View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

TRENDS AFFECTING THE FUTURE OF MISSISSIPPI
Speech by Darryl R. Francis, President,
Federal Reserve Bank of St« Louis to
Mississippi Economic Council,
April 5> 19^6
I have looked forward to this opportunity to again
visit Jackson and renew acquaintances with numerous bankers
and other friends in the state*

It is an added pleasure to

discuss with you the topic which I have been assigned, namely,
"Trends Affecting the Future of Mississippi/1
Many of you can recall the early post-World War

H

years vhen the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, under the
leadership of Chester Davis, cooperated with the Federal
Reserve Bank of Atlanta, the Mississippi Bankers Association,
Mississippi State University and others in several series of
meetings across the state. These meetings were designed to
promote greater efficiency in the use of agricultural resources.
Evidence indicates that this objective has been achieved.

The

growing efficiency of agriculture in the state is shown by
numerous measures including output per farm, number of workers
in agriculture, and net income per farm.
Following this success in one segment of the state's
economy it thus seems appropriate that the economic leadership,
represented by you people, take on and pursue the task of
analyzing other sectors of the statefs economy and adopting
programs which will contribute to greater efficiency in
resource use and production on a broad front*




It is this task

- 2 <
*
of tcr&tV&inQ wrrv e£fectlv« «e®r>cff$ta <lcrveiov>i»rit px^cisuw
that I ish&il ccrafj0itfc npoo ±n tfcia 5'$<m&&ion* I can 8£$ttr#
ym that the l^or&l R&aervo Bank of St* loiilff romix& vitally
ii&^atod in tfucb prccprcaw along vith ita major Ftedemt
fieflGWO Suites* ««pofn»ijbilltleo of achieving reaacraMLa priaa
stability & < &i£h ei^lo^aat in t&e nation*
&$
*Tfere® at*>pa aso involved in ay imalyaia of oaonoaio
activity In tfea atote* !fe& ftxat acottw ocmlata of aema
ger^rni inaioatara of $ha «urrent level of activity *n Va»
stata ccqparoA to the ne&lcnaS nwrciso* She

«0<?OT4

aoeiiaa

provides OQM ifflsrapffcttv* ljy i«u!*eating tron£a la fc^ad
insured of activity, a$a tha %M%% aoetton V|3& lacladJ a
&aro tfatanat! ana3#a£» of «pooifle grcartfe #3?oa$% FrQ» thaw
analyses I feaw A#v&3<$oA a eoscludtBg ^tat^t^Dt cnst&itrtne
tbo w & and strong fw*uraa of tt»a atate'e &?outft p&tftom*
At tbe ootaat I %&$&% state* not aa an apology*
t^rt ai**p3y a *t&te&ant of faat- that two analysts coalA
raadlSy dwar $ilta dtftV^«ot aaft oanfllottU^g; concl»*loaa
In xtegesQ. to acoao™ic coaaittoas In maalaalnpU Moat street
wussg^arlaowa «?f the fe>i$ saaaaaraa of activity with t&& n&fctjmal
aycrctgo »ho» the atate ao^lna in a poor seoonS* On tfca ot&er
jfeMid^ % cc^perlaoa of r^omst gro^t^ tran4Sj as J ta^ ^ e in
tiK? eeedftf afcagjB of tfeia *^porfc- e!30B$ tfto stnta saa&ing graot
at^i<3a* 2*l4£iw to tlio n*&lon« fw?$lmmm®M acsae of tfco




- 3 specific analyses in the third portion of this discussion
reveal a very promising outlook for growth.
A look at the stated current situation reveals that
a sizeable gap remains to be closed if the state is to reach
the average for the nation in most areas of activity•

