Technical information:
(202) 691-6567
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
Media contact:
691-5902
USDL 07-1119
For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FOURTH QUARTER 2006
As of December 2006, three counties heavily affected by Hurricane Katrina had recovered some of the
job losses caused by the storm. Harrison County, Miss., 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. Harrison County, which includes the cities of
Gulfport and Biloxi, experienced an over-the-year employment gain of 18.7 percent compared with national
job growth of 1.6 percent. Orleans and Jefferson counties in Louisiana had over-the-year gains of 12.2 and
10.5 percent, respectively. Employment gains in these counties reflected a partial employment recovery
following substantial job losses that occurred in 2005 due to Hurricane Katrina. The U.S. average weekly
wage rose by 4.2 percent from fourth quarter 2005 to fourth quarter 2006. Among the largest counties,
Rockingham, N.H., had the greatest gain over the same time span with an increase of 18.0 percent.
Of the 325 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2005 annual average employment, 135
had over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average (1.6 percent) in December
2006 and 179 experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 1.) The percent change in
average weekly wages was higher than the national average (4.2 percent) in 122 of the largest U.S. counties,
but was below the national average in 185 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 8.9 million employer
reports cover 135.9 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.
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 in the wage totals for the third quarter of 2005. This catastrophic
storm continued to affect monthly employment and quarterly wage totals in parts of Louisiana
and Mississippi in the fourth 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 December 2006 employment, December 2005-06
employment growth, and December 2005-06 percent growth in employment
December 2006 employment
(thousands)
Employment in large counties
Growth in employment,
December 2005-06
(thousands)
Percent growth in employment,
December 2005-06
United States ............ 135,933.2
United States ................... 2,110.6
United States .................... 1.6
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. .....
Harris, Texas ...................
Maricopa, Ariz. ...............
New York, N.Y. .............
Dallas, Texas ...................
King, Wash. ....................
Bexar, Texas ...................
Salt Lake, Utah ...............
Travis, Texas ...................
Clark, Nev. .....................
Mecklenburg, N.C. .........
Harrison, Miss. ................. 18.7
Orleans, La. ...................... 12.2
Jefferson, La. .................... 10.5
Williamson, Texas ............. 7.7
Utah, Utah ........................ 6.8
Horry, S.C. ....................... 6.6
Collin, Texas ..................... 6.5
Montgomery, Texas .......... 6.3
Fort Bend, Texas .............. 5.6
Wake, N.C. ...................... 5.1
4,242.5
2,569.9
2,359.8
1,993.9
1,854.5
1,519.1
1,490.2
1,335.2
1,173.0
1,032.7
76.3
68.5
43.9
42.6
34.2
26.6
26.5
25.7
24.3
24.1
December 2006 employment and 2006 fourth-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in
table 4 of this release. Final data for all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and the nation through
the fourth quarter of 2005 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data
for fourth quarter 2006, along with updated data for the first, second, and third quarters of 2006, will be
available later in July on the BLS Web site.
Large County Employment
In December 2006, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 135.9 million, up
by 1.6 percent from December 2005. The 325 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted
for 71.0 percent of total U.S. covered employment and 77.1 percent of total covered wages. These 325
counties had a net job gain of 1,409,950 over the year, accounting for 66.8 percent of the overall U.S. employment increase. Employment rose in 270 of the large counties from December 2005 to December 2006.
Harrison County, Miss., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (18.7 percent).
Orleans, La., had the next largest increase, 12.2 percent, followed by the counties of Jefferson, La. (10.5
percent), Williamson, Texas (7.7 percent), and Utah, Utah (6.8 percent). The large employment gains in
Harrison, Orleans, and Jefferson counties reflected significant recovery from depressed employment levels in
December 2005, which were related to Hurricane Katrina. (See table 1.)
Employment declined in 41 counties from December 2005 to December 2006. The largest percentage
decline in employment was in Trumbull County, Ohio (-4.7 percent). Elkhart, Ind., had the next largest employment decline (-3.3 percent), followed by the counties of Wayne, Mich. (-3.1 percent), Oakland, Mich.
(-2.7 percent), and Genesee, Mich. (-2.4 percent). In each of these five counties, the greatest number of
jobs lost occurred in the manufacturing industry.
The largest gains in the level of employment from December 2005 to December 2006 were recorded in
the counties of Harris, Texas (76,300), Maricopa, Ariz. (68,500), New York, N.Y. (43,900), Dallas, Texas
(42,600), and King, Wash. (34,200). (See table A.)
3
Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by fourth quarter 2006 average weekly wages, fourth
quarter 2005-06 growth in average weekly wages, and fourth quarter 2005-06 percent growth
in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Growth in average weekly
wage, fourth quarter 2005-06
Percent growth in average
weekly wage, fourth
quarter 2005-06
United States .....................$861
United States ..........................$35
United States ............... 4.2
New York, N.Y. ...........$1,781
Santa Clara, Calif. ............1,569
Fairfield, Conn. ................1,515
Suffolk, Mass. ..................1,481
San Francisco, Calif. ........1,460
Washington, D.C..............1,424
Arlington, Va....................1,419
San Mateo, Calif. .............1,402
Somerset, N.J. .................1,373
Fairfax, Va. ......................1,297
Rockingham, N.H. .............. $155
Sedgwick, Kan. .................. 104
Travis, Texas ...................... 102
Trumbull, Ohio ................... 100
New York, N.Y. ................ 96
Rock Island, Ill. .................. 86
Waukesha, Wis. ................. 86
San Francisco, Calif. .......... 83
Santa Clara, Calif. .............. 76
Santa Cruz, Calif. ............... 75
Rockingham, N.H. ....... 18.0
Sedgwick, Kan. ........... 14.0
Trumbull, Ohio ............ 14.0
Travis, Texas ............... 10.9
Waukesha, Wis. .......... 10.4
Santa Cruz, Calif. ........ 10.1
Rock Island, Ill. ........... 9.5
Ada, Idaho .................. 8.9
Miami-Dade, Fla. ........ 8.1
East Baton Rouge, La. 8.1
Lafayette, La. .............. 8.1
Utah, Utah................... 8.1
Average weekly wage,
fourth quarter 2006
The largest declines in employment levels occurred in Wayne, Mich. (-25,100), followed by the counties
of Oakland, Mich. (-19,800), Montgomery, Ohio (-5,200), and Elkhart, Ind., and Monroe, N.Y. (-4,200
each).
