Report | Jobs and Unemployment

The Manufacturing Footprint and the Importance of U.S. Manufacturing Jobs

Briefing Paper #388

Download PDF

Executive summary

While U.S. manufacturing has been hit hard by nearly two decades of policy failures that have damaged its international competitiveness, it remains a vital part of the U.S. economy.

The manufacturing sector employed 12 million workers in 2013, or about 8.8 percent of total U.S. employment. Manufacturing employs a higher share of workers without a college degree than the economy overall. On average, non-college-educated workers in manufacturing made 10.9 percent more than similar workers in the rest of the economy in 2012–2013.

This report examines the role manufacturing plays in employment at the national, state, and congressional district levels, including the number of jobs manufacturing supports, the wages those jobs pay, and manufacturing’s contribution to GDP. (This report updates an earlier EPI report but includes U.S. congressional district data for the first time.) The data show that manufacturing employment was stable for three decades until 1998, and has been on a largely downward trajectory since then, with traditional manufacturing states hit particularly hard. Given its size and importance, we cannot ignore the consequences of such a decline. Further, the policies that would help manufacturing the most are those that would help close the nation’s large trade deficit. Reducing this trade deficit would, in turn, provide a valuable macroeconomic boost to a U.S. economy that is still operating far below potential.

  • The manufacturing sector has a large footprint in the U.S. economy. It employed 12.0 million workers in 2013, 8.8 percent of total U.S. employment.
  • Manufacturing plays a particularly important role in supporting jobs in a core group of states in the upper Midwest (East North Central and selected West North Central) and South (East South Central) states. The top 10 states ranked by manufacturing’s share of total state employment in 2013 are Indiana (16.8 percent, 491,900 jobs), Wisconsin (16.3 percent, 458,400 jobs), Iowa (14.0 percent, 214,500 jobs), Michigan (13.5 percent, 555,300 jobs), Alabama (13.1 percent, 249,100 jobs), Arkansas (12.9 percent, 152,400 jobs), Ohio (12.6 percent, 662,100 jobs), Kentucky (12.4 percent, 228,600 jobs), Mississippi (12.3 percent, 136,700 jobs), and Kansas (11.9 percent, 162,900 jobs).
  • The top 10 states ranked by total manufacturing employment in 2013 are California (1,251,400 jobs), Texas (871,700 jobs), Ohio (662,100 jobs), Illinois (579,600 jobs), Pennsylvania (563,500 jobs), Michigan (555,300 jobs), Indiana (491,900 jobs), Wisconsin (458,400 jobs), New York (455,100 jobs), and North Carolina (442,500 jobs).
  • The top 10 congressional districts ranked by manufacturing’s share of total district employment are Indiana’s 3rd Congressional District (76,200 jobs, 23.3 percent of district employment), Indiana’s 2nd (73,500 jobs, 23.1 percent), Wisconsin’s 6th (80,000 jobs, 22.6 percent), California’s 17th (63,400 jobs, 19.9 percent), Indiana’s 6th (60,400 jobs, 19.4 percent), Alabama’s 4th (48,500 jobs, 19.2 percent), Wisconsin’s 8th (69,600 jobs, 19.2 percent), Ohio’s 4th (61,000 jobs, 19.0 percent), Michigan’s 2nd (57,500 jobs, 18.6 percent), and Wisconsin’s 5th (66,200 jobs, 17.9 percent).
  • The top 50 congressional districts ranked by share of employment in manufacturing are widely dispersed throughout 16 states, nearly one-third of all the states. The states represented in the top 50 congressional district list include Indiana (seven congressional districts), Michigan (seven), Wisconsin (six), Ohio (five), Alabama (three), Arkansas (three), California (three), Iowa (three), Tennessee (three), Kentucky (two), North Carolina (two), South Carolina (two), Georgia (one), Kansas (one), Mississippi (one), and Oregon (one).

Complete data for employment in each state and for all 435 congressional districts (and the District of Columbia) are also available in the EPI Manufacturing Footprint Map below. This interactive feature also includes details on employment by state and congressional district in each of 25 unique manufacturing industries.

INTERACTIVE MAP

EPI Manufacturing Footprint Map with Extended Data by State and Congressional District

Notes: See tables 2, 6, 8, and 9 in the report for data and computational notes

Source: Author’s analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis (2014b), Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014c), Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata (U.S. Census Bureau, various years), and U.S. Census Bureau (2013)

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Manufacturing industries generated $2.1 trillion in GDP (12.5 percent of total U.S. gross domestic product) in 2013. But even these figures do not fully capture manufacturing’s role in the economy. Manufacturing provides a significant source of demand for goods and services in other sectors of the economy, and these sales to other industries are not captured in measures of manufacturing sector GDP but are counted in the broader measure of its gross output. U.S. manufacturing had gross output of $5.9 trillion in 2013, more than one-third (35.4 percent) of U.S. GDP in 2013. Manufacturing is by far the most important sector of the U.S. economy in terms of total output and employment. The manufacturing sector supported approximately 17.1 million indirect jobs in the United States, in addition to the 12.0 million persons directly employed in manufacturing, for a total of 29.1 million jobs directly and indirectly supported, more than one-fifth (21.3 percent) of total U.S. employment in 2013.

The manufacturing sector is also a particularly important provider of jobs with good wages for workers without a college degree. This can be seen in the manufacturing wage premium—the dollar amount by which the average manufacturing worker wage exceeds the wage of an otherwise comparable worker outside the manufacturing sector. The average wage premium for all U.S. manufacturing workers without a college degree was $1.78 per hour (or 10.9 percent) in 2012–2013.

The United States lost 5.7 million manufacturing jobs between March 1998 and 2013. The principal causes of manufacturing job losses were growing trade deficits, especially with China, Mexico, and other low wage nations, and the weak recovery from the Great Recession since 2009.

The Great Recession was unusual because of the length and depth of the manufacturing employment decline. Although nearly 800,000 manufacturing jobs have been added since the employment trough, U.S. manufacturing employment remains depressed. If employment had recovered to the level of the average recovery in the post-World War II era, then an additional 1.2 million manufacturing jobs would have been created through the third quarter of 2014. The weak manufacturing recovery is a product of both international and domestic challenges faced by the manufacturing sector. The U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods has increased sharply since 2009, which has significantly retarded the growth of manufacturing output and employment since the recession. Currency manipulation by China, Japan, and other countries is one of the leading causes of the growing U.S. trade deficit (Scott 2014b). Weak growth of domestic demand is also a major contributor to the relatively weak manufacturing recovery.

The Midwest and some southern states have been particularly hard hit by the collapse of manufacturing since 1998. Those states are also well positioned for a manufacturing recovery if the structural causes of the manufacturing decline are reversed, including by eliminating currency manipulation, which would substantially reduce or eliminate the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods. In addition to the growth of the U.S. trade deficit, other structural problems in manufacturing are the stagnation of public investment in infrastructure and in research and development, and inadequate tax, education, and energy policies.

Manufacturing’s footprint: Jobs

In 2013, the U.S. manufacturing sector directly employed 12 million workers, or about 8.8 percent of total U.S. employment.

This report uses a unique data set from the American Community Survey (ACS) to estimate the distribution of employment in each state and congressional district. Estimates of total manufacturing employment for each of 25 industries for each region in 2011 were obtained from the survey and used to develop estimates of the distribution of manufacturing employment in each state in the representative period. Total state employment in manufacturing in 2013 was obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014c), and allocated to states, industries, and congressional districts based on the distribution of employment obtained from the ACS (U.S. Census Bureau 2013). For further details on the data sources and models used, see Scott (2014a, Appendix: Methodology, 25–27).

Note: All of the tables referenced in the text are available at the end of this report.

Manufacturing jobs in the states

As Table 1 shows, manufacturing plays a particularly important role in the labor markets of a core group of states in the upper Midwest (East North Central and selected West North Central) and South (East South Central). Manufacturing was responsible for 13.1 percent of employment in the East North Central region in 2013.

Midwestern states with a large manufacturing share of employment (greater than 10 percent, measured as manufacturing’s share of all jobs in the state) include Indiana (491,900 jobs, 16.8 percent of total employment), Wisconsin (458,400 jobs, 16.3, percent), Iowa (214,500 jobs, 14.0 percent), Michigan (555,300 jobs, 13.5 percent), and Ohio (662,100 jobs, 12.6 percent), Kansas (162,900 jobs, 11.9 percent), and Minnesota (308,100 jobs, 11.1 percent).

Manufacturing-dependent states in the South include Alabama (249,100 jobs, 13.1 percent), Arkansas (152,400 jobs, 12.9 percent), Kentucky (228,600 jobs, 12.4 percent), Mississippi (136,700 jobs, 12.3 percent), South Carolina (224,800 jobs, 11.8 percent), Tennessee (319,000 jobs, 11.6 percent), and North Carolina (442,500 jobs, 10.9 percent).

Table 2 reports manufacturing employment in each of the 50 states (and the District of Columbia) ranked by manufacturing jobs as a share of total state employment. The top 10 states in 2013 by share of manufacturing employment were Indiana (16.8 percent, 491,900 jobs), Wisconsin (16.3 percent, 458,400 jobs), Iowa (14.0 percent, 214,500 jobs), Michigan (13.5 percent, 555,300 jobs), Alabama (13.1 percent, 249,100 jobs), Arkansas (12.9 percent, 152,400 jobs), Ohio (12.6 percent, 662,100 jobs), Kentucky (12.4 percent, 228,600 jobs), Mississippi (12.3 percent, 136,700 jobs), and Kansas (11.9 percent, 162,900 jobs).

Table 3 provides the same information but ranks the 50 states (and the District of Columbia) by total manufacturing employment. The top 10 manufacturing employers in 2013 were California (1,251,400 jobs), Texas (871,700 jobs), Ohio (662,100 jobs), Illinois (579,600 jobs), Pennsylvania (563,500 jobs), Michigan (555,300 jobs), Indiana (491,900 jobs), Wisconsin (458,400 jobs), New York (455,100 jobs), and North Carolina (442,500 jobs).

Manufacturing jobs in congressional districts

Using a new model and new congressional district data to estimate the job impacts of manufacturing for the 113th Congress, this study finds that manufacturing is a key source of jobs in many congressional districts, both net jobs and jobs as a share of total congressional district jobs. For example, in over a third of congressional districts, manufacturing accounts for 10 percent or more of total jobs. (These estimates use the data sources and models described above.)

The top 50 U.S. congressional districts ranked by manufacturing’s share of overall district employment are shown in Table 4. The top 10 U.S. congressional districts, in terms of the share of employment in manufacturing, were Indiana’s 3rd (76,200 jobs, 23.3 percent of district employment), Indiana’s 2nd (73,500 jobs, 23.1 percent), Wisconsin’s 6th (80,000 jobs, 22.6 percent), California’s 17th (63,400 jobs, 19.9 percent), Indiana’s 6th (60,400 jobs, 19.4 percent), Alabama’s 4th (48,500 jobs, 19.2 percent), Wisconsin’s 8th (69,600 jobs, 19.2 percent), Ohio’s 4th (61,000 jobs, 19.0 percent), Michigan’s 2nd (57,500 jobs, 18.6 percent), and Wisconsin’s 5th (66,200 jobs, 17.9 percent).

