Technical information:
(202) 691-6567
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
Media contact:
691-5902
USDL 04-2211
For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FIRST QUARTER 2004
In March 2004, Prince William County, Va., had the largest 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. Prince William County experienced an overthe-year employment gain of 8.0 percent, compared with national job growth of 0.8 percent. New York
County, N.Y., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the first quarter of 2004, with
an increase of 13.6 percent. The U.S. average weekly wage increased by 3.8 percent over the same time
span.
Of the 317 largest counties in the United States, 161 had over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average in March 2004, and 144 experienced changes below the national average.
(See chart 1.) Average weekly wages grew faster than the national average in 103 of the largest U.S.
counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was below the national average in 203 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. The 8.4 million employer
reports cover 127.8 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the
nation and for the 317 U.S. counties with employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2003. 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.) March 2004 employment and 2004 first-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
fourth quarter of 2003 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for
the first quarter of 2004 and revised data for 2003 will be available in October on the BLS Web site.
Large County Employment
The national employment total in March 2004 was 127.8 million, which was 0.8 percent higher than in
March 2003. The 317 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.6 percent of total
U.S. covered employment and 77.4 percent of total wages. These 317 counties had a net job gain of
680,700 over the year, comprising 64 percent of the U.S. net over-the-year employment increase from
March 2003. The largest gains in employment from March 2003 to March 2004 were recorded in the
counties of Orange, Calif. (49,900), Clark, Nev. (40,000), Maricopa, Ariz. (39,500), Los Angeles, Calif.
(29,500), and Riverside, Calif. (29,000). (See table A.)
2
Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by March 2004 employment, March 2003-04 employment change,
and March 2003-04 percent change in employment
Employment in large counties
Net change in employment,
March 2003-04
(thousands)
March 2004 employment
(thousands)
U.S.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Cook, Ill.
New York, N.Y.
Harris, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
Orange, Calif.
Dallas, Texas
San Diego, Calif.
King, Wash.
Miami-Dade, Fla.
127,778.5
4,054.6
2,474.0
2,203.0
1,823.3
1,611.2
1,454.3
1,418.2
1,264.0
1,075.7
982.9
U.S.
Orange, Calif.
Clark, Nev.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Riverside, Calif.
San Bernardino, Calif.
Fairfax, Va.
Hillsborough, Fla.
Orange, Fla.
San Diego, Calif.
1,064.1
49.9
40.0
39.5
29.5
29.0
27.8
21.7
21.4
18.4
16.4
Percent change in employment,
March 2003-04
U.S.
0.8
Prince William, Va.
Rutherford, Tenn.
Marion, Fla.
Placer, Calif.
Lee, Fla.
Collin, Texas
Loudoun, Va.
Clark, Nev.
Riverside, Calif.
Pasco, Fla.
8.0
7.3
6.4
6.3
5.8
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.2
Employment increased in 222 counties from March 2003 to March 2004. Prince William County, Va.,
had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (8.0 percent). Rutherford County, Tenn.,
had the next largest increase, 7.3 percent, followed by the counties of Marion, Fla. (6.4 percent), Placer,
Calif. (6.3 percent), and Lee, Fla. (5.8 percent). (See table 1.)
Employment declined in 80 counties from March 2003 to March 2004. The largest percentage decline
in employment was in Trumbull County, Ohio (-3.2 percent), followed by the counties of St. Louis City, Mo.
(-2.9 percent), Oakland, Mich. (-2.5 percent), Wayne, Mich. (-2.4 percent), and San Mateo, Calif. (-1.9
percent). The largest absolute declines in employment occurred in Wayne County, Mich. (-19,600), followed by the counties of Oakland, Mich. (-18,200), Cook, Ill. (-12,600), Middlesex, Mass. (-9,600), and
Alameda, Calif. (-9,100).
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the first quarter of 2004 was $758, which was 3.8 percent higher
than in the first quarter of 2003. Average weekly wages were higher than the national average in 107 of the
largest 317 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., held the top position among the highest-paid large
counties with an average weekly wage of $1,913. Fairfield County, Conn., was second with an average
weekly wage of $1,492, followed by Suffolk, Mass. ($1,405), Santa Clara, Calif. ($1,338), and Somerset,
N.J. ($1,322). (See table B.)
New York County, N.Y., also led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of
13.6 percent from the first quarter of 2003. Suffolk County, Mass., was second with 12.6 percent growth,
followed by the counties of San Mateo, Calif. (10.8 percent), Olmsted, Minn. (10.4 percent), and Loudoun,
Va. (10.1 percent).
There were 210 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the first quarter of
2004. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($445), followed by the
3
Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by first quarter 2004 average weekly wages, first quarter
2003-04 change in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2003-04 percent change in average
weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
first quarter 2004
U.S.
New York, N.Y.
Fairfield, Conn.
Suffolk, Mass.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Somerset, N.J.
San Francisco, Calif.
Arlington, Va.
Washington, D.C.
San Mateo, Calif.
Fairfax, Va.
$758
$1,913
1,492
1,405
1,338
1,322
1,312
1,240
1,221
1,203
1,156
Change in average weekly
wage, first quarter 2003-04
U.S.
New York, N.Y.
Suffolk, Mass.
San Mateo, Calif.
Fairfield, Conn.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Arlington, Va.
Loudoun, Va.
Hudson, N.J.
Washington, D.C.
Olmsted, Minn.
Washington, Ore.
$28
$229
157
117
114
100
99
90
89
82
79
79
Percent change in average
weekly wage, first
quarter 2003-04
U.S.
New York, N.Y.
Suffolk, Mass.
