2014

GREATER OKLAHOMA CITY

ECONOMIC FORECAST

123 Park Ave.Oklahoma City, OK 73102405.297.8900

Russell EvansExecutive Director, EconomistSteven C. Agee Economic Research & Policy Institute Oklahoma City University

Eric Long Research Economist

Economic Development Division, Greater Oklahoma City Chamberelong@okcchamber.com

405.297.8976

Prepared by:

2

Table of Contents

Overview ..................................................................................................................................3

Economic Outlook Summaries ........................................................................................ 6

National Economic Conditions and Outlook ............................................................ 18

Oklahoma Economic Trends and Outlook ................................................................ 12

Oklahoma City MSA Economic Outlook ..................................................................... 17

Oklahoma City MSA Employment ................................................................................. 18

OKC MSA Population .......................................................................................................... 19

OKC MSA Per Capita Personal Income .......................................................................20

OKC MSA Gross Metro Product .....................................................................................20

OKC MSA Average Weekly Earnings ............................................................................ 21

OKC MSA Employment – Mining ...................................................................................24

OKC MSA Employment – Construction ...................................................................... 25

OKC MSA Employment - Manufacturing ...................................................................26

OKC MSA Employment – Trade, Transportation & Utilities ................................. 27

Key U.S. Economic Variables Table ..............................................................................30

Oklahoma State Economic Indicators Table .............................................................. 31

OKC MSA Oklahoma City MSA Population, Income and GMP Table ............... 31

Oklahoma State Employment & Earnings Annual Table ...................................... 32

OKC MSA Oklahoma City MSA Employment & Earnings Annual Table .........36

3

OKLAHOMA CITY REFLECTS UPON ITS 20 YEAR TURNAROUND AND IS WELL POSITIONED FOR FUTURE GROWTH

OVERVIEW

The Greater Oklahoma City Economic Forecast provides a comprehensive analysis of the national, state and metro economy. It details historic trend analysis, a snapshot of the current situation, as well as a forecast for 2014.

What Changed 20 Years Ago?

The past year was an important time of reflection to consider Oklahoma City’s past as well as its future. The only way a community can appreciate the success that has been achieved is to remember the challenges it faced in the past.

Twenty years ago, Oklahoma City was a drastically different place. It was still reeling from the oil bust of the 1980s.

It had just lost a major bid for a United Airlines maintenance facility. No matter the incentive package that was put together, efforts to attract a major business failed. Economic development efforts had stalled. Downtown activity was nonexistent after 5 o’clock. The citizens were defeated and population was in decline. Due to a nearly 20-year gap in bond passage, the city’s infrastructure was on the verge of crumbling.

What changed? How did Oklahoma City make such a dramatic turnaround? Cooperation and visionary leadership was the key, and Oklahoma City began to rise.

2013 saw the 20-year anniversary of the passage of the original MAPS (Metropolitan Area Projects) initiative – a one-cent sales tax to build nine projects, ranging from renovations to the city’s convention center to the construction of a 15,000-seat ballpark for the city’s AAA club and a 20,000-seat indoor sports arena.

More so, it marked a significant change in mindset. Citizens recognized that they could not rely on others to transform their community. They made a conscious choice to start investing in themselves.

In the past 20 years, the City of Oklahoma City has invested more than $2 billion in special projects, roads, public safety and more, with another nearly $1 billion already

The completion of the Bricktown Canal and the eight other MAPS projects led to a dramatic turnaround in Oklahoma City.

4

planned to take shape over the next 10 years. Since the original MAPS and General Obligation (G.O.) Bond, the City has passed two additional G.O. bonds, along with MAPS for Kids, MAPS 3, and the Big League City initiative which helped secure the Oklahoma City Thunder. To date, nearly $5 billion in economic impact can be attributed to the original MAPS program. This represents a nearly 10-fold return on the city’s original investment.

During 2013, citizens were encouraged to see many of the MAPS 3 projects break ground. MAPS 3 is a 10-year, $777 million construction program funding eight quality of life projects, including a new convention center, modern streetcar, 70-acre downtown park and others.

Recruitment and Expansion of Businesses Reaches Five Year High

In 2013, Chamber-assisted companies announced the creation of 6,561 jobs with an average salary of $43,533. In addition, they announced more than $500 million in capital investment. These are the strongest results in the past five years, including

double the number of Chamber-assisted “new-to-market” project announcements over the previous year. Performance in 2013 was especially encouraging given that the previous year’s economic development efforts were dampened by national uncertainty. A few notable 2013 announcements in the region include GE Global Research Center, Paycom, Terex and AT&T. The GE Global Research Center is the company’s first-ever research facility dedicated to Oil & Gas technology. The new center will create 130 high-tech jobs and is expected to have a direct and indirect impact of $13 million on the state and local economies. It is anticipated to attract international attention from Oil & Gas partners from around the world.

Current Conditions Point To Optimism, But Future Challenges Are Recognized

As of November 2013, the Oklahoma City metro had enjoyed the lowest unemployment rate among large metros (more than 1 million population) for 26

December 2013 marked the 20th anniversary of the original MAPS vote. Mayors Norick, Humphreys and Cornett unveiled the commemorative MAPS ornament at a celebration event.

The Oil & Gas sector reaches into many industries in Oklahoma City. Centek Inc. is one of the many businesses in the region that services the sector.

5

of the past 35 months. For the second consecutive year, the annual average unemployment rate will be under 5 percent. For the sixth straight year, Oklahoma City unemployment was at least two percentage points below the nation.

While certainly an indicator of strong local economic conditions, having a low unemployment rate for such an extended period of time also creates some unique challenges. Two areas worth noting involve talent recruitment and wages.

Employers are recognizing the value of retaining qualified workers while also noticing a slight upward pressure in some wages. A recent uptick in wage growth has been seen in entry level positions, or the lowest 10th percentile of wages within select occupational titles. Oklahoma County (the driving engine for job growth in the metro) has a per capita income that is 106 percent of the national average. Historically, Oklahoma City has enjoyed a cost of living approximately 10 percent below the nation and that trend remains in place. Employees in select occupations are appreciating a moderate increase in wages while still enjoying the benefits of living in a low cost of living region. Companies can expect to still take advantage of overall labor and cost of doing business rates below that of the nation.

However, the nation is facing a structural shortage of qualified workers. This long term trend will continue to force communities and companies to be competitive in order to retain and attract a talented workforce. To remain competitive, Oklahoma City has to be a place where companies want to locate and employees (current and prospective) want to live, work and play. Finally, future growth will also

be influenced by “planokc,” the city’s new comprehensive plan anticipated to be set for adoption in 2014. Future land use plans are critical in preserving available land for development. This will enable the region to continue to offer a selection of diverse sites for larger “new-to-market” projects. In addition, the plan will provide guidance on how the 621 square mile city can continue to grow in an efficient and sustainable manner.

The following economic forecast is based upon historic growth models and does not necessarily take into account unanticipated growth from relocations or “new-to-market” firms. In addition, announced expansions of existing companies may take place over a multi-year timeframe and not be fully recognized in the next year. Announced projects that have not taken place are not reflected in forecasted job numbers.

6

National Summary

After years of disappointments and false starts, the U.S. economy finally seems poised to carry positive economic momentum from the second half of 2013 in to 2014 and beyond. Global conditions are generally positive as European economies return to (modest) economic growth, concerns of structural weaknesses in the BRIC economies moderate, domestic concerns over fiscal deficits and future inflation subside (for now), and monetary policy remains accommodative. Among the key summaries of the U.S. forecast discussed in this report are:

• Real gross domestic product is expected to break the 3 percent growth barrier in 2014 and maintain momentum growing at 3.3 percent in 2015 • The strength of the U.S. economy is expected to turn on strength in household spending with personal consumption expenditures growing at 3.5 percent and 3.1 percent in 2014 and 2015 • Consumer prices (inflation) will remain under control and within the target rate of 2 percent as the unemployment rate slowly trends down averaging 6.4 percent in 2015 • The Federal Funds Rate is expected to at levels near zero as the fed postpones increases in short term interest rates until 2015

Oklahoma (State) Summary

The Oklahoma economy presses forward in spite of national conditions. Most major metrics indicate the state economy yielded some of its momentum in 2013 as restructuring in some key sectors combined with the effects of sequestration and a challenging economic geography for the state’s rural areas. Among the key state projections in this report are:

• Nonfarm payroll growth slowed to 1 percent in 2013 but is expected to pick up pace in 2014 and 2015 to growth rates of 1.6 percent and 1.8 percent • Economic geography is moving activity to urban centers favoring development in Oklahoma City and Tulsa with the two metro areas accounting for over 70 percent of the state’s gross product • After contracting in 2013 with industry restructuring, the state’s mining sector is expected to hold steady in 2014 with modest employment gains expected in the second half of the year. Industry strength is expected to return in 2015 with employment gains of 3.6 percent • Per capita personal income in the state will grow in excess of 4 percent per year reaching nearly $49,000 by 2015 • The state’s unemployment rate is expected to bump up modestly in early 2014 before trending down through the forecast horizon reaching 4.5 percent by the second half of 2015

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK SUMMARIES

7

Oklahoma City Metro Summary

Oklahoma City continues to exhibit more strength than any other economy in the state. The forces of economic geography (driven largely by declining transportation costs) are driving economic activity to dense, amenity-rich, urban centers. The revitalization of the city’s urban core combined with rapid economic development along the I-35 corridor continues to suggest the possibility of a forthcoming economic transformation. The economic challenges of 2013 are expected to be short-lived as broad strength returns in 2014. Key findings include:

• Private payroll expansion of 3 percent in 2014 followed by 2.7 percent growth in 2015 • Broad labor market strength across industries, including mining, construction, manufacturing, and the trade sectors.

• A return to robust growth in private sector earnings with 3.1 percent growth in 2014 followed by 4.9 percent in 2015 • Labor market conditions will steer the unemployment rate lower with the metro area unemployment rate averaging less than 5 percent in 2014 and dropping further in 2015

8

After years of false starts and disappointments, the national economy seems poised to finally break through the 3 percent barrier in 2014. The economic headwinds of previous years have yielded to more favorable conditions as GDP growth in the European Union turned positive in the latter half of 2013, slowing growth stabilized in previously fast-growing, developing countries, and a budget deal removed (for now) concerns over government shutdowns and furloughed workers. All this while persistent accommodative monetary policy keeps both short and long term interest rates low.

The absence of discernible headwinds combined with surprising strength in the second half of 2013 point to the U.S. economy going in 2014 where it has not been since 2005 – real GDP growth above 3 percent.

6  

National Economic Conditions and Outlook After years of false starts and disappointments, the national economy seems poised to 

finally breakthrough the 3% barrier in 2014.  The economic headwinds of previous years 

have yielded to more favorable conditions as GDP growth in the European Union turned 

positive in the latter half of 2013, slowing growth stabilized in previously fast‐growing 

developing countries, and a budget deal removed (for now) concerns over government 

shutdowns and furloughed workers.  All this while persistent accommodative monetary 

policy keeps both short and long term interest rates low.  The absence of discernible 

headwinds combined with surprising strength in the second half of 2013 point to the U.S. 

economy going in 2014 where it hasn’t been since 2005 – real GDP growth above 3%. 

 

While some of the strength of 2013 appears to be inventory accumulation which 

essentially transfers growth from 2014 back to 2013 accounts, much strength appears to be 

widespread and sustainable. 

3.4

2.7

1.8

‐0.3

‐2.8

2.5

1.8

2.8

2.1

3.1 3.3 3.4

‐4.0

‐3.0

‐2.0

‐1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Year‐ove

r‐Ye

ar G

rowth Rate, %

U.S. Real GDP, Annual Growth

U.S Real GDP

While some of the strength of 2013 appears to be inventory accumulation, which essentially transfers growth from 2014 back to 2013 accounts, much strength appears to be widespread and sustainable.

NATIONAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND OUTLOOK

9

Household consumption accounts represent more than two-thirds of the U.S. economy (hence the near constant emphasis of stimulating household spending). While debate will continue for generations as to the origins of the great recession of 2008, there is no doubt that the result was unsustainably leveraged balance sheets at both the institutional and household level.

Through the recession and first years of recovery, both financial institutions and

households have worked (or been forced) to deleverage and put balance sheets on

a sustainable path. U.S. personal savings rates exceeded 5 percent from 2008 through 2012, before dropping below that barrier in 2013. Savings rate are projected to stabilize in the 4 percent to 4.5 percent range as households – now more confident in

their balance sheets – reallocate funds to postponed consumption.

7  

Household consumption accounts represent over two‐thirds of the U.S. economy (hence 

the near constant emphasis of stimulating household spending).  While debate will 

continue for generations as to the origins of the great recession of 2008, there is no doubt 

that the result was unsustainably leveraged balance sheets at both the institutional and 

household level.  Through the recession and first years of recovery, both financial 

institutions and households have worked (or been forced) to deleverage and put balance 

sheets on a sustainable path.  U.S. personal savings rates exceeded 5% from 2008 through 

2012, before dropping below that barrier in 2013.  Savings rate are projected to stabilize in 

the 4% to 4.5% range as households – now more confident in their balance sheets – 

reallocate funds to postponed consumption. 

 

We project personal consumption to grow at 3.5% in 2014 and remain above the 3% 

barrier in 2015 and 2016 at levels consistent with pre‐recession activity.  The growth in 

personal consumption will be complemented by growth in residential construction (and 

other investment activity), subdued energy prices, and a narrowing of the trade gap. 

