| Skip Navigation Links | ||
 |
 |
 |
AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES IN NEVADA: FIRST QUARTER 2005
Nevada wages rank 16th in the nation In the first quarter of 2005, the average weekly wage in Nevada rose 2.6 percent over the year to $714, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Regional Commissioner Richard J. Holden noted that the State's wage level ranked 16th highest nationwide, but still trailed the national average of $775; only 12 states and the District of Columbia had wages exceeding the U.S. average. Nevada's 2.6 percent over-the-year increase in wages was higher than the 2.2-percent gain for the nation. Nevada has two large counties with 75,000 or more jobs, Clark County and Washoe County. Clark County, a much larger county than Washoe, displayed faster wage growth as well as employment growth. In the first quarter of 2005, wages in Clark County rose 3.5 percent over the year to $718, exceeding the national rate of 2.2 percent and ranking 50th among the 322 largest counties nationwide. Over the year, Washoe County wages advanced 1.9 percent, lagged the national level, and ranked 153rd in wage growth. (See table 1.) Large County Average Weekly Wages Average weekly wages were higher than the national average of $775 in 101 of the largest 322 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $2,025. Fairfield County, Conn., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,613, followed by Suffolk, Mass. ($1,390), Santa Clara, Calif. ($1,372), and San Francisco, Calif. ($1,368). Four of the ten counties with the highest wages in the U.S. were located in or around the New York metropolitan area (New York, N.Y., Fairfield, Conn., Somerset, N.J., and Hudson, N.J.), three others were located in or around the San Francisco metropolitan area (Santa Clara, San Francisco, and San Mateo), while two more were located in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area (Arlington, Va. and Washington, D.C.). Rounding out the top 10 was Suffolk County, Mass., part of the Boston area. There were 220 large counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the first quarter of 2005. Cameron County, Texas, reported the lowest wage at $460, followed by the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($463), Horry, S.C. ($479), Webb, Texas ($490), and Yakima, Wash. ($516). The average weekly wage in the lowest-paid county, Cameron, was less than one-quarter the wage in the highest-paid county, New York, N.Y. From the first quarter 2004 to the first quarter 2005, the national average weekly wage rose by 2.2 percent. Among the largest counties, Collier, Fla., led the nation in wage growth, with an increase of 10.7 percent over the year. Cumberland, Pa., was second with a 9.3-percent increase, followed by the counties of Hudson, N.J., (9.0 percent), Henrico, Va. (8.4 percent), and Fairfield, Conn., and Rock Island, Ill. (7.7 percent each). Thirty-five counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Clayton County, Ga., had the largest decrease, -6.0 percent, followed by the counties of Marin, Calif. (-5.6 percent), Hamilton, Ind. (-4.3 percent), McLean, Ill. (-2.8 percent), and St. Louis, Minn. (-2.7 percent). State Average Weekly Wages Eight of the 13 areas in which the average weekly wage levels surpassed the U.S. average fell in a contiguous band along the east coast stretching from Massachusetts to Virginia. The five highest wage levels in the nation were in the District of Columbia ($1,277), New York ($1,096), Connecticut ($1,084), Massachusetts ($964), and New Jersey ($963). (See table 2.) Average weekly wages in these five were 24 percent or more above those for the nation. At the other end of the scale, five states had wage levels averaging less than 75 percent of national earnings: Montana ($533), South Dakota ($544), Mississippi ($545), North Dakota ($550), and Idaho ($561). The District of Columbia, with wage growth of 4.2 percent, led all others in the first quarter of 2005. Delaware was next at 4.0 percent and Connecticut was third, averaging 3.9 percent. At the lower end of the rankings was Kentucky with wage growth of 0.6 percent, followed by Minnesota and Nebraska, both averaging 0.8 percent over the year. 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 reports submitted by employers subject to state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The 8.5 million employer reports cover 129.8 million full- and part-time workers. The average weekly wage is computed by dividing the total quarterly payroll of employees covered by UI programs by the average monthly number of these employees. This number then is 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 http://www.bls.gov/cew; however, data in QCEW press releases have been revised (see Note below) and will not match the data contained on the Bureau's Web site.Additional statistics and other information An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2004 edition of this bulletin contains selected data produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from the fourth quarter 2004 version of this news release. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2004 will be available for sale in late 2005 from the United States Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250, telephone 866-512-1800, outside Washington, D.C. Within Washington, D.C., the telephone number is 202-512-1800. The fax number is 202-512- 2104. Also, the 2004 bulletin will be available in a portable document format (PDF) on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn04.htm. QCEW-based news releases issued by other regional offices have been placed at one convenient Web site location, http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewregional.htm. Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: 202-691-5200; TDD message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339. For personal assistance or further information on the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Program, as well as other Bureau programs, contact the San Francisco Information Office at 415-975-4350 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. PT. NOTE
QCEW data are the sums of individual establishment records reflecting the number of establishments that exist in a county or industry at a point in time. For this reason, county and industry data are not designed to be used as a time series. 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. The potential differences result from several causes. Differences between BLS and State published data may be due to the 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(1) employment and wages in the largest counties in Nevada, first
quarter 2005(2)
County Employment Average Weekly Wage(3)
March 2005 Percent Average National Percent National
(thousands) change, Weekly ranking change, ranking
March Wage by 1st by
2004-05 level(5) qtr percent
2004-05 change(5)
(4)
United States(6)..... 129,802.3 1.7 $775 - 2.2 -
Nevada.............. 1,187.6 6.7 714 21 2.6 16
Clark, NV.......... 844.7 7.6 718 149 3.5 50
Washoe, NV......... 206.7 4.3 705 159 1.9 153
(1) Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment
Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
(2) Data are preliminary.
