Error on Page

Southwest Information Office

News Release Information

15-2458-DAL
Monday, January 11, 2016

Contacts

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

County Employment and Wages in Oklahoma – Second Quarter 2015

Employment rose in Oklahoma’s three large counties from June 2014 to June 2015, 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 2014 annual average employment.) Regional Commissioner Stanley W. Suchman noted that Cleveland County had the largest increase, up 2.7 percent, followed by Tulsa (1.8 percent) and Oklahoma (1.3 percent). (See table 1.)

Employment nationwide advanced 2.0 percent during the 12-month period as 319 of the 342 largest U.S. counties registered increases. Utah, Utah, recorded the fastest employment gain in the country, up 7.5 percent. Ector, Texas, experienced the largest over-the-year decrease among these counties with a loss of 4.2 percent.

Among the three largest counties in Oklahoma, employment was highest in Oklahoma County (450,800) in June 2015. Tulsa and Cleveland Counties had employment levels of 349,500 and 80,800, respectively. Together, the three largest Oklahoma counties accounted for 55.4 percent of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 342 largest counties made up 72.1 percent of total U.S. employment.

All three large Oklahoma counties experienced average weekly wage gains from the second quarter of 2014 to the second quarter of 2015. Oklahoma County recorded the fastest rate of increase in average weekly wages, up 1.4 percent. (See table 1.) Oklahoma County also had the highest average weekly wage among the state’s largest counties at $900, closely followed by Tulsa County ($892). Nationally, the average weekly wage increased 3.0 percent from a year ago to $968 in the second quarter of 2015.

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 2015. (See table 2.)

Large county wage changes

Oklahoma County’s 1.4-percent rise in average weekly wages from the second quarter of 2014 to the second quarter of 2015 ranked 276th among the nation’s 342 largest counties. Wages in Cleveland and Tulsa recorded over-the-year increases of 1.1 percent and 0.3 percent, respectively. (See table 1.)

Nationally, 323 of the 342 largest counties had over-the-year wage increases. Ventura, Calif., experienced the largest wage gain in the nation, up 15.2 percent. Santa Clara, Calif., had the second largest increase (11.3 percent), followed by Forsyth, N.C. (10.9 percent), and Riverside, Calif. (8.7 percent).

Nationwide, 16 of the largest counties registered wage declines during the period. Olmsted, Minn., experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 5.2 percent over the year. Ector, Texas, had the second largest wage decline (-5.1 percent), followed by Midland, Texas (-3.2 percent), and Hillsborough, N.H. (-2.6 percent).

Large county average weekly wages

Weekly wages in the state’s three large counties were below the national average of $968 per week. In the second quarter of 2015, average wages in Oklahoma County ($900) ranked 164th and Tulsa County ($892) ranked 170th, both in the middle of the national rankings of the 342 largest counties. In contrast, wages in Cleveland County ($724) ranked among the lowest, at 325th. (See table 1.)

More than two-thirds of the largest U.S. counties (240) reported average weekly wages below the national average ($968) in the second quarter of 2015. The lowest wage was reported in Horry, S.C. ($568), followed by the Texas counties of Cameron ($586), Hidalgo ($614), and Webb ($651).

Nationwide, average weekly wages were higher than the U.S. average in 102 of the 342 largest counties. Santa Clara, Calif., held the top position with an average weekly wage of $2,109. San Mateo, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,863, followed by New York, N.Y. ($1,842). Average wages in the highest-ranked county, Santa Clara, Calif., were nearly four times the average wage in the
lowest-ranked county, Horry, S.C. ($568).

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 $968. Among these counties, Washington ($909) and Grant ($883) posted the highest weekly wages, while Sequoyah reported the lowest ($522). (See table 2.)

When all 77 counties in Oklahoma were considered, 12 reported average wages under $600 per week, 27 registered wages from $600 to $699, 26 had wages from $700 to $799, and 12 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 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 2014 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 2015 version of the news release. Tables and additional content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2014 are now available online at www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn14.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 2015 is scheduled to be released on Wednesday, March 9, 2016.


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 9.6 million employer reports cover 140.6 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 2015
Area Employment Average weekly wage (1)
June 2015
(thousands)
Percent change,
June 2014-15 (2)
National ranking
by percent
change (3)
Average
weekly
wage
National
ranking
by level (3)
Percent change,
second quarter
2014-15 (2)
National ranking
by percent
change (3)

United States (4)

140,594.9 2.0 -- $968 -- 3.0 --

Oklahoma

1,591.5 0.6 -- 818 39 0.5 49

Cleveland, Okla.

