News Release Information

14-2237-DAL
December 31, 2014

Contacts

Technical information:
Media contact:
  • (972) 850-4800

County Employment and Wages in Oklahoma – Second Quarter 2014

Employment rose in Oklahoma’s three large counties from June 2013 to June 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. (Large counties are defined as those with employment of 75,000 or more as measured by 2013 annual average employment.) Regional Commissioner Stanley W. Suchman noted that Cleveland County had the largest increase, up 2.1 percent, followed by Tulsa (1.6 percent) and Oklahoma (1.0 percent). (See table 1.)

Employment nationwide advanced 2.0 percent during the 12-month period as 305 of the 339 largest U.S. counties registered increases. Weld, Colo., recorded the fastest employment gain in the country, up 8.9 percent. Atlantic, N.J. experienced the largest over-the-year decrease among these counties with a loss of 1.6 percent.

Among the three largest counties in Oklahoma, employment was highest in Oklahoma County (442,400) in June 2014. Tulsa and Cleveland Counties had employment levels of 342,900 and 78,400, respectively. Together, the three largest Oklahoma counties accounted for 54.7 percent of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 339 largest counties made up 71.8 percent of total U.S. employment.

All three large Oklahoma counties experienced average weekly wage gains from the second quarter of 2013 to the second quarter of 2014. Tulsa County recorded the fastest rate of increase in average weekly wages, up 3.6 percent. (See table 1.) Tulsa County also had the highest average weekly wage among the state’s largest counties at $894, closely followed by Oklahoma County ($891). Nationally, the average weekly wage increased 2.1 percent from a year ago to $940 in the second quarter of 2014.

Employment and wage levels (but not over-the-year changes) are also available for the 74 counties in Oklahoma with employment below 75,000. In all but one of these smaller counties, wage levels were below the national average. (See table 2.)

Large county wage changes

Tulsa County’s 3.6-percent rise in average weekly wages from the second quarter of 2013 to the second quarter of 2014 ranked 32nd among the nation’s 339 largest counties and was well above the U.S. average rate of increase (2.1 percent). Advancing at a slower pace, wages in Oklahoma and Cleveland recorded over-the-year increases of 1.9 percent and 1.8 percent, respectively. (See table 1.)

Nationally, 312 of the 339 largest counties registered over-the-year wage increases. Midland, Texas, experienced the largest wage gain in the nation, up 9.0 percent. Douglas, Colo., had the second largest overall increase (8.8 percent), followed by Hillsborough, N.H. and Collier, Fla. (7.4 and 6.8 percent, respectively).

Nationwide, 22 of the largest counties registered wage declines during the period. Williamson, Texas, experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 2.7 percent over the year. Westchester, N.Y., had the second largest wage decline (-1.6 percent), followed by Lake, Ind. (-1.4 percent), and Bibb, Ga. (-1.3 percent).

Large county average weekly wages

Weekly wages in the state’s three large counties were below the national average of $940 per week. In the second quarter of 2014, average wages in Tulsa County ($894) ranked 148th and Oklahoma County ($891) ranked 151st, both in the middle of the national ranking of the 339 largest counties. In contrast, wages in Cleveland County ($716) ranked among the lowest, at 319th. (See table 1.)

Nationwide, average weekly wages were higher than the U.S. average ($940) in 109 of the 339 largest counties. Santa Clara, Calif., held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,886. San Mateo, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,740, followed by New York, N.Y. ($1,732).

Two-thirds of the largest U.S. counties (230) reported average weekly wages below the national average in the second quarter of 2014. The lowest wage was reported in Horry, S.C. ($548), followed by the Texas counties of Cameron ($585) and Hidalgo ($608). Wages in these lowest-ranked counties were less than one-third of the average weekly wage reported for the highest-ranked county, Santa Clara, Calif. ($1,886).

Average weekly wages in Oklahoma's smaller counties

Among the 74 smaller counties in Oklahoma – those with employment below 75,000 – Kingfisher ($979) was the sole county to report average weekly wages above the $940 national average. Including Kingfisher, three others – Woodward ($922), Beckham, and Washington (both at $898 per week) – were among the highest-paid smaller counties in the state. Cimarron County reported the lowest average weekly wage in the state with an average of $500 in the second quarter of 2014. (See table 2.)

When all 77 counties in Oklahoma were considered, 14 reported average wages under $600 per week, 27 registered wages from $600 to $699, 23 had wages from $700 to $799, 13 had wages of $800 or more. (See chart 1.) The higher-paying counties were concentrated around the larger metropolitan areas of Oklahoma City and Tulsa, as well as smaller cities including Elk City, Enid, and Woodward. The lower-paying counties, those with weekly wages under $600, were generally located in the eastern third of the state.

