Technical information:
(202) 691-6567
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
Media contact:
691-5902
USDL 04-6
For release: 10:00 A.M. EST
Wednesday, January 7, 2004
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: SECOND QUARTER 2003
In June 2003, Loudoun County, Va., 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. Loudoun County, Va., experienced an over-the-year employment gain of 5.2 percent, compared with a national decline of 0.5 percent. Kent County, R.I., had the
biggest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the second quarter of 2003, with an increase of
7.9 percent. U.S. average weekly wages increased by 2.2 percent over the same timespan.
Of the 315 largest counties in the United States, 184 had rates of over-the-year employment growth
above the national average in June 2003, and 119 experienced declines in employment greater than the
national average. Average weekly wages grew faster than the national average in 181 of the largest U.S.
counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was below the national average in 119 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. These more than 8.2
million employer reports covered 129.2 million full- and part-time workers in June 2003. 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 not used in calculating U.S. averages.
(See Technical Note.) June 2003 employment and 2003 second-quarter average weekly wages for all states
are provided in table 4 of this release. Data for all states, MSAs, counties, and the nation through the first
quarter of 2003 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for the
second quarter of 2003 and revised data for the first quarter of 2003 will be available later in January on the
BLS Web site.
Large County Employment
The national employment total in June 2003 was 129.2 million, which was 0.5 percent lower than in June
2002. The 315 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.3 percent of total U.S.
covered employment, 76.2 percent of total wages, and 86.2 percent of the net over-the-year employment
decline from June 2002. (San Juan, P.R., is not included in this grouping of U.S. counties.) The biggest
gains in employment from June 2002 to June 2003 were recorded in the counties of Clark, Nev. (26,500),
Riverside, Calif. (22,500), Orange, Calif. (21,300), San Bernardino, Calif. (11,500), and Orange, Fla.
(10,900). (See table A.)
2
Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by June 2003 employment, June 2002-03 employment change, and
June 2002-03 percent change in employment
Employment
Net change in employment,
June 2002-03
(thousands)
June 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.
129,169.4
4,060.4
2,543.0
2,214.1
1,837.2
1,547.0
1,442.7
1,433.5
1,263.1
1,090.7
966.5
U.S.
Clark, Nev.
Riverside, Calif.
Orange, Calif.
San Bernardino, Calif.
Orange, Fla.
Maricopa, Ariz.
San Joaquin, Calif.
Lee, Fla.
San Diego, Calif.
Sacramento, Calif.
-628.3
26.5
22.5
21.3
11.5
10.9
10.1
9.1
8.9
8.7
7.4
Percent change in employment,
June 2002-03
U.S.
Loudoun, Va.
Yakima, Wash.
Lee, Fla.
St. Charles, Mo.
Placer, Calif.
Rutherford, Tenn.
Pasco, Fla.
Thurston, Wash.
Hidalgo, Texas
Clark, Nev.
-0.5
5.2
4.8
4.6
4.3
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.6
3.5
Loudoun County, Va., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (5.2 percent),
followed by the counties of Yakima, Wash. (4.8 percent), Lee, Fla. (4.6 percent), St. Charles, Mo. (4.3
percent), and Placer, Calif. (4.2 percent). (See table 1 and chart 1.)
Employment declined in 167 counties from June 2002 to June 2003. The largest percentage decline in
employment was in Sangamon County, Ill. (-5.9 percent), followed by the counties of Catawba, N.C. (-5.3
percent), Santa Clara, Calif., and Tulsa, Okla. (-5.1 percent each), and Wyandotte, Kan. (-4.4 percent).
The largest absolute declines in employment occurred in New York County, N.Y. (-54,600), followed by the
counties of Santa Clara, Calif. (-52,500), Cook, Ill. (-47,600), Dallas, Texas (-45,200), and Los Angeles,
Calif. (-30,800).
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the second quarter of 2003 was $702, which was 2.2 percent
higher than in the second quarter of 2002. Average weekly wages were higher than the national average
in 114 of the largest 315 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., comprised entirely of the borough of
Manhattan, held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of
$1,250. Santa Clara County, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,224, followed by
Washington, D.C. ($1,150), San Mateo County, Calif. ($1,127), and Arlington County, Va. ($1,092).
(See table B.)
Kent County, R.I., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages with an increase of 7.9 percent.
Norfolk City, Va., and Pasco County, Fla., were second with 7.1 percent growth each, followed by the
counties of Williamson, Texas (6.6 percent), and San Mateo, Calif. (6.3 percent). (See chart 2.)
There were 193 large 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 ($443), followed
by the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($444), Horry, S.C. ($472), Yakima, Wash. ($481), and Tulare, Calif.
($501). (See table 1.)
3
Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by second quarter 2003 average weekly wages, second quarter
2002-03 change in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2002-03 percent change in average
weekly wages
Average weekly wages
Average weekly wages,
second quarter 2003
U.S.
New York, N.Y.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Washington, D.C.
San Mateo, Calif.
Arlington, Va.
Fairfield, Conn.
San Francisco, Calif.
Fairfax, Va.
Suffolk, Mass.
Morris, N.J.
$702
$1,250
1,224
1,150
1,127
1,092
1,074
1,051
1,044
1,039
1,023
Change in average weekly
wages, second quarter 2002-03
Percent change in average
weekly wages, second
quarter 2002-03
U.S.
$15
U.S.
2.2
San Mateo, Calif.
Washington, D.C.
Kent, R.I.
Norfolk City, Va.
Williamson, Texas
Chester, Pa.
King, Wash.
Ventura, Calif.
Clayton, Ga.
