Technical information:
(202) 691-6567
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
Media contact:
691-5902
USDL 06-1859
For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT
Thursday, October 26, 2006
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FIRST QUARTER 2006
In March 2006, Collin County, Texas, 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. Collin County, a Dallas suburb, experienced an over-the-year
employment gain of 7.8 percent compared with national job growth of 2.2 percent. Orleans County (New
Orleans), La., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the first quarter of 2006, with
an increase of 33.3 percent. The high average weekly wage growth rate for Orleans County was related to
the disproportionate job and pay losses in lower-paid industries due to the impact of Hurricane Katrina. The
U.S. average weekly wage increased by 8.1 percent over the same time span.
Of the 325 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2005 annual average employment, 133
had over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average in March 2006, and 184
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 193 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 8.8 million employer
reports cover 132.6 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain data for the
nation and for the 325 U.S. counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more in 2005.
March 2006 employment and 2006 first-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table
4 of this release. Data for all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and the nation through the fourth
quarter of 2005 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for first
quarter 2006 and final data for 2005 will be available later in October on the BLS Web site.
County Changes for the 2006 County Employment and Wages News Releases:
Four Counties Added and One County Dropped
Counties with employment of 75,000 or more are included in this release. For 2006 data,
four counties have been added to the publication tables: Douglas, Colo., Weld, Colo., Boone,
Ky., and Butler, Pa. One county, Potter, Texas, which had data for 2005 published in the 2005
releases, will be excluded from this and future 2006 releases because it no longer has an
employment level of 75,000 or more.
2
Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by March 2006 employment, March 2005-06 employment
growth, and March 2005-06 percent growth in employment
Employment in large counties
Growth in employment,
March 2005-06
( thousands)
March 2006 employment
(thousands)
U.S.
132,613.1
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.
4,179.3
2,502.0
2,271.0
1,924.0
1,791.4
1,512.1
1,439.9
1,313.3
1,126.8
1,014.5
U.S.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Maricopa, Ariz.
Harris, Texas
Clark, Nev.
Dallas, Texas
New York, N.Y.
Orange, Calif.
King, Wash.
Riverside, Calif.
Cook, Ill.
Percent growth in employment,
March 2005-06
2,852.5
107.7
102.1
83.0
60.9
44.3
40.9
36.2
34.7
30.9
28.0
U.S.
2.2
Collin, Texas
Lee, Fla.
Brazoria, Texas
Manatee, Fla.
Clark, Nev.
Lake, Fla.
Pasco, Fla.
Seminole, Fla.
Collier, Fla.
Will, Ill.
Hamilton, Ind.
7.8
7.7
7.5
7.2
7.2
7.0
6.9
6.6
6.4
6.4
6.4
Large County Employment
In March 2006, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 132.6 million, up
by 2.2 percent from March 2005. The 325 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for
70.9 percent of total U.S. covered employment and 77.7 percent of total covered wages. These 325
counties had a net job gain of 1,864,798 over the year, accounting for 65.4 percent of the U.S. employment increase. Employment increased in 289 of the large counties from March 2005 to March 2006.
Collin, Texas, had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (7.8 percent). Lee, Fla.,
had the next largest increase, 7.7 percent, followed by the counties of Brazoria, Texas (7.5 percent), and
Manatee, Fla., and Clark, Nev. (7.2 percent each). (See table 1.)
Employment declined in 32 counties from March 2005 to March 2006. The largest percentage decline
in employment was in Orleans County, La. (-38.7 percent), followed by the counties of Harrison, Miss.
(-18.8 percent), and Jefferson, La. (-11.7 percent). Employment losses in these three Gulf Coast counties
reflected the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. Monterey, Calif., had the next largest employment
decline (-3.6 percent), followed by Boone, Ky. (-3.3 percent).
The largest gains in employment from March 2005 to March 2006 were recorded in the counties of Los
Angeles, Calif. (107,700), Maricopa, Ariz. (102,100), Harris, Texas (83,000), Clark, Nev. (60,900), and
Dallas, Texas (44,300). (See table A.)
The largest declines in employment occurred in the Katrina-affected counties of Orleans, La. (-93,500),
Jefferson, La. (-25,000), and Harrison, Miss. (-17,100), followed by the counties of Oakland, Mich.
(-14,200), and Wayne, Mich. (-12,600).
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the first quarter of 2006 was $838. Average weekly wages were
higher than the national average in 101 of the largest 325 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., held the
3
Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by first quarter 2006 average weekly wages, first quarter
2005-06 growth in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2005-06 percent growth in average
weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Growth in
average weekly wage,
first quarter 2005-06
Average weekly wage,
first quarter 2006
U.S.
New York, N.Y.
Fairfield, Conn.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Somerset, N.J.
San Francisco, Calif.
Suffolk, Mass.
Arlington, Va.
Washington, D.C.
San Mateo, Calif.
Hudson, N.J.
$838
$2,223
1,836
1,584
1,522
1,519
1,494
1,402
1,371
1,338
1,316
U.S.
Orleans, La.
Fairfield, Conn.
Santa Clara, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Somerset, N.J.
Norfolk, Mass.
McLean, Ill.
San Francisco, Calif.
Arapahoe, Colo.
Fairfax, Va.
Percent growth in
average weekly wage,
first quarter 2005-06
$63
$244
224
213
195
158
153
146
144
143
133
U.S.
Orleans, La.
McLean, Ill.
Jefferson, La.
Harrison, Miss.
Montgomery, Texas
Norfolk, Mass.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Oklahoma, Okla.
Arapahoe, Colo.
Sarasota, Fla.
