Technical information:
(202) 691-6567
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
Media contact:
USDL 07-1583
For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT
Thursday, October 18, 2007
691-5902
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: FIRST QUARTER 2007
In March 2007, Orleans County, La., 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. Orleans County, which includes the city of New Orleans, experienced an over-the-year employment gain of 15.0 percent compared with national job growth of 1.4 percent. Harrison County, Miss., followed closely behind Orleans with an over-the-year gain of 14.5 percent.
Chart 1. Top ranking large counties in employment
growth, first quarter 2007
(U.S. average = 1.4 percent)
Chart 2. Top ranking large counties by percent growth in
average weekly wages, first quarter 2007
(U.S. average = 5.1 percent)
Percent
Percent
20
25
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
Orleans, La.
Harrison, Miss.
Utah, Utah
Williamson,
Texas
Jefferson, La.
Trumbull, Ohio
New York, N.Y.
Cobb, Ga.
Suffolk, Mass.
Clay, Mo.
Employment gains in Orleans and Harrison counties reflected significant recovery following substantial job
losses that occurred in September 2005 due to Hurricane Katrina. Trumbull County, Ohio, had the largest
over-the-year gain in average weekly wages in the first quarter of 2007, with an increase of 22.3 percent.
The U.S. average weekly wage rose by 5.1 percent over the same time span.
Changes to County Employment and Wages Data
Beginning with the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data
presented in this release, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is introducing the 2007 North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS 2007). The conversion to NAICS
2007 resulted in minor changes to the data and more accurately reflects the underlying
business activities in selected industries. For further information on the NAICS 2007
revision and its effect on QCEW data, see the note on page 6 and the U.S. Census
Bureau Web site at http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics07/index.html.
2
Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by March 2007 employment, March 2006-07 employment
growth, and March 2006-07 percent growth in employment
March 2007 employment
(thousands)
Employment in large counties
Growth in employment,
March 2006-07
(thousands)
Percent growth in employment,
March 2006-07
United States ............ 134,320.6
United States ......................1,801.9
United States .......................1.4
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 ..........................
New York, N.Y. ....................
Dallas, Texas ..........................
King, Wash. ...........................
Mecklenburg, N.C. ...............
Maricopa, Ariz. ......................
Travis, Texas ..........................
Salt Lake, Utah.......................
Wake, N.C. ...........................
Orleans, La. ............................
Orleans, La. ...................... 15.0
Harrison, Miss. ..................14.5
Utah, Utah ........................ 7.3
Williamson, Texas ............. 7.0
Jefferson, La. .................... 6.6
Mecklenburg, N.C. ........... 6.2
New Hanover, N.C. ......... 6.2
Williamson, Tenn. .............. 6.0
Wake, N.C. ...................... 5.4
Montgomery, Texas .......... 5.3
4,210.2
2,510.1
2,331.5
1,985.7
1,828.2
1,516.1
1,469.4
1,319.8
1,157.5
1,025.1
72.5
52.9
46.0
41.1
32.8
30.5
25.4
25.4
22.6
21.8
Of the 328 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2006 annual average employment, 117
had over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average (1.4 percent) in March
2007 and 196 experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 3.) The percent change in
average weekly wages was higher than the national average (5.1 percent) in 77 of the largest U.S. counties,
but was below the national average in 240 counties. (See chart 4.)
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 134.3 million full- and part-time workers. The attached tables and charts contain
data for the nation and for the 328 U.S. counties with annual average employment levels of 75,000 or more
in 2006. March 2007 employment and 2007 first-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided
in table 4 of this release. Data for all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and the nation through
the fourth quarter of 2006 are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data
for first quarter 2007 and final data for 2006 will be available later in October on the BLS Web site.
Large County Employment
In March 2007, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 134.3 million, up by
1.4 percent from March 2006. The 328 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 71.1
percent of total U.S. covered employment and 78.2 percent of total covered wages. These 328 counties
had a net job gain of 1,192,248 over the year, accounting for 66.2 percent of the overall U.S. employment
increase. Employment rose in 255 of the large counties from March 2006 to March 2007. Orleans County,
La., had the largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment (15.0 percent). Harrison, Miss., had
the next largest increase, 14.5 percent, followed by the counties of Utah, Utah (7.3 percent), Williamson,
Texas (7.0 percent), and Jefferson, La. (6.6 percent). The large employment gains in Orleans, Harrison, and
3
Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by first quarter 2007 average weekly wages, first
quarter 2006-07 growth in average weekly wages, and first quarter 2006-07 percent growth
in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
first quarter 2007
Growth in average weekly
wage, first quarter 2006-07
Percent growth in average
weekly wage, first
quarter 2006-07
United States .....................$885
United States ..........................$43
United States ................. 5.1
New York, N.Y. ............$2,821
Fairfield, Conn. .................1,979
Suffolk, Mass. ..................1,659
San Francisco, Calif. .........1,639
Somerset, N.J. .................1,615
Santa Clara, Calif. ............1,584
San Mateo, Calif. .............1,447
Arlington, Va. ...................1,447
Hudson, N.J. ....................1,434
Washington, D.C. .............1,428
New York, N.Y. ................. $403
Suffolk, Mass. ........................162
Trumbull, Ohio .......................157
Fairfield, Conn. .......................137
Somerset, N.J. .......................133
San Francisco, Calif. ............. .124
Hudson, N.J. ..........................115
Westchester, N.Y. ..................107
San Mateo, Calif. ...................106
Cobb, Ga. ..............................100
Trumbull, Ohio ............. 22.3
New York, N.Y. ......... 16.7
Cobb, Ga. ................... 11.2
Suffolk, Mass. ............. 10.8
Clay, Mo. .................... 9.7
Montgomery, Ohio ...... 9.3
Somerset, N.J. ............. 9.0
Westchester, N.Y. ....... 8.9
Hudson, N.J. ............... 8.7
East Baton Rouge, La. . 8.6
Jefferson counties reflected significant recovery from the substantial job losses in September 2005, which
were related to Hurricane Katrina. (See table 1.)
Employment declined in 61 counties from March 2006 to March 2007. The largest percentage decline
in employment was in Trumbull County, Ohio (-6.2 percent). Macomb, Mich., had the next largest employment decline (-3.8 percent), followed by the counties of Wayne, Mich., and Montgomery, Ohio (-3.2 percent each), and Elkhart, Ind. (-2.9 percent). In each of these five counties, the greatest number of jobs lost
occurred in the manufacturing sector.
The largest gains in the level of employment from March 2006 to March 2007 were recorded in the
counties of Harris, Texas (72,500), New York, N.Y. (52,900), Dallas, Texas (46,000), King, Wash.
(41,100), and Mecklenburg, N.C. (32,800). (See table A.)
The largest decline in employment levels occurred in Wayne, Mich. (-24,600), followed by the counties
of Macomb, Mich. (-12,400), Oakland, Mich. (-10,600), Montgomery, Ohio (-8,700), and Pinellas, Fla.
(-5,400). Each of the 10 large counties in Michigan experienced employment declines in March 2007.
