Technical information:
(202) 691-6567
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
Media contact:
691-5902
USDL 07-0021
For release: 10:00 A.M. EST
Thursday, January 11, 2007
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: SECOND QUARTER 2006
In June 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 8.2 percent, compared with national job growth of 2.0 percent. Orleans County (New
Orleans), La., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the second quarter of 2006,
with an increase of 28.0 percent. The high average weekly wage growth rate for Orleans County reflected
the disproportionate job losses in lower-paid industries due to Hurricane Katrina. The U.S. average weekly
wage increased by 4.4 percent over the same time span.
Of the 325 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2005 annual average employment, 142
had over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average (2.0 percent) in June 2006,
and 167 experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 1.) The percent change in average weekly
wages was higher than the national average (4.4 percent) in 141 of the largest U.S. counties, but was below
the national average in 175 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 135.5 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.
June 2006 employment and 2006 second-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4
of this release. Final data for all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and the nation through the
Hurricane Katrina
The employment and wages reported in this news release reflect the impact of Hurricane
Katrina and ongoing labor market trends in certain counties. The effects of Hurricane Katrina,
which hit the Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005, were first apparent in the September QCEW
employment counts and the wage totals for the third quarter of 2005. This catastrophic storm
continues to affect monthly employment and quarterly wage totals in parts of Louisiana and
Mississippi in the second quarter of 2006. 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 June 2006 employment, June 2005-06 employment
growth, and June 2005-06 percent growth in employment
June 2006 employment
(thousands)
United States
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.
135,481.1
4,196.7
2,565.5
2,312.6
1,941.2
1,784.4
1,530.4
1,462.9
1,327.9
1,160.2
993.7
Employment in large counties
Growth in employment,
June 2005-06
(thousands)
United States
Maricopa, Ariz.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Harris, Texas
Clark, Nev.
New York, N.Y.
Dallas, Texas
King, Wash.
Cook, Ill.
Riverside, Calif.
Santa Clara, Calif.
2,678.8
95.8
80.7
77.1
51.0
49.7
46.9
41.3
35.8
30.4
28.5
Percent growth in employment,
June 2005-06
United States
2.0
Collin, Texas
Lafayette, La.
Utah, Utah
Lee, Fla.
Montgomery, Texas
Davis, Utah
Douglas, Colo.
Clark, Nev.
Lake, Fla.
Ada, Idaho
8.2
7.0
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.2
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.8
fourth quarter of 2005 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for
first and second quarters of 2006 will be available later in January on the BLS Web site.
Large County Employment
In June 2006, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 135.5 million, an increase
of 2.0 percent from June 2005. The 325 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.7
percent of total U.S. covered employment and 76.5 percent of total covered wages. These 325 counties
had a net job gain of 1,758,531 over the year, accounting for 65.6 percent of the overall U.S. employment
increase. Employment increased in 270 of the large counties from June 2005 to June 2006. Collin, Texas,
had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (8.2 percent). Lafayette, La., had the next
largest increase, 7.0 percent, followed by the counties of Utah, Utah (6.7 percent) and Lee, Fla., and Montgomery, Texas (6.5 percent each). (See table 1.)
Employment declined in 40 counties from June 2005 to June 2006. The largest percentage decline in
employment was in Orleans County, La. (-37.2 percent), followed by the counties of Harrison, Miss. (-14.7
percent) and Jefferson, La. (-10.2 percent). Employment losses in these three Gulf Coast counties reflected
the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. Boone, Ky., had the next largest employment decline (-3.2
percent), followed by Oakland, Mich. (-2.8 percent).
The largest gains in the level of employment from June 2005 to June 2006 were recorded in the counties
of Maricopa, Ariz. (95,800), Los Angeles, Calif. (80,700), Harris, Texas (77,100), Clark, Nev. (51,000),
and New York, N.Y. (49,700). (See table A.)
The largest declines in employment levels occurred in the Katrina-affected counties of Orleans, La.
(-90,900) and Jefferson, La. (-22,200), followed by the counties of Oakland, Mich. (-20,100), Wayne,
Mich. (-13,700), and Harrison, Miss. (-13,400).
3
Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by second quarter 2006 average weekly wages, second
quarter 2005-06 growth in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2005-06 percent growth
in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
second quarter 2006
United States
New York, N.Y.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Arlington, Va.
Washington, D.C.
Somerset, N.J.
San Francisco, Calif.
Suffolk, Mass.
Fairfield, Conn.
Fairfax, Va.
San Mateo, Calif.
$784
$1,453
1,386
1,335
1,300
1,242
1,231
1,228
1,221
1,209
1,203
Growth in average weekly
wage, second quarter 2005-06
United States
Orleans, La.
Somerset, N.J.
New York, N.Y.
Jefferson, La.
Marin, Calif.
Harrison, Miss.
Alexandria City, Va.
Middlesex, N.J.
New Castle, Del.
Hudson, N.J.
$33
$194
113
105
102
85
85
82
81
77
76
Percent growth in average
weekly wage, second
quarter 2005-06
United States
Orleans, La.
Jefferson, La.
Harrison, Miss.
Rock Island, Ill.
Somerset, N.J.
Lafayette, La.
Oklahoma, Okla.
Calcasieu, La.
Middlesex, N.J.
Marin, Calif.
New Castle, Del.
