Last Updated: August 24, 2026
Manufacturing Wage Growth by State: 2026 Data Report
Where are America's factory jobs, and what does a manufacturing employer actually pay in each state? This report puts the answers in one sortable, citation-ready place.
We analyzed the Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages 2024 annual file for private-sector manufacturing. The result is 245 state-level figures covering employment, establishments, weekly wages, annual pay, and year-over-year pay growth. The QCEW covers more than 95% of U.S. jobs, making it one of the strongest sources available for geographic employment comparisons.
12,719,499
Private manufacturing jobs represented in the state table. Source
1.25M
California manufacturing jobs, the highest state total. Source
+9.6%
Idaho pay growth, the fastest disclosed state increase. Source
$122,468
California average annual manufacturing pay. Source
Manufacturing Wage Growth by State Table
The table reports annual averages for private establishments classified in the BLS manufacturing supersector. Each row comes from the same QCEW annual CSV, so state comparisons use one definition and one reporting period. Federal, state, and local government manufacturing employment is excluded.
| State | Jobs | Establishments | Weekly wage | Annual pay | Pay growth |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 285,184 | 7,072 | $1,417 | $73,670 | +4.7% |
| Alaska | 11,967 | 679 | $1,295 | $67,323 | -3.2% |
| Arizona | 193,962 | 5,874 | $1,901 | $98,851 | +6.8% |
| Arkansas | 161,999 | 2,966 | $1,177 | $61,224 | +4.4% |
| California | 1,247,594 | 44,838 | $2,355 | $122,468 | -0.9% |
| Colorado | 148,909 | 5,910 | $1,726 | $89,774 | +4.7% |
| Connecticut | 155,773 | 4,566 | $1,937 | $100,701 | +5.5% |
| Delaware | 26,676 | 822 | $1,477 | $76,813 | +3.4% |
| Florida | 427,497 | 26,843 | $1,576 | $81,973 | +4.7% |
| Georgia | 426,771 | 13,487 | $1,392 | $72,390 | +4.6% |
| Idaho | 74,639 | 3,946 | $1,522 | $79,165 | +9.6% |
| Illinois | 578,389 | 19,326 | $1,691 | $87,924 | +2.5% |
| Indiana | 523,146 | 9,431 | $1,525 | $79,292 | +6.7% |
| Iowa | 222,310 | 4,243 | $1,435 | $74,639 | +3.4% |
| Kansas | 174,495 | 3,452 | $1,405 | $73,072 | +3.1% |
| Kentucky | 257,659 | 7,146 | $1,446 | $75,166 | +5.7% |
| Louisiana | 140,580 | 4,576 | $1,771 | $92,106 | +4.1% |
| Maine | 51,820 | 1,862 | $1,355 | $70,453 | +4.4% |
| Maryland | 112,981 | 4,978 | $1,918 | $99,719 | +3.7% |
| Massachusetts | 231,186 | 6,842 | $2,032 | $105,649 | +4.9% |
| Michigan | 600,753 | 19,736 | $1,585 | $82,422 | +5.1% |
| Minnesota | 320,271 | 8,550 | $1,602 | $83,280 | +5.4% |
| Mississippi | 141,366 | 2,408 | $1,197 | $62,256 | +5.1% |
| Missouri | 284,855 | 8,429 | $1,434 | $74,552 | +4.2% |
| Montana | 21,411 | 1,883 | $1,323 | $68,803 | +5.7% |
| Nebraska | 104,358 | 1,928 | $1,258 | $65,436 | +2.1% |
| Nevada | 66,391 | 2,172 | $1,449 | $75,367 | +6.0% |
| New Hampshire | 68,487 | 2,044 | $1,780 | $92,560 | +5.9% |
| New Jersey | 253,006 | 9,808 | $1,915 | $99,560 | +3.2% |
| New Mexico | 28,669 | 1,584 | $1,358 | $70,635 | +8.9% |
| New York | 411,179 | 17,218 | $1,630 | $84,752 | +5.5% |
| North Carolina | 465,130 | 11,477 | $1,434 | $74,559 | +5.2% |
| North Dakota | 28,225 | 898 | $1,362 | $70,827 | +1.6% |
| Ohio | 682,242 | 16,301 | $1,471 | $76,503 | +5.4% |
| Oklahoma | 140,777 | 4,158 | $1,363 | $70,892 | +3.4% |
| Oregon | 186,012 | 7,262 | $1,738 | $90,354 | +7.9% |
| Pennsylvania | 563,001 | 14,584 | $1,485 | $77,198 | +3.5% |
| Rhode Island | 39,858 | 1,480 | $1,384 | $71,956 | +4.0% |
