Technical information:
(202) 691-6567
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
Media contact:
691-5902
USDL 05-623
For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT
Thursday, April 14, 2005
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: THIRD QUARTER 2004
In September 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 9.2 percent, compared with national job growth of 1.3 percent. St. Joseph County,
Ind., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the third quarter of 2004, with an increase of 10.4 percent. The U.S. average weekly wage increased by 4.0 percent over the same time span.
Of the 317 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2003 employment, 139 had over-theyear percentage growth in employment above the national average in September 2004, and 162 experienced
changes below the national average. (See chart 1.) Average weekly wages grew faster than the national
average in 137 of the largest U.S. counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was below
the national average in 165 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 130.2 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.) September 2004 employment and 2004 third-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 second quarter of 2004 are available on the BLS Web site at
http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for the third quarter of 2004 and revised data for the first and
second quarters of 2004 will be available in April on the BLS Web site.
Large County Employment
In September 2004, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 130.2 million, up
1.3 percent from September 2003. The 317 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for
70.2 percent of total U.S. covered employment and 76.1 percent of total covered wages. These 317
counties had a net job gain of 1,073,000 over the year, accounting for 63.8 percent of the U.S. employment
increase. Employment increased in 242 of the large counties from September 2003 to September 2004.
Rutherford County, Tenn., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (9.2 percent).
Clark County, Nev., had the next largest increase, 7.4 percent, followed by the counties of Riverside, Calif.
(7.2 percent), Elkhart, Ind. (6.8 percent), and Montgomery, Texas (6.6 percent). (See table 1.)
2
Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by September 2004 employment, September 2003-04 employment
change, and September 2003-04 percent change in employment
Employment in large counties
Net change in employment,
September 2003-04
(thousands)
September 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.
130,248.9
4,019.6
2,511.7
2,201.7
1,838.1
1,633.3
1,468.4
1,438.0
1,268.0
1,104.3
979.5
U.S.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Clark, Nev.
Orange, Calif.
Riverside, Calif.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Fairfax, Va.
Miami-Dade, Fla.
Orange, Fla.
San Bernardino, Calif.
Hillsborough, Fla.
Percent change in employment,
September 2003-04
1,681.6
58.6
56.5
44.1
38.2
29.4
24.9
20.0
19.8
19.3
18.8
U.S.
1.3
Rutherford, Tenn.
Clark, Nev.
Riverside, Calif.
Elkhart, Ind.
Montgomery, Texas
Lee, Fla.
Prince William, Va.
Utah, Utah
Loudoun, Va.
Sarasota, Fla.
9.2
7.4
7.2
6.8
6.6
6.1
5.8
5.3
5.3
5.1
Employment declined in 54 counties from September 2003 to September 2004. The largest percentage
decline in employment was in Trumbull County, Ohio (-3.7 percent), followed by the counties of Tulare,
Calif. (-2.7 percent), Ingham, Mich. (-2.6 percent), Richmond, Ga. (-2.2 percent), and Okaloosa, Fla.
(-2.0 percent).
The largest gains in employment from September 2003 to September 2004 were recorded in the counties
of Maricopa, Ariz. (58,600), Clark, Nev. (56,500), Orange, Calif. (44,100), Riverside, Calif. (38,200) and
Los Angeles, Calif. (29,400). (See table A.)
The largest absolute declines in employment occurred in Wayne County, Mich. (-9,700), followed by the
counties of Philadelphia, Pa. (-8,500), Cook, Ill. (-7,100), Baltimore City, Md. (-6,800), and Milwaukee,
Wis. (-6,500).
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the third quarter of 2004 was $733. Average weekly wages were
higher than the national average in 118 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 $1,327. Santa Clara
County, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,308, followed by Washington, D.C.
($1,207), Arlington, Va. ($1,196), and Suffolk, Mass. ($1,178). (See table B.)
There were 198 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the third quarter of
2004. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($468), followed by the
counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($475), Horry, S.C. ($487), Webb, Texas ($496), and Yakima, Wash. ($500).
(See table 1.)
Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 4.0 percent. Among the largest counties, St.
Joseph, Ind., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 10.4 percent from the
3
Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by third quarter 2004 average weekly wages, third quarter
2003-04 change in average weekly wages, and third quarter 2003-04 percent change in average
weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
third 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.
$733
$1,327
1,308
1,207
1,196
1,178
1,132
1,132
1,107
1,093
1,068
Percent change in average
weekly wage, third
quarter 2003-04
Change in average weekly
wage, third quarter 2003-04
U.S.
$28
U.S.
Suffolk, Mass.
New York, N.Y.
Arlington, Va.
Washington, D.C.
Loudoun, Va.
Fairfield, Conn.
St. Joseph, Ind.
Hartford, Conn.
Montgomery, Md.
Rockingham, N.H.
$98
87
86
85
75
66
64
56
56
55
St. Joseph, Ind.
Suffolk, Mass.
Loudoun, Va.
Rockingham, N.H.
Arlington, Va.
Washington, D.C.
Catawba, N.C.
Forsyth, N.C.
Lexington, S.C.
Henrico, Va.
4.0
10.4
9.1
8.4
8.1
7.7
7.6
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
third quarter of 2003. Suffolk, Mass., was second with 9.1 percent growth, followed by the counties of
Loudoun, Va. (8.4 percent), Rockingham, N.H. (8.1 percent), and Arlington, Va. (7.7 percent).