4.4
28.0
16.3
15.2
10.5
10.0
9.9
9.6
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.6
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the second quarter of 2006 was $784. Average weekly wages
were higher than the national average in 110 of the largest 325 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y.,
held the top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $1,453. Santa
Clara, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,386, followed by Arlington, Va. ($1,335),
Washington, D.C. ($1,300), and Somerset, N.J. ($1,242). (See table B.)
There were 214 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the second quarter
of 2006. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($484), followed by
the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($494), Horry, S.C. ($527), and Webb, Texas, and Yakima, Wash. ($530
each). (See table 1.)
Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 4.4 percent. Among the largest counties,
Orleans, La., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 28.0 percent from the
second quarter of 2005. Jefferson, La., was second with growth of 16.3 percent, followed by the counties
of Harrison, Miss. (15.2 percent), Rock Island, Ill. (10.5 percent), and Somerset, N.J. (10.0 percent). The
high average weekly wage growth rates for Orleans, Harrison, and Jefferson Counties were related to the
disproportionate job losses in lower-paid industries due to the impact of Hurricane Katrina. That is, the loss
of low paid jobs due to the storm boosted average wages in those areas.
Ten counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. San Mateo, Calif., and
McLean, Ill., had the largest declines, -5.0 percent each, followed by the counties of Clayton, Ga. (-3.8
percent), Webb, Texas (-2.0 percent), and Rockingham, N.H. (-1.2 percent).
4
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Each of the 10 largest counties (based on 2005 annual average employment levels), reported increases
in employment from June 2005 to June 2006. Maricopa County, Ariz., experienced the fastest growth in
employment among the largest counties, with a 5.7 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 (11.6 percent), followed by education and health services, and leisure and hospitality
(6.0 percent each). Harris, Texas, had the next largest increase in employment, 4.1 percent, followed by
King, Wash. (3.7 percent). The smallest employment gains occurred in San Diego, Calif., and Cook County,
Ill. (1.4 percent each), followed by Orange, Calif., and Miami-Dade, Fla. (1.8 percent each). (See table 2.)
All of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. New York
County, N.Y., had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, with a gain of 7.8 percent.
Within New York County, N.Y., average weekly wages increased the most in natural resources and mining
(11.2 percent), a very small sector. Increases in financial activities (10.8 percent), however, had a larger
impact on the county’s wage growth. Harris, Texas, was second in wage growth, with a gain of 7.5 percent,
followed by Orange, Calif. (6.3 percent). The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest counties occurred in
Miami-Dade, Fla. (3.0 percent), Los Angeles, Calif. (3.6 percent), and Cook, Ill. (4.3 percent).
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows June 2006 employment and the 2006 second 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 had employment levels below 75,000.) The
employment levels in these counties in June 2006 ranged from approximately 4.2 million in Los Angeles
County, Calif., to 42,500 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties
was in New York, N.Y. ($1,453), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone, Mont.
($623).
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 designed for local data users. For links
to these releases, see http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewregional.htm.
______________________________
The County Employment and Wages release for third quarter 2006 is scheduled to be released on
Wednesday, April 11.
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
• Sample survey: 400,000 establish• Count of longitudinally-linked UI
administrative 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 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
- 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,
second quarter 20062
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2006
(thousands)
June
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2005-064
United States6 ....................
8,774.8
135,481.1
2.0
-
$784
4.4
-
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
18.6
8.3
9.8
6.6
4.3
8.0
91.2
19.6
5.2
14.1
375.9
173.2
171.8
139.2
84.2
150.7
1,784.4
360.7
94.7
249.9
1.4
2.7
2.6
2.6
3.5
4.4
5.7
4.3
5.0
2.0
184
96
104
104
57
35
11
37
20
143
782
828
668
695
679
839
794
700
721
707
2.4
4.2
7.7
7.9
4.5
3.3
4.5
2.5
3.1
2.8
262
157
23
19
133
217
133
261
231
248
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.6
48.8
27.9
28.7
17.0
387.2
11.7
12.1
95.5
10.4
94.9
691.8
352.8
359.6
281.8
4,196.7
110.9
181.7
1,530.4
139.2
4.5
1.4
1.9
3.3
4.2
2.0
1.7
-1.3
1.8
2.4
32
184
151
67
39
143
163
309
156
113
645
1,044
993
632
679
882
1,074
703
916
772
4.2
5.7
4.1
5.0
5.9
3.6
8.6
4.1
6.3
3.6
157
60
165
94
53
198
10
165
44
198
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 .................