The top 50 congressional districts, by share of employment in manufacturing, were widely dispersed throughout 16 states, nearly one-third of all the United States. The states represented in the top 50 districts are Indiana (seven congressional districts), Michigan (seven), Wisconsin (six), Ohio (five), Alabama (three), Arkansas (three), California (three), Iowa (three), Tennessee (three), Kentucky (two), North Carolina (two), South Carolina (two), Georgia (one), Kansas (one), Mississippi (one), and Oregon (one).

Supplemental Table 1 reports manufacturing employment for each of the 435 U.S. Congressional districts and the District of Columbia, ranked by manufacturing employment as a share of total district employment. This table is available online in interactive format [insert url], which allows the user to sort the table alphabetically (by state and congressional district), and to rank the districts by net manufacturing jobs in the districts.

Complete data for employment in each state and for all 435 congressional districts (and the District of Columbia) are also available in the EPI Manufacturing Footprint Map With Extended Data by State and Congressional District . This interactive feature also includes details on employment by state and congressional district in each of 25 unique manufacturing industries.

Manufacturing’s footprint: GDP

Manufacturing’s impact on jobs is a reflection of its outsize share of U.S. economic production. Manufacturing is the largest sector of the economy, excluding real estate (which is dominated by imputed and actual rental income on property) in most states, as a share of GDP. Nationwide, manufacturing generated $2.1 trillion in GDP in 2013, equal to 12.5 percent of total U.S. GDP (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014b).1

GDP in the states

In 2013, manufacturing was responsible for more than 10 percent of GDP in 32 of the 50 states, as shown in Table 5. Table 6 ranks the states by the manufacturing share of GDP. Many manufacturing jobs are capital intensive, productive activities. Thus, the GDP share of manufacturing exceeds its employment share in most states, reflecting the fact that manufacturing activity also generates higher-than-average value-added per employee. (This helps explain why manufacturing wages are higher than average for non-college-educated workers, as discussed later in this report.)

Manufacturing generated more than 20 percent of total GDP in four states in 2013: Indiana (30.1 percent of total GDP, or $95.3 billion), Oregon (29.8 percent, $65.4 billion), Louisiana (23.4 percent, $59.3 billion), and North Carolina (20.9 percent, $98.3 billion).

Table 7 ranks the states by total manufacturing GDP. Ten states generated more than $65 billion each in GDP in 2013: California ($239.0 billion), Texas ($233.2 billion), Illinois ($101.3 billion), Ohio ($99.8 billion), North Carolina ($98.3 billion), Indiana ($95.3 billion), Michigan ($82.3 billion), Pennsylvania ($77.4 billion), New York ($67.9 billion), and Oregon ($65.4 billion).

Manufacturing punches above its weight: output and indirect jobs

The GDP data do not fully cover manufacturing’s impact because they don’t account for how manufactured goods generate significant demand for goods and services from other sectors of the economy, ranging from energy and natural resources to construction of new factories to services provided by accounting, engineering, software, and temporary help firms. U.S. manufacturing had gross output of $5.9 trillion in 2013, more than one-third (35.4 percent) of U.S. gross domestic product in 2013. Manufacturing is by far the most important sector of the U.S. economy in terms of total output (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014a).

An industry’s GDP, also referred to as “value added,” includes sales to final users in the economy but not sales to other industries, referred to as “intermediate inputs.” In technical terms, value added/GDP includes compensation of employees, taxes on production and imports, less subsidies, and gross operating surplus. When aggregated across industries, value added equals national GDP. The intermediate inputs that are not part of industry GDP refer to “the value of both foreign and domestically produced goods and services which are used as energy, materials, and purchased services as part of an industry’s production process” (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014c). As such manufacturing’s GDP does not account for the fact that the manufacturing sector is a large consumer of goods and services produced elsewhere in the economy and, thus, the source of a large share of the final demand for goods and services produced in the United States. Because it includes intermediate inputs, manufacturing’s gross output (technically, the value of manufacturing shipments, net of purchases of domestic manufactured intermediates) is perhaps the best measure of the overall manufacturing impact on the economy.

Figure A reports U.S. manufacturing’s gross output and its value added as a share of overall national GDP for 1997–2013. Gross output (net manufacturing shipments) exceeded one-third of U.S. GDP in every year of this period except for the recession year of 2009.2 Thus, the manufacturing sector was responsible for more than one-third of all economic activity in the United States (35.4 percent of GDP in 2013) in this period.3 As a result, manufacturing’s economic footprint is nearly three times as large as its share of direct economic output (value added) in 2013 (12.1 percent of GDP), and more than four times as large as its share of total U.S. employment (8.8 percent, as shown in Table 1).4

Figure A

Manufacturing gross output and GDP as a share of national GDP, 1997–2013

Year Manufacturing gross output Manufacturing value added (GDP)
1997 44.7% 16.1%
1998 43.1% 15.8%
1999 41.9% 15.5%
2000 41.1% 15.1%
2001 37.7% 13.9%
2002 35.9% 13.4%
2003 35.0% 13.3%
2004 35.3% 13.2%
2005 36.4% 13.0%
2006 36.5% 13.0%
2007 37.0% 12.8% 
2008 37.1% 12.3%
2009 31.0% 12.0%
2010 33.4% 12.2%
2011 36.0% 12.3%
2012 35.9% 12.3%
2013 35.4% 12.1%

 

ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

Source:  Author's analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis (2014a)

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

The large footprint of the manufacturing sector (as indicated by the gross output share of manufacturing in GDP) is also reflected in the high level of indirect employment supported by manufacturing production. The purchase of domestic goods and services by the manufacturing sector supports a large number of jobs outside of manufacturing. As a result, manufacturing has a large “indirect employment multiplier.” For every person directly employed in manufacturing, manufacturing output supports more than 1.4 jobs elsewhere in the economy. In total, the manufacturing sector supported approximately 17.1 million indirect jobs in the United States, in addition to the 12.0 million persons directly employed in manufacturing, for a total of 29.1 million jobs directly and indirectly supported, more than one fifth (21.3 percent) of total U.S. employment in 2013.5 These estimates do not include macroeconomic respending multipliers, which are also quite large in manufacturing due to the high level of wages in manufacturing industries (Bivens 2003; Bivens 2015, forthcoming).

Manufacturing gross output and value added shares of the economy declined steadily between 1997 and 2013, as shown in Figure A. One reason for this decline is the rapid growth of manufactured imports, which have reduced the demand for domestically manufactured goods. Total imports of manufactured goods increased from $744 billion in 1997 to $1.83 trillion in 2014, rising from 8.6 percent of GDP in 1997 to 10.9 percent in 2013. Had it not been for the increase in manufactured imports, and of the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods, manufacturing output and GDP would have been significantly higher in 2013.6

Manufacturing wages

The manufacturing sector employs workers at all skill and education levels, and is a particularly important provider of jobs with good wages for workers without a college degree. It employs a higher share of workers without a college degree than does the economy overall.7 In addition, scientists and engineers made up 7.8 percent of the manufacturing labor force in 2011, a share that is more than twice as large as in the rest of the economy (Scott 2013, Table 4). And while many manufacturing jobs may not require a college education, they are not “unskilled.” Manufacturing employs many highly skilled workers in high-productivity jobs and manufacturing wages are higher than average as a result.

The manufacturing wage “premium” for non-college-educated workers—the amount that the average wage in manufacturing exceeds wages in nonmanufacturing industries—varies widely by state and industry, as shown in Table 8.8 The average wage premium for U.S. manufacturing workers without a college degree was $1.78 per hour (or 10.9 percent) in 2012–2013 (Table 8). However, the manufacturing wage premium is much higher in states that produce more high-tech or capital-intensive goods, such as aircraft, autos, and refined petroleum products. States with especially high manufacturing wage premiums include Montana ($3.76 per hour, or a 24.4 percent premium), Michigan ($3.35 per hour, 21.9 percent), New Mexico ($3.31 per hour, 20.8 percent), Louisiana ($3.06 per hour, 19.6 percent), Oregon ($3.23 per hour, 19.6 percent), Maine ($3.04 per hour, 19.5 percent), Ohio ($2.99 per hour, 19.4 percent), Kansas ($2.87 per hour, 19.1 percent), New Hampshire ($3.16 per hour, 17.9 percent), Kentucky ($2.57 per hour, 17.7 percent), and Washington ($3.13 per hour, 17.6 percent).

High rates of unionization contribute to the wage premiums earned by manufacturing workers. In 2013, 10.1 percent of manufacturing workers belonged to labor unions, substantially above the 6.7 percent average unionization rate for workers in the private sector as a whole (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014d, Table 3). Workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement (who made up 13.0 percent of the labor force) earned about 13.6 percent more than workers from comparable demographic groups in 2011 (Mishel 2012, Table 1).

Manufacturing productivity and other contributions to the U.S. economy

Manufacturing is one of the most dynamic sectors of the U.S. economy. It is responsible for roughly two-thirds, or roughly $208 billion, of all U.S. business research and development spending. (Manufacturing was responsible for 68.9 percent of all U.S. business research and development spending in 2012, with total business research and development spending in all industries of $302 billion (total public, corporate, and other funds) in that year alone (Wolfe 2014, Table 2). As a result, manufacturing productivity growth rates have been high for decades. Multifactor labor productivity growth averaged 3.3 percent per year in manufacturing between 1997 and 2012 (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014b). This was nearly one-third greater than in the private, nonfarm economy as a whole. Given the nexus between research and development and manufacturing, a vital manufacturing sector plays an important role in maintaining an innovative economy.

Not only is manufacturing important for jobs and production, but a vital manufacturing sector is also essential to meeting national challenges, including rebuilding U.S. infrastructure, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and lowering the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels. Renewable forms of energy, such as wind and solar power, rely on manufactured components more so than extractable energy such as oil. A vibrant manufacturing sector will be needed to supply the new materials needed to rebuild America’s decaying infrastructure and to create a low-carbon economy.

Finally, U.S. manufacturing firms also led the way on trade, exporting $1.4 trillion in manufactured goods—60.6 percent of all U.S. goods and services exported in 2013 (USITC 2014; U.S. Census Bureau 2014a; author’s analysis).

Recent manufacturing job losses nationally and by state

U.S. manufacturing employment was relatively stable between 1970 and 1998, and never fell below 16.5 million workers, as shown in Figure B. U.S. manufacturing employment reached a cyclical peak in March 1998. The United States lost 5.7 million manufacturing jobs between March 1998 and 2013, as shown in Table 9. The principal causes of manufacturing job loss were growing trade deficits, especially with China, Mexico, and other low-wage nations, and also the Great Recession, which was followed by a weak recovery. The Asian financial crisis of late 1997 caused the real, trade-weighted value of the U.S. dollar to rise 20 percent in value through the first quarter of 2002. What began with steady growth in U.S. manufacturing imports and job losses in the late 1990s turned into a major collapse when the U.S. economy fell into recession in early 2001. Manufacturing employment declined continuously thereafter throughout the recovery that ended in December 2007. The Great Recession caused another collapse in manufacturing employment, followed by a relatively weak recovery since 2009. Between March 1998 and December 2007, 3.9 million manufacturing jobs were lost and an additional 1.8 million manufacturing jobs were lost through 2013 (Figure B; Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014a and author’s analysis).