Seven counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Kalamazoo County,
Mich., had the largest decrease, -7.7 percent, followed by the counties of Arapahoe, Colo. (-7.3 percent),
Somerset, N.J. (-6.9 percent), King, Wash. (-2.4 percent), and Santa Cruz, Calif. (-1.3 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 September 2003 to September 2004. Maricopa County, Ariz., experienced
the fastest growth in employment among the largest counties, with a 3.7 percent increase. Within Maricopa
County, employment rose in every industry group except information. The largest gains were in construction
(9.4 percent) and professional and business services (6.2 percent). (See table 2.) Orange County, Calif.,
had the next largest increase in employment, 3.1 percent, followed by Miami-Dade, Fla. (2.1 percent). The
only decrease in employment for the 10 largest counties was in Cook County, Ill., with a 0.3 percent decline.
The next lowest change in employment was recorded in Los Angeles County, Calif. (+0.7 percent), followed
by the counties of New York, N.Y., Dallas, Texas, and Harris, Texas (+0.8 percent each).
Eight of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. New York
County, N.Y., had the fastest growth in wages among the top 10 counties, 7.0 percent. Within New York
County, wages increased the most in natural resources and mining (15.2 percent) and financial activities (14.2
percent). San Diego County, Calif., was second in wage growth, increasing by 5.4 percent, followed by Los
Angeles County, Calif., with a gain of 4.9 percent. The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest counties
occurred in Dallas County, Texas (3.0 percent) and Orange County, Calif. (3.3 percent). King County,
Wash., experienced the only decline in average weekly wages among the largest 10 counties (-2.4 percent).
The information sector in King County posted the largest drop in wages, with a decline of 28.3 percent over
4
the year. A change in wage coverage for business establishments in Washington State contributed significantly to these wage declines. See the Coverage section of the Technical Note for more information.
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows September 2004 employment and the 2004 third-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 September 2004
ranged from approximately 4 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 39,800 in Laramie County, Wyo. The
highest average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,327), while the lowest average
weekly wage was in Yellowstone County, Mont. ($572).
Introduction of the Location Quotient Calculator
In March 2005, the Bureau of Labor Statistics introduced a new tool on its Web site for
analyzing data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages program. The Location
Quotient Calculator helps data users compare industry employment levels in a defined area to that
of a larger area or base. For example, location quotients can be used to compare state
employment by industry to that of the nation; or employment in a city, county, metropolitan
statistical area, or other defined geographic subarea to that in the state. A link to the Location
Quotient Calculator and other relevant information can be found at http://www.bls.gov/cew/
cewlq.htm.
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
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
• Sample survey: 400,000 establish• Count of longitudinally-linked UI
administrative records submitted by
ments
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/
measures—QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED),
and Current Employment Statistics (CES)—makes use of the
quarterly UI employment reports in producing data; however,
each measure has a somewhat different universe coverage,
estimation procedure, and publication product.
Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result
in somewhat different measures of over-the-quarter
employment change. It is important to understand program
differences and the intended uses of the program products.
(See table 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 highpaying and low-paying occupations and the incidence of pay
periods within a quarter. When comparing average weekly wage
levels between industries and/or states, these factors should be
taken into consideration.
Federal government pay levels are subject to periodic,
sometimes large, fluctuations due to a calendar effect that
consists of some quarters having more pay periods than others.
Most federal employees are paid on a biweekly pay schedule. As
a result of this schedule, in some quarters, federal wages contain
payments for six pay periods, while in other quarters their wages
include payments for seven pay periods. Over-the-year
comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect this calendar
effect. Higher growth in average weekly wages may be attributed,
in part, to a comparison of quarterly wages for the current year,
which include seven pay periods, with year-ago wages that
reflect only six pay periods. An opposite effect will occur when
wages in the current period, which contain six pay periods, are
compared with year-ago wages that include seven pay periods.
The effect on over-the-year pay comparisons can be pronounced
in federal government due to the uniform nature of federal payroll
processing. This pattern may exist in private sector pay, however,
because there are more pay period types (weekly, biweekly,
semimonthly, monthly) it is less pronounced. The effect is most
visible in counties with large concentrations of federal employment.
In order to ensure 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.
QCEW data are not designed as a time series. QCEW data are
simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect
the number of establishments that exist in a county or industry
at a point in time. Establishments can move in or out of a county
or industry for a number of reasons—some reflecting economic
events, others reflecting administrative changes. For example,
economic change would come from a firm relocating into the
county; administrative change would come from a company
correcting its county designation.
The over-the-year changes of employment and wages
presented in this release have been adjusted to account for most
of the administrative corrections made to the underlying
establishment reports. This is done by modifying the prior-year
levels used to calculate the over-the-year changes. Percent
changes are calculated using an adjusted version of the final
2003 quarterly data as the base data. The adjusted prior-year
levels used to calculate the over-the-year percent change in
employment and wages are not published. These adjusted prioryear levels do not match the unadjusted data maintained on the
BLS Web site. Over-the-year change calculations based on data
from the Web site, or from data published in prior BLS news
releases, may differ substantially from the over-the-year changes
presented in this news release.
The adjusted data used to calculate the over-the-year change
measures presented in this release account for most of the
administrative changes—those occurring when employers
update the industry, location, and ownership information of their
establishments. The most common adjustments for administrative
change are the result of updated information about the county
location of individual establishments.
The adjusted data do not account for administrative changes
caused by (1) multi-unit employers who start reporting for each
individual establishment rather than as a single entity and (2) the
classification of establishments previously reported in the
unknown county or unknown industry categories.
The adjusted data used to calculate the over-the-year change
measures presented in any County Employment and Wages
news release are valid for comparisons between the starting and
ending points (a 12-month period) used in that particular release.