2.1

3.53.1 3.0

4.54.3

3.94.2

‐3.0

‐2.0

‐1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

U.S. Consumption and Savings

U.S. Personal Consumption U.S Personal Savings Rate

We project personal consumption to grow to 3.5 percent in 2014 and remain above the 3 percent barrier in 2015 and 2016 at levels consistent with pre-recession activity. The growth in personal consumption will be complemented by growth in residential construction (and other investment activity), subdued energy prices, and a narrowing of the trade gap.

10

Labor market conditions continue to improve slowly. The falling unemployment rate obscures the reality that labor force participation rates are stubbornly low, remaining well below the long run level associated with a healthy national labor market. As conditions improve, labor force participation rates should increase, slowing the rate of decline in the unemployment rate. Nonfarm employment will return in 2014 to the peak levels reached in 2007, making the great recession the longest in duration since the Great Depression. Accounting for population growth and household formation, the labor market will not return to 2007 relationships for many more years.

The monthly unemployment rate is projected to average 7.5 percent in 2013. The unemployment is expected to remain near 7 percent in 2014 even as conditions improve (assuming growth in labor force participation). Average unemployment rates are anticipated to fall below the barometer set by the Federal Reserve of 6.5 percent in 2015 and will likely signal the end of 0 percent short-term interest rates.

8  

Labor market conditions continue to improve slowly.  The falling unemployment rate 

obscures the reality that labor force participation rates are stubbornly low, remaining well 

below the long run level associated with a health national labor market.  As conditions 

improve, labor force participation rates should increase, slowing the rate of decline in the 

unemployment rate.  Nonfarm employment will return in 2014 to the peak levels reached 

in 2007, making the great recession the longest in duration since the great depression.  

Accounting for population growth and household formation, the labor market will not 

return to 2007 relationships for many more years. 

 

The monthly unemployment rate is projected to average 7.5% in 2013.  The 

unemployment is expected to remain near 7% in 2014 even as conditions improve 

(assuming growth in labor force participation).  Average unemployment rates are 

anticipated to fall below the barometer set by the Federal Reserve of 6.5% in 2015 and will 

likely signal the end of 0% short‐term interest rates. 

7.56.9

6.45.9

137.6

141.2

144.1

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

120.0

125.0

130.0

135.0

140.0

145.0

150.0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Une

mploy

men

t Rate, %

Non

farm

 Pay

roll Employ

men

t, M

illion

s

U.S. Payroll Employment and Unemployment Rate

U.S. Unemployment Rate U.S. Nonfarm Employment

11

While the outlook is generally positive, a few comments of caution merit consideration. • The economic landscape post- recession is one of an increasingly divided income distribution. • Productivity gains after the recession have not been accompanied by corresponding compensation gains. • The stock market experienced growth far in excess of that of the real economy. • The recession and its effects were particularly acute in the blue collar industries of construction and manufacturing.

There are, undoubtedly, other reasons why the recovery has been relatively one-sided in favor of those at the upper end of the income distribution. One reason not talked about enough is geography.

The economic landscape has been changing for some time as activity is increasingly concentrated in densely populated, interconnected urban areas. The urban areas whose economies are centered on an “ideas economy” have fared especially

well. The world may indeed be flattening, but economic returns are flowing into concentrated deposits in urban centers. A return to economic strength will disguise only temporarily the growing income divide. Economic geography is expected to continue to push activity to urban centers, leaving much of the nation to search for an economic identity. The concentration of activity is particularly important in Oklahoma, as Oklahoma City looks to grow into an integral part of the I-35 corridor development.

Finally, while not discussed explicitly in this document, long run concerns remain over the size of the federal budget deficit, the national debt, and the fed’s balance sheet.

12

OKLAHOMA ECONOMIC TRENDS AND OUTLOOK

The Oklahoma economy cooled considerably in 2013 after two strong years of post-recession growth. Sequestered federal dollars and furloughed workers exerted both direct and indirect economic impacts as federal employees and civilian contractors struggled to find confidence in a process seemingly designed to create anxiety.

The oil and gas industry moved aggressively to adjust to the new industry paradigm of de-emphasizing finding and emphasizing returns from extraction. The industry shed jobs as workforces were realigned to meet the needs of future strategic operations.

After growing respectably in 2012 (largely on the foundation of business investment) consumers were slow to return to activity in 2013 as U.S. GDP struggled to grow at

even modest paces in the first half of the year. The slow U.S. growth is particularly troublesome for the Tulsa MSA, which historically thrives (in comparison to the rest of the state) during periods of robust national activity. A turning in the national

economy during the 3rd quarter of 2013 looks to be sustainable and portends stronger growth for the state in 2014.

13

Preliminary estimates are for 2.2 percent growth in the state’s real gross domestic product, just ahead of the 2.1 percent increases estimated for 2012 (largely reflecting increases in key commodity prices). As conditions improve and carry into the new year, the state’s GDP is projected to grow at a 2.9 percent pace in 2014.

The increase in local production is expected to generate simultaneous gains to state income. Oklahoma’s per capita personal income has grown consistently and is respectably positioned relative to surrounding states.

The state with the highest per capita income in this region is Colorado, followed by Kansas and Texas both at roughly 94 percent of Colorado’s income level. Oklahoma follows with a per capita income level approximately 90 percent that of Colorado. Significantly further behind are Missouri, New Mexico, and Arkansas, all with per capita income levels 85 percent and

below relative to Colorado. Income growth is projected to strengthen for Oklahoma in 2014, reaching 5.5 percent up from estimates of 3.3 percent growth for 2013.

11  

Preliminary estimates are for 2.2% growth in the state’s real gross domestic product, just 

ahead of the 2.1% increases estimated for 2012 (largely reflecting increases in key 

commodity prices).  As conditions improve and carry into the new year, the state’s GDP is 

projected to grow at a 2.9% pace in 2014. 

The increase in local production is expected to generate simultaneous gains to state 

income.  Oklahoma per capita personal income has grown consistently and is respectably 

positioned relative to surrounding states.  The state with the highest per capita income in 

this region is Colorado, followed by Kansas and Texas both at roughly 94% of Colorado’s 

income level.  Oklahoma follows with a per capita income level approximately 90% that 

of Colorado.  Significantly further behind are Missouri, New Mexico, and Arkansas, all 

with per capita income levels 85% and below relative to Colorado.  Income growth is 

projected to strengthen for Oklahoma in 2014, reaching 5.5% up from estimates of 3.3% 

growth for 2013. 

 

 

8.4%

4.3%

3.3%

5.5%4.1%

‐10.0%

‐8.0%

‐6.0%

‐4.0%

‐2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000Ann

ual G

rowth

, %

Per Cap

ita In

come, Cur

rent $

OK Per Capita Income

Annual Growth, % OK Per Capita Personal Income

14

The state’s income growth in 2014 is expected to be driven by broad-based gains to payroll employment as well as self-employment and non-wage sources of income. While the state’s nonfarm and private sector payrolls labored to muster even 1 percent growth in 2013, a return to job creation is expected in 2014.1

12  

The state’s income growth in 2014 is expected to be driven by broad‐based gains to payroll 

employment as well as self‐employment and non‐wage sources of income.  While the 

state’s nonfarm and private sector payrolls labored to muster even 1% growth in 2013, a 

return to job creation is expected in 2014.1 

 

Nonfarm and private payrolls are projected to grow at 1.1% and 1.3% respectively in 2013.  

The relative sluggishness of 2013 is not expected to linger as the state returns to growth 

rates more consistent with its long term growth path.  We expect business activity to give 

more strength to private payrolls than is anticipated for nonfarm payrolls generally, as 

private payrolls gain 2.2% in 2014 against 1.8% for nonfarm payrolls (again, see footnote 

below).  The employment strength is expected to carry into 2015. 

 

                                                            1 In the state employment figure above, growth rates are given as the percent change in the 4th quarter from the same quarter in the previous year.  This is a slightly different presentation from the percent change in the average annual level reported in previous figures. 

1.5%

1.1%

1.8% 1.8%1.6%

1.3%

2.2% 2.0%

1,673.5  1,704.5 

1,315.4  1,341.3 

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

 400.0

 600.0

 800.0

 1,000.0

 1,200.0

 1,400.0

 1,600.0

 1,800.0

Ann

ual P

erce

nt G

rowth

, %

OK Employ

men

t, Tho

usan

ds

OK Nonfarm and Private Employment

OK NF Growth OK PRI Growth OK Nonfarm OK Private

Nonfarm and private payrolls are projected to grow at 1.1 percent and 1.3 percent respectively in 2013. The relative sluggishness of 2013 is not expected to linger as the state returns to growth rates more consistent with its long term growth path. We expect business activity to give more strength to private payrolls than is anticipated for nonfarm payrolls generally, as private payrolls gain 2.2 percent in 2014 against 1.8 percent for nonfarm payrolls (see footnote below). The employment strength is expected to carry into 2015.

1In the state employment figure above, growth rates are given as the percent change in the 4th quarter from the same quarter in the previous year. This is a slightly different presentation from the percent change in the average annual level reported in previous figures.

15

The table below is an excerpt from the complete employment-by-sector table found in the appendix to this report and highlights the forecasted growth paths of four key sectors: mining, construction, manufacturing, and trade, transportation, and utilities.

13  

The table below is an excerpt from the complete employment by sector table found in the 

appendix to this report and highlights the forecasted growth paths of four key sectors: 

mining, construction, manufacturing, and trade, transportation, and utilities. 

Oklahoma Economic Outlook: Employment and Earnings Variable / Date  2013Q1  2013Q2  2013Q3  2013Q4  2014Q4  2015Q4 

Employment by Primary Sector                   OK Mining  55.7  55.3  54.3  54.2  55.9  57.8 Percent Change, YOY  ‐0.8%  ‐4.8%  ‐8.3%  ‐5.1%  3.1%  3.5% OK Construction  68.5  72.6  70.4  71.4  77.0  80.4 Percent Change, YOY  2.0%  4.3%  0.3%  2.7%  7.9%  4.4% OK Manufacturing  135.0  135.3  136.4  137.3  140.3  143.1 Percent Change, YOY  1.1%  0.4%  0.7%  1.6%  2.2%  2.0% OK Trade, Transportation, and Utilities  290.5  293.1  293.6  297.1  304.4  310.8 Percent Change, YOY  2.0%  1.3%  1.5%  1.0%  2.5%  2.1%  

The table highlights the challenges of the mining industry in 2013 as employment levels in 

the 4th quarter of 2013 stood 5.1% below the levels of the same period in 2012.  We think 

the adjustments of 2013 have largely run their course and represent short‐term strategic 

realignment rather than long‐term structural weakness.  Mining employment is projected 

to grow at 3.1% in 2014 and 3.5% in 2015 as the energy sector remains the cornerstone 

industry of the state’s economy.  Related to the growth in mining sector activity is 

manufacturing activity.  We project manufacturing employment to increase by 2.2% in 

2014 and 2% in 2015.  A strong national recovery in 2014 is expected to bring strength to 

both the manufacturing base of Tulsa and Oklahoma City, spurring hiring.  We do 

acknowledge, however, that a persistent and troubling skills gap has emerged in the 

industry and may inhibit employment.  The skills gap is not unique to Oklahoma (and 

indeed, not unique to the manufacturing sector).  Significant labor force contractions 

during the great recession were followed by heavy investment in equipment, software, 

and other productive capital during the initial years of recovery.  As the recovery 

progresses, firms are looking to hire but finding potential employees (even those with 

industry experience) are unfamiliar with the technology incorporated over the last 4 

years.  The result is an employer requiring a specific set of skills and prospective 

The table highlights the challenges of the mining industry in 2013 as employment levels in the 4th quarter of 2013 stood 5.1 percent below the levels of the same period in 2012. We think the adjustments of 2013 have largely run their course and represent short-term strategic realignment rather than long-term structural weakness. Mining employment is projected to grow at 3.1 percent in 2014 and 3.5 percent in 2015 as the energy sector remains the cornerstone industry of the state’s economy.

Related to the growth in mining sector activity is manufacturing activity. We project manufacturing employment to increase by 2.2 percent in 2014 and 2 percent in 2015. A strong national recovery in 2014 is expected to bring strength to both the manufacturing base of Tulsa and Oklahoma City, spurring hiring. We do acknowledge, however, that a persistent and troubling skills gap has emerged in the industry and may inhibit employment. The skills gap is not unique to Oklahoma (and indeed, not unique to the manufacturing sector).

Significant labor force contractions during the Great Recession were followed by heavy investment in equipment, software and other productive capital during the initial years of recovery. As the recovery progresses, firms are looking to hire but finding potential employees (even those with industry experience) are unfamiliar with the technology incorporated over the last four years. The result is an employer requiring a specific set of skills and prospective employees struggling to develop the requisite skill sets. A combination of public policy, innovative business strategies, and adapting higher education curricula are likely going to be required to bridge this gap.

16

After slowing in 2013, construction activity looks to be an area of pronounced strength in 2014, as employment grows at nearly 8 percent in the sector with the strength shared between the residential and commercial sectors. Construction activity is projected to moderate somewhat but remain strong through 2015. Similarly, strength is expected to return to the trade sectors as wholesale and retail activity

spur 2.5 percent growth in 2014 even as transportation and utilities employment is projected to contract modestly before stabilizing at just under 52,000 workers.

Finally, state average weekly earnings are projected to grow to nearly $800 by the end of 2015 as the state unemployment rate falls to 4.7 percent by the end of 2014 and further to 4.3 percent in 2015.

14  

employees struggling to develop the requisite skill sets.  A combination of public policy, 

innovative business strategies, and adapting higher education curricula are likely going to 

be required to bridge this gap. 

