The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
MONTHLY REVIEW FEDERAL RESERVE INTHIS ISSUE: • The S o u th e a s t’s Booming P ap er Industry • Unem ploym ent: Who It Hits • D istrict B usiness Conditions BANK OF A T L A N T A SEPTEMBER 1969 T h e S o u t h e a s t 's B o o m in g P a p e r In d u s t r y Dramatizing the industrialization lag of the South, Henry W. Grady, the renowned Atlanta journalist, related before a Boston audience in 1889 his observance of a funeral in his native Georgia for which the South had provided no thing but the corpse and the hole in the ground. He was said to be particularly sad that the pine coffin used in the funeral had been made in Cincinnati, even though the body was buried in the heart of a southern pine forest. If he were alive today, he would be more than overjoyed; for the southern pine forest not only has ceased to be a mere sleeping green beauty, but has made the South a major production center of paper as well as the showplace of American technology in papermaking. The pine trees have also brought booms in employment and income for many communities in the South. fast-growing southern pine and an abundance of fresh water, the region was a natural target for the expansion-thrust of the pulp and paper industry after World War II. From 1947 to 1966, this industry’s output in the Southeast in creased a spectacular 250 percent as compared to a 97-percent increase in the rest of the nation. In short, the region’s paper and paperboard output grew more than twice as fast as in the U. S. as a whole and contributed one-third of the net in crease in the nation’s total paper production. As a result of such rapid growth in production capacity, the region has emerged as a major production center of paper and paper products. In 1946, the region produced about 17 percent of the country’s total paper and paperboard produc tion; in 1966 the share jumped to about 27 per cent; and by the end of 1969, it is estimated that its share will have nudged up to 28 percent. A Spectacular Record A glimpse of the region’s1 pulp and paper indus try activities that have taken place during the last two decades will undoubtedly impress even the most casual observers. Being endowed with 1The region includes Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Monthly Review, Vol. LIV, No. 9. Free subscription and additional copies available upon request to the Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 1 10 Growth Factors and Production Efficiency In a way, the enviable growth of the region’s paper industry and subsequent emergence of the region as the nation’s major paper production center provide a classic example of how the in terplay of competitive forces in the free market has guided business decision making and has con tributed to the development of the regional econ omy. As was noted earlier, the abundance of fast-growing southern pine and fresh water un doubtedly gave the region a competitive edge over other regions. However, this does not tell the whole story. MONTHLY REVIEW First of all, overall demand for paper and paper products expanded along with the growth of the economy and the living standards of the American consumers. As the economy has pro duced more and better products and services for the growing population, industrial and com mercial users have demanded more paper prod ucts—ranging from container boards to disposable bedspreads. At the same time, better-educated and affluent American consumers read more books and newspapers and consume more paper-based products. Per capita consumption of paper prod ucts in the United States increased about 40 per cent to 530 pounds between 1950 and 1968. Paper consumption in the U. S. is almost astronomical compared to the rest of the world—estimated to be only slightly more than 50 pounds per person in 1968. The second reason the paper industry turned to the South was that this region offered an op portunity to reduce production costs. There has been keen competition among paper producers stemming largely from the industry’s overall ex cess capacity, particularly of paperboard. Then, too, paper products faced stiff competition from other products—such as plastics—that can be used as substitutes for paper. Price data reflect the paper industry’s competi tive pricings and its ramifications. Prices received for pulp and paper products have risen at a slow er pace than average prices for all industrial com modities. In some cases, such as paperboard, prices were lower in 1967 than during the average 1957-59 level. On the other hand, the cost of pulp wood and papermaking chemicals has risen sub stantially since late 1950. Seeking more efficient means of making papers, the industry found the logical answer in the construction of large-scale, highly automated, and vertically integrated paper mills in the region. Today, large mills in this area produce finished paper rolls from raw pines in a continuing flow process, and the new technology of papermaking used by the region’s mills is widely regarded as one of the most efficient in the world. The region’s production efficiency in