BLS 07-59
FOR RELEASE:
10:30 AM PDT
Monday, October 15, 2007
AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES IN OREGON: FOURTH QUARTER 2006
Three counties have wage growth above the U.S. average
The average weekly wage in Multnomah County increased 5.6 percent from the fourth quarter of 2005 to the fourth quarter of 2006, the largest advance among Oregon’s six counties with 75,000 or more jobs (as measured by 2005 annual average employment). Over the year, Washington and Marion Counties registered wage growth of 5.1 and 4.9 percent, respectively. Wage increases in these three counties exceeded the 4.2-percent national average. (See table 1.) Regional Commissioner Richard J. Holden noted that two of the State’s largest counties, Washington ($948) and Multnomah ($868), had wage levels higher than the $861 nationwide average in the fourth quarter of 2006. For the State as a whole, the average weekly wage was $763, ranking Oregon 26th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Wage Levels
Of the 6 large counties in Oregon, Washington County ranked 60th highest in average weekly wages among the nation’s 325 large counties and Multnomah County ranked 99th. Clackamas County ($794) had the 3rd highest wage in the State and placed in the middle of the national ranking at 164th. The average weekly wage for the remaining three counties of Lane ($672), Marion ($669), and Jackson ($626) placed them in the bottom third of the nationwide ranking.
Across the country, average weekly wages were higher than that for the nation in 105 of the largest 325 counties. New York County, N.Y., held the top position with an average weekly wage of $1,781. Santa Clara, Calif., was second with an average wage of $1,569, followed by Fairfield, Conn. ($1,515), Suffolk, Mass. ($1,481), and San Francisco, Calif. ($1,460).
There were 219 large counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the fourth quarter of 2006. The lowest average weekly wage was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($527), followed by the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($542), Yakima, Wash. ($570), Webb, Texas ($571), and Horry, S.C. ($578).
Wage Changes
Among Oregon’s 6 large counties, 3 had average weekly wages that ranked in the top 100 for wage growth in the United States. Multnomah County (5.6 percent) ranked 46th highest, Washington County (5.1 percent) ranked 64th and Marion County (4.9 percent), 75th. Average wage gains in Clackamas (4.1 percent) and Jackson (3.8 percent) Counties ranked 137th and 168th, respectively. Lane County’s 2.6-percent gain was the slowest among the six, ranking in the bottom quartile at 258th.
Among the 325 largest counties, Rockingham, N.H., led the nation in wage growth with an annual increase of 18.0 percent from the fourth quarter of 2005. Sedgwick, Kan., and Trumbull, Ohio, tied for second with wage gains of 14.0 percent each. Rounding out the five counties with the fastest-growing wages were Travis County, Tex. (10.9 percent), and Waukesha, Wis. (10.4 percent).
Across the nation, eight large counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. New Castle, Del., had the largest decrease (-5.7 percent), followed by the counties of Elkhart, Ind. (-5.3 percent), Orleans, La. (-4.4 percent), York, Pa. (-4.3 percent), and Harrison, Miss. (-2.4 percent).
State Average Weekly Wages
At the state level, Oregon had an average weekly wage of $763 in the fourth quarter of 2006, $98 below that for the nation, ranking it 26th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. (See table 2.) Across the country, the five highest average wage levels were in the District of Columbia ($1,424), New York ($1,104), Connecticut ($1,101), Massachusetts ($1,072), and New Jersey ($1,055). Average weekly wages in this group were 22 percent or more above the national average. In contrast, four states had average weekly wage levels less than 75 percent of national earnings: South Dakota ($614), Montana ($625), Mississippi ($630) and North Dakota ($643). (See table 2.)
With wage growth of 4.8 percent from the fourth quarter of 2005, Oregon ranked 17th among the 50 states and District of Columbia. The highest over-the-year percentage increase in wages for the fourth quarter of 2006 was recorded by Wyoming (11.3 percent), followed by New Hampshire (8.1 percent). The only state to record an over-the-year decline in wages was Delaware (-4.1 percent). (See table 2.)
Additional Statistics and Other Information
The employment and 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 8.8 million employer reports cover 135.0 million full- and part-time workers. The average weekly 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.
An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features comprehensive information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all states. The 2005 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 2005 version of this news release. This edition is the first to include the data on a CD for enhanced access and usability. As a result of this change, the printed booklet contains only selected graphic representation of QCEW data; the data tables themselves are published exclusively in electronic formats as PDF and fixed-width text files. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2005 is now available for sale from the United States Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250, telephone 866-512-1800, outside of Washington, D.C. Within Washington, D.C., the telephone number is 202-512-1800. The fax number is 202-512-2104. Also, the 2005 bulletin is available in a portable document format (PDF) on the BLS Web site at www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn05.htm.
QCEW-based news releases issued by other regional offices have been placed at one convenient Web site location, 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 Western Information Office in San Francisco at (415) 625-2270 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. PDT.
Hurricane Katrina
The employment and wages reported in this news release
reflect the impact of Hurricane Katrina and ongoing labor market
trends in certain counties. The effects of Hurricane Katrina,
which hit the Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005, were first apparent
in the September QCEW employment counts and in the wage totals
for the third quarter of 2005. This catastrophic storm continued
to affect monthly employment and quarterly wage totals in parts
of Louisiana and Mississippi in the fourth quarter of 2006. For
more information, see the QCEW section of the Katrina coverage on
the BLS Web site at www.bls.gov/katrina/qcewquestions.htm.
Technical 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 United States and the 6 largest counties in Oregon, fourth quarter 2006 (2)
Area
Employment
Average Weekly Wage (3)
December 2006 (thousands)
Average weekly wage
National ranking by level (4)
Percent change, fourth quarter 2005-06 (5)
National ranking by percent change (4)
United States (6)
135,933.2
$861
--
4.2
--
Oregon
1,723.9
763
26
4.8
17
Clackamas, Ore.
149.9
794
164
4.1
137
Jackson, Ore.
86.5
626
317
3.8
168
Lane, Ore.
151.9
672
293
2.6
258
Marion, Ore.
137.1
669
297
4.9
75
Multnomah, Ore.
449.6
868
99
5.6
46
Washington, Ore.
250.7
948
60
5.1
64
Footnotes: (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) Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. (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 2006 (2)
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 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 5 Data not included in the national ranking.
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.