Technical information:
(202) 691-6567
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
Media contact:
691-5902
USDL 06-1275
For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FOURTH QUARTER 2005
In December 2005, Lee 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. Lee County, which includes Fort Myers, experienced an overthe-year employment gain of 9.2 percent, compared with national job growth of 1.7 percent. Orleans County
(New Orleans), La., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the fourth quarter of
2005, with an increase of 28.7 percent. The increase in Orleans County was related to the effects of Hurricane Katrina, discussed in some detail below. The U.S. average weekly wage increased by 1.5 percent
over the same time span.
Of the 322 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2004 annual average employment, 133
had over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average in December 2005, and 176
experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 1.) Average weekly wages grew faster than the
national average in 127 of the largest U.S. counties, while the percent change in average weekly wages was
below the national average in 183 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 8.7 million employer
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
The measures of employment and wages reported in this news release reflect the impact
of both Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and ongoing labor market trends. The effects of
Hurricane Katrina, which hit the Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005, were first reflected in the
September QCEW employment counts and the wage totals for the third quarter of 2005.
The impact of this catastrophic storm in parts of Louisiana and Mississippi continue to be
reflected in monthly employment and quarterly wage totals in the fourth quarter of 2005. Modifications to QCEW nonresponse adjustment methods were made for both the third and fourth
quarters of 2005 to better reflect the impact of the hurricane in parts of Louisiana and
Mississippi. Hurricane Rita made landfall on September 24, after the September reference
period. Nonresponse adjustment methods were modified for the fourth quarter of 2005 to
reflect the impact of this hurricane in parts of Louisiana. For more information, see the
QCEW section of the Katrina coverage on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/katrina/
qcewquestions.htm.
2
Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by December 2005 employment, December 2004-05
employment growth, and December 2004-05 percent growth in employment
December 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.
133,834.6
4,196.5
2,547.4
2,310.7
1,919.8
1,784.8
1,507.7
1,457.5
1,315.8
1,145.1
1,022.1
Employment in large counties
Growth in employment,
December 2004-05
(thousands)
U.S.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Harris, Texas
Clark, Nev.
New York, N.Y.
Dallas, Texas
King, Wash.
Broward, Fla.
Orange, Fla.
Orange, Calif.
2,275.4
97.4
73.4
69.7
56.2
44.2
39.3
37.5
30.7
28.9
28.4
Percent growth in employment,
December 2004-05
U.S.
1.7
Lee, Fla.
Kern, Calif.
Pasco, Fla.
Seminole, Fla.
Clark, Nev.
Montgomery, Texas
Lake, Fla.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Webb, Texas
Collier, Fla.
East Baton Rouge, La.
9.2
8.6
7.9
7.8
6.7
6.6
6.5
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.6
reports cover 133.8 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.
December 2005 employment and 2005 fourth-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 fourth quarter of 2005 and revised data for the first, second, and third quarters of 2005 will be
available in July on the BLS Web site.
Large County Employment
In December 2005, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 133.8 million, up
by 1.7 percent from December 2004. The 322 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted
for 70.8 percent of total U.S. covered employment and 76.9 percent of total covered wages. These 322
counties had a net job gain of 1,500,400 over the year, accounting for 65.9 percent of the U.S. employment increase. Employment increased in 250 of the large counties from December 2004 to December 2005.
Lee, Fla., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (9.2 percent). Kern, Calif., had
the next largest increase, 8.6 percent, followed by the counties of Pasco, Fla. (7.9 percent), Seminole, Fla.
(7.8 percent), and Clark, Nev. (6.7 percent). (See table 1.)
Employment declined in 56 counties from December 2004 to December 2005. The largest percentage
decline in employment was in Orleans County, La. (-39.3 percent), followed by the counties of Harrison,
Miss. (-20.2 percent), and Jefferson, La. (-17.0 percent). Employment losses in these three Gulf Coast
counties reflected the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. Stark, Ohio, had the next largest employment decline (-1.8 percent), followed by Saginaw, Mich. (-1.5 percent).
The largest gains in employment from December 2004 to December 2005 were recorded in the counties
of Maricopa, Ariz. (97,400), Los Angeles, Calif. (73,400), Harris, Texas (69,700), Clark, Nev. (56,200),
and New York, N.Y. (44,200). (See table A.)
3
Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by fourth quarter 2005 average weekly wages, fourth
quarter 2004-05 growth in average weekly wages, and fourth quarter 2004-05 percent growth
in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Growth in average weekly
wage, fourth quarter 2004-05
Average weekly wage,
fourth quarter 2005
U.S.
New York, N.Y.
Fairfield, Conn.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Suffolk, Mass.
San Francisco, Calif.
San Mateo, Calif.
Washington, D.C.
Arlington, Va.
Somerset, N.J.
Fairfax, Va.
$825
$1,684
1,496
1,490
1,412
1,378
1,365
1,354
1,345
1,296
1,247
U.S.
Orleans, La.
Jefferson, La.
Harrison, Miss.
San Francisco, Calif.
New Castle, Del.
Fulton, Ga.
York, Pa.
Marin, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Baltimore City, Md.
$12
$216
113
108
96
88
80
76
71
69
66
Percent growth in average
weekly wage, fourth
quarter 2004-05
U.S.
Orleans, La.
Harrison, Miss.
Jefferson, La.
York, Pa.
New Castle, Del.
Fulton, Ga.
San Francisco, Calif.
Collier, Fla.
Baltimore City, Md.
Marin, Calif.
Lake, Fla.