Figure B

Total U.S. manufacturing employment, 1970–2013

Year Manufacturing employment (millions)
1970 17.8
1971 17.2
1972 17.7
1973 18.6
1974 18.5
1975 16.9
1976 17.5
1977 18.2
1978 18.9
1979 19.4
1980 18.7
1981 18.6
1982 17.4
1983 17.0
1984 17.9
1985 17.8
1986 17.6
1987 17.6
1988 17.9
1989 18.0
1990 17.7
1991 17.1
1992 16.8
1993 16.8
1994 17.0
1995 17.2
1996 17.2
1997 17.4
1998 17.6
1999 17.3
2000 17.3
2001 16.4
2002 15.3
2003 14.5
2004 14.3
2005 14.2
2006 14.2
2007 13.9
2008 13.4
2009 11.8
2010 11.5
2011 11.7
2012 11.9
2013 12.0

 

ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

Note: Shaded areas denote recessions.

Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014a)

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Table 9 shows manufacturing jobs lost by state and jobs lost as a share of total state employment. The states hardest hit by manufacturing job loss (measured by share of state employment lost) were North Carolina (9.7 percent, 360,000 jobs lost), Mississippi (8.5 percent, 95,600 jobs), Arkansas (8.1 percent, 89,900 jobs), Rhode Island (7.9 percent, 36,000 jobs), Michigan (7.6 percent, 340,000 jobs), Tennessee (7.3 percent, 191,700 jobs), Ohio (6.8 percent, 368,500 jobs), South Carolina (6.6 percent, 117,100 jobs), New Hampshire (6.6 percent, 38,700 jobs), and Alabama (6.1 percent, 114,600 jobs).

Eight states have lost more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 1998: California (604,800 jobs lost, 4.5 percent), Ohio (368,500 jobs, 6.8 percent), North Carolina (360,000 jobs, 9.7 percent), New York (342,500 jobs, 4.2 percent), Michigan (340,000 jobs, 7.6 percent), Illinois (330,500 jobs, 5.6 percent), Pennsylvania (314,000 jobs, 5.7 percent), and Texas (200,400 jobs, 2.3 percent).

The Midwest and some southern states have been particularly hard hit by the collapse of manufacturing. Those states are also well positioned for a manufacturing recovery if the structural causes of the manufacturing decline are reversed, including the elimination of currency manipulation (Scott 2014b) which would substantially reduce or eliminate the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods. In addition to the growth of the U.S. trade deficit, other structural problems in manufacturing that remain to be addressed are the stagnation of public investment in infrastructure (Bivens 2014) and research and development, and inadequate tax, education, and energy policies (McCormick 2013).

Historically weak manufacturing recoveries

For the manufacturing sector, the last two business cycles have resulted in historically weak business cycle recoveries. In all business cycles between World War II and the year 2000, manufacturing had recovered at least 95 percent of prerecession employment within six and one-half years (26 quarters) after the previous business cycle peak, as shown in Figure C. For all 10 previous postwar recoveries prior to the 2009 business cycle, the average employment recovery at this point was 97.4 percent. However, the recoveries of 2001 and 2009 lagged far behind all previous business cycles. When the 2001 recovery ended in 2007, employment stood at only 82.2 percent of the prerecession level. This is reflected in the steady decline in employment between 2000 and 2007, as shown in Figure B earlier.

Figure C

Manufacturing employment in recessions and recoveries

Quarters since recession began (peak = 0) 1982 1991 2001  2009  Average of post-WWII, pre-2009 cycles
0 1 1 1 1 1
1 0.981385 0.989407 0.978733 0.995517 0.983851
2 0.958041 0.975812 0.954275 0.98546 0.962505
3 0.93699 0.966881 0.930384 0.970848 0.947621
4 0.91585 0.963917 0.911409 0.94596 0.935201
5 0.893679 0.960631 0.901343 0.900208 0.930206
6 0.891137 0.953022 0.891944 0.863108 0.929574
7 0.900329 0.953381 0.880547 0.845272 0.939741
8 0.914428 0.950964 0.868934 0.836718 0.946888
9 0.931585 0.949302 0.854933 0.832962 0.953629
10 0.945222 0.951474 0.844495 0.837566 0.961019
11 0.955729 0.949378 0.841049 0.840353 0.958245
12 0.961259 0.948811 0.839228 0.841613 0.961452
13 0.961205 0.951511 0.841852 0.846896 0.966083
14 0.958556 0.955684 0.842106 0.8515 0.970489
15 0.952262 0.961179 0.840638 0.855038 0.973636
16 0.946751 0.967127 0.838151 0.856444 0.97665
17 0.944048 0.97332 0.836819 0.862623 0.984601
18 0.941826 0.977871 0.834254 0.86713 0.957645
19 0.937666 0.977776 0.833686 0.869408 0.961816
20 0.933132 0.976247 0.8349 0.869069 0.96576
21 0.932118 0.975359 0.834998 0.872219 0.970466
22 0.932901 0.974887 0.831688 0.87205 0.973684
23 0.935265 0.975265 0.824991 0.871541 0.976506
24 0.940777 0.821975 0.875055 0.981302
25 0.947871 0.87789 0.986574
26 0.950431 0.880458 0.974274
27 0.883948
ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

Note: The zero quarter represents the peak of prior business cycle (as defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research). At the zero quarter, the manufacturing employment is indexed to one. The proceeding values therefore represent the percent change in manufacturing employment as the values enter recession and then the recovery.

Source: Author's analysis of  data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014a)

Source:  The recession dates are defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Their business cycles can be found at: http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

Manufacturing employment data are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Employment Statistics public data series.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

The Great Recession was unusual both because of the length and depth of the manufacturing employment decline. Although nearly 800,000 manufacturing jobs have been added since the employment trough in February 2010, manufacturing employment continues to lag behind all pre-2000 business cycles (author’s analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014c). Employment in the most recent period (the third quarter of 2014) quarter reached only 88.4 percent of its prerecession level (at the end of 2007). If employment had recovered to the level of the average postwar recovery, then an additional 1.2 million manufacturing jobs would have been created by this point in the recovery.

Reversing the manufacturing job losses by addressing currency manipulation and other challenges

The weak manufacturing recovery is a product of both international and domestic challenges that the manufacturing sector faces. The U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods increased from $319.5 billion in 2009 to $449.3 billion in 2013 (USITC 2014 and author’s analysis), an increase of 40.6 percent. Measured as a share of GDP, the manufactured goods trade deficit increased by 0.5 percentage points of GDP in this period, which significantly retarded the growth of manufacturing output and employment during the recovery from the 2009 recession (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014a; USITC 2014; author’s analysis). Currency manipulation by China, Japan, and other countries is one of the leading causes of growing U.S. trade deficits (Scott 2014b). Weak growth of domestic demand is also a major contributor to the relatively weak manufacturing recovery. More than six and one-half years after the start of the Great Recession, unemployment remained well above prerecession levels, and the United States had a jobs shortfall (the number of jobs needed to keep up with growth in the potential labor force) of nearly 6 million (Economic Policy Institute 2014, and Bivens and Shierholz, 2014).

The U.S. goods trade deficit is likely to exceed $730 billion in 2014 (U.S. Census Bureau 2014b and author’s analysis). Elimination of currency manipulation by a group of about 20 countries, with China as the linchpin, could reduce the U.S. trade deficit by between $200 and $500 billion within three years. This would increase U.S. GDP by between 2.0 percent and 4.9 percent, and create between 2.3 million and 5.8 million U.S. jobs. Approximately 40 percent of the jobs gained would be in manufacturing, which would gain between 891,500 and 2.3 million jobs (Scott 2014b).

Conclusion

The manufacturing sector has struggled to expand as the United States has become more integrated into the global marketplace. A lack of supportive U.S. trade and currency policies and inadequate industrial and energy policies harm the nation’s ability to meet future challenges that will require a solid manufacturing base. The sector is poised to play a key role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the reliance on imported energy, but new policies are also needed to achieve progress in these areas. The United States must develop a comprehensive set of transportation and energy policies to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy production in order to take full advantage of the new opportunities.

The manufacturing sector is also of vital importance in maintaining our innovative capacity. Reinvestment in U.S. research, development, energy, and manufacturing policies can also stimulate growth in a wide swath of states in the U.S. heartlands that have been hardest hit by the manufacturing crisis.

About the author

Robert E. Scott joined the Economic Policy Institute in 1996 and is currently director of trade and manufacturing policy research. His areas of research include international economics, trade and manufacturing policies and their impacts on working people in the United States and other countries, the economic impacts of foreign investment, and the macroeconomic effects of trade and capital flows. He has published widely in academic journals and the popular press, including The Journal of Policy Analysis and ManagementThe International Review of Applied Economics, and The Stanford Law and Policy Review, as well as The Los Angeles TimesNewsdayUSA TodayThe Baltimore SunThe Washington Times, and other newspapers. He has also provided economic commentary for a range of electronic media, including NPR, CNN, Bloomberg, and the BBC. He has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of California at Berkeley.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Will Kimball for research assistance and Ross Eisenbrey and Josh Bivens for comments. This research was made possible by support from the Alliance for American Manufacturing.

Endnotes

1. Based on state GDP estimates, as reported in Table 5.

2. Gross output measures are depressed during recessions by inventory accumulation, as shipments decline faster than output (value added).

3. The manufacturing share of total gross output in all industries was 20.0 percent in 2013. Total gross output double-counts the output of many industries. For example, purchased services and commodities consumed by manufacturing are part of the gross output of those industries, as well as the manufacturing sector. In addition, a share of gross manufacturing output is also part of the gross output of other sectors (for example, trucks and tractors consumed by the agriculture and transportation industries). The true economic impact of manufacturing likely falls between its share of gross output (20.0 percent in 2013) and its share of gross domestic product, which is the sum of value added in all domestic sectors of the economy (35.4 percent in 2013, as shown in Figure A). The sources for these calculations are the Bureau of Economic Analysis (2014a and 2014b) and author’s analysis.

4. The value added data shown in Figure A are based on national estimates of value added in manufacturing. In 2013, manufacturing had a slightly smaller share of national GDP (12.1 percent) than it did of total state GDP (12.5 percent, as shown in Table 5). This gap reflects underlying differences in GDP accounting at the state and national levels (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014a, 2014b, and author’s analysis).

5. Estimates of total employment supported by U.S. manufacturing output are based on author’s analysis of U.S. input-output and domestic employment requirements data (BLS-EP 2014a and 2014b).

6. The U.S. manufacturing trade deficit increased from $130.6 billion in 1997 (1.5 percent of GDP) to $449.3 billion in 2013 (2.7 percent of GDP), an increase of 1.2 percentage points of GDP (USITC 2014, Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014a, and author’s analysis).

7. Using pooled 2009–2011 data, Scott (2013, Table 1 at 6) found that 47.7 percent of manufacturing workers had a high school degree or less, while only 37.6 percent of workers in all industries had this level of education. Thus the non-college share in manufacturing was 26.9 percent greater than in all industries.

8. Table 8 reports average wages for a pooled, cross section of workers from the CPS ORG data groups for 2012 and 2013 (U.S. Census Bureau, various years). Wages for workers surveyed in 2012 were inflation adjusted for comparison with 2013 data.

References

Bivens, Josh. 2003. Updated Employment Multipliers for the U.S. Economy. Economic Policy Institute Working Paper #268.