In I965

per capita income in Mississippi averaged $1,559 compared to
$2,781 in the nation. Such income in the state was only 56
per cent of the national average* Similarly, average hourly
earnings of production workers in manufacturing were well
below the national level, averaging only $1*69, or 69 per cent
of the national average. Value added per man~hour in manufacturing of §k*7Q was only 62 per cent of the national level,
Numerous other broad measures of economic activity
similarly show the state lagging the nation. In I965 only
32 per cent of the state*s popxtLation was employed, eon^ared
to 38 per cent in the nation. A smaller per cent of the
workers in the state were employed in the relatively high
income occupations • Conversely, a larger per cent were
employed in the relatively low income occupations. For
example, in manufacturing, where wages generally average
higher than other occupations, ex^loyment in Mississippi in
1965 was only 20 per cent of total employment. In comparison,
25 per cent of the nation's work force was employed in manufacturing. On the other hand, employees in the relatively




~ k~
lo^poyi&g occupations 000b m s^ieultttro, oelf^employod
groups dcoestio vorlsers; and tmp&id family wor&ers* accou&t
for 36 P^r «eat of tho total ia Mississippi coog*ared to 16
per cent ia the n&tiosu
3&ose iiadlcators^ as per capita Inooass a&d average
bo«rly earsc&ags of pa^uotloa? workers in wrnm£mtax?L®®} abould
siot bo interpreted a& proeiso mzmxxsx® of lowls of living in
t t e 0tate & & nation. X mat sure tb&t MlB$iii0ippi dollara
£
purch&ae 4 greater volfflB of goods a & servloea used "by
&
fmilles tban the awrs^o doHar® ®Qxm& tltpoqg^boizt the imtio&.
llafortmmt^ly> TO bavo no co^st of living co^arisom between
tba state m& tba smtional awraso, Tm lazier cbargo^ ber#
for bousis© & d acmriees* prtearliy became of Icvar prices
&
fear labor «tsd 0^© iis^ortoat rosr mterialgj feosramv W131 bare
an l&$orta&& impaot 011 total £cnlly bodcet s ? ^ 3 ^ ^

Also*

Btroorous factors entor into dss^-to-day living wbicb aro difficult
to zaoo&uro la miietary teams but are i^ewirt&elose important in
dotorsaiaii^g ®m$® maidrnm*

j&oludod $mm& aueb f&otors ar©

tba suzaarous fret outdoor roo^oation opportunities la*
Xlaalaaippl, tba desirable eListatle oo&ditlossa* a&d fevorablo
social aral faolly ties* ytbm botb laonatos^y $&& Bou~m&efcary
eo&t of living f&ctora ara aaccRsoted for* Mississippi Xiviag
atte&or&a probobly approach tbe mbtaoaBL awrago m&. exoaor
than i s indicated W the per capita inca^ data*




Com other aesauroo of ccomoaic activity oad mtoarca
use in £r,sciG2.it>pi cohere $ulto favorably with tho mtioaal
2»
avcrac^. 3 w ttac^lcg«acat rate for tire stat® in early I966
t& s&oot tho mm m Hbs national avor^a. list lasooft per
?&
feosa lost yecr totaled $ 3 * ^ * or $9 per cent of that for tba
safclga. Crova yleMa indicate that £ten productloa capacity
i s Klsciayippl i s bcttoi* tbaa «?©$$©» for cottcci but fcelotr
averse tar oora. In 19^5 cotton yields per aero vero 28 p@?
cent

C XW tbaa®
OJ J

of tha nation, vbilo com yloMa vere tyg per

cent tesa.
Dc-:n>ita soa» I3sw»3^s ccsapcriccca, eta over-all
&&
view of th&s© & t a&va&ia tlsofiRsfostaatisl2&£ in the stestet'o
CMtittGOklCI 0lt9lttttlQII S$ $& $*SW@ffitl5f fftffBflfff IMKNHB& tS$S$38J8 i &

