8

The Role of Occupational

Composition in State Wage

Differentials

Patrick Kilcoyne

Patrick Kilcoyne is an economist in the Division of Occupational

and Administrative Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I

t is commonly understood that people in some States

have higher average wages than do those in other States.

However, it is not always the case that moving from a

State with a low average wage to one with a higher average

wage will make a person better off economically, even if his

or her salary increases. The cause of these interstate differences is multifaceted, and includes such factors as cost of

living, industry, education level, and occupations.

One possible source of State wage differences is the occupational composition of the State’s workforce. Some occupations pay higher wages than others do. If a State has an

employment mix that has a greater-than-typical share of workers in high paying occupations, the State’s average wage

will be relatively high, all other factors being held constant.

This article investigates the role of occupational composition of the State workforce in explaining differences in the

average State wage, and asks to what extent State average

wage differences are caused by the occupational composition or by generally higher State occupational wage rates.

State occupational employment staffing patterns are examined to see how the staffing patterns affect the overall average wage rates.

Finally, we examine whether there is a correlation between

the occupational composition and the wage premiums found

in different States. That is, we examine whether increasing

concentrations of employment in high-paid occupations increases averages wage rates for workers in all occupations.

The Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) survey

produces estimates of wages for 770 detailed occupations

and 22 major occupational groups from the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system for each State, for metropolitan areas, and for the Nation as a whole. In addition,

OES generates statewide and nationwide estimates of average wages across all occupations and industries. According

to the May 2003 OES survey, the national average annual

wage was $36,2101

. The States with the lowest average annual wages were Mississippi, with an average of $27,310,

and South Dakota, with an average wage of $27,620. The

District of Columbia had the highest wage, with an average

of $54,040.

The wage differential for an individual worker depends

not only on the cost of living in the State, but also on the

worker’s skills and experience, and most importantly, his or

her occupation. To see the impact that the occupational

composition of each State has on the differential between

the State and national average wage, the effect of the occupational component needs to be separated from the other

factors.

Methodology

The average wage of each State, as computed by the OES

survey, is the employment-weighted average of all of the

occupational wage estimates in the State. The “staffing pattern” of a State is the distribution of the State’s total employment across each occupation or occupational group, expressed as a percentage of State employment. If a State were

to have the same occupational staffing pattern as the Nation

as a whole, along with identical occupational wages, then

the State average wage would equal the national average

wage. If a State had the same occupational wage rates as the

Nation, but a staffing pattern that was more concentrated in

higher (or lower) paying occupations, the overall State average wage would increase (or decrease).

The comparison of cross-sectional quantitative data by

separating the factors causing the differentials is known as

“shift-share analysis.” While shift-share analysis is often

used to isolate factors contributing to changes over time, it

is used here to isolate factors contributing to differences by

area.

In order to isolate the effect of the State occupational

staffing pattern on the overall State wage, the national wage

was substituted for the State wage for every occupation.

This produced the average wage for the State using the State’s

own staffing pattern and national wages. Inversely, to determine the effect of a State’s occupational wage rates on the

overall State wage, the national occupational staffing pattern must be substituted for the State staffing pattern. This

was done by replacing the State occupational employment

estimate with a proportional employment level using the national staffing pattern and the State’s total employment. This

procedure results in an average State wage based on a national staffing pattern with State wages, and demonstrates
9

the effect of the wage rate level on the average wage for each

State. (This does not imply that the wage rate component of

the wage differential can be strictly defined as a regional

cost of living factor or a State wage premium. It is simply the

nonoccupational component of the State average wage, but

will be referred to in this article as the “wage component.”)

