Tag Archives: Regions and states

State Productivity: A BLS Production

We have a guest blogger for this edition of Commissioner’s Corner. Jennifer Price is an economist in the Office of Productivity and Technology at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. She enjoys watching theatrical performances when she’s not working.

I recently had the pleasure of attending a high school play. The cast was composed of a male and female lead and at least a dozen supporting actors. The program listed the performers and acknowledged many other students, parents, teachers, and administrators. They all played some important role to bring the play to life—lighting, sound, painting props, sewing costumes, creating promotional materials, selling tickets, working concessions. All of these pieces came together harmoniously to make the performance a success.

Setting the Stage: New Measures of State Productivity

We can view the health of the nation’s economy through the same lens. Our diversified economy is made up of lead performers and supporting roles in the form of industries. Some industries contribute more heavily to growth in output or productivity, playing the star role. Other industries are supporting characters, contributing to a smaller, but necessary, share of growth. Our productivity program recently published a webpage that examines how industries contribute to the nation’s private business output and productivity growth.

We also can examine these roles geographically. Until recently, BLS productivity measures were only produced at the national level. Last June, BLS published experimental measures of state labor productivity for the private nonfarm business sector. These measures, which cover the period from 2007 to 2017, will help us learn more about productivity growth in each state and how each state contributes to national productivity trends.

Measuring productivity for all states allows us to credit the role played by each state, not just the total performance of the national economy or region. Just as each person, no matter how small their role, was necessary for the success of the school play, each state contributes to how we evaluate national or regional productivity. When we examine the contribution of each state to total productivity trends, we find that, like actors, no two states perform identically. Similar individual growth rates may have different impacts on the productivity of the nation or region. By analyzing state productivity trends over the long term, we learn more about regional business cycles, regional income inequality, and the role of local regulations and taxes on growth.

From 2007 to 2017, labor productivity changes ranged from a gain of 3.1 percent per year in North Dakota to a loss of 0.7 percent per year in Louisiana.

Editor’s note: Data for this map are available in the table below.

We estimate each state’s annual contribution to national or regional productivity growth by multiplying the state’s productivity growth rate by its average share of total current dollar national or regional output. The economic size of each state influences its contribution to national and regional estimates. From 2007 to 2017, California was our lead performer, with the largest contribution to national productivity growth. The state’s productivity grew 1.7 percent per year on average, and its large economy means it contributed more than one-fifth of the 1.0-percent growth in national labor productivity.

Editor’s note: Data for this chart are available in the table below.

Supporting actors included Texas and New York. Making a cameo appearance was North Dakota; despite having the largest productivity growth rate, it ranked 28th in terms of its contribution to national productivity growth. Stars in each region included Illinois (Midwest), New York (Northeast), Texas (South), and California (West). Understudies—those states with the largest growth rates—were North Dakota (Midwest), Pennsylvania (Northeast), and Oklahoma (South). Oregon and Washington shared this role out West.

Second Act

For now, our new measures cover the private nonfarm sector for all 50 states and the District of Columbia from 2007 to 2017. These measures include output per hour, output, hours, unit labor costs, hourly compensation, and real hourly compensation. Our measures of labor productivity for states are experimental, meaning we’re still assessing them and considering ways to improve them. In the second act, we will be looking into producing state-level measures for more detailed sectors and industries.

For an encore performance, check out our state labor productivity page. We’d love to hear your feedback! Email comments to productivity@bls.gov.

