Concrete Contractor Video Statistics

Key takeaways

1. Concrete businesses drew 18.0% of the views of YouTube’s 548 most-viewed ‘concrete pour’, ‘stamped concrete’ and ‘concrete driveway’ videos, 12.4% without the biggest such channel; concrete businesses that name a U.S. place drew 8.1% (our read, Nov 2026). (Mark Studios) See details
2. Media, viral and ‘satisfying’ channels drew 28.0% of those views, DIY and homeowner channels 23.4%, and other builders and trades 23.0%. (Mark Studios) See details
3. Videos of 60 seconds or less drew 64.9% of the views in the sample. (Mark Studios) See details
4. 25.5% of 157 location pages from four concrete brands showed a video a visitor can play, and every one was an A-1 Concrete Leveling page (our read, Nov 2026). (Mark Studios) See details
5. Employers had 206,170 cement masons and concrete finishers on payroll in May 2025, at a median wage of $57,020; poured concrete contractors employed 43.4% of them. (BLS, Mark Studios) See details
6. Private poured concrete contractor establishments averaged 24,691 in 2025, up 34.0% from 2015, and 58.8% of those with paid employees had fewer than 5 in 2023. (BLS, U.S. Census Bureau, Mark Studios) See details
7. Florida had 2,188 of those establishments in 2025, up 50.2% from 2015; Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties held 12.0% of them. (BLS, Mark Studios) See details
8. 75.0% of new single-family homes completed in 2025 sat on a slab or other foundation, 88.0% in the South, against 46% in 2000. (U.S. Census Bureau, Mark Studios) See details
9. Cement came from 97 U.S. plants in 2025; 70% to 75% of cement sales went to ready-mix producers, imports met 21% of consumption, and Florida took 8.1% of shipments. (USGS, Mark Studios) See details
10. OSHA estimated its 2016 silica rule would cover 2.0 million construction workers and, across all industries, prevent 642 deaths and 918 silicosis cases a year. (OSHA) See details
11. Washington had 745 active concrete-specialty contractor registrations (our count, Nov 2026); California counted 7,089 C-8 concrete licences in December 2025. (Mark Studios, California CSLB) See details
12. The earliest form we found of the line that concrete is the most used material after water is a July 2002 cement-industry agenda, at nearly three tons per person; the industry’s global trade body now calls concrete the “most used man-made material”. (WBCSD Cement Sustainability Initiative, GCCA) See details
13. “Cement is 8% of global CO2” doubles a 4.0% estimate for process emissions to allow for fuel; the cement industry’s trade body now says about 7%. (PBL/JRC, GCCA) See details

Who makes the most-viewed concrete videos on YouTube?

Concrete contractors and concrete businesses posted 29.6% of the most-viewed concrete videos on YouTube on November 4, 2026, but drew only 18.0% of their views (our count). We read YouTube's own view-sorted search results, the top 200 for each of 'concrete pour', 'stamped concrete' and 'concrete driveway', through the YouTube Data API, with no country filter. The three lists held 548 unique videos from 303 channels with 1,647.5 million lifetime views, and the median video had 565,553 views (our count). We sorted all 303 channels by hand from their own titles, descriptions and video text. A concrete business here is any channel whose own text names concrete work as a service or trade it offers, anywhere in the world.

One channel carries much of the concrete businesses' share. GRUBB MUDD, a concrete contractor who also runs a podcast and a creator channel, holds 35.3% of the class's views; without it, concrete businesses drew 12.4% of the remaining views (our calculation). Odell Complete Concrete, a licensed concrete and remodelling contractor, posted 37 of the 548 videos, more than any other channel. Most of the concrete businesses' reach comes from contractors who run their channels for a following, with lessons, memberships, podcasts or brand inquiries: those 18 channels drew 15.7% of all views. The other 26 concrete businesses, whose channels show their work to customers, drew 2.3% (our count).

How much of that reach comes from U.S. concrete contractors?

Concrete businesses that name a U.S. place on their channel or in their video text posted 20.3% of the 548 videos on November 4, 2026, from 22 channels, and drew 8.1% of the views (our count). Counting also concrete businesses whose channel country setting is the United States, the share of views rises to 15.2%. U.S.-placed concrete businesses that do not run creator-style channels posted 20 videos and drew 1.4% of the views (our count).

Concrete business channels are small. The median one behind the sample had 8,070 subscribers, against 129,500 for DIY and homeowner channels and 128,000 for media and viral channels (our count from channels.list on the same day). Their videos are less often short: concrete businesses' videos ran 60 seconds or less 25.3% of the time, against 32.5% for the whole sample.

Which kinds of channels drew the views on the most-viewed concrete videos?

Media, viral, compilation and 'satisfying' channels drew the largest share of views in the November 4, 2026 sample, 28.0%, from 17.0% of the videos (our count). The table gives each class's share of the 548 videos and of their 1,647.5 million views.

The single biggest channel is not a concrete business. HAUS PLANS, a general contractor's construction-content channel, posted 14 videos and drew 10.6% of all views; without it, concrete businesses drew 20.1% of the remaining views (our calculation). The most-viewed video was a 5-second stamping clip on a 'skills of workers' compilation channel with 88.2 million views, 5.4% of all views. The 15 cement-craft life-hack channels of the 'pour cement into an egg tray' genre drew 4.1% of the views, and two kids' pretend-play and family channels drew 2.2%. No equipment maker's channel and only 1 trade-body video, a cement masons' union local's high-rise pour, made the lists (our count).

Reach is concentrated. The 10 most-viewed channels drew 48.2% of all views, and 42 of the 303 channels had 1 million or more subscribers. Channels whose country setting is the United States posted 69.5% of the videos (our count).

Does each concrete search turn up the same kinds of channels?

Only 35 of the 548 videos appeared in two or more of the three lists on November 4, 2026, and each search rewards different channels (our count). In 'stamped concrete', concrete businesses posted 40.4% of the videos but drew 11.8% of the views, while media and viral channels drew 44.6%; videos of 60 seconds or less drew 87.5% of that list's views. In 'concrete pour', DIY and homeowner channels posted 39.5% of the videos and concrete businesses drew 21.8% of the views. In 'concrete driveway', concrete businesses drew 17.4% of the views and DIY channels 33.6% (our count).

How long are the most-viewed concrete videos, and how new are they?

Most views go to short videos: videos of 60 seconds or less were 32.5% of the November 4, 2026 sample and drew 64.9% of its views (our count). The median short had 927,503 views, against 484,926 for longer videos. Videos longer than 20 minutes were 12.6% of the sample and drew 6.6% of the views. The median video ran 257.5 seconds.

The lists lean recent. 42.5% of the videos were published in 2024 or later and drew 66.9% of the views; 103 were published in the 365 days before the read, and 18.2% before 2020 (our count). The median video had 10.3 likes per 1,000 views.

What do the most-viewed concrete videos show, by their titles?

Pouring leads: 37.0% of the 548 videos mention pouring in the title, and they drew 45.6% of the views on November 4, 2026 (our regex count of titles). Stamped, imprinted and other decorative concrete appears in 35.8% of titles, driveways in 26.3%, and repair, resurfacing, lifting or leveling in 10.0%. 'Dry pour' and 'dry bag' slabs appear in 6.9% of titles, none of them from a concrete business. Fails, mistakes and blowouts appear in 2.4% of titles, dollar amounts and costs in 4.6%, and a #shorts tag in 7.1%.

Several formats barely appear in titles. Only 5 titles say time-lapse; 2.0% of videos say it in the title or description. No title mentions a drone, a before-and-after or polishing; in titles or descriptions, before-and-after or a transformation appears in 4.6% of videos. Finishing, trowels, floats or screeds appear in 21.0% of titles or descriptions (our count).

Uploaders marked 3 of the videos as made for kids. None carried YouTube's altered or synthetic content disclosure field, while four channels with 5 of the videos said in their own text that their videos or visuals are AI-generated (our count from videos.list status and channel text).

How active are concrete trade bodies, producers and suppliers on YouTube?

The official channels of 20 concrete trade bodies, producers, product makers, franchisors, an equipment maker and a lead marketplace posted 674 videos in the year to November 4, 2026, with a median of 166.5 views each (our count from the YouTube Data API). We found each channel from a link on the organisation's own website or by handle lookups checked against the channel's own text. Only 2 of them, Quikrete and ConcreteNetwork.com, had any video among the 548 most-viewed search results. GRUBB MUDD alone had 347,000 subscribers, more than the 20 organisation channels combined (280,469).

The trade bodies post often but draw few views. The six trade-body and standards channels read posted 316 videos in the year to November 4, 2026, with a median of 75 views each, and the American Concrete Institute's 251 uploads were mostly long: 6.0% ran 60 seconds or less. The four cement, aggregate and ready-mix producers' channels posted 203 videos with a median of 206 views; 55.2% ran 60 seconds or less (our count). Quikrete's 2 sample videos ranked as high as 20th.

Several channels have gone quiet. ConcreteNetwork.com's channel had 54,000 subscribers but its latest upload is from 2023. 4 more posted nothing in the year: Butterfield Color (latest upload 2017), Increte Systems (2018), A-1 Concrete Leveling's brand channel (2025-06) and the Portland Cement Association's channel, which showed no public videos at all. No YouTube channel was found for 4 of the 21 organisations checked: ICRI, the American Concrete Pavement Association, CRH and the Concrete Craft franchise (our check of their websites and YouTube handles).

How many concrete contractor location pages show a video?

In our read of 157 U.S. location pages of four concrete and concrete-coating brands on November 4, 2026, 25.5% showed a video a visitor could play, and every one of them belonged to a single brand (our count). All 100.0% of the A-1 Concrete Leveling pages showed video: 24.8% of all pages embedded a player (A-1's Vidyard explainer) and 19.1% embedded a YouTube video, a local "what drives concrete leveling cost" clip. The Penhall Company, Granite Garage Floors and Premier Garage pages showed none (0.0%, 0.0% and 0.0%). No page played a muted background loop (0.0%). On the brands' national homepages, 2 of 4 showed a video (our count).

We drew up to 40 pages per brand at random (seed 20261104) from the location pages each brand's sitemap listed that day: A-1 Concrete Leveling, a concrete lifting and repair franchisor, listed 56; Penhall Company, a concrete cutting, coring and breaking contractor that mostly serves commercial and public clients, listed 37; Granite Garage Floors, an epoxy floor coating franchisor, listed 66; and Premier Garage, a garage floor coating and storage franchisor, listed 74 U.S. pages. The last two work on concrete floors but sell coatings, an adjacent trade. The pages were in 37 states and DC. Of 14 brands we considered, 10 could not be read: Ram Jack, Olshan Foundation Repair and Garage Force disallow AI crawlers in robots.txt, Groundworks (PolyLevel), Brundage-Bone and GarageExperts answered with a bot challenge, Concrete Craft's site says it is no longer operating, and Sundek, The Concrete Protector and Precision Concrete Cutting publish no contractor location pages that could be listed politely.

Links out to social video were far more common than video on the page: 66.2% of pages linked to YouTube, 65.0% to Instagram and 96.8% to Facebook, while 0.6% linked to TikTok (one Premier Garage page, to its sister brand's account) (our count).

What does each concrete brand's location page show?

Within a brand, the template decides almost every feature, so the brand table says more than the pooled shares. Counts are of each brand's pages read on November 4, 2026 (our count).

Photos of finished work came from one brand: 24.8% of all pages showed a photo gallery and 7.6% showed or named before-and-after photos, all on Granite Garage Floors pages; with either counted, the share was 24.8% (our count). A-1 shows service tiles and Penhall a carousel of project write-ups, which we did not count as galleries.

How do concrete contractor location pages take estimate requests?

Every page read offered a way to ask for an estimate, quote or consultation online: 100.0% of the 157 pages (our count). 76.4% carried an estimate or contact form with three or more fields on the page itself. 51.0% loaded a named third-party form tool: a HubSpot form on 25.5% of pages (every A-1 page) and Gravity Forms on 23.6% (every Penhall page). The other 49.0% sent visitors to an estimate or consultation page or form on the brand's own site, as Premier Garage and most Granite pages do. 0 pages loaded the field-service booking tools common in other home-service trades (ServiceTitan, Housecall Pro, Jobber, Calendly or LeadConnector) (our count).

Do concrete contractor pages show offers, prices, warranties or licence numbers?

No page read on November 4, 2026 carried a coupon, discount or special offer (0.0%), while 34.4% mentioned or linked to financing, mostly through a Financing menu link on Granite Garage Floors and Premier Garage pages (our count). 24.8% printed a price range, all on A-1 pages, which give a typical cost range for residential leveling jobs. 28.0% claimed a warranty: every Granite page (a "Lifetime Satisfaction Warranty"), three Premier Garage pages in Florida ("lifetime warranty") and one A-1 page (a 3-year transferable warranty).

23.6% printed a contractor licence number, and all of those were Penhall pages, which repeat one California contractor licence number in a site-wide footer, including on its Florida, Hawaii and Washington branch pages (our count; numbers recorded only as yes or no). Of the 14 Florida pages read (seven Premier Garage, four Granite and three Penhall pages; A-1 lists no Florida location), only Penhall's three printed a licence number, and that number is the California one. 64.3% of pages showed customer reviews or ratings, but only 1.3% loaded a third-party review widget or review markup; A-1 and Penhall code their own star summaries. 83.4% linked to careers or jobs, mostly from menus and footers.