saay of tte IS O Eeasta^s of ©otlvlty, Jsoveverjj reveal a
dT M
1ml® tor optisiKa cor.oemla^ $fc® fata?© couroe of activity
la tlio sfeU*.
01803 3-957 po|«jIsi.tioa tas iaox©as<5d at tJj© fc&fcioaosl
Scat© ©ftey &oc2.lKi»g ia jpols&iois to tJsa ao&Ioeysl total fo3P ft
xsas&w of ycarr> (Cfeaot 1), < & otate'a population rosa fvm
So
2,012,00$ £a 155? to 2,322,000 in 1255, en increases of 32 per
eont. 2b& ttfift$$i States n&Efttlatloa xoc& at Qtostct that SOBS
rate teiag tho period. Total ea^loyoaiit in tto state haa
iaov©4 up 7 $0? emit eiaca 1960, alaast m groat «* tha 3 per
©asit fjaia oatiocally (Cfcwfc 2).




Payroll eidployiaent in tfao state has made outstanding galas since 1957, increasing from 367 thousand to hQl
thousand, a gain of aore than 30 per cent (Chart

3),

In

comparison, payroll eaploysjoat la tho nation roso only 14
per cent. Tlia diverse trenda in total sod payroll aoployaeat
ore explained by a saa^or shift in ouploycea la Mississippi
fros jm«payrolX groups, particularly touting,

into the payroll

classification.
Total and per capita personal incoaes havo likewise
sado aajor gains to Mississippi since 1957 (Chart* k and 5).
Total Boraonal Iv^^ffflw increased frcea. &2,X Million to 43.6
fcillion, a gala of about 71 per centr

This ccapares vith a

53 per cent gain for tad nation* Per capita personal income
in the state rose from $1,013 to $1,559, a gain of 5** per
cent. In comparison, per capita, incoae rose only about 36
per cent in the nation. Shese fapresaiw growth trends
demonstrate the d^oasaia nature of econoaic activity in tfc*
state.
In the third phase of this diccuaaion X vould lika
to direct your attention to eoa» specific characteristics of
growth patterns in f&saissippi* first, let's examine aanufactwrine enployncnt that has grow* 00 rapidly la Mississippi
In recent yeara. Production worker* in mnufacturins rose
from 1X3 thousand in 1953 to 152 thouaajvi in 1$6$, a gala of
34 par cent. Production vorkcrs la mnufacturing in tho




m f m

0* S« gainod o&ly 13 per eon* duriag t&U period* Averts
value addod por xaaa~hour in isaiiufaoturittg In Mississippi ro8#
33 per eout ccsaparod to 23 pw c&at in the tf. S* &wevw#
averse hourly oarainga par production vorfcer in E^nufacturiiag
in tho state rooa IS per cent cou^urod to 17 per c«mt in tho
natioa.
just as important as the total gains .from the view
of economic dcvclop^nt, &re tho types of manufacturlcg
taduatries vMch havo dovoloped in the flt&te. Most of ti»
state's zsanuracturlrig t*m&®r« art csxployDd ia 32 of the najor
0XC ixmufacturing croups vhich X shall not l i s t to you in
detail, t ham» however, consolidated the 12 croups into
two mjor croups vfciofa* for vaut of a hotter torn, shall b»
called t&cr *loif ^aniiiigs^ <? w * &ad tlj© "high wiwln$&** group*
iw $
j\0 tho case iapliejs, tha "low oamir^o" group consists of
those toAaHtoeUa such as food prooeaalr^, toxtilas, apparel,
l * $ < 3 and finRltartt 38883^1^^
482 3?

in vhich t & &vor$GO hourly
&

eoraiBgs* am mltfivtfar liar* la mattm*, tba *M*& awaias*11
group consists of such mmsgmtexv&m as paper firm,

che&iaala,

stoics* clay, isot&ls* electrical mctcshinarv mid tr&oBt&rt&tlOtt
©quipnKHit i&dah ;req,uir© Ewr© c&pital pear vox&er* higher ^M-11%
aad tho evswag© hourly earaiaga are substantially greater*
ftauftwrttariag in Kiosioaippl e t l U conoiota pro*
doninantly of tho "low earnings'' type laduatrieo. Of tho lUl
tflvwiftgnfl esiployaes ia tbs IS sss^oar naaufacfturiJQg {groups in
I^icsieolppi in 1965, $3 per cent versfcnployedin the five