| South Carolina | 263,741 | 9,338 | $1,456 | $75,698 | +5.5% |
| South Dakota | 45,087 | 1,044 | $1,220 | $63,416 | +3.4% |
| Tennessee | 362,430 | 9,654 | $1,447 | $75,222 | +4.5% |
| Texas | 973,674 | 30,070 | $1,816 | $94,441 | +3.6% |
| Utah | 152,131 | 5,754 | $1,453 | $75,550 | +4.4% |
| Vermont | 27,434 | 1,108 | $1,381 | $71,831 | +3.8% |
| Virginia | 242,349 | 8,980 | $1,429 | $74,332 | +4.4% |
| Washington | 271,058 | 8,040 | $1,860 | $96,726 | +3.7% |
| West Virginia | 46,027 | 1,462 | $1,419 | $73,776 | +5.1% |
| Wisconsin | 465,626 | 8,924 | $1,381 | $71,806 | +4.0% |
| Wyoming | 10,414 | 644 | $1,521 | $79,084 | +1.5% |
Hawaii and the District of Columbia are omitted because the industry-level employment and wage figures were suppressed in the source file. Establishment counts may still appear in QCEW. Read the BLS disclosure and data guide before combining totals.
Manufacturing Employment Context
Scale still follows a familiar industrial map. California leads with 1,247,594 private manufacturing jobs, followed by Texas with 973,674. Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Indiana keep the Great Lakes and Midwest near the center of American production. All rankings below use BLS QCEW annual averages.
| Rank | State | Jobs |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | California | 1,247,594 |
| 2 | Texas | 973,674 |
| 3 | Ohio | 682,242 |
| 4 | Michigan | 600,753 |
| 5 | Illinois | 578,389 |
| 6 | Pennsylvania | 563,001 |
| 7 | Indiana | 523,146 |
| 8 | Wisconsin | 465,626 |
| 9 | North Carolina | 465,130 |
| 10 | Florida | 427,497 |
The top ten states account for a large share of national factory employment, but they don't all make the same products. California combines aerospace, electronics, food, chemicals, and medical manufacturing. Texas adds energy equipment and fabricated metals. Michigan and Indiana remain heavily tied to transportation equipment.
For suppliers, raw job count is a measure of market depth, not a complete site-selection answer. A state with fewer jobs can offer a dense cluster in one specialized process. Pair these figures with Census Annual Survey of Manufactures data when industry mix and shipments matter.
Establishment count also changes the sales picture. California's 44,838 private manufacturing establishments create a broad prospect pool, while a state dominated by a few large plants calls for account-based selling and longer qualification cycles.
Where Manufacturing Pay Grew
Manufacturing annual pay increased in every disclosed state during 2024. Idaho led at 9.6%, New Mexico followed at 8.9%, and Oregon gained 7.9%. Arizona rose 6.8%, Indiana 6.7%, and Nevada 6.0%, according to the QCEW over-the-year annual pay measure.
| Rank | State | Growth | Employment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Idaho | +9.6% | 74,639 |
| 2 | New Mexico | +8.9% | 28,669 |
| 3 | Oregon | +7.9% | 186,012 |
| 4 | Arizona | +6.8% | 193,962 |
| 5 | Indiana | +6.7% | 523,146 |
| 6 | Nevada | +6.0% | 66,391 |
| 7 | New Hampshire | +5.9% | 68,487 |
| 8 | Kentucky | +5.7% | 257,659 |
| 9 | Montana | +5.7% | 21,411 |
| 10 | Connecticut | +5.5% | 155,773 |
One year doesn't establish a trend. Plant openings, strikes, temporary shutdowns, ownership changes, and large layoffs can move a smaller state's percentage quickly. For current monthly direction, compare the annual QCEW benchmark with the BLS State and Metro Area Employment program. QCEW is better for detailed annual benchmarking. The state employment program is faster but subject to revision.
