Technical information:
(202) 691-6567
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
Media contact:
691-5902
USDL 03-654
For release: 10:00 A.M. EST
Friday, October 31, 2003
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FIRST QUARTER 2003
In March 2003, Placer County in California had the biggest over-the-year percentage increase in
employment among the largest counties in the U.S., according to preliminary data released today by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Placer County experienced an over-the-year
employment gain of 4.9 percent, compared with a national decline of 0.3 percent. Marin County, Calif., had
the biggest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the first quarter of 2003, with an increase of 10.7
percent. U.S. average weekly wages increased by 1.5 percent.
Of the 315 largest counties in the United States, 167 had rates of over-the-year employment growth
above the national average in March 2003, and 145 experienced declines in employment greater than the
national average. Average weekly wages grew faster than the national average in 208 of the largest U.S.
counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was below the national average in 99 counties.
The employment and average weekly wage data by county are compiled from the Quarterly Census of
Employment and Wages (QCEW) program, also known as the ES-202 program. The data are derived from
reports submitted by every employer subject to unemployment insurance (UI) laws. More than 8.2 million
employer reports cover 126.9 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain
data for the nation and for the 315 U.S. counties with employment levels of 75,000 or more. In addition,
data for San Juan, Puerto Rico, are provided, but are not used in calculating U.S. averages. (See Technical
Note.) Data for all counties regardless of size through the fourth quarter of 2002 are available on the BLS
Web site http://www.bls.gov/cew/; data for all U.S. counties for the first quarter of 2003 will be available in
November.
Large County Employment
The national employment total in March 2003 was 126.9 million, which was 0.3 percent lower than in
March 2002. The 315 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.6 percent of total
U.S. employment covered under UI laws, 77.1 percent of total covered wages, and 77.9 percent of the
over-the-year employment decline since March 2002. (San Juan, P.R., is not included in the grouping of
U.S. counties.) The biggest gains in employment from March 2002 to March 2003 were recorded in the
counties of Clark, Nev. (27,500), San Diego, Calif. (20,900), Riverside, Calif. (20,400), and Maricopa,
Ariz., and Pinellas, Fla. (18,500 each). (See table A.)
Placer County, Calif., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (4.9 percent),
followed by the counties of Lee, Fla., and St. Charles, Mo. (4.6 percent each), Rutherford, Tenn. (4.5
percent), and Pinellas, Fla. (4.3 percent). (See table 1 and chart 1.)
2
Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by March 2003 employment, March 2002-03 employment change,
and March 2002-03 percent change in employment
Employment
Net change in employment,
March 2002-03
(thousands)
March 2003 employment
(thousands)
U.S.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Cook, Ill.
New York, N.Y.
Harris, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
Dallas, Texas
Orange, Calif.
San Diego, Calif.
King, Wash.
Miami-Dade, Fla.
126,860.3
4,050.1
2,496.5
2,210.3
1,830.8
1,569.5
1,436.5
1,421.1
1,250.5
1,080.7
984.0
U.S.
Clark, Nev.
San Diego, Calif.
Riverside, Calif.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Pinellas, Fla.
Orange, Calif.
Orange, Fla.
Honolulu, Hawaii
San Bernardino, Calif.
Lee, Fla.
-443.4
27.5
20.9
20.4
18.5
18.5
14.1
11.8
9.1
8.9
8.2
Percent change in emploment,
March 2002-03
U.S.
Placer, Calif.
Lee, Fla.
St. Charles, Mo.
Rutherford, Tenn.
Pinellas, Fla.
Thurston, Wash.
Riverside, Calif.
Clark, Nev.
Yakima, Wash.
Gloucester, N.J.
-0.3
4.9
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.3
4.1
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
Employment declined in 163 counties from March 2002 to March 2003. The largest percentage decline
in employment was in Santa Clara County, Calif. (-5.9 percent), followed by the counties of Sangamon, Ill.
(-5.4 percent), Catawba, N.C. (-4.2 percent), and Boulder, Colo., and Tulsa, Okla. (-4.1 percent each).
The largest numerical declines in employment occurred in Santa Clara County, Calif. (-53,400), followed by
the counties of Dallas, Texas (-43,900), New York, N.Y. (-41,200), Cook, Ill. (-39,200), and Middlesex,
Mass. (-32,000).
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the first quarter of 2003 was $729, which was 1.5 percent higher
than the first quarter of 2002. Average weekly wages were higher than the national average in 111 of the
largest 315 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., comprised entirely of the borough of Manhattan, had
the highest pay among the large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,648. Fairfield County, Conn.,
followed with an average weekly wage of $1,376. Somerset County, N.J., was third with an average weekly wage of $1,299. Suffolk County, Mass., was fourth with $1,238, followed by Santa Clara County, Calif.,
at $1,235. (See table B.)
Marin County, Calif., led the nation in over-the-year growth in average weekly wages with an increase
of 10.7 percent. Galveston County, Texas, was second with 7.4 percent growth, followed by the counties
of Providence, R.I. (7.3 percent), Macomb, Mich. (6.7 percent), and Okaloosa, Fla., and Trumbull, Ohio
(6.5 percent each). (See chart 2.)
There were 201 counties with average weekly wages below the national average. The lowest average
weekly wage (excluding San Juan, P.R.) was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($438), followed by the
counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($445), Horry, S.C. ($487), Pasco, Fla. ($488), and Brazos, Texas ($503).
(See table 1.)
Thirty-one large counties showed over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Hudson County,
N.J., had the largest decrease, registering a 9.1 percent decline. Loudoun County, Va., was second with a
3
Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by first quarter 2003 average weekly wages, first quarter 2002-03
change in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2002-03 percent change in average weekly wages
Average weekly wages
Average weekly wages,
first quarter 2003
U.S.
New York, N.Y.
Fairfield, Conn.
Somerset, N.J.
Suffolk, Mass.
Santa Clara, Calif.
San Francisco, Calif
Arlington, Va.
Washington, D.C.
Morris, N.J.
Fairfax, Va.
