News
United States
Department
of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Washington, D.C. 20212
Technical information:
(202) 691-6567
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
Media contact:
USDL 08-0064
For release: 10:00 A.M. EST
Thursday, January 17, 2008
691-5902
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES: SECOND QUARTER 2007
In June 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-theyear employment gain of 10.8 percent, compared with national job growth of 1.2 percent. Harrison County,
Miss., followed closely behind Orleans with an over-the-year gain of 10.3 percent. Employment gains in Orleans
and Harrison counties reflected significant recovery following substantial job losses that occurred in 2005 and
2006 due to Hurricane Katrina. Clayton County, Ga., had the largest over-the-year gain in average weekly wages
in the second quarter of 2007, with an increase of 87.3 percent due to increases in wage disbursements in the
trade, transportation, and utilities supersector during the quarter. The U.S. average weekly wage rose by 4.6
percent over the same time span.
C ha rt 1. T o p ra nk ing la rge c o unt ie s in e m plo ym e nt gro wt h,
J une 2 0 0 7
( U.S . a v e ra ge = 1.2 pe rc e nt )
C ha rt 2 . T o p ra nk ing la rge c o unt ie s by pe rc e nt gro wt h in
a v e ra ge we e k ly wa ge s , s e c o nd qua rt e r 2 0 0 7
( U.S . a v e ra ge = 4 .6 pe rc e nt )
Percent
P e rc e nt
20
100
80
15
60
10
40
5
20
0
0
Orleans, La.
Harrison, Miss.
Utah, Utah
Williamson,
Tenn.
Wake, N.C.
Clayto n, Ga.
Queens, N.Y.
Ro ckingham,
N.H.
Ventura, Calif.
Lake, Ill.
Of the 328 largest counties in the United States, as measured by 2006 annual average employment, 126 had
over-the-year percentage growth in employment above the national average (1.2 percent) in June 2007; 184 large
counties experienced changes below the national average. (See chart 3.) The percent change in average weekly
wages was higher than the national average (4.6 percent) in 109 of the largest U.S. counties, but was below the
national average in 199 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 137.0 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. June 2007
2
Table A. Top 10 large counties ranked by June 2007 employment, June 2006-07 employment growth, and
June 2006-07 percent growth in employment
Employment in large counties
June 2007 employment
(thousands)
United States
Los Angeles, Calif.
Cook, Ill.
New York, N.Y.
Harris, Texas
Maricopa, Ariz.
Orange, Calif.
Dallas, Texas
San Diego, Calif.
King, Wash.
Miami-Dade, Fla.
Growth in employment,
June 2006-07
(thousands)
137,018.2
4,229.3
2,559.5
2,363.8
2,023.3
1,798.0
1,519.5
1,492.6
1,334.7
1,182.2
1,002.1
United States
Harris, Texas
Dallas, Texas
New York, N.Y.
King, Wash.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Wake, N.C.
Mecklenburg, N.C.
Salt Lake, Utah
Travis, Texas
Bexar, Texas
Percent growth in employment,
June 2006-07
1,599.0
85.5
46.0
43.8
33.4
28.5
25.2
25.0
23.8
22.7
20.2
United States
Orleans, La.
Harrison, Miss.
Utah, Utah
Williamson, Tenn.
Wake, N.C.
Brazoria, Texas
Montgomery, Texas
Charleston, S.C.
Lafayette, La.
Snohomish, Wash.
1.2
10.8
10.3
6.7
6.4
5.9
5.3
5.3
5.0
4.8
4.7
employment and 2007 second-quarter average weekly wages for all states are provided in table 4 of this release.
Final data for all states, metropolitan statistical areas, counties, and the nation through the fourth quarter of 2006
are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Preliminary data for first quarter 2007 also are
available on the BLS Web site. Updated data for first quarter 2007 and preliminary data for second quarter 2007
will be available later in January on the BLS Web site.
Large County Employment
In June 2007, national employment, as measured by the QCEW program, was 137.0 million, up by 1.2
percent from June 2006. The 328 U.S. counties with 75,000 or more employees accounted for 70.9 percent of
total U.S. employment and 76.7 percent of total wages. These 328 counties had a net job gain of 1,051,335 over
the year, accounting for 65.7 percent of the overall U.S. employment increase. Employment rose in 235 of the
large counties from June 2006 to June 2007. Orleans County, La., had the largest over-the-year percentage
increase in employment (10.8 percent). Harrison, Miss., had the next largest increase, 10.3 percent, followed by
the counties of Utah, Utah (6.7 percent), Williamson, Tenn. (6.4 percent), and Wake, N.C. (5.9 percent). The
large employment gains in Orleans and Harrison counties reflected significant recovery from the substantial job
losses that occurred in 2005 and 2006, which were related to Hurricane Katrina. (See table 1.)
Employment declined in 77 counties from June 2006 to June 2007. The largest percentage decline in
employment was in Trumbull County, Ohio (-6.3 percent). Macomb, Mich., had the next largest employment
decline (-3.6 percent), followed by the counties of Manatee, Fla., and Genesee, Mich. (-3.1 percent each), and
Wayne, Mich., and Montgomery, Ohio (-2.9 percent each).
The largest gains in the level of employment from June 2006 to June 2007 were recorded in the counties of
Harris, Texas (85,500), Dallas, Texas (46,000), New York, N.Y. (43,800), King, Wash. (33,400), and Los
Angeles, Calif. (28,500). (See table A.) The largest decline in employment levels occurred in Wayne, Mich.
(-22,500), followed by the counties of Orange, Calif. (-16,000), Macomb, Mich. (-12,000), Oakland, Mich.
(-8,200), and Montgomery, Ohio (-8,000).
3
Table B. Top 10 large counties ranked by second quarter 2007 average weekly wages, second quarter 2006-07 growth
in average weekly wages, and second quarter 2006-07 percent growth in average weekly wages
Average weekly wage in large counties
Average weekly wage,
second quarter 2007
United States
New York, N.Y.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Clayton, Ga.
Washington, D.C.
Arlington, Va.
San Francisco, Calif.
Fairfield, Conn.
Somerset, N.J.
Suffolk, Mass.
San Mateo, Calif.
Growth in average weekly
wage, second quarter 2006-07
$820
$1,540
1,504
1,358
1,357
1,352
1,323
1,311
1,286
1,284
1,277
United States
Clayton, Ga.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Queens, N.Y.
Somerset, N.J.
San Francisco, Calif.
New York, N.Y.
Fairfield, Conn.
Lake, Ill.
Hennepin, Minn.
Rockingham, N.H.
Percent growth in average
weekly wage, second
quarter 2006-07
$36
$633
115
100
98
97
92
87
87
79
78
United States
Clayton, Ga.
Queens, N.Y.
Rockingham, N.H.
Ventura, Calif.
Lake, Ill.