Annual percent change in labor productivity in the private nonfarm sector, 2007–17
StateAnnual percent change

North Dakota

3.1

California

1.7

Oregon

1.7

Washington

1.7

Colorado

1.6

Oklahoma

1.6

Maryland

1.5

Montana

1.5

Pennsylvania

1.5

Massachusetts

1.4

New Mexico

1.4

Vermont

1.4

Idaho

1.3

Kansas

1.3

Nebraska

1.1

New Hampshire

1.1

South Carolina

1.1

Tennessee

1.1

Texas

1.1

West Virginia

1.1

Alabama

1.0

Hawaii

1.0

Kentucky

1.0

Minnesota

1.0

New York

1.0

Rhode Island

1.0

South Dakota

1.0

Virginia

1.0

Georgia

0.9

Arkansas

0.8

Missouri

0.8

Ohio

0.8

Utah

0.8

Illinois

0.7

North Carolina

0.7

Delaware

0.6

Florida

0.6

Iowa

0.6

Indiana

0.5

Mississippi

0.5

New Jersey

0.5

Wisconsin

0.5

Alaska

0.4

Arizona

0.4

District of Columbia

0.4

Michigan

0.4

Maine

0.3

Nevada

0.3

Wyoming

0.1

Connecticut

-0.5

Louisiana

-0.7
States with the largest contributions to national labor productivity, average annual percent change, 2007–17
StateState contribution to U.S. labor productivity

California

0.22

Texas

0.10

New York

0.08

Pennsylvania

0.06

Washington

0.04

Massachusetts

0.04

Illinois

0.03

New Data on Employment and Wages in U.S. Establishments with Foreign Ownership

Did you know that U.S. establishments at least partially owned by foreign companies employed 5.5 million U.S. workers in 2012? That was 5.0 percent of U.S. private-sector employment. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics recently partnered with the Bureau of Economic Analysis to produce new data on foreign direct investment in the United States. These two agencies created a new, richer dataset on employment, wages, and occupations in U.S. establishments that have at least one foreign owner.

So how do we define foreign direct investment anyway? In the simplest sense, it is when a U.S. establishment has an owner from another country with at least a 10-percent stake. We consider any establishment that does not meet this threshold as domestically owned. The new data are more detailed than any data previously available on foreign direct investment in the United States. This first set of data is for 2012, but the agencies plan to work together to produce more recent data soon.

Nearly two-thirds of jobs in establishments with foreign ownership had European ownership (3.5 million jobs). The United Kingdom accounted for 874,000 of these jobs. Asia accounted for 17 percent (936,000 jobs) of jobs in U.S. establishments with foreign ownership. Canada accounted for 12 percent (671,000 jobs). The remaining world regions together accounted for less than 8 percent.

Now let’s look at how employment in establishments with foreign ownership breaks down within the United States. The map below shows the percent of private employment in establishments with foreign ownership in each state. South Carolina had the largest share of private employment in establishments with foreign ownership, 8.0 percent. Other states with large shares include New Hampshire, Michigan, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Indiana.

Map showing  each state's percent of private employment in establishments with foreign ownership, 2012

Editor’s note: Data for this map are available in the table below.

Each state’s percent of employment in establishments with foreign ownership depends in part on the industry mix in the state. The chart below shows the percent of each industry’s employment in establishments with foreign ownership. In mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction, 14.7 percent of employment is in establishments with foreign ownership. A large share of employment in Alaska is in this industry. Alaska’s share of employment in establishments with foreign ownership, 5.7 percent, is above the national average. Alaska’s vast energy resources may play a role in its share of employment in establishments with foreign ownership.

About 13.2 percent of all employees in manufacturing work in establishments with foreign ownership. Michigan has a large share of employment in manufacturing, and also a large share of employment in establishments with foreign ownership.

Chart showing percent of private employment in establishments with foreign ownership, by industry, 2012

Editor’s note: Data for this chart are available in the table below.

Now let’s turn from employment to wages. The map below shows how wages in establishments with foreign ownership compare with wages in domestically owned establishments across the country. We make this comparison by calculating the ratio of what workers make in average wages in establishments with foreign ownership compared to the average wage in domestically owned establishments. Wage ratios greater than one mean the average for establishments with foreign ownership is higher than for domestically owned establishments. The U.S. wage ratio in 2012 was 1.57, and every state had a wage ratio greater than one. The highest wage ratio was in New York, at 1.98. At the other end of the spectrum, Vermont had a wage ratio of 1.05.