Bivens, Josh. 2014. The Short- and Long-Term Impact of Infrastructure Investments on Employment and Economic Activity in the U.S. Economy. Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper #374.

Bivens, Josh. 2015, forthcoming. Updated Employment Multipliers for the U.S. Economy. Economic Policy Institute Working Paper.

Bivens, Josh, and Heidi Shierholz. 2014. Lagging Demand, Not Unemployability, is Why Long-term Unemployment Remains So High. Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper #381.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2014a. Annual Industry Accounts: Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by Industry. Spreadsheet downloaded Nov. 21.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2014b. Regional Economic Accounts: Gross Domestic Product by State. Spreadsheet downloaded Nov. 21.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2014c. “Frequently Asked Questions: What is Gross Output by Industry and How Does it Differ from Gross Domestic Product by Industry?

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014a. Current Employment Statistics. Employment, Hours and Earnings — National  [CES database]

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014b. “Multi-factor Productivity Statistics, Output Per Hour, Manufacturing Sector” (NAICS 311-339). http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?mp

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014c. “State and Metro Area Employment, Hours & Earnings: Employment, Hours and Earnings – State and Metro Area” (Current Employment Statistics – CES).

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014d. “Union Members—2013.” [News release]. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Projections program (BLS–EP). 2014a. “Special Purpose Files—Employment Requirements; Chain-Weighted (2005 dollars) Real Domestic Employment Requirements Table for 2001″ [DAT file, converted to Excel sheet and Stata data file].

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Projections program (BLS–EP). 2014b. “Special Purpose Files—Industry Output and Employment Projections: Industry Output” [DAT File, converted to Excel sheet and Stata data file].

Economic Policy Institute. 2014. “Recession has Left in its Wake a Job Shortfall of Nearly 6 Million.” The State of Working America— Economic Indicators.

McCormick, Richard. 2013. Remaking America. Washington, D.C.: Alliance for American Manufacturing.

Mishel, Lawrence. 2012. Unions, Inequality, and Faltering Middle-class Wages. Economic Policy Institute Issue Brief #342.

Scott, Robert E. 2013. Trading Away the Manufacturing Advantage: China Trade Drives Down U.S. Wages and Benefits and Eliminates Good Jobs for U.S. Workers.” Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper #367.

Scott, Robert E. 2014a. China Trade, Outsourcing and Jobs: Growing U.S. Trade Deficit with China Cost 3.2 Million Jobs between 2001 and 2013, With Job Losses in Every State. Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper #385.

Scott, Robert E. 2014b. Stop Currency Manipulation and Create Millions of Jobs: With Gains across States and Congressional Districts. Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper #372.

U.S. Census Bureau. Various years. Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata. Survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics [machine readable microdata file]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.bls.census.gov/ftp/cps_ftp.html#cpsbasic

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. “American Community Survey: Special Tabulation over 45 industries, Covering 435 Congressional Districts and the District of Columbia (113th Congress Census Boundaries), Plus State and US Totals Based on ACS 2011 1-year file[spreadsheets received March 6].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014a. “Foreign Trade, Historical Series, U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services — Annual goods (BOP Basis), services, and total balance, exports and imports, 1960–present.” Spreadsheet, downloaded Nov. 12.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014b. “U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services – (FT900): Exhibit 1- U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services.” Spreadsheet downloaded Nov. 21.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). 2014. “USITC Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb.”

Wolfe, Raymond M. 2014. “Business R&D Performance in the United States Tops $300 Billion in 2012.” National Science Foundation, Inforbriefs, NSF 15-303. October 28.

Table 1

U.S. total and manufacturing employment, by region and state, 2013

Employment  Manufacturing share of total employment
Total Manufacturing
UNITED STATES* 136,540,700 12,013,800 8.8%
NORTHEAST 25,627,500 1,864,300 7.3%
New England 7,033,100 602,400 8.6%
Connecticut 1,655,700 163,800 9.9%
Maine 601,700 50,500 8.4%
Massachusetts 3,358,100 250,400 7.5%
New Hampshire 640,400 65,900 10.3%
Rhode Island 471,200 40,100 8.5%
Vermont 306,000 31,700 10.3%
Middle Atlantic 18,594,400 1,261,900 6.8%
New Jersey 3,935,300 243,300 6.2%
New York 8,915,600 455,100 5.1%
Pennsylvania 5,743,500 563,500 9.8%
MIDWEST 31,163,500 3,848,200 12.3%
East North Central 20,910,700 2,747,300 13.1%
Illinois 5,796,900 579,600 10.0%
Indiana 2,934,100 491,900 16.8%
Michigan 4,106,000 555,300 13.5%
Ohio 5,253,300 662,100 12.6%
Wisconsin 2,820,400 458,400 16.3%
West North Central 10,252,800 1,100,900 10.7%
Iowa 1,530,200 214,500 14.0%
Kansas 1,373,500 162,900 11.9%
Minnesota 2,779,600 308,100 11.1%
Missouri 2,729,100 252,200 9.2%
Nebraska 978,900 96,100 9.8%
North Dakota 444,300 25,500 5.7%
South Dakota 417,200 41,600 10.0%
SOUTH 49,428,000 3,996,700 8.1%
South Atlantic 25,869,600 1,758,500 6.8%
Delaware 427,800 25,400 5.9%
District of Columbia** 745,800 1,000 0.1%
Florida 7,580,100 322,000 4.2%
Georgia 4,034,500 357,400 8.9%
Maryland 2,596,800 106,300 4.1%
North Carolina 4,058,000 442,500 10.9%
South Carolina 1,897,300 224,800 11.8%
Virginia 3,765,800 230,600 6.1%
West Virginia 763,500 48,500 6.4%
East South Central 7,603,600 933,400 12.3%
Alabama** 1,903,800 249,100 13.1%
Kentucky 1,837,100 228,600 12.4%
Mississippi 1,111,700 136,700 12.3%
Tennessee 2,751,000 319,000 11.6%
West South Central 15,954,800 1,304,800 8.2%
Arkansas 1,177,600 152,400 12.9%
Louisiana 1,951,900 144,200 7.4%
Oklahoma** 1,633,400 136,500 8.4%
Texas 11,191,900 871,700 7.8%
WEST 30,322,000 2,305,100 7.6%
Mountain 9,551,700 564,100 5.9%
Arizona 2,515,900 155,100 6.2%
Colorado 2,381,200 132,800 5.6%
Idaho 638,500 59,700 9.4%
Montana 448,800 18,300 4.1%
Nevada 1,175,000 40,500 3.4%
New Mexico 811,700 29,100 3.6%
Utah 1,289,900 119,100 9.2%
Wyoming 290,700 9,500 3.3%
Pacific 20,770,300 1,741,000 8.4%
Alaska 336,700 14,900 4.4%
California 15,153,500 1,251,400 8.3%
Hawaii 617,800 13,500 2.2%
Oregon 1,674,300 174,900 10.4%
Washington 2,988,000 286,300 9.6%

 

*The total represents the sum of states and the District of Columbia, and differs slightly from total national employment as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014b)

**Nonseasonally adjusted data are used for Alabama, the District of Columbia, and Oklahoma

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014c) and author's analysis

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Table 2

Manufacturing jobs by state, 2013 (ranked by manufacturing jobs as a share of total state employment)

Rank State Total manufacturing jobs State employment Manufacturing jobs as share of state employment
1 Indiana 491,900 2,934,100 16.8%
2 Wisconsin 458,400 2,820,400 16.3%
3 Iowa 214,500 1,530,200 14.0%
4 Michigan 555,300 4,106,000 13.5%
5 Alabama* 249,100 1,903,800 13.1%
6 Arkansas 152,400 1,177,600 12.9%
7 Ohio 662,100 5,253,300 12.6%
8 Kentucky 228,600 1,837,100 12.4%
9 Mississippi 136,700 1,111,700 12.3%
10 Kansas 162,900 1,373,500 11.9%
11 South Carolina 224,800 1,897,300 11.8%
12 Tennessee 319,000 2,751,000 11.6%
13 Minnesota 308,100 2,779,600 11.1%
14 North Carolina 442,500 4,058,000 10.9%
15 Oregon 174,900 1,674,300 10.4%
16 Vermont 31,700 306,000 10.3%
17 New Hampshire 65,900 640,400 10.3%
18 Illinois 579,600 5,796,900 10.0%
19 South Dakota 41,600 417,200 10.0%
20 Connecticut 163,800 1,655,700 9.9%
21 Nebraska 96,100 978,900 9.8%
22 Pennsylvania 563,500 5,743,500 9.8%
23 Washington 286,300 2,988,000 9.6%
24 Idaho 59,700 638,500 9.4%
25 Missouri 252,200 2,729,100 9.2%
26 Utah 119,100 1,289,900 9.2%
27 Georgia 357,400 4,034,500 8.9%
28 Rhode Island 40,100 471,200 8.5%
29 Maine 50,500 601,700 8.4%
30 Oklahoma* 136,500 1,633,400 8.4%
31 California 1,251,400 15,153,500 8.3%
32 Texas 871,700 11,191,900 7.8%
33 Massachusetts 250,400 3,358,100 7.5%
34 Louisiana 144,200 1,951,900 7.4%
35 West Virginia 48,500 763,500 6.4%
36 New Jersey 243,300 3,935,300 6.2%
37 Arizona 155,100 2,515,900 6.2%
38 Virginia 230,600 3,765,800 6.1%
39 Delaware 25,400 427,800 5.9%
40 North Dakota 25,500 444,300 5.7%
41 Colorado 132,800 2,381,200 5.6%
42 New York 455,100 8,915,600 5.1%
43 Alaska 14,900 336,700 4.4%
44 Florida 322,000 7,580,100 4.2%
45 Maryland 106,300 2,596,800 4.1%
46 Montana 18,300 448,800 4.1%
47 New Mexico 29,100 811,700 3.6%
48 Nevada 40,500 1,175,000 3.4%
49 Wyoming 9,500 290,700 3.3%
50 Hawaii 13,500 617,800 2.2%
51 District of Columbia* 1,000 745,800 0.1%
Total** 12,013,800 136,540,700 8.8%

*Nonseasonally adjusted data are used for Alabama, the District of Columbia, and Oklahoma

**The total represents the sum of states and the District of Columbia and differs slightly from total national employment as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014a)

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014c) and author's analysis

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Table 3

Manufacturing jobs by state, 2013 (ranked by total manufacturing jobs)