What are the limits of this count?

• It is a read of four brands' templated pages, not of the many small local concrete contractors who have no page per location. Pooled shares mostly say which of four templates carry a feature; read the brand rows.
• Two of the four brands sell floor coatings on concrete, an adjacent trade, and Penhall mostly serves commercial and public clients. The concrete lifting, foundation-repair and decorative brands that block AI crawlers or answer with a bot challenge are missing.
• Each page was read once, on November 4, 2026, in a headless browser; pages change. A listed page is not proof of a branch in that city.
• Flags are rule matches on the rendered page (menus included unless stated). A hand-check of 30 random pages agreed with the rules on 100.0% of flag values after one fix to the state rule (our calculation). The per-page flags are published as location-pages.csv.
• The count says nothing about video these brands post on YouTube, Facebook or Instagram, only what the location pages embed or link to.

How many new U.S. homes are built on a concrete slab?

Three in four. Of the 1,005,000 new single-family homes completed in the United States in 2025 (Census Survey of Construction), 75.0% (754,000) had a slab or other foundation type (our calculation from Census counts; Census rounds it to 75%). Census's "slab or other" group also takes in homes raised on piers and pilings. The Survey of Construction is a HUD-sponsored sample of new single-family houses; Census publishes no foundation table for apartment buildings.

The slab has been gaining for decades. In 1971, the first year of the series, 38% of new single-family houses were finished on a slab (Census); by 2000 the share was 46% (Census), by 2010 52% (Census) and by 2017 60% (Census). From 2000 to 2025 the number of slab homes completed rose 33.0% while total completions fell 19.1%, and homes with a full or partial basement fell 65.6%, from 465,000 to 160,000 (our calculation from Census counts).

The South, which includes Florida, is slab country. 88.0% of the 584,000 new single-family homes completed there in 2025 sat on a slab, and the region built 68.2% of all new U.S. slab homes that year (our calculation from Census counts). Concrete also shows up above the slab, though rarely: 2% of owner-built new homes completed in 2025 had concrete framing (Census highlights).

The builders' trade body counts homes started rather than completed, from the same Census microdata. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) found 73% of new single-family homes started in 2025 were on slabs, unchanged from 2024 (NAHB Eye on Housing), with 16.4% on full or partial basements and 9.7% on crawl spaces (NAHB). Its earlier analysis put the slab share of starts at 45.8% in 2000 and 72.4% in 2023 (NAHB). By Census division, 85.7% of 2025 starts in the South Atlantic division, which includes Florida, were on slabs, against 97.7% in West South Central and 86.0% in the Pacific division (NAHB); NAHB publishes no state figure. In the East North Central division (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin) slabs passed basements for the first time in 2025, though 43.0% of homes there still had a full or partial basement (NAHB).

What share of a new home's building cost is the foundation?

About a tenth. In NAHB's 2024 Construction Cost survey, foundations averaged $44,748, or 10.5% of total construction cost, for the typical new single-family home (NAHB). The line for excavation, foundation, concrete, retaining walls and backfill alone averaged $43,002, or 10.0% (NAHB). That line was 9.6% of construction cost in NAHB's 1998 survey and peaked at 11.3% in 2015 and 2019 (NAHB).

The sample is small. NAHB emailed the questionnaire to 4,000 builders in fall 2024 and kept usable answers from 41 builders, each describing its typical 2024 home (an average of 2,647 finished square feet) (NAHB). NAHB, a trade body for builders, warns that a different set of builders answers each time, so year-to-year changes should be read with care.

How much cement does the United States use a year?

About 110 million metric tons. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates apparent consumption at 110,000 thousand metric tons in 2025, unchanged from 2024 and down from 114,000 thousand tons in 2022 (USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026). Apparent consumption is production plus imports, minus exports, adjusted for stock changes. Shipments to final customers were about 100 million tons, worth an estimated $17 billion (USGS).

U.S. plants made an estimated 82 million tons of portland and blended cement in 2025, down from an estimated 83 million in 2024 (USGS), plus 2.1 million tons of masonry cement (USGS). USGS's January 2025 edition had first put 2024 output at 84 million tons (USGS 2025 edition), so recent years get revised. Counting Puerto Rico, the country produced about 84,000 thousand tons of cement in 2025, out of a world total of about 3.8 billion tons led by China and India (USGS).

The cement came from 97 plants in 34 States and Puerto Rico in 2025 (USGS), down from 99 plants a year earlier (USGS 2025 edition). Texas, Missouri, California and Florida were the four largest producing States and made about 44% of U.S. output (USGS). The average mill value was about 160 dollars a metric ton in 2025, up from 127 dollars in 2021 (USGS), and an estimated 13,000 people worked at cement mines and mills (USGS), a count that excludes ready-mix drivers and concrete crews.

Who buys the cement, and how much is imported?

Ready-mix plants buy most of it. USGS estimates that 70% to 75% of 2025 cement sales went to ready-mixed concrete producers, 11% to concrete product makers, 8% to 10% straight to contractors and 5% to 10% to other customers (USGS).

About a fifth comes from abroad. Net imports supplied 21 percent of apparent consumption in 2025 (USGS). The country imported about 23,000 thousand tons of hydraulic cement that year (USGS). Turkey supplied 32% of imports in 2021-2024, Canada 20%, Vietnam 13% and Greece 9% (USGS).

The product mix has shifted. Blended cement made up 63% of shipments in the first nine months of 2025, and USGS estimates 95% of that was portland-limestone cement, Type IL (USGS).

How much cement goes to Florida?

About 8.2 million metric tons a year. USGS's monthly survey of cement shippers puts portland and blended cement delivered to Florida customers in 2025 at 8,249,891 metric tons (our sum of the USGS destination tables), or 8.1% of all U.S. and Puerto Rico shipments (our calculation). USGS names Texas, Florida, and California as the leading cement-consuming States, in that order by tonnage (USGS).

The total for Florida fell 2.9% from 2024 (our calculation), and the mix moved toward blended cement. Shipments of portland cement to Florida fell from 3,311,484 tons in 2024 (USGS Mineral Industry Surveys) to 1,815,029 tons in 2025 (USGS), while blended cement rose from 5,188,352 tons (USGS) to 6,434,862 tons, of which 6,133,613 tons were Type IL (USGS). Florida also took 549,876 tons of masonry cement in 2025 (USGS).

National shipments of portland and blended cement, imports included, totaled about 101 million metric tons in 2025, 1.7% less than in 2024 (USGS). The survey's figures are estimates, which USGS says are accurate to no more than three significant digits.

How much sand, gravel and stone goes into concrete?

About two-fifths of construction sand and gravel. USGS estimates that 42% of the construction sand and gravel produced in 2025 was used as aggregate in portland cement concrete (USGS), out of a total of 870 million metric tons worth $12.6 billion from about 6,500 pits (USGS). Crushed stone output was about 1.5 billion tons worth $27 billion; 72% went to construction aggregate, mostly for roads, and 17% to cement making (USGS). USGS does not publish the share of crushed stone that ends up in concrete. The leading stone States were Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, in that order (USGS).

What do the cement and ready-mix trade bodies forecast?

A dip in 2026, then slow growth. The American Cement Association, the cement makers' trade body and formerly the Portland Cement Association, projected in its Spring 2026 forecast that U.S. cement consumption would fall 2.5% in 2026 (ACA). Its Summer 2026 forecast expected growth of 0.4% in 2027 and 2.6% in 2028 (ACA), and 625,000 to 725,000 metric tons of cement a year going into data centers in 2026-2028 (ACA). These are forecasts from producers who sell into the market; the full reports are sold to subscribers.

The ready-mix producers' trade body, the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA), keeps its production, plant and truck counts in members-only reports. Its public summary of the 2022 Mixer Driver Recruitment and Retention Survey, whose respondents covered 29% of mixer driver jobs, put the U.S. mixer driver population at about 75,000 for the eighth year running (NRMCA), and 70% of responding companies said they had lost business because of a driver shortage (NRMCA).

How many miles of U.S. roads are paved with concrete?

A small share of the main road network. The Federal Highway Administration counted 53,354 miles of concrete-surfaced public roads in 2024, against 795,217 miles of asphalt and 91,335 miles of composite pavement, which is asphalt laid over concrete (FHWA Highway Statistics 2024). These counts leave out local roads, which FHWA does not split by surface type.

How many licensed concrete contractors does California have?

California's Contractors State License Board (CSLB) counted 7,089 licences holding the C-8 (Concrete) classification in December 2025 (CSLB 2025 report), the tenth-largest of its classifications. The count comes from CSLB's own "Top Ten License Categories" table. One licence can hold several classifications, so this is a count of licences that hold C-8, not of firms that only pour concrete; a general building contractor who also does flatwork is not in it.

The concrete count is small next to the general trades. The B (General Building) classification was held by 131,137 licences that month (CSLB), or 18.5 B licences for every C-8 licence (our calculation). California had 286,586 contractor licences of all kinds in December 2025, of which 243,130 were active (CSLB).

The count was highest in 2022 of the six years shown and then fell 9.9% by December 2025 (our calculation from CSLB counts). Most of the drop came in one year: the count fell by 548 in 2023 (our calculation), the year a state law (SB 216, 2022) began requiring every C-8 licensee to carry workers' compensation insurance, even with no employees.

How many California concrete contractors declared no employees?

In 2018, 42% of active California C-8 (Concrete) licence classifications had a workers' compensation exemption on file, which a licensee files by declaring under penalty of perjury that it has no employees (CSLB 2018 report). The base was 6,084 active C-8 classifications with a policy or an exemption on file (CSLB). When CSLB wrote to the affected licensees on November 1, 2022, 2,706 C-8 licensees still had an exemption on file (CSLB Sunset Review Report 2023). On July 1, 2023, CSLB suspended 1,681 licences and removed a classification from 1,122 more that had not replaced an exemption with a policy; those figures cover four classifications together (C-8 Concrete, C-20 HVAC, C-22 Asbestos and D-49 Tree Service), not concrete alone (CSLB).

How many candidates take California's concrete exam in Spanish?

321 candidates took the C-8 (Concrete) trade exam in Spanish in 2025 (CSLB 2025 report), against 333 in 2024 (CSLB 2024 report). These are exam sittings, not licences. After CSLB let Spanish candidates switch to the English original on screen (rolled out from November 2024 to March 2025), the pass rate on the Spanish concrete exam rose from 19% to 35% (CSLB); the report does not give the number of candidates behind the two rates or the exact before and after windows.

How many concrete contractors are registered in Washington?

Washington had 745 active construction contractor registrations listing concrete as their specialty on November 4, 2026 (our count of the Washington Department of Labor & Industries registration file on data.wa.gov). That is 1.1% of the 68,237 active construction contractor registrations in the state (our calculation). Concrete ranked 7th among the specialty categories, with general contractors left out (our ranking). The count understates concrete work: 76.1% of active Washington contractors register as general contractors (our calculation), and a general contractor that pours concrete is not counted as a concrete specialist.

The file holds 1,765 concrete-specialty registrations of any status, of which 42.2% are active and 756 have expired (our count); 92 are suspended and 65 are marked out of business. Of the active concrete specialists, 85.4% have a Washington mailing address, and most of the rest are in Oregon and Idaho (our count). Concrete firms lean to corporations: 27.4% of active concrete registrations are corporations against 21.7% of all contractors, and 56.0% are limited liability companies against 63.9% of all contractors (our calculation).

Which Washington counties have the most concrete contractors?

King County, with 106 active concrete-specialty registrations, followed by Snohomish (96) and Pierce (89) (our count, assigning each mailing-address ZIP code to the county that holds most of its land in the Census 2020 ZIP-to-county file). Together the three Puget Sound counties hold 47.9% of the 607 active concrete specialists with a Washington ZIP (our calculation). Relative to all contractors, Pierce County leads among counties with at least 1,000 active registrations, at 13.8 concrete specialists per 1,000 registrations; Thurston County is lowest at 6.3 (our calculation). Counts by county are in our CSV; the file lists no licensee names.

How many people hold American Concrete Institute certifications?

The American Concrete Institute (ACI), the standards and certification body that runs the field-testing technician, flatwork finisher and inspector programs, says on its certification page (read November 2026) that it currently maintains over 120,000 certifications (ACI). It says it has given certification exams to over 900,000 people since 1983 (ACI). Both are ACI's own worldwide counts across all its programs, undated on the page, and ACI charges for the exams.

How many cement masons and concrete finishers are there, and what do they earn?

U.S. employers counted 206,170 wage-and-salary cement masons and concrete finishers (SOC 47-2051) in May 2025 (BLS OEWS). Their mean annual wage was $60,050 (BLS OEWS) and the median was $57,020 (BLS OEWS). The lowest-paid tenth earned less than $39,190 (BLS OEWS) and the highest-paid tenth more than $85,480 (BLS OEWS). These figures come from the OEWS employer survey, so they leave out the self-employed and business owners. The federal occupation also covers concrete swimming pool installers.

California's mean wage for the trade was above the national mean in May 2025, while Texas and Florida were below it. Florida held 7.4% of the nation's payroll jobs in the trade, and its median wage was 14.6% below the U.S. median (our calculation). In both Florida metro areas shown, the median wage was below the national median. Metro estimates for a single occupation rest on small samples, so the Port St. Lucie figures carry wide error.

Which businesses employ concrete finishers?

