Technical information:
(202) 691-6567
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
Media contact:
691-5902
USDL 05-1976
For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT
Thursday, October 20, 2005
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FIRST QUARTER 2005
In March 2005, Clark County, Nev., 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. Clark County experienced an over-the-year employment gain of
7.6 percent, compared with national job growth of 1.7 percent. Collier County, Fla., had the largest overthe-year gain in average weekly wages in the first quarter of 2005, with an increase of 10.7 percent. The
U.S. average weekly wage increased by 2.2 percent over the same time span.
Of the 322 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2004 annual average employment, 118
had over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average in March 2005, and 186
experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 1.) Average weekly wages grew faster than the
national average in 130 of the largest U.S. counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was
below the national average in 173 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 129.8 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the
nation and for the 322 U.S. counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2004. In
addition, data for San Juan, Puerto Rico, are provided, but not used in calculating U.S. averages, rankings,
or in the analysis in the text. March 2005 employment and 2005 first-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 fourth quarter of 2004 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/.
Preliminary data for the first quarter of 2005 and final data for 2004 will be available later in October on the
BLS Web site.
Five Counties Added to the 2005 County Employment and Wages News Releases
Counties with employment of 75,000 or more are included in this release. For 2005 data, five
counties have been added to the publication tables: Lake, Fla., Wyandotte, Kan., Harford, Md.,
Washington, Pa., and Whatcom, Wash. All counties published in the 2004 releases continue to
have employment levels of 75,000 or more and will be included in the 2005 releases.
2
Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by March 2005 employment, March 2004-05 employment change,
and March 2004-05 percent change in employment
Employment in large counties
Net change in employment,
March 2004-05
(thousands)
March 2005 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.
129,802.3
4,051.2
2,466.4
2,221.5
1,840.9
1,685.4
1,477.6
1,402.1
1,282.1
1,093.0
994.9
U.S.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Clark, Nev.
Orange, Calif.
Harris, Texas
Riverside, Calif.
San Bernardino, Calif.
Palm Beach, Fla.
Broward, Fla.
Hillsborough, Fla.
Fairfax, Va.
Percent change in employment,
March 2004-05
2,146.7
85.1
59.9
32.8
30.6
29.8
29.2
25.0
24.4
22.3
21.3
U.S.
1.7
Clark, Nev.
Lee, Fla.
Rutherford, Tenn.
Seminole, Fla.
Montgomery, Texas
Benton, Ark.
Lake, Fla.
Williamson, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
Utah, Utah
Whatcom, Wash.
7.6
7.5
7.1
6.9
6.1
5.7
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.3
Large County Employment
In March 2005, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 129.8 million, up
by 1.7 percent from March 2004. The 322 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for
70.8 percent of total U.S. covered employment and 77.5 percent of total covered wages. These 322
counties had a net job gain of 1,324,000 over the year, accounting for 61.7 percent of the U.S. employment increase. Employment increased in 254 of the large counties from March 2004 to March 2005. Clark
County, Nev., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (7.6 percent). Lee, Fla., had
the next largest increase, 7.5 percent, followed by the counties of Rutherford, Tenn. (7.1 percent), Seminole,
Fla. (6.9 percent), and Montgomery, Texas (6.1 percent). (See table 1.)
Employment declined in 51 counties from March 2004 to March 2005. The largest percentage decline in
employment was in Bibb County, Ga. (-1.9 percent), followed by the counties of McLean, Ill. (-1.7 percent),
Broome, N.Y. (-1.5 percent), and Madison, Ill., and St. Louis City, Mo. (-1.4 percent each).
The largest gains in employment from March 2004 to March 2005 were recorded in the counties of
Maricopa, Ariz. (85,100), Clark, Nev. (59,900), Orange, Calif. (32,800), Harris, Texas (30,600), and
Riverside, Calif. (29,800). (See table A.)
The largest decline in employment occurred in Wayne County, Mich. (-8,300), followed by the counties
of Allegheny, Pa. (-5,400), Erie, N.Y. (-3,500), St. Louis City, Mo. (-3,100), and Milwaukee, Wis.
(-2,800).
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the first quarter of 2005 was $775. Average weekly wages were
higher than the national average in 101 of the largest 322 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., held the
top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $2,025. Fairfield
3
Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by first quarter 2005 average weekly wages, first quarter
2004-05 change in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2004-05 percent change in average
weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
first quarter 2005
U.S.
New York, N.Y.
Fairfield, Conn.
Suffolk, Mass.
Santa Clara, Calif.
San Francisco, Calif.
Somerset, N.J.
Arlington, Va.
Washington, D.C.
Hudson, N.J.
San Mateo, Calif.
$775
$2,025
1,613
1,390
1,372
1,368
1,343
1,286
1,277
1,236
1,220
Change in average weekly
wage, first quarter 2004-05
U.S.
Fairfield, Conn.
New York, N.Y.
Hudson, N.J.
Henrico, Va.
Collier, Fla.
Cumberland, Pa.
Mecklenburg, N.C.
Washington, D.C.
Rock Island, Ill.
Harris, Texas
$17
$115
111
102
69
68
67
57
52
52
52
Percent change in average
weekly wage, first
quarter 2004-05
U.S.
Collier, Fla.
Cumberland, Pa.
Hudson, N.J.
Henrico, Va.
Fairfield, Conn.
Rock Island, Ill.
Trumbull, Ohio
Tuscaloosa, Ala.
Peoria, Ill.
