Technical information: (202) 691-6567 http://www.bls.gov/cew/ Media contact: 691-5902 USDL 05-31 For release: 10:00 A.M. EST Tuesday, January 11, 2005 COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: SECOND QUARTER 2004 In June 2004, Rutherford County, Tenn., 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. Rutherford County experienced an over-theyear employment gain of 8.5 percent, compared with national job growth of 1.2 percent. Suffolk County, Mass., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the second quarter of 2004, with an increase of 11.8 percent. The U.S. average weekly wage increased by 3.1 percent over the same time span. Of the 317 largest counties in the United States, 155 had over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average in June 2004, and 146 experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 1.) Average weekly wages grew faster than the national average in 139 of the largest U.S. counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was below the national average in 163 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 130.6 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the nation and for the 317 U.S. counties with annual average 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.) June 2004 employment and 2004 second-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4 of this release. Data for all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and the nation through the first quarter of 2004 are available on the BLS Web site at http:// www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for the second quarter of 2004 will be available in January on the BLS Web site. Large County Employment In June 2004, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 130.6 million, up 1.2 percent from June 2003. The 317 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.3 percent of total U.S. covered employment and 76.2 percent of total covered wages. These 317 counties had a net job gain of 986,400 over the year, accounting for 63.5 percent of the U.S. employment increase. Employment increased in 237 of the large counties from June 2003 to June 2004. Rutherford County, Tenn., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (8.5 percent). Elkhart County, Ind., had the next largest increase, 7.6 percent, followed by the counties of Clark, Nev. (7.3 percent), Prince William, Va. (6.9 percent), and Collin, Texas (6.8 percent). (See table 1.) 2 Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by June 2004 employment, June 2003-04 employment change, and June 2003-04 percent change in employment Employment in large counties Net change in employment, June 2003-04 (thousands) June 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. 130,638.4 4,063.4 2,522.9 2,225.0 1,839.4 1,599.1 1,479.1 1,431.1 1,281.5 1,099.4 981.6 U.S. Orange, Calif. Clark, Nev. Maricopa, Ariz. Los Angeles, Calif. Riverside, Calif. Orange, Fla. Hillsborough, Fla. San Bernardino, Calif. Fairfax, Va. San Diego, Calif. 1,554.4 55.5 55.0 47.0 32.5 29.4 24.8 24.1 24.1 23.8 22.4 Percent change in employment, June 2003-04 U.S. 1.2 Rutherford, Tenn. Elkhart, Ind. Clark, Nev. Prince William, Va. Collin, Texas Lee, Fla. Seminole, Fla. Utah, Utah Riverside, Calif. Marion, Fla. 8.5 7.6 7.3 6.9 6.8 6.0 5.8 5.7 5.4 5.1 Employment declined in 65 counties from June 2003 to June 2004. The largest percentage decline in employment was in Trumbull County, Ohio (-3.4 percent), followed by the counties of St. Louis City, Mo. (-2.6 percent), Anchorage Borough, Alaska, and Santa Cruz, Calif. (-2.2 percent each), and Baltimore City, Md., and Wayne, Mich. (-2.1 percent each). The largest gains in employment from June 2003 to June 2004 were recorded in the counties of Orange, Calif. (55,500), Clark, Nev. (55,000), Maricopa, Ariz. (47,000), Los Angeles, Calif. (32,500), and Riverside, Calif. (29,400). (See table A.) The largest absolute declines in employment occurred in Wayne County, Mich. (-17,200), followed by the counties of Philadelphia, Pa. (-10,600), Oakland, Mich. (-10,200), Alameda, Calif., and Middlesex, Mass. (-8,600 each). Large County Average Weekly Wages The national average weekly wage in the second quarter of 2004 was $724. Average weekly wages were higher than the national average in 113 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 $1,300. Santa Clara County, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,288, followed by Washington, D.C. ($1,189), Arlington, Va. ($1,170), and Suffolk, Mass. ($1,163). (See table B.) There were 200 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the second quarter of 2004. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($452), followed by the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($457), Horry, S.C. ($476), Webb, Texas ($486), and Yakima, Wash. ($491). (See table 1.) Over the year, national average weekly wages rose by 3.1 percent. Among the largest counties, Suffolk County, Mass., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 11.8 percent from the 3 Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by second quarter 2004 average weekly wages, second quarter 2003-04 change in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2003-04 percent change in average weekly wages Average weekly wage in large counties Average weekly wage, second quarter 2004 U.S. New York, N.Y. Santa Clara, Calif. Washington, D.C. Arlington, Va. Suffolk, Mass. San Mateo, Calif. Fairfield, Conn. San Francisco, Calif. Somerset, N.J. Fairfax, Va. $724 $1,300 1,288 1,189 1,170 1,163 1,147 1,110 1,100 1,093 1,085 Change in average weekly wage, second quarter 2003-04 U.S. Suffolk, Mass. Arlington, Va. Pierce, Wash. Santa Clara, Calif. Lee, Fla. Middlesex, Mass. Rock Island, Ill. Spartanburg, S.C. Westchester, N.Y. Washington, Ore. $22 $123 78 63 63 57 57 57 55 54 52 