San Luis Obispo, Calif.
Santa Clara, Calif.
Douglas, Colo.
Somerset, N.J.
Hennepin, Minn.
Fort Bend, Texas
4.6
87.3
12.7
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.7
8.3
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.1
Large County Average Weekly Wages
The national average weekly wage in the second quarter of 2007 was $820. Average weekly wages were
higher than the national average in 110 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 $1,540. Santa Clara, Calif., was
second with an average weekly wage of $1,504, followed by Clayton County, Ga. ($1,358), Washington, D.C.
($1,357), and Arlington, Va. ($1,352). (See table B.)
There were 218 counties with an average weekly wage below the national average in the second quarter of
2007. The lowest average weekly wage was reported in Cameron County, Texas ($515), followed by the counties
of Hidalgo, Texas ($518), Horry, S.C., and Webb, Texas ($545 each), and Yakima, Wash. ($555). (See table 1.)
Over the year, the national average weekly wage rose by 4.6 percent. Among the largest counties, Clayton
County, Ga., led the nation in growth in average weekly wages, with an increase of 87.3 percent from the second
quarter of 2006. Queens, N.Y., was second with growth of 12.7 percent, followed by the counties of
Rockingham, N.H. (10.1 percent), Ventura, Calif. (9.2 percent), and Lake, Ill. (9.1 percent).
Six large counties experienced over-the-year declines in average weekly wages. Among the five largest
decreases in wages, Saginaw, Mich., had the greatest decline (-5.2 percent), followed by the counties of Orleans,
La. (-2.9 percent), Lake, Fla. (-1.1 percent), Genesee, Mich. (-1.0 percent), and Lorain, Ohio (-0.9 percent).
Ten Largest U.S. Counties
Nine of the 10 largest counties (based on 2006 annual average employment levels) reported increases in
employment from June 2006 to June 2007. Harris, Texas, experienced the largest percent gain in employment
among the 10 largest counties with a 4.4 percent increase. Within Harris County, employment rose in every
industry group. The largest gains were in natural resources and mining (10.4 percent) and construction (7.6
percent). Dallas, Texas, had the next largest increase in employment, 3.2 percent, followed by King, Wash. (2.9
percent). The smallest percent increase in employment occurred in San Diego, Calif., and Cook, Ill. (0.2 percent
each). Orange, Calif., experienced the only decline in employment among the 10 largest counties with a 1.0
4
percent decrease. Within Orange County, five industry groups experienced employment declines with financial
activities experiencing the largest decline, -7.7 percent. (See table 2.)
Each of the 10 largest U.S. counties saw an over-the-year increase in average weekly wages. Harris, Texas,
had the fastest growth in wages among the 10 largest counties, with a gain of 6.9 percent. Within Harris County,
average weekly wages increased the most in the information industry (10.0 percent), followed by the other
services industry (8.0 percent). New York, N.Y., was second in wage growth with a gain of 6.4 percent, followed
by Dallas, Texas (5.4 percent). The smallest wage gain among the 10 largest counties occurred in Orange, Calif.
(3.4 percent), followed by Miami-Dade, Fla., and King, Wash. (3.8 percent each).
Largest County by State
Table 3 shows June 2007 employment and the 2007 second 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 June 2007 ranged from approximately 4.2 million in Los Angeles County,
Calif., to 43,400 in Laramie County, Wyo. The highest average weekly wage of these counties was in New York,
N.Y. ($1,540), while the lowest average weekly wage was in Cass, N.D. ($672).
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.
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 third quarter 2007 is scheduled to be released on Wednesday,
April 9, 2008.
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 releases, will be excluded from
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
administrative records submitted by
6.9 million private-sector employers
• Sample survey: 400,000 establishments
Coverage
• UI and UCFE coverage, including
all employers subject to state and
federal UI laws
• UI coverage, excluding government,
private households, and establishments with zero employment
Nonfarm wage and salary jobs:
• UI coverage, excluding agriculture, private
households, and self-employed workers
• Other employment, including railroads,
religious organizations, and other nonUI-covered jobs
Publication fre- • Quarterly
quency
— 7 months after the end of each
quarter
• Quarterly
— 8 months after the end of each
quarter
• Monthly
— Usually first Friday of following
month
• Uses UI file as a sampling frame and
annually realigns (benchmarks) sample
estimates to first quarter UI levels
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
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 • Provides current monthly estimates of
data on establishment openings, closemployment, hours, and earnings at the
ings, expansions, and contractions at
MSA, state, and national level by industhe national level by NAICS supersectry
tors and by size of firm, and at the
state private-sector total level
• Future expansions will include data
with greater industry detail and data at
the county and MSA level
Principal uses
• Major uses include:
— Detailed locality data
— Periodic universe counts for
benchmarking sample survey estimates
— Sample frame for BLS establishment surveys
• Major uses include:
• Major uses include:
— Business cycle analysis
— Principal national economic indicator
— Analysis of employer dynamics
— Official time series for employment
underlying economic expansions
change measures
and contractions
— Input into other major economic indi— Analysis of employment expansion
cators
and contraction by size of firm
Program Web
sites
• www.bls.gov/cew/
• www.bls.gov/bdm/
• www.bls.gov/ces/
this and future 2007 releases because its 2006 average annual 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.) Additional information
on each program can be obtained from the program Web sites
shown in the table.
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. Overthe-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 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 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. Also, the
2006 bulletin will be available in a portable document format (PDF)
on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultn06.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. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
second quarter 2007 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2007
(thousands)
June
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2006-07 5
United States 6 ...................
8,945.9
137,018.2
1.2
–
$820
4.6
–
Jefferson, AL ......................
Madison, AL .......................
Mobile, AL ..........................
Montgomery, AL ................
Tuscaloosa, AL ..................
Anchorage Borough, AK ....
Maricopa, AZ .....................
Pima, AZ ............................
Benton, AR ........................
Pulaski, AR ........................
18.9
8.7
10.0
6.7
4.4
8.1
97.7
20.8
5.5
14.6
365.4
178.3
174.1
140.0
86.1
148.9
1,798.0
369.7
96.2
251.8
( 7)
3.8
1.6
0.6
1.8
-1.3
0.9
2.1
1.6
0.6
–
22
101
187
92
300
158
75
101
187
823
864
682
698
697
887
827
733
745
740
5.2
4.3
1.8
0.3
2.3
5.7
3.9
4.9
2.8
4.2
78
136
291
312
274
54
163
91
247
144
Washington, AR .................
Alameda, CA ......................
Butte, CA ...........................
Contra Costa, CA ...............
Fresno, CA .........................
Kern, CA ............................
Los Angeles, CA ................
Marin, CA ...........................
Monterey, CA .....................
Orange, CA ........................