8.1
33.3
20.5
19.0
18.0
17.0
16.7
15.5
15.3
15.2
14.1
top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $2,223. Fairfield, Conn.,
was second with an average weekly wage of $1,836, followed by Santa Clara, Calif. ($1,584), Somerset,
N.J. ($1,522), and San Francisco, Calif. ($1,519). (See table B.)
There were 222 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the first quarter of
2006. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($477), followed by the
counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($490), Horry, S.C. ($524), Webb, Texas ($527), and Yakima, Wash. ($550).
(See table 1.)
Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 8.1 percent. Among the largest counties,
Orleans, La., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 33.3 percent from the
first quarter of 2005. McLean, Ill., was second with growth of 20.5 percent, followed by the counties of
Jefferson, La. (19.0 percent), Harrison, Miss. (18.0 percent), and Montgomery, Texas (17.0 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.
Two counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Cumberland County, Pa.,
had the largest decrease, -3.7 percent, followed by Trumbull, Ohio (-0.4 percent). The lowest over-the-year
increases in average weekly wages were in Clayton, Ga. (1.3 percent), Kalamazoo, Mich. (1.9 percent), and
Benton, Ark. (2.2 percent).
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Of the 10 largest U.S. counties (based on 2005 annual average employment levels), all reported increases in employment from March 2005 to March 2006. Maricopa County, Ariz., experienced the fastest
growth in employment among the largest counties, with a 6.0 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 (13.8 percent) and education and health services (7.3 percent). Harris,
4
Texas, had the next largest increase in employment, 4.5 percent, followed by Dallas, Texas, and King, Wash.
(3.2 percent each). The smallest employment gains occurred in Cook County, Ill., (1.1 percent), followed by
San Diego, Calif. (1.6 percent), and New York, N.Y. (1.8 percent). (See table 2.)
All of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. Miami-Dade,
Fla., had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, increasing by 11.0 percent. Within
Miami-Dade County, average weekly wages increased the most in natural resources and mining (20.3 percent). San Diego, Calif., was second in wage growth, increasing by 10.8 percent, followed by Maricopa,
Ariz. (10.5 percent). The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest counties occurred in Cook, Ill. (6.5 percent), followed by Orange, Calif. (8.2 percent), and Dallas, Texas (8.4 percent).
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows March 2006 employment and the 2006 first quarter average weekly wage in the largest
county in each state, which is based on 2005 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 March 2006 ranged from approximately 4.2 million in Los Angeles
County, Calif., to 41,000 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was
in New York, N.Y. ($2,223), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Laramie, Wyo. ($633). Due to
substantial job losses related to Hurricane Katrina, Orleans County was replaced by East Baton Rouge as
the largest county in Louisiana in 2005.
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.
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.
Hurricane Katrina
The measures of employment and wages reported in this news release reflect the impact of
Hurricane Katrina 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 first quarter of 2006. For more information, see the QCEW section of
the Katrina coverage on the BLS Web site (http://www.bls.gov/katrina/qcewquestions.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 2006 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 326 counties presented in this release were
derived using 2005 preliminary annual averages of
employment. For 2006 data, four counties have been added to
the publication tables: Douglas, Colo., Weld, Colo., Boone,
Ky., and Butler, Pa. These counties will be included in all 2006
quarterly releases. One county, Potter, Texas, which was
published in the 2005 releases, no longer has an employment
level of 75,000 or more and will be excluded in the 2006 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 8.8 million establishments
• Count of longitudinally-linked UI
• Sample survey: 400,000 establishadministrative records submitted by
ments
6.8 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 by
NAICS supersectors and by size
of firm
• Future expansions will include data
at the county, MSA, and state level
• 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
- An 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.
Coverage changes may affect the over-the-year comparisons
presented in this news release.
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.
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
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 nearly 9
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 2005, UI and UCFE programs covered
workers in 131.6 million jobs. The estimated 126.7 million
workers in these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders)
represented 96.6 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered workers received $5.352 trillion in pay,
representing 94.5 percent of the wage and salary component of
personal income and 43.0 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.
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
2005 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 2005 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 2005 version of this news release. This edition will also
be the first to include the data on a CD for enhanced access
and usability. As a result of this change, the printed booklet
will contain only selected graphic representations of QCEW
data; the data tables themselves will be published exclusively
in electronic formats as PDF and fixed-width text files.
Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2005 will be
available for sale in late 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 202-5122104. Also, the 2005 bulletin will be available in a portable
document format (PDF) on the BLS Web site at http://
www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn05.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 326 largest counties,
first quarter 20062
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2006
(thousands)
March
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
United States6 ....................
8,770.7
132,613.1
2.2
-
$838
8.1
-
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
18.6
8.2
9.8
6.6
4.3
8.0
89.1
19.3
5.1
14.0
371.4
170.6
170.7
136.7
84.1
142.1
1,791.4
366.7
92.9
247.3
1.1
2.7
3.2
3.3
5.0
1.8
6.0
4.2
5.4
2.5
208
103
77
72
28
157
15
46
19
120
845
866
659
683
669
836
822
704
792
728
7.2
8.4
9.7
8.6
6.9
5.4
10.5
9.0
2.2
6.6
181
105
54
97
201
284
32
79
319
219
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.6
49.4
28.3
29.6
17.2
392.0
11.8
12.2
95.5
10.4
92.4
683.9
342.3
333.7
262.5
4,179.3
107.2
152.1
1,512.1
136.7
5.0
1.1
0.3
2.8
5.1
2.6
0.7
-3.6
2.5
2.7
28
208
274
100
26
111
244
319
120
103
627
1,099
1,073
637
692
944
1,010
767
967
793
7.5
9.9
5.1
6.5
6.0
9.3
7.6
10.4
8.2
8.0
160
47
288
227
259
65
155
35
123
131
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 .................