Morris, N.J.
Pasco, Fla.
$67
55
49
46
46
44
38
38
36
36
36
Kent, R.I.
Norfolk City, Va.
Pasco, Fla.
Williamson, Texas
San Mateo, Calif.
Oklahoma, Okla.
Prince William, Va.
Ventura, Calif.
Chester, Pa.
Dane, Wis.
Marion, Fla.
7.9
7.1
7.1
6.6
6.3
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.2
5.2
5.2
Seven large counties showed over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Brazoria County, Texas,
had the largest decrease, registering a 3.6 percent decline. Shawnee, Kan., was second with a 2.7 percent
decline, followed by the counties of Elkhart, Ind. (-1.9 percent), Rockingham, N.H. (-0.7 percent), and El
Paso, Texas, Erie, Pa., and Sedgwick, Kan. (-0.2 percent each).
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2002 employment levels), 3 experienced increases in employment and 7 experienced declines in employment from June 2002 to June 2003. Orange County, Calif.,
experienced the fastest growth in employment among the largest counties with a 0.9 percent increase.
Orange County’s growth was due to employment increases in every private industry supersector except
natural resources and mining, manufacturing, and information. Government employment in Orange County
declined by 4.5 percent. (See table 2.) Maricopa County, Ariz., had the next largest increase with
employment rising by 0.7 percent, followed by San Diego County, Calif., which experienced a 0.4 percent
increase in employment over this period. The largest declines in employment for the 10 largest counties
were in Dallas County, Texas, and New York County, N.Y., which both decreased by 2.4 percent. The
next largest decline in employment was recorded in Cook County, Ill., where employment fell by 1.6 percent.
All of the 10 largest U.S. counties experienced over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. King
County, Wash., had the fastest growth in wages among the top 10 counties, growing at a 4.2 percent rate.
King County’s fastest growing supersectors were natural resources and mining, where wages rose by 14.0
percent, and information with a 12.3 percent increase. Orange County, Calif., experienced growth in wages
of 3.5 percent, followed by Miami-Dade County, Fla., with a 3.1 percent increase. New York County,
N.Y., experienced the smallest increase in average weekly wages among the largest 10 counties, rising by
only 0.6 percent. This was primarily due to wage decreases in the financial activities supersector. This was
4
followed by Dallas County, Texas, and Cook County, Ill., with increases in average weekly wages of 0.8
percent and 1.2 percent, respectively.
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows the June 2003 employment and 2003 second-quarter average weekly wages in the largest
county for each state. This table includes two counties that have employment below 75,000 (Yellowstone,
Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.). The employment levels in these counties in June 2003 ranged from approximately 4 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 40,000 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average
weekly wages of these counties were in New York, N.Y. ($1,250), while the lowest average weekly wages
were in Laramie, Wyo. ($553).
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 result 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.
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.
Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment measures
The Bureau publishes three different establishment-based
employment measures for any given quarter. Each of these
measures—QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED),
and Current Employment Statistics (CES)—makes use of the
quarterly UI employment reports in producing data; however,
each measure has a somewhat different universe coverage,
estimation procedure, and publication product.
Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result
in somewhat different measures of over-the-quarter
employment change. It is important to understand program
differences and the intended uses of the program products.
(See table below.) Additional information on each program can
be obtained from the program Web sites shown in the table
below.
Summary of Major Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES Employment Measures
QCEW
BED
CES
Source
• Count of UI administrative records
submitted by 8.2 million employers
• Count of longitudinally-linked UI
• Sample survey: 400,000 employers
administrative records submitted by
6.4 million private sector employers
Coverage
• UI and UCFE coverage, including
all employers subject to state and
federal UI laws
Nonfarm wage and salary jobs:
• UI coverage, excluding government, private households, and estab- • UI coverage, excluding agriculture,
lishments with zero employment
private households, and self-employed
• Other employment, including railroads, religious organizations, and
other non-UI-covered jobs
Publication
frequency
• Quarterly
- 7 months after the end of each
quarter
• Quarterly
- 8 months after the end of each
quarter
• Monthly
- Usually first Friday of following
month
Use of UI file
• Directly summarizes and publishes each new quarter of UI
data
• Links each new UI quarter to
longitudinal database and directly
summarizes gross job gains
and losses
• Uses UI file as a sampling frame
and annually realigns (benchmarks)
sample estimates to first quarter
UI levels
Principal
products
• Provides a quarterly and annual
universe count of establishments, employment, and
wages at the county, MSA,
state, and national levels by
detailed industry
• Provides quarterly employer dynamics data on establishment openings, closings, expansions, and
contractions at the national level
• Future expansions will include
data at the county, MSA, and
state level by industry and size
of establishment
• Provides current monthly estimates
of employment, hours, and earnings
at the MSA, state, and national level by industry
Principal uses
• Major uses include:
- Detailed locality data
- Periodic universe counts for
benchmarking sample survey
estimates
- Sample frame for BLS
establishment surveys
• Major uses include:
- Business cycle analysis
- Analysis of employer dynamics
underlying economic expansions
and contractions
- Future: employment expansion
and contraction by size of establishment
• Major uses include:
- Principal national economic
indicator
- Official time series for
employment change measures
- Input into other major economic
indicators
Program
Web sites
• www.bls.gov/cew/
• www.bls.gov/bdm/
• www.bls.gov/ces/
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. The estimated 123.4 million
workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders)
represented 99.1 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. 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 second 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 second quarter of
2003. As a result, the adjusted 2002 second 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, 2002 is
available for sale from the BLS Publications Sales Center, P.O.