Rank State Total manufacturing jobs State employment Manufacturing jobs as share of state employment
1 California 1,251,400 15,153,500 8.3%
2 Texas 871,700 11,191,900 7.8%
3 Ohio 662,100 5,253,300 12.6%
4 Illinois 579,600 5,796,900 10.0%
5 Pennsylvania 563,500 5,743,500 9.8%
6 Michigan 555,300 4,106,000 13.5%
7 Indiana 491,900 2,934,100 16.8%
8 Wisconsin 458,400 2,820,400 16.3%
9 New York 455,100 8,915,600 5.1%
10 North Carolina 442,500 4,058,000 10.9%
11 Georgia 357,400 4,034,500 8.9%
12 Florida 322,000 7,580,100 4.2%
13 Tennessee 319,000 2,751,000 11.6%
14 Minnesota 308,100 2,779,600 11.1%
15 Washington 286,300 2,988,000 9.6%
16 Missouri 252,200 2,729,100 9.2%
17 Massachusetts 250,400 3,358,100 7.5%
18 Alabama* 249,100 1,903,800 13.1%
19 New Jersey 243,300 3,935,300 6.2%
20 Virginia 230,600 3,765,800 6.1%
21 Kentucky 228,600 1,837,100 12.4%
22 South Carolina 224,800 1,897,300 11.8%
23 Iowa 214,500 1,530,200 14.0%
24 Oregon 174,900 1,674,300 10.4%
25 Connecticut 163,800 1,655,700 9.9%
26 Kansas 162,900 1,373,500 11.9%
27 Arizona 155,100 2,515,900 6.2%
28 Arkansas 152,400 1,177,600 12.9%
29 Louisiana 144,200 1,951,900 7.4%
30 Mississippi 136,700 1,111,700 12.3%
31 Oklahoma* 136,500 1,633,400 8.4%
32 Colorado 132,800 2,381,200 5.6%
33 Utah 119,100 1,289,900 9.2%
34 Maryland 106,300 2,596,800 4.1%
35 Nebraska 96,100 978,900 9.8%
36 New Hampshire 65,900 640,400 10.3%
37 Idaho 59,700 638,500 9.4%
38 Maine 50,500 601,700 8.4%
39 West Virginia 48,500 763,500 6.4%
40 South Dakota 41,600 417,200 10.0%
41 Nevada 40,500 1,175,000 3.4%
42 Rhode Island 40,100 471,200 8.5%
43 Vermont 31,700 306,000 10.4%
44 New Mexico 29,100 811,700 3.6%
45 North Dakota 25,500 444,300 5.7%
46 Delaware 25,400 427,800 5.9%
47 Montana 18,300 448,800 4.1%
48 Alaska 14,900 336,700 4.4%
49 Hawaii 13,500 617,800 2.2%
50 Wyoming 9,500 290,700 3.3%
51 District of Columbia* 1,000 745,800 0.1%
Total** 12,013,800 136,540,700 8.8%

* Nonseasonally adjusted data are used for Alabama, the District of Columbia, and Oklahoma

** The total represents the sum of states and the District of Columbia and differs slightly from total national employment as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014b)

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014c) and author's analysis

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Table 4

50 congressional districts that most intensively employ manufacturing workers, 2013 (ranked by manufacturing jobs as a share of district employment)

Rank State District Manufacturing employment Total employment Manufacturing employment as a share of total
1 Indiana 3 76,200 327,000 23.3%
2 Indiana 2 73,500 317,800 23.1%
3 Wisconsin 6 80,000 353,700 22.6%
4 California 17 63,400 319,300 19.9%
5 Indiana 6 60,400 311,900 19.4%
6 Alabama 4 48,500 252,600 19.2%
7 Wisconsin 8 69,600 363,000 19.2%
8 Ohio 4 61,000 320,300 19.0%
9 Michigan 2 57,500 309,500 18.6%
10 Wisconsin 5 66,200 370,800 17.9%
11 Wisconsin 1 60,800 342,600 17.7%
12 Indiana 8 58,400 329,300 17.7%
13 Kansas 4 58,100 329,200 17.6%
14 Ohio 7 57,400 329,300 17.4%
15 Michigan 10 52,400 302,300 17.3%
16 South Carolina 3 43,900 254,800 17.2%
17 Indiana 4 56,100 328,500 17.1%
18 Georgia 14 47,700 279,700 17.1%
19 Iowa 2 63,200 371,400 17.0%
20 Ohio 5 56,800 336,700 16.9%
21 Arkansas 4 47,000 281,200 16.7%
22 Iowa 1 64,600 390,100 16.6%
23 Michigan 6 50,200 304,000 16.5%
24 Oregon 1 60,700 369,300 16.4%
25 Wisconsin 7 55,500 338,500 16.4%
26 Ohio 8 53,700 331,300 16.2%
27 Alabama 3 42,000 263,900 15.9%
28 North Carolina 10 49,700 313,300 15.9%
29 Mississippi 1 45,600 287,600 15.9%
30 Kentucky 2 50,100 316,900 15.8%
31 Tennessee 1 45,800 294,100 15.6%
32 Indiana 1 48,000 310,500 15.5%
33 South Carolina 4 44,600 290,000 15.4%
34 Kentucky 1 43,300 284,600 15.2%
35 Iowa 4 57,600 380,200 15.1%
36 Alabama 5 44,800 299,700 14.9%
37 Indiana 9 50,500 339,300 14.9%
38 Tennessee 4 46,200 310,800 14.9%
39 Ohio 14 52,300 352,400 14.8%
40 Michigan 3 45,500 308,800 14.7%
41 Michigan 7 43,000 293,000 14.7%
42 California 19 43,500 298,900 14.6%
43 North Carolina 8 42,200 291,700 14.5%
44 Michigan 9 46,000 319,400 14.4%
45 Arkansas 1 37,900 264,400 14.3%
46 Tennessee 3 42,000 293,400 14.3%
47 Arkansas 3 44,400 311,600 14.2%
48 Wisconsin 3 49,900 353,700 14.1%
49 Michigan 11 47,200 335,100 14.1%
50 California 18 44,500 317,800 14.0%

Source: Author's analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014c) and U.S. Census Bureau (2013)

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Table 5

Manufacturing employment and GDP by state, 2013

Manufacturing share of total employment Manufacturing GDP ($ billions) Manufacturing share of state GDP
UNITED STATES* 8.8% $2,079.5 12.5%
NORTHEAST 7.3% $284.8 8.4%
  New England 8.6% $93.6 10.4%
    Connecticut 9.9% $27.8 11.2%
    Maine 8.4% $5.7 10.4%
    Massachusetts 7.5% $45.1 10.1%
    New Hampshire 10.3% $7.7 11.4%
    Rhode Island 8.5% $4.1 7.7%
    Vermont 10.3% $3.2 10.9%
  Middle Atlantic 6.8% $191.2 7.7%
    New Jersey 6.2% $45.9 8.5%
    New York 5.1% $67.9 5.2%
    Pennsylvania 9.8% $77.4 12.0%
MIDWEST 12.3% $584.9 17.1%
  East North Central 13.1% $432.1 18.6%
    Illinois 10.0% $101.3 14.1%
    Indiana 16.8% $95.3 30.1%
    Michigan 13.5% $82.3 19.0%
    Ohio 12.6% $99.8 17.7%
    Wisconsin 16.3% $53.4 18.9%
  West North Central 10.7% $152.8 13.8%
    Iowa 14.0% $28.4 17.1%
    Kansas 11.9% $22.9 15.9%
    Minnesota 11.1% $43.7 14.0%
    Missouri 9.2% $36.3 13.1%
    Nebraska 9.8% $14.0 12.7%
    North Dakota 5.7% $3.3 5.8%
    South Dakota 10.0% $4.2 9.1%
SOUTH 8.1% $752.6 12.9%
  South Atlantic 6.8% $296.4 10.0%
    Delaware 5.9% $4.5 7.3%
    District of Columbia** 0.1% $0.2 0.2%
    Florida 4.2% $39.6 4.9%
    Georgia 8.9% $52.5 11.5%
    Maryland 4.1% $19.9 5.8%
    North Carolina 10.9% $98.3 20.9%
    South Carolina 11.8% $31.8 17.3%
    Virginia 6.1% $42.3 9.4%
    West Virginia 6.4% $7.2 9.7%
  East South Central 12.3% $128.7 16.7%
    Alabama** 13.1% $34.4 17.8%
    Kentucky 12.4% $33.6 18.3%
    Mississippi 12.3% $15.1 14.4%
    Tennessee 11.6% $45.7 15.9%
  West South Central 8.2% $327.5 15.6%
    Arkansas 12.9% $16.6 13.4%
    Louisiana 7.4% $59.3 23.4%
    Oklahoma** 8.4% $18.3 10.1%
    Texas 7.8% $233.2 15.2%
WEST 7.6% $457.2 11.3%
  Mountain 5.9% $91.0 8.3%
    Arizona 6.2% $24.0 8.6%
    Colorado 5.6% $21.6 7.3%
    Idaho 9.4% $7.6 12.2%
    Montana 4.1% $2.9 6.7%
    Nevada 3.4% $5.8 4.4%
    New Mexico 3.6% $5.6 6.1%
    Utah 9.2% $21.0 14.9%
    Wyoming 3.3% $2.4 5.3%
  Pacific 8.4% $366.2 12.4%
    Alaska 4.4% $1.8 3.0%
    California 8.3% $239.0 10.9%
    Hawaii 2.2% $1.3 1.8%
    Oregon 10.4% $65.4 29.8%
    Washington 9.6% $58.8 14.4%

*The total represents the sum of states and the District of Columbia and differs slightly from total national employment as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014b)

**Nonseasonally adjusted data are used for Alabama, the District of Columbia, and Oklahoma

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014c), Bureau of Economic Analysis (2014b), and author's analysis

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Table 6

Manufacturing employment and GDP by state, 2013 (ranked by manufacturing share of state GDP)

Manufacturing share of total employment Manufacturing GDP ($ billions) Manufacturing share of state GDP
UNITED STATES* 8.8% $2,079.5 12.5%
    Indiana 16.8% $95.3 30.1%
    Oregon 10.4% $65.4 29.8%
    Louisiana 7.4% $59.3 23.4%
    North Carolina 10.9% $98.3 20.9%
    Michigan 13.5% $82.3 19.0%
    Wisconsin 16.3% $53.4 18.9%
    Kentucky 12.4% $33.6 18.3%
    Alabama** 13.1% $34.4 17.8%
    Ohio 12.6% $99.8 17.7%
    South Carolina 11.8% $31.8 17.3%
    Iowa 14.0% $28.4 17.1%
    Kansas 11.9% $22.9 15.9%
    Tennessee 11.6% $45.7 15.9%
    Texas 7.8% $233.2 15.2%
    Utah 9.2% $21.0 14.9%
    Washington 9.6% $58.8 14.4%
    Mississippi 12.3% $15.1 14.4%
    Illinois 10.0% $101.3 14.1%
    Minnesota 11.1% $43.7 14.0%
    Arkansas 12.9% $16.6 13.4%
    Missouri 9.2% $36.3 13.1%
    Nebraska 9.8% $14.0 12.7%
    Idaho 9.4% $7.6 12.2%
    Pennsylvania 9.8% $77.4 12.0%
    Georgia 8.9% $52.5 11.5%
    New Hampshire 10.3% $7.7 11.4%
    Connecticut 9.9% $27.8 11.2%
    Vermont 10.3% $3.2 10.9%
    California 8.3% $239.0 10.9%
    Maine 8.4% $5.7 10.4%
    Massachusetts 7.5% $45.1 10.1%
    Oklahoma** 8.4% $18.3 10.1%
    West Virginia 6.4% $7.2 9.7%
    Virginia 6.1% $42.3 9.4%
    South Dakota 10.0% $4.2 9.1%
    Arizona 6.2% $24.0 8.6%
    New Jersey 6.2% $45.9 8.5%
    Rhode Island 8.5% $4.1 7.7%
    Colorado 5.6% $21.6 7.3%
    Delaware 5.9% $4.5 7.3%
    Montana 4.1% $2.9 6.7%
    New Mexico 3.6% $5.6 6.1%
    Maryland 4.1% $19.9 5.8%
    North Dakota 5.7% $3.3 5.8%
    Wyoming 3.3% $2.4 5.3%
    New York 5.1% $67.9 5.2%
    Florida 4.2% $39.6 4.9%
    Nevada 3.4% $5.8 4.4%
    Alaska 4.4% $1.8 3.0%
    Hawaii 2.2% $1.3 1.8%
    District of Columbia** 0.1% $0.2 0.2%

