Technical information:
(202) 691-6567
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
Media contact:
691-5902
USDL 04-599
For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT
Tuesday, April 6, 2004
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: THIRD QUARTER 2003
In September 2003, Manatee County, Fla., 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. Manatee County, Fla., experienced an over-the-year
employment gain of 5.7 percent, compared with a national decline of 0.4 percent. Arapahoe County, Colo.,
had the biggest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the third quarter of 2003, with an increase of
13.0 percent. The U.S. average weekly wage increased by 3.1 percent over the same time span.
Of the 315 largest counties in the United States, 175 had over-the-year percentage changes in employment above the national average in September 2003, and 129 experienced declines in employment greater
than the national average. (See chart 1.) Average weekly wages grew faster than the national average in
149 of the largest U.S. counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was below the national
average in 159 counties. (See chart 2.)
The employment and average weekly wage data by county are compiled under 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 8.3 million employer reports cover 128.5 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 not used in calculating U.S averages, or in the analysis in the text.
(See Technical Note.) September 2003 employment and 2003 third-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
second quarter of 2003 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for
the third quarter of 2003 and revised data for the first and second quarters of 2003 will be available later in
April on the BLS Web site.
Large County Employment
The national employment total in September 2003 was 128.5 million, which was 0.4 percent lower
than in September 2002. The 315 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.3
percent of total U.S. covered employment, 76.3 percent of total wages, and 87.4 percent of the net overthe-year employment decline from September 2002. The biggest gains in employment from September
2002 to September 2003 were recorded in the counties of Clark, Nev. (33,913), Orange, Calif. (23,920),
Riverside, Calif. (20,393), San Bernardino, Calif. (17,111), and Maricopa, Ariz. (17,005). (See table A.)
2
Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by September 2003 employment, September 2002-03 employment
change, and September 2002-03 percent change in employment
Employment
Net change in employment,
Percent change in employment,
September 2003 employSeptember 2002-03
September 2002-03
ment (thousands)
(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.
128,546.3
4,007.2
2,529.5
2,184.9
1,823.7
1,571.3
1,438.9
1,426.5
1,256.7
1,095.4
965.2
U.S.
Clark, Nev.
Orange, Calif.
Riverside, Calif.
San Bernardino, Calif.
Maricopa, Ariz.
San Diego, Calif.
Fairfax, Va.
Lee, Fla.
Collin, Texas
Hidalgo, Texas
-494.3
33.9
23.9
20.4
17.1
17.0
15.1
10.6
10.0
7.6
7.3
U.S.
Manatee, Fla.
Lee, Fla.
Loudoun, Va.
Gloucester, N.J.
Clark, Nev.
Okaloosa, Fla.
Placer, Calif.
Hidalgo, Texas
Rutherford, Tenn.
Pasco, Fla.
-0.4
5.7
5.4
5.4
4.6
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.0
3.9
3.8
Manatee County, Fla., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (5.7 percent),
followed by the counties of Lee, Fla., and Loudoun, Va. (5.4 percent each), Gloucester, N.J. (4.6 percent),
and Clark, Nev., and Okaloosa, Fla. (4.4 percent each). (See table 1.)
Employment declined in 163 counties from September 2002 to September 2003. The largest percentage
decline in employment was in Sangamon County, Ill. (-4.9 percent), followed by the counties of San Mateo,
Calif. (-4.8 percent), Santa Clara, Calif., and Somerset, N.J. (-4.7 percent each), and Tulsa, Okla. (-4.1
percent). The largest absolute declines in employment occurred in Santa Clara County, Calif. (-48,520),
followed by the counties of Dallas, Texas (-45,675), Los Angeles, Calif. (-45,503), Cook, Ill. (-38,500),
and New York, N.Y. (-36,415).
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the third quarter of 2003 was $704, which was 3.1 percent higher
than in the third quarter of 2002. Average weekly wages were higher than the national average in 120 of the
largest 315 U.S. counties. Santa Clara County, Calif., held the top position among the highest-paid large
counties with an average weekly wage of $1,269. New York County, N.Y., was second with an average
weekly wage of $1,239, followed by Somerset, N.J. ($1,152), San Mateo, Calif. ($1,127), and Washington,
D.C. ($1,123). (See table B.)
Arapahoe County, Colo., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages with an increase of 13.0 percent. Somerset County, N.J., was second with 11.6 percent growth, followed by the counties of Kalamazoo, Mich. (11.5 percent), Olmsted, Minn. (10.6 percent), and Ventura, Calif. (9.2 percent).
There were 194 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average. The lowest average
weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($448), followed by the counties of Hidalgo, Texas
($455), Horry, S.C. ($476), Yakima, Wash. ($478), and Pasco, Fla. ($501). (See table 1.)
3
Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by third quarter 2003 average weekly wages, third quarter
2002-03 change in average weekly wages, and third quarter 2002-03 percent change in average
weekly wages
Average weekly wage
Average weekly wage,
third quarter 2003
U.S.
Santa Clara, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Somerset, N.J.
San Mateo, Calif.
Washington, D.C.
Arlington, Va.
Suffolk, Mass.
Fairfield, Conn.
San Francisco, Calif.