5.7
49.1
7.5
27.8
28.8
17.2
394.6
11.4
12.1
94.7
93.8
690.4
76.8
348.6
364.6
285.1
4,229.3
109.4
181.3
1,519.5
-0.8
-0.3
0.0
-1.1
0.5
0.2
0.7
0.1
-0.8
-1.0
286
256
236
295
198
220
176
226
286
292
687
1,088
621
1,027
669
726
924
1,056
744
952
6.0
3.8
4.9
( 7)
6.0
6.9
4.9
0.3
6.1
3.4
46
170
91
–
46
18
91
312
43
213
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 .............
10.4
43.1
51.0
45.6
91.7
44.1
17.1
9.1
22.8
13.6
141.1
645.8
645.7
666.1
1,334.7
555.6
232.1
109.6
342.1
192.9
1.0
-0.5
0.1
-0.1
0.2
( 7)
-0.5
1.4
1.2
0.7
146
270
226
243
220
–
270
114
127
176
822
707
913
728
890
1,323
724
703
1,277
784
6.2
2.5
5.7
4.1
4.8
7.9
5.4
8.7
6.2
( 7)
39
265
54
148
98
12
66
6
39
–
Santa Clara, CA .................
Santa Cruz, CA ..................
Solano, CA .........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, CA ...................
Tulare, CA ..........................
Ventura, CA .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, CO ........................
Arapahoe, CO ....................
55.9
8.6
9.7
17.7
14.0
8.8
21.7
5.4
9.4
20.0
905.1
105.0
129.8
196.7
179.7
153.9
322.2
104.7
156.5
285.9
2.0
1.2
-0.6
-0.4
1.1
0.0
-1.0
0.8
0.3
2.2
81
127
275
260
136
236
292
168
210
67
1,504
758
815
807
705
583
913
775
750
959
8.3
3.0
7.7
3.3
5.2
4.3
9.2
6.7
2.7
2.3
7
236
13
217
78
136
4
23
254
274
Boulder, CO .......................
Denver, CO ........................
Douglas, CO ......................
El Paso, CO .......................
Jefferson, CO .....................
Larimer, CO .......................
Weld, CO ...........................
Fairfield, CT .......................
Hartford, CT .......................
New Haven, CT .................
12.9
25.8
9.4
17.9
19.1
10.3
6.1
32.8
25.3
22.5
161.9
446.5
93.6
251.3
215.3
134.0
84.0
428.3
512.0
372.9
2.9
2.6
3.1
0.2
1.6
2.4
2.5
1.3
1.5
-0.4
36
44
31
220
101
57
54
122
108
260
972
989
848
752
826
720
692
1,311
1,035
878
2.3
5.3
8.2
3.9
5.2
5.0
6.8
7.1
6.7
4.6
274
73
8
163
78
85
20
17
23
110
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
second quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2007
(thousands)
June
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2006-07 5
New London, CT ................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC .................
Alachua, FL ........................
Brevard, FL ........................
Broward, FL .......................
Collier, FL ..........................
Duval, FL ...........................
Escambia, FL .....................
Hillsborough, FL .................
6.9
18.8
31.9
6.6
14.8
64.7
12.4
26.2
8.0
36.8
131.3
284.4
683.2
124.4
205.4
760.2
125.6
468.1
129.5
642.3
0.7
-0.3
0.8
2.1
-1.9
1.1
-2.5
2.0
0.6
1.1
176
256
168
75
306
136
311
81
187
136
$851
981
1,357
659
780
778
822
793
654
781
6.4
1.6
4.3
3.1
2.2
2.0
7.7
2.7
2.7
4.4
33
295
136
228
279
288
13
254
254
130
Lake, FL .............................
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL .......................
Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, FL .................
Okaloosa, FL .....................
Orange, FL .........................
Palm Beach, FL .................
Pasco, FL ...........................
7.2
19.5
8.1
9.0
8.3
85.9
6.2
36.0
49.9
9.7
79.8
218.5
144.1
122.4
103.6
1,002.1
82.0
685.1
549.5
94.8
1.2
-0.9
0.9
-3.1
0.5
1.0
-2.5
2.6
0.1
0.7
127
290
158
316
198
146
311
44
226
176
603
719
694
678
605
814
680
746
819
627
-1.1
2.1
3.9
3.8
1.3
3.8
3.2
-0.1
3.3
3.5
318
284
163
170
301
170
221
315
217
204
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
15.0
14.0
4.7
7.5
4.4
20.4
16.2
439.2
201.1
152.7
176.9
163.4
84.1
138.6
115.6
319.8
297.0
-1.2
-0.9
-2.5
-0.4
-0.4
-0.7
3.9
2.2
1.2
-1.0
297
290
311
260
260
282
19
67
127
292
708
647
719
736
615
638
695
1,358
858
896
2.9
2.1
3.0
2.8
3.7
0.5
2.8
87.3
0.8
5.4
244
284
236
247
183
309
247
1
307
66
Fulton, GA ..........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, GA ...................
Richmond, GA ...................
Honolulu, HI .......................
Ada, ID ...............................
Champaign, IL ...................
Cook, IL .............................
Du Page, IL ........................
Kane, IL .............................
39.6
23.4
4.9
4.8
24.7
15.3
4.1
137.6
35.5
12.5
759.6
327.3
97.6
102.4
454.8
215.7
92.9
2,559.5
605.9
215.5
1.6
2.6
-2.1
-0.4
0.5
2.0
1.9
0.2
0.0
0.4
101
44
307
260
198
81
86
220
236
207
1,082
831
641
684
758
748
679
981
956
741
6.2
5.2
6.0
3.6
4.0
0.5
4.6
4.1
4.8
2.5
39
78
46
194
154
309
110
148
98
265
Lake, IL ..............................
McHenry, IL .......................
McLean, IL .........................
Madison, IL ........................
Peoria, IL ...........................
Rock Island, IL ...................
St. Clair, IL .........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, IL ................................
Winnebago, IL ....................
20.7
8.3
3.6
5.9
4.7
3.5
5.4
5.2
13.2
6.9
342.8
105.7
86.2
97.1
106.4
79.9
96.4
131.7
195.4
139.8
0.9
0.7
1.3
0.8
2.1
-0.6
1.4
-0.6
3.4
1.7
158
176
122
168
75
275
114
275
26
95
1,040
717
781
662
765
779
662
797
739
691
9.1
1.7
2.8
1.2
3.1
0.1
3.1
3.8
1.7
3.6
5
292
247
302
228
314
228
170
292
194
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
second quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2007
(thousands)
June
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2006-07 5
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
10.2
24.0
6.0
3.2
4.8
6.2
14.5
182.9
128.3
112.4
197.0
582.2
125.2
76.6
107.5
126.2
277.4
0.3
-2.2
( 7)
0.9
0.7
0.6
1.7
-0.8
2.9
2.0
210
309
–
158
176
187
95
286
36
81
$696
714
802
708
826
697
700
679
771
811
1.6
2.3
( 7)
2.8
1.0
3.0
3.1
3.5
4.6
4.2
295
274
–
247
305
236
228
204
110
144
Scott, IA .............................