The overall wage differential for each State can be viewed

as being made up of a wage component, an occupational

component, and a residual effect. The overall State wage

differential is obtained by subtracting the national average

annual wage from the State average wage. The wage and

occupational factors are obtained by summing the employment and weighted average wage estimates for all of the 770

OES occupations, as well as the 22 SOC major groups. The

wage component is derived by substituting a “converted

occupational employment” estimate for the State occupational employment, based on the national staffing pattern

but using State occupational wages. The occupational component is derived by substituting national occupational

wages for State occupational wages, but using the State

occupational employment. To obtain these values, the national and State staffing patterns and wage rates were used

in the expression below:

Results

Text table 1 presents the results of the shift-share analysis of

State average wages using detailed occupational staffing

patterns. The 50 States plus the District of Columbia are

listed in alphabetical order, along with the average annual

State wage rate, the difference from the national rate, and the

amount of the difference due to the wage component and

the amount due to occupational composition, as well the

residual factor that is due to differences in each of the first

two.

This table shows that the wage difference in most States

is due mainly to the State’s occupational wage rates generally, rather than the occupational composition of the State.

In fact, for all of the States, the average share of the wage

difference due strictly to the wage component is 72.5 percent. Nevertheless, 32.6 percent of the difference in State

average wage rates is due to the occupational composition

of the States (-5.1 percent of the difference is due to the

residual factor). In some States such as Maryland and Wisconsin, the amount of the difference due to occupational

composition is larger than the difference due to wages. In

other States, such as Georgia and Michigan, the occupational component and the wage component have opposite

signs. The combination of the two effects together is relatively small.

Text table 2 displays the percentage of State employment

in each of the 22 SOC major occupational groups, as well as

the national mean wage for the occupational group. This

gives an indication of each State’s “staffing pattern effect”

on the average State wage. Many States have similar staffing patterns, and the occupational employment shares reflect this. Office and administrative support occupations

have the highest share of employment in every State, with an

average of 17.4 percent and all but four States having a share

between 16 and 20 percent. Although the employment shares

in most categories are fairly similar, there can be large variations among the States in certain occupational groups. For

example, production occupation employment shares range

from a high of 14.2 percent in Arkansas to a low of 1.5 percent

in the District of Columbia. Because the SOC major groups

vary considerably in terms of national average wages, differences in employment distributions among the occupational

groups result in differences in overall average wages.

The SOC major groups with the highest national average

annual wages are management occupations ($82,790); legal

occupations ($78,910); and computer and mathematical occupations ($63,240). The District of Columbia has the highest percentage employment for all three of these occupational groups, and also the highest average wage at $54,040.

The SOC major groups (other than the smallest group of

farming, fishing, and forestry) with the lowest national average wages are food preparation and serving related occupations ($17,290); building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations ($21,060) and personal care and service

occupations ($21,380). Hawaii and Nevada are the States

with the two highest percentages of employment for all three

of these groups, presumably because of the dominance of

the tourism industry.

Because both of these States have relatively high concentrations of workers in low-paying occupational groups,

State Wage Wage Occupational

Differential Component Component Residual

SAW – NAW = (COE*SOW) – NAW + (SOE*NOW) – NAW + (NOP-SOP)*(NOW-SOW)]

 STE STE

SAW = OES State average annual wage, May 2003

NAW = OES national average annual wage, May 2003 ($36,210)

SOE = OES State occupational employment, May 2003

NOE = OES national occupational employment, May 2003

SOW = OES State occupational wage, May 2003

NOW = OES national occupational wage, May 2003

STE = OES State total employment, May 2003

NTE = OES national total employment, May 2003 (127,567,910)

NOP = National occupational percentage = (NOE/NTE)

SOP = State occupational percentage = (SOE/STE)

COE = Converted occupational employment = (NOE/NTE)*STE

Σ Σ[ Σ
10

we expect to see a negative influence of the staffing pattern

on overall State wages. Consequently, text table 1 shows

that the occupational component in Hawaii indicates a wage

rate $1,611 below the national average and the occupational

component indicates that the wage in Nevada is $3,662 below the national average. Hawaii has an average annual

wage that is below the national average at $35,660, but its

wage component is actually $617 above the national average. Similarly, Nevada has an average wage that is $2,450

less than the Nation’s, but its wage component is $741 above

the national average. The positive wage component indicates that, on average, workers in a given occupation in Nevada and Hawaii earn more than their counterparts in other

States. It is the occupational mix of workers in these States

that cause average wages to be below the national average.