papermaking is attested to by the rapid rise in labor productivity. While total paper production in creased 160 percent between 1950 and 1966, em ployment increased only about 60 percent. Con sequently, output per employee rose from 91 tons in 1950 to 147 tons in 1966. Also, productivity in the region was higher than in the nation. In 1966, the value of shipments per manhour was $22.36 for the region and $18.98 for the nation. SEPTEMBER 1969 Income and Employment The emergence of the Southeast as a major paper production center has brought booms in employ ment and payroll income which in turn have boosted the overall economic well-being of the region in general and of a number of commu nities in particular. In 1950, 53,200 persons were employed by the region’s paper and allied prod ucts industry. In 1968, the industry’s employ ment was nearly 94,000. The industry’s payroll income is estimated to have increased from $145 million in 1950 to $608.1 million in 1967, about a 320-percent jump. This is considerably faster than the pace of the region’s total personal income. Even more significant than the fast-growing payroll income is that production workers in the region’s paper industry earn more on average than their counterparts in the nation’s paper industry. For instance, in 1967, an average production worker in the region’s paper industry earned $130.80 a week as compared to $122.84 a week earned by his national counterpart. The average hourly wage was $3.05 compared to the national average of $2.87 an hour. Employment in the region's paper and allied products industry has grown much more in some states than in others. 1000's of people 10 20 30 The contribution of the pulp and paper industry to the general well-being of the regional economy has been substantial. A rough estimate indicates that the average net increase in the industry’s payroll income was about $50 million annually between 1966 and 1968. 111 In general, the initial increase in income pay ment to individuals multiplies. That is, when the initial income recipient spends his new income on a variety of goods and services, income of those who are engaged in producing those goods and services will increase. Then, the latter group spends its increased income which will in turn increase the income of still another group of workers. Through this multiplier process, the in dustry probably contributed to the net increase in the region’s total personal income by about $150 million to $200 million a year between 1966 and 1968. Industry D e v e l o p m e n t b y A re a Within the region, paper and paperboard plants are located in both urban and rural areas. Most of the mills in nonurban areas are engaged in the so-called primary sector of the industry— 112 that is, the making of pulp, paper, and paper boards. Many of the mills in or near urban areas are engaged in converting paper and paperboard to various paper products as well as the primary operation of making pulp and paperboard. Re flecting the changing patterns of demand for paper products, the region’s major product lines are shifting to printing papers and bleached paperboard from unbleached kraft linerboard which dominated the region’s paper output until very recently. The map shows the locations of major pulp and paper plants in the region. The Georgia coast line and Gulf coast areas host mills that produce approximately half of the region’s total paper output and the remaining half is produced by mills in Tennessee and inland areas of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In terms of total production, Georgia ranked MONTHLY REVIEW PAPER AND BOARD PRODUCTION (thousand of tons) 1947 1950 Alabam a 516 375 Florida 633 1,070 Georgia 587* 993 L ouisiana 1,342 1,430* 462 564 M ississippi T en n essee 211 281 Total Region 4,854 3,610 21,114 Total U. S. 24,375 17.1 19.9 Region’s S hare in U.S. Production (in percent) p = projection. ‘ E stim ated by extrapolation. ♦•Projection m ad e by th is Bank. S ources: U. S. D epartm ent of Com m erce (BDSA) and A m erican P aper Institute. first in the country. In 1966 (for which the latest production data are available in detail), mills in Georgia produced 3.5 million tons, or about 7 percent of the nation’s total paper and paper board production. Total value of shipments by Georgia mills was 29 percent of the total ship ment by the region’s mills. Louisiana, third in the national ranking, was the runner-up in the re gion’s paper production, but in terms of value of shipments, the state trailed behind Florida. (For details on production data, see table above.) Regional Surplus Viewed from the region’s perennial effort to de velop a wider industrial bise, the spectacular growth that its paper industry has logged since 1950 marked a new era in interregional trade relationships. I'or one reason, paper making has emerged as a basic industry of the region; it not only satisfies t^e regional needs but produces a surplus which it exports to other parts of the country and abroad. Actual quantity and dollar value of paper products shipped to other regions are not available. However, measured indirectly by