Public education, law enforcement, emergency services, and road maintenance are all largely funded by state tax dollars. State and local government employees help these public services run smoothly. Despite the fact that these services are needed in every corner of the country, employment in the nation’s public sector is still far below its pre-recession level and varies widely by state.

Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the percentage of each state’s labor force working for state and local governments, excluding federal employment. While state and local governments employ 14.2% of the country’s workforce, Wyoming’s public sector accounted for 22.4% of the state’s workforce, the largest share of all states. At just 9.8%, Rhode Island employed the smallest share. These are states with the most (and least) state and local government workers.

Click here to see the states where the most (and least) people work for the government

State and local government employees perform a range of tasks to keep a state running properly. Some workers are needed as administrators, while others maintain roads, serve as representatives, and help provide other public goods and services. More than half of all state and local government workers were employed in educational services.

The highest concentrations of public sector jobs are frequently found in states with relatively large rural populations. Eight of the 10 states with the highest concentrations of public sector jobs were less densely populated than the national population density of 87.4 people per square mile. On the other hand, eight of the 10 states with the smallest public sectors were twice as densely populated as the nation as a whole.

According to Martin Kohli, senior economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, several factors account for this relationship. When a state’s population is more widely dispersed, towns are often smaller and more numerous. Providing public services to populations spread over great distances often requires more manpower, and can be more costly as a result, Kohli explained. Each town needs a minimum number of government employees to perform necessary functions, and more fragmented political regions require more local government workers.

Conversely, while large cities require higher numbers of state workers in absolute terms, each worker is able to serve many more people in urban areas, reducing the overall concentration of an area’s public sector employment.

Rural areas also do not offer the same economic advantages as more densely populated regions. For example, the massive number of transactions occurring in a city will often lower the cost of goods and services. In addition, when businesses and consumers are closer together, transportation costs fall and information travels faster, both of which help promote economic growth.
Without a flourishing private sector, a larger share of an area’s economy is often driven by the government. Generally, a state’s public sector reacts much more slowly than private sectors in response to economic fluctuations. In fact, since 2000, state and local government employment has commanded an increasing share of the national workforce as private sector employment contracts. Conversely, when private employment grows, as it has since 2010, the share of employment in state and local governments falls, even as the total number of jobs in those areas remain constant.

In recent years, the connection between fiscal challenges — which are generally more prevalent in rural America — and strains on state and local budgets has been well-established by researchers. Poor economic conditions may lead to a greater need for larger state and local government workforces. However, higher concentrations of these jobs and low incomes are each independent features of rural areas.

To determine the share of each state’s labor force employed by state and local governments, 24/7 Wall St. used 2012 employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The percentage of the population working in a particular industry is relative to the state’s total nonfarm payrolls. State employment-to-population ratios are also from the BLS. Real gross domestic product (GDP) come from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and are for 2012. Population density, the share of households living in rural areas, median household income, and poverty rates are from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013 American Community Survey.

These are the states with the most (and least) people work for the government.

1. Wyoming

Wyoming employed the largest share of state and local government workers in the country, at 22.4% of its workforce. While the proportion of workers in state government positions was higher than the national proportion, Wyoming’s counties, cities, and towns accounted for a disproportionately large share of public workers. These local governments employed 17% of the state’s workers, one of the highest rates in the country. Like many of the states with the most government employees, a large share of Wyoming’s households live in low density population areas. More than 37% of the state’s population lived in rural areas, compared to just 21% of the nation’s households. Without a flourishing private sector, it is often the case that a larger proportion of a state’s economy is driven by the government. In Wyoming, 11% of its GDP came from state and local jobs, the seventh highest share among all states.

ALSO READ: The States With the Highest (and Lowest) Obesity Rates

2. Alaska

Alaska’s state and local governments employed approximately 20% of the state’s workforce, much higher than the national share of 14.2%. This relatively large share of public employment was likely necessary to provide services across the state because, unlike most states, Alaska’s population was much more dispersed. Nearly 41% of state households lived in rural areas, nearly double the national share of 21%. Living in rural areas typically means residents cannot benefit as easily from the advantages that urban areas provide, such as ready access to suppliers and consumers. In Alaska, however, high oil revenues alone helped raise median household income to $72,237, higher than the comparable national figure of $52,250.