Poured concrete foundation and structure contractors (NAICS 23811) employed 89,480 of the 206,170 wage-and-salary cement masons and concrete finishers in May 2025 (BLS OEWS). That is 43.4% of the occupation's payroll jobs (our calculation). The wider group of foundation, structure, and building exterior contractors (NAICS 2381) employed 104,250 (BLS OEWS).

The Occupational Outlook Handbook has no profile of its own for the trade. It folds cement masons and concrete finishers into "masonry workers", together with brickmasons, blockmasons, stonemasons and terrazzo workers, a group that held about 277,700 jobs in 2025 (BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook). Poured concrete contractors were that group's largest employer, with 31% of its jobs (BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook).

How fast will concrete finishing jobs grow, and how many finishers work for themselves?

BLS projects employment of cement masons and concrete finishers to grow 1.6% from 2025 to 2035 (BLS Employment Projections), from 204.8 thousand jobs in 2025, a count that includes the self-employed (BLS Employment Projections). Growth is slow, but BLS still expects about 13.6 thousand openings a year over the decade (BLS Employment Projections). For the masonry group as a whole, BLS says most openings will come from replacing workers who change occupations or retire (BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook).

By the BLS measure, few finishers work for themselves: 1.5% were self-employed in 2025 (BLS Employment Projections), against 5.8% of workers in all occupations (BLS Employment Projections). The Census Bureau's nonemployer count in the next section measures something else. It counts businesses with no paid employees that file business tax returns, side businesses included, and it covers all foundation, structure and exterior trades, not concrete alone.

Who works as a concrete finisher?

The Current Population Survey counted 51 thousand employed cement masons, concrete finishers and terrazzo workers in 2025 (BLS Current Population Survey). This household survey puts terrazzo workers in the same group and counts people by their main job, as they describe it. Its count is far below the employer survey's, and detailed occupations in it rest on small samples.

In the same 2025 survey, 63.2% of the group was Hispanic or Latino (BLS Current Population Survey), against 20.0% of all employed people (BLS Current Population Survey). Women were 0.0% of the group after rounding (BLS Current Population Survey).

How dangerous is concrete contracting?

Private poured concrete foundation and structure contractors (NAICS 23811) reported 2.8 nonfatal injury and illness cases per 100 full-time workers in 2024 (BLS SOII), against 2.3 for all private industry (BLS SOII). 1.3 cases per 100 workers were serious enough to keep the worker away from work for at least a day (BLS SOII). Employers report these rates from their injury logs. They leave out the self-employed and are known to undercount.

In 2024, 34 workers in the same industry died from work injuries, according to the BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, which also counts the self-employed (BLS CFOI). The table sorts these deaths by event. Transportation incidents, exposure to harmful substances or environments, and contact with objects and equipment were the largest published categories.

How many concrete contractor businesses are there in the U.S.?

In 2025 the United States averaged 24,691 private establishments of poured concrete foundation and structure contractors with employees, according to the BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (BLS QCEW). Together they averaged 253,973 jobs (BLS QCEW) and paid an average of $72,896 per job (BLS QCEW). Ten years earlier, in 2015, there were 18,426 establishments (BLS QCEW) with 190,287 jobs (BLS QCEW) and average pay of $48,305 (BLS QCEW). Over the decade that is 34.0% more establishments, 33.5% more jobs and 50.9% higher average pay (our calculation). Pay figures are not adjusted for inflation. QCEW counts only businesses that pay unemployment insurance for their workers, so owner-operators with no employees and crews paid as subcontractors are not in these numbers.

The Census Bureau's County Business Patterns counted 23,350 such establishments with paid employees in 2023 (Census CBP). Most were small: 13,738 had fewer than 5 employees (Census CBP). That is 58.8% of them (our calculation).

The federal industry code is NAICS 238110. Census defines it as establishments "primarily engaged in pouring and finishing concrete foundations and structural elements", and the definition also covers grout, shotcrete and mud-jacking contractors (Census NAICS). Some concrete driveway and patio firms are coded elsewhere. The definition of NAICS 238990, All other specialty trade contractors, lists residential and commercial driveway paving and patio and sidewalk pavers alongside billboard erection, fence installation and crane rental (Census NAICS). That code held 58,426 private establishments in 2025 (BLS QCEW). Because it mixes concrete flatwork with many unrelated trades, its totals cannot stand in for flatwork contractors.

How much do concrete contractors take in, and from what work?

U.S. poured concrete contractors with employees took in $78,743,872 thousand in 2022, according to the Economic Census (Census Economic Census). In 2017 the figure was $52,694,411 thousand (Census Economic Census); neither figure is adjusted for inflation. Receipts rose 49.4% between the two censuses (our calculation). In 2022 the census counted 23,110 establishments (Census Economic Census), and their payroll was $17,968,785 thousand (Census Economic Census).

Concrete contracting other than paving or precast brought in $66,077,301 thousand of the 2022 total (Census Economic Census). The rest came from other work these firms also reported, including excavation, masonry, framing and driveway paving. By type of building, new single-family detached homes were the industry's largest product line, at 13.4% of receipts (Census Economic Census). Residential driveways are a common side line. 17.4% of establishments reported new private driveway and parking-area work (Census Economic Census), though it was a small share of receipts.

How many concrete contractors work in Florida and in Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties?

In 2025 Florida averaged 2,188 private poured concrete contractor establishments, up from 1,457 in 2015, according to BLS QCEW (BLS QCEW) (BLS QCEW). Their jobs rose to 22,846 from 14,810 over the same years (BLS QCEW) (BLS QCEW). That is 50.2% more establishments and 54.3% more jobs, faster growth than the nation's, and Florida had 8.9% of U.S. establishments in 2025 (our calculation). Average pay was $63,284 in 2025 (BLS QCEW), below the national average for the industry. County Business Patterns counted 1,823 Florida establishments with paid employees in 2023 (Census CBP).

The three counties together had 12.0% of Florida's establishments in the industry and 14.5% of its jobs in 2025 (our calculation).

Florida's employer concrete contractors took in $6,102,783 thousand in 2022 (Census Economic Census), against $3,416,229 thousand in 2017 (Census Economic Census). That is a 78.6% rise in current dollars, and Florida firms took in 7.8% of the industry's U.S. receipts in 2022 (our calculation). Counted by where the work was done rather than where firms are based, the industry did $5,752,901 thousand of construction work in Florida in 2022 (Census Economic Census).

How many concrete businesses have no employees, and who owns the firms?

Census does not publish its nonemployer count for NAICS 238110. The nearest published level is NAICS 2381, foundation, structure, and building exterior contractors, which also includes framing, masonry, glazing, roofing, siding and structural steel contractors. That group had 317,990 businesses with no paid employees in 2024 (Census Nonemployer Statistics), 25,430 of them in Florida (Census Nonemployer Statistics). Most nonemployer businesses are self-employed people filing business tax returns, and some are side businesses.

The 2023 Annual Business Survey also publishes only the NAICS 2381 level. It counted 104,099 employer firms in the group whose owners could be classified (Census ABS). Of these, 19,812 were Hispanic-owned (Census ABS), 9,100 were female-owned (Census ABS) and 5,578 were veteran-owned (Census ABS). Hispanic-owned firms were 19.0% of the classified firms (our calculation). Firms owned equally by two groups are counted separately.

Are ready-mix concrete and cement prices still rising?

The producer price index for ready-mix concrete was 2.3% higher in September 2026 than a year earlier, a preliminary BLS figure (BLS PPI). The index for hydraulic cement, the BLS group that holds portland cement, moved -1.2% over the same 12 months (BLS PPI). Producer price indexes track what makers are paid, not what contractors or homeowners pay, and BLS can revise preliminary values for four months.

How much ready-mix concrete do the big producers sell, and at what price?

Knife River sold 3.9 million cubic yards of ready-mix concrete in 2025 at an average $199.17 per cubic yard, the highest of the five averages below (Knife River 10-K). Vulcan Materials shipped 4.5 million cubic yards at an average $188.82 (Vulcan 10-K). These are producers' delivered prices for the material, set by each company's own revenue-per-yard method, not what a contractor charges to place and finish a slab. Each company sells into the market it describes.

Prices rose at every producer that gives a series. Knife River's average went from $170.42 in 2023 to $199.17 in 2025, and Vulcan's from $166.95 to $188.82. Summit Materials, bought by Quikrete in 2025, filed its last 10-K for 2023; the Argos USA business it bought in January 2024 added 140 ready-mix plants and over 1,000 delivery trucks (Summit 10-K). Martin Marietta's 58 Texas plants were held for sale in a pending swap with Quikrete at the end of 2025.

Concrete is mostly rock. Vulcan's 10-K says aggregates make up approximately 80% of ready-mixed concrete by weight (Vulcan 10-K). CEMEX says the concrete industry has historically used approximately 75% of the cement made in the United States each year, without naming a source or year (CEMEX 20-F).

How big is the U.S. ready-mix industry by the producers' own filings?

CEMEX's 2025 annual report, citing estimates from the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (the industry's trade body), says the United States had about 6,800 ready-mix plants and about 70,000 mixer trucks at the end of 2025 (CEMEX 20-F). The same paragraph puts the value of ready-mix concrete produced at approximately $45 billion a year (CEMEX 20-F). The filing does not give NRMCA's method. Ready-mix is CEMEX's largest U.S. line: 55% of its U.S. external revenues in 2025, against 24% for cement (CEMEX 20-F), and it was using approximately 87% of its U.S. ready-mix plants at year end (CEMEX 20-F). CEMEX's eight U.S. cement plants had 12.1 million tons a year of installed capacity (CEMEX 20-F).

Concrete pumping is a separate service market. Concrete Pumping Holdings, which names general contractors and concrete contractors as its customers, ran about 1,520 units of equipment from about 150 U.S. and U.K. locations at October 31, 2025 (Concrete Pumping Holdings 10-K).

What do cement and ready-mix companies disclose about Florida?

Titan America's Florida ready-mix business ran 48 batching units at 41 locations across the peninsula in 2025 (Titan America 20-F). Its Florida segment earned $469,676 thousand from ready-mix concrete in 2025, before internal trading is removed (Titan America 20-F). Its Pennsuco plant in Medley, Miami-Dade County, which the company calls the largest cement plant in Florida by capacity, can make 2.4 million tons of cement a year (Titan America 20-F). The Port Tampa Bay terminal has imported an average of over 750,000 tons of cement a year over the last three years (Titan America 20-F), and the Pennsuco block plant can make over 20 million concrete blocks a year (Titan America 20-F).

Florida ranked No. 7 among Vulcan Materials' top ten revenue states in 2025 (Vulcan 10-K); those ten states produced 90% of its revenues (Vulcan 10-K). Vulcan does not give Florida revenue in dollars. CEMEX lists Florida among the ten states holding its 279 U.S. ready-mix plants and says its concrete block and related businesses are mainly in Florida. Martin Marietta bought aggregates operations in South Florida in 2024 but runs ready mixed plants only in Arizona and Texas.

Which construction markets buy the stone, sand and cement?

Residential construction took 22% of Martin Marietta's 2025 aggregates shipments (Martin Marietta 10-K), nonresidential 36% (Martin Marietta 10-K) and public infrastructure 37% (Martin Marietta 10-K). The split counts tons of crushed stone, sand and gravel, the main ingredient of concrete, not cubic yards of concrete. CRH's Americas Materials Solutions segment, which sells aggregates, cement, readymixed concrete and paving in North America, made 45% of CRH's 2025 revenues (CRH 10-K). CEMEX says its U.S. ready-mix is sold mainly to residential, commercial and public contractors and to building companies, but gives no shares.

What do concrete franchisors disclose about outlets, sales and advertising?

Sam the Concrete Man, a concrete repair and replacement franchise, had 113 outlets at the end of 2025, up from 88 a year earlier (Sam the Concrete Man FDD). Concrete Craft, a decorative concrete franchise, had 77 at the end of 2023 (Concrete Craft FDD), and A-1 Concrete Leveling had 40 franchised outlets at the end of 2024 (A-1 Concrete Leveling FDD). These are franchisor disclosure documents filed with the Minnesota Department of Commerce; franchisors sell franchises, and the sales figures are reported by franchisees and not audited.

A-1 Concrete Leveling spent 80% of its 2024 Brand Fund on producing advertising, which it describes as broadcast advertising videos and customer engagement clips for social media; 18.5% went to pay-per-click media (A-1 Concrete Leveling FDD). The fund was small: it took in and spent $31,533 that year (A-1 Concrete Leveling FDD). Concrete Craft spent 68% of its 2023 National Advertising Fund on media placement, including digital advertising and social media, and 4% on production and content creation (Concrete Craft FDD).

Sam the Concrete Man's 36 reporting franchisees spent an average of $19,968.91 each on their own advertising in 2025, on top of the brand fund contribution (Sam the Concrete Man FDD). Their median gross revenue was $940,276. The franchisor itself reported advertising expenses of $2,717,153 in 2025, up from $1,522,936 in 2024 (SAMCO audited statements). The Item 19 group of 36 leaves out 47 businesses too new to report a full year, 26 that did not report reliable data and 24 that closed or were transferred.

The franchisors' own estimates of what it costs to open: $93,070 to $151,185 for Sam the Concrete Man (Sam the Concrete Man FDD) and $156,330 to $233,450 for Concrete Craft (Concrete Craft FDD). Concrete Craft territories cover approximately 100,000 households (Concrete Craft FDD). Sundek had no disclosure document on Minnesota's CARDS database on 2026-11-04, and Concrete Craft's latest there is its 2024 document. The brand has since closed: on November 4, 2026, concretecraft.com redirected to a page from its parent, Home Franchise Concepts, saying Concrete Craft is no longer operating as a business (Home Franchise Concepts).