80.8 2.7 102 724 325 1.1 295

Oklahoma, Okla.

450.8 1.3 226 900 164 1.4 276

Tulsa, Okla.

349.5 1.8 172 892 170 0.3 319

(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 2015
Area Employment
June 2015
Average
weekly wage(1)

United States(2)

140,594,927 $968

  Oklahoma

1,591,523 818

    Adair

4,366 637

    Alfalfa

1,577 844

    Atoka

3,071 586

    Beaver

1,660 775

    Beckham

10,971 831

    Blaine

3,055 716

    Bryan

14,989 680

    Caddo

7,240 700

    Canadian

31,843 769

    Carter

24,458 784

    Cherokee

15,780 641

    Choctaw

4,232 574

    Cimarron

680 571

    Cleveland

80,793 724

    Coal

1,121 588

    Comanche

43,157 723

    Cotton

1,511 615

    Craig

5,578 645

    Creek

18,927 764

    Custer

12,857 738

    Delaware

8,673 601

    Dewey

1,405 762

    Ellis

1,255 721

    Garfield

26,452 811

    Garvin

10,005 804

    Grady

12,329 700

    Grant

1,752 883

    Greer

1,271 597

    Harmon

695 616

    Harper

1,227 655

    Haskell

3,415 554

    Hughes

3,103 593

    Jackson

9,525 667

    Jefferson

1,067 661

    Johnston

2,868 638

    Kay

18,093 731

    Kingfisher

6,252 804

    Kiowa

2,193 635

    Latimer

3,125 794

    LeFlore

12,853 667

    Lincoln

6,679 653

    Logan

7,246 645

    Love

5,409 664

    Major

2,773 771

    Marshall

4,264 650

    Mayes

12,706 765

    McClain

8,772 665

    McCurtain

11,122 666

    McIntosh

3,861 571

    Murray

6,090 665

    Muskogee

29,945 726

    Noble

4,638 779

    Nowata

1,775 577

    Okfuskee

2,361 602

    Oklahoma

450,763 900

    Okmulgee

9,422 656

    Osage

6,697 696

    Ottawa

12,218 586

    Pawnee

3,344 737

    Payne

32,943 738

    Pittsburg

16,123 791

    Pontotoc

17,475 727

    Pottawatomie

22,864 649

    Pushmataha

2,651 592

    Roger Mills

728 767

    Rogers

27,438 821

    Seminole

7,230 668

    Sequoyah

9,305 522

    Stephens

15,685 804

    Texas

9,844 711

    Tillman

1,842 674

    Tulsa

349,502 892

    Wagoner

9,239 722

    Washington

21,297 909

    Washita

1,887 697

    Woods

3,904 771

    Woodward

9,709 840

(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 2015
State Employment Average weekly wage (1)
June 2015
(thousands)
Percent change,
June 2014-15
Average
weekly wage
National ranking
by level
Percent change,
second quarter
2014-15
National ranking
by percent change

United States (2)