3. New Mexico

More than 20% of New Mexico’s workforce was employed by state and local governments, the third highest proportion in the country. The relatively large public sector workforce was likely necessary to provide services for the state’s widely dispersed population. There were just 17 people per square mile in the state, the sixth lowest population density nationwide. Rural populations also do not have the same economic advantages cities provide, and public sectors tend to be larger in areas with relatively small private sectors. At just $39,825, New Mexico had one of the lowest GDPs per capita in the country. New Mexico’s nearly 22% poverty rate also may have strained state and local public services. Like several other states with large shares of the labor force employed by state and local governments, just over 50% of the state’s population 16 years and older had a job, one of the lowest proportions in the country. The presence of several large government research facilities also raised the the concentration of federal jobs, which accounted for nearly 4% of the workforce, the fifth highest such share in the country.

ALSO READ: Companies With the Best (and Worst) Reputations

4. Mississippi

One in five Mississippi workers were employed by the state, or local governments, the fourth largest proportion nationwide. Mississippi’s counties, cities, and towns accounted for a disproportionately large share of public workers. Local governments employed just over 14% of the state’s workers, the second-highest rates in the country. Like many of the states with the most government employees, a large share of Mississippi’s population lives in low density population areas. More than half of the state’s households were in rural areas, compared to just 21% of the nation’s households. Without a flourishing private sector, it is often the case that a larger proportion of a state’s economy is driven by the government. In Mississippi, 12.5% of its GDP came from state and local jobs, the highest share among all states. The state’s nation-leading poverty rate may also have strained state and local budgets.

5. Oklahoma

At just $41,348, Oklahoma’s GDP per capita was one of the lowest in the country. Areas with large rural populations often have low GDPs, and roughly 35% of Oklahoma’s households lived in rural areas, much higher than the national share. Living in rural areas makes it more difficult for the population to benefit from the advantages cities afford, such as lower transportation costs and access to opportunities that help drive economic growth. And as in many other states with large rural populations, more than 18% of Oklahoma’s workforce was employed by state and local governments, the fifth largest proportion nationwide. The annual median household income in the state was $45,690, almost $7,000 below the national median income. However, residents may be better off than the data suggest because of the lower cost of living in rural areas. Statewide, the cost of living is 10% more affordable in Oklahoma compared with the national average.

6. Montana

At just $38,494, Montana’s GDP per capita was one of the lowest in the country. Areas with large rural populations often have low GDPs, and roughly 48% of Montana’s households lived in rural areas, more than twice the national share. Compared to densely populated cities, rural areas often lack economic advantages such as low transportation costs and access to opportunities that help drive economic growth. Similarly, public sector workforces are more concentrated in areas with small or shrinking private sectors. A relatively high 17% of Montana’s workforce was employed by state and local governments.

7. Kansas

In Kansas, more than 17% of the workforce was employed in the public sector, excluding federal employment, the seventh highest share nationwide. As in most states, the level of federal employment is not tied to the level of state and local employment. While Kansas’s state and local government employment was considerably higher than the national share, just 1.9% of workers were employed by the U.S. government, slightly lower than the national figure. A more rural, spread-out population usually corresponds with a higher proportion of workers employed by the state, counties, and municipalities. It is therefore not surprising that a relatively large 26% of Kansas households were located in rural areas, compared with 21% nationally.

ALSO READ: 5 States Drinking Too Much Soda

8. South Carolina

Just over 17% of South Carolina’s workforce was employed by the state, and local governments, the eighth highest proportion in the country. The state’s relatively large public sector was likely necessary to provide services for South Carolina’s widely dispersed population. Nearly 34% of state households lived in rural areas, a much larger percentage than the national share. Like other states with large shares of the labor force employed by state and local governments, less than 55% of the state’s population 16 years and older had a job, the fourth lowest proportion in the country. Rural areas do not have the same economic advantages found in cities, such as ready access to suppliers and large numbers of consumers. In fact, at just $36,033, South Carolina had one of the lowest GDPs per capita in the country.

9. Alabama

At just $37,186, Alabama’s GDP per capita was one of the lowest in the country. Like many other states with relatively large rural populations, Alabama also had one of the highest concentrations of state workers. Areas with large rural populations often have low GDPs, and roughly 42% of Alabama’s households lived in rural areas, twice as high as the national share. Compared to cities, rural areas often have higher transportation costs and less access to opportunities that help drive economic growth. Perhaps as a result of the large rural population, more than 17% of Alabama’s workforce was employed by state and local governments. The annual median household income in the state was $42,849, almost $9,000 below the national median income. However, residents may be better off than the data suggest because of the lower cost of living in rural areas.