42.5
49.5
45.0
91.6
43.9
16.7
9.0
23.1
13.5
55.2
644.7
644.6
659.1
1,327.9
541.2
230.2
108.6
337.4
191.9
887.6
5.0
2.7
2.8
1.4
3.5
2.5
3.3
2.1
0.6
3.3
20
96
92
184
57
110
67
138
234
67
691
864
704
850
1,231
690
644
1,203
752
1,386
5.5
6.0
4.5
4.7
5.7
6.0
3.7
-5.0
4.2
5.4
69
49
133
117
60
49
195
321
157
74
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
8.6
9.8
17.6
13.7
8.8
21.7
5.3
9.3
19.6
12.5
103.8
133.5
197.5
177.4
153.4
324.1
101.1
156.0
279.9
158.6
1.7
1.9
2.3
-0.3
2.7
2.4
1.0
4.1
1.5
2.2
163
151
124
284
96
113
204
41
180
130
738
751
781
670
562
840
731
730
938
951
3.9
4.0
5.0
4.4
6.4
3.2
2.7
3.8
5.0
5.8
182
175
94
142
43
224
253
189
94
56
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
25.2
8.8
17.3
18.7
10.0
5.9
32.5
24.9
22.3
6.8
435.4
90.3
250.8
210.8
130.7
81.7
425.5
503.8
375.0
130.5
2.4
6.0
3.3
0.6
1.7
4.5
1.5
(7)
(7)
-0.3
113
7
67
234
163
32
180
284
940
777
724
784
686
649
1,221
969
837
801
1.7
2.6
3.3
1.8
3.0
2.0
4.5
(7)
(7)
-0.2
285
257
217
279
237
276
133
313
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
second quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2006
(thousands)
June
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2005-064
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
Alachua, FL ........................
Brevard, FL ........................
Broward, FL .......................
Collier, FL ..........................
Duval, FL ...........................
Escambia, FL .....................
Hillsborough, FL .................
Lake, FL .............................
19.5
31.2
6.4
14.5
63.1
12.3
25.4
7.8
35.7
6.8
285.0
677.9
122.2
209.6
753.4
128.5
461.7
128.3
633.5
80.9
1.4
0.4
2.4
2.1
2.9
5.5
3.4
2.0
2.1
5.8
184
246
113
138
85
13
63
143
138
9
$968
1,300
642
765
763
757
773
639
754
615
8.6
5.3
0.6
4.7
3.2
6.2
5.2
5.1
6.2
7.9
10
81
303
117
224
45
84
88
45
19
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
7.9
84.1
6.0
34.3
48.8
9.3
31.0
220.3
144.8
126.3
102.8
993.7
84.3
671.8
557.7
94.7
448.6
6.5
1.0
5.5
5.1
1.8
(7)
3.8
3.2
5.3
2.6
4
204
13
19
156
49
76
15
104
704
679
650
601
786
660
747
793
607
687
4.6
5.1
5.2
5.6
3.0
4.6
6.6
6.0
4.8
3.5
126
88
84
65
237
126
41
49
107
203
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
12.3
14.8
14.4
13.8
4.8
7.4
4.4
20.0
16.3
39.6
204.1
157.3
176.3
164.3
85.5
136.1
108.8
311.7
286.9
775.0
3.0
4.9
4.2
3.3
-1.9
3.0
(7)
4.8
2.3
2.0
82
23
39
67
311
82
25
124
143
633
704
720
593
639
670
718
849
846
1,006
4.1
5.1
5.9
3.3
0.9
5.8
-3.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
165
88
53
217
300
56
320
237
224
212
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
22.6
4.9
4.9
24.2
14.6
4.0
134.0
34.4
12.0
20.1
323.2
99.6
105.3
452.3
210.6
91.0
2,565.5
603.7
212.6
339.1
3.3
1.8
-0.3
2.3
5.8
0.4
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.9
67
156
284
124
9
246
184
184
156
151
805
606
658
726
744
652
942
913
727
944
1.8
0.3
3.9
3.7
7.4
1.6
4.3
3.6
4.5
4.8
279
307
182
195
27
288
148
198
133
107
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
Rock Island, IL ...................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
Winnebago, IL ....................
Allen, IN .............................
8.1
3.5
5.8
4.7
3.4
5.3
5.2
12.4
6.8
8.8
104.4
85.2
95.8
104.2
79.9
94.8
133.0
183.9
137.9
182.7
3.1
1.4
0.5
2.7
0.5
0.3
0.0
5.6
0.2
2.6
78
184
240
96
240
253
271
12
260
104
696
760
654
741
779
642
766
723
666
684
4.0
-5.0
3.0
4.1
10.5
5.1
4.4
3.0
1.2
2.4
175
321
237
165
4
88
142
237
294
262
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
second quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2006
(thousands)
June
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2005-064
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
23.5
6.0
4.7
6.2
14.3
5.1
19.8
131.1
102.0
195.1
582.7
124.5
108.5
122.4
274.0
91.0
306.1
3.8
4.0
0.7
0.8
-1.1
0.7
2.8
2.9
1.1
0.2
49
44
226
217
305
226
92
85
200
260
$698
758
689
819
677
658
736
780
630
812
2.6
2.6
0.0
4.7
3.5
3.9
3.1
5.8
0.6
4.8
257
257
311
117
203
182
231
56
303
107
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
22.1
7.3
4.9
13.7
14.5
249.9
93.7
79.4
74.3
171.4
434.9
126.9
85.4
262.1
194.6
2.7
-0.9
3.8
-3.2
0.1
1.8
2.9
-1.1
4.8
-10.2
96
302
49
314
266
156
85
305
25
315
733
696
787
743
723
778
663
657
699
727
4.3
5.1
5.4
1.6
4.8
4.1
3.9
9.0
8.5
16.3
148
88
74
288
107
165
182
8
12
2
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
8.2
11.9
12.0
14.2
21.6
5.9
5.6
8.4
32.7
15.6
130.4
153.3
175.5
228.4
379.8
94.0
84.1
145.9
471.2
315.5
7.0
-37.2
1.6
3.1
0.8
1.0
3.3
2.6
1.7
0.7
2
317
171
78
217
204
67
104
163
226
724
887
708
829
811
752
711
904
1,037
854
9.9
28.0
3.5
4.7
5.6
5.3
1.1
4.1
4.6
3.4
6
1
203
117
65
81
296
165
126
212
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, MA ...................