1.5
28.7
18.9
16.2
10.8
9.0
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.1
6.7
6.7
The largest declines in employment occurred in the Katrina-affected counties of Orleans, La. (-96,800),
Jefferson, La. (-36,900), and Harrison, Miss. (-18,200), followed by the counties of Wayne, Mich. (-11,400),
and Oakland, Mich. (-5,700).
Hurricane Rita affected the Texas-Louisiana border counties. However, the damage was not as extensive as with Hurricane Katrina. Despite the effects of Hurricane Rita, Calcasieu County, La., posted a small
over-the-year gain in employment (1,125) in December 2005—1.3 percent. Prior to Hurricane Rita, Calcasieu had posted strong over-the-year employment growth in both June and September, 5.2 and 4.7 percent, respectively.
The evacuation, due to Hurricane Katrina, of a large part of the New Orleans area population to other
parts of the state likely led to changes in the employment situation in those counties in the third and fourth
quarters of 2005. For example, East Baton Rouge County, La., saw a significant employment gain of 5.6 percent over the year ending in December, which followed a year-over-year gain of 4.8 percent in September,
as contrasted with over-the-year growth of 2.0 percent in June 2005, 3 months before the hurricane. The
pattern of job growth was similar in Lafayette, La., which posted an over-the-year gain of 5.5 percent in
December and 6.2 percent in September, after a gain of only 2.6 percent in June 2005.
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the fourth quarter of 2005 was $825. Average weekly wages
were higher than the national average in 105 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 $1,684.
Fairfield, Conn., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,496, followed by Santa Clara, Calif.
($1,490), Suffolk, Mass. ($1,412), and San Francisco, Calif. ($1,378). (See table B.)
4
There were 217 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the fourth quarter
of 2005. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($506), followed by
the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($512), Webb, Texas ($548), Yakima, Wash. ($552), and Horry, S.C.
($556). (See table 1.)
Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 1.5 percent. Among the largest counties,
Orleans, La., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 28.7 percent from the
fourth quarter of 2004. Harrison, Miss., was second with 18.9 percent growth, followed by the counties
of Jefferson, La. (16.2 percent), York, Pa. (10.8 percent), and New Castle, Del. (9.0 percent). The high
average weekly wage growth rates for Orleans, Harrison, and Jefferson Counties were related to the disproportionate job and pay losses in lower-paid industries due to the impact of Hurricane Katrina.
Seventy-two counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Clayton, Ga., and
Williamson, Texas, had the largest decrease, -8.6 percent each, followed by the counties of Trumbull, Ohio
(-5.8 percent), Brown, Wis. (-5.1 percent), and Anoka, Minn. (-4.7 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 December 2004 to December 2005. Maricopa County, Ariz., experienced
the fastest growth in employment among the largest counties, with a 5.8 percent increase. Within Maricopa
County, employment rose in every industry group except natural resources and mining. The largest gains
were in construction (13.6 percent) and financial activities (7.3 percent). Harris, Texas, had the next largest
increase in employment, 3.8 percent, followed by King, Wash. (3.4 percent). The smallest employment gains
occurred in Cook County, Ill., and San Diego, Calif. (0.9 percent each), followed by Los Angeles, Calif.
(1.8 percent). (See table 2.)
All of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. New York,
N.Y., had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, increasing by 4.3 percent. Within
New York County, average weekly wages increased the most in natural resources and mining (175.4 percent), a very small sector. Increases in professional and business services (4.8 percent), however, had a
larger impact on the county’s wage growth. Harris, Texas, was second in wage growth, increasing by 3.8
percent, followed by Dallas County, Texas (3.4 percent). The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest
counties occurred in Los Angeles, Calif. (0.3 percent), followed by King, Wash. (1.1 percent), and Cook
County, Ill. (1.4 percent).
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows December 2005 employment and the 2005 fourth quarter average weekly wage in the
largest county in each state, which is based on 2004 annual average employment levels. (This table includes
two counties—Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.—that have employment levels below 75,000.) The
employment levels in these counties in December 2005 ranged from approximately 4.2 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. ($1,684), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Laramie, Wyo. ($647).
5
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.
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.
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
• Sample survey: 400,000 establish• Count of longitudinally-linked UI
administrative records submitted by
ments
6.7 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 dy• Provides current monthly estimates
namics data on establishment openof employment, hours, and earnings
ings, closings, expansions, and conat the MSA, state, and national levtractions at the national level by
el by industry
NAICS supersectors and by size
of firm
• Future expansions will include data
at the county, MSA, and state level
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
- Analysis of employment expansion and contraction by size of
firm
• 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.
Over-the-year comparisons of average weekly wages may
reflect fluctuations in average monthly employment and/or total
quarterly wages between the current quarter and prior year
levels.
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. For instance, the average weekly wage
of the work force could increase significantly when there is a
large decline in the number of employees that had been receiving
below-average wages. 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. When
comparing average weekly wage levels between industries,
states, or quarters, 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. Included in these
adjustments are administrative changes involving the
classification of establishments that were previously reported in
the unknown or statewide county or unknown industry
categories. The adjusted data do not account for administrative
changes caused by multi-unit employers who start reporting for
each individual establishment rather than as a single entity.
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 is now available for sale 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,
fourth quarter 20052
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2005
(thousands)
December
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
United States6 ....................