42.8
50.1
46.0
92.2
44.6
16.9
9.0
23.3
13.6
55.4
632.8
639.6
654.7
1,313.3
533.0
217.8
104.3
333.8
184.0
871.7
5.1
2.9
3.8
1.6
2.9
0.2
1.6
2.1
2.7
3.0
26
94
60
172
94
279
172
139
103
91
707
911
700
904
1,519
682
666
1,338
786
1,584
8.4
7.1
7.7
10.8
10.5
7.1
7.4
10.0
7.1
15.5
105
189
145
28
32
189
164
44
189
7
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
8.7
10.0
17.8
13.9
8.8
21.8
5.4
9.1
19.4
12.3
93.0
129.6
188.3
171.5
137.7
321.0
97.4
150.9
272.0
154.2
1.6
1.6
0.8
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.8
4.1
1.8
1.6
172
172
234
189
189
157
157
48
157
172
819
780
784
677
575
891
765
762
1,081
987
12.3
7.7
6.8
6.6
9.1
4.5
9.1
8.1
15.2
7.2
16
145
207
219
73
298
73
128
9
181
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
25.0
8.6
17.0
18.6
9.9
5.8
32.5
24.8
22.2
6.8
424.7
84.0
242.5
204.3
124.0
78.3
409.3
487.3
362.4
128.0
1.6
5.3
3.0
0.5
1.8
4.0
1.1
1.6
1.3
-0.2
172
22
91
262
157
53
208
172
195
295
1,065
853
739
849
719
672
1,836
1,112
872
847
8.8
9.5
6.6
6.8
7.2
10.7
13.9
6.6
6.9
8.3
88
62
219
207
181
29
11
219
201
113
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
first quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2006
(thousands)
March
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
Alachua, FL ........................
Brevard, FL ........................
Broward, FL .......................
Collier, FL ..........................
Duval, FL ...........................
Escambia, FL .....................
Hillsborough, FL .................
Lake, FL .............................
19.6
31.4
6.4
14.4
63.3
12.3
25.5
7.9
35.9
6.8
280.2
664.9
126.1
209.4
753.5
140.6
460.2
130.4
644.1
84.8
0.7
0.3
2.1
2.6
3.3
6.4
3.3
3.2
4.2
7.0
244
274
139
111
72
9
72
77
46
6
$1,113
1,371
614
746
791
729
841
642
782
587
10.3
7.3
4.8
6.6
(7)
3.6
9.9
8.6
8.3
9.5
37
175
293
219
310
47
97
113
62
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
18.5
7.9
8.8
7.8
85.9
6.1
34.1
48.8
9.2
31.2
227.4
147.9
129.9
103.0
1,014.5
83.2
674.6
568.9
100.5
450.1
7.7
1.8
7.2
4.4
2.2
4.7
3.6
3.5
6.9
3.2
2
157
4
40
134
34
63
64
7
77
708
648
636
587
826
648
757
806
563
710
9.6
4.0
9.8
7.7
11.0
9.3
6.9
4.4
8.9
8.2
56
307
53
145
25
65
201
301
84
123
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
12.3
14.7
14.2
13.7
4.7
7.3
4.4
20.2
16.8
38.2
212.3
161.3
176.9
169.6
85.2
134.2
108.2
315.6
293.4
748.3
4.1
4.9
6.6
4.3
-0.4
2.9
0.3
3.1
1.6
1.9
48
30
8
45
302
94
274
87
172
150
624
729
709
574
697
687
754
895
907
1,164
7.2
14.1
4.4
5.7
10.5
9.6
1.3
7.4
7.7
7.7
181
10
301
269
32
56
321
164
145
145
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
22.4
4.8
4.8
24.0
14.3
4.0
132.7
34.1
11.9
19.9
315.7
98.3
107.3
448.2
204.6
90.1
2,502.0
581.6
203.2
319.1
3.5
1.3
2.8
2.6
6.2
1.2
1.1
1.4
1.8
0.8
64
195
100
111
12
202
208
189
157
234
898
655
670
742
730
657
1,047
1,006
740
1,065
11.4
8.1
7.4
7.1
9.3
6.3
6.5
9.2
7.7
10.9
22
128
164
189
65
242
227
70
145
27
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
Rock Island, IL ...................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
Winnebago, IL ....................
Allen, IN .............................
8.0
3.5
5.8
4.7
3.4
5.3
5.2
12.2
6.8
8.9
97.9
83.8
93.2
100.6
75.3
93.1
129.3
174.0
134.4
181.7
3.9
2.7
-0.1
1.6
1.3
0.5
0.1
6.4
0.0
2.5
56
103
291
172
195
262
284
9
290
120
689
858
673
829
838
636
776
719
704
700
7.0
20.5
6.0
8.1
13.4
7.4
2.8
4.7
7.6
6.2
197
2
259
128
12
164
318
296
155
250
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
first quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2006
(thousands)
March
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Elkhart, IN ..........................
Hamilton, IN .......................
Lake, IN .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
Vanderburgh, IN ................
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ..............................
