The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
In This Issue: R e c e s s io n A N e w B a n k in g D is t r ic t an d R e c o v e ry in th e S o u th e a st: P e r s p e c t iv e N o te : T re a su ry B u s in e s s S e c u r it ie s C o n d it io n s M ONTHLY R E V IE W federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta F e d e ra l R e s e r v e B a n k O f A t la n t a F e d e r a l R e s e r v e S t a t io n A t la n t a , G e o r g ia 3 0 3 0 3 A d d r e s s C o r r e c t io n R e q u e s t e d May BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE P A ID Atlanta, Georgia Permit No. 292 R e c e s s io n in t h e a n d R e c o v e r y S o u t h e a s t : A N ew P ersp ectiv e b y Ja m e s T . F e rg u s Since W o rld W a r II, the keynote of economic growth in the Southeast1 has been its faster-than-national rate (see Chart 1). In periods of decline, the los ses have usually been smaller and have been follow ed by a resumption of more rapid growth (see Table 1). Yet, in the most recent recession (November 1973 to Ap ril 1975) and subsequent recovery, a marked reversal has occurred.2 The Southeast's recession has been sharper and its recovery slower than in the nation as a whole. This article examines trends in nonfarm employment"* to learn w hy the Southeast lost its form er relative im m unity to m ajor economic setbacks and w hy certain Southeastern states have fared better than others. Cyclical Employment Trends in U. S. and Southeast Various industries typically show differing degrees of sensitivity to economic cycles. In durable goods such as automobiles, production and em ploym ent are usually volatile. Products can be held in inventory for long periods before being sold; once sold, they can be used for an indefinite period. Nondurable goods such as food maintain comparatively stable production and em ploym ent levels. Nondurables are in relatively steady demand and are more practical to produce as they are needed. In seeking an explanation for the change in Southeastern em ploym ent patterns, it is useful to compare differences in composition of U. S. and District em ploy ment (see Table 2).4 The District has a relatively small manufacturing l The Southeast here refers to those states e n tirely or partially w ithin the Sixth Federal Reserve D istrict—■ Alabam a, Florida, G eorgia, Louisiana, M ississippi, and Ten nessee. “For a general discussion of Southeastern eco n o m ic d evelopm ents during 1975, see "T h e Southeast's E co no m ic R eview and O u tlo o k : A Slow Road to R eco v ery," this R ev ie w , January-February 1976. :iFarm jobs make up a varying proportion of total em ploym ent in Southeastern states (ranging from about 4 percent in Florida to 16 percent in M ississippi during 1973). The data and trends discussed in this analysis relate only to nonagricultural em ploym ent. J For a discussion of industrial com position analysis, see W alter Isard, ed ., M ethods of R egional A n alysis: An Introduction to Regional S cien ce, C am bridge, M assachusetts: The M .I.T . Press, 1960, C hapter 6. Monthly Review, Vol. LXI, No. 4. Free subscription and additional copies available upon request to the Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Material herein may be reprinted or abstracted provided this Review, the Bank, and the author are credited. Please provide this Bank's Research Department with a copy of any publication in which such material is reprinted. M A Y 1976, M O N T H LY R E V IE W CHART I TA B LE 1 N o n a g r ic u lt u r a l E m p lo y m e n t , 1 9 4 6 - 1 9 7 5 C H A N G E IN T O T A L N O N A G R IC U L T U R A L W A G E A N D S A L A R Y E M P L O Y M E N T IN P O S T W A R R E C E S S IO N S A N D R E C O V E R IE S 1 - (P ercen t Change at Annual Rate) 30 0 R e c e s sio n s 2 Period - 200 - 100 ’4 6 ’50 '5 4 ’58 '62 '66 ’7 0 ’7 4 Sixth D istrict Sta te s U nited S tates - 3 .4 - 0 .7 - 0 .4 - 1 .1 + 0.8 - 3 .2 - 1 .3 - 5 .5 - 3 .1 - 5 .3 - 2 .4 - 1 .2 - 1 .4 - 3 .2 1 1 /4 8 -1 0 /4 9 07/53 - 08/54 0 7 /5 7 -0 4 /5 8 0 5 / 6 0 -0 2 /6 1 1 1 /6 9 -1 1 /7 0 1 1 /7 3 -0 4 /7 5 Average ii R e co v e rie s3 Period Sixth D istrict States U nited Sta te s + 3.0 + 6.7 + 7.8 + 3.3 + 3.6 + 1.7 + 4.4 + 7.7 + 4.4 + 3.3 + 2.8 + 0.8 + 2.6 + 3.6 10/49 - 06/50 0 8 /5 4 -0 4 /5 5 04/58 - 12/58 02/61 -10 /6 1 11 /7 0 -0 7 /7 1 04/75 - 12/75 Average sector; w ithin manufacturing, there is a smaller percentage in durable goods. In addition, the District has a higher proportion of jobs in non manufacturing other than construction. These comparisons w ith the United States im ply greater em ploym ent stability. O n ly the larger share of cyclically sensitive construction jobs makes the District more prone to job fluctuations.5 Although Southeastern em ploym ent may vary more now because of long-term industrial development, em ploym ent composition remains favorable to greater stability than in the U. S. and does not account for the recent reversal in cyclical behavior. To determine what sectors contributed to the District's lag, we compared the District w ith the U. S., using index numbers (November 1973 = 100) for em ploym ent in industries and industry groups (see Chart 2).6 Total nonagricultural em ploym ent reveals the region's lagging performance. These jobs rose iN .B .E .R . reference cycle dates, except for the most recent recession and recovery for w hich turning points have not yet been fo rm ally announced. -Peak to trough. 'Trough plus 7 m onths. TA B LE 2 E M P L O Y M E N T B Y IN D U S T R Y AS A PERCEN TAG E November 1973 In du stry FE D for ER AFRASER L R ESER V E BANK O F A TLA N TA Digitized Sixth D istrict Sta te s 100.0 100.0 74.0 76.4 Construction 5.2 7.3 Transp ortation, Com m unication, and P u b lic U tilitie s 6.0 6.2 Nonm anufacturing Em ploym ent Services and “N ovem ber 1973 is the point from w hich the recent recession is usually dated. The em ploym ent data used for com puting state in dices are seasonally adjusted m onthly estim ates of nonagricultural em ploym ent prepared by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta from data obtained from Departm ents of Labor in individual states. National data are those published by the U. S. Departm ent of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. United Sta te s Total N onagricultural Em ploym ent Fin an ce, Insu ran ce, and Real Estate ’ Construction shares the characteristics w h ich produce relatively large dem and and output variations in durable goods industries. OF TO TA L N O N A G R IC U L T U R A L E M P L O Y M E N T M iscellaneous 5.3 5.2 17.1 15.9 Total Governm ent 17.8 18.1 W holesale and R etail Trade 21.7 22.7 M anufacturing Em ploym ent 26.1 23.6 Durable Goods 15.5 10.7 Nondurable Goods 10.6 12.9 55 C H A R T II N o n a g r ic u lt u r a l E m p lo y m e n t : T o t a l a n d I M a jo r C o m p o n e n ts Nov. 1973 = 100 N onagricultural u. s. 100 District - 90 - 100 - 90 Non m anufacturing - 105 U- D istrict A/ | I - 95 /V I C onstruction - 100 _ / - 90 \ U. S. D istrict \ - 80 ' 1 1973 1974 1975 /V 1976 more rapidly than in the nation during 1973 and then in 1974 began a relative decline which continued throughout 1975. M anufacturing em ploym ent provides no reconciliation of the dif ferences. These indices almost coincided until the spring of 1975; thereafter, manufacturing actually recovered more rapidly for the District. Thus, the region is favored in two respects. Because manufacturing comprises a smaller percentage of total District employment, the equal percentage decline affected total jobs in the Southeast less; and during the recovery in manufacturing, job growth has been more rapid. 