Employment-to-population ratio, ages 16

Employment-to-population ratio, ages 16–64 by state

North Dakota has the highest estimate (80.0%); West Virginia has the lowest (66.1%). Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 1-year, 2024.

Data year: 2024Source released Sept. 11, 2025Last updated Oct. 23, 2026GCT2303

50 ranked states; DC and Puerto Rico appear as reference rows where the source supplies them. Highest does not mean best. Ranks reflect point estimates; close values may not differ statistically.

State distribution and comparisons

The middle of the 50-state distribution is 74.05%: the average of the 25th and 26th ordered state estimates. This treats each state equally, so it answers a different question from a population-weighted national estimate.

3 other states are statistically tied with North Dakota at 90% confidence: South Dakota, Minnesota and Nebraska. This is not a confidence interval for rank, and testing multiple pairs increases false-positive risk.

See the top ten estimates with their 90% margins of error

Shared axis spans the complete 50-state estimate ± MOE range. Intervals describe individual estimates; overlapping intervals alone are not our significance test.

How does this compare with male full-time earnings?

These states’ ranks change the most between employment-to-population ratio, ages 16–64 and male full-time earnings. These comparisons identify different questions worth investigating; a rank gap does not measure a causal effect or a statistical difference between unlike units.

State	Employment-to-population ratio, ages 16–64	Male full-time earnings
South Dakota	79.9% · #2	$61,219 · #40
Nebraska	78.9% · #4	$61,827 · #36
California	70.7% · #42	$72,043 · #11

Employment-to-population ratio, ages 16–64 · 2024 · Percent
Rank	State / jurisdiction	Value	90% margin of error	Difference from previous rank
1	North Dakota	80.0%	± 1.0%	Highest estimate
2	South Dakota	79.9%	± 0.9%	Not distinguishable at 90%
3	Minnesota	79.3%	± 0.3%	Not distinguishable at 90%
4	Nebraska	78.9%	± 0.7%	Not distinguishable at 90%
5	New Hampshire	78.5%	± 0.9%	Not distinguishable at 90%
6	Iowa	78.4%	± 0.5%	Not distinguishable at 90%
7	Wisconsin	77.9%	± 0.4%	Not distinguishable at 90%
8	Vermont	77.8%	± 1.0%	Not distinguishable at 90%
9	Colorado	77.1%	± 0.4%	Not distinguishable at 90%
9	Wyoming	77.1%	± 1.3%	Not distinguishable at 90%
11	Kansas	76.8%	± 0.5%	Not distinguishable at 90%
12	Massachusetts	76.4%	± 0.4%	Not distinguishable at 90%
13	Maryland	76.3%	± 0.4%	Not distinguishable at 90%
14	Utah	76.2%	± 0.5%	Not distinguishable at 90%
15	Montana	75.8%	± 0.8%	Not distinguishable at 90%
16	Maine	75.7%	± 0.8%	Not distinguishable at 90%
17	Connecticut	75.0%	± 0.5%	Not distinguishable at 90%
17	Rhode Island	75.0%	± 1.2%	Not distinguishable at 90%
19	Hawaii	74.8%	± 0.7%	Not distinguishable at 90%
20	New Jersey	74.6%	± 0.3%	Not distinguishable at 90%
21	Missouri	74.4%	± 0.4%	Not distinguishable at 90%
22	Delaware	74.1%	± 1.1%	Not distinguishable at 90%
22	Illinois	74.1%	± 0.3%	Not distinguishable at 90%
22	Ohio	74.1%	± 0.3%	Not distinguishable at 90%
22	Pennsylvania	74.1%	± 0.3%	Not distinguishable at 90%
26	Virginia	74.0%	± 0.3%	Not distinguishable at 90%
27	Indiana	73.7%	± 0.4%	Not distinguishable at 90%
27	Oregon	73.7%	± 0.5%	Not distinguishable at 90%
29	Washington	73.6%	± 0.4%	Not distinguishable at 90%
30	Idaho	73.5%	± 0.7%	Not distinguishable at 90%
31	North Carolina	72.6%	± 0.3%	Different at 90%
32	Florida	72.4%	± 0.3%	Not distinguishable at 90%
33	Michigan	72.2%	± 0.3%	Not distinguishable at 90%
34	Nevada	72.1%	± 0.6%	Not distinguishable at 90%
34	Tennessee	72.1%	± 0.3%	Not distinguishable at 90%
36	Arizona	72.0%	± 0.4%	Not distinguishable at 90%
37	Georgia	71.8%	± 0.3%	Not distinguishable at 90%
38	Texas	71.6%	± 0.2%	Not distinguishable at 90%
39	South Carolina	71.5%	± 0.5%	Not distinguishable at 90%
40	New York	71.4%	± 0.2%	Not distinguishable at 90%
41	Alaska	71.1%	± 1.1%	Not distinguishable at 90%
42	California	70.7%	± 0.2%	Not distinguishable at 90%
43	Oklahoma	69.4%	± 0.4%	Different at 90%
44	Kentucky	68.9%	± 0.5%	Not distinguishable at 90%
45	Arkansas	68.7%	± 0.7%	Not distinguishable at 90%
46	Alabama	68.5%	± 0.5%	Not distinguishable at 90%
47	Louisiana	67.8%	± 0.5%	Not distinguishable at 90%
47	New Mexico	67.8%	± 0.9%	Not distinguishable at 90%
49	Mississippi	67.5%	± 0.7%	Not distinguishable at 90%
50	West Virginia	66.1%	± 0.8%	Different at 90%
Ref.	District of ColumbiaNot ranked among states	75.2%	± 1.2%	Reference jurisdiction
Ref.	Puerto RicoNot ranked among states	57.7%	± 0.8%	Reference jurisdiction