Fairfax, Va.
$704
$1,269
1,239
1,152
1,127
1,123
1,109
1,081
1,066
1,065
1,038
Change in average weekly
wage, third quarter 2002-03
U.S.
Somerset, N.J.
Arapahoe, Colo.
Santa Clara, Calif.
San Mateo, Calif.
Kalamazoo, Mich.
Olmsted, Minn.
Ventura, Calif.
Hudson, N.J.
Washington, D.C.
Fairfax, Va.
$21
$120
108
91
79
76
76
65
60
60
57
Percent change in average
weekly wage, third
quarter 2002-03
U.S.
Arapahoe, Colo.
Somerset, N.J.
Kalamazoo, Mich.
Olmsted, Minn.
Ventura, Calif.
Rock Island, Ill.
Santa Clara, Calif.
San Mateo, Calif.
Okaloosa, Fla.
Hudson, N.J.
3.1
13.0
11.6
11.5
10.6
9.2
7.7
7.7
7.5
7.3
6.9
Three counties experienced declines in average weekly wages. Hamilton County, Ind., had the largest
decrease, -3.3 percent, followed by the counties of Broome, N.Y. (-1.2 percent), and Vanderburgh, Ind.
(-0.5 percent). Additionally, the average weekly wage in Brazoria County, Texas, was unchanged, while
the average weekly wage in Onondaga County, N.Y., grew by 0.1 percent.
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2002 employment levels), 4 reported increases in employment, while declines occurred in 6 from September 2002 to September 2003. Maricopa County, Ariz.,
and Orange County, Calif., experienced the fastest growth in employment among the largest counties with a
1.1 percent increase each. Orange County showed employment gains in every private industry supersector
except in manufacturing, information, and natural resources and mining. Maricopa County had a similar experience except that it also reported a decline in the other services supersector. Government employment in
Maricopa County increased by 0.3 percent, whereas government employment in Orange County declined by
5.3 percent. (See table 2.) San Diego County, Calif., had the next largest increase, 0.9 percent. The
largest decline in employment for the 10 largest counties was in Dallas County, Texas, -2.4 percent. The
next largest declines in employment were recorded in New York County, N.Y., and Harris County, Texas,
-1.6 percent each.
Nine of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw 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 5.4 percent rate.
King County’s fastest growing supersectors were natural resources and mining, where the average weekly
wage rose by 25.2 percent, and information with a 16.8 percent increase. Orange County, Calif., was second in wage growth, increasing by 5.3 percent, followed by San Diego County, Calif., where the average
wage increased by 4.2 percent. Two Texas counties, Dallas and Harris, experienced the smallest increases
in average weekly wages among the largest 10 counties, rising by only 2.4 percent each. This was followed
by Cook County, Ill., with an increase in its average weekly wage of 2.7 percent.
4
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows the September 2003 employment and the 2003 third-quarter average weekly wage in the
largest county in 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 September 2003 ranged from
approximately 4 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 39,400 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest
average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,239), while the lowest average weekly
wage was in Yellowstone, Mont. ($551).
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 8.3 million employers
• Count of longitudinally-linked UI
• Sample survey: 400,000 employers
administrative rocords submited 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
sample estimates to first quarter
and annually realigns (benchmarks)
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 third 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 third quarter of
2003. As a result, the adjusted 2002 third 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,
third quarter 20032
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2003
(thousands)
September
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
United States6 ....................
8,291.0
128,546.3
-0.4
-
$704
3.1
-
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
6.4
4.0
7.6
80.4
17.5
4.0
13.1
368.9
160.8
161.8
129.6
76.0
143.4
1,571.3
329.0
82.5
240.5
-0.4
3.6
-0.4
0.2
-0.4
1.9
1.1
0.8
2.1
1.0
176
13
176
136
176
48
77
100
40
82
712
753
585
606
599
775
699
615
651
635
2.3
3.4
2.3
3.6
2.2
3.2
3.4
3.9
3.3
3.1
220
125
220
109
228
145
125
84
140
151
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
4.8
47.9
27.5
28.7
15.6
349.2
11.8
11.7
88.1
9.1
85.3
679.0
334.8
349.4
257.6
4,007.2
110.3
176.0
1,426.5
125.6
0.9
-2.7
-1.7
-2.2
0.5
-0.6
-0.8
-0.7
1.1
4.3
91
302
267
283
116
190
210
198
77
7
562
934
874
570
602
792
870
616
812
708
4.3
4.5
3.6
4.0
4.7
3.7
3.6
2.3
5.3
2.9
62
57
109
79
47
100
109
220
23
170
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 .................