$729
$1,648
1,376
1,299
1,238
1,235
1,234
1,138
1,135
1,106
1,091
Change in average weekly
wages, first quarter 2002-03
Percent change in average
weekly wages, first quarter
2002-03
U.S.
$11
U.S.
Marin, Calif.
Somerset, N.J.
Macomb, Mich.
Providence, R.I.
Chester, Pa.
Clayton, Ga.
Johnson, Kan.
Galveston, Texas
Sangamon, Ill.
Williamson, Texas
$90
68
52
51
47
46
45
44
44
43
Marin, Calif.
Galveston, Texas
Providence, R.I.
Macomb, Mich.
Okaloosa, Fla.
Trumbull, Ohio
Clayton, Ga.
Sangamon, Ill.
Summit, Ohio
Johnson, Kan.
1.5
10.7
7.4
7.3
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.0
7.9 percent decline, followed by the counties of New York, N.Y. (-5.9 percent), and Calcasieu, La., and
Richmond, N.Y. (-4.0 percent each).
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2002 annual employment levels), 3 experienced increases in
employment, 1 had no change in employment, and 6 experienced declines in employment from March 2002
to March 2003. San Diego County, Calif., experienced the fastest growth in employment among the largest
counties with a 1.7 percent increase. San Diego’s growth was spread across most industry supersectors,
with the largest exception in manufacturing, where employment declined by 6.3 percent. (See table 2.)
Maricopa County, Ariz., had the next largest increase, with employment rising by 1.2 percent, followed by
Orange County, Calif., which experienced a 1.0 percent increase in employment. The biggest decline in
employment for the 10 largest counties was in Dallas County, Texas, a decrease of 3.0 percent. This was
primarily attributable to an 8.0 percent decrease in manufacturing of 11,600 jobs. The next largest declines
in employment were recorded in New York County, N.Y., and Cook County, Ill., where employment fell
by 1.8 and 1.5 percent, respectively.
Seven of the 10 largest U.S. counties had over-the-year increases in average weekly wages, and 3
had declines. Orange County, Calif., had the fastest growth in wages among the top 10 counties, growing
at a 3.6 percent rate. Orange County’s fastest growing industry for wages was financial activities, up by
8.9 percent. Miami-Dade County, Fla., experienced growth in wages of 2.7 percent, followed by San
Diego County, Calif., with a 2.6 percent increase. New York County, N.Y., experienced the largest decrease in average weekly wages among the largest 10 counties, falling by 5.9 percent. This was primarily
attributable to a 12.7 percent decrease in average weekly wages in financial activities. This was followed
by King County, Wash., with a decline in average weekly wages of 1.1 percent, and Harris County, Texas,
where average weekly wages declined by 0.5 percent.
4
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows employment and average weekly wages in the largest county for each state. This table
includes two counties that had employment below 75,000 (Yellowstone, Mont. and Laramie, Wyo.). The
employment levels in these counties in March 2003 ranged from over 4 million in Los Angeles County,
Calif., to about 38,000 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wages of these counties
were $1,648 in New York, N.Y., while the lowest average weekly wages were in Yellowstone, Mont.
($532).
QCEW Employment Totals and the CES Benchmark
QCEW employment totals, adjusted for coverage differences, are used each year by the
CES program to adjust monthly nonfarm payroll employment estimates to the employment
census totals. This CES adjustment is commonly referred to as the annual benchmark. The
QCEW totals presented in this release will differ to some extent from the adjusted totals used
in the benchmark process. For details on how the latest QCEW data may affect the CES
benchmark and on how QCEW employment totals are adjusted as part of this process,
please see http://www.bls.gov/ces/cesbmkqa.htm.
Technical Note
These data are the product of a federal-state cooperative
program, the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
(QCEW) program, also known as the ES-202 program. The data
are derived from summaries of employment and total pay of
workers covered by state and federal unemployment insurance
(UI) legislation and provided by State Employment Security
Agencies (SESAs). The summaries are a byproduct of the
administration of state unemployment insurance programs that
require most employers to pay quarterly taxes based on the
employment and wages of workers covered by UI. Data for
2003 are preliminary and subject to revision.
Differences between QCEW and CES employment
measures. The employment and wage universe totals from the
QCEW differ from the official Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
estimates of employment and earnings produced by the Current
Employment Statistics (CES) program due to differences in
scope and coverage. The preliminary universe totals released
by BLS are based on establishment reports including more than
95 percent of the employees within the scope of the QCEW
program. Estimates are used to impute employment and wages
for the remaining establishments. Please see http://
www.bls.gov/ces/ for more detailed technical information on
the CES program concepts, coverage, and methodology.
The preliminary QCEW data presented in this release may
differ from data released by the individual states. These
potential differences result from the states’ continuing receipt
of UI data over time and ongoing review and editing. The
individual states determine their data release timetables.
Coverage
Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI
laws and for federal civilian workers covered by the
Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
program are compiled from quarterly contribution reports
submitted to the SESAs by employers. In addition to the
quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple
establishments within a state complete a questionnaire, called
the “Multiple Worksite Report,” which provides detailed
information on the location and industry of each of their
establishments. The employment and wages data included in
this release are derived from microdata summaries of more than
8 million employer reports of employment and wages submitted
by states to the BLS. These reports are based on place of
employment rather than place of residence.
UI and UCFE coverage is broad and basically comparable
from state to state. In 2002, UI and UCFE programs covered
workers in 128.2 million jobs. Covered workers received $4.713
trillion in pay, representing 94.3 percent of the wage and salary
component of personal income and 45.1 percent of the gross
domestic product.
Major exclusions from UI coverage include self-employed
workers, most agricultural workers on small farms, all members
of the Armed Forces, elected officials in most states, most
employees of railroads, some domestic workers, most student
workers at schools, and employees of certain small nonprofit
organizations.
Concepts and methodology
Monthly employment is based on the number of workers
who worked during or received pay for the pay period including
the 12th of the month. With few exceptions, all employees of
covered firms are reported, including production and sales
workers, corporation officials, executives, supervisory
personnel, and clerical workers. Workers on paid vacations
and part-time workers also are included.
Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing
quarterly total wages by the average of the three monthly
employment levels (all employees, as described above) and
dividing the result by 13, for the 13 weeks in the quarter. These
calculations are made from unrounded employment and wage
values so the average wage values that can be calculated from
data from this database may differ from the averages reported,
due to rounding. Included in the quarterly wage data are nonwage cash payments such as bonuses, the cash value of meals
and lodging when supplied, tips and other gratuities, and, in
some states, employer contributions to certain deferred
compensation plans such as 401(k) plans and stock options.
Average weekly wages are affected by the ratio of full-time
to part-time workers as well as the number of individuals in
high-paying and low-paying occupations. When comparing
average weekly wage levels between industries and/or states,
these factors should be taken into consideration.
Percent changes are calculated using the final 2002 quarterly
data as the base data. Final data for 2002 may differ from
preliminary data published earlier.
In order to insure the highest possible quality of data,
SESAs verify with employers and update, if necessary, the
industry, location, and ownership classification of all
establishments on a 3-year cycle. Changes in establishment
classification codes resulting from the verification process are
introduced with the data reported for the first quarter of the
year. Changes resulting from improved employer reporting also
are introduced in the first quarter. For these reasons, some
data, especially at more detailed industry levels, may not be
strictly comparable with earlier years. The 2002 first quarter
data used to calculate the over-the-year changes presented in
this release were adjusted for changes in county classification
to make them comparable with data for the first quarter of 2003.
As a result, the adjusted 2002 first quarter data differ to some
extent from the data available on the BLS Web site.
County definitions are assigned according to Federal
Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS)
as issued by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, after approval by the Secretary of Commerce
pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information Technology
Management Reform Act of 1996 and the Computer Security
Act of 1987, Public Law 104-106. Areas shown as counties
include those designated as independent cities in some
jurisdictions and, in Alaska, those designated as census areas
where counties have not been created. County data also are
presented for the New England states for comparative purposes
even though townships are the more common designation used
in New England (and New Jersey). The regions referred to in
this release are defined as census regions.
Change in industry classification systems
Beginning with the release of data for 2001 in 2002,
publications presenting data from the Quarterly Census of
Employment and Wages program use the 2002 version of the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as the
basis for the assignment and tabulation of economic data by
industry. NAICS is the product of a cooperative effort on the
part of the statistical agencies of the United States, Canada,
and Mexico. The NAICS structure is significantly different
from that of the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
system, which had been used for industry classification
purposes until 2002. Due to the differences in NAICS and SIC
structures, industry data for 2001 are not comparable with the
SIC-based data for earlier years.
NAICS uses a production-oriented approach to categorize
economic units. Units with similar production processes are
classified in the same industry. NAICS focuses on how
products and services are created, as opposed to the SIC focus
on what is produced. This approach yields significantly
different industry groupings than those produced by the SIC
approach.
Data users will be able to work with new NAICS industrial
groupings that better reflect the workings of the U.S. economy.
For example, a new industry sector called Information brings
together units which turn information into a commodity with
units which distribute that commodity. Information’s major
components are publishing, broadcasting, telecommunications, information services, and data processing. Under the
SIC system, these units were spread across the manufacturing,
communications, business services, and amusement services
groups. Another new sector of interest is Professional and
technical services. This sector is comprised of establishments
engaged in activities where human capital is the major input.
Users interested in more information about NAICS
can access the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web page
(http://www.bls.gov/bls/naics.htm) and the U.S. Census
Bureau Web page (http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/
naics.html). The NAICS 2002 manual is available from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) Web page
(http://www.ntis.gov/).
Additional statistics and other information
An annual bulletin, Employment and Wages, features
comprehensive information by detailed industry on
establishments, employment, and wages for the nation and all
states. Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2001 is
available for sale from the BLS Publications Sales Center, P.O.
Box 2145, Chicago, Illinois 60690, telephone 312-353-1880. The
2002 annual bulletin will be published in November 2003.
News releases on 2002 quarterly employment and pay data
are available upon request from the Division of Administrative
Statistics and Labor Turnover, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20212; telephone
202-691-6567;
(http://www.bls.gov/cew/);
(e-mail:
[email protected]).
News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows are
also available upon request from the Division of Administrative
Statistics and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone 202-691-6467; (http://www.bls.gov/bdm/);
(e-mail: [email protected]).
Information in this release will be made available to sensory
impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: 202-691-5200;
TDD message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
first quarter 20032
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2003
(thousands)
March
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
first quarter
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
United States6 ....................
8,250.6
126,860.3
-0.3
-
$729
1.5
-
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
18.2
7.6
9.5
6.5
4.0
7.4
79.0
17.3
3.9
13.1
368.0
158.0
162.6
128.2
77.2
136.7
1,569.5
327.9
80.5
237.0
-1.7
2.6
-0.9
-0.5
1.2
2.6
1.2
0.1
2.7
0.4
260
17
203
180
72
17
72
138
16
114
742
760
581
602
584
740
699
616
751
636
4.7
4.8
1.9
4.7
3.5
0.4
1.2
2.7
1.5
2.3
28
27
185
28
64
265
231
130
210
161
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
4.8
48.1
27.9
29.2
15.8
347.1
11.9
11.9
87.6
9.1
82.5
685.1
337.6
312.7
235.2
4,050.1
108.8
157.3
1,421.1
123.5
-0.2
-1.3
0.0
2.1
2.8
0.0
-1.5
2.2
1.0
4.9
159
234
143
33
15
143
247
27
83
1
544
922
913
579
655
817
931
670
832
701
3.4
1.3
0.7
3.0
2.7
1.2
10.7
2.9
3.6
2.6
69
225
257
101
130
231
1
112
58
139
Riverside, CA .....................
Sacramento, CA ................
San Bernardino, CA ...........
San Diego, CA ...................
San Francisco, CA .............
San Joaquin, CA ................
San Luis Obispo, CA .........
San Mateo, CA ..................
Santa Barbara, CA .............
Santa Clara, CA .................