14.1
9.2
15.5
20.5
14.1
46.9
21.4
13.7
21.5
20.3
350.5
100.6
223.8
303.1
202.1
812.0
326.1
182.1
575.4
325.4
-0.4
-0.7
-0.4
1.0
0.0
1.6
0.8
0.4
1.6
1.0
289
297
289
204
271
171
217
246
171
204
914
683
730
842
722
1,110
974
777
1,228
815
4.9
4.3
6.1
4.2
4.8
4.5
8.2
4.9
4.9
4.9
101
148
47
157
107
133
16
101
101
101
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
8.2
7.0
5.5
14.4
18.1
40.0
5.8
4.5
8.1
33.3
148.3
163.3
116.7
344.6
331.3
709.8
114.0
88.9
192.4
781.6
-0.7
2.4
-0.7
0.5
-1.9
-2.8
-0.6
(7)
-1.0
-1.7
297
113
297
240
311
313
296
304
310
733
766
712
723
824
924
681
714
880
904
4.0
4.2
4.1
2.3
-0.7
1.1
1.8
5.9
2.8
0.9
175
157
165
266
316
296
279
53
248
300
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
second quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2006
(thousands)
June
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2005-064
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
16.1
6.1
4.6
4.3
6.5
4.5
117.5
178.2
850.5
92.0
335.6
97.4
80.1
78.0
128.5
82.5
2.0
3.3
2.0
2.1
2.2
1.2
1.8
-14.7
0.9
2.0
143
67
143
138
130
195
156
316
213
143
$808
790
978
811
878
667
618
646
691
623
4.1
4.2
4.0
3.2
3.3
8.1
2.3
15.2
5.5
1.6
165
157
175
224
217
17
266
3
69
288
Clay, MO ............................
Greene, MO .......................
Jackson, MO ......................
St. Charles, MO .................
St. Louis, MO .....................
St. Louis City, MO ..............
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
Washoe, NV .......................
5.0
8.1
18.6
7.8
33.7
8.0
15.3
7.9
45.0
13.8
90.1
153.8
369.6
123.2
631.6
223.1
315.8
155.9
919.3
220.4
0.9
2.7
0.7
2.9
1.0
-0.2
1.0
0.8
5.9
3.9
213
96
226
85
204
282
204
217
8
48
744
608
802
691
859
853
749
636
750
736
7.1
2.7
3.5
1.8
5.3
-0.4
8.4
4.6
0.1
2.1
30
253
203
279
81
314
14
126
308
274
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
12.5
11.0
6.9
34.5
11.5
13.6
21.5
6.4
14.1
11.1
197.6
142.0
154.8
454.3
206.8
215.8
362.4
107.7
236.3
232.5
0.0
1.9
1.3
0.4
0.5
1.6
0.3
2.8
-0.4
1.6
271
151
192
246
240
171
253
92
289
171
847
769
711
983
844
822
1,008
743
1,063
1,005
1.3
-1.2
1.7
3.6
4.7
5.2
4.3
6.0
7.7
7.4
293
318
285
198
117
84
148
49
23
27
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
21.1
20.6
18.1
12.0
12.6
10.2
15.0
17.0
9.8
15.8
402.6
266.1
294.0
158.8
180.7
176.8
232.8
332.7
229.4
224.4
0.3
0.6
0.8
1.5
0.0
1.7
-0.1
3.5
0.0
0.8
253
234
217
180
271
163
278
57
271
217
1,004
845
1,118
684
849
1,242
996
704
815
760
8.8
4.3
1.4
4.0
1.0
10.0
5.5
2.8
4.6
3.5
9
148
292
175
298
5
69
248
126
203
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
Orange, NY ........................