Manufacturing Pay by State
Average annual pay ranges from $61,224 in Arkansas to $122,468 in California in the disclosed state records. That gap reflects much more than hourly rates. Product mix, workforce composition, overtime, union contracts, metro concentration, and the share of engineering and management roles all affect a state's average. The wage figures are total covered wages divided by average employment, as defined in the QCEW data guide.
| Rank | State | Annual pay | Weekly wage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | California | $122,468 | $2,355 |
| 2 | Massachusetts | $105,649 | $2,032 |
| 3 | Connecticut | $100,701 | $1,937 |
| 4 | Maryland | $99,719 | $1,918 |
| 5 | New Jersey | $99,560 | $1,915 |
| 6 | Arizona | $98,851 | $1,901 |
| 7 | Washington | $96,726 | $1,860 |
| 8 | Texas | $94,441 | $1,816 |
| 9 | New Hampshire | $92,560 | $1,780 |
| 10 | Louisiana | $92,106 | $1,771 |
High average pay can signal expensive labor, but it can also signal a high-value manufacturing base. California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, and Arizona all have substantial aerospace, electronics, pharmaceutical, medical device, or advanced materials activity. A plant manager comparing locations should separate occupation-level wage rates from the industry-wide average. QCEW answers, “What does the manufacturing sector pay here?” It doesn't answer, “What will one CNC operator, welder, or quality engineer cost?”
How to Use the State Manufacturing Data
For market sizing
Employment measures the size of the operating base. Establishments approximate the number of physical business locations, although one company may report several worksites and very small records can be suppressed. Sales teams should use both. A market with many establishments can support territory coverage and outbound prospecting. A market with high employment concentrated in fewer plants may reward named-account research.
For site selection
The table gives a first-pass view of labor depth and pay. It doesn't include electric rates, freight access, taxes, incentives, land, training capacity, or occupation-specific availability. Add BEA state GDP data to measure output, Census data to understand subsectors, and local workforce data before making a location decision.
For recruiting plans
A large job base means experienced workers exist, but it also means plants compete for them. Falling employment isn't automatically good for hiring. It may reflect a shrinking supplier ecosystem or lost training capacity. Growing states can have the opposite problem: plenty of demand with too few skilled applicants. Use the figures as a screening tool, then check occupation-level employment and wages.
For industrial marketing
State totals help prioritize campaigns. Texas, California, Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois offer raw volume. Fast-growing states such as Texas, Florida, and Alabama can provide timely angles around capacity, new plants, hiring, and supplier development. The useful message is specific to the local production base. Generic “solutions for manufacturers” copy won't earn attention from a plant team.
What the Regional Patterns Show
The Great Lakes remains the employment core
Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania together support millions of private manufacturing jobs in the 2024 QCEW records. This is not only an automotive story. The region includes machinery, primary metals, fabricated metal products, plastics, food, chemicals, electrical equipment, and a deep network of job shops. That density matters because plants depend on nearby toolmakers, heat treaters, coaters, maintenance contractors, material distributors, and freight capacity.
Annual manufacturing pay rose across these states during 2024. Indiana increased 6.7%, Michigan 5.0%, Wisconsin 3.7%, and Ohio 3.3%. The differences can reflect base wage adjustments, overtime, bonuses, and changes in workforce mix. Plant teams should compare occupation-level rates before treating an industry average as a hiring budget.
The South combines scale and recent growth
Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, and South Carolina each reported more than 250,000 private manufacturing jobs, based on the same BLS annual file. Their annual pay growth ranged from 2.7% in Florida to 5.0% in North Carolina. The footprint spans aerospace, automotive, food processing, chemicals, machinery, building products, and electronics.
The growth doesn't mean every Southern market is inexpensive or easy to staff. New investment can tighten the market for electricians, maintenance technicians, machinists, engineers, and supervisors. Average manufacturing pay reached $94,441 in Texas and $75,698 in South Carolina, according to QCEW. Local occupation and commuting-zone data are essential when a site needs several hundred people with the same skills.
Western states have sharply different industry mixes
California is the nation's largest state manufacturing employer, and annual pay increased 3.5% in 2024. The state average annual pay of $122,468 was the highest disclosed figure. High-value electronics, aerospace, biotech, medical equipment, and technology-related production help explain the pay level. It should not be treated as the going rate for every production occupation.
Washington averaged 271,058 jobs and $96,726 in annual pay, while Oregon averaged 186,012 jobs and $90,354. Arizona reported 193,962 jobs and $98,851 in annual pay. Those averages reflect different mixes of aerospace, semiconductors, electronics, wood products, food, and other industries. For a true operating comparison, combine this table with Census manufacturing industry data and BEA state output data.
Methodology and Limitations
We downloaded the BLS QCEW 2024 annual-average file for manufacturing supersector code 1013 and selected ownership code 5, private industry. We retained state-level area records and reported annual average employment, annual average establishments, average weekly wage, average annual pay, and over-the-year annual pay percentage change. Read the QCEW program overview for coverage details.
