Technical information:
(202) 691-6567
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
Media contact:
691-5902
USDL 06-40
For release: 10:00 A.M. EST
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: SECOND QUARTER 2005
In June 2005, Pasco County, Fla., 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. Pasco County (north of Tampa) experienced an over-the-year
employment gain of 9.5 percent, compared with national job growth of 1.7 percent. Webb County, Texas
(which includes Laredo) had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the second quarter of
2005, with an increase of 11.3 percent. The U.S. average weekly wage increased by 3.9 percent over the
same time span.
Of the 322 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2004 annual average employment, 131
had over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average in June 2005, and 176 experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 1.) Average weekly wages grew faster than the
national average in 128 of the largest U.S. counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was
below the national average in 174 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 8.6 million employer
reports cover 132.8 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.
June 2005 employment and 2005 second-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table
4 of this release. Final 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 and second quarters of 2005 will be available later in January on the BLS Web site.
Large County Employment
In June 2005, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 132.8 million, up by
1.7 percent from June 2004. The 322 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.6
percent of total U.S. covered employment and 76.3 percent of total covered wages. These 322 counties
Regional Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages News Releases
Several BLS regional offices are issuing QCEW news releases targeted to local data users. For
links to these releases, see http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewregional.htm.
2
Table A. Top 10 counties ranked by June 2005 employment, June 2004-05 employment change, and
June 2004-05 percent change in employment
Employment in large counties
Net change in employment,
June 2004-05
(thousands)
June 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.
132,808.3
4,089
2,528
2,257
1,867
1,677
1,503
1,417
1,301
1,120
999
U.S.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Clark, Nev.
Harris, Texas
Orange, Fla.
Orange, Calif.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Palm Beach, Fla.
Riverside, Calif.
San Bernardino, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Percent change in employment,
June 2004-05
2,210.2
88.0
60.2
47.0
32.9
32.5
28.3
28.3
28.2
27.7
25.7
U.S.
1.7
Pasco, Fla.
Lee, Fla.
Clark, Nev.
Seminole, Fla.
Kern, Calif.
Collier, Fla.
Montgomery, Texas
Okaloosa, Fla.
Williamson, Texas
Lake, Fla.
9.5
9.3
7.5
7.4
6.6
6.6
6.1
6.0
5.9
5.8
had a net job gain of 1,494,600 over the year, accounting for 67.6 percent of the U.S. employment increase.
Employment increased in 272 of the large counties from June 2004 to June 2005. Pasco County, Fla., had
the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (9.5 percent). Lee, Fla., had the next largest
increase, 9.3 percent, followed by the counties of Clark, Nev. (7.5 percent), Seminole, Fla. (7.4 percent),
and Kern, Calif., and Collier, Fla. (6.6 percent each). (See table 1.)
Employment declined in 39 large counties from June 2004 to June 2005. The largest percentage decline
in employment was in Hinds County, Miss. (-2.2 percent), followed by the counties of Shawnee, Kan. (-1.8
percent), Lorain, Ohio (-1.5 percent), Orleans, La. (-1.2 percent), and Lucas, Ohio (-1.1 percent).
The largest gains in employment from June 2004 to June 2005 were recorded in the counties of
Maricopa, Ariz. (88,000), Clark, Nev. (60,200), Harris, Texas (47,000), Orange, Fla. (32,900), and
Orange, Calif. (32,500). (See table A.)
The largest decline in employment occurred in Allegheny County, Pa. (-6,500), followed by the counties
of Erie, N.Y. (-3,400), Orleans, La. (-3,100), Hinds, Miss. (-2,800), and Hennepin, Minn. (-2,700).
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the second quarter of 2005 was $751. Average weekly wages
were higher than the national average in 116 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 $1,350. Santa
Clara, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,316, followed by San Mateo, Calif. ($1,267),
Arlington, Va. ($1,257), and Washington, D.C. ($1,236). (See table B.)
There were 206 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the second quarter
of 2005. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($463), followed by
the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($473), Horry, S.C. ($499), Yakima, Wash. ($509), and Tulare, Calif.
($532). (See table 1.)
3
Table B. Top 10 counties ranked by second quarter 2005 average weekly wages, second quarter
2004-05 change in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2004-05 percent change in average
weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
second quarter 2005
U.S.
New York, N.Y.
Santa Clara, Calif.
San Mateo, Calif.
Arlington, Va.
Washington, D.C.
Fairfax, Va.
Suffolk, Mass.
Fairfield, Conn.
San Francisco, Calif.
Somerset, N.J.
$751
$1,350
1,316
1,267
1,257
1,236
1,177
1,170
1,169
1,162
1,127
Change in average weekly
wage, second quarter 2004-05
U.S.
San Mateo, Calif.
Fairfax, Va.
Arlington, Va.
Marin, Calif.
Clark, Nev.
Durham, N.C.
San Francisco, Calif.
Henrico, Va.
Fairfield, Conn.
Collier, Fla.
Rockingham, N.H.
Webb, Texas
$28
$121
88
86
68
64
63
56
56
55
55
55
55
Percent change in average
weekly wage, second
quarter 2004-05
U.S.
Webb, Texas
San Mateo, Calif.
