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 avcrac^. 32w» 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 «?©$$©» for cottcci but fcelotr averse tar oora. In 19^5 cotton yields per aero vero 28 p@? cent COXJWJ tbaa® of tha nation, vbilo com yloMa vere tyg per cent tesa. Dc-:n>ita soa» I3sw»3^s ccsapcriccca, eta over-all view of th&s© &&t& a&va&ia tlsofiRsfostaatisl2&£ in the stestet'o CMtittGOklCI 0lt9lttttlQII S$ $& $*SW@ffitl5f fftffBflfff IMKNHB& tS$S$38J8 i & saay of tte IdSTOM Eeasta^s of ©otlvlty, Jsoveverjj reveal a 1ml® tor optisiKa cor.oemla^ $fc® fata?© couroe of activity la tlio sfeU*. 01803 3-957 po|«jIsi.tioa tas iaox©as<5d at tJj© fc&fcioaosl Scat© ©ftey &oc2.lKi»g ia jpols&iois to tJsa ao&Ioeysl total fo3P ft xsas&w of ycarr> (Cfeaot 1), <S&o otate'a population rosa fvm 2,012,00$ £a 155? to 2,322,000 in 1255, en increases of 32 per eont. 2b& ttfift$$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^ <i?ww$* &ad tlj© "high wiwln$&** group* j\0 tho case iapliejs, tha "low oamir^o" group consists of those toAaHtoeUa such as food prooeaalr^, toxtilas, apparel, l4*8$2<33? and finRltartt 38883^1^^ in vhich t&& &vor$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 twHI. 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 fiBKB la tfeo &t&to jfiowt ttsstiflOi&XflKlduring 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 31*8 £ 63.2* S*£h earnloga group as per coat of total 68.2 S. Mloo. 1.80 a.oa 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* 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. 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. 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