56 Extending the search to nonmanufacturing, we locate differences which help account for the Southeast's relative weakness. Like total em ploy ment, total nonmanufacturing jobs in the District rose more rapidly in 1973 and then dropped faster and recovered more slow ly in 1974 and most of 1975. Some relative gain occurred in early 1976. Probing more deeply into nonmanufacturing, con struction stands out as the prim ary weakness. Although construction has suffered severely in many parts of the nation, the drop has been even more precipitous in the Southeast, down almost 25 percent in 21 months. The impact of this decline has been magnified because construction makes up more of the region's total employment. In addition, the decline here has been more protracted and the recovery marginal. O th er District nonmanufacturing also weakened, although not as much as construction. Finance, insurance, and real estate; services; and wholesale and retail trade— businesses which serve prim arily local market areas— declined more than nationally.7 Evidence from individual states links greater losses in construction w ith larger declines in other nonmanufacturing. There fore, it appears that, for the District as a whole, the severity of the construction decline undermined those nonmanufacturing sectors which ordinarily serve as sources of em ploym ent stability and growth. Finally, it seems reasonable to expect changes in construction activity, both national and regional, to have a noticeable impact on construction-related manufacturing industries (e.g., electrical appliances; furniture; textiles, including carpets; lum ber; and stone, clay, and glass). Since em ploym ent in the Southeast is more concentrated in several of these industries, should not a greater impact be felt here? Examination reveals only lim ited differences. Lumber, wood, furniture, and fixtures follow ed about the same pattern nationally and regionally, but the greater regional concentration heightened the impact in this region. Stone, clay, and glass jobs were equally represented in the Southeast and the nation, but such em ploym ent was slightly weaker in the District. However, textile jobs followed a stronger-than-national trend which ’ W here tourist patronage is significant, the trade and services market areas rem ain local in character but are in flu en ced by regional or national eco n o m ic trends affecting the volu m e of tour ist traffic entering the local m arket. M A Y 1976, M O N T H L Y R EV IEW TA B LE 3 TOTAL N O N FA R M EM PLO YM EN T Novem ber 1973 = 100 Em ploym ent Peak* Area Em ploym ent Troughi D ecline from P eak Feb ruary 1976 In cre ase from Trough Sixth D istrict States 100.6 96.4 - 4 .2 98.9 + 2.5 Alabam a 101.9 97.5 - 4 .4 102.9 + 5.4 Florida 101.3 93.7 - 7 .6 94.8 + 1.1 Georgia 100.2 93.9 - 6 .3 96.9 + 3.0 + 3.6 Lo u isia n a 102.0 99.2 - 2 .8 102.8 M ississip p i 101.6 96.5 - 5 .1 100.2 + 3.7 T e n n e sse e 102.5 98.0 - 4 .5 102.2 + 4.2 ’ Tim ing varies. was magnified by their much greater regional con centration. Thus, despite offsetting differences, some evidence of a greater impact on the Southeast was found in construction-related industries.8 C y c lic a l E m p lo y m e n t T r e n d s W it h in S o u th e a s te rn S ta te s Individual District states also felt a reversal of previous cyclical behavior patterns. Since the Second W o rld W ar, jobs had grown in District states as follows: Florida, 5.8 percent; Georgia, 3.3 percent; Mississippi, 3.3 percent; Tennessee, 3.1 percent; Louisiana, 2.8 percent; and Alabama, 2.6 percent.9 But the states w ith more rapid long term growth have suffered larger losses and have recovered more slowly (see Table 3). Differences in job mix significantly influenced comparative em ploym ent trends between states, as they did regionally and nationally. The relatively slight decline and moderate recovery in Louisiana's em ploym ent are consistent w ith its stable structural characteristics (see Table 3 and Chart 3). Relatively large declines and recoveries in Alabama, Missis- "The absence of greater em ploym ent changes in Southeastern construction-related industries may result from the breadth of som e industry classification s (e.g., the carpet industry is contained w ithin the m ore general textiles category). More sp ecific categories might clearly reveal such effects. "Com pounded annual rates of growth, 1946-1974. FE Dfor ER AFRASER L R ESER V E BANK O F A TLAN TA Digitized sippi, and Tennessee also correspond to these states' em ploym ent makeup. However, marked declines in Georgia and Florida are clearly at odds w ith the behavior expected solely on the basis of com positional factors. Probing job behavior w ithin particular industries is again necessary to explain the divergence from previously well-established trends. A la b a m a : S u r p r is in g S tre n g th Alabama's em ploym ent losses have disappeared as the economy has strengthened, despite the apparent obstacle of a high proportion of manu facturing jobs (see Chart 3). The state's limited decline in construction, unusual strength in relatively stable nonmanufacturing, and vigorous growth w ithin some manufacturing industries led to this rapid resurgence. These influences moderated the drop in Alabama's nonfarm jobs and then helped push them above their previous peak (see Chart 4). Manufacturing jobs have consistently re mained above the District average and as of February 1976 have moved back toward their form er peak. Following a sharp drop, nondurables jobs have rapidly recovered; durables have im proved more slowly. W hat are manufacturing's strengths and weak nesses? Machinery industry em ploym ent in Ala bama has been stronger than in other District states and has almost regained its peak. Textiles also performed well, w ith a brief decline and more 57 C H A R T III Differences in Employment Composition Affect Cyclical Stability in Sixth District States* V o latility of Em ploym ent In c re a se s With . . . % - 30 the share of manufacturing employment, _ _ - 60 I! the proportion of manufacturing employment in durable goods industries, the percentage of employees in construction and declines in the share of nonmanufacturing employment, excluding construction. - 50 - 40 - 30 1 J - 10 _ a I Ala. - 70 - 60 - 50 Fla. Ga. La. Miss. Tenn. ‘Composition as of November 1973. -------------District Average rapid recovery than in other Southeastern states. However, by February 1976, the ground lost during the downturn had not yet been fully recaptured. Apparel, the second largest nondurable sector, bettered the District average in resisting job losses and in its climb toward its prerecession level. Jobs in the cyclically sensitive lumber, wood, furniture, and fixtures group have paralleled the District decline. They remain 9 percent below prerecession levels both in Alabama and the District, as of February 1976. A prolonged decline in p ri mary metals, which continued through late 1975 despite previous upturns in other District states, reduced em ploym ent by 18 percent, the most in the region. In general, em ploym ent variability in the more important manufacturing industries coin 5 8 for FRASER Digitized cides closely w ith expectations based on em ploy ment composition, except for machinery manu facturing's notable strength. Construction has also significantly shaped state em ploym ent (see Chart 