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
4.8
7.0
10.0
23.6
6.0
4.8
6.1
14.3
5.2
19.8
128.8
98.4
192.4
572.9
123.3
108.4
118.9
264.4
87.2
299.4
3.9
6.4
0.7
0.2
-0.7
1.1
1.4
2.4
1.1
0.7
56
9
244
279
307
208
189
125
208
244
$702
830
718
900
676
693
774
859
660
883
10.4
6.4
6.7
10.0
6.3
7.8
6.9
8.3
9.1
8.5
35
234
214
44
242
141
201
113
73
101
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Boone, KY ..........................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
12.1
4.8
3.2
3.3
9.0
22.3
7.3
4.8
13.6
14.4
246.8
92.1
77.0
73.7
169.3
424.0
126.1
84.4
260.3
188.0
3.4
-1.4
2.0
-3.3
0.9
1.9
3.3
2.2
6.2
-11.7
68
312
145
318
229
150
72
134
12
320
796
694
779
722
725
799
647
698
709
752
12.7
10.2
7.4
3.0
6.3
7.4
8.7
9.2
7.9
19.0
14
42
164
316
242
164
93
70
136
3
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
8.1
12.1
11.9
14.2
21.5
5.8
5.5
8.4
32.6
15.4
127.4
148.1
166.7
222.2
374.5
91.9
81.5
141.9
462.3
311.5
5.8
-38.7
1.1
2.3
2.3
2.1
3.2
3.1
2.4
0.7
17
322
208
130
130
139
77
87
125
244
723
977
751
863
851
788
775
948
1,133
865
12.6
33.3
6.1
8.0
6.5
9.0
10.7
9.1
8.8
8.5
15
1
255
131
227
79
29
73
88
101
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
14.0
9.1
15.3
20.3
14.0
46.5
21.3
13.6
21.3
20.2
348.0
83.3
217.5
291.2
196.5
791.3
315.3
172.7
563.5
314.8
-0.5
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.5
1.9
0.6
1.1
1.2
0.8
304
234
244
223
262
150
257
208
202
234
951
696
704
880
766
1,177
1,069
742
1,494
820
6.4
6.6
6.0
9.7
5.4
7.2
16.7
5.5
7.3
9.0
234
219
259
54
284
181
6
278
175
79
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
8.3
7.0
5.5
14.5
18.1
40.3
5.8
4.5
8.2
33.7
145.6
160.8
116.2
338.8
323.6
694.0
109.4
85.8
195.0
772.6
-1.0
-1.2
0.3
1.0
-0.6
-2.0
-0.2
-2.9
-0.2
-1.6
310
311
274
223
305
315
295
317
295
314
745
778
733
728
856
977
704
719
911
923
5.1
5.6
1.9
5.7
3.4
5.4
4.6
5.4
6.4
3.1
288
275
320
269
312
284
297
284
234
315
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
first quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2006
(thousands)
March
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
Boone, MO .........................
8.3
10.9
43.9
3.7
16.2
6.1
4.6
4.4
6.5
4.4
113.5
170.9
831.4
88.8
327.4
93.6
78.2
73.5
128.7
81.9
2.0
2.6
1.8
2.9
1.6
2.1
3.2
-18.8
0.9
3.4
145
111
157
94
172
139
77
321
229
68
$755
811
1,047
892
928
653
635
663
715
615
4.9
7.6
4.8
3.8
6.3
5.7
10.1
18.0
8.8
7.1
292
155
293
309
242
269
43
4
88
189
Clay, MO ............................
Greene, MO .......................
Jackson, MO ......................
St. Charles, MO .................
St. Louis, MO .....................
St. Louis City, MO ..............
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
5.1
8.1
18.8
7.8
33.9
8.0
15.4
7.9
44.2
13.7
88.0
152.4
364.7
119.8
616.3
219.5
308.1
151.8
905.4
214.8
2.7
3.3
0.8
3.1
0.7
0.1
1.0
0.5
7.2
4.0
103
72
234
87
244
284
223
262
4
53
728
613
844
695
900
981
778
644
769
734
5.1
6.4
8.9
6.3
9.9
7.4
9.9
5.7
6.8
4.0
288
234
84
242
47
164
47
269
207
307
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
12.4
10.9
6.8
34.6
11.5
13.6
21.6
6.4
14.1
11.1
195.0
134.0
143.8
443.4
202.6
209.5
360.5
104.0
235.5
227.3
1.3
1.7
0.6
0.4
1.9
1.5
1.4
3.9
0.1
2.6
195
169
257
269
150
185
189
56
284
111
886
816
731
1,061
853
824
1,121
742
1,316
1,068
7.3
6.7
8.3
7.9
7.2
8.0
6.7
9.1
6.2
7.4
175
214
113
136
181
131
214
73
250
164
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
21.2
20.6
18.1
11.9
12.7
10.2
15.0
16.9
9.7
15.7
395.0
253.2
284.3
144.7
179.1
172.4
228.3
328.0
226.0
221.9
0.9
1.6
1.0
1.9
2.2
3.5
0.3
4.4
-0.1
1.2
229
172
223
150
134
64
274
40
291
202
1,083
885
1,286
701
864
1,522
1,106
705
820
745
5.6
5.5
8.3
8.7
7.5
11.6
9.6
7.3
5.5
5.8
275
278
113
93
160
20
56
175
278
265
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
4.5
8.2
23.3
43.3
17.7
51.8
115.3
5.3
12.7
9.7
94.3
116.9
449.5
458.5
378.3
590.4
2,271.0
107.7
245.5
128.3
1.1
0.1
-0.1
1.6
-0.1
0.5
1.8
0.4
0.7
1.8
208
284
291
172
291
262
157
269
244
157
641
835
715
705
806
909
2,223
614
753
689
6.3
4.4
6.4
7.3
8.2
5.7
9.6
5.0
7.7
6.8
242
301
234
175
123
269
56
291
145
207
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
first quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2006
(thousands)
