Technical information:
(202) 691-6567
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
Media contact:
691-5902
USDL 05-1295
For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FOURTH QUARTER 2004
In December 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 8.9 percent, compared with national job growth of 1.7 percent. Williamson
County, Texas, had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the fourth quarter of 2004,
with an increase of 17.8 percent. The U.S. average weekly wage increased by 5.7 percent over the same
time span.
Of the 317 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2003 employment, 150 had over-theyear percentage growth in jobs above the national average in December 2004, and 153 experienced changes
below the national average. (See chart 1.) Average weekly wages grew faster than the national average in
133 of the largest U.S. counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was below the national
average in 177 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 8.5 million employer
reports cover 131.6 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.) December 2004 employment and 2004 fourth-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 third quarter of 2004 are available on the BLS Web
site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for the fourth quarter of 2004 and revised data for the
first, second, and third quarters of 2004 will be available in July on the BLS Web site.
QCEW-Based Regional News Releases
Several BLS regional offices have recently begun issuing QCEW-based news
releases targeted to local users and media markets. For links to these releases, see
http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewregional.htm.
2
Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by December 2004 employment, December 2003-04 employment
change, and December 2003-04 percent change in employment
Employment in large counties
Net change in employment,
December 2003-04
(thousands)
December 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.
131,560.7
4,123.1
2,529.3
2,266.8
1,861.3
1,696.8
1,464.8
1,458.4
1,296.9
1,117.2
1,007.1
U.S.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Clark, Nev.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Riverside, Calif.
Hillsborough, Fla.
Orange, Calif.
Orange, Fla.
Dallas, Texas
Fairfax, Va.
Broward, Fla.
Percent change in employment,
December 2003-04
2,198.4
75.7
58.9
58.5
40.6
30.8
28.9
27.2
26.1
25.4
24.8
U.S.
1.7
Rutherford, Tenn.
Manatee, Fla.
Clark, Nev.
Riverside, Calif.
Loudoun, Va.
Prince William, Va.
Lee, Fla.
Marion, Fla.
Sarasota, Fla.
Hamilton, Ind.
8.9
8.7
7.5
7.4
6.9
6.6
6.1
6.0
5.8
5.8
Large County Employment
In December 2004, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 131.6 million, up
1.7 percent from December 2003. The 317 largest U.S. counties accounted for 70.6 percent of total U.S.
covered employment and 76.7 percent of total covered wages. These 317 counties had a net job gain of
1,543,850 over the year, accounting for 70.2 percent of the U.S. employment increase. Employment rose
in 270 of the large counties from December 2003 to December 2004. Rutherford County, Tenn., had the
largest over-the-year percentage gain (8.9 percent). Manatee, Fla., had the next largest increase, 8.7 percent, followed by Clark, Nev. (7.5 percent), Riverside, Calif. (7.4 percent), and Loudoun, Va. (6.9 percent).
(See table 1.)
Employment declined in 38 counties from December 2003 to December 2004. The largest percentage decline was in McLean, Ill. (-2.9 percent), followed by Trumbull, Ohio (-1.8 percent), Wayne, Mich.
(-1.5 percent), Saginaw, Mich. (-1.4 percent), and Okaloosa, Fla., Madison, Ill., and Ingham, Mich.
(-1.3 percent each).
The largest gains in employment from December 2003 to December 2004 were recorded in Maricopa,
Ariz. (75,700), Clark, Nev. (58,900), Los Angeles, Calif. (58,500), Riverside, Calif. (40,600), and Hillsborough, Fla. (30,800). (See table A.)
The largest declines in employment occurred in Wayne, Mich. (-12,600), followed by Allegheny, Pa.
(-3,900), Montgomery, Ohio (-2,900), Orleans, La. (-2,800), and McLean, Ill. (-2,500).
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the fourth quarter of 2004 was $812. Average weekly wages were
higher than the national average in 110 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 $1,608. Santa Clara,
3
Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by fourth quarter 2004 average weekly wages, fourth quarter
2003-04 change in average weekly wages, and fourth quarter 2003-04 percent change in average
weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
fourth quarter 2004
U.S.
New York, N.Y.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Fairfield, Conn.
Suffolk, Mass.
San Mateo, Calif.
Washington, D.C.
Arlington, Va.
San Francisco, Calif.
Fairfax, Va.
Somerset, N.J.
$812
$1,608
1,460
1,430
1,363
1,324
1,305
1,291
1,274
1,239
1,235
Change in average weekly
wage, fourth quarter 2003-04
U.S.
Williamson, Texas
Santa Clara, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Fairfield, Conn.
Rock Island, Ill.
Suffolk, Mass.
Ventura, Calif.
San Mateo, Calif.
Henrico, Va.
Essex, N.J.
$44
$135
127
125
120
116
116
102
101
96
93
Percent change in average
weekly wage, fourth
quarter 2003-04
U.S.
Williamson, Texas
Rock Island, Ill.
Ventura, Calif.
Henrico, Va.
St. Louis, Minn.
Washington, Ark.
Hennepin, Minn.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Suffolk, Mass.
Rockingham, N.H.