*The total represents the sum of states and the District of Columbia and differs slightly from total national employment as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014b)

**Nonseasonally adjusted data are used for Alabama, the District of Columbia, and Oklahoma

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014c), Bureau of Economic Analysis (2014b), and author's analysis

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Table 7

Manufacturing employment and GDP by state, 2013 (ranked by manufacturing GDP)

Manufacturing share of total employment Manufacturing GDP ($ billions) Manufacturing share of state GDP
UNITED STATES* 8.8% $2,079.5 12.5%
    California 8.3% $239.0 10.9%
    Texas 7.8% $233.2 15.2%
    Illinois 10.0% $101.3 14.1%
    Ohio 12.6% $99.8 17.7%
    North Carolina 10.9% $98.3 20.9%
    Indiana 16.8% $95.3 30.1%
    Michigan 13.5% $82.3 19.0%
    Pennsylvania 9.8% $77.4 12.0%
    New York 5.1% $67.9 5.2%
    Oregon 10.4% $65.4 29.8%
    Louisiana 7.4% $59.3 23.4%
    Washington 9.6% $58.8 14.4%
    Wisconsin 16.3% $53.4 18.9%
    Georgia 8.9% $52.5 11.5%
    New Jersey 6.2% $45.9 8.5%
    Tennessee 11.6% $45.7 15.9%
    Massachusetts 7.5% $45.1 10.1%
    Minnesota 11.1% $43.7 14.0%
    Virginia 6.1% $42.3 9.4%
    Florida 4.2% $39.6 4.9%
    Missouri 9.2% $36.3 13.1%
    Alabama** 13.1% $34.4 17.8%
    Kentucky 12.4% $33.6 18.3%
    South Carolina 11.8% $31.8 17.3%
    Iowa 14.0% $28.4 17.1%
    Connecticut 9.9% $27.8 11.2%
    Arizona 6.2% $24.0 8.6%
    Kansas 11.9% $22.9 15.9%
    Colorado 5.6% $21.6 7.3%
    Utah 9.2% $21.0 14.9%
    Maryland 4.1% $19.9 5.8%
    Oklahoma** 8.4% $18.3 10.1%
    Arkansas 12.9% $16.6 13.4%
    Mississippi 12.3% $15.1 14.4%
    Nebraska 9.8% $14.0 12.7%
    New Hampshire 10.3% $7.7 11.4%
    Idaho 9.4% $7.6 12.2%
    West Virginia 6.4% $7.2 9.7%
    Nevada 3.4% $5.8 4.4%
    Maine 8.4% $5.7 10.4%
    New Mexico 3.6% $5.6 6.1%
    Delaware 5.9% $4.5 7.3%
    South Dakota 10.0% $4.2 9.1%
    Rhode Island 8.5% $4.1 7.7%
    North Dakota 5.7% $3.3 5.8%
    Vermont 10.3% $3.2 10.9%
    Montana 4.1% $2.9 6.7%
    Wyoming 3.3% $2.4 5.3%
    Alaska 4.4% $1.8 3.0%
    Hawaii 2.2% $1.3 1.8%
    District of Columbia** 0.1% $0.2 0.2%

*The total represents the sum of states and the District of Columbia and differs slightly from total national employment as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014b)

**Nonseasonally adjusted data are used for Alabama, the District of Columbia, and Oklahoma

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014c), Bureau of Economic Analysis (2014b), and author's analysis

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Table 8

Wages in manufacturing compared with wages in the rest of the economy, for workers without a college degree, 2012 and 2013

Average hourly wage (in 2013 dollars) Manufacturing wage premium
State Manufacturing Nonmanufacturing Dollars per hour Percent
United States $18.07 $16.29  $1.78 10.9%
Alabama $17.96 $15.27 $2.68 17.6%
Alaska $20.72 $19.33 $1.39 7.2%
Arizona $18.71 $16.40 $2.31 14.1%
Arkansas $16.20 $14.67 $1.53 10.5%
California $18.22 $16.99 $1.23 7.3%
Colorado $20.05 $17.48 $2.57 14.7%
Connecticut $20.83 $17.98 $2.85 15.9%
Delaware $19.03 $16.95 $2.08 12.3%
District of Columbia $16.79 $16.64 $0.14 0.9%
Florida $18.00 $16.17 $1.82 11.3%
Georgia $17.49 $15.65 $1.85 11.8%
Hawaii $19.79 $17.32 $2.47 14.3%
Idaho $17.19 $15.22 $1.97 12.9%
Illinois $17.50 $16.46 $1.05 6.4%
Indiana $17.67 $15.77 $1.90 12.0%
Iowa $17.25 $15.69 $1.56 10.0%
Kansas $17.90 $15.03 $2.87 19.1%
Kentucky $17.07 $14.50 $2.57 17.7%
Louisiana $18.64 $15.59 $3.06 19.6%
Maine $18.66 $15.62 $3.04 19.5%
Maryland $19.16 $18.16 $1.00 5.5%
Massachusetts $18.71 $17.35 $1.36 7.9%
Michigan $18.65 $15.30 $3.35 21.9%
Minnesota $19.37 $17.19 $2.18 12.7%
Mississippi $16.23 $15.70 $0.53 3.4%
Missouri $17.60 $16.26 $1.34 8.3%
Montana $19.19 $15.43 $3.76 24.4%
Nebraska $15.31 $15.68 -$0.37 -2.4%
Nevada $17.69 $16.06 $1.63 10.1%
New Hampshire $20.87 $17.71 $3.16 17.9%
New Jersey $19.56 $18.31 $1.25 6.8%
New Mexico $19.25 $15.94 $3.31 20.8%
New York $17.85 $16.95 $0.91 5.3%
North Carolina $16.85 $15.73 $1.12 7.1%
North Dakota $17.93 $16.99 $0.94 5.5%
Ohio $18.47 $15.47 $2.99 19.4%
Oklahoma $17.13 $15.45 $1.68 10.9%
Oregon $19.76 $16.52 $3.23 19.6%
Pennsylvania $18.72 $16.20 $2.52 15.6%
Rhode Island $18.28 $16.55 $1.74 10.5%
South Carolina $17.24 $14.90 $2.34 15.7%
South Dakota $15.74 $15.42 $0.32 2.0%
Tennessee $16.10 $14.75 $1.35 9.1%
Texas $17.47 $15.48 $2.00 12.9%
Utah $17.66 $16.15 $1.51 9.3%
Vermont $17.92 $16.34 $1.58 9.6%
Virginia $19.02 $17.05 $1.97 11.5%
Washington $20.92 $17.79 $3.13 17.6%
West Virginia $19.02 $16.31 $2.71 16.6%
Wisconsin $18.20 $15.89 $2.31 14.6%
Wyoming $21.75 $18.19  $3.56 19.6%

Note: Average wages by education group are from a two-year (2012–2013) pooled sample of workers by industry.

Source: Author’s analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata (U.S. Census Bureau, various years)

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Table 9

Manufacturing jobs lost between March 1998 and 2013, by state

State/region Manufacturing jobs lost since March 1998 Manufacturing  jobs lost as a share of total employment in March 1998
UNITED STATES* 5,702,200 4.6%
NORTHEAST 1,217,100 5.0%
  New England 371,700 5.6%
    Connecticut 85,400 5.2%
    Maine 31,000 5.5%
    Massachusetts 167,600 5.3%
    New Hampshire 38,700 6.6%
    Rhode Island 36,000 7.9%
    Vermont 12,900 4.6%
  Middle Atlantic 845,400 4.8%
    New Jersey 188,900 5.0%
    New York 342,500 4.2%
    Pennsylvania 314,000 5.7%
MIDWEST 1,647,500 5.3%
  East North Central 1,341,600 6.3%
    Illinois 330,500 5.6%
    Indiana 169,500 5.8%
    Michigan 340,000 7.6%
    Ohio 368,500 6.8%
    Wisconsin 133,100 4.9%
  West North Central 305,900 3.2%
    Iowa 32,200 2.3%
    Kansas 41,100 3.2%
    Minnesota 89,800 3.5%
    Missouri 125,600 4.7%
    Nebraska 17,200 2.0%
    North Dakota -2,600 -0.8%
    South Dakota 2,500 0.7%
SOUTH 1,948,200 4.5%
  South Atlantic 1,100,900 4.8%
    Delaware 19,100 4.8%
    District of Columbia** 3,200 0.5%
    Florida 164,400 2.5%
    Georgia 193,600 5.2%
    Maryland 69,000 3.0%
    North Carolina 360,000 9.7%
    South Carolina 117,100 6.6%
    Virginia 145,000 4.4%
    West Virginia 29,500 4.1%
  East South Central 478,700 6.5%
    Alabama** 114,600 6.1%
    Kentucky 76,700 4.4%
    Mississippi 95,600 8.5%
    Tennessee 191,700 7.3%
  West South Central 368,700 2.8%
    Arkansas 89,900 8.1%
    Louisiana 41,500 2.2%
    Oklahoma** 36,900 2.6%
    Texas 200,400 2.3%
WEST 889,300 3.4%
  Mountain 150,400 1.9%
    Arizona 56,700 2.8%
    Colorado 57,200 2.8%
    Idaho 9,900 1.9%
    Montana 3,700 1.0%
    Nevada -200 0.0%
    New Mexico 14,000 2.0%
    Utah 8,500 0.8%
    Wyoming 700 0.3%
  Pacific 738,900 4.0%
    Alaska -1,300 -0.5%
    California 604,800 4.5%
    Hawaii 2,300 0.4%
    Oregon 56,600 3.6%
    Washington 76,600 3.0%

*The total represents the sum of states and the District of Columbia, and differs slightly from total national employment as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014b)

**Nonseasonally adjusted data are used for Alabama, the District of Columbia, and Oklahoma

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014c) and author's analysis

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Supplemental Table 1

Manufacturing employment by congressional district, 2013 (ranked by manufacturing jobs as a share of district employment)