what is known as the “location quotient” and “crude export quotient” techniques (see Note), the region’s mills are estimated to have exported in 1966 about 34 percent of their total shipments, or about $1,100 million in dollar value. Industry Prospects While census data are not yet available, it does not appear that capital spending by the region’s industry has reached the leveling-off phase that the nation’s paper industry apparently has reached. According to new plant announcements compiled by this Bank, there were 17 announce ments for new paper plants with investments totaling about $300 million in 1967 and 30 an nouncements totaling $760 million in 1968 for the region. For the industry as a whole, it has SEPTEMBER 1969 1958 955 1,818 1,750 1,671 687 644 7,525 30,775 24.4 1962 1,536 2,102 2,577 1,856 721 1,017 9,809 36,648 26.8 1966 2,198 2,344 3,482 2,551 766 1,215 12,556 47,189 26.6 1969p 14,200** 50,500 28.1** been estimated that capital investments might have amounted to $1,640 million in 1967 and $1,550 million last year. Trade sources estimate the entire industry is now operating at near capacity levels and the problem of excess capacity, which once depressed the prices of paper products, is becoming a tiling of the past (except for some excess capacity in paperboard production). The strength of the cur rent demand for paper in relation to supply is re flected in the slightly more rapid increase in wholesale prices of paper products than industrial prices generally. This is a significant change from past years when price rises generally lagged be hind average industrial commodities. In coming months, paper prices may continue to advance at a fairly rapid pace if the demand for most paper and paper products continues as strong as is widely expected. Meanwhile, the nation’s paper industry is expected to add little new capacity. Under these circumstances, the region’s paper industry will undoubtedly continue to benefit. C. S. P yun NOTE The “location quotient” is the ratio of district employment in an industry to the corresponding employment in that in dustry in the nation. As an example, the location quotient for the paper and allied products industry in the Southeast in 1966 was derived by dividing 4.86 by 3.46, giving a quotient of 1.404. (In 1966, the U. S. paper and allied products industry accounted for 3.46 percent of the nation’s total manufacturing employment, while 4.86 percent of the region's manufacturing employment was engaged in the same industry.) After the location quotient is derived, the “crude export quotient” is obtained by dividing the difference of the loca tion quotient minus 1 by the location quotient (that is, crudc location quotient - 1 _ 1.404 — 1 export quotient = ,ocation quotient 1.404 ^ By this computation, the crude export quotient for the region’s paper industry was found to be .2877 for 1966. Since the region’s labor productivity for the industry was higher than that of the nation by about 17.8 percent in 1966, the export quotient was adjusted to reflect this difference. The adjusted export quotient was found to be .3388. 113 U n e m p lo y m e n t : W h o It H it s The average unemployment rate for all workers has drifted gradually downward since the 1960-61 recession. In early 1961, about 7 percent of the reported work force was jobless. After midyear 1961, economic activity began to expand and the unemployment rate started to decline, gradually dropping to a 5-percent rate by the end of 1964. During this period, the economy was on the road to achieving, simultaneously, two of the nation’s basic economic objectives: a fairly stable price level and an unemployment rate approaching the full-employment goal of 4 percent. Continuing economic advances and employ ment opportunities after 1964 resulted in further decreases in the unemployment rate, and by the end of 1965, the 4-percent rate had been achieved. Since then, the unemployment rate has generally been below 4 percent, and since late 1968 it has been close to 3.5 percent or below. Meanwhile, however, as the unemployment rate dropped below the 4-percent level, the rise in prices accelerated to inflationary proportions. This pattern of accelerating prices at low unem ployment provides the basis for the observation that to decelerate the price advances will cause some increase in overall unemployment. Judging from past experience, a rise in unem ployment is not likely to affect all segments of the work force alike. The inexperienced, the un skilled, and the marginal workers in terms of edu cation and training are usually the first to feel its effect. The purpose of this article is not to assess or evaluate the implications or reasons for the dif ferent unemployment impacts for various groups of the work force. Rather, the objective is to speci fy, based on past experience, the relationships between movements in overall unemployment and unemployment in the white and nonwhite categories separately. Some indication of the unemployment move ments among selected categories compared to the total is seen from an examination of Chart 1. Each of the subgroups of the work