Essex, N.J.
5.7
17.8
14.8
12.6
12.5
11.0
10.6
9.6
9.5
9.3
9.3
9.3
Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,460, followed by Fairfield, Conn. ($1,430), Suffolk,
Mass. ($1,363), and San Mateo, Calif. ($1,324). (See table B.)
There were 204 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the fourth quarter
of 2004. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron, Texas ($500), followed by Hidalgo,
Texas ($504), Webb, Texas ($540), Yakima, Wash. ($541), and Horry, S.C. ($558). (See table 1.)
From the fourth quarter 2003 to the fourth quarter 2004, the national average weekly wage rose by
5.7 percent. Among the largest counties, Williamson, Texas, led the nation in growth in average weekly
wages, with an increase of 17.8 percent from the fourth quarter of 2003. Rock Island, Ill., was second
with 14.8 percent growth, followed by Ventura, Calif. (12.6 percent), Henrico, Va. (12.5 percent), and
St. Louis, Minn. (11.0 percent).
No counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Kalamazoo, Mich., had the
smallest increase in average weekly wages, 0.5 percent, followed by Richmond, N.Y. (0.7 percent), Genesee
and Macomb, Mich. (0.9 percent each), and Ingham, Mich. (1.0 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 remained constant from December 2003 to December 2004. Maricopa, Ariz., experienced
the fastest growth in employment among the 10 largest counties, with a 4.7 percent increase. Within
Maricopa County, employment rose in every industry group except information. The largest gains were in
construction (12.9 percent) and education and health services (7.0 percent). (See table 2.) Miami-Dade,
Fla., had the next largest increase in employment, 2.4 percent, followed by Orange, Calif. (2.0 percent).
The smallest employment gains occurred in New York, N.Y. (0.9 percent) and Harris, Texas (1.3 percent).
The only county of the ten largest counties in the United States that did not have an increase in employment
was Cook County, Ill., whose employment remained constant.
4
All of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. New York,
N.Y., had the fastest growth in wages among the top 10 counties, 8.4 percent. Within New York County,
wages increased the most in natural resources and mining (26.1 percent) and financial activities (14.0 percent). Harris, Texas, was second in wage growth, increasing by 7.8 percent, followed by Orange, Calif.,
with a gain of 7.1 percent. The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest counties occurred in King,
Wash. (3.8 percent), followed by Dallas, Texas (5.1 percent) and Maricopa, Ariz. (5.7 percent).
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows December 2004 employment and the 2004 fourth-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 December 2004
ranged from approximately 4.1 million in Los Angeles, Calif., to 39,500 in Laramie, Wyo. The highest
average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,608), while the lowest average weekly
wage was in Laramie, Wyo. ($630).
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 8.5 million establishments
• Count of longitudinally-linked UI
• Sample survey: 400,000 establishadministrative 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 is now available 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,
fourth quarter 20042
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2004
(thousands)
December
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
United States6 ....................
8,487.6
131,560.7
1.7
-
$812
5.7
-
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
18.8
8.0
9.7
6.6
4.2
7.7
80.4
17.6
4.6
13.4
373.6
167.1
165.5
133.2
79.8
142.2
1,696.8
348.9
87.2
245.7
0.0
3.6
2.3
2.1
3.2
1.4
4.7
3.4
4.8
1.2
272
46
104
114
60
178
23
53
21
189
833
847
669
721
713
830
801
701
726
757
9.2
3.2
7.0
3.4
8.7
5.2
5.7
4.8
6.9
5.6
12
284
66
276
17
166
134
193
73
139
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.2
48.1
27.6
29.0
16.0
366.8
11.8
11.9
90.3
9.5
87.8
676.3
344.4
332.3
252.9
4,123.1
112.6
149.8
1,464.8
132.3
2.7
-0.2
1.2
2.1
3.1
1.4
1.6
-0.2
2.0
5.0
82
281
189
114
67
178
160
281
121
17
668
1,056
1,010
651
684
959
1,062
701
938
791
10.6
7.4
8.4
6.0
6.0
6.1
6.0
4.0
7.1
8.2
6
49
20
117
117
110
117
247
60
27
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 .................
38.9
47.2
42.6
87.2
43.3
16.0
8.7
22.9
13.2
52.8
590.8
608.3
621.9
1,296.9
528.7
216.5
98.3
333.7
172.7
861.6
7.4
1.6
3.8
1.9
-0.4
3.7
0.2
0.7
-0.5
1.0
4
160
38
127
293
41
259
226
294
203
677
866
711
872
1,274
705
674
1,324
786
1,460
4.6
3.8
4.6
6.5
7.8
4.1
6.6
8.3
8.7
9.5
206
256
206
89
34
243
84
24
17
8
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
8.4
9.6
17.3
13.2
8.6
20.7
5.1
8.7
18.9
11.9
92.2
126.4
190.2
168.2
133.2
305.3
95.7
143.0
271.9
155.5
2.9
0.7
0.5
2.3
0.4
1.2
1.7
1.9
0.8
3.4
75
226
243
104
248
189
151
127
218
53
767
753
796
666
577
913
758
781
983
959
6.1
7.0
6.4
4.6
7.1
12.6
7.7
7.0
7.4
3.8
110
66
97
206
60
3
38
66
49
256
Denver, CO ........................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
24.5
16.1
18.1
9.3
31.9
24.4
22.1
6.7
19.5
30.3
429.1
239.3
207.0
122.9
418.0
487.7
368.4
129.9
286.5
659.6
1.7
2.2
1.4
1.8
0.6
0.9
1.6
0.8
0.9
0.6
151
108
178
135
235
209
160
218
209
235
990
742
825
733
1,430
1,016
885
847
980
1,305
5.9
5.2
5.2
3.2
9.2
7.4
2.9
3.3
6.9
5.5
123
166
166
284
12
49
289
279
73
146
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2004
(thousands)
December
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 .......................