After slowing in 2013, construction activity looks to be an area of pronounced strength in 

2014, as employment grows at nearly 8% in the sector with the strength shared between 

the residential and commercial sectors.  Construction activity is projected to moderate 

somewhat but remain strong through 2015.  Similarly, strength is expected to return to 

the trade sectors as wholesale and retail activity spur 2.5% growth in 2014 even as 

transportation and utilities employment is projected to contract modestly before 

stabilizing at just under 52,000 workers. 

Finally, state average weekly earnings are projected to grow to nearly $800 by the end of 

2015 as the state unemployment rate falls to 4.7% by the end of 2014 and further to 4.3% 

in 2015. 

 

5.48%

4.74%4.30%

748.9

774.6

798.0

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

700.0

720.0

740.0

760.0

780.0

800.0

820.0

Une

mploy

men

t Rate (p

urple co

lumns

)

Ave

rage W

eekly Ea

rnin

gs (b

lue line

)

OK State Earnings and Unemployment Rate

OK Unemployment Rate OK Average Weekly Earnings

17

While the state grew its nonfarm payrolls by just 1.1 percent in 2013, all of the growth (and then some) will be concentrated in the state’s two metropolitan areas. Tulsa is expected to grow at just over 1.5 percent with Oklahoma City adding nonfarm jobs at an annual pace of 2.2 percent. More than 70 percent of the state’s gross domestic product is now accounted for by these two MSAs, underscoring the geographic divide discussed previously (and developing similarly in states across the nation).

OKLAHOMA CITY MSA ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

15  

Oklahoma City MSA Economic Outlook While the state grew its nonfarm payrolls by just 1.1% in 2013, all of the growth (and then 

some) will be concentrated in the state’s two metropolitan areas.  Tulsa is expected to 

grow at just over 1.5% with Oklahoma City adding nonfarm jobs at an annual pace of 

2.2%.  Over 70% of the state’s gross domestic product is now accounted for by these two 

MSAs, underscoring the geographic divide discussed previously (and developing similarly 

in states across the nation). 

 

Oklahoma City’s strength is particularly impressive given the reality that a key industry 

(mining) contracted modestly in 2013.  The modest mining job losses were offset by 

strength in the construction, retail, and leisure and hospitality sectors with each 

reporting growth rates greater than 3%.  Oklahoma City’s continued strength through less 

than ideal national economic conditions speaks both to the returns of successful 

development initiatives and a favorable economic geography in the heart of the rapidly 

growing I‐35 corridor.  The unemployment rate is expected to trend down reaching 4.5% 

by the end of 2014 and 4.11% by the end of 2015. 

2.2%2.5% 2.5%

2.2%

647.85.09%

4.11%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

550.0

560.0

570.0

580.0

590.0

600.0

610.0

620.0

630.0

640.0

650.0

660.0

OKC Nonfarm Employment and Unemployment Rate

OKC Nonfarm Growth OKC Nonfarm Employment OKC Unemployment Rate

Oklahoma City’s strength is particularly impressive given the reality that a key industry (mining) contracted modestly in 2013. The modest mining job losses were offset by strength in the construction, retail and leisure and hospitality sectors, with each reporting growth rates greater than 3 percent. Oklahoma City’s continued strength through less than ideal national economic conditions speaks both to the returns of successful development initiatives and a favorable economic geography in the heart of the rapidly growing I-35 corridor. The unemployment rate is expected to trend down reaching 4.5 percent by the end of 2014 and 4.11 percent by the end of 2015.

18

Zooming out to a 15-year window offers some historical perspective. Nonfarm and private payrolls have generally grown at similar rates. The Great Recession has, temporarily at least, disrupted that relationship.

Private payrolls (in green below) contracted more aggressively during the recession and have since expanded at a more rapid pace. Average monthly private payroll gains slowed to a pace of 2.5 percent in 2013 (down from 3.0 percent in 2011 and 2.8 percent in 2012).

Private sector job creation is expected to pick up in 2014 with average monthly payroll gains of 3.0 percent in 2014 and 2.7

percent in 2015. If private sector payroll gains come in as predicted, private sector payroll expansion would match its previous best five-year window of 1996-2000 when annual growth in private payrolls average 2.9 percent per year. That Oklahoma City could match this feat

in the 2011-2015 window is all the more impressive when you consider the global economic backdrop of each period of reference.

16  

Zooming out to a 15‐year window offers some historical perspective.  Nonfarm and private 

payrolls have generally grown at similar rates.  The great recession has, temporarily at 

least, disrupted that relationship.  Private payrolls (in green below) contracted more 

aggressively during the recession and have since expanded at a more rapid pace.  Average 

monthly private payroll gains slowed to a pace of 2.5% in 2013 (down from 3.0% in 2011 

and 2.8% in 2012).  Private sector job creation is expected to pick up in 2014 with average 

monthly payroll gains of 3.0% in 2014 and 2.7% in 2015.  If private sector payroll gains 

come in as predicted, private sector payroll expansion would match its previous best 5‐

year window of 1996‐2000 when annual growth in private payrolls average 2.9% per year.  

That Oklahoma City could match this feat in the 2011‐2015 window is all the more 

impressive when you consider the global economic backdrop of each period of reference. 

 

 

 

2.4%2.6% 2.3%

2.5%

3.0%2.7%

‐5.0%

‐4.0%

‐3.0%

‐2.0%

‐1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

Ann

ual P

erce

nt Cha

nge

MSA Employ

men

t, Tho

usan

ds

OKC MSA Nonfarm and Private Employment

Percent Change, YOY Percent Change, YOY

OKC Nonfarm OKC Private

19

The Oklahoma City MSA population continues to grow at faster than average rates. From 1985 to 1994, annual population growth averaged 0.5 percent. The pace of population growth increased over the next 10 years, averaging 1.1 percent from 1995 to 2004.

Population is projected to grow at a pace of 1.7 percent in 2013, 1.6 percent in 2014, and 1.6 percent in 2016. While these growth rates may seem, at first glance, to be “slow and steady” the reality is much different. The annual population growth rate is expected to average 1.6 percent from 2005 to 2015. The increased population growth rates reflect two trends that are expected to hold for the foreseeable future. First, people and economic activity will continue to migrate south and west and, second,

17  

Oklahoma City MSA population continues to grow at faster rates.  From 1985 to 1994, 

annual population growth averaged 0.5%.  The pace of population growth increased over 

the next 10 years, averaging 1.1% from 1995 to2004.  Population is projected to grow at a 

pace of 1.7% in 2013, 1.6% in 2014, and 1.6% in 2016.  While these growth rates may seem at 

first glance to be “slow and steady” the reality is much different.  The annual population 

growth rate is expected to average 1.6% from 2005 to 2015.  The increased population 

growth rates reflect two trends that are expected to hold for the foreseeable future.  First, 

people and economic activity will continue to migrate south and west and, second, people 

and economic activity will continue to concentrate in high‐productivity, amenity rich 

urban centers.   

 

 

 

 

1.7%

1.5%

1.6%

‐2.0%

‐1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

Ann

ual G

rowth

, % 

MSA Pop

ulation

OKC MSA Population

Annual Growth OKC MSA Population

20

Oklahoma City’s per capita personal income has grown from $17,200 in 1990 to a projected $45,045 in 2013. Per capita personal income is projected to grow at annual rates of 4.0 percent and 4.6 percent in 2014 and 2015, respectively, to reach nearly $49,000 by 2015.

18  

Oklahoma City per capita personal income has grown from $17,200 in 1990 to a projected 

$45,045 in 2013.  Per capita personal income is projected to grow at annual rates of 4.0% 

and 4.6% in 2014 and 2015 to reach nearly $49,000 by 2015.   

 

Oklahoma City gross metro product – the broadest if not the most important measure of 

local economic activity – is projected to have expanded at 2.5% in 2013.  Gross metro 

product will rebound with the economy, growing at 3.4% in 2014 and 3.3% in 2015. 

 

4.0%4.6%

17,200

48,971

‐10.0%

‐5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Ann

ual G

rowth

, %

Per Cap

ita Perso

nal Inc

ome

OKC MSA Per Capita Personal Income

Annual Growth OKC Per Capita Personal Income

2.5%3.4% 3.3%

‐1.0%0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Ann

ual G

rowth

, %

Rea

l Gro

ss M

etro Pro

duct, $ 200

5

OKC MSA Gross Metro Product

Annual Growth OKC MSA Gross Metro Product

Oklahoma City’s gross metro product – the broadest if not the most important measure of local economic activity – is projected to have expanded at 2.5 percent in 2013. Gross metro product will rebound with the economy, growing at 3.4 percent in 2014 and 3.3 percent in 2015.

21

The real struggle of 2013 for the Oklahoma City MSA is to be found in the average weekly earnings of private sector workers. After growing at a nearly 10 percent annual rate in 2012, earnings were flat to modestly down in 2013. The drop in earnings has countered the strength in private sector employment, leaving the city slightly below targeted budget levels. Strength in earnings is expected to return in the first half of 2014 and lessen some of the fiscal concern.

19  

The real struggle of 2013 for the Oklahoma City MSA is to be found in the average weekly 

earnings of private sector workers.  After growing at a nearly 10% annual rate in 2012, 

earnings were flat to modestly down in 2013.  The drop in earnings has countered the 

strength in private sector employment, leaving the city slightly below targeted budget 

levels.  Strength in earnings is expected to return in the first half of 2014 and lessen some 

of the fiscal concern. 

 

The earnings drop is likely a reflection of the 2013 weakness in a very high earnings 

industry (mining, oil and gas) and strength in lower earnings industries (construction, 

retail, and hospitality).  The flattening of earnings is not expected to continue as earnings 

resume the trend consistent with urbanization and productivity returns, growing at 5.9% 

in 2014 and 4.3% in 2015. 

 

 

4.8%

‐1.8%

5.9%4.3%

$775.53

$844.72

‐5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

$700.00

$720.00

$740.00

$760.00

$780.00

$800.00

$820.00

$840.00

$860.00

Ann

ual G

rowth

, %

Ave

rage W

eekly Ea

rnin

gs

OKC Average Weekly Earnings

OKC Avg. Weekly Earn Growth OKC Average Weekly Earnings

The earnings drop is likely a reflection of the 2013 weakness in a very high earnings industry (mining and oil and gas) and strength in lower earnings industries (construction, retail and hospitality). The flattening of earnings is not expected to continue as earnings resume the trend consistent with urbanization and productivity returns, growing at 5.9 percent in 2014 and 4.3 percent in 2015.

22

The preceding discussion of average weekly earnings should not confuse the reality that weekly earnings have experienced and will continue to experience considerable growth. Rather, the previous discussion should underscore the anomaly of 2013. Average weekly earnings of private sector workers have grown from $650.73 in 2008 to $768.61 in 2013 – enjoying 7.5 percent, 3.2 percent, and an astonishing 10.3 percent growth in 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively. Private sector earnings are expected to return to growth in 2014 and 2015 with forecasted expansions of 3.1 percent and 4.9 percent.

20  

The preceding discussion of average weekly earnings should not confuse the reality that 

weekly earnings have experienced and will continue to experience considerable growth.  

Rather, the previous discussion should underscore the anomaly of 2013.  Average weekly 

earnings of private sector workers have grown from $650.73 in 2008 to $768.61 in 2013 

enjoying 7.5%, 3.2%, and an astonishing 10.3% growth in 2010, 2011, and 2012 respectively.  

Private sector earnings are expected to return to growth in 2014 and 2015 with forecasted 

expansions of 3.1% and 4.9%. 

 

 

 

 

 

7.5%

3.2%

10.3%

‐1.3%

3.1%

4.9%$650.73

$768.61

$831.15

‐4.0%

‐2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

$400.00

$450.00

$500.00

$550.00

$600.00

$650.00

$700.00

$750.00

$800.00

$850.00

$900.00

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

OKC MSA Average Weekly Earnings

Percent Change, YOY OKC Average Weekly Earnings

21  

OKC MSA Employment, Selected Industries Variable / Quarter  2013Q1  2013Q2  2013Q3  2013Q4  2014Q4  2015Q4 

OKC Nonfarm  598.1  608.3  605.6  618.3  633.9  647.8 Annual Growth (4Q/Q)  2.1%  2.3%  2.7%  2.5%  2.5%  2.2% OKC Private  474.0  482.9  484.7  489.7  505.1  517.8 Annual Growth (4Q/Q)  2.3%  2.4%  2.6%  2.7%  3.1%  2.5% OKC Mining  19.7  19.8  19.6  19.7  20.3  21.4 Annual Growth (4Q/Q)  5.9%  ‐0.2%  ‐3.0%  ‐0.5%  2.9%  5.6% OKC Construction  26.9  28.4  27.5  28.3  29.9  31.2 Annual Growth (4Q/Q)  5.2%  7.6%  3.8%  6.7%  5.8%  4.2% OKC Manufacturing  35.5  35.7  35.9  36.3  37.1  38.1 Annual Growth (4Q/Q)  3.2%  2.6%  2.0%  2.1%  2.4%  2.5% OKC Trade, Transport, & Utilities  104.9  106.8  107.6  109.0  114.2  117.1 Annual Growth (4Q/Q)  4.3%  4.7%  5.0%  3.8%  4.7%  2.5% 

 

The table above is an excerpt of the employment outlook table found in the appendix.  

The mining industry is expected to return to growth in 2014.  The industry is rapidly 

becoming more defined by technological research and deployment.  This transformation 

is underscored by the recent announcement of the GE Global Research Center to be 

located in the core of the city.  The energy industry of tomorrow is likely to be a hybrid of 

traditional oil and gas exploration and production activity and technology.  Ironically, the 

energy industry may become more important to the city’s development even as economic 

metrics suggest a diversifying away from the industry. 