San Mateo, Calif.
Olmsted, Minn.
Loudoun, Va.
Washington, Ore.
Arlington, Va.
Hudson, N.J.
Fairfield, Conn.
Santa Clara, Calif.
3.8
13.6
12.6
10.8
10.4
10.1
9.7
8.7
8.6
8.3
8.1
counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($451), Webb, Texas ($473), Horry, S.C. ($484), and Yakima, Wash. ($505).
(See table 1.)
Eleven counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Trumbull County, Ohio,
had the largest decrease, -3.0 percent, followed by the counties of Williamson, Texas (-1.6 percent),
Chester, Penn. (-1.4 percent), Snohomish, Wash. (-1.3 percent), and Broome, N.Y. (-0.8 percent).
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2003 employment levels), 6 reported increases in employment,
while declines occurred in 4 from March 2003 to March 2004. Orange County, Calif., experienced the
fastest growth in employment among the largest counties, with a 3.5 percent increase. The largest employment increases were in financial activities (10.3 percent) and professional and business services (9.2 percent).
Orange County showed employment gains in every industry group except natural resources and mining,
manufacturing, information, and government. (See table 2.) Maricopa County, Ariz., had the next largest
increase in employment, 2.5 percent, followed by San Diego, Calif. (1.3 percent). The largest decrease in
employment for the 10 largest counties was in Dallas County, Texas, with a 0.6 percent decline. The next
largest declines in employment were recorded in Cook County, Ill. (-0.5 percent), and Harris County, Texas
(-0.2 percent).
All of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. New York
County, N.Y., had the fastest growth in wages among the top 10 counties, growing at a 13.6 percent rate.
New York County’s fastest growing supersectors were financial activities, where the average weekly wage
rose by 27.4 percent, and manufacturing, with a 9.5 percent increase. Dallas County, Texas, was second
in wage growth, increasing by 6.3 percent, followed by Cook County, Ill., and Miami-Dade County, Fla.,
where average wages increased by 5.2 percent each. King County, Wash., experienced the smallest
4
increase in average weekly wages among the largest 10 counties, rising by only 2.2 percent, primarily due
to wage decreases in the information supersector. This was followed by Orange County, Calif., with an
increase in average weekly wages of 3.8 percent and by two other California counties, Los Angeles and
San Diego (3.9 percent each).
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows March 2004 employment and the 2004 first-quarter average weekly wage in the largest
county in each state. This table includes two counties that have employment levels below 75,000 (Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.). The employment levels in these counties in March 2004 ranged from
approximately 4.1 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 39,100 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest
average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,913), while the lowest average weekly
wage was in Yellowstone County, Mont. ($568).
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 Workforce Agencies
(SWAs). 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 2004 are preliminary
and subject to revision.
For purposes of this release, large counties are defined as
having employment levels of 75,000 or greater. Each year, these
large counties are selected on the basis of the preliminary
annual average of employment for the previous year. The 318
counties discussed in this release were derived using 2003
preliminary annual averages of employment. These counties
will be included in all 2004 quarterly releases. The counties in
table 2 are selected and sorted each year based on the annual
average employment from the preceding year.
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
Summary of Major Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES Employment Measures
QCEW
BED
CES
Source
• Count of UI administrative records
submitted by 8.4 million employers
• Sample survey: 400,000 employers
• Count of longitudinally-linked UI
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 workers
• 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/
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 on the previous page.) Additional information on
each program can be obtained from the program Web sites
shown in the table on the previous page.
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 SWAs 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 wage 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 2003, UI and UCFE programs covered
workers in 127.8 million jobs. The estimated 122.9 million
workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders)
represented 96.6 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $4.826 trillion in pay,
representing 94.6 percent of the wage and salary component of
personal income and 43.9 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.
State and federal UI laws change periodically. These
changes may have an impact on the employment and wages
reported by employers covered under the UI program.
Coverage changes may affect the over-the-year comparisons
presented in this news release. Effective January 1, 2004, the
Washington Employment Security Department no longer
includes as covered wages an employee’s income attributable
to the transfer of shares of stock to the employee. This change
in wage coverage pertains to all establishments in Washington
State and contributes significantly to over-the-year changes in
wages in the state in 2004.
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 using unrounded employment and wage
values. The average wage values that can be calculated using
rounded data from the BLS database may differ from the
averages reported. Included in the quarterly wage data are
non-wage 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 an adjusted version of the final
2003 quarterly data as the base data. Final data for 2003 may
differ from preliminary data published earlier.
In order to insure the highest possible quality of
data, states 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 this 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.
These changes in classifications are partially adjusted for in
order to improve the measure of economic change over time,
as presented in this release. Some changes in classification
reflect economic events, while other changes are simply the
result of corrections and other noneconomic events. Changes
of an economic nature (such as a firm moving from one county
to another or changing its primary economic activity) are not
adjusted for in the over-the-year change, because these
changes are due to an actual event. But to the extent possible,
changes that are not economic in nature (such as a correction
to a previously reported location or industry classification) are
adjusted for in the measures of change presented in this release.
The adjustment is made by reassigning year-ago data
for establishments with noneconomic changes into the
classification shown in the current data. The year-ago to-
tals are then recreated reflecting this reassignment process.
The adjusted year-ago data are then used to calculate the
over-the-year change. The adjusted year-ago data differ
to some extent from the data available on the BLS Web
site. This process results in a more accurate presentation of
change in local economic activity than what would result
from the simple comparison of current and year-ago data points.
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.
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
2002 bulletin is now available in a portable document format
(PDF) on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/
cewbultn02.htm. The 2003 annual bulletin will be published in
late 2004. BLS also will make this bulletin available in a PDF
format on the BLS Web site.