6.1
12.9
59.2
10.9
23.3
7.5
32.5
15.9
7.5
7.6
127.8
198.2
716.6
129.5
447.8
126.3
631.7
207.2
148.0
129.8
3.2
3.3
3.6
5.0
3.6
3.6
5.1
6.1
2.9
8.7
60
57
46
17
46
46
16
7
75
2
$619
780
802
741
800
649
776
708
690
628
4.4
8.9
7.5
5.3
5.5
8.3
5.4
8.8
4.1
6.6
219
15
47
159
146
24
151
16
243
84
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
6.9
83.2
5.6
30.8
44.6
7.8
29.2
10.9
13.7
12.5
94.2
1,007.1
79.7
645.0
547.5
87.9
445.2
198.4
161.1
159.7
6.0
2.4
-1.3
4.4
4.7
5.6
3.1
4.0
5.8
5.7
8
95
307
30
23
12
67
36
9
11
607
822
640
757
815
586
720
643
706
745
5.6
6.3
7.7
6.5
4.8
3.5
4.2
3.9
7.1
8.1
139
105
38
89
193
272
238
252
60
30
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
12.4
4.7
7.2
4.4
20.1
17.1
37.8
21.8
4.7
4.8
158.1
87.1
131.0
107.6
306.3
294.6
745.4
312.0
97.6
105.7
4.3
0.1
3.7
(7)
0.8
0.8
3.2
3.4
-0.2
-0.2
32
267
41
218
218
60
53
281
281
620
670
685
830
880
875
1,055
848
625
678
5.6
3.7
6.7
6.4
3.5
5.4
5.8
3.3
4.2
6.1
139
263
76
97
272
151
129
279
238
110
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
23.4
13.4
4.0
127.7
33.1
11.3
19.3
7.6
3.4
5.7
441.3
193.4
91.2
2,529.3
584.3
203.0
324.3
96.7
83.5
93.9
3.3
4.8
0.8
0.0
1.2
1.1
1.7
3.2
-2.9
-1.3
57
21
218
272
189
198
151
60
313
307
756
742
672
985
975
763
1,032
737
796
694
7.2
8.2
2.0
6.7
5.9
6.1
5.7
5.7
5.0
4.2
58
27
304
76
123
110
134
134
178
238
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
11.0
6.6
8.7
4.8
6.3
9.9
100.0
78.0
92.6
130.2
163.1
137.9
180.7
124.4
91.2
194.6
2.2
0.9
-1.2
-0.2
2.4
0.7
0.4
5.4
5.8
1.5
108
209
306
281
95
226
248
14
9
172
787
902
646
772
769
702
712
712
833
733
5.6
14.8
7.0
2.8
4.9
4.3
5.0
3.8
6.4
6.4
139
2
66
293
186
227
178
256
97
97
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2004
(thousands)
December
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Marion, IN ..........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
Vanderburgh, IN ................
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ..............................
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Fayette, KY ........................