Box 2145, Chicago, Illinois 60690, telephone 312-353-1880. The
bulletin is now available in a portable document format (PDF)
on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/
cewbultn02.htm.
News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also
are 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,
second quarter 20032
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2003
(thousands)
June
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2002-034
United States6 ....................
8,232.5
129,169.4
-0.5
-
$702
2.2
-
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
18.1
7.5
9.5
6.4
4.0
7.5
79.4
17.3
3.9
13.1
369.4
159.7
162.8
129.8
76.0
143.6
1,547.0
317.2
82.3
240.2
-1.2
2.7
-1.1
0.1
-0.2
1.8
0.7
-0.1
1.9
0.5
232
18
226
139
162
36
89
149
32
107
700
766
574
609
589
757
710
631
621
634
2.2
2.7
2.5
3.0
2.4
2.0
2.9
4.3
3.2
1.8
183
132
159
96
170
200
108
29
79
221
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
4.8
47.2
27.2
28.1
15.3
340.7
11.7
11.7
87.1
9.1
84.2
684.4
341.4
344.1
257.6
4,060.4
111.9
181.6
1,433.5
124.7
1.1
-2.5
-0.8
1.7
3.2
-0.3
-0.4
0.6
0.9
4.2
65
287
205
40
11
171
178
98
80
5
556
916
870
555
610
789
888
629
800
713
3.9
1.7
1.3
2.6
3.0
2.9
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.9
38
231
258
148
96
108
36
60
60
38
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 .................
35.5
44.4
38.8
83.1
42.6
15.0
8.5
23.1
12.9
50.7
546.5
605.6
575.8
1,263.1
530.9
226.0
102.7
334.5
188.5
864.2
3.0
1.6
1.5
0.4
-3.1
2.9
-0.1
-3.4
0.7
-5.1
13
43
50
116
299
15
149
302
89
309
609
782
634
757
1,051
607
578
1,127
654
1,224
3.4
2.5
3.3
1.9
0.1
2.0
2.8
6.3
3.0
2.7
64
159
69
212
299
200
122
5
96
132
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
8.2
9.0
16.7
12.6
8.7
20.1
4.9
8.5
18.7
11.7
103.3
128.7
192.8
171.8
142.8
307.2
91.7
142.4
273.2
152.5
-1.5
1.0
-2.4
1.0
-0.1
0.8
1.3
-4.2
-2.7
-3.6
245
70
283
70
149
85
54
307
293
305
650
655
699
594
501
747
(7)
673
860
846
0.5
2.2
0.7
2.8
4.6
5.4
(7)
2.0
2.9
2.8
294
183
287
122
22
7
200
108
122
Denver, CO ........................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
24.2
15.5
17.7
9.0
31.8
24.2
21.8
6.5
17.7
29.4
428.2
235.9
206.8
123.5
418.1
485.2
361.2
131.5
279.2
651.6
-2.9
-1.6
-1.1
-1.5
-0.9
-2.2
-2.4
1.8
1.0
-0.6
295
253
226
245
211
278
283
36
70
193
850
664
729
654
1,074
864
774
748
833
1,150
2.9
1.7
1.8
1.4
3.4
1.9
3.3
2.6
3.3
5.0
108
231
221
255
64
212
69
148
69
13
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
second quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2003
(thousands)
June
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2002-034
Alachua, FL ........................
Brevard, FL ........................
Broward, FL .......................
Collier, FL ..........................
Duval, FL ...........................
Escambia, FL .....................
Hillsborough, FL .................
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
5.6
11.9
55.4
10.0
21.4
7.0
29.9
14.3
7.1
6.5
120.0
185.5
678.9
108.4
426.3
119.9
584.8
180.9
139.2
(7)
1.6
1.1
0.6
1.1
-0.3
2.3
1.3
4.6
1.3
(7 )
43
65
98
65
171
24
54
3
54
-
$560
(7)
681
621
687
558
664
590
609
558
4.7
(7)
4.4
3.0
3.9
3.7
4.1
2.6
2.7
0.9
19
25
96
38
50
34
148
132
277
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
6.0
78.9
4.8
28.3
41.5
7.2
27.5
10.0
12.4
11.4
84.5
966.5
79.5
596.7
499.8
75.7
424.8
176.0
144.0
145.4
1.1
-1.2
0.4
2.3
0.5
3.9
2.2
-0.7
-0.3
0.6
65
232
116
24
107
7
27
196
171
98
530
689
(7)
649
703
542
619
570
596
635
5.2
3.1
(7)
1.7
1.3
7.1
2.5
3.6
3.8
2.4
10
84
231
258
2
159
54
47
170
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
(7)
4.7
6.9
4.4
19.5
16.9
37.2
20.9
4.7
4.8
(7)
85.5
122.9
108.5
294.3
292.6
718.4
289.6
96.0
102.9
(7 )
-0.1
-0.3
-3.5
-1.9
-1.2
-2.0
-1.0
0.7
-0.3
149
171
304
266
232
270
218
89
171
(7 )
600
596
779
781
782
916
760
571
604
(7)
2.2
3.1
4.8
1.7
2.9
1.8
2.2
0.9
3.1
183
84
15
231
108
221
183
277
84
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
24.1
13.2
3.9
125.8
32.0
10.6
18.5
7.2
3.3
5.6
417.9
184.0
89.6
2,543.0
571.8
198.2
327.3
94.7
84.9
96.4
0.6
0.1
-0.1
-1.6
-0.7
-0.5
0.5
0.6
-0.4
-0.3
98
139
149
253
196
185
107
98
178
171
658
647
604
836
853
647
847
633
727
589
3.3
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.7
2.7
3.2
2.1
2.8
2.8
69
242
258
267
231
132
79
191
122
122
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
5.0
5.0
10.2
6.6
8.6
4.8
5.9
9.8
97.2
78.7
92.7
137.0
155.0
136.1
175.3
117.4
86.2
194.5
-3.4
-1.1
1.9
-5.9
1.9
-2.9
-2.1
1.0
2.9
2.7
302
226
32
312
32
295
275
70
15
18
660
667
569
709
664
624
638
621
717
635
1.7
3.9
2.7
1.4
0.9
1.8
0.8
-1.9
1.3
3.4
231
38
132
255
277
221
284
307
258
64
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
second quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2003
(thousands)
June
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2002-034
Marion, IN ..........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
Vanderburgh, IN ................