ALSO READ: The Healthiest County in Each State

10. West Virginia

Nearly 17% of West Virginia’s workforce was employed by the state, and local governments, one of the highest proportions in the country. This relatively large share of employment was likely needed to provide adequate services for the relatively widely dispersed state population. A majority of state households were located in rural areas, higher than the national share. Like other states with large shares of the labor force employed by state and local governments, the proportion of West Virginia’s employed population was relatively small. Just 50.3% of people 16 years and older had a job, the lowest proportion in the country. Compared to cities, rural areas do not have the same economic advantages cities provide. At just $35,152, West Virginia had one of the lowest GDPs per capita in the country.

11. Idaho

Nearly 17% of Idaho’s workforce was employed by the state, or local governments. Idaho’s counties, cities, and towns accounted for a disproportionately large share of public workers. These local governments employed just over 12% of the state’s workers, one of the highest such shares in the country. Like many of the states with the most government employees, a large share of Idaho’s population lives in low density population areas. More than 32% of the state’s households lived in rural areas, compared to just 21% of the nation’s households. Without a flourishing private sector, it is often the case that a larger proportion of a state’s economy is driven by the government. In Idaho, roughly 11% of its GDP came from state and local jobs, the 10th highest share nationwide.

ALSO READ: 15 Companies Losing the Most Money

12. Arkansas

Nationally, 14.2% of the workforce was employed in the public sector, not counting federal employment. In Arkansas, it was 16.6% of the workforce. Federal employment and state and local government employment are not necessarily tied to one another. While Arkansas’s state and local government employment was slightly higher than the national share, 1.8% of workers were employed by the U.S. government, one of the lower shares in the country. A more rural, spread-out population usually corresponds with a higher proportion of workers employed by the state, counties, and municipalities. It is therefore not surprising that Arkansas’s population density was just 56 people per square mile, slightly lower than the comparable national figure of 87.4 people per square mile.

13. Louisiana

At just $47,634, Louisiana’s GDP per capita was one of the higher economic outputs in the country. Relatively large-scale natural gas production partly accounts for the state’s relatively large GDP. While areas with large rural populations often have relatively low GDPs, roughly 27% of Louisiana’s households lived in rural areas, higher than the national share. And as in many other comparatively rural states, the percentage of Louisiana’s workforce employed by state and local governments — 16% — was higher than the national proportion. The annual median household income in the state was $44,164, almost $8,000 below the national median income. However, residents may be better off than the data suggest because of the lower cost of living in rural areas.

ALSO READ: 10 Most Valuable Comic Book Movie Franchises

14. North Dakota

Approximately 16% of North Dakota’s workforce was employed by the state, and local governments, higher than the national share of 14.2%. The higher share was likely necessary to provide services for the state’s relatively widely dispersed population. Nearly 43% of state households lived in rural areas, more than twice the national share of 21%. Compared to urban areas, sparsely populated regions typically do not have as many economic advantages, such as ready access to suppliers and consumers. In North Dakota, however, urban clusters formed in response to the oil boom, which helped raise median household income to $55,759, higher than the comparable national figure of $52,250.

15. North Carolina

More than 16% of North Carolina’s workforce was employed by the state, and local governments, one of the higher proportions in the country. This relatively large share of employment was likely necessary to provide services for North Carolina’s relatively widely dispersed. Nearly 36% of state households lived in rural areas, much higher than the national share. Like other states with large shares of the labor force employed by state and local governments, the proportion of North Carolina’s population that was employed was relatively small. Less than 57% of the state’s population 16 years and older had a job, one of the lower proportions in the country.

16. Oregon

In Oregon, 16% of the workforce was employed in the public sector, not counting federal employment, higher than the national share of 14.2%. The concentration of federal jobs in Oregon, at 1.7% of workers, was one of the lower shares in the country. A more rural, spread-out population usually corresponds with a higher proportion of workers employed by the state, counties, and local municipalities. It is therefore not surprising that Oregon’s population is far less densely populated than the national average. There were 39.9 people per square mile in the state, versus 87.4 people per square mile across the nation.