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the first quarter of 2007 was $885. Average weekly wages were
higher than the national average in 92 of the largest 328 U.S. counties. New York County, N.Y., held the
top position among the highest-paid large counties with an average weekly wage of $2,821. Fairfield, Conn.,
was second with an average weekly wage of $1,979, followed by Suffolk, Mass. ($1,659), San Francisco,
Calif. ($1,639), and Somerset, N.J. ($1,615). (See table B.)
4
There were 236 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the first quarter of
2007. The lowest average weekly wage was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($502), followed by the
counties of Hidalgo, Texas ($516), Horry, S.C. ($536), Webb, Texas ($542), and Yakima, Wash. ($569).
(See table 1.)
Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 5.1 percent. Among the largest counties,
Trumbull, Ohio, led the nation in growth in average weekly wages with an increase of 22.3 percent from the
first quarter of 2006. New York, N.Y., was second with growth of 16.7 percent, followed by the counties
of Cobb, Ga. (11.2 percent), Suffolk, Mass. (10.8 percent), and Clay, Mo. (9.7 percent). New York
County experienced substantial over-the-year wage growth which had a significant impact on national average
weekly wage growth in the first quarter of 2007. Without New York County’s over-the-year employment
and wage growth, national average weekly wage growth would have been 4.2 percent; a 0.9 percentage
point reduction.
Fourteen counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Bibb, Ga., and Loudoun, Va., led the nation in declines (-3.0 percent each), followed by the counties of Orleans, La., and
Norfolk, Mass. (-2.7 percent each), and Arapahoe, Colo., Sarasota, Fla., and Peoria, Ill. (-1.8 percent
each).
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Each of the 10 largest counties (based on 2006 annual average employment levels) reported increases in
employment from March 2006 to March 2007. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest percentage gain in
employment among the largest counties with a 3.8 percent increase. Within Harris County, employment rose
in every industry group. The largest gains were in natural resources and mining (11.0 percent) and
manufacturing (5.6 percent). King, Wash., had the next largest increase in employment, 3.7 percent,
followed by Dallas, Texas (3.2 percent). The smallest percentage increase in employment occurred in
Orange, Calif. (0.1 percent), followed by San Diego, Calif., and Los Angeles, Calif. (0.4 percent each).
(See table 2.)
Each of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw over-the-year increases in average weekly wages. New York,
N.Y., had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties with a gain of 16.7 percent. Within
New York County, average weekly wages increased the most in financial activities (24.2 percent) and in
manufacturing (14.6 percent). Harris, Texas, was second in wage growth with a gain of 8.5 percent, followed by Cook, Ill. (6.5 percent). The smallest wage gains among the 10 largest counties occurred in San
Diego, Calif., and Orange, Calif. (3.2 percent each) and Los Angeles, Calif. (3.3 percent).
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows March 2007 employment and the 2007 first quarter average weekly wage in the largest
county in each state, which is based on 2006 annual average employment levels. (This table includes two
counties—Yellowstone, Mont., and Laramie, Wyo.—that had employment levels below 75,000 in 2006.)
The employment levels in the counties in table 3 in March 2007 ranged from approximately 4.2 million in Los
Angeles County, Calif., to 41,900 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these
counties was in New York, N.Y. ($2,821) while the lowest average weekly wage was in Yellowstone,
Mont. ($672).
5
For More Information
For additional information about the quarterly employment and wages data, please read the Technical
Note or visit the QCEW Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Additional information about the QCEW
data also may be obtained by calling (202) 691-6567.
For a more detailed analysis of employment declines experienced in the manufacturing sector’s automotive component in various Midwestern states, see the paper entitled “Automotive industries: Concentration
and change,” Issues in Labor Statistics, Summary 07-04/July 2007. For links to this and other Issues in
Labor Statistics papers utilizing QCEW data, see http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewissus.htm.
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 second quarter 2007 is scheduled to be released on
Thursday, January 17, 2008.
County Changes for the 2007 County Employment
and Wages News Releases
Counties with employment of 75,000 or more in 2006 are included in this
release. For 2007 data, four counties have been added to the publication tables:
Butte, Calif., Tippecanoe, Ind., Saratoga, N.Y., and Williamson, Tenn. One
county, Boone, Ky., which had data for 2006 published in the 2006 releases, will
be excluded from 2007 releases because its 2006 annual average employment level
was less than 75,000.
6
Industry Changes to County Employment and Wages Data
In an effort to enhance the comparability of industrial employment and wage statistics across
Mexico, Canada, and the United States, and reflect economic activities within industries more
accurately, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is revised periodically.
In conjunction with its counterparts in Mexico and Canada, the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget developed NAICS 2007.
The conversion to NAICS 2007 resulted in minor revisions reflecting content changes within
the Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting sector and the Manufacturing sector; the restructuring of the Telecommunications subsector; the elimination of the Real estate and investment trusts
industry within the Finance and insurance sector; and minor content changes within the Professional, scientific, and technical services sector. Several industry titles and descriptions also were
updated. This revision was introduced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) with the release
of first quarter 2007 QCEW data. This revision had a minimal impact on QCEW data. Approximately 1 percent of both employment and establishments and 2 percent of total wages were reclassified into different industries as a result of the revision.
With the introduction of this revision, some industries were directly transferred to new industries while others were split into two or more industries, with the original industry often retaining a portion of the establishments, employment, and wages. Of the 1,179 industries used by
BLS under NAICS 2002, 8 industries were directly moved to new industries created by the
NAICS 2007 revision. Involved in these direct transfers were 41,821 establishments, 829,263
employees, and $12.6 billion in total wages. In addition, 13 industries were split into 2 or more
industries. In all, 27,457 establishments, 662,125 employees, and $16.5 billion in total wages
changed industries via these split transfers.
A total of 69,278 establishments, 1,491,388 employees, and $29.1 billion in total wages
changed industries in first quarter 2007 due to this revision. This represents 37 percent of the
overall 186,702 establishments, 43 percent of the overall 3,478,087 employees, and 55 percent of the overall $52.9 billion in total wages affected by an administrative industry change in
first quarter 2007. (See Technical Note.) All figures cited are preliminary and all employment
figures cited reflect March 2007 data. For further information on the NAICS 2007 revision,
see the U.S. Census Bureau Web site at http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics07/index.html.
More information on the NAICS 2007 revision, including the implementation schedules of
other BLS programs, will be posted on the BLS Web site as it becomes available.
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. QCEW data in this release are based on
the 2007 North American Industry Classification System. Data
for 2007 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 329 counties presented in this release were derived using
2006 preliminary annual averages of employment. For 2007 data,
four counties have been added to the publication tables: Butte,
Calif., Tippecanoe, Ind., Saratoga, N.Y., and Williamson, Tenn.
These counties will be included in all 2007 quarterly releases.
One county, Boone, Ky., which was published in the 2006 re-
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
7.0 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 quarterly employer dynam- • Provides current monthly estimates
ics data on establishment openings,
of employment, hours, and earnings
closings, expansions, and contractions
at the MSA, state, and national levat the national level by NAICS super- el by industry
sectors, at the state private-sector
total level, and by size of firm
• Future expansions will include data
with greater industry detail and data
at the county and MSA level
• Provides a quarterly and annual
universe count of establishments, employment, and
wages at the county, MSA,
state, and national levels by
detailed 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
- Analysis of employment expansion and contractions 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/bdm/
• www.bls.gov/ces/
• www.bls.gov/cew/
leases, will be excluded from this and future 2007 releases because its 2006 annual average employment level was less than
75,000. 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 of UI data
over time and ongoing review and editing. The individual states
determine their data release timetables.