Jefferson, Texas
2.2
10.7
9.3
9.0
8.4
7.7
7.7
7.3
7.0
6.8
6.5
County, Conn., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,613, followed by Suffolk, Mass. ($1,390),
Santa Clara, Calif. ($1,372), and San Francisco, Calif. ($1,368). (See table B.)
There were 220 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the first quarter of
2005. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($460), followed by the
counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($463), Horry, S.C. ($479), Webb, Texas ($490), and Yakima, Wash. ($516).
(See table 1.)
Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 2.2 percent. Among the largest counties,
Collier, Fla., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 10.7 percent from the
first quarter of 2004. Cumberland, Pa., was second with 9.3 percent growth, followed by the counties of
Hudson, N.J. (9.0 percent), Henrico, Va. (8.4 percent), and Fairfield, Conn., and Rock Island, Ill. (7.7
percent each).
Thirty-five counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Clayton County, Ga.,
had the largest decrease, -6.0 percent, followed by the counties of Marin, Calif. (-5.6 percent), Hamilton,
Ind. (-4.3 percent), McLean, Ill. (-2.8 percent), and St. Louis, Minn. (-2.7 percent).
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2004 annual average employment levels), 8 reported increases
in employment, while 2 showed a decline from March 2004 to March 2005. Maricopa County, Ariz., experienced the fastest growth in employment among the largest counties, with a 5.3 percent increase. Within
Maricopa County, employment rose in every industry group except information. The largest gains were in
construction (15.1 percent) and professional and business services (7.5 percent). (See table 2.) Orange
County, Calif., had the next largest increase in employment, 2.3 percent, followed by Miami-Dade, Fla.
4
(1.9 percent). The smallest employment gain occurred in New York, N.Y. (0.8 percent). Both Cook
County, Ill., and Los Angeles, Calif. experienced a 0.1 percent decrease in employment over the year.
All of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. New York
County, N.Y., and Harris, Texas, had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, increasing
by 5.8 percent each. Within New York County, wages increased the most in manufacturing (25.7 percent)
and natural resources and mining (14.4 percent). Within Harris County, wages increased most in natural resources and mining (17.4 percent) and manufacturing (12.1 percent). King, Wash., and Miami-Dade, Fla.,
were second in wage growth, increasing by 2.9 percent each. The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest
counties occurred in San Diego County, Calif. (1.4 percent), and Dallas, Texas, and Maricopa, Ariz.
(1.5 percent each).
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows March 2005 employment and the 2005 first 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 March 2005 ranged from
approximately 4.1 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 39,500 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest
average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($2,025), while the lowest average weekly
wage was in Yellowstone County, Mont. ($596).
Regional Quarterly Census of Employment
and Wages News Releases
Several BLS regional offices have recently begun issuing QCEW news releases
targeted to local data users. For links to these releases, see http://www.bls.gov/
cew/cewregional.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 2005 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 323
counties presented in this release were derived using 2004
preliminary annual averages of employment. All of the 318
counties that were published in the 2004 releases are included
in the 2005 releases. The following counties grew enough in
2004 to be included in the 2005 releases: Lake, Fla., Wyandotte,
Kan., Harford, Md., Washington, Pa., and Whatcom, Wash.
These countie s will be included in all 2005 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.
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/
Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment measures
The Bureau publishes three different establishment-based
employment measures for any given quarter. Each of these
measures—QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED),
and Current Employment Statistics (CES)—makes use of the
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 2004, UI and UCFE programs covered
workers in 129.3 million jobs. The estimated 124.4 million
workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders)
represented 96.6 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $5.088 trillion in pay,
representing 94.4 percent of the wage and salary component of
personal income and 43.4 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. Beginning with the first quarter
of 2005, Oregon implemented a change in their state UI laws.
This change extended UI coverage to providers of home care
for the elderly. These providers are now considered state
workers for purposes of UI benefits.
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
2004 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. The 2004 edition of this bulletin contains selected data
produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job
gains and losses, as well as selected data from the fourth
quarter 2004 version of this news release. Employment and
Wages Annual Averages, 2004 will be available for sale in late
2005 from the United States Government Printing Office,
Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA
15250, telephone 866-512-1800, outside of Washington, D.C.
Within Washington, D.C., the telephone number is 202-5121800. The fax number is 202-512-2104. Also, the 2004 bulletin
will be available in a portable document format (PDF) on the
BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn04.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: [email protected]).
Information in this release will be made available to
sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone:
202-691-5200; TDD message referral phone number:
1-800-877-8339.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
first quarter 20052
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2005
(thousands)
March
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
United States6 ....................
8,543.2
129,802.3
1.7
-
$775
2.2
-
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
18.7
8.1
9.7
6.6
4.2
7.8
81.2
17.8
4.7
13.4
366.3
165.6
165.1
132.3
80.0
139.6
1,685.4
350.6
88.3
241.8
-0.6
2.5
3.3
1.2
3.4
1.2
5.3
3.2
5.7
1.4
287
83
54
156
49
156
9
58
6
139
788
799
608
631
626
793
746
647
771
683
2.6
5.1
3.1
2.1
7.0
1.5
1.5
3.2
-0.5
2.2
105
17
73
141
8
182
182
67
287
131
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.2
48.5
27.9
29.4
16.4
373.9
11.8
12.0
91.4
9.7
88.0
674.5
338.4
324.6
249.0
4,051.2
108.1
157.7
1,477.6
133.5
4.2
0.1
0.2
2.6
3.5
-0.1
0.8
0.6
2.3
3.6
32
250
248
80
45
262
200
223
92
41
585
997
1,021
600
652
864
933
697
893
749
3.2
2.9
5.0
1.4
0.0
2.0
-5.6
3.0
2.2
3.5
67
86
19
194
275
148
312
83
131
50
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 .................