(3) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
(4) County percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data
adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications.
(5) Ranking does not include the county of San Juan, Puerto Rico.
(6) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin
Islands.
Table 2. Covered(1) employment and wages by state, fourth quarter 2004(2)
Average Weekly Wage 3
Employment
December Average National Percent National
2004 Weekly ranking by change, ranking
(thousands) Wage level(4) fourth by percent
quarter change(4)
2003-04
United States5................ 131,560.7 $812 - 5.7 -
Alabama....................... 1,882.0 695 32 5.8 21
Alaska........................ 288.4 780 18 4.4 43
Arizona....................... 2,459.0 752 23 5.9 17
Arkansas...................... 1,149.1 623 45 6.0 14
California.................... 15,163.8 928 6 6.7 4
Colorado...................... 2,181.7 830 14 5.9 17
Connecticut................... 1,663.8 1,056 2 6.3 12
Delaware...................... 418.0 883 7 7.0 2
District of Columbia.......... 659.6 1,305 1 5.5 28
Florida....................... 7,729.7 736 24 6.5 7
Georgia....................... 3,916.5 772 19 5.0 34
Hawaii........................ 603.0 723 26 6.6 5
Idaho......................... 597.8 618 47 6.6 5
Illinois...................... 5,773.7 877 9 6.0 14
Indiana....................... 2,883.9 706 31 4.6 42
Iowa.......................... 1,441.9 667 36 6.5 7
Kansas........................ 1,317.5 668 35 5.9 17
Kentucky...................... 1,761.9 679 33 5.3 31
Louisiana..................... 1,890.3 658 39 4.9 38
Maine......................... 600.9 661 38 4.8 40
Maryland...................... 2,506.0 879 8 5.8 21
Massachusetts................. 3,169.2 1,007 4 5.6 26
Michigan...................... 4,348.5 835 12 3.3 50
Minnesota..................... 2,635.3 835 12 7.5 1
Mississippi................... 1,116.7 586 49 4.8 40
Missouri...................... 2,670.4 709 30 4.9 38
Montana....................... 409.3 572 51 4.2 44
Nebraska...................... 891.8 648 41 5.7 24
Nevada........................ 1,186.1 768 20 6.5 7
New Hampshire................. 624.0 840 11 6.5 7
New Jersey.................... 3,964.7 1,001 5 5.7 24
New Mexico.................... 773.2 645 42 5.0 34
New York...................... 8,466.9 1,016 3 5.8 21
North Carolina................ 3,844.9 714 29 5.2 32
North Dakota.................. 326.2 599 48 6.4 11
Ohio.......................... 5,350.3 754 22 5.9 17
Oklahoma...................... 1,458.8 627 44 5.0 34
Oregon........................ 1,623.5 719 27 3.5 48
Pennsylvania.................. 5,573.2 796 16 6.0 14
Rhode Island.................. 482.6 765 21 3.5 48
South Carolina................ 1,811.0 655 40 5.0 34
South Dakota.................. 371.2 581 50 3.9 47
Tennessee..................... 2,704.3 728 25 5.5 28
Texas......................... 9,479.9 800 15 6.1 13
Utah.......................... 1,100.6 664 37 5.2 32
Vermont....................... 304.7 676 34 2.3 51
Virginia...................... 3,568.2 841 10 6.9 3
Washington.................... 2,718.0 790 17 4.1 45
West Virginia................. 695.4 620 46 5.6 26
Wisconsin..................... 2,755.2 719 27 5.4 30
Wyoming....................... 247.9 641 43 4.1 45
(1) Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment
Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
(2) Data are preliminary.
(3) Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
(4) Ranking does not include the county of San Juan, Puerto Rico.
(5) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Last Modified Date: January 10, 2006 |
||||
 Back to Top |
www.dol.gov |
|
Frequently Asked Questions |
Freedom of Information Act |
Customer Survey |
Important Web Site Notices
Privacy & Security Statement | Linking and Copyright Information | Technical (web) question | Other comments  Sorry for the interruption.Please help us improve our website by participating in the survey that begins below! Our Pledge of Privacy
Click on the yes button below to take the survey after you have finished visiting our website. The survey will be available in the taskbar at the bottom of your screen when you are ready to take it. 
|
|