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 318 largest counties,
first quarter 20042
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2004
(thousands)
March
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
United States6 ....................
8,367.2
127,778.5
0.8
-
$758
3.8
-
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
18.4
7.8
9.6
6.5
4.1
7.8
80.9
17.6
4.3
13.2
368.7
161.4
160.0
130.7
77.2
138.1
1,611.2
335.2
83.2
239.2
0.2
2.1
-1.6
1.5
-0.4
1.0
2.5
1.8
3.4
1.0
212
77
307
103
252
145
67
90
36
145
766
760
592
618
587
780
733
626
775
669
3.2
0.1
1.9
2.8
0.7
4.8
5.0
1.8
3.2
5.0
140
302
240
170
290
66
53
248
140
53
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.0
48.9
28.3
29.6
16.2
364.7
12.0
12.2
90.8
9.5
85.1
678.0
337.9
316.5
241.4
4,054.6
107.8
156.6
1,454.3
130.3
3.1
-1.3
-0.3
2.0
3.2
0.7
0.0
-0.4
3.5
6.3
46
293
248
80
40
172
224
252
31
4
566
979
972
591
649
846
985
679
872
721
4.2
5.0
6.0
1.5
2.5
3.9
5.0
2.1
3.8
3.6
86
53
34
267
192
97
53
225
105
116
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 .................
38.4
47.1
42.3
87.0
44.0
16.1
8.8
23.3
13.4
52.8
563.4
602.0
600.1
1,264.0
518.4
212.1
99.6
328.2
179.1
846.5
5.4
1.0
4.9
1.3
-1.4
0.7
0.3
-1.9
1.4
-1.1
8
145
12
119
302
172
201
311
110
287
645
833
645
806
1,312
643
607
1,203
706
1,338
4.4
1.7
2.5
3.9
6.1
3.4
1.5
10.8
3.1
8.1
78
253
192
97
32
127
267
3
147
10
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
8.5
9.6
17.4
13.4
8.9
20.9
5.1
8.5
18.6
11.6
91.9
125.1
189.8
164.2
130.3
308.6
94.5
138.5
264.6
149.0
0.7
0.2
1.2
1.4
1.1
1.7
0.4
-0.8
-0.7
0.3
172
212
124
110
133
93
197
272
268
201
735
716
706
624
524
824
674
710
928
923
3.8
6.7
0.6
1.6
3.6
6.6
3.7
4.9
1.2
6.0
105
21
291
259
116
24
114
61
282
34
Denver, CO ........................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
24.0
15.7
17.7
9.1
31.8
24.2
21.9
6.6
18.6
30.2
418.0
231.3
199.7
118.9
407.1
474.1
357.2
125.6
277.3
654.7
-1.1
0.8
0.1
2.0
0.1
-0.1
0.3
-0.5
1.9
0.8
287
163
221
80
221
236
201
256
87
163
948
687
770
661
1,492
1,006
807
792
957
1,221
7.7
1.9
2.3
2.8
8.3
7.5
3.5
5.2
2.2
7.2
12
240
206
170
9
13
121
49
215
15
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
first quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2004
(thousands)
March
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Alachua, FL ........................
Brevard, FL ........................
Broward, FL .......................
Collier, FL ..........................
Duval, FL ...........................
Escambia, FL .....................
Hillsborough, FL .................
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
5.9
12.6
57.9
10.5
22.8
7.4
31.7
15.2
7.4
7.1
123.6
194.6
693.7
126.3
433.8
126.0
612.8
198.9
144.8
118.6
2.3
4.8
0.8
3.3
1.4
3.6
3.6
5.8
1.8
5.1
75
13
163
38
110
29
29
5
90
11
$550
705
707
636
745
571
721
613
616
559
3.8
6.5
5.8
5.0
3.9
2.1
4.9
4.8
4.1
1.8
105
25
39
53
97
225
61
66
89
248
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
6.5
81.6
5.3
30.1
43.6
7.5
28.7
10.6
13.2
12.2
91.0
982.9
78.2
621.1
524.3
84.5
437.3
193.7
155.8
150.3
6.4
0.9
-1.7
3.1
2.0
5.2
3.5
2.8
4.8
3.2
3
154
310
46
80
10
31
58
13
40
530
729
575
688
728
510
641
567
606
656
2.9
5.2
6.1
5.0
2.2
3.9
2.7
2.2
4.8
3.1
161
49
32
53
215
97
176
215
66
147
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
12.0
4.8
7.1
4.4
20.0
17.1
37.4
21.4
4.8
4.8
156.7
87.1
126.9
106.7
299.9
288.8
722.0
303.4
97.1
104.5
4.1
3.0
2.5
(7)
1.4
-0.8
0.6
3.3
0.8
1.5
20
54
67
110
272
180
38
163
103
530
614
622
784
821
828
1,043
791
598
609
2.3
2.3
2.5
1.6
1.7
1.3
2.5
0.4
1.5
1.5
206
206
192
259
253
276
192
294
267
267
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
24.6
12.9
3.9
126.5
32.4
10.9
18.9
7.4
3.3
5.6
422.7
183.5
89.2
2,474.0
561.0
193.2
311.3
92.0
83.3
93.7
1.2
2.4
0.1
-0.5
-0.5
0.3
0.0
3.1
-1.3
0.2
124
72
221
256
256
201
224
46
293
212
681
656
618
953
888
678
932
652
733
618
3.2
1.1
2.3
5.2
3.6
2.6
3.2
2.7
3.5
4.9
140
285
206
49
116
184
140
176
121
61
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
10.7
6.6
8.8
4.9
6.2
9.9
96.1
76.1
91.7
128.6
154.1
133.9
176.2
119.1
84.6
188.3
1.3
-1.3
0.2
(7)
3.4
0.3
-0.1
4.6
3.0
-1.1
119
293
212
36
201
236
16
54
287
714
676
581
727
683
643
660
625
812
659
6.7
2.6
3.6
(7)
1.5
0.6
0.3
1.3
4.0
3.8
21
184
116
267
291
297
276
94
105
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
first quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2004
(thousands)
March
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Marion, IN ..........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
Vanderburgh, IN ................
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ..............................
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Fayette, KY ........................
23.8
6.0
4.8
6.0
14.0
5.1
18.4
11.6
4.7
8.7
567.9
121.7
107.0
114.3
255.4
83.1
289.0
237.3
95.3
164.2
0.2
0.2
-0.9
0.4
2.0
0.3
1.3
-1.0
-1.3
0.9
212
212
277
197
80
201
119
280
293
154
$810
633
632
709
781
596
816
677
625
699
5.6
1.6
2.8
4.3
4.7
3.3
3.0
2.0
3.0
4.2
43
259
170
82
70
137
153
231
153
86
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
21.4
6.9
4.6
12.9
13.8
7.5
12.4
11.4
13.3
20.4
411.0
118.6
81.8
246.4
212.6
118.3
250.0
165.0
211.7
360.5
-0.5
1.0
-1.0
3.2
0.0
-0.5
0.5
1.7
3.5
1.2
256
145
280
40
224
256
187
93
31
124
750
607
618
636
604
625
724
696
775
787
5.6
3.8
6.9
2.6
3.4
1.5
6.3
5.0
5.3
6.9
43
105
16
184
127
267
29
53
47
16
Frederick, MD ....................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
5.4
7.8
31.0
14.7
13.9
9.1
15.0
20.5
13.8
47.6
88.9
137.1
446.5
310.5
353.4
83.5
215.6
289.1
196.2
772.2
4.2
0.9
0.5
2.0
-1.4
1.5
0.7
-1.4
0.0
-1.2
18
154
187
80
302
103
172
302
224
292
743
850
1,014
787
885
652
648
790
708
1,072
6.8
3.3
7.8
2.7
6.9
3.0
1.3
1.8
2.2
6.8
19
137
11
176
16
153
276
248
215
19
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
21.7
13.4
22.2
20.1
8.6
7.0
5.5
14.5
18.1
41.5
312.7
166.7
552.4
311.9
152.7
166.0
114.3
328.3
317.6
702.8
-0.8
0.9
-1.4
0.0
-0.4
-1.3
-0.2
0.7
0.5
-2.5
272
154
302
224
252
293
241
172
187
313
916
704
1,405
748
716
718
742
682
828
923
3.2
2.0
12.6
2.3
-0.3
-0.7
4.1
0.0
-0.6
0.2
140
231
2
206
309
311
89
304
310
300
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
5.7
4.6
8.2
35.2
7.4
9.6
40.6
3.3
14.9
5.7
108.3
88.1
193.0
785.5
108.7
163.1
806.7
85.9
319.5
90.9
0.5
-1.1
-0.2
-2.4
1.2
1.1
-0.7
1.4
-0.9
-1.3
187
287
241
312
124
133
268
110
277
293
654
677
868
893
710
752
983
837
881
637
2.3
(7)
4.7
2.9
2.9
2.2
6.5
10.4
5.9
3.7
206
70
161
161
215
25
4
36
114
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
first quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2004
(thousands)
March
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
Boone, MO .........................
Clay, MO ............................
Greene, MO .......................
Jackson, MO ......................
St. Charles, MO .................
St. Louis, MO .....................
St. Louis City, MO ..............
4.2
4.5
6.5
4.2
4.9
8.0
18.7
7.2
33.8
8.3
75.8
88.7
129.9
76.4
84.9
144.1
360.0
109.5
609.2
223.0
1.1
0.6
0.3
0.8
-1.0
0.3
-1.0
3.8
-1.3
-2.9
133
180
201
163
280
201
280
26
293
314
$579
538
646
566
682
560
764
642
813
905
2.8
0.2
2.9
3.9
2.7
2.8
2.3
1.7
3.8
4.9
170
300
161
97
176
170
206
253
105
61
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
14.6
7.4
37.9
12.5
12.2
10.6
6.5
34.1
11.1
13.3
303.1
148.6
784.0
198.2
191.6
130.2
139.6
444.9
195.9
204.8
-0.3
1.3
5.4
3.1
2.1
2.7
0.8
0.8
1.5
2.8
248
119
8
46
77
64
163
163
103
58
712
609
693
693
806
762
667
966
798
764
2.6
3.0
5.8
2.8
2.9
4.7
2.1
3.0
2.7
1.5
184
153
39
170
161
70
225
153
176
267
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
21.3
6.0
13.8
10.6
20.5
19.8
17.6
11.4
12.4
9.9
358.1
97.1
231.5
212.1
390.5
247.9
277.3
139.3
176.6
166.4
0.2
3.7
-1.3
1.1
1.4
3.2
0.9
3.2
2.3
-1.6
212
28
293
133
110
40
154
40
75
307
1,036
674
1,121
987
1,019
824
1,145
638
794
1,322
5.4
3.9
8.6
1.9
3.5
1.7
3.4
1.3
1.9
1.9
46
97
8
240
121
253
127
276
240
240
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
15.0
16.8
9.5
15.3
4.4
7.7
23.2
41.7
17.6
50.3
236.8
310.6
226.6
211.8
93.9
115.8
453.1
441.6
375.8
593.3
0.0
1.4
0.6
-1.6
-1.0
1.2
1.1
0.5
-0.5
1.1
224
110
180
307
280
124
133
187
256
133
964
644
778
686
589
769
671
665
755
831
3.2
2.4
2.2
1.9
-0.8
1.9
2.1
5.6
3.6
4.4
140
201
215
240
312
240
225
43
116
78
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
112.3
5.3
12.6
9.1
39.8
8.0
9.2
47.2
35.0
6.8
2,203.0
106.5
243.7
124.5
468.4
87.2
109.8
587.9
403.6
104.3
-0.1
-0.2
0.4
1.4
-0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.6
1.2
236
241
197
110