Comparisons may not be valid for any time period other than the
one featured in a release even if the changes were calculated
using adjusted data.
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, 2003 is
available for sale from the BLS Publications Sales Center, P.O.
Box 2145, Chicago, Illinois 60690, telephone 312-353-1880. The
2003 bulletin will be available in April 2005 in a portable
document format (PDF) on the BLS Web site at
http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn03.htm.
News releases on quarterly measures of gross job flows also
are available upon request from the Division of Administrative
Statistics and Labor Turnover (Business Employment Dynamics), telephone 202-691-6467; (http://www.bls.gov/bdm/);
(e-mail: BDMInfo @bls.gov).
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,
third quarter 20042
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2004
(thousands)
September
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
United States6 ....................
8,421.8
130,248.9
1.3
-
$733
4.0
-
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
18.5
7.9
9.6
6.6
4.2
7.7
79.9
17.5
4.5
13.3
368.3
165.3
161.3
131.3
78.8
145.0
1,633.3
339.6
86.1
242.6
0.0
2.6
-0.3
1.4
3.0
0.8
3.7
2.9
4.4
0.9
244
66
261
134
51
175
32
56
16
166
739
773
601
619
614
809
731
640
679
669
3.6
2.7
2.6
2.1
2.7
4.0
4.7
4.1
4.5
4.7
172
238
247
276
238
138
77
133
102
77
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.1
47.7
27.4
28.6
15.8
360.1
11.8
11.9
89.7
9.4
87.0
674.8
339.2
348.8
257.7
4,019.6
110.3
180.2
1,468.4
130.9
2.3
-0.5
0.7
-0.4
0.4
0.7
0.8
1.1
3.1
3.7
81
270
189
266
217
189
175
154
47
32
599
971
923
591
632
833
914
643
840
738
6.6
3.6
5.2
3.5
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.7
3.3
3.2
15
172
53
187
60
68
72
77
199
202
Riverside, CA .....................
Sacramento, CA ................
San Bernardino, CA ...........
San Diego, CA ...................
San Francisco, CA .............
San Joaquin, CA ................
San Luis Obispo, CA .........
San Mateo, CA ..................
Santa Barbara, CA .............
Santa Clara, CA .................
38.3
46.5
41.9
86.2
43.0
15.8
8.6
22.7
13.1
52.3
572.4
608.8
600.7
1,268.0
521.9
221.9
101.7
328.7
180.6
850.8
7.2
1.4
3.3
1.4
-0.6
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.6
0.7
3
134
40
134
277
199
217
244
199
189
635
817
655
800
1,107
649
631
1,132
702
1,308
5.3
2.4
4.1
5.4
3.4
3.5
6.9
0.8
3.7
3.1
49
262
133
44
194
187
12
301
163
209
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
8.3
9.5
17.2
13.1
8.5
20.5
5.1
8.7
19.0
11.9
100.3
128.1
193.1
174.9
135.9
302.2
98.6
143.9
269.0
153.5
1.4
0.8
1.5
0.3
-2.7
0.9
1.3
0.8
-0.3
2.5
134
175
121
225
307
166
141
175
261
73
684
696
732
632
531
779
734
706
870
870
-1.3
2.5
2.7
3.8
5.1
1.3
5.0
2.6
-7.3
0.6
308
257
238
157
58
296
60
247
311
304
Denver, CO ........................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
24.6
16.1
18.2
9.3
31.8
24.4
22.0
6.6
19.3
30.1
427.3
237.9
204.4
124.4
411.4
483.0
362.2
129.4
280.2
658.3
1.5
1.5
0.7
2.1
0.1
1.1
2.1
0.0
0.3
1.2
121
121
189
87
233
154
87
244
225
147
888
696
765
689
1,132
916
811
762
858
1,207
2.9
2.7
3.2
3.1
6.2
6.5
3.4
4.2
2.4
7.6
224
238
202
209
20
16
194
120
262
6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
third quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2004
(thousands)
September
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Alachua, FL ........................
Brevard, FL ........................
Broward, FL .......................
Collier, FL ..........................
Duval, FL ...........................
Escambia, FL .....................
Hillsborough, FL .................
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
6.0
12.9
58.6
10.7
23.0
7.4
32.2
15.7
7.4
7.3
123.4
194.5
687.9
115.8
436.3
124.8
606.5
194.3
143.6
116.9
1.7
(7)
1.8
3.6
2.6
2.8
3.2
6.1
1.9
4.4
111
105
35
66
62
45
6
98
16
$566
727
696
649
711
583
694
637
631
571
5.4
( 7)
3.6
4.7
2.4
3.2
3.7
6.0
3.6
4.6
44
172
77
262
202
163
27
172
91
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
6.8
82.6
5.5
30.8
44.2
7.7
29.0
10.8
13.4
12.6
90.3
979.5
79.8
624.4
503.7
84.0
437.1
185.7
153.9
153.4
4.7
2.1
-2.0
3.3
1.1
3.1
3.9
4.4
5.1
4.4
13
87
304
40
154
47
25
16
10
16
541
717
592
682
720
534
638
601
618
645
3.6
(7)
6.9
5.7
3.9
6.2
2.2
3.6
5.3
2.9
172
12
33
147
20
272
172
49
224
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
12.3
4.7
7.0
4.4
19.8
16.9
37.1
21.4
4.7
4.8
149.2
85.9
127.1
106.1
296.8
288.7
726.6
307.9
95.9
102.8
(7)
0.5
1.5
(7)
-1.3
-0.9
1.5
3.1
-1.7
-2.2
205
121
293
287
121
47
300
305
558
623
631
808
803
792
958
773
589
627
( 7)
4.4
4.5
5.8
3.6
2.9
4.2
1.2
3.9
4.7
111
102
29
172
224
120
297
147
77
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
23.2
13.2
3.9
126.7
32.6
11.1
19.0
7.5
3.4
5.6
426.7
190.6
90.6
2,511.7
577.1
201.6
326.9
96.8
83.9
93.5
2.7
3.9
0.6
-0.3
0.8
0.4
1.2
2.5
-1.9
-1.0
64
25
199
261
175
217
147
73
301
290
703
675
639
871
851
686
874
666
702
614
4.6
4.5
2.2
4.3
2.4
2.7
4.5
2.6
1.4
4.8
91
102
272
116
262
238
102
247
292
72
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
10.8
6.6
8.7
4.8
6.2
9.9
98.4
78.3
92.9
130.3
163.9
137.6
180.5
126.3
90.6
193.9
2.3
-0.7
-0.1
(7)
2.9
0.7
1.2
6.8
4.9
0.0
81
282
255
56
189
147
4
11
244
692
715
606
736
698
632
658
658
755
670
4.8
2.1
5.0
( 7)
2.2
0.6
2.7
5.6
4.1
4.2
72
276
60
272
304
238
34
133
120
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
third quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2004
(thousands)
September
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Marion, IN ..........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
Vanderburgh, IN ................