force shown has followed the overall downtrend in unemploy ment during the current economic upswing. Sev eral important differences stand out, however. First of all, while the unemployment rate in each of these groups has declined, the actual jobless rates for nonwhites—total, male, and female—are substantially higher than the rates for the com parable white workers’ categories. For example, the unemployment rate for the nonwhite group as a whole was in excess of 12 -percent in 1961; it declined to 9 percent at the end of 1964; and in early 1969, when the rate for all workers had de clined to 3.5 percent or less, it was around 6 per cent. At the same time, the unemployment rate for white workers has been below the all-worker rate throughout the period shown, and consider ably lower than the rate for nonwhites. The job less rate for male workers in both groups has been below the rate for females. Based on this historical experience, what is the likely impact of a change in the overall un employment rate on each group? 114 T h e Relationships To answer this question, we compared the un MONTHLY REVIEW employment rates for the six subgroups previous ly described with the all-worker unemployment rate for the period 1958-68. The comparisons were based on a simple regression equation using monthly data ( see Regression N o te ). The regres sions allow a comparison of the average relation ship between unemployment in a specified cate gory and the total. They also allow us to predict, with some degree of confidence, the expected unemployment rate in each of the subgroups as sociated with various total unemployment rates. The average relationship between the unem ployment rate in each of the subgroups and the total are shown in Chart 2 and summarized in the Regression Note. Generally, movements in unemployment among the selected subgroups were related to movements in the same direction in the total unemployment rate. However, the relationships varied between white and nonwhite groups. More specifically, we see that for each unemployment rate on the horizontal scale, the expected unemployment rate based on the regres sion is higher for each nonwhite category (See Chart 2 ). For example, if the all-worker unem- CHART 1 Since mid-1961, unemployment in these groups has trended downward; however, the level and movement in unemployment rates have varied. Percent 16 — N o n w h it e F e m a le s Nonwhite Workers Nonwhite Males White Females Total Workers White Workers White Males All figures seasonally adjusted; shaded portion indicates recession period SEPTEMBER 1969 115 CHART 2 Unemployment Rates 1958-68 (in percent) ployment rate rose to 4.5 percent from the recent 3.5-percent rate, the associated rate for white workers, based on historical relationships, would remain below 4 percent. Nonwhite workers, on the other hand, would be affected more—their un employment rate as a group would rise to about 8.5 percent from the below 7-percent rate attained when the aggregate rate was at 3.5 percent. In both groups, fewer male workers would be un employed relative to their total work force than females. These predicted unemployment rates are, of course, based on past average relationships that may or may not apply in the future. In each cate gory, except nonwhite females, the statistical re lationship between movements in unemployment of that category and the total was fairly close over the 1958-68 period. However, the chance of an error in prediction is much higher for the non 116 white groups because of more unevenness in the month-to-month movements. The latter is prob ably related at least in part to variation in sample size. Implications for the P re se nt Almost everyone would like to make some prog ress in the present fight to curb inflation. But, based on past experience, it is difficult to see how the inflationary movement can be substantially reduced without some increase in unemploy m ent1. As usual, however, the increase in unem ployment would not affect all working groups equally. Those groups that can afford the in crease in unemployment the least are likely to feel the impact the most. J o e W. M c L e a r y ’For further discussion on this subject, see “The UnemploymentInflation Trade-Off: What 1969 Forecasts Imply,” M onthly R e view, February 1969, pp. 19-23. MONTHLY REVIEW Regression Simple regressions of the form Y = a + bx were used to derive the average relationships plotted on the charts. Six separate equations were derived, one for each of the selected subgroups studied. In each case, the aggregate unemployment rate was used as the independent variable (X) to explain movements in the unemployment rates for each of the special groups, the dependent variable (Y). Monthly data for 1958-68 were analyzed. The (a) and (b) values shown in the table for each regression equation summarize the overall relation ship between the independent and dependent vari ables. Thus, for a given aggregate unemployment rate (X), the expected unemployment rate in the various subgroups (Y) can be calculated from the appro priate (a) and (b) values and plotted on the chart. R2 is a