35.8
45.0
39.0
83.8
44.0
15.2
8.6
23.3
13.0
51.2
534.2
592.7
565.8
1,250.5
533.0
210.4
98.8
333.3
178.3
858.0
4.0
0.7
1.6
1.7
-2.7
3.0
-0.5
-3.3
1.9
-5.9
7
100
48
45
296
12
180
307
40
315
617
819
627
777
1,234
623
596
1,089
686
1,235
2.8
3.5
3.8
2.6
-2.2
3.1
4.4
-1.2
3.3
-1.8
115
64
51
139
305
95
34
301
78
304
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
8.3
9.1
16.9
12.9
9.0
20.3
4.9
8.5
18.7
11.6
92.2
125.6
187.2
162.3
129.4
303.1
88.2
138.1
267.4
149.8
-1.8
2.2
-2.4
1.7
1.5
0.5
2.3
-3.3
-2.7
-4.1
266
27
290
45
54
109
24
307
296
311
704
667
702
617
506
773
700
671
918
869
3.5
1.1
2.0
4.0
3.7
5.2
3.2
1.5
0.1
2.6
64
236
179
42
57
17
88
210
280
139
Denver, CO ........................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
24.0
15.4
17.6
9.0
31.6
24.0
21.7
6.5
17.3
29.3
424.9
229.4
200.2
116.5
406.5
475.1
357.7
127.0
271.4
651.8
-1.9
-1.7
-1.4
-1.5
-1.8
-2.7
-0.7
-0.2
-0.5
1.1
273
260
241
247
266
296
194
159
180
79
882
674
754
643
1,376
938
777
750
932
1,135
1.0
1.7
1.1
0.2
2.1
3.9
1.6
2.6
0.4
2.8
243
202
236
276
170
46
206
139
265
115
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
first quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2003
(thousands)
March
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
first quarter
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Alachua, FL ........................
Brevard, FL ........................
Broward, FL .......................
Collier, FL ..........................
Duval, FL ...........................
Escambia, FL .....................
Hillsborough, FL .................
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
5.6
11.9
55.0
10.0
21.3
7.1
29.6
14.2
8.1
6.4
121.2
184.3
682.8
122.4
428.6
122.8
614.3
187.8
142.3
(7)
1.5
0.6
0.9
2.1
0.3
1.7
1.1
4.6
1.8
(7)
54
107
88
33
122
45
79
2
42
-
$527
662
671
605
713
558
677
584
592
553
3.9
2.5
2.8
2.0
4.7
1.5
3.0
1.9
3.0
2.6
46
148
115
179
28
210
101
185
101
139
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
5.9
78.0
4.8
28.0
41.2
7.1
27.3
10.1
12.5
11.3
85.1
984.0
78.5
601.7
518.6
81.2
444.0
187.2
142.8
149.3
1.2
-0.2
3.0
2.0
1.5
2.5
4.3
-0.6
-0.2
1.3
72
159
12
37
54
20
5
187
159
64
514
692
541
652
712
488
616
562
586
632
3.4
2.7
6.5
2.0
1.9
5.4
-0.5
3.3
2.6
-0.3
69
130
5
179
185
14
292
78
139
288
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
11.2
4.8
7.1
4.5
19.8
17.1
37.7
20.9
4.7
4.9
150.0
84.0
123.1
110.2
299.1
299.9
728.8
290.0
97.0
102.9
1.8
-0.9
0.7
-1.3
1.6
0.2
-0.9
-0.1
0.8
-0.3
42
203
100
234
48
131
203
152
95
167
517
606
609
775
805
808
1,010
776
589
602
4.4
-3.3
2.9
6.3
1.0
4.4
2.1
0.5
2.8
4.9
34
310
112
7
243
34
170
261
115
23
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
24.0
12.8
3.9
125.5
31.9
10.5
18.5
7.1
3.3
5.5
416.7
179.3
89.4
2,496.5
556.1
190.3
311.2
89.4
84.4
93.6
2.2
0.4
0.9
-1.5
-0.8
-0.6
0.9
-0.1
-0.3
-1.6
27
114
88
247
200
187
88
152
167
256
660
648
605
905
863
655
906
633
708
587
2.0
0.3
1.0
1.3
2.4
2.7
-2.5
2.3
2.8
2.1
179
271
243
225
153
130
307
161
115
170
Peoria, IL ...........................
Rock Island, IL ...................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
Winnebago, IL ....................
Allen, IN .............................
Elkhart, IN ..........................
Hamilton, IN .......................
Lake, IN .............................
4.5
3.3
4.9
5.0
10.0
6.6
8.6
4.8
5.9
9.8
95.5
76.8
90.8
135.1
146.4
133.9
176.1
113.7
81.9
189.8
-2.8
-1.1
0.7
-5.4
1.2
-1.9
-1.3
2.6
2.3
1.5
301
224
100
314
72
273
234
17
24
54
667
658
566
746
668
638
659
617
780
635
2.3
-0.2
1.3
6.3
0.1
1.8
1.4
3.4
1.6
5.0
161
285
225
7
280
193
218
69
206
21
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
first quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2003
(thousands)
March
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
first quarter
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Marion, IN ..........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
Vanderburgh, IN ................
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ..............................