ALSO READ: The States With the Most McDonald’s

17. Vermont

State and local government employment accounted for 16% of Vermont’s workforce, higher than the national share of 14.2%. The relatively large public sector was likely needed to provide services across the relatively sparsely populated state. More than two-thirds of state households lived in rural areas, more than three times the national share of 21%. More than 66% of state and local government workers were employed in education, the highest such share nationwide. While educational professionals often have relatively low incomes, however, Vermont’s median household income of $52,578 was slightly higher than the comparable national figure of $52,250.

18. Washington

Washington’s concentration of state and local government employment was higher than the country as a whole. Nationally, 14.2% of the workforce was employment in the public sector, not counting federal employment. In Washington it was 16% of the workforce. A more rural, spread-out population usually corresponds with a higher proportion of workers employed by the state, counties, and local municipalities. This was not the case in Washington, however, where just over 17% of the state’s population lived in rural areas, one of the lower proportions in the country.

ALSO READ: 9 States With the Most Identity Theft Complaints

19. South Dakota

The annual median household income in South Dakota was $48,947, almost $3,000 below the national median income. Areas with large rural populations tend to report lower incomes, and roughly 45% of South Dakota’s households lived in rural areas, more than twice the national share. The state’s relatively large public sector, accounting for 16% of the state’s workforce, was likely needed to provide services for South Dakota’s widely dispersed population.

20. Kentucky

Approximately 15.7% of Kentucky’s workforce was employed by state and local governments, one of the higher proportions in the country. This relatively large share of public employment was likely necessary to provide services across the state as Kentucky’s population was much more dispersed. Nearly 42% of state households lived in rural areas, twice the national share. Living in rural areas also means residents cannot benefit as easily from the economic advantages that cities provide, which may partly explain Kentucky’s poverty rate of nearly 19%, the sixth highest rate. At just $38,358, Kentucky had one of the lowest GDPs per capita in the country. Low incomes may have further strained state and local budgets, along with their public workforce.

21. Nebraska

Nearly 16% of Nebraska’s workforce was employed by the state, or local governments. While the proportion of workers in state government positions was higher than the national proportion, it is Nebraska’s counties, cities, and towns that accounted for the disproportionately large share of public workers. Local governments employed 11.4% of the state’s workers, one of the higher rates in the country. A large share of Nebraska’s population lives in low density population areas. More than 29% of the state’s households lived in rural areas, compared to just 21% of households across the nation. Without a flourishing private sector, it is often the case that a larger proportion of a state’s economy is driven by the government. In Nebraska, nearly 11% of its GDP came from state and local jobs, more than in most states.

22. Iowa

Iowa’s state and local government employment was higher than in most states. Nationally, 14.2% of the workforce was employed in the public sector, not counting federal employment. In Iowa, it was 15.6% of the workforce. A more rural, spread-out population usually corresponds with a higher proportion of workers employed by the state, counties, and local municipalities. It is therefore not surprising that Iowa’s population is not particularly dense. Just over 36% of the state’s population lived in rural areas, compared with 21% nationally. As in most states, the level of federal employment is not tied to the level of state and local employment. While Iowa’s state and local government employment was significantly higher than the national share, just 1.2% of workers were employed by the U.S. government, the fifth lowest proportion in the country.

ALSO READ: The 20 Largest Privately Held Companies in America

23. New York

Just over 15% of New York’s workforce was employed by state, and local governments, a slightly higher percentage than the national 14.2% share. Federal employment and state and local government employment levels are often substantially different. While state and local government employment was more concentrated in New York than across the nation, just 1.3% of the state’s workers were employed by the U.S. government, one of the lower shares in the country. New York’s GDP per capita of $62,212 was relatively high, especially compared with states with the highest concentrations of state employees.

24. Utah

Nationally, 14.2% of the workforce was employment in the public sector, not counting federal employment. In Utah it was 15% of the workforce. Less populated areas tend to rely more heavily on public sector activity. It is therefore not surprising that Utah is more sparsely populated than most states. Just over 13% of the state’s households lived in rural areas, one of the lower proportions in the country. Unlike most states with relatively large public sectors, more than 64% of Utah’s population 16 and over had a job.