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ..............................
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Fayette, KY ........................
23.7
6.0
4.8
6.1
14.2
5.1
18.9
11.6
4.7
8.8
581.1
125.0
107.4
116.0
261.5
86.4
296.6
241.3
94.6
166.5
1.5
1.6
-1.3
0.9
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.2
-1.5
0.8
121
118
293
166
105
98
98
147
298
175
$765
677
628
706
740
604
764
689
624
681
3.8
10.4
5.4
3.4
4.7
2.5
3.8
6.5
4.2
3.7
157
1
44
194
77
257
157
16
120
163
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
21.6
7.0
4.6
13.1
14.0
7.6
12.6
12.0
13.6
20.7
417.1
122.0
80.8
244.9
210.5
118.4
244.6
171.0
215.7
366.0
0.0
1.8
-0.4
0.8
-0.4
-0.5
-1.6
1.1
2.4
1.8
244
105
266
175
266
270
299
154
77
105
726
612
598
618
613
635
677
671
773
751
5.5
5.5
0.7
2.0
4.3
1.6
1.5
5.5
3.9
2.3
39
39
302
281
116
287
290
39
147
270
Frederick, MD ....................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
5.5
8.0
31.5
15.2
14.1
9.3
15.4
20.8
14.2
48.2
90.2
138.6
450.6
314.9
355.4
99.4
218.9
294.1
198.6
782.0
2.8
0.1
0.5
1.6
-1.9
-0.2
-0.5
-0.9
-1.1
-0.5
62
233
205
118
301
258
270
287
291
270
701
846
953
820
825
635
672
800
704
1,043
4.9
5.0
6.2
5.8
1.2
4.6
6.2
3.1
6.0
4.6
68
60
20
29
297
91
20
209
27
91
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
21.9
13.7
22.4
20.5
8.6
7.0
5.5
14.6
18.1
41.4
316.2
175.0
557.5
318.3
155.3
164.9
116.1
336.4
325.4
717.1
-0.8
1.3
-0.5
0.1
0.4
-2.6
-0.2
1.3
0.5
-0.8
285
141
270
233
217
306
258
141
205
285
885
719
1,178
783
715
723
688
703
818
893
1.6
4.8
9.1
6.1
2.6
3.0
-7.7
2.6
4.2
2.9
287
72
2
24
247
217
312
247
120
224
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
35.0
7.5
9.7
40.5
3.3
14.9
5.7
115.1
89.9
195.2
791.2
113.1
169.2
827.3
87.3
329.6
94.8
3.0
-1.4
0.4
-1.2
1.0
2.0
0.8
0.7
0.3
1.4
51
297
217
292
161
93
175
189
225
134
672
691
847
874
734
740
933
819
819
634
3.9
2.4
1.8
4.7
4.9
2.9
2.6
3.5
2.9
2.4
147
262
282
77
68
224
247
187
224
262
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
third quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2004
(thousands)
September
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
Boone, MO .........................
Clay, MO ............................
Greene, MO .......................
Jackson, MO ......................
St. Charles, MO .................
St. Louis, MO .....................
St. Louis City, MO ..............