36.2
45.5
39.9
84.4
43.5
15.3
8.6
22.9
13.0
51.4
534.4
599.6
573.0
1,256.7
534.6
218.6
100.6
325.4
178.6
848.7
2.9
0.3
2.6
0.9
-1.6
0.9
0.6
-4.8
-0.3
-4.7
21
131
27
91
257
91
110
314
170
312
602
799
627
761
1,065
628
585
1,127
679
1,269
3.6
3.8
3.3
4.2
0.5
3.8
3.2
7.5
5.8
7.7
109
90
140
66
309
90
145
8
15
6
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
8.3
9.2
17.0
12.9
8.8
20.3
5.0
8.6
18.9
11.8
101.1
127.3
189.3
174.1
140.2
299.5
97.8
141.2
270.5
151.2
-0.8
-0.6
-3.8
-1.1
0.2
0.5
(7)
-3.0
-1.9
-2.5
210
190
308
235
136
116
305
274
290
682
675
713
610
505
769
696
686
941
863
5.2
5.3
2.7
4.5
5.0
9.2
3.3
1.5
13.0
4.6
25
23
186
57
31
5
140
272
1
53
Denver, CO ........................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
24.3
15.6
18.0
9.1
31.8
24.2
21.9
6.6
17.8
29.7
424.6
234.5
203.2
121.9
411.5
479.5
354.3
129.7
278.7
650.1
-3.1
-0.6
-1.8
-1.3
-0.3
-1.5
-2.4
1.0
0.7
-0.4
306
190
270
244
170
252
288
82
106
176
863
678
741
668
1,066
857
782
730
839
1,123
4.1
2.9
3.6
3.2
4.3
2.0
3.7
1.5
4.1
5.6
72
170
109
145
62
242
100
272
72
19
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
third quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2003
(thousands)
September
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 .......................
5.7
12.1
56.1
10.1
21.6
7.1
30.3
14.4
7.1
6.6
122.4
187.1
679.8
111.9
426.5
121.8
594.4
183.7
141.4
113.3
2.2
2.5
0.9
2.8
1.2
3.0
1.3
5.4
1.5
5.7
36
29
91
23
73
17
71
2
62
1
$537
669
669
621
691
566
670
598
607
545
4.1
4.2
5.2
4.9
5.7
3.7
5.0
4.7
3.4
2.3
72
66
25
38
18
100
31
47
125
220
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
6.1
79.9
4.9
28.7
42.1
7.2
27.8
10.0
12.5
11.6
86.3
965.2
81.0
602.4
500.1
81.3
427.2
178.5
147.5
147.2
3.7
0.1
4.4
1.3
0.4
3.8
2.7
-0.2
-0.9
1.0
11
151
5
71
123
10
25
164
216
82
522
682
556
647
696
501
618
577
584
625
3.4
(7)
7.3
3.0
1.6
4.8
2.7
4.2
6.6
1.6
125
9
156
267
41
186
66
11
267
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
11.4
4.8
7.0
4.4
19.8
17.1
37.7
21.3
4.8
4.8
150.4
85.8
125.2
109.2
299.1
294.4
725.3
294.6
96.3
105.2
2.4
1.1
2.0
-3.1
0.7
-0.4
-0.9
1.5
1.8
2.2
32
77
43
306
106
176
216
62
52
36
521
595
604
766
778
773
913
766
571
602
3.4
1.0
2.2
4.6
3.7
4.3
1.8
3.5
2.3
4.5
125
293
228
53
100
62
257
121
220
57
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
24.3
12.9
4.0
126.0
32.2
10.7
18.6
7.2
3.3
5.6
414.3
183.7
90.2
2,529.5
564.6
198.9
324.0
93.8
85.4
95.4
0.8
0.5
-1.0
-1.2
-0.9
0.9
0.4
0.1
-1.0
-1.0
100
116
226
240
216
91
123
151
226
226
673
646
624
835
836
664
839
648
691
583
3.4
1.9
1.1
2.7
2.6
2.0
1.8
3.5
2.7
2.5
125
252
290
186
197
242
257
121
186
201
Peoria, IL ...........................
Rock Island, IL ...................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
Winnebago, IL ....................
Allen, IN .............................
Elkhart, IN ..........................
Hamilton, IN .......................
Lake, IN .............................
