
F o o d ............................................
Lbr., Wood Prod., Furn. & Fix. . . . Mar.
Paper
........................................ . Mar.
Prim ary M e t a l s ......................... . Mar.
Textiles
....................................
Transportation E quipm ent
. . . . Mar.
N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n g t ...................... . Mar.
C o n s t r u c t i o n .............................
Farm E m p lo y m e n t ......................... . Mar.
U nem ploym ent Rate
(Percent of W ork Force)t . . . .
Insured U nem ploym ent
(Percent of Cov. E m p . ) ............... . Mar.
Avg. W eekly Hrs. in M fg. (Hrs.) . . . Mar.
Construction C o n t r a c t s * ...............
R e s i d e n t i a l .................................
All O t h e r ....................................
Electric Power P ro duction**
. . . . Feb.
Cotton C o n s u m p t i o n * * ..................
Petrol. Prod, in Co astal La. and M iss. ** Mar.
313
268
309
267
301
265
268
237
225
189
253
224
191
255
224
189
243
204
178
225
. Mar.
IN C O M E
. Feb.
. Mar.
. Feb.
8,684
203
159
8,462
201
150
8,245
197
123
7,959
188
150
N onfarm E m p l o y m e n t t .................. . Mar.
M an u factu rin g
.......................... . Mar.
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 ......................... . Mar.
U nem ploym ent Rate
. Mar.
(Percent of Work Forcelt . . . .
Avg. W eekly Hrs. in M fg. (Hrs.) . . . Mar.
129
131
129
122
62
130
132
129
124
64
129
131
128
120
61
128
129
127
116
62
3.8
41.6
3.8
41.4
3.6
41.2
4.4
41.4
278
212
231
276
213
233
272
211
223
251
196
216
P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T
F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
M em be r B ank L o a n s ......................
M em ber B an k D e p o s i t s ...............
B an k D e b its**
.............................
IN C O M E
Personal Incom e
(Mil. $, Annual R a t e ) .................. Feb. 20,859
M an u factu rin g P a y r o l l s ......................Mar.
311
Farm C a sh R e c e i p t s ..........................Feb.
188
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 lo y m e n tt ....................Mar.
F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
B ank D ebits*
N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n 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 plo ym ent Rate
(Percent of W ork Force)t . .
Avg. W eekly Hrs. in M fg. (Hrs.)
. Mar.
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 an s*
. . . .
M em be r B a n k D e p o sits*
. . .
M IS S IS S IP P I
IN C O M E
Personal Incom e
. Feb.
P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T
F L O R ID A
66
. Mar,
Mar.
N onfarm E m p l o y m e n t t ......................
. Mar.
M an u factu rin g
.............................
N o n m a n u f a c t u r in g ..........................Mar.
. Mar.
C o n s t r u c t i o n ..................
. Mar.
Farm E m p lo y m e n t ............................. Mar.
U nem ploym ent Rate
. Mar.
(Percent of W ork F o r c e ) t ...............Mar.
. Mar.
Avg. Weekly 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
ALABAMA
Personal Incom e
(Mil. $, Annual R a t e ) ..............
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 ......................
P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T
Personal Incom e
(M il. $, Annual
F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
Loans*
All M em be r B a n k s ......................
Large B a n k s .............................
Deposits*
All M em ber B a n k s ......................
Large B a n k s .............................
B ank D e b i t s * / * * .............................
IN C O M E
165
20,455
312
173
20,275
300
151
18,187
271
163
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 plo ym ent Rate
(Percent of W ork Force)! . .
Avg. W eekly Hrs. in M fg. (Hrs.)
. Mar.
155
64
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 an s*
. . . .
M em be r 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
O ne
M on th
Ago
Late st M o n th
1969
TEN N ESSEE
Tw o
M on th s
Ago
O ne
Year
Ago
. M a r.
144
145
143
138
. M a r.
181
185
178
157
E m p l o y m e n t ............................
