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