4.5
3.4
5.0
5.1
10.3
6.6
8.6
4.8
5.9
9.8
96.6
78.5
93.0
135.6
156.2
137.2
178.2
118.0
86.0
193.6
-2.5
-2.0
1.9
-4.9
2.5
-0.9
-2.1
1.0
3.2
0.2
290
277
48
315
29
216
278
82
15
136
659
701
576
729
679
625
642
623
722
642
2.5
7.7
2.1
1.5
3.0
2.5
2.6
1.5
-3.3
3.9
201
6
238
272
156
201
197
272
314
84
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
third quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2003
(thousands)
September
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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
13.7
5.0
18.7
11.7
4.8
3.2
572.0
123.0
109.0
115.1
261.5
84.5
290.6
238.5
96.7
75.5
-0.7
-1.0
0.3
-1.2
0.2
-0.2
0.0
-1.6
-1.7
-3.9
198
226
131
240
136
164
153
257
267
310
$738
613
595
684
709
588
736
648
600
715
2.8
2.0
-0.5
4.1
3.5
2.4
3.4
0.6
2.0
3.0
176
242
312
72
121
211
125
307
242
156
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
21.3
7.2
4.6
13.3
14.2
7.5
13.0
11.1
13.0
165.3
416.9
119.7
80.2
244.0
211.0
118.8
248.7
169.1
207.4
-0.4
-0.9
0.2
-2.5
1.9
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.9
176
216
136
290
48
136
136
136
116
91
657
685
580
578
608
585
628
673
636
738
2.5
3.6
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.8
5.5
2.7
3.7
201
109
201
201
211
220
176
21
186
100
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
19.8
5.2
7.5
30.5
14.5
13.9
9.1
14.8
20.3
13.5
357.0
87.1
136.5
450.6
313.4
366.2
99.5
219.5
295.8
200.1
-0.2
3.0
2.4
0.2
0.9
-0.9
1.6
0.0
-2.1
-2.5
164
17
32
136
91
216
58
153
278
290
739
668
802
897
774
813
607
632
777
663
5.9
3.7
1.9
5.0
2.2
3.8
4.5
2.3
5.1
3.4
13
100
252
31
228
90
57
220
29
125
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
47.2
21.5
13.2
22.1
19.9
8.6
7.1
5.5
14.4
18.0
787.0
317.9
172.0
560.7
317.3
153.9
171.4
116.3
329.6
322.5
-2.7
-1.6
0.2
-2.9
-0.6
-2.6
-1.6
-1.2
-2.6
-1.0
302
257
136
304
190
297
257
240
297
226
996
872
688
1,081
738
697
(7)
738
689
783
4.1
4.7
3.6
3.9
3.5
0.9
(7)
11.5
4.1
1.3
72
47
109
84
121
296
3
72
286
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
41.5
5.7
4.6
8.1
35.3
7.4
9.6
41.3
3.3
15.1
723.7
111.7
91.6
192.8
805.9
111.9
165.4
820.5
86.9
328.1
-2.2
-2.6
-1.8
-1.4
-1.5
0.8
1.4
-1.3
1.5
-0.6
283
297
270
249
252
100
65
244
62
190
861
646
674
826
825
700
719
911
791
795
1.4
3.0
2.0
3.8
2.0
1.9
3.8
5.6
10.6
2.7
278
156
242
90
242
252
90
19
4
186
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
third quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2003
(thousands)
September
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 .....................
5.7
4.1
4.5
6.6
4.2
4.8
7.9
18.7
7.0
33.8
93.0
76.5
90.4
131.4
76.3
86.2
145.1
365.5
107.6
620.7
-2.3
-1.3
2.6
0.0
-0.9
-0.6
1.2
-2.6
1.9
-1.8
285
244
27
153
216
190
73
297
48
270
$620
575
521
626
569
666
567
724
614
768
2.8
1.2
2.2
3.8
2.5
3.7
2.0
1.7
3.4
4.1
176
289
228
90
201
100
242
264
125
72
St. Louis City, MO ..............
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
8.4
14.9
7.4
35.5
11.9
12.1
10.5
6.4
34.0
11.0
230.2
310.4
149.6
766.1
199.6
192.4
132.5
147.3
448.6
195.7
-2.6
-0.9
0.0
4.4
2.9
2.0
-0.4
2.0
0.4
2.4
297
216
153
5
21
43
176
43
123
32
782
679
597
670
694
779
682
648
884
760
2.8
3.8
1.5
4.9
4.0
4.0
1.0
3.7
4.0
2.0
176
90
272
38
79
79
293
100
79
242
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
13.2
21.2
5.9
13.7
10.4
20.4
19.6
17.5
11.4
12.4
205.1
356.7
97.3
233.6
219.5
391.1
248.4
279.4
144.8
174.7
1.8
-0.7
4.6
-1.4
2.5
-1.0
2.0
0.6
1.7
-0.4
52
198
4
249
29
226
43
110
55
176
720
908
643
931
921
911
756
1,007
602
757
3.6
3.8
1.1
6.9
1.0
4.2
0.9
3.8
3.3
1.7
109
90
290
10
293
66
296
90
140
264
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
9.8
14.9
16.6
9.4
15.2
4.4
7.5
23.2
41.3
17.6
164.4
240.5
312.2
227.3
212.4
94.6
113.9
453.7
437.1
383.0
-4.7
2.7
0.2
-0.5
-1.6
-2.5
-0.3
-0.2
-0.2
-0.4
312
25
136
186
257
290
170
164
164
176
1,152
890
646
754
707
579
733
631
643
713
11.6
2.1
2.5
4.0
2.9
-1.2
5.0
3.4
3.2
0.6
2
238
201
79
170
313
31
125
145
307
Nassau, NY ........................
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
49.9
111.7
5.3
12.5
9.0
39.6
7.8
9.1
46.6
34.7
594.5
2,184.9
107.7
246.0
124.9
471.7
86.6
110.0
591.7
402.1
0.8
-1.6
-0.5
-1.1
0.3
-1.0
0.0
-0.1
0.6
-0.2
100
257
186
235
131
226
153
160
110
164
785
1,239
560
669
606
735
666
744
763
897
3.6
3.2
3.3
0.1
4.7
2.9
1.4
1.4
3.0
4.7
109
145
140
310
47
170
278
278
156
47
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
third quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2003
(thousands)
September
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ...........................