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ..............................
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
23.4
6.0
4.8
5.9
13.6
4.9
18.5
11.6
4.8
3.1
575.7
123.6
109.0
116.1
262.8
85.2
291.8
239.2
97.1
75.3
-1.2
-0.5
-0.1
-2.1
-0.7
-0.2
-0.1
-3.8
-2.5
-4.4
232
185
149
275
196
162
149
306
287
308
$727
620
599
672
695
580
735
649
602
691
2.0
1.8
1.0
2.4
3.9
2.5
2.9
-0.2
-2.7
0.1
200
221
273
170
38
159
108
303
308
299
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
21.4
7.1
4.6
13.2
14.1
7.5
12.9
11.0
12.9
164.5
421.1
119.6
82.4
243.1
212.3
119.9
253.3
170.2
208.0
-1.0
-0.2
-0.5
-0.9
1.4
-1.2
0.0
0.3
-0.1
-0.2
218
162
185
211
52
232
145
124
149
162
651
688
601
572
614
584
615
659
639
737
2.5
2.7
3.1
1.4
2.5
2.8
2.2
3.3
2.7
3.9
159
132
84
255
159
122
183
69
132
38
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
20.0
5.2
7.6
30.7
14.5
13.9
9.0
14.6
20.1
13.3
360.2
87.7
137.0
456.9
312.3
369.2
101.3
220.6
301.0
202.8
-0.2
2.2
1.0
0.7
0.8
-0.6
0.7
-0.7
-2.2
-1.9
162
27
70
89
85
193
89
196
278
266
721
678
797
917
775
803
616
645
765
657
2.3
2.6
3.2
2.7
3.3
3.1
3.7
0.9
2.8
3.1
179
148
79
132
69
84
50
277
122
84
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
46.8
21.4
13.1
21.9
19.7
8.6
7.1
5.5
14.4
18.0
797.6
323.0
173.8
563.8
319.1
155.6
171.6
117.4
332.6
326.2
-3.2
-1.7
0.0
-3.2
-0.7
-2.6
-1.4
-0.2
-1.7
-0.9
300
259
145
300
196
291
242
162
259
211
984
857
712
1,039
737
681
693
664
675
792
1.9
2.5
5.0
0.3
2.6
0.7
1.2
4.4
3.1
0.1
212
159
13
297
148
287
267
25
84
299
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
41.7
5.7
4.6
8.1
35.4
7.3
9.6
41.1
3.3
15.1
739.7
111.9
92.6
192.5
816.6
112.8
169.0
827.8
87.6
330.0
-1.5
-1.3
-0.2
-1.4
-1.8
0.1
3.0
-1.2
0.9
-0.1
245
239
162
242
265
139
13
232
80
149
874
655
661
819
824
724
713
891
779
812
2.1
3.5
0.6
2.4
1.7
3.9
1.9
3.1
3.0
3.2
191
60
291
170
231
38
212
84
96
79
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
second quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2003
(thousands)
June
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2002-034
St. Louis, MN .....................
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
Boone, MO .........................
Clay, MO ............................
Greene, MO .......................
Jackson, MO ......................
St. Charles, MO .................
St. Louis, MO .....................
5.7
4.1
4.5
6.6
4.2
4.8
7.9
18.8
7.0
33.8
95.4
76.8
89.9
130.5
76.7
87.0
144.3
368.8
108.9
630.4
0.4
-0.1
1.6
-1.9
-0.4
-0.8
1.5
-2.9
4.3
-1.5
116
149
43
266
178
205
50
295
4
245
$595
584
522
627
561
670
559
730
611
770
0.7
1.6
2.8
3.6
1.3
3.1
2.0
2.0
2.3
3.1
287
242
122
54
258
84
200
200
179
84
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
34.5
11.7
12.1
10.5
6.5
34.2
(7)
229.6
313.3
150.6
750.3
195.7
192.5
133.4
147.5
455.7
(7)
-2.9
-1.2
0.3
3.5
1.6
1.3
-0.3
1.2
0.9
(7 )
295
232
124
10
43
54
171
63
80
-
792
657
588
655
665
769
694
647
898
(7 )
2.2
4.6
2.1
3.6
3.3
4.8
-0.7
3.0
2.4
(7)
183
22
191
54
69
15
306
96
170
-
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
13.1
21.2
5.9
13.7
10.4
20.5
19.6
17.5
11.4
12.4
207.0
362.9
97.6
234.6
222.8
395.9
252.7
281.2
148.7
177.7
1.0
-0.4
2.7
-1.1
1.6
-2.0
0.1
-0.5
2.1
-0.5
70
178
18
226
43
270
139
185
30
185
727
895
647
900
881
889
779
1,023
609
765
4.6
2.3
2.5
2.9
1.1
1.7
2.8
3.6
2.7
1.5
22
179
159
108
271
231
122
54
132
250
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
(7)
14.9
17.0
9.4
15.1
4.4
7.5
23.2
41.1
17.5
(7)
242.4
310.8
228.5
214.9
95.8
117.1
457.6
442.1
387.0
(7 )
2.5
0.2
-0.5
-0.7
-2.6
1.7
-0.5
0.3
-1.0
21
134
185
196
291
40
185
124
218
(7 )
899
634
744
693
604
738
625
626
730
(7)
2.7
2.9
3.0
2.7
3.1
1.2
1.6
3.3
4.4
132
108
96
132
84
267
242
69
25
Nassau, NY ........................