Percent change in average weekly wage, second quarter 2003-04 U.S. Suffolk, Mass. Pierce, Wash. Lee, Fla. Spartanburg, S.C. Rock Island, Ill. Okaloosa, Fla. Arlington, Va. Riverside, Calif. Benton, Ark. Elkhart, Ind. 3.1 11.8 9.8 9.6 8.7 8.5 7.3 7.1 7.1 6.9 6.8 second quarter of 2003. Pierce County, Wash., was second with 9.8 percent growth, followed by the counties of Lee, Fla. (9.6 percent), Spartanburg, S.C. (8.7 percent), and Rock Island, Ill. (8.5 percent). Twelve counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Somerset County, N.J., had the largest decrease, -5.2 percent, followed by the counties of Olmsted, Minn. (-3.3 percent), Williamson, Texas (-2.7 percent), King, Wash. (-2.0 percent), and Lake, Ohio (-1.6 percent). Ten Largest U.S. Counties Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2003 employment levels), 9 reported increases in employment, while 1 showed a decline from June 2003 to June 2004. Orange County, Calif., experienced the fastest growth in employment among the largest counties, with a 3.9 percent increase. Within Orange County, employment rose in every industry group except natural resources and mining, manufacturing, and information. The largest gains were in professional and business services (8.5 percent) and construction (8.3 percent). (See table 2.) Maricopa County, Ariz., had the next largest increase in employment, 3.0 percent, followed by Miami-Dade, Fla., and San Diego, Calif. (1.8 percent each). The only decrease in employment for the 10 largest counties was in Cook County, Ill., a 0.3 percent decline. The next lowest change in employment was recorded in Dallas County, Texas (+0.1 percent) and Harris County, Texas (+0.5 percent). Nine of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. Miami-Dade County, Fla., had the fastest growth in wages among the top 10 counties, 4.2 percent. Within Miami-Dade County, wages increased the most in manufacturing (11.5 percent) and information (9.7 percent). Dallas County, Texas, and New York County, N.Y., were second in wage growth, with gains of 3.9 percent each. The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest counties occurred in Orange County, Calif. (2.9 percent) and Cook County, Ill. (3.0 percent). King County, Wash., experienced the only decline in average weekly wages among the largest 10 counties (-2.0 percent). The information sector posted the largest drop in wages, with a decline of 20.9 percent over the year. 4 Largest County by State Table 3 shows June 2004 employment and the 2004 second-quarter average weekly wage in the largest county in each state. (This table includes two counties—Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.,—that have employment levels below 75,000). The employment levels in these counties in June 2004 ranged from approximately 4.1 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 40,600 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,300), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Laramie County, Wyo. ($572). 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 establishments • Count of longitudinally-linked UI • Sample survey: 400,000 employers administrative records submitted by 6.5 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 and by 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 early 2005. BLS also will make this bulletin available 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, second quarter 20042 Average weekly wage5 Employment County3 Establishments, second quarter 2004 (thousands) June 2004 (thousands) Percent change, June 2003-044 Ranking by percent change Average weekly wage Percent Ranking by change, percent second quarter change 2003-044 United States6 .................... 8,363.3 130,638.4 1.2 - $724 3.1 - Jefferson, AL ...................... Madison, AL ....................... Mobile, AL .......................... Montgomery, AL ................ Tuscaloosa, AL .................. Anchorage Borough, AK .... Maricopa, AZ ..................... Pima, AZ ............................ Benton, AR ........................ Pulaski, AR ........................ 18.5 7.8 9.6 6.6 4.1 7.7 80.3 17.5 4.4 13.3 370.2 164.3 162.1 132.1 77.6 140.9 1,599.1 330.1 84.9 241.8 0.4 2.5 -0.5 1.9 2.2 -2.2 3.0 3.6 3.4 0.9 210 71 264 100 85 306 57 41 45 176 720 788 592 629 608 788 733 650 664 664 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.3 2.4 3.7 3.5 3.2 6.9 4.4 178 150 140 122 201 82 103 130 9 44 Washington, AR ................. Alameda, CA ...................... Contra Costa, CA ............... Fresno, CA ......................... Kern, CA ............................ Los Angeles, CA ................ Marin, CA ........................... Monterey, CA ..................... Orange, CA ........................ Placer, CA .......................... 5.0 47.3 27.2 28.1 15.6 354.4 11.7 11.8 89.2 9.3 86.4 677.2 341.4 338.6 252.7 4,063.4 112.0 180.6 1,479.1 132.6 2.9 -1.3 -0.5 -1.3 (7) 0.8 1.0 -1.2 3.9 4.9 60 294 264 294 182 170 292 38 12 587 957 911 581 631 815 917 644 826 723 5.4 3.6 4.4 4.5 (7) 3.4 2.8 2.5 2.9 2.0 27 93 44 42 112 170 192 164 237 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 ................. 37.6 45.8 41.0 85.1 42.7 15.6 8.6 22.7 13.0 51.9 577.1 611.3 604.4 1,281.5 520.6 220.0 102.6 328.9 185.7 855.3 5.4 0.8 4.2 1.8 -1.0 (7) -0.7 -1.0 0.1 -0.5 9 182 23 106 285 274 285 230 264 651 806 649 786 1,100 630 613 1,147 687 1,288 7.1 3.1 1.7 3.7 4.4 3.8 5.7 1.6 4.2 5.1 7 140 249 82 44 80 20 254 56 30 Santa Cruz, CA .................. Solano, CA ......................... Sonoma, CA ...................... Stanislaus, CA ................... Tulare, CA .......................... Ventura, CA ....................... Yolo, CA ............................. Adams, CO ........................ Arapahoe, CO .................... Boulder, CO ....................... 