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the fourth quarter of 2006 was $861. Average weekly wages
were higher than the national average in 105 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 $1,781. Santa
Clara, Calif., was second with an average weekly wage of $1,569, followed by Fairfield, Conn. ($1,515),
Suffolk, Mass. ($1,481), and San Francisco, Calif. ($1,460). (See table B.)
There were 219 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the fourth quarter
of 2006. The lowest average weekly wages were reported in Cameron County, Texas ($527), followed by
the counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($542), Yakima, Wash. ($570), Webb, Texas ($571), and Horry, S.C.
($578). (See table 1.)
Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 4.2 percent. Among the largest counties,
Rockingham, N.H., led the nation in average weekly wage growth with an increase of 18.0 percent from the
fourth quarter of 2005. Sedgwick, Kan., and Trumbull, Ohio, were second in wage growth (14.0 percent
each), followed by the counties of Travis, Texas (10.9 percent) and Waukesha, Wis. (10.4 percent).
4
Eight counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. New Castle, Del., had the
largest decrease (-5.7 percent), followed by the counties of Elkhart, Ind. (-5.3 percent), Orleans, La. (-4.4
percent), York, Pa. (-4.3 percent), and Harrison, Miss. (-2.4 percent).
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Each of the 10 largest counties (based on 2005 annual average employment levels) reported increases in
employment from December 2005 to December 2006. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest percent increase in employment among the largest counties (4.0 percent). Within Harris County, employment rose in
every industry group. The largest percent gains were in natural resources and mining (12.2 percent), followed by construction (6.8 percent). Maricopa, Ariz., had the next largest percent increase in employment (3.8
percent), followed by King, Wash. (3.0 percent). The smallest percent increases in employment occurred in
Los Angeles, Calif. (0.5 percent), Orange, Calif. (0.7 percent), and San Diego, Calif. (0.8 percent). (See
table 2.)
Each of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. MiamiDade, Fla., had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties with a gain of 8.1 percent. Within
Miami-Dade County, average weekly wages increased the most in professional and business services (18.7
percent), followed by financial activities (9.0 percent). Harris, Texas, was second in wage growth with a gain
of 7.2 percent, followed by King, Wash. (5.8 percent). The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest counties occurred in Orange, Calif. (2.7 percent), followed by Dallas, Texas (3.3 percent) and San Diego, Calif.
(3.6 percent).
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows December 2006 employment and the 2006 fourth 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 the counties in table 3 in December 2006 ranged from approximately 4.2 million in Los
Angeles County, Calif., to 42,200 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these
counties was in New York, N.Y. ($1,781), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Laramie, Wyo.
($682).
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.
______________________________
The County Employment and Wages release for first quarter 2007 is scheduled to be released on
Thursday, October 18.
5
Upcoming Changes to Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Data
Data for 2006 will be the last from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
(QCEW) program using the 2002 version of the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS). With the release of first quarter 2007 data, scheduled for October 18,
the QCEW program will switch to the 2007 NAICS as the basis for the assignment and
tabulation of economic data by industry.
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 8.9 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 is the
first to include the data on a CD for enhanced access and
usability. As a result of this change, the printed booklet
contains only selected graphic representations of QCEW data;
the data tables themselves are published exclusively in
electronic formats as PDF and fixed-width text files.
Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2005 is available
for sale from the United States Government Printing Office,
Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA
15250, telephone 866-512-1800, outside of Washington, D.C.
Within Washington, D.C., the telephone number is 202-5121800. The fax number is 202-512-2104. Also, the 2005 bulletin
is 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,
fourth quarter 20062
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2006
(thousands)
December
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
United States6 ....................
8,929.5
135,933.2
1.6
-
$861
4.2
-
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
18.8
8.5
9.9
6.6
4.3
8.1
94.1
20.1
5.4
14.4
378.1
176.1
172.7
139.0
85.9
145.2
1,854.5
377.2
95.6
249.5
1.0
2.2
1.1
0.3
3.1
1.0
3.8
3.1
4.0
0.7
180
87
168
249
44
180
28
44
22
212
868
893
756
764
759
879
856
743
752
782
4.1
5.8
6.2
5.5
2.8
4.9
4.6
3.6
1.2
4.3
137
35
31
50
248
75
101
183
303
114
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
Placer, CA ..........................
5.6
50.1
28.5
29.6
17.5
400.2
11.8
12.3
96.6
10.6
93.9
686.3
350.0
352.8
282.9
4,242.5
111.7
149.5
1,519.1
136.4
1.5
0.0
0.8
2.1
2.4
0.5
1.1
-1.3
0.7
-0.1
141
271
199
95
76
232
168
305
212
279
716
1,106
1,057
688
721
1,011
1,148
764
994
866
5.0
5.3
4.8
3.6
5.1
4.3
0.5
6.1
2.7
7.0
71
54
83
183
64
114
308
32
255
16
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 .................