«8"low earnings" groopa. In comparison, only 32 per cent of
the jaaiajfactwring vorkoro In tha United Statoo vere employed
in tha five "lov earnings" groups* Conversely, only 37 per
c&nfc of tha Esaaufacttiring enployoea la Kisslesippi vere eaployod
in the "high oarnincs" groups, whereas 68 per cont of the 9. S.
aaiatfactnring ec^loyoes vore working in tha "nigh earnices"
groups*
Other characteriatics of naaufacturlnf; in Hiaai&aippi
0<wii«.ylv

show tha unfavorable balance of ths industry in tha

©tat©* Value add<xl per nan-hour of production work in I963
totaled only $u?8j or about tvo-tnirdo of the $7.7$ per oanhour in tho nation. Value coded par man-hour in the etato was
'bolow tho national average in &acfr of t&Qi 12 najor manufacturing
groups* However, in the "high earnings" groups of chenlcnla
and allioa producta, and stone, clay,findglass productfi, tlio
value added per don-hour in Mississippi DKXFO nearly approacbod
the national average. Average hourly earatago of production
vorkera in laannfaotwing in Mississippi of $1*6? vore likouioe
Only about two-ttote the national flwerage. Again the difference
between tho state and national average vaa less porcantafieviao
in soaao of the "nigh, earnings" groups*, Peat oxaopl©, in paper
and allied products, average vsges in the state of $2.6% par
hour exceeded the national average ty about $ per cent*




« p •
*
These data do not noon that labor in Mississippi
10 loss Industrious than in other part* of the nation*

The

value added per isan-hour reflect© both the akill of labor,
the labor-capital mix, and other faotora euch as plant organ*
i*atioa vhich contribute to labor efficiency*

She lower

average value added per Eyan~hour for all manufacturing groi^pa
in Missiasippi probably reflects the type of luanufacturing
laost predominant In the state - namely, apparel and related
products vhich eatiploy large nunibers of relatively unskilled
vorkero in lov capital per vorker plants- Thu3 the loir
average value added per iaan~hour in the atate probably
reflects both the relatively lm

skiUa required and the

lav capital to labor ^*x la the types of industries predo&lnaat
in the state.
When broken down by industry groups, the average
value added per iaan~hour in each of the 12 major groups la

however, the data are sxibject to miointerpretation, since the
products of naaufacturiAS can vary substantially vithin each
of the major groups • For example, apparel nills in Mississippi
my be geared primarily for producing overalls la a highly
competitive market vhere value added averaged $2*93 per oan-hour
la 1963- On the other hand, the national average value added
by apparel vorkers ie mora influenced by highly ^specialized
firma such aa fur good* plants vhere value added averaged $7*20
per zaaa-hour*



J&though these data point up 1100k points in th<*
fitatofa laonufacturing industry, sou© of tbo exaerging tronda
givo reason Tor Optimism* Tha trend in valuo added par manhour in Mississippi bm -boon sharply upward during recent years.
Average valuo added per Kan-hour for oil laanufacturing in the
state roso 33 per cent froa I95S to 1$J5« Zn comparison, tha
increase for tha nation averaged 23 per cent, A breal;down of
msmSaatwing

in tho stata into three digit SIC groups ebwa

that value added per ia&n~hour in Mississippi ro&o faster than
the national a w m g o in 32 out of 10 groups vhero conparabla
dfttftttroiw&3JU&lo»

Son*®ftlgnifiQ&ntguinftrs in vttliw tiddod

p«r ciaa-hour in Miaaisaippl compared to tho Q» 8. average were*
Mississippi
Dairies
Miscellaneous Foods
SG^>7nills and Planing
Mills
Miscellaneous Vood
Product©
Basic Chenicala
Agricultural Choriicals
Structural Ktetnis
Toya end Sporting Goods

