A to Z Index  |  FAQs  |  About BLS  |  Contact Us    

News Release Information

16-2308-DAL
Friday, December 16, 2016

Contacts

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

County Employment and Wages in Oklahoma – Second Quarter 2016

Employment fell in Oklahoma’s three large counties from June 2015 to June 2016, 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 2015 annual average employment.) Assistant Commissioner for Regional Operations Stanley W. Suchman noted that employment declined at a 1.0-percent pace in the counties of Oklahoma and Tulsa, while Cleveland County employment decreased 0.2 percent from a year ago. (See table 1.)

Employment nationwide advanced 1.5 percent during the 12-month period as 291 of the 344 largest U.S. counties registered increases. Williamson, Tenn., recorded the fastest rate of employment gain in the country, up 6.7 percent. Midland, Texas, experienced the largest over-the-year decrease among the large counties with a loss of 8.3 percent.

Among the three largest counties in Oklahoma, employment was highest in Oklahoma County (447,300) in June 2016. The counties of Tulsa and Cleveland had employment levels of 348,800 and 79,400, respectively. Together, the three largest Oklahoma counties accounted for 55.7 percent of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 344 largest counties made up 72.5 percent of total U.S. employment.

All three large Oklahoma counties experienced average weekly wage gains from the second quarter of 2015 to the second quarter of 2016. Cleveland County had the fastest rate of increase in average weekly wages, up 3.2 percent. (See table 1.) Oklahoma County had the highest average weekly wage among the state’s largest counties at $917. Nationally, the average weekly wage increased 2.2 percent from a year ago to $989 in the second quarter of 2016.

Employment and wage levels (but not over-the-year changes) are also available for the 74 counties in Oklahoma with employment below 75,000. Wage levels in all of these smaller counties were below the national average in June 2016. (See table 2.)

Large county wage changes

Cleveland County’s 3.2-percent gain in average weekly wages from the second quarter of 2015 to the second quarter of 2016 ranked 87th among the nation’s 344 largest counties. Wages in Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties rose by 2.0 and 0.3 percent, respectively. (See table 1.)

Nationally, 304 of the 344 largest counties had over-the-year wage increases. McLean, Ill., experienced the largest wage gain in the nation, up 21.0 percent. Elkhart, Ind., had the second largest increase (8.5 percent), followed by King, Wash. (8.1 percent).

Nationwide, 36 of the largest counties registered wage declines during the period. Ventura, Calif., experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 8.4 percent over the year. Forsyth, N.C., had the second largest wage decline (-6.5 percent), followed by Lafayette, La. (-6.2 percent).

Large county average weekly wages

Weekly wages in the state’s three large counties were below the national average of $989 in the second quarter of 2016. Average weekly wages in Oklahoma County ($917) and Tulsa County ($892) ranked 164th and 185th, respectively, near the middle of the national ranking. In contrast, weekly wages in Cleveland County ($743) ranked among the lowest at 327th. (See table 1.)

More than two-thirds of the largest U.S. counties (241) reported average weekly wages below the national average in the second quarter of 2016. Horry, S.C. ($598) had the lowest weekly wage, followed by the Texas counties of Cameron ($602), Hidalgo ($626), and Webb ($659).

Nationwide, average weekly wages were higher than the U.S. average in 102 of the 344 largest counties. Santa Clara, Calif., held the top position with an average weekly wage of $2,252. San Mateo, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,871, followed by New York, N.Y. ($1,866). Average wages in the highest-ranked county, Santa Clara, Calif., were more than three times the average wage in the lowest-ranked county, Horry, S.C. ($598).

Average weekly wages in Oklahoma's smaller counties

All 74 smaller counties in Oklahoma – those with employment below 75,000 – reported average weekly wages below the national average of $989. Among these counties, Washington ($895) and Grant ($864) posted the highest weekly wages, while Sequoyah reported the lowest ($531). (See table 2.)

When all 77 counties in Oklahoma were considered, 11 reported average wages under $600 per week, 29 registered wages from $600 to $699, 28 had wages from $700 to $799, and 9 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 some 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 2015 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 2016 version of the national news release. Tables and additional content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages Online are now available at www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn15.htm.

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

The County Employment and Wages release for third quarter 2016 is scheduled to be released on Tuesday, March 7, 2017.


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 9.7 million employer reports cover 142.7 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 2016
AreaEmploymentAverage weekly wage (1)
June 2016
(thousands)
Percent change,
June 2015-16 (2)
National
ranking by
percent change (3)
Average
weekly wage
National
ranking by
level (3)
Percent change,
second quarter
2015-16 (2)
National
ranking by
percent change (3)

United States (4)

142,717.21.5--$989--2.2--

Oklahoma

1,570.5-1.4--823410.645

Cleveland, Okla.

79.4-0.23037433273.287

Oklahoma, Okla.

447.3-1.03249171642.0201

Tulsa, Okla.