Map showing each state's ratio of average wages in establishments with foreign ownership to domestically owned establishments, 2012

Editor’s note: Data for this map are available in the table below.

Does this mean every establishment with foreign ownership pays higher wages than domestically owned establishments? Let’s analyze wage ratios by industry. We see that the health care and social assistance industry had a wage ratio of 0.86 in 2012. All other major industry groups had wage ratios of 1.00 or higher. The finance and insurance industry had a wage ratio of 1.82.

Want to know more about these data? See our Spotlight on Statistics, “A look at employment and wages in U.S. establishments with foreign ownership.”

Chart showing ratio of average wages in establishments with foreign ownership to domestically owned establishments, by industry, 2012

Editor’s note: Data for this chart are available in the table below.

BLS and the Bureau of Economic Analysis hope to continue this interagency collaboration. Our goal is to merge and analyze more recent data from both agencies. When agencies work together to produce new datasets with little increase in cost to the public, all data users benefit. Producing accurate, objective, relevant, timely, and accessible products is the BLS mission. This collaboration to produce new relevant data allows us to improve our service to the American people.

Percent of private employment in establishments with foreign ownership, 2012
StateEmployment share

National

5.0%

Alabama

5.4

Alaska

5.7

Arizona

3.9

Arkansas

4.5

California

4.2

Colorado

4.6

Connecticut

6.5

Delaware

6.0

District of Columbia

3.4

Florida

3.6

Georgia

5.5

Hawaii

6.0

Idaho

2.9

Illinois

5.1

Indiana

6.4

Iowa

4.0

Kansas

5.7

Kentucky

6.2

Louisiana

3.9

Maine

6.1

Maryland

4.7

Massachusetts

6.3

Michigan

6.6

Minnesota

4.0

Mississippi

3.4

Missouri

4.0

Montana

1.8

Nebraska

3.6

Nevada

3.8

New Hampshire

6.9

New Jersey

6.5

New Mexico

3.0

New York

5.8

North Carolina

6.2

North Dakota

3.8

Ohio

5.3

Oklahoma

3.6

Oregon

3.4

Pennsylvania

5.5

Rhode Island

6.1

South Carolina

8.0

South Dakota

2.1

Tennessee

5.5

Texas

5.3

Utah

4.0

Vermont

3.7

Virginia

5.1

Washington

4.0

West Virginia

4.8

Wisconsin

3.5

Wyoming

3.8
Percent of private employment in establishments with foreign ownership, by industry, 2012
IndustryEmployment share

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

14.7%

Manufacturing

13.2

Management of companies and enterprises

9.6

Wholesale trade

9.0

Information

7.8

Finance and insurance

7.5

Utilities

7.3

Transportation and warehousing

6.3

Administrative and waste services

6.0

Professional, scientific, and technical services

5.5

Total private

5.0

Retail trade

4.7

Real estate and rental and leasing

2.2

Construction

1.8

Accommodation and food services

1.6

Other services (except public administration)

1.3

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting

1.0

Health care and social assistance

0.9

Arts, entertainment, and recreation

0.7

Educational services

0.6
Ratio of average wages in establishments with foreign ownership to domestically owned establishments, 2012
StateWage ratio