United States

•
•

60.7*
58.4

•

55.2

sua*

• 10^.6
• 1*3.9
• 175-1
• 37.5
* 37«0

• 23.9

• 37.5*
• 32,1

• 22*.4
• 9»5
• 17.3

Also, en analynis of growth rates la tho major type*
of manufacturing indicates a strong trend toward improved
balance between the "low earning*" and "high earolags* groups
in recent years. Emplo^/aent la the "high earnings'' group is
tha state rooe froa 39 thousand to 52 thousand during the
period 195&-3#65« Percentaeewiae, state employment la these
groups rose 3fc P** cant compared to a 15 per cent gain nationally



-ilia tha nana groapa. Prtaartly rangcmaiM* for £Oln» in tb»
in wwMwry c&dt £al>:ri.c&t$d s&t&Xd* msspXQya&&% la both of
them iiidiwtrieo alsmt trijOcd during tlw aewn year period*

a^loysioftt this bec^^lng of hi&hly^j&illecl m& M|#ily*
eapltulicca typoa of imlUQtrlea In tb» ©iato prorvldea m
oppcsrtoaityf far upcradiag labor ©kills tbrousb ou-tha-Jcto
tnilttlqg* 3&u@f tb^ao dovoXops^atd v l Uft£&1& c&l#Yiatix*g
tho doartb of locally traiturfl imgwrnm®* Mao, elan© with
cxlotir$ trago dlfforct&ti&iiij socxt upcrodi&g of l£bo? skills
v i l l px*ovid0 &d&ittG&&l i&c^tffclw for otfc®r MgirajTHWyfttftl t t H.
wI
laflnittlfti to loemto in the »tfct»#
Acriculturo la Ki&3i3aippi has *Oao roved eljarply
alsasul £ arGco^t ywwB^ paralleling dovoXopcac^ta in t&o *aanst*
&
facturlxc; Motcif* £&&llsocl gro^o farm iwos© 1st thft $t&to
roe® $200 alUlon, or 30 per otnt fts» I95S to 19^* Stts
oonpMM vl«h tt tt w

Uttfawt

Incoos www 64 $#r cent oo&$or^ vlth ft 10 per cant docllna

t$& form labor foreo igg& ft roSuetioa to ti*$ »uraS)or of t&xv&$
swt tiKfflHtt psir fi K la tfeo &t&to jfiowt ttsstiflOi&XflKlduring
BB
tt» period, riciDs frm ^1,^62 to $3#%&$# or 13^ por cent
occ^arod vltl) ft ^ pss? ooat g%te Mtionftlly* 23*$$$ ssajoer
0&4ag IA ecrlcultur4l cfftclsaoy h&va yfflftiiftf^ twa^row




- 12 workers to other sectors of the state'a economy, peraitting
sore rapid developoent there than could have otherwise occurred.
Since 1961 agricultural employaent In the state has dropped
from 17? thousand to 1&7 thousand, a decline of almost 16 per
cent*
Another facet of the state*0 econonic pulse beat
which is very difficult to Measure, Inst nevertheless should
not bo ignored, is the quality of the labor force* One
indication of such quality is the type of industry prevailing.
tlSing this ss ft saeasure, the state vould hove to be classified
substandard despite some very promising sains in recent years*
Another masure vhich X prefer to use, however, is the level

X find that Mississippi not only lags the nations], average
hut fell soaaewbat further behind during the decade ending In
I960* At that tloo the median years of school coapletcd by
the population over 2$ years of age in Mississippi ices 8.9
years. She eoa^parable schooling eoapXetod by the nation's
population was 10.6 years. She sedlan school years completed
in Mississippi in i960 vas 84 per cent of the V. 8* nedlaa
compared to 6? per cent a decade earlier.
Xn summary X shall briefly reiterate sons of the
strong and veafc points in the state's recent end potential
economic development as they appear to m*
side X vould list the follovingt




