General Information: (312) 353-1880 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact: Norma Malcolm Wednesday, November 29, 2006
http://www.bls.gov/ro5
AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES IN OHIO: FIRST QUARTER 2006
The average weekly wage in Stark County increased 8.8 percent
from the first quarter of 2005 to the first quarter of 2006, the
largest advance among Ohio's 12 counties with employment of 75,000 or
more. Mahoning County had the second-highest wage growth at 8.0
percent, followed by Franklin County at 7.9 percent. Hamilton County
had the highest average weekly wage in the State at $909, followed by
Cuyahoga County at $865. (See table 1.) Regional Commissioner Jay
A. Mousa noted that while Stark and Mahoning Counties had the State's
largest over-the-year wage increases, they still had the two lowest
weekly wage levels among the 12 large counties.
Wage Levels
The two counties with the highest wage levels in Ohio, Hamilton
and Cuyahoga, were also the only two counties in the State with wages
above the national average of $838. Wages in both of these counties
placed them in the top one-fourth of the ranking among the nation's
325 largest counties-Hamilton at 61st and Cuyahoga at 81st.
The counties with the lowest wages in the State were Mahoning
and Stark, averaging $595 and $644, respectively. Their wages placed
them in the bottom one-fourth of the national ranking at 310th and
279th. Weekly wages in both Lake and Lorain Counties averaged $690
(246th), placing them in the lowest quartile as well.
Across the country, average weekly wages were higher than the
national average in 101 of the largest 325 U.S. counties. New York
County, N.Y., held the top position among the highest-paid large
counties with an average weekly wage of $2,223. Fairfield, Conn.,
was second with an average wage of $1,836, followed by Santa Clara,
Calif. ($1,584), Somerset, N.J. ($1,522), and San Francisco, Calif.
($1,519).
There were 222 counties with an average weekly wage below the
national average in the first quarter of 2006. The lowest average
weekly wage was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($477), followed by
the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($490), Horry, S.C. ($524), Webb,
Texas ($527), and Yakima, Wash. ($550).
At the state level, the average weekly wage in Ohio was $751,
$87 below the nationwide level; never-the-less, Ohio was close to the
midpoint, ranking 23rd among the 50 states and the District of
Columbia. (See table 2.) The five highest wage levels in the nation
were in the District of Columbia ($1,371), New York ($1,193),
Connecticut ($1,191), Massachusetts ($1,045), and New Jersey
($1,037). Average weekly wages in this group were 20 percent or more
above that for the nation. The five states with the lowest weekly
wages were: Montana ($572), South Dakota ($581), North Dakota
($586), Mississippi ($597), and Idaho ($609). All of these states
had wages more than 25 percent below the national average.
Over-the-Year Changes
While 11 of Ohio's 12 largest counties experienced wage growth,
only one exceeded the national average gain of 8.1 percent. (See
table 1.) As mentioned, Stark County's 8.8-percent wage gain was the
largest increase in the State, ranking 88th highest among the
nation's 325 largest counties. The majority of Ohio's counties
(seven) had wage growth in the 3.4- to 6.5-percent range.
The State's only county with a decrease in weekly wages from
first quarter of 2005 was Trumbull, which experienced a 0.4-percent
decline. Trumbull was one of only two counties in the country with
an over-the-year decrease in wages. Cumberland, Pa., was the other
county, with wages dropping 3.7 percent.
Among the largest counties in the U.S., Orleans, La., led the
nation in wage growth with an increase of 33.3 percent over the year.
McLean, Ill., was second with 20.5-percent growth, followed by the
counties of Jefferson, La. (19.0 percent), Harrison, Miss. (18.0
percent), and Montgomery, Texas (17.0 percent). The high average
weekly wage growth rates for Orleans, Harrison, and Jefferson
Counties were related to the disproportionate job and pay losses in
lower-paid industries due to the impact of Hurricane Katrina.