National

1.57

Alabama

1.44

Alaska

1.63

Arizona

1.28

Arkansas

1.43

California

1.49

Colorado

1.53

Connecticut

1.53

Delaware

1.78

District of Columbia

1.08

Florida

1.52

Georgia

1.36

Hawaii

1.06

Idaho

1.30

Illinois

1.61

Indiana

1.56

Iowa

1.48

Kansas

1.56

Kentucky

1.36

Louisiana

1.67

Maine

1.26

Maryland

1.28

Massachusetts

1.46

Michigan

1.84

Minnesota

1.50

Mississippi

1.63

Missouri

1.55

Montana

1.63

Nebraska

1.35

Nevada

1.47

New Hampshire

1.39

New Jersey

1.64

New Mexico

1.22

New York

1.98

North Carolina

1.47

North Dakota

1.55

Ohio

1.49

Oklahoma

1.40

Oregon

1.41

Pennsylvania

1.43

Rhode Island

1.31

South Carolina

1.43

South Dakota

1.45

Tennessee

1.42

Texas

1.80

Utah

1.45

Vermont

1.05

Virginia

1.23

Washington

1.40

West Virginia

1.33

Wisconsin

1.38

Wyoming

1.72
Ratio of average wages in establishments with foreign ownership to domestically owned establishments, by industry, 2012
IndustryWage ratio

Finance and insurance

1.82

Construction

1.62

Total private

1.57

Accommodation and food services

1.51

Real estate and rental and leasing

1.50

Arts, entertainment, and recreation

1.45

Other services (except public administration)

1.44

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting

1.40

Wholesale trade

1.39

Professional, scientific, and technical services

1.39

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

1.28

Management of companies and enterprises

1.23

Retail trade

1.20

Educational services

1.19

Manufacturing

1.18

Utilities

1.15

Administrative and waste services

1.13

Information

1.05

Transportation and warehousing

1.00

Health care and social assistance

0.86

Building a Business? Start Here

You have an idea.

It’s time to get serious about it.

Entrepreneurial drive got you to this point, but now it’s time to chart a plan. For that you need a reliable overview of the factors that can lead to a flourishing business — or work against it.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s Business Builder application is designed to provide small business owners with key data to give them a clear-eyed view of their potential market. This data-mapping tool combines data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, Economic Census, and County Business Patterns, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service.

For version 2.6 of the tool, released this month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has collaborated with the Census Bureau to include data from our Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). QCEW is based on quarterly mandatory reports to the Unemployment Insurance systems in each state, covering more than 95 percent of the jobs in the U.S. economy. It is the most complete and current source of data on employment and wages at a detailed geographic and industry level.

To help illustrate why this tool is so useful, and why the data from the QCEW broadens that usefulness, I’ll make up an example.

Ever since you can remember, your grandmother, who was born and raised just outside of Naples, has fed you a type of pizza full of unusual flavors that has never been equaled in all your travels. As you grew and came into your own as a cook, she entrusted you with her secret knowledge, like a magician passing along her repertoire to a favored protégé.

Ever since, you’ve dreamed of sharing the pleasures of that delicacy with the world, and you’re going to start with a pizzeria somewhere near your home in Olympia, Washington. You may ask yourself: What exactly does the restaurant market look like in Olympia? Who are my potential customers? What kind of wages do they earn?

The Census Business Builder is a good place to start.

Census Business Builder home screen

Here, you can enter the type of establishment you’d like to research, as well as the area where you intend to do business. You find that data are not available for Olympia, but knowing that Olympia is the county seat, you are able to search in Thurston County.

The resulting map provides data on income, education, wages, and perhaps most importantly for you, the number of similar establishments in the area – also known as your competition.

Map of Thurston County, Washington, showing Census Business Builder search results

With the new QCEW data, another crucial batch of information is at your fingertips: more up-to-date establishment counts, employment numbers, and wages. It also provides an important metric known as the location quotient. This measure lets you compare an industry’s employment concentration or wages in your search area with the country as a whole. Will you be able to hire enough staff? What might you need to pay them if you want the best in the business?

Map of Thurston County, Washington, showing Census Business Builder search results with QCEW location quotient

The possibilities advance from this example as far as your entrepreneurial mind wants to take them. It is you, after all, who will transform these numbers into the real-world business that fulfills your vision. Our job as public servants is to give you the most relevant tools to realize that transformation. We’re grateful for the opportunity to collaborate with the Census Bureau to bring you this vital information in this user-friendly format.