On the negative

- 13 *
X. Despite the result growth of setae high-earning
types of nanufacturing industries* manufacturing in tha state
consists predoMnantly of the "lev earnings" typo.
3* Par capita ineostes are still relatively low
despite oubstantial Inprovoaaent in recent years. This to *
great extent reflect* the type of labor force soft eqployasat
opportunities in the state. The low incomas also result

agriculture where incomes nationally reaaain below averages la
other sectors of the econoaay.
3. She quality of the atate»a labor force is
apparently veil below the national average, and this any he
an important factor inhibiting growth in the area* Opportunltiea for industrial training are relatively scarce because
of a shortage of highly-capitalized industries ia the state
in which on-the-job training can he obtained. She median
level of education is veil below the national average, and
the situation has apparently not ia^proved in recent years.
My guess is that those "high earning* industries vhich have
moved to the state have iisported a large share of their highlyskilled workers* Shis places a heavy cost burden on industrial
expansion and limits growth of firm requiring highly-skilled
help in locations where it is ia snort supply.
On the positive side, the state's econcaio achieve*
stents art)- outstanding*




X* Beraonal, total, and past capita. l*wwifflt has nado
above-avoraga gains in recant years.
2. Eaployaent in aanufaaturinc fc&s grown at a
greater than national rate, providing balance in tl» atata'a
coonoay. Also, tho state io beginning to attract sons of t&t
nore highly capitalized, better-paying indufttrias.
3U Hourly earnings of production voricera in asm**
factoring in HieBiaaippi continue to lag tba national avaraga,
providing Great

Incentive for further plant expansion in tha

otato.
k*

Value added par laaoluxtr of production work in

too stato*s is^ufactvtring industries has increased sharply in
recent years. Although still soaevhat below tha national
average, valua added lias stoved upvard at a> substantially
faster rata in the state than in the nation*
5. Agriculture is asking rapid strides* Fara
oreanl station is improving. Mechanization is providing greater
efficiency, and labor is being releasee: to noa-fam uses*
This dynamic nature of the state's agriculture 1* a boon to
exauth




in other sectors of tho stata*s •eonoaar*

- 15 *
In sussaatlon, Mississippi baa made major gains on
a vide economic front. Total personal income, payroll and
manufacturing employmnt,

and output per worker in manufactur-

ing ^ have increased sharply in recent years* The farming
ocemsunity has likewise sieved forward with great vigor.
On the other band, the state still lag* the nation
in aaost Pleasures of economic progress. Low per capita incomes,
a lack of balance m &anufeaturing industries, a relatively
untrained labor force, and a continuing lag in educational
accompliobment are major problem areas* In my Judgment, stepped
up emphasis on upgrading education and training of the state's
young people offers the greatest opportunity for the solution
of all these problenaa*
I believe that the state has the knov-hov and the
will to cosaa to grips with these problems* Frequently local
cosmtunitles isay fail to recognise the importance of education
and training. Investments in these areas ©ay offer the highest
rate of return of any investment that Mississippi can make*
Shis is where the people in this room, who represent the economic
leadership of the state, have an important part to play in its
progress. As recognised business leaders your voice often
carries greater weight than professional educators and others
in stressing the need for education and taproving the quality
of the labor force. By pointing out that high wage paying
industries and high quality labor move together, you can be a
potent force not only in raiding your own incomes but also in
improving the living levels of all Hissisaippiana,




TABLE I
Bam Measure* of Mississippi1• Econooy

MlOSiESippi

Hissioslppi

U. 8.

M Per Cent
of U. 8.

• 1,559

• 8,781

56

Average hourly earnings (1963)

I.69

2.k6

69

Per Cent of population employed (I965)

32.2

37.6

66

Per Cent of total employment1
in xnannfacttxring (1965)
in nomaanufacturing (196$)
in agriculture (I965)
*j
in other employment {X$6$)&

20.3
W.l
19.6
16.0

24.9
58.8

82
7$
306
162

Economic Indicator
Per capita income (1965)

6.k

9.9

k.6

UnenployEient rate (19^5)
Value added per manhour in
ssanufaoturing (1963)

• M8

• 7.67

52

Bet income per farm (1964)

• 3,***

• 3,«*

99

1/ NonagriculturaL self-employed, doaastio, and unpaid family vorkere.
2/ Revised 1*66.