The results in text table 1 show staffing pattern effects

and wage effects using detailed occupational staffing patterns. A similar calculation was done using staffing patterns

at the major occupational group level. As expected, the staffing pattern effects in the calculation using the detailed occupation staffing patterns were more pronounced. This is due

to the variability in the wage rates at the major group level

caused by differences in the detailed occupational composition with the major group. This demonstrates that disaggregating the detailed occupations and the skill levels implicit in

the occupations from their major group provides further evidence of State wage differentials due to differences in the

skills used by the workers in each State.

An examination of States with notably high and low wages

reveals that the concentration of certain detailed occupations does have a large effect on the overall State wage. For

example Alaska’s average wage is $4,370 higher than the

national average. Alaska employs 990 petroleum pump system operators, refinery operators, and gaugers (SOC 51-8093).

As a share of employment, there are 10 times as many of

these workers in Alaska than in the Nation as a whole. Furthermore, the State average wage for this occupation, $67,260,

was roughly $20,000 per year higher than the national average. Conversely, in West Virginia there were 760 fallers (that

is, timber cutters, SOC 45-4021), who accounted for a share

of the State’s employment that was approximately 15 times

their national employment share. The State’s average wage

for this occupation is $21,320, $10,530 less than the national

average for the occupation. The overall State average wage

for West Virginia was $29,540, or $6,670 less than the national average wage. These examples demonstrate that the

predominance of detailed occupations in particular States

can contribute significantly to both wage and staffing pattern effects on the State average wage.

Correlations between staffing pattern effects and

wage effects

In the previous section, we saw that there are some States

with both positive wage effects and positive staffing pattern

effects, some States with negative effects for both components, and some with effects of the opposite sign. We might

expect a relationship between the occupational component

and the wage component if wages of other workers are affected by general wage levels in the area. For example, we

might expect food service workers or personal service workers in areas with high concentrations of doctors, lawyers,

and engineers to be paid more than their counterparts in

other areas. This relationship would be demonstrated by a

positive correlation between the staffing pattern effects and

the wage effects. The correlation coefficient (a number between +1 and -1, representing a positive or negative relationship) between these two columns in text table 1 is +.49.

In general, the staffing pattern effects and the wage rate

effects shown in the table have the same sign. Of the 51

areas listed, 39 had effects of the same sign. Five had negative staffing pattern effects, but positive wage effects: Hawaii, Nevada, Michigan, and Rhode Island. Seven States

had positive staffing pattern effects but negative wage effects: Arizona, Texas, Virginia, Idaho, and Georgia. In the

latter seven States, the occupational staffing patterns suggest that the wages for these States should be higher than

average but, in all except Virginia, the average wage is lower.

The very low occupational wage rates in the other six States

more than compensate for the high employment effects, and

the overall State wages are below the national average.

Conclusion

Despite the fact that State wage differentials are caused primarily by State wage levels and other nonoccupational factors, the size of the wage differential caused by occupation

is significant and varies greatly from State to State. In Virginia, the difference due to the occupational component is

$1,275 or 177 percent of the total wage differential of $720,

and the wage component is -$644. In the state of Maryland,

75.7 percent of the wage difference is attributable to the occupational component, even though the average share for

all States from this component is only 32.6 percent.

At the level of major occupational groups, the share of

the State wage differential due to the wage component increases slightly from 72.5 percent to 78 percent. Because

many of the States that have average wages below the national level are rural States, the wage component may reflect

a lower cost of living or other regional factors. In relation to

this, States with high wage components and high occupational components may have higher housing or consumer

costs, but they may also be home to industries and companies that employ high percentages of professional or technical workers and pay the higher wages that these workers can

command. In States where the wage component is high but

the occupational component is low or negative, it is possible

that employers are competing for scarce workers by paying

them wages above what they would earn in other areas.