43.9
51.4
46.7
93.8
44.9
17.3
9.2
23.3
13.8
56.7
637.0
631.6
666.6
1,335.2
547.8
221.5
104.1
343.3
182.3
898.3
1.3
0.1
1.0
0.8
2.2
0.6
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.1
156
266
180
199
87
224
66
76
80
95
711
929
747
922
1,460
744
727
1,402
810
1,569
4.4
4.3
4.0
3.6
6.0
3.3
3.9
2.9
1.3
5.1
108
114
145
183
33
212
160
241
301
64
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
Boulder, CO .......................
8.8
10.0
18.0
14.2
9.0
22.0
5.5
9.3
19.8
12.6
92.3
129.3
193.0
174.4
149.0
319.6
98.6
153.4
280.3
160.8
0.3
-2.2
0.5
0.7
4.0
0.0
1.2
1.8
1.9
3.5
249
314
232
212
22
271
163
124
115
33
818
809
841
708
593
948
763
785
1,022
1,026
10.1
5.3
2.3
2.2
2.4
6.4
4.8
3.0
4.8
5.4
6
54
275
281
269
25
83
235
83
51
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
New London, CT ................
25.4
9.1
17.5
18.8
10.1
5.9
32.8
25.1
22.4
6.8
439.7
89.8
247.2
209.2
128.2
81.8
428.5
507.6
374.8
130.5
2.2
3.5
1.0
0.0
2.3
3.4
1.9
2.7
2.2
0.0
87
33
180
271
80
37
115
60
87
271
1,069
859
774
852
784
711
1,515
1,045
911
869
6.3
2.1
3.2
4.4
3.7
5.0
1.2
1.2
2.2
3.2
28
285
220
108
176
71
303
303
281
220
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2006
(thousands)
December
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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
32.7
6.5
14.6
63.8
12.4
25.7
7.9
36.2
6.9
289.1
675.0
125.7
207.7
762.9
140.4
470.9
131.1
656.1
85.8
0.3
0.4
0.4
-0.3
1.6
3.1
2.0
-0.3
2.1
3.0
249
238
238
289
136
44
104
289
95
50
$1,004
1,424
691
807
861
818
849
687
815
693
-5.7
5.0
5.7
3.5
5.6
1.6
4.0
2.5
4.2
3.6
321
71
39
196
46
297
145
262
123
183
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
Pinellas, FL ........................
18.9
8.0
8.9
8.1
84.9
6.0
34.9
49.5
9.5
31.0
229.6
149.6
132.3
104.9
1,032.7
83.8
693.7
578.8
102.0
448.1
3.1
1.6
1.8
2.7
1.3
1.9
3.3
2.5
2.5
0.4
44
136
124
60
156
115
38
71
71
238
749
730
674
636
898
691
786
873
630
765
2.2
2.7
3.4
3.8
8.1
3.6
3.1
5.7
5.0
4.7
281
255
204
168
9
183
227
39
71
88
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
Fulton, GA ..........................
12.5
15.1
14.7
13.9
4.7
7.5
4.4
20.2
15.9
40.2
212.6
161.7
180.1
167.5
85.5
138.7
109.6
313.7
284.2
790.0
0.8
1.4
1.4
0.7
-1.3
4.0
-0.4
1.5
0.1
1.8
199
146
146
212
305
22
291
141
266
124
675
766
784
645
695
738
751
917
900
1,120
2.1
3.1
1.8
5.6
2.8
3.2
0.3
4.1
4.8
-2.0
285
227
293
46
248
220
311
137
83
316
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
Lake, IL ..............................
23.3
4.9
4.8
24.1
15.1
4.1
136.4
35.0
12.3
20.5
333.5
97.4
104.1
460.2
211.7
91.8
2,569.9
601.8
210.4
329.8
4.2
-1.3
(7)
1.6
3.6
0.6
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.9
16
305
136
31
224
189
168
168
189
910
671
711
787
818
706
1,051
1,021
803
1,081
4.6
3.7
5.3
3.1
8.9
4.1
5.1
4.9
3.1
5.3
101
176
54
227
8
137
64
75
227
54
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
Rock Island, IL ...................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
Winnebago, IL ....................
Allen, IN .............................
8.2
3.6
5.9
4.7
3.5
5.3
5.2
12.7
6.8
8.9
102.3
86.0
95.2
104.1
78.6
96.2
130.6
183.8
138.4
186.4
3.2
1.0
0.4
2.5
-0.8
1.3
0.0
3.5
0.9
1.4
41
180
238
71
297
156
271
33
189
146
771
795
713
818
996
691
823
788
729
723
3.2
4.3
-1.2
2.3
9.5
3.6
4.6
2.5
3.0
2.6
220
114
315
275
7
183
101
262
235
258
Elkhart, IN ..........................
4.8
123.8
-3.3
318
691
-5.3
320
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2006
(thousands)
December
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Hamilton, IN .......................
Lake, IN .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
Vanderburgh, IN ................
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ..............................
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
7.1
10.0
23.6
6.0
4.8
6.3
14.6
5.2
20.1
101.3
196.9
589.6
126.9
108.2
122.8
274.6
90.1
315.1
2.1
-0.1
1.1
0.2
-2.0
2.8
2.9
0.2
3.6
95
279
168
259
313
55
52
259
31
$840
738
867
706
708
829
853
705
881
2.1
2.9
3.6
2.5
4.0
3.4
3.1
3.2
3.6
285
241
183
262
145
204
227
220
183
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Boone, KY ..........................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
Jefferson, LA ......................