Strength is also expected through 2015 in the construction sector with several recently 

announced commercial projects accompanying a return to residential construction 

activity.  Manufacturing activity is expected to continue its resurgence, largely as a 

complementary activity to the city’s core industries of energy and aerospace maintenance, 

repair, and overhaul.  Finally, growth will be strong in the trade, transportation, and 

utilities sector carried (not surprisingly) by a retail sector benefiting from development in 

the urban core and rising income and (perhaps a little surprisingly) by projected growth 

in transportation and utilities.  A more detailed discussion of each sector follows. 

 

The adjacent table is an excerpt of the employment outlook table found in the appendix.

23

The mining industry is expected to return to growth in 2014. The industry is rapidly becoming more defined by technological research and deployment. This transformation is underscored by the recent announcement of the GE Global Research Center to be located in the core of the city. The energy industry of tomorrow is likely to be a hybrid of traditional oil and gas exploration and production activity and technology. Ironically, the energy industry may become more important to the city’s development even as economic metrics suggest a diversifying away from the industry.

Strength is also expected through 2015 in the construction sector with several recently announced commercial projects accompanying a return to residential construction activity.

Manufacturing activity is expected to continue its resurgence, largely as a complementary activity to the city’s core industries of energy and aerospace maintenance, repair and overhaul. Finally, growth will be strong in the trade, transportation and utilities sector carried (not surprisingly) by a retail sector benefiting from development in the urban core and rising income and (perhaps a little surprisingly) by projected growth in transportation and utilities. A more detailed discussion of each sector follows.

Measuring oil and gas activity in the state and metro areas is always challenging. The oil and natural gas value chain includes downstream activity (exploration and production), midstream activities (gathering, processing, transportation, etc.) and upstream activities (refining, distribution, etc.).

While most Oklahomans would categorize all of the activity above as oil and gas, economic accounting places some of the

24

22  

Measuring oil and gas activity in the state and metro areas is always challenging.  The oil 

and natural gas value chain includes downstream activity (exploration and production), 

midstream activities (gathering, processing, transportation, etc.) and upstream activities 

(refining, distribution, etc.).  While most Oklahomans would categorize all of the activity 

above as oil and gas, economic accounting places some of the activity in mining, some in 

manufacturing, some in transportation and some in wholesale trade.  The result is an oil 

and gas sector that reaches into many industries.  The mining employment reported in 

the table above and the figure below captures (for the most part) downstream activities 

only (exploration and production, and support activities).  While this definition of 

industry employment is obviously too narrow to reflect the true importance of the 

industry, the pattern offers insight into overall activity. 

 

Metro area mining employment will more than triple over the 15 year period, growing to 

average monthly payroll levels of 21,000 workers in 2015.  Employment will be spurred by 

modest expansion in 2014 (2.2%) before picking up the pace in 2015 (4.1%). 

0.5%2.2%

4.1%

6.7

21.0

‐20.0%

‐15.0%

‐10.0%

‐5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Anuu

al Per

cent Cha

nge

Min

ing Em

ploy

men

t, Tho

usan

ds

OKC MSA Mining Employment

Percent Change, YOY OKC Mining Employment

activity in mining, some in manufacturing, some in transportation and some in wholesale trade. The result is an oil and gas sector that reaches into many industries.

The mining employment reported in the table above and the figure below captures (for the most part) downstream activities only (exploration and production, and support activities). While this definition of industry employment is obviously too

narrow to reflect the true importance of the industry, the pattern offers insight into overall activity.

Metro area mining employment will more than triple over the 15 year period, growing to average monthly payroll levels of 21,000 workers in 2015. Employment will be spurred by modest expansion in 2014 (2.2 percent) before picking up the pace in 2015 (4.1 percent).

25

23  

Construction and manufacturing employment were hit hard in the great recession both 

nationally and locally.  Average monthly construction payrolls contracted by 6.8% in 2009 

and again by 2.3% in 2010.  The construction sector has since rebounded and provided a 

source of strength in 2013, expanding at 5.8%.  The growth is expected to hold as 

residential and commercial activity combine to support growth in 2014 of 5.8% and 

another strong year of growth in 2015 (4.7%). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‐6.8%

‐2.3%

5.8%4.7%

‐8.0%

‐6.0%

‐4.0%

‐2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Ann

ual P

erce

nt Cha

nge

Con

stru

ction Em

ploy

men

t, Tho

usan

ds

OKC MSA Construction Employment

Percent Change, YOY OKC Construction Employment

Construction and manufacturing employment were hit hard in the Great Recession both nationally and locally. Average monthly construction payrolls contracted by 6.8 percent in 2009 and again by 2.3 percent in 2010. The construction sector has since rebounded and provided a source of strength in 2013, expanding at 5.8 percent. The growth is expected to hold as residential and commercial activity combine to support growth in 2014 of 5.8 percent and another strong year of growth in 2015 (4.7 percent).

As discussed previously, manufacturing activity bore much of the most severe blows of the Great Recession. In Oklahoma City, manufacturing employment contracted by 12.1 percent in 2009 and again by 4.6 percent in 2010. In reality, the recession exacerbated a declining trend that really began in 2000. Technology spurred a capital for labor substitution in the manufacturing sector allowing firms to produce more output (and often higher value output) with fewer workers. The employment gains in 2011 and 2012 were initially thought to be a rebound from the

recession-induced lows. But strength in 2013 (growth of 2.5 percent) offers hope of prolonged strength at home as the nation likewise looks hopefully toward a manufacturing revival.

Finding and training employees to work in the new technology driven manufacturing centers will be a challenge, but experienced and technologically-savvy workers should find opportunities as manufacturing payrolls grow by 1.8 percent in 2014 and 2.6 percent in 2015.

26

24  

As discussed previously, manufacturing activity bore much of the most severe blows of 

the great recession.  In Oklahoma City, manufacturing employment contracted by 12.1% 

in 2009 and again by 4.6% in 2010.  In reality, the recession exacerbated a declining trend 

that really began in 2000.  Technology spurred a capital for labor substitution in the 

manufacturing sector allowing firms to produce more output (and often higher value 

output) with fewer workers.  The employment gains in 2011 and 2012 were initially 

thought to be a rebound from the recession‐induced lows.  But strength in 2013 (growth 

of 2.5%) offers hope of prolonged strength at home as the nation likewise looks hopefully 

towards a manufacturing revival.  Finding and training employees to work in the new 

technology driven manufacturing centers will be a challenge, but experienced and 

technologically savvy workers should find opportunities as manufacturing payrolls grow 

by 1.8% in 2014 and 2.6% in 2015. 

 

 

 

‐12.1%

‐4.6%

2.5%1.8%

2.6%

‐15.0%

‐10.0%

‐5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Ann

ual P

erce

nt Cha

nge

Man

ufac

turing Employ

men

t, Tho

usan

ds

OKC MSA Manufacturing Employment

Percent Change, YOY OKC Manufacturing Employment

Oklahoma City’s trade, transportation and utilities sector has grown aggressively post-recession, driven by strength in retail trade. Retail trade accounts for more than 60 percent of the sector and expanded by 6.8 percent last year, driving growth in the sector as a whole up 4.5 percent. Retail strength is expected to moderate only somewhat in 2014, but will be joined by modest gains in wholesale, transportation and utilities employment. The combined result is expected to produce 3.6 percent gains in average monthly payrolls in 2014 followed by gains of 3.4 percent in 2015.

27

25  

Oklahoma City’s trade, transportation, and utilities sector has grown aggressively post‐ 

recession, driven by strength in retail trade.  Retail trade accounts for over 60% of the 

sector and expanded by 6.8% last year, driving growth in the sector as a whole up 4.5%.  

Retail strength is expected to moderate only somewhat in 2014, but will be joined by 

modest gains wholesale, transportation, and utilities employment.  The combined result 

is expected to produce 3.6% gains in average monthly payrolls in 2014 followed by gains of 

3.4% in 2015. 

 

 

4.5%3.6%

3.4%

‐4.0%

‐3.0%

‐2.0%

‐1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

85.0

90.0

95.0

100.0

105.0

110.0

115.0

120.0

Ann

ual P

erce

nt Cha

nge

OKC TTU

 Employ

men

t, Tho

usan

ds

OKC MSA Trade, Transport, & Utilities Employment

Percent Change, YOY OKC Trade, Transport & Utilties

Economic activity is increasingly concentrated in dense, amenity-rich, urban centers. Often these urban centers are interconnected metropolitan areas with commerce flowing freely across a developed physical infrastructure connecting each locale. These interconnected metropolitan areas are referred to by geographers as a megalopolis.

A handful of such regions are well-defined and easily recognized, like the Boston to Washington D.C. corridor. Oklahoma City is located favorably along one such megalopolis, the I-35 corridor. The I-35 corridor (as commonly defined) ranges from San Antonio, Texas, to Kansas City, Kan.

As people and economic activity migrate south and west and to dense, amenity-rich urban centers, the I-35 corridor has been the beneficiary. The table on the

28

next page reports annual growth rates in nonfarm employment for selected cities from 1991-2012. The table includes large and small cities, as well as cities located directly on the corridor and some removed from the corridor. Large cities on the heart of the corridor and furthest south have grown fastest. Austin, San Antonio, Houston and Dallas all averaged growth of 1.9 percent or better. Amazingly, Austin has grown at an average annual rate of 3.5 percent, a pace that would double nonfarm payrolls every 20 years.

A second tier of beneficiaries are large cities located directly on the corridor. Oklahoma City and Kansas City averaged growth rates of 1.4 percent and 1.2 percent respectively over the period. Tulsa, one

layer removed from the corridor, averaged 1.1 percent growth per year as did Ft. Smith, a smaller metro area not located on and not part of the corridor. Two other smaller metros, Wichita, Kan., and Sherman-Dennison, Texas, averaged 0.7 percent and

0.6 percent.

More recently, the “corridor effect” seems to be more pronounced. Growth appears to be filling in along the corridor and moving north, with Oklahoma City growing at an average rate of 2.3 percent in the 2011-2012 period. Oklahoma City’s

nonfarm growth in the last two years is greater than that of San Antonio and only slightly less than that of Dallas. Oklahoma City’s growth over the two years outpaced Kansas City and significantly outpaced Tulsa. Ft. Smith has struggled to grow

26  

Economic activity is increasingly concentrated in dense, amenity‐rich, urban centers.  

Often these urban centers are interconnected metropolitan areas with commerce flowing 

freely across a developed physical infrastructure connecting each locale.  These 

interconnected metropolitan areas are referred to by geographers as a megalopolis.  A 

handful of such regions are well‐defined and easily recognized, like the Boston to 

Washington D.C. corridor.  Oklahoma City is located favorably along one such 

megalopolis, the I‐35 corridor.  The I‐35 corridor (as commonly defined) ranges from San 

Antonio, TX to Kansas City, KS.  As people and economic activity migrate south and west 

and to dense, amenity‐rich urban centers, the I‐35 corridor has been the beneficiary.  The 

table below reports annual growth rates in nonfarm employment for selected cities from 

1991‐2012. 

The table includes large and small cities, 

as well as cities located directly on the 

corridor and some removed from the 

corridor.  Large cities on the heart of the 

corridor and furthest south have grown 

fastest.  Austin, San Antonio, Houston, 

and Dallas all averaged growth of 1.9% or 

better.  Amazingly, Austin has grown at 

an average annual rate of 3.5%, a pace that would double nonfarm payrolls every 20 years! 

A second tier of beneficiaries are large cities located directly on the corridor.  Oklahoma 

City and Kansas City averaged growth rates of 1.4% and 1.2% respectively over the period.  

Tulsa, one layer removed from the corridor averaged 1.1% growth per year as did Ft. 

Smith, a smaller metro area not located on and not part of the corridor.  Two other 

smaller metros, Wichita, KS and Sherman‐Dennison, TX averaged 0.7% and 0.6%.  More 

recently, the “corridor effect” seems to be more pronounced.  Growth appears to be filling 

in along the corridor and moving north, with Oklahoma City growing at an average rate 

of 2.3% in the 2011‐2012 period.  Oklahoma City’s nonfarm growth in the last two years is 

Average Annual Growth: Nonfarm Employment City  1991‐2012  2011‐2012 Austin  3.5%  3.4% San Antonio  2.2%  2.0% Houston  2.0%  3.2% Dallas  1.9%  2.7% OKC  1.4%  2.3% Kansas City  1.2%  2.0% Tulsa  1.1%  1.1% Ft. Smith  1.1%  ‐0.5% Wichita  0.7%  0.4% Sherman‐Dennison  0.6%  0.7% 

I-35 Corridor Area Select Cities*

*These select cities are shown only due to their relative proximity to I-35 corridor.

29

against the push of economic geography and lost jobs in this period. Wichita and Sherman-Dennison, while located on the corridor, cannot grow at the pace of the larger metros to their north and south, averaging 0.4 percent and 0.7 percent.

We expect the influence of geography to be more pronounced in the decades ahead. The combination of economic geography, the technology hub that is developing in

the energy industry, and the success of the city in proactively developing the urban core are (we believe) leading Oklahoma City through an economic transformation. A transformation of this nature will pose challenges including development of appropriate infrastructure and plans for providing essential city services. The challenges notwithstanding, the looming transformation will present economic opportunities to many Oklahomans.

The success of other cities will hinge on two keys: density and connectivity. While other cities may take a different path than Oklahoma City’s MAPS projects, development of the core as a driver of density will be essential to development.

This will be true for metro areas both large and small. Once developed, the city’s dense core of economic activity needs to be connected – physically, virtually, and institutionally – to the core of peer cities on the corridor. The same will be true within a metro area with the economic success of suburban areas (Edmond, Moore, Yukon, Midwest City, etc.) tied to the ability of each to create their own dense core of economic activity and connect to the heart of activity in Oklahoma City. The need to connect will be particularly important for cities like Tulsa that are a layer removed from the corridor’s I-35 infrastructure.