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
49.7
111.8
5.3
12.4
8.9
39.2
7.7
9.1
46.3
34.7
603.8
2,214.1
110.1
248.6
126.1
477.5
88.7
112.2
603.9
410.5
0.8
-2.4
0.7
-0.1
1.3
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.1
85
283
89
149
54
139
145
124
98
139
805
1,250
560
670
(7)
725
645
775
757
919
3.7
0.6
2.6
2.3
(7)
3.0
1.7
2.6
2.9
2.5
50
291
148
179
96
231
148
108
159
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
second quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2003
(thousands)
June
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2002-034
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
6.6
4.3
5.5
6.1
8.3
13.6
26.9
6.2
22.5
5.1
104.5
85.6
109.2
160.2
174.1
266.5
504.9
88.3
381.8
86.6
1.7
-5.3
-0.1
-2.1
-1.5
-0.7
-1.0
0.3
0.5
3.2
40
311
149
275
245
196
218
124
107
11
$549
556
548
899
672
644
807
568
716
568
1.9
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.6
1.1
0.4
0.7
2.5
212
302
200
200
200
242
271
295
287
159
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
6.8
38.8
29.8
25.3
6.7
6.2
11.0
6.5
13.4
9.1
130.7
772.3
687.3
552.3
98.7
102.8
226.9
106.4
289.7
169.2
1.6
-0.4
-1.5
0.4
-0.9
0.4
-1.6
-0.7
-1.0
-2.0
43
178
245
116
211
116
253
196
218
270
630
731
714
753
617
621
662
534
682
574
1.6
2.7
2.4
1.8
4.8
1.5
2.6
2.5
2.1
1.8
242
132
170
221
15
250
148
159
191
221
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
18.1
10.9
10.1
8.2
25.1
13.8
35.6
259.3
87.6
398.8
317.8
133.9
138.1
132.2
419.4
221.5
701.5
-0.8
-2.2
-2.7
-5.1
-1.7
-1.4
0.7
-2.5
-1.9
-1.6
205
278
293
309
259
242
89
287
266
253
664
637
618
642
675
579
575
732
793
738
2.9
1.8
5.5
4.2
3.2
3.6
2.1
1.0
0.6
2.2
108
221
6
32
79
54
191
273
291
183
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
8.7
19.7
14.5
5.5
6.8
13.7
7.1
5.6
11.4
8.1
160.9
256.0
219.4
125.0
177.6
210.4
126.6
98.3
223.3
172.6
-2.3
1.9
1.0
0.2
-0.2
-1.7
-1.0
0.3
0.3
1.0
282
32
70
134
162
259
218
124
124
70
669
696
895
687
694
772
565
551
625
706
3.9
3.7
5.2
3.8
3.4
4.7
-0.2
2.0
3.3
0.4
38
50
10
47
64
19
303
200
69
295
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Kent, RI ..............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
7.8
26.9
5.9
27.3
9.2
8.4
5.4
17.3
12.9
13.3
141.9
479.8
92.6
646.9
133.3
164.4
79.8
289.7
188.7
223.5
0.5
-0.9
1.1
-1.6
-2.0
-0.4
2.5
0.2
1.8
0.4
107
211
65
253
270
178
21
134
36
116
576
849
627
813
575
622
672
681
591
628
2.7
3.0
1.5
3.8
2.1
2.0
7.9
2.6
4.4
0.3
132
96
250
47
191
200
1
148
25
297
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
second quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2003
(thousands)
June
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2002-034
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
8.6
6.1
10.5
6.9
5.8
17.9
8.2
10.2
3.5
19.9
108.3
83.7
203.6
115.4
109.6
424.3
187.3
211.0
83.1
497.4
2.3
0.5
-0.1
-0.7
0.5
1.3
0.8
1.3
4.1
0.9
24
107
149
196
107
54
85
54
6
80
$472
546
612
629
586
696
629
611
674
710
1.7
1.5
2.7
1.3
3.9
0.9
3.3
2.9
2.9
2.2
231
250
132
258
38
277
69
108
108
183
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
4.1
29.1
4.0
3.4
6.0
11.5
67.3
7.9
12.3
6.0
88.9
657.8
75.8
73.7
114.5
192.8
1,442.7
127.5
248.8
97.2
-0.6
0.3
0.3
0.5
-0.8
1.4
-2.4
0.4
-1.3
-1.0
193
124
124
107
205
52
283
116
239
218
543
604
665
511
443
783
853
601
510
699
4.8
2.7
-3.6
4.3
3.0
0.8
0.8
2.4
-0.2
1.0
15
132
309
29
96
284
284
170
303
273
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
90.7
1,837.2
180.4
117.2
114.4
98.3
86.8
143.4
84.8
692.9
1.3
-1.1
3.6
-1.0
-1.3
0.2
2.8
-0.5
0.4
-1.7
54
226
9
218
239
134
17
185
116
259
614
818
444
642
531
558
628
571
593
726
1.3
2.0
2.8
4.7
2.9
4.1
1.9
2.1
0.9
1.0
258
200
122
19
108
34
212
191
277
273
Travis, TX ..........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
24.0
4.7
5.8
32.9
10.1
5.0
5.6
6.8
6.5
29.5
509.3
82.8
91.4
514.3
142.7
86.0
95.2
150.7
111.3
538.5
-2.0
2.2
0.6
-0.8
0.0
0.5
-0.8
-1.7
-0.2
0.9
270
27
98
205
145
107
205
259
162
80
792
741
576
646
550
540
702
1,092
640
1,044
2.9
6.6
4.3
1.3
2.6
1.9
3.5
1.6
0.9
3.1
108
4
29
258
148
212
60
242
277
84