12.2
4.9
3.3
3.5
9.3
22.8
7.4
4.9
14.0
14.5
257.0
93.0
81.8
76.9
178.7
439.0
125.4
86.2
263.4
198.1
3.8
-1.3
4.4
0.9
(7)
2.1
-0.6
2.1
0.7
10.5
28
305
15
189
95
293
95
212
3
848
716
818
783
778
830
716
726
771
817
14.0
3.8
4.9
4.0
2.9
4.0
3.9
4.3
8.1
2.4
2
168
75
145
241
145
160
114
9
269
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
Prince Georges, MD ..........
8.4
11.8
12.1
14.3
21.7
5.9
5.6
8.4
32.7
15.7
132.7
162.5
175.1
230.7
381.6
93.9
83.1
145.6
472.8
317.6
3.2
12.2
0.6
2.3
0.3
1.7
0.9
1.9
1.4
0.0
41
2
224
80
249
131
189
115
146
271
818
941
769
888
919
805
771
995
1,136
934
8.1
-4.4
2.5
3.3
5.4
3.2
3.9
3.6
2.4
4.2
9
319
262
212
51
220
160
183
269
123
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
15.7
20.7
14.1
47.1
21.5
13.8
21.7
20.6
355.0
87.3
224.2
300.5
202.1
815.6
325.6
179.4
584.8
325.0
0.6
-1.2
0.4
0.7
0.2
1.4
0.3
0.3
2.2
0.7
224
304
238
212
259
146
249
249
87
212
1,013
759
769
916
789
1,209
1,060
834
1,481
858
2.2
3.8
3.8
3.4
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.0
4.9
3.5
281
168
168
204
137
114
123
145
75
196
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
Wayne, MI ..........................
8.4
7.1
5.7
14.7
18.5
40.7
5.9
4.5
8.3
33.9
147.7
162.3
117.2
342.8
320.5
701.7
110.0
89.5
196.2
771.4
-2.4
0.0
-0.7
-1.0
(7)
-2.7
-1.8
-0.2
-1.1
-3.1
315
271
296
299
316
311
286
300
317
782
824
769
793
889
1,030
758
759
924
969
(7)
4.2
3.5
3.0
-0.1
1.9
2.6
1.6
1.3
1.8
123
196
235
314
290
258
297
301
293
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
7.9
10.5
42.4
116.8
175.5
851.5
-0.1
0.4
0.1
279
238
266
811
832
1,052
4.8
3.0
3.8
83
235
168
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2006
(thousands)
December
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
Boone, MO .........................
3.6
15.6
5.9
4.5
4.4
6.5
4.5
90.7
333.6
96.5
81.3
86.0
129.4
82.8
0.8
-0.2
0.8
2.0
18.7
0.6
1.4
199
286
199
104
1
224
146
$843
907
696
667
663
759
647
4.1
3.3
3.1
4.2
-2.4
3.3
3.4
137
212
227
123
317
212
204
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
8.2
18.8
8.0
34.1
8.1
15.6
8.0
47.6
14.3
88.7
155.8
371.0
123.8
635.1
220.5
318.4
155.9
921.1
221.8
0.8
1.7
0.9
3.2
1.4
-1.1
1.2
1.0
2.7
2.0
199
131
189
41
146
300
163
180
60
104
774
632
863
714
907
936
814
677
815
821
2.4
1.0
2.9
0.8
2.4
4.1
3.0
2.4
5.6
4.9
269
306
241
307
269
137
235
269
46
75
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
Mercer, NJ .........................
12.6
11.0
7.0
35.1
11.7
13.9
22.0
6.5
14.4
11.3
200.8
140.5
148.0
460.7
205.7
214.4
365.6
107.4
239.6
231.5
-0.1
1.0
1.6
1.1
0.6
0.8
0.3
1.5
0.2
1.1
279
180
136
168
224
199
249
141
259
168
994
1,015
783
1,114
906
926
1,111
793
1,119
1,118
4.7
18.0
4.5
4.0
3.3
3.7
3.7
3.4
4.9
3.6
88
1
107
145
212
176
176
204
75
183
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
Bronx, NY ..........................