March
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
41.1
8.3
9.5
49.0
36.1
7.2
4.4
5.8
6.4
8.6
477.6
88.7
111.4
599.8
407.6
109.9
87.3
116.4
173.0
181.3
1.1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
1.3
1.2
0.8
2.4
2.0
208
257
257
257
262
195
202
234
125
145
$801
703
877
848
1,193
614
642
595
1,137
761
6.0
6.2
8.8
7.8
8.0
7.2
11.5
6.8
10.3
4.5
259
250
88
141
131
181
21
207
37
298
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
13.9
28.3
6.8
24.7
5.8
7.3
38.3
29.4
24.2
6.9
273.8
530.6
97.8
416.8
92.1
141.5
745.0
675.5
523.4
98.9
1.3
3.2
4.5
4.8
4.1
1.7
0.1
1.4
0.7
-0.2
195
77
37
33
48
169
284
189
244
295
726
1,167
663
829
649
725
865
837
909
690
6.5
8.4
9.0
8.5
6.6
5.8
6.5
7.9
6.7
3.4
227
105
79
101
219
265
227
136
214
312
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
Trumbull, OH .....................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
6.3
11.0
6.4
13.1
9.2
15.0
4.9
22.7
18.9
12.3
100.1
224.2
102.4
275.0
160.2
268.6
84.3
420.0
339.5
145.3
0.2
1.1
1.5
-0.2
-0.7
1.1
-1.4
2.6
4.4
2.8
279
208
185
295
307
208
312
111
40
100
690
749
595
758
644
756
701
755
774
741
5.5
6.1
8.0
4.4
8.8
6.5
-0.4
15.3
13.0
6.0
278
255
131
301
88
227
322
8
13
259
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Butler, PA ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
6.6
10.7
9.0
26.5
15.5
35.0
9.1
19.7
4.7
15.0
81.6
146.9
133.6
432.1
242.9
674.7
165.7
259.9
75.1
231.1
0.8
2.6
1.7
2.6
4.9
0.9
2.3
2.2
0.9
1.8
234
111
169
111
30
229
130
134
229
157
597
622
629
839
965
871
725
793
671
1,083
6.2
6.3
6.1
7.7
8.3
7.1
8.5
9.2
7.2
9.9
250
242
255
145
113
189
101
70
181
47
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
5.8
7.1
13.6
7.2
5.7
11.9
8.3
7.9
27.9
6.3
124.7
178.7
206.4
126.1
100.3
224.2
174.1
141.6
482.2
96.8
1.1
2.4
0.4
0.5
1.9
0.4
3.0
0.8
1.5
2.0
208
125
269
262
150
269
91
234
185
145
757
789
895
632
615
691
815
639
1,118
714
-3.7
3.4
11.9
8.4
7.0
8.3
7.1
8.3
10.6
6.4
323
312
18
105
197
113
189
113
31
234
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
first quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2006
(thousands)
March
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Kent, RI ..............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
29.2
5.4
9.5
8.8
5.7
18.2
12.8
12.8
8.7
6.0
632.0
76.7
135.9
173.5
80.5
282.0
197.3
228.1
109.4
89.9
0.4
2.5
0.2
2.1
0.7
0.1
1.8
2.3
5.3
2.2
269
120
279
139
244
284
157
130
22
134
$979
695
639
709
734
802
681
695
524
614
9.3
9.3
9.0
6.0
7.5
4.8
8.6
5.6
9.6
8.3
65
65
79
259
160
293
97
275
56
113
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
9.9
6.5
6.1
18.0
8.5
10.6
4.0
20.0
4.3
30.7
211.1
115.5
110.7
442.1
190.4
219.3
97.8
502.4
94.7
693.2
3.4
0.2
2.6
3.1
(7)
2.4
4.4
1.5
1.2
3.9
68
279
111
87
125
40
185
202
56
700
742
683
812
699
682
710
813
610
738
8.9
8.6
7.6
5.7
(7)
6.7
7.9
7.3
9.1
7.4
84
97
155
269
214
136
175
73
164
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
4.4
3.7
6.3
14.9
66.5
9.5
13.0
7.4
5.0
91.8
83.7
84.0
120.5
258.4
1,439.9
155.4
262.6
113.1
91.3
1,924.0
7.5
6.0
4.0
7.8
3.2
(7)
3.2
4.5
3.7
4.5
3
15
53
1
77
77
37
61
37
822
564
477
990
1,033
679
568
883
755
1,033
9.9
4.1
4.4
7.5
8.4
6.3
7.4
7.8
12.0
8.7
47
306
301
160
105
242
164
141
17
93
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
9.9
5.8
6.5
4.8
7.2
8.0
5.1
35.1
26.0
4.5
207.2
123.0
119.9
101.4
107.7
150.2
90.9
730.5
541.2
83.7
4.6
4.9
1.2
-0.2
6.1
2.7
1.3
2.9
4.1
5.4
36
30
202
295
14
103
195
94
48
19
490
761
609
637
785
685
669
839
934
527
5.8
6.4
10.3
5.5
17.0
11.7
6.5
8.4
7.7
7.8
265
234
37
278
5
19
227
105
145
141
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
Henrico, VA ........................
6.1
7.0
37.7
12.3
5.7
5.7
7.3
7.0
31.6
8.7
104.9
97.7
553.3
161.3
89.7
93.1
157.0
117.0
568.4
172.9
4.7
5.2
4.4
5.6
2.0
-0.6
1.6
3.2
2.5
1.0
34
25
40
18
145
305
172
77
120
223
838
635
744
589
579
847
1,402
738
1,314
919
4.5
6.9
9.4
6.9
7.6
11.0
8.2
7.0
11.3
2.9
298
201
64
201
155
25
123
197
24
317
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
first quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2006
(thousands)
March
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Loudoun, VA ......................
Prince William, VA .............