23.8
6.0
4.8
6.1
14.3
5.1
19.0
11.7
4.7
8.9
586.8
127.2
108.4
118.2
264.0
87.7
300.7
245.0
95.0
167.8
1.6
1.8
0.2
2.1
1.8
2.4
2.4
1.9
-0.5
0.4
160
135
259
114
135
95
95
127
294
248
$833
684
684
791
817
684
841
730
683
741
4.1
1.9
2.9
8.2
7.5
6.0
7.3
4.4
6.7
6.5
243
306
289
27
47
117
54
219
76
89
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
21.9
7.1
4.6
13.1
14.0
7.6
12.6
12.3
13.8
21.0
424.3
123.0
83.6
250.1
215.5
121.5
247.7
173.4
218.2
374.0
0.9
1.6
1.3
1.8
0.3
-0.1
-1.1
0.8
2.5
2.7
209
160
185
135
255
276
305
218
91
82
807
673
664
688
687
715
753
769
839
854
6.5
3.9
5.9
4.2
6.0
5.8
5.5
7.1
4.9
6.4
89
252
123
238
117
129
146
60
186
97
Frederick, MD ....................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
5.6
8.1
31.9
15.3
14.2
9.3
15.5
21.0
14.3
48.7
91.7
141.1
458.2
319.2
358.8
88.8
221.4
294.5
201.8
791.6
3.0
0.3
1.2
1.9
-0.6
0.8
0.4
-0.3
1.3
0.1
71
255
189
127
298
218
248
288
185
267
765
952
1,067
865
929
724
726
865
749
1,146
5.5
8.3
6.3
4.6
6.2
4.8
3.6
2.6
2.9
5.4
146
24
105
206
108
193
270
296
289
151
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
22.1
13.8
22.5
20.6
8.5
6.9
5.5
14.5
17.9
41.0
320.1
176.3
564.1
319.6
156.5
168.2
116.4
339.6
327.6
724.8
0.2
2.4
0.5
0.0
-0.3
-1.3
-0.1
0.7
0.5
-0.1
259
95
243
272
288
307
276
226
243
276
1,007
799
1,363
830
801
773
737
778
897
1,007
4.6
4.3
9.3
3.5
0.9
1.0
0.5
4.7
0.9
2.3
206
227
9
272
313
312
316
198
313
300
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
5.7
4.5
8.1
34.6
7.5
9.9
41.0
3.3
15.0
5.7
111.4
90.7
199.6
804.2
113.8
170.5
840.1
87.5
330.7
94.9
1.5
-1.4
1.1
-1.5
1.8
1.8
1.5
0.8
1.0
2.0
172
310
198
311
135
135
172
218
203
121
739
753
904
950
812
822
1,049
792
917
689
2.2
1.1
1.8
3.7
7.8
7.7
9.6
3.8
5.0
11.0
302
311
307
263
34
38
7
256
178
5
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2004
(thousands)
December
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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
7.4
33.8
8.2
79.2
90.1
130.2
79.3
86.3
148.4
367.2
116.3
626.2
223.1
2.4
0.6
-1.0
2.8
-0.2
2.0
0.6
(7)
0.6
(7)
95
235
303
79
281
121
235
235
-
$665
572
713
627
752
617
816
694
863
888
5.1
5.3
4.9
4.7
4.9
4.8
4.5
4.4
5.2
6.5
174
159
186
198
186
193
213
219
166
89
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
15.0
7.6
40.0
12.8
12.3
10.7
6.6
34.4
11.2
13.4
312.1
153.7
839.0
211.1
197.7
136.6
145.5
456.5
203.2
213.8
0.3
1.9
7.5
5.5
0.9
2.2
0.9
0.2
1.8
3.7
255
127
3
13
209
108
209
259
135
41
757
656
770
769
933
873
742
1,067
864
863
7.4
4.0
7.7
3.9
6.4
9.3
5.8
3.7
5.0
3.0
49
247
38
252
97
9
129
263
178
288
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
21.5
6.1
14.0
10.8
20.7
20.0
17.8
11.5
12.5
10.0
366.1
103.0
238.4
222.4
399.1
257.7
285.1
144.3
181.0
169.1
0.4
4.0
0.5
-0.5
1.2
2.8
0.2
1.9
1.6
-0.6
248
36
243
294
189
79
259
127
160
298
1,090
760
1,054
1,064
1,046
910
1,221
744
899
1,235
9.3
6.1
6.7
7.6
5.9
2.6
7.0
7.7
5.6
4.7
9
110
76
44
123
296
66
38
139
198
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
15.0
16.4
9.6
15.4
4.4
7.9
23.3
42.1
17.7
50.9
235.4
318.6
232.0
219.4
95.9
120.0
464.6
458.1
388.6
614.8
(7)
1.9
-0.2
1.4
0.7
2.2
0.7
1.8
0.4
0.9
127
281
178
226
108
226
135
248
209
1,066
727
817
769
624
809
713
735
780
924
(7)
5.2
2.0
3.5
1.3
4.3
4.5
3.7
4.3
2.7
166
304
272
310
227
213
263
227
295
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
112.9
5.3
12.6
9.3
40.3
8.1
9.4
47.8
35.4
6.9
2,266.8
111.6
250.8
130.2
484.6
91.3
115.2
611.3
421.6
109.3
0.9
2.2
1.2
2.1
1.2
1.2
1.6
1.1
1.8
2.5
209
108
189
114
189
189
160
198
135
91
1,608
627
768
696
817
733
864
878
1,101
650
8.4
4.7
4.6
4.5
2.3
0.7
3.7
4.8
6.2
5.7
20
198
206
213
300
315
263
193
108
134
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2004
(thousands)
December
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
4.3
5.7
6.1
8.4
13.7
27.4
6.4
23.6
5.5
6.9
88.1
113.9
169.8
179.5
271.4
519.3
93.4
400.5
90.4
134.7
1.4
2.9
2.3
1.6
2.4
2.1
4.5
3.6
4.3
1.0
178