6.7
4.3
5.6
6.1
8.3
13.6
27.1
6.2
22.8
5.1
105.8
85.7
109.0
162.0
175.3
264.7
502.6
89.0
383.7
86.6
2.1
-3.8
1.6
-0.3
-0.7
-0.7
-1.3
0.8
1.4
1.6
40
308
58
170
198
198
244
100
65
58
$562
548
554
928
708
656
824
570
712
587
2.0
1.3
1.8
3.7
5.0
2.8
5.0
2.7
0.8
4.6
242
286
257
100
31
176
31
186
300
53
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
6.9
39.0
29.9
25.4
6.8
6.3
11.0
6.6
13.4
9.1
129.5
764.8
687.1
547.5
98.0
101.6
225.3
105.7
286.9
167.2
0.2
-1.1
-1.1
0.3
0.2
0.7
-1.9
-0.7
-1.6
-2.5
136
235
235
131
136
106
274
198
257
290
640
739
714
764
611
616
662
553
681
576
2.2
3.4
1.4
0.7
0.7
1.1
2.0
1.8
2.4
1.4
228
125
278
305
305
290
242
257
211
278
Summit, OH .......................
Trumbull, OH .....................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
14.9
4.9
21.5
18.0
11.0
10.2
8.3
25.4
14.0
36.0
263.2
86.7
400.4
315.6
132.9
137.7
133.1
418.9
220.2
692.1
-0.7
-1.9
-1.8
-4.1
-0.9
-2.1
0.4
-2.3
-1.0
-1.6
198
274
270
311
216
278
123
285
226
257
680
643
625
634
671
579
572
733
830
746
3.8
2.6
5.0
2.8
4.2
3.0
3.6
2.4
4.8
2.9
90
197
31
176
66
156
109
211
41
170
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
8.8
19.6
14.2
5.5
6.9
13.9
7.1
5.6
11.5
8.1
161.3
249.8
217.6
124.1
174.5
206.8
125.7
97.6
221.6
170.5
-1.4
0.6
2.0
-0.6
-0.7
-2.1
-1.7
1.4
0.3
0.6
249
110
43
190
198
278
267
65
131
110
646
679
856
685
700
769
570
562
628
706
2.4
2.1
3.1
3.9
2.2
5.9
1.8
1.6
3.1
3.1
211
238
151
84
228
13
257
267
151
151
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Kent, RI ..............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
7.8
27.3
5.9
27.5
9.3
8.4
5.4
17.3
13.1
13.4
141.2
475.5
91.9
649.2
132.3
164.1
80.5
289.2
186.9
221.0
0.4
-0.7
0.9
-1.0
-1.5
-0.5
2.8
0.4
1.4
-0.1
123
198
91
226
252
186
23
123
65
160
576
863
631
825
576
641
656
695
600
641
0.9
5.2
2.3
4.3
2.7
3.4
5.8
3.0
3.4
1.4
296
25
220
62
186
125
15
156
125
278
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
third quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2003
(thousands)
September
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 .........................
8.7
6.1
10.5
7.0
5.9
17.9
8.3
10.2
3.5
19.9
104.0
83.0
205.1
116.7
108.1
428.6
187.9
210.4
84.1
494.8
3.0
0.9
0.0
1.0
0.5
1.4
0.5
1.1
3.9
1.0
17
91
153
82
116
65
116
77
9
82
$476
551
617
625
591
707
624
616
639
737
1.9
3.0
3.2
1.3
2.8
3.4
5.1
4.8
6.0
4.8
252
156
145
286
176
125
29
41
12
41
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
11.6
67.4
7.9
12.4
6.0
88.6
655.1
75.9
77.6
114.3
194.6
1,438.9
127.8
253.4
97.0
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
0.5
-0.9
2.2
-2.4
1.2
-1.2
-0.3
210
198
190
116
216
36
288
73
240
170
549
619
680
521
448
784
861
615
510
713
2.8
4.9
0.0
4.2
3.0
2.2
2.4
2.5
0.8
0.8
176
38
311
66
156
228
211
201
300
300
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
4.7
88.3
9.0
5.8
6.4
4.6
6.0
8.0
4.8
33.2
88.7
1,823.7
177.8
118.0
114.9
97.3
85.9
142.4
84.7
689.9
1.0
-1.6
4.0
1.1
-0.8
-0.8
3.7
-0.7
0.2
-1.5
82
257
8
77
210
210
11
198
136
252
619
824
455
649
552
572
636
582
610
722
4.4
2.4
1.8
4.7
2.6
4.8
1.8
3.0
2.2
1.4
61
211
257
47
197
41
257
156
228
278
Travis, TX ..........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
24.2
4.7
5.9
33.3
10.2
5.1
5.6
6.8
6.5
29.6
507.0
83.6
90.4
514.4
143.7
85.5
95.1
150.9
110.4
534.7
-1.6
3.0
0.8
-0.3
0.7
-0.4
0.0
-0.1
1.6
1.7
257
17
100
170
106
176
153
160
58
55
802
744
597
647
550
548
688
1,109
638
1,038
3.0
2.5
3.6
2.7
1.5
2.4
2.2
2.8
0.9
5.8
156
201
109
186
272
211
228
176
296
15
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 ...........................
