Continuous Mining Machine Operators: Colorado vs Minnesota pay

Percentile	Published wages	Colorado	Minnesota
10th	Colorado$73,130Minnesota$59,640	$73,130	$59,640
25th	Colorado$81,040Minnesota$64,440	$81,040	$64,440
Median	Colorado

Place	Employment	Jobs per 1,000	Location quotient	Employment RSE
Colorado	290Jobs per 1,000: 0.1 Location quotient: 1.14	0.1	1.14	17.7%
Minnesota	420Jobs per 1,000: 0.14 Location quotient: 1.58	0.14	1.58	28.3%

75th	Colorado$81,110Minnesota$99,850	$81,110	$99,850

90th	Colorado$81,110Minnesota$102,850	$81,110	$102,850

Start with the answer

Continuous Mining Machine Operators pay in Colorado and Minnesota

The May 2025 BLS OEWS median for Continuous Mining Machine Operators is $81,110 per year in Colorado. It is $90,820 per year in Minnesota. Colorado is 10.7% below Minnesota on the published median.

Both rows use SOC 47-5041 and the same annual wage metric. Median means the middle of each area's published wage spread. It is not one worker's pay. The larger median is not proof that one place gives a better job or a better result. It is one wage fact from one source period.

BLS lists 290 wage and salary jobs in Colorado and 420 in Minnesota. Those are survey job counts, not open posts. Read pay, job scale, local share, and price level as separate facts before you make a choice.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · Rule: same-soc-same-metric-pair · nominal-median-gap · employment-not-openings

Pay range

Compare the full Continuous Mining Machine Operators wage ladder

A median can hide a wide range. The 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentile points show more of each area's spread. A percentile is a rank point. It is not a career stage. The 10th point does not mean new-worker pay. The 90th point does not mean a wage that comes after a set number of years.

The lower half can differ from the upper half. One area can lead at the median and trail at another point. Read each field against the same field in the other area. Do not compare one area's 75th percentile with the other area's median. That would answer a different question.

A posted job range can sit below, across, or above these marks. That does not make the post wrong. A listing can differ by employer, level, hours, field, or work rules. Keep the listing tied to that employer. Keep the BLS range tied to the whole role-place row.

10th percentile: Colorado is $73,130 per year; Minnesota is $59,640 per year. Colorado is 22.6% above Minnesota at this point.
25th percentile: Colorado is $81,040 per year; Minnesota is $64,440 per year. Colorado is 25.8% above Minnesota at this point.
Median: Colorado is $81,110 per year; Minnesota is $90,820 per year. Colorado is 10.7% below Minnesota at this point.
75th percentile: Colorado is $81,110 per year; Minnesota is $99,850 per year. Colorado is 18.8% below Minnesota at this point.
90th percentile: Colorado is $81,110 per year; Minnesota is $102,850 per year. Colorado is 21.1% below Minnesota at this point.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · Rule: paired-percentile-fields · same-field-comparison · posted-pay-separation

Shape of pay

Mean and median tell two parts of the Continuous Mining Machine Operators story

Colorado has a mean of $81,120 per year and a median of $81,110. Minnesota has a mean of $83,780 per year and a median of $90,820. Mean adds all wage values and splits the total by the number of jobs behind the estimate.

Colorado's mean and its median have the same published median after rounding. Minnesota's mean is 7.8% below its median on the same published median. The gaps show that each wage spread has a shape. They do not explain why the shape differs.

Use median for the middle. Use mean to see how the full set pulls. Use percentiles to see more of the spread. None of the three is a pay promise. A person, team, or listing can sit far from all three for reasons that are outside these BLS rows.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · Rule: paired-mean-median · mean-median-gap · no-causal-inference

Job scale

How the two Continuous Mining Machine Operators job bases differ

Colorado has 290 estimated Continuous Mining Machine Operators jobs. Minnesota has 420. The larger count shows a larger covered job base in this source. It does not show more open roles, faster hiring, or a better chance for one applicant.

Colorado has 0.1 Continuous Mining Machine Operators jobs per 1,000 local jobs. Minnesota has 0.14 per 1,000. This rate helps compare places of different size. It is not a job-post rate and does not use the MeritLog catalog.