75
104
160
95
114
29
46
32
203
$630
604
1,025
764
739
948
655
817
687
740
2.9
4.5
7.2
4.5
4.7
8.1
3.8
4.5
9.0
7.6
289
213
58
213
198
30
256
213
14
44
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
38.3
29.3
24.6
6.7
6.2
10.8
6.4
13.2
9.2
14.8
764.3
698.3
549.3
99.7
102.0
228.2
106.5
286.1
168.8
270.1
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.6
-0.6
0.7
-1.0
1.4
1.3
259
235
235
255
235
298
226
303
178
185
864
808
872
687
714
746
624
780
649
784
7.6
5.6
4.9
7.3
5.6
4.3
7.4
3.7
6.7
8.4
44
139
186
54
139
227
49
263
76
20
Trumbull, OH .....................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
4.8
21.9
18.3
11.6
6.3
10.4
8.6
25.6
14.7
35.6
84.1
411.7
327.6
141.5
82.2
143.4
129.8
429.6
231.3
691.6
-1.8
1.6
2.6
3.6
3.2
3.8
3.0
1.7
4.4
-0.6
312
160
88
46
60
38
71
151
30
298
746
698
731
752
597
643
628
815
906
848
2.2
4.0
7.3
5.0
4.4
4.4
2.4
4.2
1.6
5.7
302
247
54
178
219
219
298
238
308
134
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
9.0
20.3
14.7
5.7
7.0
13.6
7.2
5.8
11.7
8.4
166.2
259.3
228.3
126.9
177.1
212.1
128.2
100.4
227.9
174.9
2.6
1.8
1.8
1.4
2.7
0.1
2.0
1.8
2.1
0.9
88
135
135
178
82
267
121
135
114
209
730
800
1,049
756
809
875
645
636
712
826
3.7
4.0
8.4
5.4
7.0
4.7
5.4
7.3
5.0
5.0
263
247
20
151
66
198
151
54
178
178
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Kent, RI ..............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
8.0
27.4
6.2
28.8
9.4
8.7
5.6
17.9
11.9
12.3
142.3
488.3
92.7
638.7
137.5
171.7
83.2
289.8
196.2
227.1
-0.5
0.1
1.6
-0.1
3.3
3.0
1.0
-0.3
3.7
1.7
294
267
160
276
57
71
203
288
41
151
647
1,016
719
971
656
706
724
784
666
719
6.1
8.1
5.4
7.1
6.5
5.5
4.0
2.8
4.7
5.3
110
30
151
60
89
146
247
293
198
159
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2004
(thousands)
December
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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
5.6
9.6
6.3
6.0
17.9
8.3
10.4
3.7
19.7
102.0
87.6
210.9
116.9
110.3
439.2
194.9
221.1
94.2
505.5
4.9
1.7
1.7
0.2
1.6
2.1
1.7
3.2
8.9
1.1
19
151
151
259
160
114
151
60
1
198
$558
635
697
694
663
828
706
707
748
838
6.5
6.9
5.3
3.4
3.3
5.9
3.2
4.4
4.9
5.4
89
73
159
276
279
123
284
219
186
151
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
4.2
30.0
4.1
3.5
6.1
13.0
68.3
8.7
12.5
6.6
93.9
663.1
77.4
79.2
116.7
217.9
1,458.4
138.5
255.9
103.7
4.1
0.1
1.7
1.5
0.7
(7)
1.8
3.4
0.7
4.6
34
267
151
172
226
135
53
226
27
602
721
753
566
500
893
1,001
700
579
806
5.8
7.0
5.3
5.4
4.4
( 7)
5.1
6.5
5.3
5.1
129
66
159
151
219
174
89
159
174
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Potter, TX ...........................
Smith, TX ...........................
4.8
90.8
9.5
5.8
6.5
4.7
6.4
8.0
3.9
4.9
88.2
1,861.3
194.9
117.8
119.7
98.8
94.8
144.9
77.2
88.3
1.6
1.3
4.1
-0.3
2.6
1.0
5.4
1.1
0.0
2.0
160
185
34
288
88
203
14
198
272
121
690
978
504
771
603
633
737
681
628
701
3.6
7.8
3.3
6.6
5.2
4.3
3.4
6.6
5.2
6.4
270
34
279
84
166
227
276
84
166
97
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
34.0
25.3
4.3
5.2
6.5
35.8
11.6
5.5
5.7
7.1
708.8
525.5
79.9
88.9
94.3
535.9
154.3
88.7
97.0
158.2
1.9
3.2
2.5
4.7
3.8
2.8
4.6
1.8
1.5
2.9
127
60
91
23
38
79
27
135
172
75
827
923
540
893
642
743
615
593
780
1,291
4.3
6.7
4.9
17.8
4.7
6.0
4.4
3.3
1.4
7.7
227
76
186
1
198
117
219
279
309
38
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 .............
6.8
30.0
8.3
6.4
6.1
5.7
4.9
3.7
5.6
7.0
115.5
561.3
172.2
118.1
99.0
94.8
94.8
99.5
145.6
160.6
2.3
4.7
2.5
6.9
6.6
2.7
2.7
2.2
0.2
1.8
104
23
91
5
6
82
82
108
259
135
752
1,239
864
1,035
732
1,049
644
736
782
914
7.9
6.7
12.5
5.1
5.8
6.6
6.3
5.9
4.3
6.4
33
76
4
174
129
84
105
123
227
97
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 318 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2004
(thousands)
December
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2003-044
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ....................
