Employment rose in Oklahoma’s two large counties from June 2012 to June 2013, 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 2012 annual average employment.) Regional Commissioner Stanley W. Suchman noted that employment in Oklahoma County increased 1.0 percent, while Tulsa County rose at a slower 0.7 percent pace. (See table 1.)

Employment nationwide advanced 1.6 percent during the 12-month period as 288 of the 334 largest U.S. counties registered increases. Fort Bend, Texas, recorded the fastest employment gain in the country, up 7.0 percent. Atlantic, N.J. experienced the largest over-the-year decrease among the largest counties with a loss of 4.5 percent.

Employment in Oklahoma’s two large counties of Oklahoma County (436,700) and Tulsa County (336,700) accounted for half of the state’s total employment in in June 2013. Nationwide, the 334 largest counties made up 71.4 percent of U.S. total employment.

From the second quarter of 2012 to the second quarter of 2013, average weekly wages rose 4.2 percent in Oklahoma County and 3.4 percent in Tulsa County. (See table 1.) Oklahoma County had the highest weekly wages at $875 per week, closely followed by Tulsa at $862. Nationally, average weekly wages increased 2.1 percent over the year to $921.

Employment and wage levels (but not over-the-year changes) are also available for the 75 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

Oklahoma County’s 4.2-percent rise in average weekly wages from the second quarter of 2012 to the second quarter of 2013 ranked 16th among the nation’s 334 largest counties and was twice the U.S. average rate of increase (2.1 percent). Tulsa’s 3.4-percent wage gain ranked 36th.(See table 1.)

Nationally, 304 of the 334 largest counties registered over-the-year wage increases. Union, N.J., experienced the largest wage gain in the nation, up 8.1 percent. San Mateo County, Calif. had the second largest overall increase (8.0 percent), followed by Williamson, Tenn. and Rockingham, N.H. (7.8 and 6.9 percent, respectively).

Nationwide, 18 of the largest counties registered wage declines during the period. Davidson, Tenn., experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 2.2 percent over the year. Whatcom, Wash., had the second largest wage decline, followed by Washington, Ore., and Shelby, Tenn., which tied for the third largest percentage decrease.

Large county average weekly wages

Although well below the national average of $921, average weekly wages in the state’s two large counties ranked in the middle of the 334 largest U.S. counties. In the second quarter of 2013, Oklahoma County's average wage of $875 ranked 150th and Tulsa County’s wage of $862 ranked 157th. (See table 1.)

Nationwide, average weekly wages were higher than the U.S. average ($921) in 107 of the 334 largest counties. Santa Clara, Calif., held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,810. New York, N.Y., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,675, followed by San Mateo, Calif. ($1,632), and Washington, D.C. ($1,575).

Two-thirds of the largest U.S. counties (227) reported average weekly wages below the national average in the second quarter of 2013. The lowest wage was reported in Horry, S.C. ($537), followed by the Texas counties of Cameron ($572) and Hidalgo ($592). Wages in these lowest-ranked counties were one-third of the average weekly wage reported for the highest-ranked county, Santa Clara, Calif. ($1,810).

Average weekly wages in Oklahoma's smaller counties

Among the 75 smaller counties in Oklahoma – those with employment below 75,000 – Dewey ($954) was the sole county to report average weekly wages above the $921 national average. Both Dewey and Woodward ($833) were among the highest paying smaller counties in the state. Cimarron and Sequoyah Counties reported the lowest average weekly wages in the state ($503 each) for the second quarter of 2013. (See table 2.)

When all 77 counties in Oklahoma were considered, 13 reported average wages under $600 per week, 21 registered wages from $600 to $649, 9 had wages from $650 to $699, 15 had wages from $700 to $749, and 19 had wages of $750 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 Duncan, Elk City, 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 2012 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 2013 version of the news release. Tables and additional content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2012 are now available online at www.bls.gov/cew/publications/employment-and-wages-annual-averages/2012/home.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 9.2 million employer reports cover 132.9 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 (1) employment and wages in the United States and the 2 largest counties in Oklahoma, second quarter 2013 (2)

Area	Employment			Average Weekly Wage (3)
	June 2013 (thousands)	Percent change, June 2012-13 (4)	National ranking by percent change (5)	Average weekly wage	National ranking by level (5)	Percent change, second quarter 2012-13 (4)	National ranking by percent change (5)
United States (6)	135,094.0	1.6	--	$921	--	2.1	--
Oklahoma	1,560.7	0.9	--	794	35	3.5	2
Oklahoma, Okla.	436.7	1.0	203	875	150	4.2	16
Tulsa, Okla.	336.7	0.7	233	862	157	3.4	36
(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) Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. (5) Ranking does not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. (6) Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.