. M a r.
61
63
63
63
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
. M a r.
(P e rc e n t o f W o rk F o rc e )t . . . .
A v e r a g e W e e k l y H o u r s in M f g . (H r s .) . M a r.
3.1
3.1
3 .2
3 .4
4 0 .5
4 0 .4
4 0 .6
4 0 .4
Fa rm
.
. Feb.
1 1 ,1 0 7
1 0 ,8 0 9
1 0 ,2 3 0
9 ,9 9 2
.
.M a r.
238
236
235
214
F a r m C a s h R e c e i p t s ....................
.
. Feb.
135
121
111
125
P R O D U C T IO N
AND
F IN A N C E A N D
EM PLOYM ENT
N o n f a r m E m p l o y m e n t t ................
M a n u f a c tu r in g
........................
.
. M a r.
148
149
.
. M a r.
157
158
142
147
156
* F o r S i x t h D i s t r i c t a r e a o n ly . O t h e r t o t a ls f o r e n t ir e s i x s t a t e s .
150
‘ D a ily a v e ra g e
O ne
Year
Ago
C o n s t r u c t i o n ............................
N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n g ........................
IN C O M E
P e r s o n a l In c o m e
( M il. $, A n n u a l R a t e )
. . . .
M a n u f a c t u r i n g P a y r o l l s ................
O ne
Two
M o n th M o n th s
Ago
Ago
L a te st M o n th
1969
B A N K IN G
293
. M a r.
M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s i t s * ................
. M a r.
193
190
189
189
Bank
. M a r.
302
295
275
253
b a s is.
D e b i t s * / * * ............................
t P r e l i m i n a r y d a ta .
293
260
M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s * ....................
300
r-R e v is e d .
S o u r c e s : P e r s o n a l i n c o m e e s t i m a t e d b y t h i s B a n k ; n o n f a r m , m fg . a n d n o n m f g . e m p ., m fg . p a y r o l ls a n d h o u r s , a n d u n e m p ., U .S . D e p t , o f L a b o r a n d c o o p e r a t i n g s t a t e
a g e n c i e s ; c o t t o n c o n s u m p t i o n , U . S . B u r e a u o f C e n s u s ; c o n s t r u c t io n c o n t r a c t s , F. W . D o d g e C o rp .; p e t ro l, p ro d ., U .S . B u r e a u o f M i n e s ; in d u s t r i a l u s e o f e le c . p o w e r,
F e d . P o w e r C o m m . ; f a r m c a s h r e c e ip t s a n d f a r m e m p ., U .S .D .A . O t h e r i n d e x e s b a s e d o n d a t a c o ll e c t e d b y t h i s B a n k . A ll i n d e x e s c a lc u l a t e d b y t h i s B a n k .
D e b it s t o D e m a n d
D e p o s it A c c o u n t s
Insured Commercial Banks in the Sixth District
(In Thousands of Dollars)
P e rce n t C h a n g e
P e rce n t C h a n g e
Feb.
1969
M a r.
1969
M ar.
1968
year
to
d ate
M a r. ’6 9
3 m o s.
fro m
1969
Feb.
M a r. fr o m
1969 1968 1968
M a r.
1969
L a k e la n d
.
.
5 7 ,5 4 1
5 9 ,1 4 3
+ 14
+ 11
H u n t s v ille
.
.
.
1 9 4 ,4 1 7
1 6 8 ,1 8 2
1 7 9 ,6 0 6
+ 16
+
5 4 2 ,1 2 2
5 4 0 ,8 5 4
48 1 ,7 2 6
+
M o b ile
. . . .
. . . .
+
+
5
8
+
5
0
+ 13
+
9
4
+ 15
M o n tgo m e ry
.
.
3 4 8 ,9 5 4
3 6 1 ,6 4 5
3 1 3 ,3 6 4
-
T u s c a lo o s a
.
.