Johnson, KS ......................
Sedgwick, KS .....................
Shawnee, KS .....................
Wyandotte, KS ...................
Fayette, KY ........................
Jefferson, KY .....................
Caddo, LA ..........................
Calcasieu, LA .....................
East Baton Rouge, LA .......
5.2
20.1
12.1
4.8
3.2
9.1
21.9
7.3
4.8
13.8
90.4
318.1
259.9
96.7
80.7
178.4
443.4
126.1
88.3
257.5
-0.8
3.1
3.9
2.3
2.2
3.5
2.2
-0.2
3.3
0.4
286
31
19
62
67
25
67
251
28
207
656
867
779
723
798
754
810
687
688
736
4.0
4.8
6.4
4.2
1.4
4.6
4.1
3.2
3.9
4.5
154
98
33
144
299
110
148
221
163
122
Jefferson, LA ......................
Lafayette, LA ......................
Orleans, LA ........................
Cumberland, ME ................
Anne Arundel, MD .............
Baltimore, MD ....................
Frederick, MD ....................
Harford, MD .......................
Howard, MD .......................
Montgomery, MD ...............
13.7
8.4
10.0
12.3
14.4
21.8
6.0
5.7
8.5
32.8
199.3
136.0
168.3
176.1
236.0
380.6
96.6
86.0
149.6
466.7
2.6
4.8
10.8
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.3
44
9
1
226
146
226
236
236
158
210
755
778
872
741
865
847
783
753
950
1,108
3.3
6.6
-2.9
4.5
3.8
4.8
4.0
5.9
5.0
6.7
217
27
319
122
170
98
154
50
85
23
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
15.6
20.7
14.0
47.2
21.9
13.8
21.7
317.4
346.5
102.4
224.3
304.7
202.8
826.7
330.5
182.2
589.1
1.1
0.5
1.4
-0.1
0.6
-0.1
1.5
1.0
-0.7
2.5
136
198
114
243
187
243
108
146
282
54
893
973
708
758
879
748
1,179
986
803
1,284
4.4
6.3
3.7
3.8
4.5
3.7
6.0
1.2
3.6
4.7
130
37
183
170
122
183
46
302
194
107
Worcester, MA ...................
Genesee, MI ......................
Ingham, MI .........................
Kalamazoo, MI ...................
Kent, MI .............................
Macomb, MI .......................
Oakland, MI .......................
Ottawa, MI .........................
Saginaw, MI .......................
Washtenaw, MI ..................
20.7
7.9
6.8
5.5
14.2
17.8
39.1
5.7
4.4
7.9
327.9
144.1
162.6
117.5
342.3
320.6
704.7
111.8
87.9
189.9
0.8
-3.1
-0.6
0.0
-0.5
-3.6
-1.2
-2.2
-1.4
-1.3
168
316
275
236
270
318
297
309
303
300
843
725
800
744
746
862
949
696
678
925
3.7
-1.0
4.4
4.6
2.8
4.6
2.7
2.5
-5.2
5.1
183
317
130
110
247
110
254
265
320
83
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
second quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2007
(thousands)
June
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2006-07 5
Wayne, MI ..........................
Anoka, MN .........................
Dakota, MN ........................
Hennepin, MN ....................
Olmsted, MN ......................
Ramsey, MN ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................
Stearns, MN .......................
Harrison, MS ......................
Hinds, MS ..........................
32.4
8.1
10.7
43.4
3.6
15.8
6.0
4.6
4.5
6.5
755.2
117.0
180.1
856.2
92.1
334.3
98.1
82.5
86.4
128.1
-2.9
-0.4
0.9
0.4
0.7
-0.4
1.0
3.0
10.3
-0.6
314
260
158
207
176
260
146
34
2
275
$933
835
819
1,059
837
908
710
634
653
714
2.6
3.1
3.5
8.1
3.6
3.4
6.4
2.6
0.9
3.6
260
228
204
10
194
213
33
260
306
194
Boone, MO .........................
Clay, MO ............................
Greene, MO .......................
Jackson, MO ......................
St. Charles, MO .................
St. Louis, MO .....................
St. Louis City, MO ..............
Douglas, NE .......................
Lancaster, NE ....................
Clark, NV ...........................
4.6
5.1
8.2
18.8
8.2
33.1
8.5
15.6
8.0
48.4
83.3
92.5
157.4
373.1
127.0
618.2
233.1
320.7
159.0
930.0
1.1
0.7
2.6
1.4
2.8
0.6
-1.5
1.1
( 7)
1.1
136
176
44
114
42
187
304
136
–
136
643
799
629
832
700
883
897
767
653
773
3.2
6.8
3.5
4.0
1.2
2.4
5.0
2.5
2.4
3.1
221
20
204
154
302
270
85
265
270
228
Washoe, NV .......................
Hillsborough, NH ................
Rockingham, NH ................
Atlantic, NJ .........................
Bergen, NJ .........................
Burlington, NJ ....................
Camden, NJ .......................
Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, NJ ...................
Hudson, NJ ........................
14.3
12.4
11.0
7.1
35.4
11.7
13.4
21.9
6.4
14.2
219.9
198.7
143.2
153.2
462.0
208.1
214.0
364.6
107.0
237.3
-0.2
0.3
0.9
-2.1
0.9
-0.7
-0.4
0.2
0.1
0.6
251
210
158
307
158
282
260
220
226
187
770
922
847
738
1,022
873
874
1,062
758
1,099
4.6
( 7)
10.1
3.8
3.5
2.7
5.9
5.5
4.0
3.7
110
–
3
170
204
254
50
65
154
183
Mercer, NJ .........................
Middlesex, NJ ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ..........................
Ocean, NJ ..........................
Passaic, NJ ........................
Somerset, NJ .....................
Union, NJ ...........................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, NY .........................
11.4
22.5
21.2
18.6
12.8
12.9
10.4
15.5
17.6
9.9
226.7
416.8
268.1
296.0
159.5
179.9
178.0
238.7
337.7
229.0
-0.1
1.1
0.0
0.5
-0.1
-1.3
-0.3
1.3
1.5
0.1
243
136
236
198
243
300
256
122
108
226
1,048
1,020
875
1,191
700
875
1,286
1,055
724
855
5.2
1.4
3.6
6.1
2.6
3.7
8.2
( 7)
3.0
4.1
78
299
194
43
260
183
8
–
236
148
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
23.4
44.8
17.9
52.3
117.1
5.3
12.8
224.4
97.5
119.4
458.9
472.4
385.8
616.6
2,363.8
112.8
256.0
0.6
1.6
-0.2
-0.2
1.8
-0.1
0.8
1.9
0.3
1.0
187
101
251
251
92
243
168
86
210
146
805
664
842
724
714
804
953
1,540
668
762
5.6
4.6
4.5
4.3
3.8
1.9
5.9
6.4
6.2
3.4
59
110
122
136
170
290
50
33
39
213
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
second quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2007
(thousands)
June
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2006-07 5
Orange, NY ........................