How often do public companies' annual reports mention concrete work?

Rarely by name. Only 17 Form 10-K annual reports filed with the SEC from 2005 to 2025 contained the phrase "stamped concrete", never more than 3 in a year and none in 2025 (our count). 39 contained "decorative concrete" over the same years, and 32 contained "concrete contractor" or "concrete contractors" (our count). We counted distinct 10-K filings per filing year with the SEC's EDGAR full-text search on 2026-11-04; the counts are filings, not companies, and they leave out 20-F filers such as CEMEX and Titan America and every private contractor and franchisor. The yearly counts are in the CSV linked below.

Filings naming ready-mix concrete fell from 28 in 2011 to 12 in 2025 (our count). U.S. Concrete, Texas Industries and Monarch Cement were among the 2011 filers; none of them filed a 10-K naming ready-mix in 2025. In 2025 only 4 of the 12 came from companies whose industry code is aggregates, cement or concrete products: Vulcan Materials, Martin Marietta, Knife River and Smith-Midland. CRH spells the product "readymixed", which the search does not match.

Silica language grew in the year after OSHA's 2016 rule. 10-K filings using "respirable crystalline silica" went from 6 in 2016 to 15 in 2017 and stayed at 10 or more a year through 2025 (our count). OSHA published its respirable crystalline silica standards for general industry and construction (29 CFR 1926.1153) in March 2016; the counts show timing only. The 2017 filers were mostly frac-sand producers and oil and gas partnerships, not concrete companies, and in 2025 Martin Marietta was the only cement, aggregates or ready-mix producer whose 10-K said "crystalline silica".

The search is exact and case-insensitive with no stemming, so singular and plural were searched separately and merged. A hit can be any context: "concrete" also matches the abstract sense of the word, and investment funds' 10-Ks can match too. Year means filing year, so 2025 counts are mostly fiscal 2024 reports. The number of companies filing 10-Ks also changes over time, so these counts are not shares of all filers.

What does a concrete driveway, patio or slab cost in 2026?

Lead marketplaces put a two-car concrete driveway at $2,400 to $8,600 (HomeGuide, 2025) and give a 2026 national average of $6,400 (Angi) or a typical $4,665 (Thumbtack). Every figure below comes from a company that sells homeowner leads or software to concrete contractors, so each is a seller's estimate, not a government price series. None of them publishes a full method, and only Angi gives a project count for one of its averages.

Angi says its mudjacking average rests on 2,631 verified projects from Angi pros (Angi, 2026) (Angi). Angi also says labor is about half of a concrete driveway's total cost (Angi). Thumbtack credits its driveway figure to its own marketplace data, without a count (Thumbtack). The ranges overlap but do not match, because each seller draws on different jobs, regions and finish levels. HomeAdvisor's cost pages were left out: its robots.txt blocks named AI crawlers.

Who do homeowners hire for patios, driveways and other outdoor work?

In 2024, 17% of homeowners with an outdoor project hired a stone, paver or concrete specialist, second only to landscaping contractors, according to the 2024 U.S. Houzz Outdoor Trends Study (Houzz). Houzz surveyed over 1,100 U.S. homeowners on its site in May 2024 who were planning, doing or had just finished an outdoor renovation (Houzz). Houzz sells software and leads to home professionals, and its respondents are its own users, not a random sample of homeowners.

• 65% of these homeowners hired a professional for their outdoor project (Houzz).
• Among homeowners upgrading outdoor features, 39% took on a patio or terrace project, 46% added or updated paths, stairs or steps, and 17% took on a driveway project (Houzz).
• 46% of outdoor projects were at the front of the home, where a driveway or front walk sits (Houzz).
• Of homeowners who upgraded an exterior wall surface, 17% used concrete (Houzz).

Home buyers want patios too. In NAHB's 2024 What Home Buyers Really Want study, a patio was rated essential or desirable by 86% of buyers, tied with a laundry room as the most wanted feature (NAHB Eye On Housing). The NAHB item does not say what the patio is made of.

How do concrete paver and hardscape contractors recruit workers and grow?

Word of mouth is the main way: 79% of hardscape contractors recruited through word of mouth or staff recommendations in the Concrete Masonry & Hardscapes Association's January 2026 survey (CMHA 2026 Contractor Industry Report). Industry Insights ran the survey for CMHA, a trade body, among member and non-member hardscape (segmental concrete paver and wall) contractors in the United States and Canada. These installers sit next to, but are not the same as, poured-concrete flatwork crews.

• 43% recruited through an internet job listing service and 33% through their own company website (CMHA).
• In the 2025 edition, the typical hardscape contractor had a median of 14 employees in the construction season (CMHA 2025).
• Median gross hardscape revenue rose 7% in 2024 (CMHA 2025), and residential work made up 68% of contractor work in 2025 (CMHA 2025).

Where do concrete contractors meet, organize and advertise?

World of Concrete 2026 in Las Vegas drew more than 47,400 registered professionals in January 2026, its organiser Informa says (Informa press release). More than 1,300 companies exhibited, and 284 of them were new to the show (Informa). These are registrations reported by the company that sells the show's floor space, not audited attendance.

The American Society of Concrete Contractors, founded in 1964, says it represents approximately 750 companies worldwide (ASCC). Its members include manufacturers, suppliers and designers as well as contractors, so this is not a count of concrete contractors.

Google's U.S. Local Services Ads list, read on November 4, 2026, includes Foundations services but no separate concrete, driveway or paving category (Google Local Services Help). Flatwork and decorative concrete contractors have no category of their own on that list.

Software sellers publish rules of thumb rather than survey data. Housecall Pro's 2026 pricing guide says most concrete contractors aim for a gross profit margin of 20%-35% per job, higher for decorative and repair work and lower for plain flatwork (Housecall Pro). The same page claims that its customers in all trades raise monthly revenue processed through Housecall Pro by more than 35% after their first year (Housecall Pro). That figure is a seller's claim about its own users, with no sample or period given.

What do studies show about drones on concrete and construction jobs?

Drone images can count rebar before a pour: a 2025 Scientific Reports study reached 86.27% exact rebar-count accuracy on drone images of reinforced-concrete work with its best model (Scientific Reports, PMID 41023102). The figure comes from the study's own test images, not from field use on concrete jobs.

• A 2023 Sensors pilot study built a 7041-image set from drone flights over active construction sites. A Faster R-CNN model spotted hardhats with 93.1% precision (Sensors, PMID 37571475).
• A 2022 Journal of Safety Research study used drone images and video to flag missing fall-protection gear on construction sites in the United Arab Emirates. It took about 12 seconds on average to detect a violation (Journal of Safety Research, PMID 36481029).

None of these studies measured marketing video. They show drone images of a site used as an inspection and safety record.

How much do water and dust extraction cut silica dust from cutting, grinding and drilling concrete?

A pooled model of 1,466 task-based silica measurements from 46 published sources, published in 2013, linked water-fed tools to 71% lower exposure and local exhaust ventilation to 69% lower, both against no controls (Sauvé et al., Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 2013). Single studies of concrete grinding, cutting and drilling measured larger cuts. Most of the field and lab studies below were run in the United States; each counts a different task, sample and year, so the percentages are not directly comparable.

The controls cut exposure a lot, but often not below health limits. In the 201-session grinding study, no combination of controls brought an 8-hour exposure under the 0.025 mg/m³ criterion the authors used, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) threshold (Akbar-Khanzadeh et al., 2010). In the 2007 study, wet grinding still averaged 0.959 mg/m³, 38 times that threshold (Akbar-Khanzadeh et al., 2007). In Seattle, 22% of the cement masons' samples taken with extraction running were still above the OSHA limit of the time (Croteau et al., 2004). Curb-cutting saw operators were projected to pass the ACGIH quartz limit of 0.025 mg/m³ in under an hour even with water or a vacuum (Middaugh et al., 2012). In CPWR's summary of the saw-cutting study, 10 of 79 dry cuts exceeded the OSHA limit of the time within 3 to 5 minutes, against one of 89 wet cuts (CPWR, a NIOSH-funded research centre).

The tool matters too. Drilling concrete block on a test bench, a pneumatic rock drill threw off 22.23 mg/m³ of respirable silica dust against 0.55 mg/m³ for an electric rotary hammer of similar weight, and peaked at 139.4 dBC of noise against 117.7 dBC (Rempel et al., Applied Ergonomics, 2019).

How much silica do construction workers breathe on real jobs?

Across 373 task-based samples from 70 construction sites in Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba taken from May 2015 to August 2020, the overall geometric mean was 0.045 mg/m³ of respirable crystalline silica, above the 0.025 mg/m³ ACGIH threshold (Gorman Ng et al., Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 2023). Demolition was the dustiest task at 0.30 mg/m³, followed by breaking and grinding, and outdoor work averaged 39% lower exposure than indoor work (Gorman Ng et al.). These are Canadian task samples, not U.S. full-shift averages.

U.S. contractors report using more dust controls since OSHA's construction silica rule took effect in 2017 (the rule itself is covered in the rules section). Telephone surveys of members of the Mason Contractors Association of America, the Concrete Sawing and Drilling Association and the American Concrete Pavement Association in 2014 and 2021 found significant increases in dust capture on handheld saws, handheld grinders and hammer drills (Dickerson and Goldberg, Virginia Tech, 2025). The surveys measured self-reported frequency of use, not exposure.

What exposure limit does NIOSH recommend for silica?

NIOSH recommends 0.05 mg/m³ of respirable crystalline silica as a time-weighted average for up to a 10-hour day in a 40-hour week, a recommendation it set out in its 2002 Hazard Review and still lists (NIOSH Hazard Review, 2002). The same review, citing a 1991 NIOSH estimate, said at least 1.7 million U.S. workers in all industries were potentially exposed (NIOSH). That count is decades old; OSHA's enforceable limit and the 2016 rule's own estimates are in the rules section.

How many people die of silicosis in the United States?

CDC counted 1,437 U.S. decedents aged 15 and older with silicosis listed as an underlying or contributing cause of death in 2001-2010, across all industries (CDC, MMWR, 2015). The yearly count fell from 164 in 2001 to 101 in 2010 (CDC, MMWR); CDC's longer series fell from 1,065 deaths in 1968 to 165 in 2004 (CDC, MMWR). A later CDC analysis found silicosis-associated deaths fell 53.0% from 1999 to 2018 (Bell and Mazurek, MMWR, 2020).

Deaths in young adults point to heavy, recent exposure. CDC found 55 deaths coded to silica-containing dust among Americans aged 15 to 44 in 1999-2015; those coded to silica other than talc most often worked in manufacturing and construction (Mazurek et al., MMWR, 2017). An earlier update counted 12 silicosis deaths in that age group in 2011-2013 alone (Mazurek et al., MMWR, 2015). The recent U.S. clusters are in countertop fabrication with engineered stone, not concrete work: CDC's 2019 report described 18 cases in four states, including the first two U.S. deaths in that industry (Rose et al., MMWR, 2019).

Do concrete workers have more lung disease or cancer?

Some studies find higher risk, though smoking and old exposures muddy the picture. Among 17,941 workers screened at U.S. Department of Energy nuclear sites, cement masons and bricklayers had the highest COPD risk of any trade, an odds ratio of 2.36 against non-construction workers after adjusting for smoking (Dement et al., American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2021). In a Swedish cohort of 33,503 concrete workers enrolled in 1971-86, lung cancer incidence ran at 125 against a population baseline of 100, which the authors say smoking alone could explain, while stomach cancer ran at 139 (Knutsson et al., Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2000). A NIOSH study of 12,873 deceased members of the plasterers' and cement masons' union (1972-1996) found cement masons' stomach cancer mortality ratio at 133 (Stern et al., NIOSH, 2001). At one Iranian concrete plant, 22% of 72 silica-exposed workers had an obstructive breathing pattern despite average exposure near 0.025 mg/m³ (Rahimi Moghadam et al., 2020).

What does wet cement do to skin?

Wet cement is strongly alkaline and can burn deep enough to need surgery. Thirty-three patients with cement burns were admitted to the Royal Adelaide Hospital's adult burns unit in 2020-2025, more than in the unit's previous 10-year audit (Moran et al., ANZ Journal of Surgery, 2026). 60% of those burns happened in do-it-yourself settings, most often from kneeling in wet cement, and 79% of patients needed an operation even though the average burn covered 2% of the body (Moran et al.).

Hexavalent chromium in cement causes allergic dermatitis, and limits on it work. After the UK banned cement with more than 2 ppm chromate in January 2005, chromate dermatitis among workers potentially exposed to cement fell to an incidence rate ratio of 0.37 for 2005-2009 against 2002-2004 (Stocks et al., Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2012). Where no limit exists, the problem persists: a Melbourne clinic estimated at least 24 cases a year of occupational chromium dermatitis from cement in Australia over 1993-2013 (Wong et al., 2015), and 65 of 97 cement workers examined in Tainan, Taiwan had cement hand dermatitis (Wang et al., 2011). In Germany, where cement is chromate-reduced, potassium dichromate was still the most common allergen in 245 building-trade workers patch-tested in 2009-2011, at 15.1% positive (Geier et al., 2017).

How hard is concrete work on backs and knees?

