News Release Information

13-2498-DAL
Friday, January 17, 2014

Contacts

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

County Employment and Wages in Oklahoma – Second Quarter 2013

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/cewbultn12.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)
AreaEmploymentAverage 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)

135,094.01.6--$921--2.1--

Oklahoma

1,560.70.9--794353.52

Oklahoma, Okla.

436.71.02038751504.216

Tulsa, Okla.

336.70.72338621573.436

(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)
AreaEmployment
June 2013
Average
weekly wage (3)

United States (4)

135,093,963$921

Oklahoma

1,560,695794

Adair

4,539588

Alfalfa

1,586803

Atoka

3,285575

Beaver

1,672758

Beckham

11,706872

Blaine

2,916646

Bryan

14,633643

Caddo

7,173662

Canadian

30,986749

Carter

23,532749

Cherokee

15,437632

Choctaw

4,396541

Cimarron

669503

Cleveland

76,230702

Coal

1,041637

Comanche

42,355717

Cotton

1,389610

Craig

5,590617

Creek

18,070737

Custer

13,367755

Delaware

8,715572

Dewey

1,825954

Ellis

1,325844

Garfield

26,697784

Garvin

9,352767

Grady

12,332674

Grant

1,361799

Greer

1,193622

Harmon

767639

Harper

1,196641

Haskell

3,311556

Hughes

3,138610

Jackson

9,523634

Jefferson

1,077592

Johnston

2,487627

Kay

18,917710

Kingfisher

5,959809

Kiowa

2,182634

Latimer

3,432735

LeFlore

13,304637

Lincoln

6,835638

Logan

7,062619

Love

4,623604

Major

2,614757

Marshall

4,562624

Mayes

12,454718

McClain

8,411654

McCurtain

10,856624

McIntosh

4,239523

Murray

5,763671

Muskogee

29,435700

Noble

4,450751

Nowata

1,631582

Okfuskee

2,215577

Oklahoma

436,740875

Okmulgee

10,068684

Osage

7,282696

Ottawa

11,766587

Pawnee

3,336693

Payne

31,936711

Pittsburg

16,442737

Pontotoc

16,833679

Pottawatomie

21,971631

Pushmataha

2,684516

Roger Mills

914766

Rogers

26,542799

Seminole

7,228658

Sequoyah

9,201503

Stephens

16,114782

Texas

10,119722

Tillman

2,077603

Tulsa

336,712862

Wagoner

8,669706

Washington

21,384873

Washita

2,141721

Woods

3,911723

Woodward

10,541883

(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)
StateEmploymentAverage 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)

135,094.01.6$921--2.1--

Alabama

1,859.50.9794351.444

Alaska

342.6-0.197091.637

Arizona

2,438.11.8877201.732

Arkansas

1,150.4-0.6734462.410

California

15,485.82.41,04862.021

Colorado

2,359.42.9933141.637

Connecticut

1,666.31.01,12831.541

Delaware

417.81.8966122.021

District of Columbia

725.00.91,57512.119

Florida

7,402.02.4822292.021

Georgia

3,917.21.7867222.217

Hawaii

617.01.9823281.637

Idaho

642.72.7683511.928

Illinois

5,750.00.897181.928

Indiana

2,863.41.1776421.732

Iowa

1,523.91.3757432.021

Kansas

1,350.01.2779412.119

Kentucky

1,790.60.6782381.346

Louisiana

1,894.70.9824272.410

Maine

604.40.4732471.830

Maryland

2,570.30.91,00571.444

Massachusetts

3,352.71.31,13122.021

Michigan

4,073.72.2875212.021

Minnesota

2,745.21.9929152.410

Mississippi

1,094.90.7691491.541

Missouri

2,668.21.2803331.637

Montana

448.41.5717482.410

Nebraska

941.00.9737452.67

Nevada

1,168.32.3829261.732

New Hampshire

629.10.8916172.94

New Jersey

3,917.51.01,08452.67

New Mexico

795.00.478139-0.351

New York

8,804.91.11,11842.021

North Carolina

3,985.11.7808312.59

North Dakota

433.73.2887183.71

Ohio

5,162.31.1830251.732

Oklahoma

1,560.70.9794353.52

Oregon

1,708.02.5848231.346

Pennsylvania

5,665.90.3918162.85

Rhode Island

465.51.0880192.316

South Carolina

1,864.91.8747441.541

South Dakota

417.01.0689501.830

Tennessee

2,709.31.5820300.549

Texas

11,078.82.7944132.410

Utah

1,259.72.8783372.217

Vermont

303.10.3808312.76

Virginia

3,685.40.7968111.732

Washington

3,013.32.2969102.410

West Virginia

713.1-0.1781390.648

Wisconsin

2,768.20.6801343.03

Wyoming

290.40.4845240.549

Puerto Rico

926.1-1.1503(5)1.0(5)

Virgin Islands

38.9-3.0706(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.


 

Last Modified Date: Friday, January 17, 2014