256
187
145
145
180
124
1,913
581
693
623
749
659
800
783
1,065
562
13.6
2.7
1.2
3.0
3.0
4.9
4.0
2.5
7.4
1.4
1
176
282
153
153
61
94
192
14
274
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
first quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2004
(thousands)
March
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
4.3
5.6
6.1
8.3
13.6
27.1
6.3
23.0
5.3
6.9
86.8
109.8
166.9
173.5
264.3
498.6
88.4
383.4
85.5
132.4
-0.7
1.1
1.5
0.2
0.0
-0.2
2.4
2.7
3.0
3.9
268
133
103
212
224
241
72
64
54
24
$560
547
1,052
732
676
991
587
760
605
653
1.6
1.1
6.4
2.4
1.3
5.7
3.5
2.7
3.8
0.5
259
285
28
201
276
42
121
176
105
293
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
38.5
29.6
24.8
6.7
6.3
11.0
6.5
13.3
9.1
14.8
746.2
672.9
534.0
97.0
100.2
223.1
103.3
281.3
163.6
260.2
-0.6
-0.2
-0.8
1.1
1.2
-0.4
0.4
-1.1
-0.7
0.5
264
241
272
133
124
252
197
287
268
187
790
762
830
630
639
680
564
705
593
713
3.1
2.7
3.5
-0.2
3.4
-0.1
2.4
1.6
1.0
1.4
147
176
121
307
127
306
201
259
288
274
Trumbull, OH .....................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
4.9
21.7
18.3
11.6
6.2
10.5
8.5
25.7
14.5
37.0
83.1
398.9
317.2
134.9
77.2
137.6
125.1
414.8
218.7
684.7
-3.2
0.5
-1.0
2.8
3.2
1.1
1.6
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
315
187
280
58
40
133
99
224
236
236
654
645
676
684
555
573
588
764
890
804
-3.0
4.2
4.3
4.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.1
9.7
4.6
316
86
82
89
215
206
201
225
6
75
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
9.0
19.9
14.8
5.7
7.0
13.9
7.2
5.8
11.7
8.4
159.9
250.0
220.3
125.0
171.9
209.1
123.7
97.3
221.4
170.2
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.2
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.7
87
93
99
124
172
154
145
103
80
93
651
715
938
704
759
808
578
567
633
741
-0.2
3.2
-1.4
2.2
4.1
4.8
2.5
0.4
0.3
2.9
307
140
314
215
89
66
192
294
297
161
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Kent, RI ..............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
8.1
27.7
6.2
28.3
9.5
8.7
5.5
17.5
11.3
11.8
139.2
473.8
91.4
629.6
132.4
166.2
79.5
281.2
189.4
224.3
0.5
0.0
1.5
(7)
2.6
3.1
2.5
-0.6
2.5
-0.9
187
224
103
66
46
67
264
67
277
595
1,004
646
891
580
668
678
755
608
670
3.1
6.7
2.9
5.9
1.6
1.8
5.9
1.2
2.0
0.1
147
21
161
36
259
248
36
282
231
302
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
first quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2004
(thousands)
March
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
7.5
5.3
9.1
6.0
5.9
17.9
8.3
10.3
3.6
19.9
100.4
85.0
203.9
109.7
106.3
425.1
188.9
213.4
87.7
491.9
3.1
0.8
0.0
-0.3
1.1
0.7
0.9
2.5
7.3
-0.2
46
163
224
248
133
172
154
67
2
241
$484
550
632
629
612
746
626
632
651
757
0.8
3.4
2.1
1.3
2.9
3.5
2.5
3.4
2.0
3.4
289
127
225
276
161
121
192
127
231
127
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
4.2
29.5
4.1
3.5
6.1
12.5
67.7
8.4
12.5
6.3
90.1
656.7
75.7
78.0
116.1
202.8
1,418.2
131.8
251.7
99.3
1.8
0.6
-0.5
1.0
0.6
5.5
-0.6
3.1
0.2
2.0
90
180
256
145
180
6
264
46
212
80
542
670
749
520
445
844
947
621
514
773
0.4
5.0
6.5
3.4
1.6
4.3
6.3
2.0
2.4
4.3
294
53
25
127
259
82
29
231
201
82
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Potter, TX ...........................
Smith, TX ...........................
4.8
89.4
9.3
5.9
6.4
4.7
6.3
8.0
3.9
4.9
87.5
1,823.3
187.6
117.4
114.8
98.3
89.8
143.6
77.4
85.5
-1.0
-0.2
3.9
1.0
-0.8
1.7
4.7
0.9
2.9
1.3
280
241
24
145
272
93
15
154
57
119
652
898
451
672
549
571
641
601
562
622
2.0
4.4
1.6
4.7
2.0
1.8
3.1
2.6
3.1
5.2
231
78
259
70
231
248
147
184
147
49
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
33.7
24.8
4.3
5.0
6.1
33.3
10.6
5.2
5.7
6.9
689.6
509.6
78.0
84.4
90.0
512.5
145.4
86.8
92.7
151.6
0.3
1.2
3.1
3.5
3.5
1.1
4.1
1.6
1.1
2.8
201
124
46
31
31
133
20
99
133
58
770
836
473
795
603
671
544
537
730
1,240
3.9
2.6
1.7
-1.6
1.9
3.4
0.0
2.5
1.7
8.7
97
184
253
315
240
127
304
192
253
7
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
Henrico, VA ........................