Table 2. Covered (1) employment and wages in the United States and all counties in Oklahoma, 2nd quarter 2013 (2)

Area	Employment June 2013	Average weekly wage (3)
United States (4)	135,093,963	$921
Oklahoma	1,560,695	794
Adair	4,539	588
Alfalfa	1,586	803
Atoka	3,285	575
Beaver	1,672	758
Beckham	11,706	872
Blaine	2,916	646
Bryan	14,633	643
Caddo	7,173	662
Canadian	30,986	749
Carter	23,532	749
Cherokee	15,437	632
Choctaw	4,396	541
Cimarron	669	503
Cleveland	76,230	702
Coal	1,041	637
Comanche	42,355	717
Cotton	1,389	610
Craig	5,590	617
Creek	18,070	737
Custer	13,367	755
Delaware	8,715	572
Dewey	1,825	954
Ellis	1,325	844
Garfield	26,697	784
Garvin	9,352	767
Grady	12,332	674
Grant	1,361	799
Greer	1,193	622
Harmon	767	639
Harper	1,196	641
Haskell	3,311	556
Hughes	3,138	610
Jackson	9,523	634
Jefferson	1,077	592
Johnston	2,487	627
Kay	18,917	710
Kingfisher	5,959	809
Kiowa	2,182	634
Latimer	3,432	735
LeFlore	13,304	637
Lincoln	6,835	638
Logan	7,062	619
Love	4,623	604
Major	2,614	757
Marshall	4,562	624
Mayes	12,454	718
McClain	8,411	654
McCurtain	10,856	624
McIntosh	4,239	523
Murray	5,763	671
Muskogee	29,435	700
Noble	4,450	751
Nowata	1,631	582
Okfuskee	2,215	577
Oklahoma	436,740	875
Okmulgee	10,068	684
Osage	7,282	696
Ottawa	11,766	587
Pawnee	3,336	693
Payne	31,936	711
Pittsburg	16,442	737
Pontotoc	16,833	679
Pottawatomie	21,971	631
Pushmataha	2,684	516
Roger Mills	914	766
Rogers	26,542	799
Seminole	7,228	658
Sequoyah	9,201	503
Stephens	16,114	782
Texas	10,119	722
Tillman	2,077	603
Tulsa	336,712	862
Wagoner	8,669	706
Washington	21,384	873
Washita	2,141	721
Woods	3,911	723
Woodward	10,541	883
(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.

Table 3. Covered (1) employment and wages by state, second quarter 2013 (2)

State	Employment		Average weekly wage (3)
	June 2013 (thousands)	Percent change, June 2012-13	Average weekly wage	National ranking by level	Percent change, second quarter 2012-13	National ranking by percent change
United States (4)	135,094.0	1.6	$921	--	2.1	--
Alabama	1,859.5	0.9	794	35	1.4	44
Alaska	342.6	-0.1	970	9	1.6	37
Arizona	2,438.1	1.8	877	20	1.7	32
Arkansas	1,150.4	-0.6	734	46	2.4	10
California	15,485.8	2.4	1,048	6	2.0	21
Colorado	2,359.4	2.9	933	14	1.6	37
Connecticut	1,666.3	1.0	1,128	3	1.5	41
Delaware	417.8	1.8	966	12	2.0	21
District of Columbia	725.0	0.9	1,575	1	2.1	19
Florida	7,402.0	2.4	822	29	2.0	21
Georgia	3,917.2	1.7	867	22	2.2	17
Hawaii	617.0	1.9	823	28	1.6	37
Idaho	642.7	2.7	683	51	1.9	28
Illinois	5,750.0	0.8	971	8	1.9	28
Indiana	2,863.4	1.1	776	42	1.7	32
Iowa	1,523.9	1.3	757	43	2.0	21
Kansas	1,350.0	1.2	779	41	2.1	19
Kentucky	1,790.6	0.6	782	38	1.3	46
Louisiana	1,894.7	0.9	824	27	2.4	10
Maine	604.4	0.4	732	47	1.8	30
Maryland	2,570.3	0.9	1,005	7	1.4	44
Massachusetts	3,352.7	1.3	1,131	2	2.0	21
Michigan	4,073.7	2.2	875	21	2.0	21
Minnesota	2,745.2	1.9	929	15	2.4	10
Mississippi	1,094.9	0.7	691	49	1.5	41
Missouri	2,668.2	1.2	803	33	1.6	37
Montana	448.4	1.5	717	48	2.4	10
Nebraska	941.0	0.9	737	45	2.6	7
Nevada	1,168.3	2.3	829	26	1.7	32
New Hampshire	629.1	0.8	916	17	2.9	4
New Jersey	3,917.5	1.0	1,084	5	2.6	7
New Mexico	795.0	0.4	781	39	-0.3	51
New York	8,804.9	1.1	1,118	4	2.0	21
North Carolina	3,985.1	1.7	808	31	2.5	9
North Dakota	433.7	3.2	887	18	3.7	1
Ohio	5,162.3	1.1	830	25	1.7	32
Oklahoma	1,560.7	0.9	794	35	3.5	2
Oregon	1,708.0	2.5	848	23	1.3	46
Pennsylvania	5,665.9	0.3	918	16	2.8	5
Rhode Island	465.5	1.0	880	19	2.3	16
South Carolina	1,864.9	1.8	747	44	1.5	41
South Dakota	417.0	1.0	689	50	1.8	30
Tennessee	2,709.3	1.5	820	30	0.5	49
Texas	11,078.8	2.7	944	13	2.4	10
Utah	1,259.7	2.8	783	37	2.2	17
Vermont	303.1	0.3	808	31	2.7	6
Virginia	3,685.4	0.7	968	11	1.7	32
Washington	3,013.3	2.2	969	10	2.4	10
West Virginia	713.1	-0.1	781	39	0.6	48
Wisconsin	2,768.2	0.6	801	34	3.0	3
Wyoming	290.4	0.4	845	24	0.5	49
Puerto Rico	926.1	-1.1	503	(5)	1.0	(5)
Virgin Islands	38.9	-3.0	706	(5)	-13.8	(5)
(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.