10.7
10.6
78.2
6.2
19.9
16.2
14.8
6.3
8.4
6.2
176.0
123.4
1,117.2
81.6
254.8
215.5
196.2
91.8
87.5
108.5
3.1
4.9
1.8
3.0
3.5
3.7
2.7
1.5
2.0
-0.8
67
19
135
71
52
41
82
172
121
302
$643
714
973
692
699
787
630
696
541
689
6.1
5.3
3.8
2.4
4.3
4.1
4.3
3.9
4.6
5.0
110
159
256
298
227
243
227
252
206
178
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
6.7
13.7
21.7
5.0
4.3
13.3
3.9
147.6
298.4
499.7
101.6
76.7
231.0
87.3
0.4
2.4
-0.3
3.1
0.5
2.4
-0.1
248
95
288
67
243
95
276
772
770
824
705
815
821
798
8.6
3.1
6.7
5.2
7.1
3.8
7.8
19
287
76
166
60
256
34
San Juan, PR .....................
13.6
338.0
1.0
203
535
4.3
227
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 317 U.S. counties comprise 70.6 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
fourth quarter 20042
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2004
(thousands)
December
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2003-043
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
8,487.6
8,215.2
123.0
828.7
369.7
1,860.9
143.3
792.7
1,349.9
751.5
684.3
1,100.4
272.4
131,560.7
110,295.2
1,592.9
6,999.3
14,281.7
26,305.1
3,102.1
7,985.2
16,664.6
16,374.2
12,363.1
4,288.3
21,265.6
1.7
1.9
2.1
4.6
-0.1
1.3
-1.9
1.4
3.4
2.4
2.6
0.2
0.6
$812
816
758
865
985
704
1,239
1,238
1,016
773
346
518
794
5.7
6.0
7.8
3.2
4.3
5.9
8.7
8.6
7.3
5.6
3.3
4.6
4.9
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 ...................................................
366.8
363.0
0.6
13.1
17.0
53.4
8.9
23.1
40.0
26.9
25.8
153.9
3.8
4,123.1
3,539.4
10.7
142.0
476.8
810.9
221.7
238.9
576.4
463.2
378.0
219.8
583.7
1.4
1.9
1.4
7.1
-1.6
2.4
7.9
0.9
2.0
1.5
2.1
-0.3
-1.0
959
960
1,277
939
959
782
1,720
1,363
1,132
870
782
442
957
6.1
6.8
37.5
6.5
6.8
6.5
8.4
8.9
7.6
5.7
0.9
4.2
2.9
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 ...................................................
127.7
126.4
0.1
10.8
7.5
26.6
2.5
14.2
26.1
12.6
10.7
12.7
1.2
2,529.3
2,214.5
1.3
94.5
256.8
495.1
62.6
217.3
412.7
357.8
217.4
94.2
314.8
0.0
0.2
6.9
-2.2
-1.7
0.0
-2.2
-0.2
2.0
1.5
-0.2
-0.9
-1.8
985
992
1,124
1,191
1,039
803
1,317
1,579
1,307
832
390
695
939
6.7
6.7
14.5
1.4
7.0
6.8
11.8
6.9
7.7
5.3
4.3
5.8
7.6
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 ...................................................
112.9
112.7
0.0
2.1
3.3
21.8
4.2
16.9
22.5
8.0
10.3
16.1
0.2
2,266.8
1,815.5
0.1
28.7
45.0
248.0
129.6
353.1
443.8
278.5
194.9
83.6
451.3
0.9
1.2
-5.9
0.0
-1.8
2.1
-1.6
0.6
1.9
1.6
1.8
0.5
-0.4
1,608
1,760
1,536
1,591
1,437
1,180
1,839
3,468
1,826
956
834
910
998
8.4
8.1
26.1
1.8
13.0
0.9
4.2
14.0
6.5
4.3
6.4
3.5
9.4
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
fourth quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2004
(thousands)
December
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2003-043
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
90.8
90.4
1.3
6.3
4.6
21.2
1.4
9.8
17.3
9.2
6.8
10.5
0.5
1,861.3
1,620.7
64.7
133.2
164.3
406.8
33.3
115.1
291.7
191.7
159.2
56.4
240.5
1.3
1.8
2.9
-1.8
0.9
1.5
-3.0
2.2
3.6
1.7
2.4
0.3
-2.0
$978
999
2,400
938
1,223
870
1,161
1,257
1,168
879
356
557
839
7.8
7.5
9.5
2.4
10.6
6.0
6.1
6.7
8.4
8.7
6.6
4.1
10.2
Maricopa, AZ ......................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
80.4
79.9
0.5
8.3
3.2
18.3
1.5
9.7
17.7
7.9
5.8
5.5
0.5
1,696.8
1,472.4
10.6
148.5
130.0
350.6
34.2
139.6
278.8
172.2
160.2
44.5
224.4
4.7
5.1
6.9
12.9
1.9
4.3
-7.6
4.3
6.8
7.0
2.8
0.1
2.2
801
800
632
819
1,071
757
952
1,024
833
879
370
539
807
5.7
5.8
17.0
5.1
2.0
5.7
8.8
9.9
7.1
4.5
1.9
8.0
5.4
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 ...................................................
