|
August 1998
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Houston Branch
Oil-Related
Employment: Short-Term Adjustment in Nine Cities
As conditions in the American oil industry
change, employment in the industry changes along with it.
This article explores adjustments in the level of oil-related
employment in nine cities.
The method used to compare these cities
is familiar to readers of this newsletter—an equation that
relates local oil employment to the U.S. business cycle, the
domestic rig count and the real trade-weighted value of the
dollar. Past issues of Houston Business have applied
this relationship to the local economy—to compare the roles
of oil and the U.S. economy in Houston's business cycle (August
1993), to demonstrate the powerful effects of changes in the
exchange rate on the local economy (September 1997) and to
forecast Houston's business cycle (June 1998). This article
applies the equation to Houston and eight other cities with
a large concentration of oil-related employment.
This comparison of cities yields important
insight into what is different—and perhaps unique—about Houston's
relationship to the oil industry. It also helps us understand
how each city adjusts to the U.S. business cycle, to oil markets
and to the dollar exchange rate. These short-term employment
responses are the focus of this article. The equations also
contain information about longer term changes in oil-related
employment in these cities: their response to new technology,
to restructuring and other management moves, and to the ongoing
consolidation of the industry into Houston and a few other
major centers. These longer term results will be the subject
of the next issue of Houston Business.
Methodology
The estimated equation this article
uses is
[see this issue PDF
file for equation]
where yt is oil-related employment (mining,
manufacturing and machinery) at time t, t serves as a trend
term in the equation itself, and X1, X2 and X3 are the U.S.
unemployment rate, the Baker Hughes rig count and the real
trade-weighted value of the dollar, respectively. The short-term
changes in this relationship depend on the estimated parameters
b1, b2 and b3, which (because a logarithmic functional form
is used) represent elasticities—that is, as the percentage
change in oil-related employment in response to a 1 percent
change in X1, X2 or X3. The parameter c is the percentage
change in trend, independent of these other factors. It is
these elasticities that allow us to compare the job response
over time and across cities. The ut is a residual random error.
The estimates are further complicated
by assuming that changes in oil employment in response to
external conditions are spread over four quarters for changes
stemming from the U.S. business cycle or oil markets, and
over six quarters for the dollar exchange rate. We use quarterly
data, estimate the equations for two periods—1975 through
1986 and first-quarter 1987 through first-quarter 1998—and
test to see if the short-term response to oil markets or the
U.S. economy has changed significantly between these periods.
Oil Cities
Table 1 lists the nine oil cities
that are the focus of this article. (Data are unavailable
for some candidates that might be expected to appear, such
as Midland–Odessa.) Based on total employment, the three
largest cities are Houston, Dallas and Denver, followed by
New Orleans, Tulsa and Oklahoma City. The smallest cities
are Bakersfield, Calif., and Lafayette and Houma–Thibodaux,
La.
Mining employment in these nine cities
is synonymous with oil extraction, including oil production
and services. Houston stands apart from the other cities based
on the number of mining jobs; with 67,700, it dwarfs second-place
New Orleans by more than a factor of four. Dallas has the
largest manufacturing sector, based largely on its huge electrical
manufacturing employment, much of which (as will be seen)
has few ties to oil. Local manufacturing doesn't always have
many ties to oil, but these estimates let us test the strength
of these ties and whether they have changed in recent years.
Table 2 shows elasticities that relate
local mining employment to three external factors. The coefficient
is shown in bold if it is statistically significant. If the
coefficients, which are for 1987–98, are statistically
different from the coefficients estimated for 1975–86,
they are italicized. For example, Houston's elasticity that
relates mining employment to the U.S. unemployment rate is
both bold and italicized, as the coefficient falls by half
after 1986 but remains statistically positive. This positive
coefficient means Houston mining remains countercyclical to
the U.S. economy, a result consistent with history. Across
the nine cities, however, there is a tendency for mining jobs
to become less countercyclical, or more cyclical. Houston,
Denver, Lafayette and New Orleans move in this direction after
1987.
The dollar exchange rate is statistically
significant, large and negative in five of the nine cities,
with port-city New Orleans a surprising exception. For the
three smallest cities, the elasticity is insignificant or
carries the wrong sign.
The largest and most significant elasticities
are reserved for the rig count, however. After 1987, only
Denver's mining sector becomes less responsive to the rig
count; Dallas' becomes more responsive. Oklahoma City, Lafayette
and Dallas have the largest elasticities.
Table 3 shows similar elasticities for
manufacturing employment in the nine cities. Manufacturing
can encompass much business unrelated to oil, but the strength
of the oil-manufacturing linkage can be tested. Houston and
Oklahoma City, for example, show a small but significant decline
in the elasticity of manufacturing with respect to the rig
count. Seven of the nine cities have a manufacturing sector
that responds significantly and positively to the rig count;
Houma–Thibodaux and Houston have the largest elasticities.
Unlike mining, manufacturing and the
U.S. economy move together in most of these cities. And the
trend observed in mining—toward the cities becoming more synchronized
with the U.S. business cycle—does not carry over to manufacturing.
Only Houston moves in that direction after 1987, while New
Orleans and Denver become more countercyclical.