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
5.7
5.5
5.5
4.6
3.6
5.5
6.9
10.3
11.1
167.8
106.1
90.8
92.4
90.4
96.3
144.6
159.4
168.5
116.5
-0.4
5.2
2.1
1.2
2.4
0.6
-1.5
-2.2
0.7
1.3
178
1
30
63
23
98
245
278
89
54
737
924
626
903
552
642
691
782
543
657
1.5
1.3
5.4
2.7
3.4
1.9
7.1
1.2
3.6
1.7
250
258
7
132
64
212
2
267
54
231
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
second quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2003
(thousands)
June
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2002-034
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
86.3
6.6
21.3
17.1
15.7
6.8
9.5
6.1
6.7
13.4
1,090.7
77.7
244.7
209.3
193.0
90.1
102.8
109.6
144.9
283.9
-1.5
1.0
1.6
0.3
1.0
3.7
4.8
-0.9
0.6
0.7
245
70
43
124
70
8
2
211
98
89
$950
638
642
725
573
653
481
624
650
707
4.2
2.1
3.0
2.4
1.6
1.9
2.1
1.8
3.0
5.2
32
191
96
170
242
212
191
221
96
10
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
22.4
4.9
4.3
13.2
3.9
504.1
99.6
76.9
227.1
87.8
-1.1
1.8
-1.6
0.2
-2.5
226
36
253
134
287
701
619
676
722
671
1.6
1.8
4.0
2.6
2.4
242
221
36
148
170
San Juan, PR .....................
11.4
306.7
-0.9
211
460
5.3
9
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 315 U.S. counties comprise 70.3 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 quarterly 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,
second quarter 20032
Average weekly wages4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2003
(thousands)
June
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2002-033
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
second quarter
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 ...................................................
8,232.5
7,966.5
124.3
801.8
380.4
1,856.9
146.9
759.0
1,317.2
723.5
663.9
1,047.4
266.0
129,169.4
108,223.1
1,798.8
6,855.5
14,546.7
25,042.2
3,187.6
7,884.4
15,946.2
15,714.0
12,657.0
4,344.2
20,946.3
-0.5
-0.7
0.2
-0.4
-5.2
-1.0
-6.0
1.8
-0.9
2.5
0.9
0.2
0.5
$702
691
617
733
851
617
1,069
996
829
654
299
458
761
2.2
2.1
2.2
1.1
2.4
2.0
3.0
3.5
2.0
3.2
1.7
2.2
3.3
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 ...................................................
340.7
336.9
0.6
12.8
18.1
53.5
9.2
22.7
39.6
26.1
24.9
129.0
3.9
4,060.4
3,461.0
12.1
134.8
503.7
767.1
199.3
236.1
568.1
446.9
372.5
219.2
599.4
-0.3
0.1
0.9
1.2
-6.8
-0.5
-4.2
1.3
1.4
3.6
3.4
5.1
-2.1
789
768
865
775
787
686
1,298
1,151
896
716
462
394
905
2.9
2.7
11.9
-1.9
1.8
3.2
3.8
2.0
5.7
3.6
3.1
1.5
3.5
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 ...................................................
125.8
124.7
0.1
10.3
7.9
26.6
2.5
13.6
25.9
12.1
10.4
12.7
1.1
2,543.0
2,213.0
1.6
99.6
269.1
480.7
66.6
220.2
404.5
343.6
225.4
97.2
330.0
-1.6
-1.9
0.4
-0.8
-6.0
-1.6
-6.9
-0.3
-3.7
0.0
2.8
-1.7
-0.2
836
826
880
1,027
858
693
1,094
1,283
1,034
709
357
605
902
1.2
1.3
1.7
2.6
2.6
0.6
1.1
0.9
1.5
3.8
1.7
2.7
-0.3
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 ...................................................
111.8
111.6
0.0
2.2
3.6
22.5
4.5
17.0
22.8
7.8
10.1
16.0
0.2
2,214.1
1,762.3
0.1
31.3
47.7
235.2
130.2
352.4
426.7
267.3
180.0
82.0
451.8
-2.4
-2.2
12.7
-3.4
-10.5
-0.3
-8.3
-3.3
-3.8
1.5
0.6
0.6
-2.9
1,250
1,343
1,052
1,270
985
967
1,576
2,284
1,510
821
623
742
889
0.6
0.1
-7.1
0.8
10.5
1.0
3.5
-2.8
3.2
2.8
1.3
3.1
4.2
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
second quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2003
(thousands)
June
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2002-033
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
second quarter
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
6.3
4.7
20.9
1.4
9.2
16.7
8.6
6.4
10.3
0.4
1,837.2
1,596.6
60.8
142.8
167.9
390.5
34.5
112.0
278.8
185.8
161.5
58.2
240.6
-1.1
-1.8
4.4
-2.2
-5.5
-3.7
-4.6
0.3
-3.0
1.7
2.3
-3.4
3.6
$818
830
1,870
789
1,051
779
1,025
1,016
904
721
315
502
738
2.0
1.7
2.4
-0.6
3.2
3.7
0.6
1.3
1.1
1.7
-2.2
1.8
4.2
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 ...................................................