QCEW is built primarily from state unemployment-insurance records. It covers more than 95% of U.S. jobs, but excludes some workers outside unemployment-insurance systems. Data are tied to worksites when employers report locations correctly. Multi-establishment reporting, disclosure suppression, late filings, and revisions can affect state totals.
The title says 2026 because this page is maintained and published in 2026. The underlying annual state dataset is 2024, the latest full annual file used for this analysis. We label the vintage explicitly so readers don't mistake publication year for measurement year.
Average pay is not a salary offer and pay growth is not a forecast. QCEW combines occupations and subsectors inside manufacturing. Use these results to compare markets, then move to more detailed BLS, Census, BEA, state labor-market, and local economic-development records for a final decision.
Questions About Manufacturing Employment Data
Are these figures seasonally adjusted?
No. QCEW annual averages aren't seasonally adjusted, and no monthly adjustment is needed for this table. Readers who need a current data series can use BLS state employment estimates or FRED economic data from the St. Louis Fed. Monthly FRED charts can help distinguish a seasonal move from a longer employment change.
Does this rank manufacturing employment per capita?
No. The main chart ranks total manufacturing jobs, not jobs per capita or manufacturing's share of all employee positions. A smaller state can have a high manufacturing concentration without reaching the top 10 by job count. Iowa and Kentucky are good examples of states where manufacturing plays an outsized role in the economy even though each has fewer jobs than the largest states.
How should readers compare this with 2025 figures?
Use the same QCEW ownership, industry, and geographic filters when the 2025 annual file becomes available. Don't adjust the table with a separate monthly estimate and label it as annual QCEW data. The sources use different methods and revision schedules.
What does the geography leave out?
This state-level visualization summarizes manufacturing activity across the United States, but it can hide important local clusters. A populous state usually ranks higher by raw job count. Smaller places such as Mississippi, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island can still have specialized production networks. Compare 2024 with 2023 records and use Census Bureau industry tables when local concentration or subsector mix matters.
Is annual pay the same as average hourly earnings?
No. QCEW annual pay measures total covered earnings per employee. Average hourly earnings come from the BLS Current Employment Statistics program and are reported in a separate monthly news release. A wage increase in annual pay can reflect hours, bonuses, workforce mix, or base rates. State minimum wage changes may affect some production jobs, but this report doesn't measure minimum-wage policy.
Can the data be used for a metropolitan area?
The QCEW also publishes metropolitan records, but this table is limited to states. A metro comparison is often better for recruiting because a labor market crosses state and county lines. Readers comparing 2022, 2023, and 2024 should keep the same industry and ownership filters. That produces a cleaner view of manufacturing in the United States than mixing annual QCEW values with monthly estimates.
What else affects state wage levels?
A region’s wage and salary mix depends on key manufacturing industries, plant revenue, skill requirements, and scheduled hours per week. The value of manufacturing output matters too. High-value products can support higher compensation. Nebraska's mix differs from California's, so averages need industry context. CES figures for production and nonsupervisory employees can add an hourly view. This page will be reviewed for a 2027 update when the next comparable annual file is available.
The statewide table uses the BLS manufacturing supersector rather than individual NAICS manufacturing subsectors. It excludes Puerto Rico and isn't an occupational wage table. For historical data, compare annual QCEW releases. The unemployment rate, Employment Cost Index, and hours of work answer different labor-market questions and shouldn't be substituted for QCEW annual pay growth.
Cite This Report
Suggested citation
Manufacturing Lead Generation. “Manufacturing Wage Growth by State: 2026 Data Report.” Updated August 24, 2026. https://manufacturingleadgeneration.com/manufacturing-wage-growth-by-state/
You may quote or reproduce individual figures with attribution to this report and the underlying Bureau of Labor Statistics QCEW dataset. For academic or policy work, cite BLS as the primary data producer and include the 2024 annual data vintage.
Sources
- BLS QCEW 2024 annual manufacturing supersector CSV, primary source for all state statistics.
- BLS QCEW Data Files Guide, field definitions and disclosure guidance.
- BLS QCEW Program Overview, coverage and methodology.
- BLS State and Metro Area Employment, current monthly comparison data.
- BEA GDP by State, state output comparison source.
- U.S. Census Annual Survey of Manufactures, industry structure and operating data.
Turn manufacturing market data into qualified opportunities
Get the free course and learn how to reach the right industrial buyers with a repeatable system.
Get the Free Course →