measure of how good the relationship is be tween (X) and (Y) and ranges between zero (no correlation) and one (perfect correlation). The stan dard error of estimate (S) tells us by how much, on average, the actual values deviate from those calcu lated from the estimating equation. Note The (b) value in each case, which measures the change in the dependent variable associated with a change in the independent variable, is positive. This indicates, as expected, that unemployment in each of the groups generally moves in the same direction as changes in the overall unemployment rate over a long period of time. And, the R-’s suggest that the movements are highly correlated. However, the indi vidual monthly observations around the longer-term average relationship are more volatile for the non white workers, as indicated by the higher standard errors (S). Regression D e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e (Y) All W h i t e W o r k e r s White Males White Females All N o n w h i t e W o r k e r s Nonwhite Males Nonwhite Females NOTE: Results a - 0.0351 - 1.1675 1.9602 0.4478 - 3.0029 5.2557 b R'2 S 0.8944 1.0407 0.6463 1.7959 2.4207 0.9114 .99 .98 .90 .95 . 93 .56 .092 .148 .244 .478 .747 .891 B a s e d o n s i m p l e linear r e g r e s s i o n s u s i n g s e a s o n a l l y a d j u s t e d m o n t h l y u n e m p l o y m e n t d a t a for 1 9 5 8 - 6 8 . B a n k A n n o u n c e m e n ts Citizens National Bank of Davie, Davie, Florida, opened for business as a new member bank on August 1. Officers are Charles W. Lantz, president; H. David Kelso and James J. Hunter, vice presidents. Capital is $340,000; surplus and other capital funds, $170,000. Also on August 1, Powder Springs Bank, Powder Springs, Georgia, opened as a nonmember bank and SEPTEMBER 1969 began to remit at par for checks drawn on it when received from the Federal Reserve Bank. Ralph N. Baker is president; J. S. Keith, vice president; and James T. Turner, cashier. Capital is $200,000 surplus and other capital funds, $200,000. Tippins Bank & Trust Company, Claxton. Georgia, a nonmember bank, began to remit at par on August 15. 117 S ix t h D is t r ic t S t a t is t ic s Seasonally Adjusted (All d a t a a r e i n d e x e s , 1 9 5 7 - 5 9 L a te st M o n th 1969 S IX T H O ne M o n th Ago Tw o M o n th s Ago = 1 00, unless indicated otherwise.) O ne Year Ago D I S T R IC T L a te st M o n th 1969 M a n u f a c tu rin g IN C O M E A N D S P E N D I N G P e rs o n a l In c o m e (MM. $, A n n u a l R a t e ) .............. M a n u f a c t u r in g P a y r o l l s .................. F a rm C a s h R e c e i p t s ...................... C r o p s ........................................ L i v e s t o c k .................................... In s ta lm e n t C re d it at B a n k s * (M il. $) N e w L o a n s ................................. R e p aym ents ............................. . . . . . Ju n e 70,905 Ju ly 247 Ju n e 184 June 2 04 June 173 - J uly . J uly 70,1 68 244 173 188 172 69,437 242 1 60 147 166 64,2 37 2 29 165 184 154 314.2 307.6 344.3 313.2 314.9 302.6 302.0 282.2 148 146 175 139 168 117 106 130 137 113 147 146 174 138 166 115 107 129 136 143 141 175 135 161 113 112 111 202 148 135 56 198 148 138 58 187 142 130 U n e m p lo y m e n t Rate (P e rc e n t of W o rk Fo rce )t . . Avg. W e e kly H rs. in M fg. (H rs.) O ne Two M onth M o n th s Ago A go One Year Ago . J u ly . J u ly . J u ly J u ly 171 169 130 84 172 169 126 95 1 69 167 124 86 84 . J u ly . J u ly 2.6 2.6 41.3 41.7 2.4 41.6 2.9 41.5 . J u ly . J u ly . J u ly 370 261 2 82 3 66 264 2 87 357 258 266 303 234 232 . Ju n e 13,764 . J u ly 259 . June 157 13,607 256 163 13,539 251 163 12,458 2 32 159 1 70 162 112 F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s ............... M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s its . . . . B a n 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 N o n fa r m E m p l o y m e n t t .................. M a n u f a c t u r in g ......................... A p p a re l .................................... C h e m i c a l s ................................. F a b ric a te d M e t a l s ...................... F o o d ........................................... Lbr., W o o d Prod., Furn . & Fix. . . Paper ........................................ P r im a r y M e t a l s ......................... T e x tile s .................................... T ra n sp o rta tio n E q u ip m e n t . . . N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n g f ...................... C o n s t r u c t i o n ............................. Fa rm E m p l o y m e n t ......................... U n e m p lo y m e n t Rate (P e rc e n t of W o rk Fo rce )t . . . . In s u r e d U n e m p lo y m e n t (P e rc e n t of Cov. E m p . ) .............. Avg. W e e k ly H rs. in M fg. (H rs.) . . C o n s tr u c t io n C o n t r a c t s * .............. R e s id e n t ia l ................................. A ll O t h e r .................................... E le ctric P o w e r P r o d u c t io n ** . . . C otto n C o n s u m p t i o n * * .................. Petrol. Prod, in C o a s ta l La. a