1 1 3 ,0 3 6
1 1 2 ,1 2 9
9 4 ,6 7 7
+
1
+ 11
+20
+ 14
+
.
.
1 ,0 1 8 ,7 2 4
1 , 0 1 7 ,2 4 8
74 7 ,5 6 7
0
+36
+32
.
.
.
1 ,8 5 6 ,8 4 5
1 , 6 4 4 ,4 9 6
1 ,5 5 6 ,4 0 3
+ 13
+ 19
+17
M i a m i ................
.
+ 17
+20
+ 11
+ 6
O r la n d o
. . . .
.
3 , 0 7 7 ,5 4 0
3 ,0 9 7 , 0 6 3
2 ,6 2 3 ,7 8 6
-
.
7 0 3 ,1 5 1
6 6 3 ,0 0 3
5 7 4 ,3 8 7
+
1
6
2 1 6 ,2 3 9
2 0 6 ,3 3 0
1 9 9 ,4 6 1
+
5
1 7 9 ,8 7 5
1 ,6 9 5 ,6 6 9
142 ,3 1 5
-1 5
1 ,5 7 8 ,6 0 6
+
+
P e n sa c o la
.
.
.
.
T a ll a h a s e e
T a m p a — S t.
. . .
P ete.
.
.
152 ,4 2 4
.
.
1 , 8 0 9 ,8 6 0
.
+22
+ 8
7
4
.
.
5 7 2 ,6 6 5
5 9 5 ,8 8 7
48 7 ,5 6 4
A lb a n y
. . . .
.
.
1 0 5 ,4 2 9
9 9 ,7 8 7
9 1 ,4 8 1
A t la n t a
. . . .
.
.
5 ,9 5 6 ,1 8 1
5 ,9 6 8 ,4 1 8
5 , 3 0 4 ,0 0 3
. .
. . . .
C o lu m b u s
. . . . .
. .
M acon
. . . .
Savannah
. . . . .
2 7 6 ,1 5 1
2 7 5 ,8 1 4
27 0 ,4 4 0
30 1 ,7 6 2
6
- 0
+ 2
2 5 7 ,6 1 3
2 8 7 ,4 0 5
29 2 ,8 7 8
223 ,8 1 4
25 8 ,0 9 0
+
-
2 9 7 ,5 7 6
2 9 1 ,7 3 3
2 8 3 ,2 1 4
+
W . P a lm
Beach
.
A u g u sta
+ 7
+ 15
+ 14
+ 17
+ 18
+ 15
+ 10
+ 12
+ 16
- 8
+ 23
-
+ 17
+ 11
+
+
+ 10
+ 13
5
.
.
.
.
6 1 1 ,6 2 4
6 4 5 ,2 0 5
5 5 8 ,2 7 6
-
5
.
.
.
1 5 0 ,6 1 9
140 ,9 9 5
1 3 2 ,8 3 4
+
Lake
C h a rle s
.
.
+
.
.
161 ,7 6 5
2 , 5 2 6 ,0 7 1
1 5 3 ,0 8 9
O r le a n s
.
.
152 ,9 7 6
New
.
.
6
6
2 ,3 5 7 ,9 9 1
2 ,5 1 2 ,2 4 1
+
7
+
.
.
1 2 4 ,2 5 8
1 1 7 ,8 9 2
1 0 6 ,1 2 2
+
5
+ 17
6 9 9 ,9 3 0
692 ,5 6 1
71 4 ,6 2 3
+
1
-
B i lo x i- G u l f p o r t
Jackson
. . . .
4
2
2
.
Rouge
L a fa y e tte
+
6
1
2
9
39 ,7 8 6
-
7 3 ,7 7 6
5 8 ,5 8 6
+ 18
+49
+28
+ 10
+37
+29
2 5 ,9 6 5
2 3 ,6 3 2
1 8 ,9 1 5
.
3 9 3 ,9 6 2
345 ,9 3 2
+
4
+18
+18
S a r a s o t a ....................
142 ,6 2 3
1 4 8 ,2 7 2
1 1 6 ,0 7 6
-
4
+23
+18
Tam pa
W in t e r
....................
H aven
. . .
9 5 9 ,7 2 4
8 9 0 ,0 5 0
8 6 4 ,7 4 4
+
8
8 2 ,5 7 3
6 9 ,9 4 5
9
+ 11
+ 8
+14
7 5 ,3 7 9
-
A th e n s
....................
8 9 ,3 7 5
8 4 ,8 7 2
7 8 ,3 0 8
+
5
+14
B r u n s w i c k ................
4 7 ,2 7 7
4 5 ,1 0 7
4 2 ,0 7 1
+
5
+ 12
1 0 4 ,3 1 1
9 5 ,3 2 9
3
+13
+ 12
+ 11
+21
P e te rsb u rg
D a lt o n
1 5 ,9 5 4
1 4 ,3 1 8
1 4 ,4 2 0
+ 11
+ 11
+14
8 4 ,5 0 5
66,686
6 7 ,3 7 0
+27
+25
+ 12
3 6 ,1 6 9
3 4 ,8 6 8
35 ,2 7 3
+
4
+
3
+
3
L a G ra n g e
................
2 2 ,0 1 9
2 2 ,1 5 3
2 3 ,7 3 8
-
7
+
5
2 3 ,0 0 7
2 2 ,6 3 6
2 5 ,9 2 9
+
1
2
-
....................
8 5 ,5 3 0
7 5 ,5 5 0
7 2 ,6 9 9
+13
+18
+13
V a l d o s t a ....................
6 1 ,7 4 5
5 8 ,9 7 4
5 4 ,6 6 1
+
5
+13
+
A b b e v il le
................
A l e x a n d r i a ................
1 3 ,2 5 8
1 1 ,5 7 0
1 1 ,9 0 3
+15
+ 11
+ 12
16 7 ,1 6 4
6 ,9 7 1
1 5 8 ,5 0 2
13 5 ,1 1 0
6 ,0 8 9
+
+24
....................
B u n k ie
H a m m o n d ................
Ib e r ia
.
.
.
.
3 6 ,7 5 1
3 8 ,6 7 1
4 1 ,9 6 3
3 6 ,3 3 0
P la q u e m in e
.
.
.
New
+17
+20
L a u r e l ........................
M e r i d ia n
................
4 2 ,7 3 0
8 2 ,2 5 4
4 2 ,6 5 8
3 6 ,8 7 3
+
0
+16
+13
+17
4 2 ,8 1 9
6 3 ,3 8 0
3 8 ,5 3 7
+30
N a t c h e z ................
69 ,6 1 5
4 2 ,6 4 6
+18
+ 15
+
0
+ 11
+14
+
P a s c a g o u la —
6 8 ,1 5 0
5 9 ,6 3 2
+
3
+23
+ 18
+ 14
N a s h v ille
.
.
.
.
.
2 , 1 9 3 ,4 0 5
2 ,2 9 6 ,1 9 2
1 , 7 9 4 ,4 9 4
4
+22
+34
.
7 4 ,5 8 7
+
9
+25
3 9 ,2 6 6
3 8 ,9 0 1
4 1 ,0 0 7
+
+21
- 2
3 4 ,2 8 8
3 1 ,7 8 7
2 9 ,6 5 0
+
1
8
4
.
+16
+14
................
97 ,9 9 8
77 ,8 7 0
7 9 ,4 6 3
+26
+23
+ 10
C it y
K in g s p o r t
8
+ 10
+25
+ 18
+
3
+
+
8
+ 9
+ 17
. . . .
7 2 ,0 9 0
7 1 ,3 5 5
6 6 ,7 2 1
................
7 8 ,7 0 9
7 1 ,2 9 1
6 3 ,1 7 7
S e l m a ....................