Cement masons rank among the construction trades with the highest rates of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. An analysis of U.S. injury survey data for 1992-2014 by CPWR researchers named cement masons among the four occupations with the highest rates, and found back injuries made up more than 40% of construction cases (Wang et al., Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2017). Median time away from work for these injuries rose to 13 days in 2014 from 8 in 1992 (Wang et al.). In CPWR's analysis of 2024 O*NET data, cement masons and concrete finishers scored 88 out of 100 for exposure to repetitive motion, just behind brickmasons and floor sanders at 89 (CPWR Construction Chart Book, 7th edition).

Studies of nearby trades show where the load comes from. Dutch floor layers who levelled sand-cement screed by hand reported low back complaints at 39% against 26% for self-levelling floor layers, and kneeled 94 minutes longer per shift in observation (Visser et al., Ergonomics, 2013). Low-back compression on Dutch ironworkers handling rebar exceeded the NIOSH limit of 3400 newtons whether two people carried 50 kg or four carried 100 kg (van der Molen et al., 2012).

How hot does construction work get in summer?

Forty-three percent of 32 U.S. commercial construction workers (carpenters, concrete workers, laborers and roofers) monitored over three summer days had a core body temperature above 38.0 °C, in a 2025 pilot study (Specht et al., Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 2025). 63% started their shift already dehydrated (Specht et al.). The study did not report concrete workers separately.

Who does concrete work, and what new materials do they handle?

Cement masons were 53.6% minority workers in 2023 against a construction average of 38.9%, in CPWR's tabulation of Current Population Survey data (CPWR Construction Chart Book). Concrete and cement masons were also the trade linked to the most nano-enabled products in CPWR's eLCOSH Nano Inventory by December 2024, 216 of 954, most often containing silica (CPWR). CPWR is the research and training arm of the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department and is funded through a NIOSH cooperative agreement.

What does OSHA's silica rule require for jackhammers, grinders, saws and core drills?

OSHA's construction silica standard, 29 CFR 1926.1153, gives each common concrete task its own line in Table 1, and an employer that follows a line exactly does not have to measure workers' exposure for that task (OSHA, 29 CFR 1926.1153). Each line names the dust control (water at the blade or bit, or a shroud with a vacuum dust collector) and the minimum respirator, given as an assigned protection factor (APF). The respirator columns split at 4 hours of the task in a shift. The table shows the lines a concrete crew uses most, as written in the current eCFR text.

Source: OSHA, 29 CFR 1926.1153(c)(1), Table 1. A walk-behind saw used outdoors with water needs no respirator at any shift length. Lines for stationary masonry saws, wet handheld saws and walk-behind floor grinders are on the flooring page.

The dust collectors are specified too. Collectors on shrouded grinders must move 25 cubic feet per minute or more of air per inch of wheel diameter (29 CFR 1926.1153), and collectors on drills and jackhammers need a filter of 99% or greater efficiency (29 CFR 1926.1153). A task or setting not on Table 1, such as a drivable saw used indoors, falls back on measuring exposure against the limit.

What else does the silica standard require of a concrete contractor?

Every covered construction employer must keep a written exposure control plan, review it at least annually and name a competent person to make frequent and regular inspections of job sites, materials and equipment (29 CFR 1926.1153). The plan has to describe each silica task, its controls and respirators, the housekeeping methods and how access to work areas is limited.

Two common clean-up habits are banned where they could raise exposure: dry sweeping or dry brushing, unless wet sweeping or HEPA vacuuming is not feasible (29 CFR 1926.1153), and blowing dust off clothes or surfaces with compressed air, unless a ventilation system captures the dust cloud or no other method is feasible (29 CFR 1926.1153).

Workers in the medical surveillance program get a chest X-ray read by a NIOSH-certified B Reader, a lung function test and a physical exam at least every three years (29 CFR 1926.1153). The standard took effect on June 23, 2016, and its construction obligations, except the laboratory sample-analysis methods, began on June 23, 2017 (29 CFR 1926.1153).

What did OSHA estimate its 2016 silica rule would do for construction?

OSHA estimated in the final rule, published March 25, 2016, that 2.0 million construction workers out of 2.3 million in all industries would be affected (OSHA, 81 FR 16286). It counted 586,800 affected construction firms running 600,700 establishments (OSHA, 81 FR 16286). These are OSHA's modelled estimates, not counts, and OSHA notes that many of those workers spend most of their time on tasks with no silica exposure.

For all covered sectors together, OSHA projected that the rule would prevent 642 deaths and 918 moderate-to-severe silicosis cases a year once fully in effect, with net benefits of about $7.7 billion a year at a 3% discount rate (OSHA, 81 FR 16286). OSHA did not split the deaths prevented by sector in its summary.

• Cost to construction: $659.0 million a year in 2012 dollars, out of $1,029.8 million for all sectors (OSHA, 81 FR 16286).
• Hardest-hit construction group: NAICS 238100, Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors, which contains poured concrete contractors, at 0.12 percent of revenues and 3.66 percent of profits, against OSHA's screening lines of 1 percent and 10 percent (OSHA, 81 FR 16286).
• Already compliant: OSHA judged that 44 percent of construction workers doing Table 1 tasks were already exposed at or below the new limit (OSHA, 81 FR 16286).
• Training a competent person: $21 to $114 per establishment (OSHA, 81 FR 16286).
• The old construction limit: a particle-count formula equal to about 250 to 500 micrograms per cubic metre of respirable quartz, replaced by a 50-microgram limit (OSHA, 81 FR 16286).

What does OSHA's concrete and masonry standard require on the job site?

OSHA's Subpart Q (29 CFR 1926.700-706), in force since 1988, sets the concrete-specific safety rules, from rebar to precast lifting (OSHA, 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart Q). Most are plain prohibitions; a few carry numbers. All the rules below are quoted from the current eCFR text.

What do federal stormwater rules say about concrete washout?

EPA's construction effluent guidelines prohibit discharging wastewater from washout of concrete unless it is managed by an appropriate control (EPA, 40 CFR 450.21). The rule applies through stormwater permits, which are needed for construction that disturbs one acre or more, or less if the site is part of a larger common plan of development (EPA, 40 CFR 122.26).

EPA's own 2022 Construction General Permit, which applies where EPA rather than a state issues permits, spells the control out: wash water from cleaning concrete applicators and containers goes into a leak-proof container or lined pit sized so it cannot overflow, liquid waste may not be dumped on the ground or into drains, and hardened concrete is disposed of with other construction waste (EPA, 2022 CGP Part 2.3.4). That permit expires on February 16, 2027 (EPA, 2022 CGP).

Does Florida license concrete contractors?

Florida has no state licence category for concrete or flatwork, and state law bars counties and cities from requiring a licence for driveway or tennis court installation and other job scopes that do not match a state category (Fla. Stat. 489.117). Chapter 489 licenses general, building and residential contractors (Division I) and a list of trades plus board-rule specialty categories (Division II); none of its definitions names concrete or flatwork (Fla. Stat. 489.105, 489.117).

• Small jobs: work of a casual, minor or inconsequential nature priced under $2,500 in total is exempt, unless the job is split up to dodge the law or the person advertises as a contractor (Fla. Stat. 489.103).
• Penalties: unlicensed contracting is a first-degree misdemeanor, and a felony of the third degree for a repeat offence or during a declared state of emergency (Fla. Stat. 489.127).
• Contracts: a contract signed on or after October 1, 1990 by an unlicensed contractor cannot be enforced by that contractor (Fla. Stat. 489.128).
• Continuing education: state-certified and registered contractors need 14 classroom hours every two years, including workplace safety and 1 hour on laws and rules (Fla. Stat. 489.115).

Counties still issue certificates of competency for the categories they may license. Palm Beach County's contractor licensing office, for example, tells applicants that a credit score of 660 or higher meets its minimum credit reputation requirement (Palm Beach County PZB). Its list of concrete categories could not be read for this page, and Broward County's site blocks AI agents, so county categories are not listed here.

Who sets Florida's concrete and slab building rules?

The Florida Building Commission must adopt an updated Florida Building Code every 3 years, working from the latest International Building and International Residential Codes (Fla. Stat. 553.73). Local governments may add stricter technical amendments no more than once every 6 months, and an updated code takes effect no sooner than 6 months after it is published, both under the same section. The code's own slab provisions (minimum thickness, vapour retarder, concrete strength, termite protection) are published by the International Code Council in a format that could not be read and checked for this page, so they are not quoted here.

How do other states license concrete contractors?

Several Western states license concrete as its own trade. California's Contractors State License Board issues the C-8 concrete contractor class, which covers forming, pouring, placing, finishing and installing mass, pavement and flat concrete and setting screeds for flatwork (16 CCR 832.08). Nevada's State Contractors Board issues classification C-5 for concrete contracting, which also covers preparing the surface and placing rebar and embedded items (NAC 624.230). Washington sorts contractors into two registration classes, general and specialty: every construction contractor registers with Labor and Industries and posts a surety bond of $15,000 as a specialty contractor or $30,000 as a general contractor, the amounts in force since July 1, 2024 (Washington L&I).

What do the popular concrete numbers really say?

Five numbers that concrete pages repeat trace back to narrower sources than the repeats suggest: a "second only to water" ranking that cement makers' own initiative first printed in 2002 without a source; an 8% share of global CO2 that counts cement production, not concrete, and doubles a process estimate; a driveway life of 25 to 30 years that no measured study supports; a 28-day figure that is a test age, not a curing time; and a video vendor's client tests. Each claim below gives the claim as repeated, where it came from, what the original measured, and what to use instead. Earlier editions of industry reports were read in Internet Archive captures.

"Concrete is the most used material on Earth after water"

The claim as repeated. The Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA), the cement producers' global trade body, says that after water concrete is "the most abundant resource in the world - or to put it another way, the most used man-made material on the planet" (GCCA). Its Essential Concrete page calls it "the world's most used material in general after water" (GCCA). Cart-Away, a maker of portable concrete mixers, says concrete is the second most consumed product on Earth after water, with "nearly 3 tons" produced each year for every person, and names no source (Cart-Away).

Where it came from. The earliest form we found is in the Cement Sustainability Initiative's Agenda for Action of July 2002, published by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development for the cement companies that ran the initiative: concrete "is second only to water as the most consumed substance on earth, with nearly three tons used annually for each person on the planet" (CSI, 2003 capture). The initiative's 2001 brochure and the Battelle study it commissioned in 2000 to 2002 do not contain the ranking. The 2005 progress report changed the wording to "after water, concrete is the planet's most used material" and said three tonnes of it would be used that year for every one of the six billion people on Earth (CSI, 2005 capture). The 2009 Recycling Concrete report called it "the second most consumed material after water" (CSI, 2010 capture).

What the original measured. Nothing was measured for the ranking. None of these reports compares concrete with water, or says whether the comparison is by mass, volume or another measure. The per-person figure grew without a stated method: the 2009 report estimated that roughly 25 billion tonnes of concrete are made each year (CSI, 2010 capture), or over 3.8 tonnes per person (CSI, 2010 capture). Chatham House's June 2018 report used a figure less than half as large, more than 10 billion tonnes of concrete a year, and hedged the ranking as true "according to some sources", citing two books on concrete rather than any measurement of water use (Chatham House).

What to use instead. A measured tonnage with its year and unit: world cement production from the U.S. Geological Survey, in the market section of this page, rather than a ranking. Concrete is mostly sand, gravel and crushed stone, so a ranking of concrete against other materials also counts those aggregates. Colin Gagg's 2014 journal paper, often cited for the ranking, and the Guardian's February 2019 feature were not read: the publisher's and the university repository's pages refused automated readers, and the Guardian's robots.txt excludes this research agent.

"Cement is 8% of global CO2 emissions"

The claim as repeated. In January 2019 Envirotech Online, an environmental trade news site, reported that Chatham House research had revealed that "concrete comprises 8% of all carbon emissions on the planet" (Envirotech Online). That moved the figure from cement to concrete, and from CO2 to all carbon emissions.

Where it came from. Chatham House's June 2018 report by Johanna Lehne and Felix Preston said more than 4 billion tonnes of cement are produced each year, "accounting for around 8 per cent of global CO2 emissions" (Chatham House). Its note for the figure cites the 2016 edition of Trends in global CO2 emissions by PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. That report put CO2 from cement clinker production at about 4.0% of total global emissions in 2015 (PBL/JRC, 2016), said fuel burned for cement was "of approximately the same level", and concluded that "in total, cement production accounts for roughly 8%" (PBL/JRC, 2016). The cement makers' own earlier figure was smaller: the 2002 Agenda for Action said the industry produces 5% of global man-made CO2 (CSI, 2003 capture), and the 2005 progress report repeated about 5%, half from the chemical process and 40% from fuel (CSI, 2005 capture).

What the original measured. The 8% counts cement production, not concrete, and adds two parts. Chatham House says more than 50 per cent of the sector's emissions come from calcining limestone to make clinker (Chatham House) and a further 40 per cent from burning fuel in kilns (Chatham House). The process half is the better measured: in a peer-reviewed 2019 series, Robbie Andrew of the CICERO climate research centre put global process emissions from cement at 1.50 Gt CO2 in 2018, "equivalent to about 4 % of emissions from fossil fuels" (Andrew, ESSD 2019). He notes that some global estimates are significantly inflated; the older CDIAC estimate for 2014 was 2.08 Gt CO2 (Andrew, ESSD 2019). The fuel half in the 8% is an assumption that fuel emissions are about equal to process emissions. The GCCA now says its material is responsible for approximately 7% of global CO2 emissions, with no year or method on the page (GCCA).