ALSO READ: Countries Spending the Most on War

25. Hawaii

Hawaii’s state and local government employment was slightly higher than the composition for the country as a whole. Nationally, 14.2% of the workforce was employed in the public sector, excluding federal employment. In Hawaii it was 14.9% of the workforce. Less densely populated states tend to have higher proportions of workers employed by the state, counties, and municipalities. This was not the case in Hawaii, where just over 10% of the state’s population lived in rural areas, one of the lower proportions in the country.

26. Georgia

Nearly 15% of Georgia’s workforce was employed by the state, and local governments, slightly higher than the national composition. At just $42,029, Georgia’s GDP per capita was one of the lower compared to other states. Roughly 26% of Georgia’s households lived in rural areas, higher than the national share. Rural populations often do not benefit from the advantages cities afford, such as the ability to serve a much larger and more concentrated demographic with fewer state workers. The annual median household income in the state was $47,829, almost $4,000 below the national median income. However, residents may be better off than the data suggest because of the lower cost of living in rural areas.

27. Colorado

Colorado’s state and local government employment was roughly in line with the country as a whole. Nationally, 14.2% of the workforce was employment in the public sector, not counting federal employment. In Colorado it was 14.7% of the workforce. A more rural, spread-out population usually corresponds with a higher proportion of workers employed by the state, counties, and municipalities. It is therefore not surprising that Colorado’s population density is lower than that of the nation. There were 48.5 people per square mile in Colorado, versus 87.4 people per square mile nationwide.

ALSO READ: The Most Democratic County in Each State

28. Texas

In Texas, 14.7% of the workforce was employed in the public sector, not counting federal employment, slightly higher than the 14.2% national share. A more rural, spread-out population usually corresponds with a higher proportion of workers employed by the state, counties, and local municipalities. It is therefore not surprising that Texas’s population is slightly less dense than the nation as a whole. Just over 17% of the state’s households lived in rural areas, compared with 21% of households nationally.

29. New Jersey

New Jersey’s state and local government employment was more or less in line with the country as a whole. Nationally, 14.2% of the workforce was employed in the public sector, not counting federal employment. In New Jersey, it was 14.6% of the workforce. Federal employment and state and local employment levels are often substantially different. While New Jersey’s state and local government employment was roughly in line with the national share, just 1.3% of workers were employed by the U.S. government, one of the lower shares in the country.

ALSO READ: The States With the Most Deadly Accidents

30. Maine

At just $38,149, Maine’s GDP per capita was one of the lowest in the country. Areas with large rural populations often have low GDPs, and roughly 66% of Maine’s households lived in rural areas, higher than the national share. Compared to cities, rural areas often have higher transportation costs and less access to opportunities that help drive economic growth. Economic growth, in turn, bolsters private sector employment while the size of government workforces typically do not change as quickly in response to economic fluctuations. More than 14% of Maine’s workforce was employed by state and local governments, roughly in line with the national share. The annual median household income in the state was $46,974, almost $5,000 below the national median income. However, residents may be better off than the data suggest because of the lower cost of living in rural areas. Compared with other states, the cost of living in Maine is relatively low.

31. California

California’s state and local government employment was more or less in line with the country as a whole. Nationally, 14.2% of the workforce was employed in the public sector, not counting federal employment. In California, it was 14.4% of the workforce. Compared to state and local government employment, federal employment in states is less related to population density. While California’s state and local government employment was roughly in line with the national share, just 1.7% of workers were employed by the U.S. government, one of the lower shares in the country.

ALSO READ: 12 States The Kill the Most Animals

32. Arizona

Just over 14% of Arizona’s workforce was employed by the state, or local governments, in line with the national share. Arizona’s local governments — its counties, cities, and towns — had a disproportionately large share of public workers. Local governments employed 11% of the state’s workers, one of the higher rates in the country. Arizona is relatively sparsely populated with 56.3 people per square mile, a lower population density than the 87.4 people per square mile nationally. Without a flourishing private sector, it is often the case that a larger proportion of a state’s economy is driven by the government. In Arizona, 10% of its GDP came from the state, and local governments, more than in most states.

33. Virginia

State and local government jobs made up 14.4% of Virginia’s workforce, roughly in line with the national percentage of 14.2%. Virginia was far more densely populated than most states, with 202.6 people per square mile. Urban clusters, where the more concentrated population is often easier to serve with fewer public workers, also helped raise the state’s median household income to $62,666. The was considerably higher than the comparable national figure of $52,250.