8.3 9.3 17.0 12.9 8.5 20.5 5.0 8.6 18.9 11.8 99.8 128.5 195.7 172.6 (7) 311.0 97.8 143.6 271.9 153.6 -2.2 0.2 0.9 0.5 (7) 1.5 -0.7 0.0 -0.1 1.5 306 224 176 202 127 274 239 245 127 691 694 718 617 522 779 689 700 862 883 5.0 6.0 2.6 3.7 5.0 4.3 6.0 3.4 0.5 4.3 33 14 186 82 33 51 14 112 295 51 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 15.9 18.0 9.2 31.7 24.2 21.9 6.6 19.0 29.5 426.1 239.5 206.8 126.0 416.6 485.5 365.9 129.8 282.6 665.7 0.4 1.5 0.1 2.1 0.0 0.2 1.2 -0.9 1.0 1.7 210 127 230 93 239 224 157 279 170 116 887 683 740 647 1,110 897 803 787 860 1,189 4.6 2.9 1.5 -0.9 3.3 3.9 3.5 5.1 3.1 3.6 41 164 264 307 122 72 103 30 140 93 See footnotes at end of table. Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties, second quarter 20042 — Continued Average weekly wage5 Employment County3 Establishments, second quarter 2004 (thousands) June 2004 (thousands) Percent change, June 2003-044 Ranking by percent change Average weekly wage Percent Ranking by change, percent second quarter change 2003-044 Alachua, FL ........................ Brevard, FL ........................ Broward, FL ....................... Collier, FL .......................... Duval, FL ........................... Escambia, FL ..................... Hillsborough, FL ................. Lee, FL ............................... Leon, FL ............................. Manatee, FL ....................... 6.0 12.8 58.2 10.6 22.8 7.5 31.9 15.4 7.4 7.2 121.7 197.0 691.9 113.5 436.3 123.6 601.5 191.0 139.8 116.4 1.7 (7) 1.8 4.5 2.9 4.1 4.2 6.0 1.5 4.4 116 106 18 60 29 23 6 127 21 $583 715 706 655 709 577 693 649 638 581 4.1 (7) 3.5 5.5 2.8 3.2 4.4 9.6 4.4 4.1 67 103 23 170 130 44 3 44 67 Marion, FL .......................... Miami-Dade, FL ................. Okaloosa, FL ..................... Orange, FL ......................... Palm Beach, FL ................. Pasco, FL ........................... Pinellas, FL ........................ Polk, FL .............................. Sarasota, FL ...................... Seminole, FL ...................... 6.6 82.0 5.4 30.5 43.8 7.6 28.8 10.7 13.3 12.4 89.7 981.6 81.7 618.8 512.8 78.4 433.3 184.3 150.0 152.9 5.1 1.8 -1.1 4.2 3.4 3.4 4.1 3.8 4.7 5.8 10 106 290 23 45 45 29 40 15 7 551 718 588 673 724 565 640 587 636 654 4.2 4.2 7.3 3.5 3.0 4.2 2.1 3.2 6.5 3.2 56 56 6 103 150 56 226 130 12 130 Volusia, FL ......................... Bibb, GA ............................ Chatham, GA ..................... Clayton, GA ....................... Cobb, GA ........................... De Kalb, GA ....................... Fulton, GA .......................... Gwinnett, GA ..................... Muscogee, GA ................... Richmond, GA ................... 12.1 4.8 7.1 4.4 20.1 17.2 37.8 21.7 4.8 4.8 151.4 86.8 126.9 105.9 297.1 291.9 725.9 305.6 96.3 105.3 4.1 1.4 2.2 (7) 0.4 0.3 1.4 3.3 -0.4 1.2 29 139 85 210 217 139 48 260 157 548 612 610 805 815 806 940 760 580 625 3.6 2.0 2.9 3.6 4.2 3.7 2.2 -0.3 2.3 3.8 93 237 164 93 56 82 219 303 213 80 Honolulu, HI ....................... Ada, ID ............................... Champaign, IL ................... Cook, IL ............................. Du Page, IL ........................ Kane, IL ............................. Lake, IL .............................. McHenry, IL ....................... McLean, IL ......................... Madison, IL ........................ 24.0 13.1 3.9 126.6 32.5 11.0 19.0 7.5 3.4 5.6 427.4 189.4 90.4 2,522.9 583.2 205.1 328.4 98.3 83.8 95.4 2.1 3.3 1.1 -0.3 0.8 2.4 0.5 3.2 -0.9 -0.2 93 48 164 256 182 76 202 52 279 252 675 669 614 860 856 663 867 646 755 617 2.7 3.2 1.7 3.0 0.6 1.1 2.5 2.2 3.6 5.5 178 130 249 150 292 277 192 219 93 23 Peoria, IL ........................... Rock Island, IL ................... St. Clair, IL ......................... Sangamon, IL .................... Will, IL ................................ Winnebago, IL .................... Allen, IN ............................. Elkhart, IN .......................... Hamilton, IN ....................... Lake, IN ............................. 4.6 3.4 5.1 5.1 10.7 6.6 8.7 4.8 6.2 9.9 98.9 78.5 92.4 132.7 164.0 137.9 177.4 126.6 90.0 192.6 2.4 -0.5 -0.5 (7) 3.3 1.4 1.4 7.6 4.2 -0.9 76 264 264 48 139 139 2 23 279 688 725 592 724 674 632 648 663 726 656 4.1 8.5 4.2 (7) 0.9 1.1 1.4 6.8 0.8 3.3 67 5 56 286 277 270 10 289 122 See footnotes at end of table. Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties, second quarter 20042 — Continued Average weekly wage5 Employment County3 Establishments, second quarter 2004 (thousands) June 2004 (thousands) Percent change, June 2003-044 Ranking by percent change Average weekly wage Percent Ranking by change, percent second quarter change 2003-044 Marion, IN .......................... St. Joseph, IN .................... Vanderburgh, IN ................ Linn, IA ............................... Polk, IA .............................. Scott, IA ............................. Johnson, KS ...................... Sedgwick, KS ..................... Shawnee, KS ..................... Fayette, KY ........................ 23.6 6.0 4.8 6.0 14.2 5.1 18.7 11.5 4.7 8.7 580.5 125.5 107.1 117.4 263.9 87.7 298.7 239.6 95.5 167.7 0.8 1.4 -1.5 1.4 2.2 2.4 1.9 0.3 -0.7 1.4 182 139 297 139 85 76 100 217 274 139 $769 627 625 685 711 597 751 670 634 670 5.9 1.1 4.2 1.6 2.7 2.9 2.3 3.4 5.1 3.1 17 277 56 254 178 164 213 112 30 140 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 7.0 4.6 13.0 14.0 7.5 12.5 11.7 13.4 20.6 420.6 121.5 82.3 248.2 214.4 119.3 252.4 173.1 215.8 366.8 -0.1 2.1 -0.8 2.6 0.4 -0.2 0.5 1.8 2.2 1.1 245 93 278 68 210 252 202 106 85 164 726 632 584 612 597 628 676 666 760 738 4.9 5.2 1.2 -0.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 4.2 2.4 3.4 35 28 276 305 201 201 201 56 201 112 Frederick, MD .................... Howard, MD ....................... Montgomery, MD ............... Prince Georges, MD .......... Baltimore City, MD ............. Barnstable, MA .................. Bristol, MA ......................... Essex, MA .......................... Hampden, MA .................... Middlesex, MA ................... 