40.0
48.1
43.7
88.4
43.5
16.3
8.8
22.9
13.3
53.2
598.4
616.9
627.1
1,282.1
519.9
215.4
101.3
325.0
179.5
850.1
5.2
2.3
4.9
1.2
0.7
1.3
0.8
-0.5
0.3
1.0
12
92
20
156
209
149
200
278
243
177
652
855
654
816
1,368
638
621
1,220
733
1,372
0.9
2.5
0.8
1.4
3.8
-0.6
2.1
1.2
3.7
2.1
230
111
240
194
37
289
141
206
41
141
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
8.5
9.7
17.4
13.5
8.6
21.0
5.2
8.8
19.1
12.0
92.3
127.4
187.8
169.5
133.2
313.6
96.4
144.2
268.0
152.7
1.0
1.9
0.0
4.0
2.5
1.3
1.2
3.0
1.3
3.2
177
109
255
34
83
149
156
68
149
58
723
715
737
635
530
861
704
712
943
919
-2.4
0.1
3.7
1.0
1.0
4.5
4.3
0.3
1.5
-0.3
307
271
41
221
221
26
29
262
182
279
Denver, CO ........................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
24.4
16.3
18.2
9.4
31.8
24.4
22.1
6.7
19.6
30.5
418.1
235.2
203.2
121.5
406.5
480.1
357.9
127.9
278.6
661.7
1.0
2.0
1.9
2.2
0.3
1.2
0.5
1.8
0.1
1.1
177
105
109
97
243
156
236
115
250
168
976
692
795
670
1,613
1,041
816
784
1,005
1,277
3.8
0.9
3.7
1.2
7.7
3.4
1.0
-0.8
4.9
4.2
37
230
41
206
5
58
221
294
20
31
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
first quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2005
(thousands)
March
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Alachua, FL ........................
Brevard, FL ........................
Broward, FL .......................
Collier, FL ..........................
Duval, FL ...........................
Escambia, FL .....................
Hillsborough, FL .................
Lake, FL .............................
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
6.1
13.3
60.0
11.1
23.9
7.5
33.2
6.0
16.6
7.6
123.0
201.1
722.8
130.0
444.7
128.0
628.9
79.9
210.5
144.7
(7)
3.6
3.5
2.7
3.2
3.1
3.7
5.4
7.5
0.0
41
45
75
58
64
40
7
2
255
$591
701
732
702
766
589
732
536
649
625
( 7)
-0.3
3.1
10.7
2.7
3.2
1.5
2.5
5.4
1.3
279
73
1
96
67
182
111
16
198
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
7.9
7.1
83.6
5.8
31.4
45.7
8.1
29.6
11.3
14.0
129.9
96.7
994.9
81.2
660.0
549.1
91.9
434.6
201.9
155.3
4.4
(7)
1.9
4.5
(7)
4.8
(7)
-0.3
3.6
5.1
30
109
27
23
269
41
16
560
541
748
593
703
769
518
659
582
640
3.3
1.9
2.9
4.4
( 7)
5.8
( 7)
3.3
2.8
2.4
62
153
86
27
12
62
92
120
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
13.0
12.8
4.7
7.1
4.3
19.9
16.9
37.3
21.7
4.7
162.3
162.3
85.5
129.5
108.2
303.3
288.9
729.7
309.2
96.6
6.9
3.5
-1.9
1.6
1.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.6
0.6
4
45
312
127
115
186
200
186
127
223
691
550
632
629
740
830
845
1,076
804
606
4.7
3.8
2.9
1.5
-6.0
2.3
2.2
3.0
0.9
0.5
25
37
86
182
313
126
131
83
230
254
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
4.7
23.6
13.5
4.0
128.4
33.2
11.5
19.4
7.7
3.4
104.5
436.2
192.2
89.7
2,466.4
569.9
197.7
315.6
94.0
80.4
-0.6
3.0
4.5
0.7
-0.1
0.9
1.8
1.0
2.1
-1.7
287
68
27
209
262
186
115
177
99
311
625
693
667
619
983
918
689
955
644
716
2.5
1.5
1.7
-0.3
2.8
3.5
1.5
2.5
-0.9
-2.8
111
182
165
279
92
50
182
111
297
310
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
Rock Island, IL ...................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
Winnebago, IL ....................
Allen, IN .............................
Elkhart, IN ..........................
Hamilton, IN .......................
5.7
4.6
3.4
5.1
5.1
11.2
6.7
8.9
4.9
6.6
92.8
99.8
77.2
92.8
128.9
161.1
134.5
177.4
123.9
91.4
-1.4
2.4
0.9
0.6
-0.2
2.1
-1.0
0.0
3.8
5.2
308
87
186
223
267
99
300
255
38
12
640
759
728
591
753
689
652
658
635
781
3.2
6.8
7.7
1.7
4.0
0.9
2.7
-0.3
1.6
-4.3
67
9
5
165
33
230
96
279
169
311
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
first quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2005
(thousands)
March
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Lake, IN .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
Vanderburgh, IN ................
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ..............................