Differences between QCEW, BED, and CES employment measures
The Bureau publishes three different establishment-based
employment measures for any given quarter. Each of these measures—QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED), and
Current Employment Statistics (CES)—makes use of the quarterly UI employment reports in producing data; however, each
measure has a somewhat different universe coverage, estimation procedure, and publication product.
Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in
somewhat different measures of employment change over time.
It is important to understand program differences and the intended uses of the program products. (See table on the previous page.) Additional information on each program can be obtained from the program Web sites shown in the table on the
previous page.
Coverage
Employment and wage data for workers covered by state UI
laws are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted
to the SWAs by employers. For federal civilian workers covered
by the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees
(UCFE) program, employment and wage data are compiled from
quarterly reports that are sent to the appropriate SWA by the
specific federal agency. In addition to the quarterly contribution reports, employers who operate multiple establishments
within a state complete a questionnaire, called the “Multiple
Worksite Report,” which provides detailed information on the
location and industry of each of their establishments. The employment and wage data included in this release are derived
from microdata summaries of 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 2006, UI and UCFE programs covered workers
in 133.8 million jobs. The estimated 128.9 million workers in
these jobs (after adjustment for multiple jobholders) represented
96.4 percent of civilian wage and salary employment. Covered
workers received $5.693 trillion in pay, representing 94.3 percent
of the wage and salary component of personal income and 43.1
percent of the gross domestic product.
Major exclusions from UI coverage include self-employed
workers, most agricultural workers on small farms, all members
of the Armed Forces, elected officials in most states, most employees of railroads, some domestic workers, most student workers at schools, and employees of certain small nonprofit organizations.
State and federal UI laws change periodically. These changes
may have an impact on the employment and wages reported by
employers covered under the UI program. Coverage changes
may affect the over-the-year comparisons presented in this news
release.
Concepts and methodology
Monthly employment is based on the number of workers who
worked during or received pay for the pay period including the
12th of the month. With few exceptions, all employees of covered firms are reported, including production and sales workers,
corporation officials, executives, supervisory personnel, and
clerical workers. Workers on paid vacations and part-time workers also are included.
Average weekly wage values are calculated by dividing quarterly total wages by the average of the three monthly employment levels (all employees, as described above) and dividing
the result by 13, for the 13 weeks in the quarter. These calculations are made using unrounded employment and wage values.
The average wage values that can be calculated using rounded
data from the BLS database may differ from the averages reported. Included in the quarterly wage data are non-wage cash
payments such as bonuses, the cash value of meals and lodging
when supplied, tips and other gratuities, and, in some states,
employer contributions to certain deferred compensation plans
such as 401(k) plans and stock options. Over-the-year comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect fluctuations in average monthly employment and/or total quarterly wages between
the current quarter and prior-year levels.
Average weekly wages are affected by the ratio of full-time to
part-time workers as well as the number of individuals in highpaying and low-paying occupations and the incidence of pay
periods within a quarter. For instance, the average weekly wage
of the work force could increase significantly when there is a
large decline in the number of employees that had been receiving below-average wages. Wages may include payments to
workers not present in the employment counts because they did
not work during the pay period including the 12th of the month.
When comparing average weekly wage levels between industries, states, or quarters, these factors should be taken into consideration.
Federal government pay levels are subject to periodic, sometimes large, fluctuations due to a calendar effect that consists of
some quarters having more pay periods than others. Most
federal employees are paid on a biweekly pay schedule. As a
result of this schedule, in some quarters, federal wages contain
payments for six pay periods, while in other quarters their wages
include payments for seven pay periods. Over-the-year comparisons of average weekly wages may reflect this calendar effect. Higher growth in average weekly wages may be attributed,
in part, to a comparison of quarterly wages for the current year,
which include seven pay periods, with year-ago wages that reflect only six pay periods. An opposite effect will occur when
wages in the current period, which contain six pay periods, are
compared with year-ago wages that include seven pay periods.
The effect on over-the-year pay comparisons can be pronounced
in federal government due to the uniform nature of federal payroll processing. This pattern may exist in private sector pay;
however, because there are more pay period types (weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, monthly) it is less pronounced. The effect
is most visible in counties with large concentrations of federal
employment.
In order to ensure the highest possible quality of data, states
verify with employers and update, if necessary, the industry,
location, and ownership classification of all establishments on a
3-year cycle. Changes in establishment classification codes resulting from this process are introduced with the data reported for
the first quarter of the year. Changes resulting from improved
employer reporting also are introduced in the first quarter.
QCEW data are not designed as a time series. QCEW data are
simply the sums of individual establishment records and reflect
the number of establishments that exist in a county or industry
at a point in time. Establishments can move in or out of a county
or industry for a number of reasons—some reflecting economic
events, others reflecting administrative changes. For example,
economic change would come from a firm relocating into the
county; administrative change would come from a company
correcting its county designation.
The over-the-year changes of employment and wages presented in this release have been adjusted to account for most of
the administrative corrections made to the underlying establishment reports. This is done by modifying the prior-year levels used
to calculate the over-the-year changes. Percent changes are calculated using an adjusted version of the final 2006 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 prior-year 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 estab-
lishments. 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 multiunit 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 A ct 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 2006 edition of this bulletin will contain selected data
produced by Business Employment Dynamics (BED) on job gains
and losses, as well as selected data from the first quarter 2007
version of this news release. As with the 2005 edition, this
edition will include the data on a CD for enhanced access and
usability with the printed booklet containing selected graphic
representations of QCEW data; the data tables themselves will
be published exclusively in electronic formats as PDFs.
Employment and Wages Annual Averages, 2006 will be available
for sale in early 2008 from the United States Government Printing
Office, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954,
Pittsburgh, PA 15250, telephone (866) 512-1800, outside
Washington, D.C. Within Washington, D.C., the telephone
number is (202) 512-1800. The fax number is (202) 512-2104.
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 Dynam-
ics), 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) 6915200; TDD message referral phone number: 1-800-877-8339.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
first quarter 2007 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2007
(thousands)
March
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
United States 6 ...................
8,947.1
134,320.6
1.4
–
$885
5.1
–
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
10.0
6.7
4.4
8.1
95.5
20.6
5.4
14.5
366.0
174.9
175.0
139.3
87.0
143.6
1,828.2
375.7
96.3
248.6
1.1
3.6
2.8
1.9
2.5
0.8
1.7
1.9
3.3
0.4
139
33
56
88
64
163
99
88
39
216
878
892
692
713
700
875
857
733
838
756
4.3
2.5
4.7
3.9
4.0
4.7
4.4
4.4
5.5
3.6
135
252
111
169
156
111
129
129
62
185
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Butte, CA ...........................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
5.6
50.3
7.8
28.4
29.8
17.7
401.3
11.6
12.4
95.8
92.6
686.0
75.7
344.2
342.0
266.1
4,210.2
107.8
156.8
1,516.1
0.4
0.4
1.4
0.2
1.6
0.7
0.4
2.1
2.8
0.1
216
216
118
240
109
182
216
79
56
250
661
1,139
620
1,116
667
735
974
1,043
791
1,001
5.4
3.4
3.7
5.0
4.9
5.8
3.3
4.5
3.3
3.2
65
199
179
84
88
51
204
121
204
212
Placer, CA ..........................