Additional statistics and other information

QCEW data for states have been included in this release in table 3. For additional information about quarterly employment and wages data, please read the Technical Note or visit www.bls.gov/cew.

Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2013 edition of this publication contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2014 version of the news release. Tables and additional content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2013 are now available online at www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn13.htm.

Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: 202-691-5200; Federal Relay Service: 1-800-877-8339.


Technical Note

Average weekly wage data by county are compiled under the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program, also known as the ES-202 program. The data are derived from summaries of employment and total pay of workers covered by state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) legislation and provided by State Workforce Agencies (SWAs). The 9.4 million employer reports cover 137.8 million full- and part-time workers. The average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels of those covered by UI programs. The result is then divided by 13, the number of weeks in a quarter. It is to be noted, therefore, that over-the-year wage changes for geographic areas may reflect shifts in the composition of employment by industry, occupation, and such other factors as hours of work. Thus, wages may vary among counties, metropolitan areas, or states for reasons other than changes in the average wage level. Data for all states, Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), counties, and the nation are available on the BLS Web site at www.bls.gov/cew/; however, data in QCEW press releases have been revised (see Technical Note below) and may not match the data contained on the Bureau’s Web site.

QCEW data are not designed as a time series. QCEW data are simply the sums of individual establishment records reflecting the number of establishments that exist in a county or industry at a point in time. Establishments can move in or out of a county or industry for a number of reasons–some reflecting economic events, others reflecting administrative changes.

The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may differ from data released by the individual states as well as from the data presented on the BLS Web site. These potential differences result from the states’ continuing receipt, review and editing of UI data over time. On the other hand, differences between data in this release and the data found on the BLS Web site are the result of adjustments made to improve over-the-year comparisons. Specifically, these adjustments account for administrative (noneconomic) changes such as a correction to a previously reported location or industry classification. Adjusting for these administrative changes allows users to more accurately assess changes of an economic nature (such as a firm moving from one county to another or changing its primary economic activity) over a 12-month period. Currently, adjusted data are available only from BLS press releases.

Table 1. Covered employment and wages in the United States and the 3 largest counties in Oklahoma, second quarter 2014
Area Employment Average Weekly Wage (1)
June 2014 (thousands) Percent change, June 2013-14 (2) National ranking by percent change (3) Average weekly wage National ranking by level (3) Percent change, second quarter 2013-14 (2) National ranking by percent change (3)

United States (4)

137,776.40 2.0 -- $940 -- 2.1 --

Oklahoma

1,578.00 1.0 -- 816 33 2.6 12

Cleveland, Okla.

78.4 2.1 129 716 319 1.8 167

Oklahoma, Okla.

442.4 1.0 244 891 151 1.9 156

Tulsa, Okla.

342.9 1.6 177 894 148 3.6 32

(1) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
(2) Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications.
(3) Ranking does not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
(4) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.

Note: Data are preliminary. Covered employment and wages includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.


Table 2. Covered employment and wages in the United States and all counties in Oklahoma, second quarter 2014
Area Employment
June
2014
Average
Weekly
Wage (1)

United States (2)