4.5
8.3
23.4
43.7
17.7
52.1
115.7
5.3
12.7
9.8
95.6
119.5
458.7
464.1
386.1
607.3
2,312.6
112.5
253.1
131.2
-0.5
-0.1
0.0
1.6
-0.5
0.2
2.2
1.2
0.1
0.2
292
278
271
171
292
260
130
195
266
260
629
798
692
691
788
886
1,453
614
738
698
1.0
1.8
3.3
3.1
0.6
2.7
7.8
3.2
4.5
2.6
298
279
217
231
303
253
22
224
133
257
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
second quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2006
(thousands)
June
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2005-064
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
41.6
8.4
9.6
49.4
36.2
7.3
4.4
5.8
6.4
8.6
488.1
91.8
115.7
630.7
420.7
112.2
88.1
118.1
175.7
182.2
1.2
0.2
0.8
0.7
0.4
3.6
2.8
2.2
4.5
2.4
195
260
217
226
246
55
92
130
32
113
$792
708
846
848
1,058
620
621
603
1,002
723
5.0
2.0
2.3
4.2
5.5
3.2
4.7
4.9
1.8
2.7
94
276
266
157
69
224
117
101
279
253
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
14.0
28.7
7.0
25.1
5.8
7.3
38.1
29.2
24.1
6.9
275.2
536.8
100.0
426.5
95.6
145.1
761.4
685.9
532.0
103.0
1.0
3.5
4.8
5.0
3.5
2.3
-0.1
0.9
0.0
0.3
204
57
25
20
57
124
278
213
271
253
712
913
633
776
642
688
824
775
838
663
4.4
4.0
3.8
3.1
4.7
0.0
5.8
2.1
3.7
4.7
142
175
189
231
117
311
56
274
195
117
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
Trumbull, OH .....................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
6.3
10.9
6.4
13.0
9.1
14.9
4.8
22.8
18.9
12.3
102.8
227.0
105.5
278.3
163.6
275.4
85.7
421.8
343.3
149.5
-0.5
-0.5
0.4
-0.7
-0.9
1.7
(7)
2.1
3.5
2.7
292
292
246
297
302
163
138
57
96
692
694
579
732
629
721
689
708
722
735
6.8
0.6
3.8
1.9
5.4
-0.4
3.3
9.6
7.1
3.1
38
303
189
278
74
314
217
7
30
231
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Butler, PA ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
6.7
10.8
9.1
26.7
15.6
34.9
9.0
19.8
4.7
14.7
84.4
150.9
141.8
442.0
249.1
692.5
169.7
268.4
77.9
238.0
1.7
2.7
1.4
3.4
4.0
0.8
2.2
1.3
1.1
1.8
163
96
184
63
44
217
130
192
200
156
609
626
627
799
866
829
711
773
663
1,030
4.6
3.0
4.0
3.5
1.2
4.4
2.9
3.5
5.4
5.0
126
237
175
203
294
142
245
203
74
94
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
5.9
7.2
13.5
7.2
5.7
11.9
8.3
7.8
27.3
6.3
126.8
185.0
209.8
129.7
101.3
231.6
178.0
144.5
490.4
98.7
0.7
2.2
0.1
-1.1
0.5
0.6
1.6
-0.1
0.7
1.0
226
130
266
305
240
234
171
278
226
204
736
767
829
618
608
672
771
611
975
698
3.8
3.6
4.3
2.3
2.4
1.5
3.1
0.8
4.8
2.9
189
198
148
266
262
291
231
302
107
245
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
second quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2006
(thousands)
June
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2005-064
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Kent, RI ..............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
29.0
5.3
9.4
8.8
5.6
18.1
13.0
13.0
8.9
6.0
632.6
79.8
140.0
174.5
83.9
288.9
202.1
229.7
120.5
91.2
0.5
2.0
-1.2
1.5
0.3
0.3
0.8
1.6
4.7
2.4
240
143
308
180
253
253
217
171
28
113
$903
673
649
707
714
779
677
698
527
607
4.4
3.2
8.3
5.1
3.9
5.7
7.1
2.9
5.6
2.2
142
224
15
88
182
60
30
245
65
271
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
10.0
6.6
6.2
18.1
8.5
10.6
4.0
20.0
4.4
30.9
204.2
116.0
114.5
446.8
192.7
224.4
97.5
505.7
96.0
701.5
0.2
0.1
2.2
3.4
2.2
2.9
2.3
1.2
2.5
3.6
260
266
130
63
130
85
124
195
110
55
684
693
644
808
690
676
723
795
601
696
5.4
4.1
3.5
7.9
5.0
2.3
4.3
5.7
3.8
6.6
74
165
203
19
94
266
148
60
189
41
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
15.0
66.6
9.6
12.9
7.5
5.0
92.0
82.4
84.1
121.8
264.8
1,462.9
155.8
261.8
114.3
94.2
1,941.2
5.2
(7)
4.6
8.2
3.3
(7)
1.9
2.9
4.6
4.1
16
29
1
67
151
85
29
41
745
558
484
902
956
682
556
815
703
959
3.9
(7)
4.8
0.1
4.9
4.8
3.0
6.7
4.8
7.5
182
107
308
101
107
237
40
107
25
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
10.0
5.8
6.6
4.8
7.3
8.0
5.1
35.2
26.2
4.6
205.3
122.1
121.5
102.6
110.9
150.9
91.8
741.6
545.4
84.5
3.4
2.9
2.4
0.6
6.5
2.4
2.5
3.0
3.1
4.6
63
85
113
234
4
113
110
82
78
29
494
728
604
622
727
656
681
815
880
530
4.2
6.9
7.1
2.8
5.2
6.8
7.1
5.7
4.5
-2.0
157
35
30
248
84
38
30
60
133
319
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
Henrico, VA ........................
6.2
7.1
38.6
12.7
5.8
5.7
7.4
7.1
31.7
8.8
106.9
103.6
567.2
167.0
92.4
95.7
160.3
121.2
582.2
175.8
4.4
6.2
5.2
6.7
3.7
-0.3
2.3
3.7
2.4
1.1
35
6
16
3
52
284
124
52
113
200
765
648
720
600
602
769
1,335
702
1,209
830
0.1
8.0
4.5
5.4
6.9
3.9
5.5
3.4
2.8
3.4
308
18
133
74
35
182
69
212
248
212
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
second quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2006
(thousands)
June
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2005-064
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 ............................