8.0
5.8
5.6
5.5
4.6
3.6
5.5
7.0
10.3
11.4
166.7
105.5
89.5
91.3
90.8
95.6
145.0
157.1
167.0
117.8
-0.1
5.4
3.6
1.2
3.2
0.6
-0.8
-2.3
1.0
2.2
160
2
13
73
15
110
210
285
82
36
731
888
636
910
553
640
695
799
551
663
1.4
0.8
4.6
1.7
2.2
2.1
3.6
3.0
4.8
3.1
278
300
53
264
228
238
109
156
41
151
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 316 largest counties,
third quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2003
(thousands)
September
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2002-034
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ............................
88.3
6.7
21.8
17.5
16.0
6.9
9.7
6.1
6.7
13.5
1,095.4
77.7
248.4
206.3
191.8
88.6
104.0
108.4
145.4
285.1
-0.7
1.4
2.1
-0.5
0.4
2.3
0.2
-1.3
1.7
1.0
198
65
40
186
123
35
136
244
55
82
$962
683
638
744
589
664
478
600
635
686
5.4
1.6
2.9
3.0
2.4
2.8
3.0
1.9
1.6
3.9
22
267
170
156
211
176
156
252
267
84
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
22.5
4.9
4.3
13.2
3.9
498.3
98.0
75.0
224.9
87.8
-1.1
1.8
-2.1
0.4
-2.5
235
52
278
123
290
712
618
669
722
674
3.9
0.8
3.4
2.7
2.7
84
300
125
186
186
San Juan, PR .....................
11.4
306.1
-1.5
252
466
5.2
25
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,
third quarter 20032
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2003
(thousands)
September
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2002-033
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
8,291.0
8,025.1
124.5
808.3
379.4
1,860.9
146.3
762.7
1,325.5
729.3
668.9
1,070.2
265.9
128,546.3
107,849.8
1,764.8
6,925.2
14,401.2
25,023.5
3,137.8
7,865.6
16,008.4
15,777.6
12,436.1
4,264.2
20,696.5
-0.4
-0.5
-0.9
0.2
-5.1
-0.7
-4.7
1.9
-0.4
2.3
1.2
-0.2
0.1
$704
696
607
744
854
623
1,100
999
823
674
305
462
750
3.1
3.1
2.4
1.5
3.9
2.5
6.0
6.7
3.0
3.2
2.3
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 ...................................................
349.2
345.3
0.6
12.9
17.9
53.9
9.2
22.9
39.9
26.4
25.2
136.3
3.9
4,007.2
3,445.6
12.2
135.2
489.9
769.8
190.6
235.7
568.7
449.5
373.2
220.1
561.6
-0.6
-0.5
1.2
-0.1
-7.8
-0.7
-5.3
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.9
4.7
-1.2
792
773
809
795
810
682
1,337
1,190
873
729
463
394
915
3.7
3.3
10.1
1.4
4.5
2.7
3.1
7.0
3.3
2.8
5.9
2.6
6.1
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 ...................................................
126.0
124.9
0.1
10.4
7.9
26.7
2.5
13.7
25.9
12.2
10.5
12.6
1.2
2,529.5
2,209.1
1.5
102.8
266.1
479.7
65.3
220.1
404.2
347.3
222.5
95.2
320.4
-1.2
-1.4
0.7
1.3
-5.9
-1.3
-5.9
0.3
-3.1
1.1
2.7
-2.1
-0.2
835
826
916
1,032
850
695
1,175
1,252
1,010
736
362
615
(6)
2.7
2.1
3.4
-0.2
1.9
0.0
5.6
5.1
1.9
4.4
1.7
1.3
(6)
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 ...................................................
111.7
111.5
0.0
2.2
3.5
22.3
4.4
16.8
22.7
7.8
10.0
15.9
0.2
2,184.9
1,747.2
0.1
31.5
47.1
234.2
128.8
348.8
426.3
263.8
177.5
80.2
437.7
-1.6
-1.3
15.0
-2.1
-8.9
0.0
-5.5
-2.7
-1.5
1.3
1.0
0.2
-2.7
1,239
1,305
971
1,300
956
960
1,588
2,099
1,438
897
624
751
975
3.2
2.8
-11.4
4.6
1.9
2.6
5.5
2.7
1.8
7.7
4.9
4.0
4.8
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
third quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2003
(thousands)
September
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2002-033
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
88.3
87.9
1.2
6.4
4.7
20.9
1.4
9.3
16.9
8.7
6.5
10.4
0.4
1,823.7
1,584.2
61.2
140.6
165.2
389.5
34.0
112.1
277.3
187.1
156.6
56.8
239.5
-1.6
-1.9
(6)
-3.5
-6.0
-3.1
-4.3
1.5
-3.4
1.1
0.6
-3.7
0.9
$824
828
1,811
791
1,011
761
1,022
1,038
913
758
318
503
794
2.4
1.8
(6)
0.5
3.7
0.8
2.1
6.7
2.4
2.3
-1.2
1.0
6.1
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 ...................................................