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
10.1
24.0
6.1
4.8
6.1
14.1
5.1
19.0
11.8
4.8
190.3
575.1
124.2
107.2
117.0
259.9
86.2
294.1
239.5
93.8
1.2
1.4
0.5
0.3
2.1
1.9
3.6
1.7
1.1
-0.9
156
139
236
243
99
109
41
119
168
299
$671
818
636
644
725
792
607
817
706
632
1.8
1.0
1.6
2.1
2.3
1.5
2.0
0.0
3.7
1.3
160
221
169
141
126
182
148
275
41
198
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
3.2
8.8
21.7
7.1
4.7
13.1
14.0
7.7
12.6
11.6
74.7
167.5
415.8
122.0
83.0
246.2
213.0
120.1
244.5
165.1
1.0
2.4
1.0
2.3
1.4
0.1
-0.3
2.7
-1.1
0.0
177
87
177
92
139
250
269
75
303
255
728
684
742
600
639
654
633
642
738
707
-0.5
-2.3
-1.1
-1.3
3.4
3.2
3.3
2.6
2.2
1.6
287
305
299
300
58
67
62
105
131
169
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
14.0
21.2
5.7
5.4
8.2
32.4
15.5
14.0
9.4
15.6
217.9
356.0
90.0
79.3
135.4
452.6
310.5
357.5
82.5
216.0
1.4
0.7
0.9
2.0
-0.5
1.6
-0.4
0.1
-0.8
-0.5
139
209
186
105
278
127
274
250
294
278
792
785
725
704
875
1,041
797
909
653
661
2.5
1.0
-2.4
6.2
3.1
2.6
1.1
1.6
0.9
1.8
111
221
307
11
73
105
213
169
230
160
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
21.1
14.4
48.9
22.2
14.0
22.6
20.7
8.5
7.1
5.5
287.8
195.4
775.9
311.4
170.7
556.6
312.4
147.0
162.4
115.0
-0.7
-0.5
0.5
-0.5
2.0
0.7
-0.6
(7)
(7)
-0.1
292
278
236
278
105
209
287
262
803
728
1,097
916
705
1,390
754
710
754
721
1.6
3.1
2.2
0.1
-0.3
-1.0
1.3
( 7)
( 7)
-2.3
169
73
131
271
279
298
198
305
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
14.6
18.0
40.9
5.8
4.6
8.2
34.4
7.4
9.7
40.0
332.0
320.3
703.0
109.6
88.0
193.9
783.3
110.5
166.3
815.7
0.9
-0.3
-0.3
1.4
-0.7
0.4
-1.1
1.7
1.2
1.4
186
269
269
139
292
239
303
119
156
139
692
830
932
676
686
859
892
720
755
999
1.6
0.6
1.2
3.2
1.6
-0.8
0.2
1.0
0.3
1.4
169
251
206
67
169
294
267
221
262
194
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
first quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2005
(thousands)
March
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
Boone, MO .........................
Clay, MO ............................
Greene, MO .......................
Jackson, MO ......................
3.3
14.7
5.7
4.2
4.6
6.5
4.3
5.0
8.0
18.7
86.1
323.1
91.9
76.2
90.7
128.0
79.0
86.1
147.7
360.7
-0.6
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.6
-0.8
3.4
1.1
2.7
0.6
287
177
186
200
127
294
49
168
75
223
$860
875
618
583
561
653
573
693
576
776
1.1
-0.6
-2.7
0.3
4.3
0.9
1.2
1.5
2.7
1.3
213
289
309
262
29
230
206
182
96
198
St. Charles, MO .................
St. Louis, MO .....................
St. Louis City, MO ..............
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
7.5
33.9
8.2
14.9
7.6
40.9
13.1
12.2
10.7
6.7
115.7
612.3
219.4
304.9
151.5
844.7
206.7
192.6
132.0
142.0
4.8
0.6
-1.4
0.7
2.1
7.6
4.3
0.7
1.2
1.2
23
223
308
209
99
1
31
209
156
156
652
819
910
708
610
718
705
827
766
676
1.2
0.7
0.9
-0.6
0.2
3.5
1.9
2.6
0.4
0.7
206
246
230
289
267
50
153
105
255
246
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
34.2
11.2
13.5
21.2
6.2
13.9
10.8
20.7
20.0
17.7
442.4
198.2
208.7
355.6
100.9
235.5
218.9
386.8
249.0
278.0
0.0
1.1
1.5
-0.1
3.4
0.4
2.6
-0.3
0.7
-0.8
255
168
135
262
49
239
80
269
209
294
982
801
756
1,050
679
1,236
990
1,022
836
1,190
1.9
0.4
-0.7
1.1
0.7
9.0
0.4
0.6
1.6
3.7
153
255
293
213
246
3
255
251
169
41
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
11.5
12.5
10.0
14.9
16.6
9.6
15.6
4.5
7.9
23.2
140.3
174.9
166.3
226.7
313.7
225.7
219.0
92.9
116.6
449.9
0.9
0.8
0.1
(7)
1.1
-0.4
2.6
-1.5
0.6
-0.8
186
200
250
168
274
80
310
223
294
649
805
1,343
1,004
657
780
705
602
801
680
1.9
1.6
1.5
(7)
1.9
0.0
2.2
2.0
3.5
0.7
153
169
182
153
275
131
148
50
246
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
42.3
17.6
51.0
113.4
5.3
12.7
9.4
40.3
8.2
9.4
451.5
379.8
588.0
2,221.5
107.3
244.7
125.7
471.5
88.2
111.0
1.7
0.9
-0.1
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.6
1.2
119
186
262
200
209
223
223
168