Loudoun, VA ......................
Prince William, VA .............
Alexandria City, VA ............
Chesapeake City, VA .........
Newport News City, VA .....
Norfolk City, VA .................
Richmond City, VA .............
6.6
29.7
8.2
6.2
5.8
5.7
4.8
3.7
5.6
6.9
111.5
533.9
164.3
109.8
92.9
91.6
91.6
96.5
144.6
157.5
2.8
4.2
0.0
5.5
8.0
0.5
4.1
2.1
0.6
-0.3
58
18
224
6
1
187
20
77
180
248
667
1,156
824
979
637
924
571
652
720
905
4.1
5.3
4.7
10.1
2.2
3.0
4.0
2.0
3.4
3.9
89
47
70
5
215
153
94
231
127
97
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
first quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2004
(thousands)
March
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Virginia Beach City, VA ......
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
10.6
10.0
75.2
6.0
19.0
15.6
14.1
6.1
8.0
6.2
167.2
117.6
1,075.7
79.1
244.7
207.5
189.1
90.7
88.0
107.3
3.8
4.0
0.3
4.3
1.9
0.8
0.9
1.6
0.3
-0.6
26
23
201
17
87
163
154
99
201
264
$566
663
940
686
667
736
598
661
505
646
2.5
2.6
2.2
3.8
4.4
-1.3
2.6
2.3
3.3
1.1
192
184
215
105
78
313
184
206
137
285
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
6.8
13.8
22.3
5.0
4.3
13.4
4.0
143.2
283.9
491.1
97.3
74.3
220.6
84.7
2.4
1.4
-1.3
2.8
0.0
0.7
-1.4
72
110
293
58
224
172
302
661
728
770
660
672
739
744
2.0
4.6
4.6
3.8
2.9
0.3
5.8
231
75
75
105
161
297
39
San Juan, PR .....................
12.9
322.8
1.7
93
487
6.3
29
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 317 U.S. counties comprise 70.6 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Percent changes were computed from 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,
first quarter 20042
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2004
(thousands)
March
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2003-043
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2003-043
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 ...................................................
8,367.2
8,095.7
123.0
811.5
373.7
1,858.2
145.0
778.9
1,335.2
740.9
675.1
1,081.5
271.5
127,778.5
106,575.5
1,557.3
6,506.1
14,177.7
24,814.5
3,120.6
7,818.2
15,994.0
16,005.0
12,031.7
4,261.8
21,203.0
0.8
1.0
2.0
3.5
-2.9
0.6
-2.8
0.9
2.4
2.1
2.6
0.4
0.0
$758
758
720
732
916
647
1,231
1,413
907
656
311
468
758
3.8
4.1
6.7
1.4
3.7
2.2
6.9
11.7
4.9
3.0
2.6
2.2
2.6
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 ...................................................
364.7
360.9
0.6
13.0
17.7
54.5
9.3
23.3
41.2
27.1
26.2
147.6
3.8
4,054.6
3,466.8
11.4
133.7
485.6
760.6
213.9
236.6
573.1
460.3
367.2
223.8
587.8
0.7
1.2
-0.9
2.5
-5.1
0.3
0.4
1.3
4.0
2.9
4.2
4.7
-2.1
846
825
1,388
796
854
689
1,456
1,479
944
718
475
391
968
3.9
4.0
47.3
1.4
4.3
1.3
4.6
15.3
1.5
3.9
5.1
-3.9
4.2
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 ...................................................
126.5
125.2
0.1
10.4
7.6
26.5
2.5
13.9
25.9
12.3
10.5
12.7
1.2
2,474.0
2,152.9
1.2
88.2
256.8
470.7
63.1
215.0
396.0
351.2
211.0
94.4
321.1
-0.5
-0.3
-9.8
0.2
-4.0
-0.3
-4.6
-0.1
-0.6
2.0
2.9
-1.1
-2.2
953
961
949
1,082
915
725
1,418
2,099
1,196
699
355
620
895
5.2
5.4
7.6
3.3
2.8
1.1
9.4
15.6
5.8
1.6
1.1
0.8
3.1
New York, NY .....................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
112.3
112.1
0.0
2.1
3.4
21.9
4.3
16.8
22.4
7.9
10.1
16.1
0.2
2,203.0
1,756.7
0.1
28.1
46.3
228.5
126.3
346.4
432.0
273.3
184.6
81.3
446.3
-0.1
0.0
1.0
-3.2
-3.3
-0.3
-5.2
-0.8
1.6
0.9
1.6
-1.3
-0.5
1,913
2,154
1,639
1,293
1,155
1,045
2,130
5,680
1,799
855
676
809
970
13.6
15.6
-6.1
-1.4
9.5
3.3
8.1
27.4
7.3
2.5
7.0
6.3
-1.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
first quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2004
(thousands)
March
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2003-043
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2003-043
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 ...................................................