140,594.9 2.0 $968 -- 3.0 --

Alabama

1,899.3 1.3 819 37 1.6 41

Alaska

346.6 0.4 1,028 8 2.4 30

Arizona

2,549.9 2.5 904 21 1.8 39

Arkansas

1,184.6 1.7 762 47 2.1 35

California

16,338.9 2.8 1,131 5 5.5 1

Colorado

2,517.1 3.2 989 13 3.0 13

Connecticut

1,693.1 0.9 1,177 4 2.0 38

Delaware

439.1 2.2 991 12 1.5 42

District of Columbia

745.1 1.8 1,599 1 1.8 39

Florida

7,907.7 3.6 861 28 2.6 23

Georgia

4,167.8 3.4 903 22 2.4 30

Hawaii

635.9 1.6 876 24 3.8 6

Idaho

678.5 2.9 713 50 2.3 33

Illinois

5,925.5 1.5 1,015 10 2.6 23

Indiana

2,966.0 1.7 811 40 3.4 7

Iowa

1,561.2 0.9 802 43 2.8 18

Kansas

1,382.1 0.7 819 37 2.8 18

Kentucky

1,850.5 1.7 822 35 3.0 13

Louisiana

1,930.6 0.5 850 30 0.8 47

Maine

615.8 0.8 768 46 2.9 16

Maryland

2,631.3 1.4 1,046 7 2.6 23

Massachusetts

3,488.3 2.1 1,211 2 4.7 2

Michigan

4,225.0 1.5 916 20 2.1 35

Minnesota

2,826.3 1.5 977 15 3.2 8

Mississippi

1,114.7 1.1 709 51 0.6 48

Missouri

2,746.6 1.7 842 32 2.8 18

Montana

461.5 1.8 754 48 2.7 21

Nebraska

968.7 1.2 787 44 4.1 3

Nevada

1,248.1 3.2 855 29 2.6 23

New Hampshire

647.7 1.5 967 16 1.3 46

New Jersey

4,000.2 1.5 1,126 6 2.6 23

New Mexico

808.4 0.8 805 41 1.4 44

New York

9,136.9 1.9 1,180 3 3.1 9

North Carolina

4,185.6 2.6 850 30 3.9 4

North Dakota

445.0 -1.8 939 18 0.3 50

Ohio

5,308.1 1.4 865 26 2.4 30

Oklahoma

1,591.5 0.6 818 39 0.5 49

Oregon

1,810.4 3.4 899 23 3.0 13

Pennsylvania

5,763.9 0.8 958 17 2.7 21

Rhode Island

480.0 1.5 925 19 2.9 16

South Carolina

1,963.5 2.5 782 45 2.1 35

South Dakota

428.6 1.3 740 49 3.9 4

Tennessee

2,832.1 2.8 863 27 3.1 9

Texas

11,689.4 2.4 988 14 1.5 42

Utah

1,345.9 3.9 821 36 3.1 9

Vermont

309.3 0.6 831 34 2.2 34

Virginia

3,767.2 1.7 1,000 11 2.5 29

Washington

3,197.6 3.3 1,026 9 3.1 9

West Virginia

706.5 -0.8 803 42 1.4 44

Wisconsin

2,839.8 1.0 836 33 2.6 23

Wyoming

291.5 -1.5 869 25 -0.1 51

Puerto Rico

884.6 -1.4 513 (3) 2.0 (3)

Virgin Islands

37.9 0.1 748 (3) 2.2 (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.


 Chart1. Average weekly wages by county in Oklahoma, second quarter 2015

Last Modified Date: Monday, January 11, 2016

Recommend this page using:

News Release Information

15-2458-DAL
Monday, January 11, 2016

Contacts

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

County Employment and Wages in Oklahoma – Second Quarter 2015

Employment rose in Oklahoma’s three large counties from June 2014 to June 2015, 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 2014 annual average employment.) Regional Commissioner Stanley W. Suchman noted that Cleveland County had the largest increase, up 2.7 percent, followed by Tulsa (1.8 percent) and Oklahoma (1.3 percent). (See table 1.)

Employment nationwide advanced 2.0 percent during the 12-month period as 319 of the 342 largest U.S. counties registered increases. Utah, Utah, recorded the fastest employment gain in the country, up 7.5 percent. Ector, Texas, experienced the largest over-the-year decrease among these counties with a loss of 4.2 percent.

Among the three largest counties in Oklahoma, employment was highest in Oklahoma County (450,800) in June 2015. Tulsa and Cleveland Counties had employment levels of 349,500 and 80,800, respectively. Together, the three largest Oklahoma counties accounted for 55.4 percent of total employment within the state. Nationwide, the 342 largest counties made up 72.1 percent of total U.S. employment.

All three large Oklahoma counties experienced average weekly wage gains from the second quarter of 2014 to the second quarter of 2015. Oklahoma County recorded the fastest rate of increase in average weekly wages, up 1.4 percent. (See table 1.) Oklahoma County also had the highest average weekly wage among the state’s largest counties at $900, closely followed by Tulsa County ($892). Nationally, the average weekly wage increased 3.0 percent from a year ago to $968 in the second quarter of 2015.

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 2015. (See table 2.)

Large county wage changes

Oklahoma County’s 1.4-percent rise in average weekly wages from the second quarter of 2014 to the second quarter of 2015 ranked 276th among the nation’s 342 largest counties. Wages in Cleveland and Tulsa recorded over-the-year increases of 1.1 percent and 0.3 percent, respectively. (See table 1.)

Nationally, 323 of the 342 largest counties had over-the-year wage increases. Ventura, Calif., experienced the largest wage gain in the nation, up 15.2 percent. Santa Clara, Calif., had the second largest increase (11.3 percent), followed by Forsyth, N.C. (10.9 percent), and Riverside, Calif. (8.7 percent).