SABLE H
toploymQnt, Valuo Added per Kan-hour, ©nd Hourly Earnings
Htiwitalppi <md United States Itoxuflacturin« Industrie

1963

Valuo Added,/
.Pay Ma^lxny/,

1965
{^Thousands
of Persons)

2963
Avowee
trago
w
Hourly Barain&fi"*'

(BollAra)

(Dollar*)

V. S.

MiO0.

g« 8.

K1O«A

1,737.7
919.3

16,9
5**

9«58
3.98

6.51
3.71

8.30
1.71

1.53
1.5b

1,350.8

#.a

3.#

a.ui

1.73

1.34

605.S
1(29.1

23-5
9-2

3.99
$.78

3.57
4.00

2.04
2.00

1.58
1.55

63T«5
977-3

VI

T.35
9.63

6.49
6.50

2.48
2.89

2.6U
1.99

products
Stono> clay, end glass

908.7

**9

IT.89

620.9

5.4

2.7a
a.47

2.03

products
I^lxsary aa& :f^i<$tst©&
sactals
Eloetric&l c&d Eton*
electrical machinery
Transportation eciuipaoaat

MM
6.66

S»553.3

?.?

7.#i

6.65

8.83

1.91

1,739*3

9*S

5.89
«.71

2.62
3.01

1.76
a.a.

T47

%.78

2.46

I.69

i.62

2.60
.89

a.

1.

1.51^

Food and kindred
products
5texfcil® mill prodtwt*
Apparel and related
product©
Lumber and vood

products
l^miture and fixture*
Paper GM allied
products
Printlnc and publishirsg
Chaolcal0 oad allied

Sotal Maxm£acturin*t

17,98**0

15.5
10.8
151*7

first 5 groiqps
BemiaiBg groupa

5#0*2.7
10,816.0

89 .a
52.0

Low earnings group as
per cant of total

68.2

Mloo.

1.80

a.oa

31*8 £ 63.2*

S*£h earnloga group as
per coat of total

S.

36,8

1/ Production vorkors only.
Industry groups do not add to totalteoanteeemallertaduatartOihaw %»*a ooitted.

27
2/




S A M S XZX
Growth Ratoe in Major Manufaaturins Iaflustriee
Mississippi and United State*

Estployiaant

Value Added
per Man-hour

Average
Hourly:earning*

Per Cent Change
195S-1965

1958-1963"

Per Cent Chans*
1958»1963

u. s.

Mia a.
Pood and kindred
products
Textile oill product*
Apporol and rilattd
products
Luniber end vood
produata
Furniture and fixture
Paper and allied
products
Printing and publishing
Cbcnicals and allied
products
Stone, clay, and glass
products
Prinary and fabricated
taatala
Electrical and nonelectrical mmtermpp
Transportation nguipewnt
Total Manufacturing

».a. • sot available.




0. S.

Kiss.

P. S.

ftla*.

X3*fe
22 r 7

• 2.0
0.1

20.3
62.0

21* .T
£6.5

U.T
12.4

23.0
17.1

40.T

15.3

2T-5

14.4

16.5

13.8

10.3
76.9

• 1.5
18.9

77.6
24.2

20.5
1*.9

35.0
n.a.

17.2
14,9

3T-0
0

13*0
12*0

15A
I6.3

20.3
21.0

22.2
9«9

23.4
n.».

32.*>

13*?

