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
Area Employment Average 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)

142,717.2 1.5 -- $989 -- 2.2 --

Oklahoma

1,570.5 -1.4 -- 823 41 0.6 45

Cleveland, Okla.

79.4 -0.2 303 743 327 3.2 87

Oklahoma, Okla.

447.3 -1.0 324 917 164 2.0 201

Tulsa, Okla.

348.8 -1.0 324 892 185 0.3 300

(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
Area Employment June 2016 Average weekly wage(1)

United States(2)

142,717,157 $989

Oklahoma

1,570,510 823

Adair

4,343 638

Alfalfa

1,421 784

Atoka

3,203 576

Beaver

1,454 774

Beckham

8,987 806

Blaine

2,882 715

Bryan

16,273 686

Caddo

7,024 707

Canadian

31,835 760

Carter

24,187 770

Cherokee

15,405 633

Choctaw

4,088 591

Cimarron

737 606

Cleveland

79,443 743

Coal

1,081 630

Comanche

42,952 721

Cotton

1,427 611

Craig

5,562 647

Creek

18,213 775

Custer

12,128 709

Delaware

8,926 583

Dewey

1,530 742

Ellis

1,212 708

Garfield

26,480 845

Garvin

9,469 791

Grady

11,902 694

Grant

1,491 864

Greer

1,288 555

Harmon

705 619

Harper

1,106 670

Haskell

3,398 551

Hughes

2,835 556

Jackson

9,628 700

Jefferson

1,085 709

Johnston

3,455 571

Kay

17,722 738

Kingfisher

6,211 795

Kiowa

2,162 635

Latimer

2,853 799

Le Flore

12,570 653

Lincoln

6,477 665

Logan

7,396 632

Love

6,185 620

Major

2,376 722

Marshall

4,142 686

Mayes

12,530 788

McClain

8,593 684

McCurtain

11,275 648

McIntosh

4,027 564

Murray

5,682 644

Muskogee

29,761 733

Noble

4,743 811

Nowata

1,687 598

Okfuskee

2,375 582

Oklahoma

447,283 917

Okmulgee

9,438 667

Osage

6,633 676

Ottawa

12,287 607

Pawnee

3,365 670

Payne

32,902 673

Pittsburg

15,850 786

Pontotoc

17,726 785

Pottawatomie

22,657 645

Pushmataha

2,658 603

Roger Mills

719 766

Rogers

26,168 836

Seminole

6,867 681

Sequoyah

8,850 531

Stephens

13,568 795

Texas

9,688 691

Tillman

1,742 700

Tulsa

348,815 892

Wagoner

8,927 733

Washington

20,539 895

Washita

1,761 673

Woods

3,879 756

Woodward

8,730 806

(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
State Employment Average 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)

142,717.2 1.5 $989 -- 2.2 --

Alabama

1,923.5 1.2 835 37 2.0 29

Alaska

338.7 -2.4 1,011 10 -1.7 49

Arizona

2,619.6 2.6 921 22 1.9 33

Arkansas

1,197.5 1.1 785 47 3.0 7

California

16,754.1 2.5 1,157 5 2.4 19

Colorado

2,574.5 2.3 999 14 1.0 43

Connecticut

1,689.9 -0.1 1,213 3 3.0 7

Delaware

444.0 0.9 990 16 -0.6 48

District of Columbia

756.0 1.7 1,623 1 1.1 42

Florida

8,161.8 3.2 883 25 2.6 14

Georgia

4,269.5 2.7 929 21 2.7 11

Hawaii

643.4 1.0 906 24 3.5 5

Idaho

699.7 3.3 740 50 3.8 3

Illinois

5,945.0 0.2 1,038 9 2.4 19

Indiana

2,995.4 1.0 828 39 2.1 27

Iowa

1,566.0 0.3 825 40 2.9 9

Kansas

1,378.4 -0.2 829 38 1.2 39

Kentucky

1,877.2 1.5 838 36 1.9 33

Louisiana

1,905.2 -1.4 852 32 0.2 46

Maine

622.8 1.0 795 46 3.5 5

Maryland

2,656.0 0.9 1,070 8 2.5 15

Massachusetts

3,538.2 1.2 1,233 2 2.0 29

Michigan

4,300.9 1.9 942 19 2.7 11

Minnesota

2,846.8 0.7 997 15 2.0 29

Mississippi

1,120.1 0.5 727 51 2.5 15

Missouri

2,785.6 1.4 863 30 2.4 19

Montana

468.6 2.2 767 48 1.7 35

Nebraska

978.3 0.9 805 43 2.4 19

Nevada

1,289.4 3.3 874 27 2.2 26

New Hampshire

655.1 1.1 1,003 12 3.7 4

New Jersey

4,051.2 1.7 1,147 6 1.7 35

New Mexico

808.1 -0.3 812 42 0.9 44

New York

9,264.0 1.5 1,210 4 2.5 15

North Carolina

4,285.3 2.5 865 29 2.1 27

North Dakota

423.3 -4.9 908 23 -3.3 51

Ohio

5,353.1 0.8 882 26 2.0 29

Oklahoma

1,570.5 -1.4 823 41 0.6 45

Oregon

1,867.8 2.7 933 20 4.1 2

Pennsylvania

5,786.8 0.4 971 17 1.4 37

Rhode Island

482.9 0.6 949 18 2.5 15

South Carolina

2,013.7 2.4 804 44 2.8 10

South Dakota

432.7 1.0 760 49 2.7 11

Tennessee

2,900.4 2.4 874 27 1.3 38

Texas

11,810.7 1.0 1,000 13 1.2 39

Utah

1,395.9 3.8 840 35 2.3 25

Vermont

310.6 -0.1 850 33 2.4 19

Virginia

3,833.4 1.6 1,011 10 1.2 39

Washington

3,281.6 2.8 1,083 7 5.4 1

West Virginia

693.2 -1.9 800 45 -0.4 47

Wisconsin

2,869.1 0.9 856 31 2.4 19

Wyoming

281.7 -3.7 849 34 -2.2 50

Puerto Rico

879.5 -0.7 512 (3) 0.2 (3)

Virgin Islands

38.4 0.9 743 (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