Alexandria City, VA ............
Chesapeake City, VA .........
Newport News City, VA .....
Norfolk City, VA .................
Richmond City, VA .............
Virginia Beach City, VA ......
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
7.4
6.5
5.9
5.3
3.9
5.6
7.0
11.2
10.8
74.1
123.9
102.7
93.0
99.0
98.4
141.1
161.4
175.8
127.6
1,126.8
4.1
5.4
1.0
(7)
0.8
-2.0
2.7
1.1
3.7
3.2
48
19
223
234
315
103
208
61
77
$1,114
717
1,054
631
711
768
987
630
722
1,041
11.4
9.6
8.9
8.2
6.8
6.1
8.7
8.4
6.6
10.3
22
56
84
123
207
255
93
105
219
37
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
6.3
19.3
16.4
14.3
6.3
6.5
7.4
6.1
6.8
14.1
83.5
262.0
228.7
201.4
95.2
78.6
92.0
107.3
145.5
294.5
2.9
3.5
5.3
3.4
2.7
2.1
1.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
94
64
22
68
103
139
150
234
244
244
698
737
839
651
715
625
550
706
744
812
6.2
7.4
10.0
6.4
5.8
7.9
7.0
7.1
8.3
10.3
250
164
44
234
265
136
197
189
113
37
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
21.8
5.0
4.3
13.5
3.9
14.7
486.6
100.0
74.3
229.1
86.8
306.0
-0.3
-0.4
-0.8
0.7
1.1
-2.4
301
302
309
244
208
(8)
843
705
722
823
777
531
8.4
5.5
6.8
7.7
3.5
3.1
105
278
207
145
311
(8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 325 U.S. counties comprise 70.9 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
first quarter 20062
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2006
(thousands)
March
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2005-063
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2005-063
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 ...................................................
8,770.7
8,492.7
123.5
867.6
365.3
1,890.9
144.0
840.5
1,413.1
790.1
703.7
1,127.3
277.9
132,613.1
111,080.5
1,634.5
7,296.6
14,104.7
25,624.0
3,041.5
8,101.5
17,153.3
16,830.1
12,626.1
4,320.5
21,532.5
2.2
2.5
2.7
7.3
-0.4
1.8
-0.1
2.3
4.2
2.8
2.4
0.8
0.8
$838
843
882
823
1,022
708
1,374
1,629
1,020
714
338
508
808
8.1
8.5
13.2
9.9
8.7
7.8
10.4
9.9
8.7
7.5
8.0
7.2
5.3
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 ...................................................
392.0
388.2
0.5
14.0
16.1
55.3
9.0
24.7
42.6
28.1
27.1
170.4
3.8
4,179.3
3,591.9
10.8
154.1
469.5
803.3
214.5
248.0
593.1
471.1
383.9
242.9
587.4
2.6
3.0
-4.8
8.0
-0.8
2.4
4.9
2.5
4.3
2.7
3.3
6.4
0.3
944
927
1,067
883
1,002
768
1,649
1,680
1,103
804
503
403
1,046
9.3
9.4
-6.7
8.5
11.6
8.3
4.7
8.5
13.2
10.9
11.3
2.8
8.5
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 ...................................................
132.7
131.5
0.1
11.4
7.3
27.2
2.5
14.9
27.3
13.1
11.1
13.2
1.2
2,502.0
2,186.2
1.3
89.2
245.7
471.5
59.4
216.8
423.4
361.0
219.2
93.7
315.8
1.1
1.4
8.0
4.8
-3.3
0.3
-2.5
0.7
3.8
2.2
3.1
-0.3
-0.6
1,047
1,061
1,032
1,182
987
803
1,628
2,411
1,286
765
388
668
953
6.5
7.1
6.6
5.0
3.0
8.1
9.2
12.2
3.9
7.1
9.0
6.4
2.6
New York, NY .....................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
115.3
115.0
0.0
2.1
3.1
21.4
4.2
17.5
23.1
8.1
10.5
16.7
0.2
2,271.0
1,824.7
0.1
29.7
39.2
237.9
129.6
361.5
454.2
281.5
195.2
84.0
446.2
1.8
2.2
1.0
3.7
-8.5
2.1
0.4
2.5
2.7
1.5
1.9
0.8
0.3
2,223
2,524
2,606
1,387
1,349
1,139
2,445
6,879
2,067
929
734
912
998
9.6
9.5
53.7
4.7
11.9
6.5
9.2
11.3
6.9
5.8
9.7
7.2
8.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
first quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2006
(thousands)
March
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2005-063
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2005-063
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 ...................................................
91.8
91.4
1.4
6.3
4.6
21.3
1.3
10.0
17.9
9.5
7.0
10.7
0.4
1,924.0
1,673.1
70.8
141.5
171.9
402.7
31.5
116.6
313.1
199.1
166.6
56.0
250.9
4.5
4.9
9.3
7.6
4.8
4.2
-1.3
2.1
6.9
3.2
4.0
2.2
1.8
$1,033
1,067
3,120
948
1,398
953
1,311
1,464
1,106
767
367
566
809
8.7
9.1
3.4
13.4
10.3
9.8
12.1
10.4
8.2
6.5
8.9
9.3
5.3
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 ...................................................
89.1
88.5
0.5
9.0
3.4
19.0
1.5
10.8
18.9
8.5
6.2
6.2
0.6
1,791.4
1,579.3
8.9
175.7
136.2
361.1
32.1
148.2
301.0
183.5
176.4
46.8
212.1
6.0
6.7
-0.8
13.8
4.1
5.0
-2.0
5.8
6.3
7.3
5.1
1.7
1.2
822
822
741
856
1,184
777
1,078
1,213
787
810
381
552
820
10.5
10.3
17.1
18.4
6.3
8.7
11.7
12.6
9.6
9.9
10.8
12.2
11.4
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 ...................................................