The Census Business Builder is updated twice per year using feedback that comes from customers and stakeholders, including small business owners, trade associations and other government agencies. The update also adds QCEW data into the Regional Analyst version of the tool, which is designed for chambers of commerce and regional planning staff who need a broad portrait of the people and businesses in their area. The December release, for example, will add more QCEW features to the Regional Analyst version.

BLS publishes data from the QCEW program every quarter in the County Employment and Wages news release. QCEW data are available through our Open Data Access and the QCEW Databases.

Baseball, Hot Dogs, and Statistics

Summer is in full swing, which means that when I’m not talking about BLS data, I’m talking about baseball, something I could do full time. Luckily these two topics have a lot in common; nothing quite says statistics in the summertime like baseball does. We fans have followed baseball statistics for nearly as long as the game has been played. Teams today increasingly use statistics—or “analytics”—to decide which players to add to their rosters, who to play in any game situation, and even where to position fielders for certain batters. That’s a lot like the innovations BLS and the other federal statistical agencies focus on to help people make informed decisions for their families, businesses, and the broader economy.

I grew up a St. Louis Cardinals fan until the mid-1960s, when the lamentable Kansas City Athletics moved to Oakland and the American League expansion team, Kansas City Royals, brought winning baseball to Kansas. I had a second home, as it were, in the seats of Kauffman Stadium, or “The K” to us Kansas City Royals fans. Today I cheer for the Washington Nationals, having lived in the D.C. area for the past 25 years. Regardless of your favorite team, if you’re a baseball fan you know statistics are a huge part of how your team performs. While I could talk about George Brett’s batting average, home runs, or wins above replacement, let’s instead look at where America’s agency on labor data meets America’s favorite pastime.

Spectator sports employed over 144,000 workers in 2018. The map below shows the metropolitan areas with the most jobs in spectator sports. The New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA metro area, home of the Yankees and Mets, employs the most people at 8,674. Spectator sports include all professional and semi-professional sport teams.

Employment in spectator sports by metropolitan area, 2018

Editor’s note: Data for this map are available in the table below.

Also consider the Occupational Employment Statistics program. In 2018, there were 27,780 radio and television announcers and 7,480 public address announcers. There were also 236,970 coaches and scouts and 19,090 umpires and referees in 2018.

Here’s a look at some of the occupations within the spectator sports industry:

Employment in selected occupations in the spectator sports industry, May 2018

Editor’s note: Data for this chart are available in the table below.

If you’re going to the game, the Consumer Price Index can tell you how prices have changed over time. For example, ticket prices for sporting events decreased 0.8 percent from June 2018 to June 2019. Over the same period, parking fees and tolls increased 3.2 percent and prices for food away from home increased 3.1 percent. At the low end of the increases is beer away from home—a modest 0.8 increase over the year.

Or maybe you just decide to enjoy the game in front of your new 80-inch flat screen TV. You aren’t alone. According to the American Time Use Survey, Americans spend, on average, 2.84 hours a day watching television in 2017. That’s almost enough time to watch your typical 9-inning baseball game.

Can we squeeze any more baseball out of BLS statistics? There’s wage data for ushers, occupational injuries for umpires, and productivity in certain recreation industries. But we’ll save that for another day. For now, sit back and enjoy the game. Play Ball!