Rank State District Manufacturing employment Total employment Manufacturing employment as a share of total
1 Indiana 3 76,200 327,000 23.3%
2 Indiana 2 73,500 317,800 23.1%
3 Wisconsin 6 80,000 353,700 22.6%
4 California 17 63,400 319,300 19.9%
5 Indiana 6 60,400 311,900 19.4%
6 Alabama 4 48,500 252,600 19.2%
7 Wisconsin 8 69,600 363,000 19.2%
8 Ohio 4 61,000 320,300 19.0%
9 Michigan 2 57,500 309,500 18.6%
10 Wisconsin 5 66,200 370,800 17.9%
11 Wisconsin 1 60,800 342,600 17.7%
12 Indiana 8 58,400 329,300 17.7%
13 Kansas 4 58,100 329,200 17.6%
14 Ohio 7 57,400 329,300 17.4%
15 Michigan 10 52,400 302,300 17.3%
16 South Carolina 3 43,900 254,800 17.2%
17 Indiana 4 56,100 328,500 17.1%
18 Georgia 14 47,700 279,700 17.1%
19 Iowa 2 63,200 371,400 17.0%
20 Ohio 5 56,800 336,700 16.9%
21 Arkansas 4 47,000 281,200 16.7%
22 Iowa 1 64,600 390,100 16.6%
23 Michigan 6 50,200 304,000 16.5%
24 Oregon 1 60,700 369,300 16.4%
25 Wisconsin 7 55,500 338,500 16.4%
26 Ohio 8 53,700 331,300 16.2%
27 Alabama 3 42,000 263,900 15.9%
28 North Carolina 10 49,700 313,300 15.9%
29 Mississippi 1 45,600 287,600 15.9%
30 Kentucky 2 50,100 316,900 15.8%
31 Tennessee 1 45,800 294,100 15.6%
32 Indiana 1 48,000 310,500 15.5%
33 South Carolina 4 44,600 290,000 15.4%
34 Kentucky 1 43,300 284,600 15.2%
35 Iowa 4 57,600 380,200 15.1%
36 Alabama 5 44,800 299,700 14.9%
37 Indiana 9 50,500 339,300 14.9%
38 Tennessee 4 46,200 310,800 14.9%
39 Ohio 14 52,300 352,400 14.8%
40 Michigan 3 45,500 308,800 14.7%
41 Michigan 7 43,000 293,000 14.7%
42 California 19 43,500 298,900 14.6%
43 North Carolina 8 42,200 291,700 14.5%
44 Michigan 9 46,000 319,400 14.4%
45 Arkansas 1 37,900 264,400 14.3%
46 Tennessee 3 42,000 293,400 14.3%
47 Arkansas 3 44,400 311,600 14.2%
48 Wisconsin 3 49,900 353,700 14.1%
49 Michigan 11 47,200 335,100 14.1%
50 California 18 44,500 317,800 14.0%
51 Tennessee 8 41,300 295,600 14.0%
52 South Carolina 5 36,700 265,200 13.8%
53 California 40 35,800 258,700 13.8%
54 California 46 40,100 290,000 13.8%
55 Minnesota 1 48,400 354,600 13.6%
56 Ohio 13 44,000 322,800 13.6%
57 Illinois 17 41,400 304,900 13.6%
58 North Carolina 5 42,600 313,800 13.6%
59 Illinois 16 43,100 323,500 13.3%
60 Georgia 9 36,400 273,800 13.3%
61 Pennsylvania 16 42,500 321,600 13.2%
62 North Carolina 2 38,700 293,800 13.2%
63 Massachusetts 3 47,800 363,400 13.2%
64 California 44 32,600 249,600 13.1%
65 Illinois 4 41,500 319,400 13.0%
66 Minnesota 6 46,100 355,200 13.0%
67 Ohio 16 46,500 358,300 13.0%
68 Ohio 6 38,000 294,500 12.9%
69 Texas 36 36,600 285,200 12.8%
70 Washington 2 39,100 305,600 12.8%
71 Washington 1 40,700 318,500 12.8%
72 Pennsylvania 3 39,800 311,700 12.8%
73 Connecticut 2 42,200 331,200 12.7%
74 North Carolina 11 35,900 285,600 12.6%
75 Illinois 8 44,900 358,300 12.5%
76 Minnesota 7 41,900 334,800 12.5%
77 Michigan 4 34,900 280,400 12.4%
78 Michigan 8 40,000 324,000 12.3%
79 Pennsylvania 4 41,000 336,500 12.2%
80 Pennsylvania 15 41,000 337,300 12.2%
81 Illinois 14 41,600 343,300 12.1%
82 Kentucky 4 40,300 333,300 12.1%
83 Kansas 1 41,300 342,000 12.1%
84 Tennessee 6 36,300 300,800 12.1%
85 Tennessee 7 34,000 282,400 12.0%
86 Mississippi 4 34,500 286,900 12.0%
87 North Carolina 6 39,700 330,600 12.0%
88 Missouri 8 35,400 297,100 11.9%
89 Ohio 9 37,800 317,400 11.9%
90 Minnesota 3 42,800 360,300 11.9%
91 Nebraska 3 37,400 317,000 11.8%
92 Virginia 9 34,300 291,100 11.8%
93 Pennsylvania 5 36,600 310,900 11.8%
94 California 35 30,900 262,700 11.8%
95 Illinois 10 37,100 317,700 11.7%
96 North Carolina 1 32,900 282,300 11.7%
97 Washington 8 35,200 304,700 11.6%
98 Texas 33 32,000 277,300 11.5%
99 Illinois 15 35,600 309,500 11.5%
100 Oklahoma 2 32,400 282,000 11.5%
101 Texas 14 34,000 296,300 11.5%
102 Kentucky 6 38,200 335,200 11.4%
103 Wisconsin 4 35,100 308,100 11.4%
104 Utah 1 36,400 319,600 11.4%
105 Alabama 2 30,300 266,100 11.4%
106 Pennsylvania 10 34,900 306,600 11.4%
107 Illinois 6 39,500 347,800 11.4%
108 New York 23 36,500 323,000 11.3%
109 Michigan 12 34,700 307,400 11.3%
110 Georgia 3 30,900 274,900 11.2%
111 Michigan 13 25,400 226,000 11.2%
112 New Hampshire 2 34,600 310,700 11.1%
113 Texas 29 31,800 286,100 11.1%
114 Ohio 2 36,200 326,100 11.1%
115 California 38 32,000 289,000 11.1%
116 Ohio 1 36,700 334,800 11.0%
117 Minnesota 2 40,000 365,000 11.0%
118 Illinois 11 37,100 339,700 10.9%
119 California 15 33,800 310,300 10.9%
120 Washington 3 29,700 272,700 10.9%
121 Missouri 3 40,000 368,200 10.9%
122 Pennsylvania 17 33,200 306,700 10.8%
123 Michigan 5 28,000 259,400 10.8%
124 Washington 9 35,200 327,200 10.8%
125 Mississippi 2 26,800 251,200 10.7%
126 California 42 30,200 283,200 10.7%
127 Pennsylvania 6 37,900 355,500 10.7%
128 Indiana 5 38,100 357,600 10.7%
129 California 32 28,700 271,000 10.6%
130 Wisconsin 2 41,200 390,100 10.6%
131 Alabama 7 25,700 243,600 10.6%
132 Kentucky 3 35,000 333,100 10.5%
133 Alabama 1 28,400 271,900 10.4%
134 Mississippi 3 29,800 285,900 10.4%
135 Connecticut 5 34,300 331,000 10.4%
136 Vermont 1 31,700 306,000 10.4%
137 New York 27 34,800 336,200 10.4%
138 Nebraska 1 34,400 333,700 10.3%
139 Missouri 6 36,500 354,200 10.3%
140 Texas 6 35,100 340,800 10.3%
141 Oklahoma 1 36,100 351,400 10.3%
142 Connecticut 3 34,300 335,100 10.2%
143 Idaho 1 31,400 307,600 10.2%
144 California 25 28,500 279,200 10.2%
145 California 10 26,100 255,700 10.2%
146 California 45 33,300 326,900 10.2%
147 Pennsylvania 8 35,700 351,000 10.2%
148 Pennsylvania 9 30,400 299,100 10.2%
149 Texas 12 33,500 329,700 10.2%
150 Michigan 14 25,500 252,500 10.1%
151 Texas 4 29,500 292,400 10.1%
152 Kansas 2 33,900 336,100 10.1%
153 California 48 32,800 325,300 10.1%
154 North Carolina 13 34,100 338,400 10.1%
155 Illinois 3 31,400 312,500 10.0%
156 Utah 4 34,000 339,100 10.0%
157 Ohio 10 31,600 315,200 10.0%
158 California 39 30,600 306,200 10.0%
159 South Dakota 1 41,600 417,200 10.0%
160 Pennsylvania 11 32,200 323,100 10.0%
161 Georgia 12 26,600 267,600 9.9%
162 Illinois 18 32,800 330,100 9.9%
163 Minnesota 4 33,700 342,200 9.8%
164 Indiana 7 30,600 312,200 9.8%
165 South Carolina 7 25,400 259,600 9.8%
166 California 34 27,700 285,500 9.7%
167 South Carolina 6 23,600 244,300 9.7%
168 Alabama 6 29,400 305,900 9.6%
169 Texas 2 33,900 356,200 9.5%
170 Pennsylvania 7 31,600 333,400 9.5%
171 New Hampshire 1 31,200 329,800 9.5%
172 Connecticut 1 31,400 332,400 9.4%
173 California 29 26,100 280,100 9.3%
174 Ohio 12 33,600 362,300 9.3%
175 Kentucky 5 21,700 234,100 9.3%
176 Ohio 15 31,400 338,900 9.3%
177 Georgia 2 22,300 241,700 9.2%
178 Georgia 8 24,100 262,300 9.2%
179 Massachusetts 2 33,400 364,400 9.2%
180 Tennessee 2 29,600 323,200 9.2%
181 Pennsylvania 18 31,000 338,500 9.2%
182 North Carolina 7 27,800 305,000 9.1%
183 California 47 27,500 302,200 9.1%
184 Virginia 4 29,100 319,900 9.1%
185 Oregon 3 34,100 375,200 9.1%
186 Rhode Island 1 21,000 231,200 9.1%
187 Missouri 7 30,500 335,800 9.1%
188 California 43 25,200 279,300 9.0%
189 Missouri 2 34,000 376,900 9.0%
190 Virginia 6 29,900 331,500 9.0%
191 Oregon 2 27,700 307,600 9.0%
192 Texas 18 26,900 299,300 9.0%
193 Texas 8 27,000 302,100 8.9%
194 Georgia 10 24,700 276,500 8.9%
195 New York 22 28,400 318,700 8.9%
196 Texas 1 25,800 290,900 8.9%
197 Virginia 5 27,300 308,400 8.9%
198 Michigan 1 25,000 284,200 8.8%
199 South Carolina 1 25,400 288,900 8.8%
200 New Jersey 7 31,400 357,400 8.8%
201 Illinois 2 23,900 272,100 8.8%
202 Massachusetts 1 30,600 348,600 8.8%
203 Minnesota 8 27,100 309,000 8.8%
204 Texas 32 30,900 352,600 8.8%
205 New York 25 29,200 333,800 8.7%
206 Pennsylvania 12 28,300 325,600 8.7%
207 Ohio 11 24,100 277,300 8.7%
208 Texas 13 26,100 301,900 8.6%
209 Maine 1 27,400 318,500 8.6%
210 Texas 3 31,200 362,700 8.6%
211 South Carolina 2 25,300 294,500 8.6%
212 Idaho 2 28,400 330,900 8.6%
213 California 49 23,700 276,500 8.6%
214 Oregon 5 27,400 319,800 8.6%
215 California 5 25,800 301,400 8.6%
216 North Carolina 12 26,400 309,300 8.5%
217 Arizona 5 25,300 297,500 8.5%
218 California 26 25,400 300,700 8.4%