80.4
79.9
0.5
8.4
3.3
18.6
1.6
9.3
17.9
7.5
5.6
5.7
0.5
1,571.3
1,357.4
7.6
131.1
125.2
316.0
36.3
132.3
254.6
157.6
149.4
44.2
213.9
1.1
1.3
-3.3
3.4
-6.5
0.0
-3.1
3.8
2.1
6.6
1.4
-2.7
0.3
699
696
499
692
999
683
826
878
677
742
341
480
716
3.4
3.1
0.6
1.6
4.0
2.7
-0.6
7.9
3.2
4.2
3.0
1.7
4.5
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
66.9
0.5
4.5
3.5
15.5
1.8
8.4
13.8
6.1
5.0
6.7
0.4
1,438.9
1,281.6
6.5
76.1
145.2
316.8
63.8
139.6
232.6
131.2
126.7
40.6
157.3
-2.4
-2.8
(6)
-1.8
-6.0
-4.1
-6.8
0.8
-4.3
3.2
-0.9
-3.3
1.5
861
868
2,365
776
964
851
1,185
1,099
937
817
399
553
(6)
2.4
2.7
(6)
2.2
2.0
4.2
0.9
6.5
1.4
2.8
3.6
-2.6
(6)
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 ...................................................
88.1
86.7
0.3
6.4
6.1
17.4
1.5
9.6
17.4
9.1
6.6
12.3
1.4
1,426.5
1,289.3
6.0
85.0
180.0
266.4
34.1
127.0
258.7
125.9
160.7
45.4
137.2
1.1
1.9
-20.1
2.7
-4.9
1.1
-3.6
12.3
2.7
7.6
0.4
2.2
-5.3
812
807
563
872
940
755
1,089
1,354
821
736
356
491
859
5.3
5.2
15.8
4.6
8.2
3.3
2.6
11.4
0.4
1.1
5.3
1.9
7.5
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
third quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2003
(thousands)
September
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2002-033
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
84.4
83.0
0.9
6.4
3.6
14.2
1.4
8.8
14.8
7.5
6.5
18.9
1.4
1,256.7
1,045.4
11.8
82.1
105.3
208.2
36.8
81.5
203.0
121.1
143.0
52.3
211.3
0.9
1.6
-2.7
5.5
-5.9
1.5
1.0
6.7
0.4
2.8
2.9
5.4
-2.4
$761
739
462
778
986
639
1,500
993
864
687
348
431
870
4.2
4.2
1.1
1.6
5.3
2.9
29.5
6.4
1.5
3.5
3.9
0.2
4.1
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 ...................................................
88.3
87.7
0.5
7.1
2.8
16.1
1.7
6.4
13.0
6.1
5.8
28.2
0.6
1,095.4
943.7
3.5
56.9
103.7
217.1
68.6
77.8
158.5
107.3
102.1
48.3
151.8
-0.7
-0.8
-5.4
-1.9
-8.3
-0.9
0.0
3.7
-0.4
1.8
1.7
-0.6
-0.3
962
977
1,047
864
1,115
780
2,979
1,097
996
704
396
450
869
5.4
5.5
25.2
-0.3
-4.4
4.3
16.8
10.4
5.7
4.0
2.1
1.1
4.4
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 ...................................................
79.9
79.6
0.5
4.9
2.9
23.5
1.7
8.2
15.9
7.9
5.3
7.5
0.3
965.2
814.6
7.8
41.5
51.2
240.1
27.6
65.2
131.6
122.9
89.6
34.2
150.7
0.1
0.1
2.2
5.4
-6.3
-2.0
-7.5
1.4
1.6
2.2
2.7
-2.0
0.4
682
670
430
694
613
637
923
972
776
716
387
428
748
(6)
3.6
2.6
2.4
2.9
2.9
1.7
8.6
1.2
6.2
5.4
2.4
(6)
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, third quarter 20032
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2003
(thousands)
September
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2002-034
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2002-034
United States6 ....................
8,291.0
128,546.3
-0.4
$704
3.1
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
7.6
80.4
13.1
349.2
24.3
24.2
17.8
29.7
79.9
368.9
143.4
1,571.3
240.5
4,007.2
424.6
479.5
278.7
650.1
965.2
-0.4
1.9
1.1
1.0
-0.6
-3.1
-1.5
0.7
-0.4
0.1
712
775
699
635
792
863
857
839
1,123
682
2.3
3.2
3.4
3.1
3.7
4.1
2.0
4.1
5.6
(7)
Fulton, GA ..........................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Cook, IL .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
Polk, IA ..............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
37.7
24.3
12.9
126.0
23.6
13.7
18.7
21.3
13.0
11.1
725.3
414.3
183.7
2,529.5
572.0
261.5
290.6
416.9
248.7
169.1
-0.9
0.8
0.5
-1.2
-0.7
0.2
0.0
-0.9
0.2
0.5
913
673
646
835
738
709
736
685
673
636
1.8
3.4
1.9
2.7
2.8
3.5
3.4
3.6
5.5
2.7
Montgomery, MD ...............
Middlesex, MA ...................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Hinds, MS ..........................
St. Louis, MO .....................
Yellowstone, MT ................
Douglas, NE .......................
Clark, NV ...........................
Hillsborough, NH ................