Employment in spectator sports by metropolitan area, 2018
Metropolitan area Employment
Abilene, TX 14
Akron, OH 215
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 537
Albuquerque, NM 241
Anchorage, AK 204
Ann Arbor, MI 84
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 1,948
Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC 314
Austin-Round Rock, TX 1,071
Bakersfield, CA 229
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD 1,872
Bangor, ME 32
Barnstable Town, MA 9
Baton Rouge, LA 15
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX 5
Billings, MT 78
Birmingham-Hoover, AL 372
Bloomington, IL 54
Boulder, CO 22
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 83
Burlington-South Burlington, VT 92
Canton-Massillon, OH 13
Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 718
Charleston, WV 118
Charleston-North Charleston, SC 256
Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 6,081
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI 4,763
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 1,473
Cleveland-Elyria, OH 2,019
Coeur d’Alene, ID 36
College Station-Bryan, TX 20
Colorado Springs, CO 214
Columbia, SC 383
Columbus, OH 813
Corpus Christi, TX 153
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 3,392
Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL 1,294
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 999
Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA 375
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI 1,682
Dover, DE 222
Dubuque, IA 72
Duluth, MN-WI 75
El Paso, TX 269
Erie, PA 105
Eugene, OR 67
Evansville, IN-KY 209
Fairbanks, AK 29
Flint, MI 6
Florence, SC 43
Fort Collins, CO 4
Fresno, CA 542
Grand Junction, CO 67
Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI 234
Great Falls, MT 72
Greeley, CO 96
Greenville, NC 54
Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC 234
Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula, MS 121
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV 21
Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA 316
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 233
Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC 111
Hot Springs, AR 665
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 2,968
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH 27
Huntsville, AL 47
Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN 2,786
Jacksonville, FL 1,397
Janesville-Beloit, WI 52
Joplin, MO 11
Kahului-Wailuku-Lahaina, HI 3
Kansas City, MO-KS 1,737
Kennewick-Richland, WA 84
Lake Charles, LA 11
Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL 387
Lancaster, PA 160
Las Cruces, NM 18
Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 835
Lebanon, PA 16
Lexington-Fayette, KY 1,556
Lincoln, NE 172
Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR 148
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 7,100
Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN 1,337
Lubbock, TX 12
Manchester-Nashua, NH 144
Medford, OR 23
Memphis, TN-MS-AR 1,349
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 6,476
Midland, TX 99
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 2,218
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 3,337
Missoula, MT 20
Mobile, AL 79
Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC-NC 171
Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL 23
Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN 721
New Orleans-Metairie, LA 1,522
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 8,674
North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL 549
Norwich-New London, CT 85
Ocala, FL 490
Ogden-Clearfield, UT 120
Oklahoma City, OK 1,227
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 82
Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL 301
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 4,398
Pittsburgh, PA 1,603
Pittsfield, MA 21
Portland-South Portland, ME 317
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 1,042
Providence-Warwick, RI-MA 348
Raleigh, NC 1,339
Reading, PA 198
Richmond, VA 381
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 688
Roanoke, VA 98
Rochester, NY 676
Sacramento–Roseville–Arden-Arcade, CA 957
Salem, OR 56
Salisbury, MD-DE 138
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 757
San Diego-Carlsbad, CA 1,720
Santa Rosa, CA 223
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 3,176
Sherman-Denison, TX 6
Sioux Falls, SD 138
Spartanburg, SC 15
Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA 209
St. George, UT 20
St. Joseph, MO-KS 13
St. Louis, MO-IL 1,608
State College, PA 75
Stockton-Lodi, CA 130
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 3,302
Trenton, NJ 159
Tucson, AZ 83
Tulsa, OK 281
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 148
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 2,931
Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA 65
Watertown-Fort Drum, NY 15
Wausau, WI 34
Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH 18
Wheeling, WV-OH 47
Winston-Salem, NC 414
Worcester, MA-CT 97
Yakima, WA 21
York-Hanover, PA 156
Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA 84
Yuba City, CA 34
Employment in selected occupations in the spectator sports industry, May 2018
Occupation Employment
Security guards 8,490
Ushers 7,610
Food and beverage servers 6,980
Groundskeepers 2,350
Parking lot attendants 1,850

New State Data on Labor Productivity and Job Openings and Labor Turnover

While international trade has become increasingly important to our economy over the past 60 years, U.S. households and businesses continue to rely primarily on local markets for most goods and services. The products we create come from all over our country. Workers, businesses, and policymakers care deeply about the economy in our own backyards. That’s why BLS recently began publishing new data on labor productivity by state and, separately, on job openings and labor turnover by state.