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 .............
10.5
44.1
51.9
47.2
93.3
45.0
17.4
9.2
23.2
13.8
139.9
638.0
638.5
666.3
1,319.8
548.1
221.3
105.7
338.5
184.2
2.4
0.2
0.2
1.1
0.4
2.5
0.3
1.8
1.4
0.4
69
240
240
139
216
64
231
95
118
216
832
741
933
726
930
1,639
710
684
1,447
816
4.7
5.0
2.1
3.7
3.2
8.2
4.6
3.2
7.9
4.1
111
84
267
179
212
12
117
212
15
147
Santa Clara, CA .................
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
56.6
8.8
10.0
18.0
14.3
9.0
21.9
5.6
9.3
19.9
893.4
94.2
126.9
190.7
171.5
139.6
321.7
99.7
150.8
276.8
2.3
0.9
-0.4
0.7
-0.3
1.0
0.4
0.8
-0.1
2.0
73
158
282
182
272
149
216
163
262
84
1,584
846
831
805
697
593
939
805
764
1,062
0.1
4.4
5.1
2.2
4.0
3.1
6.3
6.3
1.7
-1.8
308
129
78
261
156
221
35
35
283
317
Boulder, CO .......................
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
12.8
25.5
9.2
17.6
18.9
10.2
6.0
32.7
25.2
22.5
158.5
436.9
88.4
244.1
207.5
126.3
81.6
415.8
498.2
364.4
3.6
3.0
4.5
0.6
1.2
1.7
3.8
1.5
1.3
0.1
33
49
18
195
131
99
27
113
127
250
1,030
1,120
896
761
886
742
687
1,979
1,183
914
4.8
4.9
4.2
3.3
4.0
2.8
2.5
7.4
6.5
5.2
101
88
139
204
156
237
252
20
31
73
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
first quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2007
(thousands)
March
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
New London, CT ................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
Alachua, FL ........................
Brevard, FL ........................
Broward, FL .......................
Collier, FL ..........................
Duval, FL ...........................
Escambia, FL .....................
Hillsborough, FL .................
6.8
19.1
31.9
6.6
14.8
64.4
12.4
26.0
8.0
36.8
127.9
281.1
674.4
128.4
205.8
761.7
141.3
468.7
131.1
654.9
0.1
0.2
1.1
2.5
-1.7
1.0
0.5
1.4
0.1
1.2
250
240
139
64
311
149
205
118
250
131
$876
1,131
1,428
690
772
814
772
868
663
809
3.9
1.9
4.7
4.1
2.9
2.4
6.0
2.8
3.1
2.8
169
277
111
147
234
255
45
237
221
237
Lake, FL .............................
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
7.0
19.1
8.1
9.0
8.3
85.8
6.1
35.7
49.9
9.7
83.7
231.1
147.9
129.2
105.4
1,025.1
82.1
692.8
562.2
101.6
0.5
0.7
0.9
-1.1
1.6
1.4
-2.0
3.0
-0.3
0.3
205
182
158
303
109
118
315
49
272
231
592
714
698
651
599
862
670
774
855
591
0.7
0.6
3.3
2.7
1.7
3.9
3.1
2.1
5.9
4.8
301
303
204
243
283
169
221
267
50
101
Pinellas, FL ........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, FL ......................
Seminole, FL ......................
Volusia, FL .........................
Bibb, GA ............................
Chatham, GA .....................
Clayton, GA .......................
Cobb, GA ...........................
De Kalb, GA .......................
31.4
12.6
15.1
14.9
14.0
4.7
7.4
4.3
20.3
16.2
442.8
211.0
160.5
177.4
171.4
83.6
138.0
112.9
318.3
297.8
-1.2
1.0
-0.2
0.0
0.3
-0.3
4.7
1.4
1.2
-0.3
305
149
267
256
231
272
14
118
131
272
719
648
716
737
608
674
701
759
995
957
1.4
3.0
-1.8
3.7
4.8
-3.0
1.4
0.9
11.2
5.7
291
232
317
179
101
322
291
299
3
55
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
39.5
23.3
4.8
4.8
24.5
15.0
4.1
136.9
35.3
12.4
758.9
325.0
96.8
103.4
452.1
209.6
91.2
2,510.1
589.2
206.2
2.4
3.6
-2.6
-1.0
0.7
1.9
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.4
69
33
317
301
182
88
149
163
216
216
1,258
883
685
699
771
768
678
1,117
1,040
741
7.1
0.7
5.1
3.2
3.9
5.6
3.5
6.5
3.5
0.3
21
301
78
212
169
57
189
31
189
306
Lake, IL ..............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
Rock Island, IL ...................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
Winnebago, IL ....................
20.6
8.3
3.6
5.9
4.7
3.5
5.3
5.2
13.0
6.9
323.3
99.9
84.7
94.8
102.8
78.4
95.7
128.3
185.2
135.6
0.9
1.0
1.4
0.7
1.9
0.4
2.4
-0.7
3.6
1.1
158
149
118
182
88
216
69
295
33
139
1,128
718
862
683
815
847
650
808
736
731
4.1
3.2
-0.1
1.5
-1.8
2.3
2.0
3.9
2.1
3.7
147
212
310
287
317
258
271
169
267
179
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
first quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2007
(thousands)
March
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Allen, IN .............................
Elkhart, IN ..........................
Hamilton, IN .......................
Lake, IN .............................
Marion, IN ..........................
St. Joseph, IN ....................
Tippecanoe, IN ..................
Vanderburgh, IN ................
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, IA ..............................
9.0
4.9
7.4
10.1
24.0
6.0
3.2
4.8
6.2
14.6
182.9
124.7
107.2
192.5
573.7
122.8
76.1
107.2
121.1
267.5
0.9
-2.9
3.9
0.4
0.8
-0.3
1.5
-1.1
1.6
1.9
158
318
26
216
163
272
113
303
109
88
$718
703
865
735
930
699
736
706
816
887
2.3
0.0
2.2
1.9
3.4
3.2
3.1
2.0
5.3
3.3
258
309
261
277
199
212
221
271
70
204
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
5.2
19.9
12.0
4.8
3.2
9.2
22.2
7.3
4.8
13.8
87.4
312.8
254.8
94.6
80.6
174.7
426.8
125.0
86.9
261.6
0.4
4.4
3.4
1.8
( 7)
2.6
0.5
-0.5
2.3
0.5
216
19
38
95
–
63
205
288
73
205
670
910
848
721
784
763
846
678
711
772
1.7
3.2
6.4
4.0
1.0
5.1
5.8
4.1
1.3
8.6
283
212
34
156
298
78
51
147
294
10
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
13.8
8.3
10.2
12.3
14.4
21.8
6.0
5.7
8.5
32.8
198.1
132.5
167.8
168.7
229.4
374.4
94.0
83.1
145.4
457.4
6.6
4.3
15.0
1.2
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.8
0.2
5
21
1
131
139
256
256
231
163
240
771
787
964
785
900
882
832
802
1,001
1,213
0.8
8.0
-2.7
4.0
4.0
3.8
4.8
3.1
4.2
6.6
300
14
320
156
156
178
101
221
139
30
Prince Georges, MD ..........