As with mining, the three smallest cities
show no significant linkage with the dollar exchange rate.
Except for Dallas, all the bigger cities have large and negative
coefficients.
Table 4 presents an interesting contrast
between Houston and Dallas. Houston's large machinery industry
employed 58,000 in 1997, 86 percent of them in nonelectrical
machinery. In contrast, Dallas machinery employed 79,100 last
year, 75 percent of them in electrical machinery. During the
past decade electrical machinery jobs in Dallas have rapidly
moved from defense-related electronics to high-tech semiconductors
and telecommunications. Table 4 clearly indicates that Houston's
large nonelectrical base is still closely tied to oil and
the exchange rate. In contrast, the large electrical machinery
base in Dallas depends mostly on linkages to the U.S. economy.
Some Conclusions About Houston
Comparing Houston with the other
eight cities, we can draw some conclusions.
First, Houston is unique among the oil
centers in that it has 67,700 oil extraction employees—45.4
percent of the nine-city total.
Further, Houston's mining sector remains
countercyclical to the U.S. economy after 1987, although the
response is smaller than pre-1987.
The elasticity that relates local mining
and manufacturing to the dollar exchange rate is large, negative
and statistically significant in the six largest oil cities,
including Houston.
The most important factor affecting
short-run adjustments in mining employment in the nine cities
is the rig count, with Houston's response about average for
the cities.
Finally, the rig count elasticities
are not as large in manufacturing as in mining, but they remain
a statistically significant factor in determining factory
employment in seven of the nine cities. The largest response
of manufacturing employment to the rig count is seen in Houma–Thibodaux
and Houston.
Houston Beige
Book
July 1998
Houston continues to show many signs
of strong local growth. Existing home sales in the first half
were 28 percent ahead of their year-ago level. New nonresidential
construction permits for the city were 106 percent higher
than in the same period in 1997. And the number of jobs grew
4.2 percent over the past 12 months. At the same time, Asia's
financial problems and weak energy markets are beginning to
take a toll on the local economy. Oil extraction and durable
manufacturing job growth have slowed sharply in recent months,
and the latest Houston Purchasing Managers Index shows local
manufacturing growth at a standstill.
Retail and Auto Sales
Retail sales were mixed, with some
stores still reporting excellent results. However, clothing,
sporting goods and some specialty stores reported slower sales,
with hot weather, less promotional activity and unsettling news
from energy markets blamed for the falloff.
Local auto sales remained strong in
May and June, running about 7 percent ahead of last year.
Sales were unaffected by the recent GM strike.
Oil and Natural Gas
OPEC's most recent production cuts
had only a transitory effect on oil prices. West Texas Intermediate
crude briefly moved back up to $15 per barrel, only to slide
under $14 in July. Optimists are hoping the OPEC cuts will
have some effect this fall; combined with a cold winter they
might pull prices back up to $16–$17. Natural gas prices
also declined but generally remained at healthy levels, above
$2 per thousand cubic feet. Natural gas storage levels continued
to build, rising to levels 25 percent or more above what they
were a year earlier.
Domestic drilling activity has continued
to decline, with fewer oil- and gas-directed rigs at work.
The strongest segment of the drilling surge of 1996–97
was offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, but in recent weeks only
about 135 of 170 Gulf rigs were at work. Significant declines
in day rates are reported for shallow water jack-up rigs and
supply boats, and recently weakness in rates has spread to
deep-water rigs as well.
Petrochemicals and Refining
Asia and a weak dollar were almost
universally blamed for weak chemical prices and profits, as
domestic demand remained very strong. Prices for big base petrochemicals
on the Ship Channel (ethylene, propylene, polyethylene, polypropylene)
remain weak and continued to fall in June and July, with profits
further eroded by increases in feedstock prices. Some operating
rates are being reduced. Further downstream, many plastic resins
showed price stability after falling steadily in April and May.
Gulf Coast refiners operated at high
levels of production in June and early July, leaving wholesale
gasoline prices and refining profits relatively weak despite
the summer driving season. In contrast, retail gasoline prices
have remained unchanged in recent weeks, keeping marketing
margins healthy.
Real Estate
Commercial and residential real estate
continues to roar after two years of strong local economic expansion.
Housing markets best illustrate the effort to catch up with
past job growth, with June existing home sales 31 percent above
June 1997. Similar gains have been reported for new home sales.
Labor, concrete and other shortages have combined with the strength
of the market to prevent any speculative home building or inventory
buildup. A prospective homeowner signing a contract for a new
house today will not move in until December due to existing
backlogs.
Any slowdown in local job growth will
be felt first in multifamily housing. About 24,000 units—many
in the luxury category—are under construction, more than double
the pace of a normal year in the 1990s.
| About Houston
Business
For more information or
copies of this publication, contact Bill Gilmer
at (713) 652-1546 or bill.gilmer@dal.frb.org,
or write to Bill Gilmer, Houston Branch, Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, P.O. Box 2578, Houston,
Texas 77252. This publication is available on
the Internet at www.dallasfed.org.
The views expressed are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the positions of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
or the Federal Reserve System. |
|
|