5). Construction jobs fell off throughout 1974 and the first half of 1975 but were free from the fits and starts experienced in both Louisiana and Tennessee. M oreover, losses of 8 percent were moderate compared to Mississippi, Georgia, and Florida. Subsequent increases have almost restored the prerecession level by early 1976. Strength in other nonmanufacturing is the final element in Alabama's em ploym ent stability. Trade and finance, insurance, and real estate show virtually unbroken uptrends; government and services jobs have also contributed strength. Transportation, communication, and public utilities fell behind the District but later regained strength. These gains helped total nonmanufacturing remain stable and then increase in the face of construction losses. Strength in nonmanufacturing offset weaknesses in manufacturing and moved total em ploym ent above its previous peak. Louisiana: A Double-Dip Recession Based on em ploym ent composition, Louisiana should enjoy great stability (see Chart 3). Con firm ing this, Louisiana has lost relatively fewer jobs than any other District state and has regained its previous peak in total em ploym ent (see Chart 4). However, one unique feature appears in Louisiana. Its em ploym ent had not one, but two separate troughs— it had a “ double-dip" recession. The bedrock underlying the state's em ploym ent stability is the three-quarters of total em ploym ent in nonmanufacturing industries other than con struction. Alm ost all of these stable sectors show two distinct periods of decline which contribute to the corresponding pattern in total employment. Despite the double decline, jobs in finance, insurance, and real estate and in wholesale and retail trade have recovered w ith greater strength than in other District states; however, the recovery of service jobs has lagged. Governm ent em ploy ment has grown continuously, w hile transportation, communication, and public utilities jobs have been stronger than in any other Southeastern state. The net result in nonmanufacturing has been steady, robust gains among the best in the Southeast. In construction, jobs have been fairly level since the spring of 1973, w ith offsetting erratic movements (see Chart 5). Losses have been lim ited and temporary. Interestingly, the sporadic declines were again concentrated in tw o periods, contrib uting to the double-downturn pattern. In early 1976, jobs stood near their peak, a stronger showing than M A Y 1976, M O N T H LY R EV IEW in other District states. Thus, construction has not been an albatross to the Pelican State. W ith in manufacturing, the double-trough pat tern is repeated, particularly in durable goods. Nondurable goods jobs, except chemicals, dropped slowly and gradually but rebounded in early 1976. Total manufacturing jobs declined later and much less than in other Southeastern states. Trans portation equipm ent and lumber, wood, furniture, and fixtures showed relative strength. Chemicals closely paralleled the District pattern. Sustained declines in food and paper products have weakened the state relative to the District. C H A R T IV Sixth District Total Nonagricultural Employment Nov. 1973=100 In summary, Louisiana's double-dip decline was lim ited and total em ploym ent has recovered completely. The state benefited from stability in the dominant segment of its economy, non manufacturing other than construction, which offset lim ited declines in the more volatile construction and manufacturing sectors. Tennessee: Losses Offset by Gains Tennessee's em ploym ent structure, w ith manu facturing jobs more heavily weighted than in any other District state, seems conducive to w ider swings (see Chart 3). Yet this state has resisted decline and recovered extensively because gains in other sectors offset manufacturing losses (see Chart 4). Tennessee's manufacturing sector eroded and recovered almost in tandem w ith the District. Important industries such as chemicals; machinery; and lumber, wood, furniture, and fixtures suffered larger job losses than in other District states. Apparel, the largest nondurable sector, paralleled the District. Total manufacturing jobs, as a result of offsetting strength, nearly equaled the District average. A loss of 6 percent in manufacturing remained in early 1976, up from the 12-percent deficit in mid-1975. Construction has been stronger in Tennessee than in other Southeastern states and accounted for only a small proportion of job losses. As in Louisiana, em ploym ent shows two troughs separated by several months of recovery (see Chart 5). The intervening increase lim ited the construction decline's impact and also helped counteract the weakness in manufacturing. Then, as construction turned down again in early 1975, these losses were absorbed by gains in other nonmanufacturing industries and then by upturns in manufacturing. Thus, gains and losses in construction were well-timed to serve as a buffer for changes in manufacturing employment. Tennessee's experience is unique in this respect; in early 1976, construction employment, as in Louisiana and Alabama, remained only slightly below the prerecession level. FE D ER A LFRASER R ESER V E BANK O F A TLAN TA Digitized for 197 3 1974 1975 1976 N o te: S h a d e d a r e a r e p r e s e n t s U .S . r e c e s s io n 59 Tennessee's total nonmanufacturing em ploym ent has shown the greatest strength of any District state. Besides a lim ited decline in construction, growth in other nonmanufacturing fields, including government, services, and trade, paralleled or slightly exceeded District increases. The state's rapidly increasing tourist business strengthened services and trade. Thus, losses expected from the large manufactur ing component were realized but have been offset by tim ely changes in construction and by stable or increasing em ploym ent in several other non manufacturing businesses. The decline in total em ploym ent has been marginal, and peak job levels have nearly been restored. growth in other nonmanufacturing. Services, w ho le sale and retail trade, and finance, insurance, and real estate led the District; jobs dropped only briefly and by February 1976 had exceeded their previous peaks. Transportation, communication, and public utilities declined slightly but o ut performed the District, w hile government em ployment has grown steadily. As a result, the losses in construction and manufacturing have been largely offset, bringing total em ploym ent w ithin 1 percent of its previous peak. The outstanding feature of Mississippi's em ploym ent has been the stabilizing role played by nonmanufacturing, cushioning and offsetting losses in more volatile sectors. Georgia: Too M uch M ortar, Too M any Bricks Mississippi: Rapidly Receding Flood of Unem ploym ent In Mississippi, job losses exceeded the District average, but a rapid recovery has raised em ploy ment above the November 1973 level (see Chart 4). The state's job mix includes two factors which foster instability— a high percentage of manufactur ing and, w ithin manufacturing, a larger-thanaverage durable goods sector (see Chart 3). W ith in manufacturing, machinery and lumber, wood, furniture, and fixtures lost more jobs than in-any other District state except Tennessee. Apparel em ploym ent remained above average until 1975 but then weakened. Transportation equipm ent was the key sector showing consistent strength. U nlike other states, Mississippi's job losses in auto parts and m obile home manufacturing were offset by large gains in shipbuilding. These gains