Clark, Nev.
Collier, Fla.
Fairfax, Va.
Rockingham, N.H.
Henrico, Va.
Marin, Calif.
Lake, Fla.
Arlington, Va.
3.9
11.3
10.6
9.4
8.4
8.1
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.3
Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 3.9 percent. Among the largest counties,
Webb, Texas, led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 11.3 percent from the
second quarter of 2004. San Mateo, Calif., was second with 10.6 percent growth, followed by the counties
of Clark, Nev. (9.4 percent), Collier, Fla. (8.4 percent), and Fairfax, Va. (8.1 percent).
Six counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Pierce County, Wash., had
the largest decrease, -7.9 percent, followed by the counties of Clayton, Ga. (-6.3 percent), Rock Island, Ill.
(-2.9 percent), Spartanburg, S.C. (-2.3 percent), and Trumbull, Ohio (-1.3 percent).
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2004 annual average employment levels), all reported
increases in employment from June 2004 to June 2005. Maricopa County, Ariz., experienced the fastest
growth in employment among the largest counties, with a 5.5 percent increase. Within Maricopa County,
employment rose in every industry group except two—natural resources and mining and information. The
largest gains were in construction (15.5 percent) and professional and business services (7.2 percent). (See
table 2.) Harris, Texas, had the next largest increase in employment, 2.6 percent, followed by Miami-Dade,
Fla. (2.4 percent). The smallest employment gain occurred in Cook County, Ill. (0.2 percent).
All of the 10 largest U.S. counties also saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. MiamiDade, Fla., had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, with an increase of 6.1 percent.
Within Miami-Dade County, wages increased the most in natural resources and mining (15.8 percent) and
professional and business services (10.6 percent). Harris, Texas, was second in wage growth, with an
increase of 5.1 percent. The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest counties occurred in San Diego
County, Calif., and Dallas, Texas (3.2 percent each).
4
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows June 2005 employment and the 2005 second quarter average weekly wage in the largest
county in each state. (This table includes two counties—Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.—that have
employment levels below 75,000.) The employment levels in these counties in June 2005 ranged from
approximately 4.1 million in Los Angeles County, Calif., to 41,300 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest
average weekly wage of these counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,350), while the lowest average weekly
wage was in Laramie County, Wyo. ($594).
For More Information
For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read the Technical
Note or visit the QCEW Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Additional information about the QCEW
data also may be obtained by e-mailing [email protected] or by calling (202) 691-6567.
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. 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. 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 counties 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
Summary of Major Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES Employment Measures
QCEW
BED
CES
Source
• Count of UI administrative records
submitted by 8.6 million establishments
• Count of longitudinally-linked UI
• Sample survey: 400,000 establishadministrative records submitted by
ments
6.6 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/
of UI data over time and ongoing review and editing. The
individual states determine their data release timetables.
Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment measures
The Bureau publishes three different establishment-based
employment measures for any given quarter. Each of these
measures—QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED),
and Current Employment Statistics (CES)—makes use of the
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 employment change over
time. 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 are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted
to the SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers
covered by the Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) program, employment and wage data are
compiled from quarterly reports that are sent to the appropriate
SWA by the specific federal agency. 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. Wages may include payments to
workers not present in the employment counts because they did
not work during the pay period including the 12th of the month.
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
January 2006 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 202-512-1800. The fax number is 202-512-2104. Also,
the 2004 bulletin is 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,
second quarter 20052
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2005
(thousands)
June
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2004-054
United States6 ....................
8,562.0
132,808.3
1.7
-
$751
3.9
-
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
18.8
8.1
9.8
6.7
4.2
7.9
82.9
18.1
4.8
13.4
371.4
168.5
167.2
135.8
81.3
144.2
1,677.4
344.4
90.2
245.5
0.2
2.1
3.2
2.7
5.0
2.2
5.5
2.8
5.7
1.1
257
109
56
74
21
100
12
71
11
184
763
795
620
643
648
813
761
684
697
689
6.0
0.9
4.7
2.1
6.4
3.0
4.1
5.1
5.1
3.9
25
300
76
255
16
207
112
47
47
129
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.3
47.0
26.8
28.1
16.0
363.1
11.5
11.7
89.7
9.5
90.4
679.2
343.9
348.2
270.1
4,089.4
110.1
183.3
1,503.3
135.5
4.4
-0.4
0.1
2.2
6.6
0.7
0.3
2.0
2.2
3.1
30
289
267
100
5
217
249
116
100
61
619
988
957
601
636
852
985
673
861
758
5.5
2.9
5.0
3.6
(7)
4.4
7.4
3.9
3.6
3.7
34
215
55
161
90
8
129
161
153
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 .................