4.2
4.6
6.6
4.3
4.9
8.0
18.7
7.3
33.7
8.2
77.7
90.0
130.2
78.2
86.9
146.2
363.3
114.9
617.5
224.8
1.2
-0.5
0.1
2.6
0.5
0.8
-0.3
(7)
-0.1
(7)
147
270
233
66
205
175
261
255
-
$611
520
651
585
698
591
757
644
778
811
6.1
-0.2
4.0
2.8
4.5
4.2
4.6
3.9
1.4
4.0
24
306
138
235
102
120
91
147
292
138
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
14.9
7.5
39.0
12.7
12.4
10.7
6.6
34.3
11.1
13.4
309.4
153.6
822.6
209.0
194.2
136.7
147.3
447.7
198.8
210.8
0.5
2.5
7.4
4.7
0.8
2.9
-0.3
0.2
1.0
3.8
205
73
2
13
175
56
261
229
161
29
702
621
701
713
828
738
666
910
789
741
3.4
4.0
4.6
2.7
6.3
8.1
2.9
2.9
3.5
2.2
194
138
91
238
19
4
224
224
187
272
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
21.4
6.1
13.9
10.7
20.7
19.9
17.7
11.5
12.5
9.9
357.4
100.4
234.4
217.4
392.0
254.9
281.3
148.9
178.1
166.1
0.1
3.9
0.4
-0.9
0.8
2.7
0.4
3.0
2.0
(7)
233
25
217
287
175
64
217
51
93
-
947
679
980
934
938
786
1,034
623
786
1,093
4.3
5.4
5.6
1.5
4.0
3.7
2.3
3.1
4.2
-6.9
116
44
34
290
138
163
270
209
120
310
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
14.9
16.5
9.6
15.4
4.5
7.9
23.3
42.0
17.7
50.7
232.1
315.6
227.9
216.4
94.3
116.5
457.9
446.5
379.9
597.4
(7)
1.5
0.0
1.2
-0.4
1.5
0.7
1.7
-0.7
0.6
121
244
147
266
121
189
111
282
199
912
665
787
746
602
744
663
665
752
808
( 7)
2.6
4.7
5.8
4.2
1.6
5.2
3.6
5.0
3.5
247
77
29
120
287
53
172
60
187
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
112.7
5.3
12.6
9.3
40.3
8.1
9.4
47.7
35.3
6.9
2,201.7
108.3
249.0
127.4
478.1
88.3
110.5
602.1
410.4
106.6
0.8
0.6
0.9
1.4
0.9
1.5
0.1
1.1
1.7
0.9
175
199
166
134
166
121
233
154
111
166
1,327
581
687
632
751
693
772
797
963
588
7.0
3.2
2.8
4.5
1.8
4.2
3.6
4.2
(7)
4.6
11
202
235
102
282
120
172
120
91
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
third quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2004
(thousands)
September
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
4.2
5.6
6.1
8.4
13.6
27.2
6.4
23.3
5.4
6.9
86.7
112.0
166.3
176.3
266.5
507.2
92.9
392.6
90.0
134.5
1.3
2.9
0.9
0.5
1.5
0.5
4.0
3.3
3.7
2.1
141
56
166
205
121
205
23
40
32
87
$588
584
955
761
674
838
598
734
610
663
7.3
5.4
3.6
7.3
2.7
1.8
4.7
3.2
3.9
3.8
7
44
172
7
238
282
77
202
147
157
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
38.2
29.1
24.6
6.7
6.2
10.8
6.4
13.2
9.1
14.7
759.8
685.4
543.8
98.8
102.3
226.7
106.9
285.7
166.8
268.5
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.5
0.1
1.0
-0.5
0.0
1.2
244
233
229
244
205
233
161
270
244
147
776
741
808
630
646
669
570
707
596
694
4.9
3.8
5.8
3.6
5.0
1.4
3.1
4.0
3.7
2.1
68
157
29
172
60
292
209
138
163
276
Trumbull, OH .....................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
4.8
21.7
18.2
11.5
6.2
10.4
8.5
25.5
14.6
35.6
83.5
408.3
320.0
138.7
81.4
142.2
135.7
422.4
227.7
687.2
-3.7
1.9
1.0
2.1
3.3
3.3
2.6
1.6
3.2
-0.6
308
98
161
87
40
40
66
118
45
277
685
645
667
688
571
598
580
760
877
774
6.4
3.2
5.0
3.6
3.6
3.1
1.4
3.7
5.5
3.6
18
202
60
172
172
209
292
163
39
172
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
9.0
19.9
14.5
5.7
7.0
13.5
7.2
5.8
11.7
8.4
163.1
257.3
224.3
126.5
176.0
207.7
127.9
98.7
226.4
174.2
1.7
2.6
2.0
1.9
1.5
-0.2
1.8
1.1
1.7
0.4
111
66
93
98
121
258
105
154
111
217
668
709
902
704
736
778
586
586
656
726
3.6
4.1
4.6
2.9
4.8
3.9
3.0
4.6
4.6
3.7
172
133
91
224
72
147
217
91
91
163
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Kent, RI ..............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
8.0
27.6
6.1
28.5
9.4
8.5
5.6
17.8
11.8
12.1
141.8
480.6
91.5
627.6
136.8
169.0
81.7
288.5
194.1
221.1
-0.6
0.3
0.5
-1.3
3.5
2.6
0.5
0.0
3.4
0.5
277
225
205
293
37
66
205
244
38
205
599
909
664
869
605
666
676
731
621
663
4.0
4.7
4.7
5.3
4.5
3.9
2.4
5.2
3.7
3.3
138
77
77
49
102
147
262
53
163
199
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
third quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2004
(thousands)
September
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
8.0
5.5
9.4
6.2
6.0
17.9
8.3
10.3
3.7
19.8
108.4
86.3
208.0
115.0
109.4
432.2
191.1
219.1
91.6
495.9
4.6
1.8
2.0
-0.6
1.7
0.9
1.7
3.4
9.2
0.1
15
105
93
277
111
166
111
38
1
233
$487
589
645
654
624
733
645
632
647
787
3.0
7.3
4.4
4.1
5.6
3.1
3.0
2.8
0.9
6.8
217
7
111
133
34
209
217
235
300
14
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
4.2
29.8
4.1
3.5
6.1
12.8
68.2
8.5
12.5
6.4
91.5
661.0
76.1
78.9
115.6
211.8
1,438.0
133.2
254.5
102.3
3.6
0.7
0.0
1.5
0.7
(7)
0.8
2.6
0.5
4.4
35
189
244
121
189
175
66
205
16
573
644
693
535
468
797
889
639
531
729
4.0
4.2
3.0
2.7
4.7
1.0
3.0
2.9
4.5
2.1
138
120
217
238
77
299
217
224
102
276
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Potter, TX ...........................