68.3
67.9
0.5
4.4
3.4
15.6
1.8
8.7
13.9
6.3
5.2
6.6
0.5
1,458.4
1,299.8
6.6
75.7
145.0
319.1
58.7
142.0
250.4
132.9
126.2
39.8
158.6
1.8
1.9
2.6
3.6
2.1
0.9
-4.7
1.6
3.8
2.6
1.7
-2.5
1.5
1,001
1,021
2,429
921
1,136
950
1,350
1,304
1,188
956
455
611
831
5.1
5.1
-11.6
2.0
6.3
6.7
5.1
7.0
2.5
7.5
5.3
4.4
3.9
Orange, CA ........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
90.3
88.9
0.2
6.7
5.9
17.2
1.4
10.1
17.5
9.3
6.7
13.7
1.4
1,464.8
1,335.9
6.0
91.7
184.2
280.7
33.2
140.1
259.6
130.3
162.3
47.3
128.9
2.0
2.5
-1.7
4.6
0.7
2.2
-2.0
8.2
1.5
2.3
1.7
3.2
-2.7
938
942
594
1,019
1,093
858
1,235
1,520
1,020
876
366
547
897
7.1
7.3
1.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
7.9
11.7
8.1
3.4
2.5
4.2
4.8
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
fourth quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2004
(thousands)
December
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2003-043
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2003-043
San Diego, CA ...................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
87.2
85.8
0.9
6.7
3.5
14.1
1.3
9.1
15.0
7.6
6.6
21.0
1.4
1,296.9
1,077.4
11.1
89.3
105.4
224.3
37.6
80.7
209.1
120.9
145.7
53.1
219.5
1.9
2.1
0.6
10.2
0.5
2.7
2.0
0.3
1.5
-0.3
1.4
3.4
0.5
$872
865
551
949
1,134
693
1,881
1,152
1,065
833
369
461
905
6.5
6.7
10.2
9.1
1.3
6.5
18.0
7.6
6.5
6.7
5.1
3.6
5.5
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 ...................................................
78.2
77.7
0.4
6.3
2.6
14.9
1.5
6.3
12.1
6.0
5.5
22.0
0.5
1,117.2
960.4
2.9
56.8
102.7
227.2
68.5
76.5
164.2
113.0
102.9
45.7
156.8
1.8
1.9
4.3
5.5
0.7
1.4
-1.4
-0.3
4.8
4.1
2.8
-4.6
1.1
973
987
1,216
954
1,189
859
1,946
1,157
1,195
785
416
508
887
3.8
4.3
9.3
3.7
1.4
6.3
5.9
3.7
3.1
5.7
3.2
10.4
0.6
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 ...................................................
83.2
82.9
0.5
5.2
2.8
23.9
1.8
8.9
16.6
8.2
5.6
7.7
0.3
1,007.1
853.9
10.4
43.7
49.7
249.3
26.8
68.6
142.2
126.0
98.1
35.1
153.2
2.4
2.9
2.1
7.2
-0.7
0.8
-3.8
3.8
7.3
1.8
4.6
0.4
0.1
822
800
453
845
722
747
1,116
1,161
1,024
794
452
480
947
6.3
6.4
8.6
6.3
3.9
6.4
11.2
7.7
6.4
4.3
3.4
6.4
7.5
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See
Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county
by state, fourth quarter 20042
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2004
(thousands)
December
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2003-044
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2003-044
United States6 ....................
8,487.6
131,560.7
1.7
$812
5.7
Jefferson, AL ......................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pulaski, AR ........................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Denver, CO ........................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
18.8
7.7
80.4
13.4
366.8
24.5
24.4
19.5
30.3
83.2
373.6
142.2
1,696.8
245.7
4,123.1
429.1
487.7
286.5
659.6
1,007.1
0.0
1.4
4.7
1.2
1.4
1.7
0.9
0.9
0.6
2.4
833
830
801
757
959
990
1,016
980
1,305
822
9.2
5.2
5.7
5.6
6.1
5.9
7.4
6.9
5.5
6.3
Fulton, GA ..........................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Cook, IL .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
Polk, IA ..............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
37.8
23.4
13.4
127.7
23.8
14.3
19.0
21.9
12.6
12.3
745.4
441.3
193.4
2,529.3
586.8
264.0
300.7
424.3
247.7
173.4
3.2
3.3
4.8
0.0
1.6
1.8
2.4
0.9
-1.1
0.8
1,055
756
742
985
833
817
841
807
753
769
5.8
7.2
8.2
6.7
4.1
7.5
7.3
6.5
5.5
7.1
Montgomery, MD ...............
Middlesex, MA ...................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Hinds, MS ..........................
St. Louis, MO .....................
Yellowstone, MT ................
Douglas, NE .......................
Clark, NV ...........................
Hillsborough, NH ................
