The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
1 GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM H.8b FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 28, 1956 WEEKLY DEPARTMENT STORE SALES - SELECTED CITIES AND AREAS Federal Reserve District, Area, and City Percentage.change from corresponding period a year ago (Baaed on retail dollar amounts) JaruWeek ending Octo Dec. 1| Dec, d | Dec. 15 I Dec. 22 UNITED STATES tl Boston District Metropolitan Areas Boston Downtown Boston Suburban Boston Cambridge Lynn Quincy Lowell Cities Springfield Providence 12 zJt + 2 + 1 -h :l + i + 3 - 1 + 7* +11 - 1 " R. I. + 7 - 1 + 1 - 9 -u +1 + 1 +18 + k - 1 r - 2 r + 1 r - 2 -'5 + 1 r - 2> Philadelphia District Metropolitan Areas Wilmington Del. N. J. Trenton Lancaster Pa. Philadelphia Reading Scranton Wilkes-B arre—Hazleton Ky. Ohio +11 + '+ + + + + + + + 2 k 5 6 7 0 1 h 5 5 6 0 - 1 Pa. + 7 7 Vv.Va-Ohio 7 k • • • • • - 2 3 5 3 3 - 2 - 1 - 1 ' • -h, Masso " " " . " " " New York District + 6 Metropolitan Areas N. Y. Buffalo + S New York-N.i New Jersey N.Y.- • J. + 8 N. J. Newark + 6 * N. Y. New York Rochester + 6 Syracuse + 3 Cleveland District Metropolitan Areas Lexington Akron Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Springfield Toledo Erie Pittsburgh Yiiheeling-Steubenville + 2 r - k - 1 z]± + + - + 2 + 2 h - 3 - - 2 -3 - u - 9 +13 +lH + 6 + 7 + 9 + 9 +22 +1h .+-18 +20 +18 +12 +11 + 4 zA + 1 - 1 - 6 - 8 --5 +20 +12 +12 +13 +22 +lit +10 + 1. - U : r+ 3 +11 7 1 ij. 3 + 9 - 2 - 3 > + 5 + l - l - 3 + 3 +18 - 7 r 0 - 2 r-10 - 3 - 3 - 7 r- 8 r+ 8 - 2 + 1 r+ r- 2 5 8 h - 2 + 2 0 -U + 1 U - 2 +13 + 5 + 5 + 7 + 7 + 6 + 9 +11 IJ +23 *1 - ^o3 H.8b Page 2 WEEKLY DEPARTMENT STORE SALES - SELECTED CITIES AMD AREAS (Continued) Federal Reserve District, Area, and CityRichmond District Metropolitan Areas Washington D. C. Downtown Washington " Baltimore Md. Downtown Baltimore " Richmond Va«Atlanta District . Metropolitan Areas Birmingham Jacksonville .. Atlanta Augusta New Orleans Khoxville Nashville City Tampa Chicago District Metropolitan Areas Chicago Indianapolis Detroit Milwaukee St» Louis District Metropolitan Areas Little Rock Louisville St. Louis Memphis Ala. Fla • Ga. La. Tenn. Fla. + 5 - 3 zl + 6 - 2 + 3 + 5 -5 -12 + 5 - 9 -10 -5 -13 - 2 -15 - 6 + 6 - 1 - 2 * + + + + + + 6 - h 7 0 2 . - h . -10 1 6 + 7 2 - 6 8 + 3 . + 1 - 2 . - 5- 6 r- I4. -10 + 6 . + 1 + l - 8 . r+ 6 - 9 -5 +17 +15 + 9 +26 + 9 + 9 + 8 - 1 6 - 1 - 5 - h - 2 + 6 + h + h + 1 + 5 + 6 111. Ind. Mich. Wis. + 5 + 5 + k + 7/ + + + + + 6 +_U ' - 9 + 3 +13 Ark. Ky. Mo. Tenn. + + + + + + + -11 - 7 -11 - 7 + 3 0 + 5 - 3 + 9 +12 +15 + 9 - U -16 r +V •fill • Minneapolis District Metropolitan Areas Mpls.-St. Paul Minn. Mpls. and Suburbs . St. Paul Cities Duluth-Superior Hinn.&Wis, Percentage change from corresponding period a year ago (Based on retail dollar amounts) Jan.Week ending Oct, Dec. 1 I Dec.ti| Dec. 151 Dec. 22 7 5 5 5 7 8 k 7 1 6 6 2 - h k 5 2 + u +10 + 1 + 3 +15 + 5 +15 +15 + 5 ' + 3 + 3 +1 r+17 + 5 + 6 + 3 + h - 2 + U + 5 0 + 5 + 6 + 3 +18 +21 +11 + 9 + 5 - l + 1 +11 1 H.8b • Page 3 WEEKLY DEPARTMENT STORE SALES - SELECTED CITIES AMD AREAS (Continued) Federal Reserve District, Area, and City Kansas City District Metropolitan Areas Denver Topeka Wichita St. Joseph Albuquerque Oklahoma City Tulsa Cities Joplin Kansas City Dallas District Metropolitan Areas Dallas El Paso Fort Worth Houston San Antonio Col. Kans. Mo. N. Mex. Okla. Mo. it Tex. it " " San Francisco District Metropolitan Areas Los Angeles-Long Beach Calif. Downtown Los Angeles " Westside Los Angeles " i i Sacramento ii San Diego San Francis co-Oakland " San Francisco City " Oakland City Ore. Portland Utah Salt Lake City Wash. Seattle Spokane Tacoma Percentage change from corresponding period a year ago (Based on retail dollar amounts) <Jan»Week ending Oct, Dec. 1 | Dec. b I Dec. 15 I Dec. 22 + 2 + 1 zl r+2 +Ul + 6 + 8 + 3 01 + 3 + 5 + h 0 -5 - l +11 -ii - 5 - l — 8 — 1 - h -10 - 8 -20 —16 + 3 0 r+ 6 -5 0 + 5 +12 +13 + 9 +1U + 9 + 7 +17 +16 - 3 + 1 -26 -11 + 2 r- h +11 +13 +2 -11 r-6 + + + + 1 U 6 5 0 - 8 + 5 - 4 -25 - 9 — 8; - 9 - 6 r- 7 ^L1 +_5 - 9 /+ l —3 j_3 r+12 1 1 7 2 2 + 8 +15 +11 +11 +10 - 5 + 2 r+15 -3 - 9 r- 5 0 - h - 2 - 2 r— 2 -20 - 61 r-12 i -71 r- 6 + h + h + 3 + 5 +16 +12 +12 +18 +19 +1U +15 +10 + 8 +1U +18 +17 +15 + + + r+ + - • 0 - U + l + 8 +' 6 + 3 + 3 + 1 0 + h + £ + 3 + h -13 -14 -11 - h -15 - 7 - 6 - 8 - 8 + 3 - 9 -11 - 7 0 - l + l + 3 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 ' r—Revised. NOTE: Since sales zise sharply with the approach of Christmas, the fact that the corresponding week last year was two days nearer Christmas becomes significant in comparing weekly data. In general, this causes weekly data to show a less favorable comparison with the previous year than if strictly comparable calendar periods were available. This should be taken into consideration in evaluating weekly percentage chaises i rom i year ago. • •
@FedFRASER