The employment RSE is 17.7% in Colorado and 28.3% in Minnesota. RSE means relative standard error. It is a survey precision flag. It is not the chance that the job count or one person's pay is right.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · Rule: paired-employment · paired-jobs-per-thousand · employment-rse-field-scope

Local share

Where Continuous Mining Machine Operators takes a larger share of jobs

The location quotient is 1.14 in Colorado and 1.58 in Minnesota. A value of 1 means the role has the same share of local jobs as it has across the nation. A value above 1 means the local share is larger. A value below 1 means it is smaller.

Colorado's quotient is 27.8% below Minnesota's. That gap is about the job mix. It is not a wage gap, a job-count gap, or a growth claim.

Read location quotient with employment. A small place can have a high share and few jobs. A large place can have many jobs and a share near the national mark. Then read pay as its own field. The three measures do not form one score.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · Rule: paired-location-quotient · quotient-gap · metric-separation

BEA price view

How price levels differ between Colorado and Minnesota

BEA's 2024 all-items price index is 103.1 in Colorado and 98.6 in Minnesota. The U.S. level is 100. A higher number means the broad local price level is higher than the national mark. It does not say a place is good or bad.

Housing is 127.4 in Colorado and 91.3 in Minnesota. Goods are 98.7 and 100.5. Utilities are 85.0 and 90.8. Other services are 99.6 and 100.2. The parts can move in different ways.

The wage period is May 2025. The price period is 2024. WageScope keeps those clocks visible. It uses the all-items index for one clear proxy. It does not mix BEA prices into the BLS source row, and it does not claim the two releases describe the exact same month.

Evidence: bea-rpp-2024 · bls-oews-may-2025 · Rule: paired-rpp-fields · rpp-us-baseline · source-period-separation

Price-level proxy

Compare the medians in national-price dollars

WageScope divides Colorado's $81,110 median by 103.1 divided by 100. The result is $78,708 per year. It divides Minnesota's $90,820 median by 98.6 divided by 100. That result is $92,090 per year.

Colorado's proxy is 14.5% below Minnesota's. The nominal gap is 10.7%. The order can stay the same or change after the price-level step. Both results must keep their labels.

The proxy is a narrow math tool. It is not take-home pay. It does not add taxes, benefits, household size, debt, commute, schools, safety, climate, or taste. It does not set a wage target. Use it to see how one broad price index changes the wage view, then check your own costs outside WageScope.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · bea-rpp-2024 · meritlog-bounded-comparison-v1 · Rule: price-level-adjusted-formula · nominal-adjusted-gap-separation · proxy-limits

Same-proxy pay

What equal price-level pay would look like in the other place

$81,110 per year in Colorado has the same national-price-dollar proxy as $77,622 per year in Minnesota. The math keeps Colorado's proxy fixed, then applies Minnesota's all-items price index.

$90,820 per year in Minnesota has the same proxy as $94,901 per year in Colorado. This reverse view is useful because the answer depends on which wage you start with. It is not a claim about an offer in either place.

Equivalent nominal pay uses one broad price measure. It does not know what a person buys. It does not know rent, family size, debt, taxes, travel, benefits, or savings. Treat the result as a clean source-backed comparison, not a full move plan or a number an employer must match.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · bea-rpp-2024 · meritlog-bounded-comparison-v1 · Rule: equivalent-nominal-value-forward · equivalent-nominal-value-reverse · proxy-limits

Data care

Check the survey marks before you use the gap

The mean-wage RSE is 3.4% in Colorado and 7.6% in Minnesota. The employment RSE is 17.7% and 28.3%. RSE is a precision flag for the field it sits beside. It is not a score for the whole page.

BLS does not publish the same RSE field for the median and each percentile. WageScope does not move a mean RSE to the median. It does not use an employment RSE as a wage care mark. Each value stays tied to its source field. Missing or top-coded values also keep their source state.

A later BLS or BEA release can change the result. MeritLog checks the official source clocks before promotion. The page cannot call its data current when a newer complete release is waiting for review. Current job cards have their own seen date and do not make the government data newer.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · Rule: paired-rse-field-scope · no-rse-transfer · independent-source-freshness

Use the result

A short check list for Colorado and Minnesota

Start with the same Continuous Mining Machine Operators wage field. Then read the full percentile spread. Check job count, jobs per 1,000, and location quotient. Add the 2024 all-items and housing price levels. Read the national-price-dollar proxy with its limits. Keep the BLS and BEA dates in view.