219 Texas 10 27,900 334,700 8.3%
220 California 41 20,800 250,800 8.3%
221 Oregon 4 24,900 302,500 8.2%
222 Washington 6 21,700 264,000 8.2%
223 California 31 22,000 269,500 8.2%
224 Texas 22 28,100 344,400 8.2%
225 Massachusetts 4 31,200 383,100 8.1%
226 Texas 24 30,900 379,700 8.1%
227 Maine 2 23,000 283,200 8.1%
228 Illinois 12 23,900 294,400 8.1%
229 Louisiana 6 29,500 363,600 8.1%
230 California 52 26,200 323,000 8.1%
231 Kansas 3 29,600 366,200 8.1%
232 North Carolina 9 29,000 359,200 8.1%
233 New York 24 25,900 325,700 8.0%
234 Missouri 4 25,700 323,300 7.9%
235 Rhode Island 2 19,000 239,900 7.9%
236 Utah 2 24,700 312,800 7.9%
237 Georgia 11 25,900 328,000 7.9%
238 Georgia 1 21,600 275,200 7.8%
239 Minnesota 5 28,100 358,500 7.8%
240 California 16 17,700 225,900 7.8%
241 Texas 7 28,800 367,600 7.8%
242 Oklahoma 3 25,000 320,400 7.8%
243 Missouri 5 26,800 343,700 7.8%
244 New Jersey 9 25,000 320,800 7.8%
245 California 50 21,100 273,300 7.7%
246 Arizona 7 20,400 264,300 7.7%
247 Virginia 3 24,100 312,300 7.7%
248 West Virginia 1 20,200 263,800 7.7%
249 Louisiana 3 24,800 324,500 7.6%
250 Pennsylvania 13 25,400 332,700 7.6%
251 Massachusetts 6 28,700 380,300 7.5%
252 Texas 17 24,200 321,700 7.5%
253 Utah 3 23,900 318,400 7.5%
254 Iowa 3 29,000 388,600 7.5%
255 Texas 5 21,900 293,800 7.5%
256 Texas 26 26,800 359,800 7.4%
257 Washington 4 20,300 272,600 7.4%
258 Illinois 13 23,700 319,400 7.4%
259 Washington 7 27,000 364,200 7.4%
260 Nebraska 2 24,300 328,100 7.4%
261 Florida 8 19,600 265,200 7.4%
262 Texas 31 23,300 315,600 7.4%
263 Texas 27 22,000 298,500 7.4%
264 California 33 24,500 336,000 7.3%
265 New York 21 22,300 307,700 7.2%
266 Colorado 4 23,800 328,700 7.2%
267 Arkansas 2 23,200 320,500 7.2%
268 New York 2 25,700 356,000 7.2%
269 New Jersey 11 24,500 340,000 7.2%
270 Tennessee 9 21,700 301,600 7.2%
271 Louisiana 2 23,400 325,300 7.2%
272 Louisiana 4 22,100 307,600 7.2%
273 Texas 25 21,200 295,300 7.2%
274 Arizona 9 24,200 337,200 7.2%
275 Louisiana 1 25,100 350,000 7.2%
276 Maryland 1 21,900 307,000 7.1%
277 Texas 30 20,300 285,600 7.1%
278 Georgia 4 21,200 299,800 7.1%
279 Missouri 1 23,200 329,900 7.0%
280 Georgia 7 21,100 300,600 7.0%
281 Georgia 13 21,000 300,900 7.0%
282 New York 26 22,700 326,100 7.0%
283 California 53 21,800 316,100 6.9%
284 North Carolina 4 23,400 339,400 6.9%
285 Washington 5 19,200 279,400 6.9%
286 Oklahoma 4 23,400 340,800 6.9%
287 Louisiana 5 19,200 280,800 6.8%
288 North Carolina 3 20,200 295,500 6.8%
289 New Jersey 5 22,800 337,400 6.8%
290 California 27 20,500 306,500 6.7%
291 New Jersey 8 23,500 351,600 6.7%
292 Texas 9 21,300 318,900 6.7%
293 Colorado 2 24,500 367,400 6.7%
294 Illinois 9 22,600 339,600 6.7%
295 Illinois 5 25,700 388,900 6.6%
296 Connecticut 4 21,500 325,900 6.6%
297 Washington 10 18,300 279,100 6.6%
298 California 9 16,600 254,000 6.5%
299 New Jersey 12 21,700 334,000 6.5%
300 Tennessee 5 22,200 349,100 6.4%
301 New Jersey 6 21,100 335,100 6.3%
302 California 30 20,800 330,400 6.3%
303 California 51 14,800 238,600 6.2%
304 Ohio 3 20,800 335,500 6.2%
305 Massachusetts 9 22,200 360,200 6.2%
306 California 14 20,500 335,800 6.1%
307 Texas 11 18,300 301,700 6.1%
308 Virginia 2 20,100 331,500 6.1%
309 Illinois 1 17,200 283,800 6.1%
310 Florida 13 17,500 289,300 6.0%
311 Colorado 7 20,900 346,400 6.0%
312 New York 19 19,400 325,700 6.0%
313 Delaware 1 25,400 427,800 5.9%
314 Arizona 8 16,600 282,400 5.9%
315 West Virginia 2 16,000 272,200 5.9%
316 Nevada 2 17,700 301,700 5.9%
317 Oklahoma 5 19,700 338,700 5.8%
318 California 22 15,500 267,100 5.8%
319 California 13 18,100 313,800 5.8%
320 California 8 12,500 217,300 5.8%
321 Pennsylvania 14 18,200 317,100 5.7%
322 North Dakota 1 25,500 444,300 5.7%
323 California 23 14,500 252,900 5.7%
324 Georgia 6 19,900 347,400 5.7%
325 California 37 17,400 309,500 5.6%
326 Illinois 7 16,400 291,900 5.6%
327 California 21 12,500 224,900 5.6%
328 New York 18 18,300 330,500 5.5%
329 Texas 16 15,200 274,800 5.5%
330 Massachusetts 5 21,900 396,100 5.5%
331 California 4 14,800 271,400 5.5%
332 Arizona 1 13,500 247,900 5.4%
333 New Jersey 1 17,500 321,500 5.4%
334 Florida 25 16,600 305,000 5.4%
335 Colorado 6 19,200 353,100 5.4%
336 West Virginia 3 12,300 227,400 5.4%
337 Arizona 2 15,100 280,000 5.4%
338 California 24 16,000 298,400 5.4%
339 Pennsylvania 1 14,300 268,100 5.3%
340 California 3 14,100 264,400 5.3%
341 Florida 6 14,000 264,900 5.3%
342 Florida 5 13,900 265,700 5.2%
343 Massachusetts 8 19,900 383,900 5.2%
344 Colorado 5 15,400 301,800 5.1%
345 California 20 14,100 279,100 5.1%
346 Arizona 4 11,000 218,600 5.0%
347 New York 7 16,100 320,700 5.0%
348 Texas 35 15,600 310,900 5.0%
349 Arizona 3 12,300 245,400 5.0%
350 Maryland 2 15,700 315,500 5.0%
351 Virginia 7 17,700 355,700 5.0%
352 California 2 14,700 298,100 4.9%
353 New Jersey 2 15,100 307,500 4.9%
354 Florida 4 15,100 308,600 4.9%
355 Arizona 6 16,700 342,600 4.9%
356 California 28 16,100 332,000 4.8%
357 New York 20 17,200 355,800 4.8%
358 California 12 17,800 368,400 4.8%
359 Texas 19 14,600 303,600 4.8%
360 Florida 7 14,500 301,700 4.8%
361 New York 1 16,400 341,700 4.8%
362 Texas 21 16,800 352,900 4.8%
363 Virginia 1 16,200 343,800 4.7%
364 California 11 14,000 299,100 4.7%
365 California 7 13,500 288,900 4.7%
366 California 1 11,200 240,100 4.7%
367 Florida 15 13,200 284,600 4.6%
368 Florida 11 9,300 203,400 4.6%
369 Georgia 5 13,800 306,000 4.5%
370 Texas 20 13,700 304,300 4.5%
371 Florida 16 11,600 258,300 4.5%
372 Texas 34 10,600 236,600 4.5%
373 Florida 18 11,900 265,700 4.5%
374 California 6 11,900 266,000 4.5%
375 New Jersey 3 14,500 326,200 4.4%
376 Alaska 1 14,900 336,600 4.4%
377 Texas 28 11,500 260,200 4.4%
378 Colorado 1 16,200 367,200 4.4%
379 Texas 15 12,100 274,400 4.4%
380 New Jersey 4 13,600 309,400 4.4%
381 New Jersey 10 12,700 294,400 4.3%
382 Texas 23 12,200 283,100 4.3%
383 Florida 22 13,300 310,600 4.3%
384 Florida 10 13,100 310,100 4.2%
385 Maryland 6 13,600 325,800 4.2%
386 Florida 14 12,500 300,000 4.2%
387 New York 3 13,800 335,100 4.1%
388 Florida 3 10,600 259,100 4.1%
389 Virginia 10 15,000 367,200 4.1%
390 Montana 1 18,300 448,800 4.1%
391 Maryland 3 13,500 331,500 4.1%
392 New York 17 13,800 339,800 4.1%
393 Maryland 7 11,500 283,200 4.1%
394 Colorado 3 12,800 316,600 4.0%
395 Florida 12 10,600 265,000 4.0%
396 Florida 23 12,700 318,000 4.0%
397 New Mexico 2 10,000 254,800 3.9%
398 New Mexico 1 11,400 291,000 3.9%
399 Massachusetts 7 14,800 378,100 3.9%
400 Florida 1 10,700 284,300 3.8%
401 Florida 24 10,000 274,500 3.6%
402 Pennsylvania 2 9,600 268,000 3.6%
403 Florida 27 10,400 293,400 3.5%
404 Florida 2 9,600 282,100 3.4%
405 Florida 20 9,400 282,700 3.3%
406 California 36 7,700 232,400 3.3%
407 Florida 21 9,800 296,400 3.3%
408 New York 15 8,400 254,600 3.3%
409 Wyoming 1 9,500 290,700 3.3%
410 Florida 17 7,400 232,600 3.2%
411 New York 13 10,000 315,600 3.2%
412 New York 6 10,200 325,400 3.1%
413 New York 14 10,600 340,100 3.1%
414 New York 4 10,600 340,800 3.1%
415 Maryland 8 11,100 359,000 3.1%
416 New York 16 9,900 322,000 3.1%
417 New York 10 10,500 358,500 2.9%
418 Florida 19 7,200 248,100 2.9%
419 New Mexico 3 7,700 265,800 2.9%
420 New York 11 9,100 316,000 2.9%
421 Maryland 5 9,500 330,300 2.9%
422 Florida 26 9,000 314,000 2.9%
423 Florida 9 8,300 296,700 2.8%
424 Maryland 4 9,600 344,500 2.8%
425 New York 12 11,500 416,800 2.8%
426 Nevada 4 7,300 267,500 2.7%
427 New York 5 9,000 334,600 2.7%
428 Nevada 3 8,700 328,100 2.7%
429 Hawaii 1 8,500 323,900 2.6%
430 New York 8 7,500 291,300 2.6%
431 Nevada 1 6,800 277,700 2.4%
432 Virginia 11 9,200 391,100 2.4%
433 New York 9 7,500 323,300 2.3%
434 Virginia 8 7,600 413,300 1.8%
435 Hawaii 2 5,100 293,800 1.7%
436 District of Columbia 1 1,000 745,800 0.1%

Source: Author's analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014c) and U.S. Census Bureau (2013)

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

See more work by Robert E. Scott