95.5
94.1
0.2
7.0
5.7
17.9
1.4
11.3
19.0
9.8
7.0
14.7
1.4
1,512.1
1,361.3
7.0
106.2
183.4
270.8
32.0
140.9
271.4
135.4
166.3
47.8
150.7
2.5
2.8
-4.7
10.9
0.5
2.0
-0.9
1.3
4.2
2.9
2.9
0.3
-0.9
967
955
538
1,008
1,143
884
1,414
1,599
997
818
369
540
1,075
8.2
8.3
-0.6
10.2
11.4
8.3
11.9
3.4
10.5
6.6
7.3
6.3
7.6
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
66.0
0.5
4.3
3.2
14.9
1.7
8.4
14.0
6.3
5.1
6.5
0.4
1,439.9
1,279.9
7.3
78.6
147.1
300.4
52.6
138.7
255.4
135.2
122.4
39.8
160.0
3.2
3.5
7.1
6.0
3.4
2.2
-2.5
3.8
7.1
3.9
0.1
-1.3
0.8
1,033
1,057
3,020
884
1,261
944
1,526
1,644
1,109
841
489
613
843
8.4
8.9
16.5
5.0
7.1
9.4
12.4
10.2
7.3
5.3
15.3
8.1
4.1
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
first quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2006
(thousands)
March
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2005-063
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2005-063
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 ...................................................
92.2
90.8
0.8
7.3
3.4
14.6
1.3
9.9
16.2
8.0
6.8
22.4
1.4
1,313.3
1,092.2
11.4
92.9
104.1
217.0
36.7
86.0
215.4
123.9
150.0
54.7
221.2
1.6
1.9
-2.5
4.9
-1.5
2.0
-2.1
4.0
1.8
1.3
3.6
0.7
0.2
$904
901
511
937
1,207
729
2,349
1,294
1,056
779
392
464
917
10.8
11.8
12.8
15.3
10.9
7.8
39.9
5.9
10.8
10.3
10.1
7.7
6.1
King, WA ............................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
74.1
73.6
0.4
6.4
2.5
14.7
1.7
6.7
12.3
6.2
5.7
16.9
0.5
1,126.8
974.4
3.3
62.8
109.6
215.3
69.7
75.7
174.5
116.0
103.1
44.5
152.4
3.2
3.8
1.7
12.8
4.6
1.8
1.2
2.3
7.3
2.5
2.6
-0.6
-0.4
1,041
1,056
1,325
961
1,413
916
1,817
1,534
1,200
781
447
527
942
10.3
10.8
1.6
8.3
16.9
9.8
9.2
11.8
9.9
10.8
4.9
8.0
5.5
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 ...................................................
85.9
85.6
0.5
5.7
2.7
23.8
1.7
10.0
17.1
8.6
5.8
7.7
0.3
1,014.5
861.6
11.1
49.6
48.3
247.4
22.3
71.1
140.0
131.5
102.1
34.5
152.9
2.2
2.6
4.0
13.4
-1.1
2.3
-3.1
3.9
-2.0
4.9
1.9
2.3
-0.4
826
801
445
851
756
744
1,269
1,334
932
749
505
481
965
11.0
10.9
20.3
13.0
9.7
9.6
11.5
11.4
13.0
6.7
(6)
8.6
12.2
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See
Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
6 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, first quarter 20062
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2006
(thousands)
March
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2005-064
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2005-064
United States6 ..........................
8,770.7
132,613.1
2.2
$838
8.1
Jefferson, AL ............................
Anchorage Borough, AK ...........
Maricopa, AZ ............................
Pulaski, AR ...............................
Los Angeles, CA .......................
Denver, CO ..............................
Hartford, CT ..............................
New Castle, DE ........................
Washington, DC .......................
Miami-Dade, FL ........................
18.6
8.0
89.1
14.0
392.0
25.0
24.8
19.6
31.4
85.9
371.4
142.1
1,791.4
247.3
4,179.3
424.7
487.3
280.2
664.9
1,014.5
1.1
1.8
6.0
2.5
2.6
1.6
1.6
0.7
0.3
2.2
845
836
822
728
944
1,065
1,112
1,113
1,371
826
7.2
5.4
10.5
6.6
9.3
8.8
6.6
10.3
7.3
11.0
Fulton, GA ................................
Honolulu, HI ..............................
Ada, ID .....................................
Cook, IL ....................................
Marion, IN .................................
Polk, IA .....................................
Johnson, KS .............................
Jefferson, KY ............................
East Baton Rouge, LA ..............
Cumberland, ME ......................
38.2
24.0
14.3
132.7
23.6
14.3
19.8
22.3
13.6
11.9
748.3
448.2
204.6
2,502.0
572.9
264.4
299.4
424.0
260.3
166.7
1.9
2.6
6.2
1.1
0.2
2.4
0.7
1.9
6.2
1.1
1,164
742
730
1,047
900
859
883
799
709
751
7.7
7.1
9.3
6.5
10.0
8.3
8.5
7.4
7.9
6.1
Montgomery, MD ......................
Middlesex, MA ..........................
Wayne, MI ................................
Hennepin, MN ..........................
Hinds, MS .................................
St. Louis, MO ............................
Yellowstone, MT .......................
Douglas, NE .............................
Clark, NV ..................................
Hillsborough, NH ......................