39.0
46.6
42.1
86.4
42.3
15.8
8.6
22.2
13.0
52.0
612.3
623.5
636.5
1,301.4
524.8
223.4
103.8
328.0
191.6
860.3
4.8
1.5
4.6
1.5
1.1
1.6
1.4
0.0
3.0
0.5
24
153
27
153
184
141
161
273
65
236
654
816
674
812
1,162
650
616
1,267
721
1,316
0.9
1.2
3.9
3.2
5.1
3.2
-0.2
10.6
4.8
1.8
300
294
129
191
47
191
312
2
68
275
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
8.3
9.3
16.9
13.1
8.3
20.5
5.1
9.0
19.3
12.2
101.5
129.7
192.9
177.4
144.0
316.3
101.0
149.4
275.5
156.2
0.2
0.7
-0.2
2.2
3.4
1.3
2.2
2.5
1.3
2.5
257
217
282
100
47
167
100
87
167
87
709
720
747
643
532
818
715
708
891
898
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.9
3.1
4.7
3.9
1.3
3.4
1.9
168
120
181
129
199
76
129
289
178
268
Denver, CO ........................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
24.8
16.6
18.5
9.6
31.9
24.5
22.1
6.7
19.7
30.5
425.7
242.6
209.4
128.1
420.0
494.9
368.0
130.5
280.9
675.1
0.9
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.1
1.7
0.6
0.6
-0.7
1.5
199
141
161
153
184
132
224
224
302
153
923
701
770
666
1,169
945
826
804
890
1,236
4.1
2.9
4.1
2.8
4.9
5.4
2.7
2.0
3.5
4.1
112
215
112
221
62
35
229
264
168
112
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
second quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2005
(thousands)
June
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2004-054
Alachua, FL ........................
Brevard, FL ........................
Broward, FL .......................
Collier, FL ..........................
Duval, FL ...........................
Escambia, FL .....................
Hillsborough, FL .................
Lake, FL .............................
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
6.2
13.7
61.1
11.6
24.4
7.6
33.9
6.2
17.2
7.7
120.9
203.9
718.1
120.6
446.9
124.1
617.3
77.1
207.9
144.4
(7)
3.4
2.5
6.6
3.6
1.1
3.6
5.8
9.3
2.8
47
87
5
40
184
40
10
2
71
$639
728
743
713
735
610
713
572
675
647
(7)
2.0
5.1
8.4
3.8
5.4
2.9
7.3
3.7
1.3
264
47
4
144
35
215
9
153
289
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
8.1
7.3
84.9
6.0
32.1
46.7
8.5
30.3
11.5
14.5
120.5
97.3
999.0
82.2
655.9
542.5
87.3
434.8
196.7
154.1
4.5
(7)
2.4
6.0
5.3
5.5
9.5
-0.2
5.2
3.1
28
93
8
15
12
1
282
18
61
611
573
760
633
698
745
579
666
607
666
4.3
4.0
6.1
(7)
4.2
2.6
2.7
4.7
3.8
5.0
99
120
21
104
237
229
76
144
55
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
13.3
13.2
4.7
7.2
4.4
20.2
17.0
37.9
22.0
4.8
166.1
159.2
87.5
131.6
107.4
306.2
291.0
741.3
314.7
96.8
7.4
4.8
0.1
3.4
1.8
2.9
0.5
2.9
3.1
0.4
4
24
267
47
128
66
236
66
61
245
696
573
635
634
754
826
823
975
789
607
5.0
4.8
4.1
3.9
-6.3
2.2
3.1
3.6
3.1
5.0
55
68
112
129
316
254
199
161
199
55
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
4.8
23.6
13.6
4.0
129.8
33.5
11.6
19.5
7.8
3.5
106.0
441.9
198.4
91.2
2,527.8
589.1
208.4
332.1
101.1
84.5
1.2
3.2
4.4
1.1
0.2
0.6
1.2
0.8
2.8
0.8
175
56
30
184
257
224
175
208
71
208
635
700
693
642
902
878
693
896
670
798
2.1
3.7
3.6
4.2
4.9
2.5
4.1
3.2
4.0
5.7
255
153
161
104
62
243
112
191
120
31
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
5.2
5.1
11.4
6.7
8.8
4.8
6.6
94.6
100.7
79.7
94.3
132.6
171.1
138.1
178.2
126.5
97.1
-0.5
2.0
1.3
1.0
-0.5
2.5
-0.6
-0.1
-0.3
5.0
293
116
167
192
293
87
299
278
285
21
635
710
704
610
734
704
656
667
680
739
2.1
3.0
-2.9
3.2
2.1
4.1
4.0
3.1
2.7
1.7
255
207
315
191
255
112
120
199
229
282
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
second quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2005
(thousands)
June
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2004-054
Lake, IN .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
Vanderburgh, IN ................
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ..............................