1

Hourly wages are converted to their full-time equivalent annual

wage rate by multiplying the hourly wage by 2,080, or 40 hours per

week times 52 weeks per year.
11

Text table 1. State average wages and the composition of differences, May 2003

Alabama .............................................. $31,330 -$4,880 -$3,924 -$1,110 $154

Alaska ................................................. $40,580 $4,370 $2,606 $1,315 $447

Arizona ................................................ $33,570 -$2,640 -$2,520 $68 -$196

Arkansas ............................................. $28,530 -$7,680 -$6,093 -$2,287 $700

California ............................................. $40,640 $4,430 $4,182 $265 -$23

Colorado .............................................. $38,470 $2,260 $1,025 $1,114 $118

Connecticut ......................................... $42,970 $6,760 $5,383 $1,176 $195

Delaware ............................................. $37,520 $1,310 $728 $787 -$211

District of Columbia ............................ $54,040 $17,830 $3,253 $12,083 $2,492

Florida ................................................. $32,540 -$3,670 -$2,380 -$1,363 $69

Georgia ............................................... $34,880 -$1,330 -$1,561 $150 $82

Hawaii .................................................. $35,660 -$550 $617 -$1,611 $436

Idaho ................................................... $31,550 -$4,660 -$4,941 $158 $115

Illinois .................................................. $37,340 $1,130 $39 $1,288 -$205

Indiana ................................................ $33,070 -$3,140 -$2,221 -$1,564 $638

Iowa ..................................................... $30,950 -$5,260 -$4,091 -$1,698 $521

Kansas ................................................ $32,960 -$3,250 -$3,074 -$395 $219

Kentucky ............................................. $31,510 -$4,700 -$3,890 -$1,276 $467

Louisiana ............................................. $30,410 -$5,800 -$5,238 -$668 $98

Maine ................................................... $32,370 -$3,840 -$3,592 -$487 $232

Maryland ............................................. $39,660 $3,450 $816 $2,615 $14

Massachusetts ................................... $42,830 $6,620 $3,983 $2,552 $85

Michigan .............................................. $38,110 $1,900 $1,831 -$265 $335

Minnesota ........................................... $38,140 $1,930 $1,752 $313 -$139

Mississippi .......................................... $27,310 -$8,900 -$7,128 -$2,569 $795

Missouri............................................... $33,770 -$2,440 -$2,308 -$254 $114

Montana .............................................. $28,980 -$7,230 -$6,492 -$841 $103

Nebraska ............................................. $31,680 -$4,530 -$3,939 -$864 $270

Nevada ................................................ $33,760 -$2,450 $741 -$3,662 $471

New Hampshire ................................... $35,750 -$460 -$1,087 $487 $138

New Jersey ......................................... $41,020 $4,810 $4,651 $258 -$97

New Mexico ......................................... $31,760 -$4,450 -$4,695 -$77 $315

New York ............................................. $42,270 $6,060 $4,873 $869 $313

North Carolina ..................................... $33,270 -$2,940 -$2,293 -$786 $131

North Dakota ....................................... $29,380 -$6,830 -$5,412 -$1,797 $378

Ohio ..................................................... $34,870 -$1,340 -$970 -$522 $152

Oklahoma ............................................ $30,310 -$5,900 -$5,651 -$379 $126

Oregon ................................................ $35,550 -$660 $191 -$724 -$131

Pennsylvania ...................................... $35,060 -$1,150 -$1,325 $229 -$53

Rhode Island ....................................... $37,120 $910 $1,124 -$369 $149

South Carolina .................................... $31,160 -$5,050 -$4,475 -$1,070 $489

South Dakota ...................................... $27,620 -$8,590 -$6,282 -$3,112 $797

Tennessee ........................................... $31,910 -$4,300 -$3,591 -$975 $267

Texas ................................................... $34,260 -$1,950 -$2,143 $195 -$5

Utah ..................................................... $33,020 -$3,190 -$3,059 -$274 $140