in transportation equipment, aided by relative strength in paper and food products, helped off set some of the weaknesses in other types of manufacturing. Although manufacturing jobs dropped slightly more than the District average, they have improved as much in Mississippi as in any other District state, though still slightly below the prerecession mark in February 1976. Construction jobs fell 32 percent from peak to trough (see Chart 5). This deep decline was concentrated in a comparatively brief period, since the downturn came later than in any other District state. Despite gains in late 1975, a 16-percent deficit from the peak— 9 percent below the prerecession level— existed in February 1976. These sharp losses partly reflect a cut in homebuilding. However, the decline came after em ploym ent downturns in m ajor Mississippi industries, suggesting that cutbacks in business construction of plants and other facilities were a key element. Fortunately, manufacturing and construction losses were ameliorated by vigorous, well-sustained 6 0 for FRASER Digitized Georgia has felt the recession's effects much more keenly than the states already surveyed, despite structural characteristics ordinarily conducive to stability (see Chart 3). Total em ploym ent dropped more than 6 percent, of which a 3-percent deficit remained in February 1976 (see Chart 4). Georgia's problems revolve about construc tion. Jobs dropped 25 percent and have recovered by only 3 percent in early 1976 (see Chart 5). There have been significant problems in other areas too. Manufacturing is weaker than in any other District state, having fallen by 14 percent at the trough and having restored only about half of these jobs by early 1976. Apparel was weaker than anywhere in the District, w ith losses of 20 percent more recently pared to 6 percent. In textiles, Georgia also lagged, w ith jobs down 17 percent; half had been restored as of February 1976. Losses in the carpet industry, highly con centrated in Georgia and deeply affected by the construction decline, played a m ajor role. In turn, the severity of the construction and manufacturing declines seems to have weakened nonmanufacturing sectors which in other states provided stable or increasing em ploym ent. This erosion indicates the unusually severe effects of the recession on the state's economy. Although government and services jobs continued to expand, significant losses occurred in wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and transportation, communication, and public utilities. Instability in these sectors compounded losses in cyclically sensitive construction and manufacturing, producing the large decline in Georgia's total employment. Some of these areas recovered slowly and others continued to decline, impeding the recovery in nonmanufacturing. This, in turn, has caused total em ploym ent to rebound more slowly than in most other Southeastern states. M A Y 1976, M O N T H LY R EV IEW CH ART V Indices of Construction Employment in Sixth District Nov. 1973=100 110 100 90 110 100 90 80 70 and remained severely depressed in early 1976. In sharp contrast, nondurable goods led the entire District. The moderate decline has been completely eradicated by the subsequent recovery. Food products and apparel, which provided support for employment, recovered their peak levels. Nonmanufacturing only partially offset the slide in construction and manufacturing. As in Georgia, losses of jobs and purchasing power in cyclical industries adversely affected major nonmanufactur ing sectors other than construction. Retail trade and services have also suffered from declines in tourism in certain areas. Real estate and finance have been hurt by the problems affecting construction. W ith o u t job stability and growth in nonmanufacturing, the full impact of declines in construction and manufacturing was felt. These are the prim ary factors responsible for the precip itous decline and tardy recovery in Florida employment. Conclusions and Implications for Future Grow th in Employment 60 I 1973 I 1974 I 1975 1976 Job composition during the most recent recession and recovery exerted its expected influence. Manufacturing, particularly durable goods, contributed to em ploym ent variability. Construction shared this attribute. Nonmanufacturing other than construction afforded em ploym ent stability. As in Georgia, construction suffered the worst problems, w ith an ongoing decline am ount ing to 45 percent in February 1976 (see Chart 5). An excessive inventory of homes and condom in iums as w ell as commercial, warehouse, and office space is at the core of Florida's construction prob lem, as in other states. The inventory remains so large that it threatens to curtail jobs for months to come, leading some construction workers to seek em ploym ent in other states. Deviations from these normal cyclical patterns were found where area economies were subjected to severe shock. For Florida, Georgia, and Missis sippi, this took the form of drastic drops in con struction activity and jobs. These losses, in turn, undermined em ploym ent in norm ally stable nonmanufacturing sectors. Furthermore, declines in construction adversely affected em ploym ent in construction-related manufacturing such as lumber, furniture, and carpets, concentrated in Southeastern states. Thus, the reversals of relative strength w ithin District states, as w ell as between the Southeast and the nation, are traceable in large part to construction. W h y was construction in particular Southeastern states so much more seriously affected than in other parts of the District and nation? The principal weakness lay in overbuilt real estate inventories in certain rapidly growing areas. Particularly in Florida and Georgia, the depth of the declines resulted from excessive speculative construction, combined w ith slowing real estate demand related to the energy crisis and the effects of the recent recession. Manufacturing losses have compounded the declines in construction. The sector has follow ed about the same course of decline and slow recovery as in the District as a whole. Durable goods have dropped more than in any other District state Based on the previous description and analysis of trends, what is the most likely course for em ploym ent in the Southeast? A normal cyclical expansion process is w ell under way in most sectors of the District economy, except for con Florida: Hard Freeze Hits Construction Florida's em ploym ent experience has been similar to Georgia's. The state's job decline was the deepest in the Southeast, w ith a loss of over 7 percent at the trough. Recovery has only recently begun (see Chart 4). The only compositional clue to such instability is the unusually high proportion of construction jobs— 10 percent of the total. The impact of an above-average proportion of durable goods jobs is blunted by manufacturing's low percentage of total em ploym ent (see Chart 3). FE D for ER AFRASER L R ESER V E BANK O F ATLA N TA Digitized 61 struction where there have been only lim ited gains. These divergent trends should continue in the short run. Time w ill be required to absorb the large inventory of structures concentrated in some areas of the region. This process is likely to restrain construction activity in these areas for the near term. Yet, in the long run, one should expect the Southeast to return to its previous pattern of economic growth relative to the nation. The ad vantages of location and operating costs which have been conducive to economic