7.6
6.6
5.9
5.3
3.9
5.7
7.0
11.3
11.1
74.7
127.5
107.3
94.9
100.9
99.3
144.5
163.1
184.0
131.6
1,160.2
2.4
4.3
0.3
4.9
0.9
-0.7
1.6
2.6
4.1
3.7
113
37
253
23
213
297
171
104
41
52
$994
714
1,046
634
713
775
881
632
716
988
5.0
5.6
8.5
4.6
3.5
6.9
4.1
7.3
3.8
6.1
94
65
12
126
203
35
165
29
189
47
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
6.3
19.6
16.7
14.5
6.4
6.6
7.5
6.1
6.8
14.0
85.8
267.6
235.7
207.5
98.1
81.3
108.5
109.5
150.5
301.2
3.1
3.2
5.2
4.0
4.0
1.2
0.4
0.7
0.6
1.1
78
76
16
44
44
195
246
226
234
200
732
707
817
637
704
606
530
694
674
751
7.5
4.7
5.4
3.4
2.2
2.2
4.3
3.0
-0.7
3.3
25
117
74
212
271
271
148
237
316
217
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
21.6
5.0
4.3
13.4
3.9
14.7
496.2
104.1
77.7
238.8
90.4
304.2
0.1
-0.2
-0.3
1.3
1.7
-2.7
266
282
284
192
163
(8)
788
677
731
791
733
510
4.8
2.4
4.3
4.4
1.7
3.9
107
262
148
142
285
(8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 325 U.S. counties comprise 65.6 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
second quarter 20062
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2006
(thousands)
June
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2005-063
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
8,774.8
8,496.4
123.8
875.1
364.2
1,895.9
144.2
846.1
1,425.8
794.6
708.1
1,109.9
278.3
135,481.1
114,201.0
1,904.1
7,870.8
14,256.1
26,042.5
3,065.0
8,219.2
17,646.2
16,871.9
13,570.7
4,446.1
21,280.1
2.0
2.2
2.7
5.5
-0.1
1.5
-0.1
1.9
4.2
2.7
2.0
1.2
1.0
$784
774
790
820
952
682
1,188
1,141
944
735
330
509
836
4.4
4.6
13.3
5.8
4.2
4.0
4.7
5.4
4.4
4.4
4.8
4.3
3.3
Los Angeles, CA ................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
387.2
383.3
0.6
14.1
15.9
55.8
8.9
25.1
43.2
28.2
27.1
164.3
3.9
4,196.7
3,607.8
12.0
158.4
468.3
804.7
210.4
249.3
600.9
463.3
394.2
246.0
588.9
2.0
2.3
4.8
6.1
-1.0
1.8
4.6
1.9
( 6)
2.0
2.4
4.0
0.1
882
864
1,317
876
938
749
1,433
1,368
1,007
810
491
410
993
3.6
4.2
20.6
3.9
5.2
4.3
-2.9
5.6
6.3
4.0
4.9
2.8
0.5
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 ...................................................
134.0
132.8
0.1
11.7
7.3
27.4
2.5
15.0
27.5
13.2
11.3
13.4
1.2
2,565.5
2,246.9
1.5
100.6
246.7
480.5
59.5
220.8
436.6
360.2
240.1
96.5
318.7
1.4
1.6
-2.4
5.3
-2.2
0.7
-2.5
1.1
3.7
1.9
3.3
0.0
0.0
942
936
998
1,147
960
771
1,308
1,477
1,186
799
416
676
983
4.3
4.8
7.3
6.2
4.9
4.6
6.9
7.4
2.0
4.6
8.9
6.0
0.8
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 ...................................................
115.7
115.5
0.0
2.2
3.0
21.3
4.2
17.6
23.1
8.1
10.5
16.7
0.2
2,312.6
1,860.5
0.1
31.6
39.8
241.4
132.1
369.5
466.0
279.5
201.2
85.2
452.1
2.2
2.8
4.2
7.1
-6.2
1.5
1.4
3.2
3.2
2.1
2.5
-0.1
-0.3
1,453
1,557
1,272
1,386
1,066
1,100
1,826
2,810
1,660
956
711
876
1,028
7.8
7.4
11.2
7.9
-0.8
6.6
6.8
10.8
4.5
6.5
6.6
7.4
9.4
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
second quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2006
(thousands)
June
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2005-063
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
92.0
91.6
1.4
6.3
4.6
21.2
1.3
10.0
17.9
9.6
7.0
10.7
0.4
1,941.2
1,695.4
71.2
141.6
176.3
406.2
32.2
116.8
317.6
201.9
170.6
57.1
245.8
4.1
4.6
8.7
8.7
5.4
3.4
0.0
1.6
6.3
3.9
2.3
1.6
0.9
$959
976
2,680
912
1,189
862
1,150
1,180
1,075
806
366
553
843
7.5
7.6
17.2
7.5
4.7
5.6
4.5
7.2
6.6
4.5
9.3
4.3
6.3
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 ...................................................