Queens, NY .......................
Richmond, NY ....................
Rockland, NY .....................
Saratoga, NY .....................
Suffolk, NY .........................
Westchester, NY ................
Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, NC .....................
Cumberland, NC ................
10.0
42.5
8.6
9.7
5.3
50.1
36.4
7.9
4.6
6.1
132.9
501.2
93.8
117.8
78.8
640.0
430.4
116.7
89.5
119.3
0.6
2.3
1.7
1.7
2.3
0.8
2.1
4.0
1.4
1.2
187
62
95
95
62
168
75
18
114
127
$729
886
734
900
703
891
1,119
644
646
639
3.6
12.7
3.7
6.5
5.7
4.1
5.7
3.9
4.0
5.6
194
2
183
30
54
148
54
163
154
59
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
31.8
7.4
27.5
5.7
7.3
37.6
29.3
182.7
186.8
282.2
565.3
105.7
451.8
97.9
146.8
757.6
694.7
2.6
1.9
2.1
4.6
4.3
5.9
2.4
1.5
-0.3
1.5
44
86
75
11
14
5
57
108
256
108
1,059
770
735
929
663
813
672
715
842
805
5.6
6.8
3.1
1.5
4.6
4.5
4.8
3.6
2.1
3.7
59
20
228
297
110
122
98
194
284
183
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, OH ..........................
Mahoning, OH ....................
Montgomery, OH ...............
Stark, OH ...........................
Summit, OH .......................
Trumbull, OH .....................
Oklahoma, OK ...................
24.0
6.8
6.3
10.7
6.3
12.8
9.0
14.9
4.7
23.5
526.7
103.7
101.4
223.5
106.3
271.6
163.5
275.5
80.5
421.3
0.1
0.5
-1.2
-1.5
1.2
-2.9
-0.4
-0.2
-6.3
0.7
226
198
297
304
127
314
260
251
319
176
867
697
685
713
601
759
642
756
732
729
3.3
5.6
-0.9
2.9
3.8
3.7
2.2
5.0
6.6
2.5
217
59
316
244
170
183
279
85
27
265
Tulsa, OK ...........................
Clackamas, OR ..................
Jackson, OR ......................
Lane, OR ...........................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR ..................
Washington, OR ................
Allegheny, PA ....................
Berks, PA ...........................
Bucks, PA ..........................
19.4
12.7
6.8
11.0
9.4
27.3
16.0
35.3
9.1
20.3
347.4
151.7
85.5
153.3
144.5
450.5
252.9
697.8
171.3
270.1
2.3
1.2
1.1
1.7
1.9
2.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
62
127
136
95
86
54
198
146
146
198
742
764
633
646
652
842
911
874
743
809
2.9
3.8
3.9
3.2
4.0
5.4
5.4
4.7
4.5
4.8
244
170
163
221
154
66
66
107
122
98
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
13.6
7.2
5.8
12.3
8.6
7.9
80.9
243.7
127.5
186.0
212.9
130.4
102.8
232.1
181.6
145.1
2.4
2.1
0.9
0.6
2.2
0.7
1.1
0.3
1.4
0.8
57
75
158
187
67
176
136
210
114
168
702
1,078
777
808
858
651
631
697
812
641
4.9
4.6
5.6
5.3
3.5
5.3
3.8
3.7
5.3
4.9
91
110
59
73
204
73
170
183
73
91
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
second quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2007
(thousands)
June
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2006-07 5
Montgomery, PA ................
Northampton, PA ...............
Philadelphia, PA ................
Washington, PA .................
Westmoreland, PA .............
York, PA .............................
Kent, RI ..............................
Providence, RI ...................
Charleston, SC ..................
Greenville, SC ....................
27.4
6.5
30.0
5.3
9.5
9.1
5.7
18.2
12.0
12.3
494.7
100.7
633.0
81.0
139.9
177.9
83.2
291.2
213.8
238.6
1.0
1.5
-0.1
1.4
-0.1
1.9
-0.4
0.1
5.0
2.8
146
108
243
114
243
86
260
226
8
42
$1,011
723
948
716
655
730
717
801
698
716
4.6
3.6
4.9
5.9
0.6
3.0
3.9
2.0
3.1
2.3
110
194
91
50
308
236
163
288
228
274
Horry, SC ...........................
Lexington, SC ....................
Richland, SC ......................
Spartanburg, SC ................
Minnehaha, SD ..................
Davidson, TN .....................
Hamilton, TN ......................
Knox, TN ............................
Rutherford, TN ...................
Shelby, TN .........................
8.2
5.6
9.2
6.0
6.3
18.5
8.6
11.0
4.2
20.1
125.5
95.8
217.2
119.7
116.3
446.5
194.9
227.9
98.2
512.0
3.4
2.9
3.1
2.6
2.4
0.1
0.7
1.4
1.2
0.8
26
36
31
44
57
226
176
114
127
168
545
615
711
708
677
818
715
707
753
830
3.4
1.5
2.4
2.8
5.3
0.4
3.8
4.6
4.7
4.8
213
297
270
247
73
311
170
110
107
98
Williamson, TN ...................
Bell, TX ..............................
Bexar, TX ...........................
Brazoria, TX .......................
Brazos, TX .........................
Cameron, TX .....................
Collin, TX ...........................
Dallas, TX ..........................
Denton, TX .........................
El Paso, TX ........................
5.7
4.5
31.7
4.5
3.7
6.4
16.0
67.6
10.1
13.2
87.5
97.6
722.3
86.6
80.6
123.5
280.9
1,492.6
165.6
265.6
6.4
1.7
2.9
5.3
( 7)
1.0
3.9
3.2
3.6
1.6
4
95
36
6
–
146
19
30
24
101
895
630
738
800
613
515
946
1,011
709
591
6.7
4.8
6.3
7.4
( 7)
6.6
4.2
5.4
3.2
6.1
23
98
37
16
–
27
144
66
221
43
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, TX ....................
Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, TX ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX .......................
McLennan, TX ...................
Montgomery, TX ................
Nueces, TX ........................
Smith, TX ...........................
7.9
5.2
94.7
10.4
5.8
6.7
4.9
7.7
8.1
5.2
123.9
97.9
2,023.3
213.5
125.0
121.4
104.6
121.3
153.1
93.2
( 7)
( 7)
4.4
4.4
2.4
1.3
2.0
5.3
2.3
1.6
–
–
12
12
57
122
81
6
62
101
878
762
1,026
518
774
620
639
738
701
696
8.1
( 7)
6.9
4.0
5.7
2.1
2.6
2.6
6.5
2.2
10
–
18
154
54
284
260
260
30
279
Tarrant, TX .........................