8,690.4
133,834.6
1.7
-
$825
1.5
-
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
18.9
8.3
9.9
6.7
4.3
7.9
86.1
18.7
4.9
13.7
375.8
172.2
171.1
138.5
82.9
144.0
1,784.8
364.2
91.5
248.7
0.8
2.8
3.4
4.0
4.2
1.1
5.8
3.1
4.7
1.2
202
81
61
49
43
170
8
70
26
164
836
844
712
725
740
837
818
717
743
749
0.5
-0.4
6.6
0.6
3.9
0.8
2.1
2.4
2.3
-1.1
221
260
12
209
32
189
94
80
87
284
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.4
48.0
27.5
29.1
16.7
378.7
11.6
11.9
91.7
9.9
91.9
683.1
344.5
345.3
275.1
4,196.5
111.4
150.9
1,507.7
134.7
4.4
0.5
-0.4
4.0
8.6
1.8
-0.1
0.2
1.9
2.4
29
222
282
49
2
128
260
235
123
99
685
1,052
1,010
662
683
966
1,133
720
964
810
2.4
-0.5
0.0
1.5
-0.1
0.3
6.7
2.9
2.6
1.8
80
264
248
128
249
234
10
59
68
107
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 .................
40.7
48.6
44.0
88.9
43.5
16.4
8.7
22.7
13.2
53.7
625.2
629.0
654.3
1,315.8
538.1
218.5
100.4
333.1
179.0
877.2
4.3
2.4
4.4
0.9
1.9
1.0
1.9
-0.4
3.3
1.7
35
99
29
192
123
180
123
282
65
134
683
894
718
890
1,378
718
690
1,365
798
1,490
0.9
3.5
0.8
1.8
7.5
1.6
1.5
3.5
1.4
1.8
179
42
189
107
7
119
128
42
138
107
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
8.5
9.6
17.4
13.5
8.6
20.9
5.3
9.0
19.3
12.3
91.9
131.2
191.4
172.6
140.6
318.3
98.4
150.5
274.7
156.5
0.1
2.7
0.4
2.5
4.7
2.7
1.8
4.0
1.4
1.3
241
86
225
95
26
86
128
49
152
156
738
765
821
691
583
892
729
776
974
971
-4.4
1.5
2.8
3.1
1.6
-1.5
-4.3
-0.4
-0.9
1.8
314
128
61
53
119
288
313
260
280
107
Denver, CO ........................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
24.9
16.7
18.5
9.8
32.3
24.6
22.1
6.7
19.5
30.9
431.6
244.3
209.0
125.1
420.6
493.5
366.4
130.1
286.6
673.5
1.8
2.3
1.1
1.6
0.9
1.3
-0.4
0.1
0.0
1.0
128
104
170
140
192
156
282
241
251
180
1,003
750
817
755
1,496
1,033
895
842
1,068
1,354
0.9
1.4
-0.8
3.0
4.3
1.5
1.0
-0.7
9.0
4.9
179
138
275
55
25
128
170
271
5
17
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2005
(thousands)
December
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 .............................
6.3
14.0
62.3
12.0
24.9
7.7
35.1
6.5
17.9
7.8
125.1
207.3
752.1
136.8
462.3
128.8
643.8
83.4
223.6
147.6
(7)
5.0
4.3
5.6
4.2
2.4
2.7
6.5
9.2
-0.7
18
35
10
43
99
86
7
1
297
$656
777
813
801
816
675
781
669
733
708
(7)
0.5
1.0
7.4
1.2
3.7
0.6
6.7
2.8
0.9
221
170
8
154
36
209
10
61
179
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
8.3
7.6
84.4
6.1
33.4
47.9
8.8
30.9
12.0
14.9
130.8
101.5
1,022.1
83.6
675.4
565.1
96.5
446.6
211.8
164.3
1.1
(7)
2.1
(7)
4.5
3.1
7.9
0.6
5.0
2.6
170
113
28
70
3
216
18
91
642
613
833
666
766
826
600
730
660
740
2.4
1.7
1.5
(7)
0.9
0.9
-0.2
1.1
2.6
4.2
80
114
128
179
179
251
162
68
27
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
13.8
13.5
4.8
7.3
4.4
20.3
17.0
38.3
22.5
4.8
174.3
166.0
86.6
132.6
111.0
318.9
295.2
757.1
323.5
98.7
7.8
4.8
-1.3
0.6
3.0
4.2
0.5
1.7
3.4
0.7
4
22
308
216
77
43
222
134
61
210
777
611
682
718
758
885
864
1,139
862
647
3.7
-1.6
1.8
4.7
-8.6
0.6
-0.3
7.6
0.9
3.7
36
291
107
19
319
209
253
6
179
36
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
4.9
23.9
14.2
4.0
132.3
34.0
11.8
19.8
7.9
3.5
107.0
452.5
203.5
91.6
2,547.4
591.4
207.6
325.3
98.9
85.6
1.2
2.3
5.4
0.8
0.9
0.6
1.6
0.0
2.2
2.5
164
104
14
202
192
216
140
251
109
95
677
763
751
679
1,000
967
776
1,025
746
761
0.4
0.9
1.2
0.6
1.4
-0.7
1.7
-0.6
1.8
-4.4
228
179
154
209
138
271
114
267
107
314
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
Rock Island, IL ...................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
Winnebago, IL ....................
Allen, IN .............................
Elkhart, IN ..........................
Hamilton, IN .......................
5.8
4.6
3.4
5.2
5.2
11.9
6.8
8.8
4.8
6.8
93.8
100.9
79.4
95.0
131.5
173.7
137.1
183.7
127.8
98.0
-0.3
1.2
1.6
1.0
0.7
4.3
-1.0
1.2
3.1
4.8
273
164
140
180
210
35
302
164
70
22
718
800
908
664
788
773
707
704
730
823
3.3
1.4
0.6
2.8
2.1
0.5
1.0
-0.8
2.1
-2.0
49
138
209
61
94
221
170
275
94
298
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2005
(thousands)
December
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 .....................