91.2
90.7
0.5
9.2
3.4
19.3
1.5
11.0
19.5
8.7
6.4
6.4
0.6
1,784.4
1,601.1
9.8
181.4
137.5
361.7
31.9
149.7
311.5
185.1
175.9
48.2
183.4
5.7
6.0
-2.7
11.6
2.8
4.7
-2.7
4.8
5.9
6.0
6.0
3.6
2.8
794
782
644
806
1,076
765
942
1,020
769
829
383
556
892
4.5
5.2
18.4
6.1
6.0
3.9
3.6
3.4
5.2
6.4
9.4
7.8
0.2
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
7.1
5.6
18.0
1.4
11.4
19.3
9.9
7.1
14.1
1.4
1,530.4
1,375.7
6.9
109.0
183.8
270.6
31.4
139.5
275.6
136.5
173.4
49.0
154.6
1.8
1.7
0.2
5.8
0.3
0.8
-2.6
-1.1
2.8
3.2
3.2
-0.1
2.6
916
907
549
945
1,137
845
1,226
1,381
966
811
392
542
995
6.3
6.1
-6.8
4.8
11.8
3.8
3.2
4.2
8.7
4.1
5.7
4.2
7.7
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 ...................................................
66.6
66.1
0.5
4.3
3.2
14.9
1.7
8.4
13.9
6.3
5.1
6.5
0.4
1,462.9
1,304.6
7.5
80.4
148.0
303.9
53.0
140.3
261.4
137.0
129.7
40.5
158.3
3.3
3.7
4.7
3.0
2.7
2.5
-1.4
3.8
6.5
4.2
3.1
1.0
0.5
956
966
2,925
924
1,118
916
1,271
1,249
1,039
906
422
604
874
4.9
5.0
39.2
8.5
5.5
4.3
5.0
5.4
0.8
7.6
5.0
6.3
4.0
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
second quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2006
(thousands)
June
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2005-063
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
91.6
90.2
0.8
7.3
3.3
14.7
1.3
10.1
16.5
8.0
6.8
21.3
1.4
1,327.9
1,105.9
11.6
95.9
105.1
218.9
37.2
84.8
215.4
122.9
157.8
56.3
222.0
1.4
1.7
-5.3
2.9
-0.4
2.4
-1.3
1.2
1.0
1.1
3.9
2.7
0.1
$850
830
522
862
1,117
691
1,839
1,065
1,013
785
376
468
949
4.7
4.3
0.6
3.0
4.5
2.1
19.9
1.9
5.0
4.7
3.3
2.6
6.5
King, WA ............................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
74.7
74.2
0.4
6.6
2.5
14.7
1.7
6.8
12.4
6.2
5.8
17.1
0.5
1,160.2
1,006.5
3.4
67.6
111.6
220.2
72.9
76.8
180.6
117.9
110.0
45.5
153.7
3.7
4.3
2.8
14.5
4.6
2.3
5.0
2.3
7.5
2.5
1.9
0.1
0.0
988
996
1,172
940
1,368
859
1,754
1,232
1,156
774
417
532
939
6.1
6.8
5.7
5.5
8.7
5.3
4.7
6.9
8.3
4.0
5.6
6.0
2.1
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 ...................................................
84.1
83.8
0.5
5.7
2.6
22.9
1.7
10.0
16.8
8.5
5.6
7.6
0.3
993.7
860.3
8.9
51.9
47.9
248.7
21.8
71.8
138.8
131.1
99.8
35.0
133.4
1.8
2.0
4.1
14.6
-3.2
2.8
-5.5
4.8
-3.8
3.4
-1.1
3.8
0.1
786
763
459
850
727
731
1,108
1,096
888
764
457
497
924
3.0
5.0
1.1
7.7
7.4
5.3
5.4
4.2
1.8
5.8
(6)
2.9
-4.8
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See
Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
6 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, second quarter 20062
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2006
(thousands)
June
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2005-064
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2005-064
United States6 ..........................
8,774.8
135,481.1
2.0
$784
4.4
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
91.2
14.1
387.2
25.2
24.9
19.5
31.2
84.1
375.9
150.7
1,784.4
249.9
4,196.7
435.4
503.8
285.0
677.9
993.7
1.4
4.4
5.7
2.0
2.0
2.4
(7)
1.4
0.4
1.8
782
839
794
707
882
940
969
968
1,300
786
2.4
3.3
4.5
2.8
3.6
1.7
(7)
8.6
5.3
3.0
Fulton, GA ................................
Honolulu, HI ..............................
Ada, ID .....................................
Cook, IL ....................................
Marion, IN .................................
Polk, IA .....................................
Johnson, KS .............................
Jefferson, KY ............................
East Baton Rouge, LA ..............
Cumberland, ME ......................
39.6
24.2
14.6
134.0
23.5
14.3
19.8
22.1
13.7
12.0
775.0
452.3
210.6
2,565.5
582.7
274.0
306.1
434.9
262.1
175.5
2.0
2.3
5.8
1.4
0.8
2.9
0.2
1.8
4.8
1.6
1,006
726
744
942
819
780
812
778
699
708
3.4
3.7
7.4
4.3
4.7
5.8
4.8
4.1
8.5
3.5
Montgomery, MD ......................
Middlesex, MA ..........................
Wayne, MI ................................
Hennepin, MN ..........................
Hinds, MS .................................
St. Louis, MO ............................
Yellowstone, MT .......................
Douglas, NE .............................
Clark, NV ..................................
Hillsborough, NH ......................
32.7
46.9
33.3
43.9
6.5
33.7
5.5
15.3
45.0
12.5
471.2
812.0
781.6
850.5
128.5
631.6
75.6
315.8
919.3
197.6
1.7
1.6
-1.7
2.0
0.9
1.0
3.7
1.0
5.9
0.0
1,037
1,110
904
978
691
859
623
749
750
847
4.6
4.5
0.9
4.0
5.5
5.3
3.0
8.4
0.1
1.3
Bergen, NJ ...............................