State labor productivity

Our measures of labor productivity for states are still experimental, meaning we’re still assessing them and considering ways to improve them. These measures cover the private nonfarm sector for all 50 states and the District of Columbia from 2007 to 2017. They show that labor productivity growth varies a lot from state to state. From 2007 to 2017, labor productivity changes ranged from a gain of 3.1 percent per year in North Dakota to a loss of 0.7 percent per year in Louisiana. In 2017, labor productivity grew fastest in Montana (2.0 percent), West Virginia (1.9 percent), California (1.8 percent), and Hawaii (1.7 percent). You can get the complete dataset from our state labor productivity page.

U.S. map showing productivity growth in the private nonfarm sector in each state from 2007 to 2017

Editor’s note: Data for this map are available in the table below.

We construct these state measures from data published by several BLS programs and by our colleagues at the Bureau of Economic Analysis. A recent Monthly Labor Review article, “BLS publishes experimental state-level labor productivity measures,” explains the data and the methods for putting them all together. The article also highlights how you might use these new state data. We’re happy to have your feedback on these new measures. Just send us an email.

State job openings and labor turnover

We also have new data on job openings, hiring, and separations by state. Data from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey are widely used by economic policymakers and others who want to understand the job flows that lead to net changes in employment. We have these data back to December 2000 and update them every month for the nation and the four broad census regions. Now we have them for all states and the District of Columbia too. These state estimates are available from February 2001 through December 2018 for the total nonfarm sector.

Many of you have told us you want more geographic details about job openings and turnover. To make sense of data on job openings, for example, it helps to know where the jobs are. The survey sample size is designed to estimate job openings and turnover for major industries only at the national and regional levels. For several years we have researched ways to produce model-assisted estimates for states. As with the state productivity data, these estimates are experimental. We plan to update the state estimates each quarter while we assess your feedback on the models and the usefulness of the data. We encourage you to send us your comments.

But wait, there’s more! We’ve updated the BLS Local Data App!

In previous blog posts, we’ve told you about our mobile app for customers who want to know more about local labor markets. This app now includes employment and wage data for detailed industries and occupations. (It doesn’t yet have the new data on state productivity, job openings, and turnover.)

Interested in local data for a particular industry or occupation? The latest version allows you to quickly search or use the built-in industry and occupational lists. Want to know which industry employs the most workers in your area or which occupation pays the highest? The updated app allows you to sort the employment and wage data across groups of industries and occupations. You can still find data on unemployment rates and total employment. You also can find your state, metro area, or county by searching for a zip code or using your device’s current location.

These new data and features result from the continued partnership between BLS and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of the Chief Information Officer. Be on the lookout for more new features to be added in future releases.

Download the BLS Local Data app from the App Store or Google Play today!

Annual percent change in labor productivity in the private nonfarm sector, 2007–17
State Annual percent change
North Dakota 3.1
California 1.7
Oregon 1.7
Washington 1.7
Colorado 1.6
Oklahoma 1.6
Maryland 1.5
Montana 1.5
Pennsylvania 1.5
Massachusetts 1.4
New Mexico 1.4
Vermont 1.4
Idaho 1.3
Kansas 1.3
Nebraska 1.1
New Hampshire 1.1
South Carolina 1.1
Tennessee 1.1
Texas 1.1
West Virginia 1.1
Alabama 1.0
Hawaii 1.0
Kentucky 1.0
Minnesota 1.0
New York 1.0
Rhode Island 1.0
South Dakota 1.0
Virginia 1.0
Georgia 0.9
Arkansas 0.8
Missouri 0.8
Ohio 0.8
Utah 0.8
Illinois 0.7
North Carolina 0.7
Delaware 0.6
Florida 0.6
Iowa 0.6
Indiana 0.5
Mississippi 0.5
New Jersey 0.5
Wisconsin 0.5
Alaska 0.4
Arizona 0.4
District of Columbia 0.4
Michigan 0.4
Maine 0.3
Nevada 0.3
Wyoming 0.1
Connecticut -0.5
Louisiana -0.7