Travis, TX ..........................
Webb, TX ...........................
Williamson, TX ...................
Davis, UT ...........................
Salt Lake, UT .....................
Utah, UT ............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, VT ...................
Arlington, VA ......................
36.2
27.6
4.7
6.7
7.1
38.3
12.8
5.7
5.8
7.5
763.5
573.1
88.2
118.5
105.7
590.3
178.1
95.7
95.4
154.5
2.6
4.1
4.3
( 7)
2.2
4.2
6.7
3.3
-0.5
1.8
44
17
14
–
67
16
3
28
270
92
847
905
545
791
670
776
637
623
804
1,352
4.3
3.0
2.4
4.1
3.2
7.6
6.5
3.5
4.4
2.7
136
236
270
148
221
15
30
204
130
254
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 329 largest counties,
second quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2007
(thousands)
June
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2006-07 5
Ranking by
percent
change
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
Ranking by
change,
percent
second quarter
change
2006-07 5
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 .............
7.4
32.6
9.1
8.1
6.9
6.0
5.6
4.0
5.8
7.4
123.2
592.2
183.4
131.7
106.5
100.7
100.5
100.7
144.7
159.4
0.5
1.0
3.8
2.9
-1.1
-0.5
-0.7
1.9
0.2
( 7)
198
146
22
36
295
270
282
86
220
–
$731
1,269
876
1,016
738
1,160
653
725
815
936
4.3
4.9
4.5
2.2
3.5
5.6
3.5
1.7
4.5
( 7)
136
91
122
279
204
59
204
292
122
–
Virginia Beach City, VA ......
Clark, WA ...........................
King, WA ............................
Kitsap, WA .........................
Pierce, WA .........................
Snohomish, WA .................
Spokane, WA .....................
Thurston, WA .....................
Whatcom, WA ....................
Yakima, WA .......................
11.5
11.7
75.9
6.5
20.3
17.5
15.0
6.7
6.8
7.8
182.4
133.8
1,182.2
84.7
277.0
255.8
212.5
101.1
83.8
108.8
0.3
1.3
2.9
-0.6
2.6
4.7
2.6
3.0
2.2
0.3
210
122
36
275
44
10
44
34
67
210
650
750
1,028
756
744
862
669
743
634
555
4.0
5.0
3.8
3.0
5.4
5.4
5.0
5.1
4.4
4.3
154
85
170
236
66
66
85
83
130
136
Kanawha, WV ....................
Brown, WI ..........................
Dane, WI ............................
Milwaukee, WI ...................
Outagamie, WI ...................
Racine, WI .........................
Waukesha, WI ...................
Winnebago, WI ..................
San Juan, PR .....................
6.1
6.7
14.0
21.1
5.0
4.2
13.2
3.8
13.6
110.1
153.1
305.4
503.5
107.2
77.8
241.2
91.9
293.5
0.3
1.2
1.0
0.9
2.2
-0.6
0.3
0.6
-2.8
210
127
146
158
67
275
210
187
( 8)
721
705
785
818
699
750
813
748
546
3.7
4.4
4.8
4.3
3.6
3.2
3.0
2.2
7.5
183
130
98
136
194
221
236
279
( 8)
1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.
These 328 U.S. counties comprise 70.9 percent of the total covered workers in the U.S.
2 Data are preliminary.
3 Includes areas not officially designated as counties. See Technical Note.
4 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,
second quarter 2007 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2007
(thousands)
June
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2006-07 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
8,945.9
8,655.0
124.1
889.2
361.0
1,909.4
143.5
867.5
1,468.2
817.5
721.6
1,138.3
290.8
137,018.2
115,502.9
1,955.3
7,834.7
13,954.1
26,388.1
3,054.6
8,218.0
18,027.5
17,375.3
13,888.6
4,516.7
21,515.3
1.2
1.2
2.3
-0.6
-2.1
1.4
-0.3
0.0
2.2
2.9
2.3
1.5
1.3
$820
810
838
863
993
715
1,255
1,206
999
760
342
527
875
4.6
4.7
6.2
5.2
4.3
4.8
5.5
5.8
5.7
3.4
4.0
3.7
4.5
Los Angeles, CA ................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
394.6
390.5
0.5
14.1
15.3
55.3
8.7
25.0
43.0
27.9
27.0
173.6
4.0
4,229.3
3,623.3
12.6
161.0
451.1
808.4
212.3
246.2
608.0
469.5
403.1
251.0
606.0
0.7
0.3
5.2
0.6
( 6)
0.3
( 6)
-2.0
0.1
0.8
2.0
1.7
3.0
924
899
1,124
944
983
782
1,528
1,420
1,048
838
504
431
1,078
4.9
4.2
-15.2
7.6
( 6)
4.5
3.8
4.1
4.6
3.7
2.4
4.6
( 6)
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 ...................................................
137.6
136.3
0.1
12.1
7.1
27.6
2.5
15.8
28.1
13.5
11.5
13.8
1.4
2,559.5
2,246.2
1.4
98.7
239.5
476.9
58.7
218.9
442.6
366.2
242.4
96.9
313.3
0.2
0.5
-2.3
-1.5
-1.6
-0.4
0.1
-0.5
1.9
2.0
1.5
-0.2
-1.8
981
973
997
1,174
983
788
1,418
1,620
1,229
826
421
697
1,037
4.1
4.0
1.2
2.7
2.6
2.9
7.9
9.6
3.1
3.1
1.4
3.1
5.1
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 ...................................................
117.1
116.8
0.0
2.3
3.1
21.9
4.3
18.4
24.3
8.5
11.1
17.2
0.3
2,363.8
1,913.3
0.1
35.2
38.2
249.1
135.5
379.6
486.5
284.7
209.0
87.1
450.6
1.9
2.3
-3.1
7.6
-4.5
1.7
0.4
2.3
2.6
1.1
3.1
1.7
0.2
1,540
1,659
2,638
1,504
1,265
1,141
1,897
3,042
1,771
993
732
897
1,037
6.4
6.6
106.3
9.5
18.1
4.8
4.3
8.2
7.2
3.8
4.0
2.4
3.4
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2007
(thousands)
June
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2006-07 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
94.7
94.2
1.5
6.5
4.6
21.5
1.3
10.4
18.7
9.9
7.2
10.9
0.5
2,023.3
1,779.4
78.7
152.9
181.3
421.2
33.1
120.6
339.8
210.2
179.2
58.7
243.9
4.4
4.9
10.4
7.6
4.0
3.7
3.8
2.5
5.3
4.4
5.0
2.0
1.2
$1,026
1,044
2,857
979
1,273
917
1,258
1,242
1,156
841
377
597
894
6.9
7.0
6.6
7.5
7.5
6.4
10.0
5.6
7.5
4.1
2.7
8.0
4.6
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 ...................................................