223
156
660
744
860
2,025
587
694
648
759
664
806
-0.3
-1.8
3.4
5.8
0.9
0.1
4.0
1.9
0.8
1.0
279
303
58
12
230
271
33
153
240
221
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
first quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2005
(thousands)
March
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
48.2
35.6
7.0
4.3
5.8
6.2
8.4
13.7
27.4
6.6
593.6
407.5
108.3
86.5
115.1
168.9
177.3
269.8
513.7
93.2
0.3
0.7
3.4
-0.4
4.0
1.0
1.8
1.7
3.2
5.2
243
209
49
274
34
177
115
119
58
12
$787
1,102
575
580
558
1,032
729
686
1,048
611
0.4
3.1
1.8
3.6
2.2
-2.0
-0.3
1.6
5.8
4.8
255
73
160
47
131
304
279
169
12
23
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
23.7
5.5
7.0
38.1
29.1
24.6
6.8
6.3
10.9
6.5
394.7
88.5
133.7
740.8
671.3
529.4
98.8
99.8
222.0
104.2
2.9
3.2
0.4
0.0
0.7
-0.5
1.3
-1.3
(7)
0.7
70
58
239
255
209
278
149
307
209
765
610
679
813
776
850
662
653
705
555
1.1
0.8
3.3
2.8
2.0
2.4
4.4
2.2
( 7)
-1.6
213
240
62
92
148
120
27
131
302
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
Trumbull, OH .....................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
13.2
9.3
14.9
4.8
22.2
18.4
11.7
6.4
10.4
8.7
279.1
165.1
266.4
82.7
406.2
324.5
141.4
80.8
143.1
131.4
-0.4
0.7
1.7
-1.0
1.3
3.1
4.9
4.9
4.2
5.0
274
209
119
300
149
64
20
20
32
17
725
597
714
704
657
686
695
562
586
594
2.7
1.0
-0.4
7.3
1.7
2.2
1.6
1.1
2.3
0.8
96
221
286
7
165
131
169
213
126
240
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
25.6
14.8
35.7
9.1
20.4
15.0
5.8
7.1
13.8
7.2
424.2
230.4
672.8
161.3
255.4
225.9
123.3
173.9
206.8
125.8
3.1
5.0
-0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
-1.0
1.9
-0.5
1.6
64
17
294
156
139
127
300
109
278
127
778
890
817
667
723
985
784
764
799
582
2.2
-0.6
1.4
2.5
1.3
3.5
9.3
0.7
0.6
0.9
131
289
194
111
198
50
2
246
251
230
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
5.9
12.0
8.4
8.2
27.8
6.4
29.7
5.3
9.7
8.9
98.3
224.9
172.0
140.7
476.1
92.5
631.7
74.1
136.4
171.4
1.7
1.5
0.8
0.9
0.6
1.3
1.1
0.9
1.4
2.8
119
135
200
186
223
149
168
186
139
72
573
640
758
590
1,010
668
895
629
591
669
1.1
1.3
2.7
-0.8
0.2
2.9
0.4
1.6
3.0
0.0
213
198
96
294
267
86
255
169
83
275
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
first quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2005
(thousands)
March
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Kent, RI ..............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
5.6
18.0
12.1
12.4
8.2
5.7
9.6
6.3
6.0
17.9
79.8
281.0
194.4
222.8
103.7
87.8
205.1
115.0
108.2
431.8
0.2
-0.5
2.4
1.4
4.6
5.0
2.8
0.3
2.3
1.6
248
278
87
139
25
17
72
243
92
127
$682
764
629
658
479
570
643
682
635
765
0.3
1.3
3.3
0.8
0.4
4.8
2.4
3.5
3.8
2.4
262
198
62
240
255
23
120
50
37
120
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
8.3
10.4
3.7
19.7
4.2
30.0
4.2
3.6
6.2
14.0
191.1
215.5
93.9
494.2
93.8
663.0
78.5
79.0
115.8
238.3
1.2
1.5
7.1
0.7
(7)
1.9
2.1
0.4
-0.5
(7)
156
135
3
209
109
99
239
278
-
640
639
657
759
560
688
751
542
460
908
2.1
1.1
0.9
0.3
3.5
2.5
1.1
2.7
3.6
( 7)
141
213
230
262
50
111
213
96
47
-
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
65.9
9.2
12.6
7.1
4.8
89.9
9.6
5.8
6.5
4.8
1,402.1
144.6
254.4
107.5
86.5
1,840.9
197.4
116.6
118.3
101.4
1.0
3.8
1.4
2.8
0.9
1.7
4.6
0.7
2.4
1.6
177
38
139
72
186
119
25
209
87
127
954
650
529
820
673
950
463
718
551
605
1.5
2.5
3.1
3.1
4.0
5.8
2.7
6.5
0.4
4.9
182
111
73
73
33
12
96
10
255
20
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Potter, TX ...........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
7.0
8.0
3.7
5.0
34.6
25.0
4.4
5.8
6.5
35.4
100.8
146.8
71.4
89.4
705.7
521.8
79.3
99.5
93.0
529.0
6.1
1.5
-1.1
3.3
2.2
3.3
1.1
5.4
3.2
3.4
5
135
303
54
97
54
168
7
58
49
670
614
587
631
775
866
490
802
594
680
2.8
2.5
2.4
1.9
2.0
3.1
3.6
2.3
-1.5
1.3
92
111
120
153
148
73
47
126
301
198
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
Henrico, VA ........................