Vermont ............................................... $33,500 -$2,710 -$1,456 -$1,265 $11

Virginia ................................................ $36,930 $720 -$644 $1,275 $90

Washington ......................................... $39,600 $3,390 $3,549 $98 -$261

West Virginia ....................................... $29,540 -$6,670 -$5,966 -$1,146 $440

Wisconsin ........................................... $33,980 -$2,230 -$883 -$1,621 $269

Wyoming ............................................. $31,190 -$5,020 -$5,332 -$890 $1,202

State average

annual wage

Difference from

national average

Difference due to

wage rates

Difference due to

occupations

Difference due

to residual State
12

Text table 2. State percentage of employment by SOC major group, May 2003

Alabama ........................................................... 5.1 3.0 1.6 1.9 0.6 0.8 0.5 5.5 0.8 5.4 2.3

Alaska .............................................................. 7.3 3.0 1.1 2.2 2.2 2.0 0.9 7.0 1.0 4.2 1.9

Arizona ............................................................. 5.4 4.0 2.0 2.4 0.7 1.1 0.7 5.8 1.0 4.2 2.4

Arkansas .......................................................... 4.2 3.0 1.2 1.0 0.6 1.2 0.5 5.7 0.7 5.3 2.4

California .......................................................... 5.4 4.4 2.7 2.2 1.0 1.2 0.8 6.2 1.5 3.9 2.1

Colorado ........................................................... 5.2 4.5 3.6 2.5 1.2 1.1 0.7 5.6 1.5 4.1 2.0

Connecticut ...................................................... 5.2 4.9 2.7 2.3 1.1 1.9 0.8 7.2 1.3 5.2 3.0

Delaware .......................................................... 6.6 4.5 2.4 1.2 1.6 1.6 0.9 5.2 0.7 4.7 2.0

District of Columbia ......................................... 11.1 10.4 4.8 2.1 3.0 1.3 5.8 4.4 3.0 4.4 1.2

Florida .............................................................. 3.9 3.7 1.9 1.6 0.6 1.2 0.9 4.8 1.2 5.0 2.4

Georgia ............................................................ 5.9 3.6 2.6 1.4 0.6 0.9 0.7 6.3 0.9 4.3 2.0

Hawaii ............................................................... 4.5 3.6 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.6 0.8 6.5 1.7 4.1 2.3

Idaho ................................................................ 6.5 3.0 1.6 2.3 1.7 1.4 0.6 5.9 1.1 4.8 2.6

Illinois ............................................................... 6.8 4.3 2.2 1.6 0.7 1.1 0.7 6.4 1.2 4.8 2.1

Indiana ............................................................. 4.5 3.1 1.3 1.8 0.6 1.0 0.4 5.4 0.9 5.1 2.2

Iowa .................................................................. 4.6 3.7 1.5 1.3 0.7 1.5 0.5 6.1 1.1 4.7 2.7

Kansas ............................................................. 4.7 3.6 2.1 2.0 0.7 1.1 0.6 6.4 1.1 4.9 3.0

Kentucky .......................................................... 5.0 2.7 1.4 1.3 0.5 1.2 0.6 5.9 0.8 5.5 2.7

Louisiana .......................................................... 5.8 2.7 0.9 1.6 0.7 1.3 0.7 5.9 0.8 5.7 2.8

Maine ................................................................ 5.8 3.1 1.2 1.5 0.7 2.1 0.6 7.5 1.0 5.6 3.3

Maryland .......................................................... 7.6 4.3 3.8 2.1 1.4 1.5 0.9 6.4 1.2 5.0 2.2

Massachusetts ................................................ 7.3 4.1 3.3 2.3 1.4 1.7 0.9 6.5 1.3 5.7 2.7

Michigan ........................................................... 3.9 4.3 1.8 3.1 0.9 0.9 0.6 5.7 1.2 5.0 2.7