137,776,364 $940

Oklahoma

1,577,969 816

Adair

4,656 606

Alfalfa

1,731 810

Atoka

3,172 587

Beaver

1,868 732

Beckham

11,785 898

Blaine

3,138 702

Bryan

14,865 657

Caddo

6,707 692

Canadian

31,727 774

Carter

23,815 775

Cherokee

15,411 640

Choctaw

4,151 567

Cimarron

706 500

Cleveland

78,381 716

Coal

1,102 659

Comanche

42,551 712

Cotton

1,461 584

Craig

5,490 635

Creek

18,831 752

Custer

13,361 759

Delaware

8,893 566

Dewey

1,499 774

Ellis

1,312 797

Garfield

26,995 857

Garvin

9,716 850

Grady

12,584 714

Grant

1,438 874

Greer

1,264 599

Harmon

710 596

Harper

1,239 657

Haskell

3,383 550

Hughes

3,132 602

Jackson

9,361 660

Jefferson

1,049 631

Johnston

2,551 652

Kay

18,588 730

Kingfisher

6,027 979

Kiowa

2,167 635

Latimer

3,328 779

LeFlore

13,429 670

Lincoln

6,758 664

Logan

7,246 639

Love

4,861 628

Major

2,941 808

Marshall

4,588 639

Mayes

12,209 769

McClain

8,410 667

McCurtain

10,965 614

McIntosh

3,948 545

Murray

5,983 656

Muskogee

29,185 717

Noble

4,578 759

Nowata

1,687 570

Okfuskee

2,406 589

Oklahoma

442,412 891

Okmulgee

9,626 635

Osage

6,776 697

Ottawa

11,643 581

Pawnee

3,194 752

Payne

33,483 767

Pittsburg

16,007 773

Pontotoc

17,099 707

Pottawatomie

22,374 641

Pushmataha

2,773 560

Roger Mills

755 769

Rogers

27,757 836

Seminole

7,223 668

Sequoyah

9,189 521

Stephens

15,866 835

Texas

9,869 689

Tillman

1,952 627

Tulsa

342,907 894

Wagoner

9,173 675

Washington

21,407 898

Washita

2,179 710

Woods

3,850 751

Woodward

10,684 922

(1) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
(2) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.

Note: Covered employment and wages includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. Data are preliminary.


Table 3. Covered employment and wages by state, second quarter 2014
State Employment Average weekly wage (1)
June 2014 (thousands) Percent change, June 2013-14 Average weekly wage National ranking by level Percent change, second quarter 2013-14 National ranking by percent change

United States (2)

137776.4 2.0 $940 -- 2.1 --

Alabama

1872.9 0.7 806 36 1.6 38

Alaska

344.9 0.5 1,014 8 4.6 2

Arizona

2486.0 1.9 888 21 1.3 43

Arkansas

1168.1 1.5 745 47 1.5 41

California

15905.6 2.8 1,072 6 2.4 15

Colorado

2439.3 3.4 960 14 2.9 8

Connecticut

1676.6 0.6 1,155 3 2.5 13

Delaware

429.0 2.5 976 11 1.2 44

District of Columbia

732.6 1.0 1,569 1 -0.5 51

Florida

7628.6 3.1 839 28 2.1 23

Georgia

4036.3 3.1 882 22 1.7 35

Hawaii

624.6 1.1 845 26 2.7 10

Idaho

659.2 2.5 697 51 2.2 22

Illinois

5836.9 1.5 988 10 1.9 32

Indiana

2916.9 1.8 784 42 1.2 44

Iowa

1547.8 1.6 780 43 3.0 7

Kansas

1372.8 1.7 797 38 2.3 20

Kentucky

1820.8 1.7 798 37 2.0 27

Louisiana

1921.6 1.4 843 27 2.4 15

Maine

610.4 0.8 746 46 2.1 23

Maryland

2594.4 0.9 1,020 7 1.6 38

Massachusetts

3407.0 1.4 1,158 2 2.4 15

Michigan

4164.7 2.3 897 20 2.3 20

Minnesota

2782.0 1.3 947 16 1.9 32

Mississippi

1101.1 0.5 705 50 2.0 27

Missouri

2703.2 1.3 818 31 1.9 32

Montana

453.4 1.1 734 48 2.4 15

Nebraska

956.2 1.4 756 45 2.7 10

Nevada

1210.1 3.4 833 30 0.6 50

New Hampshire

637.2 1.2 955 15 4.3 3

New Jersey

3944.8 0.8 1,097 5 1.2 44

New Mexico

801.0 0.6 794 40 1.7 35

New York

8965.2 1.8 1,146 4 2.4 15

North Carolina

4080.7 2.4 818 31 1.2 44

North Dakota

453.0 4.4 936 17 5.5 1

Ohio

5233.8 1.4 846 25 2.1 23

Oklahoma

1578.0 1.0 816 33 2.6 12

Oregon

1748.4 2.4 874 23 2.9 8

Pennsylvania

5719.8 1.0 933 18 1.6 38

Rhode Island

472.9 1.6 898 19 2.0 27

South Carolina

1916.4 2.7 765 44 2.5 13

South Dakota

422.9 1.4 712 49 3.3 4

Tennessee

2755.7 1.8 836 29 2.0 27

Texas

11402.8 3.0 973 13 3.1 5

Utah

1297.5 2.9 796 39 1.7 35

Vermont

307.0 1.0 813 35 0.7 49

Virginia

3710.8 0.7 976 11 0.8 48

Washington

3109.6 3.2 990 9 2.1 23

West Virginia

711.3 -0.3 792 41 1.4 42

Wisconsin

2809.1 1.3 816 33 2.0 27

Wyoming

295.3 1.6 871 24 3.1 5

Puerto Rico

897.0 -2.0 504 (3) 0.6 (3)

Virgin Islands

37.8 -2.2 728 (3) 2.8 (3)

(1) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
(2) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
(3) Data not included in the national ranking.

Note: Data are preliminary. Covered employment and wages includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.


 Chart1. Average weekly wages by county in Oklahoma, second quarter 2014

 

Last Modified Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2014