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
23.6
6.0
4.8
5.9
13.6
4.9
18.3
11.5
4.7
3.1
565.5
121.5
108.0
114.4
254.2
82.4
284.1
239.8
95.8
74.4
-1.0
0.6
0.1
-1.3
-0.8
-0.1
0.0
-2.1
-2.3
-3.5
216
107
138
234
200
152
143
280
286
309
$769
624
615
678
752
576
791
666
609
716
0.4
3.3
1.2
2.4
4.3
0.9
6.0
0.5
-0.8
1.0
265
78
231
153
37
249
10
261
296
243
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
8.7
21.6
7.1
4.6
13.1
13.9
7.5
12.7
11.2
12.9
163.3
412.9
117.5
81.9
239.8
210.8
118.7
248.6
162.8
201.8
0.1
-0.9
-1.4
-2.9
1.0
-0.6
1.3
-0.9
-0.1
0.0
138
203
241
302
83
187
64
203
152
143
670
708
588
575
624
591
622
674
663
729
4.9
3.4
4.3
-4.0
3.8
2.4
-0.3
1.2
3.0
0.3
23
69
37
311
51
153
288
231
101
271
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
19.9
5.2
7.6
30.6
14.5
14.0
8.9
14.5
19.9
13.1
351.9
84.7
133.3
445.9
307.0
364.0
82.2
213.9
291.2
196.0
-1.3
0.7
0.0
0.0
-0.2
-1.5
1.3
-0.9
-2.3
-2.1
234
100
143
143
159
247
64
203
286
280
745
695
818
940
767
826
632
640
773
694
3.5
3.9
2.6
2.7
1.3
1.8
1.8
2.4
2.7
3.0
64
46
139
130
225
193
193
153
130
101
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
46.6
21.3
13.0
21.7
19.6
8.6
7.1
5.6
14.4
18.1
782.5
313.5
164.8
565.5
311.7
153.7
168.6
115.1
325.7
316.8
-3.9
-1.9
-0.7
-3.0
-0.9
-2.6
-2.2
-1.2
-1.6
-0.3
310
273
194
304
203
295
283
228
256
167
1,003
892
690
1,238
730
722
725
714
682
832
1.5
3.1
3.4
0.4
2.2
4.0
1.1
3.8
2.6
6.7
210
95
69
265
166
42
236
51
139
4
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
41.8
5.7
4.7
8.2
35.5
7.1
9.4
40.8
3.2
14.5
724.0
108.2
89.5
194.2
804.8
107.3
160.7
812.8
85.2
322.1
-1.2
-1.2
-1.0
-0.6
-1.8
-0.6
2.2
-1.5
1.3
-1.2
228
228
216
187
266
187
27
247
64
228
919
638
695
827
857
690
735
923
757
831
4.7
3.4
5.3
3.4
4.9
3.3
2.8
1.1
2.3
3.6
28
69
15
69
23
78
115
236
161
58
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
first quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2003
(thousands)
March
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
first quarter
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
St. Louis, MN .....................
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
Boone, MO .........................
Clay, MO ............................
Greene, MO .......................
Jackson, MO ......................
St. Charles, MO .................
St. Louis, MO .....................
5.6
4.1
4.4
6.6
4.2
4.9
8.0
18.9
7.0
34.1
91.8
74.9
88.1
129.6
75.9
85.3
144.0
364.4
105.9
618.7
0.5
-1.5
2.0
-1.8
-0.7
1.3
2.4
-2.5
4.6
-0.6
109
247
37
266
194
64
21
293
2
187
$615
562
537
621
545
664
545
752
626
785
3.2
3.5
3.3
5.3
-0.2
2.6
1.9
-0.8
3.1
2.2
88
64
78
15
285
139
185
296
95
166
St. Louis City, MO ..............
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
8.4
14.7
7.3
33.9
11.5
12.0
10.4
6.4
34.0
10.9
230.5
304.9
146.7
744.2
192.3
187.4
126.6
138.8
446.2
193.3
-2.7
-1.7
0.8
3.8
2.2
-0.1
-0.4
0.7
0.0
1.6
296
260
95
8
27
152
171
100
143
48
861
695
592
655
673
783
725
662
936
775
1.1
3.3
2.8
2.5
2.4
3.8
3.6
3.3
1.5
1.8
236
78
115
148
153
51
58
78
210
193
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
12.9
21.0
5.8
13.6
10.3
20.3
19.3
17.3
11.2
12.3
201.8
360.0
94.5
235.7
217.2
386.2
239.8
274.3
135.5
174.5
1.0
-0.2
3.4
-1.3
0.0
-2.9
-0.4
-1.5
1.4
-1.2
83
159
10
234
143
302
171
247
59
228
750
982
648
1,034
984
980
805
1,106
629
782
3.6
2.1
0.6
-9.1
2.4
1.0
0.8
0.1
2.8
3.2
58
170
260
315
153
243
254
280
115
88
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
9.7
14.8
16.8
9.4
15.1
4.4
7.5
23.3
41.2
17.6
168.1
232.9
308.3
224.7
214.1
97.2
114.0
447.7
438.7
378.5
-2.3
-0.8
1.2
-1.0
0.3
-0.4
0.3
-0.4
0.8
-0.9
286
200
72
216
122
171
122
171
95
203
1,299
948
628
762
674
589
756
656
631
729
5.5
0.5
2.1
2.3
1.4
-2.2
0.3
1.9
1.4
0.3
12
261
170
161
218
305
271
185
218
271
Nassau, NY ........................
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
49.9
112.6
5.3
12.5
8.9
39.3
7.7
9.1
46.4
34.9
588.8
2,210.3
106.7
243.4
122.3
469.8
86.1
108.5
579.2
399.6
0.4
-1.8
0.2
0.3
1.4
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
114
266
131
122
59
143
122
122
138
131
800
1,648
566
683
607
723
632
768
761
989
1.0
-5.9
0.2
0.1
3.2
1.4
-4.0
1.2
2.7
-2.5
243
313
276
280
88
218
311
231
130
307
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
first quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2003
(thousands)
March
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
first quarter
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
6.9
4.5
5.8
6.4
8.6
14.4
28.5
6.4
23.6
5.0
102.9
87.5
109.0
161.7
173.5
265.0
499.9
86.3
373.9
82.6
0.1
-4.2
1.6
-2.4
-2.7
-1.0
-2.0
-0.7
-1.0
2.1
138
313
48
290
296
216
278
194
216
33
$551
551
540
985
715
669
936
567
742
583
1.1
1.8
1.3
1.3
4.2
3.1
3.3
0.7
1.8
2.8
236
193
225
225
40
95
78
257
193
115
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
6.8
38.7
29.7
25.2
6.7
6.2
11.0
6.5
13.3
9.1
126.5
753.4
674.9
540.1
95.5
98.9
223.5
102.9
284.9
165.7
-0.2
-0.9
-2.5
-0.1
-0.7
-0.4
-1.4
-1.0
-1.7
-2.2
159
203
293
152
194
171
241
216
260
283
647
768
743
800
634
619
681
551
697
586
2.2
2.9
3.1
2.8
3.8
3.0
3.0
3.6
2.8
3.9
166
112
95
115
51
101
101
58
115
46
Summit, OH .......................