n d M iss. . . . . . J u ly J uly J u ly J uly J uly J uly 148 146 176 139 167 114 . . . . . . J u ly J u ly Ju ly July July Ju ly J uly J u ly 107 128 137 113 20 4 148 136 62 . July 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.8 1.9 1.7 40.9 215 253 1.8 41.1 185 2 10 1.9 41.2 197 213 183 164 183 1 59 104 2 40 154 103 237 146 107 26 3 . . . . . J uly July Ju ly July Ju ly 4 1 .0 240 265 2 19 . M ay . June * *J u ly 159 106 2 32 105 125 126 66 F I N A N C E A N D B A N K IN G Loans* A ll M e m b e r B a n k s ...................... L a rg e B a n k s ............................. D e p o s it s * A ll M e m b e r B a n k s ...................... L a rg e B a n k s ............................. B a n k D e b i t s * / * * ............................. . Ju ly . Ju ly 327 2 73 322 2 65 321 277 2 82 249 . Ju ly . Ju ly . Ju ly 2 29 191 2 70 2 30 190 273 230 193 2 60 21 4 186 235 IN C O M E Ju n e J u ly Ju n e },739 2 13 173 B.691 206 162 8,665 2 05 157 8,007 1 88 150 J uly J u ly J u ly J uly J u ly 131 131 130 125 69 130 131 129 124 61 130 131 129 126 60 128 127 128 J uly J u ly 3.8 41.6 4.1 4 0.9 3.9 41.3 4.5 41.8 J uly J u ly J u ly 2 94 2 14 23 6 2 88 2 15 2 39 2 87 215 223 2 60 2 05 2 19 P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T N o n fa r m E m p l o y m e n t t .................. M a n u f a c t u r in g ......................... 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 ......................... F a rm E m p l o y m e n t ......................... 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 )t . . . . A vg. W e e k ly H rs. in M fg. (H rs.) . . P e rs o n a l In c o m e Fa rm C a s h R e c e i p t s .............. P R O D U C T IO N A N D EM PLO YM ENT N o n fa rm E m p lo y m e n t t . . . . M a n u f a c tu rin g .................. U n e m p lo y m e n t Rate (P e rc e n t of W o rk Fo rc e )t . . Avg. W e e k ly H rs. in M fg. (H rs.) . . . . . J u ly July J u ly J u ly J u ly 148 141 152 149 55 148 140 151 151 47 147 139 151 149 46 143 137 147 146 58 . Ju ly . Ju ly 3.0 41.0 3.3 41.1 2.9 41.0 3.4 40.9 . July . July . J uly 332 24 2 306 330 2 43 3 15 33 4 2 52 291 29 2 231 26 7 F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G M e m b e r B a n k D e p o sits B a n k D e b it s * * . . . . P e rs o n a l In c o m e (M il. $. A n n u a l R a t e ) .................. J une 10,116 191 M a n u f a c tu rin g P a y ro lls . . . . 191 Fa rm C a s h R e c e i p t s ............... 10,120 10,120 192 165 191 178 9,309 179 154 P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T ALABAM A P e rs 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 in g P a y r o l l s .................. F a rm C a s h R e c e i p t s ...................... IN C O M E 12 2 74 N o n fa rm E m p lo y m e n t t . . . . 136 133 54 133 123 135 1 34 61 1 34 123 137 1 44 63 132 . J u ly . J u ly . J u ly . J u ly 5.3 42.6 5.5 42.5 5.1 42.2 4.9 42.6 . J u ly . J u ly 268 182 2 05 261 180 203 2 59 180 1 98 239 1 74 193 5,235 265 20 4 5,13 9 264 195 5,133 2 67 1 68 4,785 249 1 89 147 156 143 146 157 141 147 158 142 1 44 153 140 143 136 146 139 . J uly 133 122 C o n s t r u c t i o n .................. Fa rm E m p l o y m e n t .................. 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 rce )t . . Avg. W e e kly H rs. in M fg. (H rs.) 121 133 140 61 F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G M em ber B ank Loans* . . . . M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s it s * . . . B a n k D e b i t s * / * * ...................... M IS S IS S IP P I IN C O M E P e rso n a l In c o m e (M il. $, A n n u a l R a t e ) .................. Ju n e M a n u f a c t u r in g P a y r o l l s ......................Ju ly Fa rm C a s h R e c e i p t s ......................... Ju n e F I N A N C E A N D B A N K IN G P R O D U C T IO N A N D M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s ...................... M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s i t s .............. B a n k D e b it s * * ............................. P e rs o n a l In c o m e (M il. $, A n n u a l Rate) M a n u f a c t u r in g P a y r o lls . P R O D U C T IO N A N D N o n fa r m Jun. 22,0 33 328 J u ly 21 8 June 21,5 92 325 204 20,9 30 3 22 157 19,575 2 90 180 169 167 164 EM PLOYM ENT E m p lo y m e n t t • . ■ 118 J u ly 170 EM PLO YM ENT N o n fa rm E m p l o y m e n t t ...................... Ju ly M a n u f a c t u r in g ............................. Ju ly N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n g ......................... Ju ly C o n s t r u c t i o n ...................... Ju ly J u ly Fa rm E m p l o y m e n t ...................... U n e m p lo y m e n t Rate Ju ly (P e rce n t of W o rk Fo rce )* . . . Avg. W e e kly H rs. in M fg. (H rs.) . Ju ly 4.5 4 1.0 4.5 40.2 F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s * ............... M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s it s * . . . . B a n k D e b i t s * / * * ......................... . Ju ly . J u ly . J u ly 3 89 266 256 3 85 2 60 264 3 82 260 282 339 244 248 MONTHLY REVIEW L a te st M o n th 1969 One M onth