32.6
46.5
33.7
43.9
6.5
33.9
5.4
15.4
44.2
12.4
462.3
791.3
772.6
831.4
128.7
616.3
72.9
308.1
905.4
195.0
2.4
1.9
-1.6
1.8
0.9
0.7
2.3
1.0
7.2
1.3
1,133
1,177
923
1,047
715
900
635
778
769
886
8.8
7.2
3.1
4.8
8.8
9.9
6.7
9.9
6.8
7.3
Bergen, NJ ...............................
Bernalillo, NM ...........................
New York, NY ...........................
Mecklenburg, NC ......................
Cass, ND ..................................
Cuyahoga, OH ..........................
Oklahoma, OK ..........................
Multnomah, OR ........................
Allegheny, PA ...........................
Providence, RI ..........................
34.6
16.9
115.3
28.3
5.8
38.3
22.7
26.5
35.0
18.2
443.4
328.0
2,271.0
530.6
92.1
745.0
420.0
432.1
674.7
282.0
0.4
4.4
1.8
3.2
4.1
0.1
2.6
2.6
0.9
0.1
1,061
705
2,223
1,167
649
865
755
839
871
802
7.9
7.3
9.6
8.4
6.6
6.5
15.3
7.7
7.1
4.8
Greenville, SC ..........................
Minnehaha, SD .........................
Shelby, TN ................................
Harris, TX .................................
Salt Lake, UT ............................
Chittenden, VT .........................
Fairfax, VA ................................
King, WA ..................................
Kanawha, WV ...........................
Milwaukee, WI ..........................
12.8
6.1
20.0
91.8
37.7
5.7
31.6
74.1
6.1
21.8
228.1
110.7
502.4
1,924.0
553.3
93.1
568.4
1,126.8
107.3
486.6
2.3
2.6
1.5
4.5
4.4
-0.6
2.5
3.2
0.8
-0.3
695
683
813
1,033
744
847
1,314
1,041
706
843
5.6
7.6
7.3
8.7
9.4
11.0
11.3
10.3
7.1
8.4
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, first quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
first quarter
2006
(thousands)
March
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2005-064
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2005-064
Laramie, WY .............................
3.1
40.9
3.6
$633
5.3
San Juan, PR ...........................
St. Thomas, VI ..........................
14.7
1.8
306.0
23.3
-2.4
0.6
531
616
3.1
5.5
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees
(UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county
reclassifications. See Technical Note.
5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
first quarter 20062
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2006
(thousands)
March
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2005-06
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2005-06
United States4 ....................
8,770.7
132,613.1
2.2
$838
8.1
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
116.1
20.6
145.1
80.5
1,279.8
172.2
111.2
30.1
31.4
587.0
1,923.6
296.3
2,613.3
1,171.6
15,422.5
2,211.3
1,640.1
415.0
664.9
8,014.1
2.6
2.0
6.0
2.5
2.7
2.5
1.1
1.7
0.3
3.7
690
791
767
621
952
858
1,191
965
1,371
735
7.6
6.5
10.2
7.1
9.2
9.2
10.0
9.8
7.3
8.2
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
260.2
37.1
53.4
344.4
155.2
92.2
84.7
108.8
121.6
48.9
3,989.2
615.1
623.3
5,733.7
2,870.4
1,445.7
1,317.1
1,769.9
1,793.1
577.5
2.8
2.7
5.0
1.6
1.1
1.8
1.7
1.8
-4.1
0.9
799
719
609
913
717
662
686
671
697
652
7.7
7.5
8.6
7.7
7.5
7.5
8.7
6.8
12.6
6.2
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
161.6
205.8
257.3
173.0
68.6
172.2
40.6
57.6
70.0
48.0
2,511.2
3,136.3
4,207.8
2,633.0
1,112.1
2,680.5
416.8
888.4
1,260.0
617.1
2.1
1.3
-0.6
2.7
0.0
1.6
3.3
1.0
6.2
1.7
897
1,045
816
827
597
724
572
648
764
800
7.9
8.4
4.7
5.8
9.3
7.7
7.3
8.0
6.7
7.5
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
278.6
51.8
566.9
238.4
25.2
293.3
95.9
126.8
334.3
35.9
3,933.9
795.5
8,329.2
3,905.5
328.8
5,267.2
1,505.6
1,669.7
5,551.7
468.2
1.8
4.0
1.0
2.4
2.8
0.8
3.5
2.9
1.6
0.4
1,037
647
1,193
744
586
751
660
734
807
777
7.6
8.6
8.8
7.8
6.9
6.5
11.9
7.3
8.0
5.6
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
122.5
29.4
135.1
530.4
84.4
24.5
218.2
208.1
48.2
164.1
1,834.1
373.2
2,717.7
9,850.2
1,147.2
300.5
3,613.3
2,784.0
697.7
2,712.2
1.9
2.2
2.3
4.0
5.0
0.9
2.5
3.1
2.0
0.8
661
581
705
824
660
688
862
833
625
716
8.2
6.6
6.8
8.6
8.9
7.7
8.6
8.7
7.2
7.5
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
first quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2006
(thousands)
March
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2005-06
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2005-06
Wyoming ............................
23.5
256.8
5.0
$667
9.3
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
59.6
3.4
1,048.1
45.6
0.2
2.8
450
664
3.9
2.3
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees
but are included because they are the largest county in their state
or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
October 2006
-38.7% to 2.2%
2.3% to 7.8%
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 employees or more,
March 2005–06 (U.S. Average = 2.2%)
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
October 2006
or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
-3.7% to 8.1%
8.2% to 33.3%
but are included because they are the largest county in their state
Note: The following counties have fewer than 75,000 employees
or more, first quarter 2005 06 (U.S. Average = 8.1%)
Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000 employees