Trumbull, OH .....................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
14.8
4.9
21.5
18.2
11.0
10.2
8.3
25.3
13.9
36.0
257.0
85.8
396.4
319.3
129.7
136.3
123.9
418.1
218.1
687.5
-0.6
-1.5
-2.3
-4.1
-1.5
0.2
1.3
-1.9
-0.9
-1.1
187
247
286
311
247
131
64
273
203
224
704
672
620
649
661
558
573
748
810
769
6.3
6.5
5.1
-1.7
1.7
3.0
2.5
1.8
-2.6
1.1
7
5
20
303
202
101
148
193
309
236
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
8.7
19.5
14.3
5.5
6.8
13.7
7.2
5.6
11.4
8.1
157.9
247.0
213.5
123.2
171.6
210.1
123.2
96.5
217.2
165.0
-2.2
1.6
-0.4
0.5
-0.9
-0.5
-1.1
-0.4
-0.1
-1.6
283
48
171
109
203
180
224
171
152
256
652
688
945
691
724
805
563
561
631
727
0.9
1.5
5.2
1.6
0.3
4.3
-0.2
0.9
2.8
1.5
249
210
17
206
271
37
285
249
115
210
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Kent, RI ..............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
7.8
27.2
5.9
27.1
9.3
8.4
5.4
17.2
12.8
13.2
137.2
472.3
90.0
654.0
129.5
162.2
76.9
282.9
184.9
221.4
-0.9
-1.3
0.2
0.2
-1.0
-1.1
2.0
-0.5
3.1
1.3
203
234
131
131
216
224
37
180
11
64
580
936
623
834
569
657
638
747
586
655
2.1
2.5
-0.3
1.7
2.0
3.8
2.7
7.3
3.2
3.0
170
148
288
202
179
51
130
3
88
101
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
first quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2003
(thousands)
March
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
first quarter
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
8.5
6.0
10.4
6.9
5.8
17.9
8.3
10.3
3.5
20.0
96.7
82.4
204.9
115.6
105.7
423.2
186.5
207.8
81.8
494.3
2.2
0.5
1.1
-0.4
1.4
0.9
0.3
2.3
4.5
1.5
27
109
79
171
59
88
122
24
4
54
$487
534
617
650
594
721
611
611
637
730
5.0
0.9
2.8
1.4
4.9
3.0
2.5
3.0
1.4
2.4
21
249
115
218
23
101
148
101
218
153
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
4.0
29.0
4.0
3.4
6.0
11.4
67.4
7.8
12.3
5.9
88.8
652.7
75.6
77.3
115.0
191.2
1,436.5
126.1
250.8
96.5
0.3
0.4
-2.4
0.7
1.4
0.8
-3.0
-0.3
0.4
1.0
122
114
290
100
59
95
304
167
114
83
538
637
712
503
438
812
890
600
510
740
1.5
2.2
1.9
0.8
2.1
-1.3
0.2
0.0
2.8
-0.4
210
166
185
254
170
302
276
284
115
291
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
4.7
87.7
8.9
5.8
6.4
4.6
6.0
7.9
4.8
33.1
88.2
1,830.8
179.9
115.2
115.4
96.8
84.2
143.6
84.4
687.5
0.9
-0.9
1.9
-3.0
-1.4
-0.4
1.8
0.4
0.3
-1.7
88
203
40
304
241
171
42
114
122
260
641
860
445
634
531
559
626
586
591
739
7.4
-0.5
4.0
-0.5
3.3
2.0
-0.9
1.9
4.2
1.7
2
292
42
292
78
179
298
185
40
202
Travis, TX ..........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
24.0
4.6
5.7
32.3
9.9
5.0
5.6
6.8
6.5
29.6
507.3
80.5
86.9
508.2
139.0
85.4
91.6
148.6
108.3
525.1
-2.0
0.8
1.1
-1.7
0.5
1.2
-1.4
-1.9
-0.7
0.4
278
95
79
260
109
72
241
273
194
114
815
808
595
647
536
525
718
1,138
647
1,091
1.4
5.6
3.1
-1.1
0.4
2.1
0.8
3.2
0.5
4.0
218
11
95
299
265
170
254
88
261
42
Henrico, VA ........................
Loudoun, VA ......................
Prince William, VA .............
Alexandria City, VA ............
Chesapeake City, VA .........
Newport News City, VA .....
Norfolk City, VA .................
Richmond City, VA .............
Virginia Beach City, VA ......
Clark, WA ...........................
7.9
5.8
5.5
5.6
4.6
3.6
5.5
6.9
10.3
10.9
165.1
101.1
85.4
89.7
88.7
94.7
144.2
159.1
161.5
113.9
-0.5
2.9
1.2
0.7
2.4
0.9
-0.2
-1.6
-0.5
1.6
180
14
72
100
21
88
159
256
180
48
806
872
621
903
543
639
695
870
551
645
3.6
-7.9
3.3
1.8
3.4
2.7
5.5
3.4
4.6
0.2
58
314
78
193
69
130
12
69
33
276
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
first quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2003
(thousands)
March
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
first quarter
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
85.3
6.5
21.1
16.9
15.4
6.7
9.4
6.1
6.6
13.3
1,080.7
75.9
240.5
206.0
187.7
88.7
87.9
107.8
139.5
279.2
-1.0
2.1
2.4
1.0
1.4
4.1
3.6
-1.2
0.4
0.9
216
33
21
83
59
6
9
228
114
88
$919
664
638
749
584
651
(7)
636
649
697
-1.1
1.8
3.2
1.9
0.7
-0.5
(7)
1.6
0.9
3.9
299
193
88
185
257
292
206
249
46
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
22.3
4.9
4.3
13.1
3.9
496.4
95.1
74.2
219.0
85.6
-1.4
1.3
-2.1
0.2
-1.8
241
64
280
131
266
739
635
653
736
703
2.1
2.4
5.2
0.4
2.8
170
153
17
265
115
San Juan, PR .....................
11.6
313.4
-1.8
266
464
4.7
28
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 315 U.S. counties comprise 70.6 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Percent changes were computed from annual employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
first quarter 20032
Average weekly wages4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2003
(thousands)
March
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2002-033
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
March
2002-033
United States5 ....................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
8,250.6
7,984.4
125.0
800.9
383.0
1,861.1
148.1
755.5
1,315.8
721.9
660.2
1,060.7
266.2
126,860.3
105,662.0
1,528.5
6,292.4
14,618.6
24,709.0
3,204.6
7,758.4
15,653.9
15,678.7
11,734.6
4,243.4
21,198.4
-0.3
-0.6
-0.5
-1.4
-4.6
-0.8
-6.7
1.5
-0.7
2.9
1.4
0.6
0.7
$729
727
674
723
882
634
1,155
1,255
865
637
303
459
739
1.5
1.1
0.1
-0.1
3.0
1.9
1.1
-1.3
1.2
3.1
2.0
2.0
3.2
Los Angeles, CA ................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
347.1
343.3
0.6
12.9
18.3
53.7
9.5
22.7
39.7
25.9
24.9
134.5
3.8
4,050.1
3,448.7
11.8
133.1
512.3
766.9
206.3
235.5
563.6
448.1
355.6
214.3
601.4
0.0
0.1
-0.9
0.6
-5.9
0.4
-5.6
1.4
1.0
3.3
2.2
6.6
-0.7
817
797
945
789
839
691
1,473
1,290
895
697
456
405
928
1.2
0.9
-7.5
0.0
4.4
2.7
4.8
-3.9
0.9
0.6
0.4
1.5
2.8
Cook, IL ..............................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
125.5
124.3
0.1
10.2
8.0
26.6
2.5
13.5
25.8
12.1
10.4
12.7
1.1
2,496.5
2,168.2
1.3
88.1
271.4
477.6
66.5
216.9
396.8
344.8
204.7
95.2
328.3
-1.5
-2.0
-2.3
-2.7
-5.7
-1.1
-7.0
-0.7
-4.3
0.0
1.9
-0.7
1.5
905
911
899
1,045
897
714
1,294
1,806
1,126
688
356
616
869
1.3
1.2
2.3
-1.1
4.1
1.7
3.9
-1.7
2.2
3.8
0.0
2.7
2.8
New York, NY .....................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
112.6
112.4
0.0
2.2
3.7
22.7
4.5
17.1
22.9
7.8
10.1
15.9
0.2
2,210.3
1,762.0
0.1
29.8
48.9
233.9
130.7
350.8
428.1
270.7
178.2
82.1
448.3
-1.8
-1.7
1.6
-5.7
-8.8
0.3
-6.7
-3.3
-3.2
1.0
2.7
0.6
-2.2
1,648
1,817
1,484
1,336
1,068
1,009
1,966
4,219
1,669
840
635
758
987
-5.9
-7.7
1.2
3.6
4.9
1.4
8.3
-12.7
-6.7
5.8
1.9
2.0
8.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
first quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2003
(thousands)
March
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2002-033
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
March
2002-033
Harris, TX ...........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
87.7
87.3
1.2
6.4
4.7
21.2
1.4
9.1
16.8
8.5
6.4
10.3
0.4
1,830.8
1,587.0
60.5
142.6
169.1
390.5
34.7
110.6
279.5
183.8
155.2
57.6
243.8
-0.9
-1.5
3.4
-2.8
-5.5
-3.6
-6.7
-0.4
-2.0
2.1
4.5
-3.4
3.5
$860
877
2,229
802
1,093
818
1,096
1,192
913
719
313
506
749
-0.5
-0.9
3.9
-1.1
4.2
-4.9
-1.2
-1.9
-2.0
3.2
1.0
-0.4
3.7
Maricopa, AZ ......................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
79.0
78.5
0.5
8.4
3.3
18.7
1.6
9.2
17.7
7.4
5.3
5.6
0.5
1,569.5
1,352.8
9.0
123.1
127.8
316.7
38.0
131.5
251.0
153.4
156.0
45.0
216.7
1.2
1.0
4.3
1.3
-6.4
1.1
-3.6
2.4
1.1
4.9
3.2
0.5
2.7
699
700
534
700
1,019
687
847
935
683
694
337
470
694
1.2
0.9
17.4
-0.4
0.4
0.9
1.0
4.5
1.0
3.0
1.5
0.4
2.7
Dallas, TX ...........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
67.4
67.0
0.5
4.5
3.5
15.8
1.8
8.3
13.9
6.1
5.0
6.8
0.4
1,436.5
1,279.1
6.4
72.5
145.6
320.5
65.1
137.7
232.0
129.4
125.1
42.7
157.4
-3.0
-3.5
-25.0
-7.5
-8.0
-3.5
-14.3
-0.5
-3.6
5.1
-0.3
-2.5
1.7
890
904
2,154
774
1,010
866
1,305
1,269
956
782
431
545
778
0.2
0.2
4.6
2.1
0.3
1.8
1.6
-0.3
-0.1
1.0
5.1
-0.5
1.7
Orange, CA ........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
87.6
86.2
0.2
6.4
6.2
17.4
1.5
9.4
17.3
8.9
6.5
12.0
1.4
1,421.1
1,267.6
8.6
81.8
184.4
263.1
34.5
119.0
252.5
123.0
155.6
44.8
153.5
1.0
1.3
-1.6
3.8
-5.8
0.4
-7.8
8.6
3.3
6.7
0.1
3.9
-1.6
832
813
472
863
947
775
1,208
1,323
858
702
343
481
985
3.6
3.2
1.3
0.5
6.3
2.2
0.7
8.9
-0.8
2.5
6.2
0.4
6.7
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
first quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2003
(thousands)
March
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2002-033
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
March
2002-033
San Diego, CA ...................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
83.8
82.5
0.9
6.4
3.7
14.2
1.4
8.7
14.6
7.5
6.4
18.6
1.3
1,250.5
1,025.6
11.3
75.9
107.7
204.0
37.0
78.9
202.7
120.2
136.9
50.5
224.9
1.7
1.6
-1.6
2.0
-6.3
2.1
-3.0
5.2
1.5
3.0
4.8
4.8
2.1
$777
756
438
774
1,004
656
1,322
1,101
919
661
332
430
874
2.6
2.3
0.9
1.0
0.7
4.5
4.3
2.3
2.8
5.6
4.4
2.9
3.6
King, WA ............................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
85.3
84.7
0.5
6.9
2.8
16.0
1.7
6.3
12.9
6.0
5.6
26.1
0.6
1,080.7
926.5
3.3
51.4
105.8
213.7
66.6
76.2
157.7
107.2
95.8
48.6
154.2
-1.0
-1.4
-1.2
-4.4
-10.3
-1.4
-3.2
2.4
1.3
0.7
1.4
1.1
1.5
919
934
1,180
868
1,174
788
2,121
1,183
1,031
673
371
440
830
-1.1
-1.5
24.1