Baltimore City, MD .............
Barnstable, MA ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA ..........................
Hampden, MA ....................
Middlesex, MA ...................
Norfolk, MA ........................
Plymouth, MA ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
15.6
14.0
9.2
15.7
20.5
14.0
47.0
21.6
13.8
21.6
313.2
344.0
82.7
216.4
291.5
196.1
802.0
318.0
173.6
576.7
0.8
0.1
-0.7
-0.6
0.3
-0.3
1.2
0.6
0.2
2.4
163
250
295
290
231
272
131
195
240
69
891
995
724
735
917
802
1,250
1,042
782
1,659
3.0
4.5
3.7
4.1
4.0
4.3
6.0
-2.7
4.8
10.8
232
121
179
147
156
135
45
320
101
4
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
20.6
8.0
6.9
5.5
14.3
17.9
39.4
5.8
4.4
8.0
316.6
143.0
159.8
116.2
336.0
310.7
687.4
107.9
86.1
192.2
0.5
-2.4
-1.0
-0.2
-0.4
-3.8
-1.5
-1.7
-0.3
-1.3
205
316
301
267
282
321
309
311
272
308
848
760
802
746
760
893
1,009
716
745
970
3.3
2.0
3.1
1.5
4.0
4.0
3.4
1.8
4.1
6.1
204
271
221
287
156
156
199
281
147
42
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
first quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2007
(thousands)
March
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Wayne, MI ..........................
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
32.7
8.0
10.6
42.8
3.6
15.7
5.9
4.5
4.4
6.5
744.8
113.1
171.6
837.9
88.8
328.2
93.9
80.7
84.8
127.8
-3.2
-0.1
-0.1
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.1
3.2
14.5
-0.4
319
262
262
163
163
205
250
40
2
282
$999
778
840
1,128
933
977
675
654
662
753
7.5
2.6
3.6
6.9
4.9
5.6
3.2
2.2
-0.3
4.9
17
249
185
24
88
57
212
261
313
88
Boone, MO .........................
Clay, MO ............................
Greene, MO .......................
Jackson, MO ......................
St. Charles, MO .................
St. Louis, MO .....................
St. Louis City, MO ..............
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
4.5
5.0
8.1
18.6
8.0
33.0
8.5
15.5
7.9
47.6
82.5
89.5
156.4
369.0
122.5
605.1
229.3
311.4
153.5
922.6
1.0
-0.4
2.8
1.4
1.7
1.1
-1.7
0.7
1.0
1.9
149
282
56
118
99
139
311
182
149
88
632
805
631
873
741
903
1,020
794
666
811
2.9
9.7
2.8
3.6
6.2
1.2
3.1
1.5
3.1
5.3
234
5
237
185
41
295
221
287
221
70
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
14.2
12.4
10.9
7.1
35.3
11.6
13.4
21.8
6.4
14.1
216.5
195.2
134.8
143.2
447.9
202.3
207.8
360.6
103.0
234.5
0.7
-0.2
0.8
-1.2
0.6
-1.2
-0.3
0.2
-0.3
-0.2
182
267
163
305
195
305
272
240
272
267
767
922
874
763
1,110
899
876
1,184
748
1,434
4.4
4.2
6.8
5.0
4.4
4.8
5.4
5.6
2.2
8.7
129
139
27
84
129
101
65
57
261
9
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
11.3
22.3
21.1
18.4
12.7
12.8
10.4
15.5
17.5
9.8
222.1
406.7
253.5
287.1
145.6
177.1
171.9
229.2
332.3
225.3
0.5
0.7
0.0
0.6
0.2
-1.5
-0.6
-0.4
1.5
0.6
205
182
256
195
240
309
290
282
113
195
1,140
1,135
902
1,363
716
888
1,615
1,235
732
838
6.9
5.1
0.6
5.2
2.0
2.4
9.0
( 7)
3.4
1.6
24
78
303
73
271
255
7
–
199
286
Bronx, NY ..........................
Broome, NY .......................
Dutchess, NY .....................
Erie, NY .............................
Kings, NY ...........................
Monroe, NY ........................
Nassau, NY ........................
New York, NY ....................
Oneida, NY ........................
Onondaga, NY ...................
15.8
4.5
8.3
23.3
44.4
17.8
52.2
116.7
5.3
12.8
219.1
94.6
115.8
451.5
464.8
376.6
598.1
2,331.5
108.9
246.5
-0.6
1.2
-0.7
0.6
1.9
-0.3
0.8
2.3
1.5
0.5
290
131
295
195
88
272
163
73
113
205
788
671
875
764
742
835
983
2,821
671
788
5.1
3.5
4.5
6.3
4.8
3.5
7.5
16.7
6.8
4.4
78
189
121
35
101
189
17
2
27
129
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
first quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2007
(thousands)
March
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Saratoga, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
9.9
42.1
8.5
9.7
5.3
49.7
36.2
7.8
4.6
6.2
128.2
487.7
91.9
113.1
74.6
607.8
413.6
114.3
89.4
118.5
-0.2
2.1
3.2
1.6
0.3
0.8
1.5
3.8
2.7
1.7
267
79
40
109
231
163
113
27
59
99
$715
831
733
913
715
891
1,308
638
656
628
3.9
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.5
4.6
8.9
4.1
1.9
5.2
169
189
189
156
121
117
8
147
277
73
Durham, NC .......................
Forsyth, NC ........................
Guilford, NC .......................
Mecklenburg, NC ...............
New Hanover, NC ..............
Wake, NC ..........................
Cass, ND ...........................
Butler, OH ..........................
Cuyahoga, OH ...................
Franklin, OH .......................
6.8
9.2
14.6
31.7
7.4
27.5
5.6
7.3
38.0
29.4
182.2
184.8
280.5
565.0
105.1
439.6
94.5
145.8
740.6
677.7
4.1
1.8
2.1
6.2
6.2
5.4
2.7
3.7
-0.4
0.7
24
95
79
6
6
9
59
30
282
182
1,204
791
766
1,220
678
867
678
750
914
896
6.1
4.1
5.7
4.9
( 7)
4.2
4.5
2.6
5.4
6.9
42
147
55
88
–
139
121
249
65
24
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
Trumbull, OH .....................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
24.1
6.8
6.3
10.8
6.3
12.9
9.1
15.0
4.8
23.2
513.8
99.4
99.4
219.4
102.7
267.5
159.8
269.0
78.9
419.5
-0.6
0.2
-0.6
-1.8
0.0
-3.2
-0.8
0.0
-6.2
0.8
290
240
290
314
256
319
298
256
322
163
956
725
710
773
620
832
672
793
860
751
4.7
4.8
2.6
2.7
4.0
9.3
4.2
4.8
22.3
-0.8
111
101
249
243
156
6
139
101
1
314
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
19.2
13.0
6.9
11.3
9.5
27.7
16.4
35.5
9.1
20.5
344.8
149.4
83.4
149.5
137.0
443.0
248.7
676.7
167.7
262.8
2.5
2.9
2.3
1.8
2.7
3.1
1.3
0.8
1.4
1.1
64
52
73
95
59
46
127
163
118
139
792
768
615
641
661
864
964
946
752
830
-1.7
3.5
2.0
2.7
4.9
2.7
-0.1
8.1
3.6
4.5
316
189
271
243
88
243
310
13
185
121
Butler, PA ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, PA ................