21.6
21.1
18.5
12.3
12.9
10.4
15.3
17.3
9.9
15.7
405.9
259.4
297.8
148.4
181.3
176.5
233.9
335.7
231.7
224.7
1.4
0.2
2.3
0.2
-0.1
1.0
0.6
2.7
0.7
0.1
146
259
80
259
279
180
224
60
212
266
1,101
954
1,284
762
929
1,373
1,118
760
901
828
5.1
3.0
3.6
2.8
3.9
4.9
4.0
4.0
(7)
5.7
64
235
183
248
160
75
145
145
39
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
23.3
44.1
17.8
52.2
116.4
5.3
12.7
9.9
96.3
120.2
461.7
474.7
385.0
616.6
2,359.8
112.4
253.0
132.1
0.5
0.4
0.0
2.1
-1.1
1.1
1.9
2.3
-0.1
0.9
232
238
271
95
300
168
115
80
279
189
663
853
757
771
809
980
1,781
664
801
722
4.7
3.9
6.9
4.0
2.8
3.7
5.7
4.7
4.0
2.3
88
160
17
145
248
176
39
88
145
275
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
42.1
8.5
9.7
49.6
36.3
497.2
94.3
117.1
628.8
425.6
1.9
2.7
2.0
1.1
1.1
115
60
104
168
168
853
764
906
953
1,211
3.9
3.5
4.0
6.5
2.9
160
196
145
21
241
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2006
(thousands)
December
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
7.5
4.5
6.0
6.5
8.9
114.7
89.6
118.3
182.2
184.6
3.1
2.4
1.2
(7)
0.8
44
76
163
199
$691
673
634
1,072
791
4.7
5.2
2.3
5.7
4.6
88
59
275
39
101
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
14.1
29.7
7.1
25.9
5.7
7.3
38.3
29.4
24.2
6.9
283.7
557.7
102.1
440.4
96.1
146.3
755.6
692.9
530.3
101.5
2.8
4.5
3.3
5.1
3.5
0.8
-0.5
0.7
-0.6
0.4
55
14
38
10
33
199
292
212
293
238
765
973
708
866
724
744
874
835
915
720
3.9
4.4
4.1
4.3
4.6
0.5
2.1
3.3
2.0
3.6
160
108
137
114
101
308
285
212
289
183
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
Trumbull, OH .....................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
6.3
10.9
6.3
13.0
9.1
14.9
4.8
23.2
19.3
12.5
100.8
225.7
104.8
272.7
162.4
275.4
83.0
426.2
348.9
149.9
-1.6
-1.1
0.8
-1.9
-1.5
0.1
-4.7
0.9
2.8
1.8
310
300
199
312
309
266
319
189
55
124
703
750
627
828
670
788
814
759
776
794
0.3
2.9
1.8
6.4
4.0
3.1
14.0
6.5
4.3
4.1
311
241
293
25
145
227
2
21
114
137
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
Butler, PA ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
6.7
10.9
9.2
27.0
15.9
35.1
9.1
20.2
4.7
14.9
86.5
151.9
137.1
449.6
250.7
690.6
172.0
266.7
78.4
239.5
1.5
1.7
2.4
2.8
2.2
0.7
2.3
0.8
2.6
2.0
141
131
76
55
87
212
80
199
66
104
626
672
669
868
948
912
774
849
723
1,107
3.8
2.6
4.9
5.6
5.1
6.4
6.3
4.7
5.2
4.2
168
258
75
46
64
25
28
88
59
123
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
5.9
7.3
13.6
7.3
5.8
12.1
8.7
7.9
27.5
6.4
127.9
182.9
212.0
128.4
103.2
231.1
179.3
144.2
493.7
99.2
2.0
2.0
0.5
0.4
1.7
0.7
2.6
0.5
0.4
1.7
104
104
232
238
131
212
66
232
238
131
773
827
924
671
662
733
860
652
1,094
765
2.5
4.7
3.5
3.5
2.5
3.1
5.4
0.3
6.5
4.7
262
88
196
196
262
227
51
311
21
88
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Kent, RI ..............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
29.2
5.3
9.5
8.9
5.8
18.3
14.2
638.9
78.6
138.2
177.3
84.8
292.9
208.4
-0.2
1.8
-0.8
0.9
1.5
0.8
4.6
286
124
297
189
141
199
13
1,009
725
665
750
753
847
728
4.2
2.8
4.6
-4.3
1.9
4.2
3.4
123
248
101
318
290
123
204
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2006
(thousands)
December
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Greenville, SC ....................
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
14.1
9.8
6.5
236.2
112.5
94.7
2.0
6.6
4.0
104
6
22
$748
578
646
3.2
1.9
2.9
220
290
241
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
10.9
7.0
6.3
18.3
8.5
10.8
4.0
20.0
4.4
31.3
218.5
119.4
115.0
455.8
196.0
228.7
100.4
522.4
97.6
716.4
0.4
2.6
1.9
1.4
0.5
3.3
2.2
2.0
2.5
3.9
238
66
115
146
232
38
87
104
71
27
737
724
705
888
765
762
790
877
643
760
5.1
3.4
4.3
5.3
5.8
4.4
7.8
3.4
4.7
2.3
64
204
114
54
35
108
13
204
88
275
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
6.4
15.5
67.4
9.8
13.1
7.7
5.2
93.6
84.8
85.4
123.8
274.8
1,490.2
161.1
267.5
120.7
93.5
1,993.9
4.1
1.9
4.2
6.5
2.9
(7)
1.4
5.6
(7)
4.0
20
115
16
7
52
146
9
22
801
615
527
986
1,069
768
602
912
772
1,087
6.5
4.4
4.2
2.5
3.3
(7)
5.2
6.8
(7)
7.2
21
108
123
262
212
59
19
15
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Smith, TX ...........................
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
10.2
5.8
6.6
4.8
7.5
8.0
5.1
35.8
27.0
4.6
213.2
124.2
124.1
103.5
114.5
151.1
92.1
755.9
562.8
87.0
4.2
2.1
2.6
1.3
6.3
1.8
1.1
2.9
4.8
3.1
16
95
66
156
8
124
168
52
11
44
542
836
644
677
823
734
739
874
1,038
571
5.7
2.8
3.5
4.2
5.2
7.3
2.6
5.7
10.9
4.0
39
248
196
123
59
14
258
39
4
145
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
Henrico, VA ........................
6.4
7.2
39.4
13.2
5.8
5.8
7.4
7.1
32.0
8.8
112.4
101.7
584.4
172.7
92.2
96.4
160.7
120.7
585.5
179.3
7.7
4.1
4.8
6.8
2.8
0.6
2.0
2.5
1.6
2.1
4
20
11
5
55
224
104
71
136
95
819
709
803
680
650
825
1,419
776
1,297
897
1.4
5.8
4.4
8.1
6.9
4.7
4.2
3.6
4.0
1.4
299
35
108
9
17
88
123
183
145
299
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 ...........................