5.4 7.9 31.3 14.9 13.9 9.2 15.2 20.6 14.0 47.9 90.2 140.0 455.0 313.5 357.0 101.8 222.5 299.9 202.1 787.8 2.3 0.3 0.0 1.6 -2.1 -0.2 0.7 -1.0 -0.4 -1.1 79 217 239 123 304 252 189 285 260 290 703 830 950 795 841 654 673 779 673 1,041 3.5 3.5 3.6 2.4 4.5 6.0 4.3 2.1 2.6 5.8 103 103 93 201 42 14 51 226 186 18 Norfolk, MA ........................ Plymouth, MA .................... Suffolk, MA ........................ Worcester, MA ................... Genesee, MI ...................... Ingham, MI ......................... Kalamazoo, MI ................... Kent, MI ............................. Macomb, MI ....................... Oakland, MI ....................... 21.8 13.6 22.3 20.3 8.6 7.0 5.5 14.6 18.0 41.5 321.9 175.8 560.5 321.6 155.4 168.1 116.3 336.8 328.4 725.1 -0.7 0.9 -0.5 0.6 -0.3 -0.9 -0.5 1.3 0.6 -1.4 274 176 264 194 256 279 264 151 194 296 883 728 1,163 767 695 699 683 675 808 890 3.2 2.2 11.8 3.9 2.1 0.3 3.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 130 219 1 72 226 298 150 300 254 254 Ottawa, MI ......................... Saginaw, MI ....................... Washtenaw, MI .................. Wayne, MI .......................... Anoka, MN ......................... Dakota, MN ........................ Hennepin, MN .................... Olmsted, MN ...................... Ramsey, MN ...................... St. Louis, MN ..................... 5.8 4.6 8.2 35.1 7.3 9.5 40.0 3.3 14.7 5.7 113.3 90.6 192.9 797.6 114.7 171.5 832.0 88.8 331.3 95.6 1.5 -1.6 0.1 -2.1 1.8 1.3 0.7 1.6 0.4 0.3 127 299 230 304 106 151 189 123 210 217 664 669 835 857 725 732 916 754 848 610 1.4 1.1 1.8 2.5 0.1 2.4 3.0 -3.3 4.2 2.7 270 277 244 192 299 201 150 312 56 178 See footnotes at end of table. Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties, second quarter 20042 — Continued Average weekly wage5 Employment County3 Establishments, second quarter 2004 (thousands) June 2004 (thousands) Percent change, June 2003-044 Ranking by percent change Average weekly wage Percent Ranking by change, percent second quarter change 2003-044 Stearns, MN ....................... Harrison, MS ...................... Hinds, MS .......................... Boone, MO ......................... Clay, MO ............................ Greene, MO ....................... Jackson, MO ...................... St. Charles, MO ................. St. Louis, MO ..................... St. Louis City, MO .............. 4.1 4.5 6.5 4.3 4.9 8.0 18.7 7.3 33.7 8.2 78.0 90.2 130.8 78.1 87.7 144.7 366.0 114.8 621.2 223.6 1.1 0.2 1.0 2.0 0.6 0.3 -0.4 4.6 -1.0 -2.6 164 224 170 98 194 217 260 17 285 308 $597 525 635 587 675 577 745 640 781 805 2.2 0.6 1.1 4.3 0.4 3.4 2.1 3.4 1.6 1.8 219 292 277 51 296 112 226 112 254 244 Douglas, NE ....................... Lancaster, NE .................... Clark, NV ........................... Washoe, NV ....................... Hillsborough, NH ................ Rockingham, NH ................ Atlantic, NJ ......................... Bergen, NJ ......................... Burlington, NJ .................... Camden, NJ ....................... 14.7 7.5 38.3 12.6 12.3 10.7 6.5 34.2 11.1 13.3 311.9 153.4 805.1 205.2 195.8 136.9 150.2 451.8 201.3 211.7 0.1 1.9 7.3 4.9 1.7 2.5 2.2 -0.1 0.6 3.1 230 100 3 12 116 71 85 245 194 55 669 601 684 688 792 721 665 914 784 754 1.7 2.2 4.4 3.3 3.0 3.6 2.6 2.1 3.2 3.6 249 219 44 122 150 93 186 226 130 93 Essex, NJ ........................... Gloucester, NJ ................... Hudson, NJ ........................ Mercer, NJ ......................... Middlesex, NJ .................... Monmouth, NJ ................... Morris, NJ .......................... Ocean, NJ .......................... Passaic, NJ ........................ Somerset, NJ ..................... 21.3 6.1 13.8 10.6 20.6 19.8 17.6 11.4 12.4 9.9 361.8 101.6 233.8 219.0 396.4 260.6 285.3 152.1 178.9 168.7 0.1 4.7 0.0 -1.5 1.2 2.9 1.2 2.3 1.4 (7) 230 15 239 297 157 60 157 79 139 - 930 675 948 896 914 797 1,044 636 799 1,093 3.7 4.2 5.7 1.6 3.9 1.8 1.5 3.9 4.9 -5.2 82 56 20 254 72 244 264 72 35 313 Union, NJ ........................... Bernalillo, NM .................... Albany, NY ......................... Bronx, NY .......................... Broome, NY ....................... Dutchess, NY ..................... Erie, NY ............................. Kings, NY ........................... Monroe, NY ........................ Nassau, NY ........................ 14.9 16.6 9.5 15.3 4.4 7.8 23.3 41.9 17.7 50.5 235.0 317.0 229.3 217.3 96.3 117.2 455.8 446.0 386.6 608.0 (7) 2.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 -0.5 -0.5 0.6 -0.1 0.9 71 202 202 202 264 264 194 245 176 912 649 762 715 588 (7) 653 652 738 825 (7) 2.4 2.6 3.3 -0.2 (7) 4.3 4.2 1.0 3.0 201 186 122 302 51 56 284 150 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 9.2 40.1 8.0 9.3 47.6 35.2 6.9 2,225.0 110.7 249.8 128.5 474.8 89.4 113.4 614.3 415.0 106.3 0.6 0.2 0.7 1.4 -1.0 0.6 0.9 1.2 0.8 1.5 194 224 189 139 285 194 176 157 182 127 1,300 573 691 652 738 671 801 782 978 567 3.9 2.5 3.0 3.3 1.5 4.0 3.4 2.8 5.8 3.5 72 192 150 122 264 70 112 170 18 103 See footnotes at end of table. Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties, second quarter 20042 — Continued Average weekly wage5 Employment County3 Establishments, second quarter 2004 (thousands) June 2004 (thousands) Percent change, June 2003-044 Ranking by percent change Average weekly wage Percent Ranking by change, percent second quarter change 2003-044 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 6.2 8.4 13.7 27.2 6.4 23.3 5.4 6.8 87.2 111.7 166.6 174.5 268.7 505.8 90.1 392.5 89.3 134.7 1.9 2.2 2.3 0.0 1.5 0.5 1.8 3.3 3.1 2.6 100 85 79 239 127 202 106 48 55 68 $572 563 916 679 662 835 590 734 590 674 3.1 2.7 2.3 0.9 2.8 3.2 3.7 2.7 3.9 6.1 140 178 213 286 170 130 82 178 72 13 Cuyahoga, OH ................... Franklin, OH ....................... Hamilton, OH ..................... Lake, OH ............................ Lorain, OH ......................... Lucas, OH .......................... Mahoning, OH .................... Montgomery, OH ............... Stark, OH ........................... Summit, OH ....................... 38.2 28.9 24.4 6.7 6.1 10.8 6.4 13.1 9.1 14.7 764.5 686.4 547.7 101.0 103.3 228.0 106.9 285.9 167.6 267.8 -0.3 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.1 -0.1 0.6 -1.2 -0.6 2.2 256 217 239 127 230 245 194 292 273 85 757 733 782 604 636 668 547 697 584 684 3.4 2.5 3.7 -1.6 2.4 1.4 2.4 2.3 1.9 3.0 112 192 82 309 201 270 201 213 240 150 Trumbull, OH ..................... Oklahoma, OK ................... Tulsa, OK ........................... Clackamas, OR .................. Jackson, OR ...................... Lane, OR ........................... Marion, OR ........................ Multnomah, OR .................. Washington, OR ................ Allegheny, PA .................... 4.8 21.6 18.2 11.5 6.3 10.5 8.5 25.7 14.6 37.4 85.0 403.0 319.6 141.9 80.3 141.8 136.4 424.5 227.7 700.5 -3.4 1.5 0.1 4.2 4.0 2.9 3.9 2.1 2.5 -0.1 309 127 230 23 36 60 38 93 71 245 671 635 649 686 569 595 587 752 844 759 5.2 2.6 1.6 1.8 3.5 2.4 1.7 2.6 6.6 3.0 28 186 254 244 103 201 249 186 11 150 Berks, PA ........................... Bucks, PA .......................... Chester, PA ....................... Cumberland, PA ................ Dauphin, PA ....................... Delaware, PA ..................... Erie, PA .............................. Lackawanna, PA ................ Lancaster, PA .................... Lehigh, PA ......................... 8.9 20.1 14.4 5.7 6.9 13.8 7.3 5.7 11.7 8.3 163.5 261.3 225.6 127.7 176.9 209.8 128.4 99.1 228.2 176.7 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.6 0.8 -0.9 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.0 106 100 127 123 182 279 151 139 127 170 671 724 932 707 726 761 585 566 636 723 1.1 3.6 4.4 3.4 4.8 1.3 3.2 2.5 2.1 3.0 277 93 44 112 40 274 130 192 226 150 Luzerne, PA ....................... Montgomery, PA ................ Northampton, PA ............... Philadelphia, PA ................ Westmoreland, PA ............. York, PA ............................. Kent, RI .............................. Providence, RI ................... Charleston, SC .................. Greenville, SC .................... 8.0 27.8 6.1 28.4 9.6 8.4 5.6 17.8 11.7 12.1 143.3 485.0 92.2 627.2 137.8 168.1 82.6 288.9 194.9 223.8 0.4 0.3 1.4 -1.7 3.0 2.3 2.5 -0.3 3.6 0.2 210 217 139 302 57 79 71 256 41 224 591 887 651 838 595 645 669 713 597 642 2.8 3.6 2.7 3.1 3.1 2.9 -1.0 4.9 0.7 2.1 170 93 178 140 140 164 308 35 291 226 See footnotes at end of table. Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties, second quarter 20042 — Continued Average weekly wage5 Employment County3 Establishments, second quarter 2004 (thousands) June 2004 (thousands) Percent change, June 2003-044 Ranking by percent change Average weekly wage Percent Ranking by change, percent second quarter change 2003-044 Horry, SC ........................... Lexington, SC .................... Richland, SC ...................... Spartanburg, SC ................ Minnehaha, SD .................. Davidson, TN ..................... Hamilton, TN ...................... Knox, TN ............................ Rutherford, TN ................... Shelby, TN ......................... 7.9 5.4 9.3 6.2 6.0 17.8 8.3 10.3 3.6 19.8 113.1 86.8 206.4 115.6 110.8 424.3 184.2 216.0 89.7 497.3 4.4 1.8 2.0 0.9 1.6 -0.2 0.4 1.8 8.5 0.1 21 106 98 176 123 252 210 106 1 230 $476 573 629 686 606 722 642 627 680 735 1.9 5.5 2.4 8.7 3.4 4.0 0.6 2.8 0.4 3.5 240 23 201 4 112 70 292 170 296 103 Bell, TX .............................. Bexar, TX ........................... Brazoria, TX ....................... Brazos, TX ......................... Cameron, TX ..................... Collin, TX ........................... Dallas, TX .......................... Denton, TX ......................... El Paso, TX ........................ Fort Bend, TX .................... 4.2 29.7 4.1 3.5 6.1 12.6 67.8 8.4 12.4 6.4 91.2 661.8 76.3 75.8 116.5 207.8 1,431.1 131.8 251.7 102.0 3.6 0.7 0.8 3.0 1.2 6.8 0.1 2.8 1.5 4.0 41 189 182 57 157 5 230 66 127 36 553 636 684 519 452 803 886 616 524 710 1.3 5.5 3.0 1.6 2.3 1.9 3.9 1.5 2.7 1.4 274 23 150 254 213 240 72 264 178 270 Galveston, TX .................... Harris, TX ........................... Hidalgo, TX ........................ Jefferson, TX ..................... Lubbock, TX ....................... McLennan, TX ................... Montgomery, TX ................ Nueces, TX ........................ Potter, TX ........................... Smith, TX ........................... 4.8 89.6 9.3 5.8 6.5 4.7 6.3 8.0 3.9 4.9 88.3 1,839.4 188.2 117.0 117.5 99.5 91.3 144.7 77.4 86.9 -1.8 0.5 4.1 0.2 2.2 1.7 4.1 1.3 1.9 2.7 303 202 29 224 85 116 29 151 100 67 639 847 457 653 535 569 640 590 556 624 3.7 3.2 2.9 2.5 0.9 1.6 2.1 3.1 1.6 4.9 82 130 164 192 286 254 226 140 254 35 Tarrant, TX ......................... Travis, TX .......................... Webb, TX ........................... Williamson, TX ................... Davis, UT ........................... Salt Lake, UT ..................... Utah, UT ............................ Weber, UT ......................... Chittenden, VT ................... Arlington, VA ...................... 33.8 25.0 4.3 5.0 6.2 34.0 10.9 5.3 5.7 6.9 700.2 516.7 78.6 85.8 95.7 521.2 151.5 87.5 96.5 157.0 1.0 2.1 3.2 2.3 4.8 1.7 5.7 1.7 1.3 (7) 170 93 52 79 14 116 8 116 151 - 742 801 486 718 590 671 550 551 722 1,170 2.1 1.1 2.3 -2.7 2.8 3.7 0.0 2.2 2.8 7.1 226 277 213 311 170 82 300 219 170 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 ............. 