79.4
78.9
0.5
8.4
3.3
18.7
1.6
9.3
17.8
7.4
5.5
5.6
0.5
1,547.0
1,354.9
10.4
127.5
126.0
315.7
37.5
131.3
253.7
154.5
151.8
44.9
192.2
0.7
0.2
-1.4
1.6
-7.3
-0.4
-2.6
2.5
1.0
5.2
0.8
-2.9
4.0
710
694
456
712
972
684
858
882
683
729
334
481
816
2.9
3.0
0.9
3.5
4.4
2.2
3.0
6.4
2.4
3.0
0.9
2.6
3.2
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 ...................................................
67.3
66.9
0.5
4.5
3.4
15.6
1.8
8.4
13.8
6.1
5.0
6.7
0.4
1,442.7
1,285.9
6.4
75.4
146.5
319.6
64.9
139.1
232.2
129.8
127.2
42.4
156.8
-2.4
-3.1
(6)
-5.4
-6.6
-3.6
-9.4
0.5
-3.5
3.5
-1.6
-3.1
4.2
853
862
2,421
808
988
835
1,156
1,087
954
767
383
535
780
0.8
0.8
(6)
4.0
-3.2
2.0
-2.0
2.9
2.0
1.9
1.1
0.9
1.8
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 ...................................................
87.1
85.7
0.2
6.4
6.1
17.3
1.5
9.5
17.2
8.9
6.6
11.8
1.4
1,433.5
1,283.4
8.3
84.4
183.3
265.5
34.3
123.7
253.2
123.9
160.4
46.0
150.1
0.9
1.6
-8.3
6.4
-6.1
0.3
-7.5
11.7
3.0
6.5
0.0
3.8
-4.5
800
789
494
851
919
751
1,092
1,228
829
728
352
480
891
3.5
3.3
1.6
2.3
5.3
0.0
3.1
10.8
-0.1
-0.3
5.7
0.8
6.2
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
second quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2003
(thousands)
June
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2002-033
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
second quarter
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 ...................................................
83.1
81.8
0.9
6.3
3.6
14.1
1.4
8.7
14.6
7.5
6.4
18.1
1.4
1,263.1
1,040.5
12.0
80.0
107.2
206.2
37.0
81.0
201.2
120.7
142.1
52.9
222.6
0.4
0.4
-1.6
1.5
-6.9
0.9
-2.6
6.2
-0.6
2.3
1.3
5.4
0.0
$757
737
469
785
1,007
635
1,328
1,002
883
677
330
426
849
1.9
1.2
1.1
1.6
5.2
1.4
-6.3
5.5
-0.5
4.0
3.8
1.7
4.9
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 ...................................................
86.3
85.7
0.5
6.9
2.8
15.9
1.7
6.3
12.8
6.1
5.6
27.1
0.6
1,090.7
936.5
3.1
54.5
104.4
216.0
67.3
76.6
155.1
107.9
101.9
49.7
154.1
-1.5
-1.8
-12.9
-2.3
-10.7
-1.7
-2.2
2.3
-1.6
1.2
0.6
2.4
0.7
950
966
1,187
866
1,097
759
2,794
1,082
1,076
700
374
435
855
4.2
4.4
14.0
-0.6
2.6
0.3
12.3
8.6
6.1
3.1
0.5
-2.2
3.0
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 ...................................................
78.9
78.6
0.5
4.8
2.8
23.2
1.7
8.1
15.5
7.7
5.2
7.4
0.3
966.5
814.3
8.8
40.1
51.4
239.3
27.4
64.8
130.8
123.0
91.1
34.9
152.1
-1.2
-1.6
4.3
0.8
-7.9
-2.2
-9.2
1.9
-5.8
2.4
1.4
-1.4
1.0
689
659
381
704
622
630
946
933
782
681
377
424
851
3.1
2.6
-7.5
-1.3
3.3
1.4
3.6
1.5
5.7
5.1
3.3
2.4
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 quarterly 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.
6 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county
by state, second quarter 20032
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2003
(thousands)
June
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2002-034
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
second quarter
2002-034
United States6 ....................
8,232.5
129,169.4
-0.5
$702
2.2
Jefferson, AL ......................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pulaski, AR ........................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Denver, CO ........................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
18.1
7.5
79.4
13.1
340.7
24.2
24.2
17.7
29.4
78.9
369.4
143.6
1,547.0
240.2
4,060.4
428.2
485.2
279.2
651.6
966.5
-1.2
1.8
0.7
0.5
-0.3
-2.9
-2.2
1.0
-0.6
-1.2
700
757
710
634
789
850
864
833
1,150
689
2.2
2.0
2.9
1.8
2.9
2.9
1.9
3.3
5.0
3.1
Fulton, GA ..........................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Cook, IL .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
Polk, IA ..............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
37.2
24.1
13.2
125.8
23.4
13.6
18.5
21.4
12.9
11.0
718.4
417.9
184.0
2,543.0
575.7
262.8
291.8
421.1
253.3
170.2
-2.0
0.6
0.1
-1.6
-1.2
-0.7
-0.1
-0.2
0.3
-0.1
916
658
647
836
727
695
735
688
659
639
1.8
3.3
1.6
1.2
2.0
3.9
2.9
2.7
3.3
2.7
Montgomery, MD ...............