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
10.0
23.5
6.0
4.8
6.1
14.2
5.1
19.1
11.8
4.7
193.4
581.0
125.9
107.7
120.0
267.0
89.5
304.3
244.4
94.5
0.7
0.2
-0.5
0.5
2.1
1.3
1.6
1.8
1.7
-1.8
217
257
293
236
109
167
141
128
132
315
$689
783
654
633
711
740
627
778
705
663
5.0
1.8
5.1
1.4
3.5
4.2
5.4
3.6
5.4
5.1
55
275
47
286
168
104
35
161
35
47
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
3.2
8.7
21.2
7.1
4.7
13.2
14.3
7.8
12.9
11.6
76.6
170.4
425.1
123.5
86.4
251.7
217.0
121.5
245.7
172.8
0.2
2.6
1.1
1.3
5.2
2.0
0.7
2.6
-1.2
-0.6
257
80
184
167
18
116
217
80
313
299
747
690
748
638
607
642
624
658
691
684
3.8
2.4
3.7
0.8
3.8
4.9
3.0
4.4
(7)
3.0
144
247
153
302
144
62
207
90
207
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
14.1
21.2
5.8
5.5
8.2
32.4
15.6
14.1
9.5
15.8
222.8
374.7
93.0
81.8
140.4
464.9
313.6
351.9
101.2
223.9
1.7
1.1
2.6
1.7
2.5
2.1
-0.1
-0.6
-0.5
0.1
132
184
80
132
87
109
278
299
293
267
788
769
715
705
872
995
827
871
654
686
4.2
3.9
1.4
0.6
4.2
4.8
3.9
3.8
1.9
1.8
104
129
286
306
104
68
129
144
268
275
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
21.3
14.6
49.3
22.5
14.2
22.8
20.9
8.5
7.1
5.6
299.0
202.4
798.8
322.7
181.3
566.1
322.1
150.4
159.9
117.2
-0.7
0.1
1.0
0.2
2.7
0.8
-0.4
(7)
(7)
0.5
302
267
192
257
74
208
289
236
807
689
1,062
899
747
1,170
778
705
729
683
3.5
2.1
1.8
1.9
1.9
0.7
2.1
1.4
4.1
0.4
168
255
275
268
268
304
255
286
112
308
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
14.6
18.2
41.1
5.8
4.6
8.3
34.4
7.6
10.0
41.1
341.0
333.6
729.9
115.4
90.0
193.5
797.2
114.8
172.2
831.3
1.2
0.9
0.5
2.0
-0.8
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.9
-0.3
175
199
236
116
307
245
273
273
309
285
711
830
913
671
673
856
894
777
757
941
5.3
3.1
2.6
1.1
0.7
2.3
4.4
6.9
2.9
2.8
41
199
237
297
304
252
90
11
215
221
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
second quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2005
(thousands)
June
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2004-054
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
Boone, MO .........................
Clay, MO ............................
Greene, MO .......................
Jackson, MO ......................
3.4
15.2
5.8
4.3
4.6
6.5
4.3
5.0
8.0
18.6
90.0
329.5
96.4
77.8
91.7
127.6
80.9
89.5
149.8
367.4
0.4
-0.7
0.5
0.8
1.3
-2.2
3.5
1.7
3.2
0.6
245
302
236
208
167
316
45
132
56
224
$785
849
613
602
558
656
613
694
592
775
2.5
0.2
0.5
1.2
6.3
3.3
4.6
2.5
2.6
3.9
243
310
307
294
17
181
81
243
237
129
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
33.6
8.1
15.1
7.7
41.5
13.2
12.2
10.8
6.7
119.0
626.0
224.2
312.5
155.0
867.2
212.2
197.9
139.5
153.1
2.9
0.8
0.6
0.3
1.3
7.5
3.3
1.2
1.6
1.7
66
208
224
249
167
3
53
175
141
132
670
818
856
691
608
748
720
836
776
692
4.4
4.9
6.5
3.3
1.2
9.4
4.8
5.7
7.6
3.9
90
62
14
181
294
3
68
31
6
129
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
34.2
11.3
13.5
21.2
6.2
14.0
10.8
20.8
20.1
17.8
453.5
205.0
212.7
361.5
105.4
237.8
224.4
396.9
264.1
290.5
0.3
1.5
0.1
0.3
3.2
1.6
2.7
0.5
1.5
0.6
249
153
267
249
56
141
74
236
153
224
950
809
779
965
697
982
939
921
809
1,094
4.3
3.3
3.7
3.9
3.6
2.8
4.7
0.8
1.3
5.2
99
181
153
129
161
221
76
302
289
44
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
11.6
12.5
10.1
14.9
16.5
9.7
15.7
4.5
8.0
23.4
154.5
180.5
174.1
231.3
320.9
230.7
222.9
95.5
119.5
457.2
1.6
1.4
3.6
(7)
1.4
0.2
2.4
-1.0
1.4
-0.7
141
161
40
161
257
93
311
161
302
659
839
1,127
945
685
779
733
625
785
671
3.8
5.4
2.7
(7)
5.4
2.4
1.8
6.3
6.2
2.8
144
35
229
35
247
275
17
19
221
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
42.6
17.7
51.3
113.9
5.3
12.8
9.5
40.7
8.2
9.5
456.3
388.7
606.9
2,256.6
110.8
252.9
130.9
481.7
91.0
114.9
1.7
0.8
0.2
1.2
0.0
1.0
1.2
1.6
1.1
1.3
132
208
257
175
273
192
175
141
184
167
671
783
863
1,350
596
700
680
755
694
826
3.2
6.5
4.6
4.2
3.5
1.6
4.5
3.0
3.6
3.9
191
14
81
104
168
285
85
207
161