10.0
23.5
6.0
4.8
6.1
14.2
5.1
19.6
12.0
4.8
196.1
585.3
126.8
110.1
119.6
267.6
89.7
306.7
247.9
94.4
0.9
0.1
-0.1
1.5
0.8
1.7
2.3
2.3
0.8
-0.6
192
241
260
145
202
134
104
104
202
291
$716
839
689
682
802
828
684
846
746
691
-2.3
0.8
0.6
-0.3
1.5
1.2
0.1
0.5
2.6
1.0
301
189
209
253
128
154
239
221
68
170
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
3.2
8.9
22.1
7.2
4.8
13.5
14.3
8.0
12.6
11.8
78.1
172.3
429.5
126.2
84.7
262.2
179.5
127.7
149.5
173.7
1.4
1.7
0.8
3.2
1.3
5.6
-17.0
5.5
-39.3
-0.3
152
134
202
69
156
10
313
12
315
273
782
757
798
689
697
711
812
754
968
749
-0.5
1.3
-1.5
1.6
4.7
3.5
16.2
4.7
28.7
-2.3
264
147
288
119
19
42
3
19
1
301
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
14.2
21.3
5.8
5.5
8.3
32.5
15.5
14.0
9.2
15.5
227.0
378.9
92.5
82.7
141.3
467.9
318.2
353.0
88.4
223.1
2.0
1.5
0.3
2.2
1.7
1.6
-0.1
-0.7
0.0
0.1
116
145
233
109
134
140
260
297
251
241
853
872
779
742
962
1,109
897
992
730
737
2.4
1.3
1.6
-0.8
0.1
4.0
3.8
7.1
0.8
1.4
80
147
119
275
239
31
33
9
189
138
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
20.5
14.2
47.3
21.6
13.7
21.7
20.5
8.3
7.1
5.5
298.4
201.3
803.7
323.7
178.6
572.6
322.1
151.1
162.3
117.8
0.8
-0.4
1.3
0.9
0.7
1.3
0.1
(7)
(7)
1.0
202
282
156
192
210
156
241
180
885
758
1,158
1,013
804
1,412
831
771
789
741
2.3
1.2
1.0
0.6
0.2
3.7
0.5
-3.3
2.9
0.8
87
154
170
209
235
36
221
309
59
189
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
14.5
18.1
40.5
5.8
4.5
8.1
34.0
8.0
10.6
42.9
346.1
332.1
721.7
112.6
89.4
197.0
793.6
116.7
174.2
850.6
1.8
0.4
-0.8
1.1
-1.5
-1.1
-1.4
1.8
1.1
1.3
128
225
299
170
311
304
309
128
170
156
770
890
1,018
744
747
915
951
774
807
1,013
-1.2
-0.6
0.8
0.8
-0.8
1.1
0.2
-4.7
-1.8
-3.4
286
267
189
189
275
162
235
316
295
310
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2005
(thousands)
December
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ......................
3.6
15.8
6.0
4.5
4.5
6.5
4.4
5.0
8.1
18.8
89.4
334.5
96.0
79.6
72.2
128.6
81.7
88.0
153.3
367.3
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.9
-20.2
-0.6
3.0
1.5
3.5
0.7
164
170
156
123
314
291
77
145
60
210
$811
884
674
640
680
736
626
755
626
839
1.0
-3.5
-2.3
-3.2
18.9
3.2
-0.3
0.1
1.5
2.6
170
311
301
308
2
51
253
239
128
68
St. Charles, MO .................
St. Louis, MO .....................
St. Louis City, MO ..............
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
7.7
34.0
8.1
15.4
7.8
43.3
13.5
12.3
10.9
6.7
119.1
627.5
223.2
314.7
154.5
895.6
217.6
200.3
138.6
145.5
2.0
0.3
0.5
1.0
0.9
6.7
2.9
1.0
1.1
-0.3
116
233
222
180
192
5
79
180
170
273
706
887
897
789
662
771
782
949
860
749
1.1
3.0
1.6
4.2
1.1
0.1
1.7
1.9
-1.5
0.7
162
55
119
27
162
239
114
103
288
203
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
34.3
11.3
13.5
21.4
6.3
14.1
10.9
20.9
20.3
17.9
456.2
203.7
212.9
364.8
106.9
239.0
227.6
396.8
258.1
288.0
0.1
0.1
-0.2
0.0
3.3
-0.2
2.4
-0.3
0.4
-0.1
241
241
269
251
65
269
99
273
225
260
1,072
878
892
1,069
766
1,068
1,085
1,043
925
1,239
0.5
1.3
3.1
-1.7
0.9
0.8
1.9
-0.6
1.2
1.7
221
147
53
293
179
189
103
267
154
114
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
11.7
12.5
10.1
14.8
16.7
9.7
15.7
4.5
8.1
23.3
146.9
180.2
174.8
229.5
326.5
231.6
224.5
96.1
119.4
461.3
2.1
0.9
3.3
(7)
2.3
-0.5
1.7
-0.1
-0.9
-1.0
113
192
65
104
288
134
260
300
302
745
893
1,296
1,078
731
826
780
631
823
708
0.7
-0.4
4.5
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.9
1.1
1.6
-0.7
203
260
22
203
228
209
179
162
119
271
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
43.0
17.7
51.7
114.8
5.3
12.7
9.6
41.1
8.3
9.5
464.1
390.5
613.4
2,310.7
110.0
253.1
130.9
487.0
91.6
115.0
1.1
0.8
0.1
2.0
(7)
0.2
-0.1
1.0
-0.3
-0.1
170
202
241
116
235
260
180
273
260
741
785
953
1,684
633
770
708
822
738
873
0.8
0.8
3.0
4.3
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.4
1.3
189
189
55
25
209
189
179
203
228
147
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2005
(thousands)
December
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ..............