Middlesex, MA ...................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Hinds, MS ..........................
St. Louis, MO .....................
Yellowstone, MT ................
Douglas, NE .......................
Clark, NV ...........................
Hillsborough, NH ................
30.7
46.8
35.4
41.1
6.6
33.8
5.7
14.7
34.5
12.1
456.9
797.6
816.6
827.8
130.5
630.4
69.9
313.3
750.3
192.5
0.7
-3.2
-1.8
-1.2
-1.9
-1.5
0.6
-1.2
3.5
1.3
917
984
824
891
627
770
572
657
655
769
2.7
1.9
1.7
3.1
3.6
3.1
4.2
4.6
3.6
4.8
Bergen, NJ .........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
New York, NY ....................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
Cass, ND ...........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Providence, RI ...................
34.2
17.0
111.8
26.9
5.1
38.8
21.5
25.1
35.6
17.3
455.7
310.8
2,214.1
504.9
86.6
772.3
398.8
419.4
701.5
289.7
0.9
0.2
-2.4
-1.0
3.2
-0.4
-2.7
-2.5
-1.6
0.2
898
634
1,250
807
568
731
618
732
738
681
2.4
2.9
0.6
1.1
2.5
2.7
5.5
1.0
2.2
2.6
Greenville, SC ....................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Shelby, TN .........................
Harris, TX ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Fairfax, VA .........................
King, WA ............................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
13.3
5.8
19.9
87.7
32.9
5.6
29.5
86.3
6.1
22.4
223.5
109.6
497.4
1,837.2
514.3
95.2
538.5
1,090.7
109.6
504.1
0.4
0.5
0.9
-1.1
-0.8
-0.8
0.9
-1.5
-0.9
-1.1
628
586
710
818
646
702
1,044
950
624
701
0.3
3.9
2.2
2.0
1.3
3.5
3.1
4.2
1.8
1.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county
by state, second quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2003
(thousands)
June
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2002-034
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
second quarter
2002-034
Laramie, WY ......................
2.8
40.0
3.0
$553
3.6
San Juan, PR .....................
St. Thomas, VI ...................
11.4
1.7
306.7
22.9
-0.9
0.1
460
577
5.3
8.9
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 quarterly 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.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 20032
Average weekly wages3
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2003
(thousands)
June
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2002-03
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
second quarter
2002-03
United States4 ....................
8,232.5
129,169.4
-0.5
$702
2.2
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
110.4
19.4
123.8
74.8
1,145.6
159.7
108.8
26.5
29.4
494.0
1,828.1
305.7
2,221.9
1,123.3
15,065.0
2,144.6
1,652.3
408.9
651.6
7,181.1
-0.6
1.9
0.7
-0.9
-0.1
-2.2
-1.6
0.4
-0.6
1.2
602
723
673
546
790
724
874
748
1,150
630
2.7
2.3
3.2
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.7
2.9
5.0
2.9
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
242.1
36.8
49.2
323.7
152.0
89.7
82.0
106.0
116.6
46.9
3,790.5
569.6
590.5
5,773.8
2,839.7
1,428.3
1,298.4
1,727.5
1,867.2
605.5
-1.0
0.9
0.7
-1.4
-0.5
-1.1
-2.2
-0.5
0.0
-0.7
684
635
538
751
623
572
591
608
579
569
2.1
3.6
2.1
1.5
1.6
2.7
1.2
2.7
2.1
3.1
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
149.9
203.2
251.4
157.6
64.9
165.8
42.0
54.9
57.3
46.3
2,470.0
3,200.1
4,399.7
2,631.6
1,095.5
2,655.3
404.9
887.5
1,077.2
614.7
0.3
-2.2
-1.5
-0.1
-1.7
-0.4
1.1
-0.4
2.8
0.1
761
849
728
723
521
639
521
565
658
692
3.1
1.6
2.0
2.7
3.0
2.1
3.8
3.5
3.6
2.2
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
263.2
50.8
549.8
224.6
23.8
292.6
91.5
116.1
324.2
34.5
3,935.7
755.2
8,347.6
3,728.6
319.1
5,348.4
1,404.4
1,586.4
5,548.3
482.2
-0.1
1.1
-0.7
-1.1
0.6
-0.9
-3.1
-1.1
-0.6
0.8
850
579
851
621
516
654
566
651
689
671
2.7
1.6
1.8
1.0
3.4
2.2
4.2
1.4
2.8
3.4
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
123.5
27.8
127.8
498.5
71.5
24.0
200.2
233.2
46.9
155.0
1,786.8
374.9
2,611.7
9,250.4
1,047.9
297.8
3,453.2
2,701.1
685.7
2,741.3
-0.3
0.1
-0.2
-0.7
-0.1
-0.9
-0.1
0.6
-0.6
-0.3
578
507
628
686
588
609
719
747
573
628
1.9
3.3
1.9
1.6
1.9
3.2
2.7
2.9
3.1
2.3
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wages3
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2003
(thousands)
June
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2002-03
Average
weekly
wages
Percent
change,
second quarter
2002-03
Wyoming ............................
21.9
252.7
0.9
$563
2.9
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
43.6
3.2
977.0
41.5
-1.1
-3.7
400
602
5.0
2.0
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 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
January 2004
-5.9% to -0.5%
-0.4% to 5.2%
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 employees or more,
June 2002-03 (U.S. Average = -0.5%)
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
January 2004
-3.6% to 2.2%
2.3% to 7.9%
Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wages in counties with 75,000 employees or
more, second quarter 2002-03 (U.S. Average = 2.2%)