Dauphin, PA .......................
Delaware, PA .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, PA ................
Lancaster, PA ....................
Lehigh, PA .........................
Luzerne, PA .......................
4.8
15.0
6.0
7.3
13.7
7.3
5.8
12.2
8.7
8.0
78.1
236.4
124.6
179.6
208.4
126.5
101.0
225.3
175.9
140.0
3.1
2.0
0.2
0.8
1.7
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.1
-0.8
46
84
240
163
99
163
195
195
139
298
714
1,117
776
834
926
669
634
708
868
679
5.6
2.9
2.2
5.2
5.6
5.5
3.1
2.2
6.0
6.1
57
234
261
73
57
62
221
261
45
42
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
first quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2007
(thousands)
March
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Kent, RI ..............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
27.7
6.5
29.7
5.3
9.5
9.0
5.7
18.2
14.0
14.1
483.5
98.1
631.8
77.4
135.0
175.1
81.2
284.5
208.3
235.6
0.8
0.7
-0.1
1.3
0.3
0.8
0.4
0.5
4.8
2.5
163
182
262
127
231
163
216
205
11
64
$1,176
745
1,038
732
659
737
784
857
708
713
5.4
4.2
5.8
4.9
2.5
3.9
7.0
6.3
1.9
2.3
65
139
51
88
252
169
23
35
277
258
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
9.9
6.6
10.9
7.0
6.2
18.4
8.5
10.9
4.1
20.0
114.7
95.0
215.3
118.0
112.0
444.9
192.3
224.4
97.8
505.4
4.8
3.6
1.7
2.1
2.0
0.7
1.0
2.1
0.8
0.6
11
33
99
79
84
182
149
79
163
195
536
621
749
754
708
857
728
705
758
842
2.1
1.5
1.4
2.0
3.7
6.3
3.9
3.5
7.1
3.3
267
287
291
271
179
35
169
189
21
204
Williamson, TN ...................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
5.6
4.4
31.5
4.5
3.7
6.4
15.8
67.5
10.0
13.2
83.4
97.5
707.1
85.6
84.2
123.4
274.9
1,469.4
163.8
265.1
6.0
3.2
2.9
2.9
0.5
2.3
4.4
3.2
4.7
1.0
8
40
52
52
205
73
19
40
14
149
914
635
768
839
597
502
1,055
1,092
723
597
4.9
3.3
3.4
1.8
5.3
5.0
5.1
5.2
3.9
5.5
88
204
199
281
70
84
78
73
169
62
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Smith, TX ...........................
7.8
5.2
94.5
10.3
5.8
6.7
4.8
7.7
8.1
5.2
121.0
94.8
1,985.7
213.0
129.0
120.2
102.9
119.1
151.3
92.4
( 7)
( 7)
3.8
3.7
0.9
0.7
1.7
5.3
1.2
1.7
–
–
27
30
158
182
99
10
131
99
934
801
1,125
516
782
618
669
774
712
691
5.4
( 7)
8.5
4.0
4.7
1.1
4.9
0.3
4.9
3.1
65
–
11
156
111
297
88
306
88
221
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
36.0
27.4
4.7
6.6
7.0
37.6
12.6
5.6
5.8
7.5
754.1
566.2
87.2
114.7
101.7
577.6
172.8
93.9
93.5
150.5
2.7
4.7
4.2
7.0
4.0
4.6
7.3
4.3
0.5
( 7)
59
14
23
4
25
17
3
21
205
–
865
944
542
826
656
788
623
604
846
1,447
3.2
0.5
2.8
-1.0
2.8
5.8
6.0
4.3
-0.2
2.4
212
305
237
315
237
51
45
135
312
255
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
first quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2007
(thousands)
March
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Chesterfield, VA .................
Fairfax, VA .........................
Henrico, VA ........................
Loudoun, VA ......................
Prince William, VA .............
Alexandria City, VA ............
Chesapeake City, VA .........
Newport News City, VA .....
Norfolk City, VA .................
Richmond City, VA .............
7.3
32.5
9.0
8.0
6.8
6.0
5.5
4.0
5.8
7.4
120.4
579.5
178.5
126.5
101.9
99.9
99.6
99.1
143.4
157.3
1.4
1.2
3.2
1.7
-0.9
( 7)
0.4
1.3
1.7
( 7)
118
131
40
99
300
–
216
127
99
–
$765
1,371
1,008
1,081
744
1,136
661
761
826
1,071
3.1
4.3
7.7
-3.0
4.2
( 7)
4.8
7.5
6.7
( 7)
221
135
16
322
139
–
101
17
29
–
Virginia Beach City, VA ......
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
11.5
11.5
75.1
6.4
19.9
17.2
14.7
6.6
6.7
7.6
174.9
130.8
1,157.5
83.5
272.0
248.0
206.7
98.4
81.2
94.1
0.3
2.0
3.7
0.4
3.0
4.8
2.9
3.2
3.1
2.3
231
84
30
216
49
11
52
40
46
73
661
746
1,080
727
768
895
680
743
653
569
4.9
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.9
6.5
4.5
4.1
4.6
2.7
88
189
189
156
88
31
121
147
117
243
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
6.1
6.6
13.7
20.7
4.9
4.2
13.0
3.7
13.5
108.1
146.7
298.3
489.6
101.6
74.4
232.4
88.6
293.9
0.6
-0.1
0.8
0.3
1.1
-0.5
0.7
1.1
-3.3
195
262
163
231
139
288
182
139
( 8)
743
755
848
875
724
765
860
824
573
4.9
1.2
4.6
4.2
2.7
6.3
4.5
6.0
7.1
88
295
117
139
243
35
121
45
( 8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 328 U.S. counties comprise 71.1 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 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Technical
Note.
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. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
first quarter 2007 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2007
(thousands)
March
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2006-07 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2006-07 4
United States 5 ...................................................
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 ...................................................
8,947.1
8,667.5
123.7
885.8
361.2
1,906.6
143.0
865.2
1,455.9
813.1
716.7
1,154.7
279.6
134,320.6
112,574.0
1,683.1
7,298.4
13,862.4
25,963.5
3,011.6
8,139.4
17,617.5
17,314.4
12,938.1
4,395.2
21,746.6
1.4
1.4
3.2
0.0
-1.7
1.4
-0.8
0.5
2.7
2.8
2.4
1.6
1.1
$885
892
925
859
1,061
731
1,438
1,891
1,083
740
351
527
850
5.1
5.2
4.0
4.4
3.8
3.4
4.6
12.2
6.2
3.6
4.2
3.9
4.4
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 ...................................................