While the immediate outlook is bright, the real excitement may be yet to come as Oklahoma City and the I-35 corridor rise to national economic prominence. Oklahoma City’s continued success rests in its ability to further develop an amenity-rich urban core than invites a density of economic activity and connects to surrounding economies, allowing a free flow of commerce, ideas and creative innovation.

30

28 

 

U.S. E

conom

ic O

utlook

: Primary Ec

onom

ic In

dica

tors 

Key U

.S. E

conom

ic Variables / Yea

r 20

06 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Real Gross D

omestic Prod

uct ‐ Ann

ual L

evel 

13,444

.6   

  13,68

5.3  

  13,64

5.5  

 13,263

.2  

 13,595

.7  

13,846

.8  

14,231.6  

14,466

.9  

14,859.9  

 15,345.2  

 15,855.3  

Real Gross D

omestic Prod

uct G

rowth 

2.7 

1.8 

‐0.3 

‐2.8 

2.5 

1.8 

2.8 

2.1 

3.1 

3.3 

3.4 

Major com

pone

nts of rea

l GDP: 

    

    

    

    

    

  Pe

rson

al Con

sumption Ex

pend

itures, Y

OY Growth 

3.3 

1.5 

‐2.0 

‐0.1 

3.1 

2.0 

2.0 

2.1 

3.5 

3.1 

3.0 

Non

reside

ntial F

ixed In

vestmen

t, YO

Y Growth 

6.9 

7.1 

‐8.9 

‐12.2 

8.1 

8.6 

5.0 

0.8 

4.1 

3.8 

4.7 

Reside

ntial Inv

estm

ent, YO

Y Growth 

‐15.3 

‐21.3 

‐24.3 

‐10.8 

‐5.2 

5.6 

15.5 

13.4 

21.9 

14.5 

7.0 

Inventory Cha

nge (Billions $ 200

5) 

65.9 

32.8 

‐31.0 

‐135.9 

53.6 

31.0 

53.1 

55.8 

38.3 

45.5 

57.5 

Gov

ernm

ent C

onsu

mption, YOY Growth 

2.1 

1.8 

3.3 

2.3 

‐1.1 

‐3.3 

‐1.1 

‐1.6 

0.1 

0.2 

0.4 

Employ

men

t and In

dustrial Activity 

    

    

    

    

    

  Private Hou

sing Starts (SAAR, Tho

usan

ds of U

nits) 

1812 

1342 

900 

554 

586 

612 

783 

920 

1157 

1508 

1639 

Ligh

t Veh

icle Sales (M

illions of U

nits) 

16.5 

16.1 

13.2 

10.4 

11.6 

12.7 

14.4 

15.5 

16.4 

16.9 

17.0 

Man

ufacturing Cap

acity Utiliz

ation Ra

tes 

78.4 

78.6 

74.5 

65.7 

71.3 

74.0 

75.8 

76.1 

76.8 

78.5 

79.8 

Non

farm Payroll Em

ploy

men

t (Mon

thly Average

, Millions

) 136.1 

137.6 

136.8 

130.9 

129.9 

131.5 

133.7 

135.9 

138.3 

141.2 

144.1 

Une

mploy

men

t Rate (M

onthly Average

) 4.6 

4.6 

5.8 

9.3 

9.6 

8.9 

8.1 

7.5 

6.9 

6.4 

5.9 

Price

s, Pro

ductivity, and Cos

ts 

    

    

    

    

    

  Con

sumer Price In

dex (A

ll Item

s) 

2.0 

4.0 

1.6 

1.5 

1.2 

3.3 

1.9 

1.3 

1.6 

1.8 

2.0 

Core Con

sumer Price In

dex (Ex. Foo

d & Ene

rgy) 

2.7 

2.3 

2.0 

1.7 

0.6 

2.2 

1.9 

1.7 

1.9 

2.0 

2.2 

Com

pens

ation pe

r Hou

r, YOY Growth 

4.1 

3.9 

3.0 

1.2 

1.6 

0.9 

5.3 

0.1 

2.8 

3.3 

3.4 

Outpu

t per H

our (YOY Growth) 

0.9 

2.4 

‐0.4 

5.5 

1.9 

0.4 

0.9 

0.9 

1.5 

1.6 

1.8 

Price of W

TI Crude (M

onthly Average $/B

arrel) 

66.10 

72.36 

99.57 

61.69 

79.43 

95.08 

94.20 

97.72 

93.43 

88.13 

84.49 

Price of Brent Crude (M

onthly Average $/B

arrel) 

65.13 

72.51 

97.17 

61.55 

79.49 

111.32 

111.74 

107.96 

103.34 

98.84 

94.72 

Inco

me, In

tere

st Rates

, and th

e Deficit 

    

    

    

    

    

  Fe

deral F

unds Rate 

4.96 

5.02 

1.93 

0.16 

0.17 

0.10 

0.14 

0.12 

0.16 

0.35 

1.73 

10‐Year T

reasury Yield 

4.79 

4.63 

3.67 

3.26 

3.21 

2.79 

1.80 

2.33 

2.85 

3.44 

4.17 

Real D

ispo

sable Pe

rson

al In

come 

4.1 

1.2 

1.1 

‐0.6 

2.5 

1.4 

3.6 

0.4 

2.4 

3.0 

3.5 

U.S. P

ersona

l Savings Rate 

3.3 

3.0 

5.0 

6.1 

5.6 

5.7 

5.6 

4.5 

4.3 

3.9 

4.2 

Unifie

d Fe

deral B

udge

t Surplus

, Fiscal Y

ear 

‐248

.2 

‐161.5 

‐454

.8 

‐1415.7 

‐129

4.2 

‐129

6.8 

‐108

9.2 

‐680

.3 

‐615.9 

‐555.3 

‐534.5 

Sour

ce: S

teve

n C. A

gee Ec

onom

ic Res

earch an

d Po

licy In

stitut

e; M

acro

advise

rs M

AUS  

     

31

29 

 

Oklah

oma Ec

onom

ic O

utlook

: Primary State Ec

onom

ic In

dica

tors 

Variable / Date 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

OK Persona

l Inc

ome 

121,2

86,643 

125,88

8,63

6 138,08

4,90

0 128,76

0,775 

135,06

2,58

5 147,42

9,56

5 154,95

8,271 

161,7

29,947 

172,614,373 

181,469,490 

Ann

ual P

ercent Cha

nge 

9.7% 

3.8%

 9.7% 

‐6.8% 

4.9%

 9.2% 

5.1% 

4.4%

 6.7% 

5.1% 

OK Pop

ulation 

3,59

4,09

0 3,63

4,34

9 3,66

8,97

6 3,717,572 

3,759,48

2 3,78

4,163 

3,814,82

0 3,85

6,190 

3,899,571 

3,939,825 

Ann

ual P

ercent Cha

nge 

1.3% 

1.1% 

1.0% 

1.3% 

1.1% 

0.7% 

0.8%

 1.1% 

1.1% 

1.0% 

OK Per Cap

ita Pe

rson

al In

come 

33,746 

34,639 

37,636 

34,636 

35,926 

38,960 

40,620 

41,940 

44,265 

46,060 

Ann

ual P

ercent Cha

nge 

8.3% 

2.6%

 8.7% 

‐8.0% 

3.7% 

8.4%

 4.3% 

3.3% 

5.5% 

4.1% 

OK Real G

ross D

omestic Prod

uct 

126,88

8 129,79

5 134,40

7 132,05

9 132,917 

135,45

4 138,29

6 141,3

39 

145,404 

148,748 

Ann

ual P

ercent Cha

nge 

5.3% 

2.3% 

3.6%

 ‐1.7% 

0.6%

 1.9

% 

2.1% 

2.2% 

2.9%

 2.3% 

OK Total Employ

men

t, BE

A 

2,09

8,65

2 2,154,574 

2,193,65

1 2,146,44

7 2,135,45

3 2,166,28

2 2,214,017 

2,255,86

2 2,323,078 

2,379,529 

Ann

ual P

ercent Cha

nge 

2.8%

 2.7% 

1.8% 

‐2.2% 

‐0.5% 

1.4% 

2.2% 

1.9% 

3.0%

 2.4%

 

OK W

age an

d Sa

lary Employ

men

t 1,6

18,728 

1,648

,723 

1,678

,070 

1,625,263 

1,607

,639 

1,627,622 

1,663

,796 

1,705

,351 

1,741,264 

1,772,086 

Ann

ual P

ercent Cha

nge 

2.7% 

1.9% 

1.8% 

‐3.1%

 ‐1.1%

 1.2

% 

2.2% 

2.5% 

2.1% 

1.8% 

OK Proprietor's Employ

men

t 47

9,92

4 50

5,85

1 515,58

1 521,184 

527,814 

538,66

0 550,221 

568,02

9 581,814 

594,904 

Ann

ual P

ercent Cha

nge 

3.1% 

5.4%

 1.9

% 

1.1% 

1.3% 

2.1% 

2.1% 

3.2% 

2.4%

 2.2% 

Source: S

teve

n C. A

gee Ec

onom

ic Research an

d Po

licy Institute, M

eind

ers Scho

ol of B

usiness 

 

 

 

Var

iable / Y

ear

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

OKC Persona

l Inc

ome

44,19

0,60

945

,206

,671

49,679

,545

46,093

,925

48,19

4,76

153,223,054

56,19

7,416

59,382

,967

62,684

,866

66,594

,333

11.1%

2.3%

9.9%

‐7.2%

4.6%

10.4%

5.6%

5.7%

5.6%

6.2%

OKC Pop

ulation

1,182

,668

1,199

,665

1,216,645

1,237,780

1,257,927

1,275,821

1,296

,565

1,318,304

1,338

,657

1,359

,869

1.8%

1.4%

1.4%

1.7%

1.6%

1.4%

1.6%

1.7%

1.5%

1.6%

OKC Per Cap

ita Pe

rson

al Inc

ome

37,365

37,683

40,833

37,239

38,313

41,717

43,343

45,045

46,827

48,971

9.1%

0.9%

8.4%

‐8.8%

2.9%

8.9%

3.9%

3.9%

4.0%

4.6%

OKC Real G

DP

49,763

50,532

52,297

52,057

52,607

53,988

55,16

656

,534

58,472

60,374

6.4%

1.5%

3.5%

‐0.5%

1.1%

2.6%

2.2%

2.5%

3.4%

3.3%

Oklah

oma City MSA Pop

ulation, In

come, and G

ross M

etro Pro

duct

Source: S

teven C. A

gee Ec

onom

ic Research an

d Po

licy Institute

32

30 

   Oklah

oma State Em

ploy

men

t and Earnin

gs Ann

ual T

able 

Variable / Ye

ar 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

OK N

onfarm 

1,487

.1 1,5

25.2 

1,565

.7 

1,594

.9 

1,618.4 

1,567

.6 

1,556

.0 

1,577.5 

1,607

.6 

1,623.8 

1,650.4 

1,680.5 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

1.1% 

2.6%

 2.7% 

1.9% 

1.5% 

‐3.1%

 ‐0.7% 

1.4% 

1.9% 

1.0% 

1.6% 

1.8% 

OK Private 

1,176

.8 

1,204

.3 

1,236

.1 1,2

61.0 

1,281.2 

1,219.3 

1,207

.5 

1,233.7 

1,260

.5 

1,274

.7 

1,299.9 

1,326.2 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

0.9%

 2.3% 

2.6%

 2.0%

 1.6

% 

‐4.8% 

‐1.0% 

2.2% 

2.2% 

1.1% 

2.0%

 2.0%

 

OK M

ining 

32.5 

36.0 

42.0 

46.6 

52.0 

43.4 

43.8 

51.5 

57.6 

54.9 

54.9 

56.9 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

9.2% 

10.6% 

16.6% 

11.2% 

11.4%

 ‐16.4%

 0.7% 

17.8% 

11.9%

 ‐4.8% 

0.1% 

3.6%

 

OK Con

struction 

62.8 

66.1 

70.3 

71.3 

75.6 

68.9 

67.0 

68.3 

69.1 

70.7 

74.9 

78.7 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

‐1.2% 

5.2% 

6.3% 

1.5% 

5.9%

 ‐8.8% 

‐2.7% 

1.9% 

1.2% 

2.3% 

6.0%

 5.1% 

OK M

anufacturing 

142.3 

144.8 

149.2 

151.3 

149.8 

129.3 

123.3 

129.8 

134.7 

136.0 

138.8 

141.6 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

‐0.6% 

1.8% 

3.0%

 1.4

% 

‐1.0% 

‐13.7% 

‐4.6% 

5.3% 

3.8%

 1.0

% 

2.0%

 2.1% 

OK Trade

, Trans

portation, & U

tilities 

274.9 

279.3 

283.6 

287.5 

289.3 

281.3 

277.3 

282.7 

289.4 

293.6 

298.7 

305.2 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

‐0.7% 

1.6% 

1.5% 

1.4% 

0.6%

 ‐2.8% 

‐1.4% 

1.9% 

2.4%

 1.5

% 

1.7% 

2.2% 

OK W

holesale 

54.8 

56.5 

58.4 

59.4 

59.3 

56.2 

55.6 

57.9 

60.7 

62.2 

62.5 

64.4 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

0.0%

 3.3% 

3.2% 

1.7% 

‐0.1%

 ‐5.2% 

‐1.0% 

4.0%

 4.9%

 2.5% 

0.5% 

3.0%

 