68.2

32.4

20.1

21.4

33UT

10.il

25.0

20.8

16.1

20.5

I65.5

a&.$

72-3

X5*9

21.7

17.9

2*6.0
• 1.8

29.6
8.2

19*2
3T.3L

8.6

38.1

&«**

19*1
23^

34.2

12.8

33*1

82*9

11.9

17-1

f.9

5IASLB i y
imsteymab i& Somaanufacturlns In Mississippi

5toowi*tHl*? of
Fereono
Mississippi 1/

Per Cent Change

X9&

19^5

Kiss*

P. 8.

25-3

£6.4

4.3

1.*

Wbolonale and retail trade

79*3

92.4

16.2

17.1

Finance, insurance, real estate

U.9

JUS.7

40.3

20.8

Service and niecellsaeous

kO*f

55.5

36.4

30.7

Goveraaent

82.3

104.8

27.3

23.2

Contract coaatruotioa

22.^

27.0

21.4

15.6

5.6

5*9

5-4

• l6.k

268.3

329.5

22.8

19.8

public utilities

Killing

HSotf&L IP'IOTflfflrffl^^

1/ Iaclustry eroupe do not add to total because email industries have baas omitted.




TABLE V
Growth Rates in Agriculture, Mioatssippi ami 0. S.

gey Cent Cjtenpje H
1958-w
P. S.

Mississippi

Gross f ara incoao

• 11.3

• 30.2

Set farm incase

* 10.4

•

Bet income per farm

•

• 335.7

Cotton y i e l d per acre

• K>.9

•

Corn y i e l d per acre

• ££1«<1

+ 34,4

Soybean y i e l d per aare

•

* 17,4




9'3

5*8

63*$

7$*Q

TABLE V I

tiedian Year« of School Completed
Mississippi and U- 0. 1/

3L9%0

3.^60

Mississippi

8.1

8.9

Halted States

9*3

20-6

87*1

&»0

Mississippi as
Per Cent Of U. S.

1/ Population, age 25 toad over.




POPULATION
UNITED STATES
MISSISSIPPI
1957-59=100
115

1957-59=100
115

^ • i ^r^

110
Nlississ ippi

Jnited States

105

i

jdy*

>2

100

no
105

^

100

^+*s^
* * ' "

95

1957 1958 1959 I960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966
S o u r c e : U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Commerce
1965 preliminary
?_ *




_J

95

TOTAL EMPLOYM ENT
ISSIPPI AND UNITE D STAT S

Ml
1957-59=100
115

1957-59=100
115

110
Uinited 5States

105
o''^***

100

95

/

^

^v > - * /

1?57^ J958

"

^z^>

Jf

^

110

105

Mis;sissip|

'

w

1959_ 1960 1961 J9_62 1963 1964 1965 1966

Source: Mississippi Employment Security Commission
a n d U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Commerce




/

r

100

95

PAYROLL EMPLOYMENT
PPI AND UNITED STAT S

M
1957-59=100
130

1957-59=100
130
•

125

125

120

120
Miss;issipp >

•

/

115
110

s"
+*

105
—

100

V

Uni

ted

States

*c-

1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966
Source; M i s s i s s i p p i E m p l o y m e n t Security Commission
a n d U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of L a b o r j




.110
105

^

/ • "
r

'

95

..A

X

115

100
95

TOTAL P KSONAL INCOME
I
ITED S
S
1957-59=100
170

1957-59=100
170

*

160

160

150

150
Missis sippi

^ y

140
y

130

y

.--'Jnited States

120
110

^

^

~

-£+*

4*

100

~

£>

,

++

^

140
130
120
110

^

100

<<*>
«"""""

90

J957 1958 J959

1960 1961

1965 preliminary'Source:




1962 1963 1964 1965 1966

U.S. Department of Commerce and Business Week

90

PER CAPITA PERSO AL I
MISSISSIPPI A N D U STED TATI
1957-59=100
160

1957^59=100
160
150

150

140

140
Missi:ssippi

130

•

•

130

•

120

120
110

r

90

^

** Uni ted States

-£.*

^ * » '

0

100

f* .

^

SZ+
1

m» ** "••

100

5^^

1957 195_8_ 1959 I960
1965 preliminary,




110

1

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce

90