Ago Tw o M on th s Ago One Year A go L a te st M o n th 1 96 9 T EN N ESSEE N o n m a n u f a c t u rin g . . . C o n s tru c tio n . . . . F a rm E m p lo y m e n t . . . . U n e m p lo y m e n t Rate (P e rce n t of W o rk F o rce lt IN C O M E P e rs o n a l In c o m e (M il. $, A n n u a l R a t e ) .................. Ju n e 11,018 M a n u f a c tu r in g P a y r o l l s ......................J u ly 241 F a rm C a s h R e c e i p t s ......................... J u n e 157 11,019 2 36 132 11,050 236 141 10,103 21 6 147 146 156 147 155 146 156 142 152 * F o r S ix th D istrict area only. O th e r to ta ls fo r en tire six states. Two M on th s Ago O ne Yea r Ago . Ju ly . Ju ly . Ju ly 141 15 9 58 142 164 48 142 168 60 138 156 64 . July . Ju ly 3.7 39.9 3.7 4 0 .0 3.7 40.4 3.9 40.2 . Ju ly . July . Ju ly 313 204 301 305 203 287 314 203 30 2 276 193 251 F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T N o n fa rm E m p l o y m e n t t ......................J u ly M a n u f a c tu r in g ............................. Ju ly One M o n th A go M em ber B ank Loans* M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s its * B a n k D e b it s * / * * . . “ D a ily a ve ra ge b a sis. tP re lim in a ry data. r-Revised. S o u rce s : P e rs o n a l in co m e e stim a te d b y th is B a n k ; non farm , m fg. a n d no n m fg. em p., m fg. p a y ro lls a n d hou rs, a n d unem p., U.S. Dept, of L a b o r a n d c o o p e ra tin g state a g e n cie s; cotto n c o n su m p tio n , U .S. B u re a u of C e n s u s; c o n stru c tio n contracts, F. W. D o d g e Corp.; petrol, prod., U.S. B u re a u of M in e s; in d u stria l u se of elec. power, Fed. P o w e r C om m .; fa rm c a sh re ce ip ts a n d fa rm emp., U .S.D.A. O th er in d e x e s b a s e d o n data collected by t h is B a n k . All in d e x e s c a lcu la te d b y t h is B a n k . D e b it s t o D em and 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 rc e n t C h a n g e P e rc e n t C h a n g e ye a r to d ate 7 m os 1969 fro m 1968 year to J u n e '6 9 fro m J u ly 196 9 June 1 96 9 July 196 8 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 ! B irm in g h a m . . . . G adsden . . . . H u n tsv ille . . . . M o b ile .............. M o n t g o m e ry . . . T u s c a lo o sa . . . 1,971,497 69,250 2 1 3 ,090 658 ,955 3 7 4 ,506 129,696 1,878,404 6 9,2 78 214 ,103 600 ,646 396 ,908 122,203 1,851,431 68,3 99 198,356 548 ,876 354 ,520 111,948 + Ft. L a u d e r d a le H o lly w o o d . . J a c k s o n v ille . . . .............. M ia m i O r l a n d o .............. P e n s a c o la . . . T a lla h a s s e e . . . T a m p a — St. Pete. W. P a lm B e a c h . . 1,106,554 2,008,760 3,553,560 7 6 6 ,204 280,991 187,643 2,058,155 70 6 ,404 1,030,219 2,042,540 3,391,813 743,030 237 ,582 192,314 1,904,333 623,293 79 3 ,654 1,712,873 2,985,304 7 3 1 ,518 225 ,062 158,217 1,632,781 505,513 + .............. A lb a n y A tla n ta .............. . A u g u st a . . . . C o lu m b u s . . . . M acon .............. Savannah . . . 112,791 7,380,303 3 0 5 ,069 292 ,824 336 ,238 350,491 110,471 6,89 7,234 3 1 4 ,720 2 7 8 ,084 313,056 3 5 0 ,228 1 05,822 6,17 7,709 326,621 2 6 9 ,242 287 ,017 333 ,257 + + B a to n R o u g e . . Lafay ette . . . L a k e C h a r le s . . N e w O r le a n s . . . 65 9 ,008 181 ,029 179,984 2,816,571 6 0 5 ,808 157,876 173.728 2,646,737 678 ,9 0 4 144,868 177 ,104 2,668,445 B ilo x i— G ulfp ort Jackson . . . . 148,705 78 7 ,6 4 8 136,652 781,532 137,905 7 0 1 ,776 C h a tta n o o g a . . . K n o x v ille . . . . N a sh v ille . . . . 822 ,417 64 4 ,002 2,37 4,239 783 ,906 592,521 2,02 3,678 6 9 5 ,729 547,073 1,988,895 77,0 26 81,371 49,7 35 80,552 81,418 50,099 75,833 73,4 24 45,8 62 OTHER C EN T ERS A n n is to n . . Do th a n . . . S e lm a . . . Bartow . . . B rad e n to n B re va rd C o u n ty D a y to n a B e a c h Ft. M y e r s — N. Ft. M y e rs G a in e sv ille . . . . - 5 0 - 0 + 10 - 6 + 6 7 + + + 6 1 7 +20 + 6 + 16 + + + + + + 12 4 7 12 13 16 +39 + 17 + 26 + 5 +25 + 19 +26 +40 +31 + 18 + 20 + 12 + 11 + 16 + 10 0 + 7 + 19 - 7 + 9 + 17 + 5 - 5 + 15 + 16 + 10 + 9 + 15 + 4 + 6 - 3 + 25 + 2 + 6 + 1 + 18 + 7 + 4 + + 1 + 8 + 12 + 14 + 12 + 5 + 9 + 17 + 18 + 18 + 19 + 16 + 11 +23 - 0 1 + 2 + 11 + 8 + 9 + 17 + 8 - 2 + 5 + 3 + 18 + + - + + + 2 8 3 2 7 3 5 7 9 4 J u n e '6 9 fro m 1969 fro m 1968 J u n e Ju ly 1 96 9 196 8 +20 + 25 +20 Ju ly 196 9 152,281 39,025 68,1 49 26,3 10 379,961 152,778 854 ,300 69,291 Athens .................. B ru n s w ic k . . . . D alto n .................. Elb erton .............. G a in e s v ille . . . . G riffin .................. L a G r a n g e .............. .............. New nan Rom e .................. V a ld o s ta .............. 103,364 54,405 115,431 19,735 82,611 39,8 39 24,058 29,064 94,214 69,0 74 106,621 52,723 1 13,920 17,258 7 8,8 98 39,737 3 2,8 79 25,707 92,596 60,123 95,0 30 53,475 106,425 16,290 83,231 38,3 32 2 5,2 40 89,603 60,9 49 +13 +15 - 2 + 15 +13 + 6 A b b e v ille A le xa n d ria B u n k ie . . H am m ond N e w Iberia P la q u e m in e T h ib o d a u x 13,496 177,780 8,107 4 9,6 94 4 5,7 32 14,385 26,113 14,149 166,005 7,981 42,5 47 3 7,8 98 14,693 2 6,7 74 12,275 153,312 7,536 4 3,9 26 4 1,1 24 14,137 2 6,1 43 - 5 + 7 + 2 + 17 +21 - 2 - 2 + + + + + + - H a ttie sb u rg L aurel . . M e rid ia n N a tc h e z 81,0 55 54,437 95,819 50,793 68,004 45,7 55 81,601 43,2 18 66,457 4 5,6 04 72,5 78 48,2 24 + + + + + + + + M o s s Point V ic k s b u r g Y a zo o C ity . 