OK Retail 

168.2 

169.8 

170.1 

171.2 

173.0 

169.9 

168.6 

170.5 

172.6 

177.9 

184.0 

189.2 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

‐0.7% 

0.9%

 0.2% 

0.7% 

1.0% 

‐1.8% 

‐0.7% 

1.1% 

1.2% 

3.1% 

3.4%

 2.8%

 

OK Trans

portation & U

tilities 

51.9 

53.0 

55.2 

56.9 

57.1 

55.3 

53.0 

54.3 

56.1 

53.5 

52.2 

51.7 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

‐1.3% 

2.1% 

4.1% 

3.1% 

0.3% 

‐3.2% 

‐4.1%

 2.4%

 3.4%

 ‐4.8% 

‐2.4% 

‐0.9% 

OK In

form

ation 

31.0 

30.2 

29.8 

28.8 

28.7 

26.8 

24.3 

23.0 

22.5 

22.1 

22.7 

23.1 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

‐4.1%

 ‐2.6% 

‐1.4% 

‐3.2% 

‐0.4% 

‐6.6% 

‐9.5% 

‐5.0% 

‐2.2% 

‐2.1%

 2.8%

 1.7% 

OK Finan

ce 

83.9 

83.1 

83.4 

82.9 

83.2 

81.5 

79.9 

79.4 

79.9 

79.9 

80.1 

80.3 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

0.9%

 ‐0.9% 

0.3% 

‐0.5% 

0.3% 

‐2.0% 

‐1.9% 

‐0.6% 

0.6%

 0.0%

 0.4%

 0.2% 

OK Professiona

l & Bus

iness Se

rvices 

162.8 

170.4 

175.8 

181.6 

183.4 

167.9 

170.7 

174.3 

177.1 

181.4 

187.1 

190.8 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

3.5% 

4.7% 

3.1% 

3.3% 

1.0% 

‐8.5% 

1.7% 

2.1% 

1.6% 

2.5% 

3.2% 

2.0%

 

OK Professiona

l & Scien

tific Services 

57.6 

59.2 

61.2 

63.4 

64.9 

62.9 

63.5 

64.3 

65.6 

68.2 

70.9 

72.8 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

1.1% 

2.6%

 3.5% 

3.4%

 2.4%

 ‐3.0% 

0.9%

 1.3

% 

2.0%

 3.9%

 3.9%

 2.6%

 

OK M

anag

emen

t 12.6 

12.5 

12.7 

13.4 

14.4 

14.5 

14.6 

15.2 

16.0 

16.4 

17.1 

17.7 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

2.4%

 ‐0.7% 

1.5% 

5.5% 

7.1% 

0.6%

 0.7% 

4.5% 

4.8%

 2.5% 

4.5% 

3.7% 

OK Adm

inistrative & Sup

port Services 

92.5 

98.8 

101.8 

104.8 

104.1 

90.5 

92.6 

94.7 

95.5 

96.8 

99.1 

100.3 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

5.3% 

6.7% 

3.1% 

2.9%

 ‐0.6% 

‐13.1% 

2.3% 

2.3% 

0.8%

 1.4

% 

2.4%

 1.2% 

Source: S

teve

n C. A

gee Ec

onom

ic Research an

d Po

licy Institute 

 

33

31 

   Oklah

oma State Em

ploy

men

t and Earnin

gs Ann

ual T

able, C

ontinu

ed 

Variable / Ye

ar 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

OK Edu

cation and H

ealth 

196.4 

200.8 

204.8 

210.1 

214.8 

218.6 

221.7 

223.0 

224.2 

225.2 

227.9 

231.2 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

1.9% 

2.2% 

2.0%

 2.6%

 2.2% 

1.8% 

1.4% 

0.6%

 0.5% 

0.5% 

1.2% 

1.4% 

OK Edu

cation  

15.8 

16.8 

16.9 

17.0 

17.4 

18.1 

18.4 

19.0 

19.4 

19.6 

20.0 

20.3 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

7.7% 

6.6%

 0.9%

 0.3% 

2.5% 

4.1% 

1.5% 

3.3% 

1.9% 

1.2% 

2.3% 

1.1% 

OK H

ealth Se

rvices 

180.6 

184.0 

187.9 

193.1 

197.3 

200.4 

203.3 

204.0 

204.8 

205.6 

207.9 

210.9 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

1.4% 

1.8% 

2.1% 

2.8%

 2.2% 

1.6% 

1.4% 

0.3% 

0.4%

 0.4%

 1.1% 

1.4% 

OK Leisu

re and H

ospitality 

129.1 

132.4 

135.6 

137.8 

141.0 

140.0 

139.0 

142.9 

147.5 

154.2 

157.0 

160.0 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

1.9% 

2.6%

 2.4%

 1.6

% 

2.3% 

‐0.7% 

‐0.7% 

2.8%

 3.2% 

4.5% 

1.8% 

1.9% 

OK Arts 

13.6 

13.9 

14.2 

14.6 

15.6 

14.4 

14.3 

14.1 

14.3 

15.2 

15.7 

16.0 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

2.2% 

2.3% 

1.5% 

3.2% 

7.1% 

‐8.0% 

‐0.7% 

‐1.3% 

1.1% 

7.0%

 2.8%

 1.8

% 

OK Accom

mod

ation 

115.5 

118.5 

121.4 

123.2 

125.4 

125.6 

124.7 

128.8 

133.2 

138.9 

141.3 

144.0 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

1.9% 

2.6%

 2.5% 

1.5% 

1.8% 

0.2% 

‐0.7% 

3.3% 

3.4%

 4.3% 

1.7% 

1.9% 

OK O

ther Services 

61.0 

61.1 

61.7 

63.1 

63.5 

61.6 

60.6 

58.8 

58.6 

56.9 

57.7 

58.4 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

‐0.2% 

0.1% 

1.0% 

2.3% 

0.6%

 ‐3.0% 

‐1.7% 

‐2.9% 

‐0.4% 

‐2.9% 

1.5% 

1.1% 

OK Gov

ernm

ent 

310.4 

320.9 

329.6 

333.9 

337.3 

348.3 

348.5 

343.9 

347.1 

349.1 

353.7 

359.1 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

2.0%

 3.4%

 2.7% 

1.3% 

1.0% 

3.3% 

0.1% 

‐1.3% 

0.9%

 0.6%

 1.3

% 

1.5% 

OK Fed

eral 

46.1 

45.9 

45.8 

45.3 

45.2 

46.6 

50.4 

49.1 

48.4 

48.2 

47.9 

48.2 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

0.0%

 ‐0.4% 

‐0.3% 

‐0.9% 

‐0.2% 

3.0%

 8.3% 

‐2.6% 

‐1.5% 

‐0.5% 

‐0.5% 

0.5% 

OK State 

81.1 

82.4 

83.4 

83.7 

84.1 

85.1 

83.8 

84.8 

86.4 

86.1 

86.5 

87.2 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

1.6% 

1.6% 

1.2% 

0.4%

 0.4%

 1.2

% 

‐1.5% 

1.2% 

1.9% 

‐0.4% 

0.4%

 0.8%

 OK Loc

al 

183.2 

192.7 

200.5 

204.8 

207.9 

216.7 

214.3 

209.9 

212.3 

214.8 

219.3 

223.8 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

2.7% 

5.2% 

4.1% 

2.1% 

1.5% 

4.2% 

‐1.1%

 ‐2.0% 

1.1% 

1.2% 

2.1% 

2.1% 

OK H

ouseho

ld U

nemploy

ed 

84,10

5 76

,851 

71,10

1 71,305 

65,18

8 117

,653 

122,40

5 105,377 

93,842 

95,836 

92,586 

83,12

0 Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

‐11.9

% 

‐8.6% 

‐7.5% 

0.3% 

‐8.6% 

80.5% 

4.0%

 ‐13.9%

 ‐10.9%

 2.1% 

‐3.4% 

‐10.2% 

OK H

ouseho

ld Employ

ed 

1,605

,641 

1,628

,655 

1,650

,070 

1,663

,632 

1,675,965 

1,648

,556 

1,657,099 

1,678

,953 

1,708

,797 

1,717,906 

1,715,279 

1,727,380 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

0.4%

 1.4

% 

1.3% 

0.8%

 0.7% 

‐1.6% 

0.5% 

1.3% 

1.8% 

0.5% 

‐0.2% 

0.7% 

OK Lab

or Force 

1,689

,745 

1,705

,507 

1,721,17

2 1,7

34,937 

1,741,15

3 1,7

66,208 

1,779

,504 

1,784

,329 

1,802

,639 

1,813,742 

1,807

,865 

1,810,501 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

‐0.3% 

0.9%

 0.9%

 0.8%

 0.4%

 1.4

% 

0.8%

 0.3% 

1.0% 

0.6%

 ‐0.3% 

0.1% 

OK Private Average W

eekly Ea

rnings 

$606

.64 

$617.97 

$633.79 

$681.89 

$720

.66 

$740

.78 

$742

.25 

$763

.62 

$786

.93 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

1.9% 

2.6%

 7.6%

 5.7% 

2.8%

 0.2% 

2.9%

 3.1% 

OK U

nemploy

men

t Rate 

4.98

% 

4.51% 

4.13% 

4.11%

 3.74

% 

6.66

% 

6.88

% 

5.91% 

5.21% 

5.28

% 

5.12% 

4.59

% 

Source: S

teve

n C. A

gee Ec

onom

ic Research an

d Po

licy Institute 

 

34

32 

 

Oklah

oma Ec

onom

ic O

utlook

: Employ

men

t and Earning

s Qua

rterly Tab

le 

Variable / Date 

2013Q3 

2013Q4 

2014Q1 

2014Q2 

2014Q3 

2014Q4 

2015Q1 

2015Q2 

2015Q3 

2015Q4 

Employ

men

t by Pr

imary Se

ctor 

    

    

    

    

    

OK N

onfarm 

1,615.7 

1,644

.1 1,627.9 

1,652.0 

1,648.2 

1,673.5 

1,657.1 

1,681.8 

1,678.7 

1,704.5 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

0.8%

 1.1% 

1.3% 

1.4% 

2.0%

 1.8% 

1.8% 

1.8% 

1.8% 

1.8% 

OK Private  

1,278

.2 

1,287

.4 

1,274.9 

1,300.6 

1,308.6 

1,315.4 

1,302.0 

1,327.1 

1,334.5 

1,341.3 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

0.9%

 1.3

% 

1.5% 

1.8% 

2.4%

 2.2% 

2.1% 

2.0%

 2.0%

 2.0%

 OK M

ining 

54.3 

54.2 

53.9 

54.4 

55.4 

55.9 

55.8 

56.5 

57.4 

57.8 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

‐8.3% 

‐5.1%

 ‐3.2% 

‐1.6% 

2.1% 

3.1% 

3.7% 

3.7% 

3.6%

 3.5% 

OK Con

struction 

70.4 

71.4 

70.8 

75.1 

76.7 

77.0 

75.4 

79.0 

80.2 

80.4 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

0.3% 

2.7% 

3.5% 

3.4%

 9.0%

 7.9%

 6.5% 

5.2% 

4.5% 

4.4%

 OK M

anufacturing 

136.4 

137.3 

137.0 

138.3 

139.5 

140.3 

140.0 

141.2 

142.3 

143.1 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

0.7% 

1.6% 

1.5% 

2.2% 

2.2% 

2.2% 

2.2% 

2.1% 

2.0%

 2.0%

 OK Trade

, Trans

portation, and U

tilities 

293.6 

297.1 

293.2 

297.9 

299.1 

304.4 

300.1 

304.5 

305.6 

310.8 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

1.5% 

1.0% 

0.9%

 1.6% 

1.9% 

2.5% 

2.4%

 2.2% 

2.2% 

2.1% 

OK W

holesale 

62.0 

61.9 

61.7 

62.6 

62.6 

63.2 

63.2 

64.3 

64.6 

65.4 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

2.2% 

‐0.7% 

‐0.5% 

‐0.3% 

0.9%

 2.0%

 2.4%

 2.7% 

3.2% 

3.5% 

OK Retail 

178.2 

182.4 

179.6 

183.0 

184.3 

189.0 

185.5 

188.4 

189.2 

193.6 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

3.5% 

3.7% 

3.0%

 3.6%

 3.4%

 3.6%

 3.3% 

3.0%

 2.7% 

2.4%

 OK Trans

port & U

tilities 

53.4 

52.8 

51.9 

52.2 

52.2 

52.3 

51.4 

51.7 

51.8 

51.8 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

‐5.4% 

‐5.7% 

‐4.1%

 ‐2.4% 

‐2.2% 

‐0.9% 

‐0.9% 

‐0.9% 

‐0.9% 

‐1.0% 

OK In

form

ation 

22.3 

22.5 

22.3 

22.7 

22.9 

22.9 

22.8 

23.1 

23.2 

23.3 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

‐1.3% 

1.2% 

3.2% 

3.5% 

2.5% 

1.9% 

1.9% 

1.8% 

1.6% 

1.6% 

OK Finan

ce 

80.1 

80.3 

79.7 

80.2 

80.4 

80.3 

79.8 

80.4 

80.6 

80.5 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

0.0%

 0.1% 

0.7% 

0.4%

 0.3% 

0.0%

 0.1% 

0.2% 

0.2% 

0.3% 

OK Professiona

l and Bus

iness Se

rvices 

183.3 

185.9 

183.0 

187.0 

188.8 

189.8 

186.7 

190.7 

192.4 

193.4 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

2.8%

 3.9%

 4.8%

 2.8%

 3.0%

 2.1% 

2.0%

 2.0%

 1.9% 

1.9% 

OK Professiona

l and Scien

tific 

67.7 

70.0 

71.0 

70.6 

70.3 

71.7 

72.8 

72.5 

72.1 

73.6 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

4.0%

 6.4%

 5.8%

 3.9%

 3.8%

 2.3% 

2.5% 

2.6%

 2.6%

 2.7% 

OK M

anag

emen

t 16.4 

16.7 

16.8 

17.0 

17.2 

17.4 

17.4 

17.7 

17.8 

18.0 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

1.7% 

3.7% 

4.8%

 4.5% 

4.9%

 4.0%

 3.6%

 3.9%

 3.7% 

3.5% 

OK Adm

inistrative an

d W

aste M

anag

emen

t 99

.2 

99.1 

95.2 

99.3 

101.3 

100.7 

96.5 

100.5 

102.4 

101.8 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

2.1% 

2.3% 

4.1% 

1.8% 

2.2% 

1.6% 

1.4% 

1.2% 

1.1% 

1.0% 

Source: S

teve

n C. A

gee Ec

onom

ic Research an

d Po

licy Institute, M

eind

ers Scho

ol of B

usiness 

   