129
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
second quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2005
(thousands)
June
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2004-054
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
48.6
35.8
7.0
4.3
5.7
6.2
8.5
13.6
27.6
6.6
621.9
419.5
108.8
86.1
115.8
168.6
178.7
272.8
520.7
94.9
0.3
0.7
1.9
-0.8
3.4
1.2
2.2
0.8
3.1
5.2
249
217
124
307
47
175
100
208
61
18
$814
1,001
599
593
574
982
702
683
879
613
3.8
2.4
5.3
3.3
1.8
6.9
3.4
3.2
4.9
4.4
144
247
41
181
275
11
178
191
62
90
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
23.9
5.7
7.0
38.1
29.2
24.6
6.9
6.3
10.9
6.5
406.4
92.3
136.4
758.5
684.8
545.8
102.2
102.8
227.1
108.1
4.3
3.2
1.0
-0.1
0.9
-0.1
0.3
-1.5
-1.1
0.9
32
56
192
278
199
278
249
314
312
199
753
613
680
778
759
804
628
650
689
563
2.7
3.9
0.4
2.8
3.7
2.9
3.5
2.0
3.1
3.5
229
129
308
221
153
215
168
264
199
168
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
Trumbull, OH .....................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
13.2
9.3
15.0
4.8
22.4
18.5
11.8
6.5
10.5
8.8
283.6
168.1
271.1
85.2
411.5
330.9
145.7
83.1
147.1
140.3
-0.4
0.2
0.6
-0.3
1.6
3.6
2.7
3.4
4.1
2.6
289
257
224
285
141
40
74
47
34
80
717
602
726
663
644
673
710
581
608
602
2.7
3.1
5.8
-1.3
1.1
3.7
3.5
2.1
2.0
2.6
229
199
28
313
297
153
168
255
264
237
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
25.8
15.0
35.2
9.0
20.3
15.1
5.8
7.1
13.7
7.2
429.5
237.5
689.1
165.5
266.5
233.6
126.0
179.8
210.9
131.1
1.7
3.8
-0.9
1.6
1.4
2.6
-0.5
1.6
0.8
2.4
132
39
309
141
161
80
293
141
208
93
772
857
793
685
743
982
709
740
793
603
2.9
1.3
4.2
2.1
2.6
4.0
0.0
1.9
4.5
3.4
215
289
104
255
237
120
311
268
85
178
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
5.8
11.9
8.4
8.1
27.9
6.3
29.1
5.3
9.6
8.8
100.6
230.7
176.7
144.3
485.9
95.6
630.4
77.2
140.7
172.7
1.9
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.7
2.4
0.6
0.1
0.9
2.6
124
199
224
236
217
93
224
267
199
80
595
662
753
605
929
673
865
649
603
672
5.1
4.3
4.0
2.7
5.2
3.2
3.3
1.7
2.7
4.0
47
99
120
229
44
191
181
282
229
120
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
second quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2005
(thousands)
June
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2004-054
Kent, RI ..............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
5.6
18.0
12.3
12.6
8.3
5.8
9.7
6.4
6.0
17.9
83.5
286.9
200.1
225.1
115.1
88.5
203.2
115.3
112.4
433.4
1.2
-0.7
2.7
0.6
3.4
3.9
0.6
-0.2
2.0
2.0
175
302
74
224
47
37
224
282
116
116
$683
736
634
679
499
598
650
670
624
749
1.3
3.1
6.0
5.8
5.7
6.2
3.7
-2.3
3.0
3.5
289
199
25
28
31
19
153
314
207
168
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
8.4
10.4
3.8
19.8
4.2
30.1
4.3
3.6
6.2
14.1
189.0
218.7
94.7
500.8
94.3
677.1
78.2
79.2
116.1
243.1
1.0
1.6
5.3
0.9
(7)
2.9
1.2
3.3
0.3
5.0
192
141
15
199
66
175
53
249
21
657
659
692
752
578
655
709
562
463
909
2.8
5.3
1.9
1.8
4.7
3.0
4.4
6.6
2.4
6.1
221
41
268
275
76
207
90
13
247
21
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
65.8
9.2
12.6
7.1
4.9
90.0
9.7
5.8
6.5
4.7
1,416.8
146.6
256.1
110.5
88.2
1,866.9
197.9
118.3
118.7
101.7
1.5
4.2
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.6
4.8
2.7
0.9
0.6
153
33
100
93
100
80
24
74
199
224
909
657
540
767
657
892
473
683
563
604
3.2
5.0
3.3
5.8
3.8
5.1
3.3
4.4
5.2
4.3
191
55
181
28
144
47
181
90
44
99
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
25.1
4.4
5.9
6.6
36.2
103.5
147.7
71.8
89.4
716.3
531.7
80.4
101.7
97.8
539.7
6.1
1.9
0.0
1.7
2.1
4.0
2.4
5.9
2.1
3.5
7
124
273
132
109
36
93
9
109
45
683
615
595
636
770
840
543
763
600
688
4.9
4.8
4.6
2.1
5.0
4.5
11.3
6.1
1.7
2.5
62
68
81
255
55
85
1
21
282
243
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
Henrico, VA ........................
Loudoun, VA ......................
Prince William, VA .............
Alexandria City, VA ............