Smith, TX ...........................
4.8
90.2
9.3
5.8
6.5
4.7
6.4
8.0
3.9
4.9
86.6
1,838.1
185.3
117.2
118.5
99.4
92.8
143.3
76.5
86.8
-1.9
0.8
3.9
-0.1
2.9
2.3
6.6
0.7
0.1
1.9
301
175
25
255
56
81
5
189
233
98
641
862
475
661
554
583
654
612
585
648
3.9
4.5
4.2
2.6
0.7
1.7
3.0
5.2
5.6
6.1
147
102
120
247
302
286
217
53
34
24
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
34.0
25.2
4.3
5.1
6.4
35.0
11.2
5.4
5.7
7.0
701.0
516.3
78.0
87.0
94.2
524.7
152.2
86.8
96.4
155.6
1.3
2.4
2.3
4.1
4.0
2.3
5.3
1.3
2.1
(7)
141
77
81
22
23
81
8
141
87
-
758
824
496
746
614
671
565
556
725
1,196
5.0
2.4
4.4
-0.4
3.2
3.5
2.5
1.8
5.1
7.7
60
262
111
307
202
187
257
282
58
5
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
6.0
5.7
4.8
3.7
5.6
6.9
112.4
548.5
166.8
115.2
95.9
92.9
93.6
97.3
144.5
157.4
2.9
4.8
1.4
5.3
5.8
0.9
4.2
2.5
0.1
0.2
56
12
134
8
7
166
21
73
233
229
670
1,068
779
970
664
948
582
673
722
824
4.2
2.5
7.3
8.4
3.8
4.6
3.7
4.7
3.4
3.5
120
257
7
3
157
91
163
77
194
187
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
third quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2004
(thousands)
September
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Virginia Beach City, VA ......
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
10.6
10.4
77.3
6.1
19.6
16.1
14.6
6.2
8.3
6.2
174.0
122.1
1,104.3
80.2
252.0
212.0
193.5
91.5
104.5
107.7
3.8
3.8
1.1
3.0
1.5
3.0
1.0
2.4
0.6
-0.7
29
29
154
51
121
51
161
77
199
282
$567
685
940
695
673
763
604
681
500
627
3.1
3.3
-2.4
2.1
5.2
2.6
2.5
2.9
4.4
4.3
209
199
309
276
53
247
257
224
111
116
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
6.8
13.9
22.2
5.0
4.3
13.5
4.0
146.6
292.4
492.8
100.7
76.8
228.9
87.6
0.2
2.3
-1.3
3.1
2.0
1.9
-0.6
229
81
293
47
93
98
277
657
715
750
653
694
759
707
4.0
4.4
5.6
5.5
3.9
5.3
4.7
138
111
34
39
147
49
77
San Juan, PR .....................
13.4
324.3
2.4
77
475
2.6
247
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 317 U.S. counties comprise 70.2 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
third quarter 20042
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2004
(thousands)
September
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2003-043
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
8,421.8
8,149.4
122.7
823.7
370.7
1,859.1
143.4
785.8
1,341.4
747.7
680.4
1,082.4
272.3
130,248.9
109,436.9
1,777.2
7,167.2
14,332.0
25,216.7
3,062.0
7,899.5
16,486.7
16,097.5
12,747.5
4,281.7
20,812.0
1.3
1.4
0.5
3.3
-0.4
0.7
-2.4
0.5
3.0
2.0
2.4
0.2
0.6
$733
724
654
769
898
648
1,120
1,039
859
704
314
477
781
4.0
4.0
7.7
3.4
5.2
3.8
1.8
4.0
4.4
4.5
3.0
3.2
4.1
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 ...................................................
360.1
356.3
0.6
13.1
17.1
53.5
8.8
23.0
39.9
26.9
25.5
147.8
3.9
4,019.6
3,472.9
12.0
144.4
478.5
776.6
205.2
235.6
566.2
453.9
373.0
226.5
546.8
0.7
1.2
0.9
8.0
-2.3
1.5
1.9
0.7
1.3
0.7
1.8
3.1
-1.9
833
814
1,031
827
874
706
1,370
1,269
919
759
505
404
956
4.9
5.3
29.0
4.3
8.0
3.7
6.1
7.8
4.4
4.4
5.9
2.3
3.6
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 ...................................................
126.7
125.4
0.1
10.6
7.6
26.5
2.5
14.0
25.9
12.5
10.6
12.6
1.2
2,511.7
2,195.1
1.4
98.8
257.7
477.0
61.4
215.8
409.4
348.0
226.5
94.1
316.5
-0.3
-0.1
(6)
-4.0
-1.6
0.2
-5.5
-1.1
1.4
0.4
1.7
-1.2
-1.5
871
862
1,137
1,073
908
732
1,206
1,318
1,052
761
378
633
932
4.3
4.2
(6)
3.6
7.1
5.5
2.5
4.9
3.4
3.8
4.4
3.1
4.7
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 ...................................................