growth here remain unchanged. Barring a recurrence of shocks such as the energy crisis, previous migration patterns of businesses and individuals should reassert them selves. Expanding demand should eventually absorb the current oversupply of structures. Tem per ed by increased restraint on the part of lenders and investors, construction activity should then return to normal throughout the region, and the Southeast's traditional pattern of growth, at least in its m ajor outlines, should reemerge. ■ March 12, 1976 SECOND N A T IO N A L BANK OF LAKELAND Lakeland, Florida O p e n e d for b usin ess as a m em b er. Officers: Rodger B ank A n n o u n c e m e n ts P. Doyle, president and chief executive officer; Harold J. Webre, Jr., senior vice president and cashier; Mary D. Barrett, assistant cashier. Capital, $400,000; surplus and other funds, $600,000. April 1, 1976 THE FIRST N A T IO N A L BANK OF HARALSON C O U N TY Buchanan, Georgia March 12, 1976 FIRST STATE BANK OF PENSACOLA C o n v erte d to a natio nal bank from H aralso n C o u n ty Bank. Pensacola, Florida O p e n e d for b usin ess as a m em b er. Officers: Jack April 1, 1976 L. Fiveash, chairman; R. Pierre Brown, president; C. David Walker, executive vice president and cashier; Richard D. Youd, vice president. Capital, $500,000; surplus and other funds, $500,000. W H ITE C O U N TY BANK 62 for FRASER Digitized Sparta, T e n n e sse e O pened for business as a par-remitting nonmember. M A Y 1976, M O N T H LY R EV IEW FE D ER R ESER V E BANK O F ATLA N TA Digitized forA LFRASER 63 B A N K IN G S T A T IS T IC S B IL $ D E P O S IT S * * 4 0 - - T o ta l >— ------ 36 N et D em and rs — - - 14 24 A/ A/ T im e - - /V S a v in g s - 3 /V I I 11 I I I I I I I 1974 1 9 76 D I S T R I C T B A N I I I I II I I I I I 1976 *Fig ures are for the last W ednesday of each month **D aily average fig ures LATEST MONTH PLOTTED: FEBRUARY S I X T H l l i I I I I I I i i 1975 K I N G N D T E S T reasury S ecu rities E x p an d R apidly u. December 1974 ($ million) DISTRICT ............................ . 2701 ALABAMA ....................... Anniston-Gadsden Birm ingham . . . . % Change December Dec. 1975 from 1975 ($ million) Dec. 1974 4525 403 20 175 19 78 72 562 26 268 27 91 101 FLORIDA ....................... . Ja ck so n ville . . . . Miami ............................ O r la n d o ............................ P ensacola ....................... Tam pa-St. Petersburg . 986 80 551 94 33 227 1979 159 999 276 59 486 G E O R G I A ....................... A t l a n t a ............................ A u g u s t a ............................ C o lu m b u s ....................... Macon ............................ 243 169 15 29 11 398 303 25 26 11 Montgomery . . . . . . . . S. GOVERNMENT SECURITIES (Sixth District Member Banks) + 67 + + + + + + 39 30 53 42 17 40 + 101 + 99 + 81 + 194 + 79 + 114 + + + - 64 79 67 10 0 December 1974 ($ million) Savannah . . South Georgia % Change December Dec. 1975 1975 from ($ million) Dec. 1974 . . . . . . . 21 11 28 19 + 33 + 73 . . . . 572 828 + 45 . . . . . . . 52 104 97 160 + 87 + 54 . . . . . . . . 53 364 76 503 + 43 + 38 M ISSISSIPPI* . . . . Jackso n . . . . . . . HattiesburgLaurel-M eridian . . Natchez . . . . . . . 161 80 234 115 + 45 + 44 63 13 85 20 + 35 + 54 T EN N ES SEE* Chattanooga Kn oxville . N ashville . Tri-C ities . 336 44 92 211 20 524 98 143 299 25 + 56 + 123 + 55 + 42 + 25 LOUISIANA* . . AlexandriaSt. C harles Baton Rouge . Lafayette-lberia -Houma . . New Orleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOTE: Figures shown are for trade and banking areas, w hich include several counties surrounding Boundaries of some areas include counties in two states. Some data are partly estim ated. *R epresents that portion of the state in the Sixth D istrict. 6 4 for FRASER Digitized cen tral j citie s. M A Y 1976, M O N T H L Y R EV IEW Commercial banks acquired an almost unprece dented amount of U. S. Governm ent securities in 1975, reversing a trend of reductions which started in the late 1960's. From December 1968 to Decem ber 1974, U. S. member banks reduced total holdings of Treasury securities by 19 percent; District mem ber bank holdings fell 21 percent. In contrast, d ur ing 1975 District member banks' holdings of U. S. Governm ent securities grew three times as fast as they had fallen, up $1.8 billion, or 67 percent. District banks' percentage of investments in these securities declined notably more than did the nation's as a whole from 1968-1974 and increased more rapidly in 1975. Several factors account for this recent acquisition of U. S. Governm ent securities. First, District banks have experienced a large inflow of time and savings deposits in 1975; these deposits are interest-bearing. To generate income during slack loan demand, banks purchased U. S. Governm ent securities to add earning assets until loan demand increased. Banks also moved strongly into Treasury securities because of much low er profits, which reduced the advantage of municipal bonds. W ith large loan write-offs cutting into net income, the tax-free ad vantage of municipals is not as significant as when profits are high. Another factor has been the general drop in de mand for all types of loans. The decline in business activity in general, especially in the business loan sector, led banks to purchase U. S. Government securities w ith funds norm ally used in lending. Finally, banks appear to have been more quality conscious and to have sought to reduce risk in portfolios. W ith loan demand sluggish and loan losses unusually large, many banks have avoided any but the highest quality investments, Treasury securities. A ll of this happened in 1975 as banks restructured portfolios toward more liquidity. At the same time, the U. S. Governm ent had to finance a massive deficit. Bank investments in Treasury obligations de veloped an interesting pattern in 1975. This pattern, that of investing in short- and medium-term obliga tions, is evident in all types of Treasury securities. For example, District member banks' investments in Treasury bills (all of which have m aturity dates of one year or less) increased over $575 m illion in 1975 and now total more than three times the December 1974 holdings. Bills w ith maturities of three months or less rose the most rapidly, from $91 m illion at the end of 1974 to $409 m illion a year later. The remainder of the growth in bills came in maturities between three to six months, up $138 m illio n ; in bills maturing in six to nine months, up $61 m illio n ; and in maturities between nine months and one year, which increased $60 m illion. The trend continues when analyzing longermaturity Treasury notes (one to seven years), where banks obtain a higher return balanced against less FE D ER L R ESER V E BANK O F A TLAN TA Digitized forA FRASER U .S . G o v e rn m e n t S e c u r it ie s * Bil. $ ‘ Sixth District member banks 1 9 7 5 liquidity. Notes maturing in one to three years rose over $1.3 billion, up 79 percent in 1975. Fourto five-year m aturity notes fell just over $235 m illion, a 42-percent decline. U. S. Government bonds w ith maturities of less than five years grew slightly more than 3 percent over 1974. However, bonds w ith maturities between five and 25 years grew less than V 2 of 1 percent during 1975. By holding short-term obligations, banks have maintained a liquid portfolio w hile foregoing the higher rates offered on the longer-term securities. Since banks expect to obtain a higher return on loans, funds invested in short-term Government obligations w ill be available for lending rather quickly should loan demand increase. By selling or allowing securities to run off at maturity, banks have available funds for loans. Among Sixth District states, Florida had the sharpest increase in Government securities, and, in fact, these banks more than doubled their holdings from December 1974 to December 1975. In par ticular, banks in the O rlando and Tampa-St. Peters burg areas added large amounts of securities relative to other areas in the state. Orlando also had the sharpest relative decline in loans, w hile Tampa-St. Petersburg had the largest dollar increase in deposits. In other District states where 1975 loans increased or deposit inflows were somewhat smaller than Florida's, banks bought proportionately fewer Treasury securities. U. S. Government securities are "in style" again at District banks for several reasons. W h ile banks wait for an increase in loan demand and continue to experience large time-deposit inflows, Treasury obligations are an im portant source of income. As banks begin making more loans, the boom in Governments should taper off. R ic h a r d H e n d r i x 65 S ix t h D is t r ic t S t a t is t ic s S e a s o n a lly A d ju s t e d (A ll d a ta a re in d e x e s , u n le s s in d ic a te d o th e r w is e .) L a t e s t M onth O ne M onth Ago Tw o M o nths Ago One Year Ago SIXTH DISTRICT U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te (P e rc e n t of W o rk F o rc e )* * * . . . . Feb. A verag e W e e k ly H o u rs in M fg. (H rs .) . F e b . IN C O M E A N D S P E N D IN G M a n u fa c tu rin g I n c o m e ......................................F e b . F a rm C a sh R e c e i p t s ............................................J a n . C ro p s ........................................................................... J a n . L iv e s to c k ...............................................................J a n . In s ta lm e n t C re d it at B a n k s * / 1 (M il. $) New L o a n s ...............................................................J a n . R e p a y m e n t s ...............................................................J a n . 139.1 2 19 .5 2 8 8 .4 189 .5 137.3 1 95 .4 2 1 2 .3 223.1 134.2 186 .9 2 12 .6 124 .4 117.5 2 54 .3 3 5 4 .4 194.4 651 8 94 726 748 651 7 18 627 718 132.3 113 .4 113.9 106.7 106.3 116.8 109.9 125.1 109.2 112.7 130 .9 112.4 113.0 103.6 106.6 114.8 108.0 125.3 109.5 131.4 109.5 108 .4 104.2 9 7.0 106.4 108.0 126.3 108.7 110.9 9 6.2 118.2 106 .7 123.0 152.1 E M P L O Y M E N T AND P R O D U C T IO N N o n farm E m p l o y m e n t ......................................Feb. M a n u fa c tu rin g .................................................. Feb . N o n d u rab le G o o d s ......................................Feb. F o o d .....................................................................Feb . T e x tile s .........................................................Feb. A p p arel ........................................................ Feb. P a p e r ...............................................................Feb . P rin tin g and P u b lis h in g . . . Feb. C h e m i c a l s .................................................. Feb. D u ra b le G o o d s ............................................Feb . L b r ., W oods P ro d s ., F u rn . & F ix . Feb. S to n e, C la y , and G la s s . . . . Feb . P rim a ry M e t a l s ......................................Feb . F a b rica te d M e t a l s ............................... F e b . M a c h i n e r y .................................................. Fe b . T ra n sp o rta tio n E q u ip m e n t . . Feb . N o n m a n u f a c t u r in g ............................................Feb . C o n s tru c tio n ............................................ Feb . T ra n s p o rta tio n ......................................Feb . T r a d e ...............................................................Feb . F in ., in s ., and re a l e st. . . . Feb. S e r v i c e s ........................................................ Feb . F e d e ra l G o v e r n m e n t ......................... Feb . S ta te and Lo c a l G o v e rn m e n t . Feb . F a rm E m p l o y m e n t .................................................. M ar. U n e m p lo ym e n t R ate (P e rc e n t of W ork F o r c e ) ......................... Feb . In su re d U n e m p lo ym e n t (P e rc e n t of C ov. E m p . ) ................................Feb . A ve rag e W eek ly H o u rs in M fg. (H rs .) . Feb . C o n s tru c tio n C o n t r a c t s * ................................Feb . R e s i d e n t i a l ...............................................................Feb . A ll O t h e r .....................................................................Feb . Cotton C o n s u m p t i o n * * ......................................Nov. Pe tro le u m P r o d u c t i o n * * * ............................... Feb . M a n u fa c tu rin g P r o d u c t i o n ......................... Ja n . N o n d u ra b le G o o d s ............................................ Ja n . Food ...............................................................Ja n . T e x tile s ....................................................... Ja n . A p p are l .........................................................Ja n . Paper ............................................................. Ja n . P rin tin g and P u b lis h in g . . . Ja n . C h e m ic a ls .................................................. Ja n . D u ra b le G o o d s .................................................. Ja n . Lu m b e r and W o o d ............................... Ja n . F u rn itu r e an d F ix t u r e s . . . . Ja n . S to n e , C la y , an d G la s s . . . Ja n . P rim a ry M e t a l s ......................................Ja n . F a b ric a te d M e t a l s ................................Ja n . N o n e le c tric a l M a ch in e ry . . . Ja n . E le c tr ic a l M a c h in e ry . . . . Ja n . T ra n sp o rta tio n E q u ip m e n t . . Ja n . 1 32 .4 113.9 114.1 105 .4 107.3 116.2 109.8 124.8 1 09 .4 113.7 102.5 116.3 103.3 122.3 151.1 108.1 138 .9 122.6 123.6 136.7 150.3 157.1 107.2 146.3 96.3 101.8 116.8 102.2 121.2 149.1 107.9 139.0 125.5 123.5 136.1 150.5 157.5 108.1 146.7 9 5 .9 9.1 3 .9 4 1.2 181 166 196 73.1 8 7.3 148.5 151.1 135.1 151.6 140.6 142 .4 131.1 160.3 144.6 148.8 138.6 139.0 102 .4 113.3 154.3 2 29 .9 142.6 4 .2 41.1 163 137 189 7 4.2 8 7 .4 r 147.4 1 49 .9 134.0 146.8 134 .4 144.6 132.1 160.6 143 .4 145.7 138.8 141.3 102 .9 113 .4 150.5 2 27 .3 139 .8 111.6 100.2 115.1 101 .4 122.7 148.1 106.1 137.5 123.4 101.1 133.6 151.1 157.8 107.2 144.7 95.1 139.1 141.0 124.6 136.1 151.6 155 .4 105 .3 142.0 94.1 9.5 8 .9 121.6 4.5 4 0.8 148 130 166 7 3.4 8 9 .Or 147.5 149.0 133.7 145.0 133.0 144.2 130.2 160 .8 144.7 146.0 140 .4 147.0 102.2 114.5 147.0 2 31 .3 141.1 5.9 39.0 162 117 205 64.2 9 6 .3 r 142.6 144 .4 135 .0 137.0 125.1 135.5 127.9 156.7 139.7 120.2 1 21 .4 144 .8 105.2 116.1 156.7 2 32 .4 128.1 F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G L o a n s* A ll M em b er B a n k s ......................................Feb . La rg e B a n k s .........................................................Feb . D e p o sits* All M em b er B a n k s ......................................Feb. La rg e B a n k s .........................................................Feb . B a n k D e b its * /* * .................................................. Feb . 267 223 268 2 24 r 272 229r 278 2 39 228 192 335 225 191 3 15 r 202 229 324 217 188 287 142.2 2 38 .8 136.5 162.9 121.3 3 00 .0 124.2 122.7 112.3 127.5 140.0 128.5 109.5 124.9 134.1 113.6 ALABAMA 6 6 for FRASER Digitized One Year Ago 8.6 8 .0 4 2.2 38.9 F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G M em b er B a n k L o a n s ............................................ F e b . M em b er B a n k D e p o s i t s ......................................F e b . B a n k D e b i t s * * .........................................................F e b . INCOME Manufacturing In c o m e........................Feb. Farm Cash R eceipts............................Jan. EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Em ploym ent........................Feb. Manufacturing ................................Feb. Nonmanufacturing............................Feb. C onstruction................................Feb. Farm Employment................................Feb. Unemployment Rate (Percent of Work Force)*** . . . . Feb. Average Weekly Hours in Mfg. (Hrs.) . Feb. FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank Loans............................Feb. Member Bank D e p o s it s ....................Feb. Bank D e b its* * ....................................Feb. 267 277 235 321 278 231 302 275 235 304 212 132.8 219.5 131.2 195.2 131.2 228.5 122.7 229.4 148.1 120.5 153.4 124.9 84.4 148.3 119.8 153.8 128.8 69.9 146.8 119.0 152.1 130.3 72.1 151.4 119.9 157.4 170.9 80.8 11.9 40.2 12.1 39.9 12.5 40.5 10.2 39.2 286 251 349 285 247 321r 288 252 345 308 241 295 132.9 214.4 130.9 207.6 127.9 288.7 106.0 243.6 127.6 106.6 137.3 118.6 106.9 127.6 106.6 137.3 119.0 107.7 126.5 105.3 136.1 117.8 104.4 125.9 98.3 138.5 132.8 104.0 8.7 41.4 8.9 41.2 9.3 40.8 10.1 38.5 243 193 390 248 189 377 250 196 383 256 190 325 154.8 191.3 153.8 162.8 150.4 217.6 129.6 345.9 121.8 108.1 124.6 106.8 92.2 121.5 107.0 124.5 110.0 93.0 119.6 104.4 122.8 102.2 88.9 120.8 108.4 123.3 107.6 102.5 6.8 41.3 7.6 42.0 8.2 42.4 7.4 40.3 243 215 283 244 214 263r 265 215 266 253 201 253 145.1 293.2 143.4 233.8 139.4 73.3 120.3 329.3 130.1 127.9 131.2 128.2 93.8 131.4 128.1 132.8 127.5 92.9 130.6 128.2 131.7 124.3 93.0 131.6 135.3 280 GEORGIA INCOME Manufacturing Incom e........................Feb. Farm Cash R eceipts............................Jan. EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................Feb. Manufacturing ................................Feb. Nonmanufacturing...........................Feb. C onstruction................................Feb. Farm Employment ............................Mar. Unemployment Rate (Percent of Work Force)*** . . . . Feb. Average Weekly Hours in Mfg. (Hrs.) . Feb. FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank Loans............................Feb. Member Bank D e p o s it s ....................Feb. Bank D eb its* * ....................................Feb. LOUISIANA INCOME Manufacturing Incom e........................Feb. Farm Cash R eceipts............................Jan. EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................Feb. Manufacturing ................................Feb. Nonmanufacturing...........................Feb. C onstruction................................Feb. Farm Employment ............................Mar. Unemployment Rate (Percent of Work Force)*** . . . . Feb. Average Weekly Hours in Mfg. (Hrs.) . Feb. FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s* ........................Feb. Member Bank D eposits*....................Feb. Bank Debits*/** ................................Feb. IN C O M E 143.9 269.2 EM P LO YM EN T N o n farm E m p l o y m e n t ......................................Feb . M a n u fa c tu rin g .................................................. Feb . N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ......................................Feb. C o n s t r u c t i o n .................................................. Feb . F a rm E m p lo y m e n t ..................................................M ar. One Two Month Months Ago Ago MISSISSIPPI IN C O M E M a n u fa c tu rin g I n c o m e ......................................Feb . F a rm C a sh R e c e i p t s ............................................Ja n . Latest Month M a n u fa c tu rin g I n c o m e ...................................... Feb . Fa rm C a sh R e c e i p t s ............................................ J a n . E M P LO YM EN T 124.9 113.7 130.0 137.1 125.7 112.8 129.3 137.3 125.7 120.1 N o n fa rm E m p l o y m e n t ......................................Fe b . M a n u fa c tu rin g .................................................. Feb . N o n m a n u f a c t u r in g ...........................................Fe b . C o n s t r u c t i o n .................................................. Fe b . F a rm E m p lo y m e n t ............................................ M ar. 128.4 121.2 86.2 M A Y 1976, M O N T H LY R EV IEW One Two Month Months Ago Ago Latest Month Unemployment Rate (Percent of Work Force)*** . . . Average Weekly Hours in Mfg. (Hrs.) One Year Ago Latest Month One Two Month Months Ago Ago One Year Ago EMPLOYMENT Feb. Feb. FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s* ........................Feb. Member Bank D ep osits*....................Feb. Bank Debits*/** ................................Feb. 267 234 316 264 229 296 270 235 270 Nonfarm Employment........................Feb. Manufacturing ................................Feb. Nonmanufacturing...........................Feb. C onstruction................................Feb. Farm Employment ............................Mar. Unemployment Rate (Percent of Work F o r c e )................Feb. Average Weekly Hours in Mfg. (Hrs.) . Feb. 263 215 237 130.0 114.1 138.8 130.6 97.0 129.7 113.1 138.9 137.6 137.1 131.9 '.00.2 126.8 109.8 136.3 145.0 89.8 7.4 7.3 7.9 7.3 280 229 289 279 228 274 276 228 271 287 219 260 128.2 112.2 100.2 TENNESSEE Manufacturing Incom e........................Feb. Farm Cash R eceipts............................Jan. 137.3 198.6 135.0 191.7 131.8 153.2 *For Sixth District area only; other totals for entire six states ***Seasonaily adjusted data supplied by state agencies. 115.5 184.4 FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s* ........................Feb. Member Bank D ep osits*....................Feb. Bank Debits*/** ................................Feb. ‘Daily average basis fPreliminary data r-Revised N.A. Not available All indexes: 1967=100, except mfg. income, 1972 = 100. Sources: Manufacturing production estimated by this Bank; nonfarm. mfg. and nonmfg. emp., mfg. income and hours, and unemp., U.S. Dept, of Labor and cooperating state agencies; cotton consumption, U.S. Bureau of Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Div., McGraw-Hill Information Systems Co.; pet. prod., U.S. Bureau of Mines; farm cash receipts and farm emp., U.S.D.A. Other indexes based on data collected by this Bank. All indexes calculated by this Bank. ‘Data have been bench marked and new trading day factors and seasonal factors computed using December 31, 1974 and June 30, 1975 Report of Condition data as bases. D e b it s to D e m a n d D e p o s it A c c o u n t s In s u re d C o m m e r c i a l B a n k s in t h e S i x t h D is t r ic t (In T h o u s a n d s o f D o lla r s ) Feb. 1976 Jan. 1976 Feb. 1975 Percent Change Year to Feb. date 1976 2 mos. from 1976 Jan. Feb. from 1976 1975 1975 STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS1 Birmingham . . Gadsden . . Huntsville . . Montgomery . . Tuscaloosa Bartow-LakelandWinter Haven Daytona