4 6 ,1 8 5
50 ,3 3 2
4 4 ,7 2 5
1
+ 10
- 8
B arto w
35 ,6 7 4
3 7 ,4 6 5
3 2 ,9 9 6
-
5
90 ,6 5 9
95 ,2 8 4
8 2 ,3 8 9
-
5
+ 10
1
+
2
9
+
3
21 8 ,0 9 4
2 2 2 ,4 3 6
+
1
8 8 ,0 8 2
8 4 ,7 3 6
+
5
+
.
.
1 2 2 ,4 6 9
‘ I n c l u d e s o n l y b a n k s in t h e S i x t h
1 2 8 ,7 8 8
9 9 ,5 4 7
-
D i s t r i c t p o r t io n o f t h e st a t e .
MAY 1969
5
+23
8
+24
t P a r t ia l l y e s t im a t e d .
.
Y azo o
.
J o h n s o n C it y
CENTERS
.
M o s s P o in t
. .
V ic k s b u rg
. . . .
B ris t o l
9 2 ,4 4 6
8
+26
+ 13
2 1 9 ,3 1 7
+
+ 8
+14
7
6
.
+
2
1
+
+ 16
.
-
5
+24
+14
+
5 5 ,7 5 5
+
-
.
5
+ 3
+ 10
6 5 ,2 5 6
6 2 4 ,0 2 0
.
6 ,7 9 2
3 9 ,0 0 3
7 0 ,1 3 6
4 6 4 ,7 5 0
Beach
4 2 ,8 9 4
7
.
6
1
6 6 2 ,1 8 6
C ou n ty
-1 0
H a t t ie s b u r g
+
4 9 6 ,8 3 5
Ft. M y e r s —
N. Ft. M y e r s
-1 1
+ 12
5 2 7 ,4 8 0
D aytona
+
E l b e r t o n ....................
G a i n e s v i l l e ................
+32
7 6 5 ,4 5 0
B re v a rd
107 ,8 7 6
....................
+ 11
+17
.
-
.
+ 6
+27
.
. . . .
.
2 0 ,7 8 1
.
................
.
1 2 ,4 7 6
.
B ra d e n to n
.
2 1 ,7 4 1
.
+
+
3
1 3 ,6 7 4
.
+
-
27 ,5 1 5
.
D otha n
0
+
1 4 ,5 6 2
.
A n n is to n
.
+
.
.
O THER
38 ,8 7 5
8 7 ,2 2 1
.
4
+24
T h i b o d a u x ................
+ 9
+ 17
K n o x v i l le
C h attan oo ga
3 8 ,6 9 8
.
+13
4 0 8 ,0 9 6
New nan
+ 18
+ 14
7
.
Baton
9 4 ,4 2 4
1 2 3 ,1 1 4
A u g u s t in e
St.
F o rt, L a u d e r d a le —
H o l ly w o o d
. .
.
9 8 ,1 6 1
1 3 4 ,4 8 1
+
+
6
8
8
98 ,6 3 6
1 5 2 ,4 5 4
.
St.
J a c k s o n v ille
0
. . . .
M on ro e C ou n ty
+ 10
0
2
1 ,7 3 6 , 1 5 9
.
1 ,7 3 2 ,2 2 5
6 5 ,5 8 3
1 ,7 0 6 ,2 2 2
G ad sd e n
B ir m in g h a m
M a r.
1968
................
G a i n e s v il le
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 t
Feb.
1969
year
to
d ate
M a r . ’6 9
3 m o s.
fro m
1969
Feb.
M a r. f r o m
1969 1968 1968
S IX T H
.
.
.
.
. . . .