11.7
5.5
5.7
7.2
6.8
30.6
8.5
6.9
6.3
5.8
156.8
89.0
96.3
155.1
116.1
571.1
172.8
121.4
102.4
94.4
3.6
1.8
-0.4
0.2
2.1
3.9
1.8
5.3
3.3
1.5
40
128
289
257
109
37
128
15
53
153
570
564
740
1,257
683
1,177
802
950
678
968
3.8
2.4
2.6
7.3
4.8
8.1
7.5
2.8
4.5
4.4
144
247
237
9
68
5
7
221
85
90
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
second quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2005
(thousands)
June
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2004-054
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
10.9
10.4
74.0
6.1
19.2
16.0
95.4
99.4
146.5
161.1
179.1
126.1
1,119.5
83.0
259.0
224.2
1.6
1.0
0.8
1.9
2.3
4.1
2.1
2.9
2.5
5.4
141
192
208
124
99
34
109
66
87
14
$602
694
725
845
591
690
933
681
676
775
4.5
4.4
4.0
1.9
4.8
3.3
4.8
2.3
-7.9
6.0
85
90
120
268
68
181
68
252
317
25
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
14.2
6.2
6.4
7.5
6.2
6.7
13.9
21.6
4.9
4.3
199.0
94.2
80.3
107.7
108.8
148.7
296.7
494.4
103.5
77.5
2.0
2.2
4.5
0.5
-0.5
0.3
2.0
-0.3
1.0
0.9
116
100
28
236
293
249
116
285
192
199
617
689
592
509
674
680
729
753
659
703
3.9
4.2
3.3
3.9
4.3
3.0
1.1
4.0
3.5
4.6
129
104
181
129
99
207
297
120
168
81
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
13.4
3.9
14.1
233.6
88.8
315.7
0.4
0.7
-1.2
245
217
(8)
759
725
490
2.8
6.1
4.3
221
21
(8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 322 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.
8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
second quarter 20052
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2005
(thousands)
June
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2004-053
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
8,562.0
8,285.5
122.7
843.5
366.5
1,869.1
142.0
810.8
1,367.5
764.2
690.0
1,086.5
276.5
132,808.3
111,711.2
1,849.4
7,445.2
14,270.1
25,635.7
3,062.2
8,064.3
16,929.2
16,430.5
13,292.2
4,387.6
21,097.1
1.7
1.9
2.1
4.7
-0.6
1.3
-1.4
1.7
3.1
2.4
2.4
0.7
0.8
$751
740
697
775
913
656
1,137
1,083
905
704
315
488
808
3.9
3.9
7.4
3.6
3.4
3.6
4.2
4.0
5.4
4.1
2.3
3.6
3.3
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 ...................................................
363.1
359.3
0.5
13.1
16.1
52.3
8.4
23.0
39.4
27.0
25.3
153.8
3.8
4,089.4
3,500.5
11.5
148.9
468.8
781.7
196.9
242.4
576.2
453.1
382.4
237.9
589.0
0.7
0.8
-3.5
6.4
-3.5
0.7
-4.9
1.7
2.5
0.0
2.3
6.4
-0.1
852
830
1,088
841
884
718
1,484
1,302
960
774
467
402
988
4.4
4.0
25.2
5.8
6.0
2.6
5.5
6.4
4.8
5.4
-1.7
1.5
7.0
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 ...................................................
129.8
128.5
0.1
11.0
7.5
27.0
2.5
14.5
26.7
12.8
10.9
13.0
1.2
2,527.8
2,208.2
1.5
95.6
253.8
476.0
61.1
217.4
417.7
355.7
229.6
96.0
319.6
0.2
0.4
7.5
-1.5
-1.7
-0.5
-2.2
-0.2
2.1
2.3
0.6
-1.2
-1.0
902
892
950
1,081
912
737
1,224
1,378
1,165
761
384
637
972
4.9
5.1
5.7
3.4
2.8
3.8
3.4
2.8
11.6
3.4
4.6
1.8
4.0
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 ...................................................
113.9
113.6
0.0
2.1
3.2
21.5
4.1
17.2
22.5
8.0
10.4
16.4
0.2
2,256.6
1,803.3
0.1
28.9
42.8
236.9
129.2
356.8
447.6
272.0
193.8
84.0
453.3
1.2
1.3
-2.2
-0.2
-7.0
0.8
0.7
1.2
1.8
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.4
1,350
1,452
1,177
1,288
1,092
1,035
1,714
2,538
1,593
904
670
820
944
4.2
4.7
-1.2
-0.7
8.7
3.6
2.9
5.9
5.3
4.0
2.8
4.9
0.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
second quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2005
(thousands)
June
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2004-053
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
90.0
89.5
1.3
6.2
4.5
21.0
1.3
9.8
17.4
9.2
6.8
10.5
0.4
1,866.9
1,622.7
65.9
130.6
167.1
393.0
32.4
115.4
297.0
194.6
166.8
56.1
244.2
2.6
2.8
5.7
0.8
2.3
2.1
-2.9
0.6
4.5
4.1
2.8
0.4
1.3
$892
907
2,284
848
1,134
817
1,100
1,100
1,008
769
336
530
792
5.1
5.3
8.7
3.5
5.3
4.1
4.3
5.4
6.8
3.2
4.7
4.7
3.3
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 ...................................................