Minnesota ........................................................ 4.7 5.1 2.6 2.0 1.0 1.7 0.7 5.9 1.2 5.2 2.7

Mississippi ....................................................... 4.7 2.2 0.8 1.3 0.6 0.8 0.6 6.1 0.7 5.5 2.5

Missouri ............................................................ 5.4 3.6 2.1 1.3 0.6 1.1 0.7 5.6 1.3 5.5 2.8

Montana ........................................................... 6.2 2.8 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 0.7 6.7 1.3 5.0 2.8

Nebraska .......................................................... 4.7 3.6 2.2 1.3 0.9 1.5 0.4 5.9 1.2 5.1 2.9

Nevada ............................................................. 4.1 2.8 1.0 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 3.8 1.1 3.5 1.5

New Hampshire ................................................ 6.2 3.6 2.0 2.1 0.7 1.2 0.5 7.1 0.9 4.9 2.2

New Jersey ...................................................... 4.8 4.4 3.0 1.5 1.0 1.4 0.7 6.3 1.0 4.5 2.6

New Mexico ...................................................... 6.0 3.2 1.7 2.7 1.4 1.4 0.9 6.6 0.9 4.8 2.6

New York .......................................................... 4.6 4.0 2.1 1.4 0.8 1.8 1.2 8.0 2.0 5.2 3.4

North Carolina .................................................. 5.1 3.0 2.0 1.4 1.0 1.2 0.5 6.3 0.8 4.9 2.7

North Dakota .................................................... 5.4 2.7 1.4 1.3 0.9 1.5 0.5 6.4 1.1 5.6 3.2

Ohio .................................................................. 4.6 3.9 1.8 1.8 0.6 1.1 0.6 5.4 1.1 5.3 2.9

Oklahoma ......................................................... 5.5 3.3 1.5 1.5 0.8 1.3 0.6 6.7 0.9 5.3 3.1

Oregon ............................................................. 4.8 3.8 2.1 2.1 1.3 1.9 0.6 6.3 1.3 4.4 2.4

Pennsylvania ................................................... 6.0 3.6 1.9 1.6 0.8 1.5 0.8 5.7 0.9 5.7 2.7

Rhode Island .................................................... 4.2 3.9 2.2 1.7 1.0 2.1 0.9 7.1 1.2 6.0 3.4

South Carolina ................................................. 6.0 2.8 1.2 1.9 0.6 1.2 0.7 5.6 0.9 4.9 2.4

South Dakota ................................................... 3.4 2.9 1.4 1.0 0.6 1.2 0.4 6.2 1.3 5.5 2.9

Tennessee ........................................................ 6.1 3.0 1.4 1.4 0.5 1.0 0.5 5.1 1.0 5.4 2.4

Texas ................................................................ 5.5 3.5 2.2 2.1 0.8 0.8 0.7 6.9 1.0 4.4 2.4

Utah .................................................................. 5.3 3.4 2.5 1.9 1.1 1.4 0.6 5.7 1.3 4.0 2.0

Vermont ............................................................ 2.8 3.5 1.8 2.2 1.1 2.4 0.6 9.0 1.5 5.4 2.5

Virginia ............................................................. 4.8 5.0 4.3 2.1 1.0 1.1 0.9 6.1 1.2 4.3 2.0

Washington ...................................................... 3.3 4.7 3.3 2.7 1.4 1.7 0.8 6.3 1.5 4.8 2.6

West Virginia .................................................... 5.1 2.5 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.5 0.8 5.6 0.9 6.5 3.1

Wisconsin ........................................................ 4.1 3.4 1.7 1.8 0.9 1.2 0.5 5.5 1.2 4.7 3.0

Wyoming .......................................................... 5.4 2.4 0.8 1.5 1.5 1.4 0.7 6.5 0.9 4.4 2.2

State

Management

($82,790)

Business

and

financial

operations

($55,550)

Computer

and

mathematical

($63,240)

Architecture and

engineering

($59,230)

Life,

physical,

and

social

science

($53,210)

