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/publications/employment-and-wages-annual-averages/2014/home.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.