D I S T R I C T T o ta l
9 0 ,6 8 8
7 9 ,1 9 2
7 6 ,6 6 3
+15
+18
+ 13
21 3 ,8 9 7
1 7 3 ,5 9 2
1 8 1 ,0 2 1
+23
+ 18
+17
3 6 ,8 8 9 ,6 7 8
3 5 ,8 6 4 ,2 7 6
3 2 ,7 5 6 ,5 5 6
+
3
+ 13
+14
+
4 ,4 5 1 ,9 6 0
4 ,3 7 6 ,2 4 4
4 , 1 5 5 ,6 4 1
+
F l o r i d a ^ ................
1 1 ,9 4 9 , 3 9 2
1 1 ,6 8 3 ,2 3 9
1 0 ,1 8 1 , 2 6 0
+
G e o r g i a } ................
9 ,2 4 5 , 3 1 7
9 ,0 6 8 ,9 6 1
8 ,3 6 6 ,9 7 1
+
2
2
2
L o u isia n a t*
.
.
.
4 ,3 8 2 ,1 6 8
4 ,1 7 4 ,3 6 0
4 ,1 4 9 ,5 0 4
+
5
M is s is s ip p i*
T e n n e sse e f*
.
.
.
.
•
.
1 ,6 0 7 ,2 0 9
1 , 5 3 8 ,2 8 7
1 ,4 9 2 ,0 2 9
+
5 ,2 5 3 , 6 3 2
5 , 0 2 3 ,1 8 5
4 , 4 1 1 ,1 5 1
+
A la b a m a ^
. . . .
^ E s t im a t e d .
-
7
+
9
+17
+18
+13
+
7
4
+ 10
+ 6
+ 8
+
9
5
+19
+23
r -R e v is e d .
67
D is t r ic t B u s in e s s C o n d it io n s
The Sixth District’s economy continues strong. Loans and deposits have expanded further, especially
at smaller banks. Consumer borrowing has also increased despite weaker auto sales in March. Job
growth, meanwhile, has slowed down. Construction contracts and inflows into savings and loan asso
ciations continue ahead of last year. Rising crop prices prevailed in the agricultural sector.
Loan growth continued strong in March, espe
cially outside the District’s major banking centers.
Large banks stepped up their lending in midApril, after reporting a slackened pace in late
March. Total deposits in March and early April
have grown further, though at a reduced rate.
Tennessee banks, having received state legislative
relief on interest rate ceilings, are now offering
rates in line with the rest of the District.
Consumer borrowing moved up again in March
although only slightly. Total consumer loans out
standing advanced moderately; however declin
ing March auto sales led to sluggishness in auto
instalment credit extensions. Consumers contin
ued to repay existing loans at a brisk pace, and
debt on bank and check-credit plans advanced
only fractionally.
Nonfarm job growth decelerated in March From
the previous months because of weakness in man
ufacturing and construction employment. All Dis
trict states, except Florida, experienced varying
degrees of losses in manufacturing employment—
attributed to declines in the chemical, apparel,
food, paper, and lumber, wood, and furniture in
68
dustries. The District unemployment rate edged
up fractionally, while the average manufacturing
workweek remained unchanged.
Construction contracts through March were
still running well ahead of the first three months
of 1968. The strength is concentrated in Florida
and to a lesser extent in Georgia. Through Febru
ary, District savings and loan associations had
experienced considerably stronger savings inflows
than they did a year ago. Florida data for March
suggest that the year-to-year gains are continuing
there, although at a lessened pace.
District farmers began the 1969 crop year on a
relatively strong note. The March index of crop
prices received was well above February levels,
with every major crop item except grapefruit and
tobacco contributing to the increase. M eat prices
rose further in response to continued strong de
mand. Broiler and egg prices declined. Soil
preparations and crop plantings are ahead of
schedule everywhere except Louisiana, where
cold, wet weather has delayed field work.
NOTE:
Data on w h i c h s t a te me nt s are b a s e d h a v e b e e n a d
j u s t e d w h e n e v e r p o s s i b l e to e l i m i n a t e s e a s o n a l influ
ences.
MONTHLY REVIEW
@FedFRASER