Loudoun, VA ......................
Prince William, VA .............
Alexandria City, VA ............
11.5
5.5
5.7
7.1
6.8
30.4
8.4
6.8
6.2
5.7
152.8
87.8
93.4
152.4
112.9
555.9
170.4
116.3
97.4
92.3
5.3
1.1
0.8
0.9
2.0
4.0
2.9
5.2
3.5
0.6
9
168
200
186
105
34
70
12
45
223
560
538
766
1,286
694
1,181
891
1,005
654
972
2.9
0.2
4.9
3.5
3.9
2.1
8.4
3.1
2.7
5.1
86
267
20
50
36
141
4
73
96
17
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
first quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2005
(thousands)
March
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Chesapeake City, VA .........
Newport News City, VA .....
Norfolk City, VA .................
Richmond City, VA .............
Virginia Beach City, VA ......
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
5.0
3.8
5.6
7.0
10.8
10.2
73.3
6.1
18.9
15.8
93.9
98.4
145.4
157.5
172.8
123.1
1,093.0
80.8
253.7
216.6
2.4
2.1
0.9
0.6
3.1
4.5
1.7
2.3
3.3
4.0
87
99
186
223
64
27
119
92
54
34
$576
672
723
907
584
675
948
659
683
761
1.2
3.1
0.8
0.1
2.6
2.1
2.9
(7)
2.4
3.7
206
73
240
271
105
141
86
120
41
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
14.0
6.1
6.3
7.4
6.2
6.7
13.8
21.5
5.0
4.3
194.1
92.6
77.2
90.3
106.3
143.7
291.6
485.6
99.1
74.5
2.5
2.7
5.3
2.7
-1.1
-0.2
2.5
-0.6
1.3
0.0
83
75
9
75
303
267
83
287
149
255
609
676
578
516
660
689
740
785
667
677
1.5
2.7
2.3
2.6
1.7
4.2
1.8
1.8
1.2
1.0
182
96
126
105
165
31
160
160
206
221
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
13.3
3.9
13.9
225.2
85.6
316.4
0.6
0.8
0.6
223
200
(8)
765
753
511
3.4
1.6
5.8
58
169
(8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 322 U.S. counties comprise 70.8 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.
8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
first quarter 20052
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2005
(thousands)
March
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2004-053
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2004-053
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 ...................................................
8,543.2
8,267.3
122.8
834.9
368.2
1,865.7
142.4
803.4
1,359.5
759.1
686.2
1,102.7
276.0
129,802.3
108,445.3
1,586.6
6,782.2
14,153.4
25,176.2
3,036.8
7,921.1
16,499.3
16,348.2
12,308.8
4,280.6
21,357.0
1.7
1.9
2.3
4.1
-0.2
1.5
-2.5
1.4
3.7
2.1
2.3
0.4
0.7
$775
777
781
750
940
657
1,245
1,479
938
665
313
474
767
2.2
2.5
8.0
2.5
2.6
1.7
1.5
4.6
3.3
1.4
0.6
1.3
1.2
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 ...................................................
373.9
370.0
0.6
13.4
16.6
53.4
8.8
23.3
40.4
27.3
25.9
160.0
3.9
4,051.2
3,464.6
11.6
142.2
467.1
778.4
199.4
239.3
565.8
459.0
370.9
229.8
586.6
-0.1
0.0
1.6
4.7
-4.3
1.3
-9.3
0.5
1.9
-0.7
2.1
3.0
-0.2
864
848
1,115
808
895
712
1,562
1,559
983
729
452
395
965
2.0
2.7
-19.7
3.3
4.2
2.7
6.5
5.3
4.2
2.0
-3.2
1.3
-0.2
Cook, IL ..............................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
128.4
127.2
0.1
10.7
7.5
26.8
2.5
14.3
26.3
12.7
10.7
12.8
1.2
2,466.4
2,147.6
1.2
85.4
253.2
468.0
60.8
214.1
403.4
353.5
209.2
93.7
318.7
-0.1
0.1
-0.1
-2.3
-1.4
-0.2
-2.2
-0.5
2.1
1.2
-1.1
-2.2
-0.9
983
992
971
1,135
962
746
1,495
2,150
1,241
713
358
627
921
2.8
3.0
0.7
5.0
6.1
2.9
4.0
2.0
3.1
1.7
1.4
2.3
1.1
New York, NY .....................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
113.4
113.2
0.0
2.1
3.2
21.7
4.1
17.0
22.5
8.0
10.3
16.2
0.2
2,221.5
1,776.9
0.1
28.4
43.2
232.0
127.1
348.7
438.7
276.2
190.1
82.5
444.6
0.8
1.1
7.1
0.7
-6.4
1.1
-0.1
0.0
1.3
1.1
1.8
0.5
-0.3
2,025
2,303
2,002
1,327
1,437
1,072
2,238
6,199
1,907
884
678
855
922
5.8
6.8
14.4
3.2
25.7
2.5
5.2
9.3
6.5
3.9
1.0
5.9
-4.9
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
first quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2005
(thousands)
March
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2004-053
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2004-053
Harris, TX ...........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
89.9
89.4
1.3
6.2
4.5
20.9
1.3
9.8
17.3
9.2
6.7
10.4
0.5
1,840.9
1,594.4
65.1
132.0
164.2
385.5
31.8
114.7
291.6
192.1
158.9
54.5
246.5
1.7
1.9
5.9
-0.2
1.4
0.8
-4.6
1.6
5.1
2.1
0.9
-1.9
0.1
$950
978
3,004
837
1,270
870
1,174
1,318
1,019
720
339
520
768
5.8
6.2
17.4
1.9
12.1
2.7
4.1
4.0
5.9
-1.9
4.0
0.0
1.9
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 ...................................................