48.8
35.9
7.2
4.4
5.8
6.3
8.6
13.7
28.2
6.7
617.5
420.7
110.6
87.6
116.6
172.3
184.0
275.5
533.2
98.5
0.2
-0.3
0.4
-0.6
1.6
1.5
2.2
1.1
2.5
5.1
235
273
225
291
140
145
109
170
95
17
$894
1,173
658
638
620
1,015
754
743
932
683
1.5
5.4
1.2
-0.3
2.5
-1.2
-2.2
0.4
-1.6
4.4
128
14
154
253
75
286
300
228
291
23
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
24.4
5.8
7.0
38.0
29.1
24.5
6.9
6.2
10.9
6.4
416.9
92.9
139.5
756.8
693.9
547.2
100.8
101.8
229.2
107.3
4.3
2.6
2.2
-0.6
0.4
-0.1
0.4
-1.1
-0.2
0.7
35
91
109
291
225
260
225
304
269
210
828
691
734
855
806
895
692
702
730
624
1.5
0.1
-0.9
-0.6
0.1
2.8
-0.1
-1.8
-2.0
0.2
128
239
280
267
239
61
249
295
298
235
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
Trumbull, OH .....................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
13.1
9.2
14.9
4.8
22.6
18.7
12.2
6.5
10.7
9.0
280.8
166.5
274.6
84.3
420.6
339.4
147.4
85.5
149.7
134.6
-1.4
-1.8
1.0
-0.5
1.4
3.9
4.4
3.9
4.4
3.4
309
312
180
288
152
52
29
52
29
61
777
649
767
704
713
744
761
602
656
638
-0.5
-0.3
-2.5
-5.8
2.3
1.6
1.2
1.2
2.2
1.4
264
253
305
318
87
119
154
154
90
138
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
26.4
15.4
34.8
9.0
19.7
15.0
5.8
7.1
13.7
7.1
438.8
242.7
687.7
167.4
264.5
235.3
125.9
177.9
211.7
127.9
2.5
4.3
0.0
1.3
1.4
1.9
-0.6
0.8
0.0
-0.3
95
35
251
156
152
123
291
202
251
273
822
904
858
725
807
1,062
754
785
892
646
1.0
-0.8
0.8
-1.0
0.7
0.5
0.1
-3.1
2.2
0.2
170
275
189
283
203
221
239
307
90
235
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
5.7
12.0
8.2
7.9
27.7
6.2
29.0
5.3
9.5
8.8
101.3
229.8
176.2
142.9
491.3
95.2
640.6
75.9
139.4
175.5
0.9
0.6
0.7
-0.2
1.5
1.5
0.2
0.0
0.4
2.0
192
216
210
269
145
145
235
251
225
116
648
712
820
650
1,024
723
962
700
635
781
1.7
0.1
-0.7
0.8
1.1
0.4
-0.9
1.0
-1.9
10.8
114
239
271
189
162
228
280
170
297
4
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2005
(thousands)
December
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 .....................
5.7
18.2
12.6
12.7
8.6
5.9
9.8
6.4
6.1
18.0
83.5
289.9
199.5
229.8
105.6
90.2
210.1
116.1
113.0
453.2
0.0
0.1
1.8
1.0
3.7
2.0
0.0
-1.1
3.1
2.9
251
241
128
180
57
116
251
304
70
79
$735
813
703
725
556
628
696
700
678
835
1.4
3.4
5.2
0.8
-0.2
-1.1
-0.3
1.3
2.4
0.7
138
46
16
189
251
284
253
147
80
203
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
8.4
10.5
3.8
19.8
4.3
30.5
4.3
3.6
6.2
14.6
194.6
222.2
97.4
509.2
94.9
687.8
81.8
83.4
118.5
255.2
0.1
1.0
3.6
0.9
2.7
4.2
4.4
4.4
2.0
5.4
241
180
59
192
86
43
29
29
116
14
724
729
730
848
616
744
757
588
506
964
2.5
3.0
-2.4
1.8
2.7
3.6
2.2
2.6
1.4
1.4
75
55
304
107
66
40
90
68
138
138
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
66.5
9.4
12.9
7.3
4.9
91.1
9.8
5.8
6.5
4.8
1,457.5
154.3
263.7
114.1
89.2
1,919.8
204.3
120.5
121.3
102.7
2.8
5.3
2.8
4.8
3.1
3.8
4.2
4.3
2.1
1.1
81
16
81
22
70
55
43
35
113
170
1,033
725
575
854
723
1,014
512
815
619
647
3.4
2.0
-0.3
2.2
4.9
3.8
1.6
5.4
2.5
0.6
46
99
253
90
17
33
119
14
75
209
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Potter, TX ...........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
7.1
8.1
3.7
5.0
34.9
25.7
4.5
6.0
6.9
37.7
107.4
148.3
71.9
91.7
730.8
538.9
84.3
104.4
97.8
558.0
6.6
2.0
-0.3
2.8
2.8
3.7
5.7
5.5
3.8
4.3
6
116
273
81
81
57
9
12
55
35
781
687
667
723
827
935
548
807
670
769
4.4
1.5
3.3
3.6
1.6
0.6
1.9
-8.6
4.2
3.4
23
128
49
40
119
209
103
319
27
46
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
Henrico, VA ........................