401.3
397.3
0.5
14.1
15.4
55.7
8.8
25.2
43.1
28.0
26.9
179.6
4.0
4,210.2
3,616.3
12.3
158.9
453.9
807.7
210.0
247.9
607.9
478.6
392.6
246.3
593.9
0.4
0.3
6.0
2.2
-3.0
0.8
2.3
( 6)
-0.1
1.1
1.9
1.0
( 6)
974
957
1,512
952
1,034
785
1,733
1,806
1,108
825
518
421
1,079
3.3
3.5
19.9
7.4
3.4
2.1
2.9
8.9
1.1
3.5
5.1
4.5
2.7
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 ...................................................
136.9
135.7
0.1
11.9
7.1
27.5
2.6
15.7
27.9
13.4
11.4
13.8
1.2
2,510.1
2,197.0
1.2
88.3
237.9
472.5
58.3
216.7
429.6
368.6
224.2
95.1
313.1
0.8
1.0
-3.6
-1.0
-1.2
0.4
-0.5
-0.3
1.9
2.5
2.5
0.0
-0.8
1,117
1,133
992
1,202
1,044
818
1,799
2,780
1,353
804
407
701
1,007
6.5
6.8
0.5
2.7
5.3
2.8
9.9
15.9
4.4
4.8
5.2
5.1
4.5
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 ...................................................
116.7
116.5
0.0
2.2
2.9
21.2
4.1
17.9
23.4
8.4
10.7
17.0
0.2
2,331.5
1,883.8
0.1
32.7
37.3
242.2
131.7
372.3
475.5
289.7
202.9
84.9
447.7
2.3
2.8
-10.0
5.4
-5.0
1.6
0.7
2.7
3.1
1.8
3.4
1.3
0.4
2,821
3,261
2,411
1,469
1,591
1,202
2,586
10,156
2,258
954
769
961
982
16.7
17.4
-4.0
5.8
14.6
6.6
6.2
24.2
10.1
3.1
4.5
5.7
3.3
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
first quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2007
(thousands)
March
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2006-07 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2006-07 4
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 ...................................................
94.5
94.1
1.4
6.3
4.5
21.2
1.3
10.3
18.4
9.8
7.0
10.8
0.4
1,985.7
1,737.8
76.7
148.1
179.2
411.7
32.6
119.2
328.9
206.9
171.2
56.9
248.0
3.8
4.1
11.0
4.5
5.6
2.3
4.6
2.7
4.1
4.4
2.5
1.8
1.5
$1,125
1,160
3,237
1,009
1,483
1,048
1,419
1,673
1,227
800
374
602
882
8.5
8.6
3.4
7.8
6.6
10.0
8.1
13.9
9.7
4.2
1.9
5.6
6.7
Maricopa, AZ ......................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
95.5
94.9
0.5
10.0
3.5
20.2
1.6
12.1
20.6
9.2
6.7
6.8
0.6
1,828.2
1,609.9
9.2
166.1
133.2
370.3
29.8
151.3
315.6
194.8
184.0
49.9
218.3
1.7
1.5
4.1
-6.5
-2.0
2.1
-5.1
0.4
3.5
4.7
3.4
4.9
2.9
857
856
818
867
1,190
819
1,157
1,250
850
849
404
558
859
4.4
4.3
9.5
1.8
0.3
5.5
6.6
3.6
8.3
5.2
6.9
2.0
4.1
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 ...................................................
95.8
94.4
0.2
7.1
5.5
17.9
1.4
11.5
19.3
9.8
7.0
14.6
1.4
1,516.1
1,361.1
6.4
103.5
177.5
275.0
30.4
134.2
276.8
139.9
169.8
47.6
155.0
0.1
-0.2
-7.1
-2.5
( 6)
-0.3
-3.3
( 6)
( 6)
2.9
2.8
-0.1
2.9
1,001
986
555
1,074
1,157
916
1,431
1,660
1,048
848
392
558
1,140
3.2
2.9
4.9
5.4
( 6)
( 6)
0.1
3.4
( 6)
4.4
6.5
4.3
5.4
Dallas, TX ...........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
67.5
67.0
0.5
4.3
3.2
14.7
1.7
8.6
14.1
6.4
5.1
6.3
0.5
1,469.4
1,306.2
7.0
81.0
143.6
302.5
48.6
146.1
267.1
143.3
124.5
38.2
163.2
3.2
3.4
-4.6
4.4
0.3
2.1
-5.2
3.3
6.1
6.9
3.9
-2.9
1.8
1,092
1,116
2,910
943
1,352
980
1,616
1,816
1,166
856
517
605
895
5.2
5.1
-3.5
5.1
7.0
3.5
5.2
10.9
3.8
1.7
7.9
3.4
4.6
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
first quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
first quarter
2007
(thousands)
March
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2006-07 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2006-07 4
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 ...................................................
93.3
92.0
0.8
7.3
3.3
14.7
1.3
10.1
16.5
8.1
6.9
23.1
1.3
1,319.8
1,096.3
11.3
88.5
102.8
219.6
37.6
81.8
214.8
127.5
156.8
55.6
223.5
0.4
0.3
-3.0
-5.7
-1.7
1.1
1.6
-2.7
0.2
2.3
3.5
2.4
1.1
$930
920
513
950
1,248
745
1,994
1,362
1,135
813
416
475
977
3.2
2.6
2.0
2.0
3.7
2.3
-13.1
7.8
6.1
4.5
6.4
2.4
6.3
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 ...................................................
75.1
74.6
0.4
6.8
2.5
14.9
1.8
7.0
12.8
6.3
6.0
16.1
0.5
1,157.5
1,004.1
3.1
68.6
111.2
216.2
74.1
76.1
183.5
119.7
106.8
44.8
153.4
3.7
4.2
4.7
12.3
2.9
2.9
7.1
-0.8
6.4
3.2
4.0
1.8
0.1
1,080
1,095
1,618
1,017
1,374
940
1,907
1,673
1,258
793
451
557
988
3.5
3.4
16.4
5.3
-3.0
4.7
4.4
9.4
2.3
1.4
1.3
6.3
4.9
Miami-Dade, FL ..................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
85.8
85.5
0.5
6.0
2.6
23.1
1.5
10.3
17.3
8.8
5.7
7.6
0.3
1,025.1
872.1
11.5
53.4
48.0
251.2
20.8
71.3
137.2
135.2
104.4
35.7
153.0
1.4
1.4
1.2
6.5
-2.0
0.9
-0.5
0.0
-2.0
3.4
2.3
3.4
1.5
862
830
455
831
763
773
1,383
1,442
981
772
498
520
1,044
3.9
3.8
-4.8
-1.8
1.2
4.2
6.8
5.9
6.6
4.0
-1.8
8.6
4.5
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See
Technical Note.
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. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, first quarter 2007 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2007
(thousands)
March
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2006-07 5
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2006-07 5
United States 6 .........................
8,947.1
134,320.6
1.4
$885
5.1
Jefferson, AL ............................
Anchorage Borough, AK ...........
Maricopa, AZ ............................
Pulaski, AR ...............................
Los Angeles, CA .......................
Denver, CO ..............................
Hartford, CT ..............................
New Castle, DE ........................
Washington, DC .......................
Miami-Dade, FL ........................
18.8
8.1
95.5
14.5
401.3
25.5
25.2
19.1
31.9
85.8
366.0
143.6
1,828.2
248.6
4,210.2
436.9
498.2
281.1
674.4
1,025.1
1.1
0.8
1.7
0.4
0.4
3.0
1.3
0.2
1.1
1.4
878
875
857
756
974
1,120
1,183
1,131
1,428
862
4.3
4.7
4.4
3.6
3.3
4.9
6.5
1.9
4.7
3.9
Fulton, GA ................................