348.8-1.03248921850.3300

(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 2016
AreaEmployment June 2016Average weekly wage(1)

United States(2)

142,717,157$989

Oklahoma

1,570,510823

Adair

4,343638

Alfalfa

1,421784

Atoka

3,203576

Beaver

1,454774

Beckham

8,987806

Blaine

2,882715

Bryan

16,273686

Caddo

7,024707

Canadian

31,835760

Carter

24,187770

Cherokee

15,405633

Choctaw

4,088591

Cimarron

737606

Cleveland

79,443743

Coal

1,081630

Comanche

42,952721

Cotton

1,427611

Craig

5,562647

Creek

18,213775

Custer

12,128709

Delaware

8,926583

Dewey

1,530742

Ellis

1,212708

Garfield

26,480845

Garvin

9,469791

Grady

11,902694

Grant

1,491864

Greer

1,288555

Harmon

705619

Harper

1,106670

Haskell

3,398551

Hughes

2,835556

Jackson

9,628700

Jefferson

1,085709

Johnston

3,455571

Kay

17,722738

Kingfisher

6,211795

Kiowa

2,162635

Latimer

2,853799

Le Flore

12,570653

Lincoln

6,477665

Logan

7,396632

Love

6,185620

Major

2,376722

Marshall

4,142686

Mayes

12,530788

McClain

8,593684

McCurtain

11,275648

McIntosh

4,027564

Murray

5,682644

Muskogee

29,761733

Noble

4,743811

Nowata

1,687598

Okfuskee

2,375582

Oklahoma

447,283917

Okmulgee

9,438667

Osage

6,633676

Ottawa

12,287607

Pawnee

3,365670

Payne

32,902673

Pittsburg

15,850786

Pontotoc

17,726785

Pottawatomie

22,657645

Pushmataha

2,658603

Roger Mills

719766

Rogers

26,168836

Seminole

6,867681

Sequoyah

8,850531

Stephens

13,568795

Texas

9,688691

Tillman

1,742700

Tulsa

348,815892

Wagoner

8,927733

Washington

20,539895

Washita

1,761673

Woods

3,879756

Woodward

8,730806

(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 2016
StateEmploymentAverage weekly wage (1)
June 2016
(thousands)
Percent change,
June 2015-16
Average
weekly wage
National ranking
by level
Percent change,
second quarter 2015-16
National ranking
by percent change

United States (2)

142,717.21.5$989--2.2--

Alabama

1,923.51.2835372.029

Alaska

338.7-2.41,01110-1.749

Arizona

2,619.62.6921221.933

Arkansas

1,197.51.1785473.07

California

16,754.12.51,15752.419

Colorado

2,574.52.3999141.043

Connecticut

1,689.9-0.11,21333.07

Delaware

444.00.999016-0.648

District of Columbia

756.01.71,62311.142

Florida

8,161.83.2883252.614

Georgia

4,269.52.7929212.711

Hawaii

643.41.0906243.55

Idaho

699.73.3740503.83

Illinois

5,945.00.21,03892.419

Indiana

2,995.41.0828392.127

Iowa

1,566.00.3825402.99

Kansas

1,378.4-0.2829381.239

Kentucky

1,877.21.5838361.933

Louisiana

1,905.2-1.4852320.246

Maine

622.81.0795463.55

Maryland

2,656.00.91,07082.515

Massachusetts

3,538.21.21,23322.029

Michigan

4,300.91.9942192.711

Minnesota

2,846.80.7997152.029

Mississippi

1,120.10.5727512.515

Missouri

2,785.61.4863302.419

Montana

468.62.2767481.735

Nebraska

978.30.9805432.419

Nevada

1,289.43.3874272.226

New Hampshire

655.11.11,003123.74

New Jersey

4,051.21.71,14761.735

New Mexico

808.1-0.3812420.944

New York

9,264.01.51,21042.515

North Carolina

4,285.32.5865292.127

North Dakota

423.3-4.990823-3.351

Ohio

5,353.10.8882262.029

Oklahoma

1,570.5-1.4823410.645

Oregon

1,867.82.7933204.12

Pennsylvania

5,786.80.4971171.437

Rhode Island

482.90.6949182.515

South Carolina

2,013.72.4804442.810

South Dakota

432.71.0760492.711

Tennessee

2,900.42.4874271.338

Texas

11,810.71.01,000131.239

Utah

1,395.93.8840352.325

Vermont

310.6-0.1850332.419

Virginia

3,833.41.61,011101.239

Washington

3,281.62.81,08375.41

West Virginia

693.2-1.980045-0.447

Wisconsin

2,869.10.9856312.419

Wyoming

281.7-3.784934-2.250

Puerto Rico

879.5-0.7512(3)0.2(3)

Virgin Islands

38.40.9743(3)-0.4(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.

 

 

Last Modified Date: Friday, December 16, 2016