Next, inspect one current employer-title match in each place when an exact public place match exists. A job post can show work level, hours, location rules, and pay that the BLS row cannot. The post is dated employer evidence. It does not change the survey median or prove a broad trend.

Last, use your own facts. Compare the job needs with work you have done and can support. A wage gap cannot show fit. A price-level gap cannot show fit. A job count cannot show fit. MeritLog's résumé path starts only after you choose a listing and confirm the work facts you want to use.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · bea-rpp-2024 · meritlog-public-job-boundary-v1 · Rule: comparison-checklist · job-source-separation · confirmed-resume-evidence

Limits

What this Continuous Mining Machine Operators comparison does not decide

The page does not choose Colorado or Minnesota for you. It does not say what one worker earns. It does not promise a job, offer, raise, or move result. It does not say why the medians differ. It does not turn the larger wage, job count, quotient, or proxy into a place score.

The comparison leaves out people who work for themselves and other work outside the OEWS scope. It does not add taxes, take-home pay, benefits, stock, bonus pay, hours, travel, remote work, or a household budget. Current listings are separate and can be empty even when the government rows are complete.

Use this page for a bounded choice. Compare the same May 2025 BLS role and metric across two exact areas. Add the separate 2024 BEA price view. Inspect dated employer-title matches. Then build a résumé from facts you have confirmed. Keep each source tied to the question it can answer.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · bea-rpp-2024 · meritlog-public-job-boundary-v1 · Rule: no-place-choice · no-personal-pay-claim · source-purpose-separation

Continuous Mining Machine Operators: Colorado vs Minnesota

Same occupation, same annual wage metric

The winner can change when local prices differ

Housing and all-items indexes explain the adjustment

Equivalent nominal pay, using price levels only

Employment scale and local concentration

Compare another occupation or pair

Continuous Mining Machine Operators: Colorado and Minnesota guide

Continuous Mining Machine Operators in Colorado and Minnesota: common questions

Compare Continuous Mining Machine Operators listings by place

Colorado

We could not load these listings.

Minnesota

We could not load these listings.

Current jobs

Tailor for a real Continuous Mining Machine Operators job, not a generic wage number.

Continuous Mining Machine Operators pay in Colorado and Minnesota

Compare the full Continuous Mining Machine Operators wage ladder

Mean and median tell two parts of the Continuous Mining Machine Operators story

How the two Continuous Mining Machine Operators job bases differ

Where Continuous Mining Machine Operators takes a larger share of jobs

How price levels differ between Colorado and Minnesota

Compare the medians in national-price dollars

What equal price-level pay would look like in the other place

Check the survey marks before you use the gap

A short check list for Colorado and Minnesota

What this Continuous Mining Machine Operators comparison does not decide

Compare Continuous Mining Machine Operators listings by place

Colorado

We could not load these listings.

Minnesota

We could not load these listings.

Privacy choices

Continuous Mining Machine Operators: Colorado vs Minnesota

Same occupation, same annual wage metric

The winner can change when local prices differ

Housing and all-items indexes explain the adjustment

Equivalent nominal pay, using price levels only

Employment scale and local concentration

Compare another occupation or pair

Continuous Mining Machine Operators: Colorado and Minnesota guide

Continuous Mining Machine Operators in Colorado and Minnesota: common questions

Compare Continuous Mining Machine Operators listings by place

Colorado

We could not load these listings.

Minnesota

We could not load these listings.

Current jobs

Tailor for a real Continuous Mining Machine Operators job, not a generic wage number.

Continuous Mining Machine Operators pay in Colorado and Minnesota

Compare the full Continuous Mining Machine Operators wage ladder

Mean and median tell two parts of the Continuous Mining Machine Operators story

How the two Continuous Mining Machine Operators job bases differ

Where Continuous Mining Machine Operators takes a larger share of jobs

How price levels differ between Colorado and Minnesota

Compare the medians in national-price dollars

What equal price-level pay would look like in the other place

Check the survey marks before you use the gap

A short check list for Colorado and Minnesota

What this Continuous Mining Machine Operators comparison does not decide

Compare Continuous Mining Machine Operators listings by place

Colorado

We could not load these listings.

Minnesota

We could not load these listings.