Community

and

social

services

($35,420)

Legal

($78,910)

Education,

training,

and

library

($40,660)

Arts,

design,

entertainment,

sports,

and

media

($42,620)

Healthcare

practitioners

and

technical

($55,380)

Healthcare

support

($22,750)
13

Alabama ........................................................... 2.2 7.5 3.0 1.6 10.9 16.3 0.4 5.1 5.2 11.4 8.9

Alaska .............................................................. 3.8 7.7 3.3 2.7 8.4 17.5 0.2 6.9 5.3 3.6 7.8

Arizona ............................................................. 2.7 8.8 3.7 2.3 11.1 17.7 0.6 7.2 4.4 5.4 6.5

Arkansas .......................................................... 1.9 7.6 3.0 1.6 10.1 16.0 0.6 4.3 4.8 14.2 9.9

California .......................................................... 2.5 7.8 3.2 2.1 10.3 18.6 1.2 4.9 3.5 7.4 7.0

Colorado ........................................................... 2.1 8.8 3.4 2.4 11.8 17.9 0.2 6.0 4.1 5.2 6.3

Connecticut ...................................................... 2.3 6.9 3.6 2.7 11.0 18.4 0.1 3.4 3.3 7.3 5.5

Delaware .......................................................... 1.9 7.4 3.7 2.0 10.8 21.2 0.2 4.8 4.3 6.5 5.7

District of Columbia ......................................... 3.9 6.4 3.9 1.4 4.7 20.8 0.0 2.0 1.4 1.5 2.5

Florida .............................................................. 2.9 8.5 3.9 2.7 12.1 19.6 0.7 5.6 4.0 5.4 7.6

Georgia ............................................................ 2.4 7.8 3.0 1.9 11.0 17.6 0.3 4.3 4.6 9.2 8.6

Hawaii ............................................................... 3.8 12.2 5.9 3.4 10.5 16.7 0.2 4.5 3.9 3.4 6.5

Idaho ................................................................ 1.9 8.2 3.5 1.6 10.3 16.6 1.0 5.8 4.6 7.2 7.8

Illinois ............................................................... 2.4 7.2 3.2 2.1 10.2 17.9 0.1 4.2 3.7 9.0 8.3

Indiana ............................................................. 1.9 8.7 3.1 1.9 9.8 16.0 0.2 4.8 4.5 13.9 8.7

Iowa .................................................................. 1.5 8.5 3.2 2.3 10.6 17.0 0.4 4.3 4.3 11.3 8.2

Kansas ............................................................. 1.8 8.0 3.2 2.4 10.5 17.3 0.2 4.9 4.6 9.6 7.2

Kentucky .......................................................... 1.9 8.2 3.1 1.8 10.0 16.7 0.3 5.0 4.5 11.5 9.1

Louisiana .......................................................... 3.0 8.9 3.3 2.6 10.1 16.4 0.4 6.4 5.0 6.8 7.8

Maine ................................................................ 1.8 8.9 3.6 2.2 10.6 16.2 0.4 5.1 4.4 7.6 7.0

Maryland .......................................................... 2.7 7.8 3.4 2.2 10.0 17.6 0.1 5.5 3.9 4.4 6.1

Massachusetts ................................................ 2.4 7.9 3.4 2.3 10.1 17.7 0.1 3.8 3.4 6.4 5.3

Michigan ........................................................... 1.8 8.3 3.2 2.2 10.9 16.0 0.2 4.3 4.1 11.9 7.1

Minnesota ........................................................ 1.8 8.0 3.1 2.7 11.2 17.0 0.2 4.4 3.6 8.9 6.4

Mississippi ....................................................... 2.8 8.3 3.2 2.3 10.2 16.1 0.5 4.9 4.6 12.1 9.2

Missouri............................................................ 2.1 8.7 3.4 2.4 10.5 17.8 0.2 4.7 4.0 8.9 7.4

Montana ........................................................... 1.8 10.6 4.1 2.6 10.7 16.4 0.6 6.0 4.8 4.4 6.7