Loudoun, VA ......................
Prince William, VA .............
Alexandria City, VA ............
12.3
5.6
5.8
7.3
6.9
31.3
8.6
7.2
6.4
5.9
161.9
89.5
95.8
156.5
117.7
578.9
174.2
124.5
103.6
94.9
4.9
1.0
-1.1
-0.1
2.6
3.1
0.4
4.1
4.3
0.2
20
180
304
260
91
70
225
48
35
235
629
607
789
1,345
753
1,247
887
1,059
749
1,077
2.1
2.4
1.0
4.2
1.3
0.4
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.4
94
80
170
27
147
228
61
66
68
80
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 323 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2005
(thousands)
December
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2004-054
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 .................
5.2
3.9
5.7
7.0
11.1
11.0
76.3
6.4
19.8
16.5
97.6
99.5
144.5
162.0
178.0
128.8
1,145.1
83.7
264.3
227.5
2.6
0.6
-0.9
1.2
1.5
4.9
3.4
2.4
3.3
4.8
91
216
300
164
145
20
61
99
65
22
$660
737
807
940
658
734
985
733
711
815
2.6
-0.4
3.5
3.2
2.0
2.5
1.1
6.4
2.0
3.8
68
260
42
51
99
75
162
13
99
33
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
14.7
6.4
6.6
7.8
6.1
6.8
14.2
21.9
5.0
4.3
201.3
95.1
79.9
87.2
108.2
149.2
302.8
497.8
101.2
76.6
2.7
3.1
3.9
-0.5
-0.6
0.9
1.0
-0.4
-0.3
-0.4
86
70
52
288
291
192
180
282
273
282
643
709
613
552
699
732
756
833
722
783
1.1
1.9
2.5
2.0
1.3
-5.1
-1.7
0.6
2.1
-3.9
162
103
75
99
147
317
293
209
94
312
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
13.5
3.9
14.5
233.2
88.5
330.1
0.2
0.6
-2.0
235
216
(8)
826
776
549
0.1
-2.9
3.0
239
306
(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,
fourth quarter 20052
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2005
(thousands)
December
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2004-053
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
8,690.4
8,413.4
123.4
857.7
365.1
1,876.6
142.6
825.4
1,390.3
775.0
697.1
1,121.1
277.1
133,834.6
112,417.0
1,650.4
7,396.7
14,199.1
26,693.7
3,077.0
8,155.9
17,256.9
16,754.9
12,547.1
4,336.1
21,417.6
1.7
1.9
3.7
5.4
-0.6
1.4
-0.6
2.1
3.5
2.3
1.4
0.9
0.7
$825
829
802
892
991
707
1,246
1,280
1,039
782
353
525
807
1.5
1.6
5.7
3.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
3.3
2.1
1.0
2.0
1.4
1.5
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 ...................................................
378.7
374.9
0.5
13.5
16.1
53.1
8.7
23.7
40.5
27.4
26.1
165.0
3.8
4,196.5
3,609.5
10.4
154.5
466.4
833.5
211.8
248.8
592.5
466.7
385.1
239.2
587.1
1.8
1.9
-2.0
8.7
-2.3
2.5
-2.6
2.8
2.9
0.3
2.0
9.1
0.9
966
967
911
961
966
781
1,765
1,412
1,141
885
799
427
964
0.3
0.4
-29.0
2.6
0.9
-0.3
-0.3
3.2
0.6
1.7
1.9
-3.0
0.3
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 ...................................................
132.3
131.1
0.1
11.4
7.5
27.2
2.5
14.8
27.2
13.0
11.1
13.2
1.2
2,547.4
2,234.1
1.4
92.5
252.1
494.5
60.2
220.2
430.3
361.1
221.9
95.2
313.3
0.9
1.1
9.4
-1.0
-1.9
0.2
-2.8
1.5
3.9
1.1
2.5
-0.5
-0.7
1,000
1,009
1,091
1,238
1,029
802
1,341
1,639
1,328
849
406
696
936
1.4
1.7
1.9
4.0
-0.6
-0.1
0.8
3.8
1.2
1.8
5.2
1.6
-0.3
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 ...................................................
114.8
114.6
0.0
2.1
3.1
21.3
4.1
17.3
22.6
8.1
10.4
16.5
0.2
2,310.7
1,860.6
0.1
29.9
41.7
253.5
131.4
365.3
459.4
281.6
200.3
85.8
450.1
2.0
2.3
0.0
2.5
-6.7
1.8
1.2
2.9
1.9
2.2
1.5
2.1
0.7
1,684
1,840
4,005
1,621
1,393
1,234
1,947
3,632
1,910
997
826
944
1,044
4.3
4.2
175.4
2.5
-2.4
4.6
4.5
4.7
4.8
3.2
-0.8
4.2
4.1
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
fourth quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2005
(thousands)
December
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2004-053
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
91.1
90.7
1.3
6.2
4.5
21.0
1.3
9.9
17.7
9.4
6.8
10.6
0.4
1,919.8
1,669.7
68.0
135.5
170.4
416.5
31.8
117.8
309.8
199.4
160.9
55.2
250.1
3.8
4.0
5.5
3.9
4.0
3.3
-4.3
2.4
7.2
3.4
1.7
0.9
2.5
$1,014
1,040
2,693
974
1,262
885
1,191
1,323
1,213
869
365
579
840
3.8
4.2
13.3
6.4
2.8
1.8
3.9
5.3
3.6
-1.4
2.2
3.0
0.7
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 ...................................................