97.7
97.1
0.5
10.3
3.5
20.9
1.6
12.4
21.0
9.4
7.0
7.0
0.7
1,798.0
1,614.4
9.8
169.4
133.5
373.0
31.0
150.8
316.7
195.9
179.2
51.0
183.6
0.9
0.8
-2.8
-7.6
-2.9
2.7
-0.8
-0.6
1.9
4.8
1.9
3.4
1.6
827
812
703
842
1,118
805
1,014
1,052
803
857
390
564
946
3.9
3.7
9.3
4.6
3.6
4.8
7.0
3.4
4.3
3.5
2.1
2.0
5.2
Orange, CA ........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
94.7
93.3
0.2
7.1
5.4
17.8
1.4
11.4
19.2
9.8
7.0
14.0
1.4
1,519.5
1,363.2
6.2
105.6
177.1
278.2
30.1
128.1
274.6
139.6
175.1
48.4
156.3
-1.0
-1.3
-6.8
-3.5
( 6)
0.4
-2.2
-7.7
( 6)
2.9
1.7
-0.4
1.1
952
939
588
1,016
1,150
892
1,340
1,445
1,000
833
410
561
1,062
3.4
2.8
10.7
7.2
( 6)
( 6)
7.5
( 6)
( 6)
3.3
5.1
4.1
6.7
Dallas, TX ...........................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
67.6
67.1
0.6
4.4
3.2
15.0
1.7
8.7
14.4
6.6
5.2
6.4
0.5
1,492.6
1,330.0
7.1
84.1
144.2
307.2
48.6
145.7
274.3
144.7
131.2
40.6
162.5
3.2
3.2
-4.7
4.4
-0.4
2.3
-4.6
2.8
5.9
6.6
3.6
1.2
2.9
1,011
1,022
2,879
935
1,202
974
1,371
1,331
1,108
968
430
602
920
5.4
5.4
-1.1
1.4
8.1
6.1
7.3
5.2
5.8
6.8
2.6
2.9
5.0
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the 10 largest counties,
second quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
County by NAICS supersector
Establishments,
second quarter
2007
(thousands)
June
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2006-07 4
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second 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 ...................................................
91.7
90.4
0.8
7.2
3.2
14.6
1.3
9.9
16.4
8.0
6.9
22.1
1.3
1,334.7
1,108.8
11.6
90.9
102.4
219.8
37.5
81.5
217.9
127.1
163.6
56.6
225.9
0.2
-0.1
-4.1
-6.5
( 6)
0.3
0.5
-3.3
0.6
( 6)
2.8
1.1
1.7
$890
868
540
916
1,190
730
1,873
1,108
1,076
812
389
482
996
4.8
4.7
4.0
6.3
6.6
5.8
1.7
3.5
6.0
4.1
3.5
2.8
4.8
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 ...................................................
75.9
75.4
0.4
6.8
2.5
14.8
1.8
7.0
12.9
6.3
6.0
16.7
0.5
1,182.2
1,027.6
3.3
72.9
112.0
219.5
75.8
76.4
188.1
120.6
113.7
45.4
154.6
2.9
3.3
3.4
11.0
1.9
2.0
5.0
-1.0
4.4
2.7
3.9
0.9
0.6
1,028
1,033
1,224
1,002
1,386
903
1,829
1,272
1,180
812
427
571
995
3.8
3.5
1.4
6.5
0.8
6.1
4.1
3.3
1.1
4.5
2.4
7.9
6.0
Miami-Dade, FL ..................................................
Private industry ..............................................
Natural resources and mining ....................
Construction ...............................................
Manufacturing ............................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..............
Information .................................................
Financial activities ......................................
Professional and business services ...........
Education and health services ...................
Leisure and hospitality ...............................
Other services ............................................
Government ...................................................
85.9
85.6
0.5
6.2
2.6
23.1
1.5
10.4
17.3
8.9
5.7
7.6
0.3
1,002.1
868.2
9.2
53.5
48.0
252.6
20.7
71.6
136.4
135.4
101.8
35.7
133.9
1.0
0.8
0.3
1.5
-1.7
0.9
-0.7
-0.9
-1.5
3.1
1.3
1.9
2.4
814
788
496
841
735
747
1,163
1,161
949
796
458
525
969
3.8
3.7
6.0
-1.1
1.9
2.3
4.6
5.6
7.5
4.6
2.5
5.8
4.8
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, second quarter 2007 2
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2007
(thousands)
June
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2006-07 5
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2006-07 5
United States 6 .........................
8,945.9
137,018.2
1.2
$820
4.6
Jefferson, AL ............................
Anchorage Borough, AK ...........
Maricopa, AZ ............................
Pulaski, AR ...............................
Los Angeles, CA .......................
Denver, CO ..............................
Hartford, CT ..............................
New Castle, DE ........................
Washington, DC .......................
Miami-Dade, FL ........................
18.9
8.1
97.7
14.6
394.6
25.8
25.3
18.8
31.9
85.9
365.4
148.9
1,798.0
251.8
4,229.3
446.5
512.0
284.4
683.2
1,002.1
( 7)
-1.3
0.9
0.6
0.7
2.6
1.5
-0.3
0.8
1.0
823
887
827
740
924
989
1,035
981
1,357
814
5.2
5.7
3.9
4.2
4.9
5.3
6.7
1.6
4.3
3.8
Fulton, GA ................................
Honolulu, HI ..............................
Ada, ID .....................................
Cook, IL ....................................
Marion, IN .................................
Polk, IA .....................................
Johnson, KS .............................
Jefferson, KY ............................
East Baton Rouge, LA ..............
Cumberland, ME ......................
39.6
24.7
15.3
137.6
24.0
14.5
20.1
21.9
13.8
12.3
759.6
454.8
215.7
2,559.5
582.2
277.4
318.1
443.4
257.5
176.1
1.6
0.5
2.0
0.2
0.7
2.0
3.1
2.2
0.4
0.1
1,082
758
748
981
826
811
867
810
736
741
6.2
4.0
0.5
4.1
1.0
4.2
4.8
4.1
4.5
4.5
Montgomery, MD ......................
Middlesex, MA ..........................
Wayne, MI ................................
Hennepin, MN ..........................
Hinds, MS .................................
St. Louis, MO ............................
Yellowstone, MT .......................
Douglas, NE .............................
Clark, NV ..................................
Hillsborough, NH ......................