89.4
89.0
1.2
6.4
4.6
21.1
1.4
9.7
17.2
8.9
6.6
10.4
0.4
1,823.3
1,576.9
62.4
134.8
162.4
385.5
33.5
113.0
280.0
187.9
157.6
56.2
246.4
-0.2
-0.5
2.8
-5.8
-2.5
-0.7
-4.1
2.3
-0.5
1.9
1.6
-1.7
1.2
$898
920
2,516
832
1,133
847
1,123
1,269
961
730
326
521
754
4.4
4.9
12.7
3.7
4.2
3.7
2.6
6.3
4.2
3.3
4.2
3.2
0.5
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 ...................................................
80.9
80.4
0.5
8.4
3.2
18.5
1.6
9.6
17.8
7.7
5.6
5.7
0.5
1,611.2
1,393.1
9.4
131.7
127.6
324.4
35.7
132.5
259.2
163.3
160.2
45.3
218.0
2.5
2.8
4.3
7.2
-1.5
2.8
-5.5
0.0
2.9
6.1
2.8
1.5
0.6
733
737
540
712
1,074
721
909
988
740
739
353
480
705
5.0
5.6
0.7
1.6
7.1
5.4
8.1
5.7
8.3
6.6
4.7
2.8
1.6
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 ...................................................
67.7
67.2
0.5
4.4
3.4
15.6
1.8
8.6
13.9
6.1
5.1
6.7
0.4
1,418.2
1,261.5
6.2
73.3
143.6
305.7
61.7
138.4
236.1
128.8
123.8
41.6
156.7
-0.6
-0.6
1.1
-0.2
-1.7
-1.6
-6.1
0.7
0.9
0.9
-0.3
-3.5
-0.4
947
967
2,308
795
1,096
905
1,466
1,409
1,016
815
457
557
790
6.3
6.9
4.7
4.9
8.3
4.7
11.7
10.9
6.2
4.0
6.0
1.8
1.5
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 ...................................................
90.8
89.4
0.2
6.5
6.0
17.4
1.5
10.0
18.0
9.3
6.8
13.4
1.4
1,454.3
1,303.6
7.8
87.5
183.1
261.7
34.2
133.6
258.1
129.1
162.1
46.1
150.6
3.5
4.2
-12.9
5.7
-1.8
1.3
-3.4
10.3
9.2
4.9
5.5
4.4
-2.1
872
860
535
882
1,015
820
1,286
1,448
872
744
346
501
983
3.8
4.6
15.1
2.2
8.0
3.9
7.0
7.9
-0.2
6.1
0.9
3.1
-0.1
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
first quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2004
(thousands)
March
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2003-043
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2003-043
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 ...................................................
87.0
85.6
0.9
6.5
3.6
14.3
1.4
9.0
15.4
7.6
6.6
20.1
1.4
1,264.0
1,044.7
11.6
82.6
104.1
208.5
36.1
81.3
208.9
120.4
139.7
51.3
219.3
1.3
2.2
3.3
8.8
-2.9
3.0
-4.1
4.8
3.8
1.2
0.2
2.3
-2.8
$806
791
472
800
1,082
649
1,738
1,167
936
695
346
425
875
3.9
4.9
6.1
2.8
8.9
0.8
32.1
4.9
1.3
5.1
3.3
-0.7
0.2
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 ...................................................
75.2
74.6
0.4
6.1
2.6
14.6
1.5
6.1
11.8
5.9
5.4
20.1
0.6
1,075.7
922.2
3.2
54.0
101.5
212.1
64.9
76.1
155.2
109.6
99.4
46.2
153.4
0.3
0.3
-3.9
4.3
-4.1
-0.2
-3.8
0.7
2.7
2.4
3.8
-5.8
0.1
940
953
1,221
871
1,131
817
1,977
1,309
1,127
689
395
466
863
2.2
1.9
5.2
0.3
-3.2
4.2
-6.3
10.6
8.1
3.0
1.8
6.2
3.7
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 ...................................................
81.6
81.3
0.5
5.0
2.8
23.7
1.7
8.6
16.2
8.0
5.4
7.7
0.3
982.9
829.7
11.3
40.9
50.9
238.8
27.1
66.2
134.4
123.9
97.7
35.2
153.1
0.9
0.9
-1.4
3.2
-4.2
-0.7
-2.2
2.4
2.5
1.8
2.7
0.1
0.4
729
713
362
717
666
671
1,048
1,173
832
724
402
430
816
5.2
5.3
4.6
1.7
6.1
1.5
2.3
9.8
6.8
7.7
9.2
2.1
4.9
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.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county
by state, first quarter 20042
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2004
(thousands)
March
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2003-044
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2003-044
United States6 ....................
8,367.2
127,778.5
0.8
$758
3.8
Jefferson, AL ......................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pulaski, AR ........................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Denver, CO ........................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
18.4
7.8
80.9
13.2
364.7
24.0
24.2
18.6
30.2
81.6
368.7
138.1
1,611.2
239.2
4,054.6
418.0
474.1
277.3
654.7
982.9
0.2
1.0
2.5
1.0
0.7
-1.1
-0.1
1.9
0.8
0.9
766
780
733
669
846
948
1,006
957
1,221
729
3.2
4.8
5.0
5.0
3.9
7.7
7.5
2.2
7.2
5.2
Fulton, GA ..........................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Cook, IL .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
Polk, IA ..............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
37.4
24.6
12.9
126.5
23.8
14.0
18.4
21.4
12.4
11.4
722.0
422.7
183.5
2,474.0
567.9
255.4
289.0
411.0
250.0
165.0
0.6
1.2
2.4
-0.5
0.2
2.0
1.3
-0.5
0.5
1.7
1,043
681
656
953
810
781
816
750
724
696
2.5
3.2
1.1
5.2
5.6
4.7
3.0
5.6
6.3
5.0
Montgomery, MD ...............