Beach . Ft. LauderdaleHollywood Ft. Myers Gainesville Jacksonville MelbourneTitusville-Cocoa Miami Orlando . Pensacola Sarasota Tallahassee Tampa-St. Pete W. Palm Beach Albany Atlanta Augusta Columbus Macon Savannah Dothan Selma 4,980,847 107,018 430,342 1,421,639 1,012,636 256,037 5.400,838 118,560 464,036 1,496,584 1,023,006 306,501 4,645,431 92,610 382,379 1,290,407 700,792 244,068 908,361 437,293 1,034,053 515,013 2,419,579 415,594 249,400 5,501,811 2,935,742 488,894 291,724 5,179,748 1,845,823 402,505 256,353 4,432,766 440,963 7,409,153 1,867,682 616,639 561,790 1.176,918 4,469,008 1,190,915 454,147 8,692,128 1,947,911 787,306 517,625 845,373 5,034,925 1,375,450 405,176 6,818,037 1,479,553 491,078 543,409 789,750 3.843,059 1,202,516 183,115 21,083,459 521,860 460,502 747,381 1,198,441 215,640 22,188,005 600,924 534,407 891,720 1,235,532 177,289 17,650,539 606,983 430,472 719,872r 874,776 - 8 -1 0 - 7 - 5 - 1 -1 6 842,364 -1 2 407,587 -15 -18 -1 5 -15 + 6 - 4 -2 2 + 9 + 39 -11 + 7 + 16 + 13 + 10 + 44 + 5 + 6 + 12 + 11 + 3 +40 + 8 + 8 +7 + 7 +5 + 31 + 3 -3 + 24 + 35 + 1 - 6 +14 + 9 + 9 + 26 +22 +26 +35 + 3 -13 +49 + 23 +16 + 11 - 4 13 L4 L6 3 + 3 + 19 -1 4 +7 +4 +37 15 +10 - 2 +13 -10 +10 Alexandria Baton Rouge Lafayette . . Lake Charles New Orleans 295,612 1,956,761 397,073 291,539 5,635,268 347,433 2,063,153 475,133 357,502 6,199,011r Biloxi-Gulfport . . . Jackson ................ 303,360 2,035,372 304,604 2,112,972 263,634 - 0 1,671,621 - 4 +15 +22 +11 +13 Chattanooga . . . . K n o x v ille................ N a sh v ille ................ 1,149,005 1,551,321 4,433,854 1,239,601 1,549,641 4,774,011 1,181,349 - 7 1,478,845 + 0 4,001,183 - 7 - 3 + 5 +11 - 7 - 4 + 5 OTHER CENTERS Anniston ................ 127,304 137,266 114,109 - 7 +12 + 9 'Conforms to SMSA definitions as of December 31, -District portion only. FE D ER R ESER V E BANK O F ATLA N TA Digitized forA LFRASER 269,735 1,867,714 354,263 301,082 5,005,252 5+ 5 16 +12 1 8 - 3 9 +13 + 9 - 1 + 11 +6 +10 ................ ................ Bradenton . . . Monroe County O c a la ................ St. Augustine St. Petersburg . Tampa . . . . Feb. 1976 Jan. 1976 209,256 92,931 223,925 98,751 208,415 95,445 224,521 38,986 . 1,028,951 . 2,391,114 246,150r 102,460 230,758 43,426r 1,178,877 2,640,987 Feb. 1975 Percent Change Year to Feb. date 1976 2 mos. from 1976 Jan. Feb. from 1976 1975 1975 +25 +29 + 19 +21 202,926 123,950 204,966 34,570 886,883 1,921,394 -15 + 3 - 7 -23 - 3 + 10 -11 + 13 -13 + 16 - 9 +24 + 1 —23 + 10 + 9 + 16 + 19 167,775 72,044 - 7 - 6 175,977 123,562 175,022 29,193 175,526 73,802 56,572 47,442 262,394 112,122 198,777 149,964 193,148 31,719 204,716 83,880 46,821 51,410 275,861 120,843 136,496 122,678 149,585 22,376 147,080 70,399 37,913 41,240 137,084 95,203 -11 +29 -1 8 + 1 - 9 + 17 - 8 +30 -1 4 + 19 -1 2 + 5 +21 +49 - 8 + 15 - 5 +91 - 7 + 18 + 19 + 4 + 17 +29 + 14 + 9 +32 + 1 +93 + 8 . . . . 15,907 15,338 96,234 90,115 26,765 57,787 22,915 18,093 93,816 102,619 26,366 75,217 16,899 13,173 102,448 82,902 28,336 57,001 -31 -15 + 3 -12 + 2 —23 - 6 + 16 - 6 + 9 - 6 + 1 + 4 + 5 -1 0 + 8 -1 5 + 3 . . 161,256 87,920 137,125 62,980 176,777r 88,909 141,909 71,174 140,237 79,055 119,928 55,847 - 9 - 1 - 3 -12 + 15 +18 + 11 + 11 + 14 + 8 + 13 + 11 . . 210,139 87,777 44,257 159,022 106,109 64,607 177,522 70,659 38,831 +32 -17 -31 + 18 + 8 +24 +23 + 14 + 9 Bristol . . . . Johnson City Kingsport . . . 184,557 168,362 355,446 207,339 185,174 355,788 122,799 159,858 264,696 -11 + 50 +44 - 9 + 5 + 9 - 0 +34 +23 Athens . . . . Brunswick . . Dalton . . . . Elberton . . Gainesville . Griffin . . . . LaGrange . . Newnan . . . . Rome . . . . Valdosta . . Abbeville . . Bunkie . . . . Hammond . New Iberia . Plaquemine . Thibodaux . . Hattiesburg Laurel . . . . Meridian . . Natchez . . PascagoulaMoss Point Vicksburg . . Yazoo City . . . . . . . DISTRICT TOTAL Alabama . Florida . . Georgia . . LouisianaMississippiTennessee- . . . . . . . . . . . 95,047,580 102,184,105r 82,432,397r - 7 + 15 11,496,687 30,124,754 28,452,707 . 10,243,837 . 4,051,314 . 10,678,281 12,343,351 10,225,073 32,789,047r 25,981,876r 30,171,426 24,056,233r ll,307,256r 9,351,064 4,204,697 3,123,000 9,695,151 11,368,328 - 7 8 6 9 4 6 +10 + 12 + 9 + 16 +11 + 18 +13 + 10 + 7 +30 +17 + 10 + 4 1972. 67 D is t r ic t B u s in e s s C o n d i t io n s 1972=100 —Seas. Adj. ^ 139 — Mfg. Income “ 1967=100 _ Seas. Adj. \ A FarmCash Receipts A — 6Mo Moving Avg. ^ ~ ~ 5Mo. Moving Avg.v A f\ \ / 220 \ / V Bank Debits y 335 \ 1 j Construction Contracts 1 \j 1 — /V ~ /V — / / 181 ~i 1 1 1 1 1 1I I 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111111111 r *S e as. adj. fig ure; not an index Late st plotting: February, except mfg. production and farm cash receipts, Ja n u ary. Despite pauses in store sales ebbed. states. In contrast, mercial banks and planning increased some sectors, economic expansion continues. Incomes and auto sales rose; department Labor markets were mixed. Construction em ploym ent continued to drop in several both residential and nonresidential construction contracts moved up in March. Com savings and loan associations continued to make strong deposit gains. Farmers are livestock production in response to low er feed costs. Manufacturing income rose again during February and now stands 18 percent above the year-ago level. New auto registrations increased sharply in January to one quarter above the year-ago level. Department store sales declined moderately. Nonfarm em ploym ent remained unchanged in February. The unem ploym ent rate fell below 9 per cent for the first time since January 1975. M anu facturing em ploym ent rose moderately in both the durable and nondurable sectors. There were large job gains in machinery, metal, and textiles, with offsetting losses in food and apparel. The non manufacturing sector lost m om entum; only trade, transportation, and public utilities showed job gains. Construction em ploym ent dropped in all states except Mississippi. The factory w orkw eek continued its upward trend. Construction activity advanced as the value of residential contracts increased to the highest level in 16 months. Residential advances were w ide spread. The value of nonresidential contracts also rose because of several large awards for engineering construction, government buildings, and hospitals. 6 8 for FRASER Digitized Mortgage rates continued to edge down, and in flows at savings and loan associations were large. Deposit inflows at commercial banks also strengthened during March, w ith strong gains re ported in most categories. M any of the largest banks, however, continued to reduce the volum e of large-denomination CD's outstanding during March, follow ing a runoff of $300 m illio n during February. Durable goods manufacturers, textile and apparel goods producers, and wholesale and retail trade firms increased their borrow ing at the large banks in March. After edging upward in February, prices received by farmers turned dow n again in March, according to prelim inary data. Lower prices for grains, soy beans, cattle, and eggs were largely responsible for the decline. Spot market prices of foodstuffs at the end of March dropped further below the yearearlier level. Production prospects are good for w inter and early season crops. Broiler placements were up substantially from a year ago; pork pro ducers plan to increase sow farrowings significantly in the spring and summer quarters. Loans at agri cultural banks were up 8 percent from March 1975. M A Y 1976, M O N T H L Y R E V IE W
@FedFRASER