35

33 

 

Oklah

oma Ec

onom

ic O

utlook

: Employ

men

t and Earning

s Qua

rterly Tab

le Con

tinu

ed 

Variable / Date 

2013Q3 

2013Q4 

2014Q1 

2014Q2 

2014Q3 

2014Q4 

2015Q1 

2015Q2 

2015Q3 

2015Q4 

Employ

men

t: Primary Se

ctor 

    

    

    

    

    

OK Edu

cation and H

ealth Services 

224.3 

227.3 

225.7 

227.6 

228.1 

230.3 

228.9 

230.8 

231.4 

233.5 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

0.4%

 0.7% 

0.4%

 1.4% 

1.7% 

1.3% 

1.4% 

1.4% 

1.4% 

1.4% 

OK Edu

cation 

18.8 

20.6 

20.0 

20.1 

19.3 

20.7 

20.2 

20.4 

19.5 

21.0 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

1.1% 

2.2% 

2.0%

 3.6%

 2.7% 

0.8%

 1.0% 

1.2% 

1.2% 

1.1% 

OK H

ealth Se

rvices 

205.6 

206.7 

205.7 

207.4 

208.9 

209.6 

208.7 

210.4 

211.9 

212.5 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

0.3% 

0.5% 

0.3% 

1.1% 

1.6% 

1.4% 

1.5% 

1.4% 

1.4% 

1.4% 

OK Leisu

re and H

ospitality 

156.7 

154.3 

152.1 

159.5 

159.6 

156.8 

154.9 

162.4 

162.7 

160.0 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

5.3% 

2.9%

 1.6% 

2.3% 

1.9% 

1.6% 

1.8% 

1.8% 

1.9% 

2.1% 

OK Arts an

d Re

creation 

16.6 

14.4 

14.1 

16.7 

16.9 

15.0 

14.6 

16.9 

17.2 

15.2 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

6.9%

 4.3% 

2.7% 

2.9%

 2.2% 

3.7% 

3.1% 

1.6% 

1.4% 

1.3% 

OK Accom

mod

ation 

140.1 

139.8 

138.0 

142.8 

142.7 

141.8 

140.3 

145.4 

145.5 

144.9 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

5.1% 

2.7% 

1.5% 

2.2% 

1.8% 

1.4% 

1.7% 

1.8% 

2.0%

 2.2% 

OK O

ther Services 

56.7 

57.2 

57.1 

58.1 

58.0 

57.7 

57.5 

58.7 

58.8 

58.5 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

‐4.7% 

‐0.3% 

0.8%

 2.3% 

2.3% 

0.8%

 0.8%

 0.9%

 1.3% 

1.5% 

OK Gov

ernm

ent 

337.5 

356.5 

353.6 

355.1 

343.9 

362.1 

359.2 

360.6 

349.3 

367.3 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

0.4%

 0.2% 

0.8%

 1.0% 

1.9% 

1.6% 

1.6% 

1.6% 

1.6% 

1.4% 

OK Fed

eral  

48.2 

47.7 

47.6 

48.2 

48.0 

48.0 

47.8 

48.4 

48.3 

48.2 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

‐0.3% 

‐1.5% 

‐1.7% 

‐0.5% 

‐0.3% 

0.5% 

0.4%

 0.5% 

0.5% 

0.4%

 OK State 

81.9 

89.2 

86.7 

86.3 

82.9 

90.0 

87.5 

87.0 

83.5 

90.6 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

‐0.3% 

‐1.3% 

‐0.1%

 ‐0.3% 

1.2% 

0.9%

 0.9%

 0.8%

 0.8%

 0.7% 

OK Loc

al 

207.4 

219.6 

219.3 

220.6 

213.0 

224.1 

223.9 

225.2 

217.5 

228.5 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

0.9%

 1.2

% 

1.7% 

1.9% 

2.7% 

2.0%

 2.1% 

2.1% 

2.1% 

2.0%

 Hou

seho

ld Employ

men

t and Ear

ning

s   

    

    

    

    

  OK H

ouseho

ld U

nemploy

men

t 93

,391 

99,569 

102,001 

93,244 

89,359 

85,737 

90,374 

83,213 

80,779 

78,113 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

‐0.7% 

9.3% 

5.9%

 ‐0.9% 

‐4.3% 

‐13.9%

 ‐11.4% 

‐10.8%

 ‐9.6% 

‐8.9% 

OK H

ouseho

ld Employ

men

t 1,7

21,749  

1,715,873  

1,695,614  

 1,721,107  

1,719,606  

1,724,786  

1,706,038  

 1,732,725  

 1,732,302  

 1,738,454  

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

0.5% 

‐0.5% 

‐0.6% 

‐0.4% 

‐0.1%

 0.5% 

0.6%

 0.7% 

0.7% 

0.8%

 OK Lab

or Force Total 

 1,815,140  

    1,815,44

2  

   1,797,615  

    1,814,351  

  1,808,966  

   1,810,524  

   1,796,413  

   1,815,939  

   1,813,081  

  1,816,568  

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

0.4%

 0.0%

 ‐0.2% 

‐0.5% 

‐0.3% 

‐0.3% 

‐0.1%

 0.1% 

0.2% 

0.3% 

OK Private Average W

eekly Ea

rnings 

744.7 

748.9 

752.4 

758.8 

768.8 

774.6 

775.6 

782.0 

792.1 

798.0 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

‐0.1%

 ‐0.3% 

2.6%

 2.3% 

3.2% 

3.4%

 3.1% 

3.1% 

3.0%

 3.0%

 OK U

nemploy

men

t Rate 

5.14% 

5.48

% 

5.67% 

5.14% 

4.94% 

4.74% 

5.03% 

4.58% 

4.46% 

4.30% 

Source: S

teve

n C. A

gee Ec

onom

ic Research an

d Po

licy Institute, M

eind

ers Scho

ol of B

usiness 

 

36

34 

 

Oklah

oma City M

SA Employ

men

t and Earning

s Ann

ual T

able 

Variable / Ye

ar 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

OKC N

onfarm 

547.0 

559.2 

568.9 

576.9 

584.4 

568.1 

566.9 

580.1 

593.4 

607.6 

623.1 

637.7 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

1.7% 

2.2% 

1.7% 

1.4% 

1.3% 

‐2.8% 

‐0.2% 

2.3% 

2.3% 

2.4%

 2.6%

 2.3% 

OKC Private 

434.8 

445.1 

453.2 

459.2 

465.9 

447.4 

444.9 

458.4 

471.1 

482.8 

497.5 

511.0 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

1.8% 

2.4%

 1.8

% 

1.3% 

1.4% 

‐4.0% 

‐0.6% 

3.0%

 2.8%

 2.5% 

3.0%

 2.7% 

OKC M

ining 

9.1 

10.5 

12.8 

14.4 

16.0 

13.5 

14.3 

17.0 

19.6 

19.7 

20.2 

21.0 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

14.1%

 16.3% 

21.2% 

13.2% 

11.0%

 ‐15.5% 

5.4%

 19.0% 

15.5% 

0.5% 

2.2% 

4.1% 

OKC Con

struction 

23.5 

25.2 

26.4 

26.6 

27.7 

25.8 

25.2 

25.9 

26.3 

27.8 

29.4 

30.8 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

3.6%

 7.2% 

4.9%

 0.5% 

4.1% 

‐6.8% 

‐2.3% 

2.6%

 1.5

% 

5.8%

 5.8%

 4.7% 

OKC M

anufacturing 

39.0 

38.6 

38.3 

37.0 

37.0 

32.5 

31.0 

32.9 

35.0 

35.8 

36.5 

37.4 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

0.5% 

‐0.9% 

‐0.9% 

‐3.2% 

‐0.1%

 ‐12.1% 

‐4.6% 

6.1% 

6.3% 

2.5% 

1.8% 

2.6%

 

OKC Trade

, Trans

port, & U

tilities 

96.8 

99.0 

100.3 

101.2 

100.7 

97.5 

97.2 

100.0 

102.5 

107.1 

111.0 

114.7 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

‐0.2% 

2.3% 

1.3% 

0.9%

 ‐0.5% 

‐3.2% 

‐0.3% 

2.9%

 2.5% 

4.5% 

3.6%

 3.4%

 

OKC W

holesale 

21.0 

21.7 

22.7 

22.9 

23.0 

21.9 

22.1 

23.4 

24.9 

25.4 

26.0 

26.8 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

‐0.2% 

3.4%

 4.7% 

0.8%

 0.1% 

‐4.5% 

0.9%

 6.0%

 6.2% 

2.2% 

2.2% 

2.9%

 

OKC Retail 

60.4 

61.4 

61.5 

62.0 

62.3 

60.2 

60.1 

61.2 

62.1 

66.3 

69.4 

72. 2 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

‐0.4% 

1.7% 

0.2% 

0.7% 

0.5% 

‐3.4% 

‐0.2% 

1.9% 

1.4% 

6.8%

 4.7% 

4.0%

 

OKC Trans

port & U

tilities 

15.4 

15.9 

16.0 

16.3 

15.5 

15.4 

15.0 

15.4 

15.6 

15.4 

15.6 

15.8 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

0.8%

 2.8%

 0.9%

 1.7

% 

‐5.0% 

‐0.2% 

‐2.6% 

2.1% 

1.4% 

‐1.1%

 1.5

% 

1.1% 

OKC In

form

ation 

13.6 

13.4 

13.2 

12.3 

12.2 

11.1 

9.6 

9.0 

8.9 

8.7 

8.9 

8.9 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

1.2% 

‐1.8% 

‐1.6% 

‐6.5% 

‐1.3% 

‐9.0% 

‐13.6%

 ‐5.8% 

‐1.3% 

‐1.8% 

1.7% 

0.3% 

OKC Finan

ce 

35.4 

34.5 

34.5 

34.4 

34.2 

33.2 

32.8 

32.6 

33.4 

34.0 

34.2 

34.5 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

1.4% 

‐2.5% 

‐0.1%

 ‐0.3% 

‐0.5% 

‐2.7% 

‐1.5% 

‐0.4% 

2.4%

 1.8

% 

0.7% 

0.9%

 

OKC Professiona

l & Bus

iness Se

rvices 

66.5 

70.0 

72.2 

74.8 

75.1 

69.9 

71.4 

74.0 

75.0 

75.8 

78.6 

81.0 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

2.7% 

5.2% 

3.2% 

3.7% 

0.3% 

‐6.8% 

2.1% 

3.7% 

1.3% 

1.1% 

3.6%

 3.1% 

OKC Professiona

l & Scien

tific 

24.8 

25.4 

26.7 

27.4 

28.2 

27.6 

28.3 

29.2 

30.0 

31.1 

31.5 

32.7 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

0.3% 

2.6%

 5.0%

 2.7% 

2.9%

 ‐2.1%

 2.7% 

3.0%

 2.9%

 3.6%

 1.5

% 

3.8%

 

OKC M

anag

emen

t 4.8 

4.8 

5.1 

5.9 

6.1 

5.5 

5.5 

6.0 

6.7 

6.9 

7.3 

7.7 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

5.5% 

1.1% 

5.5% 

15.9% 

3.5% 

‐9.2% 

‐0.6% 

8.9%

 11.7% 

2.7% 

6.3% 

5.4%

 

OKC Ad m

inistrative & Sup

port 

37.0 

39.8 

40.5 

41.6 

40.8 

36.8 

37.6 

38.9 

38.3 

37.9 

39.7 

40.6 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

3.9%

 7.4%

 1.8

% 

2.8%

 ‐1.9% 

‐9.7% 

2.1% 

3.4%

 ‐1.5% 

‐1.0% 

4.8%

 2.2% 

Source: S

teve

n C. A

gee Ec

onom

ic Research an

d Po

licy Institute 

 

37

35 

 

Oklah

oma City M

SA Employ

men

t and Earning

s Ann

ual T

able 

Variable / Ye

ar 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

OKC Edu

cation & H

ealth 

74.3 

75.7 

76.8 

79.3 

82.2 

82.9 

83.2 

84.4 

86.0 

86.8 

90.3 

92.1 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

3.1% 

1.8% 

1.6% 

3.2% 

3.6%

 0.9%

 0.4%

 1.4

% 

2.0%

 0.9%

 4.1% 

2.0%

 