Middlesex, MA ...................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Hinds, MS ..........................
St. Louis, MO .....................
Yellowstone, MT ................
Douglas, NE .......................
Clark, NV ...........................
Hillsborough, NH ................
31.0
47.6
35.2
40.6
6.5
33.8
5.7
14.6
37.9
12.2
446.5
772.2
785.5
806.7
129.9
609.2
68.6
303.1
784.0
191.6
0.5
-1.2
-2.4
-0.7
0.3
-1.3
2.8
-0.3
5.4
2.1
1,014
1,072
893
983
646
813
568
712
693
806
7.8
6.8
2.9
6.5
2.9
3.8
6.6
2.6
5.8
2.9
Bergen, NJ .........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
New York, NY ....................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
Cass, ND ...........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Providence, RI ...................
34.1
16.8
112.3
27.1
5.3
38.5
21.7
25.7
37.0
17.5
444.9
310.6
2,203.0
498.6
85.5
746.2
398.9
414.8
684.7
281.2
0.8
1.4
-0.1
-0.2
3.0
-0.6
0.5
0.0
-0.1
-0.6
966
644
1,913
991
605
790
645
764
804
755
3.0
2.4
13.6
5.7
3.8
3.1
4.2
2.1
4.6
1.2
Greenville, SC ....................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Shelby, TN .........................
Harris, TX ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Fairfax, VA .........................
King, WA ............................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
11.8
5.9
19.9
89.4
33.3
5.7
29.7
75.2
6.2
22.3
224.3
106.3
491.9
1,823.3
512.5
92.7
533.9
1,075.7
107.3
491.1
-0.9
1.1
-0.2
-0.2
1.1
1.1
4.2
0.3
-0.6
-1.3
670
612
757
898
671
730
1,156
940
646
770
0.1
2.9
3.4
4.4
3.4
1.7
5.3
2.2
1.1
4.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county
by state, first quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2004
(thousands)
March
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2003-044
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2003-044
Laramie, WY ......................
2.8
39.1
2.8
$586
4.5
San Juan, PR .....................
St. Thomas, VI ...................
12.9
1.7
322.8
23.2
1.7
-0.7
487
559
6.3
-1.1
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,
first quarter 20042
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2004
(thousands)
March
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2003-04
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2003-04
United States4 ....................
8,367.2
127,778.5
0.8
$758
3.8
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
113.0
20.0
127.4
75.7
1,214.0
160.4
109.3
28.1
30.2
518.9
1,835.1
285.1
2,340.1
1,128.5
14,873.5
2,109.0
1,614.6
401.2
654.7
7,478.3
0.9
1.0
2.5
1.4
1.1
0.5
0.1
2.2
0.8
2.4
626
732
682
563
854
772
1,042
844
1,221
657
2.3
3.5
4.3
3.3
4.4
3.9
6.4
2.4
7.2
4.3
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
249.2
37.8
48.3
326.3
153.4
91.3
81.4
105.8
115.0
47.8
3,831.5
578.7
570.2
5,614.6
2,806.2
1,391.8
1,280.5
1,711.9
1,862.1
575.9
1.8
1.7
1.8
-0.4
0.6
0.9
0.2
0.8
0.9
1.0
728
656
552
823
661
606
621
623
602
605
1.8
3.1
2.2
4.0
3.0
3.9
2.3
3.1
3.6
2.9
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
151.7
207.6
254.5
157.3
65.9
167.4
42.1
54.8
62.1
46.6
2,431.7
3,084.8
4,235.3
2,526.8
1,100.0
2,601.4
392.2
866.9
1,112.9
602.2
1.3
-0.6
-0.8
-0.2
0.9
0.0
2.0
0.6
4.7
1.7
816
954
771
777
533
665
515
595
695
725
5.3
6.0
1.2
5.0
2.1
2.6
4.7
2.8
5.0
3.7
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
265.1
50.8
552.9
228.1
24.0
291.4
92.6
120.9
333.3
34.9
3,843.8
749.6
8,186.5
3,721.9
312.2
5,211.6
1,413.1
1,560.1
5,439.2
463.7
1.1
1.8
0.2
0.7
1.6
0.1
0.2
1.1
0.4
0.6
945
584
1,056
670
541
691
582
675
736
728
3.3
3.4
8.0
2.9
4.2
1.6
3.4
3.5
3.2
2.1
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
108.0
28.1
129.3
506.8
73.8
24.1
204.9
206.5
47.6
158.8
1,768.3
358.0
2,622.3
9,244.0
1,051.7
294.7
3,443.9
2,633.1
675.9
2,647.8
0.3
1.0
1.6
0.6
2.4
1.0
2.3
1.3
1.2
0.5
596
531
651
737
599
615
772
757
569
657
1.9
3.3
3.0
3.9
2.4
2.7
4.6
2.0
1.4
3.0
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
first quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2004
(thousands)
March
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2003-04
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2003-04
Wyoming ............................
22.1
239.3
3.4
$583
4.1
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
50.5
3.1
1,036.8
42.8
1.5
1.3
422
576
5.0
-1.9
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.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics,
October 2004
or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
-3.2% to 0.8%
0.9% to 8.0%
but are included because they are the largest county in their state
Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees
March 2003 04 (U.S. Average = 0.8%)
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 employees or more,
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics,
October 2004
or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
-3.0% to 3.8%
3.9% to 13.6%
but are included because they are the largest county in their state
Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees
or more, first quarter 2003 04 (U.S. Average = 3.8%)
Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000 employees