What to use instead. State which part is counted. For process emissions alone, Andrew's series (about 4% of fossil CO2 in 2018). For process plus fuel, a figure with its year and its source, labelled as cement production, not concrete. The International Energy Agency's cement page, which gives its own share, could not be read for this page.

"A concrete driveway lasts 30 years" (or 25 to 30 years, 30-plus years)

The claim as repeated. Angi, a lead marketplace that sells leads to concrete contractors, says on its concrete driveway page that "a concrete driveway lasts between 25 and 30 years, provided you maintain it correctly" (Angi). Another Angi article says concrete helps a driveway last 30 to 50 years with proper care (Angi). A third says concrete lasts around 50 to 100 years according to the Portland Cement Association (Angi), and that weather, deicers and traffic can shorten that to "as little as 30 years" (Angi). ConcreteNetwork.com, a concrete information site that sells contractor listings, lists a concrete driveway at 40+ years (ConcreteNetwork). A-1 Concrete Leveling, a concrete repair franchisor, says between 20-50 years if properly cared for (A-1 Concrete Leveling). None of these pages names a study.

Where it came from. We found no original. ConcreteNetwork's driveway pages captured in 2001 give no lifespan. The study most home-life charts cite, the National Association of Home Builders' February 2007 Study of Life Expectancy of Home Components, says asphalt driveways should last between 15 and 20 years and has no line for concrete driveways at all (NAHB, 2007). Its figures came from a telephone survey in the summer of 2006 of manufacturers, trade associations and researchers (NAHB, 2007), and the report says it should be used as a general guideline only. We found no Portland Cement Association page that gives a driveway life.

What the original measured. Nothing that was found. The ranges on seller pages run from 20 to 100 years, sometimes on the same site, and none comes from driveways followed over time.

What to use instead. No measured driveway life exists in the sources we found. A page should present a range as an industry estimate and name who gives it, and describe the factors that shorten life (freeze-thaw, deicers, base preparation, joints, thickness and loads) rather than print a single number.

"Concrete takes 28 days to cure" (or reaches full strength in 28 days)

The claim as repeated. Everything About Concrete, a concrete contractor's how-to site, says that at 28 days of cure time "or drying time" concrete has reached full strength and is considered fully cured (Everything About Concrete). A 2017 Bob Vila article presented by Quikrete, a maker of bagged concrete, says the reaction that binds concrete takes nearly 28 days to complete (Bob Vila).

Where it came from. Twenty-eight days is a test age. The American Concrete Institute says that under section 19.2.1.3 of its building code, ACI 318-19, the specified compressive strength "shall be based on the 28-day test results unless otherwise specified in the construction documents" (ACI). Cylinders are made and cured under ASTM C31 and broken under ASTM C39 at that age. ACI adds that 3- or 7-day results are used to monitor early strength gain (ACI). The National Precast Concrete Association, a producers' trade body, wrote in October 2013 that the common belief "is that concrete takes 28 days to cure and reach 100% of its strength", which it called a misunderstanding of what curing means (NPCA, 2013). It calls the 28-day period an arbitrary specimen age chosen to keep testing consistent (NPCA, 2013), and gives a rule of thumb that concrete reaches about 75% of its 28-day strength in seven days (NPCA, 2013). We did not find a public document that records why 28 days was first chosen.

What the original measured. Curing rules are counted in days, not weeks. The Federal Highway Administration's 2006 curing guide summarises ACI 318-95 as requiring concrete other than high-early-strength concrete to be kept above 10 °C and moist "for at least 7 days" (FHWA, 2006). It summarises ACI 308.1-98, the curing specification, as setting a default curing time of 7 days above 10 °C (FHWA, 2006), and ACI 301-96 as allowing curing to end when field-cured cylinders reach 70 percent of the required strength (FHWA, 2006). Concrete keeps gaining strength after 28 days.

What to use instead. Say that 28 days is the standard age at which strength is tested, that curing guidance in ACI's standards is about 7 days (or until a set share of the specified strength is reached), and that walking, driving and loading times depend on the mix, the weather and the specified strength.

"Video lifts conversions 80%"

The claim as repeated. Beverly Boy Productions, a video production company, tells paving contractors that, according to research, marketing videos can "boost landing page conversion rates by 80%", beside a 157% organic traffic claim, naming no study (Beverly Boy). Treehouse Marketing, a contractor marketing agency, wrote in January 2020 that a video on a landing page "can boost conversion by up to 80%", pointing to its own earlier post (Treehouse Marketing).

Where it came from. The trail starts with EyeView, which made and tested videos for its clients. A blog post of December 4, 2008 said visitors to eToro's site who viewed EyeView's video were 20% more likely to download the product. That compared viewers with non-viewers, who chose for themselves whether to watch (EyeView, 2009 capture). The first 80% figure we found is in a post of February 10, 2009: viewers of EyeView's videos for UMOO were 80% more likely to become depositing users, the same kind of comparison (EyeView). In November 2009 a TutorVista manager said the first test on one landing page "boosted conversion by over 80 percent" (EyeView). EyeView's case study gave that one A/B test, with the video autoplaying for first-time visitors, as an 86 percent increase (EyeView).

How it changed. EyeView's 2010 white paper said that "in some cases" the boost was over 80% (EyeView white paper). It reported the eToro split test, earlier told as 20%, as almost 32 percent (EyeView white paper). By August 2010 Unbounce, a landing-page software seller, wrote that "a study by eyeviewdigital.com shows that using video on landing pages can increase conversion by 80%" (Unbounce, 2010 capture). That dropped "in some cases" and the single-client scope. The contractor pages above dropped EyeView too.

What to use instead. Unbounce's own August 2021 look at about 35,000 customer landing pages in each of three periods from late 2020 to early 2021 (Unbounce) found that video had a minimal or negative effect on landing page conversion, whatever the page's goal (Unbounce). Its ten industries did not include concrete contractors. A concrete contractor that wants a number for its own site needs its own test: the same page with and without the video, shown to visitors at random.

Every popular claim our research pages trace, 735 in all, is on one page: popular video statistics, fact-checked.

How we built this page

We started from the questions people search for about concrete contractor video statistics and looked for the organization that actually produced each answer. Every figure on this page sits in an evidence ledger with its source, the exact table or paragraph it came from, the measurement period, the population measured, and the date we checked it. This edition holds 593 figures from 70 publishers.

On November 4, 2026, each sourced figure on this page was re-fetched with the fetch cache cleared and matched against the recorded wording: BLS occupation wage estimates (through the BLS data API), QCEW, producer price indexes, Employment Projections, the Current Population Survey and injury and fatality data (bls.gov pages through Internet Archive copies, because bls.gov refuses automated requests); Census County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, the 2022 and 2017 Economic Census and the Annual Business Survey (through the Census data API) and the Survey of Construction; USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries and cement industry surveys; the American Cement Association’s, NRMCA’s and NAHB’s own releases; FHWA highway statistics; the 10-K and 20-F filings of Vulcan Materials, Martin Marietta, CRH, CEMEX, Eagle Materials, Knife River, Titan America, Amrize, Summit Materials and Concrete Pumping Holdings, and the franchise disclosure documents of Sam the Concrete Man, Concrete Craft and A-1 Concrete Leveling in Minnesota’s public CARDS database; OSHA’s silica and concrete construction standards and the 2016 silica rule in the Federal Register; EPA’s construction stormwater rules and permit; Florida’s contractor and building-code statutes, Palm Beach County’s contractor certification page, and California, Nevada and Washington licensing rules; the California contractor board’s annual and sunset reports (the 12.6 MB sunset report re-read with a longer download); NIOSH, CPWR and CDC reports; peer-reviewed studies (PubMed abstracts re-read through NCBI’s E-utilities, because pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov refuses automated requests); Houzz’s, CMHA’s, Informa’s, Housecall Pro’s and the lead marketplaces’ own pages; and the pages behind each popular claim. Where a site refuses automated requests we read an Internet Archive copy. Our registration counts come from Washington L&I’s open contractor file, our location-page figures from pages we read one at a time, our 10-K phrase counts from EDGAR full-text search, and our YouTube figures from the YouTube Data API. The Census Bureau publishes its 2018 to 2025 foundation tables only as spreadsheets, so those counts appear as our calculations with the spreadsheet values in our evidence table. We left out OSHA’s frequently cited standards for concrete contractors (robots rules), the Florida Building Code’s slab provisions (the code’s official site renders only in a browser and a mirror blocks automated agents), Broward County’s and Nevada’s contractor board pages, HomeAdvisor and the Guardian (robots rules), Arizona’s contractor board (a bot check), and NRMCA’s production totals and the American Cement Association’s state forecasts (members or subscribers only).

We only cite the producer: government agencies, regulators, company filings and official posts, and the survey owner's own report. We do not cite statistics roundups, Statista-style aggregators, or salary sites without a public method. We did not bypass paywalls or sign-up forms; where a full report was gated, we used only the figures its publisher states publicly.

Figures marked "our calculation" are arithmetic on the cited numbers, and anyone can reproduce them:

This edition contains no Mark Studios customer data.

Limitations

• Our YouTube read follows YouTube’s ranking. The 548 videos are what YouTube’s search returned for ‘concrete pour’, ‘stamped concrete’ and ‘concrete driveway’ (the top 200 results of each, sorted by views, with no country filter) on November 4, 2026. It is not a census of concrete video, view counts are lifetime snapshots that include views from ads, and we sorted 303 channels by hand from their public text. One concrete contractor’s creator channel holds 35.3% of the concrete businesses’ views, so we give that share with and without it.
• Four brands’ location pages. Only four concrete brands published location pages we could read: a concrete lifting and repair franchise, a concrete cutting company that works mostly for commercial and public clients, and two garage-floor coating brands, whose trade is next to concrete contracting rather than in it. Within a brand most features are set by its template, so the shares describe four brands, not the many independent concrete contractors, and every playable video came from one brand.
• Industry codes are wider or narrower than the trade. NAICS 238110 covers poured concrete foundation and structure contractors; some flatwork firms file under 238990 with unrelated trades, and Census publishes nonemployer and owner counts only for NAICS 2381, which also holds framing, masonry, roofing, siding and glazing contractors. The occupation code 47-2051 includes concrete pool installers, BLS’s payroll survey leaves out the self-employed, and the household survey groups the trade with terrazzo workers.
• Licence and registration counts count paperwork. A California C-8 classification can sit on a licence beside others, and Washington registrants choose their own specialty, so general contractors that pour concrete are not in the concrete count; states license different trades, so the totals are not directly comparable.
• Health studies measure particular tasks. Most dust-control figures come from bench, laboratory or single-site tests of one tool and one task, and CDC’s silicosis death counts cover every industry, not concrete work alone.
• Marketplace, franchise and survey figures come from sellers. Cost ranges come from lead marketplaces, franchisors’ sales and cost figures are their own unaudited disclosures, Houzz surveyed its own users and CMHA surveyed hardscape (paver and wall) contractors; no study we found measured whether video gets homeowners to hire a concrete contractor.
• Slab counts include other foundations. The Census Bureau groups slab with “other” foundation types for new homes completed, and NAHB’s shares count homes started, so the two series differ slightly.

How to cite this page

For a single figure, cite the original publisher named next to it, and link here if the verification trail is useful to your readers. Each figure has its own anchor, so you can link straight to it, for example https://www.markstudios.com/research/concrete-contractor-video-statistics#DRV-204. To cite the page as a whole:

Mark Studios. "Concrete Contractor Video Statistics." Last verified Nov 4, 2026. https://www.markstudios.com/research/concrete-contractor-video-statistics

@misc{markstudios_concrete_contractor_video_statistics_2026,
  author = {{Mark Studios}},
  title = {{Concrete Contractor Video Statistics}},
  year = {2026},
  month = nov,
  url = {https://www.markstudios.com/research/concrete-contractor-video-statistics},
  note = {Last verified 2026-11-04}
}

Our calculations and the evidence table are free to reuse with attribution and a link to this page. Each underlying figure remains the claim of its original publisher, and some publishers ask for a link when their figures are reused.