Bernalillo, NM ...........................
New York, NY ...........................
Mecklenburg, NC ......................
Cass, ND ..................................
Cuyahoga, OH ..........................
Oklahoma, OK ..........................
Multnomah, OR ........................
Allegheny, PA ...........................
Providence, RI ..........................
34.5
17.0
115.7
28.7
5.8
38.1
22.8
26.7
34.9
18.1
454.3
332.7
2,312.6
536.8
95.6
761.4
421.8
442.0
692.5
288.9
0.4
3.5
2.2
3.5
3.5
-0.1
2.1
3.4
0.8
0.3
983
704
1,453
913
642
824
708
799
829
779
3.6
2.8
7.8
4.0
4.7
5.8
9.6
3.5
4.4
5.7
Greenville, SC ..........................
Minnehaha, SD .........................
Shelby, TN ................................
Harris, TX .................................
Salt Lake, UT ............................
Chittenden, VT .........................
Fairfax, VA ................................
King, WA ..................................
Kanawha, WV ...........................
Milwaukee, WI ..........................
13.0
6.2
20.0
92.0
38.6
5.7
31.7
74.7
6.1
21.6
229.7
114.5
505.7
1,941.2
567.2
95.7
582.2
1,160.2
109.5
496.2
1.6
2.2
1.2
4.1
5.2
-0.3
2.4
3.7
0.7
0.1
698
644
795
959
720
769
1,209
988
694
788
2.9
3.5
5.7
7.5
4.5
3.9
2.8
6.1
3.0
4.8
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, second quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
second quarter
2006
(thousands)
June
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2005-064
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2005-064
Laramie, WY .............................
3.1
42.5
3.0
$644
8.4
San Juan, PR ...........................
St. Thomas, VI ..........................
14.7
1.8
304.2
23.2
-2.7
0.9
510
640
3.9
2.7
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees
(UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county
reclassifications. See Technical Note.
5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 20062
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2006
(thousands)
June
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2005-06
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2005-06
United States4 ....................
8,774.8
135,481.1
2.0
$784
4.4
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
116.5
20.8
148.7
81.1
1,249.0
174.2
111.5
30.0
31.2
586.6
1,944.8
327.2
2,581.3
1,185.3
15,733.0
2,277.7
1,700.6
430.4
677.9
7,889.6
2.3
3.8
5.7
2.4
2.4
2.8
1.5
2.0
0.4
3.2
672
788
753
612
888
794
971
851
1,300
722
4.3
4.2
4.1
3.2
4.5
3.3
2.8
6.8
5.3
4.8
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
263.8
37.4
54.7
347.4
154.6
92.5
84.8
109.2
122.2
49.1
4,054.1
621.8
660.0
5,912.4
2,917.5
1,502.9
1,339.5
1,797.2
1,831.7
616.0
3.2
2.5
5.7
1.7
0.9
1.9
1.2
1.2
-3.9
0.8
743
704
612
837
684
639
667
672
680
632
3.1
4.0
7.4
4.1
3.0
4.1
5.0
3.4
10.2
3.8
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
162.9
207.8
256.7
173.0
68.6
171.7
41.2
57.4
70.7
48.6
2,567.8
3,256.7
4,320.8
2,731.9
1,127.4
2,743.6
442.8
915.6
1,284.6
639.1
1.6
1.1
-1.0
2.3
0.9
1.6
4.3
1.1
5.2
1.2
855
963
783
789
587
703
575
632
748
774
4.7
5.1
1.8
4.0
5.6
3.7
4.0
5.7
1.4
2.5
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
277.5
52.6
570.4
241.1
25.3
291.5
96.2
127.9
332.2
35.9
4,053.9
824.4
8,566.2
3,965.0
342.4
5,396.5
1,512.5
1,732.5
5,675.5
490.7
1.0
5.0
1.0
3.0
2.7
0.4
3.0
3.0
1.0
0.6
948
653
962
690
591
716
639
710
766
755
5.1
4.6
5.4
3.8
5.3
3.3
7.4
3.3
3.9
4.7
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
125.0
29.6
136.1
532.8
86.4
24.6
219.6
210.9
48.3
162.6
1,858.5
396.1
2,749.2
9,965.6
1,182.9
307.7
3,697.5
2,911.9
714.3
2,828.3
1.5
2.3
2.2
3.8
5.6
1.1
2.1
3.0
1.6
1.1
646
563
703
781
655
665
822
799
636
685
4.2
4.3
4.9
5.8
5.3
3.1
4.4
5.1
3.9
3.3
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2006
(thousands)
June
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2005-06
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2005-06
Wyoming ............................
23.9
278.6
5.1
$685
10.3
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
60.0
3.4
1,039.6
45.3
-0.4
3.2
435
679
4.1
5.6
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 had fewer than 75,000 employees in 2005
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
January 2007
-37.2% to 2.0%
2.1% to 8.2%
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 employees or more,
June 2005–06 (U.S. Average = 2.0%)
Note: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees in 2005
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
January 2007
-5.0% to 4.4%
4.5% to 28.0%
Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000 employees
or more, June 2005–06 (U.S. Average = 4.4%)