Nationwide, 16 of the largest counties registered wage declines during the period. Olmsted, Minn., experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages with a loss of 5.2 percent over the year. Ector, Texas, had the second largest wage decline (-5.1 percent), followed by Midland, Texas (-3.2 percent), and Hillsborough, N.H. (-2.6 percent).

Large county average weekly wages

Weekly wages in the state’s three large counties were below the national average of $968 per week. In the second quarter of 2015, average wages in Oklahoma County ($900) ranked 164th and Tulsa County ($892) ranked 170th, both in the middle of the national rankings of the 342 largest counties. In contrast, wages in Cleveland County ($724) ranked among the lowest, at 325th. (See table 1.)

More than two-thirds of the largest U.S. counties (240) reported average weekly wages below the national average ($968) in the second quarter of 2015. The lowest wage was reported in Horry, S.C. ($568), followed by the Texas counties of Cameron ($586), Hidalgo ($614), and Webb ($651).

Nationwide, average weekly wages were higher than the U.S. average in 102 of the 342 largest counties. Santa Clara, Calif., held the top position with an average weekly wage of $2,109. San Mateo, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,863, followed by New York, N.Y. ($1,842). Average wages in the highest-ranked county, Santa Clara, Calif., were nearly four times the average wage in the
lowest-ranked county, Horry, S.C. ($568).

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 $968. Among these counties, Washington ($909) and Grant ($883) posted the highest weekly wages, while Sequoyah reported the lowest ($522). (See table 2.)

When all 77 counties in Oklahoma were considered, 12 reported average wages under $600 per week, 27 registered wages from $600 to $699, 26 had wages from $700 to $799, and 12 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 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 2014 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 2015 version of the news release. Tables and additional content from Employment and Wages Annual Averages 2014 are now available online at www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn14.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 2015 is scheduled to be released on Wednesday, March 9, 2016.


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 9.6 million employer reports cover 140.6 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 2015
Area Employment Average weekly wage (1)
June 2015
(thousands)
Percent change,
June 2014-15 (2)
National ranking
by percent
change (3)
Average
weekly
wage
National
ranking
by level (3)
Percent change,
second quarter
2014-15 (2)
National ranking
by percent
change (3)

United States (4)

140,594.9 2.0 -- $968 -- 3.0 --

Oklahoma

1,591.5 0.6 -- 818 39 0.5 49

Cleveland, Okla.

80.8 2.7 102 724 325 1.1 295

Oklahoma, Okla.

450.8 1.3 226 900 164 1.4 276

Tulsa, Okla.

349.5 1.8 172 892 170 0.3 319

(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 2015
Area Employment
June 2015
Average
weekly wage(1)

United States(2)