100,128 44,655 2 7,3 88 81,0 00 4 2,6 79 29,473 72,020 44,9 14 32,360 B risto l . . J o h n so n C ity K in g sp o rt 97,275 107,628 198,552 96,4 05 90,534 173,885 4 2 ,1 18,360 5,018,861 13,596,840 10,998,357 4,87 2,562 1,847,832 5,783,908 . + + + + + + + + 24 6 10 10 2 + 3 + 2 +12 +14 + 5 - 1 +9 1 18 9 +1 +0 +28 + 1 +44 + 10 + 17 + 22 +29 + 14 +25 + 19 + 12 + 4-13 9 + 16 + 6 +31 + 21 +22 +21 +14 + + 3 4 + 2 +5 +11 19 19 17 15 10 16 8 13 11 2 0 22 + 11 +21 + + + + + 17 13 11 8 11 19 32 5 + 18 + 15 +25 + 14 + 24 + 5 - 7 + 39 - 1 -1 5 + 26 + 2 + 5 84,881 91,0 96 180,337 + 1 + 19 + 14 + 15 + 18 + 10 + 15 + 16 + 13 36,658,033 4,659,276 11,179,400 9,614,287 4,582,026 1,792,293 4,830,751 + 6 + 4 + 5 + 5 + 7 + 9 + 12 + 15 + 8 + 14 + 6 + 3 + + + + + + +20 +21 P a s c a g o u la - 36,333 94,032 242 ,472 112,601 - 4 + 18 - 6 + 8 + 12 + 17 - 5 - 2 + 10 + 18 + 1 + 3 131,964 109,183 130,160 115,902 94,363 104,511 + - 2 6 + 40 + 4 +30 + 9 A la b a m a ; F lo rid a ! G e o rg ia } . . L o u is ia n a ! * M is s i s s i p p i ! * T e n n e s s e e !* !Partially estimated. ^Estimated. J u n e July 1 96 9 196 8 156,858 39,1 12 83,0 56 26,515 419 ,134 169,598 1,007,891 77,785 42,277 93,3 96 2 45 ,404r 101,948 SEPTEMBER 1969 July 196 8 194,173 39,5 00 98,195 29,0 30 444 ,183 185,808 1,106,244 79,3 09 L a k e la n d . . . M o n ro e C o u n ty O ca la . . . . St. A u g u st in e . . St. P e te rsb u rg S a ra so ta . . . Tam pa . . . . W in te r H aven 40,7 83 109,793 231 ,285 110,456 'Includesonlybanks intheSixthDistrict portionof thestate. Ju n e 196 9 39,7 05,7 0 6 r 4,835,717 13,014,868r 10,455,248 4 ,537,916 1,701,818 5,160,139 +22 15 10 19 15 7 13 119 D is t r ic t B u s in e s s C o n d it io n s Even before hurricane Camille hit the Louisiana-Mississippi coast, the winds of economic activity in many areas of the District continued to abate. Bankers reported smaller increases and even a few de clines in loan-deposit activity in early August. A similar picture characterized industrial activity, where unspectacular gains in employment were the rule in July. Consumer credit extensions also took a dip. Repeating the ditto signs, the extraordinary early-1969 strength in the construction sector has faded somewhat. On the other hand, renewed strength in contract construction appeared in July. Farm crop receipts posted only a small gain in the first half of 1969. At member banks, loan expansion leveled off in early August and total deposits, particularly demand deposits, continued to decline. Large District commercial banks have reported only small increases in business loans, and because of continued liquidity pressures, they have light ened their U.S. Government securities portfolios. At the smaller banks, loans actually declined in the first half of August. Total borrowings at the discount window have tapered off in recent weeks but the decline has been more than offset by increased purchases of Federal funds. Employment increased slightly. July marked a small increase in nonfarm employment and pay rolls, as well as a small decline in the unemploy ment rate. Most sectors of manufacturing shared in the employment increase, except for Florida’s food processing industry. Announcements of new plant and equipment expenditures in the second quarter have dropped off. Consumer instalment credit extended in July declined from June. This was primarily a result of sharp reductions in auto and personal loans. Repayments rose slightly. Bank credit card and check-credit volume extended also reflected an increase from June. Personal income for June moved ahead at a pace similar to that of the 120 previous two months and slightly above the U.S. rate. Total volume of contract construction showed greater strength in July than in any month since February. Renewed strength was apparent in both residential and nonresidential building categories. South Florida’s apartment boom continues to pro duce the lion’s share of residential construction gains in the District. Pressures in the mortgage market continue to mount, although they have not been as quickly reflected in housing output de clines as in the 1966 period. The supply of mortgage credit for single family homes continues to be supported mainly by FNMA and by the Federal Home Loan Bank System. In the first six months of 1969, total cash receipts from farm marketings for District states showed a healthy gain over the same period a year ago. Largely responsible for the increase was a sizable jump in receipts from livestock and livestock products. Crop receipts registered little gain. Next season’s orange crop, according to preliminary estimates, will be significantly greater than in the 1969 season. NOTE: D at a o n w h i c h s t a t e m e n t 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