(blue collar)+ CA San Diego AFSCME 127 2000 6/30/05 820236 68

CA San Diego IAFF 145 900 6/30/05 820237 65

CA San Diego AFT SDCCG1931 1250 6/30/02 830790 140

@ CA San Diego SEIU 2028 10000 6/22/06 820210 119

@ CA San Diego NEA STDA 7300 6/3

Within the five-state division, annual wages exceeded the national average in California, Washington ($38,242), and Alaska ($37,134). In the two remaining states, pay levels averaged $33,684 in Oregon and $32,671 in Hawaii. (See table 1.) Average wages in the Pacific division grew at the slower than average pace of 0.7 percent in 2002, largely due to California's low rate of growth. On the other hand, Hawaii (4.5 percent), Alaska (2.7 percent), Washington (2.1 percent), and Oregon (1.4 percent), all posted pay gains above or close to the nationwide average of 1.5 percent. Hawaii had the fastest rate of growth in the nation, while Alaska and Washington ranked 22nd and 33rd, respectively.

Eleven of the 15 states in the U.S. where the average wage level surpassed the national average fell along the east and west coasts. The five highest wage levels nationwide were in the District of Columbia ($57,914), Connecticut ($46,852), New York ($46,328), New Jersey ($45,182), and Massachusetts ($44,954). (See chart A.) The five states with the lowest annual wages in 2002 - Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Mississippi, and Arkansas - have posted the five lowest wage figures every year since 1988. Wages in those states ranged from $26,001 to $28,074.

Clean drop down menu
Tutorial - CSS Drop Down Menu Journal:
Menu 1 | Menu 2 | Menu 3 | Menu 4 | Menu 5 | Menu 6 | Menu 7 | Menu 8 that search engines just love to crawl.

Four-fifths of the 50 states and the District of Columbia had percentage increases in annual wages that exceeded the 1.5-percent growth rate for the nation. Hawaii (4.5 percent), followed by Nebraska (3.8 percent), and the District of Columbia and Rhode Island (3.6 percent each), had the fastest rates of gain in 2002. Eleven other states had percentage increases of 3 percent or more. After a five-year period without any state or jurisdiction experiencing a decrease in average annual wages, two states, New York (-0.9 percent) and Connecticut (-0.3 percent), reported a decline during 2002. In addition to California, other states with low or no wage growth included Texas (0.6 percent), Colorado (0.1 percent), and Massachusetts (0.0 percent).

Annual wage data are compiled from reports submitted by employers subject to State and federal Unemployment Insurance (UI) laws covering 128.2 million full- and part-time workers nationwide. Average annual wage is computed by dividing total annual payrolls of employees covered by UI programs by the average monthly number of these employees. (See Technical Note.) Wage differences among states reflect the varying composition of employment by occupation, industry, and hours of work, as well as other factors. Similarly, over-the-year wage changes may reflect shifts in these characteristics, as well as changes in the level of average wages.

Annual wages in California's private sector industries, which comprised 84.0 percent of the work force, declined 0.4 percent in 2002; nationally, wages in the private sector expanded by 1.1 percent. (See table 2.) Despite the decrease, annual wages in California averaged $40,777, $4,238 more than the national average of $36,539. Manufacturing was California's largest industry sector, accounting for 13.1 percent of all private sector employment, followed by retail trade with 12.7 percent. (See chart B.) Mining overtook finance and insurance in 2002 as the highest-paid industry in the State, averaging $73,529. Accommodation and food services, with a large percentage of part-time workers, was the lowest paid at $15,456. Only four of the 19 private sector industries in California had lower wage levels han in the United States as a whole - agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting; management of companies and enterprises; educational services; and other services.

Workers in the San Diego metropolitan area averaged $20.33 per hour during December 2003 , according to a new survey released by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Regional Commissioner Richard J. Holden reported that white-collar workers averaged $24.87 per hour and accounted for 57 percent of the workers in the area. Blue-collar employees averaged $16.49 per hour and represented 22 percent of the workforce, while the remainder worked in service occupations and earned $11.43 per hour. (See table 1.)

The National Compensation Survey (NCS) presents straight-time earnings for occupations in establishments employing 50 or more workers in private industry and State and local governments. The survey excludes agricultural establishments, private households, the self-employed, and the Federal Government. This NCS covered 506 firms representing 505,600 workers in the San Diego metropolitan area, which is comprised of San Diego County in California. Seventy-six percent of those represented worked in private industry.

HIGHLIGHTS OF SAN DIEGO, CA
NATIONAL COMPENSATION SURVEY DECEMBER 2003

In the San Diego metropolitan area, average hourly wages were published for 76 detailed occupations. (See table 1.) Among white-collar workers, electrical and electronic engineers averaged $34.07 per hour; licensed practical nurses, $20.43; and order clerks $14.59. Blue-collar occupations included electronic repairers, communications and industrial equipment earning $25.41; truck drivers at $17.47 per hour; and stock handlers and baggers at $8.80. In the service occupations, police and detectives, public service averaged $27.26 per hour; nursing aids, orderlies and attendants, $11.75; and waiters and waitresses, $6.83.

The NCS also provides broad coverage of selected occupational characteristics. (See tables 2 and 3.) For example, full-time employees in the San Diego area averaged $21.95 per hour, considerably more than part-time workers who earned $11.05. Union workers in blue-collar jobs averaged $20.53 per hour, notably higher than the $14.97 of their non-union counterparts. Union workers in service jobs also earned more than non-union employees, averaging $18.90 and $9.03, respectively.

This NCS is part of a statistical program that integrates three previously separate surveys of wages and benefits into one comprehensive compensation program increasing the amount of data available. Data provided by the NCS may be used by businesses for establishing pay plans, making decisions concerning plant relocation, and in collective bargaining negotiations. Individuals may use the data to help choose potential careers. Average rates of pay are also available for levels of work within an occupation based on knowledge, skill, independent judgment, supervision received and other factors required on the job.

1Data were collected between June 2003 and July 2004; the average reference month is December 2003.

Complete survey results are contained in the San Diego, CA National Compensation Survey December 2003 (Bulletin 3125-16). While supplies last, single copies of the bulletin are available from the San Francisco Information Office by calling 415-975-4350. In addition, data contained in the bulletin are available on the Internet in both text and PDF formats at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/. Select survey tables can also be obtained from the Bureau's fax-on-demand service in San Francisco by dialing 415-975-4567 and requesting document 9560.

For personal assistance or further information on the National Compensation Survey, as well as other Bureau programs, contact the San Francisco Information Office at 415-975-4350 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday - Friday.

Because the NCS is a sample survey, it is subject to sampling errors. Sampling errors occur because observations come only from a sample and not from an entire population. The sample used for this survey is one of a number of possible samples of the same size that could have been selected using the sample design. Estimates derived from the different samples would differ from each other. A measure of the variation among these differing estimates is the standard error. It can be used to measure the precision with which an estimate from a particular sample approximates the expected result of all possible samples. The chances are about 68 out of 100 that an estimate from the survey differs from a complete population figure by less than the standard error. The chances are about 90 out of 100 that this difference would be less than 1.6 times the standard error. The statements of comparisons appearing in this publication are significant at a 1.6 standard error level or better. This means that for differences cited, the estimated difference is greater than 1.6 times the standard error of the difference.