140,594,927 $968

  Oklahoma

1,591,523 818

    Adair

4,366 637

    Alfalfa

1,577 844

    Atoka

3,071 586

    Beaver

1,660 775

    Beckham

10,971 831

    Blaine

3,055 716

    Bryan

14,989 680

    Caddo

7,240 700

    Canadian

31,843 769

    Carter

24,458 784

    Cherokee

15,780 641

    Choctaw

4,232 574

    Cimarron

680 571

    Cleveland

80,793 724

    Coal

1,121 588

    Comanche

43,157 723

    Cotton

1,511 615

    Craig

5,578 645

    Creek

18,927 764

    Custer

12,857 738

    Delaware

8,673 601

    Dewey

1,405 762

    Ellis

1,255 721

    Garfield

26,452 811

    Garvin

10,005 804

    Grady

12,329 700

    Grant

1,752 883

    Greer

1,271 597

    Harmon

695 616

    Harper

1,227 655

    Haskell

3,415 554

    Hughes

3,103 593

    Jackson

9,525 667

    Jefferson

1,067 661

    Johnston

2,868 638

    Kay

18,093 731

    Kingfisher

6,252 804

    Kiowa

2,193 635

    Latimer

3,125 794

    LeFlore

12,853 667

    Lincoln

6,679 653

    Logan

7,246 645

    Love

5,409 664

    Major

2,773 771

    Marshall

4,264 650

    Mayes

12,706 765

    McClain

8,772 665

    McCurtain

11,122 666

    McIntosh

3,861 571

    Murray

6,090 665

    Muskogee

29,945 726

    Noble

4,638 779

    Nowata

1,775 577

    Okfuskee

2,361 602

    Oklahoma

450,763 900

    Okmulgee

9,422 656

    Osage

6,697 696

    Ottawa

12,218 586

    Pawnee

3,344 737

    Payne

32,943 738

    Pittsburg

16,123 791

    Pontotoc

17,475 727

    Pottawatomie

22,864 649

    Pushmataha

2,651 592

    Roger Mills

728 767

    Rogers

27,438 821

    Seminole

7,230 668

    Sequoyah

9,305 522

    Stephens

15,685 804

    Texas

9,844 711

    Tillman

1,842 674

    Tulsa

349,502 892

    Wagoner

9,239 722

    Washington

21,297 909

    Washita

1,887 697

    Woods

3,904 771

    Woodward

9,709 840

(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 2015
State Employment Average weekly wage (1)
June 2015
(thousands)
Percent change,
June 2014-15
Average
weekly wage
National ranking
by level
Percent change,
second quarter
2014-15
National ranking
by percent change

United States (2)

140,594.9 2.0 $968 -- 3.0 --

Alabama

1,899.3 1.3 819 37 1.6 41

Alaska

346.6 0.4 1,028 8 2.4 30

Arizona

2,549.9 2.5 904 21 1.8 39

Arkansas

1,184.6 1.7 762 47 2.1 35

California

16,338.9 2.8 1,131 5 5.5 1

Colorado

2,517.1 3.2 989 13 3.0 13

Connecticut

1,693.1 0.9 1,177 4 2.0 38

Delaware

439.1 2.2 991 12 1.5 42

District of Columbia

745.1 1.8 1,599 1 1.8 39

Florida

7,907.7 3.6 861 28 2.6 23

Georgia

4,167.8 3.4 903 22 2.4 30

Hawaii

635.9 1.6 876 24 3.8 6

Idaho

678.5 2.9 713 50 2.3 33

Illinois

5,925.5 1.5 1,015 10 2.6 23

Indiana

2,966.0 1.7 811 40 3.4 7

Iowa

1,561.2 0.9 802 43 2.8 18

Kansas

1,382.1 0.7 819 37 2.8 18

Kentucky

1,850.5 1.7 822 35 3.0 13

Louisiana

1,930.6 0.5 850 30 0.8 47

Maine

615.8 0.8 768 46 2.9 16

Maryland

2,631.3 1.4 1,046 7 2.6 23

Massachusetts

3,488.3 2.1 1,211 2 4.7 2

Michigan

4,225.0 1.5 916 20 2.1 35

Minnesota

2,826.3 1.5 977 15 3.2 8

Mississippi

1,114.7 1.1 709 51 0.6 48

Missouri

2,746.6 1.7 842 32 2.8 18

Montana

461.5 1.8 754 48 2.7 21

Nebraska

968.7 1.2 787 44 4.1 3

Nevada

1,248.1 3.2 855 29 2.6 23

New Hampshire

647.7 1.5 967 16 1.3 46

New Jersey

4,000.2 1.5 1,126 6 2.6 23

New Mexico

808.4 0.8 805 41 1.4 44

New York

9,136.9 1.9 1,180 3 3.1 9

North Carolina

4,185.6 2.6 850 30 3.9 4

North Dakota

445.0 -1.8 939 18 0.3 50

Ohio

5,308.1 1.4 865 26 2.4 30

Oklahoma

1,591.5 0.6 818 39 0.5 49

Oregon

1,810.4 3.4 899 23 3.0 13

Pennsylvania

5,763.9 0.8 958 17 2.7 21

Rhode Island

480.0 1.5 925 19 2.9 16

South Carolina

1,963.5 2.5 782 45 2.1 35

South Dakota

428.6 1.3 740 49 3.9 4

Tennessee

2,832.1 2.8 863 27 3.1 9

Texas

11,689.4 2.4 988 14 1.5 42

Utah

1,345.9 3.9 821 36 3.1 9

Vermont

309.3 0.6 831 34 2.2 34

Virginia

3,767.2 1.7 1,000 11 2.5 29

Washington

3,197.6 3.3 1,026 9 3.1 9

West Virginia

706.5 -0.8 803 42 1.4 44

Wisconsin

2,839.8 1.0 836 33 2.6 23

Wyoming

291.5 -1.5 869 25 -0.1 51

Puerto Rico

884.6 -1.4 513 (3) 2.0 (3)

Virgin Islands

37.9 0.1 748 (3) 2.2 (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.


 Chart1. Average weekly wages by county in Oklahoma, second quarter 2015

Last Modified Date: Monday, January 11, 2016