32.8
47.2
32.4
43.4
6.5
33.1
5.6
15.6
48.4
12.4
466.7
826.7
755.2
856.2
128.1
618.2
77.7
320.7
930.0
198.7
0.3
1.5
-2.9
0.4
-0.6
0.6
2.4
1.1
1.1
0.3
1,108
1,179
933
1,059
714
883
675
767
773
922
6.7
6.0
2.6
8.1
3.6
2.4
8.3
2.5
3.1
( 7)
Bergen, NJ ...............................
Bernalillo, NM ...........................
New York, NY ...........................
Mecklenburg, NC ......................
Cass, ND ..................................
Cuyahoga, OH ..........................
Oklahoma, OK ..........................
Multnomah, OR ........................
Allegheny, PA ...........................
Providence, RI ..........................
35.4
17.6
117.1
31.8
5.7
37.6
23.5
27.3
35.3
18.2
462.0
337.7
2,363.8
565.3
97.9
757.6
421.3
450.5
697.8
291.2
0.9
1.5
1.9
4.6
2.4
-0.3
0.7
2.5
1.0
0.1
1,022
724
1,540
929
672
842
729
842
874
801
3.5
3.0
6.4
1.5
4.8
2.1
2.5
5.4
4.7
2.0
Greenville, SC ..........................
Minnehaha, SD .........................
Shelby, TN ................................
Harris, TX .................................
Salt Lake, UT ............................
Chittenden, VT .........................
Fairfax, VA ................................
King, WA ..................................
Kanawha, WV ...........................
Milwaukee, WI ..........................
12.3
6.3
20.1
94.7
38.3
5.8
32.6
75.9
6.1
21.1
238.6
116.3
512.0
2,023.3
590.3
95.4
592.2
1,182.2
110.1
503.5
2.8
2.4
0.8
4.4
4.2
-0.5
1.0
2.9
0.3
0.9
716
677
830
1,026
776
804
1,269
1,028
721
818
2.3
5.3
4.8
6.9
7.6
4.4
4.9
3.8
3.7
4.3
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 3. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages in the largest county by
state, second quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 4
Employment
County 3
Establishments,
second quarter
2007
(thousands)
June
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2006-07 5
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2006-07 5
Laramie, WY .............................
3.1
43.4
1.9
$685
6.7
San Juan, PR ...........................
St. Thomas, VI ..........................
13.6
1.8
293.5
23.4
-2.8
-0.1
546
643
7.5
-0.2
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.
7 Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 2007 2
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2007
(thousands)
June
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2006-07
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2006-07
United States 4 ...................
8,945.9
137,018.2
1.2
$820
4.6
Alabama .............................
Alaska ................................
Arizona ...............................
Arkansas ............................
California ............................
Colorado ............................
Connecticut ........................
Delaware ............................
District of Columbia ............
Florida ................................
120.1
21.1
158.9
82.7
1,291.3
179.4
112.5
29.1
31.9
604.8
1,965.4
325.8
2,612.4
1,186.5
15,832.5
2,326.9
1,714.2
430.2
683.2
7,894.2
1.1
-0.5
1.2
0.3
0.8
2.2
0.9
0.0
0.8
0.2
697
832
786
639
935
832
1,033
870
1,357
743
3.6
5.6
4.4
4.2
5.4
4.8
6.4
2.2
4.3
3.2
Georgia ..............................
Hawaii ................................
Idaho ..................................
Illinois .................................
Indiana ...............................
Iowa ...................................
Kansas ...............................
Kentucky ............................
Louisiana ...........................
Maine .................................
270.4
38.6
57.1
358.6
158.2
93.4
85.7
109.8
119.9
50.0
4,091.5
631.2
679.1
5,956.3
2,933.4
1,518.6
1,370.7
1,828.2
1,880.2
619.6
1.4
1.4
3.0
0.8
0.5
0.9
2.0
1.7
3.2
0.6
792
736
626
874
702
664
702
700
711
658
6.5
4.2
2.3
4.4
2.6
3.9
4.8
4.2
4.1
4.1
Maryland ............................
Massachusetts ...................
Michigan ............................
Minnesota ..........................
Mississippi .........................
Missouri .............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska ...........................
Nevada ..............................
New Hampshire .................
164.0
210.1
257.1
170.7
69.7
174.7
42.3
58.7
74.7
49.0
2,584.9
3,300.7
4,252.9
2,730.9
1,137.4
2,764.6
449.8
930.9
1,297.9
643.7
0.7
1.2
-1.4
0.0
0.9
0.8
1.7
1.6
1.0
0.7
899
1,008
807
834
609
727
611
654
776
823
5.3
4.8
2.9
5.6
3.6
3.4
6.3
3.5
3.7
6.3
New Jersey ........................
New Mexico .......................
New York ...........................
North Carolina ....................
North Dakota ......................
Ohio ...................................
Oklahoma ..........................
Oregon ...............................
Pennsylvania .....................
Rhode Island ......................
278.1
53.7
576.8
251.0
25.1
290.5
99.1
130.8
338.7
36.1
4,066.7
833.3
8,688.8
4,090.5
347.7
5,384.6
1,538.5
1,761.6
5,740.3
492.9
0.4
1.1
1.3
3.0
1.5
-0.1
1.6
1.7
1.1
0.3
989
686
1,020
718
619
740
665
742
802
774
4.3
5.2
5.9
4.1
4.7
3.4
4.1
4.5
4.6
2.5
South Carolina ...................
South Dakota .....................
Tennessee .........................
Texas .................................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virginia ...............................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................
Wisconsin ..........................
115.8
30.1
140.7
548.7
86.3
24.7
227.4
216.7
48.7
158.2
1,917.4
404.3
2,768.7
10,296.1
1,233.7
306.6
3,731.5
2,989.8
717.1
2,845.8
3.0
2.1
0.7
3.4
4.4
-0.5
1.0
2.7
0.3
0.4
665
590
729
827
698
698
859
835
659
709
2.9
4.8
3.6
5.9
6.6
5.0
4.4
4.6
3.6
3.7
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 4. Covered 1 establishments, employment, and wages by state,
second quarter 2007 2—Continued
Average weekly wage 3
Employment
State
Establishments,
second quarter
2007
(thousands)
June
2007
(thousands)
Percent
change,
June
2006-07
Average
weekly
wage
Percent
change,
second quarter
2006-07
Wyoming ............................
24.4
288.3
3.3
$739
8.0
Puerto Rico ........................
Virgin Islands .....................
56.9
3.4
1,020.7
46.9
-1.6
3.4
460
707
6.0
4.1
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.
Chart 3. Percent change in employment in counties with 75,000 or more employees,
June 2006-07 (U.S. average = 1.2 percent)
Largest U.S. Counties
1.3% to 10.8%
-6.3% to 1.2%
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
January 2008
Chart 4. Percent change in average weekly wage in counties with 75,000
or more employees, second quarter 2006-07 (U.S. average = 4.6 percent)
Largest U.S. Counties
4.7% to 87.3%
-5.2% to 4.6%
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
January 2008