0.1
-1.6
1.4
-9.5
5.1
-0.8
3.7
4.8
-1.1
2.9
Miami-Dade, FL ..................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
78.0
77.8
0.5
4.7
2.9
22.8
1.7
8.0
15.1
7.6
5.1
7.3
0.3
984.0
831.9
11.6
39.2
53.1
242.9
28.9
65.6
134.3
122.8
94.6
35.2
152.1
-0.2
-0.4
4.4
0.7
-5.4
-1.8
-7.7
1.6
-3.0
2.1
4.3
-1.8
0.7
692
676
349
690
630
656
1,026
1,074
773
672
368
427
779
2.7
2.3
-2.8
2.2
5.0
3.5
0.2
-3.6
6.2
4.3
-1.6
2.2
4.8
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Percent changes were computed from annual employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See
Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county
by state, first quarter 20032
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2003
(thousands)
March
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2002-034
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
March
2002-034
United States6 ....................
8,250.6
126,860.3
-0.3
$729
1.5
Jefferson, AL ......................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pulaski, AR ........................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Denver, CO ........................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
18.2
7.4
79.0
13.1
347.1
24.0
24.0
17.3
29.3
78.0
368.0
136.7
1,569.5
237.0
4,050.1
424.9
475.1
271.4
651.8
984.0
-1.7
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.0
-1.9
-2.7
-0.5
1.1
-0.2
742
740
699
636
817
882
938
932
1,135
692
4.7
0.4
1.2
2.3
1.2
1.0
3.9
0.4
2.8
2.7
Fulton, GA ..........................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Cook, IL .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
Polk, IA ..............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
37.7
24.0
12.8
125.5
23.6
13.6
18.3
21.6
12.7
11.2
728.8
416.7
179.3
2,496.5
565.5
254.2
284.1
412.9
248.6
162.8
-0.9
2.2
0.4
-1.5
-1.0
-0.8
0.0
-0.9
-0.9
-0.1
1,010
660
648
905
769
752
791
708
674
663
2.1
2.0
0.3
1.3
0.4
4.3
6.0
3.4
1.2
3.0
Montgomery, MD ...............
Middlesex, MA ...................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Hinds, MS ..........................
St. Louis, MO .....................
Yellowstone, MT ................
Douglas, NE .......................
Clark, NV ...........................
Hillsborough, NH ................
30.6
46.6
35.5
40.8
6.6
34.1
5.6
14.7
33.9
12.0
445.9
782.5
804.8
812.8
129.6
618.7
66.7
304.9
744.2
187.4
0.0
-3.9
-1.8
-1.5
-1.8
-0.6
0.9
-1.7
3.8
-0.1
940
1,003
857
923
621
785
532
695
655
783
2.7
1.5
4.9
1.1
5.3
2.2
0.6
3.3
2.5
3.8
Bergen, NJ .........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
New York, NY ....................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
Cass, ND ...........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Providence, RI ...................
34.0
16.8
112.6
28.5
5.0
38.7
21.5
25.3
36.0
17.2
446.2
308.3
2,210.3
499.9
82.6
753.4
396.4
418.1
687.5
282.9
0.0
1.2
-1.8
-2.0
2.1
-0.9
-2.3
-1.9
-1.1
-0.5
936
628
1,648
936
583
768
620
748
769
747
1.5
2.1
-5.9
3.3
2.8
2.9
5.1
1.8
1.1
7.3
Greenville, SC ....................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Shelby, TN .........................
Harris, TX ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Fairfax, VA .........................
King, WA ............................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
13.2
5.8
20.0
87.7
32.3
5.6
29.6
85.3
6.1
22.3
221.4
105.7
494.3
1,830.8
508.2
91.6
525.1
1,080.7
107.8
496.4
1.3
1.4
1.5
-0.9
-1.7
-1.4
0.4
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
655
594
730
860
647
718
1,091
919
636
739
3.0
4.9
2.4
-0.5
-1.1
0.8
4.0
-1.1
1.6
2.1
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county
by state, first quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2003
(thousands)
March
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2002-034
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
March
2002-034
Laramie, WY ......................
2.8
38.1
3.5
$560
2.4
San Juan, PR .....................
St. Thomas, VI ...................
11.6
1.7
313.4
23.2
-1.8
2.0
464
572
4.7
6.5
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Percent changes were computed from annual employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county
reclassifications. See Technical Note.
5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees
but are included because they are the largest county in their state
or territory. Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
October 2003
-5.9% to -0.4%
-0.3% to 4.9%
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 employees or more,
March 2002-03 (U.S. Average = -0.3%)
Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees
but are included because they are the largest county in their state
or territory. Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
October 2003
-9.1% to 1.4%
1.5% to 10.7%
Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wages in counties with 75,000 employees or
more, first quarter 2002-03 (U.S. Average = 1.5%)