Honolulu, HI ..............................
Ada, ID .....................................
Cook, IL ....................................
Marion, IN .................................
Polk, IA .....................................
Johnson, KS .............................
Jefferson, KY ............................
East Baton Rouge, LA ..............
Cumberland, ME ......................
39.5
24.5
15.0
136.9
24.0
14.6
19.9
22.2
13.8
12.3
758.9
452.1
209.6
2,510.1
573.7
267.5
312.8
426.8
261.6
168.7
2.4
0.7
1.9
0.8
0.8
1.9
4.4
0.5
0.5
1.2
1,258
771
768
1,117
930
887
910
846
772
785
7.1
3.9
5.6
6.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
5.8
8.6
4.0
Montgomery, MD ......................
Middlesex, MA ..........................
Wayne, MI ................................
Hennepin, MN ..........................
Hinds, MS .................................
St. Louis, MO ............................
Yellowstone, MT .......................
Douglas, NE .............................
Clark, NV ..................................
Hillsborough, NH ......................
32.8
47.0
32.7
42.8
6.5
33.0
5.6
15.5
47.6
12.4
457.4
802.0
744.8
837.9
127.8
605.1
75.5
311.4
922.6
195.2
0.2
1.2
-3.2
0.8
-0.4
1.1
3.6
0.7
1.9
-0.2
1,213
1,250
999
1,128
753
903
672
794
811
922
6.6
6.0
7.5
6.9
4.9
1.2
5.5
1.5
5.3
4.2
Bergen, NJ ...............................
Bernalillo, NM ...........................
New York, NY ...........................
Mecklenburg, NC ......................
Cass, ND ..................................
Cuyahoga, OH ..........................
Oklahoma, OK ..........................
Multnomah, OR ........................
Allegheny, PA ...........................
Providence, RI ..........................
35.3
17.5
116.7
31.7
5.6
38.0
23.2
27.7
35.5
18.2
447.9
332.3
2,331.5
565.0
94.5
740.6
419.5
443.0
676.7
284.5
0.6
1.5
2.3
6.2
2.7
-0.4
0.8
3.1
0.8
0.5
1,110
732
2,821
1,220
678
914
751
864
946
857
4.4
3.4
16.7
4.9
4.5
5.4
-0.8
2.7
8.1
6.3
Greenville, SC ..........................
Minnehaha, SD .........................
Shelby, TN ................................
Harris, TX .................................
Salt Lake, UT ............................
Chittenden, VT .........................
Fairfax, VA ................................
King, WA ..................................
Kanawha, WV ...........................
Milwaukee, WI ..........................
14.1
6.2
20.0
94.5
37.6
5.8
32.5
75.1
6.1
20.7
235.6
112.0
505.4
1,985.7
577.6
93.5
579.5
1,157.5
108.1
489.6
2.5
2.0
0.6
3.8
4.6
0.5
1.2
3.7
0.6
0.3
713
708
842
1,125
788
846
1,371
1,080
743
875
2.3
3.7
3.3
8.5
5.8
-0.2
4.3
3.5
4.9
4.2
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, first quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
first quarter
2007
(thousands)
March
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2006-07 5
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2006-07 5
Laramie, WY .............................
3.1
41.9
2.1
$673
6.2
San Juan, PR ...........................
St. Thomas, VI ..........................
13.5
1.8
293.9
23.5
-3.3
-0.6
573
653
7.1
6.0
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 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
5 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data adjusted for noneconomic county
reclassifications. See Technical Note.
6 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
first quarter 2007 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2007
(thousands)
March
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2006-07
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2006-07
United States 4 ...................
8,947.1
134,320.6
1.4
$885
5.1
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
118.8
21.0
156.1
82.5
1,311.2
177.0
112.3
29.4
31.9
601.6
1,953.7
299.8
2,667.2
1,179.9
15,569.4
2,262.4
1,665.0
416.6
674.4
8,093.4
1.6
1.1
1.8
0.7
1.2
2.3
0.9
0.4
1.1
0.9
716
831
803
642
988
889
1,263
986
1,428
764
3.5
5.2
4.7
3.2
3.9
3.6
6.1
2.1
4.7
3.4
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
268.0
38.6
56.1
355.5
157.6
92.8
84.7
110.7
119.7
50.2
4,065.1
626.4
645.0
5,795.7
2,880.8
1,457.6
1,349.1
1,791.5
1,863.5
582.1
1.9
1.6
3.4
1.1
0.4
0.8
2.7
0.9
4.2
0.9
837
748
636
956
739
686
720
699
730
677
4.9
4.2
4.6
4.6
2.9
3.6
4.7
4.0
4.4
3.7
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
163.9
208.9
257.5
168.8
69.8
173.0
41.9
57.8
73.8
48.5
2,527.0
3,167.5
4,130.2
2,629.6
1,127.3
2,710.1
428.8
899.3
1,282.3
619.8
0.6
1.0
-1.7
0.0
1.1
1.1
3.0
1.1
1.8
0.4
939
1,110
851
873
616
744
600
667
802
836
4.6
6.1
4.0
5.2
3.2
2.9
4.9
2.8
4.8
4.6
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
278.7
53.3
574.0
249.1
24.6
292.3
97.9
133.5
339.6
36.0
3,926.6
819.3
8,441.3
4,034.3
334.5
5,241.0
1,534.3
1,707.8
5,589.6
472.2
0.2
3.2
1.3
3.2
1.7
-0.3
1.9
2.3
0.9
0.8
1,097
685
1,397
779
615
793
676
755
849
834
5.6
5.9
11.8
4.7
4.8
5.3
1.3
2.7
5.1
7.1
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
134.7
29.8
139.1
545.9
84.9
24.7
225.9
213.4
48.3
157.5
1,885.9
381.9
2,732.5
10,143.0
1,203.9
300.0
3,644.6
2,869.9
700.3
2,727.7
3.0
2.4
0.7
3.3
5.1
-0.2
1.0
3.1
0.3
0.5
677
602
738
872
696
704
901
868
652
745
2.3
3.4
4.7
5.6
5.3
2.3
4.4
4.3
4.2
3.9
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
first quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
first quarter
2007
(thousands)
March
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
March
2006-07
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
first quarter
2006-07
Wyoming ............................
24.1
269.1
4.8
$730
9.3
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
56.5
3.4
1,024.5
45.6
-2.3
-0.3
476
687
5.3
6.3
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
4 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
NOTE: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees in
2006 but are included because they are the largest county in their state
or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
October 2007
-6.2% to 1.4%
1.5% to 15.0%
Largest U.S. Counties
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,
March 2006-07 (U.S. average = 1.4 percent)
NOTE: The following counties had fewer than 75,000 employees in
2006 but are included because they are the largest county in their state
or territory: Laramie, Wyo., Yellowstone, Mont., and St. Thomas, V.I.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
October 2007
-3.0% to 5.1%
5.2% to 22.3%
Largest U.S. Counties
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, first quarter 2006-07 (U.S. average = 5.1 percent)