30.5
47.2
35.3
41.3
6.6
33.8
5.7
14.9
35.5
12.1
450.6
787.0
805.9
820.5
131.4
620.7
69.7
310.4
766.1
192.4
0.2
-2.7
-1.5
-1.3
0.0
-1.8
1.3
-0.9
4.4
2.0
897
996
825
911
626
768
551
679
670
779
5.0
4.1
2.0
5.6
3.8
4.1
3.4
3.8
4.9
4.0
Bergen, NJ .........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
New York, NY ....................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
Cass, ND ...........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Providence, RI ...................
34.0
16.6
111.7
27.1
5.1
39.0
21.5
25.4
36.0
17.3
448.6
312.2
2,184.9
502.6
86.6
764.8
400.4
418.9
692.1
289.2
0.4
0.2
-1.6
-1.3
1.6
-1.1
-1.8
-2.3
-1.6
0.4
884
646
1,239
824
587
739
625
733
746
695
4.0
2.5
3.2
5.0
4.6
3.4
5.0
2.4
2.9
3.0
Greenville, SC ....................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Shelby, TN .........................
Harris, TX ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Fairfax, VA .........................
King, WA ............................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
13.4
5.9
19.9
88.3
33.3
5.6
29.6
88.3
6.1
22.5
221.0
108.1
494.8
1,823.7
514.4
95.1
534.7
1,095.4
108.4
498.3
-0.1
0.5
1.0
-1.6
-0.3
0.0
1.7
-0.7
-1.3
-1.1
641
591
737
824
647
688
1,038
962
600
712
1.4
2.8
4.8
2.4
2.7
2.2
5.8
5.4
1.9
3.9
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county
by state, third quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2003
(thousands)
September
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2002-034
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2002-034
Laramie, WY ......................
2.8
39.4
1.8
$573
4.4
San Juan, PR .....................
St. Thomas, VI ...................
11.4
1.7
306.1
22.6
-1.5
-1.4
466
539
5.2
1.7
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.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
third quarter 20032
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
third quarter
2003
(thousands)
September
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2002-03
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2002-03
United States4 ....................
8,291.0
128,546.3
-0.4
$704
3.1
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
111.6
19.7
125.9
75.0
1,166.8
161.1
108.9
26.8
29.7
499.3
1,825.3
308.4
2,269.0
1,130.5
14,923.9
2,124.4
1,627.4
406.1
650.1
7,234.3
-0.6
1.5
1.3
-0.3
-0.3
-1.6
-1.4
-0.3
-0.4
1.5
607
730
659
541
797
744
869
753
1,123
627
3.1
3.1
3.5
2.9
3.9
4.5
3.1
3.9
5.6
3.6
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
245.6
37.2
48.2
324.8
151.5
90.1
82.6
105.6
117.1
47.0
3,811.1
567.3
590.4
5,738.7
2,848.1
1,414.4
1,287.9
1,727.7
1,853.4
603.7
-0.2
1.3
0.5
-1.2
-0.7
-0.4
-1.5
0.1
0.1
0.2
684
648
547
751
627
580
594
594
579
577
2.5
3.5
2.1
2.6
2.1
3.4
2.6
3.1
2.8
2.9
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
149.2
205.2
251.6
158.3
65.5
165.9
42.3
55.0
58.7
46.6
2,448.6
3,163.9
4,349.2
2,597.8
1,102.5
2,633.8
401.9
876.8
1,096.9
612.1
0.4
-1.8
-2.0
-0.7
-0.9
-0.6
0.9
0.0
3.7
0.3
763
860
730
730
521
636
507
580
675
689
4.1
3.6
2.4
4.3
3.6
2.6
3.5
3.0
4.5
2.8
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
262.9
50.2
548.9
226.0
23.8
293.6
91.3
117.9
326.5
34.6
3,883.2
754.6
8,224.3
3,743.5
320.6
5,310.6
1,410.9
1,588.5
5,495.6
481.9
0.3
0.9
-0.7
-0.8
1.1
-1.1
-2.3
-0.9
-0.7
1.2
852
565
846
629
527
658
560
653
692
677
3.5
2.7
2.9
2.6
4.8
1.7
3.9
3.2
3.1
3.7
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
124.7
27.9
128.1
500.5
72.5
24.0
201.0
238.2
47.0
156.4
1,773.4
368.1
2,617.6
9,222.7
1,048.6
297.8
3,429.9
2,705.8
683.3
2,710.0
-0.2
0.2
-0.1
-0.7
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.4
-0.8
-0.3
580
512
631
693
588
598
724
753
533
624
2.5
2.2
3.8
2.2
2.3
2.7
3.6
3.7
2.3
3.1
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
third quarter 20032 — Continued
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
third quarter
2003
(thousands)
September
2003
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2002-03
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2002-03
Wyoming ............................
22.0
249.9
1.4
$562
3.5
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
43.5
3.2
971.0
41.2
-1.1
-1.6
410
563
5.1
-0.5
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
April 2004
-4.9% to -0.4%
-0.3% to 5.4%
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 employees or more,
September 2002-03 (U.S. Average = -0.4%)
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
April 2004
-3.3% to 3.1%
3.2% to 13.0%
Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wages in counties with 75,000 employees or
more, third quarter 2002-03 (U.S. Average = 3.1%)