82.9
82.3
0.5
8.5
3.3
18.5
1.4
10.1
18.1
8.1
5.9
5.7
0.6
1,677.4
1,498.7
10.2
160.5
132.7
345.7
32.6
143.0
287.6
171.5
165.1
45.8
178.7
5.5
5.9
-8.3
15.5
2.8
5.2
-5.8
5.1
7.2
3.8
5.0
0.1
2.7
761
744
544
761
1,017
736
912
987
734
776
350
520
889
4.1
4.2
14.5
5.0
3.1
4.0
5.1
9.5
2.5
4.2
1.4
5.5
3.7
Orange, CA ........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
89.7
88.3
0.2
6.6
5.7
17.0
1.4
10.2
17.6
9.3
6.7
13.5
1.4
1,503.3
1,352.6
6.4
102.9
183.5
269.2
32.4
140.1
268.8
131.8
168.6
48.7
150.7
2.2
2.5
-16.4
7.1
0.3
0.6
-1.9
3.8
5.9
1.8
1.5
1.4
-0.2
861
854
576
900
1,017
818
1,181
1,327
881
774
372
522
919
3.6
3.9
9.7
4.3
3.7
4.3
7.1
2.4
2.9
4.3
3.3
5.0
1.4
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 ...................................................
65.8
65.3
0.5
4.3
3.2
14.8
1.7
8.4
13.6
6.2
5.0
6.5
0.5
1,416.8
1,259.1
7.3
78.0
145.8
297.4
53.9
135.1
242.9
130.4
125.2
40.0
157.6
1.5
1.4
6.3
6.7
0.9
0.4
-2.5
1.6
2.3
0.2
1.2
-0.6
1.8
909
918
2,065
849
1,042
885
1,211
1,186
1,018
849
411
571
839
3.2
3.0
-9.5
4.4
3.7
5.9
-1.9
3.9
0.5
5.6
0.7
4.0
4.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
second quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2005
(thousands)
June
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2004-053
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
86.4
85.0
0.8
6.8
3.4
14.0
1.3
9.3
14.8
7.7
6.5
20.3
1.4
1,301.4
1,080.7
11.7
92.7
104.6
213.9
37.5
83.1
211.1
120.2
150.8
54.8
220.7
1.5
1.5
-1.3
5.0
-0.1
0.4
2.5
1.3
3.2
-0.8
1.6
2.1
1.2
$812
796
528
831
1,070
677
1,538
1,044
967
750
365
457
891
3.2
3.8
4.3
3.6
3.4
3.2
1.1
0.9
4.3
5.6
6.7
2.2
1.4
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 ...................................................
74.0
73.5
0.4
6.3
2.6
14.5
1.6
6.3
12.0
6.1
5.6
18.2
0.5
1,119.5
966.2
3.3
59.2
106.2
216.8
69.4
74.7
168.7
115.2
107.0
45.5
153.3
2.1
2.6
0.4
6.1
4.4
0.7
1.3
-0.1
6.2
3.3
1.8
-3.3
-0.5
933
935
1,099
890
1,259
822
1,674
1,155
1,065
750
396
505
919
4.8
4.9
8.5
1.8
10.5
3.4
8.6
7.5
0.3
3.6
-0.8
8.1
4.0
Miami-Dade, FL ..................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
84.9
84.7
0.5
5.5
2.8
24.1
1.9
9.3
16.8
8.4
5.8
7.8
0.3
999.0
847.6
8.8
46.2
48.9
242.5
23.7
69.2
143.0
127.3
99.9
34.8
151.4
2.4
3.1
-2.4
14.0
-3.6
2.0
(6)
5.6
6.6
1.6
3.1
-0.1
-1.4
760
729
476
793
675
702
1,047
1,051
868
726
417
483
935
6.1
6.7
15.8
7.2
-1.5
7.8
(6)
7.0
10.6
4.0
4.0
10.3
4.9
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See
Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
6 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county
by state, second quarter 20052
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2005
(thousands)
June
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2004-054
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2004-054
United States6 ....................
8,562.0
132,808.3
1.7
$751
3.9
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
7.9
82.9
13.4
363.1
24.8
24.5
19.7
30.5
84.9
371.4
144.2
1,677.4
245.5
4,089.4
425.7
494.9
280.9
675.1
999.0
0.2
2.2
5.5
1.1
0.7
0.9
1.7
-0.7
1.5
2.4
763
813
761
689
852
923
945
890
1,236
760
6.0
3.0
4.1
3.9
4.4
4.1
5.4
3.5
4.1
6.1
Fulton, GA ..........................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Cook, IL .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
Polk, IA ..............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
37.9
23.6
13.6
129.8
23.5
14.2
19.1
21.2
12.9
11.6
741.3
441.9
198.4
2,527.8
581.0
267.0
304.3
425.1
245.7
172.8
2.9
3.2
4.4
0.2
0.2
1.3
1.8
1.1
-1.2
-0.6
975
700
693
902
783
740
778
748
691
684
3.6
3.7
3.6
4.9
1.8
4.2
3.6
3.7
(7)
3.0
Montgomery, MD ...............
Middlesex, MA ...................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Hinds, MS ..........................
St. Louis, MO .....................
Yellowstone, MT ................
Douglas, NE .......................
Clark, NV ...........................