Employment-to-population ratio, ages 16–64 · 2024 · Percent

Rank

State / jurisdiction

Value

90% margin of error

Difference from previous rank

North Dakota

80.0%

± 1.0%

Highest estimate

South Dakota

79.9%

± 0.9%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Minnesota

79.3%

± 0.3%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Nebraska

78.9%

± 0.7%

Not distinguishable at 90%

New Hampshire

78.5%

± 0.9%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Iowa

78.4%

± 0.5%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Wisconsin

77.9%

± 0.4%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Vermont

77.8%

± 1.0%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Colorado

77.1%

± 0.4%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Wyoming

77.1%

± 1.3%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Kansas

76.8%

± 0.5%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Massachusetts

76.4%

± 0.4%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Maryland

76.3%

± 0.4%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Utah

76.2%

± 0.5%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Montana

75.8%

± 0.8%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Maine

75.7%

± 0.8%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Connecticut

75.0%

± 0.5%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Rhode Island

75.0%

± 1.2%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Hawaii

74.8%

± 0.7%

Not distinguishable at 90%

New Jersey

74.6%

± 0.3%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Missouri

74.4%

± 0.4%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Delaware

74.1%

± 1.1%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Illinois

74.1%

± 0.3%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Ohio

74.1%

± 0.3%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Pennsylvania

74.1%

± 0.3%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Virginia

74.0%

± 0.3%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Indiana

73.7%

± 0.4%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Oregon

73.7%

± 0.5%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Washington

73.6%

± 0.4%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Idaho

73.5%

± 0.7%

Not distinguishable at 90%

North Carolina

72.6%

± 0.3%

Different at 90%

Florida

72.4%

± 0.3%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Michigan

72.2%

± 0.3%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Nevada

72.1%

± 0.6%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Tennessee

72.1%

± 0.3%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Arizona

72.0%

± 0.4%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Georgia

71.8%

± 0.3%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Texas

71.6%

± 0.2%

Not distinguishable at 90%

South Carolina

71.5%

± 0.5%

Not distinguishable at 90%

New York

71.4%

± 0.2%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Alaska

71.1%

± 1.1%

Not distinguishable at 90%

California

70.7%

± 0.2%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Oklahoma

69.4%

± 0.4%

Different at 90%

Kentucky

68.9%

± 0.5%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Arkansas

68.7%

± 0.7%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Alabama

68.5%

± 0.5%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Louisiana

67.8%

± 0.5%

Not distinguishable at 90%

New Mexico

67.8%

± 0.9%

Not distinguishable at 90%

Mississippi

67.5%

± 0.7%

Not distinguishable at 90%

West Virginia

66.1%

± 0.8%

Different at 90%

Ref.

District of ColumbiaNot ranked among states

75.2%

± 1.2%

Reference jurisdiction

Ref.

Puerto RicoNot ranked among states

57.7%

± 0.8%

Reference jurisdiction

What this ranking measures

Employed civilians as a share of the civilian population age 16 to 64.

The denominator includes people outside the labor force, so this is not one minus the unemployment rate.

The size of the gap

The difference between the highest and lowest state estimates is 13.9 percentage points. The U.S. benchmark is 72.9%. It is not a simple average of the states.

30 states have point estimates above the U.S. benchmark and 20 below it. These counts do not establish statistical significance.

How much should you read into a rank?

Each estimate has a 90% margin of error published by the Census Bureau. For two different states, we flag a difference only when its absolute size exceeds the square root of the sum of their squared margins of error. The comparison tool applies this check to every selected pair.

Non-significance is not proof of equality. These pairwise tests are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and do not form ranking confidence intervals. Statistical method and limitations.

Ranks use the full precision of the source file, so only truly equal values share a rank (1, 2, 2, 4).

Keep exploring

Read the ranking methodology.

Explore the same states in a side-by-side comparison, or combine this measure with others in the custom ranking tool.

Source and method

Producer: U.S. Census Bureau
Product / file: ACS 1-year · GCT2303
Period: 2024
Unit: Percent
Calculation: Published estimate; no transformation of the value. Rank = 1 + number of eligible jurisdictions with a higher value.
Coverage: The 50 states are ranked. Washington, D.C., can be added with the toggle above the table; Puerto Rico is shown for reference only, where the source covers it.
Cadence: Annual. 2025 ACS 1-year estimates scheduled for October 29, 2026 (Census ACS updates page); adoption follows editorial review.
Independence: Rank the States is independent. The agencies that produce the source data do not endorse these rankings.

Download, cite, or embed

Download the default full table (CSV) or use the download above for the table’s current filter and order. Data dictionary and source metadata

Suggested citation

Rank the States. Employment-to-population ratio, ages 16–64, 2024. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 1-year, GCT2303; released 2025-09-11. Edition 2026-10-23. https://rankthestates.com/data/editions/2026-10-23/employment-population-ratio.csv

Chart embed

<iframe src="https://rankthestates.com/embed/employment-population-ratio/" title="Employment-to-population ratio, ages 16–64 by state" width="100%" height="640" loading="lazy"></iframe>

Updates and corrections

Last updated Oct. 23, 2026. Earlier editions stay available on the data page, and every change is listed in the update log. If a number or definition looks wrong, report an error with the state, value, and source you checked.

Employment-to-population ratio, ages 16–64 by state

State distribution and comparisons

How does this compare with male full-time earnings?

The state-by-state view

What this ranking measures

The size of the gap

How much should you read into a rank?

Keep exploring

Source and method

Download, cite, or embed

Updates and corrections

Related rankings

Male full-time earnings

Female full-time earnings

Labor force participation, ages 16–64

What can we help you find?