The lowest over-the-year increases in average weekly wages were
in Clayton, Ga. (1.3 percent), Kalamazoo, Mich. (1.9 percent), and
Benton, Ark. (2.2 percent).
At the state level, the average weekly wage in Ohio increased
6.5 percent ranking it close to the bottom in growth at 46th among
the 50 states and District of Columbia. Three of the six states with
the slowest wage growth in the United States were from the Midwest;
joining Ohio were Michigan (4.7 percent) and Minnesota (5.8 percent).
The highest over-the-year wage gain in the first quarter of 2006 was
recorded by Louisiana (12.6 percent), followed by Oklahoma (11.9
percent).
The employment and 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
reports submitted by every employer subject to unemployment insurance
(UI) laws. The 8.8 million employer reports cover 132.6 million full-
and part-time workers. The average weekly wage is computed by
dividing the total quarterly payroll of employees covered under UI
programs by the average monthly number of these employees. This
number 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 other such 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 http://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.
Additional statistics and other information
An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features comprehensive
information by detailed industry on establishments, employment, and
wages for the nation and all states. The 2005 edition of this
bulletin contains selected data produced by Business Employment
Dynamics (BED) on job gains and losses, as well as selected data from
the fourth quarter 2005 version of this news release. This edition
will also be the first to include the data on a CD for enhanced
access and usability. As a result of this change, the printed
booklet will contain only selected graphic representations of QCEW
data; the data tables themselves will be published exclusively in
electronic formats as PDF and fixed-width text files. Employment and
Wages Annual Averages, 2005 will be available for sale in late 2006
from the United States Government Printing Office, Superintendent of
Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250, telephone 866-512-
1800, outside of Washington, D.C. Within Washington, D.C., the
telephone number is 202-512-1800. The fax number is 202-512-2104.
Also, the 2005 bulletin will be available in a portable document
format (PDF) on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn05.htm.
News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also are
available upon request from the Division of Administrative Statistics
and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone 202-691-
6467; http://www.bls.gov/bdm/; e-mail: BDMInfo@bls.gov.
Information in this release will be made available to sensory
impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: 202-691-5200; TDD
message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hurricane Katrina
The measures of employment and wages reported in this news
release reflect the impact of Hurricane Katrina and ongoing labor
market trends. The effects of Hurricane Katrina, which hit the Gulf
Coast on August 29, 2005, were first reflected in the September QCEW
employment counts and the wage totals for the third quarter of 2005.
The impact of this catastrophic storm in parts of Louisiana and
Mississippi continue to be reflected in monthly employment and
quarterly wage totals in the first quarter of 2006. For more
information, see the QCEW section of the Katrina coverage on the BLS
Web site (http://www.bls.gov/katrina/qcewquestions.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TECHNICAL NOTE
QCEW data are the sums of individual establishment records
reflecting the number of establishments that exist in a county or
industry at a point in time. For this reason, county and industry
data are not designed to be used as a time series.
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. The potential differences result from
several causes. Differences between BLS and State published data may
be due to the 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 12 largest
counties in Ohio, first quarter 2006 2/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Average weekly wage 3/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | Percent |National
| Employment |Average |National | change | ranking
Area | March 2006 | weekly |ranking by | first qtr.|by percent
| (thousands)| wage |level 4/ | 2005-06 5/| change 4/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States 6/ | 132,613.1 | $838 -- 8.1 --
| |
Ohio | 5,267.2 | 751 23 6.5 46
| |
Butler, Ohio | 141.5 | 725 195 5.8 265
Cuyahoga, Ohio | 745.0 | 865 81 6.5 227
Franklin, Ohio | 675.5 | 837 104 7.9 136
Hamilton, Ohio | 523.4 | 909 61 6.7 214
Lake, Ohio | 98.9 | 690 246 3.4 312
Lorain, Ohio | 100.1 | 690 246 5.5 278
Lucas, Ohio | 224.2 | 749 168 6.1 255
Mahoning, Ohio | 102.4 | 595 310 8.0 131
Montgomery, Ohio | 275.0 | 758 157 4.4 301
Stark, Ohio | 160.2 | 644 279 8.8 88
Summit, Ohio | 268.6 | 756 160 6.5 227
Trumbull, Ohio | 84.3 | 701 229 -0.4 322
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/ Ranking does not include the county of San Juan, Puerto Rico.