86.1
85.5
0.5
8.8
3.3
18.9
1.4
10.4
18.6
8.3
6.1
6.0
0.6
1,784.8
1,571.9
8.9
170.7
134.5
370.4
32.9
150.0
300.6
180.9
171.0
46.4
212.8
5.8
6.5
-1.7
13.6
2.6
5.6
0.8
7.3
6.4
5.1
5.4
3.3
0.9
818
821
704
860
1,103
765
939
1,087
845
893
383
563
796
2.1
2.6
6.2
5.1
3.4
1.2
-3.2
6.3
1.6
1.6
3.2
3.7
-1.6
Orange, CA ........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
91.7
90.3
0.2
6.8
5.7
17.2
1.4
10.5
18.0
9.4
6.8
14.3
1.4
1,507.7
1,375.1
5.2
105.8
181.8
285.5
32.1
144.7
272.3
132.2
166.5
48.8
132.6
1.9
2.2
8.7
11.4
-1.7
1.2
-2.6
2.9
3.5
1.6
1.5
2.6
-0.8
964
971
612
1,042
1,123
856
1,248
1,641
1,050
894
379
574
899
2.6
2.8
-6.6
2.5
1.5
-0.2
0.9
8.0
2.0
1.6
4.4
4.4
1.1
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 ...................................................
66.5
66.1
0.5
4.3
3.3
14.8
1.7
8.4
13.8
6.2
5.1
6.5
0.4
1,457.5
1,296.2
7.5
77.3
147.7
312.1
53.8
138.6
259.7
134.9
122.3
39.0
161.3
2.8
2.9
7.1
5.1
1.7
1.3
-0.2
2.4
7.4
1.5
0.2
0.1
1.9
1,033
1,053
3,177
969
1,101
1,001
1,311
1,368
1,209
980
473
638
868
3.4
3.3
14.3
6.6
-2.6
8.2
-1.9
3.4
0.8
2.9
2.6
3.2
4.2
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
fourth quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2005
(thousands)
December
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2004-053
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
88.9
87.5
0.8
6.9
3.4
14.2
1.3
9.4
15.2
7.7
6.7
21.8
1.4
1,315.8
1,096.1
11.2
92.9
103.2
230.2
37.3
84.5
209.7
121.8
149.6
55.6
219.7
0.9
1.1
3.2
3.3
-1.0
2.1
-0.5
1.2
-0.6
0.1
2.8
1.5
0.2
$890
881
567
960
1,169
686
1,990
1,211
1,081
854
382
474
931
1.8
1.5
4.0
0.6
3.5
-1.0
4.7
5.4
0.7
2.4
3.5
0.2
2.6
King, WA ............................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
76.3
75.8
0.4
6.5
2.6
14.8
1.6
6.5
12.2
6.2
5.8
19.2
0.5
1,145.1
993.2
2.9
63.1
108.6
227.2
70.8
76.1
175.4
117.2
106.6
45.2
152.0
3.4
4.0
7.0
11.8
5.7
1.3
2.6
0.8
7.4
3.3
4.8
-1.3
-0.5
985
994
1,200
970
1,297
853
1,775
1,236
1,182
782
413
534
925
1.1
0.8
-0.5
1.7
8.9
-0.2
-8.0
7.3
-1.3
0.3
-0.7
5.3
2.4
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 ...................................................
84.4
84.1
0.5
5.6
2.7
23.6
1.8
9.7
16.8
8.5
5.7
7.7
0.3
1,022.1
869.1
9.6
47.5
48.3
253.0
22.9
71.0
149.3
128.8
99.0
35.7
153.0
2.1
2.5
-7.9
10.8
-2.3
1.4
(6)
4.2
5.9
2.2
0.3
1.4
0.1
833
817
482
901
747
761
1,190
1,212
1,018
807
450
482
927
1.5
2.6
6.9
7.0
3.3
2.0
(6)
3.9
0.9
1.5
0.0
0.6
-3.0
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, fourth quarter 20052
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2005
(thousands)
December
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2004-054
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2004-054
United States6 ....................
8,690.4
133,834.6
1.7
$825
1.5
Jefferson, AL ......................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pulaski, AR ........................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Denver, CO ........................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
18.9
7.9
86.1
13.7
378.7
24.9
24.6
19.5
30.9
84.4
375.8
144.0
1,784.8
248.7
4,196.5
431.6
493.5
286.6
673.5
1,022.1
0.8
1.1
5.8
1.2
1.8
1.8
1.3
0.0
1.0
2.1
836
837
818
749
966
1,003
1,033
1,068
1,354
833
0.5
0.8
2.1
-1.1
0.3
0.9
1.5
9.0
4.9
1.5
Fulton, GA ..........................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Cook, IL .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
Polk, IA ..............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
38.3
23.9
14.2
132.3
23.5
14.2
19.6
22.1
12.6
11.8
757.1
452.5
203.5
2,547.4
585.3
267.6
306.7
429.5
149.5
173.7
1.7
2.3
5.4
0.9
0.1
1.7
2.3
0.8
-39.3
-0.3
1,139
763
751
1,000
839
828
846
798
968
749
7.6
0.9
1.2
1.4
0.8
1.2
0.5
-1.5
28.7
-2.3
Montgomery, MD ...............
Middlesex, MA ...................