81.2
80.6
0.5
8.4
3.2
18.4
1.4
9.9
17.8
8.0
5.8
5.6
0.6
1,685.4
1,476.6
9.0
152.6
130.5
342.6
32.3
142.7
280.2
172.5
165.6
45.9
208.9
5.3
5.8
2.6
15.1
1.9
5.1
-7.2
6.3
7.5
5.7
2.6
0.8
2.2
746
747
574
724
1,116
720
967
1,058
717
748
346
494
736
1.5
1.4
2.3
2.0
4.4
0.0
5.5
7.5
-3.5
1.1
-1.7
2.7
2.9
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 ...................................................
91.4
90.0
0.2
6.7
5.8
17.3
1.4
10.3
17.8
9.4
6.8
14.1
1.4
1,477.6
1,325.4
6.7
94.2
183.8
267.0
32.7
139.0
261.2
130.9
161.8
47.4
152.1
2.3
2.4
-11.7
3.2
0.7
1.4
-1.6
4.9
5.6
1.4
1.0
2.0
1.0
893
881
541
915
1,023
816
1,256
1,549
897
769
343
507
996
2.2
2.2
0.4
4.0
0.3
-1.2
1.0
7.9
1.1
3.9
-1.2
0.8
1.3
Dallas, TX ...........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
65.9
65.4
0.5
4.3
3.3
14.9
1.7
8.4
13.6
6.1
4.9
6.5
0.5
1,402.1
1,243.2
6.9
74.2
143.3
298.3
54.1
133.7
237.4
130.7
121.8
40.1
158.9
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.9
0.5
1.0
-5.1
1.2
1.0
0.7
1.1
-0.8
1.4
954
972
2,614
833
1,172
874
1,369
1,496
1,017
801
437
569
809
1.5
1.4
8.2
5.8
6.9
0.8
-6.1
4.8
-0.1
-1.5
-5.6
1.6
2.1
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
first quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2005
(thousands)
March
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2004-053
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2004-053
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 ...................................................
88.4
87.0
0.8
6.8
3.5
14.2
1.3
9.2
15.1
7.8
6.6
21.5
1.4
1,282.1
1,062.6
11.1
88.8
104.3
212.6
37.4
82.0
207.7
120.8
143.3
54.2
219.5
1.2
1.4
-4.8
3.6
0.6
1.3
2.9
0.1
1.8
-0.8
2.2
3.0
0.2
$816
806
465
811
1,095
673
1,633
1,224
954
711
356
433
867
1.4
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.4
3.9
-6.0
5.2
1.6
2.9
3.2
-0.9
-1.1
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 ...................................................
73.3
72.7
0.4
6.2
2.6
14.5
1.6
6.3
11.9
6.1
5.5
17.8
0.5
1,093.0
939.9
3.3
55.8
103.8
213.7
68.7
74.2
162.4
113.2
99.7
45.0
153.1
1.7
2.0
4.2
3.6
2.6
1.7
1.2
-1.0
4.9
3.4
0.5
-3.6
-0.2
948
957
1,269
889
1,214
832
1,666
1,370
1,109
708
426
490
892
2.9
2.9
6.5
2.4
7.1
2.3
1.6
3.8
-1.6
2.9
8.7
5.8
3.4
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 ...................................................
83.6
83.3
0.5
5.3
2.7
24.0
1.8
9.1
16.5
8.2
5.6
7.6
0.3
994.9
841.3
11.1
43.6
49.3
241.5
23.6
68.0
141.7
124.9
98.5
34.7
153.6
1.9
2.2
-2.6
9.1
-4.0
1.2
(6)
3.4
7.1
0.9
1.5
-0.1
0.3
748
726
380
759
688
688
1,155
1,207
829
704
420
439
867
2.9
2.1
4.1
7.2
3.6
3.0
(6)
0.8
1.7
-2.6
4.7
1.6
6.1
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, first quarter 20052
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2005
(thousands)
March
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2004-054
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2004-054
United States6 ....................
8,543.2
129,802.3
1.7
$775
2.2
Jefferson, AL ......................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pulaski, AR ........................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Denver, CO ........................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
18.7
7.8
81.2
13.4
373.9
24.4
24.4
19.6
30.5
83.6
366.3
139.6
1,685.4
241.8
4,051.2
418.1
480.1
278.6
661.7
994.9
-0.6
1.2
5.3
1.4
-0.1
1.0
1.2
0.1
1.1
1.9
788
793
746
683
864
976
1,041
1,005
1,277
748
2.6
1.5
1.5
2.2
2.0
3.8
3.4
4.9
4.2
2.9
Fulton, GA ..........................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Cook, IL .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
Polk, IA ..............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
37.3
23.6
13.5
128.4
24.0
14.1
19.0
21.7
12.6
11.6
729.7
436.2
192.2
2,466.4
575.1
259.9
294.1
415.8
244.5
165.1
0.9
3.0
4.5
-0.1
1.4
1.9
1.7
1.0
-1.1
0.0
1,076
693
667
983
818
792
817
742
738
707
3.0
1.5
1.7
2.8
1.0
1.5
0.0
-1.1
2.2
1.6
Montgomery, MD ...............