5/ Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted
for noneconomic county reclassifications.
6/ Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin
Islands.
Table 2. Covered 1/ employment and wages by state, first quarter 2006 2/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Average weekly wage 3/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | Percent |National
| Employment |Average | National | change | ranking
Area | March 2006 | weekly |ranking by |first qtr. |by percent
| (thousands)| wage | level | 2005-06 | change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States 4/ | 132,613.1 | $838 - 8.1 -
| |
Alabama | 1,923.6 | 690 33 7.6 29
Alaska | 296.3 | 791 19 6.5 46
Arizona | 2,613.3 | 767 21 10.2 3
Arkansas | 1,171.6 | 621 46 7.1 40
California | 15,422.5 | 952 7 9.2 8
Colorado | 2,211.3 | 858 11 9.2 8
Connecticut | 1,640.1 | 1,191 3 10.0 4
Delaware | 415.0 | 965 6 9.8 5
District of Columbia | 664.9 | 1,371 1 7.3 36
Florida | 8,014.1 | 735 25 8.2 19
Georgia | 3,989.2 | 799 18 7.7 25
Hawaii | 615.1 | 719 28 7.5 31
Idaho | 623.3 | 609 47 8.6 14
Illinois | 5,733.7 | 913 8 7.7 25
Indiana | 2,870.4 | 717 29 7.5 31
Iowa | 1,445.7 | 662 38 7.5 31
Kansas | 1,317.1 | 686 35 8.7 12
Kentucky | 1,769.9 | 671 36 6.8 42
Louisiana | 1,793.1 | 697 32 12.6 1
Maine | 577.5 | 652 42 6.2 48
Maryland | 2,511.2 | 897 9 7.9 23
Massachusetts | 3,136.3 | 1,045 4 8.4 18
Michigan | 4,207.8 | 816 15 4.7 51
Minnesota | 2,633.0 | 827 13 5.8 49
Mississippi | 1,112.1 | 597 48 9.3 6
Missouri | 2,680.5 | 724 27 7.7 25
Montana | 416.8 | 572 51 7.3 36
Nebraska | 888.4 | 648 43 8.0 21
Nevada | 1,260.0 | 764 22 6.7 44
New Hampshire | 617.1 | 800 17 7.5 31
New Jersey | 3,933.9 | 1,037 5 7.6 29
New Mexico | 795.5 | 647 44 8.6 14
New York | 8,329.2 | 1,193 2 8.8 11
North Carolina | 3,905.5 | 744 24 7.8 24
North Dakota | 328.8 | 586 49 6.9 41
Ohio | 5,267.2 | 751 23 6.5 46
Oklahoma | 1,505.6 | 660 40 11.9 2
Oregon | 1,669.7 | 734 26 7.3 36
Pennsylvania | 5,551.7 | 807 16 8.0 21
Rhode Island | 468.2 | 777 20 5.6 50
South Carolina | 1,834.1 | 661 39 8.2 19
South Dakota | 373.2 | 581 50 6.6 45
Tennessee | 2,717.7 | 705 31 6.8 42
Texas | 9,850.2 | 824 14 8.6 14
Utah | 1,147.2 | 660 40 8.9 10
Vermont | 300.5 | 688 34 7.7 25
Virginia | 3,613.3 | 862 10 8.6 14
Washington | 2,784.0 | 833 12 8.7 12
West Virginia | 697.7 | 625 45 7.2 39
Wisconsin | 2,712.2 | 716 30 7.5 31
Wyoming | 256.8 | 667 37 9.3 6
Puerto Rico | 1,048.1 | 450 5/ 3.9 5/
Virgin Islands | 45.6 | 664 5/ 2.3 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: November 29, 2006
|