Wayne, MI ..........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Hinds, MS ..........................
St. Louis, MO .....................
Yellowstone, MT ................
Douglas, NE .......................
Clark, NV ...........................
Hillsborough, NH ................
32.5
47.3
34.0
42.9
6.5
34.0
5.4
15.4
43.3
12.3
467.9
803.7
793.6
850.6
128.6
627.5
73.8
314.7
895.6
200.3
1.6
1.3
-1.4
1.3
-0.6
0.3
2.4
1.0
6.7
1.0
1,109
1,158
951
1,013
736
887
650
789
771
949
4.0
1.0
0.2
-3.4
3.2
3.0
1.9
4.2
0.1
1.9
Bergen, NJ .........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
New York, NY ....................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
Cass, ND ...........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Providence, RI ...................
34.3
16.7
114.8
28.2
5.8
38.0
22.6
26.4
34.8
18.2
456.2
326.5
2,310.7
533.2
92.9
756.8
420.6
438.8
687.7
289.9
0.1
2.3
2.0
2.5
2.6
-0.6
1.4
2.5
0.0
0.1
1,072
731
1,684
932
691
855
713
822
858
813
0.5
0.4
4.3
-1.6
0.1
-0.6
2.3
1.0
0.8
3.4
Greenville, SC ....................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Shelby, TN .........................
Harris, TX ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Fairfax, VA .........................
King, WA ............................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
12.7
6.1
19.8
91.1
37.7
5.8
31.3
76.3
6.1
21.9
229.8
113.0
509.2
1,919.8
558.0
95.8
578.9
1,145.1
108.2
497.8
1.0
3.1
0.9
3.8
4.3
-1.1
3.1
3.4
-0.6
-0.4
725
678
848
1,014
769
789
1,247
985
699
833
0.8
2.4
1.8
3.8
3.4
1.0
0.4
1.1
1.3
0.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county
by state, fourth quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2005
(thousands)
December
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2004-054
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2004-054
Laramie, WY ......................
3.0
41.3
4.0
$647
2.7
San Juan, PR .....................
St. Thomas, VI ...................
14.5
1.8
330.1
23.5
-2.0
1.6
549
625
3.0
-1.3
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,
fourth quarter 20052
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2005
(thousands)
December
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2004-05
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2004-05
United States4 ....................
8,690.4
133,834.6
1.7
$825
1.5
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
117.9
20.7
139.3
78.3
1,261.8
170.1
110.8
29.6
30.9
573.6
1,929.6
291.8
2,596.6
1,168.4
15,515.7
2,234.8
1,671.0
422.9
673.5
7,999.0
2.5
1.3
5.4
1.8
2.4
2.4
0.6
1.1
1.0
3.5
706
793
769
633
944
835
1,080
937
1,354
752
1.6
1.5
2.5
1.6
1.6
0.5
2.2
6.2
4.9
1.9
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
258.9
36.8
53.1
342.9
154.2
91.8
84.1
107.3
120.9
48.7
4,007.3
619.6
625.5
5,830.1
2,906.4
1,465.0
1,325.6
1,783.6
1,783.8
598.2
2.5
2.7
4.6
1.0
0.8
1.6
0.7
1.2
-5.5
-0.6
794
736
628
887
705
672
680
682
710
662
2.7
1.8
1.6
1.1
-0.1
0.7
1.6
0.1
7.4
0.3
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
160.1
208.4
255.9
168.5
68.2
171.6
40.6
57.4
68.8
48.1
2,540.2
3,206.4
4,320.9
2,687.5
1,114.5
2,700.9
418.9
900.2
1,253.2
630.8
1.3
0.9
-0.6
1.8
-0.2
1.2
2.4
0.9
5.7
1.0
910
1,026
835
808
614
723
591
663
775
848
3.5
2.0
0.0
-3.2
4.6
2.0
3.3
2.3
0.9
1.1
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
274.0
51.1
564.7
236.1
25.1
289.9
94.9
125.6
332.4
35.7
3,988.9
793.2
8,531.8
3,916.7
332.7
5,359.4
1,502.5
1,686.0
5,619.5
483.6
0.9
2.5
0.8
1.7
2.0
0.2
2.8
3.8
0.8
0.3
1,011
658
1,048
718
614
751
642
728
801
787
0.8
2.0
2.9
0.4
2.3
-0.4
2.4
1.3
0.6
2.7
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
120.9
29.4
133.4
525.4
84.0
24.7
216.0
213.4
48.0
163.1
1,830.0
378.6
2,742.6
9,821.7
1,149.3
308.1
3,637.5
2,794.2
704.3
2,773.4
1.0
2.0
1.5
3.5
4.4
1.1
1.9
3.0
1.2
0.6
666
589
736
823
687
684
855
804
627
713
1.7
1.4
1.2
3.0
3.5
1.0
1.7
1.8
1.1
-0.8
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
fourth quarter 20052 — Continued
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2005
(thousands)
December
2005
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2004-05
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2004-05
Wyoming ............................
23.2
258.4
4.1
$678
5.8
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
57.8
3.5
1,093.7
44.9
-0.5
2.0
474
664
1.7
0.5
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
July 2006
or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
-39.3% to 1.7%
1.8% to 9.2%
but are included because they are the largest county in their state
Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees
December 2004 05 (U.S. Average = 1.7%)
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 employees or more,
05 (U.S. Average = 1.5%)
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
July 2006
or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
-8.6% to 1.5%
1.6% to 28.7%
but are included because they are the largest county in their state
Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees
or more, fourth quarter 2004
Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000 employees