7.7
6.6
6.0
5.4
3.9
5.7
7.0
11.4
11.7
127.9
105.2
95.6
101.5
100.7
144.2
163.2
179.8
131.3
1.0
1.3
1.2
2.3
1.8
0.3
0.9
1.2
1.9
180
156
163
80
124
249
189
163
115
1,064
766
1,123
681
765
834
968
689
765
0.4
2.3
4.7
3.7
4.2
3.5
2.8
4.7
3.9
310
275
88
176
123
196
248
88
160
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 326 largest counties,
fourth quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2006
(thousands)
December
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2005-064
Ranking by
percent
change
King, WA ............................
77.4
1,173.0
3.0
50
$1,043
5.8
35
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
6.6
20.4
17.4
15.1
6.7
6.9
8.0
6.1
6.6
13.7
84.8
269.8
238.4
208.0
97.6
80.6
91.3
109.2
149.5
301.3
0.7
2.0
3.8
2.7
2.2
1.1
4.2
0.8
-0.1
-0.6
212
104
28
60
87
168
16
199
279
293
760
741
850
677
750
646
570
724
759
813
3.8
4.2
4.7
5.1
5.9
5.2
3.3
3.7
3.8
6.8
168
123
88
64
34
59
212
176
168
19
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
21.0
5.0
4.1
13.1
3.7
14.9
500.8
103.8
77.3
238.0
88.8
310.4
0.3
1.3
0.2
1.3
0.3
-5.7
249
156
259
156
249
(8)
866
732
830
913
796
577
4.2
1.7
6.3
10.4
2.7
6.1
123
296
28
5
255
(8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 325 U.S. counties comprise 71.0 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
8 This county was not included in the U.S. rankings.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
fourth quarter 20062
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2006
(thousands)
December
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2005-063
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
8,929.5
8,649.9
125.0
890.1
363.7
1,909.3
145.5
860.9
1,456.8
806.5
717.2
1,151.2
279.6
135,933.2
114,287.7
1,723.6
7,534.7
14,039.7
27,038.2
3,068.8
8,222.7
17,785.7
17,228.1
12,939.4
4,391.6
21,645.5
1.6
1.7
4.2
1.7
-1.1
1.2
-0.3
0.7
3.0
2.8
3.1
1.1
1.1
$861
866
872
949
1,036
733
1,290
1,346
1,093
811
368
546
837
4.2
4.5
8.9
6.4
4.5
3.7
3.4
5.1
5.1
3.7
4.2
4.0
3.7
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 ...................................................
400.2
396.5
0.5
14.3
15.8
56.1
9.1
25.4
43.9
28.3
27.5
175.3
3.7
4,242.5
3,652.2
11.2
157.4
458.5
843.8
213.4
249.8
608.2
475.9
394.2
239.9
590.3
0.5
0.5
8.5
1.2
-2.2
0.5
0.5
-0.6
1.2
1.0
1.9
0.6
0.8
1,011
1,008
992
1,033
1,019
828
1,793
1,486
1,185
925
821
440
1,032
4.3
3.8
8.5
7.2
5.4
6.2
1.0
4.9
3.2
4.4
0.9
4.5
7.5
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 ...................................................
136.4
135.2
0.1
11.9
7.2
27.5
2.5
15.7
27.9
13.3
11.4
13.5
1.2
2,569.9
2,258.7
1.4
94.5
245.6
496.7
59.1
219.9
445.1
366.4
230.3
95.1
(6)
0.9
1.1
0.6
2.2
-1.6
0.1
-2.5
-0.2
2.8
1.6
3.3
-0.5
(6)
1,051
1,059
1,127
1,323
1,072
826
1,412
1,748
1,395
902
421
722
(6)
5.1
5.0
8.0
6.6
4.3
3.4
5.1
6.5
5.0
6.4
3.7
4.0
(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 ...................................................
116.4
116.2
0.0
2.2
3.0
21.3
4.1
17.8
23.3
8.3
10.7
16.9
0.2
2,359.8
1,909.3
0.1
32.3
38.0
257.0
132.0
374.0
478.7
289.1
208.2
87.1
450.5
1.9
2.3
-5.0
6.0
-7.1
1.1
-0.8
2.8
3.0
1.5
3.2
0.5
0.1
1,781
1,959
1,442
1,783
1,386
1,277
2,062
3,922
2,017
1,021
935
997
1,025
5.7
6.5
-62.8
9.8
0.0
3.8
6.1
7.5
5.6
2.8
13.1
5.8
(6)
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
fourth quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2006
(thousands)
December
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2005-063
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
93.6
93.1
1.4
6.4
4.6
21.2
1.3
10.1
18.3
9.7
7.0
10.8
0.4
1,993.9
1,740.9
76.1
144.7
180.1
425.6
32.8
118.5
325.3
206.3
169.9
56.3
253.0
4.0
4.4
12.2
6.8
5.5
2.1
3.5
1.1
4.7
3.7
5.1
2.1
1.1
$1,087
1,117
2,722
1,094
1,357
953
1,220
1,390
1,335
901
377
612
887
7.2
7.4
1.2
12.8
8.1
7.4
2.3
4.7
10.0
3.4
3.6
5.7
5.6
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 ...................................................
94.1
93.5
0.5
9.9
3.4
20.1
1.6
11.8
20.6
9.1
6.7
6.7
0.6
1,854.5
1,636.8
9.5
171.0
136.0
386.1
33.0
152.5
321.9
193.2
179.6
49.1
217.7
3.8
4.0
5.8
-0.5
0.8
4.3
0.3
2.0
5.9
6.8
4.7
5.3
2.3
856
858
776
924
1,229
786
1,058
1,105
870
931
405
565
842
4.6
4.5
10.2
7.4
11.4
2.7
12.4
1.8
2.8
4.3
6.0
0.7
5.5
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 ...................................................