31.9
48.7
34.6
41.0
6.6
33.8
5.5
15.0
40.0
12.3
458.2
791.6
804.2
840.1
130.2
626.2
71.8
312.1
839.0
197.7
1.2
0.1
-1.5
1.5
-1.0
0.6
3.9
0.3
7.5
0.9
1,067
1,146
950
1,049
713
863
637
757
770
933
6.3
5.4
3.7
9.6
4.9
5.2
4.8
7.4
7.7
6.4
Bergen, NJ .........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
New York, NY ....................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
Cass, ND ...........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Providence, RI ...................
34.4
16.4
112.9
27.4
5.5
38.3
21.9
25.6
35.6
17.9
456.5
318.6
2,266.8
519.3
90.4
764.3
411.7
429.6
691.6
289.8
0.2
1.9
0.9
2.1
4.3
0.2
1.6
1.7
-0.6
-0.3
1,067
727
1,608
948
687
864
698
815
848
784
3.7
5.2
8.4
8.1
9.0
7.6
4.0
4.2
5.7
2.8
Greenville, SC ....................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Shelby, TN .........................
Harris, TX ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Fairfax, VA .........................
King, WA ............................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
12.3
6.0
19.7
90.8
35.8
5.7
30.0
78.2
6.2
21.7
227.1
110.3
505.5
1,861.3
535.9
97.0
561.3
1,117.2
108.5
499.7
1.7
1.6
1.1
1.3
2.8
1.5
4.7
1.8
-0.8
-0.3
719
663
838
978
743
780
1,239
973
689
824
5.3
3.3
5.4
7.8
6.0
1.4
6.7
3.8
5.0
6.7
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county
by state, fourth quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2004
(thousands)
December
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2003-044
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2003-044
Laramie, WY ......................
2.9
39.5
-0.1
$630
5.5
San Juan, PR .....................
St. Thomas, VI ...................
13.6
1.7
338.0
22.9
1.0
-3.4
535
628
4.3
5.7
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,
fourth quarter 20042
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2004
(thousands)
December
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2003-04
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2003-04
United States4 ....................
8,487.6
131,560.7
1.7
$812
5.7
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
116.0
20.2
127.6
77.0
1,229.4
164.3
109.6
29.5
30.3
534.2
1,882.0
288.4
2,459.0
1,149.1
15,163.8
2,181.7
1,663.8
418.0
659.6
7,729.7
2.3
2.1
4.4
1.4
1.7
2.2
1.0
2.1
0.6
3.7
695
780
752
623
928
830
1,056
883
1,305
736
5.8
4.4
5.9
6.0
6.7
5.9
6.3
7.0
5.5
6.5
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
253.0
35.9
50.3
331.3
152.8
91.8
82.8
107.9
117.1
51.1
3,916.5
603.0
597.8
5,773.7
2,883.9
1,441.9
1,317.5
1,761.9
1,890.3
600.9
2.1
3.3
3.6
0.6
1.1
1.6
1.5
1.2
0.7
0.9
772
723
618
877
706
667
668
679
658
661
5.0
6.6
6.6
6.0
4.6
6.5
5.9
5.3
4.9
4.8
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
156.9
212.9
253.7
159.5
66.9
168.8
41.7
55.8
64.6
47.7
2,506.0
3,169.2
4,348.5
2,635.3
1,116.7
2,670.4
409.3
891.8
1,186.1
624.0
1.7
0.4
-0.3
1.6
0.8
1.4
3.2
0.9
6.7
1.4
879
1,007
835
835
586
709
572
648
768
840
5.8
5.6
3.3
7.5
4.8
4.9
4.2
5.7
6.5
6.5
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
269.2
50.0
556.7
230.7
24.4
289.0
93.1
120.8
332.5
35.4
3,964.7
773.2
8,466.9
3,844.9
326.2
5,350.3
1,458.8
1,623.5
5,573.2
482.6
1.1
2.2
1.0
2.3
2.7
0.5
2.2
2.8
0.9
0.4
1,001
645
1,016
714
599
754
627
719
796
765
5.7
5.0
5.8
5.2
6.4
5.9
5.0
3.5
6.0
3.5
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
114.4
28.8
130.7
514.2
79.5
24.6
208.1
215.4
48.0
158.7
1,811.0
371.2
2,704.3
9,479.9
1,100.6
304.7
3,568.2
2,718.0
695.4
2,755.2
2.0
1.6
2.3
1.9
3.3
1.1
2.7
2.5
1.4
1.4
655
581
728
800
664
676
841
790
620
719
5.0
3.9
5.5
6.1
5.2
2.3
6.9
4.1
5.6
5.4
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
fourth quarter 20042 — Continued
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2004
(thousands)
December
2004
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2003-04
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2003-04
Wyoming ............................
22.6
247.9
2.6
$641
4.1
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
53.5
3.2
1,098.0
43.7
1.9
1.0
468
670
3.8
6.3
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
July 2005
or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
-3.4% to 1.7%
1.8% to 8.9%
but are included because they are the largest county in their state
Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees
December 2003 04 (U.S. Average = 1.7%)
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 employees or more,
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
July 2005
or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
0.5% to 5.7%
5.8% to 17.8%
but are included because they are the largest county in their state
Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees
or more, fourth quarter 2003 04 (U.S. Average = 5.7%)
Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000 employees