112.7
112.4
0.0
2.1
3.3
21.8
4.2
16.9
22.6
8.0
10.3
16.0
0.2
2,201.7
1,764.4
0.1
29.3
45.6
233.1
130.2
347.9
430.2
267.1
188.3
81.1
437.3
0.8
1.0
-15.6
-3.5
-1.6
1.4
-0.9
0.0
0.8
1.1
4.1
0.6
-0.1
1,327
1,404
1,124
1,312
1,016
996
1,723
2,406
1,517
923
642
776
1,023
7.0
7.4
15.2
0.8
6.5
3.2
8.0
14.2
5.5
3.0
3.5
2.8
4.9
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
third quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2004
(thousands)
September
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2003-043
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
90.2
89.8
1.3
6.3
4.6
21.2
1.4
9.7
17.1
9.1
6.8
10.4
0.4
1,838.1
1,594.9
63.1
129.7
163.9
388.5
33.4
114.6
289.7
188.8
161.5
57.1
243.2
0.8
0.7
1.5
-8.1
-0.1
0.2
-1.7
2.2
3.7
0.7
2.8
1.2
1.5
$862
871
2,018
842
1,080
782
1,064
1,046
988
781
323
513
796
4.5
5.1
11.1
6.4
6.6
2.6
3.7
0.7
8.0
3.6
1.6
2.6
0.1
Maricopa, AZ ......................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
79.9
79.4
0.5
8.3
3.2
18.3
1.5
9.6
17.7
7.8
5.7
5.6
0.5
1,633.3
1,414.4
7.6
143.2
128.4
328.5
33.6
135.7
270.4
167.1
152.8
44.7
218.8
3.7
3.9
0.4
9.4
0.8
3.9
-7.8
1.9
6.2
5.8
2.2
1.7
2.3
731
726
564
717
1,039
713
857
900
719
776
353
499
766
4.7
4.3
12.8
3.8
6.3
3.9
5.2
2.0
6.0
4.7
3.2
4.0
7.0
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 ...................................................
68.2
67.7
0.5
4.4
3.4
15.7
1.8
8.7
13.8
6.2
5.1
6.6
0.5
1,438.0
1,281.0
6.5
76.5
144.2
310.0
59.2
140.1
244.6
130.8
126.0
39.7
157.0
0.8
0.9
5.2
0.6
1.0
0.0
-5.9
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.6
-3.4
(6)
889
894
2,143
798
1,013
879
1,222
1,115
962
862
401
570
840
3.0
3.1
-10.3
3.4
5.7
4.8
2.5
1.4
1.7
5.3
0.3
2.7
(6)
Orange, CA ........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
89.7
88.3
0.2
6.6
5.9
17.2
1.4
10.0
17.5
9.2
6.7
13.4
1.4
1,468.4
1,328.4
7.4
96.3
183.8
266.5
32.6
136.8
264.1
127.9
165.6
46.9
140.0
3.1
3.2
7.3
9.3
0.9
2.0
-3.4
6.1
3.9
1.7
3.2
3.7
1.8
840
835
515
882
987
785
1,205
1,361
834
785
368
510
886
3.3
3.3
1.6
2.8
5.2
2.3
10.1
0.8
2.1
6.9
4.0
2.4
3.4
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
third quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
third quarter
2004
(thousands)
September
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2003-043
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third 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 ...................................................
86.2
84.8
0.9
6.7
3.5
14.2
1.3
9.1
14.9
7.6
6.6
20.0
1.4
1,268.0
1,058.6
11.6
90.0
104.8
211.7
36.7
81.2
203.6
118.2
147.7
52.8
209.4
1.4
1.6
-1.4
9.9
-0.2
2.4
-1.3
1.4
0.9
-1.0
1.6
1.4
0.1
$800
780
498
822
1,070
654
1,682
1,012
910
734
378
440
907
5.4
5.5
6.2
5.4
9.4
3.3
11.6
0.5
4.7
6.5
8.3
3.0
5.3
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 ...................................................
77.3
76.7
0.4
6.2
2.6
14.8
1.5
6.2
12.0
6.0
5.5
21.5
0.5
1,104.3
950.8
3.3
57.9
102.2
218.7
67.8
76.0
163.1
110.6
105.1
46.1
153.5
1.1
1.1
-4.5
1.6
-1.6
1.5
-1.5
-1.6
4.1
3.2
2.3
-4.7
1.1
940
946
966
882
1,205
817
2,135
1,106
1,039
729
401
483
903
-2.4
-3.3
3.1
1.7
8.4
4.3
-28.3
0.5
4.0
4.6
0.5
8.3
4.0
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 ...................................................
82.6
82.3
0.5
5.2
2.8
24.0
1.8
8.9
16.4
8.2
5.6
7.7
0.3
979.5
829.7
8.0
42.2
50.4
240.4
26.6
67.5
136.5
125.2
94.6
35.1
149.8
2.1
2.6
6.7
3.3
0.6
0.5
-3.1
2.6
6.4
2.0
5.7
1.4
-0.6
717
694
437
761
646
664
1,021
965
804
730
403
434
849
(6)
3.4
0.9
9.2
5.2
3.9
9.8
-0.4
2.8
2.5
3.6
1.6
(6)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See
Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
6 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county
by state, third quarter 20042
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2004
(thousands)
September
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2003-044
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2003-044
United States6 ....................
8,421.8
130,248.9
1.3
$733
4.0
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
79.9
13.3
360.1
24.6
24.4
19.3
30.1
82.6
368.3
145.0
1,633.3
242.6
4,019.6
427.3
483.0
280.2
658.3
979.5
0.0
0.8
3.7
0.9
0.7
1.5
1.1
0.3
1.2
2.1
739
809
731
669
833
888
916
858
1,207
717
3.6
4.0
4.7
4.7
4.9
2.9
6.5
2.4
7.6
(7)
Fulton, GA ..........................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Cook, IL .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
Polk, IA ..............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
37.1
23.2
13.2
126.7
23.7
14.2
18.9
21.6
12.6
12.0
726.6
426.7
190.6
2,511.7
581.1
261.5
296.6
417.1
244.6
171.0
1.5
2.7
3.9
-0.3
1.5
1.8
1.9
0.0
-1.6
1.1
958
703
675
871
765
740
764
726
677
671
4.2
4.6
4.5
4.3
3.8
4.7
3.8
5.5
1.5
5.5
Montgomery, MD ...............