Nebraska .......................................................... 1.6 8.1 3.2 1.8 10.6 18.1 0.5 4.7 4.2 9.3 8.1

Nevada ............................................................. 2.9 12.5 5.7 6.3 11.3 16.6 0.1 7.7 4.1 3.7 8.1

New Hampshire ................................................ 1.8 8.6 3.2 2.4 13.0 16.7 0.1 4.0 4.1 8.9 5.6

New Jersey ...................................................... 2.8 6.5 3.5 2.9 11.3 20.0 0.1 3.7 3.7 5.9 8.4

New Mexico ...................................................... 3.1 9.6 3.9 2.5 10.3 16.3 0.6 6.7 4.3 4.3 6.3

New York .......................................................... 3.0 6.5 3.5 3.1 10.4 19.9 0.1 3.8 3.7 5.7 5.6

North Carolina .................................................. 2.0 7.8 3.1 2.0 10.5 16.5 0.2 4.6 4.6 11.7 8.1

North Dakota .................................................... 1.2 9.5 3.7 3.4 11.2 17.1 0.3 5.0 4.6 6.2 7.7

Ohio .................................................................. 2.1 8.5 3.1 2.0 10.1 17.1 0.1 4.1 4.2 11.3 8.3

Oklahoma ......................................................... 2.2 8.5 3.1 1.7 10.5 17.9 0.2 5.1 4.7 8.6 6.9

Oregon ............................................................. 1.9 8.5 3.1 2.0 10.4 17.8 0.7 4.5 4.0 8.3 8.0

Pennsylvania ................................................... 2.1 7.7 3.2 2.3 10.5 18.1 0.1 4.2 4.1 8.8 7.6

Rhode Island .................................................... 2.3 9.0 3.2 2.5 9.5 17.8 0.1 3.9 3.5 9.0 5.8

South Carolina ................................................. 2.1 8.6 3.7 1.9 10.1 15.4 0.4 4.8 4.9 11.9 8.0

South Dakota ................................................... 1.4 10.1 4.2 2.9 11.7 17.8 0.3 5.3 4.0 7.9 7.5

Tennessee ........................................................ 2.2 8.0 3.2 1.7 9.8 16.8 0.2 4.1 4.2 11.9 10.1

Texas ................................................................ 2.5 8.1 3.2 2.7 10.9 17.8 0.2 5.4 4.5 7.2 7.1

Utah .................................................................. 2.1 7.5 3.3 1.9 11.8 18.6 0.2 6.2 4.3 7.9 7.0

Vermont ............................................................ 1.2 8.3 3.5 2.6 10.3 17.6 0.3 5.2 4.0 8.5 5.6

Virginia ............................................................. 2.4 7.5 3.6 2.1 11.1 16.7 0.2 5.5 4.5 6.7 6.9

Washington ...................................................... 2.0 8.4 2.8 2.4 11.2 17.2 0.5 5.1 4.2 5.8 7.4

West Virginia .................................................... 2.0 8.7 3.3 2.2 10.6 16.6 0.4 6.1 5.0 7.0 8.7

Wisconsin ........................................................ 1.7 8.3 3.4 2.4 9.7 16.9 0.1 4.5 3.8 12.9 8.1

Wyoming .......................................................... 2.3 9.9 4.3 2.3 9.4 14.0 0.2 9.4 6.0 5.3 9.2

Text table 2. State percentage of employment by SOC major group, May 2003—Continued

Protective

service

($34,090)

Food

preparation and

serving

related

($17,290)

Building

and

grounds

cleaning

and

maintenance

($21,060)

Personal

care and

service

($21,380)

State

Sales

and

related

($31,250)

Office

and

administrative

support

($28,260)

Farming,

fishing,

and

forestry

($20,200)

Construction

and

extraction

($36,650)

Installation,

maintenance,

and

repair

($36,210)

Production

($28,710)

Transportation

and

material

moving

($27,600)