Middlesex, MA ...................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Hinds, MS ..........................
St. Louis, MO .....................
Yellowstone, MT ................
Douglas, NE .......................
Clark, NV ...........................
Hillsborough, NH ................
32.4
48.9
34.4
40.0
6.5
33.9
5.3
14.9
40.9
12.2
452.6
775.9
783.3
815.7
128.0
612.3
71.2
304.9
844.7
192.6
1.6
0.5
-1.1
1.4
-0.8
0.6
3.4
0.7
7.6
0.7
1,041
1,097
892
999
653
819
596
708
718
827
2.6
2.2
0.2
1.4
0.9
0.7
5.1
-0.6
3.5
2.6
Bergen, NJ .........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
New York, NY ....................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
Cass, ND ...........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Providence, RI ...................
34.2
16.6
113.4
27.4
5.5
38.1
22.2
25.6
35.7
18.0
442.4
313.7
2,221.5
513.7
88.5
740.8
406.2
424.2
672.8
281.0
0.0
1.1
0.8
3.2
3.2
0.0
1.3
3.1
-0.8
-0.5
982
657
2,025
1,048
610
813
657
778
817
764
1.9
1.9
5.8
5.8
0.8
2.8
1.7
2.2
1.4
1.3
Greenville, SC ....................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Shelby, TN .........................
Harris, TX ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Fairfax, VA .........................
King, WA ............................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
12.4
6.0
19.7
89.9
35.4
5.7
30.4
73.3
6.2
21.5
222.8
108.2
494.2
1,840.9
529.0
93.4
555.9
1,093.0
106.3
485.6
1.4
2.3
0.7
1.7
3.4
0.8
4.0
1.7
-1.1
-0.6
658
635
759
950
680
766
1,181
948
660
785
0.8
3.8
0.3
5.8
1.3
4.9
2.1
2.9
1.7
1.8
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county
by state, first quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2005
(thousands)
March
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2004-054
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2004-054
Laramie, WY ......................
2.9
39.5
1.3
$601
2.6
San Juan, PR .....................
St. Thomas, VI ...................
13.9
1.7
316.4
23.2
0.6
-1.1
511
583
5.8
4.3
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county
reclassifications. See Technical Note.
5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
first quarter 20052
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2005
(thousands)
March
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2004-05
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2004-05
United States4 ....................
8,543.2
129,802.3
1.7
$775
2.2
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
116.0
20.3
129.3
77.5
1,247.9
166.7
109.8
29.7
30.5
547.0
1,871.5
290.3
2,459.7
1,144.8
15,064.5
2,158.6
1,624.7
407.9
661.7
7,731.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
1.7
1.9
2.4
0.8
1.2
1.1
3.5
642
744
698
579
872
787
1,084
878
1,277
679
2.6
1.5
2.3
2.8
2.0
2.2
3.9
4.0
4.2
3.5
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
252.9
36.1
50.9
333.4
155.3
91.5
82.9
107.4
118.0
48.1
3,877.0
597.6
594.2
5,644.9
2,838.7
1,419.5
1,290.7
1,741.2
1,873.8
573.2
1.5
3.1
4.2
0.5
1.1
1.9
0.9
1.8
0.6
-0.5
742
669
561
848
667
616
631
628
619
614
1.9
2.0
1.6
2.9
0.9
1.7
1.4
0.6
2.8
1.7
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
159.5
214.7
255.8
156.7
67.6
170.0
39.8
55.8
66.1
47.3
2,458.0
3,094.8
4,218.3
2,559.7
1,113.1
2,644.2
403.8
879.8
1,187.6
606.9
1.1
0.1
-0.4
1.3
1.3
1.8
3.2
1.5
6.7
0.8
831
964
780
783
545
671
533
600
714
745
2.0
1.2
1.2
0.8
2.3
0.9
3.5
0.8
2.6
2.8
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
269.5
50.6
558.2
233.1
24.5
290.7
93.9
122.1
338.0
35.4
3,863.5
765.0
8,242.3
3,808.0
320.4
5,228.6
1,453.9
1,621.6
5,481.0
466.9
0.8
2.2
0.8
2.3
2.6
0.4
2.5
4.2
1.0
0.5
963
596
1,096
687
550
706
591
685
747
736
1.8
2.1
3.7
2.7
1.5
2.0
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.2
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
116.1
28.9
131.7
517.4
78.9
24.4
211.3
204.2
47.6
159.5
1,800.3
365.1
2,665.2
9,454.6
1,091.9
297.5
3,525.7
2,702.3
683.6
2,687.0
1.5
2.0
1.8
2.2
3.9
0.9
2.4
2.6
1.1
1.4
611
544
660
760
607
639
794
766
583
668
2.5
2.4
1.4
3.1
1.3
3.9
2.7
2.4
2.5
1.7
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
first quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2005
(thousands)
March
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2004-05
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2004-05
Wyoming ............................
22.8
246.2
3.0
$606
3.9
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
55.5
3.4
1,048.2
44.2
1.4
2.1
433
650
3.3
13.4
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
October 2005
or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
-1.9% to 1.7%
1.8% to 7.6%
but are included because they are the largest county in their state
Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees
March 2004 05 (U.S. Average = 1.7%)
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 employees or more,
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
October 2005
or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
-6.0% to 2.2%
2.3% to 10.7%
but are included because they are the largest county in their state
Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees
or more, first quarter 2004 05 (U.S. Average = 2.2%)
Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000 employees