Hillsborough, NH ................
32.4
49.3
34.4
41.1
6.5
33.6
5.4
15.1
41.5
12.2
464.9
798.8
797.2
831.3
127.6
626.0
73.0
312.5
867.2
197.9
2.1
1.0
0.0
-0.3
-2.2
0.8
1.3
0.3
7.5
1.2
995
1,062
894
941
656
818
606
691
748
836
4.8
1.8
4.4
2.8
3.3
4.9
4.5
3.3
9.4
5.7
Bergen, NJ .........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
New York, NY ....................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
Cass, ND ...........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Providence, RI ...................
34.2
16.5
113.9
27.6
5.7
38.1
22.4
25.8
35.2
18.0
453.5
320.9
2,256.6
520.7
92.3
758.5
411.5
429.5
689.1
286.9
0.3
1.4
1.2
3.1
3.2
-0.1
1.6
1.7
-0.9
-0.7
950
685
1,350
879
613
778
644
772
793
736
4.3
5.4
4.2
4.9
3.9
2.8
1.1
2.9
4.2
3.1
Greenville, SC ....................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Shelby, TN .........................
Harris, TX ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Fairfax, VA .........................
King, WA ............................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
12.6
6.0
19.8
90.0
36.2
5.7
30.6
74.0
6.2
21.6
225.1
112.4
500.8
1,866.9
539.7
96.3
571.1
1,119.5
108.8
494.4
0.6
2.0
0.9
2.6
3.5
-0.4
3.9
2.1
-0.5
-0.3
679
624
752
892
688
740
1,177
933
674
753
5.8
3.0
1.8
5.1
2.5
2.6
8.1
4.8
4.3
4.0
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county
by state, second quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2005
(thousands)
June
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2004-054
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2004-054
Laramie, WY ......................
3.0
41.3
1.6
$594
3.7
San Juan, PR .....................
St. Thomas, VI ...................
14.1
1.8
315.7
23.0
-1.2
0.3
490
626
4.3
6.6
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county
reclassifications. See Technical Note.
5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 20052
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2005
(thousands)
June
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2004-05
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2004-05
United States4 ....................
8,562.0
132,808.3
1.7
$751
3.9
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
116.8
20.6
133.1
77.4
1,213.5
169.3
110.2
29.9
30.5
558.8
1,900.6
315.1
2,429.7
1,158.2
15,387.2
2,215.9
1,676.5
421.3
675.1
7,656.1
2.2
2.7
5.3
1.8
2.0
2.0
1.1
0.7
1.5
3.4
644
759
723
592
849
769
946
797
1,236
689
3.9
3.3
4.3
4.2
3.5
3.4
4.3
3.1
4.1
5.2
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
256.6
36.1
51.6
336.6
153.4
91.8
83.0
105.5
119.5
48.2
3,937.6
605.9
628.5
5,816.8
2,889.9
1,475.0
1,323.6
1,772.9
1,909.2
610.7
2.7
3.4
3.5
0.6
0.6
1.7
0.6
1.8
1.5
-0.6
722
678
574
803
664
614
636
651
616
609
3.1
4.0
3.4
4.2
2.8
3.9
4.6
3.8
4.1
3.7
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
160.0
217.1
257.2
161.4
67.5
169.6
40.2
56.4
66.8
47.4
2,527.3
3,219.6
4,366.7
2,664.7
1,117.3
2,702.2
424.9
905.4
1,220.7
631.7
1.4
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.7
1.3
1.6
1.0
6.4
1.1
818
916
768
760
556
678
553
598
738
754
4.1
2.1
3.4
2.3
4.1
4.1
4.7
3.3
7.7
5.2
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
270.8
50.5
562.1
233.1
24.7
292.0
94.6
122.8
335.4
35.6
4,012.7
784.8
8,471.1
3,855.7
333.2
5,376.0
1,465.3
1,683.2
5,620.2
487.7
1.4
1.9
0.9
1.7
2.0
0.4
2.7
2.9
0.9
0.4
901
624
913
665
561
693
594
687
737
720
3.4
4.5
4.1
4.1
4.1
3.1
2.8
2.5
3.8
3.4
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
118.0
29.0
132.4
519.1
80.5
24.5
212.1
206.9
48.0
160.6
1,823.5
387.4
2,695.7
9,592.4
1,120.9
304.1
3,618.9
2,825.2
703.0
2,794.2
0.7
1.5
1.6
2.6
3.7
0.5
2.2
2.4
1.3
0.9
621
543
670
738
622
644
787
761
612
663
4.4
3.4
3.4
4.5
3.2
1.6
5.5
3.4
3.9
3.1
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2005
(thousands)
June
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2004-05
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2004-05
Wyoming ............................
23.0
267.0
2.9
$616
5.1
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
56.3
3.5
1,039.3
44.3
-0.5
3.8
418
639
2.7
3.7
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
January 2006
or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
-2.2% to 1.7%
1.8% to 9.5%
but are included because they are the largest county in their state
Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees
June 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
January 2006
or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
-7.9% to 3.9%
4.0% to 11.3%
but are included because they are the largest county in their state
Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees
or more, second quarter 2004 05 (U.S. Average = 3.9%)
Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000 employees