Middlesex, MA ...................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Hinds, MS ..........................
St. Louis, MO .....................
Yellowstone, MT ................
Douglas, NE .......................
Clark, NV ...........................
Hillsborough, NH ................
31.5
48.2
35.0
40.5
6.6
33.7
5.6
14.9
39.0
12.4
450.6
782.0
791.2
827.3
130.2
617.5
71.2
309.4
822.6
194.2
0.5
-0.5
-1.2
0.8
0.1
-0.1
2.4
0.5
7.4
0.8
953
1,043
874
933
651
778
572
702
701
828
6.2
4.6
4.7
2.6
4.0
1.4
3.8
3.4
4.6
6.3
Bergen, NJ .........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
New York, NY ....................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
Cass, ND ...........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Providence, RI ...................
34.3
16.5
112.7
27.2
5.4
38.2
21.7
25.5
35.6
17.8
447.7
315.6
2,201.7
507.2
90.0
759.8
408.3
422.4
687.2
288.5
0.2
1.5
0.8
0.5
3.7
0.0
1.9
1.6
-0.6
0.0
910
665
1,327
838
610
776
645
760
774
731
2.9
2.6
7.0
1.8
3.9
4.9
3.2
3.7
3.6
5.2
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
90.2
35.0
5.7
29.8
77.3
6.2
22.2
221.1
109.4
495.9
1,838.1
524.7
96.4
548.5
1,104.3
107.7
492.8
0.5
1.7
0.1
0.8
2.3
2.1
4.8
1.1
-0.7
-1.3
663
624
787
862
671
725
1,068
940
627
750
3.3
5.6
6.8
4.5
3.5
5.1
2.5
-2.4
4.3
5.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county
by state, third quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
third quarter
2004
(thousands)
September
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2003-044
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2003-044
Laramie, WY ......................
2.9
39.8
0.7
$596
4.0
San Juan, PR .....................
St. Thomas, VI ...................
13.4
1.7
324.3
22.6
2.4
-0.5
475
565
2.6
3.9
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county
reclassifications. See Technical Note.
5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
third quarter 20042
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
third quarter
2004
(thousands)
September
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2003-04
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2003-04
United States4 ....................
8,421.8
130,248.9
1.3
$733
4.0
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
114.4
20.3
126.3
76.4
1,204.0
164.8
109.5
29.1
30.1
529.1
1,858.0
314.2
2,357.6
1,145.7
15,106.6
2,163.4
1,642.1
414.9
658.3
7,397.2
1.8
1.9
3.6
1.4
1.5
1.8
0.9
2.0
1.2
2.5
629
755
691
570
829
752
917
769
1,207
655
3.6
3.4
4.9
5.2
3.9
1.1
5.4
2.1
7.6
4.5
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
249.2
35.7
49.6
328.1
152.6
91.8
82.4
106.6
116.7
50.1
3,837.8
585.6
608.1
5,747.7
2,887.8
1,431.8
1,304.8
1,742.9
1,861.1
608.8
0.8
2.9
3.0
0.2
1.4
1.2
1.2
0.8
0.1
0.7
711
676
569
779
655
604
620
619
595
603
3.8
4.5
4.0
3.9
4.5
4.1
4.6
4.4
2.8
4.3
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
155.0
211.3
254.3
158.1
66.7
167.8
42.4
55.6
63.5
47.6
2,479.5
3,156.5
4,344.5
2,629.9
1,113.8
2,656.2
413.0
887.4
1,168.5
622.6
1.2
-0.4
-0.3
1.0
1.0
0.9
2.6
1.1
6.5
1.4
795
907
757
753
540
655
525
601
703
731
4.2
5.5
3.4
3.2
3.6
3.0
3.6
3.6
4.1
6.1
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
267.8
50.3
556.3
229.9
24.3
288.3
92.6
120.5
330.9
35.2
3,918.8
769.3
8,307.9
3,814.9
327.2
5,333.0
1,435.7
1,627.6
5,531.4
484.6
0.9
1.9
0.9
1.9
2.0
0.4
1.3
2.5
0.7
0.6
876
588
891
654
548
685
581
676
722
708
2.8
4.1
5.3
4.1
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.7
4.3
4.6
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
112.9
28.6
130.2
511.6
77.5
24.5
206.5
213.0
47.8
161.2
1,799.2
375.5
2,668.6
9,357.6
1,084.4
302.0
3,522.7
2,749.9
693.1
2,745.6
1.4
2.0
1.9
1.4
3.4
1.5
2.7
1.7
1.4
1.1
604
538
659
719
607
634
757
756
559
653
4.1
4.9
4.4
3.6
3.2
5.8
4.6
0.4
5.1
4.8
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
third quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
third quarter
2004
(thousands)
September
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
September
2003-04
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
third quarter
2003-04
Wyoming ............................
22.6
253.6
1.5
$590
5.0
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
52.7
3.2
1,042.4
42.7
2.2
3.4
417
599
3.0
5.8
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
April 2005
or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
-3.7% to 1.3%
1.4% to 9.2%
but are included because they are the largest county in their state
Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees
September 2003 04 (U.S. Average = 1.3%)
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 employees or more,
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
April 2005
or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
-7.7% to 4.0%
4.1% to 10.4%
but are included because they are the largest county in their state
Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees
or more, third quarter 2003 04 (U.S. Average = 4.0%)
Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000 employees