34. Missouri

At just $42,541, Missouri’s GDP per capita was one of the lower figures in the country. Areas with large rural populations often have low GDPs, and roughly 31% of Missouri’s households lived in rural areas, higher than the national share. The annual median household income in the state was $46,931, almost $5,000 below the national median income. While lower income and predominantly rural areas often have significantly higher concentrations of state and local jobs, 14.3% of Missouri’s workforce was employed by state and local governments, roughly in line with the national share. Residents may be better off financially than the data suggest, as the cost of living in Missouri is approximately 12% lower than the national average.

ALSO READ: States Using the Most Mind-Altering Drugs

35. Minnesota

In Minnesota, 14% of the workforce was employed in the public sector, excluding federal employment, roughly in line with the national share. Just 1.2% of workers were employed by the U.S. government, on the other hand, one of the lower shares in the country. A more rural, spread-out population usually corresponds with a higher proportion of workers employed by the state, counties, and municipalities. It is therefore not surprising that Minnesota’s population density falls roughly in the middle of state rankings. There were just 66.6 people per square mile in Minnesota, compared to 87.4 people per square mile nationally.

36. Maryland

Maryland’s state and local government employment accounted for 13.9% of the workforce, lower than the country as a whole and on the lower end compared with other states. There were nearly 600 people per square mile in the state, the fifth most dense state population nationwide. As opposed to more rural areas, Maryland’s was likely better able to serve a much larger and more concentrated demographic with fewer state workers. In addition, with the nation’s capital within commuting distance for many state residents, federal employment accounted for 5.7% of Maryland’s workforce, the second-highest share nationwide.

37. Delaware

Delaware’s state and local government employment was slightly lower than the country as a whole. Nationally, 14.2% of the workforce was employed in the public sector, not counting federal employment. In Delaware, it was 13.9% of the workforce. Like many other states with middle-of-the road or especially small public workforces, Delaware was relatively densely populated. There were more 461 people per square mile, the sixth highest figure in the country. A high concentration of federal jobs does not necessarily mean there will be a high concentration of state and local employment. Just 1.3% of Delaware workers were employed by the U.S. government, one of the lowest shares in the country.

ALSO READ: The Most Republican County in Each State

38. Michigan

At just $40,495, Michigan’s GDP per capita was one of the lowest in the country. Areas with large rural populations often have low GDPs, and roughly 29% of Michigan’s households lived in rural areas, higher than the national share. The state’s poverty rate of 17% was also among the higher rates and may have strained state and local public workforces. While more rural areas with relatively low incomes often have higher concentrations of state and local government jobs, however, 13% of Michigan’s workforce was employed by state and local governments, lower than the national share.

39. Tennessee

In Tennessee, 13.8% of the workforce was employed in the public sector, not counting federal employment, slightly lower than the national composition. While a more urban population usually corresponds with a lower proportion of public sector workers, Tennessee’s population density was far higher than most states. More than 34% of the state’s households lived in rural areas, compared with 21% nationally. The state’s poverty rate of 17.8% was also quite high, especially compared with other states with relatively low concentrations of state and local employees.

ALSO READ: 10 Cars Americans Don’t Want to Buy

40. Wisconsin

At just $45,363, Wisconsin’s GDP per capita was one of the lower nationwide. Areas with large rural populations often have low GDPs, and roughly 34% of Wisconsin’s households lived in rural areas, higher than the national share. While higher concentrations of public sector jobs are typically found in relatively rural states, 13.7% of Wisconsin’s workforce was employed by state and local governments, one of the lowest shares. And the state had the lowest concentration of federal jobs in the nation, at 1.0% of the workforce.

41. Connecticut

More than 14% of the nation’s workforce was employed in the public sector, not counting federal employment. In Connecticut, it was 13.5% of the workforce. The concentration of federal jobs in states is not necessarily tied to state and local government employment. While Connecticut’s state and local government employment was roughly in line with the national share, just 1.1% of workers were employed by the U.S. government, the second-lowest share in the country.

42. Indiana

At just $44,095, Indiana’s GDP per capita was one of the lower in the country. Areas with large rural populations often have low GDPs, and roughly 27% of Indiana’s households lived in rural areas, higher than the national share. Compared to cities, rural areas do not have the advantage of serving concentrated populations with relatively few state workers. Rural areas also tend to have higher transportation costs and less access to opportunities that help drive economic growth. The annual median household income in the state was $47,529, almost $5,000 below the national median income. While poor economic conditions can strain state and local budgets, residents may be better off than the data suggest. Indiana’s cost of living is roughly in line with that of the nation.