96.6
95.3
0.2
7.2
5.6
18.0
1.4
11.6
19.6
9.9
7.1
14.6
1.4
1,519.1
1,388.4
4.9
106.5
182.7
286.5
31.2
136.9
280.4
139.3
172.0
48.0
130.7
0.7
0.9
-13.4
-0.2
0.2
0.6
-1.8
-6.4
4.2
4.0
3.6
-2.8
-1.4
994
998
650
1,122
1,178
893
1,364
1,594
1,096
919
386
583
961
2.7
2.5
6.7
7.5
5.3
4.7
9.6
-2.9
2.3
2.5
1.8
2.8
6.1
Dallas, TX ...........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
67.4
67.0
0.6
4.3
3.2
14.8
1.7
8.6
14.1
6.4
5.2
6.4
0.4
1,490.2
1,328.5
7.5
80.4
146.9
315.6
52.9
143.4
269.5
142.5
126.7
39.5
161.7
2.9
3.1
2.1
4.4
0.3
1.6
-0.9
3.5
4.2
5.5
4.0
1.5
1.7
1,069
1,088
3,254
1,012
1,145
971
1,371
1,491
1,287
994
483
669
911
3.3
2.9
2.9
5.7
3.5
-0.1
4.1
9.1
1.7
1.8
2.5
4.9
5.3
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the ten largest counties,
fourth quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage4
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2006
(thousands)
December
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2005-063
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth 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 ...................................................
93.8
92.3
0.8
7.4
3.3
14.8
1.3
10.2
16.8
8.1
6.9
22.8
1.5
1,335.2
1,110.5
10.1
90.5
102.9
232.8
37.7
83.7
215.1
125.4
155.8
56.3
224.8
0.8
0.5
-9.1
-2.8
-0.6
0.7
0.5
-2.0
0.3
2.2
3.5
1.2
2.2
$922
910
591
1,020
1,211
725
1,696
1,167
1,184
898
396
492
978
3.6
3.2
4.2
6.1
4.4
5.1
-14.6
-4.1
9.8
5.2
4.2
4.2
5.2
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 ...................................................
77.4
76.9
0.4
6.8
2.5
15.0
1.8
6.9
12.8
6.4
6.0
18.3
0.5
1,173.0
1,020.8
2.7
68.7
112.6
229.5
74.8
76.0
184.2
119.4
108.8
44.1
152.2
3.0
3.5
-6.8
9.4
3.7
2.4
7.4
-1.0
5.4
2.9
2.7
-1.8
0.0
1,043
1,054
1,275
1,032
1,371
907
1,872
1,351
1,235
817
427
561
968
5.8
5.8
4.6
6.4
6.6
5.7
4.2
9.3
4.7
4.3
3.4
5.3
4.5
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 ...................................................
84.9
84.6
0.5
5.9
2.6
22.9
1.6
10.3
17.2
8.7
5.6
7.6
0.3
1,032.7
880.0
10.5
54.1
47.3
257.8
21.7
72.4
141.2
134.9
101.7
35.3
152.7
1.3
1.6
6.5
13.3
-2.6
1.8
-3.4
2.8
-5.5
4.4
1.7
2.4
-0.2
898
888
477
922
805
816
1,194
1,331
1,207
854
482
519
959
8.1
9.0
2.1
2.7
7.9
7.8
1.2
9.0
18.7
6.2
7.6
7.2
3.7
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See
Technical Note.
4 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
6 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, fourth quarter 20062
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2006
(thousands)
December
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2005-064
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2005-064
United States6 ..........................
8,929.5
135,933.2
1.6
$861
4.2
Jefferson, AL ............................
Anchorage Borough, AK ...........
Maricopa, AZ ............................
Pulaski, AR ...............................
Los Angeles, CA .......................
Denver, CO ..............................
Hartford, CT ..............................
New Castle, DE ........................
Washington, DC .......................
Miami-Dade, FL ........................
18.8
8.1
94.1
14.4
400.2
25.4
25.1
19.6
32.7
84.9
378.1
145.2
1,854.5
249.5
4,242.5
439.7
507.6
289.1
675.0
1,032.7
1.0
1.0
3.8
0.7
0.5
2.2
2.7
0.3
0.4
1.3
868
879
856
782
1,011
1,069
1,045
1,004
1,424
898
4.1
4.9
4.6
4.3
4.3
6.3
1.2
-5.7
5.0
8.1
Fulton, GA ................................
Honolulu, HI ..............................
Ada, ID .....................................
Cook, IL ....................................
Marion, IN .................................
Polk, IA .....................................
Johnson, KS .............................
Jefferson, KY ............................
East Baton Rouge, LA ..............
Cumberland, ME ......................
40.2
24.1
15.1
136.4
23.6
14.6
20.1
22.8
14.0
12.1
790.0
460.2
211.7
2,569.9
589.6
274.6
315.1
439.0
263.4
175.1
1.8
1.6
3.6
0.9
1.1
2.9
3.6
2.1
0.7
0.6
1,120
787
818
1,051
867
853
881
830
771
769
-2.0
3.1
8.9
5.1
3.6
3.1
3.6
4.0
8.1
2.5
Montgomery, MD ......................
Middlesex, MA ..........................
Wayne, MI ................................
Hennepin, MN ..........................
Hinds, MS .................................
St. Louis, MO ............................
Yellowstone, MT .......................
Douglas, NE .............................
Clark, NV ..................................
Hillsborough, NH ......................
32.7
47.1
33.9
42.4
6.5
34.1
5.5
15.6
47.6
12.6
472.8
815.6
771.4
851.5
129.4
635.1
75.1
318.4
921.1
200.8
1.4
1.4
-3.1
0.1
0.6
1.4
1.8
1.2
2.7
-0.1
1,136
1,209
969
1,052
759
907
688
814
815
994
2.4
4.3
1.8
3.8
3.3
2.4
6.2
3.0
5.6
4.7
Bergen, NJ ...............................
Bernalillo, NM ...........................
New York, NY ...........................
Mecklenburg, NC ......................
Cass, ND ..................................
Cuyahoga, OH ..........................
Oklahoma, OK ..........................
Multnomah, OR ........................
Allegheny, PA ...........................
Providence, RI ..........................
35.1
17.3
116.4
29.7
5.7
38.3
23.2
27.0
35.1
18.3
460.7
335.7
2,359.8
557.7
96.1
755.6
426.2
449.6
690.6
292.9
1.1
2.7
1.9
4.5
3.5
-0.5
0.9
2.8
0.7
0.8
1,114
760
1,781
973
724
874
759
868
912
847
4.0
4.0
5.7
4.4
4.6
2.1
6.5
5.6
6.4
4.2
Greenville, SC ..........................
Minnehaha, SD .........................
Shelby, TN ................................
Harris, TX .................................
Salt Lake, UT ............................
Chittenden, VT .........................
Fairfax, VA ................................
King, WA ..................................
Kanawha, WV ...........................
Milwaukee, WI ..........................
14.1
6.3
20.0
93.6
39.4
5.8
32.0
77.4
6.1
21.0
236.2
115.0
522.4
1,993.9
584.4
96.4
585.5
1,173.0
109.2
500.8
2.0
1.9
2.0
4.0
4.8
0.6
1.6
3.0
0.8
0.3
748
705
877
1,087
803
825
1,297
1,043
724
866
3.2
4.3
3.4
7.2
4.4
4.7
4.0
5.8
3.7
4.2
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, fourth quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage5
Employment
County3
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2006
(thousands)
December
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2005-064
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2005-064
Laramie, WY .............................
3.1
42.2
2.3
$682
5.4
San Juan, PR ...........................
St. Thomas, VI ..........................
14.9
1.8
310.4
23.5
-5.7
0.9
577
682
6.1
8.8
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees
(UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county
reclassifications. See Technical Note.
5 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
fourth quarter 20062
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2006
(thousands)
December
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2005-06
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2005-06
United States4 ....................
8,929.5
135,933.2
1.6
$861
4.2
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
118.3
21.0
152.9
82.1
1,300.2
175.8
112.1
30.2
32.7
593.5
1,948.9
296.2
2,693.3
1,179.3
15,672.1
2,283.3
1,706.3
427.5
675.0
8,126.2
1.0
1.7
3.5
1.0
1.1
2.2
2.0
0.5
0.4
1.7
737
837
805
652
987
877
1,101
896
1,424
788
4.4
5.3
4.7
2.8
4.4
5.0
2.0
-4.1
5.0
4.6
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
267.7
37.5
56.2
353.6
155.4
93.3
85.6
112.1
123.7
49.6
4,090.4
632.3
649.8
5,899.5
2,924.3
1,486.3
1,358.9
1,815.4
1,855.1
603.4
2.2
1.9
4.0
1.3
0.6
1.4
2.6
1.7
4.3
0.7
812
762
672
928
723
697
725
708
748
679
2.1
3.5
7.0
4.6
2.6
3.7
6.5
3.8
5.1
2.7
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
163.2
209.3
265.4
167.0
69.4
174.0
41.5
58.3
74.2
49.2
2,570.5
3,244.5
4,242.5
2,683.1
1,140.3
2,737.5
431.6
912.2
1,285.8
636.9
1.2
1.1
-1.9
-0.2
2.3
1.4
3.0
1.3
2.6
0.6
941
1,072
852
840
630
741
625
687
817
917
3.4
4.5
2.2
4.0
2.6
2.3
5.8
3.6
5.4
8.1
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
283.1
53.3
573.2
251.5
24.6
292.5
98.0
129.3
336.1
36.1
4,023.6
823.2
8,643.1
4,054.0
341.0
5,346.2
1,536.4
1,723.9
5,680.8
488.4
0.9
3.7
1.3
3.2
2.5
-0.3
2.0
2.3
1.1
1.0
1,055
705
1,104
751
643
774
679
763
837
817
4.4
7.1
5.3
4.6
4.7
3.1
5.8
4.8
4.4
3.8
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
135.6
29.9
137.8
540.5
88.4
24.8
220.5
219.2
48.2
157.9
1,886.8
387.1
2,785.2
10,164.2
1,208.0
308.7
3,682.9
2,863.7
714.3
2,792.4
3.0
2.2
1.7
3.5
5.1
0.2
1.3
2.5
1.4
0.6
688
614
773
871
725
707
887
846
656
746
3.3
4.2
4.6
5.8
5.5
3.4
3.7
5.2
4.6
4.5
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
fourth quarter 20062 — Continued
Average weekly wage3
Employment
State
Establishments,
fourth quarter
2006
(thousands)
December
2006
(thousands)
Percent
change,
December
2005-06
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
fourth quarter
2005-06
Wyoming ............................
24.0
270.9
5.4
$759
11.3
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
61.5
3.5
1,062.8
45.5
-3.0
1.2
494
711
4.7
7.2
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
July 2007
-4.7% to 1.6%
1.7% to 18.7%
Largest U.S. Counties
Chart 1. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 employees or more,
December 2005-06 (U.S. Average = 1.6%)
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
July 2007
-5.7% to 4.2%
4.3% to 18.0%
Largest U.S. Counties
Chart 2. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
employees or more, fourth quarter 2005-06 (U.S. Average = 4.2%)