OKC H

ealth Se

rvices 

67.7 

68.7 

70.1 

72.1 

74.6 

74.8 

74.8 

75.5 

76.8 

77.2 

79.1 

80.5 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

2.2% 

1.5% 

2.0%

 3.0%

 3.4%

 0.3% 

0.0%

 0.9%

 1.8

% 

0.5% 

2.5% 

1.7% 

OKC Leisu

re and H

ospitality 

53.4 

55.1 

55.8 

56.0 

57.1 

57.6 

57.6 

60.0 

61.8 

64.9 

66.4 

68.5 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

2.8%

 3.1% 

1.3% 

0.2% 

2.0%

 0.9%

 0.1% 

4.2% 

2.9%

 5.1% 

2.3% 

3.2% 

OKC O

ther Services 

23.2 

23.2 

23.0 

23.2 

23.9 

23.3 

22.7 

22.7 

22.7 

22.2 

22.1 

22.0 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

‐1.1%

 ‐0.1%

 ‐0.8% 

0.9%

 2.8%

 ‐2.2% 

‐2.7% 

0.0%

 ‐0.1%

 ‐2.1%

 ‐0.4% 

‐0.3% 

OKC Gov

ernm

ent 

112.2 

114.1 

115.7 

117.7 

118.5 

120.8 

122.0 

121.7 

122.3 

124.8 

125.6 

126.7 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

1.4% 

1.7% 

1.4% 

1.8% 

0.7% 

1.9% 

1.0% 

‐0.2% 

0.5% 

2.0%

 0.7% 

0.9%

 

OKC Fed

eral 

26.9 

26.6 

26.4 

26.3 

25.7 

26.2 

28.1 

28.4 

28.2 

28.1 

27.9 

27.9 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

0.2% 

‐1.4% 

‐0.5% 

‐0.5% 

‐2.2% 

1.8% 

7.4%

 0.9%

 ‐0.5% 

‐0.4% 

‐0.7% 

‐0.1%

 

OKC State 

39.1 

39.8 

40.3 

41.6 

41.6 

42.0 

41.7 

42.1 

42.4 

43.3 

43.7 

44.0 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

2.1% 

1.9% 

1.3% 

3.3% 

0.0%

 1.0

% 

‐0.8% 

0.8%

 0.8%

 2.2% 

0.8%

 0.7% 

OKC Loc

al 

46.2 

47.8 

48.9 

49.8 

51.2 

52.6 

52. 2 

51.3 

51.7 

53.3 

54.0 

54.8 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

1.5% 

3.3% 

2.5% 

1.8% 

2.8%

 2.7% 

‐0.7% 

‐1.7% 

0.7% 

3.1% 

1.3% 

1.5% 

OKC H

ouseho

ld U

nemploy

ed 

26,052 

25,16

5 23,379 

23,581 

21,14

7 35,366 

37,18

3 32,008 

28,775 

30,058 

29,812 

27,116 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

‐11.1% 

‐3.4% 

‐7.1%

 0.9%

 ‐10.3% 

67.2% 

5.1% 

‐13.9%

 ‐10.1% 

4.5% 

‐0.8% 

‐9.0% 

OKC H

ouseho

ld Employ

ed 

542,67

8 54

9,44

5 54

6,54

2 539,82

7 54

1,973 

534,86

7 54

0,46

8 553,120 

566,02

5 576,42

2 58

2,05

2 59

0,92

4 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

1.2% 

1.2% 

‐0.5% 

‐1.2% 

0.4%

 ‐1.3% 

1.0% 

2.3% 

2.3% 

1.8% 

1.0% 

1.5% 

OKC U

nemploy

men

t Rate 

4.6%

 4.4%

 4.1% 

4.2% 

3.8%

 6.2% 

6.4%

 5.5% 

4.8%

 5.0%

 4.9%

 4.4%

 

OKC Private Ave

rage W

eekly Ea

rnings 

$665

.87 

$650

.73 

$636

.48 

$683

.95 

$706

.17 

$778

.56 

$768

.61 

$792

.64 

$831.15 

Ann

ual G

rowth, P

ercent 

    

    

‐2.3% 

‐2.2% 

7.5% 

3.2% 

10.3% 

‐1.3% 

3.1% 

4.9%

 

Source: S

teve

n C. A

gee Ec

onom

ic Research an

d Po

licy Institute 

       

38

36 

 

Oklah

oma City MSA Eco

nom

ic O

utlook

: Employ

men

t and Earnin

gs Q

uarterly Tab

le 

Variable / Date 

2013Q3 

2013Q4 

2014Q1 

2014Q2 

2014Q3 

2014Q4 

2015Q1 

2015Q2 

2015Q3 

2015Q4 

Employ

men

t: Primary Se

ctor 

    

    

    

    

    

OKC N

onfarm 

605.6 

618.3 

613.2 

623.5 

621.9 

633.9 

628.3 

638.1 

636.5 

647.8 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

2.7% 

2.5% 

2.5% 

2.5% 

2.7% 

2.5% 

2.5% 

2.4%

 2.3% 

2.2% 

OKC Private 

484.7 

489.7 

486.9 

497.0 

501.0 

505.1 

501.1 

510.6 

514.4 

517.8 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

2.6%

 2.7% 

2.7% 

2.9%

 3.4%

 3.1% 

2.9%

 2.7% 

2.7% 

2.5% 

OKC M

ining 

19.6 

19.7 

20.0 

20.1 

20.2 

20.3 

20.5 

20.8 

21.2 

21.4 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

‐3.0% 

‐0.5% 

1.4% 

1.5% 

3.2% 

2.9%

 2.5% 

3.5% 

4.8%

 5.6%

 OKC Con

struction 

27.5 

28.3 

28.2 

29.4 

30.0 

29.9 

29.7 

30.8 

31.3 

31.2 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

3.8%

 6.7% 

4.6%

 3.5% 

9.2% 

5.8%

 5.3% 

4.8%

 4.3% 

4.2% 

OKC M

anufacturing 

35.9 

36.3 

35.9 

36.2 

36.7 

37.1 

36.8 

37.2 

37.7 

38.1 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

2.0%

 2.1% 

1.1% 

1.5% 

2.3% 

2.4%

 2.5% 

2.7% 

2.7% 

2.5% 

OKC Trade  T

rans

port  U

tilities 

107.6 

109.0 

108.1 

110.2 

111.5 

114.2 

112.8 

114.1 

115.0 

117.1 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

5.0%

 3.8%

 3.0%

 3.2% 

3.6%

 4.7% 

4.3% 

3.5% 

3.1% 

2.5% 

OKC W

holesale 

25.4 

25.6 

25.6 

25.9 

26.2 

26.4 

26.4 

26.6 

26.9 

27.1 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

1.5% 

0.9%

 1.3

% 

1.7% 

2.9%

 3.0%

 3.1% 

3.0%

 2.8%

 2.7% 

OKC Retail 

66.8 

68.0 

67.3 

68.7 

69.7 

71.9 

70.8 

71.7 

72.2 

74.0 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

8.1% 

6.5% 

4.6%

 4.1% 

4.3% 

5.7% 

5.2% 

4.3% 

3.7% 

3.0%

 OKC Trans

port and U

tilities 

15.4 

15.4 

15.2 

15.6 

15.7 

15.9 

15.6 

15.8 

15.8 

16.0 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

‐1.9% 

‐2.1%

 ‐0.9% 

1.5% 

1.9% 

3.5% 

2.6%

 0.9%

 0.8%

 0.2% 

OKC In

form

ation 

8.8 

8.8 

8.8 

8.9 

8.9 

8.9 

8.9 

8.9 

8.9 

8.9 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

‐1.5% 

0.4%

 1.5

% 

2.3% 

1.5% 

1.5% 

1.1% 

0.4%

 0.0%

 ‐0.4% 

OKC Finan

ce 

34.1 

34.3 

34.1 

34.2 

34.2 

34.4 

34.3 

34.5 

34.6 

34.7 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

2.3% 

2.1% 

1.6% 

0.7% 

0.3% 

0.3% 

0.6%

 0.9%

 1.0

% 

1.0% 

OKC Professiona

l and Bus

iness Sv

cs. 

76.5 

77.0 

76.4 

78.6 

79.6 

79.7 

79.0 

81.1 

82.0 

82.1 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

2.0%

 2.5% 

3.6%

 3.3% 

4.0%

 3.5% 

3.4%

 3.1% 

3.1% 

3.0%

 OKC Professiona

l and Scien

tific 

31.0 

30.9 

31.2 

31.5 

31.4 

32.0 

32.4 

32.6 

32.6 

33.2 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

4.5% 

1.2% 

1.1% 

‐0.1%

 1.5

% 

3.6%

 3.8%

 3.7% 

3.8%

 3.8%

 OKC M

anag

emen

t 6.9 

7.0 

7.1 

7.3 

7.4 

7.5 

7.5 

7.7 

7.8 

7.8 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

1.0% 

2.4%

 3.9%

 6.8%

 7.8%

 6.7% 

5.7% 

5.5% 

5.4%

 4.9%

 OKC Adm

in. & Sup

port Svcs  

38.7 

39.1 

38.1 

39.8 

40.7 

40.3 

39.1 

40.7 

41.6 

41.1 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

0.2% 

3.6%

 5.7% 

5.5% 

5.3% 

2.9%

 2.5% 

2.3% 

2.1% 

2.0%

 So

urce: S

teve

n C. A

gee Ec

onom

ic Research an

d Po

licy Cen

ter, M

eind

ers Sc

hool of B

usiness 

   

39

37 

 

Oklah

oma City MSA Eco

nom

ic O

utlook

: Employ

men

t and Earnin

gs Q

uarterly Tab

le Con

tinue

d Variable / Date 

2013Q3 

2013Q4 

2014Q1 

2014Q2 

2014Q3 

2014Q4 

2015Q1 

2015Q2 

2015Q3 

2015Q4 

Employ

men

t: Primary Se

ctor 

    

    

    

    

    

OKC Edu

cation and H

ealth 

85.9 

89.2 

89.3 

90.1 

90.3 

91.7 

91.2 

91.9 

92.0 

93.4 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

0.0%

 2.2% 

3.3% 

5.3% 

5.1% 

2.7% 

2.1% 

2.0%

 1.9

% 

1.9% 

OKC H

ealth 

77.1 

77.7 

78.1 

79.0 

79.5 

79.9 

79.8 

80.3 

80.7 

81.1 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

‐0.1%

 0.2% 

1.2% 

2.7% 

3.2% 

2.9%

 2.2% 

1.6% 

1.5% 

1.5% 

OKC Leisu

re and H

ospitality 

66.6 

65.0 

64.3 

67.0 

67.4 

66.8 

66.2 

69.1 

69.6 

69.0 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

7.2% 

3.3% 

3.0%

 2.2% 

1.2% 

2.8%

 3.0%

 3.2% 

3.3% 

3.2% 

OKC O

ther Svcs. 

22.2 

22.1 

21.9 

22.3 

22.1 

22.1 

21.9 

22.2 

22.1 

21.9 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

‐2.2% 

‐1.6% 

‐1.1%

 ‐0.1%

 ‐0.4% 

0.0%

 ‐0.2% 

‐0.4% 

‐0.2% 

‐0.6% 

OKC Gov

ernm

ent 

120.9 

128.6 

126.3 

126.5 

120.9 

128.8 

127.2 

127.6 

122.1 

130.0 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

3.2% 

1.8% 

1.8% 

0.9%

 0.0%

 0.1% 

0.7% 

0.9%

 1.0

% 

0.9%

 OKC Fed

eral 

28.1 

28.0 

27.8 

27.9 

27.9 

28.0 

27.8 

27.9 

27.9 

27.9 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

0.0%

 ‐1.2% 

‐1.3% 

‐0.8% 

‐0.7% 

0.1% 

‐0.2% 

0.0%

 ‐0.1%

 ‐0.2% 

OKC State 

41.6 

45.4 

43.8 

43.6 

42.2 

45.2 

44.0 

43.9 

42.6 

45.6 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

3.8%

 1.3

% 

1.7% 

0.7% 

1.4% 

‐0.4% 

0.3% 

0.7% 

0.9%

 0.9%

 OKC Loc

al 

51.2 

55.3 

54.7 

54.9 

50.8 

55.6 

55.5 

55.7 

51.6 

56.5 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

4.4%

 3.9%

 3.5% 

1.9% 

‐0.8% 

0.6%

 1.5

% 

1.5% 

1.6% 

1.5% 

Hou

seho

ld Employ

men

t and Ear

ning

s   

    

    

    

    

  OKC H

ouseho

ld U

nemploy

ed 

29,499

.0 

31,707

.0 

32,413.0 

30,022.6 

29,033.9 

27,778

.3 

29,088

.3 

27,15

0.2 

26,593

.9 

25,630

.9 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

2.2% 

12.0% 

9.8%

 1.8

% 

‐1.6% 

‐12.4%

 ‐10.3% 

‐9.6% 

‐8.4% 

‐7.7% 

OKC H

ouseho

ld Employ

ed 

578,737.7 

579,325.2 

572,721.0 

581,7

05.1 

584,371.1 

589,40

9.5 

582,102.4 

590,737.7 

593,06

0.0 

597,79

4.9 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

2.4%

 0.8%

 0.6%

 0.6%

 1.0

% 

1.7% 

1.6% 

1.6% 

1.5% 

1.4% 

OKC U

nemploy

men

t Rate 

4.8%

 5.2% 

5.4%

 4.9%

 4.7% 

4.5% 

4.8%

 4.4%

 4.3% 

4.1% 

OKC Private Avg

. Weekly Ea

rning 

777.2 

764.8 

767.5 

786.6 

806.5 

809.9 

813.4 

825.1 

841.4 

844.7 

Percen

t Cha

nge, YOY 

‐0.4% 

‐1.8% 

1.1% 

1.7% 

3.8%

 5.9%

 6.0%

 4.9%

 4.3% 

4.3% 

Source: S

teve

n C. A

gee Ec

onom

ic Research an

d Po

licy Institute, M

eind

ers Scho

ol of B

usiness 

 

123 Park Ave.Oklahoma City, OK 73102405.297.8900