ALSO READ: The Happiest (and Most Miserable) Cities in America

43. Ohio

Less than 14% of Ohio’s labor force was employed by the state, or local governments, one of the smaller shares nationwide. The state’s relatively small public sector is partly related to the state’s relatively dense population. There were 282.3 people per square mile in Ohio, the 10th highest compared to other states, and far higher than than the 87.4 people per square mile across the nation. Concentrated urban areas need fewer municipal governments relative to the population. Unlike other states with a high degree of urbanization, however, Ohio’s GDP per capita was just $44,790, one of the smallest in the country.

44. New Hampshire

In New Hampshire, 13.3% of the workforce was employed in the public sector, excluding federal employment, lower than the 14.2% national share. The concentration of federal workers was even smaller, with 1.2% of the state’s workforce employed by the U.S. government, the fourth lowest share in the country. A more rural, spread-out population usually corresponds with a higher proportion of workers employed by the state, counties, and municipalities. It is therefore not surprising that more than 44% of the state’s households lived in rural areas, more than twice the national share.

ALSO READ: The Healthiest (and Least Healthy) Countries in the World

45. Illinois

In Illinois, 13% of the workforce was employed in the public sector, not counting federal employment, less than 14.2% of the national workforce. Higher proportions of state, county, and municipality workers are usually needed to serve more rural, spread-out populations. And the relatively dense 231.1 people per square mile in Illinois — several times the national 87.4 people per square mile nationwide — may have made administering public services more efficient.

46. Florida

Less than 13% of Florida’s labor force was employed by state or local governments, one of the smaller shares nationwide. The small share of public employees in Florida may be due to its high level of urbanization. Just 8.9% of households in the state lived in rural areas, less than half the national share. The large, highly concentrated urban population means the state has fewer municipal governments, which require a minimum level of public sector workers. Unlike other states with a high degree of urbanization, however, Florida’s GDP per capita was just $38,011, one of the smallest in the country.

47. Massachusetts

Just 11.8% of Massachusetts’s workforce was employed in state and local government, the fourth lowest share and substantially lower than the 14.2% nationwide. A more urban, densely populated area usually has less state, county, and municipality employment, and Massachusetts was no exception. Just over 8% of the state’s households lived in rural areas, far lower than the 21% of households nationally. State residents were also well-off financially, which perhaps lightened the burden on state and local workforces and budgets.

ALSO READ: The Least Healthy County in Each State

48. Nevada

In Nevada, 11.5% of the workforce was employed in the public sector, not counting federal employment, far lower than the national workforce composition of 14.2%. While the levels of federal, state and local employment are often substantially different, just 1.6% of workers were employed by the U.S. government, also lower than the respective national proportion. A more rural, spread-out population usually corresponds with a higher proportion of workers employed by the state, counties, and municipalities. It is therefore not surprising that just over 6% of Nevada’s households lived in rural areas, far lower than the 21% of households nationwide.

49. Pennsylvania

At just $46,972, Pennsylvania’s GDP per capita was one of the lowest in the country. Areas with large rural populations often have low GDPs, and there were 283.9 people per square mile in Pennsylvania, more than three times the national average. Compared with sparsely populated regions, urban areas frequently offer more economic advantages, such as lower transportation costs and access to opportunities that help drive economic growth. States with more urban areas typically have smaller state, and local government jobs. This was the case in Pennsylvania, where 11% of Pennsylvania’s workforce was employed by state and local governments, the second-lowest such share nationwide.

ALSO READ: 9 States Running Out of Water

50. Rhode Island

Less than 11% of Rhode Island’s labor force was employed by state or local governments, the smallest share nationwide. The small public sector is likely due to Rhode Island’s small size, and because of its especially high level of urbanization. Just 9.5% of households in the state lived in rural areas, less than half the national share. The large, highly concentrated urban population means the state has fewer municipal governments. Unlike other states with a high degree of urbanization, however, Rhode Island’s GDP per capita was just $46,903, one of the smallest in the country.

Thank you for reading! Have some feedback for us?
Contact the 24/7 Wall St. editorial team.