6.7 29.8 8.3 6.3 5.9 5.7 4.8 3.7 5.6 6.9 114.7 550.0 167.8 114.2 98.2 93.0 93.5 99.0 145.4 159.4 3.2 4.5 1.2 4.1 6.9 -0.1 5.0 2.9 1.1 0.7 52 18 157 29 4 245 11 60 164 189 650 1,085 745 926 649 930 576 663 699 829 1.7 3.7 1.8 -0.8 3.0 3.3 2.5 3.3 1.0 5.7 249 82 244 306 150 122 192 122 284 20 See footnotes at end of table. Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties, second quarter 20042 — Continued Average weekly wage5 Employment County3 Establishments, second quarter 2004 (thousands) June 2004 (thousands) Percent change, June 2003-044 Ranking by percent change Average weekly wage Percent Ranking by change, percent second quarter change 2003-044 Virginia Beach City, VA ...... Clark, WA ........................... King, WA ............................ Kitsap, WA ......................... Pierce, WA ......................... Snohomish, WA ................. Spokane, WA ..................... Thurston, WA ..................... Yakima, WA ....................... Kanawha, WV .................... 10.6 10.2 76.0 6.1 19.3 15.9 14.4 6.2 8.1 6.2 175.0 121.5 1,099.4 80.8 251.8 212.4 195.2 92.7 107.3 109.1 3.5 4.5 1.0 4.1 2.9 1.8 1.1 2.6 4.2 -0.4 44 18 170 29 60 106 164 68 23 260 $562 668 932 667 706 731 591 660 491 645 3.7 1.5 -2.0 4.9 9.8 0.8 3.1 1.5 2.1 3.0 82 264 310 35 2 289 140 264 226 150 Brown, WI .......................... Dane, WI ............................ Milwaukee, WI ................... Outagamie, WI ................... Racine, WI ......................... Waukesha, WI ................... Winnebago, WI .................. 6.8 13.7 22.2 4.9 4.3 13.5 4.0 148.0 289.6 496.4 102.0 76.4 228.8 87.0 1.4 1.7 -1.6 2.3 -0.9 1.1 -1.6 139 116 299 79 279 164 299 660 722 726 637 674 737 687 2.0 2.1 3.9 3.1 -0.3 1.9 2.5 237 226 72 140 303 240 192 San Juan, PR ..................... 13.2 321.5 1.3 151 469 2.2 219 1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. These 317 U.S. counties comprise 70.3 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S. 2 Data are preliminary. 3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note. 4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical Note. 5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data. 6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards. Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties, second quarter 20042 Average weekly wage4 Employment County by NAICS supersector Establishments, second quarter 2004 (thousands) June 2004 (thousands) Percent change, June 2003-043 Average weekly wage Percent change, second 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 ................................................... 8,363.3 8,092.2 122.5 817.2 371.7 1,854.3 143.5 780.2 1,333.2 742.5 676.8 1,064.0 271.1 130,638.4 109,709.6 1,811.3 7,095.7 14,346.2 25,293.5 3,107.5 7,917.8 16,431.9 16,043.8 12,966.3 4,347.9 20,928.8 1.2 1.4 0.5 3.4 -1.3 1.1 -2.4 0.4 3.3 2.1 2.4 0.0 0.0 $724 713 650 748 883 634 1,105 1,039 859 676 308 472 781 3.1 3.2 5.3 2.2 3.6 2.8 3.3 4.4 3.5 3.4 3.0 3.1 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 ................................................... 354.4 350.6 0.6 13.0 17.3 53.7 8.9 22.9 39.8 26.9 25.5 141.6 3.8 4,063.4 3,474.6 12.0 140.2 484.3 771.3 210.5 236.1 567.1 451.1 375.5 224.7 588.8 0.8 1.3 1.8 5.4 -3.4 1.5 3.8 0.7 2.0 0.9 2.8 2.6 -1.8 815 797 863 804 834 694 1,365 1,227 917 735 486 399 923 3.4 3.9 0.9 3.6 6.4 2.8 7.6 7.1 0.7 2.9 5.2 0.8 1.9 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 ................................................... 126.6 125.3 0.1 10.6 7.6 26.5 2.5 14.0 25.9 12.4 10.6 12.7 1.2 2,522.9 2,200.3 1.4 98.4 258.1 479.2 63.1 217.6 406.9 347.5 227.5 95.5 322.7 -0.3 0.1 -5.0 -1.7 -2.7 0.9 -4.3 -0.5 1.5 1.1 1.2 -2.4 (6) 860 849 901 1,045 891 712 1,160 1,340 1,042 735 373 634 934 3.0 2.5 3.7 2.6 4.6 2.4 5.5 4.3 -0.4 3.8 4.5 4.8 (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 ................................................... 112.3 112.1 0.0 2.1 3.3 21.6 4.2 16.6 22.3 8.0 10.1 16.1 0.2 2,225.0 1,773.6 0.1 28.9 46.1 232.9 124.9 350.8 434.8 270.3 190.5 82.1 451.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 -3.7 -1.7 1.2 -5.7 -0.1 2.0 1.0 3.9 -0.2 0.0 1,300 1,392 1,204 1,296 1,018 1,003 1,689 2,404 1,526 870 655 786 938 3.9 3.6 2.5 2.9 4.6 3.9 7.0 5.0 0.9 5.5 5.8 5.1 5.5 See footnotes at end of table. Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties, second quarter 20042 — Continued Average weekly wage4 Employment County by NAICS supersector Establishments, second quarter 2004 (thousands) June 2004 (thousands) Percent change, June 2003-043 Average weekly wage Percent change, second 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 ................................................... 89.6 89.2 1.2 6.3 4.6 21.0 1.4 9.7 17.2 9.0 6.6 10.4 0.4 1,839.4 1,597.4 63.3 131.8 164.3 389.4 34.1 114.2 286.9 187.2 163.8 57.7 242.0 0.5 0.4 2.3 -7.6 -1.3 0.6 -1.9 2.1 2.2 0.9 1.6 -0.1 1.6 $847 859 2,052 833 1,071 786 1,044 1,047 946 743 319 505 765 3.2 3.2 9.9 6.0 1.8 0.6 1.6 2.9 4.1 3.5 1.3 0.8 2.8 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 ................................................... 80.3 79.8 0.5 8.4 3.2 18.5 1.6 9.6 17.9 7.7 5.6 5.7 0.5 1,599.1 1,410.7 11.0 138.3 128.4 327.7 35.5 135.1 267.0 164.5 155.8 45.1 188.4 3.0 3.7 1.4 8.4 0.2 3.9 -5.6 1.4 5.2 5.9 2.3 3.3 -1.9 733 716 472 725 991 710 863 901 713 762 346 493 843 3.5 3.6 1.7 2.7 3.9 4.1 2.1 2.7 4.2 4.7 3.6 2.3 3.3 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 ................................................... 67.8 67.4 0.5 4.4 3.4 15.6 1.8 8.7 13.8 6.1 5.0 6.7 0.5 1,431.1 1,276.2 6.5 75.0 145.9 307.9 60.4 139.3 240.0 130.0 126.6 41.3 154.9 0.1 0.2 6.7 -1.2 0.0 -0.5 -6.2 0.7 1.9 1.4 0.5 -3.4 -1.2 886 896 2,278 818 1,013 864 1,246 1,128 1,010 794 403 544 802 3.9 3.9 -7.3 2.0 2.2 4.2 7.4 3.8 5.3 3.1 5.2 0.9 2.8 Orange, CA ........................................................ Private industry .............................................. Natural resources and mining .................... Construction ............................................... Manufacturing ............................................ Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. Information ................................................. Financial activities ...................................... Professional and business services ........... Education and health services ................... Leisure and hospitality ............................... Other services ............................................ Government ................................................... 89.2 87.8 0.2 6.6 6.0 17.3 1.5 9.9 17.5 9.2 6.7 12.9 1.4 1,479.1 1,327.9 8.1 93.8 184.2 266.0 33.8 134.8 261.9 129.3 167.9 47.6 151.2 3.9 4.3 -1.7 8.3 -0.8 2.0 -0.4 7.2 8.5 4.3 4.4 4.0 0.5 826 817 512 865 973 781 1,146 1,296 832 746 360 500 904 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.7 6.5 2.8 5.0 4.9 -1.1 2.8 2.3 2.5 1.6 See footnotes at end of table. Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties, second quarter 20042 — Continued Average weekly wage4 Employment County by NAICS supersector Establishments, second quarter 2004 (thousands) June 2004 (thousands) Percent change, June 2003-043 Average weekly wage Percent change, second 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 ................................................... 85.1 83.7 0.9 6.6 3.6 14.1 1.4 8.9 14.8 7.6 6.6 19.1 1.4 1,281.5 1,062.2 11.9 87.0 105.5 212.9 36.5 80.4 207.3 120.2 147.8 52.2 219.3 1.8 2.5 -1.9 9.0 -1.0 4.2 -2.2 0.9 3.7 0.8 2.4 -0.6 -1.7 $786 767 512 800 1,050 657 1,527 1,029 918 711 343 436 876 3.7 3.9 8.2 1.9 5.2 4.0 14.6 2.0 3.0 4.7 3.0 2.8 3.3 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 ................................................... 76.0 75.5 0.4 6.1 2.6 14.7 1.5 6.1 11.9 6.0 5.5 20.7 0.5 1,099.4 945.5 3.4 55.9 102.0 217.5 67.6 75.6 159.9 111.1 105.6 46.8 153.9 1.0 1.2 5.0 1.7 -2.4 1.3 -0.1 -1.1 4.2 3.4 3.4 -6.0 -0.1 932 940 1,038 875 1,140 798 2,212 1,072 1,062 728 398 469 882 -2.0 -2.8 -8.9 1.0 4.3 4.9 -20.9 -1.1 -1.7 4.4 4.7 8.1 3.0 Miami-Dade, FL .................................................. Private industry .............................................. Natural resources and mining .................... Construction ............................................... Manufacturing ............................................ Trade, transportation, and utilities .............. Information ................................................. Financial activities ...................................... Professional and business services ........... Education and health services ................... Leisure and hospitality ............................... Other services ............................................ Government ................................................... 82.0 81.7 0.5 5.1 2.8 23.5 1.7 8.6 16.1 8.0 5.4 7.6 0.3 981.6 828.0 8.9 40.8 50.6 237.6 26.3 66.6 135.5 125.2 96.2 35.3 153.6 1.8 2.0 4.0 2.7 -1.8 -0.7 -3.6 2.1 5.9 1.9 5.1 -0.4 1.0 718 686 412 756 690 651 1,039 972 795 701 401 439 890 4.2 4.1 7.9 7.2 11.5 3.3 9.7 4.2 1.0 3.2 6.1 3.8 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, second quarter 20042 Average weekly wage5 Employment County3 Establishments, second quarter 2004 (thousands) June 2004 (thousands) Percent change, June 2003-044 Average weekly wage Percent change, second quarter 2003-044 United States6 .................... 8,363.3 130,638.4 1.2 $724 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 ................. 18.5 7.7 80.3 13.3 354.4 24.3 24.2 19.0 29.5 82.0 370.2 140.9 1,599.1 241.8 4,063.4 426.1 485.5 282.6 665.7 981.6 0.4 -2.2 3.0 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.2 1.0 1.7 1.8 720 788 733 664 815 887 897 860 1,189 718 2.7 3.7 3.5 4.4 3.4 4.6 3.9 3.1 3.6 4.2 Fulton, GA .......................... Honolulu, HI ....................... Ada, ID ............................... Cook, IL ............................. Marion, IN .......................... Polk, IA .............................. Johnson, KS ...................... Jefferson, KY ..................... Orleans, LA ........................ Cumberland, ME ................ 37.8 24.0 13.1 126.6 23.6 14.2 18.7 21.4 12.5 11.7 725.9 427.4 189.4 2,522.9 580.5 263.9 298.7 420.6 252.4 173.1 1.4 2.1 3.3 -0.3 0.8 2.2 1.9 -0.1 0.5 1.8 940 675 669 860 769 711 751 726 676 666 2.2 2.7 3.2 3.0 5.9 2.7 2.3 4.9 2.4 4.2 Montgomery, MD ............... Middlesex, MA ................... Wayne, MI .......................... Hennepin, MN .................... Hinds, MS .......................... St. Louis, MO ..................... Yellowstone, MT ................ Douglas, NE ....................... Clark, NV ........................... Hillsborough, NH ................ 31.3 47.9 35.1 40.0 6.5 33.7 5.7 14.7 38.3 12.3 455.0 787.8 797.6 832.0 130.8 621.2 71.7 311.9 805.1 195.8 0.0 -1.1 -2.1 0.7 1.0 -1.0 2.8 0.1 7.3 1.7 950 1,041 857 916 635 781 579 669 684 792 3.6 5.8 2.5 3.0 1.1 1.6 1.2 1.7 4.4 3.0 Bergen, NJ ......................... Bernalillo, NM .................... New York, NY .................... Mecklenburg, NC ............... Cass, ND ........................... Cuyahoga, OH ................... Oklahoma, OK ................... Multnomah, OR .................. Allegheny, PA .................... Providence, RI ................... 34.2 16.6 112.3 27.2 5.4 38.2 21.6 25.7 37.4 17.8 451.8 317.0 2,225.0 505.8 89.3 764.5 403.0 424.5 700.5 288.9 -0.1 2.5 0.6 0.5 3.1 -0.3 1.5 2.1 -0.1 -0.3 914 649 1,300 835 590 757 635 752 759 713 2.1 2.4 3.9 3.2 3.9 3.4 2.6 2.6 3.0 4.9 Greenville, SC .................... Minnehaha, SD .................. Shelby, TN ......................... Harris, TX ........................... Salt Lake, UT ..................... Chittenden, VT ................... Fairfax, VA ......................... King, WA ............................ Kanawha, WV .................... Milwaukee, WI ................... 12.1 6.0 19.8 89.6 34.0 5.7 29.8 76.0 6.2 22.2 223.8 110.8 497.3 1,839.4 521.2 96.5 550.0 1,099.4 109.1 496.4 0.2 1.6 0.1 0.5 1.7 1.3 4.5 1.0 -0.4 -1.6 642 606 735 847 671 722 1,085 932 645 726 2.1 3.4 3.5 3.2 3.7 2.8 3.7 -2.0 3.0 3.9 See footnotes at end of table. Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by state, second quarter 20042 — Continued Average weekly wage5 Employment County3 Establishments, second quarter 2004 (thousands) June 2004 (thousands) Percent change, June 2003-044 Average weekly wage Percent change, second quarter 2003-044 Laramie, WY ...................... 2.9 40.6 1.7 $572 3.2 San Juan, PR ..................... St. Thomas, VI ................... 13.2 1.7 321.5 23.0 1.3 -0.4 469 584 2.2 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. Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, second quarter 20042 Average weekly wage3 Employment State Establishments, second quarter 2004 (thousands) June 2004 (thousands) Percent change, June 2003-04 Average weekly wage Percent change, second quarter 2003-04 United States4 .................... 8,363.3 130,638.4 1.2 $724 3.1 Alabama ............................. Alaska ................................ Arizona ............................... Arkansas ............................ California ............................ Colorado ............................ Connecticut ........................ Delaware ............................ District of Columbia ............ Florida ................................ 113.7 20.1 126.4 75.8 1,181.3 162.6 109.2 28.7 29.5 523.4 1,858.5 306.4 2,302.9 1,138.6 15,145.4 2,171.6 1,658.1 417.8 665.7 7,387.6 1.6 0.2 3.3 1.6 0.8 1.3 0.4 2.1 1.7 3.1 619 736 694 568 818 744 906 774 1,189 656 2.7 1.8 3.3 3.8 3.5 2.8 3.5 3.3 3.6 4.0 Georgia .............................. Hawaii ................................ Idaho .................................. Illinois ................................. Indiana ............................... Iowa ................................... Kansas ............................... Kentucky ............................ Louisiana ........................... Maine ................................. 251.9 36.7 48.9 327.3 152.5 91.6 81.9 105.9 115.9 48.9 3,858.8 585.4 606.8 5,777.5 2,874.2 1,449.9 1,312.3 1,744.9 1,884.8 613.6 1.9 2.6 2.9 0.1 1.2 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.3 700 652 555 771 646 591 608 628 592 587 2.5 2.8 3.2 2.8 3.7 3.3 2.9 3.3 2.1 3.2 Maryland ............................ Massachusetts ................... Michigan ............................ Minnesota .......................... Mississippi ......................... Missouri ............................. Montana ............................. Nebraska ........................... Nevada .............................. New Hampshire ................. 153.7 209.6 253.9 156.1 66.2 167.4 42.5 55.1 62.7 47.2 2,491.6 3,192.4 4,365.4 2,660.1 1,109.3 2,668.8 418.5 895.9 1,146.9 624.7 0.8 -0.4 -0.6 1.1 1.2 0.6 3.4 0.9 6.5 1.5 787 899 743 743 534 651 528 579 685 717 3.6 5.9 1.6 2.8 2.5 1.9 1.3 2.5 4.1 3.5 New Jersey ........................ New Mexico ....................... New York ........................... North Carolina .................... North Dakota ...................... Ohio ................................... Oklahoma .......................... Oregon ............................... Pennsylvania ..................... Rhode Island ...................... 265.7 50.4 554.9 229.5 24.2 286.9 92.4 121.2 333.2 34.9 3,960.4 770.6 8,383.0 3,791.3 326.5 5,359.0 1,423.2 1,635.8 5,576.5 486.7 0.8 2.3 0.5 1.6 2.3 0.3 1.0 3.1 0.6 0.8 872 596 879 638 539 672 578 670 710 694 2.5 2.9 3.4 2.7 4.5 2.8 2.3 2.9 3.0 3.3 South Carolina ................... South Dakota ..................... Tennessee ......................... Texas ................................. Utah ................................... Vermont ............................. Virginia ............................... Washington ........................ West Virginia ...................... Wisconsin .......................... 111.8 28.4 129.6 508.6 75.3 24.2 205.5 209.5 47.7 159.8 1,811.8 381.7 2,649.5 9,344.0 1,081.2 302.0 3,545.1 2,759.8 693.7 2,762.9 1.4 1.9 1.6 1.2 3.3 1.2 2.7 2.2 1.1 0.6 595 525 647 706 603 634 745 750 589 644 3.1 3.6 2.9 2.8 2.6 4.3 3.6 0.4 2.8 2.7 See footnotes at end of table. Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state, second quarter 20042 — Continued Average weekly wage3 Employment State Establishments, second quarter 2004 (thousands) June 2004 (thousands) Percent change, June 2003-04 Average weekly wage Percent change, second quarter 2003-04 Wyoming ............................ 22.6 259.2 2.6 $586 4.1 Puerto Rico ........................ Virgin Islands ..................... 51.7 3.2 1,041.1 42.7 1.8 2.2 407 616 2.3 2.7 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 January 2005 or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I. -3.4% to 1.2% 1.3% to 8.5% but are included because they are the largest county in their state Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees June 2003 04 (U.S. Average = 1.2%) Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 employees or more, Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics January 2005 or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I. -5.2% to 3.1% 3.2% to 11.8% but are included because they are the largest county in their state Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees or more, second quarter 2003 04 (U.S. Average = 3.1%) Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000 employees
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz