Manufacturing Establishment Growth by State

State-by-state manufacturing establishment data

An establishment is a single physical location where business is conducted. One company can operate several establishments. The annual average count therefore measures active sites, not parent companies, buildings under construction, or project announcements. Employment and annual pay give context. Location quotient shows how concentrated manufacturing employment is relative to the national economy, with 1.00 representing the national average.

Source: BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2024 annual averages, private ownership, NAICS 31-33. Annual change compares 2024 with 2023.

Where manufacturing locations grew fastest

Georgia led the country

Georgia's manufacturing establishment count rose 10.6% to 13,487. That equals 1,295 more locations than the prior year, the largest numeric increase among states in the QCEW table. Employment increased only 0.6%, which means the new-location count grew much faster than headcount. Some of that difference can reflect new small employers, reorganized reporting units, or establishments that opened late enough in the year to contribute relatively few annual-average jobs.

South Carolina and Idaho followed

South Carolina posted 9.4% growth, adding 803 establishments, while employment rose 0.3%. Idaho recorded 8.7% establishment growth and 0.7% employment growth. Both states have manufacturing employment concentration above the U.S. average, with location quotients of 1.41 and 1.06 respectively.

Kentucky, Maryland, and Arizona cleared 6%

Kentucky grew 6.7%, Maryland 6.1%, and Arizona 6.0%. These are different manufacturing markets. Kentucky has a 1.58 employment location quotient, while Maryland sits at 0.50 and Arizona at 0.73. Fast location growth does not require an already dense factory economy. In some states it may signal a developing supplier base rather than expansion of a mature cluster.

Where establishment counts contracted

Michigan had the steepest reported decline, down 6.2%, or 1,314 establishments. Nebraska fell 5.5%, Connecticut 4.2%, Colorado 4.0%, and Montana 3.7%. A falling establishment count does not automatically mean that the same percentage of factories closed. QCEW counts can move because ownership changes, establishments combine under reporting rules, firms change industry classifications, or businesses enter and leave the unemployment-insurance system.

The employment column helps test the story. Michigan employment declined 2.0%, less than its establishment count. Nebraska employment slipped only 0.4%. Colorado employment declined 1.5%. Those gaps suggest consolidation and reporting changes may sit alongside genuine contraction.

Nevada shows why the second metric matters. Establishments fell 1.9%, but employment rose 0.8%. Fewer reported locations can still support more jobs when surviving plants expand or the establishment mix shifts toward larger operations.

The largest state manufacturing footprints

California remained the largest manufacturing market by location count with 44,838 establishments and 1,247,594 employees. Texas followed with 30,070 establishments and 973,674 employees. Florida ranked third by sites at 26,843, even though its manufacturing employment location quotient was only 0.53. The state has many locations, but manufacturing accounts for a smaller share of its overall workforce than it does nationally.

Michigan, Illinois, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania each had more than 14,000 manufacturing establishments. Their profiles differ sharply. Michigan's manufacturing employment concentration was 1.66, Ohio's 1.50, Illinois' 1.16, Pennsylvania's 1.14, and New York's 0.52. A big raw count can reflect a large population rather than unusually heavy dependence on manufacturing.

Across the 49 states shown, the table contains 395,797 establishments and 12,719,499 jobs. These summed values exclude suppressed Hawaii and District of Columbia employment records and should not be treated as the official U.S. total. For a national total, use the BLS national NAICS 31-33 row directly.

How manufacturers and suppliers should use the data

Establishment growth is an early market-development signal. A state adding sites may be creating demand for machine tools, automation, maintenance, logistics, compliance services, recruiting, and industrial real estate. It can also increase competition for skilled labor. The number is most useful when paired with employment change, concentration, announced capital projects, and local permit data.

For sales territory planning, start with states that combine high establishment growth and a large existing base. Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and Alabama fit that description in 2024. A state with rapid percentage growth from a small base can still be worth pursuing, but the addressable account count will be smaller.

For site selection, don't read establishment growth as a scorecard. Rapid growth can validate supplier depth, but it may also tighten labor and industrial-property markets. A declining count may indicate weakness, or it may create available capacity and less hiring competition. Wages, utilities, logistics, taxes, workforce skills, and customer proximity still need separate analysis.

For economic development comparisons, use multi-year trends. One annual observation can be noisy. Download several QCEW annual tables with the same ownership and industry filters, then compare whether a state repeatedly gains locations. Consistent gains carry more weight than a one-year spike.

Methodology and limitations

We downloaded the BLS QCEW 2024 annual singlefile and selected state-level records for private ownership, NAICS 31-33 manufacturing, and size class zero, which represents all establishment sizes. The annual average establishment count is the mean of quarterly establishment counts. Annual percentage change is the BLS over-the-year field.

QCEW covers workers protected by state unemployment-insurance laws and federal civilian workers covered by Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees. It covers more than 95% of U.S. jobs, but this table intentionally uses private manufacturing only. Proprietors, some agricultural workers, unpaid family workers, and certain other categories are outside the program's coverage.

Location quotient compares a state's share of employment in manufacturing with manufacturing's share of national employment. A value above 1.00 means manufacturing is more concentrated in the state than in the country. It does not measure productivity, output, profitability, or growth.

BLS suppressed Hawaii's manufacturing employment and payroll values in this annual record, and the District of Columbia employment record was also suppressed. We did not replace suppressed values with estimates. Puerto Rico appears in the source file but is not included because this report compares the 50 states.

Cite this report

Sources

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2024 annual averages. Table filters: private ownership, manufacturing NAICS 31-33, state level.

BLS QCEW About the Data. Coverage, concepts, disclosure rules, and data-use notes.

BLS QCEW Industry Titles. NAICS industry definitions used in QCEW.