This is the first in a series of posts outlining the five fastest-growing occupations in the U.S. that require — on average — an associate’s degree, and where each state ranks in terms of growth in that occupation.
The labor market information, using a 2006-10 time frame, comes from EMSI’s Analyst. We sorted all occupations at the associate’s-degree education level by percentage growth to come up with the top five:
- Geological and petroleum technicians
- Physical therapist assistants
- Veterinary technologists and technicians
- Occupational therapist assistants
- Cardiovascular technologists and technicians
We’ve tossed data for each occupation into interactive maps to see how states stack up against one another. First up is the fifth-fastest growing occupation, cardiovascular technologists and technicians (SOC 29-2031). Nationally, it grew by 12% from ’06-10 with 52,247 estimated total jobs in 2010.
Mouse over each state to see the percentage growth of cardio techs, the state’s rank (No. 1 is Idaho; No. 51 is Hawaii), and how many workers are in the occupation.
Lastly, here’s a chart showing the top 10 states by rank:
If you have any questions on the map or would like to see this data for your region, please email Josh Wright at jwright@economicmodeling.com or call 208.883.3500.
Hi Mr. Wright.
I am from Palm Beach State College, and we are doing a comparison report using EMSI for Palm Beach County. When I run the report for 29-2031 Cardiovacsular Technologist and Technicians, the numbers for National is equaling 50,911 not 52,427 (as you have listed) for 2010. Is there an error on my part?.. I am trying to get this report completed today.
Thanks..
Syeda
Thanks for the question. There’s no error on your part — the discrepancy comes from looking at our two datasets: “EMSI Covered” vs. “EMSI Complete.” I used the complete employment dataset for the map, and the number you saw (50,911) is from the “covered” dataset, which is based on same single data source as most state LMI data (QCEW).
The “complete” dataset takes into account workers not covered by traditional QCEW labor market data — self-employed workers, railroad employees, military employees, etc.
You can read more on the differences between the two datasets here: http://www.economicmodeling.com/2008/05/27/data-qa-emsi-data-and-public-lmi/
Let me know if you have any more questions.
-Josh