Sources

Download the evidence table (CSV)

1. U.S. Census Bureau (Survey of Construction, sponsored by HUD), Highlights of 2025 Characteristics of New Housing (2026-06). Accessed 2026-11-04.
2. U.S. Census Bureau (Survey of Construction, sponsored by HUD), 2017 Characteristics of New Housing (2018-06). Accessed 2026-11-04.
3. National Association of Home Builders (Eye on Housing, trade body), Slabs Overtake Basements in the East North Central Division (2026-10-23). Accessed 2026-11-04.
4. National Association of Home Builders (Eye on Housing, trade body), Share of Homes Built on Slabs Surges to 72.4% (2024-07-15). Accessed 2026-11-04.
5. National Association of Home Builders (trade body), Cost of Constructing a Home-2024 (2025-01-20). Accessed 2026-11-04.
6. U.S. Geological Survey (Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026), Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026: Cement (2026-01). Accessed 2026-11-04.
7. U.S. Geological Survey (Mineral Commodity Summaries 2025), Mineral Commodity Summaries 2025: Cement (2025-01). Accessed 2026-11-04.
8. U.S. Geological Survey (Mineral Industry Surveys), Cement in December 2025 (Mineral Industry Surveys) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
9. U.S. Geological Survey (Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026), Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026: Sand and Gravel (Construction) (2026-01). Accessed 2026-11-04.
10. U.S. Geological Survey (Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026), Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026: Stone (Crushed) (2026-01). Accessed 2026-11-04.
11. American Cement Association (formerly Portland Cement Association; trade body), U.S. Cement Industry's Economic Forecast Reflects Uncertainty of War's Future; Recession Still Unlikely (2026-04-30). Accessed 2026-11-04.
12. American Cement Association (formerly Portland Cement Association; trade body), ACA's Summer Economic Forecast Predicts No Relief from High Inflation and Elevated Interest Rates in the Short-term for Construction, but Recession Unlikely (2026-08-07). Accessed 2026-11-04.
13. National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (trade body), 2022 Mixer Driver Recruitment & Retention Survey (2022-08). Accessed 2026-11-04.
14. Federal Highway Administration (Highway Statistics 2024), Table HM-12: Public Road Length - 2024, Miles by Type of Surface and Ownership/Functional System (2025-11). Accessed 2026-11-04.
15. California Contractors State License Board (CSLB), CSLB 2025 Accomplishments and Activities Report (2026). Accessed 2026-11-04.
16. California Contractors State License Board (CSLB), CSLB 2018 Accomplishments and Activities Report (2019). Accessed 2026-11-04.
17. California Contractors State License Board (CSLB), CSLB 2020 Accomplishments and Activities Report (2021). Accessed 2026-11-04.
18. California Contractors State License Board (CSLB), CSLB 2022 Accomplishments and Activities Report (2023). Accessed 2026-11-04.
19. California Contractors State License Board (CSLB), CSLB 2023 Accomplishments and Activities Report (2024). Accessed 2026-11-04.
20. California Contractors State License Board (CSLB), CSLB 2024 Accomplishments and Activities Report (2025). Accessed 2026-11-04.
21. California Contractors State License Board (CSLB), Contractors State License Board Sunset Review Report 2023 (2023). Accessed 2026-11-04.
22. American Concrete Institute (ACI), certification body, ACI Certification (2026). Accessed 2026-11-04.
23. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUN000000000000047205101 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
24. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUN000000000000047205104 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
25. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUN000000000000047205113 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
26. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUN000000000000047205111 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
27. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUN000000000000047205115 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
28. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUS060000000000047205101 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
29. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUS060000000000047205104 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
30. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUS480000000000047205101 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
31. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUS480000000000047205104 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
32. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUS120000000000047205101 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
33. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUS120000000000047205104 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
34. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUS120000000000047205113 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
35. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUM003310000000047205101 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
36. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUM003310000000047205113 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
37. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUM003894000000047205101 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
38. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUM003894000000047205113 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
39. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUN000000023811047205101 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
40. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OEWS series OEUN000000023810047205101 (BLS Public Data API v2) (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
41. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook: Masonry Workers (2026-08-27). Accessed 2026-11-04.
42. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 1.2 Occupational projections, 2025-35, and worker characteristics, 2025 (2026-08). Accessed 2026-11-04.
43. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employed people by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (CPS Table 11, 2025 annual averages) (2026-01). Accessed 2026-11-04.
44. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, TABLE 1. Incidence rates of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses by industry and case types, 2024 (2026-01). Accessed 2026-11-04.
45. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, TABLE A-1. Fatal occupational injuries by industry and event or exposure, all United States, 2024 (2026). Accessed 2026-11-04.
46. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, QCEW Open Data: 2025 annual averages, industry 23811 (CSV) (2026-09). Accessed 2026-11-04.
47. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, QCEW Open Data: 2015 annual averages, industry 23811 (CSV) (2016-09). Accessed 2026-11-04.
48. U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2023, NAICS 238110 (Census Data API) (2025-06). Accessed 2026-11-04.
49. U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2023 by employment size, NAICS 238110 (Census Data API) (2025-06). Accessed 2026-11-04.
50. U.S. Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System, 2022: 238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors (2022). Accessed 2026-11-04.
51. U.S. Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System, 2022: 238990 All Other Specialty Trade Contractors (2022). Accessed 2026-11-04.
52. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, QCEW Open Data: 2025 annual averages, industry 23899 (CSV) (2026-09). Accessed 2026-11-04.
53. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census: Summary Statistics, NAICS 238110 (Census Data API) (2025). Accessed 2026-11-04.
54. U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census: Summary Statistics, NAICS 238110 (Census Data API) (2020). Accessed 2026-11-04.
55. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census: Value of Business Done for Kind-of-Business, NAICS 238110 (Census Data API) (2025). Accessed 2026-11-04.
56. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census, product lines by industry, NAICS 238110 (Census Data API) (2025). Accessed 2026-11-04.
57. U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2023, NAICS 238110, Florida (Census Data API) (2025-06). Accessed 2026-11-04.
58. U.S. Census Bureau, Nonemployer Statistics 2024, NAICS 2381, Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties (Census Data API) (2026). Accessed 2026-11-04.
59. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census: Summary Statistics, NAICS 238110, Florida (Census Data API) (2025). Accessed 2026-11-04.
60. U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census: Summary Statistics, NAICS 238110, Florida (Census Data API) (2020). Accessed 2026-11-04.
61. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census: Value of Construction Work for Location of Construction Work, NAICS 238110 (Census Data API) (2025). Accessed 2026-11-04.
62. U.S. Census Bureau, Nonemployer Statistics 2024, NAICS 2381 (Census Data API) (2026). Accessed 2026-11-04.
63. U.S. Census Bureau, Nonemployer Statistics 2024, NAICS 2381, Florida (Census Data API) (2026). Accessed 2026-11-04.
64. U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Business Survey 2023: Company Summary by sex, NAICS 2381 (Census Data API) (2025). Accessed 2026-11-04.
65. U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Business Survey 2023: Company Summary by ethnicity, NAICS 2381 (Census Data API) (2025). Accessed 2026-11-04.
66. U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Business Survey 2023: Company Summary by veteran status, NAICS 2381 (Census Data API) (2025). Accessed 2026-11-04.
67. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, PPI Commodity Data: Ready-mix concrete, 12-Month Percent Change (series WPU1333) (2026-10). Accessed 2026-11-04.
68. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, PPI Commodity Data: Cement, hydraulic, 12-Month Percent Change (series WPU1322) (2026-10). Accessed 2026-11-04.
69. Knife River Corporation (SEC Form 10-K), Knife River Corporation Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 (2026-02-20). Accessed 2026-11-04.
70. Vulcan Materials Company (SEC Form 10-K), Vulcan Materials Company Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 (2026-02-19). Accessed 2026-11-04.
71. Titan America SA (SEC Form 20-F), Titan America SA Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 (2026-03-24). Accessed 2026-11-04.
72. Eagle Materials Inc. (SEC Form 10-K), Eagle Materials Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2026 (2026-05-19). Accessed 2026-11-04.
73. Summit Materials, Inc. (SEC Form 10-K), Summit Materials, Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2023 (its last 10-K before the 2025 Quikrete acquisition) (2024-02-15). Accessed 2026-11-04.
74. CRH plc (SEC Form 10-K), CRH plc Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 (2026-02-18). Accessed 2026-11-04.
75. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (SEC Form 10-K), Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 (2026-02-19). Accessed 2026-11-04.
76. CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. (SEC Form 20-F), CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 (2026-04-24). Accessed 2026-11-04.
77. Amrize Ltd (SEC Form 10-K), Amrize Ltd Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 (2026-02-18). Accessed 2026-11-04.
78. Concrete Pumping Holdings, Inc. (SEC Form 10-K), Concrete Pumping Holdings, Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2025 (2026-01-13). Accessed 2026-11-04.
79. SAMCO, LLC (Sam the Concrete Man; franchise disclosure document filed with the Minnesota Department of Commerce), SAMCO, LLC (Sam the Concrete Man) Franchise Disclosure Document (Clean FDD, 2026), Minnesota CARDS file 10290 (2026-04-15). Accessed 2026-11-04.
80. American Decorative Coatings, LLC (Concrete Craft; franchise disclosure document filed with the Minnesota Department of Commerce), American Decorative Coatings, LLC (Concrete Craft) Franchise Disclosure Document (Clean FDD, 2024), Minnesota CARDS file 7954 (2024-03-22). Accessed 2026-11-04.
81. A-1 Concrete Leveling, Inc. (franchise disclosure document filed with the Minnesota Department of Commerce), A-1 Concrete Leveling, Inc. Franchise Disclosure Document (Clean FDD, 2025), Minnesota CARDS file 11557 (2025-08-26). Accessed 2026-11-04.
82. Home Franchise Concepts (franchisor; Concrete Craft's parent), Concrete Craft - Thank You (undated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
83. HomeGuide (lead marketplace; seller), How Much Does a Concrete Driveway Cost? (2026) (2025-06-03). Accessed 2026-11-04.
84. Angi (lead marketplace; seller), How Much Does a Concrete Driveway Cost in 2026? (2026-10-29). Accessed 2026-11-04.
85. Thumbtack (lead marketplace; seller), Concrete driveway installation cost (2026 prices) (2026-04-09). Accessed 2026-11-04.
86. HomeGuide (lead marketplace; seller), How Much Does a Concrete Patio Cost? (2026) (2025-07-10). Accessed 2026-11-04.
87. Housecall Pro (field-service software seller), Concrete prices: How to price jobs in 2026 (undated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
88. ConcreteNetwork.com (contractor lead and directory site; seller), How Much Does Stamped Concrete Cost? 2026 (undated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
89. HomeGuide (lead marketplace; seller), How Much Does a Concrete Slab Cost? (2026) (2026-02-03). Accessed 2026-11-04.
90. ConcreteNetwork.com (contractor lead and directory site; seller), Concrete Prices 2026 - How Much is a Yard of Concrete? (2026-07-14). Accessed 2026-11-04.
91. HomeGuide (lead marketplace; seller), How Much Does Mudjacking Cost? (2026) (2025-11-05). Accessed 2026-11-04.
92. Angi (lead marketplace; seller), How Much Does Mudjacking Cost? [2026 Data] (2026-08-31). Accessed 2026-11-04.
93. Houzz Inc. (platform and software seller; own homeowner survey), 10 Outdoor Renovation Trends Everyone Should Know About (2024-06-25). Accessed 2026-11-04.
94. Houzz Inc. (platform and software seller; own homeowner survey), 7 Curb Appeal Projects That Homeowners Are Choosing Right Now (2024-09-29). Accessed 2026-11-04.
95. National Association of Home Builders (Eye On Housing; trade body), Outdoor Features & a Laundry Room Among Most Wanted Features (2024-04-03). Accessed 2026-11-04.
96. Concrete Masonry & Hardscapes Association (CMHA; trade body), survey by Industry Insights, 2026 CMHA Contractor Industry Report: Executive Summary (2026-05). Accessed 2026-11-04.
97. Concrete Masonry & Hardscapes Association (CMHA; trade body), survey by Industry Insights, CMHA Releases 2025 Contractor Industry Report, Highlighting Workforce Challenges and Industry Growth (2025-04-28). Accessed 2026-11-04.
98. Informa Markets (World of Concrete organiser; trade show seller), World of Concrete Unites Global Construction Leaders to Shape the Future of Concrete and Masonry Construction (Informa press release, GlobeNewswire copy) (2026-01-27). Accessed 2026-11-04.
99. American Society of Concrete Contractors (ASCC; trade body), American Society of Concrete Contractors (home page) (undated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
100. Google (Local Services Help; platform owner), Getting started with Local Services Ads - United States - Local Services Help (undated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
101. Scientific Reports (Wang, University College London), Effectiveness of traditional augmentation methods for rebar counting using UAV imagery with Faster R-CNN and YOLOv10-based transformer architectures (2025-09-29). Accessed 2026-11-04.
102. Sensors (Basel) (Akinsemoyin et al., University of Texas at San Antonio), Unmanned Aerial Systems and Deep Learning for Safety and Health Activity Monitoring on Construction Sites (2023-07-26). Accessed 2026-11-04.
103. Journal of Safety Research (Shanti et al., Khalifa University), Real-time monitoring of work-at-height safety hazards in construction sites using drones and deep learning (2022-10-01). Accessed 2026-11-04.
104. Annals of Occupational Hygiene (Sauvé et al., Université de Montréal), Silica exposure during construction activities: statistical modeling of task-based measurements from the literature (2013-05). Accessed 2026-11-04.
105. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (Akbar-Khanzadeh et al., University of Toledo), Effectiveness of dust control methods for crystalline silica and respirable suspended particulate matter exposure during manual concrete surface grinding (2010-12). Accessed 2026-11-04.
106. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (Akbar-Khanzadeh et al., University of Toledo), Crystalline silica dust and respirable particulate matter during indoor concrete grinding - wet grinding and ventilated grinding compared with uncontrolled conventional grinding (2007-10). Accessed 2026-11-04.
107. Annals of Occupational Hygiene (Croteau et al., University of Washington), The efficacy of local exhaust ventilation for controlling dust exposures during concrete surface grinding (2004-08). Accessed 2026-11-04.
108. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (Shepherd and Woskie, University of Massachusetts Lowell), Controlling dust from concrete saw cutting (2013). Accessed 2026-11-04.
109. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (Middaugh et al., Purdue University), Evaluation of cut-off saw exposure control methods for respirable dust and crystalline silica in roadway construction (2012). Accessed 2026-11-04.
110. Annals of Work Exposures and Health (Clarke et al., UK Health and Safety Executive), The effectiveness of integrated dust extraction units on hammer drills (2026-01-21). Accessed 2026-11-04.
111. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (Shepherd et al., University of Massachusetts Lowell), Reducing silica and dust exposures in construction during use of powered concrete-cutting hand tools: efficacy of local exhaust ventilation on hammer drills (2009-01). Accessed 2026-11-04.
112. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (Rempel, Barr and Cooper, University of California, Berkeley), Effect of hollow bit local exhaust ventilation on respirable quartz dust concentrations during concrete drilling (2019-05). Accessed 2026-11-04.
113. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (Echt et al., NIOSH), Effective dust control systems on concrete dowel drilling machinery (2016-09). Accessed 2026-11-04.
114. CPWR - The Center for Construction Research and Training (a NIOSH-funded research centre), Key Findings from Research: Measuring Silica Exposure from Concrete Cutting - Wet vs. Dry Methods (2012). Accessed 2026-11-04.
115. Applied Ergonomics (Rempel et al., University of California, Berkeley and University of Michigan), Pneumatic rock drill vs. electric rotary hammer drill: Productivity, vibration, dust, and noise when drilling into concrete (2019-01). Accessed 2026-11-04.
116. Annals of Work Exposures and Health (Gorman Ng et al., University of British Columbia and BC Construction Safety Alliance), Determinants of respirable crystalline silica exposure in construction in western Canada (2023-08-09). Accessed 2026-11-04.
117. Annals of Work Exposures and Health (Dickerson and Goldberg, Virginia Tech), Silica exposure controls usage in masonry and concrete trades: before and after enactment of the OSHA Silica Construction Rule (1926.1153) (2025-03-15). Accessed 2026-11-04.
118. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), NIOSH Hazard Review: Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2002-129) (2002-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
119. CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Bang et al.), Silicosis mortality trends and new exposures to respirable crystalline silica - United States, 2001-2010 (2015-02-13). Accessed 2026-11-04.
120. CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Bell and Mazurek), Trends in Pneumoconiosis Deaths - United States, 1999-2018 (2020-06-12). Accessed 2026-11-04.
121. CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Mazurek et al.), Surveillance for Silicosis Deaths Among Persons Aged 15-44 Years - United States, 1999-2015 (2017-07-21). Accessed 2026-11-04.
122. CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Mazurek et al.), Notes from the Field: Update: Silicosis Mortality - United States, 1999-2013 (2015-06-19). Accessed 2026-11-04.
123. CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Rose et al.), Severe Silicosis in Engineered Stone Fabrication Workers - California, Colorado, Texas, and Washington, 2017-2019 (2019-09-27). Accessed 2026-11-04.
124. American Journal of Industrial Medicine (Dement et al., Duke University; co-authors from CPWR's Building Trades National Medical Screening Program), COPD risk among older construction workers-Updated analyses 2020 (2021-06). Accessed 2026-11-04.
125. Occupational and Environmental Medicine (Knutsson, Damber and Järvholm, Umeå University), Cancers in concrete workers: results of a cohort study of 33,668 workers (2000-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
126. American Journal of Industrial Medicine (Stern, Lehman and Ruder, NIOSH), Mortality among unionized construction plasterers and cement masons (2001-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
127. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (Rahimi Moghadam et al.), Changes in Spirometry Indices and Lung Cancer Mortality Risk Estimation in Concrete Workers Exposed io Crystalline Silica (2020-09-01). Accessed 2026-11-04.
128. ANZ Journal of Surgery (Moran et al., Royal Adelaide Hospital), The Increasing Burden of Preventable Cement Burn Injuries (2026-09). Accessed 2026-11-04.
129. Occupational and Environmental Medicine (Stocks et al., University of Manchester), Has European Union legislation to reduce exposure to chromate in cement been effective in reducing the incidence of allergic contact dermatitis attributed to chromate in the UK? (2012-02). Accessed 2026-11-04.
130. Australasian Journal of Dermatology (Wong et al., Skin & Cancer Foundation), Occupational allergic contact dermatitis to chromium from cement: Estimating the size of the problem in Australia (2015-11). Accessed 2026-11-04.
131. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association (Wang et al.), Occupational hand dermatitis among cement workers in Taiwan (2011-12). Accessed 2026-11-04.
132. Allergologie Select (Geier et al., Information Network of Departments of Dermatology), Occupational contact allergy in bricklayers, tile setters etc. - Current spectrum of sensitization and recent time trends (2017-08-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
133. Occupational and Environmental Medicine (Wang, Dong, Choi and Dement; CPWR - The Center for Construction Research and Training, a NIOSH-funded research centre), Work-related musculoskeletal disorders among construction workers in the United States from 1992 to 2014 (2017-05). Accessed 2026-11-04.
134. CPWR - The Center for Construction Research and Training (a NIOSH-funded research centre), The Construction Chart Book, Seventh Edition (2025). Accessed 2026-11-04.
135. Ergonomics (Visser et al., Academic Medical Center Amsterdam), Evaluation of two working methods for screed floor layers on musculoskeletal complaints, work demands and workload (2013). Accessed 2026-11-04.
136. Work (van der Molen et al., Academic Medical Center Amsterdam), The evaluation of team lifting on physical work demands and workload in ironworkers (2012). Accessed 2026-11-04.
137. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (Specht et al., University of New Mexico and University at Buffalo), Heat stress and strain in commercial construction workers in the summer: A pilot study (2025-10). Accessed 2026-11-04.
138. OSHA (U.S. Department of Labor), eCFR, Office of the Federal Register, eCFR :: 29 CFR 1926.1153 -- Respirable crystalline silica. (2016-03-25). Accessed 2026-11-04.
139. OSHA (U.S. Department of Labor), Federal Register, Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica (final rule, 81 FR 16286) (2016-03-25). Accessed 2026-11-04.
140. OSHA (U.S. Department of Labor), eCFR, Office of the Federal Register, eCFR :: 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart Q -- Concrete and Masonry Construction (1988-06-16). Accessed 2026-11-04.
141. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), eCFR :: 40 CFR 450.21 -- Effluent limitations reflecting the best practicable technology currently available (BPT). (2014-03-06). Accessed 2026-11-04.
142. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), eCFR :: 40 CFR 122.26 -- Storm water discharges (applicable to State NPDES programs, see § 123.25). (1990-11-16). Accessed 2026-11-04.
143. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2022 Construction General Permit (CGP) for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities, Permit Parts 1-9 (as modified) (2025-04-08). Accessed 2026-11-04.
144. The Florida Legislature (Online Sunshine, 2026 Florida Statutes), The 2026 Florida Statutes, 489.117 Registration; specialty contractors (2026-07-01). Accessed 2026-11-04.
145. The Florida Legislature (Online Sunshine, 2026 Florida Statutes), The 2026 Florida Statutes, 489.103 Exemptions (2026-07-01). Accessed 2026-11-04.
146. The Florida Legislature (Online Sunshine, 2026 Florida Statutes), The 2026 Florida Statutes, 489.127 Prohibitions; penalties (2026-07-01). Accessed 2026-11-04.
147. The Florida Legislature (Online Sunshine, 2026 Florida Statutes), The 2026 Florida Statutes, 489.128 Contracts entered into by unlicensed contractors unenforceable (2026-07-01). Accessed 2026-11-04.
148. The Florida Legislature (Online Sunshine, 2026 Florida Statutes), The 2026 Florida Statutes, 489.115 Certification and registration; endorsement; reciprocity; renewals; continuing education (2026-07-01). Accessed 2026-11-04.
149. Palm Beach County Planning, Zoning and Building, Contractors Certification, Contractors Certification FAQs (Palm Beach County) (undated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
150. The Florida Legislature (Online Sunshine, 2026 Florida Statutes), The 2026 Florida Statutes, 553.73 Florida Building Code (2026-07-01). Accessed 2026-11-04.
151. Contractors State License Board (16 CCR 832.08, via Cornell LII), Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 16, § 832.08 - Class C-8-Concrete Contractor (undated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
152. Nevada State Contractors Board (NAC 624.230, Nevada Legislature), NAC: Chapter 624 - Contractors (undated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
153. Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, Register as a Contractor (Washington L&I) (undated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
154. Contractors State License Board (16 CCR 825, via Cornell LII), Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 16, § 825 - Experience Requirement of Applicant (undated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
155. Global Cement and Concrete Association (cement producers' trade body; successor to the CSI), Our story: cement and concrete (Not stated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
156. Global Cement and Concrete Association (cement producers' trade body), Essential concrete (Not stated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
157. Cart-Away Concrete Systems (concrete mixer maker; sells into the market), Concrete is the 2nd Most Consumed Product on Earth (Not stated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
158. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Cement Sustainability Initiative (cement producers' CEO-led initiative; members sell cement), The Cement Sustainability Initiative: Our agenda for action (2002-07). Accessed 2026-11-04.
159. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Cement Sustainability Initiative (cement producers' CEO-led initiative; members sell cement), The Cement Sustainability Initiative: Progress report (2005) (2005). Accessed 2026-11-04.
160. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Cement Sustainability Initiative (cement producers' CEO-led initiative; members sell cement), The Cement Sustainability Initiative: Recycling Concrete (full report) (2009). Accessed 2026-11-04.
161. Chatham House (Lehne and Preston; independent policy institute), Making Concrete Change: Innovation in Low-carbon Cement and Concrete (2018-06-13). Accessed 2026-11-04.
162. Envirotech Online (environmental trade news site; repeater), Concrete Is Responsible for 8 Percent of CO2 Emissions (2019-01-28). Accessed 2026-11-04.
163. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and European Commission JRC (Olivier, Janssens-Maenhout, Muntean, Peters), Trends in global CO2 emissions: 2016 report (2016). Accessed 2026-11-04.
164. Earth System Science Data (Andrew, CICERO Center for International Climate Research), Global CO2 emissions from cement production, 1928-2018 (2019-11-20). Accessed 2026-11-04.
165. Global Cement and Concrete Association (cement producers' trade body), Cement and concrete industry net zero action and progress report (Not stated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
166. Angi (home-services lead marketplace; sells leads to concrete contractors), Concrete Driveway Contractors Near Me (Not stated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
167. Angi (home-services lead marketplace; sells leads to concrete contractors), Unlocking the Advantages of Concrete: Why It's the Ultimate Building Material (2026-07-09). Accessed 2026-11-04.
168. Angi (home-services lead marketplace; sells leads to concrete contractors), Here's the Average Life Span of Concrete (2026-07-09). Accessed 2026-11-04.
169. ConcreteNetwork.com (concrete information site and contractor directory; sells contractor listings), How Long Does Concrete Last? (Not stated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
170. A-1 Concrete Leveling (concrete repair franchisor; sells repair services), How Long Should A Concrete Driveway Last? (Not stated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
171. National Association of Home Builders, Economics Group (sponsored by Bank of America Home Equity), Study of Life Expectancy of Home Components (2007-02). Accessed 2026-11-04.
172. Everything About Concrete (concrete contractor's blog; sells tools and courses), How Long it Takes Concrete To "DRY" - Is It 1 Day or 28 Days? (Not stated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
173. BobVila.com, content presented by Quikrete (bagged concrete maker; sells into the market), Curing Concrete Dos and Don'ts (2017-08-22). Accessed 2026-11-04.
174. American Concrete Institute (standards body; answer by ACI staff and committees), Frequently Asked Questions: Standards for 7-day and 28-day strength test results (Not stated). Accessed 2026-11-04.
175. National Precast Concrete Association (trade body of precast producers; Eric Barger), The 28-Day Myth of Concrete Curing (2013-10-28). Accessed 2026-11-04.
176. Federal Highway Administration (U.S. DOT), Guide for Curing Portland Cement Concrete Pavements, Volume II (FHWA-HRT-05-038), Appendix A: Annotated list of pertinent standards (2006-08). Accessed 2026-11-04.
177. Beverly Boy Productions (video production company; sells the videos it describes), Video Production for Paving Contractors in the US (2025-10-14). Accessed 2026-11-04.
178. Treehouse Marketing (contractor marketing agency; sells video and landing pages), Video Content for the Customer Journey (2020-01-07). Accessed 2026-11-04.
179. EyeView Digital (video production and testing vendor; sold the videos it tested), EyeView - The new "Conversion" game (2008-12-04). Accessed 2026-11-04.
180. EyeView Digital (video production and testing vendor; sold the videos it tested), UMOO - a prime beef example of EyeView's success (2009-02-10). Accessed 2026-11-04.
181. EyeView Digital (video production and testing vendor; sold the videos it tested), Another video conversion success story (2009-11-10). Accessed 2026-11-04.
182. EyeView Digital (video production and testing vendor; sold the videos it tested), Case study: TutorVista (2009). Accessed 2026-11-04.
183. EyeView Digital (video production and testing vendor; sold the videos it tested), Making Video Accountable (EyeView white paper) (2010). Accessed 2026-11-04.
184. Unbounce (landing-page software seller), The benefits of using video on landing pages (2010-08). Accessed 2026-11-04.
185. Unbounce (landing-page software seller; analysis of its own customers' pages), Video on landing pages means more conversions, right? Wrong. Here's why (2021-08-26). Accessed 2026-11-04.

Update policy and change log

We re-verify every figure quarterly and when a major source publishes a new edition. The next scheduled review is February 2027. Corrections go to contact@markstudios.com.

• Nov 4, 2026: First published with 593 figures from 70 publishers, each checked against its original source.